HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-164-81 - BUCHANAN / KINNEAR - OFFICE BUILDING2 STORY OFFICE BUILDING
65TH AV S
SOUTHCENTER BLVD
BUCHANAN /KINNEAR
EPIG164-81
CITY OF TUKWILA
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FINAL
DECLARATION OF NON - SIGNIFICANCE
Description of proposal 2 story office building
Proponent Buchanan /Kinnear
Location of Proposal 65th Ave. So. /Southcenter Blvd.
Lead Agency
City of Tukwila File No. EPIC - 164 -81
This proposal has been determined to (EfOk/not have) a significant
adverse impact upon the environment. An EIS A1/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
Brad Collins
Date 6 -4-Y
Planning Director
COMMENTS:
Signature
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TRANSMITTAL
DATE OF TRANSMITTAL 13 / Mt1 / 81
TO: $BUILDING DEPT.
;11ill FIRE DEPT.
;RE1 PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.
PROJECT: scx7P4cei-Vitg
gPOI ICE DEPT.
RECREATION DEPT.
65e,c7
131.1;74,-
LOCATION: Ave 5 is c M Vt$
The above-mentioned applicant has submitted the following plans or materials
for the above reference project:
Environmental Checklist ❑Preliminary Plat
❑ Environmental Impact State- ❑Final Plat
ment �-1
❑.Si:te /Development.Plans. . L lRezone. Request - -.::
❑ Shoreline Permit Application❑ Variance Request
❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑Other:
Application
The attached materials are sent to you for your review and comment.. The
Planning Dept. needs your comments to satisfy review procedures and to
complete the project file.
Please use the space provided below for your comments or attach a separate
sheet.
Requested response date: 20 / MAf / 8 I -
Review Department comments:
7)f t(1 '{, P.j • Pv ,7-- (r)--) (Ue5i S1
/r..s S- ti) c1�r
X E? /- 0
T20 P- / !J /C) f4
/
G l�-1
-t _
j 1 IS t4 i (i h S -gre- %j
Z t 4.4 fc {- . J rfx/L
7JA cc
IC. 'Bic) n. ec) e�la
We=51-
a... - ) h i`1 .. n Date: --'l ( �/
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mark Caughey, Associate Planner
FROM:. Don Williams, Park & Recreation Director
DATE: May 20, 1981
SUBJECT: Response to Environmental Checklist form for Southcenter 6500 Building
After a review of the appli ant's, nvironmental Checklist Form I would say
they answered: in the most ae manner in comparison to other Environmental
Checklist forms I have seen, however I would take exception to their responses
to quesiton #14 a -e, and in particular to #19.
From my view as Parks and Recreation Director it seems each respondant to such
a checklist indicates. the project will have "no effect" on public services.
Yet, we know for a fact that residents and workers fill our limited parks and
recreation programs, and as time passes these people expect such services.
In an attempt to offset the heavy volume, good weather use of our parks I am
attempting to encourage each developer to provide some "on site" recreational
areas. Landscaping per say is good asethetically, but in most cases it is
not usable space. In reviewing this site plan I see no usable space and
under current guidelines we can not force such development, but I again
would encourage the City to have the developer consider including a small
grass area with a picnic area somewhere on site, perhaps on the north edge
of the site or if not all of the parking area is necessary perhaps two or
more stalls could be deleted.
A sidewalk exists on the Pastern edge of the project and I. strongly encourage
some firm resolve be made as to the development of a sidewalk along South -
center Blvd. Both sidewalks fit into a planned system of trails and sidewalks
leading to recreational facilities and.should be required.
In general the building design is acceptable as long as window glare is kept
to a minimum.
DW/blk
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TRANSMITTAL
DATE OF TRANSMITTAL 115 / MAN"/ 81 {{
TO: ,BUILDING DEPT. E POLICE DEPT.
,RI FIRE DEPT. ORECREATION DEPT.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.
PROJECT: samc.r.MT (.5'G 6VPG•
LOCATION:
(95 AVE @ soamosareic Is :Qt.- watt:?
