Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L99-0006 - SEGALE BUSINESS PARK #981 - SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT L99 -0006 SEGALE BUSINESS PARK Park Building 981 SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT SHORELINE MANAGEMENT Dept. Of Community Development , City of Tukwila • AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I, J jn e - Ul 1(e__ HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing Project Name / // -- ecfrte iCs2t4_ t • Determination of Non - Significance Mailer's Signature: naufh, igw-hA, Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination. of Non - Significance t, Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt . Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda • Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit __ __ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box. 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other Mingo, %; 4- cide4,401 4J9-(9 403 i Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this a,day of-,L) in the Year 2000 P: GINAWYNETTA/ FORMS /AFFIDAVIT- MAIL01/24 /0011:44 AM 1' ♦ - CHECKLIST: ••ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW /SHORELINE PERMIT )( UGS , , i+� n'. P oL Komo ros Ke. P} AGENCIES ( �/) II. S . ARMY CORPS OF �,INE� ,f",1 y1f ( ) SU. . ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( ) FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ( ) DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE Q,0, boy 5755 OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR DEPT OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV. DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE ( ) IJ.S. DEPT OF H.U.D. paA 14,0444 WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES ytva)lC4. ( ) D T OF OCIAL & HEALTH SERV. (Vf D OF • ' • , : ; IND. DIV I/ (� DE . ;• = • • = ,.. EPA DIVISION*/ 0 OL). 4/7) OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL ✓ � � *' •SEND CHKLIST W/ DETERMINATIONS i * SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION KING COUNTY KGENCIES K.C. PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEV. BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FIRE DISTRICT #11 FIRE DISTRICT #2 K.C. WATER POLLUTION CNTRL SEPA OFFCL • TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT TUKWILA LIBRARIES RENTON LIBRARY KENT LIBRARY CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY ( -) U S WEST ( ) SEATTLE CITY LIGHT ( ) PUGET SOUND ENERGY ( ) HIGHLINE WATER DISTRICT ( ) SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT ( ) TCI CABLEVISION ( ) OLYMPIC PIPELINE ( ) KENT PLANNING DEPT (. ) TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: ( ) PUBLIC WORKS ( ) POLICE ( ) PLANNING ( ) -PARKS & REC. ( ) CITY CLERK ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) FIRE' FINANCE • . BUILDING MAYOR ( ) PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL ( P.S. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ��L�MUCIQ,ESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE ( ) SEATTLE TIMES 07/09/98 C:WP51DATA \CHKLIST • ( ) . K). C. DEPT OF. PARKS ( ) HEALTH DEPT ( ) PORT OF SEATTLE 1 ( ) K.C.DEV & ENVIR SERVICES —SEPA INFO CNTR ( ) K.C. TRANSIT DIVISION — SEPA OFFICIAL SCHOOLS /LIBRARIES ( ) HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) K C PUBLIC LIBRARY. • ( ) SEATTLE MUNI REF LIBRARY ( ) SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT UTILITIES ( ( ( ( ( PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT ).VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT ) WATER DISTRICT #20 ) WATER DISTRICT #125 ). CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS RAINIER VISTA ) SKYWAY CITY AGENCIES (' ) RENTON PLANNING DEPT ( ) CITY OF SEA —TAC ( ) CITY OF BURIEN ( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS (•) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE — SEPA INFO CENTER — DCLU ( ) SEATTLE OFFICE OF MGMNT &IPLANNING* * NOTICE OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PING PROJ. OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES ( ).METRO ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DIV. OFFICE /INDUSTRIAL 5,000 GSF OR MORE RESIDENTIAL 50 UNITS OR MORE RETAIL 30,000 GSF OR MORE TA t Z Please Mail Notice of Decision to: z w' U O; • cn w; wi 17• 'w0, J: a_ a!, P;. • �;. 1- co., • w �. • • moo. U.U. 'w w Z, • • 0.� z.. Keith E. Moxon Buck & Gordon 902 Waterfront Place 1011 Western Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 -1097 Mark Tierney Crown Cork & Seal ‘k 18340 Segale Park Dr. B ✓ Tukwila,•WA 98188 M.A. Segale, Inc. P.O. Box 88050 Tukwila, WA 98138 Steve. Nelson Segale Business Park P.O. Box 88050 Tukwila, WA 98138 V Alice Kelly O Shorelands & E ironmental Assistance Program Department o cology 3190 160th venue SE • Bellevu A 98008 -5452 Andy Levesque King County Water and Land Resources Division s, 700 - 4th Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98104 -5022 Dave Clark King County Water and Land Resources Division 700 - 4th Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98104 -5022 l� Cizy of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MEMORANDUM February 23, 2000 TO: Interested Parties FM: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director and SEPA Responsible Official RE: Addendum to E99 -0003: Segale Warehouse, Building 981 SEPA; Design Review File L99 -0007, Segale Building No. 981; and L99 -0006 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit: Minor Modification to Proiect Design The developer of the Segale Warehouse Building #981, a 313,735 square foot warehouse located in the shoreline, has made several revisions to the building plans for the warehouse. The revisions are as follows: 1) construction of a retaining wall on Building # 734 as part of reconfiguring the entrance to the new warehouse site and the adjacent property; and 2) the addition of a 20' x 28' covered fuel island on the west side of the warehouse site. The fuel island would be supplied by two underground tanks, one 18,000 gallon underground diesel tank, and one 6,000 gallon underground gasoline tank. This Addendum is provided for three purposes. First, to provide additional information to the SEPA staff report prepared for E99 -0003, environmental review for a proposed warehouse; second, to review the proposed development addition against the design approved by the Board of Architectural Review; and third, to amend the shoreline permit issued for the construction of the warehouse. L99 -0006: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit The underground tanks and fuel island are outside the 200 foot shoreline environment, as illustrated on the attached site plan. The zoning on the site is Heavy Industrial, which permits automotive services such as gasoline pumps. This use would also be permitted in the High Impact portion of the Shoreline environment. The retaining wall on Building 734 is outside the Low Impact Environment and inside the High Impact Environment (see attached site plan). An area in the Low Impact Environment has been paved adjacent to the levee. According to information provided by the applicant, the u it L A: g .3 2 3665 SEGALE BUSINESS PARK A LA PIANTA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP TRADE NAME A LA PIANTA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP TRADE NAME February 16, 2000 Mr. Steve Lancaster City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Lancaster: RE: Determination of non-significance File No: E99 -0003 •i7V OF'TUKWILA FEB 1 8 2000 PERMIT CENTER The following information is provided for an amendment to the SEPA permit for the property located at 5801 Segale Park Drive "C ". A retaining wall, of 88 feet in length, was installed to maintain the raised grade elevation from the river levy to the existing building at 18338 Andover Park West, and south to 5801 Segale Park Drive "C ", the project site. Backfill material against the landward side of the levy consists of .quarry spalls, which is not suitable for •landscape plants. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, Steven R. Nelson Project Manager ban PO Box 88028 • Tukwila,WA 98138 -2028 18000 Andover Park W • Suite 200 • Tukwila, WA 98188 -4798 Telephone 206 575 -2000 • Fax 206 575 -1837 ... z � w J U' 0 0: cno cn w wI; JF_, w o. g J' u. w.. I-0: Z �- 0. .o co w I-- V U.N z February 7, 2000 SEGALE BUSINESS PARK . A LA PIANTA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP TRADE NAME Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 i° • . RE: Determination of non-significance File No: E99 -0003 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA FEB 9 2.000 PERMIT CENTER Dear Mr. Lancaster. Segale Business Park requests that a minor modification be made to the SEPA checklist dated January 6, 1999 for the Building 981 project. The modification involves the addition of a 20' x 28' covered fuel island on the west end of the site. 'Both the underground tanks and the fuel island are outside of the 200 foot Shoreline Management Urban Environment. A brief description of the fuel island construction is as follows: • Two steel columns support the overhead canopy. • The canopy is constructed of steel with a sheetmetal fascia. . • Three fuel dispensers. • One 18,000 gallon underground diesel tank. • One 6,000 gallon underground. gasoline tank. • Associated underground piping and electrical. Enclosed is a site plan showing the location of the fuel island and tanks. Your review and findings of this minor modification to the project would be appreciated. If you have any questions, please all me at (206) 575 -2558. Very truly yours, Steven R. Nelson Project Manager enclosure PO Box 88028 • Tukwila,WA 98138 -2028 . 18000 Andover Park W • Suite 200 • Tukwila, WA 98188 -4798 ..— ...T= le•h•ne205.5.7.5. 200.0 a. ! • 5- 1 3.7. ,...,._ 6 JU UO' 'CO CY CO W =;. .N u.i WO. 2 LL • N �. H W, • _ •Z • • Oc • .w U = U' . • o:. ui z;. '0H.: O Z King County Water and Land Resources Division Department of Natural Resources 201 SouthJackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98104 -3855 (206) 296 -6519 (206) 296 -0192 FAX October 11, 1999 Jim Morrow Director, Public Works Department City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Room 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Levee Grading and Construction Activities; Segale Business Park Dear Mr. Morrow: RECEIVED OCT 1 3 1999 TUKNILA PUBLIC WORKS The purpose of this letter is to request a copy of the site grading and drainage plans for recent construction activity affecting a portion of the federally authorized Lower Green River Levee system in Tukwila. This grading activity was observed on October 6 and 7, 1999, along the landward portion of the levee segment adjoining Building 734 in the Segale Business Park at the intersection of Segale Park Drive "A" and Segale Park Drive "C ". The grading involves excavation, trenching, pipe installation, catch basin and manhole installation, filling, and regrading of a portion of the landward stabilization buttress constructed by King County and the Corps of Engineers in November 1995 as an emergency measure in response to seepage and piping hazards observed at that time. King County staff members were present at a hastily assembled site meeting in late August of this year to discuss scoping of a portion of this work. However, present work significantly exceeds that previously discussed. City staff members were not present at this earlier meeting. No plans or other project documentation has been submitted to our office by the City for our review. All the work appears to be taking place within King County's historic River Protection Easements and access areas at the site. This includes portions of the site over which King County has secured a Permanent Right of Entry for construction and maintenance of the landward levee toe stabilization buttress affected by the present work. This levee segment has historically posed the most severe flood hazards experienced to date anywhere on the Green River Levee system. Together with the City of Tukwila, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Corps of Engineers, King County has spent nearly $1.4 million to stabilize this levee reach. Given our past working relationship and coordination procedures with the City of Tukwila on a wide range of other projects affecting the river z 6 U0 Nom. W =1 J H: w ga' u. Q —d, • = w' -I. I— 0; z r~. w w' o ,O ' • =V — O . z. w .0 ~' •z Jim Morrow October 11, 1999 Page 2 environment, I am concerned that to date I have not been notified of this activity directly affecting the Segale Levee. Through interlocal agreements with the City of Tukwila, King County monitors, maintains, and repairs this levee system through the Green River Flood Control Zone District. Consequently, we must be notified of any such grading activity affecting the structure of the levee itself, and be given an opportunity to review those plans before work is authorized. The structural integrity of this levee system is essential to maintaining flood protection for the Southcenter business community and the Andover Industrial Park. Every effort must be made to ensure that construction work affecting the levee in no way compromises the structure. In an effort to assure the continuity of our historically excellent interlocal cooperation with the City of Tukwila on flood control efforts, I am respectfully requesting that you provide me with a copy of the plans approved by the City for the work in question. My comments on the grading and construction involved will be forthcoming following my review of these documents. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns. If you have any questions regarding these matters, please call me at (206) 296 - 8388. I am quite willing to meet and discuss the issues involved. Dave Clark Manager, Rivers Section DC:tv F636 cc: Colonel James Rigsby, District Engineer, United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Paul Komoroske, Chief, Emergency Operations Branch, Corps Monte Kaiser, Foundations Specialist, Soils and Foundations Branch, Corps Noel Gilbrough, Project Manager, Planning Engineering Branch, Corps Debbie Arima, Assistant Manager, Water and Land Resources Division Sarah Ogier, Green River Basin Program Coordinator, Rivers Section Andy Levesque, Senior Engineer, Green River Basin Program z. �w D J U' UO. CO 0 W= J H. LL: W O. u. J` (-9. �-_ Z� I- 0, Z ui 2 Do :O - ,CI U` wz City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Notice of Decision May 28, 1999 To: Applicant Parties of Record This notice is to confirm the decision reached by the Tukwila Board of Architectural Review on Thursday, May 27, 1999. The Board of Architectural Review voted to approve the design of a 313,735 square foot warehouse and related offices and the landscaping plan based on the findings and conclusion in the staff report dated May 14, 1999. This letter is issued pursuant to the Permit Application Types and Procedures, Tukwila Municipal Code Zoning Chapter, (18.104.170) on the following project and permit approvals. Project File Number: Associated Files: Applicant: Request: Location: SEPA Determination: L99 -0007, Design Review Application L99 -0006 (Shoreline Substantial Development Permit) & E99 -0003 (SEPA determination) Steve Nelson for Segale Business Park Construct a 313,735 sq. ft. concrete tilt -up warehouse with associated office space within 200 feet of the shoreline. The project is subject to design review. 5801 -6199 Segale Park Drive "C" DNS Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permits are available for inspection at: Tukwila Department of Community Development; 6300 Southcenter Bl., Suite 100; Tukwila, WA 98188 Monday through Friday; 8:30 a.m. -5:00 p.m. The planner managing the project is Carol Lumb, who may be contacted at 431 -3661 for further information. This decision may be appealed to the Tukwila City Council pursuant to TMC 18.104.010 E. by filing a Notice of Appeal within 14 calendar days from the date of the issuance of this Notice of Decision (TMC 18.116.010). Information on the content of the Notice of Appeal may be obtained from the Department of Community Development at the address noted above. cAcarol\Segale\notdec.doc 6300 Southcenter Boulevarc4 Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 4313665 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY RECEIVED MAY 2 5 1999 DEVELOPMENT Northwest Regional Office, 3190 - 160th Ave S.E. • Bellevue, Washington 98008 -5452 • (425) 649 -7000 May 24, 1999 Steve Nelson LaPianta Limited Partnership Dba Segale Business Park PO. Box 88028 Tukwila, WA 98138 Dear Mr. Nelson: Re: City of Tukwila Permit # L99 -0006 SEGALE BUSINESS PARK - Applicant Shoreline Substantial Development Permit # 1999 -NW -10041 The subject Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit, to construct 313,735 square foot warehouse, has been filed with this office by the City of Tukwila on May 11, 1999. The development authorized by the subject permit may NOT begin until the end of the 21 -day appeal period, June 1, 1999. The Shorelines Hearings Board will notify you by letter if this permit is appealed. Other federal, state, and local permits may be required in addition to the subject permit. If this permit is NOT appealed, this letter constitutes the Department of Ecology's final notification of action on this permit. Sincerely, Alice Kelly, Shorelands Specialist Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program AMK:amk cc: Carol Lumb, City of Tukwila U O tnw: .w i;• w Q: • (.2 a. • • ►-, • z �.= I-O'. z�. . w . • o N� 0 I-, • = i • i V : w z; • • FILING A PETITION FOR REVIEW WITH THE SHORELINES HEARINGS BOARD To Petition For Review (appeal) a permit decision with the Shorelines Hearings Board (Board) you must comply with the requirements of RCW 90.58.180 and WAC 461 -08. The Petition For Review must be received by the Board within twenty one (21) days of the "date of filing" as defined in RCW 90.58.140(6) and WAC 173 -27- 100(8): The "date of filing" for • Substantial Development Permits • Revisions to Substantial Development Permits • Locally denied Conditional Use Permits and Variances • Locally denied Revisions to Conditional Use Permits and Variances is the date Ecology received a complete permit submittal. The "date of filing" for • Locally approved Conditional Use Permits and Variances • Locally approved Revisions to Conditional Use Permits and Variances is the date Ecology mailed its decision. The "date of Filing" for • Locally approved Conditional Use Permits or Variances filed concurrently with a Substantial Development Permit is the date Ecology mailed its decision on the Conditional Use and/or Variance. The Petition For Review must contain: (1) The name, mailing address, telephone number and telefacsimile number (if available) of the appealing party, and of the representative, if any; (2) Identification of the parties, by listing in the caption or otherwise. In every case, the agency and/or the local government whose decision is being appealed and the person to whom the decision is directed shall be named as parties; (3) A copy of the application for a shoreline permit which was filed with the local government pursuant to RCW 90.58.140; (4) A copy of the decision or permit appealed; (5) A short and plain statement showing the grounds upon which the appealing party considers such decision or permit to be unjust or unlawful; (6) A clear and concise statement upon which the appealing party relies to sustain his or her grounds for appeal; (7) The relief sought, including the specific nature and extent; (8) The signature of the representative of the appealing party or of the appealing party. The signature of the representative or the appealing party shall constitute a certificate by the signatory that the signatory has read the petition and that it is consistent with civil rule 11; (9) All pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice. WHERE TO FILE A PETITION FOR REVIEW The original and one copy of the Petition For Review must be filed with the Shorelines Hearings Board 4224 6th Avenue SE, Building 2, Rowe Six PO Box 40903. Lacey, WA 98504 -0903 Phone: 360 - 459 -6327 Fax: 360 - 438 -7699 One copy of the Petition For Review must be filed with the Department of Ecology and one copy with the Attorney General within seven (7) days of filing with the Board: Department of Ecology Shoreline Appeals Coordinator 300 Desmond Drive, Lacey P O Box 47690 Olympia, WA 98504 -7690 Phone: 360 -407 -6528 FAX: 360- 407 -6535 Office of the Attorney General Ecology Division 629 Woodland Square Loop SE, Lacey PO.Box40117 Olympia, WA 98504 -0117 Phone: 360- 459 -6320 FAX: 360-438-7743 One copy of the Petition For Review must be filed with the local government whose permit or decision is being appealed; and One copy of the Petition For Review must be filed with the permit applicant. If you have questions please call the Shorelines Hearings Board at 360 - 459 -6327. The Board's FAX number is (360) 438 -7699. Or, call Ecology's Shorelines Appeals Coordinator at 360 - 407 -6528, or FAX (360) 407 - 6535. Ecology is an Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action Employer. For special accommodation needs, contact the ADA Coordinator at (360) 407 -6199. The TDD number is (360) 407 -6006. z JU; UO CO W: W=: JI_ . U) ; ui u. <. F=-. zI-. o w; • w :. U =• 0~ City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MAY 13, 1999 CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT INFORMATION Steve Nelson, for Segale Business Park has filed an application for Design Review, File Number L99 -0007, to construct a 313,735 square foot concrete tilt -up warehouse with associated office and maintenance facilities at 5801 — 6199 Segale Park Drive "C ". The proposed warehouse is located adjacent to the Green River. You are invited to comment on the project at a public hearing scheduled for May 27, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. before the Board of Architectural Review. The hearing will take place at City Hall in the City Council Chambers, 6200 Southcenter Blvd. To confirm the time and date before the hearing, call the Department of Community Development at 431 -3670. For further information on this proposal, contact Carol Lumb at 431 -3661 or visit our offices at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Permits applied for include: • Design Review (L99 -0007) • Shoreline Substantial Development (L99 -0006) • SEPA Checklist (E99 -0003) Other known required permits include: • Land Altering Permit FILES AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW The project files are available at the City of Tukwila. To view the files, you may request them at the permit counter of the Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard #100. c: \carol \Segale \pubnot.doc 7; f:,aa27 , . ., .., ,... 1 k 1 Wa hfngton 08188 • 1206) 431 -3670 • Fax 1206) 431 -3665 `• • •z •1-Z' te 2 tO cn w; w =;.. J LL: w 0; g5'. J, • wa 0 d. I— O. .z D o' U N% 0 1—.. . = w. tt H O_ • ti.lz .O ~' • .. . Shoreline Management Act S� Permit Data Sheet and Transmittal LetWe c From: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Suite 100 Seattle, WA 98188 Date of Transmittal: 5 -11 -99 Type of Permit: Substantial Development Local Government Decision: Approval Applicant Information: Name: LaPianta Limited Partnership dba Segale Business Park Address P. O. Box 88028 Tukwila, WA 98138 Is the applicant the property owner? Yes MO 11999 OF 6 ju`°u' To: Department of Ec&) NW Regional Office 3190 160th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, WA 98008 -5452 Date of Receipt: Applicant's Representative: Name: Steve Nelson (206) 575 -2000 Location of the property: 5801 6199 Segale Park Dr. "C: ", Tukwila; SE 1/4 35 -23 -04 Water. Body Name: Green River Shoreline of Statewide Significance: Yes Environment Designation: Urban Description of Project: Construct a 313,735 square foot concrete tilt -up warehouse with related office and maintenance space within 200 feet of the shoreline. Notice of Application Date: March 19, 1999 Final Decision Date: May 10, 1999 Carol Lumb, Associate Planner, City of Tukwila Phone Number: (206) 431 -3661 c:\carol\segaleshorecov.doc Z w JU UO; CO o' U) w J; CO u. w O. g� I Z �. F- O' Z 1— Cr off. w • H w LI O • Z• tn! OF Z O F D I S T R I B U T I O N I, 6a SA1A—CI hereby declare that: \.. ['Notice of Public Hearing El Determination of Non - significance 0 Notice of Public Meeting ['Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance QBoard of Adjustment Agenda EDeterinination of Significance Packet and Scoping Notice 0 Notice of Action Board of Appeals Agenda Packet El Planning Commission Agenda fl Official Notice Packet WI �'` _L j Short Subdivision A enda Other C€ CIF SI 1, (Per Agenda Jal ['Notice of Application for E Other Shoreline Management Permit Shoreline Management Permit Qt was to • - - Name of Project qCT\ Signature File Number L9 l 0 A F F I D A V I T o . J U. • :0 0; CO 111 • =; - f-: w 00II . • • • :ONE .w w. H U . w Z' _, • • MAY 131999 COMMUNITY • DEVELOPMENT A F F I D A V I T O F I � 4cve lv cjGCDP 1 O Notice of Public ❑ Notice of Public 0 Board of Packet LI Board of Packet []Planning Packet Hearing Meeting Adjustment Agenda Appeals Agenda Commission Agenda 0 Short Subdivision Agenda Packet Q Notice of Shoreline V Shoreline ?DST/ D I S T R I B II-T-1 O N hereby declare that: Application for Management Permit Management Permit flDetermination of Non - significance 0Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance ODetermination of Significance and Scoping Notice ONotice of Action fl Official Notice 0 Other f Other 7.msrt-wl 0/ was tc each -et the following addresses on 67-7/-77 • 441C n/.r-O-- G(/„2,/ /865-k-4 ;,E_(.(J Name of Project..¢6Gk At l.'s File Number L'1' 0001 Signature 316,0e. z w. JD. 0'0: • • moo: w =' wO J' u.¢ rn�' C1 w • I. • f- O` z F- 'w uj 2 W: V II— Si •ui Shoreline Management Act of 1971 PERMIT FOR'SHDRELIQE MANAGEMENT SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT File Number: L99-8006 Status: APPROVED Applied: 02/05/1999 Approved: 05/10/1999 Expiration: 05/09/7001 Pursuant to ROW 90.53, a permit is hereby granted to: SEGALE BUSINESS PARK #931 t � It. to undertake the following development: ~- ' CONSTRUCTION OF NEW 313,735 SO.FT. WAREHOUSE TO BE USED FOR WAREHOUSE AND 0FFIQE.. � ' ' (..)C)� L3. upon the following property:- CO . Ill i Address: 5801 SEGALE PARK DR C - _It_: Parcel No: 3523O49OI8 u) w- ' ' �� • Seu/TwnyRnge: � ' � � !'�`'�' ' � ' ' � ' ' mc _u THE PROPOSED. PROJECT WILL BE WITHIN'. THE AREA or THE.8REEN RIVER u.‹; AND IT8 A3S0Cl/\TED 'WETLANDS, WHICH IS A SHORELINE OF STATEWlDE D: SIGNIFICANCE'AND IS DESIGNATED/\S AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT' oc"m ��� ` Th8 fo master program provisions are applicable to this development: URBAN 1._ Ill 'Li D� ;� ' ' �� m �� �- �� `' ` ` .. CO � � ' ���~~. x- � '� ` . � '' CI , � ' . . , . �� al uj .. `.� ' ` ' ' `�' ' ! �� ' ^ ` 3: Development pursuant to this permit shall be undertaken pursuant to the ' �' ~a�ta�h�d terms and conditions. _ . �om- -i ��p-� 0 This p 0 ranted pursuant to the 9h0r8llno Management Act of 1971 an n0thin permit shall excuse the ap�liCant fromoomplianoe�with any other Eed,eraltate or local statutes, ordinances or regulations applicatOeto,this project, but not inconsistent with the- Shorpljne Management A (Chapter 90'58 RCW).' . ` � ( . This permitMay be rescinded pursuant to ROW 90_58.140(3) in the event the permi ttee falls to� comp ly with the terms or conditions hereof. .,. ` - CONSTRUCTIONjURSUANT T0 THIS PERMIT WILL NOT BEGIN OR IS NOT AUTHORIZED UNTIL TWENTY-ONE(21) DAYS FROM,THE DATE OF FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AS DEFINED-,IN ROW 9U'58.l4�(G} AND WAC l7�-l4-O9G` OR UNTIL ALL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS:-INITIATED TED WITHIN TWENTY-ONE .(23.) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SUCH FILING HAVE TERMINATED:, EXCE T AS PROVIDED IN ROW 90'53'140(5){a)(b)(c) Date:_�� �~~' • ' Steve Lancaster Director, Planning Department Construction or substantial progress toward construction must begin within two years from date of issuance, per WAC 173-14-060' • CITY OF TUKWILA Address: 5801 EGALE PARK DR C ••Sui'te: Tenant: . Type: P-SHORE Parcel #: 352304-9018 Permit No: L99-0006 Status: APPROVED Applied: 02/05/1999 issued: 05/10/1999 **4.*AlkkA**k*kkk**kkkk**.AJekkkk.4,**k*kikkAk*kkk*A.*A***AAA:kAkkkA.4*k.k*kl,kwk4,k Permit Conditions: 1. ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE LOW IMPACT ENVIRONMENT IN THE GENERAL ARFAS_INDICATED ON ATACHMENT C SUCH THAT EMERGENCY VEHICLE AND NORMAL' 'TRUCK OPERATIONS ARE NOT IMPEDED. h4 ' • - P‘ P.it tY.,4!. '..'",e,r.:.:',':--,,::". - . • c-.. .,.!•,- ,-,..•:1,',''' ,•.,t). ..,1„,.. . ,.,. -.. , , ....... „. : '",, li.'•-:.''' ,,. .. _ •••••- • ,, , .,, .„--,., :,,, , • ... , • -3..,,.:p.:;, ... 'i=. '''' . '''''''''.,,/,.. ?/..- , , .,,, , ...v. . ..t •:,-,.: •L; • IA .„■. „.i.. .. '",..".•..,...,';'"*. ,1,s, i'rc ',. , . ■-ic • .i,. i:. "^ . (;?. :',. ..q • '.'; L....C:. -• .,.„ • t,,ic l k. ,, . ':'':'.:;1•,:t.r,' ,-.., i ,,t,-., • ,...,- , 1, kt' • ,' , ,• • -Li ,,I. ., ,, ,, ,,,, r•, , .... 6 . ,-'----- ' ''''C •"'",',H i', 1§-,...H,',,,,'..j' f i !,-.! • :1 • A F F I D A V I T O F D I S T R I B U T I O N /Uthdc/ 13,,,II hereby declare that: ONotice of Public Hearing fl Determination of Non - significance LI Notice of Public Meeting 0 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance Board of Adjustment Agenda ODetermination of Significance Packet and Scoping Notice fl Board of Appeals Agenda fl Notice of Action 'Packet fPlanning Commission Agenda LI Official Notice Packet Short Subdivision Agenda ❑ Other Packet LNotice of Application for : LI Other ,_Shoreline Management Permit Nhoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses on / 145/Qq9. a,--14-cLat_toc Name of Project File Number l l"/ V 01001:j Signature z J U.'. :00 O o. w =: : F., N 1!. w O' J' tL a: 1= --_,:. Z�. 