DOCSLIB.ORG

ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT REPLACEMENT PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Statement APPENDIX Q Hazardous Materials Discipline Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT REPLACEMENT PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Statement APPENDIX Q Hazardous Materials Discipline Report ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT REPLACEMENT PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Statement APPENDIX Q Hazardous Materials Discipline Report Submitted by: PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Prepared by: SHANNON & WILSON, INC J U L Y 2 0 1 1 Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project Final EIS Hazardous Materials Discipline Report The Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project is a joint effort between the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and the City of Seattle. To conduct this project, WSDOT contracted with: Parsons Brinckerhoff 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98104 In association with: Coughlin Porter Lundeen, Inc. EnviroIssues, Inc. GHD, Inc. HDR Engineering, Inc. Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. Magnusson Klemencic Associates, Inc. Mimi Sheridan, AICP Parametrix, Inc. Power Engineers, Inc. Shannon & Wilson, Inc. William P. Ott Construction Consultants SR 99: Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project July 2011 Hazardous Materials Discipline Report Final EIS This Page Intentionally Left Blank TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 Introduction and Summary ........................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Build Alternatives Overview ................................................................................................. 2 1.2.1 Bored Tunnel Alternative ........................................................................................... 3 1.2.2 Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative ............................................................................. 4 1.2.3 Elevated Structure Alternative ................................................................................... 5 1.3 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 5 1.3.1 Hazardous Materials Evaluation Overview ................................................................ 6 1.3.2 Regulatory Considerations ........................................................................................ 7 1.3.3 Methodology .............................................................................................................. 7 1.3.4 Affected Environment ................................................................................................ 7 1.3.5 Operational Effects, Mitigation, and Benefits ............................................................. 8 1.3.6 Construction Effects and Mitigation ......................................................................... 10 Chapter 2 Methodology ................................................................................................................ 19 2.1 Records Reviews and Project Research ........................................................................... 19 2.2 Study Areas ....................................................................................................................... 20 2.3 Site Screening and Evaluation Criteria .............................................................................. 21 2.3.1 Initial Regulatory Sites Screening ............................................................................ 22 2.3.2 Initial Historical Sites Screening .............................................................................. 22 2.3.3 Site Screening – Current Approach ......................................................................... 24 2.3.4 Site Screening Before June 2009 ............................................................................ 28 Chapter 3 Studies and Coordination ........................................................................................... 31 3.1 Historical Records Reviewed ............................................................................................. 31 3.1.1 Washington State Archive Records ......................................................................... 31 3.1.2 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps ................................................................................. 31 3.1.3 Polk Directories ....................................................................................................... 32 3.1.4 Aerial Photographs .................................................................................................. 32 3.1.5 King County Tax Assessor Records ........................................................................ 32 3.2 Regulatory Records Review .............................................................................................. 32 3.2.1 EPA Databases ....................................................................................................... 33 3.2.2 Washington State Regulatory Databases ................................................................ 36 3.3 Ecology Files Review ......................................................................................................... 37 3.4 Evaluation of Sites on Regulatory Lists ............................................................................. 38 3.5 Windshield Surveys of the Study Area ............................................................................... 40 3.6 Potential to Encounter Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint ................................................... 40 3.7 Environmental Site Assessments and Hazardous Material Surveys ................................. 41 3.8 Subsurface Explorations .................................................................................................... 45 3.8.1 Soil Sampling and Analysis ..................................................................................... 46 3.8.2 Groundwater Sampling and Analysis ....................................................................... 47 Chapter 4 Affected Environment ................................................................................................. 49 4.1 Physical Environment ........................................................................................................ 50 4.1.1 South Area ............................................................................................................... 52 4.1.2 Central Area ............................................................................................................ 53 4.1.3 North Area ............................................................................................................... 62 SR 99: Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project July 2011 Hazardous Materials Discipline Report i Final EIS 4.2 Field Data ........................................................................................................................... 63 4.2.1 Soil ........................................................................................................................... 76 4.2.2 Groundwater ............................................................................................................ 85 4.3 Historical Land Use ............................................................................................................ 88 4.3.1 Contaminants of Concern......................................................................................... 88 4.3.2 Major Cuts and Fills in the Study Areas ................................................................. 