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-FD-53 - BENAROYA COMPANY - OFFICE BUILDING
BENAROYA OFFICE BUILDING SOUTHCENTER PY EPIGFD -53 22 May 1978 • • CfTY of TUKW LA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Robert Fehnel Jack A. Benaroya Co. 5950 Sixth Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98108 RE: WITHDRAWAL OF DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE Dear Mr. Fehnel: Enclosed herewith is another copy of the Withdrawal of the Declaration of Significance on the proposed Benaroya 9 -story office building on South - center Parkway in Tukwila. .Please note the conditions of the withdrawal. Get in contact with either myself or Kjell Stoknes so that we may discuss procedures and checkpoints accomplishing these points. If you have any questions or comments, please don't hesitate to call. ResBectfully, Fted N. Satterstrom Planning Supervisor FNS /ch cc: jg,,Dir 6230 Southcenter Boulevard 0 Tukwila, Washington 98188 0 (206) 242 -2I77 CITY OF TUKWILA OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ''IIT!1D''!,IAL OF DECLARATIDII OF -SJT IFIC'\'°ICF Description of proposal Proponent Location of Proposal Lead Agency Benaroya nine story office building Jack Benaroya Company Southcenter Parkway City of Tukwila File No. EPIC -FD -S) This proposal has been determined to (tagmlnot have) a significant adverse im- pact upon the environment. An EISs not) required under RCW 43.21C.030(2) (c). This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Responsible Official Position /Title Date. Kjell Stoknes Director, Office of Community Development 5/19/78 Signature COMMENTS: This withdrawal is subject to the following agreement between the City and the Jack Benaroya Co.: Mitigation of traffic impacts are to be completed 1. ?: his- witbdrawal- wi.l•1.- net- beeefe- effeetide- aei:ii- •the- traf €ie- impaet have- been- xesel`ved to the satisfaction of the Tukwila Public Works Director. 2. The site is to have a landscape plan prepared by a landscape architect with the one objective being to use landscaping, to the extent possible, to reduce the bulk affect of the structure. 3. If practical from an engineering standpoint, some manner of re- entering storm water run -off back into the ground water is to employed and- approved - bar- tbe- Pubiis- Works - Department- on site. 4. Method of temporary erosion control and keeping Southcenter Parkway clean during construction is to be submitted to the Public Works Department and approved by them. Flagmen may be required during construction if deemed necessary' by the Public Works Director. • Withdrawal of Declaration of Significance Benaroya nine story office building Page 2 19 May 1978 5, Steep slopes to the west of this property not to be distrubed under this permit. 6 All work on excavating, dewatering, granular fill type and compaction, footing size and type to conform to soils report. A written verifica- tion to the City by Dames & Moore that the work was performed as recom- mended shall be provided within five days of completion of each of the following steps: A. Rough grading, including supplementory exploration for dewatering, per report. B. Dewatering done properly for footings. C. Granular fill of proper type, properly placed and compacted per report. D. Foundation footings, pads, and other supports installed per report. . That all the recommendations of the Dames & Moore Report of Soils Investigation dated April 14, 1978, and any subsequent reports have been complied with. 7 Sidewalks to be constructed on the entire length of the property with a minimum width of 5 feet to implement sidewalk plan of the Comprehensive Plan, page 6. S Kj-11 Stoknes, Responsible Official 'Authorized Signature, Jack Benaroya Co. Date: rhaAt / ?, /97f Date: MEMORANDUM Edgar D. Bauch, Mayor CITY or TUKWILA 14475 - 59TH AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98067 TO: Kjell Stoknes FROM: Mayor Ed Bauch c DATE: May 18, 1978 SUBJECT: Policy Decision - Benaroya Office Structure This memo is to confirm verbal discussion we had in response to a memo from you to me on same subject dated May 16, 1978. It is wise to discuss the delivery of municipal services when reviewing the impact of a proposed project. It comes under the general term of environmental impact, but in this case, it is the economic impact rather than the physical environment. Mitiga- tion of this economic impact is handled much different from that of a physical impact. The first item of consideration is that of scale. What is the scale of this project to the total economic environment of the City of Tukwila? If this project were to be built in Algona or Pacific, then a significant impact would be considered. The second item is of timing. Which comes first, the services or the project? If we had required the services, Southcenter would never have been built. The question of increased police or fire service is an administrative and political process. The department head identifies a problem area, states the needs, and then justifies the increase in head count and budget to the mayor. The mayor evaluates and makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council appropriates. This process is independent of individual projects. How well a jurisdiction responds within this system dictates how many developers are willing to build within the jurisdiction. My instructions to you are that you are to process a project based on existing ordinances and codes. Department heads who feel they have a problem then should attempt to have those ordinances and codes changed within the political process. You will have met your obligation as a responsible official by bringing this matter to my attention. EDB /mb cc: Chief Hubert Crawley Chief John Sheets MAY 1 9 197 12015 AURORA AVENUE NORTH G 364 -1232 Y SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98133 MailingAddress:P.O. BOX 33370 0 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98133 May 18, 1978 ASMF #4920 Jack A. Benaroya Co. 5950 - 6th Ave. So. Seattle, WA 98108 Attention: Mr. Bob Fehnel Project: Parkway Plaza Subject: Energy Efficiency Gentlemen: The attached cost analysis is a valid comparison of some different. HVAC Systems as they apply to a common structure. Although the design specifics of the example building are not given (wall "U factor, glazing -type and percentage, design temperatures, etc.) the analysis remains viable for almost any building except where extreme conditions prevail such as an overly large ratio of single glazing to wall area, climatic extremes or a "leaky" building structure. The relatively mild climate conditions that exist in the Seattle area are ideal for a heat pump system. We further anticipate an efficiency rate of approximately 50% in our heat recovery loop between building supply and exhaust air. If we can be of further assistance please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, ALLIED SHEET METAL FABRICATORS, INC. Thomas F. Helm Project Engineer /Manager TFH /bk Enclosure Sfiece 1leo9. %adua ltial -esoo : lete l Exiaade aid `l/erct .cg Sy4temr.4 JA-/ 7w /5 • ,e) — cE-,Jr,4 ' se; . 2> .e1a---€, �- Selection of the air conditioning system for a given building will normally be based on obtaining satis- factory performance at the best cost. Frequently, more than one system will be judged capable. of providing satisfactory air conditioning. It then becomes necessary to study the relative costs of those systems being con- sidered in order to choose one. Factors which are in- volved include installed cost, operating cost and total owning cost. Systems often considered for the air conditioning of • multi -room buildings include fan -coil, variable volume, induction, double duct, packaged terminal air condi- tioners, and EnerCon.'Although the exact installed cost for any of these systems can vary significantly depend- ing on local labor rates, type of building and design requirements, data collected throughout the country has indicated a remarkably consistent relative cost. Chart 1 illustrates the relative costs for an office building, and is based on actual mechanical contracts including some instances where • two or -more systems were bid as alternates on the same project. Relative Installed Costs Relative operating costs, indicated by Chart 2, have been determined from data provided by local utilities and consulting engineers for similar buildings served by one of the various air conditioning systems. This includes some instances where construction and usage of two buildings were essentially identical except that different air conditioning systems had been installed. Final economic selection of the air conditioning system will be based on one of several possible criteria. 1. Lowest Installed Cost 2. Lowest Operating Cost 3. Lowest Owning Cost 4. Greatest Rate of Return on Initial Investment An analysis such as that in ('hart 3 is required to rank the systems being considered in each cost criterion. This analysis indicates that a packaged terminal air conditioning system will have the lowest installed cost, .with an °EnerCon system providing lowest operating and owning costs. c - U U a N U c W Variable Volume - U d Air -Water Induction 0 0 CHART 1 504.5 SeAt7he G,7yZi4n''S PI e A-J 7 arm./ Relative T. Operating os t111 U c c _ (111 a U CV Packaged Terminal A.C. 0) U 'CHART 3 - Owning Cost An- sis 50,000 Square Foot Office Building Based on 170 tons of air conditioning, with central systems using 130 ton electric chiller. Air Conditioning System EnerCon 4-Pipe Fan-Coil Variable Volume Double Duct Packaged Terminal A/C Installed Cost S150,000 S185,000 S175,000 S225,000 Annual Fixed Charges Amortization Period (Years) 20 Capital Recovery Factor @ 8".'% 0.10185 Amortization Cost 15,278 Insurance @ 1% 1.500 Taxes ® 2% 3,000 Total Fixed Charges 19,778 Annual Operating Costs Energy Cost 7,000 Operating Engineer (part time) 0 Maintenance Cost 3,420 Total Operating Cost 10,420 Annual Owning Cost 20 0.10185 18,842 1.,850 3,700 24,392 9,000 4,000 10,400 23,400 20 0.10185 17,824 1,750 3,500 23,074 10.000 8.000 12,000 30.000 20 0.10185 22,916 2,250 4,500 29.666 15,000 8,000 13,000 36.000 30.198 47,792 53,074 65,666 S130.000 15 0.11683 15,188 1,300 2,600. 19,088 11,000 0 5,440 16,440 35.528 Installed Cost Is based on Chart 1. Amortization Period agrees with Fred S. Dubin Assoc. research study report for Veterans Administration, based on equipment life. Capital Recovery Factor - t l {- I) n _ t where I - interest rate expressed as a decimal and n = number of years. Interest is estimated at 8 %. Amortization Cost = Capital Recovery Factor x Installed Cost. Insurance and Taxes are Increased due to the increased value of the building associated with the air conditioning system. Fixed Charges are the annual costs related to the initial investment. Energy Cost Is based on Chart 2. Operating Engineer, where required. Is based on one man handling several installations. Some local codes, however, require a full time licensed operator with central systems. significantly Increasing the cost. Maintenance Cost is based on Fred S. Dubin -Assoc. report for V.A. and existing ,rates .for maintenance .contracts. Annual Owning Cost is the sum of Fixed and Operating Costs. ' Using this analysis, the most economical selections are • tabulated below for each criterion mentioned previously. Selection Criterion 1. Lowest Installed Cost 2. Lowest Operating Cost 3. Lowest Owning Cost 4. Greatest Rate of Return Best Selection P.T.A.C. EnerCon EnerCon on Investment EnerCon Selection for items 1, 2 and 3 is based on the data from Chart 3. Return on investment is calculated next by several different methods to compare the EnerCon and P.T.A.C. systems. The other systems, having higher installed, operating and owning costs, would not be selected based on economics. The cash flow analysis used in calculating return on investment assumes straight line depreciation over 10 years for both the EnerCon and P.T.A.C. systems. Increased depreciation "for EnerCon system =•820,000 greater investment _ 10 yrs. = $2,000 /yr. $5,330 -1,665 $3,665 $5,330 Pretax Cash Inflow ($35,528 - 30,198 own- ing cost difference) Less Tax rt 50% of $5,330 - 2,000 in- creased depreciation Posttax Cash Inflow per year, first 10 years Pretax Cash Inflow, remaining 5 years of P.T.A.C. system life - 2,665 Less Tax a 50% $2,665 Posttax Cash Inflow per year, final 5 years 33 Method A Payback Period (after taxes) 520,000 ± $3,665 per year = 51/2 years to pay back the increased investment for EiwrCon system .from costs. `Method B — Simple Rate of Return On Investment Annual Owning Extra Investment x % Life Cost Difference — Amortization Period Average Extra Investment where Annual Owning Cost Difference = 53,665 first -10 years, 52,665 next 5 years, or $3,332 average for 15 years Amortization Period = 15 year life of P.T.A.C. system % Life (as a decimal) = Amortization Period _ Life of Extra .Llvestment Average Extra Investment = Extra Investment - 2 r $20,000 x 20 1 15 53,332 — R.O.I. — 520,000 2 Assuming that a 23.3% return on the additional 520,000 hives Although Methods A and B above are frequently used to eval of return should be discounted by an amount equivalent to the determine the hest investment. Methods C and D are based methods of evaluating investments. $3,332 — 51,000 = 23.3% $10,000 Method C — Present Value of Investment Present (V) —1-Ti R 1 + 122 Value (1 } i)2 improved owning tment. is satisfactory, the EnerCon.system should be installed. uate investments, they ignor the time value of money. The rate return available from alternate investment opportunities to on the discounting principle, and are "theoretically correct" nn S + ( I + i)n+ 0 + on where R = posttax cash - inflow for each year .= interest rate or cost.of capital-=.8% (from-Chart 3) n = life of asset or period of time studied • S = value of asset in yearn _= 537,500 (1/4 of original investment since 1/4 life remains) V — $3,665 + $3 665 i + 52,665 $37,500 1.08". (1.08)? (1.08)15 (1.08)15 Discount tables are available to sicnplify this calculation, and are used in the solution below. Posttax Present Value Years Cash Inflow Factor @ 8% 1 thru 10 11 12 13 14 15 53,665 2,665 2,665 2.665 2,665 2,665 x 6.71 x .429 x .397 x .368 x .340 x .315 Add discounted remaining value of EnerCon system 537,500 x .315 Total Present Value 524,592 1,144 1,058 981 906 839 529,520 11,812 $41,332 The EnerCon system represents a good investment since the present value of 541,332 far exceeds the increased cost of 520,000. Method D — Discounted Rate of Return C = Rn S I RI -f r (I -R r)2 + ▪ (I .1. r)n • (I + On where C = r = R= increased cost or investment = 520,000 discounted rate of return posttax cash inflow for each year *In • .,.sc _ .... c..u..:'.�.r..F.- e�.'.�::.. - 5.-... a._: :a_....- ......6....1._.._.�rY.: $3,665 $3,665 • $20,000 = 1. -1 (1 -1- r)2 I -I- r $2,665 $37,500 I (I -1 r115 (I 1- r)15 Solution of this cnlc•u1at1on is n trial and error procedure., but can be simplified by using ,the discount tables. Total Present Value Total Present ,Value .. Factor 20% - Present Value Posttax Present Value Years Cash Inflow Factor © 18% 1 thru 10 $3,665 x 4.494 11 . 2,665 x .162 12 2,665 •x .137 13 2,665 x .116 14 2,665 x .099 15 2,665 x .084 $ 16,471 4.192 432 .135 365 .112 309 .093 264 .078 224 .065 $18,065 Add discounted remaining value of EnerCon system $37,500 x • .084 = 3,150 $21,215 .065 $15,364 360 298 248 208 173 $16,651 2,438 $19,089 The present value for the EnerCon system will equal the increased investment of $20,000 at a discounted rate of return equal to approximately 19 %. Thus the EnerCon system represents a good investment unless an alternate $20,000 investment opportunity•exists offering a return greater than 19 %. References: 1. Fred S. Dubin Assoc., A Study of Design Criteria and Systems for Air Conditioning Existing Veterans Admin- istration llogpitals, March 1971. 2. William Warren Haynes, Managerial Economics, Analysis and Cases, (Austin, Tex.: Business Publications, Inc. Revised 19691, pp 504 -523. 35 Jack A. Benaroya Company 5950 Sixth Avenue South, Seattle, WA 98108 (206) 762 4750 Mi I■ May 18, 1978 Kjell Stoknes, Director Office of Community Development City of Tukwila Tukwila, WA 98188 SAY t arig Re: Parkway Plaza West Office Development I appreciate the opportunity to meet with Mr. Pieper and yourself regarding the concerns with respect to the impact of the proposed office building on the Tukwila area. As promised, I am enclosing for your consideration the following additional documentation: 1. A rendering of the proposed nine story office building. This building will be situated on glacial till and as shown by the ren= dering and on the site plan previously submitted, will be "tucked" against the hillside. The scale of the building, which is to be located at the rear of the site with the hillside forming a natural background, will be compatible with other developments in the area. The slope is not included within the construction area and is to be left undeveloped. 2. Documentation with respect to the energy efficiency of the building. Please note that we have specified a system which is energy efficient. 3. An economic analysis of the impact of the proposed office building as compared to a hypothetical development of the site for retail use. If you have any questions, please contact me or Bob Sandwick. ert Fehnel Encl. INDUSTRIAL PARKS /WAREHOUSES /OFFICE BUILDINGS /SHOPPING CENTERS ANO SPECIALIZED MERCHANDISE MARTS. L ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF PARKWAY PLAZA WEST OFFICE DEVELOPMENT 1. General. The multi -floor office complex proposed to be constructed by the .Jack A. Benaroya Company will be located on the west side of Southcenter Parkway directly across from Jafco in Parkway Plaza. Parkway Plaza„ which includes Jafco and the south and north phases, is a major retail shopping center serving greater King County area with over 531,000 square feet of retail space and 44 retail businesses. Parkway Plaza together with Doces, Levitz, R. B. Furniture and Ethan Allen, which have all collectively become known as "Parkway Plaza ", comprise the largest retail home furnishing center on the.west coast. This greater Parkway Plaza area covering both sides of Southcenter Parkway and bounded on the north by the Parkway Plaza North development and on the south by South 180th Street, is the primary area impacted by the proposed• office complex. That portion of the primary impact area lying east of South - center Parkway is fully developed and devoted to retail sale of general merchandise, apparel and furniture, excluding convenience shopping. The area west of Southcenter Parkway at present includes Ethan Allen., Levitz Furniture, and R. B. Furniture; however, the largest portion of this area is yet un -. developed. South of the primary impact area, there has been little development up to the present time. Interstate 5 defines the west boundary of the primary impact area. East of the primary area, land use is generally oriented towards warehousing and distribution. The area north of the primary impact area extends to "Southcenter ", a large regional shopping mall, and includes such commercial • enterprises as banks, motel /hotel facilities and restaurants. Within the primary impact area there are presently three restaurants,»The Turkey House, . The Sandwich Shop and Papa John's, and one tavern with food service. A new Chinese restaurant is planned to be opened shortly in Parkway Plaza. North of the primary impact area is located the Doubletree Inn and a McDonalds . restaurant, recently opened for business. 2. General Land and Building Values. Land and building values both within the primary impact area and the City of Tukwila have been increasing significantly within the past two years. It is reasonable to anticipate that these values will .continue to increase both with respect to inflationary pressures and:'furth-er``- evelopment in the primary impact area'and the area south•of So. 180th Street. In order to maintain the economic integrity and growth of land and building values in the primary impact and surrounding area, a viable and compatable mix of uses such as office and retail on the remaining undeveloped sites is desirable and required. 3. Work Force. The multi -story office building proposed by the Jack A. Benaroya Company will consist of some approximately 216,044 square feet of space and will involve the peak employment of approximately 1800 persons, with a mix of clerical, technical, professional and executive personnel with an above average disposable income. It is anticipated that these employees would in large. part be relocated from areas outside the City of Tukwila area, however, it is a reasonable assumption that the creation of new jobs would accompany the development of the office building, both with respect to the short term and long term impact. While no figures are readily available, it is also a reasonable assumption that the density of office related employment is significantly and substantially in excess of the employment that would be associated with retail development of the proposed office building site. 4. Cost Impact upon the City of Tukwila. No immediate cost impact with respect to utilities and other services provided by the. City of Tukwila is forseen as a result of the construction of the .proposed multi -story office building. The proposed site fronts on South - center Parkway, an already improved.five lane arterial public street. Water and sanitary and storm sewer facilities of sufficient capacity are available to the site.. Existing public roads, streets, utilities and other services have .been ,des.i.gned and constructed .wi.th respect to further continuing develop- ment within the primary impact and surrounding area. The discussion of impact of the proposed development with respect to traffic and utilities has been '• elsewhere addressed but it is worthwhile noting that any traffic signal on Southcenter Parkway required to mitigate any increased traffic will be without cost to the City of Tukwila. With respect to a comparison of office as opposed to retail use •of the site, it is expected that office development will have a greater impact upon water and sewer facilities, however, because of the continuing flow of traffic which would be generated by retail customers, retail use would have a greater long term impact with respect to public roads.and streets. It is conceded that the proposed development will together with other future developments within the City of Tukwila, will have a long range • cost impact on services provided by the City such as fire and police protection; however, the tax revenues generated by the proposed development of this site will more than offset that cost impact. 