Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-302-85 - SCHNEIDER HOMES - MAPLETREE VILLAGE SUBDIVISIONSCHNEIDER HOMES MAPLETREE VILLAGE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SW CORNER OF 65T" AVE S. AND S. 151ST ST. EPIC - 302 -85 411 L,HECKLIST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWILINGS ( ) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ( ) FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ( ) WA.ST. OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY ( ) WA.ST. TRANSPORTATION DEPT. ( ) WA.ST. DEPT. OF FISHERIES ( ) OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR ( ) WA.ST. PLANNING & COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AGENCY ( ( )OFFICE 0 Federal Agencies v2-2- ( )U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( )U.S. DEPARTMENT OF H.U.D. (Region X) State Agencies ( ) WA.ST. DEPT. OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES ( .ST. DEPT. OF ECOLOGY, SHORELANDS DIVI: A.ST. DEPT. OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION ( ) WA.ST. DEPT. OF GAME ATTORNEY GE RAL LCilx/ �I b County Agent, es ( ) K.C. DEPT. OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY EVE"L. ( )FIRE DISTRICT 1 ( ) FIRE DISTRICT 18 '- �� ?:/!T ( )FIRE DISTRICT 24 ( ) BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD Schools /Libraries E/ SOUTH CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) TUKWILA LIBRARY ( ) RENTON LIBRARY ( ) KENT LIBRARY ( v4ACIFIC NORTHWEST BELL TELEPHONE ( ) SEATTLE CITY LIGHT ( Vf WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS ( ) WATER DISTRICT 75 );�pAT�TLE �TEc I EPR,yMENT U ( ) KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT ( ) TUKWILA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ( ) TUKWILA MAYOR ( ) TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: ( ) Public Works ( ) Parks and Recreation ( ) Police ( ) Fire ( ) Finance ( ) Planning /Building ( ) City Clerk ( )HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( )KING COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY ( )SEATTLE MUNICIPAL REFERENCE LIBRARY Utilities k//)PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT ( )VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT ( )WATER DISTRICT 25 ( )WATER DISTRICT 125 ( )UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD City Agencies ( ) RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT ( )TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION ( )TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ( ) Edgar Bauch ( ) Marilyn Stoknes ( ) Joe Duffie ( ) Mabel Harris ( ) Charlie Simpson ( ) Doris Phelps ( ) Wendy Morgan Other Local Agencies ( ) PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENT (PSCOG) ( ) PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY ( ) TUKWILA /SEA TAC CHAMBER OF'COMMERCE Media (DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE ( RENTON RECORD CHRONICLE ( )METRO ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DIVISION ( )HIGHLINE TIMES ( )SEATTLE TIMES MITIGATION MEASURES SCHNEIDER HOMES 1. Drainage courses to remain open (i.e. natural state). 2. Usable active recreation space will be required on site per TMC 18.52 and 18.46. 3. Street lighting will be required along the proposed streets and cul de sacs. 4. An engineered plan will be necessary for a grading permit. 5. A resident on -site soils engineer inspector will be required during grading operations. 6. Stripped organics will be removed from the site during site preparation. 7. Grading plan review and permit application would be needed prior to a pre -fill operation. 8. Retaining walls (no rockeries will be in excess of four (4) feet in height) will be designed with assumed hydrostatis pressures and slope surcharge. 9. Structures on slope will be designed for differential settlement. (SCHNEIDER1) (1B) WAC 197 -11 -970 i Mitigated DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of Proposal Mapletree Village Planned ResidPntiil npvalnpment (PRD) Subdivision of seventy lots, comprehensive plan amendment from low density residential to medium density residential, rezone from R -1 -12.0 to R -2 Proponent Schneider Homes, Inc. 6510 Southcenter Blvd.. Tukwila. WA 9F1SR Location of Proposal, including street address, if any 10.59 acre sitelocated in the southwest corner of the intersection of 65th Avenue S. and S. 151st ST. Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC- - 302 -85 The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. 0 There is no comment period for this DNS This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by Wednesday. February 12. 1966 • The lead agency.will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. This Determination is issued subject to the attached mitigation measures. Please see the attached sheet. Responsible Official Brad Collins Position /Title Planning Director Phone 433 -1845 Address 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Date I-2 ? -$6 Signature You may appeal this determination to the City Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the above date by written appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You may be required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal. Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and Planning. Department. FM.DNS o-ri„-cg MEMO CITY or TUKWILA TO: ,14/1 FROM 1Ya._ uaxJT DATE: ////,,,3/3 SUBJECT: ./ ivah&ewe rire w,.., • _.i/ /bli>4 afi azkfzi • -6--7-)14.1,7>/rts' aro ---.)/e. LL (A.2 __ 711,6:J ?7,1L—L a/A-61 Set, /3- _ d. 4 rtind-k _ ..-91q pt14 6 froitt4t_ 4 11 )ALLA-a _ 15). 4(1_,/xle ( td/o)e, 4eoz.ea)d oydz? c614 To • Md 1 E.A. 4.-At - e sx, A NAI -1 T c? 1-2-11(—Wt t � • h z4:7L7 ELI fi1-iLE1 -1rE 13 LV I� y-� v-w.■ \MLA X81 FROM C GROUP FOU R,Inc. 19502 56th Avenue West Lynnwood, Washington 98036 206 775 -4581 • 362 -4244 Subject MA- PL ...1 -g.-.'E. V t L_ t_. 4.e- 2 - 6.7 1Z- Date ‘ f I /cl MESSAGE: t:›EA-Q. t--1.671, VAS - r- 1-!_t_.-t7E..o v> t_ a E.- K 0 -t-- NA) T' (2) ' P 1 ES >vA: Lti d ,i ∎ th 17— ..-pt.•e.T de- t-Z&-- !]rLL 0',5 GL7' t-rt4. P L 'r ' E._ V t 1_L-AL4.E-. t `'C bL1 N-A-V A t -t--1 Ga1 -t't- 1431--V-= /.i'0- t-t t. v --.. G- lv_.rHP_E., 1 t-t to 7-r--t A-r-t i 't-4 217H ' r k-4- h . r Art- t GA- L_1._,- . , A, 1 t--14.-E.-7__L...---4 � , GI ZE..re i--k-� t--t E >I > 1 M t- V Cad CITY OF TUKWILA JAN 1 6 1986 BUILDING Dc ■ Signed NO REPLY NECESSARY REPLY REQUESTED — USE REVERSE SIDE • G.R. (BOB) PARROTT, P.E. Consulting Civil, Traffic and Transportation Engineering January 13, 1986 City of Tukwila Department of Public Works 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 RECEIVED CRY OF TUKWIL. ,IAN 16 1986 BUILOINA DEM SUBJECT: Schneider Homes, Inc. / Mapletree Village / 70 -Unit Plat Gentlemen: The purpose of this letter report is to respond to the City of Tukwila's request for information regarding vehicular trip generation from the subject project and its resultant impact upon traffic conditions at the intersection of 65th Avenue South and Southcenter Boulevard. The proposed project is residential and is located on approximately 10.6 acres between 62nd Avenue South and 65th Avenue South, along the south side of South 151st Street, approximately 1700 feet north of the intersection of 65th Avenue South and Southcenter Boulevard. (See vicinity map.) Proposed direct access to the site is via creation of one new intersection each, on South 151st Street and on 65th Avenue South. Access from the site to major arterial / highway networks, commercial / industrial areas, etc., is Southerly along- 65th =Avenue South CSouthcenter-Boulevard, and northerly through residential = areas) alon4- 52nd - Avenue South or 58th - Avenue South_, to_Interurban7 �Ayenue .� Vehicle trip generation data utilized in this analysis was derived from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, published in 1983, specifically for I.T.E. Land Use Code 230 for Residential Condominiums and Townhouses. Copies of these published rates are attached hereto. Discussions were held with staff members of the City of Tukwila, Department of Public. Works, from whom copies of 1985 traffic volume counts and a copy of the Environmental Assessment for the Southcenter Boulevard Improvements, dated September 1982, authored by Entranco Engineers, were obtained. These documents were reviewed and analyzed in order to determine existing and 1029 Market Street Building • Suite A • Kirkland, Washington 98033 . Office: (206) 828 -4266, Kirkland • Home: (206) 488 -9460, Bothell • City of Tukwila Page projected traffic volumes on both Southcenter Boulevard and 65th Avenue South. Southcenter Boulevard is presently a two lane facility, one lane in each direction, with a separate left turn lane at major intersections, which is oriented in a basically east -west direction paralleling I -405. The existing average daily traffic volumes on Southcenter Boulevard are approximately 6,600 vehicles per day west of 65th Avenue South and approximately 6,400 vehicles per day between 65th Avenue South and the T -Line bridge. The directional splits are approximately equal, with 51% of the ADT being westbound and 49% being eastbound. 65th Avenue South is presently a two lane residential arterial, oriented in a north -south direction, which widens out at its intersection with Southcenter Boulevard to provide for separate left turn and right turn facilities onto Southcenter Boulevard. It also provides direct access to and from the proposed project site. According to members of the Transpo Group who are presently working on a proposed project adjacent to the subject intersection, the average daily traffic volume on 65th Avenue South is approximately 4,300 vehicles. The traffic characteristics hereon are said to be similar to those experienced on Macadam Road, resulting in directional splits of 49% southbound and 51% northbound. Average daily traffic volumes and A.M. and P.M. peak hour approach and turning movement volumes are depicted in Figures 1, 2, and 3, respectively. A.M. and P.M. peak hour approach and turning movement volumes were observed and recorded on Wednesday, January 8, 1986. Capacity and Level of Service calculations were performed for the intersection for both A.M. and P.M. peak hours and are depicted in Figures 4 and 5. The calculations indicate that the intersection is presently operating at Level of Service A for all movements, for both A.M. and P.M. peak hours, with the exception of the left turn movement from 65th Avenue South to Southcenter Boulevard, which theoretically operates at Level of Service D during the P.M. peak hour. In reality, this movement was observed to operate at a level of service considerably better than "D" as a result of the platooning effect created by the existing traffic signal on Southcenter Boulevard at the S -Line bridge. City of Tukwila Page 3 The proposed project includes a total of 70 residential units in a PUD or cluster concept, having 2 to 4 condominium or townhouse -type units per cluster. This concept corresponds to ITE Land Use Code 230, for which the anticipated generated trip ends per unit, to and from the site are as follows: Average Trip Total Rate / Unit Trips ADT 5.2 364 AM Peak Hour Enter 0.07 5 AM Peak Hour Exit. 0.37 26 AM Peak Hour Total 0.44 31 PM Peak Hour Enter 0.37 26 PM Peak Hour Exit 0.18 13 PM Peak Hour Total 0.55 49 It is possible that a small percentage of these generated trips would desire access to and from Interurban Avenue to the north of the site via 58th Avenue and 52nd Avenue South; however, we ;predict the majority of the trips will use 65th Avenue South and Southcenter Boulevard which affords a more direct access to major ;arterial and freeway systems. For analysis purposes, we have assumed that 100 percent of the generated volumes will, in fact, be routed through the intersection of 65th Avenue South and Southcenter Boulevard. A.M. and P.M. peak hour approach and turning movement volumes, including those from the proposed site, are indicated in Figures 6 and 7. Capacity and Level of Service calculations were again performed including the additional traffic volumes generated by the proposed site. These calculations for A.M. and P.M. peak hours are depicted in Figures 8 and 9, respectively. It can be seen from these figures that the additional traffic generated by the proposed project will have a negligible effect on the operating characteristics of the subject intersection. Traffic volume increases in the vicinity of the subject intersection, since 1981, have been quite significant. For instance, the ADT annual increases on Southcenter Boulevard appear to be 14% per year to the west of 65th Avenue South, 19.6% per year between 65th Avenue South and the T -line bridge, and 7.4% per year between the T -line bridge and Interurban Avenue. Traffic volume increases appear to be 9% per year on the T -line bridge and approximately 11% per year on 65th Avenue South. All of these increases have been between 1981 and 1985. • • City of Tukwila Page 4 A candidate location for signalization should be studied to determine if it meets minimum warrants for signalization. The Federal Highway Administration and the Institute of Transportation Engineers have set forth procedures and guidelines for warrant evaluation. Generally, volume and accident data are the required basic inputs, since most of the warrants prescribed are related to volume and /or accident experience. The MUTCD lists eight minimum warrants: o Warrant 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume o Warrant 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic o Warrant 3 Minimum Pedestrian Volume o Warrant 4 - School Crossings o Warrant 5 - Progressive Movement o Warrant 6 - Accident Experience o Warrant 7 - Systems o Warrant 8 - Combination of Warrants The requirements of one or more of these warrants should be satisfied before a signal is installed. A brief description of each warrant is as follows, and the details of each warrant and minimum requirements are attached hereto. Warrant 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume This warrant is satisfied when the traffic volumes of any 8 hours of an average day meets minimum requirements. These requirements are based on the number of approach lanes to the intersection. For the major street, the total volume of both approaches is used. For the minor street, the higher volume approach (one direction only) is used. The same 8 -hour period should be used for both the major street and the minor street. Warrant 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic This warrant accommodates operating conditions where extremely heavy major street traffic causes excessive delay or hazards to minor street traffic. The warrant is satisfied when the traffic volumes of any 8 hours of an average day meet the minimum requirements and the signal installation will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow on the major street. • • City of Tukwila Page 5 Warrant 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume This warrant combines pedestrian and vehicular volumes and is satisfied when for 8 hours of an average day (in urban locations) minimum requirements are met. Warrant 4 - School Crossings The requirements for this warrant recognize the special problem created where children must cross a major street on the way to and from school. It is based on the number of adequate gaps in the vehicular traffic on the major street available for the school children to cross the street. Warrant 5 - Progressive Movement In some locations, it may be desirable to install a signal to maintain a proper grouping or platooning of vehicles and regulate group speed even though volume, pedestrian, or accident warrants are not completely satisfied. This warrant is specifically applicable when it is desirable to move traffic in compact platoons that, at a specified speed, will arrive at the intersection at the beginning of the green interval. Warrant 6 - Accident Experience The requirements of this warrant are based on the frequency and severity of accidents that have been experienced at a given location. Warrant 7 - Systems . This warrant is intended to encourage the concentration and organization of traffic flow networks. It recognizes that progression along an important cross street should be given equal consideration with what would normally be called the major route. Warrant 8 - Combination of Warrants There are occasional cases in which signalization may be justified but the locations do not meet the minimum requirements of a single warrant. This warrant permits signal installation where any two of the three volume warrants (Warrant 1, 2, and 3) are satisfied to the extent of 80% of the established numerical value. City of Tukwila Page 6 The major volume related traffic signal warrants, as recognized by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, which should be satisfied for any eight hours of an average day before a traffic signal is installed are as follows in Table 1. Table 1 also indicates the existing 1985 A.M. and P.M. peak hour volumes in relation to the hourly warrant volumes and further indicates that the total warrant requirements are not met. It also indicates how many years in the future the particular volume warrants may be satisfied. We must emphasize, however, that the existing characteristics shown are peak hour conditions only and as a result, reflect only two hours of the required eight hours per day that the volume warrants should be satisfied. Based on the percentage volume increases experienced during recent years, it appears that the warrant volumes will be met in approximately 5 years for PEAK HOURS only. The total warrants are not satisfied until these volumes are experienced for 8 hours per day. TABLE 1 Volume Warrant Analysis (Conflicting Volumes) (Volume per hour for any 8 hours of an average day) WARRANT WARRANT EXISTING 1985 VOLUMES NO. STREET VOL. AM PEAK PM PEAK 1 S.C. Blvd. 600 350 730 (S: 5 -6 Yrs) (S) 65th Ave S. 150 125 85 (S: 2 Yrs) (S: 5 -6 Yrs) 2 S.C. Blvd. 900 350 730 (S: 9 -10 Yrs) (S: 2 -3 Yrs) 65th Ave S. 75 125 85 (S) (S) S = Satisfied Traffic volume increases on 65th Avenue South should not increase at such a high rate as has been recently experienced because the area to the north is becoming saturated. Traffic volumes on Southcenter Boulevard will undoubtedly continue to increase as a City of Tukwila Page 7 result of more development in the Tukwila /Southcenter area, more people using this facility as an alternate to I -405, and since the facility is scheduled to be widened to a total of two lanes in each direction with a two -way left turn lane down the center, in the foreseeable future. Assuming an average annual increase in traffic volumes in the vicinity of the subject intersection, of 11% per year, it appears that the total volume warrants (8 hours per day) for the installation of traffic signals could be met in eight to ten years, possibly between 1993 and 1995. We understand that a traffic signal is being planned for installation at the intersection of Southcenter Boulevard and the T -Line bridge. This being the case, vehicular platooning effects could be realized, in conjunction with those provided by the signal at the S -Line bridge, such that adequate gaps are provided which will enable the conflicting demand volumes from 65th Avenue South to turn onto Southcenter Boulevard and safely merge with the traffic streams thereon. In summary, it would appear that the traffic volumes generated by the proposed Mapletree Village Project, will not have a significant impact on the operating level of service of the subject intersection. In seven to ten years hence, traffic signal warrants may be satisfied at this location; however, the increased traffic volume conditions warranting a signal will be due more to general growth in the Tukwila /Southcenter area, continued unrelieved congestion on I -405, and the construction of slated improvements to Southcenter Boulevard between 62nd Avenue South and Interurban Avenue. We recommend no improvements to the intersection of 65th Avenue South and Southcenter Boulevard be made other than those planned for in the proposed Southcenter Boulevard widening project. Traffic volumes and conditions should be monitored on an annual or bi- annual basis (every two years) in order to update projections as to when a traffic signal may be required. Again, construction of the proposed Mapletree Village Project, incorporating traffic improvement considerations contained in the proposed widening project, will result in no significant impact to existing traffic characteristics on the adjacent arterial streets and highways. If you have any questions or desire any additional information, please do not hesitate to call me. Yours truly, G. R. (Bob) Parrott, P.E. • 1" =1800' VICINITY MAP SYA/P70/I I cV .596/ t _?a/z7 /_/ • (os8g = /96/) oSze 2s7 485 22_8 204 ---T • • CVO SCE Sou 71' A.'rEe zs </09 /3¢ 46 L 330 ti "74-e%ec /985 A.M . /Vie. 1/01.1 /MES 746 T- 402 A---i-uee- 3 /5'85 M. Pk. ALE. 1/o4 c%ES Intersection Location Plan: A Unsignallzed "T" Intersection Capacity Calculation Form SaunydeTER ✓v 65 At6.S� T een/TER /`••3L V �r Counts: Date /965 Day Wee e! a�a B Time A M. /�i�.7(i/� , Control STOP �� -!