Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUA98-066 g8• 04•4 A -Al (4) DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON APR 2 3 1998 RECEIVED SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Prepared for Mr. Rick Jarvis SPEIKER PROPERTIES c/o Mr. Bob Fadden LANCE MUELLER AND ASSOCIATES 130 Lakeside, Suite 250 Seattle, WA 98122 Transportation Planning & Engineering , Inc . 2101 - 112th Avenue N.E., Suite 110 Bellevue,Washington 98004 (425) 455-5320 SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Prepared for Mr. Rick Jarvis SPEIKER PROPERTIES c/o Mr. Bob Fadden LANCE MUELLER AND ASSOCIATES 130 Lakeside, Suite 250 Seattle, WA 98122 Prepared by TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 2101 - 112th Ave. N.E., Suite 110 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Telephone - (425) 455-5320 FAX - (425) 453-7180 April 2, 1998 Q� • Pl_ 1. JA c WASN��f,iP • h A �,'vs Z ' /:f I/ STONAL G T/2 '6(2 'EXPIRES 4/3/00 RECEIVED APR 8 1998 LANCE MUELLER&ASSOC. 1111 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 2101 - 112th AVENUE N.E., SUITE 110-BELLEVUE,WASHINGTON 98004 TELEPHONE(425)455-5320 VICTOR H BISHOP P E.President DAVID H ENGER,PE Vice President FACSIMILE(425)453-7180 April 2, 1998 Mr. Rick Jarvis SPEIKER PROPERTIES c/o Mr. Bob Fadden LANCE MUELLER AND ASSOCIATES 130 Lakeside, Suite 250 Seattle, WA 98122 Re: Southgate Office Park - Renton Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Jarvis: We are pleased to present this traffic impact analysis for the proposed Southgate Office Park project consisting of adding 138,807 sq. ft. of office space. This space will be provided in two new buildings, buildings #3 and #4. Existing buildings #1 and #2 provide 250,700 sq. ft. of office space. The project is located in the southwest corner of the Lind Ave. S.W./S.W. 19th St. intersection in the City of Renton. We have visited the project site and surrounding street network, and have based the scope of this analysis on a telephone conversation Mr. Clint Morgan of the City. Based on our telephone conversation the following intersection were identified for analysis. Lind Ave. S.W./S.W. 19th St. Lind Ave. S.W./Existing access driveway-21st Ave. S.W. The City also requested that a formal traffic signal warrant analysis be preformed at the Lind Ave. S.W./S.W. 19th St. intersection. Further the distribution of site generated traffic is shown beyond the analysis intersections. The conclusions and recommendations begin on page 8 of this report. R067298.Rpt 1111 t Mr. Rick Jarvis SPEIKER PROPERTIES April 2, 1998 Page - 2 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION Figure 1 is a vicinity map showing the location of the site and the surrounding street network. Figure 2 shows a preliminary site plan prepared by Lance Mueller and Associates dated February 6, 1998. The plan consists of two new buildings providing 138,807 sq. ft. of space, parking and access onto both S.W. 19th St. and Lind Ave. Southwest. Both these accesses exist. Full development of the Southgate Office Park project is expected to occur by 2000, therefore 2000 is used as the horizon year for the purposes of this study. EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS The eastern portion of the project site abutting Lind Ave. S.W. is developed. This development consists of two office buildings providing 250,700 sq. ft. of space, parking and two access driveways onto the adjacent street system. Street Facilities Figure 3 shows existing traffic control, number of street lanes, number of approach lanes at intersections, and other pertinent information. The primary streets within the study area are classified in the City's Comprehensive Plan as follows: SR 405 Freeway SR 167 Freeway Grady Way Major Arterial Oaksdale Ave. S.W. Major Arterial S.W. 43rd St. Major Arterial Lind Ave. S.W. / Secondary Arterial S.W. 16th St. Collector Arterial E. Valley Rd. Collector Arterial S.W. 41st St. Collector Arterial Raymond Ave. S.W. Unclassified Local Access S.W. 19th St. Unclassified Local Access R067298.Rpt Mr. Rick Jarvis SPEIKER PROPERTIES April 2, 1998 Page - 3 - Transit Facilities Metro Transit is the transit agency which serves the study area. According to the Metro Transit System Map, September, 1997 there are three routes that serve the Lind Ave. S.W. corridor. They are 153, 163 and 247. Pedestrian Facilities Generally, there are sidewalks on both sides of most streets in the study area. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Traffic Volumes Figure 4 shows existing PM peak hour and average daily traffic volumes at pertinent intersections affected by site-generated traffic. Level of Service Analysis Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic flow, and the perception of these conditions by drivers or passengers. These conditions include factors such as speed, delay, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Levels of service are given letter designations, from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions (free flow, little delay) and LOS F the worst (congestion, long delays). Generally, LOS A and B are high, LOS C and D are moderate, and LOS E and F are low. Table 1 shows calculated levels of service (LOS) for existing conditions at the pertinent street intersections. The LOS were calculated using the procedures in the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual - Special Report 209 3rd Edition updated 1994. The LOS/shown indicate overall intersection operation. At intersections, LOS is determined by the calculated average delay per vehicle. The LOS and corresponding average delay in seconds are as follows: R067298.Rpt Mr. Rick Jarvis SPEIKER PROPERTIES April 2, 1998 Page - 4 - TYPE OF A B C D E F INTERSECTION Signalized <5.0 >5.0 and >15.0 and >25.0 and >40.0 and >60.0 <15.0 <25.0 <40.0 <60.0 Stop Sign <5.0 >5 and >10 and >20 and >30 and >45 Control <10 < 20 < 30 < 45 The intersection LOS is an average for every vehicle entering the intersection. On occasion specific movements, such as stop sign controlled left turn movements, experience significantly worse LOS than other movements at the intersection. When this is the case other factors such as safety can be considered when determining whether improvements are warranted. The LOS calculations conducted for the unsignalized Lind Ave. S.W. intersection use reduction factors. These factors are for multiple lanes on Lind Ave. S.W. and for the left turn channelization at the Boeing access intersection with Lind. Ave. Southwest. The multi-lane reduction factor was used on through traffic volumes on the main street (Lind Ave. S.W.) to account for some vehicles on the main street arriving at the intersection side by side (50% volume) versus totally random arrivals (100% volume). In order to account for the different arrival patterns, the average through traffic on the main street is reduced by 25% (i.e., [50% + 100%] - 2 + 75%). A reduction factor was also used at the Boeing access driveway on the far side traffic volume on Lind Ave. S.W. to account for the fact that the outside traffic lane is not in conflict with driveway left turns (due to the left turn channelization ). Theoretically a reduction factor of 100% could be used. However to be conservative, the far side traffic was reduced by only 50 percent. The left turn channelization allows the driveway left turn to be accomplished in two distinct movements: the first, the left turn into the left turn acceleration lane and the second, the merge into the northbound traffic stream. The reductions used are consistent with the Highway Capacity Manual Special Report 209 which states in the last paragraph, first column on page 10-4 "Channelization is also important because it can be used to reduce impedance by separating conflicting flows from each other." TP&E has used similar volume R067298.Rpt Mr. Rick Jarvis SPEIKER PROPERTIES April 2, 1998 Page - 5 - reductions on previous projects which have been accepted by WSDOT and other local review agencies. Accident History Traffic accident data was obtained from the City for the period from January 1 , 1995 to December 31, 1997 at the pertinent street intersections. The City data does not identify any recorded accidents at either the Lind Ave. S.W./19th St. S.W. nor the Lind Ave. S.W./Boeing access intersections. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROJECT Figure 5 shows projected 2000 PM peak hour and average daily traffic volumes without the project. These volumes include the 1998 traffic volume counts plus background growth. The background traffic growth rate on Lind Ave. S.W. in the vicinity of the site is around 2.5% per year. This rate was calculated using historical traffic data on Lind Ave. S.W. south of 16th Ave. S.W. and north of S.W. 27th Street. For analysis purposes, we have used a 3% per year growth rate. Using a higher growth rate provides a conservative evaluation of intersection operations. Table 1 shows calculated LOS for 2000 conditions without the project at the pertinent street intersections. In general, the LOS will remain the same as the existing conditions with small increases in average vehicle delay due to background traffic volume growth. TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION A vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination (exiting or entering) inside the study site. The proposed Southgate Office Park project is expected to generate the vehicular trips during an average weekday and during the street traffic peak hours as shown in Table 2. Also shown on Table 2 is the calculated trip generation for the two existing office buildings on the subject site. The trip generation is calculated using the trip equations found in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, Sixth Edition, for General Office Building (ITE Land Use Code 710). The trip equations were used rather than the trip rates based on the ITE procedure for determining which method is most appropriate for a given set of data. The trip R067298.Rpt Mr. Rick Jarvis SPEIKER PROPERTIES April 2, 1998 Page - 6 - generation values above account for all site trips made by all vehicles for all purposes, including commuter, visitor, recreation, and service and delivery vehicle trips. Figure 6 shows the estimated trip distribution and the calculated site-generated traffic volumes. The distribution is based on the characteristics of the street network, existing traffic volume patterns, the location of likely trip origins and destinations (employment, shopping, social and recreational opportunities), expected travel times and on information contained in the City's Comprehensive Plan. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Figure 7 shows the projected 2000 PM peak hour and average daily traffic volumes with the proposed project. The site-generated PM peak hour traffic volumes shown on Figure 6 were added to the projected background traffic volumes shown on Figure 5 to obtain the Figure 7 volumes. Table 1 shows calculated LOS for 2000 with project conditions at the pertinent street intersections. Both analysis intersections are calculated to operate on good LOS conditions overall. The side streets left turn motorists will have delays of around one half minute or so during the PM peak period. A delay of one half minute at minor street stop sign controlled intersection is fairly common. TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS Daily traffic data was collected between Monday afternoon March 16, 1998 through Sunday March 22, 1998, for all the approach legs of the Lind Ave. S.W./S.W. 19th Street intersection. A PM peak hour manual count was conducted on Monday, March 16, 1998 between 4:00 and 6:00 PM. Travel speeds on Lind Ave. S.W. are assumed to exceed 40 MPH, the posted limit is 35 MPH. Using a higher travel speed resuits in a more conservative warrant analysis. Table 3 shows the traffic signal warrant analysis performed for the Lind Ave. S.W./19th Ave. S.W. intersection. Traffic signal warrant criteria are identified in Section C. Warrants contained in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 1988 Edition. Based on the traffic data collected, and adding in the projected traffic generation of the subject proposal, a traffic signal would be warranted in the future. Warrants R067298.Rpt Mr. Rick Jarvis SPEIKER PROPERTIES April 2, 1998 Page - 7 - number 9 and 11 are met. Our operational analysis of the intersection shows that a good LOS is provided with the existing stop sign control. The stop sign left turn delays are less than a minute. No accident problem exists at the intersection. Section 4C-2 Warrants for Traffic Signal Installation states the following: "The satisfaction of a warrant or warrants is not in itself justification for a signal." Based on our analysis the installation of a traffic control signal at the Lind Ave./S. 19th St. intersection is not necessary at this time. However, monitoring of this intersection and other intersections on Lind Ave. is recommended. The monitoring would be done by subsequent significant development projects. TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS The City's Comprehensive Plan establishes a City-wide traffic impact mitigation fee rate of $75.00 per average weekday trip. The fee rate was developed as documented in the City's Transportation Mitigation Fee Support Document, and adooted with resolution no. 3100 and ordinance no. 4527. The fee rate is based on developers paying their fair share (9%) of a 20-year transportation improvement program costing $134,000,000. The Comprehensive Plan states that in addition to the fee, there may be site- specific improvements required by the City to mitigate on-site and adjacent facility impacts. However, on-site and adjacent facility impacts are not defined. The Comprehensive Plan also states that a development may qualify for a reduction of the $75.00 per vehicle trip mitigation fee through certain credits for development incentives, construction of needed transportation improvements (arterial, HOV and transit), through public/private partnerships, and transportation demand management. Specific credits and the amount of the reduction in the mitigation trip rate fee that could result from such credits will be determined on a case by case basis during the development permitting process. R067298.Rpt Mr. Rick Jarvis SPEIKER PROPERTIES April 2, 1998 Page - 8 - SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This report uses existing traffic data collected at the pertinent street intersection and roads identified for analysis. Level of service analyses were performed for existing and projected future traffic volumes, using the collected traffic data, for the without project condition. The evaluation of the traffic impact of the proposed project, included adding project generated traffic to the future traffic volume projection and calculating the level of service. The with project traffic operations were then compared to the without project operations. The comparison of traffic operations with and without the project identified that the project will not cause a significant adverse affect on the operation of any of the study intersections. Based on our analysis the Southgate Office Park project should be approved with The following traffic mitigation measures: 1. The developer should offer to pay a traffic impact mitigation fee calculated as follows: ($75.00 per AWDT) X (1082 AWDT) = $81 ,150.00. 2. Construct the subject project in accordance with applicable requirements. No other traffic mitigation should be necessary. If you have any questions please call me. Very truly yours, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Mark J. Jac , . . Senior Transportation Engineer MJJ:es R067298.Rpt '14 TABLE 1 SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY EXISTING PROJECTED PROJECTED INTERSECTION 2000 W/O 2000 W/ PROJECT PROJECT Lind Ave. S.W./ EBLT D (22.0) D (26.1) E (39.8) S.W. 19th St. EBTR A (4.2) A (4.3) A (4.5) WBLT C (17.1) C (19.1) D (21.6) WBTR A (3.7) A (3.8) A (3.8) OVERALL A (1.2) A (1.5) A (3.1) Lind Ave. S.W./ EBLT C (17.2) C (19.9) D (26.9) Site Access EBRT A (3.8) A (3.9) A (4.2) OVERALL A (2.1) A (2.4) A (3.8) i R067298.Rpt D TABLE 2 SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TRIP GENERATION TRIPS TRIPS EXITING DRIVEWAY TIME PERIOD TRIP EQUATION ENTERING TOTAL Proposed + Existing General Office Building (ITE Land Use 710; 389,507 sq. ft.) Average Weekday Ln(T) = 0.768 1,885 1,885 3,770 Ln(x)+ 3.654 (50%) (50%) AM Peak Hour Ln(T) = 0.797 485 66 551 Ln(x)+ 1.558 (88%) (12%) PM Peak Hour T = 1.121(x) + 88 428 516 79.295 (17%) (83%) Existing General Office Building (ITE Land Use 710; 250,700 sq. ft.) Average Weekday Ln(T) = 0.768 1344 1344 2,688 Ln(x)+ 3.654 (50%) (50%) AM Peak Hour Ln(T) = 0.797 341 47 388 Ln(x)+ 1.558 (88%) (12%) PM Peak Hour T = 1.121(x) + 61 299 360 79.295 (17%) (83%) Net General Office Building ((Proposed + Existing) - Existing) Average Weekday -- 541 541 1,082 AM Peak Hour -- 144 19 163 PM Peak Hour -- 27 129 156 T = Trips x = 1,000 sq. ft. R067298.Rpt TABLE 3 SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS LIND AVENUE S.W./S.W. 19TH STREET ,VARRANT# LOCATION COUNTED VOLUME MINIMUM REQUIRED VOLUME (VEHICLES) (VEHICLES) #1 Minimum Vehicular Volume (based on., eighth highest volume) Lind Ave. S.W. 826 420 S.W. 19th St. 54 140 #2 Interruption of Continuous Traffic (each of 8 hrs., eighth highest hr. shown) Lind Ave. S.W. 826 630 S.W. 19th St. 54 75 #9 Four Hour Volumes (each of 4 hrs., fourth highest hr. shown) S.W. 19th St. 126/74' 80/602 #1 ' Peak Hour Volume S.W. 19th St. 176/95' 100/752 Warrant #3, Minimum Pedestrian Volume Warrant not met. Warrant #4, School Crossing Warrant not met. Warrant #5, Progressive Movement. Warrant not met. Warrant #6, Accident Experience This warrant not met. Warrant #7, Systems Warrant Warrant criteria not met. Warrant #8, Combination of Warrants N/A Warrant #10 Peak Hour Delay Warrant not met. Note Project generated traffic and background growth are factored into the volumes. Right turn traffic excluded 2 Single lane approach R067298.Rpt le y f wet 1.�/. `X, ' 'V '''' '--4'__ .r '":;.I.,_ , tt-,�a sr REMUN Z + `a>y f fASiER�\14 V, - - -. JUN R — : l ��T-Nr o sr 18 xs 3 ! "f"' • , < ' ,�' Qv �� S 2ND o $ In .p a=42.• GOLF =C .L _ Ip-„,, WY: 'IA 1=� .t.1nm '. s'$� i. ioo " 900 kli■ 4¢ 1 , Pdy COURSE $� . 1�1 ' _• I�' _-__ °s so <300 �'0:lp,$riei�\9Ua' $ 1 ..� r5.OSUR1391N ST ,• `• i\a/' T 1 - _ �� c ' 514DP> .t i h.. S� �r 1i " r H.R i !EY S j' ....Ism z sr: siN: 1 II > 1 �� P y ," S.i I144TH <I ST 1 <„pV• �• woo 'A - x,+) . (!N � Af MTN S .TN ST 601 5300 I a `5900 ,S 44 , :a'.�� - �, sw Trx , s • ^ <„`t WWII! I( sr -.� sa N - sngr v '="`8�'a�8 u t i8 t >I�ruu■� ,. psi • $. �` \ 1I, �:LIB s I-' ;�� 4�+y'., �, I N.'<I I^ D i 6 RIDE c.,0 51.5 S 4 F 'S .... ..,.d_ :� • 1 'i I '1' ' S •a • 011 VILLAGE /' ST Po4,' ... Ir.,-' �\ r %; i � T N�SN�Y in, LENrER i '1 Ts 5 I)9TH A' 4 I G'1 G ■ ST;„,,,,,,ia NVILLAGE PL` I,sT 1 }1 .7 NTO�t-� icvl AOLTarm • S 1 CS " n a �. 24 p'\ �1eR z Io sr - 1s 23 ` s. ST ~s i 4 . �`.$r� '1.41 _ "13� �" 1= zni sr r- *, b \ 1 - — � 8° *1111*M. . i' J` >I—IA�e<\ g , 'S'2'�� 41 '► -►- sT ®� �r -§" SSISTH sr N ,>• �1\ " o s � =rt• ,3u _ _ 1 t. 6.00 • \Iwo.. MFR al :I ap , /sIH sr N- _ � �� 1•1 I __. _ . f -Ant sr: 1 Pew - . C , g ..� • �r�`I 3.7 rpp,,,, SWTNCERTER I�A Y & ll'a v_. S I T . i .. ATT' WAS IIIOt L - '.. 1 51 '/ /?6 Or i ) 7 -i ,� ... I =, SY nA0 5T 3,. +, L4R0 _ i D'r I RAKER 8L1D �/ •r �-. '�.'. 4"-Fb+"'.f'k �yT r F, aa. r3; %` 'ALL s W`ill � \ +>dvL `�- Iv? Y`l s. ;:Gr ; L C x F? s 'dl '' ��i! r._ sy.y l 17,al� 4•�Ay. �'"tn"• ', �� Ali STRANGER a I BLVD "' T SII vIH 1 < I'm neP , ■cc , 5 '� -1 •N 1«, �.- P '"f'r s r .'v. s'. ct " C SMItIK£MIfR VTR CK IN U C OR � �t a , . ..Yr r 41�-.: ' -MTH ST' 'per ~ ~ 26 Dn EWRIY c.x„� • 30 1 .� ��` R 1. , 1ST I i -g. --I r • 1 - �,�F- T sT. - nr Niao �� . l81 OR N �"a. .... ST I W ,,.... 'G7 I s 4, f 6r_a �i r Cam, 1. � g 3 pry .3A S7 Syca,.- .. L. r1d •N+ ._.P DR ilimit SUR < Al ctt y u;� *i, I • z .z 14. 1 R 7`'wt.g *1 uY J � R Sw Sr i J '°�ti Prna" E •• }}' a "x', .t '.14ii�y1111 i A9 3..tam ....vs "v 1178TH - ."",",.,., tANO �, SAxAN Da s:, t Ni_y+s' ,�R+ P SY^ .� ?4151• .J ST'"" •• ziLP -moo I 5f�.,TRt�° ' M - r -'o iw .- ' '4.'�` ---2 _� r:'iet' " -.ti{, • xl' 1j I&RAYruo, INLLJ 1 '" r,... \ 1 SW 43RD S 1- SW $<' •3RD mono■(LI 1 •" Yi STccARa PD3H ' S 48RD S �l� :i I SprH 15600 S 180THt , a $¶. ` '1 -(SE 180TH-ST) (SE IRDTN sn" "m i talzrm' 1 l l T.i i"�P. 1 �� SaarRGBROOK` r 167 d+,5 I " J RIVE )S -'leZNO' 36 GREFABELr W I •�J �t /, 7 j i .7�f y all -1,rap.< ` ^, -- _ S_tem s ,�` s 1R4TH 7 — `QtCI�'iLs' riYf, RLVO _ �- 'J < �� i ST Y 1 Il, . ,P4V RAR. 47. I cInt urea -:e - ' 77 IMii�_,____--. I = S 188TH ST, - - S IeeTH Sr S iesTH ST I S 197TH ST / a I MEANDER .we+--'--—---1- .1 . 51 -- "Reproduced with permission granted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS®. This map is copyrighted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS®. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission. All rights reserved." / VICINITY MAP j (I] FIGURE SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK 1 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 1 1 l ` \ ` . . S.W. 19TH ST. ...-- _ =• - •..... _ _— _-- r\ j i _ ysi " sari a a sa5' '4° " �1 aE6..-410.a a !' : ITT -7.. :::: -,...-. ' ' R� 0 . ', � '•1•.Et{[t'l 3 11 / fly:g I.la fl .k.. I1 f4 • ai' �i g G �c�i1 Y�l� d•1g idY `e 2 1 t 's, .T �,;. E 0 .-- 5fik .g _� it Oi. _ 4 • I I_ d0i4 jg' ig O 0 1 3 -CJ c-- ' — O .... - i .,I *._ r!. •.i .t , !., 1. C Ili .1! - . -.It, I—. ." --.. .:7 ' '''' \ ' '''' rti--:" . 0 . . ; ' : 12.- .; III -'I ;I tA; III. 4. _ __ ..�.I��.-� ;� � I s I I.7 —=r� ___c=iT �— ! i r .,.i r 1r �I ` \ • IL ... . Yya �- P ::. . : r , • J • I'I -; i'!, II r7 1. .r I 1C' ... I .. y =r�---r Lj,a. ' '� IIIII11111-11I11111I0 = _ _ �- • • .7a111111111111111110 = —• � , 8 � - ^ . =1 q I I ll !tl• :. �.`.` ro .. • o d. o 111.1i SITEI.: • • SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK <� D. LINO AVE.SW.4 5W.IS6th ST.RENTGN,WASNINGTON �: �.I \ ..:«• ...,n,. .... • SPEIKER PARTNE ..•2.,,...,. •R5 ,,,• ..» SITE PLAN ! r.FIGURE� I SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK / 2 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS � a Q • r) > -D C J -o O N i not to scale 0 SW 19th St. �tf 3L Project Site 4! SW 27nd St. LEGEND el Stop Sign XX mph Posted Speed Limit Approach Lane Sc Direction XL Number of Roadway Lanes EXISTING STREET CONDITIONS FIGURE SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK r 3 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS • U) > > Q O : if)Q � 0 N not to scale a Monday 3/16/98 N coCD 5 16:30-17:30 L -0 r 0 SW 19th St. 50� r 45-k Nr' .- Project r` N Site Nn -tn 89-y I 1 Monday rn 3/16/98 CO 16:00-17:00 O 0 SW 27nd St. LEGEND X--► PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume & Direction [XXXX] 1997 Average Daily Traffic Volume EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES 1FIGURE� SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK 4 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS j > o ai < O > - J u 0 0 not to scale Monday N 3/16/98 co 16:30-17:30 SW 19th St. — 50► r 45 . N"o— Project N Site N N N ) l 95-1 R } _ 89-• I I Monday 3/16/98 (0 16:00-17:00 O 0 N • • SW 27nd St. LEGEND X PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume & Direction [XXXX] 1997 Average Daily Traffic Volume EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES ^ 1-FIGURE SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK 4 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS j U) C > < N N C CO - J o N not to scale 0 al co N 5 g SW 19th St. 53 3 r 48—Th`s Noa� Project N Site N co ) 1 101--se I # 94 tor, 0 K) u) SW 27nd St. LEGEND X PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume & Direction [XXXX] 1997 Average Daily Traffic Volume I PROJECTED 2000 TRAFFIC VOLUMES W/O PROJECT FIGURE [. SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK 5 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS V.. b� N 34% oM/ 1 r3� � � cr N t3689 13 O° r9 44—' 8% ➢ ad Wo 0 } `a��2 i 1g-7A Gr 6% I �' 10tr) [65] j ( al) �� 2' 8 ) _�i 2% 1—.- ir boo WNW i 1 [22] coO to ...—3 SW 16th St. ro N 1 14% - not to scale v) [151] O 7 > 1 " 7 1 r- �,Q O' u12 1% v o [11] E SW 19th St. iJ r 0ct 1 --0 NI31—► I 1 12—'• ""(' /1V) Project cN Site � i � in 32 --1 50 SW 27nd St. el PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC (I) -6 Daily [1082] c( T PM Peak Q Enter 27 0 Exit 129 4% w [43] SW 41st St. Z '1 . 15% 15% [162] [162] SW 43rd St. -0-19 4 4— 19—i- J 1FIGURE PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUME & DISTRIBUTION (_ SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK 6 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS U) cn a3 < c0 N -o I� O N not to scale o . cy r'0N "1,-5 O SW 19th St. - 84—► r 98—' 00— N Project Site oN N c0 133— R 144 I � If)O N c0 r7 ) C0 0 SW 27nd St. LEGEND X-- PM Peak Hour Traffic. Volume & Direction [XXXX] Average Daily Traffic PROJECTED 2000 TRAFFIC VOLUMES W/ PROJECT FIGURE SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK 7 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ( ✓ Ile, -. : Unsi..gnalized Intersections Release 2 . 1.d I_.i.ND1.9EX .HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation I.rnr.ve7 s.it..;y of Flo1 ..id ) 5.12 Weil Mall Gainesville , FL. 32611 .2003 Ph: ( 904 ) 392--0378 Streets: ( N -S ) .l i nd ave sw ( E--W ) sw 19th street. Major Straet Direction . . . . NE Length of Time Analyzed . . . 15 ( min ) Analyst , mjj Date or Analysis 3/23/98 Other Information existing rr,ao- way Stop--.controlled Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound___ L T R L. r R ; L r R L T R No . Lanes, 0 > 2 < 0 0 > 2 < 0 1 1. < 0 1 1 < 0 ,top/'( eld N N Volume; 7 553 .L 6 422 11 50 3 45 0 0 5 PHF .95 .95 95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 i:;r a d•e, Ci 0 0 0 4;t1/NV 'S ( ) CV 3 ( % ) PCE 's 1 . 10 1 . 10 1 . 10 .1 . 10 1 . 10 1 . 10 1 . 10 1 . 10 AdAdjustment:. Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap ( tg ) Time ( tf ) Left Turn Major Road 5 .50 2 . 10 Right ruin Minor Road 5 .50 2 .60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 .50 3 .30 Left. Turn Minor Road 7 .00 3 .40 HCS : Un.= i<.- na..lized Intersections Release 2 . 1d LIND19EX .HCO Page 2 6.1or I.sl-re;ei:. for 11W`:,C: intersection Step 1 : r7_r fr_orn Minor Street WE' EB Confl i ,;tiing Flows : ( vph ) 294 228 Potential, Capacity : ( pcph ) 983 1061 Movement 'Capacity : ( pcph ) 983 1061 Prob . of Queue-Free State : 0 .99 C) .95 .)tep 21: L_ I from Major.. St:.reet. SB NB Conflicting Flows: ( vph ) . 588 456 Potential Capacity : ( pcph ) 829 976 Movement Capacity : ( pcph ) 829 976 Prob . of !,Queue-Free State : 0 .99 0 .99 ni 5atUrali. i.on Flow Pate : ( pcphpi ) 3400 :3400 P:T" Saturation Flow Rate : ( pcphpl ) 1700 :1. 700 Major Li Shared Lane Prob . of Queue- Free State: 0 .99 0 .99 Step :;3 : hhi From Minor Street. WE3 EB Conflicting Flows: ( vph ) 105E 1.051 Potential rapacity: ( pcph ) 263 265 Capacity Adjustment Factor due t:.o Impeding Movements 0 .9n 0 .98 Movement ',Capacity: ( pcph ) 258 260 Prob . of !Queue--Free State: 1 .00 C) .99 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street. W13 EB Conflict:. ing Flows : ( vph ) :1046 :1.050 Potential Capacity: ( pcph ) 227 226 Major LT , Minor Ttl Impedance Factor : 0 .97 0 .98 Adjusted impedance Factor : 0 .98 C) .99 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0 .93 0 .98 Movement. ' apacity: ( pcph ) 211. 221 HCS Unsigna.lized Intersections Release 2 . 1d L.IND19EX .HCO Page 3 intersection Performance Summary Avg . 95% Flow Move Shared Tota.1. Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Moveme t. ( pcph ) ( pcph ) ( pcph )( sec/'veh ) ( veh ) ( sec/veh ) EE3 L. 58 221 22 .0 1 .0 D FE3 T 3 260 ) 13 .3 E::B R 52 1O61. > 908 1 .2 0 . 1. U1P L 0 211 17 . 1 0 .0 C WB F 0 25f3 : 3 .7 WB R 6 983 ) 983 3 .7 0 .0 A I* L 8 7 a, .3 . 7 0 .0 A 0 .0 1329 4 .1 0 .0 A 0 . 1 Intersection Delay - 1 .2 sec/veh L Ij HCS : Uns.ignalized Intersections Release 2 . ;1d LINU19FU .IlCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Nall l Gainesville , FL 32611 .2083 Ph: ( 90 I ) 392--0378 Streets : ( N- S ) Lind ave 3W ( E W ) SW19t.h street - - -Major Street Direction NS Length of, Time Analyzed :15 ( min ) mjj Date of AInalysis 3/23/98 Other Information 2000 w/o project. Two--wa . St.op--controlled Intersection Northbound Sont.hbound Eastbound Westbound No . Lanes 0 > 2 < 0 0 > 2 < 0 1 1 < 0 I 1 ( 0 `:,t o p/Y.i.e l d N N Volumes 7 591 1 12 417 6 53 3 48 C) 0 5 P1* .95 .`?` .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 Grade 0 0 Cti 0 MC 's ( 10 c:,U/RV 's ( h ) t'V 's ( %., ) f'C F '.- 1 . 10 1 . 10 1 . 1 0 1 . 1 0 1 . 10 1 . ;L 0 1 . 10 1 . 10 Adjust.tnent. Factors • Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap ( t:.g ) Time ( tf ) Left l u i n Major Road 5 . 50 2 . 10 Right. Tarn Minor Road 5 .50 2 .60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 .50 3 .30 Left Turn Minor Road 7 .00 3 .40 HCS : Unsignalized intersections Release 2 . 1d I_IND19FU .HCO Page 2 Wor ksheet f,.-,► l`W::,r: 1 ril:r�r ,,..:ec t_I,can St • ep 1 : R from Minor Street I43 EB Conflicting Flows: ( vph ) 312 238 Pot.ential. Capacity : ( pcph) 962 1049 Movement Capacity : ( pcph ) 962 1049 Prot) . of (h)ueue_..Free State : 0 .99 0 .95 step 2 : I___` from Major Street St�3 NB Conflicting Flows: ( vph ) 623 477 Potential Capacity: ( pcph ) 794 951 Movement :rapacity : ( pcph) 794 951 Prob . of Queue--Free State : 0 .98 0 .99 TH aturation Flow Rate: ( pcphpl ) 3400 3400 RI Saturation Flow Rate : ( pcphpl ) 1700 1700 Major L_. r Shared Lane Prob . of Qur,e.!' - F r ce State 0 .98 0 .99 Step 3 HI from Minor street WB EB Conflicting Flows: ( vph ) 1120 1117 Potent,:i ,r1. capoci.ty : ( pcph ) 211. 242 Capacily Adjustment Facto) due to I:i iped i ng Movemc r►t s; 0 .97 0 .97 Movement Capacity : ( pcph ) 234 235 Prob . of Queue' Free State : 1. .00 0 .99 Step 4 : LT from Minor trey t: WB EB r(:,nfl. ict.i.nc1 Flows: ( vph ) 11.16 1116 Potential Capacity: ( pcph ) 205 205 Major 1. 1' , Minor TH Impedance Factor : 0 .96 0 .97 Adjusted Impedance Factor : 0 .97 0 .98 Capacity adjustment. Factor due to Impeding Movements 0 .92 0 .97 Movement. Capacity: ( pcph ) 188 199 • HCS : UA\i§nalized Intersections Release 2 . Id LIND19EU .HCO Page 3 ______ ____________________________________________________________ Intersection Performance Summary Avg . 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement ( Pcph ) ( Pcph ) ( Pcph )( Sec/veh ) ( veh ) ( secZveh ) EB L 62 199 26 . 1 1 .2 D ER T . 235 > 15 .4 EB R 56 1049 ) 892 4 .3 0 . 1 A QB L 0 188 19 . 1 0 .0 C QB T 0 234 > 3 .8 QB R 6 962 > 962 3 .8 0 .0 A NB I.. 8 951 3 .8 0 .0 A 0 .0 SB L 14 794 4 .6 0 .0 A 0 . 1 inrersect.ion DeIa> 1 .5 sec/veh HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 . 1d l_IND19WP .HCO Page 1 --- -- - -------- Center For Microcomputers In Transportation IJni.ver i. t.y of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville , FL 32G 1 1 208 Ph : ( 904 ) :392•-0378 `street:: : ( N--`3) l ind ave -;r,r ( E- W ) sw 19th street. Major Street Direction . . . . NS Length of Time. Analyzed . . . 15 ( min ) Analyst rnjj Date r:)I (9naly is !./r'.?/'?f;d Other 1 ►►iorinat:.ion 2000 wi pt oject Two-wayStop- controlled Intersection Northbound Sout;.hbo►.Ind Eastbound Westbound I._ T R L T R L T R L T R No . lanes 0 ) 2 < 0 0 > 2 < 0 1 1 < 0 1 1 < 0 '=,1:op/`,' i.eId N N Vo.l u.mo$ 1 10 61 5 l 12 453 13 S6 4 98 0 0 5 PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC 's ( % ) V ' ) PCF 's 1 . 10 1 . 10 1 . 10 1. . 10 1 . 10 1 . 10 1. 10 1 . 10 Adjustment Factors •Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap ( tg ) Time ( tf ) Left Turn Major Road 5 .50 2 . 10 Right Turn Minor Road 5 .50 2 .60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 .50 3 .30 Left Turn Minor Road 7 .00 2 .40 �|C5 � Vnei � nallzed Intersections, Release 2 ' 1d LIND19WP '1--ICO Page 2 WorkmheeL for lWSC lniersmotlon ---- ----' ------------ -Step 1 ".1 � RT from Minor Street WB EB ConflA.oCiny Flows: ( vp>-, ) 324 246 Potential Capa(�Jty : ( pcph \ 949 1039 Movement Capacity: ( poph ) 949 1039 Prob . of 0ueue-Free State : 0 .99 0 .89 ,Aop LT fr010 Major NB ConfUcting Flows: ( vph ) 648 491 Potential Gapauity. ( pcph ) 770 934 Movement ( pcph ` 770 934 Pr01-D . of 0veue-Free Stet 0 '98 0 '99 TH low 3400 3400 Flow Ro| � .. ( \'' php| ) 1700 1700 Ma -or LT Lmnp oF Oueu�-Fre* State " 0 .98 0 .98 Step "11-1 TH from Minor 6t'leei: WB EB Cnnflictioy Flows' ( vph ) 1162 1156 _. Potm`Lial Capacity: ( peph ) 228 230 Capa�ity Adjustment Faotm- due �o "Impeding MoVemenLa 0 .96 0 .96 Movement Capacity- ( poph ) 220 222 PrVID , of ()ueUe-Free State: 1 '00 0 .98 Step 4" LT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows- ( Vph ) 1150 1156 Potential Capacity : ( pnph ) 195 193 Major LT , Mhnnr TH Impedance FaoLor : 0 '95 0 .96 Ad ^Us-ted T.rnpedance Factor 0 ,96 0 .97 Capa.city Ad `uStment Fmoto'r due Lo Impeding Movements 0 .85 0 ,97 Movement Capacity: ( pcph ) 167 186 - ---- - ' - '- _-_--_--__' - - -__. -- - -- ___-- -_--_-______- - � ( J HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 . 1d L_IMD19WP .HCO Page 3 1n.Ler ect i.on Performance Summary Avg . '95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Pate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement. I ( pcph ) ( poph ) ( pcph )( s ec/veh ) ( veh ) ( sec/veh ) E:E3 L 100 186 .39 .3 2 .5 E LI:3 r 4 222 > 20 .6 LE3 R 113 1039 > 923 4 .5 0 .4 A WE3 L 0 167 21 .6 0 .0 D WB T 0 220 > 3 .8 L.JO R 6 949 > 949 3 .8 0 .0 A IdF3 1. 12 ,,:14 3 .9 0 .0 A 0 .. 1. `,13 I.. 1.4 /it) 1 .`z 0 .0 A 0 . 1. Intersection Delay -- 3 . 1 sec/veh HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 . 1d LINDBOEX .HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation W riiver it:.i' of Florida 512 Weil Hall • 6a i nes v.i. 1. l e . FL :32i 1.]. U�3 Ph: ( 904 ) 392 -03 3 Streets: ( N- S ) l. .i.nd ave sw ( E-W ) boe i ng access Major "ti et. Direction NS Length of l Time Analyzed 1.5 ( min ) Analyst . .. mjj Date of Analysis 3/23J98 Other 'information eyi.sting two -way Stop -controlled Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Ho . 1 .1.11,, 1 :, 0 2 < 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Stop r VoiuR,e 14 31.0 4'c3 12 95 F39 PFIF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 Grade C) 0 0 MC 's ( ' ) .;l.1JRV ( % ) CV "s ( % ) F'C:E 's 1 . 10 1 . 10 1 . 10 Adjustment Factors Vehich, Critical Follow--up Ma rneu.ve i Gap ( t..g ) rime ( t f ) left Turn Major Road 5 .50 2 . 10 Right [urn Minor Road 5 .50 2 .60 Through I r affic Minor Road 6 .50 3 .30 Left. turn Minor Road 7 .00 3 .40 ([J HCS : Unsigna.lized Intersections Release 2 . 1d LINDBOEX .HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC. Intersection Step ...�Pr from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flow.: ( vph ) 234. Potential Capacity : ( pcph ) 1054 Movement Capacity : ( pcph ) 1054 Prob . of Queue--Free State : 0 .90 Step 2 : LT From Major Street SB NB Conf.iic:.t.iilg Flows: ( vpl) ) 469 Potential a.l Capacity : ( pcph ) 960 Movement: Capacity : ( pcph ) 960 Prob ., of Queue--Free State: 0 .98 S",tep 4 : IT from M i rr<:,r Street WB EB C:onflicti. lg Flows: ( vph ) 804 Potential. Capacity : ( pcph ) 324 Major- t T , Minor TH Impedance Facto) : 0 .98 Adjusted Impedance Factor : 0 .98 Capacity Adjustment- Factor-. due to Impeding Movement-3 0 .98 Movement Capacity : ( pcph ) 318 Intersection Performance Summary Avg . 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement ( pcph ) ( pcph ) ( pcph )( 4 ec/veh ) ( veh ) ( sec/veh ) EB L 110 318 17 .2 1 .5 C 10 .7 EB R 103 1054 3 .8 0 .3 A NB t.. 17 `C,0 .3 0 C) A 0 .2 [ntel ,sect:ion Delay - 2 . 1 serr/veh t•IGS : Unsigna.l ized Intersections Release 2 . 1d LINDBOFU .HCO Page 1 Center For M.icrocompu.ters In Transportation Uni.vers.i.t. • of Florida 51.2 Weil Hall 1 Ga.i.rie v.i. .i _o , FL "3<'r: 1 .l 200_3 ph: ( 904 ) 392-0378 Streets : ( N S ) l i nd eve sw ( E-W ) booing access Major Street. Direction N5 Length of T irne Analyzed 15 ( min ) Analyst . .. mjj Date of Analysis 3/2:3/9l Other information 7000 w/o project. Iwo' way Stop controlled Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound I._ T R L 1' R L. T R L T R Ho . Lanes 1 2 0 0 2 ( 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 15 329 459 13 101 94 PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 Grade j 0 0 0 MO's ( % ) SU.J/RV ' ( i ) CV 's ( T ) PCF ' ; 1 . 10 I I 1 . 10 Adjust.rnent:. Factors Vehicle r.. -'.t Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap ( t9 ) Time ( tf ) Loft Turn Major Road 5 .50 2 . 10 Right lull) Minor Road 5 .50 2 .60 Through T affic Minor Road 6 .50 3 .30 Left. Turn Minor Road 7 .00 3 .40 ICI • t.Ian/oas tr' t' = X qe L(C T.:)es ialui ( ' o 0. t7 21 1 M V C 0 6' c: 60T ?.i 0] Z" ZT 0 8' T 6" 6T 96Z LTT 1 0] ( qan/oes ) ( tdac ) ( Wan/oas )( -4dod ) ( qdod ) ( gci.Dd ) llowr:mow XaTea Sal t.[46ual XeTaO dej dep a:1e`1 t.Ioao.tddd anano T elo j pa_teq eAON Mo [:J A vellimn5 aOUtJw.1Oj.. ed uoT JO=.7sJ.aiuj 96? ( I cJ3d ) :X To de "It.t:maAoN 86" 0 s Auawanow FiutI_?adu�i oa. anp Jo"Toe..:1 "Iu.tawAsnf py X roadeo 86' 0 : .to:oe j a:DUepadw j PagsnC'pV 86' 0 : .toloe j ta;: uep. dwj HI _tot.t l ` .1 I _to f N ZOS ( gd3d ) : Ai Toedep Te auaiod Z58 ( t.Idn ) csMoTj OTioTTi.uo3 8A UM A j tc,u (N tuo.t j .I. I : ► t:lo "I':ti 86- 0 . 3 eAs aaa.1_.ananil J ' c o.t<:J LZ6 ( tjdDd ) : XT} roede`} luawaAow LZ6 ( t_Idod ) :/:I T.:)ecJe3 lvTl ta':IOc:J L6tr ( qdn ) :SMoT:J 6uT oIIJuoO ON OS Aeons .torew wo.t j. .111 t Z dO':tS 68' 0 : a:}.e:}5 aa_t j-ananj Jo ' clo_t,j L.COT ( gdod ) :A Toede:) at.tawanoN LFOT. ( t..[dod ) : A Toede) "[t T:ivalod 80? ( t.Idn ) :sMoT j 6tt t } ) T J I_tO) 8A OM 1Iaa.t•:} 3 .touT}..a wo_t J. id : T dais t.toT loas_ta�t1T ::7��M.1. .tc.yj. :I,aa1G1 .tom Z __= _ M a6ed OOI�' f1dO8aNIl PT ' ? aseaTa J sUo'r�}Jas i a':}ux pazT Teu6Tsun : 50H 01 HCS : Unsi.gnalized Intersections Release 2 . 1d LINDBOWP .HCO Page 1 Center for Microcomputers In Transportation University of Flor'.ida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville , FL. 326 1 1--208.3 Ph: ( 904 ) 392-0378 Sti eet.s: ( N-S ) .l i nd ave sw ( F-W ) boe i ng access Majo-i Street Direction NS Length of Time Analyzed 15 ( min ) Analyst. . mjj Date of Analysis 3/23/98 Other Information 2000 w/ project. lwo -wa; 5 _op- controlled Intersection Northbound 5outhbound Eastbound Westbound L I R L. T R L T R L T R Ho . I.:)rre: : 1 2 0 0 2 < 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 `,t(--)p/'r' ;i Old N N Volume:, 25 330 468 20 133 144 PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .` 5 .95 Grade 0 0 0 MC 's ( % ) SU/RV "S ( TO CV 's ( a ) PC 1.... "_: ) . 10 1 . 10 1 . 10 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap ( tg ) Time ( tf ) left Turn Major Road 5 .50 2 . 10 Right lurtr Minor Road 5 .50 2 .60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 .50 3 .30 Loft TUtr n Minor Road 7 .00 3 .40 (IV FMCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 . id L_INDBOWP .HCO Page 2 Wor ksheet. for TWSC intersection Step 1 : Rr from Minor Street:, WB EB Corifli,is l i. ny Flows : ( vph ) 257 Potential Capacity : ( pcph ) 1026 Movement Capacity: ( pcph ) 102E Prob . of Queue-Free State: 0 .84 Step : Li- from Major Street SB NB Confli(_ti.nq Flows: ( vph ) 514 Potential Capacity : ( pcph ) 908 Movement. Capacity : ( pcph ) 908 Prob of Ql.Pue?-.Fr-ee ;1;.=r1. : 0 .97 Step 4 : I 1 from om Minor Sti s-,e1 WB EB Conflict t i. irg Flows : ( vph ) 876 Potential Capacity : ( pcp h ) 292 Major LT , Minor TH Impedance Factor : 0 .97 Adjusted Impedance Factor : 0 .97 Capacity Adjustment Factor duo to I npedin J Movernento 0 .97 Movemer,t capacity : (pc ph ) 283 Intersection Performance Summary Avg . 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement I ( pcph ) ( pcph ) ( pcph )( sec/veh ) ( veh ) ( sec/veh ) CB L 154 283 26 .9 2 .9 D 15 . 1 F B R 167 1026 4 .2 0 .6 A NB t_ 29 90E3 4 . I. 0 .0 A 0 .3 InterseL t.ion Delay -- :3 .8 sec/veld TRAFFICOUNT Site Code : RENTON, WA. PAGE: 1 : LIND AVENUE S.W. FILE: TP0758MP : S.W. 19TH STREET Movements by: Primary DATE: 3/16/98 ime .... From East .... ... . From South .... .... From West .. .. ..., From North .... Vehicle TRUCK .gin TRUCK RT THRU LT TRUCK RT THRU LT TRUCK RT THRU LT TRUCK RT THRU LT Total Total 1:00 PM 0 1 0 0 2 0 185 3 1 8 0 16 9 2 165 2 382 12 1:15 0 2 0 1 8 0 138 2 1 8 1 11 4 2 110 1 276 13 4:30 0 1 0 0 4 0 197 1 0 31 3 12 4 1 136 2 384 8 4:45 0 2 0 0 10 0 213 3 0 6 0 16 4 4 121 3 368 14 TOTAL 0 6 0 1 24 0 733 9 2 53 4 55 21 9 532 8 1410 47 5:00 PM 0 2 0 0 6 1 198 3 0 2 0 6 12 0 174 4 390 18 5:15 0 0 0 0 4 0 135 0 1 6 0 16 4 1 131 2 291 9 5:30 0 0 0 0 5 0 114 2 0 5 1 8 7 2 99 0 231 12 5:45 0 1 0 0 6 0 92 0 0 2 2 10 5 1 86 1 195 11 "., TOTAL 0 3 0 0 21 1 539 5 1 15 3 40 28 4 490 7 1107 50 iY TOTAL 0 9 0 1 45 1 1272 14 3 68 7 95 49 13 1022 15 2517 97 PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM DIRECTION START PEAK HR VOLUMES PERCENTS FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR TRUCK Right Thru Left Total TRUCK Right Thru Left East 4:15 PM 0.67 0 7 0 1 8 - 88 0 12 South 4:15 PM 0.88 28 1 746 9 756 - 0 99 1 West 4:00 PM 0.61 2 53 4 55 112 - 47 4 49 North 4:30 PM 0.81 24 6 562 11 579 - 1 97 2 Entire Intersection East 4:30 PM 0.63 0 5 0 0 5 - %100 0 0 South 0.87 24 1 743 7 751 - 0 99 1 West 0.53 1 45 3 50 98 - 46 3 51 North 0.81 24 6 562 11 579 - 1 97 2 TRAFFICOUNT site Code : RENTON, WA. PAGE: 1 : LIND AVENUE S.W. FILE: TP0758MP S.W. 19TH STREET . Movements by: Primary DATE: 3/16/98 PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM DIRECTION START PEAK HR VOLUMES PERCENTS FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR TRUCK Right Thru Left Total TRUCK Right Thru Left East 4:15 PM 0.67 0 7 0 1 8 - 88 0 12 South 4:15 PM 0.88 28 1 746 9 756 - 0 99 1 West 4:00 PM 0.61 2 53 4 55 112 - 47 4 49 North 4:30 PM 0.81 24 6 562 11 579 - 1 97 2 • Entire Intersection East 4:30 PM 0.63 0 5 0 0 5 - %100 0 0 South 0.87 24 1 743 7 751 - 0 99 1 West 0.53 1 45 3 50 98 - 46 3 51 North 0.81 24 6 562 11 579 - 1 97 2 S .W. 19TH STREET U4aE W '}:V%:4'::::::4':tititi tiY.;;Ks;:V:ti ti [TRUCK] 0 5 0 0 ... 24 [TRUCK] 5 1 :,..,..;,....,...i„.„„;......................,....„....„.i.0„,„„„ :::::::::.,::.:.;:,:ii:::;.:::imimiri:i:i:...*i:if:*:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::...,„: r uaii...i ` LINT) AVENUE S .W. 751 743 11 L 7 562 579 LIND AVENUE S .W. r':'1•:':Yti {:{:.•. :::::::::::.:..:..tiy'r}'r,':N:tiy:ti:ryY,v,:}vN:?i}:tiff}ti rV:.V.:..:r:::.V:.hY.LY•....„.Y:....hV.4W:::h!.Y::Y::ti .................................... [TRUCK] 2 4 >'..>.>: � ,, :`�,.<:?3 5 0 3 4 5 1 [TRUCK] Y.Y:•..•rnu&rti':ti•}:1•:':Y:•:•'rX•:Lti•r'}.Y:V:: .................................... .................................... .................................... .................................... .................................... .................................... gft S .W. 19TH STREET TRAFFICOUNT ite Code : RENTON, WA. PAGE: 1 : LIND AVENUE S.W. FILE: TP0758WP : BOEING DRIVEWAY Movements by: Primary DATE: 3/16/98 Time .... From East .... .... From South . ... .... From West .... .... From North .... Vehicle TRUCK ?gin TRUCK RT THRU LT TRUCK RT THRU LT TRUCK RT THRU LT TRUCK RT THRU LT Total Total 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 2 0 162 5 0 30 0 32 7 4 165 0 398 9 4:15 0 0 0 0 7 0 116 4 0 22 0 22 4 3 116 0 283 11 1:30 0 0 0 0 2 0 179 3 0 29 0 18 4 3 155 0 387 6 4:45 0 0 0 0 8 0 162 2 0 8 0 23 2 2 141 0 338 10 HR TOTAL 0 0 0 0 19 0 619 14 0 89 0 95 17 12 577 0 1406 36 i:00 PM 0 0 0 0 6 0 178 2 0 17 0 17 9 3 161 0 378 15 5:15 0 0 0 0 4 0 114 1 0 4 0 23 4 2 141 0 285 8 5:30 0 0 0 0 4 0 105 2 0 13 0 13 6 1 102 0 236 10 5:45 0 0 0 0 6 0 83 1 0 8 0 10 4 2 87 0 191 10 nR TOTAL 0 0 0 0 20 0 480 6 0 42 0 63 23 8 491 0 1090 43 tY TOTAL 0 0 0 0 39 0 1099 20 0 131 0 158 40 20 1068 0 2496 79 PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM DIRECTION START PEAK HR VOLUMES PERCENTS FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR TRUCK Right Thru Left Total TRUCK Right Thru Left East 12:00 AM 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 South 4:15 PM 0.89 23 0 635 11 646 - 0 98 2 West 4:00 PM 0.74 0 89 0 95 184 - 48 0 52 North 4:30 PM 0.93 19 10 598 0 608 - 2 98 0 Entire Intersection East 4:00 PM 0,00 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 South 0.87 19 0 619 14 633 - 0 98 2 West 0.74 0 89 0 95 184 - 48 0 52 North 0.87 17 12 577 0 589 - 2 98 0 e<' TRAFFICOUNT Site Code : RENTON, WA. PAGE: 1 LIND AVENUE S.W. FILE; TP0758WP : BOEING DRIVEWAY Movements by: Primary DATE: 3/16/98 PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM DIRECTION START PEAK HR VOLUMES PERCENTS FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR TRUCK Right Thru Left Total TRUCK Right Thru Left East 12:00 AM 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 South 4:15 PM 0.89 23 0 635 11 646 - 0 98 2 West 4:00 PM 0.74 0 89 0 95 184 - 48 0 52 North 4:30 PM 0.93 19 10 598 0 608 - 2 98 0 Entire Intersection East 4:00 PM 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 South 0.87 19 0 619 14 633 - 0 98 2 West 0.74 0 89 0 95 184 - 48 0 52 North 0.87 17 12 577 0 589 - 2 98 0 BOEING DRIVEWAY 40E N—+—S EINOWAlk lea&kplf! [TRUCK] 0 0 0 0 ffff..... .. ......... ... . 19 [TRUCK] 0 0 q:e.: r s ti t•:.•:.•::714 ;;tiff LIND AVENUE S .W. 633 619 0 14 577 589 LIND AVENUE S .W. HE ffffff 4 ��h•:tiQ}}}}}}.titititi J 12 184 .................................... ['.TRUCK] 17 BEgaggggga 95 0 89 0 [TRUCK] uggRogEEmi MaAggzown BOEING DRIVEWAY TRAFFICOUNT SIGNAL WARRANT EVALUATION SIGNAL WARRANT COUNT. DATE: 3/17/98 BY: J LINDSAY LOCATION: RENTON, WA. MAJOR ST: LIND AVENUE S.W. LANES 2 SPEED: 35 MINOR ST: S.W. 19TH STREET LANES 1 SPEED: 25 TIME MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MINOR MINOR MINOR TOTAL WARRANT 1 EVALUATION WARRANT 2 EVALUATION INTERVAL LEG LEG LEG LEG LEG LEG ALL NB SB TOTAL EB WB MAX LEGS MAIN MINOR TOTAL MAIN MINOR TOTAL APPR APPR APPR APPR 00-0100 37 35 72 21 0 21 93 12% 14% 13% 8% 28% 15% 01-0200 42 29 71 0 0 0 71 12% 0% 8% 8% 0% 5% 02-0300 23 34 57 3 1 3 60 10% 2% 7% 6% 4% 6% 03-0400 19 17 36 4 0 4 40 6% 3% 5% 4% 5% 4% 04-0500 38 63 101 3 3 3 104 17% 2% 12% 11% 4% 9% 05-0600 176 239 415 22 16 22 437 69% 15% 51% 46% 29% 41% 06-0700 309 439 748 13 19 19 767 125% 13% 71% 83% 25% 64% 07-0800 472 622 1094 24 17 24 1118 'l 182% 16% 72% 122% 32% 77% 08-0900 353 392 745 23 6 23 768 124% 15% 72% 83% 31% 65% 09-1000 345 345 690 21 17 21 711 115% 14% 71% 77% 28% 60% 10-1100 379 332 711 48 14 48 759 119% 32% 77% 79% 64% 74% 11-1200 508 425 933 84 13 84 -t 1017 7 156% 56% 85% 104% 112% 100% 12-1300 476 489 965 68 14 68 1033 ( 161% 45% 82% 107% 91% 97% 13-1400 370 417 787 36 8 36 823 S' 131% 24% 75% 87% 48% 74% 14-1500 525 469 994 87 11 87 3 1081 S. 166% 58% 86% 110%- 116% 100% 15-1600 731 576 1307 92 9 92 'L 1399 2- 218% 61% 87% 145% 123% 100% 16-1700 744 637 1381 117 6 117 / 1498 ° 230% 78% 93% 153% 156% 100% 17-1800 581 501 1082 59 11 59 1141 :3 180% 39% 80% 120% 79% 93% 18-1900 217 198 415 31 3 31 446 69% 21% 53% 46% 41% 45% 19-2000 128 86 214 14 2 14 228 36% 9% 27% 24% 19% 22% 20-2100 48 41 89 6 2 6 95 15% 4% 11% 10% 8% 9% 21-2200 42 64 106 3 0 3 109 18% 2% 12% 12% 4% 9% 22-2300 56 60 116 2 0 2 118 19% 1% 13% 13% 3% 9% 23-2400 47 30 77 2 0 2 79 13% 1% 9% 9% 3% 7% TOTAL 6666 6540 13206 783 172 789 13995 0 4 WARRANT 1 MINIMUM VOLUME NO WARRANT 2 INTERRUPTION OF FLOW - - NO (4) ITE CODE : RENTON, WA. TRAFFICOUNT PAGE: 1 : LIND AVENUE S.W. 8/0 FILE: TP082846 : S.W. 19TH STREET : NORTHBOUND DATE: 3/16/98 TIME MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY WEEKDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY WEEK "EGIN 16 17 18 19 20 AVERAGE 21 22 AVERAGE _2:00 AM * 37 36 32 34 34 34 18 31 1:00 * 42 25 20 29 29 21 12 24 2:00 * 23 22 21 32 24 56 8 27 3:00 * 19 13 18 6 14 9 11 12 1:00 * 38 30 28 36 33 9 8 24 5:00 * 176 96 78 105 113 33 34 87 5:00 * 309 177 124 194 201 32 13 141 1:00 * 472 265 228 294 314 44 44 224 8:00 * 353 353 262 383 337 72 29 242 9:00 * 345 357 367 490 389 56 50 277 1:00 * 379 378 356 653 441 82 74 320 1:00 * 508 571 610 574 565 130 65 409 12:00 PM ' 476 484 506 509 493 95 68 356 1:00 * 370 379 453 465 416 111 97 312 2:00 575 525 553 576 551 556 103 89 424 3:00 681 731 675 773 692 710 112 103 538 4:00 744 744 724 692 681 717 97 74 536 5:00 548 581 576 571 480 551 71 77 414 5:00 208 217 237 238 209 221 98 81 184 1:00 101 128 119 106 99 110 53 51 93 8:00 69 48 69 73 84 68 20 30 56 1:00 49 42 54 46 59 50 41 28 45 1:00 57 56 47 45 43 49 22 21 41 11:00 53 47 46 61 53 52 16 23 42 )TALS 3085 6666 6286 6284 6755 6487 1417 1108 4859 o AVG WKDAY 47.6 102.8 96.9 96.9 104.1 e AVG DAY 63.5 137.2 129.4 129.3 139.0 29.2 22.8 A PEAK HR * 11:00 11:00 11:00 10:00 11:00 11:00 10:00 11:00 VOLUME * 508 571 610 653 565 130 74 409 4 PEAK HR 4:00 4:00 4:00 3:00 3:00 4:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 VOLUME 744 744 724 773 692 717 112 103 538 TB CODE : RENTON, WA. TRAFFICOUNT PAGE: 1 : LIND AVENUE S.W. S/0 FILE: TP082846 : S.W. 19TH STREET : NORTHBOUND DATE: 3/16/98 ME MONDAY -16 TUESDAY -17 WEDNESDAY -18 Daily Average D1GIN AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM :00 * * 9 122 10 133 9 127 :15 * * 15 111 12 128 13 119 12:30 * " 8 124 8 124 8 124 12:45 * * 5 119 6 99 5 109 :00 * * 22 78 11 93 16 85 :15 * * 5 90 3 91 4 90 1:30 * * 6 108 4 119 5 113 1:45 * * 9 94 7 76 8 85 :00 * 149 6 115 6 116 6 126 :15 * 116 7 93 7 116 7 108 2:30 * 169 4 199 6 198 5 188 2:45 * 141 6 118 3 123 4 127 :00 * 187 4 184 2 161 3 177 :15 * 135 3 137 1 138 2 136 3:30 * 220 6 239 8 227 7 228 3:45 * 139 6 171 2 149 4 153 :00 * 186 5 180 3 193 4 186 :15 * 146 8 156 8 144 8 148 4:30 * 192 11 208 11 197 11 199 4:45 * 220 14 200 8 190 11 203 :00 * 203 18 202 11 181 14 195 :15 * 131 34 165 16 171 25 155 5:30 * 119 55 133 28 129 41 127 5:45 * 95 69 81 41 95 55 90 :00 * 76 55 80 36 66 45 74 :15 * 44 74 55 42 74 58 57 6:30 * 46 78 40 37 47 57 44 g:45 * 42 102 42 62 50 82 44 :00 * 23 114 42 52 43 83 36 :15 * 37 127 32 65 20 96 29 7:30 * 21 105 33 65 29 85 27 1:45 * 20 126 21 83 27 104 22 :00 * 17 92 16 84 18 88 17 :15 * 15 79 5 77 18 78 12 8:30 * 16 85 11 92 23 88 16 °:45 * 21 97 16 100 10 98 15 :00 * 11 88 8 65 11 76 10 :15 * 13 89 7 95 16 92 12 9:30 * 11 80 16 95 12 87 13 1:45 * 14 88 11 102 15 95 13 1:00 * 14 91 23 88 21 89 19 _J:15 * 9 107 8 109 7 108 8 10:30 * 21 85 22 88 11 86 18 '1:45 * 13 96 3 93 8 94 8 .:00 * 9 127 11 127 13 127 11 ::15 * 14 115 15 171 11 143 13 11:30 * 22 160 15 150 17 155 18 -".:45 * 8 106 6 123 5 114 6 JTALS * 3085 3084 2701 3965 6666 2323 3963 6286 2503 3940 64 PEAK HOUR * 4:15 11:00 4:30 11:00 4:30 11:00 4:30 --1LUME * 761 508 775 571 739 539 752 H.F. * 0.86 0.79 0.93 0.83 0.94 0.87 0.93 TE CODE : RENTON, WA. TRAFFICOUNT PAGE: 2 : LIND AVENUE S.W. S/0 FILE: TP082846 S.W. 19TH STREET : NORTHBOUND DATE: 3/19/98 ME THURSDAY -19 FRIDAY -20 SATURDAY -21 Daily Average oiGIN AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM :00 7 126 8 154 8 29 7 103 :15 12 142 7 116 8 17 9 91 1A:30 9 119 11 135 7 15 9 89 12:45 4 119 8 104 11 34 7 85 :00 11 116 12 112 5 33 9 87 :15 3 98 5 111 5 26 4 78 1:30 3 124 8 140 6 24 5 96 1:45 3 115 4 102 5 28 4 81 :00 4 144 4 144 2 37 3 108 :15 7 103 16 102 35 24 19 76 2:30 5 182 7 170 5 26 5 126 2:45 5 147 5 135 14 16 8 99 :00 3 200 2 188 3 37 2 141 :15 6 155 2 158 3 24 3 112 3:30 8 257 2 201 0 31 3 163 1:45 1 161 0 145 3 20 1 108 :00 3 190 9 184 3 24 5 132 :15 5 145 4 157 3 34 4 112 4:30 7 197 14 182 2 26 7 135 A:45 13 160 9 158 1 13 7 110 :00 23 192 19 166 4 26 15 128 :15 13 188 21 144 6 13 13 115 5:30 18 108 27 101 6 10 17 73 ,:45 24 83 38 69 17 22 26.. 58 :00 20 63 35 68 4 36 19 55 :15 19 59 30 53 9 21 19 44 6:30 37 61 72 52 11 27 40 46 ':45 48 55 57 36 8 14 37 35 :00 49 39 63 38 10 13 40 30 :15 68 24 79 25 16 16 54 21 7:30 53 26 69 13 9 15 43 18 °:45 58 17 83 23 9 9 50 16 :00 61 19 . 