The above mentioned applicant has submitted the following plans or materials
for the above reference project:
0Environmental Checklist ❑Preliminary Plat
El Environmental Impact State - ❑Final Plat
ment
❑Site /Development Plans DRezone Request -
❑ Shoreline Permit Application[] Variance Request
[]Conditional Use Permit ❑Other:
Application
The attached materials are sent to you for your review and comment. The
Planning Dept. needs your comments to satisfy review procedures and to
complete the project file.
Please use the space provided below for your comments or attach a separate
sheet.
Requested response date: 20 /PAW / 81
Review Department comments:
1,
F-1/1 $/»-ih /%/ e '11 r? .
2-- 1714 d ,-a1,71-s 1c- Ord, 72e
a ){ If-4 des = 1-5.°7o.
-. S -f- /et- 4- Adclitss 54 o it pG IzSS 5o'
e.)(aMje ) 64 90 ) •
By:
Date:
S-
1908
City. of Tukw.
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
"TRANSMITTAL
DATE OF TRANSMITTAL I3 / Mt1 / 81
TO: ,'BUILDING DEPT. .tom POLICE DEPT.
;EgI FIRE DEPT. ORECREATION DEPT.
;RL PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. ❑
PROJECT: sairKe4447Elt (.5 'c' g107G.
LOCATION: 651 AV6 ( )l.EVA:7
The above mentioned applicant has submitted the following plans or materials
for the above reference project:
Environmental Checklist ❑Preliminary Plat
DEnvironmental Impact State- ❑Final Plat
ment
❑Site /Development Plans ❑Rezone Request " -
❑ Shoreline Permit Application❑ Variance Request
❑Conditional Use Permit ❑Other:
Application
The attached materials are sent to you for your review and comment. The
Planning Dept. needs your comments to satisfy review procedures and to
complete the project file.
Please use the space provided below for your comments or attach a separate
sheet.
Requested response date: ZD / MA`( / ai "
Review Department comments:_
/ bLA/7-1 i Y of PR (74e c-7- s 04 - A/vr
a r o6-00 Q U k ---, A' G-- , T t' E L? U i �. p/ /li c- /46DRESS
wits 13 IN 7 ff 66/ .90 st-R /kS/ �sr
L /i 1 y 6'-1S° o R 6 4/80
By: C%?-4-, ' - Date: f`l /' / 9 ?!
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TRANSMITTAL
DATE OF TRANSMITTAL I3 / Mt>'(/ 81
TO: BUILDING DEPT. POLICE DEPT.
FIRE DEPT. ORECREATION DEPT.
;g1 PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. ❑
PROJECT: sa7114C-ENTSt2 (.54c,c:7
LOCATION: (951 ,„z @ somiso'(cc )I.EVARtJ
The above mentioned applicant has submitted the following plans or materials
for the above reference project:
Environmental Checklist ❑Preliminary Plat
❑Environmental Impact State- ❑Final Plat
ment
❑Site /Development Plans ❑Rezone Request -
❑ Shoreline Permit Application❑ Variance Request
❑Conditional Use Permit ❑Other:
Application
The attached materials are sent to you for your review and comment. The
Planning Dept. needs your comments to satisfy review procedures and to
complete the project file.
Please use the space provided below for your comments or attach a separate
sheet.
Requested response date: 20 /MAY /
Review Department comments:
By: Date:
CITY OF TUKWILA
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
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:
Naar lb
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent:
-'L " \h/AIT 41g5)606,
3. Date Checklist Submitted:
4. Agency Requiring Checklist: r1,44-41-414s0
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable:
Alir ezdS/.
off" -'1GE.IS
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):
11.1.. eve rrepcV
7. Location ot 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):
8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal: Na,„ frigva
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 NOZ
(b) King County Hydraulics Permit YES, NO
(c) Building permit YESZL NO
(d) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Permit YES NOS,
(e) Sewer hook up permit YES NO
(f) Sign permit YES NO
(g) Water hook up permit YES %< NO
(h) Storm water system permit YES NO
(1) Curb cut permit YES NO
(j) Electrical permit (State of Washington) YES NO
(k) Plumbing permit (King County) YES ?CNO
(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:
11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by
your proposal? If yes, explain:
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:
1l
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?