� C Prevailing Speeds M/)"/ Hourly Demand Traffic Volumes from to m Approach A T- B 7 C "1(' Movement A, -+ AR , Bt % Br -0-- Cr. ,1 Ca t Volume /09 Z t; 24 204- 116 14 8 pch Iscc time I1 Conflicting Flows = MN = (from Fig. I) Critical Gap from Table 2 T, = Capacity from Fig. 2 = Demand = Capacity Used = Impedance Factor from Fig. 3 = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) AR + Ar = IS + /09 = /3¢ to S. S sec MN, = M, = 940 ,ek Be = 24” vex 100 (BdM,) = 2- S 9t• Step 1 Right Tiro from C C„ ( . Conflicting Flows = MN = (from Fig. 11 Critical Gap from Table 2 T, = Capacity from Fig. 2 = Shared Lane - See Step 3 Ih AR + Ar = /3 + 109 = 1 ZZ „I, • O sec M. = )4,4, = 870 ra No Shared Lane Demand = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) Ca = /48 rk M, - Ca = 7 2 2.-poi Z; /We Oh NO Pe/2y_ ri Step 2 Len Tiro from B B,. r Conflicting Flows = MN = (from Fig. I) Critical Gap from Table 2 T, = Capacity from Fig. 2 = Demand = Capacity Used = Impedance Factor from Fig. 3 = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) AR + Ar = IS + /09 = /3¢ to S. S sec MN, = M, = 940 ,ek Be = 24” vex 100 (BdM,) = 2- S 9t• P, = 0.10 Ms - BC= --211—° lock .47Y /e Or A/o Oe 47- Step 3 Len Turn from C c,. ■ Conflicting Flows = MN = (from Fig. I) Critical Gap from Table 2 T, = Capacity from Fig. 2 = Adjust for Impedance 1AR + AT + Eh. + Br = /3 + /DJ+ �4- +?!= S50.0 . 8 . o sec M. = 4S0 a • , MN, x P, = M, = 441 r3 No Shared Lane Demand = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) CL = I Z to ,ea M, — Cc = 315p,3 short ∎C /A /_�.l Shared Lane Demand = Shared Lane with Right Atm Capacity of Shared Lane = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) C, + C1 = C,,L = rA (Ca + CL) M,a = (Cd/M1) + (C,, /M,) Mo = rr, M,, - Cat = r" 0 Overall Evaluation F /U 4 AM, Pr C. ,4' eA PAC/ Ty fZ0.5 /985 ti/ /Our ,' 0.7 -66T Intersection Location Plan: Unsi alized "T" Intersection Capacity Calculation Form 1 r - e'7'7e/WTE;e f-3G ✓o AvE. 5. A Counts: 'ov/ -14 E -n/TE2 /31-1/0 Date /%(515 � C Hourly Demand Traffic Volumes from to m Day WeekdQ B Time /47M. /a& .//e. Control STOP ( R- I) Prevailing Speed 35 M PN Approach A 8 7 C �Y" Movement Ar -a- AR 1 B,, % Br -=- Cr. -`1 CR /- Volume 2-70 //D / 3 0 2 77- 84 7¢ pch ..ce Table I i rra Br= /3ORA 100 (B,/M,) _ Z8' 3 pa. 0 88 Me - B,, = 58010 Z/14/1/e... or Ni Q° %a L ra Step 1 Right Turn from C CR Conflicting Flows = MN = (from Fig. I) Critical Gap from Table 2 T, = Capacity from Fig. 2 = Shared Lane - See Step 3 'h AR + AT = 55 + 270 = 3Z5.„ 6.4' sec KIN, = M1 = (O Bo.es VNo Shared Lane Demand = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) Cr, = 74 ree MI - CR = to 06 pc, LM , OriVo De /07- ml Step 2 Leh Turn from 0 B,. r Conflicting Flows = MR = (fromFig.I) Critical Gap from Table 2 T, = Capacity from Fig. 2 = Demand = Capacity Used = Impedance Factor from Fig. 3 = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) AR + AT = //0 + 270 = 380,0,E 5- 5 sec MR. = Ma = 7/0 rra Br= /3ORA 100 (B,/M,) _ Z8' 3 pa. 0 88 Me - B,, = 58010 Z/14/1/e... or Ni Q° %a L ra Step 3 Left Turn from C Cr. 1 Conflicting Flows = M„ _ (from Fig. 1) Critical Gap from Table 2 T, = Capacity from Fig. 2 = Adjust for Impedance %AR + Ar + B,, + Br. = 55 +2_7s+/10.+272= 727 t,„,,, 8' <0 sec MN, = Z 30 k, MR, x Pe = Ma = 202.1fe3 No Shared Lane Demand = Cr. = 86 .ca M, - C,, = // 6 Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) ,ee .5?i i, he e; f' 13e %7_ 1, Shared Lane Demand = Shared Lane with Right Turn CR + CI = Cu _ Pra (CR + C,,) Capacity of Shared Lane = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) M" _ ICR/M,) + (C,, /M,) M,, = kk M,, - Cm, ° PcR Overall Evaluation /L-74 z 5 /0/11. P,C /� APAC /T y /985 v//our P OJ& .r 27/ Q/ 23a • • F/l'U�E 6 /985 A. Al, Re Me Vot.cinIES //t/CC,. /JRcTEGT //4?/de E 7 /9'85 /'Al. /"4. 'e Vc z/ nES /NCG . .0,e& r r Unslgnallzed "T" Intersection Capacity Calculation Form r Interaction �o�.T� -1 rye /3L. ✓o 7 mss'- 72 . I Location Plan: Counts: SOGeTriCE/✓7E . ,BL VLF Date /985 Day Weekday 8 Time A. m. Pk/ NR Control .7t1P 6R-1) Prevailing Speed 3-_,:24±.1-;/' W C Hourly Demand Traffic Volumes from to m Approach A l B 7 C -"'Y' Movement Ar —• An 1 BL r Br •C,, ..1 C" /' Volume /09 1 Z S 2. 4. I 204 / S 4,2 pch 1.cc table 11 479lG Or /1/4 j10. /4 /•\ y Step 2 Step 1 Right Ttrrn from C Ca Conflicting Flows = MN = (from Fig. l) Critical Gap from Table 2 T, = Capacity from Fig. 2 = Shared Lane — See Step 3 Iii AR + Ar = /¢ + /09 = /23 ,o„ 6.0 sec M,,, = M, = 8 70 .ee / No Shared Lane Demand = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) Ca = „AA M, — Ca = 708 479lG Or /1/4 j10. /4 /•\ y Step 2 Let Turn from B 81. Conflicting Flows = M,, = (from Fig. 1) Critical Gap from Table 2 T, = Capacity from Fig. 2 = Demand = Capacity Used = Impedance Factor from Fig. 3 = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) 2 8 + A = + / 9 /37 ..s e 5 sec MN. • M, = —244 •es BL = Z(O —.d1 100 (8,,/M,) = _..Z2.11.% P, = a 97 M, — Br, = 9/¢ so G/i/ /e or NO Q' /47__ FA Step 3 _.J_ Len "Wm from C Cr 1 Conflicting Flows = M,, = (from Fig. 1) Critical Gap from Table 2 T, = Capacity from Fig. 2 = Adjust for Impedance 1 %Aa + Ar + 0, + Br = /4 + /QS+ Z6 +2 353 „a . e3-° sec MN• _ -Q- Pe" MN. x P, = M3 = .07 .e" No Shared Lane Demand = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) Ct. _ / 8 w. Ms — C, = 299 ►e" A✓CrAiL De/ a7 (9 Shared Lane Demand = Shared Lane with Right Turn Capacity of Shared Lane = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) Ca + C,, = CR,, = PA (Ca + CL) M13 — (C11/M1) + (CL /M,) M„ = .r11 M„ — C,,,, s .eh Overall Evaluation ACe ,°r, e.4.E G. o . S . AM. Pk. Nom, CALAc/ry L. o. S. /985 /NGG . f3Po3- T Ur nalited "T" Intersection Capacity Ct Iation Form. Intersection -•- SCUM* -/C 'V7 ,SL S 716AvE , s. Location Plan: spu 1/17 • A I Hourly Demand Traffic Volumes from to Approach A ¶ B 7 C -- y' Movement At --- AR 1 Bc r sr Cr CR (-- Volume Z70 / 12. /44 Z12 93 80 pch Lcc Tahlc MN, = M: = 7/o pc, B,, = /4¢ x's 100 (8,,/M,) = 20. 3 `7f p, = O. 87 Ms — Br. = 5674" pelt iI Counts: Date /98 S Day Wee4 dal B Time �/y!• PiC _ //i2 . Control STOP (- i) Prevailing Speed_35_,e9Pf,' Step 1 Right lbrn from C CR Conflicting Flows = MN = (from Fig. I) Critical Gap from Table 2 T, = Capacity from Fig. 2 = Shared Lane — See Step 3 Ih AR + Ar = (o/ + 270 = 33 /,,, 6-0 sec M.vo = MI = 68° w," ✓ No Shared Lane Demand = CR = alt ^'1, — CR = 600 Available Reserve = Delay & Levet of Service (Table 3) pes Z-1///e, O!'/✓O fie/a7 MI Step 2 Left Turn from B B,. r Conflicting Flows = MN = (from Fig. 1) Critical Gap from Table 2 T, = Capacity from Fig. 2 = Demand = Capacity Used = Impedance Factor from Fig. 3 = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) AR + AT = /ZZ + Z 7 = 39 Z.. S• 5 sec MN, = M: = 7/o pc, B,, = /4¢ x's 100 (8,,/M,) = 20. 3 `7f p, = O. 87 Ms — Br. = 5674" pelt 614//i4- er -/t/D -4/47_____ p Step 3 Left Rim from C Cr. • Conflicting Flows = MN = (from Fig. 1) Critical Gap from Table 2 T, = Capacity from Fig. 2 = Adjust for Impedance %AR + Ar + BL + Br = 6/ +2704144-4-27Z.= 747,E 6-0 sec MN, = 22.5,e, MN, x P, = M3 = (96 PCr, (/ / No Shared Lane Demand = CL = 93 ova Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) M, - Ce = /03 ,cA -____.-_.!".4.)146247" ZW0-41.- fa Shared Lane Demand = Shared Lane with Right Turn CR + Ce = CR,. = ,re (CR + Cr) Capacity of Shared Lane = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) M, — (CR /M,) + (C, /M3) M„ = 9,3 M,3 — CR,, = M3 Overall Evaluation /./1/ P&. //€. CAPAc/ry {Z.0.. /985 ht/C1... PRoTEc • 230 — Residential Condominium Condominiutns are defined as single - family ownership units that have at least one other single - family owned unit within the same building structure. Both condominiums and townhouses are included in this category. Equations and Correlation Between Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends ( AWDVTE) and Independent Variables for Residential Condominiums Equations and independent Variables Correlation Coefficient (R) AWDVTE = 320.0 + 3.563 x Number of Units 0.883 = 309.5 + 2.301 x Number of Vehicles 0.956 = 309.8 4- 1.743 x Number of Persons 0.962 Acres 0.460 Rev. 1982 SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION RATES Land Use /Building Independent Residentia.]._Eon.si_ominium ITE Land Use Code ?30 Type Variable —Trips Unit per Average Trip Rate Maximum Rate Minimum Rate Correlation Coefficient Number of Studies Average Size of Independent Variable/Study Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends 5.2 11.8 0.6 0.03 0.19 n .15 41 21 21 22 191 229 229 2114 Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic A.M. Between 7 and 9 Enter 0.07 0.15 Exit 0.37 0.72 0.95 Total 0.41 P.M. Between 4 and 6 Enter 0 37 0 73 0-30 n 21 0 08 0 18 22 21 31 225 229 214 Exit 11.18— x`51_ Total 1 24 Peak Hour of Generator A.M. Enter 0-07 21 21 22 229 229 214 Exit 0.17 0.41 Total P.M. Enter Q._37 018 ?2 21 21 225 229 214 Exit Total 0.51 Saturday Vehicle Trip Ends 5 29 026 0 . 22 0,144_ 10_5 0 44 0 35 0 74 8 4 1 2 0_20 –23 1.4 2II2 2-91 Peak Hour of Generator Enter Exit 0_13 fl A4— 1 4 14 _2.0 _.---___2j3 2 3 1.4 14 _ 20 291 Total Sunday Vehicle Trip Ends 4_6 2112 291 291 273 Peak Hour of Generator Enter 0.21 02 0.38 0 33 0.07 0.18 0- .- .16___ Exit Total _ 0- 77 .�1—. _0_ Source Numbers 14 ,_9S,._l00, -1e .5, -106 J92_,_-9it -,-114 ITE Technical Committee 6A -6 —Trip Generation ()ate. 1975, 1979, Rev. 1982 Rates 6 Chap. 2 Predesign Activities 1\ 1 40 40' I I t I 1 20 20' I 11 0 so ll —J' SCALE SERV /CE STAY /ON T 5 I I I II I 11 • —a-- _t____ 1 - — -0= -4 -- e - - -J L ------ ---- -) - - -F - - /1 i •A. MA /A/ ST. GROCERY STORE S/GA/AL A//A5 /NCB ✓r�cANT fi/ Oz --p 3 6 Y G 6 y W FOw OW W POW OW 30% /3% 6% 2S% /7% b% 60 SEC. CYCLE kti ct k r1 HP 11-- -)- —1- 1 OR /VE -/A/ BANK FIGURE 2 -1 Typical sketch plan. (Source: Cleary & Meller) may be resolved by Tess restrictive control measures or other minor improvements, these should be noted and 'recommended. At those locations where further study appears justified, the next step is to schedule and plan the engineering studies appropriate to the particular location. The following sec- tions provide a brief overview of the various types of engineering studies involved in analyzing and evaluating the need for signalization and the more detailed data required for signal design and 'plan preparation if a signal is warranted. WARRANT EVALUATION The candidate location for signalization must now be studied to find whether it meets the minimum warrants for signalization. Most state and many large local agencies have developed their own procedures and guidelines for warrant evaluation. Generally, for this • • Warrant Evaluation 7 phase of the process, volume data and the accident history of the location are the basic in- formation required as most of the standard warrants prescribed in the MUTCD (or equivalent state manuals) are related to volume and /or accident experience. The MUTCD lists eight minimum warrants: • Warrant 1— Minimum vehicular volume • Warrant 2— Interruption of continuous traffic • Warrant 3— Minimum pedestrian volume • Warrant 4— School crossings • Warrant 5— Progressive movement • Warrant 6— Accident experience • Warrant 7— Systems • Warrant 8— Combination of warrants The requirements of one or more of these warrants should be satisfied before a signal is in- stalled. Two new warrants are being developed which may replace or supplement several of the existing warrants. These have been entitled: Warrant 9 — "Peak Hour Delay and Volume Warrant" and Warrant 10 — "Four Hour Warrant." The current and proposed warrants are discussed below. The numerical values established in warrants reflect the intrinsic difference between urban and rural locations. When the 85- percentile speed of major street traffic exceeds 40 mph, or when the intersection lies within a built-up area of an isolated community having a population Tess than 10,000, the location is considered rural. All other areas are considered urban. For rural locations, 700/0 of the volume requirements is sufficient to satisfy the war- rant. The full value applies to urban locations. Warrant 1. Minimum Vehicular Volume This warrant is satisfied when the traffic volumes of any 8 hours of an average day meets the minimum requirements given in Table 2 -1. These requirements are based on the number of approach lanes to the intersection. For the major street, the total volume of both Table 2 -1 Vehicular Volume Requirements for Warrant 18 Number of Lanes Each Approach Minimum Requirements, Vehicles per Hour Major Street b Minor Street Major Minor street street Urban Rural Urban Rural 1 1 500 350 150 105 2 or more 1 600 420 150 105 2 or more 2 or more 600 420 200 140 1 2 or more 500 350 200 140 a Source: adapted from Ref. 1 b Total volume of both approaches Higher volume approach only • • 8 Chap. 2 Predesign Activities approaches is used. For the minor street, the higher volume approach (one direction only) is used. The same 8 -hour period should be used for both the major street and the minor street. Warrant 2. Interruption of Continuous Traffic This warrant accommodates operating conditions where extremely heavy major street traffic causes excessive delay or hazards to minor street traffic. The warrant is satisfied when the traffic volumes of any 8 hours of an average day meet the minimum requirements given in Table 2 -2 and the signal installation will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow on the major street. Table 2 -2 Vehicular Volume Requirements for Warrant 28 Number of Lanes Minimum Requirements, Vehicles per Hour Major Street b Minor Street C Major Minor street street Urban Rural Urban Rural 1 1 750 525 75 53 2 or more 1 900 630 75 53 2 or more 2 or more 900 630 100 70 1 2 or more 750 525 100 70 o Source: adapted from Ref. 1 b Total volume of both approaches Higher volume approach only Warrant 3. Minimum Pedestrian Volume This warrant combines pedestrian and vehicular volumes and is satisfied when for 8 hours of an average day (in urban locations) there are: • 600 vph on the major street (total of both approaches). If the major street contains a median at least 4 feet wide, the value is increased to 1000 vph. • 150 pedestrians per hour crossing the major street on the higher volume crosswalk. The same 8 -hour period is used for the major street volumes and the pedestrian crossing movement. For rural areas, these values may be reduced to 70 " /o; that is, 420 vph on the major street (700 vph with 4 foot or wider median) and 105 pedestrians per hour on the higher volume crosswalk crossing the major street. Warrant 4. School Crossings The requirements for this warrant recognize the special problem created where children must cross a major street on the way to and from school. It is based on the number of adequate gaps in the vehicular traffic on the major street available for the school children to cross the street. A signal may be installed to artificially create these gaps if other methods for improvements are not adequate. • Warrant Evaluation 9 A traffic engineering study is conducted of the frequency and adequacy of gaps in the vehicular traffic stream as related to the number and size of groups of school children at the school crossing. The warrant states that a signal may be installed when the number of adequate gaps in the traffic stream during the period when the children are using the cross- ing is Tess than the number of minutes in the same period. The Institute of Transportation Engineers publishes a manual, "A Program For School Crossing Protection" (Ref. 6) that describes the procedure for conducting the study for this warrant. The study basically con- sists of making two field counts, the pedestrian group sizes, and the vehicular gap sizes. The adequate gap time is found from the following formula. where: G = R + (W13.5) + 2(N -I ) G = adequate gap time, seconds R = reaction time, seconds IV = width of the street, feet N = the number of rows of pedestrians crossing in the 85th percentile group This formula uses a walking time based on 3.5 feet per second. The walking speed may be changed to more accurately reflect observed conditions. R is the perception - reaction time to look both ways, make a decision, and commence the walk (a commonly used value is 3 seconds). The term 2(N -I) represents the pedestrian platoon time. Children are assumed to cross a street in rows of five with an interval of 2 seconds between each row (Ref. 6). If a reaction time (R) of 3 seconds is used, the equation is simplified to: G = 1 + (11/13.5) + 2N Figures 2 -2 and 2 -3 illustrate the type and format of forms which may be used in col- lecting and presenting the data from a typical engineering study for this warrant. Warrant 5. Progressive Movement In some locations, it may be desirable to install a signal to maintain a proper grouping or platooning of vehicles and regulate group speed even though volume, pedestrian, or ac- cident warrants are not completely satisfied. This warrant is specifically applicable when it is desirable to move traffic in compact platoons that, at a specified speed, will arrive at the intersection at the beginning of the green interval. Several advantages may accrue from this type of operation. Obviously, if the platoon moves at the desirable speed, the number of stops and delays are dramatically reduced. In addition, the platooning ordinarily provides gaps in traffic along the route which will allow crossing or turning at intermediate points without the need for traffic con- trol devices. It also has the advantage of discouraging excessive speeds by providing a smooth uninterrupted flow at normal speeds. Accident reduction may also be expected to • result as a corollary benefit associated with a reduction in stops and speeds and the ex- istence of adequate gaps for safe crossing. On a one -way street (or a street with predominantly unidirectional traffic), this war- rant applies when the adjacent signals are so far apart that they do not provide the necessary vehicle platooning and speed control. On a two -way street, the warrant is satisfied when the adjacent signals do not provide the necessary degree of platooning and 10 Chap. 2 Predesign Activities FIGURE 2 -2 Format for pedestrian group size study. (Source: Ref. 6) speed control and the proposed and adjacent signals could constitute a progressive signal system. A signal installation under this warrant should be based on the 85- percentile speed unless a traffic engineering study indicates that another speed is more appropriate. Signalization should not be considered under this warrant when the installation would be spaced less than 1000 feet (or I/4 mile in some systems) from adjacent signalized intersec- tions. Warrant 6. Accident Experience The requirements of this warrant are based on the frequency and severity of accidents that have been experienced at a given location. The warrant is satisfied when: • An adequate trial of less restrictive remedies with satisfactory observance and en- forcement has failed to reduce the accident experience. • Five or more reported accidents of types susceptible to correction by traffic signal 9 -/7 TIME from t10a to f'e2 LOCATION MA /Al (F /FTN SURVEY DATE CROSSWALK ACROSS DIVIDED ROADWAY NA /N CURB -TO -CURB DISTANCE OF ISLAND f$' Yes No WIDTH — GROUP SIZE No. of Rows NUMBER OF GROUPS CUMULATIVE COMPUTATIONS TALLY TOTAL 5 or fewer 1 >fl/- S 5 — j' PlleeMti /G The a's0 pC/ee/lti /e A/0. of Roosf,i) - 'SF 6 -10 2 f///- /// 8 /3 11 -15 3 M 4N/' /0 -2.3 16 -20 4 -M / b -79 21 -25 5 1/ 2 3/ 26 -30 6 31 -35 7 36 -40 8 41 -45 9 46 -50 10 TOTAL NUMBER 3/ OF GROUPS ,j /X 0.1'5=46 CROSSWALK TIMEPERIOD NUMBER OF NUMBER OF WARRANT SATISFIED SURVEYED MA /N ST at Fifth Ave. - PARR SCN000 )(/v- roc/$M ro 9:e2 Am ADEQUATE MINUTES TRAFFIC GAPS IN SAME TIME 39 < 341 (Faebt Fla. 2'3) PERIOD 6e2 62 .'• yes FIGURE 2 -2 Format for pedestrian group size study. (Source: Ref. 6) speed control and the proposed and adjacent signals could constitute a progressive signal system. A signal installation under this warrant should be based on the 85- percentile speed unless a traffic engineering study indicates that another speed is more appropriate. Signalization should not be considered under this warrant when the installation would be spaced less than 1000 feet (or I/4 mile in some systems) from adjacent signalized intersec- tions. Warrant 6. Accident Experience The requirements of this warrant are based on the frequency and severity of accidents that have been experienced at a given location. The warrant is satisfied when: • An adequate trial of less restrictive remedies with satisfactory observance and en- forcement has failed to reduce the accident experience. • Five or more reported accidents of types susceptible to correction by traffic signal Warrant Evaluation 11 FIGURE 2 -3 Format for vehicular gap size study. (Source: Ref. 6) control have occurred within a I2 -month period, each accident involving personal injury or property damage to an apparent extent of $100 or more. • There exists a volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic not less than 80% of the re- quirements specified in Warrants 1, 2, or 3. • The signal installation will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow. Although this warrant specifies a 12 -month period, many agencies feel that this is too short a period to obtain an accurate portrayal of the location. It is good practice to examine 2 to 3 years of accident records. If available, 3 to 5 years of accident history should be reviewed. SURVEY DATE 2-/6 MA /A/ b' F /FTN CROSSWALK ACROSS MA M/ . LOCATION END OF START TOTAL 9 oz NUMBER OF LANES ROADWAY WIDTH ADEQUATE GAP TIME SURVEY (To Nearest Minute) 8: 00 N �� 'W' OF SURVEY ITo Nearest Minute) SURVEY TIME (Minutes) 62 'G' ?2. 