Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA E98-0006 - SABEY CORPORATION - PACIFIC VIEW OFFICE PARK BUILDINGPACIFIC VIEW OFFICE PARK DEVELOP NEW OFFICE PARK 12421 PACIFIC HWY SO. E98-0006 CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENT BOND STATE OF WASHINGTON) BOND NO. 81SB103317617BCM : ss. COUNTY OF KING ) INTERGATE EAST II LLC BY We, SAB EY CORPORATION, MANAGEpas principal, and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Connecticut, and duly authorized to transact business in the State of Washington, as surety, are held and firmly bound unto City of Tukwila , State of Washington, in the amount of Forty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty and No/100 For the payment of which sum we bind ourselves, and each of our executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally. Now, therefore, the conditions of these obligations are such that the principal will perform wetlands mitigation work and three years of monitoring to follow completion. Work To be completed within one year from the date of bond approval or as later amended and evidenced by a letter of acceptance, then obligation shall be void; otherwise to remain in full force and effect. Upon the failure to the principal to perform the terms of this bond, the Surety shall either perform the terms of the bond itself or shall, upon written demand by the Manager of the City of Tukwila, remit to the City of Tukwila the amount of the bond or such lessor amount as may be specified in the demand. The amount demanded by the manager or his/her designee will be a good faith estimate of the actual cost of repairs. We further agree that if it is necessary for the City of Tukwila to take any legal action against any signatory to this agreement to assure the proper completion of this project, the City of Tukwila will be entitled to its reasonable costs and attorney's fees. Signed this 10th day of July , 2000. INTERGATE EAST II LLC BY SABEY CORPORATION, MANAGER Principal 12201 Tukwila Internat'l Blvd. 4th Fl. Address Seattle, WA 98168-5121 City, State, Zip 206-281-8700 Phone ature mes N. Harmon, CFO Name and Title Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of Surety 2233 112th Avenue NE America Address Bellevue, WA 98004 City, State, Zip 425-709-3600 Phorid „ 61 1/1 - 17)7) 1 Signature Deanna M. Meyer, Attorney -in -Fact Name and Title TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY FARMINGTON CASUALTY COMPANY Hartford, Connecticut 06183-9062 TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF ILLINOIS Naperville, Illinois 60563-8458 POWER OF ATTORNEY AND CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY OF ATTORNEY(S)-IN-FACT KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, THAT TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA, TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY and FARMINGTON CASUALTY COMPANY, corporations duly organized under the laws of the State of Connecticut, and having their principal offices in the City of Hartford, County of Hartford, State of Connecticut, and TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Illinois, and having its principal office in the City of Naperville, County of DuPage, State of Illinois, (hereinafter the "Companies") hath made, constituted and appointed, and do by these presents make, constitute and appoint: Tim Church, Carl Newman, Peter H. Hammett, Susan B. Larson, Pamela Nelson, Deanna M. Meyer, Charles A. Szopa, Shauna L. Munro, Barbara R. Johnson, Karen P. Dever or Jeffrey W. Parkhurst * * of Bellevue, WA/Anchorage, AK, their true and lawful Attorney(s)-in-Fact, with full power and authority hereby conferred to sign, execute and acknowledge, at any place within the United States, or, if the following line be filled in, within the area there designated following instrument(s): by his/her sole signature and act, any and all bonds, recognizances, contracts of indemnity, and other writings obligatory in the nature of a bond, recognizance, or conditional undertaking and any and all consents incident thereto and to bind the Companies, thereby as fully and to the same extent as if the same were signed by the duly authorized officers of the Companies, and all the acts of said Attorney(s)-in-Fact, pursuant to the authority herein given, are hereby ratified and confirmed. This appointment is made under and by authority of the following Standing Resolutions of said Companies, which Resolutions are now in full force and effect: VOTED: That the Chairman, the President, any Vice Chairman, any Executive Vice President, any Senior Vice President, any Vice President, any Second Vice President, the Treasurer, any Assistant Treasurer, the Corporate Secretary or any Assistant Secretary may appoint Attorneys -in -Fact and Agents to act for and on behalf of the company and may give such appointee such authority as his or her certificate of authority may prescribe to sign with the Company's name and seal with the Company's seal bonds, recognizances, contracts of indemnity, and other writings obligatory in the nature of a bond, recognizance, or conditional undertaking, and any of said officers or the Board of Directors at any time may remove any such appointee and revoke the power given him or her. VOTED: That the Chairman, the President, any Vice Chairman, any Executive Vice President, any Senior Vice President or any Vice President may delegate all or any part of the foregoing authority to one or more officers or employees of this Company, provided that each such delegation is in writing and a copy thereof is filed in the office of the Secretary. VOTED: That any bond, recognizance, contract of indemnity, or writing obligatory in the nature of a bond, recognizance, or conditional undertaking shall be valid and binding upon the Company when (a) signed by the President, any Vice Chairman, any Executive Vice President, any Senior Vice President or any Vice President, any Second Vice President, the Treasurer, any Assistant Treasurer, the Corporate Secretary or any Assistant Secretary and duly attested and sealed with the Company's seal by a Secretary or Assistant Secretary, or (b) duly executed (under seal, if required) by one or more Attorneys -in -Fact and Agents pursuant to the power prescribed in his or her certificate or their certificates of authority or by one or more Company officers pursuant to a written delegation of authority. This Power of Attorney and Certificate of Authority is signed and sealed by facsimile under and by authority of the following Standing Resolution voted by the Boards of Directors of TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA, TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, FARMINGTON CASUALTY COMPANY and TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, which Resolution is now in full force and effect: VOTED: That the signature of each of the following officers: President, any Executive Vice President, any Senior Vice President, any Vice President, any Assistant Vice President, any Secretary, any Assistant Secretary, and the seal of the Company may be affixed by facsimile to any power of attorney or to any certificate relating thereto appointing Resident Vice Presidents, Resident Assistant Secretaries or Attorneys -in -Fact for purposes only of executing and attesting bonds and undertakings and other writings obligatory in the nature thereof, and any such power of attorney or certificate bearing such facsimile signature or facsimile seal shall be valid and binding upon the Company and any such power so executed and certified by such facsimile signature and facsimile seal shall be valid and binding upon the Company in the future with respect to any bond or undertaking to which it is attached. (8-97) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA, TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, FARMINGTON CASUALTY COMPANY and TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF ILLINOIS have caused this instrument to be signed by their Senior Vice President, and their corporate seals to be hereto affixed this 14th day of December, 1999. STATE OF CONNECTICUT )SS. Hartford COUNTY OF HARTFORD TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY FARMINGTON CASUALTY COMPANY TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF ILLINOIS By _ George W. Thompson Senior Vice President On this 14th day of December, 1999 before me personally came GEORGE W. THOMPSON to me known, who, being by me duly sworn, did depose and say: that he/she is Senior Vice President of TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA, TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, FARMINGTON CASUALTY COMPANY and TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, the corporations described in and which executed the above instrument; that he/she knows the seals of said corporations; that the seals affixed to the said instrument are such corporate seals; and that he/she executed the said instrument on behalf of the corporations by authority of his/her office under the Standing Resolutions thereof. 'ff\aAL.L C ttrAstauldi" My commission expires June 30, 2001 Notary Public Marie C. Tetreault CERTIFICATE I, the undersigned, Assistant Secretary of TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA, TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY and FARMINGTON CASUALTY COMPANY, stock corporations of the State of Connecticut, and TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, stock corporation of the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing and attached Power of Attorney and Certificate of Authority remains in full force and has not been revoked; and furthermore, that the Standing Resolutions of the Boards of Directors, as set forth in the Certificate of Authority, are now in force. Signed and Sealed at the Home Office of the Company, in the City of Hartford, State of Connecticut. Dated this 10TH day of JULY , 2000. B Kori M. Johanson Assistant Secretary, Bond • City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director November 29, 1999 Mr. Haynes Lund, AIA Sabey Corporation 101 Elliott Avenue W., Suite 330 Seattle, WA 98119-4220 RE: Pacific View Office Park ("Gateway") #E98-0006 & MI#98-0109: Watercourse Mitigation Dear Haynes: It was decided that I should write directly to you regarding the above project action. The contents of my 11/16/99 Memo to Nora Gierloff are included in this letter. The following are my comments regarding the sensitive area mitigation required for this project. The Watercourse Mitigation Plan (B -Twelve Associates, date-stamped 7/27/98) was approved in July, 1998 to be installed prior to 11/30/98. Due to construction sequencing, the mitigation was postponed from last year to this year. The mitigation consists of a "natural" pond feature to replace marginal, on- site watercourse areas that were piped. The same water that flowed through the site as a watercourse will support the new pond. A site visit in early November found the mitigation pond constructed in place. However, it does not appear to be complete. Per a letter from the Sabey Corporation to Steve Lancaster (Haynes Lund, 7/21/98- attached), several items were to occur related to the mitigation and are listed below. 1) The Hydraulics Project Approval (HPA) permit has expired but at this point may not need to be obtained from Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. Please confirm this with Phil Schneider, Area Habitat Biologist. 2) A high flow by-pass pipe was to be installed to carry the watercourse flows until the new pond was stable enough to receive this water. What is the status of this pipe as it was not evident during the site visit? 3) B -Twelve Associates were to be contracted to oversee the construction of the habitat pond and the plantings. Please provide this documentation by submitting a report from the contracted wetland biologist to address completion of the pond per the approved mitigation plan. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 Mr. Haynes Lund November 29, 1999 Page 2 4) It appears that the watercourse mitigation performance security has not been submitted to the City. The total amount of this security to cover the installation and success of the mitigation is $9,120.00. This amount will also serve to cover the three-year monitoring and maintenance period. Please submit this performance with the watercourse mitigation inspection report as referenced above in Item 3). Please take note that Item 4) "mitigation performance" needs to be submitted prior to Occupancy of Building C. Your immediate response to the listed items is appreciated. Please feel free to call me at 206/431/3662 if you want to discuss the contents of this letter. Sincerely, AO(G C. Gary Schulz Urban Environmentalist Cc: Nora Gierloff, Associate Planner Steve Lancaster, DCD Director Jack Pace, Planning Manager Brenda Holt, Permit Coordinator • City of Tukwila [a John W Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MEMORANDUM TO: Nora Gierloff, Associate Planner FROM: Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist DATE: November 16, 1999 RE: Pacific View Office Park ("Gateway") #E98-0006 & MI#98-0109. Watercourse Mitigation The following are my comments regarding the sensitive area mitigation required for this project. The Watercourse Mitigation Plan (B -Twelve Associates, date-stamped 7/27/98) was approved in July, 1998 to be installed prior to 11/30/98. Due to construction sequencing, the mitigation was postponed from last year to this year. The mitigation consists of a "natural" pond feature to replace marginal, on-site watercourse areas that were piped. The same water that flowed through the site as a watercourse will support the new pond. A recent site visit found the mitigation pond constructed. However, it does not appear to be complete. Per a letter from the Sabey Corporation to Steve Lancaster (Haynes Lund, 7/21/98), several items were to occur related to the mitigation and are listed below. 1) The Hydraulics Project Approval (HPA) permit has expired but at this point may not need to be obtained from Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. Please confirm this with Phil Schneider, Area Habitat Biologist. 2) A high flow by-pass pipe was to be installed to carry the watercourse flows until the new pond was stable enough to receive this water. What is the status of this pipe as it was not evident during the site visit? 3) B -Twelve Associates were to be contracted to oversee the construction of the habitat pond and the plantings. Please provide this documentation by submitting a report from the contracted wetland biologist to address completion of the pond per the approved mitigation plan. 4) It appears that the watercourse mitigation performance security has not been submitted to the City. The total amount of this security to cover the installation and success of the mitigation is $9,120.00. This amount will also serve to cover the three-year monitoring and 6300 Southcenter Boulevar4 Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 • • Pacific View Mitigation Memo November 16, 1999 Page 2 maintenance period. Please submit this performance with the watercourse mitigation inspection report as referenced above in item 3). Please let me know if you want to discuss the contents of this project memo. Cc: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director Jack Pace, Planning Manager Ed Sewell, B -Twelve Associates TO: FROM: Ros/i-'st DATE: October 1, 1998 SUBJECT: Determination of Traffic Concurrency • City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Public Works Ross A. Eamst, P. E., Director INTEROFFICE MEMO Steve Lancaster The Department of Public Works has determined that the development of Pacific View Office Park Building "A" under case file number D98-0214 meets the requirements of Chapter 9.78 TMC, Traffic Concurrency Standards. This determination is based upon the following: 1. A determination that improvements to the SR 99 to SR 599 southbound on ramp will be needed to adequately accommodate traffic generated by Pacific View Office Park. 2. This capital improvement is included in the City's adopted six-year capital improvement program and adequate funding is assured. 3. A Developer's Agreement specifying any additional funding for this improvement will be developed and executed prior to additional development approvals for Pacific View Office Park. cf: John McFarland Kelcie Peterson r-_ . fnnA) .1-1/ TAAC DepaNaiad 4 FISH aril WILDLIFE HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL R.W. 75.20.100 75.20.108 RECEIVED PATE OF ISSUE: July 27. 1998 J U L 31 1998 LOG NUMBER: 00-D5058-01 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT E48 - coo State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Region 4 Office 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, Washington 98012 PERMITTEE Sabey Corporation ATTENTION: Haynes Lund 101 Elliot Avenue West, Suite 330 Seattle, Washington 98119-4220 (206)281-8700 Fax: (206)281-0920 AUTHORIZED AGENT OR CONTRACTOR Not Applicable PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install Culvert and Construct Pond PROJECT LOCATION: 12421 Pacific Highway South in Tukwila tl WRIA WATER BODY 1 09.misc Unnamed TRIBUTARY TO 1/4 SEC. EU, TOWNSHIP MANGE COUNTY Green River (Riverton Creek) 09 23 North 04 East King NOTE: This culvert and pond installation is at a location where there are no fish and downstream water quality is a concern. The pond is mitigation for tight lining portions of this stream. PROVISIONS 1. TIMING LIMITATIONS: The project may begin Immediately and shall be completed by November 1, 1998. 2. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT: The permittee or contractor shall notify the Area Habitat Biologist (AHB) listed below, by FAX (425)391-6583, of the project start date. Notification shall be received by the AHB at least three working days prior to the start of construction activities. The notification shall include the permittee's name, project location, starting date for work, and the control number for this Hydrauli Project Approval. 3. Work shall be accomplished per plans and specifications entitled, "Pacific View Office Park", dated July 2, 1998, and "Pacific View Mitigation Plan City of Tukwila , Washington", dated July 20, 1998, and submitted to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, except as modified by this Hydraulic Project Approval. These plans reflect design criteria per Chapter 220-110 WAC. These plans reflect mitigation procedures to significantly reduce or eliminate impacts to fish resources. A copy of these plans shall be available on site during construction. 4. A temporary bypass culvert or the permanent culvert shall bypass the pond construction site until the excavation of the pond is completed. 5. A sandbag revetment or similar device shall be installed at the bypass inlet to divert the entire flow through the bypass. 6. A sandbag revetment or similar device shall be installed at the downstream end of the bypass to prevent backwater from entering the work area. 7. The bypass shall be of sufficient size to pass all flows and debris for the duration of the project. Page 1 of 3 Amami 4 WILDLIFE FISHad HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL R.W. 75.20.100 or R.W. 75.20.108 DATE OF ISSUE: July 27. 1998 State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Region 4 Office 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, Washington 98012 LOG NUMBER: 00-D5058-01 8. Prior to releasing the water flow to the project area, all bank protection or armoring shall be completed. 9. Fill associated with the culvert installation shall be protected from erosion to the 100 -year peak flow. 10. The culvert shall be installed and maintained to avoid inlet scouring and to prevent erosion of stream banks downstream of the project. 11. Erosion control methods shall be used to prevent silt -laden water from entering the stream. These may include, but are not limited to, straw bales, filter fabric, temporary sediment ponds, check dams of pea gravel -filled burlap bags or other material, and/or immediate mulching of exposed areas. 12. All waste material such as construction debris, silt, excess dirt or overburden resulting from this project shall be deposited above the limits of flood water in an approved upland disposal site. 13. If high flow conditions that may cause siltation are encountered during this project, work shall stop until the flow subsides. 14. Extreme care shall be taken to ensure that no petroleum products, hydraulic fluid, fresh cement, sediments, sediment - laden water, chemicals, or any other toxic or deleterious materials are allowed to enter or leach into the stream. SEPA: DNS by City of Tukwila final on June 10, 1998. APPLICATION ACCEPTED: July 6, 1998 Philip Schneider (425) 391-4365 Area Habitat Biologist ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: Peck 024 [P3] GENERAL PROVISIONS This Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) pertains only to the provisions of the Fisheries Code (RCW 75.20). Additional authorization from other public agencies may be necessary for this project. This HPA shall be available on the job site at all times and all its provisions followed by the permittee and operator(s) performing the work. This HPA does not authorize trespass. The person(s) to whom this HPA is issued may be held liable for any loss or damage to fish life or fish habitat which results from failure to comply with the provisions of this HPA. Failure to comply with the provisions of this Hydraulic Project Approval could result in a civil penalty of up to one hundred dollars per day or a gross misdemeanor charge, possibly punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. Page 2 of 3 HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL R.W. 75.20.100 or R.W. 75.20.108 State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Region 4 Office 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, Washington 98012 PATE OF ISSUE: July 27. 1998 JOG NUMBER; 00-D5058-01 All HPAs issued pursuant to RCW 75.20.100 or 75.20.160 are subject to additional restrictions, conditions or revocation if the Department of Fish and Wildlife determines that new biological or physical information indicates the need for such action. The permittee has the right pursuant to Chapter 34.04 RCW to appeal such decisions. All HPAs issued pursuant to RCW 75.20.103 may be modified by the Department of Fish and Wildlife due to changed conditions after consultation with the permittee: PROVIDED HOWEVER, that such modifications shall be subject to appeal to the Hydraulic Appeals Board established in RCW 75.20.130. ,APPEALS - GENERAL INFORMATION IF YOU WISH TO APPEAL A DENIAL OF OR CONDITIONS PROVIDED IN A HYDRAULIC PR.OJECT APPROVAL, THERE ARE INFORMAL AND FORMAL APPEAL PROCESSES AVAILABLE. A. INFORMAL APPEALS (WAC 220-110-340) OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.100, 75.20.103, 75.20.106, AND 75.20.160: A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the following Department actions may request an informal review of: (A) The denial or issuance of a HPA, or the conditions or provisions made part of a HPA; or (B) An order imposing civil penalties. It is recommended that an aggrieved party contact the Area Habitat Biologist and discuss the concerns. Most problems are resolved at this level, but if not, you may elevate your concerns to his/her supervisor. A request for an INFORMAL REVIEW shall be in WRITING to the Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way North. Olympia, Washington 98501-1091 and shall be RECEIVED by the Department within 30 -days of the denial or issuance of a HPA or receipt of an order imposing civil penalties. The 30 -day time requirement may be stayed by the Department if negotiations are occurring between the aggrieved party and the Area Habitat Biologist and/or his/her supervisor. The Habitat Protection Services Division Manager or his/her designee shall conduct a review and recommend a decision to the Director or its designee. If you are not satisfied with the results of this informal appeal, a formal appeal may be filed. B. FORMAL APPEALS (WAC 220-110-350) OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.100 OR 75.20.106: A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the following Department actions may request an formal review of: (A) The denial or issuance of a HPA, or the conditions or provisions made part of a HPA; (B) An order imposing civil penalties; or (C) Any other "agency action" for which an adjudicative proceeding is required under the Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 34.05 RCW. A request for a FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to the Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington 98501-1091, shall be plainly labeled as "REQUEST FOR FORMAL APPEAL" and shall be RECEIVED DURING OFFICE HOURS by the Department within 30 -days of the Department action that is being challenged. The time period for requesting a formal appeal is suspended during consideration of a timely informal appeal. If there has been an informal appeal, the deadline for requesting a formal appeal shall be within 30 -days of the date of the Department's written decision in response to the inforlrial appeal. C. FORMAL APPEALS OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.103 or 75.20.160: A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the denial or issuance of a HPA, or the conditions or provisions made part of a HPA may request a formal appeal. The request for FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to the Hydraulic Appeals Board per WAC 259-04 at Environmental Hearings Office, 4224 Sixth Avenue SE, Building Two - Rowe Six, Lacey, Washington 98504; telephone 360/459-6327. D. FAILURE TO APPEAL WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME PERIODS RESULTS IN FORFEITURE OF ALL APPEAL RIGHTS. IF THERE IS NO TIMELY REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL, THE DEPARTMENT ACTION SHALL BE FINAL AND UNAPPEALABLE. Page 3 of 3 AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION z, CMZ ynA-Py LJ Notice of Public Hearing ❑ Notice of Public Meeting LJ Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet fl Board of Appeals Agenda Packet flPlanning Commission Agenda Packet LI Short Subdivision Agenda Packet O Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit hereby declare that: fDetermination of Non- significance Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance fl Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action Official Notice Other Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on 69-H- 90 S2 S_ /9-77/ -citz Name of Project P.11' VIEoarTies file('Signature ect4.0/ 1114erraii File Number r9g" oto CITY OF TUKWILA DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: CONSTRUCTION OF 3 OFFICE/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ON THE VALLEY TRUCKING SITE. A HILLSIDE ON THE W SIDE OF HY 99 S OF SR 599 PROPONENT: SABEY CORPORATION- LOCATION OF PROPOSAL INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS. --IF ANY: ADDRESS: 124,21 PACIFIC, HY ;SL PARCEL NO:., -092304-9031 SEC/TWN/RNG: LEAD AGENCY:s CITY OF .TUKWIL,A FILE NO: E93`--0006 The City/ha's determined that 'the proposal does not have , a=-prob6b l e significant adverseimpact on theenvironment. An environmental, impact statement (EI'S) is not required -under RCW 43.21c.030(2) tic). This decision was made after -review eview of ua completed environmental' checklist and other i nfror mat i on on file ,wi ththe lead agency. This intormation is. available to the public,on request. ********4^k********:*********'**'***'******.******"**_*.**********,******'**.'*'**** k* k** This DNS is" issued under, 197-11-340(2) :•\, comments must ,be submitted by "ScJnq� • , , The lead -avencv_will not .act on this proposal for 3' days from the date below !1/ Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Date City of Tukwila, (206) 431-3680 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA' 98188 Copies of the procedures for SEPAappeals are available with the Department of Community Development. • . MEMORANDUM TO: Jack Pace, Planning Manager FROM: Nora Gierloff, Associate Planner RE: SEPA - Pacific View Office Park DATE: June 10, 1998 Project File No. E98-0006 Project Description: The project consists of construction of three office buildings containing a total of 240,000 square feet of office space on a sloping site on the west side of Pacific Highway at approximately South 124th Street. Two of the buildings would have two levels of structured parking beneath four levels of office. The southernmost building would have three stories of office stepped into the hillside. Agencies With Jurisdiction: Washington State Department of Ecology Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington State Department of Transportation Comments to SEPA Checklist: None. Summary of Primary Impacts: 1. Earth - The site has a combination of flat benches running north -south along the site with steep slopes up to 66% between them. A large landslide affected the northern end of the site in 1988 and was stabilized with a concrete rubble buttress. This portion of the site will contain parking and the loop road but no buildings. Smaller areas of slope movement are indicated along the steep western edge of the site. Parking will be located between the toe of the slope and the buildings to provide a buffer, and retaining walls along the benches will be used to stabilize and contain the soils. At the southern portion of the site the grade is similar to Pacific Highway, but the grade difference increases to the north resulting in a steep slope on the east edge of the property along the undeveloped WSDOT right-of-way. A major portion of the site will be regraded to enlarge benches for buildings and parking areas. The cut will amount to approximately 30,000 cubic yards, of which about 20,000 cubic yards will be • • disposed of off-site. The new grading will require an additional 22,000 cubic yards of imported structural fill materials. The geotechnical report by Geotech Consultants states the conditions under which the earthwork can be done without a loss of stability on the slopes. The City will require that an engineer from Geotech Consultants monitor construction activity to ensure that the recommendations in the geotech report are followed. An erosion control plan must be submitted with the land altering permit and approved by the Public Works Department. Site access during construction will be limited to one entrance, the work will be sequenced to limit the opportunity for erosion, all exposed soil will be covered if left unworked for more than seven days in summer, and a siltation fence will be installed to minimize the downstream impacts of erosion during construction. 