123 4.4 Validated Sites ................................................................................................................. 126 Chapter 5 Operational Effects, Mitigation, and Benefits .......................................................... 129 5.1 Operational Effects of the Viaduct Closed (No Build Alternative) ..................................... 129 5.2 Bored Tunnel Alternative .................................................................................................. 131 5.2.1 Operational Effects ................................................................................................. 131 5.2.2 Viaduct Removal .................................................................................................... 133 5.2.3 Battery Street Tunnel Decommissioning ................................................................ 133 5.2.4 Mitigation ................................................................................................................ 134 5.2.5 Benefits .................................................................................................................. 135 5.3 Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative .................................................................................... 135 5.3.1 Operational Effects ................................................................................................. 135 5.3.2 Mitigation ................................................................................................................ 136 5.3.3 Benefits .................................................................................................................. 136 5.4 Elevated Structure Alternative .......................................................................................... 137 5.4.1 Operational Effects ................................................................................................. 137 5.4.2 Mitigation ................................................................................................................ 138 5.4.3 Benefits .................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Blue Urbanism: Inviting Urban Play on Seattle's North Waterfront Scan L Design Master Studio, Autumn 2014 [Larch 501/Arch504]
    Blue Urbanism: Inviting Urban Play on Seattle's North Waterfront Scan l Design Master Studio, Autumn 2014 [Larch 501/Arch504] Instructors: Nancy Rottle (LA), Jim Nicholls (ARCH), and Leann Andrews (PhD BE) Teaching Assistant: VeraEve Giampietro (LA & UDP) With Gehl Architects/Cititek: Bianca Hermansen GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR SEATTLE'S CENTRAL WATERFRONT (adopted by City Council): • Create a waterfront for all. • Put the shoreline and innovative, sustainable design at the forefront. • Reconnect the city to its waterfront. • Embrace and celebrate Seattle’s past, present and future. • Improve Access and Mobility (for people and goods). • Create a bold vision that is adaptable over time. • Develop consistent leadership–from concept to construction to operations. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Seattle's Central Waterfront is heralded as one of the most significant civic projects in the city's history. With imminent removal of the Alaskan Way Viaduct and current replacement of the aging Elliott Bay Seawall, Seattle has begun to envision and enact a great "waterfront for all." Removal of the viaduct and rerouting of Alaskan Way along the waterfront will create abundant new and qualitatively different public space, while the seawall replacement will provide for a more ecologically functional edge. However, while the team led by James Corner Field Operations has proposed and designed a new waterfront between Piers 48 and 62/63, less attention has been paid to the waterfront segment between Piers 62/63 and the Olympic Sculpture Park. With the reconfiguration of Alaskan Way, this northern segment offers rich opportunities for better public, pedestrian, bicycle and ecological space along a less-traveled roadway.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Resources Assessment
    Madison Street Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Cultural Resources Assessment Prepared for Seattle Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration Lead Author Environmental Science Associates March 2017 SDOT Seattle Department of Transportation Madison Street Corridor BRT Project Cultural Resource Assessment Prepared for Seattle Department of Transportation Prepared by Alicia Valentino, Ph.D., Katherine F. Wilson, M.A., and Chanda Schneider (Environmental Science Associates) With contributions from Natalie Perrin, M.S. (Historical Research Associates, Inc.) This report is exempt from public distribution and disclosure (RCW 42.56.300) ESA Project Number 150820.00 DAHP Project Number 2016-06-03962 Cultural Resources Assessment ABSTRACT The Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) is preparing to construct the Madison Street Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project (Project). The Project includes construction of 11 BRT station areas with 21 directional platforms along a 2.4-mile corridor that includes portions of 1st Avenue, 9th Avenue, Spring Street, and Madison Street in downtown Seattle. Many of the proposed station locations either are paved sidewalks/roadways, or will be placed in islands in the center of the existing road right-of-way. The project is receiving Federal funding from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), which requires FTA compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (“Section 106”). Environmental Science Associates (ESA) was retained by SDOT to conduct a cultural resources assessment for the Project. ESA conducted background research, reviewed existing cultural resource surveys, and inventoried historic properties. A project Area of Potential Effects (APE) was defined as an approximately 2.4-mile long corridor between 1st Avenue and Martin Luther King Jr.
    [Show full text]
  • Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program
    Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program Central Waterfront 01.09 Learning, Listening, and Moving Ahead - Replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall A diverse group of elected offi cials, transportation “As I spoke with individuals and business leaders, fi ve objectives agencies and experts, interest groups, and the public have emerged that guided my decision making. First, the solution must worked over the last year on a solution for the Alaskan improve safety by removing the existing unsafe viaduct. Second, Way Viaduct and Seawall along the central waterfront. the solution must be affordable, and the state’s contribution to Six principles guided the evaluation of possible solutions and eight scenarios were evaluated. Each scenario included the solution must not be over $2.8 billion. Third, the solution investments to transit, city streets, I-5, SR 99, and demand must cause the least construction disruption to our maritime management strategies. What we learned provides a industry and central waterfront businesses. Fourth, the solution critical foundation for reaching a decision. must provide capacity and mobility now and in the future, for freight, vehicles, and transit users. And fi fth, the solution must The following is a summary of the six guiding principles: contribute to improving the health of our environment and open up Seattle’s waterfront. I have concluded that the bored tunnel • Improve public safety. hybrid alternative is the most balanced solution and best meets these objectives.” • Provide effi cient movement of people and –Governor Chris Gregoire goods now and in the future. • Maintain or improve downtown Seattle, “This agreement will improve our transportation system, improve regional, the port and state economies.