7 GAP SIZE (Seconds) NUMBER OF GAPS MULTIPLY BY GAP SIZE COMPUTATIONS TALLY TOTAL 8 G =1+ 5 +2N G= 1+75+2N) G = 227 Sec. 9 10 11 4 12 OA4- 13 pi- V5 LE FRONT T = Total Survey Time x 60 T= _ii x60 14 6p G 15 -re. Sfr70i 16 17 18 19 T = 3720 Sec. D = Ir1 `) 100 gs2o -i>o. 20 21 22 23 // 2 V6 24 Wit s /20 25 /// 3 7S D 3920 x 100 D = _IL % 26 1/1/ /f' /0y 27 /1 2 S'/ 28 / / 18 29 -le l 6 /N. 30 / / .30 31 32 /// 3 96 33 / / 33 34 //11 'f /36 35 36 / / 36 37 38 / / 38 39 40 41 42 • 43 TOTALS ,3jF t= 970 t= Total time of all gaps equal or greater than G FIGURE 2 -3 Format for vehicular gap size study. (Source: Ref. 6) control have occurred within a I2 -month period, each accident involving personal injury or property damage to an apparent extent of $100 or more. • There exists a volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic not less than 80% of the re- quirements specified in Warrants 1, 2, or 3. • The signal installation will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow. Although this warrant specifies a 12 -month period, many agencies feel that this is too short a period to obtain an accurate portrayal of the location. It is good practice to examine 2 to 3 years of accident records. If available, 3 to 5 years of accident history should be reviewed. Warrant 7. Systems This warrant is intended to encourage the concentration and organization of traffic flow networks. It recognizes. that progression along an important cross street should be given equal consideration with what would normally be called the major route. This system warrant applies when the common intersection of two or more major routes has a total entering volume (existing or projected) of at least 800 vehicles during the peak hour of an average weekday or each of any 5 hours of a Saturday or Sunday. A major route as used in this warrant has one or more of the following characteristics: • It is part of the street or highway system that serves as the principal network for through traffic flow. • It connects areas of principal traffic generation. • It includes rural or suburban highways outside of, entering, or traversing a city. • It has surface street ramp terminals (freeway or expressway). • It appears as a major route on an official plan such as a major street plan in an urban area traffic and transportation study. Warrant 8. Combination of Warrants There are occasional cases in which signalization may be justified but the locations do not meet the minimum requirements of a single warrant. This warrant permits signal in- stallation where any two of the three volume warrants (Warrant I, 2, and 3) are satisfied to the extent of 80 °l0 of the established numerical value. Note that the 80°lo requirement under this warrant is applied against the 70% requirement for rural areas. This calculates to 56'/o of the 100% applicable to urban areas. (Proposed) Warrant 9. Peak Hour Delay and Volume Warrant • This warrant utilizes both a delay element and a volume element. It is intended for ap- plication where, for one peak hour of the day, traffic conditions are such that minor street traffic experiences undue delay or hazard in entering or crossing the main street. The peak hour delay element is satisfied when all of the following conditions are met: I. The total delay experienced by the traffic on a side street controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds 4 vehicle -hours for a one -lane approach and 5 vehicle -hours for a two -lane approach, and 2. The volume on the side street approaches equals or exceeds 100 vph for a one -lane approach or 150 vph for a two -lane approach, and 3. The total entering volume serviced during this hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersections with four (or more) approaches or 650 vph for intersections with three approaches. The peak hour volume element is based on a critical combination of main street and cross street volumes during any four consecutive 15- minute periods (peak hour) of an average day. This warrant is satisfied when the peak hour major street volume (total vehicles per hour for both approaches) and the higher volume minor street approach (vehicles per hour for one direction only) fall above the curve for a given combination of approach lanes shown in Figure 2 -4. 12 ' • Warrant Evaluation 600 a 500 L • m e 400 n o 300 0 • 200 100 • 1 H • 13 Lanes per approach: J�Two or more on loth st eets Two or more on one street, one on the other One on both streets 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major street —Total of troth approaches, vph Note: 150 vph applies_as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with one lane FIGURE 2 -4 Peak hour volume warrant —urban or low speed (community over 10,000 population or below 40 mph on major street). (Source: National Committee on Uniform Traf- fic Control Devices) The requirements are lower when the 85- percentile speed of major street traffic exceeds 40 mph, or when the intersection lies within a built -up area of an isolated community with a population under 10,000. The peak hour volume requirement is satisfied when the volumes referred to above fall above the curve for the given combination of approach lanes shown in Figure 2 -5. Signalization is justified under this warrant when either the peak hour volume element or the peak hour delay element is satisfied. L 400 M n 300 N � N - 7 200 > L rn ▪ 100 Lanes per approach: Two or more on both streets Two or more on one street, one on the other One on both st eets 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 Major street —Total of both approaches, vph Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold voluine for a minor street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with one lane FIGURE 2 -5 Peak hour volume warrant —rural or high speed (community less than 10,000 population or above 40 mph on major street). (Source: National Com- mittee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices) • • t4 Chap. 2 Predesign Activities 500 n 400 te 300 a o°' - E c 200 = 100 0 300 hit "LrAMIN Lanes per approach: Two or more on both streets Two or more on one street, one on the other One ore both streets 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 Major street -Total of both approaches, vph Note: 115 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with two or more lanes and 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with one lane FIGURE 2 -6 lour -hour volume warrant —urban locations. (Source: National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices) (Proposed) Warrant 10. Four -Hour Warrant As the name implies, this warrant is based on 4 -hour volumes instead of the 8 -hour volumes used in Warrants 1, 2, and 8. The proposed wording of the warrant states that this warrant is satisfied (for urban locations) when, for each of any 4 high hours of an average day, the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher volume minor street 400 a 300 I,' o a° 200 o c E E 0 100 0 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Major street -Total of both approaches, vph Lanes per approach: Two or more on both streets Two or more on one street, one on the other One on both streets 900 1000 Note: 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with two or more lanes and 60 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with one lane FIGURE 2 -7 tour -hour volume warrant —rural locations. (Source: National Committee on Uniform 'Traffic Control Devices) • • Warrant Analysis 15 approach (one direction only) all fall above the curve in Figure2 -6 for the existing combina- tion of approach lanes. For rural locations, Figure 2 -7 is used. WARRANT ANALYSIS The MUTCD sets forth a list (Section 4C -1) of desirable engineering data that may be re- quired to determine whether a candidate location for signalization is warranted. This should not be interpreted to imply that all such data must be collected previously to the warrant analysis and evaluation. While much of these data may be needed during the design process, it is seldom needed for the type of analysis confronting the engineer at this stage. Existing Intersection Analysis In actual practice, the available volume data are tested against the requirements for Warrants I and 2 after first verifying that the data on hand are sufficiently current to be useful. If they are not, I6 -hour approach counts can be obtained using mechanical counters (see Ref. 4). Accident data for the location covering at least 12 months and preferably 3 to 5 years are plotted on a collision diagram. Accidents susceptible to correction by traffic signal con- trol are tested against Warrant 6. If pedestrians are present in significant numbers (e.g., in a central business district, near universities, etc.), it will probably be necessary to collect pedestrian volumes crossing the major street for all hours where the major street volume exceeds the threshold values established in Warrant 3. This first examination will provide a yes -no answer to whether the volume or accident warrants are met. If the requirements of no single one of these warrants (1, 2, 3, or 6) are satisfied, the next logical warrant to be examined is the combination warrant (8) which re- quires only 80010 of the stated values of two or more of Warrants I, 2, and 3. Warrant 4 is only used when an established school crossing is under study. This analysis requires more extensive and specialized data collected at the location. Warrants 5 and 7 are specialized warrants used when it is necessary to properly control arterial or system flow. Warrant 5 is based upon the speed - distance relationship with adja- cent signals. Warrant 7 is used to complete the network of major routes. A complete analysis procedure form used by one state agency is presented in Figure 2 -8. New Intersection Analysis in some cases, there are new intersections where new roadways are being planned or where major construction projects will be implemented in the near future. In these cases, actual traffic volumes cannot be counted and therefore must be estimated. The ITE publication "Trip Generation: An Informational Report" (Ref. 7) may be of assistance in deriving trip estimates for this purpose. These estimates are generally in terms of average daily traffic (ADT). Although peak hour flows can also be estimated, the hourly distribu- tion is not normally available. Consequently, minimum requirements based upon estimated ADTs may be obtained from values given in Figure 2 -9. These values are based on the assumption that the 8 highest hours will each exceed 6.25 ° /o of the ADT (equivalent GROUP FOUR, Inc. 19502 - 56th Avenue West • 206 775 -4581 Lynnwood, Washington 98036 January 8, 1986 Moira Carr - Bradshaw Planning Department City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA. 98188 Re: Mapletree Village Group Four Job No. 84 -5012 Dear Moira; • Pursuant to your request, we are herein providing further discussion on the land use implications of the proposed Mapletree Village residential development. The specific topics of discussion include: 1- the exis- ting development pressures in the area, 2- the development /policy pres- sures which may be stimulated by the proposal, and 3- the relation of topography to land use patterns in the area. 1- Existing Development Pressures In The Area The subject property and those properties adjacent to the site which are designated for low density single family residential development are at present experiencing development pressures from surrounding medium and high density residential land uses. To the east, south, and southwest of the site properties are developed at residential densities of from 15.52 units per acre (Sunwood) to 26.35 units per acre (Canyon Estates) . The average density of land uses surrounding the subject property is 11.59 units /acre. The following table summarizes the exis- ting land uses adjacent to the proposal: Table I. Land Use Adjacent To The Proposal Name N/A (Undeveloped) N/A (Short Plat) Sun wood Direction From Comp. Plan Proposal Zone Designation North R-1-9.6 LDR West R -1 -12.0 LDR MDR & West R -3 & R -4 HDR Existing Density 0.03 Units/ Acre 1.28 Units/ Acre 15.52 Units/ Acre SURVEYING ENGINEERING PLANNING MANAGEMENT Page 2 MTV /84 -5012 1 -8 -86 Table I. Land Name San Juan Apartments N/A (Individual Ownerships) Canyon Estates • Use Adjacent To The Direction From Proposal Zone R-2 & R-3 Proposal, Cont' d Park View Maplecrest Apartments South South East East East r©R Comp. Plan Designation R -1 -12.0 R -3 R -3 R -3 MDR LDR MDR MDR MDR JAN. C$TY OF TUKW PLANNING �y 1 Existing Density _18.85 Units /-, --Ac -r-e- 1.71 Units/ Acre 26.35 Units/ - Acre_ _ 22.33 Units / Acre 6.61 Units/ Acre Mapletree Village N/A R -2 (Proposed) MDR (Proposed) 11.59 Units/ Acre (Avg. Density) 6.61 Units/ Acre (Pro- posed) ' 2- Development /Policy Pressures Which May Be Stimulated By The Proposal A zoning reclassification and comprehensive plan amendment will be necessary to achieve the proposal. The site is presently classified R -1 -12.0 (LDR); R -2 (MDR) is the proposed zone (comprehensive plan) reclassification for the site. A rezone /comprehensive plan amendment of the subject property to a higher land use category could stimulate similar conversion of surroun- ding undeveloped property currently designated for low density single family residential development. In particular, the property to the north of the site could be affected by a land use redesignation of the site, as it is in a single large parcel ownership designated as R -1 -9.6 (LDR). Other properties adjacent to the site which are designated for low den- sity single family residential development would not be as subject to development /land use redesignation pressures from the proposal. The low density single family properties to the west and south are already in platted lots or lot -sized ownerships. Therefore, consolidation of ownerships and destruction of existing housing stock would be necessary to develop these properties in the same manner as the proposal. SURVEYING ENGINEERING PLANNING MANAGEMENT Page 3 MTV /84 -5012 1 -8 -86 • • !r1C©E MCE CITY OF TUKWIL4 PLANNING DEPT.; 3- Relationship Of Topography To Land Use Patterns The site and its general vicinity are located on a southwest facing terrace of the hill situated between I -5, Southcenter Boulevard and the Green River (Refer to Figure 1) . The terrace is defined to the east by a steeply sloped terrace face which restrains the apartment and condo- minium developments adjacent to the site on 65th Avenue South. To the south the terrace extends to approximately South 153rd Street where it then slopes to Southcenter Boulevard. The western limit of the terrace is formed by the ridge located on the western edge of the site and extending north and west to the intersection of South 147th Street and 58th Avenue South. Land use on the terrace ranges from low density single family residen- tial development (generally north and west of the site) to medium and high density residential development (generally south and east of the site) . The site and the low density single family properties to the south are adjoined on three sides by medium and high density residen- tial development (Refer to Figure 1) . In at least one previous case, the Tukwila City Council has used topo- graphy as a guide to classifying land use. In the vicinity of the pro- posal, for example, the Sunwood property originally extended from the top of the ridge down to the terrace area to the west of the site. The elevation difference was ultimately used to separate and classify the property into medium and high density residential zones (R -3 and R -4) on the highlands and a low density residential zone (R -1 -12.0) on the lowlands. Topography has not been consistently used as a guide to land use classification on the terrace, however, as illustrated by the vari- ety of land use categories present in the vicinity of the proposal. The most significant localized topographic condition which is present on -site is the ravine and associated drainage course located along the site's western boundary. This topographic condition would be generally preserved under the proposal and would serve to partially buffer the adjacent low density single family development to the west. In conclusion, this discussion indicates that: 1. Existing medium and high density residential land uses in the vicinity of the proposal are at present stimulating conversion of low density residential properties to higher land use categories. 2. Land use redesignation of the site to a higher land use category may stimulate similar conversions of the undeveloped property to the north currently designated for low density single family resi- dential development. SURVEYING ENGINEERING PLANNING MANAGEMENT • • Page 4 MTV /84 -5012 1 -8 -86 CITY OF TUKWILA- ?LAN NING 3. Topography has not been consistently used to determine land use classification on the terrace on which the site is located. Please refer to the environmental checklist, supplemental environmental checklist and application schedules for additional discussion of the land use implications of the proposed Mapletree Village residential development. If you have any questions or require further information, don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, Group Four, Inc. �2. Gretchen Brunner Associate Planner GB /lq SURVEYING ENGINEERING PLANNING MANAGEMENT • ---,..„....4N g@ig[111-r \ JAN . 9 7r1: UVi -......"wi CITY OF TUKWILA !..---j , 1 , PLANNING DEPT. ' ' ,3 Ci.EGEND i•i I•11 R -1-20.0 R-1-12.0 g R-1-9.6 • R-1 -7.2 R-2 R-3 R-4 11111 SCALE 1:1000 GROUP FOUR,Inc. LAND USE/TOPOGRAPHY FIGURE 1 • • CITY OF.TUKWILA. Central Permit System MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM Cii' PLA.h: ,:WG DEPT. j S C H E D U L E CHANGE OF ZON1NG- EXISTING ZONING .R_:1.19 (1 REQUESTED ZONING B_2 COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION J ng PROPOSED USE IF REZONE APPROVED SITE IN CITY LIMITS? yis Single family attached medium density residential riPVPlnrmant EXISTING USE AND CLASSIFICATION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: ZONE COMP. PLAN DESIG. NORTH R -1. -12 ..U, i -x SOUTH & 33_3 EAST • WEST H- -1z.0 & R -3 Td)R LnR £. pipR • USE .0 ,•. •-• - _ow •ensi sin:_" i }_ - AS�i�ium dSns� CE Nali tarts & high density H w/ special OraEgiy single family uwne-rbt .ps (short plat) & medium density condominiu. s tI v n si d Pra.- tr r� �..cSCR1BE THE MANNER IN WHICH YOUR REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF ZONING CLASSIFICATION SATISFIES EACH OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA AS SPECIFIED IN TMC 18.84.030 (ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECES- SARY). . _THE PROPOSED CHANGE 1N ZONING.IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE AND LAND USE POLICY PLAN, THE PROVISION OF THE CITY ZONING CODE AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST. The proposed change in zoning is not in conformance with the comprehensive plan RESPONSE: - • - - - • - . - • • policies from • __•- - - - • e. e .p an • o uppo e rezone posi ion o ac as a ansi • _ -• • ion area •111 - . owever "e er o..response .e ow . . e ween si this zone, with the provision for attached units. THE PROPOSED CHANGE IN ZONING 1S APPROPRIATE IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE ZONING AND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES (IN ADDITION TO THE FOLLOWING NARRATIVE, SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL.: g is - • ••• • _. a.rr i y an. 7 g • ensi y •- • -• • • •• • •• -- DRAWINGS SHOULD BE REFERENCED). " Surrounding zoning ranges from R -1 -12.0 to R -3.` band use is in low density RESPONSE: . en "e i . s.: r'•1;--1 • _i,- • - • •• ii'.• 1 - , e propo8ed B -? 7.0w. 1./Qvi i an a • • riatP transi ti nn area_ RPfPr n si tP plan and nrc _ectural representation e •i s. 9) 1F THE REQUESTED CHANGE IN ZONING IS NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE LAID USE POLICY PLAN, THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE IS CITED IN SUPPORT OF THE NEED FOR THE REQUESTED RECLASSIFICATION. The current comprehensive plan map does not support the proposed rezone, since RES. 'ES the S7.te in fin- area: - - - - _ • esign ion • o m • -� - ' .. • : = Y1 - u • 1 • • ge e i•en • .n amen•men wo . 1 • - • - / a -nsi ion ar =as in egr c•m • me an • • / • 11 1 • • - • uses in e area • CITY OF TUKWILA Central Permit System MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM • Nov 2 5 1985 cm' C- T.L' 'A.'..A PL6.fk.''.4? ; DEPT. S C H E D U L 'E COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT EXISTING COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION LDR PROPOSEQ C D 1 T MDR Single family a -Eac ed meeiumoe%°s�ity EXISTING ZONING R-1-12_0 PROPOSED USE residential development EXISTING USE AND CLASSIFICATION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: ZONE. COMP. PLAN DESIG. -USE, Low density single family ownerships NORTH -1 -9.6 R -1 -12.0, R -Z SQUTH & B -3 EAST WEST l -r -12.0 & R -3 LDR LDR A MDR Low density single f.cmily 6wnerships & MPrilum d PnSj a. ar�•t}ments edium density condominiums & nigh density n 3r MPnts w special jow density single family ownerships (snort d'v. COA�irJ. - plat) & 1Ded.iiim aPnsi+y PanOnminiums a +4 QY IDENTIFY THOSE POLICIES IN THE TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHICH YOU FEEL SERVE TO JUSTIFY rHE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, AND ANALYZE THOSE POLICIES AS THEY RELATE TO THE -'SUBJECT PROPERTY. POLICY # PAGE # 24 2 24 1 27 2 34 35 RELEVANCE Approximately 16% of the significant trees identified on -site would be . _ .