1-O; Z :w w, U • =V;. Z ui ffi - =' O ~' z Keyston 18303 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Cadillac Plastic 18292 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Familian NW 18323 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Crown Cbr & S -al 18340 Segale ' - rk Dr "B" Tukwila, W a ' 818 United Stationers 18300 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 Gaco Western PO Box 88698 Seattle, WA 98138 Crate Tech, Inc. 6206 South 190th Street Kent, WA 98032 TBI Building LLC 6412 S. 190th' St. Kent, WA 98032 Bruce & Elizabeth Mitchell P.O. Box 99151 Seattle, WA 98199 Keys 18301 Tukw n B others dover Park West A 98188 Columbia Packaging 18296 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle Tractor Parts 18349 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 A. America 18255 Segale Park Dr "B" Tukwila, WA 98188 Rock -Tenn 18340 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 Reid Plastics, Inc. 6545 South Glacier Place Tukwila, WA 98188 Family Life Insurance 18285 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Gaco Western, Inc. PO Box 88698 Seattle, WA 98138 James Campbell Estate 1001 Kamokila Blvd Kapolei, HI 96707 Schoenbachler Enterprises 6728 - 134th Ct. NE Redmond, WA 98052 Fletcher's Fine Foods 18338 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Alpak Food Equipment 18298 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Viking Office Products 18300 Segale Park Dr "B" Tukwila, WA 98188 General Medical Corp. 18325 Segale Park Dr "B" Tukwila, WA 98188 The 6230 Kent, aker th 190th Street 98032 Materials, Inc. 6214 South 190th Street Kent, WA 98042 Br 19p 00 I ;,4.1' h Mitchell NE 155 Meteor Building Assoc. 120 W. Dayton St. #C1 Edmonds, WA 98020 The Box Maker 6412 S. 190th St. Kent, WA 98032 z Z. e: g. J U U0 N Nw w Z' J � w0 g (S d. �_. Z i° LL! uj o co w I U• O Z Ww A F F I D A V I T \vim &ALA O Notice of Public O Notice of Public Hearing Meeting 0 Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet 0 Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Planning Commission Agenda Packet 0 Short Subdivision Agenda Packet .Q Notice of <horeline Shoreline O F D I S T R I B U T I O N hereby declare that: Application for Management Permit Management Permit fJDetermination of Non - significance 0Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice ONotice of Action 0 Official Notice 0 Other 0 Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on p� 41g' Name of Project9 _n_ & S. F Ji Signature File Number Lsici-- oc(26 • CHECKLIST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW /SHORELINE PERMIT MAILINGS 1/1,-10 -(44, v j ✓@ \4orLi S4111'{1 °• Gttn.; Pt J V--Calfd°9q. P .E • F CA/11 P ) . me4ry.VN(A l 0 5,01E t' 1(y) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ( ) FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ( DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE r ( ) OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY ( ) TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ( ) DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES ( ) OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR ( DEPT OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV. / EPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE K.C. PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEV. BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FIRE DISTRICT #11 FIRE DISTRICT #2 K.C. WATER POLLUTION CNTRL SEPA ( ) TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT (' . TUKWILA LIBRARIES ( ) RENTON LIBRARY ( ) KENT LIBRARY ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY ( ( ( ( ( ( U S WEST SEATTLE CITY LIGHT PUGET SOUND ENERGY HIGHLINE WATER DISTRICT SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT TCI CABLEVISION /KENT OLYMPIC PIPELINE V ( KENT PLANNING DEPT t" ( ). TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: ( . PUBLIC WORKS ( ) ( ) POLICE ( ) ( ):PLANNING ( ) ( ') PARKS & REC. ( ) ( ) CITY CLERK F DERAL AGENCIES w (3Jci�GVl ( ) U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( ) U.S. DEPT OF H.U,D. ✓ OVA (�Q 11 al 714-✓In¢ •ci5(nav(fs StvJuCZ WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES OFFCL FIRE FINANCE BUILDING MAYOR ( ) PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL ( ) P.S. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY ( ) SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE )/(1//) MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE;, /(� DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE ( ) SEATTLE TIMES 07/09/98 C:WP51DATA \CHKLIST DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. N ✓r('V PT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELIND DIVA' b 1 n Co-iv key' / OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION* ( V' OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL tDOE �QG{'�uv\ V * SEND CHKLIST W/ DETERMINATIONS * SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION KING COUNTY AGENCIES SC ( ) K.C. DEPT OF PARKS ( ) HEALTH DEPT ( ) PORT OF SEATTLE ( ) K.C.DEV & ENVIR SERVICES -SEPA INFO CNTR ( ) K.C. TRANSIT DIVISION - SEPA OFFICIAL r C K'� Wtt.{-nr �i ►JG WAi..i�SQIJVCe_, ice. 1 JtS'o'� SCHOOLS LIBRARIES 4 n • f rci L uES Ue, SOD '`-1 ,% yjJnvtUC. Suit C 'LLu° HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT !d.i•{Qt , 6I _5O22* K C PUBLIC LIBRARY SEATTLE MUNI REF LIBRARY SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT UTILITIES PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT WATER DISTRICT #20 WATER DISTRICT #125 CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS RAINIER VISTA SKYWAY CITY AGENCIES ( ) RENTON PLANNING DEPT ( ) CITY OF SEA -TAC ( ) CITY OF BURIEN ( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ( ) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER - DCLU ( ) SEATTLE OFFICE OF MGMNT & PLANNING* * NOTICE OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ. OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES (. ) METRO ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DIV. OFFICE /INDUSTRIAL 5,000 GSF OR MORE RESIDENTIAL 50 UNITS OR MORE RETAIL 30,000 GSF OR MORE MEDIA 14 tcimeA 'iiPJt/►1eU (N'Own %I (L Sew t � 3 '40 S t.t 1; ntw f.. 'j �i2�►l� wA . ., - , .':�: .. .... _. •z W 6 2. JU UO' N 0. ' OD W; • WI; O' J'. -j Y2 cf. _ F-! Z 0-.,_ W ;O 0 I! W W! fit. • z; 17-* • • z • :. '• • ... ,ITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188-2599 (206) 433-1800 TO: WASH FISHERIES/WILDLIFE 16018 MILL CREEK BLVD MILL CREEK, WA 98012 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188-2599 (206) 433-1800 TO: Mr. Paul Komoroske, P.E. Chief, Emergency Management Branch 4735 East Marginal Way S. Seattle, WA 98124-2255 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188-2599 (206) 433-1800 TO: Ms. DeeAnn Kirkpatrick National Marine Fisheries Service Wash. State Habitat Branch 510 Desmond Drive S.E., #103 Lacey, WA 98503 • (7% r. CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188-2599 (206) 433-1800 TO: WASH FISHERIES/WILDLIFE 16018 MILL CREEK BLVD MILL CREEK, WA 98012 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188-2599 (206) 433-1800 TO: DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE 140 RAINIER AVE S - STE 7 RENTON, WA 98055-2000 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188-2599 (206) 433-1800 TO: MUCRLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE 39015 172nd AVE SE AUBURN, WA 98092 (206) 433-1800 TO: Mr. Andy Levesque King Coutny Water & Natural Res. 700 - 4th Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98104-5022 (71 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 -2599 (206) 433 -1800 WA STATE ATTORNEY GEN ECOLOGY DEPARTMENT PO BOX 40117 OLYMPIA, WA 98504 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 -2599 (206) 433 -1800 Mr. Mark Tierney Crown Cork & Seal 18340 SEgale Park Dr. B Tukwila, WA 98188 . M. A. Segale, Inc. PO Box 88050 Tukwila, "WA 98138 La Pianta Limited Partnership PO Box 88028 Tukwila, WA 98138 -2028 City of Kent 220 4t ".Ave. South Kent, WA 98032 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 -2599 (206)433.1800 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 -2599 .(206) 433. 1800_____, TO: DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY SEPA REVIEW SECTION PO BOX 47703 OLYMPIA, WA 98504 -7703 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA. WA 98188.2599 (206) 433-1800 La Pianta Limited Partnership PO Box 88028 Tukwila, WA 98138 -2028 .,,,... ,,, „,„.>.,..... •..•;,-':•• • • .; • z . • z: re. 2 6 • • 00: WLU -J V) . g •:(' • D. 1-• ujx: o • ° U) 0 ui (,,)! I- i= LI 0 . Z CLI , . Shoreline Management Act of 1971 PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SUBSTANTIAL File Number: Status. Applied: Approved: E p i ra-t i -on : L99 -0006 APPROVED 02/05/1999 05/10/1999 05/09:200.1 Purs.uap t to RCW 90.56, a permit is hereby to undertake the following. development: CONSTRUCTION OF NEW -J-13,735 'SD. FT. WAREHOUSE TO BE USED- FOR WAREHOUSE AND upon the following pr Address:' 5601 S Parcel No: 3523 DEVELOPMENT granted to: =REGALE BUSHES'. PARK #981 Sec /Twn /Rnge: THE PROaPOSED'IR4JECT,%WIL-L BE WITHIN' T IE AREA' OFr:�THE.:+OPEEN RIVER AND X44( A: �,OCIzA+TED:.aWETLANDS ,WHICH IS A HORELILr4E OF STATEWIDE SI {ir^�WICANCE ANClIS DESIGNATED -;;PS AN URBAN:.ENUIRQNMErTr' to na'ster4prog.cent''pr'gvi id m . • are a p p 1 ,calv1e to--t.b -s--'.i.eve1opment. :: ! r,,' , J j .f. rye . 1 e�y • i 71: i y + f p � _ L: rt ;q •t� rii tiyi ; +.:.} . Development p,rf sueant to tiris,,.`p. rmit shall b.e.. undertaken spur uant; the attached:{ trm. an7d c6nd.tti�o+ns. .7, ""„ ' i '' Thi .pei�mi t; is 'grAnted ;�ici'rr'cia`ht to�`,the' '_,'hi7r,6'ly- 1R -e.,. Managemer14-. Act Ydx 1971 an nothing:`ti •n Gh;.iis pe�ltmi t _,ha1 1 excuse' the a_ppl*1 -aar�` trom,:'coni�'1`fanc -e;, w i th any 17. ther Fe4era..1 �,"-`"�•Sta:te or local _,tatot�ee= u1=�fi•nances ors r ecgAp�;at'`u.r:s appii+_able tub thclis ;91'0 ect but not fnc�on_;iis.t -ent. with:;'th'►� ;�,hore'lr ne Management ;Act �(Chapt'er 90.58 RCM) . .. . `' - • URBAN - • •' ' • :L;uK This perm i ' inay b �. rid =,c nded pur. crarrt to PCW�''SI 5C . 140 f C i rr tfie event t. thr-. ):�3 permi ttee 1411 s to Y.e triply with the terms or• conic i [ i =�n here`c't •. -1 �� . ✓a �5 i'1 ..� •9 �� � .a,, -,,.J .jrtwrr:: . ,� .,+''s CONSTRUCTION�:PU.RSUANT TO THIS 'rr CRRri•IT-'WILL NOT BEGIN O.R =M- NOT AUTHORIZED UNTIL TWENTY- CNVE*(.21) DAYS FROMTHE -;DATE OF FILING 4+i'lTWTHE DEPARTMENT OF r ECOLOGY AS DEFINED1 I.N RCW 90. $8= _..1.40 t G) ND WAC 17;T:=090. OR UNTIL ALL REVIEW PROCEEDING_ .:r� IJjATED WITH•ii ' TWENTY - NE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SUCH FILING HAVE TERM°TN�4T cf ;- E:.CCEPT AS PPOVIDED rN RCW 90. SC. 140(5) (a)' b) tc. Date: ci Steve Lancaster" Director, Planning Department . Construction or substantial progress toward construction must begin within two years from date of issuance, per WAC 173- 14 -0G0. ?a54e6( ?a,✓wc-0 z w CL D 00 CDo J = UL w0 H O • H W w 2 I- 1- U. 1- W O ~ z ----CITY OF TUKWILA Ad.dress: 5801 SEGALE PARK -DR-C- • Suite: Tenant: Type: Parcel : P-SHORE 352304-9018 Per=m-it No: L99-0006 Status: APPROVED App] ieJ: 02/05/19 Issued: 05/10=1999 **4***44**********.****4******A4******.kk**********k.M141.4Wk****1.4***.ole* Permit Conditions: 1. ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE PROVIDED-IN THE LOW IMPACT ENVIRONMENT IN THE GENERALaELfL CATED ON ATACHMENT C SUCH THAT EMERGENCY VUI.k JE2506-NOR -K OPERATIONS APE NOT IMPEDED. , . • _,477/,../ •• • :•). .,,,ft/v,.7 • '3... "• .:; 1 .. V ..S - \ .17 f...; . ,i ■ i ..1:-:// "•*-4•"4 it ; .z 1,:t 7 —............ .. • . ..... .. .,....'. ''';. ''. Si i .:: . '.... •I'. . .. . '.!/ 41 .wri'l • . ' iz-ri .---,-,•-.- . --, %.,.. / ' 4 n 3 ., • • , .;., •.r.-zu.." 1 :' .'...........- 1 .. iv 'S ‘0 0 :i.,',--------, . ...___..., / '1i .071'4'4 • • . likr".1.11 - . .1ki•-•.1-° . ........ / : . ' •••-•••'" .. .. ./&if• ;ii . 4 . 'i,■?.. "'.1:\---7_,.._ Ftp-•.,4 • ,-..) ,... . ▪ •,_ . : ,,1 % ! -„,, ,.. • - -,. N't'-'.‘i-1/ • i• - '3 --- • t- . --t-;— • / --'.; ••• is.'"1 1 1."-'' ' 4 . '-'. ., 1 . ; .4 ••■ "I4 1 r .... • •: . I 7 1 - ""*--:a...,:_.,1 • • : ^-,•,.. i. • • , ,,,'" • ,..--.....`,... ',• 't j N'' .,..,. 7,, . r••-• .4 .. j,... • ...• • • ,1 . . . ' tr.:. • 1 ..., • ... . ' ' . ' ' ■ •••• .'..;:" 9 • *. .' ' '-." ''..h.,'‘ ',.‘. " f:::—,........ ,ra „-, i.j. : i ,---;. . ' .• . -' . ,,. ;711 -.. -, ::—.. •si - - -e--..,.... ...4 Vs4.1, A• '‘, ' 7 IT 4'. ...4t;"".. • ' I', 1 . ...4 3,, ' • ...) • . , ,,, A 't -• .A -I , ,.,•.„ ,; ,,, „A , 't.-.4.t .... ----1 .si V.. • , ; "* ', • i • ,...• % „ •„,...:.:-‘, ." • :.":1 s:.,‘ ,„,„ .. . • t .n.... / I ..,,44 •:.!...;.;'' 1 . \ :.:'..si. ,-.L.'....•‘, ' .„'• Ar.t •-■-) . • ) .' •:., . '..) •,,,..,...: . " \;.-.- .7•,\ - -,..... 4.:. ..,., • 44 'i•,..-- '• -- - ...--1..:.• N••,1...?:::-- • . ,-; :•. • .•:, -,,,, .1 , _,,, . -•.-.••%., ,•;... . : . :••: ',,i. ..i :1 , ,,J.,-,,,,.• •:' • ••••:.c....,,-.: •,, !,, ,.. .. ^,..,H..., .....;;._ -......s.i, "...s.;:..•-•..,. 4::71' N.:t ... ,..4 1 9 co . ''■'4i...:', -,,4 ' •', --V' —r....11 .... '',.. • '.-..it:• , .4), - •--. % . D. )4 .,, -.. •:,. '---,-.... ::; ,4. I. '•;)", ..1/ • .: .,.'-':,- . ti 011., • , ,..‘,-• i-.‘.1 '‘., .. ,.: "5.) ,t,■''''''' , 1,i; 1.', ... , : ..- :1. ',.•_,;',r.'. .7..{ '+. :,..;;:;--': ...s...,,t, .!,,,..:“......,..,.,•,...,:f .0 ,‘ .... ,,.4 , .....,., 1 ...,'" ..,..: ,..- -,...t.:, ..!.....- , ..-.........„•,...... •,.. , ..,- i :.7. •,-;::::ti.r.•‘:;''' .!'..:::.''.'. .. . .,'' ' Z w -J 00 co 0 co w w w 0 5 I a W Z 0 Z I- W w • co O — CI I— W w I . Z W (.0 O 1— z k • City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director TO: Steve Lancaster, Dirg'' pio FM: Carol Lumb, Assoc anner RE: Shoreline Permit: L99 -0006, Segale Business Park Building 981 Date: May 10, 1999 MEMORANDUM 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project involves the construction of a 313,735 square foot concrete tilt -up warehouse building with related offices within 200 feet of the Green River, a shoreline of the State. Attachment A is a copy of the site plan; Attachment B is a copy of the landscaping plan. 2. POLICIES OF THE SMA /SMP: The site is within the jurisdiction of the Tukwila Shoreline Management Program (SMP). This program was adopted in June, 1974 and amended March 16, 1982. The City's SMP was reviewed and approved by the State Department of Ecology as being consistent with the State Shoreline Management Act, adopted in 1971. The Shoreline Master Plan establishes three management zones adjacent to the Green/Duwamish River: River Zone: An impact buffer area which provides for resource protection, flood control maintenance, pollution control and landscape enhancement. This zone includes the first 40 feet from the mean high water mark. Low Impact Zone: A transition area intended to minimize physical and visual impact on the river zone while accommodating shoreline development. This zone includes the second 60 feet from the mean high water mark. High Impact Zone: An area to provide for more intensive use of the shoreline resource. This zone includes the area from 100 feet to 200 feet from the mean high water mark. The applicable policies of the City's Shoreline Management Program are set forth below along with a discussion of the proposed project. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 •z. ttitil • .'Jo: 1.3 0' O: • w =; --� 1- J• u. •t=- 'Pr; z�. z �- • • 0f ILE z, U O z • • L99 -0006: Segale Business Park Building 981 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit City of Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan: Overall Goals: 1. Promote reasonable and appropriate use of the shorelines, which will promote and enhance public interest. 2. Protect against adverse effects against the public health, the land, its vegetation and wildlife and the waters and their aquatic life within Tukwila. 3. Protect public rights of navigation. 4. Recognize and protect private property rights consistent with public interest. 5. Preserve and protect fragile natural resources and culturally significant features. 6. Preserve and protect fragile natural resources and culturally significant features. 7. Provide safe and reasonable access for the public to the shorelines. 8. Recognize, protect, and improve aquatic habitats and spawning grounds of the Green River, which are invaluable natural resources. 9. Recognize, protect and improve those wildlife habitats, which are valuable natural resources of the State. 10. Encourage recreational activities unique to or dependent upon the use of the river which benefit the public interest. Response: The proposed project is to construct a 313,735 square foot concrete tilt -up building, which will be used primarily for warehouse activities, with associated office and maintenance space. The project is located in an area of the City designated on the Comprehensive Plan Map for Heavy Industrial activity and is taking place on a parcel of land located within an industrial park. Adjacent land uses consist of other industrial buildings within the industrial park, across the river is an office park and City of Kent park. The Green River Trail is located across the river. An Army Corps of Engineers Section 205 levee runs the length of the site along the river. The project will not discharge storm water into the river or otherwise impact the shoreline environment. Given the nature of the development, the project will promote economic development in the City, which is one aspect of enhancing the public interest. The development will enhance the stability of the levee on the landward side through the addition of fill, which is in the public interest. There is an opportunity to reduce the amount of impervious surface on the site by increasing the landscaping in the Low Impact Environment in areas that are not needed for the truck access along the eastern edge of the site or the fire access way in the rear of the building, which is also in the overall public interest. The project will not interfere with the navigation of the Green River. There are no culturally significant features on the site. The project will not interfere with the aquatic habitat and spawning grounds found in the Green River. Public access to the river is available on the opposite side of the river from this project on the Green River Trail, which meanders back and forth on either side of the river from Auburn north through the City of Tukwila. c: \carol\segale\shorerpt.doc 2 L99 -0006: Segale Business Park Building 981 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Economic Development Element Goals: 1. Encourage economic development along shorelines that will enhance the quality of life for the residents of Tukwila with minimum disruption of the environment. 2. Encourage economic development along shorelines that will result in long -term over short-term benefits for the river shoreline. 3. Recognize the quality of the existing economic activities along the river and discourage any future economic activities that may be of less quality. 4. Encourage inland location of development so that access along the shorelines is enhanced. 5. Encourage commercial development of public recreational facilities consistent with shoreline goals and policies. Response: As noted above, the project will create 313,735 square feet of warehouse with related office space. The project will generate construction jobs during the time the building is under construction and permanent employment for approximately 40 to 75 people and to that extent enhances the quality of life for the residents of Tukwila. The proposed building is a permanent structure and will result in long -term benefits to the City and the economic health of the shoreline. Public Access Element Goals: 1. Encourage safe, convenient and diversified access for the public to the shorelines of Tukwila..... 4. Encourage public access to privately owned shorelines, consistent with private property rights. 5. Encourage inland location of development so that access along shorelines is enhanced. Response: The goals of this section relate to providing public access to the river. There is a public trail system that runs the length of the Green River. In this portion of the river, the trail is located on the opposite side of the river, so the general public will not have access to the river from this site. An outdoor picnic area for on -site employees will be provided, although it will be located adjacent to the building rather than on the levee system. Circulation Element Goals: The Circulation Element of the City's Shoreline Master Program applies to the location of proposed major roads, transportation routes and other public facilities within the shoreline. The proposed project does not involve the location of any public roads or public facilities within the shoreline. Internal circulation will be provided to the rear of the warehouse in the Low Impact Environment of the shoreline. Access for trucks to the rear truck bays will be provided on the east side of the site. A 20 -foot fire access lane, the width required by c: \carol \segale\shorerpt.doc 3 L99 -0006: Segale Business Park Building 981 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit the fire department, will be provided from the west to the rear of the building. This access lane will be gated to prevent unauthorized vehicles from accessing the site from the west. Recreational Element Goals: 1. Encourage recreational activities and related facilities unique to or dependent upon the use of the river, which benefit the public interest. 2. Encourage diverse, convenient and adequate recreational opportunities along the shorelines for the local residents and a reasonable number of transient users. Response: A public trail system runs along the Green River, alternating sides of the river on which it is located. On this section of the river, the trail is located on the opposite side of the river. Shoreline Use Element Goals: 1. Encourage appropriate development in suitable locations without diminishing the quality of environment along the shorelines of the river. 2. Shoreline activities should be consistent with the overall goals for development along the river. Response: An Army Corps of Engineers Section 205 levee has been constructed along the southern portion of the site. The property was used for many years to stockpile soil in the southwestern one -third of the site in a large pile, which reached 60 feet in height at times. Both the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Survey drawing and the shoreline profile cross sections illustrate the location of the stockpile. The proposed warehouse with related offices is consistent with the zoning and land use designation and is appropriate for its location in the industrial park. The project is consistent with the overall goals for development along the river. Conservation Element Goals: 1. Encourage preservation of unique, fragile and scenic elements, and of non- renewable natural resources; assure continued utilization of the renewable resources. 2. Encourage the preservation of as much as possible of the natural character of the river and its shoreline. 3. Encourage the preservation of resources and ecology of the river and its shoreline. 4. Water quality in the river should be sufficiently high to permit human use and provide a suitable use and habitat for desirable forms of aquatic life. c: \carol \segale\shorerpt.doc 4 - _..-..... ..,.. ... L99 -0006: Segale Business Park Building 981 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Response: The natural character of the river in the area of the proposed project has been altered to a major extent due to the construction of the levee to provide flood protection. It has been determined that the proposed building does not impact the stability of the levee. Landscaping will be added on the landward side of the levee to soften the visual impacts of the development of the warehouse on users of the river trail on the opposite side of the river. Additional landscaping will be required to be added to what is shown on the landscaping plan to reduce the amount of impervious surface in the Low Impact Environment, which will enhance the natural character of the river and improve overall quality of water that is flowing to the P17 Basin. Landscaping along the levee has been coordinated with the Corps of Engineers to address concerns that agency had about trees with large root systems being located in or adjacent to the levee prism. As a result, the type of tree to be planted in the landscaping area has been revised from a Thuja Hogan (Western Cedar) to the Honey Locust tree, and grass will be used as ground cover rather than planting Rubus Calcinoides as originally proposed. The landscaping will enhance the aesthetic value of the shoreline. 3. SHORELINE REGULATIONS: Following are the relevant review criteria as contained in the Tukwila Shoreline Regulations (Tukwila Municipal Code, Chapter 18.44) as applied by the City of Tukwila. A. TMC 18.44.110 General Shoreline Regulations All uses within the shoreline overlay district must conform to the following general regulations: 1. The use is in conformance with the regulations of the underlying zone district. Response: The zoning on this parcel is Heavy Industrial. Warehouses with associated offices are a permitted use in that zone. The Tukwila Board of Architectural will review the project at a public hearing to consider the design of the building and the landscaping plan. 2. The use does not conflict with the goals and policies of the shoreline master program or the provisions of the Shoreline Act and shoreline regulations. Response: Section 2, above is a discussion of the goals of the City's adopted Shoreline Management Program. The proposed project will be consistent with the City's adopted Shoreline Management Program with the addition of landscaping in the Low Impact Environment. 3. No structures or accessory facilities shall be located over the river unless such structure protects or promotes the public interest. c: \carol \segale\shorerpt.doc 5 z i I~ F—W rQ4g J V U O; U °. v� w III I CO LL ui O: g -J =w` 1- I z �. zo ui ci CO. O ° 1—: =U = — O: Z UJ U,= O ~: z L99 -0006: Segale Business Park Building 981 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Response: No structures or accessory facilities are located over the river. Small portions of the proposed building are located in the Low Impact Environment, where it is permitted as long as the height does not exceed 35 feet. 4. There shall be no disruption of existing trees or vegetation within the river environment unless necessary for public safety or flood control, or if allowed as part of an approved shoreline substantial development permit; Response: There are no existing trees or vegetation on the levee system or remaining on the site. Prior to the preloading of the building envelope, the only vegetation on site was some grass. Landscaping will be planted in the front of the building, as required by the landscaping code. Additional landscaping is being provided on the sides of the building to enhance a building entrance that is located on the western side and to provide an area for employees to eat out doors on the east side, along with a small amount of landscaping in the parking area on the east side. Honey locust trees and native grass will be planted in the Low Impact Environment, just outside a 30 -foot easement that has been granted to King County for access to the levee for maintenance purposes. As noted above, the type of tree to be planted has been coordinated with the Corps of Engineers to ensure compatibility with the existing levee system. 5. No effluent shall be discharged into the Green River which exceeds the water quality classification as established by the State for the adjacent portion of the river. Response: No effluent will be discharged into the Green River. The storm water drainage system will be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards and specifications of the King County Surface Water Design Manual and will drain into the P17 drainage basin. 6. All State and federal water quality regulations shall be strictly complied with. Response: The project will comply with all State and federal water quality regulations. 7. Wildlife habitat in and along the river should be protected. Response: Wildlife habitat in and along the river will not be altered by the construction of this project. With the addition of additional landscaping in the Low Impact Environment, there may be an improvement of wildlife habitat over what currently exists landward of the levee. c: \carol \segale\shorerpt.doc 6 z '.�z' w JU 0 CO 0 COW w z; J • LL w -J.. tL ?. �w 2 z �. F- O z 1.. U N O O I— W W' H U 0 Z w =; O~ z L99 -0006: Segale Business Park Building 981 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit 8. All perimeters of landfills or other land forms susceptible to erosion shall be provided with vegetation, retaining walls or other satisfactory mechanisms for erosion prevention. Response: A land altering permit will be required for this project. Silt fences and siltation control ponds will be installed to control storm water prior to discharge into the existing drainage structures. New catch basins will be installed to convey storm water from the site. 9. All necessary permits shall be obtained from federal, State, County or municipal agencies. Response:. No federal permits are required, although the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has reviewed the project to ensure that construction of the warehouse does not impact the stability of the levee. The State Department of Ecology will review the shoreline permit. King County Water and Land Resources Division has provided comments on the project. 10. Dredging for purposes other than for navigational improvements or flood control is prohibited. Response: No dredging is involved with this project. 11. Mining is prohibited along the river shoreline. Response: No mining is involved with this project. 