2. Air - There will be exhaust emissions from construction equipment and trucks carrying the building debris, fill soil and construction materials during the project. The project's air emissions when complete will consist of automotive traffic to and from the site. A traffic report was submitted as part of the environmental review. 3. Water - A Class 3 watercourse is located across the south west comer of the lot and is proposed to be piped to a water feature, then piped again to a created pond before draining to an existing outfall. This will have to meet the criteria and standards in Tukwila's Sensitive Areas Overlay. On-site runoff will be routed through a detention vault and then discharge into a bioswale for treatment before draining to the outfall. Oil/water separators will be added to the storm drainage system as required by Tukwila's Storm and Surface Water -Ordinance. No hazardous wastes are expected to be released during or after construction. 4. Plants - The trees along the western slope will be kept and the site will maintain at least 20 percent canopy cover per Tukwila's Tree Ordinance. New landscaping will be installed according to the Board of Architectural Review's approved landscape plan. 5. Animals - The site does not contain significant animal habitat. There are no endangered species on site, though the site is approximately one quarter mile from the Duwamish River. The region's Chinook salmon are proposed to be listed as a threatened species.. 6. Energy and Natural Resources - The project will require energy for construction equipment, vehicles coming to the site and building operation after completion. The project will be required to meet current energy codes. 7. Environmental Health - Phase I and II environmental site assessment reports submitted with the checklist list potential soil and groundwater contamination and confirm the presence of petroleum, heavy metals, solvents, benzene and small amounts of asbestos. The project will involve remediation of contaminants on the site by excavation and removal. The remediation plan and cleanup will be regulated by Ecology under the Model Toxics Control Act. Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency regulations require that all asbestos containing materials be removed from buildings prior to demolition. Tukwila will require PSAPCA approval prior to issuance of a demolition permit. Construction equipment operation will need to comply with Tukwila's noise ordinance. 8. Land and Shoreline Use - The proposed project will not affect the shoreline. 9. Housing - The proposal will not result in a change to the housing supply. 10. Aesthetics - The project is subject to the design review process including a hearing before the Board of Architectural Review. The building permit drawings must agree with the BAR approved design. 11. Light and Glare - Additional site lighting will be provided by new light standards, but offsite lighting will be modest. The project will be required to limit off-site lighting to 2 foot-candles. 12. Recreation - The proposal will not affect recreational facilities. 13. Historical and Cultural Preservation - The site is not known to have any historical or cultural significance. 14. Transportation - This project is subject to the City's Transportation Concurrency Ordinance. Compliance with this ordinance will ensure that there will not be significant adverse transportation impacts associated with this project. The site will continue to be served by public transit at the existing bus stop. 15. Public Services - The project will cause a modest increase in demand on public services such as fire, police and emergency medical from the current level due to the more intensive use of the site. 16. Utilities - The project will increase the use of utilities on site. Proportional fair share/no protest LID agreements between the property owner and the City and Water Districts to participate in providing a fair share of the utility infrastructure construction costs shall be signed prior to issuance of a building permit. Recommended Threshold Determination: Determination of non -significance. SITE PLAN for PACIFIC VIEW OFFICE PARK • To: Nora Gierloff, Associate Planner From: Gary Barnett, Senior Engineer, Public Works Dept. Date: June 2, 1998 • re: Items for Inclusion into SEPA checklist for Pacific View Office Park I have reviewed the revised SEPA checklist for this project. I concur with the recommendations found in Gary Shultz' May 28, 1998 memo and request the checklist be amended by the applicant to include the suggested and requested information to clarify the project scope, impact and description. Similarly, I request the same for the following areas: WATER 1. Applicant should state that existing hydrologic patterns to each of the three outfall culverts will be maintained to match the predevelopment conditions. 2. Engineering studies by Nelson-Bourdages should be appended or included by reference. TRANSPORTATION The applicant should include statements to the effect: 1. A Transportation Impact Analysis by Entranco Engineers has been completed. The study may be amended based upon City review of the project. Specific traffic mitigation conditions will be established at the time of building permit issuance using the City's traffic concurrency ordinance as the basis for those conditions and determinations. 2. Left turns out of the site are projected to operate at a low level of service. The site has been graded and designed to allow consideration to construct a third driveway, subject to City and WSDOT approval. 3. The existing two way left turn lane does not extend northerly to the second, north driveway. The applicant will not occupy the northerly two buildings until a center turn lane is extended to the northerly driveway. • • 4. The applicant will make channelization and associated traffic control changes to Pacific Highway as requested by WSDOT. These measures may include signing, gore area modifications and/or channelization changes. UTILITIES The applicant should include statements to the effect: 1. The applicant shall enter into a no -protest LID agreements with City of Tukwila, Water District 125 and Water District 20 for the future construction of water main improvements to the Pacific Highway corridor prior to receiving a building permit. 2. The applicant will construct two "dry" water lines on site (10" minimum) that will provide for future connection to Pacific Highway corridor water system improvements. Water lines shall be stubbed to east property line. 3. The applicant will size the westerly connection for the site not only for current fire flow requirements, but to satisfy anticipated interconnection (10" minimum) between Pacific Highway water system improvements in the City of Tukwila water service area and Water District 20. MEMORANDUM TO: Nora Gierloff, Associate Planner FROM: Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist DATE: June 2, 1998 RE: Pacific View Office Park - SEPA E98-0006. I have reviewed the assessment of the on-site watercourses for the proposed project as conducted by B -Twelve Associates, Inc (Letter - 5/25/98). Identified is a Type 3 watercourse that flows across the property and eventually drains to Riverton Creek. This watercourse is a modified channel of limited habitat and function. However, some infiltration and water quality improvement may be occurring in its current configuration. Approximately 750 feet of this drainage is proposed to be re-routed into an open concrete structure to provide stability to adjacent buildings. In accordance with the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45.080 D.), watercourses may be diverted or re- routed with the permission of the DCD Director and an approved mitigation plan. As a result of past meetings with the applicant, a mitigation concept has been submitted for SAO compliance and to replace the affected segments of watercourse on the site. A shallow, vegetated wetpond would be constructed to slow watercourse flows and treat some runoff before these waters leave the site. A final design will need to be developed and approved by both Community Development and Public Works departments. Please let me know if you have questions. cc: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director Kelcie Peterson, Permit Coordinator Gary Barnett, Senior Engineer - Development ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: 2. Name of applicant: Control No. Epic File No. E98- 0006 Fee 5125. Receipt No. Pacific View Office Park Sabey Corporation Architecture Group 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Haynes Lund Sabey Corporation Architecture Group 101 Elliott Avenue W, Suite 330 Seattle, WA 98101-4220 phone: 206-281-8700 fax: 206-281-0920 4. Date checklist prepared: 5. Agency requesting checklist: March 19, 199 City of Tukwila (Revised 61t9:8) 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The Project is scheduled to begin construction in July of 1998 for the rough grading and site utilities. The schedule will be finalized based on marketing of the office space, but it is our expectation that we would begin construction of the south two buildings (Bldg. A & Bldg. B) immediately after rough grading is complete. The remaining office buildings (Bldg. C) is expected to begin construction next spring. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. This proposal covers the entire site, and includes all construction?that is currently, ,anticipated 'We have'nvestigated'the possibility of adding a fourth ofi•ice;buildirig on thesite in- order; to,satisfy a potential tenant's,expansion requirements' The;Boundary line Adjustmentswsilltiresult m four#lots,zonl.y three oftwhich will;have"buildings; on them •by the workccovered by thisrapplication It isZanot anticipated that therexwould belany future increase n<`the density of d elopment on the£sitesforra leasi_tenrea s 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. A Phase I & II Environmental Assessment Report has been prepared by Secor International Inc. (Phase 1Z`dated 2127198;:,Phase ll dated 3mo. A Geotechnical Evaluation of the site has been prepared by Geotechnical -2- Consultants Inc..atedE3116/98 awith Addendum dafec , JON. Copies of these reports have been included with this checklist. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. We are not aware of any other proposals affecting this site. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Master Use Permit Boundary Line Adjustment Board of Architecture Review Building Permit (one for each building) Miscellaneous Permits -- Demolition, Tree Cutting, Land Altering Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency permit (asbestos) 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the site of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized here. We propose to construct approximately 240,000 square feet of office space (Use Classification B) in three buildings on this site. The project would include parking at a ratio of 3 stalls per 1000 SF. Some of the parking would be located underneath the office buildings. The project also includes re -grading most of the site and providing new utilities to all the buildings and a new surface drainage system. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The address of the current business on the site is 12421 Pacific Highway south. We are submitting a survey of the existing conditions, including legal description of the site, along with this application. 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? The site contains areas of Potential Geologic Instability, Class 37arid Class 41 -3- TO BE COMPLETED, APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH • a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: The site is a combination of flat areas and steeply sloping areas. See topographic survey submitted with this application. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 66%. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. See Geotechnical Report submitted with this application. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. There was one incident of sloughing of the surface material along a portion of the west property line near the north end of the site that was remediated in 1989. The buildings have been located in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineer to minimize damage to the buildings if slope movement were to occur. See Geotechnical Report for further discussion of the soils and slope conditions on this property. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. A major portion of the site will be re -graded to provide benches for buildings and parking areas. The cut will amount to approximately 30,000 cubic yards. About 20,000 cubic yards will be disposed of off-site. The new grading will require an additional 22,000± cubic yards of fill. We will retain the services of a Geotechnical Engineer to approve all imported structural fill. -4- EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED. APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. g• Due to the existing slopes on the site, erosion could occur during the clearing and re -grading of the site. Included with our Building Permit application will be a Temporary Erosion Control Plan designed in accordance with King County standards by a registered civil engineer. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 40%. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Erosion will be controlled during construction by limiting site access to a single construction entrance and by sequencing the work to limit the opportunities for erosion. All exposed soils will be covered if left unworked for more than seven days in summer, and a siltation fence will be installed to minimize the downstream impacts of erosion during construction. The permanent site drainage system will be installed early in the construction process.iTh s sywstem well Include,:a<conveyanceQsystem to direct the;o f9C:' ✓ vp, f' x 'S^v .ro.^^Q>`?3. '«qcr > ' ' df... xc::<: r v ;c • site run`'offfthrough a sedimentatio /slltationpond, and a bio- totreat themeon=site storm aI ge pri o leavingh.-6 t 2. AIR a. What type of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Dust will be generated during demolition and construction. During construction there would be exhaust emissions from the construction vehicles. After construction is complete, the only permanent on-site sources of emissions will be the boiler for the heating water systems, the cooling towers for the air conditioning systems, and the exhaust from emergency generators (if required). There will be an increase in automobile traffic at this site as a result of this project. -5- TO BE COMPLETEDIke APPLICANT b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Emissions from the traffic on Highway 99 will affect this site. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: We will provide dust control during construction in accordance with PSAPCA standards. Toteeduce:Ythe^traff c impacts, the existing transit stop on Highway 99 in front of the site will be maintained. We will provide bicycle parking stalls in accordance with City of Tukwila standards, and we will provide preferential parking for car and van pools. 3. WATER a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. There is an existing watercourse crossmg thes to which >is rated as Type 3:.. (Se esthe Wafercourse Evaluation prepa edsby B -twelve Associates, Inc r dated 5122/98, wh chhas.been?submittedwith thisTaitn thew s there is ap o able Type 2 watercourse,which ust touches the`far northwest corner ofathe site These watercourses havenotsbeen includedrn the City's inventory,.but they are regulated by definition (TMC M 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. The existing watercourse which cuts;across the site will be modified byt this protect Over 700 lineal feetof degraded Y-LSc r''c" 9t?'6'kfxY7 oy >.w .• a;*J 5.. ) +04 " J ^ct" `C "5 s > .. Jt 'd'z` watercourse will be°placed in piPesTheWatercourse 9 Y' SAor' t +2k)eti3,r t Y 59,'3 k . " x"t X '.c .L.`i no, ou aaf Z L v.s Etivaluation prepared bys B twelve Associates,yInc includes proposed features for mitigating the; water quality impact of pipii a T e 3 watercourse. µ -6- EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED.' APPLICANT • 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. No dredging will be required 1., The majority"ofmon-site d arnages are proposedr167::1314". piped: 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. cr K z ri cz ) X Exrstrng;watercoursesand off site flows wlillbe<d vi a ted to a new wet pondaprhdischargrng from the sit® Onsite urface'run off#will be collected and detained in accordance with King County standards. Thedi'ischarge rates fromvthe;srte will be designed so, thatAtie post) developmenttflow will.approximate the pre -development dschargesamoun,N„tfor the 2 -year, 10 -year and 100 -year storm durationsPlthrnease_ in f„ low rate. The total capacity of the detention system will be 33 . 00 cubic feet. Detention will be by means of an underground vault working in;coniunction with the*et pond. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. The potential for erosion during construction will be mitigated by the Temporary Erosion Control measures which we will undertake. There is no other potential discharge that is contemplated. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn or will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. he Interception of h`e off site flowsthe piping of the existing>:watekourse and--therfoundation drainage system -7- EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE. ONLY TO BE COMPLETED. APPLICANT • for the buildmRale,all<de,signed to controhthe,amoun,;:of '6176,460.010:6076'" the site 0nRO toPincrease the stabilit of ��� �a� y°N the existing soils' This proect wi(I? nc ease the>amount of Irnpe�rvlous>surface on thethe site, and the amount of�re harge 6f`su face water Into the lolls will therefore be cedu`ced: The Impact of this reduction should be minor due; toChe packed'. characte(. of„mucho>the,existing site (unpaved drives): 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the — r = - number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No discharge into the ground of waste material is anticipated from this project. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) . Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Top tect buiIding`�fou< atlons and _ he ex�sting<slopes ahi onsite watercourse;and theflow (surface and ground water) from the steep western slope will> be piped, througf the site The WashingtonState;Department of Fish & Wildlife wilt determine If a:Hydraulic Project Approvaijs required for. the modifications to. this watercourseN Mitigation for piping the watercqurse is required by 2"'s,.^ � � / � > � F ^Y`f�'3Y�CR,w' �.+.t+ /M,46'>1XT Tukwila s Sensitive'�Areas Ordinance zWe proposeto g`+Q'tiYy(r�^.,Cg• a xc-Yi provides newwater qualitypondthat�wi11 servewtorediice sedimentatioFiFONide A;at ruru al wetitir ab at2 a d su p some tstoragkand detention Apacity Ther ae ee three existing outfalls from this site, all Eof wh ch eventually flow �ntoRiyerfon Creek ` ::See the Level 1 Downstream;Analysis Report by Nelson-Bourdages; date 3131/98 and submitted with this application; for description of the waterquality<features on:>theseoutfalls ehave alsosubm�tte•d DrainageyCalculations, by) elson- Bourdages:(dated 6111/98) which,deseribe the flows b -8- EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED. APPLICANT i theseoutfalls. Thecalculations show thatther,,e w<lllbe sorne'madifrcatiori �n the amount of flow"to theseoutfails However; the flowwll beasufficient to mamtainall significant water quality; features in the discharge routes and there will be'no sign ficant increase in the m�aximurri iow rates::.. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. The only potential waste materials would be oils and other products from automobiles. The storm drainage system will be designed to separate out this material from the water discharged from the site. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, or runoff water impacts, if any: The, drainagelpystem for thelon site runoffomcludes , detention vauxit'tocpnt olthKedscha�geratefrornthesite The outflow.from`ttlsvaulf�wlllbe direct•ed th�ougha:bio : r , swale.beforereaching3the outfalls from the,site`a1The.flow rates forthe existing outfalls will be modified somewhat; but the net impacton Riverton Creek will bemiimal 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other X shrubs X grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? The site currently consists of wooded areas along the west and north edges, with some secondary growth areas within the site. These latter areas will be cleared and as will a small portion of the wooded areas. The remaining wooded -9- EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETEDDY APPLICANT areas comply with the Tukwila Municipal Code standards for maintaining canopy cover on a site. A request for exception for Replacement of Canopy Cover has been submitted. In addition, the Landscape Plan includes a significant number of new trees which will nearly equal the canopy cover that was removed. ` The calculations for the Canopy Cover revisions are shown on Sheet C3 of5, per revision dated 5/17/98: c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered species are known to be on or near this site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: We will provide landscape buffers and interior landscaping in accordance with City of Tukwila standards.; The new wet pond will incorporate native plant landscaping. 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: The site adjoins a wooded area. It is likely that many common species of birds can be seen on the site on occasion. mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: The site adjoins a wooded area. It is likely that many common species of rodents (field mice, moles) and small mammals (squirrels, racoons) can be seen on the site on occasion. fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: The site contains no area of current or potential fish habitat. b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered species are known to be on -10- EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED* APPLICANT this site. Riveo ek:andc habitatsfoCip ok ^at»hazea :<D�u:.w^eas mish>RiveMr7 are salmon, which are proposed tosb listed as,an endargered;species c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. • Tk p7Duwamish Riueris migratorwfor ariadromous, fish i u an i alai is�withirj the Pacific Flyway miigratory route for birds d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Natural gas will be utilized for the space heating system. Electricity will power all other systems including air distribution, cooling, lighting. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: The project will be designed to meet the requirements of the Washington State Non -Residential Energy Code. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No. -11- EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETEDIPY APPLICANT • 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None are required. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None are required. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment operation, other)? There is traffic noise from Pacific Highway, and there is aircraft noise since the site is close to an approach path for Seatac Airport. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from site? There would be typical construction noise from 7:00 AM until 5:00 PM during the week for the construction period. Construction activities will be scheduled and controlled to comply with the City of Tukwila Noise Ordinance. Once the buildings are occupied, traffic noise in the area would be increased by the traffic to the site, primarily during the week at rush hours. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: We will utilize the measures listed previously (see 2.c.) to reduce the vehicle counts at the site. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is currently used by a commercial enterprise which stores and sells industrial vehicles and equipment. The east face of the property is Pacific Highway South, which becomes a limited access highway along the north portion of the site. The property to the south is a small apartment complex, although this use is not in -12- EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED. APPLICANT conformance with the current zoning. The property to the west and northwest is steeply sloping wooded area, with multi -family housing beyond that. (Note that the west property line of this site is the border of the City of Tukwila and the property to the west is under the jurisdiction of King County.) The remainder of the north end of the site abuts the reserved areas for the Highway 99 right of way. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any_ structures on the site. There is an existing, small 1 story office structure, an open shed, a storage building and some small out buildings. d. WM any structures be demolished? If so, what? All of these structures will be removed or demolished. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The site is zoned Commercial/Light industrial (C/LI). f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? g• Under the current Comprehensive Plan the site will remain zoned C/LI. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not Applicable. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. The site contains areas of Potential Geologic Instability Class 2, Class *ti 4(ee'oils,Repot) Thee eis aaType{3 watercou se On.3 eslfeian atwateicourse which skirts the north en of the' site'viihich should probably be classlfied''as Type,.Z.1 -13- EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED* APPLICANT • L Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? J• When the entire site is finished approximately 1200 people will work on this site. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? There are approximately 5 people who work on the site at the present time. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any. No measures are proposed. 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. This proposal complies with all City of Tukwila Zoning and Land Use requirements, Comprehensive Plan guidelines, and Pacific Highway corridor aspirations. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing? No housing units will be provided. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing? No housing units will be displaced by this project. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. No measures are proposed. 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The tallest building will be approximately 75' high at the -14- EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETEDOY APPLICANT • highest point on the exterior. There will be equipment enclosures on the roof that will extend about 12' higher. The primary exterior materials for the buildings will be painted concrete and glass. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Because of the existing sloping terrain, no views from neighboring buildings will be impeded by this project. The apartment structures on the hillside above will be able to look down on the roof of this project. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any. The site is currently used for the storage and sale of industrial vehicles and equipment. This project will significantly enhance the appearance of the site and the neighborhood, and will advance the goals of the City of Tukwila Pacific Highway project. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? There will be lighting associated with the parking areas. Due to the terrain, the neighboring residences to the north and west will be located above these light standards. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? There is existing street lighting for Highway 99 which will spill onto this site. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Parking lot lighting will be designed to limit spillage onto neighboring properties to 2 footcandles or less, per City of Tukwila standards. -15- EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED"' APPLICANT 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? King County is developing a park along the Duwamish River less than a mile away. • b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. c. No. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None are required. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. There are none. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None have been identified at this time. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: No measures are required. 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe the proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The Site Plan included with this application shows that access to the site will be exclusively from Pacific Highway South, a principal arterial as defined by the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. No neighborhood streets or minor arterials will be impacted by this project. -16- EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED APPLICANT • b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? There is an existing transit stop along Highway 99 in front of the site. The stop will be maintained. The Regional Transit Authority has also defined the Pacific Highway corridor as a potential route location for; thetligtat ,rail sys e. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The project includes 817 parking spaces. The existing site has a Targe paved area which is currently used for parking trucks and other large vehicles. This area, and the accompanying 6 or 7 parking spaces, will be eliminated by this project. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). The proposal would not require any new roads or streets. Thesonly;;impact•of thus project on the existing roadway system Is that'the cente le•ft•�turnlaneeo :01.4ific;Highway zSouth willneed to be a tx ended tthert nurs inoandoutfrthenorrve 'oTah4llow lnefe exenonisrequireet the site "Is>fully: occupied. Since:}Pacific Highw• ay South Is>a State highwa any modificationstothe roadway must betreviewed< nd pprovedwWashing not ;Department of Transportation Tf (WSDOT) e Applicant. agrees to meet with V1/SDOT with the Citytosdetermine the complete scope and extent'of the�modifici atrons^to'aPacifc HighwaySouth e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. This information is covered bythe'Transportat on; Impact Analysis)prepared'bynt ar ncEodated,;6/3/98, whichShas been 1Witftttiis application -17- EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETEDDY APPLICANT g• • Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. she Transportation impact Anafysissubmittead�agwith Ki kY' '4fCeF'o2'J�k'�MF%cc0 M Y,(o+fjo¢,p�,, A' �" >C"'�"d this application describes. the transportationjimpacts is p for ect.� ThePrimaryynegative pct will a that the eft tuns fromlheisite will"°operate at a¢Iow;level of s r ice xwhen th site is' fully occupied ,The'gap analysis fa+: s»r L^ieoa. v.XCc,•>...; , ..,� :,o. u, - > ✓ C s,sS+r performedrby Entranco indicates that thepr'oposedxtwo entrancelexit driveswill function ade uetel" for these left turns>t h ae�current.traffic level on .PacificHighwaySouth If the traffic on Pacific Highway South increases significantly and•the Left turns exiting :from the site fall to;an unacceptabletilevel of service, then an additional<exit cavi be proiiided .•The.current site plan is arranged to µ accommodate an additional exit drive located betweenth'e two. propose ntry/exits; 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. b. No. • Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None are proposed. 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service. and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricity: provided by City Light; new underground service will be provided from the existing lines along Highway 99 into the site. Natural Gas: provided by Washington Natural Gas; new service line will be run to the buildings from the gas main -18- EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED•Y APPLICANT along Highway 99. • Water: provided by Water District #20; there is an existing line along the south side of the site with sufficient pressure to serve the domestic water and fire protection needs of this project; this project includes providing a fire loop around the entire site and connecting both to the line at the south end of the site and to the existing water line serving the housing units to the west; domestic water will be provided by a separate connection to the existing line at the south. The fireloop'will be sized to meetfi a flow req iu rements andSCity of Tukwila standards (10'' mmtmum).V Th°e 10`` minimumpline will extend to the west..property line for: future interconnection •- of the Water District 20asystem YYithPac� I, J`z "42QFc'N`... . , .. f c Highway, water systemZ The project will include twowater< lines (,1: `mi imum)) too the east property ne to provide,for future connection tolhe P. acificHighway water system rThe.applicantZagreesto participate inlan LID agreement withf$the ;City of Tukwllaifortthe Pacific;Hjghway comter systemmprovements new 12 main)._ Telephone: provided by US West; new underground lines will be installed to the buildings from the main line along Highway 99. Sanitary Sewer: provided by Val-Vue Sewer District; the existing line along Highway 99 has the capacity to serve the needs of this project. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand the leafl agency is relying on 4 em to make its decision. Signature: Date submitted: 0/? PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE. -19- EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED"' APPLICANT D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (Do not use this sheet for project actions) • Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: -20- EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED"' APPLICANT 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: How does the proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or. public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. 8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what policies of the Plan. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: -21- EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED4k APPLICANT • EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental information provided and the submitted plans, documents, supportive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objectives of the proposal? This project is an investment opportunity for Sabey Corporation, who will manage, as well as own, the development. The company has a history of successfully developing sites which offer amenity, but also high risk. This site offers the amenities of views and good access, but carries the risks of difficult terrain and a marginal : neighborhood. These risks are mitigated somewhat by the City's vision for the Pacific Highway corridor and the potential for this site to encourage and assist the City in the realization of that vision. 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? The alternative is to find another site, perhaps in another jurisdiction, to develop the office space. 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: Either alternative is viable to this developer. The current proposal is preferred because this site has good access and views which help to make the office space marketable. 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what policies of the Plan? The proposal is in concord with the Plan and, in fact, serves to encourage development in one of the areas of focus of the plan. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: None are required. -22- • City of Tukwila.. • John W Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MEMORANDUM TO: Nora Gierloff, Associate Planner FROM: Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist DATE: May 28, 1998 RE: Pacific View Office Park - SEPA E98-0006. Per your request, I have reviewed the revised SEPA checklist which includes recent changes to the proposed project. My comments are focused on watercourse and slope alterations that may need to be identified in the SEPA determination. SEPA Checklist 3. WATER 1) Page 6, 3.a. 1) Portions of the on-site watercourse crossingthe site are rated as Type 3. The watercourse crossing the northwest corner of the property is a probable Type 2 watercourse. These watercourses have not been included in the City's inventory but are regulated by definition (TMC 18.45.920). 2) Page 6, 3.a. 2) The more detailed description is: over 700 lineal feet of degraded watercourse is proposed to be piped on the project site. 3) Page 6, 3.a. 3) As in 2), the majority of the on-site drainages are proposed for piping. 4) Page 7, 3.a 4) Existing watercourse flows will be diverted with a design to by-pass the on-site detention system. 5) Page 7, 3.b. 1) Based on the geotechnical report, groundwater was encountered in some of the test pits. Piping of the watercourse drainages and engineering designs to provide stability and protect building foundations will intercept groundwater. Although impacts may be considered minimal, construction of new impervious surfaces will also affect the amount of groundwater recharge. 6300 Southcenter Boulevar4 Suite #100 ° Tukwila, Washington 98188 ° (206) 431-3670 0 Fax (206) 431-3665 • • Pacific View Office Park SEPA Memo 5/28/98 Page 2 6) Page 8, 3.c. 1) Per the current plans, the on-site watercourse will be piped primarily to protect building foundations. Some of the piped flows are supported by groundwater from the western steep slope. A Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) permit may be required by State Fish & Wildlife and mitigation for piping is required by the City's SAO. The City's mitigation has been preliminarily planned as an enhanced, water quality pond that will serve to reduce sedimentation, provide natural wetland habitat, and have some storage and detention functions. Contrary to the answer provided, the discharge location and discharge volumes are changing. There are three discharge locations shown in the Level 1 Downstream Analysis report. It appears that the northern culvert under Pacific Highway will receive all the new runoff and existing watercourse flows. The discharge volumes will increase with the development of new impervious surfaces. The report also identifies sedimentation problems and potential wetland areas directly downstream of this outfall/discharge location. The increased volumes of water directed to this drainage route could cause impacts that will need to be evaluated. 7) Page 8, 3.d. Detention ponds are not being proposed. A large detention vault is planned and one pond which is a mitigation site for piping the watercourse. Water quality improvement is a function to be included in the pond. Discharge locations on the site will remain the same but the hydrology will be modified and could affect downstream drainage patterns. 4. PLANTS 8) Page 9, b. Canopy cover calculations to meet the requirement of the Tree Regulations have not been submitted but it appears the exception request can be granted. 9) Page 9, d. The enhanced water quality pond will also incorporate native plant landscaping. 5. • ANIMALS 10) Page 10, b. The proposed listing of the Chinook salmon should be mentioned on b. 11) Page 10, c. The River is migratory for anadromous fish and Tukwila is in the Pacific Flyway migratory route for birds. • • Pacific View Office Park SEPA Memo 5/28/98 Page 3 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE 12) Page 13, h. Some of the slope conditions on the site are likely to be Class 4 areas of Potential Geologic Instability. A Type 3 watercourse crosses the site and a probable Type 2 watercourse exists directly north. I feel some of these comments should be reviewed for making revisions to the SEPA checklist. Please let me know if you have questions. cc: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director Kelcie Peterson, Permit Coordinator Gary Barnett, Senior Engineer - Development �i ����Ii0V- 1111„, B -twelve Associates, Inc. 1103 W. Meeker St. Suite C Kent, WA 98032-5751 (v) 253-859-0515 (f) 253-852-4732 (e) bl2assoc@compuserve.com May 25, 1998 Mr. Haynes Lund Sabey Construction 101 Elliot Avenue West, Suite 400 RECEIVED Seattle, Washington 98119 RE: Pacific View - Tukwila, WA. MAY 26 1998 B -twelve Job #98-143 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. Dear Haynes, This report describes my findings in regards to jurisdictional streams on the proposed site of the Pacific View Office Park located at 12421 Pacific Highway South, in the City of Tukwila, Washington (the "site"). METHODS On May 6, 1998, I visited the site to determine if jurisdictional streams exist on the site and if so; what was the classification of these stream(s). Streams were identified using the criteria described in the City of Tukwila Zoning Code Title 18, as well in the City Watercourse Study (1990). According to Section 18.06.920 of the Tukwila Municipal Code, a watercourse "means a course or route formed by nature or modified by man, generally consisting of a channel with a bed and banks or sides substantially throughout its length along which surface water flows naturally other than the green/Duwamish River. The channel or bed need not contain water year-round. Watercourses do not include irrigation ditches, stormwater runoff channels or devices, or other entirely artificial watercourses unless they are used by salmonids or to convey or pass through stream flows naturally occurring prior to construction of such devices". The site was reviewed using the above definition and the regulated water course found on the site was rated using the rating system defined in the Code as well as the Watercourse Study. OBSERVATIONS The site is a highly disturbed industrial site with substantial alteration of the original topography. A series of ditches cross the site and act as drainage features for runoff from the relatively impermeable, dirt storage lot substrate. Only one of these ditch features appears to meet the criteria of a watercourse under the City Code (see Exhibit A). This watercourse enters the sites southwest corner in a deeply dug ditch. Water flows in this ditch from a Pacific View/Job#98-143 B -twelve Associates,Inc. May 25, 1998 Page 2 natural wetland off-site to the southwest as well as a small ephemeral channel that joins the watercourse on-site.. The channel has been excavated to an impermeable clay/bedrock later and is highly scoured. The; ditch directs watercourse flows to the north down the hillside for approximately 450' until it meets the developed portion of the site. At this point it flows in a 50' long culvert under a cement building pad and then approximately 610' to the north in a dug ditch. The watercourse then enters a culvert and flows under the dirt lot to the east, where it discharges and flows down a steep fill bank where it then flows another 150' feet before entering another series of culverts. These culverts direct the water to the north and east under Highway'99 and eventually to Riverton Creek, off-site to the east. The channel width on-site is generally 18"-24" and there was no flow during my site visit. The upper 50' of the channel on the south end of the site did have some groundwater seepage entering the channel but this was infiltrating in the channel on-site. The long flat stretch of channel, on the upper tier also collects groundwater from the cut -slope and contained stagnant standing water in several places. The watercourse on-site has been highly disturbed and does not support a fish population. A limited invertebrate population is supported in the stagnant portions of the channel on the upper tier. The primary function of this hydrologic support to downstream fisheries streams such as Riverton Creek. Currently water leaving the site in this channel is likely contaminated with both sediments and trace amounts of typical industrial runoff contaminants such as oil and grease, petroleum hydrocarbons and heavy metals. Presently there is very little shading of this channel and water temperatures of water passing through the site are probably.raised as a result. I rated the stream using the City's Watercourse Rating systems and came up with scores for each bank that indicate the stream is a Type 3 watercourse. Typically, Type 3 watercourses have a 25' wide buffer measured from the top of the bank. Currently most of these buffers are non-functioning as a result of the ditch location of the stream and industrial use of the site. According to the Code and with permission from the Director, watercourses may be re-routed if it can be;demonstrated that it will not impact the stream or downstream salmonid bearing waters and a mitigation plan is provided. Type 3 watercourses may be piped under certain circumstances with approval from the Director. PROPOSED IMPACTS AND CONCEPT MITIGATION The proposed site project consists of construction of an office park with associated parking and stormwater facilities. The project proposes to re-route and re -pipe sections of the Type 3 stream to both allow a reasonable development as well as improve on the character and functions of this natural flow of this watercourse. As previously described, the disturbed ditch character of the watercourse and the industrial use of the site have resulted in a probable source of contaminants entering the riparian system as well as an increase in water temperature for flows passing through the site. The mitigation for the proposed relocation of the stream Pacific View/Job#98-143 B -twelve Associates, Inc. May 25, 1998 Page 3 will focus on restoring and enhancing the thermal protection of the streams flows as well as improving water quality for, the receiving downstream waterbody (Riverton Creek). The proposed project will start where the stream enters the flat upper section of the site See Nelson-Bourdage's site plan entitled "Existing Watercourses"). At this point the ditch as well as the 50' culverted section under the concrete pad will be placed in an open concrete lined structure for approximately 300'. The water will then enter a culvert and flow to the east where it will discharge into a cascading series of rock lined pools that will allow sediments to drop out of the water column. At the bottom of the cascade section it will enter another culvert and flow to the north approximately 500' before discharging into a created vegetated pond. The pond has been sized based upon calculations by the project engineer (Nelson - Burdages) to.receive all of the natural stream flow up to the 6 month storm event (see exhibit B). All flows over the 6 month event will be bypassed to the stormwater system. This pond will, have normal pool area of 2,725sf and may expand up to 3,610sf in size during the 100 year event. The pool will have a maximum depth of 2 feet and will be contoured with a-10' wide bench, 1' deep and with 3:1 side slopes to allow an appropriate growing depth for hydrophytic ,vegetation. This area will be planted with a 'mix of native species and should develop as a scrub-shrub/aquatic bed wetland area. This area will allow further settling of natural sediments from the water column as well as provide thermal cover for the flowing water: The added benefit of this area is that it will result in a habitat feature that will likely be used by various species of wildlife including several species of amphibians. This will also act as a, habitat and source of invertebrates to the watercourse that will undoubtedly migrate downstream to fish bearing waters.. Water from this pond area will discharge into existing culverts that direct water downstream to the east to Riverton Creek. All surface water runoff from the site will go through a series of water quality facilities including a bioswale before being discharged into the same culvert as the vegetated pond. I feel that the he above described mitigation should improve water quality in this stream as well as reduce surface water temperatures to the downstream receiving body, Riverton Creek. It recommended that the Director approve this plan as it results in an enhancement of an existing watercourse as well as provide benefits to the City's downstream sensitive areas. If you have any questions or require additional information please feel free to contact me at (253) 859-0515. Sincerely, B -twelve Associates, Inc. Ed Sewall Senior Wetland Ecologist File: Ed/98143-01.doc EXHIBIT A: ouWFALL Na 1 B -twelve Associates. Inc. Ecological Systems Design & Management 1 103 W. Meeker St.. Suite. C • Kent. WA 98032 (253) 859-0515 Fax (253)S52-4732 PACIFIC VIEW OFFICE PARK 12421 PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH CITY OF TUKWILA, WA PACIFIC VIEW OFFICE PARK 12421 PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH TUKWILA, WASHINGTON NELSON-BCjROAL—cS 5:2 "th Street South, Suite 202 A Maim of P-ogenoA Dear Goa be (423 d. WA 980.13 5995 FAL (425) 828 - 4850 e -mai netsbour Ooacam EXISTING WATER COURSES COPYRIGHT © 1998 Job# : /di3 Date: .5-- Z5 -- Drawn Drawn by: 2 Scale: ti0,-c Revised: Checked by: EXHIBIT B: VEGETATED POND CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN • .0. Area to be planted with native shrubs and herbaceous species. Job# : '78v/4-3• Date: 5-zev 9.53 Drawn by: J4j- Scale: Revised Checked by: Ecological Systems Design & Management: 1103 W. Meeker SL. Suite. C • Kent. WA 98032 (253)859-0515 Fax (253) 852-4732 PACIFIC VIEW OFFICE PARK 12421 PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH CITY OF TUKWILA, WA May 22, 1998 • City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Haynes Lund Sabey Corporation Architecture Group 101 Elliott Avenue West Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98119-4220 RE: Pacific View Office Park E98-0006 SEPA Environmental Review L98-0021 Design Review Dear Mr. Lund: City staff has been meeting with your design team to discuss your application for construction of the Pacific View office and light industrial buildings located at 12421 Pacific Highway South since the pre -application meeting on March 12th. However, there are still a number of serious issues to resolve and your deadlines for obtaining a SEPA threshold determination and securing a place on the June BAR agenda are fast approaching. I think you will agree that City staff have fulfilled Mayor Rant's commitment to you regarding expedited review of your project. In a period of extremely high demand for development review services, we have made your project a top priority. We have spent many hours with your staff and consultants to find answers and solve problems in a proactive and collaborative manner. Mayor Rants has asked that in return for these efforts the Sabey Corporation commit to building a development of high design quality that will serve as a positive example for future projects in the Pacific Highway corridor. I do not believe that your project design, in its current state, will achieve this objective. The buildings have undergone only minor changes since the BAR application was filed, despite significant concerns raised by my staff Your firm has designed a series of typical suburban office park buildings that do not further the City's vision for revitalizing the Pacific Highway Corridor. The most serious design issue is that buildings B and C turn their backs to the street. The main entrances are on the west facade and so are hidden from the public. The solution you have proposed, creating small off -center entries that open into the parking garage, does not provide a gracious entry for pedestrians, transit users or people who use the aisle of surface parking along the street. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 • • Page 2 The buildings also lack a consistent architectural theme that would help to pull together the various elements into a coherent whole. The "arches" that are so visually dominant rely mainly on color for their articulation rather than modulation or material. They are meant to appear overlaid against the facade, yet the color scheme has them dark (which tends to recede) against the light spandrels (which tend to advance). The colors you have chosen for the buildings - beige, taupe, gray -green, and brick red - are indistinct. The buildings will be seen against a wooded hillside and clear, strong colors would help them to stand out. The street -side facades of buildings B and C rise 75 feet straight up from the east sidewalk with less than 12 inches of horizontal modulation across the wall plane. This harshness is compounded by the very minor amount of landscaping that is provided in front of the buildings. Significant horizontal modulation should be incorporated to add depth and texture to the facade that will be visible from Pacific Highway and across the valley. Replacing some parking spaces in front of the building with an enlarged landscape area would also help to create a more inviting appearance. The first two floors of buildings B and C as seen from the street will be the structured parking. A high-quality treatment of the building base is necessary to ground the buildings and provide a pleasant experience of the building for people entering the building through the garage. The trellises and decorative grillwork shown on your latest submittal are a good start toward this requirement. The other factor affecting your ability to be heard at the June 25th BAR meeting is that the City needs to issue a SEPA threshold determination at least 28 days prior to the hearing, which would be May 28th. In order for us to make this determination you need to submit copies of the watercourse study, traffic study and geotechnical study addendum, the Departments need to review them, and we have to incorporate our findings into a staff report. If you are not planning to submit the studies until May 26th we are not likely to be able to accomplish this on your timeline. We will be meeting on Tuesday the 26th to discuss the substantive issues with this project. If you wish to speak to me sooner, feel free to call me at (206) 431-3670. Sincerely, Steve Lancaster Director, Department of Community Development cc: Mayor Wally Rants John McFarland, City Administrator David Sabey, Sabey Corporation John Lang, Sabey Corporation Nora Gierloff, Planning Division Gary Barnett, Public Works Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist 05/21/98. THU 11:19 FAX 206 281.-0920 Sabey Construction Corp • SP CORPORATION ARCHITECTURE GROUP FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL DATE/TIME: ' : Z I _9 b_ omrJ__ ORIGINAL TO FCILLOW: NO Yes, by: Mail _ Overnight Delivery Courier . ✓ _ o: 'f4 G I F FIRM: Dar -r or- Con 1M : a IBZ , FAX NO.: — 569605 PHONE NO.: FROM: t--1 \(I. 'E S tJ t.) PROJECT: C E W C i cZ Number of pages, including this cover sheet: Hca -70-o Transmitting from fax number (206) 281-092b, Phone (206) 281-871:10 Please call .1-1"eer•1 S at 281-8700 if you do not receive all pages. Message: E1:, t S Out_ (jP 'FAST' OrJ - \-YoO cADLangerts VBRSiceJ of '7F1I PRiNnJl. - -/1115 PM- lam Hofs T71(5 W/Lc., M iirr M/trW YauR A-Pp02oVAti.. inl SINGS '11%./to/J. IS A1-r_ou bT NQS ^tt') AZE-501_VIS OUR- &WOWpt W 70friA0 P— i). \ s &J LL. S013071. -r Dnr L s. A Kti:'sv1587, z1-rs. pcA0.1 5HowtniCx--TrtV_fodD M u f PORT GtEcvA*Df Cz IKE s11 .0 . 1- 1 11404--rkeite 15 *IV iJ mems ' dwJ T7(058* )Ssug':a. \V Hogg' 10 SUBM-9- 1J E g(tSeD 'fk itc STUDY alJ 5.72.16f rr tl/IAY 4r7r A40%43 tr IJArTtC.. Tues, A)0 IJETErp MELT Amcor -rRkrftc- c oJ71 L YWR OFIi=(GE hFhS MD `RMS Ta c.ColC T} I3. s iZ- L I HAzt" L's t 1(.Y THE •turtz1,IC - 1)113-sicaid 1SSVE 1F Tnla facsimile communication Is Intended ony for the use of the Individual or entity to which it Is addressed and may contain Int ormalion that is privileged and and confidential. If the reader of this corer pogo is not the addrossao, or the ompmyao or agent of the addressee, please be d•lvisad that any dissemination, distribution, Cr copying of this communication Is strictly prohibited, If you receive Ince facsimile In error, please notify us Immec alaly by telephone and mall this facsimile to us at the at:cress Dillow. Thank you. 1 N.i / r't' f-( % , YDu C 5*y THA'/ 114 L CI,.aVik'1 1S .b,.c..t`.BPC , 'M -Torn `r , 4er I; tarchlmaataratfastran e. wk4 .11 SABEY CORPORATION 101 Elliott Avenue West' Sulte 330 • Seattle, WA 98119 • Tel: 206/281-8700 • II"ax: 206/281-0920 [11 tun Pacific View Office Park May 19, 1998 Coordination Meeting Agenda 10:30 1. Traffic Study Issues - a(r ,,.i,,,,,Z s ; l 11< or 'C., ..-‘ w . jr. 11:00 2. Sensitive areas studies - Watercourse and Geotech 11:15 3. Drainage system design 11:30 4. BAR Building design issues 5. PSAPCA Permit Comments l,a,t,oppl,0 7L4_ Missing SEPA Checklist pages-,,,, 1 c e_G,v r -c q c,p 5 a�t- S: ' (VI vr� -�1� e..r1 3� r.-��� h a 7 � c`J �� Ads, l8�x�/�0� 1 G !,,' AM re, co fw .,, S a 7 n „Ic .F �o � � � - -Cur•, �,,,, r- -�, 3 Vz e�— c`j`-S �c- all ears do `S; 4' OA- �Jlly, l,Dvr- il - -V. ; s s h DILL l 6-- 12k1 (n.71L rvt ►7 ;� r / sly >d(c.t be- p( -,��.�; -.cL.