I, •
(d) The destruction, covering or modification of any
unique geologic or physical features?
YES MAYBE NO
(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?
YES MAYBE NO
x_
Explanation: '1 09) Cc) - tr H P alLeS f:Z5. -)
WILL Zt 4 P g u `,.,' r --
x t • 1.64- 1:»-it' W I L 1
Ir a Hs-r is=smcvAeL. dF ibeT4ax . GO.'
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:K'1T� -'; -S►1'a W►l-L-
(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: 2 CA) (ij,)
of to7•4 . Atoraai. -1-1-- 092,ei.dget
�. ! � �
3. Water. iTnhriprZtAl resbltin: I .
(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?
(c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
(d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water
body?
(e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration
of surface water quality, including but not limited
to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
(f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of
ground waters?
(g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions of withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
_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: /;.F..)(1
M)1-4--} -per 1�tll►.� #
g,.r! t „sal i l,yt,1-'�N4o,,t�
MI i-icks1.6;
4. Flora. Will the proposal result in: KINIao
(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: L{ (a) (c)
164 --- `- `d. 1. *'b; p ,a< =.s- till! L.L.
wN �p 4 (,- 1r 12
;'t Jt.
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)?
YES MAYBE NO
_2<
(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:
_7>L
x
6. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise
levels?
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation: c.,,Zr,ots/1'IAd.L
,=1---je-/-\'41t-111-i 6,S -IV 5 -1,04
AL60 'l (, :' t'"j g.'7c)-}E�;�
rfAtz? r.,r'1 G ,
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new
light or glare?
Explanation: r-r,, Ld GvllAeg
.10..*p vkinA., '?.;511 tvg.i (...11- i 4
L1i s W!�'. /-4/614+-,
8. Land Use. Will the proposal resu t in the al era-
tion of the present or planned land use
of an area? •
Explanation:
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:
"
4a 47L".
x
11. Population.
Explanation:
• •
Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate
of the human population of an 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?
Explanation:
YES MAYBE NO
%<
x
E
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?
(f) Other governmental services?
Explanation:
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: ; ` i,. !ter
•
YES MAYBE NO
,/
j
. _•�,, -: �.,-�,. � r-' � ,� ; , �•-Ji ,._ jam//
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:
-7-
• 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:
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.
Signature and Title Date
,\4
William E. Popp Associates
Transportation - Civil Engineers
206) 454 -6692
March 26, 1981
Mr. Brian Brand.
El Baylis Associates
500 108th Avenue N.E.
Bellevue, WA 98004
Subject: TUKWILA OFFICE BUILDING 6000
Dear Mr. Brand:
We were requested by you in late February to analyze the egress and exit
provisions for the proposed office building at the corner of Southcenter
Blvd. and 65th Ave. So. in Tukwila. Specifically, the analysis is to determine
whether the existing left turn lane on 65th Avenue So. at Southcenter Blvd.
could be shortened to provide a left turn pocket in the opposite direction
for vehicles entering the project via the driveway on 65th Avenue So. without
creating any adverse traffic impacts. The following report is submitted in
response to that request.
PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project is a two -story office building with a third level base-
ment parking garage. The building comprises 29,500 square feet of office
space with 32 undercover parking spaces. An additional 68 parking spaces are
available immediately adjacent to the building at the lower; intermediate
and upper levels of the site. The project is located in the immediate north-
west corner of the intersection of Southcenter Blvd. and 65th Ave. So. in
Tukwila. Access to the site from Southcenter Blvd. is via a driveway just
west of the site, presently serving the new Xerox Building.1 This driveway
is approximately 36 feet wide and carries one lane of traffic in each direction.
