Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA E98-0019 - WADE COOK FINANCIAL - PARKING LOTWADE COOK FINANCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF 108 SPACE SURFACE PARKING LOT 14675 INTERURBAN AVE. S. E98-0019 AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION IVII, AN1\11.(SINL/ hereby declare that: O Notice of Public Hearing O Notice of Public Meeting Determination of Non- significance 0 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance ElBoard of Adjustment Agenda ❑Determination of Significance Packet and Scoping Notice O Board of Appeals Agenda Packet ❑ Planning Commission Agenda Packet Notice of Action Official Notice 0 Short Subdivision Agenda E Other Packet O Notice of Application for ❑Other Shoreline Management Permit QShoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses on �l 0 -D 1p)V" C�- Name of Pro j ec�c t ( 0 0k2 Signature File Number - 00161 16VL kn III 1 CITY OF TUKWILA MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (MDNS) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: CONSTRUCTION OF A 108 SPACE SURFACE PARKING LOT PROPONENT: WADE COOK FINANCIAL LOCATION OF PROPOSAL, INCLUDIf . STREET -.ADDRESS, IF ANY: ADDRESS: PARCEL NO: SEC1TWN/RNG: 14b7:5' I=NTERURBAN AV S',' 359700-002 LEAD AGENCY :' CITY .OF TUKWILA: , ir FILE`N):'E9L,-0019 The City/hs City/h'determined t_f*tthe propP3a l does not have, a u_ro ab1 e :ianit1c,ant adv-e,rs.e:impac:t on the,-erYvironment. An en_vironme,nt.al, 1rnu :t _.tatement;% (EI'SY is nut reOu ited r:Odef:._PCW 43.21c.030(2.) (:c.)-.�,' This deci:io;n/wash_made:;after review<-p:f a comoleted environments;<1-,check,lis.t and other information..o,ri ti-I1;e With the ?ee'd'agencv'. This zntt mation is avai able to the ,publi.&--cn: reoue;The,,co-nditiuns. ‘to'rth13 SEPA Determination are, attached. t'. Th- i DNs is issued 'under 1'7-11-40(.).: ` loinmerat: mus. be. submitted by The lead agenCv w t 1 1 not z.,t on th i s proposWfor 1)5 days from the date, b,e..loW Steve Lan aster Resporas.ible Official City of Tuki 11a. (206) 43,1-3630 6300 'Southcent-er Boulevard Tukwila, WA 9 81 C L Date, Copies of the procei sres, for SEPAM'pp.ea l s are a-,YaTi 1 b l e with the Department of Cammun i l _u,_,Deve 1 ooment . CITY TUKWILA CONDITIONS Address: 14675 INTERURBAN AV S Applicant: WADE COOK FINANCIAL Status: PENDING Permit No: E98-0019 Applied: 08/03/1998 Type: P-SEPA �-Approved: Location: ^'�~ ' ' '' Parcel #: 359700-O023*�-� � �- ' —' -�_ r� Zoning: RCM �'^�'/- ' � w**-- =� 4+++^k*a* 1. A LIGHTING -PLAN INDICATING_NIGHI TIME,LIGHtINGREOUIREMENTS AND EFFORTS TO MITIGATE SPILLOVER LIGHTING-JOAD'OACENT RESIDENTIAL RROPERTIESuMUST'BE SUBMITTED,F,OR_REVIEW AND DEMOLITION PERMIT. , 2. IF11WADE Q T C [ ;REDUCT EMT PLAN(TMP LL DEPARTMENT 'OF COMM /;,)DEVELOPMENTTHEIR ANNUALTROGRO ''REPORT: ED UNDER TMC IF R U /THEIMP� ~^i^> SHALL'I'`�---,7-''-��- TRIPS FOR ALL_ ' `JUIINESRKING DEMAND-`\ ',SG P�L STRAT GIEG;�' iTH �!! ' ,APP@INTME |O&/ER I0N COORDINATOR FOR / THE -BUILDING NQ'OTHE GRAMS�-DESIGNED TO ENSURE THAT IP � ''.',REDUCTION EFFQRTS/ARE`MAIY�TAINED./ ���� ''�" .\ \ To: From: Date: Re: City of Tukwila John W Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MEMORANDUM Steve Lancaster Michael Jenkins February 3, 1999 E98-0019, SEPA review for the construction of a new 108 space parking lot, 14675 Interurban Ave S. Project Description: As referenced, this_ SEPA is for the construction of a new 108 space parking lot to serve the existing Wade Cook Financial Building. The parcel for the parking lot is located immediately south of the Wade Cook property. The project will also include the creation of a new retaining wall along the west property line. Agencies with jurisdiction: None Summary of Primary Impacts: • Earth A 50% slope is located along the west portion of the parcel. The slope falls to the east both naturally and as a result of a document slide in 1995. The applicant has indicated that they will work in conjunction with the property owner to the west to address the slope stability through new retaining wall. An application for a new retaining wall has been filed by the owner of the neighboring property (MI98-0243). Approximately 5,500 cu yards of cut and 1,500 cubic yards of fill will be required. Approximately 80% of site will be impervious. A geotechnical report has been filed. • Air Dust and odor will be generated from earth movement and paving activities. Construction will comply with PSAPCA regulations and City standards. • Water No dredging or filling from surface water or wetlands. No discharge of waste materials to surface waters will occur. No withdraw or discharge of groundwater will occur. The site is located approximately 800 feet from the closest edge of the Duwamish River. A bioswale will be created as part of a comprehensive water quality program, which must comply with the King County Surface Water Design Manual and Tukwila's Storm Water Management Ordinance. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 • • E98-0019 SEPA Checklist - Wade Cook Financial Parking Lot 14675 Interurban Ave S. February 3, 1999 • Plants Fir, Alder and Maple are located within both the natural slope and slide areas. A Tree Permit will be required for removal of any regulated trees within a slope in excess of 20%. A Landscape Plan should be submitted as part of the Development Permit, which will include indications of regulated trees being removed and appropriate type and location of replacements. • Animals No anticipated impact. • Energy/Natural Resources Diesel fuel will be used on project and electricity will be used for lighting. • Environmental Health Short term construction noise will result from this project. • Land/Shoreline Use The site is currently vacant. Adjacent uses are a 3 story office building, apartment buildings and a motel. An existing rock retaining wall is located along the northwest portion of the site. The parcel is located in he Regional Commercial Mixed Use (RCMU) zone. The project must comply with the city's Sensitive Area Ordinance (TMC 18.45) due to a Class Two slope on the property. • Housing No impact. • Aesthetics The proposed retaining wall will be approximately 15 feet in height. The applicant has indicated that the wall will include reveal lines and landscaping to cover the retaining wall. • Light and Glare Illumination of the parking lot may occur during hours of darkness. No lighting plan has been submitted to ensure that night time lighting will not adversely affecting neighboring residential properties. E98-0019 SEPA Checklist - Wade Cook Financial Parking Lot 14675 Interurban Ave S. February 3, 1999 • Recreation No known impact. • Historic/Cultural Preservation No known places or landmarks. • Transportation A Traffic Impact Analysis was submitted by the applicant on November 23, 1998. The traffic analysis should include information on the existing mode split pertaining to Carpool, Vanpool, Transit and other Transportation Demand Management strategies. As referenced, the proposed project will create 108 new parking spaces. The parking lot will serve Wade Cook Financial, which is affected by the City's Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) ordinance, as well as other affiliated businesses. Wade Cook is currently in compliance with the City's CTR ordinance (TMC 9.44). The building employs other business that may be affected by the ordinance. Without the development of a comprehensive parking strategy at this site, the building and its related uses may not continue to meet the Commute Trip Reduction goals or comply with the following Comprehensive Plan policies: 13.3.3: Provide capacity improvements or trip reduction measures so that average LOS (Level of Service) is not exceeded 13.3.5: Include as a priority increased transit use and rideshare measures such as carpooling as capacity mitigation measures and then consider signal improvements, other street capacity improvements, and street widenings as a last resort 13.3.8: Continue to encourage the use of rideshare, transit, bicycle, and evolving technological transportation improvements 13.4.6: Continue to provide Commute Trip Reduction Program service to Tukwila employers and top provide assistance to Metro, Washington State Department of Transportation, King County and adjacent agencies in increasing people -carrying capacity of vehicles and reducing trips 13.4.13: Establish mode -split goals for all significant employment centers which will vary according to development densities, access to transportation service and levels of congestion. E98-0019 SEPA Checklist - Wade Cook Financial Parking Lot 14675 Interurban Ave S. February 3, 1999 The applicant has not specifically indicated if the parking lot is intended to serve customers, employees or a combination thereof. Only one access drive to the combined existing and new parking areas will be allowed, as the facility has an access point for parking on the north side of their building. Compliance with Bicycle parking requirements (TMC 18.56) will be required. The applicant will be required to enter into a Fair Share Agreement with the Public Works Department for frontal improvements. A hauling permit will be required for removal or importing of any material necessary for and produced as a result of the project. • Public Services Proposal will not impact or require specific public services. • Utilities No known impact. Recommendations: MDNS, to include the following conditions: 1. A lighting plan indicating night time lighting requirements and efforts to mitigate spillover lighting to adjacent residential properties must be submitted for review and approval prior to the issuance of a City of Tukwila Demolition permit. 2. If Wade Cook does not continue to meet its Commute Trip Reduction goals, a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community Development prior to the approval of their Annual Program Report, required under TMC 9.44.080. If required, the TMP shall include strategies for reducing trips for all businesses at this site, to include parking demand strategies, enhanced carpool and vanpool strategies, the appointment of an Employer Transportation Coordinator for the building and other programs designed to ensure that trip reduction efforts are maintained. City of Tukwila • • John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director December 9, 1998 Carl Sanders Wade Cook Financial 14675 Interurban Ave S. Tukwila, WA 98168 Re: SEPA Checklist review for new parking lot, 14675 Interurban Ave S. (E98-0019) Dear Mr. Sanders: On November 23, 1998 we received the Traffic Impact Analysis from your consultant David Hamlin and Associates. This document has been forwarded to our Public Works Department for their review. We are still in need of the remaining documents indicated in my October 16 letter, include the Geotechnical Report, Fair Share Agreement for street and utility improvements and revisions concerning roadway access and fire lanes. I would appreciate an update on when the remaining documents will be received. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at (206) 431-3685. Sincerely, Michael Jenkins Assistant Planner 6300 Southcenter Boulevar4 Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 DRAFT 11/10/98 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS WADE COOK SOUTH PARKING LOT TUKWILA, WASHINGTON November 1998 Prepared for: Wade Cook Financial Corporation DAVID I. HAMLIN AND ASSOCIATES 1319 DEXTER AVENUE NORTH, SUITE 270 ' SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98109 (206) 285=9035 DRAFT 11/10/98 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS WADE COOK SOUTH PARKING LOT TUKWILA, WASHINGTON A) INTRODUCTION The information which follows is intended to summarize the transportation impacts resulting from the construction of a 108 stall parking lot for an existing office building in the City of Tukwila. The parking lot is located on the west side of Interurban, Avenue in the south 14600 block. The purpose of this report is to review and analyze current conditions in the vicinity of the site, review the proposed action and the impacts to the transportation system, and develop the appropriate mitigation as necessary. Discussions with City Staff indicated that trip generation and distribution should be provided for the daily, AM, noon, and PM peak hours trips, and that a level of service analysis be provided for those intersections impacted by 5 or more peak hour trips. B) PROTECT DESCRIPTION The proposed action is for the construction of a parking lot for approximately 108 vehicles. The parking lot is intended to serve the existing overflow parking associated with seminars sponsored by Wade Cook Financial Corporation at their corporate offices. Two new accesses to serve the parking have been shown on the initial site plan, however, discussions with City Staff have indicated that a total of only two accesses to serve the building will be allowed. Thus, the existing south access will need to be relocated in order to serve both the existing south lot and the proposed parking lot. The new parking lot will be located to the south of the existing building and parking lot located at 14675 Interurban Avenue South. The existing 60,000 square foot office building houses the office staff of the Wade Cook Financial Corporation. (The building was previously occupied by Boeing facilities engineering and construction personnel.) Normally, a change in office building occupants would not trigger any kind of a traffic analysis. However, the new tenants of the office building also host financial seminars during the 1 • DRAFT 11/10/98 weekdays which attract additional people to the site. It is for this use, the seminars, that has triggered the need for additional parking and the resultant traffic impact analysis. As stated earlier, the company is currently conducting seminars at._the site. Due to insufficient parking on-site, overflow parking has been handled by parking along a grassy area on the east side of Interurban Avenue where space is available. This has also resulted in the mid -block crossing of pedestrians to the building. The construction of the additional parking lot would eliminate this random parking and potential pedestrian conflicts. The remainder of this report will analyze the effects of the construction of the parking lot and the traffic -related impacts associated with the seminar participants. A vicinity map of the area is shown on Figure 1 and a reduced copy of the site plan is shown in the Appendix. C) EXISTING CONDITIONS 1. Adjacent Transportation System Interurban Avenue is a four/five lane north -south arterial which provides a connection to West Valley Highway. and I- 405 to the south, and to I-5 and SR -599 to the north of the project site. Curb, gutter, street lights, and sidewalk have been installed along most sections of the roadway north of the golf course. Intermittent curb, gutter, and sidewalk have been installed south of the golf course, primarily along the frontage of new development. The street is fronted by a mix of multi -family development, offices, small commercial developments, and some undeveloped parcels. The posted speed is 35 mph. 2. Traffic Volumes The only daily traffic count along Interurban Avenue in the vicinity of the proposed project available from the City of Tukwila was located to the south of the project and north of Fort Dent Way. The traffic volumes were for the year 1997 for the months of January and February. Both counts were very similar and indicated a daily volume of just over 24,000. The count printouts also indicated that the PM peak hour clearly represents the highest volumes along Interurban Avenue. The average of these two counts is shown on Figure 2. Discussions with City Staff indicated that the volumes along Interurban Avenue have remained fairly stable. PM peak hour counts were conducted (or available) at 11 intersections along Interurban Avenue between the I-405 Ramps and the SR -599 Ramps. A summary of these counts is also shown on Figure 2 and includes the following 2 NORTH DAVID 1. HAMLIN & ASSOCIATES PROJECT VICINITY MAP FIGURE 1 WADE COOK FINANCIAL CORP. PARKING LOT PAGE 2 NORTH PROJECT SITE 33 364 X 960 814 190 XX - PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES XXXX - DAILY VOLUMES EXISTING DAILY & PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES FIGURE 2 DAVID I. HAMLIN & ASSOCIATES WADE COOK FINANCIAL CORP. PARKING LOT PAGE locations: Interurban Interurban Interurban Interurban Interurban Interurban Interurban Interurban Interurban Interurban Interurban DRAFT 11/10/98 Avenue/SR-599NB On -Ramp Avenue/S. 133rd Street Avenue/SR-599 NB Off -Ramp Avenue/48th Avenue South Avenue/I-5 SB Off -Ramp Avenue/I-5 NB On -Ramp Avenue/52nd/56th Avenue South Avenue/S. 141st Place Avenue/I-405 SB Ramps Avenue/Grady Way Avenue/I-405 EB Ramps 3. Transit/Pedestrian Facilities Transit service is fairly extensive along Interurban Aveni'ie. Five METRO routes, #108, #150, #154 #160, and #163 travel along Interurban Avenue past the site. Route 108 provides service between downtown Renton and the Boeing Industrial area via Interurban Avenue. Service is provided to Boeing in the AM peak and back to Renton in the PM peak on weekdays. Route 150 serves Auburn, Kent, Southcenter, and downtown Seattle. Service is provided daily at about 15 to 30 minute headways throughout the day. Route 154 provides weekday service between Auburn and the Boeing Industrial area. Routes 160 and 163 provide weekday AM and PM peak shuttle service between downtown Seattle and the Kent East Hill. Transit stops are currently located just to the south of the office building and across the street. As noted earlier, sidewalks have been installed along portions of Interurban Avenue in the vicinity of the site. The City of Tukwila is trying to encourage pedestrian activity in order to eliminate some of the automobile trips in the area. The existing office and parking lot frontage have sidewalk constructed, however the section of Interurban Avenue where the new parking is proposed does not have sidewalk. Pedestrian signals, push -buttons, and crosswalks are typically found at the signalized intersections in the area. A marked pedestrian trailhead is also located adjacent to the site and extends west from the back side of the parking lot near the southwest corner of the office building. 4. Level of Service A capacity analysis was conducted for 11 intersections along Interurban Avenue which will be impacted by 5 or more peak hour trips. These intersections included Interurban Avenue/SR-599 NB On -Ramp, Interurban Avenue/S. 133rd Street, Interurban Avenue/SR-599 NB Off -Ramp, Interurban Avenue/48th Avenue South, Interurban Avenue/I-5 SB Off - 3 DRAFT 11/10/98 ." Ramp, Interurban Avenue/I-5 NB On -Ramp, Interurban Avenue/ 52nd/56th Avenue South, Interurban Avenue/S. 141st Place, Interurban Avenue/ I-405 SB Ramps, Interurban Avenue/Grady Way, and Interurban Avenue/I-405 EB Ramps. All of these intersectionsare controlled by traffic signals, with the exception ofLtheInterurban Avenue/I-5 NB On -Ramp, which is uncontrolled. As noted earlier, the PM peak hour was the period analyzed since it clearly represents the highest volumes along Interurban Avenue. "Level of service" is a common term used in the Traffic Engineering profession which is defined as a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, and its perception by motorists and/or passengers. These conditions are usually described in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience, and safety. Six levels of service are designated, ranging from A to F, with level of service "A" representing the best operating conditions and level of service "F" the worst. The intersection is then analyzed, taking into account all of the physical features and methods of traffic control. This process produces a rating for the intersection that defines a "level -of -service". An expanded explanation of "level of service", along with the tables which identify the criteria for analyzing unsignalized and signalized intersections respectively, is presented in the Highway Capacity Manual. The actual capacity of an intersection is generally considered to be at the lower end of level of service"E" and most agencies strive to maintain a roadway network that will not drop below this level of operation, except perhaps during unusual periods such as holiday shopping, sporting events, etc. Calculations for the levels of service were conducted using the McTrans Highway Capacity Software version 2.1f based on the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual. The manual traffic counts described earlier were used in these analyses and are shown on Figure 2. The following tables show the current levels of service. TABLE 1 EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE - UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS PM PEAR HOUR Location Level of Service (Delay) Interurban Avenue/ SBLT - B ( 7 sec.) I-5 NB On -Ramp OVERALL - A (<1 sec.) Where: 4 LOS A B C D F . DRAFT 11/10/98 Delay < 5 seconds > 5 & < 10 seconds >10 & < 20 seconds >20 &-< 30 seconds >30 & < 45 seconds >45 seconds TABLE 2 EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE - SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS PM PEAR HOUR Location Level of Service (Delay) Interurban Avenue/ NB - A (<1 sec.) SR -599 NB On -Ramp SB - A ( 2 sec.) OVERALL - A ( 1 sec.) Interurban Avenue/ EB - C (20 sec.) S. 133rd Street WB - C (22 sec.) NB - B (14 sec.) SB - B (15 sec.) OVERALL - C (17 sec.) Interurban Avenue/ EB - C (18 sec.) SR -599 NB Off -Ramp NB - A ( 5 sec.) SB - A ( 5 sec.) OVERALL - B ( 7 sec.) Interurban Avenue/ WB - C (18 sec.) 48th Avenue South NB - B ( 7 sec.) SB - A ( 4 sec.) OVERALL - B ( 6 sec.) Interurban Avenue/ WB - C (15 sec.) I-5 SB Off -Ramp NB - C (19 sec.) SB - .B ( 7 sec.) OVERALL - B (12 sec.) Interurban Avenue/ EB - B (13 sec.) 52nd/56th Avenue South WB - B (13 sec.) NB - B ( 7 sec.) SB - B ( 7 sec. ) OVERALL - B ( 7 sec.) Interurban Avenue/ EB - C (19 sec.) S. 141st Place WB - C (19 sec.) NB - B ( 9 sec.) SB - B ( 9 sec.) OVERALL - B (10 sec.) 5 DRAFT 11/10/98 • TABLE 2 . EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE - SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS .PM PEAK HOUR Location Level of Service (Delay) Interurban Avenue/ EB - D (28 sec.) I-405 SB Ramps WB - D (36 sec.) NB - C (19 sec.) SB - D (38 sec.) OVERALL - D (29 sec.) Interurban Avenue/ Grady Way Interurban Avenue/ I-405 NB Ramps EB - D (40 sec.) WB - E (53 sec.) NB - F (74 sec.) SB - E (59 sec.) OVERALL - E (58 sec.) EB - C (17 sec.) WB - C (18 sec.) NB - C (18 sec.) SB - D (31 sec.) OVERALL - C (22 sec.) Where: LOS Delay A < 5 seconds B > 5 & < 15 seconds C >15 & < 25 seconds D >25 & < 40 seconds E >40 & < 60 seconds F >60 seconds The level of service tables indicate that all of the intersections are operating at level of service "E" or better, with most of the locations at level of service "C" or better. The two busiest intersections, i.e., Interurban Avenue/SR-405 SB Ramps and Interurban Avenue/Grady Way, are operating at level of service "D" and "E" respectively. Both of the intersections were recently modified and are essentially at their ultimate configurations. D) PROPOSED ACTION 1. Trip, Generation.: The construction of the parking lot will serve the existing overflow parking generated by the seminars. While the ITE Trip Generation Manual (published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 6th Edition, 1997) is typically used to estimate the number of trips which can theoretically be expected to be generated by a development, 6 DRAFT 11/10/98 there is no ITE land use category to estimate the traffic generated by the seminar participants. (The trip generation for the office building would be based on the square footage which has not changed from the previous tenants, and therefore the net "new" traffic would strictly be that which is associated with the seminars.) Since the City of Tukwila's concern is associated with the seminar traffic coming to the site (in addition to the office traffic), only the seminar traffic has been assessed. The seminar traffic has been estimated from information provided by the Wade Cook Staff. The seminars typically range from an average of 30 to 100 participants and range from 1 to 3 days in length. Participants come from both the Puget Sound region and from around the country. Thus, some participants will arrive by car, while others may arrive via vans from adjacent hotels. Seminars start early in the morning (around 6:30 to 7:30 AM), with dismissal typically by 4:00 PM, sometimes earlier. In order to estimate the daily and peak hour trips associated with the seminars, the high average of 100 participants was used. Within this group it is estimated that up to 10 participants, would carpool (i.e., friends or spouses traveling together), and that another 8 participants would arrive via vans from nearby hotels (2 vans) . Table 3 shows the number of trips expected to be generated by the site based on the assumptions noted. TABLE 3 TRIP GENERATION WADE COOK SOUTH'PARKING LOT TIME PERIOD TOTAL TRIPS Daily 314 (1) AM Peak Enter 51 Exit 2 Total 53 (2) Noon Peak Enter 30 Exit 31 Total 61 (3) PM Peak Enter 2 Exit 59 Total 61 (4) (1) - Based on 82 vehicle round trips (164 total trips), 2 7 DRAFT 11/10/98 vans with 2 round trips (8 total trips), 61 lunch-time round trips (122 trips), plus 20 miscellaneous trips. (2) - Based on the assumption that 60% of the 82 vehicles, and 2 vans, arrive during a one-hour period. (3).