12. Solid waste disposal is prohibited along the river shoreline. Response: The dumpster for the rear of the building is located outside the Low Impact Environment. All other disposal areas are located well outside the Shoreline Overlay zone. 13. No property will be acquired for public use without dedication by or just compensation to the owner. Response: No property is proposed for acquisition with this project. 14. Landfilling is prohibited within the river channel unless such landfill is determined by the Planning Commission to protect or promote the public interest. c: \carol \segale\shorerpt.doc z (H z I w r 2 6D. .oO N W. J.i w 0. • • _: .z�. • F-O: z F- 0 o 0 1—• w z: • 0� z. L99 -0006: Segale Business Park Building 981 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Response: This project does not propose any landfilling within the river channel. 15. ... (R)emoval of any cottonwood tree within the river environment or the low impact environment, which tree is 12 inches or greater in diameter as measured 4.5 feet above grade, shall be subject to the requirements of TMC Chapter 18.54, Tree Regulations. Response: As noted earlier, there are no trees existing on the site. B. TMC 18.44.130 Specific shoreline regulations — river environment. The River Environment consists of a 40 -foot wide management zone, measured from the mean high water mark. Uses in the River Environment are restricted to such uses as footpaths or trails, recreation facilities, dikes, bridges, or fire lanes. The River Environment on this site ends approximately at the landward catch point of the levee. No improvements or development are proposed within the River Environment on this site. The applicant is proposing to plant Honey Locust trees at 30 feet on center along with native grass, as required by this section of the Shoreline Overlay district. C. TMC 18.44.140 Specific shoreline regulations — low impact environment The low impact environment consists of a 60 -foot wide management zone, beginning at the end of the river environment and proceeding 60 feet landward. Types of uses permitted in the low impact environment include structures not exceeding 35 feet in height, adequately screened or landscaped parking /loading and storage facilities, utilities, public or private streets or signs. Within the low impact environment on this site are located parking, portions of the warehouse structure, and vehicle access ways, including access for trucks. TMC 18.44.140 B. states: Low impact environment uses shall conform to the following standards: 1. Structures shall be sited and appropriately landscaped in accordance with underlying zoning regulations; Response: The Heavy Industrial zone requires 12.5 feet of landscaping on the front of the site. No landscaping is required on the sides or in the rear in this zone district. The applicant has provided a landscaping plan, which indicates landscaping on the front, as well as some landscaped areas on the west and east sides. No landscaping currently is proposed in the rear, except for the landscaping along the river just outside the River Environment. Additional landscaping will be required (see item #3, below) in the Low c: \carol \segale\shorerpt.doc 8 N-, • Qez. w J U O O'. co ; (A W W I N LL' W o: co J LL Q' D: . W' z I-O z E- uj U Ili z: U N. 0 z L99 -0006: Segale Business Park Building 981 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Impact Environment to ensure consistency with the goals of this shoreline environment and to reduce the amount of impervious surface 2. Access roads shall be located no closer than ten feet to buildings, spur tracks or parking /loading and storage facilities, and the effective setback area shall be suitably landscaped. This shall not prohibit ingress and egress points between an access road and the described facilities; Response: Internal vehicle circulation to the rear of the building runs along the east side of the building. This internal circulation system is located more than 10 feet from the building. An access road for maintenance of the levee system is located along the top of the levee. 3. Parking, loading, and storage facilities shall be appropriately screened from the river with: a. A solid evergreen screen of a minimum six -foot height, or b. Decorative fence six feet high. (Note: Chain link fence shall be slatted and planted with ivy or other trailing vine except where a safety hazard may exist.), or c. Large hardy shade or fruit trees such as maple, alder, poplar, cottonwood, sycamore, willow, oak, beech, walnut, ash, birch or other species approved by the Director at a maximum of 30 feet on center, or d. Earth berms at a minimum of four feet high, suitably planted with live groundcover or natural grass; Response: A cyclone fence with slats is proposed to run the length of the western side of the site and then along the river for approximately 450 feet to provide screening in this portion of the Low Impact Environment. For the remainder of the rear of the building, the only landscaping that is provided are the honey locust trees and native grass along the river at the edge of River Environment. There are opportunities for additional screening in the area south of the proposed building outside of the area needed for maneuvering the trucks utilizing the loading docks at the rear of the building and the access lane needed for emergency vehicle access. No information was submitted to indicate the need for the amount of paved areas shown on the landscaping plan. Additional landscaping will be required in the Low Impact Environment to minimize the physical and visual impact of the building on the river zone and to reduce the amount of impervious surface on the site. The general areas where additional landscaping will be required are illustrated on Attachment C. 4. Railroad lead trackage shall be no closer than 15 feet to parking /loading and storage facilities, and shall be suitably landscaped. Response: There are no railroad tracks serving this site. c: \carol\segale\shorerpt.doc 9 z • 1— w 65' 00: 0 • co w J H w 0, • LL_ f' d =w zF t-•O u .2 ;O N ww M z 0- O~ z L99 -0006: Segale Business Park Building 981 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit 4. COMMENTS: Comments were received during the Notice of Application period from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, King County Water and Land Resources Division and from an adjacent property owner (Attachments D, E and F, respectively). The issues raised in these letters were addressed through the analysis of environmental impacts of the proposed project in the SEPA staff report. Copies of the comment letters are attached. The Corps has no objections to this project (see Attachment D -2). 5. SEPA: A determination of non - significance was issued on April 23, 1999. The appeal period closed on May 7, 1999; no appeals or comments were received on the DNS. A copy of the SEPA determination and staff report are attached (Attachment G). CONCLUSIONS 1. The project site is located in an industrial park and is designated Heavy Industrial on the Comprehensive Plan map and zoned Heavy Industrial. The proposed project is consistent with the land use and zoning designations. 2. The proposed use, a 313,735 square foot concrete tilt -up warehouse with associated office and maintenance facilities, is consistent with adjacent land uses. These uses consist of other industrial buildings in the industrial park, and an office park and a City of Kent park across the river. An Army Corps of Engineers Section 205 levee runs the length of the site along the river. 3. The project will promote economic development in the City, enhance the stability of the levee on the landward side through the addition of fill, and will not interfere with the navigation of the Green River. 4. There are no culturally significant features on the site. Development of the site will not interfere with the aquatic habitat and spawning grounds found in the Green River. 5. Public access is available on the opposite side of the river from this project on the Green River Trail, which meanders back and forth on either side of the river from Auburn north through the City of Tukwila. 6. The project is consistent with the General Shoreline Regulations set forth in TMC 18.44.110: A. The use is in conformance with the regulations of the underlying zone district and the use is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's adopted Shoreline Management Program. B. No structures or accessory facilities will be located over the river; C. The project will not disrupt existing trees or vegetation within the river environment. No cottonwood trees within the river environment or low impact environment will be removed. c: \carol\segale\shorerpt.doc 10 • z mow. Q 2 J O O° NO; W wi J V) u. w 0„ u.¢ co m, = d, w z �O z I. • : O • --i D H ww F=- U 0 Z. .9-: O F-` ,z L99 -0006: Segale Business Park Building 981 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit D. No effluent will be discharged into the Green River; storm water will be discharged into the P17 drainage basin. Silt fences and siltation control ponds will be used to control storm water prior to discharge into the existing drainage structures. E. All state and federal water quality regulations shall be strictly complied with. F. Wildlife habitat in and along the river will not be disturbed by the construction of this project G. All necessary permits will be obtained for this project. H. No dredging or mining will occur with the project. I. No property will be acquired for public use without dedication by or just compensation to the owner. J. No landfilling is proposed within the river channel. 7. The project is consistent with the requirements of TMC 18.44.130, river environment. Landscaping, as required by this section, is being provided at the edge of the river environment consisting of Honey Locust trees and native grass. 8. The project is consistent with the requirements of TMC 18.44.140, low impact environment provided item 8.B. is complied with. A. The structure is sited according to the Heavy Industrial zone in which it is located. Landscaping is provided according to the requirements of that zone, with 12.5 feet in the front as well as some landscaping on the sides adjacent to entrances to the offices. No landscaping is proposed in the rear, except for the landscaping along the river environment. This landscaping consists of honey locust trees located 30 feet on center with native grass planted in a five foot area just outside both the River Environment and 30 foot easement dedicated to King County for maintenance of the levee. B. Parking, loading and storage facilities will be screened from the river in the following ways: a cyclone fence with slats will run the length of the western side of the site and then easterly along the river for approximately 450 feet to a gate that will prevent access to the rear of the building from the west, except for emergency vehicles. Honey locust trees and native grass will be planted just outside the River Environment. No information was submitted on the need for the entire area shown on the landscaping plan to be paved surface. Additional landscaping will be required in the low impact environment adjacent to the river environment and along the southwest portion of the building in areas that do not need to be used for vehicle access. This will reduce the amount of impervious surface and minimize the visual and physical impact of the building on the shoreline. The addition of this landscaping provides an opportunity to reduce the impacts of this development on a shoreline of the state. C. No railroad tracks serve the site. 9. Comments were received from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, King County Water and Land Resources Division and an adjacent property owner on the project during the Notice of Application comment period. Issues raised by these comments were addressed in the SEPA staff report. The Corps has no objections to this project. 10. A determination of non - significance was issued on April 23, 1999; no appeals were received by the May 7, 1999 deadline. c: \carol \segale\shorcrpt.doc 11 L99 -0006: Segale Business Park Building 981 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit 6. RECOMMENDATION Approve the shoreline substantial development permit with the following condition: 1. Additional landscaping shall be provided in the Low Impact Environment in the general areas indicated on Attachment C such that emergency vehicle and normal truck operations are not impeded. c: \carol\segale\shorerpt.doc 12 • Seepage and Stability Analyses Segale Levee Boneyard Development Tukwila, Washington SHANNON i,WILSON. INC. OEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS At Shannon & Wilson, our mission is to be a progressive, well - managed professional consulting firm in the fields of engineering • and applied earth sciences. Our goal is to perform our services with the highest degree of professionalism with clue consideration to the best interests of the public, our clients, and our employees. May 1999 Submitted To: Entranco 10900 NE 8th Street, Suite 300 Bellevue, Washington 98004 By: Shannon & Wilson, Inc. 400 N. 34th Street, Suite 100 Seattle, Washington 98103 "=a SHANNON iWILSON, INC. `•_1 ✓ GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS May 15, 1999 Entranco 10900 NE 8th Street, Suite 300 Bellevue, WA 98004 Attn: Mr. Ralph Nelson RE: SEEPAGE AND STABILITY ANALYSES, SEGALE LEVEE, BONEYARD DEVELOPMENT, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON This report presents our review comments regarding the information, reports, and memoranda provided to us by King County Water and Land Resources Division (WLRD) concerning the proposed development of a warehouse and loading docks at the "Boneyard" behind the Segale Levee. Our independent seepage and slope stability analyses are also presented in this report. Our work was completed in general accordance with the scope of work described in our letter dated March 25, 1999, as part of our on -call contract with Entranco. BACKGROUND The proposed project is located south of Segale Park Drive C between Southcenter Parkway and the Green River in Tukwila, Washington (Figure 1). We understand that the proposed project consists of the construction of a warehouse facility with loading docks on the southeast side of the property, adjacent to an existing levee on the Green River. The plan sheets provided to us indicate that an excavation up to 6 feet deep is planned on the landward side of the levee. We understand that WLRD staff are concerned about the potential for underseepage, sand boils and piping failures. Concerns with excavations in this area stem from historically poor performance of the levees through this reach under high river flows. For example, incipient piping failures were observed during flooding conditions in 1995 -1996. These failures were temporarily mitigated by applying slope blankets and fill to buttress and drain the landward side of the levee. We also understand that WLRD staff are concerned about the riverbank slope stability because of past failures near this area. The developer's consultants and others have conducted geotechnical explorations and seepage analyses, and provided recommendations regarding the levees in and near this reach. This 11 Ti i ::..;1H STREET • SUITE 1.00 P.O. ::o`• 30D:303 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103 206.632.8020 FAX 206.633.6777 TOO: 1.800.833.6388 +' + : ?:. W- 7437 -05 �,f Entranco Attn: Mr. Ralph Nelson May 15, 1999 Page 2 Sri.ANNON u!,VILSON. INC. information is summarized in several documents, which we reviewed as part of our work, including: 1. Report Title "Geotechnical Report, Segale Levee Seepage and Stability Studies, Tukwila, Washington" dated June 15, 1995, by Shannon & Wilson, Inc. for King County Surface Water Management Division. 2. Letter Report from GeoEngineers to Segale Business Park dated December 22, 1998, Subject: Report, Geotechnical Engineering Services, Green River Levee, Proposed Warehouse Building Development, Tukwila, Washington, File No. 0291 - 011 -00. 3. Plan Set titled "Building 981, Shoreline, Profile Cross Sections ", dated 1/21/99 by Segale Business Park. 4. Letter Report from GeoEngineers to Segale Business Park dated January 22, 1999, Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Services, Green River Levee, Proposed Warehouse Building Development, Tukwila, Washington, File No. 0291 - 011 -00. 5. Report titled "Summary Report: Slope Stability,Analysis of Four Green River Bank Stabilization Repair Projects King County, Washington ". dated January 26, 1999, by Shannon & Wilson, Inc. for Entranco. 6. Report Titled "Geotechnical Engineering Services, Levee Seepage Evaluation, Proposed Warehouse Building Development, Tukwila, Washington ", dated March 10, 1999 by GeoEngineers for Segale Business Park. REVIEW The following paragraphs provide brief summaries from the pertinent documents we reviewed. Our review was limited to the geotechnical aspects (seepage and stability) of the levees and proposed detention ponds. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., Report Dated June 15, 1995 This report presents the results of explorations and testing and summarizes geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of a levee rehabilitation project. The studied site is located directly downstream of the "Boneyard" site. The report summarizes the historic problems of seepage and instability along the levee. The report recommends a system of berms and drainage improvements to increase the stability of the landward slope of the levee. The drainage improvements include placing free draining fill and perforated drain pipe along the W 7437- 05.Ur.doc/pec/jbb .�. W- 7437 -05 Entranco Attn: Mr. Ralph Nelson May 15, 1999 Page 3 :SHANNON WILSON, INC. landward slope of the levee and installing a relief well system. In addition, placement of well - compacted gravel on the landward slope is recommended to discourage rodent burrows. Flattening the riverward slope to 2H:1V and rebuilding the riverward slope using a shell of compacted clean sand and gravel is recommended for stability improvements to the riverward slope. Slope stability and seepage analyses are presented in this report. GeoEngineers, Report Dated December 22, 1999. This report presents the results of subsurface explorations (Eight test pits) conducted for the design of the foundations of the proposed warehouse. In addition, geotechnical recommendations are presented for earthwork, structural fill, retaining walls, foundations, and drainage. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., Report dated January 26, 1999 This report presents the evaluation of current WLRD riverbank designs and provides conceptual alternatives for future stabilization work on the Green River. Slope stability analyses for current and various design alternatives are presented in this report. GeoEngineers Letter Report dated January 22, 1999 This report presents a review of sections through the levee and proposed warehouse facility. No . calculations concerning stability of the levee are presented. The report points out that the ground surface elevation on the east end of the site will be increased. In addition, the report indicates that fill will be placed in the north east corner of the building, where piping and seepage has previously been reported. This report does not address the cut on the south side of the proposed building. GeoEngineers Report dated March 10, 1999 This report presents the results of an analysis for seepage from the Green River through the levee at the south side of the proposed building. Additional explorations including one boring and three test pits were conducted for this analysis. Three soil types were used in their analysis based on the subsurface explorations: 1) Levee Fill Soil (Silty, Gravelly Sand), 2) Upper Alluvial Unit (Fine, Sandy Silt) 3) Lower Alluvial Unit (Medium to Fine Sand with Silt). Hydraulic conductivity's were estimated to be 10-4 cm/s for the fill soil, 10 "5 cm /s for the Upper Alluvial Unit, and 104 cm/s for the Lower Alluvial Unit. The justification or the method for using these values is not presented. The report concludes that approximately 2 cubic feet of water per day W7437- 05.11r.doc/pec/jbb W- 7437 -05 . Entranco Attn: Mr. Ralph Nelson May 15, 1999 Page 4 s-IAs'..INON &WILSON, INC. per 50 -foot segment of levee should be expected to seep through the levee from the 100 -year z flood. w tJ O N 0. to w w= t1 w gam: w= Ia =w ►- _. Some assumptions do not correspond precisely to site conditions, and there is no discussion the w impact of the assumptions to the model. For example, the figures provided in Appendix A of the D o. March 10, 1999 report indicate that the model extends only to elevation —11 feet; however, o �` boring B -1 shown on Figure 13 indicates that the Lower Alluvial Unit extends to at least an w w elevation of-30 feet (the bottom of the boring). The effect of the truncated domain on the �' �' Li- seepage rates is not discussed. . z. The hydraulic conductivity estimates given for the geological units appear low for the area based p on our prior experience and field testing as provided in our June 15, 1995 report. No basis is Z provided for these estimates. DISCUSSION The seepage analysis presented in GeoEngineers March 11, 1999 states that both two and three - dimensional modeling was done to determine the estimated seepage rates given in the report. Unfortunately, there is no documentation of the assumptions on which the model was constructed. As a minimum, the extent of the model domain and type, location, and parameters of the boundary conditions would be needed to support the reasonableness of the estimated rates.. Provided below are some specific review comments. The model simulations were evidently transient, but no information is provided on the pre -flood, starting conditions assumed in the runs or the assumed specific yield, which is a critical parameter for the rise and fall of the water table. The seepage analysis concludes by estimating the velocity of the water seeping from the levee, but does not discuss the direction of the flow or of the hydraulic gradients driving the flow. SEEPAGE ANALYSES The following paragraphs describe our independent seepage analyses for the "Boneyard" development. All elevations referenced are feet above Mean Sea Level W 7437- 05.Ltr. do c/pcc/j bb W- 7437 -05 Entranco Attn: Mr. Ralph Nelson May 15, 1999 Page 5 Approach SHANNON & WILSON. INC. Our objective was to estimate the seepage forces that could arise at the bottom of the excavated site under a design stress imposed by the 100 -year flood event of the Green River. The Green River borders the site to the south and to the east and would be expected to exert the greatest influence during a 100 -year flood event beneath the south corner of the site, particularly following excavation for the proposed warehouse and loading dock. A two- dimensional profile model effectively assumes that the site is bordered by the river on only one side and may underestimate the seepage rates that could occur at the south side of the Segale site. For this reason, a three - dimensional finite difference model that represents the river around the site was used to estimate the seepage rates and groundwater gradients at the bottom of the excavation. Conceptual Model The groundwaterflow regime in the site vicinity will generally be from the hills to the west toward the Green River. This pattern will vary locally as the river meanders, with variations in subsurface conditions, and river stage. Based on the report by GeoEngineers, dated March 10, 1999, we understand the geology consists of a layer of fill underlain by alluvial deposits divided into upper and lower units. The fill was assumed to extend from the ground surface to elevation 24 feet. The Upper Alluvial Unit was assumed to extend from elevation 24 feet to 0 feet, and Lower Alluvial Unit was assumed to extend from elevation 0 feet to —50 feet. These elevations are consistent with the seepage model used by GeoEngineers with the exception that in their model the Lower Alluvial Unit terminates at —11 feet. The Upper Alluvial Unit was assumed to have a hydraulic conductivity between 0.03 and 0.3 feet/day (10 to 10-4 cm/sec). The conductivity of the Lower Alluvial Unit was assumed to be two orders of magnitude higher (10'3 to 10.2 cm/s), and that of the fill to be one order of magnitude higher (10-4 and 10 "3 cm/s). Specific yield and porosity were assumed to be 0.001 per foot and 0.02, respectively, throughout the model domain. Precipitation will be a source for the shallow groundwater flow, but deeper, regional flows may also discharge into the river. A recharge rate of 4.5 inches per year was assumed for the model domain When`at flood stage, the Green River will reverse this flow pattern and discharge into the shallow aquifers beneath the site, resulting in a rise in the local water table. The site surface was assumed to be excavated to an elevation of 27 feet, 2.7 feet below the 100 -year flood stage of 29.7 feet. W7437 -05.1.1r.dodpecIbb W- 7437 -05 Entranco Attn: Mr. Ralph Nelson May 15, 1999 Page 6 Mathematical models SHANNON N 6W LSON, INC. USGS MODFLOW was used to construct a finite difference model. The model domain is 2,500 feet by 4,000 feet and oriented with the longer axis about 30 degrees east of north. The domain extends from 400 feet west of Southcenter Parkway to the Green River and from about 800 feet south of the site to about 3000 feet to the north, beyond S. 180th Street (Figure 1). The finite difference cells are 100 feet by 100 feet in most of the domain and are refined to 25 feet by 25 feet, in plan view, in the vicinity of the site. The model used to investigate seepage forces (gradient model) has nine layers, one for the fill, five for the Upper Alluvial Unit, and three for the Lower Alluvial Unit. Several 2- foot -thick layers were included in the Upper Alluvial Unit to increase the resolution of the gradients in this unit. The model used to simulate seepage rates (flow model) of groundwater into the site during flood stage required less resolution in the Upper Alluvial Unit and was designed with five layers to allow for a lower starting head in the river. The inflow from the hills west of the site is represented as a specified head boundary set at 24.5 feet. The river is represented as a specified head boundary and is set at 29.7 feet for the 100 -year flood stage. The site surface excavation elevation of 27 feet MSL is represented using the Drain Package in MODFLOW, which removes water from the model when it exceeds this specified reference elevation. Simulations Two-sets of simulations were carried out. The first, referred to as the flow models, were designed to estimate rates of groundwater seepage into the site, and the second, referred to as the gradient models, to estimate the hydraulic gradients driving groundwater exiting from the bottom of the site- excavation. Both flow and gradient models were run transiently for ten days with the river at elevation 29.7 feet and seepage rates and gradients were estimated on the tenth day. The simulations were started from steady state simulations from pre -flood river elevation. The flow model assumed a pre -flood river elevation of 12 feet. The gradient model required more layers in the Upper Alluvial Unit to resolve head differences beneath the site excavation, and the technical limitations of finite- difference modeling (head changes in the river must be contained within the top layer of the model) required a starting head greater than 24.5 feet for the pre -flood river stage. While this is higher than would be expected, the assumption is conservative in the sense that it will allow the model to achieve steady state conditions at the 100 -year flood stage more quickly. W 743 7-0 5. Ur. do c/p a c/j bb W- 7437 -05 z • I-W.. U O' cn 0• cn w J F-. N u-. . w O. g-3 u.= • co a. LU • ?