No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA98-051 • ! � CI ►F RENTON 4 .. :.u: ; _\ Planning/Building/Public Works Department J e`Tannerr,,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator 18 - O 5 l t S A May 26, 2000 p�N�i(vG Ed Minshull "1 Aty (Y Lance Mueller& Associates VIM 2 6 2 �tY0 130 Lakeside, Suite 250 p Seattle, WA 98122 RECEIVE 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, 1 0 ., "an on ng Administrator on r cc: Jennifer Henning,Principal Plaancuivr File LUA 98-051 5 A-W,ELT File LUA 98-066 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98055 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer MAY.26.2000 7:45AM LANCE MIJELLER NO.088 P.3/3 •LANCE MUELLER & sar►6OCIATE6 IMMEN,\/\/\ A R C H I T EC G • A I A May 10, 2000 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CITY OF RENTON Mrs. Jana Hanson MAY 2 0 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 /S0GATEDFF4-1.LTR 130 LAKESIDE • SUITE 250 • SEATTLE. WA • 80122 • C208) 3E6•2553 • FAX: (206) 328.0554 ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • SPACE PLANNING • INTERIORS MAY.25.euuu 7:45AM LANCE MUELLER NO.U88 P.Ei3 • • � . LANCE MUELLER o. / iOCIATEB LNIM=/\/\//\ AR C H I T E C T S A IA 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 , ter de-t ' Ed Minshull EM:nk NKAIO7/SOCATEOFF3-4 LTR 1 30 LAKESIDE • SUITE QSC • SEATTLE. WA • 8B1 EQ • t20e) 325.2553 • FAX: CE DE) 320-0654 ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • SPACE PLANNING • INTERIORS ngY.26.2000 7:45AM LANCE MUELLER NO.088 P.3/3 • LANCE MUELLER & ASSOCIATES Liam"/ A R C H I T E C T 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 NK#87/SOOATEO FF4-1.LTR 130 LAKESIDE • SUITE 250 • SEATTLE. WA • 98122 • L2083 38 5.2553 • FAX: (2063 328.0564 ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • SPACE PLANNING • INTERIORS ko .. CITAF RENTON 61 l Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator June 02, 1998 Mr Ed Minshull Lance Mueller&Associates 13) Lakeside, Suite 250 Seattle, WA 98122 St. BJECT: Southgate Office Park Project No. LUA-98-051,SA-A,ECF Dr.ar Mr. Minshull: Tt is letter is to inform you that the comment and appeal periods have ended for the Environmental Review Committee's (ERC) Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated for the above-referenced project. N) appeals were filed. 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) 235-2719. For the Environmental Review Committee, F eter Rosen F'roject Manager (.c: Spieker Properties/Owners Parties of Record FINAL.DOC 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 •--------- 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 June 1, 1998 Peter Rosen, Planner DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON 200 Mill Avenue South JUN 0 3 1998 Renton, WA 98055 Re: Southgate Office Park — LUA-98-051 RECEIVED May 7, 1998 Letter Response Doar Mr. Rosen: en: 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 out room, office management/maintenance contained in various other buildings. 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 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 LIJC 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, 1. J40,, 4y ' ui 4 TRANSPOORTATION PLANNING 17 • ;' z & ENGINEERING, INC. I• : ,' w 5744� � r 9 6�119 rs Mark J. Jacobs, P. E. • s'AL Senior Transportation Engineer a, . MJJ:es (EXPIRES 413/ 00 I cc: Sarah Weddle, Spieker Properties Bob Fadden, LMA R067298Arspltr.doc City of Seattle Paul Schell, Mayor Seattle Public Utilities DEVELOPMENT PLANNING Diana Gale,Director CITY OF RENTON JUN 01 1998 May 28, 1997 RECEIVED Ms. Jana Huerter, Land Use Review Supervisor City of Renton Development Services Division City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Re; Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated Southgate Office Park Buildings#3 &#4. LUA-98-051, SA-A, ECF & LUA-98-066, SA-A, ECF Dear Ms. Huerter As a matter of clarification regarding the above referenced project it should be noted and disseminated to any and all parties associated with this project that any and all uses of Seattle Public Utilities Cedar River Pipeline No. 4 right-of-way must first be coordinated, approved and permitted by Seattle Public Utilities. An addition germane concern centers around the generation of additional surface water runoff which will flow into and/or upon Seattle Public Utilities Cedar River Pipeline#4 Fee Owned corridor abutting the South boundary line of this Office Park Complex. Seattle Public Utilities respectfully requests that any and all surface water that is generated by or due to this project development be directed away from Seattle Public Utilities Cedar River Pipeline#4 Right of Way. This right of way corridor contains a major 60 inch watermain and any undue influences from outside sources could compromise the integrity of this operating facility. Principal contact person (s)with Seattle Public Utilities for the review, permitting and approval process is either Ms. Shirley Lukhang (206) 386-9754 and/or William P. Cluckey. Thank you very much for your consideration and cooperation in this matter. Sin rely yours 7) 20/06, William P. Cluckey Senior Real Property Agent Real Property Services Dexter Horton Building, 10th Floor,710 Second Avenue,Seattle,WA 98104 Tel:(206)684-5851,TTY/TDD:(206)233-7241,Fax:(206)684-4631 An equal employment opportunity,affirmative action employer.Accommodations for people with disabilities provided upon request. Washington State Northwest Region IV) Department of Transportation 15700 Dayton Avenue North Sid Morrison P.O. Box 330310 Secretary of Transportation Seattle,WA 98133-9710 (206)440-4000 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON JUN 01 1998 DATE: May 27, 1998 RECEIVED TO: Peter Rosen City of Renton, Project Manager 200 Mill Avenue South Renton WA 98055 Subject: SR 405 MP 2.06 CS 1743 Determination of Nonsignificance Southgate Office Park-Proposal for a three story building with 25,509 sq. ft. building footprint and total building area 76,524 sq. ft.. There are two existing office buildings tie6Uk-/-A"46.") File No.LUA-98-051,ECF,SA-A FROM: Robert A. Josephson, PE, Manager of Planning & Local Coordination Washington State Department of Transportation Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North, MS 122 P. O. Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review this project which, is located in the 2000 block of Lind Avenue SW; south of SW 19`h Street, east of Lind Avenue SW. Our response is below: We have reviewed the subject document and have no further comments. The project will have no significant impact on the state highway system. If you have any questions, please contact Don Hurter at 440-4664 or Vickie Erickson at 440-4915 of my Developer Services section VEE:vee File Name REPORT City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works DECISION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW & ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTION REPORT DATE: May 12, 1998 Project Name: Southgate Office Park#4 Applicant: Spieker Properties Owner: Spieker Properties File Number: LUA-098-051, 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 25,509 sq. ft. building footprint and a total building area of 76,524 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. Projec"Location: 2000 block of Lind Avenue SW; south of SW 19th Street, east of Lind Avenue SW Exist. 3ldg. Area SF: 250,700 sq. ft. (entire site) Proposed New Bldg. Area SF: 76,524 sq. ft. Site A-ea: 224,905 sq. ft., 5.16 ac. Total Building Area SF: 327,208 s.f. (project site) 28.9 acres (entire site) I ��t � ;s TO"- E w /641. � n .. ,, �� , � Rat. I~ �pp .t .,,ci I cro . F-- ,,,___,. ..::. 1--_,\ -0 1tlf z, co c-o ific7 I = \\ Frei rii I - _ u a. • j S c11— Project Location Map ` I,t' SITERCDOC • City of Rena on P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Approval&Envin )ntal Review Committee Staff Report SOUTHGA rE OFFICE PARK#4 LUA-98-051, SA-A, ECF REPORT OF MAY 12, 1998 Page 2 of 13 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The applicant seeks Site Plan Approval and Environmental Review to construct a three-story commercial office building with a 25,509 sq. ft. building footprint and a total building area of 76,524 sq. ft. The proposed office building is located in the Southgate Office Plaza. 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. The Southgate Office Plaza will be complete with the development of four office buildings. The proposed Building 4 would be located on tt-a southwest portion of the site and the building is oriented toward the central drive and circular drive feature. Access would be from the existing driveway entering the office park off Lind Avenue SW. There are also 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 sculpture area 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 v'etland buffers. ['ART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW I compliance with RCW 43.21 C.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: '. 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. SITERC2.DOC City of Ren on P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Approval&Envii ntal Review Committee Staff Report SOUTHGA TE OFFICE PARK#4 LUA-98-051, SA-A, ECF REPORT OF MAY 12, 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 ;) 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 filled with approval of the previous development on the site. Fill activities also established the 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..DOC City of Rent)n P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Approval&Envir ntal Review Committee Staff Report SOUTHGA;E OFFICE PARK#4 LUA-98-051, SA-A, ECF REPORT OF'WAY 12, 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 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 $39,792.48. 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 $39,792.48. 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) 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 an entire complex, while Plan SITERC_2.DOC City of Ren on P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Approval&Envir ?ntal Review Committee Staff Report SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK#4 LUA-98-051, SA-A, ECF REPORT Of MAY 12, 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 #4, Plan Review staff estimates the project would generate a total of 1,080.6 new average daily trips. Therefore, the recommended Traffic Mitigation Fee is estimated at $81,045 (1,080.6 trips x $75 = $81,045). 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 $81,045 (1,080.6 trips x $75 = $81,045). This fee is payable prior to issuance of Building Permits. Policy Nexus: Environmental Ordinance, Transportation Mitigation Fee Ordinance 3. 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 $39,792.48. 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 $81,045 (1,080.6 trips x $75 = $81,045). This fee is payable prior to issuance of Building Permits. SITERC?.DOC City of Rent)n P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Approval&Envir 3ntal Review Committee Staff Report SOUTHGA•E OFFICE PARK#4 LUA-98-051, SA-A, ECF REPORT OF MAY 12, 1998 Page 6 of 13 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 far environmental determinations. FIRE 1. The I preliminary fire flow is 3,000 GPM which requires one hydrant within 150 feet of the building and two addit onal hydrants within 300 feet of each building. 2. Separate plans and permits for sprinkler and fire alarm systems installation. 3. Prov de 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 REVIEW STORM DRAINAGE: 1. The System Development Connection charge is $22,152.40 for Building#4. 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. Utili".y easement#9110070845 located under building #3 proposed location will need to be revised. SEWER (Waste Water): 1. The System Development Connection charge for Bldg. #4 is $23,147.05. 2. A s swer backflow prevention devise is required if the floor elevation is below 25-feet. 3. If tt e project produce fats, oils, or grease then an appropriate removal system will be required. 4. A s irface clean out is required at 5-feet in front of building. 5. Dre wings to meet City of Renton drafting Standards. WATER: 1. Th 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 frcntage 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. St•eet lighting is required with the roadway improvement. 3. Tt ere 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 clissifications 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 C)mprehensive Plan. Marked changes attached. SITERC!.DOC City of Rent)n P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Approval&Envir )ntal Review Committee Staff Report SOUTHGA 'E OFFICE PARK#4 LUA-98-051, SA-A, ECF REPORT OF MAY 12, 1998 Page 7of13 5. The t affic analysis must treat the new buildings separately from each other and the existing office buildings in the a ea. The report needs to be revised using the following daily trips as estimated from the ITE trip generation mans.al. 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 THREE: ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTION - REPORT & DECISION This decision on the administrative land use action is made concurrently with the environmental determination. 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 - he 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 2, 1998). xhibit No. 3: Drawing No. 2, Preliminary Landscape Plan (Received April 2, 1998). iExhibit No. 4: Drawing No. 3, First Floor Plan (Received April 2, 1998). Exhibit No. 5: Drawing No. 4, Exterior Elevations (Received April 2, 1998). Exhibit No. 6: Drawing No. 5, Schematic Drawing I (Received April 2, 1998). Exhibit No. 7: Drawing No. 6, Schematic Drawing II (Received April 2, 1998). Exhibit No. 8: Drawing No. 7, Topographic Survey, Utilities Plan (Received April 2, 1998). Exhibit No. 9: Drawing No. 8, Neighborhood Detail Map (April 2, 1998). SITERC 2.DOC City of Rent('n P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Approval&Envir 3nta1 Review Committee Staff Report SOUTHGAI E OFFICE PARK#4 LUA-98-051, SA-A, ECF REPORT OF v1AY 12, 1998 Page 8 of 13 C. Consistency with Site Plan Criteria In -eviewing the proposal with respect to the site Plan Approval Criteria set forth in Section 4-31- 32(D) of the Site Plan Ordinance, the following issues have been identified by City Departmental Reviewers and Divisional Reviewers: 1. GENERAL CRITERIA: A. CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ITS ELEMENTS AND POLICIES; The subject site is located within the Employment Area-Valley (EAV) designation of the Comprehensive 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. Tie proposal is consistent with the following applicable EAV policies: F olicy 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-212.7 Non-traditional uses such as research, design, and development facilities hould be allowed in office designations and industrial designations when their impacts to urrounding uses can be mitigated. Policy LU-212.6 Developments should be encouraged to achieve greater efficiency in site i!tilization and result in benefits to users with techniques including: it. shared facilities such as parking and site access, recreation facilities and amenities; an improved ability to serve development with transit by centralizing transit stops; and an opportunity to provide support services (e.g. copy center, coffee shop or lunch facilities, 9xpress mail services) for nearby development that otherwise might not exist. policy LU-212.21 Vehicular connections between adjacent parking areas are encouraged. 'ncentives should be offered to encourage shared parking. Policy LU-212.19 Street trees and landscaping should be required for new development within 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 should 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. SITERC?.DOC City of Rent)n P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Approval&Envir ?ntal Review Committee Staff Report SOUTHGA'E OFFICE PARK#4 LUA-98-051, SA-A, ECF REPORT OF WAY 12, 1998 Page 9 of 13 B. CONFORMANCE WITH EXISTING LAND USE REGULATIONS; The subject site is zoned Commercial Office (CO). Offices, both administrative/ hE adquarters 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 allows the landscape strip to be reduced through the site plan review process. There 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 rE:vise 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. Building 4 would cover approximately 8.5% 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 feet. 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 ri ltio of 4.16 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of office, based on the total planned lruildout of the office plaza (389,504 square feet). The Parking Code requires a minimum of 3 nd a maximum of 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of office use. 1 he 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. —he subject site is within the Green River Valley Planning area. An environmental mitigation igreement between the City and the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) requires that 2% of a .ite 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 long 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. 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 developed 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 mitigate 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 SITERC;.DOC City of Rento l P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Approval&Envir 9ntal Review Committee Staff Report SOUTHGAT=OFFICE PARK#4 LUA-98-051, SA-A, ECF REPORT OF A1AY 12, 1998 Page 10 of 13 de\ elopment 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 site:. Construction activities related to the proposed development would be required to utilize best ME nagement practices which would reduce potential construction impacts on the site. Required utility improvements, including the stormwater drainage system, would be designed to mitigate the potential impacts of the proposed development on the site. Therefore, the co istruction and operation of the development is not anticipated to adversely impact the suoject site. E. CONSERVATION OF AREA-WIDE PROPERTY VALUES; Tl e proposal would further the completion of the office park plaza. The development is ar ticipated 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 1Nth 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 End sidewalk starting at the existing pavement edge and then widen the pavement on the north side of SW 19th Street to achieve a 24 foot pavement width, without curb, gutter and idewalk improvements. These improvements are required by code and therefore do not require imposition as a condition of approval. -.he on-site vehicle and pedestrian circulation is designed to be safe and efficient. ransportation staff has not identified adverse impacts to the local road system. 3. PROVISION OF ADEQUATE LIGHT AND AIR; The proposed buildings are sufficiently setback from property boundaries and existing 3uildings to allow for adequate light and air circulation to the building. H. MITIGATION OF NOISE, ODORS AND OTHER HARMFUL OR UNHEALTHY CONDITIONS; The proposed development is not expected to create any harmful or unhealthy conditions. Noise, dust, and odors which may result with construction of the project would be mitigated through measures described in the Construction Mitigation Plan and with best management practices. SITERC :.DOC City of Rent((n P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Approval&Envir )ntal Review Committee Staff Report SOUTHGA7 E OFFICE PARK#4 LUA-98-051, SA-A, ECF REPORT OF v1AY 12, 1998 Page 11 of 13 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED USE;AND TI-e 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 section 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 cc;rmpatible with surrounding uses. 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 F raving reviewed the written record in the matter, the City now enters the following: 1) Request: The Applicant has requested Environmental Review and Site Plan /,pppoval for development of the Southgate Office Park#4. 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 was entered as Exhibit No. 1. ,1) Site Plan Review: The applicant's site plan application complies with the equirements for information for site plan review. The applicant's site plan and other project irawings 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). 5) Zoning: The site plan as presented complies with the zoning requirements and development standards of the Commercial Office (CO) zoning designation. 6) Existing Land Use: Land uses surrounding the subject site include: North: Valley Office Park, warehouse/distribution; East: Existing offices of Southgate Office Park, Fire Training Station, wetlands; South: Wetland area, Olympic Pipeline station; and West: Springbrook Industrial Park. SITERC:.DOC City of Rent)n P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Approval&Envii ental Review Committee Staff Report SOUTHGA'E OFFICE PARK#d LUA-98-051, SA-A, ECF REPORT OF MAY 12, 1998 Page 12 of 13 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). 3) 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. F. Decision The Site Plan for the Southgate Office Park #4, File No. LUA-98-051, 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 pi iblic entrance of the building and the sidewalk on SW 19th Street. EFFECT VE DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION: SIGNATURES: ;James C. Hanson, Zoning Administrator date TRANSMITTED this 12th day of May, 1998 to the applicant and owner: Spieker Properties 1150 114th Ave. S.E. Bellevue, WA. 98005 Ed Minshull Lance Mueller&Associates 130 lake:ide, Suite 250 Seattle, \VA. 98122 TRANSIt-''ITTED this 12th day of May, 1998 to the following parties of record: Quentin Kuhrau Unico Pr nperties, Inc. 1301 5th Avenue, Suite 3500 Seattle, \NA. 98101 TRANSMITTED 12th day of May, 1998 to the following: Larry Mec kling, Building Official Art Larsoi i, Fire Marshal SITERC2.UOC City of Rentr'n P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Approval&Envir 3ntal Review Committee Staff Report SOUTHGAI E OFFICE PARK#4 LUA-98-051, SA-A, ECF REPORT OF NAY 12, 1998 Page 13 of 13 Neil Watts, 'ublic Works Division Lawrence J Warren, City Attorney South Coun:y Journal Environmental Determination Comment Process Comments regarding the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM June 2, 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 ap^oeal within the original 15-day timeframe. Written comments must be filed with: Jana Huerter, Land Use Review S ipervisor, City of Renton Development Services Division, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Environ mental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination [RCW 43.21.0015(3), WAC 197-11-680] must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM June 2, 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 2.DOC CITY OF RENTON: CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF.SERVICE BY MAILING On the day of , 1998, I deposited in the mails of the United States a seale%e i'v '_envelope containing f ttabigi if w414-. w►easwrts documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing mr .. 