5. Benefits accruing to the Public and Private Sectors. Development of the site proposed for the office building, for either office or retail use, will result in substantial benefits to the City of Tukwila through the additional tax revenues generated by the development of the site. These additional tax revenues will be distributed to the Port of Seattle, Public School Districts, State of Washington, King County and the City of Tukwila, with the City of Tukwila receiving a substantial share of the revenues. (a) Real Estate Taxes. Real estate tax °revenues generated by this development are dependant upon the final assessed value of the proposed office building. Using an estimated office building cost of $6,000,000.00 and the 1978 levy rate, the proposed multi -story office building would generate approximately $125,000.00 in real estate tax revenue, an increase of approximately 1,000% over present 1978 taxes. If the site were to be developed for retail usage with building coverage comparable to Parkway Plaza North and using building costs for Parkway Plaza North as the assessed value, the revenue which might be generated would be approximately $42,000.00, an increase of less than 4 times the .existing revenue for 1978 on the undeveloped site. The following table illustrates this comparison. Real Estate Taxes Land (1978 assessed value x levy rate) • Actual - $170,050.00 x 14.09 Actual 600,000 x 18.595 Building (at cost x 1978 levy rate) Retail- (137,966.sq.ft..x $11.19 = $1,543,840.00 x 18.595) Office - (216,044 sq.ft. x $27.77 = $6,000,000.00 x 18.595) Retail Office $ 2,404.00 $ 11,157.00 $.28„708.00 $ 2,404.00 $ 11,157.00 $111,570.00 Totals $ 42,269.00 $125,131.00 (b) Personal Property, Business and-Occupation Taxes, Licenses and Permits. Data is not immediately available with regard to the tax revenues which would be generated through taxes on personal property, business and occupation taxes, licenses, fees and other miscellaneous taxes; however, it is clear that • these sources would result in increased tax revenues to the City of Tukwila. Since neither the particular office use or the particular retail tenant occupancy is known at this time, it is difficult to provide a dollar for dollar. comparison. Particular office uses may involve the installation of expensive items of equipment., such as computers or if a building,.cafeteria is installed substantial food. service equipment. In the case of retail, the nature of. retail business dictates the value of inventory and fixtures. Taking into consideration the greater square footage of office space -as compared to retail • and the density of inventory when comparing retail to office, it is not unreason able to assume that the revenues generated by these taxes would be significant and would be comparable for office and retail development. (c) Sales Tax. Gross sales to business in the primary impact and surrounding area and tax revenue to,the City of Tukwila through sales tax resulting from the devel- opment of the proposed site for either office or retail use wouldLbe significant. Sales tax arising out of the basic construction of the office building would be approximately $324,000.00 while construction of a retail complex would generate only approximately $83,367.00. This does not include sales tax generated by retail sales to construction workers during construction. Retail development based upon an estimate of 1977 Parkway Plaza average sales per square foot might generate some $9,230,000.00 of sales. The sales tax revenue generated from such sales would be approximately $498,500.00. Retail development assumes a continuing growth and need for retail space within the Parkway Plaza area and that all sales would be additive to existing sales of businesses in the area, which assumptions are subject to question.. The proposed office building would generate direct sales through the use of a portion of the office building for a• cafeteria or restaurant; however, the largest impact of the proposed multi -story office building development is through the indirect sales tax revenue generated by the employees and visitors of the office building. .As-previously noted there will be peak employment of approximately 1800 persons associated with the office building. The employment mix would be of white collar workers with a. probable above average disposable income. Middle level average family annual income for the Seattle area (Autumn 1977) . as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is $17,106.00, of which, $3,020.00 is spent on home furnishings, clothing and food eaten out. Assuming only half of this amount is spent in the primary impact and surrounding area ' and ignoring other categories of merchandise, the 1800 employees. of the office building would generate gross sales for retail merchants in an estimated amount of $2,718,000.00 and sales tax revenues of approximately $146,772.00. These figures may be conservative considering the nearness and variety of merchandise and services on Parkway Plaza and Southcenter. These office workers will have a direct and significant impact with respect to the restau- rants located within walking distance in Parkway Plaza, as well as other restaurants, within the surrounding area. Parkway Plaza is the largest home furnishings center on the west coast. The proximity of these home furnishing show rooms and the variety of home furnishings merchandise should result in substantially increased sales. A major portion of disposable income goes for clothing-as well as general merchandise such as stereo and recreational equipment. It is expected that all areas within Parkway Plaza will be greatly benefited by the proximity of the office employees.- In addition, the above figures do not take into account the spin off retail sales to persons drawn into the area as a result of the office complex for business reasons who might not otherwise have been induced to patronize the primary impact and surrounding area. Development of the proposed office building will have, a beneficial influence upon the immediate area•.and the City of Tukwila. ENERGY ANALYSIS PARKWAY PLAZA OFFICE BUILDING This submission of data'represents a brief summary of the effect of our prior efforts during the conceptual and design stages of this project to arrive at an energy - efficient building. The design effort was motivated by a conscious need to reduce energy consumption and obviously reduce operating costs. In general, the Benaroya Company started on an energy reduction program over a year ago with the training of various staff members at energy seminars and through the assembly of energy use data to implement energy saving devices in all of the Benaroya properties. This building is a departure from the "typical" one -two story masonry and frame buildings of which the Benaroya Company has over 300,000 sq.ft. This "typical" building has insulated frame walls, using roof -top packaged air - conditioning units with electric reheat, and 2 x 4 drop -in fluorescent troffers at one per 48 sq.ft. The high -rise building is using heat pumps and the recovery system, insulated masonry walls with solar bronze and reflective glass, and 2 x 4 drop -in trouffers at one per 64 sq.ft. Following is a brief summary of three existing Benaroya buildings. These buildings are "typical" construction with the exception that Building J (5950 Sixth Avenue South) uses the heat pump system. You will note the substantial difference in energy cost per sq. ft. You will also note the projected energy cost for the new building based on the same 1977 rate will be in the range of .22 to .26 which indicates the energy savings of the multi -story masonry construction. This is consistent with the operating experience of the Selig Buildings on the Denny Regrade area of Seattle. Building 0 - Electrical energy cost per sq. ft. Building P - Building J - New Office Building - 1976 1977 .48 .63 .48 .70 .22 .38 .22 to .26 16 May 1978 • CITY of TUKV ELA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor Bauch FROM: Kjell Stoknes SUBJECT: Policy decisions beyond my scope of authority as Responsible Official under the State Environmental Policy Act as it relates to the 9 -story Benaroya Office Structure. There are certain impacts related to the Benaroya Office Structure that relate to policy that I feel are not within my realm of authority as a Responsible Official pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act. These relate to commitments on the part of the City as it relates to the development. The purpose of this memorandum is to place these policy questions before you for your consideration and action, whether Council action on them is necessary or not. These policy questions are necessary to mitigate any potential negative effects as it relates to SEPA if I am to reverse our requirement for full environmental impact statement. If the City cannot take a position on these policy questions, I do not feel it would be responsible for me to reverse my requirement for a full environmental impact statement. The policy questions are as follows: 1. The Fire Department has indicated that it has neither the man power nor the machinery to affectively fight a fire in a building this size. Based upon this, is the City willing to allow a development that the Fire Chief, from a fire safety standpoint, feels he can- not adequately protect in case.of fire? 6230 Southcenter Boulevard 0 Tukwila, Washington 98188 a (206; 242 -2177 Mayor Bauch.:. Memorandum' Page 2 15 May 1978 2. The Police Department feels that the construction of this facility will significantly increase congestion in the area and that it will cause an additional need for police man power. Is the City willing to accept the consequences of this potential increase in man power needed by allowing this structure to be developed in the City? Although these questions do not deal specifically with environment, they are specifically items addressed in the State Environmental Policy Act Questionnaire as adopted in the Washington Administrative Code and need to be addressed. As soon as I can get a commitment from you as Mayor regarding the above policies, I will be in a position to work with the applicant to devise ways to mitigate the other significant environmental impacts, if possible. I hope this memorandum doesn't come as a surprise to you. However, I feel strongly that my powers as the Responsible Official for the City under the State Environ- mental Policy Act are administrative in nature, and not in the area of making policy. I feel that this is the proper function . for the Mayor and the City Council and I respectfully request some guidance from you. KS /ch cc: Fred Satterstron • Jack A. Benaroya Company 5950 Sixth Avenue South, Seattle, WA 98108 (206) 762 4750 .I: May 12, 1978 Kjell Stoknes Director Office of Community Development City of Tukwila Tukwila, WA 98188 ECEIWEDI 0.C.D. CITY OF TUKWIL1 MAY :1 6 1978 Re: Parkway Plaza West Office Development This letter is intended to follow up our conversations on May 10 and 11, 1978 with respect the obtaining of a declaration of non- significance. During those conversations, you listed certain concerns which for ref- erence purposes are as follows: 1. Site Plan 2. Traffic Analysis 3. Utilities 4. Storm Waters 5. Exterior lighting 6. Economic analysis 7. Seismic stability 8. Dames & Moore reports 9. Steep slope area 10. Elevation 11. Comments from Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency 12. Landscaping plan 13. Core Area foundation We are proceeding to give these items our full attention with the intent of addressing and disposing of each of the concerns you have raised by Wednesday of next week, I would like to confirm the meeting in your office with Bob. Fehnel at 2:00 p.m. Wednesday, May 17, 1978. Robert 1 Sandwick House Counsel cc: Robert Fehnel INDUSTRIAL PARKS /WAREHOUSES /OFFICE BUILDINGS /SHOPPING CENTERS AND SPECIALIZED MERCHANDISE MARTS. • • CITY OF TUKWILA OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BENAROYA 9 -STORY OFFICE BU I LD ING This project, it is felt, will cause significant environmental impacts in the following areas: 1. The impact on the area from traffic generated by this facility will be significant. 2. Economic impact on general retailing area in the vicinity vis -a -vis the construction of more retailing. 3. The need for additional fire and police personnel and equipment, if deemed necessary, could be a significant cost to the City. Comments from both fire and police departments indicate this to be a problem area. 4. Seismic stability of the structure based upon its location in a flood plain. 5. The bulk of the structure may be aethetically incompatable with the present structures in the vicinity. 6. The additional traffic generated may significantly reduce the pre- sent air quality in the area. 7. The structure may place significant energy demands on non - renewable energy resources. 8. The allowance of this 9 -story structure may set a precedence to allow other tall structures in the valley floor. If the Benaroya Company can mitigate these impacts pursuant 1:o WAC 197 -10 -370, I will withdraw my affirmative threshold determination. Kj- Stoknes Date rssued Resp nsible Official CITY OF TUKWILA OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT "ITEMS NEEDED FOR POTENTIAL MITIGATION OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED BENAROYA NINE STORY OFFICE STRUCTURE." 1. Traffic: It is obvious that the additional traffic generated by this facility will significantly increase the present condition. Based upon this, the applicant is required to do the following: A. Provide a more detailed traffic analysis showing the following, at a minimum: (1) Vicinity map of the site, (2) A proposed site plan, (3) A map showing estimated present traffic volumes, northbound and southbound, (4) Daily and hourly traffic volume generated by the office structure, (5) Forcast trip distribution from site, (north or:south, which curb cut used), (6) Show traffic flow to and from the facility, projected_to 1980 -- showing peak hour and daily flow, (7) Demonstrate how pedestrians and bicyclists can safely be accom- modated by the development, (8) Provide written text synthecizing the above data, (9) Provide written conclusions and recommendations based on the foregoing, (10) Have this report signed by a registered engineer in the State of Washington specializing in traffic engineering. Recommen -. dations at a minimum should discuss: (a) Recommended time, type and placement of any traffic control devices, (b) Any street design changes needed (City streets - Motive: increase safety), (c) Any internal circulation design changes needed (Motive: increase safety), (d) Recommendation for curb cut locations and design, (e) Recommendation regarding facilitating safe pedestrian movement, (f) Other, as standard in the traffic engineer field and /or as deemed necessary. Additionally, a recommendation regarding how city streets can be kept • from getting and rocks on them from this • to during construction will be required. 2. Utilities: Utilities are in the area and will be handled in a routine manner by the Public Works Department. At a minimum water, sewer, and storm water design and location decision should be reviewed and made now. 3. Storm Water: A. Proposed ,method of re- entering some of the run -off back into the ground- water system. If this is engineeringly unsound, please state so and -why. B. Propose temporary method of . controlling run -off on site as it relates to water quality. 4. Exterior Lighting:.., Indicate type, height, and wattage of exterior lights. 5. Economic Cost vs Benefits: (Retail vs Office) A. To City. B. To private enterprise in area (spin-off-affect). 6. Comments from fire and police indicate this structure would cause a need for additional personnel, whether these additional personnel are approve or not is a policy matter of the Mayor and City Council and handled through the budgetary process. A conscious decision on the part of the Mayor and Council regarding whether or not they want to accept these consequences, or investigate other alternatives, should be made prior to authorizing construc- tion of this structure. 7. An analysis by a professional engineer is necessary regarding seismic stability and safety of the structure, as it relates to the sub - grade, foundation design, and the structure itself. 8. Steep slopes to west of property not to be disturbed under this permit. 9. Parking lot layout, landscape plan, and related items commonly within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission is to be reviewed and approved by them prior to occupancy of the structure. Landscaping to be installed within 3 months of first date of any occupancy of any portion of the structure. 10. Air Pollution: The primary contributor to pollution would be caused by this facility bringing more automobiles into the area. The federal government is presently .on a program to reduce emission controls. Until these standards are adequately affective, any additional development in Tukwila will reduce air quality to some degree. To deny development on the basis of air quality sould be a conscious legislative decision and encorporated into a zoning document. Air pollution of the structure itself appears to be negligable. 11. Insulation Provisions: Energy sources required to heat buildings is becoming more and.more a scarce and potentially non - renewable resource. Provisions should be taken to maximize the efficiency of the structure from a heat source /heat loss standpoint. 12. This facility will undoubtedly increase some demand for housing in the area. The mitigation of this will be based upon availability of properly zoned land and a developer willing to construct dwellings. 13. Soils Report: A1P work on excavating, dewatering, granular fill type and compaction, footing size and type (continuous mat for internal footings to conform to soils report. A verification to the City by Dames 4,Moore that the work was performed as recommended shall be provided on each of the following stages: A. Rough grading, including supplementory exploration for dewatering, per report. B. Dewatering done properly for footings. C. Granular fill of proper type, properly placed and compacted per report. D. Foundation footings, pads, and other supports installed per report. E. That all the recommendations of the Dames $ Moore Report of Soils Investigation dated April 14, 1978, and any subsequent reports have been complied with. 14. Land Use: This structure is proposed to be located in an area containing regional retail business. This office building is compatible and comple- mentory to that type of use. Comprehensive Plan Policies as follows would be supportive to the location of an office structure here: A. General Goal 6. B. Commerce /Industry Element Goal 1. C. Objective 1, Policy 1, 2 and 8. D. Objective 6, Policy 3. 15. Bulk: The sheer bulk of this structure, as it relates to height, is significant. It is noted that significant setbacks are proposed from the right -of -way helps provide a transition between this tall structure and the low, longer buildings in the vicinity. 16. Precedence:- This structure is set into a hillside at the edge of a major retail area. Allowing this tall structure here is not a commit- . ment that mere of the same will be allowed by Tukwila's zoning ordinance anywhere in the City. This structure has received a special approval for additional height. This is not to say it will be granted again in another area due to varying circumstances. I would judge that there are very few areas in the City that ,a tall structure is appropriate. This site appears to be one of the few. tS41,44.4 T/149/7e CITY OF TUKWILA OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED. DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCEMEIFFRWRE Description of proposal Building Permit Application - Nine Story Office Structure Proponent Location of Proposal. Benaroya Company Parkway Plaza West - Southcente:r Parkway Lead Agency City of Tukwila File No. EPIC This proposal has been determined to (have/ v) a significant adverse im- pact upon the environment. An EIS (is/) required under RCW 43.21C.030(2) (c). This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Responsible Official Position /Title Date Kjell Stoknes 9 May 1978 Signature COMMENTS: Recommend investigation of potential apjllication of WAC 197 - 10-370, attached. CITY of TUKWILA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 4 May 1978 MEMORANDUM TO: Kjell Stoknes, Di tor, OCD FROM: Gary Crutchfiel s stant Planner • SUBJECT: THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: Benaroya Office Building .Oil1 e(v /Q YliGE' .694 Initial review of the Environmental Checklist submitted for the above - referenced project has revealed the following findings and conclusions. FINDINGS: 1. Earth: The soils analysis by Dames & Moore indicates the minimum construction measures necessary to achieve a foundation which will settle between 2 -inch to 12 inches. The report further recommends imported fill be used due to the wet nature of existing soils. Also, the report recommends a "supple- mentary exploration program" be accomplished prior to construction. 2. Air: The Checklist Appendix indicates the indirect effect of the traffic generated by this project, that is, an increase in the carbon monoxide level. 3. Water: Approximately 9 acres of the site will be covered by impervious surfaces. The soils report indicates the presence of groundwater. 4. Flora: The proposed construction is essentially void of vegetation. The hillside to the rear of the proposed structure is heavily vegetated and is designated on the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map of Ordinance #986. The height of the proposed structure will cause shadows to be cast on this hillside during morning hours. 6230 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 242 -2177 Memorandum Kjell Stoknes Page 2 4 May 1978 5. Fauna: The proposed construction site is essentially void of wildlife habitat; there- fore, wildlife is essentially non - existent. The hillside, due to its signifi- cant vegetation, offers a viable habitat for fauna. 6. Noise: The checklist acknowledges that noise will increase but fails to address the matter. Existing noise levels are anticipated to increase primarily due to associated vehicular traffic, especially during peak traffic hours. 