HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-FD-98 - KINNEAR KEN - TUKWILA CITY HALLCITY HALL
6300 SOUTHCENTER BLVD
EPIC- I'D -98
CITY OF TUKWILA
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
/FINAL
DECLARAT ION OF /NON -S I Gil I F I CAKE
Description of proposal
Proponent
Location of Proposal
Lead Agency
Tukwila Office Building for Ken Kinnear
Owner: Ken Kinnear
Agent: El Baylis Associates /Architects
Southcenter Boulevard east of Tukwila City Hall
City of Tukwila
File No. EPIC -FD -98
This proposal has been determined to (IIIII/not have) a significant adverse im-
pact upon the environment. An EIS ( / /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
Position /Title
Date 4 May 1979
Kjell Stoknes
Director, Office of Community Development
COMMENTS:
Signature )(
1. Traffic and related data as may be required by the Public Works. Department.
No building permit is to be issued until access to the property is guaranteed
as available through the Public Works Department.
2 No evergreen trees allowed on the north property line. Required is a solid
screening by evergreen shrubs which will provide screening but not obstruct
view from adjacent property to the north. A revised landscape plan for the
north property line is required to be submitted and approved by the Responsible
Official prior to issuance of building permit.
3 Sample of exterior building material to be submitted to City prior to issuance
of building permit.
4. Type II catch basin is to be continually maintained by the owner so it will
be able to function consistant with its design.
5. Detailed drawings showing garbage inclosure to be submitted to the Building
Official prior to issuance of building permit.
TO �ie
y
•
Hopq gbaJ
SUBJECT: ?co C7 So,tAce i t 640. 5E/01 J DATE OV/17
-PP4 /teAll.vel 61,tee;:1910 omActel 46? cAgeto,
lexAizsikied. .9z,ftv,„seep_may-
�..44., -c-- 1.04A eparit cam ,eeiv car
PAR@AnF® 11_c9a74
PRINTED IN U S A
CITY OF TUKWILA
7Qo15
ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE REVIEW FORM
PROJECT NAME: (93 0O S c 239xy4?"044
819f.
PROJECT ADDRESS: & 3 0o S_ C. /3au-69
DATE ACCEPTED FOR FILING: 1/ /???
1. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW: (date) ' (reviewed)
Building: G Ez 2 / f /%77 by: cie
❑ Engineering: by:
❑ Fire: by:
❑ Planning: by:
C3 Police: by:
2. ANY PERTINENT COMMENTS:
CITY OF TUKWILA -,
ENVIRMMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE REV ; FORM
PROJECT NAME: 6300 55a, 0 4,-,t2 652,,,b .
PROJECT ADDRESS: (.0OO SS. 09,Q.v)_
DATE ACCEPTED FOR'FILING: /1 , /9'P7
f=D— 98
1. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW: (date) (reviewer)
O Building: by:
gg/Engineering: (Z l(, r tel ?i by: tZ. —c._,
❑ Fire: by:
❑ Planning: by:
❑. Police: by:
2. ANY PERTINENT COMMENTS:
• CITY OF TUKWILA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE REVIEW FORM
PROJECT NAME: 0300 S 1514, `� . ,� -c.�
/ 11
PROJECT ADDRESS: (9 3 0n c.C-.
DATE ACCEPTED FOR FILING: j 1e177
1. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW: (date)
❑ Building: by:
❑ Engineering: by:
/ 7 -79 by:
❑ Planning: by:
❑. Police: by
. ANY PERTINENT COMMENTS:
ACC cSS %glut- a s /1005 /L7 9 b-4.-
1 %9X)47u f /570 �1_4Je q / /oPvsJ
P i» Ve4,c /e- i/Se, •
22 °(5
(revi ewer)
•
/Jroh/e� ,
• po r F; r -e_
• CITY OF T U KW I (_A
ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE REVIEW FORM
PROJECT NAME: flO
PROJECT ADDRESS: 6300
DATE ACCEPTED FOR FILING:
1B cL
s.c. c &.
