HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA E97-0013 - PEDERSEN RICHARD - FOSTER RIDGE (HELLWIG'S ADDITION) LOT CONSOLIDATIONFOSTER RIDGE
(HELLWIG'S ADDITION)
LOT CONSOLIDATION
S. 139T" ST. &
46T" AVE. S.
E97-0013
• CITY OF TUKWILA
•
MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (MD S}
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:
BLA/LOT CONSOLIDATION REDUCE FROM 1€ TO 12 LOT`_}.
PROPONENT: RICHARD PETERSEN
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL, INCLUDING 'STREET, ADDRESS, IF ANY:
ADDRESS:
PARCEL NO: 322920-0€090
SEC/TWNr'RNG: 5. •139 ST -et 46 AV. .S-
LEAD
`
LEAD AGENCJ`, :'. -CITY OF TUKWILA.
•
FILE NO: 'E97.-0013
The Citytas determined that tie. proposal does not have a proba 1e
si+ nif ic,ar;t advver' e`Ampact ori ttfe-,.eaVironmerit. An e viY`+.?3?n nt'e1`, ii411Ja t
staterenf , (EI_=) i_ not req`uir ed tinderRAW 43.21c.030(2)(0 Tt is
de'_.€'_.icer>ma €r1a.de . ftp r" t :vi"ew cit_ a compl,eted virorirerita;1 c:hec.O is,t
and other information ion .eofl....f i }. with th..a : •.ead _,a= .ric.v. Thi_ in#:.1.orn{at lure
•i- avai_1ab1e to the .pub.l ir; •on. r'eaue:tthe conditions to rth,is. `CEPA
Determination are att-a.c_tied-:.
This DfS " :`-.u.eti titscirs� 1'-'7--i'1 -34,0i) CoMMent:.
�t
_�rr 22..3`' J dg1 The 1 ead eaen Jv
propos..��!' -1
fur .' ays from
the datebelow,....,
mut be submitted by
not act on this
V /
`:ate +e Lant,a ,er, .Re !.'iiris CYt ic1a1 'Date._
Cit of Tt 4:4 wl a . (206) 431-3680
6300 South enter' Boulevard
Tukwila, WA -9 tflit w
Copies of the proce<c_c i° .•s�. for SERA,-appeal.s,•ar-e a
Department of Community Development.
Address:
Applicant: DICK PEDERSON
Permit No: E97-0013
Type: P-SEPA
Location: S 139 ST & 46 AVS
Parcel #: 322920-0090
Zoning:
**k**** *k** *** **4 »•!«****k*k*****kk***A.A14*bA***k **k**k*****
1 PPIOR TOY:I UANCE OF°THE'PLANNED RESIDENTI\6\/EVELOPMENT
APPROV L THE:GETECHNICAL IUFORMATION;MU\T?BE EER REVIEWED
By AAUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL SELECTED BY THE CITY\AND PAID
FO .Fi THE APPLICANT. ALL: SITE WORC<ANP CO*STPD TION MUST
COMPLY WITH THE FINDINGS.OF THE PEER REVIEW.
CITY TUKWILA
CONDITIONS
Status: RECEIVED
Applied: 05/27/1997
Approved:
•
Catty of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community ii evelopment Steve Lancaster, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jack Pace, Planning Manager
FROM: Nora Gierloff, Associate Planner%
RE: SEPA — Foster Ridge BLA/APRD
DATE: March 5, 1999
Project File No. E97-0013
Project Description:
This project involves a replat of a 2.9 acre site zoned for single family residential use from 18 lots
to 12 lots. The reduction in number of lots is due to the presence of a wetland and unbuildable
slopes on site. An administrative planned residential development process will be used to reduce
lot sizes and setbacks in exchange for setting aside the sensitive areas of the site through an open
space tract and native growth protection areas.
Agencies with Jurisdiction:
Washington State Department of Ecology
Documents submitted with SEPA Checklist:
1. Wetland Delineation and Functional Values Assessment by Sheldon & Associates 11/16/95
2. Traffic Impact Analysis by TSI 1/11/97
3. Geotechnical Engineering Report by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 2/97 updated 11/98
Comments to SEPA Checklist:
A comment letter was received from Alva Davis, resident of 13806 Macadam Road South. It
expresses concern about the stability of the hillsides, especially if vegetation is cleared and runoff
not controlled.
Response: The recommendations in the Associated Earth Sciences Report concerning slope
stability including drainage control, construction procedures, and soil compaction must be strictly
observed.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite #100 0 Tukwila, Washington 98188 o (206) 431-3670 0 Fax (206) 431-3665
•
Summary of Primary Impacts:
1. Earth
A geotechnical report for the site was prepared by Associated Earth Sciences stating existing site
conditions, geologic hazards and mitigations, and design recommendations. These
recommendations include measures to control storm and groundwater, use of erosion control
measures, limiting construction to drier periods of the year, engineering observation of soil
compaction and fill placement, 25 foot building setbacks from the top of the slope on lots 6, 7, and
8, and possible use of piers or piles for house foundations if they cannot be embedded in bearing
soils. These recommendations must be followed during construction activities for site work as well
as house construction.
Due to the depth of fill over much of the site, evidence of past earth movement, high ground water
levels and moderate to high risk of landslides a peer review of the geotechnical report will be
required at the applicant's expense (TMC 21.04.140 (a) 1.).
2. Air
There will be exhaust emissions from construction equipment and trucks carrying fill soil and
construction materials during the project. If necessary dust control measures will be taken during
construction. The project's air emissions when complete will consist of increased automotive
traffic to and from the site.
3. Water
There is an 11,100 square foot wetland on site that will be set aside in an open space tract. Wetland
buffer enhancement measures will be provided along the north side of the private access road and
portions of lots 8, 9, 11 and 12 adjacent to the wetland.
Stormwater run-off will be collected from roofs and streets and held in a series of underground
detention pipes before release through a controlled outlet to the existing downstream piped and
natural drainage system. No hazardous wastes are expected to be released during or after
construction.