7. Light /Glare: Lighting will increase as a result of interior and exterior building lighting, parking lot lighting and (possibly) building signing. The extent of such in- crease is unidentified. 8. Land Use: The proposal represents a dramatic departure from the established character of surrounding development, both structurally and functionally. Comprehensive Plan policies (Policy 3 of Objective 1 and Policy 2 of Objective 4, Commerce /Industry Element) promote compatability in bulk of structures, specifically their height. Surrounding development does not exceed the typical 35' height limit. The proposed structure is 133 feet in height. The location of the proposed office structure is in the heart of an area iden- tified by the Checklist Appendix as having "high regional commercial drawing power ". Further the Comprehensive Plan promotes "Commercial" use of this and surrounding land. The promotion of office use in commercial areas is intended as a secondary or subordinate use when located within a planned commercial area This is substantiated by the Commerce Element objectives and policies as well as the definition of "Commercial ". Comprehensive Plan Objective 3, Policy 1 (Com- merce /Industry) promotes retail development. 9. Risk of Upset: Results of seismic disturbances are not addressed in the Checklist. This would seem necessary in light of PSCOG's Regional Disaster Plan, pages 49- 50, due to the soil characteristics of the site and the height of the proposed structure. Recent settlement problems at the Carriage House underscore the potential problem. 10. Population: The proposal seems to carry some degree of indirect increase in population by virtue of the number of employees and the liklihood some percentage desiring to reside in the immediate vicinity. 11. Housing: Again, by virtue of the likely desire on the part of some of the users of this pro- posed structure, an unidentified increase in the demand for housing should be anti- cipated. Memorandum Kjell Stoknes Page 3 4 May 1978 12. Transportation /Circulation: The proposal represents significant increases in both volume and peak of vehicular traffic. These impacts will also conflict with established, com- mercial traffic patterns. Serious vehicular congestion is anticipated as a result of this project. A proportionate increase in vehicular and pedestrian hazards must also be anticipated. 13. Public Services: The bulk characteristics of the proposed structure (height in particular) will place a strain on available fire department manpower as that depart- ment is not staffed to handle high -rise structures. Increased traffic congestion and resulting need for manual control will create a need for more manpower in the Police Department. 14. Aesthetics: The proposed structure will result in at least partial obstruction of a heavily vegetated and steep slope. Tukwila hill residents as well as users of the . surrounding commercial area will experience the disruption of a scenic view. The prominence of the proposed structure will constitute a landmark, adding to its visual significance. CONCLUSIONS: 1. Several impacts which appear to be minor in scale include: a. Flora and fauna within the construction area itself is essentially non- existent and, therefore, impacts are insignificant. Also, the vegetated hillside to the rear of the proposed structure is capable of accepting any displaced wildlife. b. Demand for housing and related increase in population would appear to be of an insignificant scale. c. Extension of utilities necessary to serve the proposal seem to be of minor consequence. 2. Many direct and indirect impacts associated with the proposal may besignifi- cant, either due to their very nature or due to the lack of information regard- ing them. They include: a. Considerable changes to the natural soils are necessary to support the proposed structure and further unidentified actions are indicated as necessary in the soils report. The effects of these actions may well be of an adverse nature. b. Increased air contaminants as an indirect result of the project (via automobile traffic) is expected. The degree of impact is compounded by the vehicular traffic congestion expected as an indirect result of construction. Memorandum Kjell Stoknes Page 4 4 May 1978 c. Approximately 400,000 square feet (9 acres) of impervious surfaces, during a 10 -year storm, will contribute approximately 4500 gallons of storm water runoff per minute (10 cfs) to the existing storm water system. This impact my be significant. d. A proportionate increase in existing noise levels is anticipated (relative to vehicular traffic). However, it remains unidentified. e. Increased lighting levels are expected as a result of, primarily, park- ing lot lighting. Interior /exterior building lighting, however, will affect current lighting levels experienced by hillside residents (Ren- ton as well as Tukwila) due to the abnormal height of the building. Building signing (as yet unidentified) may contribute to this impact. f. Potential harm during upset conditions (primarily seismic) seems greater with this project than typically anticipated. The nature of soils coupled with the abnormal height of the proposed structure requires identification of the potential impact to determine its significance. g. The heavily vegetated, steep hillside to the rear of the proposed struc- ture constitutes a scenic view not only for users of the immediate vicinity but residents of the Tukwila hill (south face) and Talbot Hill area of Renton as well. The proposed structure, due solely to its height, will intrude into and partially obstruct this existing view. 3. The following environmental elements are deemed to experience significant adverse effects as a result of the proposal: a. Land Use: The proposal, due primarily to its location, will adversely affect the long -term viability of the established and planned "regional commercial" area. It represents a serious departure from established surrounding development character and will establish a precedent and impetus for further departure. It directly conflicts with several Objec- tives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan, especially the Commerce/ Industry Element thereof. The proposed office use of ±10 acres of prime commercially- designated land seems to be in direct conflict with the plan. b. Transportation /Circulation: Not only does the proposal represent signi- ficant increases in volume and peak loads of vehicular traffic, but the very character of the vehicular traffic will seriously conflict with the established nature (commercial) and pattern of traffic in this vicinity. The need for imported fill will also conflict with established traffic patterns. A proportionate decrease in vehicular /pedestrian safety is expected as well. The Police and Public Works Departments indicate that traffic problems associated with this proposal need further clarification to fully identify the extent . of adverse impacts. c. Public Services: Both the Fire and Police Departments have indicated the definite need, either immediately or in the near future, for additional personnel to service this proposal. 4. Land Use, Transportation, and Public Service elements of the environment are expected to experience significant adverse impacts as a result of the proposal. In addition to these definite adverse impacts, several potential adverse impacts Memorandum Kjell Stoknes Page 5 4 May 1978 (Air, Water, Light and Aesthetics) add to the extent of adverse impacts asso- ciated with this proposal. Lastly, cumulative impacts (Air, Land Use, Trans- portation, Public Services and Aesthetics) are long -term effects and cannot be mitigated. 5. The sheer size and scale of the proposal ( ±1500 employees, ±1100 parking spaces, 9 acres of impervious surfaces, 133 -foot height of structure) constitute a major action significantly affecting the environment. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing conclusions, the Planning Division recommends an affirmative threshold determination be made and an Environmental Impact Statement be prepared and utilized in the decision - making process with regard to this proposal. GC /ch cc:. Dir, Public Works Chief, Fire Dept. Chief, Police Dept. Christopher brown pc: 9688.:r &inier avenue a se &ttle w &shington te1:7234567 98118 June 5, 1978 Mr. Kjell Stokness Planning Director Office of Community City of Tukwila City Hall Tukwila, Washington Dear Mr. Stokness: Development 98188 FlEn CITY Or TUKWILA 'JUN 8 108 I certainly appreciated the opportunity of talking with you this morning about the proposed Benaroya Office Building and current plans for addressing traffic and transportation elements. I had previously forwarded a report through the Jones Associates entitled "Benaroya Office Complex -- Traffic Study" which addresses the elements defined in the memoranda issued by the office of Community Development (preliminary) entitled "Items Needed for Potential Mitigation of Significant Environmental Effects of Proposed Benaroya Nine -story Office Structure ". The traffic report, however, did not include a separate "vicinity map" since the location of the site on those figures defining current and predicted traffic already defines the location. A proposed "site plan" is now being prepared in a reduced scale and, in view of proposed traffic demand, is detailed to also include such elements as bus stop location and layout. As in the majority of work I have performed throughout the region. I tend to show not only daily traffic but also hourly traffic in terms of each hour of the day as well as traffic variation in terms of day -of- the -week and month -of- the -year. Similarly, I also defined in the report potential vehicular classification in order to assess the influence of compact cars and probable ridership in order to estimate generated trips as opposed to person trips. In terms of trip distribution I provided a table which was produced from payroll records of the proposed tennant and therefore, in terms of assignment, represents an extremely accurate portrayal of probable demand by direction. Mr. Kjell Stokness June 5., 1978 . Page two The written conclusions and recommendations in this report suggested that the project would "generate significant traffic volumes" although 'a range of mitigating measures can be implemented. Generally, I leave these to the design stage of the project. I note that the traffic study was forwarded to Mr. Kenneth E. Cottingham, P.E., Chief Traffic Engineer for the firm of Stevens, Thompson & Runyan, Inc. for review.. Mr. Cottingham indicated concurrence in the matter concerning signalization although he indicated the traffic study comment on bicyclists or pedestrians ".would. appearr to be out of step with the actual situation." Recognizing the concerns . of Mr. • Cottingham regarding both pedestrians and bicyclists I took the opportunity of conduct- ing sample counts on Southcenter Parkway directly .in front of the proposed site. The first sample was on Tuesday,, May. 30, • 1978 from 3:15 to 6:15. The 'weather. was warm, sunny and bright. • For the three hour period the observation produced the following results: Bicyclist /Pedestrians • May 30, 1978 Southcenter. Parkway,, vicinity of Jafco Bicyclists 0 Joggers. 1. Pedestrians 1 Total - pedestrians 2 Pedestrian rate 0.7 per hour Recognizing that a weekday nay not represent the full range of pedestrian and bicyclist activity a second count was conducted on June 3, 1978 at the same location. The study was conducted from 10:30 am to 1:30 pm. Data from this study period is produced below. Bicyclist /Pedestrians June 3, 1978 Southcenter Parkway, vicinity of Jafco Bicyclists 0 Joggers 1 Pedestrians 6 Total Pedestrians 7 Pedestrian rate 2.33 per hour* *Note, two of the pedestrians were construction workers working at the site. Mr. Kjell Stokness June 5, 1978 Page three In view of the limited number. of bicyclists and pedestrians in this area I believe the study report comments on pedestrians and bicyclists to be quite adequate. _ In any case, provisions for the safe and expeditious accomodation of pedestrians and bicyclists will be a. part of the signal and sidewalk design program. Mr. Cottingham's comments on new signalization on the West Valley Highway are noted. We were aware that new signals were being installed although, like any arterial facility . equipped with multiple phase signal equipment coordintion is still difficult and, despite the fact new signals have been installed, I am sure you are aware that congestion still exists particularly during the afternoon peak hour for the southbound movement in the vicinity of Monster Road. Comments .concerning traffic .signals with "five- phase concur- rent timing with phase overlaps and utilizing fully detector - ized approaches" is noted. These comments . will be taken into consideration during the design of traffic signals at the office building access road. Indeed, we will propose simpler phasing in order to increase operational efficiency. You might wish to note that since the Benaroya - Office Complex traffic study report was modeled after a report I prepared for the Boeing- Everett facility expansion, which report was published in the final environmental impact statement dated May, 1978 without comment or question, the study report. prepared for the Benaroya Office Complex should likewise be adequate for the defined purposes of the report. Please note that I will be submitting to the Department of Public Works . appropriate appendix material for the report in order to comply with the , requirements of the City of Tukwila, Office of Community Development. The appendix will include: Proposed site plan Accommodation of pedestrians and bicyclists Signature .. page and . professional engineer. stamp Recommendation for type and placement of traffic control devices Curb cuts, internal circulation, street design changes. Per our conversation, the above will be forwarded directly to the Director of Public Works for his review.. Mr. Kjell Stokness June 5, 1978 Page four Finally, I am enclosing a copy of my resume for your files. I believe this resume adequately defines my expertise in traffic engineering. I look forward to working with the City of Tukwila on this project and believe that all traffic related concerns can be addressed to your satisfaction. C. V. Brown,; P.E. CVB/ap Encl. Resume cc. DPW, Tukwila Jones Associates EDUCATION Department of Civil Engineering University of Washington Traffic Institute Northwestern University Bureau of Highway Traffic Yale University REGISTRATION Professional Engineer State of Washington PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION Member Institute of Transportation Engineers Member American Public .Works Association Member American Society of Civil Engineers CHRISTOPHER V. BROWN EXPERIENCE Mr. Brown is the principal engineer of the consulting engineering proprietorship, "Christopher Brown, P.E. ", established 1975. As a traffic engineering and transportation planning firm, services are provided to governmental agencies and jurisdictions, engineering and architectural firms, and private developers. To date, traffic and transportation engineer- ing services have been provided to the Washington Traffic Safety Commission, . Government' of American Samoa, City ,of Lacey, Town of Steilacoom.','Wilsey & Ham, Inc., Kent Stepan & Associates, Shapiro &.Associates, 'Jones Associates, Howard Godat and Associates, Triad Associates, Krueger Engineering, Sea - First Bank, Coldwell Banker (for Canadian Properties, Ltd.) ; and the Jack A. Benaroya Company. The range of services included the develop- ment of traffic forecasts, assessment of traffic impacts, the delineation of mitiga- ting measures. and determination of improve- ment programs and cost estimates for traffic facilities associated with shopping centers, large residential developments, apartment projects, parking facilities, and highway safety improvements. Design services included the preparation of contract documents, plans, specifications and estimates for actuated and interconnected traffic control systems, master signal systems, illumination systems and corridor transportation improvements. For the State of Washington, a Trial Demonstration Program for Periodic Motor Vehicle Inspection was proposed and imple- mented. This consisted of the design and execution of an experimental vehicle inspec- tion program for the Washington Traffic Safety Commission funded by the National • Highway Traffic Safety Administration.. Following this successful project was the preparation of revisions to RCW Chapter 46 and the writing of House Bills 952 and 953 for the 1977 Washington legislative session. House Bill 952 was signed into law on July 1, 1977. • 1 For the Government of American Samoa, Mr. Brown developed the Pago Pago Harbor Corridor Transportation Study, Comprehensive Highway Safety Plan, Criminal Justice Plan, Juvenile Justice Program, Privacy & Security Act, legislation, Comprehensive Radio Communications Plan, Fire Prevention Plan Grant Application, Criminal Records Plan, Traffic .Records Plan, Technical Assistance & Evaluation & Monitoring Plan (LEAA) , Selective Traffic Enforcement Program Evaluation, and Office of Motor Vehicles Computer Programs and Program Documentation package. For private and municipal organizations, the most recent traffic engineering design projects include; traffic signalization and street lighting for the K -Mart Shopping Center in Federal Way and Sleater - Kinney Road and Pacific Avenue arterial street illumination and signalization program with.master control system, Lacey, Washington. For architectural and engineering firms, transportation planning and traffic engineer- ing reports for inclusion in Environmental Impact Statements include shopping centers, apartments, condominiums, industrial plant expansion programs and large residential developments of up to 4,500 dwelling units. Prior to forming his own firm, Mr. Brown was a principal with Enplan Corporation and pre- viously, chief traffic engineer for the engineering firm of Munson•- Nash - Futrel. He has conducted traffic operations and planning studies in the states of Washington, Hawaii, and Oregon and the territory of Samoa. While with the Washington State .Department of Highways, Mr. Brown was involved with freeway illumination, signing, accident analysis, traffic operations and signal design projects in District 7, Seattle. 'Mr. Brown was selected by the Director of Highways to attend; the Bureau jof Highway. Traffic, Yale University on a 'Highway Department grant PUBLICATIONS Christopher Brown, Principal American Samoa Comprehensive Highway Safety Plan American Samoa FY '77 Annual Work Plan American Samoa Criminal Records Plan American Samoa Juvenile Justice Plan American Samoa Radio Communications Plan American Samoa Traffic Records Plan Andover Park Parking Survey Auburn TOPICS Study Plan Bothell TOPICS Study Plan Ellensburg TOPICS Study Lacey Traffic Plan . Olympia Seventh Day Adventist Church Traffic and Parking Analysis Pago Pago Harbour Corridor Transportation Study Sea -First Bank (Rainier Beach) Parking Access Study State of Washington House Bill 952 State of Washington House Bill 953 State of Washington Trial Demonstration Program for Periodic Motor Vehicle Inspection State of Washington Vehicle Inspection Manual Snohomish County Identification and Surveilance of Accident Locations Thurston County Courthouse Traffic and Parking Study Contributing Author, Traffic and Transportation Sections Auburn 400 Shopping Center Bellewood #8, Redmond Bellevue Square Shopping Center, EIS Bridgeview Condominiums, Tacoma, EIS Candlewood, King County, EIS Fred Meyer Shopping Center, Tacoma, EIS K -Mart at Sunset Square, Air Quality Traffic Study Millcreek, Snohomish County, EIS Milwaukee Railroad Site Access, Fife, EIS Oakbrook #6 P.U.D., Redmond,, EIS Puget Sound Industrial Park, Everett, Master Plan Providence Hospital, Seattle, EIS Reintree, King County, EIS Sahalee Glen, King County, EIS Sammamish View, Redmond, EIS South Center South Shopping Center, Pierce County, EIS Sunrise, King County, EIS Tiffany Park, Renton, EIS Southwest Everett Planning Study (701 Study), Everett Cherry Hills, Kennewick, Traffic Study Benaroya Office Building, Tukwila, Traffic Study Madera, Pierce County,EIS Allenmore Business Park, Tacoma, EIS Regency Woods, King County,:EIS and Master Plan Snohomish - Cascade, Snohomish County, Master Plan and EIS Kinnear Park Condominiums, Seattle, EIS Carriage Wood, King County, EIS Covington Woods, King County, EIS Boeing - Everett Facility Expansion, Everett, EI:S U of W, Student Housing, Seattle, EIS Highland Village, Zenith, 'EIS KMR Business Park, Lacey, Traffic Study Holly Homes Apartments, Lacey, Traffic Study Smith Island Marina, Snohomish County, EIS West Water Hotel Complex, Tukwila, Traffic Study Twin .Lakes Shopping Center, King County, EIS Hawkes Prairie Annexation, Lacey, EIS Okimoto Property, Kent, Rezone and Master Plan Forest Rim, Issaquah, EIS Aurora Shopping Village, King County, Traffic Study McDonald Property at Arrowhead, King County, Traffic Study . East Sammamish Plateau, King County, Master Plan DESIGN PRQJECTS Street Illumination, SignaZization, Geometric Design College Street, Lacey Golf Club Road, Lacey K -Mart Shopping Center, Federal Way N.E. 78th Street, Clark County Pacific Avenue, Lacey Renton Avenue /Airport Way /Logan Street, Renton. Sea-Tac Mall Shopping Center, Federal Way Sleater- Kinney Road, Lacey City of Lacey Signal Intertie and Master Signal System CHESTER L. LINDSEY ARCHITECTS 1711-12TH AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98122 April 25, 1978 Mr. Al Pieper Tukwila Building Department 6230 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 32 7,6,Q,90 � Pttit•° :. F, O City uY _ �.