There is a distance of only about 50 feet from the curb line on Southcenter
Blvd. to the proposed lower entrance to the project from this driveway. This
will permit only a very short storage area for exiting vehicles which will have
to merge with those from the Xerox Building exiting at the same time.
Access to the project is also planned via a two -way driveway at 65th Avenue So.
This driveway is located on 65th Avenue So. approximately 215 feet north of
the Southcenter curb line. This proposed driveway is presently blocked by the
existing left turn lane on 65th Avenue So. for Southcenter Blvd. bound traffic.
1Driveway also serves the King County Housing Authority but will be referred to
as serving the Xerox Building in the remainder of the narrative.
Seattle Trust Building • Suite 400 • 10655 N.E. 4th Street • Bellevue, Washington 98004
Mr. Brian Brand
Page two
March 26, 1981
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Southcenter Blvd. adjacent to the project site is a paved two -lane 24 foot
wide arterial paralleling I405 and serving as a collector- distributor road for
the Tukwila City Hall and several office buildings adjacent to the boulevard
on the north. Southcenter Blvd. is planned to be widened to four lanes through
this section in the Six -Year Capital Improvement Program for the City of Tukwila.
Traffic volumes along Southcenter Blvd. in this vicinity for an average day in
1981 are approximately 5000 vehicles per day west of 65th Avenue So. and 4100
vehicles per day to the east. The 1981 average daily and PM Peak Hour traffic
volumes in the vicinity without the project are shown in Figure l.
65th Avenue So. extends north only from Southcenter Blvd. and serves a rather
dense residential area. It comprises two 11 foot lanes plus a 10 foot left turn
lane approaching Southcenter Blvd. The left turn lane extends northerly up the
hill for approximately 175 feet and is delineated by large traffic buttons.
This storage lane could hold a queue of seven to eight vehicles while waiting to
make the left turn.
At the present time during the evening peak hour, traffic is moving along South -
center Blvd. in the vicinity of the proposed project at a Level of Service (LOS)
B, which is relatively free flowing. Widening to four lanes should increase
the LOS to A,which is a free flow condition.
ANALYSIS OF EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
To determine the impact of traffic generated by this new building, it is necessary
to determine the level of traffic service prior to construction. For the purpose
of this analysis, existing traffic volumes along this section of Southcenter Blvd.
were considered equivalent to those projected for 1980 upon completion of Tukwila
Office Building 5000 by the TRANSPO Group in their report to El Baylis Associates
dated April 6, 1979 on the traffic impacts of that building. For the purposes of
this analysis, 1981 average daily and PM peak hour volumes were considered to be
approximately the same level as the 1980 volumes in that report.
The critical movements to be considered are the turning movements out of the drive-
way onto Southcenter Blvd. (the present Xerox Bldg. driveway), the left turn move-
ments to 65th Avenue So. from the west, and the left turn movement from 65th Avenue
So. to the east on Southcenter Blvd. Using gap acceptance analysis techniques for
non - signalized intersection capacity analysis, it was determined that the movements
out of the Xerox Bldg. driveway are presently operating at a Volume -to- Capacity
(V /C) ratio of 0.11 which is LOS A. At the intersection of Southcenter Blvd. and
65th Avenue So. this same analysis technique indicates a V/C ratio of 0.11 for the
left turn movement to 65th Avenue So. from the west and 0.05 for the left turn
movement from 65th Avenue So. to the east. The right turn movement out of 65th
Avenue So. also has a V/C ratio of 0.05. All of these movements are at LOS A, the
highest possible condition.
