Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-FD-84 - MCCANN / PROJECT 352 - REZONEREZONE MCCANN 352 R -1 TO C-1 EPIC -FD -84 CITY OF TUKWILA OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /FINAL WITHDRAWAL OF DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE/ Description of proposal Rezone request from R -1 to C -1 ( #352) Proponent Bruce E. McCann Location of Proposal North of So. 178th St. and adjacent to I -5 Lead Agency City of Tukwila File No EPIC -FD -84 This proposal has been determined to (11111/not have) a significant adverse im- pact upon the environment. An EIS (111/is 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 Kjell Stoknec Position /Title Director, Office of Community Development Date April 11, 1979 Signature COMMENTS: The items ..requested to reverse the Declaration of Significance have been received. Conditions: 1. Public Works Department reserves all rights in their area of jurisdiction. 2. Fire Department reserves the right to require fire protection systems to mitigate any lack of available emergency access during inclement weather. CITY OF TUKWILA OFFICE OF COMMUNITY. DEVELOPMENT DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE/ON Description of proposal REZONE: R -1 to C -1 Proponent Location of Proposal Lead Agency Bruce McCann, P.O. Box 88314, Tukwila, WA 98188 South 180th Street (McCann Project #352) City of Tukwila File No. M/F 78 -04 -R This proposal has been determined to (haves a significant adverse im- pact upon the environment. An EIS (isA44-1/et+—vequired 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 Kjell Stoknes Position /Title Director, Office of Community Developmen Date 25 April 1978 Signature i( 14t-e-, COMMENTS: SEE, Attached Memorandum dated 24 April 1978. 5/1/7 \IJILq 4s o ct City of Tukwila Administration 6200 Southoenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 433 -1845 ffice of Community Development CP 12 April 1979 Bruce McCann McCann Development Corp. 950 Andover Pk. E. P.O. Box 88314 Seattle, WA 98188 Dear Mr. McCann: Please find attached the withdrawal of declaration of significance for your two rezone requests on South 178th above Levitz. This will be heard at the May 24, 1979 Planning Commission meeting. KS /ckh Attachments 1 V,A--0 11 Stoknes, tirector ice of Community Development F. A. LESOURD wC.CLVIN PATTEN D. r EMING rtGE M. HARTUNG MEAD.E EMORY LECN C. M!STEREK T.V.',LYNE. -. COPPLE - =:CMAS O. McLAUGHLIN - .ETEr• LESOURD 'O -N COLGROVE C. LEAN LITTLE LESOURD, FATTEN, FLEMING, HARTUNG &EMORY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3900 SEATTLE-FIRST NATIONAL SANK BUILDING SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98154 1206) 624 -IO4O March 30, 1979 Mr. Kjell Stoknes Office of Community Development City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 • n LAWRENCE E. HARD RODNEY J. WALDBAUM BRUCE G. HANSON RICHARD P. M.ATTHEWS C. WILLIAM TOONE M. COLLEEN WEULE DANIEL D. WOO CARL J. CARLSON ROSERT L..ALMER COUNSEL EXHIBIT F REZONE - McCANN #352 Re: McCann Construction Company Rezone Application Dear Kjell: I have reviewed your letter of March 19, 1979 regarding issues presented by the above described rezone application. I will attempt to respond to your specific questions in the order in which they were raised: 1. The City can require the applicant to submit a hold harmless agreement in favor of the City but such an agreement would have little practical value. The City is ultimately charged with providing adequate fire and police protection for its inhabitants and it cannot negotiate a release from this liability, particularly with respect to persons who might be in the building at the time of an emergency, who are not parties to the specific hold harmless agreement. These third parties might be able to go against the City of Tukwila directly. Another practical problem with such-a hold harmless agreement is the fact that.in the event the property is sold or in the event that McCann Construction Company goes out of business or is otherwise unavailable, there may be no person against whom the agreement could be enforced in any event. 2. The City can require the applicant to demonstrate that Fire District No. 23 will provide fire protection services to the property. I have not fully explored this question but I believe fire protection districts have the authority by statute to enter into contracts with private property owners for the provision of fire protection services. What I am not sure of is whether a fire protection district can enter into such a contract with a property owner which owns property within an incorporated • Larry Hard LeSourd, Patten, Flemir Hartung & Emory Page 2 19 March 1-9.7q90. • • Larry, I think some of the above questions should rightfully be answered by the - .Public Works Department and by the Planning Commission during the rezone hearings. I would hate to place conditions on a proposed development as a part of the envir- onmental review when the conditions may prove to be to harsh and not allow the Planning Commission and Public Works Department enough flexibility to work the problems. The other side of the coin may be that the City may not be adequately protected unless these decisions are placed in as conditions now. Do you see the double responsibility involved here? That is, the same types of responsibilities are placed on myself as the responsible official under the environmental review as are placed on the Public Works Director and Planning Commission and City Council in their review and the conditions they place on rezones. Your insite would be appreciated. • • Very-truly you I \jei l Stoknes, Director Of;15 ce of Community Development KS/ckh cc: Mayor Bauch Mr. Kjell Stoknes March 30, 1979 Page Two • • city which already has an existing fire department. 3. You, as the responsible official, can require sprinklering. of all buildings as a mitigating factor to provide for adequate fire protection to the subject property. 4. You, as the responsible official, may require minimum sigit distances for any curb -cuts. 5. You, .as the responsible official, probably cannot limit the use of the subject property in order to minimize the amount of traffic flow. If the proposed use of the property is permitted under the zoning classification sought by the applicant, you Would have a very difficult time imposing further limitations on the specific type of use of the property. As a practical matter, once the building is constructed you would have little control over its actual use and the resultant traffic flow in any event. With respect to your comments regarding the manner in which restrictions might be placed on use of the property, I would prefer that the specific official or agency charged with a given responsibility impose their particular restrictions. In other words, it would appear that the Department of Public.Works would be the correct agency to insist on certain minimum sight distances for curb -cuts. The fire department should be the agency which insists on adequate sprinklering of the buildings and other fire- related matters. It