Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-127-80 - ROBERT RANDALL COMPANY - REZONERANDALL REZONE 57THAVS@S 178ST EPIG127 -80 • ..... :.: ............... ............... TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: OFFICE MEMO CITY OF TU KWI LA File 80 -2 -R, 80 -3 -CPA, EP C- 127 -80 Mark Caughey M �►,�,, I i t 4 February 1980 Randall Development After telecon with Bill Derry.at Wilsey and Ham, I have learned that the project has been dropped. These files should be considered in- active for the remainder of the year. MC /mkb • - - - - : =: : ::::: . .. . • • ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (EPIC - 127 -80) - RANDALL CO /FLINK PROPERTY THRESHOLD DETERMINATION INTRODUCTION The ensuing analysis of the subject checklist is submitted in conjunction with application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning to permit construction of 184 condominium units on 12.28 acreas. In accordance with SEPA(WAC- 197 -10 -320,) staff comment on initial review of the checklist is limited to areas where additional information or amplification of responses is, deemed necessary. ANALYSIS SECTION I.11 - OTHER FACTORS'; In addition to the potential roadway re- configuration mentioned by the applicant, the subject proposal may be "affected" by a residential development of similar scale and density on the parcel adjoining the northerly boundary of the Flink property. As both development proposals entail significant increases in density levels permitted by the comprehensive plan, and as both projects are initiating growth - patterns in the southerly edge of the community, the same philosophical considerations with respect to land use density and development form will be present in both cases. Therefore, to the extent possible, public agency analysis should include both projects simultaneously to insure uniform evolzitionl'�, of development criteria and consistent application of environmental planning policy. SECTION I.1 - EARTH Policy 1 of objective 3 under the "Natural Environment" section of the comprehensive plan discourages development on slopes exceeding a 20o gradient. The policy text suggests minimizing such development because of vehicle access difficulties, and for control of run -off generated erosion. The applicant's preliminary site analysis describes areas which meet or exceed the 20o slope level. While the applicants state their intent to hold encroachment into these areas to a minimum, a seemingly- signifi- cant degree of development is proposed on these higher elevations. Prior to final determination of environment significance, therefore, the applicant should provide a preliminary grading plan to identify the extent of disturbance proposed, and to quantify the adjustment of earth balances needed to construct building pads, roadways and slope easements. SECTION I.3 - WATER QUALITY The applicants state (correctly) that domestic water supply service and sewer trunk lines are available at the site frontage to serve the development proposal. The Public Works Department has indicated, however, that the condition of these lines, and even their diameter -of- record is uncertain. They have already requested a com- prehensive utility feasiblity study for a similar rezoning proposal directly west of the subject site. The Declaration of Significance Document (EPIC- 124 -79) requires a statement of fact regarding location of, adequacy and method of connection'to water, sewer, and storm water systems. The applicants in the present case have been encouraged to participate in a joint study with the developers of the neighboring project in order to resolve redundant concerns,and to quantify the growth- inducing potential of improving utility service to this neighborhood. • • SECTION I.4 - FLORA Policy 3 of objective 1 of the "Natural Environment" section of the comprehensive plan discourages unnecessary disturbance of vegetation beyond that needed to accom- plish actual development of a property. To insure that as few trees as possible are removed, thus preserving the appearance of the valley wall woodlands, a diagram locating all trees to be removed, and identifying' their trunk diameter and specie, should be provided prior to hearing the rezone action. Tree retention priority should be given to individual large - diameter species, especially any conifers, and visually- strategic groupings of trees occurring in groves or clusters. SECTION I.5 - FAUNA It is difficult to analyze the impact of this proposal upon the indigenous and migratory wildlife of the project locale without additional information. Therefore, in order to evaluate the adequacy and arrangement of open space provided on the_. project site, the applicants should provide a statement describing : bir'._d - aid', mnal:` species which will be disturbed by construction activity; and identifying especially - timid animals which will be permanently displaced from the site due to the introduc- tion of domestic animals and human population following occupancy of the proposed project. The statement should then identify suitable alternative habitats (if any) available to receive displaced wildlife. SECTION I.7 - LIGHT AND GLARE Visibility of this project from the valley