� ►o 94,1- .0,,,e1 akicjvied 3 Sonat 6=2�a� ; S -t-v w �S- 1f / 11 � �� � p nd• % .C2il% ieAe-' Responsible Department and its Role The Department of Community Develop- ment in coordination with Parks and Recre- ation and Public Works would develop the program, recommend materials, and establish guidelines for selection, maintenance, and coordinate tree storage and planting. Cost Trees generally cost about $85 apiece without labor. There would be on-going costs of maintenance. Grants are available to assist in payment for the materials. Develop a public art program for the Corridor The City should develop a public art program for the corridor, with the following components: • identification of potential applications (gateways, transit improvements, sculp- ture, murals, etc.), sites, and funding sources for public and public private art within the Corridor; • identification of capital projects that should incorporate public art; • identification of projects that should include an artist in project development; and • establishment of a minimum percentage of project costs or a minimum fixed cost for public art within the Corridor for budgeting and project coordination • purposes Rationale Art is an indicator of community interest and pride. Community members have stated many times that the area at the intersection of Pacific Highway and S. 144 Street is the heart of Tukwila. As such this area warrants special treatment. People who come here or pass through the area should get the impression of the role the area plays for the community. Comprehensive Plan Policy 8.1.13 states, "Seek opportunities to integrate public art into public improvements. " While many think of art as freestanding objects in a plaza or in front of a building, art can also play a functional role by enhancing the design of street furnishings, paving, lighting, etc. Public art can help achieve a number of objectives in the Pacific High- way area. It can: • • be built into or used as children's play equipment; • be incorporated into the design of transit stops and other public facilities; • promote environmental awareness; • minimize graffiti and vandalism; • promote understanding of and respect for cultural diversity; • involve at -risk youths in art projects; • be used to treat blank walls or draw attention to special focal areas; • enliven commercial areas, thereby City of Tukwila 61 :,05-18-1998 02:58PM FROM Geotech Consultants Inc TO GEOTikH CONSULTANTS, INC. 2062810920 P.O1 13256 NC"' Street, Suitel 16 Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 747-5618 FAX 747-8561 Memo. J N: 98063 To: Haynes Lund Frars Marc R. McGinnis Company: Sabey Corporation Date: May 18, 1998 Address: 101 Elliott Avenue West, Suite 330 FAX: (206) 281-0920 Seattle, Washington 98119-4220 Phone: (206)281-4200 RE Additional Considerations for Wall and Foundation Design Pacific View Office Park Tukwila, Washington This memo is an addendum to our March 16, 1998 geotechnical engineering study. The fa items are addressed by this addendum: • Reuse of on-site soils as structural fill. • Recommended foundation types for the three buildings following the recently -con supplemental test pits. • Design parameters and backfill considerations for the permanent building walls. Hawing ucted As we have discussed in our meetings, the on-site soils could be reused as structural fill on a very limited basis. The fine-grained silt soils, which will constitute most of the excavated material, must be moisture -conditioned, then be compacted in thin layers using a sheepsfoot roller to achieve 85 to 90 percent compaction. If these soils are treated with kiln dust or cement to aid with mpisture conditioning and to add compressive strength, they can be used as structural fill b neath pavements. These soils should not be used beneath foundations, as compaction results n be variable. Where the treated soils are used for backfill of foundation walls, at least 3 feet free - draining gravel should be placed against the walls. The on-site soils cannot be used for g ogrid- reinforced fill walls, regardless of whether or not they are treated with kiln dust or cement. Attached are copies of the footprints of the three buildings (labeled A to C from south to north) On these plans are approximate locations of the test pits and borings that have been conduct , and the estimated elevations of dense or hard bearing soils at each location. Where the be ring is noted to be below an elevation, this is the lowest elevation explored at that location, and s itable bearing soils were not encountered. Augercast concrete piers will likely be needed r the northeastern portion of Building A and the southeastem portion of Building B. The explorations in these areas found deep fill extending at least 10 feet below the planned footing grades. Thi depth is excessive for overexcavation and structural fill. The extent of the actual extent of the iered sections can only be determined accurately at the time of building excavation. At least a po ion of each of the westem extensions of the buildings, west of the basement floors, will need to be supported on piers. Supporting all of these portions of the buildings (slabs and walls) on piers, prevents the foundations from adding surcharges to the basement walls. As summarized below, the basement walls will need to be designed for much higher soil pressures if piers are not used for the westem extensions. Less stringent compaction of backfill below the western extensions would also be possible if piers were used. „05-18-1998 02:58PM FROM Geotech Consultants Inc TO 2062810920 P.02 • •May 8, 1998 J 98063 Sabey Corp. Page 2 Design parameters for piers and conventional foundations are presented in our previous report. The high bearing pressure (5,000 psf) can be used for footings that bear on competent soil , or on overexcavations that are backfilled with lean concrete. A lower bearing pressure must b used where footing overexcavations are backfilled with imported granular structural fill (on-site soil, even when treated with kiln dust or cement, are not acceptable for structural fill beneath footings). Three scenarios exist for the design soil pressures behind foundation walls: Scenario 1: The basement walls are constructed as permanent soldier pile walls having 2.5:1 (H:V) backslope until the permanent concrete walls are constructed. This will be necessary where adequately -sloped cuts cannot be made without encroach ng into the steep, westem slopes. As discussed, the benefit of using the shoring IIs is that the amount of the excavation behind the basement walls is drastically rduced. This is a significant consideration due to the difficulty of reusing the excavated soils as on-site fill. Active earth pressure - 50 pcf Scenario 2: Foundation walls are backfilled with imported free -draining granular fill compacted to 95 percent compaction to support foundations above. Active earth pressure - 40 pcf plus a uniform pressure equal to 10 psf multi Tied by the wall height to account for restrained walls. Surcharge pressure from western footing of west extension (if not carried o piers) - 200 psf uniform pressure over entire height of wall. Scenario 3: Foundations walls are backfilled with a minimum 3 -foot width of free -c gravel, then kiln dust -treated on-site soils compacted to at least 90 percen would be used to support foundations on the backfill zone). pining (piers Active earth pressure - 50 pcf plus a uniform pressure equal to 10 psf multiplied by the wall height to account for restrained walls. II Surcharge pressure from westem footing of west extension (if not carried o piers) - 200 psf uniform pressure over entire height of wall. Please call with any questions. a: NeLson-Bourdages - Steve Read( (425) 828-4850 I ExPrREs 10/2L/99 . J 05-18-1998 02:59PM FROM Geotecn LonsuIT.anT.s Inc • 1 LI ,05-18-1998 02:59PM FROM Geotech Consultants Inc • if • s r V TO 2062810920 P. 0L"d 05-18-1998 03:00PM • r .--""1:•:fr:•:.::0.0,7, • FROM Geotech Consultants Inc TO 2062810920 F.M 1 • 1 ji ilatisionta • NS !WI "'""""""1" "mum° .• • • Id "' t" TOTAL P.05 PACIFIC VIEW TRAFFIC ANALYSIS OUTLINE f6-21 R.,/4 7/1 774,v, i 157/e-a97-)7f75)1g y0e.,/7/ s cZ (5-)1 5 .RECEIVED MAY 18.1998 PLJGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION ® bT AGENCY A SNOHOMISH COUNTY KING COUNTY e KITSAP COUNTY e PIERCE COUNTY Nora Gierloff Dept of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila Wa 98188 RE: SEPA File No: E98-0006. & L98-0021 Design Review Dear Ms. Gierloff: May 15, 1998 Asbestos Removal Required Prior to Proposed Demolition Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed demolition of existing buildings and site remdediation to construct three office buildings and associated parking lots.12421 Pacific Highway South in the city of Tukwila. PSPACA Regulation 111, Article 4 requires all asbestos be found and removed prior to any structure demolition project. The owner must have an Asbestos Hazardous Emergency Response Act (AHERA) building inspector/consultant inspect the structure to determine the location and amount of asbestos in the building. Application for Notice of Intent for the asbestos removal and demolition project must be submitted to PSAPCA 10 days prior to the asbestos or demolition projects. The asbestos must be removed by a licensed asbestos contractor prior to any demolition activity. An asbestos checklist for demolition project is enclosed which explains the process in greater detail to help the applicant comply with the asbestos and demolition project requirements. I have also enclosed a copy of Regulation 111, Article 4, and an Application for Notice of Intent. Should active de -contamination equipment be installed during the soil remediation phase of the project, a Notice of Construction application, (enclosed), must be submitted to PSAPCA prior to the start of the project. Should the applicant wish to discuss any of the PSAPCA requirements, or if 1 can be of any further assistance, I can be reached at 206-689-4035. LCV:Is Commissioner, Kitsap County Member at Large Mayor, Everett Sincerely, G J1 Larry C. Vaughn Air Pollution. Engineer Dennis J. McLerran, Air Pollution Control Officer BOARD OF 0 R ECTORS Mayor, Bremerton Snohomish County Council King County Executive Mayor, Tacoma City of Seattle Pierce County Executive 110 Union Street, Suite 500, Seattle, Washington 98101-2038 (206) 343-8800 0 (800) 552-3565 n FAX:(206)343-7522 prnted on recycled paper Agency Case No. Agency Use Only PU i SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AciakCY Mr Union Street, Suite 500, Seattle, WA 98101-2 NOTICE OF INTENT TO PERFORM: Date Received Agency Use Only A. Pro,ject T B. Property Owner: yp e: 1. ❑ Asbestos Removal 2. ❑ Asbestos Removal & Demolition 3. ❑ Demolition, No Asbestos Removal I Phone: ( Property Owner's Mailing Address: City: State: Zip: C. Asbestos PLEASE PRAT CLEARLY, 77115 WILL BE YOUR RETURN MAILING LABEL Contractor: Contractor Owner/CEO: Mailing Address: Phone: ( ) Contractor Job No.: City: _ State: Zip:. Fax: ( ) D. Site Address: Project Manager or Contact Person: City: State: Zip: Phone: ( Date Survey was Conducted: E. ❑ Asbestos Survey or ❑ Mat'l Presumed: AHERA Building AN AHERA SURVEY IS REQUIRED BEFORE ALL DEMOUTION PROJECTS Inspector Name: No. of Structures: Was Asbestos Found? Yes ❑ If No, Attach Survey Certification No.: Expiration Date: F. Demolition Information: Demolition Contractor: No. of Structures: Start Date: ❑ Training Fire (List Fire Dept. as demolition contractor below) ❑ Ordered Demolition (attach copy of Order) PRINT NAME HERE. ENTER .MAILING ADDRESS IN BOX J ON BACK. IF TRAINING BURN ENTER FIRE DEPT. HERE Phone: ( G. Asbestos Project Information: No. of Structures: (see back if > 1) Start Date: Completion Date: Wk. Days: M T W Th F Sa Su Hours: Total Quantity to be Removed: Linear Ft. Square Ft. Will all asbestos material be ❑ Yes removed by project completion? 0 No Thermal System Insulation: ❑ Boiler\Fumace Ins. 0 Duct Ins. 0 Pipe Ins. Other: Surfacing Mat'l: 0 Fireproofing 0 Paints 0 Plaster 0 Textured Coatings Other: Misc. Mat'l: 0 Cement Bd. 0 Cement Pipe Cl Flooring Mat'l 0 Roofing Mat'l Other: H. Asbestos/Demolition Project Categories: 1. 0 Owner -Occupied, Single -Family Residence Asbestos Removal Project 0 Single -Family Residence Demolition Project Notification Waiting Period NON-REFUNDABLE FEE Prior Notice $25 2. ❑ All Other Demolitions With No Asbestos Removal Project 10 Days $150 3. 0 10 - 259 linear feet or 48 - 159 square feet (see back of form for options) 3 Days $150 4. 0 260 - 999 linear feet or 160 - 4,999 square feet 10 Days $300 5. ❑- 1,000 - 9,999 linear feet or 5,000 — 49,999 square feet 10 Days $750 6. 0 10,000 - 49,999 linear feet or 50,000 - 99,999 square feet 10 Days $2,000 7. 0 50,000 - 99,999 linear feet or 100.000 - 149,999 square feet 10 Days $5,000 8. 0 100,000+ linear feet or 150,000+ square feet 10 Days $10,000 9. 0 Emergency Asbestos Project or 0 Emergency Demolition Project Prior Notice Twice Project Fee 10. 0 Alternate Means of Compliance for friable materials or 0 Demolitions 10 -Day Review Period Twice Project Fee 11. ❑ Alternate Means of Compliance for nonfriable asbestos materials Concurrent with Project Twice Project Fee I. I do hereby certify that the inforrnation contained in this notification, and supplemental data described herein, is to the best of my knowledge accurate and complete. I shall not cause or allow any asbestos project or demolition activities to begin until the appropriate waiting period has elapsed. Signature Representing Date PSAPCA Form No. 66-160 (Revised 10/96) AM Completeness Review Performed By Agency Use Only 1[1C rugui Jvuiiu All I. ViiuL,v„ ...v.,,ava „F-j..,,..J ..,.,....... ........ ............ r ----..... __------- --------------- ----o — --- - - Kitsap Counties. PSAPCA's Regulation III, Article 4, requires advance notification be submitted to PSAPCA, on Agency - approved form no. 66-160 (Revised 10/ or any asbestos project involving materiallikual to or greater in size than 10 linear feet or 48 square feet and for any demoi,L on project, regardless of asbestos content, i , lving structures with a projected roof area greater than 120 square feet. Notices of Intent should be mailed or hand delivered to PSAPCA (address on reverse side) with the appropriate project fee. A PSAPCA representative will review the notification, and if it is completed correctly a copy will be returned by mail within 3 to 5 days to the mailing address entered in box C and box J. The returned copy will be your valid notification. Asbestos and demolition projects involving materials and structures below the notification thresholds listed above are still subject to all other requirements of PSAPCA Regulation III, Article 4. J. Demolition PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY. THIS WILL BE YOUR RETURN MAILING LABEL Contractor: Owner/CEO: Mailing Address: Phone: ( ) Contractor's Job #: City: State: Zip: Fax: ( ) GUIDELINES FOR SUBMITTING A NOTICE OF INTENT Enter all applicable information accurately and completely. Incomplete Notices of Intent will be returned. Box A. Check the appropriate project type.( ,)• Box B. Enter the legal property owner information 'd• Box C. Enter the asbestos contractor information, or "not applicable" (N/A) for demolition projects when no asbestos- containing materials are present. For an Owner Occupied, Single -Family Residence asbestos removal project (lproject O' category Hl), list the asbestos removal contractor or property owner doing the asbestos removal (include property owner's mailing address). Box D. Enter the asbestos removal or demolition site address. For an Owner -Occupied, Single -Family Residence asbestos removal project (project category Hl) where the property owner's mailing address differs from the site address listed in Box D, a letter must accompany the Notice of Intent verifying that the structure located at the site address is currently being used as the property owner's domicile. Multiple asbestos/demolition projects involving more than one structure (project category H2 through H8) must be submitted in accordance with PSAPCA Regulation I, Section 4.03(a)(7). Box E. Enter the asbestos survey information or check material presumed (for asbestos projects only). An AHERA building inspector must conduct an asbestos survey prior to any demolition project (i.e., the wrecking, razing, leveling, dismantling or burning of a structure, making the structure permanently uninhabitable or unusable). Box F. Enter the demolition project information. If the structure is to be used in a training fire, list the fire department responsible for conducting the burn as the demolition contractor in Box J. If the property owner has teen ordered to perform a demolition by a government official, submit a copy of the order. from the appropriate official. Box G. Enter all asbestos project information or enter "N/A" for demolition projects with no asbestos removal required. All multiple structure asbestos projects (project category H10 and H11) must be submitted with a work plan, map of the structures' complete site address, type and amount of asbestos material to be removed from each structure, AHERA asbestos survey, and work schedule. Box H. Check one project category in boxes 1 through 8. The project fee includes the demolition fee. Asbestos removal projects and demolitions with an asbestos removal involving less than 10 linear feet or 48 square feet may be filed as project category 3. An emergency asbestos project or demolition may be requested by checking the appropriate job size category in boxes 2 through 9 and then checking the applicable emergency box in category 9. Emergency asbestos project notifications must be submitted with a letter from the property owner explaining the necessity for the emergency. Emergency demolition notifications must be submitted with a letter from an authorized government official or a licensed structural engineer documenting that the structure is in imminent danger of collapse. To request an alternative means of compliance for, friable or nonfriable materials, check the appropriate job size category in addition to the applicable box in categories 10 and 11. A work plan must be submitted by an appropriately trained individual along with the notification. Box I. Sign the notification certifying the accuracy and completeness of the information provided on the form. Box J. Enter demolition contractor mailing information (on back). Mandatory amendments are required for changes that increase the project type, job size category, the types of asbestos materials to be removed and work schedule changes. No fee is required for work schedule changes if the contractor, is participating in the Agency work schedule fax program. A $50.00 processing fee is required for all other amendments. For technical assistance, contact Tom Hudson at (206) 689-4058, Larry Vaughn (206) 689-4035 or Kwame Agyei (206) 689- 4054. For inquiries concerning notification and amendment status contact Anne Morgan at (206) 689-4090. PSAPCA Form No.:. 66-160 (Revised 4/98) ACM PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY 110 Union /pet, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98101-2038 Telephone: (206) 343-8800 or 1-800-552-3565 Fax: (206) 343-7522 ASBESTOS CHECKLIST FOR DEMOLITION PROJECTS This checklist is provided by Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA) as a brief summary of PSAPCA's regulations pertaining to demolition projects. PSAPCA regulations define a demolition project as the wrecking, razing, leveling, dismantling, or burning of a structure (by a fire department for training purposes), making the structure permanently uninhabitable or unusable. The following checklist is a quick reference guide and not a substitute for PSAPCA regulations. For a copy of PSAPCA regulations, Notice of Intent forms, or any questions concerning this document; contact a customer service representative at (206) 343-8800 or 1-800- 552-3565 or see PSAPCA's web site at http://www.psapca.org. DEMOLITION PROJECT REQUIREMENTS: ❑ An asbestos survey must be conducted by a certified Asbestos Hazardous' Emergency Response Act (AHERA) building inspector. AHERA inspectors are listed in The Yellow Pages under asbestos consulting and testing. ❑ A complete Notice of Intent must be submitted to PSAPCA for all demolition projects involving structures with a projected roof area .greater than 120 square feet. A Notice of Intent is not required for structures with a projected roof area less than 120 square feet, but all other demolition and asbestos requirements remain in effect. ❑ A copy of the asbestos survey and Notice of 'Intent must be kept on site and be available for review by PSAPCA inspection personnel. ❑ All asbestos -containing materials (ACM) must be removed in accordance with PSAPCA regulations by persons trained in accordance with Washington Department of Labor & Industry standards or Occupational Safety and Health Administration for federal facilities prior to demolition. PSAPCA recommends that the building owner and/or demolition contractor perform a walk- through inspection of the structure prior to demolition to ensure all ACM identified on the asbestos survey have been removed. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: In addition to PSAPCA requirements, mostbuilding departments require a demolition permit (separate from PSAPCA's Notice of Intent). The Washington Department of Labor & Industry and the local fire marshal may also require notification for asbestos removal projects. Telephone numbers for these entities are listed in the blue pages (Government Listings) of the phone book. PSAPCA Form No. 66-183 (revised 2/97) ACM d PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY 110 Union Street Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98101-2038 Telephone: (206) 689-4052 NOTICE OF CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL LOW TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION UNIT FOR TREATING CONTAMINATED SOIL FORM LTD -1 General Information) AGENCY USE ONLY: DATE RECEIVED REG NO. NOC NO. Original Order of Approval No: Applicant (if applicable) Note: If this machine has not been permitted previously, or if the machine has been modified, please also complete Form LTD -2. Company (or Owner Name) Applicant Address Company (or Owner) Mailing Address Installation Address (including Zip Code) AMOUNT OF SOIL TO BE REMEDIATED: BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: • Days of Operations (Circle) S M T WTFS Daily Hours of Operation From am to pm Control Equipment Cost (Estimate) Planned Start Date for Operation - Estimated Duration of Project PSAPCA Form No. 50-100 (2/96) • • ESTIMATED PROJECT EMISSIONS (Attach separate sheet with emission calculations) POLLUTANT UNCONTROLLED LBS/HOUR CONTROLLED LBS/HOUR TOTAL LBS EMITTED DURING PROJECT PM -10 VOC -S02 NOx _, CO _ Blank lines should be used for toxic air contaminants (i.e., benzene, toluene, xylene, ethylbenzene) - Reference PSAPCA Regulation III, Appendix A. Attach additional sheets if necessary. SOIL CHARACTERIZATION • Contaminant Range (ppm) Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons • Blank lines should be used for other contaminants (i.e., chlorinated compounds). Attach additional sheets if necessary. - - - - - An Environmental Checklist must be completed and submitted with this form. CERTIFICATION: - I, THE UNDERSIGNED, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION AND THE ACCOMPANYING FORMS, PLANS, AND SUPPLEMENTAL DATA DESCRIBED HEREIN IS, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, ACCURATE AND COMPLETE. SIGNATURE DATE TYPE OR PRINT NAME TITLE PHONE Prepared by (Signature and Title) PSAPCA Form No. 50-100 (2/96) • PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY 110 Union Street Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98101-2038 Telephone: (206) 689-4052 NOTICE OF CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL LOW .TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION UNIT FOR TREATING CONTAMINATED SOIL FORM LTD -2 Technical Information (First Time or ModificationOnly) AGENCY USE ONLY: DATE RECEIVED REG NO. NOC NO. Form LTD -1 and an Environmental Checklist must also be completed and submitted with this form. • Applicant Company (or Owner Name) Applicant Address Company (or Owner) Mailing Address Installation Address (including Zip Code) PROCESS EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION: MAXIMUM RATE FOR TREATMENT OF SOIL: TONS PER HOUR MAKE AND MODEL: YEAR THE UNIT WAS MANUFACTURED: PSAPCA Form No. 50-101 (2/96) EXHAUST STACK PARAMETERS Stack Height Above Ground (ft) Stack Internal Diameter at Exit (ft) CFM Exhausted Velocity (ft/sec) Temperature LA,V1111i1.1111 `.1 Wiavva va v..�•••• `V ---- ---—rr----, Fuel Consumption Rate Rotary Dryer No. of Burners MMBtu/hr Type of Fuel Pressure Drop Across the Baghouse (Range in mm Hg) Particulate Grain Loading at Exhaust (gr/dscf) Location of Pressure and Temperature Gauges Primary Baghouse (No. of Units) Actual CFM Max. Temp at Inlet Auxiliary Baghouse (No. of Units) Actual CFM Max. Temp at Inlet Pressure Drop Across the Baghouse (Range in mm Hg) Particulate Grain Loading at Exhaust (gr/dscf) Location of Pressure and Temperature Gauges Thermal Oxidizer (No. of Units) Type of Fuel ACFM Min. Temperature at Inlet Percent_ Destruction Efficiency Location of Temperature Gauges Catalytic Oxidizer (No. of Units) Type of Fuel ACFM Min. Temperature at Inlet Percent Destruction Efficiency Location of Temperature Gauges ATTACH THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: 1. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST. 2. FORM LTD -1. 3. FLOW DIAGRAM: (a) FLOW DIAGRAM MAY BE SCHEMATIC. ALL EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE SHOWN. (b) SHOW FLOW DIAGRAM OR PROCESS. (c) INDICATE ALL POINTS IN PROCESS WHERE GASEOUS OR PARTICULATE POLLUTANTS ARE EMITTED. 4. DETAILED NARRATIVE OF GENERAL PROCESS. 5. DESCRIPTION OF PROCEDURES THAT WILL BE USED TO REDUCE FUGITIVE DUST DURING REMEDIATION. 6. SOURCE TEST RESULTS (IF AVAILABLE). PSAPCA Form No. 50-101 (2/96) •ET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL Ar 110 Union Street, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98101 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ........... .... ........... .... You may not need to fill out the attached checklist. Please read and check the following Because of the State Environmental Policy Act, the action for which you are filing a Notice of Construction and Application for Approval to this Agency requires the completion of an environmental checklist. BUT: If you can answer "yes" to either of the following questions with respect to the action being proposed, the attached checklist need not be completed: 1. I have obtained a State, City or County Permit and filled out an environmental checklist. Yes No If you answered "yes", give State, City or County Department and date, and attach a copy of the checklist. 2. An environmental checklist or assessment has previously been filled out for another agency. I I Yes n No If "yes", give agency and date, and attach a copy of the checklist. If your answer to both of the above questions was "no", you must fill out the attached environmental checklist. Prepared by: (Signature) (Print Name) (Title) Form No.50 -150 5/29/92 Serving: Kitty Canty (Moto Canty Row County Sounarr nt Canty Puget Solid Air Pollution CoAlProl Agency 110 Union Street, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98101 Telephone: (206) 343-8800 ; 1-800-552T-305 3S -1° - Proponent: Project, Brief Title: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of Checklist: Date: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply'. Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about govemmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. • The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a.period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Dennis I. McLerran, Air Pollution Control Officer BO A R D 0 F D IR EC TOP S Chairman: Win Granlund, Commissioner, Kitsap County Janet Chalupnik• Memher at Large Edward D. Hansen. Mayor, Everett Lynn S. Horton, Mayor, Bremerton R.C. Johnson, Councilman, Snohomish County Gary Locke, King County Executive 110 Union Street, Suite 500, Seattle, Washington 98101-2038 (206) 343-8800 Brian Ebersole. Mayor, Tacoma Norman B. Rice, Mayor. Seattle Doul; Sutherland, Pierce County Executive (8(10: _552-3565 FAX::206')343-%522 Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic areas," respectively. TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: 2. Name of applicant: 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Name: Title: Firm: Telephone: PO Box/Street: City/State/Zip: 4. Date checklist prepared: 5. Agency requesting checklist: 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, If applicable): 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. 3 • • 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction or use? If so, generally describe. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 4 h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial, wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year- round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. 5 • • 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose and approximate quantities if known. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the systems, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. 6 • • 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: 7 • • Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. c. Is the site part of_a migration route? If so, explain. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: 8 • • 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a Tong -term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: 9 • • 8. Land and Shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. c. Describe any structures on the site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation Of the site? g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? 10 • • h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. 11 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s)• proposed? b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? 12 • • d. Proposed measures to reduce or control Tight and glare impacts, if any: 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. 13 • • c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. 14 g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example, fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: 15 • • D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (Do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substance; or production of noise? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increase are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 16 • • 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. 17 Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency SOg King, Kitsap, Pierce & Snohomish Count. ENGINEERING PERMIT REVIEW 110 Union Street, Suite 500 Seanle, WA 98101-2033 (206) 689-4052 Notice of Construction Permit Application and Approval Information Sheet 1 WHEN IS A NOTICE OF CONSTRUCTION (NOC) PERMIT REQUIRED? An NOC permit application must be approved in order to construct, erect, install, alter, reconstruct, or relocate any stationary or portable device capable of releasing air contaminants in the atmosphere (Section 6.03 of Regulation I). 2. ' : • T EQUIPMENT TRIGGERS THE NOC PERMIT? a. Air contaminant generating equipment including: (1) Fuel Burning Equipment such as boilers or heaters (2) Refuse Burning Equipment such as incinerators or crematories. (3) Processing Equipment including a wide variety of items such as asphalt plants, blast cleaning units, coffee roasters, concrete plants, degreasers, dry cleaning machines, electroplating lines, fiberglass operations, gas stations, incinerators, rock crushers, spray booths, and storage tanks. b. Air Pollution Control Equipment including baghouses, cyclones, dust collectors, filters, precipitators, scrubbers, adsorbers, and afterburners. (Call 689-4052 for more detailed information and exemptions.) 