0 W1iV S Th.lt t a ct IM1IGr'4 AcSSGG. Spi citor tro9S. W1r. ip i h kitt•IvAIA t MtGb Pr.per cc . % vim. (Signature of Sender) S (1444114A, likAAAPA061t4 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) . I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that i�• )7 h• ,-� signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free andme Woluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: —y72 , / I CI y `__�GL _ - n Gym to �QJ Notary Pub91r,,�/i�n and for the State of ashington Notary (Print) MARI! YN KAMCHFFF My appointment e Project Name: S4%44+5‘ask 0CRLG IV.rle- 4611 Project Number: �tq.4 -041 . EC. SA. 4 NOTARY.DOC CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 1lhIh day of WIt , 1998, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containin' P,RG Doty/ rttli WN 4 Yvl"t . yvt Gass u hC S documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Departrr ent of Ecology Don Rutter WSDOT KC Wastewater Treatment Division Larry Fisher Washington Department of Fisheries David F. Dietzman Department of Natural Resources Shirley Lukhang Seattle Public Utilities Duwarr ish Indian Tribe Rod M ilcom Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Joe Ja nga Puget Sound Energy (Sign ature of Sender) 5041 rY"VIh STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I cert fy that I know or have satisfactory evidence that r )7 1 :/7 i1 •-• signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes ment oned in the instrument. Date I: j 11 a�. / /9q( Notary Publiej n and or the State o shington Notary (Print) MARILYN KAMCI-0 FFF My appointmer t f:„ON E _ __.99 r- Project Name: �� Sol�4 *h 0ffiicc TAIL Project Number: LvIA.16— o6I Eto SA,A NOTA'W OOC CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the_ 1°1 day of 0140661 , 1998, I deposited in the mails of the United State a sealed envelope containing a, �.�/ O eta 1VAIN tM �3 . 1M€ L'S documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Bab Fait P4t- u,s Wrsk nnr. K c t fate, CA of ¶v rwi I k. ILino) Ca . - CAV Ev►V. tvc.s. J Ime s Newrr s (4 of VelAk mr. Ghtales Wiwtvtb cry C1+11 of 1\lewcits-14c 1A S . i Ywiy Loft). ot" fnOi views (Signature of Sender) 5avi4 9 yivwih 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 vdluntary act for the uses and purposes menti)ned in the instrument. Datec: /q 9 ( � ��irl Notary PubAl' and or the State i s ington Notary (Print) MARILYN KAMCHEFF My appointment ioti EXPIRES 6/29/99 Pro'e ct arne:kt 0v ittd park .04 Project Nu er: U i4.,18-051 ,kcF, sA -A NOTARY.DOC CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE ' (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-98-051,ECF,SA-A APPLICANT: Spieker Properties PROJECT NAME: Southgate Office Park#4 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 25,509 sq. ft. building footprint and a total building area of 76,524 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 •o 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 LEAD AGE\ICY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The City o 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.03C(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority o1 Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified daring the environmental review process. Comment!- regarding the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM June 01, 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 reasonE bly 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 app eal 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 be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM June 01, 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 CO y Clerk's Office, (425)-235-2501. PUBLICATION DATE: May 18, 1998 DATE OF DECISION: May 12, 1998 SIGNATURES: fill . �l1I1l1/l2%1✓1 .//-/ 9S Gregg IrSmec�rSan, Administrator DATE Department of Planning/Building/Public Works - di:4r.„-(_ -- ---Z' ''1"- 7---f;:-:!----- 7,—(._ --- Sam Chastain,Administrator DATE Commun ty Services �1 .l /of - ft Lee Beier, Fire Chief DATE Renton Fire Department DNSMSIG.DOC A-17-1 CIT . OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator May 14, 1998 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 • Olympia, WA 98504-7703 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 12, 1998: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK#4 LUA-98-051,ECF,SA-A Proposal for a commercial office building located in the Southgate Office Plaza. The proposal is for a three-story building with a 25,509 sq. ft. building footprint and a total building area of 76,524 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: 2000 block of Lind Avenue SW; south of SW 19th Street, east of Lind Avenue SW. Comments regarding the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM June 01. 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 be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM June 01, 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, OCI-Q*/ Peter Rosen Project Manager cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Larry Fisher, Department of Fisheries David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources Don Hurter, Department of Transportation Shirley Lukhang, Seattle Public Utilities Duwamish Tribal Office Rod Malcom, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance) Joe Jainga, Puget Sound Energy 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) MITIGATION MEASURES & CONDITIONS AP'LICATION NO(S): LUA-98-051,ECF,SA-H APPLICANT: Spieker Properties PROJECT NAME: Southgate Office Park#4 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 25,509 sq. ft. building footprint and a total building area of 76,524 sq. ft. There are two existing office buildings on the site and the Sou hgate 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. LOC ATION OF PROPOSAL: 2000 block of Lind Avenue SW; south of SW 19th Street, east of Lind Avenue SW MITI3ATION 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 $39,792.48. 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 $81,045 (1,080.6 trips x$75 = $81,045). This fee is payable prior to issuance of Building Permits. The Site Plan for the Southgate Office Park #4, File No. LUA-98-051, SA-A, ECF, is approved subje:t to the following conditions. 1 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 AP LICATION NO(S): LUA-98-051,ECF,SA-H AP'LICANT: Spieker Properties PR )JECT NAME: Southgate Office Park#4 DE>CRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for a commercial office building located in the Soy thgate Office Plaza. The proposal is for a three-story building with a 25,509 sq. ft. building footprint and a total building area of 76,524 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 accss would be from the existing driveway off Lind Avenue SW, and two driveways connecting to SW 19tt Street. A total of 1,623 parking stalls are provided to serve the entire office plaza development. LOC ATION 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 env ronmental 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. Verify that the soils report addresses liquefaction. PLAN; REVIEW STOF:M DRAINAGE: 1. "The System Development Connection charge is $22,152.40 for Building #4. 2. Use NAVD 1988 Datum for project. The datum is to be shown on each sheet with elevations. Provide datum and benchmark. 3. 1 he 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. SEWE R (Waste Water): 1. Tie System Development Connection charge for Bldg. #4 is $23,147.05. S�wthgate Office Park#4 Ll IA-98-051,ECF,SA-A Advisory Notes P�>ge 2 of 2 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. WMTER: 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. TRi'NSPORTATION: 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. See attached sheet for details of method used. Building#3 calculate volume is 922,5 daily trips. 3uilding#4 calculated volume is 1,080.6 daily trips. ;; Jesse Tanner,Mayor CITX aF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department — rr Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator May 12, 1998 Mr. Ed Minshull Lance Mueller&Associates 130 Lakeside, Suite#250 Seattle, WA 98122 SUBJECT: Southgate Office Park#4 Project No. LUA-98-051,ECF,SA-A 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 12, 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 01, 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 be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM June 01, 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. 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) 235-2719. For the Environmental Review Committee, (pc,, :) C� Peter Rosen Project Manager cc: Parties of Record Spieker Properties/Owners Enclosure 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 1 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION nt,t;na 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 ofgeneralpublication and is now and has been for more than six months project underd the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language SOUTHGATE OFFICE BUILDING#4 continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Washington. The South County LUA-98-051,ECF,SA A Proposal for a three-story commercial Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the office building located in the Southgate State of Washington for King County. Office Plaza. Location: South of SW 19th The notice in the exact form attached, waspublished in the South CountyStreet,East of Lind Avenue 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 duringthe below statedperiod. The annexed notice, a comment/appeald at :00PM onp Junes f01or this project willn end at 5:00 PM June 01, 1998. Written comments shall be forwarded to the Development Services Division Land Use ENV Det - Southgate Office Bldg#4 Review Supervisor. Information on the pro- ject file and the mitigation measures as published on: 5/18/98 imposed by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee are available at the Development Services The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$45.08 Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Legal Number 4647 Renton, Washington 98055. Phone: 235- 2550. Appeal procedures are available inI the City Clerk's office, First Floor,Municipal Building. Cam/ Published in the South County Journal Vl May 18, 1998.4647 Legal Clerk, South County Journal Subscribed and sworn before me on this ^ day or " --e , 194 Rc ```����11ltllrri,, .,„ .• .•..•"..."'''•• •,-, , je-00--y--• rh,cqpia..„.,„e ., „.,...•7 ..,.,.).1 :!7...,,:..,e, is ~ e`• • ' , Notary Public of the State of Washington .Z S. 3T.^,,;y N••_�'= residing in Renton — King County, Washington 'iii, i7A SNi.t0-�� NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a Determination of Non-Significance - M tigated for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. SOUTHGATE OFFICE BUILDING #4 LUA-98-051,ECF,SA-A Proposal for a three-story commercial office building located in the Southgate Office Plaza. Location: South of SW 19th Street, East of Lind Avenue Th 15 day comment and appeal period for this project will run concurrently. The comment/appeal pe lods for this project will end at 5:00 PM on June 01, 1998. Written comments shall be forwarded to the Development Services Division Land Use Review Supervisor. Information on the project file and the mil igation 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. Ph,me: 235-2550. Appeal procedures are available in the City Clerk's office, First Floor, Municipal Building. Put lication Date: ( May 18, 1998 Account No. 51067 dnsmpub.dot NOTICE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK 84 PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-95-051,ECF,SA-A Proposal for a commercial office building located in the Southgate Office Plaza.The proposal Is for a three-story building with a 25,509 sq.ft.building footprint and a total building area of 76,524 sq.It. 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 Und 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:2000 block of Und Avenue SW;south of SW 19th Street,east 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 ENVIRONMENT. Comments regarding the environmental determination must be filed In writing on or before 5:00 PM June 01, 2 4. 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 Huener,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 197-114801 and/or the land use decision must be filed In writing on or before 5:00 PM June 01,1998, 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 4-8-11B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office,(425)-235-2501. e,: S , f D7.'0 .:131r ... . f�'7 J I.-- .41!"Ln^ ` T fl 751.1 y•.1 n 4./ 4e:•,! i •• 1l's 'tic l', i. t n ,✓ co _i tT )L. 'ri II.; 1, -T-, '.. �1tjII1t. •' ,'''• Ii • it FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON,DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT(425)235-2550. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION IPlease include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file Identification. I L�iJ' 1\111 aVt a lava . 1 I • 1 I, ART /11,,J,0 I r/ , hereby certify that 3 copies of the above document were posted by me in 3 conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on /1fl y / Z/ / 9'?V • Signed: ATTEST: Subcribed and sworn before me, a Nortary Public,in and for the State of Washington residing in ,4- t-.i 'SF`t day of vyn� /GI� , on the / r ---14414 fi'r-a- a'a'1452-V MARILYN KAMCHEFF COMMISSION EXPIRES 6/29/99 1 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK#4 PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-98-051,ECF,SA-A Proposal for a commercial office building located in the Southgate Office Plaza. The proposal is for a three-story building with a 25,509 sq. ft. building footprint and a total building area of 76,524 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:2000 block of Lind Avenue SW;south of SW 19th Street,east of Lind Avenue SW. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THPT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE EN\IRONMENT. Corn nents regarding the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM June 01, 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 formai 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 be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM June 01, 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 4-8-116. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office,(425)-235-2501. II h ��' i ' �r .' E:� .r It: I i .?y rt.2:17E-_:'a.•.!.:;i1;:F:.ip.::st._-:.._1.....,- , . '.....v-- \`is . 1 ! r ! • . — O-0 .`�„ C_p --"t I c-o Il iiy: • •. �a.. h •i 1-L 37-0 1lI $ er � +- .e , •L._ ?•L - I. IA. ...i. c O III k#3 C.;fir t it y `l=. : :T:: • .ram.► , ......,.+h c, . 1 i 'ti FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT(425) 235-2550. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION CPlease include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. 'I-) CITY OF RENTON ' Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator May 7, 1998 Transportation Planning &Engineering, Inc. Attention: Mark Jacobs 2101- 112th Avenue NE, Suite 110 Bellevue,WA 98004 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 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 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 these 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 names, 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 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 these 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 shared private roadway system is not expected to reduce the number of trips for each new building. SOUTHGTI.DOC\ 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 Easy Walking Distance: 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 in 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, .(1 W‘4 Neil Watts Plan Review Supervisor Development Services Division cc Peter Rosen Clint Morgan Attachments SOUTHGT1.DOC\ 0771 CITE 30F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator May 6, 1998 Mr. Ed Minshull • Lance Mueller&Associates 130 Lakeside, Suite 250 Seattle, WA 98122 SUBJECT: Southgate Office Park#4 Project No. LUA-98-051, ECF, SA-A Dear Mr. Minshull: On April 16, I faxed you comments from our Public Works/Transportation staff requesting additional information and revisions to your traffic impact analysis for the Southgate Office Park. Clint Morgan and Neil Watts have discussed the issues with your transportation consultant. To date we have not received a response to our correction request. The Southgate Office Park project went before the City Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on May 5. The ERC determined that without corrections to the traffic impact study there is not sufficient information on potential traffic impacts to issue a SEPA threshold determination. Therefore, the project will be on hold until receipt of the revised traffic report. Please contact me, at (425) 235-2719, if you have any questions. Sincerely, (A2,1b Peter Rosen Project Manager enc: Memo of April 15, 1998 cc: Spieker Properties Neil Watts Clint Morgan Jana Huerter • TRAFINFO.DOC 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 �1 Thic nanar rnnlainc Ffl%rarvrlari nafarial 9fl%nncf rnnci,nar TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 2101 - 112th AVENUE N.E.,SUITE 110—BELLEVUE,WASHINGTON 98004 VICTOR H.BISHOP P.E President TELEPHONE(425)455-5320 DAVID H.ENDER,P.E Vice President FACSIMILE(425)453-7180 May 4, 1998 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING Peter Rosen, Planner CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON MAY 0 6 1998200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RECEIVED 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 and 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/maintenance services contained in various other buildings. R067298Arspltr.doc . • 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. Mark J. Jac s, . E. Senior Transportation Engineer MJJ:es CC: Rick Jarvis, Spieker Properties Bob Fadden, LMA R067298Arspltr.doc • O ♦ • i c?9A4, , o'`.9 1:A April 27, 1998 k<< O 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 Jones & Stokes Associates 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 quarter 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 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 wetland verification was based on the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 2820 Northup Way.Suite 100•Bellevue.WA 9 8004-1 4 1 9•Fax 425/822-1079•425/822-1077 Ms. Sarah Weddle April 27, 1998 Page 2 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. The onsite portion of the wetland is 0.89 acre. The offsite portion is estimated to be approximately 1.5 acres for a total of approximately 2.5 acres. 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 to water depth. During high flow events, this wetland is expected to drain into Springbrook Creek. This wetland meets the criteria for a Category 3 Wetland because most of the boundaries of the wetland have been historically filled. 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 0.86 acre wetland contains open water areas and is vegetated by 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 27, 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.). In addition to the recent alterations listed above, historical changes to the wetland include placement of fill adjacent to the remaining wetland and disturbance of the plant community, which is now dominated by non-native, early-successional species. Wetland F, therefore, meets the criteria for a Category 3 Wetland, as defined in the City of Renton Wetland Management code, because the wetland has been altered by human related activities including modifications to the outlet, the presence of fill, and alterations to the vegetation. 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. Category 3 wetlands require 25-foot buffers. Please call if you have additional questions. Sincerely, 9S4ah Cassatt Aquatic Ecologist :lr WLI9/SPEIKER 0428/98nnk APR.29.1998 9:51AM LANCE MUELLER NO.401 P. 1/2 LANCE MUELLER & ASSOCIATES •, , FAX COVER SI ILL I Immim/\/\^ Hard Copy To Follow 7 A RCHITEC T S • A I A 130 Lakeside Suite 250 Seattle, WA. 98122 206) 325-2553 Fax (206) 328-0564 To: Pe-ler Frutu: _ jev art.v At: ._C __D 2.4A,ACH.n. Pages Including Cover Sheet: 2 Fax Number: +4.5 Date: 4 . .... e) Subject 6_0 LtikliNA.Cir 414.L.C. Pr km. Comments: 14e re- a ie. +Ike. A.kr cks ref) yes e_ct 1,-114-kie% ourUFdk propte-4‘.1 1".4 6ot rooN. ka 1/4.1 A i 1-Li— e.L4 5 4 to v L4t, 0,40.1 ip+10.4...,0- toet.,(40,e f31 41.6-<. A- 1' M.C. If any of these pages are not legible,or if you did not receive all the lisux1 pages,please call us at(206)325-2553 ,i1=lire•••••'. 1 ..„.....- .------ • ',' 1 • : • ' I „,.._.•.,,.__ . •, ; ; . ,I../ \ ks ...__.. 'IL:.L."."7'.:-:::::. ,7; --- .7••••2i---7-- .:7- -7...---"....-_%<::::- - -••-••••71( .--- . . • 1 •-hr , ._..,,, ,,,,,. ,_, i••!, 1!)•" I; 1:!I : "7:4 -JAL-- ili:: ;--• •••• '' -. ..........::: ,.:•7. .,....... ., 1,,s;i. .1 i 1 1,1!1 1-471:4 I f r-- ..4., :- -:- ..:.* \ ......_ . 1 i-•Id;:I..bi.I 0 Ili.I,!ep.4.,..1.10.1.!. ..r 1. .2.*: ....1-a.. A!.....-.' •.i , ii..• .., \ t .......- •• • -:11 1 . • la., • : : ,r.,,: „.;!! 1,,itt•!,!!1",:.i, i!1 1 in.-,,,.-f" -.. . '---., • *,\'N . I, i 1 • : . 0 • k . 1 1 . I,.r-'• N. " .- . ,. Ni.:•4. 1, • /. I •••• ,/ II ' ,. .-' . H.;.in n.iiii.ii„!!!IIIII:;; , niv, : , , , 1 1 ii• ;;:; 'i.;::!;F',FU U;A.i 1-1 011-1.1.11 ,-;-1 9 . - .. ,! ... „....,,„ i, , 1 . \ ,... -* i 1 I 1 .T. • . :,';;!'.1,...:.3,;.,,. _..i .1 iiii, _. .. ,,,,,, iv, ... 4,... 0. , • I ' • • if • : , N' , -, "• \ --m.. , ..4 . ..• t . 1 1 1 i 1 I,, 11 1, i, I.r i. • i $11 im ---- -- it ,_ . .:: •is ..... ' 1 ;'1.0 .... - i . .. • " ! 1 a" - 11.•,. '. L ::...:-7.-': - - -'-----•--Jr ': '.1., '.:17.; r.'"' Ilk 7".\\ it U• I , ::•!••••• ./..\\f-i ' \if. : !!.!!i,.i,r ;•11.1; r, 1 ;..4;; , ; *. A•,-,; 1,0":, ' 0,,•,N, ‘,., .. • • t :•b.,u '.4.•-.1 iii+trifel t-1.131.14141-NU iti v ot :;,, 1 1 ' c " I A :, ' .0 •,N ,A l''', t,11:,: itt !: '''''i! g . ,,41; •••'- ,.•,, , \1 : ,- ' :•I • el ''' ,• a ' ....... , :** `2b 1 t\ 1/4,1, X i., ' ' I • .. •, : , t!!t.!::"1", ;,•, ..,-,..-,--,.• ,..---... '4:.„ 44 WI -.• 1101,1i -L I 11 * ;: . i' 4410Z-irdi., i//- - • 4 • N\‘ ‘, -\of ° ' 1' I t . , ': i • . ,,,, -,s4j,_ . ..-...- , i \s_41.._:,' :I' .1'•:,..;,419 , et••••61'4..14.or,a, Lvs" i 1 . 1 ,,, t •_........,,,e',„ 1 . .1. 1 • `•• i - 1 1 •- f- I •••• I 1 -4411 ..a 1 a 1 , L 1 , 1 1 1 1 0 ,,,.. i , i„,.....,...2,- ;,: ;,„ 1„,...11•, ,, _.,1,„, ;;„,!,, 4,' .,s,, .. ' .4 • , )41 i Lir • '''...,"4 a ', ' • ' . .1 " ....; / . ., •-• 1 • II 1; ••-•• . - • i A Ili. oer 4 Lew • r -ki ' . : 1:ii, i .. „•.,E,,il!' I • 4 4 1..,A ...-". .' oF 4.• 41 -•• -,i;frit ill2...16 .-0> 11'. ..:1 i 4' -'' r3' ft:: : • t . 1 . :i •e•-:.!.„n,.,,..,1, 4 ;Is!, . ,i... el• , li -<..-,-1 -=..\; ' , , ),.. Z ,!-..- n •. •1:1 1' r l"r ti : il.;1:!I i pi L.. ' . _A ,aw -. ,; . t...pen.•1 A . ,,/ J. ,.... ."• : 4. • 0 . 'ii 1 CD a i>1 .. J,. ' 1 ".li --?-3:4 C3 ts.I :IWAM•- : jar k,fit.'554 lit i. -. , •'.•!!i 0 i -1 i .(--N - - • - I 31 • - •-wr ---•• .i'it I:::,I• ig , •••••,L.,- " ...''''•••• U ! 7 , -.) • II ' - 1 .-.• -•" t • i; r7,., • e ' ----e , - fP' ' • fit I eik%, •4.''' 1 • K j!! ..! n. • .• , ,, 111.0 I 1- I. ., ff i!6.-.. '' -I' •,‘• lodes fit-(4V-44" i Y :• .I r- i !.' • . 1, ' Di,L;., ... ‘,3 ::.: / 1:4 .' ' 1 Qe' ilk' P j • pm .,. 40047, ,,, ..::, „. , . . .. , - L'- 'I ”L•- - I ': l'w .41`iti 4. ''. t n :i.,,,,.;;i. • IfIci P - • , 1 .. .:j :.4 ,, 4,,,...: .. 4.,.. .sum , 1 - • - - ^•-• -- . N ,tr'' . ... ,1 .: 2 11: "CI 1H 11 410 ii :felt!MI'IF Ni i I.LH 1:61;:l.:i:t *" ' .' lowl f : • -• g 1 I I • 4.t.1 . CO ea ea ea aa - - ee ikii •..a,..: att.: &nib. 6.. . _ _ . . , : r milt n .i5 In r.i n ,i i, j , . •. uir,f A.u,, , u L11i;U' : LHIO 0,1,1.:0•1 " I-. .. ' " .. '' kil‘ . .1 i ' 11 "--' s. --ti iltr.IT''"";fl'.e' ''. ! . .3'• • -,,' ' I, , • - 0 i . -• ' - /t -•-•-•Ft..1 -.,•4... _ , : . , ; 1 , 1 I...• 0 , ___ __...-- --, A __7-11-- .3 ,_ ..., k - ., . .., .- . ..• , •• :/ / - - . '-.:4 '''''.r --. " - F W1 -0 \ ' '1 .5'7 'I '4 , • •.•7757^':' 11 ' % T--.'v.11114 1111 It WWI n tin: 1 1 ipl It'i1 ii 1411 ''• 1 , '' ;':. al' --,' . 1 . it mi 1. . ... .. .4.1 : , .. a .-......:=1-1 11 I ---- ----- R--P. ...'........ ) in ... I•1 .,i...11.!1, 111(J ... .................-.- Atr...0...4 601.41'140AT! OPPICIE PARK .... AO... I4v.• 1.1141,AVt.511).I 611i 196lh ST.I, 1'.1•71:14,IIJAN-IINGTON - IhilW,N.us,.- we Afa ash SPE kelt/FAIRSUR6 ,.