4. Vegetation
The site is currently treed with a variety of mature maples, alders, cottonwoods and apple trees.
Some open areas contain brush, ivy and blackberries. The existing vegetation will be preserved
within the wetland, wetland buffer and native growth protection areas. Most other vegetation will
be removed and replaced by fill, buildings and site landscaping. Significant trees removed from
slopes over 20% will have to be replaced according to the formula in the Tree Ordinance at TMC
18.54.130 3. B.
•
To prevent encroachment and clearing in the wetland buffer Tukwila will place a condition on the
boundary line adjustment requiring a split rail fence be constructed along the edge of the buffer
with signs identifying it as an open space tract. Native growth protection areas will be indicated on
the face of the plat and be protected through easements.
5. Animals
The site provides habitat for small mammals and birds. There are no known threatened or
endangered species on site.
6. Energy and Natural Resources
The project will require energy for construction equipment, vehicles coming to the site and building
operation after completion. The project will be required to meet current energy codes.
7. Environmental Health
Construction equipment operation will need to comply with Tukwila's noise ordinance. No
environmental health impacts have been identified.
8. Land and Shoreline Use
The proposed single family houses are permitted uses under the site's Low Density Residential
zoning.
9. Housing
The site is currently vacant, 12 houses are proposed to be constructed after the boundary line
adjustment.
10. Aesthetics
The project is not subject to the design review process.
11. Light and Glare
Site lighting will be provided by new streetlights to meet City of Tukwila standards.
12. Recreation
The site is near Riverton and Southgate Parks and an elementary and high school. The proposed
new houses should not have any impact on recreation opportunities in the area.
• •
13. Historical and Cultural Preservation
The site has no known archaeological or cultural significance.
14. Transportation
New roads will be constructed to provide access to the lots. The extension of South 139t Street
will be public to the end of the cul-de-sac, and access to lots 5 through 8 will be from a private
access road. The extension of South 140th Street that will provide access to lots 9 and 10 will be
public. The driveway access to lots 1, 2, 11 and 12 will be accomplished through private
easements.
Development of the site will result in a minor increase in vehicular traffic in the area. According to
the TSI traffic impact analysis the development is expected to generate approximately 135 daily
trips.
15. Public Services
The project will cause a minor increase in demand on public services such as fire, police and
emergency medical from the current level due to the more intensive use of the site.
16. Utilities
The project will result in a minor increase in demand on the utility systems.
Recommended Threshold Determination:
Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance.
Conditions of Approval:
1. Prior to issuance of planned residential development approval the geotechnical information must
be peer reviewed by a qualified professional selected by the City and paid by the applicant. All site
work and construction must comply with the findings of the peer review.
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Nora Gierloff, Associate Planner
FROM: Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist
DATE: March 1, 1999
RE: Foster Ridge - 12/1/98 Plan Submittal (L97-0026, L-97-0027, E97-0013).
I have reviewed this submittal and have some comments regarding Sensitive Area Ord. (SAO)
compliance and other site development standards. There are site grading and stormwater issues that
have not been fully addressed. Please refer to my June 23, 1998 Memo for clarification of the
following comments.
1) Proposed Lots 9, 11, and 12 have a significant portion of wetland buffer within the lot and
residential use is limited by a very small area of lawn adjacent to the wetland buffer. In order to
guarantee the protection of the buffer area on the Lot, a fence and signage may be necessary. In my
opinion, the buffer area on these Lots will likely be cleared for additional lawn or other use.
2) Proposed Lot 8 also has significant buffer area within it that cannot be reduced. Since this
Lot is large it is preferred that the buffer area that cannot be reduced become part of the established
wetland Tract 99.
3) The referenced NGPA's (Lots 7 & 8) and (Lots 1 thru 5) should be designated as two
separate tracts if the intent is to keep these areas undeveloped for stability, erosion control, and
aesthetic reasons.
The utility plan, Sheet C2, shows a new sewer line to be constructed through the identified NGPA of
Lots 1 thru 5. This construction will have a significant impact on the trees in this area as well as
filling and grading for the lots. I recommend that if this utility plan is approved, this area should not
be designated as a tract or NGPA. Restoration and tree replacement will be required per the SAO
and Tree Regulations (TMC Chapter 18.54).
6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
• •
Foster Ridge Memo
March 1, 1999
Page 2
4) Tract 99 (wetland and wetland buffer) will meet the 20% open space requirement for the
PRD permit.
5) The current geotechnical report (AES, Inc - revised 11/13/98) is very comprehensive but
does not address the utility installation such as the new sewer line to be constructed on a steep slope
area.
The report indicates that the eastern slope area of the site has a high risk of shallow landslides. This
is mentioned on pages 7 and 8. Also, the mitigation section does not guarantee that slope failure can
be prevented. The design recommendations include a strong suggestion that houses on proposed
Lots 6, 7, & 8 may need to be founded on piers due to the slope instability and off-site modifications
to the toe of that slope.
Another significant point the report makes is the condition of the upper layer of soil and the fill
materials on the site will not be suitable for foundations. This could require a significant amount of
excavation and structural fill. Combined with this is a mitigation measure that large-scale clearing
should be avoided and occur only during drier periods of the year.
Erosion and stability are issues for this site. I recommend that phasing of the development be
required and upper slope areas be cleared and constructed prior to clearing the lower, steep slope.
6) A conceptual, wetland buffer enhancement plan was submitted for the project. A final
enhancement plan should be submitted for review as soon as the site plan - lots and roadway
design is approved. I will recommend that the plan be completely installed prior to final
permitting.