�.... Reference: Parkway Plaza Building 77 -25 Footing and Foundation Submittal Dear Mr. Pieper: APR 7 1978 This letter shall confirm our conversation regarding submittal for footing and foundation permit for the above referenced project. Per your authorization we shall submit, directly to Richal Smith & Associates, all site related drawings; footing and foundation plan and details; structural calculations for foun- dation design; and soils report. In addition, we will submit one full set of Architectural and Structural drawings, to date, as a reference set. In conjunction with this submittal, the Benaroya Company will deliver to you a duplicate "reference" set of Architectural and Structural drawings along with addi- tional copies of the site related drawings as you may require. As we have previously discussed, we are involved in a critical time schedule and are basing our schedules on a two week permit process. If you foresee any problems, at this point, with this schedule _please let us know. We have contacted Richal Smith regarding the project, and both ourselves and our engineers will be available to coordinate directly with them, to expedite the plan review. Attached, per your request, is a copy of the soils report. Sincerely yours, CHESTER L. LINDSEY ARCHITECTS 47 Curtis L. Beattie CLB:bb Attach. cc: J.A. Benaroya Company Bob Fehnel Richal Smith & Assoc. REPORT OF SOILS INVESTIGATION PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING PARKWAY PLAZA WEST TUKWILA, WASHINGTON DAMES & MOORE 04368- 030 -05 April 14, 1978 ANCHORAGE LOS ANGELES ATLANTA NEW ORLEANS BILLINGS NEWPORT BEACH BOCA RATON NEW YORK BOSTON PHOENIX CHICAGO PORTLAND CINCINNATI SALT LAKE CITY CRANFORD SAN FRANCISCO DENVER SANTA BARBARA FAIRBANKS SEATTLE HONOLULU SYRACUSE HOUSTON WASHINGTON, D. C. LEXINGTON, KY WHITE PLAINS • rte_ • /WAIL A.A1M 11111A. ri ;era DAMES 8 MOORE CONSULTANTS IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES ATHENS PERTH CALGARY RIYADH JAKARTA SINGAPORE KUWAIT SYDNEY LONDON TEHRAN MADRID TOKYO MELBOURNE TORONTO VANCOUVER, B. C. a SUITE 500,NORTHGATE EXECUTIVE CENTER • 155 N.E.100TH STREET • SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98125 • 1206) 523 -0560 CABLE: DAMEMORE TWX: 910-444 -2021 April 14, 1978 Jack A. Benaroya Company 5950 Sixth Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98108 Attention: Mr. Robert Fehnel Gentlemen: We submit herewith four copies of our "Report of Soils Investigation, Proposed Office Building, Parkway Plaza North, Tukwila, Washington," for the Jack A. Benaroya Company. The scope of our work was developed in discussions between the writer and Mr. Fehnel of the Benaroya Company. Authorization to proceed with the investigation was provided verbally by Mr. Fehnel. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. At the present time we are initiating the drilling of additional borings south of the present building location, to provide the information for possible relocation of the structure. If you have any questions concerning our work or if we can be of further service, please contact us. Yours very truly, DAMES MOORE ByK ef.,401 ck K. Tuttle artner JKT:WJG:mb cc: Kelly, Pittelko, Fritz & Forrsen Attention: Mr. Arnold Carson (2) • • REPORT OF SOILS INVESTIGATION PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING PARKWAY PLAZA WEST TUKWILA, WASHINGTON INTRODUCTION We present in this report the results of a soils investigation at the site of a proposed nine -story office building to be constructed within the Parkway Plaza West development in Tukwila, Washington. The site is shown with respect to adjacent features on the Plot Plan, Plate 1. The purpose of this work is to investigate the subsurface soil and ground water conditions at the site as a basis for recommendations regarding foundation design and earthwork construction criteria for the proposed building. We have previously performed a number of investigations in the general area. These include a preliminary soils investigation of the general Parkway Plaza area which included several shallow test pits . in the general area of the present site. The approximate locations of these test pits are shown on the Plot Plan, Plate 1. The results of this preliminary investigation were presented in our report to the Benaroya Company dated May 3, 1976. We understand that the proposed structure will be nine stories in height. The lowest floor will be a ground - supported slab founded approxi- mately 4 feet below the existing site grade. We understand from your engineer that column loads will vary from 600 to 2,400 kips, and that mat support of the central elevator core is envisioned. DAMES 8 MOORE SITE CONDITIONS GENERAL The site is located along the west margin of the Green River Valley; the present valley wall forms the west boundary of the property. Two small streams have been incised into the valley wall on either side of the present building area. These streambeds were eroded at a time when the ground surface within the valley proper was somewhat .Lower than it is at present, such that floodplain deposits of the Green River have subse- quently buried the lower portions of the incised channels. The character of soil deposits in the two stream channels which traverse the site and in the floodplain deposits from the Green River in the area adjacent to the valley wall are a function of the velocity of water at time of deposition; soft compressible silts and clays are deposited in the slow- moving water while sands settle out in faster moving water. Very soft deposits of peat can accumulate in backwater areas having poor drainage. The action of water flow in the streams transecting the valley walls resulted in coarse deposits near the toe of the valley wall, whereas progressively finer materials have been deposited to the east. Within the general site area the floodplain deposits of the Green River consist of primarily fine-grained materials together with peat and organic soils. The valley walls themselves are composed of glacial deposits, ranging from unsorted mixtures of silt, sand, and gravel to layered, sorted deposits of silt and sand. The combination of these processes, together with man -made alterations described below, has resulted in a wide range of subsurface conditions within Parkway Plaza West. -2- EIAMES 8 MOORE SURFACE CONDITIONS During initial development of the adjacent valley area as an industrial - business park, the valley wall between the two streambeds and to the south of the southern streambed was cut away to provide a source of borrow material. Since the time of this grading, at least two layers of fill have been spread over the general site area. An initial fill layer has been in place for a number of years. A second layer of fill was placed in 1976, consisting of excess fill moved from the development of Parkway Plaza North on the opposite side of Southcenter Parkway, supple- mented by material from grading operations at the north portion of Parkway Plaza West. During this more recent stage of fill placement, a berm or preload was placed over the general building area extending to approximately Elevation 30, roughly 4 feet above the adjacent site grade. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS In our earlier report, the Parkway Plaza West development was broken up into three areas having poor, intermediate, and good soil conditions, based on the results of our shallow test pits. The borings drilled for the present investigation confirm the general presence of good soil conditions in the building area; however, within this area the near - surface original soils are somewhat variable. Borings 1, 2, and 2A encountered the recent and older fill layers. The recent fill is soft to medium stiff, consisting of sandy silt and silty sand. The older fill varies from silt to silty sand; it is typically medium stiff or medium dense. The lower fill appears more competent than the recently placed material. Boring 3 encountered only a thin layer of recent fill. The test pits excavated during our previous -3- CDAMES 8 MOORE investigation correlate in a general sense with the extent of fill encountered during current explorations. Borings 1, 2, and 2A encountered a layer of brown fine -to- medium sand beneath the fill which varies in consistency from medium dense to dense. The brown sand is underlain by a cleaner gray sand which was quite dense. In Boring 3, the brown sand was not encountered. Instead, a thin fill layer was immediately underlain by a unit of hard silt. The silt extends to a depth of 18 feet at this point. It is underlain by gray sand similar to that encountered in the other borings. The gray sand unit is assumed to be continuous beneath the building area. Below the gray sand lies a complex series of glacial deposits ranging from silts to clean sands with gravel. With the possible exception of the brown sand, all of the original materials encountered in the borings are glacially consolidated. As such, they exhibit high strength and low compressibility. The brown sand in some cases appears to be less dense; however, the unit is competent and capable of supporting moderate foundation loads. GROUND WATER All of the building area is underlain by water - bearing sand at varying depths. Along the east portion of the building, the near - surface layer of brown sand encountered in our borings was saturated. The ground water in the piezometers at Boring 1 stabilized at a level within the overlying fill soils. In Boring 3, the gray sand lies below the sandy silt foundation layer. A piezometer installed within the underlying sand indicated a stable water level approximately 8 feet below the existing ground surface. -4- 0IAMES 8 MOORE CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL Based on the results of our investigation, we conclude that the proposed office structure may be safely supported on spread foundations. Settlements are expected to be within structurally acceptable limits and reasonably uniform, provided that the footing excavations in the sand layers are adequately dewatered so that the integrity of the bearing sand is maintained. A detailed discussion of our recommendations with regard to foundation support, site excavation, and dewatering is presented in the following sections. FOUNDATION SUPPORT We recommend that the proposed structure be supported on spread foundations. The bearing level for footings will be somewhat variable across the site, depending on the thickness of existing fill. Along the front (east side) of the building area as typified by Borings 1, 2, and 2A, spread footings should be established a minimum of 2 feet below the surface of the brown sand deposit in order to provide the proper confinement. This will result in footing grades some 10 to 12 feet below the ground floor grade. Along the west wall where the fill thickness is small to nonexistent, the footings should be located a minimum of 5 feet below the lowest adjacent grade. In these areas the footings will be founded either on dense gray silty sand or hard gray silt. Any of the soils described above will offer satisfactory support to spread foundations, provided that foundation excavation and dewatering procedures are carried out in a satisfactory fashion. Detailed recommend- ations are given in the subsequent section. We recommend that footings -5- OAMES 8 MOORS • • be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 6,000 pounds per square foot. This pressure is intended to apply to the total of dead and real live loads. For the combination of dead, live, and seismic loads, the above allowable pressure may be increased by one - third. Footings should have a minimum width' of 4 feet and should be located at least 5 feet below final grade or a minimum of 2 feet into the dense native bearing soil, whichever provides the greater depth of confinement. Interior columns supporting loads of as much as 2,400 kips will result in footings which cover a substantial portion of the total planned area of the building. In this case it may prove more practical to support portions of the building on a continuous mat. The mat would have the added advantage of tending to minimize differential settlement between unequally loaded columns. As with the footings, the mat may be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 6,000 pounds per square foot. Ground - supported mats are usually designed using a modulus or coefficient of subgrade reaction, K.. The value of this modulus is somewhat dependent upon the lateral dimensions of the slab. For preliminary purposes, we recommend the use of a modulus having a value of 100 pounds per cubic inch. We request the opportunity to review and confirm this value once the approximate dimensions of the mat area are determined. We estimate that total settlements for footings will be in the range of 1/2 inch to 1 -1/4 inches for isolated footings. The maximum total settlement of a mat foundation would depend somewhat on the overall dimensions and relative rigidity of the mat. We estimate that the maximum settlement of a semiflexible mat be on the order of 1 -1/2 inches. -6- GAMES 8 MOORE FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION Dewatering: As described previously, the water - bearing nature of the sand layer to be used for foundation support along the eastern portion of the building will require dewatering in order to maintain the integrity of the sand. Based on the conditions encountered in our borings, we believe that a system of well points will be necessary in order to adequately dewater the sand. The exact layout of the well point system will depend on the plan arrangement of the footing system and upon the location of the transition from footing support in brown water- bearing sand to footing support in nonwater- bearing silty sand or silt. We recommend that a supplementary exploration program be carried out after the area has been graded to rough site elevation in order to provide a better definition of the extent of area over which dewatering will be required. Where foundations are to located within water - bearing sand, the general foundation excavation should be carried down to the approximate ground water level. At this point the header system and well points would be installed to maximize the penetration of the vacuum points into the water bearing layer. To prevent disruption of the bearing surface and to allow for compaction of this surface as required, it will be necessary to maintain the ground water level at least 3 feet below the base of the footing. It is imperative that the foundation excavations be continuously dewatered until the foundations are backfilled above the static level of the ground water table. Footing Installation: After the water level has been lowered, excavation to the bearing level can be, carried out. Hand work should be -7- CIAMES 8 MOORE • 1 employed to remove any disturbed material from the bearing surface which results from the excavation operation or the installation of formwork and steel. The hard silt and silty sand which will be encountered in the western portion of the building area is quite susceptible to softening and consequent strength loss when exposed to construction activity in the presence of free water. Therefore, if construction is carried out during wet weather, it is advisable to overexcavate the bearing surface approxi- mately 6 to 12 inches and place a working pad of clean gravel or lean concrete in order to protect the native material. FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT The soils which will be excavated to reach foundation level consist primarily of fill soils which are wetter than the optimum moisture content for compaction or silts and silty sands which are moisture - sensitive. We recommend the use of imported granular material for backfill unless the excavation is done during the dry summer months when the weather is more favorable for drying and conditioning the excavated soils prior to compaction. Even during the summer-it may prove more efficient and economical to use imported fill. All fill within the building area and where paving will be placed outside of the building should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by AASHTO Test Designation T -180. Areas outside footing excavations should be proof rolled with a piece of -8- DAMES 8 MOORE heavy construction equipment. Any soft zones should be overexcavated to firm soils and backfilled with material placed and compacted as recommended above. A subgrade prepared as described above should be capable of supporting lightly loaded floor slabs with only minimal settlement. 4368 - 030 -05 April 14, 1978 Respectfully submitted DAMES j MOORE � K ' 4 — By -9- ck K. Tuttle artner QAMES 8 MOORE • KEY: ▪ BORINGS DRILLED DURING THIS INVESTIGATION. ▪ TEST PITS EXCAVATED WITHIN PROJECT AREA DURING PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION, LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE. REFERENCES: (1) DRAWING TITLED PARKWAY PLAZA WEST PHASE III SITE PLAN, UNDATED, BY CHESTER L. LINDSEY ARCHITECTS. (2) DRAWING TITLED JACK A. BENAROYA CO. SOIL BORING LOCATION, FILE NUMBER 77475, DATED 2 FEB 78, BY CHADWICK SURVEYING 8 ENGINEERING. UNDATED, UNTITLED DRAWING BY JACK A. BENAROYA CO. SHOWING POINT ELEVATIONS IN PARKWAY PLAZA WEST. (3) APPROXIMATELY 465 FEET TO S.E. CORNER OF ETHAN ALLEN CARRIAGE HOUSE PROPERTY LINE PLOT . PLAN FEET 50 0 50 100 DAMES 8 MOOSE PLATE 1 APPENDIX FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING FIELD EXPLORATIONS Subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling three primary borings at the locations shown on the Plot Plan, Plate 1. A fourth boring, identified as Boring 2 -A, was drilled to confirm near - surface soil conditions at the northeast building corner after Boring 2 was drilled approximately 40 feet off location. The locations for Borings 1 and 3 were staked by Chadwick Engineering and Surveying. The elevations given on the logs are based on an assumed datum of Elevation 30 across the building area. The borings were drilled with truck- mounted hollow -stem auger drilling equipment. Because of soft surface conditions, a small dozer was kept on standby to assist the drill rig when moving between borings. The explorations were coordinated by a member of our staff who classified the soils encountered in the borings, maintained a continuous log, and obtained samples for visual examination and laboratory testing. The logs of the borings are presented on Plates A -1 through A -3. Logs of test pits which were performed during a preliminary investigation of this site in 1976 are given on Plate A -4. Soils have been classified in accordance with the Unified Soils Classification System which is described on Plate A -5. A description of the soil and ground water conditions is included in the report text. Soil samples were obtained at frequent intervals in each boring using a Dames & Moore Type U sampler which was driven with a weight of A -1 COAMES 8 MOORE • • 300 pounds falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler 12 inches into the soil is shown above the sample • notations on the boring logs. Observations of the ground water level were made during drilling of the primary borings and were confirmed by the installation of piezo- meters in Borings 2 and 3. Measurements of the water level were taken several times subsequent to the completion of the borings. The highest water level noted is recorded on the boring logs. LABORATORY TESTING The samples were examined in our laboratory and selected samples of soils encountered in the borings were tested to evaluate their pertinent physical characteristics. The shear strengths of the soils were evaluated by means of triaxial compression tests and direct shear tests. The tests on the finer grained silts were performed under unconsolidated, undrained conditions at a relatively rapid rate of axial deflection. The tests were recycled to zero load after reaching the approximate yield point and then carried to failure in order to provide data to approximate the modulus of deformation for settlement calculations. The direct shear tests and the triaxial test on the sand sample were performed under drained conditions. The results of the triaxial compression tests are presented on Plate A -6, and the results of the direct shear tests on Plate A -7. A sieve analysis was performed on a sample of the upper sand to provide an indication of the gradation of this unit. Results of the analysis are presented graphically on Plate A -8. A -2 DAMES 8 MOORS Moisture and density tests were performed in conjunction with the strength tests given above; additional tests were performed on other samples for correlation purposes. The results of these tests are presented on the boring logs, to the left of the appropriate sample notations. A -3 CNAMES 8 MOORE 0 0 o 0 0 • 0 0 > > J 0 5 10 25.9% -95 15 20.9%-105 20 25 30 29.I % -94 35 40 45 50 55 29.7°A -94 25.3% -100 18.6:o -113 I I • 37 34 47 • 106 108 • 50 43 85 ■ 100 BORING I ESTIMATED ELEVATION 30 ± ML BROWN FINE SANDY SILT TO SILTY SAND SM WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL IMEDIUM STIFF) (FILL) UPPER FOOT SOFT, SATURATED OCCASIONAL ORGANIC MASTER WITH ZONES MOTTLED GRAY AND BROWN ML INTERLAYERFD BROWN AND GRAY SANDY SILT, SILT AND SILTY FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL ORGANIC MATTER (MEDIUM STIFF) (OLD FILL1) SP BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SM SOME SILT (DENSE) (WATER BEARI(JGI SP GRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH COARSE SAND AND SLIGHT GRAVEL CONTENT (VERY DENSE) ML GREENISH GRAY TO GRAY SILT WITH ZONES HAVING TRACE OF FINE SAND (HARD) SP DARK, GRAY - BROWN SLIGHTLY SILTY FINE SM SAND WITH OXIDIZED ZONES (VERY DENSE) p GRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH OCCASIONAL FINE GRAVEL (VERY DENSE) HEAVING SAND GRADES WITH INCREASING GRAVEL AND LAYERS OF SILTY SAND KEY: ` BLOWS REQUIRED TO DRIVE SAMPLER ONE FOOT MOISTURE? • WEIGHT= 300 LBS., STROKE= 30" INCHES. CONTENT/ 108 29.1% -94 • INDICATES DEPTH AT WHICH UNDISTURBED DRY -. SAMPLE WAS EXTRACTED. DENSITY IN PCF • INDICATES DEPTH AT WHICH DISTURBED SAMPLE WAS EXTRACTED. .0 INDICATES DEPTH OF SAMPLING ATTEMPT WITH NO RECOVERY. THE DISCUSSION IN THE TEXT OF THIS REPORT IS NECESSARY FOR A PROPER UNDERSTANDING OF THE NATURE OF THE SUBSURFACE MATERIALS. DEPTH IN FEET 55 115 • 60 96 65 100 0 70 -- 140 6" 27.8°0 -97 ■ 75 160 80 SP LOG OF BORINGS DECREASING SILT AND GRAVEL CONTENT HEAVING SANDS CAUSE DIFFICULTY IN SAMPLING INTERLAYERED GRAY SILTY FINE SAND AND FINE SANDY SILT (VERY DENSE) ' GRAY FINE SANDY SILT WITH OCCASIONAL THIN LEIJSES OF FINE SAND (HARD) BORING COMPLETED 2 -3 -78 GROUND WATER NOTED AT DEPTH OF 13' DURING DRILLING DAMES 8 MOORE PLATE A.