Mr. Brian Brand
Page three
March 26, 1981
FORECAST TRAFFIC VOLUMES
The same trip generation rates were used in this analysis as were used by
TRANSPO in their report, and as found in the Institute of Transportation
Engineer's Trip Generation Report. A general multi- tenant office building
such as this project can be expected to generate approximately 14 vehicle
trips per day per 1000 square feet of gross leasable floor area, and approxi-
mately 2.2 vehicle trips per hour during the PM peak hour per 1000 square feet
of gross leasable floor area. When applied to this project, it can be ex-
pected to generate approximately 412 trips per day, with 65 trips being
generated during the evening peak hour period. Eighty -five percent of the
peak hour trips or 55 vehicles would be exiting and 10 vehicles entering
the project area. The peak hour generated trips were distributed east and
west along Southcenter Blvd. in the same proportion as the TRANSPO study,
with 75 percent directed west, and 25 percent directed eastward. The project
generated traffic volumes and distribution for both the 1981 average day and
PM peak hour period is shown on Figure 2.
Because of the extremely short storage area available for vehicles exiting from
the project via the driveway on Southcenter Blvd., some unacceptable delays would
probably be experienced by the project vehicles trying to use this exit from the
lower level parking areas. Because of this, it was considered reasonable that
time and motorist experience would result in at least half of the lower level
vehicles,as well as all the intermediate and upper level vehicles, exiting
more quickly via the driveway from the upper level to 65th Avenue So. Thus 40
of the 50 vehicles exiting the project area during the PM peak hour were di-
rected via 65th Avenue So. During the AM peak hour period there would be no
such delays experienced for the entering vehicles so that all vehicles destined
for the parking garage and lower level parking areas are expected to use the
driveway entrance on Southcenter Blvd. while those destined for the other two
levels would find it more convenient to enter via the 65th Avenue So. entrance.
The project generated traffic was added to the existing traffic volumes to
arrive at the forecast traffic conditions upon completion of the project.
Figure 3. shows the estimated 1981 average daily and PM peak hour volumes with
the project completed. To arrive at the best estimate of the AM peak hour
volumes upon completion of the project, the volume of the PM peak hour traffic
without the project was used with the direction reversed, to which the AM peak
hour traffic generated by the project was added. The resulting forecast AM
peak hour traffic volumes with the project are shown in Figure 4.
FORECAST LEVELS OF SERVICE
Based upon the forecast traffic volumes with the project completed as shown in
Figures 3 and 4, the gap acceptance technique for capacity analysis was again
utilized to forecast anticipated levels of service.
Mr. Brian Brand
Page four
March 26, 1981
For the PM peak hour traffic condition, the driveway movements on Southcenter
Blvd. can be expected to be operating with a V/C ratio of 0.14, LOS A.
At 65th Avenue So. the left turn from the west to 65th Avenue So. and the
north to the east on Southcenter Blvd. would have V/C ratios of 0.11 and 0.07
respectively. The right turn movement from the north to the west on South -
center Blvd. has a V/C ratio of 0.07 also. All of these movements are at
LOS A. The average delay for vehicles making the left turn from 65th Avenue
So. to the east is estimated at 8.4 seconds. The average queue length (number
of vehicles in line at any given time) is less than one vehicle.
Analysis of the AM peak hour period shows the driveway on Southcenter Blvd.
to have a V/C ratio of 0.14, still operating at LOS A. At 65th Avenue So.
the left turn movement frm the west to 65th Avenue So. and from the north to
the east on Southcenter Blvd. would have V/C ratios 0.06 and 0.08 respectively,
also operating at LOS A. The average delay for the latter movement is es-
timated at 6.2 seconds and the average queue length is less than one vehicle.
During the AM peak hour period there is an estimated 26 vehicles turning
left into the project driveway from 65th Avenue So. (It is the provision
for this projected movement without impacting the left turn movement in the
opposite direction from 65th Avenue So. to the east that is the basis for this
entire analysis.) The average delay for the vehicles turning left into the
driveway is estimated to be 1.2 seconds, resulting in an average queue length
of less than one vehicle.
SUMMARY
The existing left turn lane on 65th Avenue So. for vehicles turning east on
Southcenter Blvd. as delineated by large traffic buttons, is designed to hold
a queue of seven to eight vehicles. The above analysis shows this movement
during both the AM and PM peak hour period, with the project completed, to
be operating at LOS A with an average queue length of one vehicle or less.