- II - an• scape p an -xi •i c ema ic in i a es DOPTitire.. s for the pm-nosed devel n ent._ The draYnage cours which Ppasseserthr�ojugDn Qtphpe western portion of the ' 1 'ilePdrainageecourseawwouZat'De included in Zile e in en• e• - • • -. •_ - e pr•pose 5 35 37 -* 38 2 39 1 47 2 48 4 50 5 50 1 51 II t.t t t 1b� Fivisa fer i deeign PwOl'ar e uieettrtEien il7i -mese designs 1 55 .6ommuni yopenPsfaCilKreasawouldhB iigsiole from the proposed devel- jest 5 community communi y open space wou • o •. •. -w 1vst,i t.. `opose recreational areas are centrally located or- readily a,ccebb1Lle e traal.i proposed in the western portion of the 1. Le -«rind 1J.I Lu RysteID iR propoRed 0 ova g sea mesi°wNi eesity residential tevelo ment; 1e proposal woad serve • e projec wo • e acces e• via . . -.• • . • -• • e•- . • a ive p an species w c require ess m- n • -1 • •i • •- ovideu to uni Lb th vc4a75, r dch woula le a, mi ni mum of 20' long to the outside edge of the sidewalk. The proposed units are one & two - story. rambler and townhouse units in fi.uplPx,.,_tr1.u1.ey and fourplex buildings. 2 55 73 1-- 79 ment_ e proposed private roadway would De constructed to puDiic roadway si ewaTIt system following both sides of the vehicular circulation S,ys+em is /Imposed • CITY OF TUKWILA Central Permit System MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM, EXISTING ZONING 14- 1- 17_nIS APPLICATION FOR PRD ACCOMPANIED BY AN APPL1CATJON'FOR CHANGE OF ZONING? OYES ONO IF YES, TO WHAT ZONING CLASSIFICATION: R -2 PROPOSED USE: Single faIDily att^.he9 p i- rim dPnsit r rAsidAntial develo8ment IF SITE OF PROPOSED PRD EXCEEDS 10 ACRES, ARE COIvMERCFALUSES PROPOSED? YE8 ®fV0 IF YES, DESCRIBE: N/P PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN DWELLING UNITS PER NET ACRE: 6,61 units /acre DESCRIBE THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU BELIEVE YOUR APPLICATION FOR A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP - MENT'SATISFIES EACH OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS OF PURPOSE AS CONTAINED IN TMC 18.46.010 (ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS-IF NECESSARY). r-• 1) THE PROPOSAL WILL PROMOTE THE RETENTION .OF.SIGNIFICANT FEATURES. OF THE NATURAL ENVIRON- MENT, INCLUDING TOPOGRAPHY, VEGETATION, WATERWAYS AND VIEWS. Approximately 16% of the signi�f`i.ca�it trees identified on -site would be re- RESPONSE: taro under the mu1C1 s } e e ci i rig rira.i nap-p rnvr 1pr�atPd in thP western portion o e site-would remain. ayligh -ted an essentially in a natural state. • • •• .. - • • • •. • • - • • 2) THE PROPOSAL WILL ENCOURAGE A VARIETY OR MIXTURE OF HOUSING TYPES. The proposal consists of five different one and two -story rambler and RESPONSE: tnwnhni sP arrarwaA in t ilrl Px7 t.ripl Px, 4nd frn7rpl Ax hujl dj nu 3 ) THE PROPOSAL WILL ENCOURAGE MAXIMUM EFFICIENCY IN THE'LAYOUT OF STREETS, UTILITY NET -• WORKS AND OTHER PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, The street layout' for the proposri al.coonsists of a single loop boultle vard'and olP ector aeras, pr Znre8mmnraklf nelir` t lle$r me ; d� — network generally follows the street layout. 4) THE PROPOSAL. WILL CREATE.AND /OR.PRESERVE.USEABLE OPEN SPACE.FOR THE ENJOYMENT CO THE OCCUPANTS AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC. Approximately 35% of the gross land area would be community open space under RESPONSE: • - n • • • • • • ••• . - • useable are- oc- e: n �'e cen = an. we ern p.r ions o e si e. e open space ays-tam connecting the pro jPct' s _Pi d PwJ.k system 5 O •Erie City o r 1u1 w11a trail W k. t'/V31 TMC 18.46.050 REQUIRES THAT THE PROPOSED PRD SITE ABUT, AND THE MAIN INTERNAL STREET SERVING THE PRD BY CONNECTED TO AT LEAST ONE MAJOR, SECONDARY OR COLLECTOR ARTERIAL. DESCRIBE THE MANNER IN WHICH YOUR PROPOSAL SATISFIES THIS REQUIREMENT. RESPONSE: • • a. • ,. • • •• • .. a. • east via '65th Ave. S., both of which are collector arterial • • FROM TMC 18.46.110, RESPOND TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: A) JUSTIFICATION FOR ANY REQUESTED DENSITY BONUS: than the base count allowed by the iu rty- g 7ioning (with a rP?nne +o R -2). B) PROGRAM FOR. DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING STAGING OR TIMING OF DEVELOPMENT: Development would take pl Ref? in a si nEl P Stapp - C) PROPOSED OWNERSHIP PATTERN UPON COMPLETION OF PROJECT: units-would be owner occupi erl_ Tt is intended that individual 0) BASIC CONTENT OF ANY RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS: The restrictive covenants would pro- exteriors, storm drainage system, roadways, trails and landscaping (common areas and front yards); prohibit changes to building exteriors visible to other unite and from the road w/o permission from the homeowner's associa tion. E) PROVISIONS TO ENSURE PERMANENCE AND MAINTENANCE OF COMMON OPEN SPACE: The permanEru -P and main.enanc' of common open Spare wrmld be the responsibility of a homeowner's a�Pnri�t -U n • „. L15 . NOV 2 5 1985E TUI, VVILA Purpose of Cheek] istl: ^ANN,NCa The State Env irormental Policy Pct (SEPA) , chapter 43.21C 1CW, requires all goverrmmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before malting 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 fran the proposal, (if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. • ENrAL CHECKLIST Cbntrol No. Epic File No. Fee $100.00 Receipt 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 ]mown, 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 fran your own observations or proj ec t plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do mt know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do rot know'' or "does not apply' . Cbmplete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays l ater . Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as coning, 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 wer 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 ronproj ect proposals: Complete this checklist for ronproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply.” In ADDITION, canplete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FCR NJNPRAIECT ACTIONS (Part D) . Fbr ronproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project" , "applicant", and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROLND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Mapletree Village 2. Name of applicant: Schneider Hanes, Inc. • 1 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:Applicant: Schneider Hanes, Inc., 6510 Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila, WA., 98188, 248 -2471; Contact Person: Jim Egge, Group Four, Inc., 19502 56th Ave. W., Lynnwood, IA., 98036, 775 -4581 4. Date checklist prepared: November, 1985 5. Agency requesting checklist: CITY OF TURWILA 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable) : Spring /Summer 1986 subject to market conditions. 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. None to our knowledge. 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. None to our knowledge. 10. List any gcwerrrnent approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Land use reclassification, preliminary and final P.R.D. approval, comprehensive plan amendment approval, preliminary and final plat approval, sewer and water connec- tions, grading permit, building permits. 11. Give brief, canplete 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 for a P.R.D. and concur- rent preliminary plat for 70 single family attached units on the 10.59 acre site. A land use reclassification from R -1 -12.0 to R -2, and a canprehensive plan amendment from low density residential to medium density residential would be required. • • 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, inclu3ing 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 -zth any permit applications related to this checklist. The site is generally located north of Southcenter shopping mall, in the southwest quadrant of the S. 151st St./65th Ave . S. intersection. TO BE CQKPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth EVALUATION FQR AGENCY USE ONLY �- eral description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Slopes of approximately 80% exist along the east slopes of the ravine located along the western boundary of the site. 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. Based on the 1973 Soil Survey for King County, soils on -site are predominately Urban Land (UR). Urban Land is soil that has been modified by disturbance of the natural layers with additions of fill material several feet thick. d. Are there surface indications of history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Road and building sites would be cleared, graded, filled and compacted as necessary to achieve proper grade transition, drainage and struc- tural stability. A balance between cut and fill operations would be sought, thereby reducing the need to import fill materials. -2- • • EVALUATION FC12 AGENCY USE ONLY f. Cbuld erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. During construction, the potential for increased erosion would be present. Following construction, erosion potential would decrease when cleared areas become revege- tated. g. About that percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for ecanple, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 40% of the site would be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Temporary measures to control erosion could include sedimentation ponds, filter fences and diversion swales; permanent measures could include landscaping, piping and armoring of outfall areas. 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 proj ec t is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During construction activities there would be increased exhaust and dust particle emissions to the ambient air. Objectionable odors would be caused by the roofing of hones or the paving of streets. After construction the principle source of pollution would be ex- haust from vehicular traffic. The increase in automobiles associa- ted with the development would contribute CO, NO and SO2 emissions to the ambient air. Fireplaces installed in units would contribute smoke to the ambient air. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Other residential developments in the vicinity of the proposal would be sources of emissions and odors similar to those generated by the proposal. Exhaust from vehicular traffic on adjacent roadways would be a con- tinual source of air pollution. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Should construction activities be under- taken during dry periods, periodic watering, if deemed necessary, would be undertaken. Automobile emissions would be regulated by Washington State Department of Licensing. -3- • • TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 3.Water a. Surface: EVALUATION FO AGENCY USE ONLY 1) Is there any surface wager body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year -round and seasonal streans, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. A drainage course collecting water from northwest of the site daylights in the ravine area adja- cent to the west property boundary. 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. N/A 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. Ind is ate the source of fill material. N/A 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approxi- mate quantities, if known. No major surface water withdrawls or diversions would be performed with the proposal. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? if so, rote location on the site plan. No. 6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste material to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Through the construction of road- ways and residences, the site's natural runoff pattern would be modified. Post development storm water runoff containing sane pollutants (primarily oil and debris washed from the road system) would be collected by the storm drainage system. Restricted ori- fice and catch basins with petroleum separators would be installed in the storm water system to control pollution of surface water. Storm water would ultimately be discharged into the existing storm system to the east of the site at the proposed entry off 65th Ave. S. -4- • • 10 BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FCR AGENCY USE ONLY b. Ground 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground wager? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Alteration to the direction or rate of flow of ground water due to roadway cut and fill should be localized on -site only. Release of ground water onto adjacent pro- perties should not vary from the present condition. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground fran septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemi- cals--; 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. There would be no major sources of waste material to be discharged into the ground water, since the proposal would be on sewers. c. Water Runoff (including storm water) : 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (including quanti- ties, if known) . Where will this water flow: Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Runoff from the proposal would be generated by building roofs, driveways, sidewalks, patios and roadways. This water would be collected by the storm drainage system and ultimately released into the existing storm system to the east of the site at the proposed entry off 65th Ave. S. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Refer to Surface Water Response 6. Water solu- able household and yard care products could also enter ground or surface waters. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Refer to Surface Water Response 6. -5- TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FC AGEICY USE ONLY 4. Plants a. Check or circle t,• -s o egetation found on the site: X- deciduous tree: -• =� = , aspen, other -X-evergreen tree fir cedar pine, other - X- shrubs - X -grass - -pasture - - -crop or grain - X-wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other - - -water plants: water lily, eelgrass, mil foil, other —other types of vegetation b. iadnat kind and anoint of vegetation will be ranared or altered? Vegetation on -site would be cleared for building site, roadway and utility construction. Approximately 16% of the significant trees identified on -site would be retained with the proposal. c. List threatened or err3angered species ]mown to be on or near the site. None to our knowledge. d. Proposed 1 and scaping , use of native plants, or other measures to pxeserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Development would reduce existing vegetation, although as much native vegeta- tion as possible would be retained during construction. Pursuant to Chapter 18.46 of the zoning code, at least 15% of the signifi- cant vegetation on -site would be retained with the proposal. Land- scaping of common open space areas would include native species, subject to availability, and residents would be encouraged to land- scape their private yards with native species as well. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are ]mown to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, (songbird - - .... mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, •th= snail marmals .. fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, • r -r.... b. List any threatened or endangered species ]mown to be on or near the site. None to our knowledge. • TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION F R AGENCY USE ONLY c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Not to our knowledge. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Wildlife would be preserved by retaining those significant trees indicated on the preliminary landscape plan, and by pre- serving as much existing vegetation as practical during con- struction. Landscaping of common open space areas would in- clude native species, subject to availability, and residents would be encouraged to landscape their private yards with native species as well. The drainage course which passes through the western portion of the site would remain daylighted through the site. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What ]finds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed proj ect' s energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity and natural gas would be the primary sources of energy for the proposal, and would be used for heating, lighting and other miscellaneous household pur- poses. Woodburning and passive solar gain would be secondary sources of heat. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: As attached units in duplex, triplex and fourplex buildings, common walls would be an energy conservation feature. Orientation of approximately 50% of the units' rear elevations to the south and correspondingly high amounts of glazing on these sides would maximize the potential for passive solar gain. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to tonic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? Not to our knowledge. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. No special emergency services would be required by the proposal. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None proposed. -7- • • "E COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY b. Noise 1) %bat types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, aircraft, equipment, operation, other)? Noise from adjacent roadways and residential develop- ments could have an impact on the development. 2) %bat 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 that hours noise would came from the site. Noise levels would be intermittently high throughout construction, but should be limited to normal waking hours. After construc- tion, residential activity and traffic noise created by daily vehicular trips would increase the ambient noise level. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Buildings would be set back from potential noise sources and existing perimeter vegetation would be reinforced with addi- tional plantings to provide aesthetic and acoustic control. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is currently occupied by a single family residence. Properties to the north and southeast are in large parcel, single family ownerships; to the southwest are the San Juan South Apartments and the Sunwood Condominiums; to the east are the Maple Crest apartments and Canyon Estates Condominiums; to the northwest is a short plat. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? Is so, describe. No. c. Describe any structures on the site. A single family residence, shed and remnants of a house. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Yes, the single family residence, shed and remnants of a house. e. Wnat is the current zoning classification of the site? R -1 -12.0 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Low density residential. . TO BE COMPLETED BY AP CANT • g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environ- mentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 182 people (70 units x 2.6 people /unit). j . Approx imatel y how many people would the completed proj ect displace? One family. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacenent impacts, if any: None proposed. 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and prorj ec ted land uses and plans, if any: A precedent has been set for medium and high density, multi-family develop- ment in the vicinity of the proposal with the establishment of the apartment and condominium complexes to the east and south- west of the proposal. Therefore, the PRD /preliminary plat pro- posed via a zoning reclassification from R-1 -12.0 to R-2 and via a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from low to medium density residential would be in keeping with development trends in the area. Clustering of the development into duplex, triplex and four - plex buildings reserves larger areas of undisturbed open space and greater setbacks from adjacent properties than would nor- mally be expected by traditional detached single family devel- opments. Clustering of buildings further allows for adjust- ment of buildings to assure retention of significant trees on- site. Building design incorporating woodsiding, pitched roofs, one and two-story rambler and townhouse units each with indivi- dual two-car garage fosters a residential quality complementary to adjacent residential uses (particularly the low density sin- gle family to the north, northwest and southeast) . The propo- sal would therefore act as a transitional development between the adjacent low density and high density developments. 9. }busing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? In- dicate whether high, middle , or low-income housing. Seventy middle income units are proposed. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing. One low ineame housing unit would be removed. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Refer to Land Use Response L. Provision of additional landscaping, particularly in the perimeter areas, would further reduce the housing impacts. EVALUATIONS FCR AGEWY USE ONLY • • 'In BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FCR 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 tallest height of any proposed struc- ture is two stories. Woodsiding is the principle exterior building material. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or ob- str uc ted? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: The clustering of units/buildings, promoting increased set- backs, open space areas and retention of significant trees would reduce or control aesthetic impacts of the proposal. Additional landscaping, particularly in the perimeter areas would also be pro- vided. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce. What time of day would it mainly occur? The proposal would produce light from automobile headlights, street lighting and home lighting pri- marily at night. b. Gould light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Not to our knowledge. Night light- ing could actually promote project safety. c. What existing off -site source of light or glare may affect your proposal? Lights from adjacent residential developments and road- ways could affect the proposal. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Units are sited to avoid having lights from internal and adjacent roadways and from surrounding development shine into living areas. 12. Recreation a. that designated and informal recreation opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Tukwila Park is located approximately two blocks southeast of the site. Fort Dent Park is northeast of the site on the east bank of the Green River. School playfields are located one block northwest of the site. -10- • • TO BE CQ4PLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FCR AGENCY USE ONLY b. W uld the proposed project displace my existing re- creational uses? If so, describe. The proposal would displace the existing informal recreation associated with undeveloped lands. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: On -site recreation opportunities would be available to project residents with the open space and trail sys- tem. The trail system would link to the existing public trail sys- tem to the west (City of Tukwila Trail #4) . On -site recreation fa- cilities /areas would be maintained by the project's homeowner's association. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for na- tional, state or local preservation registers Down bo be on or next bo the site? If so, generally describe. None to our knowledge. b. Generally describe any landnarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific or cultural importance known bo be on or next to the site. None to our knowledge. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: NA 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site and des- cribe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Access to the site would be from the north via S. 151st St. and from the east via 65th Ave. S., both of which are collector arterials. b. Is the site currently served by public transit. If rot, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Local public transit runs on S. 151st St. and 65th Ave. S. Express transit, transfer points and park- and -rides are located to the south of the site on Southcenter Blvd. c. How many parking spaces would the canpleted project have? How many would the project eliminate? Off - street parking would be ac- commodated by unit driveways, which would be a minimum of 20 feet from outside edge of sidewalk to roll -up garage door. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improve- ments to existing roads or streets , rot including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private) . The proposal would require construction of a private roadway with associated cul-d -sacs. Roadways would be 26 feet wide. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPCANT e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. The project should not generate any extraordinary use of water, rail or air transportation. f. Bow many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the com- pleted project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Assuming 7.8 average daily trip ends, per the 1982 I .T .E . Trip Gen- eration Report, the proposal would generate approximately 546 ADT. Peak volumes would generally coincide with morning and evening c- mute times. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None proposed. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public ser- vice (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other) ? If so, generally describe. The proposal would place additional demands on existing public services. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on pub- lic sery ices , if any. None proposed. EVALUATION Fat AGE1MY USE ONLY 16. Utilities 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. Refer to preliminary plat map for a list of utility purvey- ors. All utilities would be available to the proposal with the ex- tension of existing lines. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my know- ledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on then to make its decision. Sig nature • Date Submitted- -12- TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLIC10 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not imple- mented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. _How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? SPP attachpc3 Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: With construction of the project, measures to regulate discharge to the water and emissions to the air would be implemented (i.e. flow regula- tors could be installed in the storm drainage system and watering to control dust during con- struction could take place). 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life? See attached. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life are: The project would be developed as a P.R.D., which would promote the preservation of large open space areas. At least 15% of the significant trees on -site would be retained and the drainage course and peri- meter areas would be left in as natural a state as possible. -18- Evaluation for Agency Use Only Pli Flo DEC 9 1985: .. ditik Evaluation for Agency Use Only 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Construction and maintenance of any residential development would deplete ener- gy and natural resources. In a higher residen- tial land use designation, the potential for this impact would be greater. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resourses are: See attached. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? N/A Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: N/A 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, inclduing whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The proposed .rezone /comprehensive plan amendment could stimulate conversion of surrounding, undeveloped properties to higher land use designations. -.19- MK if L , DEC; 9 1985 Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts area: None proposed. Redesignation of the property and some of the nearby properties to medium density residential land use catagor- ies could provide for a smoother transition be- tween surrounding incompatible land uses in the area (i.e. high and low density residential). How does the proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan? N/A 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Any re- sidential development of the property would in- crease demands on transportation, public ser- vices and utilities. Redesignation of the pro- perty to a higher residential land use would al- low for development which would place even grea- ter demands on these systems. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: None proposed. These systems are adequate to handle the intensity of residential develop- ment permitted with the land use redesignations. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection'of the environment. Not to our knowledge. -20- Evaluation for Agency Use Only k)rts () linfj (pi. e, N' if .' i DEPT ___ ..S 8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- c i es of the Plan? The proposal could be seen to be in conflict with policy 3 on page 46, which prohibits spot zoning. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: While the proposed rezone/comprehensive plan amendment would allow for a more intensive residential use than presently exists to the north, southeast and northwest of the subjeCt property, medium and higf aerisity residentiaT- uses exist= to the east, south an3 southwest. 'Therefore, a medium density residential desig- nation, iffEE as the R -2 /medium density proposed would serve as a transitional area. As a P.R.D. development, potential conflicts with lower den- sity neighboring properties would also be min- imized. -21- Evaluation for Agency Use Only LC 1 \DEG J 1985 CI-V% DEPT. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLI E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental infor- mation provided and the submitted plans, documents, suppor- tive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal? See attached. 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? The character of the proposed devel- opment could be achieved to some extent by de- veloping the site in single family detached housing. The proposed density could be accom- plished via apartment type buildings which would in turn yield large common open space and buffer areas. 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: The proposal is the pre- ferred course of action, since the desired char- acter density and transitional qualities sought could all be achieved with the plan. If the site were developed an single family detached housing, the density and transitional quality desired in the development would not be possi- ble. It the site were developed in apartment - type buildings, a conflict would result with the existing adjacent low density single fami e ac e ousing. (% \.3 \ r.) r _ l Evaluation for Agency Use Only -22- ti ti 4. .Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? The proposal potentially con- flicts with policies 1 and 3 on page .26, rela- ting to development and topography (also, refer to response 8 of supplemental sheet for non - project actions). Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: Where development is proposed on slopes in excess of 20 %, engineering and soils studies W11.1 be provided to assure the feasibility of development and the adequacy of construction. In order to accommodate a development of the size proposed, it will be necessary to alter the site's natural landform_..toiach:ieve proper grade. transition, drainage and structural stability. The significant landform on site, _the ravine and drainage course located in the western portion of the site, will be generally preserved, however. -23- Evaluation for Agency Use Only j :G ATTACHMENT D. Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions 1. A rezone /comprehensive plan amendment of the subject property to a higher residential land use category would permit a higher density of residential development on the site than is presently allowed. Any residential development of the site would increase discharge to water and emissions to air, and in a higher residential land use designation, there .would be a potential for greater discharge and emissions. 2. Any residential development of the site would remove significant amounts of natural vegetation and displace existing animal popula- tions. Redesignation of the site to a higher residential land use designation would permit a higher density of development on the site, and thus could have a greater effect on plants and animals. 3. The project would be developed as a P.R.D. Units would be arranged in duplex, triplex and fourplex buildings, largely in clustered ar- rangements. The shared walls and clustering would be energy con- servation measures. As a P.R.D., large open space areas would be preserved, promoting the retention of natural resources. E. Supplemental Sheet for All Project and Nonproject Proposals 1. The objective of the proposal is to develop the 10.59 acre site into 70 single family attached residential units with zero lot line lots. The proposal seeks to provide a variety of housing types (duplex, triplex and fourplex buildings of one and two -story ram- bler and townhouse units) . The cluster configuration proposed would yield large common open space areas for the use of residents and buffer areas to integrate the development into the neighbor- hood. The development is intended to function as a transitional component for the surrounding high and low density residential development. CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO: BLDG r/1'PLNG 171 P.W. F FIRE PROJECT J2 b)7,74.4.z/ LOCATION 0 /5 / / ;5 at/ 5 FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED SPONSE REQUESTED BY STAFF COORDINATOR L`A 7/a)/ Z� (/ /�� Eck ESPONSE RECEIVED • CN EPIC 30,2-S75- FILE UJ J 3 -/ei 6-L) -CPA) 53T p , � -k [POLICE (✓ P & R 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 _ liEW1 / L an i v6 z / % w0 ii! 1111M7 hi I IL., A._.'yrrL,��L�ii�� JA,Aiziziaili. ariffinff AelleMW or /1 _111.6 Mil I MT" 1 COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA Tontro � CDTR A'L'?ERMIT SYSTEM - INFORMA .lid TRANSMISSION REQUEST FORA ierni t /File =_f ,_/'6 _ .2_5).5- • PROJET��v1e yntzi • ADDRESS ) / 0f {/ STAFF REVIEWER BELOW ARE COMMENTS THAT NEED TO BE TRANSMITTED TO THE APPLICANT /DEVELOPER. U n n ❑ ❑ 1 n i / 1) i • - LEI air MI' -�_-.Am/ % �ru % — CPS Tech please contact applicant /developer '; I contacted applicant /developer ❑1 Please follow -up with me on my concerns by (name) on (date) (date) CPS FOLLOW -UP Contacted o.pplicant /developer by phone Distributed copy of letter to file Comments in writing on (date) Instructions: Transmit copy of completed form with any correspondence to staff person and appropriate files. CITY OF TUKWILA CN C - CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM EPIC .3!)R•` FILE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO: t`BLDG --) !!!5 PLNG P.W. E5 E] FIRE tI POLICE PPIP & R PROJECT 'lJoilme i& W 'n'j (nvazilyee L' Iag-C) LOCATION ‘401417 .S1—/65 -a4/ 5 FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED /2• Q' 85 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY A,7-/5•85 STAFF COORDINATOR ��C ECV 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 Avis» l Abe r fit X2, i s M e DATE /a ffs COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM �'AIE�►t'�iLtaG T-p�p, cN 85 -�D' ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM EPIC Rr '5 FILE TO: (PI BLDG r](PLNG `1 (? P . W. [Y F IRE rI POL I CE !VIP & R PROJECT dr_o?i/ dii(/ Wane,, et o' /a LOCATION J/57 s1-- /G5'a4/ 5 DATE TRANSMITTED /R'. 9'85 FILE NO. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY j''/3''5 STAFF COORDINATOR o'er, 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 fivPi."4-t-44 7-14. CN 85 -*5 EPIC .D *.'15 FILE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO: Eti BLDG fi PLNG EffP.W. E] FIRE ] POLICE nlecPbPR ;, PROJECT /t & 1- 071,,3 ( threli t' /ag ) LOCATION J /57 514-/65 -ef,v S DATE TRANSMITTED /2-9-83" RESPONSE REQUESTED BY j »»/3 RESPONSE RECEIVED FILE NO. STAFF COORDINATOR Si" 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 J77-- COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA ftralini4t44 CN 8-',� CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM EPIC .Vg," 5' FILE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO: En BLDG 11 PLNG P.W. Ef EI FIRE r!54ROOPCE4 ['P & R PROJECT t dt4I /Ci,(i Wane) (filaialtblet i", iag ) LOCATION 1 /557 s1- f 1i5 a, v 5 FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED /24-45745 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 1,7.-/3'8s STAFF COORDINATOR Ij• g' ' ! : _ 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 fraXe / DATE COMMENTS P C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM IiiIIPZI/n14t41 rho, CN 2f• *5 EPIC 30 15 FILE ENVIRONMENTALREVIEW ROUTING FORM TO: ri BLDG fen PLNG [ P.W. El(FIRrJ POLICE efp & R PROJECT de Jldi,i W 'n'j (fiviatz4Yei t' iag e) LOCATION ' /57 .0/15-ti 5 FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED /R-4?-85 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY it' -/3'8.5 STAFF COORDINATOR 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 ytT 'LANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDI � ,tE; OU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND I O1t9AtI 5fi BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. TUKWILA FIRE pN 8�R£AU ITEM COMMENT ` 4/4/41,174-5" �S Ot ,m a (13 SAIL DATE /7/((/, COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - ROUTING FORM PERMIT NUMBER TO: [1 BLDG. ErPLNG. [J P.W. firrkte, '010/e4 PROJECT -.5CA, M1dfr /t6ii* / i 7A/ie ree V/1. e ADDRESS So. /52„(Isr/ 4Y2',914.,50. CONTROL NUMBER 8-1233 J FIRE 0 POLICE 0 P. & R. DATE TRANSMITTED RESPONSE REQUESTED BY )/23/kYo C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR`7/,7e) /&l RESPONSE RECEIVED PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH THAT CONCERN IS NOTED: 0 +) Ar .S, ke. _P,eePAtAAayd . tR, cq egrAlc,.s 0, It derde !mac re vo'eoe From El 2) At 611,4( (577402p,piysrd2) Pao u),.te be t/ecessAr/ gr q• 124114 E3 6fAil P1.94) Zoku) Me? Pe m.k it 1,r,�LA) id,.a Adi1 peor loge -0 74$89r404' 0 P P.ks,,e2Gvr ort - iS „t<c - �r[�eFor 104m;” op 6a9-6-64):5 0,1e 4O)s Brze 5 (� � � ��� dr.,c .5� d! ��G�AgO,J /i�� - �}C e c�4GT �PArrCA� 2 .S 5i�5 uJ ,ll 4e ,✓ P el e,0 Q G) ST'a.77,c,P�3 ,i1 eeO Ji ke d2e4 tte," For d, ,e&{T .577 -1/Mi& t r '-.• 0Pe691;)btll.a_i6 o -ro ' -o " be ePes ' c Q A-3.5alli eed 4bcrz'e /,eigmblrek s Arc.' shie J.ufcI e 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED 0 PLAN CHECK DATE -3 PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED 0 COMMENTS PREPARES : PLAN APPROVED 0 C.P.S. FORM 2 T WIA CITY OF UK L CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - R ING FORM TO: [] BLDG. NG. Q P.W. Q FIRE Q POLICE Q P. & R. PERMIT NUMBER CONTROL NUMBER PROJECT ADDRESS DATE TRANSMITTED C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR AA'i RES'INSE REQIED BY RESPONSE RECEIVED PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH THAT CONCERN IS NOTED: D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED [� PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED [[ PLAN APPROVED [[ PLAN CHECK DATE 7 60 COMMENTS PREPARED BY /W3 C.P.S. FORM 2 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM \, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO: [i BLDG [ PLNG ] P.W. I FIRE PROJECT 21L, r ,40/07-16.42i r `77?aA2Ag.Q LOCATION An-/ /? S eCN u EPIC 30,9-S5- FILE 8r 5 -iE 5L -C- f � C 5-2- [ff POL I CE 1% P & R iva-(, ) FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED L9-6 - 15.7 -R PONSE REQUESTED BY /5'3-5 STAFF COORDINATOR L 1 /J)> ,- t,(/,'et.) 664:1 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. ESPONSE RECEIVED ITEM COMMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT CONCERNS: ON STREET AND OFF -SITE PARKING...ONE INSIDE AND ONE OUTSIDE PARKING STALL IS NORMALLY SUFFICIENT FOR ONE BEDROOM OCCUPANCY...WITH TWO BEDROOM UNITS IT IS /NOT FAR FROM THE NORM TO EXPECT THREE VEHICLES AT SOME UNITS...AN ALTERNATIVE PARKING AREA TO ACCOMODATE THESE VEHICLES AND VISITOR VEHICLE SHOULD BE DESIGNATED. WHILE THE MAIN DRIVE TRANSITING THE DEVELOPMENT LENDS ITSELF TO GOOD PATROL COVERAGE, THE CUL -DE -SACS ARE SOMTHING ELSE. TO OFFSET THE NEGATIVES GOOD EXTERIOR LIGHTING SHOULD BE PLANNED FOR THOSE AREAS. HAVING EXPERIENCED BURGLARIES IN THOSE RESIDENCES PRESENTLY BACKING ON THIS PARTICULAR TRAIL, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE UNITS SITUATED TO THE WEST AND SOUTHWEST EXTREMITIES OF THE PROJECT BE EQUIPPED WITH ADDITIONAL REAR YARD LIGHTING. THE DEVELOPER SHOULD BE INSTRUCTED TO CONTACT THE CRIME PREVENTION PRACTIONEER FOR THE LATEST INFO ON LOCKS, ALARMS AND SECURITY LIGHTING. IMPACT ON POLICE SERVICES WILL BE IN THE AREA OF INCREASED CALLS FOR SERVICE, EXPANSION OF PATROL BOUNDARIES, REDUCED COVERAGE AND INCREASED RESPONSE TIME. DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY 12/10/85 pjl C.P.S. Form 11 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICI D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS • (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not imple- mented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? see attar•hf a Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: With construction of the project, measures to regulate discharge to the water and emissions to the air would be implemented (i.e. flow regula- tors could be installed in the storm drainage system and watering to control dust during con- struction could take place). 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life? See attached. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life are: The project would be developed as a P.R.D., which would promote the preservation of large open space areas. At least 15% of the significant trees on -site would be retained and the drainage course and peri- meter areas would be left in as natural a state as possible. -18- Evaluation for Agency Use Only • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the ' Plan? The proposal could be seen to be in conflict with policy 3 on page 46, which prohibits spot zoning. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: While the, proposed rezone/comprehensive plan amendment would allow for a more intensive residential use than presently exists to the north, southeast and northwest of the subject property, medium and high density residential uses exist to the east, south an southwest. 'rheretore, a medium density residential desig- nation, sucFi as the R -2 /medium density proposed would serve as a transitional area. As a P.R.D. development, potential conflicts with lower den- sity neighboring properties would also be min - imized. • 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? The proposal potentially con- flicts with policies 1 and 3 on page 26, rela- ting_ to development and topography (also. refer to response 8 of supplemental sheet for non - project actions). Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: Where development is proposed on slopes in excess of 20 %, engineering and soils studies will be provided to assure the feasibility of development and the adequacy of construction. In order to accommodate a development of the size proposed, it will be necessary to alter the site's natural landform_..toL.achieve_proper grade_ transition, drainage and structural stability. The significant landform on site, .the ravine and drainage course located in the western portion of the site, will be generally preserved, however- -23- Evaluation for Agency Use Only • CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO: rI BLDG 1;7°4:1 PLNG r/1 P. P ROJECT J a2r / )Y LOCATION 0 /,07 - /(,),.5 a 5 DATE TRANSMITTED STAFF -COORDINATOR L'7 7) /V,: 41/ CN 'S -,2)(L 5 EPIC 3Q? -S5 FILE a553 --iej 5 -y -e '14, 55,-p o) 5-zp -, W. FIFIRE [ffPOLICE (1 P & R (//r77(.1.,10.-Wtk.6e, ,,aar?-e) FILE NO. SPONSE REQUESTED BY' -ck ESPONSE 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 jam- /3-��--S COMMENTS PREPARED BY � C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM CN g5,5' EPIC 3OQ -'5 FILE UJ 53 -Iii, TO: ],BLDG t'1 PLNG I P.W. I [FIRE U POLICE (✓ P & R PROJECTcVL,2,i e - WC »r -& ( `%%?a. Ei --ee- z/ia C ) LOCATION /6 / kii,k/// ::5 U/ FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED 4/72--(p (sf - ,s SPONSE REQUESTED BY ()/,27/15 STAFF COORDINATOR ,(ii)/X/ !; c(..J 6C-4.1 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 ,1 407/45.0/4'4 if 7,02; DATE /,Z //D COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 ' CITY. OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM • CN 5- EPIC 30,2-S5 FILE ?if-53-g) 51-1'C,A) 5:5-10W42) 5Z0 - TO: (f BLDG ('( PLNG ( P.W. ( I FIRE (POLICE (✓( P & R PROJECT 7/2,Z+ `i 107 -r1.e ' !/,, Ia e) LOCATION /S7 / / 5 a i 6 FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED ' - 457 SPONSE REQUESTED BY /77,5-R5- 5 STAFF COORDINATOR Lr ,a)/Ca� �i(� /�(.� v( (� 'ESPONSE 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 611/1kvelne#1/-*/ Ka4 ,662-4L5 374/ Co Goo'7 C®etns ve- -rev s, / 7f- rl•&fa'ei- 4~5 4,ie yr a- Cco7/<o -7 /17/-e-€72 /111- oGl g/74 4n DATE /2%0i COMMENTS PREPARED BY -14 dat BY, W!CAINik4W:1 _. C.P.S. Form 11 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, towlship, and range, if ]mown. 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 rot required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted -±th any permit applications related to this checklist. The site is generally located north of Southcenter shopping mall, in the southwest quadrant of the S. 151st St./65th Ave . S. intersection. TO BE CQMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRO ENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth 410- era] description of the site (circle one) : Flat, rolling, steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Slopes of approximately 80% exist along the east slopes of the ravine located along the western boundary of the site. c. What general types of soils are fo and on the site (for ex anpl e , clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you )mow the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and rote any prime farmland. Based on the 1973 Soil Survey for King County, soils on-site are predominately Urban Land (UR) . Urban Land is soil that has been modified by disturbance of the natural layers with additions of fill material several feet thick. d. Are there surface indications of history of instable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Road and building sites would be cleared, graded, filled and compacted as necessary to achieve proper grade transition, drainage and struc- tural stability. A balance between cut and fill operations would be sought, thereby reducing the need to import fill materials. -2- EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FCR ACENrY USE ONLY 4. Plants a. Check or circle t ,• - s o eg etation found on the site: -X-deciduous tree : aspen, other -X-evergreen tree fir cedar pine, other - X- shrubs -X -grass --- pasture - - -crop or grain - X-wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other - - -water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other —other types of vegetation b. bat kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Vegetation on -site would be cleared for building site, roadway and utility construction. ,Approximately 16% of the significant trees identified on -site would be retained with the proposal. c. List threatened or erziangered species krown to be on or near the site. None to our knowledge. d. Proposed l and scaping , use of native pl ants , or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Development would reduce existing vegetation, although as much native vegeta- tion as possible would be retained during construction. Pursuant to Chapter 18.46 of the zoning code, at least 15% of the signifi- cant vegetation on -site would be retained with the proposal. Land- scaping of =anon open space areas would include native species, subject to availability, and residents would be encouraged to land- scape their private yards with native species as well. 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, . ngbird - - ... . manuals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, •th=4 snail marrnals .. fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, o • -r.... b. List any threatened or endangered species krown to be on or near the site. None to our knowledge. -6- "E COMPLETED BY APPLICANT b. tbise 1) %hat types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, aircraft, equipment, operation, other)? Noise from adjacent roadways and residential develop- ments could have an impact on the development. 2) %hat 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 at hours noise would come fran the site. Noise levels would be intermittently high throughout construction, but should be limited to normal waking hours. After construe- tion, residential activity and traffic noise created by daily vehicular trips would increase the ambient noise level. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Buildings would be set back fran potential noise sources and existing perimeter vegetation would be reinforced with addi- tional plantings to provide aesthetic and acoustic control. 8. Land and Shoreline Use EVALUATION Fat AC NCY USE ONLY a. Wiat is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? `R��,� / The site is currently occupied by a single family residence. (;j C,� Properties to the north and southeast are in large parcel., single family ownerships; to the southwest are the San Juan South Apartments and the Sunwood Condaniniums; to the east are (0S` the Maple Crest apartments and Canyon Estates Condaniniums; to the northwest is a short plat. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? Is SD, describe. No. c. Describe any structures on the site. A single family residence, shed and remnants of a house. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Yes, the single family residence, shed and remnants of a house. e. %hat is the current coning classification of the site? R-1 -12.0 f. %fiat is the currant comprehensive plan designation of the site? Low density residential. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLIr'aiNT g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environ- mentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No. i. Appraximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 182 people (70 units x 2.6 people /unit). j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? One family. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None proposed. 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if my: A precedent has been set for medium and high density, multi-family develop- ment in the vicinity of the proposal with the establishment of the apartment and condominium complexes to the east and south- west of the proposal. Therefore, the PRD /preliminary plat pro- posed via a zoning reclassification from R-1 -12.0 to R -2 and via a Comprehensive Plan Amendment fran low to medium density residential would be in keeping with development trends in the area. Clustering of the development into duplex, triplex and four - plex buildings reserves larger areas of undisturbed open space and greater setbacks from adjacent properties than would nor- mally be expected by traditional detached single family devel- opments. Clustering of buildings further allows for adjust- ment of buildings to assure retention of significant trees on- site. Building design incorporating woodsiding, pitched roofs, one and two -story rambler and townhouse units each with indivi- dual two-car garage fosters a residential quality complementary to adjacent residential uses (particularly the low density sin- gle family to the north, northwest and southeast). The propo- sal would therefore act as a transitional development between the adjacent low density and high density developments. 9. Musing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? In- dicate whether high, middle , or low - income housing. Sevent middle income units are proposed. b. Apprac imatel y how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. One low income housing unit would be removed. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Refer to Land Use Response L. Provision of additional landscaping, particularly in the perimeter areas, would further reduce the housing impacts. -9- EVALUATIONS FCR AGENCY USE ONLY i { TO BE CGMPLETED BY APPLICANT b. Would the proposed project displace any existing re- creational uses? If so, describe. The proposal would displace the existing informal recreation associated with undeveloped lands. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, incl ud 4 ng recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: On -site recreation opportunities would be available to project residents with the open space and trail sys- tem. The trail system would link to the existing public trail sys- tem to the west (City of Tukwila Trail #4) . On -site recreation fa- cilities /areas would be maintained by the project's homeowner's association. 5 ll, % -, t `. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for na- tional, state or local preservation registers known bo be on or next bo the site? If so, generally describe. None to our knowledge. b. Generally describe any l andnarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific or cultural importance Mown to be on or next to the site. None to our knowledge. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: N/A 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site and des- cribe proposed access to the existing street system. Shaw on site plans, if any. Access to the site would be from the north via S. 151st St. and from the east via 65th Ave. S., both of which are collector arterials. b. Is the site currently served by public transit. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Local public transit runs on S. 151st St. and 65th Ave. S. Express transit, transfer points and park- and -rides are located to the south of the /jt. site on Southcenter Blvd. EVALUATION FCR AGENCY USE ONLY c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the proj ect eliminate? Off - street parking would be ac- commodated by unit driveways, which would be a minimum of 20 feet from outside edge of sidewalk to roll -up garage door. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improve- ments bo existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If 9D, generally describe (indicate whether public or private) . The proposal would require construction of a private roadway with associated cul -d -sacs. Roadways would be 26 feet wide. /-267 Jf .t, / -11- • ? N • 0 L n )L./() r `1 yt. 'TO BE COMPLETED BY APP ANT e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail , or air transportation? If so, generally describe. The project should not venerate any extraordinary use of,.water, rail or air transportation. f. Flow many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the com- pleted project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Assuming 7.8 average daily trip ends, per the 1982 I.T.E. Trip Gen- eration Report, the proposal would generate approximately 546 ADT. Peak volumes would generally coincide with morning and evening can - mute times. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None proposed. 15. Public Services EVALUATION FOR AC£NCY USE ONLY a. Db uld the project result in an increased need for public ser- vice (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other) ? If so, generally describe. The proposal would place additional demands on existing public services. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on pub- lic sery ices , if any. None proposed. 16. Utilities ut i es - ail ab - - the atural g - - telephone: ptic 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. Refer to preliminary plat map for a list of utility purvey- ors. All utilities would be available to the proposal with the ex- tension of existing lines. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my know - ledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on then to make its decision. Sig nature • Date Submitted -12- CITY OF TUKWILA Central Permit System MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM S C H E D U L E U L E COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT EXISTING COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION LDR P�Pos Eq COMP PLAN DF�SIGNAT MDR SinglePfamily a iac a ilffeium Qei ity EXISTING ZONING R- 1 -12_0 PROPOSED USE residential development EXISTING USE AND CLASSIFICATION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: ZONE COMP. PLAN DESIG. Low density single 'family ownerships NORTH LDR t- 1 - 2.0, x -z -USE, SOUTH & B -3 TDR MDR EAST x -r -12.0 & WEST R -3 low densrity single d�'Pa�«ily ownerships & medium densit apartments & hign aensity w% special lowrdensity single family ownerships (snort dev. consider- plat) & meriiiwi dPnsi ttiy nnndnmi ni tams a +i nnc IDENTIFY THOSE POLICIES IN THE TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHICH YOU FEEL SERVE TO JUSTIFY PHE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, AND ANALYZE THOSE POLICIES AS THEY RELATE TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. 1 2 PAGE 1l RELEVANCE Approximately 16% of the significant trees identified on -site would be 94 • - 24 27 34 35 35 1 37 - 5 38 2 39 i 47 2 48 .- • .. _ an•scape p an -xi. .i c ema ic- in•i •- - - a es e in enie• Th• endrraxnagercourserwhiich passes tnrougn tne western portion of tne ' to rPmai n day-Kph-I-lad under ea e Proposal e drainage course T1oula incud i pr 0 jec CID uumununl Ly • e pr.pose. commune y open space wou • o Pgran • t. rop° ec�11recreational areas are cenLraiiy d d cam- re y decesslLlt ie ralI roposea in the western portion of the bile wu • _w • V s e o owi g -u _.• • • •• - b �... 1lii• k Lu • ; gynteD ig projV3Sed aseadmefi°u1�'iulensiijiietial teal Aei8 m8nL; fie proposal woula serve bleap 'o j ecat w i lartt a8c$` ieEevi al thn9A . eg. d�n$: t r nt'�otl�ro 's • • a ive p an species w e require es m- n 4 50 = Q°� 1 u � � o d In un i b l✓cwzt a, tii1c!i would 50 bp ,1 minimum of 20' long to the outside edge of the si.ewalk. The proposed units are one & two -story rambler and townhouse units in lr 51 duj11"Y_ triLle r and fourplex buildings. -- -�- - ^••i• • - Ile - - 2 51 55 55 73 1 79 Fiv sa }IIeT2I a igr gwNiIsb tieiet$ ie° Pd -Tnese aesigns L.oi muniky` ifesf .cilXre a rgulahl8- -i'gi61e from the proposed aevel- SVSt_PT i S nrnnnsPr . • .CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU 'TURWILA FIRE DEPARTMENT 675 -4407 aefiu V i 1x;96 42.5 S is- I 1 IZ-t Project Name Project Address Occupancy Group The City of Tukwila has adopted the 1982 Uniform Fire Code. This and other nationally recognized standards will be used. during construction and operation of this / project. (TMC 16.16.120) ' v /2. Fire hydrants will be requited. (City Ord. *729) t 3. Required fire hydrants shall be approved for location by the Fire Department, approved for purity by the Water Department, and fully in service prior to start of construction. A fire hydrant must be no further than 150 feet from a structure; and no portion of a struct- ure to be over 300 feet from fire hydrant. (UFC 10.301 & City Ord. *729) 4. Automatic fire sprinklers are required for thie project. Sprinkler systems to comply with N.F.P.A. *13. Sprinkler plane shall be submitted to Washington State Surveying and Rating Bureau, factory mutual or industrial risk insurers for approval prior to being submitted to Tukwila Fire Marshal for approval: Submit three (3) sets of sprinkler drewinge. This includes one for our file, one for company file and one for the job mite: (City Ord. *1141) 5. Maximum grade is 15* for all projects. 6. Hose stations are required. (City Ord. *1141) 7. A fire alarm system is required for this project. (City Ordinance *1327) Plane shell be submitted to the Tukwila Fire Marshal for approval, prior to commencing any alarm system work. Submit three (3) Bete of complete drewinge. This includes one for our file, one for company file, and one for the job site. 8. Special installations of fixed extinguisher systems, fire alarms systems,• duet collectors, fuel storage, etc. require separate plans and permits. Plane to be submitted to the Fire Merehal prior to start of installation. (UFC 10.301) . Portable fire extinguishers will be required in finie�hed buildings per N.F.P.A. *10. During construction, / fire extinguishers will be required on the job site. (Minimum rating 2A, 10 BC) • 10. Buildings utilizing storage of high piled combustible stock will require mechanical smoke removal per Section 81 of the 1982 U.F.C. A separate mechanical permit and calculations by a structural engineer for roof load Will be required. `1' a required During construction, an all - weather access will be within 150 feet of the building. (UFC 10.301) No building will be occupied, by people or merchandise; prior to approval and inspection by the Fire and Building Departments. y" 13. Adequate addressing is required. Number size will be determined by setback of building from roadway. Four inch numbers are minimum. Numbers will be in color which. contrasts to background. (UFC 10.200) V/''14. Designated fire lanes may be required for fire and emerg- ency access: This requirement may be established at the time of occupancy end /or after the facility is in operation. (City Ord. *1110) !/ 16. Special Fire Department permits are required for such things as; storage of compressed gas, cryogens,. dry cleaning plants, repair garages, places of assembly, storage of hazardous materials, flammable or combustible liquids or solids, LPG, welding end cutting operations, spray painting, etc. (UFC 4.101) � //'.1.6. Miscellaneous requirements: /V,/v 047414-4"40/1 //( td-e Rec. sad? CITY OF TUKWILA • PERMIT NUMBER • CONTROL NUMBER CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM = ROUTING FORM TO: ❑ PROJECT ADDRESS BLDG.. ❑ PLNG. ❑ P.W. .151 . h-th ot Er/FIRE ❑ POLICE ❑ P: &.R. au_ 0 . • �CctE 07() a(. so.:-7 ? c9--< 3� DATE TRANSMITTED (�Z RESPONSE REQUESTED BY C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATORk/X__ RESPONSE RECEIVED PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH THAT CONCERN IS NOTED: 9$3 ern ee $ vs, Sp Re S s s © i" 4* /7et- -, 7 Z liej -od. /0 C,/ 1-4 /vo 6ts+ t(c�4 /5- 90 4w--06.10 142 �Q u, lam- �� 0 0 ❑ ❑ _ ❑ 7g Pi) i7'–s — -i zarr -e /o R z ❑ ❑ -115 7 - l 000. C cs ❑ ❑ h-ovo Q ra E_.S ❑ 7(900 0 0 D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED ❑ PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED 0 PLAN APPROVED ❑ PLAN CHECK DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY r P rnoM • CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM • CN___721-3!0 E P I C__Z4 -X5 FILE -jet J -q-CM) 53-P3)57, TO: [ 1 BLDG I/1 PLNG � P.W. II FIRE (POLICE El P �: R PROJECT /lam/_' 7 LOCATION 0 /,� 7 , - / /,): a -i, �S DATE TRANSMITTED FILE NO. SPONSE REQUESTED BY STAFF COORDINATOR L`' ,LD/ //eLJ dYlk, ESPONSE 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 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Construction and maintenance of any residential development would deplete ener- gy and natural resources. In a higher residen- tial land use designation, the potential for this impact would be greater. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resourses are: See attached. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? N/A Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: N/A 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, inclduing whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The proposed rezone /comprehensive plan amendment could stimulate conversion of surrounding, undeveloped properties to higher land use designations. /AIIJL(i /,% ).</ tr ('L/ f l Evaluation for Agency Use Unly • • Evaluation for Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts area: None proposed. Redesignation of the property and some of the nearby properties to medium density residential land use catagor- ies could provide for a smoother transition be- tween surrounding incompatible land uses in the area (i.e. high and low density residential). How does the proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan? N/A 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities?Any re- sidential development of the property would in- crease demands on transportation, public ser- vices and utilities. Redesignation of the ro- perty to a higher residential land use would al- low for development which would place even grea- ter demands on these systems. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: None proposed. These systems are adequate to handle the intensity of residential develop- ment permitted with the land use redesignations. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Not to our knowledge. Agency Use Only • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? The proposal could be seen to be in conflict with policy 3 on page 46, which prohibits spot zoning. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: While the proposed rezone/comprehensive plan amendment would allow for a more intensive residential use—TH-an presently exists to the north, southeast and northwest of the subje-cE property, medium and high density residential uses exist to the east, south and southwest. ere ore, a me ium ensi y residential desig- nation, such as the R -2 /medium dens -ice proposed would serve as a transitional area. As a P.R.D. development, potential conflicts with lower den- sity neighboring properties would also be min- imized. -21- TO,BE COMPLETED BY APPLICS 0 Evaluation for Agency Use Only E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT ANO NON PROJECT PROPOSALS The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental infor- mation provided and the submitted plans, documents, suppor- tive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal? See attached. 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? The character of the proposed devel- opment could be achieved to some extent by de- veloping the site in single family detached housing. The proposed density could be accom- plished via apartment type buildings which would in turn yield large common open space and buffer areas. 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: The proposal is the pre- ferred course of action, since the desired char - acter density and transitional qualities sought could all be achieved with the plan. If the site were developed in single family detached housing, the density and transitional quality desired in the development would not be possi- ble. it the site were developed in apartment - type buildings, a conflict would result with the existing adjacent low density single family detached housing. • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 4. noes the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? The proposal potentially con- flicts with policies 1 and 3 on page 26, rela- ting. to development and topography (also. refer to response 8 of supplemental sheet for non - project actions). Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: Where development is proposed on slopes in excess of 20 %, engineering and soils studies 6g) will be provided to assure the feasibility of 11��' development and the adequacy of construction. In order to accommodate a development of the size proposed, it will be necessary to alter the site's natural landform .to.achieve_ proper grade. AlA9 transition, drainage and structural stability. (J/ The significant landform on site, the ravine b�<v and drainage course located in the western portion of the site, will be generally preserved, however. -23- RECEIVED cfTY OF 11JKINII.A JAN 16 1986 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY SCHNEIDER HOMES, INC. MAPLETREE VILLAGE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON E -2739 FOR SCHNEIDER HOMES, INC. Earth Consultants Inc. Professional Personnel Schneider Homes, Inc. c/o Group Four, Inc.. 19502 -56th Avenue West Lynnwood, Washington 98036 Attention: Mr. Jim Egge Gentlemen: January 8, 1,986 E -2739 We are pleased to submit herewith our report entitled "Geotech- nical Engineering Study, Schneider Homes, Inc., Mapletree Village, Tukwila, Washington." This report presents the results of our field exploration, laboratory tests, analysis and engineering judgement. The purpose and scope of our study was outlined in our proposal dated September 5, 1985. This report has been prepared for specific application to this project in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering •practices for the exclusive use of Schneider Homes, Inc. and their representatives. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. We recommend that this report, in its entirety, be included in the project contract documents for the information of the contractor. The following sections of this report describe our study and contain recommendations regarding foundation design criteria, earthwork considerations, and site drainage. PROJECT DESCRIPTION At the time our study was performed, the site and proposed building locations were as shown schematically on the Test Pit Location Plan, Plate 2. Based on discussions with you, and details shown on the Site Development Plan and Grading Plan prepared by Group Four, Inc., we understand that twenty three (23) one or two story buildings containing seventy (70) single - family housing units will be constructed. Access to the development will be provided by construction of South 152nd Street and 64th Avenue South. Schneider Homes, Inc. January 8, 1986 E -2739 Page 2 If any of the above development criteria change, we should be consulted to review the recommendations contained in this report. In any case, it is recommended that Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI) provide a general review of the final design. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The approximately ten acre site is located north of the Southcenter Shopping Mall at the southwestern intersection of 65th Avenue South and South 151st Street in Tukwila, Washington. Two structures exist on the otherwise wooded hilltop site. The northeast structure is presently occupied where as the structure located in the southeastern corner is abandoned. The site is characterized by relatively high ground in the north, central and eastern portions and low wet boggy ground in the west and southern areas. Surface water drainage from adjacent high areas to the north enters the site near the northwestern corner, creating a seasonal stream with associated ponding throughout the low ground of the western portion of the site. This stream flow exits the site near the southwestern corner via a culvert. The southern low ground apparently collects only surface runoff from the site. This area drains slowly through a swale extending to the south between existing residences. The high ground is dominated by three rock knobs or peaks about twenty (20) feet in height that extend across the property center from northwest to southeast. The remainder of the high ground is flat lying to gently sloping. The northcentral part of the site has been cleared of trees and now has a secondary growth of blackberry brush, grasses and weeds. The remainder of the site is covered with trees consisting of alder, maple, fir and cedar. Low areas contain abundant willow, alder, vine maple and cottonwood trees. Marsh areas have a growth of buttercup, reeds and skunk cabbage. Subsurface The site was explored by excavating twelve (12) test pits and a trench at the locations shown on Plate 2. Logs of the test pits, Plates 4 through 11, present a detailed description of the conditions encountered at each location explored. A description of the field exploration methods and laboratory testing program is included in this report following the Discussion and Recommendations section. Following is a generalized description of the subsurface conditions encountered. Earth Consultants, Inc. Schneider Homes, Inc. January 8, 1986 Soils at the site lying the upland area clays, silts and sands' different types of rock E -2739 Page 3 consist of highly weathered bedrock under - and thick accumulations of _peat, alluvial underlying the low ground. In general, two formation were encountered on the site. The most prevalent rock type encountered on the site is sedimentary in origin. It is weak to moderately cemented and highly weathered to approximately ten feet in depth. Grain sizes range from siltstone and fine sandstone in the northern part of the site, as demonstrated by Test Pits TP -1, TP -2, TP -3 and TP -11, to coarse sandstones and boulder conglomerates found in Test Pits TP -6, TP -7, TP -10 and TP -12. In the coarser materials many of the, pebbles were entirely weathered to soil and even the boulders had numerous concentric weathering rinds: Within the weathered fine fraction only a brown unit color and some iron staining on bedding planes and joints were observed. These types of bedrock are comparable to the glacially consolidated soils of the region. The second rock type is of igneous origin and is described as a porphyritic andesite. It was encountered in Test Pits TP -4 and TP -5 and the test trench. Surficial exposure of the andesite corresponds with the hill peaks and trends west by northwest across the site. Test pit and trench observations indicate a layer of approximately thirty five (35) to forty (40) feet in . thickness, tilted toward the southwest at approximately 30 to 35 degrees from the horizontal. Weathering in this unit is highly irregular and is dependent on the joint or fracture density. The two marshy areas adjacent to the western and southern property boundaries contain peat and soft organic soils to depths of twelve (12) feet or more. Underlying the organic soils are saturated silty sand and gravel layers as encountered in Test Pits TP -8 and TP -9. Groundwater. Groundwater seepage levels observed while excavating are shown on the test pit logs. The groundwater level is not static, thus one may expect fluctuations in the level depending on the amount of rainfall, surface water runoff, and other factors. Generally the water level is higher in the wetter winter months. Some seepage may be expected into excavations in permeable soil layers, especially during wet weather. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General A site development diagram and grading plan were received on November 6, 1985. These documents indicate a multi- family Earth Consultants, Inc. Schneider Homes, Inc. January 8, 1986 E -2739 Page 4 development comprised of seventy (70) units in groups of two to four units. In general, units located at the western (Units 1 through 18) and southern (Units 19 through 34) margin of the development will be located primarily on fills extending over existing peat deposits. Based on the proposed finished floor . elevations, fill will vary from five (5) to twenty eight (28) feet in depth. Exceptions to these generalizations occur at Units 1 and 2 with four feet of cut (4'C) and one foot of fill (1'F), Units 9 through 11 with 17'C and 28'F, Units 31 and 32 with 8'C and 5'F and Units 33 and 34 with 10'C and 0'F. Similarly, units located near the interior, northern and eastern margin of the development will be founded primarily on cut sections up to thirty (30) feet in depth. Exceptions occur at Units 35 and 36 (23'C, 5'F), Units 45 through 47 (2'C, 11'F) and Units 48 through 50 (7'C, 13'F). In addition, most of the planned roadways will be located in cuts up to twenty six (26) feet in depth. Cut excavations will occur for the most part in soil materials or relatively soft, weakly cemented sedimentary rock. The soil and soft rock are expected to be .rippable and normally excavated using customary equipment and techniques. Excavations in the vicinity of the three rock peaks, trending west by northwest across the site, will occur in hard igneous rock described as a, porphyritic adesite. ECI's interim report, dated October 7, 1985, expressed the belief that the upper. fifteen (15) to twenty (20) feet of andesite would be rippable with heavy equipment on a relatively large working face. Depending upon the tightness and spacing of joints in the hard rock mass, excavations below fifteen . (15) feet or on small working faces, such as utility trenches, may encounter difficulty. Based on the grading plan, hard andesite excavations are expected for site grading,_ foundations, buried utilities, and access roadways at Units 37 through 42,. 52 and 53. A potential for similar hard rock conditions also exists for Units 9, 10, 11, 35, 36, 43, 44 and 51. The low marshy areas adjacent to the west and south property boundaries will be partially covered by fill supporting housing units and the South 152nd Street roadway. Peat and soft organic soil deposits in these areas will be subject, to vertical and lateral displacements as a result of loads imposed by the fill. ECI's interim report suggested three potential procedures for the placement of the required fill materials.. The first and most positive procedure would entail the removal of all soft organic deposits prior to the placement of any overlying fill. Based on the proposed grading plan and assuming a maximum depth of twelve (12) feet, we estimate that approximately 34,000 cubic yards of material would be removed and replaced by this option. Excessive settlements in the compressible soils can be reduced by pre - loading the marshy areas with fill material. Fill would be Earth Consultants, Inc. Schneider Homes, Inc. January 8, 1986 E -2739 Page 5. placed to a height of three to four feet above planned finished grade elevation and allowed to settle for a period presently estimated to be from two to three months. Actual settlement times would be determined by monitoring the rate and magnitude of movements. Maximum settlement for twelve (12) feet of organic soils under the maximum fill depth of twenty six (26) feet is estimated to be on the order of four feet. Erection of any structures, roadways or buried utilities would be delayed until the risk of substantial damage has been reduced to limits acceptable. by the owner. The pre - loading scheme has been widely used for - .:;similar deposits in the Puget Sound area but does carry a greater degree of risk than removal of the organic soils. A third alternative for treatment of the soft organics is based on their displacement by a mud -wave action during the placement of fill. This procedure requires that the materials being displaced experience shear failure due to loading imposed by the new fill. The leading edge of fill is advanced as the soft soils fail and are laterally displaced. Our general experience indicates that fill heights of ten (10) to fifteen (15) feet may be necessary to initiate and maintain the failure mechanism. The success of this technique is largely dependent upon the composition and texture of the materials being displaced. In peaty and organic soils, both characteristics will vary widely throughout the deposits and as a result, the mud -wave technique must be planned in association with and closely monitored by an experienced geotechnical engineer. Provisions should be readily available for modifications to the procedure based on the observed performance. The major risks of this procedure occur from entrapment of compressible soil pockets within the fill and the uncertainty of complete displacement below the fill. Theoretically, the quantity of displaced and fill materials should be nearly equal to the removal procedure quantities. The fill should be monitored for several weeks after completion before structures or facilities are erected. Site Preparation and General Earthwork The building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleaned of all slabs, trees, existing utilities, debris and any other deleterious material. In general, a stripping depth from six (6) to twenty four (24) inches will be required except in rock and marsh areas. Stripped materials should be removed from the site or stockpiled for later use in landscaping, if desired. The stripped materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill. Structural fill is defined as any fill material placed under buildings, roadways, slabs, pavements, or any other load bearing areas. Earth Consultants, Inc. Schneider Homes, Inc. January 8, 1986 E -2739 Page 6 Following the stripping operation, the exposed ground surface should be proofrolled. All proofrolling should be performed under the observation of a representative of ECI. Soil in any loose or soft areas should be removed and replaced with structural fill to a depth that will provide a stable base for overlying fill or structures. Hill side slopes steeper than 4:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) should be properly benched prior . to the placement of any overlying fill material. The vertical depth of benching should be equal to or greater than the compacted thickness of the fill lift or layer. The horizontal bench surface should have an outward slope of less than 5 percent. A 6:1 (H:V) transition from cut to fill section should be provided for the upper twelve (12) inches of fill supporting structures or roadways and in buried utility trenches. All fill materials should be placed in horizontal lifts or layers not exceeding twelve (12) inches in compacted thickness unless adequate compactive effort for thicker lifts can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer. Fill lifts less than twelve (12) inches may be necessary to achieve the required compaction density. The moisture content of fill materials should not vary more than 5 percentage points from the optimum moisture content determined by the laboratory compaction test standard. Structural fill under floor slabs and footings should be compacted to a minimum density equal to or greater than 95 percent of the maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D -1557 (Modified Proctor). Fill under pavements and walks should be compacted to 90 percent of the maximum density except for the top twelve (12) inches which should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum density. At the time of our exploration, the moisture content of on -site soils was near the optimum moisture content and could be used as structural fill provided that grading operations are conducted during relatively dry weather. However, the on -site soils contain a significant amount of fine material smaller than the No. 200 sieve size and thus, are moisture sensitive. Compaction and grading operations will be difficult if the soil moisture exceeds the optimum moisture content. Therefore, unless the moisture content can be controlled, it may be necessary to import granular soil for structural fill. Natural moisture contents can be reduced by aeration in dry weather and by using lime or cement stabilization. Ideally, structural fill which is to be placed in wet weather should consist of a granular material with a maximum particle size of three inches and no more than 5 percent fine material passing the No. 200 sieve. Earth Consultants, Inc. Schneider Homes, Inc. January 8, 1986 Foundations E -2739 Page 7 The proposed structures may be supported on conventional conti- nuous and spread footings bearing on at least one foot of structural fill or recompacted native soil. Overexcavation of soil and rock in cut sections below the footings should be required to decrease the magnitude of differential settlements. Fill placed under footings should extend outwards from the edge of the footings on a 1:2. (H:V) slope. Exterior footings should be bottomed at a minimum depth of eighteen (18) inches below the lowest adjacent outside finish grade. Interior footings may be at a depth of twelve . (12) inches below the top of the slab. Footings bearing on structural fill as recommended may be designed . for a bearing pressure of twenty five hundred (2500) pounds per square foot (psf). Continuous and individual spread footings should have minimum widths of twelve (12) and eighteen (18) inches, respectively.. A one -third increase in the above bearing pressures may be used when considering short term wind or seismic loads. Excluding the effects of soft organic deposits below the fill, it is anticipated that total settlements of footings founded on a maximum of twenty eight (28) feet of fill will be about 2.7 inches. Footings founded within twelve (12) inches of the rock surface will demonstrate negligible settlements. Therefore, maximum differential settlements on the order of two and one -half inches may be possible. Continuous footings located in cut -fill transition zones should be considered for additional reinforcement to reduce the possibility of structural damage due to differential settlement. 