Please let me know if you have questions or we need to meet on my comments.
cc: Jack Pace, Planning Manager
Gary Barnett, Senior Engineer
John Friel, JBMF Consulting Engineer
January 6, 1999
MEMO TO: Nora Gierloff, Assistant Planner
Department of Community Development
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, Wa., 98188 FAX (206) 431-3665
FROM: John B. Friel
JBMF Consulting Engineer
P.O. Box 27
Everett, Wa., 98206
New Tel # 425-771-3892
REF: Geotechnical Report Update
L97-0026 Boundary Line Adjustment
L97-0027 (APRD)
E97-0013 Evironmental Review
Foster Ridge (Lots in Hellwigs Addition)
City of Tukwila
Enclosed herewith is four (4) copies of the updated
geotechnical report on the referenced site prepared by
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. This report is for the most
current site plan.
I will contact you later this week in regard to the status
of the review of the earlier plan submittal by PACE
Engineering for the drainage, utility and grading.
Please note my new telephone # above.
Memo by:
John B. Friel, PE PLS
for Foster Ridge Project
Penhallegon. Associates : Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Engineering • Planning • Surveying •. Consulting
November 30, 1998
Ms: Nora Gierloff
City of Tukwila.
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100
Tukwila, Washington. 98188.
RECEIVED
ci" ECof TUKWILA
DEC O 1. 1998
PERMIT CENTER
Subject:" Foster Ridge "Boundary Line Adjustment - L97-0026
Administrative Planned Residential Development - L97-0027
-Environmental Review- E97-0013
Dear Ms. Gierloff:
Please find- enclosed four sets of blackline prints of preliminary grading, drainage:and utility drawings
. for the subject project. These drawings are intended to conceptuallyshow the feasibility of this project
and : to address outstanding'- issues in regards to a final determination for. the above proposed
Administrative M.D.
If you or staff from other departments have any questions or require additional information please do
not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
PENHALLEGON ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
Phili . D. Cheesman, P.E.
Associate
John B. Friel - 3 sets drawings
*
750 Sixth Street South, Kirkland, Washington 98033
Phone: (425) 827-2014 • Fax: (425) 827-5043
March 26, 1998
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
John B. Friel
P.O. Box 27
Everett, WA 98206
RE: L97-0026 Boundary Line Adjustment
L97-0027 Administrative Planned Residential Development
E97-0013 Environmental Review
Dear Mr. Friel:
For the above applications to proceed you must submit the remaining items listed on the agenda
from our meeting on September 8th, 1997. You were notified of these outstanding items in my
notice of complete application of October 28, 1997 and again by fax.
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that if we do not receive the information and reports
requested by April 30, 1998 your applications will expire and any vested rights you may have had
with thein will be lost. If you are no longer pursuing the applications I would appreciate receiving a
letter requesting their withdrawal.
Sincerely,
Nora Gierloff
Associate Planner
cc: Joanna Spencer, Public Works
Nick Olivas, Fire Department
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
/v°/•.g//9f'7
A7-44 W 7' of . D / L d p/24 -/y7 -
3e o Sov r / CSA 7-h c)J-& V4RD /oDEC 01 1997
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
PE° L 17 00,1'7 OM, P4.c2-,v/vE,1� s . &A/7 -
C .9Too /
ivTCq%o/ 3 NVI R ofv /4ENTf)- RE)//41
CCENED
GOR/4 C oilrCRA/ 17
1 HA- /N T/1/S Comm L)A!I 1"/
C N N_ E 1965 () / 3Y6 6 /1 /9-e,9-1� ivf , S; //v 7244,-r 7-iA4 E
W N4 -t/ E, PER/ E,V CgI7 (aT) 7Z 5L i PE s [I
WovnyD 't/?p 9/\' pis ToAB
77' 4-L S'/JOE Gv/i e -PE -rHE fRzrT cT /N 49 SsT/ems
4/91-c /S So ST P T�/9-T 4z/v m F sg. s/f
R 5/ cv �. z 8E" ,9SR /ice FOR, S /0'-" LE 4
1fM-- 5c/AF/4-E- Arog RRM.ouA1- 'IPE CSA// r )3E Dc>r4PO2
l'v 7'' 779E- S/�E �� roti /9�.vC- 7/h`e- AW -P 8t'9'-
,4Nf , Atc®64m4-L USE- ,ouJ_ L. eT .f91.0N Pe/A/1/0/A7
AA 0 R/9 -/A i9-CfE Gij - 7-ff1Q /4'7Z 77/ k7/
Sv r s7%aiV 0 () LP BC AloT 70 P/Srv/eB 7771E ///L /. s i.,M'
I Al /9-4amt. y y o ' 44vS T- 'v7" ?/`/E /Q.41-/;3/4-*-*- ' /' m�
7
LZ 17/ w
7-.5?P o-� �-/�� �-���� /4N9�� SUN l �- Aw� y 76
frA/P .vv P / r //Y7o , N o 271/ ST,'EAM-
LV4- `L). 7/
go C NA -e.4 -17.)51A4 Rd, s.,
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
October 28, 1997
John B. Friel
P.O. Box 27
Everett, WA 98206
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION
RE: L97-0026 Boundary Line Adjustment
L97-0027 Administrative Planned Residential Development
E97-0013 Environmental Review
Dear Mr. Friel:
Your application for a boundary line adjustment and planned residential development located at
South 139th Street and 46th Avenue South has been found to be complete on October 27th for the
purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements.
The next step is for you to install the notice board on the site within 14 days of the date of this
letter. You received information on how to install the sign with your application packet. If you
need another set of those instructions, please call me. Once you have notified me that the notice
board has been installed I will post it with a laminated copy of the Notice of Application and the
comment period will start.
This notice of complete application applies only to the permits identified above. It is your
responsibility to apply for and obtain all 'necessary permits issued by other agencies.
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.
When we met on September 8th you received a list of substantive changes from reviewing City
departments that will need tobe reflected in your next submittal. If we have any additional
substantive comments after completing review of your completeness submittal we will send them
to you by November 7th.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
. •
Sincerely,
Nora Gierloff
Associate Planner
cc: Joanna Spencer, Public Works
Nick Olivas, Fire Department
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION
June 17, 1997
John B. Friel
P.O. Box 27
Everett, WA 98206
RE: L97-0026 Boundary Line Adjustment
L97-0027 Administrative Planned Residential Development
UE97=0013 Environmental Revie-
Dear Mr. Friel:
Your application for a boundary line adjustment and planned residential development located at
South 139th Street and 46th Avenue South has been found to be incomplete. In order to be a
complete application, the following must be submitted to the permit center:
1. A tree permit is required showing replacement tree number and location for any existing
significant trees removed from sensitive areas during development.