-. .e- 2/2'd TOV'ON ei31--onw 3DNt1 WUTS:6 8661 .62.Ndd O l m p i c OLYMPIC PIPE LINE COMPANY 2319 LIND AVE.S.W. rCPIPOMPar+v i E LINE P.O.BOX 1800 RENTON,WASHINGTON 98057 /// (425)235-7736 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON APR 2 8 1998 April 24 1998 RECEIVED City of Renton Planning/Building/ Public Works 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE:South Gate Office Park#4 Mr. Rosen Olympic pipeline has Two high pressure pipe lines running East to West on, Southwest 23rd Street. We would like for the developer to be aware of our lines near their project. In the event that they may cross our lines with utilities, we have a requirement as to how close they can come to our lines. If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to call on me at 425-235- 7767. Sincerely, lir- Robert t urnett R.O.W. Supervisor © 15870.9 CITY OF REN:'. N ..IL U.S BANK OF WASHINGTON 19-10/21 AP RENTON BRANCH 1250 PAY $1,000 DOLLARS AND ZERO CENTS DATE 04/24/98 AMOUNT ******1,000.00 VOID AFTER 6 MONTHS To THE ORDER OF LANCE MUELLER & ASSOCIATES G(7`�/ 130 LAKESIDE 3250 v SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK #4 SEATTLE, WA 98122 It. 58 7090 1: L 25000 LO 51: 0 2 L 7 0 5 584 7n' VENDOR NO VENDOR NAME CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT CHECK NO 500318 I LANCE MUELLER & ASSOCIATES 104/24/98 1,000.00 I 0158709 INVOICE AMOUNT INVOICE ( AMOUNT Site Plan Re 1,000.00 CITY OF RENTON • 200 MILL AVE S. • RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 • PHONE(206) 235-2617 • FAX(206) 235-2513 DP3111S 2/93 City of Renton Finance Departn Request for CIa ; or Treasurer's Check Date of Request .4/ /./ //7 1' Date Required Requesting Department Authorized Signature REASON FOR CHECK Deposit Refund Name Amount Finance Receipt No Receipt Date Other Describe Circumstances Requiring Issuance of Check: !: ;ip I t (a tG), ii )CGr t c c f (cC-. Clio r (d vrry PA/A N i0n.(v .511c 1)/4i ; i �v <r,.' /d i i,' shAi ru. c, /r P/ad-i /[ p) CHECK PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS Amount $ / ODD. Charge to Account(s) GQ 1 r z / L, r?Ol--] Payable To Address i-() ta 14C3t Lt: , 'e i 1 C aC[ [' / j!-/ LA A Cf /a a 0 Mail Check to Payee V,Afr <({iC(' i)a k.- Rid"44 0 Return to Dept: Soc Sec or IRS ID No 0 Other: CHECK AUTHORIZATION - Finance Department Use Only Approved Date 0 Claims 0 Treasurer's Check No: CTY006/7/89 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: APRIL 15, 1998 TO: PETER ROSEN FROM: NEIL WATTS A f SUBJECT: TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK- LUA-98-051 We have reviewed the traffic study submitted for the Southgate Office Park, Buildings 3 and 4, and find the assumptions used in the report to be unacceptable. The trip generation calculations are too low, and must be corrected. The analysis of the intersections listed in the report must be recalculated based on the revised trip generation values. The traffic mitigation fee for the project will also be based on the revised trip generation values. There are also several places in the report with blanks for dates and page numbers which need to be filled in for the final report. The error in the trip generation calculations is based on the assumption that the four separate buildings of the Southgate can be analyzed as interrelated buildings instead of four separate buildings. The site design is such that the buildings are isolated, with separate parking areas associated with each building, and separated by an internal roadway system. These buildings cannot be treated as a single, interrelated building complex. The analysis must treat the new buildings separately from each other and the existing office buildings in the area. The traffic report also assumes that these buildings should be analyzed as general office, rather than other potentially applicable land use designations. It could be argued that these buildings be considered a single tenant office building or an office park. We accept at this time the assumption of general office building, and its lower trip generation values. Based on square footage of 62,280 sq.ft for Building #3 and 76,524 sq.ft. for Building #4, the average daily trips for each building for purposes of this traffic study should be 922.5 daily trips for Building #3 and 1080.6 daily trips for Building #4. The values used for peak hours trips should be corrected in a similar manner for purposes of intersection and signal analysis in the report. If there are specific questions on the traffic study, the applicant should contact Clint Morgan at (425-277-6216). cc: Clint Morgan AGREEMENT May 15, 1991 Stonehenge I, II & III Limited partnerships voluntarily agree to the construction of SW 19th St. from Lind Avenue SW to the westerly entrance of Southgate Office Plaza the full width and to provide the 3-three intersection conduit crossings for a future traffic signal, if Southgate office plaza phase I, II & III are not require to participate in the construction cost of the traffic signal at the intersection of Lind Ave. SW/SW 19th, now or in the future. it.A7t -A4414-^ ery Truly Y s, John L. Jackson Executive Vice President / Development Accepted City of Renton .. s CITA JF RENTON 4 1 : Planning/Building/Public Works Department `' Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator Jesse Tanner,Mayor April 14, 1998 Ed Minshull Lance Mueller& Associates 130 Lakeside,Suite 250 Seattle, WA 98122 Subject: Southgate Office Park LUA-98-051, SA-A, ECF Dear Mr. Minshull: Thank you for your recent land use application submittal. Although the application does require site plan approval, it does not trigger a public hearing and will be processed administratively. Therefore, a refund is being issued in the amount of$1,000 (the difference in the amount of the correct fee and the fee you were charged). Attached please find a copy of the refund request form. Refund requests are usually processed within 2-3 weeks. Once the refund check is received, I will forward it immediately. If you have any questions, please call me at (425) 277-6170. Sincerely, 4i Lesley Nishihira Planning Technician 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer City of Renton Finance Department Request for Claims or Treasurer's Check Date of Request !- / /y/�j1 Date Required /.} 5 f} P Requesting Department P/0/17w Authorized Signature / -- uw. ; ecs REASON FOR CHECK Deposit Refund Name Amount Finance Receipt No Receipt Date Other Describe Circumstances Requiring Issuance of Check: p I i C11A11 ahanlcd. friv IflG&Y'YGGf" C. 5boali -drrn rl is__ f-tu gat, PI'm, /App%/2P76-27- 1:J CHECK PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS Amount $ I, 000. 00 Charge to Account(s) aoa.M-5. /.pp. 0017 Payable To tamee, Address /30 tiaLet5idt , -UI fe ;&r-7 S Gu 111 j I, q 01 a-a- 0 Mail Check to Payee (500L-k9 a!c U{frze. Pwvk-Sld9.# ) dReturn to Dept: Le"~ Nrsh')1 Y2 Soc Sec or IRS ID No 0 Other: f'/3/Pw Oev.SYt444GCS CHECK AUTHORIZATION - Finance Department Use Only Approved Date 0 Claims 0 Treasurer's Check No: CTY006/7/89 **************************************************************** City of Renton WA Reprinted: 04/14/98 15:16 Receipt **************************************************************** Receipt Number: R9802223 Amount: -1,000.00 04/14/98 15:16 Payment Method: REFUND Notation: Init: LMN Project #: LUA98-051 Type: LUA Land Use Actions Parcel No: 192305-9095 Location: WEST SIDE OF LIND AV SW BTWN SW 19TH ST & SW 2 Total Fees: 1,509.60 This Payment -1,000.00 Total ALL Pmts: 1,509.60 Balance: .00 **************************************************************** Account Code Description Amount 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval -1,000.00 S S **************************************************************** City of Renton WA Reprinted: 04/02/98 14 : 08 Receipt **************************************************************** Receipt Number: R9801922 Amount: 2 , 509 . 60 04/02/98 14 : 08 Payment Method: CHECK Notation: #26432 MUELLER Init : LMN Project # : LUA98-051 Type: LUA Land Use Actions Total Fees : 2 , 509 . 60 This Payment 2 , 509 . 60 Total ALL Pmts : 2 , 509 . 60 Balance: . 00 **************************************************************** Account Code Description Amount 000 . 345 . 81 . 00 . 0007 Environmental Review 500 . 00 000 . 345 . 81 . 00 . 0017 Site Plan Approval 2 , 000 . 00 000 . 05 . 519 . 90 .42 . 1 Postage 9 . 60 • City or henton Department of Planning/Building/Puorrc Works ENVIROa' MENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Ponce, COMMENTS DUE: APRIL , 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-051,ECF,SA-A DATE CIRCULATED: APRILIIV, 1998 APPLICANT: Spieker Properties PROJECT MANAGER: Peter Rosen PROJECT TI- LE: Southgate Office Park#4 WORK ORDER NO: 78366 LOCATION: :iouth of SW 19th Street; East of Lind Avenue SITE AREA: i320,123 sq.ft. (11.94 acres) BUILDING AREA(gross): 251,000 sq.ft. SUMMARY 0= PROPOSAL: Proposal for a commercial office building located in the Southgate Office Plaza. The proposal is for a three-story building with a 25,508 sq.ft. building footprint and a total of 76,524 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 1,623 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 LighVGlare 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 11. Intl 1� id -vb p Cf c+o B. POLIC`=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 information is needed to properly,a ss this proposal. ei C lr X nr 1�,� 0—it cif— Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 TrespassiwtsAisve.1.0zrot. . 1: USINES Enforcement WATCH Quite often, business owners and managers are faced with crimes that occur on the property after the businesses are closed and the employees have gone home. Some of the crimes that occur are burglary, vandalism, graffiti, trespassing, drug dealing and robbery in the parking lots. There is a way for police and business owners to discourage these types of crimes from taking place on private property, and that is by enforcing the City of Renton's Municipal Trespass Code 6-18-10. In order for police to be able to make an arrest for Trespass, business owners or managers need to purchase signs and display them in conspicuous areas on the property. These signs need to include the following language: 1. Indicate that the subject property is privately owned and; 2. Uninvited presence on the specified property is not permitted during the hours the business is closed, and; 3. Violators will be subject to criminal sanctions pursuant to Renton City Code 6-18-10. MOST IMPORTANTLY-THE SIGNS SHOULD BE CONSPICUOUS FROM ALL POSSIBLE POINTS OF ENTRY TO THE PROPERTY,AND ALSO BE PLACED ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDINGS. This way when a suspect is arrested, he/she will not be able to claim as a defense that he/she did not know he or she was trespassing. EXAMPLES FOR TRESPASS SIGNS: NO TRESPASSING NO TRESPASSING This is private property. Persons without specific No Trespassing after business hours business are not authorized to be on the premises between (insert specific times). Anyone on the the hours of(insert the hours your business is closed). premises after business hours is subject to Violators are subject to arrest and/or citation for criminal arrest and/or citation for Criminal Trespass pursuant to Renton City Code 46-18-10.. Trespass and/or impoundment of vehicle. Per Renton City Code #6-18-10. By enforcing the Trespass Ordinance, business owners and police will be sending a message to criminals that they are not allowed to conduct criminal activity on the property. In making arrests for Trespass, police may be preventing the more serious crimes from taking place. `hY COURTESY OF RENTON POLICE DEPARTMENT • A • CRIME PREVENTION UNIT _,�;. 235 - 2571 City, mton Department of Planning/Building/Pt Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: V\OVKt,c.. ClCktetCDry ,'tCOMMENTS DUE: APRIL , 1998 APPLICATION N6: LUA-98-051,ECF,SA-A 1 DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL'TU, 1998 APPLICANT: Spieker Properties PROJECT MANAGER: Peter Rosen PROJECT TILE: Southgate Office Park#4 WORK ORDER NO: 78366 LOCATION: South of SW 19th Street; East of Lind Avenue 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 proposal is for a three-story building with a 25,508 sq.ft. building footprint and a total of 76,524 sq.ft. There are two existing office buildings on the site and the.3outhgate Office Plaza will be complete with development of four office buildings. Access would be from the existing driveway off _ind Avenue SW. A total of 1,623 parking stalls are provided to serve the entire office development. A. ENVIR')NMENTAL 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 Environmenta Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Reso/.Pres Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS �p� NI n f1 fh CA) 7 S . Irtypi t_ EjDA)5l_/) C. :-RELATED COMMENTS We have rel,iewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional informati n is nee otIy assessThis proposal. i/ � ) 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 DEPkRTMENT: Feuryjs COMMENTS DUE: APRIL , 1998 APPLICATIO"J NO: LUA-98-051,ECF,SA-A DATE CIRCULATED: APRILIIv, 1998 APPLICANT: Spieker Properties PROJECT MANAGER: Peter Rosen PROJECT TITLE: Southgate Office Park#4 WORK ORDER NO: 78366 LOCATION: South of SW 19th Street; East of Lind Avenue SITE AREA: 520,123 sq.ft. (11.94 acres) I BUILDING AREA(gross): 251,000 sq.ft. SU:IMARY CF PROPOSAL: Proposal for a commercial office building located in the Southgate Office Plaza. The proposal is for a three-story building with a 25,508 sq.ft. building footprint and a total of 76,524 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!..ind Avenue SW. A total of 1,623 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 Resouices Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS • C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS • vC, iGx./)l6 t- We have revewed 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 ne ded to properly assess this proposal. c- „&"41:,c7"/ 07?1 - Signature of Director or uthorized Representative Da DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET • REVIEWING DEPARTMENT--TA3ASeisT�,-ham COMMENTS DUE: APRIL , 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-051,ECF,SA-A DATE CIRCULATED: APRILITUI, 1998 CITY ror PENTON APPLICANT: Spieker Properties PROJECT MANAGER: Peter Rosen PROJECT TILE:! Southgate Office Park#4 WORK ORDER NO: 78366 APR 4 1998 LOCATION: South of SW 19th Street; East of Lind Avenue thii rivS•.+ ILO v tat\_ SITE AREA: 520,123 sq.ft. (11.94 acres) I BUILDING AREA(gross): 251,000 sq.ft. SUMMARY OF PFIROPOSAL: Proposal for a commercial office building located in the Southgate Office Plaza. The proposal is for a three-story building with a 25,508 sq.ft. building footprint and a total of 76,524 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 1,623 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 Resou;ces Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet e-e- C, 7 p, U i 'C4 z 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 information is needed to property assess this proposal. c,yL ,' j17 /?YE; Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK 2001 Lind Ave. SW/Bldg. A& B EIS Review Development Services April 20, 1998 TRANSPORTATION: 1. The Transportation mitigation fee for Building#3 is $69,187.50. The Transportation mitigation fee for Building#4 is $81,045.00. 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. 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. 3. Street lighting is required with the roadway improvement. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. See attached sheet for detailed of method used. 98cm075 98CM075.DOC\ JV IJJJ IV-LVVJLVVJJ4 rnun- I-38,3 N.OJ f_350 Mr. Rick Jarvis DRAFT: FOR DISCUSSION ONLY SPEIKER PROPERTIES Marcl 23, 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 . The plan consists of two new building 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 �. Ian as follows: A-v+e,1z( frrcf� If"�rj SR 405 Freeway SR 167 Freeway Grady Way A-1470 Maim Arterial Oaksdale Ave. S.W. eltaf rfcrtatr r Arterial S.W. 43rd St. ri nc,/ 1 Mt"Arterial Lind Ave. S.W. nhosmf --Seem Arterial S.W. 16th St. 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 L4-s-stekiat R067299.Rpt • 1 ��Y O Gn • C/ NTO N • L� in. <.7xr�s n'<•r!.-wn.io»u..,r.::`..wwvewe..srrxYw.-v.M7r..vy+sa:M.wie .w:>•s.!«clw�•yw,,,i,„..r+c+<:ww,Jv �' ' 3;'.c+w �.` . Project Name 5 oit-Ndite 0+icc Pcivit BItir Project Address 5/0 SW It" 5-t ��o Uric✓' A 5 w I l Contact Person Ed Ay:shall 1-ci ce /Utte 11u1 4Assoc • Address Phone Number (206, ) - 325 - 2553 • Permit Number L UA - q $ - 0 5 Project Description t e v coMgilt✓c(c/ u f Ice buI/disc t ( 10 — 3 57`ov1;l •/ totwe et 76 52L Land Use Type: Method of Calculation: Leo.v-ffice (710; ❑ Residential E '1TE Trip Generation Manual ��`l'� a`'Z a detail 0 Traffic Study Lit C7)= 0.76'stk, Inv Non-retail 0 Other Calculation: Lvi (.T) = 0.7653 Lti, ( 76. 521 ) -+ 3- 654 4vev. I) )F5 = ( 080. 6 c/uily .t irS . ( 0080. 6 ) ($75 ) _ 81, 0145. 00 Transportation Mitigation Fee: 0:-. /)011.6' Calculated by: IV Gt,( t(/2/ Date: 1-1/ 5/67`6 Account Number: l05. 5qq. 3180, 70- 00. Date of Payment • Gn • 41 • ::.,a:,r :• ....: , •»" x:j..��j�%•. .t.i,Y!•m-",•!W»N;0'»!w • :..!�' eN•+.!Y�1....*'i�-•V..:'-. .. M1"i1'y .tV X, w '5T l SRO_RATATTT « � -��I l 1 ONgFEE ...rtYa?ivw.a. ? i.w.x .-M•.rs..n...M.wx ,+s.rw.. ,.��„w.,,,�. Project Name S o0 ti i c,a l2. (t i s P t k 81,icJ # 3 Project Address Sic) 51,0 I'i ' 57' 'Yccu L./lid /it? SW / Contact Person Ed Al ru51It.c 11 Laiicc /14rellcr lissoc Address Phone Number (206 ) - 32 5 - 2 555 Permit Number Project Description !Ue w co wi itif Pei 41 ( T 3 ) - („2 r 2 ?0 51-, Land Use Type: Method,,off Calculation: Gc►r off. (AID) ❑ Residential ld' ITE Trip Generation Manual P' 95 ❑ Retail 0 Traffic Study D Non-retail 0 Other l C7\= U.768 Lii 0()-1 Calculation: L►i (T) ( 62,280 + 3. 6.54 A kmvus Peci/y Tr,, = q22 . 5 ota„i/y /V1r5 • ( g2Z. 5 ) ( /75) _ 6q, 1e7, 5a Transportation Mitigation Fee: dig, I g7, oa Calculated by: l Date: 1—S h 5' Account Number: 105. 5QR. 3)30, 70 00. Date of Payment • City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL 8 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPI4RTMENT: G, „taLcl Wc-te -- COMMENTS DUE: APRIL , 1998 APPLICATIO'J NO: LUA-98-051,ECF,SA-A DATE CIRCULATED: APRILI110, 1998 APPLICANT: Spitiker Properties PROJECT MANAGER: Peter Rosen CITY OF RENTON PROJECT TI rLE: Southgate Office Park#4 WORK ORDER NO: 78366 LOCATION: South of SW 19th Street; East of Lind Avenue APR 14 1998 SITE AREA: 520,123 sq.ft. (11.94 acres) I BUILDING AREA(gross): 251,000 scLt7f}� YLLl..,„„i Li 4f I.�cVI`_ SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for a commercial office building located in the Southgate Office Plaza. The proposal is for a three-story building with a 25,508 sq.ft. building footprint and a total of 76,524 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 ._ind Avenue SW. A total of 1,623 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 LightGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ HistoriclCultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS S G -4e f wti.e 44-4 5 4`40 tl u e) CO cH._w7 .f S C. :-RELATED COMMENTS We have re,'iewed 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!i Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 . 4 SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK 2001 Lind Ave. SW/Bldg. A & B EIS Review Development Services April 20, 1998 STORM DRANAGE: 1. The System Development Connection charge is $15,284.05 for Building#3 The System Development Connection charge is $22,152.40 for Building#4. 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. The System Development Connection charge for Bldg. #4 is$23,147.05. 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. 98cm074 98CM074.DOC\ City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 1::0( A. Re4 iew _(-t3 COMMENTS DUE: APRIL , 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-051,ECF,SA-A DATE CIRCULATED: APRILIIV, 1998 APPLICANT: Spieker Properties PROJECT MANAGER: Peter Rosen PROJECT TITLE: Southgate Office Park#4 WORK ORDER NO: 78366 O1rr OF RENTOIN' LOCATION: South of SW 19th Street; East of Lind Avenue SITE AREA: 520,123 sq.ft. (11.94 acres) BUILDING AREA(gross): 251,000 sq.ft.4pp 112, 1994 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for a commercial office building located in the Southgate Office Plaza. The proposal is for a three-story building with a 25,508 sq.ft. building footprint and a total of 76,524 sq.ft. There are two e460919 �b ' pn the site and the Southgate Office Plaza will be complete with development of four office buildings. Access wou driveway off Lind Avenue SW. A total of 1,623 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 Probai;!e Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Wa or L Light/Glare Plants Recreation LancYShoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS ._1 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 additionai information is needed to properly assess this proposal. &-; -1 Signature of Director or Authorized Representaa e Date DEVAPP.DCC Rev,10/93 SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK 2001 Lind Ave. SW/Bldg. A&B EIS Review Development Services April 22, 1998 WATE : 1. e System Development Connection charge for water is$33,533.54. 2. I onstruction plans are to be per City of Renton Drafting Standards. 3. equire fire flow per Fire Prevention is 3,000 gpm. A loop water system is required with 3 are hydrants available to each building. 4. t:uildings over 30-feet in height will require a backflow prevention device. 5. Irrigation meter location and size to be show on the water plan. 98cmO74W 98CM74W.DOC\ PROPERTY SERVICES FEE REVIE' t 98 -0/? & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET 0 PLAN REVIEW ROUTING SLIP 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET 0 OTHER APPLICANT:_ 5,,0iEKF4e Thape-eve-S RECEIVED FROM (. 7 Y%�j JOB ADDRESS: S., CF S t~/ l q a, f n,. L ,,,,,,c ,¢ - S� WOy (date) NATURE OF WORK: 501_/77,,‘,4 C^/FFI E- ARie Tc.,pr '`I. GREEN# ❑ SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND CONNECTION FEES APPLIED NEED MORE INFORMATION: 0 LEGAL DESCRIPTIOi` ❑ SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND CONNECTION FEES ESTIMATED 0 SQUARE FOOTAGE 0 VICINITY MAP ❑ NOT APPROVED FOR APPLICATION OF FEES 0 FRONT FOOTAGE 0 OTHER ❑ VESTED 0 NOT VESTED ❑ This fee review supersedes and cancels fee review# dated . ❑ PARENT PID#(subject to change)_ SUBJECT PROPERTY PII)# /9 2.3 0.5" - 90 9 s 0 King Co.Tax Acct#(new) It is the intent of this development fee analysis to put the developer/owner on notice,that the fees quoted below may be applicable to the subject site upon development of the property. All quoted fees are potential charges that may be due and payable at the time the construction permit is issued to install the on-site and off-site improvements(i.e.underground utilities,street improvements,etc.) Triggering mechanisms for the SDC fees will be based on current City ordinances and determined by the applicable Utility Section. Please note tha these fees are subject to change without notice. Final fees will be based on rates in effect at time of Building Permit/Construction Permit application. The following uotecd fees do NOT include inspection fees,side sewer permits,r/w permit fees or the cost of water meters. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PARCEL METHOD OF ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS NO. NO. ASSESSMENT UNITS OR FEE Latecomer Agreement(pvt) WATER Latecomer Agreement(pvt)WASTEWATER Latecomer,Agreement(pvt)OTHER Special Assessment District/WATER —O Special Assessment District/WASTEWATER Joint Use Agreement(METRO) Local Imps ivement District * Traffic Benefit Zones $75.00 PER TRIP,CALCULATED BY TRANSPORTATION FUTURE OBLIGATIONS SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE-WATER /t OF UNITS/ SDC FEE 0 Pd Prey.. 0 Partially Pd (Ltd Exemption) ® Never Pd SQ. FTG. Single family residential$850/unit x Mobile home dwelling unit$680/unit in park Apartment, Condo$510/unit not in CD or COR zones x Commercial/Industrial, $0.113/sq. ft. of property (not less than$850.00)x 294, 7S-7 ,q' "3'3 S 3 3,5Y Boeing,by Special Agreement/Footprint of Bldg plus 15 ft perimeter(2,soo GPM thr&,oid) SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE-WASTEWATER 0 Pd Prey. 0 Partially Pd (Ltd Exemption) l4 Never Pd Single fam ily residential dwelling unit$585/unit x Mobile horne dwelling unit$468/unit x Apartment., Condo$350/unit not in CD or COR zones x Commercial/Industrial, $0.078/sg. ft. of property (not less than$585 00) x 2 q 6 7 S 7 lr 2 3 /`I7 D REDEVELOPMENT CREDIT: (New- Old How)/New Flow X Above Fees SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE-SURFACEWATER ❑ Pd Prey. 0 Partially Pd (Ltd Exemption) GI Never Pd Single family residential and mobile home dwelling unit$385/unit x All other properties$0.129/sq ft of new impervious area of property x (not less than $385.00) / 7l , 72y g- -Z/ /rZ• `/A9 .