Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SEPA EPIC-316-86 - SOUTHCENTER GATEWAY - OFFICE BUILDING AND BASEMENT OPEN GARAGE
SOUTHCENTER GATEWAY OFFICE BUILDING WITH BASEMENT OPEN GARAGE SOUTH 178T" STREET EPIC 316 -86 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 September 24, 1991 Paul Iverson Iverson and Associates, Inc. 11715 S.E. 5th Street Suite 100 Bellevue, WA 98005 PHONE 4 (206) 433.1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor RE: Southcenter Gateway Office Building. Dear Paul, Per your request, I have attached copies of the following items: 1. The SEPA environmental determination and mitigating measures (EPIC- 316 -86), 2. The Planning Dept. design review staff report to the Board of Architectural Review (87- 6 -DR), and 3. The Commission minutes and staff notice of decision that the Board had approved the proposed project and adopted the staff report findings, conclusions and recommendations. Please note that the area has significantly changed in the four years since the environmental determination. Submittal of a building permit application will prompt a staff reexamination of this environmental determination, and may result in a request for additional information and /or additional impact mitigating measures. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 431 -3684 if I can be of further help. Sincerely, Vernon Umetsu, Assoc. Planner Attachments cc: Pace /Beeler /files City of Tukwila 2400 Columbia Center 701 Fifth Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 -7005 Office Of The City Attorney (206) 624 -1040 MEMORANDUM February 13, 1990 TO: RICK BEELER FROM: JOHN F. COLGROVE RE: EPIC - 316 -86 e This to confirm our earlier verbal advice concerning your ability to withdraw an MDNS originally issued on 8/12/87. We have researched the issue of withdrawal and are basically in agreement with Richard Chapin's letter of November 15, 1989. However, there may be overriding reasons for requiring additional information. We have researched the case law, statutes, and regulations, and the only provisions that we have found relating to a withdrawal of a DNS are found at WAC 197 -11- 340(3). Subparagraph (a) provides three instances in which a DNS shall be withdrawn. I understand that the now - proposed project is substantially the same as that for which the MDNS was given, and you have not indicated that the MDNS was in any manner procured by misrepresentation or lack of material disclosure. The only remaining provision for withdrawal relates to significant new MEMO /EPIC- 316 -86 - Page 1 W \JFC \004 -2 information, which is found under sub - subparagraph (ii). However, subparagraph (b) provides that paragraph (3)(a)(ii) shall not apply when a nonexempt license has been issued on a project. In the instant case, I understand that following the issuance of the MDNS the project received BAR approval. "License" is defined at WAC 197 -11 -760. BAR permission or approval falls within that definition and since BAR action is not exempt and requires a SEPA determination, it appears clear that a nonexempt license has been issued on this private project. On its face, it appears, therefore, there is no specific provision for withdrawing the MDNS at this time. However, in spite of the above, the City does always have the power and duty to protect the public health, safety and welfare. There are cases holding that threats to such interests override normal vesting rules and provisions of agreements between municipalities and developers relating to subdivisions. The City should not be required to ministerially process a building permit if it knows or has sufficient reason to believe that the project will constitute such a threat. As we understand it, your new information leads you to believe that such a threat might exist, but that an EIS or some comparable procedure is needed to determine whether such a threat in fact exists and if so, what measures might be taken to mitigate such a threat. If you determine that such a threat does or might possibly exist if the proposed project is built, it is our recommendation that you advise Mr. Chapin that unless he or his client can MEMO /EPIC - 316 -86 - Page 2 W \JFC \004 -2 supply you with sufficient evidence that the threat does not exist or that it can be mitigated, you will have to stand by your withdrawal of the MDNS and require an EIS. If this course is taken, you should clearly state what information causes the concern about the public health, safety and welfare. If this owner /developer is going to be allowed to build a potentially unsafe project, that decision should come from the City Council or the courts. Normally, because of the "public duty doctrine ", the City would not be liable for any damages resulting from processing a building permit based upon information supplied by the developer. However, if the City or one of its officials has actual knowledge of an unsafe condition and allows the project to go forward, liability for damages may attach do to an exception to the "public duty doctrine ". cc: John McFarland MEMO /EPIC- 316 -86 - Page 3 W \JFC \004 -2 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor MEMORANDUM From: Vernon Umetsu v� To: John Colgrove. RE: Information Requested by Rick Beeler for EPIC - 316 -86. Date: December 29, 1989 Per our earlier telephone conversation, I have researched. our files and conclude that we have not received your opinion on the Chapin letter of November 15, 1989. Please send this to us as soon as possible. I have attached the following to aid in your review: A. Rick Beeler information request. B. Chapin appeal of MDNS recision (11/15/89). C. Beeler recision of previous DNS for EPIC - 316 -86; including attachment. D. MDNS originally issued on 8/12/87 which has been rescinded. Please call me at 433 -1858 if I can be of further help. K ril‘00W £Z4 k- ., ! R . N . T 1 0 SUBJECT mops ,$)zt., Offi DATE MESSAGE /..“a17c>i 1\12-Al: \1¼ tzt o( t,E:' -nt_imLi (1,3\tmtk1ct4 act67 evw<3 Nc(),r) re-* OA:Tic-1 11 • k..011\ . /tSE lick\ QS TC2)12._ t240(.0-_-la n !ik\ At at..t.t....• kiiirku&L 114•c (-AO MOMS? LL.,14.4(.214.164. e so cept, (--Quks u cxe... SIGNED lidit-WrzAVIOZ-41(1K) ) I • REPLY ; SIGNED DATE REDIFORM 45 472 SEND PARTS 1 AND 3.INTACT - carbonless POLY PAK (50 SETS) 4P472 PART 3 WILL BE RETURNED MTN REPLY. RICHARD U. CHAPIN (206) 646-8409 Mr. -L. Rick Beeler City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 LAW OFFICES OF Ferguson f Burdell KOLL CENTER BELLEVUE 500 • 108T. AVENUE N.E., 42100 BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004 TELEX: 32-0382 FAX: (206) 454 -5719 (206) 453-1711 November 15, 1989 Re: Determination of Non - Significance (EPIC- 316 -86) Dear Rick: I am in receipt of your letter of November 6, 1989 to Bruce McCurdy relative to the above matter. Please consider this letter an appeal pursuant to TMC 21.04.280. In my opinion, you are without any legal basis on which to withdraw the previous DNS. WAC 197- 11- 340(3)(a) provides for three grounds on which a lead agency can deny a DNS. I am assuming that neither (1) or (3) are relevant. (2) deals with significant new information on a proposal's probable substantial adverse impacts. However, Section 3(b.)(2) specifically provides that subsection (2) is not applicable where a non - exempt license has been issued on a private project. It is quite clear that approval by the Tukwila Board of Architectural review in 1987 constitutes a non - exempt license under the provisions of WAC 197 -11 -760. Clearly, EAR approval constituted a license. The philosophy behind WAC 197 -11 -760 is to insure that once . a threshold determination on a project has been completed, the Applicant can rely on the fact that environmental review has been completed, and proceed accordingly. If review of a threshold determination was always open, this would not be possible and there would be no certainty or finality to the process. It is this same license provision that operates to prevent the making of another threshold determination when application for the building permit is eventually made. I would also point out that, irrespective of the foregoing, the level of analysis which may be appropriate for the apartment project which contemplates units on and over the edge of the slope, . is very different than that which was appropriate for the office building complex, which, pursuant to a letter from the consulting engineer, had the foundations off of the edge of the slope. SEATTLE • BELLEVUE • ANCHORAGE 049A0237 Mr. Rick Beeler November 15, 1989 Page 2 I sincerely hope you will submit this matter to the City Attorney for his determination, as I do not believe our appeal should be heard by the Tukwila City Council, as it is basically a legal question. RUC:cb Sincerely, 0,):1-e,f2 CL„-- Richard U. Chapin -tom �--, c__ CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 November 6, 1989 Bruce McCurdy Southcenter Gateway Associates 1201 Western Avenue #410 Seattle, WA 98101 111(hVE 4 (206)433-1800 RE: Determination of Non - significance (EPIC- 316 -86). Dear Mr. McCurdy, Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor Information supplied in the Rainier Ridge apartment proposal has raised significant doubt about the depth and breadth of environmental analysis required for your proposed office project on the same property. The previous SEPA Determination of Non - Significance (D.N.S.) was made without the level of analysis determined to be appropriate for the apartment project. Therefore, I am withdrawing the previous Determination of Non - Significance pursuant to WAC- 197 -11- 340(3). This decision may be appealed in writing to the Tukwila City Clerk within 10 days of the above date pursuant to TMC 21.04.280. The environmental analyses specified in Attachment A must be submitted to supplement your existing SEPA checklist. After reviewing this information, I will make a threshold determination of significance or non - significance. Your B.A.R. design approval may be affected by this further environmental review as long as it can be constructed responsibly with reasonable mitigation measures. Please contact Vernon Umetsu at 433 -1858 or Jack Pace if you have any questions. Sincere Aka L. Rick Beeler, SEPA Official ATTACHMENT cc: Jack Pace fn‘prrI'_>t G/V 7 Cie of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 June 8, 1989 William Polk William Polk Associates 1201 Western Avenue Suite 410 Seattle, WA 98101 RE: E.I.S. Scoping for EPIC 33-88. Coordinated Permits: 89 -1 -DR, and CN -88 -393 through 398 (Rainier Ridge Apartments). Dear Mr. Polk, I have reviewed the environmental checklist, comments received during the E.I.S. comment period and considered additional information contained in the building permit application. A limited scope E.I.S. is required which addresses the areas of Earth, Air, Water, Noise, Aesthetics, Transportation, and Utilities. The contents of these sections shall dearly evaluate existing conditions, project impacts, mitigating measures and unavoidable adverse impacts in Tight of the City's comments below. Additional analyses necessary to resolve several issues shall be completed and incorporated into the D.E.I.S. Please note that you will be required to virtually complete geotechnical and structural engineering as part of SEPA review, to assure that the steep slope and soils can support the construction and structures. ALTERNATIVES TO BE EVALUATED IN THE DEIS 1. 2. 3. 4. The proposed action. ((WRY i TCMY) Some reduction in the number of buildings. Density may or may not be reduced. Schematic concepts to be submitted for City approval. No Action. A description of Project Alternatives 2 and 3 will be provided to the same level of detail as the proposed action including, but not limited to the following areas: plan view, elevations, cross - sections, and grade and fill plan. Mr. William Polk June 8, 1989 lip Page 2 ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT A. Earth Discussion based on the geotechnical report and the following revisions to the SEPA checklist: a. Terrain is generally steep slopes with a bench; not rolling. b. Steepest slope is 1.67:1 (60%); not 2:1 (50%). c. Boring B -1 shows compressed organic and silt layers at 38 feet. d. wed A geotechnical study and structural engineering analysis will be required to evaluate site stability under existing and proposed conditions. An acceptable engineering safety factor shall be specified and compared with the alternatives , This analysis shall include all down slope areas to the Levitz railroad spur and Southcenter Parkway. The City have Dames and Moore evaluate all geotechnical/hydrological studies pursuant to the scope in Attachment A. Their evaluation -shall be incorporated into the DEIS H4 WSDOT evaluation of the project alternatives should be induded as applicable. This shall include, but not be limited to impacts and mitigating measures surrounding the storm water line running across WSDOT property and into their system. e. Cross - sections primarily running east to west, will be required to show existing and finished grades, and improvements for all alternatives. All retaining wall and rockeries (max. ht. Is 4 ft.) shall be shown. Cross - sections shall show the site at a minimum 30 ft. scale. A second set of smaller scale cross - sections shall show the site, existing and finished grades, and alternative improvements In relation to the remaining down slope area to the Levitz spur and Southcenter Parkway. Mr. William Polk June 8, 1989 • Page 3 • f. The highly erodible soils on site (per Geotech. Rept.) indicates a high erosion potential during and after construction. Additional information on erosion control facilities and implementation schedule must be submitted. At a minimum, this shall include evaluating the need for the following development phasing: i. Acquire easement to construct/maintain /repair the storm water line from the property boundary to WSDOT storm water system and construct storm water line with no detention on site to the maximum extent feasible. Any detention facilities required by WSDOT should be constructed down slope on the flats where failure would not be as catastrophic. If on -site detention is feasible, the engineering design safety factor shall be specified and approved by the Public Works Department. Specific recommendations shall not be limited to actual facility requirements such as double walled detention pipes and a regular monitoring schedule. g. ii. Build temporary on site storm water construction and erosion control systems. iii. Complete on -site road system including curbing. iv. Complete all upslope improvements with immediate connection of roof drains to storm water system prior to start of down slope construction. This would minimize exposed erodible soils and runoff. An "as built" certified survey by a City selected surveyor on the eastem road curb and building foundation locations shall be required prior to starting work on eastem units. v. Phased construction of down slope units as possible. Phasing and construction practices to be per geotechnical study and as approved by the City. At a minimum, construction phasing will probably prohibit disturbing areas 20 ft. west of the existing eastem slope edge until all up slope structures and roads are completed. vi. All drainage fadlities shall be sized for the 100 year event from the site . to a public storm system. h, ALA. FRAM /GR.( w Hex,10 DR i71 R O() Re -few T (AT:71cf/HtivT B. Air Quality s mcc, 4rA ris P'€b let TKO Es. /,S Evaluate the long term air quality impacts from freeway originated pollutants, if any. If none, substantiate with a discussion. Mr. William Polk June 8, 1989 glp Page 4 C. Water a. Storm water runoff will be increased from its current undeveloped condition and diverted into a WSDOT system. WSDOT approval, the storm water line easement, and maintenance provisions must be documented in the E.I.S. b. Assess impacts of up slope water withdrawals due to french drains on building slab settlement in Tight of organic soils; and on slope stability. c. This parcel is not included in storm water L.I.D. No. 17, as was incorrectly stated in the checklist. d. All storm water control facilities and phasing shall be specified and approved by the Tukwila Public Works Dept. and WSDOT as applicable. D. Noise Summarize the JGL noise study. It may be reasonable to simply incorporate the text discussion. Mitigation should include all recommendations. Also as a mitigation measure. JGL will be later retained by the City to work with the architect to ensure that interior 45 dba Leq levels are achieved. Design shall be to a 40 dBa Leq level to incorporate a 5 dB engineering safety factor. JGL work shall be funded by the applicant. Consultant Note:Engineering safety factor is 3 -5 dB. A 5 dB factor reflects the City accepting the maximum 45 dB noise standard recommended by the EPA. E. Aesthetics View impacts of the two project alternatives will be displayed in an easily readable form. An 11x17 inch fold out may be required for each impact picture. Impacts will be as shown on the attached map. These are generally views at a 6 ft. height from City Hall; So. 180th St. at Southcenter Parkway; Andover Park West and Strander Blvd.; and at the southem end of 53rd Avenue South. F. Transportation a. So. 178 St. is not available as a year -round street due to the 21% grades. d. Evaluate the need for specific road improvements to mitigate immediate development impacts, the need for a no protest agreement for the formation of an R.I.D. to provide the project's fair share in resolving cumulative transportation impacts, and pedestrian improvements will be based on the following studies: Mr. William Polk June 8, 1989 up Page 5 • I• Trip generation and distribution of ADT and PM peak hour traffic, and the following LOS intersection analyses: Southcenter Parkway /So. 180th St.; Military Rd. So. /So. 178th St.; Military Rd. So. /So. 188th St. and 1 -5 ramps/So. 188th St. LOS analysis shall be per the latest ITE capacity manual. ii. Vehicle and pedestrian safety analysis of So. 178th St. between the site and Southcenter Parkway. Pedestrian walking routes, school routes, and school and Metro bus accessibility are specific pedestrian safety items to evaluate. iii. Emergency access impairment for fire, police, and ambulance due to weather, 21 % grades, and difficulty to repair failed utility systems when they block access; needs to be identified. iv. Identify King County and WSDOT requirements for new 1 -5 freeway ramps at its intersection with So. 178th St. v. Identify mitigation and funding for safety and capacity impacts. This would include the vehicle, pedestrian, and emergency access; and not necessarily be limited to previously noted mitigating actions on the submitted SEPA cheddist (Le. a tuming lane at the project 'entry). vi. A topographic survey by a licensed surveyor and plan view of the site relative to the proposed development shall be provided at a minimum 50 ft. scale. Spot elevations as shot in the field shall be located. G. Utilities a. Certification of water availability from W.D. No. 75 shall be required. Tukwila fire pressure and flow standards shall be satisfied and documented. b. A gravity sewer system is required. The sewer system capacity to satisfy existing demands is marginal. An engineering analysis of availability at the site and sewer system capacity to satisfy project demand shall be conducted. Horton Dennis (Marty Penhallgram) has recently completed an evaluation of sewer capacity in the area. c. Evaluate the need to provide for the impacts of failed sewer and water systems (i.e. by thrust blocks and double walled pipes, and regular maintenance). d. Identify specific improvements to system opacity to satisfy the immediate needs of the project, and any "no protest' LLD. agreements which should be executed to ensure the project pays its fair share of cumulative system improvement needs. Mr. William Polk • June 8, 1989 Page 6 • All analyses shall be directed City of Tukwila staff, with consultants approved by the City. Resumes, project examples and references shall be required of all consultants. Additional City consultation with a selected geotechnical consultant and structural engineer to aid in project review shall be paid for by the applicant. Vemon Umetsu of my staff will be available to answer your questions at 433 -1858. Specific technical questions should be resolved directly with the appropriate departments. Si cer Attachments cc: Bruce McCurdy Ron Cameron Gary Kacinski Bill Betlach Catelin Williams Rick Lawrence File Beeler, Planning • erector TO: Rick Beeler Responsible Official City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: EPIC - 316 -86 SOUTHCENTER GATEWAY As a mitigating measure, the proposed development is amended to include 100% funding for the design and construction of a left - turn lane on the southbound approach at the intersection of S. 188th street and Military Road. This is due to the projected traffic que on the approach that will impair access to existing properties on and adjacent to Military Road. If the development is phased or delayed until 1991, when King County has scheduled the improvement of Military Road in the area, then the development will commit to a pro rata contribution to the County Road Improvement project affecting this intersection. SIGNED TITLE DATE', 817 ,1$; Jlli. ,lr�I u I ! °, f C: 1987 CIF . OF "s °. J��.'�,'k iLA i=�LA N N,N(r T. WAC 197 -11 -970 MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of Proposal An approximate 84,000 square foot office building Proponent Cantrnn Cnrpnratinn Location of Proposal, including street address, if any North of S. 178th Street and gPnera]ly northeast of the S. 178th Street I -5 overpass. NW 1/4 of Sec 35. Twn 23. R4. Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC - 316 -86 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. E[ There is no comment period for this DNS xcxc This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by August 27. 1987 . The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Subject to the attached mitigating measure. Responsible Official Rick Beeler Position /Title Planning Director Address Date 6200 Southcenter Boulevar• %z_ lya Signature Phone 433 -1845 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 PHO E MEMO RE: i%' �_� .. 1` 1`. PERSON CONTACTED: PERSON CALLING: DATE: 08 3 -3O ,44 INFORMATION IYEMS: Ali Tukwila DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 C206) 433 -1849 August 10, 1987 Thomas C. Howard, AIA William Polk and Associates 1008 Western Avenue, Suite 501 Seattle, WA 98104 Dear Mr. Howard: Enclosed is the measure the City feels is necessary to mitigate traffic impacts associated with the development of Southcenter Gateway. The City has received comments from King County Departments of Public Works, Traffic and Planning. The enclosed condition reflects their comments. We must have concurrence on the enclosed mitigation measure in order to sign the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance. The deadline for receipt of this is Wednesday, August 12, 1987. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, /=(t-/ t _.c._ ! ;(�'f'. -.z% Moira Carr Bradshaw Enc. TO: Rick Beeler Responsible Official City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: EPIC- 316 -86 SOUTHCENTER GATEWAY As a mitigating measure, the proposed development is amended to include 100% funding for the design and construction of a left - turn lane on the southbound approach at the intersection of S. 188th street and Military Road. This is due to the projected traffic que on the approach that will impair access to existing properties on and adjacent to Military Road. If the development is phased or delayed until 1991, when King County has scheduled the improvement of Military Road in the area, then the development will commit to a pro rata contribution to the County Road Improvement project affecting this intersection. SIGNED TITLE DATE ^'y TO p cry / M 0 I.• 1-k 81 4 OS 1-1 .-v I Y t� I< w t 1..-4:\ F Lo-v-- ( S �-- 1e- ! (O 2 d O 5 0 �-� 6.14,4- CI" Stud R !