2. The total impervious surface on the site after development . cannot exceed 50%. Please
provide calculations showing the proposed amount of impervious surface.
3. Please provide perspectives or photomontages taken from the nearest downslope off-site
privately owned property to demonstrate that at the time of project completion there will be
a 25% landscape coverage of all structures with an anticipated 40% coverage within 15
years.
4. Please provide the buffer enhancement plan required for those areas where you will not be
providing the full 50 foot buffer.
5. Please indicate the top of the slope and the 25 foot setback from it required for houses on
lots 7 and 8.
Upon receipt of these items, the City will re -review them for completeness and will mail you
written notification of completeness or incompleteness within 14 days. We would like to arrange a
meeting with you and representatives from Public Works, Fire and Planning to discuss substantive
issues once we have a complete application.
These applications will expire if we do not receive the additional information within ninety days of
the date of this letter unless an extension is granted pursuant to Section 18.105.070(E).
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
•
If you have any questions with this matter please call me at 433-7141.
Sincerel
//'
Nora
Nora Gierloff
Assistant Planner
CC: Joanna Spencer, Public Works
Nick Olivas, Fire Department
Gary Schulz, Environmentalist
CITY OF TUKWILA
Department &ommunity Development a
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Telephone: (206) 431-3670
RECEIVED
MAY 2 7 1997
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
SEPA APPLICATION CHECKLIST
FOR STAFF USE ONLY
Planner:'
CJ C'e- (71(-6-1 C
Receipt Number:.
Applicant: notified of incomplete application:
Applicant.notified of complete application:
File Number: pRE qq-03
Cross-reference files: LOWY"
esatavaiN L
Notice of:application issued:
A. NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT:
FOSTER RIDGE
B. LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: (address and accessors parcel number(s))
S 139th Street and 46th Avenue S
See Attached
Quarter: GL 1 Section: 15 Township: 23 Range:
(This information may be found on your tax statement)
C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The proposed project is for a BLA Lot Consolidation to reduce a existing 18 lot site
to a development with 13 building lots and develop the site in accord with PRD
-Criteria for administrative a..roval under existih. zoning of LDR 6500.
D. APPLICANT:
NAME:
R. S. "Dick" Pederson
ADDRESS: P 0 Box 1518; Marysville, WA. 98270
PHONE:
(,360) 65
SIGNATURE
DATE: 3-7-/49
•
TAX ACCOUNT NUMBERS:
BLOCK 1:
LOT 17 -- 322920-0090-06; LOT 18 322920-0110-02;
LOT 19 -- 322920-0120-00; LOT 20 322920-0130-08;
LOT 21 -- 322920-0140-06; LOT 22 322920-0150-03;
LOT 23 -- 322920-0160-01; LOT 24 322920-0170-09;
LOT 25 -- 322920-0180-07; LOT 26 322920-0190-05;
LOT 27 -- 322920-0200-03;
BLOCK 2:
LOT 1 -- 322920-0100-04; LOT 2 322920-0210-01;
LOT 3 -- 322920-0220-09; LOT 4 322920-0230-07;
LOT 5 -- 322920-0240-05; LOT 6 322920-0250-02;
LOT 7 -- 322920-0260-00
CITY OI'UKWILA
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Telephone: (206) 431-3670
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (SEPA) APPLICATION
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
To submit for SEPA review, provide the items listed above to the Planning Division at 6300
Southcenter Boulevard, Room 100.
• 6 copies of the completed and signed environmental checklist.
You may use the City's pre-printed form or you may re -type the questions on your
computer. If you choose to re -type the form into your computer, be sure to do so
accurately. Mistakes or omissions will increase the review time.
• 6 sets of the full size plans needed to clearly describe the proposed action.
® One set of plans reduced to 8.5" x 11".
• Four copies of supporting studies.
• One copy of the checklist application.
• One set of mailing labels for all properties 500' from the subject property. (See address
label worksheet.)
® $325 filing fee.
COMPLETING THE CHECKLIST
The checklist contains several pages of questions which you are asked to answer. It covers a
comprehensive set of topics. As a result, several of the questions may not apply to your project.
If a particular question does not apply, simply write N/A undemeath. HOWEVER, be aware that
many questions apply despite appearing not to. Care needs to be taken in reading and answering
the questions to ensure the appropriate response is provided.
It is important that accurate and clear information be provided. You may not know all of the
answers. Answer each question to the best of your ability. If we find an answer to be insufficient,
the City may contact you to ask for more information.
Sometimes, after reviewing the checklist, the City will ask you provide additional studies or
information. Commonly requested information includes traffic analysis, site topography, soils
studies and tree surveys.
• •
Control No. -61-1-- 00
Epic File No.
Fee $ 325 Receipt No.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: FOSTER RIDGE (aka Hellwig's Addition)
2. Name of applicant: Richard S. Pedersen P.O. Box 1518,Marysville, Wa., 98270
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: John B. Friel
P.O. Box 27, Everett, Wa., 98206
4. Date checklist prepared: May 20, 1997
5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
Summer 1997 & Summer 1998
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.
Wetland Delineation and Report by Sheldon & Associates
Geotechnical Study Report by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
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. None
- 2 -
RECEIVED
MAY 2 7 1997
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal.
BLA, SEPA Determination & Administrative PRD Approval.
Water system plans by KCWD #125
Sewer system plans by KCSD Val Vue
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size
of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to
describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this
page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your
proposal and should not be summarized here.
The proposed project is for a BLA Lot Consolidation to reduce a existing 18 lot site
to a development with 13 building lots and develop the site in accord with PRD
criteria for administrative approval under existing zoning of LDR 6500.