would be hoped that both the planning commission and the city council will then include the specific recommendations by the various departments of the City in ultimately granting the rezone application, if that is their final conclusion. I hope this letter has answered your-questions. If you need to discuss this in greater detail, please don't hesitate to call. • LEH:th cc: Mayor Bauch Very truly yours, LeSOJRD, PATTEN, FLEMING, HARTUNG & :EtjhORY awre e E . Hard EXHIBIT G REZ• - McCANN #352 CITY OF TUKWILA OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT `T'V''' .72 /FINAL !ITNDRAG,'AL Or DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE/M: = 2 Description of proposal Proponent Location of Proposal Lead Agency ' Rezone request from R -1 to C -1 (#352) , Bruce E. A1cCann North of So. 178th St. and adjacent to I -5 City of Tukwila File No EPIC -FD -84 This proposal has been determined to ( /not have) a significant adverse im- pact upon the environment. An EIS (0 /is 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 Kje l Stnknec Position /Title Director, Office of Community Development Date April 11 , 1979 Signature JLf/.0 , ,! L L-2 COMMENTS:- The items requested to reverse the Declaration of Significance have been received. Conditions: 1. Public Works Department reserves all rights in their area of jurisdiction. 2. Fire Department reserves the right to require fire protection systems to mitigate any lack of available emergency access during inclement weather. • voramosuiresesammr '' voomons City It Tukwila • 6200. Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 9818 EXHIBIT D REZONE - IvIcCANN #352 Edgar D. Bauch, Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: Kjell Stoknes, OCD Director FROM: Terry Monaghan, Di rector of Public Works DATE: March 16, 1979 SUBJECT: McCann Rezone, No. 353 I have reviewed the access study and the traffic study for the two parcels o'f property, north of South 178th Street and west of Southcenter Parkway, which have been requested for rezone by the F1cCann Construction Company. My specific remarks are directed to the access study as prepared by 'W'alsey and Ham. In this study they specifically lay out the fact that during certain periods of snow and ice all access to 173th and the adjacent property in question is barred and that all vehicles would need to access from the west via Military Road. In my opinion this represents a serious consideration. Specifically, in terms of response time for Tukwila emergency fire /police vehicles - a coincident emergency - at the time the lower end of the hill were impassable due to snow and ice would mean the vehicles would-have to approach the property from a l onaer route through the I•1cM.i cken Heights area. This access report pronoses that the lower parcel be served by an emergency access road at its .west end. However, the topography within this parcel indicates that an emergency access road would have a aradient of about 15 degrees; and again in the same ice and snow emergency even access from Military Road might not allow immediate access to any structures because of the internal topography and road gradient. My final comment is that, as reported in the studies, sight distance both vertical and horizontal needs to be in the order of 350 feet and a location of any access roads to either parcel would have to meet this criteria. r-iy final comment is that the traffic flows projected are based-on a certain type of development and a certain type of leasing client 'and this may not occur. I cite the example of the Kol1 Business -Park which was developed as an industrial complex and turned into an office complex, and the Benaroya Office Building which turned into their employment office, both having higher traffic volumes than orioinally anticipated. • TRM:nb t f uktiviHa - Planning Division 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 433 -1845 Office of Community De-v& & o p m e t • Mr. Larry Hard LeSourd, Patten, Fleming, Hartung & Emory 3900 Seattle First Ntl. Bank Bldg. Seattle, WA 98154 EXHIBIT E REZONE - McCANN #352 RE: Proposed Negative Declaration, - n-cfe Application for McCann Dear Larry: Larry, I've been reviewing a negative declaration for two properties to be rezoned from single - family to commercial for an area southwest of Levitz and along South 178th Street. As you may remember, South 178th Street is very steep and winding. I've attached with this letter a memorandum from Terry Monaghan which indicates some concerns regarding emergency access during inclement weather as well as protential problems with site distance or access roads to either property. I've also discussed this matter with Chief Crawley of the Fire Department and he has indicated that mitigating measures on his part, due to the fact that there may be no access available during inclement weather, may be the require- ment of sprinklering of buildings and other related items. The primary purpose being to minimize life safety hazards. I guess my real questions to you are as follows: 1. Can the City require the applicant to submit hold harmless agreement to the City and recognize their peril in building on sites to which the City cannot guarantee emergency access for fire, or police. vehicles within a reasonable response time? 2. Can the City require the applicant to demonstrate that Fire District 23, which serves the area immediately to the west, will agree to provide fire protection services to the properties? If so, who should pay any costs requested by this fire district to provide these services? 3. Can I, as a responsible official, require sprinklering of all buildings as a.mitigating factor due to the inability of the properties to guarantee emergency access for fire vehicles all year- round? 4. Can I as the responsible official require that site distance for any . curb -cut into.these properties to be in the order of .3J feet? 3So _ 5. Can I as the responsible official require that only offjjce uses be allowed to minimize.the amount of traffic flow in and out of these properties? • C ityof Tu kw i l a Planning Division 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 433 -1845 Office of Community Development Mr. Larry Hard LeSourd, Patten, Fleming, Hartung & Emory 3900 Seattle First Ntl. Bank Bldg. Seattle, WA 98154 RE: Proposed Negative Declaration, Re •ne Application for McCann Dear Larry: Larry, I've been reviewing a negative declaration for two properties to be rezoned from single - family to commercial for an area southwest of Levitz and along South 178th Street. As you may remember, South 178th Street is very . steep and winding. I've attached with this letter a memorandum from Terry Monaghan which indicates some concerns regarding emergency access during inclement weather as well as protential problems with site distance or access roads to either property. I've also discussed this matter with Chief Crawley of the Fire Department and he has indicated that mitigating measures on his part, due to the fact that there may be no access available during inclement weather, may be the require- ment of sprinklering of buildings and other related items. The primary purpose being to minimize life safety hazards. I guess my real questions to you are as follows: 1. Can the City require the applicant to submit hold harmless agreement to the City and recognize their peril in building on sites to which the City cannot guarantee emergency access for fire or police vehicles within a reasonable response time? 2. Can the City require the applicant to demonstrate that Fire District 23, which serves the area.. immediately to the west, will agree to provide fire protection services to the properties? If so, who should pay any costs requested by this fire district to provide these services? 