� t �u t°o �..�,.., -r7 P �n 7-, p � O p..'•• \,.0 U t2.4_ s 'T�- -I c L� , t �ca-■ C w t L A Pt 9 8 /8 a M$ •Pr...., ,,, „ ,"G '� SUBJECT S _. r_! G _ O G 4tg...._ 4......c,i,...7 DATE JG - -rn r MESSAGE ( -,�,.e v-e v t �w , - -V4-'- s ,.�. r e Lnn. :� -a.-� -1-+� P� r Gt wrx- r S t S P ✓• o �; i s d y 6 r es o h F, < o ....,S .,`t...x.4+.1T3 a-r t_ci 1 h i S 1p 41 Ian ' e "`"t - ,B v 1, l It . ° I- so w -1=4- 6 d oYO..-4... - - 4-e -e_ i I A - - e - V " see-410,d' SIGNED ,S %B S . 51 /M ' ! ' '7:24v,, 12°0..4 .._ • _ REPLY 4-13 --1- - s,-/- rS • c_47,, � fl 4 K' • e„, T 7oo . -7-4_,...5- -7-4_,...5- r co .,__ i ,rte w.a -,..�� /S % �S ,.,../),„A... '-�' et o `1' �c,-�1 a -C c cM._ `TLJ a1 pv -ocx -c 4. tAJ I t^e.. IA_ w o 4... -W 1 t/� ( i� ` -Ag-4 / s �� vs, ( --4 Qk /141'1, i4 po- /`'rb _ i C (t '' �ti ..: a cc. -. -t:e„ wti �5 f I0-€ V o I tAAA- -,�- 1_-LVLi Y L.w // t Lick. -e- d. -et...) e_ �y w�-w+ /5 p S-�d• 6V" MU G 1 0 1987 _•___ SIGNED DATE / / REt9EF7O (40411T. SEND PARTS 1 AND R 3 INTACT • CARBONLESS POLY PAK (50 SETS) 4P472 PART 3 WILL BE RETURNED WITH REPLY. SUBJECT Lp •tti°'�- C c^-4-"-42.--CL .MESSAGE Cl C t�,t�4- I I 4l 14.1 L-r-� :�'' / s Gt- Sc- 1 '-e. c 1, -,--( w` ✓- o u-2 F A- t s p Iit-0_54e_l o,i- p ov:ci -�- die-tJ o p b 0 V-a---tom S '!° - G --Pe-t: S C. o i ' b v-P y L ✓'L ( bJ iioNED DATE REPLY r-7.-4P-(5\1 e 1,A,tAivim C h A)144-A- 6/LAIVIAtai, kaiFo© Cc OU= zEL0 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING •TRANSPORTATION .PLANNING 6210 144TH AVE. N.E. • REDMOND, WA. 98052 .. (206) 885 -2317 1 July 31, 1987 Mr. Chuck Shields King County Dept. of Public Works Traffic & Planning Division 975 County Administration Building Seattle, WA 98104 r Y FT il.A [ PLANNING GOT.- q! • RE: Southcenter Gateway Office Development (178th east of I -5) Revised Traffic Impact Analysis & Mitigation Requirements Dear Mr. Shields: Gibson Traffic Consultants (GTC) has been asked by William Polk Associates to analyze the traffic impacts of the proposed Southcenter Gateway office development on the intersection of South 188th Street and Military Road, as requested by King County (Traffic & Planning Division) after review of the original traffic report completed by Centrac in July 1986. In completing this follow -up analysis, GTC discovered an error in the traffic assignment which affects the future level -of- service (LOS) with the proposed project at three (3) signalized intersections- - 188th at Military Road, 176th Street at Military Road, and 178th /180th at Southcenter Pkwy. /57th Avenue. This memorandum letter and attached materials summarize GTC's revisions to the assumed traffic assignments, new PM peak -hour LOS at the critical intersections, and recommendations for mitigating measures at each impacted intersection. Revised Traffic Assignment: The component of site traffic which was erroneously assigned to the street /highway system was the I -5 north traffic, which is estimated to "-represent 30 percent of all inbound /outbound daily and peak-hour traffic volumes at the site. PM peak volumes were routed via 178th /176th Street and Military Road to the I -5 /188th interchange to the south in the original analysis by Centrac. A more direct routing,vi "aSoutcenter Pkwy, Tukwila Pkwy. and Southcenter Blvd. toiI- 5north`'_should be taken by most employees at the new office cotnplex. to' .save travel distance (approx. 2. miles) and time. Either`'trave1 route is congested' during the PM peak period, although some additional delays delays could be experienced at the 1 -2 extra 'signals- `along the "Southcenter" route. PM peak turning movement ,.volume summaries (see attached diagrams with project traffic added) .have been revised to reflect this change in traffic assignment to the street /highway system. COUNTS /SURVEYS • SITE IMPACTS • LOS ANALYSIS • EIS • HEARINGS • SAFETY • SIGNALS • PARKING • Mr. Chuck Shields July 31, 1987 Page Two Future (1988) Levels -of- Service with Project: Table 1 compares the PM peak LOS at the three (3) critical intersections for existing conditions and future conditions with the project, which isnow scheduled for completion and occupancy' during. the spring /summer of 1988. l-he_-$.__188th /Military Road signal (King - - - - -- - cCounty - pres n etly - operates- near - capacity- condi-tidrii (- LOS "E") with significant queuing__and delays.. on_ all_ approaches -.during peak -hour periods The, southbound approach (Militaly- Road)has a �singl_e traffic lane and has been observedtobackup north toj 18 -2nd_ Street -- during -the critical_„ PM peak pdriod3. With the proposed office development,,Cthi.s intersect -ion - would- experience Ksomewh-at_ longer - delays (50.2 sec /veh of average stopped delay vs. 45.8 at present)7but continue to operate at LOS "E}' W th- minor) swidening .76f7the.-_north__:1eg = and,re- striping -to- include -a- separate -, --left- tu-rn_lane(_336 h� vpturn left at present; C3..5_vpi with project), th S.would_improve_,to "Cj with only 22.8. sec /veh of average stopped delay for all entering vehicles at this signal. The other King County signal impacted by the Southcenter Gateway project is the intersection of S. 176th Street and Military Road. This signal presently operates at desirable level -of- service (LOS "B ", with V/C of 0.73 and 14.3 sec /veh delay) during the PM peak, and would degrade to LOS "C" (V /C of 0.78 and 15.4 sec /veh delay) with full occupancy of the new 80,000 SF office complex. If the eastbound and westbound approaches were controlled by. separate signal phases (presently 2 -phase operation), traffic safety would be improved but the PM peak LOS would degrade to "D" with the average stopped delay per vehicle increasing to 38.8 sec /veh. The signalized intersection of S. 178th /180th Street and Southcenter Blvd. /57th Avenue S. is within the City of Tukwila. This signal is fully- actuated with four (4) phases of operation, and presently operates at nearly 90 percent of capacity (LOS "D /E ", with 40.4 sec /veh delay) and significant backups on all approaches during the critical PM peak period. The proposed project would contribute an additional 125 vehicles during the PM peak hour to the eastbound approach to this signal, with the LOS degrading to "E" and the average stopped delay increasing by approximately 10 seconds (to 50.5 sec /veh) without any mitigation improvements at this location. If the 3 -lane eastbound approach were extended to the west to accomodate a second left -turn lane and adequate transition for thru /right curb lane, the PM peak LOS would improve to "D" with 36.7 sec /veh delay which is better than existing conditions. RAFFIC Mr. Chuck Shields July 31, 1987 Page Three Recommended Mitigation & Participation by Developer: The following street and /or signal improvements are recommended to mitigate congestion and delay problems at the three '(3) signalized intersections impacted by the Southcenter Gateway development. The percentage of site traffic at each intersection is given in order to provide a basis for proportionate share of funding by the developer, if these improvements are implemented by King County and the City of Tukwila. S. 188th @ Military Road: Providing'an additional southbound approach lane to accomodate the heavy left -turn movement would improve the PM peak LOS from "E" to "C ", with the average stopped delay per entering vehicle reduced by over 50 percent. Minimal pavement widening is required since the existing two lanes are very wide (14 -15 feet) and paved shoulders are already provided. The proposed project would contribute an estimated 39 peak directional trips to this intersection, and thus the developer must contribute toward mitigation per King County Ordinance 7544 (if >10 peak directional trips generated and operating at LOS "E" or worse). The developer's _ "fair share" of construction costs i/,!L would__be 1.5, percent based on the percentage of site traffic tenterin __ - - -. g- this intersection during the _PM peak hou) ( see TM diagram summary). S. 176th @ Military Road: Peak -hour operations at this signalized intersection would only degrade from LOS "B" to "C" with the proposed project, and therefore no mitigation is required of the developer. King County is considering separation of eastbound and westbound signal phases at this location for safety reasons. The PM peak LOS would degrade to "D" with this additional signal phase, and average stopped delays would be nearly 40 sec /veh or LOS "E" per Highway Capacity Manual guidelines. Note: Project site traffic would represent 3.3 percent of intersection volumes during the PM peak, with 58 additional peak directional trips. S. 178th /180th @ SC Pkwy /57th: PM peak operations at this Tukwila signal would degrade from LOS "D /E" to "E" with the proposed office complex (average delays increasing by approximately 10 seconds or 25 percent). Minor reconstruction and restriping of the eastbound approach to provide two (2) left - turn lanes and a thru /right lane would improve the PM peak LOS to "D" with 4 seconds less delay per vehicle than existing conditions. The eastbound approach is presently striped for single left and through lanes plus a right -turn pocket of 8-MOH RAFFIC • Mr. Chuck Shields July 31, 1987 Page Four approximately 150-200 feet in length. The right -turn lane aligns • with the eastbound curb lane on 180th Street east of the signal, but in order to convert this lane to a through /right lane a longer pavement transition would need to be provided on the south side of 178th Street. The developer's share of this mitigation improvement should be proportional to the site traffic generated, or approximately 5 percent. Note: The last available traffic count at this intersection was taken in November of 1983.. The City may want to take a new PM peak turning movement count before implementing this improvement, to confirm that a second eastbound left -turn lane is needed and to determine the funding splits based on more current traffic volumes. We trust that this letter and attached items are adequate in addressing the revisions to Centrac's original traffic analysis, . and identifying off -site impacts of the project and potential mitigating measures at the various King County and Tukwila signalized intersections along 176th /178th Street and Military Road. Please feel free to call me (885 -2317) if you have any further questions or concerns. Sincerely, GIBSON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS 4- Terry L. Gibson, P.E. Traffic Engineer /President . Attachments XC: Ross Earnst, City Engineer (Tukwila) ,/goira Bradshaw, City Planner (Tukwila) Tom Howard, William Polk Associates O°OOQH RAFFIC OHOULUMM TABLE 1 (REVISED) PM PEAK LEVELS -OF- SERVICE AT INTERSECTIONS (Existing vs. Future Conditions with Project) Signalized Intersection 1. S 188th Street @ Military Road (4- phase, C =120) 2. S 178th Street @ Military Road (2- phase, C= 90) 3. S 178th /180th @ SC Pkwy. /57th (4- phase, C =120) Existing Future (1988) Future (1988) Conditions W/ Project W/ Mitigation E (0.94) 1 [45.8] 2 B (0.73) 3 [14.3] D/E (0.88) [40.4] E (0.98) [50.2] C (0.78) [15.4] E (0.92) [50.5] C (0.71) [22.8] D (0.90) [38.8] D (0.84) 4 [36.7] 1 Signal would operate at LOS "C" (V /C= 0.69 and average stopped delay of 22.3 sec /veh) if separate SB left -turn lane were provided (proposed mitigation improvement). 2 PM peak LOS is based on the average stopped delay in sec /veh (shown in brackets); decimal numbers in parentheses are volume -to- capacity ratios for the overall intersection. 3 This signal would operate at LOS "D" (V /C= 0.86 and average stopped delay of 31.5 sec /veh) if separate EB /WB signal phases were provided (mitigation being considered by King County). 4 Eastbound approach would be restriped for two (2) left - turn lanes plus a thru /right curb lane with minor widening on south side of 178th Street. Note: A second left -turn signal head would also be added to the mast -arm support. MOH RAFFIC CHORMakTO • CoMPit,671, BY DPtTe KING Co _ 2/$1,..1., CHECIC .D -DAT%• BY _ 79/2 •bcRTI0N — 7v 1(At6 PRoJE,cT 50 U Jog so-- , Q o oom RAFFIC cpmedimaRrro SHEET „1„_ of 3 FORM -rnn -4 TURNING MOVF-MENT DIAGRAM N E4Z%L 917' INTERSECTION G88 sTfX Loc . No. I INDICATE NORTH WITH ARROW S 18 8 • PIE D. TIME PERIOD 4: i'M DAY 4 DATE m-s..) 74446 t z 5 I :g.�Q� _ - -� 1P0ED03 V,.1 0 29 r--2964- -TIME PER%oD PM PAL 114.0 .O2-> DAY 4 DATE (A16-6"4.41 t• 1116 w/ Piro r1Ec -T' 4-5 10 65 2E 71AFF1 = ?A64-1- 4,-4-6 Rf S /7A CoMPIc,6 7 L3Y x'86 DPtT� .0 U CK ..D .D ATi. • BY 40-;;10 r4 TUICVit4Z 7t-ik gal' -/- Jog No. Q o oom - — - ammo RAFFIC INTERSECTION s /7612,- Sra4b ' 2 L. 0c. _ $WEE'Y ? cF 3 FORM "TM -4 TURN ING MOVFfs',EN T DIAGRAM - NE42%L 9 TIME PERtoD 3' 30- 91- =36 P/t-f DAY 4 DATE .A.) 5/24/84 4 i . INDICATE NORTH WITH ARrRow PED. S -Li; -- _ 1n ®1 imgmliP.Afts• TIME PERtoD PM PAL v2 DAY 4 DATE V60(46141 6 988 w/ P20r- 4 — II9(o; — T LT' 8v s(7S- /UM C. - 235S a- Bo Rf V I }ED 5/79 CoMPtt. • DA-re 13Y - C± X83- - CII%CI{ .D ID AT BY -7/.07 lkocATION PR0.EGT Jog N o. _ 7�,�wWf -PZ v I 1 <50u I -i- ti - C;Ittr S INTERSECTION S- 1 -1(IT Y �,- sc, PAw y Arv6.. 3 L oc . No. 8-01:300H 0© RAFFIC CHOULTMTVO PAD. 51EE'r.3 -or3� FORM -TM-4 TURNING MOVE NAEN''i D1PGRA *�► NE,2%L 9 F l - -L 6783 -4"- u k TIME PERIOD 41-= 00 -5=00 DAY 4 DATE 11,047 'i /23 INDICATE NORTH WITH ARRow --r79 - PED. - {_j4-�E- - 94-9 o o1 2 Si 6-71, NG- PM Pte' TIME PERIOD Fri PgmL' I '4t_. DAY 4 DATE IA/MCP/VI I 38 St80 4-6'7 522 113 �I I 0 322 f 4 I I LTA ovT 27 95 = 279S 14- $1 rY G= 14sI4-/cK t'fu�S4D S /7F CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: SOUTHCENTER GATEWAY CN EPIC 316 -85 FILE TO: n BLDG PLNG n P.W. FIRE n POLICE n P & R PROJECT SOUTHCENTER GATFWAY LOCATION S. 17Rth Street DATE TRANSMITTED June 26, 1987 FILE NO. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY July 2, 1987 STAFF COORDINATOR Moira Carr Bradshaw 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 This checklist is being re- routed due to the length of time which has transpired. The applicant would like to proceed to design review in July. Therefore, we must complete environmental review. We will have a pre- application meeting with the applicant on July 2, 1987. P1 • -ff} WITHOUT :,1`./IMENTS. 0 PER TI-iE AT ACHIED LETTER The drawings af}U:e-.i hereto have Mell reviev.ied an._I accepted by the City of Tult;vi{•:, Fire .x.s.;;'• -. rti= 1_as'ii0„5, JLIctIons or revision; to these drawings after this date wilt voi .i ;.l it , u ,;,: ptanc3 will require a resubrnittal of revised drawings. BY -J U iv 2 9 1487 TUKWILA FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU Final acceptance is suave. inspection by a representative of this dep'.'rtiett n. 7 DATt. � .l 7 Pv. 42A CITY OF TUKWILA c,73 - -r r DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA • • CN ANTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM EPIC 316 -85 FILE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: SOUTHCENTER GATEWAY TO: n BLDG ] PLNG n P.W. n FIRE El POLICE P & R PROJECT SOUTHCENTER GATFWAY J�"l LOCATION S. 178th Straat FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED June 26, 1987 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY STAFF COORDINATOR Moira Carr Bradshaw RESPONSE RECEIVED July 2, 1987 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 This checklist is being re- routed due to the length of time which has transpired. The applicant would like to proceed to design review in July. Therefore, we must complete environmental review. We will have a pre - application meeting with the applicant on July 2, 1987. Please be prepared. DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY �_ C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA. CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: SOUTHCENTER GATEWAY III CN EPIC 316 -85 FILE TO: [j BLDG r--1 PLNG i01 P.W. n FIRE 0 POLICE (-i P & R PROJECT SOUTHCENTER GATEWAY LOCATION S. 178th Street FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED June 26, 1987 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY July 2, 1987 STAFF COORDINATOR Moira Carr Bradshaw 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 This checklist is being re- routed due to the length of time which has transpired. The applicant would like to proceed to design review in July. Therefore, we must complete environmental review. We will have a pre - application meeting with the applicant on July 2, 1987. Please be prepared. LIT IL(TY AVF L ptinL17`9 STI1DA9 Dc FS NO A1D7) RtSS CA-PA err'i F -Tkk>? FX IsT (dJ C6- S 1 ).)PL A MS I Lv s •(,c :"' _ PS "2 .w(L -. E-UL.L 11111 LID <54T Ns -TO Is '1)0v 3 o PM ■T 2170/L0 L(TI LITI >� - SEL 1 S No7 Pir iNu) 'fl U.NtIL'TliIs 01011Arn►11uf.Sis ..Co• /IVA1t- 1113U3 - S 1 X1.8 I S tN '"i'H Ccouf.)T`( A1.10 Pt, A-Q co-A-y Moot FtC-Tio» TeZ. AL5o f\Q QUA € -ft J1 Uia- IU lv(� co ur►i" -/ W 0 k 1L DEPT T - f r1 -'(Y\ I Ci.) C I 1 10)09-4\ ?2111 tF F TzE u 1 ft .s (11 bflE trxPL 11►J ATI DN C. I e . USos c5F, O f-Act L.(Ti t 1 L ' UPP 1)v Pmo"r, \-1O\) tT N-AN D> PPG1 WSJ. DATE tot ? -h ;-s�_ COMMENTS PREPARED BY r, cFF C.P.S. Form 11 LI r S 5U1 $ UIFI)Ci CAh►o1TI DI\° NO-r- /YY)01\ t-c5tio 11'4 P_ K L I S I \o WILLIAM POLIO ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS June 26, 1987 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 ATTN: Moira Carr Bradshaw RE: Gentlemen: • PHEril JUN 26 1987 CITY OF TUKVVil.A PLANNING DEPT. Southcenter Gateway Development Environmental Checklist Review Comments EPIC File No. 316 -86 Please find enclosed the following items in response to the environ- mental checklist review comments contained in your letter of April 21, 1986 regarding the above referenced project. Two copies of a Utility Availability Study dated 6/19/87 prepared for this office by Richard Carothers Associates. One copy of a Traffic Impact Analysis dated 7/86 prepared for this office by Centrac Associates, Inc. One copy of a soils report by Dames & Moore for a proposed borrow pit, dated 6/7/65. Please note that the portion of the borrow pit which conforms to the property under consideration for development in out proposal is at the southeast corner in the vicinity of the 200 and 225 contour lines as shown on Plate 1. The use of this area as a borrow pit resulted in the hillside being cut back to its present configuration. One copy of GeoEngineers Inc. letter dated 4/30/86 reviewing the Dames & Moore soils report of 6/7/65. A section through the site and I -5 indicating view blockage poten- tial was provided with the drawings submitted as part of the application for the B.A.R. review. Included also at the request of Mr. Phil Fraser of the City of Tukwila Public Works Department, is a copy of a letter previously sent to Mr. Fraser documenting the results of a 11/5/86 meeting at 1201 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 410, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 (206)622 -8443 which the enclosed Traffic Impact Analysis and criteria for a Utility Availability Study were discussed. Prior to preparing construction documents for the project, we will have supplemental geotechnical studies made for the specific build- ing location in order to develop definitive foundation design criteria. Please call if you require additional information. Sincerely Thomas C. Howard, AIA cc: William Polk Nate Matasy UTILITY AVAILABILITY STUDY FOR SOUTHCENTER GATEWAY OFFICE BUILDING SOUTH 178TH STREET AND I -5 TUKWILA, WASHINGTON June 19, 1987 Prepared By: Richard Carothers Associates 814 East Pike Street Seattle, Washington 98122 y%.MANO X11 For: William Polk Associates 1201 Western Avenue, Suite 410 Seattle, Washington 98104 (206)622 -8443 JUN 28 1987 CITY OF TUiKW ILA PLANNING DEPT. I. INTRODUCTION This utility availability study is intended to be a working document which will enable all parties involved to understand how the requirements of interested government agencies and public utilities will influence the design and timing of the project. When this document is completed, during the preliminary design phase of the project, all constraints and restrictions associated with utility requirements will have been identified. The design team can then proceed confidently with their assignment and the developer will have an accurate understanding as to the nature of the utility improvements. The study will also serve as a directory listing key personnel within each agency who are familiar with the project and can provide additional information as the need arises. CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. UTILITY REQUIREMENTS 2 III. AGENCY CONTACTS 6 APPENDIX A: WSDOT LETTER 7 APPENDIX B: STORM DETENTION CALCULATIONS 10 APPENDIX C: COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLAN 17 II. UTILITY REQUIREMENTS A. STORM WATER WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - The possibility exists to utilize the WSDOT outfall system north of the site. A permit approval process has been initiated with WSDOT for a utility permit allowing work for this connection. WSDOT agrees conceptually that the portion of the site currently proposed for development can utilize the WSDOT system, see letter Appendix A. An additional approval of plans and drainage calculations will be required from both the City of Tukwila and King County. King County has maintenance responsibilities for the storm sewer utility that connects with the WSDOT system. A justification may exist to waive the on -site detention requirements. WSDOT indicated that their system may have greater capacity to accept the parcel discharge in the moments prior to when the contributing basin becomes fully tributary. There are equally good arguments to not waive the detention criteria and the City of Tukwila and King County may express a different point of view. See Appendix B: Storm Detention Calculations. CITY OF TUKWILA - Due to the steep slope hazard of the site there is a requirement to provide an emergency storm detention overflow for a 100 year storm. This level of protection exceeds the standard requirement which would be for a 10 year storm overflow. The most acceptable means to provide this 100 year overflow capability would be to connect to the WSDOT outfall system. The site currently flows east to a ditch behind a warehouse at the bottom of the hill. This ditch is picked up by inlets at certain points along the west side of a railroad siding. These inlets are determined to be connected to the storm sewer on Southcenter Parkway. The WSDOT system has a much greater capacity to accept the 100 year overflow then do these ditch inlets. There is no storm sewer to the south on S. 178th Street nor are there current plans to provide a storm sewer there. KING COUNTY SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT - The storm sewer that the WSDOT system connects to is being managed and maintained by King County. This is a 60 inch low head pressure pipe (LHPP) which is rated for 25 feet of hydrostatic head. The system is designed for a 25 year discharge capacity. Any additional discharge from the site may need to be detained to increase the time of concentration. Alternately, as stated earlier, if the time of concentration for the site is much less than that for the balance of the contributing drainage basin than a rapid release rate for the site may not cause any increase in the peak discharge of the storm main. A detention design for a ten year storm event is included in Appendix B if detention of the storm water is required. B. SANITARY SEWER CITY OF TUKWILA - The project is located within the sewer service area of the City of Tukwila. The most accessible manhole to the site is to the northeast at the bottom of the hill. The San. Sew. MH location is shown on the composite map (Attachment 2) in Appendix B. This sewer system was constructed by the Sammamish Commercial Co., previous owners of the Southcenter Gateway Site. This line has been deeded to the City of Tukwila in return for good and valuable consideration. This vested interest should allow a connection to the trunk line at this time. The manhole for connection is shown