►� !- L9'7?
1. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW: (date) (reviewer)
O Building: by:
O Engineering: by:
❑ Fire: by:
❑ Planning: by:
Police: ) by:
2. ANY PERTINENT COMMENTS:
4l � (Who � ,� �cn �'. � �� �:� ' �, F
° tit /
n- lecke S `f- m do 41 L Lc X r Seca lir caC i/o A S
,
RECEIVED
Cry S? 1U1 W LA
Transportation Engineering & Planning Consultants 1
April 6, 1979 BOLDING DEPT.
Mr. Brian Brand
El Baylis Associates
500 - 108th Avenue N.E.
Bellevue, WA 98004
SUBJECT: TUKWILA OFFICE BUILDING
Dear Mr. Brand:
REC
el EnvIls
associates .
APR 1 1819
In response to your request of March 29, 1979, The TRANSPO Group has
prepared the following report summarizing an analysis of several spe-
cific traffic related issues as they pertain to the subject project.
This report is intended to provide information which will assist you
and your engineer with the design of the building site by suggesting
design elements that will help mitigate any existing or potential
future adverse traffic related impacts. Specifically, issues
addressed in our analysis include safe stopping sight distance, the
design of the driveway to the parking lot, and the safety of turning
movements in and out of the driveway to and from Southcenter Boulevard.
The process followed to prepare this analysis was to assemble infor-
mation on the existing traffic and transportation conditions in the
project vicinity, forecast traffic volumes generated by the subject .
project, analyze these traffic forecasts to identify any adverse
impacts, and recommend any mitigating measures that might eliminate
or reduce the severity of the impacts.
Proposed Project
This project is proposed to be a two -story office building with a third
basement level for parking that comprises 35,000 gross square feet and
115 parking spaces. The building site is located immediately east of
the Tukwila City Hall on a rectangular parcel which climbs to the north
from Southcenter Boulevard. Access to the property is proposed to be
off Southcenter Boulevard via a single- access driveway which, to com-
pensate for the steep grade, makes a sweeping "S" turn up the front
slope of the property. The driveway is 25 feet wide, is designed to
carry one lane of traffic in each direction and sometimes reaches
a grade of about 15 percent. A sketch of this site, including this
access driveway, is shown on Attachment 1.
Twenty -three 148th Avenue Southeast • BeHevue, Washington 98007 • (206) 641 -3881
•
Mr. Brian Brand
Page Two
Existing Conditions
Next to the site, Southcenter Boulevard is a 24 foot wide, two -lane major
arterial connecting Interurban Avenue to the east with I -5 and South -
center Parkway to the west. This road functions as a collector- distributor
roadway where north -south streets act as tributaries to the residences
up on the hill north of the site. To the west, the nearest intersection
is 62nd Avenue S. which serves City Hall and some existing apartments
on the top of the hill (and soon will serve about 330 units of condominiums
and apartments as well as two office buildings). A private road just
east of the subject site intersects Southcenter Boulevard on an angle
and will serve the Xerox Headquarters Building and the existing office
building slightly further to the east. Further east, 65th Avenue S. is
the major arterial serving the residential area on the Hill.
Presently Southcenter Boulevard widens at its intersection with 62nd
Avenue S. to include a center, left turn, storage lane. The capital
improvement program for the City of Tukwila shows Southcenter Boulevard
is planned to be reconstructed to a four -lane roadway. There are no
current plans to install a traffic signal on Southcenter Boulevard
at 62nd Avenue S. or at 65th Avenue S. Both the existing and planned
edge of roadway are shown on Attachment 2.
A field inspection of the site shows vegetation has overgrown along the
north side of the road and blocks a person's line of sight as they look
east on Southcenter Boulevard from the location where the proposed
driveway to the office building is to be located. It appears the maximum
sight distance at this location is about 170 feet. This is compared
with the desired safe stopping distance of 250 feet associated with
the 35 mile per hour posted speed for Southcenter Boulevard.