96 27 12 6 56 17 :15 44 18 100 18 18 6 54 14 8:30 74 22 96 21 18 4 62 15 ":45 83 14 91 18 24 4 66 12 :00 103 13 85 16 9 7 65 12 :15 96 11 136 13 17 12 83 12 9:30 88 10 95 14 12 13 65 12 ':45 80 12 174 16 18 9 90 12 1:00 101 14 178 19 12 6 97 13 1:15 83 8 181 10 19 5 94 7 10:30 80 14 191 6 18 6 96 8 "":45 92 9 103 8 33 5 76 7 :00 148 14 133 14 41 3 107 10 —:15 155 18 153 20 31 7 113 15 11:30 163 23 160 11 26 1 116 11 :45 144 6 128 8 32 5 101 6 1,JTALS 2144 4140 6284 2830 3925 6755 578 839 1417 1835 2954 47 PEAK HOUR 11:00 3:00 9:45 3:00 10:45 12:45 11:00 3:00 'LUME 610 773 724 692 131 117 437 524 H.F. 0.94 0.75 0.95 0.86 0.80 0.86 0.94 0.80 QV fE CODE : RENTON, WA, TRAFFICOUNT PAGE: 3 : LIND AVENUE S.W. S/0 FILE: TP082846 : S.W. 19TH STREET : NORTHBOUND DATE: 3/22/98 TIME SUNDAY -22 MONDAY -23 TUESDAY -24 Daily Average ° SIN AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM :00 4 23 * * * * 4 23 12:15 8 14 * * * * 8 14 '130 4 16 * * * * 4 16 :45 2 15 * * * * 2 15 :00 5 20 * * * * 5 20 1:15 2 25 * * * * 2 25 ' :30 5 26 * * * * 5 26 :45 0 26 * * * * 0 26 :00 1 23 * * * * 1 23 2:15 1 21 * * * * 1 21 ':30 3 22 * * * * 3 22 :45 3 23 * * * * 3 23 _:00 5 26 * * * * 5 26 3:15 0 30 * * * * 0 30 ":30 1 31 * * * * 1 31 :45 5 16 * ' + * 5 16 .:00 3 15 * * * ' 3 15 4:15 1 21 * * * ' 1 21 •:30 2 20 * * A * 2 20 :45 2 18 * * ' * 2 18 .,:00 11 13 * ' * * 11 13 5:15 7 31 ' * * * 7 31 -:30 8 20 A * * * 8 20 :45 8 13 * ' t t 8- 13 �:00 4 34 * * + ' 4 34 6:15 1 18 * * * * 1 18 -:30 1 16 * * ' * 1 16 :45 7 13 * * * * 7 13 ,:00 14 20 * * ' * 14 20 7:15 12 10 * # ' * 12 10 :30 10 11 t * * * 10 11 :45 8 10 * ' * * 8 10 0:00 7 8 * * A } 7 8 8:15 10 6 * * * ' 10 6 :30 3 7 A * * * 3 7 :45 9 9 * * ' ' 9 9 ':00 13 12 * * * ' 13 12 9:15 12 8 * * * * 12 8 :30 10 7 A * ' # 10 7 :45 15 1 * * ' * 15 1 iu:00 15 6 * * * * 15 6 10:15 25 3 ' * * * 25 3 :30 16 6 * * * ' 16 6 :45 18 6 ' * ' * 18 6 ii:00 15 9 * * * * 15 9 11:15 18 3 * * t ' 18 3 :30 17 8 * * * A 17 8 :45 15 3 A A it } 15 3 TOTALS 366 742 1108 * * -2 * * -2 366 742 11 AK HOUR 10:00 2:45 * * f * 10:00 2:45 LUME 74 110 * A # * 74 110 P,H.F. 0.74 0.89 * * * * 0.74 0.89 q CB CODE : RENTON, WA. TRAFFICOUNT PAGE: 1 : LIND AVENUE S.W. N/0 FILE: TP082839 : S.W. 19TH STREET : SOUTHBOUND DATE: 3/16/98 iiME MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY WEEKDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY WEEK BEGIN 16 17 18 19 20 AVERAGE 21 22 AVERAGE :00 AM * 35 48 45 30 39 23 16 32 1:00 * 29 25 31 30 28 40 13 28 2:00 * 34 28 31 25 29 30 9 26 :00 * 17 16 13 19 16 12 13 15 :00 t 63 66 55 69 63 28 14 49 5:00 * 239 229 208 206 220 33 26 156 g:00 * 439 464 484 427 453 50 48 318 :00 * 622 579 606 561 592 77 24 411 :00 * 392 403 408 423 406 65 37 288 9:00 * 345 349 311 369 343 76 47 249 in:00 * 332 327 314 421 348 115 50 259 :00 * 425 426 470 488 452 122 69 333 12:00 PM * 489 566 608 544 551 123 78 401 1 :00 * 417 406 501 489 453 141 97 341 :00 446 469 447 470 528 472 131 100 370 :00 582 576 562 614 611 589 132 88 452 4:00 549 637 571 636 642 607 92 57 454 ':00 505 501 485 493 493 495 73 63 373 :00 204 198 242 196 178 203 60 62 162 :00 66 86 91 86 89 83 45 43 72 8:00 50 41 69 63 64 57 33 24 49 n:00 42 64 67 41 64 55 36 29 49 :00 64 60 76 57 41 59 26 35 51 :00 34 30 35 40 35 34 23 13 30 "TALS 2542 6540 6577 6781 6846 6647 1586 1055 4968 AVG WKDAY 38.2 98.4 98.9 102.0 103.0 % AVG DAY 51.2 131.6 132.4 136.5 137.8 31.9 21.2 PEAK HR * 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 11:00 11:00 7:00 VOLUME * 622 579 606 561 592 122 69 411 PEAK HR 3:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 1:00 2:00 4:00 —LUME 582 637 571 636 642 607 141 100 454 Z6) „,.TE CODE : RENTON, WA. TRAFFICOUNT PAGE: 1 : LIND AVENUE S.W. N/0 FILE: TP082839 : S.W. 19TH STREET : SOUTHBOUND DATE: 3/16/98 TIME MONDAY -16 TUESDAY -17 WEDNESDAY -18 Daily Average 3IN AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM LL:00 * * 16 110 15 147 15 128 12:15 * * 9 129 7 134 8 131 :30 * * 7 122 13 137 10 129 :45 * * 3 128 13 148 8 138 1:00 * * 11 112 10 114 10 113 1:15 t * 4 93 4 110 4 101 :30 * * 5 105 4 90 4 97 :45 * * 9 107 7 92 8 99 2:00 * 95 6 101 13 90 9 95 2:15 * 113 4 106 4 116 4 111 :30 * 114 20 138 9 116 14 122 :45 * 124 4 124 2 125 3 124 3:00 * 135 7 164 0 149 3 149 1:15 * 143 2 121 1 135 1 133 :30 * 163 1 181 9 157 5 167 :45 * 141 7 110 6 121 6 124 4:00 * 169 6 163 2 180 4 170 4:15 * 114 5 171 19 111 12 132 :30 * 139 20 153 13 159 16 150 :45 * 127 32 150 32 121 32 132 5:00 * 175 27 157 28 162 27 164 5:15 * 137 60 159 49 139 54 145 :30 * 103 59 104 65 116 62 107 :45 * 90 93 81 87 68 90- 79 6:00 * 78 • 73 73 99 82 86 77 6:15 * 55 124 57 105 86 114 66 :30 * 35 100 33 103 44 101 37 :45 * 36 142 35 157 30 149 33 7:00 * 26 162 37 139 19 150 27 7:15 * 12 130 20 129 28 129 20 :30 * 17 171 14 159 26 165 19 :45 * 11 159 15 152 18 155 14 8:00 * 15 108 8 111 25 109 16 °:15 * 15 108 19 103 20 105 18 :30 * 11 91 8 98 10 94 9 :45 * 9 85 6 91 14 88 9 9:00 * 14 96 16 95 13 95 14 °:15 * 9 67 19 65 25 66 17 :30 * 13 87 14 87 19 87 15 :45 * 6 95 15 102 10 98 10 10:00 * 21 91 19 91 21 91 20 ":15 * 16 75 17 83 16 79 16 :30 * 15 95 5 62 16 78 12 :45 * 12 71 19 91 23 81 18 11:00 * 6 86 11 90 9 88 8 " :15 * 7 101 2 102 13 101 7 :30 * 10 116 3 102 10 109 7 __:45 * 11 122 14 132 3 127 9 m"TALS * 2542 2541 2972 3568 6540 2960 3617 6577 2954 3538 64 AK HOUR * 3:15 7:00 4:00 6:45 3:15 7:00 3:15 ..,LUME * 616 622 637 584 593 599 594 P.H.F. * 0.91 0.91 0.93 0.92 0.82 0.91 0.87 L ' , i E CODE : RENTON, WA. TRAFFICOUNT PAGE: 2 / : LIND AVENUE S.W. N/0 FILE: TP082839 : S.W. 19TH STREET : SOUTHBOUND DATE: 3/19/98 1E THURSDAY -19 FRIDAY -20 SATURDAY -21 Daily Average BEGIN AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 00 9 154 7 131 12 25 9 103 15 10 167 12 129 3 34 8 110 12:30 18 145 8 156 7 26 11 109 '^,45 8 142 3 128 1 38 4 102 00 9 127 8 152 5 41 7 106 _:15 4 118 4 128 9 32 5 92 1:30 6 127 4 88 13 26 7 80 ' :45 12 129 14 121 13 42 13 97 00 7 114 3 108 9 33 6 85 :15 1 97 8 125 1 36 3 86 2:30 16 116 10 150 13 32 13 99 ":45 7 143 4 145 7 30 6 106 :00 1 168 4 142 1 32 2 114 ,:15 5 155 2 153 1 34 2 114 3:30 5 158 8 166 6 39 6 121 ":45 2 133 5 150 4 27 3 103 :00 7 183 3 167 1 27 3 125 .:15 7 138 13 152 6 24 8 104 4:30 15 173 16 163 8 24 13 120 :45 26 142 37 160 13 17 25 106 :00 24 160 25 163 4 26 17 116 .,:15 51 139 51 156 5 17 35 104 5:30 61 113 58 104 11 10 43 75 :45 72 81 72 70 13 20 52 57 :00 87 81 82 56 18 16 62 51 u:15 135 54 89 45 9 14 77 37 6:30 117 32 113 34 11 12 80 26 :45 145 29 143 43 12 18 100 30 :00 142 23 147 24 19 18 102 21 i:15 164 23 130 26 18 10 104 19 7:30 149 18 153 24 16 10 106 17 :45 151 22 131 15 24 7 102 14 :00 120 17 115 12 14 13 83 14 n:15 107 19 99 21 16 8 74 16 8:30 80 15 109 17 20 7 69 13 :45 101 12 100 14 15 5 72 10 :00 67 10 72 13 28 7 55 10 :15 81 9 102 15 14 6 65 10 9:30 75 10 76 15 18 16 56 13 :45 88 12 119 21 16 7 74 13 :00 87 19 110 10 28 9 75 12 iu:15 69 14 95 9 33 8 65 10 10:30 76 11 108 17 28 4 70 10 :45 82 13 108 5 26 5 72 7 :00 109 13 114 13 28 5 83 10 11:15 102 12 129 7 25 2 85 7 11:30 129 4 119 7 31 8 93 6 :45 130 11 126 8 38 8 98 9 TOTALS 2976 3805 6781 3068 3778 6846 671 915 1586 2223 2819 50 PRAK HOUR 7:00 4:00 6:45 4:00 11:00 1:45 7:00 3:15 LUME 606 636 573 642 122 143 414 463 H.F. 0.92 0.87 0.94 0.96 0.80 0.85 0.98 0.93 2 CODE : RENTON, WA. TRAFFICOUNT PAGE: 3 : 22 AVENUE £% Nn FILE: TP082839 : £% 19TH STREET : gR9gg DATE: 3/22/98 # SUNDAY -22 MONDAY -23 TUESDAY -24 Daily Average • IN AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM :00 3 18 * * * * 3 18 :15 5 19 * * * * 5 19 .,:10 6 19 * * * * 6 19 12:45 2 22 * * * * 2 22 :00 1 23 * * * * 1 23 :15 0 18 * * * * 0 18 1:30 6 31 * * * * 6 31 1:45 6 25 * * * * 6 25 :00 4 23 * * * * 4 23 :15 0 31 * * * * 0 31 z:30 5 19 * * * * 5 19 2:45 0 27 * * * * 0 27 :00 0 27 * * * * 0 27 :15 1 28 * * * * 1 28 ,:30 1 16 * * * * 1 16 3:45 11 17 * * * * 11 17 :00 0 14 * * * * 0 14 :15 2 12 * * * * 2 12 4:30 5 12 * * * * 5 12 4:45 7 19 * * * * 7 19 :00 4 14 * * * * 4 14 :15 10 19 * * * * 10 19 5:30 4 10 * * * * 4 10 5:45 8 20 * * * * 8- 20 :00 7 12 * * * * 7 12 :15 11 19 * * * * 11 19 6:30 14 18 * * * * 14 18 6:45 16 13 * * * * 16 13 :00 3 20 * * * * 3 20 :15 3 12 * * * * 3 12 7:30 9 9 * * * * 9 9 1:45 9 2 * * * * 9 2 :00 7 3 * * * * 7 3 :15 7 7 * * * * 7 7 8:30 14 8 * * * * 14 8 0:45 9 6 * * * * 9 6 :00 17 8 * * * * 17 8 :15 7 8 * * * * 7 8 9:30 10 5 * * * * 10 5 `:45 13 8 * * * * 13 8 :00 14 7 * * * * 14 7 :15 13 6 * * * * 13 6 10:30 11 9 * * * * 11 9 in:45 12 13 * * * * 12 13 :00 20 1 * * * * 20 1 :15 17 9 * * * * 17 9 11:30 16 0 * * * * 16 0 ":45 16 3 * * * * 16 3 TAS 366 689 1055 * * -2 * * -2 366 689 10 PEAK HOUR 11:00 1:30 * * * * 11:00 1:30 .."LUME 69 110 * * * * 69 110 H.F. 0.86 0.89 * * * * 0.86 0.89 (1 ) fE CODE : RENTON, WA. TRAFFICOUNT PAGE: 1 S.W. 19TH STREET W/0 FILE: TP082838 LIND AVENUE S.W. : EASTBOUND DATE: 3/16/98 TIME MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY WEEKDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY WEEK °CSIN 16 17 18 19 20 AVERAGE 21 22 AVERAGE 00 AM * 21 2 26 12 20 0 0 13 1:00 * 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 '00 * 3 0 2 1 1 1 1 00 * 4 4 3 3 1 1 2 00 * 3 5 4 4 0 0 2 5:00 * 22 1 17 14 17 2 0 12 00 * 13 1 16 16 15 3 1 10 00 * 24 2 22 18 21 4 2 15 00 * 23 3 34 25 28 1 0 19 9:00 * 21 3 29 31 28 7 1 20 '":00 * 48 4 63 39 48 0 3 32 ;00 * 84 7 105 71 83 3 3 56 12:00 PM * 68 6 60 56 61 12 7 44 ' 00 * 36 4 44 41 42 9 3 30 00 89 87 9 125 108 101 9 5 74 :00 94 92 9 102 107 97 5 4 71 4:00 98 117 10 104 56 96 4 3 70 ' ;00 56 59 5 72 37 55 4 3 40 00 26 31 2 30 25 28 2 2 20 .:00 5 14 1 9 4 8 0 1 6 8:00 4 6 9 6 6 2 2 5 00 7 3 15 5 7 1 5 6 00 2 2 5 0 2 0 1 1 -.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 -"T1LS 382 783 786 896 682 771 70 48 549 AVG WKDAY 49.5 101.6 101.9 116.2 88.5 % AVG DAY 69.6 142.6 143.2 163.2 124.2 12.8 8.7 AN PEAK HR * 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 VOLUME * 84 74 105 71 83 7 3 56 PEAK HR 4:00 4:00 4:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 12:00 12:00 2:00 vvi,UME 98 117 108 125 108 101 12 7 74 'E CODE : RENTON, WA. TRAFFICOUNT PAGE: 1 : S.W. 19TH STREET WHO FILE: TP082838 : LIND AVENUE S.W. : EASTBOUND DATE: 3/16/98 JAE MONDAY -16 TUESDAY -17 WEDNESDAY -18 Daily Average BEGIN AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 00 * * 1 21 0 21 0 21 ii:15 * * 0 14 0 16 0 15 12:30 * * 18 16 22 13 20 14 45 * * 2 17 2 12 2 14 00 * * 0 7 0 12 0 9 i:15 * * 0 9 0 13 0 11 1:30 * * 0 9 0 16 0 12 :45 * * 0 11 1 8 0 9 :00 * 14 0 16 0 16 0 15 z:15 * 13 0 10 1 19 0 14 2:30 * 47 0 50 0 46 0 47 :45 * 15 3 11 0 15 1 13 00 * 23 0 20 0 17 0 20 3:15 * 17 1 21 1 18 1 18 3:30 * 35 1 30 2 39 1 34 :45 * 19 2 21 0 20 1 20 :00 * 20 0 23 2 24 1 22 4:15 * 19 0 26 0 18 0 21 4:30 * 45 1 43 0 42 0 43 :45 * 14 2 25 2 24 2 21 :00 * 8 1 16 3 14 2` 12 5:15 * 20 4 15 1 15 2 16 c:30 * 14 10 18 8 15 9 15 :45 * 14 7 10 6 9 6 11 :00 * 8 3 9 2 10 2 9 6:15 * 10 1 8 0 8 0 8 :30 * 5 4 9 5 7 4 7 :45 * 3 5 5 8 3 6 3 :00 * 1 7 5 3 3 5 3 7:15 * 0 7 3 6 3 6 2 ':30 * 1 4 2 5 5 4 2 :45 * 3 6 4 8 1 7 2 :00 * 2 7 1 10 3 8 2 8:15 * 0 6 1 5 2 5 1 °:30 * 2 5 3 7 3 6 2 :45 * 0 5 1 9 0 7 0 :00 * 4 6 3 6 5 6 4 9:15 * 1 6 0 10 0 8 0 °:30 * 1 3 0 11 1 7 0 :45 * 1 6 0 5 0 5 0 :00 * 2 4 1 10 0 7 1 10:15 * 0 8 0 8 1 8 0 '":30 * 0 18 0 7 1 12 0 :45 * 0 18 1 17 1 17 0 __:00 * 0 21 1 23 0 22 0 11:15 * 0 20 1 16 0 18 0 ":30 * 1 22 0 18 0 20 0 :45 * 0 21 0 17 0 19 0 TOTALS * 382 381 266 517 783 267 519 786 257 493 7 "'AK HOUR * 3:45 11:00 4:00 10:45 4:00 11:00 4:00 LUME * 103 84 117 74 108 79 107 ..H.F. * 0.57 0.95 0.68 0.80 0.64 0.90 0.62 31\ SITE CODE : RENTON, WA. TRAFFICOUNT PAGE: 2 : S.W, 19TH STREET W/O FILE: TP082838 : LIND AVENUE S.W. • : EASTBOUND DATE: 3/19/98 TIME THURSDAY -19 FRIDAY -20 SATURDAY -21 Daily Average BEGIN AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 12:00 0 19 0 22 0 4 0 15 12:15 0 17 0 12 0 3 0 10 12:30 20 11 11 10 0 0 10 7 12:45 6 13 1 12 0 5 2 10 1:00 0 14 2 12 0 1 0 9 1:15 0 6 0 7 0 1 0 4 1:30 0 9 0 12 0 1 0 7 1:45 0 15 0 10 0 6 0 10 2:00 0 23 1 13 0 4 0 13 2:15 0 17 0 17 0 1 0 11 2:30 0 65 0 65 0 2 0 44 2:45 0 20 1 13 1 2 0 11 3:00 1 21 1 25 0 3 0 16 3:15 1 24 0 21 1 2 0 15 3:30 1 35 0 30 0 0 0 21 3:45 1 22 2 31 0 0 1 17 4:00 0 21 1 13 0 1 0 11 4:15 1 21 0 12 0 1 0 11 4:30 0 43 2 20 0 1 0 21 4:45 4 19 1 11 0 1 1 10 5:00 3 19 2 15 0 0 1 11 5:15 3 21 2 9 1 2 2 10 5:30 7 21 5 8 0 2 4 10 5:45 4 11 5 5 1 0 3 5 6:00 4 7 0 10 0 0 1 5 6:15 2 13 3 8 1 1 2 7 6:30 4 3 4 4 2 0 3 2 6:45 6 7 9 3 0 1 5 3 7:00 4 0 3 2 1 0 2 0 7:15 5 5 5 1 2 0 4 2 7:30 5 1 6 0 1 0 4 0 7:45 8 3 4 1 0 0 4 1 8:00 9 2 4 0 0 0 4 0 8:15 6 2 9 1 0 0 5 1 8:30 9 3 6 1 1 1 5 1 8:45 10 2 6 4 0 1 5 2 9:00 6 14 7 2 4 1 5 5 9:15 9 1 3 1 0 0 4 0 9:30 9 0 13 2 3 0 8 0 9:45 5 0 8 0 0 0 4 0 10:00 12 2 7 0 0 0 6 0 10:15 11 2 6 0 0 0 5 0 10:30 20 1 12 0 0 0 10 0 10:45 20 0 14 0 0 0 11 0 11:00 27 0 20 0 0 0 15 0 11:15 27 0 27 0 1 0 18 0 11:30 25 0 18 0 0 0 14 0 11:45 26 0 6 0 2 0 11 0 TOTALS 321 575 896 237 445 682 22 48 70 179 338 5 PEAK HOUR 11:00 2:30 10:45 2:30 7:00 1:45 10:45 2:30 VOLUME 105 130 79 124 4 13 58 86 P.H.F. 0.97 0.50 0.73 0.48 0.50 0.54 0.81 0.49 i SITE CODE : RENTON, WA. TRAFFICOUNT PAGE: 3 : S.W. 19TH STREET W/O FILE: TP082838 : LIND AVENUE S.W. EASTBOUND DATE: 3/22/98 TIME SUNDAY -22 MONDAY 23 TUESDAY 24 Daily Average BEGIN AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 12:00 0 * * * * 12:15 1 * * * 12:30 1 * * * * 12:45 5 * * * * 1:00 2 * * * * 1:15 0 * * * * 1:30 0 * * * * 1:45 1 * * * * 2:00 1 * * * * 2:15 2 * * * * 2:30 1 * * * * 2:45 1 * * * * 3:00 0 * * * * 3:15 2 * * * * . 3:30 1 * * * * 3:45 1 * * * * 4:0C 2 * * * * 4:15 0 * * * * 4:30 1 * * * * 4:45 0 * * * * 5:00 0 * * * * 5:15 2 * * * * 5:30 1 * * * * 5:45 0 * * * * 6:00 1 * * * * 6:15 0 * * * * 6:30 1 * * * * 6:45 0 * * * * 7:00 1 * * * * 7:15 0 * * * * 7:30 0 * * * * 7:45 0 * * * * 8:00 0 * * * * 8:15 0 * * * * 8:30 2 * * * * 8:45 0 * * * * 9:00 2 * * * * 9:15 2 * * * * 9:30 0 * * * * 9:45 1 * * * * • 10:00 0 * * * * 10:15 0 * * * * 10:30 1 * * * * 10:45 0 * * * * 11:00 0 * * * * 11:15 0 * / * * * 11:30 0 * * * * 11:45 0 * * * * TOTALS 12 36 48 * * -2 * * -2 12 36 PEAK HOUR 10:30 12:15 * * * * 10:30 12:15 VOLUME 3 9 * * * * 3 9 P.H.F. 0.38 0.45 * * * * 0.38 0.45 (173 SITE CODE : RENTON, WA. TRAFFICOUNT PAGE: 1 : S.W. 19TH STREET E/0 FILE: TP082834 LIND AVENUE S.W. : WESTBOUND DATE: 3/16/98 TIME MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY WEEKDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY WEEK BEGIN 16 17 18 19 20 AVERAGE 21 22 AVERAGE 12:00 AM * 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 * 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 3:00 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4:00 * 3 4 2 2 2 1 1 2 5:00 * 16 16 14 7 13 2 0 9 6:00 * 19 18 20 13 17 1 0 11 7:00 * 17 12 12 18 14 2 1 10 8:00 * 6 8 19 9 10 4 0 7 9:00 * 17 9 12 5 10 5 3 8 10:00 * 14 11 12 5 10 3 1 7 11:00 * 13 12 18 15 14 5 4 11 12:00 PM * 14 19 19 8 15 7 2 11 • 1:00 * 8 11 19 14 13 5 1 9 2:00 13 11 14 11 12 12 5 5 10 3:00 8 9 14 16 9 11 9 6 10 4:00 7 6 10 10 11 8 3 0 6 5:00 3 11 6 5 7 6 7 0 5 6:00 2 3 8 8 3 4 4 1 4 7:00 5 2 3 4 2 3 0 1 2 8:00 1 2 3 4 0 2 1 4 2 9:00 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 10:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 40 172 182 206 143 165 66 31 124 % AVG WKDAY 24.2 104.2 110.3 124.8 86.7 % AVG DAY 32.3 138.7 146.8 166.1 115.3 53.2 25.0 AM PEAK HR * 6:00 6:00 6:00 7:00 6:00 9:00 11:00 6:00 VOLUME * 19 18 20 18 17 5 4 11 PM PEAK HR 2:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 1:00 12:00 3:00 3:00 12:00 VOLUME 13 14 19 19 14 15 9 6 11 • • y +34 yy. F.• -_y CO SITE CODE : RENTON, WA. TRAFFICOUNT PAGE: 1 : S.W. 19TH STREET E/0 FILE: TP082834 : LIND AVENUE S.W. : WESTBOUND DATE: 3/16/98 TIME MONDAY -16 TUESDAY -17 WEDNESDAY -18 Daily Average BEGIN AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 12:00 * * 0 12:15 * * 1 12:30 * * 0 12:45 * * 1 1:00 * * 0 1:15 * * 0 1:30 * * 0 1:45 * * 0 2:00 * 0 2:15 * 0 2:30 * 0 2:45 * 1 3:00 * 0 3:15 * 0 3:30 * 0 3:45 * 0 4:00 * 0 4:15 * 0 4:30 * 2 4:45 * 2 5:00 * 1 5:15 * 1 5:30 * 6 5:45 * 8 6:00 * 2 6:15 * 4 6:30 * 4 6:45 * 8 7:00 * 5 7:15 * 1 7:30 * 2 7:45 * 4 8:00 * 3 8:15 * 1 8:30 * 2 8:45 * 2 9:00 * 2 9:15 * 0 9:30 * 3 9:45 * 4 10:00 * 3 10:15 * 5 10:30 * 3 10:45 * 0 11:00 * 3 11:15 * / 5 11:30 * 2 11:45 * 2 TOTALS * 40 39 106 66 172 93 89 182 91 63 1 PEAK HOUR * 2:15 5:30 12:00 6:15 12:00 5:30 12:00 VOLUME * 14 22 14 21 19 20 16 P.H.F. * 0.70 0.69 0.70 0.66 0.68 0.71 0.80 • • 0 SITE CODE : RENTON, WA. TRAFFICOUNT PAGE: 2 : S.W. 19TH STREET E/0 FILE: TP082834 : LIND AVENUE S.W. WESTBOUND DATE: 3/19/98 TIME THURSDAY -19 FRIDAY -20 SATURDAY -21 Daily Average BEGIN AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 12:00 0 0 0 12:15 0 3 0 12:30 0 3 0 12:45 0 2 0 1:00 0 2 0 1:15 0 5 0 1:30 0 5 0 1:45 0 2 0 2:00 0 3 0 2:15 1 4 1 2:30 0 0 0 2:45 0 5 0 3:00 0 3 0 3:15 0 0 0 3:30 0 4 0 3:45 0 2 0 4:00 0 4 0 4:15 0 0 0 4:30 2 4 0 4:45 0 3 1 5:00 2 3 0 5:15 3 1 0 5:30 5 2 0 5:45 4 1 2 6:00 2 0 1 6:15 3 1 0 6:30 5 0 0 6:45 10 2 0 7:00 1 1 0 7:15 5 0 0 7:30 1 1 1 7:45 5 0 1 8:00 4 0 0 8:15 5 0 2 8:30 4 0 0 8:45 6 0 2 9:00 2 1 0 9:15 5 0 1 9:30 2 0 3 9:45 3 1 1 10:00 3 0 0 10:15 3 0 0 10:30 3 0 1 10:45 3 0 2 11:00 3 0 0 11:15 4 / 0 1 11:30 3 0 3 11:45 8 0 1 TOTALS 110 96 206 75 68 143 24 42 66 59 56 1 PEAK HOUR 6:30 12:30 6:45 1:15 9:15 3:00 6:30 12:45 VOLUME 21 22 19 15 5 9 12 13 P.H.F. 0.52 0.69 0.79 0.75 0.42 0.75 0.60 0.81 s6 SITE CODE : RENTON, WA. TRAFFICOUNT PAGE: 3 : S.W. 19TH STREET E/0 FILE: TP082834 : LIND AVENUE S.W. : WESTBOUND DATE: 3/22/98 TIME SUNDAY -22 MONDAY -23 TUESDAY -24 Daily Average BEGIN AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 12:0C 0 0 * * * * 12:15 0 2 * * * * 12:30 0 0 * * * * 12:45 0 0 * * * * 1:00 0 0 * * * * 1:15 0 0 * * * * 1:30 0 1 * * * * 1:45 0 0 * * * * 2:00 0 0 * * * * 2:15. 0 2 * * * * 2:30 0 1 * * * * 2:45 0 2 * * * * 3:00 0 1 * * * * 3:15 0 2 * * * * 3:30 1 1 * * * * 3:45 0 2 * * * * 4:00 1 0 * * * * 4:15 0 0 * * * * 4:30 0 0 * * * * 4:45 0 0 * * * * 5:00 0 0 * * * * 5:15 0 0 * * * * 5:30 0 0 * * * * 5:45 0 0 * * * * 6:00 0 0 * * * * 6:15 0 1 * * * * 6:30 0 0 * * * * 6:45 0 0 * * * * 7:00 0 0 * * * * 7:15 0 1 * * * * 7:30 1 0 * * * * 7:45 0 0 * * * * 8:00 0 0 * * * * 8:15 0 0 * * * * 8:30 0 0 * * * * 8:45 0 4 * * * * 9:00 0 0 * * * * 9:15 1 0 * * * * 9:30 1 0 * * * * • 9:45 1 0 * * * * 10:00 1 0 * * * * 10:15 0 0 * * * * 10:30 0 0 * * * * 10:45 0 0 * * * * 11:00 0 0 * * * * 11:15 3 0 * / * * * 11:30 1 0 * * * * 11:45 0 0 * * * * TOTALS 11 20 31 * * -2 * * -2 11 20 PEAK HOUR 9:15 2:15 * * * * 9:15 2:15 VOLUME 4 6 * * * * 4 6 P.H.F. 1.00 0.75 * * * * 1.00 0.75 TRAFFICOUNT 4820 YELM HIGHWAY S.E. B-195 LACEY, WA. 98503 (360) 491-8116 INVOICE#: J00637 DATE: 3/17/98 SERVICE INVOICE TO: TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND ENGINEERING,INC. ADDRESS: 2101-112TH AVENUE N.E. SUITE 110 BELLEVUE,WASHINGTON 98004 AUTHORIZED BY: MARK JACOBS PHONE NUMBER: (425) 455-5320 JOB NAME/ LOCATION: WOODINVILLE,WASHINGTON MANUAL COUNT TPE JOB#: W462698 SERVICES RENDERED DESCRIPTION OF WORK AMOUNT ONE (1) 1-HOUR PM PEAK PERIOD MANUAL COUNT $100.00 DATE WORK TOTAL COMPLETE 3/17/98 /BY JOHN LINDSAY AMOUNT $100.00 TERMS: NET 30 DAYS NOTE: A FINANCE CHARGE OF 1 1/2%PER MONTH(ANNUAL RATE OF 18%)WILL BE CHARGED ON BALANCES OVER 30 DAYS s. -419 r'.n. r •iF S- f k * z vrche w '' ,r* am m,r r sax `C1 k T x r Y 6) TRAFFICODNT Site Code : WOODINVILLE, WA. PAGE: 1 : 124TH AVENUE N.B. FILE: TP0768SP : N.E. 160TH STREET . Movements by: Primary DATE: 3/17/98 Time .... From West .... .... From North .... .... From East .... .... From South .... Vehicle TRUCK Begin TRUCK RT THRU LT TRUCK RT THRU LT TRUCK RT THRU LT TRUCK RT THRU LT Total Total 4:00 PM 2 90 4 45 1 30 30 0 0 1 2 1 7 1 67 103 374 10 4:15 2 87 2 43 1 15 29 2 0 2 3 0 1 3 72 154 412 4 4:30 2 67 4 44 1 20 34 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 91 111 376 3 4:45 1 103 5 53 1 27 30 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 78 146 447 4 HR TOTAL 7 347 15 185 4 92 123 2 0 3 5 5 10 10 308 514 1609 21 5:00 PM 3 86 ' 6 54 1 26 23 1 0 0 2 2 0 3 80 131 414 4 5:15 2 102 12 51 0 20 40 4 1 2 1 3 2 6 101 145 487 5 5:30 2 120 9 47 0 21 43 0 1 1 4 0 0 5 76 133 459 3 5:45 2 98 15 42 0 31 30 1 0 0 5 3 1 4 80 135 444 3 HR TOTAL ` 9 406 42 194 1 98 136 6 2 3 12 8 3 18 337 544 1804 15 DAY TOTAL 16 753 57 379 5 190 259 8 2 6 17 13 13 28 645 1058 3413 36 PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM DIRECTION START PEAK HR VOLUMES PERCENTS FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR TRUCK Right Thru Left Total TRUCK Right Thru Left West 4:45 PM 0.92 8 411 32 205 648 - 63 5 32 North 5:00 PM 0.94 1 98 136 6 240 - 41 57 2 East 5:00 PM 0.72 2 3 12 8 23 - 13 52 35 South 4:45 PM 0.90 4 17 335 555 907 - 2 37 61 Entire Intersection West 4:45 PM 0.92 8 411 32 205 648 - 63 5 32 North 0.92 2 94 136 5 235 - 40 58 2 • Bast 0.71 2 3 7 7 17 - 18 41 41 • South 0.90 4 17 335 555 907 - 2 37 61 l A. 7 TRAFFICOUNT Site Code : WOODINVILLE, WA. PAGE: i : 124TH AVENUE N.E. FILE: TPO768SP : N.E. 16OTH STREET . Movements by: Primary DATE: 3/17/98 PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM DIRECTION START PEAK HR VOLUMES PERCENTS FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR TRUCK Right Thru Left Total TRUCK Right Thru Left West 4:45 PM 0.92 8 411 32 205 648 - 63 5 32 North 5:00 PM 0.94 1 98 136 6 240 - 41 57 2 East 5:00 PM 0.72 2 3 12 8 23 - 13 52 35 South 4:45 PM 0.90 4 17 335 555 907 - 2 37 61 Entire Intersection West 4:45 PM 0.92 8 411 32 205 648 - 63 5 32 North 0.92 2 94 136 5 235 - 40 58 2 East 0.71 2 3 7 7 17 - 18 41 41 South 0.90 4 17 335 555 907 - 2 37 61 N.E. 160TH STREET 'a. µ'�'` W S--N %tititiNhYA1M1JJlJ.YNJJJ.•J.:•JJJJJ. .... .............................. .... .............................. .... .............................. [TRUCK] 8 411 32 205 ':..'':' K • 2 [TRUCK] L . 648 94 r 124TH AVENUE N.E. 235 136 555 i 5 . ::. : --- 335 907 124TH AVENUE N.E. ''` " :::...„.:::•: . _. . fi!;:::::::.:: :::::::ma:::: ::g:.:::i:imii :,::iiiiil::iii:?::::::::: ," ,...:„....,:7„...... i ,.::::: !, . ,,-.:„,...„,....,.. ,,,,:::::: .-.520--1'.X.I.Z:Er.E5Z5!,!M_____ 17 17 —1 :iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii.Migi-aniiliiERK:K:i::::1:i:Miiilii:1 [TRUCK] 4 ># <>`:?`:>`:= 7 7 3 j 2 [TRUCK] .::::.::::.:::54•:: • ••'•. N_E_ 160TH STREET 'tr i- • et+sx ar arr . L.F.-I'" a• :s... .. k .02 i' 'S - t L� d54..'',....,..ftm '�"� Y..G s � '4�igJM.�.. +i L � yS� -- - " v,,=a 4 ' „.. g+q s. w.£ 4,. •.;F"`�s.� ,4. ,,, , '�Si3""4,:' , t:. xa�Y 4 N P .... ..--' J6 a 6w1R'.TAf'. t tr . -V4iti it — ,� 425-277-4428 RENTON TRANS. SYE. 877 P01 MAR 17 '98 16:15 . q City of Renton Traffic Accident Record System Corridor Report March 17, 1998 f I (> Corridor: LIND AVE SW between TWENTY SEVENTH ST. SW and THIRTEENTH ST. SW , `� q c Report Period: January 01, 1995 to December 31, 1997 ter( tCl�s Z [l ' &2— P ( Comments: Sr l / 2°�Report requested by Ron Mar, 3/17/98 / Accident Accident J ` Report tl Date Location A,/ S Dir Dir Tot Num Num PDO Veh 1 Veh 2 veh Fat Inj H&R 840 10/24/96 LIND AVE SW between NINETEENTH ST. SW and SIXTEENTH ST. SW W->E N->S 2 0 0 P DAY: Thu TIME: 2042 TYPE OF ACCIDENT: Right Angle 124 02/14/95 LIND AVE SW at SIXTEENTH ST. SW DAY: Tue TIME: 1140 TYPE OF ACCIDENT: N->E S->N 2 0 1 Approach Turn 727 09/18/95 N->E S->N 2 0 1 DAY; Mon TIME: 1239 TYPE OF ACCIDENT; Approach Turn 796 10/10/95 W->N E->W 2 0 2 DAY: Tue TIME; 707 TYPE OF ACCIDENT: Approach Turn 525 07/16/96 S->W N->S 2 0 1 DAY: Tue TIME: 625 TYPE OF ACCIDENT: Approach Turn 566 07/28/96 S->N W->E 2 0 0 P DAY: Sun TIME: 2136 • TYPE OF ACCIDENT: Right Angle 835 10/23/96 S->N S->N 2 0 3 DAY: Wed TIME: 1012 TYPE OF ACCIDENT: Rear End 1016 12/11/96 W->N E->W 2 0 0 P DAY: Wed TIME: 1653 TYPE OF ACCIDENT: Approach Turn • 153 02/24/97 N->E S->N 2 0 3 DAY: Mon TIME: 1455 TYPE OF ACCIDENT: Approach Turn 783 09/08/97 S->N N->E 2 0 1 DAY: Mon TIME: 1555 TYPE OF ACCIDENT: 854D 09/30/97 Approach Turn S->N S->N 2 0 1 DAY: Tue TIME: 1300 i TYPE OF ACCIDENT: Rear End 925-I 10/15/97 DAY: Wed TIME: 1550 TYPE OF ACCIDENT: E->W E >Y 2 0 0 P Rear End 2• Post-lt-brand fax transmittal memo 7671 !M of Papas. 2 - S - p rl TOMMARK a.aGogs From Ron•A4 o µAK G �' Dept. 7P Is - c�It `f off" ReNTonl mbar 1 phone M Faxr,�2S ' 453- 7(,gtU Fax* 425— 2�7— $S�9'7 4 �L ` S� 2) I �Zn7—Olt • 425-277-4428 RENTON TRANS. SYS. 877 P02 MAR 17 '98 16:16 Accident Accident Report p Date Location Dir Dir Tot Nun Num POO Veh Veh 2 Veh Pat lnj 032 10/16/97 LIND AVE SW at SIXTEENTH ST. SW N->E S->N 2 0 0 p DAY: Thu TIME: 1625 TYPE OF ACCIDENT: Approach Turn 1105 11/25/97 DAY: Tue TIME: 1431 TYPE OF ACCIDENT: S->N N->E 3 0 1 Approach Turn Total 13 0 14 656 07/29/97 LIND AVE SW, 150 ft. N of TWENTY SEVENTH ST. SW N->S N->S 2 0 1 H DAY: Tue TIME: 1517 TYPE OF ACCIDENT: Rear End 846 09/27/97 LIND AVE SW, 300 ft. S of SIXTEENTH ST. SW DAY: Sat TIME: 49 TYPE OF ACCIDENT: W >N N >S 2 0 1 Right Angle Totals: 16 0 16 731 Page number 2 r . ,01 c: .( 1; lieCIT1'OF RENTON emu. Planning/Building/Public Works Department ` �' Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator Jesse Tanner,Mayor qq —D&(0 ,514 May 26, 2000 Ed Minshull Lance Mueller& Associates 130 Lakeside, Suite 250 Seattle, WA 98122 SUBJECT: LUA 98-051, Southgate Office Building#4 LUA 98-066, Southgate Office Building#3 Dear Mr. Minshull: Thank you for your timely letter requesting an extension on the approval for the above- mentioned site plan. Section 4-9-200K of the Renton Municipal Code authorizes the approving body, which in this case is the Zoning Administrator,to grant up to a two-year extension for an approved site plan. As the Zoning Administrator, I hereby grant a two- year extension for approved site plans LUA 98-051 and LUA 98-066. The extended approvals will expire May 10, 2002. If you have any questions or comments regarding this decision please call me at (425)430-7218. Sincerely, • • OFIP • IIan on n ng Administrator cc: Jennifer Henning,Principal Planner File LUA 98-051 File LUA 98-066)5l -W t l:C,t 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer MAY.26.2000 7:45AM LANCE MUELLER NO.088 P.2/3 A • L.ANCE MUELLER G OCIATEB LIN/\/\/\ AR CHI T E C T E • A I A May 10, 2000 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CITY OF RENTON Mrs, Jana Hanson MAY 2 6 2000 Land Use Review Supervisor CITY OF RENTON RECEIVED 1055 So, Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: SOUTHGATE OFFICE BUILDING#3 PROJECT NO, LUA-98-066 (LMA#97-203) Dear Mrs. Hanson: We are requesting an extension of the Land Use Permit for 3 years for the above mentioned project. Sincerely, LANCE MUELLER &ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS Ed Minshull EM:nk NK*97/SOGATEOFF3.4 LTR 1 OO LAKESIDE • SUITE Q50 • SEATTLE. WA • Beg E2 • c2067 325.2853 • FAX: C206) 328.0554 ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • SPACE PLANNING • INTERIORS MAY.26.2000 7:45AM LANCE MUELLER NO.088 P.3/3 LANCE MUELLER s ASOCIATEB LEMM/\/\" A fl CHIT ECT GA I A May 10, 2000 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CITY OF RENTON Mrs. Jana Hanson MAY 2 6 2000 Land Use Review Supervisor CITY OF RENTON RECEIVED 1055 So. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: SOUTHGATE OFFICE BUILDING #4 PROJECT NO. LUA-98-051 (LMA#97-203) Dear Mrs. Hanson: 1 We are requesting an extension of the Land Use Permit for 3 years for the above mentioned project. Sincerely, LANCE MUELLER &ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS V-ffrt,o4e0e (—/ Ed Minshull EM:nk N K#B7/S 0 GATEO FF4-1.LTR 130 LAKESIDE • SUITE 250 • SEATTLE. WA • 8E1122 • C2O67 3e6.2663 • FAX: (2OE) 328-0664 ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • SPACE PLANNING • INTERIORS MAY.26.2000 7:45AM LANCE MUELLER NO.088 P.2ia • LANCE MUELLER & ..380CIATE8 L /\/\^ A P CH I TECTS . A I A May 10, 2000 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CITY OF RENTON Mrs, Jana Hanson MAY 26 2000 Land Use Review Supervisor CITY OF RENTON RECEIVED 1055 So. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: SOUTHGATE OFFICE BUILDING#3 PROJECT NO, LUA-98-066 (LMA#97-203) Dear Mrs. Hanson: We are requesting an extension of the Land Use Permit for 3 years for the above mentioned project. Sincerely, LANCE MUELLER &ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS Ed Minshull EM:nk NKMe7/SO GATED FF3-4 LTR 1 30 LAKESIDE • SUITE 450 • SEATTLE. WA • 961 E • r206) 3215•2553 • FAX: reps) 329•066.4 ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • SPACE PLANNING • INTERIORS ' NAY.26.2000 7:45AM LANCE MUELLER NO.088 P.3/3 LANCE MUELLER & A__OCIATES ARCHITECTLE=/\/\/‘ 6 • A I A May 10, 2000 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CITY OF RENTON Mrs. Jana Hanson MAY 26 2000 Land Use Review Supervisor CITY OF RENTON RECEIVED 1055 So. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: SOUTHGATE OFFICE BUILDING #4 PROJECT NO. LUA-98-051 (LMA#97-203) Dear Mrs. Hanson: We are requesting an extension of the Land Use Permit for 3 years for the above mentioned project. Sincerely, LANCE MUELLER &ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS Ed Minshull EM:nk N K#87IS 0 GATEO F F4-1.LTR 130 LAKESIDE • SUITE 260 • SEATTLE. WA • 80122 • (2O8] 326.2663 • FAX: (20e) 328.0664 ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • SPACE PLANNING • INTERIORS CITX 3F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator August 11, 1998 Mr. Ed Minshull Lance Mueller&Associates 130 Lakeside, Suite 250 Seattle, WA 98122 SUBJECT: Southgate Office Building #3 Project No. LUA-98-066,SA-A,ECF Dea Mr. Minshull: This letter is to inform you that the comment and appeal periods have ended for the Environmental Rev ew Committee's (ERC) Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated for the above-referenced projE,ct. This decision is final and application for the appropriately required permits may proceed. The applicant must:comply with all ERC Mitigation Measures and Site Plan Conditions of Approval. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7219. For the Environmental Review Committee, Peter Rosen Project Manager cc: Spieker Properties/Owners FINQ nnc 1055 South Grady Way- Renton, Washington 98055 u .� CITY OF RENTON aiu HEARING EXAMINER MEMORANDUM T 0 FILE Date: July 28, 1998 From: Fred Kaufman Re: Appeal of ERC's Determination re Traffic Mitigation Fee by Southgate Office Building No. 3 File No. LUA98-095,AAD Apparently the petitioner either lost track of the appeal or decided to withdraw the appeal but did not notify this office or any other parties involved in the matter. Mr. Rosen stated that he called the appellant, Mr. Minshull, and they stated they were withdrawing their appeal. They would send a FAX confirming the same. Let the record reflect that the appellant did not notify in advance. The City Attorney and City Staff were present. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. cc: Peter Rosen ERC 4 CIT1 OF RENTON u j Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator July 10, 1998 Bob Fadden DEVELOPMENT PLANNING Lance Mueller&Associates CITY OF RENTON 130 Lakeside, Suite 250 JUL 1 3 1998 Seattle,WA 98122 Subject: Southgate Office Building#3 RECEIVED Staff Recommendation to Deny Reconsideration l`I Dear Mr. Fadden, You have requested a written memo stating the reasons why the Environmental Review Committee 1 (ERC) denied reconsideration of your request to lower the traffic mitigation fee for the proposed Southgate Office Building #3. The Environmental Review Committee does not prepare written explanations of their reconsideration decisions. We can provide you a summary of the reasons why staff recommended denial of the reconsideration. Your request to lower the traffic mitigation fee for this project was based on defining the project as Office Park for determining the appropriate trip generation rates for the project. The project does not meet the definition for Office Park, and using the trip generation rates for an Office Park would result in '! underestimating the trip generation potential for this general office building. The original traffic report prepared by your consultant correctly identified the Land Use Category of General Office Building for this project, but incorrectly evaluated the building as a interrelated structure with the other three Southgate office buildings. The issue of whether the proposed building should be evaluated as a separate building or an interrelated building was addressed in my letter dated May 7, 1998 (copy attached). The request for reconsideration was based upon evaluating the building's trip generation potential with a office park designation. The ITE Trip Generation Manual describes Office Park(Land Use 750)as follows: 'Office parks are generally suburban subdivisions or planned unit developments containing general office buildings and support services such as banks, savings and loan institutions, restaurants, and service stations, arranged in a park-or campus-like atmosphere." The proposed building does not conform to this description. The appropriate category for this project for purposes of trip generation analysis is 'General Office Building(Land Use 710),which is described as follows: "A general office building houses multiple tenants; it is a location where affairs of businesses, commercial or industrial organizations, or professional persons or firms are conducted. An office building or buildings may contain a mixture of tenants including professional services, insurance companies, investment brokers, and tenant services such as a bank or savings and loan, a restaurant or cafeteria,and service retail facilities." The ITE Trip Generation Manual also states that`[if] information is known about individual buildings, it is suggested that the general office building category be used rather than office parks when estimating trip generation for one or more office buildings in a single development. The office park category is more general in nature, and should be used when a breakdown of individual or different uses is not SOUTIICT2.DOC\ 1 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 l�\)Thic nnnnr Pnnf7inc ri(1%.P!`mlio f manorial 2f1%nnct rnncllTAr ': known." In this case, the project narrative lists only office use for this building, in which case the appropriate designation for trip generation calculation purposes is general office building. in summary, staff concluded that the trip generation calculation for the building based upon the land use designation of general office building was correct, and that the proposed new office building does not match the description of office park as used in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Therefore, staff made a recommendation to the ERC for denial of the request for reconsideration. The reconsideration request was subsequently denied by the.ERC. Sincerely, Iv � Neil Watts,P.E. Plan Review Supervisor Development Services Division cc: Jim Hanson Peter Rosen • • SOUTHGT2.DOC\ LANCE MUELLER & ASsOCIATES LEM/\/\/\ DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON ARCHITECTSAIA Jai3 1998 July 9, 1998 RECEIVED Mr. Peter Rosen Project Manager • CITY OF RENTON Planning Department 1055 So. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: SOUTHGATE OFFICE BUILDINGS 3 & 4 LMA#973 Dear Peter: We are in receipt of your letter of June 19, 1998 concerning our request for reconsideration of the methodology for calculating traffic. As applicant, we are entitled to a written response, in a timely manner, stating the reasons our request was denied. This response should address why the office park LUC 750 from the ITE manual cannot be considered. At this time, we request a written memo stating those reasons why reconsideration was denied by July 10, 1998. When we receive that written memo we can make a determination if we wish to continue with the appeal process. Sincerely, LANCE MUELLER &ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS p mitz.e4 Bob Fadden Associate BF:nk cc: Sue Carlson, City of Renton Rick Jarvis, Spieker Properties N K#45/SOGATEO F F3-4.LTR 130 LAKESIDE • SUITE 250 • SEATTLE. WA • 98122 • (208] 325-2553 • FAX: (20B) 32B-0554 ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • SPACE PLANNING • INTERIORS YQ (c1,0 �► _,_:- CITY IF RENTON f 4;;;AL41, Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator Jesse Tanner,Mayor June 19, 1998 Mr. Ed Minshull Lance Mueller&Associates 130 Lakeside, Suite 250 Seattle, WA 98122 SUBJECT: Southgate Office Building#3 Project No. LUA-98-066, SA-A, ECF Dear Mr. Minshull: The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee (ERC) denied your request for reconsideration of the traffic mitigation fee imposed with the SEPA Determination of Non-Significance, Mitigated (DNS-M). However, your appeal of the matter is scheduled for a hearing before the Hearing Examiner on July 28, 1998 at 9:00 a.m. The SEPA environmental determination will not be finalized until resolution of the appeal. Please contact me, at (425) 430-7219, if you have any questions. Sincerely, Peter Rosen Project Manager cc: Spieker Properties/Owner Jana Huerter Neil Watts RFCONS DOC 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer l.. CIT1 )F RENTON ;,Y "LL Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J. Kaufman June 11, 1998 Mr. Ed Minshull Lance Mueller& Associates 130 Lakeside, #250 Seattle, WA 98122 Re: Appeal of ERC's Determination re Traffic Mitigation Fee Appeal File No. LUA98-095,AAD Dear Mr. Minshull: Your letter of appeal in the above matter has been received and a date and time for said hearing have now been established. The appeal hearing has been set for Tuesday,July 28, 1998, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the new Renton City Hall located at 1055 S. Grady Way. Should you be unable to attend, would you please appoint a representative to act on your behalf. We appreciate your cooperation, and if you have any questions, please contact this office. Sincerely, Fred J. Kau an Hearing Examiner • FJK:mm cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry Warren, City Attorney Pete • Manager eht.t.-A) ebpi&A 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)235-2593 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer CITY OF RENTON Planning / Building / Public Works MEMORANDUM DATE: June 11, 1998 TO: Environmental Review Committee (ERC) FROM: Peter Rosen, Neil Watts SUBJECT: Southgate Office Park- LUA98-066, SA-A, ECF The applicant requests that the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) reconsider the traffic mitigation fee imposed with the Determination of Non-Significance, Mitigated, for the above referenced project. This issue was discussed in the body of the ERC report of May 19. Basically, the applicant and staff disagree on the assumptions and methodology used for estimating the number of average daily trips that would be generated by the proposal. Staff's methodology treats each building separately and calculates the ITE values using General Office Buildings (710). The applicant asserts that the buildings in the office park share a common access onto the City's street system and would share trips such as service deliveries for mail, garbage, office deliveries, etc, thereby lowering the estimate of daily trips. The applicant proposes using the ITE code for Office Parks (750). The difference in the assumptions would result in approximately one-half the number of anticipated trips and therefore one-half of the traffic mitigation fee of $69,187.50. The applicant and Neil Watts exchanged several letters regarding this issue prior to the ERC SEPA decision. The two new office buildings proposed in the Southgate Office Park were considered under separate land use applications. The comment/appeal period for Building #4 (LUA98-051) ended prior to receipt of the request for reconsideration. Therefore, this request for reconsideration pertains only to Building #3 (LUA98-066). The applicant has also filed an appeal of the ERC decision to the Hearing Examiner, reserving the right of appeal if ERC decides not to reconsider the traffic mitigation fee. Staff recommends against reconsideration request. cc: Jim Hanson Jana Huerter LANCE MUELLER & ASSOCIATES ilmom,\/\/ DEVELOPMENT 7LANNING ARCHITEC T S • A I A CITY O` RENTON JUN a 6 1998 June 5, 1998 RECEIVED Ms. Jana Huerter Land Use Review Supervisor CITY OF RENTON Development Services Div. 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Re: SOUTHGATE OFFICE BUILDING #3 PROJECT NO. LUA-98-066, SA-A, ECF (LMA#97-203) Dear Ms. Huerter: We would like the Environmental Review Committee to reconsider the traffic mitigation fee calculations for the above mentioned project. Our Traffic Engineer has been working with Neil Watts (City of Renton Plan Review Supervisor) since April 15, 1998 on the trip generation methodology for the traffic mitigation fee calculations. Please refer to the attached letter dated June 1, 1998 to Peter Rosen, Planner (City of Renton). Spieker Properties believes that an error in judgement has occurred and the traffic mitigation fee should be revised per the attached letter. We request that no final environmental determination be made until this error in fact and error in judgement has been resolved. Our Traffic Engineer and we request that a meeting be held between the various parties as soon as possible. Sincerely, LANCE MUELLER &ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS Ed Minshull EM:nk encl. cc: Peter Rosen, City of Renton Mark Jacobs, TP&E Spieker Properties N K#44/SOGATEO F F-1.LTR 130 LAKESIDE • SUITE 250 • SEATTLE. WA • 98122 • (2O8) 325-2553 • FAX: (2O81 328-0554 ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • SPACE PLANNING • INTERIORS V till TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 2101 .112th AVENUE N.E.,SUITE 110—BELLEVUE,WASHINGTON 98004 TELEPHONE(425)455-5320 VICTOR H.BISHOP P.E.President OAVIO H ENGER.P.E.V,ce President FACSIMILE(425)453-7180 RECEIVED June 1, 1998 Peter Rosen, Planner JUN 2 1998 CITY OF RENTON 200 Mill Avenue South LANCE MUELLER &ASSOC Renton, WA 98055 Re: Southgate Office Park — LUA-98-051 May 7, 1998 Letter Response Dear Mr. Rosen: We have prepared this letter in response to the City of Renton Planning/ Building/Public Works Department Letter dated May 7, 1998 from Neil Watts to myself. This memorandum was prepared in response to our Southgate Office Park Traffic Impact Analysis dated April 2, 1998 Memorandum Response letter dated May 4, 1998. Furthermore, we have discussed the issues raised in the City's letter with Neil Watts, Plan Review Supervisor Developer Services Division of Renton. The City's trip generation methodology treating each building separately is not appropriate. The buildings share a common access onto the City street system. The City's traffic mitigation fee system is based on new trips on the City street system. Treating each building separately results in an over estimate of trip generation of the site. For example service deliveries such as mail, garbage, and other office deliveries would not be separate trips on the City street system. Furthermore, people working in one building will be able to utilize services, such as a cafeteria, exercise/work o t room, office ma agement/mai enance contpined in various other buildings. WOO kwA &D-e (,(,#11 ' The projected trip generation values in our Southgate Office Park Traffic Impact Analysis dated April 2, 1998 are 1082, 163 and 156 daily AM and PM peak hour trips, respectively. The May 7, 1998 City letter identifies that the project would generate 2004 daily trips. Both our values and the City values were calculated using ITE land Use Code 710 General Office Building. The difference in values is because we calculated the trip generation for the entire site, four buildings and then subtracted out traffic from the existing two buildings. Treating each building separately generated the City value. Arguments can be made to support both methodologies. An alternative to using ITE Land Use Code 710 "General Office Building" would be to use LUC 750 "Office Park". The trip generation estimate using office park rates and considering the existing building would be 1,447, 210, 168 daily AM and PM peak R067298Arspltr.doc • .. • ,. 11R Peter Rosen, Planner CITY OF RENTON June 1, 1998 Page 2 ' hour trips, respectively. These values are between the City's and our trip generation estimates. The City's traffic fee using the 1,447 daily trips is calculated to be $108,525. This value is $27,375 more than identified in Southgate Office Park Traffic Impact Analysis. Regarding the PM peak hour, the 168 trips calculated using the office park rate is an increase of twelve (12) trips over that evaluated in our April 2, 1998 traffic study. These twelve (12) trips would not materially affect the results at the analysis intersections. In summary using ITE LUC 750 "Office Park" results in trip generation values between our estimate in Southgate Office Park Traffic Impact Analysis and the City's estimate identified in the May 7, 1998, to myself. Therefore, we believe using LUC 750 is a reasonable alternative approach for estimating project trip generation. No material changes to our intersection evaluation result due to the modest increase of twelve (12), PM peak hour trips. However the traffic fee is increased by $27,375 to $108,525. If you have any questions please call me. Very truly yours, lay.3. JA0 . , e''ov"`Asitr,�,,;J, TRANSPOORTATION PLANNING �� a & ENGINEERING, INC. if---- ; ' '5744 ' l 6 4� 10 k rsr1ti° .:. Mark J. Jacobs, P. E. • rs2.0;..,,,s Senior Transportation Engineer V .l . MJJ:es 1EXPIRES at3, oo ' cc: Sarah Weddle, Spieker Properties "Bob Fadden, LMA 3 0 L,4 es, _ S'J /-c 2 S o Se 4 6-.),4 6J-7 zI R067298Arspltr.doc `HAY 11 '98 15:36 TO-2063280554 FROH- T-791 P.02/03 F-090 `''ma`s°" CITY OF RE,NTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department J e Tanner.Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator May 7, ].998 TP & E Transportation Planning&Engineering, Inc. Attention: Mark Jacobs .:'1I 1 1 IA B 2101- 11.2th Ave:rue NE, Suite 110 Bellevue, WA 911004 Subject Traffic Mitigation Fee Calculations LUA-98-066, Southgate Office Park Building#3 LUA-98-051, Southgate Office Park Building#4 Dear Mr. Jacobs: • We have reviewed your request for reconsideration of the traffic mitigation fee calculations for the two new office buildings proposed in the vicinity of SW 19th St and Lind Ave SW. After reviewing your request we have determined that we are unable to revise the fee calculations. The trip generation analysis used in our original calculation are based on general office use, with the buildings being evaluated as two separate new buildings, as shown on the associated site plan applications for these projects, Your proposal to evaluate the traffic impacts for these two new buildings in the same manner as if they were a single combined building with the two existing office buildings located east of these buildings is deemed inappropriate. The trip generation values used in our fee calculation are based on the ITE values for General Office Buil ding(710), and are calculated for each building based on the square footage for each building. This calculation estirnites that the trip generation for the two new buildings will be 2004 daily trips. Your request is to evaluate the trip generation for these two separate buildings by assuming that the four separate office buildings are the same as a single large building. This method results in an estimated trip generation value for the two new buildings of 1082 daily trips. It does not seem realistic to expect that the design of these two new buildings will reduce the trip generation from 2004 trips to 1082 based on the existence of two nearby existing office buildings. The explanations provided in your letter do explain how then;particular site plans somehow cut the traffic generation in half for office buildings of this size. The two new buildings are separate office buildings, with separate parking areas, and are divided from one another by an extensive private roadway system. Although the buildings will share ownership and project Thames, they are by design separate buildings. For this reason, the two buildings are being evaluated under ;separate site plan reviews, as requested by the applicant and concurred upon by City staf4. The buildings will be expected to have separate tenants and separate traffic impacts and can be expected to have trip generation values based on being separate buildings. In your'letter you list the reasons for lower trip generation values for these new office buildings compared to any other office building of the same size constructed in this area. We do not find any of these reasons sufficient justification for a reduction in the traffic mitigation fee calculation, as summarized below: Con anon Street Access: These are still separate buildings with separate tenants and employees. The shared private roadway system is not expected to reduce the number of trips for each new building. • SOU':HGTI.DOC1 • 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 MAY 11 '98 15:37 10-2063280554 FROM- T-791 P.03/03 F-090 T P& E MAY 1 1 l''o j Easy Walking D.stance: All businesses within the Valley area are interconnected by a well developed sidewalk and trail system. Every new office building is within "easy walking distance" from other existing office buildings in the area. This does not mean that there will be less employees, deliveries, client trips, etc. Common Utility and Drainage System: This is not expected to reduce the traffic for the new buildings. One Ownership: The buildings are still separate, with separate tenants, employees, deliveries, clients, etc. The ownership of the buildings is not expected to effect the trip generation of the buildings. Common Service Deliveries for Mail, Garbage and Office Deliveries: While this may be true for regular mail and garbage delivery, there is nothing about these site plans that would suggest that there will be shared deliveries for the different tenants in the different buildings. The few trips associated with mail and garbage are insignificant compared to the 2000 daily trips associated with the two new buildings. Utilize Services in Other Buildings (Cafeteria_ Exercise. Management Services. Maintenance Services): If this occurs, then the additional area available in the new buildings can be assumed to be used for additional office space, with associated additional trip generation. These same facilities may be in other office buildings is the area,which may or may not be available to the tenants of these new buildings. r YIIn conclusion, we cannot grant your request to reduce the traffic mitigation fee calculations for these - - o new projects based on the information you have provided us. The fees will be based on evaluating each building as a separate building. Copies of the traffic mitigation fees for these two projects are attached. If you have additional questions concerning this issue, please contact Clint Morgan at (425)- 277-6216. Sincerely, J\I . , j . Neil Watts Plan Review Supervisor Development Services Division cc: Peter Rosen Clint Morgan . Attachments SOUTHGTI.DOC1 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & EINGINEERING, INC. 2101 • 1121h AVENUE N.E.. SUI1E 110—BELLEVUE,WASHINGTON 98004 TELEPHONE(425)455.5320 VICTOR H BISHOP P.E.Pre tni DAVID H ENDER.V.E.Vic•Pr Io.nt FACSIMILE(425)453-7180 May 4, 1998 Peter Rosen, Planner CITY OF RENTON 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 ( l Re: Southgate Office Park — LUA-98-051 April 15, 1998 Memorandum Response Dear Mr. Rosen: We have prepared this letter in response to the City of Renton Planning/ Building/Public Works Department Memorandum dated April 15, 1998 from Neil Watts to yourself. This memorandum was prepared in response to a draft version of our Southgate Office Park Traffic Impact Analysis dated April 2, 1998. The following are our responses to the issues raised in the Memorandum: Dates ?nd Page Numbers The dates and page numbers are identified in our April 2, 1998 report. Trip Generation • The City's ascertain that the buildings are isolated is not correct. The buildings share common access onto the City street system and are within easy walking distance to one another. The utility and storm drainage systems are common to each other. ' Additionally the entire complex, the four buildings, are under one ownership. The City's trip generation methodology treating each building separately is not appropriate. Treating each building separately results in an over estimate of trip generation of the site. For example service deliveries such as mail, garbage, and other office deliveries would not be separate trips on the City street system. Furthermore, people working in one building will be able to utilize services, such • as a cafeteria, exercise/work out room, office management/maintenar ce services contained in various other buildings. R067298Arspitr.doc CCh-J I`fs WI'A rrA-I -Wnua hrrno7rn17-n1 IA'rn or_ en unr tiR Peter Rosen, Planner CITY OF RENTON May 4, 1998 Page 2 Summary Our Southgate Office Park Traffic Impact Analysis provides an appropriate analysis of the proposed projects traffic impact. No changes to our analysis are warranted. Very truly yours, TRANSPOORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. • z) Mark J. Jac s, . E. Senior Transportation Enginer MJJ:es CC: Rick Jarvis, Spieker Properties Bob Fadden, LMA • R087298Arspltr.doc S£b-J £0/£0'd 666-1 -WOHA VSS08Z£90Z-01 LO:60 86, SO Nor 'LANCE MUELLER & )C�TES /C1fv\1 A R CHIT T S A I A June 8 1998 Ms. Jana Huerter Land Use Review Supervisor CITY OF RENTON Development Services Div. 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 CITY OF RENTON Re: SOUTHGATE OFFICE BUILDING #3 PROJECT NO. LUA-98-066, SA-A, ECF J U N 0 8 (8 (LMA#97-203) RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S GFFiCE Dear Ms. Huerter: We respectfully would like to appeal the traffic mitigation fee on the above mentioned project. As the applicant, our attempts to extend the comment/appeal period has not been resolved. If the comment period does get extended in order to resolve this issue we will withdraw our appeal. Sincerely, LANCE MUELLER &ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS CC( ..)a-"r41'44'‘P Ed Minshull EM:nk cc: Peter Rosen Mark Jacobs Spieker Properties Sue Carlson N K#44/SOGATEOFF-3.LTR 130 LAKESIDE • SUITE 250 • SEATTLE. WA • 98122 • (206) 325.2553 • FAX: (206) 326-0554 ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • SPACE PLANNING • INTERIORS C1 TON Jesse Tanner,Mayor Planning/Building/Public Works Department partment Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator May 21, 1998 R� i MAY 261998 LANCE MUELLER?&ilss oc, Mr. Ed Minshull Lance Mueller&Associates 130 Lakeside, Suite #250 Seattle, WA 98122 SUBJECT: Southgate Office Building #3 • Project No. LUA-98- 066,SA-A,ECF Dear Mr Minshull: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) and is to complet( d their review of the subject project. The ERC, on May 19, 1998, issued a threshold Significance-Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. See the enclosed Mitigation Measures document. you that they have Determination of Non- Comments regarding the environmental determination must be filed in writingon menf. 1998. Any aggrieved person feeling that the environmental determination of the Environmental based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the disco or before 5:00 PM June 8 be reasonably available at the time of the determination may submit written comments. A Review Committee is the Envinnmental Review Committee finds there is not sufficient evidence Very of new evidence that could not there will be no further extension of the appealits review of the comments,th, if formalereappeal within the originalsi of te me.pert ce to amend original determination, thene period. Any person wishing take further action would need to file a Review Supervisor, City of Renton Development Services Division, 200 Mill Avenue Written comments must be filed with: Jana Huerter, Land Use Appeals of the environmental determination [RCW 43.21.0075 3 South, Renton, I Juneiggg If no ad ( )� WAC 197-11-680eWA 98055. beforewriting together with the required $75.00 appeals application febe with:this date,tge action will ecomenfinal. A filed in mustttbe on or Renton, 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed byAppeals be filed in Renton, regardsg the appealCity Municipaln of Renton, god Mill Lion 4 South, 2501. process may be obtained ltfrom henRen on City Clerk's Office,e 42 8-235 ( 5) 235- The prececing Information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the me at (425) 225-2719. enableof t eau too exercise, pl your above, please call For the Environmental Review Committee, Ives (ja4e. Peter Rosen Project Manager cc: Mr. Quentin Kuhrau/Party of Record Spie4:er Properties/Owners Enclosure DNSMLTR nn 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washinatn., oQncc LANCE MUELLER & ASSOCIATES lomm/N/N04/\s DEVELOPMENT CITY OF RENTON A R C H 1 T E C T S A I A JUN 0 8 1998 Jule 5, 1998 RECEIVED Me;. Jana Huerter Land Use Review Supervisor CITY OF RENTON Development Services Div. 