� I-OY Z O• N w uj. HU u. OT. ..z U . • O • •z Entranco Attn: Mr. Ralph Nelson May 15, 1999 Page 7 S :- -i .NN 'i V'/ Soli. iNC. The model has not been calibrated in the sense that the simulated head values have not been matched to historical values measured at the site. Instead, conservative assumptions and a range of values that represent possible site conditions have been used to bracket the predicted seepage into the excavation. In particular, both flow and gradient models were run under two sets of assumptions about the hydraulic conductivity of the alluvial units. Baseline conditions assumed hydraulic conductivity's consistent with the values assumed in GeoEngineers March 10, 1999, values which are, in our opinion, on the low end of the scale of likely values. The second scenario, referred to as the "higher conductivity conditions," assumed that the conductivity's in the upper and lower alluvial units were an order of magnitude higher than was assumed under baseline conditions, values more consistent with those reported in our June 15, 1995 report. Results The water tables predicted by the flow models that develop beneath the site after the Green River has been at the 100 -year flood stage for ten days are shown in Figures 4 & 5. The influence of the river flood stage is much greater under the higher conductivity conditions than under baseline conditions. Under baseline conditions, very small amounts of water flow into the site during the tenth day, whereas under the higher conductivity conditions over 25,000 gallons flood the site. The cell -by -cell flux calculations indicate that the baseline groundwater seeps predominantly from near the toe of the levee, but that groundwater emerges onto the site throughout the southern and eastern portions of the excavation under the higher conductivity conditions. The piezometric heads predicted by the gradient models that develop along Cross Section B -B' on Figure 2 after the Green River has been at the 100 -year flood stage for ten days, are shown in Figures 6 & 7. In both cases, the highest gradients are observed near the toe of the levee. Calculations based on the cell -by -cell head values indicate that seepage rates of 0.09 ft/day and exit gradients of 0.085 ft/ft at 35 degrees from the horizontal are expected under baseline conditions. Under higher conductivity conditions, seepage rates of 0.084 ft/day and exit gradients of 0.083 ft/ft at 41 degrees from the horizontal are expected. The seepage forces that are expected to develop are the product of the unit weight of water (62.4 lb /ft) and the predicted hydraulic gradients. The seepage forces predicted to develop are about 5 lb /ft3. Critical exit gradients for piping and sand boils should be about 0.8 ft/ft for failure. Our model suggests that exit gradients on the order of one tenth of critical may be expected at the site. W 7437 -05.Ur.dodpec /jbb W- 7437 -05 Entranco Attn: Mr. Ralph Nelson May 15, 1999 Page 8 3HA :P.iN ON 1\'V LSON. iNC. The range of values obtained for the seepage velocities are less than the value of 0.29 feet/day reported in GeoEngineers March 10, 1999 report. This is probably due to their having used a model domain that extended to only about elevation —11 feet. This assumption would have the effect of reducing the transmissivity of the Lower Alluvial Unit in their model and thus forcing more water through the levee than would occur under site conditions, where the Lower Alluvial'' Unit extends to a greater depth. SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES Stability analyses for the riverward slope were completed using the computer program PCSTABL and the general procedures recommended by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for rapid drawdown as described in EM- 1110 -2 -1902 (USCE, 1982). The results are presented in Table 1. Soil strengths used in these analyses are summarized on Figure 3. Soil strengths were based on the results of the SPT field testing, laboratory index tests, our experience, and the laboratory tests results of similar soil types conducted by the USACE on samples from borings in the Green River area for the USACE Green River Flood Damage Reduction Study completed in 1982. These values are consistent with previous slope stability analyses we completed for levee slope stability along the Green River. These site specific slope stability calculations were based on Cross Section 6 +75 (Figure 3). This section was used to be consistent between GeoEngineers previous analyses and our seepage analysis. This section provides the greatest excavation on the landward side of the levee. For all steady state calculations, a horizontal water table was used. From previous studies, we understand that an 18 -foot river drawdown may be expected at this location at a maximum rate of 1- foot -per hour. Our rapid drawdown calculations assumed that partial drainage occurred during drawdown at a ratio of 1:2 (1 foot of dissipation for every 2 feet of river drop) for an "apparent" instantaneous drawdown of 9 feet. This is consistent with our January, 1999 report. W7437- O5.Ur.doc/pec/jbb W- 7437 -05 z a w r4 2 J U o 0 WI W O r• }. g J. u_a =a �w Z z �. F- o': z F—. LU U• � O 9; O H'. w • w. F— u_ w Z. F- • I. Entranco Attn: Mr. Ralph Nelson May 15, 1999 Page 9 H: �NNinN :::VV'ILSON. INC. TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF FS VALUES FOR EXISTING AND IMPROVED CONDITIONS r ovation river:bot om .................. oot • Iristantarie` >;::<:: Existing Condition 1.1 0.8 Regraded Slope (2.25H:1V) 1.5 1.1 Regraded Slope (1.75H:1V), with midslope bench at elevation 24 feet 1.4 1.1 Recommended FS (EM 1110 -2 -1913) 1.4 1 The maximum slope of the levee at Cross Section 6 +75 on the landward side of the levee is about 3.7H:1V with a vertical distance of 3.5 feet. The overall slope of the landward side of the levee is about 11.5H:1V with a vertical distance of 6.5 feet. In our opinion, it is unlikely that the proposed project will affect the global stability of the levee. In addition, the project will place fill on the landward side of the levee from section 0 +00 to about 4 +00. We understand that this is an area of previous seepage problems. This additional fill should provide additional stability to.the.landward side of the levee. CONCLUSIONS Based on our review and independent study, it is our opinion that the proposed project will not significantly reduce the structural integrity of the existing levee at this site. However, this and previous studies of the Segale Levee and other levees along the Green River, indicate that the riverward slope of the levee does not meet USACE minimum recommended factors of safety. As such, additional improvements on the riverward side of the levee could be made in the future to improve the riverside stability of the levee. These improvements, which could include regrading the slope, or a mid -slope bench, as shown in Table 1, may require additional easements to complete construction and should be considered in any land development along the Green River. W7437 -05.11r. doc/pecijbb W- 7437 -05 Entranco Attn: Mr. Ralph Nelson May 15, 1999 Page 10 SHANNON F;WILSON, INC. Our study indicates that exit gradients should not be high enough to produce piping or sand boils. Our analysis does indicate that under seepage and flooding could occur landward of the levee during high river events. CLOSURE This report presents our comments based on a limited review of the referenced documents. We make no other warranty, either express or implied. Additional field and laboratory data and engineering analyses are required to make a more definitive conclusion of the stability of the riverward slopes. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service and look forward to our continued involvement in river engineering with you and King County WLRD staff Sincerely, SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Kirt Hanson Engineer - �2cf�W Bradley R. Severtson. Principal Hydrogeologi KH:BRS:GRF/kh rRjl p � �j '+a'�.� �,. ,i. r ;; - ,. r-- 1 M — .......A. y_ 9`1 0.20 1 EXPIRES 10/3/ 4/L Gregory R. Fischer, Ph.D., P.E. Associate Enclosures: Figure 1 - Vicinity Map Figure 2 — Site Plan Figure 3 — Cross Section of Existing Conditions for Analyses Figure 4 — 100 Year Flood Water Table Baseline Conditions Figure 5 —100 Year Flood Water Table for Higher Conductivity Conditions Figure 6 — Head Contours for Seepage Analysis Under Baseline Conditions Figure 7 — Head Contours for Seepage Analysis Under Higher Conductivity Conditions Important Information About Your Geotechnical Report cc: Andy Levesque, King County WLRD (4 copies) W 7437- 05.Ltr.dodpec/jbb W- 7437 -05 • Q • w 6 �0 0 cn 0 - WI J F-. W LL wO U. <. D. I H w' I Z �. zo Do UN W I I- LL O, • wz U O~ z STi* ..S- s, 5"1 L s �� o� TR11 -r4ND bR1 - I rz; T 1, * "' '4 1 sr \' Si >3�. ; 1 �(y PAVILION FALL { �rrar�r�.vsrx i S l i 72. s I � 9- ,,, %- 1e 'Nxc S 11. � o i "' j S cc c '' RIV f�!DE -_., e 1700 - ( cc), 3 '^ 0 1a, 1 IV y'� f ° 184TH ST `' J' VALEY :5- PROJECT �: a LOCATION c D'R—,. _. � rp y/ . S1.,,.4... • . � GLACIER,--- t �ti ` f p �S � " �`,, _ ' / ; z __� . S 188TH S. s Q (1) r ]90TH ST t '_ ts ` / E S 152ND ST i ' c Q9 152 e kAr. 'h • RK i 5� P r 1 _N _ I may." - -- 194TH ST 190Th 6aaa -- �. s ..... 192ND_ ST d >- = W o ST --I t / C //;/ S 200TH ST \ W ex • Ri 1 I= S `°I 196TH �( ST � !- Hi o aN \. II 204TH ST TIsI:::L 04TH ST _2 0 1/8 1/4 1/2 Scale in Miles NOTE Reproduced with permission granted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS ®. This map is copyrighted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS ®. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission. All rights reserved. Seepage and Stability Analyses Segale Levee, Boneyard Development Tukwila, Washington VICINITY MAP May 1999 W- 7437 -05 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotedrninl and Environmental Consultants FIG. 1 Site Plan from report by GeoEngineers titled 'Geotechnical Engineering Services, Levee Seepage Evaluation, Proposed Warehouse Building Development, Tukwila, Washington; dated 3- 10.99. 0 120 240 1--I Scale in Feet LEGEND TP -1 * Test Pit Number and Location B -1 4,- Boring Number and Location A L Location of Cross Section Indicated by GeoEngineers for Previous Seepage Analysis Approximate Location of Cross Section at Station 6 +75 Used in Current Seepage and Stability Analyses Seepage and Stability Analyses Segale Levee, Boneyard Development Tukwila. Washington SITE PLAN May 1999 W- 7437 -05 SHANNON is WILSON, INC. GwwO.wl and Emannintel Canunandi FIG. 2 Z • Z re W. JU :U O. N 0 J F: • uJ 0 u_ -J d FW,• z o- z W •D O .O 0 H; . U ~O.` ;, tilZ O z a 0 N 0 Southwest 50 30 m 10 u- c 0 0 m W -10 -30 Fill (silty, gravelly sand) c' =0 y =130 lb /ft 3 Green River (looking upstream) Upper Alluvial Unit (fine, sandy silt) =33' +01=26' c' = 15 Ib/ft3 ca = 100 lb/ft 3 Tsai = 113 lb/ft 3 ymdat = 100 lb/ft 3 7 Lower Alluvial Unit (medium to fine sand with silt) ¢' =35' c' =0 yam= 113 lb/ft3 ymalst = 100 Ib/ft3 Northeast 0 20 40 4— —I t--t Scale in Feet Vertical = Horizontal NOTE 50 30 -30 50 Seepage and Stability Analyses Segale Levee, Boneyard Development Tukwila, Washington Topography based on Cross Section at Station CROSS SECTION OF EXISTING 6 +75 provided by Segale Business Park. CONDITIONS FOR ANALYSES Contacts and soil classification based on report by GeoEngineers, dated 3- 10-99. May 1999 W- 7437 -05 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. ows.wwe ra EmsanwW Co.ruMVs FIG. 3 I i' • � • f' 1 ', 1 t ' {i'I��jl � t� 411 \;��; Illj I ,—N ,I ;NN 0 250 500 I—H I-1 Scale in Feet Seepage and Stability Analyses Segale Levee, Boneyard Development Tukwila, Washington 100 -YEAR FLOOD WATER TABLE FOR BASELINE CONDITIONS May 1999 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants W- 7437 -05 FIG. 4 1 1 i ,I I • � N i; J J I I ;i ,, , 1 1, ,I 1 ' i 1 I i j , ! N ! , t f f ' ; ? i I 1 ; , ! , f ;� 1 I_- i ' >i I 1 ! %! ) I, i ' ' i^ ' I ! 1 , i I ,� ;1J; tl ; Ji I,,'' i 1. 1 T1 T11 ! 1/ I 1 !II lir;11I ;NI ;T ' I ! I I ! I ! ! I 1 1�! I '1.1 L)' •! j/ I i /! I ! I i ; 1 / ; ' ( 1 j' 1 ii: ! 1 I ! I 71; I ! ! 1 l ! /! ! 1,1! I J I i/ 111 1 y 1 I �! 7 'I rl ii ,!211 � ' !; 1 ! , , f li ; ; ' I ,, j22 3�, l •% i ' i l �% i �: i I I i I ! it I 1 , • I ' + j1 -c- -. 1 l� 1 i I • I" ,I;! t _1 I I!! ! i� 11 1i i j , 1' I !,J;1 \I 26- Proposed Warehouse 1 29 111 1 + I • Green River i!III :11 1;!l;iii'I ;i!!1!IjII 1IIi1•111 I 11;11!III!!':I�!1 0 250 500 I H H I i Scale in Feet I1!(11►I I I ►I ,.11 Seepage and Stability Analyses Segale Levee, Boneyard Development Tukwila, Washington 100 -YEAR FLOOD WATER TABLE FOR HIGHER CONDUCTIVITY CONDITIONS May 1999 W- 7437 -05 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. 5 Geolechnical and Environmental Consultants Z = F. • .1— W re J U; U O: w o, W J W. ;62.1•• W O' CO AL D. • • =0: I- 111 I- 0, LU .0 Ifl IO �: • ;Plam. ;w w t- lit Z' U' I • •O Z Green River Segale Business Park 1 Vertical Datum is Mean Sea Level Vertical to Horizontal Exaggeration: 5:1 125 250 Scale in Feet Seepage and Stability Analyses Segale Levee, Boneyard Development Tukwila, Washington HEAD CONTOURS FOR SEEPAGE ANALYSIS UNDER BASELINE CONDITIONS May 1999 W- 7437 -05 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. 6 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants SfialMili3U■rllliInIIIIIMIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIMIIIIMIIIMMM 101111111111 111 �\ I ` 1 ` I 0 feet 1' 1� 1 1 50 feet — Vertical Datum is Mean Sea Level Vertical to Horizontal Exaggeration: 5:1 125 250 Scale in Feet Seepage and Stability Analyses Segale Levee, Boneyard Development Tukwila, Washington HEAD CONTOURS FOR SEEPAGE ANALYSIS UNDER BASELINE CONDITIONS May 1999 W- 7437 -05 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. 6 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants •• .- reduce their impacts. Retaining your consultant to observe subsurface construction operations can be particularly beneficial in this respect. A REPORT'S CONCLUSIONS ARE PRELIMINARY. The conclusions contained in your consultant's report are preliminary because they must be based on the assumption that conditions revealed through selective exploratory sampling are indicative of actual conditions throughout a site. Actual subsurface conditions can be discerned only during earthwork; therefore, you should retain your consultant to observe actual conditions and to provide conclusions. Only the consultant who prepared the report is fully familiar with the background information needed to determine whether or not the report's recommendations based on those conclusions are valid and whether or not the contractor is abiding by applicable recommendations. The Caro um - e: Sega�e`�w ing 9T1 Wage i From: Joanna Spencer To: Carol Lumb Date: 4/23/99 9:31 AM Subject: Re: Segale Building 981 all util activ including FZC are done under MISC permit. There is no fee up front, based on the submittal PW determines what permit activities are needed. Pise give all material to Tammy @Permit Center for permit intake & then she shall route it to all depts. Joanna »> Carol Lumb 04/21/99 08:29PM >» Welcome back— hope you had a great time off!! You were missed around here. Steve Nelson brought in the MI permit application last Friday for the utilities, but he wasn't sure is he should be asking for a flood control zone permit as well as storm drainage or what. I have the permit, but it has not been logged into the system (he also didn't have a check with him for the permit application.) Can you tell me what permits he should be asking for at this time ?? Thanks! I A F F I D A V I T O F D I S T R I B U T I O N O Notice of Public Hearing hereby declare that: Y Determination of Non- --significance D Notice of Public Meeting J Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance OBoard of Adjustment Agenda fl Determination of Significance Packet and Scoping Notice ❑ Notice of Action []Board of Appeals Agenda Packet flPlanning Commission Agenda Packet Official Notice LI Short Subdivision Agenda ['Other Packet Q Notice of Application for [lather Shoreline Management Permit OShoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses on llcU • • Name of Pro j ectWa. 61-18-P/ /‹, Signature File Number g 9 • M. A. Segale, Inc. PO Box •88050 Tukwila, WA 98138 Cadillac Plastic 18292 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Familian NW 18323 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Crown Cork & Seal 18340 Segale Park Dr "B" Tukwila, WA.98188 fwinacl IUNxT 4. e4/ United Stationers 18300 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 Gaco Western PO Box 88698 Seattle, WA 98138 Crate Tech, Inc. 6206 South 190' Street Kent, WA 98032 Keyston of rs 18301 And er Park West Tukwila, W 8188 Columbia Packaging 18296 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle Tractor Parts 18349 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 A. America 18255 Segale Park Dr "B" Tukwila, WA 98188 Rock -Tenn 18340 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 Reid Plastics, Inc. 6545 South Glacier Place Tukwila, WA 98188 Family Life Insurance 1.8285 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Fletcher's Fine Foods 18338 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Alpak Food Equipment 18298 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Viking Office Products 18300 Segale Park Dr "B" Tukwila, WA 98188 General Medical Corp. 18325 Segale Park Dr "B" Tukwila, WA 98188 The Bo M . er 6230 So ' 190th Street Kent, A 98 b 2 Materials, Inc. 6214 South 190' Street Kent, WA 98042 z • w J0: • Uo' N C1 .w ='. LLi. w o u. Q' Da • .1._ _: •z o' Z H; D p• ` • o u), 'ol-` U; •11--0 • • F' • Z • La Pianta Limited Partnership PO Box 88028 Tukwila, WA 98138 -2028 Schoenb ler 13256 North Bellevue, A TBI Building LLC 6412 S. 190th St. Kent, WA 98032 Gaco Western, Inc. PO Box 88698 Seattle, WA 98138 rprises Lic • City of Kent ay # 11 220 4th Ave. South 005 Kent, WA 98032 Bruce. & Elizabeth Mitchell P.O. Box 99151 Seattle, WA 98199 Keyston 18303 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 James Campbell Estate 1001 Kamokila Blvd Kapolei, HI 96707 Schoenbachler Enterprises 6728 - 134th Ct. NE Redmond, WA 98052 Br & Eliz 19000 Se. • e, h Mitchell LNE 98155 Meteor Building Assoc. 120 W. Dayton St. #C1 Edmonds, WA 98020 The Box Maker 6412 S. 190th St. Kent, WA 98032 z Z �g • u U:. 'U O: • U U. CO w • W=:. • J i- • wo • J, LL Q •Na. �-- _, :. • ..z F.-• • • 1 • Z 0; • Oi :U • •;OH W W` V; . ui(0 - O CHECKLIST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW /SHORELINE PERMIT MAILINGS • "V Ow. Piaui l.orrvhosYQ. ?•E:^ FEDERAL AGENCIES ui C i i ernaneytal p4,narwr Nol ) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS Btz"d'1 ( ) FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION veX DEPT-6F FISH & WILDLIFE J.s . ( DZpr ( ) OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY ( ) TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ( ) DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES ( ) OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR ( ) DEPT OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV. ✓ ( v}^ DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE ( ) U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (— U.S. DEPT OF H.U.D. WASHING j ibivOnQ('- }'1 /l4%2, F15 fr,. / es S�✓t/CC.�. " " ( (AG o&ne20 N STATE AGENCIES K.C. PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEV. BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FIRE DISTRICT #11 FIRE DISTRICT #2 K.C. WATER POLLUTION CNTRL SEPA OFFCL TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT V/1Vc TUKWILA LIBRARIES ( ) RENTON LIBRARY ( ) KENT LIBRARY ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY ( ) U S WEST (,SEATTLE CITY LIGHT )fre") 'PhiGET SOUND ENERGY • (v1') IGHLINE WATER DISTRICT ( -' SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT TCI CABLEVISION ( ) OLYMPIC PIPELINE (Vr KENT PLANNING DEPT ( ) TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS POLICE PLANNING PARKS & REC. CITY CLERK ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) FIRE FINANCE BUILDING MAYOR ( ) PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL ( ) P.S. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGEN�^Y ( /) SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. _w/ V (V .MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE A7 v(� DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE AA,. ( ) SEATTLE TIMES 07/09/98 C:WP51DATA \CHKLIST ( ) DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. VI DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELIND DIV alt-vv, (14 x¢'4'1 DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION* ( ) 'OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL * SEND CHKLIST W/ DETERMINATIONS * SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION KING COUNTY AGENCIES ( ) K.C. DEPT OF PARKS ( ) HEALTH DEPT (')PORT OF SEATTLE ✓'( .4 ,/K.C.DEV & ENVIR SERVICES -SEPA INFO CNTR .C. TRANSIT DIVISION - SEPA OFFICIAL • (j)c:( =v '. Jai-weL( 2zor,,c2.0 t�,.nSt' ") 00 Ft CfC. km_ , So , t L ZLO;L Sx li m,' 4- c'i 104 HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT K C PUBLIC LIBRARY : besa V(C SEATTLE MUNI REF LIBRARY SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT ' UTILITIES PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT WATER DISTRICT #20 WATER DISTRICT #125 CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS RAINIER VISTA SKYWAY CITY AGENCIES sQfrvc. a 5z G(' ( ottle. kO Swt1•�C' cidcrieccs C-' ( 4rxclN L eutscVJ- ( ) RENTON PLANNING DEPT ( ) CITY OF SEA -TAC ( ) CITY OF BURIEN ( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ( ) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER - DCLU ( ) SEATTLE OFFICE OF MGMNT & PLANNING* * NOTICE OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ. OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES VV(METRO ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DIV. OFFICE /INDUSTRIAL 5,000 GSF OR MORE RESIDENTIAL 50 UNITS OR MORE RETAIL 30,000 GSF OR MORE Z 4C t2 re W � W � J C) C) 0: N is to W W= J I LL Q N (3 iE Z I-- O ZF-: Di 0 0 N: C1 H-. W W, I- U Z'. UCO _,. o • CITY OF TUKWILA DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: CONSTRUCTION OF NEW 300,000 SO FT BUILDING TO BE USED FOR WAREHOUSE AND OFFICE. PROPONENT: LA P IANT A LTD PARTNE.R.S4-1r� /y�+!'... --•-; • A 'mow,, .:n,.,, "•-�_ may.. _.. e_'1A • ti_,... PROPOAL,; INL►JD.IN'O STREET ACif:�RE�S:.• I,NY: LOCATION OF 1 11 ADDRESS: 58.0`•ih =SE GALE. P cO: C 054 �'a • �`' r PARCEL NO. /31.4304-90,10.1 •;; r. • r..�a`. SECJTWN,'RN►G: 4SE' 35- 23'= ;fJ•4r.• ,.: 2 ,4, `:? vl, LEAD AGENCY vC I >TY ?OF UKWILA .. A ' : FILE 1NO: -;� Eaci -6ilo3 The City ha:j_ deter min d that''t,1{e prop e1 does not ='.ha .g'''a Pr i Ah1e s i an i t i ciiirn river a 1 1)pat.„t';drl` tb.e e. n\,i r••Ortmeri t• Art *e iv i r-8'ikment�1 iit►pact 3't�• eme"Kt=r (E.I''_) i not re 4u•:.t''ed under• RCW 43.f'.1c ,,03t (.7)V:. . • Thi. dec'i,�_ iO.n -Mia4. made iit•,,ter' re%.04 ;6+i~Qt — comtplete1 eii''l,ir'annreitta�T w.r • • �:, check 1 i;'s.t•: art.`d.. other• i r.t +::r ~mat tots On t i l':e 'with the 1 ead agetii •,r.=. This i rtfG'r m;i' T�:tt i., : Cava i l atr..Ve' to . the 'nub 1 i•c girt request. • �:4.4i:4kk," •k :4; .3 ; `1 : i .1 . , ‘••. 7 'tl ,•� r ? .. ' •4 :4 •,4 :4 :4 :4 :4 * * * 'k •4 •k •4 -4 •k •k •ki•k ,4'`4' "'K 4c:k.•k •.1, Ar •k• •4 •k *., 4 :4:i4 :k :4 •4 '.4 •k :4 ;4 'k •k •k t4 •N'.4 k k •k :4 •.4 •k •.4 •k .., ... • `.E,:4',.4'k •.k :4 k a This deter•:tri'nat ir�r ?' is• tr�l and-' `s i��nri this• L S d c� :rat 19.9 -l- 4•k* Steve Lan`ca ter, Responsible Ott icial C. i t y of T ri. kYi,�. i 18 , (2 D �:r) . 431-3670 0300 Southise'n•ter Boulevard Tukwi 1,t, .4A1 . 931 36 Copies of the procedure- for '_,EPApPlea Department at COmmur)..it, Development''. r• e a •::_, 'r t h the 1-, z Z 0 00 co Ci •_ Ii J H.. Wes. w0 J: u. Q. 0: w~ • • O N w w. wZ UN Z' • 0 • •.Z City of Tukwila Department of CHERMAyrgfpment pri123, 1999 To: Steve Lancaster, Director Fm: Carol Lumb, Associate Planner John W. Rants, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director Re: Project File No. E99 -0003: Segale Business Park Warehouse /Office Building Project Description: Construct a 313,735 square foot concrete tilt -up building within 200 feet of the Green River. An Army Corps of Engineers Section 205 levee runs along the riverward side of the site. Proponent: LaPianta Limited Partnership dba Segale Business Park Location: 5801 through 6199 Segale Park Drive "C" Date prepared: April, 1999 Lead Agency: City of Tukwila, Department of Community Development Challenges to Document: None Other Agencies of Jurisdiction: Department of Ecology Recommendation: Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) /+24 4if ter0Quieil .Suttg,&2,2,2tt�c, , Washington 98188 • Ob) 431 -3670 • Fax (206 4313665 •z • • 'mow J U;, • • 00; � 0 Nw AuI • JI-- 0. u. Q: = CJ 1- _. z� •E-0 . U 1 40 D :0 — w w; 0 z SEPA Review - E99 -0003 Segale Warehouse /Office Building April 23, 1999 Existing Environmental Information: • EIS for Segale Business Park, 1974 • Geotechnical Report (12/22/98, 4/15/99) and Levee Seepage Evaluation (3/10/99): Geo Engineers, Inc. • Traffic Study (1/99): David I. Hamlin and Associates, Inc. • Drainage Control Report: Layton & Sell, Inc. 4/15/99 Comments on SEPA Checklist: Page 5, #5b. Since the time the SEPA checklist was prepared, the Puget Sound Chinook salmon has been listed by the National Marine Fisheries Service as a threatened species. This species is found in the Green River. Summary of Primary Impacts: Earth The soils at the proposed building site are silty sands and gravels. Prior to preloading of the building footprint, the existing ground surface ranged from. approximately 24 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) at the east end of the site to about 60 feet above MSL at the top of a soil stockpile on the west end. The top of the levee is at an approximate elevation of 33 feet above MSL. The 60 -foot soil stockpile has been spread across the proposed building footprint area for the purpose of preloading the site in preparation of constructing the building. The finished grades of the site are expected to be: the landward side of the levee will be graded to a 2:1 slope with the toe of the slope at elevation 29 feet above MSL; from the top of the slope, the area will be graded to a finish elevation of 27 feet above MSL in the parking area. The site will gently rise to a finish elevation of 28 feet above MSL at the building foundation. As part of the shoreline permit process, the applicant was required to submit a geotechnical analysis showing that the integrity of the levee was not going to be compromised by the proposed project. The analysis was to focus on the possibility of seepage and piping. The March 10, 1999 Levee Seepage Evaluation prepared by GeoEngineers determined that a small amount of seepage from the levee would likely occur during the 100 -year storm event. However, the evaluation states that the seepage would likely.be small and normal site drainage would adequately remove the water. Further, the Levee 2 c: \caro Ueegale/sepa-rpt Z • �Z gy w ug �. J U: • U0: CO w =: J �. CO LL, w o.. rj. ¢. =w H =. z �.. HO .z f-; .111 O (/). I -- . • 0 z, ui ..o N'; • z SEPA Review - E99 -0003 Segale Warehouse/Office Building April23, 1999 Seepage Evaluation indicated that for the soil conditions encountered at the building site, foundation seepage and uplift pressures would not pose a risk to the stability of the levee and would not cause soil piping. These issues were addressed during an April 16, 1999 meeting with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, King County Water and Land Resources Division, City of Tukwila and the applicant present. Based upon this meeting, the Corps of Engineers stated in an April 20, 1999 letter that the project is acceptable as designed. The County's letter, dated April 16, 1999 commenting on the project requests that: • Sufficient site area be preserved to permit establishing an overall slope gradient of 2:1 on the riverward side of the levee should there be an opportunity to reconstruct the levee in the future; and • Sufficient area be preserved to provide for establishment of a 15 -foot wide levee maintenance access roadway along the top crest of the levee slope. Based on the information presented by the applicant and the most recent comments provided by the COE, it appears that the stability of the levee is not an issue for this project and that sufficient area exists currently to access the levee for maintenance. Building, parking lot, driveways and sidewalks will cover approximately 85% of the site. Silt fences and siltation control ponds will be installed to control storm water prior to discharge into existing drainage structures. New catch basins will be installed as a requirement of the construction. Air Normal emissions and dust associated with use of construction equipment will occur during construction of the project. After construction, normal exhaust associated with vehicular traffic will occur. Water trucks will be used during construction. All equipment will meet local, state, and federal emission standards. Water The Green River abuts the site on the south and east sides of the project site. The project is subject to the State Shoreline Management Act since landscaping c: \caroUSegale/sepa -rpt ` 3 z z� o to cn w: w w O; q LL a z�.- O z 11.1 Lu • o U N ,. O —: OF—. w w;. 