3. Can I, as a responsible official, require sprinklering of all buildings as a mitigating factor due to the inability of the properties to guarantee emergency access for fire vehicles all year- round? tr 4. Can I as the responsible official require that site distance for any curb -cut into these:-properties to be in the order of .330 feet? 3So. 5. Can I as the responsible official require that only office -uses be allowed to minimize the amount of traffic flow in and out of these properties? Larry Hard • Page 2 LeSourd, Patten, Fleming, Hartung & Emory 19 March 1979 ' Larry, I think some of the above questions should rightfully be answered by the Public Works Department and by the Planning Commission during the rezone hearings. I would hate to place conditions on a proposed development as a part of the envir- onmental review when the conditions may prove to be to harsh and not allow the Planning Commission and Public Works Department enough flexibility to work the problems. The other side of the coin may be that the City may not be adequately protected unless these decisions are placed in as conditions now. Do you see the double responsibility involved here? That is, the same types of responsibilities are placed on myself as the responsible official under the environmental review as are placed on the Public Works Director and Planning Commission and City Council in their review and the conditions they place on rezones. Your insite would be appreciated. Very truly yours, 1 Stoknes, Director Office of Community Development KS/ckh cc: Mayor Bauch • McCANN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC IRECEIVgD O.C.D. an OFTUKWILA (206) 575 -4330 P.O. BOX 88314 • TUKWILA BRANCH SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98188 February 2, 1979 Director, Office of Community Development City of Tukwila 6230 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 fn. L11W • Attn: Mr. Kjell Stoknes Re: Rezone Requests on Two Individual Pieces of Property on South 178th Street - McCann Projects 352 and 353 Gentlemen: We are in receipt of your letter of May 18, 1978 and offer the following response on the basis of your suggestion that we limit our presentation work to items 1, 2, and 3 referenced in your letter. Attached is a traffic and access study prepared by Wilsey and Ham Inc., topographical survey drawings and driveway layouts of each proposal prepared by Chadwick Surveying and Wilsey and Ham Inc. respectively. We do not submit any further information regarding sanitary sewer, water and storm water facilities, other than that noted on the above referenced drawings. The fire and police protection aspect of the proposed development is covered under Wilsey and Ham's submittal (access study) regarding an all- weather emergency access. We trust the above information is what you required in order that the significant effects of the above referenced rezone can be determined. Certain statements made in the attached supporting data namely the proposed square footage of the building development, were assumed in order to arrive at maximum projected traffic flows and should not be interpreted to be a statement of the actual development plans. The water district has assured us by verbal communications that the fire flows and water pressure will be adequate to sustain the proposed development under a rezone. We would be pleased to meet with you and discuss the information submitted and trust you can come to an early decision on this matter. cc: Terry Monaghan, Director of Public Works cc: B.E. McCann Very t .. y yours, E.D. 950 ANDOVER PARK EAST • TUKWILA- WASHINGTON 98188 • WILSEY&HAM ,INC Earl P. Wilsey (1892 -1957) 631 STRANDER BOULEVARD • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98188 • Telephone (206) 575 -1420 November 2, 1978 File No. 3- 2013 - 1501 -20 McCann Construction Company 950 Andover Park East Tukwila, Washington 98188 Attention: Mr. Ed Hunt Gentlemen: RECEIVED NOV -31978 McCann Ccnst. Co., Inc. RE: TRAFFIC AND ACCESS STUDY SOUTH 178TH STREET TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Attached hereto are two preliminary copies of a traffic and access study for your proposed office sites on South 178th Street west of Southcenter Parkway. Traffic generation is based on data from your office indicating proposed construction of 49,200 square feet of building on an upper parcel contain- ing 164,000 square feet, together with 30,000 square feet of building on a lower site containing 100,000 square feet (30 percent coverage). On site parking of 250 cars is based on 3.parking stalls for each 1,000 feet of building area. The traffic analysis and projection indicates that the existing two -lane facility will be adequate to service the slight increase in total vehicular traffic on South 178th created by the proposed development. Proper location of access driveways will provide adequate ingress and egress site distances for vehicular movements. Location of the driveways above the extreme grade and short curve immediately west of Southcenter Boulevard will provide alternate, more reliable, ingress and egress to the sites during severe weather periods when the steeper slopes are closed to traffic. If, upon your review, of this report you have any questions we would be most happy to discuss them with you. Very truly yours, WILSEY & HAM, C. A i ck Reeves P.E. Project Engineer engineering • planning • surveying • environmental analysis • mapping • systems • • • • • MC CANN PROJECT PROPOSED OFFICE PARK Traffic Study Introduction The purpose of this study is to define the traffic character- istics associated with a proposed office complex situated along the north side of S. 178th Street between Southcenter Parkway and Interstate 5 within the City of Tukwila. Esti- mates of potential traffic impacts and mitigating measures that can be used to alleviate adverse impacts can be suggested_ Location The project site, shown on Figure 1, is located within the City of Tukwila. The site consists of property bounded on the south by S. 178th Steeet, on the west by a limited access freeway (Interstate 5) and on the north and east by propeties owned by the Jack A. Benaroya Company, Levitz Furniture Corporation, the Laural Development Corporation and Southcenter Parkway. The project site is directly served by two arterial facilities; S. 178th Street which connects Southcenter Parkway on the east to Military Road on the west