Traffic control on streets in the area provided by STOP signs which
control the side street volumes permitting the higher volume main
street traffic to pass without interruption and therefore minimize the
total delay experienced at the intersection.
Based on traffic counts made by the City of Tukwila, and supplemented
by information assembled by The TRANSPO Group, the daily and peak hour
volumes on Southcenter Boulevard and other streets in the area are
depicted on Attachment 2. These volumes include the traffic anticipated
to be generated by the aforementioned developments (i.e., condominiums
and office buildings). This shows that Southcenter Boulevard carries
about 5,300 vehicles per day with about even volumes passing in each
direction. During the evening peak hour, Southcenter Boulevard serves
about 260 vehicles per hour (vph) traveling eastbound and 250 vph westbound.
fS
Mr. Brian Brand
Page Three
`Ms
TPANS
This directional split during the evening peak hour is unusually well .
balanced considering the typical pattern where one direction of flow is
substantially higher than the other - the heavier flow typically pre-
dominated by work -to -home trips. Using techniques outlined in a Highway
Capacity Manual, this road is shown to operate at a level of service
B which is considered very good for urban conditions. When the road
is widened to four lanes, it is estimated that the level of service
will increase to level of service A which is the best possible level.
Forecasted Traffic Volumes
Statistics from the Institute of Transportation Engineers', Trip Generation
Manual; Arizona Department of Transportations', Trip Generation Intensity
Factors Manual, as well as independent accounts made by The TRANSPO
Group, show that general multi- tenant office buildings similar to subject
project generate about 14 vehicle trips per day per 1,000 gross leaseable
square feet and about 2.5 vehicle trips per hour during the evening peak
hour for every 1,000 gross leaseable square feet. When these trip
generation rates are applied to the gross square footage contained in this
office building, it is anticipated it will generate about 480 vehicles
per day (240 round trips). During the evening peak hour about 80 trips
will be generated with the majority traveling away from the site (70 vph
outbound and 10 vph inbound).
Normally the influence of the public transportation system is incorporated
into these traffic volume estimates through a process known as a mode split.
For this analysis, however, this step was not introduced which results in
traffic volumes that might be slightly higher than normal.
Based on previous studies in the area and existing traffic counts at
nearby intersections, it is estimated that the major of the travel to
and from this site will be oriented to the west since this provides
optimal access to both I -5 and I -405 which provides best direct access
to destinations outside the immediate service area. Considering that
the average work trip in the region is 9.3 miles, it is safe to assume
that a large portion of the trips will be using limited access facilities
like I -405, SR 920, and I -5. The resulting daily and evening peak hour
volumes are shown on Attachment 3.
•
Mr. Brian Brand
Page Four
•
T13
spo
Traffic Analysis, Conclusions and Recommendations
The traffic analysis for this site revolves around the ability to make
left turns in and out of the access road. The analysis found there
were more than three times as many gaps as are needed by the traffic
turning on or off Southcenter Boulevard. The ease of turning onto or
off of Southcenter Boulevard will be made even easier when it is
widened to four lanes.
As noted earlier, there is insufficient sight distance to the east
from the point where the proposed driveway intersects with Southcenter
Boulevard. Accordingly, the existing landscaping will have to
be cut back severely so a minimum of 250 feet safe stopping sight dis-
tance is provided. Since the site is being regraded for better align-
ment of the access road it seems appropriate that the area south of the
road be cut back and low lying landscaping be planted (i.e., ground -
cover so this minimum sight distance can be provided).
As a added safety measure it might be desirable to redesign the driveway
slightly to include a flat platform at the foot of the road so drivers
can have a,more clear view of traffic, especially as they look to the
west. A STOP sign and STOP bar should be installed at the foot of
the access driveway to control traffic entering onto Southcenter
Boulevard.
The 15 percent grade on the driveway is the maximum permitted by the
City and since it runs for a very short distance it does not appear
to present a significant safety hazard. To enhance the safety on
this access drive, especially at the turns, it is probably best
to paint a centerline and reinforce the marking by placing 4 inch
diameter traffic buttons to provide a tactile as well as visual
reference for drivers.