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 on a approximately 2.9 acre site located at the end of existing
S. 139th Street intersection with 46th Ave. S. A portion of GL1, Sec. 15, T23N, R4E
(See Attached copy of legal description and parcel numbers and see vicinity map and
site plans submitted with associated BLA & APRD applications.
13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use
Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive?
Site is not indicated as environmentally sensitive on City Land Use Maps, but detail
topography and wetland survey of site indicates that portion of site is critical area
due to steep slope and wetland margin.
• •
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat,
rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other.
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate
percent slope)? 40% +
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.
Silty sand with some gravel. See Geotech Report
by AES, Inc.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable
soils in the in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe.
None known by applicant.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities
of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of
fill. Purpose of grading would be to prepare access
road grades and building site elevations. Grading
would be primarily excavation with some filling
behind rock retaining wall. Source of fill would be
from excavated material on site.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing construction,
or use? If so, generally describe.
Erosion could occur if clearing done during the
rainy season.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with
impervious surfaces after project construction (for
example, asphalt or buildings)? 25%
•
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other
impacts to the earth, if any:
By use of Temporary Erosion & Siltation Control
elements such as silt basins, silt fencing, construction
entrance & straw bales.
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the
proposal (i.e., dust, automobile odors, industrial wood
smoke) during construction and when the project is
completed? If any, generally describe and give
approximate quantities if known.During construction,
emissions would be from construction equipment and grading
activity. After the project is complete, emissions would be from
increased vehicle traffic to and from the site.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that
may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe.
A source of off-site emissions would be from vehicles
traveling along the neighborhood and adjacent streets. Air
quality within the project site and vicinity is presently good
and is expected to remain the same.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or
other impacts to air, if any:
Dust during construction will be minimized and
controled with sprinklers and spraying dust surfaces with
water. Constructing temporary gravel entrances and washing
truck wheels before leaving the site will help control dust and
air impacts.
3. Water
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the mmediate
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.
A wetland of approximately 11,107 sq. ft. is
located on the site as delineated by Sheldon & Associates,
wetland consultants, and fully detailed and described in report
dated November 16, 1995.
5
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
• •
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or
adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters?
If yes, please describe and attach available plans.
The project development will not require any
work in the wetland area.
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.
None proposed.
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals
or diversions? Give general description, purpose,
and approximate quantities, if known.
Surface water from the developed portion of the
site will be collected and directed to a storm water control and
temporary storage facility such as a storage pipe. Runoff
quantities will be calculated and a system designed to meet
City drainage requirements. Runoff from the upland and
streets adjacent to project will be intercepted and directed to
flow towards the existing wetland and open space tract and
continue to bypass the controlled on-site runoff.
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.
No.
6
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
•
b. Ground:
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water
be discharged to ground water? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities,
if known.
No ground water will be withdrawn.
2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged
into the ground from septic tanks or other sources,
if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial,
containing the following chemicals...; agricultural;
etc.) Describe the general size of the system, the
number of such systems, the number of houses to
be served (if applicable), or the number of animals
or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.
No material to be discharged.
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 from the site is expected to
be generated from the roof and pavement surfaces as well as
ground surfaces. The runoff will be intercepted by inlet and
catch basins located in the roadway, driveway and yard areas
and then conveyed thru pipes to a temporary storage facility
and then released thru a controlled outlet to the existing
downstream piped and natural drainage system along
Macadam Road. Eventually it will enter the Duwamish River.
-7-
•
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface
waters? If so, generally describe.
Waste materials such as oils or grease on
pavement areas could potentially enter the ground or surface
water thru the storm water system on the site. No direct
connections will be made and oil and grease seperators will be
provided.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,
ground, and runoff water impacts, if any:
By design of and installation of a plan for a
storm water control system with on site storage to meet the
City of Tukwila criteria and requirements. Also will include
temporary facilities such as stabalized construction
entrance, instal filter fabric fence downslope of all
construction activities and use of straw bales in swales and
ditches to filter and stabalize runoff. The site will be
inspected frequently during construction to insure that all
facilities are operating properly.
site:
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the
deciduous tree: i l er,' maple, aspen, other
evergreen tree: fir; cedar, pine, other
shrubs
grass
pasture
crop or grain
'wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush,
skunk cabbage, other
water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be
removed or altered?
Most of the grasses, trees and vines will be
removed from the access roadway and lot areas during clearing
and grading of the site. All the vegetation within the
designated wetland, open space and native growth protection
(NGP) areas will not be disturbed and will be retained.
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on
or near the site. None known to be on site.
8
• •
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or
other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation
on the site, if any:
Native plants will be retained on lots where
possible. Landscaping at front and rear of lots
on site will use native plants and bushes to
compensate for grass and trees removed.
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, beaver, other:
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish
other:
b. List any threatened or endangered species known
to be on or near the site.
No threatened or endangered species are
known to be on or near the site.
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
No.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wild-
life, if any:
The vegetation within the wetland, open
space and NGP areas will provide wildlife habitate on
this site.
-9
6. Energy and Natural Resources
•
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil,
wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the
completed project's energy needs? Describe
whether it will be used for heating,
manufacturing, etc.
Electric power will be used for lighting and
heating purposes in the future single family
residences.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar
energy by adjacent properties? If so,
generally describe.
No.
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are
included in the plans of this proposal? List other
proposed measures to reduce or control energy
impacts, if any:
The uniform building code for residential
construction would be complied with. Proper insulation and
the use of energy conserving materials will be recommended in
all new building construction.
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,
described. None anticipated.
1) Describe special emergency services that might
be required. None expected.
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control
environmental health hazards, if any:
None proposed.
- 10 -
• •
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which
may affect your project (for example: traffic
equipment, operation, other)? Existing
noise in the area is generated by vehicles traveling along the
area roadways near the site such as from the I-5 traffic and
play ground noises generated from the nearby schools and
church sites.