-1 4 • J 0 5 I4.5% -111 21.8% -101 21.4% -106 15 20 25 30 35 40 21.7% -104 18 • 59 • 51 97 37 90 101 BORING 2 ESTIMATED ELEVATION 26 t BROWN SILTY FINE SAND TO SANDY SILT WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE) (FILL) DARK GRAY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH ISOLATED GRAVEL, OCCASIONAL SILT LENSES AND TRACES OF ORGANIC MATTER (MEDIUM DENISE) (OLD FILL ?) BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SOME SILT (MEDIUM DENSE) GRADES TO DENSE AT 10' WITH LAVERS OF FINE TO COARSE SAND D GRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (DENSE) GRADES WITH COARSE SAND AND FINE GRAVEL, INCREASING DENSITY MOTTLED BROWN AND GRAY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH OCCASIONAL FINE GRAVEL AND NUMEROUS LAYERS OF CLEAN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (DENSE) GRADES FINER IN CONTENT WITH ONLY ISOLATED FINE GRAVEL WITH SILT LENSES INCREASING SAND CONTENT BORING COMPLETED 2 -2 -78 PIEZOMETER INSTALLED ON COMPLETION WATER LEVEL AT 4', 2 -14 -78 0 5 10 20 22.1 % -99 26.3 °0 -101 10 18 39 • LOG OF BORINGS BORING 2A 111 4 ESTIMATED ELEVATION 30 t BROWN SILTY FINE SAND TO SANDY SILT WITH OCCASIONAL ORGANIC MATTER (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE) (FILL) DARK GRAY SILTY FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL AND ORGANIC MATTER (MEDIUM DENSE) (OLD FILL ?) SM BROWN SLIGHTLY SILTY FIIJE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH OCCASIONAL SMALL POCKETS OF SILT (MEDIUM DENSE) BROwrJ FINE TOMEDIUM SAND (DENSE) BORING COMPLETED 2 -6 -78 WATER LEVEL NOT OBSERVED DAMES S MOORS PI ATP A -'J 00 0 0 • DEPTH IN FEET BORING 3 Mir ESTIMATED ELEVATION 30 BROWN SILTY SAND AND SANDY SILT WITH GRAVEL AND ORGANIC MATTER (MEDIUM DENSE) S M \(FILL) UPPER 6" SOFT DARK GRAY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (DENSE) INCREASING GRAVEL CONTENT, WITH OCCASIONAL COBBLES S GRAY SILTY FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL AND COBBLES (DENSE) ML GRAY FINE SANDY SILT WITH LAYERS OF VERY SILTY FINE SAND (HARD) BROWN IN COLOR S P GRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH LAYERS OF SLIGHTLY SILTY FINE SAND (DENISE) (WATER BEARING) OCCASIONAL LAYERS OF FINE TO COARSE SAND HEAVING SAND ML DARK GRAY FINE SANDY SILT (HARD) GRADES TO GRAY SILT 3" LAYER OF HARD SILTY PEAT P BROWNISH GRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND with ZONE COrITAINING SLIGHT SILT CONTENT (vE Rs( DENSE) HEAVING BORING COMPLETED 2 -3 -78 PIEZOMETER INSTALLED ON COMPLETION WATER LEVEL AT 8', 2 -14 -78 LOG OF BORINGS 01 A TC A _9 • • TEST PIT 5 Estimated Elevation 23+ 0' - 1' SM Brown silty fine to medium sand with roots 1' - 3' ML Gray sandy silt with lenses of gray fine to medium sand (very stiff) 3' - 4' SM Gray silty fine to medium sand (medium dense) 4' - 7' SP Brown slightly silty fine to medium sand (medium dense) Test pit completed.19 April 76 Heavy ground water infiltration below 4' depth Ground surface at approximately same elevation as Southcenter Parkway Soil sample obtained at 2' depth TEST PIT 9 Estimated Elevation 241+ 0' SM Brown silty fine sand with roots (topsoil) - 2' SM Brown and gray silty fine sand (moderately dense) 2' - 311' ML /PT Gray sandy silt with some brown peat (moderately stiff) 312' - 9' SP Light brown slightly silty fine to medium sand with traces of gravel (dense) Test pit completed 19 April 76 Moderate ground water seepage below 5' depth Ground surface approximately 2' higher than Southcenter Parkway Soil sample obtained at 3' depth TEST PIT 22 Estimated Elevation 27+ 0' - 1' SM Brown silty sand with occasional roots 1' - 6' SP Gray slightly silty gravelly fine to medium sand with occasional lenses of stiff gray silt (moderately dense) 6' - 11,' ML Light brown sandy silt (hard) Test pit completed 20 April 76 Ground water seepage at 5' depth Ground surface approximately 512' higher than Southcenter Parkway REPRODUCTION OF TEST PIT LOGS PERFORMED FOR PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION AS GIVEN IN REPORT DATED MAY 3, 1976 MAJOR D /V /S /ONS GRAPH SYMBOL LETTER SYMBOL TYPICAL OESCR /PT /ONS COARSE GRAINED SOIL MORE THAN 50 % OF MAT ER I4L IS L ARtEA THAN NO 200 200 SIEVE SIZE GRAVEL AND GRAVELLY SOILS MORE THAN 50 % OF COARSE FR AC- TION R€T41NED ON NO • SIEVE CLEAN GRAVELS -ILI,T,LE ON NO FINEST •••'t • • • ' -• 40.4 '• /t•A60. !•!• 6 • • •, G WELL • GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL • NONDFINESM TUBES, LIT EIE OR ?'1::1!2.::::0 4; 1!:;r::'/ 411- Id,:::: � :: �.,.... �..;,;::: :;: - -:�'11.:•::F `•+ G P 2OORLY- GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL- SONG MIKiURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES GRAVELS WITH FINES (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES) �y �; I� i"'11101j11' L�'rl Li GM SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND- SILT NI XTURFS 1 r • 7 r.7 21i 1. OR 8 •' • GC CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND. CLAY MIATURFS SAND AND SANDY SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRAC TION PASSING CLEAN SAND (LITTLE OR NO FINES • _ +••^ SW WELL - GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, uTnE OR No FINES SP POORLY- GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES SANDS WITH • FINES (APPRECIABLE 4W0UNT OF FINES) 17j {Pf I 11' t lu1 111 • qf lIj 1 11 • 1` I�• S M SILvv SANDS, SAND •SILT mix TURE$ R fro SC • CLAYEY SANDS, SAND•CLAY MI }TUBES NO o SIEVE FINE GRAINED SOILS WORE THAN 50 % OF MATERIAL 15 SMALLER THAN NO SILTS LIQUID LIMIT AND ,,Sj THAN 50 CLAY$ • ML INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CL ATET FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY CL INORGANIC CLAYS OF Low TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS I 1 I I I I ■ I I 1 1 III OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW AL ASTICITT 'SILTS • LIQUID LIMIT AND GREATER THAN 50 CLAYS MH • INORGANIC SILTS, W1CACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SILTY SOILS • yid ��- %�•- " <'•r C {.� •• ' INORGANIC CL ATS OF NIGH RI_ TIO ASIT T, FAT CLAYS 200 SIEVE 512E 1 l ' / /., oORGANIC H CLAYS OF MEDIUM i0 HIGH PL ASTICTY, ORGANIC SILTS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS =- PT PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOIL wry„ HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS _ 'NOTE DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE 5011. CL ASSIFIC41'IONS SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM GAMES 8 MOORS PI ATP A —�, 4 BY LAK DATE 3/13/78 CHECKED BY FILE 4368 -030 Benaroya ft REVISIONS BY DATE BORING DEPTH SOIL TYPE MOISTURE CONTENT ,/a F DRY WEIGHT DRY DENSITY LBS. /CU.FT. CELL PRESSURE IN LBS. /SQ.FT. DEVIATOR STRESS IN_ LBS. /SQ.FT 1/2 DEVIATOR STRESS IN LBS. /SQ.FT. 1 33 SILTY (HARD) 29.1 94 2,000 15,170 7,585 2A 14 SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM 26.3 101 1,000 1,920 960 ' SAND (MEDIUM DENSE) 3 14 SANDY SILT (HARD) 25.0 100 1,000 9,930 4,965 SUMMARY OF TRIAXIAL TEST DATA Br LA K DATE , 3/13/78 CHECKED BY FILE 4368 -030 Benaroya REVISIONS BY DATE BORING DEPTH SOIL TYPE MOISTURE CONTENT /o OF DRY WEIGHT DRY DENSITY LBS./CU. FT. NORMAL PRESSURE LBS. /SQ. FT. YIELD SHEAR STRENGTH LBS. /SQ. FT. 1 18 SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND 20.9 105 2,200 1,400 1 43 FINE TO MEDIUM SAND 25.3 100 2,200 1,700 1 53 FINE TO MEDIUM SAND 18'.6 113 3,500 2,400 2 8 SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND 21.8 101 800 600 2 8 SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND 21.8 101 2,000 1,400 2 13 SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND 21.4 106 1,200 800 2 33 SILTY FINE SAND 21.7 104 2,800 2,100 3 19 FINE TO MEDIUM SAND 24.9 101 1,500 1,000 SUMMARY OF DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA 0 I . 35 m Y3GR- o3o BE, A.101.6y44 �r L,A'K _PAM Cn[Ck.:D 0v R 5//3/79 Mt V ISt0M1 0A Vt. .l••[ o• FINER BY WEIGHT 100 90 BOP 70 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE 3114. 1.51N. 3/41N. 3✓811t4 10 20 40 60 100 200 •t 50 ao t- z 0 30 CC 20 10 0 -t 1 r t r 1 -t~ t 1 4. 1- t 4 1- t- 1 t 1 1 1 1 4 4 L !MIA IAA 10 I,A 0.1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS nnl COBBLES GRAVEL. SAND COARSE I_ FINE !COARSE' MEDIUM 1 FINE SILT OR CLAY BORING DEPTH CLASSIFICATION 1 18 SLIGHTLY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND GRADATION CURVE City of Tukwila of a Nine -Story Office Building on Southcenter Parkway Prepared by: Jones Associates, Inc. • 2700 Northup Way Bellevue, Washington 98004 April 18, 1978 • • CITY OF TUK1WILA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORK: This questionnaire must be completed and submitted with the application for permit. This questionnaire must be completed by all persons applying for a permit from the City of Tukwila, unless it is determined by the Responsible Official that the permit is exempt or unless the applicant and Responsible Official previously agree an Environmental Impact Statement needs to be completed. A fee of $50.00 must accompany the filling of the Environmental Questionnaire to cover costs of the threshold determination. - I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent: Jack A. Benaroya Company 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 5950 Sixth Avenue S. Seattle, WA 98108 (206) 762 -4750 3. Date Checklist Submitted: April 18, 1978 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: City of Tukwila 5. Name of Proposal, . if applicable: NIA 6- Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal (including but not limited to its size, general design elements, and other factors that will give an accurate understanding of its scope and nature): A nine -story office building approximately 200,000 square feet in size is- proposed. The proposed office complex is consistent with the general type and style of office and industrial park uses which have occurred in the area; however, it does represent a departure in height. 7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal, as well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental im- pacts, including any other information needed to give an accurate under -- standing of the environmental setting of the °proposal): East side of Southcenter Parkway, between Levitz Furniture Store and Ethan Allen Carriage House furniture store (across street from Parkway Plaza, the phase 1 & 2 Benaroya buildings). 8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal: ___aecerter 1, 147a 9 List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the Proposal (federal, state and local): (a) Rezone,. conditional use, shoreline permit, etc. YES _ NO x (b) King County Hydraulics Permit YES x N0 (c) Building permit YES X NO 10. (d) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Permit (e) Sewer hook up permit 1J (f) Sign permit (g) Water hook up permit (h) Storm water system permit (i) Curb cut permit (j) : Electrical permit (State of Washington) (k) Plumbing permit (King County) (1) Other: A variance and review by the Architectural Committee of the Planning Commission will be required because the building exceeds s an•ar• eig imi a ions o tee Do you have 'any plans for future additions, expansion, or futher activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain: YES NO X YES X NO YES X NO YES X NO YES X NO YES X NO YES X NO YES X NO NO 11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain: NO 12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro- . posal; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future_ date, describe the nature of such application form: .. The proposed project will require an application for variance building permit. II. ENV I RONFMENTAL IMIPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required) 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: (a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? (b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcover- ing of the soil? (c) Change in topography or ground surface relief fea- tures? (d) The destruction, covering or modification of any YES MAYBE NO X • YES MAYBE' NO .. . (e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site?,. X Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, 'deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? jou dif 1Ktoem41:11014 otlyteaj3 fit4 - kda- Oplanati on: See attached. . i_. W (yl re-dd 4444-t 1- Wit" if ,c,t 4 4 111(4e- 14 ediU Oe litlaq-ott to 7A4-04 k4 . 1 (f) X 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: * (a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? (b) The creation of objectionable odors? (c)Alteration of'air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? Explanation: See attached. X 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: - (a) Changes in currents, or the course or direction • of water movements, in either marine or fresh • . waters? (b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, • or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X (c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? _X__ (d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water • body? X (e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or. turbidity? X (f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? X (g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X • • YES MAYBE NO (h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection, or through the seepage of leachate, phosphates, detergents, waterborne virus or bacteria, or other substances into the ground waters? - X x (i) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise - avail- X able for public water supplies? . X Explanation: See attached. 4. Flora. Will'.the proposal result in: (a) Change inithe diversity of species, or numbers of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? (b) Reduction of'the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora? (c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of X existing species? (d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X Explanation: See attached. 5. Fauna. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of fauna (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna? (c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? (d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Explanation: See attached. X 61.44t.. e-�tc+ M •'ti 1 ( 4.44- () Vi ra h Nu(ANf et1 wa4 • 6. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels?, Explanation: See Appendix. Nof 0 7. Li ht.and Glare. Will the proposal light or glare? •Explanation: See attached. produce new 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the altera- tion of the present or planned land use of an area? Explanation: See- Appendix. -9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: • (a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? • (b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? Explanation: See attached. YES MAYBE NO X X X X X 10. Risk of U set. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to; oil, pesticides, chemicals or radi- ation) in the event of an ac5ident or upset conditions? • X ..144t_dr II Oti.ri) ik .. A1 Explanation: 44' 9 dikl- i ptiirrif 9-eit ItS 4,41/ 5- ilt4) 47 . 0 G k ' tO e_„vi 00,_,ilA 1 cei ,4,54(-pri, tob‘ oii ■it r 1, V Yr it k. ,Itap ti 0-43 0 cs v) • I i 4 Wt w VA, 0100 e co oi ik „soul iso • 4 YES MAYBE NO f1.. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or- growth rate of the human population of'an area? Explanation: See attached. 12. Housing: Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a' demand for additional housing? Explanation:. Cvvu,o 4 c - W-60 13. Transportatio;i /Circulation. Will the proposal result i (a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? (b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? (c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? (d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? (e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? (f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Explanation: See Appendix. X 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or al terad governmental services in any of the following areas: (a) Fire protection? (b) Police protection? (c) Schools? (d) Parks or other recreational facilities? (e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X X X X X X (f) Other governmental services? Explanation: See Attached., 15. Ener Will the proposal result in: (a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? (b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or . require the development of new sources of energy? Explanation: See attached. YES MAYBE NO x X 1b. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: (a) Power or natural gas ?. (b) Communications systems? (c) Water? (d) Sewer or septic tanks? (e) Storm water drainage? (f) Solid waste and disposal? Explanation: • 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in the crea -. tion of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? Explanation: X - X • 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruc- _' tion of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically of- fensive site open to public view? Explanation: See Appendix. 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of exist- ing recreational opportunities? Explanation:. 20. Archeological /Histroical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a signifi- cant archeological or his -. torical site, structure, object or building? Explanation: YES MAYBE NO X CERTIFICATION BY APPLICANT: I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge information is true and complete. It is understood may withdraw any declaration of non- significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be__any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on m y *, 1J • ercy i r anO Regnar R. B. Kearton, Ph. D. Director of Environmental Analysis ,nnicc nccnrTATrc tmr Date r�- 4 ,7:- ;non • . CITY OF TUKWILA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 1. Earth (b) The site has been partially filled during site preparation, additional soils will be displaced and overcovered. In order to provide a suitable substrate for construction of the building, several feet of surface soil will be excavated and replaced with backfill. A smaller amount of fill is needed for the parking area, along with some near surface grading at the upper 6" to 1' of topsoil. (c) Very slight changes in existing topography will occur as the land is leveled in preparation for paving and building construction, but no recontouring--is anticipated. (e) Some minor erosion and siltation of runoff during site preparation is inevitable:; however, this will be controlled by normal engineering and construction practices. 2. Air (a) Some temporary increases in dust will occur during construction activities. Later, some increases in carbon monoxide levels may occur as a result of vehicular use in and around the site. See attached appendix. 3. Water (b) Site preparation and the subsequent construction of impervious surfaces (rooftop and parking area) will result in increased surface water runoff and a decrease in absorption rate. Existing drainage is sluggish and will be improved. 7 V i�4-GJ `j'( (3 1MAZI? "j"r9w Ontt 1'i" �- _ R. - Flora iN4fwVe.4? b WN,MM' (a) The proposed site was originally covered with vegetation char cter- istic of the Green River Valley flood plain. Vegetation was removed when the hillside above the site was excavated for gravel and later where the site was filled. No trees or significant vegetation remain at the site. VOA.' (c) Landscaping of the site will introduce new decorative specie o flora in designated areas. 5. Fauna In its present condition, the site does not provide significant habitat for wildlife or migratory birds. Some frog habitat has developed in an area of poor .drainage and will be removed. .�,_ I 'wee, :}a4vvit.fe 'A- 1IU 51 iej A4 , 7. Light and Glare (n �� � ti � New light will emanate from interior lighting in the propo ed structure, as well as from the parking lot safety lighting at night. Additional light and glare will be insignificant inasmuch as there are no nearby sensitive receptors. wi ,� P�`x1 11401. u,fkwe bt �o' k u+ : ' • CITY OF TUKWILA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST, Page 2 9. Natural Resources Construction of the proposed project will consume the normal amounts of energy and construction materials and will result in the commitment of the land itself for urban purposes. 11. Population Employees at the proposed facility are now located at several other offices situated in the near vicinity. Transfer of employees to the proposed facility will not create new jobs for the region or result in the influx - ' of new residents.` - ^ f S�� 1 s N114 S �a . Au KQ 1Mhf i Ga 14. Public Services wait kobtsk4 11, imbl tou Att. (a) Fire hydrants and internal sprinkling sys ems will be installed in order to comply with the City of Tukwila Fire Department safety standards. No additional fire department personnel will be required. 15. Energy. (b) Extension of existing utilities will be needed to serve the pro- posed development. However, this proposal by itself will not require . the development of new energy sources. 16. Utilities - (a) -(f) These services are currently available in the area. The only alterations required would be those necessary to extend services to the proposed site. For example, in order to provide power to the proposed development, the existing feeder line will have to be extended to the west to a transformer in the rear of the building; all of this will be under- ground. /c ttom' of yit4,419 !tyl oIi /d At eirJ .- 6esu f tf flC4- i'4. ''e- wt fgew ,SfdlE%�' 0444- 40' A l it t t a 'sec& 0? 4oVi.t offkt . eeltd �.,. 004t4g, rwxt `���°` :uct� o Coca fi' d •'�LJkatr o 1f� u„�s a,�ot o ffi •w a� �, f , � �c-t towtoes fJ 0,0 /- i 4Z °'ffj• -G ( well £t -Me. 7 C i / ti re till �•i'' J D7 t. iitt eta44 D , %J' Kd b' uif ifivt At present, the site is partially filled and only sparsely Wad covered with weeds and grasses. A tree - covered slope sep rates the �f d south western edge of the site from I -5. The properties to 1,i north .an 0,,� l' is occupied by furniture stores, and a complex of retail establishments . j IMO �- located 'ust east of the site. The property has no view potential. , � • h is loca just ia The proposal will result in the alteration of the present but •,ell' /0ky104►ot planned, land use of the area. The site is undeveloped and designated s ipmf for commercial use, according to the current City___ of_T�±kwi1a Comprehensive �0.1 Land Use Policy Plan, Ordinance No. 1039. By definition, development of tetreir the property will alter its present condition, but its planned use as an Ir"/ office building conforms with the provisions of the Plan: "Commercial Ye, �J areas include commercial services, retail commercial activities with ifivi associated warehousing, and compatible and complementary uses including e f .Y1 _. offices" (City of Tukwila, September 22, 1977:92) . 