floor., especially during evening darkness, may depend to a large degree upon the extent to which existing tree cover is removed, and upon building orientation. Also, use of "urban" street lighting equipment with intensive mercury -vapor or sodium-pressure color will almost certainly be visible from lower elevations. While Policy 4 under Objective 4 of the "residential" policy section of the Comprehensive Plan encourages adequate neighborhood lighting to enhance security, this objective can be met with low - profile, low intensity lighting such as the applicants indicate that they intend to use. An exterior lighting specification aimed at providing adequate area lighting with minimal visibility beyond the project boundaries should be proposed at the design- review stage of project approvals and should be approved by the Police and Public Works_Departments, as well as by the O.C.D. SECTION I.8 - LAND USE IMPACTS $ CIRCULATION The proposed development density is approximately 17 + D.U. /acre which exceeds considerably the 0 -5 + D.U. /acre density proposed for the site and its immediate surroundings under the Comprehensive Plan. The impact of increasing anticipated holding capacity of the site is especially crucial in terms of the public sector's ability to provide diverse and adequate services, and of the adjacent street net- work to accommodate the incremental and cumulative loading of project - related traffic. In addition, the proposed density increase could have a growth - inducing impact upon this environmentally - sensitive neighborhood by establishing a basic development form and intensity. The land use implications of the project are, therefore, signi- ficant and should be reviewed on a neighborhood -wide, rather than project- specific, basis. The Public Works Department has requested a formal traffic analysis for the project. Their concerns include substantiation of trip generation and the holding capacity of the street network, alignment and site distance configurations for major access points, 57th Avenue and South 178th Street, and a general discussion of the project relative to other city traffic studies and policies. SECTION I.11 &12 - POPULATION & HOUSING The applicant's response to this item is correct in stating that the area's population will increase with occupancy of the project. The extent of that increase, however, is quite significant measured against the current city -wide population and housing stock. Referring to the January 1979 "Building, Valuation and Revenue Data" table, the 1978 population of Tukwila is 3,100 +; at a project occupancy of 1.9 person /D.U., 360 new residents will be added to the City representing nearly a 10% immediate population increase. CONCLUSION The proposed housing development discussed herein is of sufficient physical scale and trend - setting importance to warrant detailed study of its potential effects on the site specific and community -wide environment. It would be correct to conclude from this analysis that the project is anticipated to be completely negative in its influence on the City of Tukwila; on the contrary, the project is in conformance with several of the Comprehensive Plan policies which encourage quality and variety in the City's housing stock. We suggest, however, that early consideration of the topics discussed herein will insure development which is sensitive to the environmental constraints of the immediate site and its surroundings. RECOMMENDATION To complete the subject threshold determination, the applicants must supply the following supplemental information, as provided in WAC 197 -10 -330 (la): 1) Discussion of the probable trend on future land uses in the vicinity as a result of this project. 2) Discussion of the availability and location of probable access points to other lands in the vicinity as a result of this project. 3) Preparation of an estimate of traffic generation on 57th Avenue and South 178th Street as a result of: a. This project. b. Full development of the land in the vicinity based upon probable future land uses as set forth in item 2 above. c. Assessment of impact and potential mitigating measures, if necessary. 4) Preparation of a preliminary grading and earth - balance study with particular emphasis of sloped areas exceeding 20 %, to include the following: a. Areas of cutting and filling. b. Two typical cross sections as requested by the Responsible Official conceptually showing building locations, original grade, proposed grade, and finished parking and road surfaces. 5) Tree identification and removal diagram with content as described in Section I.4 of this document. • • 6) Wildlife impact inventory and analysis with content as described in Section I.5 of this report. 7) A statement of fact regarding location, adequacy, and method of connection to water, sewer, and storm water systems. (Include method of controlling additional storm water runoff. WILSEY&HAM INC. Earl P. Wilsey (1892 -1957) Central Park Building 1980 112th Ave. N.E. Bellevue, WA 98004 Telephone (206)454 -3250 January 22, 1980 File No. 3- 1945 - 0602 -39 Mark Caughey Assistant Planner Planning Division City. of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 _-. - ..'