2) What types and levels of noise would be
created by or associated with the project on
a short-term or a long-term basis (for
example: traffic, construction,
operation, other)? Indicate what hours no
noise would come from the site. Short
term noise would be created from construction equipment
and building activities. Construction related noises are only
expected to occur during normal daytime working hours.
Long-term noise would be created and associated with the
permanent residential use of the site and increase in the
residential traffic.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control
noise impacts, if any: Making all
construction workers aware of noise potential. The long-
term noise impacts would be typical of a 13 lot single family
residential development.
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent
properties? Single family residential.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so,
describe.No.
c. Describe any structures on the site. None.
• •
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
No.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
LDR (6500 sq. ft. lot size)
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation
of the site? LDR
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.
Part of the site has been identified thru wetland
report and topography survey as sensitive. See wetland
report and elevation contours on plan map.
i. Approximately how many people would
reside or work in the completed project? Using a
average single family household size of 3 persons,
approximately 39 people would reside in the completed
proj ect.
j. Approximately how many people would the
completed project displace? None.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce
displacement impacts, if any: None.
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com-
patible with existing and projected land uses and
plans, if any: The project will be planned,
designed & constructed in accord with allowable uses for
single family residential homes. The project will conform to
the requirements of the City of Tukwila zoning code and
comprehensive policy plan.
- 12 -
• •
9. Housing
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if
any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income
housing? The proposed project will provide 13
new single family housing units. The units will be lower
middle income range.
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated?
Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing.
No housing units would be eliminated.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts,
if any: Not applicable.
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s),
not including antennas; what is the principal exterior
building material(s) proposed? The tallest height
would not exceed 25 feet. Exterior building materials would be
primarily wood with the potential for some use of brick.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be
altered or obstructed? No views in the immediate
vacinity would be altered or obstructed.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic
impacts, if any: Good building design with
appropriate exterior materials & colors. Landscaping of
yards would enhance lot appearance.
- 13 -
• •
11. Light and Glare
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal
produce? What time of day would it mainly
occur? Light and glare will be produced by
exterior and interior residential lighting during evening
hours. Streetlights and vehicle headlights will also produce
light and glare.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a
safety hazard or interfere with views? Light from
the finished project will not be a safety hazard or interfere
with views.
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may
affect your proposal? A off-site source of light
or glare would be from headlights of vehicles using S. 140th
St. & S. 139th St. and night lights from existing residential
buildings on adjacent property.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and
glare impacts, if any: By use of materials for
exterior surfaces with non glare characteristics.
12. Recreation
a. What designed and informal recreational oppor-
tunities are in the immediate vicinity?
Recreation opportunities available in the immediate area
include playfields and athletic facilities of the high school,
elementary school and church located in the immediate
neighborhood.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing
recreational uses? If so, describe. No existing
recreational use would be replaced.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on
recreation, including recreation opportunities to be
provided by the project or applicant, if any: None.
- 14 -
•
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or pro-
posed for, national, state, or local preservation
registers known to be on or next to the site? If
so, generally describe.No known places or
objects on or next to this site.
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 to be on or next to the site.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts,
any: None proposed.
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.
Access to the site is provided by S.140th St.
and S. 139th St. This street system is shown on the site
development plan.
b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If
not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest
transit stop? No. Four blocks.
c. How many parking spaces would the completed
project have? How many would the project eliminate?
26 parking spaces on the lots. None eliminated.
- 15 -
• •
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
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). Extend
existing S. 139th St.public street with curb & gutter & 28'
pavement and 40.5 ft.radius cul-de-sac. and construct 12 ft.
paved private roady(easement) with 3 ft. gravel shoulder.
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. The
project would generate approximately 124 ADT's. Peak of
approximately 13 trips between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control
transportation impacts, if any: None proposed
since impacts considered minimal.
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for
public services (for example: fire protection,
police protection, health care, schools, other)? If
so, generally describe. Increase in the need for
public services to meet the needs of 13 new single family
homes is expected. The area is served by the following:
City of Tukwila which provides all public
services.
Local School District.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct
impacts on public services, if any. In general,
the revenue generated by the additional property taxes
would mitigate the project impact on public services.
- 16 -
• •
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.
The utilities available and the utility company
providing the service is as follows:
Electricity PSE
Natural Gas PSE
Water KCWD #125
Sewer KCSD Val Vue
Telephone US West
Electric power, telephone and tv cable is presently
available to the site at the end of S. 139th St. and S. 140th
St. and can easily be extended to serve the lots in the
proposed development. Sewer is available in existing
easement and in 46th Ave. S. for direct connection and in
Macadam Road for extension to the site in easement on
vacant lot to serve those lots not fronting on the existing line.
Water is available to the site from extension of existing main
or replacement in S. 140th St. and install new main in
easement on 46th Ave. S. existing right-of-way, along
Macadam Road and connect to S. 137th St. to provide
looped system. Connect and extend 8" main in S. 139th St.
to provide connections for interior lots.
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.
i7 1,
Signature: ate hae
Date Submitted:
5/z7/y 7
- 17 -
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
TO BE COMPLETED BY 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 the submitted plans, documents,
supportive information, studies, etc.
1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal? The
objectives of the proposal is to develop the site for 13 single
family residential lots and meet all of the conditions or
criteria of the City of Tukwila land use regulations and do
the development in such a way that impacts on the site and
the surrounding neighborhood is minimized and where
impacts exist, to control or mitigate the impacts in such a
way that the impact is reduced or eliminated. This is
provided by a short length of public street section and
narrow private road extensions for access to lots. Roadways
are located to provide direct access to building sites at
selected locations which provide for a compact minimal
development of the site. The site plan includes a buffer
arround the perimiter of the wetland and establishes a
native growth protection area on downhill and steeper
portions of the lots for added protection.
2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these
objectives? Alternatives would be to propose longer
public roadway lengths and reduce the private lot access
portions and not provide adequate wetland and steep slope
protection for the steeper portions of the lots and not preselect
the actual building location or building type.