0014()%1-_ The s i to is currently zoned for light industry (M -1 district). of aic/ This zoning allows any use permitted in the C -1 or C -2 districts, bo (City of Tukwila Zoning Code; Chapter 18.40.010[1]). �'' which include office uses In order to build the proposed 9 -story office facility, a variance on the underlying M -I zoning must be obtained, since the height limitation for that zone is 4 stories. ' WILL, . Positive impacts of allowing the proposed development include. the following: o •The Southcenter 6 high regional commerical similar new development. �nd retail buil are in the vicinity of the proposal) and because the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan encourages a "balanced complement of business uses ", the reusc_ proposed office development would help achieve a balance between retail and 40"M b*!Oti,,,,ti -100%opstep J�� Parkway area, where the s ite is located, has ' drawing power, thus offering great potential for s% Since the majority of Tukwila's commercial office ding area is now devoted to retail activit ies (many of which 4 Y w• "'t4u. 6X1 commercial l-office use. Plan September • 0 increased industry" 18). Objective 4 of the Commerce /Industry section of the states: "Encourage the establishment of office areas" (City of Tukwila, 1 ' 22, 1977:57, 65). fiS. W i, The proposal will help to "assure healthy economic growth through SG0�1� employment, diversification, and strengthening of business and 14,51 (Goal 1 -- Commerce /Industry) (City of Tukwila, September 22, 1977: 0 13 1/1 P C •. Aesthetics The physical characteristics of the site are described in paragraph 1, Land Use. The development of the proposal of any scenic vista will not result in the obstruction 1 01 _� c nor will it be functionally 1 004)10 v incompatible with the surrounding land use types. The overall architectural 0 style and appearance of the office building will be of higher quality than presently existing office buildings in the area; a positive impact of the proposed structure is that it will not only upgrade the present appearance of 10- i. development in the area, but will also set a high standard of aesthetic qualit for future office construction in the area:' /L. f N.OT VOOfr t JILCh The rear of the site is immediately adjacent to the va ley wall which is vegetated and higher than the proposed structure. Thus, although the proposed building is higher than other buildings in the area, it will blend topographically with the height of the adjacent hill and will not obstruct any view. In addition, the row of trees between I -5 and the site acts as a visual buffer from the freeway side. The proposed structure will not interrupt the view of the valley from the freeway. BENAROYA OFFICE COMPLEX TRAFFIC STUDY Introduction - This study concerns the traffic and transportation character- istics associated with the development of a multi -floor -office complex to be situated beside Southcenter Parkway between S. 180th Street and Strander. Boulevard, City of Tukwila, King County, Washington. The site is constrained to the south by an existing commercial facili ,Levitz Furniture, to the north by . another commeric facility, Ethan. Allen Carriage House, to the west by to igr phical considerations above which is located Inter to 5 to the east by Southcenter �qf� �p� Parkway,:- a five -1 e ig -type .facility which will provider J00 direct access to the nerally, tie :immediate area j .. - ire y o commercial sales excluding convien- l ience shopping. Sales are of the general merchandise, -( �J apparel, and furniture (GAF) . The area is :known locally �00�% as the "Parkway Plaza ". South of 180th Street there is little development at the -► present time while east of Parkway Plaza land use is oriented ,a"Jr towards warehousing. North of the area dominant warehousing a uses gradually give way to commerical enterprises such as banks and Hotel /hotel facilities with dominant restaurant characteristics., Further north is a large shopping center, / "Southcenter". - Existing Transportation -Facilities The existing transportation facilities serving the site are shown in Figure 1. Briefly, these facilities include Inter- state 5, a multi -lane fully controlled freeway providing• direct- linkage to major communities in the Puget Sound region. Parallel to Intersate 5 and approximately two miles to the east is SR -167, another fully controlled multi -lane freeway. About one and one -half miles north of the site, commencing at Interstate 5 is Interstate 405. This interstate facility is also a multi -lane fully - controlled freeway providing high capacity access to the communities located east of Lake Washington. Local facilities include S. 180th Street, and Strander Boulevard. These two arterial streets for the most part have a five -lane configuration at all signalized intersections and offer high capacity corridors for east-west traffic. Arterial streets in north -south corridors include Southcenter Parkway, Andover Park West, and Andover Park East. Southcenter Parkway between S. 180th Street up to Strander Boulevard is ,(1.7%1/4 • -2- 198° • • a five -lane facility with the center lane providing either left -turn storage at signalized intersection or, between intersections, a "two -way left -turn lane ". Andover Park East and Andover Park West are four -lane facilities also of recent construction. Traffic Characteristics Traffic characteristics define those elements associated with vehicular traffic operations. For this study, data was collected in the vicinity of the Koll Business Center located on Strander Boulevard between Andover Park East and the Green River. Additionally, to define hourly, weekly, and monthly Characteristics data was researched from the files of the Department of Transportation and Director. of. Public Works, City of Tukwila. The particular factors of interest include: C T = Percentage of trucks in the traffic stream K.= The percent of daily traffic in the peak hour D = Directional distribution of demand.. Table 1, below, describes vehicle classification. This data was obtained at a count station on Southcenter Parkway at the intersection of Strander Boulevard. . TABLE I VEHICLE CLASSIFICATION Percentage sof :Total Vehicle Type Compact Auto 34 Standard Auto 41 Pick -up and Van 20 Motorcycle 0 Two -axle. truck 2 Three -axle /Four axle truck 100.00% 3- Total n = 100 Date: 4/6/78 Monthly variation ,in traffic demand is monthly not availableefor the City of Tukwila. Accordingly, Y estimated from urban count station R -33 operated by the Washington State Department of Transportation. Monthly demand is presented in Table -• 3- Month January February March April May June July August September . October November December TABLE. II M NTHLY TRArtIC VARIATION Percent of Annual Traffic 7.84 7.86 8.19 8.45 8.18 8.73 8.44 8.75 8.38 8.31 8.06 8.80 Weekday traffic variation was derived from a seven -day machine count collected by the City of Tukwila. The loca- tion was off Klikitat Avenue in the vicinity of 53rd Avenue So. Although the count was collected during the month of October, 1976, it was in advance of the Christmas shopping season and may be considered adequate for planning purposes. TABLE-III . WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VARIATION Day -of _the •Week .. 'Percent •of Weekly Total - Sunday 10.4 Monday 15.1: Tuesday • 14.2 Wednesday 14.6 Thursday 15.5 Friday 16.5 Saturday • 13.7 Variation in traffic dethand throughout the average weekday is essential for describing the peaking characteristics of traffic. Hourly variation, expressed as a(percent of total daily demand is described in Table IV. This data was ex- tracted from machine counts conducted by the City of Tukwila on Thursday, May 18, 1976. Note that %ursday may be con- sidered an "average" day. Time of Day Midnight -1 1 --2 -- 2 - 3 3 - 4 4 - -5 5 - 6 6 - 7 7 - 8 8 - 9 '.9 - 10 10 - 11 11. - noon noon - 1 1 - 2 2 3. 3 - 4 4 - 5 5 -. 6 6 - 7 7 - 8 8-9 9-10 10 - 11 11 - midnight TABLE IV • HOURLY DEMAND FOR THE AVERAGE DAY Northbound 0.29 0.08 0.10 0.05 0.23 0.67 3.65 3.53 4.45. 5.19 7.88 9.99 8.80 8.20 8.36 9.73-1 6.92 6.38 5.82 4.87 3.02 0.78 0.55 0.47 100.00 Southbound 0.30 0.11 0.11 0.17 0.21 0.38 1.22 4.48 4.18 4.48 6.70 6.931 9.27 -I 8.28 J. 8.11 7.30 • 8.35 8.31 5.99 6.13 5.04 2.63 0.92 0.50 100.00 While the hourly demand obtained from traffic counts on Southcenter Parkway represents traffic on the arterial street system, of equal concern is traffic associated with the proposed parking facilities. Characteristics of the parking facility include arrivals and departures versus time -of -day. For this element, reference is made to a parking study performed at the Andover Industrial . Park, Koll Business Center, by Christopher Brown, .P.E. in 1975. Since the proposed building is one oriented to non - commercial acti- Vities--that is, primarily addressing business functions, research, and other activities of a professional nature the Koll Business Center may be considered an adequate model upon which to base performance. Similarly, the Koll Business Center is oriented to a population whose dominant mode of transportation is the private vehicle as opposed to, say, . public transit. Data for the office facility is presented below. in Table V. Time TABLE V ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES PROFESSIONAL CENTER Arrivals Departures 6 - 7 7.33 0 28.31 , 1.18 8 8 2.84 7.54 8 `" 9 � 9 - 10 7.33 . 0 10 -. 11 7.33 8.53 11.14 . 652. 11 -. noon noon - 1 1.02 22.99 21.38 1.18 1 - 2 6.40 2 .- 3 6.52 3 - 4 3.46 6.40 4 - 5 2.24 12.09 5 - 6 1-.02 27.25 *Note that evening activities, to all intents, are non- existent. Design characteristics that should be utilized previously, in Table VI. "Design Factors". As these are based on current observations. TABLE VI DESIGN FACTORS Peak - K . . D T. AM 3.65 0.74 3 Off • 9.99 0.59 3 PM ' 9.73 0. 5 6 3 • It may be noted that, unlike most urban communities, the morning peak hour is extremely shallow while, as evidenced in Table IV, traffic continues to . build up during the day. This reflects a community whose principal involvement is towards shopping and other retail ventures. Normally, one would expect both the AM and the PM peak to be equal and, in addition, to be in the order of 10 percent. As noted in Table VI, the heaviest peak is the noon hour. Note that this is, also evident from Table V which describes arrivals and departures at the Koll Business Center. Probably, the peaking characteristic at, noon is associated with a highly mobile population oriented . to noontime activities such as dining. For design purposes, it would probably be adequate to assume a peak hour at 10 percent of daily traffic demand, a peak hour split or directional distribution of 60 percent, and a truck factor. of 3 percent. Probably, if a principal concern ;is the evening peak, the truck-factor would be less. Finally, In terms of capacity analysis,, aitcrayibeicssofean that the general area would have the "Outlying Business District" as defined b Highway arch Board, Specialep ot i ghwayCapaciy Manual, 1965 Parking Demand Recognizing that parking demand may be significant l cunsides ation an "Occupancy Study was conducted at Center on April 5, 1978. Results of this study are presented below in Table VII. TABLE VI_I VEHICLE OCCUPANCY OCCUPANCY Driver only 85 85 Driver + 1 rider 11 Driver + 2 riders 2 2 Driver + 3 or more . Average vehicular occupancy was equal to 1.21 persons per vehicle. If the projected employment is assumed to be 1,500 persons, demand for parking would be in the order of 1,240 vehicle spaces. This does not' include parking demand for visitors or delivery vehicles. Since the occupancy rates were relatively low, data was cross- referenced to a vehicle .occupancy study at a large facility in Southwest Everett which was a part of the "Southwest Everett Planning Study ". The traffic elements of this planning study were conducted by Christopher Brown, P.E. .during March, 1978. Data from this study is described in Table VIII. - PERCENT - TABLE VIII )p VEHICLE OCCUPANCY OCCUPANCY -' - Driver only 84.7 Driver +.1 rider 12.2: -Driver + 2 riders 2.3 Driver + 3 riders 0.7 Driver + 4 or more 0.1 Total 100 .0 0 The conclusions from occupancy studies conducted tat the Koll Business Center as well as from the study • Southr,,iest Everett suggests that public or mass transit has little impact on ridership. Indeed, a principal mitigating measure that should be addressed is increasing ridership and /or transit usage. Trip Distribution Since the principal concern for a facility of this size is primarily involving employee travel characteristics, trip distribution was based on available . employee residence distribution from previous studies conducted by Christopher. Brown, P.E. : for similar facilities. These are described below in Table IX. Trip Generation Trip Generation rates published by the Inst.itute of Traffic Engineers in the 1976 "Informational Report., Trip Generation" defines generation rates for general office buildings. The independent variable is trips per employee. For this variable, the average trip rate is 3.46 trips per employee. This may be contrasted with. the A177777 Industrial Park, Koll Business Center, Parking Demand Study: performed by Christopher Brown., P.E. which described (from field data) a. trip generation rate of 3.03 trips per employee. A data delimitation exists concern 'fie Koll Business- Center study in that total office space was only 89,117 square feet with employment at 301 persons. Since the proposed Benaroya Office Complex is a much larger facility, the trip generation rates provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers should be considered applicable for planning purposes. Traffic demand, for the subject development only, is described in Figure 2. Assign- ment to the network is based on probable travel -time with employee residence distributions as previously described. •PERCENT �1 ,fI p 91./Eni /0.W6 s_/ o 7/4 ( t".:/b/1 C C /e.,; r4 re /ac 71/A — 4') !. P rJ ✓1 V -lflq0+1 rd r! `/ V3 7R4 ri c a F/14,47 oTc cytAL r. —9 .Location Percent South Snohomish County 10.71 Bothell, Woodinville 2.81 Redmond, Kirkland 4.45 Bellevue, Medina, Clyde Hill 7.24 Seattle, north of Canal 17.59 Seattle, south of Canal 14.33 Issaquah, North Bend and vicinity 2.38 ;_ . .22 Renton 1122.22 Kent 1.82 Auburn. Federal Way, Redondo 1.50 Burien 0.41 Des Moines 4.75 Bremerton /Kitsap Co. /Vashon Is. 0.36 Mercer Island 1.36 Maple Valley, Enumclaw 1.62 Tacoma & Vicinity. 2.95 Puyallup & Pierce Co. 3.09 100.00 Projected Demand Projected demand for the principal highway and arterial street system serving the Benaroya Office Complex is described in Figure 3, "Projected ADT at Horizon Year". The assumed completion date is the end of 1978 or early 19 79 . In view of the completion date, ADT has not been artificially in- flated since "normal growth" is considered _insignificant over the short time span between construction and occupancy. Adverse Impacts and Mitigating Measures Although this particular complex: will generate significant traffic volumes the high quality of arteria. an ig way facilities in the area -is sufficient for accomodating those volumes: In essence, no significant revisions e hi ay or arterial system are required nor are construction 10.10 revisions required at existing tra is con ro evices. nEj iv Delay will, however, be experienced by motorists at both � ��� Pf the noonhour and the afternoon peak hour when . the wor k �;e rS force, either destined for noontime activities or returning . home from work wi conflictin with shopping center oriented motorists. w to krpnfuca- Nat, .:' Wfu& slurps mat woh -sit Alternate traffic control strategies can be implemented by the City of Tukwila. For example, traffic signals located 4 ur f on Strander Boulevard at Andover Park W. and Andover Park E. o1: can'Fiave significant im•rovements i •_esent multiple phasingt `_ are eliminated in order to make the sysems e eLi .w wli► �ami ar y, e proposed traffic signal at WIALM! • over Park W. and S. 180th Street, which signal does not •=�' meet volume warrants, can be modified in terms of multiple phasing (eliminate left -turn phases) in order to provide a more efficient operation. 1. It is likes that signal Warrants I. and /or II will be net for on six hours out ofa�ishouldgberincoiporatecl within for a future traffic sign ;1 P X Attention e driveway design servin• e o snoul.a be airecte: towards future • interconnection and the establishment of some form of master control system. This particular provision is beyond the pale of this . report but is identified as a future mitigating measure. * Manual on Unifouu Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 1971. Adopted in Washington, pursuant to RCW 47.36. Traffic signals shall not be installed unless one•or more of the signal warrants in this . may ual are Net. 6� 3 X01 b 6' 31� 4.g9tio 2e 9 sflBJ ,(D 1=5- a SIR 1:67 r /GUR5 3 T'R0)c - z) . z7 -77 NNo /. o/v v64 107 o_ 19) Environmental Check. List -- Transportation /Ci.rculation From the estimates provided herein the following results may be anticipated. Generation of additional vehicular movement? Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? Comment: parking speed provided on site. Imrpact upon existing transportation system Comment: Existing systems can accomodate new. traffic. Alterations to. present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? • Alterations to waterborne, rail or .air traffic? Increase in traffic hazards to motor .vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Comment: Traffic accidents are generally random events and are therefore non - predictable The material in this report has indicated appropriate . traffic control system strategies or revisions at the site which, for the most part, will inhibit hazard. The absernce of pedestrian and bicyc] Q tra ff 4 c in thc. gonorab area precludes these two elements from consi- deration beyond those normally required in a review of this type. • • Yes Yes Yes No Possible With respect to the environmental check list, question ad= dressing the... "alteration to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods ". it should be noted that the significant commercial development at-5-51-enter and Andover Parkwmr with attendant peak shopping periods, par icu a y om - an sgiving . o e -anuary sales, suggests That conflict will take place from ou 10 :00 in the morning onwar Ls . Mitiga ing measures uou o•viously include • appropriate "mar-Earn-traffic control at those driveways where congestion may be experienced due to conflicts between the home -based work trip and the shopping/social recreation trip. Accordingly, . the referenced question suggests that there will be no change in circulation of movement although there will, during peak shopping periods, be times when traffic will be congested. It may be noted that new traffic signals are scheduled for installation at the intersection of Strander Boulevard and • • the West Valley Highway and at the intersection of S. 180th Street and Andover Park W. The traffic signal at the inter- section of Strander Boulevard and the West Valley Highway will have positive effects on traffic presently using Strander Boulevard particularly during the evening peak hour. However, this will not alleviate congestion presently found during the afternoon peak period at the interchange of the West Valley Highway and Interstate 405. The new signal to be installed at the intersection . of S.