on the record plans as MH #6 with a 12" AC pipe invert out of 15.63 and a depth of 12.50 feet. A review of the comprehensive sewer and water plans would indicate that there are relatively few problems with infiltration in the western portion of basin No. 13. The gravity lines have few problems and would seem to be ample to carry expected flows. A verification may be necessary to assess that the tributary lift station number 2 at Minkler Street and Andover West is adequate to handle the current load. The comprehensive sewer plan has a,plan to provide sewer service on South 178th Street. This project has a moderate priority and is not currently part of any capital improvement schedule. If the demand for sewers in this area prompted the construction of this project, the earliest that service may be available would be 1989. C. WATER, FIRE FLOW KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 75 - This site is not served by the City of Tukwila for water but falls within the service area of Water District No. 75. A review of the plans with the Water District Engineer indicates there to be a 6 inch main on S. 178th Street. This main connects two 8 inch mains, one at Southcenter Parkway and the other at 51st Ave.. South. Hydrant flow tests provided by Water District No. 75 indicate tentative compliance with fire flow requirements. The hydrant test record for the first hydrant on. S. 178th Street on the east side of the freeway indicates 3,000 GPM at 20 psi with 125 psi static pressure. The other hydrant test is from a hydrant on the west side of the freeway at S. 178th Street and 51st Ave. South. This is where the six inch main transitions to an eight inch main. The test at this point indicates 4,000 GPM at 20 psi with 100 static pressure. CITY OF TUKWILA FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY - The project will receive fire protection primarily from the City of Tukwila. Discussions with this department indicate a firm position to not allow anything less than an acceptable fire flow availability. The determination of an acceptable flow is approximately 2,500 - 3,000 GPM. This is applying to a concrete post tensioned floor and roof slab building with fire resistant roofing material, and columns encased in concrete. The flow requirements are the minimum standards of the Insurance Services Organization (ISO) guide. The preliminary value was made by the Washington Survey and Rating Bureau. This authority is the technical consultant used by the Tukwila Fire Department when making determinations of requirements for specific individual projects. Specifically for a concrete slab three story office building of 80,000 square feet, with sprinklers throughout. The main size that most readily supply this flow would be a ten inch. The current six inch main is considered generally inadequate to service this level of development. Pipe velocities of sixteen feet per second are considered high during a fire service flow. At these velocities a ten inch main could supply 7,800 GPM, an eight inch main could supply 5,000 GPM, and a six inch -4- main could supply 2,800 GPM. The hydrant flow test of 3,000 GPM had generated flows coming from each direction with velocities roughly seventeen feet per second. The comprehensive water plan for the City of Tukwila shows plans to locate a reservoir on the uplands west of the freeway. This plan, see Appendix C, shows that a twenty inch transmission line would be available to supply service on S. 178th Street. Until this comprehensive water plan is implemented, we propose that the existing 6 -inch main is adequate for the fire flow needs of the development. III. AGENCY CONTACTS A. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 1 Box No. C -81410 Seattle, WA 98108 Bob Winter, Drainage Engineer 236 -4399 Dick Johnson, Environmental Special Studies 236 -4306 Jim Lutz, Utilities Engineer 236 -4308 B. KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 900 King County Administration Building Seattle, WA 98104 Surface Water Management Division Jerry Creek, Engineer 344 -3874 Ken Gresset, Engineer 344 -3874 C. KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 75 P.O. Box 68100 Seattle, WA 98168 Duane Husky, Engineer Jay Gibson, Engineering Tech. D. CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Public Works Department Phillip R. Fraser, Senior Engineer Fire and Life Safety Doug Gibbs E. WASHINGTON SURVEY AND RATING BUREAU 2001 Western Avenue Seattle, WA Kerm Gastfield Dave Yates 824 -0375 824 -0375 433 -1850 575 -4404 441 -6676 441 -6676 APPENDIX A DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION LETTER V Duane Berentson Department of Transportation Washington State Secretary of Transportation District 1 Office of District Administrator 6431 Corson Avenue South #C -81410 Seattle, Washington 98108 206 764.4141 June 9, 1987 Richard Carothers and Associates 418 E. Pike Street Seattle, Washington 98122 Attention: Mr. Nate Matasy Dear Mr. Matasy: RECEIVED JUN 111987 R!CHARD CAROTHEPS ASSOC. I 5 MP 153.2 CS 1767 South Center Gateway This will confirm the field trip of March 5, 1987 with Mr. Winter of our staff relative to drainage service for the proposed South Center Gateway project in the Vicinity of South 178th Street and I 5. The site generally drains to the east toward a ditch at the bottom of the hill on the west side of the railroad tracks. This is the receiver of the majority of the site runoff. Only a portion of the site would drain to the WSDOT installed outfall system to the north. WSDOT agrees conceptually that the upper portion of the site, the portion currently proposed for deve- lopment, can utilize the WSDOT system. Such a connection may be allowed via the permit process for work on state right -of -way. Permit requirements will include WSDOT approval of plans, detailed drainage areas, flow rates and connection details. In addition, approval must be included from the City of Tukwila and King County. The latter is necessary since King County has maintenance responsibilities for the major length of the storm sewer outfall system. The question of on -site detention for excess runoff is to be addressed to the City of Tukwila and King County. WSDOT cannot waive detention criteria for development without the approval of the local government. WSDOT will accept their judgement on the matter for this site. The time of concentra- tion from the site is obviously much less than that of the balance of the area contributing to the outfall. Thus, the maximum discharge flow rate through the WSDOT portion of the system would be generally less affected if the developed parcel could discharge without detention. Again, any work on WSDOT right -of -way will require completion of the permit process that you have initiated. Plans and calculations, along with the above noted approvals from King County and the City of Tukwila, are required for continued processing. Should you have additional questions regarding the methods of connection, please contact Bob Winter at 236 -4399. Very truly yours 644,y4-?2 MES L. LUTZ, P.E. strict Utilities Engineer ERW : bcd cc: P.R. Fraser, City of .Tukwila J. Creek, King County APPENDIX B STORM DETENTION CALCULATIONS STORM DETENTION CALCULATIONS FOR SOUTHCENTER GATEWAY OFFICE BUILDING DEVELOPMENT AT South 178th Street, East of I -5 Tukwila, WA Site Description: The Southcenter Gateway Office Building consists of a 3 -story building with a land coverage footprint of approximately 27,000 square feet. Approximately 290 parking spaces or 85,000 square feet of additional impervious surface is part of the Site Plan. Proposed Drainage Solution: A proposed detention pipe per King County requirements and guidelines, Figure 6, would be 5 feet in diameter and 176 feet long, see Attachment 1. A discharge line will connect the flow control device to the WSDOT drainage line crossing I -5 in the south canyon. The connection will depend on how the surface water is collected at the site. It is hoped that it's location will be at the siltation basin at the entrance to the 54 inch low head pressure pipe. If the connection needs to be placed down the hill further on the 54 inch line a lateral to an adjacent manhole will be needed. There is a manhole at STA 20 +00, but it is not the normal type for a convenient service tie in. The line uses pressure manholes and a line pressure rating of 25 psi. hydrostatic head. The required lateral may be located in close proximity to this existing manhole for easy maintenance access, see Attachment 2. The Facility will contain the flow for a 10 -year event storm. Normally the flow control structure will be passing the pre - development discharge of 0.93 CFS. An emergency overflow capacity for a 100 -year event will be available. This 100 -year flow would be 5.35 CFS. The discharge line connecting to the WSDOT storm line will need to accommodate 5.35 CFS, but will normally flow at 0.93 CFS. Storm Detention Calculations: The development site is approximately 3.33 acres. The Yrjanainen & Warren method for simple retention /detention design was used. The retention /detention equations and the rainfall intensity duration frequency chart used are those for Seattle and Renton from King County Storm Drainage Requirements and Guidelines, see Attachment 3. STORM DETENTION CALCULATIONS Distance to outfall from most distant point - 280', short grass at S =5.0% Velocity = 1.5 ft /sec, initial wetting time = 10 min. Time of concentration Tc = Ti + travel time Tc = 10 + 280 - 13 min. 1.5(60) Intensity - i = 1.40 in /hr, 10 year storm frequency, Renton - Seattle Pre - development Cavg = 0.20 light grass to bare ground, S =5.0% A = 3.33 acres Qexisting = CiA = 0.20 x 1.40 x 3.33 = 0.93 CFS > 0.30 CFS Requires multiple orifice control structure Qallowable = Qexisting Post development. C, C =0.9 paved areas C =0.2 landscaped areas C = (0.9)(112057) + (0.2) (33026) - 0.74 avg 145,083 Q = Allowable outflow = 0.93 - 0.37 CFS ° Acreage x future runoff coef. (3.33)(0.74) Using a 10 -year design storm and storage requirements for a 3 orifice flow restrictor Peak storage time (min.) T = -25 + 70500 - _25 +\.//// 70500 - 59.96 min. 26.4 Q° (26.4)(0.37) Maximum storage volume (CF /AC) Vs = (282o T 26.4 QT (2820)(59.96) (59.96) +25 (26.4)(0.37)(59.96) = 1404.5 CF /AC T +25 ° Volume Req. = VsxAxCdevelo ed = (1404.5)(3.33)(0.74) limmAavt = 3461 CF required ; ..•g wnS.,‘;••• � Volume Designed 177LF 60" Dia. @ 19.6 SF = 3469 CF -13- 100' MAX. SPACING FOR PIPES 36" DIA. 200' MAX. SPACING FOR PIPES 36" DIA. LACKING LID LOCKING LID OVERFLOW 6" MIN, CLEAN-0 GATE ,C 00I C .' i i /i• 7.. 'i/ Z /ii = ii/ 3 i'/ s' iii g ..oz, iii C ',, S ii/ S //VS',, ml l lh ,l� lay -41 /ILI=2 MIN MIN LADDER STEPS 2'MAX 2'MIN. 0,005 FT/FT1 AIR VENT r- NATURAL GROUND c ''! . / ./r Novi MAX 25' MAXIMUM LENGTH WITH STUB END & VENT L36" MIN, STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN i TYPICAL CLOSED DETENTION PIPE FIGURE 6 LADDER STEPS CATCH BASIN 36" MIN. STORM DRAIN ALL STEEL PARTS MUST BE GALVANIZED AND ASPHALT COATED (TREATMENT 1 OR BETTER) . ATTACHMENT 1 kC7 IR. m- P`A7 E_ PIPE 00 "t: ENC. PAP EX�S'C. ENERGY CABS \PAS 5 1 k _ 1 7 1 . 7 0 1 . 1 IiiNA \N ,p7 ENE PROPOSED STORM/ DRAIN CONNECTION • X U r U PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING 1/ PROPOSED SEWER • CONNECTION SAN. SEW. MH *6 4 1 \ \\\ •s•ij.l`/ /�I - STORM MH STA. 20 +00 c ; SOUTH CENTER GATEWAY —15— SCALE 1' -100' .ATTACHMENT 2 i AREA Seattle/ Renton Seattle/ Renton Seattle/ Renton Seattle/ Renton Seattle/ Renton 7 6 5 4 3 2 0 Type* and Number of Outlets One Two Three Four Five TABLE 1 J ATTACHMENT 3 .STORAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTIPLE ORI1ICES 10 -Year Desi n Storm Peak Storage aximum torage Time(Minutes) Volume (Cu.Ft /Ac) T = -25+ 1762 �o T = -25+17.5R5.6 29.9Qo T = -25+ 70500 21-744o T = -25+0/7g55 25714o T = -25+170500 24.TQo Vs =(2820T)- 40QoT +2 Vs = 2820 29.9QoT (T +25 Vs = 282U - 26.4QoT T +25 Vs =(2820T)-25.1QoT 2 Vs = 282O - 24.1QoT 7+25 25 -Year Design Storm Peak Storage Maximum Storage Time(Minutes) Volume (Cu.Ft /Ac) T = -25+T3 8 Qo T = -25+/85500 29.9Qo T = -25+ 85500 26.4Qo T = -25+ 85500 25.1Qo T = -25+ 85500 24.1Qo * Orifices with equal head pressure between adjacent orifices. Vs = 3420T - 4007 T +25 Vs = 3420T- 29.9QoT +T 25 Vs = 3420T- 26.4QoT T+25 Vs = 3420T- 25.1QoT T+25 Vs = 3420T- 24.1QoT T +25 M.Tseng /L.Gibbons /7/19/85 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ rms■■ m■■ ss■ rir ss a∎ tommsm►■∎■ awrimurom ms■■■■■m■ ■■mmm■■■■mmmmm■■sm■■■■mmmmms■■■ MMEMMIIMMSOMMIMMIIMMEMMUMMEMOMMISMEMEMENNEMMOMMMEMEMMEMMIIMMEMONIMMEMMEMMEMMEMSMOMOMEMEMEMOMMEMSMOIMMOMME ILMONMEMOIMMOMMIMMMOMMEMMIMMIIMMEMMEMEMOMMOMMIIIMMEMIIMMMEMMIIMEMEMMEMMEMIIMMEMEMMINIMEMMONMSEREMMENMEMEMO memmmommemmummommmommummmommilmommommmommommimmummuummommammilimmunimmarnmommummommonums ■► ms■■■■ mmmmr■■■ smm■ s■ mm r■ rmm■ usrmm s■■ m■m ss■■ Erms■ mmm■■■■ rmmsmm rmm■■■ ■■m■■mrmmm■■■rmmm■■ssmm■■■■mmms Ens mm■mms■rmsm■■■mmmmsssriemr, ■o�'rr: etyma■ ■■;. nrssvrr.m mum m»» 7rn7 7nr■r■■■■■■■■r■■■r■■■■■■■■■■■■■ wrommommommannummommamommommummummummommismommommummommommmummuummummilmammimmealummam miammommimmommummommommommumammesommummunimmommommimmommunaminmummummenommernmemmommossommi ■ msommommmimilmommemommiumemminommommommommummimmummiummsmommummommmansommemmomaammmimmommen Rmrmm■s msmm■ o■ rm■■ mr■ rrsm m■■m m■■ mmm■■ mmm■ mmr■■ m■m m■ ms■ mrmm msrsr■■■■ ■r■■■mmmr■ssrmrs■■mr■■■■■m■■■■■ 1arrsm■ smmrm■ s■ mrmm■■ mssrr■ mr■ ■■smm■■■mr■s■s■m■s■■■mssm■■m■■■ mss■■■■ ■■■■s■■s■■■■m■■■■■m■■■■■ms■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■m■m■■■■■■m■■■■u■mm■s■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ Nm■r mm■■■■■ ■m■■■■ ■ ■■■■■ ■umm■m■mammu ■ ■ ■■■mm■■ ■m■mm■■ ■■ ■mm■■m■emom ■ ■ ■ ■m■ ■ ■ ■mm■■■■ ■\■■■■■ Hm m■■■■■m r■ m■■■■■■mm■■■■■ mm■■■ m■■■■ mr■m■mm mm■■ m■■■■m■ m■■■■■■ ■ ■m■■m ■■ ■m■mms ■mm ■■r■mmm■■ms■■r m ■ mm mmmmr■ ommsmm■ omrrmrrmmmm mrrm■ mr■ mmmms■ mms■ mmm■■ rmmmmm■ rm mm mmm ■rmrmm■mssmmmmmmommmsr ■mss■mmr ItSmommosommilmammommumumammomommummemmemmumummummommummummommumminommomommimmommem ■ a■■m■s■■ s■ mm■■■■ m■■■m■■■■ m■■■■■■ m■■■■■■■■■■ mmmm m■m■■s■■ m■■mm■■■■■m ■m■■ ■■m■■m■s ■m■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■■ ■ ■■ ■mm■ ■: ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■m■■■■■m■■■■s■■■ Mans■ s■■ mm■■ mm■■ s■■ ms■ mm■■■■ mrss■■ mm■■ rrmm■ ■■mm■srmmmsm■■rmss■mr■■■■us■■■■ ■- ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■r■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■ r■■■■ r■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■ ■ ■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ MEMOMMOMUMMOMMEMMOMMIMMEMMEMMMMOMEMMEMMERMOMMMEMMEMONMEMEMAMMMOMMEMEMEMMEMOMEMMOMEMMINMEMMEMMOMMIMM mmonmemmulsommammommammummlimmommomminiammommummomminummiumommummommommomommommmumems OMMEMMUMMIIMUMNOMMEMEMESUMMEMEMOUMEMOMMEMOMMOMMEMOMINIMMEMMOMMIIMMEMMEMOMMEMEMMEMMEMOMMEMEMOMMEMMES ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ Nm■■■■m■■■m■■■■ mm■■ mmm■ mm■ m■■■■ mmmm ■rmmm ■mmmm■■rmm■■mms■ ■mms■m■rmm ■■■■■ ■m■■■smm■■■ ■m■■■■■sm■O MOM mrm■ m■■rm■rrmm ■sm■mr■mrm rrrsmm■rrm ■mm■mrmms■■■■rm■mrr smms■rmmm■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■smm■■■um■mmon■■sn■■ ■■■■■■■■m■ ■■mm■■■s■ omma ms ■■■■■■o■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ MAIM sr■■ arm r■■■ r■■■■■■■ r■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ r■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■ ■ ■ ■■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■■mmumr ■ ■ ■■r ■ ■rr ■■■mums ■om■a usury■■■m■so■■ scrum■mm■■■mm■■■■■s■s■■■um■ ■sums■■ ■■mmm■■■s■■■o■■■■m■i mm■■■■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■as■■■■■msmm■ ■■■■ mmmmso ■s■■osss■■sousus■s■mu■■■■■■ ■■■■■ms■■■ rs■■■■■■■■ ■ms■■s■■■ ■■■■■■kMIu■■■■sst =ter : -ter �77i■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■s■■■m■■s■■s■■mm■■rrs■ mmsas■►m►smmmm■■■■r�sim ■ ■m yam s■ ms■ mms■■ mm m■■ sms ■■■■■■■■mmmm■■■ms■■mm■■■mm■■rm■ ns■■s ■ ■r h. ,►E■rmi ■■ ■■ %_� i■2 of °iii■M■iiiiiiiiMMUMMI iiiiiiiiiiiiii� imi�iii°iiii Miiiiii ■■ ■■ ■■►V► \■ ■■■rim ■ ■■I ■■■/"� � mummm■\\■ ■ummaymm■mmmmammuir7_ mmm■ mmm■■ m■■■ r■■ m■ mm■■ mm■ A ■■mmm ■ ■mm■■ =m■■mm ■m■■■■■m■■m ■m■ ■ ■■.aammweammammmm/�mm■anumma ■■■ I, =ic7 R17. 7m■■ m■■ m■ m■■ mmrmmm■■■ m■ mmmrmmmmrmpmm ■rmmmm ■■r ■mmmrm■mmm mummummommuysommgummmaummiummomammummummommummommismummummimmemommommommemmmemmimme many■■ ■•gym ■`m■ �IA�\■ I.■■ mm■/■■■■■■m■■■ r■■■ m■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■ ■ ■m■ ■■ ■■■m ■m■■■■■ ■m■■■ ■m■■■■ ■O ommumeMCsE a�4mm� .Gly►tu .,r, ■■m■�m■sYm■■mm■■mmm■■■■rm■■ ■mms■■■=u■ =u■ =up�m■C■m■a■■ =■■mummy ■ ■rmsms m v-� :..'m 'mm mmsrmmmsmmmm omm rmmmmrr ■ ■ s ■■ msm rr mm ms ■mmm■mrri■rm'm�C i m.��iGm 1'f . !! rssO•• a•.• m° iimim■° miiiirmrr 'Mimiisiiiii °iiiiiiiii�i■ mmr■rmr■mmmumrmmiA GIB ms. :m ma. p... mmt�m .rm■��r■r■iommrmm■m■mrm■srr■u srss■im■ m■m■s■■■■■■■■■■■■■ mummy. _ �■ss■iism�il -E-N�m mmummmma ■m■■m■m■u■ ■■■rm ■ ■■■■mmuna mmu■■rmummummmm■msi �_ °..��..__..•■•• mommi.ommimm m■mu immmnmiammumMM m■s�i■s■swssr�iss■■ , ' ' � � —tom rm ■ ■■m n ■m■■ ■ ■mm ■rm ■ ■■ ■■■WIC rlor:.rr • /0 20 30 40 50 _16- 60 70 80 90 /00 APPENDIX C COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLAN • t TELEPHONE MEMO RE: � JS o1 e72 PERSON CONTACTED: PERSON CALLING: DATE: INFORMATION ITEMS: nAt-//5 -`!efli&IW /77.) 77/)())/ %� �i`lL ���2 WT�/•c/71t�� a3G0. • WATER WELL PHASE I ONE WELL 300 GPM f PHASE 22* ONE WELL 300 6P/,14 EXACT LOCflT /ON OF WELLS TO BE DETERMINED Z 0 1/4 Mile 1/1 Mi/e Approximo/e Scale t 1 KEN r C.M. 51. P. E UP R.R. 1 QL— 4 • ' ` I , et. 58Avc ,1 m ti Q i 4R'Ij : iI A• o .1outheen /er Source .A I t^i • l /•�. Komi In-Aar/Ye 8 "PR.y. e 5 fbrk TUKw /L.4 II • �- • ••••.• M••J Tukwtho 04, Umi/s TUKWILA RES. ND 1 E[EV 3)9'j 3 ,,,,... er- 74 le ,. t r /e''PR. Y., • •% • • - Service Arco :: BOVA: fury — -� ••a.._.. PH/4SE 15MC. H•/( ELEK. 360' AND /4" AND 10" TPANS44 /SS /0N l / /VES P1/4.31r llT 3 41 f/..W EL E! 3 b7 IWATER DisraIcr �s -18- CITY OF TUKWILA RECOMMENDED PL A N (ONE PRESSURE ZONE ) FIGURE 16 • \-V11.1JAN 1 1 ■ ` ■ 1� /1J. N ASSO.TI All _�. Ake I111P II 1,1 I•I a',',r,i, November 5, 1986 City of Tukwila Public Works Department 6200 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 ATTN: Mr. Phil Fraser Senior Engineer RE: Southcenter Gateway Development Environmental Checklist Review Comments r JUN 26 1987 crry.or-��1...�a PLANE "'•G D: PT. Present for the meeting: Phil Fraser, Public Works Department Tom Howard, William Polk Associates Nate Matasy, Richard Carothers Associates Dear Mr. Fraser: Thank you for meeting with us to discuss the environmental checklist comments for the above referenced project. The following items are my understanding of the issues discussed and their resolution. Please notify me if they are improperly stated: 1. The project in question is a three story office building with associated parking, located at the northeast corner of the intersection of S. 178th St. and I -5. The environ- mental review comments discussed are those set forth in a letter to this office from Moira Carr Bradshaw dated April 21, 1986. 2. An access study for the site prepared by Centrac Associates, Inc. was presented. You requested that the following items be addressed further: a. An 8 ft. wide sidewalk is required only in the Cl and C2 zones, with a 6 ft. sidewalk being required elsewhere. If this is a PO zone, there is no reason for an 8 ft. sidewalk. 1201 WESTF.I<\ A\ l \LI G'I I I . 1 . >f. ^.'f I 1.1 R 1~411' .7 o'\ osiol b. The 24 ft. width of the east driveway would be ade- quate if the site were flat. Since the site is not flat, you feel that a minimum width of 30 ft. should be provided. c. The report shows a 24 ft. radius where the driveway intersects S. 178th Street. City standards call for a maximum radius of 10 ft. You would prefer to see a wider driveway width combined with a 10 ft. radius. d. You would like to know why the proposed lane con- figuration as shown on Figure 3 of the report does not utilize the full existing pavement width. 3. We discussed the requirements of the storm, sewer, and water availability study requested as part of the environ- mental review. The study should be in a short report form (a lengthy or elaborate report is unnecessary) with a map and alternatives. a. There is no requirement for a water availability study since the project falls within the jurisdiction of water District #75. b. For the storm sewer study, we need to determine whether the project property is within L.I.D. 13 or 15 and indicate whether we propose to connect to the D.O.T. line or the City of Tukwila's storm drainage system. In addition, we need to design for a 10 year detention with provisions for controlled overflow for a 100 year storm. The intent is to prevent damage to this property, adjacent properties, and property below our site for the "life of the development ". c. For the sanitary sewer study, review the Comprehensive Sewer and Water Plan. Provide alterna- tives for connection location and give an indication of the capacity of the existing system to take our proposed development. 4. Provide a hydrological study as part of the storm sewer design that addresses the control of overflow from a 100 year storm and indicates changes in drainage patterns as a result of this development. 5. Provide a geotechnical study that addresses the stability of the site. Pat Broden (433 -1854) can provide specific information on utilities and Mr. Shell (433 -1838) can provide information on whether a par- ticular parcel contributed to an L.I.D. Appointments should be made through Carol at 433 -1850. Sincerely, C -� Thomas C. Howard cc: William Polk Nate Matasy TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR SOUTHCENTER GATEWAY OFFICE (S. 178th Street east of I -5) MN JUN 26 1987 CITY OF TUKKLA PLANNING DEPT. Prepared by: Centrac Associates, Inc. Prepared for: William Polk Associates Jurisdiction: City of Tukwila July 1986 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3 Street /Highway System 3 Existing Traffic Conditions 4 Traffic Volumes and Levels -of Service 4 Transit /Ridesharing 5 TRAFFIC IMPACTS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT W/0 S. 188th CONNECTOR 6 Trip Generation and Assignment 6 Projected Traffic Volumes and Levels -of- Service 7 Safety Impacts 10 TRAFFIC IMPACTS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT W/ S. 188th CONNECTOR 11 Background 11 Projected Traffic Volumes and Levels -of- Service 12 PROPOSED MITIGATION -- STREET /ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS 14 APPENDIX References Site Photos Existing Peak -Hour Turning Movement Summaries (1986) Existing and Projected (1987) Level -of- Service Calcs Sight Distance Calculations FIGURES 1. Vicinity Map 2 2. Trip Distribution and Assignment 8 3. Proposed Channelization /Access Improvements 15 TABLES 1. Future Level -of- Service without S. 188th Connector 9 2. Future Level -of- Service with S. 188th Connector 13 INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the traffic analysis and findings by Centrac Associates for the proposed Southcenter Gateway Office development on a site located just east of I -5 on the north side of 178th Street in Tukwila, Washington (see Figure 1). This traffic analysis documents the trip generation, traffic impacts, and recommended street /safety improvements (mitigating measures) for the proposed development. The site is currently undeveloped with the land zoned PO (Professional and Office). A rezone is not required for the proposed land use. The development will consist of one 3 -story building composed of 80,000 square feet (S.F.) of office space. Access to the proposed development would be provided via two driveways, with both driveways to be located on S. 178th Street. Approximately 290 parking spaces (including handicapped spaces) would be provided on -site for the office facilities. This easily satisfies the minimum code requirement of one space per 400 S.F. of office development. The proposed office complex is scheduled for completion by mid -1987. The primary sources of traffic volume data utilized for the traf- fic analysis were turning movement counts taken by Centrac at the S. 178th /Military Road and S. 178th /Southcenter Parkway inter- sections, and machine (ATR) counts by the City of Tukwila and King County. The S. 178th /Military Road counts were taken in May 1986 and the S. 178th /Southcenter Parkway during November of 1983. (Level -of- service calculations are based upon methods described in the Transportation Research Board's "Circular 212 ".) To analyze future traffic conditions including impacts of the proposed S. 188th Connector, Centrac utilized traffic data from the S. 188th Location and Feasibility Study, completed in January 1 H -1 @FITS } , • 152ND• ST. s 151ST ST 158TH ST 1 158TH 160TH SI6IST El S T63RD � r, —1 imisa-5,2) SII :• H a5 III,� N S 167TH ST g 168Th 7 STITH OCR "� r' 1THW ST ST ,''® di FS M x I ~ Si vn 172ND �5172NDST OE 173RD .: S 172ND PL ar _ ST �� _ __;:•; .. = — MCMlCKER 164TH NTS PARK 5 187/40 ST • 5 168THI ST \EMn -fl q An SOUTRCENTER am� • on nut ?iL'112b7�:��wi PK9 Y • EVANS BLACK.. w DR AKE BLVD 66TH ST . 