��._.L � ice✓ ().C.D. CITY OF TUKWILA JAN 2 4 1980 RE: RANDALL COMPANY REZONE Toll Free Numbers Everett 353 -8837 Tacoma 572 -9982 Dear Mr. Caughey: The following is to clarify our understanding of your analysis of the environ- mental checklist for the proposed Randall Company rezone. Our understanding is based on our meeting of January 15, 1980 where we discussed your analysis of the checklist (attached). As stated in our meeting, it is appropriate for the City to consider the two projects concurrently; however, it would be unfair to debate both applications simultaneously in one meeting since problems with one project could adversely and unfairly reflect on the other project. The following comments correspond to the numbered items of additional infor- mation requested under RECOMMENDATION in your analysis. 1. Discussion of the probable trend on future land uses in the vicinity as a result of this project. Response: We will estimate the gross potential number of units that could be developed if the City rezones the entire hillside to a density comparable to the proposed project; however, the political possibility of this happening cannot be defined. 2. Discussion of the availability and location of probable access points to other lands in the vicinity as a result of this project. Response: We will address access to adjacent properties. 3. Preparation of an estimate of traffic generation on 57th Avenue and South 178th Street as a result of: a. This project. engineering / planning / surveying / environmental analysis / landscape design . Offices located in: Bellevue Washington • Tacoma Washington • Portland, Oregon • Foster City, California . Mr. Mark Caughey Page Two January 22, 1980 b. Full development of the land in the vicinity based upon probable future land uses as set forth in Item 2 above. c. Assessment of impact and potential mitigating measures, if necessary. Response: We will address the traffic generation of the proposed Randall development and the capacity the intersection of South 178th Street and 57th Avenue South. We will further develop gross numbers of potential traffic generation assuming the City rezones the entire hillside to similar densities. Assessments beyond this information are the responsibility of the City and cannot be conducted by an individual developer. 4. Preparation of a preliminary grading and earth - balance study with particular emphasis of sloped areas exceeding 20 percent, to include the following: a. Areas of cutting and filling. b. Two typical cross- sections as requested by the Responsible Official conceptually showing building locations, original grade, proposed grade, and finished parking and road surfaces. Response: Two cross- sections, a plan view illustrating cuts and fills and a rough estimate of the quantity of earth to be moved will be provided as discussed. A grading plan at this time is not feasible since the project may undergo minor design revisions during processing of the permits. 5. Tree identification and removal diagram with content as described in Section I.4 of this document. Response: As we discussed, the plan view of areas disturbed by cut and fill will indicate areas of trees to be lost. Further, we will walk the site with you to discuss significance of individ- ual trees; however, it is not feasible at this time to survey individual trees. 6. Wildlife impact inventory and analysis with content as described in Section L5 of this report. Response:. We will provide a discussion of the significance of the wild - life habitat found on the site, the potential for any rare or endangered species to be found:and the general extent of impact to wildlife. An inventory and description of species found on the site would be lengthy and would not be helpful to decision makers. 7: A statement of fact regarding location, adequacy, and method of connec- tion to water, sewer, and storm water systems. (Include method of control - ling additional storm water runoff. Mr. Mark Caughey Page Three January 22, 1980 Response: We will determine the adequacy of utility systems to handle the proposed project in cooperation with the Public Works Department. Please call if you have any questions or concerns about these items. Sincerely, WILSEY & HAM, INC. AZIso William E. Derry Associate Environmental Planner WED / 1 j r cc: Paul Yang ity of Tu "Yi pia Planning Division 6200Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 433 -1845 0 ice of CO ... munity a! evelopment 16 January 1980 Wilsey and Ham, Inc. Central Park Building 1980 112th Ave. NE Bellevue, WA. 98004 Attn: Bill Derry, Environmental Planner Re: W $ H File 3- 1945 -0602 - Randall Co. Rezone Tukwila File- EPIC - 127 -80 In response to the environmental checklist submitted by your office in support of the Randall Company's applications for rezoning and comprehensive plan amendment for the "Flink" property, we enclose a copy of our threshold determination findings. Please supply the additional information requested under the "recommendation" section of the document .•Final determination of the environmental significance of the proposed project cannot be made without the material requested. Thanks for your. cooperation. Mark Caughey Assistant Planner MC /mkb Enclosure cc: Paul Yang • CITY OF TUKWILA • ENV I RONMENTAL 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. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent: Ray Flink 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: c/o Robert Randall Company Kristin Square, 9500 S.W. Barber Boulevard, Suite 300, Portland, Oregon 97219 3. Date Checklist Submitted: November 7, 1979 (503) 245 -1131 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: Planning Department 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: None 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): (See attached text) 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): (See attached text 8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal: 1981 9. List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the Proposal (federal, state and local): (a) Rezone, conditional use, shoreline permit, etc. (b) King County Hydraulics Permit (c) Building permit .YES X NO YES NO X YES X NO • (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 - .:r= -(i) Curb cut permit (j). Electrical permit (State of Washington) (k) Plumbing permit (King County) (1) Other: YES NO X YES X NO YES NO X YES X NO YES X NO-- YES X NO YES X NO YES X NO 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: Potential relocation of South 178th Street by City of Tukwila. 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: Comprehensive Plan Amendment request form attached. 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? (d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? -2- YES MAYBE NO X X X Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? 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 Explanation: (See attached), 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: (a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? (b) The creation of objectionable odors? (c) Alteration of air .movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? Explanation: There would be insignificant increases in pollutant emissions on the site due to increased traffic. . 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 ?. (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) (g) 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 (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? 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: ..There may be a reduction in the number of . forest understory species due to clearing required for grading, buildings and utilities.. 5. Fauna. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of fauna (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna? (c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? (d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Explanation: (See attached) X X X 6. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? Explanation: Noise levels on the site and along adjacent properties will be increased slightly during construction (temporary.) and from increased traffic upon completion of the project. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? Explanation: New sources of light will result from interior lights in windows and low level, low intensity exterior safety lighting. YES MAYBE NO X 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the altera- tion of the present or planned land use of an area? Explanation: The land use of the site will be changed from predominant y undeveloped to residential use. There is one ingle- family home on the site at presen . 110 2440uJ 0 01A NI 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: Typical amounts of building materials will be used in construction and maintenance of the development. This would not result in a significant increase in the rate of use since comparable development can be expected at alter- native sites if the present proposal is denied. 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: • 11.. Population. Will . the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? YES. MAYBE ' NO X Explanation:. The proposal would provide approximately 184 multi- family housing units. .Using Census Tract counts for the area (1.97 persons per unit in Census Tract 262) an in- crease of 362 may be projected in the local population. 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: (See attached) 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 X X • (f) Other governmental services? Explanation: (See attached) 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: (See attached) YES MAYBE NO _ X 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: (See attached) 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in the crea- tion of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? Explanation: X X • • 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruc -. .tinn 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 MAYB NO r> 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. *4 /2 /777 9 Signature and Title ate William E. Derry Associate Environmental Planner Wilsey & Ham, Inc. X • • I. BACKGROUND 6. The proposed action consists of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone of 12.28 acres located as shown on the accompanying map. The property is presently owned by Ray Flink 4nd is being purchased by the Robert Randall Company, the proposed developer. The proposal would change the Comprehensive Plan designation for the . site from the existing Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. The zoning would be changed from the existing R -A (Residential - Agricultural, to R-4, Low Apartments) - PUD (Planned Unit Development). The change is proposed to allow construction of approximately 184 units of condominium housing in two and three story buildings as shown on the attached plan. The site plan will be revised to show refinements in topography and engineering as they become available. 