- Based on the assumption that 50% of the lunch trips occur during a one-hour period; also assumes that only 75% of those participants who drove will use their vehicle at lunch to run errands or buy food - the remaining participants will "brown -bag", eat on-site at the deli, or walk to a near -by eatery. (4) - Based on the assumption that 70% of the 82 vehicles, and 2 vans, depart during a one-hour period. The table above shows that the site will generate over half of its daily traffic during the three peak hours. 2. Trip Distribution/Assignment The traffic generated by the seminars will be distributed to the north and south on Interurban Avenue, with further dispersion primarily onto the regional transportation system. Participants originate from all areas of the Puget Sound region, and beyond, and include out of state participants. The origin of. participants varies from seminar to seminar, so the distribution has been based on a reasonable average use of the freeway system. The trips from the site will be dispersed onto I-5, I-405, SR -599, SR -518, West Valley Highway, or to the Southcenter area. Figure 3 shows the estimated trip distribution by percent and daily volume for the subject site. It should be noted that these values are approximate and may vary from day to day depending on the origin of the seminar participants on any given day. Many of the daily trips will be localized, and primarily composed of trips generated during the lunch break. The remainder of the daily trips will be oriented to the freeway facilities and occurring during the AM or PM peak hours when seminars participants are either arriving or departing from the site. Figures 4, 5, and 6 show the trip assignment to the various streets during the AM, noon, and PM peak hours. The AM and PM peak hour trips will primarily be those associated with seminar arrivals and departures and therefore oriented towards the freeway system. However, the noon trips will be more localized and associated with food services along Interurban Avenue, near Southcenter, or to the east in Renton. Very few of the noon trips would use the freeway system, whereas the majority of the AM and PM peak hour trips would be using the freeways. 8 NORTH 6% 1.9 ESTIMATED TRIP DISTRIBUTION (BY PERCENT & DAILY VOLUME) FIGURE 3 DAVID I. HAMLIN & ASSOCIATES WADE COOK FINANCIAL CORP. PARKING LOT PAGE NORTH PROJECT SITE ESTIMATED AM PEAK HOUR TRIP ASSIGNMENT FIGURE 4 DAVID 1. HAMLIN & ASSOCIATES WADE COOK FINANCIAL CORP. PARKING LOT PAGE NORTH PROJECT SITE ESTIMATED NOON PEAK HOUR TRIP ASSIGNMENT DAVID 1. HAMLIN & ASSOCIATES FIGURE 5 WADE COOK FINANCIAL CORP. PARKING LOT PAGE NORTH 15 0/ PROJECT SITE 0 t15 ESTIMATED PM PEAK HOUR TRIP ASSIGNMENT FIGURE 6 DAVID I. HAMLIN & ASSOCIATES WADE COOK FINANCIAL CORP. PARKING LOT PAGE DRAFT.11/10/98 3. Traffic Volumes The future daily and PM peak hour trips with the seminar trips added in are shown on Figurel6. The traffic volumes shown on Figure 2 were increased by the seminar trips to estimate these volumes. As noted earlier, Staff had --indicated that volumes along Interurban Avenue were relatively stable, so this methodology would appear to be reasonable for this project. 4. Level of Service Level of service calculations were conducted again for the intersections with the seminar trips added into the existing volumes. Since the seminars are currently on- going, and the impacts are immediate, so no increases in background traffic were included and no changes in the geometrics at the intersections were assumed. The projected future level of service conditions with and without the seminar trips are shown in Tables 4 and 5. TABLE 4 FUTURE LEVELS OF SERVICE - UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS . PM PEAR HOUR Level of Service (Delay) Location Existing Future Interurban Avenue/ SBLT - B ( 7 sec.) B ( 7 sec.) I-5 NB On -Ramp OVERALL - A (<1 sec.) A (<1 sec.) Where: LOS Delay A < 5 seconds B > 5 & < 10 seconds C• >10 & < 20 seconds p >20 & < 30 seconds E >30 & < 45 seconds F >45 seconds 9 NORTH 279 847 • PROJECT SITE 24445 -405 1097 33 110 188 it 620 423 XX - PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES XXXX - DAILY VOLUMES 872 89 343 1284 \842 1508 190 385. 130 FUTURE DAILY & PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH PROJECT FIGURE 7 DAVID I. HAMLIN & ASSOCIATES WADE COOK FINANCIAL CORP. PARKING LOT PAGE DRAFT 11/10/98 TABLE 5 FUTURE LEVELS OF SERVICE - SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS PM PEAR HOUR Level of Service (Delay) Location Existing Future Interurban Avenue/ NB - A (<1 sec.) A (<1 sec.) SR -599 NB On -Ramp SB - A ( 2 sec.) A ( 2 sec.) OVERALL - A ( 1 sec.) A ( 1 sec.) Interurban Avenue/ S. 133rd Street Interurban / SR -599 NB Off -Ramp Interurban Avenue/ 48th Avenue South Interurban Avenue/ I-5 SB Off -Ramp Interurban Avenue/ 52nd/56th Avenue South Interurban Avenue/ S. 141st Place Interurban Avenue/ 1-405 SB Ramps EB - C (20 sec.) WB - C (22 sec.) NB - B (14 sec.) SB - B (15 sec.) OVERALL - C (17 sec.) EB - C (18 sec.) NB - A ( 5 sec.) SB - A ( 5 sec.) OVERALL - B ( 7 sec.) WB - C (18 sec.) NB - B.( 7 sec.) SB -.A ( 4 sec.) OVERALL - B ( 6 sec.) WB - C (15 sec.) NB - C (19 sec.) SB - B ( 7 sec.) OVERALL - B (12 sec.) EB - B (13 sec.) WB - B (13 sec.) NB - B ( 7 sec.) SB - B ( 7 sec.) OVERALL - B ( 7 sec.) EB - C (19 sec.) WB - C (19 sec.) NB - B ( 9 sec.) SB - B ( 9 sec.) OVERALL - B (10 sec.) EB - D (28 sec.) WB - D (36 sec.) NB - C (19 sec.) SB - D (38 sec.) OVERALL - D (29 sec.) C (20 sec.) C (22 sec.) B (14 sec.) B (15 sec.) C (17 sec.) C (18 sec.) A ( 5 sec.) A ( 5 sec.) B ( 7 sec.) C (18 sec.) B ( 7 sec.) A (.4 sec.) B ( 6 sec.) C (15 sec.) C (19 sec.) B ( 7 sec.) B (12 sec.) B (13 sec.) B (13 sec.) B ( 7 sec.) B ( 7 sec.) B ( 7 sec.) C (19 sec.) C (19 sec.) B ( 9 sec.) B ( 9 sec.) B (10 sec.) D (28 sec.) D (36 sec.) C (19 sec.) E (41 sec.) D (30 sec.) 10 DRAFT 11/10/98 TABLE 5 (con't.) FUTURE LEVELS OF SERVICE - SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS PM...PEAR HOUR. Location Interurban Avenue/ Grady Way Interurban Avenue/ I-405 NB Ramps Level of Service (Delay) Existing Future EB - D (40 sec.) E (40 sec.) WB - E (53 sec.) E (53 sec.) NB - F (74 sec.) F (74 sec.) SB - E (59 sec.) F (63 sec.) OVERALL - E (58 sec.) E (59 sec.) EB - C (17 sec.) C (17 sec.) WB - C (18 sec.) C (18 sec.) NB - C (18 sec..) C (18 sec.) SB - D (31 sec.) D (32 sec.) OVERALL - C (22 sec.) C (23 sec.) Where: LOS Delay, A < 5 seconds B > 5 & < 15 seconds C >15 & < 25 seconds D >25 & < 40 seconds E >40 & < 60 seconds F >60 seconds The results of the capacity analyses with the seminar trips added in show little to no change in the level of service from the existing conditions. 5. Transit Usage As noted earlier, good transit service is available along Interurban Avenue, however, it is not expected that many seminar participants will use this mode since the routes tend to serve the industrial areas or downtown Seattle, rather than the residential areas throughout Puget Sound. 6. Pedestrians The development of the parking lot would include the construction of sidewalks along the frontage where no sidewalk currently exists, per the requirements of the City of Tukwila. The construction of the lot would also provide sufficient parking on-site and therefore eliminate the need to park across the street with the mid -block crossing of 11 DRAFT 11/10/98 pedestrians to and from the site.. 7. Access The proposed parking lot will take direct access from. Interurban Avenue.. Two driveways currently serve the Wade Cook office building, one on the north side of the building and one on the south side. The City of Tukwila has indicated that a maximum of two driveways will be allowed for the entire site. Thus, the existing southerly driveway and south parking lot will need to be modified in order to incorporate the additional parking lot into the overall site plan. Level of service calculations have been conducted for the existing driveways to determine their current operating conditions. PM peak hour traffic counts were conducted at these driveways for use in the analyses, and the volumes at these driveways are shown on Figure 8. The estimated driveway volumes with the seminar trips added in have been shown on Figure 9. A two-way left -turn lane has been constructed on Interurban along the site frontage and is available not only for making left -turns from, but also as a refuge/merge/acceleration area for eastbound to northbound left -turns. The existing and projected levels of service are shown in the following table. TABLE 6 EXISTING AND FUTURE LEVELS OF SERVICE SITE ACCESSES Level of Service (Delay) Location Existing Future Interurban Avenue/ NBLT - B ( 9 sec.) B ( 9 sec.) North Driveway EB - F (63 sec.) F ( 79 sec.) - D (23 sec.) * D ( 24 sec.) * OVERALL - A (<1 sec.) A ( 1 sec.) Interurban Avenue/ NBLT - B ( 9 sec.) B ( 9 sec.) Routh Driveway EB - B ( 9 sec.) F (163 sec.) - B ( 7 sec.)* D ( 27 sec.)* OVERALL - A (<1 sec.) B ( 8 sec.) * - LOS for -eastbound movement with use of -two-way left -turn lane:for merge/acceleration for eastbound to northbound left -turns. The level of service analyses indicate that the eastbound movements from the site driveways may experience some long delays before experiencing an adequate gap in traffic. These long delays would primarily be associated with left - 12 EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR DRIVEWAY VOLUMES FIGURE 8 DAVID 1. HAMLIN & ASSOCIATES WADE COOK FINANCIAL CORP. PARKING LOT PAGE 2 FUTURE PM PEAK HOUR DRIVEWAY VOLUMES WITH PROJECT FIGURE 9 DAVID I. HAMLIN & ASSOCIATES WADE COOK FINANCIAL CORP. PARKING LOT PAG E 2 DRAFT 11/10/98 turns from the site. If these left -turns use the two-way left -turn lane as part of a two-part maneuver, then the delay would be greatly decreased. E) IMPACTS The proposed parking lot will serve the existing overflow parking experienced at the Wade Cook Financial Services site when seminars are conducted at the corporate offices. The construction of this lot will not only ease the parking problem, but also eliminate the mid -block crossing of Interurban Avenue by pedestrians between the office building and their vehicles parked across the street. Thus, the parking lot will have a beneficial impact at the site in decreasing the potential conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles on Interurban Avenue. The analyses presented in this report represent the impacts associated with the seminars only - the remainder of the site use is for the permitted use, i.e., office space. Eleven intersections along Interurban Avenue that would be impacted by 5 or more of the seminar trips were analyzed with respect to their level of service. The analyses were conducted for the PM peak hour, which represents the highest volumes along Interurban Avenue, and thus, the worst conditions. The results of the analyses indicate that all of the locations would operate at level of service "E" or better with the seminar trips included in the volumes, which is considered acceptable by the City of Tukwila. Access to the new parking lot will be from Interurban Avenue. The City Staff has indicated that a total of two driveways, will be allowed to serve the entire site. Thus, the existing south driveway and parking lot will need to be modified in order to serve the existing south parking lot and the new parking lot. Details of this design are being worked on at the writing of this report. Several capital improvement projects (primarily in the Southcenter area) have been identified by the City of Tukwila. The Tukwila Staff has indicated that a proportionate share of the costs would apply to the subject development since it is intended to serve the seminar participants which were not a part of the original use of the office site. These seminar participants are above and beyond the office employees at.the site,which is the traditional use of the building. Only one of these locations which the City has identified for capital improvements would be impacted by 5 or more peak hour trips, i.e. the Interurban Bridge widening. The estimated number of seminar trips traveling through this during the PM peak hour is 40 trips. The City of Tukwila has developed a per trip mitigation fee at this location to pay for the improvements. 13 DRAFT 11/10/98 ID MITIGATION Based on the above analyses, the following aresuggested as potential mitigation measures for the parking lot development. (7 S 1-1. cs‘-e- 1. Construction of curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the parking lot frontage. 