5 166TH ST ICKE 170TH 176TH T v S 177TH ST 178TH ST CHRlS7- ENSEN PROJECT SITE N LtH -_ bLVD' 183RD p satH S 184TH 183144 ST 5.43s21.1. 0 lV ST ri I ®° S 188TH S 189TH 5 on i 7 O. s D 192ND r' 194TH ST '711 8 ia3888T. .T. ST 5 55PICI P1 �CENTRAC ASSOCIATES • SOUTHCENTER GATEWAY • TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY) 0 1/4 1/2 1 MILE APPROXIMATE SCALE FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP of 1985.* The Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG) is presently studying the traffic impacts of a possible half- diamond interchange at I -5 /S. 178th. Per WSDOT District #1, an interchange at this location would be difficult to construct (due to I -5 downgrade) and would result in weaving problems with S. 188th and Southcenter interchanges to the south and north. EXISTING CONDITIONS Street /Highway System The existing street /highway in the vicinity of the proposed development is shown in Figure 1. Traffic access to the site would be provided via S. 178th Street. Interstate 5 (I -5), which forms the west boundary of the property, is classified as a limited access freeway. The nearest I -5 access point in the vicinity of the site is the S. 188th interchange, 0.8 miles to the south. I -5 connects regional centers such as Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, and also provides access to other regional facilities such as I -405, I -90 and SR -520. S. 178th Street is a 2 -lane collector arterial (4 lanes at its intersection with Southcenter Parkway and 3 lanes at Military Road intersection), which provides access to Southcenter and adjacent Tukwila commercial /industrial district. To the west of the site, S. 178th connects to Military Road at S. 176th Street, providing access to the Sea -Tac Airport and Pacific Highway South (SR -99). Speed limits are posted for 35 mph on S. 178th Street at the I -5 overcrossing, with advisory speed of 15 mph on the steep reverse curves east of the site. Paved shoulders are presently provided on both sides of S. 178th adjacent to the project site. * The S. 188th' Location and Feasibility Study prepared by Centrac for the City of Tukwila, examines the impacts and feasibility of providing a new 4- or 5 -lane arterial connecting the I -5 interchange at S. 188th Street with S. 180th Street near its intersection with Southcenter Parkway /57th Avenue S. 3 Traffic control in the vicinity of the project is provided by traffic signals at major intersections, including S. 176th /Military Road and S. 178th /Southcenter Parkway. Stop -sign control is utilized at all other nearby intersections. Because of the steep grade (maximum of 21 %) on S. 178th Street east of the site, King County closes 178th Street between I -5 and Southcenter Parkway when inclemental weather (snow, ice, etc.) produce hazardous driving conditions during winter months. Existing Traffic Conditions Traffic Volumes and Levels -of- Service: Existing traffic counts on 178th Street in the vicinity of the site indicate that this roadway handles approximately 12,000 vehicles per day (vpd) adjacent to the project site. Military Road presently carries approximately 10,000 vpd south of the S. 176th Street intersection and Southcenter Parkway approximately 18,500 vpd. The "street" peak hour on 178th occurs between 7:00 and 8:00 AM during the morning rush hour with a two -way volume of approximately 850 vehicles per hour (vph). The PM peak hour occurs between 3:30 and 4 :30 PM with a two -way volume of 1300 vph (see existing peak -hour turning movement volume summaries included in the Appendix). The worst levels of congestion and longest delays to motorists generally occur during the PM peak period. A measure of the relative congestion levels can be made by comparing the level - of- service (LOS) at intersections. Level -of- service relates traffic volume demand to capacity and can range from LOS "A" (free -flow) conditions) to LOS "F" (forced -flow or jammed conditions), with LOS "E" being capacity conditions. LOS "D" (tolerable delays at intersections) is generally considered adequate for urban intersections. 4- The signalized intersections of S. 178th /Military and S. 178th /Southcenter Parkway presently operates at LOS "D" and "C ", respectively, during the PM peak hour. The LOS "D" at the S. 178th /Military intersection is caused by the heavy westbound movement on 178th Street and north -south movements on Military Road. Transit /Ridesharing: Metro Transit's bus routes presently serving the south end of the Tukwila CID are quite minimal - Routes 150, 155 and 340 along Southcenter Parkway and S. 180th Street which basically provide local hourly service connecting Auburn /Kent, Renton (Fairwood) and the•Eastside with Southcenter. Bus access from west of. I -5 (Burien and vicinity) via route 240 presently utilizes Klickitat Drive to /from Southcenter since S. 178th Street is too steep (18 -21% grades) and the Orillia Road /S. 200th routing is too circuitious. Metro's express bus service to Seattle via I -5 does not include stops at Southcenter /Tukwila presently since it is too difficult for buses to access /egress the area with the existing congestion and circuitous routings to /from I -5. Major portions. of the CID are not conveniently served by transit due to long walking distances or owing to transfer problems. The near total absence of sidewalks in the area (except at Southcenter) also adds to the unattractiveness of transit service in the CID. Metro is presently designing a regional transit center in the Tukwila CID as a part of its 1990 transit development plan. This center would be a transit focal point and would coordinate transfers between local routes'in South King County and through routes to Seattle CBD or to other activity centers. _Metro is also currently constructing.a new park -and- ride lot on Interuban Avenue just south of I -5. These two facilities should help improve transit service and carpooling In the Southcenter /CID area if better freeway access (especially I- 5) and . bus circulation in .the CID can be achieved. TRAFFIC IMPACTS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT S. 188th CONNECTOR Traffic Generation and Assignment Daily and peak -hour trips generated by the new office development were estimated using trip generation statistics assembled by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (I.T.E. Trip Generation, 1982). Based on trip generation, studies of similar developments, many of the trips generated by the proposed office complex would occur during the AM and PM commuter rush hours. Trip generation for the proposed office development is summarized below. TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Trip Rate .Total Item Per 1,000 S.F. Trips Enter Exit Daily (AWDT) 17.70 1420 -- -- AM Peak 2.50, 200 170 30 PM Peak 2.82 226 33 193 When fully constructed and assuming 100% occupancy of the office building, the proposed development would generate approximately 1420 new vehicular trips on the average weekday, with 200 of these trips occurring during the AM peak and 226 during the PM peak hour. During the PM peak, the estimated directional split is 85% departures and 15% arrivals. Based upon existing traffic counts and origin- destination route data obtained from the shopper intercept survey (at Southcenter and Pavilion shopping malls by Market Trends, August 1984) conducted for the S. 188th Connector project, 65% of arrivals and departures will orient to /from the west via 178th to access I -5, SR -99 and SR -518. 35% will access to /from the east via 178th, with destinations at Southcenter /CID area, SR -181, SR-167, and I -405. Trip arrivals and departures were assigned to the existing street system assuming this distribution pattern as shown in Figure 2. Projected Traffic Volumes and Levels -of- Service 'The additional 1420 daily and 226 PM peak trips generated by the office complex were combined with the existing adjacent street traffic to estimate daily and PM peak volumes for 1987, when construction and full occupancy of the subject development is scheduled for completion. Average weekday traffic volumes (AWDT) would increase by approximately 9% on S. 178th Street west of the proposed development and by 5% east of the site. The 1987 peak -hour volumes were analyzed for future levels -of- service (LOS) at the S. 178th /Military and 178th /Southcenter Parkway intersections and at the major site driveway, using methods described in the Existing Conditions section. Existing and future (with project) turning movements are summarized in the Appendix for the critical PM peak at these two intersections and major access point onto 178th. Table 1 summarizes the projected LOS in 1987 at these locations if the proposed project were constructed without any improvements to the existing street system. The intersection of 178th /Southcenter Parkway would operate at tolerable LOS "D" or better,* with the 178th /Military and the main entrance intersection operating at LOS E. The 178th /Military intersection would experience significant peak - hour congestion, primarily attributed to the heavy'westbound approach volume-from 178th (1000 vph in PM) and the significant southbound volume on Military (600 vph). PM peak congestion at the main driveway would be experienced by exiting left -turn vehicles (minimum of 70 vph) waiting for gaps in 178th *_ All site traffic (100%) was assigned to the west (employee) driveway since over 80% of the parking stalls are easily accessed via this major entrance. Access to the 30 -35 customer. parking spaces would be provided by the east driveway. trip distribution CENTRAC ASSOCIATES SITE TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIGURE 2 TABLE 1 LEVEL -OF- SERVICE FUTURE (1987) CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT WITHOUT S. 188TH CONNECTOR Intersection S. 178th /Military Rd. S. 178th /Southcenter Parkway Driveway3 @ S. 178th St. NOTES: PM Peak Hour LOS (V /C Ratio)1 W/ Existing Geometrics E (.97) C/D (0.80) E (N /A) 1 See Appendix for LOS calculations. W/ Proposed Improvements2 E (.97) C/D (0.79) C/D (N /A) 2 Proposed street improvement consists of a 2 -way left -turn lane (2WLTL) on S. 178th adjacent to the proposed development and EB /WB left -turn signal phase at 178th /S.C. Pkway. 3 Analysis for the site driveways was done assuming worst case conditions (i.e. all site traffic entering /exiting at the western- most driveway). 9 traffic. With the construction of a new two -way left -turn lane on 178th (which could be used as a "refuge area" for left -turn egress vehicles), the level -of- service can be improved to acceptable LOS D. Safety Impacts Field measurements were completed to determine the available sight distance and average travel speeds at the proposed site access intersections. Looking west toward the I -5 overpass, there is a horizontal curve (see photos in Appendix) which somewhat impedes the view of exiting motorists, with approximately 400 feet of clear sight distance. Looking east, a stopped motorist has clear visibility to the S. 178th reverse curves (unimpeded sight distance). Average travel speeds were measured as 33 mph eastbound (downhill) and 30 mph westbound (uphill) at the 178th main entrance driveway, based on several "pilot car" survey runs. The required sight distance per on AASHTO design standards for an exiting passenger car to turn left onto 178th Street without being •overtaken by approaching vehicles from the right (west) is 520 feet (see Figure IX -27 from AASHTO manual in Appendix), assuming a 35 -mph design speed. The safe stopping sight distance is 250 feet, or distance required for an eastbound motorist (coming around the curve) to avoid colliding with exiting left - turn vehicles. The available sight distance of approximately 400 feet will require an eastbound vehicle to slow by 5 -10 mph (to 25 -30 mph) to avoid hitting the turning vehicle for the "worst case" condition.* This can easily be accomplished by the average motorist and an eastbound vehicle coming around the curve at * When eastbound vehicle comes around curve on 178th overcrossing at the same time a left -turn vehicle turns onto 178th from driveway. 10 45 mph (10 mph over speed limit) could still stop his vehicle under wet conditions to avoid colliding with a left -turn vehicle exiting from the office complex. When S. 178th Street is closed due to hazardous driving conditions (snow, ice, etc.) on the steep grade east of the site, all site traffic would enter /exit from the west (Military Road). None of the site traffic would be permitted to use the steep reverse curve at the bottom of the S. 178th hill when King County closes the road. TRAFFIC IMPACTS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT W/ S. 188TH CONNECTOR Background The City of Tukwila has completed a location and feasibility study* for a new 4- or 5-lane arterial, connecting the I -5 interchange at S. 188th Street with S. 180th Street near its intersection with Southcenter Parkway /57th Avenue. The South 188th Connector, if constructed, would provide more direct access to the Tukwila commercial - industrial district (CID) and would help relieve existing traffic congestion and delays around Southcenter Mall. The approximate location of this new arterial connection is shown in Figure 2. In order to assess the future impacts of the proposed development, Centrac analyzed future traffic volumes assuming scenarios with (W /) and without (W /0) the connector. Traffic conditions without the connector have been summarized in the prior section. This section summarizes future traffic conditions with the new connector, utilizing future (1990) traffic forecasts from the S. 188th Connector study. * The "South 188th Connector" study prepared for Tukwila by Centrac Associates in December 1984. 11 Projected Traffic Volumes and Levels -of- Service Construction of the S. 188th connector roadway would reduce PM peak traffic volumes on S. 178th Street by 60 -65 %. Assuming a new spur connection between S. 178th and the new connector route as shown in Figure 2, it is estimated that 75% of the site traffic from the proposed development can be expected to divert to this new roadway. Site traffic with destinations to I -5 north or south would experience significantly reduced travel times by utilizing the connector to access the S. 188th /I -5 interchange. As a result, impacts to the S. 178th /Military intersection would be greatly reduced with the new S. 188th Connector and "spur" roadways. Utilizing.traffic forecasts from the S. 188th study, future (1990) PM peak volumes at critical intersections (S. 178th @ Military and Southcenter Parkway) and at the site driveway were analyzed under this scenario. Table 2 summarizes the projected 1990 levels -of - service for the PM peak hour. All critical intersections would operate at level -of- service "C" or better except the S. 178th /Southcenter Parkway intersection which would operate at LOS "E" due to the significant increase in traffic volumes from the new connector. Widening of the south and east legs is required to accommodate the additional through and turning volumes generated by the new S. 188th Connector route (improving LOS to "C" for 1990 PM peak). The level of service at the site driveway would also be improved from "C" to "B" with the proposed construction (by developer) of a 2 -way left -turn lane (2WLTL) on S. 178th Street. 12. TABLE 2 LEVEL -OF- SERVICE FUTURE (1990) CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT WITH S. 188TH CONNECTOR 1 PM Peak Hour LOS2 W/ Existing W/ Proposed Intersection Geometrics Improvements S. 178th /Military Rd. B B S. 178th /Southcenter Parkway EC3 West Driveway @ S. 178th St. C B4 NOTES: 1 Assume preferred alignment "E" for. new S. 188th arterial. 2See Appendix for LOS calculations. 3 Assumes widening of east and south approaches to provide additional turn lanes (see S. 188th report) 4 Assumes new 2WLTL on 178th Street at site driveways. 13 PROPOSED MITIGATION -- STREET /ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS The following streeet /access and traffic control improvements, as summarized on Figure 3, will be provided by the developer during construction of Southcenter Gateway to mitigate the traffic and safety impacts of the proposed office building development: o Widen S. 178th Street on the north side as necessary to accommodate a third traffic lane for left -turn channelization at the proposed site driveways. All traffic lanes would be 12 feet wide, per desirable width standards for the City of Tukwila and King County. A left -turn inbound pocket would be provided west of the main driveway and a two -way left -turn lane (2WLTL) east to beyond secondary entrance. o Provide new curb and gutter and 8 -foot concrete sidewalk on the north side of S. 178th Street adjacent to the project site. New sidewalk would transition on the west end to match the existing 3 -foot sidewalk on the north side of the I -5 overcrossing. o The west driveway (main entrance) would provide full access, with three (3) lanes (36 feet total width) to accommodate two 12 -foot exit lanes and one 12 -foot inbound lane. NOTE:. No turning restrictions are required during peak -hour periods, since proposed left - -turn channelization would permit safe ingress /egress without significant delays. o The east driveway (secondary entrance) would provide full access also, but with a 24 -foot driveway width (12' exit lane and 12' inbound lane). 14- N �O EXS -c`N� PLK 3\Og' S oG,E ON NEW 8' SIDEWALK NEW CURB &"`_-,:�:�::�::::::�: GUTTER (TYPICAL) TRANSITION TO 2 LANES TO EAST (MATCH EXIST PAVEMENT) �CENTRAC ASSOCIATES - EXISTING EDGE OF! ,PAVEMENT SOUTHCENTER GATEWAY SCALE: 1°-30' TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY ) FIGURE 3 PROPOSED CHANNELIZATION/ ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS o Standard turning radii (25' minimum) will be provided in order to safely accommodate right- turning vehicular traffic in /out at both driveways. Standard stop signs and stop lines will be installed on each driveway approach. o Approximately 290 parking spaces will be provided on- site, which should adequately handle the vehicular traffic to be generated by the office development when fully occupied. All parking stalls will be 90 °, with two -way circulation provided for all aisles and connections to driveways. Igo X z1 W a1 <1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ REFERENCES 1. "Trip Generation," Institute of Transportation Engineers, Third Edition, 1982. 2. "Interim Materials on Highway Capacity," Circular 212, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., January 1980. 3. "Design Manual," Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, Washington, Current Edition. 4. "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways," U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, September 1984 Edition. 5. "S. 188th Connector Study - -Final Location and Feasibility Study and Regional Travel Impacts," Centrac Associates, December 1984. --offS LI ro 1-3'73 h(NI i)too7 D 7 Z. - ��- - - - C H C D .DATE. • u � Loca rton _TU.KWIL�A ..WAS47lIZ.1LRTt,N1 i SHE ._._ OF PROJBGT Joe N o. .So -n.1cEt T:6 . ,SCei I. - 144 : - "ifoa te.4I9•ce. -• Engineers • Architects • Planners TURN iNG IsAovEN':EN'i Neu, zrt 9(z INTERSECTION 55 t1f344' f. A Mc.marzy Loc.. No. INDICATE NORTH WITH AsZRCW TIME PERIOD 7 :00 - S:oo 4t4 DAY 4 DATE b1/g1 5-Z/- i N CJ El ( 7 4 r – [9 - PLED. - -[ 3 : • L TIME PERIOD S: 30 - 4 ;so PNI DAY 4 DA.T E • WED 5.21- 8l0 SC L7134-1 S 4 459 r -- `l1_D_; —�i BY 1I_ 23_ 83 CH CK .D -DATE • 13`' - T. G-; so►^- 11-28 -83 LOCAT,ON — SC._Pk ' 7. @ 186 /I78 PROJECT S. 1884-- _ ,uta,. Joe N o. _. _.._ 8 3 4-¢ - - INTERSECTION S.C. Pk. 1. • 18041/178] Loc . No. 2. INDICATE NORTH WITH ARROW S 178 f1d aziejate4. TKC. -•• •- - Engineers • Architects • Planners • PED. 1341 1 ,TURNING MOVEMENT DIAGPAtit . NEa2fl �j� TIME PE Mop 7: 1-' 8. IS AM DAY 4 DATE W4:1 -) 1 1/13/93 S. 1914- 4 .j► 5. 1784.c II--•-t 1 01 1 NI. NI I 61 I r PED. —�--L I (-0127 — H C.)1 440 TIME PER toD 4:00— 5:00 PM DAY 4 DATE Mort-) 11/i//83 .5. 18o 37 SEG ALE= -rtz c scs '[u2rzEp Z ,HT 5ZoM 57{`' oNI +0 I SOS" t..l Y2 -1-1.4\5 15 ApproA. 2O 9„ Ot= 121at+T TuPtJ ►.JCS - iRAE✓FIC(,-raR Am uorJT PE2too). 4 11-1 w t .P E IL Qf V•s•o _5" MO 2 1 z$5 1 PROJECT SUBJECT CENTRAC ASSOCIATES (31U- 14')Cent Cxn -let.)ad LPqPI- ot^ -Sec), Le CcLIcul !cns SHEET: 1 OF By' MC`( DATE (0 / CHECKED: -I-2- DATE JOB NO. X11 - I7d g JS71Nb 4,\# FAIL- LE EL -O - S6 I) -E r —4— —1 75 --61 Zi m 3S Z 14 -2.Lo 1 i -- I J SE 17g S4_ !m! N 4 sE/7g1sf �4F;, Z-7 (y __J (54-5 + (Lo6) 7r zri , +2212_1-1 N r- TeUct-=:. + 276 + 4l (1.1s) ¥ 33(i.o) +- /35) $ I,o i 938 Zucks V = I38 16 So = o• 57 CENTRAC SHEET: OF BY: MG`l DATE lai1v.; ASSOCIATES CHECKED: Ilk- DATE 7///9( PROJECT 5O(-444)cer) ict 74ewoc.t JOB NO. Pio1I' (24 SUBJECT 1-e✓e ( -o-C .-Sec c 6ws41n1 "PM ?CAI( Levet- — Se.,.<«e_ th—r1:-T1 35� .b> -F-77071i • /1�� sC /7134 a f 7 Cog 1 I 459 s'71 S-72 /Z 9 �C�/ - (44z 4-0(1.0G) + 3 -1Z + IZA0-05 Z5z + tzv(1.15)1 x I.vt 147o V 14=12 O.89 tctc D. Los D -r CENTRAC ASSOCIATES PROJECT Sou-14 Cp Oci- k- LAN SUBJECT 1-? U e l - Q - Se,(v C. (l CuJcr4ior SHEET: BY : MCY CHECKED' -Tar- JOB NO. Ekor1 OF efr DATE (0/.q%P:. DATE -V/ /9'1 _ /24- • /9137 PM PEAK LDS Lt/ O F s ED Fiza s�c-�' 55J .6±) 4q2 55 ("s) 12v 4701 wfa n n ecvr 44- 2 + (o4-0,15. Los E_ wf CaN E«= 335 ,JEcTbiz cj3 (4v) L s I 0o) 17 34.4. /Ml v rza rzY 3q{ �a (reto) 2.2 (8o) rh: 100 (4o ) '1 -ra r '( 2ci . SC i76 PM 14 140 ec, ( Co n naG4-or + 400.05) f. 3q 1 .I- 225 (1.05 4 2.55 -} IZo (i.15)) X 1.; 1L [_j (kgi /a Cv04 ►.EC11 -I' (o4.O./S) +4o0,DS) 1- 1q0 4" 50(I,0s 085 v _ X08 s - Los= ± Its 4- IZo(I,1c' r3 • CENTRAC ASSOCIATES PROJECT ...--d-1.)u 441 rexifex r-rAfPwnc.