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Re: SOUTHGATE OFFICE BUILDING #3 PROJECT NO. LUA-98-066, SA-A, ECF (LMA#97-203) Dear Ms. Huerter: We would like the Environmental Review Committee to reconsider the traffic mitigation fee calculations for the above mentioned project. Our Traffic Engineer has been working with Neil Watts (City of Renton Plan Review Supervisor) since April 15, 1998 on the trip generation methodology for the traffic mitigation fee calculations. Please refer to the attached letter dated June 1, 1998 to Peter Rosen, Planner (City of Renton). Spieker Properties believes that an error in judgement has occurred and the traffic mitigation fee should be revised per the attached letter. We request that no final environmental determination be made until this error in fact and error in judgement has been resolved. Our Traffic Engineer and we request that a meeting be held between the various parties as soon as possible. Sincerely, LANCE MUELLER & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS Ed Minshull EM:nk en;l. cc: Peter Rosen, City of Renton Mark Jacobs, TP&E Spieker Properties NK#44/SCGATEOFF-1.LTR 130 LAKESIDE • SUITE 250 • SEATTLE. WA • 9E1122 • (206) 325-2553 • FAX: (206) 32B-0554 ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • SPACE PLANNING • INTERIORS CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the It day of may , 1998, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Etc 17eiVY Aiti^+iovar documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Department of Ecology Don Hurter WSDOT KC Waste•-atwate�r Treatment Division Larry Fishier I Washington Department of Fisheries David F. I')ietzman Department of Natural Resources Shirley L,*khang Seattle Public Utilities Duwamish Indian Tribe Rod Malcom Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Joe Jainria Puget Sound Energy (Signature of Sender) 'YVW% 'Mh STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and vo ntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. in/ Dated: J 1 '2 (s /y Notary Pub in and for the State of shington Notary (Print)My appointment e r MA1LYN KAJiCHEFF COMMISSION EXPIRES 6/29/99 Project Name: S004 0(G offico g%41g . Project Numter: I.NA• e' 01A, SA-A .EGF NOTARY.DOC .;,.... CITY _iF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner. Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator May 21, 1998 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 1.18504-7703 Subject: Environmental Determinations Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination and Environmental Checklist for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on May 19, 1998: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED SOUTF-IGATE OFFICE BUILDING #3 LUA-98-066,SA-A,ECF Proposal for a commercial office building located in the Southgate Office Plaza. The subject proposal is for a three-story building with a 20,760 sq.ft. building footprint and a total of 62,280 sq.ft. There are two existing office buildings on the site and the Southgate Office Plaza will be complete with development of four office buildings. Access would be from the existing driveway off Lind Avenue SW. A total of 1,523 parking stalls are provided to serve tr e entire office development. Location: 2000 Block of Lind Avenue SW. Comments regarding the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM June 08, 1998. Any aggrieved person feeling that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Committee is based on erronEous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence that could not be reasonably available at the time of the determination may submit written comments. After review of the comments, if the Environmental Review Committee finds there is not sufficient evidence to amend its original determination, then there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action would need to file a formal appeal within the original 15-day timeframe. Written comments must be filed with: Jana Huerter, Land Use Review Supervisor, City of Renton Development Services Division, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals of either the environmental determination [RCW 43.21.0075(3), WAC 197-11-680] and/or the land use decision must oe filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM June 08, 1998. If no appeals are filed by this date, both actions will become final. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-235-2501. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 235-2719. For the Environmental Review Committee, Peter Rosen Project Manager cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Larry Fisher, Department of Fisheries David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources Don Hurler, Department of Transportation Shirley LJkhang, Seattle Public Utilities Duwamish Tribal Office Rod Malcom, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance) Joe Jainr;la, Puget Sound Energy AGNGYLTR.BOC\ 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-98-066,SA-A,ECF APPLICANT: Spieker Properties PROJECT NAME: Southgate Office Park#3 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for a commercial office building located in the Southgate Office Plaza. The proposal is for a three-story building with a 20,760 sq. ft. building footprint and a total building area of 62,280 sq. ft. There are tw:) existing office buildings on the site and the Southgate Office Plaza will be complete with the development of four office buildings. The primary access would be from the existing driveway off Lind Avenue SW and two driveways connecting to SW 19th Street. A total of 1,623 parking stalls are provided to serve the entire office plaza development. LOCATION (:)F PROPOSAL: 2000 block of Lind Avenue SW; south of SW 19th Street, east of Lind Avenue SW LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Comments regarding the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM June 8, 1998. Any aggrieved person feeling that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Committee is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence that could not be reasonably available at the time of the determination may submit written comments. After review of the comments, if the Environnental Review Committee finds there is not sufficient evidence to amend its original determination, then there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action would need to file a formal appeal within the original 15-day timeframe. Written comments must be filed with: Jana Huerter, Land Use Review Supervisor, City of Renton Development Services Division, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals of the environmental determination [RCW 43.21.0075(3), WAC 197-11-680] must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM June 8, 1998. If no appeals are filed by this date, the action will become final. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-235- 2501. PUBLICATION DATE: May 25, 1998 DATE OF DECISION: May 19, 1998 SIGNATURES: � (( � � Gregg� �j /' /r ' ZI rman, Ad� �linistraT��or DATE rr� Department'of Planning/Building/Public Works /1/7am Chas a n, Administrator DATE Community ::services adi2 ,ezz,-" 73i( 17 77111 ee Wheeler, Fir Chief DRTE Renton Fire Department DNSMSIG.DOC CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) MITIGATION MEASURES & CONDITIONS APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-98-066,SA-A,ECF APPLICANT: Spieker Properties PROJECT NAME: Southgate Office Park#3 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for a commercial office building located in the Southgate Office Plaza. The proposal is for a three-story building with a 20,760 sq. ft. building footprint and a total building area of 62,280 sq. ft. There are two existing office buildings on the site and the Southgate Office Plaza will be complete with the development of four office buildings. The primary access would be from the existing driveway off Lind Avenue SW and two driveways connecting to SW 19th Street. A total of 1,623 parking stalls are provided to serve the entire office plaza development. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 2000 block of Lind Avenue SW; south of SW 19th Street, east of Lind Avenue SW MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee at a rate of$0.52 per square foot of new construction. This fee is estimated at $32,385.60. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 2. The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee of$75 for each average daily trip associated with the project. The traffic mitigation fee is estimated at $69,187.50 (922.5 trips x$75 = $69,187.50). This fee is payable prior to issuance of Building Permits. CONDITIONS: The Site Plan for the Southgate Office Park#3, File No. LUA-98-066, SA-A, ECF, is approved subject to the following conditions. 1. The applicant shall revise the site plan to provide a pedestrian connection between the public entrance of the building and the sidewalk on SW 19th Street. CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-98-066,SA-A,ECF APPLICANT: Spieker Properties PROJECT NAME: Southgate Office Park#3 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for a commercial office building located in the Southgate Office Plaza. The proposal is for a three-story building with a 20,760 sq. ft. building footprint and a total building area of 62,280 sq. ft. There are two existing office buildings on the site and the Southgate Office Plaza will be complete with the development of four office buildings. The primary access would be from the existing driveway off Lind Avenue SW and two driveways connecting to SW 19th Street. A total of 1,623 parking stalls are provided to serve the entire office plaza development. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 2000 block of Lind Avenue SW; south of SW 19th Street, east of Lind Avenue SW Advisory Notes to Applicant: The;Following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. FIRE 1. The preliminary fire flow is 3,000 GPM which requires one hydrant within 150 feet of the building and two additional hydrants within 300 feet of each building. 2. Separate plans and permits for sprinkler and fire alarm systems installation. 3. Provide a list of any flammable, combustible liquids or hazardous chemicals that are to be used or stored on site. BUILDING 1. '✓erify that the soils report addresses liquefaction. PLAI'J REVIEW STO RM DRAINAGE: 1. The System Development Connection charge is $15,284.05 for Building #3. 2. Use NAVD 1988 Datum for project. The datum is to be shown on each sheet with elevations. Provide datum and benchmark. 3. Theiutility drawings to comply with the City of Renton Drafting Standards. 4. Remove existing storm pipe from under proposed Building #3 location. 5. Utility easement#9110070845 located under Building #3 proposed location will need to be revised. SEWER (Waste Water): 1. The System Development Connection charge for Building #3 is $17,542.59. 2. A sewer backflow prevention devise is required if the floor elevation is below 25-feet. Southgate Office Park#3 LUA-l)8-066,SA-A,ECF Advisory Notes (Continued) Page 2 of 2 3. If the project produce fats, oils, or grease then an appropriate removal system will be required. 4. A surface clean out is required at 5-feet in front of building. 5. Drawings to meet City of Renton drafting Standards. WATER: 1. The System Development Connection charge for water is $33,533.54. 2. Construction plans are to be per City of Renton Drafting Standards. 3. Require fire flow per Fire Prevention is 3,000 gpm. A loop water system is required with 3 fire hydrants available to each building. 4. Buildings over 30-feet in height will require a backflow prevention device. TRANSPORTATION: 1. On the south side of SW 19th Street extend the sidewalk, curb and roadway width the full length of the property frontage on SW 19th Street. Roadway width to match existing improved roadway section east of driveway entrance. A 5-foot planter strip to be provided between the curb and sidewalk. 2. Street lighting is required with the roadway improvement. 3. There are several places in the traffic report with blanks for dates, page numbers and figures 1 &2 which need to be filled in for the final report. 4. Please add SW 27th St. To the list of primary streets on page 2 of the Traffic Report. Also revise the functional classifications of these primary streets to be consistent with the City's designations, specifically as shown on the City's Arterial sheets 1997 plan. Page 2 should reference the Arterial Streets 1997 Plan rather than the Comprehensive Plan. Marked changes attached. 5. The traffic analysis must treat the new buildings separately from each other and the existing office buildings in the area. The report needs to be revised using the following daily trips as estimated from the ITE trip generation manual. Building #3 calculated volume is 922,5 daily trips. Building #4 calculated volume is 1,080.6 daily trips. CIT' . OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman RE.,Administrator May 21, 1998 Mr. Ed Minshull Lance Mueller&Associates 130 Lakeside, Suite#250 Seattle, WA 98122 SUBJECT: Southgate Office Building #3 Project No. LUA-98- 066,SA-A,ECF Dear Mr. Minshull: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) and is to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project. The ERC, on May 19, 1998, issued a threshold Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. See the enclosed Mitigation Measures document. Comments regarding the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM June 8, 1998. Any aggrieved person feeling that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Committee is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence that could not be reasonably available at the time of the determination may submit written comments. After review of the comments, if the Environmental Review Committee finds there is not sufficient evidence to amend its original determination, then there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action would need to file a formal appeal within the original 15-day timeframe. Written comments must be filed with: Jana Huerter, Land Use Review Supervisor, City of Renton Development Services Division, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals of the environmental determination [RCW 43.21.0075(3), WAC 197-11-680] must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM June 8, 1998. If no appeals are filed by this date, the action will become final. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-235- 2501. The preceding information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 225-2719. For the Environmental Review Committee, Peter Rosen Project Manager cc: Mr. Quentin Kuhrau/Party of Record Spieker Properties/Owners Enclosure DNSMLTR.DOC 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Kristina J.Thompson, being first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 RENTON,WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a Determination of Non- a daily newspaper published seven (7) times a week. Said newspaper is a legal Significance - Mitigated for the following newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK#3 continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Washington. The South County LUA-98-066,ECF,SA-A Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper order of the Superior Court of the Proposal for a three-storyd commercial PP 9by P office building located in the Southgate State of Washington for King County. Office Plaza. Location: 2000 block of Lind The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South County Ave.SW. The 15 day comment and appeal period Journal (and not in supplemental form)which was regularly distributed to the subscribers for this project will run concurrently. The during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a comment/appeal periods for this project will end at 5:00 PM on June 8, 1998. Written comments shall be forwarded to the Southgate Office Park#3 Development Services Division Land Use Review Supervisor. Information on the pro- ject file and the mitigation measures as published on: 5/25/98 imposed by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee are availabl at the Dveloment Services The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$43.88 Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Legal Number 4680 Renton, Washington 98055. Phone: 235- 2550. Appeal procedures are available in the City Clerk's office, First Floor,Municipal Building. Publication Date:May 25, 1998 i� Published in the South County Journal • Le lerk, S th County Journal May 25, 1998.4680 Subscribed and sworn before me on this (may of r ti„�, 19 \\\\\tttn • ;t �'0• e a�•.•e ' Notary Public of the State of Washington ":'�` 9� 2= residing in Renton —C— _ King County, Washington �'hl/III'u.ttt\\\\ NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a Determination of Non-Significance - Mitig ated for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK #3 LUA-98-066,ECF,SA-A Proposal for a three-story commercial office building located in the Southgate Office Plaza. Location: 2000 block of Lind Ave. SW. The 15 day comment and appeal period for this project will run concurrently. The comment/appeal periocis for this project will end at 5:00 PM on June 8, 1998. Written comments shall be forwarded to the Devc lopment Services Division Land Use Review Supervisor. Information on the project file and the mitiption measures imposed by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee are available at the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington 98055. Phone: 235-2550. Appeal procedures are available in the City Clerk's office, First Floor, Municipal Building. Publication Date: May 25, 1998 Accc unt No. 51067 dnsm:)ub.dot Z ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: SOUTHGATE OFFICE BUILDING#3 PROJECT NUMBER: LUA.98-066,SA-A,ECF Proposal for a commercial office building located In the Southgate Office Plaza.The subject proposal is for a three-story building with a 20.760 sq.ft.building footprint and a total of 62,280 sq.ft. There are two existing office buildings on the site end the Southgate Office Plaza will be complete with development of four office buildings.Access would be from the existing driveway off Lind Avenue SW. A total of 1,523 parking stalls are provided to serve the entire office development. Location: 2000 Block of Und Avenue SW. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Comments regarding the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 6:00 PM June 8, 1998. Any aggrieved person feeling that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Committee is based on erroneous procedure,errors of law or fact,error in judgment,or the discovery of new evidence that could not be reasonably available at the time of the determination may submit written comments. After review of the comments,If the Environmental Review Committee finds there Is not sufficient evidence to amend Its original determination,then there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action would need to file a formal appeal within the original 15-day timeframe. Written comments must be filed with:Jana Huerter,Land Use Review Supervisor,City of Renton Development Services Division, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton,WA 98055. Appeals of the environmental determination [RCW 43.21.0075(3),WAC 197.11-6801 must be filed In writing on or before 5:00 PM June 8,1998. If no appeals are filed by this date,the action will become final.Appeals must be filed In writing together with the required 575.00 • application fee with:Hearing Examiner,City of Renton,200 Mill Avenue South,Renton,WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-118.Additional Information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office,(425)-235-2501. r• F_rY-�:} .mot... , '4 o�uir p a_ - I GCS J i 1L, ; d r kits i' l� . • f - - ,▪ ,' _ k i `• 1 _,•r .t ," -s i ' I e "lid. .___ N FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON,DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT(425)235-2550. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION II Pinner+,nrh,rin*ha rirniarf NI IMPFP 1.,hon rallinn in n.mmn.i:i,.Ir4,...4:4:,...4t.... 1 CERTIFICATION I, M / l,,ij,iJ T7 , hereby certify that 3 copies of the above document were posted by me in 3 conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on /141- ?_(, yg� . • Signed: ATTEST: Subcribed and sworn before me, a Nortary Public,in and for the State of Washington residing ,�. , on the �` . day of d (�iq ----1',26LA4-,--- Xre-fry-eA-e-e : MARILYN KAMCHEFF COMMISSION EXPIRES 6/29/99 j • r1(3)\ITICt.:1111- ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: SOUTHGATE OFFICE BUILDING#3 PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-98-066,SA-A,ECF Proposal for a commercial office building located in the Southgate Office Plaza. The subject proposal is for a three-story building with a 20,760 sq.ft. building footprint and a total of 62,280 sq.ft. There are two existing office buildings on the site and the Southgate Office Plaza will be complete with development of four office buildings. Access would be from the existing driveway off Lind Avenue SW. A total of 1,523 parking stalls are provided to serve the entire office development. Location: 2000 Block of Lind Avenue SW. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE E'JVIRONMENT. Comments regarding the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM June 8, 1998. Any aggrieved person feeling that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Committee is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new e\idence that could not be reasonably available at the time of the determination may submit written comments. After review of the comments, if the Environmental Review Committee finds there is not sufficient evidence to amend its original determination, then there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action would need to file a formal appeal within the original 15-day timeframe. Written comments must be filed with: Jana Huerter, Land Use Review Supervisor, City of Renton Development Services Division, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals of the environmental determination [RCW 43.21.0075(3), WAC 197-11-680] must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM June 8, 1998. If no appeals are filed by this date,the action will become final. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required$75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11B. Additional information regarding tf a appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office,(425)-235-2501. , ` 4f" ` (+ ; -.. ice, .. --"-_ 5== 0::. h •'• "Ct9 =1 ri\N 11 \tl r .cr H. al I jr • t' 1 I I ,z . si:14 ' 1 L il' .. i---- - A E9111N0 MEND .„al.,...Amu_ N FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT I SERVICES DIVISION AT(425) 235-2550. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION I Et Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. t REPORT City of Renton & Department of Planning/Building/Public Works DECISION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW & ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTION REPORT DATE: May 19, 1998 Project Name: Southgate Office Park#3 Applice nt: Spieker Properties Owner Spieker Properties File Number: LUA-098-066, ECF, SA-A Project Manager: Peter Rosen Project Description: Proposal for a commercial office building located in the Southgate Office Plaza. The proposal is for a three-story building with a 20,760 sq. ft. building footprint and a total building area of 62,280 sq. ft. There are two existing office buildings on the site and the Southgate Office Plaza will be complete with the development of four office buildings. The primary access would be from the existing driveway off Lind Avenue SW and two driveways connecting to SW 19th Street. A total of 1,623 parking stalls are provided to serve the entire office plaza development. Project Location: 2000 block of Lind Avenue SW; south of SW 19th Street, east of Lind Avenue SW Exist. Bldg. Area SF: 250,700 sq. ft. (entire site) Proposed New Bldg. Area SF: 62,280 sq. ft. Site Anna: 224,905 sq. ft., 5.16 ac. Total Building Area SF: 312,980 s.f. (project site) 28.9 acres (entire site) I I /1 ;I i t 1 _r to I� .r tr Ii ft IT 1- ;s + rz a • t � ° :r°1;,, 44Ai) sQ Irl © I E R N j I - •' � \ (-ate6 .-- 00; ti n f;Q 'IN • RTNERN• ' \VI ..I i 6 li 1 6 ‘ ! _f '' I ! ' I*4:, .\,1. 1.1 ORILL�- ^~� •-� r'rl'•:�-•I. I • j j �, ,1U-qv::v : "'L, :' %.5:97\. ' '[!,4,.1 11111'.'t: ' 1 ' 'lyr7C. :: . j_1-.I.11 --T1-7-. . : ' ' .11%,„ef' Ill' V:1*1-4i _____._=__)LL/' Z { I ;I � — y' .4I �Project Location Map - - ! R 4l tNi , 1. -- \I sITERcvoc City of Re,icon P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Approval&Env rental Review Committee Staff Report SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK#3 LUA-98-066, SA-A, ECF REPORT a=MAY 19, 1998 Page 2 of 13 ['ART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The applicant seeks Site Plan Approval and Environmental Review to construct a three-story commercial office building with a 20,760 sq. ft. building footprint and a total building area of 62,280 sq. ft. The proposed office building is located in the Southgate Office Plaza and it would be the last of four buildings, completing the office park development. There are two existing office buildings on the site, one a five-story structure of 148,000 sq. ft. and the other a three-story structure of 102,700 sq. ft. A third office building (Building #4) is also in the planning stages under a separate land use application. The proposed Building #3 would be located on the northwest portion of the site and the building is oriented around the central drive and circular drive feature. P ccess would be from the existing driveway entering the office park off Lind Avenue SW and from two driveways connecting to SW 19th Street. The entire office park includes a total of 1,623 parking stalls for the development. The existing development includes a circular area at the end of the entry drive with a sculpture foatu,re known as "Stonehenge." The applicant is proposing to redesign this area into a passive park that would contain opportunities for personal gathering and resting. The project site which is proposed for development is generally flat and covered with erosion control grasses. There are 2 wetland areas existing along the west and north edges of the site. A wetland verification has been conducted to verify the previously delineated boundary of the wetlands. The proposed project would not directly impact the wetlands or the established wetland buffers. [ART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following project environmental review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: 1, Earth Impacts: The site's ground surface is nearly level and generally covered with field grasses and bare soil where ponded water stands during wet periods. There are a few small isolated mounds of fill soils. Soil conditions are generally uniform across the site. The surficial soils consist of approximately 10 feet of medium-dense silt and clayey silt fill. The fill soils are underlain with approximately 5 to 10 feet of soft moderately compressible organic silts and clayey silts and below these compressible soils are medium-dense to dense silty sands and sands to a depth of 49 feet below the ground surface. The Geotechnical Engineering Study (prepared by Earth Consultants Inc. in 1990) recommends that the buildings be supported on augercast piles due to the moderately compressible nature of the organic and clayey silt layer located beneath the surficial fill soils. The fills should provide adequate support for the parking and driveway areas. SITERC.DCC City of Re,)ton P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Approval&Env -lental Review Committee Staff Report SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK#3 LUA-98-066, SA-A, ECF REPORT OF MAY 19, 1998 Page 3 of 13 The environmental checklist does not provide specific information as to the approximate quantity of fill that may need to be imported for pavement base and building pad. The site would be stripped of existing vegetation and graded for asphalt and building areas. Erosion could occur during the construction phase of the project. Potential erosion impacts would be mitigated by City Code requirements for approval of a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) and a Construction Mitigation Plan and prior to issuance of Construction Permits. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Nexus: NA 2) Air Impacts Impacts to air quality can be anticipated during construction and after occupancy of the proposed project. Impacts during construction would include increased levels of airborne particulates (especially dust) from disturbance of exposed soils. Construction impacts would be short term in nature and would be mitigated through best management practices of the required TESCP and with the Construction Mitigation Plan. Emissions from construction equipment exhaust would have a minor impact on local air quality. Exhaust from construction vehicles is regulated by State and City Codes. After construction the impacts would be associated primarily with vehicle exhaust from customer and employee traffic. Vehicle emissions are regulated by the State of Washington. Overall air impacts would be relatively minor in nature and not considered significant to warrant special mitigation measures. Mitigation Measures No further mitigation is recommended. Policy Nexus NA 3) Water Impacts Wetlands on the site were previously filled with approval of the past development on the site. Fill activities also established the existing edges of the wetland buffers. There are 2 wetland areas remaining along the west and north edges of the site. A wetland verification has been conducted by Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. to verify the previously delineated boundary of the wetlands. The proposed project would not directly impact the remaining wetlands or wetland buffers on the site. The wetland located along the west edge of the property is approximately 0.89 acres on-site with an offsite portion estimated to be approximately 1.5 acres for a total wetland area of approximately 2.5 acres. The wetland meets the criteria for a Category 3 wetland because most of the boundaries have been historically filled. With the previous development on the site, fill activities were allowed within 25 feet of the edge of the wetland, establishing the existing buffer width. The topography slopes up steeply from the wetland edge to the existing fill. The wetland along the north property boundary of the site is approximately .86 acres. Wetland F is considered a Category 3 wetland because it has been altered by human- related activities including modifications to the outlet, the presence of fill, and alterations to vegetation. There is not a consistent 25 foot buffer width for Wetland F along the north property line. However, the existing buffer width was established with the previous project approval and there is no new construction proposed on this part of SITERC.DO City of Re iton P/B/PW Departmen Administrative Site Plan Approval&Env rental Review Committee Staff Report SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK#3 LUA-98-066, SA-A, ECF REPORT C MAY 19, 1998 Page 4 of 13 the site. Three changes to Wetland F were allowed with the previously permitted site development. 1. An access drive was constructed crossing near the center of Wetland F that provides access to SW 19th Street. 2. Wetland F was altered to drain into the constructed detention basin in the northwest corner of the site, where previously the wetland did not have an outlet. The detention basin drains into the wetland along the west property boundary through a pipe and has an overflow weir that also leads to the west wetland. 3. Regrading the site south of Wetland F created a distinct wetland boundary whereas the boundary was previously described in the 1990 report as indistinct. Other than the fill for the road crossing, these changes have not altered the overall boundary of Wetland F. The subject project proposes to utilize the existing stormwater detention/treatment system serving the Southgate Office Plaza. The existing facilities may have to be modified to accommodate the increased runoff expected with the development. The stormwater facilities will be required to meet the standards of the King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) as adopted by the City of Renton. Mitigation Measures No further mitigation is recommended. Policy Nexus NA 41 Fire Protection Impacts The proposal would add new construction to the City which would potentially impact the City's Fire Department. A Fire Mitigation Fee applies to all new construction. The required mitigation fee is based on a rate of $0.52 per square foot of new construction. For the proposed development the fee is tentatively estimated at $32,385.60. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable at the time that Building Permits are issued. Mitigation Measures The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee at a rate of $0.52 per square foot of new construction. This fee is estimated at $32,385.60. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Policy Nexus Fire Mitigation Fee Resolution and adopting Ordinance, SEPA Ordinance. 5,1 Transportation Impacts The primary access to the proposed development would be from the existing drive entering the office park off Lind Avenue SW. There are also two driveways connecting to SW 19th Street at the north end of the site. The proposal would result in an increase in traffic trips and therefore would be subject to the City's Transportation Mitigation Fee. The Transportation Mitigation Fee is calculated to be $75 per each average daily trip attributable to the project. Trip generation numbers are estimated from the ITE Trip Generation Manual. The applicant and Plan Review staff disagree on assumptions for estimating the number of average daily trips that would be generated by the proposal. The applicant asserts that the entire office park development should be considered as one complex, while Plan SITERC.DO City of Re,Iton P/B/PW Departmen Administrative Site Plan Approval&Env nental Review Committee Staff Report SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK#3 LUA-98-066, SA-A, ECF REPORT C=MAY 19, 1998 Page 5 of 13 Review staff believes the buildings should be evaluated separately. The difference in these assumptions for purposes of the trip generation methodology is approximately 100%. The consultant estimates 1,082 average daily trips for both Buildings #3 and #4, Plan Review staff estimates 2,004 average daily trips. For the subject proposal, which includes only Building #3, Plan Review staff estimates the project would generate a total of 922.5 new average daily trips. Therefore, the recommended Traffic Mitigation Fee is estimated at $69,187.50 (922.5 trips x $75 = $69,187.50). The applicant may request reconsideration or appeal the traffic mitigation fee, the procedures are explained on the last page of this report. The applicant has submitted a Construction Mitigation Plan which states that construction would be performed between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. The applicant does not anticipate a significant amount of truck hauling due to the use of existing soils on the site. Construction-related truck traffic could impact traffic flows if occurring during AM or PM peak traffic flows. Truck hauling hours are limited to between 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. under the Development Guidelines Ordinance. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee of $75 for each average daily trip associated with the project. The traffic mitigation fee is estimated at $69,187.50 (922.5 trips x $75 = $69,187.50). This fee is payable prior to issuance of Building Permits. Policy Nexus: Environmental Ordinance, Transportation Mitigation Fee Ordinance EI. Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommend that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINATION OF DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE NON- SIGNIFICANCE- MITIGATED. X Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment and A••eal Period. Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. C. Mitigation Measures 1. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee at a rate of $0.52 per square foot of new construction. This fee is estimated at $32,385.60. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 2 The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee of $75 for each average daily trip associated with the project. The traffic mitigation fee is estimated at $69,187.50 (922.5 trips x $75 = $69,187.50). This fee is payable prior to issuance of Building Permits. SITERC.DOC City of Re ton P/B/PW Departmern Administrative Site Plan Approval&Env rental Review Committee Staff Report SOUTHG,'tTE OFFICE PARK#3 LUA-98-066, SA-A, ECF REPORT C'z MAY 19, 1998 Page 6 of 13 Advisory Notes to Applicant: The folic wing notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determir,ation. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. FIRE 1. The preliminary fire flow is 3,000 GPM which requires one hydrant within 150 feet of the building and two additional hydrants within 300 feet of each building. 2. Separate plans and permits for sprinkler and fire alarm systems installation. 3. Provide a list of any flammable, combustible liquids or hazardous chemicals that are to be used or stored on site. BUILDING 1. Verify that the soils report addresses liquefaction. PLAN RE VIEW STORM DRAINAGE: 1. The System Development Connection charge is $15,284.05 for Building #3. 2. Use NAVD 1988 Datum for project. The datum is to be shown on each sheet with elevations. Provide datum and benchmark. 3. The utility drawings to comply with the City of Renton Drafting Standards. 4. Remove existing storm pipe from under proposed Building #3 location. 5. Utilit easement#9110070845 located under Building #3 proposed location will need to be revised. SEWER 'Waste Water): 1. The System Development Connection charge for Building #3 is $17,542.59. 2. A sewer backflow prevention devise is required if the floor elevation is below 25-feet. 3. If the project produce fats, oils, or grease then an appropriate removal system will be required. 4. A surface clean out is required at 5-feet in front of building. 5. Drawings to meet City of Renton drafting Standards. WATER: 1. The System Development Connection charge for water is $33,533.54. 2. Con:truction plans are to be per City of Renton Drafting Standards. 3. Require fire flow per Fire Prevention is 3,000 gpm. A loop water system is required with 3 fire hydrants available to each building. 4. Buildings over 30-feet in height will require a backflow prevention device. TRANSPORTATION: 1. On tine south side of SW 19th Street extend the sidewalk, curb and roadway width the full length of the property frontage on SW 19th Street. Roadway width to match existing improved roadway section east of driveway entrance. A 5-foot planter strip to be provided between the curb and sidewalk. 2. Street lighting is required with the roadway improvement. 3. There are several places in the traffic report with blanks for dates, page numbers and figures 1 & 2 which need to be filled in for the final report. 4. Plea:;e add SW 27th St. To the list of primary streets on page 2 of the Traffic Report. Also revise the functional classifications of these primary streets to be consistent with the City's designations, specifically as shown on the City's Arterial sheets 1997 plan. Page 2 should reference the Arterial Streets 1997 Plan rather than the Comprehensive Plan. Marked changes attached. SITERC.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Departmen Administrative Site Plan Approval&Env -iental Review Committee Staff Report SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK#3 LUA-98-066, SA-A, ECF REPORT C MAY 19, 1998 Page 7 of 13 5. The traffic analysis must treat the new buildings separately from each other and the existing office buildings in the area, The report needs to be revised using the following daily trips as estimated from the ITE trip generation manual. See attached sheet for details of method used. Building#3 calculate volume is 922,5 daily trips. Building#4 calculated volume is 1,080.6 daily trips. PART TIiREE: ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTION - REPORT & DECISION This decision on the administrative land use action is made concurrently with the environmental determin ation. A. Type of Land Use Action x Site Plan Review Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Conditional Use Binding Site Plan Special Permit for Grade & Fill Administrative Code Determination B. Exhibits The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing: application, proof of posting and publication, environmental review and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No. 2: Drawing No. 1, Site Plan, (Received April 23, 1998). Exhibit No. 3: Drawing No. 2, Preliminary Landscape Plan (Received April 23, 1998). Exhibit No. 4: Drawing No. 3, First Floor Plan (Received April 23, 1998). Exhibit No. 5: Drawing No. 4, Exterior Elevations (Received April 23, 1998). Exhibit No. 6: Drawing No. 5, Schematic Drawing I (Received April 23, 1998). Exhibit No. 7: Drawing No. 6, Schematic Drawing II (Received April 23, 1998). Exhibit No. 8: Drawing No. 7, Topographic Survey, Utilities Plan (Received April 23, 1998). Exhibit No. 9: Drawing No. 8, Neighborhood Detail Map (April 23, 1998). C. Consistency with Site Plan Criteria Ir, reviewing the proposal with respect to the site Plan Approval Criteria set forth in Section 4-31- 33(D) of the Site Plan Ordinance, the following issues have been identified by City Departmental Reviewers and Divisional Reviewers: 9. GENERAL CRITERIA: A CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ITS ELEMENTS AND POLICIES; SITERC.DO: City of Re,Iton P/B/PW Departmen Administrative Site Plan Approval&Ems nental Review Committee Staff Report SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK#3 LUA-98-066, SA-A, ECF REPORT 0=MAY 19, 1998 Page 8 of 13 1 he subject site is located within the Employment Area-Valley (EAV) designation of the C:omprehensive Plan. The EAV designation is intended to provide for a mixture of office, industrial and commercial uses. The proposed office use is allowed within the range of uses anticipated for the EAV designation. The proposal is consistent with the following applicable EAV policies: Folicy LU-212.1 Develop the Renton Valley and the Black River Valley areas as a place for a range and variety of commercial, office, and industrial uses. Policy LU-212.2 Compatible and related land uses should be encouraged to locate in proximity to one another. Policty LU-212.7 Non-traditional uses such as research, design, and development facilities should be allowed in office designations and industrial designations when their impacts to surrounding uses can be mitigated. F'olicy LU-212.6 Developments should be encouraged to achieve greater efficiency in site utilization and result in benefits to users with techniques including: a. shared facilities such as parking and site access, recreation facilities and amenities; b. an improved ability to serve development with transit by centralizing transit stops; and c. an opportunity to provide support services (e.g. copy center, coffee shop or lunch facilities, express mail services) for nearby development that otherwise might not exist. Policy LU-212.21 Vehicular connections between adjacent parking areas are encouraged. Ir centives should be offered to encourage shared parking. Folicy LU-212.19 Street trees and landscaping should be required for new development vv ithin the Valley to provide an attractive streetscape in areas subjected to a transition of land uses. Policy LU-212.20 When more intensive new uses are proposed for locations in close proximity to less intensive existing uses, the responsibility for mitigating any adverse impacts sr'hou)d be the responsibility of the new use. Policy LU-291. Beautification and screening of parking lots should be encouraged through appropriate landscaping, fencing and berms. (Community Design policies) The site plan incorporates a number of elements which are consistent with the EAV Comprehensive Plan policies listed below. The site plan elements proposed include: shared facilities such as parking and site access, street trees along street frontages, and landscaping to screen parking areas. 8, CONFORMANCE WITH EXISTING LAND USE REGULATIONS; The subject site is zoned Commercial Office (CO). Offices, both administrative/ headquarters and professional, are allowed as a primary permitted use in the CO zone. The site plan complies with the development standards of the CO zone. The building meets the minimum 20 foot street setback from both Lind Avenue SW and SW 19th Street. There are no side or rear setback requirements in the CO zone. The required street frontage landscape strip of 10 feet is existing along Lind Avenue SW. The wetland and stormwater pond restricts the ability to provide the on-site landscape strip along SW 19th Street. The code aPows the landscape strip to be reduced through the site plan review process. SITERC.DO City of Rei)ton P/B/PW Departmen Administrative Site Plan Approval& Ent nental Review Committee Staff Report SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK#3 LUA-98-066, SA-A, ECF REPORT O=MAY 19, 1998 Page 9 of 13 T here are sidewalks connecting the existing and proposed buildings to Lind Avenue SW. No sidewalk for a pedestrian connection is provided to SW 19th Street. The applicant should rovise the site plan to provide a pedestrian connection through the parking area between the public entrance of the building and the sidewalk on SW 19th Street. E uilding #3 would cover approximately 9.2% of the project site area. The CO zone allows up to 65% lot coverage for buildings. The maximum height of the proposed building would be 45 foet. The CO zone has a maximum building height limit of 250 feet. The site plan includes a total of 1,623 parking stalls for the entire office plaza. This equals a ratio of 4.16 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of office, based on the total planned baildout of the office plaza (389,504 square feet). The Parking Code requires a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of office use. Tie proposal includes 30,038 square feet of interior parking lot landscaping for the two undeveloped building areas on the site. This equals approximately 12% of the area of the parking lot. The Parking Code requires a minimum of 5% of a large parking area to be provided as interior parking lot landscaping. The subject site is within the Green River Valley Planning area. An environmental mitigation agreement between the City and the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) requires that 2% of a site area be provided as a natural landscape area for wildlife habitat. The proposed landscape plan includes a large natural landscape area between the wetland buffer and the parking area along the west and north property boundaries. This area would be planted with wildlife habitat plantings. The proposal includes approximately 149,134 square feet of natural landscape area (includes existing undisturbed native vegetation) which equals 29% of the total site area. C. MITIGATION OF IMPACTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND USES; The proposed office building is part of the Southgate Office Park and is designed to be consistent with the other office buildings and master plan of the site. The surrounding area is d::veloped with a mix of office and industrial uses. Most development in the area occurs on larger sites with large setbacks and undeveloped areas that provide adequate buffers to rr itigate potential impacts between uses. There are also linear wetlands along the site boundaries (north, south and west) which buffer the subject site from surrounding uses. The subject office development is not anticipated to create adverse impacts on surrounding properties or uses. D. MITIGATION OF IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN TO THE SITE; The office park site has been previously graded, filled and prepared for development. The undeveloped west portion of the site that is now proposed for development is vegetated with erosion control grasses. Wetlands on the site were filled with approval of the previous development on the site. Fill activities established the edges of the wetland buffers. The subject proposal would not directly impact the remaining wetlands or wetland buffers on the sie. Construction activities related to the proposed development would be required to utilize best management practices which would reduce potential construction impacts on the site. R:3quired utility improvements, including the stormwater drainage system, would be designed to mitigate the potential impacts of the proposed development on the site. Therefore, the cc nstruction and operation of the development is not anticipated to adversely impact the st.bject site. SITERC.Doi:; City of Rel iton P/B/PW Departmen Administrative Site Plan Approval&Ens nental Review Committee Staff Report SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK#3 LUA-98-066, SA-A, ECF REPORT O=MAY 19, 1998 Page 10 of 13 E:. CONSERVATION OF AREA-WIDE PROPERTY VALUES; 1 he subject proposal would complete the buildout development of the office park plaza. The development is anticipated to conserve property values in the vicinity of the site. F. SAFETY AND EFFICIENCY OF VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION; The primary access to the proposed development would be from the existing common drive entering the office park off Lind Avenue SW. There are also two driveways connecting to SW 19th Street at the north end of the site. SW 19th Street is improved only to a 20 foot pavement width west of the site's westerly driveway. The code requires the applicant to provide full street improvements (curb, gutter and sidewalks) along the property frontage of SW 19th Street. However, widening the pavement width would encroach into the 25 foot wide wetland buffer of Wetland F on the north part of the subject site. The applicant should improve the south side of SW 19th Street with curb, gutter aid sidewalk starting at the existing pavement edge and then widen the pavement on the n Drth side of SW 19th Street to achieve a 24 foot pavement width, without curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements. These improvements are required by code and therefore do not require imposition as a condition of approval. The on-site vehicle and pedestrian circulation is designed to be safe and efficient. Transportation staff has not identified adverse impacts to the local road system. G. PROVISION OF ADEQUATE LIGHT AND AIR; Tie proposed buildings are sufficiently setback from property boundaries and existing buildings to allow for adequate light and air circulation to the building. h. MITIGATION OF NOISE, ODORS AND OTHER HARMFUL OR UNHEALTHY CONDITIONS; Tie proposed development is not expected to create any harmful or unhealthy conditions. t\oise, dust, and odors which may result with construction of the project would be mitigated t rough measures described in the Construction Mitigation Plan and with best management practices. 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED USE; AND The project site is adequately served by utilities and roads. The applicant will be responsible for extension of utilities on-site to serve the proposed buildings. See the Advisory Notes s:?ction of this report for detailed information concerning utilities and public services. J. PREVENTION OF NEIGHBORHOOD DETERIORATION AND BLIGHT. The proposal would serve to prevent neighborhood deterioration and blight by improving an undeveloped portion of the site. It will foster a cohesive office park development that is compatible with surrounding uses. SITERC.DOO City of Rer ton P/B/PW Departmen Administrative Site Plan Approval& Ens nental Review Committee Staff Report SOUTHGL TE OFFICE PARK#3 LUA-98-066, SA-A, ECF REPORT O,:MAY 19, 1998 Page 11 of 13 X Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. D. Findings, Conclusions & Decision Having reviewed the written record in the matter, the City now enters the following: 1 I Request: The Applicant has requested Environmental Review and Site Plan Approval for development of the Southgate Office Park#3. 21 Environmental Review: The applicant's file containing the application, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation, the comments from various City departments, the public notices requesting citizen comment, and other pertinent documents w as entered as Exhibit No. 1. 31 Site Plan Review: The applicant's site plan application complies with the rE quirements for information for site plan review. The applicant's site plan and other project drawings are entered as Exhibits No. 2 through 9. 4) Comprehensive Plan: The subject proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Employment Area Valley (EAV). 51 Zoning: The site plan as presented complies with the zoning requirements and development standards of the Commercial Office (CO) zoning designation. 61 Existing Land Use: Land uses surrounding the subject site include: North: Valley C ffice Park, warehouse/distribution; East: Existing offices of Southgate Office Park, Fire T wining Station, wetlands; South: Wetland area, Olympic Pipeline station; and West: pringbrook Industrial Park. E. Conclusions 1 The subject proposal complies with the policies and codes of the City of Renton. 2) The proposal complies with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Employment Area - Valley (EAV); and the Zoning designation of Commercial Office (CO). 31 Specific Land Use (e.g. Site Plan Approval) issues were raised by various City departments. These issues are addressed in the body of this report. SITERC.DC C City of Rer ton P/B/PW Departmen Administrative Site Plan Approval&Ens nental Review Committee Staff Report SOUTHG.L TE OFFICE PARK#3 LUA-98-066, SA-A, ECF REPORT 0V MAY 19, 1998 Page 12 of 13 F. Cecision Tie Site Plan for the Southgate Office Park #3, File No. LUA-98-066, SA-A, ECF, is approved subject to the following conditions. 1 The applicant shall revise the site plan to provide a pedestrian connection between the public entrance of the building and the sidewalk on SW 19th Street. EFFECT VE DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION: SIGNATURES: Ok- 44( James C. Hanson, Zoning Administrator date TRANSMITTED this 19th day of May, 1998 to the applicant and owner: Spieker F roperties 1150 114h Ave. S.E. Bellevue, WA. 98005 Ed Minshull Lance ML eller&Associates 130 lakes de, Suite 250 Seattle, VIA. 98122 TRANSMITTED this 19th day of May, 1998 to the following parties of record: Quentin H uhrau Unico Properties, Inc. 1301 5th Avenue, Suite 3500 Seattle, WA. 98101 TRANSMITTED 19th day of May, 1998 to the following: Larry Meckling, Building Official Art Larson, Fire Marshal Neil Watts Public Works Division Lawrence I. Warren, City Attorney South Cot.;Ity Journal SITERC.DC C City of Rer ton P/B/PW Departmen Administrative Site Plan Approval&Ent, nental Review Committee Staff Report SOUTHGI TE OFFICE PARK#3 LUA-98-066, SA-A, ECF REPORT CI'MAY 19, 1998 Page 13 of 13 Environmental Determination Comment Process Comments regarding the environmental determinition must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM June 8, 1998. Any aggrieved person feeling that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Committee is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence that could not be reasonably available at the time of the determination may submit written comments. After review of the comments, if the Environmental Review Committee finds there is not sufficient evidence to amend its original determination, then there will Je no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action would need to file a formal appeal within the original 15-day timeframe. Written comments must be filed with: Jana Huerter, Land Use Review S Jpervisor, City of Renton Development Services Division, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination [RCW 43.21.00''5(3), WAC 197-11-680] must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM June 8, 1998. If no appeals are filed by this date, the action will become final. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-235-2501. SITERC.DC C I , City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:Cpvtsts4 Sex\PC.LA COMMENTS DUE: MAY 11, 'I JH APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-066,SA-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 28, 199 . APPLICANT: :pieker Properties PROJECT MANAGER: Peter Rosen PROJECT TITLE: Southgate Office Building#3 WORK ORDER NO: 78'341 '" LOCATION: 2000 Block of Lind Avenue SW 6?8 SITE AREA: 520,123 sq.ft. (11.94 acres) I BUILDING AREA(gross): 251,000%t SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for a commercial office building located in the Southgate Office MR/The subject proposal is for it three-story building with a 20,760 sq.ft. building footprint and a total of 62,280 sq.ft. There are two existing office buildings on tht site and the Southgate Office Plaza will be complete with development of four office buildings. Access would be from the existing driveway off Lind Avenue SW. A total of 1,523 parking stalls are provided to serve the entire office development. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resource: Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-ItELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RI"LATED COMMENTS /(fd /-/ l`/"? / We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional Information is needed to properly assess this proposal. c� f / g Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 City , _ enton Department of Planning/Building/F_._.._ Works ENVIRONMENTAL 8, DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: h cb COMMENTS DUE: MAY 11, 1998 APPLICATION, NO: LUA-98-066,SA-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 28, 1998 APPLICANT: Spieker Properties PROJECT MANAGER: Peter Rosen PROJECT TIZ LE: Southgate Office Building#3 WORK ORDER NO: 78378 LOCATION: ,I000 Block of Lind Avenue SW SITE AREA: ;20,123 sq.ft. (11.94 acres) BUILDING AREA(gross): 251,000 sq.ft. SUMMARY OI' PROPOSAL: Proposal for a commercial office building located in the Southgate Office Plaza. The subject proposal is for a three-story building with a 20,760 sq.ft. building footprint and a total of 62,280 sq.ft. There are two existing office buildings on the site and the Southgate Office Plaza will be complete with development of four office buildings. Access would be from the existing driveway off Lind Avenue SW. A total of 1,523 parking stalls are provided to serve the entire office development. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline L'se Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental H'alth Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resouraa Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet Z1 B. POLICY RELATED COMMENTS a/2 _ C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS crime Gk) We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. //// - Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING D:=PARTMENT: �`,c COMMENTS DUE: MAY 11, 1998 APPLICATION VO: LUA-98-066,SA-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 28, 1998 APPLICANT: Epieker Properties PROJECT MANAGER: Peter Rosen PROJECT TITLE: Southgate Office Building#3 WORK ORDER NO: 78378 LOCATION: 2(.00 Block of Lind Avenue SW SITE AREA: 5::0,123 sq.ft. (11.94 acres) BUILDING AREA(gross): 251,000 sq.ft. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for a commercial office building located in the Southgate Office Plaza. The subject proposal is for,i three-story building with a 20,760 sq.ft. building footprint and a total of 62,280 sq.ft. There are two existing office buildings on tht site and the Southgate Office Plaza will be complete with development of four office buildings. Access would be from the existin 3 driveway off Lind Avenue SW. A total of 1,523 parking stalls are provided to serve the entire office development. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Us 3 Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Ha Ith Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resource: Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet c e.01/2 111/b 1 r1'06-1. B. POLICY-i?ELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RILATED COMMENTS We have reviews d this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where add''one!information is needed to properly as e¢s this proposal. ,c-pi raj Signature et Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev 10/93 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: h,1r�Q COMMENTS DUE: MAY 11, 1998 vl APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-066,SA-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 28, 1998 APPLICANT: :pieker Properties PROJECT MANAGER: Peter Rosen PROJECT TITLE: Southgate Office Building#3 WORK ORDER NO: 78378 LOCATION: 2('00 Block of Lind Avenue SW SITE AREA: 5:.'0,123 sq.ft. (11.94 acres) BUILDING AREA(gross): 251,000 sq.ft. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for a commercial office building located in the Southgate Office Plaza. The subject proposal is for Ei three-story building with a 20,760 sq.ft. building footprint and a total of 62,280 sq.ft. There are two existing office buildings on the site and the Southgate Office Plaza will be complete with development of four office buildings. Access would be from the existing driveway off Lind Avenue SW. A total of 1,523 parking stalls are provided to serve the entire office development. A. ENVIROA MENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing 1 Air Aesthetics Water LightGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline User Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Henith Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resource: Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet .- ";C 14,000 Feet ov t, None B. POLICY-I!ELATED COMMENTS None C. CODE-RE LATED COMMENTS None We have re . we I this applica%•n ivith particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where a tion 1 ii!forma " n i nee,ed to pr.•erly assess this proposal. 1 ' A' May 11, 1998 Signatur Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP. OC Rev.10/93 N PROPERTY QWNER(S) PRaJCT fNf=ORIVIaTI•ON • Note :ff there is more:than.,one fegal owner;ptease attach anadditional natar)ied Ma§ter Application fac.each<owner.;; PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK NA/VIE: BUILDING "3" SPIEKER PROPERTIES • PROPERTY/PROJECT ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION: ADDRESS: South of S.W. 19th 1150-114th Ave. S.E. East of Lind KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): CITY: ZIP: Bellevue 98005 192305-9095-04 TELEPHONE NUMBER: EXISTING LAND USE(S): (4.25) 453-1600 ............................................................................................................................................. Vacant APPLICANT {ff other than owner: PROPOSED LAND USES: NAME: Commercial `Office COMPANY (if applicable): EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: Commercial Office • ADDRESS: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable):' same • CITY: ZIP: EXISTING ZONING: CO • TELEPHONE NUMBER: PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): • CO CONTACT,PERS;OIV . SITE AREA (SQ. FT. OR ACREAGE): NAME:• . .: Ed- nshul l 520,123 s.f. (11.94) MPANY(if applicabla) PROJECT VALUE: LAiCE_��I • U�LLER & ASSOCIATES 2,175,000 "A( 9RESS: " IS THE SITE LOCATED IN THE AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA? , L0 la• keside, •Suite 250 no. . E CITY: ZIP: Seattle 98122 IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA? TELEPHONE NUMBER: yes- border as Class III Wetland • (206) 325-2553 LEGAL DESCf lON :OF PROPERTY.(Attach" sep� a sheet if necessary) SEE ATTACHED • • ,. TYPE QF APPLlCAT10N & FEES Check all:application;.types that;apply City staff will determine fees _ANNFXATION $ SUBDIVISION: • _ COMP. PLAN AMENDMENT $ _ REZONE $ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT $ _ SPECIAL PERMIT $ SHORT PLAT $ _TEMPORARY PERMIT $ _TENTATIVE PLAT $ _ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT $ _ PRELIMINARY PLAT $ . _ SITE PLAN APPROVAL $ _ FINAL PLAT $ _ GRADE & FILL PERMIT $ (NO. CU. YDS: ) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: $ VARIANCE $ • (FROM SECTION: ) _ PRELIMINARY _WAIVER $ FINAL _WETLAND PERMIT ROUTINE VEGETATION MOBILE HOME PARKS: $ MANAGEMENT PERMIT $ BINDING SITE PLAN $ SHORELINE REVIEWS: _ SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT $ _ CONDITIONAL USE _ $ _ VARIANCE $ _ EXEMPTION $No Charoe ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW $ REVISION $ �.. I, (Print Name) �G kh..� 1 I declare that I am (please check one)_the owner of the property involved in this application, t/the authorized representative to act for the property owner(please attach proof of authorization), and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Ili "�►".' :: kv 1 ATTEST: Subscrib d and sworn to before me, a:Notary Publio;in and r V for a State of residing at , (Name of Owner/Representative) ,on theme=L of 19 Si nature o Owner/Representative) y o ( ignatu e of N ry ublic) +., r 4,Ss'' :..;:;:::...::.:X<....:;:...::;;::..:..... . .. . .... __.. .. _ _ :: :.:::.: .::...: :: .::.:.;�CF MC P. .FPUf :: .FP PP P...:SA-A� ...SA. . :SHPL-A` .SHPL }-I SP.. .SM .SNME TP : V A . V.B .:;;V H ..W MASTERAP.pOC REVISED 8/97 r . __, •. .. _ .„.„....:1,10.i'•%SO'.Ei..'.i.A '% ., ' bitf.. ...... 3 .. .,.,', _....._ _,, If 1!• :-.! ',. :or, . 1 1.,. .,,,,,4500 .".: _ :, 4,00. . , ,,,,,, _____ cm, • , .. .,,,_„.....„... .. , .,•. .; ..: .,.. /I , ..... ...:„. r:Ii.„.,,,,__„:ir';r.,•4,--1,2_,--„:A'.t:.04 • , Tff' , ��-,, 'Y'""µ`[,-;�_f 1 y Sa19�i+� I �Yl►FF'/ _ __ >m • .. 1 ra I ri I 1 zd T •.f ciI"9Ad�~ ti � N 11 tla. r{ c o .lr .: c o `1 c-0 ` • f!,.. , i j FL . ... ., 1 :-___-14-,_ . a1-.. t �;,y'°"'��. Sao ' M CO Z _ 0 I H •Ic K • 1!,1 jr —.a. Z —.✓ T _.�:� ' 170:1 AIL , I sue' • �1 f CE O ' 1 _• _l MIA e E li Z r• i!...i 1 i ' , _ i' 1 Ics, r' II II Ca O Q LJ ' I .. F '1�1 LI • I I n l it F � _ I. l,w • • w } ^ i D I; ' '.•• AL._ 'SEAL Net_L ZONING LEGEND JN_TG COMMERCIAL/OFFICE a. BUSH. ROED & HITCHINGS, INC. VII HEAVY aWl ENGINEERS A INN)SURYEYG)S FM MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL NN .K�P" I' .�_ FL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL IAL m=leO [�.iYr4o.�siwc cw CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS NEIGHBORHOOD MAP di SOUIHGATE OFFICE PARK PHASE III 1...4110 sma MAW, [KM. P.NOW r— PAR. Nu .[wild .r ... SAW uww^rt ........ur ...RN/ ® l! 1 1 It'I M \N,"6C7111E--:-.3.-1:::::---::::-_------_-::-_--::::::::::::.::::-.:-.:::::::::f ."71-::::.E_::::-.E:':-:::::::.::::::::::::::::::::-____ ---'9 1...;::::-::-:::::CF:::::::::::_:_.:_:_:::_r .be tsi ::._-_f_Eaa:7-Elti:::::F.:..:.:7_"7:::.:HE:27::::::55.:ZZE::::::.:E::-.:EEEEEE:-- it 11-1-2,-;;;--ifii-it:_:_::::::::::::::::::32sz -4g,ig ,P , -- ---------- ----- p 1 [ 10 Fp. T . -2::::::::::::-E-:::::::.--*:--_--_---:-_-_-_-::-::::::--, •ci co __::::::::::::::::::::::::::::7..K.:::.::::::::::::::jive ill . .. ti . a.i mom v 1- - - - -- -+3t3wvi�iiwv - = v-_v__ _ .R.I. � - r L _ }tii{%►--zzviii- ____—___=- _ _r►a, . �, �,I . -._e,.Ta a(7 yeer= _ 514,,vil: --------;:EE-E-E-E:E:H-3--3-_--::-:---:::::::::::::E:E-3-_-_--:--iti-iiiiiiiiiisciii-65:E:E-_-_-E-E-E-E5-E-E-7.-a::::::.-E-3.5.5.---_ n - .,,, „,i . E.,1. 1 ,„,,,,/ ----::::::E;K:EfF_-:::::--K::::;::::::SE:E:E:E:::-_'S::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:K:E::WsE:E:K:E:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::sE:: lg.-=.3.xxilEtn k .. \.. , ...._ ____ -'' . II II i\-6 \,:::7,:::-.:-.:---::::::-:::::::::::::::::::::::::::-.:-::::::::::::::Ef_17:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::_:_:::___ 'I IIMI .m," ......,„, .. , _ "All NM I 6.ficA\--::.---- -:-:-.-:-:-H-:-:-:::::::::::::::::::::-..--::::::-:-:----------7.-H-7.-H-:-.7-:-H-:-:-:-:-.-.7-7.-:-.:--:::_:::::_::::_:_\ 440. 11 .7. 0 3_111‘= '\ [71 'if-Inn—H. &\V.:::::::•:::::::::::::E:E::::::::::::::::::::::=JjR:::::::::::::::•:.:::::::::::-.7.7::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::•--:::3E::::±2c- VI i 1 j\/-9 \i' "i1JULLI N --.--- _::::::::=K::::::::::::.,::::::::E.:E:E=E-H-E-E--1%-aEff:E=E:K:::::::::-E-E-H-E-H-E-E-E-E-E-1::::::-:.:E:K:E:::::-:-:-.}....k L4 Ei Muillt—rit%10 ;r:i4ir 91 iht-y----,-----------...--5771-,-:-_-::::: ::::_:::w. :::---- -: -.-_-:-:---LE:K.,:a,-,EE:::::::::::::3,EEE-,a-i-:::.::::,E -.EEEE.,-_-_-::::::,:i5-, , ;Fj -!1 g ... ,..4,1% i lf`" LI f L�0( 1 `/11. dam -�'� �=_=- = -___=_____==__==_ '1` - i HI ,oaoaa,- :_-___-___ ___=_-_______ __-___ -_ I _. L REF,1 9 0 A 1 1,, ''-i . ji INI tarn oc. _- =======_ a1 1-' N,N 11 n i, _ ,,.. 'VFC.6:. ,1 i E"3 b9 : 'Ranh -- --.• -- � L.�ffiE., — u . .gtro.H d a N\ IBC-r�j�I - . ,-_ i iiit v: , !FE . f-1 IL., ,vAP iln.an 1 Iw • .vu� \ �� IS7 w • 064 1. ._ lan / .It,;� 7rsl E_ p� r �', .I (tame: �, IP 1, 1 ®� VAIIIIVi.ikrq 41;› ..(444ENIM" :.RAllai 11 -1 Re - ,.. '•111 kl 1 I I•i 0 i t iipi z_it g lit 1 p]bits4/AOr _illi i>o-1,. '1:41'*-• -.-1114ftwiliitiz*- 51. a: - -IfIlhiLF>.:-Iulw '' --Ir`. ll . .A 1:oil nil 11, IL gi R ila I;li P..,..ii 1 L i - ifit--Niz.7.7. u \ . _---::, - .. ge 09::::—.-----.---- 1111161146.6.--"'" - .-• 0, 2,7:.\\,, _, I_ . .1._ i IlIkk \--; . `. ''.. ':1111:11ffelliCill on c[ , ., ., ., . ) .--,,,.._____,..,, ....11.`-i.- or .sr----- . co a Vtil.- 417-42 V regeicAlp- r,,, co co co tri .,... ilmis...,. L—. 7,_),__ q 1 . .. w m a ; il! irk„ c •1 E-N�! , , , -:( ..1 _,.....,_.......,„ ,,,,6 ,.. 14 01-''' c — ''''' 1 .il 717431 .c .. wc Ilill 1 44. % i 111;".i I w / 4/ 4/11 ... Aill, F F u u a-. T'-._-f 1 a 1 I .e1_,_ n.. .-. .". VI 3 I -A,./ ' 11011 • !I,V: 111111 k .411WA I "41 ii / d /' L��__p fiAlli a...... I►. ...r..,- l City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:-1- MIAS p0vTal'W-Y\ COMMENTS DUE: MAY 11, 1998 .APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-066,SA-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 28, 1998 APPLICANT: 8';pieker Properties PROJECT MANAGER: Petersen 19p •9^ ~PROJECT TITL E: Southgate Office Building#3 WORK ORDER NO: 78378 's.. c LOCATION: 2C00 Block of Lind Avenue SW ? SITE AREA: 5:'0,123 sq.ft. (11.94 acres) 1 BUILDING AREA(gross): 251,000 sq.ft.�'4",LSi t�T' SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for a commercial office building located in the Southgate Office Plaza. Ttiubject proposal is for ri three-story building with a 20,760 sq.ft. building footprint and a total of 62,280 sq.ft. There are twcr existing office buildings on they site and the Southgate Office Plaza will be complete with development of four office buildings. Access would be from the existing driveway off Lind Avenue SW. A total of 1,523 parking stalls are provided to serve the entire office development. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Usr, Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resource: Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-PELATED COMMENTS aG 107 e'-,/ fa'v r'ePike Cer'- 37`.%-, .LL-Sf_____ !P>,,-2 , 77 cL/s "7----hoy G e 47:/27 a7- 6' c /a C. CODE-RE LATED COMMENTS We have reviewe.i this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional ii formation is needed to property assess this proposal. o Signature of Direc or or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK 2001 Lind Ave. SW/Bldg. A& B Bldg.#3 EIS Review Development Services May 11, 1998 TRANSPORTATION: 1. The Transportation mitigation fee for Building#3 is $69,187.50. 2. On the south side of SW 19th Street extend the sidewalk, curb and roadway width the full length of the property frontage on SW 19th Street to Raymond Ave. SW. Roadway width to match existing improved roadway section east of driveway entrance. A 5-foot planter strip to be provided between the curb and sidewalk on the South side of SW 19th St. The roadway section on SW 19th Street on the North side to be widen with curb and gutter to Raymond Ave. SW so as to match the .existing section. The improved roadway section on SW 19th St. to include storm drainage. 3. Street lighting is required with the roadway improvement. 4. Please add SW 27th St. to the list of primary streets on page 2 of the Traffic Report. Also revise the functional classifications of these primary streets to be consistent with the City's designations, specifically as shown on the City's Arterial sheets 1997 plan. Page 2 should reference the Arterial streets 1997 plan rather than the comprehensive plan. Marked changes attached. 5. The analysis must treat the new buildings separately from each other and the existing office buildings in the area. The report to be revised using the following daily trips as estimated from the ITE trip generation manual. Building#3 calculate volume is 922,5 daily trips. Building#4 calculated volume is 1,080.6 daily trips. 98cm08 it 98CM081T.DOC\ Mr Rick Jarvis DRAFT: FOR DISCUSSION ONLY SPEIKER PROPERTIES March 23, 1998 Page - 2 - Phi'OJECT DESCRIPTION Figure 1 is a vicinity map showing the location of the site and the surrounding stri3et network. Figure 2 shows a preliminary site plan prepared by Lance Mueller and As.;ociates dated . The plan consists of two new building providing 133,807 sq. ft. of space, parking and access onto both S.W. 19th St. and Lind Ave. Southwest. Both these accesses exist. Full development of the Southgate Office Park project is expected to occur by 2000, therefore 2000 is used as the horizon year for the purposes of this study. EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS The eastern portion of the project site abutting Lind Ave. S.W. is developed. This development consists of two office buildings providing 250,700 sq. ft. of space, parking and two access driveways onto the adjacent street system. duet Facilities Figure 3 shows existing traffic control, number of street lanes, number of approach lanes at intersections, and other pertinent information. The primary streets within the study area are classified in the City's ggRapriatooReivellan as follows: SR 405 Freeway SR 167 Freeway Grady Way 3or Arterial Oaksdale Ave. S.W. Pfrf„cral rfotaitYr Arterial S.W. 43rd St. Jeri„e,,,,f eerier-Arterial Lind Ave. S.W. 49moie *--Simiencieor Arterial S.W. 16th St.t - Collector Arterial E. Valley Rd. Collector Arterial S.W. 41st St. Collector Arterial Raymonc Ave. S.W. Unclassified Local Access S.W. 19th St. Unclassified Local Access 2.--.1 119t n aw 4-t ekc47,( R067208.Rpt , 31Co • + tR). r�:�w�. '�T /, t' SP..�.EIRy...AT..,,.:�..�. R�7F�'��oFEE Project Name 5 ovI tl i y te' 6416,6 Pni k lj l e(c) Tr 3 Project Address 54, 5(,) 1 rCr'' 57` `Yo Li„cd 4,,? S w Contact Person Eel AI,iisl,e( 11 ) GU►icc /l%ic.1/e, i-/sscc Address Phone Number (20C ) - 525 - 2 555 • Permit Number i- (Li - 1 - J,6 Project Description A)e w cv 0v1 nit vc,a/c 6,,,:_e (33. 3 ) („2 , 2 ?() S f. Land Use Type: Method_off Calculation: (c,, off. (•710) ❑ Residential Ul ITE Trip Generation Manual p' R5 ❑ Retail 0 Traffic Study 0�Non-retail 0 Other � 7 m( V= 0-76B Lw Ck)�3 L54 • 0,-765 Li ( 2,280) -i- 3. 6,54 Calculation: Lyi CT) jveveat: Dcr/y TiriPs = 6122 . 5 daiiy -tvps -- At 75 -f,vi n • • 12Z. 5 ) ( $75) _ $ 6q) 1g-7. 5a Transportation Mitigation Fee: 4 6q, Ig7, 50E Calculated by: Oed 6U / Date: 1-14 S//s' Account Number: _ 105. sqq, 31W. 70• D0. Date of Payment City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING D'_PARTMENT:p\a,1t Req cu.) „ Watt /+ COMMENTS DUE: MAY 11, 1VA, r,.tosot4 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-066,SA-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 28, 1998 APPLICANT: 8pieker Properties PROJECT MANAGER: Peter Rosen123 r '? 9 1998 PROJECT TITLE: Southgate Office Building#3 WORK ORDER NO: 78378 LOCATION: 2000 Block of Lind Avenue SW ' iv SION SITE AREA: 5:.0,123 sq.ft. (11.94 acres) BUILDING AREA(gross): 251,000 sq.ft. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for a commercial office building located in the Southgate Office Plaza. The subject proposal is for three-story building with a 20,760 sq.ft. building footprint and a total of 62,280 sq.ft. There are two existing office buildings on the site and the Southgate Office Plaza will be complete with development of four office buildings. Access would be from the existing driveway off Lind Avenue SW. A total of 1,523 parking stalls are provided to serve the entire office development. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Us Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental HeNlth Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet -a �1 7 1 f__L 1� �C Y e k-r i et-0 L©'K B. POLICY-PELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-REiLATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional ii'formation is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK 2001 Lind Ave. SW/Bldg. #3 EIS Review Development Services May 11, 1998 WATER: 1. The System Development Connection charge for water is $25,414.27. 2. Construction plans are to be per City of Renton Drafting Standards. 3. A loop water system is required when the required fire flow is over 2,500 gpm. Require fire flow per Fire Prevention is 3,000 gpm. A loop water system is required with 3 fire hydrants available to each building. 4. The primary hydrant must be within 150-feet of the building, but not closer than 50-feet. All secondary hydrants must be within 300-feet of the building. 5. Buildings over 30-feet in height will require a backflow prevention device. 6. Irrigation meter location and size to be show on the water plan. 98cm081W 98CM081W.DOC\ RENTON ARE DEPT cIPc oai=Vw.T'nKl BURFAII City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVFE48g9ligET REVIEWING D::PARTMENT: Fore_ Fire ULV\ OV COMMENTS DUE: MAY 11, 1998 `� "I Vf-D APPLICATION IVO: LUA-98-066,SA-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 28, 1998 APPLICANT: 5 pieker Properties PROJECT MANAGER: Peter Rosen PROJECT TITLE: Southgate Office Building#3 WORK ORDER NO: 78378 LOCATION: 2(00 Block of Lind Avenue SW SITE AREA: 520,123 sq.ft. (11.94 acres) BUILDING AREA(gross): 251,000 sq.ft. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for a commercial office building located in the Southgate Office Plaza. The subject proposal is for;i three-story building with a 20,760 sq.ft. building footprint and a total of 62,280 sq.ft. There are two existing office buildings on thu site and the Southgate Office Plaza will be complete with development of four office buildings. Access would be from the existing driveway off Lind Avenue SW. A total of 1,523 parking stalls are provided to serve the entire office development. A. ENVIROA MENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet `, pp p 'V a g,�-- ..� a��5 /tie 4 d. B. POLICY-12ELATED COMMENTS i C. CODE-R!!'LATED COMMENTS D bee d lue%4 pert{5 We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where addi' nal information is nee to properly assess this proposal. ArtA,1_4, e _ .2//g9 / ( Signature of Director or Authorized epre ntative Date DEVAPP. C Rev.10193 (VY O • CITY OF RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU MEMORANDUM DATE: April 29, 1998 TO: Peter Rosen, Planner FROM: Jim Gray, Assistant Fire Marshal S rJBJECT: Southgate Office Bldg. 3, SW 19th nd Lind Av. SW Fire Department Comments: 1. The preliminary Fire flow is 3000 GPM which requires one fire hydrant within 150 feet of the building and two additional hydrants within 300 feet of the each building. 2. Separate plans and permits are required for Sprinkler and fire alarm systems installation. 3. Provide a list of any flammable, combustible liquids or hazardous chemicals that are to be used or stored on site. 4. A fire mitigation fee of$32,385.60 is required based on $.52 a square foot of building area. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DI!_PARTMENT:S,, ,,[a« I wost'eujari.e-, COMMENTS DUE: MAY 11, 1998 APPLICATION VO: LUA-98-066,SA-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 28, 1998 �I APPLICANT: 8pieker Properties PROJECT MANAGER: Peter Rowe t`A ^G, PROJECT TITLE: Southgate Office Building#3 WORK ORDER NO: 78378 {i 'I�. LOCATION: MO Block of Lind Avenue SW `C• ` SITE AREA: 510,123 sq.ft. (11.94 acres) ( BUILDING AREA(gross): 251,000 sq.ft. 4t'i� SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for a commercial office building located in the Southgate Office Plaza. Th€ ject proposal is fora three-story building with a 20,760 sq.ft. building footprint and a total of 62,280 sq.ft. There are two ting office buildings on the site and the Southgate Office Plaza will be complete with development of four office buildings. Access would be from the existinl driveway off Lind Avenue SW. A total of 1,523 parking stalls are provided to serve the entire office development. A. ENVIRON.'NENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Us Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Het Ith Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet .*E? e a 1a-c-to i "y-`:-.5, coY. r C tj I'e4-r-) C'/o >—+-, Lzt eA,-4-s m ti--, ;71',_�tc", ln be• VII tfi 1 a,fe-1 , B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional i,formation is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date ;/ DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK 2001 Lind Ave. SW/Bldg. Bldg.#3 EIS Review Development Services May 11, 1998 STORM DRANAGE: 1. The System Development Connection charge is $15,284.05 for Building#3 2. Use NAVD 1988 Datum for project. The datum is to be shown on each sheet with elevations. Provide datum and benchmark. 3. The utility drawings to comply with the City of Renton Drafting Standards. 4. Remove existing storm pipe from under proposed building#3 location. 5. Utility easement #9110070845 located under building #3 proposed location will need to be revised. SEWER(Waste Water): 1. The System Development Connection charge for Bldg. #3 is $17,542.59. 2. A sewer backflow prevention devise is required if the floor elevation is below 25-feet. 3. If the project produce fats, oils, or grease then an appropriate removal system will be required. 4. A surface clean out is required at 5-feet in front of building. 5. Drawings to meet City of Renton drafting Standards. 98cm081D 98CM081 D.DOC\ City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING D =PARTMENT: V1pIMt[_ 1evelopm e -COMMENTS DUE: MAY 11, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-066,SA-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 28, 1998 APPLICANT: 5 pieker Properties PROJECT MANAGER: Peter Rosen PROJECT TITLE: Southgate Office Building#3 WORK ORDER NO: 78378 LOCATION: 2000 Block of Lind Avenue SW SITE AREA: 5::0,123 sq.ft. (11.94 acres) I BUILDING AREA(gross): 251,000 sq.ft. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for a commercial office building located in the Southgate Office Plaza. The subject proposal is for a three-story building with a 20,760 sq.ft. building footprint and a total of 62,280 sq.ft. There are two existing office buildings on the site and the Southgate Office Plaza will be complete with development of four office buildings. Access would be from the existing driveway off Lind Avenue SW. A total of 1,523 parking stalls are provided to serve the entire office development. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-PELATED COMMENTS o ( vt-6 D/t/t s p C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional inform 'on is G peed d t properly assess thi proposal. l Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 ' MAY 11 '98 15:36 10-2063280554 FROM- 1-791 P.021103 F-090 cCfr l,�e _/t/ccsdN CITY OF RENTON ,.� Planning/Building/Public Works Department J e Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator May 7, 1998 TP & E Transportation Planning&Engineering, Inc. Attention: Mark Jacobs P1.I 1 1 128 2101- 112th Avelue NE, Suite 110 Bellevue, WA 93004 Subject: Traffic Mitigation Fee Calculations 1JUA-98-066, Southgate Office Park Building#3 LUA-98-051, Southgate Office Park Building#4 Dear Mr. Jacobs: We have reviewed your request for reconsideration of the traffic mitigation fee calculations for the two new office buildings proposed in the vicinity of SW 19th St and Lind Ave SW. After reviewing your request we have determined that we are unable to revise the fee calculations. The trip generation analysis used in our original calculation are based on general office use, with the buildings being evaluated as two separate new buildings, as shown on the associated site plan applications for these projects. Your proposal to evaluate the traffic impacts for these two new buildings in the same manner as if they were a single combined building with the two existing office buildings located east of these buildings is deemed inappropriate. The: trip generation values used in our fee calculation are based on the ITE values for General Office Building (710), and are calculated for each building based on the square footage for each building. This calculation estimates that the trip generation for the two new buildings will be 2004 daily trips. Your req.test is to evaluate the trip generation for these two separate buildings by assuming that the four sep:uate office buildings are the same as a single large building. This method results in an estimated trip generation value for the two new buildings of 1082 daily trips. It does not seem realistic to expect that the design of these two new buildings will reduce the trip generation from 2004 trips to 1082 based on the existence of two nearby existing office buildings. The explanations provided in your letter do exp lain how these;particular site plans somehow cut the traffic generation in half for office buildings of this size. Thee two new buildings are separate office buildings, with separate parking areas, and are divided from one another by an extensive private roadway system. Although the buildings will share ownership and project names, they are by design separate buildings. For this reason, the two buildings are being evaluated under aeparate site plan reviews, as requested by the applicant and concurred upon by City staff. The buildings will be expected to have separate tenants and separate traffic impacts and can be expected to have trip generation values based on being separate buildings. In your letter you list the reasons for lower trip generation values for these new office buildings compared to any other office building of the same size constructed in this area. We do not find any of the:e reasons sufficient justification for a reduction in the traffic mitigation fee calculation, as summarized below: Common Street Access: These are still separate buildings with separate tenants and employees. The sha:ed private roadway system is not expected to reduce the number of trips for each new building. SOUTHGT 1.DOC\ 200 Mill Avenue South- Renton, Washington 98055 This oaoer contains 50%recycled material.20%o051 consumer ' MAY 11 '98 15:37 TO-2063280554 FROM- T-791 P.03/03 F-090 7P& E MAY 1`i Easy Walking D,stance: All businesses within the Valley area are interconnected by a well developed side walk and trail system. Every new office building is within "easy walking distance" from other ting office buildings in the area. This does not mean that there will be less employees, deliveries, client trips, etc. Common Utility;md Drainage System: This is not expected to reduce the traffic for the new buildings. One Ownership: The buildings are still separate, with separate tenants, employees, deliveries, clients, etc. The ownership of the buildings is not expected to effect the trip generation of the buildings. Common Service Deliveries for Mail, Garbage and Office Deliveries: While this may be true for regular mail and garbage delivery, there is nothing about these site plans that would suggest that there will be shared deliveries for the different tenants in the different buildings. The few trips associated with mail and garbage are insignificant compared to the 2000 daily trips associated with the two new bull dings. Utilize Services in Other Buildings (Cafeteria.Exercise. Management Services. Maintenance Services): If this occurs, then the additional area available in the new buildings can be assumed to be used for additional office space, with associated additional trip generation. These same facilities may be in other offi;:e buildings is the area, which may or may not be available to the tenants of these new buildings. In conclusion, we cannot grant your request to reduce the traffic mitigation fee calculations for these two new projects based on the information you have provided us. The fees will be based on evaluating each building as a separate building. Copies of the traffic mitigation fees for these two projects are attached. If you have additional questions concerning this issue, please contact Clint Morgan at (425)- 277.6216. Sincerely, A/4r/ t/ Nei. Watts Plan Review Supervisor De%elopment Services Division cc: Peter Rosen Clint Morgan Attz;chments SOU HGT1.DOC1 %4 © CITY OF RENTON -; (0, Planning/Building/Public Works p- Q +rt x`r aII " API 2 8'8 8 � � �_0 A. 9 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton,Washington 98055 co �,�� ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED ¢ ¢ 1151 *p 0�-24 . 9E F O.�IBE964 ��. al�Taoe_ * I 1 302305-9066-04l' CITY OF SEATTLE 2251 LIND AVENUE SW t g66i R TON, WA 98055 j:10 SUCH --,,,�y. ._ \\ ADDRESS 1 ��;� ao �1 D c { RETURN T SENDER _ _ _. °K) W i }x.ad 'i'j � "''.. ''.3 11,i„1„1,li,,,,1,1„i,i„,11,1 1,1,1,,I,l,,,1,1,„Ill:,l,i,l„II,,,II:,,II,,,I c: TY-OF- TON °t , Planning/Building/Public ks i 20d,Mi11 Avenue South - Renton,Washington 98055 a API 2 8'8 8 01 ;1 .= 0 2 9 5 W H ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED oad� - �a F : e I: TEA Y �; b. PO STAGE it ._!� W-AA(N ) k d . \ ,...., 252304-9037-08 f WATER D P TMENT COUNTY C Y BUILDING SEATTLE, A 98104 / 3 "- /o - 0/ St,.,"C,4;`3"-BS.'3 Iiii"11111111111111111„11"1 I111111ItIII,IIIIIItihtiiIIJ111liltililIlluil ....::..::{:•ii.:�}.i.•}.:::v;..•:x:n..:;•:w:•:::nti.?.. .::.:..�;.Y.::i:...:r.;n:r::::.:.{:;}'+.:•:�:}•: ..i:3:iii::tv:>+i•:�i ...:i;:6i:r.:ii,}.•r r?j.. rr ....v-..... ::r:. ....... ...,...:'::ii�ii:?,i>ii:i: DEVELOPMENTS •, • '•:�':}:s}"Si rnX:•.::::::::i :;%. LIST O'F SURROUNDINOPROPERTY OWNERS wittgt.300 feet of.003itth Oct site • • •- ' -■' NING CITY OF RENTON PROJECT NAME: SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK PHASE IIII APR 2 3 1998 APPLICATION NO: LVA •9$• OW*. SA `4, C` RECEIVED The following is a list of property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. The Development Services Division will notify these individuals of the proposed development. NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 1. CITY OF RENTON 200 MILL AVE. S. 334040-0425-02 RENTON, WA 98055 2. RENTON DELAWARE 255 SHORELINE DRIVE #600 334040-4000-07 INC. REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065 BLDGS: 1 - 4'. 3. CITY OF SEATTLE 2251 LIND AVE. S.W. 302305-9066-04 RENTON, WA 98055 4. CITY OF RENTON CITY HALL-200 MILL AVE. S. 192305-9081-00 RENTON, WA 98055 5. DRB LIMITED 200 S. BROAD ST. 242304-9020-08 PARTNERSHIP 6TH*FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102 ' • 6. DRAINAGE " . '601'W:;GOE ST. , •- . •i 242304-9I2208 DISTRICT 1 KENT, WA 98032 ' 7. HUNTER DOUGLAS 2 PARK WAYT 173 242304-9115-04 REAL PROPERTY UPPER SADDLE RIVER, NY 07458 8. CITY OF RENTON. 200 MILL A\E. .S. 252304-9001-00 RENTON, WA 98055 9. CITY OF SEATTLE= '•: WATER DEOARTMENT 252304-9037-08 "'..CoINTY CITY BLDG. SEATTLE, WA 98104 10. RENTON #2LLC 17373 CANYON DRIVE 252304-9064-04 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 11. CITY OF RENTON 200 MILL AVE. S. 302305-9007-06 RENTON, WA 98055 12. OLYMPIC PIPE LINE P.O. BOX 5568 302305-9084-02 COMPANY DENVER, CO 80217 13. BENAROYA CAPITAL 1001 4TH AVE. #4700 334040-5300-01 COMPANY SEATTLE, WA 98154 14. SPIEKER PROPERTIES 1150 114TH AVE. S.E. 192305-9076-07 LP BELLEVUE, WA 98004 15. SPIEKER PROPERTIES 1150 114TH AVE. S.E. 192305-9013-07 LP BELLEVUE, WA 98004 (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) eewa ii 10461QO (Continued) NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER / Applicant Certification I, "Z�1�.C.t7 (�\. Z1Lf , hereby certify that the above list(s) of adjacent property (Print Name) owners and their addresses were obtained from: ❑ City of Renton Technical Services Records tTitle Company Records King ounty Assessors Recordz.,,.,,,,N Signed Dat:� �i= E;o` , (Applicant) i ;� T A 'r. 0 NORy i NOTARY i co:;y pU llc / ATTESTED: Su scribed and sworn before me, a Notary''ubit9 'n a i fo Q1j to of Washington, residing at ,Cp,/(,�i -<- (�(JCti on the �dal /,� .� , 19 ef'. � � n �/�� typfWAN\ s Signed �J771 r� •/tIL�-�1r k v..,.... (Notary P lic) _7 : •***For`City of Renton Use ._..:�::::::.iv: ::. CERTIFICATION OF MAILING 1, j2:,r,,,LItt .kl-, hereby certify that notices of the proposed application were mailed to (City Employee) each listed property owner on . Sic9ndd ,Tray-rleck. 5 „.: y Date: NO1ARY ?TEST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington c re::iding a; ,- ,: on the day of 19 Sign _. ) .4- �et .docc� ��: 075 MARILYN KAMCHEFF • COMMISSION EXPIRES 6/29/99 2 ,cY U 4\ • NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DATE: APRIL 29,1998 A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: LUA-98-068,SA-A,ECF/SOUTHGATE OFFICE BUILDING 83 DESCRIPTION: Proposal for a commercial office building located in the Southgate Office Plaza. The subject proposal is for a three-story building with a 20,760 sq.tt.building footprint and a total of 62,280 sq.ft. There are two existing office buildings on the site and the Southgate Office Plaza will be complete with development of four office buildings. Access would be from the existing driveway off Lind Avenue SW. A total of 1,523 parking stalls are provided to serve the entire office development. GENERAL LOCATION: 2000 Block of Und Avenue SW STUDIES REQUIRED/OR AVAILABLE: Traffic Impact Analysis;GeotechnIcal Report:Wetland Report and Vedficalion Letter PUBUC APPROVALS: Environmental Review(ECF) ' Site Plan Approval(SA-A) Building Permit Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Mr.Peter Rosen,Project Manager,Development, Services Division,200 Mill Avenue South,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on June 8,1998.If you have questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail,contact Mr.Rosen at(425) 235-2719.Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party o1 record and will be notified of any decision on this project. PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION DATE OF APPLICATION: APRIL 23,1998 �r NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: APRIL 23,1998 ACC 7.R._� �. +� �--',.lit•. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: APRIL 29,1998 ,.�v'~Faj JCa9 rdl 4Pl � ��- 'O (" TO ,' t F z•r •:, ..�ry _ e u, -y) caurmLor.boc N CERTIFICATION I, So. X di,J ON Yt V k ct , hereby certify that 5 copies of the above document were posted by me in 3 conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on A2,0► 23,k1°1a Signed: SGwI 1 v/fi ATTEST: Subcribed and sworn before me, a Nortary Public,in and rY'the State of Washington residing in ( , on the zit 44, day of /Ij SJ (7)1 CUL(/' - '711-..17)-t lA.."--/_, MARILYN KAMCHEFF COMMISSION EXPIRES 6/29/99 U1�Y �� -IR ,AP- NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DATE: APRIL 29, 1998 A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: LUA-98-066,SA-A,ECF/SOUTHGATE OFFICE BUILDING#3 DESCRIPTION: Proposal for a commercial office building located in the Southgate Office Plaza. The subject proposal is for a three-story building with a 20,760 sq.ft. building footprint and a total of 62,280 sq.ft. There are two existing office buildings on the site and the Southgate Office Plaza will be complete with development of four office buildings. Access would be from the existing driveway off Lind Avenue SW. A total of 1,523 parking stalls are provided to serve the entire office development. GENERAL LOCATION: 2000 Block of Lind Avenue SW STUDIES REQUIRED/OR AVAILABLE: Traffic Impact Analysis;Geotechnical Report;Wetland Report and Verification Letter PUBLIC APPROVALS: Environmental Review(ECF) Site Plan Approval(SA-A) Building Permit Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Mr. Peter Rosen, Project Manager, Development 1 Services Division,200 Mill Avenue South,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on June 8,1998. If you have questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail,contact Mr.Rosen at(425) 235-2719. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I DATE OF APPLICATION: APRIL 23, 1998 _ NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: APRIL 28, 1998 2 � r „t Gl -��,,. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: APRIL 29, 1998 ;&'w 4 "3 r� 1 + ,rig!.- ,— 1 n „ �� r r ,lam - — I 0II Ihi' __._.a I'1 � `` n -- .,- 4 7 c-o • ,!�_ c-0U 1 .1 - c-0 i S Pr `' • h'S ) j I -- 2L , , i r.,1 , , ., issii...., x„....__;_____ 1.._ ..... ' . i I% _ ", ni,„;:r.,74,7L.,:i _.,....,..---. ___, i — q .7-1 "....,:„.:_, v. . .r, .1 i -3F--- - _.:,:z.ro ic . . -• .; �' 1 �. i . r I Ii' 41=1 ::: rie • it 'i; 16r mxunuuedc GENMALOT.DOC •, ,�M„o,,,�,, NI CIT0F RENTON ..IL I , Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator April 28, 1998 Mr. Ed Minshull Lance Mueller&Associates 130 Lakeside, Suite 250 Seattle, WA 98122 SUBJECT: Southgate Office Building #3 Project No. LUA-98-066,SA-A,ECF Dear Mr. Minshull: The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on May 19, 1998. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. Please contact me, at (425) 235-2719, if you have any questions. Sincerely, Peter Rosen Project Manager cc: Spieker Properties/Owner ACCPTLTR.00C 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION .EVEL OPM T P NNING MASTER APPLICATION � R,w T l PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT 1NP.P.) Note: If there is more than one legal owner, please attach an additional notarized Master Application for each-owner."> PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK NAjv1E: BUILDING "3" SPIEKER PROPERTIES PROPERTY/PROJECT ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION: ADDRESS: South of S.W. 19th 1150-114th Ave. S.E. East of Lind KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): CITY: ZIP: Bellevue 98005 192305-9095-04 TELEPHONE NUMBER: EXISTING LAND USE(S): (425) 453-1600 Vacant APPLICANT {if other PROPOSED LAND USES: NAME: Comnercial Office COMPANY(if applicable): EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: Commercial Office ADDRESS: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): same CITY: ZIP: EXISTING ZONING: Cr TELEPHONE NUMBER: PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): CO CONTACT:PERSON SITE AREA (SQ. FT. OR ACREAGE): NAME: Ed Ninshul1 520,123 s.f. (11.94 ) `• b PROJECT VALUE: �MPANY (if applicable):: • `'_LANCE IilUELLER & ASSOCIATES 2,175,000 IS THE SITE LOCATED IN THE AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA? , 130 Lakeside, Suite 250 no CITY: ZIP: Seattle 98122 IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA? TELEPHONE NUMBER: yes- border as Class III Wetland (206) 325-2553 • LEGAL<.DESCRI ON OF.PROPERTY (Attach sees sheet if necessary) SEE ATTACHED • • • • • TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES Check all;,appl cation types that apply City staff w111'determme fees ANNEXATION $ SUBDIVISION: _ CON�P. PLAN AMENDMENT $ _ REZ NE $ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT $ _ SPE IAL PERMIT $ _ SHORT PLAT $ _TEM ORARY PERMIT $ i TENTATIVE PLAT $ CONDITIONAL USE PERT $ —_ PRELIMINARY PLAT $ 7 SITE PLAN APPROVAL �°�I $ /C(]. FINAL PLAT $ j _ GRADE & FILL PERMIT $ (NO. CU. YDS: ) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: $ _ VARIANCE $ (FROM SECTION: ) _ PRELIMINARY _WAIVER $ _ FINAL WETLAND PERMIT $ _ ROU INE VEGETATION MOBILE HOME PARKS: $ MA AGEMENT PERMIT $ _ BIN ING SITE PLAN $ SHORE INE REVIEWS: _ SUB TANTIAL DEVELOPMENT $ CONDITIONAL USE $ VARIANCE $ / EXEMPTION $No Charge •' ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW $ &tie • — REVISION •$ AFFIDAVIT;•OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Dame) CO- k! I I ,declare that I am(please check one)._the owner of the property involved in this application, c/the authorize representative to act for the property owner(please attach proof of authorization), and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. E „� ^ ��S�v 1 ATTEST: Subscrib d and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, in and 1 V for a State of residing at (Name Of Owner/Representative) ,on the dfi,§'of , , > 19 (Signature o Owner/Representative) ' ' ( ignatu e of N IN/ ublic) - l; a r I >b' St ff • (T sect on to be��om eted,. CttY . Cit File<Number A .AAD BSP <CAP S CAP U CPA CU A CU H ECfi LL 1 Y MHP FPUD FP PP R R\!MP SA H SHPL A SHPL H SP SM SMF TP . V A �f B, \f H W 5..MASTERAP.DOC REVISED 8/97 Owner's Extended Policy Policy No. 866745 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SOUTHGATE I THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST W.M. , DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SAID SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 WHICH IS NORTH 89 DEGREES 51 MINUTES 55 SECONDS WEST 40. 01 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 89 DEGREES 51 MINUTES 55 SECONDS WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE 547. 00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 08 MINUTES 05 SECONDS EAST 507. 38 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE FROM WHICH THE RADIAL CENTER BEARS NORTH 17 DEGREES 35 MINUTES 32 SECONDS EAST 140. 00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY, NORTHEASTERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST, THROUGH A CENTRAL, ANGLE OF 235 DEGREES 51 MINUTES 39 SECONDS, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 576. 32 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88 DEGREES 39 MINUTES 35 SECONDS EAST ALONG A NON-TANGENT LINE 385 . 14 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 40. 00 FEET OF THE SAID SOUTHWEST 1/4 ; THENCE SOUTH 01 DEGREES 20 MINUTES 25 SECONDS WEST ALONG SAID WEST LINE 673 . 16 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WAEHINGTON. • Page 2 Owner's Extended Policy Policy No. 866745 SOUTHGATE II THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST W.M. , DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 ALSO BEING THE INTERSECTION OF THE WEST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION AND THE CENTERLINE OF S.W. 19TH STREET; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 38 SECONDS WEST ALONG SAID WEST LINE A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY MARGIN OF SAID S.W. 19TH STREET; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 50 SECONDS EAST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY MARGIN A DISTANCE OF 211. 73 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 89 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 50 SECONDS' EAST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY MARGIN A DISTANCE OF 707.88 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 00 DEGREES 11 MINUTES 10 SECONDS WEST, HAVING A'RADIUS OF 55 . 00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 91 DEGREES 09 MINUTES 04 SECONDS, AN ARC LENGTH OF 87 . 50 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF LIND AVENUE S.W. ; THENCE SOUTH 01 DEGREES 20 MINUTES 14 SECONDS WEST ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN A DISTANCE OF 570. 04 FEET; THENCE, ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF THE PARCEL DESCRIBED UNDER .RECORDING NO. 8612161573 , NORTH 88 DEGREES 39 MINUTES 42 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 385. 13 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 73 DEGREES 27 MINUTES 04 SECONDS WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 140. 00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY, WESTERLY AND SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND SAID BOUNDARY, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 117 DEGREES 09 MINUTES 31 SECONDS, AN ARC LENGTH OF 286.27 FEET; THENCE NORTH 43 DEGREES 42 MINUTES 27 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 196. 64 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 20 MINUTES 18 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 416 . 00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; TOGETHER WITH THOSE EASEMENT RIGHTS DISCLOSED BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NO. 9010110785; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. • Page 3 Owner's Extended Policy Policy No. 866745 SOUTHGATE III TE:E SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 19 , TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST W.M. ; E :CEPT THE EAST 40 FEET THEREOF AS CONDEMNED IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NO. 847917 FOR LIND AVENUE S.W. ; AID EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF AS CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF RENTON FOR SOUTH 156TH STREET (SOUTHWEST 19TH STREET) UNDER RECORDING NO. 8206090161; AhD EXCEPT THAT PORTION DESCRIBED UNDER RECORDING NO. 8E12161573 ; BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 WHICH IS NORTH 89 DEGREES 51 MINUTES 55 SECONDS WEST 40. 01 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 89 DEGREES 51 MINUTES 55 SECONDS WEST, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, 547. 00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 08 MINUTES 05 SECONDS EAST 507.38 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE FROM WHICH THE RADIAL CENTER BEARS NORTH 17 DEGREES 35 MINUTES 32 SECONDS EAST 140. 00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY, NORTHEASTERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 235 DEGREES 51 MINUTES 39 SECONDS AN ARC DISTANCE OF 576 .32 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88 DEGREES 39 MINUTES 35 SECONDS EAST, ALONG A NCN-TANGENT LINE, 385. 14 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 40 . 00 FEET OF THE SAID SOUTHWEST 1/4 ; THENCE SOUTH 01 DEGREES 20 MINUTES 25 SECONDS WEST, ALONG SAID WEST LINE, 673 . 16 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS EXCEPTION; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, BEING THE INTERSECTION OF THE WEST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION AND THE CENTERLINE OF S.W. 19TH STREET (S. 156TH STREET) ; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 38 SECONDS WEST, ALONG SAID WEST LINE, 30. 00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY MARGIN OF SAID S.W. 19TH STREET; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 50 SECONDS EAST, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY MARGIN, 211.73 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS EXCEPTION; . THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 89 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 50 SECONDS EAST, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY MARGIN, 707.88 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 00 DEGREES 11 MINUTES 10 SECONDS WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 55.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY,ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 91 DEGREES 09 MINUTES 04 SECONDS AN ARC LENGTH OF 87 .50 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF LIND AVENUE S.W. ; Page 4 Owner's Extended Policy Policy No. 866745 THENCE SOUTH 01 DEGREES 20 MINUTES 14 SECONDS WEST, ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN, 570. 04 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE EXCEPTION LAST DESCRIBED ABOVE; THENCE NORTH 88 DEGREES 39 MINUTES 42 SECONDS WEST, ALONG SAID LINE, 385.13 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 73 DEGREES 27 MINUTES 04 SECONDS WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 140. 00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY, WESTERLY AND SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID LINE AND SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 117 DEGREES 09 MINUTES 31 SECONDS AN ARC LENGTH OF 286. 27 FEET; THENCE NORTH 43 DEGREES 42 MINUTES 27 SECONDS WEST 196. 64 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 20 MINUTES 18 SECONDS EAST 416. 