and Southcenter Parkway. Southcenter Parkway is the most significant arterial facility in that it distributes potential traffic to other arterial facilities in the City of Tukwila. S. 178th Street, Which becomes S. 180th Street at its intersection with Southcenter Parkway, is a major arterial facility providing direct link- ages between the project site and the West Valley Road (SR -181) and the East Valley Freeway (SR -167) . S. 178th Street is a 2 -lane facility containing both adverse grades and compound reverse curves. Conversely, Southcenter Parkway and S. 180th Street are level multi -lane arterial facilities of recent construction complete with continuous illumination and traffic signalization at major intersections. Proposed Facilities The proposed McCann Office Park will consist of two distinct facilities. Because of topographic constraints, opportunities for interconnecting the two portions of the development are minimal. Property lying closest to the freeway, designated as the "upper lot ", will have commercial office facilities in the order of 29,200 g. s . f . The property lying closest to Chri5tO•her eroz'n p\N. 9688 raini -zr aecnuc s til seaLtle washin Qton el: L 723:7 "95113 // VICINITY MAP FIGURE 1 I) Cl- 1) 00 C p,7, - (0 c: co CD 4 UGC a' Southcenterarkway, designated the Aker lot will have office space in the order on 30,000 g.s.f.. The on -site configuration of both facilities is subject to further definition and refinement. Essentially, for traffic esti- mation purposes the total property is considered to be 59,200 g.s.f. and will be devoted to general office `unctions in a park -like setting. On -site parking is suggested for the accoriunodation of 250 vehicles. Access to the lower parking areas will be from S. 178th Street approximately 200 feet from the signalized intersection of Southcenter Parkway and S. 180th Street and for the "upper lot" from S. 178th Street approximately in line with the extension of the west city limits of the City of Tukwila as it crosses S. 178th Street. Note that these are tentative locations and are subject to refinement as conceptual designs in concert with topographic considera- tions proceed. Methodology To assess potential employment, data from a recent publi- cation by the Institute of Traffic Engineers entitled, "Trip Generation: An Informational Report" published in 1976 was utilized. Table I describes the range in employment for different office facilities. This table also lists 'data from •local projects, as noted. TABLE I OFFICE BUILDINGS Employment per 1,000 Square Feet Description Employment Rate Government Office Building General Office Building Civic Center . Research Center Koll Northwest Study* Sea -First Office Building ** Daon Office Building * ** Average Rate * Koll Northwest Study, (1975) C. Brown Sea -First II Study, C. Daon Office Building, ** * * * Office Park 5.8 4.25 4.10 3.00 3.38 4.00 5.00 4.22 at Stander Boulevard Brown (1978) C. Brown (1978) . cnr; ,f4►er ��own �- 9688 rain: cr & wattle wathington te1:723 435: " S11S,/,/ The probable range of employment for the McCann Development is expected to be: Maximum Employment 296 persons Minimum Employment 237 persons For traffic estimation purpose -s the maximum employment figures are assumed to prevail. These- should produce the "worst case" estimate. Trip Generation The anticipated daily trip generation rate for the proposed facility will be 1,222 vehicle trips per day. (Source: ITE, Trip Generation, An Informational Report, 1976. "Business Parks ") . The referenced ITE publication also defines antici- patied a.m. and p.m. traffic volumes for both entering and exiting peak hour demand. These are shown below in Table II. Movement TABLE II PEAK HOUR DEMAND AT SITE Hourly Demand Vehicles A. M., Entering 117 A.M. , Exiting 15 P.M., Entering 20 P.M., Exiting 109 Since the e Institute of Transportation Engineers data tended to produce minimal peak hour demands and, in addition, pro- vided no estimates of "noontime" traffic, a previous study conducted by Christopher Brown, P.E. in 1975 for the Koll Business Center, Andover Industrial Park, has been used to define the hourly distribution of both arrivals and departures as a percent of total daily demand. This data is produced below in Table III. chris h r %&3 fiaill& a\tnuc s s °a:ltac wa5hington te1:7234 `'�S11S Time TABLE III ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES Business Park Arrivals Departures 6 -7 a.m. 7.33': ' -0- 7 -8 a.m. 28.31 1.18 8 -9 a.m. 7.54 2.84 9 -10 a.m. 7.33 -0- 10-11 a.m. 7.33 8.53 11 -noon 6.52 11.14 noon -1 p.m. 1.02 22.99 1 -2 p.m. 21.38 1.18 2 -3 p.m. 6.52 6.40 3 -4 p.m. 3.46 6.40 4 -5 p.m. 2.24 12.09 5 -6 p.m. 1.02 27.25 * Note that evening activities, to all intents and purposes are non- existent. The above data suggests that the combined facility will experience an a.m. peak hour demand of 173 vehicles per hour and a p.m. peak demand of 166 vehicles per hour. These are somewhat larger than suggested by the ITE publication. Accordingly, to present a "worst case" estimate they are suggested for use in this study. The noon -hour demand will be about 140 vehicles per hour in the maximum direction. Traffic Characteristics Traffic characteristics define those elements associated with vehicular traffic operations. For this study, field data was collected at the intersection of Southcenter Parkway and S. 180th Street. The field study was performed on September 26, 1978 and may be considered adequate for preliminary planning purposes. Additionally, publications of the State of Washington, Department of Transportation and material on file with the Director of Public Works, City of Tukwila were researched for estimating purposes. Table IV, below, describes vehicle classification in the vicinity of the project site. chri .onccr brown pe )1 •9688 rain :,.r a\Lnu„ • s ) sf ;atliV wa5hin,lon tel:7234 7 '93113 Vehicle Type TABLE IV VEHICLE CLASSIFICATION Compact Auto Standard Auto Pick -up Trucks /Vans Buses Trucks, 2 Axle Trucks, 3 Axle Trucks, 4 Axle Trucks, 5 Axle Motorcycle Bicycles Pedestrians of Total Source: Field study, September, 1978. Forenoon. 19.1 40.6 18.6 0.8 7.8 4.7 1. 