I trust this analysis responds to your needs and the above mentioned
recommendations will assist you in the design of the access to the
site. If you or the City have any questions after your review of
this report, please feel free to call*me.
Sincerely,
The TRANSPO Group
David D. Markley
Principal
Attachments
(l
TUKWILA
OFFICE BLDG
♦ - 1
•
15%
PROPOSED
XEROX
HEADOUARTERS
1
1 /� , PROPOSED ROAD EDGE
cE_NTs.dr?
"14--- EXISTING ROAD EDGE
LEGEND:
XXX -
(YYY) -
NEG -
65TH AVE
490
(30)
490 „4„/)
(60)
1520
24 HOUR DAILY TRAFFIC
PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
NEGLIGIBLE
62N
920
(140)
920
(60)
70 70
(10)(20)
XEROX 4
BLDG. 210 �J
(20) N\
TUKWILA
OFFICE
BLDG. NEG
210
(100)
NEG
590
(50)
580
(60)
975
(140)
985 2650
(90) (250)
2650
1520
(100)
2440 J
(240)E
Lj
2440 ;
(240)
2650
(260)
2650
(250)
(260)
Attachment 2
1980 DAILY AND PEAK HOUR
TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITHOUT THE
PROJECT
J
T YSr
65TH 4VE c
LEGEND:
XXX — 24 HOUR DAILY TRAFFIC
(YYY) — PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
NEG — NEGLIGIBLE
6 2Iv0
490 1555
(30) (120)
490 /
(60) SEE///
920
(140)920 1555
(110)
(60)
70
(10) 70 2475
(20) (250)c
C
210
(20)' :C ,
210 2475
(I00) (245)t^
210
35
35(10)
5) �
2650
(260)
210 2650
(60) (260)
590
(50)
580
(60)..0_}
975
(140) .‘),
985
(90)
2860
(270)
2860
(310)
Attachment 3
1980 DAILY AND PM PEAK HOUR
TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH THE
PROJECT
J
-4-4\
TRAN SPO
S1N3W3AOddWI
4uaw4De1.4y
PROPOSED
XEROX
HE ADOUARTERS
TUKWIL.A
(1FFICE BLDG
INCREASE LANDING
AT THE FOOT OF
THE HILL
STOP SIGN 6
STOP BAR
Srkirlir
A/ 7-&-:-/?
CENTERLINE
WITH 4" BUTTONS
TRIM EXISTING LANDSCAPING
OR PLANT NEW LANDSCAPING
SO IT PROVIDES A MINIMUM
OF 250' SIGHT DISTANCE
/ I
EXISTING ROAD EDGE
PPIP; )SED ROAD EDGE
(,.
•
CITY OF TUKVIILA
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
RECEIVED
Crv. 1 Q o iS y��
►, j; . -
£UI.G' , DEPT.
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
Owner: Ken Kinnear
1. Name of Proponent: Agent: El Baylis Associates /Architects
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 500 108th Ave. N.E., Bellevue, Wash.
Telephone: 454 -0566
3. Date Checklist Submitted:
April 9, 1979
4. Agency Requiring Checklist:
Tukwila Building Dept.
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: Tukwila Office Bldg. for Ken Kinnear
Southcenter 6300
6. Nature and. Brief Description of the Proposal (including but not limited.
to its size, general design elements, and other factors that will aive
an accurate understanding of its scope and nature):
This project is a two story office building of approximately 35,000 sq.
ft. with . h third basro t level for parking. he building shall b light
frame with major finishes being enamel metal panel sidinn, exnosed aaareaate
rot-Icy-ph. walls and solar rnol reflertivP class ribbons.
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):
The site consists of 1.26 acres located just east of Tukwila City Hall.
There is presently one (1) single family residence located on the site, which
will be removed in our project. The site slopes approximately fifty feet
from north to south and contains several large trees and existing vegetation
on the south portion.