00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS EXCEPTION; (ALSO KNOWN AS PARCEL 3 OF SURVEY RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 9011079001) ; TOGETHER WITH THOSE EASEMENT RIGHTS DISCLOSED BY INSTRUMENTS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NOS. 9010110785, 8910050889 BEING A REFECORDING OFEASEMENT UNDER RECORDING NO. 8808170975; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. Page 5 1150 119th AVentie S.E. Bellevue.WA4`O09-691-t DEVELOPMENT PLANNING en.Bo\9'022 CITY OF RENTON Bellevue,WA 009-9'i 2 425 i53-16600•E\X: 425455-+105 APR 2 3 1998 SPIEKER April 3, 1998 RECEIVED PROPERTIES Ms. Lesley Nishihira, Planning Technician DEVELOPMENT PLANNING City of Renton CITY OF RENTON Municipal Building-3rd Floor 200 Mill Avenue South APR 0 8 1998 Renton, WA 98055 RECEIVED RE: Southgate Office Plaza III, Renton,WA Dear Ms. Nishihira: Let this letter serve as authorization that Ed Minshull of Lance Mueller and Associates is authorized to act as Spieker Properties agent for the purposes of making the permitting action for the project specified above. Richard P. Gervais Vice President DATE: 7/yfzii STATE OF WASHINGTON ss. COUNTY OF KING On this 3rd day of April, 1998, peeonally appeared before me Richard P. Gervais, to me known to be the Vice President of Spieker Properties which executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to be a free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath state that he was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed (if any) is the corporate seal of said corporation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Official Seal the day and year first above written. M (notary signature) 1111 Katarina Moudy (name-typed or printed) NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington l iENERAL CONTRACTORS a- at 4 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING POLIO CITY OF RENTON ;;; 3 60.118T7-1AVE S.E.,SUITE lobo APR 2 3 1998 • jssti P.O.BOX 3767 &=LLEVUE WA 98009r141.:0y.) 4.V746-1000 RECEIVED lag lb 4. SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK "CONSTRUCTION MI T/GA TION DESCRIPTION" 3/13/98 • Construction will take approximately (7) months from the anticipated start date in the summer of 1998. • Hours of operation will be from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. • The only required hauling to be done would be the site strippings which would be hauled to an available dump site at the time construction starts. The site is a cut to fill site with all existing soils used on site. • To minimize dust, mud, Etc., standard quarry spall roads will be built at all entrances and exits to minimize dirt off site. Truck traffic will be reduced due to the use of on site soils and the heavy equipment noise will be limited to standard working hours and a minimum of weekends if needed. Erosion control fences, ponds, Etc., will be used to control any potential runoff from leaving the site. The site is relatively flat so these measures should be effective. • All hauling is planned for weekdays however as stated-above this heavy hauling should be at a minimum due to use of existing soils on site. • Naggers and signage will be used at the exit points of the site as well at the intersection of the existing access to the park and Lind Ave. S.W. during periods of heavy hauling. SeaV1a:216/621-8219 FAX 425/74 6-373 7 0001•FO-US•HA-C 15800 Tr'ITDI D ra7 rr • LANCE: MUELLER & L iOCIATES IMMEM,\/\/\ DEVELOPMENT PLANNING A R C H I T E C T S • A I A CITY OF RENTON PROJECT NARRATIVE APR 1998 FOR RECEIVED SOUTHGATE OFFICE PLAZA (LMA#97-203) Southgate Office Plaza is a commercial office park that at completion will consist of four buildings. At completion, this Park will house approximately 389,000 s.f. of office space and park about 1,630 cars. The present park consists of two buildings. Building 1 is three stories and approximately 103,000 s.f. Building 2 is five stories and approximately 148,000 s.f. Tie site is located in the southwest corner of the intersection of S.W. 19th and Lind Avenue S.W. The property to the south and west of the site is a publicly dedicated wetland. The property to the north of 19th is commercial office. The area to the east of ti-e project area contains the office buildings constructed under Phases I and II. Tie current project has fully developed streets on the north side. Development plans call for providing curb and gutter along the south side of 19th in the project frontage area. A shim of paving will be placed on the south half of the street between the edge of the existing paving and curb. Building 4, as proposed under Phases 3, will be type II 1-hour construction. Building 3, as p-oposed under Phase 4, will be type II 1-hour with sprinklers substituted for 1-hour. Each building will have an exterior skin consisting of precast concrete and energy efficient glazing. This facade will be supported by a steel structure bearing on auger cast piles. The ground floor will be a structural slab on grade with the upper floors constructed as a concrete slab on metal deck supported by metal joists and girders. The roof will be a Class A or B single ply system over rigid insulation supported by metal deck over steel jc ists and beams. The exterior design will feature elements seen in the existing building as well as new features to give these buildings an individual character. The facade will utilize textured painted concrete along with articulation in the glazing pattern to create warmth and it terest. The design of the building will create a corporate appearance that will compliment and enhance the existing buildings in the Park. Each building floor plate has been designed to accommodate multiple as well as single uses. In order to do this, the building will have three exit stairs as well as 2 elevators in a central lobby. These lobbies in the final design may be two stories high. The undeveloped portion of the site was filled under a permit granted in 1993 for construction on a third building. This permit has expired. Though some site improvements such as the storage damage system remain in place as part of that permit, a wetland delineation was done and verified by the Corp. The fills that are in place remain outside the 25 project buffer. The edge of the wetland area was recently reviewed by the original biologist. They found that the delineation remains current. 130 LAKESIDE • SUITE 250 • SEATTLE. WA • 96122 • (2063 325-2553 • FAX: (2063 326-0554 ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • SPACE PLANNING • INTERIORS PROJECT NARRATIVE SOUTHGATE OFFICE PLAZA Page Two The proposed project site is generally flat and covered with erosion control grasses. Other areas outside the fills are vegetated with blackberries, Alder and other types of brush. The site areas not used for parking, wetland, and wetland buffer will be improved with landscaping and passive recreation features. Active recreation opportunities will be provided within the complex in either Building 3 or 4. Within one of these buildings, a work out gym will be provided. Passive recreation areas will be part of the park like landscaping. In order to achieve this, the center cycle area known as "Stone Hedge" will be redesigned into a passive park that will contain opportunities for personal gathering and resting. Tt-e final phases of the Southgate Office Park will provide the community with new office area for business relocation to Renton. This project, when finished, will enhance the south Renton area and be an asset to the community. NK;41/SOUTHGATE.NAR • Environmental Checklist DEVELOPMENT PLANNING A. BACKGROUND CITY OF RENTON 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: APR 2 3 1998 SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK BUILDING RECEIVED 2. Name of applicant: Spieker Partners 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 1150 — 114th S.E. Contact Person: Ed Minshull Bellevue, WA 98005 LANCE MUELLER & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECT 130 Lakeside, Suite 250 Seattle, WA 98122 (206)325-2553 4. Date checklist prepared: 3/23/98 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Start construction July, 1998. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? Yes —A proposed third building is planned. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. As part of a previous building permit application, a soils report was prepared and a wetland delineation was done. 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 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Site Plan Approval, Building Permit, Boundary Line Adjustment, Lot Line Adjustment, and Utility Permit. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. See project narrative. 1 Environmental Checklist 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. See attached neighborhood maps. 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)? 20% at the edges of existing fills. 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. Sandy silts, gravely sandy silt, and imported gravel. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. None e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Quantity of import unknown at this time. Material will come from approved off site borrow. Material imported will be used as pavement base and for building pad. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Minor surface erosion could result during grading when seasonal rains occur. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 58% impervious 2 Environmental Checklist h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth if any: Install City approved temporary erosion control plan. 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. Emission from vehicles will occur during construction and after completion. Emission from gas heating equipment will occur after completion. Construction activities will create dust until paving is placed. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Comply with vehicle emission standard during and after construction. Practice dust abatement measures 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 if flows into. This site borders a wetland area dedicated to the City. The wetland areas are closed cell depressions. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) of the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. None 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. Does not apply. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions: Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 3 Environmental Checklist 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 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. None 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 systems are expected to serve. None 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 will be diverted into the wetland area in order to maintain current runoff rates to that area. Runoff from areas will be collected into a city approved system and discharged into a public system after water quality treatment is done. 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. The storm water detention system and water quality system will be provided to mitigate the impacts of the project. 4 Environmental Checklist 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X Deciduous tree: Alder.Maple, Aspen, other X Evergreen tree: Fir, Cedar, Pine, other Shrubs X Grass Pasture _ Crop or grain X Wet soil plants: Cattail, Buttercup, Bulrush, Skunk, Cabbage, other _ Water Plants: Water Lily, Eelgrass, Milfoil, other X Other types of vegetation: Blackberries b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered Vegetation in upland construction areas will be modified within the construction area. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None observed. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The site landscaping will comply with the City Ordinance and the Green River Ordinance. 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,6ongbirds others; 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. None c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Pacific Flyway d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Provide native landscaping at a minimum of 2% of the site area. Provide a 25' buffer between developed area and the delineated Class Ill wetland. 5 • Environmental Checklist 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity will be used for convenience outlets and cooling. Gas will be heating equipment. 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: Compliance with Energy Code. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Aid car, fire response and police services. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None required. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic equipment, operation, other)? Traffic 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation. other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Short term construction noise from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. during construction. Vehicle noise after construction is complete. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Comply with noise abatement practices and vehicle noise standards. 6 Environmental Checklist 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Current site is vacant — adjacent properties are commercial offices. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No c. Describe any structures on the site. None d. Will any existing structures be demolished? No e. What is the current zoning classification of the site CO f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Commercial Office g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Done h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? Wetland shown on site plan have been previously delineated during previous permit action. No modifications are proposed. I. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Not available at this time. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Comply with zoning regulations and mitigation measures. 7 Environmental Checklist 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. DNA b. Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. DNA c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: DNA 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 top of the parapet will be about 45 feet. The exterior of the building will be textured concrete and glass. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Install landscaping and follow good design practice. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Night lighting will be used in twilight hours. 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: Use photo metrics to limit lighting affects to the site. 8 • Environmental Checklist 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Walking b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreation uses? If so, describe. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Provide employee work out room in building. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, describe. None b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None required. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highway serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Lind Avenue b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit shop? Yes. The site is currently serviced by a Metro shuttle. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 1,623 total new spaces between new and proposed project. No stalls will be eliminated. 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 improvements are needed. 9 Environmental Checklist e. Will the project use (or occur in immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. None f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. See Transportation Report. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: See Transportation Report. 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. The project will require community services from fire and police departments. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Pay Fire Department mitigation fee. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities current) available at the site: (lectricit)((natural gas) 6;fuse service)(elephone sanitary semi) 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. Connections to existing utilities will be required. These utilities exist at the boundaries of the property. c. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying • the make its decision. Proponent: clPzc Name Printed: 450.5 7.r1 o h.) Date: --1-9.5 SOUTFIGATE.CHK 10 1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN • I� ± ) /, -;� a - -' .... ��• ;.................. .'R __ .. ±• - � ' A [ �' , . • a lii ...�. I, 41 , I I q:a $a :. I v / ` � r191d9E 3) / , (PHASE+aSE.�. .1" I) ' ' ;t 11 y ../' '=; :f eTaer aac►,v .riOW euao : - _ :16;01, 1.,.°4411rit...._..,,,;.':..-i,1:4-..e:". [-: _ 1•�• vV -,--. .„..4 �Y/roonw►nio�l=no ar lrnK 1•�7 — —. J-r . i • . 411‘41 I'- -, i .,,, - . .,'I , _. • II 1'II1 IcI( ., . ,,... ® 1' I QI' .. ,„. ..,.. ; ) .,.. \ [ .-rorifa � NI /.; • _ —..—.._.._rworamlaoulo1�mu�.—..— .._.._. _.. 0. k�`r i l i l``:�n l i RIB � _._ t•�•I•i _ •\ r-� -- I, I 1 •,II.0 . ._.of- 'ow -»Y.artot .. .-r- • i'I .,........�.... I t. 3 �� JI W 4 I111 !!II!1111( J !II (III1111Ii } f/ , \ �' — `I I .—..—..—..y..—. 11�!�14�!7QbPIlM_..—..—.. • ii .! [_,�,_ i� U 1! . 1 '� , 6TAT16TIC6 N-I /_ Li re �, I - . . ;! o..�r .�Oct MS+ NW LUC o •�••lal•Ir) it.a0[r®Y PR( C •.: .art .. .. .., I l 1 •fraRm•�eur \ I ■.■ Y r:av :.».[w _ . i•rwbulDw s{t • 1 �I Q I .I .. ... j,/ w��nu+ev e>•"iu�.i aYrI tt y f�� 1 • �rlfwnau rnwe 1[ •n. me• l' ' I i { 1 3 I1 ', I 1� .I ......'\a,r1t.te ra. w.r ar d ore, 1 a.,.r _ skot• .. !F 5, I ` I I w�"•.,a.:°a .. f .... Jl /II•, • aanla)rwec u- a»r rr»w [a[si F: .. IL 1 t 1 c. • roir /I 00 \./ _ wn.n rooln[Me. I I I I r Et„:_,,, ` y a; t.. ) I , a-„ ro.e,1.,: ai. I a • E. µ•' al ` r7[ : -I I, 1 I .. ... qj 1 - .... ray.l..vfarr. k c� ,. -• yap„ ,,w... , _ i rc'[ s 'r 1 .... I ........ r I le : I_ ;_ • _... QuloW N ur ... f r �--Ital[celoi / . , , „. • �, .. I Largq _ \/ + I' r \re euuerw rblA�i I--• `I ....' 1 t...: ... -• .1`c� I o - o _. •• ganwrra u.nur 7 u os1.l.us rr,u u.row, ` . ...,... .w.l I -• • • .. 7 .... 1 ,� - .. ,,, t,.ygGyr�p rY.iol... !f{1Le 1 1 Y I .[ . � - I< .. 11 �`--1 1 I SIB - .. .. i . MR _ eu[WG s,n✓lr., ..Of 040 •. 1-• _ Of—.J 1 .IOK[IS.III, „+"i,,... „ r, I ... rn[r•.,w,.oav �'iP+1�r[a�i7 , C�' • o .`S 1 • .uawe�e srr.DAL..14i0rt I cs, • :E -. - III _._ -� ewne"e[m'�u a.,,„„,,, r _ s 1 I.1 1OWN • t11 _ Vi 1. 7 Is TK .l)R •b,ia[('[ ,J .' Mt T iµ r7 v - - {{- • Imo'- - _ _� .... _ — — �„ rrC —. --� ___ Deal_ _ _ - .. .-. 1 s r �' 1 _ -(---. r , • r. „.:, -.. • a1�`SITS PLAIk l :; •It LING j AVE; SE AI •w:' r�i =N ,I.:_`,� '.•. . , ._ _ $ .,+ . Order No. 866745 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON APR 2 3 1998 �O Jr �,C;C--� CE Z��-- RECEIVED i-o5- s ��' may-► ,_Lz . Prepared for: CAUTION SPIEKER PROPERTIES INC 1150 114TH AVE SE KEEP THIS POLICY IN A SAFE PLACE BELLEVUE, WA 98004 Attn: RICHARD GERVAIS For faster service on future sales or loans on your property present this slip to your broker or loan company: TRANSHATION TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Policy No. 866745A Form 7532-1 This policy is issued by: TRANSNATION TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 14450 N.E. 29TH PLACE BELLEVUE, WA 98007 Telephone: (425) 451-7301 RECEIVED MAR 12mg LANCE MUELLin b AUX ISSUED BY OWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE TRANSNATION TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Transnation SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE,THE EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE CONTAINED IN SCHEDULE B AND THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS,TRANSNATION TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY,an Arizona corporation,herein called the Company, insures, as of Date of Policy shown in Schedule A,against loss or damage,not exceeding the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A,sustained or incurred by the insured by reason of: 1. Title to the estate or interest described in Schedule A being vested other than as stated therein; 2. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on the title; 3. Unmarketability of the title; 4. Lack of a right of access to and from the land. The Company will also pay the costs,attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in defense of the title,as insured, but only to the extent provided in the Conditions and Stipulations. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,TRANSNATION TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY has caused its corporate name and seal to be hereunto affixed by its duly authorized officers,the Policy to become valid when countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company. TRANSNATION TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY INS!/4'rhey n�G �NcoaroR�fro g /Attest: ,y y. co SE►i.16,1991 i Secretary 141, i President EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage,costs,attorneys' fees or expenses which arise by reason of: 1. (a)Any law,ordinance or governmental regulation(including but not limited to building and zoning laws,ordinances,or regulations)restricting, regulating,prohibiting or relating to(i)the occupancy,use,or enjoyment of the land;(ii)the character,dimensions or location of any improve- ment now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii)a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part;or(iv)environmental protection,or the affect of any violation of these laws,ordinances or governmental regula- tions,except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. (b)Any governmental police power not excluded by(a)above,except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. 2. Riehts of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters: (a)created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d)attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or (e)resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the estate or interest insured by this policy. 4. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction vesting in the Insured the estate or interest insured by this policy, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that is based on: (a)the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or (b)the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a preferential transfer except where the preferential transfer results from the failure: (i) to timely record the instrument of transfer; or (ii)of such recordation to impart notice to a purchaser for value or a judgment or lien creditor. NM 1 PA 10 ALTA Owner's Policy(10-17-92) Valid Only If Schedules A and B and Cover Are Attached Face Page Owner's Extended Policy SCHEDULE A Amount of Insurance: $30, 958 , 000. 00 Policy No. 866745A Premium: $ 20, 810. 00 REF# 664164AG Date of Policy: October 10, 1997 at 10: 41 A.M. 1. Naae of Insured: SPIEKER PROPERTIES, L.P. , A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 2 . The estate or interest in the land described herein and which is covered by this policy is: FEE SIMPLE 3 . The estate or interest referred to herein is at Date of Policy vested in: THE: NAMED INSURED 4 . The: land referred to in this policy is described as follows: See "LEGAL DESCRIPTION: " Countersigned: Authorized Office r Agent Owner's Ex'zended Policy Policy No. 866745 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SOU HGATE I THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 19 , TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST W.M. , DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SAID SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 WHICH IS NORTH 89 DEGREES 51 MINUTES 55 SECONDS WEST 40. 01 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 89 DEGREES 51 MINUTES 55 SECONDS WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE 547 . 00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 08 MINUTES 05 SECONDS EAST 507.38 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE FROM WHICH THE RADIAL CENTER BEARS NORTH 17 DEGREES 35 MINUTES 32 SECONDS EAST 140. 00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY, NORTHEASTERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 235 DEGREES 51 MINUTES 39 SECONDS, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 576. 32 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88 DEGREES 39 MINUTES 35 SECONDS EAST ALONG A NON-TANGENT LINE 385. 14 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 40. 00 FEET OF THE SAID SOUTHWEST 1/4 ; THENCE SOUTH 01 DEGREES 20 MINUTES 25 SECONDS WEST ALONG SAID WEST LINE 673 . 16 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. Page 2 Owner's Extended Policy Policy No. 866745 SOUTHGATE II THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST W.M. , DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 ALSO BEING THE INTERSECTION OF THE WEST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION AND THE CENTERLINE OF S.W. 19TH STREET; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 38 SECONDS WEST ALONG SAID WEST LINE A DISTANCE OF 30. 00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY MARGIN OF SAID S.W. 19TH STREET; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 50 SECONDS EAST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY MARGIN A DISTANCE OF 211.73 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 89 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 50 SECONDS EAST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY MARGIN A DISTANCE OF 707 . 88 FEET TO A PO::NT ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 00 DEGREES 11 MINUTES 10 SECONDS WEST, HAVING A'RADIUS OF 55. 00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 91 DEGREES 09 MINUTES 04 SECONDS, AN ARC LENGTH OF 87 . 50 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF LIND AVENUE S.W. ; THENCE SOUTH 01 DEGREES 20 MINUTES 14 SECONDS WEST ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN A DISTANCE OF 570. 04 FEET; THENCE, ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF THE PARCEL DESCRIBED UNDER RECORDING NO. 8612161573 , NORTH 88 DEGREES 39 MINUTES 42 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 385 . 13 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 73 DEGREES 27 MINUTES 04 SECONDS WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 140. 00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY, WESTERLY AND SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND SAID BOUNDARY, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 117 DEGREES 09 MINUTES 31 SECONDS, AN ARC LENGTH OF 286. 27 FEET; THENCE NORTH 43 DEGREES 42 MINUTES 27 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 196 . 64 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 20 MINUTES 18 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 416 . 00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; TOGETHER WITH THOSE EASEMENT RIGHTS DISCLOSED BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NO. 9010110785; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. Page 3 Owner's Extended Policy Policy No. 866745 SOUTHGATE III THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST W.M. ; EXCEPT THE EAST 40 FEET THEREOF AS CONDEMNED IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NO. 847917 FOR LIND AVENUE S.W. ; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF AS CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF RENTON FOR SOUTH 156TH STREET (SOUTHWEST 19TH STREET) UNDER RECORDING NO. 8206090161; ANI) EXCEPT THAT PORTION DESCRIBED UNDER RECORDING NO. 86: 2161573 ; BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 WHICH IS NORTH 89 DEGREES 51 MINUTES 55 SECONDS WEST 40. 01 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 89 DEGREES 51 MINUTES 55 SECONDS WEST, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, 547 . 00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 08 MINUTES 05 SECONDS EAST 507 . 38 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE FROM WHICH THE RADIAL CENTER BEARS NORTH 17 DEGREES 35 MINUTES 32 SECONDS EAST 140. 00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY, NORTHEASTERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 235 DEGREES 51 MINUTES 39 SECONDS AN ARC DISTANCE OF 576. 32 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88 DEGREES 39 MINUTES 35 SECONDS EAST, ALONG A NON-TANGENT LINE, 385 . 14 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 40. 00 FEET OF THE SAID SOUTHWEST 1/4 ; THENCE SOUTH 01 DEGREES 20 MINUTES 25 SECONDS WEST, ALONG SAND WEST LINE, 673 . 16 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS EXCEPTION; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 , BEING THE INTERSECTION OF THE WEST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION AND THE CENTERLINE OF S.W. 19TH STREET (S. 156TH STREET) ; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 38 SECONDS WEST, ALONG SAID WEST LINE, 30. 00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY MARGIN OF SAID S.W. 19TH STREET; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 50 SECONDS EAST, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY MARGIN, 211.73 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS EXCEPTION; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 89 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 50 SECONDS EAST, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY MARGIN, 707.88 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 00 DEGREES 11 MINUTES 10 SECONDS WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 55. 00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY,ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 91 DEGREES 09 MINUTES 04 SECONDS AN ARC LENGTH OF 87 .50 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF LIND AVENUE S.W. ; Page 4 Owner's Extended Policy Policy No. 866745 SCHEDULE B EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason of: STANDARD EXCEPTIONS 1. Taxes or assessments which are not now payable or which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records; proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public records. 2 . Underground easements, servitudes or installations which are not disclosed by the public records. 3 . (a; Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) Indian treaty or aboriginal rights, including, but not limited to, easements or equitable servitudes; or, (d) water rights, claims oftitle to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a) , (b) , (c) or (d) are shown by the public records. 4 . Right of use, control or regulation by the United States of America in the exercise of powers over navigation; any prohibition or limitation on the use, occupance or improvement of the land resulting from the rights of the public or riparian owners to use any waters which may cover the land or to use any portion of the land which is now or may formerly have been covered by water. 5 . Any service, installation, connection, maintenance or construction charges for sewer, water, electricity, or garbage collection or disposal, or other utilities unless disclosed as an existing lien by the public records. Page 6 Owner's Extended Policy Policy No. 866745 THENCE SOUTH 01 DEGREES 20 MINUTES 14 SECONDS WEST, ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN, 570. 04 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE EXCEPTION LAST DESCRIBED ABOVE; THENCE NORTH 88 DEGREES 39 MINUTES 42 SECONDS WEST, ALONG SAID LINE, 385. 13 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 73 DEGREES 27 MINUTES 04 SECONDS WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 140. 00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY, WESTERLY AND SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID LINE AND SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 117 DEGREES 09 MINUTES 31 SECONDS AN ARC LENGTH OF 286. 27 FEET; THENCE NORTH 43 DEGREES 42 MINUTES 27 SECONDS WEST 196. 64 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 20 MINUTES 18 SECONDS EAST 416. 00 FELT TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS EXCEPTION; (ALSO KNOWN AS PARCEL 3 OF SURVEY RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 9011079001) ; TOGETHER WITH THOSE EASEMENT RIGHTS DISCLOSED BY INSTRUMENTS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NOS. 9010110785, 8910050889 BEING A RERECORDING OF <EASEMENT UNDER RECORDING NO. 8808170975; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WA:SHINGTON. Page 5 • Owner's Extended Policy Policy No. 866745 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS 1. General Taxes, as follows, together with interest, penalty and statutory foreclosure costs, if any, after delinquency: (1st half delinquent on May 1; 2nd half delinquent on November 1) Tax Account No. Year Billed Paid Balance 192305-9076-07 1997 $123 , 855. 40 $ 61, 927 . 70 $ 61, 927 . 70 The levy code for the property herein described is 2110 for 1997 . 2 . Special Taxes, as follows, together with interest, penalty and statutory foreclosure costs, if any, after delinquency: (1st half delinquent on May 1; 2nd half delinquent on November 1) Tax Account No. Year Billed Paid Balance 192305-9076-07 1997 $ 86 . 27 $ 43 . 13 $ 43 . 14 3 . Conservation (CON) Service Charge, as follows, together with interest, penalty and statutory foreclosure costs, if any, after delinquency: (1st half delinquent on May 1; 2nd half delinquent on November 1) Tax Account No. Year Billed Paid Balance 192305-9076-07 1997 $ 1. 25 $ . 63 $ . 62 4 . Liability for Surface Water Management (SWM) Service Charge, if any, which are not presently assessed, but may appear on future rolls. 5. ANY UNPAID ASSESSMENT OR CHARGES, AND LIABILITY FOR FURTHER ASSESSMENTS OR CHARGES BY Drainage District No. 10. 6. ASSESSMENT: ORIGINAL AMOUNT: $87, 114 . 67 INTEREST: 8. 625% FROM: July 13, 1984 ANKUAL INSTALLMENTS: 15 INSTALLMENTS PAID: 12 INSTALLMENTS DELINQUENT: 0 NEXT INSTALLMENT DELINQUENT: August 13 , 1997 LEVIED BY: City of Renton FOR: Road, sewer and water L. I .D. NO. : 314 PARCEL NO. : 12B Page 7 Owner's Extended Policy Policy No. 866745 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS 1. General Taxes, as follows, together with interest, penalty and statutory foreclosure costs, if any, after delinquency: (1st half delinquent on May 1; 2nd half delinquent on November 1) Tax Account No. Year Billed Paid Balance 192305-9076-07 1997 $123 , 855. 40 $ 61, 927 .70 $ 61, 927. 70 The levy code for the property herein described is 2110 for 1997 . 2 . Special Taxes, as follows, together with interest, penalty and statutory foreclosure costs, if any, after delinquency: (1st half delinquent on May 1; 2nd half delinquent on November 1) Tax Account No. Year Billed Paid Balance 192305-9076-07 1997 $ 86. 27 $ 43 . 13 $ 43 . 14 3 . Conservation (CON) Service Charge, as follows, together with interest, penalty and statutory foreclosure costs, if any, after delinquency: (1st half delinquent on May 1; 2nd half delinquent on November 1) Tax Account No. Year Billed Paid Balance 192305-9076-07 1997 $ 1.25 $ . 63 $ . 62 4 . Liability for Surface Water Management (SWM) Service Charge, if any, which are not presently assessed, but may appear on future rolls. 5 . ANY UNPAID ASSESSMENT OR CHARGES, AND LIABILITY FOR FURTHER ASSESSMENTS OR CHARGES BY Drainage District No. 10. 6 . ASSESSMENT: ORIGINAL AMOUNT: $87, 114 . 67 INIEREST: 8 . 625% FRCM: July 13 , 1984 ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS: 15 INSTALLMENTS PAID: 12 INSTALLMENTS DELINQUENT: 0 NEYT INSTALLMENT DELINQUENT: August 13 , 1997 LEI IED BY: City of Renton FOF.: Road, sewer and water L. I .D. NO. : 314 PARCEL NO. : 12B Page 7 Owner's Extended Policy Policy No. 866745 7. UNDERGROUND UTILITY EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: Puget Sound Power & Light Company, a Washington corporation PURPOSE: Underground electric transmission and/or distribution system AREA AFFECTED: A 15 foot right-of-way having 7-1/2 feet of such width on each side of the centerline as constructed or to be constructed, extended or relocated DATED: February 2, 1987 RECORDED: March 6, 1987 RECORDING NO. : 8703060639 Contains covenant prohibiting structures over said easement or other activity which might endanger the underground system. Page 8 Owner's Extended Policy Policy No. 866745 8 . EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: City of Renton PURPOSE: Public utilities with necessary appurtenances AREA AFFECTED: That portion of Government Lot 5 of Section 19, Township 23 North, Range 5 East W.M. , included within the limits of a strip of land 15 feet in width the centerline of which is 2 . 50 feet to the left (Southerly) of the following described line: Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Government Lot 5; thence North 01 degrees 20 minutes 25 seconds East along the East line of said Government Lot 5 a distance of 20. 00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds West parallel with the South line of said Government Lot 5 a distance of 40. 01 feet to the Westerly margin of Lind Avenue Southwest and the point of beginning; thence continuing North 89 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds West 16 . 41 feet; thence North 45 degrees 52 minutes 13 seconds West 40. 31 feet; thence North 89 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds West 165. 00 feet to a point designated as Point "A" ; thence continuing North 89 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds West 82 . 00 feet to a point designated as Point "B" ; thence continuing North 89 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds West 216. 00 feet to a point designated as Point "C" ; thence continuing North 89 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds West 11. 50 feet to the terminus of this line description; also that portion of Government Lot 5 of Section 19 , Township 23 North, Range 5 East W.M. , included within the limits of a strip of land 15 feet in width the centerline of which is 2 . 50 feet to the right (Easterly and Southerly) of the following described line: Beginning at said designated Point "C" ; thence North 00 degrees 08 minutes 05 seconds East 5. 00 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing North 00 degrees 08 minutes 05 seconds East 332 . 00 feet to a point designated as Point "D" ; thence continuing North 00 degrees 08 minutes 05 seconds East 161. 00 feet to a point designated as Point "E" ; thence North 89 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds West 55. 00 feet; thence North 39 degrees 34 minutes 46 seconds West 48.31 feet; thence North 01 degrees 20 minutes 25 seconds East 67 . 50 feet to a point designated as Point "F" ; thence continuing North 01 degrees 20 minutes 25 seconds East 49 . 50 feet; thence North 39 Page 9 Owner's Extended Policy Policy No. 866745 degrees 48 minutes 50 seconds East 49. 19 feet; thence South 89 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds East 54 . 50 feet to a point designated as Point "G" ; thence continuing South 89 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds East 67.50 feet; thence South 47 degrees 24 minutes 34 seconds East 57.75 feet; thence South 01 degrees 20 minutes 25 seconds West 50. 00 feet to a point designated as Point "H" ; thence South 88 degrees 39 minutes 35 seconds East 35. 00 feet to a point designated as Point "I" ; thence continuing South 88 degrees 39 minutes 35 seconds East 206. 00 feet to a point designated as Point "J"; thence continuing South 88 degrees 39 minutes 35 seconds East 144 . 00 feet; thence North 46 degrees 20 minutes 25 seconds East 24. 04 feet; thence South 88 degrees 39 minutes 35 seconds East 8 . 00 feet to a point on the Westerly margin of said Lind Avenue Southwest which is North 01 degrees 20 minutes 25 seconds East 637 . 54 feet from the point of beginning and the terminus of this line description; also, That portion of said Government Lot 5 included within the limits of a strip of land 15 feet in width the centerline of which is 2 . 50 feet to the left (Northerly and Westerly) of the following described line: Beginning at said designated Point "E" ; thence South 89 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds East 72 . 00 feet; thence North 48 degrees 21 minutes 35 seconds East 51. 10 feet; thence North 01 degrees 20 minutes 25 seconds East 69. 00 feet to designated Point "H" ; and the terminus of this line description; also, Those portions of said Government Lot 5 included within the limits of strip of land 15 feet in width the centerlines of which are described as follows: Beginning at said designated Point "A"; thence South 00 degrees 08 minutes 05 seconds West 5. 00 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing South 00 degrees 08 minutes 05 seconds West 40.50 feet to the terminus of this centerline description; also, Beginning at said designated Point "D" ; thence North 89 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds West 5. 00 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing North 89 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds West 10.50 feet to the terminus of this centerline description; also, Beginning at said designated Point "F" ; thence North 89 degrees 39 minutes 35 seconds West 5. 00 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing North 88 Page 10 Owner's EN:tended Policy Policy No. 866745 degrees 39 minutes 35 seconds West 49 . 00 feet; thence North 01 degrees 20 minutes 25 seconds East 25. 00 feet to the terminus of this centerline description; also, Beginning at said designated Point "G" ; thence North 00 degrees 08 minutes 05 seconds East 5. 00 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing North 00 degrees 08 minutes 05 seconds East 54 . 50 feet; thence North 89 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds West 22 . 50 feet to the terminus of this centerline description; also, Beginning at said designated Point "I" ; thence North 01 degrees 20 minutes 25 seconds East 5. 00 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing North 01 degrees 20 minutes 25 seconds East 16. 50 feet to the terminus of this centerline description; also, Beginning at said designated Point "J" ; thence North 01 degrees 20 minutes 25 seconds East 5. 00 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing North 01 degrees 20 minutes 25 seconds East 14 . 50 feet to the terminus of this centerline description; also, that portion of said Government Lot 5 described as beginning at said designated Point "B" ; thence North 00 degrees 08 minutes 05 seconds East 5. 00 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 89 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds West 11. 00 feet; thence North 00 degrees 08 minutes 05 seconds East 120. 00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds West 15. 00 feet; thence North 00 degrees 08 minutes 05 seconds East 50. 00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds East 37 . 00 feet; thence South 00 degrees 08 minutes 05 seconds West 89.50 feet; thence South 89 seconds 51 minutes 55 seconds East 11. 50 feet; thence South 00 degrees 08 minutes 05 seconds West 15 . 00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds West 11. 50 feet; thence South 00 degrees 08 minutes 05 seconds West 65 . 50 feet; thence North 89 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds West 11. 00 feet to the point of beginning; also, that portion of said Government Lot 5 described as beginning at said designated Point "C" ; thence South 00 degrees 08 minutes 05 seconds West 10. 00 feet to the point of beginning; thence South 89 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds East 3 . 50 feet; thence South 00 degrees 08 minutes 05 seconds West 15. 50 feet; thence North 89 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds West 15. 50 feet; thence North 00 degrees 08 minutes 05 seconds East 15. 50 feet; Page 11 Owner's Extended Policy Policy No. 866745 thence South 89 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds East 11. 50 feet to the point of beginning DATED: October 9, 1986 RECORDED: September 23 , 1988 RECORDING NO. : 8809230143 being a correction of Recording No. 8806201122 9. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: Basil D. Vyzis and Darlene H. Vyzis, their successors and assigns PURPOSE: Ingress, egress and utilities AREA AFFECTED: Beginning at the Southwest corner of Section 19, Township 23 North, Range 5 East W.M. ; thence South 89 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds East 963 .47 feet along the South line of said section to the West margin of Lind Avenue Southwest; thence North 01 degrees 20 minutes 25 seconds East along said West margin 611. 70 feet to the true point of beginning of said exterior line; thence North 88 degrees 39 minutes 35 seconds West 384 . 30 feet to the intersection of a non-tangent curve to the right having a radius of 125. 00 feet and a radial bearing of North 80 degrees 22 minutes 49 seconds West; thence along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 342 degrees 30 minutes 49 seconds, an arc length of 747 .25 feet to the intersection a line which is North 00 degrees 52 minutes 35 seconds East, 38 . 00 feet from the point of beginning of said arc; thence South 88 degrees 39 minutes 35 seconds East, 384 . 61 feet, more or less, to the West margin of said Lind Avenue Southwest; thence South 01 degrees 20 minutes 25 seconds West, 38. 00 feet to the true point of beginning and the end of said described line RECORDED: August 17, 1988 and October 5, 1989 RECORDING NO. : 8808170975 and 8910050889 10. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: The City of Renton, a municipal corporation of King County PURPOSE: Access AREA AFFECTED: See Attachment "A" thereto DATED: June 17, 1991 RECORDED: August 1, 1991 RECORDING NO. : 9108011364 Page 12 Owner's Extended Policy Policy No. 866745 11. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: City of Renton, a municipal corporation PURPOSE: Public utilities AREA AFFECTED: See Attachment "A" DATED: June, 1991 RECORDED: October 7, 1991 RECORDING NO. : 9110070845 12 . Right to make necessary slopes for cuts or fills upon property herein described as condemned in King County County Superior Court Cause No. 847917 . 13 . Covenant to bear apportional share in the cost of construction or repair of roadway, easement for which was granted over adjacent property by instrument recorded under Recording No. 8910050889 a re-recording of 8808170975. 14 . Restrictive covenant regarding LID participation imposed by instrument recorded on January 14 , 1991, under Recording No. 9101140965. 15 . City of Renton Resolution No. 2838 and the terms and conditions thereof recorded May 9 , 1991 under Recording No. 9105091394. 16. Question of interest of party in possession as evidenced by existence of sanitary sewer line extending from Lind Ave. S.W. , Westerly to property adjoining on the West. 17 . RELEASE OF DAMAGE AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: BETWEEN: Southgate Office Plaza II Limited Partnership, a Washington limited partnership ANC : The City of Renton DATED: September 27, 1990 RECORDED: October 15, 1990 RECORDING NO. : 9010151191 18 . INLEMNITY AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: BETWEEN: Stonehenge III Limited Partnership, a Washington limited partnership, Vyzis Company, Managing General Partner AND: The City of Renton DATED: April 3 , 1991 RECORDED: May 9, 1991 RECORDING NO. : 9105091427 19 . LATECOMERS AGREEMENT: BETWEEN: The City of Renton AND: Southgate Office Plaza II and III Limited Partnerships DATED: August 25, 1992 RECORDED: September 17, 1992 RECORDING NO. : 9209170630 Page 13 Owner's Extended Policy Policy No. 866745 20. MEMORANDUM OF LEASE AND PURCHASE OPTION AGREEMENT: BETWEEN: The Boeing Company AND: Stonehenge Office Plaza I Limited Partnership, a Washington limited partnership, Stonehenge Office Plaza II Limited Partnership, a Washington limited partnership and Stonehenge III Limited Partnership, a Washington limited partnership DATED: January 31, 1991 RECORDED: February 4, 1991 RECORDING NO. : 9102040069 21. MEMORANDUM OF LEASE: LESSOR: Bentall Investments L.L.C. , a Washington limited liability company, successor to Southgate Office Plaza I Limited Partnership LESSEE: Connext, Inc. , a Washington corporation DATED: June 5, 1997 RECORDED: June 26, 1997 RECORDING NO. : 9706260139 Page 14 Owner's Extended Policy Policy No. 866745 SOIJTHGATE II 22 . General Taxes, as follows, together with interest, penalty and statutory foreclosure costs, if any, after delinquency: (1st half delinquent on May 1; 2nd half delinquent on November 1) Tax Account No. Year Billed Paid Balance 192305-9013-03 1997 $251, 182. 10 $125,591. 05 $125,591. 05 The levy code for the property herein described is 2110 for 1997. 23 . Special Taxes, as follows, together with interest, penalty and statutory foreclosure costs, if any, after delinquency: (1st half delinquent on May 1; 2nd half delinquent on November 1) Tax Account No. Year Billed Paid Balance 192305-9013-03 1997 $ 105. 61 $ 52 . 80 $ 52 .81 24 . Conservation (CON) Service Charge, as follows, together with interest, penalty and statutory foreclosure costs, if any, after delinquency: (1st half delinquent on May 1; 2nd half delinquent on November 1) Tax Account No. Year Billed Paid Balance 192305-9013-03 1997 $ 1. 25 $ . 63 $ . 62 25. Liability for Surface Water Management (SWM) Service Charge, if any, which are not presently assessed, but may appear on future rolls. 26 . AM UNPAID ASSESSMENT OR CHARGES, AND LIABILITY FOR FURTHER ASSESSMENTS OR CHARGES BY Drainage District No. 10. 27 . ASSESSMENT: ORIGINAL AMOUNT: $4 , 601.79 INTEREST: 11. 65% FROM: July 13 , 1984 ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS: 15 INSTALLMENTS PAID: 12 INSTALLMENTS DELINQUENT: 0 NEXT INSTALLMENT DELINQUENT: August 13, 1997 LEVIED BY: City of Renton FOR: Streets, sewers, water L. I.D. NO. : 314 ASSESSMENT ACCOUNT NO. : 12A Page 15 Owner's Extended Policy Policy No. 866745 28. UNDERGROUND UTILITY EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: Puget Sound Power & Light Company, a Washington corporation PURPOSE: Underground electric transmission and/or distribution system AREA AFFECTED: A 15 foot right-of-way having 7-1/2 feet of such width on each side of the centerline as constructed or to be constructed, extended or relocated DATED: February 2 , 1987 RECORDED: March 6, 1987 RECORDING NO. : 8703060639 Contains covenant prohibiting structures over said easement or other activity which might endanger the underground system. 29 . UNDERGROUND UTILITY EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: Puget Sound Power & Light Company, a { Washington corporation PURPOSE: Underground electric transmission and/or distribution system AREA AFFECTED: A 15 foot right-of-way having 7-1/2 feet of such width on each side of the centerline as constructed or to be constructed, extended or relocated DATED: February 6, 1987 RECORDED: March 6, 1987 RECORDING NO. : 8703060640 Contains covenant prohibiting structures over said easement or other act:vity which might endanger the underground system. • Page 16 Owner's Extended Policy Policy No. 866745 30. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: City of Renton PURPOSE: Public utilities with necessary appurtenances AREA AFFECTED: That portion of Government Lot 5 of Section 19, Township 23 North, Rance 5 East W.M. , included within the limits of a strip of land 15 feet in width the centerline of which is 2 . 50 feet to the left (Southerly) of the following described line: Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Government Lot 5; thence North 01 degrees 20 minutes 25 seconds East along the East line of said Government Lot 5 a distance of 20. 00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds West parallel with the South line of said Government Lot 5 a distance of 40. 01 feet to the Westerly margin of Lind Avenue Southwest and the point of beginning; thence continuing North 89 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds West 16. 41 feet; thence North 45 degrees 52 minutes 13 seconds West 40. 31 feet; thence North 89 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds West 165. 00 feet to a point designated as Point "A" ; thence continuing North 89 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds West 82 . 00 feet to a point designated as Point "B" ; thence continuing North 89 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds West 216. 00 feet to a point designated as Point "C" ; thence continuing North 89 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds West 11. 50 feet to the terminus of this line description; also that portion of Government Lot 5 of Section 19, Township 23 North, Range 5 East W.M. , included within the limits of a strip of land 15 feet in width the centerline of which is 2 . 50 feet to the right (Easterly and Southerly) of the following described line: Beginning at said designated Point "C" ; thence North 00 degrees 08 minutes 05 seconds East 5. 00 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing North 00 degrees 08 minutes 05 seconds East 332 . 00 feet to a point designated as Point "D" ; thence continuing North 00 degrees 08 minutes 05 seconds East 161.00 feet to a point designated as Point "E" ; thence North 89 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds West 55. 00 feet; thence North 39 degrees 34 minutes 46 seconds West 48 . 31 feet; thence North 01 degrees 20 minutes 25 seconds East 67 . 50 feet to a point designated as Point "F" ; thence continuing North 01 degrees 20 minutes 25 seconds East 49.50 feet; thence North 39 Page 17 Owner's Extended Policy Policy No. 866745 degrees 48 minutes 50 seconds East 49 . 19 feet; thence South 89 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds East 54 . 50 feet to a point designated as Point "G" ; thence continuing South 89 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds East 67 .50 feet; thence South 47 degrees 24 minutes 34 seconds East 57 .75 feet; thence South 01 degrees 20 minutes 25 seconds West 50. 00 feet to a point designated as Point "H" ; thence South 88 degrees 39 minutes 35 seconds East 35 . 00 feet to a point designated as Point "I" ; thence continuing South 88 degrees 39 minutes 35 seconds East 206. 00 feet to a point designated as Point "J"; thence continuing South 88 degrees 39 minutes 35 seconds East 144 . 00 feet; thence North 46 degrees 20 minutes 25 seconds East 24 . 04 feet; thence South 88 degrees 39 minutes 35 seconds East 8 . 00 feet to a point on the Westerly margin of said Lind Avenue Southwest which is North 01 degrees 20 minutes 25 seconds East 637 . 54 feet from the point of beginning and the terminus of this line description; also, That portion of said Government Lot 5 included within the limits of a strip of land 15 feet in width the centerline of which is 2 . 50 feet to the left (Northerly and Westerly) of the following described line: Beginning at said designated Point "E" ; thence South 89 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds East 72 . 00 feet; thence North 48 degrees 21 minutes 35 seconds East 51. 10 feet; thence North 01 degrees 20 minutes 25 seconds East 69. 00 feet to designated Point "H" ; and the terminus of this line description; also, Those portions of said Government Lot 5 included within the limits of strip of land 15 feet in width the centerlines of which are described as follows: Beginning at said designated Point "A" ; thence South 00 degrees 08 minutes 05 seconds West 5. 00 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing South 00 degrees 08 minutes 05 seconds West 40. 50 feet to the terminus of this centerline description; also, Beginning at said designated Point "D" ; thence North 89 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds West 5. 00 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing North 89 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds West 10.50 feet to the terminus of this centerline description; also, Beginning at said designated Point "F" ; thence North 89 degrees 39 minutes 35 seconds West 5. 00 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing North 88 Page 18 Owner's Eytended Policy Policy No. 866745 degrees 39 minutes 35 seconds West 49 . 00 feet; thence North 01 degrees 20 minutes 25 seconds East 25. 00 feet to the terminus of this centerline description; also, Beginning at said designated Point "G" ; thence North 00 degrees 08 minutes 05 seconds East 5. 00 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing North 00 degrees 08 minutes 05 seconds East 54 .50 feet; thence North 89 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds West 22 . 50 feet to the terminus of this centerline description; also, Beginning at said designated Point "I" ; thence North 01 degrees 20 minutes 25 seconds East 5. 00 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing North 01 degrees 20 minutes 25 seconds East 16.50 feet to the terminus of this centerline description; also, Beginning at said designated Point "J" ; thence North 01 degrees 20 minutes 25 seconds East 5. 00 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing North 01 degrees 20 minutes 25 seconds East 14 . 