3 7.0 0.3 -0- -0 - To assess potential pedestrian conflicts, two separate counts were conducted on September 26, 19 78 . Count stations were established at Southcenter Parkway at S. 180th Street and at Military Road at S. 178th Street. Note that the latter intersection is of considerable interest in that an elementary school is located close to the intersection. Pedestrian demand between 7:00 and 8:00 in the morning at Southcenter Parkway and S. 180th Street was 2 pedestrians per hour (total of all crosswalks) . At Military Road and S. 178th Street the maximum demand took place between 8:00 and 9:00 in the morning When 62 pedestrians were observed. At Southcenter Parkway and S. 180th Street between 10:00 and 11:00 in the morning only 1 pedestrian was observed. The existing traffic signal at the intersection of Southcenter Parkway and S. 180th Street is a fixed time signal with the following timing pattern: chris`oph .r brown 9688 rainier avc,n a. sea`tic washington lee, 7234551 • • TABLE V SIGNAL TIMING--SOUTH CENTER PARKWAY AT S. 180th STREET North -South Red Interval Green Interval Yellow Interval East -West Red Interval Green Interval Yellow Interval 30 seconds 15 seconds 5 seconds 20 seconds 25 seconds 5 seconds Monthlvvariation in traffic demand is not available for the City of Tukwila. Accordingly, monthly demand has been esti- mated from urban Count Station R-33 operated by the Washington State Department of Transportation. Monthly demand is pre - sented in Table VI. Month TABLE VI MONTHLY TRAFFIC VARIATION % of Annual Traffic January 7.84 February 7.86 March 8.19 April 8.45 May 8.18 June 8.73 July 8.44 August 8.75 September 8.38 October 8.31 November 8.06 December 8.80 Weekday traffic variation was derived from a 7 -day count station operated by the City of Tukwila. The location was off Klikitat Drive in the vicinity of 53rd Avenue South. 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 estimation purposes. christcphcr brown per,, 9688 r,..ni,.r a c .li.., s attic washinRton %' tc !2345 `':SI1S • TABLE VII WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VARIATION Day of the Week 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 demand 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 below in Table VIII. This data was extracted from machine counts conducted by the City of Tukwila on Thursday, May 18, 1976. Note that at this loca- tion Thursday may be considered an "average" day. • chri `_orh °r Eiro n fie. 963S fain fr avcn.uc 8 Seattle ' .shin.gton tci: ?234 S7 `")311.3 • TABLE VIII HOURLY DEMAND FOR THE AVERAGE DAY Time of Day Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Midnight -1 0.29 0.30 1 -2 0.08 0.11 2 -3 0.10 0.11 3 -4 0.05 0.17 4 -5 0.23 0.21 5 -6 0.67 0.38 6 -7 3.65 1.22 7 -8 3.53 4.48 8 -9 4.45 4.18 9 -10 5.19 4.48 10 -11 7.88 6.70 11 -noon 9.99 6.9 3 noon -1 8.80 9.27 1 -2 8.20 8.28 2 -3 8.36 8.11 3 -4 9.73 7.3 0 4 -5 6.92 8.35 5 -6 6.38 8.31 6 -7 5.82 5.99 7 -8 4.87 6.13 8 -9 3.02 5.04 9 -10 0.78 2.63 10 -11 0.55 0.92 11- midnight 0.47 0.50 Total 100 .0 0 100.00 Design characteristics that should be utilized are described below in Table IX, "Design Factors". As discussed previously, these are based on current observations. It should be recognized that there is considerable construction activity at the moment and the high percentage of trucks presently operating in the traffic stream will likely decline by the end of 19 79 . Peak A.M. Off P.M. 3.65 9.99 9.73 TABLE X DESIGN FACTORS D 0.74 0.59 0.56 T 3° 0 22% 3% "11N ch ri p :f r br C'a'n p\ ://'-tLffNP 9688 ra:n;,.r avf,nuc S. 8Cattae -whin fon tel: 7234557 `9 1i3 In the abovegable, "K" is the peak houpercent of ADT, "D" is the directional distribution of "traffic split" and "T" is the percentage of trucks operating in the traffic stream. Parking Demand Recognizing that parking demand Tray be a 'significant consi- deration previous "occupancy studies" conducted at the Koll Business Center were reviewed for inclusion in the subject study. The Koll Business Center study was conducted on April 5, 1978 and may be considered representative for the proposed facility since it will also be an office park. Results of this study are presented below in Table XI. TABLE XI VEHICLE OCCUPANCY Occupancy Percent Driver Only 85 Driver plus 1 rider 11 Driver plus 2 riders 2 Driver plus 3 or more 2 Average vehicular occupancy was ecual to 1.21 persons per vehicle - -an estimate that also agrees with occupancy studies conducted by the City of Seattle, "Commuter Pool" staff in this area. (Reference, Boeing SRC Study, C. Brown, 1978) . With the anticipated occupancy or ridership rates and pro- jected employment of 296 persons, employee parking in the order of 247 vehicle spaces will be recuired. This does not include parking demand for visitors or delivery vehicles. Note that no delimitation in data is suggested for potential transit usage. Likely, public or Tass transit usage will have little impact on ridership at this facility. Trip Distribution • Since the principal concern for a facility of this type at this location is predicated on employee travel characteristics, trip distribution was predicated on potential employee residence located within a 30- minute driving range from the subject site. 1990 population estimates from the Puget Sound Council of Governments were utilized in defining trip distri- bution patterns from forecasted population data. The percent- age distribution of home -based work trips are described on Figure 2. chri cr ~ -fr brown °cam ranter a\cnue washinston ` 9318 • • • MILtTARY RD. SOuTHCENTER PKWY. S.t I- 5 OlLL1A RD. S. 57 AVE. S. FIGURE 2 TRIP DISTRIBUTION as a PERCENT OF TOTAL TRIPS STRANDED. BLVD. S. t GOTH 5T, • MILITARY Rt. 1-5 (27) SOUTHCENTER PKWY. (5) 53- (53) Cn.ILL‘A RD. S. FIGURE 3 PEAK HOUR DEMAND (3) 57 AVE. S. STRANDE..?.. BIND. 6.180TH ST. LEGEND XX am peak hour (XX) pm peak hour • • • ; • • • • M it. IT ARY RD. SOUTHCENTER PKWY. 1-5 ORILL1/... RD. S. FIGURE 4 NOON HOUR DEMAND (TRIP, ORIENTATION) S7 AVE. S. STRkN0R..1k 5tsp. S. 180TH ST, Figure 3 desiiiibes the a.m. and p.m. pi6ic hour demand. Theme data of FigulF 3 represents the "inbou ' direction in the case of the a.m. peak hour while, conversely, the p.m. peak hour shows the "outbound" demand. An additional significant hourly demand will probably. take place during the noon hour. This will be due to both em- ployee and visitor trips oriented to social /recreational facilities within the City of Tukwila (lunchtime activities) . At about 12:00 o'clock 140 trips will be outbound from the project site and, most likely, will be northbound on South - center Parkway. At the end of the noon break approximately 131 trips will be southbound, returning to the project site. Note that at this time heavy demands on Southcenter Parkway will be experienced on completion of the Benaroya Office Building and, ODnsequently, trips from the project site ray divert to S. 180th Street and Andover Park West rather than Southcenter Parkway. In any case, •a principal concern will be the noontime peak hour operations at the intersection of Southcenter Parkway and S. 180th Street. Adverse Operations The completion of the Benaroya Office Building scheduled for early 1979 will increase traffic volumes on Southcenter Parkway to 20,154 vehicles per day. S. 180th Street is expected to have a traffic demand of 11,574 vehicles per day while S. 178th Street will increase to 9,650 vehicles per day. (Source: Benaroya Office Complex, Traffic Study, C. V. Brown. 