1---_ O'-.:. z.. SEPA Review - E99 -0003 Segale Warehouse /Office Building April 23, 1999 and portions of the building, driveways and parking areas will be within 200 feet of the shoreline. No fill or dredge material will be placed in or removed from surface water, nor will there be any surface water or ground water withdrawals or diversions. The project site does not lie within a 100 -year floodplain. No discharges of waste materials to surface waters will occur. The office /warehouse will be connected to the City of Tukwila's sewage system. Runoff from the parking areas and building roof will be collected in onsite catch basins and flow by gravity to the existing City of Tukwila storm water system. The site is within the P -17 basin. Oil/water separators will be installed on site to minimize water quality impacts from parking areas. Plants No vegetation currently exists on the site as the site has been used for a large soil stockpile. Landscaping will be provided at the front of the site and around portions of the building. Landscaping will be planted landward of the levee within the Low Impact Environment of the Shoreline, as required by the Tukwila Shoreline Overlay District. The King County Water and Land Resources Division provided the following comment on landscaping of the site: • All landscaping plantings should be consistent with cross section dimensions and construction details and policies set forth in Corps of Engineers' Publication EM 1110 -2 -301, dated February 28, 1999. In the meeting held on April 16, 1999, the COE stated that grass should be planted on the riverward side of the levee and that at some future time, willows or other trees would be planted on the riverward side, should there be a need to reconstruct the levee. Currently, no room exists for a landscape bench on the riverward side of the levee. The COE expressed concerns about the type of tree proposed for the landscape area at the landward toe of the levee; as a result, the tree type has been revised from a cedar to a locust tree. This type of tree has been approved by the COE. Animals The SEPA Checklist notes that songbirds, ducks, crows and Canadian geese have been observed on or near the site. The site is located along the Pacific Flyway migration route. The only mammals observed on the site have been c: \carol/Segale /sepa -rpt 4 z 1 ;F-z 00 co wI }: CO w O: Q, D. a. �_ z I- 0 z i--: uj 0 0 I—. UJ W Z: U= O z SEPA Review - E99 -0003 Segale Warehouse /Office Building April 23, 1999 rodents. While the Checklist states that no fish have been observed, the National Marine Fisheries Service has recently listed the Puget Sound Chinook salmon as a threatened species. This species is known to inhabit the Green River. The King County Water and Land Resources Division provided the following comment: • To the extent that construction, excavation, and/or landscape plantings may be proposed within the existing River Protection Easement for the levee, it would appear the project proposal is clearly subject to the provisions of the federal Endangered Species Act. Federal agencies are required to consult for any action that "will likely affect" a • listed species. Currently, there are no local, State or Federal regulations that require revisions to this project related to the ESA. Energy/Natural Resources Electricity and natural gas will be used in the building for heating, manufacturing and other uses normal for warehousing and offices. Diesel fuel will be used in construction equipment during construction. The project will not affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties. The building will be designed to meet the Washington State Energy Code to save energy in heating and cooling the structure. Environmental Health No special emergency services will be required as a result of the proposed project. Noise is generated by traffic along the street in front of the site and the close proximity of an asphalt plant to the west. Construction noise will occur during regular hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Noise from vehicles and trucks once the building is open for business, approximately 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. All equipment will be operated with required local, state, and federal noise suppression devices. Land/Shoreline Uses The site has been used as a storage yard for Seattle Tractor Company and stockpile area for excess pitrun material. To the west is an asphalt plant, north is a street and various warehouses and office buildings. The Green River and COE Section 205 levee border the site on the south and east. A carpenter's shop, c: \carol/Segale /sepa -rpt z Z Cr al: U O; moo: cnw w =: w O: g = a: w' z�. z U' :o f-` ww w z, co • SEPA Review - E99 -0003 Segale Warehouse /Office Building April23, 1999 which currently exists on the site, will be demolished prior to construction of the warehouse /office building. The site is designated Heavy Industrial on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and is zoned Heavy Industrial. The proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designation. The Shoreline Master Program designation is Urban and the proposal must obtain a Shoreline Substantial Development permit. Approximately 40 -75 people will work on the site when the project is constructed. Housing No housing exists on the site. Aesthetics The type of construction proposed for the building is tilt up concrete. The project is subject to design review and will be considered by the Tukwila Board of Architectural Review. The maximum height of the building in the shoreline area is 35 feet. The building is proposed to be 33 feet. Light/Glare The building will have exterior lighting, which will occur from dusk to dawn. No anticipated glare from the building is anticipated. Recreation A pedestrian/bike trail system exists on the opposite side of the Green River. Sidewalks will be provided along the street frontage of the building to link it with the sidewalks in the Business Park to provide safe access to the Green River trail system. As part of the project, an outside picnic area will be provided for employees of the warehouse /office building. Historic /Cultural Preservation There are no places or objects listed on or proposed for national state or local preservation registers. c : \caro l/Segale /sepa -rpt 6 z '�w U O'. w W Z:. . wO. 1w z F. I— O zI—; 2 D. o. UN' 'O =U_ wz. U I: SEPA Review - E99 -0003 Segale Warehouse /Office Building April 23, 1999 Transportation A Traffic Impact Analysis was provided as part of the project submittal. Direct access to the site is via Segale Park Drive "C ", which is part of the private, internal road system within the Segale Business Park. Transit service is available on South 180th Street, approximately one -half mile from the project site. Sidewalks will be provided along the frontage of the project, which will connect with the existing sidewalks throughout the business park. Bicycle and vehicle parking will be provided on site as required by the Tukwila Municipal Code. The Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for this project indicates that approximately 20% of the trips generated by the development will occur during the AM and PM peak hours. Many of the trips generated by the project will be trucks, because the project is a warehouse with related office uses. The Traffic Impact Analysis notes that the Trip Generation Manual does not provide data as to percentage of total trips that will be heavy vehicles. It notes, however, that the percentage of trucks is probably higher during the non -peak hours when deliveries typically occur and when fewer employees would be travelling. A comment letter was received from a business in the Segale Business Park concerned about the additional truck traffic on Segale Park Drive "C" and the ability of employees, customers etc. to access the arterial highways that serve Tukwila. The new traffic generated by the development of the property will be distributed onto the adjacent roadway system and then onto the regional transportation system— SR -518, I -5, I -405 and towards the major arterials such as West Valley Highway or South 180th Street. The trip distribution information indicates that trips will be fairly evenly distributed on the surrounding streets. The applicant's Traffic Impact Analysis identifies ten locations in the vicinity of the project that are scheduled for capital improvements and the estimated number of trips from the site that would be traveling through these locations during the PM peak hour. The trip mitigation fees required by City code for trips through these locations have been estimated by the Traffic Impact Analysis as approximately $74,447. Public Services The development of this site as a warehouse /office building will generate an increased need for public services such as police and fire. c : \caro USegale/sepa -rpt 7 < SEPA Review - E99 -0003 Segale Warehouse /Office Building April23, 1999 Utilities Utilities currently available at the site include electric, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, storm water and sanitary sewer. No additional utilities are anticipated to be needed as a result of the building construction. Recommendation Determination of Nonsignificance 8 c: \carol/Segale/sepa -rpt • CHECKLIST. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW /SHORELINE PERMIT MA- _,.NGS ati( v six/64A, rv)- C 4w1dk S4144, INCYV, G !tn; Kcmo(05Ke. P-6 [.11ie,C' 410, 5wew (y) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ( ) FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION (0 DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE ( ) OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY ( ) TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ( ) DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES ( ) OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR ( ) DEPT OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV. (14 DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE F DERAL AGENCIES > ( ) U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ( ) U.S. DEPT OF H.U,D. (v) (k)41-10 /11-A 11"Ine, cl5('\Qt1(fS WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES ( ) K.C. PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEV. ( ) BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD ( ) FIRE DISTRICT #11 ( ) FIRE DISTRICT #2 ( ) K.C. WATER POLLUTION CNTRL SEPA OFFCL ( ) TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT (' , TUKWILA LIBRARIES ( ) RENTON LIBRARY ( ) KENT LIBRARY ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY U S WEST SEATTLE CITY LIGHT PUGET SOUND ENERGY HIGHLINE WATER DISTRICT SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT TCI CABLEVISION OLYMPIC PIPELINE ( /KENT PLANNING DEPT ( ) TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: (VI' PUBLIC WORKS ( ) ( ) POLICE ( ) ( ) PLANNING ( ) ( ) PARKS & REC. ( ) ( ) CITY CLERK FIRE FINANCE BUILDING MAYOR ( ) PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL ( ) P.S. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY ( ) SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (/) MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE (v DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE ( ) SEATTLE TIMES 07/09/98 C:WPS1DATA \CHKLIST AGENCY SQ V J )C:Q, �,,,,,At -ii St SrM F- Pe�v� ',^ C.V-cS $aGGL�u- O \ ) DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. �� Ir PT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELIND DIV " b1 n Co vle^f vr DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION* U 1 CASO -' 4 (Vf OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL — DOE �QCt' -. * SEND CHKLIST W/ DETERMINATIONS "l a'`u`' .L-ot • * SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION KING COUNTY AGENCIES ( ) K.C. DEPT OF PARKS ( ) HEALTH DEPT ( ) PORT OF SEATTLE ( ) K.C.DEV & ENVIR SERVICES -SEPA INFO CNTR ( ) K.C. TRANSIT DIVISION - SEPA OFFICIAL 11� i' •C� w'tt }"r (t'4 Nakwa.l.i�sw�c� i�.VtSt0 SCHOOLS LIBRARIES d n'• A✓'dc\ Lou esclue_ ')OD �% /1.,eti1vC ) 601 r l' Z2.00 HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT j&01-Ct ,4)/4 C(8)(7/"70z2. K C PUBLIC LIBRARY SEATTLE MUNI REF LIBRARY SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT UTILITIES PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT WATER DISTRICT #20 WATER DISTRICT #125 CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS RAINIER VISTA SKYWAY CITY AGENCIES ( ) RENTON PLANNING DEPT ( ) CITY OF SEA -TAC ( ) CITY OF BURIEN ( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ( ) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER - DCLU ( ) SEATTLE OFFICE OF MGMNT & PLANNING* * NOTICE OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ. OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES (V) METRO ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DIV. OFFICE /INDUSTRIAL 5,000 GSF OR MORE RESIDENTIAL 50 UNITS OR MORE RETAIL 30,000 GSF OR MORE MEDIA LC11M'k 1.I 1t/r ev (Avow/\ Gov (2s it SQw1 tg 31-10 SLejaLp, P1wtL 04/)x. 81, �UIZWI�C` t (AA . La Pianta Limited Partnership PO Box 88028 Tukwila, WA 98138 -2028 City of Kent 220 4th Ave. South Kent, WA 98032 M. A. Segale, Inc. PO Box 88050 Tukwila, WA 98138 • Cadillac Plastic 18292 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Familian NW 18323 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Crown Co Seal 18340 Seg - e Park Dr "B" Tukwila, W :188 United Stationers 18300 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 Gaco Western PO Box 88698 Seattle, WA 98138 Crate Tech, Inc. 6206 South 1 90th Street Kent, WA 98032 TBI Building LLC 6412 S. 190th St. Kent, WA 98032 Keys 18301 Tukwi n Brothers Hover Park West a, WA 98188 Columbia Packaging 18296 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle Tractor Parts 18349 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 A. America 18255 Segale Park Dr "B" Tukwila, WA 98188 Rock -Tenn 18340 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 Reid Plastics, Inc. 6545 South Glacier Place Tukwila, WA 98188 Family Life Insurance 18285 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Gaco Western, Inc. PO Box 88698 Seattle, WA 98138 Keyston 18303 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 James Campbell Estate 1001 Kamokila Blvd Kapolei, HI 96707 Bruce & Elizabeth Mitchell P.O. Box 99151 Seattle, WA 98199 • • Schoenbachler Enterprises 6728 - 134th Ct. NE Redmond, WA 98052 Fletcher's Fine Foods 18338 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Alpak Food Equipment 18298 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Viking Office Products 18300 Segale Park Dr "B" Tukwila, WA 98188 General Medical Corp. 18325 Segale Park Dr "B" Tukwila, WA 98188 The, ox aker 6230 uth 1 90th Street Kent, 98032 Materials, Inc. 6214 South 190th Street Kent, WA 98042 Br - & Eliz 19000 Sepia e, h Mitchell L NE 98155 Meteor Building Assoc. 120 W. Dayton St. #C1 Edmonds, WA 98020 The Box Maker 6412 S. 190th St. Kent, WA 98032 Mar -I- da.42-ut • • z • i1• 6 • U- 00 No to w wJ N u- wo g L? Y2 d Fw z1._ I- o: z I-. Do U N. •0 :0 H, ww Z - o. wz CO; 0 ~` .z 04/20/99 15:37 FAX : \76.4 3319 FAIERG MGM' 1 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 3EArnx OI5TRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 3735 SCATTLB. WASHINGTON 91124 -2215 Emergency Management Branch Mr. Dave Clark Manager, Rivers Section King County Water and Land Resources Division. Department of Natural Resources 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, Washington 98104 -5022 Dear Mr. Clark: Qoaz te �r ��� AP R20tB \, Thank you for attending the meeting on April 6, 1999, regarding the prior determination for the proposed warehouse building development to be located immediately adjacent to the authorized levee at the Segale Business Park in Tukwila, Washington. After initial review of the proposed project we sent you a letter,' dated. March 29, 1999, which stated our • concerns about ieatUres that could impact the integrity of the existing structure. Upon further review and discussions 'at the meeting we find the project to be acceptable as designed. Acceptable vegetation for the landward toe of the levee includes the locust trees that were proposed. If you have any questions please contact Bill Garrott at (206) 764 -3406, or Monte Kaiser at (206) 764 -3712. Sincerely, aul E. Koaoroske, P. Chief, Emergency Management Branch ATTACHMENT D -2 APR -16 -99 FRI 03:34 P11 USP- E1 SEATTLE DISTRICT FAX N0. 20L.764 4470 P. 02/03 CENPS -PM -CP April 16, 1999 z zI-: MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD 1:4 U12 ° SUI3JECT: Segale Business Park (SBP) Proposed Development, Corps, Tukwila, King County ° o SBP Meeting. , N in J H 1. The subject meeting was attended by those on the attached list. The purpose ofthe meeting N o` Lu was to discuss issues dealing with the subject proposal. J 2. The two major issues that were discussed were: a. Concerns dealing with the ability ofthe D. existing structure to keep flood waters out of the rest of the project area and the stability of the z W` existing levee prism. and b. concerns dealing with the planting of large trees in or adjacent to the z levee prism. 1- 0. z 1-. will 3. In discussions dealing with the ability of the existing project to contain flood waters we D o; determined that if there where a levee failure in the vicinity of the loading dock the high ground ,0 co both up and downstream of the possible break would contain the floodwaters within the 'O i, development arca. We discussed the current 1.7 to 1 front slope on the existing levee and the x 2' recommendation of the County's consultant that the slope be 2 to 1. Corps staff said that they were LI p aware that it would be better if the slope were 2 to 1 but we would continue to repair flood damage w z' w V to this structure with the steeper slope. ' o' z 4. In the discussions of large trees corps staff said that we could Iive with the proposed trees at this site in the location specified but we night have a problem with trees being proposed for a project just upstream of this site. SI3P personnel said that they would propose to the corps another tree. 5. Actions following this meeting will be for S13P staff to provide a tree proposal to the Corps by Monday morning and the Corps action is to provide a letter to Segale approving the business park design. 6. Just after the end of this meeting Corps personnel were told that there might be a Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act issue dealing with this project. District Council was not available for consultation to determine if we are. As soon as we get a reading on this we will let the attendees know. cc: Attendees Soule /PM -CP Scuderi /EC -TB -ER N el G. brou roje Manager �JC Lv < 4l i 3. Z ,*(a4/1.9)1999 16:00 206 - 205 -F1714 KC WLRD RIVERS SEC. PAGE 02 King County Water and Land Resources Division Department of Natural Resources 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98104 -5022 (206) 296 -8819 (208) 298 -0192 FAX April 16, 1999 Mr. Steve Lancaster Director Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Review of Application: La Planta Limited Partnership d.b.a. Seale Business Park Tukwila File Nos. L99 -0006: L99 -0007: E99 -0003 Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject application for construction of Building No. 981, proposed for construction within the Segale Business Park in the City of Tukwila. King County has a significant interest in this application, as the proposed site development plan may potentially affect the county's maintenance and repair obligations regarding the existing flood containment levee along the Green River at the project site. King County is party to a June 30, 1992 Green River Basin Program Interlocal Agreement with the City of Tukwila and other Green River Valley Cities in which King County has agreed to maintain levees, riverbanks, and revetments within the Green River Flood Control Zone District (GRFCZD). To this end, King County in •1991 assigned its River Protection Easement rights to the City of Tukwila as a tenant in common, in order to facilitate Tukwila's completion of the federally authorized Lower Green River Flood Control Project with the Corps of Engineers. This easement encumbers portions of the project site within thirty feet of the top -of -bank along the riverward edge of the existing Levee crest. This easement width was established in 1964, and may not be adequate to today's continuing flood protection needs. In addition to completion of their Section 205 levee- raising initiative at the site, the Corps has also accomplished a Public Law 84 -99 levee repair to 700 feet of the levee system within the Segale Business Park in 1990, with King County as the Local Sponsor. In 1991, King County and the Corps cooperated in an Emergency Flood Fight along 2000 feet of the landward levee toe. In 1993, King County and the City of Tukwila signed a further interlocal agreement to cost share the local sponsors' portion of funding for completion of a federal Hazard Mitigation Grant Program project to stabilize 900 feet of the riverward levee slopes and relieve seepage hazards along 1200 feet of the landward levee toe within the Segale Business Park. This work was completed in 1997. An additional 80 feet of emergency seepage control work was performed by King County in 1995, within the downstream portions of the project site which is the subject of the present application. Much of the seepage control work and emergency response efforts accomplished at the Segale Business Park has required work outside the width provided in the 1964 easements. A Permanent Right of Access, extending some twenty feet landward of the historic easements, was needed to allow for this work. This additional interest in the affected property has been obtained by agreement with the landowner. No such agreement has yet been reached within the site area now subject to this present application. z ,t- W re W • JU 00 U CI w =. •—II—' u j 0. ga -J u_¢ (12a I- _, • z� I-O •Z I-. w. .D Cu U O N: 0 � w u • z 11.1 U =; O F" z 04/L9/1999 16: 00 206 - 205 -1\34 April 16, 1999 Steve Lancaster Page Two KC WLRD RIVERS SEC. PAGE 03 The total cost for construction of these levee repairs within the Segale Business Park over the last ten years has easily exceeded $2 Million. King County has significant concerns with this level of continuing expense and respectfully requests the City of Tukwila's careful consideration of the site plan review to include reasonably prudent measures assuring the future integrity and stability of the levee system within the project site. Specific measures reasonably necessary to this end are requested as follows: 1. Sufficient site area needs to be preserved free from excavation, grading, landscape plantings, and other site improvements so as to facilitate King County's continuing abilities to accomplish future levee repairs designed at stable angles of repose for the affected levee slopes along the riverbank. Based on discussions with the property owner to date, no independent analyses of riverbank stability have been performed. King County has contracted for geotechnical consultant studies utilizing soils information provided by the applicant to address this concern. Results of these analyses should be forthcoming with detailed site recommendations within the next few weeks. Relying for the moment on findings developed by these same county consultants for downstream portions of the levee system within the Segate Business Park, and also for levee reaches immediately across the river from the project site, it is my recommendation this allowance be predicated on establishing an overall slope gradient of 2H:1 V, or two horizontal feet to each vertical foot of levee slope elevation above the river bed. 2. Sufficient site area needs be preserved free from site grading, site improvements, and landscape plantings to provide for establishment of a 15- foot -wide levee maintenance access roadway along the top crest of the levee slope, consistent with a top -of -bank location predicated on stable slope angles determined pursuant to (1), above. 1 All landscape plantings should be consistent with cross section dimensions and construction details and policies set forth in Corps of Engineers' Publication EM 1110. 2.301, dated February 28, 1999. This is especially important with regard to King County's continuing ability to maintain the levee system in accordance with applicable regulatory standards affecting levees. See also (4), below. 4. To the extent that construction, excavation, and /or landscape plantings may be proposed within the existing River Protection Easement for the levee, it would appear the project proposal is clearly subject to the provisions of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) with respect to recent listing of Puget Sound Chinook salmon as a threatened species. The City of Tukwila may need to consider if site review is consistent with its recent statements concerning programmatic certification under the ESA's required 4(d) Rule. Similarly, the City may need to request that the Corps consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to ensure compliance with requirements established in Section 7 of the ESA. z W g. -1 (.)0 : WI . O: a' �a w z�.: za iv a :O 0 H: w W:. LL- 111 t-; • ui z O ~. z 04/19/1999 16:00 206 - 205 --134 KC WLRD RIVERS SEC. PAGE 04 April 16, 1999 •.Steve Lancaster Page Three Based on review of the site plans and cross section drawings submitted to date, it is my sincere belief that difficult decisions will need to be made by the City to accomplish the forgoing recommendations. At an absolute minimum, it appears that an additional fifteen feet of site area along the river frontage will need to be dedicated as an easement for the purposes of providing for adequate levee stability.. This may also address both site level and reach level impacts related to ESA concerns with levees as they may affect the listed species. It is my belief such measures are reasonably necessary as conditions of approval for issuance of the subject permits. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Please call me 206- 296 -8388 if you have any concerns or questions with this letter. - Sincerely, Dave Clark, Manager Rivers Section Cc: Debbie Arima, Assistant Manager, WLR Division Sarah Ogier, Program Coordinator, Green River Basin Program Andy Levesque, Senior Engineer Carol Lumb, Planner, City of Tukwila Phil Frasier, Senior Engineer Noel Gllbrough, Project Manager, Corps of Engineers Paul Komoroske, Emergency Operations Branch Monte Kaiser, Geotechnical Branch Z • w. • ID' J U :U O,: • N C; w Ii J F-; • N:u- iuj • cnd`_ .�: I- O' .Z F- Ail Ui . 1—Fr • Geo Engineers April 15, 1999 Segale Business Park P.O. Box 88028 18000 Andover Park West, Suite 200 Tukwila, Washington 98180 Attention: Steve Nelson Consulting Engineers and Geoscientists Offices in Washington, Oregon, and Alaska GeoEngineers is pleased to submit four copies of our "Revised Report, Geotechnical Engineering Services, Levee Evaluation, Proposed Warehouse Development, Segale Business Park, Tukwila, Washington." Our report has been revised to incorporate comments and information in the Corps of Engineers' recent'letter to Mr. Dave Davis of King County. The revisions include using the Standard Project Flood (SPF) river elevations at 31.65 feet and 31.00 feet at the upstream and downstream project boundaries. We have also used the most recent grading plan to produce a section, Figure 3, that has the same horizontal and vertical scale. A SPF river elevation of 31.3 feet was estimated at our section. In addition we have used the Shannon and Wilson (S &W) model and section (Figures 4, 5 and 6 of their June 1995 report) to evaluate whether or not our results are in disagreement, and performed similar stability analysis. We expect that the results of our analysis to be different than those found by S &W because they used a head differential of 10 feet from the river level to the toe of the levee in their model. The head differential at our section (based on the most recent grading plan) is 2.3 feet from the river level to the toe of the levee, and 4.3 feet to the lowest grade in the yard. In fact, one of the recommended alternatives by S &W for stabilizing the levee was to place a 5 -foot high berm along with a toe drain at the base of the levee. Grading proposed by Segale in effect leaves a 6 -foot or higher berm at the toe of the levee. Our analysis indicates a factor of safety of greater than 2 will result from the profile shown in Figure 3. Our analysis also indicates that a gradient of approximately 0.05 through the levee will result during the SPF event. An expected seepage rate of about 2 cubic foot (approximately 16 gallons) per day per 40 -foot segment of levee is predicted from our analysis. GeoEngineers, Inc. 1101 Fawcett Ave., Suite 200 Tacoma, \VA 98402 Telephone (253) 3834940 Fax (253) 383-4923 wuw.geoengineers.com . ;�:rr,: °:t?M�. n�l�,l k;;' ..... =;.t,. ..��� ...., _ .... ... z QQ �; V. .-1 'U O' •(/)o. WI CO U. W O. • • 4a u_ H =; f= O' Z t- W • W W; z 0 z. • w vi H =` • O ~` z We trust the foregoing meets your needs at this time. Please call if you have any questions about this report or if you need further assistance. SWH :GWH:jII Document ID: 029101101RevR1.DOC Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. 41) Gary W. Henderson Principal • April 8, 1999 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W. Rants, Mayor Mr. M.A. Segale Segale Business Park P.O. Box 88028 Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Segale: Thank you for taking the time to speak with us on April 6 concerning the land - altering activities occurring at 5801 through 6199 Segale Park Drive "C." As follow -on to that conversation and in response to the materials you provided, we have determined that the exemption granted by letter dated April 19, 1991 does not apply to the situation at hand for the following reasons: 1. The "commercial stockpiling" exemption no longer applies to your situation. It is our understanding that your company is no longer involved in the commercial stockpiling of materials "as a normal part of daily operations" (TMC 16.54.150(7)). Furthermore, we do not consider the work recently undertaken to be "stockpiling." 2. The 1991 exemption letter clearly specifies that the "exemption does not extend to other ordinances or regulations of the City of Tukwila, or other agencies that may apply to this type of operation." In this case, the work you have undertaken requires a Shoreline "substantial development" permit, which is jointly administered by the City and by the Washington State Department of Ecology. Therefore, you are hereby directed to immediately cease any and all land altering activity at the subject site. We expect you to pursue proper authorization for the work already undertaken by obtaining appropriate land altering, shoreline and any other applicable permits. Work shall not resume at the subject site until such permits have been obtained. We would be happy to meet with you or your representatives to discuss this matter. Sincerely, James F. Morrow, P.E., Director Department of Public Works c. John McFarland, City Administrator Steve Lancaster, Director Department of Community Development Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • City Hall Fax: (206) 433 -1833 .,. � ...�. —� z z mow: : J 0. oO; N w= J • LL wo gQ. • d' I-w z o �. 2 Di U 'O N o f-. w 1-• U O. iii z. U D. O City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development April 7, 1999 Mr. Steve Nelson Segale Business Park P.O. Box 88028 Tukwila, WA 98138 Steve Lancaster, Director RE: Building 981, Segale Business Park (L99 -0006, Design Review, L99 -0007., Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, E99 -0003 SEPA) Dear Mr. Nelson: Staff from the Departments of Community Development and Public Works have reviewed the plans submitted for the new office /warehouse building in the Segale Business Park, Building 981. We have the following comments or questions about the project: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit 1. TMC 18.44.130 B.3. provides suggested types of trees to use in the River Environment; However, based on comments we have received on other shoreline permits reviewed by the Department of Ecology, the landscaping between the building and the shoreline should be native plant materials. The landscape plan should be revised accordingly. 2. The Low Impact Environment in the shoreline area includes environmentally protected lands. Areas on the east and south sides of the building apparently are not needed for parking or circulation based on the site plan. Therefore these areas should be landscaped with appropriate native plant materials. Please see the attached plan for the areas in question. 3. Please identify on the site plan, shoreline substantial development permit survey, landscape plan and the utilities plan the 30 -foot easement area that has been granted to King County. 