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 frictional coefficient of 0.35 may be used between the structural foundation concrete and the supporting subgrade. The passive resistance of undisturbed natural soils and well compacted fill may be taken as equal to the pressure of a fluid having a density of three hundred fifty (350) pounds per cubic foot (pcf). We recommend that drains be placed around all perimeter foot- ings. The drains should be constructed with a four inch diameter perforated pipe bedded and covered with free draining gravel. The drains should have a positive gradient towards suitable discharge facilities. The footing drainage system should not be tied into the roof drainage system until the drains are tightlined well away from the building. The footing excavation should be backfilled with granular soil except for the top foot which should be backfilled with a relatively impermeable soil such as silt, clay Earth Consultants, Inc. Schneider Homes, Inc. January 8, 1986 E -2739 Page 8 or .topsoil. Alternatively, the surface can be sealed with asphalt or concrete pavements. Slab -on -Grade Floors Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on the compacted structural fill. Disturbed native soils should be recompacted or replaced with structural fill. A subgrade reaction modulus of two hundred (200) pounds per cubic inch may 'be used for slabs bearing on the specified structural fill. The slab should be provided with a minimum of four inches of free draining sand or gravel as a capillary barrier. We also recommend that a vapor barrier, such as 6 mil plastic membrane, be placed beneath the slab to reduce water vapor transmission through the slab and the resultant moisture accumulation. Two inches of sand may be placed over the membrane for protection during construction and to aid in curing of the concrete. 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 forty (40) pcf. If walls are to be restrained at the top from free movement, a uniform force of one hundred (100) 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 fifty (350) pcf and a coefficient of 0.35 for frictional resistance. The wall pressures apply only for a maximum wall height of ten feet. 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. The wall backfill should contain no more than 5 percent silt or clay sized particles ,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 may be used. We recommend the use of footing drains at the base of all retaining wall footings. The footing drains should be surrounded by at least six .. inches of one inch minus washed rock, and provided with a positive gradient towards suitable discharge facilities. The pipe invert should be at least Earth ,Consultants, Inc. Schneider Homes, Inc. January 8, 1986 E -2739 Page 9 as low as the bottom of the footing. For retaining walls, other than basement walls, weepholes can be used. The weepholes should be as low as possible to maintain drainage behind the walls. When weepholes are provided, all backfill within eighteen (18) inches of the weephole should consist of one inch minus washed rock. Excavations and Slopes In no case should excavation slopes be steeper or higher than the limits specified in local, state and, national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts greater than five feet in height should have an inclination no steeper than 1.5:1 (H:V). As an alternate to open cuts, temporary shoring can be used in conjunction with vertical cuts. Detailed criteria for shoring systems can be developed later, if needed. All permanent cut and fill slopes should be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). These recommendations are applicable to slopes with a maximum height of thirty (30) feet. If higher slopes are anticipated, ECI should be contacted to review the design and construction criteria. It is also recommend that ECI examine all excavated slopes to evaluate actual exposed conditions. Supplementary 'recommendations can be developed, if needed, to improve stability, including flattening of slopes or installation of surface or subsurface drains. In any case, water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top or down the face of any slopes. 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. Site Drainage Groundwater was encountered only in test pits excavated in low areas of the site. However, it has been our experience that groundwater levels can change significantly due to changes in precipitation, surface drainage alteration or other factors. If seepage is encountered in any excavation, the water should be drained away from the site by the use of ditches, perforated pipe, or by pumping from sumps at the low point of the excavation. Appropriate locations for subsurface drains, if needed, can be established during grading operations by a representative of ECI, at which time the -seepage areas, if present, may be more clearly defined. . The site surface and all excavations should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where Earth Consultants, Inc. Schneider Homes, Inc. January 8, 1986 E -2739 Page 10 buildings, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. During construction, loose surfaces should be sealed at night by compacting the surface soils to reduce infiltration rates. Final site grades should allow for drainage away from the building foundations. We suggest that the ground be sloped 3 percent for a distance of at least . ten feet away from the buildings except in areas that are to be paved. 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 of maximum density . and are stable at the time of construc- tion. Additional structural fill and /or geotextile fabric may be needed to stabilize soft, wet or unstable areas. 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 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 will be adequate. The minimum pavement section for lightly loaded traffic and parking areas should consist of three inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over four inches of crushed rock base (CRB) or three inches of asphalt treated base (ATB). Heavier loaded areas may require thicker sections. ECI will be pleased to assist you in developing appropriate pavement sections or specifications for heavy traffic zones, if needed. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Our field exploration was performed on September 11, 13, 16, and 24, 1985. The subsurface conditions were explored by excavating twelve (12) test pits to a maximum depth of sixteen (16) feet below the existing surface at the approximate locations shown on Plate 2. The locations of the test pits were approximately determined by measurement from survey located features. Elevations of test pits were approximately determined by comparison with contour map. The locations and elevations of the test pits should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. The field exploration was continuously monitored by an engi- neering geologist from our firm who classified the soils encountered, maintained a log of each test pit, obtained representative bulk soil samples and observed pertinent site features. Soils were classified visually in the field according to the Unified Soil Classification System which is presented on Plate 3, Legend. The consistency of the soil was estimated based on torvane and penetrometer tests, the effort required to excavate Earth Consultants, Inc. Schneider Homes, Inc. January 8, 1986 E -2739 Page 11 the soil, the stability of the trench walls and other factors. Logs of the individual test pits are presented on Plates 4 through 11, Test Pit Logs. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and the results of the laboratory examination and test of field samples. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundary between soil types. In actuality, the transition may be gradual. Representative soil samples were placed in closed containers and returned to our laboratory for further examination and test- ing. Visual classifications were supplemented by index tests such as Atterberg Limits on representative samples. LIMITATIONS Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, selective laboratory testing, analyses and engineering judgement. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of practice. No warranty is expressed or implied. The recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the test pit's. Soil and groundwater conditions between test pits may vary from those encountered by the test pits. The nature and extent of variations between test pits may not become evident until construction. If variations then appear, ECI should be allowed to reevaluate the recommenda- tions of this report prior to proceeding with the construction. Additional Services It is recommended that ECI provide a general review 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 Earth Consultants, Inc. be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction. Because of the nature of this project and the the soil conditions, ECI does not accept responsibility for the performance of the foundation or earthwork unless we are retained to review the construction drawings and specifications, and to provide construction observation and testing services. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications or rec- ommendations and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of con- struction. Earth Consultants, Inc. Schneider Homes, Inc. January 8, 1986 E -2739 Page 12 The following plates are attached and complete this report: Plate 1 Vicinity Map Test Pit Location Plan Legend Plates 4 through 11 Test Pit Logs Plate 12 Atterberg Limits Respectfully submitted,• LTANTS, INC. JJM /RSL /tm Plate 2 Plate 3 %% S T LEV hn J. oran, P.E. ; Project ager Ro S. Levinson, P. E. /ONAL.� � - ___, ,# at t cc: Schneider Homes, Inc. Attn: Gerald Schneider President Earth Consultants, Inc. Reference : King County / Map 41 By Thomas Brothers Mops Dated 1986 Earth Consultants. 'GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY Vicinity ' Map Proposed Multi Family Residences Tukwila, Washington Proj. No. 2739 !Date Nov '85 Plate „Ti S. 151 st STREET 0 Approximate Scale 40 130 LEGEND 160ft. Ili TP-7 Approximate Test Pit Location Proposed Building ;Reference : Site Plan By Group Four, Inc. Undated Consultants Inc. Earth GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY Test Pit Location Plan Proposed Multi Family Residences Tukwib, Washington Proj. No. 2739 I Date Nov. '85 I Plate 2 MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH SYMBOL LETTER SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION Coarse Grained Soils . More Than 50% Material Larger Than No. 200 Sieve Size Gravel And Gravelly Soils More Than 50% Coarse Fraction Retained .On No. 4 Sieve Clean Gravels (little or no fines) .04 °.4d° °.o a > ee ..... ; , ° ° - - - °el" ° GW 1 gW Well- Graded Gravels, Gravel -Sand Mixtures, Little Or No Fines ' :0: :e::11:: aI, • •• • •• • •• Gp gp Poorly-Graded Gravels, Gravel - Sand Mixtures, Little Or No Fines Gravels With Fines( appreciable amount of fines) GM gm Silty •Gravels, Gravel- Sand- Silt Mixtures • 0 GC gC . Clayey Gravels, Gravel - Sand- Clay Mixtures Sand And Sandy Soils More Than 50% Coarse Fraction Passing No.4 Sieve Clean Sand ( little or no lines) a o °p000 a oe °O 00 °o 000. 0 0 SW SW Well - Graded. Sands, Gravelly Sands, Little Or No Fines ........ ::, ;;; ; : :. �,:: SP Sp Poorly-Graded Sands, Gravelly -Sands, Little Or No Fines Sands With Fines (appreciable, amount of fines) SM SM • Silty Sands, Sand - Silt Mixtures 9 C Clayey Sands, Sand Clay Mixtures Fine Grained Soils More Than 50% Material Smaller Than No. 200 Sieve Size Silts Liquid Limit And Less Than 50 Clays L Inorganic Silts 8 Very Fine Sands, Rock Flour,Silty- Clayey Fine Sands; Clayey Silts w/ Slight Plasticity Jml L CI Inorganic Clays Of Low To Medium Plasticity, G ravelly Clays, Sandy Clays, Silty Clays, Lean L OI Organic Silts And Organic Silty Clays Of Low Silts And Liquid Limit Clays Greater Than 50 H mh Inorganic Silts, Micaceous Or Diatomaceous Sand Or Silty Soils H Ch Inorganic Clays Of High Plasticity, Fat Clays /, ,"/ ///// OH Oh Organic Clays Of Medium To High Plasticity, Organic Silts Highly Organic Soils ;�' :: _ ..: . ': , ,; _� . PT pt Peat, Humus, Swamp Soils With High Organic Contents Topsoil '''' . Humus And Duff Layer Fill ►••••�•�•�•�•�• Highly Variable Constituents • The Discussion In The Text Of This Report Is Necessary For A Proper Understanding Of The Nature Of The Material Presented In The Attached Logs Notes : Dual symbols are used to indicate borderline soil classification. Upper case letter symbols designate sample classifications based upon lab- oratory testing; lower case letter symbols designate classifications not verified by laboratory testing. I 2 "0.D. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER Tr 2.4" I.D. RING SAMPLER OR 11 SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER P SAMPLER PUSHED SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED 2 WATER LEVEL (DATE) WATER OBSERVATION WELL C TORVANE READING, tsf qu PENETROMETER READING, tsf W MOISTURE, percent of dry weight pcf DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic ft. LL LIQUID LIMIT, percent PI PLASTIC INDEX GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 8< GEOLOGY LEGEND Proj. No. 2739 I Date Sept. ' 85 ,Plate 3 Depth (ft. ) 0 5 10 15 Logged By FC Date 9/11/85 USCS TEST PIT Soil Description Elev. 1 40± W (96) _ .. `,; Dark brown clayey organic TOPSOIL - ml Gray SILT, plastic, wet, soft __ CH Gray CLAY, very plastic, wet, very soft ,�; -. ; sm ml Gray silty SAND and sandy SILT in layers, wet soft to stiff - _ 'Test Pit terminated at 12 feet below existing grade. Groundwater ,encountered at 2 feet during excavation. 1 Earth Consultants Inc. ;111 •GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY TEST PIT LOGS PROPOSED MULTI FAMILY RESIDENCE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 2739 I Date Sept. '85 IPIate4 Depth (ft.) 0' 10 :Lopped By FC Date 9111/85 USCS 20 TEST PIT NO. 2 Soil Description Elev. 170± W (96) Tan silty organic TOPSOIL t Tan to mottled orange sandy SILT in layers, plastic, moist, soft Tan sandy SILTSTONE, occasional coal fragments, highly weathered, closely jointed with black stains on joint faces Test pit terminated at 16 feet below existing grade. No ground- water seepage encounted during excavation. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY TEST PIT LOGS PROPOSED MULTI FAMILY RESIDENCE • TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 2739 I Date Sept. '85 Plate 5 ■ Depth (ft.) 0 10 15 Loyd gy FC Date 9/11/85 USCS TEST PIT NO. Soil Description Elev. 1721 W (%) GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 6 GEOLOGY TEST PIT LOGS PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Proj. No.2739 1 Date Sept: ' 85 1ate 6 M.. Tan silty organic TOPSOIL p C _. 1' ml sm Tan silty SAND to sandy SILT with gravel and occasional boulders, moist, dense, (highly weathered mudstone) Tan to gray SILTSTONE, thin beddled, occasional fossil clam or organic fragments, moderate to little weathered, closely fractured with no stains on joints below 9 feet _ -- -_�__= - _ Test Pit terminated at 15 feet below existing grade. No ground- water seepage encountered during excavation. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 6 GEOLOGY TEST PIT LOGS PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Proj. No.2739 1 Date Sept: ' 85 1ate 6 Logged By FC Date 9/11/85 Depth (ft) USCS TEST PIT NO. Soil Description Elev. 185± 10 15 0 5 10 15 aboll MINN TOPSOIL Tan to gray ANDESITE, porphyritic, deeply weathered, closely fractured with a spacing of 1" to 6" to total penetration of brown stain on joint faces r Test Pit terminated at 5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater ,seepage encountered during excavation. Logged By FC Date 9/11/85 -TEST PIT NO. .5L Elev. 195± 11.1 Thin tan TOPSOIL Tan to orange ANDESITE, porphyritic, deeply weathered, spheroidal into boulders and sandy SILT, closely jointed with deep stain penetration, less weathering below 4 feet -1 Test Pit terminated at 5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. Earth 4) Consultants ha& •GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY TEST PIT LOGS PROPOSED MULTI FAMILY RESIDENCE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 2739 [DateSept.'85 INne 7 Depth 0 5 10 15 5 10 15 Logged By FC Date 9/13/85 USCS TEST PIT NO. 6 Soil Description EIev....165± Thin TOPSOIL. layer Tan silty SAND with gravel bedded fine to medium sand, fine gravel with occasional cobbles dry to slightly moist, dense, highly weathered sandstone Alternating layers of small gravel conglomerate and fine to medium grained sandstone, all very highly weathered, some pebbles reduced to iron oxide below 5 feet .Test Pit terminated at 13 feet below existing grade. No ground - :water:seepage encountered during excavation. Logged By FC Date 9/13/85 TEST PIT NO. �7 Elev.. 145± Earth k° AO ;lit Consultants Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING Q GEOLOGY TEST PIT LOGS PROPOSED MULTI FAMILY RESIDENCE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 2739 Date Sept. '85 Plate Brown silty organic TOPSOIL ml Tan to mottled orange SILT, plastic, contains some gravel, wet, stiff " r ti! -4 � .4— .4- .6. .a. G ;:� P . Tan to gray sandy gravel containing boulders 9 Y Y 9 9 and clay, fine to coarse sands,. boulders to 2', wet, very dense -. .. l ", TestfPit terminated at 8 feet below existing grade. Minor ground- water seepage encountered at 6 feet during excavation. Earth k° AO ;lit Consultants Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING Q GEOLOGY TEST PIT LOGS PROPOSED MULTI FAMILY RESIDENCE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 2739 Date Sept. '85 Plate Depth (ft.) 0 10 15 5 10 15 Logged By FC Date 9/13/85 USCS TEST PIT Soil Description Elev. 142± W (96) pt Brown PEAT, slightly fibrous, wet, soft Ash layer at 1' Gray SAND, thin bedded fine to medium grained sand with occasional thin layers of silt, saturated, loose Test Pit terminated at 13 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 8 feet during excavation. Logged By FC Date 9/13/85 TEST PIT NO. Elev. 142± _:. =`_ °` V't ±_ pt � Brown PEAT, slightly fibrous, contains abundant fine gravel, wet, soft Ash layer at 1' 1: sm ;; Gray silty SAND with gravel, fine to medium sand, fine to coarse gravel, occasional cobbles, wet, medium dense becomes dense to very dense at 12 feet " — Test.Pit terminated at 13 feet below existing grade. Minor groundwater seepage encountered at 12 feet during excavation.! • .F.arth 0./ Consnftants •GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY TEST PIT LOGS PROPOSED MULTI FAMILY RESIDENCE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 2739 Date Sept. '85 Plate 9 Logged By FC Date 9/13/85 Depth (ft.) USCS 0' w.. TEST PIT NO. AO_ Soil bescription Elev. 170± W (%) Tan silty organic TOPSOIL sm Tan silty SAND with gravel, bedded, fine to coarse sand, fine gravel, occasional cobbles, dry to slightly moist, very dense (highly weathered conglomeritic sandstone) becomes moist at 11 feet coarser gravel below 13' r 15 — 20 Test Pit terminated at 14 feet below existing grade. No ground- water seepage encountered during excavation. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING Q GEOLOGY TEST PIT LOGS PROPOSED MULTI FAMILY RESIDENCE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 2739 I Plate '10' Depth (ft.) 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 Logged By _EC— Date 9/24/85 USCS TEST PIT NO. ...1_ Soil Description Dark brown organic TOPSOIL E lev. W 1961 ch Tan to gray sandy CLAY, plastic, wet, stiff becoming dense TestPit terminated at 4 feet below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. Logged By FC Data 9/24/85 TEST PIT NO. 12 Elev. �5± Earth 4) 401/ Consultants Ism •GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY TEST PIT LOGS PROPOSED MULTI FAMILY RESIDENCE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 2739 11)ate Sept.85 Iate 11 Tan silty organic TOPSOIL — r sm Tan to orange silty SAND with gravel and occasional cobbles, dry to moise, dense to very dense Few rounded boulders at 4 feet — I Test Pit terminated at 9 feet below existing grade. No ground- water seepage encountered during excavation. ! Earth 4) 401/ Consultants Ism •GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY TEST PIT LOGS PROPOSED MULTI FAMILY RESIDENCE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 2739 11)ate Sept.85 Iate 11 100 80 x 60 W 0 2 1- 40 20 "— A -Line CL- ML 0 40 LIQUID LIMIT 60 80 100 Key Boring/ Bast Pit Depth (ft) Soil Classification USCS L.L. P.L.. PI. Natural Water Content • 1 5 Gray clay, very plastic CH 57 27 30 57.4 Earth Consultants Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY Atterberg Limits Test Data PROPOSED MULTI FAMILY RESIDENCE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Proj. No.2739 I Date Sept. '85 I Plate 12