1978) . However, adequate capacity will exist at the signalized intersection of S. 180th Street and Southcenter Parkway. On completion of the Benaroya project surplus capacity in the order of 1,066 vehicles per hour suggests that the completion of the McCann Project will not adversely impact traffic operations at this intersection. The single concern will, therefore, involve access facilities on S. 178th Street west of the signalized intersection. To assess potential consequences a cap acceptance analysis was undertaken. With a design hourly. volume (DHV) of 816 VPH on S. 178th Street, during the noon hour, adequate gaps will exist in the traffic stream sufficient for accommodating the projected maximum outbound noon hour demand from the site of 140 VPH. Note that this is a conservative estimate in that the entire outbound movement has been arbitrarily assigned to S. 178th Street at a single point rather than two points. Accordingly, in terms of gap acceptance, no adverse operations will take place unless adverse climatic conditions or poor road surface conditions prevail. 4 ch ,E}.cphfr brcy.:;:n- 9&S3 rainicr ay. ,nue a a1° ' 4` t'c ashin ticn • • • • Southcenter Parkway • 619 FIGURE 5 HORIZON YEAR DE1-1AND AVERAGE WEEKDAY • 1 Existing 2 phase, fixed-tir traffic signal :iofi?.on year demand is for ;roc site, on completion arid fully occupied. S. 180th St. • Chriatopr brown. 9688 rainIcr avenuf. a )) acaLle washin Lon Lei: 723-4557 '3113 J 3 0 4J 0 4 0 • Note: The horizon year ADT assumes the completion of the Benaroya Office Complex and the McCann project. Data presented is for design year 1979 -80. Estimates assume two access roads fron S 178th St. FIGURE 6 HORIZON YEAR A.D.T. chri _c>+cDhcr Brown pe • %SSr��n • raenucs washinston LH: 2;.., z511S 22r, 25o4/ .••••••■•••• GUTc3-..TC.C1 IT7-.17)Q Loc, / ---- / / / / / , / /////// 7. // r2 / / // / / / / // / / // / / / // / Nj 1.2 .1 5ot. +I I ( ••••-, EIV tv,6-1. 0 / /Dr Loc.. / // OU'r \-\ C,e.t-S•T < CID ■••••-• %%IR:4X & HAM INC. • St."Ivi2.`,"P:C; "' IS • • • Adverse operations will, accordingly, be those associated with the adverse gradient on this particular arterial street. Project site design will, consequently, require close attention to sight distance and also an assessment of potential accident causation during times of inclement weather. Mitigating Measures Mitigating measures that can be undertaken during site de- velopment design include those engineering techniques dealing with the provision of sight distance, and appropriate surface treatment to ensure good braking ability on this facility for eastbound vehicles. During inclement weather or those time intervals when S. 178th Street is entirely blocked to traffic due to, for example, snowfall it may be noted that alternate access facilities exist to the "upper "site which can be reached via Military Road. Indeed, the closure of this facility at the signal- ized intersection will suggest trip diversion to Military Road which will essentially operate as a by -pass facility. Note that Military Road gains predominance from the develop- ment of this site due to the proximity of the Orillia Road interchange with SR -5. Conclusions It is concluded that this particular development will generate traffic volumes that can be readily accommodated on the arterial facilities serving the site. No adverse consequences are anticipated other than those associated with the location of access roads interfacing directly with an arterial facility which has both adverse gradient and compound reverse curves. Adequate engineering measures are possible for alleviating operating conditions. chriatopher Brown pe. 9688 rainier uerme a s attie waah i n �f on 1e 7234567 ``-)8113 A/ I A .F? I C) e'4GAta_...e• April 27, 1978 City of Tukwila Office of.Community Development 6230 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Attention: Mr. Gary Crutchfield Dear Mr. Crutchfield: • BEM APR 2 8 1978 CITY O 11.10411A Would you please notify Mr. George Hull when environmental information and your staff recommendation, with respect to the McCann rezones #352 and #353, are available for public review. I assume this will be sometime prior to the date of the public hearing on the subject property. Very trulyyours, . cti,e6/4C-- Mario A. Segale MAS:sb 18010 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY la TELEPHONE: (206) 226-3200 L Tukwila, Wa . 98188 to 111511 ri REZONE - McCANN #352 410 • Y i � -a -gi i b a CC ] i' v G i 2 i �'a Vi °sue. i CrFiCE o CONtv1UNITY Da- VcLOPN..E T 24 April 1978 M E M O R A N D U M _ r TO: }jell Stoknes, D(,irctor' OCD FROM: Gary Crutchfielr! istint Planner SUBJECT: THRESHOLD DETE ;MIPi TIONS: McCann Rezones (Projects #352 and #353) Review of the Environmental Checkl i sts has been completed by all affected depart- ments. The Following conclusions. are drawn .from said reviews: 1. Earth: Our "Data m= Inventory" indicates both parcels are composed (generally) of lacustine deposits. As such, they have poor Seismic stability and poor foundation stability. Stability of slopes are unknown in modified state. The proposal may result in unstable earth conditions. 2. Utilities: Extension of utilities (sanitary sewer and water) is a necessary part of the proposal. As a result, current land uses may exper- ience increased development pressure. 3 land Use: Proposed Sites are currently zoned R -1 (Single - Family) and both 1 Comprehensive Plan. are •planned for Office use by the Tukwila �0� :: � � n Much larger land area directly south is currently zoned R-A (Resi- dential-Agricultural) and is planned (b`! Comp. Plan) for Low -Den- sity Residential (Single- Family). `Proposal, due to extension of utilities and substantial change in current use, may result in. significant alterations to planned land use of this area. South 178th Street is only access to subject sites. Very sl=eep and hazardous; closed during inclement weather. Proposal will increase volume of traffic, in both directions. Will also increase traffic hazards. Fire protection is severely hampered due to location and steep- ness of South 178th. Aid cars and police protection are also a problem. 4. Transpor- tation/ n t.G t,l Jt:/ Circula- tion: 5. Public Services: RECOXMENOAT ION: The proposed rezones (and developments) represent significant alterations to present and planned land use of the affected area. Increased traffic volumes may well affect the residential area west of I -5 and traffic hazards will proportionately increase on 178th .Street. Extension of utilities to service the subject proposals will add to the likelihood or dramatic changes in surrounding land use. In light of the foregoing, I fully recommend an EIS •be required of the two projects (preFerably in a single document). • G C/cn cc:' Assoc Plnr 623_1 - 5:2c3 v (2:=) 242 -2177 A.t`ac tints. Departmental Comments T.-/ 01 1 U /v A e Departm lf:. r. Hute:' H. Crawley Fire C April Ga-y Crutchfield, Asst. Planner P1alnning Department City of Tukwila Dear Gary: In regard to your memorandum of April 10 relating to the McCann Rezone 173, I will try to clarify the term, "very limited access" as you requested: 173tn has been and will continue to be impassable under any-conditions except normal driving weather. Aorighton frost can close this road as well as snow, ice, some occasions the spilling of diesel fuel. Any structures built on this-road wi l 1 have -to—have a fire protection system to fill the gap created by the steepness of the road.