2. Modify existing south lot and driveway to serve the new parking lot. 3. Payment of $1122 per trip for 40 PM peak hour trips for the Interurban Bridge widening for a total of $44,880. 14 DRAFT 11/10/98 APPENDIX 15 • CB IM.1547 E 0451 E E -1M SCAMS 001¢ I. BASIS . DEMING R PER MC ALAI OF NIUTABAM 4000040 AS CSIA8J9m BY A CAW er DUSK ROW a MSS AS FE(D M BOM SE 04 PAGE 111 LEGA* oaopnoe MAI POROPI Or *01 2 MOM.MD0 ADM*, ID swim ACTIORODC TO DC PUT DOS. DECO DED N YOWL 10 Or FF.AI5 PAGE 51 mimeos . 9151 CDENn. EASINGS* =OWED D AS FOLLOWS 0 IELP IED. was AVE M ONTDI Or ma BORONG AI PC 04.710400110 . ME MCRDOEI MARGIN 0' USMD 0-PER/AY PTS -15 IOU* 514000 SOUTH 1590 51AFEr NO ME SWMEES1OCY CARON.591 /6-40 N 0M04 NM D.A.G. 3.12-13aSAA PONT BENG AI =III AMOLEs rO Ab ID 0391 PROM MOON 4+27.33 . SAM (*01171. 3. Al 005 0315 OF RECORD MI DDT. MER. MORIN 174631 NETT 13311 FEET 10 0E POR. Mow PER ME ARMY. 6[65905914 MORE LGMIDA80 010401 21'4'30' REST 2)610 FM P. 14 M P051D IELOOP AAS M 5 1 0FM IMD1S SCUM erlrS0 EES1 ISO Fr.040A ODGI CAMS R0 31 NO RM 331. DOME 50UM 11'411 GST PARNLO TO SAID &40490+221.33 DE 51101:NEE NQEYAI01 BASED PI FEED PUBLISHED DA14 EAS FLOW IC NEN MPI DOIEE SCUM 935100 GST PARALLEL ID INE (CRM 01.0514. Or ISA FEET R0 330 WAS IOD SOP D6 SWIM 4590 SMUT ID DE PONT. 4EOING PR02SI. PLUMED ELEVATION - 3600 OMIMI - *LOVA IOH. SAIDA I9 N OE Gown . RM4 5141E . 15950(010 GRAPHIC SCALE (■ IEA) IIAA -N w a CC ell Z qt z cco m� 9 O V Z O Q 0 a ac 0 U J 4 U 4 LL tip gg Joe III Nott Ion AMA ROMS Sur s 035 aalr 1®h1a1 E 11.14.44 E E-rl.s GRAPHIC SCALE Trt. 2m5 Inab -r s IIS CB AEA -,a40 E E-IB0 fir: 1-1:2212321L1 81O-SWALE SECTION 2 het ACTED DOOM CLASS II AC 1 1/7 AIL =PAVED 0OPOS WI9CD S21Il41:410 lw CCUs 2 lir AIL COPACIED OEPd 017794ED SUSAaCG 9LSE caviar OA1E2. BASE MAY OE AECLAR= OEPp(WL 0l 50a CMYDONS LR400 02LS1A0C0011 PAVEMENT SECTION MLS EIDE 1 \ Ad -2200 E-2000 Ca IOPCE WO N/Dl-14.41211 SEP. c.ma 40 U 7. 50 \ • 5-0500 E 24-7020 E S -IB APPLICANT DA -C COOK E/1a60AL CORP. 74875 00010AII Alt SO. SEA7DL u EPKP-aa CONTACT: CALL 4 SAMO S (206)507-3124 ST Mai msriea TAR la Roos ROM OCIIIICA ..a) Patamil -474. arm Woman as =A+1aAai NAM aDa.lara.a.•Occw CM a. L.ae.e .uA/ CO OD SEED MIXTURE FOR 810-SWALE CB TYPE II 54' VC. RATER SEPARATOR 70 SURE VICINITY MAP NIS a O 4 mka cc Cc 5'° r aI WVW N 7- as EEMR Y ANs RoATs )W masa a RR awn, a m2 COMM a MS GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. 13256 NE 20th Street, Suite 16 Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 747-5618 FAX (425) 747-8561 Wade Cook Financial_ Corporation 14675 Interurban Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98168-4664 Attention: Carl J. Sanders, Vice President, Business Development Subject: Transmittal Letter - Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Parking Facilities and Retaining Walls 14891 Interurban Avenue South Tukwila, Washington Dear Mr. Sanders: November 5, 1998 JN 98399 We are pleased to present this geotechnical engineering report for your proposed parking facilities to be located at 14891 Interurban Avenue South in Tukwila, Washington. The scope of our work consisted of exploring site subsurface conditions, and then developing this report to provide recommendations for general earthwork, retaining wall design, and pavements. This work was authorized by your acceptance of our proposal, P-4620, dated July 15, 1998. The project site is located below the Hillcrest Apartments. A landslide occurred at the crest of the slope below the Hillcrest Apartments in 1995. It is our understanding that a retaining wall is to be constructed to the east of the apartment buildings to stabilize the existing slope and for retaining the excavation for the parking lot. It is our opinion that such a retaining wall is feasible. The foundation for this wall will need to be embedded into the underlying sandstone bedrock and tieback anchors will need to be installed in the rock to provide additional lateral support. Extensive subsurface drainage facilities may be needed for the construction of this project. Pavement sections should be underlain by imported granular fill and a geotextile fabric. The attached report contains a discussion of the study and our recommendations. Please contact us if there are any questions regarding this report, or if we can be of further assistance during the design and construction phases of this project. JRF:alt Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Anttd /14 James R. Finley, P.E. Principal • GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Proposed Parking Facilities and Retaining Walls 14891 Interurban Avenue South Tukwila, Washington This report presents the findings and recommendations of our geotechnical engineering study for the site of a proposed parking facility to be located at 14891 Interurban Avenue South in Tukwila, Washington. The Vicinity Map, Plate 1, illustrates the general location of the site. The parking facility will lie between Interurban Avenue South and the Hillcrest Apartments. The grading of the parking lot will require cuts of 16 to 20 feet in height near the western property line. A retaining wall will support this cut. This wall will have a dual purpose of supporting the excavation slope and stabilizing the existing slope immediately below the Hillcrest Apartments. A landslide occurred in the area of the new retaining wall in 1995. No work has been done to stabilize the slope since the occurrence of the earth movement. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The project site slopes upwards to the west from an elevation of approximately 20 feet at Interurban Avenue South to an elevation of approximately 48 feet at the western property line. Most of the slope is located on the western one-half of the site. The site is currently cleared near Interurban Avenue South and covered with small trees and brush near the western property line. The ground surface is wet and soft. A backhoe was unable to traverse the site to clear into the center of the site for the drill rig. Subsurface The subsurface conditions were explored by drilling four test borings at the approximate locations shown on the Site Exploration Plan, Plate 2. A fifth test boring was planned, but could not be drilled due to soft surface conditions. The field exploration program was based upon the proposed construction and required design criteria, the site topography and access, the subsurface conditions revealed during drilling, and the scope of work outlined in our proposal. The borings were drilled on September 29 and 30, 1998, using a small, track -mounted drill rig. Samples were taken at 5 -foot intervals with a standard penetration sampler. This split -spoon sampler, which has a 2 -inch outside diameter, is driven into the soil with a 140 -pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampler a given distance is an indication of the soil density or consistency. A geotechnical engineer from our staff observed the drilling process, logged the test, borings, and obtained representative samples of the soil encountered. The Test Boring Logs are attached as Plates 3 through 6. In addition to the four test borings drilled for this work, we also had in our files the results of two test borings drilled for the Hillcrest Apartments in 1995. Near the western property line of the subject site, highly -weathered sandstone bedrock was found in borings B-3, B-4, B-1-95, and B-2- 95 at an elevation of approximately 22 feet. Overlying the sandstone bedrock are soft soils • Geotecle Consultants, Inc. Wade Cook Financial Corporation November 5, 1998 JN 98399 Page 2 consisting either of highly -plastic clays, silts, or fill soils. Boring B-1, located near the northern property line, in the center of the site, also encountered rock at approximately elevation 22 feet. Overlying the rock was approximately 4 feet of silt. Boring 2, located in the center of the site and near Interurban Avenue South, encountered approximately 20 feet of fill and clays overlying the highly -weathered sandstone and siltstone. At this location, the bedrock was at an elevation of approximately 10 feet. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and laboratory tests. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types at the exploration locations. The actual transition between soil types may be gradual, and subsurface conditions can vary between exploration locations. The logs provide specific subsurface information only at the locations tested. If a transition in soil type occurred between samples in the borings, the depth of the transition was interpreted. The relative densities and moisture descriptions indicated on the test boring logs are interpretive descriptions based on the conditions observed during drilling. Groundwater No groundwater seepage was observed while drilling. However, the soils are highly impervious, thus seepage can be relatively slow except in more porous layers. The soils above the rock were wet in several of the borings. Water levels were not monitored after the drilling process and the test borings were left open for only a short time period. Therefore, the lack of seepage in the borings does not necessarily indicate no groundwater was present. We anticipate that groundwater levels will be near the interface between the fill and weathered soils, and the sandstone rock, or within more pervious layers of the sandstone. It should be noted that groundwater levels vary seasonally with rainfall and other factors. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General The construction of this parking lot will be difficult and expensive due to relatively poor soil conditions. Cuts of approximately 20 feet in height will be required at the southwest corner of the property. A Targe retaining wall will be required along the western property line and extending over a portion of the southern property line. If the wall is to be used to provide stability to the Hillcrest Apartments, the wall will need to be approximately 20 feet high along the entire western boundary of the subject property. It would also need to extend to the northern property line. We recommend that the top of the wall extend to Elevation 48 feet and that the west, or upslope, side of the wall be backfilled with imported free -draining pit -run gravel. The retaining wall will need to be constructed using steel, wide -flange soldier piles set in concrete -filled holes drilled into the sandstone bedrock. The soldier piles will need to restrain approximately 26 feet of soft, partially -disturbed .soils. Thus, lateral earth pressures on the walls will be very large. It willbe .necessary to tie the soldier piles back with permanent anchors extending into the bedrock and across the western property line. Although the soils exploration drill was able to penetrate the sandstone bedrock, the drilling contractor may encounter harder layers in the rock that would require use of special drills or coring. Access to the site for equipment will be difficult due to soft soil conditions. It will be necessary to construct a roadway of quarry spalls placed over filter fabric to provide access for the drill rig along the proposed retaining wall location. Interior roads will be required to provide truck access to haul Geotech Consultants, Inc. Wade Cook Financial Corporation., November 5, 1998 JN 98399 Page 3 excavated material from the job site and to bring in construction materials. We recommend that a trackhoe be utilized for the excavation. Dozers or front-end loaders will have difficulty moving earth on the site. The soils are highly plastic and very sensitive to disturbance. All excavated soils should be removed from the site. The excavated soils are not suitable for structural fill, including utility backfill. This will require imported granular fill for wall backfill, utilities, and base material under the pavement. The west retaining wall will stabilize the slope; however, extensive work will still need to be done on the eastern two buildings of the Hillcrest Apartment complex. The earth movement under the foundations of these buildings is associated not only with slope instability, but consolidation of very loose soils underlying the buildings. The buildings will need to be underpinned, and the building and floors releveled. Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be allowed to review the final development plans to verify that the recommendations presented in this report are adequately addressed in the design. Such a plan review would be additional work beyond the current scope of work for this study, and it may include revisions to our recommendations to accommodate site, development, and geotechnical constraints that become more evident during the review process. West Retainin_i Wall This section presents design considerations for cantilevered or tied -back soldier pile walls, as a soldier pile wall appears the most appropriate method for retaining the western slope. Since the most suitable choice of anchors is primarily dependent on a number of factors under the contractor's control, we suggest that the contractor work closely with the structural engineer during the shoring design. The design should be submitted to Geotech Consultants, Inc. for review prior to beginning site excavation. We are available and would be pleased to assist in this design effort. Cantilevered and tied -back soldier pile shoring systems have proven to be an efficient and economical method for providing excavation shoring. Tied -back walls are typically more economical than cantilevered walls where the depth of excavation is greater than 15 feet, or where high lateral soil pressures need to be resisted. Soldier Pile Installation Soldier pile walls should be constructed prior to commencing any excavation below existing grades by setting steel H -beams in drilled holes and grouting the spaces between the beams and the soil with concrete for the entire height of each drilled hole. Excessive ground loss in the drilled holes must be avoided to reduce the potential for settlement on the adjacent western property. If water is present in a hole at the time a .soldier pile is poured, concrete must be tremied to the bottom of the hole. Use of casing or slurry methods is recommended in areas where caving is encountered in the drilled hole. As excavation proceeds downward, the space between the piles should be lagged with treated timber, and any voids behind the timbers should be filled with pea gravel. The prompt and careful installation of lagging is important, particularly in loose or caving soil, to maintain the integrity of the excavation and provide safer working conditions. Additionally, care must be taken by the excavator to remove no more soil between the soldier piles than Geotech Consultants, Inc. .Wade Cook Financial Corporatio• November 5, 1998 JN 98399 Page 4 is necessary to install the lagging. Caving or overexcavation during lagging placement could result in loss of ground on neighboring properties. Lagging specifications are as follows: 1. The maximum distance between the drilled holes should be 5 feet (edge -to - edge). 2. Timber lagging should be designed for an applied lateral pressure of 30 percent of the design wall pressure, if the pile spacing is Tess than three pile diameters. For larger pile spacings, the lagging should be designed for 50 percent of the design load. Soldier Pile Wall Design Cantilevered shoring or tied -back shoring having one row of tiebacks, with a level backslope, should be designed for an active soil pressure equal to that pressure exerted by an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of 55 pcf. If two rows of tieback anchors are needed, a uniform lateral active pressure of 35H psf should be used for design. H is the effective retainage height of the wall, beginning at an elevation of 22 feet. The active pressure on the west wall extends to the weathered rock, which was found at an elevation of 22 feet. Elsewhere, the active pressure extends to 2 feet below excavation level. Slopes above the shoring walls will exert additional surcharge pressures. These surcharge pressures will vary, depending on the configuration of the cut slope and shoring wall. We can provide recommendations regarding slope surcharge pressures when the preliminary shoring design is completed. The lateral movement of the soldier piles will be resisted by an allowable passive pressure equal to that pressure exerted by a fluid with a density of 450 pcf in the weathered rock only. The soft clays exert no allowable passive pressure. This passive pressure acts on two times the grouted pile diameter. The minimum embedment below the floor of the excavation for cantilever soldier piles should be equal to the height of the "stick-up". The vertical capacity of soldier piles will be developed by a combination of frictional shaft resistance along the embedded length and pile end -bearing in the rock. ALLOWABLE VA, L UE Pile Shaft Friction 1,000 psf Pile End Bearing 10,000 psf The above values assume the following: • The excavation is level in front of the soldier pile. • The bottom of the pile is embedded a minimum of 15 feet below the floor of the excavation. • The bottom of the drilled hole is cleaned of loose soil and rock using a mud bucket. Geotech Consultants, Inc. Wade Cook Financial Corporatio• November 5, 1998 JN 98399 • . Page 5 • The concrete surrounding the embedded portion of the pile must have sufficient bond and strength to transfer the vertical load from the steel section through the concrete into the soil. Tieback Anchors Tieback anchors will need to extend into the weathered rock, thus, the anchors will need to be placed at an inclination of up to 45 degrees. It will likely be necessary to provide extra length on the "no-load" portion of the tieback reinforcement. This allows lengthening of the anchors to reach rock. The tieback will derive its capacity from the rock -grout strength developed in the weathered rock. Based on the results of our analyses and our experience at other construction sites, we suggest using an adhesion value of 1,500 psf in the weathered rock for conventional single -stage, grouted anchors. Soil conditions and soil -grout adhesion strengths typically vary over any site. Therefore, we recommend substantiating the anchor design values by proof -testing all tieback anchors. Additionally, at least two anchors in each soil or rock type encountered should be performance -tested to 200 percent of the design anchor load to evaluate possible anchor creep. These performance tests should be completed early in the anchor installation process, particularly if small -diameter or post -grouted anchors will be used. The remaining anchors should be proof -tested to at least 135 percent of their design value before being "locked off." After testing, each anchor should be locked off at a prestress load of 80 to 100 percent of its design load. If caving or water -bearing soil is encountered, the installation of tieback anchors will be hampered by caving and soil flowing into the holes. It will be necessary to case the holes, if such conditions are encountered. Alternatively, the use of a hollow -stem auger with grout pumped through the stem as the auger is withdrawn would be satisfactory, provided that the injection pressure and grout volumes pumped are carefully monitored. All drilled installations should be grouted and backfilled immediately after drilling. No drilled holes should be left open overnight. Excavation and Shoring Monitoring Prior to installing shoring or commencing excavation, we recommend making an extensive photographic and visual survey of the project vicinity. This documents the condition of buildings, pavements, and utilities in the immediate vicinity of the site in order to avoid, and protect the owner from, unsubstantiated damage claims by surrounding property owners. The existing Hillcrest Apartments have suffered extensive foundation settlement and are likely to experience some additional settlement in the course of this work. The soldier pile walls should be monitored during construction to detect soil movements. To monitor their performance, we recommend establishing a series of survey reference points to measure any horizontal deflections. Control points should be established at a distance well away from the walls and slopes, and deflections from the reference points should be measured throughout construction by survey methods. At least every third soldier pile should be monitored by taking readings at the top of the pile. We suggest taking the readings at least three times during the construction process. Geotech Consultants, Inc. Wade Cook Financial Corporation November 5, 1998 JN 98399 Page 6 Drainage Considerations A drainage composite should be placed against the lagging prior to constructing a permanent concrete wall facing. We recommend that weep holes be located no more than 6 -feet -on -center at the base of the wall and 6 feet up from the base of the wall. A subsurface drain should also be installed at the base of the wall. .This drain should consist of 4 -inch, perforated PVC pipe surrounded by at least 6 inches of 1 -inch -minus, washed rock wrapped in a non -woven, geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar material). In addition to the drain at the base of the retaining walls, under -pavement drains will likely prove necessary. We recommend that our engineers review conditions when the site is cut to grade. At that time, we can provide recommendation for drain locations. The project bid documents should provide provisions for the installation of at least two drains across the property. Pavement Areas All pavement sections should be supported on at least 16 inches of granular fill, such as small quarry spalls (2 'A -inch -minus) or pit run sand and gravel with at least 40 percent gravel (retained on No. 4 sieve), placed over a woven geotextile fabric. The subgrade should be in a stable, non - yielding condition at the time of paving. To evaluate subgrade strength, we recommend that a proof roll be completed with a heavy construction vehicle on areas to be paved, immediately before paving. Additional structural fill may be needed to stabilize excessively soft, wet, or unstable areas. We recommend using Mirafi 500X characteristics. The subgrade should be evaluated by Geotech Consultants, Inc., after the site is stripped and cut to grade. Recommendations for the compaction of structural fill beneath pavements are given in a later sub -section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill. The performance of site pavements is directly related to the strength and stability of the underlying subgrade. The pavement for lightly -loaded traffic and parking areas should consist of 2 inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over 4 inches of crushed rock base (CRB) or 3 inches of asphalt -treated base (ATB). This pavement section is based on our experience in the area and on what has been successful in similar situations. Some maintenance and repair of areas .can be expected, especially considering the soft nature of the near -surface soils on the eastern side of the site. To provide for a design without the need for any repair would be uneconomical. General Earthwork and Structural Fill Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under a building, behind permanent retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soil needs to support loads. All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at, or near, theoptimum moisture , content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture content that results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction process. The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type selected, the compaction equipment used, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. The loose lift thickness should not exceed 12 inches. We recommend testing the fill as it is placed. If the fill is not compacted to specifications, it can be recompacted before another lift is placed. This eliminates • Geotech Consultants, Inc. •Wade Cook Financial Corporatioll November 5, 1998 JN 98399 Page 7 the need to remove the fill to achieve the required compaction. The following table presents recommended relative compactions for structural fill: Behind retaining walls Beneath pavements 90% 95% for upper 12 inches of subgrade; 90% below that level Where: Minimum Relative Compaction Is the ratio, expressed In percentages, of the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined In accordance with ASTM Test Designation D 1557-78 (Modified Proctor). Structural fill placed on this site should consist of a coarse, well -graded granular soil with a silt or clay content of no more than 5 percent. The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of soil passing the three -quarter -inch sieve. We recommend the use of quarry spalls under the placement. Samples of potential fill should be reviewed by Geotech Consultants, Inc. prior to their use. LIMITATIONS The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our exploration and assume that the soil encountered in the test borings is representative of subsurface conditions on the site. If the subsurface conditions encountered during construction are significantly different from those observed in our explorations, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated soil or rock conditions are commonly encountered on construction sites and cannot be fully anticipated by merely taking soil samples in test borings. Subsurface conditions can also vary between exploration locations. Such unexpected conditions frequently require making additional expenditures to attain a properly constructed project. It is recommended that the owner consider providing a contingency fund to accommodate such potential extra costs and risks. This is a standard recommendation for all projects. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Wade Cook Financial Corporation, and its representatives, for specific application to this project and site. Our recommendations and conclusions are based on observed site materials, and selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses. Our conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of practice within the scope of our services and within budget and.Atime constraints. No warranty is expressed or implied. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. We recommend including this report, in its entirety, in the project contract documents so the contractor may be aware of our findings. Geotech Consultants, Inc. Made Cook Financial Corporati• November 5, 1998 ADDITIONAL SERVICES JN 98399 Page 8 In addition to reviewing the final plans, Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be retained to provide geotechnical consultation, testing, and observation services during construction. This is to confirm that subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation construction activities comply with the general intent of the,;: recommendations presented in this report, and to provide suggestions for design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. However, our work would not include the supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor and its employees or agents. Also, job and site safety, and dimensional measurements, will be the responsibility of the contractor. The following plates are attached to complete this report: Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Site Exploration Plan Plates 3 - 6 Test Boring Logs Plate 7 - 10 Grain Size Analysis We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions, or if we may be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us. JRF:alt Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. EXPIRES 8 / 17 / q - James R. Finley, P.E. Principal Geotech Consultants, Inc. //-.3 -98 1 '>�`� EXISTING 1 ROCK � •�� WALL 1 9 B-1 \ B-3 \� \ ‘ \N 1 • I 0.16 B1�1-96 \ \\ 1 0 t \ 'f. EXISTING 1 , \ B-2 I `\ 0 BUILDING \ ` \ \ \ c \ 'pG 13 .IB -2-9• \ \\\ \ 1 fit, PRO1POSED RETAINING I`HALL 1 so N • — — --N 1 1. B-4 J 1 1 ( / \ I \ / / 1 1 / 1 EXISTING BUILDING do LEGEND: - S APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATIONS - PRECENT STUDY ® APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATIONS _ 96 STUDY 1.0 SITE EXPLORATION PLAN 14891 INTERURBAN AVE S • TUKWILA, WA Io0 No.' 98399 • wig• ... OCT --1998• Reel • BORING 1 4 e.\4_ 46.4?,49 ei4a4.11 456 Description 10 Ime 15 20 25 30 MINN 35 40-- 66 50/5" 50/4" 50/3" 2 3 4 1111 ML Sod Brown, slightly sandy SILT, low plasticity, moist, loose (Possible FILL) BX Tan SANDSTONE, moist, highly weathered, hard - becomes Tight gray with ash * Test boring was terminated at 21 feet during drilling on September 29, 1998. * No groundwater seepage was encountered during drilling. BORING LOG 14891 Interurban Avenue South Tukwila, Washington Job No: 98399 Date: September 1998 Logged by: Plate: 3 BORING 2 ti Description NMI 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 w32.5% w=27.4% ImM 4 50/5" 50/5" 4 5 1111 ML \Sod Brown, sandy SILT with some organic matter, moist, loose (Possible FILL) Brown -gray, silty CLAY with occasional organics, damp, moderate plasticity, soft (Colluviu'in) (LL=34.0, PI=14:1) LL=16.8, PI=6.7) - wood in sampler Light gray SANDSTONE/SILTSTONE, moist, highly weathered, hard BX * Test boring was terminated at 25.5 feet during drilling on September 29, 1998. * No groundwater seepage was encountered during drilling. BORING LOG 14891 Interurban Avenue South Tukwila, Washington Job No: 98399 Date: September 1998 Logged by: DBG Plate: 4 MEI 10 RIM 15 20 25 30 35 40 ti i BORING 3 0 5 and 35/6" 50/5" 18 58 54 2 Sod Description Brown, sandy SILT, moist, loose - becomes dark brown with organics, damp, soft (Colluvium) Brown to Tight gray SANDSTONE, moist, highly weathered BX Light gray, silty SAND with ash, fine-grained, moist to damp, medium - dense Light gray SILTSTONE with ash, moist, highly weathered, hard BX * Test boring was terminated at 26.5 feet during drilling on September 30, 1998. * No groundwater seepage was encountered during drilling. BORING LOG 14891 Interurban Avenue South Tukwila, Washington Job No: 98399 Date: September 1998 Logged by: DBG Plate: 5 5 ooti BORING 4 4 NY' Description 10 15 20 25 30 35 w=61.6% w=53% 40 -- 36 93 88 FILL Sod Brown, gravelly SILT, moist, soft (FILL) CH Brown -gray to gray -black, silty CLAY, highly plastic, damp to wet, very - soft (LL=103, P1=78) - becomes Tight gray to Tight brown, damp (LL=126, PI=101) ED Dark brown to black, organic SILT and black coal seams Light gray SANDSTONE, friable with coal seams, highly weathered, hard BX * Test boring was terminated at 36.5 feet during drilling on September 30, 1998. * No groundwater seepage was encountered during drilling. BORING LOG 14891 Interurban Avenue South Tukwila, Washington Job No: 98399 Date: September 1998 Logged by: DBG Plate: 6 100 PO 80 70 80 80 40 30 20 10 0 U.S. STANDARD SIZES CLAY BORING B-4 DEPTH 20 - 21.5 SILT 8 7 • N SAND • • . • r r Y r 0 r r GRAVEL 100 90 80 - 70 80 80 • / O 8 N 01 10 O q 00 O O N M 1"0 O 0 00 O O 00 N O Y 10 O O O O • N al Y 40 SCREEN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS PER CENT PASSING 0 1 0 0 00 N W Ytl 0 O 40 30 20 10 0 0 000 C O O N Ol `f 10 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS 14891 INTERURBAN AVE S TUKWILA, WA Job 'No.+ Doli: Pols: 98399 ' OCT 98 . . . .. • • BORING DEPTH 5-6.5 U.S. STANDARD SIZES E B-2 0 . I[ r Y N t %Y N CLAY SILT SAND I JJJ GRAVEL I00 1100 90 90 80 80 / 70 70 +/ e0 eo 60 e0 n ? o 40 40� V .5-- 30 30 - {� rf 20 20 --.-• 10 10 i / ` 0 0 " O 0 N O O " O O O O O O O Y" - N O' O O O O O '' M r: Y O O 0 0 0o p b M t7 •f 10 N b SO O O O 00 0.0. SCREEN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS PER CENT PASSING _ GEOTECH CONSULTANTS GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS 14891 INTERURBAN AVE S TUKWILA, WA •- .� No.1 Doli Rots: .jp,cJob 98399 OCT 98 8 • • BORING B-2 DEPTH 10 - 11.5 U.S. STANDARD SIZES 0 O 10Q 90 80 70 60 60 40 30 20 10 0 CLAY SILT BAND 1 • 0 r N -1 r GRAVEL 1 1 Si -iv r I 100 90 80 70 60 60 40 30 20 10 0 - N M 1t Op 0 0 00 0 0 000 O O N M ♦n O O 00 O O 00 N M Y n O o O O SCREEN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS PER CENT PASSING GEOTECH CONSULTANTS 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 •- N M •f • N M b GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS 1489.1 INTERURBAN .AVE S TUKWILA, WA rb0 No.: Dalt: P101. ' 98399 ' OCT 98 .. 9 BORING B-4 DEPTH 5 - 6.5 FEET U.S. STANDARD SIZES F. O 0 O 0 1 N 1 . O N • N 100. 90 80 70 80 60 40 90 20 10 CLAY SILT BAND 0 GRAVEL C 100 90 80 70 60 60, 40 30 l 20 10 0 O 8 N 0 0 0 O O v00 O 0 'Re 10 0 0 0.0 N O Y O O O O • N v e SCREEN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS PER CENT PASSING O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • N t7 Y b • N 0• 0! Y n GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS 14891 INTERURBAN AVE S TUKWILA, WA Job No.0 98399 Oofe` OCT 98 . Plot 10 • City of Tukwila John W Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director October 16, 1998 Carl Sanders Wade Cook Financial 14675 Interurban Ave S. Tukwila, WA 98168 Re: SEPA Checklist review of a new parking lot, 14675 Interurban Ave S. (E98-0019) Dear Mr. Sanders: On September 3, 1998 I sent a letter to you detailing the status of our review of your SEPA checklist to install 108 parking spaces in a new parking lot to the south of the Wade Cook building. The additional documents requested include a traffic study, geotechnical report, fair share agreement for street and utility improvements and issues concerning road access and fire lanes. To date, I have not received any of these materials to complete our review. would appreciate an update on when you anticipate these materials will be submitted. These materials must be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of a SEPA determination, which is required before a development permit for the parking lot and related land altering permit will be accepted. If you have any questions or know when these materials will be available, feel free to contact me at (206) 431-3685. Sincerely, Michael Jenkins Assistant Planner 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 • • 6:i -C., RECENED SEP 0 9 1998 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • e•\ IS5 CDIC u_ose c),u cDEDcpc kAws'cAa \ oVV. =`cZ_c::V\\V e cD C)CL°� mac. .� 0--V\ ) euz-c • • Fq__V4S - v-k-VZ.W! �� ____� k-'ckcA \ J , `• VccD,R `` Fe\s c _ NS eNc,cD. __ , Pc3 vJ`=- C • -sc. • c.v\ eu_c)-4 c?.f.\5 CZ-L) 1 eKSD ex CD' i( Tr\--\ccDti- Q • • "--rOL) CCDO.\-fr c5�--���� S ‘u\�� EDS C T \ • C((0 • kA ?-e\c-k o C\--\ Ae\Th �� PK \ V • CO • e-'1oc7- . ������- F•cs\ods e\\IV Ptd �Go 0�1� V‘?Iv-\--V kk-e\ —V -c) cp\-mss "?-a_ V7E)R *A.Vt7\sc \\D- • e\ EzD OLM.\ c_c-P\Sq) tk-cDoLZ5 c\l \ l� oRp 673\ V\ f- 17,1. k uv ! G2_4 . �-t__e / 8 8 r� d -Q -e-Q c_ — _ �,-w-�'-- Ll 0- -) o )9A-1 W a-dz- /^_cA. 5 , //.re ,�.- (f�..,- M f/cG.of �, J p 7c; ii _ _s. R0r)FIVE. R koAi - - $EID 0 8 1998 - DEVELOPMENT QLY Q4-- aU t V J 5 /, d o f ,' JQ roww� or- Sow 5/,'d 4'_s l; di- it -a_ '_1_/ - 1 - p--, �_ 5 p 6 a$ 1, tA u v �Gt-,_ .t,Q_ _5 (o6) r �- Vva�. C`� Okf. A tAilk it5_- x.11 O/�� o� 2 (-5 C a - w;_1 -1 e -e -,.. 0 o _.mow /() L. �s c l 5b 0 0IL-11,12, G%l So af- _ loc k—_9ete r A^-y�L _. b 1 w a� IA wiAAd r a w •, City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director September 3, 1998 Carl J. Sanders Wade Cook Financial Corporation 14675 Interurban Avenue, S. Tukwila, WA 98168-4664 RE: Application for a S.E.P.A. checklist in conjunction with a new 108 space parking lot located at 14675 Interurban Ave., S. Dear Mr. Sanders: A substantive review has been conducted with regard to the S.E.P.A. checklist for the proposed 108 space parking lot. The following is a summary of comments made as a result of that review: PUBLIC WORKS 1. A traffic analysis for the additional conference use will be required prior to the issuance of a land altering permit. 2. A geotechnical report with peer review, paid by the applicant is required. The report should include an analysis of the west slope and retaining wall. Approval of the report will be required prior to the issuance of a S.E.P.A. determination. TMC 21.04.140(1). 3. A proportionate fair share agreement for necessary street improvements and under ground utilities will be required. 4. Only two driveways will be allowed for the entire use, including the adjacent office building. The existing south driveway may be relocated further south to accommodate the additional parking space. FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. Fire lanes will be designated in the parking lot after completion. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 • A copy of the applicable sections of S.E.P.A. are provided for your convenience. If you have any questions concerning the above listed requirements, please do not hesitate to contact either myself at 206-431-3685 or Michael Kerins at 206-431-3670. Sincerely, Michael Jenkins Assistant Planner cc: Reviewing City Departments �lILA, IV 0_ ��cal' 0 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor ,. QS �I.� iO '', % •. ij �. 'J Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director ' .......... 0 • 1908 NOTICE OF APPLICATION DATED AUGUST 28 ,1997 The following application has been submitted to the City of Tukwila Department of Community Development for review and decision. APPLICANT: Wade Cook Financial Corporation LOCATION: 14675 Interurban Avenue S FILE NUMBER: E98-0019 PROPOSAL: To construct an additional 108 space parking lot which will serve an existing building located north of the new lot OTHER REQUIREDPERMITS: These files can be reviewed at the Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100, Tukwila, WA. Please call (206) 431-3670 to ensure that the file(s) will be available. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT You can submit comments on this application. You must submit your comments in writing to the Department of Community Development by 5:00 p.m. on September 11, 1997. If you have questions about this proposal contact Michael Jenkins, the Planner in charge of this file. Anyone who submits written comments will become parties of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. APPEALS You may request a copy of any decision on a project or obtain information on your appeal rights by contacting the Department of Community Development at 431-3670. A decision may be appealed to the City Council. DATE OF APPLICATION: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: NOTICE OF APPLICATION POSTED: August 3, 1997 August 20, 1997 August 28, 1997 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RECEIVED tiiaa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMPNT Telephone: (206) 431-3670 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION AND POSTING OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGNS) State of Washington County of King City of Tukwila I fat- SS N Pr' R -S (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. r I certify that on Cur Sit ZSini9 the Public Notice Board(s) in accordance with Section 18.104.110 and other applicable guidelines were posted on the property located at /4675' S so as to be clearly seen from each right -of -way providing primary vehicular access to the property for application file number W-00/9 Affiant (• pplicant Signature) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of U uS? 19 9' NOTARY PUBLIC inandfor the State of Washingto residing at -3 � 6 cl oli�"�- 3 i / %i9�E %4.6 gE-A1 My commission expires on /— 9 t"--0 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION August 20, 1998 Carl J. Sanders Wade Cook Financial Corporation 14675 Interurban Avenue, S. Tukwila, WA 98168-4664 RE: Application for a SEPA checklist in conjunction with a new 108 space parking lot located at 14675 Interurban Ave., S. Dear Mr. Sanders: Your application, on behalf of Wade Cook Financial Corporation, for a SEPA checklist in conjunction with a new 108 space parking lot, 14675 Interurban Ave., S., has been found to be complete on August 20, 1998 for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. The project has been assigned to Michael Jenkins/Michael Kerins. 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, you may obtain them at the Department of Community Development (DCD). Also, you must obtain a laminated copy of the Notice of Application to post on the board. This notice is also available at DCD. After installing the sign with the laminated notice, you need to return the signed Affidavit of Posting to the our office. In order to complete a technical review of this project, it is required that you submit a geotechnical report on the site in question as well as a traffic study. 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. I will be contacting you soon to discuss this project. If you wish to speak to me sooner, feel free to call me at 206-431-3685 or Michael Kerins at 206-431-3670. Sincerely, Michael Jenkins Assistant Planner cc: Reviewing City Departments 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 • PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS Project Name: Ad& C604 �Y�iGG� 2. Location: File#: Action: g Date: //7g Reviewed Reviewed By:&4//4/J PRIOR HISTORY AND CORRESPONDENCE FRANCHISE UTILITY COORDINATION CODE REQUIREMENTS COMP PLAN CIP OVERLAY PROGRAM RFA PW STANDARDS MISC. STUDIES WD 125 PRE -APP MAINTENANCE NEEDS VAL-VUE PROBLEM AREAS 1. ///9- a �/9-.4e-r2r''47 te}al el/ �e✓w �ew3 t�" (��e f LSC �f �� W;// re✓rte o�ra^��" reAee.eAl feve-Yi �° U / CITY OFUKWILA • Department of Community Development ru 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, c 1 o' ` CITY ILA Telephone: (206) 431-3670 AUS 3- 1998 J U L 3 1i1 SEPA APPLICATION CHECKLIST FOR STAFFUSE_ONLY Planner Fife Nurnber: qi �- oo 1 9 Receipt Number :Cross-reference files:. :Applicant. notified ‘of ihcorrpleteoappiication: 'Applicant notified: complete,application ;Notice'of. appiication;issued A. NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Wade Cook Financial Corporation Additional Parking Facility B. LOCATION OF. PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: (address and accessors parcel number(s)) 14675 Interurban Ave. So. 359700-0021 Quarter: NE Section: 23 Township: 23N Range: 4E (This information may be found on your tax statement) C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Applicant proposed to construct an additional parking lot which will serve an existing building located north of the new lot. D. APPLICANT: Wade Cook Financial Corp./Carl J. Sanders ADDRESS: PHONE: SIGNATURE: 14675 Interurban Ave. S., Seattle, Wa. 98168-4664 • ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C 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. Instruction for Applicants: This environmental checklist ,asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. The City uses 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 governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the City staff 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. Attached any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The City 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: Nonproject proposals refer to actions which are different or broader than a single site specific development project, such as plans, policies and programs. 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 read as "proposal", "proposer", and "affected geographic area", respectively. • • ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Wade Cook Financial Corp. Parking Facility 2. Name of applicant: Wade Cook Financial Corporation 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 14675 Interurban Ave. S. Seattle, Wa. 98168-4664 Carl J. Sanders (206) 901-3134 4. Date checklist prepared: 7/98 S. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Late Summer/Fall of 1998 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA 66) Vx3 JUL 3119.q PERMIT CENTER 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. None 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. No 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. City of Tukwila Land Altering Permit, Parking Lot Permit 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal including the proposed uses and 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. Section E requires a complete 1 • • description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized here. The Applicant proposed to construct a paved parking lot with landscape islands on an 0.79 acre vacant parcel of land. 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 project is located in the City of Tukwila on the west side of Interurban Ave. S. north of Interstate 405, between S. 147th St. and S. 149th St. The site is adjacent to, and directly south of the existing Wade Cook building. 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? Yes, Class 2 slope. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling ® steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 50% (approx. 18' high) 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 The soil type is unknown. The site is classified as Urban Land by the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. d Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Yes. There is an existing slide area on the west side of the site adjacent to two existing apartment buildings. The Applicant will work in conjunction with the adjacent owners to stabilize and shore up the existing hillside as part of this project. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Grading will require approximately 5,500 cubic yards of cut and 1500 cubic yards of fill. Excess material will be exported. 2 f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Minor erosion may occur during construction. Temporary erosion control measures will be provided. Upon completion the site will be stabilized (see ld above). g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 80% will be impervious. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Best Management Practices will be used during construction in accordance with an approved Temporary. Erosion Control Plan. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (Le., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Short term emissions from construction equipment and dust. Long term from automobiles. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce to control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Water trucks will be used to help control dust during construction. 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. Nothing in the immediate vicinity. The site flows downstream into the Green 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 3 • • 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. N/A 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities If known. No 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. Only storm water runoff. 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. No 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. N/A 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. Storm water runoff will be collected and routed through an oil -water separator, biofiltration swale, and discharged into the existing downstream system located within Interurban Ave. S. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Storm water runoff will be routed through an oil -water separator and biofiltration swale prior to discharging into the downstream system. 4 • • 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of v - eta +'+ ound on the site: x deciduous tree: de ma le aspen, other x evergreen tree: f ce ' ar, pine, other shrubs x grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, x other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? The majority of the site is covered with high grass, blackberries, and scrub Alder which will be removed. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None are known. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Landscaping will be provided within planter islands and within the landscape buffers adjacent to property lines. 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: mammals: deer, bear, elk, eaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None are known. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: N/A 6. Energy and Natural Resources 5 • • a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity will be used for night 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: N/A 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 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: N/A b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Traffic on Interurban Ave. S. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Short term noise from construction equipment, long term noise from cars during normal business hours. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any. None 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is currently vacant. North and south are business, west is an apartment complex, east across Interurban Ave. S. is a motel. 6 b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No c. Describe any structures on the site. An existing rock retaining wall along the northwest portion. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? The existing retaining wall may be removed and re -constructed. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? RCM - Regional Commercial Mixed Use f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? RCM - Regional Commercial Mixed Use g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. The site is shown on the city's Comprehensive Use Policy Plan Map containing a Class 2 slope. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? N/A J• Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: None, the project is consistent with existing zoning. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: 7 • • N/A 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? Approximately 15' high retaining wall. b. What views in the immediate vicinity, would be altered or obstructed? None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: The retaining wall may be constructed using reveal lines. Landscaping will be provided on site which may include ivy, or other types of plants that will grow to cover the retaining wall. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Exterior night lighting will be provided. 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? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: N/A 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None in the immediate vicinity. 