- 180th Street and Andover Park West will not provide any benefit to traffic generated by this site. Indeed, if the design follows that for those signals currently installed on Strander Boulevard at Andover Park E. and Andover Park W., the multiple_. phasing will probably increase delay. Strategies for .improving . operations at the new signal as well as the existing signals include ;those previously discussed such as :reducing the number of phases. Thus, for example, cycle length can be reduced if left -turn phases are entirely eliminated. . This has been accomplished in other municipalities of similar size with considerable success. There appears to be little need for separate left -turn phasing. Conclusions It is concluded that this development will generate traffic volurn Traffic volumes can be accomodated on significant] exisit city arterial system. A range of mitigating measures s not the least of them being the elimination of unnecessary phases on existing traffic signals. It is possible signal will be required at the main entrance drivewa�T ;,,,g tthe.parking lot. Signal warrants, either Warrant I or II will be met for six hours of the day. Thus, while there is no legal requirement for the installation of a traffic signal, it should be considered for possible future. installation. Conjointly with Parkway Plaza the installation of a traffic signal would do much to alleviate adverse operations due to both the shopping center as well as the proposed office complex. Traffic accidents are not expected to increase in .frequency or change by type beyond those presently experienced on the arterial system in the City of .Tukwila. Finally, no adverse consequences are anticipated for bicyclists or pedestrians. Appropriate construction techniques should be instituted, at principal intersections,' for the accomodation of these two user groups, for example, cross -walks and pedestrian signals. BENAROYA OFFICE COifii'LEX AIR° QUALITY Existing Conditions Air quality in any area is determined by the number and type of sources of air pollution and the meteorological conditions which govern dispersal of these pollutants. The major source of air . pollution in . the area is automobiles. There are several air monitoring and meteorological stations located in the vicinity of the site. The Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency operates stations at McMicken Heights, about one mile west of the proposed office,. complex, just east of Southcenter less than one mile east of the subject site, and at Kent about five miles south of the site. There is a complete meteorological monitoring station located at Seattle - Tacoma Airport. Additionally, the Washington State Department of Transportation has conducted monitoring operations adjacent to Interstate 5 at Federal Way. Meteorological conditions in the vicinity are those generally experienced throughout the Puget Sound area. Temperatures range from an average of 40 degrees (F) in January to 65 degrees (F) in July. Extreme temperatures are unusual but have been known to reach 100 degrees (F) in the summer and 0 degrees (F) in the winter on rare occasions. Precipitation is moderate, ranging from 20 to 50 inches annually, and averaging about 35 inches per year. Snow occurs occasionally during the winter but rarely lasts more 'than two or three days. Winds prevail out of the south to southwest the majority of the time; however, during the summer prevailing winds are usually norther- ly. Light and variable winds, less than 2 mph, occur about 20 percent of the time in the vicinity of the site. These low wind speeds provide the most conducive conditions for pollution build -up in the area. Under these conditions, a "drainage wind" will be established flowing off the McMicken .Heights hill, crossing Interstate 5, and flowing down into the valley forming a pool of stagnant air. During these periods pollutant concentrations can attain fairly high levels. Suspended Particulates: Suspended particulate has been monitored at all three above described stations, McMicken Heights, Southcenter and Kent, for the last several years. The annual geometric mean has not exceeded the 60 microgram per cubic meter , standard during the monitoring period. The maximum value was an annual mean of 49 micro- grams per cubic meter recorded at Kent in 1976. -15- Sulfur Dioxide: Sulfur dioxide has been monitored at all three stations for the past several years also. During a three year monitoring period from 1974 through 1976 there was only one violation of a sulfur dioxide standard. The concentration of sulfur dioxide reached 0.52 ppm at McMicken Heights for one hour in 1974. The one hour standard is 0:40 ppm. It is most likely that this violation wls caused by emissions from the ASARCO smelter in Tacoma. Photochemical Oxidant: Photochemical oxidant (or ozone) has been measured at both Kent and McMicken Heights. During 1976 neither station experienced violations of the 0.08 ppm one hour standard. During 1975 five violations of the standard were experienced at Kent with the maximum one -hour concentration reaching 0.1:3 ppm. No monitoring was conducted at McMicken Heights in 1975. , In 1974 McMicken Heights had 12 violations of the one - hour standard with a maximum of 0.14 ppm, Carbon Monoxide: Carbon monoxide has not been measured at any of the above noted stations but has been measured by the Department of Transportation in Federal Way. Maximus concentrations reached 12 rig /c.m. peak hour levels during 1976. The one -hour standard is 40 mg /c.m. The maximum eight -hour concentration, and the one most critical to the project, was 9 mg /c.m. The eight - hoar standard is 10 m>g /c. m. The major source of pollution in the area of the site is due to automobile traffic. The principal pollutants emitted by automobiles are carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen: The last two combine under sunny skies to form photochemical oxidant, commonly called "smog ". Extrapolating the data from the existing monitoring stations shows that with the traffic levels currently being experienced (see Traffic Study, Figure 1) in the vicinity of the site there is a likelihood that at the present time, the photochemical exidant and carbon monode 'standards may be exceeded. Oxidant levels, although apparently. r-rerinancerlotbeen monitored long enough to determine any long term trends. Note that a sunny summer can produce elevated oxidant concentrations quite readily. However, it should also be noted that the violations of the oxidant standard can be partially attributed .110 to the transport of vehicular pollutants from the urban Seattle area. The Green River Valley is the recipient of pollutants generated in �j S Seattle. Thus, mitigating measures, generally, will focus on pro- Y' 0 SS grams that the city cattle must address. Carbon monoxide concentrations, by contrast, are a more localized phenomenon and are generated almost exclusively by vehicles. When cr-irbon monoxide emissions caused by vehicular traffic on 1 -5 are added to background levels, as established at the monitoring stations in Federal Way, the corresponding eight -hour concentration adjacent -16- to the site would be 10 mg /c.m., a quality that is right at the current stand As mentioned previously, air pollutants from the I -5, on e hill above the site will drain down into the valley, raising con- centrations in the general area. 'Environmental Impact -To determine both the existing conditions and the impact of the project a California Department of Highways, Line Source Diffusion Model was used. Emissions were calculated from Environmental Protection Agency factors from manual AP-42, Supplement 8, using the car -truck ratios shown in the attached Traffic Study. Standard "hot" and "cold start" factors were employed and traffic speeds were assumed to be the posted speeds: Average temperature was considered to be 40 degrees '(F) as the condi- tion most conducive to high pollutant concentrations which typically occur during the winter season. Detailed analysis is available if requested. At a receptor site located across the street from the proposed project site, the predicted carbon monoxide concentration was 3.3 rng /c.m. in 1978. Adding the 5 mg/con. background concen- tration results in a predicted maximum eight hour concentration of carbon monoxide of 8.3 mg /c.m. , which is within the 10 mg /c.m. There are three possible sources of air pollution that can be created by the project. These would be from heating the building with fossil fuels, incinerating paper waste on site, and vehicles destined to and using the parking lot surrounding the building. Presently, the building is expected to be heated by electricity and all solid wastes will be removed by a disposal company. Therefore, there will be no air pollution created by these two sources. The principal impact will be caused by vehicles parking in the adjacent lot and using the arterial access roads. This will create additional concentrations of carbon monoxide and elevate the potential photochemical oxidant concentrations. Using the line source model described earlier it is predicted that the additional traffic, using reduced emission factors for 1979, will elevate the carbon monoxide concentration at the same receptor site by 0.9 mg /c.m. This would bring the maximum eight -hour concentration to 9.2 mg /c.m. which is still within the current standard. Based on the data and the predictions derived from the model, it appears that the existing eight -hour carbon monoxide concentrations are "at the standard ". Whether or not the standard is in fact being violated can only be determined by monitoring. Vehicular traffic associated with the project will increase the eight -hour levels of carbon monoxide by about 1 mg /c.m. in the vicinity of the site. The project will add pollutants to an area with existing pho tochemica oxidants and car n monoxide problems. -17- There will be a temporary increase in dust levels during excava- tion and construction of the project. These will be localized and will cease upon completion of the project. They can be constrained by appropriate techniques. Mitigating Measures Dust can be reduced by watering dusty areas systematically. Some vehicular pollutants will be reduced slightly through the design o, the parking lots and access points. This design will reduce con- gestion and idling times at entrances and exits. Other possible techniques include bus or transit service and car-pools to reduce the number of vehicles coming to the site. An efficient traffic control sii al is currently being designed for this project. .6444 Pliiitfltuft tikvii \A Federal eigission standards on automobiles are becoming more stringent ki each yer. Pollutant concentrations from vehicular activity will %) decline as older vehicles are replaced with newer pollution con- trolled vehicles. If no additional traffic is added to the arterials .i adjacent to the site other than those predicted on Figure 3 of the 4p1;1 Traffic Study, carbon monoxide concentrations should decline at 00 about 7 percent a year. -18-- • • �JI .•YS1 •'� � \ I•l , _ ;),.. t5 e4 -•- is fS' i � 1ir., r M f n tf \ t $• ate^' +J �f - ll7 .`�4�y t!'t 1' fi.�Ytr �-1r?1,ta� �4a. •�'O.i,� j\ i- .fA`�r � :r�t;,�•, ♦:'k':r,- S } /� /�� 4 Y�f G" 1 Y '.',•-•";'''.::11..1. ' t yf •+r l •cF l• ,N '° '".. •—•#, �{ Ob. fib ., . 'r� I i•NtOG/fls:Lj ��� i:'ti. f✓'. • ` . rty ,.. : J.r FSr" k1,. 4• A •.w. y1 '" '11 »..it_'•. ''.':;;,!;..:,\;,..--., ' -4 a 1 ���'• .. ww: ,,,..?1, y / Y J ry'.n ipr :fJ, }Ir qq r it aft ?111 �f iCn`f �t r li4 .r�yyt��y l,T rr • - :r•r'r _c t I� ....air .. r�.:s`��..s"-.Y� rr,, .. ; , .. •�•• ."• �i.r:tr zl.. . :air tinttAy;, C'r,r: f r ++. :rr �, , ,.t ' r• ,,r-�F u./ ,.• . i..r _...,tit •-i."'•u;• .4,. r ♦,. :•r.::... /.ir ee,�' rv.' tt Ll "� �, .. �`r .: •ri+ firt t r!' .51 _ at , •t• r .F'.. 'v. nr'. �{ : :.y: J1P,.4.,•.r.,...Y c ..; fi g:.: r + ..tn. W ,O,NIar� ,,.i., L r.�r+� �? - ••-.: `ice i :r'�.. +.ern••. •L i'.r..,,,;,,,,,,,,,;,..„:7,', , Y ,a '.f Il.r,:,'.� }x! �trY '.ft f•'r;,1 Y�. �J.. :iT 4._".- :w. +. .Tr••i; +••�.rrMy��.;�'�.�GS, r: -y`. r . ..ri'•i,�,•.WYV1 'fy.r ..... °1., ,.••., ....:..1.' ''.t •�• -'A." :i'f il�.,.'1.r J'R �'�•"'• ,•'ri'.7. .4 '•r". "e'1� ,f1i :;fv..: - e...."., •t. i• am.. .�. _ 1,,.160,' , > �':..•a S• "'.._ � /,IF:} , - .t./ - A . 764:4• a,. ..L •i A t^ ,.4;Jy_ 't . . t, d ' ✓0'i• xof ���� *li Y��n f .+', -11 % J'. %Y/ '� t��'yy7 ..f d�� ,r ,r�• 'r ' -'1% .Sif3a a4 J„yr (i . f lr rs.��:r4:17. r :. r w � 'vts?� "'° �.5� , i+ >y.`a P•- , i ,I, li' ,h ' T w: 'i v 1. ..•� -.{ ,. ,A.6 ,a '0•�itfnq,, [�l•, C .q✓ +'.� vY tta S r69 A. !•ja- '•7�:..:'rt'{{ !Y �y!• r i,'„ (1. i'• t•1. �, ... ».. ..�. -t A,r t�.a... 1 l.. +l✓...it ',r?r _ �1�.0�'*�� i f [. lli^ �yis {..4 tt;}�,ft(' N.. •f•r_�•,.f•Y J' . ✓.r ..,41.1b7%,',5 n la }' "'Fin ,.1 •.:y'1 r'•,!II r ?�+ ••af ∎ , �� 1 1 �'1. •,ri ',.4 •`, +1 I'.i `•r,l. �� �}:,1 Y )v t r,1`!!j }•.f ' %y=1: %.rrl•. i y �,1�. -J . ` •'•:l l'� 8f. tr'r!511,,� •',,4i'!'� i *Z�d'��'P: Yy ?:'- 1..• <.I; �i r�pf ,`. .r . •1 e- -r.:. a, _r.aeno'narn narm.e•. :......t r +. „r.w� 1Lcit..t ,ctY,:.e.4.L .t ll.;XWyy ..;:f, , t l ti 1 ;�,.,-� 1; " Alf, *.l (t,••_ � •;:4 r�.• 4; fl jt t dal t ll I �d r 1 f:. :.., '`1 .. ••-''' . r:�-uJ � r'%+!W6io" � ' "- '�.t!�fr:.� r..,,,'. a F�'Yvw.,. :rSN!'h � irlat'41 t'11�4UL #} 1!'1 � 14r.,%�N�r tE,•s „�.\. +. {4''''. i • , F �- i. 1'f' _+ �. z "'_'r .. . ._. :: ?*'f.. '''S- `.rJy, '.i',1'i'':L �'� : !. l tii .k.{�' . _..i:]1f.'!.:. f., - - :re, ail...1 's<`,•„a 'fir Y , . }_b yYC .. r ,ef ,. lt.. }w, •. j1M✓r r ,, c1 { +ddd.'e'e�.!.erms.ee+." .....wvr....r'i. ''• yrfr ..:.r: vonviimnosoceowasroft JACK A. R£NARC A COMPANY AEROLIST Inc. y SEAl11E, WA 95165117561 7401000 1 - 1 _ 7 54511 0163 9ot 1700 3 93101 •311.1v33 Ul 1S170U3V , ``. .;; J. ‘,A r • •'‘. . :•:;; " • •-•• • • .tr • ,.;.ct.:7 igtg 9 1 — 9 1 - 1 A VI•Ilf0 1 V.IMII'V ill l' '3.,v3' *-1 e-777.rrA:77,,, , '; • A 1, . 4 t • t, 4 :.t, •-• , , • rm....m.,r-r.vr•■-r•-.rrrer,Irrr...•.7:,,--i!,:r.777*^T-Tet:Tri-,,yr**•?7,77,37r7r7:71.7.7771,77777-„, :71'777 ,,"777771: 7.T1' , , ..r . • • . . "' • .1 " .* ' • it> ................. , • • tr.• Li.- ,.....f„,, ,.1..,..••=t;,.''''.;• .• . . . °: '-'.'.,,.',,•-•.‘•;;::...-X.;,..,-,71::r: 4, ..„ • :,.., • !.._ ' ,?to...-.4:- - •. i \ • .,... „ ...4 -4, 7:•- 'r^ ),' .., 1;•• •!. n ..) • • ' . C,... . - :%;,, , • :,C, 4....t?",...11'4' 1,,Vr• .7,j, ,71`,,,' i'•• i ' ' ' ft . •• ate• 4, • ) fr. A, 4, *.: ';':.1' '1',-, ;‘50,:*- ' l', -;. ',!, .'! VT; .ite:"1/4r.ej.11. ,:,.,A,}4i,,,., i;:i. :•;t ::'-'''. . .) ‘,.'..1`;'. i. ::!•,,.,.:')-!!•,„ $..:.,. . .- . ;',. '',.;...i.,:e13:i...'41', :. i :XV .:'.. A' V:::e1,...,‘,0•:■:°44 * '-`160' -1-4$0.- - •' ''''.. •ZP'Z' '1.'"-A1/4‘ • ;.''.- ' • - . .• ' .. ..trf;Ii5::. 1...43.Pt.' ' -1',:-,";t!, ''t,•.. 4., . - AY( t • .11.1439,l,., J'A )•,•• .i71, • A. 4 • . • ...CA:4,1' • ' • `•••'',vv.r"r.••11, •• .1" . • t • ; • ..) 7;•...7:077,•-•::;: .g....72,..:::::•::...1,7;',... ,,,• „,• .;.„., ,.- ..,....,........:-..,..• •:...,....4 j,.,,• ‘...:■.•:•,- ''I''''\r'.!.;.i:!:.-..,.. '',4111 X..• A . ;• s'i• • ::.qc 4 • • 'Pl.,. • ,Tv., • ,• , • • .,.••• • • '' t..;•,. 4.., • . ,.. ... . -. .. .•'-sit•. ....c, , ,\ .t...,,i',e!',.)..."e ••11V- ...,1"":77‘.'.7.r.7,4.:■.....,::::c., ......,;.;',...i.--;.;,-,('.'s, . .../,„;:y• 44 ., -: ‘- ' \* ..• ',..V.,.... ;.3* ''''■••• 7 it,-1,.., ,,,.......1 vi:,c,,.y.sr:.,,,.,.... ',.!.71...."1:T■C•i.. ..`,..;.7.: 1.„ 7:!**itiTr... -*"!•1.44' .s".4tA.....,.3.•,',.,4,1,41-••tir.1.‘.:''''■1:1t...';Af.' A ,,..43!,...427..,..;1i.. ,.. .i.a..v.i,,i,72.:.--,i';',A .. .,,,JI!'-'-,''..•: ..:,. ',... ..-,..'-'.....::',..-i.f."., ..‘ • Christopher Brown p?e. 9688 rainier avenue a s attle washington 1e 7234567 98118 BENAROYA OFFICE COMPLEX SUPPLEMENTAL TRAFFI C REPORT q • June, 1978 JUN i 4 l9T8 BENAROYA OFFICE COMPLEX SUPPLEMENTAL TRAFFIC REPORT • •Introduct•ion - This supplemental traffic report has been prepared in re- sponse to comments by the City of Tukwila, .Office of Community Development. The format of. this .'supplement will be the order defined by the OCD memorandum. Request (1): •Vicinity Map of the Site A vicinity map of the site is available within . the original traffic study report where the 'approximate location of the site has been indicated by an asterisk. For example, .see Figure '1, "1978 ADT ", and other figures. Request ; (2): Site :Plan A proposed site plan is attached.: This site plan consists of a 50 percent reduction of the 30 scale site plan prepared by the Benaroya Company. Request (3) : Map Showing Estimated :Present :Traffic 'Volumes, Northbound and Southbound.' The original study. report 'showed present traffic volumes in terms of 1978 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on Figure 1. To obtain northbound or southbound movements, assume traffic is evenly divided. The possible error in this assumption will be less than 1 percent.. For example, on 5/18/76 traffic counts on Southcenter Parkway in the vicinity of Jafco showed: Northbound 9737 Southbound 10098 Percent northbound 49.1 Percent southbound 50.9 Note that all data contained within Figure .1 of the original report has been factored to average daily traffic and includes all facilities within the City of Tukwila along with :principal. state highway systems. Request (4): Daily :and Hourly ,Traffic Volumes Generated by the Office Structure, (5T Forecast Distribution & (6 Flow - of ;Traffic 'To /From Facility The original study report contained Figure 2, Traffic Demand, Project Site Only. At the head of this figure was the .nota- tion "Data Assumptions, Trip Rate - 3.4 6 /Employee ". . This translates to 5190 trips per day. L91 d1s� dVW AJINI7l4 si • Table V, "Arrivals and Departures - Professional Center" described arrivals and departures by hour -of- the -day. Thus, if in -bound traffic to the site is required for the time interval 7 -8 a.m., the estimate would be provided by taking the total daily generation of 5190 trips which represents in -bound and out -bound traffic, multiplying this by 0.5 to . obtain in -bound trips, and multiplying this by 0.2831 to obtain the demand for the time period 7 -8. This demand is 735 vehicles per hour. This can be done for any hour of the day, and is used for total trips per hour on Figures B, D, attached herewith. Note that with the data on Table V, "Arrivals and Departures" data is for any hour of the day between 6:00 in the morning and 6:00 at night is available. Similarly, if conversion from cars to person trips is required refer to Table VII, "Vehicle Occupany ". Likewise, the type of vehicle can also be identi- fied by refering to Table I. The northbound /southbound split for both in- bound_ and out- bound movements will be: Northbound 84.58 percent Southbound 15 .4 2 percent This split was determined from Figure 2 of the original re- port which was based on Table IX, "Benaroya Office Complex- - Employee Residence Distribution as a Percent of Total ". Recognizing that there are two access facilities provided to the site and, further, that particular interest will be the peak hour traffic demands, detailed turning movements for both the north and south access roadways serving the site have been prepared. These turning movements are attached herein and are: Figure A Figure B Figure C Figure D 1978 a.m. 1979 -1980 1978 p.m. 1979 -1980 Traffic Traffic Projection (a.m. peak) Traffic Traffic Projection (p.m. peak) The 1979 -80 traffic projections for the two peak hours are predicated on the facility being built. These figures include estimated demand for the driveways serving the Parkway Plaza. The latter elements were defined from short -term manual counts. Additionally, a traffic signal has been proposed at the intersection of the north access road. Accordingly, a capacity calculation. (Appendix A) has been performed to determine whether or not this traffic signal can function adequately with the projected traffic demand. It may be noted that with the approximate signal splits described, • • about 50 percent of possible capacity remains on Southcenter Parkway while 62 percent of possible capacity remains at the north access road. Without considering other intersections, this area could probably support one more office building of similar size. In terms of signal operation there is probably little reason for having the signal in an operating condition during the morning peak-hour . and recommendations will be suggested for maintaining a "flashing operation" until about 10:00 o'clock in the morning. See gap acceptance calculations in Appandix B. Request :(7) :Demonstrate how Pedestrians and :Bicyclists can, Safely ;be Accommodated by the Development With the exception of pedestrians originating from the Benaroya Office Complex pedestrian and bicyclist demand along Southcenter Parkway will likely not exceed 3 per hour. Accordingly, with a proposed signal at the north access road the principal concern will be providing opportunity for pedestrians to cross Southcenter Parkway. Opportunity will be available through pedestrian actuation of the proposed traffic signal. Because of potentially heavy pedestrian demand pedestrian crosswalks will be proposed on both north and south sides of the intersection. See note on bottom of "Capacity Analysis ", in Appendix A. Request ,(8) : Provide 'Written Text Synthesizing the 'Above Data In addition to the material provided herein reference should be made to the previous traffic study report. Request (9) Provide Written, Conclusions 'and:Recommendations Based on the Foregoing Written conclusions were previously described on page .14 of the original traffic study report. Additional conclusions beyond these would be: 1. Maintain flashing signal operations at the proposed traffic signal from 9 o'clock at night to 10 o'clock in the morning. 2. Limit traffic signal to two - phase operation with future wiring for southbound left -turn arrow serving the Parkway Plaza. . 3. Incorporate fire preemption equipment in signal design. A. Incorporate pedestrian push- button and.-crosswalk indi- cations. 5. Provide wheelchair ramps in conformance with federal requirements. 6. Provide terminal space within cabinet for future inter-:- connection. 7. Provide conduit stub into controller cabinet for future interconnect conduit -- orient to the south. 8. Recommend moving transit loading zone to the southside of the north access road. This provides a "farside" bus stop. 9. Recommend separate right -turn lane where present bus stop is located on site plan for serving southbound vehicles making right -turn into facility from the north leg of Southcenter Parkway. This will remove right -turn vehicles from the "thru" stream. Request (10) Professional Engineer' a Signature and Stamp Additional Recommendations ; Professional engineer's stamp and signature is attached . . herewith. Recommendations concerning type time and placing of traffic control devices are described above. No changes to the street .design are required. No changes are required to internal circulation design. No changes or recommendations for curb cut locations and design are proposed beyond those within the original site plan. No additional recommendations concerning pedestrian movements are proposed beyond those contained within this supplemental report.' APPENDIX A parking parking • / ?78 ,4. M %RAFNC •(7 -8) Avg Iy,ck Dory. NORTH ACCESS ROAD parking SOUTH ACCESS 'ROAD AI proposed 13 signal ,- 32. .J-Arco 0 LM'dtr /o /hr PARKWAY PLAZA SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION TRAFFIC DEMAND F /GU1'E '4 . parking NORTH ACCESS ROAD parking 7-016Y/ l7e' n r a, ,t$v4 7-8 = 73 ch GD' 4ti 0 parking 3`\ SOUTH ACCESS 'ROAD • /97. T'4FF /c Pi ?o✓ I cr /ON A/14 Peck (7-8) Wccy lay JAFCO proposed 19 0) signal 1/1. i ( ')6 !lade c /0 he PARKWAY PLAZA SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION TRAFFIC DEMAND F/CORE parking parking NORTH ACCESS ROAD • / 9)76 FM. Thiffc Al Week Pay Proposed 24 signal /451". 1'1- 23 • .JAFCO SOUTH ACCESS ROAD parking SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION TRAFFIC .DEMAND J;-/,-/), C PARKWAY PLAZA parking NORTH ACCESS ROAD parking 71q/ pet 7Iina/ *5--- 6 = 72 9 vch o,;Qv tiG4� Q 0 , parking SOUTH ACCESS ROAD proposed 2 signal 07- /980 77 .4f //C PRo✓Ec7 /o4/ T>M PegK (s 6) Ai? `t/ftk Voy JAFCO • * U4C /tr /0, /hr. PARKWAY PLAZA i/,,.-" 72. 17 G3 (61g SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION. TRAFFIC DEMAND F /CURS 7� SIG LIZED INTERSECTION CA CITY ANALYSIS PROJECT /.'4 ''2?6j/9 0f%=s'c4 - C'a�.r ?4EJc INTERSECTION f . °4.441' Acr"." Roe BASIC CONDITIONS: fJ� METRO POPULAT ION _• L AREA: CBD RESID. PHASE I 161.'Nit cc RURAL CRINGE P H F __l /0 080 (Circle One C = SIGNAL CYCLE _76 SEC. PHASE m 2 a PHASE (fiyaai PPUP' M. Petadc (S= c) W-6 �y 492 j C Y7 27 Lr 22-, ' 2+' (722 r° . * :LT NT BELOE W A/C= G / 7 °= O.6, PHASE G/C = •• s G = •97 SEC. 9 SEC G/C = �� G = ,2lf. SEC. SEC. G/C = G= SEC SEC. G/C G= SEC. SEC. APPROACH A/Y-C T= 9 1 R = i L= BUS STOP X .1%/2 MOVEMENT WA FEE CHART REFERENCE G/C REO•D USED CAPACITY Cp Cp DHV } REMARKS "'r 2 r y o.21p 4e CY 4 S' _. /38'6.._... /3!to . are ( p2 s-o7 o "‘jv c4. r cow wt.' v..rvvto9 1'"ei' 2 ` / y . /!S4 �6j APPROACH Z.-4A/ T= p R= 9 i L = i V. BUS STOP MOVEMENT WA FEET CHART REFERENCE G/C REO•D USED CAPACITY C0 .Cp DHV} REMARKS s2. Pf,? °.,� (.Qy, .z o,o,.y." diyrJQ A'• `" -F 2 y 9 o. /, 0,?9 d 7V 9J*6 / /yb 9 2 f-- -4'' /e D •6 s Jr6 t_// e) 17 APPROACH T= V. R= i L= BUS STOP MOVEMENT WA FEET CHART REFERENCE G/ REO.O C USED CAPACITY Cu CP ' DHV REMARKS m DHV I 0 'REMARKS . I APPROACH T= i R= i L= % BUS STOP • MOVEMENT WA FEET CHART REFERENCE RE0•.0 G/C USED Cp CAPACITY CP DHV I 0 'REMARKS . I Id J'It. tL \1I. I AI:11 ,11'I•l. , \CII I:Y LI•111:k; 1 -U UK 2 -4 (1- ■:It : -U,Pi) ; I'KC ;.4.1 14.11 1'K:.. I ; 1.:111.:1( 1411•', MANI. .1. ?I.. Iik 04.11•. 