Thus the left turn storage lane is much longer than necessary and could be
shortened to half its length or more without impacting the operation of that
left turn movement. This would permit the development of a left turn storage
lane in the opposite direction for the left turn into the project driveway.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based upon the above analysis and summary, it is concluded that the left turn
storage lane on 65th Avenue So., presently delineated by traffic buttons, can
be shortened to provide a left turn lane in the opposite direction into the
project driveway. This can be accomplished without creating any problems for
the vehicles turning east from 65th Avenue So. during both the AM and PM peak
hour conditions.
It is recommended that the existing traffic button channelization on 65th
Avenue So. be revised to delineate a minimum 50' left turn into the project
Mr. Brian Brand
Page five
March 26, 1981
site allowing thus a 50' transition and 175'+ left turn lane for southbound
left turns onto Southcenter Blvd.
Alternatively, since the estimated traffic volumes on 65th Avenue So. are
quite low and property to the east is yet to be developed, a two-way left
turn lane would appear to be a very compatible solution. This two -way
left turn lane could be introduced after a suggested 75' left turn lane is
allowed for the southbound left turn at Southcenter Blvd. This installation
would be most effective with buttons in lieu of paint stripe.
Very truly yours,
WILLIAM E. POPP ASSOCIATES
sladlca2 Pe-fp
William E. Popp, P.E. f-
WEP/ss
Enclosure
— - - ILA... OFFICE- 3LDG.._Gsoo
LegQrta:
xxx 24 Mr. Datty T,na►FFtc
(coo) PM Peek Hoc TraCc,c
c:tgvre 1.
(24) (to) (140)
210 TO 920
(too) (2o) (40) 2to T o 920%
Soulhctnter 151vd
•
ciao)
14-to
(90)
1440
((.o)
49 )
i
Zk 15 2615 2475 . 241S 2045
(2.60) (26o) (Ivo) (260) (1To)
1981... Do. (y .. and PM Peak .Hour _ T,ra(tc_
WITHOUT_ PROJECT
2o4S
(150)
Lq
►�i
_ TU Kw %L _0FF ±CE ...P1��G.__ -- -0500
11
j 2,4 Nr
Pk.
to
PROJECT
SITE _
Souilncerttee C31vd.
to
200
31 8
PROTECT GENERATED TRAFFIC
TUKWILA OFFICE SLAG 105OO
(1111
Ft sure 3.
(24)/£'o
PRo7ECT
SITE
) SOyThce tt¢r Bwa
(90
044)
\q4°
.vi
•
f
a
(1)
40)
5540.
Sot 2b8
24lie
S1Sb
(201) (i8)
19.81.._ ..Daly and. PM Pe4lc.tiour •TraFF►c._ :.M► tTH_.PADJECT
4r9t
(172) (•4>
1Th
00Z I
06
• :.narOtia. -H11/416 - ?Ci‘JD46 ,‘TINJ NAV. 1861
161 'ELT
J.DaroNc3
to%
•-tp S INI:o%
-S<S19 \eft
RITTENHOUSE -ZEMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
GEOLOGY & SOILS ENGINEERING
13837 N.E. 81h Street, Bellevue. Washington 98005 (208) 748 -8020
8050 5.W. Cirrus Drive, Beaverton, Oregon 97005 (509) 644 -9141
22 April 1981
Coast Construction Co.
P.O. Box 66479
652 S.W. 143rd
Seattle, Washington 98166
Attention: Mr. Bill Buchannan
Subject: Additional Subsurface Exploration
Southcenter 6500 Office Building
Tukwilla, Washington
Gentlemen:
W -3604
In accordance with your request we have observed the excavation of six addi-
tional test pits (Test Pits No. 8 - 13) at the above referenced site. It is
our understanding that plans for the property have changed since the original
soils and foundation report was presented in 1978. Currently, plans call for
the L- shaped building to be constructed in the southeast corner of the pro -
perty. All six additional test pits were excavated in this portion of the
parcel. Their approximate locations can be seen on the enclosed Site Plan.
log of each additional test pit is also included with this report.