50 feet to the terminus of this centerline description; also, that portion of said Government Lot 5 described as beginning at said designated Point "B" ; thence North 00 degrees 08 minutes 05 seconds East 5. 00 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 89 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds West 11. 00 feet; thence North 00 degrees 08 minutes 05 seconds East 120. 00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds West 15. 00 feet; thence North 00 degrees 08 minutes 05 seconds East 50. 00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds East 37 . 00 feet; thence South 00 degrees 08 minutes 05 seconds West 89 . 50 feet; thence South 89 seconds 51 minutes 55 seconds East 11. 50 feet; thence South 00 degrees 08 minutes 05 seconds West 15. 00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds West 11. 50 feet; thence South 00 degrees 08 minutes 05 seconds West 65. 50 feet; thence North 89 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds West 11. 00 feet to the point of beginning; also, that portion of said Government Lot 5 described as beginning at said designated Point "C" ; thence South 00 degrees 08 minutes 05 seconds West 10. 00 feet to the point of beginning; thence South 89 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds East 3 . 50 feet; thence South 00 degrees 08 minutes 05 seconds West 15. 50 feet; thence North 89 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds West 15. 50 feet; thence North 00 degrees 08 minutes 05 seconds East 15. 50 feet; Page 19 • Owner's Extended Policy Policy No. 866745 thence South 89 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds East 11.50 feet to the point of beginning DA'.'ED: October 9, 1986 RECORDED: September 23, 1988 RECORDING NO. : 8809230143 being a correction of Recording No. 8806201122 31. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: Basil D. Vyzis and Darlene H. Vyzis, their successors and assigns PURPOSE: Ingress, egress and utilities AREA AFFECTED: Beginning at the Southwest corner of Section 19, Township 23 North, Range 5 East W.M. ; thence South 89 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds East 963 .47 feet along the South line of said section to the West margin of Lind Avenue Southwest; thence North 01 degrees 20 minutes 25 { seconds East along said West margin 611.70 feet to the true point of beginning of said exterior line; thence North 88 degrees 39 minutes 35 seconds West 384 . 30 feet to the intersection of a non-tangent curve to the right having a radius of 125. 00 feet and a radial bearing of North 80 degrees 22 minutes 49 seconds West; thence along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 342 degrees 30 minutes 49 seconds, an arc length of 747 .25 feet to the intersection a line which is North 00 degrees 52 minutes 35 seconds East, 38. 00 feet from the point of beginning of said arc; thence South 88 degrees 39 minutes 35 seconds East, 384 . 61 feet, more or less, to the West margin of said Lind Avenue Southwest; thence South 01 degrees 20 minutes 25 seconds West, 38.00 feet to the true point of beginning and the end of said described line RECORDED: August 17, 1988 and October 5, 1989 RECORDING NO. : 8808170975 and 8910050889 32 . EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: The City of Renton, a municipal corporation of King County PURPOSE: Access AREA AFFECTED: See Attachment "A" thereto DATED: June 17, 1991 RECORDED: August 1, 1991 RECORDING NO. : 9108011364 Page 20 Owner's Extended Policy Policy No. 866745 33 . EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: City of Renton, a municipal corporation PURPOSE: Public utilities AREA AFFECTED: See Attachment "A" DATED: June, 1991 RECORDED: October 7, 1991 RECORDING NO. : 9110070845 34 . Right to make necessary slopes for cuts or fills upon property herein described as condemned in King County County Superior Court Cause No. 847917. 35. Right to make necessary slopes for cuts or fills upon property herein described as granted to City of Renton by deed recorded under Recording No. 8206090161. (Covers Northerly portion of Parcel B) 36 . Covenant to bear apportional share in the cost of construction or repair of roadway, easement for which was granted over adjacent property by instrument recorded under Recording No. 8910050889 a re-recording of 8808170975. 37 . Restrictive covenant regarding LID participation imposed by instrument recorded on January 14, 1991, under Recording No. 9101140965. 38 . City of Renton Resolution No. 2838 and the terms and conditions thereof recorded May 9, 1991 under Recording No. 9105091394 . 39 . RELEASE OF DAMAGE AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: BETWEEN: Southgate Office Plaza II Limited Partnership, a Washington limited partnership AND: The City of Renton DATED: September 27, 1990 RECORDED: October 15, 1990 RECORDING NO. : 9010151191 40. AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: BETWEEN: The City of Renton AND: Stonehenge II Limited Partnership, a Washington limited partnership DATED: October 31, 1990 RECORDED: April 8, 1991 RECORDING NO. : 9104081345 REGARDING: Sewer participation 41. INDEMNITY AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: BETWEEN: Stonehenge III Limited Partnership, a Washington limited partnership, Vyzis Company, Managing General Partner AND: The City of Renton DATED: April 3, 1991 RECORDED: May 9, 1991 RECORDING NO. : 9105091427 Page 21 Owners Extended Policy Policy No. 866745 42 . LATECOMERS AGREEMENT: BETWEEN: The City of Renton AND: Southgate Office Plaza II and III Limited Partnerships DATED: August 25, 1992 RECORDED: September 17, 1992 RECORDING NO. : 9209170630 Page 22 Owner's Extended Policy Policy No. 866745 SOUTHGATE III 43 . General Taxes, as follows, together with interest, penalty and statutory foreclosure costs, if any, after delinquency: (1st half delinquent on May 1; 2nd half delinquent on November 1) Tax Account No. Year Billed Paid Balance 192305-9095-04 1997 $34, 810. 40 $17, 405. 20 $17. 405 . 20 The levy code for the property herein described is 2110 for 1997 . 44 . Special Taxes, as follows, together with interest, penalty and statutory foreclosure costs, if any, after delinquency: (1st half delinquent on May 1; 2nd half delinquent on November 1) Tax Account No. Year Billed Paid Balance 192305-9095-04 1997 $ 95. 27 $ 47 . 63 $ 47 . 64 45 . Co::iservation (CON) Service Charge, as follows,. together with interest, pe:aalty and statutory foreclosure costs, if any, after delinquency: (1st half delinquent on May 1; 2nd half delinquent on November 1) Tax Account No. Year Billed Paid Balance 192305-9095-04 1997 $ 1. 25 $ . 63 $ . 62 46 . ANY UNPAID ASSESSMENT OR CHARGES, AND LIABILITY FOR FURTHER ASSESSMENTS OR CHARGES BY Drainage District No. 10. 47 . Right to make necessary slopes for cuts or fills upon property herein described as condemned in King County Superior Court Cause No. 847917 . (Covers Easterly portion of property herein described and other property) 48 . Right to make necessary slopes for cuts or fills upon property herein described as granted to City of Renton by deed recorded under Recording No. 8206090161. 49 . UNDERGROUND UTILITY EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: Puget Sound Power & Light Company PURPOSE: Underground electric transmission and/or distribution system AREA AFFECTED: A right-of-way 15 feet wide having 7-1/2 feet of such width on each side of the centerline as constructed or to be constructed, extended or relocated • DATED: February 6, 1987 RECORDED: March 6, 1987 RECORDING NO. : 8703060640 Contains covenant prohibiting structures over said easement or other activity which might endanger the underground system. Page 23 Owner's Extended Policy Policy No. 866745 50. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: City of Renton, a municipal corporation PURPOSE: Public utilities AREA AFFECTED: As described therein DATED: October 7, 1986 RECORDED: September 23 , 1988 RECORDING NO. : 8809230143 Said easement is a re-record of easement recorded June 20, 1988 under Recording No. 8806201122 . 51. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: The City of Renton, a municipal corporation PURPOSE: Public utilities AREA AFFECTED: As described therein DATED: June, 1991 RECORDED: October 7 , 1991 RECORDING NO. : ' 9110070845 52 . Covenant to bear equal share in the cost of construction or repair of Ingress, egress and utilities, easement for which was granted over adjacent property by instrument recorded under Recording No. 8910050889, which is a re-record of easement recorded under Recording No. 8808170975. 53 . RELEASE OF DAMAGE AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: BETWEEN: Stonehenge III Limited Partnership, a Washington limited partnership, Vyzis Company AND: The City of Renton DATED: April 3 , 1991 RECORDED: May 9 , 1991 RECORDING NO. : 9105091427 54 . A resolution of the City of Renton segregating assessments and the terms and conditions thereof, recorded May 9 , 1991 under Recording No. 9105091394 . 55 . Restrictive covenants regarding LID participation, and the terms and conditions thereof, recorded June 6, 1991 under Recording No. 9106060999 . Page 24 • Owner's Extended Policy Policy No. 866745 56. MEMORANDUM OF LEASE AND PURCHASE OPTION AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: BETWEEN: The Boeing Company, a Delaware corporation AND: Stonehenge Office Plaza I Limited Partnership, a Washington limited partnership (Stonehenge 1) ; Stonehenge Office Plaza II Limited Partnership, a Washington limited partnership (Stonehenge 2) and Stonehenge Office Plaza III Limited Partnership, a Washington limited partnership (Stonehenge 3) DATED: January 31, 1991 RECORDED: February 4 , 1991 RECORDING NO. : 9102040069 57 . LATECOMERS AGREEMENT: BETWEEN: The City of Renton AND: Southgate Office Plaza IT and III Limited Partnerships DATED: August 25, 1992 RECORDED: September 17, 1992 RECORDING NO. : 9209170630 58 . Liability for Sewage Treatment Capacity charge which may be levied by King County upon connection to a sanitary sewer system. END OF EXCEPTIONS Page 25 • • s'.. . ......_...of •' t II: EA M . 31 , y s; • • j �• •y� •IIl•NJI l.Y !r.n '� ST. �31t3� (! V ( ...3 -3 yG c:.• + s, .Lilt a • I 7 a VISA* * ..i.p-.. tk..--41::2 i, e• . . :, � __r .iK-a ti•NT .►rs r 1, CM) t ' ss 1 n,.. . •sj \ Ot.."Z 7 . 0 rstm.. • '- 3 — rat A. 1. 4 ',LAW ,tt $'' r1 may . r}r Y ' ! ss + 4. ,.... , •om• !Wilk t { +�_.. p i ki t re j ..c ,....- ia • :� • ,.. i + s :.: . rs►.r 0 fir . I- 1 tirh • • : r r t. I •1#.••t ... j Ka47 `y4 ''• rI• vtrrr plt • r 1✓Izi•idM#a_. �� j .ILK ;"23-� ' all This sketch is provided, without charge, for your information. un limited na It�'d��io�d�� ` miners related to the property including, but not en- croachments, or location of boundaries. It is not a part of, nor does it modify, the commitment or poiiey to which it is attached. The Company assumeLIABILITYNO I for r for any matter related to this el,,.t,-E, References should be made to an accurate survey o CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS (Continued) 7. DETERMINATION, EXTENT OF LIABILITY AND COINSURANCE. (b) When liability and the extent of loss or damage has been definitely This policy is a contract of indemnity against actual monetary loss or fixed in accordance with these Conditions and Stipulations, the loss or damage sustained or incurred by the insured claimant who has suffered loss damage shall be payable within 30 days thereafter. or damage by reason of matters insured against by this policy and only to 13. SUBROGATION UPON PAYMENT OR SETTLEMENT. the extent herein described. (a) The liability of the Company under this policy shall not exceed the (a) The Company's Right of Subrogation. least of: Whenever the Company shall have settled and paid a claim under this policy, all right of subrogation shall vest in the Company unaffected by (i) the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A; or, any act of the insured claimant. (ii) the difference between the value of the insured estate or interest as The Company shall be subrogated to and be entitled to all rights and insured and the value 3f the insured estate or interest subject to the defect, remedies which the insured claimant would have had against any person or lien or encumbrance insured against by this policy. property in respect to the claim had this policy not been issued. If (b) In the event the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A at the requested by the Company. the insured claimant shall transfer to the Date of Policy is less than 80 percent of the value of the insured estate or Company all rights and remedies against any person or property necessary interest or the full consideration paid for the land, whichever is less, or if in order to perfect this right of subrogation. The insured claimant shall subsequent to the Date of Policy an improvement is erected on the land permit the Company to sue, compromise or settle in the name of the which increases the value of the insured estate or interest by at least 20 insured claimant and to use the name of the insured claimant in any percent over the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A, then this transaction or litigation involving these rights or remedies. Policy is subject to the following: If a payment on account of a claim does not fully cover the loss of the (i)where no subsequent improvement has been made, as to any partial insured claimant, the Company shall be subrogated to these rights and loss, the Company shall only pay the loss pro rata in the proportion that remedies in the proportion which the Company's payment bears to the the amount of insurance at Date of Policy bears to the total value of the whole amount of the loss. insured estate or.interest at Date of Policy; or If loss should result from any act of the insured claimant, as stated (ii) where a subsequent improvement has been made, as to any partial above, that act shall not void this policy, but the Company, in that event, loss, the Company shall only pay the loss pro rata in the proportion that shall be required to pay only that part of any losses insured against by this 120 percent of the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A bears to the policy which shall exceed the amount, if any, lost to the Company by sum of the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A and the amount reason of the impairment by the insured claimant of the Company's right expended for the improvement. of subrogation. The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to costs, attorneys' fees (b) The Company's Rights Against Non-insured Obligors. and expenses for which the Company is liable under this policy. and shall The Company's right of subrogation against non-insured obligors shall only apply to that portion of any loss which exceeds, in the aggregate. 10 exist and shall include, without limitation. the rights of the insured to percent of the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A. indemnities, guaranties. other policies of insurance or bonds. (c) The Company will pay only those costs, attorneys' fees and expenses notwithstanding any terms or conditions contained in those instruments incurred in accordance with Section 4 of these Conditions and Stipulations. which provide for subrogation rights by reason of this policy. 8. APPORTIONMENT. 14. ARBITRATION If the land described in Schedule A consists of two or more parcels Unless prohibited by applicable law, either the Company or the insured which are not used as a single site, and a loss is established affecting one or may demand arbitration pursuant to the Title Insurance Arbitration Rules more of the parcels but not all, the loss shall be computed and settled on a of the American Arbitration Association. Arbitrable matters may include. pro rata basis as if the amount of insurance under this policy was divided but are not limited to. any controversy or claim between the Company and pro rata as to the value on Date of Policy of each separate parcel to the the insured arising out of or relating to this policy, any service of the whole, exclusive of any improvements made subsequent to Date of Policy. Company in connection with its issuance or the breach of a policy unless a liability or value has otherwise been agreed upon as to each parcel p y by the Company and the insured at the time of the issuance of this policy provision or other obligation. All arbitrable matters when the Amount of and shown by an express statement or by an endorsement attached to this Insurance is SI, or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the olio Company or thehe insured. All arbitrable matters when the Amount of policy. Insurance is in excess of SI.000,000 shall be arbitrated only when agreed to 9. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. by both the Company and the insured. Arbitration pursuant to this policy (a) If the Company establishes the title, or'removes the alleged defect, and under the Rules in effect on the date the demand for arbitration is lien or encumbrance, or cures the lack of a right of access to or from the made or, at the option of the insured, the Rules in effect at Date of Policy land, or cures the claim of unmarketability of title, all as insured, in a shall be binding upon the parties. The award may include attorneys' fees only if the laws of the state in which the land is located permit a court to reasonably diligent manner by any method, including litigation and the completion of any appeals therefrom, it shall have fully performed its award attorneys' fees to a prevailing party. Judgment upon the award obligations with respect to that matter and shall not be liable for any loss rendered by the Arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having or damage caused thereby. jurisdiction thereof. (b) In the event of any litigation, including litigation by the Company The law of the situs of the land shall apply to an arbitration under the Title Insurance Arbitration Rules. or with the Company's consent, the Company shall have no liability for loss or damage until there has been a final determination by a court of A copy of the Rules may be obtained from the Company upon request. competent jurisdiction, and disposition of all appeals therefrom, adverse to 15. LIABILITY LIMITED TO THIS POLICY; POLICY ENTIRE the title as insured. (c)The Company shall not be liable for loss or damage to any insured CONTRACT. for liability voluntarily assumed by the insured in settling any claim or suit (a) This policy together with all endorsements, if any, attached hereto without the prior written consent of the Company. by the Company is the entire policy and contract between the insured and 10. REDUCTION OF INSURANCE; REDUCTION OR TERMINATION the Company. In interpreting any provision of this policy, this policy shall whole. construed as a whole. OF LIABILITY. (b) Any claim of loss or damage, whether or not based on negligence. All payments under this policy, except payments made for costs, and which arises out of the status of the title to the estate or interest attorneys' fees and expenses, shall reduce the amount of the insurance pro covered hereby or by any action asserting such claim, shall be restricted to canto. this policy. (c) No amendment of or endorsement to this policy can be made 11. UABIUTY NONCUMULATIVE except by a writing endorsed hereon or attached hereto signed by either the It is expressly understood that the amount of insurance under this President, a Vice President, the Secretary, an Assistant Secretary. or policy shall be reduced by any amount the Company may pay under any validating officer or authorized signatory of the Company. policy insuring a mortgage to which exception is taken in Schedule B or to 16. SEVERABILITY. which the insured has agreed, assumed, or taken subject, or which is In the event any provision of the policy is held invalid or unenforceable hereafter executed by an insured and which is a charge or lien on the under applicable law, the policy shall be deemed not to include that provi- estate or interest described or referred to in Schedule A, and the amount sion and all other provisions shall remain in full force and effect. so paid shall be deemed a payment under this policy to the insured owner. 17. NOTICES, WHERE SENT. 12. PAYMENT OF LOSS. (a)No payment shall be made without producing this policy for endorsement All notices required to be given the Company and any statement in writing required _ of the payment unless the policy has been lost or destroyed,in which case proof to be furnished the Company shall include the number of this policy and shall be of loss or destruction shall be furnished to the satisfaction of the Company. addressed to TRANSNATION TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, 1700 Market NM 1 PA 10 Street,Philadelphia,PA 19103-3990. ALTA Owner's Policy(10-17-92) DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON APR 2 3 1998 PRELIMINARY RECEIVED TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT SOUTHGATE OFFICE PLAZA PHASE III RENTON, WASHINGTON FOR SPIEKER PROPERTIES BY BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC. 2009 MINOR AVENUE EAST SEATTLE, WA (206) 323-4144 CONTACT: RONALD G. GOLDY, PE BRH JOB NO. 97373 . 00 MARCH 31, 1998 A '1) G. GO C/j le/9 A o I �P 20703 - �v ��GISTEICS FSS,IONAL ' 3�3 Jl 4'er EXPIRES 12/1/ c{l" l RECEIVEL APR 1 1998 LANCE MUELLER &AK,nr GENERAL NARRATIVE: The Southgate Office Plaza is located in the city of Renton, Washington, on the southwest corner of Southwest 19th street and Lind Avenue Southwest. This site is divided into three parcels totaling 28 . 92 acres. Parcels I & II are presently developed, so the subject of this narrative is Parcel III and any modifications to the existing storm detention system necessary to develop Parcel III . Parcel III will be developed with two office buildings and necessary parking space. It is our intention to collect the storm runoff and convey all of it northward to the existing detention pond near the northwest corner of the site. The existing detention pond presently receives the storm runoff from Parcel II . The runoff from Parcel I flows to the southeast and therefore does not affect the development of Parcel III. The area presently draining to the detention pond is about 12 . 04 acres. Adding in 8.91 acres for Parcel III will increase the area to 20.95 acres. The overflow elevations on the existing detention system causes water to back up into the existing wetland areas alorg the Parcel II and Parcel III frontage on the south side of Southwest 19th Street. We are using the existing overflow elevation so the water level in the wetlands will not be raised. It appears from using the Water Works program that the existing detention pond and associated wetlands area presently used for storage has adequate storage volume to handle the extra runoff provided that the flow control restrictor discharge assembly be charged to allow the total existing flow rates for the 2 , 10 and 100-year events to pass through the system. Presently, water quality control is provided on the downstream side of the restrictor assembly by using a baffle type oil-water separator, prior to discharge into a bio-swale before discharge intc the wetlands. We propose to provide dead storage to satisfy the water quality requirements of the city of Renton. This will require that the existing detention pond be deepened to provide the dead storage required based on the Pt-wq storm event per Special Requirement No. 5 of the King County Manual. The existing bio-swale may need to be altered to provide treatment for the new flow rates. After passing through the bio-swale the flow is dissipated into the adjacent wet] and area by means of a side overflow swale. See attached design plans for the Southgate Office Plaza, Phase III. The downstream flow heads south along the west property line of the site about 1, 150 feet where it enters Spring Brook Creek which coneys the water northwesterly before being pumped into the Green River. 973i3 BUSH,ROED&HTT P ��e gfectes -Zi#972-: CHINi NC. JOB �e CIVIL ENGINEERS&LANE SURVEYORS SHEET NO. 2i , ', OF � 2009 Minor Avenue East �� 3,�,�� Seattle,WA 98102 CALCULATED BY DATE (206)323-4144 FAX(206)323-7135 CHECKED BY DATE BRH 1-800-935-0508 SCALE Et . C•C`ilC/UV 006 r , 06, 4s ,¢ r&s z. = Z o h./ M i 4 (e) = 6S . .. .. .... .. Xid Z,9 i %_4 frr_ i1) _(' ) - _34 Z/ cfs -...._ Qz ( ) - 8. . is_ W .)_ ' c _ Q (Pet' ) = /?,3 4 's r....____ Petri( s� e� =L 6 z Pec/� 5 rG' (�' s t 75 6 67,3 7. . U t -1. _ ) % ip cfs _- yi Peer 7Dh P h d 3 ,Po Ua/ . e = D.71_a X 4.3.5be = 30.917- 6' e tr4t: °a /6, 76 c x 3 [i x . 0/ - ,7e0/ �-- I p v d_.q27• 6 - (5-&_o_o .t___:342)) .-- _ ¢/_/• .c..f Q0,,--kii) ., = 0►?3 c w1—o DefeK*Ebn Pow • ._ �_.Y . _...... -.. __.__ �___ - .-- -------.... { BUSH,ROED&HITCHIN INC. JOB )91 e" Pit? e5 — Tv rJ 9'3/� CIVI-ENGINEERS &LAiNU SURVEYORS SHEET NO. 3 . -' OF �".. 2009 Minor Avenue East to < DATE /11 3..1Q -f¢ v...... Seattle,WA 98102 CALCULATED BY ` —*. (206)323-4144 FAX(206)323-7135 CHECKED BY DATE B IR H 1-800-935-0508 SCALE .5 EX/5e)V Ce0144 UN5 g - 1c 4, 4., f .--- cv __az-2,,, :r.: z a /0 ,/ e 6/140 4/a?! IF&) t 9 /., f he . ._. ii5C40t.. or ...Zaj ---- 3.9 /01 I 4e El. A, : 0 . ._,._._. ..0,13. c-. $ L , - 4 c.9- tvo .... - vog cci i ] Y /e/bpeA , ►�CIøL ,i9L.:. '244. eAzo /ix Pe...,,,,,.$ — : GA/. -- fd yno„..., 4,t, -a. .0 1 c Flo '" -7. 6 q--__c _.. : otou .-- io,5--7 c:95 , ! . ., . .. . 4 .. • 4. ....__...__._s _....._...__......�._..._ .. __,...._.__..__.. _____......__.._..__..._...__,_. .._...- . �__-_••_-._.._ .._ _1—._._._... • 3/ 30/98 Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc page SOUTHGATE OFFICE PLAZA - PHASE III JOB. NO. 97373 f LEVEL POOL TABLE :.,SUMMARY MATCH INFLOW -STO- -DIS- <-PEAI-> STORAGE < DESCRIPTION > (cfs) (cfs) --id- --id- <-STAGI> id VOL (cf) 2-YR. STORM 1.65 8.71 1 1 17.68 7 35075.64 10-YR. STORM 3.21 13.29 1 1 18.12 8 52832.78 100-ER. STORM 5.08 18.39 1 1 18.62 9 75051.37 1-YR. AVG. STORM 0.00 2.10 1 1 16.08 20 3718.68 6 :: Zags 4tres Ntiv 30 5/.1 Dec h 3/30/98 Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc page SOUTHGATE OFFICE PLAZA - PHASE III JOB . NO. 97373 Sk STAGE DISCHARGE TABLE MULTIPLE ORIFICE ID No. 1 Des:ription: ORIFICE DISCHARGE STRUCTURE Outlet Elev: 15 . 70 Elev: 15 .70 ft Orifice Diameter: 6 . 5742 in. Elev: 17 . 80 ft Orifice 2 Diameter: 9 . 5156 in. Elev: 18 .20 ft Orifice 3 Diameter: 6 . 9844 in. STAGE <--DISCHARGE---> STAGE <--DISCHARGE---> STAGE <--DISCHARGE---> STAGE <--DISCHARGE---> (ft) ---cfs (ft) ---cfs (ft) ---cfs (ft) ---cfs 15.i0 0.0000 16.50 1.0490 17.30 1.4836 18.10 3.1629 15.E0 0.3709 16.60 1.1127 17.40 1.5292 18.20 3.4085 15.50 0.5245 16.70 1.1729 17.50 1.5736 18.30 4.0473 16.00 0.6424 16.80 1.2301 17.60 1.6167 18.40 4.4226 16.10 0.7418 16.90 1.2848 17.70 1.6587 18.50 4.7435 d 16.20 0.8293 17.00 1.3373 17.80 1.6997 I$,(o Z. 18.60 5.0323 5,10 D 16.30 0.9085 17.10 1.3878 17.90 2.5167 - 18.70 5.2986 0,__- 16.40 0.9813 17.20 1.4365 18.00 2.8776 18.72 5.3497 3/30/98 Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc page SOUTHGATE OFFICE PLAZA - PHASE III / JOB _ NO. 97373 (o1 J S STAGE DISCHARGE TABLE MULTIPLE ORIFICE ID No. 1 Description: ORIFICE DISCHARGE STRUCTURE Outlet Elev: 15 . 70 Elev: 15 . 70 ft Orifice Diameter: 6 . 5742 in. Elev: 17 . 80 ft Orifice 2 Diameter: 9 .5156 in. Elev: 18 . 20 ft Orifice 3 Diameter: 6 . 9844 in. STAGE <--DISCHARGE---> STAGE <--DISCHARGE---> STAGE <--DISCHARGE---> STAGE <--DISCHARGE---> (ft) ---cfs (ft) ---cfs (ft) ---cfs (ft) ---cfs 15.70 0.0000 16.50 1.0490 17.30 1.4836 18.10 3.1629 15.80 0.3709 16.60 1.1127 17.40 1.5292 18.20 3.4085 15.90 0.5245 16.70 1.1729 17.50 1.5736 18.30 4.0473 16.00 0.6424 16.80 1.2301 17.60 1.6167 18.40 4.4226 16.10 0.7418 16.90 1.2848 17.70 1.6587 18.50 4.7435 16.20) 0.8293 17.00 1.3373 17.80 1.6997 18.60 5.0323 16.30 0.9085 17.10 1.3878 17.90 2.5167 18.70 5.2986 16.411 0.9813 17.20 1.4365 18.00 2.8776 18.72 5.3497 3/ L1/98 Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc pag 7 i5 BASIN SUMMARY BASIN ID: E02X NAME: 2-YR. EXISTING - TOTAL SBU:H METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • 20 . 95 Acres BASEFLOWS : 0 . 00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE USER1 PERVIOUS AREA PRECIPITATION • 2 . 00 inches AREA. . : 20 . 95 Acres TIME INTERVAL 10 . 00 min CN • 89 . 00 TIME OF CONC • 139 . 01 min IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0 . 20 AREA. . : 0 . 00 Acres CN • 98 . 00 TcReach - Sheet L: 300 . 00 ns : 0 . 2400 p2yr: 2 . 00 s : 0 . 0020 TcReach - Shallow L: 720 . 00 ks : 9 . 00 s : 0 . 0020 PEA:{ RATE : 1 . 65 cfs VOL: 1 . 79 Ac-ft TIME: 530 min BASIN ID: ElOX NAME: 10-YR. EXISTING - TOTAL SBUIH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA 20 . 95 Acres BASEFLOWS : 0 . 00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE USER1 PERVIOUS AREA PRECIPITATION • 2 . 90 inches AREA. . : 20 . 95 Acres TIME INTERVAL 10 . 00 min CN • 89 . 00 TIME OF CONC • 139 . 01 min IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0 .20 AREA. . : 0 . 00 Acres CN • 98 . 00 TcReach - Sheet L: 300 . 00 ns : 0 . 2400 p2yr: 2 . 00 s : 0 . 0020 TcReach - Shallow L: 720 . 00 ks : 9 . 00 s : 0 . 0020 PEAK RATE : 3 . 21 cfs VOL: 3 . 16 Ac-ft TIME : 520 min 3/11/98 Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc page 2Y5 BASIN SUMMARY BASIN ID: E100X NAME: 100-YR. EXISTING - TOTAL SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • 20 . 95 Acres BASEFLOWS : 0 . 00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE • USER1 PERVIOUS AREA PRECIPITATION • 3 . 90 inches AREA. . : 20 . 95 Acres TIME INTERVAL • 10 .00 min CN • 89 . 00 TIME OF CONC • 139 . 01 min IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0 . 20 AREA. . : 0 . 00 Acres CN • 98 . 00 TcReach - Sheet L: 300 . 00 ns : 0 .2400 p2yr: 2 . 00 s : 0 . 0020 TcReach - Shallow L: 720 . 00 ks : 9 . 00 s : 0 . 0020 PEAK RATE : 5 . 08 cfs VOL: 4 . 76 Ac-ft TIME: 520 min 3/11/98 Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc page BASIN SUMMARY BASIN ID: DO2X NAME: 2-YR. DEVELOPED STORM SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • 20 . 95 Acres BASEFLOWS : 0 . 00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE USER1 PERVIOUS AREA PRECIPITATION • 2 . 00 inches AREA. . : 4 . 19 Acres TIME INTERVAL • 10 . 00 min CN • 90 . 00 TIME OF CONC • 10 . 00 min IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0 .20 AREA. . : 16 . 76 Acres CN • 98 . 00 PEAS; RATE: 8 . 71 cfs VOL: 2 . 86 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min BASIN ID: D1OX NAME: 10-YR. DEVELOPED STORM SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • 20 . 95 Acres BASEFLOWS : 0 . 00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE USER1 PERVIOUS AREA PRECIPITATION • 2 . 90 inches AREA. . : 4 . 19 Acres TIME INTERVAL 10 . 00 min CN • 90 . 00 TIME OF CONC • 10 . 00 min IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0 .20 AREA. . : 16 . 76 Acres CN • 98 .00 PEAL: RATE: 13 .29 cfs VOL: 4 .39 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min 3/11/98 Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc page BASIN SUMMARY BASIN ID: D100X NAME: 100-YR. DEVELOPED STORM SBUT.H METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • 20 . 95 Acres BASEFLOWS : 0 . 00 cfs RAIvFALL TYPE USER1 PERVIOUS AREA PRECIPITATION • 3 .90 inches AREA. . : 4 . 19 Acres TIME INTERVAL • 10 . 00 min CN • 90 . 00 TIME OF CONC • 10 . 00 min IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0 .20 AREA. . : 16 . 76 Acres CN • 98 . 00 PEAK RATE: 18 .39 cfs VOL: 6 . 11 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min 3/1.8/98 Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc page // )G BASIN SUMMARY BASIN ID: D01X NAME : 1-YR. AVG. DEVELOPED STORM SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • 20 . 95 Acres BASEFLOWS : 0 .00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE • USER1 PERVIOUS AREA PRECIPITATION • 0 . 67 inches AREA. . : 4 . 19 Acres TIME INTERVAL • 10 . 00 min CN • 90 . 00 TIME OF CONC • 10 . 00 min IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0 .20 AREA. . : 16 . 76 Acres CN • 98 . 00 PEAR RATE: 2 . 10 cfs VOL: 0 . 71 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min 3/18/98 Bush, Reed & Hitdhings, Inc page /z/i 5 BASIN SUMMARY BASIN ID: D0 .5 NAME: 6-MONTH DEVELOPED STORM SBUE METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • 20 . 95 Acres BASEFLOWS : 0 . 00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE • USER1 PERVIOUS AREA PRECIPITATION • 1 .28 inches AREA. . : 4 . 19 Acres TIME INTERVAL • 10 . 00 min CN • 90 . 00 TIME OF CONC • 10 . 00 min IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0 .20 AREA. . : 16 . 76 Acres CN • 98 . 00 PEAK RATE: 5 . 08 cfs VOL: 1 . 67 Ac-ft TIME : 480 min /3 i5 3' MIN. ,:, ,;- SEED PEE. SPECITICITIDNS BERM +, ... I. L ,:.vi "", t 1I !) ...k'147L4 ....,tc . ,"`!. 1 2 ',N'.•., 3 3 „,,,,�r ii, S.0' I."/i I•, BOTTOM SLOPE : 0.00� �^ 754 I.10i*!liiiti, ''� ;' GRASS LINED SWALE . •fi �* � '•. ' •" TYPICAL CROSS SECTION :ito :;, :;... . 11, NO SCALE {• l"' ...>is= ,r"s=Xl� t-�=`��t ��.= cl--Cti-S`�lr. s:rtbrC.+t=s-si- `1- r,,..r__- I • LL Tor Of bOARD TO BE LEVEL Ult. WILTS Z'i tZ' !TISSUE TPIDTED WIDE 1....J.......... _. .. ',�' DOARD Z ;orG" LAYEE'. OF I "-3" I4'-O' r�AS11ED GAVEL 4"x 4' SUt?OxI 'DST al Gf PNft LINE SW1LE NOTE'. WADE ENDSUPPDPJ POST SPIIC1N TYPICAL CCOSS� SECTIONAS Eil1BLED BY SCIL CONDITIONS. ND SCALE' 14 i5 MI \ \ -I " OK YNTiR MINIM! 11 \a ,�„ W� I 0 • 11F.XAIALL Al DISONEGE N H .� '104 AS LE. Il.15 SEE SKIT G /300. ,t .. - SEE SWALE CLDS�• _ 4— ; .• OrW E1LY�� ONQ AVE SW D,1.. 2._ �-- SWRLZ 210 L0�6a d � , /I ••• rg.', D • 3'1 SIOL SLOPE _ _ • i , .'::' 714 . is -1...J 60 �M- Y E L C• it- 1 I7dfrtS'4.011 A u. itip to , � +iT•T1TE1FTI . 4 � L.)ALB S:OD1 •:: . la c C ) ( ) E.INI2 ° Dam. STi.�Qlil'E e v i \• 0 RDP MAID 40 IP" tr. I'l40 �. E n. DDND I A0 - - I I °� i ?MIK ETC 16.40 I I 10l'D MUNE 34,IsOt LF - ',Y. . 1 47: .. I I.1 1.1* diAtT = -, ..) E 1 It" talc, OVERT LOW FILM ,i4iii,.7'.• , 6l,ArEL ED1DCR = - LA I' 11�11JIND 1O POND 550 11 ( I 4ra SSLD111GDL 511 111LE_._. lo � - \ W i , — a—J I ( , : l 1 I / Ixr. 1�.o Q 1 N PHASE II . ,� 1 411•11.1=1.11% i I ~ n • 1 E Q jI t ' ` 'y�l. to �/ 1 1 // i 1 1 1 1 1 I I 11111111114•!"111=b !.1 • 1 1 1 111,17 1 1 1 .. a ';.. •/ .1 - _LL'_T„ 1ff a.I rurur.r Timm Z . �, . FCR Pit►SC III (A ,--4 I L.F. •• IV CONC 122 L.F. 18'CO C �� 4 0 a Ss O.00Z9 wil3 • 0.00M� _ FLAT -3. 1 I o. csiti. l L c6#3•TYTu t. P f SE I i = ° w I . SI p • • C MP IL.52 TI7 11..82 18 Ia"' , 1 ar. I3.47 �..., ... INC 13. LT coN L.11[ I \ !.., . \ nJ. E_ � 1 I 1 A • I \NP• AT T ...... I \ " P.1 I I �I �'�? Ii 1 , I ` / \ \ 0 I I F 14.47 , •7/..t.. , N . i , WV-1K 1 -t v l - 1' ` MI. If.5e 4'''a Of illeLiT,---__" ____ _\ 1:11ii ' c • —-- - - <. 0,; C ) ( ) —.r :, ��'" - , 1 . 1 L.F.- 1r CM? LU N IMO .4 -4/ _sw. .. 0 ° • ..... -N •, •C V\'.* . lik .'.. • .0 • 0) .40 ,, . .... 7,-., 1 - 1 - _ _ _ % , •.. � 1, .A ax.. / az) e- �o SEESW1ST._ PLANS• . 1-- .� � L6�13• _ : W , • 5%; . "pro,--..„).v..4„. I •� . : r .,, MIL I"" TDP IL. 0, �// IL- 11' Il ' i r 551__�-12 A / t • S=I'I�rzi. / 0 u. NA,4,44..,. .. .•.:-... . . .. c1 '•�.I1I, - , >✓lv ell . '"'. 7A__ ._ �• I L v L. •41 1114. 11.4 ). ' • .4 . I QN,Tilliel .I" '',A " C'. i''''ti,kfiz.' t: - r'. ----Ilb•T 6 171 at..-:11 IS ;i" _ ,i'---- C--‘s A ** • •a ram- III _ 1 •. • •J/. `14 if/.i•.: f'S Ir•y' •, tt.t.` I• .4 •^r 1IfIM�i' 1 14 Cv �,, , :Ve(; r` •., . 4/11„„ \.4,....,11,p ' 1,..., � , 1 ,I it f ,•�'•ram` ,i: ,,�' F '4. �'L i►,rtq,!e + ,I.. -;'•Jit_ 1,..ti 1. 1h� 5. ♦ i ......„-.1:....,I.,.....,.. ..„ •`• i , . �'WL. .,F ' r,\�r }.. ', i' `i�•' �If�.i711'll` / .` •,. Q. ,J `.........4.... Y `f _• 'iaim.:� ,. r,,, lint .u,! '1 11:%,,,arfli� f'4.•:1 1�►� t' ' 1 i;vilfit.1:4'Pi' '-clt ,,,,,..' I i qj I\, IV . ).;''' ur 1 .......:::1 i .'"W' 4. 4► 9M n� 1� t p�..1 l..'• ••1.. y. Ir. �• - ;,try, 11► t�� , .1 .,Q` .,r�I,t, .e. •e i I ORTHE• !!n�� , ',h..:;.�;i` 1... �--- ---- ,I •ti' .. y'I 1.,.- 5,, �•�i,/ �j�j{ ; 1}\'7"• r �� h• ��r •�115 al ",' r . fa••:`I+'.af`��f'•y�e� '• ` ,i � th r� T LQ .1, W +! -:...1„,,,....,-7- 1 ,41!!:rt ,I.rt •If Af�:: 1�• `1�. 1 �, 1, ,I' ++ \ • ,ram'► I 'M.' N ' 31-.3J. r..r7)rr tea.... �'r r-.•, }' 'r 1. • �i' I.,' .t ',,,, ;i� t }� 1.1 w / 4''-t{ 'I'••IrI 1` '• yy • •• may - \ - ILl� dam. �ra.� - ,I� �w t� ^r` r .,I., ' :."..?"fV '4C�• ,t II1.� t ,�`;, •r IA 4- I�� ti ,. .✓. '1 , f.. 3 lk .. '` 1 :t. t C + +. t '� i-...l�A ,,1 ,tir1 '7 r < �yj 1 yJ�A. \' �di:� �� 1 I/, I •• ' III% • � '" I`t IW'•1,!,'i+-� s em �i rs► :,, �r �' I _tiv f �iIfw....•r �„ ice; (5�j �{� = J ,, 1. t , , vi . . ..i.172,'' 1.6,0-. - •--,,-1;:,b, er.1 Y-, „4.„,_ ', • \ ''' ,s r- -- ' ,,, • • •:' t -:.t, _Iv. .10.111r/. • . ,i ,k 11 ,... ,... r. ,,,..„, . . • Irma ..1,:. 4 ,: ..ir . . .1 .2.6 • 1.) 'irk" JR* . .. 'I �• f I, •. . , -,. iv,I'r, .• � 't t ,'k m 'f• p r.7• / • r •1 �� i 1• I ♦a / .I.. IJI : , ••�• r�lhit;i ' ,`� r, .� k� • .11 »I '•r li r11M��_III ' .Y�,'M.r.1 • f 1, :.+x►R le, f lll�r. : FN1 ti } �.., •of= -`` - ', r 1• ` .i A �, 1. 1 ii, •1,,11 •r•'�i 1et., ; .. ; . .. 1 ..,'..!, ., .‘ , * .i. G rrt%. lt.,5,t ; , I,r� ��• �44"` , • , i•' t ....Ri•I:I, . 1,.r`0 a I • �,;1 S. _'_ < ..f ,... . '. :r _ .:<.,$,. . ..i( ) . I 1�)I�<- .It �t"tom* 11 .. ... ....:: .. tklikti. II.di tiopp I I l 11 ` !• r',4 ' t1�/ • &___ • I ry •r't - rA�' -, • '`\l1• i,�cit• , _ f • :' lki F •f " Jt ewr• _ r.�,4 /a::.i10.0.•.'i_ �I 4-1'.., t• • Iti • I ' "•, W� �f!^'S. _1 , • { fir, ir ♦ r _v �. ' 'i1,IC It i • ri , �'t ir* •..r _ i 1. s- �!.:,:'t ., f`;_ ,,1 .. i •: 1 .%141 A -I C.J 1li I t , , j • '+ 11 ' � ,.. � Yq "Y i - I Y ,;„fit h I '••+ r/ ' c ?:.�I r r �1 • �3Ik .\ �� 10 '!'�1i�� tC7�1�0 t t .. `.� JLj - , M. .r !'7 �I r t,. :�: �► { ' y :Iff r i „ . 1 ` � ��i .j yy V Ilk s +r"=- ; I1tbtY :,). 1t, ..' n . .\• i , ,1 .� .t,,V !•.:�_' ;• , . I, , • -RI• • ve •y' �, •�:•r=r•• iE ,< • I, Yeah• 'I •I.. .„„,,..111,, r�\1, IT!• •I'li a •i . r",, ..rft•*,noRn1•. •' IV 'h fi'e.,a •lil � ► •V- ,.%ti 'it• ...'t..• rr •.M r, ,. '` J 'I 1 ` Ir,� =• �' L. N �.•; e. i i ... .. fit-�,» � > .....-11-- '`wVa�- �. y y" . '' "4 5•'', • '7 - yu.: •.l ' r. v•11 1 Y.snar...y�\i-vg,-.... .-fr: -. :.�: • ,i • trnr .+ rv, r" r• a •",i I! .1 l. ,. • Ns I 4..: Il .- t �. 4 • : - • _ y . .- ..I1 '.: 1 4...�j I' 2D, Sit ut ,!` Y �:. _ 'b'� sfF° { .• '� .1, i i�• f . } ~' t •e •• ic A. ivy .. o. i It ft. • est . i , IN •,,... t . 111'. i , 'ir ,4;:j. ••A N.4 .• A•10,..• • Jr...‘'' f--es.‘„.. Nh,X • �v};. / -. k e r ,.31 pi. -1.-, t - 1.. #'' 4` •*Nt: 1`':,t, y'' x 'I a•Y___ _ '. � I / • ``' y' '1*It '{. •..• g, , . j: t `' �� 1 'to fP ►. :.t. ,.�.' ''•h.•r': 1. `� : 1 ,X•"� '/• vh ��F. ��• �'{r • 1'�nt ■�' `�'L J `S' i`tl...� " • • +� •!;... 1 ,yr'WE r•,Y`• Rl �.' •»li rIr r t �iQ1,l'j •"i If �,{'i'• ..-'D. <a• i•:A�1ict. �,� l'a.'S,r�'t...�lL• ,. O' u i as t�� 11•• � 1' '•.. �Q1' :t I 4 • Lw •�• �J, 4.` �ryV �J �. '► Fra��1'1, I .1 ",.-,y ., I.• �__ I •• 4. .,, ,' at.,;!! •.�, YU }:•f .fir `fit I•.•: 1 . 1 ` ,,-,4 ''•►,i. I F r'R .t .':'"• t{�1., I '. .7..... y,• f`•ti..,',y� a: Gj,1! II ....Will•.• i'.' ,'•' � . "`"T` i `J.4 '' t_ � _ lfS��.tf.ItC_ .i�..r _�t _ _ ,.t.,�. IN! • ir,...i. 1 • �M ,,,•,,,,, . , .„.,,,,...,. .�, it.r' rr r' i•1I CC ,` `' �. W� r ri 4tii _w • E t.,5..01•41y1:. F.--111-_,R lb.,.. ;.,,,R. .4t V 1" C. I A . if , r 1 f_ ., ,1 I ■ 1 itl I �'��(�';. ,.��`�}•� ?' ' • •,,..,, • -•'70- I • I k• -ii gk it• I "� .4•r •��ti WQ fi �i lI "' '1s: _fl' • r•: •ti_`` ., �r.A�R1�.•'3 IIR ".'•9t `! ISp'I. ►tLi .� lr'Jw� ..� ' y,^ 1 •'Ur IC '{I t }. 41 i. _ �. I i r.:- Ve+•,�1.tl'�{�I r .. '(� �•�r r r,"j' ►5 .��. .� le l s__• 1,„• •. •i •••• i • 1•„►1- ly�.. j •'.:.r. if ` ' ) 1 I+'i`JUl�ar1 lye 9+1 k • rr .�• Ar �. e - ,, •N'L ''i' ^.fi AI • 'f wA'►._ ...L.�'•:. ••••e. 1� 2�" If. �I Mk/1 r: .;1 ',� • * I• L ��--� �.I.'C�•.w�- �l�► ` it LY'7Q.' • -) V'Oe r,1t� i t ?t7 I �t' r � ..,, :i 1 .f,,. .I ••F�! . --- i' 'r•1L•'� Yift1! 1 a :� .:I' , -"1:-. Ir �I i • II ' " .►;,� .� 11 '.•'\fA pit-t) �� ii` I111.:‘,7 Y' C n ` '••w r 1 „, �1 �^i !!+ ' I 4F (':� y11f tt.tf -,- . ,_ ` 1 ,1 I 1 I ite.PI f I : P. 1 .,_._. J �m1q__ ° /��q�s i�at�t, ,IS:•. • � � I ,, �1, 1., t. -:,I Ii• a i +l Z-ice ` t 1 , !4M!! . I "� -a i+ • re t m......-- ) .._ iki Oit:11, (.6, . to \ . . .A ' • ' fik L • • ' -; - . • iii r... 1.1 •,,r • .........,,,,t14„..,.. .. ,..: .. A.,... , . ,:t.,..1,1 -I': T.,..z 0 A..'••• 1'''' . . di ., it ' , . 11.4§i ' ''.*Kw. tif 0 v., • • ..e S• ' 1..••• •A,/ L.,41112116::k I 14iii IV • • LA...•L • A.. , 1,..:__i_.... -:.... --...::............ ......0' -•••:--11I4-7,/-1 -- - r.".1:" ----ilk +Ali itlijsik:Ti15111‘1,11 •\1; .**1' • /,.ver:. *4;1111,.• f. ‘ ."' 1 " ",,- t. -14 CRIII 4 wee sw. ' ir •,,- r 1'ill \ ' IN k t I ir 0 il' 4trati �,'Is.,,:i .20 '. I J I4, rN � lereLsififti& -A'". 13 I .►.• .�a t1i'•� 140107 `n •f ' 1ifii • r Hp �•�• rr f,. I.-_� _ �ew,.veu Ag6 ISO �J. it' / ' :11,��',S <'r • �7Z Yf L'II 1 Ilr -I'�i.K I 1 .1h DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON PREPARED FOR APR 2 3 1998 VYZIS COMPANY RECEIVED ,144,,,r114 6 114 lea Aaron McMichael Staff Engineer 00 Theodore J. Schep er, P.E. ;�' ! °F -o'•� Project Manager : :" / )' $• L. i O 9 15' / GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY ONE L `ss% 1 ` SOUTHGATE OFFICE PLAZA, PHASE II RENTON, WASHINGTON E-4957 July 19, 1990 RECEIVED MAR 16 1998 LANCE MUELLER &ASSOC. Earth Consultants, Inc. 1805 - 136th Place Northeast, Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98005 (206) 643-3780 222 East 26th Street, Suite 103 Tacoma, Washington 98411-9998 (206) 272-6608 I TABLE OF CONTENTS E-4957 PAGE INTRODUCTION 1 General 1 Scope of Services 1 Project Description 1 SITE CONDITIONS 2 Surface 2 Subsurface 2 Groundwater 3 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3 General 3 Site Preparation and General Earthwork 5 Pile Foundations 5 Augercast Piles 6 Slab-on-Grade Floors 7 Seismic Design Considerations 7 Excavations 8 Site Drainage 8 Pavement Areas 9 Utility Pipe Support 9 LIMITATIONS 10 Additional Services 10 APPENDICES Appendix A - Field Exploration Appendix B - Laboratory Testing ILLUSTRATIONS Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Boring Location Plan Plate Al Legend Plates A2 through A13 Boring Logs Plate B 1 Atterberg Limits Test Data Earth Consultants, Inc. I CEarth Consultants Inc. „_1 G ,„,.(„nit aI I.144in(1TS.G ulogI'Is&f:m ironm ntal sc i-ntists July 19, 1990 E-4957 Vyzis Company 3605 - 132nd Avenue Southeast Bellevue, Washington 98006 Attention: Mr. Dick Scales Reference: Geo Engineers, Inc. Report 640-01, Dated May 9, 1984 Dear Mr. Scales: We are pleased to submit our report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Southgate Office Plaza, Phase II, Renton, Washington." This report presents the results of our field exploration, selective laboratory tests, and engineering analyses. The purpose and scope of our study was outlined in our May 18, 1990 proposal. Based on the test borings we recently completed at the site, and on our review of the report referenced above, our study indicates that the site is generally mantled with medium-dense sandy and clayey silt fills which are underlain by soft native organic silts and clayey silts. Beneath the native silts are medium-dense tc' dense silty sands and sands typical of alluvial Kent Valley soils. Due to the moderately compressible nature of the organic and clayey silt layer located beneath the surficial fill soils, we recommend that Buildings II and III be supported on augercast piles. The upper portion of the fill has been placed with enough compaction to support the ground level slabs-on-grade. The fills should also provide adequate support for the parking and driveway areas. However, the fills have a large silt content and will be very moisture sensitive. Thus, this site will require dry weather for successful earthwork activities. We appreciate this opportunity to have been of service to you during this initial phase of project development, and we look forward to working with you in the future phases of this project. In the meantime, should you or your consultants have any questions about the content of this report, or if we can be of further assistance, please call. Very truly yours, EA71 CONSULT T S I T . heodore Scheppif, P. E. Project Manager AM/TJS IG4957.R011 1805- 136th Place N.E.,Suite 101,Bellevue,Washington 98005 222 E.26th Street, Suite 101,Tacoma,Washington 98411-9998 Bellevue(206)643-3780 Seattle(206)464-1584 FAX(206)746-0860 Tacoma(206)272-6608 I ' GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY SOUTHGATE OFFICE PLAZA, PHASE II RENTON, WASHINGTON E-4957 INTRODUCTION General This report presents the results of the Southgate Office P1a7a, Phase II geotechnical study completed by ECI for the Vyzis Company. The general location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1. The purpose of this study was to explore the subsurface conditions at the site and, on this basis, to develop geotechnical recommendations for the proposed site development. Scope of Services We performed this study in general accordance with the scope of services outlined in our May 18, 1990 proposal. On this basis, our report addresses: • existing subsurface soil and groundwater conditions; • suitability of existing on-site materials for use as fill, or recommendations for imported fill materials; • site preparation, grading and earthwork procedures, including details for fill placement and compaction; • estimates of potential total and differential settlement; • excavations; • utility trenches and backfill; and • parking area and access roadway pavements. Project Description At the time our study was performed, the site, proposed building locations, and our exploratory locations were approximately as shown on the Boring Location Plan, Plate 2. We understand, from our discussions with you, and from the preliminary plans furnished to us, that Building II will have five stories and contain approximately one hundred and sixty- one thousand (161,000) square feet, while Building III will have six stories and contain one hundred and eighty thousand (180,000) square feet. Adjacent to both buildings, large areas GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Vyzis Company E-4957 July 19, 1990 Page 2 of asphalt parking will also be developed. The finished floor elevation of the ground level slab areas will be approximately at Elevation 19 to 20.5. Based on information provided by the project structural engineer, maximum total dead plus live loads are expected to be as follows: • Maximum interior column loads - 485 Kips, dead plus live • Maximum exterior column loads - 250 kips, dead plus live • Slab loads - 100 pounds per square foot (psf) If any of the above design criteria change, we should be consulted to review the recommendations contained in this report. In any case, we recommend that Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI) be retained to perform a general review of the final design. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The subject site is located at 2100 Lind Avenue, and is bounded on the east by Lind Avenue S.W. and on the north by the proposed future S.W. 19th Street. The west property line is formed by tall line of dense brush and trees, while the south property line is formed by brush and tall grass. A tank storage farm is located further to the south of the south property line. The existing Phase I Building complex is located in the southwest corner of the site. The site's ground surface is nearly level and generally covered with field grass and bare soil areas, where ponded water stands during wet periods. The existing site surface elevation is presently at approximately Elevation 18, according to the project civil engineer. A few small isolated mounds of fill soils were located near the west and north edges of the existing north parking area of the Phase I complex. During our field work, the site surface was dry and stable. Subsurface The site was explored by drilling twelve (12) borings at the approximate locations shown on Plate 2. Please refer to the Boring Logs, Plates A2 through A13, for a more detailed description of the conditions encountered at each location explored. A description of the field exploration methods and laboratory testing program is included in the appendix of this report. The following is a generalized description of the subsurface conditions encountered. The soil conditions across the site are generally uniform. The surficial soils consist of approximately ten (10) feet of medium-dense silt and clayey silt fill. The fill also contains Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Vyzis Company E-4957 July 19, 1990 Page 3 some areas of sand with clay and silt and silty gravels. Mixed in with the fills are small amounts of concrete rubble and wood debris. The fill soils are underlain with approximately five (5) to ten (10) feet of soft moderately compressible organic silts and clayey silts. Below these compressible soils, medium-dense to dense silty sands and sands where encountered to the maximum depth explored of forty-nine (49) feet below the existing ground surface. Groundwater The groundwater seepage observed while drilling was noted only in the silty sands and sands located below the fill and organic silt soils. Generally, the groundwater level was observed to be located twelve (12) to eighteen (18) feet below the ground surface. However, since the groundwater level did not have time to stabilize in the borings before they were backfilled, and because the lower fill soils were found to be wet, it is our opinion that the groundwater table is located near the interface between the fill and native compressible soil boundary. The groundwater level encountered in each location is shown on the boring test pit logs. The groundwater level is not static; thus, one may expect fluctuations depending on the season, amount of rainfall, surface water runoff, and other factors. Generally, the water level and flow is higher in the wetter winter months (typically October through May). DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Due to the compressible organic and clayey silts located below the surficial fill soils, conventional footings supporting the two building's high column loads would experience large settlements. Thus, based on the results of our study and geotechnical engineering analyses, it is our opinion that columns and perimeter footings should be pile supported for both Building II and III. The two most common types of pile support used in the Kent Valley consist of timber and augercast. Our determination as to which pile type of support to recommend is based on load capacity and installation practicality. Load capacity of timber piles is generally in the range of twenty-five (25) to thirty-five (35) tons. Due to the high columns loads expected, a large number of timber piles would be necessary. Since the site grade will be raised by approximately two feet, downdrag forces will further decrease the capacity of timber piles and increase their quantity. Additionally, the compacted fill would create hard initial driving conditions, and might require pre-drilling of the timber pile locations. Earth Consultants, Inc. I . GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Vyzis Company E-4957 July 19, 1990 Page 4 Load capacity of augercast piles using locally available equipment ranges up to approximately one hundred (100) tons. Thus, the number of augercast piles needed to support the same load would be significantly reduced, and no pre-drilling would be necessary. However, some additional cost due to grout loss may be incurred on this site, due to added grout-take while advancing through compressible soil layers. However, it has been our experience on other similar Kent Valley sites that the grout loss is generally not significant. Based on the piling discussion above, we recommend that sixteen (16) inch diameter augercast piling be used to support the proposed buildings. An allowable load of sixty-five (65) tons may be in design. Since the surficial site fills were placed with some amount of compaction, it is our opinion that the ground level floor slabs of these two buildings may be supported on-grade, provided that these areas will not exceed slab loads of one hundred (100) psf. If the slabs are placed on a minimum of one foot of compacted existing site fill soils, or on structural fill if the site grade has been raised by no greater than two feet, we estimate that post-construction primary settlements will be less than one and one-half inches. Primary differential settlements across each building is expected be less than one-half inch. Long- term secondary settlement occurring over the next thirty years is expected to be in the range of one inch in addition to the initial primary settlements. We suggest that any fills that will added to the site be placed as soon as possible in the building slab areas to allow more time for any induced primary settlements to occur prior to their construction. The owner should understand that if settlement is to be avoided, then the slab areas should be supported entirely on piles and grade beams. The surficial fill soils are fine-grained and poorly drained, but may be used as the slab and parking area subgrade provided that they can be compacted per recommendations provided in the Site Preparation and General Earthwork section of this report. Additionally, these fills should provide adequate support for the site utilities. This report has been prepared for specific application to this project only and in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area for the exclusive use of Vyzis Company and their representatives. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. We recommend that this report, in its entirety, be included in the project contract documents for the information of the contractor. Earth Consultants, Inc. ' GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Vv7is Company E-4957 .i uiy 19, 1990 Page 5 Site Preparation and General Earthwork The building subgrade elevations and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of all concrete rubble, abandoned utility lines, surface vegetation, all organic matter, and any other deleterious material. Stripped materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill. Following the stripping and excavating operation, the ground surface where structural fill, slabs, or parking and driveway areas are to be placed should be proofrolled. All proofrolling should be performed under the observation of a representative of ECI. Soil in any loose or soft areas, if recompacted and still yielding, should be overexcavated and replaced with structural fill to a depth that will provide a stable base beneath the general structural fill. The optional use of a geotextile fabric placed directly on the overexcavated surface may help to bridge unstable areas. Structural fill is defined as any compacted fill placed under buildings, roadways, slabs, pavements, or any other load-bearing areas. Structural fill under the pile caps, grade beams, and slab should be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to a minimum 95 percent of its maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed at or near the optimum moisture content. Fill under pavements and walks should also be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to 90 percent of maximum density except for the top twelve (12) inches, which should be compacted to 95 percent of maximum density. The on-site fill consist predominantly of silty soils and are very moisture-sensitive. Thus, compaction and grading will be difficult if not completed during dry weather. The moisture content of these on-site soils at the time of our exploration was near optimum. If the moisture content is increased above its optimum due to precipitation, it may be necessary to use imported granular soil as structural fill, or the moisture content may be reduced by aeration in dry weather, or by intermixing lime or cement to absorb excess moisture. Ideally, structural fill which is to be placed in wet weather should consist of a granular material with a maximum size of three inches and no more than five percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve. During dry weather, any compactible non-organic soil can be used as structural fill. Pile Foundations The proposed Buildings II and III should be supported on pile foundations consisting of sixteen (16) inch augercast piles. If the piles are embedded a minimum of ten (10) feet into the medium-dense to dense silty sands and sands located below the compressible silts, an Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Vyzis Company E-4957 July 19, 1990 Page 6 allowable vertical capacity of sixty-five (65) tons may be assumed. This value has allowed for downdrag forces created by a maximum of two feet of additional fill being added to the site. If more than two feet of fill is added to the site, then the pile capacity given above should be revised. Based on the existing elevation of the site surface and the embedment criteria given above, the total length of the piles is estimated to be thirty-five (35) feet. However, any amount of fill placed on-site should be added to the estimated length above. Augercast Piles The augercast piles should be installed with continuous-flight, hollow stem auger equipment. Based on the result of the test borings, pile lengths are estimated to extend to about thirty- five (35) feet below the existing grade. These lengths may vary depending upon final site grade. For a sixteen (16) inch diameter pile with ten (10) feet of penetration into the medium-dense to dense silty sand and sand soils, an allowable axial capacity of sixty-five (65) tons may be assumed for dead plus live loads. This capacity may be increased by one-third for short-term wind and seismic loading conditions. The pile capacity can be increased by additional penetration into the bearing stratum, or by increasing the pile diameter. We can address these design considerations if required. We estimate that total settlement of single piles will be on the order of about one-half inch. Most of this settlement should occur during the construction phase as the dead loads are applied. The remaining post-construction settlements would be developed as the live loads are applied. We estimate that the differential settlements should be approximately one- quarter inch. No reduction of pile capacity is required if the piles are installed on a center- to-center spacing of at least three pile diameters. An uplift capacity of thirty (30) tons may be used for a single pile penetrating a minimum length of thirty-five (35) feet with at least ten (10) feet of embedment into the bearing stratum. • Lateral pile capacity is generally governed by deflections at the top of the pile which is dependent on pile stiffness with respect to the surrounding soil conditions in the upper portion of the pile, the length of the pile, and the degree of fixity at the top of the pile. For a pile deflection of one-half inch, a value of eight (8) tons may be used for lateral pile capacity design. ECI should be allowed to review final foundation plans to confirm the assumed lateral capacity. Passive earth pressures on the grade beams and friction between the grade beams and the subgrade will also provide some lateral resistance. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used between the subgrade and the grade beams. For properly placed and compacted backfill, passive earth pressures acting on the grade beams can be assumed to be exerted by Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Vyzis Company E-4957 ui f 19, 1990 Page 7 a fluid having a density of three hundred and fifty (350) pounds per cubic foot (pcf). If sufficient lateral support cannot be achieved by these means, batter piles may be used. Batter piles should be of similar size to vertical piles, and should be inclined no flatter than 1H:5V. As it is not possible to observe the completed pile below the ground, judgement and experience must be used as the basis for determining the acceptability of a pile. Therefore, we recommend that all piles be installed under the full-time observation of a representative of ECI. This will allow us to evaluate fully the contractor's operation, collect and interpret the installation data, and verify bearing stratum elevations. Furthermore, we will also understand the implications of variations from normal procedures with respect to the design criteria. The contractor's equipment and procedures should be reviewed by ECI before the start of construction. Slab-on-Grade Floors Slab-on-grade floors may be supported on a minimum of one foot of recompacted existing fill soil subgrade or on structural fill that may be used to attain the proposed finished floor Elevation of 19 to 20.5 feet. Any disturbed fill soils must either be recompacted or replaced with structural fill as discussed earlier under the Site Preparation and General Earthwork Section of this report. The slab should be provided with a minimum of four inches of free- draining sand or gravel. In areas where slab moisture is undesirable, a vapor barrier such as a 6-mil plastic membrane may be placed beneath the slab. Two inches of damp sand may be placed over the membrane for protection during construction and to aid in curing of the concrete. We also recommend the floor slab be structurally separated so that any possible future differential settlement between floor slabs, columns or walls will not be reflected in the form of warped or cracked floor slabs. Seismic Design Considerations The Puget Sound region is classified as Zone 3 by the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The largest earthquakes in the Puget Sound region have been subcrustal events, ranging in depth from fifty (50) to seventy (70) kilometers. Such deep events have exhibited no surface faulting. The existence medium-dense to dense saturated silty sand and sands within thirty (30) feet of the ground surface create a moderate potential of liquefaction occurring during strong-motion earthquakes. Geotechnical information required for use of the 1988 UBC Earthquake regulation consists of a determination of the characteristic site factor "S" needed to design for a structure's base shear. To estimate "S" for the subject site, we have utilized Table 23-I of the UBC Code Section 23-1, page 168, and the geotechnical information obtained during our recent subsurface study. For the subject site, we recommend the use of site factor S3. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Vyzis Company E-4957 19, 1990 Page 8 Excavations We do not anticipate the need for any cut or fill slopes on this project except for the possibility of those associated with drainage swales and temporary utility trench excavations. The existing fill soils would fall within the Class "C" group in accordance with current OSHA regulations. Therefore, side slopes of trench excavations greater than four feet in depth must be laid back at a minimum gradient of 1.5H:1V. If slopes of this inclination, or flatter, cannot be constructed, temporary shoring may be necessary. This shoring will help protect against slope or excavation collapse, and will provide protection to workmen in the excavation. If temporary shoring is required, we will be available to provide shoring design criteria, if requested. All permanent cut slopes should be inclined no steeper than 2H:1V. Fill slopes should be placed at 2H:1V or flatter. We also recommend that all cut slopes be examined by Earth Consultants, Inc. during excavation to verify that conditions are as anticipated. Supplementary recommendations can then be developed, if needed, to improve stability, including flattening of slopes or installation of surface or subsurface drains. In any case, water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any slopes. All permanently-exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial layer of soil. Site Drainage Groundwater seepage was encountered in our borings at approximately twelve (12) to eighteen (18) feet below the existing grade. However, if this seepage would have had time to stabilize in the borings, we estimate that the groundwater table would be located at the base of the fill soil, approximately seven (7) to ten (10) feet below the existing ground surface. Thus, your utility contractors should be prepared for possible groundwater seepage into any trenches deeper than this level. The site should be graded such that surface water is directed off the site. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where buildings, slabs or pavements are to be constructed. During construction, loose surfaces should be sealed at night by compacting the surface to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration into the soils. Final site grades should allow for drainage away from the building foundations. We suggest that the ground be sloped at a gradient of three percent for a distance of at least ten feet away from the buildings, except in areas that are to be paved. If seepage is encountered in the pile cap or grade beam excavations during construction, we recommend your contractor slope the bottom of the excavation to one or more shallow sump Earth Consultants, Inc. I GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Vyzis Company E-4957 Lily 19, 1990 Page 9 pits. The collected water can then be pumped from these pits to a positive and permanent discharge, such as a nearby storm drain. Under no circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be connected to the footing drain system. All roof downspouts must be separately tightlined to discharge. We recommend you install cleanouts at strategic locations to allow for periodic maintenance of the footing drain and downspout tightline systems. Pavement Areas The adequacy of site pavements is related to the condition of the underlying subgrade. To provide a properly prepared subgrade for pavements, we recommend the top one foot of the existing site fills and any structural fill that will be added to the site should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density (per ASTM D-1557-78), as described in the Site Preparation section of this report. It is possible that some localized areas of soft, wet or unstable subgrade may exist. Therefore, a greater thickness of structural fill or crushed rock may be needed to stabilize these localized areas. We recommend the following pavement section for lightly-loaded areas: • Two inches of AC over three inches of Asphalt Treated Base (ATB) material. Heavier truck-traffic areas will require thicker sections depending upon site usage, pavement life and site traffic. As a general rule, you may consider for truck-trafficked areas the following sections: • Three inches of AC over four and one-half inches of ATB. We will be pleased to assist you in developing appropriate pavement sections for heavy traffic zones, if needed. Utility Pipe Support The existing site fill soils have been placed with enough compaction to provide adequate support for the utilities. However, if the utilities are to be located below the fills in the compressible organic soils, we should be contacted so that more specific recommendations regarding pipe support can be made. Some long-term settlement will occur over time due to the presence of the exist site fills. Thus, it is our opinion that the utility lines will not settle more than the surrounding parking areas if the trench backfill is properly compacted. However, since the building foundations will be pile supported, it would be prudent to use flexible utility connections to the buildings to avoid any possible differential settlement damage. Earth Consultants, Inc. I GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Vyzis Company E-4957 .,uly 19, 1990 Page 10 If abandoned utility pipes are encountered during construction, they should be plugged or removed so that they do not provide a conduit for water and cause soil saturation and stability problems. To avoid settlement of the utility pipes and pavement overlying the backfill sections, all backfill materials should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density (per ASTM D-1557-78). Bedding materials should be compacted to provide the lateral support needed for flexible pipes. However, caution should be exercised when compacting the soils at the sides of non-reinforced rigid pipe to prevent damage to the pipe. Trench backfill beneath building, parking, and roadway areas may consist of the existing fill soils or imported materials provided they are near optimum moisture content as determined by our field technician. During wet weather, we recommend using an imported structural fill, as described earlier. LIMITATIONS Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses, the design information provided us by your design team, and our experience and engineering judgement. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. No warranty is expressed or implied. The recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the borings. Soil and groundwater conditions between borings may vary from those encountered. The nature and extent of variations between our exploratory locations may not become evident until construction. If variations do appear, ECI should be requested to reevaluate the recommendations of this report and to modify or verify them in writing prior to } proceeding with the construction. • l Additional Services We recommend that ECI be retained to perform a general review of the final design and specifications to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and in the construction specifications. We also recommend that ECI be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. We do not accept responsibility for the performance of the foundation or earthwork unless we are retained to review the construction drawings and specifications, and to provide construction observation and testing services. Earth Consultants, Inc. I t�I,$ � PARK�`i t :.., k12',/- 1- Q2a> B Rt .tJ 1 g , .'.iaN'::;`.•. 6 1 . 5 GRli AD s,e u a� :It:::::'::� .1 IrGI N▪ I 101 fin IDENTcj'. ,� 1 „J„3„ c i >,�T9TH T S RENTON VILLAGE PL t Si .1t ... ... N ` t PARK::a, � 1 0>` � ~ 000 T .^ � �'I� m k. 777777 ` �� 4.°,o TNER .4 a 00 . ►." i IT "„ T�„, 1 2 .+ N NOR o w �.` °4 .Q to > r ><2 �i U Ire (Aar Sr t � 1 F- 1 TH_ I in a. T m t- 3 ST ,\ — �,� W to B f 1• a _ to — :t . g S 16TH ST .. _ — /i .�I�[._yw_O—W _.—a;--1— T G !N b .:, I trig C C t. t u > .nt r... I E.S 18TH , 2M •I. • :I : SW 1941 ST J - AL �m 0�1 � II ; I _...r.... S 187H�0 ST Z II Race !'" >t �r 20TH w 9 �Cf T :;1� SW 21 T ST 7s t. i O Trac � II "" " I� n sr rim �i< I �,/' + SW L1Rp ST �$_i3RD l N ST N b '.i�teQT.: ;b I J'a RENTC� N1 don I..PARI' Fy91C NTENNIA t � ~ � S = R � I.io.el._ '5J' I I Q b t25TN:5T; 2b,N 1 v PARK: I �J(�T� ; SIQTH c I ..� W I 1 .,:::• 1 SW 2771 ST 1 �~Stra 7'°">^I '�y� to 1 I I - Sun(' n N a G V<: SE •. w uj Fie 2 I I ijT II t I ISW 29TH 70TH CTI PJ •. e 1i ♦ > z 251 3 �l ' UO I 'ar ^ ST 315T < I� inso CC - ENSFN. y SW 3IST �, NTH ST I } . : •� > . GREENBEL ? SW 33RD I I 1 I EA I , a I ST < I Lt. w I sw 31TH ST I 0 wn t S 111ND ST I SI I I ro , IIys me I <W t —Ze l ——-d; ° —JL- — � -I—- S . — -fr.- T + �sE n�n I 'y�' I tS 39THsST p »)H S/ am? ;n I b iH (. 11--- ,f, I \ 1 ( SwSw-< THTH 5T I T 7� I to cr )14' IOJ N 1 o SW ItST ST I VALLEYS 177TH ST `jHst I PP N 1' to > to 1 MfDICAL Q 5�i8 p GP o Q 0�I I H < I I i CENTER Q c cs 17 TH J ST - 1 a $T - �- �: II SW ^� I 4.4RD I Ig ST 1 I t T pae• N� 7 ..e 181ST ST -� "�18OTH; ST N „) 1 J S 19 1 Q' : , C,cTi, �bE _ cT ct' ... ... t r. 0 KReference : King County / Map 41 By Thomas Brothers Maps Dated 1990 i Vicinity Map itr7i L Earth Consultants Inc. Southgate Plazc Phase II (RRNed1nK'aI Engineers O ob$LAs&Environmental scientist, Renton, Washington Proj. No. 4957 I Drwn. GLS I Date July '90 Checked DB I Date 7/13/90 I Plate 1 r i1 ,''-'' If Lil I '.--.H I 1 (---- c. Kr 11 S B-9 1 S B-7 ih B"6 S B-5 ,- — B-4 _ go, B- 10 S Approximate Scale IMMO mom 0 75 150 300 ft. 10B-8 -I I .r. bl LEGEND B-111 -ilI 17 ;ji ', S B-1 Approximate Location of B'2 B_II & ECI Boring, Proj. No. j , E-4957, July 1990 h. >7 W I- 1 1 , � oWc E3 3 � � Proposed Building � 1 I— . r f— L_ — C— _ \ C 0 I I Existing Building c. \tn / O) N P -------J B-12 _7 6 Cl I 1 I cn l \.. . 1 NM OM. LIND AVENUE S.W. 0Reference . a Proj. No. 90033 V; Site Plan .y By Loschky Marquardt a Nesholm Dated 6/18/90 ;1 i Boring Location Plan Earth Consultants Inc. Southgate Plaza Phase II ( If `J1\ (:rrNnivik:JFnginmrs.Geologists&firvirrt.rcr( IIaiSrk1ukls Renton, Washington f�� Proj No. 4957 I Drwn. GLS I Date July '90 Checked DB [Date 7/13/90 1 Plate 2 igl APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION E-4957 Our field exploration was performed on July 2, 1990. Subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling twelve borings and excavating to a maximum depth of forty-nine (49) feet below the existing grade. Continuous-flight, hollow-stem augers were used to advance and support the boreholes during sampling. Approximate boring locations were determined by hand taping from existing structures shown on site plan by Loschky Marquardt and Nesholm, Inc., and dated June 18, 1990. Approximate boring elevations were based on a preliminary estimate of the existing site grade after conversations with the project civil engineer. The locations and elevations of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. These approximate locations are shown on the Boring Location Plan, Plate 2. The field exploration was continuously monitored by a geologist from our firm who classified the soils encountered and maintained a log of each boring and obtained representative samples, measured groundwater levels, and observed pertinent site features. All samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System which is presented on Plate 3, Legend. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and the results of the laboratory examination and tests of field samples. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the transitions may be more gradual. In each boring, Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed at selected intervals in general accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1586. The split spoon samples were driven with a one hundred forty (140) pound hammer freely falling thirty (30) inches. The number of blows required to drive the last twelve (12) inches of penetration are called the "N-value". This value helps to characterize the site soils and is used in our engineering analyses. Shear strengths of undisturbed soils were measured where practical in the field with a penetrometer. These results are recorded on the boring logs at the appropriate sample depths. Representative soil samples were placed in closed containers and returned to our laboratory for further examination and testing. Earth Consultants, Inc. I , MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH LETTER TYPICAL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL SYMBOL `0°c:4 °°.o a GW Well-Graded Gravels, Gravel-Sand Gravel .° v°.°°. °o.°. ° o,o,°. ,° gw Mixtures, Little Or No Fines And Clean Gravels °,°, Gravelly (little or no fines) . 0. •. All. . GP Poorly-Graded Gravels,Gravel- Co.irse Soils ' ♦ ' *- ' ! gp Sand Mixtures, Little Or No Fines Grained ! So s More Than !, i i1I� GM Silty Gravels,Gravel-Sand- 50% Coarse Gravels With �� I' gm Silt Mixtures Fraction Fines(appreciable ' Retained On amount of fines) / d GC Clayey Gravels, Gravel-Sand- No. 4 SieveAyr gc Clay Mixtures Sand ,;u°oo 0 00o SW Well-Graded Sands, Gravelly And Clean Sand o°ec o pOu°O SW Sands, Little Or No Fines Sandy (little or no fines) .;.;.4•. :r- More Than Soils ••'•:• SP Poorly-Graded Sands, Gravelly 50% Material :•:••::' •:• Sp Sands, Little Or No Fines Larger Than t' <�.�.,,.•��!., No.2:)0 Sieve More Than SM Size 50% Coarse Sands With 1 Sm Silty Sands, Sand Silt Mixtures Fraction Fines (appreciable Jyyyy►►►► Passing No.4 amount of fines) rTr SC Sieve !y SC Clayey Sands, Sand-Clay Mixtures ML Inorganic Silts&Very Fine Sands,Rock Flour,Silty- ml Clayey Fine Sands;Clayey Silts w/Slight Plasticity Fine Silts Liquid Limit '/�/ CL Inorganic Clays Of Low To Medium Plasticity, Gre.ined And Less Than 50 �� CI Gravelly Clays, Sandy Clays, Silty Clays. Lean So s Clays III 1 I I I 1 I I I OL Organic Silts And Organic OI Silty Clays Of Low Plasticity r MH Inorganic Silts, Micaceous Or Diatomaceous Fine More Than mh Sand Or Silty Soils 50% Material Silts Smal ar Than And Liquid Limit CH Inorganic Clays Of High No.2:)0 Sieve Clays Greater Than 50 Ch Plasticity, Fat Clays Size /// OH Organic Clays Of Medium To High ///// Oh Plasticity, Organic Silts *... -.: Peat, Humus, Swamp Soils Highly Organic Soils .: PT _:,- pt With High Organic Contents Topsoil ':.,,. Humus And Duff Layer Fill Highly Variable Constituents The Discussion In The Text Of This Report Is Necessary For A Proper Understanding Of The Nature Of The Material Presented In The Attached Logs Notes : Dual symbols are used to indicate borderline soil classification. Upper case letter symbols designate sample classifications based upon lab— oratory testing; lower case letter symbols designate classifications not verified by laboratory testing. , I 2-0.D. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER C TORVANE READING, tsf TT 2.4"I.D. RING SAMPLER OR qu PENETROMETER READING,tsf li SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER P SAMPLER PUSHED W MOISTURE, percent of dry weight SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED pcf DRY DENSITY,pounds per cubic ft. 2 WATER LEVEL (DATE) LL LIQUID LIMIT,percent iWATER OBSERVATION WELL PI PLASTIC INDEX il , Earth Consultants Inc. LEGEND \1 I[%)1(]1YIH.ali lJ lf;liMt'r].Crt%>logLSIS 6IJ1Y1rU 1114YII.li SCll]IIbIS Proj. No. 4957 I Date July'90 I Plate Al I BORING NO. B- 1 , Logged By DB Date_ 7/2/90 Elev. 1E '± (N) Graph CS Soil Description D(efip)h Sample Blows (o) Ft. •�� ml Gray sandy SILT, trace gravel, medium _ 27 • • •A dense (Fill) _ P=1.0 t s f • 26 mlt Gray clayey SILT, medium stiff, moist, - 12 P=1.0tsf saturated •��*3: �� (Fill) - 6 29 P=0.5 t s f ��L 10 _ 2 II I I of Brown organic SILT, soft, saturated I I - II P-1.0tsf 1 I I 1 I — 15 I II I 1 zl8 . �l _ r- = : sm Gray-brown silty SAND, loose, - -�••- ::ti:;• saturated — 20 26 sp Black SAND, trace gravel, dense, • saturated - 25 38 — 30 • 51 — 35 -• T 61 Boring terminated at 39.0 feet below existing grade. Groundwater encountered at 17.5 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with cuttings and bentonite. Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,analysis,and lodgement.They are not necessarily representative of otner times and locations-We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. BORING LOG • „ ) Earth Consultants Inc. SOUTHGATE PLAZA PHASE II '\\, Gn,WeduiicalBlf{IINYrS.(ao,gi IS/4En irtmuliemals8•nus RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 4957 1 Drwn. GLS Checked Am I Date July' 90 I Plate A2 '1 BORING NO. B-2 Logged By DB Date?/2/90 Elev. 18'± 4 INI Graph CS Soil Description Depth Sample Blows (°W/o) Ft. gm Gray brown silty GRAVEL with sand, - 69 very dense, saturated (Fill) - ml Gray SILT, trace sand and gravel, - P=1.5tsf medium dense (Fill) — 5 I. 14 I 16 41 --10 2 74 1 1 1 , 1 1 of Gray-brown organic SILT, soft, _ P=0.5tsf 1 1 1 1 j 1 1 1 saturated - II - sm Brown silty SAND, loose to medium —15 ': :: H dense, saturated 4 43 p=0.5tsf ml Gray-brown sandy SILT (ml) , very loose, - saturated -20 - I 13 Black SAND, medium dense to dense, _ saturated - sp —25 22 —30 . 25 _35 T 42 Boring terminated at 36.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater encountered at 12.5 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with cuttings. Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,analysis,and judgement.Tney are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interoretahon by others of information presented on this log. BORING LOG I � Earth Consultants Inc. SOUTHGATE PLAZA PHASE II 1 �1 ,,I GmtrchniialFng„,,.•r..„.4.k,g,sisRtinoinxtnxnralticwnrisis RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 4957 I Drwn. GLS I Checked AM 1 Date July'90 I Plate A3 BORING NO. B-3 Logged By DB Gate 7/2/90 Bev. 18'± (N) SGraph c Soil Description D(ft)ep Sample Blows (\°0) ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦� cam Gray-brown silty GRAVEL with SAND, _ = 25 110♦11 ♦•♦•♦♦ dense, moist (Fill) _ ♦0461, ►♦�♦i♦♦♦♦ sin Brown silty SAND with GRAVEL, dense, - 20 ♦♦ _ �•��♦�♦�♦ moist (Fill) _ 5 ♦♦♦♦♦♦i♦♦♦ = 26 ♦.♦♦•., -rrrr oh Gray-brown organic SILT, medium stiff, _ = 6 110 P-1.0tsf rrrrr rrrrr saturated — 10 T7- rrrrr I f rrrrr - rrrrr _ rrrrr rrrr - = 5 P=1.Otsf rrr - rr —15 rr ..�•: ::::'•:: sm Gray-black silty SAND with silt seams, - — medium dense, saturated :::< ::c:::... _-2 0 ...: ::• :.. 11 ... ......:. <• —25 I 21 .:.'. .. :`: :�. sp .'Gray SAND, trace gravel and silt, ' - 30 = 28 dense, saturated _ — 35 — 40 Boring terminated at 36.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater encountered at 18.5 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with cuttings and bentonite seal. . Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,analysis-and fudgement.They are not necessarily representative of other times anc locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. 3 BORING LOG / ,q 2 Earth Consultants inc. SOUTHGATE PLAZA PHASE II Mg`, 11.01 l (eolectnkallJt{(itxrrs.(r-of,gitits&Environmental ticx•nircis RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No.4957 Drwn. GLS I Checked AN] I Date July'90 I Plate A4 • • BORING NO. B-4 Logged By DB Date_7/3/90 Elev. 18'± IN) Graph �S Soil Description D(f.)h Sample Blows (o) Ft. ••••••••• ml Gray SILT, trace gravel and sand, _ 20 P=4.Otsf • •�•i• medium dense, moist (Fill) ••••••• - T 8 ••••• P=1.5tsf �•�•�•�•�• mh Gray clayey SILT, medium stiff, wet - 5 ••iiii• (Fill) al 2 •••••••••• - P=0.5 t s f •••••••••• - P=0.7 5 is f ••iiii• - ••••♦ 1 ' i ' 1 1 ' 1 _ 10 = 5 72 111111 1 1 of Gray-brown organic SILT, soft to medium - P=0.75tsf 111I stiff . saturator T I [F � jj mh Gray clayey SILT, soft, saturated 4 P=0.5tsf 1'1Irl� o: Brown organic SILT, soft, saturated —15 �... ,: ...,., - II - sm Gray silty SAND, dense, saturated _ T 16 T 11 .. — 25 :.;.. '. ,•• `-30 sp Gray-black SAND, trace silt, very dense,: 54 saturated - -35 —40 T 38 Boring terminated at 41.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater encountered at 18.0 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled , with cuttings and bentonite. Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole.modified by engineering tests,analysis,and judgement,They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. # BORING LOG r' Earth Consultants Inc.4101 .. SOUTHGATE PLAZA PHASE II IOltI J\ �,J G'YNY('hnl('all-Jigi,w-rs.(urdiiftisis lJ1\'InNiiririiil!XlPntisis RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 4957 Drwn. GLS Checked AN, Date July' 90 Plate A5 11 BORING NO. B-5 Logged By DB Date 7/3/90 Bev. 18'± (N) Graph CS Soil Description D(ft Ih Sample Blows (o) Ft. ♦♦♦i♦i♦ Gray sandy SILT, medium dense, moist to wet _ Z 10 P=1't s f ml ♦�� - •♦ (Fill) — 5 - = 11 • ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦ ill 67 P=0.5tsf ♦♦♦��♦% mh Gray-brown clayey SILT, trace organics, _ ♦♦♦♦♦ medium stiff, saturated — 10 ��♦ . (Fill) - j::: :::L cm Gray black silty SAND, dense, saturated_ 28 ::c : • 15 1 i i I'l '1 1 of Brown organic SILT, soft, saturated _ = 3 57 1 �, l {.. :::... sm t ;-.A::: Black silty SAND with silt seams, —20 13 ;.: t:: ; : medium dense, saturated _ ',/ .e cn Brown organic SILT, stiff, saturated _ 25 = 18 P=1.5tsf :p Gray SAND, trace gravel and silt, --30 iii 30 dense tO very dense, saturated - Boring terminated at 36.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater encountered at 17.0 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with cuttings and bentonite. Subsurface conditions oeptcted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests.analysis,and -Judgement.They are not necessarily representative of other timbs and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. BORING LOG Earth Consultants Inc. SOUTHGATE PLAZA PHASE II I It'„,i t,� / Gotilhc ill tcn, E., wi ii rs.G'Olof Isis&I,hvinrmwntal tic rtis nts RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 4957 ' Drwn. GLS 1 Checked AM I Date July'90 ' Plate A6 • • BORING NO. B-6 Logged By DB Dine 7/3/90 Elev. 18' ± ( (N) Graph CS Soil Description Depth Sample Blows (0k) t. ••••♦ - � O•*•**••* ma. (Fill)11)•�•••�•• •••••••••• GraySILT, loose, moist to wet, trace _ / P=1.0tsf • *�•ii• - •�•�•��4' gravel and sand 5 11 I I 011 Gray clayey SILT, medium stiff, wet _ ••� — •• .•••* (Fill)**••***••• - _ P=1.2 5 is f **i*i*i*i cl Gray CLAY, trace organics, soft, —10 •i*i*i*i* saturated - = 3 71 P=1.0tsf xS:.. - .J.:i• .::{... . j sin Gray silty SAND with silt seams, loose, _ i::: .. •:::: saturated —15 ::: ai: :::a _ Z 8 i.f ::1:',: l .i � 1 - 20 sp Black SAND, trace silt, medium dense, - = 20 saturated - 25 27 —30 } 2 7* :�::�::;?:::#:: srl Gray-black silty SAND, trace gravel, • - ... - loose, saturated —35 : :.� : :€ f:',:,i * quick conditions encountered 34 sp Gray SAND, very dense, saturated - -40 I4* —45 ' - T 20 Boring terminated at 49 feet below existing grade. Groundwater encountered at 12.0 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with cuttings and bentonite. ubsurtace conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests.analysis.and Judgement They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. BORING LOG 1v \ I�� I-CI7 Consultants Inc. SOUTHGATE PLAZA PHASE II ii , 1, J/ ( xairli1 allJigllllt' MLIUUIsl\AIJI\9HMlnx'f11iils. iNis RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 1957 I Drwn. GLS I Checked AN I Date July' 9C I Plate A7 0- • BORING NO. B-7 Legged By DB D:3te 7/6/90 Elev. 18'± (N) Graph CS Soil Description De )h Sample Blows (%) Ft. ii•i�•i�i� r1 Gray-brown SILT with sand and clay, I 22 LL=35 ►�i�ii�ii medium dense, moist - PL=21 ��• PI=14 LA!..•A• (Fill) - 5 T rrh Gray clayey SILT medium stiff, wet to - 8 saturated Boring terminated at 6.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered. Boring backfilled with cuttings. Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,analysis.and iuogement.They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. 40 BORING LOG Earth Consultants Inc. SOUTHGATE PLAZA PHASE II 1III lit t iGt+ardutic'al6g2uirrrs.cevluµrsts&lurvmnnwnril tic u•nusis RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 4957 I Drwn. GLS I Checked AM I Date July'90 I Plate A8 .11 BORING NO. B-8 Logged By DB Date 7/6/90 Bev. 18'± US Depth (N) Graph CS Soil Description (ft) Sample Blows ,,, Ft. • • �i�i�•ii sm Light brown silty SAND with gravel, - 18 •�•••��• dense, moist (Fill) ••••i'i'. sp Black SAND with gravel, dense, saturated_ 5 T 27 Boring terminated at 7.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during -drilling Boring backfilled with cuttings. 4 ' Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,analysis,and judgement.They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. /17 �! EarthRING LOG / • Consultants Inc.lnc. SOUTHGATE PLAZA PHASE II �� '��. 1� RENTON, WASHINGTON 11� � � i i \'�'iI/ Gr��ciinical 1-]nRnirrrs.Geologists&Environmental Sc'wnutiI5 Proj. No. 4957 I Drwn. GLS I Checked AM I Date July'90 I Plate A9 1 BORING NO. B-9 Logged By DB Date_ 7/6/90 Elev. 18'± INI Graph CS Soil Description Depth Sample Blows (°W/o) Ft. 4 :P Approximately 6" debris - = 11 P=2.0tsf Brown SAND with organic silt, trace - gravel, medium stiff, moist _ LL=34 (Fill) — 5 � 5 PL=28 Gray sandy SILT with gravel, medium - PI=6 mh stiff, saturated - P=1.0tsf Concrete rubble (Fill) = 2 t - 1I I I I I I I ' of Brown organic SILT, soft, saturated —10 P=0.5tsf Hwllf1 _ T 3 111111 , 111 , 1 . 1 11 mh Gray clayey SILT (mh) , medium stiff T 8 P=1.0tsf saturates Boring terminated at 14.0 feet below existing grade. Groundwater encountered at 5.0 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with cuttings and bentonite. t ubsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,analysis,and dgement They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of ntormation presented on this log. r N; y, BORING LOG 1f' Earth Consultants Inc. SOUTHGATE PLAZA PHASE II J RENTON WASHINGTON ` ',��/ (:e•rarrlu ni all�l{tuwrrti.(eY iq 7{�st�ti fe ruin win w•nial�xnusb Proj. No. 4957 I Drwn. GLS Checked AM I Date July'90 1 Plate A10 1 BORING NO. B- 1 O Logged By DB Date 7/6/90 Eiev. 18'± (N) Graph CS Soil Description Dlft h Sample Blows (°o) Ft. nth Gray clayey SILT, medium stiff, moist - 8 P=0.75tsf (Fill) cl Brown CLAY, medium stiff, wet - T 10 P=1.0tsf (Fill) Boring terminated at 5.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during drilling. Boring backfilled with cuttings. 1 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,analysis.and judgement.They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. BORING LOG Earth Consultants Inc. SOUTHGATE PLAZA PHASE II (�� /�',vfi�l�� G<)IUj;Ltilti l4 Environmental$fk'OILtiI} RENTON WASHINGTON lei l l I G[NfY'I ll ll(iII IJIJ211N V'Iti. Proj. No. 4957 I Drwn. GLS Checked Am I Date July'90 ' Plate All ti BORING NO. B - li Logged By DE Date 7/6/90 Bev. 18'± (N) Graph CS Soil Description Depth Sample Blows 1%) Ft. ml Gray SILT, trace sand and gravel, very _ 20 P=2.5tsf stiff, moist _ (Fill) - S /nth uray clayey SILT, trace organics, \ T 5 f i i medium stiff, saturated Boring terminated at 6.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during drilling. Boring backfilled with cuttings. 1 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,analysis,and judgement.They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. ,� BORING LOG I ' ''1 EEarth Consultants Inc. SOUTHGATE PLAZA PHASE II 1,I , 4 i '�'.11,P GeottIt11111alt91gineers.(tloklgisisX.F1virogi M911.dS(RTR9y RENTON, WASHINGTON f Proj. No. 4957 I Drwn. GLS I Checked AM I Date July'90 ' Plate Al2 • . BORING NO. B- 12 Logged By DB Date 7/6/90 Bev. 18'± (N) UGraph CS Soil Description Depth Sample Blows (%) Ft. i♦♦♦♦ • �• ••�• Gray SAND with silt and clay, trace 60 ♦♦♦♦ SP LL=24 �♦��•�•� gravel, very dense, moist PL=18 ♦i♦i♦i♦ii (Fill) 16 ♦♦♦♦♦ t�- ♦♦♦♦♦ Same. with asphalt and gravel. very ct; 5 PI=6 Boring terminated at 5.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during drilling. Boring backfilled with cuttings. i ' Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineenng tests,analysis,and Judgement.They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. BORING LOG i rl Earth Consultants Inc. SOUTHGATE PLAZA PHASE II i'1�F , v, , ,)1.wri twowc nicai t,iu,iw,-r,,61.010ALtith& ire iiv,i.ii S(x„ia, RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 4957 I Drwn. GLS Checked AM I Date July'90 I Plate A13 1 . ' . APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING E-4957 We conducted laboratory tests on several representative soil samples to verify or modify the field soil classification of the units encountered and to evaluate the material's general physical properties and engineering characteristics. Visual classifications were supplemented by index tests, such as Atterberg Limits, on representative samples. Additionally, moisture contents and Proctor tests were performed on some samples. Our geotechnical recommendations are based on our interpretation of these test results and their use in guiding our engineering judgement. Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI) cannot be responsible for the interpretation of these data by others. In accordance with our Standard Fee Schedule and General Conditions, the soil samples for this project will be discarded after a period of thirty (30) days following completion of this report unless we are otherwise directed in writing. Earth Consultants, Inc. 100 1 I 80 I 1 i I x 60 W a g F}- ©H U l co 40 , 'A-Line Q -J 0 20 IMP ■ CL-MLA ►e( Il�,1 Imo'�T 0 20 40 60 80 100 LIQUID LIMIT Natural • Key Boring/ Depth Soil Classification USCS L.L. P.L. Pl. Water Test Pit (ft) Content 1 • B12 3 gray silty clay cl-mi 24 18 , 6 ♦ B-9 3 brown organic silt of 34 28 6 ■ B-7 3 gray lean clay cl 35 21 14 Atterberg Limits Test Data SOUTHGATE PLAZA PHASE II Earth Consultants Inc. RENTON, WASHINGTON Geotechniwl Engineers.Geologists&Environmental Sciennsts Proj. No. 4957 I Date July'90 I Plate Bl r i Appendix B E-4957 July 19, 1990 Page 2 DISTRIBUTION E-4957 6 Copies Vyzis Company 3605 - 132nd Avenue Southeast Bellevue, Washington 98006 Attention: Mr. Dick Scales Earth Consultants, Inc. Ir • n� DEVELOPMENT MANNING CITY OF RENTON APR 2 3 1998 April 7, 1998 RECEIVED Ms. Sarah Weddle Speiker Properties 33801 First Way South Federal Way, WA 98003 SUBJECT: Wetland Verification at Southgate Office Park, Renton, Washington Dear Ms. Weddle: This letter summarizes our findings of the wetland verification we conducted at the Southgate Office Park in Renton, Washington. The project site is located west of Lind Road, between SW 19th Street and SW 23rd Street (S19, T23N, R5E). Introduction Jones & Stokes conducted a wetland delineation of the project site in 1990 that was subsequently verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The 1990 delineation identified 16 wetlands on the project site. The two largest wetlands were located along the south, west, and north property boundaries. One wetland was a small ditch draining west across the site into the large wetland to the west. The remaining 13 wetlands were small wetlands that formed in isolated depressions across the site. The delineation was performed as part of the permitting required for the construction of a - large office building and associated parking lots and detention basin located in the northwest quarter of the site. A similar development had been constructed prior to the 1990 delineation in the southeast quarto:-of the site. The current project proposes two additional buildings and parking lots in the west half of the site. The new development requires verification of the original wetland delineation for permitting purposes. Methods To verify that the previous wetland delineation remains accurate now, Jones & Stokes Associates reviewed the 1990 delineation report and map, obtained the most recent site map that shows existing site developments, and walked the site to evaluate current wetland conditions. The Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 2820 Northup Way,Suite I(X/•Bellevue,WA 98004-1 4 19•Fax 425/822-1079•425/822-1077 Ms. Sarah Weddle April 7, 1998 Page 2 wetland verification was based on the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Findings Prior to 1990, one office building and associated parking had been constructed in the southeast quarter of the site. Subsequent to the 1990 delineation, a second building with associated parking and stormwater detention system was constructed in the northeast quarter of the site, with the detention pond located in the northwest corner of the site adjacent to the north wetland. Portions of the west half of the site were regraded, presumably as construction staging areas. A permit was obtained for filling all of the small wetlands across the site, constructing the stormwater detention system, and the access road to SW 19th Street (Fadden, Bob. Architect. Lance Mueller & Associates, Seattle, WA. March 19, 1998 - telephone conversation.). The largest two wetlands along the west and north boundaries were not proposed to be impacted. On March 13, 1998, Jones & Stokes conducted a wetland verification of the site. The wetland that extends along the west half of the south boundary and along the full length of the west boundary has remained intact and does not appear to have been disturbed. This wetland is densely vegetated primarily by willows and red-osier dogwood. Red elderberry occurs occasionally along the wetland boundary. The topography slopes up steeply from the wetland to the existing fill, as shown in the original survey. Most of the woody vegetation in the wetland appears to be a minimum of several years old and well established. Standing water occurred throughout the majority of the wetland and appears to remain at a consistent level based on water stained material and the correlation between density and type of vegetation with water depth. The wetland along the north property boundary, identified as Wetland F in the 1990 delineation, also exhibits the same boundary pattern as it did in 1990. This wetland includes open water, cattails, Douglas spirea, and reed canarygrass. Three changes to the wetland have occurred as a result of the previous permitted project: 1. An access road crosses Wetland F near the center of the wetland that allows traffic to enter and exit the north parking lot from SW 19th Street. 2. Wetland F now drains into the constructed detention basin near Wetland F's west end, where previously the wetland did not have an outlet. The detention basin drains into the wetland along the west property boundary through a pipe and has an overflow weir that also leads to the west wetland. Ms. Sarah Weddle April 7, 1998 Page 3 3. Regrading of the site south of Wetland F has created a distinct wetland boundary whereas the 1990 report described the boundary as indistinct. Other than the fill for the road crossing, these changes have not altered the overall boundary of Wetland F. These changes were addressed in the permit for the previous site development (Fadden, Bob. Architect. Lance Mueller&Associates, Seattle, WA. March 19, 1998 -telephone conversation.). Conclusions Based on the original survey map and site reconnaissance, the boundary of the scrub-shrub wetland along the west property boundary has not been modified since the 1990 delineation. The wetland characteristics have not been altered. Wetland F remains the same as previously delineated, with the exception of the access road to SW 19th Street, which was addressed in the permit for the previous development in the northeast quarter of the site. Please call if you have additional questions. r Sincerely, letA.Lg, 6--d-a-42)61. Sarah Cassatt Aquatic Ecologist :lr WL19/SPEIKER 04/07/98rmle WETLAND REPORT - VYZIS SOUTHGATE PROPERTY Introduction This report summarizes wetland conditions on the above mentioned property located on Lind Road in Renton. The site was assessed on May 28, 29, and June 5, 1990 by Jones & Stokes Associates. Methodology Wetlands were delineated using the methodology outlined in the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. This document represents an interagency effort whereby the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Soil Conservation Service (SCS), U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) presented a unified approach to wetland delineation. This approach, which is described in the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (1989), requires examination of three wetland parameters: soils, hydrology, and vegetation. In order for an area to be considered wetland, a positive indicator for all three of these parameters must be present. Each parameter is discussed further in the following paragraphs. Hydric (wetland) soils are defined as those soils which are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic (wetland) vegetation. Hydric indicators include low soil chroma, mottles, gleying, and high organic content. During the field investigation, soils were sampled throughout the site with a hand-held soil augur, and examined for hydric indicators. Hydrophytic plants are those plants that grow in water or in a substrate that is at least periodically saturated. Commonly occurring plant species have been rated by the USFWS as to their frequency of occurrence in wetlands. The rating system uses a range from obligate upland (plants that occur in wetlands less than 1 percent of the time) to facultative (plants that occur in wetlands between 33 percent and 66 percent of the time) to obligate wetland (plants that occur in wetlands greater than 99 percent of the time). For an area to be considered a wetland vegetative community, 50 percent or more of the dominant species in that area must be rated as facultative or wetter. Vegetation throughout the site was examined and recorded on a data form. Areas possessing wetland hydrology are inundated either permanently or periodically, or the soil is saturated to the surface at some time during the growing season. The site was examined for indicators of wetland hydrology, including ponding, soil saturation, water- stained leaves, and cracking at the soil surface. In areas where no positive indicators of - 1 - wetland hydrology were observed, but positive wetland indicators were present for soils and • vegetation, wetland hydrology was assumed to be present. The site was traversed in a north-south direction using parallel transects. In areas where wetland vegetation appeared to be dominant, a plot was taken and information regarding vegetation, soils, and hydrology were recorded. Twenty-three plots throughout the 20-acre parcel were evaluated and recorded on data forms, which are included with this report. Based on data collected, a wetland determination was made, and the wetland edge was identified with orange wire flags inserted into the ground. In areas where sufficient vegetation is present, the edge was identified with red and white striped plastic flagging. The delineation methodology described above is called the "Routine Onsite Determination Method," and is typically employed when no major disturbances have occurred at a site. Since this site has been filled, it was initially thought that the "Disturbed Area Methodology"should be used. The Disturbed Area Methodology involves determining pre-disturbance conditions through aerial photograph interpretation, excavation to native soils, and any other available evidence. However, based on meetings between the property owner, the COE, and project engineers, the COE has stated that the fill occurred prior to the effective date of regulation or that former conditions would not be considered, and that the COE would not take jurisdiction regarding the legality of the fill. Given this, the appropriate methodology was to assess current, rather than pre-fill (disturbed area methodology) wetland conditions. Based on aerial photographs from the mid 1970s, there is little doubt that the majority of the site was wetland prior to placement of the fill. Due to the filling and grading of the site, wetland edges commonly exist as wide transition zones rather than distinct edges. These zones often consist of a mosaic of small patches of upland interspersed with wetland areas, making demarkation of the edge very difficult (see attached map). The south side of Wetland F is typical of these regions. Because of this mosaic, areas mapped as wetland contain small areas of upland and upland i7 areas may contain small patches of wetland. Where the mosaic was too complex to dete 'ne a precise edge, the edge was conservatively located to include possible wetland areas Site Conditions The site consists of a nearly level 20-acre parcel of historical wetland that has been filled. Fill depths range from 4 to about 8 feet. The fill has undergone extensive grading, resulting in a slightly undulating plain with no dominant drainage pattern. Fill appears to have come from a number of different sources, with the majority of fill being a dense grayi'h blue clay. The fill has revegetated with a wide variety of grass and herb species with scattered willow and blackberry. Wetlands A total of 16 wetland areas were located on the subject property. Wetlands range from 0.002 to slightly under an acre in size. The largest (0.9 acres) is a remnant palustrine - 2 - scrub/shrub wetland located at the toe of the fill along the west border of the site. This wetland is a remainder of the wetlands which occupied the site prior to the filling. Detailed evaluation and data collection within this area was not conducted as the project proponent has no plans to develop this area. The remainder of the wetlands are palustrine emergent systems, the largest of which (Wetland F) is a narrow band along the north property line. The other emergent systems are closed depressions resulting from site grading and the placement of poorly drained soils. Soils The Soil Conservation Service maps the west half of the site as Woodinville silt loam and the east half of the site as Puget silty clay loam. Both of these soils are considered hydric or wetland soil. The entire site has been filled with imported soil. Based on exploration with shovel and hand auger, the fill was imported from a number of different sites. The vast majority of the fill is a very dense silty clay with a color of 5Y4/1. In most areas, the fill would be considered gleyed, and would be classified as a hydric soil. This blue clay extends to depths of at least 18 inches and contains some gravel. In some areas, the fill is dense enough to prevent excavation with a shovel. Where this soil is located in depressions, enough water has collected to allow the growth of hydrophytic vegetation. Although much of the site is underlain by these soils, the surface contours allow water to run off, thus preventing saturation and the establishment of wetland vegetation. Other soils on the site consist of a sandy gravel and a gravelly sand that appears to have been placed and compacted by machinery. This soil is extremely dense and could not be excavated with a shovel to a depth greater than a few inches. Small areas of ponded water exist on this soil in areas where grading created depressions. In these areas, small amounts of wetland vegetation have become established, and the depression was identified as wetland. Hydrology The site lies within the Springbrook Creek basin in the City of Renton. Springbrook Creek abuts the southwest corner of the site and is a tributary to the Green River. The west side of the site consists of a 50-foot wide swale which flows south to Springbrook Creek. Although the remainder of the site is within the Springbrook Creek watershed, there is no direct surface water connection between the wetlands and Springbrook Creek. It appears that the swale at the north end of the property, Wetland F, was graded to drain to the swale at the west edge of the property. The grading, however, produced a low spot in the center of the swale, and a small ridge at the west end of the swale. This condition prevents water from flowing from the swale to the west and results in water ponding in the center of Wetland F. Another ditch, located in the southern end of the site, was graded to drain the property to the west. This ditch was also graded unevenly, and prevents water from flowing to the west. - 3 - The remainder of the site possesses a random surface water drainage pattern. • Precipitation collects in wetland depressions and sheetflows across the surface, taking advantage of small channels. A number of minor swales cross the site, but these are not arranged and graded in any definitive pattern. It is probable that during the winter months and the early portion of the growing season, wetland areas are inundated by 2 to 8 inches of water. During the end of May, no surface water remained, but evidence of recent inundation, such as water stained vegetation and surface cracking, was evident in most of the wetlands. Groundwater conditions on the site are difficult to assess due to the filling, grading, and compaction. Based on the condition of the wetland swale at the west end of the site, groundwater levels are approximately 6 to 8 feet below the surface of the fill for the majority of the year. Winter levels are somewhat higher, reaching an elevation of about 16 feet during a major flood event. Lenses of perched groundwater may exist within the fill due to the low permeability of the clay soils and the uneven compaction of the fill. Vegetation With the exception of the aforementioned remnant wetland adjacent to the west property boundary, the entire property is vegetated with a combination of grasses and herbs. According to the property owners, the site has not been seeded. However, many species present are typical components of commercial seed mixes. Common species present in upland areas on the site include perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), bird's foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), vetch (Vicia 5ativa), and pineapple weed (Matricaria matricarioides). Based on the USFWS classification scheme, most wetlands at the site are palustrine emergent systems, dominated by either short-awn foxtail (Alopecurus aequalis) or reed canarygrass(Phalaris arundinaceae). Velvetgrass (Holcus lanatus) occurs commonly in some wetland areas. Other species occurring occasionally in wetlands include yellow flag (Iris eu ac rus), spike rush (Eleocharis palustris), common cattail (Typha latifolia), willow (Salix spp.), and creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens). The large wetland on the western property boundary is a palustrine scrub shrub system dominated by willow. A detailed vegetative analysis of this area was not conducted since there is no proposal to alter this area. As mentioned earlier, the wetland edge is indistinct in certain areas, particularly adjacent to Wetland F. In these areas,unusual plant associations are present, such as yellow flag growing with pineapple weed. Yellow flag is rated as obligate wetland, and pineapple weed is rated as facultative upland (occurring in wetlands between 1 percent and 33 percent of the time). Associations such as this are reflective of the disturbed conditions at the site, which make wetland boundary determination difficult. For this reason, the wetland edge that was identified in these areas includes some areas dominated by upland species such as vetch and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). By the same token, small areas dominated by wetland species such as reed canarygrass were not included within the flagged wetland edge. - 4 - Conclusions The site is covered by between 4 and 8 feet of fill. Prior to filling, the site supported forested and scrub-shrub wetlands. The majority of soil used as fill would be classified as hydric or wetland soil. Reportedly, the COE has stated in meetings with the project proponent that they would not take jurisdiction over the fill, and that for an area to be deemed wetland, all three wetland parameters must currently be present. The site contains a total of about 2.71 acres of wetland as defined by the Unified Federal Methodology. Of this acreage, approximately 0.89 acres is a palustrine scrub/shrub system located along the western border of the site. This wetland is hydrologically associated with Springbrook Creek which abuts the southwest corner of the site. No fill is proposed for this system. The second largest wetland is a 0.86-acre emergent system located along the northern border of the site. Although the wetland is contiguous with the larger system along the western edge of the site, water does not drain from the northern to the western wetland. The remainder of the wetlands are depressions in the fill which collect precipitation and have allowed wetland vegetation to become established. With the exception of the wetlands along the west and north edge of the site, wetlands on the property provide limited wildlife and hydrologic value. The small emergent systems provide limited feeding sites for passerine and prey birds and rodents. Coyote scat was encountered on the site. The low permeability of the soil and small wetland area limits the water storage and groundwater recharge function of the wetlands. Minimal amounts of surface water runoff enter the site, thus limiting the water quality improvement features of the parcel. The wetlands on the west and north edge of the site are larger and more diverse than other wetlands on site. Specifically, the wetland along the western edge of the site is a well developed palustrine scrub/shrub system similar to what likely covered the site prior to filling. This area possess high wildlife and hydrologic values and appears to be directly associated with Springbrook Creek. The emergent wetland located along the northern edge of the site does not appear to possess a direct surface water connection to Springbrook Creek, but is able to store over 1 acre foot of water during storm events. The dense vegetation provides cover for numerous small mammal, reptile and bird species. - 5 - Ir- , E. ,E OF WETLAND ARE •!