    [Show full text]
  • ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT REPLACEMENT PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Statement
    ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT REPLACEMENT PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Statement APPENDIX L Economics Discipline Report Submitted by: PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Prepared by: PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF J U L Y 2 0 1 1 Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project Final EIS Economics Discipline Report The Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project is a joint effort between the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and the City of Seattle. To conduct this project, WSDOT contracted with: Parsons Brinckerhoff 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98104 In association with: Coughlin Porter Lundeen, Inc. EnviroIssues, Inc. GHD, Inc. HDR Engineering, Inc. Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. Magnusson Klemencic Associates, Inc. Mimi Sheridan, AICP Parametrix, Inc. Power Engineers, Inc. Shannon & Wilson, Inc. William P. Ott Construction Consultants SR 99: Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project July 2011 Economics Discipline Report Final EIS This Page Intentionally Left Blank TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 Introduction and Summary ................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Build Alternatives Overview ....................................................................................................................... 2 1.2.1 Overview of Bored Tunnel Alternative (Preferred) ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Raikes Foundation 2018 Federal 990-PF (Attach to WA State Filing (8218
    EXTENDED TO NOVEMBER 15, 2019 Return of Private Foundation OMB No. 1545-0052 Form 990-PF or Section 4947(a)(1) Trust Treated as Private Foundation | Do not enter social security numbers on this form as it may be made public. Department of the Treasury 2018 Internal Revenue Service | Go to www.irs.gov/Form990PF for instructions and the latest information. Open to Public Inspection For calendar year 2018 or tax year beginning , and ending Name of foundation A Employer identification number RAIKES FOUNDATION 91-2173492 Number and street (or P.O. box number if mail is not delivered to street address) Room/suite B Telephone number 2157 N. NORTHLAKE WAY, STE. 220 206-801-9500 City or town, state or province, country, and ZIP or foreign postal code C If exemption application is pending, check here ~ | SEATTLE, WA 98103-9814 G Check all that apply: Initial return Initial return of a former public charity D 1. Foreign organizations, check here ~~ | Final return Amended return 2. Foreign organizations meeting the 85% test, Address change Name change check here and attach computation ~~~~ | H Check type of organization: X Section 501(c)(3) exempt private foundation E If private foundation status was terminated Section 4947(a)(1) nonexempt charitable trust Other taxable private foundation under section 507(b)(1)(A), check here ~ | I Fair market value of all assets at end of year J Accounting method: Cash X Accrual F If the foundation is in a 60-month termination (from Part II, col. (c), line 16) Other (specify) under section 507(b)(1)(B), check here ~ | | $ 109,614,045.
    [Show full text]
  • R O Y Al Manor
    APRIL 2016 EDITION | SALES STATS FOR MARCH 2016 ROYAL MANOR ROYAL inside this issue 02 Featured Building Royal Manor Featured Listing 03 Delightful Corner Unit at the Concord 05 Downtown Seattle, Queen CONDO SCOOP Anne, Capitol Hill / Eastlake PUGET SOUND Market Analysis & Sold Listings 08 Ballard/Greenlake, North & West Seattle Market Analysis & Sold Listings 12 Kirkland & Bellevue Market Analysis & Sold Listings 206.910.5000 www.stroupe.com 1 featured building royal manor CLASSIC FIRST HILL HIGH-RISE BUILDING FACTS & STATS ADDRESS SALES HISTORY, PAST 12 MONTHS 1120 8th Avenue Average-Unit Original List Price: NEIGHBORHOOD $632,500 First Hill Average-Unit Sale Price: TOTAL # OF UNITS $597,167 64 List / Sold Price Ratio: YEAR BUILT 94% 1970 Average-Sold Price per sq ft: TOTAL STORIES $479.65 (no 13th floor) 22 Average Market Time: 38 days LISTING HISTORY, PAST 12 MONTHS AMENITIES (From 4/1/2015 to 3/31/2016) Club Room with a Full Kitchen, Fitness Total # of Units Listed: 6 Located on one of the beautiful, tree-lined avenues of First Hill, Royal Manor is one Center, Air Conditioning in Common (Units that were relisted after coming of Seattle’s classic, original high-rises. Located across the street from Town Hall, the Spaces and Some Units, Patio Terrace, off the market are counted as one) 22-floor building was constructed in 1970. Royal Manor’s 64 units range in size from Secure Assigned Parking one to three bedrooms, with many of the homes boasting floor-to-ceiling windows Total # of Unit Sales: 6 and spectacular views of the city skyline.