� SUBJECT Le. /el -c ' - serve c? C :t i r n S. SHEET: `-tom OF BY: 7\11(> DATE C� CHECKED: 111,- DATE -7/► JOB NO. E'er /I- 1a4 19x7 PM FEA1. LDS W/ T DPOSW z c - W LV/0 THE C,,,ht4Ecro -K @ I -1'&441 Azx44, ►cen Fa kwa.A SC, Pard 4- St 6,4c- PI4Adc 14 G- Lc( -1 '322 t I I l7) 5Zc L44" 7 522 `Ph'I 126A K. VU r til ►►J t 1Av4E1 -4- tTis w/ tkyo -tN c La1,1.46 . Z 578 - L lAyo n1.14 C-t -Tbrz = ° �Gv = (- -+ 161Z (1 -50) + 191 f s�A -l- Z (I.05)) )X ho �zE %r • 3 Qj , . -. s5% )0 5-74, v e 0.8 _o C- 1-1 zo LOS = G W/ 3 1. P i+ME. v/G L_o s = 1� --76, (L45' c--() zoo° e -- s. l s per) Unsignalized "T" Intersection Capacity Calculation Form Intersection DRJKPi Cr.17-2Ar.J( To Location Plan: s, 17'5- s A G ccel 141 411 12 iI �— 4Z 7 2.1 c X25 Hourly Demand Traffic Volumes from 10 _� m Approach A T. B 7 C --y— Movement AT — AR 1 BL. % Br f CL 1 CR C.' Volume 74q 12.. ZI 427 (AS /15 pch (tie T.,hIc 11 Conflicting Flows = MH = (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 + AT = 12. +7+1 ="7( a I 23 MHo = M2 _ /5 147 Counts: Datc Day Time Control Prevailing Speed 35 rnprt H57 ?M ?5,01y._ Step 1 Right TLrn from C CR ' Conflicting Flows = MH = (from Fig. I) Critical Gap from Table 2 T. = Capacity from Fig. 2 = Shared Lane — See Step 3 'h AR + A = Co + 749 = 154- VPh sec _10_,L MS* = Mt = 3 $ 0 nrn No Shared Lane Demand = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) CR = 1477 ,R — CR = �3 "G" 1 pen LDS Step 2 Left Turn from B BL r Conflicting Flows = MH = (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 + AT = 12. +7+1 ="7( a I 5.0 sec MHo = M2 _ Pee BL = ?e pee 100 (BL/M2) = 4.3 % p2 _ .91 M? — BL = SD Z p,, ii LOS A Step 3 Left Turn from C CL 1 Conflicting Flows = MH = (from Fig. l) Critical Gap from Table 2 To = Capacity from Fig. 2 = Adjust for Impedance t AR + Ar + BL + Co +74,1+0 + ZOs.., 1,5 sec MHO = i l Q - pe MAN, x P! = M3 = 1_9_1. pct, No Shared Lane Demand = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) CL = 75 , r" 1 — CL = 32 mot, Los 6 Shared Lane Demand = Shared Lane with Right Tum Capacity of Shared Lane = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) CR + CL = CRL = vrh (CR + CL) M" = (CR 1) (C /M �t) ) c a M„ = sM Mta — CRL = rM 0 do n rac4r JZec - J/ L+ acted. LGt n G 240 233 75 15-5 tt ups It Overall Evaluation L:05 C iN /fl C2 & / fC/'ie -- LOS 'V/ n'% Overall Evaluation LO tic It 111 • R277 lam Fk IA) rri-I e jQy\r ec,kvr .7 '0 12 Lei ,,g1, JAS L I. j r' IK ^-e Flee 14-) T7l. TO 65 90 55 45 35 30 25 25 200 `400 600 900 1000 1200 1400 500 250 5201 SIGHT DISTANCE 1 FEET) 1800 A- SAFE SIGHT DISTANCE FOR P VEHICLE CROSSING 2 -LANE HIGHWAY FROM STOP, 1SEE DIAGRAM) 8 -1 -SAFE SIGHT DISTANCE FOR P VEHICLE TURNING LEFT INTO 2 - LANE HIGHWAY ACROSS P VEHICLE APPROACHING FROM LEFT. (SEE DIAGRAM) 8 -2a -SAFE SIGHT DISTANCE FOR P VEHICLE TO TURN LEFT INTO 2 -LANE HIGHWAY AND ATTAIN DESIGN SPEED WITHOUT BEING OVERTAKEN BY A VEHICLE APPROACHING FROM THE RIGHT AND MAINTAINING DESIGN SPEED 8 -2b- SAFE SIGHT DISTANCE FOR P VEHICLE TO TURN LEFT INTO 2 -LANE HIGHWAY AND ATTAIN AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED WITHOUT BEING OVERTAKEN BY VEHICLE APPROACHING FROM THE RIGHT REDUCING SPEED FROM DESIGN SPEED TO AVERAGE RUNNING SPEEO(SEE DIAGRAM 2000 2200 2400 2600 Co- SAFE SIGHT DISTANCE TO P VEHICLE TO TURN RIGHT INTO A 2 •LANE HIGHWAY AND ATTAIN DE51GN WITHOUT BEING OVERTAKEN BY A P VEHICLE APPOACHING FROM THE LEFT TRAVELING AT DESIGN SPEED. Cb- SAFE SIGHT DISTANCE FOR P VEHICLE TO TURN RIGHT INTO 2 -LANE HIGHWAY AND ATTAIN AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED WITHOUT BEING OVERTAKEN BY VEHICLE APPROACHING FROM THE LEFT AND REDUCING FROM DESIGN SPEED TO AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED. Figure IX -27. Intersection sight distance at at -grade intersection (case IIIB and case IIIC). G, o \� 1�y VJ co cro rn A .i a rdl �o �o f y • IIiT7' -- - --t —r— .._ +- —I-- ,�1' / / °'L C,o -- / 0 cP • i i Y 1 / I7 /I I i i - 200 `400 600 900 1000 1200 1400 500 250 5201 SIGHT DISTANCE 1 FEET) 1800 A- SAFE SIGHT DISTANCE FOR P VEHICLE CROSSING 2 -LANE HIGHWAY FROM STOP, 1SEE DIAGRAM) 8 -1 -SAFE SIGHT DISTANCE FOR P VEHICLE TURNING LEFT INTO 2 - LANE HIGHWAY ACROSS P VEHICLE APPROACHING FROM LEFT. (SEE DIAGRAM) 8 -2a -SAFE SIGHT DISTANCE FOR P VEHICLE TO TURN LEFT INTO 2 -LANE HIGHWAY AND ATTAIN DESIGN SPEED WITHOUT BEING OVERTAKEN BY A VEHICLE APPROACHING FROM THE RIGHT AND MAINTAINING DESIGN SPEED 8 -2b- SAFE SIGHT DISTANCE FOR P VEHICLE TO TURN LEFT INTO 2 -LANE HIGHWAY AND ATTAIN AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED WITHOUT BEING OVERTAKEN BY VEHICLE APPROACHING FROM THE RIGHT REDUCING SPEED FROM DESIGN SPEED TO AVERAGE RUNNING SPEEO(SEE DIAGRAM 2000 2200 2400 2600 Co- SAFE SIGHT DISTANCE TO P VEHICLE TO TURN RIGHT INTO A 2 •LANE HIGHWAY AND ATTAIN DE51GN WITHOUT BEING OVERTAKEN BY A P VEHICLE APPOACHING FROM THE LEFT TRAVELING AT DESIGN SPEED. Cb- SAFE SIGHT DISTANCE FOR P VEHICLE TO TURN RIGHT INTO 2 -LANE HIGHWAY AND ATTAIN AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED WITHOUT BEING OVERTAKEN BY VEHICLE APPROACHING FROM THE LEFT AND REDUCING FROM DESIGN SPEED TO AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED. Figure IX -27. Intersection sight distance at at -grade intersection (case IIIB and case IIIC). G, o \� 1�y VJ co cro rn A .i a rdl �o �o f y • WILLIAM ASSOCIA1ES ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS May 9, 1986 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 ATTN: Mr. Phil Fraser MAY 13 1986 CITY OF TUKWIIA PLANNING DEPT. RE: Southcenter Gateway Office Building Requirement for hydrological /geotechnical study Dear Mr. Fraser, Per our telephone conversation last week, I am forwarding to you a copy of a Dames and Moore geotechnical report that encompasses the property under consideration for development. Also included is a letter from GeoEngineers, Inc. which provides a brief analysis of the report as it relates to the proposed development. It is my understanding that this information satisfies your require- ment for a hydrological /geotechnical study to aid you in the review of the environmental checklist. A suppplemental geotechnical study for the specific building loca- tion will be made as part of the engineering and design process. Sincerely, Thomas C. Howard, A.I.A. encl. cc: William Polk Jack Tuttle Moira Bradshaw 1008 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 501, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 (206)622-84'43 • GeoEngineers Incorporated 1206) 746-5200 2405 - 140th Ave. N. E. Bellevue, WA 98005 William Polk and Associates 1008 Western Avenue, Suite 501 Seattle, Washington 98104 Attention: Mr. Tom Howard Gentlemen: April 30, 1986 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists 11'3UH'UO JUN 26 19871 CITY OF TUKVV i LA PLANNING DEPT. Subsurface Soil Conditions Proposed Southcenter Gateway Project Tukwila, Washington File No. 877 -01 We have reviewed available soils information for the site of the Southcenter Gateway project being planned by the Rainalter Companies and made a preliminary reconnaissance of the upper portion of the property. Subsurface soil conditions in the hillside, which lies between Southcenter Boulevard and the freeway (1 -5), were explored by a series of borings in the early to mid 1960s. The principal explorations consisted of borings drilled in 1965 by Dames & Moore prior to the hillside being cut back to the present configuration. One boring (Boring 1) was located near the planned area of development. This boring extended to a depth of 175 feet. The soil conditions encountered consist of a sequence of glacially consolidated competent soils ranging from generally clean sand to silty clays. Some of the sand strata encountered were water bearing. The soils encountered in the upper portion of Boring 1 are comparable to those exposed on portions of the cut made for the freeway to the west which is at a grade below that of the upper level of this property. We conclude from these data and our knowledge of the geology and specific soil conditions in the immediate vicinity that the site can be expected to be underlain by similarly competent soils throughout. William Polk and Associates April 30, 1986 Page Two The results of our preliminary evaluation of subsurface conditions, including an assessment of slope stability as affected by the proposed development, indicates that the project is practical and can be accomplished while maintaining an appropriate factor of safety with respect to slope stability. Supplemental geotechnical studies for the specific building locations should be made to develop definitive foundation design criteria. JKT:da Four copies submitted Yours very truly, ngineers, c. jP;44.— K. Tuttle Principal GeoEngineers Incorporated GeoEngi WARM 1 JUN 2G 19871 ee ITY OFy1"6 1,..A PLANNING DEPT. OCT 9 1985 Routing 0 MAY I986 itj ,REPORT OF SOILS INVESTIGATION PROPOSED BORROW PIT 57TH AVENUE SOUTH NEAR SOUTH 178TH STREET TUKWILA, WASHINGTON FOR THE SAMMAMISH COMMERCIAL COMPANY, INC. 05722- 001 -005 JUNE 7, 1965 REPORT OF SOILS INVESTIGATION PROPOSED BORROW PIT 57TH AVENUE SOUTH NEAR SOUTH. 173TH STREET TUKWILA, WASHINGTON for the SAMMAMISH COMMERCIAL COMPANY,INC. t• n f r . N I= 1: I t.•. 1 I• I 1 I n I n r t! t n`...`. ,UCIn•11 irr rtvnl U 1 . NI. I�r11 Pacific Western Development Company, Inc. 8013 Perimeter Road South Boeing Field Seattle, Washington 98108 Attention: Mr. Bruce McCann Gentlemen: January 22, 1968 Since excavation operations in the borrow area west of South - center Parkway (formerly 57th Avenue South) and north of South 178th Street were completed in the latter part of 1966, we have had several opportunities to inspect the exposed slopes surrounding the excavation. The slopes, which were designed and constructed at 1 3/4 to 1 (horizontal to vertical), have been completely stable, and the exposed surface has had only a very little amount of erosion. It is our opinion that this experience over a period in excess of one year Confirms the expected stable behavior of these slopes as designed and constructed. Yours very truly, DA1`1ES & MOORE By JL:jm Joseph Lamont, Jr. 3 Copies Submitted OASES a t.1OO E CONSULTANTS IN APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES S VIL HC•�•r t, I,i�'; Cfl;il `.CCalrly 600.0.:,' • CiCl.•••!11: :: HONOLULU k0'.) '0' %.0.4 .r.C. .. vrw •p .. S•LI ..•-r .. SCA”4. : 1800 wESTLArcE AVENUE NORTH • SEATTLE.WASHINGTON 38109 • ATWATER 4-8160 PARTNER: JOSEPH LAMONT. JR June 7, 1965 ASSOCIATE DONALD E. NELSON Sammamish Commercial Company, Inc. c/o Harstad Associates, Inc. 2512 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington Attention: Mr. Howard T. Harstad Gentlemen: We submit herewith six copies of our "Report of Soils Investigation, Proposed Borrow Pit, 57th Avenue South Near South 178th Street, Tukwila, Washington," for the Sammamish Commercial Company, Inc. The scope of the investigation was planned in discussions with Mr. Howard T. Harstad and Mr. Harold Iverson, and is outlined in our proposal dated March 8, 1965. One additional boring was added during the course of the investigation to provide further information with respect to soils on the south portion of the site previously known as the Flink property. We appreciate the opportunity of serving you on this project. If we can be of further assistance during the excavation of this area, please contact us. JL -DRG: fm .. ®, 1: •r ,r.l', n HI 40.1 Yours very truly, DAMES & MOORE By gr.' Joseph Lamont, Jr. • REPORT OF SOILS INVESTIGATIOi PROPOSED BORROW PIT 57TH AVENUE SOUTH NEAR SOUTH 178TH STREET TUKWILA, WASHINGTON for the SAMMAMISH COMMERCIAL COMPANY, INC. SCOPE We present in this report the results of our soils investigation at the site of the proposed borrow pit in Tukwila, Washington, being planned for development by the Sammamish Commercial Company, Inc. The site is situated on the hillside which forms the west wall of the Green River Valley, and is located to the west of 57th Avenue South and north of South 178th Street. The site is outlined on the Plot Plan, Plate 1. Development of the borrow area anticipates the excavation of a large quantity of material which will be placed as compacted fill on a large indus- trial site directly east of the borrow pit on the east side of 57th Avenue South. To achieve maximum utilization of the material, cuts will be made at the steepest safe slope from existing grade to approximately the level of the valley floor, which is about Elevation 25. In your preliminary planning, cut slopes of 1h to 1 (horizontal to vertical) have been tentatively contemplated. The purpose of this investigation is (1) to explore the soils and obtain undisturbed samples suitable for laboratory testing, (2) to analyze the stability of the proposed cuts and recommend a safe slope, (3) to recommend any special slope protection, if such is deemed appropriate, and (4) to evaluate the suitability of the soils in the borrow area for use as compacted fill, and provide recommendations for the handling and placement of these materials. -2 - • SURFACE CONDITIONS The hillside on this site rises steeply to the west from the valley 'floor. The area is generally covered with trees and brush. Contours taken from a drawing provided to us by Sammamish Commercial Company are shown on the Plot Plan. In our study of the site, we find certain areas which are much steeper than indicated by these contours. One such area is the bluff immedi- ately north of Borings 2 and P -2 which is very steep and nearly vertical at some points. Also, the contours immediately west of the property have been recently modified by the grading of the right -of -way for the Seattle - Tacoma Freeway which will be constructed in this area. The site consists primarily of two prominent areas of potential excavation separated by an existing ravine or drainage course. A second ravine exists near the north property line. Immediately to the west of the property, deep fills have been placed for support of the freeway across the ravine areas. The fill slopes appear to have experienced significant erosion. FIELD EXPLORATIONS Three exploration borings were drilled to depths ranging from 90 to 175 feet on the central and southern portions of the site as part of this investigation. These are designated as Borings 1 to 3, and are located as shown on the Plot Plan. At an earlier date, we had also explored the northern sector of the site for another client by drilling one boring on the ridge in that area. This boring is designated as Boring A, the approximate location of which is also indicated on the Plot Plan. Each of these borings was drilled with cable -tool drilling equipment. The log of each is presented on Plates 2 to 5. • The soils in Borings 1 to 3, drilled in this investigation, have been classified using the Unified Soil Classification System which is described on Plate 6. Boring A, drilled previously, was classified by another system which defines some of the soils with slightly different nomenclature. To aid in correlating the soils, we have reviewed the log of Boring A, and added the Unified Classification System symbols to the soil description of each layer. Undisturbed samples of the soils were obtained at frequent intervals using a Dames & Moore sampler of the type illustrated on page A -1. The number of blows required to drive the sampler a distance of 12 inches into the soil using a 260 -pound weight falling 24 inches is presented above each sample notation on the boring logs. The subsurface explorations described above were drilled under the supervision of soils engineers on our staff. Ground surface elevations at the locations of Borings 1, 2 and 3 have been established by survey. At Boring A, the ground surface elevation was determined using contour data, and should therefore be considered as very approximate. Two other borings also have been drilled previously on the borrow pit site by a local testing laboratory. These are designated as Borings P -1 and P -2, and their locations are shown on the Plot Plan. We have reviewed these boring logs as part of our study in this investigation. Additional borings have also been drilled by the Washington State Highway Department at various locations on the freeway right -of -way in the general vicinity of the site. The logs of these borings have also been obtained for our review during this. investigation. • -4- • SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The soils of which the hillside is comprised are materials deposited by glacial action. The explorations reveal that the borrow pit site contains substantial quantities of principally sandy materials extending from the grounc surface to considerable depth, where they are underlain by firm silt and clay. The granular soils extend down to approximately Elevation 88 in Borings 1 and 2, to Elevation 70 in Boring 3, and to Elevation 40 in Boring A. This latter elevation must be regarded as highly approximate in view of the approximate contour data from which the surface elevation at this boring was estimated. The deposit of granular soil overlying the site contains zones possessing a significant amount of silty material mixed into the granular stratum, and also several interbedded silt layers of minor thickness. In general, all of these soils are compact. The deeper deposits of silt and clay which underlie the granular materials are also compact. In Borings 2 and 3, layers of sand were encountered within the finer - grained soils. Ground water seepage was observed at numerous levels within each of the borings. It is our opinion that mwch of the observed seepage results from penetrating pervious soils containing water trapped above or between less pervious soil layers. Static water levels were measured in each hole, and are recorded on the log of each boring. It is highly probable that the static levels recorded were influenced to some degree by quantities of seepage emanating from perched water pockets. Therefore, the indicated water levels should be interpreted as being approximate. During excavation water may be expected at varying depths in the hillside. Where the water is merely trapped or is a localized pocket, it should drain rapidly and cause no significant problem. However, it should -S- also be expected that water flowing from springs will be encountered, and drainage for this flow must be provided. It is probable that most of such flow will be in the granular soils which immediately overlie the deep silt and clay stratum. LABORATORY TESTS Direct shear tests and triaxial compression tests were performed on selected samples obtained from Borings 1, 2 and 3 to aid in the evaluation of soil strengths. Samples secured earlier from Boring A were not tested. The tests were performed at a continuous rate of shearing deflection . in the manner described on pages A -2 and A -3. Ultimate shearing strengths are tabulated on Plates 7 and 8. Moisture and density tests were performed in conjunction with each strength test and on additional samples for correlation and to evaluate the degree of soil saturation. Moisture and density data are tabulated on Plates 7 and 8, and are also presented to the left of the appropriate sample notations on the boring logs. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CUT SLOPE STABILITY Safe Slope: Data obtained from the field explorations and laboratory tests have been utilized in engineering analyses to evaluate the stability of the cut slopes. Our analyses have been accomplished by programming the informa- tion into an electronic computer. Based on these analyses, the safety factor for various elopes under static conditions is indicated to be approximately as follows: • SLOPE 1 -1/2 to 1 -1-3/4-to 1 2 to 1 -6- SAFETY FACTOR 1.1 1.25 1.4 The stability analyses have been computed with respect to ultimate strengths of the soils as measured from the laboratory tests, and assume that any ground water encountered in the hillside is drained away from the area so that it does not have opportunity to cause softening of the lower slope face. We have also considered in our stability analyses the effect of seismic forces. Assuming seismic forces equivalent to 0.1 times the weight of the mass of material within the critical failure arc, the factors of safety for the above indicated slopes are reduced by approximately 0.1 to 0.2. These data indicate that whereas the 1h to 1 slope is expected to be stable under static conditions, it would be very marginal under conditions of a substantial earthquake. In recognition of the risk of seismic occurrence, it is our recommendation' that the proposed cut slopes be planned at 1 -3/4 to 1. • The proposed borrow pit occupies a fairly substantial area, and while the borings indicate good correlation, there is always the possibility that unforeseen conditions may occur at points intermediate between the boring locations. We therefore recommend that surveillance of the cut slope be made during the period of excavation, and that any necessary modifications to these recommendations be made at that time. We will be pleased to assist you in making these inspections and advising you of any modifications that may be indicated. Erosion Protection: Since much of the exposed face in the proposed excavation will be in granular materials, it is our opinion that the exposed • slopes will be susceptible to erosion caused by water flowing down the slope face. Such erosion has been observed on other cuts and fill slopes in the vicinity of this site, and would result in the formation of small gullies on the slope face, and the possibility of recession near the crest of the slope. Such erosion will be most likely to occur in the upper 40 to 50 feet of the slope where soils are quite granular, or in areas where some seepage is present. In order to protect against erosional recession at the crest of the slope which might otherwise encroach on adjacent properties, we recommend that the crest be planned at least 30 feet from the property line adjacent to the freeway right -of -way and South 178th Street. Further protection against erosion can be accomplished by planting on the slope. This could be restricted initially to any local areas where looser soils may be observed, or could be accomplished in a more general manner, if you prefer. At the time of our investigation, water was observed at several levels within'the subsurface profile penetrated by our borings. It is our opinion that much of this water is locally perched on or between layers of less pervious soil. When the borrow pit is opened, much of this water will likely bleed out and not be a cause for permanent concern. However, it is also likely that some of the water in the hillside will consist of a permanent flow. It is expected that this will be the case in the sand immediately over the continuous strata of silt and clay which occur at depth. Drainage should be provided for water in this zone so that it is carried out of the borrow area in a reasonable manner and does not have an opportunity to have a detri- mental effect on the lower hillside elope. Observance of these zones of water - bearing material ahould be maintained during excavation as part of the general surveillance of subsurface conditions described in a preceding paragraph. -8- • During our investigation, water was not observed flowing over the existing slope face from higher areas to the west and south. However, to protect the slope face from heavy rainfall runoff, it may be desirable to install some means of intercepting such runoff at the crest of the slope so that it is not permitted to run freely over the slope face and contribute to erosion problems. Such water should either be directed laterally around the borrow area, or brought down the slope in closed pipes. The drainage for the borrow area should be coordinated with the general drainage plan which we understand is being developed for this area. SUITABILITY OF FILL MATERIAL The granular soils encountered in the borings are considered suitable for use as compacted fill. Some of the granular materials contain moderate amounts of silt or clay fines which render them somewhat more sensitive to moisture content. The interbedded thin layers of silt and clay which occur within the granular strata, and also the more continuous silty and clayey soils which overlie the granular soils at depth, are also suitable for use as com- pacted fill, provided that control of the moisture content is exercised during placement, and further provided that these materials are placed only during dry weather. It is our opinion that the soils in the hillside can be readily compacted to 90 to 95 percent of maximum density with normal compactive effort, assuming that the conditions outlined above are met. If it is possible to do so, we consider it advantageous to use the more granular soils within the proposed building areas, and the finer - grained soils in the yard areas around the buildings. However, we recognize that the specific building locations for some of the sites being developed may not be known at the time that field work is undertaken. 