8. Estimated-Date for Completion of the Proposal: Fall 1979
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 NOX
(b) King County Hydraulics Permit YESX NO
(c) Building permit YESX NO
(d) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Permit YES NO X
(e) Sewer hook up permit YES X NO
(f) Sign permit YES X NO
(g) Water hook up permit YES X NO
(h) Storm water system permit f.B YES X NO
(1) Curb cut permit 4 ° Ptetl Ye4.11461 �1 YES NO X
(j) Electrical permit (State of Washington) YES X NO
(k) Plumbing permit (King County) YES X NO
(1) Other:
10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or futher activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain:
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:
Does not apply.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required)
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic
substructures? X
(b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcover-
ing of the soil? X —
(c) Change in topography or ground surface relief fea-
tures? X —
(d) The destruction, covering or modification of any
unique geologic or physical features? ' X X
(e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site? 11
(f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or
changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which m 44=T
may modify the channel of a river or stream or the r
bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? )4, X G
We have designed this project to work with existing g topography.
However, we will be excavating for foundations and parking garage which will
displace approximatelards of soil. We will export approximately CZ)
cu. yards from the site. All excavations shall be to firm undisturbed
earth. We shall comply with recommendations set forth in attached soils
report.
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?
YES MAYBE NO
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?
(f)
(g)
X
X
Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? - X
Change in the amount of surface water in any water
body? X
Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration
of surface water quality, including but not limited
to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of
ground waters?
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
-3-
X°
X
1 •
(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 ?•
YES MAYBE NO
X
Explanation: Our proposal will cover approx. 75% of the site with
impervious surface. We have submitted plans for a storm water retention
system to detain storm water runoff per King County Hydraulics requirement.
Also, we may encounter subsurface water with excavations. We shall collect
it with drain tile and discharge in appropriate manner.
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? .
X
X
X
(d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X
Explanation: Ther is presently several large treestand ornamental
plantings around existing single family residence. We shall maintain
some larger vegetation and replace and add to it with new native plant-
ings as shown on the submitted landscape plan.
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?
X
Explanation: Our proposal may affect a small number of reptiles
or rodents.
X
X
6. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise
levels?
Explanation:
DAPP'e4\
YES MAYBE NO
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new
light or glare? X
Explanation: Our building skin shall consist of painted metal panel siding
and solar cool glass both of which may exhibit glare on some occasions.
We feel these impacts will be minimum however, and have designed the
landscaping to mitigate glare to the neighboring environment. Also, we
plan to use a warm soft color on the metal panels.
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the altera-
tion of the s -r planned land use
of an area? k
Explanation:
9. NaturaT 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:
p-dt
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?
MAYBE NO
X
Explanation: Our building hE.s an occupant load of 360 persons. It's
conceivable that a percentage may reloate to be closer to their place
of work.
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing,
or create a demand for additional housing? X
Explanation: See Explanation #11.
13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result
(a)
(b)
Generation of additional vehicular movement?
Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking?
Impact upon existing transportation systems?
Alterations to present patterns of circulation
or movement of people and /or goods?
Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
in:
Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians?
X d/ qp �
et- c'tkrrt
4,2 trAk
Explanation: To address the above items I have submitted a traffic
analysis of the project prepared by David Markley of the
Transpo Group.
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:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks or other recreational facilities?
Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
YES MAYBE NO
(f) Other governmental services? X
Explanation:
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X
(b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or
require the development of new sources of
energy?
Explanation:
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for
new systems, or alterations to the
following utilities:
(a) Power or natural gas? )( X
(b) Communications systems ?, X
(c) Water? X
(d) Sewer or septic tanks? X
(e) Storm water drainage? X
(f) Solid waste and disposal? X
Explanation:
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in the.crea-
tion of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
Explanation:
• 1
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:
YES MAYBE NO
CERTIFICATION BY APPLICANT:
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.
El Baylis Associates /Architects
(pz',jf ) April 9, 1979
Signature and Title Date
X