3. WHAT INFORMATION MUST BE SUBMITTED? a. Completed applicable forms (call 689-4052 for assistance), b. A set of plans which show and describe the following: (1) The emission generating and control equipment covered by the NOC Permit Application; (2) Any equipment connected, attached to, serving, or served by the NOC-triggering unit(s) of equipment or control apparatus; (3) 'A plat plan, including the distance and height of buildings within a reasonable distance from the location of intended equipment installation or construction; (4) The proposed means for the prevention or control of the emissions of air contaminant(s); and (5) Additional information, as requested, to show that the proposed equipment or control apparatus will meet emission standards and employ "best available control technology." c. A completed environmental checklist (or documentation showing, that SEPA has been satisfied). 4. BOW MUCH ARE THE NOC PERMIT FEES? Fees vary with the complexity of the construction. A copy of PSAPCA's NOC fee schedule on the back of this sheet. 5. WHO SUBMITS THE NOC PERMIT APPLICATION? The corporation, company, individual owner, or governmental agency that will operate the equipment must have an approved NOC. The vendor, agent, or contractor installing the equipment may submit the NOC and is co -respon- sible with the owner for assuring that the installation conforms to the requirements of Article 6 of Regulation 1. 6. BOW LONG DOES THE REVIEW PROCESS TAKE? A complete NOC Application should be filed at least 60 days before construction is scheduled to begin (90 days if a public comment period is required). Early filing is encouraged so that the applicant has the approved NOC Permit in hand before contracts are let. When large or complex sources are being permitted, a preliminary meeting with agency engineering staff may avoid misunderstandings, delays, or costly redesign. Form 50-123 (11-1-96) PUGET SOUNIIOAIR POLLUTION CONAP.OL AGENCY Notice of Construction Permit Fee Schedule (Refer to Section 6.04 of Regulation I) Below is the PSAPCA Notice of Construction (NOC) permit fee schedule. The NOC Permit Application is not considered complete until these fees are paid. If you have any questions regarding permit fees, call (206) 689-4052. When a public comment period is required by Section 6.06(a) of Regulation I, the applicant will be invoiced by the Agency for the cost of publishing the public notice. General (not classified below) for each Piece of Equipment or Control Equipment $500 Spray -Painting Operation (per booth) $500 Gasoline Station $500 Dry Cleaner (per machine) $300 Storage Tanks excluding those at gasoline stations: (gallons) less than 20,000 $300 20,000 or more $1,000 Coffee Roaster $1,000 Asphalt Concrete Plant $1,000 Composting Facility $2,500 Landfill Gas System $2,500 Relocation of Previously Permitted Portable Source to a New Address, except soil thermal desorption units $500 Soil Thermal Desorption Unit (initial) $3,000 Relocation of Approved Desorption Unit to New Address $1,000 Minor NOC Change $500 NOC Applicability Determination $200 Refuse Burning Equipment: (rated capacity) 12 tons per day or less $5,000 greater than 12 tons per day but less than 250 tons per day $20,000 250 tons per day or greater $50,000 Additional Charges: SEPA Threshold Determination $250 Air Toxics Review (under Regulation III, Section 2.07(c)(2)) $500 Air Toxics Review (under Regulation III, Section 2.07(c)(3)) $5,000 Major Source, Major Modification, or Emission Increases greater than Prevention of Significant Deterioration Thresholds (see Regulation I, Section 6.07(d)) $5,000 Opacity/Grain Loading Correlation $5,000 Emissions Units Subject to an NSPS or NESHAP (except residential wood heaters, asbestos renovation or demolition, and perchloroethylene dry cleaning) $1,000 Public Notice (plus publication fees) $500 WORK DONE WITHOUT AN APPROVAL - This fee is assessed pursuant to Section 6.10 when the Control Officer conducts an investigation and discovers that equipment or control devices were installed without a required NOC Order of Approval. This fee is 3 times the plan examination fee and is in addition to the other fees. Form 50-124 (6/1/98) 10:30 1. 11:00 2. 11:15 3. 11:30 4. 11:45 5. Pacific View Office Park May 12, 1998 Coordination Meeting Agenda Determination of building height per UBC Sensitive areas studies - Watercourse and Geotech Drainage system design Design for Highway 99 BAR Building design issues Dv O�J2-S (1.v4- Gtc�� c,,> t1JslAa_.In.T' Goo acc.Q p - (off. vra4s- -1-Lt.- cJSL- lrcd � ,�� �v�lal,� foe, I a' iv" 4-0 .43 c4A4 -- F-� ,•yet, - a(va-s al1 ow -1-0 G n 4,1 -vV• Gt a�c'1s�s I S e.Ae-va. r )oloirA7 Gt norNer-w t cr'eo+ 4ce_�� ? O .,,,,,lll ,,‘LAZ 5+? S11- -'& vtv — & ? re fo - I yoe._. 3, L ¥ � r (v G atto! M Cr --IL /� G �Tv r✓1��S +� Fes\ p\ rSG-J 5S `ncr.,-<,l avti whin ✓'Las-- s L' 61 - 5o ,1 S h..e_ r� 10� ; - � e_ TSOGLrlf7` Lok; .7v.i r- ,-S W It PL -.1 a-100 .4- pDn 6,7e� - H- i A Tom, vis cye5 '94,. baa.)1, rswss a� ► i c --,:s4 : -i- Cc.).4-• - 474-7 AI � /� QilajJ.l� 1��D oge_ vv Q , sv; S trr Sa 1 ` 'me— ,n rspr-L' c> icier— pc. p ? ,lob cvtore- de-4-:f.4Win, �ro� s W^��i vl Y r�t�s ajLO GJOJI ok 1/10 _ -c10,33, • • 2. Develop a grant program for site reha- bilitation of multi family and commercial properties. Rationale In the past, Tukwila has not had to focus on commercial revitalization. Other cities, however, have developed and tested programs that encourage private improve- ments to property. These programs typically match $1.00 public dollar for every $2.00 spent by property owners. In addition to implementing a program such as this, the City should offer free technical assistance property owners to help them develop site improvement plans. In order to promote the program, the City should arrange for a demonstration project and/or other means to encourage property owner participation. There are a number of cosmetic improve- ments that would benefit existing property owners and businesses. These include ' dumpster relocation and screening, more efficient parking lot layout, parking lot paving, landscaping improvements, and facade improvements, including street addressing for business identification. Responsible Department and its Role The Mayor's Office currently allocates grant funds, and should continue to oversee this effort. The benefit of having a "99 Coordinator" is that this person could focus on obtaining grants, identifying recipients, and coordinating the allocation of grant monies. The Department of Community Develop- ment is responsible for reviewing landscap- ing and parking plans and therefore should be responsible for providing technical assistance. Cost This program could be developed and staffed with existing staff resources. To be most effective, however, it would become the responsibility of the "99 Coordinator." The costs associated with hiring a 99 Coordinator are discussed under the strategy, "Engage in brokering development in tt) e Pacific Highway Corridor," on p. � Adopt a "limited redevelopment period" to encourage redevelop- ment of existing multi -family housing complexes As an additional incentive to owners of multi -family properties, analyze the implica- tions of zoning amendments that would allow existing multiple family developments to redevelop at their existing densities or as office development for a limited period of time.c ee Figure 10: Multi family Site.;`. rJ Rationale When the Pacific Highway area was annexed to the City of Tukwila, the proper- ties in this area became subject to Tukwila zoning regulations. As a result, the allow- able density in the medium and high density residential districts was decreased, which discourages replacement of existing housing. Currently, the City's code (TMC 18.70.050 (5)) allows property owners to redevelop residentialstructures to existing densities and dimensions in the event of a fire or other natural disast64- new developmen ust^ meet Tukwila's standards for lower density 61— multi-family multi -family development and 'provide r °8"iav recreation facilities, improved landscaping, higher, parking ratios, and other site im- provements. While new, higher quality units could probably command higher rents, the cost of developing to these higher standards may not be attractive to property owners, given revenues from existing units. Experts have sited examples where pending zoning changes have spurred development. The incentive is the option of developing at a density that is not currently allowed or will not be allowed in the future. The public benefit of this proposed program to allow redevelopment at existing densities for a limited period of time is in its potential to stimulate new development, which would in turn bring a significant visual change to the area and improve the quality of indi- vidual properties. Office use would broaden the potential for redevelopment and is viewed as having a more positive impact on the area than multi -family development. City of Tukwila 49 CITY OF WKWILA Department o Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 • NOTICE OF APPLICATION PROJECT INFORMATION The Sabey Corporation has filed applications for construction of three office buildings located at 12421 Pacific Highway South in the City of Tukwila. Work will include demolition of existing structures, remediation of site contamination, grading portions of the site, frontal improvements and construction of the office buildings and associated parking Tots. Permits applied for include: Design Review Demolition Tree Permit Other known required permits include: Land Altering Building Permits Studies required with the applications include: Geotechnical Report Level 1 Downstream Analysis Wetland/Watercourse Sensitive Areas Study An environmental checklist has been submitted with the permits identified above. FILES AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW The project files are available at the City of Tukwila. To view the files, you may request them at the permit counter of the Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite 100. Project Files include: E98-0006 SEPA Checklist L98-0021 Design Review OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT Your written comments on the project are requested. They must be delivered to DCD at the address above or postmarked no later than 5:00 p.m., May 22, 1998. Opportunity for additional oral and written public comments will be provided at a public hearing before the Board of Architectural Review, tentatively scheduled for June 25, 1998. To confirm this date call the Department of Community Development at (206) 431-3670. APPEALS You may request a copy of any decision, information on hearings, and your appeal rights by calling DCD at (206) 431-3670. The design review and environmental review decisions are appealable to the City Council. The tree permit is appealable to the Planning Commission. The other permit decisions are appealable to Superior Court. For further information on this proposal, contact Nora Gierloff at (206) 431-3670 or visit our offices at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Application Filed: April 1, 1998 Notice of Completeness Issued: April 24, 1998 Notice of Application Issued: May 8, 1998 z f TOTAL SITE AREA: 559,465 SF BUILDING A - 3 STORY, MIXED USE LEVEL 1: OFFICE OR F-2 = 29,115 SF LEVEL 2: OFFICE OF F-2 = 34,615 SF LEVEL 3: OFFICE USE = 33,183 5F TOTAL = 98,233 SF BUILDING B - 4 STORY OFFICE 2 PARKING LEVELS (ONE ON -GRADE) OFFICE LEVEL I: I5SI1 SF OFFICE LEVEL 2: I&041 SF OFFICE LEVEL 3: 17,511 5F OFFICE LEVEL 4: 11,121 SF TOTAL = 11,268 SF BUILDING G - 4 STORY OFFICE 2 PARKING LEVELS (ONE ON-&RADE) OFFICE LEVEL I: 18,511 SF OFFICE LEVEL 2: 15,1041 SF OFFICE LEVEL 3: 11,511 SF OFFICE LEVEL 4: 11,121 SF TOTAL = 11,268 SF PARKING SUMMARY: 153 TOTAL STALLS OVERALL PARKING RATIO: 3.13 STALLS PER 1000 SF PARKING RATIO - OFFICE ONLY (NOT INCL F-2): 3.99 STALLS PER 1000 SF PACIFIC VIEW OFFICE PARK TUKWILA, WASHINGTON nn MENET I1® / N ARC1IT] CT8, INC., IP.& _°11 Evergreen One, 10940 NE 33rd Place, Sulte 202, Bellevue, WA 98004 (425) 827-2100 • Control No. Epic File No. Fee $325, Receipt No. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Pacific View Office Park 2. Name of applicant: Sabey Corporation Architecture Group 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Haynes Lund Sabey Corporation Architecture Group 101 Elliott Avenue W, Suite 330 Seattle, WA 98101-4220 phone: 206-281-8700 . fax: 206-281-0920 4. Date checklist prepared: 5. Agency requesting checklist: March 19, 199 City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): (Revised 5/11/98) The Project is scheduled to begin construction in July of 1998 for the rough grading and site utilities. The schedule will be finalized based on marketing of the office space, but it is our expectation that we would begin construction of the south two buildings (Bldg. A & Bldg. B) immediately after rough grading is complete. The remaining office buildings (Bldg. C) is expected to begin construction next spring. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. This proposal covers the entire site. There is no expectation that there would be any construction on the site beyond what is covered in this checklist. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. A Phase 1 & 2 Environmental Assessment Report has been prepared by Secor International Inc. A Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation of the site has been prepared by Geotechnical Consultants, Inc.; the Final Report will be submitted with the first Building Permit application. Copies of these reports have been included with this checklist. -2- • • 9. Do you know whether plications are pending for governmental ap vals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. We are not aware of any other proposals affecting this site. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Master Use Permit Boundary Line Adjustment Board of Architecture Review Building Permit (one for each building) Miscellaneous Permits -- Demolition, Tree Cutting, Land Altering Puget Sound. Air Pollution Control Agency permit (asbestos) 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the site of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized here. We proposed to construct approximately 240,000 square feet of office space (Use Classification B) in three buildings on this site. The project would include parking at a ratio of 3 stalls per 1000 SF. Some of the parking would be located underneath the office buildings. The project also includes re -grading most of the site and providing new utilities to all the buildings and a new surface drainage system. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The address of the current business on the site is 12421 Pacific Highway south. We are submitting a survey of the existing conditions, including legal description of the site, along with this application. 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? The site contains areas of Potential Geologic Instability, Class 3. -3- • • TO BE COMPLETEDDY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH • a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: The site is a combination of flat areas and steeply sloping areas. See topographic survey submitted with this application. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 66%. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. See Geotechnical Report submitted with this application. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. There was one incident of sloughing of the surface material along a portion of the west property line near the north end of the site that was remediated in 1989. The buildings have been located in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineer to minimize damage to the buildings if slope movement were to occur. See Geotechnical Report for further discussion of the soils and slope conditions on this property. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. A major portion of the site will be re -graded to provide benches for buildings and parking areas. The cut will amount to approximately 30,000 cubic yards. About 20,000 cubic yards will be disposed of off-site. The new grading will require an additional 22,000± cubic yards of fill. We will retain the services of a Geotechnical Engineer to approve all imported structural fill. -4- EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETEDik APPLICANT f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, • generally describe. • g• Due to the existing slopes on the site, erosion could occur during the clearing and re -grading of the site. Included with our Building Permit application will be a Temporary Erosion Control Plan designed in accordance with King County standards by a registered civil engineer. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 40%. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Erosion will be controlled during construction by limiting site access to a single construction entrance and by sequencing the work to limit the opportunities for erosion. All exposed soils will be covered if left unworked for more than seven days in summer, and a siltation fence will be installed to minimize the downstream impacts of erosion during construction. The permanent site drainage system will be installed early in the construction process. This system will include an interceptor ditch or conveyance to contain the off-site run-off and one or more sedimentation/siltation ponds to treat all site storm drainage prior to leaving the site. 2. AIR a. What type of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Dust will be generated during demolition and construction. During construction there would be exhaust emissions from the construction vehicles. After construction is complete, the only permanent on-site sources of emissions will be the boiler for the heating water systems, the cooling towers for the air conditioning systems, and the exhaust from emergency generators (if required). There will be an increase in automobile traffic at this site as a result of this project. -5- EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED, APPLICANT b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your • proposal? If so, generally describe. • Emissions from the traffic on Highway 99 will affect this site. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: We will provide dust control during construction in accordance with PSAPCA standards. The existing transit stop on Highway 99 in front of the site will be maintained. We will provide bicycle parking stalls in accordance with City of Tukwila standards, and we will provide preferential parking for car and van pools. 3. WATER a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. There are existing man-made drainage courses on the site. These are collected and directed under Highway 99 into the wetlands on the east side of the highway. This wetlands drains into Riverton Creek and the Duwamish River. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No, only the existing on-site surface drainage will be revised. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. No dredging will be required. The only filling of surface water will be the re -working of the existing man-made water courses. -6- EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY • • TO BE COMPLETED.' APPLICANT • 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Surface run-off on the site will be collected and detained in accordance with King County standards. The detention system will be designed so that the post -development discharge will match the pre -development discharge for the 2 -year, 10 -year and 100 -year storm durations. The total capacity of the detention system will be 44, 011 cubic feet. Detention will be primarily by means of an underground vault. 5) Does the proposal lie within a I00 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. The potential for erosion during construction will be mitigated by the Temporary Erosion Control measures which we will undertake. There is no other potential discharge that is contemplated. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. We do not anticipate that this project will have any impact on existing ground water. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. • No discharge into the ground of waste material is anticipated from this project. -7- EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY • TO BE COMPLETEDIPY APPLICANT c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. The only runoff from this site will be storm drainage. Upstream, off-site flows will be intercepted and directed independently through the site. On-site flows will be routed through a detention vault and will discharge through a bio-swale. The discharge location from the site and the discharge volumes to the existing storm system will remain unchanged from the pre -development condition. A Level 1 Drainage Report is included with this Checklist. Oil/water separators will be provided for the drains from the parking garages. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. The only potential waste materials would be oils and other products from automobiles. The storm drainage system will be designed to separate out this material from the water discharged from the site. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, or runoff water impacts, if any: Measures to control surface water runoff will include intercepting the off-site flows upstream and routing them around or through the site. Detention ponds designed in accordance with Department of Ecology and King County requirements will be included for water quality and discharge control. Also, the discharge location from the site should remain essentially unchanged. -8- EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY • TO BE COMPLETEDPY APPLICANT 4. PLANTS EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other X shrubs X grass pasture crop or grain _ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? The site currently consists of wooded areas along the west and north edges, with some secondary growth areas within the site. These latter areas will be cleared and as will a small portion of the wooded areas. The remaining wooded areas comply with the Tukwila Municipal Code standards for maintaining canopy cover on a site. A request for exception for Replacement of Canopy Cover has been submitted. In addition, the Landscape Plan includes a significant number of new trees which will nearly equal the canopy cover that was removed. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered species are known to be on or near this site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: We will provide landscape buffers and interior landscaping in accordance with City of Tukwila standards. 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: • The site adjoins a wooded area. It is likely that many -9- • • TO BE COMPLETED, APPLICANT common species of birds can be seen on the site on occasion. mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: The site adjoins a wooded area. It is likely that many common species of rodents (field mice, moles) and small mammals (squirrels, racoons) can be seen on the site on occasion. fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: The site contains no area of current or potential fish habitat. b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered species are known to be on or near this site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Natural gas will be utilized for the space heating system. Electricity will power all other systems including air distribution, cooling, lighting. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. -10- EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY • TO BE COMPLETED. APPLICANT c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: The project will be designed to meet the requirements of the Washington State Non -Residential Energy Code. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None are required. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None are required. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment operation, other)? • There is traffic noise from Pacific Highway, and there is aircraft noise since the site is close to an approach path for Seatac Airport. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from site? There would be typical construction noise from 7:00 AM until 5:00 PM during the week for the construction period. Construction activities will be scheduled and controlled to comply with the City of Tukwila Noise Ordinance. Once the buildings are occupied, traffic noise in the area would be increased by the traffic to the site, primarily during the week at rush hours. -11- EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY • • TO BE COMPLETED. APPLICANT 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: • We will utilize the measures listed previously (see 2.c.) to reduce the vehicle counts at the site. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is currently used by a commercial enterprise which stores and sells industrial vehicles and equipment. The east face of the property is Pacific Highway South, which becomes a limited access highway along the north portion of the site. The property to the south is a small apartment complex, although this use is not in conformance with the current zoning. The property to the west and northwest is steeply sloping wooded area, with multi -family housing beyond that. (Note that the west property line of this site is the border of the City of Tukwila and the property to the west is under the jurisdiction of King County.) The remainder of the north end of the site abuts the reserved areas for the Highway 99 right of way. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any structures on the site. There is an existing, small 1 story office structure, an open shed, a storage building and some small out buildings. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? All of these structures will be removed or demolished. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The site is zoned Commercial/Light industrial (C/LI). f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Under the current Comprehensive Plan the site will remain zoned C/LI. -12- EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY • • TO BE COMPLETED. APPLICANT g• • If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not Applicable. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. j• The site contains areas of Potential Geologic Instability Class 2 and Class 3, having slopes in excess of.20% with moderate to high landslide potential. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? When the entire site is finished approximately 1200 people will work on this site. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? There are approximately 5 people who work on the site at the present time. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any. No measures are proposed. 1 Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. Proposal complies with all City of Tukwila Zoning and Land Use requirements, Comprehensive Plan guidelines, and Pacific Highway corridor aspirations. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing? No housing units will be provided. -13- EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETEDIPY APPLICANT b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate • whether high, middle, or low-income housing? • No housing units will be displaced by this project. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. No measures are proposed. 10. AESTHETICS • a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The tallest building will be approximately 75' high at the highest point on the exterior. There will be equipment enclosures on the roof that will extend about 12' higher. The primary exterior materials for the buildings will be painted concrete and glass. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Because of the existing sloping terrain, no views from neighboring buildings will be impeded by this project. The apartment structures on the hillside above will be able to look down on the roof of this project. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any. The site is currently used for the storage and sale of industrial vehicles and equipment. This project will significantly enhance the appearance of the site and the neighborhood, and will advance the goals of the City of Tukwila Pacific Highway project. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? There will be lighting associated with the parking areas. Due to the terrain, the neighboring residences to the north and west will be located above these light standards. -14- EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED. APPLICANT b. Could light or glare from the fmished project be a safety hazard or • interfere with views? No. • c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? There is existing street lighting for Highway 99 which will spill onto this site. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Parking lot lighting will be designed to limit spillage onto neighboring properties to 2 footcandles or less, per City of Tukwila standards. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? King County is developing a park along the Duwamish • River less than a mile away. • b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None are required. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. There are none. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. -15- EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY • • TO BE COMPLETED. APPLICANT None have been identified at this time. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: No measures are required. 14. TRANSPORTATION • a. Identify public streets.and highways serving the site, and describe the proposed access to theexisting street system.. Show on site plans, if any. The Site Plan included with this application shows that access to the site will be exclusively from Pacific Highway South, a principal arterial as defined by the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. No neighborhood streets or minor arterials will be impacted by this project. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? There is an existing transit stop along Highway 99 in front of the site. The stop will be maintained. The Regional Transit Authority has also defined the Pacific Highway corridor as a potential route location. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The project includes.817 parking spaces. The existing site has a large paved area which is currently used for parking trucks and other large vehicles. This area, and the accompanying 6 or 7 parking spaces, will be eliminated by this project. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). The proposal would not require any new roads or streets. The existing center (fifth) lane on Highway 99 would need to be extended to the north to allow for left turns into and out of the site from the north site entrance. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. -16- EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED. APPLICANT No. • f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. g• See the Traffic Study submitted along with this application. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. See the Traffic Study submittedalong with this application. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. • None are proposed. • 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service. and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricity: provided by City Light; new underground service will be provided from the existing lines along Highway 99 into the site. Natural Gas: provided by Washington Natural Gas; new service line will be run to the buildings from the gas main along Highway 99. Water: provided by Water District #20; there is an existing line along the south side of the site with sufficient pressure to serve the domestic water and fire protection -17- EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY • • • TO BE COMPLETED. APPLICANT • needs of this project; this project includes providing a fire loop around the entire site and connecting both to the line at the south end of the site and to the existing water line serving the housing units to the west; domestic water will be provided by a separate connection to the existing line at the south. Telephone: provided by US West; new underground lines will be installed to the buildings from the main line along Highway 99. Sanitary Sewer: provided by Val-Vue Sewer District; the existing line along Highway 99 has the capacity to serve the needs of this project. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date submitted: !�RAY /T1'b PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE. -18- EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY • • TO BE COMPLETED" APPLICANT D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (Do not use this sheet for project actions) • Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: -19- EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED" APPLICANT • • 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? • Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: How does the proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. 8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what policies of the Plan. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: -20- EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED" APPLICANT • E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON • PROJECT PROPOSALS The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental information provided and the submitted plans, documents, supportive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objectives of the proposal? This project is an investment opportunity for Sabey Corporation, who will manage, as well as own, the development. The company has a history of successfully developing sites which offer amenity, but also high risk. This site offers the amenities of views and good access, but carries the risks of difficult terrain and a marginal neighborhood. These risks are mitigated somewhat by the City's vision for the Pacific Highway corridor and the potential for this site to encourage and assist the City in the realization of that vision. 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? The alternative is to find another site, perhaps in another jurisdiction, to develop the office space. 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: Either alternative is viable to this developer. The current proposal is preferred because this site has good access and views which help to make the office space marketable. 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what policies of the Plan? The proposal is in concord with the Plan and, in fact, serves to encourage development in one of the areas of focus of the plan. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: None are required. • -21- EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 05/06/98 WED 08:57 FAX 206 281 0920 Sabey Construction Corp fj00o. S CORPORPCiION ARCHITECTURE GROUP, FACSIMILE TRANSMIT'T'AL ,I /� "DATE/TIME: 5 - (of_�p $ I U45 ORIGINAL TO FOLLOW: NO ______ .. Yes, by: Mail_ ✓ __ Ovemight Delivery _. _.Courier ___ 'TO: ...j.o.R_.ay. FIRM: .ilx-a..J 1 LA- . C. D - FAX NO.: go(a " 451 .---66) PHONE NO.: _ICitQ — 433 -? 141 FROM: �n) 5 ' 1—...0/J3:› PROJECT: Fwd G Vjfid! Opi tC.F pfme,,y....* r� Number of pages, including this cover sheet: '7.., Transmitting from fax number (206) 281-0920, Phone (206) 281.871.10 Please call at 281-8700 if you do not receire all pages. Message:krTh.c..,...terb/S Ivo 4P1-' D 1'T egl 1N57-142.1 _ s ..�"'t3 _.. rail... • /'J Cv Al p6Q,1 ter] 'i CyN I tt/ 1 1. /►'lR1l. 41-tE OR.LCzhnfM 11? SOU / U,JL1L3 YE () L67' M4 -7-1-i r_ i6 is . h.N kip V�r�J-r,& - b&I.IVQ►21AVtr 1T T� This facsimile communication is Intended only for tha usa al tha individual or entity to which it is addressed end may contain Ir formation tr el Is privileged and and confidential. If the reader of this cover page is not Me addressee, or the employee or agent of the addressee, please bo i idvisad that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohbited. If you receive this facsimile In error, please notify us Immedatey by telephone and mail this facsimile to us at the address below, Thank you. SABEY CORPORATION 101 Elliott Avenue West Suite 330 • Seattle, WA 98119 • Tel: 2061281-8700 r 1=ax: 2061281.0920 l:larrlt ms toraVaxtrane.wk4 05/06/98 WED 08:57 FAX 206 28L.0920 Sabey Construction Corp a 002 • CITY OF TUKWILA; 6300 Soutlicenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Telephone: (206) 431-3670 VMS 111••••1 AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION AND POSTING OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGNS) State of Washington County of King City of Tukwila I I -4k J L L) AJ D (print Name) understand that Section 18.104.110 of the Tukwila Municipal Code requires me to post the property no later than fourteen (14) days following the issuance of the Notice of Completeness. 1 certify that on ,/CD / 9 & the Public Notice Board(s) in accordance with Section 18.104.110 and other applicable guidelines were posted on the property Located at j241/.1 PAciptc I.0f141 So. so as to be clearly seen from each right -of -way providing primary vehicular access to the property for application file number 5E1" - Ooe2Co 13 tk L. 98- 0021 Affiant ,�= pplicant Signature) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this V* day of l ,19 IS' SHARON V. SIGNORELLI STATE OF WASHINGTON NOTARY-- PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 1-30-99 h QYx_ V, 4 1 and for a State of Washington NOTARY PUBLIC in residing at 9d 62 -- My commission expires on 1-30 - q 9 Pacific View Office Park May 5, 1998 Coordination Meeting Agenda 1. Determination of number of building stories per UBC 2. Retaining walls to be used for building foundations 3. Sensitive areas studies - Watercourse per Gary Schulz's 4/30 letter and Geotech 4. Drainage system design 5. Traffic report issues 6. Design for Highway 99 7. BAR Building design issues EIMIH.II 1111116. laill• lighplop Oki III 1 1 liribillidiRkik I i indlillillirOPINI 91 illiFilintilliiiinliiii IIIIIIII Mil 1001 11111111111111 1111 i1iI;II IN 111111111111 II ' iiiiiiiiiPiiilli I . I 111111 11111 I 1 •••••• IIIllllIl,i!Ilii • � Y Y t1 VSTREAM ELEMENTS /Idlh of watercourse (O1HWM) Figure 4 1VATERCOURSE RATING FORM - CITY OF :TUKWILA 5 feet core =3 1 to 5 feet Score = 2 <l foot Score = Score 2 - : ban nel capacity unple, no overbank Adequate., slight evidence Insufficient lows of overbank flows overbank flows common 'core =3 Score = 1 Score = 0 Score Channel stability Yo scour or downcutting ;core =3 Slight scour or downcutting (25% of channel) Score =1 Jbvious scour or downcutting Score = -1 Moderate scour or downcutting — (25 to 50% of channel) Score = 0 Score Fish use Salmonids present Potential for salmonid use No potential for salmonids but other species present Score =3 Score = 2 Score = 1 No fish present and little potential for restoration Score =0 Score x 2 = t) Fish habitat Spawning, rearing. and Two of three habitat Rearing or overwintering overwintering types present habitat present Score = 3 Score =2 Score = 1 Score d Date Watercourse H 4 From .5-6.d Prr L . To aicZrifot41/0i-fid✓ 4 TOTAL INSTREAM SCORE _ d 1IM)1ni L4 S : ii tj -13 CORRIDOR FEATURES Corridor Quality Tukwila Watercourse Rating pg. 2 LEFT RICHT BANK BANK Width of unmaintained vegetation from OHWI4 Left Bank • Right Bank >50 feet 25 to 30 feet 5 to 25 feet Score = 3 Score= 2 Score = 1 Subscore 3 _ Subscore 3 Vegetation diversity High diversity, Open forest or shrubs Single layer muhi-layeted with undetstory with minimal diversity Score = 3 • Score = 2 Score = 1 For each bank, multiply the subscores of the above two elements to determine total scores ubscore Z` Subscore Z Total Total Score' ' Score -S Corridor Barrier Function Dense forest or shrub 100 to 75% Score = 3 Dense forest or shrub 50 to 75% Score =2 Dense forest or shrub 25 to 50% Score = 1 Score % Score Surrounding land use Immediately outside of corridor (multiply percentage of area in each catagory) Forested Score =3 Shrub or urunaintained Active agriculture grassland or pasture Score = 2 Score = I urban: residential/maintained lawns Score = -I urban: industrial/commercial Soort: = -2 Score � Score Score � Scor �Z TOTAL CORRIDOR SCORE • Add "A" for Enhancement Potential (Briefly describe) ADD INSTREAM ELEMENT TO DETERMINE TOTAL REACH SCORE Score Score 4 Score 4 Scone SCORE_ SCOREIC (NSTREAM ELEMENTS Width of watercourse (OIIWM) Figure 4 WATERCOURSE RATING FORM - CITY OF :TUKWILA >S feet Score = 3 1 to 5 feet Score = 2 <1 foot Score = t Score .2— Channel Channel capacity Ample, no overbank Adequate., slight evidence Insufficient flows of overbank flows aye. [lows common Score = 3 Score =1 Scots = 0 Score . Channel stability No scour or downcutting Slight scour or downcutting of channel) Score = 3 Obvious scour or downcutting Score = -1 Moderate scour or downcutting (25 to 50% of channel) Score = 0 Score ` FIsb use Salmonids present Potential for salmonid use Score = 3 No fish present and inale potential for restoration Score= 0 Score =2 No potential for salmonids but other species present Score = 1 Score x 2 = Fish habitat Spawning, rearing, and Two of three habitat Rearing or overwintering overwintering types present habitat present Score = 3 Score =2 Score = 1 Score Date 5L-78 Watercourse i From -'r I/14J2i' To A-4-4 Q ) /734.4 TOTAL INSTREAM SCORE 3 Md/aOa d1IM>111 WdSS:T1 -u vt w • -. = Tukwila Watercourse Rating pg. 2 LEFT (BANK RIGHT BANK Width of unmaintained veeetation from OHWM >50 feet 25 to 50 feet Score = 3 Score = 2 Vegetation diversity High diversity, rnuhi-layered Score =3 5 to 25 feet Sctgc4-I- Open forest or shrubs %Single layer with understory with minimal diversify Score=2 `Score =1. For each bank, multiply the subscores of the above two elements w determine total scores Left Bank . Right Bank Subscore . J Subscore ) Subscore I Subscore Total Total Score (--- Score Corridor Barrier Function Dense forest or shrub Dense forest or shrub 100 to 75% 50 to 75% Score =3 Score =2 Dense forest or shrub 25 to 50% Score . 1 . Score ) Score... Surrounding land use immediately outside of corridor (multiply percentage of area in each catagory) Forested Score =3 Shrub or unznainlained Active agriculture grassland or pasture Score = 2 Score = I urban urban: residential/maintained lawns industrial/commercial Score = -1 Score = -2 ,/ ScoreScore Scorer? Scorer TOTAL CORRIDOR SCORE Add "A" for Enhancement Potential (Briefly describe) ADD INSTREAM ELEMENT TO DETERMINE TOTAL REACH SCORE MdAaja d]IM>1nl N SS : i i Score I Score Score 3 Score 3 cn SCORE4 SCORE 4 w / 5-'kft 11;30 /c6u ;kj 1v:3� Pacific View Office Park May 5, 1998 Coordination Meeting Agenda 1. Determination of number of building stories per UBC re -e. 5'15-k{yo' 2. Retaining walls to be used for building foundations 3. Sensitive areas studies - Watercourse per Gary Schulz's 4/30 letter and Geotech I 106 4. Drainage system design 6,-)r1 5. Traffic report issues I bgk) 7 ad, / J,un 6. Design for Highway 99 5 t a,.c_ 7. BAR Building design issues E�._tZ. / L.7g(o le_ ce, r,�-&4s-f / s 7 (^)" 2 `"3(..;e -' o(-PArl2tc G t7J cr Z M f r".- I SNS d`� J� i l0 \ \. �` 17'1r 0?) E`",sr: GcS �� { �6.snr c✓�-ii S c a (4-t/1 I OC.a4 �(�c.r�1�c per-r+-.r-�S w dl 11�S+;.e.ge�,( '' r- 9�l U3C� I +G px'17vate) e-LoAa;'oC.✓n.c.z.— I — \ ` (�� c.JwK6 l.Ji.it"c'e//L,./1&,. O`ckr-per - Lj wyl-ic•.�o� I I y\ siva-- sh c-adt C -c, •� . -i-t eJCI•w1lt 1ZSv�S ("e 5+cal v�/1 GtreCrr-va/ se, nn OC^a-SS S��LIS -ocp s w,7-1-���--a-1.„, of d n • �- ti. 0 . w f�4--1n l g ic)') nap� -� ►-� s ,,�� �s -propo sa-1 -1,, fru a s--ww-,e, b � i a- L 6%)c -� - h r s r,� s l o i- ruv� ry a1 nai wgLitr-• �� tlic.,i 5, - 51\4_7 5 ALA- tier -7 .�w ��r �`�' v`'� (cam �-n� -J-�►, .�. i- 100lt- fur b42 --4l- 0 -INC -c-- r c,c w--?sc,.-- , •}D r^ -,o. Am- C l �c bt W rn -pc1 t -r% f I,, 0Ait s(pI,:N.t l c..nok.Sc_gP� T ��e.- mac- � :7/2_ r%,„ Agenda Pacific Highway Draft Revitalization Plan Housing Wednesday, April 8 1:30 - 3:00 p.m. Tukwila Community Center I. Welcome Mayor John Rants II. Presentation: Draft Revitalization Plan Moira Carr Bradshaw, Project Manager 1:30 1:35 III. Questions/Clarifications on Plan 1:50 IV. History of Tukwila's Housing Role 2:00 Evelyn Boykan, Human Services Coordinator V. Similar Projects Elsewhere - Invitees 2:10 ➢ Their Challenges ➢ Local Jurisdiction's Role VI. Comments/Feedback on housing approach Invitees 2:40 VII. Meeting Wrap-up/Adjourn 2:55 MEMORANDUM May 4, 1998 Re: Pacific View Office Park Clarification of Drainage Issues From: Bruce Kessler, Project Engineer, Nelson-Bourdages Following is clarification of some drainage issues at the above referenced project. Special Requirements King County, Washington, Surface Water Design Manual Following is an account of the applicability of each Special Requirement to the " project site. Special Requirement #1: Critical Drainage Areas Not applicable. The site is not located within a Critical Drainage Area. Special Requirement #2: Compliance with an Existing Master Drainage Plan Not applicable. The, site is not located within an area covered by an Existing Master Drainage Plan Special Requirement #3: Conditions Requiring a Master Drainage Plan Not applicable. The site is below all thresholds. Special Requirement #4: Adopted or Community Plan Site design will be in accordance with the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the Surface and Stormwater Management Ordinance No. 1755. The site is not located in an area within an adopted Basin Plan, however, the City intends to adopt the "Riverton Creek Stormwater Quality Management Plan" in June or July of 1998. NELSON-BOURDAGES a Division of Poggemeyer Design Group, Inc. 512 Sixth Street South, Suite 202 • Kirkland, WA 98033 (425) 827-5995 o Fax (425) 828-4850 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA MAY 0 5 1998 PERMIT CENTER Pacific View Office Pa Drainage Issues May 4, 1998 Special Requirement#5: Special Water Quality Control The site will have more than 1 acre of impervious area discharging runoff through overland flows into a Class 1 or 2 stream or Class 1 wetland, therefore; a pond, wetvault, or water quality swale will be required. To meet this requirement, discharge from the on-site detention system will be routed through a bioswale prior to leaving the site. Special Requirement #6: Special Water Quality Control The site will have more than 5 acre of impervious area in the northern discharge area, however, the vehicular use will be under the threshold of 2,500 vehicle trips per day. Therefore, Special Requirement #6 does not apply to the proposed site. Special Requirement #7: Closed Depressions Not applicable. Based on the Level 1 Down Stream Analysis Report, the site does not discharge to any closed depressions. Special Requirement #8: Use of Lakes, Wetlands or Closed Depressions for Peak Rate Runoff Control Not applicable. Runoff control will be provided by an on-site detention facility. Special Requirement #9: Delineation of 100 Year Floodplain Not applicable. Special Requirement #10: Flood Protection Facilities for Type 1 and 2 Streams Not applicable. Special Requirement #11: Geotechnical Analysis and Report Not applicable. Special Requirement #12: Soils Analysis Report Reference the previously submitted geotechnical report dated March 16, 1998, by Geotech Consultants, Incorporated. Page 2 of 3 Pacific View Office Pa Drainage Issues May 4, 1998 On -Site Detention • Detention facilities will be designed to provide run-off treatment: of the 6 -month, 24 hour storm event. The streambank erosion control standard limits peak flows discharged from the developed site to 50 percent of the existing condition 2 -year, 24-hour storm event and will maintain existing conditions peak flow rates for the 10 -year and 100 -year, 24 hour storms. Appropriate correction factors will be applied per Chapter III -1, "Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin". On -Site Concrete Channels We have reviewed altemate designs for the 2.5' wide concrete lined stormwater bypass channels. A minimum 10' wide grass lined channel would be required to convey the high flows produced by the 25 year design stormwithout erosion. Space to accommodate the wide channels is not available on-site, therefore, we respectfully request that the City reconsider the originally designed concrete channels in conjunction with the City requested water quality feature to be located between proposed Buildings B and C. Page 3 of 3 • City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director April 30, 1998 Mr. Haynes Lund, AIA Sabey Corporation 101 Elliott Avenue E., Suite 330 Seattle, WA 98119 Re: Sensitive Area Ordinance requirements for proposed Pacific View Office Park - SEPA #E98-0006 & Design Review #L98-0021. Dear Haynes: I have reviewed the lastest plan submittal and discussed sensitive area requirements with Steve Lancaster, Director of Community Development. I have also re -visited the site to look at drainage features that may be subject to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45). The definition of a regulated watercourse includes drainage areas modified by man (TMC 18.45.920). My observations indicate a groundwater influence on the watercourses crossing the site. The southernmost drainage is partly supported by off-site wetland area near the top of slope. The Ordinance requires a study of sensitive areas if present on a site (TMC 18.45.020 F.). Your geotechnical work satifies a portion of the sensitive area study requirements. The land survey work completed to date is adequate for mapping the watercourses. However, a wetland/watercourse reconnaissance -level report is needed to identify areas, assess their characteristics, and determine ratings per the Ordinance. A qualified wetland/stream consultant will conduct the study. The report needs to include a determination for potential wetland presence on the property. Also, this report will need to be completed prior to issuing the SEPA Threshold Determination for the project. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 • • Mr. Haynes Lund, Sabey Corp. April 30, 1998 Page 2 This requirement was identified in the City's March 23, 1998 letter to you. Please feel free to contact me at 206-431-3662. I will attend the scheduled meeting on Tuesday, May 5 to answer questions you may have. Sincerely, C. Gary Schulz Urban Environmentalist cc: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director Gary Barnett, Development Engineer Nora Gierloff, Associate Planner Kelcie Peterson, Permit Coordinator AGENDA PACIFIC VIEW OFFICE PARK CITY STAFF AND APPLICANT COORDINATION 4.28.98 Project Goals 1. July 1 -- Grading and retaining wall permits issued 2. Enterprise Zone -- determine responsilbility and timeline for needed infrastructure 3. Project to conform to all codes -- identify design requirements, submit per agreements, minor revisions, approval which will reduce the cycles of submit, review, revise, resubmit, rereview Project Approach 1. City staff, city adminstration, owner, design team -- work together as team to meet goals. Open communication required. 2. To meet goals listed above, there is little time forbacktracking, miscommunication, incomplete communication etc. 3. Identify issues, identify responsible parties and needed actions for resolution, documention, followup and closure 4. Administration is involved iii enterprise zone coordination. Information from team feeds to adminstration. Adminstration directions sent to team. Continuous open information loop. Public Works Infrastructure Issues TRANSPORATION 1. Access locations and movements 2. U turn widening improvements at 130th 3. Traffic analysis revisions S�10e.7 cte,y-i aro Gvs y ire 5c..� h� irs4 T 4. Frontage improvements -- preliminary design, costing, coordination with WSDOT PoQ-o-v.l� DRAINAGE 1. Narrative discussion to include all of special requirements 2. Site will need to meet4special requirements #5, special water quality controls (wetpond or wetvault) and #6, coalescing plate separator and basic bioswale and quantity controls 3. Offsite capacity is limited per Riverton creek study. Options: a. store larger quantity of runoff onsite and detain to a level that protects downstream i.e. 100year pre development equals 100 years post development. b. identify other on site or off site improvement to reduce flooding and habitat degredation 4. Onsite concrete lined swales converted to open, grass lined swales UTILITIES 1. Sanitaryj sewer is OK as planned jj 2. Determine serving water district. Boundary maps show Tukwila is serving utility. 3. Confirm needed improvements per comp plan 4. Review water availability certificate for authority and conformance to engineering requirements TESCP 1. Erosion control plan approved and first item for construction in July, 1998 WALLS AND SITE GRADING 1. Site plan andgrading approved, structural review of walls complete, TESCP approved LAND USE APPROVALS 1. SEPA 2. BAR 3. Sensitive area studies Sheetl Pacific View Project { c°- -i-)11‘ n ✓ o e�'�i G � slrw �� Demolition Permit""i ' 4 �^ � �' _ restwol•r-i-msi--be, M(7n, ,cd b7 ear IS e�row— Apply ASAP PSAPCA approval must be obtained prior to submittal to Tukwila Demolition must be complete and permit finaled prior to issuance of any other permits Boundary Line Adjustment/Lot Consolidation Apply ASAP Must be recorded prior to issuance of any construction permits Land Altering Permit Geotech report must be revised prior to application Schedule for cleanup of site?Li i k1c pr- L� 1Mt. ✓� Lon�,c �� r'rn rn "Doe -Co 5w'f �icn Building Foundation Retaining Walls Must receive structural review from City's consultant Difficult to separate them from main building permit - discuss with Building Official t�rvvt �✓ �n�Gts nc,2 G� {Ow, Svr� 1997 UBC in effect as of July 1st - is building being designed for this code? VILIZ-rj 101 e-erki .A/10,7 - slac(,.5 A--- U4SS 1 Buildings B and C are considered to have 5 stories under Zoning and UBC regulations C/LI zone allows a maximum of 4 stories or 45 feet in height Tukwila's High Rise Fire Ordinance affects buildings 5 stories and taller SEPA Determination Checklist must be revised to reflect current proposal Must be issued prior to issuance of demolition and land altering permits Should be issued 28 days prior to BAR hearing, May 28 Design Review/BAR Submit revisions by May 11 Staff to respond by May 25 Final submittal with 10 copies of all materials by June 8 Public Hearing notice out June 11 BAR hearing date June 25 v�fea or. ' l42;30 �gvjoi ;Rs r -)4o ter'(( �2 orc—J- oo Page 2 Highway 99 Study Ar Page 2 HWY992R.XLS //1 Parcel Street Street Lot NFA Property/ # Taxpayer Use Land Zone Land lmprovmt. Total number numbr name size business name Units code use dist. value value value 152304-9295 3742 S 144 St 21011 2615 1 Kentucky Fried Chicken Mckinney Family Partnership 413 Fast food NCC $192,800 886,600 8279,400 004000-0196 4021 S 144 St 9209 480 1 Office Water Dist 125 622 Utilities HDR 892,000 81,500 893,500 004000-0240 4044 S 144 St 38886 26727 2 Apartment 24 Housing Auth. of King Co. 112 R/MF HDR 8136,100 $973,500 $1,109,600 004000-0205 14410 S 144 St 40174 21111 3 Riverton Terrace 36 Housing Auth. of King Co. 112 R/MF HDR $140,600 8959,700 $1,100,300 004000-0198 41029 S 144 St 27450 na 1 Single family 1 Housing Auth. of King Co. 101 R/SF HDR $101,300 862,500 8163,800 004000-0197 (40 St) S 144 St 936 • 0 0 Vacant - easement Housing Auth. of King Co. 911 VAC/C HDR 8100 80 8100 004000-0191 4021 S 144 St 21475 864 1 Storage Water Dist 125 501 Ind/W NCC $214,700 829,400 8244,100 004000-0072 3416 S 146 St 5670 2522 2 Apartment 4 Gillen Kevin + Margaret 104 R/MF HDR $22,600 0101,100 8123,700 004000-0071 • 3418 S 146 St 5043 2522 2 Apartment 4 Wen Huan 104 R/MF HDR 820,100 8103,600 8123,700 004000-0076 3422 S 146 St 5782 2522 2 Apartment 4 Meloeny Harry Jr 104 R/MF HDR 826,800 896,900 8123,700 004000-0073 3424 S 146 St 4900 2522 2 Wild Goose Apartment 4 Fielder Jean M 104 R/MF HDR 819,600 8104,100 8123,7 004000-0827 3425 S 146 St 30666 9660 1 Retail Lansdale & Carr 605 Retail RC $184,000 $128,500 8312,5 004100-0085 3429 S 146 St 11100 1060 1 Church Church by the Side of the Road 40? Church RC $111,100 $1,000 $112,100 004000-0327 3440 S 146 St 26533 11450 2 Victoria Arms 24 Hua Alan + Chin Lin 112 R/MF HDR 8106,100 8366,000 8472,100 004000-0332 3440 S 146 St 27141 12644 2 Victoria Arms 24 Hua•Alan + Chin Lin 112 R/MF HDR 8108,500 8366,600 8475,100 004000-0325 3446 S 146 St 27119 0 0 Vacant Hua Alan + Chin Lin 911 VAC/R HDR 8108,400 80 8108,400 204400-0025 3505 S 146 St 20047 3450 1 Seattle Com. Center Church Nichiren Shoshu Academy 407 Church. RC $120,200 8159,400 8279,600 004000-0853 3515 S 146 St 54383 4632 0' Cara Apartments 48 Chen, Henry & Chem Wei Jen 112 R/MF RC 8380,600 81,174,600 01,555,200 004000-0315 3516 S 146 St 40365 36618 4 Villanelle Apts 34 Ohare Patrick J + Laura J 112 R/MF HDR $161,400 81,069,800 $1,231;200 004000-0310 3530 S 146 St 18605 2880 1 Apartment 4 Ginn Ardella 103 R/MF NCC 874,400 861,600 8136,000 004000-0854 3531 S• 146 St 10500 na Single family 1 Wynn, Harold 101 R/SF NCC . $63,000 817,000 880,000 004000-0890 3703 S 146 St 14875 na 1 Single family 1 Wynn, Harold 101 R/SF NCC 895,300 81,000 896,300 004000-0911 3747 S 146 St 26626 8340 2 Travelers Choice Motel Kim Chul Joon 161 H/M NCC 8266,200 8768,300 81,034,500 004000-0254 3920 S 146 St 23701 6716 1 Retail Kim Kyung Wam 241 Retail NCC 8260,700 8226,000 8486,700 004000-0915 4011 S 146 St 80454 2845 1 Orchard Trailer Park 38 Frost Boyd 142 R/MF HDR 8281,500 $227,700 8509,200 004000-0250 4028 S 146 St 40216 23596 2 Pacific Court Apts 36 Chen Kun L 112 R/MF HDR 0140,700 8699,300 0840,000 004000-0243 4030 S 146 St 20160 na 1 Single family 1 Holt R L 101 R/SF HDR 070,300 $25,800 $96,100 004000-0244 S 146 St 19451 0 0 Vacant Housing Auth. of King Co. 911 VAC/R HDR 068,000 80 068,000 004000-1025 3400 S 148 St 78217 26356 3 Seattle Cultural Center Nichiren Shoshu of America 407 Church RC 0547,500 02,774,900 03,322,400 004000-0822 3416 S 148 St 6614 na 1 Single family 1 Rupert Daniel W + Debra 101 R/SF RC 846,200 024,800 071,000 004000-0822 3417 S 148 St Bradco Inc. Rupert Daniel W + Debra Office 004100-0122 3455 148 St 114549 Church Church by the Side of the Road 407 Church RC 0973,600 $752,400 01,726,01 004000-0850 3456 S 148 St 40219 8800 1 Bow Lake Cabinet Shop _ Pollinger Johann + Hildegard 626 R/MF RC 8281,500 896,300 0377,800 004000-0844 3460 S 148 St 20240 na 1 Single family 1 Pollinger Johann + Hildegard 101 R/SF RC 0140,700 $1,000 8141,700. 004000-0900 3730 S 148 St 103988 67968 3 Edgewood Apts 68 SBL Investment Co 113 R/MF HDR $373,200 81,964,500 82,337,700 004100-0161 3739 S 148 St 30544 0 0 Vacant Hazen Jeanene + Weiths Lois 901 VAC/R MDR $83,000 00 083,000 004100-0160 3743 S 148 St 9600 na 1 Single family 1 Gookstetter Richard E 101 R/SF MDR 840,200 044,800 885,000 004000-0937 4010 S 148 St 20,116 na 1 Single family 1 Williams, Theresa L. 101 R/SF MDR 864,200 029,500 093,700 004100-0055 3400 S 150 St 38867 21068 1 Olympus Press Bluel Bertrees 543 Industrial - RC 0388,600 8129,800 0518,400 004100-0055 3400 S 150 St - Consignment Sales & Lease Blue! Bertrees • Retail 004100-0055 3400 S 150 St Type Cellar Bluel Bertrees Retail 004100-0515 3415 S 150 St 20940 5002 1 American Communication Kern Gerard J + Carol A 532 Garage RC 0209,400 026,300 0235,700 004100-0310 3700 S 150 St 38687 0 0 Vacant Khaira Parmjit S + Ranjit K 911 VAC/R MDR 096,700 00 096,700 004100-0536 3705 S 150 St 23325 na 1 Single family 1 Duston, Thomas E & Janet 101 R/SF HDR 082,200 892,300 0174,500 004100-0537 3707 S 150 St 14081 2614 1 Apartment 4 Vacca Prisco + Elisabetta 104 R/MF HDR 049,300 066,400 8115,700 004100-0325 3710 S 150 St 6000 na 1 Single family 1 West Michael J 101 R/SF RC 854,000 85,400 859,400 004100-0535 3717 S 150 St 13946 2728 1 Apartment 4 Lutz Lori Jo + Clarence N 104 R/MF HDR 048,800 070,900 0119,700 004100-0534 3719 S 150 St 8620 3168 2 Apartment 4 Wong Stephen 104 R/MF HDR 830,200 0105,500 0135,700 Page 2 HWY992R.XLS //1 April 24, 1998 • City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION Haynes Lund Sabey Corporation Architecture Group 101 Elliott Avenue West Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98119-4220 RE: Pacific View Office Park E98-0006 SEPA Environmental Review L98-0021 Design Review Dear Mr. Lund: Your application for construction of three office and light industrial buildings located at 12421 Pacific Highway South has been found to be complete for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. The next step is for you to install the notice board on the site within 14 days of the date of this letter. You received information on how to install the sign with your application packet. If you need another set of those instructions, please call me. Once you have notified me that the notice board has been installed I will post it with a laminated copy of the Notice of Application and the comment period will start. After installing the sign with the laminated notice, you need to return the signed Affidavit of Posting to the our office. This determination of complete application does not preclude the ability of the City to require that you submit additional plans or information, if in our estimation such information is necessary to ensure the project meets the substantive requirements of the City or to complete the review process. This notice of complete application applies only to the permits identified above. It is your responsibility to apply for and obtain all necessary permits issued by other agencies. You should contact them directly to find out what their application requirements are. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite #100 • Tukwila. Washineton 98188 • 12061 431-3670 • Far 1206) 4313665 • • We will be meeting on Tuesday the 28th to discuss the substantive issues with this project. If you wish to speak to me sooner, feel free to call me at (206) 433-7141. Sincerely, Nora Gierloff Associate Planner cc: Gary Barnett, Public Works Nick Olivas, Fire Department April 13, 1998 • City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION Haynes Lund Sabey Corporation Architecture Group 101 Elliott Avenue West Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98119-4220 RE: Pacific View Office Park E98-0006 SEPA Environmental Review L98-0021 Design Review Dear Mr. Lund: Your application for construction of four office and light industrial buildings located at 12421 Pacific Highway South has been found to be incomplete. Though you submitted the SEPA checklist and the design review application separately, unless I hear otherwise from you I will treat them as a consolidated application. This will allow us to do one set of mailings and one notice board rather than two. My incompleteness comments therefore apply to both applications. In order to be a complete application, the following must be submitted to the permit center: a. Two sets of mailing labels for the tenants within 500 feet of the project, you only submitted labels for the property owners b. Seven sets of civil plans showing existing and proposed water and sewer lines, including 'the required 12" water line along Pacific Highway South c. Seven sets of plans showing existing watercourses and/or wetlands on the site d. Application for a tree permit covering all trees to be removed on slopes over 20% with the number and proposed location of the replacement trees, or with a request to use the "canopy cover" method of calculating tree replacement requirements e. Storm drainage plan showing existing and proposed storm system which routes upstream offsite water through the site via open channels Upon receipt of these items, the City will re -review them for completeness and will mail you written notification of completeness or incompleteness within 14 days. These applications will expire if we do not receive the additional information within ninety days of the date of this letter unless an extension is granted pursuant to Section 18.105.070(E). 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 • • As a reminder, the drawings you have submitted to date do not address all of the issues outlined in our letter to you of March 23, 1998. The Fire Department has commented that the access road on the west side of building A is not the minimum 20 feet wide and does not have a turnaround, which is required for roads longer than 150 feet. Public Works will require a narrative discussion of the core and special requirements for the King County Surface Water Design Manual as they relate to your site. To avoid delay at the substantive review stage please revise the drawings and application materials in accordance with the 3/23/98 letter prior to your next submittal. If you have any questions please call me at (206) 433-7141. Sincerely, /41 Nora Gierloff Associate Planner CC: Joanna Spencer, Public Works Gary Barnett, Public Works Nick Olivas, Fire Department Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist • • MEMORANDUM TO: GaryB FROM: Pat B. g DATE: April 3, 1998 SUBJECT: Water requirements for Pacific View Development on Pac Hwy E49.5-°°66 To add further details as to the need to install a 12 -inch line along the above- mentioned property frontage, I submit the following: • TMC 14.04.060 gives authority to apply current requirements of the Public Works Department, Tukwila Fire Department, Washington DOH, AWWA, etc. • Public Works Standards (as adopted under Ord. 1783) in W.3.3113 for areas zoned commercial/industrial require water mains "shall be a minimum of 10 inches (10") in diameter for looped and twelve inches (12") in diameter for non - looped systems or per the size required in the City's Comprehensive Water Plan, whichever is greater." • Also from Public Works Standards in W.3.3(4) "Under maximum flow conditions velocities as determined by engineering analysis shall not exceed ten feet per second (10 FPS). My quick calculations using the District 20 data as submitted showed a flow of 3180 gpm at 20 residual which yields about 20 feet per second in an 8 -inch line. They now must show how they plan to meet this requirement within their site in addition to the 12 -inch on Pac Hwy. • The City's comprehensive system plan calls for a 12 -inch in this vicinity for the future connection with the 12 -inch system on the north eventually crossing the bridge over the Duwamish, thus the system plan substantiates the above- mentioned requirement along Pac Hwy. It is certainly a presumption to believe that all requirements are met just because they meet their fire flow requirements as this same error has crept into past developments. We've asked no less of any developement to meet the TMC guideline which requires "being assessed or charged or borne the cost" of the overall system either by building along frontage or paying the special connection charge in Title 14 regardless of flow. C:\MSOFFICE\TEMPLATE\memogb.doc • • MEMORANDUM April 3, 1998 To: Nora Gier off, Planning Department From: Gary Ba neSenior Engineer and nna Spencer, Associate Engineer Re: E98-0006/SEPA Review Pacific View Office Park 12421 Pacific Highway South After reviewing the above referenced project we have found it to be incomplete. The following items are required for a complete application. 1. The Storm Drainage will need a narrative discussion of core and special requirements of KCSWDM. 2. The Sensitive Areas need to be identified, i.e. a stream and wetland inventory or certification that none exist. 3. Utility plans for water, sewer, and Storm. The following are our questions and initial comments regarding the SEPA checklist: Background 13. Land Use Policy Plan Map Environmentally Sensitive Other SAO? wetlands, creeks, etc.? Environmental Elements (Earth) B.1 g,h Special TESCP is needed beyond KCSWDM. This will be a SEPA condition due to wetlands and Riverton Creek downstream. Environmental Elements (Water - Surface) 3.a.1. Water - man made? Drainage courses? We see natural drainage courses. 3.a.2. There will be work being done within 200' of the Riverton Creek. 3.a.3. Describe "re -working" • • 3.a.4. Existing upstream water will be diverted, show how. 3.a.6. Parking lot pollution. Environmental Elements (Water Runoff) 3.c.1. No narrative of core and special requirements is included, please supply. Environmental Elements (Animals) 5.b. Chinook - proposed listing. 5.c. Pacific Flyway Land and Shoreline Use 8.h. Wetlands and streams. Public Services 15.a. Yes, more people equals more public service. Utilities 16.b Acknowledge COT 12" water line to north. Mention need of City's 12" water main extension South across bridge and past site in conformance to water comp plans. Please request the applicant to provide the 3 listed items to complete the SEPA application. The attached memo from Pat Brodin regarding water requirements should be forwarded to the applicant for their information and action. Our SEPA checklist comments should be included in an applicant's revised checklist or a staff supplement to the checklist. Frontal improvements shall include street lighting, curb/gutter and sidewalk, storm drainage and fire hydrants. MEMORANDUM TO: GaryB FROM: Pat B. DATE: April 3, 1998 SUBJECT: Water requirements for Pacific View Development on Pac Hwy To add further details as to the need to install a 12 -inch line along the above- mentioned property frontage, I submit the following: • TMC 14.04.060 gives authority to apply current requirements of the Public Works Department, Tukwila Fire Department, Washington DOH, AWWA, etc. • Public Works Standards (as adopted under Ord. 1783) in W.3.31B for areas zoned commercial/industrial require water mains "shall be a minimum of 10 inches (10") in diameter for looped and twelve inches (12") in diameter for non - looped systems or per the size required in the. City's Comprehensive Water Plan, whichever is greater." Also from Public Works Standards in W.3.3(4) "Under maximum flow conditions velocities as determined by engineering analysis shall not exceed ten feet per second (10 FPS). My quick calculations using the District 20 data as submitted showed a flow of 3180 gpm at 20 residual which yields about 20 feet per second in an 8 -inch line. They now must show how they plan to meet this requirement within their site in addition to the 12 -inch on Pac Hwy. • The City's comprehensive system plan calls fora 12 -inch in this vicinity for the future connection with the 12 -inch system on the north eventually crossing the bridge over the Duwamish, thus the system plan substantiates the above- mentioned requirement along Pac Hwy. It is certainly a presumption to believe that all requirements are met just because they meet their fire flow requirements as this same error has crept into past developments. We've asked no less of any developement to meet the TMC guideline which requires "being assessed or charged or borne the cost" of the overall system either by building along frontage or paying the special connection charge in Title 14 regardless of flow. C:\MSOFFICE\TEMPLATE\memogb.doc City of Tukwila Department of Community Development March 23, 1998 Haynes Lund, AIA Sabey Corporation 101 Elliott Ave E., Suite 330 Seattle, WA 98119 John W. Rants, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director Re: Proposal for Pacific View Office Park, pre -application number PRE 98-010 Dear Haynes: Thank you for meeting with City staff to follow up on your pre -application conference meeting. We also appreciate your including Doug Schumacher of Sabey and your consultant Corby Howell of Nelson-Bourdages in these discussions prior to filing for your land use permits. The following is a synopsis of issues raised at our meeting and are an extension of the comments provided to you at the time of the pre -application meeting: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Site Plan • The function and relationship of south driveway to rest of the site needs to be clarified. • The interior parking areas and parking access need to be improved to ensure safe and efficient vehicular/pedestrian access on site and between buildings. • The footprint of each building may need to be revised for better site plan order and function, given the need for appropriate slope retention while providing enhanced on- site views. • The width of parking islands should be increased to accommodate required landscaping, exclusive of tree canopy requirements. • Removal of parking spaces should be considered to provide additional landscaping, decrease length of parking areas and provide additional relief from extensive impervious surface areas. • Site plan must include minimum front and side yard landscape requirements along entire street frontage. March 23, 1998 Haynes Lund Re: Pacific View Office Park proposal Elevations • Enhance the relationship between building entrance and site. • Accentuate and delineate building components. • Develop facade modulation through use of building materials, structural design or a combination of the two. • A "high quality" building that is responsive to site features, local conditions and market forces. • Design features that are responsive to the location of parcel as a transition between industrial areas and neighborhoods. • Provide cross sections showing building, parking and retaining walls/rockeries. • Need to include design solutions to accentuate roofline and screen any rooftop equipment. Permit Requirements • A special hearing before the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) is possible in middle of June outside of scheduled hearings on 4th Thursday of month, pending approval of BAR. • A minimum of 2 months will be required to conduct a concurrent review of SEPA and Design Review, in addition to the minimum 14 day requirement to review the applications for completeness. • Lot Consolidation/Boundary Line Adjustments must be recorded prior to building permit issuance. • City of Tukwila demolition permits followed by land altering permit may be applied for after SEPA is issued and before BAR determination. • A demolition permit from Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency must be submitted with application for City of Tukwila Demolition Permit. • Building permits will not be reviewed until a determination is made by the Board of Architectural Review. • Building permits review is first come - first served. Structural review is done by outside firm. Minimum time for permit review, given scale and scope of this project, is 12-16 weeks. March 23, 1998 Haynes Lund Re: Pacific View Office Park proposal Environmental/Sensitive Areas • Areas on site in excess of 20% grade, watercourses and wetlands must comply with the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45). • A geotechnical report will be required to demonstrate feasibility of project and adequate building design. • Sensitive area slopes requiring tree removal will be subject to mitigation under the city's Tree Ordinance (TMC 18.54). • Off-site, downstream water features of significance include Green/Duwamish River, WSDOT wetlands and Riverton Creek. Water quality of discharged runoff from the project site will be a significant issue for receiving waters, especially those features that include fish runs. • The tree ordinance allows for exceptions to standards. Any request for exceptions must be made independent of and before BAR approval, for review and approval by the Director of Community Development. • A landscaping plan must be submitted that includes tree coverage requirements and separate general landscape plan requirements. • Watercourse and/or wetland features on the parcel must be delineated as part of entire submittal. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Utilities • A 12 inch waterline shall be constructed the length of the project frontage. This line will be an extension of the City's southward extension of a 12 inch waterline across the Duwamish River. • The applicant shall provide fire flow calculations that document sufficient flow available from the serving district. • Provide a letter of sewer availability from Val-Vue Sewer District. The letter shall include discussion of the planned route of new sewer line to replace the lift station located on the project site. March 23, 1998 Haynes Lund Re: Pacific View Office Park proposal Transportation • • Access points are subject to Public Works approval following review and analysis of applicant's traffic analysis. • Landings of driveway approaches should be a maximum 3% grade for the first 50 feet, then slope into site. • Curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm drainage, street lighting and associated improvements required. • Electrical utilities to be undergrounded. • A traffic analysis is required. See the attached sheet for required elements. • Pending review and approval of the traffic analysis, access points and configuration, on and off-site traffic improvements and traffic mitigation fees will be determined. Storm Drainage • For SEPA review, a level one downstream analysis from site to the Duwamish River and a narrative discussion of King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) core and special requirements is required. • Upstream tributary storm water shall bypass the onsite detention system. This water shall be conveyed via open channels. • On site detention and water quality treatment is required. The November, 1997 Riverton Creek Storm Water Quality Management Plan is the best information and shall be used for project design of water quality system and peak rate control. The KCSWDM and the May 1986 Fostoria Basin Drainage Study are secondary resource documents for this project. • TESC measures per the KCSWDM with a performance standard of "no turbid or silt - laden matter shall leave the site" shall be applied. A bond to insure performance is required. • A NPDES permit is required. Please contact me if you have any comments or questions about our meeting. We look forward to working with you on this project Sincerely, Jack Pace Planning Manager cc: Reviewing City Departments Doug Schumacher, Sabey Corporation Corby Howell, Nelson-Bourdages CITY OF TUKWILA Departme�of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 SEPA APPLICATION CHECKLIST FOR STAFF USE ONLY Planner: Fite Number: C�fl�li Receipt Number:. Cross-reference files: pre qg 0/0 Applicant notified of incompleteapplication Applicant notified of complete application: • RECEIVED CITYOF TUKWILA Notice of application issued: MAR 2 3 `1998 A. NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: F/., l t l G \1 E -w OP t= I C -G B. • LOCATION OF. PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: (address and accessors parcel number(s)) 51-m 4 D D R.ts-SS : 12.4.2.1 P.e.c. I F c. L cx+cw Asscis5oi.. A;c,c,00Nr 00'5: L --or, : 4923o4-93Co 1 i..crr 8 : O92304- q t 20-o co L_rrr c : 09,2304 - q 031- 04 c.vr 09 2304 - cl 30q- 09 Quarter: Section: Township: Range: (This information may be found on your tax statement) C. PROJECTDESCRIPTION: V6L_0P .. t.JB'W of Ftc..E W iZ1L cD/JS1sr, rJCr OF 4 SE -PARA -1E LUI(.DIrJcIS 1-1cxrS1"16r of-t=1C L- %T 1tJ170s-rRV41. occuPAiJcIEsi (ARTA Associrm) FARIGNCC NAME: 0•A%-( t.Se LU'OD, &SEY CORP, ARCH (1-Ec-ruR$ GI:OOP ADDRESS: 101 •E(•--4OTT Asfe. 7v/ vU lT 3-30 $E.4?rrLE A 9b119-4210 PHONE: 2 0(.0 - Z 1 - E=.100 Fek-x : 2A - 2 1- 0 920 SIGNATURE: DATE: ZO I'ne ) CITY OL TUKWILA Departmelof Community Development i 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (SEPA) APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS To submit for SEPA review, provide the items listed above to the Planning Division at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Room 100. V8copies of the com leted and si ned environmental checklist. P g You may use the City's pre-printed form or you may re -type the questions on your computer. If you choose to re -type the form into your computer, be sure to do so accurately. Mistakes or omissions will increase the review time. CI 8 sets of the full size plans needed to clearly describe the proposed action. 2( One PMT set of plans reduced to 8.5" x 11". Four copies of supporting studies. P LJ One copy of the checklist application. 11 One set of mailing labels for all properties 500' from the subject property. (See address label worksheet.) ri $325 filing fee. COMPLETING THE CHECKLIST.:. The checklist contains several pages of questions which you are asked to answer. It covers a comprehensive set of topics. As a result, several of the questions may not apply to your project. If a particular question does not apply, simply write N/A undemeath. HOWEVER, be aware that many questions apply despite appearing not to. Care needs to be taken in reading and answering the questions to ensure the appropriate response is provided. It is important that accurate and clear information be provided. You may not know all of the answers. Answer each question to the best of your ability. If we find an answer to be insufficient, the City may contact you to ask for more information. Sometimes, after reviewing the checklist, the City will ask you provide additional studies or information. Commonly requested information includes traffic analysis, site topography, soils studies and tree surveys. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21 RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer; or if a question does not apply to your proposal write "do no know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of Checklist for Nonproject Proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the supplemental sheet for non project actions (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. Control No. Epic File No. Fee $325 Receipt No. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Pacific View Office Park 2. Name of applicant: Sabey Corporation Architecture Group 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Haynes Lund Sabey Corporation Architecture Group 101 Elliott Avenue W, Suite 330 Seattle, WA 98101-4220 phone: 206-281-8700 fax: 206-281-0920 4. Date checklist prepared: 5. Agency requesting checklist: March 19, 1998 City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The Project is scheduled to begin construction in July of 1998 for the rough grading and site utilities. The schedule will be finalized based on marketing of the office space, but it is our expectation that we would begin construction of the south two buildings (Bldg. A & Bldg. B) immediately after rough grading is complete. The remaining two office buildings (Bldg. C & Bldg. D) are expected to begin construction within the year after occupancy of Bldg. A & Bldg. B. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. This proposal covers the entire site. There is no expectation that there would be any 'construction on the site beyond what is covered in this checklist. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. A Phase 1 & 2 Environmental Assessment Report has been prepared by Secor International Inc. A Geotechnical Evaluation of the site has been prepared by Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. Copies of these reports have been included with this checklist. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. We are not aware of any other proposals affecting this site. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Master Use Permit Boundary Line Adjustment Board of Architecture Review Building Permit (one for each building) Miscellaneous Permits -- Demolition, Tree Cutting, Land Altering Puget Sound Air Pollution and Quality Control Agency permit 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the site of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized here. We proposed to construct approximately 50,000 square feet of manufacturing space (Use Classification F-2) and approximately 175,000 square feet of office space (Use Classification B) in four buildings on this site. The project would include parking at a ratio of 1 stall per 1000 SF for the manufacturing space and approximately 4 stalls per 1000 SF for the office space. Some of the parking would be located underneath the office buildings. The project also includes re -grading most of the site and providing new utilities to all the buildings and a new surface drainage system. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The address of the current business on the site is 12421 Pacific Highway south. We are submitting a survey of the existing conditions, including legal description of the site, along with this application. 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? The site contains areas of Potential Geologic Instability, Class 2. TO BE COMPLETED4PY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH • a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: The site is a combination of flat areas and steeply sloping areas. See topographic survey submitted with this application. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 66%. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. See Geotechnical Report submitted with this application. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. There was one incident of sloughing of the surface material along a portion of the west property line near the north end of the site that was remediated in 1989. See Geotechnical Report for further discussion of the soils and slope conditions on this property. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. A major portion of the site will be re -graded to provide benches for buildings and parking areas. The cut and fill will amount to approximately 40,000 cubic yards. There will be 30,000 cubic yards of cut to be disposed of off-site. We expect to dispose of this material at the Third Runway Project at Seatac Airport. -4- EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY • TO BE COMPLETED"( APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. g• Due to the existing slopes on the site, erosion could occur during the clearing and re -grading of the site. Included with our Building Permit application will be a Temporary Erosion Control Plan designed in accordance with King County standards by a registered civil engineer. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 58%. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Erosion will be controlled during construction by limiting site access to a single construction entrance and by sequencing the work to limit the opportunities for erosion. All exposed soils will be covered if left unworked for more than seven days in summer, and a siltation fence will be installed to minimize the downstream impacts of erosion during construction. The permanent site drainage system will be installed early in the construction process. This system will include an interceptor ditch or conveyance to contain the off-site run-off and one or more sedimentation/siltation ponds to treat all site storm drainage prior to leaving the site. 2. AIR a. What type of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Dust will be generated during demolition and construction. During construction there would be exhaust emissions from the construction vehicles. After construction is complete, the only permanent on-site sources of emissions will be the boiler for the heating water systems, the cooling towers for the air conditioning systems, and the exhaust from emergency generators (if required). There will be an increase in automobile traffic at this site as a result of this project. -5- • TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Emissions from the traffic on Highway 99 will affect this site. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: We will provide dust control during construction in accordance with PSAPQCA standards. The existing transit stop on Highway 99 in front of the site will be maintained. We will provide bicycle parking stalls in accordance with City of Tukwila standards, and we will provide preferential parking for car and van pools. 3. WATER a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. There are existing man-made drainage courses on the site. These are collected and directed under Highway 99 into the wetlands on the east side of the highway. This wetlands drains into Riverton Creek and the Duwamish River. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No, only the existing on-site surface drainage will be revised. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. No dredging will be required. The only filling of surface water will be the re -working of the existing man-made water courses. -6- TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Surface run-off on the site will be collected and detained in accordance with King County standards. The total area of detention pond capacity will be approximately 50,000 cubic feet. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. The potential for erosion during construction will be mitigated by the Temporary Erosion Control measures which we will undertake. There is no other potential discharge that is contemplated. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. We do not anticipate that this project will have any impact on existing ground water. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No discharge into the ground of waste material is anticipated from this project. -7- • • TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. The only runoff from this site will be storm drainage. Upstream, off-site flows will be intercepted. On-site flows will be routed through a detention pond. The discharge location from the site to the existing storm system should remain unchanged. A Level 1 Drainage Report is included with this Checklist. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. The only potential waste materials would be oils and other products from automobiles. The storm drainage system will be designed to separate out this material from the water discharged from the site. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, or runoff water impacts, if any: Measures to control surface water runoff will include intercepting the off-site flows upstream and routing them around or through the site. Detention ponds designed in accordance with Department of Ecology and King County requirements will be included for water quality and discharge control. Also, the discharge location from the site should remain essentially unchanged. 