    [Show full text]
  • ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT REPLACEMENT PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Statement
    ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT REPLACEMENT PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Statement APPENDIX M Air Discipline Report Submitted by: PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Prepared by: PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF J U L Y 2 0 1 1 Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project Final EIS Air Discipline Report The Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project is a joint effort between the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and the City of Seattle. To conduct this project, WSDOT contracted with: Parsons Brinckerhoff 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98104 In association with: Coughlin Porter Lundeen, Inc. EnviroIssues, Inc. GHD, Inc. HDR Engineering, Inc. Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. Magnusson Klemencic Associates, Inc. Mimi Sheridan, AICP Parametrix, Inc. Power Engineers, Inc. Shannon & Wilson, Inc. William P. Ott Construction Consultants SR 99: Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project July 2011 Air Discipline Report Final EIS This Page Intentionally Left Blank TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 Summary ..............................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Alternatives Considered .............................................................................................................................1 1.2 Build Alternatives Overview .......................................................................................................................2 1.2.1 Bored Tunnel Overview ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Downtown Seattle
    Commercial Revalue 2015 Assessment Roll AREA 30 King County, Department of Assessments Seattle, Wa. Lloyd Hara, Assessor Department of Assessments Accounting Division Lloyd Hara 500 Fourth Avenue, ADM-AS-0740 Seattle, WA 98104-2384 Assessor (206) 205-0444 FAX (206) 296-0106 Email: [email protected] http://www.kingcounty.gov/assessor/ Dear Property Owners: Property assessments for the 2015 assessment year are being completed by my staff throughout the year and change of value notices are being mailed as neighborhoods are completed. We value property at fee simple, reflecting property at its highest and best use and following the requirement of RCW 84.40.030 to appraise property at true and fair value. We have worked hard to implement your suggestions to place more information in an e-Environment to meet your needs for timely and accurate information. The following report summarizes the results of the 2015 assessment for this area. (See map within report). It is meant to provide you with helpful background information about the process used and basis for property assessments in your area. Fair and uniform assessments set the foundation for effective government and I am pleased that we are able to make continuous and ongoing improvements to serve you. Please feel welcome to call my staff if you have questions about the property assessment process and how it relates to your property. Sincerely, Lloyd Hara Assessor Area 30 Map The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice.
    [Show full text]
  • 990-PF and Its Instructions Is at Www
    l efile GRAPHIC p rint - DO NOT PROCESS As Filed Data - DLN: 93491310000404 Return of Private Foundation OMB No 1545-0052 Form 990 -PF or Section 4947 ( a)(1) Trust Treated as Private Foundation 0- Do not enter Social Security numbers on this form as it may be made public. By law, the 2013 IRS cannot redact the information on the form. Department of the Treasury 0- Information about Form 990-PF and its instructions is at www. irs.gov /form990pf . Internal Revenue Service For calendar year 2013 , or tax year beginning 01 - 01-2013 , and ending 12-31-2013 Name of foundation A Employer identification number BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION 56-2618866 Number and street (or P 0 box number if mail is not delivered to street address) Room/suite U 1eiepnone number (see instructions) PO BOX 23350 (206) 709-3100 City or town, state or province, country, and ZIP or foreign postal code C If exemption application is pending, check here F SEATTLE, WA 98102 G Check all that apply r'Initial return r'Initial return of a former public charity D 1. Foreign organizations, check here F r-Final return r'Amended return 2. Foreign organizations meeting the 85% test, r Address change r'Name change check here and attach computation E If private foundation status was terminated H Check type of organization Section 501(c)(3) exempt private foundation und er section 507 ( b )( 1 )( A ), c hec k here F_ Section 4947(a)(1) nonexempt charitable trust r'Other taxable private foundation I Fair market value of all assets at end J Accounting method F Cash F Accrual F If the foundation is in a 60-month termination of year (from Part II, col.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on Alaskan Way Viaduct and Related Projects
    What’s Up Next In The Seattle Squeeze PSRC Transportation Policy Board – April 11 1 Current construction Alaskan Way Viaduct removal • Removes the viaduct (including foundations and ramps) and restores the street • Approximately 6 months of construction Filling and sealing the Battery Street Tunnel • Decommissions systems, fills and seals tunnel • Utility work and street improvements on Battery Street • Approximately 24 months of construction North surface street connections • Reconnects Harrison, Thomas and John streets across rebuilt Seventh Avenue North (formerly Aurora Avenue North) • Adds bus lane between Harrison Street and Denny Way • Approximately 15 months of construction 2 What to expect from viaduct demolition Machinery, not explosives Working quickly and safely • Work at multiple locations at once. • Impact work daytime only. • Except short durations for ramps and over railroad tracks. • Spraying/misting water to control dust. • Monitoring vibration and noise to ensure work stays within permitted limits. • Shielding or nets to protect nearby buildings. 3 Viaduct demolition along the Waterfront Demolition along the waterfront • Area 2: Crews continuing demolition from Columbia Street, moving north along the waterfront 4 Temporary pedestrian bridge • Crews are currently building the temporary pedestrian bridge on Western Avenue between Marion and Columbia streets. • Temporary bridge runs between Colman Dock and First Avenue along Western Avenue and Columbia Street (red line). • Temporary bridge will open this summer before crews remove a section of the current pedestrian bridge over Alaskan Way (orange line). 5 Filling and sealing the Battery Street Tunnel Scope of work • Decommission and remove the tunnel’s utility and mechanical systems. • Fill the tunnel and seal its entrances.