— Ihis would almost guarantee .that all buildings would be required to be fully sprin'klered and hose manifold - s to tions for fire department use .installed in them. this would be a requirement regardless Generally speaking, of size of structures and types of material used to build there. - Yours very truly „m HHC:vma Hubert H. Crawley cc: TFD file Fire Chief 2 Department., _4 ^'it.�`ier Par{ East. City p`, 11:;:,vi.:? rlf C -r ^r . r. � - y • • Edgar D. Bauch City of Tukwila Mayor Fire Department 1 April 20, 1978 Hubert H. Crawley Fire Chief Gary Crutchfield, Asst. Planner Planning Department City of Tukwila Dear Gary: In regard to your memorandum of April 10 relating to the McCann Rezone 178, I will try to clarify the term, "very limited access" as you requested: 178th. has been and will continue to be impassable under any conditions except normal driving weather. A light frost can close this road as well as snow, ice, or as on some occasions the spilling of diesel fuel. Any structures built on this road will have to have a fire protection system to fill the gap created by the steepness of the road. This would almost guarantee that all buildings would be required to be fully sprinklered and hose manifold stations for fire department use installed in them. Generally speaking, this would be a requirement regardless of size of structures and types of material used to build them. Yours very truly, / //J ,1/ , / , HHC:vma Hubert H. Crawley cc: TFD file Fire Chief City of Tukwila Fire Department, 444 Andover Park East, Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 575 -4404 PLANNING CITY of TUKWILA OFFICE ' of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 10 April.1978 MEMORAND U TO: Hubert. Crawley, Chief FROM: Gary Crutchfiel SUBJECT:.. Environmental. Reviews: •stant Planner McCann Rezones @ 178th I have reviewed'the comments returned by your department for the above - referenced Environmental Checklists. Your comments essentially allude to the steepness of South 178th Street in that it.- provides "...very limited access.." to the sites in question. Also, the Checklists themselves indicate that .fire protection will be affected or result in a need for-new or altered fire protection services. In addition, the Public Works Department has indicated that existing water service may be inadequate. Inasmuch as this office is ultimately responsible for administration of SEPA and we are void of expertise in the fire protection arena, we would greatly appreciate an explanation of the points raised in the previous paragraph. GC /ch 6230 Southcenter Boulevard o Tukwila, Washington 98188 as (206) 242 -2177 • P -352 (C -1) Form B APPLIC71TION FOR OEUNC E OF LAND USE CLASSIFICATION OR MODIFICATION OF L _I USE REGULATIONS Iii THE CITY O 'IU K•IUA FOR OFFICE USE O_.Y Appl. No. Planning Cc mission Action Receipt No. Filing Date City Council Action Hering Date Ordinance No. & Date APPLICANT TO ANSWER ALL TI-E FOLLOWING QUESTIONS NEATLY AND ACCtJRZ\TRLY: Bruce E. McCann Address 950 Andover Park East .(P.O. Box 88314 "Telephone No. 206/575 -4330 Tukwila Branch) Seattle, Washington 98188 Property . Petitioned for rezoning is located mm along the north side of South 178th Street betty en and. west of Southcenter Parkway Total square footage in property 128,652 square feet Imo, DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY See attached ficistirg Zoning R -1 -9.6 Zoning requested C -1 .fit are the uses you propose to develop on this property? Office development • Nrnber of p- rmaneht off - street parking spaces that will be provided on property? Will be in accordance with City requirements Number required In accordance with City NOTICE TO APPLICANT: The following factors are considered in " Requirements reclassifying properrty or irrdifyin_g regulations. Evidence or additional .information you desire to suhnit to substantiate . your request may be attached to this sheet.. (See Application Procedure sheet Item No. 2 for specific mininum requirements.) 1. 'What provisions will be made to screen adjacent "and surrounding property from any incapaf-i ble effects which may arise as a result of the proposed land use classification? Existing topography acts as natural barrier. " 2. I•T -at , provisions will be made to provide for necessary sheet 'widening to City nin L � Ott standards? None required. 3. • bat provisions will he ma ( for adequate sewEir and water service? • Adequate sewer and water service is in existence. 4. Any r )`-.i-,7.s_ cc .meats which the F 'titio: . r feels are epproiriate: i CITY OF TUKWILA .'DI frp.it TiaN. BLDG, ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE REVIEW FORM �lee�_ 41317& PROJECT NAME: C &OK- E zoo fC • el v-6 C' 1 35& PROJECT ADDRESS: A v g 6/ ✓ � . � , � / 4/ Sov ACiGGk v /flu uu DATE ACCEPTED FOR FILING: 5/ 4itti 728 1. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW: ❑ Building: by: ❑ Engineering: by: ❑ Fire: by: ❑ Planning: by: ❑ Police: by: (date) (reviewer) 2. ANY PERTINENT COMMENTS:. • CITY OF TUKWILA • artbrib ENVIRONMENNTAL OUESTIO NAIRE REVIEW FORM PROJECT NAME %C L.GGUU EaD1tt: el A C-/ (#35Z) PROJECT ADDRESS: /l%✓ ? 5%je .D7 5. /fill ilvAcLU Paean DATE ACCEPTED FOR FILING: 51 /tfl/td. ire 1. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW: (date) (reviewer) At Building: /Di /77rby: 4,,AL .6iu4 ❑ Engineering: / by: ❑ Fire: by: ❑ Planning: by: ❑ Police: by: 2. ANY PERTINENT COMMENTS:. a .41t ,cam- -c• 1-'1 CITY OF TUKWILA ENVIRONMENTAL OUESTIONW\IRE REVIEW FORM PROJECT NAME:, ___%C &/114, EFZMJC: C -/ ( #35z) • PROJECT ADDRESS: Ahr/A Ie o/ / Jt.2Qiy/ , Io v 7G C.Gi Ada/, DATE ACCEPTED FOR FILING: 5/ C�. 77e 1. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW: ❑ Building: Engineering: ❑ Fire: ❑ Planning: ❑ Police: ID (date) by: by: by: by: by: (revi ewer) 2. ANY PERTINENT COMMENTS: �O Z c ' 7L a %v.- G!/l OdJ as 7Q,,, . / efy /ca rill /d I - Its 1,674 %' 'r7o,v ? / r•ee el./// �e ,e ,v Br.s 7c-/ 47.z. A/0 4-e i�Ti /. -• s i s s,7&- 7,4/ ,s-ef,"), ze., oz.) 74- 7g Ace os o✓ • /c e vri,- y /i(/G /G c4/71 Glen 1664! — S4. o-e..." 7L �v • Y ,rg 7 ir)-7 G U/O U ./� . 6; 4/- 7/40(//yl -e497 / MO ve r!'�G:v f%I7e r� a rc s Z) At > rPseA) J 7/%rn- e ,gyp G'd�l� J - fir _ccrv�c 6')' /1/-15 io.cj 7;41f c / / i/ a i if/ed (J �L goa /d (.lt�r✓ S c° G!/ t�IO� /mss G�CJ / f _7'- Gdreat.-.• /5 •M'1 s s'i 7LC� ,/__ p,� °/ - _ pi;heibir64 : 4 131 8 CITY OF TUKWILA ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE REVIEW FORM PROJECT NAME: % C C (,UliYt� e D,(-: / C f ( #35z) PROJECT ADDRESS: ,A yA o1 ✓• /fl ' it1447 ,Sov &mitt, /ati u, DATE ACCEPTED FOR FILING: 5! /1', d. 1,77e 1. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW: ❑ Building: by: ❑ Engineering: by: Fire: by: ❑ Planning: by: ❑ Police: by: (date) (reviewer) 2. ANY PERTINENT COMMENTS: U„k11. ...tA4D fw 4wv- fAsaitow.. c /4- EG�.IV E APR. 61979 r.. COY OF TUKWRA 9:14 Form C AFFIDAVIT I, Bruce E. McCann ,, being duly sworn, declare that I am the contract purchaser or owner of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signatur f Contract chaser or owner P.O. Box 88314 - Tukwila Branch.' (Nailing Address) Seattle, Washington 98188 (City) 206/575 -4330 Telephone) Subscribed and sworn before me thisog'� day of March 19 78 e Nota blic in i"d for the State of Washington, residing at Seattle (State) RECEIPT Received From_ Add ess 3 ti ACCOUNT I HON FAiO 1 AM.. OF C.CCO W:T AMT. PAID 8 ALA`:CE DUE CASH CHECK I MONEY CP.OPR • 8X808 RodIrra P -352 CITY OF TUKWILA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ECEIVED MAR 31 1978 CRY OF TUKWILA 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: Bruce E. McCann 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: P.O. Box 88314 - Tukwila Branch Seattle, Washington 98188 206/575 -4330 3. Date Checklist Submitted: - ( - 7,r 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: City of Tukwila 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: Project 352 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): Office development. 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): North side of South 178th Street west of Southcenter_ parkway. 8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal: 1979 9. List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the Proposal (federal, state and local): A , (a) Rezone, conditional use, shoreline permit, etc: YES_( N0 x (b) King County Hydraulics Permit YES N0_K_ (c) Building permit • YES_ NO x_ • (d) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Permit (e) Sewer hook up permit (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: None YES NO x YES NO x YES NO x YES NO x YES NO x YES NO x YES NO x YES NO X 10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or futher activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain: None more than the original planned. development. 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: None submitted. II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (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? YES MAYBE NO X x x (d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical 'features ? -2- (e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? (f) 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? Explanation: 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 charge in climate, either locally or regionally? Explanation: 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? YES MAYBE NO X X x (c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? (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 -3- (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? (i) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise avail- able for public water supplies? Explanation: 4. Flora. Will the proposal result in: (a) Change in the 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 existing species? (d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Explanation: 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? x YES MAYBE NO x x (d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? J'l x Explanation: YES MAYBE NO 6. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? Explanation: 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? Explanation: 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the altera- tion of the present or planned land use of an area? x. Explanation: The property to be rezoned for office use in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. 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: 10. Risk of Upset. 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 accident or upset conditions? Explanation: X x • • 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate . of the human population of an area? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: Development may .indirectly affect the density of this particular area. 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? Explanation: 13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in: (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? x Explanation: Office zoning will require additional parking and additional . vehicular movement. 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered 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 (f) Other governmental services? Explanation: As required for office building development. 15. Energy. 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: As required for office building development. 16. 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: YES MAYBE NO x x x x Xx 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: 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: CERTIFICATION BY APPLICANT: YES MAYBE NO I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency 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 my part. J 3 — �VVV � ce E. cCann Trustee Signa ure and itle Date x x x • • CHADWICK SURVEYING AND ENGINEERING 4011 Stone Way North, Seattle, WA. 632 -3366 98103 October 25, 1976 - File 76337 McCann Development Company Legal Description of Parcel to be Rezoned to C -1 That portion of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 35, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W. M. in the City of Tukwila, King County,. Washington described as follows: beginning at the northeast corner of said northeast quarter of the northwest quarter; thence N 87 °45'57" W along the north line of said northeast . quarter of the northwest quarter a distance of 481.05 feet to the west margin of Southcenter Parkway; thence S 11 °59'33" E along said west margin a distance of 1,007.07 feet to the true point of beginning; thence continuing S 11 °59'33" E along said west margin a distance , of 94.05 feet; thence S 78 °00'27" W a distance of 68.93 feet to an angle point of the old alignment of South 178th Street (formerly known as P. J. Musiel County Road); thence S 20 °03'27" W along the old centerline of said street a distance of 221.29 feet to a line 30 feet north of and parallel to the south line of said northeast quarter of the northwest quarter being the north margin of the new alignment of said South 178th Street; thence N 87 °50'57" W along said north margin a distance of 233.08 feet to a point of curve; . thence along said north margin . on a curve to the right having a radius of 113.24 feet, an arc distance of 169.17 feet, through a central angle of 85 °35'34" to a point of reverse curve; thence along said north margin on a curve to the left having a radius 268.74 feet, an arc distance of 29.43 feet, through a central angle of 06°16'32" to the old centerline of said South 178th Street; thence N 29 °42'27 E along said old centerline a distance of 52.69 feet to an angle point; McCann Developmenompany Legal Description cont'd. Page 2 _ thence N 55 °08'33" W along said old centerline a distance of 64.04 feet to the north margin of the new alignment of said South 178th Street; thence N 37 °55'55" E a distance of 173.09 feet; thence S 52 °44'03" E a distance of 63.16 feet; thence S 87 °45'57" E a distance of 338.39 feet to the west margin of Southcenter Parkway and the true point of beginning. Containing 128,652 square feet or 2.953 acres. _-t & LSEY & HAM INC. W H� WI ENGINEERING • PLANNING • SURVEYING • ENVIRONMENTAL. ANALYSIS • rE3 11979 691 Strander Boulevard - Telephone Tukwila,Wanhington 98188 • (206)248-2470 - 1,-,r-4,.;