-_./' /�� ,c're _52) • PRELIMINARY TOTAL $ 7', g3 Z • Fq _ „, Signature of Reviewing Auth ty DATE op *If subject property is within an LID, it is developers responsibility to check with the Finance Dept. for paid/un-paid status. O **The squar<. footage figures used are taken from the King County Assessor's map and arc approximate only. cltemptate/fccarp/tgb EFFECTIVE July 16, 1995/Ord. Nos. 4506,4507,4508,4525,and 4526 S ft PROPERTY SERVICES FEE REVIEV 98 --cr2-O JJ DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET 0 PLAN REVIEW ROUTING SLIP • 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET 0 APPLICANT: SP/E c g ,QoPeg7'7 85 OTHER FROM i:t.7" JOB ADDRESS: ,S. of SL.J /g. 4. kv OF /�� .4ri�' St-J WO# (date) NATURE OF WORK: So u rF-f-GA1 re- c e- P..s-re le ,eLDG 3 GREEN# tlli SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AM)CONNECTION FEES APPLIED NEED MORE INFORMATION: 0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION ❑ SPECLa►L ASSESSMENTS AND CONNECTION FEES ESTIMATED ❑ SQUARE FOOTAGE 0 VICINITY MAP ❑ NOT APPROVED FOR APPLICATION OF FEES ❑ FRONT FOOTAGE 0 OTHER ❑ VESTED 0 NOT VESTED ❑ This fee review supersedes and cancels fee review# dated , 0 PARENT PID#(subject to change)_ SUBJECT PROPERTY PID# /cJ L 3 OS--q0 Q T 0 King Co.Tax Acct#(new) It is the intent of this development fee analysis to put the developer/owner on notice,that the fees quoted below may be applicable to the subject site upon development of the property. All quoted fees are potential charges that may be due and payable at the time the construction permit is issued to install the on-site and off-site improvements(i.e.underground utilities,street improvements,etc.) Triggering mechanisms for the SDC fees will be based on current City ordinances and determined by the applicable Utility Section. Please note that these fees are subject to change without notice. Final fees will be based on rates in effect at time of Building Permit/Construction Permit application. The following q toted fees do NOT include inspection fees,side sewer permits,r/w permit fees or the cost of water meters. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PARCEL METHOD OF ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS NO. NO. ASSESSMENT UNITS OR FEE Latecomer A.:reement •vt) WATER IMINEW Latecomer A:reement •vt WASTEWATER - Latecomer Agreement •vt)OTHER - Special Assessment District/WATER W. Special Assessment District/WASTEWATER ---0 __ Joint Use Agreement TRO Local Improvement District * Traffic Ben&it Zones $75.00 PER TRIP CALCULATED BY TRANSPORTATION FUTURE OI ILIGATIONS SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE-WATER I OF UNITS/ SDC FEE ' 0 Pd Prey. ❑ Partially Pd (Ltd Exemption) H9 Never Pd SQ. FTG. Single family residential$850/unit x Mobile home dwelling unit$680/unit in park Apartment. Condo$510/unit not in CD or COR zones x ` Commercial/Industrial, $0.113/sq. ft. of property (not less than S850.00)x .22t/ 9OS $ 2.S IV/Y, 2-7 l Boeing,by Spixial Agreement/Footprint of Bldg plus 15 ft perimeter R,soo cent threshold) SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE-WASTEWATER 0 Pd Prey. 0 Partially Pd (Ltd Exemption) IR Never Pd Single family residential dwelling unit$585/unit x Mobile home dwelling unit$468/unit x Apartment., Condo $350/unit not in CD or COR zones x Commercial/Industrial, $0.078/sq. ft. of property (not less than$585.00)x 225f 90,E /7, S tf2, Sii REDEVELOPMENT CREDIT: ew-Old Flow)/New Flow X Above Fees SYSTEM DEVE OPMENT CHARGE-SURFACEWATER ❑ Pd Prey. Partially Pd (Ltd Exemption) IM Never Pd Single family residential and mobile home dwelling'unit $385/unit x All other properties$0.129/sq ft of new impervious area of property x �/ (not less ti 385.00) // Lie 8 I $ 5-7 et V I' ®s , /(91, y/��8 PRELIMINARY TOTAL $ SR, 2'/O, 7/ - Signature of Reviewing AuthoWev-i----E DATE `< *If subject property is within an LID, it is developers responsibility to check with the Finance Dept. for paid/un-paid status. **The square foota a figures used arc taken from the King County Assessor's map and are approximate only. c:/tcmpletdfccapritgb EFFECTIVE July 16, 1995/Ord. Nos. 4506, 4507,4508, 4525, and 4526 S N iENTON FIRE DEPT cif*pp \/N lfnl pIlRFAIJ City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REIVIAllitgEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: -F r pr M-ir COMMENTS DUE: APRIL , 1998 ji APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-051,ECF,SA-A DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL40, 1998 APPLICANT: Soieker Properties PROJECT MANAGER: Peter Rosen PROJECT TITLE: Southgate Office Park#4 WORK ORDER NO: 78366 LOCATION: Scuth of SW 19th Street; East of Lind Avenue 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 proposal is for a three-story building with a 25,508 sq.ft. building footprint and a total of 76,524 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 1,623 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 ,( rtV D /'la_ (0 J—m c 5 rV 1tt B. POLICY RELATED COMMENTS 4)4 C. CODE-PELATED COMMENTS Galltdel fil 017 - 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 add fiional information's neede. l property assess this proposal. '6 /9 ( Signatu of Director or Authorized Represe ative Date DEVAPP DOC Rev.10/93 1D: Y O CITY OF RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU TO MEMORANDUM DAT : April 16, 1998 T O: Peter Rosen, Planner F ROM: Jim Gray, Assistant Fire Marshal !il hV SUBJECT: Southgate Office Bldg. 4, SW 19th and Lind Av. SW Fire epartment Comments: 1. T e preliminary Fire flow is 3000 GPM which requires one fire hydrant with n 150 feet of the building and two additional hydrants within 300 feet f the each building. 2. S parate plans and permits are required for Sprinkler and fire alarm syst ms installation. 3. P ovide 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$39,792.48 is required based on $.52 a square foot f building area. Plea e 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 DEPARTMENT: lif-kkV'ppVT COMMENTS DUE: APRIL , 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-051,ECF,SA-A DATE CIRCULATED: APRILITU, 1998 APPLICANT: SDieker Properties PROJECT MANAGER: Peter Rosen PROJECT TITLE: Southgate Office Park#4 WORK ORDER NO: 78366 LOCATION: Scuth of SW 19th Street; East of Lind Avenue SITE AREA: 520,123 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 proposal is for a three-story building with a 25,508 sq.ft. building footprint and a total of 76,524 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 1,623 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 Nth B. POLICYREL.ATED 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 addi' al information i eded to properly assess this proposal. c Gttia lil i Signature of ect�Authorized Representative Date t DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 s =-=t ===_== - JI ��I 1�'=J(• —_-__=__={__ , " TVl .r �'//��..�� n -1...: vie \, :.::::-..:::::-. • .--\...7 --.. .:"*"..-.?,,,,if __-:::::::_:::::::-::E:ESE:::::::.:::::::::-:::::::_:,s ,I i ; etii j 1 1 , 4., tli �'./{,C/yFQ�y�� ___ _�____ A =iYJ\�I-AYAY __-_---_j � Ji ' r. -_� (/ $ : , .,, x ZAtit t :-:::::::::-:-:::-----1-71.-:::-:-:--- -:::::::::::::::::::::::-:-:-H-H-:-.:-H-7.-:-::::::::::-::::::::::-:-:-H-H-:-.7-y - . _.iliIMIiMI, _4." Viallamob! .-_,:K.f:-_-..f __::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::-_7,-,-.-....,-:-:-,...:-:_:_:,,,___:_:_:_:_:___„...„..,_,_,_:_,_,_=_:_:„„. Ni--,_. -. - :_sw..ft 1 Ilipt'--\_____, -::::::---::-::-::::::-::-::::::::::::::::::::::::E:-.7:3:-::::.:E:E:E:E::::::::::::::::::::E:::::::::::7-:-::-:::-:-:-:-:-:::::.::::::_:_:7\ 1 • lini= 'C. ----:-:-:::-:-:-:-:::-:-:::::-::::::_:-.:÷:„. -..::E±Kg:::::1E±Sit ::::::::::::::.:-::E::: ;tit (7,2-• 1 ''.& -::‘A:-:_:--:::--:::::-:--:::;.-:::-7:::-::-.:E:-::.:-::EE:::E:_:-:-E:-..:-EE:_EE-:::::-':-3:_:::_::::_:_EE::_:_:_:_:_:_;__::_:_:_:_EE:..._::_::.::::;:_::_::_::_::_:::_::_F:::::;_EF:::._:_::_f-K:E::::::.:R_ ., I i I NO 14 ).N':-:ZEkEIEEE:::If::E3i]:::::::::::-ER-Z%::::1_:=LIEE_E--•:::::::::0::::::::..i:-.1:::::_illE:1 i.:_E_E_:_::::.:.-ffEE-::C:::::::. 1.-.1::::-71::::::A .1 ._. .Rt..:ir li . ,i1.. .,. . .,,. \ \ 1 y". ......el.*1 1,.,.., 111 11 r 4 1111111 , ,viihn--/1---::::::•::;:1::-.1:::::::-.4.6::":::::::::::::::::::::::::::A:::EEE:: 2::::::::::-: • _ i _I i„ 11 ._a ir r r 1 ill Q. L r)mil -h \ arillel4'C.I No--::.::t:37:63-.... ---:_j;C::::::1]E..?...:..:6 5E::--:-"K 17-1.:E:-.EE:-3.:EE::::EEEEEE.:22...:::::.:::-::::-_-:::::::_4 . wIEN I ri r i 1' IR 1.I!II F 14.'31110 . 8 i -iink) 1 .K-3- _ 7,_:mn....in.,r__.-::-_E.=_e-:-__::::_::_:::_c7o:._::_,_-i%m_-::-:::_:::::::::::::::::::::_:::::::::-.:_:::::_:.:::::_::„f„.:::::_::-:.-::E::_:..:::::::_; ,,., . ...mo.v,,.!I op. ilt;:i .yeeip::04,7_, ; 1:121:i:i. imer.;_,71.. , -, vIk6,,,c'c--- -,\)&.,..,$:." :S:Ef..:E::-_T-::::::::::::::::::::::.::_:::_:::E:_:t:_:_:::_:::__:_::_::::_:.:_::::::-A FilEiLF,._Li ,iii,,r, .... a I.c..,., iiii ir.i.: .. 1,11:11,j11,4a r...,Ogrirl N)d liv....cAiD ledih;-::::::::::::_:_:-_--::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::_::_z_:::::--_-F. 1--\ __� I 1 -Eil("n't A W\ Sly i!,ra '^ Fa11 rga ' \ 67. „iirMi,liA II 211 B IT Or 0. ._. illim Ifil ' ' 'I .1 rk I)Wry,ts im \�d11.Qn , a 1 _•e ls.a. L. nLL i,a ,Tg . i_ ` [ WI1 Be,` .•. a zoki 46.y �� ■-,o • lJ . _ w • \i �'—�r���l� �i a 4. r.e ate' lm ,N-N 7: .... peltif .-_. 4,11 I la: . Ag . ( (_,----,---j------:_i_ .. __16 .c.i �o�� �,I t ®r L..... 4` {It'.® /._. 4 p ff r• M or t 1 .- [ij k•t,N 4 15_045 . a lig-P-1-1 • J , 0.1.NZ,IF Al _ I tudi, -,-; -ib-41.-,-.1 - -- -Tf/„Lita, ,,,-,isi--,- .. arfl. .,9p--...,__ .: ._. . ...mg IL _11 ' 111L-Z471.11_ftel . t. iii'' ' C%L"-j[PRIIII1M/ g ---- ''''-(0 .', i,atii. INII*0 01 111 P-1 j....<4. 5111/111.0 PEI 1 ,_ • _ laribill.H.....1-0... r\ \ , . • 1 "1 . Jr � - / - �'E L moo• • \ ' Xit k. �r%� • ., § ‘,- All (7. co co c• � a_• `fir f, 4, i'' • � =•. ii I, 4 ini- r 0, „,,,, 1 IF 1 .. i 111.- 4 ._ ...._,:i 4 , • .. 4.:—. ...J 1 �. ,y_ , ; �,ca c s w. M a w a 1 a fe s• :,;:‘,..1.::, - I;4\ N. .-• ■ 1 . ■uia RJ .,IL • I i,... I I'n��n, ,4 ,, A T y U l f�.f_, -J_ )IM �.'' �-ilia 1 x {7]J M r • All .j1111111 • I 1, !! a1 �� 1 ,r J _ F ._• III• �:•• , �=M,\MI ! I I L W G r% ; ll �� �a E T. , a }ram • 1 _ °' _ ' City 1.; t.anton Department of Planning/Building/Pi..,,.,, Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET I:_PARTMENT: s. ,'�OF REIVTON REVIEWING D �tnS�Vuc�av� Se-wtL�a COMMENTS DUE: APRIL , 1998 "'-r, APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-051,ECF,SA-A DATE CIRCULATED: APRILI� 1998 APR 1 4 1998 APPLICANT: Spieker Properties PROJECT MANAGER: Peter Rosen PROJECT TITLE: Southgate Office Park#4 WORK ORDER NO: 78366 MLJiLLiiwra Vt vlbtO04 LOCATION: South of SW 19th Street; East of Lind Avenue 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 proposal is for a three-story building with a 25,508 sq.ft. building footprint and a total of 76,524 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 1,623 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 U:a Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Culture! Natural Resource.. Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS V -'Kt((''''Cl - L--) t OK - AP .�,C eS t--I vL as l /)-g ! (7\ 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. //e) �' L-A-- Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 ......................�.i'j::iii::r:i?iJiiii{i:::}::'"•� •:::.:::::.: i " ` '.. '. .. :',,�•l,?j.};+:}'S,'4:`-;{: 'Q:- fi:{{'!r ::::r- •::SvH. ...:: 'S: i':\+.::•.v:•.:f r i :i:i.::.:+': M-:4! ,S .r r :...........................r�•.'.i:•iiiiii:4'•:iii:•.:}:v;::r..::::'}}i}iiiiiiii:.JJi?i''ii :i::jii}:?'ii}:iii?}}y:.\�•m;::```::''fif.•fQ: ,:r !.'•.. ..\\ :rr}1Y .4: .:::.:.:.:::::::::::::v::.v::r:v:..:... r:�:v:::.v:r:.�:::.:..�:{..::::v.::::•.:::,•:::.vv. •,AYI�h�4��f..�. ..: v:!f•:; R ` A ERSIE:- PROJECT NAME: SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK PHASE III APPLICATION NO: LUA • 9g • 6St 51� '� ,lrC 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. GOWE ST. 242304-9129-08 DISTRICT 1 KENT, WA 98032 7. HUNTER DOUGLAS 2 PARK WAY RT 173 242304-9115-04 REAL PROPERTY UPPER SADDLE RIVER, NY 07458 8. CITY OF RENTON 200 MILL AVE. .S. 252304-9001-00 RENTON, WA 98055 9. CITY OF SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT 252304-9037-08 COUNTY 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),- (Continued) NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER Applicant Certification I, 0 , 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 Title Company Records lac King ounty Assessors Records Signed Date 3(\ c1P, '111 (Applicant) / % � 1 C` 1fl �c NOTARY ATTESTED: Su scribed and sworn before me, a Notary Pulalic, in and or\tbe,S to of Washington, residing at ,[A� /.{/(,_ on the (/dday � orn ' , 19 r . /1 �11 2 9, ,1'0,�'1 Signed (�/1,0i-vC Q. .� (Notary Publi ( 1 (1��� w` 4:� < .� 1=or c5 Renton E3�e �• CERTIFICATION OF MAILING I, 30444,'1x. .- ,hereby certify that notices of the proposed application were mailed to {City Employee) each listed property owner on' g • Date _ k NOTARY ITT' T: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington rPsiairg at, _ on the day of 19 listprop.doc REV 07195 MARILYN KAMCHEFF COMMISSION EXPIRES 6/29/99 • �hiNrf t.'� NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DATE: APRIL 14,1998 • A Master Application has been fled 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-88-051,ECF,SA-A/SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK 64 DESCRIPTION: Proposal for a commercial office building located in the Southgate Office Plaza. The proposal is for a three-story building with a 25,508 sq.ft.building footprint and a total of 76,524 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 housing approximately 389,000 sq.ft.of office space. Access would be from the existing driveway off Und Avenue SW.A total of 1,623 parking stalls are provided to serve the entire office development. GENERAL LOCATION: South of SW 19th Street,East of Und Avenue STUDIES REQUIRED/OR AVAILABLE: Wetland Report and Verification Traffic Impact Analysis Geotechnical Engineering Study Stone Drainage Report PUBLIC APPROVALS: Environmental Review(ECF) Site Plan Approval(SA-A) 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 Mev 25,1998. 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)235-2710. 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 DATE OF APPLICATION: APRIL 02,1998 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: APRIL 14,1998 DATE OF NOTICE OF APPUCATION: APRIL 14,1998 • tiffr • 1 asamotocc .J'— t't CERTIFICATION I, IA, hereby certify that 3 copies of the above doe ent were posted by me in 3 conspicuous places on or nearby • the I escnbed property on A-tyY'l \la,la ct�' Signed: 5 cA.kot,t,y, ry\AAA,,nnriA; ATTEST: Subcribed and sworn before me, a Nortary Public, in and for the State of Washington residing in e4L -,-1 , on the o L day of (wit,L /`l t L-01.-f/ MARILYN KAMCHEFF COMMISSION EXPIRES 6/29/99 r . 9 CC C?f* + IR .1. NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DATE: APRIL 14, 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-98-051,ECF,SA-A/SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK#4 DESCRIPTION: Proposal for a commercial office building located in the Southgate Office Plaza. The proposal is for a three-story building with a 25,508 sq.ft. building footprint and a total of 76,524 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 housing approximately 389,000 sq.ft. of office space. Access would be from the existing driveway off Lind Avenue SW. A total of 1,623 parking stalls are provided to serve the entire office development. GENERAL LOCATION: South of SW 19th Street,East of Lind Avenue STUDIES REQUIRED/OR AVAILABLE: Wetland Report and Verification Traffic Impact Analysis Geotechnical Engineering Study Storm Drainage Report . PUBLIC APPROVALS: Environmental Review(ECF) Site Plan Approval(SA-A) i 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 May 25, 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 ' DATE OF APPLICATION: APRIL 02,1998 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: APRIL 14,1998 DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: APRIL 14,1998 e -"ri '''''kf. 16-1 ,/fir i t —r- ��s --tif jya�r \ec r.,,,,,_ N' 5 -._.vim-s ' i2- = ;�. - _� ;E ill) `- •' cb � It;-1,1\\;K : l 1-i` i-_ - - . - • --,_0_1„,,:,-.1.-_,,-. r . _•_.; b 7. 1 7 - i ___________rd ! „ 1 r l'—elff, 1:=7.1 & ir: 11 • . 1 T� 'A li GENMALOT.DOC r . , - <.�- -ri .._. L®_ CIT" OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator April 14, 1998 Mr. Ed Minshull Lance Mueller&Associates 130 Lakeside, Suite 250 Seattle, WA 98122 SUBJECT: Southgate Office Park#4 Project No. LUA-98-051,ECF,SA-A 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 5, 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, 0)Qi6\ Peter Rosen Project Manager cc: Spieker Properties/Owners ACCrTLTR.DOC 200 Mill�Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 1%N Thic nnnnr rnntainc er%recycled material 20%nost consumer . _ .... ... :i::.:ii.:::...•.::ii::::ii:.:i:4ii::........,.•......' ... t .... ... ... ..y,:p;}.4i:;ii>}:i:::::Y•iijjJ i::r':i:i"..�`..:'::: :'..: :::ii:::.. :: , ::: ::;..:: n.:':'::.i:: ::..:::.::.:.::..::.:::: r :.:'. ::i:::.;;•ii:::f<;;:it:;i:::i::is'::::.Sii;v'i'+.::y ::;::.?.":i. '...- _.�IiY DEVELOPMENT;SERVICES DIVISiOY PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT INFORMATION Note if there is more than one'legal owner,please attach an addit onai hatarized Ntaster Applicat�oh fd eacT�owner.. ,.:: :. .., PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: NAME: SPIEKER PROPERTIES SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK BUILDING "4" PROPERTY/PROJECT ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION: ADDRESS: 1150 - 114th Ave. S.E. South of S.W. 19th • East of Lind KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): CITY: Bellevue ZIP: 98005 192305-9095-04 TELEPHONE NUMBER: (425)453-1600 EXISTING LAND USE(S): Vacant APPLICANT (if.other than owner) PROPOSED LAND USES: • NAME: Commerical 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): DEVELOPMENT PLANNIN CO "- • CITY OF RENTON CONTACT 'PERSON SITE AREA (SQ. FT. OR ACREAGE): APR U 19S8 NAME: Ed Minshull 520,123 s.f. (11.94) RECEIVED ttia FCT VALUE: COMPANY (if applicable): `''�0� yi,� LANCE MUELLER & ASSOCIATES `�if6 . ,, ,1/ ,800,000 J . of L ADDRESS: 130 Lakeside, Suite 250 1 `^ ! IS T°ie :.1"E LOCATED IN THE AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA? ,�W$I * fiv CITY: Seattle ZIP: 98122 4'I Kite r • 4 FS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA? TELEPHONE NUMBER: (206)325-2553 Yes - Border as Class III Wetland LEGAL DES;CR ON OF PROPERTY (Attach.sepa i sheet tf neccssar;y) • SEE ATTACHED • • F.APPLt ATI N: :::::;: :....:.'''' YPE 0 C 0 & FEE Check all •application types that'apply City staff will determine fees _ANNEXATION $ SUBDIVISION: _ COMP. PLAN AMENDMENT $ — REZONE $ _ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT $ _ SPECIAL PERMIT $ _ SHORT PLAT $ _TEMPORARY PERMIT $ _TENTATIVE PLAT $ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT $ PRELIMINARY PLAT — $ SITE PLAN APPROVAL $ JCfi'._ _ FINAL PLAT $ _GRADE & FILL PERMIT $ (NO. CU. YDS: ) $ PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: $ VARIANCE_ (FROM SECTION: ) _ PRELIMINARY _WAIVER $ _ FINAL —WETLAND PERMIT $ _ ROUTINE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PERMIT $ MOBILE HOME PARKS: $ _ BINDING SITE PLAN $ SHORELINE REVIEWS: _ SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT $ • _ CONDITIONAL USE $ $ _ VARIANCE _ EXEMPTION $No Charge ;ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW $ U. "— REVISION $ AFFIDAV •IT F OWNERSHIP: I, (Print Name)sE Pi/�'1'S`t</ II ,declare that I am(please check one)_the owner of the property involved in this application,_✓he 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. ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before mS' a Notary Public,in and EC Al<<'1,5 A(,( / for the State of�, av t residing at �y5�,"?,t'�Q - - (Name of Owner/Representative) , on the /.o/8ay of 0.0*-03"144, * . (Signature of-wner/Representative) 44 •.� ��ez L��—, ,. i t t -I.! 4` S gna re of NoVary ublic) ......................................................... ............................................. .may.......... .......:::.:�:'::'.:i:.i :•:?:ii..iL:.::::•. ....:�i:vi.:�..ii::::Y!::•.i::::::.i::::::!^:ii::::;}i'� �i:l:^ii':4:�:.i:iiiiiii:ivii:!.iii:.:..i Z.,..,i•• i:::....i:::.iii, :.... ..... :ii:%.::.i:v::C:..::: :::::::.i.�:::::::"x::.::.::::.i.�:•:.: .. .;:: .}�.:.:..:.ii::...:.::'.i:.:�:..:::::•:•: ': iiv..iiii:^'::i:'4:ii v:^:yy: .: ;i L'•i:•!R!i+;in;i:• ... ':i:*i: Ishii:::vi::i':<..':::i.i:.::::: ii:is::!::i':ii:::ii::mi:'::':::�:.iY.4i:i:•i:! i::!'i:}::i'::•::::i`iiiiii::}ii ::: :ai:i:i -: s:i�:::::.::::.:•:,. :.::ci::i :.;::•a::: : : :::< ^:i.......f, �C�;.i:,ai:::.i: (:;G :;;.i.;.iiih:i:;•iiii::io-:::ii:isi:5'Giiiiiiii:;:.::i:::;iii::isiii.r ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : .:::..:.�:.-. :5'::..i'.: i::'.i:.::;<e:: ?>i`..i:::::i:;`.i:i�' .:... ::i•<;;cggt;:::iii;::;E<i ::i::i:i:ii;:i::::i;>;iii•::;::i;.':i'oii:4i: i se' .: . . .leted:b C Staff IIh s_ ;..-ii:i::::.:i' i: :i::::;::i.i:::;i: _, . , :. - ,- .. :. : : ' • <::;: .: ,. ' .i:::i;:ii.;;:.;:'::.::.i.::::.i:i City File Number l l`� A x ,;:: 4f' CAP S': CAP=U CPA CU A CU H ECF ILA MHP FP.UD FP PP R RVMP IAA 1 HPL A SHPL H SP Slt�f SME TP V-:A i B V H W TOTAL FEES -' ;..i:iiii:. TOTAL POSTAGE PROVIDED $ . iii:::i ii `r ""' MASTERAP.DOC REVISED 8/97 ,� ,.,` 3 s , 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 WASHINGTON. DEVELOPMENT PLANNING • CITY OF RENTON APR 0 2 1998 RECEIVED 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. DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON APR 0 2 1998 RECEIVED Page 3 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON Owner's Extended Policy APR 0 2 1998 Policy No. 866745 RECEIVED 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; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION DESCRIBED UNDER RECORDING NO. 8612161573 ; 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 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 REF'.ECORDING OF (EASEMENT UNDER RECORDING NO. 8808170975; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WAEHINGTON. DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON APR u 2 1998 RECEIVED Page 5 1150 114th Avenue .E. Bellevue,WA 98004 6914 P.O.Box 97022 Bellevue,WA 98009 9722 425 453-1600•FA*: 425 455-4105 SPIEKER April 3, 1998 PROPERTIES Ms. Lesley Nishihira, Planning Technician DEVELOPMENT PLANNING City of Renton r 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. re,A ....._ Richard P. Gervais Vice President DATE: 7/?/fivi STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) On this 3rd day of April, 1998, petzonally appeared before me Richard P. Gervais, to me known to be the Vice President of Spieker Propel✓ties 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. ,fri/tt/iiiitirou 0.) 0 4/ (notary signature) ' Katarina Moudy (name -typed or printed) NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington LANCE MUELLER & ASaJCIATES Lim/\/\/\* DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON A R CHI T EC T S • A I 4 APR 0 2 1998 PROJECT NARRATIVE 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. The 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 the project area contains the office buildings constructed under Phases I and II. The 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 Il 1-hour construction. Building 3, as proposed 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 façade 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 joists 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 interest. 