1•0511•0til ll. I'LA\K.) T YTIc: LANE LEN,; IIIJ -- u.. Di; ThUCKS -- Ty. T3; WWTOENI:U . \I.1'k,. :Ii 't.1.11 :'I'IL': — I, . P.II• "b £,6 ,,h, 74.0./roe /e/,L !°'" 't 6,304‘..-t ' jo%4Jc // r .(r,.Aro.7 14. Ptcer Ay4i;, dve.Ye . eirfitt74 P7- O 6e4..74 <eye/ CHECKED APPENDIX B AM. TRAFFIC. ANALYSIS OPERATION WITHOUT SIGNAL �y3z� S 1332. .92z :V1. ONI'r.r R) Calculation based on assumptions of random (Poisson) arrivals. V = Volume during time 'T T = Duration for • volume, in this case 1 hour or. 3600 seconds A = Mean arrival rate Probability of headway > t %(4,z6) m e it = ?9.?/ o.oq 36BG I- : 4' Je c 2 p.9y t = 4 seconds is considered a minimum gap (Raff, Adams) . 1. For the :a.m. peak hour, the southbound left- turning movement can enter the Jafco parking lot. 94 percent of the time without waiting for a gap greater than 4 seconds. 2. Therefore: traffic signalization not needed during the a.m. peak for accommodation of left - turns. 3. During the a.m. peak, traffic signalization for side - street traffic entering Southcenter Parkway from the Jafco parking lot is not needed even if the left- turning vehicle is not willing to use the two -way left -turn lane as a merging lane when entering the traffic stream. In this case: A (- .1z43:/):?(o1 7L1-= ?r 0.79 4)1(1.<y.e« ? 2/ 1. Car turning left from Jafco parking lot in the after- noon has a 79 percent chance of not having to wait for a gap greater than 4 seconds. 2. Therefore: the assumption of "signal not required" applies only to the case when the office complex is closed. Therefore, signalization will not will not be required at the Jafco parking lot on Saturday after- noons or Sundays. Final comment: Design considerations should ensure that when a fail -safe mode is introduced., flashing operations should be four -way red since access will be required for the office building during weekdays. • APPENDIX C PEDESTRIAN CONSIDERATIONS • BENAROYA OFFICE COMPLEX The attached drawing shows two alternative access designs that may be considered for the main access roads serving the Benaroya Office Complex. Alternate 'A' shows the use of a southbound deceleration lane in combination with a channelized island on the northwest quadrant of the referenced intersection. For outbound or exiting vehicles a separate acceleration lane is described. This acceleration lane also serves as a "far side" bus stop. While alternate 'A' facilitates right- turning vehicular movements for both inbound and outbound vehicles and allows buses to load and discharge passengers outside of the thru traffic lanes of Southcenter Parkway, it contains severe drawbacks in that longer pedestrian crossings will be ex- perienced on the south crosswalk for those pedestrians cross- ing Southcenter Parkway. Also, greater signalization costs will be encountered due to long mast arm lengths required for a traffic signal pole to be located on the southwest quadrant of the referenced intersection. Alternate 'B' is a slight modification since it continues to use a southbound deceleration lane with channelized island on the northwest quadrant. However, rather than using an acceleration lane for outbound right - turning vehicles the existing curb line of Southcenter Parkway is used in conjunc- tion with a greater radius on the right -turn movement and, further, uses a separate channelized island in the southwest portion of the intersection. Note . that this latter island can contain a traffic signal pole with shorter mast arm which therefore reduces the cost of signalization. The greatest benefit for alternate 'B' will be shorter ped- estrian crossing distances for both north and south cross- walks across Southcenter Parkway. The shorter distances preclude long pedestrian intervals and, therefore, will enhance pedestrian signal timing. A drawback exists with alternate 'B' in that the bus stop is located along the present curb line which requires buses to perform loading and discharging within the traffic stream. Nevertheless, bus traffic is relatively light and will likely remain so. Thus, this should not be a significant drawback. . Also, there is an almost equal probability that bus loading and discharging functions would run concurrently with traffic signal phases serving the access roadway and, therefore., may not interfere significantly with southbound thru traffic. 21,12r I-76? ,hT,5/e/v.7c rovTHc,vrzr' 7.44-WAY ,4Z7,'R 47 ,E A • SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT MAXIMUM POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT BENAROYA OFFICE ODMPLEX SUPPLEMENTAL TRAFFIC REPORT MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Introduction This supplemental traffic report has been prepared in re- sponse to a request by Mr. Terence Monaghan, P.E., Director of Public Works, City of Tukwila. The request concerned the office -space expansion capabilities remaining within the City of Tukwila following the completion of the Benaroya Office Building proposed at a site located on the west side of Southcenter.Parkway between Strander Boulevard and South 180th Street. The particular concern is the ultimate or practical spatial office building capacity that will remain following the completion of the Benaroya Office Building and, further, assuming no significant changes or capital improvements to arterial and highway facilities. serving the City of Tukwila. In essence, following the completion of the Benaroya Office Building, what street and highway capacity remains for the accommodation of vehicular traffic and, therefore, what potential employment and building facility capacity does this suggest? Methodology To assess potential employment and spatial limitations vehicular trips assume an occupancy rate of 1..2 persons per vehicle. The p.m. peak hour is the controlling time interval. Employment configuration is based on the Institute of Traffic Engineer's publication, "Trip Generation: An Informational Report" published in 1976. Table I describes the range in employment configuration. OFFICES EMPLOYMENT PER 1,000 SQUARE FEET Description Employment Rate. Government office Building General Office Building Civic Center Research Center Koll Northwest Study* Average Rate 5.8 4.25 4.10 3.00 3.38 • 4.11 *Ko11 Northwest Study. Office Park at Strander Blvd. • • Figure 1 describes projected traffic volume on completion and occupancy of the Benaroya Office Complex. This figure describes projected average daily traffic along with both a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes in the major direction. This figure also includes the maximum service volumes which can be carried by the arterial facilities without consideration for capacity restraints imposed on the system at signalized intersections. In essence, the maximum service volumes are "l:Lnk volumes" between principal intersections. These are for the peak direction. The maximum service volumes are derived by the formula: MSV = 2,000 (N) (V /C) (W) (T) where; 2,000 = maximum volume /lane N = number of lanes V/C = volume capacity ratio W = roadway width T = percentage of trucks in traffic stream. The volume - capacity ratio is based on a "load factor" to define "Level of Service E". The adjustment factor for lane width assume no obstructions. within 6 feet while roadway gradas are assumed to be less than 3 percent. Note that the maximum service volumes or "link volumes" will probably not govern the capacity of the facility. Rather, the capacity will be a function of intersection capacity. This is the limiting. consideration.. Figure 2, describes the volume - capacity ratios at the major intersections encompassing the area where potential develop- ment may take place. For this study it is assumed to be between Strander Boulevard and South 180th Street. The volume- capacity ratios are computed for Level of Service 'C' and Level of Service 'D'. Respectively, these terms define "stable flow" and "appoaching unstable flow ". Note that Level of Service constitutes the composite effect of speed and travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver, safety, driving comfort and convenience, and operating costs. Also, it may be noted that the design capacity is usually predicated on. Level of Service 'C' for urban conditions while Level of Service 'D' tends to describe an adequate level of traffic operation above this or, essentially, a "practical capacity ". Thus, while a designer is principally interested in designing a facility for Level of Service 'C', additional capacity will remain up to and including Level of Service 'D'. When traffic conditions become heavier, remedial measures should be undertaken by the agency. Benaroya Office Building 3(2 939 /fez • CITY OF TUKWILA • /c7,or (25 7716 s 35T 37 1 37i y to CO W o"J ' LEGEND Andover Park E. ®7yor 27o 7.t1 3761i co cn NN Nr') Strander Boulevard /y22 //2( Y74y Existing Traffic Signal OCommitted Traffic Signal for construction in 1978/79 XXX XXX XXX XXX /0298 /D02. 37", S 180th St COMMENT All traffic volumes assume the completion of the Benaroya Office complex and are forecast volumes for the 1978 -79 interval. NOTES Average Daily Traffic a.m. peak, major direction p.m. peak, major. direction Maximum Service Volume, peak direction, between intersections FIGURE 1 TRAFFIC VOLUMES Benaroya Office' Building 0' CITY OF TUKWILA Andover Park Andover Park E. v 0' Strander Boulevard LEGEND Existing Traffic Signal 0 0 Committed Traffic Signal for construction in 1972/79 S 180th St COMMENT Volume - capacity ratios are for the forecast traffic demand with the Benaroya Office Complex finished and occupied. NOTES XXc Volume- capacity ratio for level of service 'C' XXD Volume- capacity ratio for level of service 'D' • FIGURE 2 VOLUME - CAPACITY RATIOS Upper Limits of Development Figure 2 describes the volume- capacity ratios for both Level of Service 'C' and 'D' while Figure 3 shows "surplus" capacity. It will be noted that the intersection of Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boulevard will be at its design capacity on completion of the Benaroya Office Building. This is the single principal concern. However, surplus capacity will exist at the intersection of Strander Boulevard and SR -181, South 180th Street and SR -181, Southcenter Parkway and South 180th Street, and at the projected signalized intersection serving the Benaroya Office Building. Considering Level of Service 'D!, surplus capacity will exist at all principal intersections surrounding the site. In terms of ultimate vehicular demand, surplus capacity in the order of 3073 vehicles exists before all the principal intersections meet Level of Service 'D'. This surplus capacity translates to a potential employment of 3687 persons with the occupancy assumption of 1.2 persons per vehicle. Utilizing the data from Table I a range of potential building capacity can be defined. For a future employment of 3687 persons, and a spatial requirement range of: Maximum. 5.8/1,000 Average 4.11/1,000 Minimum 3.0/1,000 (Persons per thousand square feet) It 11 rl 11 II It rr The building potential capacity will be: Maximum. 1,229,000 square feet Average 897,080 square feet Minimum 635,690 square feet Data Delimitations On reviewing the above potential limitations on office building capacity, consideration should be given to not only directional distribution of future traffic but also competing construction activity within the general area. Thus, while the above data assumes no competing construction, increases in traffic demand towards this segment of Tukwila will take place conjointly with demand to other communities. Thus, while the volume capacity ratio at Level of Service 'D' of 0.64 exists at the intersection of South 180th Street and SR -181, that surplus capacity can be preempted if other developments take place on the West Valley Highway south of South 180th Street for example. .Similarly, while the volume capacity ratio of 0.65 at Level of Service 'D' exists at the intersection of South 180th Street and Southcenter Parkway, the attainment of a higher volume- capacity ratio will be predicated entirely on potential future developments in Benaroya Office Building CITY OF TUKWILA Andove LEGEND Andov D 0 Existing Traffic Signal 0 Committed Traffic Signal for construction in 1978/79 NOTES 'XXX Surplus Capacity (vehicles per hour for the p.m. peak hour) 0 11" � Strander Boulevard COMMENT S 180th St The p.m. peak hour is the critical hour. Surplus capacity is based on the difference between projected - demand with the Benaroya Office Complex completed and demand at L.O.S. 'D'. FIGURE 3 SURPLUS CAPACITY • the vicinity of this particular intersection since opportunity exists for increasing travel demand on South 180th Street between Southcenter,Parkway and Military Road. In this case, Military Road would become a significant arterial providing access to interstate 5 at South 188th Street /Orillia Road South. As previously noted, the single principal concern appears to be the intersection of Southcenter Parkway and Strander , Boulevard where little surplus capacity exists. However, it may be noted that the full potential for utilizing the linkage- - Southcenter Boulevard /Christianson Road /Andover Park East/ South 180th Street exists to the extent that congestion at the intersection of Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boulevard should lead to significant diversion of vehicular travel between the subject, area and areas north of Tukwila. It may be noted that the potential developmental capacity described herein does not suppose any major improvements to the arterial or highway facilities. However,, significant improvements can be accomplished at the Strander Boulevard/ Southcenter Parkway intersection with minor expenditures if consideration is given to modifying channelization at this location in order to provide for thru southbound movements across Strander Boulevard without utilizing traffic signal phases. Since this falls outside of the pale of this report it is recommended that potential channelization improvements at _this _intersection be reviewed by appropriate city staff. 'Condos ions It is concluded from this study that additional building capacity can be undertaken in the vicinity of the Benaroya Office Complex without requiring major improvements to the existing streets and highway .system. Figure 3 describes surplus capacity in terms of peak hour traffic volumes which can be accommodated at the noted intersections while maintain - ing.a Level of Service of 'D'. This additional capacity translates to building facilities ranging from 635,690 square feet to 1,229,000 square feet. Potential employment would be in the order of 3,687 persons. Thus, this area of Tukwila has the capabilityof absorbing additional office space. Other' land uses will require appropriate study. Your Seattle City Light Gordon Vickery, Superintendent June 8, 1976 • Chester Lindsey Architects 1711 - 12th Avenue Seattle, Washington 98122 Attention: Mr. Curt Beattie Dear Curt: 2401 - 4th Avenue - 11 Story Office Building 166,581 Sq. Ft. Net Air Conditioned Rentable Area • The decentralized heat transfer system, using the closed circuit water source, electric boiler and cooling tower with water to air heat pumps continues to show minimum energy use for this type of building. City Light records 'indicate that if you include a recovery system on the exhaust requirements by the proposed ethyl gycoi tubes you can expect to operate this building at the low end of the energy cost scale of 30 -cents per square foot per year. The-new rates for Schedule 44 for 1977 will be approximately 20% higher, and buildings of this type should be in the 30 to 40 -cents per square foot per year range. The average monthly maximum demand should not exceed 6.5 watts per . square foot'per month and the average monthly consumption should be less than 3 KWH per square foot per month. All of the present build- ings of this type have an annual load factor of approximately 46%. At the present time, buildings of this type have shown less energy per square foot per Year and lower demands per square foot per year than those with centralized systems. Sincerely, Robert T. Corliss Conservation & Technical Services RTC:bj City of Seattle— Department of Lighting, City ugnt i3uuaing, 1016 infra Avonuo, Seattle, Washington 00104, (200) 447.9020. CITY OF SEA* DEPARTMENT OF LIGHTING CITY LIGHT BUILDING 1015 THIRD AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 TELEPHONE 623.7600 GORDON VICKERY Superintendent O F L I G H T I N G } Chester Lindsey Architects —�^ 423 Second Avenue Extended South Seattle, Washington 98104 Attention: Mr. Paul Brenna Dear - Pau -1: 21') 157,1 CHESTER ER L. L'\' February 22, 1974 Re: 190 Queen Anne Ave. Bldg. Five Story Office Building The heat transfer system using the closed circuit water source, electric boiler and cooling tower with water to air heat pumps continues to show exceptional energy savings for this type,of building. As I have indicated previously, the cost range for this. type of building for total electric energy should be in the 250 to 35¢ per square foot per year. All of your previous buildings have costs per square foot per year aver- aging around 250, or the low end of the scale. RTC:leh cerely, ROBERT T. CORLISS Commercial Advisory Services DEPARTMENT OF LIGHTING CITY LIGHT OUILOINi 1016 TNIAD AVCMUC SLATTLL. WASHINGTON 90104 TCLCPNOnC 623.7600 OOQDON VaCKERY Sup.rintonOOnt • Chester Lindsey Architects 1123 -2nd Avenue Extended South Seattle, Washington 98109 Attentions NZ., Paul Brenna �1tr111aI1r llh;;` 1 1 I t 1 1 1 1 IrEM _ u JUN 141973 CHESTER L. LINDSEY AF:CHI rECT:. June 13, 1973 JAN221974'J CHESTER L. LINDSEY ARCHITECTS Res 200 West Thomas Street Dear Paul: The-twelve month electric energy .consumption and charges for the • 100 West Harrison Building indicate an average cost per .square foot per year at the low end of the scale for comparable buildings. (The present range is 200 to 35¢ per square foot per year.) Since the new building at 200 West Thomas Street is of the scone . basic design and size, I believe the same average cost will apply. Sincerely, % 1.:Weri%/4 ROBERT T. CORLISS RTCsleh • Tm losuro • %1 Office Buildings 100 WEST HARRISON BUILDING - 401 Yiret Ave. W. Areas 70,000 eq.ft., spaoo oonditioned Accts 8211 -3678 lootrioal Loads Meters 11701 Lighting and receptacles 150 KW Heating and .cooling (155 tons) 669 . Water heating. 11 Elevators (20 hp). • 15. Mieoellaneous power ,.31 Total oonneoted load: 876 KW Deaoription of heating and 000ling ayatems • • Sixty -two 2i-ton water to air heat pump units operating.in oonjunotion with a 510 KW boiler and a :5- hp.000ling tower. Monthly billings for ono year on Rate 450 calculated on rates ©ffeotive 8/3/71s 'Calculated Date KWH KW Demand Amount 1 -29 -71 237,600 513' $ 1,718.10 3 -2 -71 • 241,200 . 540. 1,752.30 3 -29 -71 210,600 459 1,550.70 4 •30 -70 173,700 405 1,333.80 6 -1 -70 . 120,600 .342 992.28 6-. 30-70. 114,300 288• 920.19 '' • • 7-30 -70 135;900 .375 1,072.47 8 -28 -70 131,400 306 1,038.72 9 -29 -70 143,100 306 1,112e43 ' 10 -29 -70 153,900 351 14202.40 12 -1 -70 ' 207,900 504 • 1,564.20 12 -30 -70 22 8,600 486 1,656.96 Total, 2,098, 00 401 Avg $15,914.49. Average monthly maximum demand per sq.ft.a . 5 7 a•atta . II II oonsumption per sq. ft:: 2.5 . k:wh 11 11 cost per...aq.ft.: • 1.89 cents 1/ , 11 usel 436.0 hours • • ' " annual oost per kwht 0.758 cents per N u 1. ..� 22.7 Cents }CG al. 1.AA� 44.4 ' poroont 'Annual load factors • VDU:MOn w � RAZE ANALYSIS • CITY OF TU WILA 7pAkvitoti. /z4/7r :ENVIRONMENTAL QUEST I ONNf I RE REVIEW FORM PROJECT NAME: 1U� D tC.F��IuPiola PROJECT ADDRESS: jp S.-fe .PAA.14-Witi • DATE ACCEPTED FOR FILING: /25 ,l- -pyj 1778 1. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW: O Building: by: ❑ Engineering: by: )(Fire: .. R • _ by: } 1 q 7 ❑ Planning: by: ❑ Police: by: (date) (rev.i ewer) 2. ANY �PERTTINENT COMMENTS: ..L. H ern atAA_ Ctitho-Atabeo_ Qiv, tn. -11L 14.cb ) . 120 W4e3Ab.dwo\ — t�v. _ ago i,J42 ()AA_ /Vvei etn,CD Cr PROJECT NAME: PROJECT ADDRESS: • CITY OF TUKWILA ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE REVIEW FORM tJ4R c 5o __Ie.w J DATE ACCEPTED FOR FILING: 4/24/7B4 1. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW: (date) ,Building: ' 2� / 7 % S by: ❑ Engineering: by: ❑ Fire: by: ❑ Planning: by: ❑ Police: by: 2. ANY PERTINENT COMMENTS: / _//t / • CITY OF TUN' LA "'PAW d-ut 41 14 g ENVIRONMENTAL OUESTION[ /\IRE REVIEW FORM PROJECT NAME: PROJECT ADDRESS: .:".54p DATE ACCEPTED FOR FILING: 1. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW: ❑ Building: )(Engineering: ❑ Fire: ❑ Planning: ❑ Police: (-4 Ire (date) (reviewer) by: .573/ 7 fr by: 1Z _ (.;O Q 9 by: by: by: 2. ANY PERTINENT COMMENTS: The_ GagstAattemg.14% GpbUGLusto64J Pro bte.4.vN Iner t COO b c. f -- 1 127 I� my ©f t"e ljkn.tiA v rciote d d by ebe-t S r (, l $i s bet is Is 611 poc f O-r r t (iii l( t (& 14.141 o pl U V TO Gary Crutchfield AT Tukwila Police Department DATE 5/4/78 SUBJECT Benaroya Office Building y g Per our telephone conversation: Page 6: We note with interest that this building won't require additional police protection but it will require more fire protection. While this may or may not be it is hoped that when considering all of the new hnsineasea and hui1dinga true in this instance, that have comp into, substantially. or indicated a desire to come into our City, the police workload is increasing Page 13: Tf this report is suggesting that this project may require "manual" t:ra fi_ on of a .any this . building it the police depart - intersection in the City because of the increased traffic going to or from would appear to demand a different answer on page 6 because it is obviously ment that will have to provide that service. PLEASE REPLY TO .■11. c.... \ A 1 . . Sheets, of of PIA.tre DATE Redifprm 4S 469 Poly Pak 150 sets) 4P469 5/110 SIGNED SEND PARTS 1. D 3 WITH CARBON INTACT. PART 3 WILL E RETURNED WITH REPLY. Page .2,. 0 TO Gary Crutchfield AT Tukwila Police Department SUBJECT Benaroya Office Building continued DATE 5/4/78 `sPage 14: �: This department would like substantially more background facts and figures before it would accept the statement that there appears to be little need for left -turn phasing in traffic signals. FJ PLEASE REPLY TO mom+ SIGNED tb J.A. Sheets, Chief of Police DATE Redifprm 45 469 Poly Pak 150 sets! 4P469 I'd) SIGNED SEND PARTS 1 A PART 3 WILL B )�:t I -^ WITH CARBON INTACT. RNED WITH REPLY. RECEIPT ; Date.. Received. From Address For 197K 9403 c1. Dollars ACCOUNT • AMT. OF ACCOUNT AMT. PAID BALANCE DUE. - ASH CHECK HOW PAID 81808 a° r' h'.ONEY • ORDER • ElJACK A. BENAROYA COMPANY 12 -16 -76 AEROLIS7 Inc. SEATTLE, WA 98168 / (2061 246-5900