7. The site is located in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 24, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian on the southwest quadrant of the intersection of 57th Avenue South and South 180th Street. The site is an alder forested hillside bordered on the north and south by several single- family homes on large lots. The undeveloped, forested hillside continues for several hundred feet to the west; while east of the site, there is industrial development on the valley floor. Impacts would be limited essentially to the site, the two single- family homes adjacent to the east portion of the site, 57th Avenue. South and the intersection with South 180th Street.. II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. Earth b. and c. Grading, excavating and compaction of soil will be re- required along proposed roadways and for building foundations. The development has been planned to fit the existing contours with a minimum of earthwork. e. There would be a temporary increase in erosion potential on the site during construction. This would be controlled by standard construction techniques and landscaping upon completion of con- struction. 3. Water b. and e. There would be an increase in surface water runoff as a result of increased impermeable surfaces on the site. Runoff would be detained temporarily in surface ponds and released slowly so that the rate of storm runoff would not increase. The ponds would be :shaded and the storm sewer system would incorporate silt traps and oil /water separators to improve runoff quality. Slight increases in heavy metals and nutrients may result from the increased motor vehicle usage and landscaping on the site. • 5: • Fauna • • a. and d. The site presently provides typical second - growth, alder forest habitat, and a small area of open field habitat. About half of the forest habitat and most of the open field habitat would be eliminated. This would eliminate many individual animals but probably would not significantly re- duce the number of species found on the site. 13. Transportation /Circulation a. ITE estimates of trip generation for multi - family housing indicate that from six to eight trip ends per day, per unit may be expected. This would result in from 1,104 to 1,472 trip ends per day from the proposed development. b. Parking requirements for the project are established by the zoning code. The traffic from the development would utilize the existing local street system. Peak hour traffic generation would generally coincide with existing peak hour volumes. The P.M. peak hour would be expected to be approximately 10 percent of the daily total. or 110 to 150 vehicles. This would constitute approximately an 8 percent to 10 percent increase in the present total P.M. peak hour traffic volume at the intersection of South 180th Street and 57th Avenue South assuming all traffic from the development would travel through this intersection. 14. Public Services The increase in population of approximately 362 people will result in corresponding increases in demand for public services such as fire, police, street maintenance and parks. The increased property taxes will help pay for these services. 15. Energy b. Construction equipment will consume electricity and fossil fuel in typical amounts for this type of construction. Long -term energy requirements for operation of the development will be comparable to development at other sites within the City. 16. Utilities All required utilities are available at the property boundary with the exception of sanitary sewer which will be extended from the intersection of 57th Avenue South and South 180th Street (approximate- ly 200 feet). Service hookups to existing systems will be necessary. 1'I 111. FYI z cn 1� y WA I.nATNI N \ -".„.1 �. �- vox Gtorele. (VW) Summary of Areas: \ \\ elite .5.13Y1V10-4• /srd/fa - /. 97A- e•Ce9letve/MSs.)- /a 3./Ac. - 4s7.nf a.r LOTGOVatr••+ 07005.4, - /Z.•JZ. 2 ante a/A><a••wb •414 4Li% 3 5».e 00/..P0/6.0 227.6.!» • *Asa f710-K/Ao eu..fr.PJ zwievedre,/,aftw "OVA Schedule of units: 44 -i 542/45.4" 77c. •2s% - / a.. a ®fa 5/. • O/ 7. 42 - 377,0•y ,^. 406 s• • u BY 55 777wc. OG/Y•!/7r• /74 a✓ /Acme .410•1.G• M 0201., /Z4 s. :4•45•46.6,1, •Z0.9 ?e • 5D. T. r = .. kr 1 ` -- .- ii 74 IIII ' 611.6 1 m L .. �■ DEVELOPMENT PLAN The Robert Randall Compa Tukwila on W' H N ez.k_HANLnA' Y]GpYEItiN: • Pt• "1X3 • V n'F.61V: • i_svI■ h4Y:TAI. sy..H.Y.V'1 • s11L..14•I1sL••0 5rr...mry.wle RYMs� ?a 1!t1y SITE The ANALYSIS Rarxiall Company L Tukwila Wasington 1\ 1.1'. 11 I:I'•.1 . • 1.1. \`.'.1 \I. • \1 in 111 \I. • 1 \ IRI I \ \II \ 1 \I \`. \11 \1\ • 1�?1 \IruuJ:r lt,IUl. �.u11 120o, i75.142..