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other X shrubs X grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation -8- TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? A portion of the site will be cleared of all vegetation prior to re -grading. The site plan includes new planting areas which will be landscaped in accordance with City of Tukwila standards. Due to the density of trees on the site, we expect to apply for an exception for Replacement of Canopy Cover in lieu of identifying and replacing individual trees within the areas of significant slope. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered species are known to be on or near this site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: We will provide landscape buffers and interior landscaping in accordance with City of Tukwila standards. 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: The site adjoins a wooded area. It is likely that many common species of birds can be seen on the site on occasion. mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: The site adjoins a wooded area. It is likely that many common species of rodents (field mice, moles) and small mammals (squirrels, racoons) can be seen on the site on occasion. fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: The site contains no area of current or potential fish habitat. • • TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered species are known to be on or near this site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Natural gas will be utilized for the space heating system. Electricity will power all other systems including air distribution, cooling, lighting. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: The project will be designed to meet the requirements of the Washington State Non -Residential Energy Code. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None are required. -10- • • TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None are required. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment operation, other)? There is traffic noise from Pacific Highway, and there is aircraft noise since the site is close to an approach path for Seatac Airport. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from site? There would be typical construction noise from 7:00 AM until 5:00 PM during the week for the construction period. Traffic noise in the area would be increased by the traffic to the site, primarily during the week at rush hours. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: We will utilize the measures listed previously (see 2.c.) to reduce the vehicle counts at the site. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is currently used by a commercial enterprise which stores and sells industrial vehicles and equipment. The east face of the property is Pacific Highway South, which becomes a limited access highway along the north portion of the site. The property to the south is a small apartment complex, although this use is not in conformance with the current zoning. The property to the west and northwest is steeply sloping wooded area, with multi -family housing beyond that. (Note that the west property line of this site is the border of the City of Tukwila and the property to the west is under the jurisdiction of King County.) The remainder of the north end of the site abuts the reserved areas for the Highway 99 right of way. -11- • • TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any structures on the site. There is an existing, small 1 story office structure, an open shed, a storage building and some small out buildings. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? All of these structures will be removed or demolished. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The site is zoned Commercial/Light industrial (C/LI). f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? g• Under the current Comprehensive Plan the site will remain zoned C/LI. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not Applicable. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. The site contains areas of Potential Geologic Instability Class 2, having slopes in excess of 20% with moderate landslide potential. I. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? When the entire site is finished approximately 1200 people will work on this site. -12- • • TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? There are approximately 5 people who work on the site at the present time. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any. No measures are proposed. 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. Proposal complies with all City of Tukwila Zoning and Land Use requirements, Comprehensive Plan guidelines, and Pacific Highway corridor aspirations. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing? No housing units will be provided. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing? No housing units will be displaced by this project. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. No measures are proposed. 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The tallest building will be approximately 55' high at the highest point on the exterior, although some buildings will sit on top of retaining walls, and there will be equipment enclosures on the roof that will extend about 12' higher. The primary exterior materials for the buildings will be painted concrete and glass. -13- TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Because of the existing sloping terrain, no views from neighboring buildings will be impacted by this project. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any. The site is currently used for the storage and sale of industrial vehicles and equipment. This project will significantly enhance the appearance of the site and the neighborhood, and will advance the goals of the City of Tukwila Pacific Highway project. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? There will be lighting associated with the parking areas. Due to the terrain, the neighboring residences to the north and west will be located above these light standards. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? There is existing street lighting for Highway 99 which will spill onto this site. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Parking lot lighting will be designed to City of Tukwila standards for Tight spillage onto neighboring properties. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? King County is developing a park along the Duwamish River less than a mile away. -14- TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None are required. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. There are none. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None have been identified at this time. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: No measures are required. 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe the proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The Site Plan included with this application shows that access to the site will be exclusively from Pacific Highway South, a principal arterial as defined by the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. No neighborhood streets or minor arterials will be impacted by this project. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? There/is an existing transit stop along Highway 99 in front of the site. The stop will be maintained. The Regional Transit Authority has also defined the Pacific Highway corridor as a potential route location. -15- • • TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The project includes 817 parking spaces. The existing site has a Targe paved area which is currently used for parking trucks and other large vehicles. This area, and the accompanying 6 or 7 parking spaces, will be eliminated by this project. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). The proposal would not require any new roads or streets. The existing center (fifth) lane on Highway 99 would need to be extended to the north to allow for left turns into and out of the site from the north site entrance. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity ot) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. g• See the Traffic Study submitted along with this application. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. See the Traffic Study submitted along with this application. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None are proposed. -16- TO BE COMPLETED ¥ APPLICANT 16. UTILITIES • a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service. and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricity: provided by City Light; new underground service will be provided from the existing lines along Highway 99 into the site. Natural Gas: provided by Washington Natural Gas; new service line will be run to the buildings from the gas main along Highway 99. Water: provided by Water District #20; there is an existing line along the south side of the site with sufficient pressure to serve the domestic water and fire protection needs of this project; this project includes providing a fire loop around the entire site and connecting both to the line at the south end of the site and to the existing water line serving the housing units to the west; domestic water will be provided by a separate connection to the existing line at the south. Telephone: provided by US West; new underground lines will be installed to the buildings from the main line along Highway 99. Sanitary Sewer: provided by Val-Vue Sewer District; the existing line along Highway 99 has the capacity to serve the needs of this project. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date submitted: ZO /141g. CI eJ PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE. -17- EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY • • TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (Do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: -18- • • TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: How does the proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. 8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what policies of the Plan. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: -19- • TO BE COMPLETEAY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental information provided and the submitted plans, documents, supportive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objectives of the proposal? This project is an investment opportunity for Sabey Corporation, who will manage, as well as own, the development. The company has a history of successfully developing sites which offer amenity, but also high risk. This site offers the amenities of views and good access, but carries the risks of difficult terrain and a marginal neighborhood. These risks are mitigated somewhat by the City's vision for the Pacific Highway corridor and the potential for this site to encourage and assist the City in the realization of that vision. 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? The alternative is to find another site, perhaps in another jurisdiction, to develop the office space. 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: Either alternative is viable to this developer. The current proposal is preferred because this site has good access and views which help to make the office space marketable. 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what policies of the Plan? The proposal is in concord with the Plan and, in fact, serves to encourage development in one of the areas of focus of the plan. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: None are required. -20- P. • ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: 2. Name of applicant: Control No. Epic File No. Fee $325 Receipt No. Pacific View Office Park Sabey Corporation Architecture Group 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Haynes Lund Sabey Corporation Architecture Group 101 Elliott Avenue W, Suite 330 Seattle, WA 98101-4220 phone: 206-281-8700 fax: 206-281-0920 4. Date checklist prepared: March 19, 1998 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila 6.A Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): % �� 4-/ The Project is scheduled to begin construction in July of 1998 for the rough grading and site utilities. The schedule will be finalized based on marketing of the office space, but it is our expectation that we would begin construction of the south two buildings (Bldg. A & Bldg. B) immediately after rough grading is complete.. The remaining-twc-office buildings (Bldg. C & Blelt-B)- are expected to begin construction within the year after occupancy of Bldg. A & Bldg. B. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. This proposal covers the entire site. There is no expectation that there would be any construction on the site beyond what is covered in this checklist. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. A Phase 1 & 2 Environmental Assessment Report has been prepared by Secor International Inc. A Geotechnical Evaluation of the site has been prepared by Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. - \-1 t 6e- c v Doje, Copies of these reports have been included with this checklist. -2- FILE DOPY 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. We are not aware of any other proposals affecting this site. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Master Use Permit Boundary Line Adjustment Board of Architecture Review Building Permit (one for each building) Miscellaneous Permits -- Demolition, Tree Cutting, Land Altering Puget Sound Air Pollution and Quality Control Agency permit 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the site of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized here. We proposed to construct approximately 50,000 square feet of manufacturing space (Use Classification F-2) and approximately 175,000 square feet of office space (Use Classification B) in four buildings on this site. The project would include parking at a ratio of 1 stall per 1000 SF for the manufacturing space and approximately 4 stalls per 1000 SF for the office space. Some of the parking would be located underneath the office buildings. The project also includes re -grading most of the site and providing new utilities to all the buildings and a new surface drainage system. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The address of the current business on the site is 12421 Pacific Highway south. We are submitting a survey of the existing conditions, including legal description of the site, along with this application. 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? The site contains areas of Potential Geologic Instability, CIa per Eylvinn e..i:4 TO BE COMPLETEAY •APPLICANT • EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: The site is a combination of flat areas and steeply sloping areas. See topographic survey submitted with this application. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 66%. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. See Geotechnical Report submitted with this application. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. There was one incident of sloughing of the surface material along a portion of the west property line near the north end of the site that was remediated in 1989. See Geotechnical Report for further discussion of the soils and slope conditions on this property. `26p9 -- 1-7,„/^G, 5,;G�Sj In IA-) 1/ C..�✓� cJ7 e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. A major portion of the site will be re -graded to provide benches for buildings and parking areas. The cut and fill will amount to approximately 40,000 cubic yards. There will be 30,000 cubic yards of cut to be disposed of off-site. We expect to dispose of this material at the Third Runway Project at Seatac Airport. -4- G o c�s�� 4— r �� s, • • TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Surface run-off on the site will be collected and detained in 11'1 accordance with King County standards. The total area of detgntion ponce capacity will be approximately 50,000 cubic feet. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. The potential for erosion during construction will be mitigated by the Temporary Erosion Control measures which we will undertake. There is no other potential discharge that is contemplated. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. We do not anticipate that this project will have any impact on existing ground water. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No discharge into the ground of waste material is anticipated from this project. -7- TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. The only runoff from this site will be storm drainage. Upstream, off-site flows will be intercepted. On-site flows will be routed through a detention pond. The discharge l0; -7 location from the site to the existing storm system should remain unchanged. A Level 1 Drainage Report is included ds` lwe�ef with this Checklist. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. The only potential waste materials would be oils and other products from automobiles. The storm drainage system .. will be designed to separate out this material from the water discharged from the site. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, or runoff water impacts, if any: Measures to control surface water runoff will include intercepting the off-site flows upstream and routing them around or through the site. Detention ponds designed in accordance with Department of Ecology and King County requirements will be included for water quality and discharge control. Also, the discharge location from the site should remain essentially unchanged. 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other X shrubs X grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation -8- • 1 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? A portion of the site will be cleared of all vegetation prior to re -grading. The site plan includes new planting areas which will be landscaped in accordance with City of Tukwila standards. Due to the density of trees on the site, we expect to apply for an exception for Replacement of Canopy Cover in lieu of identifying and replacing individual trees within.the areas of significant slope. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered species are known to be on or near this site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: We will provide landscape buffers and interior landscaping in accordance with City of Tukwila standards. S. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: The site adjoins a wooded area. It is likely that many common species of birds can be seen on the site on occasion. mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: The site adjoins a wooded area. It is likely that many common species of rodents (field mice, moles) and small mammals (squirrels, racoons) can be seen on the site on occasion. fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: The site contains no area of current or potential fish habitat. -9- TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None are required. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment operation, other)? There is traffic noise from Pacific Highway, and there is aircraft noise since the site is close to an approach path for Seatac Airport. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from site? There would be typical construction noise from 7:00 AM until 5:00 PM during the week for the construction period. Traffic noise in the area would be increased by the traffic to the site, primarily during the week at rush hours. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: We will utilize the measures listed previously (see 2.c.) to reduce the vehicle counts at the site. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is currently used by a commercial enterprise which stores and sells industrial vehicles and equipment. The east face of the property is Pacific Highway South, which becomes a limited access highway along the north portion of the site. The property to the south is a small apartment complex, although this use is not in conformance with the current zoning. The property to the west and northwest is steeply sloping wooded area, with multi -family housing beyond that. (Note that the west property line of this site is the border of the City of Tukwila and the property to the west is under the jurisdiction of King County.) The remainder of the north end of the site abuts the reserved areas for the Highway 99 right of way. ) c>I( (\ c- /60 O 'c • 1 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any structures on the site. There is an existing, small 1 story office structure, an open shed, a storage building and some small out buildings. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? All of these structures will be removed or demolished. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The site is zoned Commercial/Light industrial (C/LI). f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? g• Under the current Comprehensive Plan the site will remain zoned C/LI. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not Applicable. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. The si e con ins areas of Potential Geologic Instability Clas aving slopes in excess of 20% with moderate 4c. tndh landslide potential. I. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? When the entire site is finished approximately 1200 people will work on this site. -12- • • TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY b. What viewsin the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Because of the existing sloping terrain, no views from neighboring buildings will be impacted by this project. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any. The site is currently used for the storage and sale of industrial vehicles and equipment. This project will significantly enhance the appearance of the site and the neighborhood, and will advance the goals of the City of Tukwila Pacific Highway project. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? There will be lighting associated with the parking areas. Due to the terrain, the neighboring residences to the north and west will be located above these light standards. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? There is existing street lighting for Highway 99 which will spill onto this site. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: opc, I i rue's 19-c Parking lot lighting will be designed to City of Tukwila (9. ccs standards for light spillage onto neighboring properties. Lc, -"c, " 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? King County is developing a park along the Duwamish River less than a mile away. -14- PRINT DATE: mnw. CR. SHEET A0.0 PROJECT TEAM LEGAL DESCRIPTION SHEET INDEX OMR/0E9109, CONTACT, JO. EAT SST b ROC . O ELLEN, NAT. m, TAR (2010 102-.9 Av.YTFDn ra.+ert. Mo Ax aFSTs. xc. r,. COCA, ./OA. leu VW 4%OD NOL.SmE EOJ. BELLEASE. PA 0.05 rm. 000 OT-ban.l.n.me) S106M. ,EAST. 04AaR COCK,PARCEL cwmrxa. NC WET SIN.% SIM ROE f0. 0.21-3.0.16f(.2/S]T.20 STRZTUNAI 901.994 Y40.TM6 CONTACT. seen:NIRO. SR xi. STREET. SATE COO P.C.909.0, 0 ADM H:S:.071-54.6 PAN. (4.1.00-409 440,95FO0 PAR COTSTREET 01.59. oie. � Tn-40.1.9 4491 Tr.= TPAT ACC PCXV er,TVPornesu0wT 1.. .Tg94.iP.sbP 9 MRMIWK. W^, 5/5.1.41....T OF STATE .LMT ;C.OF T "` NeT.A.TwTOA..eSE-K.9FEETDT. CET TL.�TK YNn.Ui4. OF PC 090039 rt., MT WACO vFSTATE WSW. FO. 4 A 09..,9E v 24 To PC PEE OF EC... PCP.N LOELT.R,IVAT . 995 TK MUSS T" MS.. To THE Mame WK. YD a?CO �CATJTA, CIVIL ARCHITECTURAL YET Wel., OAT, 40 WI OP APEA F!B .0 SITS RAP .CCR q..+ . SECOCIO DA Care AIC Se0a6£SPtS i YVK4i NANDS. 961 TORO.N 1. TRC POPTT OF etrMao.0 Toe MST .4041.4 OP STATE KOK. '�4 IN TM: CITY O/ TWA, WATT 0,. 9.. STATE vl 5 ear, LOC ChT9e PORT.. a>,.wrw. OF P Asx:T 01 OF PC ..0. I. , levee NRnl4TNa4FEET TO PC TTLC PORT oM rose weer CP CA.. ....AT NO. I6DIETNFC 0 4• 90 FEET. MEW M ^T�.'IF R MT AT ©,6'94}.94., CS SAP .3.1/1. TO PC 149.9. LOC C. SALO O. rPOCZ fAST hr.S. Y. NORM Lae TO TLC Pee MA.. OF STATE .....r est. b % eer, C.O.NPu SAD r6T.045•0P TOre TO. POST 01 ErS.004. ChM. R M.. Cr nrMU, CWT, OF Kos,, erode Or 5.591. PARCEL 9 RNAT .05110a w Pe NRn.nT 4a Or PC xvT T VI a ON SECTt TOP.. a STATE .../.. .1.9 t 49 45. EASIER, NCR, .4.4% LW, , PLA 91.11,95,a w. �O +"Maw AT PC irr6 COR OF SAO z®rvewk PetICE EAST NOS 1. Sam LOC OF SAD Star SSION 70 A POM WO RFT REST OF TOOL 90 w glee 109Pro; COMA a. o"M'ir01,1 wa TT CHOC il .9.01, OCTANT SA9 OL _ I. T0.494 AT A OW 9 Tee, MET Or WSW. ON PC ST. LOC OF TLC Pe MST OF roi PrOCE OCT TO SW PCST L.5614. Eeo:T 9541,AP* oA FORT CO TCT NORM OP 11wn Pa15. h.. 00Re, MCC COM.. ro.nae ER.14 01 SCAMCAST0.5. TO re PEE POW 0, 1.00045 ABOVEnee! S.M. AT T. 1051,PCST COWEN OF he WATT. PARCEL OCT Pla.C.E EAST FAR.. wTr Trc . LK OF SAWS. To T1C elm m FRNrro orewe lererv, 4, h TIME POPPL1949.4, WS. SAIO EDO T Peet SAJO SCVP1 WCTO r50 C7.91- Of Tle r.sT 1.06/11 OF STATE 4640.100 14 POCE SCYPEAST TO PC PONT OP MN.. SPATE R T. LIT OF VAX . CCW'} 0,00 STA. a rv.,wwTR Oct TOP.. D NAM WON• EASTON, ATT A PO. 9 FEET REST O PC AOT.eAR. Cr 1101 9 F119E EMT f 10!59 MEV WASS M TO AT SO EMT VW. 6, TC. PRP, ni05l ALPO SVD 499 %OEPp MASAO AT T.. APSLES TS SAID 1111192 fere POAL.L wn, SAP YON WE 00 MO, PCs. 11111.491TERAT TO PC PEE reOT OP EGS.00- 000,4127, .TT MT F..TA lee LAE CP SAD 9SSISO: TTK 100. E .. CeOAAn16 STATE N 4 MRP.6TRY NOMI SND COCCAL. .0 1/992 I55T PAPAL. . SAD 5041. ICC TO A PONT FEET, Per o re` 16T 6 TLC REST MAR. CP S-A. NOOTAT.O. kk STATE STRUCTURAL LANDSCAPE li LANJECAPEPLAP VICINITY MAP ..,,v r.,...e r£ BA \ ..,� t 1. 441 1`) PSITERO EtT J I.1"--- _AIX v PRINT DATE: mnw. CR. SHEET A0.0 ...arer0 cam 1.1111: RW#11111111 !q4ammuffilir .11 111 m (7) z 0 0 c w g m g ›- DRAIN 0, ./CNN ORAN.° liabiL. DATE: 4/01/9N PROJECT NO : PACIFIC VIEW SABEY OFFICE PARK ODRPORM1ON TUKWLA, WASHINGTON REVISIONS 4N MEIIIEIT 4C 110 0 AUCHITECTS, INC. P.8._ ,To o.an 133HS 3g so 5. XF 0014 010/le / CO 31V0 JNIBd IXl OT..I •SN?. NVId 31IS 0901 eiblenr, '3,30 4344 t yFj i� O moi/ .1 Mal 01.1,4V0 111 fl aY /aF (F [n0Va0H0TF 27.140 (0/20.0.1,01(..11.41.01wcWV4 1.V1S fA(A2tA00 i� 1.01 0®son iTVYS US WOW L-411.612ID1 09;143riinigg .� A TAW n VAH 31.4 Fc¢a OQT0 A—® 111 1111 11,440 565.4k5C re*. swain Per#4 awnCD 111 111 1111 J 1111 ■■I NMI 111 _LL 111 CONC6riE (MO raaas CONCACITL .4.41.604 cwcarra Can EAST ELEVATION BUILDING A SCALL. M, fa n SY 111111111 1 1 1 1 1 ■gym ...ml.�i . 1 ■RU■■■l1.11111M U EIr 111.111.111.1111.111=!w�e' ■■■ NORTH ELEVATION BUILDING A n 57 WEST ELEVATION BUILDING A seas ew, ra n . b• Lam, owarre wan, GrKa immEmili2-4 •u .Blow IIIM.i...1 m..nu . 4U""imatiming i—Iiiiiii wawa, C.0_ SOUTH ELEVATION BUILDING A SLNL• VS..I'O' TO PLR .Ra>carn 14.6 CSD ccaarrare wrarre CIO NO. MATERIAL I FINISH COLOR 01 COMM 56154 a4110 NW Oa CA.= S•12245 MUMS' 05 cwrxrt 000111 _Y.a Ma, CM 44:66164r5 WOO. 5.120.6 1031661:51 WC aa I SIMS PPS 9.145415 SOC saAn 616501 04 KM WAIN 5A 2245 V611.4405. .SO. e. W KK .A.� MLA.' PRINT DATE: 03/3VM 16. 3Ne Lai=0 a~ a= y Q U- Y CI. 0P• 11 SHEET A4.0 4 ■■■■ MR Y-RELN Heti sows (3E) u■■ 1111 MEM CD caocnue C30 Put Sr R.R. EAST ELEVATION BUILDING B (C AND D SIMILAR) 50.L 106' • 04 0 4 ai' 57 1=MIMI II :::iii .■■..■=1: MON mom ■■■■■■..• • �.� 010 0014•00000101m, —MI .1.1.15113. '' coYxa,e 6010 waiwx COD corcaue pLia No RN 1111 1111 I I I I 7117147177— 1111 I I I I 44 14 4 4 t IIII 1 1 1 111!` 1111 www. s44001 c$7 cosmic eues cc) (pea, CE) wa ex caJ 1111 WEST ELEVATION BUILDING B (C AND D SIMILAR) 6CALL, w• • l,a 04 W 3• ■ ■ -� ■■■■■■■■■ ■ mIHN .. �m NORTH ELEVATION BUILDING B (C AND D SIMILAR) YALE. 4* • r9' n 57 vcuoai— i_i - •ixux 9 V 5•m n� a A 197 RP. SOUTH ELEVATION BUILDING B (C AND D SIMILAR) 50428 1.46' • 00• 00 n- 10TE ALL PANT CALMS ANL P4403 9000140.11.0. cnrnem C. D NO. 1 MATERIAL FINISH COLOR at cara, un wmH05• 03 cases 9422,04 24 tviem.wat 003.1, VI 2040 .440,XICET cs PPG SWAM >00 MAL %Ned 94 2243 Ve11.04422. KUM 003A 04.23 00 I rffr.'MO 5.1 220 PCNA.475. PRINT DATE: waves Ina z 1 3 he wcc0 5az a= 2w3 u U LL J < LL a. O t 51 SHEET A4.1 r 4 or BY: PACIFIC VIEW EY .n � v REVISIONS , r, NAME OFFICE PARK SkBCORPORATION 9lSiAD Wyly lJRA M� :ggr N°: TUKWILA, WASHINGTON d-. MAIN STREET DESIGN f6m,tl�. 1:"40. (i1) m Ab Iu BLDG A, 3 STORY MIXED USE LEVEL 1, OFFICE OR F-2, 29,321 SF LEVEL 2, OFFICE OR F-2, 34,040 SF LEVEL 3, OFFICE USE, 32,861 5F 96)34 SF TOTAL BLDG A, REQUIRED PARKING F-2 = 1 : 1000 / 6 = 3 : 1000 LEVEL 1, (F-2) • 29,321 5F = 30 STALLS LEVEL 1, (F-2) = 34,040 SF. = 34 STALLS LEVEL 3, (B) • 32,861 5F = 99 STALLS TOTAL REQ. PARKING = 163 STALLS TOTAL PROP. PARKING • 113 STALLS = 1.8 CARS / 1000 BLDG B, 4 -STORY OFFICE 2 PARKING LEVELS (ION GRADE) OFFICE LEVEL 1: 18,511 SF OFFICE LEVEL 2: 18,041 5F OFFICE LEVEL 3: 11,511 SF OFFICE LEVEL 4: 11,121 SF 11,268 5F TOTAL BLDG B, REQUIRED PARKING 6 = 3 : 1000 LEVEL 1-4 , (6) = 11,268 SF • 214 STALLS TOTAL REQ. PARKING • 214 STALLS TOTAL PROP. PARKING = 246 STALLS • 3.45 CAR5 / 1000 BLDG C, 4 -STORY OFFICE 1 PARKING LEVELS (I ON GRADE) OFFICE LEVEL 1: 18,511 5F OFFICE LEVEL 2: 18,041 SF OFFICE LEVEL 3: 11,511 5F OFFICE LEVEL 4: 11,121 SF 11,268 5F TOTAL BLDG C, REQUIRED PARKING 6:3:1000 LEVEL 1-4 , (B) = 11,268 5F • 214 STALLS 'TOTAL REQ. PARKING : 214 STALLS TOTAL PROP. PARKING • 243 STALLS • 3.40 CARS 1,000 • i i i i i i iI ..------------r--- --- ---- „..- - ..--- -- ,� -- -- •••••••••••-• i-�/ i _� �� i �- i i SITE PLAN for PACIFIC ��.- -� i �� PARKING SVIMARY 148 TOTAL STALLS OVERALL PARKING RATIO: 3.13/1000 SF PARKING RATIO OFFICE ONLY (NOT F-2): 4.25/1000 5F VIEW OF.FICE PARK OFF-SITE FLOW ENTERS PROPERTY WATER FEATURE NO EXCESS RUNOFF FROM > 2 -YEAR STORM EVENT: NO EXCESS RUNOFF FROM > 6 -MONTH STORM EVENT YES 5,2 C..7 e Ca DETENTION FACILITY YES ALL FLOW -TO POND POND 6 -MONTH STORM V EQUALIZA TION I PIPE ono• ..9"••-••-. • BIOSWALE •'• NELSON-BOURDAGES A Division of Po99erneyw Design Group, Int COPYRIGHT - C 1998 NO.S—80URD 512 6th Street South, Suite 202 K•rklond, WA 98033 (425) 827 - 5995 FAX (425) 828 - 4850 e -moi: nelsbourOod.corn DEAD STORAGE FOR WA TER QUALITY OUTFALL NO. 3 FLOW'< THE OFF-SITE 6 -MONTH PEAK PACIFIC VIEW OFFICE PARK SABEY CORPORATION ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE DRAINAGE FLOW CHART