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 • 98122 • (206) 325-2553 • FAX: (206) 328-0554 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. The 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. N K#41/SOUTHGATE.NAR ENERAL CONTRACTORS gag AND ASSOGA TF,./AC. ♦ ': 1I / 3?60-118THAVE.S.E.,SUITE 1000 ` 1,P FO.BOX3767 BELLEVUE,/0 W4 514009 746. 4�46 IAOb SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK "CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION 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. • Flaggers 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. • DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON APR 0 2 1998 RECEIVED Seae!e:206/621-8219 FAX:425/746-3737 CCO-FO-US-NAC15800 TOTAL P.03 y Environmental Checklist A. BACKGROUND DEVELOPMEyzaPN.:. NNING G1TY pFTON1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: AI998 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. I o 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. o you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other roposals 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. ive brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the ize of the project and site. See project narrative. 1 Enviro'mental 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. A'r a. +hat 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. turface 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. f�o 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. tVater 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) Mould waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. I�lo 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 Enviro imental Checklist 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X Deciduous tree: (tAlderJMaple, 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 Envin:mmental 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. I lectricity 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. Lund 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. -Id__one d. Will any existing structures be demolished? No e. What is the current zoning classification of the site i0 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? None 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. 1. 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. QNA b. Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. LNA 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 Envirc:nmental Checklist 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Walking b. 10Vould the proposed project displace any existing recreation uses? If so, describe. done c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: 1 rovide 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 Envirc nmental 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: fee 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 currentl available at the site: (iectricit� natural gas) 6:efuse service) telephone sanitary sewe 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: �C Name Printed: .,5 Date: --/`9:5 SOJTHGATE CHK 10 • I e )h ate' ) l • I ') :! r - - -_ ' , r to s ' I _ mxro -•� � �6 rrl' I` .-. 1. . it+� E l.4r, ..• ' .� . -- �a a !t I I i "_,� /�i �, lFH45E 3) G / ' e (PHASE 4)1 • i/ 4, ' _ ,1 13 \ 1 !3 ." , I *e WILDING d ( I I ,e ! 1 �� a seo raae r 7owe s�T {I 1 . t b.. r•r L- - e I l -\— - 17•TOTAL .... 'r3Teo!F Tor,1,L M\, , „ r ¢�1 \ • i l/ I . :'Li it t11,-.-• ' \ ' \ ...�� ...Gi... .;� I. }� �I I il ' -J., \) t':: _ •ter-. • ;oo >c :1 .. • 4, , . Illiij '' ' . ptYTNS LOT Loa ,. 'RXO�160CA1m LOT Loa IL i • 11 p aovYae•[..0023Y®1.. ''/ F , i. LO I �, 4 I TATISTIG6 --1 /L : : ��' 4 W uern w.toe i IL (( t `n A ll� I 'JI• / 3/0116.4.12,46] ._ armor n Imo • . O gl OL II _ yw yy 11 I .- -_- ,- �� ..__ - — o ' " 9mILn� C3 �� rtin are2,34.2 al g Y 3 l_ ' ' , 3•PFIIMtlIW:NE L .0331 SF r• 1 ' / �3 r. U ease w milers/Om?.nuee ,la OF JS ' I _ u . • ]311#�6\IO YOB 11 .. ],I , oNs WOO Y fM,lea 0. I.l•31 5. I; r. I e....K.. p_ I 1.., .�31f I: .- L i��]aa r 1 P I` air wr 31 ausu er loses er l.v Q y' - :w- Cc' c'{ .. -... F - blD*DCYa34(T5, .) l0. b ' l t I ..- _ - - i ° y.� _ a}}- .__ �, \ ,.r• nano LOT w;aev�. _ �4� 21 la 1 1 I / •� . _ a -_-. t + ?OM. n or, R : --_ 7. fv'i M . yppo (rw. a 1 7 I - p ,/ to MAL [1 1 11 ::_._, - T r :..� \�� i I • r— C Q ra�aia� iKa eraue neaean er a ' _ a �.-~ _ � I 4 .k]uuwGll l]raw[)u n I r. -- -- x _ ..-,�. : _._ ' 1' . iro.io rr.mr. ,»3 er.uersll ' J I 1 1 \ ...._ .. _ ... saraci.:..- (r:r,l - l]o ,uyi • Il s I .• , II F .. --. -ate 3 1::: i:N r'; ,.. ;it S.; I ;- _.._t_'__ -,.- • rcarlale eau..,! ,3l PS h3 r Or/ I- Li-4 I ; ':r i ,: o '' I ) © CO © • BAD.K c� - ::l H' �' _ _ e-a` I • • .[J ... 1 1 \\:e." 3 __ �• �1 "[I- -`._, �pyfyry(. o[ 3RD mY- Y a - +c __ - y - _-(]Man.w -o)].,C a® - .�_.-� .".1 i..- _ -_ ML.10'i' —y _ _ ]IFAR 3 +IG ��Y..• - - • l I _ _- .. .... - -. -., SIDE Pl.A1lk ..� . el i . 7 LINt I AVM; S-W' 3 r_ s jv E" " ;�• '� E Al (;P,R-08-98 WED 10:56 AM FAX NO. P. 02 April 7, 1998 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, RSE). 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 quarter 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. 2h20 Nutthup Wary,finite II)))•liellevu .WA 919X)1-1419•Fax 421/S22-1(179•4)S/82 1I177 APR-08-98 WED 10:56 AM FAX NO. P. 0: • 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 storinwater 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. APR-08-98 WED 10:56 All FAX NO. P. 04 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. Sincerely, jerA.A.A. dte-,La-a-bt v ,ACI) Sarah Cassatt Aquatic Ecologist :lr WLl9lSFL•i]CLR 041,07F9Rmle OPMEN't 'i.ANNING' OF RENTON • APR 0 2 1998 RECEIVED 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 - i wetland hydrology were observed, but positive wetland indicators were present for soils and • • vegetati n, wetland hydrology was assumed to be present. e site was traversed in a north-south direction using parallel transects. In areas where etland vegetation appeared to be dominant, a plot was taken and information regardi g 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 ide tified with orange wire flags inserted into the ground. In areas where sufficient vegetati n is present, the edge was identified with red and white striped plastic flagging. e delineation methodology described above is called the "Routine Onsite Dete nation 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, arrd any other available evidence. However, based on meetings between the property owner, he COE, and project engineers, the COE has stated that the fill occurred prior to the effe tive date of regulation or that former conditions would not be considered, and that the CO would not take jurisdiction regarding the legality of the fill. Given this, the approp 'ate methodology was to assess current, rather than pre-fill (disturbed area method logy) 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 transit n 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 difficul (see attached map). The south side of Wetland F is typical of these regions. Becausof this mosaic, areas mapped as wetland contain small areas of upland and upland areas ay contain small patches of wetland. Where the mosaic was too complex to determine a precise edge, the edge was conservatively located to include possible wetland areas. Site Conditions ',fhe site consists of a nearly level 20-acre parcel of historical wetland that has been filled. ill depths range from 4 to about 8 feet. The fill has undergone extensive grading, result' g in a slightly undulating plain with no dominant drainage pattern. Fill appears to have c me from a number of different sources, with the majority of fill being a dense grayish 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 04002 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 wet ite, ands. roundwater conditions on the site are difficult to assess due to the filling, grading, n of the and co paction. Based on the conditio6 to 8 feettbe ow the surface of the fill swale at the west end of tforsthe ground ater levels are approximately majori of the year. Winter levels are somewhat higher, reaching an elevation of about 16 feet du ' g a major flood event. Lenses of perched groundwater may exist within the fill due to he low permeability of the clay soils and the uneven compaction of the fill. Vegetation itp h the exception of the aforementioned remnant wetland adjacent to the west proper 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 r ten is), bird's foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), English plantain (Plantago lanceol ta), vetch (Vicia sativa), and pineapple weed (Matricaria matricarioides). used 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 eudapc rus), spike rush (Eleocharis palustris), common cattail (Typha latifolia), willow (Salix pp.), and creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens). • The large wetland on the western property boundary is a palustrine scrub was not conductedb system dominated by willow. A detailed vegetative analysis of this area 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 ted as obligate sociations wetlande ,and pineapple such as yellow flag growing with pineapple weed. Yellowg 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 - R I I ,- Ee .E OF WETLAND ARE ►v I •) �/��=r'��� __�-•._ - .ate _ ,'' _ .�---\—�L,,' i .P �(/_{11 tm I1 ;' r' Jam►- �� emu! •_ ‘ ;`, f liir . Nit „d I 1XI I I ;J! : Tb /7 • ` ,—^I .t It(tt I I I _�I ci IF W L ND .F. • 1 It c 1 i isl : ;i: ! .'t 1 , ......,44^s--....:\--.1.1:',R •? () ; . • • : 1 •:1I I ) • 1 TLAND'N' ®_: , 1.t ® WETLAND HM:7,—.6. Tea: 0.151 Ac. as �I• I rem:0.013 Ac. 1 Area: 0.072 �� . .a. - N: " s 1 I I r� I P— . __I --L .r ,�� .:`; 1.' 1VETLAN II 1 r • •L • •e . • I i 7/���1 • . Art e :O 1�rea: I.098 �' i cli ill: i i i i)7 : ! ,. so .ri.. — _I — I — — I f \�� T XWEI'LAND•A' �—tis / 'I:j _ i' — — ��. } I , I I " '� ---- -,,:r_il , : �j i 4rea: 0.087 Ac. �-- 1j is . • -.:,.t_71._. ..".2.- ,-N I 1.,04 • !r, .• I to , : -f • I ,i I�' ' � WE .0_, 5—NA riN�^ 1•i O I: i O O Z . �I - _�r  rr- — - + I ='... 'E iAND'I ��1 \14 �� e T •• II .T1 'q �" .. /� 1 li 11 .. q I - 1 . U I I I\ 4 0.017Ae. If �•y �• • i � I'' I .Y .ofo[ec a :�'rcee�vw l�o.ll'T f I. 1` - I• •• - 1 • l I 1 !� I i. 51:( '{ a 0 I 1:1.1 . 1 ^I E1 AND IF . 1VF LACip C•i1 I! i �F ,I . . II �r_► i \ rcei Q.518 Ac h• ..\.I t • — 1 = ut 4 I � • W�1 D u> n r `_ p I'. I >. • tom: o ISo t 1 1 ,``c ` WETLAND (. '�� _.� +' { � Y I' l r J to �'r`, V4 WETLAND AREA EXHIBIT 'I • — 5OUTH6ATE OFFICE Pt_ATA 'I 0 _ WETLAND PLOT �- AREAS AS-MARKED BY SITE. PLAN �,..+ r.No' ` JONES At STOKES ASSOCIATES, INC. 4V31140 10f03e••W ..D w..st z DCVtcOf....IT SURVEYED JUNE 1, 1990 - - • I Surveying h Mapping by Horton Dennis h Associates. Ir APPLICA-LION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT OMB APPROVAL NO. 0702-0036 (33 CFR 325) Expires 30 June 1989 _ - . -se Department of t to Army permit program is authorized by Section 10 of the River and'Harbor Act of 1899,Section 404 of the can Water Act and Section 103 of the Marine,Protection,Research and Sanctuaries Act. These laws require permits authorizing tivities in or affecting navigable waters of the United States, the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, •.d the transportation of dredged material for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters. Information provided on this form will be ;ed in evaluating the application for a permit. Information in this application is made a matter of public record through issuance of a Jblic notice. Discic sure of the information requested is voluntary;however, the data requested are necessary in order to communicate ith the applicant ar d to evaluate the permit application. If necessary information is not provided, the permit application cannot be -ocessed nor can a permit be issued. re set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be .tached to this appl cation (see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over :e location of the proposed activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned. PLICATION NL'MEE 4 (To be assigned by Corps) 3, NAME, ADDRESS, AND TITLE OF AUTHORIZED AGENT ,ME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT Telephone no.during business Flours Vyzis Company A-c ( (Re.idence) • 3605 — 132nd Avenue S.E. A/c ( (Orrice) Bell::vue, WA 98006-1323 Statement of Authorization: I he•.Oy d..,gnet,and authorize to act In my b.nelf as my laphona no,during business hOurt agent in the processing of this permit application and to furnish, upon r.auest, supplemental Information in support of the application. A/C ( ) N/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 ;:he site. Asphalt parking areas are also included. The history of this site is as descrilfed in a letter dated 20 April 1990 from Jones & Stokes Associates to Mr. Warren Baxter, USCO:'s. 'URPOSE • The purpose of this project is to complete the construction of two office buildings to accommodate I::he 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 ACTIVITY 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 complete? ❑YES CI NO If answer I,"Yei•glue reasons,month end 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 ell approvals or certifications and denials rec•Ived from other federal, interrtate,state or local agencia,for any structures,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• permit or permits to authorize the activities described herein. II certify that I am familiar filiarewrithrt}.Thormation contains this application, and that to the b•rt of my knowledge and b•Iiaf such Information I, true,comp st•, and accurate, authority to undertake the proposed aRlvltle,or I am acting as the 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 e 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 agen of The United St: knowingly and willfully falsifies,conceals,or covers up by any trick,scheme,or device a material fact or makes an false, s i fti ti u_so or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any s . fraudulent statement or entry,shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years,or both. Do not send a permit processing fee with this application. The appropriate fee will be assessed when a permit is issued. 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 Vetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes. Areawas formerly wetland and was cleared and filled with hydric soils. Field Ilt vestigator(s): Denman/MacWhinney Date: 5/29/90 Projec Site: Eastgate County/City:Renton Client: Vyzis Plot #: 2 Plant Community: PEM VEGETATION Domin•nt Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Ele• haris palustris, OBL, herb 2. Alo urus 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 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 thel soil gleyed? no Depth to mottle/gley: Matrii Color: 1OYR 4/1 Mottle Color(s): Textutte A: loam Texture B: Other', hydric soil indicators: Is thel hydric soil criterion met? yes Rationale: color, mottles • ComnMents: 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: Wetlaiid 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 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: 5/29/90 Project/ ite: Eastgate County/City:Renton Client: Vyzis Plot #: 4 Plant Community: PEM VEGETATION Domina,t Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Junc s sp., FAC-OBL, herb 2. Holc s lanatus, FAC, herb 3. Junc i s effusus, FACW, herb 4. • 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 10090 Is the ,ydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationa e: 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: Matrix Color: 2.5Y 4/3 Mottle Color(s): Texture A: loamy sand Texture B: Other ydric soil indicators: Is the ydric soil criterion met? yes Ration le: color, mottles Comm nts: HYDROLOGY Is the rea inundated? yes Depth of water: 2" Is the oil 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: WetlandiC. 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 enhironmental conditions? yes significantly disturbed? Has Veget tion, soils, and/or hydrology been signs y Yes. Area w: formerly wetland and was cleared and filled with hydric soils. Field Inves igator(s): Denman/MacWhinney Date: 5/29/90 ty'Renton Project/Sit:: Eastgate Client: V zis Plot #: 6 Plant Community: PEM VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Alopec s aequalis, OBL, herb 2. Matric• 'a matricarioides, FACU 3. Juncus ffusus, FACW, herb 4. 5. 6. 7. S. 9. 10. Percent or dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 66% Is the hyldrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale; > 50% of dominant species FAC or wetter SOILS Series/Phase hydric soils list? Is the so l a Histosol? no Is the soil mottled? no Is the soil gleyed? no Depth to mottle/gley: MatrixColor: Mottle Color(s): Texture 4: loamy sand Texture B: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes Rational*: 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 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: SY 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" Othei 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 e u vironmental conditions? yes been significantly disturbed? Has Vege ation, soils, and/or hydrology g Yes. Area as formerly wetland and was cleared and filled with hydric soils. Field Inve.tigator(s): Denman/MacWhinney Date: 5/29/90 Project/Si,e: Eastgate County/City:Renton Client: Vyzis Plot #: 8 Plant Community: PEM VEGETATION Dominan Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Holcu• lanatus, FAC, herb 2. Ranun,ulus repens, FACW, herb 3. Vicia .tiva, U, herb 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Percent bf dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 66% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: > 509''0 of dominant species FAC or wetter SOILS Series/Phase hydric soils list? Is the sbil a Histosol? no Is the soil mottled? yesDepth to mottle/gley• 7" Is the soil gleyed? no Matrix color: lOYR 5/1 Mottle Color(s): 10YR 4/4 Texture B: Texture IA: very dense clay loam Other l ydric 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/MacWhinney Date: 5/29/90 Project/Site: Eastgate County/City:Renton Client: 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 Veppl etation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes. Area was formerly wetland and was cleared and filled with hydric soils. Field Ivestigator(s): Denman/MacWhinney Date: 6/5/90 Project/Site: Eastgate County/City:Renton Client: Vyzis Plot #: 10 Plant Community: PEM VEGETATION Domin nt Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Lot s corniculatus, FAC, herb 2. Ru ex crispus, FACW, herb 3. unid ntified grass,assumed upland, herb 4. Poa pratensis, FACU, herb 5. Vic' sativa, U, herb 6. 7. S. 9. 10. Percen of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 40% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? no Rationale: <50% of dominant species FAC or wetter SOILS Series/Phase hydric soils list? Is the I soil a Histosol? no Is the soil mottled? no Is the soil gleyed? no Depth to mottle/gley: 0-14" Matri' Color: 5Y 4/1 Mottle Color(s): Textu a A: dense silty clay Texture B: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes Rationale: color . Comments: HYDROLOGY Is thel area inundated? no Depth of water: n/a Is thel 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 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 Domir ant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. unidentified grass, assumed upland, herb 2. Medicago hespida, not listed, herb 3. Pm pratensis, FACU, herb 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Percen, 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 ,,,oil gleyed? n o Depth to mottle/gley: 0-14" Matrix Color: 5Y 4/1 Mottle Color(s): Texture A: dense silty clay w/ gravel Texture B: Other liydric soil indicators: Is the 1iydric 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 ba ed on lack of wetland vegetation 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. 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 #: 12 Plant Community: PEM VEGETATION Domina t Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Alopeccu us 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 iydrophytic 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 1 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 thel 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? n o 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 Norm:1 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 nvestigator(s): Denman/MacWhinney Date: 5/29/90 Projeit/Site: Eastgate County/City:Renton Client. Vyzis Plot #: 14 Plant Community: PEM VEGETATION Domi i ant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. P : aris 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 th hydropbytic 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 th soil 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 thje 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: Wed4nd I 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. 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? yes Is the soil gleyed? no 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 WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION Normal environmental conditions? yes Has V getation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes. • . 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 Domin.nt Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Vi.ia sativa, U, herb 2. Ph. aris arundinacaea, FACW, herb 3. Ho cus lanatus, FAC, herb 4. C. ium arvense, FACU+, herb 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Percept of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 50% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Ratio tale: 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 thesoil gleyed? no Depth to mottle/gley: Matr Color: 10YR 3/3 Mottle Color(s): Text re A: loamy sand Texture B: Other hydric soil indicators: Is thehydric soil criterion met? no Ratinale: no hydric indicators Comments: 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 • Norma environmental conditions? yes Has V:getation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes. Ar . was formerly wetland and was cleared and filled with hydric soils. Field I vestigator(s): Denman/MacWhinney Date: 6/5/90 Projec Site: Eastgate County/City:Renton Client: Vyzis Plot #: 18 Plant Community: U VEGETATION Domin.nt Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Lot s corniculatus, FAC, herb 2. Aloe- urns aequalis, OBL, herb 3. LoFum perenne, FACU, herb 4. • 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Percen of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 66% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Ration le: >50% of dominant species FAC or wetter SOILS Series/Phase hydric soils list? Is the I soil a Histosol? n o Is the soil mottled? n o Is the soil gleyed? no Depth to mottle/gley: 0-12" MateColor: 5Y 4/1 Mottle Color(s): Textur A: dense silty clay Texture B: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes Ratio ale: 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. S. 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 DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITEATION DETERMINATION Normal environmental conditions? yes been significantly disturbed? Has Vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology g Yes. Area was formerly wetland and was cleared and filled with hydric soils. Field Inves igator(s): Denman/MacWhinney Date: 5/29/90 Project/Site: Eastgate County/City:Renton Client: V zis Plot #: 20 Plant Community: PEM VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Alopec s 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 hy!rophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: 10090 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 sol gleyed? yes Depth to mottle/ ley; 0-14" ' Matrix Color: N4/ Mottle Color(s): Texture A: dense clay Texture B: • Other h dric soil indicators: Is the h dric soil criterion met? yes Rational : gley • Comments: HYDROLOGY Depth of water: n/a Is the area inundated? no Depth to water: >14" Is the Oil saturated? no 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? no Is the soil mottled? no Is the soil gleyed? n o 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'& 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. Area was formerly wetlal I and was cleared and filled with hydric soils. Field vestigator(s): Denman/MacWhinney Date: 5/29/90 Projec Site: Eastgate County/City:Renton Client: Vyzis Plot #: 22 Plant Community: PEM VEGETATION Domi ant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Al pecurus aequalis, OBL, herb 2. T ha latifolia,OBL,herb(common at east end of WL; absent in west end) 3. Tri olium repens, U, 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? 