3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the
preferred course of action: After comparing the
alternatives, the development plan proposed for the 13 building
site is the preferred option.
- 22 -
3
• •
4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila
Comprehensive Land use Policy Plan? If so, what
policies of the Plan? No.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s)
are:
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
1
a, 139n
(PAVED) •
a
0
0
Z
1 •s
:1
419 ACCESS
1S9&10ONLY
0. 140TH STREET.
i n'
1 •'
• 5,695 S.F.
1
I ,
: 1 f
�.'2
\ 6,039 S.F.
\ \ \\
Li 4
3
j, j / \ p7
-s i / • •
(PAVED)
4 / /
I, _ ; /
/
4. / /
v.
u•
/
09
3i /;
\\ 6.082 S.F. ,
\\ ^
iv \\ \\
qb.
11
5,569 S.F.
sr
\ /
13
5,525 S.F.
6
V•
se
/
/
/.
/
/
e•••40•5*
/ '•
/
/
/ /00'/
J,/ /
1
4/
7 • 6,591 /S,1.F.'•"•` 4
/
ROAD
/ / •-
/ / /4 4 i
/ /
/ / /i /
/ / i/` /
/ / i/
•
/ / ' /.,v / 4
/ / / /id 1
/ • /' /g- /
N
/ , /s /
�•�'S / ty. / /. /
• /N /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
sr
/ ,
/ /
235
6,573 /4.F. ...
Q,N�c'c°/�+��' BUFFED' ;
0011: land :d pi :_ .„s 16.991 S.F. y 1-
-K �—
- 14 .`elland1dgE�
r I •-•., --r--- •.
', 1 ..s ----..L. OPE'PACE--
IN -� 28.098 S.F. {�
XI
13 i
9 •
I, 1.4 r_r�`6U `
tk 1 WETILAND l. 1
cit .4
------
5
43.
9\
\
\
5,858 S.F. \\
to
6,1}5 S.F.
11,1137 S.F. \ I
I
S ETb•N' E j J V I Y- 1
80-1
5. 140TH �• $ n V> (NOT OPEN(5,54\-2 -.`— (24o S.F.)
(PAVED) r•.—.. i . ) s.F.) rr.
LfC>,AL Oe5CIEFTION:
A DIIDTirtm nc nn. .. .r.._ . .
•
�r
sa
,x'7,345 S.F.
I
6.
. DSTER R/,D
/ �i�'
PLA A/
a
1
•
•
-------AtAPi /QQ7
/ •.
/•.•
•
i \tit
/ •
•
•
Jam` �-- -- -
./,i1))•'�i�- --;,
/1/4,11//) , l r (1 7
fir rTr r �
I
r.
�rfrrT &
LJIf'vJ �l���r
JJf1h
/
•
•
,r,eRJL. /997
200
•
•
•
•
so.
S../..•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1
i
CL
RCW I
D. -- j
ml
I z1
F
W
.
Ia1
01
:SI
I Z 1
v 1
N
I
I
• 1
304
IL
rMN,10-441
1
11
a
110-43
\/
\ / •
'�-- caNNEcr To DOS7lW 1O' SEtrat
\\ / i Row INSTALL NEM MN p
i / _
� / • \' (PAVEp) --ss- MP
----SS-
fXrs
/ •
/ ir i % '^ • r �� it i MI SNC �0. Algllir ry M-�
a
/ / / / / i /: STO/C/N T,�,tZ \\
i i i i !rq i RaldN s \
/ l4, i
/
17 /
/N At•LO•pr Y / •/ r j /• // \\ ��
EV? / amp• /:
/ \\ \\
•
A.
Va \
• \
\ •
\\ IAN M-28
MN 10-44
4
__ b. AIN 10-48:
LEGEND
PROPOSED What MAR1 •.
PROPOSED SEVER Lot.
PROPOSE) Sf0l01 ORA N Lae
e .
PROPOSED BULD040 PAD
4!s-reR Ri
--- or/t./T PLA..
(caN 77/if L-) 73r97
\
b
MN M-30
ss -
u •
WATF
SEW'
TELE
POW
GAS
R. '
PAF
P.O.
MAF
TEL
Pat
(F •8AF
72C
FEC
TEL
• •PRI
J01 -
J131‘'
P.0 ' •
EVE
TEL
• TSI
11ansportation Solutions, Inc.
16310 NE 80th Street, Suite 100
Redmond, WA 98052-3861
(206) 883-4134 (800) 285-4134
FAX: (206) 867-0898
January 11, 1997
Mr. John B. Friel
JBMF Consulting Engineer
P.O. Box 27
Everett, WA 98206
Subject: Foster Ridge Traffic Impact Analysis
Dear Mr. Friel:
•
Thank you for asking Transportation Solutions, Inc. (TSI) to prepare a traffic analysis for
the proposed residential subdivision in Tukwila, Washington. This letter summarizes the
traffic analysis and presents the traffic and transportation information requested by the
City of Tukwila. The purposes of this analysis fare to identify traffic impacts related to trip
generation and sight distances at intersections used by the occupants of the proposed
project and, where appropriate, to outline programs and/or physical improvements to
minimize or eliminate the effects of these impacts.
Project Description
The proposed project is a residential development in the City of Tukwila. The project site
is currently vacant and undeveloped. The project site is located at the end of South 139th
Street. The project site is proposed to be developed into a 11 unit single-family
subdivision. Access to the project site will be via South 139th Street. Attachment 1
illustrates the project location and Attachment 2 -illustrates the site plan.
Trip Generation and Distribution
The trip generation for the proposed project was calculated based on the trip rates
presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Report, 5th
Edition. Based on these rates, the proposed project will generate approximately 135 daily
trips, 15 trips during the PM peak hour, and 12 trips during the AM peak hour. A
summary of trip generation is shown in Table 1
ell•cots
RECEIVED
MAY 2 7 1997
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
Mr. John B. Friel • Page 2
Table 1. Trip Generation Sununary
• January 11, 1997
Trip Types
Daily
PM Peak Hour
AM Peak Hour
Gross
135
15
12
Entering Exiting
68 67
10 5
3 9
The trip distribution was developed based on existing and forecasted travel patterns.