The soils noted in the most recently excavated test pits were found to be rel-
atively similar to the subsurface conditions encountered originally in the
adjacent areas of the site. Generally, the building site appears to be mantled
with miscellaneous fill soils and concrete rubble. Fill depths at the latest
test pit locations ranges from 1 to 7 feet. Native soil beneath the fill is
composed of medium dense to very dense sand, very stiff to hard silt, or medium
Coast Construction Co.
21 April 1981
W -3604
Page Two
dense to dense weathered sandstone material. Subsurface seepage was also noted
in Test Pits No. 11 and 13. Detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions .
can be seen on the test pit logs.
ADDITIONAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
We understand that current plans call for the lowest floor of the building to
approximately match the elevation of Southcenter Boulevard. Therefore, a con-
siderable amount of excavation will be required at the north. end of the building,
where a cut of up to 14 feet may be necessary. Based. on the recent test pits,
relatively difficult excavation conditions are present. The contractor should:
be equipped to remove concrete rubble, large boulders, hard shale -like silt,
and possibly sandstone.
As mentioned in our original soils and foundation investigation report, old,
foundations encountered in the building area should be removed and replaced .
with compacted fill. In the same manner, any existing fill beneath the build-
ing that is not removed in the initial excavation should be removed and replaced
with structural fill. This will likely be necessary in the south end of the
building area where up to 7 feet (or possibly more) of fill exists and the
required excavation will be minimal. All remedial excavations of this type
beneath the building area should be replaced with structural fill compacted to
at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density as per the original soils
report.
Based on the latest test pits excavated in the proposed building area, it
appears that the foundation system will probably traverse across a variety of
materials. The footings will likely be founded on hard shale -like silt in the
northern portion, dense to very dense sand or hard silt in the mid - section, and
Coast Construction Co.
21 April 1981
W -3604
Page Three
on compacted fill or possibly weathered sandstone along the southern portion.
To decrease any differential settlements, we recommend that an allowable
bearing pressure of 2500 psf be used for design purposes as referenced in our
original report. An allowable bearing pressure of 4000 psf should be used only
if all the footings are founded directly on very dense granular soil, the hard
shale -like silt, or sandstone.
As mentioned previously, subsurface seepage was noted during the most recent
exploration. Perforated footing and wall drains should be utilized and bedded
in clean, free - draining gravel. The surface and ground water management recom -.
mendations made in our original report should be ,strictly adhered to. Because a
substantial excavation will be required, ground water can be expected ,to seep
out of the cut slopes. Provisions should be made to collect and dispose of
this water. Also, a safe cut -slope should be maintained by the contractor to
prevent failures and sloughing of the excavation slopes. We recommend that the
slopes be cut to at least 1H:1V and possibly flatter should the conditions
warrant it.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service. Please keep in mind that these .
recommendations should be used in conjunction with the original soils and
foundation investigation report dated November 7, 1978.. Should you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Respectfully submitted,
RITTENHOUSE -ZEMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Dougla
.- Holsten, Engineering Geologist
olwAskeekok
Alvin R. Zeman,
TEST PIT LOGS
De th feet Soil Classification ' W -3604
Test Pit No. 8
0.0 - 0.5 Asphalt
0.5 - 1.0 Crushed base course
1.0 - 3.0 Medium dense, moist, mottled brown, silty, fine to coarse SAND
with gravel, cobbles, and boulders (Fill ?)
3.0 - 7.0 Very stiff to hard, moist, gray, laminated, sandy, SILT
No seepage
0.0 - 1.0
1.0 - 3.0
3.0 - 7.0
Test Pit No. 9
Concrete and rubble (Fill)
Loose to medium dense (at 2 feet), moist, brown, silty, fine to
coarse SAND with gravel; cobbles and boulders
Dense to very dense, moist, gray and brown, silty, clayey, fine
to coarse SAND with gravel and fractured rock (extremely
hard digging).