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: N/A 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation 8 • • 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. None are known. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None are known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any. N/A 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. The site will be served by Interurban Ave. S. as shown on the site plan. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? .'• Yes, it is served by busses. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 108 new spaces. 13 existing spaces will be removed from the neighboring lot to the north to provide a connection with the new lot. 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). No new roads. Frontage improvements may be required along Interurban Ave. S. 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 project is not intended to produce new vehicular trips. It will help reduce an existing problem due to lack of available parking space. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: N/A 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)? 9 • • If so, generally describe. No b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. N/A 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 for lighting, water for landscaping. 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: 13 I lc) 8 ) ea. / P.c.r. S . 10 • • TO BE COMPLETED 8? 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 infor- mation provided and :he submitted plans, documents, suppor- tive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal? The main purpose of this project is to provide additional parking to serve the existing Wade Cook Building located at 14675 Interurban Ave. So. in Tukwila. The existing • parking lot which serves this building is too small and is continuously over crowded. In the process of building a new parking facility, the Applicant will work in conjunction with the adjacent property owner to the west and shore up an existing hill slide which endangers two existing apartment buildings. 2. :What. are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? Alternative means are not available to. accomplish these objectives. 3. Please.compare_ the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: N/A • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 4. Ooes the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila -Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? No Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: N/A .r• . A111)6.EASTSIDE CONSULTANTS, INC. ENGINEERS - SURVEYORS • • WADE COOK FINANCIAL CORPORATION PROPOSED NEW SOUTH PARKING LOT PRELIMINARY STORM DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS EXPIRES 5/22/ q 1 415 RAINIER BOULEVARD N., ISSAQUAH, WASHINGTON 98027 PHONE: (425) 392-5351 FAX: (425) 392-4676 516 E. FIRST STREET, CLE ELUM, WASHINGTON 98922 PHONE: (509) 674-7433 FAX: (509) 674-7419 EASTSIDE CONSULTANTS, C. 415 Rainier Blvd. N. 516 E. 1st Issaquah, WA 98027 Cle Elum, WA 98922 (425) 392-5351 (509) 674-7433 FAX (425) 392-4676 FAX (509) 674-7419 JOB 11J ft E c ool c.• S,77•- Pfr1t Jc ip) , C 7 SHEET NO OF CALCULATED BY DATE CHECKED BY DATE SCALE C 14-E 1c _....I7? $E.A2. tot R e. A = 0:74 (o D EVE L. CDS IT ()Pet) A- ,Tei + 4 alp Ioo Jo_ n 111 Q f•.) C.,j ( • CON DITi(.1 C/IL-C tiLA-rcur-)s fZ ' Ft ou° c A LCA 100 1,o ,0 In cot 2. 00 3.95' r1 Stye 'S ZS�o Sca-i 2 5) e) -7 5 85 (-TS JE n►2 2-4- Ido 4 t Caw loo 9ERrz C-LCc.? T I�EGZ-E Fo R -c:. S �Lr1u,J w pra zEsil 6,(0 14 f Idtcr4)(z ekSEME..rT _ 0.71m. 6.7m-ss4 D TR -E 1MPEP-uta e e4 0-6,4 D O tJ-E t,{ S 1 1.L g(.rn ALEi !sHcwpi TJEL/Ew('��D / N c-Re#sc. "MWE P! Q o j- c r I.Z•3 -S d r---! 1 14 1 iA-TEl - 0(t_1c.S S oi,4iZ Jvl E -c 14-ol-p <-0 ,4,‘)13 Fo - A- 2 4 )-JO'4 L. Peztdo 0 F LOW Law !,4t 0, 4I c FS O.e4 c --€.s 0.43 cies LES 7-4 AA) ` 0, S& C.fS C.1.012-4 ?EQ4 r fz- .ME n1T :#13 1K1.46, Lv ,3T* e 67 PRODUCT 204-1 (Stn ) 205-1 (Padded) . 7/30/98 Eastside Consultants, Inc. WADE COOK FINANCIAL CORPORATION PROPOSED PARKING FACILITY page 1 BASIN ID: D100 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • RAINFALL TYPE • PRECIPITATION • TIME INTERVAL • TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: BASIN SUMMARY NAME: DEVELOPED 100 YEAR 24 HOUR 0.79 Acres USER1 3.95 inches 10.00 min 3.00 min 0.20 PEAK RATE: 0.84 cfs VOL: BASIN ID: D2 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • RAINFALL TYPE • PRECIPITATION • TIME INTERVAL • TIME OF CONC • ABSTRACTION COEFF: BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 0.15 CN • 86.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 0.64 CN • 98.00 0.23 Ac -ft TIME: 470 Acres Acres min NAME: DEVELOPED 2 YEAR 24 HOUR 0.79 Acres USER1 2.00 inches 10.00 min 3.00 min 0.20 PEAK RATE: 0.39 cfs VOL: BASIN ID: P100 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION • TIME INTERVAL • TIME OF CONC • ABSTRACTION COEFF: BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 0.15 Acres CN • 86.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 0.64 Acres CN • 98.00 0.11 Ac -ft TIME: 470 min NAME: PREDEVELOPED 100 YR 24 HR 0.79 Acres USER1 3.95 inches 10.00 min 15.54 min 0.20 TcReach - Sheet L: 140.00 PEAK RATE: 0.41 cfs VOL: BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 0.79 Acres CN • 84.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 0.00 Acres CN • 98.00 ns:0.2400 p2yr: 2.00 s:0.0570 0.15 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min • • Circular Channel Analysis & Design Solved with Manning's Equation Open Channel - Uniform flow Worksheet Name: Comment: 6" STORM DRAIN PIPE CAPACITY Solve For Full Flow Capacity Given Input Data: Diameter 0.50 ft Slope 0.0050 ft/ft Manning's n 0.012 Discharge 0.43 cfs Computed Results: Full Flow Capacity 0.43 cfs Full Flow Depth 0.50 ft Velocity 2.19 fps Flow Area 0.20 sf Critical Depth0.33 ft Critical Siope0.0081 ft/ft Percent Full 100.00 % Full Capacity 0.43 cfs QMAX @.94D 0.46 cfs 4-- 6"P,(2E Froude Number FULL l0E.oEveLort'c) Lot -0 Fo(Z S = o_9 CI P t Pc- Gild LAR -2y Polo ,1-7 SSS, D� 611€10 (76.70 S lrE. W �(ZST CEASE G," p PL PR-o('osc-b wIC L L E S S 'r u A/.) '7—o% O i �' E✓E Lo 'ED v, -rE Open Channel Flow Module, Version 3.43 (c) 1991 Haestad Methods, Inc. * 37 Brookside Rd * Waterbury, Ct 06708 Circular Channel Analysis & Design Solved with Manning's Equation Open Channel - Uniform flow Worksheet Name: Comment: 12" STORM DRAIN PIPE CAPACITY Solve For Actual Depth Given Input Data: Diameter Slope Manning's n Discharge Computed Results: Depth Velocity Flow Area Critical Depth Critical Slope Percent Full Full Capacity QMAX @.94D Froude Number 1.00 ft 0.0050 ft/ft 0.012 0.84 cfs -f— !do $Emr_ DEVELOPED 5Ire F(.0[,7 0.38 ft 3.06 fps 0.27 sf 0.38 ft 0.0049 ft/ft 38.08 % 4- 2.73 cfs 2.94 cfs 1.01 (flow is Supercritical) Open Channel Flow Module, Version 3.43 (c) 1991 Haestad Methods, Inc. * 37 Brookside Rd * Waterbury, Ct 06708 • • Trapezoidal Channel Analysis & Design Open Channel - Uniform flow Worksheet Name: Comment: SIZE BIO-SWALE Solve For Bottom Width Given Input Data: Left Side Slope3.00:1 (H:V) Right Side Slope3.00:1 (H:V) Manning's n 0.350 K,tui 0°4,471 FAC rot Channel Slope.... 0.0200 ft/ft Ki, --)6, Coo/JT-1 .Esis„j Sc,JPe Depth 0.33 ft -' Ryi& 5E.Eo Mr* Discharge 0.39 cfs 2 9 • Dcuanfto Ft -cc.,) Computed Results: Bottom Width.... Velocity Flow Area Flow Top Width Wetted Perimeter Critical Depth Critical Slope Froude Number 3.75 ft -- w iDri+ 2EQU l aco for- Z.ov' C.c4 6T41 0.25 fps 1.56 sf 5.73 ft 5.83 ft 0.07 ft 4.4763 ft/ft 0.08 (flow is Subcritical) l,U DTH 2E gL4I RED FO . ) 10 E/,1 6171-) 3.75 Zoo\ l °I 3.015' U 5 E 4 Open Channel Flow Module, Version 3.43 (c) 1991 Haestad Methods, Inc. * 37 Brookside Rd * Waterbury, Ct 06708 LEVEL I DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS This site consists of 0.79 acres located in the northeast quarter of Section 23, Township 23 North, Range 7 East, W.M., lying west of Interurban Avenue South and north of South 149th Street. The property is vegetated with'brush and scattered evergreen and deciduous trees. There are no structures on-site. The property slopes from west to east at average slopes of 20% - 24%. A review of the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map showed a Class 2 slope on the western portion of the site. None of the site is within a 100 year floodplain according to the 1990 FEMA maps. Upstream Basin: The upstream drainage area contributing runoff to this site consists of approximately 0.16 acre located on the westerly side of the site. This area is steep sloped containing brush and scattered trees. Downstream Basin: The majority of runoff drains into a roadside ditch along the eastern property line. The ditch eventually drains east under Interurban Avenue South and enter a large swale. The swale appears to drain into a low area where the water percs into the soil. However, it may have a connection to Green River that was not visible. The downstream path of this system is detailed in the attached off-site drainage system table. Basin: OFF-SITE ANALYSIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE Surface Water Design Manual, Core Requirement #2 Subbasin Name: Subbasin Number: Symbol Drainage ... Component Type; Name, and Size: Drainage Component.::; : Description Slope ;: Distance .;; from site ': , discharge ::` Existing; ;:: Problems :.; : Potential Problems .. Observations of field inspector resource reviewer, or resident see map .Type: sheet flow, swale; stream, channel pipe,' pond;Size: dlameter, :. surface area ': • ', drainage basin; vegetation,, cover,:, . depth type of sensallve area volume :-::,:i:..:;: . ` • % 1/4 ml : t 320 it constrictions, uiider capacity, ponding,. overtopping, flooding, habitat or organism destruction; scow Ing; bank sloughing,.. ' sedimentation, incision, other erosion :. tributary area, likelihood of problem, overflow pathways, potential Impacts. SITE --->514EET D/TcN A -201.4)G /N71)/.A4D51DE DIrZH Thi/CK R,4S5, r 2'--3' DEEP DITCH t/2% 4- , 0---72 /2 WWNE aa. evEo NONE "770PATED DI7tH- T DIIT(i PLOWS114716 l$G/`1P TNIGK C�R%FSS- GIcG✓En?T /s /3"/LONG t a -�.Z t /Z, NONE O13.5EKVED APPEARS THAT 77/E / Bii_ A/N�DwA- No/ ,4NT/C/PATER o/TO/ ok 7ZET B cfriP PSIAITO Tom' K D/TGµ 'OAS FRCs.T-0. k v'1 Mice GRASS 2" Z' 3' DEEP DI TCI, t0 2% ,t, , /Z ,-4%O • NO SIGNS OF PLOOD/A6 PONO /NG /NI TME 04 ALE.4. • . . -E ED /S'CfP . E I rynz¢ �N Ave. 5. COULD NoT G.G1^_.47E INLET- Tb /8 C/�l,° r ± 46 -/� NONE oesEA1/ED NONE ANne-IPATEO . - 'TYPE Jr cB tag" ��4¢Gf TW.4 LA-kGE SWALE, g'—IC'DEEP w/IUr 64455 -Z?o t / xd/-//S NoNE assEzyEO /JOKE • ,4Nnc1PATE o • DI rc 1F - ,$ arci4 FGOcdS /gm TYPE Z cist 77,tIGK 64465 2=3/ DEFP DYTGff ±0 2 — t , •, /2 — . Ala vE - as6etvED NoArE ,4477[4/347E0 t3 —C /8 ".C.11/:7 TkAVELNG u�e-ne .,vascET -8/0 t , / �fS` /7 /NONE' ad 6f4' . NO/VE /min cJPMTED C^� L4t6E SL. -LE • 10 mck GL,455, 81-�o /NroesEt7 (A,org-F,e 1.,t 0•2% J/9 —29' NSE OBSEE✓ED NONE ANT7aPATF,D /9"4A1, fer)/"1 R.a.40. D_F G,,4,e. SZA4LE ' Tf,<�,C GRAS 5 8f-/o/LEEP /N7&6ELT 0, © fi0.2Z20 t / 4f/9 ,JcWE p S(VEO ,t' JE ANTIc1P,4T.D Azo/"1 ABOVE . L1Table .doc 11/2/92 Basin: OFF-SITE ANALYSIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE Surface Water Design Manual, Core Requirement #2 Subbasin Name: Subbasin Number: Sym bol .. Drainage Comorient T e; p yp Name, and Size . Drainage. Component.:?:: Description ... Slope : ; < Distance :.,: front site::' : .'discharge ..:• :. Existing ::::: Problems ; . Potential .. Problems • Observations of field inspector resource reviewer, or resident see map ;:. Type: sheet flow, swate, .: stream, channel, pipe, pond; Stze: diameter, _ :. surface area::...: "• • • drainage basin, vegetation, cover, depth, type•of sensative area, volume : s e% 1/1 mi x•,1,320 tt constrictions, under capacity, ponding,. overtopping, flooding; habitat•or organism • destruction, scow Ing, bank Sloughing,;,. sedimentation, Incision, other erosion:: Tributary area, likeliliood of problem, overflow pathways, potential Impacts. L417 -,E To 1 "c.iP 7 icx G/ASS, 8 —/O' DEEP C),2% t . 4/9 �l9 ^/ONE 0as,E,e.vvo /I/ONE "pv77 /04 6-E 2'C-/'1PVM,E L/( rEzoco e, of VISIT• 1:65% &d9-679 NewE c8SE1V£tl /von/ ,ebvnciPATE1) M `-� GAS /IL f2 Low Iii -CA 016/46,e,,4 51 8 ,_,04_60 c3VEt flow wou�a ,4#E,4k. #D-ZY / , 6 -/�9? SNE oB$ ,eVED , /UONE 3,85.E evE-D ro T,e,4VEL E,45T OVEN N1A1W1-E 5 T.., m&FVEl, NO . • sl&us of cVE,e.Flor,� wE,' 4/677c.E.D sk4067 w.47 Z 7724-VELit/& TnE LA, F 51,.241,E Tigan&/• AhlfAteS 74 RE44• //V72) so/L 135,c6RE 4444 e 67-4; F4/77:e/NG ,) 8 • A TYPE .r C8 /L/1P Dheca7 6 cow -0 MDT DFTEt1/A)E 1,1414-77/EQ VIE )9' A P /5 '^ / /Z /lt,NE e38 evrD NoNE ANnco rzi V0LTh. • ,4A c 7 614, . 4e. ii /A.c io /4- BuBBLF- zoo cCi. LlTable.doc 11RI92 QUAD MAP SOILS MAP