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 Comtents: 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: . Wetlind 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 5. 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 _MAR 26 '98 15:38 TO-2063280554 FROM- T-383 P.02 F-350 DRAFT: FOR DISCUSSION ONLY March 23, 1998 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON Mr. flick Jarvis SPEIKER PROPERTIES APR 02 1998 c/o Mr. Bob Fadien LAN DE MUELLER AND ASSOCIATES RECEIVED 130 i_akeside, Suite 250 SeatU:le, 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 :,;pace 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 Rents:n. We have visited the project site and surrounding street network, and have basecl 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 thi3 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 _ of this report. R067298_Rpt .MAR 26 '98 15:39 TO-2063280554 FROM- T-383 P.03 F-350 Mr. Rick Jarvis DRAFT: FOR DISCUSSION ONLY SPEIKER PROPERTIES Mart 23, 1998 Pag,3 - 2 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION Figure 1 i;; 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 Asscciates dated . The plan consists of two new building providing 138,307 sq. ft. of space, parking and access onto both S.W. 19th St. and Lind Ave. Soutiwest. 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. t 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 Raymonc Ave. S.W. Unclassified Local Access S.W. 19th St. Unclassified Local Access R067228.Rpt MAR 26 '98 15:39 10-2063280554 FROM- 1-383 P.04 F-350 Mr. Rick Jarvis DRAFT: FOR DISCUSSION ONLY SPE:IKER PROPERTIES March 23, 1998 Page - 3 - I,lsit 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 Linc Ave. S.W. corridor. They are 153, 163 and 247. Ped'astrian Facilij Generally, there are sidewalks on both sides of most streets in the study area. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Traflic Volumes Figure 4 ;;hows existing PM peak hour and average daily traffic volumes at perti'ient intersections affected by site-generated traffic. Lev0 of Service Analysis ,J Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic flow, and the perception of these conditions by drivers or passangers. These conditions include factors such as speed, delay, travel time, freec'om to man auver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Levels of servi,.e are give:i 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 dela}s). Generally, LOS A and B are high, LOS C and D are moderate, and LOS E and I'= are low. Table 1 shows calculated levels of service (LOS) for existing conditions at the pertinent street ntersections. The LOS were calculated using the procedures in the Tram,portation Research Board }iighway Capacity Manual - Special Report 209 3rd Editic n 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 MAR 26 '98 15:40 10-2063280554 FROM- T-383 P.05/19 F-350 Mr. Rick Jarvis DRAFT: FOR DISCUSSION ONLY SP'.':EIKER PROPERTIES March 24, 1998 Pace e - 4 - TYPE.'. OF A B C D E F INTERSECTION Signs lized 55.0 >5.0 and >15.0 and >25.0 and >40.0 and >60.0 515.0 525.0 40.0 60.0 Stop Sign 55.0 >5 and >10 and >20 and >30 and >45 Control 10 S 20 s 30 S 45 The intersection LOS is an average for every vehicle entering the intersection. On )ccasion specific movements, such as stop sign controlled left turn movements, exporience significantly worse LOS than other movements at the intersection. When this is the case ether 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 arriv ng 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 traffi volume on Lind Ave. S.W. to account for the fact that the outside traffic lane is not 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 fir 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 nto 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 Repc rt 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 R067299.Rpt MAR 26 98 15:40 10-2063280554 FROM- 1-383 P.06, 19 F-350 Mr. Rick Jarvis DRAFT: FOR DISCUSSION ONLY SPE;IKER PROPERTIES Mar,;h 26, 1998 Page - 5 - reductions on provious 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 dentify any recorded accidents at either the Lind Ave. S.W./19th St. S.W. nor the Lind Ave. S.W./Eoeing access intersections. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROJECT Figure 5 shows projected 2000 PM peak hour and average daily traffic volumes with)ut 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 vicir ity of the situ 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 lanalysis 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, Sixtl•i 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 MAR 26 '98 15:41 10-2063280554 FROM- T-383 P.07/19 F-350 Mr. Rick Jarvis DRAFT: FOR DISCUSSION ONLY SPEIKER PROPI=RTIES March 26, 1998 Page - 6 - generation valuer 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 F gure 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 during the week of to for all the approalt legs o,,: 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 oil Lind Ave. S.W. are assumed to exceed 40 MPH, the posted limit is 35 MPH. Using a higher travel speed results 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, discounting right turn traffic and our LOS analysi:; a traffic signal is not warranted at this time. Warrants number 9 and 11 are R067298.Rpt MAR 26 '98 15:41 10-2063280554 FROM- 1-383 P.08/19 F-350 Mr. Rik Jarvis DRAFT: FOR DISCUSSION ONLY SPEIKER PROPERTIES March 26, 1998 Page • 7 - met if fight turn t'affic is included in the analysis. However, since this right turn traffic incurs very little delay including it in the analysis is not appropriate. TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS The City's Comprehensive Plan establishes a City-wide traffic impact mitigation fee raga of $75.00 per average weekday trip. The fee rate was developed as documented in the City's Transportation Mitigation Fee Support Document, and adopted 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. Tne Comprehensive Plan states that in addition to the fee, there may be site- specifir.; improvements required by the City to mitigate on-site and adjacent facility impact:;. However, on-site and adjacent facility impacts are not defined. Tie 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 incontives, 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 feti that could result from such credits will be determined on a case by case basis during :he development permitting process. SUMM4RY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This report uses existing traffic data collected at the pertinent street intersection and rozi.ds 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. R067298.Rpt MAR 26 '98 15:42 TO-2063280554 FROM- T-383 P.09/19 F-350 Mr. Rick Jarvis DRAFT: FOR DISCUSSION ONLY SPEIKER PROPERTIES March 26, 1998 Page - 8 - Eased on our analysis the Southgate Office Park project should be approved with th9 following traffic mitigation measures: 1. The developer should offer to pay a traffic impact mitigation fee calculated as follows: 075.00 per AWDT) X (1082 AWDT) = $81,150.00. 2. Construct the subject project in accordance with applicable requirement. No other traffic mitigation should be necessary. II you have any questions please call me. Very truly yours, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Mark J. Jacobs, P.E. Senior Transportation Engineer MJJ:e:; R067299.Rpt MAR 26 '98 15:42 10-2063280554 FROM- 1-383 P. 10; 19 F-350 DRAFT: FOR DISCUSSION ONLY TABLE 1 SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY EXISTING PROJECTED PROJECTED II'ITERSECTION 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) R067298.Rpt MAR 26 '98 15:43 10-2063280554 FROM- T-383 P. 11/19 F-350 DRAFT: FOR DISCUSSION ONLY TABLE 2 SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TRIP GENERATION TRIPS TRIPS EXITING DRIVEWAY 7ME PERIOD TRIP EQUATION ENTERING TOTAL Proposed + Existing General Office Building (ITE Land Use 710; 389,507 sq. ft) Average Weekdz.y Ln(T) = 0.768 1,885 1,885 3,770 Ln(x)+ 3.654 (50%) (50%) AM 'eak Hour Ln(T) = 0.797 485 66 551 Ln(x)+ 1.558 (88%) (12%) PM oeak 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) AVE rage 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 MAR 26 '98 15:43 10-2063280554 FROM- 1-383 P.12i19 F-350 DRAFT: FOR DISCUSS/ON ONLY TABLE 3 SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS LIND AVENUE S.W./S.W. 19TH STREET W4RRANT# LOCATION COUNTED VOLUME MINIMUM REQUIRED VOLUME (VEHICLES) (VEHICLES) #1 Minimum Vehicular Volume (based on., eighth highest volume) Lind Ave. S.W. 787 420 S.W. 19th St. 36 140 #2 interruption of Continuous Traffic (each of 8 hrs., eighth highest hr. shown) Lind Ave. S.W. 787 630 S.W. 19th St. 36 75 #9 F our Hour Volumes (each of 4 hrs., fourth highest hr. shown) S.W. 19th St. 84/491 80/602 #11 Peak Hour Volume S.W. 19th St. 117/63' 100/752 Warrant #3, Minimum Pedestrian Volume Warrant not met. Wa rant #4, School Crossing Warrant not met. Warrant #5, Progressive Movement. Warrant not met. Wa-rant #6, Accident Experience This warrant not met. Warrant #7, Sys.:ems Warrant Warrant criteria not met. Warrant #8, Combination of Warrants N/A Warrant #10 Peak Hour Delay Warrant nct met. Note: Side street volumes are left turn volumes only which will be carried in a single lane. Right turn i;raffic excluded 2 Single lane approach R067298.Rpt .MAR 26 '98 15:43 TO-2063280554 FROM- T-383 P.13/19 F-350 ,.I "Reproduced with permisson granted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS®. This mop 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." FIGURE VICINITY MAP SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK 1 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS I MAR 26 '98 15:44 TO-2063280554 FROM- T-383 P.14/19 F-350 I 1 )) J iffNSITE PLAN FIGURE SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK iir [- 2 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS MAR 26 '98 15:44 TO-2063280554 FROM- T-383 P.15/19 F-350 c cn ai ai Q c t J -° N ti not to scale r SW 19th St. 1-- � t' 3L >.1 Project Site 41 ti titt SW 27nd St. LEGEND II Stop Sign Approach Lane & Direction J EXISTING STREET CONDITIONS FIGURE SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS MAR 26 '98 15:44 10-2063280554 FROM- 1-383 P.16/19 F-350 / 1 > 0 Q O � �rS -p J c N 0 not to scale 0 Monday CC 3/16/98 co 5 16:30-17:30 �++ 0 SW 19th St. -- - 50_..i I r 45 Project N Site N N 95-1 N 1 89-� Monday rn 3/16/98 co 16:00-17:00 O O N SW 27nd St. LEGEND X-- PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume & Direction [XXXX] 1997 Average Daily Traffic Volume 1 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES \ ( FIGURE" SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK 4 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS MAR 26 '98 15:45 TO-2063280554 FROM- 1-383 P.17/19 F-350 I U cn > < N > N Q cD -a J N not to scole up (DEN 5 Rr 0 SW 19th St. 53-0- I � I 48" ^�— Project N Site 101 1 f 94—' ION l0 0 in u-) SW 27nd St. if LEGEND X PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume & Direction [XXXX] 1997 Average Daily Traffic Volume PROJECTED 2000 TRAFFIC VOLUMES W/O PROJECT FIGURE SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK 5 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS MAR 26 '98 15:45 TO-2063280554 FROM- T-383 P.18/19 F-350 C o N 34° o ,�l 1rn �1-6,- 0 N N `36a� i A 3 � n. 1 01 `J �9 A O ° rn a' a% Tr q4 �� 8% GC03 Wa o `-62 cL81� (.0 6% A0 0 [65] WWI N0 2--' ...—8 1- ► 27r-\ o O. A [22] � 0) .--3 SW 16th St. N .4‘4 1--•- i.r. 14%i51 1 not to scale co [. ] ; [1 2 v .rili f g,-; r f,, �- h`' Z/1 � SW 19th St. t �-0 T .......... Ni t CC 1% 33-1�-► 1 [11] — 12� MN M N Project2 _ ) 1 Site V � c� t 32-1 ) t � 50 oo � � Ln rn o� SW 27nd St. el PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC o Daily [1082] cr al > PM Peak Q - Enter 27 c Exit 129 4% w [43] ,; SW 41st St. 15% Z 15% [162] [162] SW 43rd St. •.--19 4 4--0- 19--0- &4" o / tFIGURE\ PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUME & DISTRIBUTION if SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK 6 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS . 1 .MAR 26 '98 15:45 TO-2063280554 FROM- T-383 P.19/19 F-350 N > � Q ti > Q � -o c N 0 not to scale M o MN 5 SW 19th St. 84 tr 98 Project (a Site o N �Lo N CO 133 + 144 to o N cD SW 27nd St. LEGEND X—► PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume & Direction PROJECTED 2000 TRAFFIC VOLUMES W/ PROJECT FIGURE SOUTHGATE OFFICE PARK 7 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS DEVELOPMENT PUANIQ CITY OF RENTON APR 0 2 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 ,p 20703 wW . „GISTER�' s!ONA .Er �l3 J� ere5, EXPIRES 12/1/ G{cr I RECEIVED APR 1 1998 LANCE MUELLEN&ASSOC 1 /5 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 along 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 changed 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 into 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 wetland 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 conveys the water northwesterly before being pumped into the Green River. 97373 BUSH,ROED&HITCHINl NC. JOB '—"y2/&l ' CIVIL ENGINEERS&LANL,oURVEYORS SHEET NO 2/ , _ OF reN.• 2009 Minor Avenue East -"'/)? Seattle,WA 98102 .- 9 CALCULATED BY 01 :71?) DATE ? :./......... ..,•""*=. (206)323-4144 FAX(206)323-7135 CHECKED BY DATE BR H 1-800-935-0508 SCALE /1 L.I(*)0 citevoifs y /9. -- 1 --r C45 ..-- ,...k4D rx 9 /kal he eV et&zo r6c) = 6—.0e cf-s . 4,. . ?/d (Pet4) z- 1 -' 74 C5 - 62/00- (Pell ) -7 /fijg .4;s • L____ ,, -, : i /7,,PeeK. 57*, i _4, .. ,757,324,. , , , . . (121-14,1 ) -ive kip :cfis '.--- .431-p Pe*/71/2"e)41 Pot,/d , kila./ A.,e 11--- g 0 1/ ik. Y 4310110 --:-- i 0 9Z7, 6 1-f..2- . , ap x 4054a Y , 0/ r. )Z40 4 10.117. 6 ---e'-' (54901.44:1) ..:-' 41 i 1 , . . . ,.. ........ , 4 ... , , A = er73 Et- s ' cr Lci -0 : . . . i . i 1 ' I E i. N . • . • 4 : e , ..., ........ , 4. ' , .i• r ! • ' • .. ,. - • . , . ....._.......,..-......----,- 1 1 1 PROCKT 2D4 I ISingle WO 1114 OW/04. . BUSH,ROED&HITCHIN( NC. JOB l e'r ' Pkil f e es TD 64/ 7373 • CIVIL ENGINEERS &LAP_ _URVEYORS SHEET NO. - OF 2009 Minor Avenue East 4.k ; ,../Q . ' Seattle,WA 98102 CALCULATED BY `\ DATE /O (206)323-4144 FAX(206)323-7135 CHECKED BY DATE B R H 1-800-935-0508 SCALE .1 Ew.1'1 V C0.1447l ON s g = /Z, /9 41. — Z�d I0 6Wiv�l ei-, /74 ?? ', Z. 9 i1 /he • e DK -Till)_ - 3.9_ _i•I /4v ....... _.....�.. : Lart 6 I voss ...._ Oz._ - 03 1 3¢ ef5 -- el o 5 'i • Die opfl ,�► ��'IU N fd i .r.i ..m.. i''o't--- 41 to, • _ar .. 5,0 / c- io �' l'*f- c r r 6 /o- "7 c. . . • t ......_...r.�__. . .• :.__..__ .__-7 — _ .. ....._.... ___.._ _..... . • { PRODUCT 2041Prole Stoma)$1066. • 3/30/98 Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc page SOUTHGATE OFFICE PLAZA - PHASE III /� JOB. NO. 97373 LEVEL POOL TABLE „BiRi 1ARY MATCH INFLOW -STO- -DIS- <-PEAL-> 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-YR. 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 20, 9 s gees �-- New �a 5/�► Desr h 3/30/98 Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc page SOUTHGATE OFFICE PLAZA - PHASE III JOB. NO. 97373 6/f� 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 18,6?518.60 5.0323 5. g 16.30 0.9085 17.10 1.3878 17.90 2.5167 18.70 5.2986 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 COI J 5 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 16.40 0.9813 17.20 1.4365 18.00 2.8776 18.72 5.3497 3/:.1/98 Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc page BASIN SUMMARY BASEN ID : E02X NAME : 2-YR. EXISTING - TOTAL SBU3 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 TcFeach - Shallow L: 720 . 00 ks : 9 . 00 s : 0 . 0020 PEAK RATE : 1 .65 cfs VOL: 1 . 79 Ac-ft TIME : 530 min BASIN ID: ElOX NAME : 10-YR. EXISTING - TOTAL SBUH 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 Tc.Aeach - Sheet L: 300 . 00 ns : 0 .2400 p2yr: 2 . 00 s : 0 . 0020 Tceach - 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 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/=..1/98 Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc page V15 BASIN SUMMARY BASIN ID : D02X NAME : 2-YR. DEVELOPED STORM SBUE 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 PEAR RATE : 8 . 71 cfs VOL: 2 . 86 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min BASIN ID : D10X NAME : 10-YR. DEVELOPED STORM SBUE 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 PEAK RATE: 13 . 29 cfs VOL: 4 . 39 Ac-ft TIME : 480 min 3/11/98 Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc page /4/5 BASIN SUMMARY BASIN ID: D100X NAME : 100-YR. DEVELOPED STORM SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • 20 . 95 Acres BASEFLOWS : 0 . 00 cfs RAINFALL 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 PEA:{ RATE : 18 . 39 cfs VOL : 6 . 11 Ac-ft TIME : 480 min 3/18/98 Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc page /i OS BASIN SUMMARY BASIN ID: DO1X 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 PEAK RATE: 2 . 10 cfs VOL: 0 . 71 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min 3/18/98 Bush, Roed & Hitdhings, Inc page __ / S 9BASIN SUMMARY BASIN ID: D0 . 5 NAME : 6-MONTH DEVELOPED STORM SBUH 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 , . i3 i5 ' ,,,i,;,,.,,., • ST.ED PEE. SPECITIUTIOHS BERM IIELIM *!4:144 .11•%'..':101-,. • 4:: "t" 2 , . ... iil 4tt14111i1:4!.0144c A.4i.r l;'.''. I I • 1'I 1/". ______J 1 ,....... . Z BOTTOM SLOPE i 0.O0� ,1 a,10 . GRASS LINED SWALE . . .� � �'` TYPICAL CROSS SECTION ;�. �. .. v NO SCALE _�7 s__.J ��1�X -Y!�=i_-- ..,-�:�-�.�.1c=�l,,`�t+',+A-±-, -ti.s tt`St f-'`-.fit•—i^rsss=saz-� I• /61 TOf Of tiORRD TD BE LEVEL GDLV. b61.1S Z'x IZ" PI;E.SSUZE Ti`EDTED 6EADE . • Il — 'ii'''4' bDARD Z - :' b" LAYEK. OF I "-3" 1., 4'-0" bIASNED GL VEL 4"x 4" SUPPORT ?DST G►AIIEL LINE SALE NOTE: 61;ADE WADsuPPDPJ POST sPlcl� TYPICAL C�OSS� SECTION AS tEAIIIRED by SOIL CONDITIONS. ND SCALE' ix eTf a i ni t iti1 I `¢� 10/ SEE SHE b �-fN{1/s % . MEADLJALL Al O150 GE H / (� /500.# Z 10 SEE SWALE ru . LE. 11.15 SEE SILT C- /���►� ON A AVE SW �� —.�- I; E.. MLV �`KRFIDW OD We ter••--- ...� M. _ • P' SEE 9 �G-7 III �— SWirE 2T0 LONG, d ItriDE , 3 ! SIDE SLOPE ;•,: , - • ''`... = S=b005 - - — — I7jWC . S►D.011 4 . _• i . 1. TC•5tt•-- q►' (:)- ......, \e CLII 5• 1.17 . ::: ..� CA1T & STf.�Q1i1i 1 C ' E. tIZ � ' ( ‘ Vi) i RDP POND 40 br. tIlI''40 II ,..4 i i , 0 —n . ECM. RIND I AO : N I �—J PONDIK EIE�1. I4.40 pre M E 34,(sOt IF - iiV. I I �M "' I ►— `-telf It E01►(, OVERT LOW F1<DM �► ' 4ETlJWD TD P6N0 SS Ef k� GT,AYEL EDi1DCTh--, = --� /�" AT 5• I'1. 4ss C011Tf,DL 5TE11E a I . AID w I iLL _...i I / 11�1C 14.0 I; 1 ( : . .:.- III /4 , -N„ PHASE IF �, a ) � t ilfre.11 JN, . E 12 1 ), i;ga. tosts loomnimIlis lil /1 i I I 111 ,101 1 . / 1 s. 1 1 ! . 1 1 . fU1 Yrix hl ill E��Q�1141 c 05: «.-. • 121 L.F. • Ife CONC 122 L.F. ,i, 18•CONC `, . - j I L , i 5i O.00Z9• •0 OOM - ^ / LI-. I FLAT -S.0' Iio c1a#4• I L c6*3-r�L P SE I = i �I i i = TDP 11..52, TI7 Ili.82 18 L F.. Id" 1 I \ .t P ter. 13,47 INV. 13. I,T CONC 4.IK I — LL N2.411I \NP (RP. 4 US I I e�� 3" ►t� TT I r , \ \ �:\N\ (1 I Si''�' / I CBiZ•T'(Pf I :e \e M E, 14.47 TOP 17.02--'''iV9/. .) Vei I c___L INV. 12.58 I ' �, dro- . a , f 40 LE- Ib [Mt 0 • M4111 r • .*'.. 0 •0 t'O 0 coo • r. • 5.0.000 ... .A., s s q,‘. • . `k' ,;9 . et? .` • , A. I . 1 J •// \~ ` • qi C r` A.111,•••"......0 • I `° V d. w .4 111, n e. 4 a '^ / SEE SW 19r+ ST. �' _ I PLANS = (!) . i ? I 4 .1 11.30\ u I \ ,,, ,(A-.. r_ 4; ib-TITE IL ' TDP %L,4o J ( • _ • *f a INV. 612.0 V ,) �r p- 7 T h\\( 5- .E-12 s=1 15.01\11. �� o u. a ••..1.:.• I iitet I 191 4.*".4.3/4.4. . • , . '.- I.,rt ' • t 'Eel ., k 4t taTt•• . ;L.- filwrl L• ' N Y-, tii 4,i - \I/" _ 11 )4 a Avki_ • •• 4.. 0 ..74-*....1 'MI I I I I 117 I''''' . .• ,6. 6,,. , • '''. 4 , ... • • - ' '4.1 , -I a "'r i \II L, -. I.• . • Iv, '. .; 'r".• •?'••7.72rr4,7444, 1 'fft- f,' . ,, -T • 1 "' 1D-L- 4 s4 A • .ra.L.14111 .J.,14 .. . •• fill i,, 7 4 ..,, ___I , ,. ..........„,....,,x,. ..(. ...: I.,.. ,/.. 4.. , . ,.,,r,. .,7...-,.• 6101 .• nil R4 . •• ... •,•4 • /Pe lair ,,, , 31), litir71444, .111111'; :,: . 1 I . ,,N... ••••.,,- 4,„ ',1,1 ,, 4.,/, '. .. .1P. 1......z.ei.-:.1W ON I. r.ir•iit.,,,,. ,* •.:‘ 11%4 I \ \ ,",,j,-.• A, •":„ •' 9•412_.„_, NIA: 7:,' •••••-:;•••!. ... TPA,. / . ,,f, ' !pi‘,§1111111111Pri "'"!I] pmIN-6 ..s.,.,, - ''.••,*-7.''' 4.%. -...t.:,,..•"'a:7•1 ` ' 'IV .,. \., ..s,, \16.,, ...... 4.-, •,/ \ .i.,..N.. \ '019,1 1111 1 t i' ,"' .''' , • •41Ve ttf% V I • — )10' -‘ , ' ' •-•, •••••-• 4,,, • ',./ .16,‘ ',, , , .,.•i ,•11 it II , 1 , .111,•,., p': *• ' ''''s s I/•• • •%, ••-44--,4';:,I MI!' i EH --`.Cic,'-'aProli, --. '''''pi'll,-. • ..,:•,.,,..,:"' „-,.-•:,',„, st , lti . , ir ,..t, ,..,• A.,' ..) i ,.... . • s • ,,'.. .__.-_____ • ..,, , ••:7,,,,„/:4, .........,:.- • • lt4/p' L Ir - 111-17. re- ,., vdt• .., 15/.4, Ilt ai' . ; ,g)r., • 1,,,,4, ,..., ,,,i, i•• t.. ' ...,.- -110.: _, .• 4. ..... . ... ._A _ _ _ _ 7 110 V .st,40, 1 e • I PY;\ •• '• •. . . i?..i! • • 1 '• 11111/ I _ _4. •. 4, 2„,,, y . . 1 .,. .' i,,,- •N‘Sit :' ,14,j 1,\ 131, ..u'. l'• '''-•*W..", - • wi . r ',..t .:.ii!. i ,kull't:\ Vlit .112.1/. •):1 ail I. ''''':1;iullt4"Irl,'14:6,01-141N4:-;1:".:: ' , - ' .:,11;,,06,..• • , wo, ,,, ,. • • -., •: ‘4, , ..,A; ..4.. U, " ' '• (,11 IFNI,. .0 - , • . 111_._,,•'' ( L. ilk .. • r, ,. ,,;.-. ...= .5, a 7 1 WIC 7A.IL•t; ss: * ., 'i• - '' . . kit - : ,....=71---.07 ; , , , 1.,..- ' ., '1/1•61.- - - ' ', .....,4';'•• .., " •..., 466‘. ''r . < "..:5 -1• ‘41 f I 31) ‘'N i 4° •tithi •e 4,i, ,THe - .-,..-'_,,,,0=-,01, , ,,,,,,--. , - „; , -4 ,,I. „,,,',..,i ,..,„4„0 .._,:„..,.. 1--- L-,;.-_-4,„-.4,,-,,- _.,,•-_, .., • 10,-,...,0. tr t . .. e i Vift I ,4$ 4 I 14 4' \.. ''''' *i IS -a ..‘,,1/,,4,,-"•5/95r1erlar''''.'...»' '..i....‘::•4Y-C‘!'•rt..114•Ci."`"' • 4•6-:--..,,•1 i 1 4,-, ' .... ''.• •as ra's,- oli,,,y Ng \ r , ,,,.,.•„-ottF.' r ii4lit•41*'-.L.--...4 1 ,,, AlleriVrf.)-- i,'.r,.1,'/ICISI, .• b, 77.--;-- ., 4,-.: 1•45', _ .1/4.tk I.- , '0,.. ..._.._... i..L.i•lb• ..1 , N.' .` „. .0 .\:.7--, , ..,,,,4 , ...loki , v.,'','" ....._;,;.1_,..i .7-___L.___I•-mkt\ , ,. 1` • ..,".• ,• '1‘4.. . • 4, ..... „ ,„ . .A jr '' V& -:\ "Mfic04 ' •• ', ' 11;,, 74. „4,,,.: - - -- -- . •:-.-.-- r•-•,-.77, .,, 'at...r.r.1•wr t, , , •: • .„, : , 'i y ',I, ,\ ,,.,;„„ . .- *,k 1111% .•f„,„•"-I, ''riti lf..",..' ,. N".• i A 11-"' 1r n''.14.".4.4'" Ift ' .., ,r\sv• \ It, 'IC t - 9 , 111, ,\'•16 -48 r ,P•14 •,, , 11,," ,.$&''.`, 1 , ,h4, i..1,„' ' 1 ur 'itif,-,t'• , '...t', Itids. ',\_ V nE, A .‘ 1 ‘.'•A iii 4." 4"-, • 4' . ,(-../4'...4 ;. \ 01. E.09 1-i. Iv.'1'4111. •iiit'llti,1 1 * 4 ' .s'l ' • lily' 41,04„ i ii . 1 ;,....1 $ - A...,) :„ .r.,,,,21•., , ,. , ,......7.-,,,,.. . /- ! ;;;,-- .1',7";;71 \‘, 6, .., • •• , .., ,,,,a „,„,, ,----,1 r • ••• I I I 0 4 1‘ .• 4%.\ -,e',, p. ?.,fR,• •'1,,-'-, tr 4. , '% ..' 11"''' ‘);'?" A',,11! 1 \* ------ '. .ti. . • ,', • ). riii;* " tw 1*IL . "...IN 41::i.;, b( i4('-, mi- '''''•41:\ . ...!' '' ' , ',..''''''''' .i-'',.-le .1' . / --\-.-- -------.... ':',.,.... .,'—:-,(.4,..„.0. ccz,4 -- , ,• ir •1 • 4- ..., 27.0, .5i. .•,'..,: : giot ,1:1;*,,'" ' Fri ''i iti '4'''• . 1.. 0,A /. ':jat:*•14, , .0.14,1, lay_____ . ,, ,44 . ' *: ...,01 . ., .' It .... _ 114,4 . 1,„., f,-fritk,,11: ;.,. , cyr=t-i...,*- ' • - 1 ivt •• . „ • . \ i..,., ,,,,•,,,,L. ,,,,, _ ,_ ......., ,..! IlAri- ':V4 • ' illtle: I , .. , OW '-•••• "' 1 • •• ' --I ---ICI .- , 1 I f,3).." ft, IN i' i 4 ' ''ri, r 1 , 4,;' ---..- • ' ' A ti. , N ) ., g•I , 1 ' -1S1G1 ) - tlikk, 4,- 1 IN I s . "• r 'ritif4:4,' 'it _... ,. ,„. . ; • ./•,40,a‘..r. , ! •• .0 a ,‘'.; ';iflIM r , ' ; . 