    [Show full text]
  • Pioneer Square East-West Streets Pedestrian Improvements
    PIONEER SQUARE EAST-WEST STREETS PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PIONEER SQUARE PRESERVATION BOARD BRIEFING APRIL 7, 2021 MIG | PERTEET | STUDIO MATTHEWS | HEFFRON TRANSPORTATION | CONCORD | HWA | WHPACIFIC | CHUDGAR PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS ON PORTIONS OF MAIN, WASHINGTON, KING AND YESLER STREETS BETWEEN 2ND AVENUE AND ALASKAN WAY IN DOWNTOWN SEATTLE. THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVES ARE: • CONNECT THE CORE OF PIONEER SQUARE TO THE NEW WATERFRONT; • PROVIDE SAFE, CONVENIENT, GRACEFUL, PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS AND FOSTER POSTIVE CITY LIFE AND ACTIVITY IN KEY PIONEER SQUARE EAST-WEST STREETS. PROJECT BUDGET AND FUNDING PROJECT BUDGET AND FUNDING • $20 MILLION BUDGET FOR ALL PROJECT COSTS (DESIGN, ENVIRONMENTAL, CONSTRUCTION, CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT); $20 million budget for all project costs (design, • FUNDING PRIMARILY FROM WATERFRONT LOCAL IMPROVEMENT • environmental, construction, construction DISTRICT (LID), SUPPORTED BY OTHER CITY FUNDS management) • Funding primarily from Waterfront Local Improvement District (LID), supported by other City funds 4 PROJECT SCHEDULE • MARCH 2021 - 60% DESIGN • AUGUST 2021 - 90% DESIGN, APPLY FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL • DECEMBER 2021 - 100% DESIGN • SUMMER 2022 - START CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL STUDY AREA PIONEER SQUARE EAST-WEST STREETS PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS APRIL 2021 OWCP MIG PRIORITIZED IMPROVEMENTS YESLER WASHINGTON MAIN FIRST AVE ALASKAN WAY SECOND AVE OCCIDENTAL AVE S AVE OCCIDENTAL KING PIONEER SQUARE EAST-WEST STREETS PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS APRIL 2021 OWCP MIG ORIGINAL
    [Show full text]
  • Denny Way Streetscape Concept Plan Plan Drafted in July 2009; Finalized in October 2013
    Denny Way Streetscape Concept Plan Plan drafted in July 2009; Finalized in October 2013 Contributing Stakeholders John Coney........................................................................................Uptown Alliance Ron Turner..................................................................................Belltown Community Darla Norris...........................................................................Pacific Science Center Meike Kaan.......................................................................Cornish College of the Arts Lyn Krizanich...........................................................................Clise Properties Inc. 1200 Stewart Design Team..............................Sclater Partners, Berger Partnership BJ Singletary...........................................................................Archstone Properties Cushing Terrell Architecture & Interiors Karen Kiest......................................................Karen Kiest Landscape Architecture Jill Mackie...........................................................................Seattle Times Company Phil Fujii...........................................................................................................Vulcan Layne Cubell .....................................................................................Seattle Center Mike Boonsripisal ...........................................................King County Metro Transit Susan McLaughlin, Kristen Simpson, Casey Hildreth, Shane Dewald............ SDOT Michael Clark..................................................................................Seattle
    [Show full text]