111,1 • 1 1•• • -9- It is our opinion that the soil types encountered in the borings in the south portion of the borrow area are basically similar to those encountered Boring A which was previously drilled in the north portion of the bor ed row pit, then known as the Forsythe property. Our examination of the soils indicates that the more continuous strata of finer - grained soils are encoun- tered at higher elevation in the south portion of the property than in Boring A. It is also probable that the soils in the north portion of the borrow pit t id will be slightly drier than those in the south portion. because the ridge- shape of the area may provide somewhat better drainage. June 7, 1965 Respectfully submitted, ••��••���'- DAMES & MOORE ,� "ii A LA ^7 ;4 ,0/ ` . 4.-4, ■ • ■ ‘-e _- J ■ ■ ■ By Joseph Lamont, Jr. O• ,b0 -5 - 99 BORING I 11 I, %, ;05 LE: SM FL ow'. it 1, 11\1 1 I, 1 1,4%11 t1.4 (...411( (1 ,0',04111 • ;11 ; ;;•••. - 99 145 1 AN ;..4%l. 411. -.T.: SP Ol.1 A AL t,-AvI..1 • 60 0-; • .0■.• t. • • 1 IL • -.1: - • SM jI4LM t•• ▪ GM SP :CO • ill ..11*.6 .16011. 1 .( A'. 5(4 ILIL 1,411.14 L Or 6,41 1:11. 1 (NL ;A) ANL LAA1 .4', t'.1' ,64N 1 '1 1,1411C WAILL, aal, 1.■!1,1.4 A., IN., ;AM. ,1 (v1-■ 11..1 u- s 6.41,1.1 141- 6.1*•1'4(.. -t.• 1_1110 vl. • T 1t. L.1A611 MfA'1- ',II 1661 IV 100 1.6 9t. '.0 - - • 06 AU - 4- 4C • • E5 60 ;00 • 400 5'. 4, 4 (15 - - 95 - • 05 151 • el 90 • 165 • :I • ‘44 Mel , ALI ...A, "H. u. 1 C.1 u-A .1. AL11 wt1(1. tOk 1 1.1 1.. ''66L SA ..11/1/••■■••■•••••• 1-111.01AS REQUIRED 10 DRIVL SAMPLER 040. 1001 ma 114 16.11. 2401.es.. &TROPE. •4 IMCmLS. COhltm, 15 :3.6 -124 6 INDICATES DEPTH Al wHICH UN014101131, SAMPL( WAS tit MACRO. 0!!! 11! LOG OF BORING L1 t 1 (u-'!AL 1) ..A 05 1 \I Le 1.-, 4 “'1 EpAbARAMIS 040011:1 •...L ;in I st.l.` • 495 ,9C - 96 .65 32.6% - 07 5 • C *- 141 "."5. - 89 .65 155 1 50 • .5 BORING 2 EilvAT 105 194 38 • a . - 1.7.5 4 50 52 • I' I • 3 Shl sw SP 51 01 4P: P41111! • 134 4, 4 C4PA viC .b t S•%4; 84•0 G P 111.1.C. LAt'IPEaLL LIVIL , •••• 4 '• 0, • • • • • • DANN DROWN SILTY SAND (MOL(R* iLL • 1994) IP, CNA INL 10 GUARS, SAND IA I Th OCCAL I ONAL GRAVEL ImOCE5ATEL 10 m314.5A161.y LOPARAC11 01( 1,1 ()NAL 1A,16•L t••■4% ,51 KL104 16044, AL I 1 Li. if.,■•1 LIERALI. Is& L4,L id L (4 ,Rm) "1 IS 11.0.'0Acl .A1.6 it. ELEVATION LOG OF BORINGS SEEPAGE 66,.".e. 8541 144A • 4 ,'.1 LUAPa SAND 1C0mkAL 1 ) (4644 CLAW, J:LT (41994) •••14, 4,6.14 4 1..4. TO "4(4 lt,•• rAL! i'11 (..J.PAC• I L • 1 v 4L. 4 .5.) 13,1■114111ra is moons •••••.to •*••• NCI Ti • 120 BORING 3 iti ¥&i0. 1Ih t,ANL, ite.triLl) W,OWN 11%1 10 MLU1LM L.AM) (t:0"MA) b;4:4!: 11Y SAM) AND c1.AvLt ( V1.141 LOMPALT I SlAlIC MAlEN LEAL, 5-25-65. b(L PAGE 61- Or% AM, t-A 1 Oa T.) FiLLIL.1.1 AC (C01404C1) t•AILI■ bLOPiNC, &NAV (lityLY t11 tF ■14m) 04 A V 11NL 10 •1(0u,'4 y•%1„ (c.■■4P•CT) 1(.,AY tANUY LLAILV 4ILT trIAM) 20\L Of 1%C.1-11,10 t.:•,11;,1 (WEI, 111.1“.■ • LOG OF BORINGS BORING A 5' 1+1 ACA (11'YA 111A 150! LEST1141111, ) 15 1;0 20 25 017N GRAYLL (1140) IG1') M^T'LLD ORE& AK' BRAY 5111 11 'RN) ('L) 3S Au a1: P° 45 PROVN AND BRAY 11171 LOAM It 140) I ••l• BROM%itM GRAY F 1 N 10 NED1u11 SA50 (C!W'aCT) 1:1') CON 1AISS 611 YEL 11R(rW les GRAY 8ANOY LOAM WIIN GRA YEI, COBBLES 510 BOULDERS (VERY FIRM) (W ACIAE T111) G1' MOTTLED BROWN *NO GRAY 511. 01141 OCCAS- IONAL GRAVEL IF MN) (ML) BRA F IRE TO COARSE SAND 1017M GRAVEL 000 COBBLES IC OIPACI 11.w) dLU1TW CRAY SaNOr LOAM 01141 GRAVEL IrEwr CwPACT) (GLACIAL TILL) (Gm) ler so S5 qv 60 65 `61. 70 •n WAGES BROWN AND GRAY IN COL OR dROV11 / INC 5551,11 Loam W'Tv. LAYERS 01 :111 (yip V FIRM) 1:r1 1'afI. l .554. NA 7E14 11.11 ;'U,'•1 .11.) 4 -211-•' Al A 01 Pb ' 01. 1;2 1111 1:11.51 GR0, 50 :...1 ACE. 1s es ,L) 90 95 ID too 1J ]G 0 • 105 '� 170 125 1.0 130 '35 10 40 145 0 150 '0 • -c 90 • 1:. 140 • '�el (05 8101, I4LD 10 OR .41 511411E E4 ONE F001 All ;a17 • AO ley„ 514!•1 • :4 1..04 • 1NL,CA11:, U1-1•t■1 AI •1',Ct' OSOiSl„4UEE' 011041'1,E 0A.: E111RAC1EU 1 LOG OF BORINGS ULUIb1/ GRAY 5111 (v(4v i -IP'4 (r1,) =OWN 1151 SAS, 1414' 1Y'AL1) 11'1 GRAY SI11Y CLAY (v1.Rr 14M) (411,1 ■LU Ism GRAY 445E TO MEDIUM 5A5O ivERY COIPAC 1 ) GROUND WATER SEEP AGE GRAY 51E1 01TH LAYERS OF 5111111 CLAY (VER/ F IRM (`IL ,,RAY SILT W1114 1A11E45 AND 1E161S O 115E SAND (YERY F1R111 i ,RAY 2014E 01 G4OUNI' WAIER SEEPAGE -t 5I1.1Y LOAM 0/fay F6rM) 110* 5G 1x:.11: 11' A 11''1" of 1-.• /Itt • -: CHECKED BY COPY TO GO. FILE 5'22-001 .._ VISL BY DATE eY DATE TO cb.„, BORING ELEVATION SOIL TYPE TYPE OF TEST DRY DENSITY LBS./CU.FT. MOISTURE CONTENT '' OF DRY WEIGHT NORMAL PRESSURE .FT. ULTIMATE SHEAR STRENGTH LBS.50.FT. 2 2 2 3 3 1G ' o -. 8E, ' . ,-,c IOE 103 93 Bh —9 FE ra 54 �'ILTr SA'�L�, GPA'rEL Sala) _. •n,IC, CL A YET„ IL T 3A ";L} CL A YE Y 6 I L 1 S A',: L) L.1LTY SA \D Ar,D GPAVCL S 1I 1 v SAID A',L) CPAVEL S it 1'" SA":0 A \D GPAVEL S .LTY SAND A%G GRA\'LL CLAYS" ;;;1_ T 5A'.DY CLAYEY S,LT SA .L1Y CLAYEY ;,' L1 L'S DS vL, Lk: '•1L1 MU !oL .Ar.2 - MU MD MD t•G I l - 102 89 I us 89 10 4 1 ' 2 I :. I I.: 13t� 9b 93 9 "- 14.9%x 26.00 32 .06,t. 24.4c; 2:.. I% _, ". 14.6;1- • ' ..:',7c 12.26/c P. Ip 2 - . l',5:, ?:' 26.9; ",.:00 5 2000 450C X000 2400 5000 SUMMARY OF TEST DATA KEY: DS =DIRECT SHEAR TEST TRI -X: TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION TES MD :MOISTURE B DENSITY DETERMINATION • DRIVING OR PUSHING MECHANISM COUPLING WATER OUTLETS NOTCHES FOR ENGAGING FISHING TOOL A -1 NEOPRENE GASKET CHECK VALVES HEAD NOTE/ •HEAD EXTENSION' CAN BE IMTROOUCEO BETr(EN •MEAC'ANO 'SPLIT BARREL' SPLIT BARREL (TO P•CILITATt REMOVAL OP CORE SAMPLE) BIT VALVE CAGE SPACE TO RECEIVE DISTURBED SOIL CORE-RETAINER RINGS If Ire O.D. SY 1•L0140) SOIL SAMPLER TYPE U FOR SOILS DIFFICULT TO RETAIN IN SAMPLER U. S. PATENT N0. 2,316,062 ALTERNATE ATTACHMENTS SPLIT SARRE LOCKING RING SPLIT FERRULE CORE•RE TAININO DEVICE RCT AIMER RING ---------R /TANNER PLATES (INIERCH•NGCASLC WITH OTHER ) THIN. ■ALLED IAMPLING TUBE (NI T E RCNANOE ASL1 LENGTHS) COP E•RE T AIMING DEVICE 0AME S t MUOAF City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor April 21, 1986 Mr. Tom Howard 1008 Western Avenue Suite 501 Seattle, WA 98104 RE: EPIC File No. 316 -86 Dear Mr. Howard: A review of the environmental checklist submitted for the Southcenter Gateway project reveals that additional information is needed to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposal. The following information is requested: ■ - Storm, sewer and water availability study., ! v al Access study with respect to proposed alternatives for the realignment and connection of S. 178th Street with S. 188th Street. - Hydrological /geotechnical study,,--- - View blockage study. Specific questions and concerns regarding the first three items should be directed to Phil Fraser at 433 -1856. Enclosed are the actual comment sheets on the checklist. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 433 -1848. Yours truly, Moira Carr Bradshaw City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor April 11, 1986 William M. Polk 1008 Western Ave., Suite 501 Seattle, WA 98104 Re: CN -86 -101, Southcenter Gate (EPIC-316-86):!) The following comments and concerns were raised during the environmental review of your project. They may not pertain to the environmental determination, however, it was requested that they be forwarded to you as they will need to be addressed during subsequent project reviews. Fire Department (Dodg Gibbs, 433 -1859) 1. Fire flow and water availability must meet minimum requirements of I.S.O. guide and Tukwila Fire Prevention. 2. Entire building must be sprinklered throughout per City Ordinance #1141 (attached). 3. Fire hydrants must be installed per City Ordinance #729 (attached). 4. Fire lanes must be installed per City Ordinance #1110 (attached). 5. Maximum grade is 15 %. Police Department (Pat Lowery, 433 -1822) 1. Grade of hill approaching from the east is such that it precludes any response from that direction during periods when icy conditions prevail This development will require responding vehicles to come by a more circuitous route and thereby add to the response time. 2. Parking for 290 vehicles in a building housing 400 employees may necessitate some off site parking. This could lead to a dangerous condition on South 178th Street. 3. Sightlines for the two driveways will be critical. The placement of the driveways will have to take into consideration the vehicles approach- ing around the curve from the west and coming up the hill from the east. Page -2- • William M. Polk April 11, 1986 4. Being located in the southwestern most corner of the City and on the edge of the normal patrol configurations, it is essential the builder design in good security for tenants and public. For the latest information on security locks, alarms, lighting and other effective methods of crime prevention through the environmental design I would suggest you contact the Crime Prevention Practioneer for the City, PatLowery, 433 -1808. If you should have any questions please don't hesitate to call the above individuals, or my self at 433 -1845. Respectfully, (/-7)4..A-4( Becky L. Kent Permit Coordinator attachments cc: Doug Gibbs, Fire Marshal Pat Lowery, Fire Prevention Practioneer Public Noti • Public Notices CITY OF TUKWI WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TABUSHING MINI REQUIREMENTS FIRE PROTECT SYSTEMS IN BUI IMOS WITHIN THE C OF TUKWILA US FOR ASSEMBLY, E CATIONAL, INDU R IAL, INSTITUTION ST AGE, OFFICE A MULTi- FAMILY DW LING PURPOSES; A RIEPEALING OR NANCE #730 IN ENTIRETY. NOW, THEREFO THE CITY COUNCIL THE CITY OF TUKW WASHINGTON, DO . DAJN AS FOLLOWS: Buildings within the C Tukwila used for asse educational, Industrial, stltutlonal, mercantile, age, office and multi-fa dwelling purposes shat equipped with fire protec systems which meet the lowing minimum requ ments. A. Sprinkler Systems qulred: A fully automatic sprin system designed, Insta and tested per NFPA (Current Edition) shall installed In all new builds In excess of 10,000 squ feet total floor area. B. A fully automa sprinkler system per above may be required the Chief of the Fire Depart- ment and the Officer In charge of the Fire Preven- tion Bureau for new build- ings under 10,000 square feet total floor area when, in their. judgment, any of the following conditions exist: Hazardous operations, hazardous contents, critical exposure problems, limited accessibility to the building, or other items which may contribute to definite fire 'hazards. • C. Hose Stations Re- quired: Hose stations (stand- pipes) shall be required In all new buildings. 1. Hose shall be U.L. approved 11/2" diameter lined fire hose, 75 feet in length with an adjustable (tog -type) plastic shut off type nozzle. 2. Design, installation and testing of hose stations shall comply with NFPA #14 (Ct'•rent Edition) with any ' exceptions stated herein. 3. Hose stations shall be "wet." That Is, water pre- §sure shall be present at the individual station valves at all times. 4. All hose fittings shall be National Standard Thread, LA Higbee -Cut. D. Where this Ordinance 1141 confilcte with the Uniform ES- Building Code require- MUM ments, the more stringent FOR (greatest protection) shall ION apply, D- covered E. Any exceptions �fbns to Items ED shall be made by the hie of DU- then Fire Department and the ST- ' Officer In charge of the Fire • L, Prevention Bureau. Such OR- exc:eptIons must be In ND writing. EL- F. Existing Buildings: ND 1. Existing fully sprink- D I - lered buildings when remod- ITS eled or added on to shall re RE, s OF or ILA, OR- ex in sty of th mbly, thl In- s stor- sp mily 1 be Non he fol- tire Ire- CO Re- TU at kler this Iced 198 413 be ngs are tic P (A) cord by 198 fain the feature of being prinklered in the remodeled added on portion. 2. If by adding on to an (sting building, the resuit- g total structure falls within e coverage of (A) or (8) of s Ordinance, the entire ructure shall be fully rinklered. G. Repealer: 1. Ordinance 4730 Is reby repealed in its en- PASSED BY THE CITY UNCIL OF THE CITY OF KWILA, WASHINGTON, a regular meeting thereof 21st day of January, 0. Frank Todd Mayor ATTEST: Norma Booher Deputy City Clerk ublished in the Daily Re- Chronicle January 25, 0. T1510 ORDINANCE NO. 1199 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ESTAB- LISHING CERTAIN MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL OF SPRINKLERS IN BUILD- ' INGS WITHIN THE CITY OF TUKWILA AND AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1141. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, Public Notice Public Notice WASHINGTON, DO OR- DAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Ordinance No. 1141, passed by the City Council on January 21, 1980, Is hereby emended as follows: Buildings within the City of Tukwila for assembly, edu- cational, Industrial, Institu- tional, mercantile, storage, office and muftl- family dwel- ling purposes shall be equipped with fire protection systems which meet the fol- lowing minimum require- ments: A. Sprinkler Systems Re- quired: A fully automatic sprinkler system designed, installed and tested per NFPA 413 (Current Edition) and as ap- proved by the City of Tukwila Fire Prevention Bureau and Washington Surveying and Rating Bureau, or any other representative designated by the City, shall be Installed In all new buildings In excess of 10,000 square feet total floor area. No •construction of such building shall be commenc- ed until approval for said sprinkler system has been obtained. Section 2. Except as he- rein amended, all other por- tions of Ordinance No. 1141 effe shact. ll remain In full force and PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a regular meeting thereof this 5th day of January, 1981. Frank Dodd o AndersMayon r Maxine City Clerk Approved as to Form: Lawrence E. Hard City Attorney Published In the Daily Re- cord Chronicle January 8, 1981• T1830 CITY OF TUKWILA WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. T71 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING SPEC. IFICA7IONE AND STANOAROS FOR FIRE HYDRANTS INSTALLED WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA THE CITY COUNCIL OA THE CITY OF TUKWILA. WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS!' • . , IAll nrs hydrant* Installed within the corperah limits el No City al Tetwlla shell mewl or *scrod IM Wowing morJfil. , cations and standerda! • • Section 1. TYPE.. ' Hydrants shell conform le American • Water Worts Atbctallon Specifications C 207.51! shall be corroresslv•fype and . shall have a hnsptect breaking flange w1m breaking thimble N Me ground One of stem; s1at1 have • W ll.olling dry bonnet with factory need reservoir holding sp. . proximately I ounces of d1. 011 reservoir ' Shall have not Ins than 1 "0" ring Moats. • 011 reservoir shall be se deshned as to give i complete tubrkaliet of stems each ...lime Hie hydrant b operated. The upper ' stem Shall have • 1 Draw sleeve. ' Hydrants shall be equipped with two 2•Y' N.S.T. hose parts and one 1N" N.S.T. pumper discharge ports and shall have a VA" pentagon apen.litt operating nut. Hydrants shall have • 0-' M. /. bottom • connection and SA" main valve opening; • shall be designed for • 0" bury and shall have Ir' above grade level to the center of the pumper discharge port. Hydrant color to be "11ustoleum" 165► : Yellow Gloss. • Hydrants are to equal Mueller M.71015 !, or Mueller "A.11t. Section,. INSTALLATION. , ' Hydrants shall not be Closer than 4 feet to any object; I.e., fences. parking. build. Ines. etc" (with the etcepllan of hydrant 1 guard grub.) Guard poets shall be Installed around / hydrants not protected by curbs, so as 10 prevent an automobile from contacting the hydrant. The guard posts Mall be. either steel (minimum r diameter) or concrete (minimum r' diameter.) Pmts i shalt be 3 feet from the censer of the hyd• ' rant and shalt not be In direct Ilene with,, *my discharpe ports. Posts shall be S feel ! 10110; 3 -,5! feel shall be burled. Palnted A finish than be the same as tor hydrants. 'r . All hydrants shall be Installed will. an auxiliary gate valve between the hydrant • main valve and IM water main. The gate t I valve shall be U.L. approved and have a T' square operating nut. The valve shall be 4 Installed at IM hydranl.hleral Ter. 11 led hydrant Is greater Man 10Int1 from the moan. the gate valve than be Imlatled In 1 the lateral 11n.. 40 feet from the hydrant. The protector cover ler Me valve Mall be 1 lett In plain view, flush with grade after i landscaping or paving. L Hydrant*. auxiliary pat* velvet and 1 supply noes shall be Instilled 10 meet sound engineering standards per NFPA 114 parogrp 130 he L 1301, 670L 1301 i t ,004 405. • o Section,. COVERAGE. Hydrants shell be placed se Mal no 001rt 1 of a building (around Its at/Omelet) Is greater than 700 feet from a hydrant. • . When geographical or cbnstrucllon feature* prevent IM placing of water males and /or hydrants. the Fire pervert. lion Bureau may authorlu IN usa of M. proved "wall hydrant," or similar da. vice'. Such authorlullen must be In writ- ing. • Section6ACCESS1e1LITY. ' . Hydrants shall be In plain vlew for a distance of 50 feel In Ma line of vehicular approach. (Per. Irem Shrub*, freer. emus. lardlpapin0, rte.) . TM 4W' pumper discharge pert shall Nu IM Wirt, es In 010• care M privet hydrants. Shan lac* hward the property. • 1 • Hydrant supply line Mall be of such, she and design as to provide the required • firs flow as recommended by the Wale.. lrgten Survey and Raling Bureau Nand. NOS, Topping We City water maim Moil be. by We g.•'ae M to allow unlnlerrupled ohmic* en Meow mains • SeclIona. EXCEPTIONS.. Any e■cepllens le Sterna centred by Ilea Ordinance Mall be made by Ms plea/ M j the Fire fhpa tm.M and Ilea Mew r M charge of IM Flr. Prevention Bureau et Itw•Tub was Flrt Oepartrrenl. Such • RCM- f lions most be In writing. • PASSED BY 01.• CDs, Council and 10% proved by tte Mater al a regular mee1lrg 1 thereof en 'ft* 11th day of September, •1 IT7,. FRANK TODD Mayer Aunt: SHIRLEE A. KINNEY City Clem Appred et h Form: ' ov WAYNER.PARKER City Attorney • PIJb•�iCBS ' alt of Tutnrna Waehkugton . • • ORDINANCE NO. 1110 AN ORDINANCE OF : } •, CI1Y OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL EVIEW ROUTING FORM: &d9420.J7ZJ e TO: BLDG j PLNG P.W. FYI FIRE (I- POLICE r & R -ran RA, atq �{�rUlJ ,Rawi 6-► s { Uocu .Rm PROJECT `� (`F.41.iLPi(� D-72 � -eLv(' LOCATION J /-475(- FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED 44///36 cn '1D /GI EPIC tI-OW FILE RESPONSE REQUESTED BY (4/6/F a) STAFF COORDINATOR Ciinnf uin, 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 a auiiflo ty -r -this n ut i Hive (c% pu\ W -ClAn 1\ 11N Y1'111 C-t qc .,�t'cL€�� S7t y S( i 17&17. 1 L l UD/ !? L ll S , (1? �=" s v (J S 1 ( S .CALY)\ -2 d\ C _ S(t--t . C .S 0 YO P Ly' L7-Q hhr iv is , 17 /x %( 19' D/s P t _s-n- of S7 j& -m R (i.1i,, aim I 2z >✓-Q (4 I Gl DATE 7//g G COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL EVIEW ROUTING FORM: 609, e TO: BLDG j PLNG F711 P.W. 171 FIRS PIPOLICE I "I r & R, ran Niu, nitAra, &a 1 FrCa4' .R19641:6 Urge _pm uawamcv PROJECT ity, - #7(_P.4I ati �1 rJJ-i LlJ LOCATION, ) �8St- FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED qh/g/.1) RESPONSE REQUESTED BY vl! g /Fa) STAFF COORDINATOR "///Or D (J /Lb 41 RESPONSE RECEIVED. �CN 310-101 EPIC FILE 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 5z' 7gM COMMENTS PREPARED BY / C.P.S. Form 11 CITY 0 TUKWILA .CEN PERMIT SYSTEM - INFOR•ON TRANSMISSION REQUEST FORM Control # D-101 Fermi t /File # C`,3/6)1(p PROJECT ocurheE t /e7 L96uteCi'94 ADDRESS 6 170)1-k6-b-• STAFF REVIEWER Jrn(,'12) V )tL 6,Q,t �LL BELOW ARE COMMENTS THAT NEED TO BE TRANSMITTED TO THE APPLICANT /DEVELOPER. ail C2'mnQ.f'l t,5 W) '& 4 (. t ) Lit t :JCul t 1.0 YGi/ '79 wad, &Mu a ideLadi / Aiz AJ larerffir 0 "44 ir AL/Art.e ziard_Pd,e,"_!ik' 0 / 7/ im40 dAd 0,4me ya/Nd a a AO 1/2 14( /Al ■1A-4 A, / J _ 44.6d Age I _401 44-40420PII0 WEAFAIITINW a CPS Tech please contact applicant /developer a I contacted applicant /developer (name) on (date) a Please follow -up with me on my concerns by (date) CPS FOLLOW -UP 0 Contacted applicant /developer by phone in writing on (date) Distributed copy of letter to file #s: Comments Instructions: Transmit copy of completed form with any correspondence to staff person and appropriate files. r Control No. vviol Epic File No. 3WPD Fee S100.00 Receipt No.cD`)D ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND I. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Southcenter Gateway 2. Name of applicant: William M. Polk 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: William Polk, 1008 Western Ave, Suite 501, Seattle, WA 98104, 622 -8443 4. Date checklist prepared: March 5, 1986 5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): • ••• -• •• •II End construction: October, 1986 /y \i C/ 7. 7. Do you have any plans for `"fdture additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No c STE Mkt L fa I I -NA WARMAN PrOinff:4 ANIIIMILTeMaIr 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. None 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 10. List any government a Provals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. Buildin• •ermit ,/ i , 1 j, I/, i _ /.Il. 2ii'L % /_:%7L:'t 11. Give brief, complete oescription 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. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized here. Three story office building with basement - open - garage. Approximately 72,000 sq. ft., B2 and B1 occupancies, Type II hour construction, sprinklered. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate naps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applica- tions related to this checklist. Northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 35, Township 23 north, Range 4 East, W. M. in the City of Tukwila, King County, Washington.. Access from South 178th Street. 13. Does the proposal lie ,iithin an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? No b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. No 2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sour- ces, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following / chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Does not apply c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known) . Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Run off from parking areas and building roof will . be collected in storm basins and_di b ged into existing atom drins. Evaluation for Agency Use Only 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Catch basins and storm drains. jQ Evaluation for Agency Use Only 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder aple aspen, other ever..reen tree: ce•ar, pine, other grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, other types of vegetation cattail, buttercup, bullrush, eelgrass, milfoil, other b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? All existing brush and trees within the building and _parking_ areas will be removed. Major trees will be preserved in the parking areas and at site perimeters. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may /O 2 affect your project (for example: traffic, // ,, (/ equipment, operation, other)? None 1 % C- !� Qua Celt 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short - term or a long -term basis (for example: traf- fic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Short term construction noise for approximately eight months. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Vacant, no structures b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No c. Describe any structures on the site. None Evaluation for Agency Use Only 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would oe provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing? Does not apply. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli- minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing. Does not apply. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Does not apply. 10. Aesthetics .�j(7f a. What is the tallest height of any proposed 3 D principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Talleststructure is approximately 48 feet. 'IP 10 structure(s), not including antennas; what is the Principal materials are concrete and glass. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Landscape and retain major groups of existing trees. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None b.. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Does not apply 12. Recreation Evaluation for Agency Use Only a. What designed and informal recreational oppor- ? tunities are in the immediate vicinity? Bike and walking trail /path (proposed) b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or pro- posed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Does not apply. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed accss to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Public street is 178th Street. Propose two driveway connections to 178th Street. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No " c. How many parking spaces would the completed project 4/1) have? How many would the project eliminate ? Proposed 290 parking spaces Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No e.. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, general ly describe.' No f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. 290 between the AM hours of 7 and 9 290 between the PM hours of 4 and 6 g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor- tation impacts, if any: Does not apply. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Required fire protection and police protection. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Building will be sprinklered and perimeter will be lite. Evaluation for Agency Use Only 'C'ITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM CN 340-01 EPIC CD-g& FILE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: 609, Au%)'Li t TO: (l BLDG 171 PLNG Ill P.W. JPI FIRE [` POLICE f P & R Teem tii IA. mbva4fa �AI' i,FrOStY b= 5 pi,6- 1ow ' j jbii uaL 4ar-� PROJECT joN, jam( i(/ �j-7 LOCATIONj / 7851- FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED q/ / /3(y RESPd4SE REQUESTED BY LI/64 6A STAFF COORDINATOR Li/90)/22) Loa) 45 LLL -L RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFIC IAL 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 P 0" e ilI A)b CAS C22 lS 3�ct�- E la 7 211,4 p /sue . • fz, �. �.e �r t PR �? e'2rp.S I a r�c Dwt� H (T, KWILA FIRE PREVENTION BU DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY ITUKWILA Control # WO-,01 CENTRAL- PERMIT SYSTEM - INFORIDION TRANSMISSION REQUEST FORM .Permit /File # G ".311.0 -$CD PROJECT iOU e m L Cv ADDRESS 6 1,7V42 STAFF REVIEWER / V/A BELOW ARE COMMENTS THAT NEED TO BE TRANSMITTED TO THE APPLICANT /DEVELOPER. OE eartnif'Lt,5 ,iteteiety alb 6a11141.06Yaj 1.1,11P baPiu D Ait e- emu and cv&t r9 -Lfa; /4 6; f, /MI5 ihz -t / / ;Ai 6( 1 -Za(A.i .w ef-r-s ete, a _et ve. Pr-e,�.e re ti l(l`f7r'� b (M must- fie se p 694-m-chezO iru'%o�T- Ct ± 1- 0 (5e_✓ /cine5 n ots1 be- /i1.Sfij //e4' e f- Cz�rj oa ///6 47,Ndiail) ll2 ritytuww ra L `ls ) s c57o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PA CPS Tech please contact applicant /developer L] I contacted applicant /developer (name) on p Please follow -up with me on my concerns by (date) (date) CPS FOLLOW -UP (1 Contacted applicant /developer by phone in writing on (date) Distributed copy of letter to file #s: Comments Instructions: Transmit copy of completed form with any correspondence to. staff. person and appropriate files. 'CITY OF TU-WILA= Control 0 Wt0191 CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - INFORMADON TRANSMISSION REQUEST FORM •ermit /File #1.►C "3i1p -SCp PROJECT jou77'IPJither 6fide STAFF REVIEWER in »'J1 J V i& ADDRESS 6 /7 '>4'v 6- BELOW ARE COMMENTS THAT NEED TO BE TRANSMITTED TO THE APPLICANT / DEVELOPER. Cai eonit►ZQ.VLt,S LI.b1 G.0 I,GC /a t &thlt� att 649,1 , l c?nYam9 tu0d, boozy ULPAKIMLNI CONCERNS: ❑ 1. GRADE OF HILL APPROACHING FROM THE EAST IS SUCH THAT IT PRECLUDES ANY RESPONSE FROM THAI" DIRECTION DURING PERIODS WHEN ICY CONDITIONS ❑ PREVAIL. THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL REQUIRE RESPONDING VEHICLES TO COME BY A MORE CIRCUITOUS ROUTE AND THEREBY ADD TO THE RESPONSE TIME. POLICE 0 2. PARKING FOR 290 VEHICLES IN A BUILDING HOUSING 400 EMPLOYEES MAY C1 NECESSITATE SOME OFF SITE PARKING_ THIS Cnllln LFAD TO A 0.A4-EROUS CONDITION ON S 178 STREET ❑ 3. SIGHTLINES FOR THE TWO DRIVEWAYS WILL BE CRITICAL.THE PLACEMENT OF TH ❑ DRIVEWAYS WILL HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE VEHICLES APPROACHING AROUND THE CURVE FROM THE WEST AND COMING UP THE HILL FROM THE EAST. 4. BEING LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWESTERN MOST CORNER OF THE CITY AND ON ❑ THE EDGE OF THE NORMAL PATROL CONFIGURATIONS. IT IS ESSFNTIAI TNF BUILDER DESIGN IN GOOD SECURITY FOR TENANTS AND PUBLIC. FOR THE ❑ LATEST INFORMATION ON SECURITY LOCKS, ALARMS. LIGHTLNG ALTO (THFR EFFECTIVE METHODS OF CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN ❑ I WOULD SUGGEST YOU CONTACT THE CRIME PREVENTION PRACTIONEER FOR THE CIIY...PAT LOWERY...433 -]808 ❑ p j l 4/7/86 CPS Tech please contact applicant /developer ❑ I contacted applicant /developer E.] Please follow -up with me on my concerns by name) on (date) CPS FOLLOW -UP (date) ontacted applicant /developer by phone in writing on (date) Distributed copy of letter to file #s: Comments Instructions: Transmit copy of completed form with any correspondence to staff person and appropriate files. CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • CN g(o 10I EPIC 34(Vg(n FILE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: &d9,,QtCr7e TO: El BLDG Ei PLNG 171 P.W. I1 FIRS PIPOLICE y , ra Hiu, iFasu' tug b Ib s fi& m l t-7071 tia. -ik_a� PROJECT j04 flJMip4) (N LOCATION j / 7 DATE TRANSMITTED q111510 STAFF COORDINATOR ( -movCU (1 /Q1 FILE NO. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY �•t-. RESPONSE RECEIVED 4iVO 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 CMG DATE / L - "9" -agt COMMENTS PREPARED BYo,,� C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • •CN EPIC FILE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: 6d9_,,QuJ2ZJ t TO: mgliffsrm El PLNG Fl P.W. [P1 FIRE PIPOLICE rP81R, , Ve n° 1=wi'I%t rnbva,Ai ,Fa5Lf . u9 b- -a,t- pm u)L AO4t4 PROJECT 1044170 111.,4) &LAP (hAik LOCATION i /,71- FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED gIII gfi RESPONSE REQUESTED BY q f g0-6Q STAFF COORDINATOR - 79j. )) u)&. Al 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 Coffune 75 /17-4, - COMMENTS PREPARED C.P.S. Form 11 WILLIAM POLK ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS March 25, 1986 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington. 98188 Attn: Becky Kent Re: Environmental Checklist Southcenter Gateway Gentlemen: W1MOICH [MAR 27 1986 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. Per our conversation yesterday, I am forwarding to you a filing fee of $100.00 and two copies of the environmental checklist with attached drawings for the above- referenced project. Please call if you require additional information. TCH /ka Enclosures Sincerely, cl(-474/74,(___ Thomas C. Howard, AIA 1008 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 501, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 (20)) 622-8443 1 Control No. Epic File No. Fee $100.00 Receipt No. 0540 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Southcenter Gateway 2. Name of applicant: William M. Polk 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: William Polk, 1008 Western Ave, Suite 501, Seattle, WA 98104, 622 -8443 4. Date checklist prepared: March 5, 1986 5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): PrnpncPr construction start: May 1986 End construction: October, 1986 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 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 '10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. Building permit 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses anal 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. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized here. Three story office building with basement - open - garage. _ Approximately 72,000 sq. ft., B2 and B1 occupancies, Type II hour construction, sprinklered. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area,.provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate naps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applica- tions related to this checklist. Northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 35, Township 23 north, Range 4 East, W. M. in the City of Tukwila, King County, Washington.. '.'•Access from South 178th Street. 13. Does the proposal lie ;within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? No • .:TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General de tion of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, steep slopes, mountainous, other b.. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 12 percent 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. Clay and gravel d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti- ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Site to be cut and filled to parking and drive required grades. Fill to be taken from areas cut on site. Cut and fill are of equal quantities. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Minimal erosion expected. Normal temporary erosion control methods will be utilized during construction. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 6.0 percent • Evaluation for Agency Use Only h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Normal erosion control methods will be utilized during construction, 2. Air a.. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Normal construction vehicular emissions acid dust can be expected during construction. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: None 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year - round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Does not apply. • • 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. Does not apply. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface 'water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Does not apply. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. Does not apply. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No 6). Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Does not apply. Evaluation for Agency Use Only • Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be 'discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. No 2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sour- ces, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following / chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Does not apply c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Run off from parking areas and building roof will . be collected in storm basins and disaraed into existing storm drains. • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Catch • basins and storm drains. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder aple aspen, other ever reen tree: ce'ar, pine, other (shru grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? All existing brush and trees within the building and_parkinq areas will be removed. Major trees will be preserved in the parking areas and at site perimeters. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: New landscaping will be provided as _kart of site development. Plantings used will be common materials to the area. 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: I birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: Common species mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: Does not apply fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: Does not apply b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Does not apply • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solor) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Gas, electricity will be required for .heating and lighting requirements. 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: Solar glass 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Does not apply 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ- mental health hazards, if any: Does not apply Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other) ?_ None 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short - term or a long -term basis (for example: traf- fic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Short term construction noise for approximately eight months. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Vacant, no struct»r_ea_ b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No c. Describe any structures on the site. None • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Does not apply e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? 'PO f.. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Office, no special development considerations. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Does not apply. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? 400 people j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Does not apply. 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com- patible with existing and . projected land uses and plans, if any: Landscaping and preservation of existing major tree groupings. Building materials and scale compatable with existing structures in area. • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing? Does not apply. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli- minated? Indicate whether high, riddle, or low - income housing. Does not apply. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Does not apply. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Talleststructure is approximately 48 feet. Principal materials are concrete and glass. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Landscape and retain major groups of existing trees. • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None b.. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Does not apply 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational oppor- tunities are in the immediate vicinity? Bike and walking trail /path (proposed) b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce-or control impacts on • recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None Evaluation for Agency Use Only 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or pro- posed for, national, state, or local preservation register,s known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Does not apply. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed accss to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Public street is 178th Street. Propose two driveway connections to 178th Street. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If ' not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Proposed 290 parking spaces Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No e.. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so,-generally describe. No f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. 290 between the AM hours of 7 and 9 290 between the PM hours of 4 and 6 g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor- tation impacts, if any: Does not apply. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Required fire protection and police protection. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Building will be sprinklered and perimeter will be lite. • 16. Utilities • a. C' cle utilities currently available at the site: atura1 gas refuse service, septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricity: Puget Power Telephone: General Telephone Gas: Washington Natural Gas Water: City of Tukwila C. Signature Tne above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: Evaluation for Agency Use Only • • .TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT '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 discharg- to waer; emissions to air; production, storage, .r release of toxic or hazardous substances; or produ ion of noise? Proposed measures to avoid or reyc'e such increases are: 2. How would the propos 1 be likely to affect plants, ani- mals, fish, or mari -e life? Propos measures to protect or conserve plants, ani- mals, ish, or marine life are: Evaluation for Agency Use Only • • 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resourses are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use environmentally sensitive areas or areas d eligible or under study) for government such as parks, wilderness, wild and threatened or endangered species hab cultural sites, wetlands, floo farmlands? Proposed measures to or reduce impacts a Evaluation for Agency Use Only r affect ignated (or protection; scenic rivers, at, historic or ains, or prime rotect such resources or to avoid 5. How wo d the proposal be likely to affect land and shore ne use, inclduing whether it would allow or enc•,rage land or shoreline uses incompatible with ex ting plans? • Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts area: How does the proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan? 6. Hot; would the proposal be likely to incr ase demands on transportation or public services and u ilities? Proposed measures to red e or respond to such demand(s) are: Evaluation for Agency Use Only 7. Identify, f possible, whether the proposal may conflict with lor.1, state, or federal laws or requirements for the pr•tection of the environment. • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of he Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If o, what poli- cies of the Plan? Proposed measures o avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: • TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for ,a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental infor- mation provided and the submitted plans, documents, suppor- tive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal? The objective is to provide approximately 72,000 sq. ft. of speculative office space and the related parking. 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? Construct a :. five or six story building with smaller floor size and have no parking under the building. 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: The alternative in question 2 above, would be twice as tall and would not blend in with the hill side as well. Evaluation for Agency Use Only • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? No Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: -23- OUTDOOR PLAZA Vmtay & Mt Raini 3t Am . §§ t ) • Jew• s �' '�. �yi,J� v tJir'i -.Ail 4.4' .r s-Y - V'.. �`s '��� sue' i.e iaHI i .S'! r ,'.:14.N 111: ..aar•1� 3.' .w' ;.► . mss„! b. taWdoi, "YSk LW I p eff Site Plan VICINITY MAP L n't - Lobby L V Office Floor 1 Eed M • Parking Below Ion grade) • • • • • • • Office Floor 3 Office Floor 2 • • • a MWMMINITIMMOrmgriMirgarr 2111•111 'iMMUk ANEW tlig te.r, munm•••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ..'1111111111 11111•1111MINIFINIIMr"2•1•11W7•41111111111=7111111111116 • =Ur -....,411MMELS.11•111111111111111111111111111•11111111 r r*:mwma, ktimmi ammo immm..www. klIUM11111111111111111111111 11../■/M m MEMNON, • A■rt . /=/ 611/ . ols.rs.srsr•11/ p,wwwwiwygraw, Pa""ng 11 11 —11 Section Entry •111.•-•-- Glass West Elevation -G0r1CrOt0— • mg MI MEW ar Fr tor RIMINI MINI ..iummuimmsommaimmilummis gm wommulausamommmiummumaaw " ...L., mom RE I a ., , AMMO Mir '• adillaa, . 44111: ',./7•21■11M1‘ .■ MM MMIMMIMMIMMIN ■ 1111 ■ . 1.11111MINNIMMIIMMINAMIE MMINIMMIIIIIIIMIUMININ NM MIMMOMENIMMOMIMMOUNIMIN ITIS 11.1111111==1.11110111 111111E■Wil 0. .........primmimaiv....swq....m.w7.1, A 1, l• .1 ors mama .amos. .32,5' rrilrloiTPS' !rusk roryllrfluMPIN l' wile writ' itt, '3' il MiriehrrollmiummilTIMM 1 •• , ..., • • • ••■ irs:, ... 4 41r4' • ig 1111$ ' . f, ■ - e It -4.. • • J ''. . • Or East Elevation City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Public Works Department 433 -1850 June:16, 1982 Mr. Bruce McCann McCann Construction Company 950 Andover Park East Tukwila, Washington. 98188 Byron G. Sneva, Director Re: Sanitary-Sewer and Storm Sewer Availability /McCann Site Dear Bruce: The utility records at City Hall indicate that your parcel of property zoned P -0 as shown on the attached sketch is served by the municipal sanitary sewer system and is available at a manhole located partly on this property on the north line of Section 35. The storm sewer serving this P -0 zoned property is located on the south side of South 178th Street. .Connections to these systems would be at the developer's cost. The public and private extensions necessary to connect would be subject to approval following submittals .of.appro- priate plans and application for the required permits. Permit fees are based on the attached schedule. Should there be any questions in this regard, please call. Sin ►erely Byrn G. Sne •.E. Publi Works Director Attac ments:'.1) Map 2) Schedule BS:jt PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE Hauling - $25.00 Sanitary Side Sewer, each building under 30,000 square feet - $170.00 plus special connection charges (Special connection charges are waived by the property's participation in providing sanitary mains fronting their property.) Sanitary Sewer Main Extension - $25.00 Storm .Drains - $25.00 Fire Hydrant /Loop /Sprinkler (External to the Building) - $25.00 Irrigation Sprinkler - $25.00 Permit Fees for Water Meters - See Water District 75 Curb Cut /Access /Sidewalk - $25.00 CoT 4_awoI ROANS 1 ; . \:,--."*\ (1 r ad \\�; ,, . W LEGIEHO R -A AGRai-I -URAL R•I -20.0 SNGLE FAMLY RESICENTIAL R4120 SINGLE FAMLY PE-MENTAL R+66 SINCLE FAMLY RESCENTIAL R -I -72 %OLE FAMLY RESDENTIAL R -2 TWO FAMLY RESDENTIAL R-3 TPREE AND FOIP FAMLY RESCQJTIAL 4.4 LOW APARTMENTS M•LTRE RESDENCE HIGH CENSITY �R- I -12.OI R +120 ` Po L i cwFFSSIONAL Arc cf:FICE c -I b380R4000 PETAL C -2 REGCNAL RETAIL FTI C -P • PLANNED B13,ESS CENTER C -M INDUSTPoAL PARK Mi L i L13141 POOST Y ri M-2 PEA/7 INDUSTRY 1 j' cs_ :1-98 'QB;k, t1 E to �llri • Gv AaaL. 20. ICe2 4I / IM II Transamerica Title Services Transamerica Title Insurance Company Please address correspondence to the office checked below: ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ MAIN Park Place 6th Ave. at University St Seattle. WA 98101 (206) 628 -4676 AUBURN 230 Auburn Way So Auburn. WA 98002 (206) 839 -2566 BALLARD 6700 15th Ave. N.W Seattle. WA 98117 (206) 628 -4610 BELLEVUE 10635 N.E. 8th St. Box 1493 Bellevue. WA 98009 (206)628.4661 rMcCann Development Corporation 940 Andover Park East Tukwila, WA 98188 Attn: Larry Hansen L 1 WEDGWOOD 8206 35th Ave. N.E. Seattle. WA 98115 (206) 628-4620 FEDERAL WAY 33427 Pacific Hwy So. Federat Way, WA 98003 (206) 838-3411 FACTORIA 12400 S.E. 38th St. Bellevue, WA 98006 (206) 628.5973 j Your Order No. Our Order No. 900484 McCann Development Corporation SECOND REPORT PRELIMINARY COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE Washington Land Title Association Form (X) Owner's standard coverage ( ) ( ) Purchaser's standard coverage Mortgagee's standard coverage ( ) Mortgagee's ALTA coverage ( ) Tax Registration ( ) Date: Amount Premium Sales Tax Total AMOUNT TO BE DETERMINED June 4, 1982 at 8:00 A.M. Total TRANSAMERICA TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY agrees to issue on request and on recording of any appropriate documents, its policy or policies as applied for, •.vith coverage as indicated, based on this pre- liminary commitment that title to the property described herein is vested on the date shown above in McCANN DEVELOPMENT CORP., a Washington corporation, as Trustee, as to Parcels 1, 2, 3 and 4, (See Note 2); and HAROLD R. IVERSON and MARION E. IVERSON, husband and wife, as to Parcel 5; subject only to the exceptions shown herein and the terms, conditions and exceptions contained in the policy form. This report and commitment shall have no force or effe - . basis for - cove 9 specified herein. Description: Form No. W -K -734 ert L. Iverso r Titleo if (628 -5970) - as hereto attached - - continued - NOTE: 1. Investigation should be made to determine if there are any service, installation, maintenance, or construction charges for sewer, water or electricity. 