4. Please submit a Utility Permit Application in order to expedite storm drainae review. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite #,100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax 906 431 -3665 \_ z • z. QQ 2" J () 00 V) W W =, _I H LL w p: a =a w z� H O: z n 0 Oco 0 I-. w w'. H U wz 0 -' 0 ~! z Mr. Steve Nelson Segale Building 981 April 7, 1999 Design Review Criteria Landscape Plan 1. The landscape plan must be revised to provide a landscape island on the eastern side of the site in the parking area. For developments with more than 40 parking stalls, the required amount of interior landscape area is 12 square feet per parking stall with landscape islands sized at a minimum of 100 square feet. Building Design TMC 18.60.050 provides the criteria used by the Board of Architectural Review when it reviews projects. Comments 1 -3 below are based on the following BAR guidelines: "18.60.050 1. Relationship of Structure to Site. a. The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping and pedestrian movement; b. Parking and service areas should be located, designed and screened to moderate the visual impact of large paved areas; 2. Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area. a. Harmony on texture, lines and masses is encouraged... d. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged; 3. Building Design. b. Buildings should be to appropriate scale and in harmony with permanent neighboring developments; c. Building components such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets should have good proportions and relationship to one another. Building components and ancillary parts shall be consistent with anticipated life of the structure... g. Monotony of design in single or multiple buildings projects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form and siting should be used to provide visual interest." Some aspects of the project's design may not fully meet these criteria. While there may be many alternative ways of meeting these criteria, comments 1 -3 below provide several suggestions for improving the design of the proposed project. We would be happy to meet with you to discuss these comments and alternatives you may have to meeting the BAR criteria. c: \carol\segale\nelson -1.doc � .,:. z W. • . 'U O. .cn J ~` LL: wo.. LL — F— =. •z 1—O: Z H: •w • D;', :ot•- = U, w w .. z Off' z Mr. Steve Nelson Segale Building 981 April 7, 1999 1. Awnings of the same material and color as on the rest of the building, should be applied to all building entrances to provide visual cues to pedestrians and vehicles. 2. The darker hue color used for the awnings, reveal lines and medallions should also be continued at the ground level of the building to anchor the building. 3. On the east and south elevations, the building modulations are not as symmetrical as the west and north elevations. Several walls have one row of reveal lines that appear incongruous when compared to the adjacent walls with windows and reveal lines above and below the window treatment. Please either add another row of reveal lines on the walls and medallions on the columns or provide some other consistent treatment such as adding window areas on all the walls. 4. There does not appear to be an area designated for collection of recyclable materials and garbage. TMC 18.52.080 and 18.52.090 (attached) establish the standards for amount of area to be set aside and the required screening. 5. The building elevations do not indicate whether any mechanical equipment will be installed on the roof. Any mechanical equipment on the roof must be screened from view, setback 10 feet from the edge of the roof and do not exceed 20 feet in height. 6. The plans do not indicate what signage is proposed for the building. Signage is reviewed and approved by the Board of Architectural Review along with the building design and landscaping plan. On- premises permanent signs located in the shoreline zone and specifically oriented to be visible from the "river environment" are not permitted. General Site Plan and Infrastructure 1. The submitted conceptual storm drainage plans do not include provisions for "storage, or detention." The schematic storm drainage plans may not comply with the City's drainage ordinance. The City's drainage ordinance requires compliance with the King County Surface Water Design Manual. These regulations will likely require modification of the proposed drainage improvements. Storm water detention and water quality treatment is required. Siting these storm water facilities may affect the proposed site plan. 2. A certificate of water availability from Highline Water District is required. A copy of the certificate is enclosed Miscellaneous 1. The notices sent to the following property owners were returned by the Post Office: The Box Maker (6230 South 190th Street, Kent, WA 98032); Schoenbachler Enterprises Lic (13256 Northup Way #11, Bellevue, WA 98005): Keyston Brothers (18301 Andover Park West, Tukwila, WA 98188); and Bruce & Elizabeth Mitchell (19000 57th Place NE, Seattle, WA 98155). Please provide corrected mailing labels for these addresses, as we want to make sure they receive subsequent mailings. c:\carol\segalenelson-l.doc 3 z r4 2 U. U O` W o. U)= J 1 U) U_ w0. w< = w' z �. z~ U '0 N CI I–. ww l 1– —O. Z. w UN - 0 17 z Mr. Steve Nelson Segale Building 981 April 7, 1999 You have been faxed a copy of the comments the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has provided to King County on the proposed excavation behind the levee. Given the issues raised by this letter as well as the Corps, the earliest this project can be scheduled for BAR review is May 27, 1999. Scheduling this project for BAR review will depend on how quickly the issues raised are responded to. These issues should be responded to no later than April 30, 1999 to ensure a May 24, 1999 public hearing in order to allow time for the issuance of the environmental determination, the shoreline permit, preparation of the BAR staff report and issuing the required public notice. z 6 s - U: 0 O: (0 o; w='. J F� We are expecting comments from Andy Levesque, from King County Surface Water w O Management, on this project on April 19, 1999. As soon as those comments are received, g they will be faxed to you. I understand that he will be providing comments, in part, on the landscaping in the 30 -foot easement area granted to King County. = 0. f- _�. z E-- O z w: 2 U O N: O I—: _ w: U H F_, II=,. iti z on Co) Vi O If you have any questions, please give me a call at 206 - 431 -3661. Sincerely, Ca&a (364,1 Carol Lumb Associate Planner Enclosures cc: Steve Lancaster, Director, Planning and Community Development Department Jack Pace, Planning Manager Jim Morrow, Director, Public Works Department Joanna Spencer, Associate Engineer, Public Works Department c: \carol\segale\nelson -1.doc 4 z -4O • JR PACK/AG1 ■ 0 CROWN CORK & SEAL COMPANY, INC. City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 SouthCenter Blvd. Suite 100 Tukwila, WA. 98188 Attn: Steve Lancaster, Director Dear Mr. Lancaster, RECE V D APR 091999 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT P.O. BOX 58468 SEATTLE, WA 98138-1468 TEL. 206 - 575 -4260 FAX 206 - 5750640 April 6'h, 1999 This letter is in reference to the proposal to construct a 313,735 square foot building at 5801 through 6199 Segale Park Drive "C" Tukwila, WA. I note that the proposed building has 50 overhead shipping doors, that to me would indicate a large daily amounts of truck traffic. Our building is located directly North of the proposed building, at the junction of "B" and "C" streets. I am obviously concerned about this additional traffic. My area of concern is two fold. First is obviously safety. There are stop signs located on "C" street with one at the junction of "B" and "C." Very few people obey them! There will be a serious accident at this junction one day! The advent of numerous trucks daily now traversing this intersection from this new building scares me. My second concern is the ability of traffic (employees, customers, and suppliers) to gain access to the arterial highways. Currently there are 3 exit routes from the Segale Business Park. Directly North on Andover Park West to connect with I -5 North to Seattle or South to Federal Way and Tacoma. At peak time 3:30pm to 6:OOpm traffic is bottle- necked at South Center Parkway. Attempting to get on I -5. The SouthCenter hill is a gridlock during peak times. This is also the route taken for junction to 405 N to Renton and Bellevue, again it is gridlock. Now lets look at the traffic going Southbound I -5. With the current closure of 200 St. [till November 1999???] traffic now heads West on 180'h and goes up the steep hill at 178th to Military road. Again this is no picnic but probably is the best of the 3 exit routes. Finally we have the traffic heading to Kent and Southbound on Highway 167. Believe it or not this is worse that the SouthCenter hill. Most day's traffic is backed up from West Valley Highway to Andover Park West. CANS • CROWNS • CLOSURES • MACHINERY For the afore mentioned reasons I feel the additional truck traffic is going to cause chaos around the South area of SouthCenter. It is my understanding that a traffic survey was completed in conjunction with the project perhaps I could receive a copy of it! Since 1y ours, ()Arm- Michael 1' Plan A. Nichols Segale Inc. City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director March 29, 1999 TO: Alice Kelly, DOE Shoreline FM:. Carol Lumb, Associate Planner RE: Segale Business Park, Building 981 Enclosed are the following plans for the 981 Building, Segale Business Park for your review as they relate to the Shoreline Substantial Development permit application we have received: • • • • • • • Shoreline Profile Cross Sections Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Survey Building Site Plan Utility Plan Erosion Control Plan Floor Plan Building Elevations Landscaping Plan I'm also enclosing a copy of the Shoreline Substantial Development permit application, the SEPA checklist and a copy of the geotech report. Let me know if you have any questions — my telephone number is 206 - 431 -3661. c: \carol\segale \doe, doc 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 ••z ;�z u6D • 'J U 1.) 0., moo; co w. • • w =.. • Jam. LL O: •J. lL • Nom:. • O i z1—; 0 ,w w;. • HU • O' • • • Z' • llUi: z 3 04/01/99 13:54 FAX 206 7664 3 319 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF EMERG MGMT DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SEATTLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX. 3755 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 981Z4-2255 Emergency Management Branch Mr. Dave Clark Manager, Rivers Section King County Water and Land Resources Division Department of Natural Resources 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, Washington 98104 -5022 Dear Mr. Clark: 29 March 1999 Q002 Thank you for affording us the opportunity to review the proposed warehouse building development to be located immediately adjacent to the authorized levee at the Segale Business Park in Tukwila, Washington. We have reviewed the proposed project and have concerns about features that could impact the integrity of the existing structure. . The Segale levee is part of the Federally authorized flood control project that was mostly constructed by the Seattle District Corps of Engineers and turned over to the City of Tukwila on May 15, 1992, following a joint final inspection. The proposal to excavate below existing grade immediately landward of the levee toe has some serious ramifications associated with it. This work could cause piping or uplift pressures on the soils that could possibly lead to levee failures. The report written by GeoEngineers and dated March 1999 is not completely in agreement with a similar report written by Shannon and Wilson and dated June 1995. GeoEngineers' analysis indicates that foundation seepage and uplift pressures will not pose a risk to the stability of the levee and will not likely cause soil piping. Shannon and Wilson's conclusions indicated that while the anticipated seepage rates are considered low to moderate, the high total head under the landward toe of the levee will cause the unit to virtually become "quick." The soils in the area for the proposed warehouse project and those in the vicinity of Shannon and Wilson's. study are similar enough to cause concerns that this same condition may well occur if the excavation at the toe of the levee is allowed. z Q • • Jo oo coo: W2 J � 04/01/99 13:54 FAX 206 7643319 EMERG MGjT, (J 0 0 3 • There also appears to be a discrepancy between the 100 year flood level shown on the warehouse drawings and the 100 year flood stage calculated by the Corps of Engineers. Of more concern is the Standard Project Flood (SPF) level that determines our design and construction of these types of projects. Any work that impacts this levee should be based on the SPF level rather than the 100 year level. Based on data furnished by our Hydraulics and Hydrology Section, the SPF level at the upstream end of the proposed project is at elevation 31.65 feet MSL and 31.00 feet MSL at the downstream end. Based on these elevations, areas in the upstream end of the proposed project will be lower than the SPF and with the uncertainty of whether or not the levee and landward side toe will be stable during a flood event, the proposed grading plan is a serious concern to us. One possible solution to this problem would be to raise the overall grade of the warehouse about one and one half foot above the current proposed project. This would ensure that if the levee did fail during an SPF the flood waters would be contained within the project boundaries. If you have any questions please contact Bill 'Garrott at (206) 764 -3406 or Monte Kaiser at (206) 764 -3712. Sincerely, ul E. K6moroske, P.E. Chief, Emergency Management Branch A F F I D A V I T • �. \\JencL1 at t 1 I flNotice of Public Hearing O Notice of Public Meeting OBoard of Adjustment Agenda Packet fl Board of Appeals Agenda Packet EPlanning Commission Agenda Packet 0 Short Subdivision Agenda Packet LJNotice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit flShoreline Management Permit O F D I S T R I B U T I O N hereby declare that: ODetermination of Non - significance 0 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance ODetermination of Significance and Scoping Notice fl Notice of Action 00f ficial Notice Other iPi VA, IJc4ti '7 lc4:44.4t- Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on bL2 6)6' . lam. "Pica-- - Name of Project 1/ (?WS, F -�� � 1 LM (OO7 File Number ��� T AL. 6C__ • • A F F I D A V I T • 1, 1,1t■ NIAM QNotice of Public Hearing 0 Notice of Public Meeting QBoard of Adjustment Agenda Packet O Board of Appeals Agenda Packet flPlanning Commission Agenda Packet 0 Short Subdivision Agenda Packet O F D I S T R I B U T I O N hereby declare that: Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit QShoreline Management Permit ODetermination of Non - significance fl Mitigated Determination of Nonsignif icance fl Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice ONotice of Action 0 Official Notice [tOOther � � n % it Li 'vl, Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on Name of Project , 4 File Number 4 LYl - O1 :0 „, Signature 3//1/97 . City of Tukwila John W Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director *REVISION TO NOTICE OF APPLICATION DATED March 19, 1999 The following applications have been submitted to the City of Tukwila Department of Community Development for review and decision. APPLICANT: LOCATION: FILE NUMBERS: PROPOSAL: La Pianta Limited Partnership d.b.a. Segale Business Park 5801 through 6199 Segale Park Drive "C ", Tukwila, WA L99 -0006 (Shoreline Substantial Development Permit); L99 -0007 (Design Review); E -99 -0003 (Environmental Review) To construct a 313,735 square foot concrete tilt -up building to be used for office, warehouse and maintenance space. OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: Land Altering, Building Permit The file may be reviewed at the Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100, Tukwila, WA. Please call (206) 431 -3670 to ensure that the file(s) will be available. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT You can submit comments on this application. You must submit your comments in writing to the Department of Community Development by 5:00 p.m. on , Monday, April 19 1999. This date is being revised to due to an error in the original notice. This matter is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing before the Board of Architectural Review on either April 22, 1999 or May 27, 1999. If you are interested in attending the hearing, please contact the Department at (206) 431 -3670 to ensure that the hearing is still scheduled for one of these dates. If you cannot submit comments in writing by the cutoff date indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and give your comments on the proposal before the Board of Architectural Review. You may also request notification of the final decision. If you have questions about this proposal contact Carol Lumb, the Planner in charge of this file at 431 -3661. Anyone who submits written comments will become parties of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. APPEALS You may request a copy of any decision by the Board of Architectural Review on a project or obtain information on your appeal rights by contacting the Department of Community Development at 431 -3670. A decision of the Tukwila Board of Architectural Review may be appealed to the Tukwila City Council. DATE OF APPLICATION: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: NOTICE OF APPLICATION POSTED: c:carol /Segalc/notapp February 5, 1999 March 4, 1999 March 19, 1999, March 26, 1999 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 +: +� z • • ice. moZ w: ug 5, • -I C.) `00. N • w z'• J I- 0 IL. w 0. IL = d. zw �.. I-- 0 Z w La O tn: 1-•. = V. w z` •O City of Tukwila Department of Community Development NOTICE OF APPLICATION DATED March 19, 1999 John W. Rants, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director The following applications have been submitted to the City of Tukwila Department of Community Development for review and decision. APPLICANT: LOCATION: FILE NUMBERS: PROPOSAL: La Pianta Limited Partnership d.b.a. Segale Business Park 5801 through 6199 Segale Park Drive "C ", Tukwila, WA L99 -0006 (Shoreline Substantial Development Permit); L99 -0007 (Design Review); E -99 -0003 (Environmental Review) To construct a 313,735 square foot concrete tilt -up building to be used for office, warehouse and maintenance space. OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: Land Altering, Building Permit The file may be reviewed at the Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100, Tukwila, WA. Please call (206) 431 -3670 to ensure that the file(s) will be available. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT You can submit comments on this application. You must submit your comments in writing to the Department of Community Development by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, April 2, 1999. This matter is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing before the Board of Architectural Review/Planning Commission on May 27, 1999. If you are interested in attending the hearing, please contact the Department at (206) 431 -3670 to ensure that the hearing is still scheduled for this date. If you cannot submit comments in writing by the cutoff date indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and give your comments on the proposal before the Board of Architectural Review/Planning Commission. If you have questions about this proposal contact Carol Lumb, the Planner in charge of this file at 431 -3661. Anyone who submits written comments will become parties of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. APPEALS You may request a copy of any decision by the Board of Architectural Review /Planning Commission on a project or obtain information on your appeal rights by contacting the Department of Community Development at 431 -3670. A decision of the Tukwila Board of Architectural Review/Planning Commission may be appealed to the Tukwila City Council. DATE OF APPLICATION: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: NOTICE OF APPLICATION POSTED: c: carol/Segal e/notapp February 5, 1999 March 4, 1999 March 19, 1999 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 z Z: re ug J U. 00 CO =` w0 J' u_ ¢: w; Z o; D o' C.) :0 N` CI w w': U LL. O. ui z UN 0 z. CHECKLIST. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW /SHORELINE PERMIT Mh_..INGS peU.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ( ) FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ('/) DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR DEPT OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV. DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE FEDERAL AGENCIES ( ) U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( ) U.S. DEPT OF H.U.D. WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES ( ) K.C. PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEV. ( ) BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD ( ) FIRE DISTRICT #11 ( ) FIRE DISTRICT #2 ( ) K.C. WATER POLLUTION CNTRL SEPA OFFCL ( , ) TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT TUKWILA LIBRARIES () RENTON LIBRARY ( ) KENT LIBRARY ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY U S WEST SEATTLE CITY LIGHT PUGET SOUND ENERGY HIGHLINE WATER DISTRICT SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT TCI CABLEVISION OLYMPIC PIPELINE ()() KENT PLANNING DEPT ( ) TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: ( ) PUBLIC WORKS ( ) ( ) POLICE ( ) ( ) PLANNING ( ) ( ) PARKS & REC. ( ) ( ) CITY CLERK FIRE FINANCE BUILDING MAYOR PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL P.S. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE (X) DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE ( ) SEATTLE TIMES 07/09/98 C:WP51DATA \CHKLIST ( ) DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. ( k' DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELIND DIV 4(m% A4(-Q \<4.,1a' X DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION*— ■41+.440-iv ( ) OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL O 2L.c.44/ * SEND CHKLIST W/ DETERMINATIONS 4Qu%i 144 * SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION KING COUNTY AGENCIES ( ) K.C. DEPT OF PARKS ( ) HEALTH DEPT (r w) PORT OF SEATTLE � K.C.DEV & ENVIR SERVICES —SEPA INFO CNTR ( ) K.C. TRANSIT DIVISION — SEPA OFFICIAL SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES 63 . ' r1u�a - HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT K C PUBLIC LIBRARY SEATTLE MUNI REF LIBRARY SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT UTILITIES ( ) PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT ( ) VAL —VUE SEWER DISTRICT ( ) WATER DISTRICT #20 ( ) WATER DISTRICT #125 ( ) CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS ( ) RAINIER VISTA ( ) SKYWAY CITY AGENCIES ( ) RENTON PLANNING DEPT ( ) CITY OF SEA —TAC ( ) CITY OF BURIEN ( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ( ) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE — SEPA INFO CENTER — DCLU ( ) SEATTLE OFFICE OF MGMNT & PLANNING* * NOTICE OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ. OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES ( ) METRO ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DIV: OFFICE /INDUSTRIAL 5,000 GSF OR MORE RESIDENTIAL 50 UNITS OR MORE RETAIL 30,000 GSF OR MORE MEDIA \,„ Z W. 0 U0. co 0: W • 2. J 1—,. uJ 0' g LL Zl_ F- O. W H. O N, W W: I- - 0 Z W Oft t tt 0 ~' z M. A. Segale, Inc. PO Box 88050 Tukwila, WA 98138 18292 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Familian NW 18323 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Crown Cork & Seal 18340 Segale Park Dr "B" Tukwila, WA 98188 United Stationers 18300 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 Gaco Western PO Box 88698 Seattle, WA 98138 Crate Tech, Inc. 6206 South 190th Street Kent, WA 98032 Keyston Brothers 18301 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Columbia Packaging 18296 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle Tractor Parts 18349 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 A. America 18255 Segale Park Dr "8" Tukwila, WA 98188 Rock -Tenn 18340 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 Reid Plastics, Inc. 6545 South Glacier Place Tukwila, WA 98188 Family Life Insurance 18285 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Fletcher's Fine Foods 18338 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Alpak Food Equipment 18298 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Viking Office Products 18300 Segale Park Dr "B" Tukwila, WA 98188 General Medical Corp. 18325 Segale Park Dr "B" Tukwila, WA 98188 The Box Maker 6230 South 190' Street Kent, WA 98032 Materials, Inc. 6214 South 190" Street Kent, WA 98042 z <z. • • w :6 JU. 0 0: o` w; co • w J F- cn �.. w 0: LL. Q'.. •mow. .1-o:• • Z f-: uf :;U 1 0 .. • z. • • • • o F' .z La Pianta Limited Partnership PO Box 88028 Tukwila, WA 98138 -2028 Schoenbachler Enterprises Lic 13256 Northup Way # 11 Bellevue, WA 98005 TBI Building LLC 6412 S. 190th St. Kent, WA 98032 Gaco Western, Inc. PO Box 88698 Seattle, WA 98138 City of Kent 220 4th Ave. South Kent, WA 98032 Campbell James Estate 1001 Kamokila Blvd Kapolei, HI 96707 Bruce & Elizabeth Mitchell 19000 57th PL NE Seattle, WA 98155 Meteor Building Assoc. 120 W. Dayton St. #C1 Edmonds, WA 98020 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 -2599 Andy Levesque King Co. SWM 700 5th Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98104 -5022 CITY OF TUKWILA 6300 ithcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION AND POSTING OF PUBLIC INF'ORVIATIOV SIGNS) z z w U! UO State of Washington w r. County of King City of Tukwila CO u-: w 0' u.¢? I C 0,4.4 Mks (Print Name) understand that Section 18.104.110 of the Tukwila Municipal W Code requires me to post the property no later than fourteen (14) days following the issuance of the Notice of Completeness. z I certify that on 3)11( 411 the Public Notice Board(s) in accordance with Section 18.104.110 .v o and other applicable guidelines were posted on the property located at 4,305. tic.) 1 � ;0 C-9-. 0 1--` so as to be clearly seen from each right -of -way providing primary vehicular access to the property for w w application file number L'M —000G, , Letq— '7 / C qq coo-2, &Alf ac's- O; Z. U Affiant (A azure) 1 F eA, O z 61 LL ' Y- fir• post 4),; G, No SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of , 19 NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington residing at My commission expires on CITY OF TUKWILA 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 93133 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 AFFIDAVIT OF NSTALLATION AND POSTING OF PUBLIC III- F'ORVIATION SIGNS) State of Washington County of King City of Tukwila I S \-evew Q Nei sow (Print Name) understand that Section 18.104.110 of the Tukwila Municipal Code requires me to post the property no later than fourteen (14) days following the issuance of the Notice of Completeness. I certify that on Warn" the Public Notice Board(s) in accordance with Section 18.104.110 and other applicable guidelines were posted on the property located at 6.306- 5. /8cr6 so as to be clearly seen from each right -of -way providing primary vehicular access to the property for application file number L S '7- 0666 95- oval (� � SS - 0003 Affiant (Applicant Signature) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this / .M 617 ay of -�AP H E 1111, .4., 17 . (20N c �,"` ,.� Iii N� _ ' Y PUBL?rj"in and f the State of W jiington •- tRY •O 0 • : u «• • residing at �7*�, o id J, •• P ��- �t�'r. • •°/a My commission expires on 5//,e e. 4/ a _ 11! 1114%nF'viP.cJ '�•.. 101 _akez./9 '' •' N.∎ z _�. z: • 00 cow:. w= J H. g Q: `cna I °: I-- at z1 .z O` n p! sfty • QI w W;. 1 z March 18, 1999 Andy — Attached are the available easements and associated resolutions you requested. Document number 6014672 is not an easement rather it is a mortgage related document. I confirmed this with King County Records, though a copy of the document was not readily available at the time I was there but could be obtained at a later time. If you want a copy of the document, let me know and I'll return to the Admin. Bldg. and obtain a copy. PQ) MEMORANDUM TO: Jack Pace, Planning Manager Department of Community Development FROM: Gary Barnett, P.E. Senior Engineer - Development Public Works (/ DATE: March 12, 1999 SUBJECT: Segale Land Use Applications for Warehouse (L99 -007 & L99 -008) The Public Works Department has accepted the BAR and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit applications as complete for the purpose of posting notifications for the land use review. Please request the applicant to provide the following information so Public Works Department can begin a substantial review. At this time we are using the application check lists as a guide for required submittal documents. Additional information may be requested by Public Works after receiving the items listed below. Shoreline Permit 1. Utility permit application for storm drainage review. 2. Completion of a survey that includes the river bank toe in addition to the other required information. The surveyor should stamp all drawings that are representative of topographic or cross sectional information. Necessary datum conversions should be made and identified. 3. Location of existing dike /riverbank maintenance easements. 