No seepage
Test Pit No. 10
0.0 - 2.0 Loose, moist, black, organic, silty SAND with gravel and
cobbles (Fill)
2.0 - 6.0 Medium dense, moist, mottled brown and gray, silty, clayey,
fine to coarse SAND with cobbles, fractured rock, occasional
boulders, and inclusions of sandy, clayey, silt
(Native ?)
Hard, moist, brown, fractured, sandy, clayey SILT
Hard, moist, gray, laminated, clayey SILT
No seepage
6.0 - 9.5
9.5. - 11.0
Test Pit Logs
Page Two
Depth (feet) Soil Classification
Test Pit No. 11
W -3604 .
0.0 - 1.0 Concrete
1.0 - 3.0 Wood timbers with ashes and soil (Fill)
3.0 - 4.0 Concrete footing
4.0 - 7.0 Loose, wet, gray, silty, fine SAND with gravel, concrete
rubble, and wood debris (Fill)
7.0 - 10.0 Dense to very dense, moist, mottled brown, silty, clayey,
fine to coarse SAND with gravel
Slight seepage at 6 feet
0.0 - 2.5.
2.5 3.5
Test Pit No. 12
Loose, moist, dark brown, organic, silty, fine to coarse SAND
with gravel and concrete rubble (Fill)
Loose, moist, reddish brown, silty, fine to coarse SAND with
fractured rock (Fill ?)
3.5 - 6.0 Medium dense, moist, brown, silty, clayey, fine to coarse SAND
with gravel, cobbles and boulders
6.0 - 9.0 Dense, moist to wet, reddish brown, silty, fine SAND
•
(weathered sandstone).
Test pit terminated on sandstone boulder or bedrock
No seepage
0.0 - 2.5
2.5 - 6.5
6.5 - 10.0
Test Pit No. 13
Loose, moist, black, organic, silty, fine to coarse SAND with .
gravel, cobbles, boulders and miscellaneous debris (Fill)
Loose, moist, gray, silty, fine to coarse SAND (Fill)
Medium dense to dense, wet, reddish brown, silty, fine SAND
(weathered sandstone)
Moderate seepage at 5 feet
-22
The Baylis Architects
f", 1 ,
am — ki{ =zt I vim.
0
n.�r urn
The Baylis Architects
a....111-1%157-1Tfr
"Zior■-•
nrg-K-r4,
NofzTri LVfrfl
I
.r..`"' (.1" ■,9,,,r)
.1.01the WA.L. , / GSA=
ISILIV7.1.0M0 NEM,
/ ,1•91.11
r‘9!`...:4;
'•,! •
7e - 177-
.
er-.4:AY
F.:LEVAN-110N
•
Vot .1,11 _,••
:.�,,x4, 9950- 179P -90Z 1700E46 iIolbc,!QseM •annalJ 8 iseeimoN anuaAV 4180L OOS si*aaug3J silAeg e41
mo=no V
•
. •,`• "....
_9707[11,_
1.1■10- _
-td VA
.1_ 09.4 amoRa..e
`Ni L.Mi11
6,rt
(pea•-•1" ..11) -
atnc. &It
51114•¢11,164.. 40,65 17.7
41•11,0t.
•.99,1 73710C111,. - ao
111i/ Let,./e.c.,,141.1•11
/7
—
a
WEST
0 15.81.50•1-
G....GE 17, 9.7.171111•1 0yam,
00 1::ih Avenue Northeast. :ellevue. Washinc tore 9800
L
O
Ill
111
ate._ e. cr..
7.1./09 w
.�s j 7.1./09
sa+ra
e -7: a rso w/
a .'ie T ' -
/7
rya
.M
v./ m'G fi�
1
- rwrw* *
coc c4 , 1^..
u ca.,. I4M
Y
-Q'`1 A'A
• taw
c.Oee
hum olOrnbt
«c rw / •w ,7e02
C 60 .F'
1:1, 4 la all ,ZIVm?
Obei'tl �sR
Q
.' MFR.", MFR.", ..P t
-re eerr,b
a
UZMEMEZ=