-- > 0 "1 ;) i ::::(1 .,____,__..-• =-1----•-----. --------------__- ' ;• ; : --,-,. ih, , : -. ° - — `te _� til_ _ _ _ " ,__ _� _ •,_ 'VI -I , �v \/ . 11 / l „( -1 roto � ; () k 1 . : : 'tri,:i , ( . I . : I' I , -/CA I G� III �� 1 f -: AVAIlip i • �a., Y 1,T Ide.Wet bitch 11) ``^i i + _ / , - • 1. ao III __ _ :.--.._._-. ail _. Areat 0.01�ACC — -- -� `� _ • r II+) �''• c S I \ ? ► ,i I C I ./�� 1 � C./"N W L ND'F' • :11 II ! _� f1/'`� 20 -----1,`' n `r A( a: 1 .2 / �il 1. , i ®pcs I ` LAND 1L' • Ilr. / Cn I i\ ITLAND'Sr ®_ I W>~I LAND 'M' �^ J � 7Vrea: 0.151 Ac. hhhh 'i rea: 0.813 Ac. . ` �f 21 ' �•�'1 -�• �� r Area: 0.072 Ac. : ..' -� a S! • �~ 1. • '' •' ,. _ _ :,e/,�� %� jt' 1' �tETLA�a \ �jy• l_•er� 1• ;4 FF- 1: / 'I ! . _ :; l.. �',' ' _ _1� r- + , --1 'i, 1...•T-,F ,T � e,,.�\ 1 Area' 0 Area: 1.098 t} 1 11 I 'I`1' .1,�= —• • ,• II I-� --, , I/\ r`- iiii: i f j!. — , 1 I I H •'I I 1 j 1r 1e ' ti I. I I^.I - • I - _ - 11_ , �x- \. ;�:. t x;WET'LAND 'A' �-ti� -i I: i- • '_ / e �� I. y �:r_, .•, J rea: 0.087 Ac. • �' ; , ji..4) ) .. , , ,.. ... . M i.,!, r 1 _J I --t__ "i.ae I ti =1 ' 1 I 1 �*\ •J . . ., i I- ii tr I _ " ' E AN n 1'I I O O O ,..3 '' l ';;I �I -rr- — ; _ ,.''r S I'VE LAND"' ©) �AI.)ArtO b09 A i I - r C • I \ 1 I 1 _ �1 l A ,d 0.017 Ac. l 17 it \,ç' Ji " ei iY' S. O 1+ 1 • y l ' / , I, 1 I 11 Ctf O ZC %h I —. ilk 1 '° I I (_ 11 ,1�'• E ' AND B' i_ W�j-LAND 1 . J I , `� G p I. `L„JJ 'i1 3 r IIr'rt 11 \ reei`EI.SIB A� 1 f) Art : 0.060j i ` i` ti et. O I I +I.. ! 1 Ci'� �;1 l 1e 1 - CD 1 J C > Nvrl! JI �� c�`, WETLAND (' .�' 0 10 c� o.��.� s'•'. y � P m 1 1 L, . a ' 1fJt_I:o—c _a - +�'U I d/ ` (•?ill, i. �: I+ ` `A� • O'.018� '� �7 ��.I 1 • �! _,� Ion . - -- w�_.__ 1 , • "'- I , - i,-,—,, . _. _..-; '. i o^ ` . WETLAND AREA EXHIBIT 'i • SOUTN6ATE OFFICE PLAZA �! AREAS AS-MARKED BY zi 12 - WETLAND PLOT SITE. PLAN 3•.-'- 1'.so' ®; ": JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES, 1`:C. _ rAunuu 1orcae.oy WO PUASe 1: DevelOr."wT SURVEYED DUNE 1, 1990 Surveying & Mapping by Horton Dennis & Associates.-1r • APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT OMB APPROVAL NO. 0702-0036 (33 CFR 325) Expires 30 June 1989 _ ne Department of thy: Army permit program is authorized by Section 10 of the River and'Harbor Act of 1899,Section 404 of the lean Water Act and Section 103 of the Marine,Protection,Research and Sanctuaries Act. These laws require permits authorizing _tivities in or affectin:z navigable waters of the United States, the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, ad the transportation of dredged material for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters. Information provided on this form will be sed in evaluating the appliCation for a permit. Information in this application is made a matter of public record through issuance of a ublic notice. Disclosure of the information requested is voluntary;however, the data requested are necessary in order to communicate •ith the applicant and to e aluate the permit application. If necessary information is not provided, the permit application cannot be rocessed nor can a permit be issued. ne set of original drawing or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be .tached to this applicatio (see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over ie location of the prc pos d activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned. PLICATION NUMBER (To be assigned by Corps) 3. NAME, ADDRESS. AND TITLE OF AUTHORIZED AGENT ;ME AND ADDRESS Oc APPLICANT Telephone no,durmp business hour, Vyzis Company A,c c I (Residence) 3605 — 132nd Avenue S.E. A/c c I (Office) Bellevue, WA 98006-1323 Statement of Authorization: I ne•eby designate and authorize to act In my behelf es my lephone no.during business I�Our{ .pent in the processing of this permit application and to furnish, upon rep VeY t, supplemental Intormatlon in support of the appllcltion. A/C ( I ll/A (Residence) SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE A/C(206) 643•-4300 (office) '_TAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTIVITY CTIVITY The proposed project is to construct the final two office buildings of the three originally planned for tite site. Asphalt parking areas are also included. The history of this site is as described in a letter dated 20 April 1990 from Jones & Stokes Associates to Mr. Warren Baxter, USCOE , 'UAPOSE The purpose of' t is project is to complete the construction of two office buildings to accommodate tl.e requirements of needed office space in the area by such tenants as Boeing. Final grading of the site will require covering 0.97 acres of wetland. )ISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL See attached wetland report and letter dated 20 April 1990 from Jones & Stokes Associates to Mr. Warren Baxter, USCOE. The final grading will require up to 2 feet of fill over 0.97 acres of wetland located in small pockets. 5.NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS, LESSEES,ETC.,WHOSE PROPERTY ALSO ADJOINS THE WATERWAY Valley-:Office & Industrial 2600 Century Square, 1501 4th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101 Glacier Park Company 1011 Western, Seattle, WA 98109 Boeing Company, Renton Realty PTE LTD P.O. Box 3707, Renton, WA 98055 Martin Selig P.O. Box 1925, Bellevue, WA 98009 City of Renton, City Treasure City-Hall, Renton, WA 98055 _ 6.WATERBODY AND LOCATION ON WATERBODY WHERE ACTJVITY EXISTS OR IS PROPOSED N/A • 7, LOCATION ON LAND WHERE ACTIVITY EXISTS OR IS PROPOSED ADDRESS: west side of Lind Avenue, South of S.W. 19th Street and North of S.W. 23rd Street Section 19, T23N, R5E • STREET,ROAD,ROUTE OR OTHER DESCRIPTIVE LOCATION King County Washington COUNTY STATE ZIP CODE City of Renton LOCAL GOVERNING BODY WITH JURISDICTION OVER SITE 8. Is any portion of the activity for which authorization Is sought now complrte7 ❑YES 0 NO If answer Is"Yee'give reasons,month and year the activity was completed. Indicate the existing work on the drawings. Property was filled by previous owner between 1977 and 1983. See letter dated 20 April 19S from Jones & Stokes Associates to Mr. Warren Baxter, USCOE. 9. List all approvals or certifications and denials received from other federal,interrtata,state or local agencies for any structure,.construction, discharges or other activities described in this application. ISSUING AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL IDENTIFICATION NO. DATE OF APPLICATION DATE OF APPROVAL DATE OF DEN. None 10, Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the activities described herein. I certify that I am familiar with the information contain• this application,and that to the best of my knowledge and belief such Information Is true,compiet•,end accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the proposed activitle,or I am acting-as th•duly authorized agent of the applicant. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly authorized agent if the statement in Block 3 has been filled out and signed. 18 U.S.C.Section 1001 provides that: Whoever,in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of The United St: knowingly and willfully falsifies,conceals,or covers up by any trick,scheme,or device a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain y false fictitious c - fraudulent statement or entry,shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years,or bot • Do not send a permit processing fee with this application. The appropriate fee will be assessed when a permit is issu d. • JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION Normal environmental conditions? yes Has Vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes. Area was formerly wetland and was cleared and filled with hydric soils. Field Investigator(s): Denman/MacWhinney Date: 5/29/90 Project/Site: Eastgate County/City:Renton Client: Vyzis Plot #: 1 Plant Community: PEM VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Alopecurus aequalis, OBL, herb 2. Phalaris arundinacaea, FACW, herb 3. Holcus lanatus, FAC, herb 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: 100% of dominant species FAC or wetter SOILS Series/Phase hydric soils list? Is the soil a Histosol? no Is the soil mottled? slight Is the soil gleyed? yes Depth to mottle/gley: Matrix Color: 5Y 5/1 Mottle Color(s): Texture A: sandy loam Texture B: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes Rationale: color, gley Comments: HYDROLOGY Is the area inundated? yes Depth of water: 4" Is the soil saturated? yes Depth to water: surface Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: saturation,-inundation, cracking in soil JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? yes Comments: Wetland A JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION Normal' environmental conditions? yes Has Vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes. Area was formerly wetland and was cleared and filled with hydric soils. Field I vestigator(s): Denman/MacWhinney Date: 5/29/90 Project/ ite: Eastgate County/City:Renton Client: Vyzis Plot #: 2 Plant Community: PEM VEGETATION Domina""t Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Ele. haris palustris, OBL, herb 2. Alo 9- urns aequalis, OBL, herb 3. Typ a latifolia, OBL, herb 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100% Is the ydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationa e: 100% of dominant species FAC or wetter SOILS Series/'hase hydric soils list? Is the •oil a Histosol? no Is the soil mottled? yes Is the -oil gleyed? no Depth to mottle/gley: Matrix olor: 10YR 4/1 Mottle Color(s): Texture A: loam Texture B: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the lydric soil criterion met? yes Rationale: color, mottles Comments: HYDROLOGY Is the area inundated? yes Depth of water: 6" Is the soil saturated? yes Depth to water: surface Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: Is the Wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: saturation, inundation, cracking in soil JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? yes Comments: Wetland B JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION Normal environmental conditions? yes Has Vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes. Area was formerly wetland and was cleared and filled with hydric soils. Field Investigator(s): Denman/MacWhinney Date: 6/5/90 Project/Site: Eastgate County/City:Renton Client: Vyzis Plot #: 3 Plant Community: U VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Parentucellia viscosa, FAC-, herb 2. Trifolium repens, U, herb 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 0% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? no Rationale: no spp. FAC or wetter SOILS Series/Phase hydric soils list? Is the soil a Histosol? no Is the soil mottled? no Is the soil gleyed? no Depth to mottle/gley: 0-14" Matrix Color: 5Y 4/1 Mottle Color(s): Texture A: silty clay w/ gravel Texture B: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes Rationale: color Comments: HYDROLOGY Is the area inundated? no Depth of water: n/a Is the soil saturated? no Depth to water: >14" Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: assumed- JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? no Comments: Upland based on lack of wetland vegetation JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION l Normal environmental conditions? yes Has Ve etation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes. AT was formerly wetland and was cleared and filled with hydric soils. Field In estigator(s): Denman/MacWhinney Date: 5/29/90 Project/ ite: Eastgate County/City:Renton Client: Vyzis Plot #: 4 Plant Community: PEM VEGETATION Domina i t Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Junc s sp., FAC-OBL, herb 2. Holc s lanatus, FAC, herb 3. Junc s effusus, FACW, herb 4. • S. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100% Is the i ydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rational•: 100% of dominant species FAC or wetter SOILS Series/ hase hydric soils list? Is the Soil a Histosol? no Is the soil mottled? yes Is the so it gleyed? n o Depth to mottle/gley: Matrix olor: 2.5Y 4/3 Mottle Color(s): Texture A: loamy sand Texture B: Other 1 ydric soil indicators: Is the ,ydric soil criterion met? yes Rationa e: color, mottles Comme'ts: 1 HYDROLOGY Is the area inundated? yes Depth of water: 2" Is the s tl saturated? yes Depth to water: surface Other held evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: saturation. inundation, cracking in soil JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? yes Comments: Wetland C. Bare ground in the center of wetland(40%of area). • JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION Normal environmental conditions? yes Has Vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes. Area was formerly wetland and was cleared and filled with hydric soils. Field Investigator(s): Denman/MacWhinney Date: 5/29/90 Project/Site: Eastgate County/City:Renton Client: Vyzis Plot #: 5 Plant Community: PEM VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Alopecurus aequalis, OBL, herb 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: 100% of dominant species FAC or wetter SOILS Series/Phase hydric soils list? Is the soil a Histosol? no Is the soil mottled? no Is the soil gleyed? no Depth to mottle/gley: Matrix Color: Mottle Color(s): Texture A: loamy sand Texture B: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes Rationale: aquic regime Comments: HYDROLOGY Is the area inundated? yes Depth of water: 2" Is the soil saturated? yes Depth to water: surface Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes . Rationale: saturation,-inundation. cracking in soil JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? yes Comments: JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION Normal environmental conditions? yes Has Ve yetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes. Ar-. was formerly wetland and was cleared and filled with hydric soils. Field In estigator(s): Denman/MacWhinney Date: 5/29/90 Project/ ite: Eastgate County/City:Renton Client: yzis Plot #: 6 Plant Community: PEM VEGETATION Domina i t Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Alo s. urus aequalis, OBL, herb 2. Matri aria matricarioides, FACU 3. Junc s effusus, FACW, herb 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 66% Is the ,ydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rational•: > 50% of dominant species FAC or wetter SOILS Series/hase hydric soils list? Is the -oil a Histosol? no Is the soil mottled? no Is the oil gleyed? no Depth to mottle/gley: Matrix Color: Mottle Color(s): Texture A: loamy sand Texture B: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes Rationale: aquic regime Comments: HYDROLOGY Is the area inundated? yes Depth of water: 2" Is the Soil saturated? yes Depth to water: surface Other 'Meld evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: Is the Wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: saturation, inundation, cracking in soil JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? yes Comments: JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION Normal environmental conditions? yes Has Vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes. Area was formerly wetland and was cleared and filled with hydric soils. Field Investigator(s): Denman/MacWhinney Date: 5/29/90 Project/Site: Eastgate County/City:Renton Client: Vyzis Plot #: 7 Plant Community: PEM VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Phalaris arundinacaea, FACW, herb 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: 100% of dominant species FAC or wetter SOILS Series/Phase hydric soils list? Is the soil a Histosol? no Is the soil mottled? no Is the soil gleyed? yes Depth to mottle/gley: 0-10" Matrix Color: 5Y 5/1 Mottle Color(s): Texture A: very dense clay Texture B: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes Rationale: texture, color Comments: HYDROLOGY Is the area inundated? no Depth of water: n/a Is the soil saturated? no Depth to water: >10" Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: assumed based on soils and veg. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? yes Comments: Wetland F JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION Normal environmental conditions? yes Has Vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes. Area was formerly wetland and was cleared and filled with hydric soils. Field Investigator(s): Denman/MacWhinney Date: 5/29/90 Project/Site: Eastgate County/City:Renton Client: I Vyzis Plot #: 8 Plant Community: PEM VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Holdus lanatus, FAC, herb 2. Rant#nculus repens, FACW, herb 3. Vici• sativa, U, herb 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Percen of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 66% Is the ydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Ration•le: > 5090 of dominant species FAC or wetter SOILS Series/Phase hydric soils list? Is the soil a Histosol? no Is the soil mottled? yes Is the soil gleyed? no Depth to mottle/gley: 7" Matrix Color: 10YR 5/1 Mottle Color(s): 10YR 4/4 Texture A: very dense clay loam Texture B: Other Ihydric soil indicators: Is the ',hydric soil criterion met? yes Rationale: color, mottles Comments: HYDROLOGY Is the area inundated? no Depth of water: n/a Is the soil saturated? no • Depth to water: >10" Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: assumed based on soils and veg. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the' plant community a wetland? yes Comments: Wetland F JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION Normal environmental conditions? yes Has Vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes. Area was formerly wetland and was cleared and filled with hydric soils. Field Investigator(s): Denman/M acWhinney Date: 5/29/90 Project/Site: Eastgate County/City:Renton CIient: Vyzis Plot #: 9 Plant Community: PEM VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Alopecurus aequalis, OBL, herb 2. Phalaris arundinacaea, FACW, herb 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: 100% of dominant species FAC or wetter SOILS Series/Phase hydric soils list? Is the soil a Histosol? n o Is the soil mottled? yes Is the soil gleyed? no Depth to mottle/gley: 0-12" Matrix Color: 2.5Y 4/2 Mottle Color(s): 10YR 4/4 Texture A: mixture: sand, clay Texture B: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes Rationale: color, mottles Comments: HYDROLOGY Is the area inundated? yes Depth of water: 6" Is the soil saturated? yes Depth to water: surface Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: saturation & inundation JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? yes Comments: Wetland F. Low point in ditch. JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION Normal environmental conditions? yes Has Ve:etation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes. Ar- was formerly wetland and was cleared and filled with hydric soils. Field In estigator(s): Denman/MacWhinney Date: 6/5/90 Project/'ite: Eastgate County/City:Renton Client: yzis Plot #: 10 Plant Community: PEM VEGETATION Domina fi t Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Lotu' corniculatus, FAC, herb 2. Rum:x crispus, FACW, herb 3. unide tified grass,assumed upland, herb 4. Poa iiratensis, FACU, herb 5. Vici. sativa, U, herb 6. 7. S. 9. 10. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 40% Is the ydrophytic vegetation criterion met? no Rationa e: <50% of dominant species FAC or wetter SOILS Series/'base hydric soils list? Is the -oil a Histosol? no Is the soil mottled? no Is the -oil gleyed? no Depth to mottle/gley: 0-14" Matrix olor: 5Y 4/1 Mottle Color(s): Texture A: dense silty clay Texture B: Other 'ydric soil indicators: Is the ydric soil criterion met? yes Ration•le: color Comme'ts: HYDROLOGY Is the area inundated? no Depth of water: n/a Is the Soil saturated? no Depth to water: >10" Other•Meld evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: Is the Wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Ration4le: assumed JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? no Comments: Upland 1#ased on vegetation JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION Normal environmental conditions? yes Has Vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes. Area was formerly wetland and was cleared and filled with hydric soils. Field Investigator(s): Denman/MacWhinney Date: 6/5/90 Project/Site: Eastgate County/City:Renton Client: Vyzis Plot #: 11 Plant Community: U VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. unidentified grass,assumed upland, herb 2. Medicago hespida, not listed, herb 3. Poa pratensis, FACU, herb 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 0%0 Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? no Rationale: no spp. FAC or wetter SOILS Series/Phase hydric soils list? Is the soil a Histosol? no Is the soil mottled? no Is the soil gleyed? no Depth to mottle/gley: 0-14" Matrix Color: SY 4/1 Mottle Color(s): Texture A: dense silty clay w/ gravel Texture B: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes Rationale: color Comments: HYDROLOGY Is the area inundated? no Depth of water: n/a Is the soil saturated? no Depth to water: >10" Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: assumed - JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? no Comments: Upland based on lack of wetland vegetation JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION Normal environmental conditions? yes Has Vegletation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes. Area was formerly wetland and was cleared and filled with hydric soils. Field Investigator(s): Denman/MacWhinney Date: 5/29/90 Project/Site: Eastgate County/City:Renton Client: Vyzis Plot #: 12 Plant Community: PEM VEGETATION Dominanit Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Alopecurus aequalis, OBL, herb 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100% Is the b drophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: 100% of dominant species FAC or wetter SOILS Series/Phase hydric soils list? Is the soil a Histosol? no Is the soil mottled? slight Is the soil gleyed? no Depth to mottle/gley: Matrix Color: 5Y 4/1 Mottle Color(s): Texture A: dense loam Texture B: Other h}hdric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes Rational color Comments: HYDROLOGY Is the area inundated? yes Depth of water: 4" Is the soil saturated? yes Depth to water: surface Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: saturation, inundation, cracking in soil JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? yes Comments: Wetland G JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION Normal environmental conditions? yes Has Vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes. Area was formerly wetland and was cleared and filled with hydric soils. Field Investigator(s): Denman/MacWhinney Date: 5/29/90 Project/Site: Eastgate County/City:Renton Client: Vyzis Plot #: 13 Plant Community: PEM VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Eleocharis palustris, OBL, herb 2. Alopecurus aequalis, OBL, herb 3. Phalaris arundinacaea, FACW, herb 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: 100% of dominant species FAC or wetter SOILS Series/Phase hydric soils list? Is the soil a Histosol? no Is the soil mottled? slight Is the soil gleyed? no Depth to mottle/gley: Matrix Color: 5Y 4/1 Mottle Color(s): Texture A: dense loam Texture B: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes Rationale: color Comments: HYDROLOGY Is the area inundated? yes Depth of water: 4" Is the soil saturated? yes Depth to water: surface Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: saturation,'inundation, cracking in soil JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? yes Comments: Wetland H JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION Normal environmental conditions? yes Has Vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes. Area was formerly wetland and was cleared and filled with hydric soils. Field Investigator(s): Denman/MacWhinney Date: 5/29/90 Project/Site: Eastgate County/City:Renton Client: Vyzis Plot #: 14 Plant Community: PEM VEGETATION Domin nt Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Phalaris arundinacaea, FACW, herb 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationalle: 100% of dominant species FAC or wetter SOILS Series/Phase hydric soils list? Is the soil a Histosol? no Is the soil mottled? yes Is the roil gleyed? no Depth to mottle/gley: 6-12" Matrix Color: 5Y 4/1 Mottle Color(s): 10YR 5/4 Texture A: loam Texture B: dense clay loam Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes Rationale: color, mottles Comments: HYDROLOGY Is the area inundated? no Depth of water: n/a Is the boil saturated? no Depth to water: >12" Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: assumed based on soils and veg. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? yes Comments: Wetland JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION Normal environmental conditions? yes Has Vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes. Area was formerly wetland and was cleared and filled with hydric soils. Field Investigator(s): Denman/MacWhinney Date: 5/29/90 Project/Site: Eastgate County/City:Renton Client: Vyzis Plot #: 15 Plant Community: PEM VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Matricaria matricarioides, FACU 2. Phalaris arundinacaea, FACW, herb 3. Iris pseudoacorus, OBL, herb 4. 5. 6. 7. S. 9. 10. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 66% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: >50% of dominant species FAC or wetter SOILS Series/Phase hydric soils list? Is the soil a Histosol? no Is the soil mottled? yes Is the soil gleyed? n o Depth to mottle/gley: 6-14" Matrix Color: 10YR 4/2 Mottle Color(s): 10YR 4/6 Texture A: loam Texture B: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes Rationale: color, mottles Comments: HYDROLOGY Is the area inundated? no Depth of water: n/a Is the soil saturated? no Depth to water: >14" Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: assumed based on soils and veg. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? yes Comments: Wetland I JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES I WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION Normal environmental conditions? yes Has Vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes. Area was formerly wetland and was cleared and filled with hydric soils. Field I�vestigator(s): Denman/MacWhinney Date: 5/29/90 Projec Site: Eastgate County/City:Renton Client: Vyzis Plot #: 16 Plant Community: U VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Vicik sativa, U, herb 2. Phalaris arundinacaea, FACW, herb 3. Holeus lanatus, FAC, herb 4. Cirsium arvense, FACU+, herb 5. 6. • 7. 8. 1 9. 10. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 50% Is the iydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: 50% of dominant species FAC or wetter 1 SOILS Series/Phase hydric soils list? Is the soil a Histosol? no Is the soil mottled? no Is the soil gleyed? no Depth to mottle/gley: Matrix I Color: 10YR 3/3 Mottle Color(s): Texture A: loamy sand Texture B: Other iydric soil indicators: Is the ydric soil criterion met? no Rationale: no hydric indicators Comments: I HYDROLOGY Is the area inundated? no Depth of water: n/a Is the Soil saturated? no Depth to water: >15" Other -field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? no Rationale: no evidence - JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? no Comments: Upland JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION Normal environmental conditions? yes Has Vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes. Area was formerly wetland and was cleared and filled with hydric soils. Field Investigator(s): Denman/MacWhinney Date: 5/29/90 Project/Site: Eastgate County/City:Renton Client: Vyzis Plot #: 17 Plant Community: PEM VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Alopecurus aequalis, OBL, herb 2. Lotus corniculatus, FAC, herb 3. Salix sp., FAC-OBL, herb (young sprouts) 4. • 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. • 10. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: 100% of dominant species FAC or wetter SOILS Series/Phase hydric soils list? Is the soil a Histosol? no Is the soil mottled? yes Is the soil gleyed? no Depth to mottle/gley: 0-12" Matrix Color: 5Y 4/1 Mottle Color(s): 10YR 4/4 Texture A: fine sandy clay Texture B: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes Rationale: color, mottles Comments: HYDROLOGY Is the area inundated? yes Depth of water: 6" Is the soil saturated? yes Depth to water: surface Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: saturation, inundation, cracking in soil JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? yes Comments: Wetland J. Area is approximately 70%bare ground with cracking in soil. JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION Normal environmental conditions? yes Has Vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes. Area was formerly wetland and was cleared and filled with hydric soils. Field I vestigator(s): Denman/MacWhinney Date: 6/5/90 Project/ ite: Eastgate County/City:Renton Client: Vyzis Plot #: 18 Plant Community: U VEGETATION Domina t Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Lotu corniculatus, FAC, herb 2. Alopecurus aequalis, OBL, herb 3. Lolitm perenne, FACU, herb 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 66% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: >50% of dominant species FAC or wetter SOILS Series/Phase hydric soils list? Is the soil a Histosol? no Is the soil mottled? no Is the soil gleyed? no Depth to mottle/gley: 0-12" Matrix color: 5Y 4/1 Mottle Color(s): Texture A: dense silty clay Texture B: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes Rationale: color Comments: HYDROLOGY Is the area inundated? no Depth of water: n/a Is the soil saturated? no Depth to water: >12" Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: assumed . JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? no Comments: • Area of plot was not flagged as wetland due to small size(approximately 2'X 3')although wetland criteria are met. JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION Normal environmental conditions? yes Has Vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes. Area was formerly wetland and was cleared and filled with hydric soils. Field Investigator(s): Denman/MacWhinney Date: 5/29/90 Project/Site: Eastgate County/City:Renton Client: Vyzis Plot #: 19 Plant Community: PEM VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Alopecurus aequalis, OBL, herb 2. Salix sp., FAC-OBL, herb (young sprouts) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: 100% of dominant species FAC or wetter SOILS Series/Phase hydric soils list? Is the soil a Histosol? no Is the soil mottled? yes Is the soil gleyed? yes Depth to mottle/gley: 0-12" Matrix Color: 5Y 3/2; some 5Y 5/1 Mottle Color(s): Texture A: fine sandy clay Texture B: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes Rationale: color, mottles, gley Comments: HYDROLOGY Is the area inundated? no Depth of water: n/a Is the soil saturated? no Depth to water: >12" Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: assumed based on soils and veg. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? yes • Comments: Wetland K. JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM I ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION • Normal environmental conditions? yes Has Vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes. Area was formerly wetland and was cleared and filled with hydric soils. Field In estigator(s): Denman/MacWhinney Date: 5/29/90 Project/Site: Eastgate County/City:Renton Client: Vyzis Plot #: 20 Plant Community: PEM VEGETATION Doming t Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Alo urus aequalis,OBL, herb 2. Phalaris arundinacaea,FACW, herb 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100% Is the $ydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rations e: 100% of dominant species FAC or wetter SOILS Series/Phase hydric soils list? Is the soil a Histosol? no Is the soil mottled? no Is the oil gleyed? yes Depth to mottle/gley: 0-14" Matrix Color: N4/ Mottle Color(s): Texture A: dense clay Texture B: Other hydric soil indicators: • Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes Rationale: gley Comments: HYDROLOGY Is the area inundated? no Depth of water: n/a Is the Soil saturated? no Depth to water: >14" Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: assumed based on soils and veg. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? yes Comments: Wetland L. • JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION Normal environmental conditions? yes Has Vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes. Area was formerly wetland and was cleared and filled with hydric soils. Field Investigator(s): Denman/MacWhinney Date: 5/29/90 Project/Site: Eastgate County/City:Renton Client: Vyzis Plot #: 21 Plant Community: PEM VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Alopecurus aequalis, OBL, herb 2. Typha latifolia,OBL,herb(dominant in one area; absent elsewhere) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. ' Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: 100% of dominant species FAC or wetter SOILS Series/Phase hydric soils list? Is the soil a Histosol? n o Is the soil mottled? no Is the soil gleyed? no Depth to mottle/gley: 0-14" Matrix Color: N4/ Mottle Color(s): Texture A: dense clay Texture B: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes Rationale: gley Comments: HYDROLOGY Is the area inundated? yes Depth of water: 3" Is the soil saturated? yes Depth to water: surface Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: saturation lc inundation JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? yes Comments: Wetland M. Bare ground in most of wetland. JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION • Normal environmental conditions? yes Has Vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes. Arta was formerly wetla: 1 and was cleared and filled with hydric soils. Field I vestigator(s): Denman/MacWhinney Date: 5/29/90 Project/Site: Eastgate County/City:Renton Client: Vyzis Plot #: 22 Plant Community: PEM VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Alopecurus aequalis, OBL, herb 2. Typha latifolia,OBL,herb(common at east end of WL; absent in west end) 3. Trifolium repens, U, herb 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 66% Is the bydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: > 50% of dominant species FAC or wetter SOILS Series/Phase hydric soils list? Is the soil a Histosol? n o Is the soil mottled? Is the soil gleyed? Depth to mottle/gley: Matrix Color: Mottle Color(s): Texture A: Texture B: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes Rationale: assumed Comments: no soil sample due to difficulty digging. Assumed aquic based on veg. and rest of site HYDROLOGY Is the area inundated? no Depth of water: n/a Is the Soil saturated? not sampled Depth to water: Other'field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: assumed . JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? yes Comments: Wetland N. JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION Normal environmental conditions? yes Has Vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes. Area was formerly wetland and was cleared and filled with hydric soils. Field Investigator(s): Denman/MacWhinney Date: 5/29/90 Project/Site: Eastgate County/City:Renton Client: Vyzis Plot #: 23 Plant Community: PEM VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Phalaris arundinacaea, FACW, herb _ 2. Alopecurus aequalis, OBL, herb 3. Cirsium arvense, FACU+, herb 4. Lotus corniculatus, FAC, herb S. Lathyrus sp., ??, herb 6. Lathyrus sp. ??? 7. 8. 9. 10. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 50% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: 50% of dominant species FAC or wetter SOILS Series/Phase hydric soils list? Is the soil a Histosol? no Is the soil mottled? no Is the soil gleyed? no Depth to mottle/gley: 0-10" Matrix Color: 5Y 4/1 Mottle Color(s): Texture A: fine sandy clay Texture B: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes Rationale: color Comments: HYDROLOGY Is the area inundated? no Depth of water: n/a Is the soil saturated? no Depth to water: >10" Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes - Rationale: assumed JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? yes Comments: Ditch .v DEVELOPMENT PLANNING 9 y r 0 3 I. CITY OF RENTON APR 2 1998 `�M 3 RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM „AN i h 1958 suiLL". ,,.,,vN DATE: ///4/Gf 1% TO: Construction Services, Fire Prevention, Plan Review, Project Planner FROM: Jim Hanson, Development Services Division Director SUBJECT: New Preliminary Application::5rii/H19ah% O(-1-.7 f/fit LOCATION: ri) /i P 5 N"d /g kJ-SIT 1 F4. t- rf 1-1114 Al- i-v A meeting with the applicant has been scheduled for /j`/'] , Thursday, (71 h i;a. 1/1/ 51414-r-- in the 3rd floor conference room. If this meeting is sheduled at 10:00 AM, the MEETING MUST BE CONCLUDED PRIOR TO 11 :00 AM to allow time to prepare for the 11 :00 meeting. Please review the attached project plans prior to the scheduled meeting with the applicant. You will not need to do a thorough "permit level" review at this time. Note only major issues that must be resolved prior to formal land use and/or building permit application submittal. If you are unable to attend the meeting, please send a representative. Please submit your written comments to pm-ov at least two (2) days before the meeting. Thank you. ._.,.�..� ; 1-? r... • u,� pi .L-t-p //�/:.- ' -ti i ~ • ® , CITY OF RENTON 4 Nz�� FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU MEMORANDUM DATE: January 21, 1998 TO: Peter Rosen, Planner FROM: Jim Gray, Assistant Fire Marshal SUBJECT: Southgate Office Park , SW 19th ind Ave. SW Fire Department Comments: 1. The preliminary fire flow for Bldg. A is 3250 GPM and Bldg. B is 3500 GPM, one hydrant is required within 150 feet of each structure and three additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of each structure. 2. A fire mitigation fee of $34,112.00 is required for bldg. A and $41,184.00 for Bldg. B based on $.52 a square foot. 3. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of the required fire alarm and sprinkler systems. 4. Fire Department access roadways are required to within 150 feet of all portions of the building exterior. Roadways are a minimum 20 in width with a turning radius of 45 foot outside and 25 foot inside radius. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Southgate Office Park 2001 Lind Ave. SW Bldg. A &B Pre-Application Development Service [1 January 29, 1998/ r.voe'('° NIIATER: 1. A Water System Development connection charge is $0.113 per gros isrs tearea, but not less than $850. 2. A loop water system is required or show existing loop will meet required fireflow for the new buildings. The Fire Department determines the required fire flow. 3. One(1) fire hydrant is required for each 1000 gpm of required fire flow. The primary hydrants must be within 150-feet of the building, but not closer than 50-feet and the secondary hydrants to be within 300-feet of the building. 4. A conceptual utility plan for the site and/or SEPA submittal to include main locations, sizes, valve locations and hydrant locations. . If building is over 30-feet in height a backflow prevention device may be require on the water service. E,. A vertical profile is required and also City of Renton Standard Detail Drawings. 7. Water located in the Downtown 196 pressure zone. ;.,EWER: The System Development Connection charge is $0.078 per gross square feet, but not less than $585. 2S A sewer backflow prevention devise is required if the floor elevation is below,?-feet. Floor elevation indicated at 21-feet on conceptual plan. 3. If the project produce fats, oils, or grease then an appropriate removal system will be required. 4. Plans to show vertical profile and standard details. 5. Maintain proper horizontal separation from water and other utilities.. The minimum separation is 10-feet or greater and vertical separation of 18 inches or greater from water. ri. Side sewer to have two percent slope to property line. 98CM013.DOC\ STORM SURFACE WATER: 1. The System Development Connection charge is $0.129 per gross square foot of new impervious area,but not less than$385. 2. Use NAVD 1988 Datum for project. The datum is to be shown on each sheet with elevations. Provide datum and benchmark. 3. Erosion control plan required. 4. Vertical profile is to be shown. 5. A conceptual Drainage Report will be required. The conceptual utility plan to include Storm, water and the sewer systems. 6. Show all wet land areas on the plan. ,Q 641/: TRANSPORTATION: \iV f 1. A brief traffic trip generation report to be provided based on the ITE trip generation manual. „rG, 2. A transportation mitigation fee is $75 per trip generated by the new development. r L) 3. Indicate haul routes if significant hauling to occur. 4. Provide a transportation management plan for employees. Indicate how this will be accomplish in the Traffic Report. 5. On the south side of SW 19th Street extend the sidewalk, curb and roadway width the full length of the property frontage to SW 19th Street. Roadway width to match existing improved roadway section east of driveway entrance. A 5-foot planter strip to be provided between the curb and sidewalk. 6. Street lighting is required with the roadway improvement. 98cm013 98CM013.DOC\ • CITY OF RENTON Planning / Building / Public Works MEMORANDUM DATE: January 29, 1998 TO: Pre-Application File FROM: Peter Rosen, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Southgate Office Park - Pre-App File No. 98-03 We have completed a review of the pre-application for the proposed Southgate Office Park. Listed below are our preliminary findings. Although every attempt is made to ensure that these comments are complete, a more thorough examination of the project at the time of application submittal may reveal additional issues that may alter these comments or require additional comments. Permit Requirements. SEPA Environmental Review: A SEPA environmental checklist must be submitted with the application iP materials. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) will review the proposal, consider mitigation measures, and issue a threshold determination. 7"); Wetlands are common throughout the Green River Valley. A wetlands determination verifying the presence or absence of wetlands on the site should be submitted with the application materials. Site Plan Review: Site Plan Review is required for all development proposals (which meet SEPA thresholds) in the Commercial Office (CO) zone designation. The proposal would require Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and a public hearing because the proposal meets the thresholds of a site area greater than 10 acres, a gross floor area 100,000 square feet, and over 300 parking stalls. Site Plan Review evaluates site layout, building orientation, pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, screening/buffering, and code/policy compliance, according to specific criteria outlined in the Site Plan R view Ordinance (Section 4-31-33). Zuning. The project site is zoned Commercial Office (CO). The CO zone allows offices (administrative/ headquarters, professional, medical and dental) as primary permitted uses. Development Standards Setbacks: The CO zone requires a minimum front yard/street setback of 15 feet for buildings less than 25 feet in height and a 20 foot setback for buildings between 25 and 80 feet in height. The proposed buildings appear to meet the setback requirements. There are no rear or side yard setbacks required in the CO zone, except where a CO lot is adjacent to residential zone, and this does not apply to the subject site. LUndscapinq: The CO zone requires a minimum 10 foot wide landscape strip where lots abut public streets. The pre-application shows sufficient area for the landscape strip but the landscape plan does not indicate frontage landscaping along SW 19th Street. Comprehensive Plan policies encourage la idscaping and berming to screen parking areas from the street. F,)r development in the Green River Valley, 2% of a total site area must be landscaped for wildlife Hbitat. The Code specifies that these landscaped areas should be aggregated on a site, and where issible should be located contiguous to wildlife habitat landscaping on adjacent properties. The required natural landscape area should be identified on the landscape plan for the project application st bmittal. Southgate Office Park.DOC • The Parking and Loading 1/4.11dinance requires landscaping equal to 570 of the area of a parking lot over 10,000 square feet in size. This calculation should be provided on the site plan or landscape plan with submittal of the application. There is also a code requirement for a pedestrian connection between the public entrance of the building anc the street. Lot Coverage: The maximum lot coverage for buildings is 65% of the lot area. The subject proposal appears to comply with this provision. ParKina: The Parking and Loading Ordinance sets standards for parking requirements based on the typi:(s) of uses proposed. For office uses, the code requires a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. The proposal includes a total floor area of 74,400 square feet and therefore between 223 and 335 parking spaces are required. The proposal shcws 473 parking spaces which exceeds the maximum. The applicant should apply in writing for a mo;iification from the maximum parking standard, addressing the criteria in Section 4-14-1.C1.a. Mo:iifications or deviations from parking standards may be approved by the Department Administrator. Required parking stall dimensions are 20 feet in length and a 9 foot width. Compact parking stalls are 16 feel in length and 8.5 feet in width. The pre-application indicates an 8 foot width for compact stalls. Col npact parking spaces may not account for more than 40% of designated employee parking or 30% of all :>ther required parking. Aisle widths of 24 feet are required for 90 degree head-in parking. CC Jana Huerter Sot.:hgate Office Park. DOC CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: January 26, 1998 • TO: Peter Rosen FROM: Rebecca Lind £4 V STAFF CONTACT: Owen Dennison(425 277-2475) SUBJECT: Southgate Office Park Preapplication(98-03) - Strategic Planning Comments (South of SW 19th St.,West of Lind Ave SW) 1. Intent of the land use designation The site is designated Employment Area-Valley (EAV) in the Comprehensive Plan. The EAV designation intended to provide for a mixture of commercial, office and industrial uses. New development should be located designed,to achieve compatibility with adjacent uses. The proposed office use falls within the range of uses indicated for the designation. Zoning is Commercial Office. 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan The proposal is consistent with the policy direction for office development in the EAV. The proposal is specifically consistent with the following applicable policies. Policy LU-212.1 Develop the Renton Valley and the Black River Valley areas as a place for a range and variety of commercial, office, and industrial uses. Policy LU-212.2 Compatible and related land uses should be encouraged to locate in proximity to one another. Policy LU-212.5 Multi-story office uses should be located in areas most likely to be served by future multi-modal transportation opportunities. A greater emphasis on public amenities is appropriate for this type of use. Policy LU-212.21 Vehicular connections between adjacent parking areas are encouraged. Incentives should be offered to encourage shared parking. Policy LU-212.23 Site design for office uses should consider ways of improving transit ridership through siting, locating of pedestrian amenities, walkways,parking, etc. Policy LU-162. On-site open space and recreational facilities in developments should be required. 3. Areas of potential inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan No inconsistencies noted. • January 22, 1998 Page 2 4. Advisory Policy LU-212.6 Developments should be encouraged to achieve greater efficiency in site utilization ar,d result in benefits to users with techniques including: a. shared facilities such as parking and site access, recreation facilities and amenities; b. an improved ability to serve development with transit by centralizing transit stops; and c. an opportunity to provide support services (e.g. copy center, coffee shop or lunch facilities, express mail services) for nearby development that otherwise might not exist. H'DIVISION.S\P-TS\PLANNING\PREAPP\EAV\SOUTH GT.DOC I / • E s .E OF WETLAND ARE EP 1Acw= „ti..-_--- _ ---_{-Mai........, +rite--_. IBM:---------.. 1 `\ ` M� j ��'i V • 1 o I t r I 1 � i11' I I f� �' I'' 1,, ( . i ; ; ► J'°A it • le••] I 'j1 7l f 151i'Id.Wetlandbltcti \"`^j', 1 . i. ! 1 O po ... .. •------- 4 -i �' -_ J 1:" . _ 1.._• _Area1,0.013_-ACL_. _ `-�- A��r /1Cot.Th i `I - ' I . ''. 1 < J s,: 11 1 I• t , pr • -_ ' �� r t�'� u W L ND 'F' cn �. • j _ w I LAND I{� I ) 1 \ ITLAUl) 'N'• ®_; • i� /��--, i ••i- 1VETLAND 'M' J • •� �rca: 0.151 Ac. �� Area: 0.072 .% (; \ t l )) i 1,1 1 � • 3". "4-F I); _ 7}4{,�r��►► ., c y.:�l, > � ; 11rETLAAI + "Id • „ t7 ; f1. • �0_' + z -_�' .-t i l= "'-�F'`? It,' I ��/�� I • Arca :O6 Arta: 1.008. ( j' I 1 ir dli i i 0 C• 0 1 M CAD X-1 VI i 1. ':. I 11-1-11111 ILL.!". '- ;O., /1 •,. ; O l T c. 0 y I - - - - I • �_ Lj ;� �'d; r �:1YE�LAND•'A' \ �—ti. ' 1F n i; li Z z ••a ' I. • "lt" '\ .i:r_r .> • ).rota:0.087 Ac. ,.I. ` • `V) Z r. 1`. .� I'A •I ,+ . L', —- L ( ,•.vsy - (-tI•�— f ail c1 4 - nlrwt iw.aa �-- - Ti ,'r ((( '•� l 1 •j_K ! J,� l , • \ ; 1 11\7:RJY. i,YE AN ' I' .i s® a r — I S l 1TYE LAPDv ��l > )Area:`Ob09 A 1 0 o ►i •• ` . (-- I - '1 I ` j ;.- I + rvy ,1 ! � ,soc i :: 1 Cg , '+ ,,W aecc u rcge J Ia ►1 II l —_I ¢ �' i . •_ 1 .► -I E AND I' V�_L�LA0 • 1J I [?1 � F— 1J }': , I � r11 ,1reai' .518 Ac vC I ` y I r 1 'El tO 'O o o e'.� rA : 0.06e oc. L witr 0 n. : ---: lAri 1. 'R I — — A• ...ova, cr€: 0 00 c�tp1�.�. i'J y 0:siss'sWETLAND< rl ' �`sl jr I� M ' " :,-,_ o— =�: .. t. b� I ' ` IIII a ! ; ,,+e . .018IAr: ,; +� ; ., II •L -�. 1 1 1 1 - ,... . J y1 1 -. _.- o I i q —\ i! '• WETLAND AREA EXHIBIT - SOUTH6ATE OFFICE PLAZA ?I 1 12 - WETLAND PLOT AREAS AS-MARKED BY SITE PLAN « ' JONES St STOKES ASSOCIATES, I':1 erunwo •mrene,.P" . 0 Pwnse I oeVeLor.Aw7 .. w SURVEYED DUNE 1, 1990 I" Ji I1 II li surveying Mapping_ by es• Surve in & Horton Dennis Sc Associat -- — —. .__.. . . -- — it .• 5%.':4--.•_,i ,,, .Pr- , _tmi•,,, W. • ^ CAV - s. . "-Ail! ///� AA c NSA III �'g13 = I�"_ ' 1,m aY - �`. } :!( ;\, III p�. .J'. r }I t,S �`i 1 i 77FrSSu • 1114 ‘.ii:= - . . 1 . ,'� la ..., -_� .. �� . ,t la it - ji i� hell-, Il t riI� Ii __ ' ....,..-* 1.--Iiii. _ill ! • 0 7" 0 C ill e� —�I _. ,a_ - --- --- - k _ - - - v CC Zz 0 --64) ,1 miff , ra Ef' _ I I wL - I • ''1 t- i ; s .. 1 . _� u • 111111 .� IIIIlkl. s Srocs A EAL - ZONING LEGENQ JN_TG c-O COMMERCIAL/OR@E I "IN" BUSH. ROED & HITCHINGS INC. HEAVY INDUSTRIAL OML FNONEEPS i LAND SURAEH S FY MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL .may (� . I L LIGHT INDUSTRIAL B.VI � - [0N9-"CYCI'S CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC VRMNS NEIGHBORHOOD MAP O.�� FOR SOUTHOATE OFFICE PARK PHASE III r •a. Of a LAO wrt. n< VACUA. K.I. T•.DO I-as NK IC NO.. n Arr. WC .I,40..,- MEN, ON **************************************************************** City of Renton WA Reprinted: 04/23/98 15 : 11 Receipt **************************************************************** Receipt Number: R9802466 Amount : 1, 504 . 80 04/23/98 15 : 10 Payment Method: CHECK Notation: #26457 L MUELLER Init: LMN Project # : LUA98-066 Type: LUA Land Use Actions Total Fees : 1, 504 . 80 This Payment 1, 504 . 80 Total ALL Pmts : 1, 504 . 80 Balance: . 00 **************************************************************** Account Code Description Amount 000 . 345 . 81 . 00 . 0007 Environmental Review 500 . 00 000 . 345 . 81 . 00 . 0017 Site Plan Approval 1, 000 . 00 000 . 05 . 519 . 90 . 42 . 1 Postage 4 . 80 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON APR 2 3 1998 RECEIVED