1 • "I IA (•_,• --ILAV.:-41. f', • • a 6. ut. \ • .- - I..'.• $. , ' l'..4•4 . , .„ , 1 •{L; .., r ,i . 1.;,: :1; , .,:77 s, • C.* • ' — Mil I II n1 • , 17.-;) t‘i. ' •,, • P.O. ',,P..../ ,, v..N,' .-;411 .. • . 1 ., Al, •• • f:Tft.')•••• • ' 7.- . . .$ 1 •,'+:\-$1,1'`, ',•s:--ii -• _-_) •-..4 1111;. ) i;'mil!" ,', '''' ". -;/ ' It 1 ‘,.t 0,,,74., li i 4,-., 1 ..-r 1 .1t,"-^"14.`,' '-: . '41. ••• ' •L ' ' \i, kt ',' q-'4,, • .e4c:, ''.1-4:- I y, : • '.' i • ' •.9., • ' • ' ' .. I • . .\• 1 , t,filf:: „i• j, t ,. .,,,,,r,,,,,,o.• ',..0 ,,,,, ,,,, ,,,,,,,,,..1,, ,,,, ,_,,- , ,• •,Il ••!...."'" . ,. . ,,,,:.„e "". A , 1 ,e1.• ,'., ' t ‘,4.. •/' I ).:1') • t.•. ' ' . '*C'7; ,4'•i4.7''•••.'i,i,,,„,... , , ..,.., ,. , ,, .,,,,,,,,,, .„1, . ,,. 1 a Voi, ." ., •,. z`Ji: , ' it, ' N 1 .1 A '. ''' if *1 ,,P.•r„,..• 4. .4. •,,,,:i l '• 14 ', , 11/404 ,' i ,'''1, !". ,'..• tir. •,.1.-,. ...i ..1 v.v.., •• , ....A. . ..,.• 'I'''''''•"' , 7 • -o, arlk •r: f: , itiP: ._ 1 I •4 t I‘`A...-1-'..:',1 • ,Y1 ' ,:s!' ' ..'. ,, • ; I .. ', It.,•,4'1.,,',„ ;''' i'',--, ' : •'',,:,,, .. 1 , , frnifild 44 .... .' 1 r ••• • "IL "Ti• ' - 1Viii : . • ,. .. ) .,• ' ' ' --, ••••.;• , rtt44,..'''''t • i -.1#.117 ••-. .,,.4, "1 0 ':;,....,.... wt.,....,.' 11" - . • . ;4f*** ' Ii114111r,i17''7:NZ ^ . ,. • ,;: 4.4rt •k*"740.77"--7 ....' ij'e_ n__r•-•:---77.,-,- mIrs. ,.• . ,„,.....,,,,,v,Aii, • , , t• wy,,, 1 fir of ,,.•ta ' It, - It -. ,-v.,/ ',/•,,. t.,----- '.'1,' 1 .lie, *•.••ti. 4 ' • * ''' . • r " , jell ... Ali " ' ' C'"'1>‘"..0 ILI iirs'`,.. *.iilitill:21 f• -La,' 44.kAZ.y.,, z • ? 11 . •._..L, , . 1 , ' / r ‘, P‘i Alit. .' ':•.,•,"". ' ' ' • 1 :ALS 1, '••• .(1. 1.1 '. :I'''.3.% I -.'(-• ' *111A:e-64-1 .4 i - 1.1 E-1111k 1. tl, ..0,-...„ At oip,...,. ,' - ,j, , itiiimir ' , .4,,/.1-;:), 4.,:m 494 , -1-, • 1 1 4, k ....,' ....._ ....:411irtirtrzlirl'*1-I,- . 1111414-iaw.4:'I's::\c..:11: 11-'-,,......(:.11:1,11fre,,‘.'‘r..71,11I:ligeliltirf7iwi.'1:4',:jr.:.",',.::::' I ill i "• •. ' 14K wit.,••it- _., f'l . 01,' ' '. • # 1 ' • • • \ ro-- ., ,s7 • -, 16, ' - litt.,va wi i"i • • I ‘ ',NI:1k '. ) • ,, --- , A44. 4.441 ':: :. , ,,,,, 14...1, . Neiti ii,‘,TA.A,r7f2,3,W 4,1:1•. jb .1.4° •WW.V., ' ' p ,.. , '''',,..._ ,. "4-`,. .p•Ift,'\U. ' , ; ,"; 2 , *".1 .... .• .4.e_,.'• ..:`, '' 0'4 6.-vvrt-I Tirii• A r... '" ' '',/pr• ; ••,11 O. ; ‘..., i'. 4 ./ • ' • i • ,.. ...‘, i ' 4 .114' 4 \ 4 '',........434 44•' i.A. .0,041 k• •iii" , ;.'. , it'; ^ , "; ,"\.\ , ,•1 4 i . .-• • . • .. .. ° r.1.• „ IL - ,-, • • 'ACT "t,\ ' ; '‘,„,i, ..., ' -- . 111111..._.„41 cv,. ' --Wtelpr' • 1 , . -•'' - — - ' 4 ; '' ol h - ,vim z• , - •• ,, , . . r."," " 4•,41,' • v 1 r ,,,,v 0 ,A), ' '.° , .- - - ii0; ',, 1. '''•It•:,"4.. : , 1 4eXt ' V 41 4•""'... % P I r 3 -"qlik.Mil " 1 . P.1 0 :.. .,41., I 'i 5i..•' I . ,At••,• A 2. '' ;-\ . ' Ilk''• • •x .4,),n• • ,11 • ***'''' "'' . 1 ",4. ,., r ,picilei r ,,,,,.kiot' 4) Wahl. _ ' .,,, ' , •:.:7f :. jil.r f • ' :" [NIP? • 44° - ,p,,,a,' ° , 10.,SJ .._ , * ., ..4 i • , ' I ,1 ti t''''''' e': wr", , 1- ' ..t't ',A • ••••, ,• ,40,,. . , . ;14:4' --, •:••••4 114 • 4'1 ?It'll .I" I ';' N . ' 4' . ,•t',,',:, '\ , -4".1:.`. • ',5°, ,, ,,,, ' ,,,. ';,,, iri.4154.• ii; . ri," yi iLs.,-ti 1,.' ','":"•'7,,I."'"''"1 ,.„.Nit''l ' ' , -s . „W ,..' ' , ,'' 11. t, ;7,.' ,P',,) , I L4 t ,w,4.•ik, ' , , . . .,r.,-,,,, ,,,, - , ., ,,, "Ng- r. ,t, 4, ,• '• .. S.,•• .7- ft, ;1 ' ' ' „,... tu., f•••• , t .ei . ,.ft, p.rt 9. vtl. 1 -•-- ,,,, ,. .;,A..i3*, s, ,, „.......•71...' ... ,,,_ . , I , ,, 11 ' •*•••'0,,,, • t.:...).;,*.k4PA,:t/N ' •••4'4, .,:7,1,°&itt,..119,>.:'..._ Lt•,,,-%:,;..1 It.* ,:iii'• "II • -,'‘.- . ''t'. il \ 4 `' I' • ' •- •",'•4••• .•0•'-7- 1‘1./4,... ?II,'.• •,,,'''' .,,•.• '. ' '.'-.'h A7 I .4.,• _ ..y" 1:;:::::'::::: •..e:::,' ILL v , .1 , . •ir -,T. , ,,,,i,.. ,... ...; .• -,,,,v, ,,,,,,... ,,,,k,......s. , .„.. A, ri....,,wk •(' Flit .4 Jr' r - , *11.:•.:::•il:N:Uni L , •- , , K • rr' ii t 1"; , siltr, ,,,, * ,,1 .-•,,o 1,,...,.. e, --•,..-,, . ;.''''', e•I -:-; ',' 1 ' :;1 • . - 1v7''''' .s.1 '1 1: ••, ,•.1 :... . . , . , . 1--•4, . ..4L, , '.., ,•- ni452211!AIR ,k , \ c % :: I:4i; r‘. l'i.'; .4,i..:,• .. ir:WS, 14 ) .1.: '1"..;'"!*144ii.,ILL-t , Z3...134,i.M...rti T.,:.1. :j.01'•:..1.F 1- - '' 7;1971 : r III iti": .^I. rl' .• -4 0.4:- ,., '8B144111.: ,,.. i' . lips:A ,' 0 , ,. ,./..,,E,,,,.• t .f. ' ' , ', ,, : - 14,%,,ei. , NI . • lir, A -. 1 '1 •.' . 0 ,0 w° zo •Vti : ' ;101 t., AN'tork, 'I :', ,‘ ,475.,.„ . , .1, ii, wr.41., • ICrisk\t , Al} I lieN.w.1•: - -- .; f) ,,41.1:A;ittillt" '--1 •,17'0::,19t!ilt; ‘17 ZI• 1 ..1 •. .. 1..--=-- •,..,44 Us kIti - 1' ‘4 -4 144 ,, • ...tiriall- , '' ,--1,tosfkr'''':,.;' 4 Y4 izI''' , "L.'1 ; -, :. , ) -;11: . 4i . . , `',.., ',. ' .',e' ' Earl . tirt I ' ' ' ' 1,::,1 ' 1* - •,'"I - , ..g' . ir rk ..' \,..4! I ••k rAmihr9iiii 1 • Fi ' ' 1 . • , ili' it.:,,,,,,,,,., . z . , ., 4...„„ik iktk ,, ., . • , . , .., ,,• , ,„„,,,,, •,:::,•„„:„ „„„.„.. .,. : ,, ,. ..,,, I,: 1.. • r• - - ..4, , - ,... ,I1R 'I„ wo '' •"; ' -P--4•41 IA. -i :. ii::!..,..:?. i:iiii..::.:. ,, - ', .it 1 T.,-,,,-k-N T..!Lit •-•• a 1,•t' ; 'ia .t,!Ag‘„ m•:. ,, _. • __ ,\;,,,. .„_-..,„.......4 1•,: iiii..i:x .1 ....!.„ - .., 1 ,,,,st 4.‘,..e-•• ..o....wiFtt, iir ...Al.'• .. .-'Ail ‘,..,4,10 •1,ar .4, a.. . I 41.,,Pr' -.43.a. ' '. -j--- T.4 sal, 7- ,,,,...,,-...,„„ -2,*,,„' - • ."-' i- ' 17. , lie li.l,411111, kik frliW4 III No.4', ''' , 1 z.7%.,'" Os , . • ;!::::,iiiiiii;:1 34; '.:;iiii '''-1 ,,,....- •r `Z. I 114.. ' IA! • 1 . ft i - ..,1t4 14.;:-, `ic.'t i.:-; . ) ‘, ,-., -'-:.:;••:•./...' ......:... - •-;:-,4-;.- — --- -'''' "' ''*'/,4*P-.?•:. 1 - -"'.4•J, ' 7, ', • t 'Wen' .;,, ' "v''• , - 'f*. 217; i • ,. ,1:7•7-7 11,' .,/ . ..• •••4 '.1' m•-...*7- _— .... t•-i‘°„11,14 - • . .:.--• ..:L •_1.. ..........' ... k . . ,. R. 141PS4Photifhh,,i • _ ,* , : • •.,..v • - . ' '1.1‘ ;,•* • "I. : • '''11.itIi 1 4 ,,.) \,..,• ,— . , olapepto• 4,4,. -—. TE: p , , -,mi ',c.f.. . ,, ,. 4, <,_,.4 -. .-1- ...,,,,twig , , . .• • ."04,-,..- , .,.., ,. .: . ''''*-74•4.- Ls.A. ' , 1 ,, .. i V. . -. ":'1, 1.'jt Itt-a '• II ' 1141 1 1 P•• . , , , 1,4 4,, •" t.,••,•R, .41.; - . 0 1 1:s'•`..,k, .'' , •1'' •#1.4' ii.4: , ''' 4' :.;-; ' . 5 .r • ' , •4;41r, •\ '' -- • .0'.1 1,0•41rm. i i IF •.' '••• • ...'. , ".•%,'"; . h.,- ,,. • . ‘ ir,_..r.___i..... :' w. , ..,....er... 1 , • , , ii• • .' •Ii 1., ••-,:ile a... .... • imil....... MI ' * • • r •rt 4 r .• rr ' r i Ift - 4..., . , . ,... • =ATM I .,, 114 . 4 AktiN..'? 4 L.-......,' V: 411-i' j .41 Illaki .'' 1 IIM1111 iff 'e, \\'' •• •• I) , 9 vellinlle _40__.2) , f.;,:_VA"-L.,=•4 vr'..„'" #-it,11.,,,j is ri 1 , ' MIA, -EIV) i•i 1 1 0,.,;,1; A t n.:• ''.--1,1-1;',,,. l'A' * '47:441t:di..‘i. • s.•4111-1-1•1.1- '', .. • , . i •414 . .' ••4 is -.... , 1 ,...,,,. ...it . ,„ . , ,,,,,,... 4 , 4 1. I Ot' I !.41,, M,..i,A ' V91 ‘ • • I: "WI i I • ..., .4. ,, .,. ,s, ,, la °4• OM / °4 5 ''' ,, • ii . ' '• 1. • *4;Iv' .- ''• • , • 0, ,tY-- L. •••4!,..ja 'I if 3-: (• L• -'-' 11;,, Ili . ,.:N 1.4191. _.'" .:A ' . • • " • ..............., 1 ..,., W.41:1111111) . ..,.. . i/./ 4, .%• . • _ .... Itii .:11. * -.5 . WIll_. —' ';',."; ".i• ,,.,-1,,, ',' ___ _ s..._. ,,,,ri,.41 , A 4' ' ...,, • ^,, . • t, W' • A / , ' • 1,04 . - ,w \*, IN ' P ile AP. •.'Ow 1 4,t4+"1., ,,y/ 4.4....' *. ,‘Ifil,.. r . , . ,..• . j,I ,•• •isr ' il '•:::,.:. nt,,i , ' tos at's,,, . \' '* v. 'A . - i .....,, , ,,,. • ,,•,. _., 06...vita. . '.1,i, - A• ' • SI * ....q.v.,* i ,4.... ..4.• ' • __ 't' 1 ••rL:1i1k,-.,4)i-It-i,I-a1 J1........:......„:.:o:::..:....:A..:.•.,,'s 704°2P,•",4-„).i-..te.0.0..c,,1'.'.,.‘. ,1, (u?. . Ur ..'.i,'y_,__'',7_/4_4 10•,•i,i,,,&ff.•.'o..e'.'..p...,•iv7l .qi i,.o,-•.,;.,-.4.';.s.'-4.1--•..',1 .....,.....I.I..i 4,Y;.',1,V.•,:'=,:_-i,,-,`1,,,,1,I,-,4 zI 1111 E•1rA-1.,. ,h Ki'z4.•.,s_••1—•,',••-••-i)-°IvI I2 4,,i,iT...dr,' ,4„w1*e,'.1,••i,1 6",,_; t'W A 2_l,*.1l-,4 iik.Ai..tC.r,gnb•'‘e•t.i.t•1','-'•'-.4 1.•... ;''.•••.•s.'..";. • D WW .- 13i , GRAVEL 4 j,••..,'II•. ,-.14M-.'/4-.A'•,,10',r'‘C(,\n3 ,•1.;e.4,P-1~-y;.'7'A`,-•,1"'•1 1r -2",S 4..O.-.:,•.-- .',.•" .A1t..- 1.Irsi-tt.-.4 ta • 7m: . i ..,.. - •‘\ - ' fi aar .wh= ITT-'i•Xt -iA - PREPARED FOR DEVELOPMENTPLI�NNINC CITY OF RENTON VYZIS COMPANY APR 0 2 1998 RECEIVED il4A-en-714 6/741.1." Aaron McMichael Staff Engineer *tts4OCkE se Theodore J. Schep er, P.E. y:'Spy vift ;•o t Project Manager ` A-:ie • / 5 :• �o = :tea •1.1 : Q' • ..... S-14 ss GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY -s'iii"s����� SOUTHGATE OFFICE PLAZA, PHASE II RENTON, WASHINGTON E-4957 July 19, 1990 RECEIVED MAR 1 6 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 • 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 B1 Atterberg Limits Test Data Earth Consultants, Inc. % Earth Consultants Inc. Geotechnical Engineers.Geologists&Environmental Scientists 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 to 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, EA171 CONSULT T S I . heodore Scheppf, P. E. Project Manager AM/TJS [G4957.R01] 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 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY SOUTHGATE OFFICE PLAZA, PHASE II RENTON, WASHINGTON E-4957 INTRODUCTION General This report presents the results of the Southgate Office Plaza, 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 E-4957 Vyzis Company 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. 4R9 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 Vyzis Company E-4957 July 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 E-4957 Vyzis Company July 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 E-4957 Vyzis Company July 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. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Vyzis Company E-4957 July 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. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Vyzis Company E-4957 July 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. • 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. ii -T-. £:n• ;i )� yf I t I Sw Ci, PARK■ ' ~ IN .. i 1 / > 1 r Z I }> b RIDE I 1 O sliz Is. V•r, !y •ti_. 4y I i I SI {I.,+'• V> 1 g 0 It"ST S RENTON VILLAGE PL , St r'PARK::;. I . <> da T t, o< � I ll� B Lw � T < sl I M 1 :;` : 4, 9�(ticr THE" <� ", 1�T" z y � 1 .\ `, r? �N NOR o < �)I`� ri '� 7w y I d rtI< r 1yTit � / .; >' _ 3sT F. \\r / I SW H <: 1. < W 'T " ~ S 16TH ST t- -- — 4 Z W < . t ,. I U 2. 2 N = I mew > in r C 6 MN ST , ` ...1 a g G ¢ • In 1.¢ � 1 V. C; < !RI ww. N t .;1ST H. > o ` onyac�cs 1 d , . •W : : : T - a O W I I -.-........ S 19�H o Si .11.s, T it ; I ;� 0 1 PUCE a 2 I Race II ...I. A. <20TH : 'P0 \ I. Z5:7. SW N T 4 Trac1TE I > :e D "Iv I ;i SW 2343 ST �iZ-_:Int In ST ` N ,, I e b I { RENToN - - L,�" < ,sr„ NTENNIA + N I /r s Z5TH'ST" ; 2eTH t PARK • I R EI�� 1 52eTH T I p — ---- I — �, 4•1 a L L Il s Z IiT SW274,1ST I I v,-)` I'7t `� = I I <SW 29TH ST ( .1.'4 f'• H qP 'A(H N 1 le,I\ t 4 I I w r 'Fs 6'- 30TH <■ (14s) 2 25 Sl I u0I 'sr ^ ST ` 31STy30TH ST _'�CTv ! f IRISI- O1 ISW 31ST (7 1 \1SEN I- rn W 1 I ; ®: < i 1NBEL7 2 $ 33RD I „ Pk > I ST I LL N _ JI Q < I ' 31 14 sTN 1 J47H ST I ® S 112ND ST S1 I I I Y �y -}- O� ——Z— J—— .'.' i- -SE 174—n .� z' - --�� 39TH STW- - o I Q --� Sd 371H 51.S 11<TH ST II IA S .iH S, = 1 i I T LT I 1 O SW a< 39TH ST I j 17� • v1f C ' I 0 i L. L 11+ a 1 I \ ST_—4 �c r c 4, i0R t SW 41ST STj VALLEY S 177TH Sr 1T8tHgt p �P ,P V In MEDICAL > I CENTER S °' T r I 1 )0jR1 IA < I N : ,1•TH S r?I/ i tn- I I zPPN 2 ET iti; SW A3RD ST �P � : 8OTH —. _. ST`Yo S 18157 ST _ ---7 7j1 x 'N < I I a IO I , c �bE\ , SteC' , 1 „.1 IQ' 1 / C diSTH, I 0 R7Reference King County / Map 41 By Thomas Brothers Maps Dated 1990 iVicinity Map rtnittI . Southgate Plazc Phase III��\1�� ` (mtrcfinrnlLngIr L rIO sI &hna•irrnnwntals nIi.t Renton, Wash ington IProj. No. 4957 I Drwn. GLS I Date July '90 Checked DB I Date 7/13/90 I Plate 1 , , . T..._._.__,_ 1 -- r Property Line -- —s I 1 1 i r t_ 1 SB-9 S B-7 ilk B-6 S B-5 B-4 - --J II; B- IO S ,_ Approximate Scale imii 0 75 150 300ft B-8 -( B_I '' LEGEND ) ,-' B-I Approximate Location of ' \\ B-2 — B-II EC Boring, Proj. No. �� L E-4957, July 1990 7 w 1 r- w ��1 i,v- pc B-3 J w Proposed Building CC 11 l-' i _i,.,c C L..) I 1 Existing Building 1 N I 1-------J 1 7 s,B-I2 .2 1 1 cn ---_- 1 ...)) ....___ LI I'IU H V CP LJE S.W. Reference : Proj. No. 90033 j Site Plan ' By Loschky Marquardt a Nesholm Dated 6/18/90 gil Boring L,Dcotion Plan tr Earth Consultants Inc. Southgate Plaza Phase II 113 I% Id) Renton, Gt. Engineers. &f�nlrtwu�x�i�al Si k�ilktti Washington Proj No. 4957 Drwn. GLS Date July '90 Checked DB I Date 7/13/90 I Plate 2 1 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. MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH LETTER TYPICAL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL SYMBOL . °.°ado°-o" GW Well-Graded Gravels, Gravel-Sand Gravel ;e,oa. .et O gw ' °°' Mixtures, Little Or No Fines And Clean Gravels Gravelly (little or no fines) e•. .•. .0 Gp Poorly-Graded Gravels,Gravel- Coirse Soils • ' 0- ' •• '• gp Sand Mixtures, Little Or No Fmes Grained So s More Than I G M Silty Gravels,Gravel-Sand- 50% Coarse Gravels With y�! '�l'� gm Silt Mixtures Fraction Fines(appreciable 1] Retained On amount of fines) GC Clayey Gravels,Gravel-Sand- No 4 Sieve gc Clay Mixtures Sand o c 0°o`°o°, SW Well-Graded Sands., Gravelly And Clean Sand °°°° o .03 .0 SW Sands, Little Or No Fines Sandy (little or no fines) • : 9�:r, More Than :,.••:: SP Poorly-Graded Sands, Gravelly Soils Sp Sands, Little Or No Fines 50% Material •:t�::,:.�� Larger Than More Than { SM _ No.200 Sieve 50% Coarse 1 SM Silty Sands, Sand Silt Mixtures Size Fraction Sands With Fines (appreciable Passing No.4 amount of fines) �a7J SC Sieve SC Clayey Sands, Sand Clay Mixtures ML Inorganic Silts&Very Fine Sands,Rock FIo1.r.Silty- ml Clayey Fine Sands;Clayey Silts w/Slight Plasticity Fire Silts / Liquid Limit ! CL Inorganic Clays Of Low To Medium Plasticity, Grained And Less Than 50 CI Gravelly Clays, Sandy Clays, Silty Clays, Lean Soils Clays III I OLOrganic Silts And OrganicI IIill I I I I OI Silty Clays Of Low Plasticity MH Inorganic Silts, Micaceous Or Diatomaceous Fire More Than mh Sand Or Silty Soils 50% Material Silts Liquid Limit CH Inorganic Clays Of High Smaller Than AndlaGreater Than 50 No.�00 Sieve Clays Ch Plasticity, Fat Clays. Size or/ ////. OH Organic Clays Of Medium To High /////�/ Oh Plasticity, Organic Silts // / /1 --�-~ ''� '' pT Peat, Humus, Swamp Soils Highly Organic Soils -_: — pt With High Organic Contents Topsoil Humus And Duff Layer •j••••••••••• 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 7T 2.4"I.D. RING SAMPLER OR qu PENETROMETER READING,tsf 11 SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER P SAMPLER PUSHED W MOISTURE, percent of dry weight 4f SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED pcf DRY DENSITY,pounds per cubic ft. 2 WATER LEVEL (DATE) LL LIQUID LIMIT,percent 1 WATER OBSERVATION WELL PI PLASTIC INDEX li -- li Earth Consultants Inc. LEGEND \ (...Ai ngi1M<'rs.(ecologists t hIi .111i*11101 Scx,il(SIs Proj. No. 4957 IDate Ju1y'90 Plate Al A. S • , BORING NO. 711 Logged By DB Date 7/2/90 Elev. 18'± (N) Graph US Soil Description Depth Sample Blows Ft (%) ♦♦OOP♦ al Gray sandy SILT, trace gravel, medium - 27 ♦♦♦♦♦ P=1.0tsf •♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ dense (Fill) • - • Oi♦i♦ii - _ 2 6 k♦♦♦♦♦♦ s+1• 12 P=1.0tsf ♦♦�♦•♦�♦♦ rih Gray clayey SILT, medium stiff, moist, - ♦♦i♦i♦i♦ saturated ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ - = 6 29 P=0.5 is f •♦♦♦ •♦♦♦ (Fill) - ♦ ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ — 10 2 ♦♦�♦ _ a _ al Brown organic SILT, soft, saturated — I f P-1.0tsf I - I I — 15 I I tJ - = 8 i : :-. ..::: sm Gray-brown silty SAND, loose, < saturated 20 p Black SAND, trace gravel, dense, - al 26 25 saturated 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 Judgement.They are not necessarily representative of otner times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presentee on this log. BORING LOG /P ')e SOUTHGATE PLAZA PHASE II (• `I - Earth Consultants Inc. RENTON, WASHINGTON `lI I \� 1 ), GK,trciiiiiral t-iguw-rrr..(R+rk,eisis&Fns'wrw inwiitul ry mr1L\IS Proj. Nc. 4957 I Drwn. GLS I Checked Am I Date July'90 I Plate A2 411 • BORING NO. 13_-__2- . Logged By DB Date 7/2/90 Bev. 18'± (N) Graph cs Soil Description Depth Sample Blows ((o) p CS Ft. " --; gm Gray brown silty GRAVEL with sand, - -r 69 V4t 4, very dense, saturated (Fill) . O:'i•:':' - P=1.5tsf • •������ nl Gray SILT, trace sand and gravel, ��•���•��� medium dense (Fill) — 5 S• 14 - :.iiiii - �i�i�i�i�i .i.,., •� - = 16 41 •�S•� --10 tilt��� ♦ = 2 74 cal Gray-brown organic SILT, soft, _ P=0.5tsf saturated - I `'' sm Brown silty SAND, loose to medium —15 : ;._ _. dense, saturated - 4 43 P=0.5tsf nl Gray-brown sandy SILT (ml) , very loose, _ saturated —20 Z 13 Black SAND, medium dense to dense, _ saturated - ap —2 5 22 —30 I 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.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. ,... a BORING LOG 1SOUTHGATE PLAZA PHASE II I , '� Earth Consultants Inc. RENTON, WASHINGTON I ` Cie..r,iinu:al F-Ingnxrr..(,i,lo ititti&Fnn'metrovnial tirlenhtits. simw Proj. No 4957 I Drwn. GLS I Checked AM I Date July'90 ! Plate A3 411 • BORING NO. 8-3 Wgged By DE Cate 7/2/90 Bev. 18'± US IN) W Graph CS Soil Description p)) Sample Blo (%) **4A' c_im Gray-brown silty GRAVEL with SAND, _ 25 •••••••••• dense, moist (Fill) ►•iTiTO :gym Brown silty SAND with GRAVEL, dense, _ 20 ••••• - �•�•�•�•�• moist (Fill) — 5 2 6 ••••• •••••••••• - ••••••••••••••• - �•••• _ 6 110 rrrrr oh Gray-brown organic SILT, medium stiff, _ P-1.0tsf rrrrr rrrr/ saturated — 10 rrrrr _ rrrrr IT rrrr rrrrr _ I 5 P=1.0tsf �rrr rr rr — 15 II : . :ti::: :::: sm Gray-black silty SAND with silt seams, - : •::, - medium dense, saturated >::; ::: :: -25 I 21 �p Gray SAND, trace gravel and silt, _ 30 III28 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 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 it! i+�. 44, l ,■�/an1�.,i� Earth Consultants Inc. SOUTHGATE PLAZA PHASE II p„j/ iIJ\ GrowchuralLaigtnerrs(,silogtsts&Lush nnwnialSclenllSiti RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No.4957 Drwn. GLS I Checked AM I Date July'90 I Plate A4 • • BORING NO. B-4 lagged By DE Cate 7/3/90 Bev. 18'± '— (N) W Graph LS Soil Description .)Dept Sample Blows (%) CS Ft. •••••••••• m:_ Gray SILT, trace gravel and sand, - I 20 P=4.0tsf ••�•.•�•• medium dense, moist (Fill) _ .:. - T••••••• 8 •�•�•�•�•� mh Gray clayey SILT, medium stiff, wet - P=1.5tsf, ••••• — 5 •• 4 • (Fill) 11) _ 2 ••••• P=0.5tsf ♦•••♦ ♦•••♦ •••• ••••N:•••• - P=0.75tsf loivo ♦ - • ••• 4°. —10 •• Z 5 72 f ! I !t II ! o'_ Gray-brown organic SILT, soft to medium _ P=0.75tsf iI l I l I stiff . saturatn� -rII mi Gray clayey SILT, soft, saturated = 4 P=O.5tsf 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 01 Brown organic SILT, soft, saturated `15 $ ' = s:n Gray silty SAND, dense, saturated _ T 16 k::: —20 < ., - T 11 :-. :: il _ —25 37 so Gray-black SAND, trace silt, very dense,: T 54 saturated - L — 3 5 C' —40 -- 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 l '� Earth Consultants Inc. SOUTHGATE PLAZA PHASE II ,Ap G,•rorcinrnnlFrgi,xmrs.(w-nlrrµistsX.larvirrxnw•ntalkx•nieu., RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 4957 Drwn. GLS Checked AN Date July'90 Plate A5 • • BORING NO. B-5 Logged By DB Date 7/3/90 Bev. 18'± (N) Gra h US Depth Description C ftpth Sample Blows (°o) p CS _ Ft. ♦♦♦♦ Gray sandy SILT, medium dense, moist ♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦ 10 P=1.25f ♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ to wet - ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ :n1 - ��♦�♦�♦�♦ (Fill) — 5 ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ - S 11 O♦♦♦♦♦♦i♦ ♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦�♦♦♦ - ♦ti♦�i`♦ - 5 67 P=0.5 is f ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ ;ih Gray-brown clayey SILT, trace organics,- ♦i♦i♦♦♦♦♦i • ♦♦♦ medium stiff, saturated — 10 �� ♦♦♦♦♦• (Fill) - - - % : .:2. sm Gray black silty SAND, dense, saturated_ 28 ' —15 i1 i I I 1 I of Brown organic SILT, soft, saturated r :I: 3 57 ti ::::: sin - :x::: :: 2 0 ;::: ::: •• Black silty SAND with silt seams, - 13 :•: ::: :: medium dense, saturated - '/Aftj on Brown organic SILT, stiff, saturated 25 II: lg P=1.5tsf !/<< sp Gray SAND, trace gravel and silt, --30 30 dense tO very dense, saturated --35 --- 70 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 necessanfy represematrve of other tirt>bs and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. BORING LOG 11 ' I Earth Consultants Inc. SOUTHGATE PLAZA PHASE II t , ^I Geotechnial Engineers.Gn,kiytisls&Environmental scvnucts RENTON, WASHINGTON r Proj. No. 4957 I Drwn. GLS I Checked AM 1 Date July'90 I Plate A6 til • • ual BORING NO. B6. Logged By DE Date 7/3/90 Bev. 18'± (NI W Graph US Soil Description Depth Sample Blows (%) CS (ft.) Ft. •...•• - ���������� m 1 _ ♦•♦•♦�♦•♦♦ (Fill) - I7 ♦♦♦♦i♦♦♦ GraySILT, loose, moist to wet, trace P=1.0tsf Di°Oii: _ ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ gravel and sand ,����♦ — 5 � 11 J EhGray clayey SILT, medium stiff, wet = P=1.5tsf O ��••11/����•� (Fill) _ II .� ♦ P=1.2 5 t s f ♦♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ ci Gray CLAY, trace organics, soft, —10 3 71 ♦•♦•♦•♦•♦ _ I P=1.0 t s f ♦♦♦♦♦ saturated : : sm Gray silty SAND with silt seams, loose, _ 11 ..�i- saturated —15 :: I 8 ::: ' , : :: 1- -20 20 sp Black SAND, trace silt, medium dense, saturated —25 Z 27 —30 1: : : . - sm Gray-black silty SAND, trace gravel, - ::: . ::: :: —35 .ii;,11 loose, saturated _ r •• :-4:[.: * quick conditions encountered -.p Gray SAND, very dense, saturated - = 34 40 4* I —45 , - — 20 Boring terminated at 49 feet below existing grade. Groundwater encountered at 12.0 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.analysts.and judgement They are not necessarily representative o1 other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation try others o1 information presented on this log. BORING LOG ^ , 1 '' Earth Consultants Inc. SOUTHGATE PLAZA PHASE II „iw Urxnnivw.dl1101111•rs.(e1,110NIS&Elr,mxrnxwalrwniNv. RENTON, WASHINGTON , Proj. No. 4957 I Drwn. GLS I Checked Am I Date July'9C I Plate A7 • • BORING NO. B-7 , Logged By DB Date 7/6/90 Bev. 18'± LDS Depth Graph CS Soil Description (N) (ft.) Samp le Blows ,„, Ft. p��i�i�i• - I 2 2 LL=3 5 �iii�i�i� Gray-brown SILT with sand and clay, ►�•�•�•����� 1 Y- Y' - PL=21 ••��� ►����♦ medium dense, moist - ►���••••�� - P I=14 • •�� (Fill) Ei!i!i!-i 5 IIIIIIIIIII :ah Gray rclayey SILT medium stiff, wet to -a T 8 Boring terminated at 6.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered. Boring backfilled with cuttings. Subsurface condemns 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 responsibilrty tor the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. BORING LOG I/ �j Earth Consultants Inc. SOUTHGATE PLAZA PHASE II t N GrarchnicaiEJiguiitrs.(wolugisis&1nNuunnr•nialM-u,nuas RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 4957 I Drwn. GLS I Checked AM I Date July'90 I Plate A8 • S BORING NO. B-8 Logged By DB Date 7/6/90 Bev. 18'± lN) Graph ('S Soil Description Depth Sample Blows (wj Ft. •*••• = 18 ♦♦♦♦ ♦♦i sm Light brown silty SAND with gravel, - i • ♦i♦♦♦♦i♦ ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ dense, moist (Fill) ♦♦♦♦♦ sp Black SAND with gravel, dense, saturated 5 27 Boring terminated at 7.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered 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.