Vehicle trips generated by this project were traced through the adjacent street network to
the intersections of South 140th Street/42nd Avenue South, South 137th Street /Macadam
Road, South 133rd Street/Interurban Avenue, and South 133rd Street/SR 599 ramp.
Attachment 3 shows the trip distribution and Attachment 4 shows the trip assignment.
Sight Distance
The entering sight distance was measured at twointersections in the local street network
to assure that vehicles traveling from the project could safely enter these intersections.
The two locations were: South 139th Street/45p3Avenue South, South 140th Street/42nd
Avenue South and South 137th Street/Macadam Road.
Li
South 139th Street/45th Avenue South - Traffic entering this intersection from 139th
Street must watch for approaching traffic from pie north and south on 45th Avenue South.
Field measurements indicate that there is appro i nately 170 feet of sight distance to the
north, and approximately 205 feet of sight distance to the south. 45th Avenue South has a
posted speed limit of 25 mile per hour (mph) 'and the average traveling speed of vehicles
on this street appears to be equal to the posted speed. The safe entering sight distance
(SESD) for a 25 mph road is approximately 380 feet; the safe stopping sight distance
(SSSD) for 25 mph is approximately 150 feet. Due to the low traffic volumes on these
street, the SSD is a more reasonable requirement for this intersection. The SSSD is met in
both directions at this intersection.
South 140th Street/42nd Avenue South - Traffic entering this intersection from South
140th Street must watch for approaching traffic -from the north and south on 42nd Avenue
South. 42nd Avenue South has a posted speed limit of 30 mph and the average traveling
speed of vehicles on this street appears to be between 30 and 35 mph. The SESD for a 30
mph road is approximately 435 feet; for a 35 mph road, the SESD is 490 feet. Field
measurements indicate that there is approximately 475 feet of sight distance to the north,
and well over 600 feet of sight distance to the south. Based on the observed traveling
speeds, 475 feet of sight distance to the north appears to be adequate for this intersection.
TSI
Transportation Solutions Inc.
Mr. John B. Friel •
Page 3- • January 11, 1997
South 137th Street/Macadam Road - Traffic entering this intersection from South 137th
Street must watch for approaching traffic from the north and south on Macadam Road.
Field measurements indicate that there is approximately 295 feet of sight distance to the
north, and approximately 370 feet of sight dista ce to the south. Macadam Road has a
posted speed limit of 30 mph and the average traveling speed of vehicles on this street
appears to be equal to the posted speed. The SE -SD for a 30 mph road is approximately
435 feet; the SSSD for 30 mph is approximately 200 feet. Thus, the SSSD requirement is
met in both directions at this intersection, but the SESD requirement is not. No physical
improvement options to improve the SESD were readily apparent. It is suggested that the
number of traffic accidents at this intersection be moni
tored, and if a safety problem
develops, signs warning of entering traffic should be installed along Macadam Road.
Pedestrian Access
City of Tukwila engineering staff have suggested that a pedestrian path be constructed as
part of the proposed development. This path would extend from the project site along one
side of South 139th Street/Macadam Road Thjpath is envisioned to be in the form of a
widened, paved shoulder on the street with appropriate markings to indicate pedestrian
travel.
Based on the low volume of observed pedestrian traffic in this area, a pedestrian path does
not appear to be warranted. It is suggested that the project sponsor meet with the City to
discuss the need for such a path. -]
I trust this letter addresses the concerns of the City concerning the traffic impacts of this
project. If you, or City staff have any questions or require additional information, please
contact our office at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Thang Tat Nguyen
Transportation Engineer
include: Attachments
TSI
Transportation Solutions Inc.
T
GIS 139th St
4211,1 Ave S
S 140th St
S 144th St
Legend
Traffic Signal
—II— Stop Sign
TSI
Transportation Solutions, Inc
Attachment 1
Project Location
Foster Ridge
z 4uauugasy
II d'
I�: i iii % i ••-1-.7....- _.
w l',
/ / / / !' / /
X1.1
O_
0
0
1 ?
30•
5. 139TH -5T.
1 / / /
IiIC i
1
/• '
/ / h ,
1 / /
1•
/
N' ' /
131201 S.F. �'
1 .'/ C i R /'_ \ / i
V /
/6.690 S.F.F, /
4./ 4 o`•""
1 .. / /
/
(PAVED)
DRIVEWAY ACCS
Iul/ LOTS 9 it 10 ONLY
/ROY SO. 141111 SINtEI.
5... 140TH 5T.
\
Pu1yAi� rtaw
\ /
• sane-
Vl, • 1� y11•Y Y tow ^•••� z7.270 SI. •r. -.
ems` y! L.
11` - >i;por 4: .
1� '
�S.no s r. `�• .- ---Ke.:.-. ----- •_.ate!. ----1.
1tN'SPI--____. j
I SF. .r
I, JI I
/
1 • 1
1 F w��
(NOT OPEN) •-
�_
.A A. . . l A A • AA- 1 I A . 1_ YY
y
O
40%
v
S 139th St
S 137th St
S 140th St46%4-
S 144th St
60%
lit
v1
Ci
I
. i
d
..i
Legend
Traffic Signet
—J— Slop Sign
TSI
Transportation Solutions, Inc
Attachment 3
Trip Distribution
Foster Ridge
T
F
S 144th St
Legend
Traffic Signal
-J- Stop Sign
nDaily Trips
AM Peek Trips
i PM Peek Trips
TSI
Transportation Solutions, Inc
Attachment 4
Project Trip Assignments
Foster Ridge
79
O
150 —
140
-150
- E'XI
8" S
Vis.
87'48'48" E
5
APPROX. L
EXISTItLV8" SS
240
J
N
0
O
7
7.60
A Y \ rtD✓ _