2.In the event this transaction fails to close, a cancellation fee will be charged for services rendered in accordance with our rate schedule. SECOND REPORT June 4, 1982 Order No. 900484 DESCRIPTION: PARCEL 1: That portion of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.H., described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of the Northwest 1/4 of the North- west 1/4 of said Section 35; thence South 01 °49'41" West along the East line of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 35 a distance of 757.08 feet to the North margin of South 178th Street (P.J. Musiel County Road); thence North 65 °22'03" West along said North margin a distance of 240.64 feet; ,<- thence North 47 °46'03" West along said North margin a distance of 341.00 feet to the East right -of -way line of Primary State Highway No. 1 (Junction S. S. H. No. 5A to South 178th Street); thence North 09 °32'33" East along said East right -of -way line a distance of 240.39 feet; thence along a curve to the right, having a radius of 11,199.16 feet, an arc distance of 209.74 feet through a central angle of 01 °04'23" to the North line of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 35; thence South 87 °45'57" East along said North line a distance of 419.14 feet to the true point of beginning; Situate in the County of King, State of Washington. PARCEL 2: That portion of the Northeast / of the Northwest /4 of Section 35, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of said Northeast /4 of the Northwest 34; thence North 87 °45'57" West along the North line of said Northeast 14 of the Northwest 34 a distance of 481.05 feet to the West margin of the Southcenter Parkway; thence South 11 °59'33 "East along said West margin a distance of 1,101.07 feet; thence South 78 °00'27" West a distance of 68.93 feet to an angle point of the old alignment of South 178th Street (formerly known as P. J. Musiel County Road); thence South 20 °03'27" West along the old centerline of said street a distance of 221.29 feet to a line 30 feet North of and parallel to the South line of said Northeast k of the Northwest ; being the North margin of the new alignment of said South 178th Street; thence North 87 °50'57" West along said North margin a distance of 233.08 feet to a point of curve; thence along said North margin on a curve to the right having a radius of 113.24 feet, an arc distance of 169.17 feet, through - continued - SECOND REPORT Order No. 900484 DESCRIPTION - PARCEL 2 (continued): a central angle of 85 °35'34" to a point of reverse curve; thence along. said North margin on a curve to the left having a radius of 268.74 feet, an arc distance of 29.43 feet, through a central angle of 06 °16'32" to the old centerline of said South 178th Street; thence North 29 °42'27" East along said old centerline a distance of 52.69 feet to an angle point; thence North 55 °08'33" West along said old centerline a distance of 64.04 feet tc the North margin of the new alignment of said South 178th Street to the true point of beginning; thence along said North margin on a curve to the left, the center of which bears South 62 °56'38" West having a radius of 268.74 feet, an arc distance of 157.50 feet, through a central angle of 33 °34'48 "; thence North 60 °38'10" West along said North margin a distance of 204.96 feet; thence along a curve to the left having a radius of 508.59 feet, an arc distance of 25.52 feet through a central angle of 02 °52'29 "; thence North 63 °30' 39" West along said North margin a distance of 290.59 feet to the West line of said Northeast 3 of the Northwest k; thence North 01 °49'41" East along said West line a distance of 289.35 feet; thence South 52 °44'03" East 836.84 feet to the most Southerly corner of a tract of land conveyed to American National Insurance by deed recorded under Recording No. 6704630; thence South 37 °55'55" West 173.09 feet to the true point of beginning; Situate in the County of King, State of Washington. PARCEL 3: That portion of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of said Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4; thence North 87 °45'57" West along the North line of said Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, a distance of 481.05 feet to the West margin of Southcenter Parkway; thence South 11 °59'33" East along said West margin, a distance of 1007.07 feet to the true point of beginning; thence continuing South 11 °59'33" East along said margin, a distance of 94.05 feet; thence South 78 °00'27" West, a distance of 68.93 feet to an angle point of the old alignment of South 178th Street (formerly known as P.J. Musiel County Road); thence South 20 °03'27" West along the old centerline of said street, a distance of 221.29 feet to a line 30 feet North of and parallel to the South line of said Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, being the North margin of the new alignment of said South 178th Street; thence North 87 °50'57" West along said North margin, a distance of 233.08 feet to a point of curve; - continued - SECOND REPORT Order No. 900484 DESCRIPTION - PARCEL 3 (continued): thence along said North margin on a curve to the right having a radius of 113.24 feet, air arc distance of 169.17 feet, through a central angle of 85 °35'34" to a point of reverse curve; thence along said North margin on a curve to the left, having a radius of 268.74 feet, an arc distance of 29.43 feet, through a central angle of 06 °16'32" to the old centerline of said South 178th Street; thence North 29 °42'27" East along said old centerline, a distance of 52.69 feet to an angle point; thence North 55 °08'33" West along said old centerline, a distance of 64.04 feet to the North margin of the new alignment of said South 178th Street; thence North 37 °55'55" East 173.09 feet to the most Southerly corner of a tract of land conveyed to American National Insurance by deed recorded October 16, 1970, under Recording No. 6704630; thence along the Southeasterly line of said conveyed tract, North 42 °30'27" East, a distance of 106.34 feet along the Southeasterly line of American National Insurance's tract to the intersection of the Southwesterly line of a tract conveyed to Laurel Development Co., a Washington-corporation, by deed recorded under Recording No. 761110 -0056; thence along the Southerly line of said Laurel Development Co. Tract, South 51 °25'11" East, a distance of 57.27 feet; thence South 45 °56'15" East, a distance of 62.15 feet; thence South 51 °32'16" East, a distance of 47.25 feet; thence South 76 °31'22" East, a distance of 72.20 feet; thence South 87 °45'57" East, a distance of 120.00 feet to the true point of beginning; Situate in the County of King, State of Washington. PARCEL 4: That portion of the Northeast k of the Northwest k of Section 35, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of said Northeast 14 of the Northwest 14; thence North 87 °45'57" West along the North line of said Northeast of the Northwest 14 a distance to 481.05 feet to the West margin of Southcenter Parkway; thence South 11 °59'33" East along said West margin a distance of 41.27 feet to the true point of beginning; thence North 87 °45'57" West a distance of 229.11 feet; thence South 42 °30'27" West a distance of 695.97 feet; thence North 52 °44'03" West a distance of 194.15 feet to the West line of said Northeast k of the Northwest 14; thence North 01 °49'41" East along said West line a distance of 459.57 feet to the Northwest corner of said Northeast 14 of the Northwest 14; - continued - SECOND REPORT Order No. 900484 DESCRIPTION - PARCEL 4 (continued): thence South 87 °45'57" East along the North line of said Northeast 4 of the Northwest 4 a distance of 831.10 feet to the true point of beginning; EXCEPT that portion of said tract lying within the boundaries of Short Plat No. 8393 recorded under Recording No. 790823 -0752. TOGETHER WITH an easement for ingress, egress and utilities 15 feet in width as reserved in deed recorded under Recording No. 770105 -0686; Situate in the County of King, State of Washington. PARCEL 5: That portion of the Southeast of the Southwest 1 of Section 26, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Southeast 1 of the Southwest 1 of Section 26; thence North 87 °45'57" West along the South line of said Southeast 1 of the Southwest 1, a distance of 481.05 feet to the West margin of Southcenter Parkway and the true point of beginning; thence continuing North 87 °45'57" West along said South line a distance of 831.10 feet to the Southwest corner of said Southeast 1 of the Southwest 1; thence North 00 °56'36" East a distance of 269.01 feet; thence North 86 °17'42" East a distance of 753.26 feet to the West margin of Southcenter Parkway; thence South 11 °59'33" East along said West margin a distance of 357.86 feet to the true point of beginning; EXCEPT that-portion of said tract lying within the boundaries of Short Plat No. 8393 recorded under Recording No. 790823 -0752; TOGETHER WITH an easement for ingress, egress and utilities 15 feet in width as reserved in deed recorded under Recording No. 770105 -0685; Situate in the County of King, State of Washington. SECOND REPORT Page 2 Order No. 900484 EXCEPTIONS: A. Excise tax, if unpaid. B. General taxes, as follows, together with interest after delinquency: Tax Account No Year Amount Billed Amount Paid 352304- 9025 -00 1982 $269.88 $134.94 (Covers Parcel 1) 352304 - 9009 -00 1982 $111.79 $ 55.90 (Covers portion of Parcel 2 and ALL of Parcel 4) 352304- 9027 -08 1982 $ 6.26 $ 6.26 (Covers portion of Parcel 2) 352304 - 9038 -05 1982 $235.20 $117.60 (Covers Parcel 3 and remainder of Parcel 2) 262304- 9065 -02 1982 $ 18.14 $ 18.14 (Covers Parcel 5) C. Liability for assessments, if any, a report of which will follow. 1. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: Grantee: Purpose: Area Affected: Recording No.: State of Washington Right, privilege and easement to construct and forever maintain a drainage system together with the necessary appurtenances thereto The Southerly portion■of Parcel 5 5233536 - continued - SECOND REPORT Page 3 EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: Grantee: Purpose: Area Affected: Recording No.: Order No. 900484 State of Washington The perpetual right, permit, license and easement to use and occupy the hereinafter described property for the purpose of constructing and maintaining drainage easement slopes in excavation and /or embankment The Southerly portion of Parcel 5 6233537 3. Slope easement granted to State of Washington under Recording No. 6240705, to use and occupy the hereinafter described lands for the purpose of constructing and maintaining drainage easement slopes in excavation and /or embankment. (Covers Parcels 2 and 4) 4. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: Disclosed By: Instrument recorded under Recording No. 6240706 Purpose: Right, privilege and easement to construct . and forever maintain a drainage system including culverts and ditches, but not exclusive thereto over, across and upon that portion of the property herein described Area Affected: Covers Parcel 4 5. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: Grantee: Purpose: Area Affected: Recording No.: (Covers Parcel 3) The City of Tukwila, a municipal corporation Utility mains and lines with the necessary appurtenances Portion of the West 15 feet of the East 21 feet 6343861 6. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: Disclosed By: Instrument recorded under Recording No. 6680143 Purpose: Ari:'etsement or right -of -way for a sanitary sewer together with the necessary appurtenances thereto Area Affected: 10 foot strip over Easterly portion of said property in Parcel 5 - continued - SECOND REPORT Page 4 7. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: Disclosed By: Purpose: Area Affected: Order No. 900484 Instrument recorded under Recording No. 6680144 Sanitary Sewer That portion on the Northeast corner of Parcel 4 and the Southeast corner of Parcel 5 8. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: Disclosed By: Purpose: Area Affected: Instrument recorded under Recording No. 770105 -0685 Ingress and egress The North 20 feet of Parcel 5 9. PROPERTY USE AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND THE TERNS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: Between: And: Dated: Recorded: Recording No.: Regarding: City of Tukwila Stanley N. Kasperson, Trustee July 21, 1969 August 28, 1969 6557642 Covenants, conditions or restrictions imposed on the property herein described in connection with the petition to rezone property herein described and other adjoining property into M -1 classification (Covers Parcels 3, 4 and 5) 10. Condemnation by the State of Washington of right of access to State Highway and of light, view and air, by decree entered May 28, 1963, in King County Superior Court Cause No. 596587. (Covers Parcel 1) NOTE 1: Title is to vest in persons not yet revealed and when so vested will be subject to matters disclosed by a search of the records against their names. NOTE 2: The terms of the trust are not disclosed of record and the Company is unable to determine whether or not said Trustee has full power to sell and convey the property herein described. DW : nk NOTE CONTOURS ARE APPROXIMATE 40 - z PROPOSED BORROW PIT ". 2 P-2 3 <r0 ) alp 5OUTH ch 57 LOCATION PLAN FEET 200 100 0 200 _e____). -----F.RREIEGWHI4 YOF WAY ---1 • 1 . . ‘...., 1. • 7,-- . • '"'""*"•ft--7-=-..'" — t , ' —• ppopERTY INE 0 ,• 0 • • s• s, 0- e) KEY: CURRENT C;.,MES & :ACCRE BORINGS 400 stf EVIG IJ 3 E..,;:iE3 & MUC'RE BORINGS w BORINGS BY OTHER MI A r ( • _ OUTDOOR PLAZA A Valley &Mt Rainier Site Plan VICINITY MAP GAM • Office Floor 1 Meng Lockers • L --- Line of Building Above Er- - L _ - _ - • • Parking Below ton grade) 1 • • il • • • • • Office Floor 3 Office Floor 2 11111111111111111 1111111111. Office- II ��1 �� �����_ Parking Entry Section L1t11 11111 11111 INIIUUUWUMU IVMMINaw" �%7J�uaur uuiD : ■MU!!t •NUUle' JUUUmP U�U1 EM MUUSP m if rimariv:immt_ANNE:1. - a " - an r MEIZEINIMMUM nAIMME Er i - : R•� 1oUMn�r�laM��N1�NWsME.. u���la EMII Noel �{ t'm'"-'` 111111`2 %r_v". % • VI: NC .. NM :.7.9111113114,! – li!..e.,'I nib..."_. IUP I' . West Elevation IP' Ell 111111 am umninumminimmiumummum ':- annuniumummamummeumommummumms IN �m i al'_ • iPOI um min nor, . r�'�imo■ ,,,111111W .,' 111.11I1.1111��!'���i•�1•�! 'vomm itim m>•t f 4 om� -� 'rte t f�!�� ,� va� 1 1 A:I1l."10Nx, ,1 114 MAIM 1 11221111111111.11 }„ East Elevation ,aT fv.�nJ �w ar„ \ rye ral `,. • Itr >rr i �fl� 5 01 +s u • `0�� Ye 'ti L • rF r 1P1.4 s • Kvo1 reLONs r. 0 f .7:4r xlrl.I/ f /oN October 13.1W8 PUGET SOUND BUSINESS ,JOUR Warehousing still King in Southend The vacancy rate for warehouse space in South King County is up slightly but still is the envy of developers everywhere. For the quarter ending August 1986, ac- cording to statistics supplied by DKB Corp., the rate stood at 4.53 percent, up a smidgen from the 3.56 percent for the previous quarter. Combination space has a vacancy rate of 17.5 percent, down from 19 percent, even with the addition of 325,000 square feet of new space. There is a 175,000 - square -foot warehouse' under construction in Kent due on line this; month. There is also a 50,000- square -foot i warehouse proposed for Tukwila although no timing has been determined. There are 27 constructed warehousing projects totaling almost 10 million square feet. The majority (64 percent) are in the Kent Valley which has a vacancy rate of 5 percent and rates averaging 22 cents per square foot per month triple net. The six projects in Tukwila have a vacancy ram of 4 percent and rents of 21 cents per square foot. The one project in Renton comprises 14 percent of the total warehouse square. footage and is completely full. Federal Way has two projects totaling 78,000 square feet; with a vacancy ram of 16 percent down from 26 percent last quarter. Three of the larger industrial perks ex- perienced large losses accounting for negative absorption of minus 82,052 square feet this quarter. It is expected that the balance of the year will show positive ab- sorption between 50,000 and 100,000 square feet per quarter, DKB says The bulk of proposed combination space (81 percent) is in the Kent Valley in five pm- jects totaling 265,000 square feet. The balance is in two 30,000- square -foot pro- jects, one each in Auburn and Tukwila. Rent in Kent will average 29 cents per square foot triple net for the shell plus 60 cents per square foot triple net for the of- fice. The Auburn project has blended rates of 35 cents per square foot triple net. There are currently four combination pro- jects under construction totaling 375,000 square feet. While the mats oombaosnor in toe air` Jim kiannatadoess area is. downtown, !Sends and d dosvavbcwa'Bdlavaa. South.; . C12C.oaae� ttlg bet igntx'ad- A1oew: ti�00r3 aquaas fabt io 1offioe specs is =reedy proposed f 1. ta.Sosatbatetinerket wiidsover half set:., far Tukwillwiitt:flvs projettr, t In praColgmbieCenard 6000,000r Rum *Swat sliil� eegett6ed as a bi`.: ...cloak of onion span By: war of caw: raison 600,000aquatsfeet m net abet sorption-waddle' a t . yew f ' do wesowmV000sseil;+ and yo not Pgadmd's ditttties: -tos. anera111t. is abonM t 450,001Xs n s feed:.:::;,-:.. These stets. propotproposed both Federal Way and Kent and one project in Renton. Rents are projected at between 514 and 515 a square foot fully serviced. according to the Andover Co. There are three projects currently under construction: one of 78.000 square feet in Federal Way and two totaling 183,000 square feet in Renton. Rents will range from $15 to 517.50 a square foot a year fully serviced. The 85 completed office projects. in- cluidng Federal Way space. comprise almost 5.3 million square feet with a vacancy rate of 1 1.86 percent. down from 14.3 percent in the spring quarter. If the 18 projects in Federal Way are ex- cluded, the vacancy tate is only 7.81 per- cent. The rates in Federal Way range from 38.40 triple net to a high of 516 per square foot a year fully serviced. The Andover Co. divides office space in the other areas into Class A and Class B. space. Class B space is older and/or wood frame one and two-story buildings. Tukwila and Renton each have approximately 1.5 million square feet of space and both have vacancy rates under 10 percent, although the Class B vacancy rate is lower. Sea -Tac has a higher Class B vacancy rate: 22.6 percent against an 18 percent vacancy rate for Class A space. There is only 7,000 square feet in Kent's 879,000 square feet of inventory, all of it in Class B space. Area Clan A Class 1 Tukwila , $13.91 512.08 `••••"Kem 514.00 511,38 See Tac 513.89 512.40 Renton .513.70 511.63 Absorption for the latest quarter was almost 125,000 square feet. This is due primarily to gains of 10,000 to 20.000 in several buildings in Federal Way and Tukwila, as well as a 48,000 square foot lease by Boeing in Renton. Sea -Tac and Kent experienced no change in tenants in the buildings surveyed. Future absorption will be heavily influenced by Boeing and its divisions, but it is expected that non -Bc eing quarterly absorption would be between 75,000 ar,4 125,000 square feet. TOTAL INVENTORY PROPOSED UNDER CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTED ABSORPTION SQ. FT. NO. SQ. FT. NO. PRELEASED SQ. FT. NO. %VACANT 1/4 ENDING 8115186 Warehouse 50,000 1 175,000 1 0.00% 9,880,137 27 4.53% - 82,052 Combination 325,912 7 374,992 4 15.73% 5,693,362 62 17.S3% 295,219 Office 592,000 10 261,000 3 2.68% 5,280,103 85 11.86% 122,512 TPi. thH.H,,./ eMni :.. C.. IA. Mf /l- .. -.. ..- ____,._ _. , _ _ ... ..- Warehousing still King in Southend The vacancy rate for warehouse space in South King County is up slightly but still is the envy of developers everywhere. For the quarter ending August 1986, ac- cording to statistics supplied by DKB Corp., the rate stood at 4.53 percent, up a smidgen from the 3.56 percent for the previous quarter. Combination space has a vacancy rate of 17.5 percent, down from 19 percent, even with the addition of 325,000 square feet of new space. There is a 175,000 - square -foot warehouse' under construction in Kent due on line this; month. There is also a 50,000- square -foot i warehouse proposed for Tukwila although no timing has been determined. There are 27 constructed warehousing projects totaling almost 10 million square feet. The majority (64 percent) are in the Kent Valley which has a vacancy rate of 5 percent and rates averaging 22 cents per square foot per month triple net. The six projects in Tukwila have a vacancy ram of 4 percent and rents of 21 cents per square foot. The one project in Renton comprises 14 percent of the total warehouse square. footage and is completely full. Federal Way has two projects totaling 78,000 square feet; with a vacancy ram of 16 percent down from 26 percent last quarter. Three of the larger industrial perks ex- perienced large losses accounting for negative absorption of minus 82,052 square feet this quarter. It is expected that the balance of the year will show positive ab- sorption between 50,000 and 100,000 square feet per quarter, DKB says The bulk of proposed combination space (81 percent) is in the Kent Valley in five pm- jects totaling 265,000 square feet. The balance is in two 30,000- square -foot pro- jects, one each in Auburn and Tukwila. Rent in Kent will average 29 cents per square foot triple net for the shell plus 60 cents per square foot triple net for the of- fice. The Auburn project has blended rates of 35 cents per square foot triple net. There are currently four combination pro- jects under construction totaling 375,000 square feet. While the mats oombaosnor in toe air` Jim kiannatadoess area is. downtown, !Sends and d dosvavbcwa'Bdlavaa. South.; . C12C.oaae� ttlg bet igntx'ad- A1oew: ti�00r3 aquaas fabt io 1offioe specs is =reedy proposed f 1. ta.Sosatbatetinerket wiidsover half set:., far Tukwillwiitt:flvs projettr, t In praColgmbieCenard 6000,000r Rum *Swat sliil� eegett6ed as a bi`.: ...cloak of onion span By: war of caw: raison 600,000aquatsfeet m net abet sorption-waddle' a t . yew f ' do wesowmV000sseil;+ and yo not Pgadmd's ditttties: -tos. anera111t. is abonM t 450,001Xs n s feed:.:::;,-:.. These stets. propotproposed both Federal Way and Kent and one project in Renton. Rents are projected at between 514 and 515 a square foot fully serviced. according to the Andover Co. There are three projects currently under construction: one of 78.000 square feet in Federal Way and two totaling 183,000 square feet in Renton. Rents will range from $15 to 517.50 a square foot a year fully serviced. The 85 completed office projects. in- cluidng Federal Way space. comprise almost 5.3 million square feet with a vacancy rate of 1 1.86 percent. down from 14.3 percent in the spring quarter. If the 18 projects in Federal Way are ex- cluded, the vacancy tate is only 7.81 per- cent. The rates in Federal Way range from 38.40 triple net to a high of 516 per square foot a year fully serviced. The Andover Co. divides office space in the other areas into Class A and Class B. space. Class B space is older and/or wood frame one and two-story buildings. Tukwila and Renton each have approximately 1.5 million square feet of space and both have vacancy rates under 10 percent, although the Class B vacancy rate is lower. Sea -Tac has a higher Class B vacancy rate: 22.6 percent against an 18 percent vacancy rate for Class A space. There is only 7,000 square feet in Kent's 879,000 square feet of inventory, all of it in Class B space. Area Clan A Class 1 Tukwila , $13.91 512.08 `••••"Kem 514.00 511,38 See Tac 513.89 512.40 Renton .513.70 511.63 Absorption for the latest quarter was almost 125,000 square feet. This is due primarily to gains of 10,000 to 20.000 in several buildings in Federal Way and Tukwila, as well as a 48,000 square foot lease by Boeing in Renton. Sea -Tac and Kent experienced no change in tenants in the buildings surveyed. Future absorption will be heavily influenced by Boeing and its divisions, but it is expected that non -Bc eing quarterly absorption would be between 75,000 ar,4 125,000 square feet.