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 , cle0i,(1,irK di r-„ai,i r ri •olo f tier.R il,,,ronMent;,l u i„i«i. RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 4957 I Drwn. GLS I Checked AN I Date July'90 I Plate A9 • ,-,... ..,„.. .. • • , BORING NO. B-9 ,... Logged By DE Date 7/6/90 Bev. 18'± ' _ (N) US Depth W Graph cs Soil Description (ft.) Sample Blows ,,,, rior Ft. _--, t&1104*, Approximately 6" debris ' . V" • SP al 11 P=2.0tsf •41, • • - ••• . Brown SAND with organic silt, trace -- •••••• gravel, medium stiff, moist _ • - LL=34 = • • • • (Fill) — 5 PL28 00 *A& • Gray sandy SILT with gravel, medium . III 5 PI=6 lo" • mh stiff, saturated - P=1.0tsf 7 ••••••••' Concrete rubble (Fill) f- =I= 2 ' t - Al Brown organic SILT, soft, saturated —10 11 P=0.5tsf ! III1111 3_ 1111 - ___ = illinill mh 8 P1.0tsf Gray clayey SILT (mh) , medium stiff - saturated Boring terminated at 14.0 feet below existing grade. Groundwater encountered at 5.0 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with cuttings and bentonite. Subsurface conditions oepicteO represent our observations at the lime 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 tor the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log 7 BORING LOG 7---,A.4ii,..• '7\', VT '' Earth Consultants Inc. SOUTHGATE PLAZA PHASE II (......ch.,.,a1,,,g..,,,,..(i....,.,0,,,,,iy 1-Jwimonwiliiil sclentisi, RENTON, WASHINGTON .110; 'Ili VIP Proj. No. 4957 I Drwn. GLS Checked AM I Date July'90 I Plate Al 0 ...... BORING NO. B- 10 logged By DE Date 7/6/90 Elev. 18'± (N) W Graph USSoil Description Deptfi Sample Blows (%) (:S (ft.) Ft. i�i�i�V mh Gray clayey SILT, medium stiff, moist - = 8 P=0.75tsf “Ip••�•�•4 (Fill) - -- i&ate:4f:♦• - T 10 P=1.0 t s f ►•••••�•••4 Brown CLAY, medium stiff, wet c:l A!�!i!�!���1 (F i 1 1 1 Boring terminated at 5.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during drilling. Boring backfilled with cuttings. Subsurface conditions°epicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,analysis,and fudoement.They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations we cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others 01 information presented on this log. BORING LOG .114*•l efer Earth Consultants Inc. SOUTHGATE PLAZA PHASE II ' ,41 Gvrn lx IKui1Jig.crs.0eol gists&F.mwocinx-ival scx7nm_s RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 4957 I Drwn. GLS 1 Checked Am I Date July'90 I Plate All BORING NO. EL-_-1.1 Logged By DB Date 7/6/90 Bev. 18'± (N) Graph CS Soil Description Depth Sample Blows (%) FL ♦r♦♦♦♦ Gray gravel, very - = 2 0 P=2.5 is f ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ ml SILT, trace sand and - ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ stiff, moist - • - ♦♦♦♦♦♦•♦•♦ • • ••�•�•�• (Fill) 5 ♦�O♦i♦�f bray clayey SILT, trace organics, T 5 • 1 i medium stiff. saturated Boring terminated at 6.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered 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.They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of intormatan presented on this log. BORING LOG • rIh Earth Consultants Inc. SOUTHGATE PLAZA PHASE II "� 011,1,Y1Y1NmIl„Anxrr..cw0k1gISi,aEnvvuv,x,n:,iscienwti RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 4957 I Drwn. GLS [ Checked AM I Date July'90 ' Plate Al2 - 1 BORING NO. B 2 LDgged By DB r-- Date 7/6/90 Bev. 18'± `S (N) Graph CS Soil Description D(ft)) Sample Blows (%) Ft. ijjijj• � • Gray SAND with silt and clay, trace _ LL=24 I 60 S7 gravel, very dense, moist PL=18 (Fill) - T 16 PI6 Same. with asphalt and gravel . very cf i f_`~5 I Boring terminated at 5.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered 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.They are not necessarily representative of of ner times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. jI jitBORING LOG :alI Earth Consultants Inc. SOUTHGATE PLAZA PHASE II 1 GlINPChrii(aII.14211NYTs.(elolugisls&hiivlriNNiv,riilS(HImsi, RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 4957 I Drwn. GLS Checked AM I Date July'90 I Plate Al3 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. ta 100 i 1 I 1 i I I 80 ! I j 1 ' . w 0 z } 0 I` 40 _ `'-'A-Line c a_ C 20 'DUG III i CL-MLAUril C--®1 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 LIQUID LIMIT Natural Key Boring/ Depth Soil Classification USCS L.L. P.L. Rl. Water Test Pit (ft) Content • B12 3 gray silty clay cl-ml 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 i i Earth Consultants Inc. RENTON, WASHINGTON j Geaectnid Engneers.Geob&�s&Envtrmrnental Soerntsts Proj. No. 4957 Date July'90 1 Plate B1 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. 1, • Order No. 866745 C_7 Ck- O C 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: TRANSNATION 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 c RECEIVED DEVELOPMENT PLANNING MAR 12 mg CITY OF RENTON 1ANCE SUE{ APR 0 2 1998 RECEIVED ISSUED BY TRANSNATION TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE 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: I. 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. t TRANSNATION TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY INSUg V((:':fj) Attest: By:retary ,11` 10 `l��'— 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: I. (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. Rights 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. 6 NM 1 PA 10 ALTA Owner's Policy(10-17-92) Valid Only If Schedules A and B and Cover Are Attached Face Page r__� ��nn cc 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. Name of Insured: S]'IEKER 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 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 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 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 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; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION DESCRIBED UNDER RECORDING NO. 8612161573; 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 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; (2,LSO 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 RfRECORDING OF (EASEMENT UNDER RECORDING NO. 8808170975; S]TUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF W? SHINGTON. Page 5 Owner's Extended Policy Policy No. 866745 SCHEDULE B EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE This pol:_cy 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 . Ur;derground easements, servitudes or installations which are not disclosed by the public records. 3 . (z ) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in pz,tents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) Indian treaty of aboriginal rights, including, but not limited to, easements or ecuitable servitudes; or, (d) water rights, claims or- title to water, wL,ether or not the matters excepted under (a) , (b) , (c) or (d) are sr.own 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 or the use, occupance or improvement of the land resulting from the rights of the public or riparian owners to use any waters which may ccver the land or to use any portion of the land which is now or may formerly have been covered by water. 5. Ary 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 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS 1. GEneral Taxes, as follows, together with interest, penalty and statutory foreclosure costs, if any, after delinquency: (] st half delinquent on May 1; 2nd half delinquent on November 1) TEx Account No. Year Billed Paid Balance 1S2305-9076-07 1997 $123 , 855. 40 $ 61, 927. 70 $ 61, 927 . 70 Tr.e levy code for the property herein described is 2110 for 1997. 2 . Srecial 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 152305-9076-07 1997 $ 86 . 27 $ 43 . 13 $ 43 . 14 3 . Ccnservation (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 ANNUAL 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) Ta { 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 . AN, 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 ANNUAL 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. : .D. NO. : 314 PARCEL NO. : 12B • Page 7 Owner's l:,xtended 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 :Extended 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 . Ccvenant 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 tlereof recorded May 9, 1991 under Recording No. 9105091394 . 16 . Qtestion 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 AND: The City of Renton DATED: September 27, 1990 RECORDED: October 15, 1990 RECORDING NO. : 9010151191 18 . INDENRITY 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 DArED: 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 AID: 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 SOUTHGATE 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 . AN( 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 ac-Avity 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 DAYED: 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 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 837 . 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 Owners Extended 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 DATED: 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: G:2ANTEE: Basil D. Vyzis and Darlene H. Vyzis, their successors and assigns P':JRPOSE: Ingress, egress and utilities A:2EA 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 . E1.SEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GPANTEE: The City of Renton, a municipal corporation of King County PURPOSE: Access . At.EA AFFECTED: See Attachment "A" thereto Dl..TED: June 17, 1991 RI CORDED: 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. 8.7917 . 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 ru-recording of 8808170975. 37 . Restrictive covenant regarding LID participation imposed by instrument recorded on January 14 , 1991, under Recording No. 9101140965. 38 . C:._ty 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: BF'TWEEN: Stonehenge III Limited Partnership, a Washington limited partnership, Vyzis Company, Managing General Partner AI D: The City of Renton DATED: April 3 , 1991 RECORDED: May 9, 1991 RECORDING NO. : 9105091427 Page 21 Owner's Extended Policy Policy No. 866745 42. LATECOMERS AGREEMENT: BETWEEN: The City of Renton AID: 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. 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 192305-9095-04 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. : t 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 i an _3 0 221 31 »..... ............» -� :2 i �� CV '•' ....•• �?�. c •n.+s rrr>'�44•.f Lai sis•.r..ie»r.w FeI�r! rF.,-- ,,„t41/47rdti �� crl � LN.L i� ,.... 2 1 12. . txw • , 1u • • 11 I 1 1• e >: • n • l.1., ' t, tlinEllet nit 1,1 1 1S rari• . SS • ~\ti drs? 1! \ d:1 ft 11. •O 1st, w. - • /y swr•,+-sre s 4 � 't fa • f . • I 66 $ f • 3 Z ♦r j+ O tt P. N j�L• n r - �' l Via �— '' i 1" • 4 1,.... 1 „ )1 • t • . . s• v it ti t,si MOAN. , \ ; 1 f1 i }yam 1 11 1 >a 0 • ztiti •• :.► . s ,.+w< . i I —... •-4.14W ri.a.r yt• WA47 ,21 'i,(i r�.�.1 .... .sdK .s* srslr .Evart :+` •. ysi itiK•tM�.A�. •N 1 — 23 :7 ..o.. p 1 . VZ Q•.— ca- .:r � .i This sketch is provided, without charge, for your information. It is not intended to show all — natters related to the property including, but not limited to, area, dimensions, easements, en- croachments, or location of boundaries. It is not a part of, nor does it modify, the commitment or policy to which it is attached. The Company assumes NO LIABILITY for any mar related to this sketch. References should be made to an accurate survey for further information. 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 )f 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 provision or other obligation. All arbitrable matters when the Amount of by the Company and the insured at the time of the issuance of this policy Insurance is SI,000.000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the and shown by an express statement or by an endorsement attached to this Company or the insured. All arbitrable matters when the Amount of policy. Insurance is in excess of S1.000,000 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,eCompany or cures the lacke of a right of esac the to or rom 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 shallyifbe bindingas upon the parties. The award may includete attorneys'aeco fees reasonably diligent manner by any method, including litigation and the only the attorneys''lees state in which thee land islocated permit court to completion of any appeals therefrom, it shall have fully performed its award 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. (e)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 tanto. this policy. (c) No amendment of or endorsement to this policy can be made 11. LIABILITY 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) �J E .E OF WETLAND ARE !-- ei ..,:i 1 :),q, , /(---____:-.1-----_____ _-_-i-_—___ .____________„_____L. _ _,_.i,..__ _,..! • f:--,,—.__,.:.:.__ _.L......_„• ,:„____;__,_. _ ____....,. tiJ,ilik ((p e'r.' (-) K0 r of ..... . .______ _., LA -1 4 p I1.\\T II� �r 1.l� ,try !�, '=1.'J i �l / 'fl �I , /v/r I:7--) I ; : 7y I • I I "ar ;I " - 0_00••AC.L__. _ ____.f-__1__._ .. ,/--____c ,,r) (_ ___ _ kJiz \:dJwnm(th ' I' f — • . I - 4 W N F ,�` �n : �11` rl `r A a:U 2 I N ; I i" �.•� I LAND 11�' J • 1VFTLAND 'M' wit 1\rca:0.151 Ac. �) ` . 1 f �, ' J•. - _ "-) `' ! ri,lC ) ! rca: 0.013 Ac. Area: 0.072,Ac. .r' -, _a, : ' 1• I { 1 ,1 , / ' • N, �, ��~! —_yam.., , l Ii ~ 11'.'1.t • ,-.y 14 �' U •i T—'•-, 1�' lip i /�� `I Are :Ob•3 A\ ( Area: t.OQ8 • / Ill ' •• L1 �L -• 7Y^-._i-1►!-2�T t t- S : iiiii\D_C./ I _ i ) "i )7 : ! ; s• , ...:,'. t 4'it,. •v ' c_ ii i ("" i•'---1 l': • .— . I _ 11- � 11:E LAND'A' \ , �y; ,, I .i I. I ��`\ --- y_ii ys...i - A•rca:0.087 Ac. / 'I • • L - I I • f 1 to — 1'-,_:I I' :1 .•�—' - .-1 >�,'4.. ' l! i 1 —L. ---- ttt I Atl i d( I iV � (. I-I ( ®' 1. I 0 �• ;�i, � �-I - -rr- _ I "; 1 E LATyDv ��1 ''�\1,1_/rt: 'lArc.:\ObD9 Al: 1�� t t'd. r i CI 1 t� I • — - jLI , 17 Ac.aocu — na , „ i I d p `� 1• .I _I y r3 i i ! � � I I a � •.< a. ° :lip - ¢ • • — '' I �, • ! • ( .11- I M 0 a 7d I — I� `}1: 1 IV. \ •4t.,.. •Er[AND R' WF_LA D ' - .-co r r� „I 1 t �?f. I �r� — n r �1 '� ,\�rce't�.518 Ac, • f Ari : 0.069. c. ( _ — _ II 0', c • e 111 p , N p I1 • I I - . Iis j,f 'J 0 �� Wit• c'• On ' {• I % t✓ C y rLg .' — ` e � 0 j l , iljk� '�I`I9 hH {{ I.:W{111°u1if�111LL `1{l{I ilk = \ — 'y\s / (a---_)4 ( •,', t-:` .)•,' '', 1`' it''e 'a • y • .... r " I I 1 1 ! 1-- t_Ti_T WETLAND AREA EXHIBIT 1 . SOUT1.16ATE OFFICE PLAZA ?I AREAS AS-MARKED BY 'i ,i - WETLAND PLOT . SITE PLAN � r.-.1.- •eo' m ,,,,,,, i =•= JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES, r: f en151lua wrc»•.or ..o rukse I oevnor..+T SURVEYED JUNE 1, 1990 I ! Ji Surveying & Mapping by Dorton Dennis & Associates. c 9 Q3 WPM CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM BUILtJII4. ,,,,oN DATE: 111 zi-/�'i 6 TO: Construction Services, Fire Prevention, Plan Review, Project Planner FROM: Jim Hanson, Development Services Division Director/ SUBJECT: New Preliminary Application:,5tii1)'' lja1tt (`ir ii Y% Phis LOCATION: r 1)+t 1 riF 51V /ql i'm-3--171 F4. f 171 1-1 i'l4 111'6 S 1,-V A meeting with the applicant has been scheduled for / / 00 , Thursday, (7 17 (,a Ili •9'/ '-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 PPc at least two (2) days before the meeting. Thank you. G -) Iy..) . — u,, /Z Z /As/i ti`SY O eft ® CITY OF RENTON 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 January 29, 1998 7,717 WATER: 1. A Water S stem Develo ment connection charge is $0.113 per gros itearea, but not less than Y P $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. 5. If building is over 30-feet in height a backflow prevention device may be require on the water service. 6. A vertical profile is required and also City of Renton Standard Detail Drawings. 7. Water located in the Downtown 196 pressure zone. SEWER: 1. The System Development Connection charge is $0.078 per gross square feet, but not less than $585. 215 2. A sewer backflow prevention devise is required if the floor elevation is belowfeet. 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. 6. Side sewer to have two percent slope to property line. 98CM013.DOC1 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. \.4a9,941/ TRANSPORTATION: \it) 1. A brief traffic trip generation report to be provided based on the ITE trip generation manual. 0 Ptv 2. A transportation mitigation fee is$75 per trip generated by the new development. ' rA 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 D 4TE: January 29, 1998 TO: Pre-Application File FROM: Peter Rosen, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Southgate Office Park - Pre-App File No. 98-03 V/e have completed a review of the pre-application for the proposed Southgate Office Park. Listed b 3low are our preliminary findings. Although every attempt is made to ensure that these comments are c)mplete, a more thorough examination of the project at the time of application submittal may reveal a iditional 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 ja materials. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) will review the proposal, consider mitigation measures, and issue a threshold determination. 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 Review Ordinance (Section 4-31-33). Zoning. The project site is zoned Commercial Office (CO). The CO zone allows offices (administrative/ I leadquarters, 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. Landscaping: 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 landscaping and berming to screen parking areas from the street. For development in the Green River Valley, 2% of a total site area must be landscaped for wildlife habitat. The Code specifies that these landscaped areas should be aggregated on a site, and where possible 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 submittal. Southgate Office Park.DOC The Parking and Loading (.i,u.ulance requires landscaping equal to 5% he 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 an i the street. Lo: Coverage: The maximum lot coverage for buildings is 65% of the lot area. The subject proposal appears to comply with this provision. Parking: The Parking and Loading Ordinance sets standards for parking requirements based on the tyr e(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 sh:)ws 473 parking spaces which exceeds the maximum. The applicant should apply in writing for a modification from the maximum parking standard, addressing the criteria in Section 4-14-1.C1.a. Modifications 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 feet in length and 8.5 feet in width. The pre-application indicates an 8 foot width for compact stalls. Compact parking spaces may not account for more than 40% of designated employee parking or 30% of all other required parking. Aisle widths of 24 feet are required for 90 degree head-in parking. CC: Jana Huerter Sruthgate Office Park.DOC CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM LATE: January 26, 1998 10: Peter Rosen FROM: Rebecca Lind 0 l/ S TAFF 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) l. 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 L U-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 4. Advisory Policy LU-212.6 Developments should be encouraged to achieve greater efficiency in site utilization aid 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. F:\DIVISION.SAP-TS\PLANNINGIPREAPP\EAV\SOUrH_GT.DOC . 4 n ..J 1 lJ 4 • ' CITY OF RENTON ;.i, ' , 1 -9 .--,3(f.9Cc o)V: - .. : .I. M.111111K1111i1. 5 11-111-in4N11671Y9,1W-4- l. A r0,n„) t. • 18 J301 J308 .3J n— �f I 4 ft . I4.c,,M r IF 1 JJ4t c!- J37 60 �' I _ WATER SYSTEM Vr `� 7 `\ J496643 jq95 LEGEND ri J462 V 5' N .00 Pii u J492 650 F J45' 458� J453 J476 636 8J5 r r J50 Y, •ter J,b ' — 594 L J499 .iS t oo-d-i L J 75 J490 JA O8.-0 _ Adtte 1 ...Il..e. .4HAoy o.Ncr,1w11. 3i. c'_.„, AWhioNisll i' ll, ' J474 ` f1� , ' U I m n co , :6 r 5w1Otb,. ,e f { „ , ^' J 82 J485 b 6 n J 9 001 ��en on age . /mI , 487 .488 6 r r I j4 0 .° J .m� 3 - 1 N s . - - �i� 9 56r ',r''' J 63‘ J508 J512 4 i ' 5fj ,0 • b`3 514 f J44' r0 0 J12 I.I. 14g1: _ n:�- ii, 463 603 ti N _�• _ iIItC d >6 CU SW a: 16 t h 3 J535 \ • - • UNE• ; CDii� 1 lot J � 52 yo _ ril �co ► � • 41 ' as as) =Ma 1V 3 o • Y yy • �• J539 J540 r ,S•• 714 J1S1 9• �i, ■a vin - - f5• J536 697 ill I"ja c• WM L - r —.o ^l V mil ir ,, Ira • o JSKs % / Q v ••r. 706 • J54 j a • 1 J11 1�9 711ri Q MI ■.,. r q SW 19th St `L' 167 S I2dth�. ,%l'i a us�� '�'`�a 159 j '_ •/547 709 J518 712 � �_ 7 A • T _ ---- I _ r Li-]Yt\ 629632 J631 Qy�� J''r ��i[ ' - J6e8 804 J .6�30 > ,�Ca /�� •w • 0 0��. ll- J10 Jb27 JIVE. 8L' 1311 �wFi>w J r7 JU • �802 o m J(�5•-�3+�3, 1St St • - ��._(���^maw t 143 p 600 1200 co SW on Jf 1 o Cr) 0 .Q 8792 `L� ���o' 1 :7200 • -�5$ 97 �fl t, �j ° UTILITY SYSTEMS 011 1'6e� �23C r(JfS 1�fig ,' ♦ PB/PW TECHNICAL SERVICES 0 116 n8827 4f JZ90 2 J29T' S I 8 �., . 06/10/94 pA( y� �{ SW 23rd 1111::-Tq r ... "Tl'7 79�1 5 788 J61 • r7 1 c� J457- �i1s ANft.t) t 1 . 5319 NW 1/4 — _ �-- �..- I SANITARY SEWERS ...• �» -^. .. ... ... • " '""-• 142v t 47 .... .. ._ w .� �. .� i m .......:_... LEGEND co :,145 48 ;. 1 • — 6thI1t. mE. x:..SW 1 / i t �',:._ SEWER LINES St. •j37 • 138 139 141 j....___143 • c tt t 6 — 0. - 8, ' - PRIVATE $EWER UNES 136 8• g• 8 1 s.r— 1t49 FORCE MANS * i ; Cl) t - �-r 11 t eq . ................ METRO LINES 3 1550 E ± ..1 C ' i7 i �H. > 146 150 MANHOLES ....__._ °° i m 'CI _; 7 d*'• PRIVATE MANHOLES ao 253 147 ,...• 11 4.- . _ I % 900 s Q MANHOLES °D u� 148 8' 149 i-:' n'T i t METRkV I O 4. r--,f• • 4; "." 5 •s°°s CLEAN OUTS \ I251 254 25 = . • i u 4 DIRECTION ARROWS \\ ����� . f Vl • �., - �'• °' p 252 �� , r_�. -:�-.• .= � 14+ I LFT STATIONS r w SW S919t40 St•161 S._::19th t�.i (.o 153 ; DRECTION - _._ 152 1 M - _-j „.. _..._..__.._._. CO �J ROW :,.• 58 8' _:. .. ON CRY UMRS • ` ......,.._..... 3 157 ~8' �' F • 1�+ •..r...... RENT • o-74 i 1 \ \ V. _ ''; St. 1 i SW 21 st • _ _: .....) ii i 16 w ^^ `� i t Ei TM INVENNTORY INFORMATION,IS SCHEMATIC ONLY. IT WAS COMPILED i 1 E e FROM NUMEROUS SOURCES. IT IS THE BEST INFORMATION 163 AVAILABLE AT TITS TIME AND SHOULD BE USED FOR GENERAL ,. �� GUIDANCE ONLY. THE CITY OF RENTON IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR 165 164 I t 1 — - - -: wHEN THIS INFORMATION IS USED FOR t ERRORS OR MISSIONS ,�� 166 } i } PLANNING. DESIGNS. AND/OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. USERS ARE ', 8 8' ` i %{ TO FIELD VERIFY THIS INFORMATION. • SW 2 3rd St. _ 3 { 0 400 800 _... .._.... ..�.... .s _ ; 1 :4800 I ........ ........ t ti� O fts UTILITY SYSTEMS i 1 U• CAL SERVICES 1 _I� t -—.j 0lrmi� >: . �� ° 5319 SW 1/4 r��n 1�T�17 1 /d CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT 5171 1 fState of /VU, 1 V/v On this the. /Jday of vt �/3 y'L 1 before me, r SS. rTAt g/;J a 4 l O1A DL. County of yi.�l fthe undersigned Notary Public,personally appeared /4-71. . 6 %personally known to me f ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence f _ to be,the per on(s)who executed th e i in i s rument as&_S 1 r V j GC P -,r. i , Ski -e3ZlM6e aTi It o1 he corporation therein f named,and acknowledged to me that the corporation executed it. f f WITNESS my hand and official seal. f f r I it M. 1 f Notary's ig ature r 1 ATTENTION NOTARY:Although the information requested below is OPTIONAL,it could prevent fraudulent attachment of this certificate to another document. _E:n - 1 f fLE THIS CERTIFICATETitle or Type of Document ILfL�`' "! E� /�a/ /�� ��` f f MUST BE ATTACHED Number of Pages / Date of Document T/ 3/ 1? f TO THE DOCUMENT f ff DESCRIBED AT RIGHT: Signer(s)Other Than Named Above f 01213 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION•9236 Remmet Ave•Carnaa Park CA 91309-7184 APR. 3.1998 9:17AM LANCE MUELLER N0.326 P.1/2 ORIGINAL LANCE MUELLER & ASSOCIATES l' AX CON ER SUFE L"/\/\ 1C)I Hard Copy To Follow ��� /� .0 ^.� A R CHITEC T 8 • AIA 130 Lakeside Suite 250 N SSeaattle, WA. 98122 2061 325-2553 Fax (2061 328-0564 To: AC From: , .....1AtiA400J.1 At: . 6 fi,44 r _Poe�rT S..-_ PageS Including Cmer Sheet Fax Number: Date: L� " Subject: _s.l_ �.._._ " i L{ .�l r_. K-- — - ,. ..,.._..,...._ Comments: pitAsc 4i Ic a.al=1 ive.v�_\'2.+a 51k i s�.► 41. IS t J Znf � Isa net 613 +-o bd. /la �d•i7.e Axel a nPA", *it d Geds,I 7 ".4 C '7I-I2a A*1- • a }2� 5oid+h1,t4 r.(lee P•10-k Ed III)n sh u I i /..atetuic- j'Ut v . lc Assoc„ /.S t il a r I Z' a r,4 as o v - q9 ert.4 -th tr pit f o.,s a s sole /V lvi diet r?I i ej 4-A s rajt4-4 g.i /e 6erya +s , rD spl'K Propee4/0s If any of these pages are not legible,or if you did not receive ell the listed pages,pique call us at(200 325-2553 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON APR U 6 1998 RECEIVED