4. As part of the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, the applicant must demonstrate that riverbank stability is acceptable to the City in accordance with the City's Flood Zone Ordinance #1462, Section 16.52.070, subsection A.2. The applicant has been given verbal direction regarding the scope and nature of the studies at a meeting held February 24, 1999, with the applicant. Design Review 1. Description of water and sewer availability from the provider of utility. This site is served by Highline Water District and Tukwila sewer. Certificate of water availability from Highline is required. ` 2. The submitted conceptual storm drainage plans do not include provisions for "storage, or detention". The schematic storm drainage plans may not comply with the City's drainage ordinance. The City's drainage ordinance requires compliance with King County Surface Design Manual or DOE Manual, whichever is more restrictive. These regulations will likely require modification of the proposed storm drainage improvements. Storm water detention and water quality treatment is required. Siting these storm water facilities may affect the proposed site plan. MBA 1. Public Works has no SEPA comments. cc: Brain Shelton Phil Fraser Jim Morrow a` CC 6 U; U O; CO CO a W.=: CO Wo _a 1-w. z 1; moo' z1-` 2 ail w. V 1- —r LL 0 WZ 0 I-_ z Report C�eotechnlcal ,Engirieering:;Services' Levee: Seepage Evaluation Proposed Warehouse.Building �G'e•oEng`in.ee Z Fa=-W. ix 2 J U. O O" �o W= J E. N u- WO g • ct I- _ ZF I-0 Z F- ill 0 O — CI I-- W • W ~ H LI O .Z W = O~ Z IMES MICRO COM SYSTEMS LTD. ATTENTION The next image may be a duplicate of the previous image. Please disregard previous image. Please disregard previous 2 images. Please disregard previous 3 images. Other: AA47 - ; r ;° iGeiotechn�cel Eri ineerin Services \' Levee., Seepage Evaluation • `.` Pro osed Warehouse,Builcdin Development Tukwila, Washington Marct iO,:1999.f File'No., "0291 -011-01 Z W 2 -J U. 0 °. W = H WO QQ LL Q co = a. Iw Z= 1— W O U• � O (-2 0 I-- W ▪ U. 1L Z 11J • = O ~ Z Geok0Engineers Segale Business Park P.O. Box 88028 18000 Andover Park West, Suite 200 Tukwila, Washington 98180 Attention: Steve Nelson March 10, 1999 Report Geotechnical Engineering Services Levee Seepage Evaluation Proposed Segale Business Park Tukwila, Washington File No. 0291 - 011 -01 Consulting Engineers and Geoscicntists Offices in Washington, Oregon, and Alaska INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our seepage evaluation of the existing levee located south of the proposed new Segale Business Park warehouse building in Tukwila, Washington. The project site is located south of Segale Park Drive C and east of Southcenter Parkway adjacent to the Green River as indicated on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. We understand that Segale Business Park intends to construct a dock -high warehouse at the site. The building will have an approximately 300,000 square -foot footprint and is to be located approximately as shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. We understand : that you plan to lower grades between the proposed building and levee by about 6 feet, to an approximate elevation of 27 feet above MSL. We also understand that King. County. has concerns regarding the removal of this material and the potential impacts to levee stability. :during a:. 100 -year .storm event. We understand that during the calculated 100 -year storm event, the surface of the Green River will be at an elevation of about 29.7 feet MSL, approximately 3 feet above the proposed finish grade elevation of the warehouse. SCOPE OF WORK The purpose of our services is to explore subsurface soil and ground water conditions at the levee site and to develop an opinion regarding levee stability after the future development scheme and under the 100 -year flood event. Our specific scope of services for this project includes the following: GeoEngineers, Inc. 1101 Fawcett Ave., Suite 200 Tacoma, WA 98402 Telephone (253) 383-4940 Fax (253) 383-4923 w<vwgeoengineers.com z ,t— w 6 3: • w =; Wu. w O; LL 5: = a. z I -. O, Z r~; 'U iO Ni ;w W� H V` •z: _co 1""i. z Segale Business Park March 10, 1999 Page 2 1. Review available records of nearby subsurface explorations previously conducted by GeoEngineers and others. 2. Complete one boring in the levee to a depth of 60 feet. 3. Complete three test pit explorations in the area of the proposed cuts to depths ranging from 13 to 15 feet. 4. Conduct grain -size analysis of selected soil samples from the boring and test pits to evaluate approximate hydraulic conductivities of soil types encountered. 5. Evaluate the potential for seepage through the levee and soil piping on the landward side of the levee during a 100 -year storm event in the Green River. 6. Preparing a written report containing our conclusions and recommendations along with our supporting data. SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE CONDITIONS The site is located in the southeast corner of Section 35, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, as shown in Figure 1. The site is bounded on the north by Segale Drive C and on the south by the Green River. The Green River flows generally in a northerly direction in the site vicinity. The site is presently occupied by a vacant yard that was recently used to store crane parts. The western portion of the property is occupied by a large soil stockpile that is approximately 40 feet in height. The existing ground surface in the proposed building footprint area ranges from about 24 feet above MSL at the east end to about 60 feet above MSL at the top of a soil stockpile. The top of the levee is at about Elevation 33 feet above MSL. The property boundaries, topographic contours, and proposed building location are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. We understand that the portions of the area on the landward side of the levee will be excavated: to an elevation of about 27 feet above: MSL. The landward side of the levee will be graded; to a 2 to 1 slope. We understand that the high water level in the Green River during a 100-year storm event will be approximately, 29.7 feet above . MSL, based on information provided by Segale. The levee will be approximately: 40 feet thick at this elevation according to information provided by. Segale. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS Subsurface explorations in the area of the levee were conducted by GeoEngineers Inc. on March 1, 1999 at the approximate locations indicated on the Site Plan, Figure 2. Test pits were excavated using a rubber -tired backhoe and operator supplied by Segale Business Park. Representative bulk samples were obtained from the test pits. The boring was drilled using equipment owned and operated by Hokkaido Drilling and Developing Corporation. Driven samples were obtained at 5 -foot intervals in the boring. G e oE n g i n e e r s • Fite No. 0291 -011 -01 Segale Business Park March 10, 1999 Page 3 The explorations were located in the field by our personnel by taping or pacing from relevant site features. Test pit and boring locations should be considered approximate. Our representative collected samples of the soils encountered, observed ground water conditions and maintained a detailed log of the explorations. Soils were classified in general accordance with Figure 3. A key to boring log symbols is presented as Figure 4. Existing ground surface elevations shown on the logs were estimated from topographic data supplied by Segale Business Park. Summary test pit logs are presented in Figures 5 through 7. The boring log is presented in Figure 8. Laboratory testing was conducted consisting of moisture content determination and grain size distribution of selected samples. Moisture content results are presented on the corresponding logs. The sieve analyses are presented in Figures 9 through 12. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS General Boling B -1 was drilled in the approximate center of the levee as shown in Figure 2. Test =Pits .1' through 3 were excavated in the approximate area of the deepest proposed cuts on the landward side of the levee. Test Pits 4 and 5 were excavated on property west of the subject property. A cross section through the levee is presented as Figure 13. Fill soils comprising the levee in the area of the boring consist of dense coarse to fine sand with silt and gravel. The levee soils were encountered to a depth of about 8 feet below ground surface (approximate Elevation 25 feet MSL) in the boring. Alluvial soils were encountered below this depth to the full depth explored in the boring. Two types of alluvial soils were encountered as shown in the Cross Section, Figure 13. The upper alluvial soil layer consists of medium dense to soft sandy silt. The lower alluvial soil layer consists of dense sand with silt. A contact between the two alluvial soil types was encountered at an approximate depth of 32 feet below ground surface. 'Ground water in the boring was encountered at, a depth of about 20 feet below ground surface (approximate Elevation 13 feet MSL) in the boring. This is approximately the level of water inthe river. Similar soil conditions were encountered in the Test Pits 1 through 3 completed between the proposed warehouse structure and the levee. Fill, consisting of a dense mixture of silt, sand and gravel was encountered to depths ranging from 4 to 6 feet below ground surface in the test pits. Alluvial soils, consisting of dense to medium dense silty sand, were encountered beneath the fill to the full depth explored in the test pits. A thin lens of perched ground water was encountered within the fill in Test Pits 1 and 3. The ground water table encountered in boring B -1 at a depth of 20 feet was not encountered in the test pits. In our opinion, the shallow ground water observed in these test pits is concentrated surface runoff infiltrating into the near surface soils. GeoEngineers File No. 0291 -011 -01 Segale Business Park March 10, 1999 Page 4 LEVEE ANALYSES General Our levee analysis is based on the cross sectional drawing through the levee included as Figure 13. The drawing is based on information provided by Segale Business Park, subsurface information from our boring and test pits, and our experience in the area. Slope inclinations on the riverside and landward side of the levee are 2H:1V. The crest of the levee was measured as approximately 20 feet in width, based on drawings provided by Segale Business Park. The height of the levee above landward ground surface will be about 7 feet according to drawings provided by Segale Business Park. The high water level associated with a 100 -year flood event will be about 29.7 feet according to information provided by Segale Business Park. We understand that the maximum duration of water levels at this height in the Green River is 10 days. Essentially three soil types were encountered in our boring drilled through the levee. These soils are as follows: • Levee Fill Soil (Elevation 33 MSL to 25MSL): Dense gravelly, silty coarse to fme sand. Approximately 27 percent fmes (soil particles smaller than the No. 200 sieve). We have used a hydraulic conductivity of 0.0001 centimeters per second (cm/sec) for this material. • Upper Alluvial Soil Layer (Elevation 25 MSL to 1 MSL): Medium dense to soft fme sandy silt. Approximately 60 percent fmes. We have used a hydraulic conductivity of 0.00001 cm/sec for this material. • Lower Alluvial Soil Layer (Elevation 1 MSL to unknown depth): Medium dense to dense medium fme sand with silt. Approximately 8 percent fines. We have used a hydraulic conductivity of 0.001 cm/sec for this material. Seepage Analysis Our seepage analyses were performed using Visual Modflow, a steady - state, three - dimensional aquifer simulation model and Flonet /Trans, a two dimensional steady state finite element flow net program. Both programs were developed by Waterloo Hydrogeologic of Ontario, Canada. Seepage paths, hydraulic gradients, flow rates and volumes within and. beneath the levee were analyzed by assuming the elevation of river surface was equivalent to the 100 -year flood for 10 days. The results of . our_ analyses. indicate that, .for the soil conditions within .and beneath' the- levee cross section, foundation seepage and uplift pressures will not pose a risk. to • the. stability., of the ;levee and .will not likely cause soil piping. Our simulations indicate that after 10 days, the rate of ground water seepage at the toe of the landward side of the levee slope will be approximately 2 cubic feet per day per 50 -foot segment of levee. Our simulations also indicate that the velocity of the water seeping from the levee will be approximately 0.96 meters per day (0.29 ft/day). GeoEngineers File No. 0291-011-01 - Segale Business Park March 10, 1999 Page 5 We estimated the critical hydraulic gradient necessary for piping of the type of soil encountered within and beneath the levee using methods presented in Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice by Terzaghi and Peck. We calculated a critical hydraulic gradient of 1 for the upper alluvial soil layer. The gradient predicted by Modflow for a steady -state flow simulation for a duration of 10 days is about 0.025. The maximum gradient predicted by Flonet/Trans is about 0.3. Based on these values, we have estimated a factor of safety against piping at the base of the landward slope of the levee after site grading is complete. Our results are as follows: Predicted Factor of Safety Case Exit Gradient Against Piping 1 0.3 3 It appears that some seepage will occur on the landward side of the levee during the 100 - year storm event, based on our analysis. Our analysis indicates that for a section of the levee toe 50 feet long and one foot wide, approximately 2 cubic feet per day (approximately 15 gallons per day) of water can be expected to seep from the levee during the 100 -year storm event. CONCLUSIONS It appears, based on our analysis, that a small amount of seepage from the levee area will likely occur during the 100 -year storm event, after the site is regraded according to specifications provided by Segale Business Park. The amount of seepage will likely be small and normal base course drainage will be adequate. In our opinion, soil piping will not likely occur, given the conditions outlined in this report. LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for Segale Business Park and their agents for use in design and construction of the various components of this project. The conclusions and recommendations in this report should be applied in their entirety. Our report, conclusions, and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. 'If : there are any, changes in the .grades, location, configuration or type of construction planned; the 'conclusions and recommendations presented in this report will not be applicable. If changes are made, we should be retained to review our conclusions and recommendations and to provide written modification or verification, as appropriate. When the design is finalized, we recommend that GeoEngineers be engaged to review those portions of the plans and specifications that relate to geotechnical considerations to check that our recommendations have been interpreted and implemented as intended. G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 0291 -011 -01 z. _1 W: 0O. co 0. •'w I. J H: w O. wQ. 0: N = d: mow.. z� H g Z w w H U. O: .. z. CO; •0 .. O z f • • Segale Business Park March 10, 1999 Page 6 The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. The subsurface conditions are expected to vary across the site. A contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the construction budget and schedule. Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation should be provided by GeoEngineers during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should be conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with contract plans and specifications. 4 +/ Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in this area at the time the report was prepared. No other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. SWH:GWH:vc Document ID: 029101 101 R. DOC Attachments G e oE n g i n e e r s Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. Stephen . Helvey Project Hydrogeologist Gary W. Henderson Principal File No. 0291 -011 -01 .z- • • = Z • 'u6 o J U: •U 0 00: rnW� J �. 1L; • g -, • d I- _'. z1- • w W: moo. ;Ocn: • •;o. 1--; • = wt... ': Z' 0 N . • F- I; " 0 .. •Z 029101100:120198 CT E 0 X 00 0 1 2400 4800 SCALE IN FEET Reference: This map reproduced with permission granted by THOMAS BROTHERS MAPS. This map is copyrighted by THOMAS BROTHERS MAPS. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission. Geo in. Engineers VICINITY MAP FIGURE 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 PROPOSED WAREHOUSE Reference: Base drawing provided by Segale Business Park. 1 Geo 'Engineers 1 0 120 240 SCALE IN FEET EXPLANATION: TP_1* TEST PIT NUMBER AND LOCATION BORING NUMBER S-1-90- AND LOCATION A A' CROSS SECTION ULOCATION NOTE: The locations of all features shown are approximate. SITE PLAN FIGURE 2 z z re W: 6 , U)W ID i N LL` WO ii. a: = a: W Z 1- O'. z t- W W: U CI: I` WW U Qi .z. z J • SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM . MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP SYMBOL GROUP NAME COARSE GRAINED SOILS More Thbn 5O% Retained on No. 200 Sieve GRAVEL • More Than 50% of Coarse Fraction Retained on No. 4 Sieve CLEAN GRAVEL - GW WELL- GRADED GRAVEL. FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL GP . POORLY- GRADED GRAVEL GRAVEL WITH FINES GM SILTY GRAVEL GC CLAYEY GRAVEL SAND More Than 50% of Coarse Fraction Passes No. 4 Sieve CLEAN SAND • SW WELL -GRADED SAND. FINE TO COARSE SAND SP POORLY- GRADED SAND SAND WITH FINES SM SILTY SAND SC CLAYEY SAND FINE GRAINED . S01LS More Than 50% Passes No. 200 Sieve SILT AND CLAY Uquid Umit Less Than 50 INORGANIC ML SILT CL CLAY ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SILT. ORGANIC CLAY SILT AND CLAY Uquid Umit 50 or More INORGANIC MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT • CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY ORGANIC OH ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT NOTES: SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS: 1. Field classification is based on visual examination of soil Dry - Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch In general accordance with ASTM D2488 -90. Moist - Damp, but no visible water 2. Soil classification using laboratory tests is based on ASTM D2487 -90. Wet - Visible free water or saturated, usually soil is obtained from below water table 3. Descriptions of soil density or consistency are based on interpretation of blow count date, visual appearance of soils, and /or test data. 4 lj Geo OEngineers SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FIGURE. 3 ..:, • • z • Z ¢¢W .J UO fn 0) W: W =' J W 00.. J u- ?. co = W ZH I-0. Z 1— ui 0 0' 0- 0 I— W W' .z.. LLI U =' 0 F- z LABORATORY TESTS: AL CP CS DS GS %F HA SK SM MD SP TX UC CA Atterberg limits Compaction Consolidation • Direct shear Grain -size Percent fines Hydrometer analysis Permeability Moisture content Moisture and density Swelling pressure Triaxial compression Unconfined compression Chemical analysis BLOW -COUNT /SAMPLE DATA: Blows required to drive a 2.4 -inch I.D. split-barrel sampler 12 inches or other indicated distances using a 300 -pound hammer falling 30 inches. _ Blows required to drive a 1.5 -inch I.D. (SPT) split - barrel sampler 12 inches or other indicated distances using a 140 -pound hammer falling 30 inches. _ "P" indicates sampler pushed with weight of hammer or against weight of drill rig. SOIL GRAPH: SM Soil Group Symbol (See Note 2) Distinct Contact Between Soil Strata Gradual or Approximate Location of Change Between Soil Strata V Water Level Bottom of Boring 22 ■ . Location of relatively undisturbed sample 12 ® Location of disturbed sample 17 ❑ Location of sampling attempt with no recovery 10 1 Location of sample obtained in general accordance with Standard Penetration Test (ASTM D -1586) procedures 26 m . Location of SPT sampling attempt with no recovery Location of grab sample NOTES: 1. The reader must refer to the discussion in the report text, the Key to Boring Log Symbols and the exploration logs for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. 2. Soil classification system is included. Geo �Engineers KEY TO BORING LOG SYMBOLS FIGURE 4 • LOG OF TEST PIT DEPTH BELOW SOIL GROUP GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION (FEET) SYMBOL DESCRIPTION TEST PIT 1 Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 33.0 feet 0.0 - 3.0 SP -SM Olive greenish brown sand with gravel, silt and asphalt (dense, moist) (fill) 3.0 - 4.0 SP -SM Reddish brown sand with gravel and silt (dense, moist) (fill) 4.0 - 6.0 SP Olive green to gray medium sand with occasional gravel (dense, moist) (fill) 6.0 - 13.0 SM Grayish brown silty medium to fine sand with occasional gravel (loose to medium dense, moist) Test pit completed at a depth of 13.0 feet on 03/01/99. Slow ground water seepage observed between 3.0 and 4.0 feet. Slow to moderate ground water seepage observed between 5.0 and 6.0 feet. Caving observed up to 4.0 feet below ground surface. TEST PIT 2 Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 33.0 feet 0.0 - 3.0 SP -SM Olive green gravelly sand with silt (dense, moist) (fill) 3.0 - 4.5 SP -SM Reddish brown gravelly sand with silt (dense, moist) (fill) 4.5 - 6.0 GP Brown sandy gravel with cobbles (dense, moist) (fill) 6.0 - 15.0 SM Medium reddish brown silty fine sand (medium dense, moist) Test pit completed at a depth of 15.0 feet on 03/01/99. No ground water seepage observed. Moderate caving observed between 0.0 and 6.0 feet. THE DEPTHS ON THE TEST PIT LOGS, ALTHOUGH SHOWN TO 0.1 FOOT, ARE BASED ON AN AVERAGE OF MEASUREMENTS ACROSS THE TEST PIT AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE TO 0.5 FOOT. 0291 -011 -01 Geo "O Engineers LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE 5 LOG OF TEST PIT DEPTH BELOW SOIL GROUP GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION (FEET) SYMBOL DESCRIPTION TEST PIT 3 Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 33.0 feet 0.0 - 3.0 SP -SM Olive green to brown sand with silt and gravel (dense, moist to wet) (fill) 3.0 - 4.5 SM Reddish brown silty sand and gravel (dense, wet) (fill) 4.5 - 15.0 SM Reddish brown silty fine sand (dense, moist) Test pit completed at a depth of 15.0 feet on 03/01/99. Slight ground water seepage observed at an approximate depth of 4.0 feet. No caving observed. 0.0 - 1.0 1.0 - 2.5. 2.5 - 12.0 SP SM TEST PIT 4 Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 28.0 feet Asphalt fill Gray fme to medium sand with occasional gravel (dense, moist) (fill) Tannish brown silty fme sand (dense, moist) Test pit completed at a depth of 12.0 feet on 03/01/99. Moderate ground water seepage observed between 11.0 and 12.0 feet. General caving observed between 7.0 and 12.0 feet. THE DEPTHS ON THE TEST PIT LOGS, ALTHOUGH SHOWN TO 0.1 FOOT, ARE BASED ON AN AVERAGE OF MEASUREMENTS ACROSS THE TEST PIT AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE TO 0.5 FOOT. 0291 -011 -01 4 Geo% Engineers LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE 6 LOG OF TEST PIT DEPTH BELOW SOIL GROUP GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION (FEET) SYMBOL DESCRIPTION TEST PIT S Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 28 feet 0.0 1.0 Asphalt 1.0 - 3.0 SP Gravelly fine to coarse sand with occasional silt (dense, moist) (fdl) 3.0 - 10.0 SM Brown silty fine to medium sand with occasional fine gravel (medium dense, moist) 10.0 - 11.75 ML Gray silt with sand (soft, moist to wet) 11.75 - 14.0 SM Gray silty fine to medium sand (medium dense, moist) Test pit completed at a depth of 14.0 feet on 03/01/99. No ground water seepage observed. General caving observed between 12.0 to 14.0 feet. THE DEPTHS ON THE TEST NT LOGS, ALTHOUGH SHOWN TO 0.1 FOOT, ARE BASED ON AN AVERAGE OF MEASUREMENTS ACROSS THE TEST PIT AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE TO 0.5 FOOT. 0291 -011 -01 Geo �� En ineers g LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE 7 TEST DATA Moisture Dry Content Density Blow Group Lab Tests (%) (pcf) Count Samples Symbol 0 5 10 15 z x p 20 25 30 35 40 BORING B -1 DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation (ft.): 33.0 Note: See Figure 4 for explanation of symbols Geo NEngineers LOG OF BORING 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 FIGURE 8 -- �o J TEST DATA 40 — Lab Tests 45 — 50— 55- 2 p 60— 65 -- 70 75— 80— Moisture Dry Content Density Blow Group (%) (pcf) Count Samples Symbol BORING B -1 (Continued) DESCRIPTION 12 17 20 29 Note: See Figure 4 for explanation of symbols 40 45 50 55 Boring completed at a depth of 59.0 feet on 03/01/99. Ground water encountered at an approximate depth of 20.0 feet 60 during drilling. 65 70 75 80 Geo 0Engineers LOG OF BORING FIGURE 8 0291 -011 -01 SWH:GWH:vc 03/03/99 (029101101.PRE) U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE 0 8 0 Zo O 0 0) 000 � 0 (OD 0 0 N 1HOI3M ONISSVd 1N3O113d 0 O O O 0 O 0 0 O 1 8 0 0 O GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS w z LL 2 0 w 2 w z LL SOIL DESCRIPTION Brown gravelly silty coarse to fine sand (SM) SAMPLE DEPTH (FEET) 0 to CV EXPLORATION NUMBER Ti r m SYMBOL • Geo Engineers GRADATION CURVES FIGURE 9' ,.,,,,,.,.... ., z z re 2 0O U CO w: J H w 0• }. g -j c F =; • z� I— O. z , .2 D: O (12' wW. 1- w — 0: Wz U z 0291 -011 -01 SWH:GWH:vc 03/03/99 (029101101.PRE) U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE 0 0 #40 #60 #100 0 rn —0 — 0 — 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a) CO 1.-• CD (0 'V VI .I.H013M AEI ONISSVd 11•130tI3d CV gr- 0 0 0 '11? 0 0 F 0 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SILT OR CLAY w z ir. 0 uJ 2 w co 0 re 0 w z w co 0 0 CO 03 0 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION Dark reddish brown fine to medium sandy silt (medium dense, moist) (ML) SAMPLE DEPTH (FEET) 12.5 -14.0 EXPLORATION NUMBER co N-- OS SYMBOL • Geo � Engineers GRADATION CURVES FIGURE 10 '1- 11—Z re 412 . —j o. .00 CO LU WI: LL uj g I CI I— ILI Z I-0 Z LIJ W w- :0 u J. Z 0= . 0 • 9 9 0 • u U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE 0 0 a 0 0 -0 -0 -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) co Is- CO 10 et ce, .I.H013M A9 ONISSVd .I.N33J11 CNI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SILT OR CLAY w 0 w w z co co co 0 0 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION . Grayish red brown medium to fine sand with silt (SP -SM) SAMPLE DEPTH (FEET) to csi co ORATION 'MBER N- M SYMBOL • Geo ;,Engineers GRADATION CURVES FIGURE 11 a U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE 0 0 0 0 4.; 0 0 a 0 0 o o 0 o o 0 0 o o � co N. co u q N 1H9 IBM AB ONISSVd 114301:13d 0 d d 0 0 0 0 0 0 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SILT OR CLAY 2 2 co re cc c.) (/) w CO 0 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION Grayish brown silty medium to fine sand with occasional gravel (SP -SM) SAMPLE DEPTH (FEET) Ct) 6 EXPLORATION NUMBER U l'• ri. 1- SYMBOL 0 Geo � Engineers GRADATION CURVES FIGURE 12 < w —i 0 CO U.1 111 X —J U) w 0 ..< u) D. - a Z I— 0' uj uj I C.) 0' • Z' (j) C.) 0 - z n 0 A NORTH 60— 40— Approximate Water Level During 100 Year Storm Event 20— —20— —40— Proposed Ground Surface m Fill, Silty, Gravelly, San Estimated K=1 x10-4 CM SEC Existing Ground Surface A' NORTH —60 —40 Upper Alluvial Unit (Fine to Medium Sand to Silty Fine to Medium Sand) Estimated K.,1 x10-5 CM /SEC) ? ? Lower Alluvial Unit (Medium to Fine Sand with Silt) Estimated K= 1x10 -3 CM /SEC) —20 -0 - -20 - -40 GeoEngineers s SCALE: HORIZONTAL: 1"=20' VERTICAL: 1"=20' EXPLANATION: APPROXIMATE GROUND WATER LEVEL INFERED GEOLOGIC CONTACT GEOLOGIC CONTACT NOTE: This cross section is a diagrammatic interpretation of subsurface conditions based on interpolation and extrapolation of data from widely spaced explorations. Actual conditions are substantially more complex than depicted. GeoEngineers does not represent the conditions illustrated as exact. CROSS SECTION A -A' FIGURE 13 Z ne W:. J U O O: 'CO Cl" v)w. W.I. W0, LL = d .1-W;. Z0 O ,W - .UN 2 GeoEncdxeere.Ino — Redmond.WA Project: Sega1e Deeoription: Levee Evaluation Modeller: SWH 10 Mar 99 Visual MODFLOW v 1.60. (o) 1995 Waterloo Hydrogeologio Software NC: 50 NR: 20 Nit 3 Current Row: 11 z •6D U;. ,U O: • W =. u. I.-W>•• Z�:, I-0; • . f- a Cr -'r • :D H 2 •H:. • • Z 29.70 21.56 — 13.12 — 5.28 — -2.86 — Hydraulic Heads and Stream maws (c) 1994 by WHS 8 WCGR Equipot Min . 2.7E+00 Max : 3.0E +00 Inc : 1.4E -00 Stream Min . - 3.2E -00 Max . 0.0E +00 Inc : 1.6E -00 V1 rt . Exa Units : C117 File SEGALE2 » 20.00 10.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 EILMWOS (c) 1994 by WHS 8 WCGR Vmin : 0.0E+00 Vmax : 9.6E -00 Vavg : - 4.9E +00 Angle: 1.6E +00 V1 rt . Exa Units : [m] File • SEGALE2 Q ire w JU. '0 0 . i. :W co 01 = w 0: Et = d. F- W: Z� I-0 :Z �- UJ m C:1 ol iuZ 0H, City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MARCH 4, 1999 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION Mr. Steve Nelson P.O. Box 88028 Tukwila, WA 98138 -2028 RE: Segale Business Park, Building 981 Files: L99 -0006 - Shoreline Substantial Development Permit L99 -0007 - Design Review E99 -0003 - Environmental Review Dear Mr. Nelson: Your application for a shoreline substantial development permit for an office building in the shoreline which is subject to design review and SEPA, located at 5801 through 6199 Segale Park Drive "C" has been found to be complete on March 4, 1999 for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. The project has been assigned to Carol Lumb and may be scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Commission in April or May. The next step is for you to install the notice board on the site within 14 days of the date of this letter. You received information on how to prepare and install the sign with your application packet. If you need another set of those instructions, you may obtain them at the Department of Community Development (DCD). Also, you must obtain a laminated copy of the Notice of Application to post on the board. Please call me 3 days prior to installing the notice board to arrange the pick up of the laminated Notice of Application. After installing the sign with the laminated notice, please return the signed Affidavit of Posting to our office. This determination of complete application does not preclude the City from requesting additional plans or information, if in our estimation such information is necessary to ensure the project meets the substantive requirements of the City or to complete the review process. This notice of complete application applies only to the permits identified above. It is your responsibility to apply for and obtain any other necessary permits issued by other agencies. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 z = 4— z 6 JU. UO U 0 W= J N LL ... W O; 2 g¢ • =d W F-=. z� z w •D 0: 0 N. :0 H. W w 110. • .z, .O F'. z Mr. Steve Nelson Sega le Business Park March 4, 1999 I will be contacting you soon to discuss this project. If you wish to speak to me sooner, feel free to call me at 431-3661. Sincerely, 60,(41 Carol Lumb Associate Planner cc: Reviewing City Departments c:karol\segalekomplete.doc • ::. • • . .•:.,••••.••.•'.: • 2 RECEIVED APR 0 6 1999 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY EM 1110 -2 -301 CECW -EG U.S. Army Corps Engineers CEMP -ET Washington, DC 20314 -1000 Manual No. 1110 -2 -301 28 February 1999 Engineering and Design GUIDELINES FOR LANDSCAPE PLANTING AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT AT FLOODWALLS, LEVEES,'AND EMBANKMENT DAMS 1. Purpose. This manual provides criteria for the design of landscape plantings and vegetation maintenance at floodwalls, levees, and embankment dams. It is intended as a guide for uniformly safe design and not as a restriction to the initiative of the designer. This manual encourages close coordination between the design team members, which include a civil engineer, environmental engineer, biologist, and landscape architect. 2. Applicability. This manual applies to all USACE Commands having Civil Works responsibilities. 3. Distribution. Approved for public release, distribution is unlimited. 4. General. Floodwalls, levees, and embankment dams serve a common purpose in that they are designed to contain water, and prevent flooding for varying lengths of time. Further, levees and floodwalls are sometimes involved in flood- fighting activities of a nature not found in other project. structures. The possibility for long -term saturation of levee materials or levee and floodwall foundations, together with their unusual maintenance requirements, makes it necessary to exercise caution in the design of landscape planting and vegetation management at these structures. This manual describes some characteristics of floodwalls, levees, and embankment dams that are of 'interest to the design team members in such a design. FOR THE COMMANDER: ALBERT 3 GENETTI, SR. Major General, USA Chief of Staff This manual supersedes EM 1110 -2 -301, dated 31 March 1993. z • „„.w 2 J0 •0 0 �0. (O W. .w =. 1 - - • w 0' u.D 11 _: z� zo W w W`. 0; LI 0: w U =: 0 ~: • • DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CECW -EG U.S. Army Corps Engineers CEMP -ET Washington, DC 20314 -1000 Manual No. 1110 -2 -301 EM 1110 -2 -301 . 28 February 1999 Engineering and Design GUIDELINES FOR LANDSCAPE PLANTING AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT AT FLOODWALLS, LEVEES, AND EMBANKMENT DAMS Table of Contents Subject Paragraph Page Chapter 1 Introduction Purpose 1 -1 1 -1 References 1 -2 1 -1 Policy 1 -3. 1 -1 Esthetics 1 -4 1 -1 Chapter 2 Objectives of Landscape Planting Background 2 -1 2 -1 Vegetation -Free. Zone 2 -2 2 -1 Root -Free Zone 2 -3 2 -1 Chapter 3 Treatment of Various Types of Structures Levees ' 3 -1 3 -1 Floodwalls 3 -2 3 -1 Embankment Dams 3 -3 3 -2 Chapter 4 Determination of Planting Feasibility Feasibility Analysis 4 -1 4 -1 Evaluation Process for Local Variance from the Corps' Standard Vegetation Policy 4.2 4 -1 Chapter 5 Measures to Make the Structure Suitable for Planting General 5 -1 5 -1 Overbuilt Areas 5 -2 5 -1 Berms 5 -3 5 -1 Additional Soil Cover at Floodwall Toe 5 -4 5 -1 Plant Containers 5 -5 5 -1 EM 1110 -2 -301 28 Feb 99 Subject Paragraph Page Chapter 6 .Considerations in Preparing Landscape Planting Plans General 6 -1 6 -1 Flood - Fighting and Structure Maintenance 6 -2 6 -1 Maintenance of Plantings 6 -3 6 -1 Selection of Plant Material 6 -4 6 -1 ii EM 1110 -2 -301 28 Feb 99 Chapter 1 Introduction 1 -1. Purpose This manual provides criteria for the design of landscape plantings and vegetation management at floodwalls, levees, and embankment dams. It is intended as a guide for use for uniformly safe design and not as a restriction to the initiative of the designer. This manual encourages close coordination between the design team members, which include a civil engineer, environmental engineer, biologist, and landscape architect. 1 -2. References a. PL 84 -99, Emergency Flood Control Work b. ER 500 -1 -1, Natural Disaster Procedures c . EM 1110 -2 -38, Environmental Quality in Design of Civil Works Projects 1 -3. Policy a. Where the safety of the structure is not compromised and effective flood - fighting and maintenance of the facility is not seriously affected, appropriate landscape planting (trees, shrubs, vines, and grasses) can be incorporated into the design of floodwalls, levees, and dam embankments. Since landscape plantings enhance the environment by preserving and protecting natural resources, they will be considered in all project planning and design studies and will be included in detailed plans in design document reports for each of the structures described in Chapter 3. For projects in which the maintenance of the completed facility will be the responsibility of local interests, the landscape planting will be fully coordinated with the local agency during planning and design to determine the desires of the local sponsor and to obtain assurances that the sponsor has the capability to maintain the plantings. b. In certain instances, in order to further enhance environmental values and to meet state laws and/or regulations, the local sponsor may request a variance from the Corps' standard vegetation guidelines as set forth in this manual. Local variances for flood - control works (FCW) such as levees, floodwalls, and dam embankments may be permitted for, either federal or non - federal FCW which are eligible for the PL 84 -99 assistance program. Proposals for a local variance shall be submitted by the local sponsor and approved by the District using the evaluation process as stated in paragraph 4 -2. Some of the important site conditions to be considered are described in paragraph 4 -1. 1 -4. Esthetics Esthetics should be of special concern in the design of floodwalls, levees, and embankment dams from the standpoint of protection of the environment and of blending the embankment dams with the surrounding environment. Whenever possible, the project should appear to be a natural extension of the local topog- raphy. The basic design of the structures should be a coordinated effort involving the design engineer, environmental engineer, biologist, landscape architect, and local sponsor. While it is seldom feasible to preserve the natural setting intact, design techniques and careful construction methods can be used to protect or even enhance the environmental and esthetic value of the area. Landscape planting design for 1 -1 z W: U0: N0' .w =' J H CO u-: w O. u_Q. cn = w` H =. Z �. 1- O w~ Do O 0 H. ww U. O. LLi O Z' EM 1110 -2 -301 28Feb99 project structures should consider the entire area influenced by the contemplated construction. Although plantings are usually confined to construction rights -of -way or within project boundaries, existing architectural style, landscape plantings, and environmental anomalies in the surrounding area should be considered in determining the amount and type of planting. 1 -2 • ..J EM 1110 -2 -301 28 Feb 99 Chapter 2 Objectives of Landscape Planting 2 -1. Background The primary objectives of plantings at levees, floodwalls, and dam embankments are to harmonize the development with the surrounding natural and human environment, enhance structures, control dust and erosion, separate activities, provide privacy or screen out undesirable features, provide incidental habitat for wildlife, and create a pleasant environment for recreation. Planting will be naturalistic and will avoid "arboretum -type" planting (many different species). In certain instances, additional objectives may have to be satisfied. These should be set out in the criteria conforming to the vegetation policy stated in paragraph 1 -3. 2 -2. Vegetation -Free Zone The vegetation -free zone is an area adjacent to the landside and/or riverside toe of the levee, floodwall, or embankment dam and appurtenant structure where no type of vegetation, with the exception of grass, is permitted. This zone is required for maintenance and flood - fighting activities and must be easily accessible at all times. 2 -3. Root -Free Zone The root -free zone provides a margin of safety between the greatest expected extent of plant roots and the beginning face of the basic project structure (see Figures 2 -1, 3 -1, and 3 -2). The basic project structure is the engineered feature required for human safety. The bottom of the root -free zone will be the external limits of the cross section of the levee, embankment, or floodwall established by the design engineer for stability and/or seepage control. Knowledge of the rooting habit of each plant selected is required for use in the landscape planting plan. Landscape planting plans will reflect full recognition of the importance of electing plant species and cultivars, clones, or sports thereof, the roots of which will not penetrate into the root -free zone. Some type of barrier such as geomembrane, will be required at the limits of the root -free zone where root penetration is possible. This barrier should not retard groundwater or seepage flow. 2 -1 W • u� 0 J0 1,..) Cr • N w: w =: wO g J' • In =O: z 0. •Z o w w. • U� O ~� z EM 1110 -2 -301 28 Feb 99 Vegetation - (-Free Zone Slope Protection - 5m(15R) Not to Scale a. Vegetation- and root -free zones 5 m (15 5) Vegetation - Free zone Slope Protection ---) Inspection. Root -Free Trench Zone Root Barrier-. Vegetation - Free Zone .Not to Scale b. Blanket drain Inspection Root -Free Trench Zone Vegetation - Free Zone Slope Protection-1 Internal Drain Root Barrier- Drain Extension Vegetation - Free Zone Not to Scale c. Toe Drain Inspection Root -Free Trench Zone 1 m(35) Toe Drain Figure 2 -1. Basic levee project structure, with landscape planting 2 -2 EM 1110 -2 -301 28 Feb 99 Chapter 3 Treatment of Various Types of Structures 3 -1. Levees Levees are usually constructed of rolled (compacted) earth fill. In some cases, internal drainage or under - seepage treatment is incorporated into the levee. When landscaping and planting are provided on the existing levee, the internal blanket drain and/or toe drain will have to be extended, as shown in Figure 2 -1. Designs for levees, except those to be located in agricultural and similar sparsely inhabited areas, shall meet the landscape planting criteria outlined in paragraph 3 -1a. During design, landscape planting will also be considered for levees in the following areas: at pumping installations in public view, at public road crossings, near residences, and at other areas where planting could protect or restore the existing environmental values. Plantings will normally be located outside the limits of the basic structure (see Figure 2 -1). a. Urban levees. Since these structures are highly visible to large numbers of people, planting may be included for' the total length of levees constructed in urban areas. Top soil and planting can be used for restoration of borrow and waste areas created during construction of levees. b. Rural or agricultural levees. Although these structures are seen by relatively few people, environmental considerations should be included in the design. Planting should be considered for the following areas: at pumping installations in public view, at public road crossings, near residences, and at other areas where planting could protect or restore the existing environmental values. Planting and regrading appropriate for restoration should be considered for borrow and waste areas. Where opportunities exist, creation of higher value environments should be considered. Sand levees will be stabilized with native grass species. 3 -2. Floodwalls Floodwalls are generally used in those urban areas where land or materials required for levee construction are not economically available. These walls are subject to hydraulic forces on one side, which may be resisted by little or no earth loading forces on the other side. Although there are several types of floodwalls, the two most common are the inverted T -type reinforced concrete wall and the cantilever I- type sheet piling wall. Landscape planting should be included in the floodwall design, particularly for those walls that encroach upon or change existing scenic values, e.g., where the wall becomes a barrier along a street or near dwellings, parks, and commercial or industrial developments. Planting should also be considered for floodwalls constructed in areas adjacent to open tracts of land where it can be determined that development will occur during the early stages of the project life. a. Inverted T -type reinforced concrete wall. This type of wall structure may have a toe drainage system to check and control piping and boils, control seepage as a result of roofing where piles are used, and control uplift pressures. These drainage systems must be protected from the invasion of roots, which could clog the drainage system. A vegetation- and root -free zone will be established at the top outside edge of the toe drains and at the landside face of wall joints when planting is included in the design. The possibility of eventual loosening and eroding of wall joint seals is a serious consideration in the design of planting at floodwalls. Wall joints must be protected against possible root penetration and resultant damage to the wall (see Figure 3 -1). 3 -1 z u.12 -J UO U) -I I.- wO u.. w, Z I- O Zi— ,O U, o =U O: wZ U =;. H 0 z EM 1110 -2 -301 28 Feb 99 2.5 m (8 ft) Not to Scale Heel Landside (d) Trees, Shrubs, and Grass Cover (a) Vegetation -Free Zones Slope to Drain (c) Additional Soil Cover Toe (e) Basic Structure 2.5 m (8 ft) (b) Root -Free Zone Existing Ground Line • Figure 3 -1. Inverted T -type floodwall showing (a) vegetation -free zone, (b) root -free zone (vertical joint occurring at section), (c) additional soil cover, (d) landscape planting of trees, shrubs, and grass, and (e) basic structure b. Cantilever I -type sheet piling floodwall. Landscape planting at this type of wall should be designed similarly to that for the T -type wall. Vegetation- and root -free zones should be established for the structure, similar to those for T -type walls. A typical section of an I -type wall is shown in Figure 3 -2. 3 -3. Embankment Dams Two general types of dams to be considered are earth dams and rock -fill dams. Usually, dams are constructed in rural areas and seldom encroach on urban areas. Where it is desirable to restore or enhance the damsite with tree and shrub plantings, these plantings should be designed to blend the structures with the natural surroundings. Restoration of borrow areas or other areas disturbed during construction should be considered in landscape planning. a. Earth dams. Landscape planting will be confined to areas adjacent to the dam embankment. Because of the need for access at the downstream toe area by maintenance and construction equipment during periods of flooding, a 15 -m (50 -ft) vegetation -free zone will be maintained immediately down- stream of the toe of the dam in the floodplain and on the abutments. b. Rock -fill dams. Planting can be considered for all adjacent areas to blend the dam into the surroundings. EM 1110-2-301 28 Feb 99 4m (12 ft) zrrAtIT W (c) Basic Structure Sheet Piling Landside (a) Vegetation -Free Zones Slope to Drain 2.5 m (8 ft) /v Drain Existing Ground Line (b) Root -Free Zone Figure 3 -2. Cantilever 1 -type sheet piling floodwall showing (a) vegetation -free zone, (b) root -free zone (vertical joint occurring at section), and (c) basic structure 3 -3 •z F.; mow. W QQom; . Dr, • U: • .oO C3 ` W= (/)w •. u- ¢: • = w' •Z� -. •Z1-: gyp;. o •H V Z '•• to O EM 1110 -2 -301 28 Feb 99 Chapter 4 Determination of Planting Feasibility z 4 -1. Feasibility Analysis i EM 1110 -2 -301 28 Feb 99 performed when required; and the variance will not be a substitute for poor maintenance practices. The District shall follow the evaluation process shown below. • Step 1: The local sponsor prepares a proposal which includes impact analyses to the structural integrity and project performance, operation and maintenance plans, documentation of actions taken with applicable resource agencies, and rationale for preserving, protecting, and enhancing natural resources. Step 2: The District reviews the proposal on a case -by -case basis with a multidisciplined review team. The District shall coordinate with relevant resource agencies for their input. Step 3: The District approves, returns, or rejects the local sponsor's proposal. If approved, the District forwards the information copy of the approved proposal to Headquarters, Civil Works, Engineering Division (CECW -E) and Emergency Operations branches (CECW -OE), respectively. If returned, the local sponsor revises the proposal and resubmits. If rejected, the District and local sponsor confer. If no resolution is reached, the local sponsor can appeal to the Division Office. • z • t. _� z JU U O! ,".co 0; W W ;. w O; J • :Z 1-` U 0; • O� =W C.Y!' :u- z w • :c.)1/2; O ~, Chapter 5 Measures to Make the Structure Suitable for Planting 5 -1. General EM 1110 -2 -301 28 Feb 99 Certain structural measures can be taken to make floodwalls, levees, and embankment dams suitable for planting. These measures are summarized below. 5 -2. Overbuilt Areas After establishing the minimum levee or embankment section required to satisfy stability requirements (as determined by the design engineer), additional material can be added to the basic levee section to provide an area to support plantings. The dimensions of the overbuilt areas necessary to support the planned plantings should be determined by the landscape architect in consultation with the design engineer (see Figure 2 -1). Overbuilt areas must include adequate consideration of the internal drainage system for the main structure. In urban and other high -use areas where it is desirable to overbuild the landside of the levee structure, additional right -of -way width may be necessary to accommodate the resulting longer and flatter slopes. 5 -3. Berms Berms are sometimes provided on dams and levees for seepage control, stability, and other purposes. Shrubs and small trees may be planted on berms if they are on a section of berm that has been overbuilt to a sufficient depth to preclude root penetration of the root -free zone, if they do not interfere with the embankment drainage system, and if the density of plantings on the structure does not inhibit inspection. 5 -4. Additional Soil Cover at Floodwall Toe Where soil depths over the toe of floodwalls are too shallow to allow planting, additional soil cover may be added if such action would not be detrimental to the structure (see Figure 3 -1). 5 -5. Plant Containers Where appropriate, permanent plant containers should be considered as part of the structure design. Use of containerized• plants should be highly selective and should be considered only when normal planting (directly into soil areas) cannot be used. During the design process, the initial cost and the ability to maintain this type of planting should weigh heavily in the decision to use containers. The type of plant selected for containers should not exceed the mature height of a small flowering tree. EM 1110-2-301 28 Feb 99 Chapter 6 Considerations in Preparing Landscape Planting Plans 6 -1. General \. The engineering determination required (Chapter 4) and the adjustments made to that design (Chapter 5) will provide a guide in selecting the type of plants included in landscaping plans. Safety of the structure, including its effective maintenance, will be the most important consideration in determining the type, size, growth habit, quantity, and arrangement of plants. The extent and nature of . landscape plantings will also be guided by the following considerations. 6 -2. Flood- Fighting and Structure Maintenance Flood - fighting and maintenance operations for levees, floodwalls, and dam embankments can be complex. These operations are affected by the selection, spacing, and quantity of plants in the landscape planting plan. Thus, in the design of planting plans, care must be takers to guard against creating additional maintenance and flood - fighting problems. A few well- selected trees and' shrubs, placed in the right location, can often achieve the objectives of landscape planting (see para- graph 2 -1). Large shrub masses and woody -type ground cover should be avoided at floodwalls and •urban levee structures. Planting plans will be designed to permit inspection of structures from moving vehicles. Access for emergency repairs and replacements during flood fighting will also be taken into • consideration. 6 -3. Maintenance of Plantings In designating the number of plants, the landscape architect should consider the ability of local interests or the Federal Government to maintain the planting horticulturally. Generally, maintenance - free plants will be selected. 6 -4. Selection of Plant Material Plants will be selected from approved plant lists prepared jointly by Division and District landscape architects in concurrence with the local sponsor or resource agencies. The list will include trees, shrubs, vines, and grasses. Plant lists should be prepared for specific structural conditions, or needs, such as structurally unrestricted areas, overbuilt sections adjacent to the basic structure where special measures for planting are not required, and plant containers. 6 -1 z ii ~w. JU' U O' N 0`: w= co w wO. g =I- LL <: = CJ z o z� 2 j CI I- w W: H U'. • Z,. iu z MEETING f) vya? WHO: Mario Segale Andy Levesque, King County - Water & Land Resources Bill Garrett, Army Corps of Engineers Phil Fraser, Tukwila Public Works Dept. Gary Barnett, Tukwila Public Works Dept. bra Bradshaw, Tukwila Dept. of Community Development WHEN: Wednesday, February 24, 1999 11:00 a.m. WHERE::. Segale Business Office 18000 Andover Park West, Suite 200 SUBJECT: Development at Segale's Bone Yard a -- ,Ag e'A'jl cmvr% Sere, /141,--4t "/L 44-cs‹ 4t.6. re✓tc.%•• . Some...4.4—tomdik. its xiswic. &AA, 440="r-, 2- iktk r=-4- fry -x44 eble.ss —e s AKA sed« CITY OF a. KWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (P- SHORE) APPLICATION L PROJECT BACKGROUND A. NAME OF PROJECT /DEVELOPMENT: Segale Business Park Building 981 S. LOCATION OF PROJECT /DEVELOPMENT: 5801 Thru 6199 Segale Park Drive S TnEE �� ADDRESS: ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMEER: 35234-9018 licit LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See attached Quarter. SE Section: 35 Township: 2 3N Range: 4F (This information may be found on your tax statement) C. CONTACT: (Primary contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent) NAME: Steve Nelson ADDRESS: Pa Box 88028 Tukwila, WA 98138 (206) 575 -2000 PHONE: SIGNATURE: DATE: Z/41 /g • 1 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA FEB F, 1999 PERMIT CENTER ........ z W' re UO w0, W =. J H N LL W O.. LL a: co = d. F.W. Z �. Z o' ;o CO = W. 0. _Z w O I- Z . CURRENT ZCNING OF PROPERTY: HI - Heavy Industrial . F. PRESENT USE CF PROPERTY: The site is used as a storage yard for Seattle Tractor Co. and stockpile for pitrun material. G. SHORELINE ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGNATION: Urban ,. GENERAL DESCRIPTION CF SUF. CUNDING LAND USES: (Within f CCQ.eetin ail dir c „ !ram the r.: site.) The project is -surrounded generally by commercial properties. There is two residential properties, a golf driving range, City of Kent Park, and the Green River Trail System within the 1000' radius. I. TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST & FAIR MARKET i� VALUE cr the prcccsed deve!cornen.: (Include ?dditfonaal future phases of development ccr. :er :fated but nct Included it current prcccsal.) $ 7 , 0'59 , 638 . 0 0 J. BRIE= NARRATiVE DESCRIBING ?RCPOSED IMPROVEMENTS: The pro j ect involves the construction of a concrete tilt -up building for which its primary use will be warehousing, it will also include associated offices and maintenance space. K. PORTION OF PROPOSED ACTIVITY Y ALREADY COMPLETED: (if any pordcn orphase of the proposed activity is already completed cn subject .site, indicate ,rcnth and year cf compie?cn.) None L PROPOSED STARTING DATE: May 3 , .1999 ESTIMATED COMPLETiON DATE EE CF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY: December 31, 1999 (if project will be constructed in states, indicate dates :) . M. TYPE AND EYT EENT OF RECONSTRUCTiON OF RIVEREANK (iF ANY) AND PROPOSED RIVERBANK VEGETATICN: None N. IF PROPOSED ACTIVITY TO CAUSE FLOODING OR DRAINING OF WETLANDS, INDICATE IMPACTED AREA (acres): . None SSDP NIT. DCC 7/3x:6 J 0. TYPE AND EXTENT OF PUBLIC ACCESS PROPOSED (!f any): . None SETBACK OF PROPOSED PARKING/LOADING/STORAGE AREAS AND PROPOSED SCREENING: (setback measured from mean high water mark.) Edge of parking lot varies from 40 to 50 feet from landward of the 40 foot river environment line. C. HEIGHT AND SETBACK OF ALL PROPOSED BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES: (height measured from average grad= level to the highest point of the stricture, or mid -point of pitched roof; setback measured from mean high water .ark) Front Yard Setback: not less than 25', Side Yard Setback: not less than 5', Rear Setback: not less than 5'. R. MEASURES PROPOSED TO P.RCTECT WILDLIFE AND FISH HABITAT IN AND ALONG RIVER: Existing vegatation and ground cover to remain riverward of the existing levee. IL TQ BECOMPLEIEI BY LOCALSHORELINEOFFICIAL A. NATURE OF EXISTING SHORELINE: (Describe type of shoreline, such as stream, lake, marsh, flood plain, flccdway, delta; type of beach, such as erosion, high bank, low bank cr dike; hype of material, such as sand, gravel, mud, clay, rock, riprap; and extent and type of bulkheading, if any.) B. RESIDENTIAL VIEWS OBSTRUCTED BY STRUCTURES OVER 35' IN HEIGHT: (In the event that any proposed buildings or strictures exceed a height of 35' above average grade, indicate the approximate location of, and number of, residential units, existing and potential, that will have views of the shoreline obstructed by the proposed development) C. CONDITIONAL USE OR VARIANCE REQUIRED: (If a conditional use is recuired, state in full that portion of the Master Program which provides that the prcposed use may be a conditional use, or, if a variance is required, that portion from which the variance is being sought S= DPNIT.DGC 7/3,96 Indicate permits fcr which you have applied or will apply to the federal government, the State, City of T ukw la and other agencies; include permit application date, whether the permit is pending, approved or denied, and the permit number. 0 Tukwila Conditional Use Permit O Tukwila Variance Permit jC1 Tukwila SEPA Environmental Checklist / SEPA Lead Agency: SEPA decision date: Tukwila Desicn Review O Tukwila Preliminary Flat Approval 0 Tukwila Ficcd Control Zcne Permit (per Flood Ord. 1462) Tukwila Storm Drainage Permit (per Ord. 1755) Tukwila Land Altering Permit (per Ord. 1591) O Archaeological Excavation Permit (WA DCO /Office of Public Archaeology) O Section 106 Review (WA DCO /Office of Public Archaeelocy) 0 Coastal Zone Management Certification (WA Dept. of Ecology) 0 Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) (WA Dept. of Fish & Wildlife) 0 Approval to Allow Temporary Exceedance of Water Quality Standards (WA Dept. of Ecology) ONational Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (WA Dept. of Ecology) (Nationwide Permit) (WA Dept. of Ecology) 0 Aquatic Lease (WA Dept. of Natural Resources) Section 401 Water Quality Certification Nationwide Permit (WA Dept. of Ecology) O Section 404 or Section 10 Permit (Army Corps of Engineers) PEAMIT T O Other. SSDPMT.DOC 7/3/96 APPUCATICN DATE DATE APPROVED z • 00 cn w• w= J H w0 u_ ?.. D. 0 . �W Z f.. Z O: uj D.0 ON' 0 I-- 'ILI W: • O�. z -• • z IV_ IMPACTS CH% SHORELINES POLICIES A. SHORELINE, MASTER PROGRAM POLICIES APPLICAELE TO PROJECT: (List the Tukwila crKng Court / !faster Program sections, goals ardlcrpolicies, including page numbers, which apciy.) See Attached Exhibit "A" 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES APPLICABLE TO PROJECT: (List The Comprejensive Plan sections, coals anc'cr policies, including page numbers, which apply.) See Attached Exhibit "B" V. SHORELINES DESIGPL POLICIES: All projects in the Shoreline Zone must be consistent with Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Program policies (or King County's Shoreline Master Program if project located north of the 42nd Avenue bridge). In addition, all structures requiring .a. building permit (except single family development of 4 or fewer lots) located in the Shoreline Zone must undergo design review with the Tukwila Board of Architectural Review (EAR). The BAR's decision is based on design guidelines contained in the Zoning Cade (TMC 18.60.050) and the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan (see DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION). The SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM POLICIES and Comprehensive Plan's SHORELINE DESIGN POLICIES are summarized below. Note that more than one category may apply. In some cases, the goal for the use or area is noted to provide context for the design policies. NOTE: a) if your project requires a building permit you must meet additional criteria in DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION. b) if your project requires a variance, ycu must meet additional criteria in VARIANCE PERMIT APPLICATION. c) If your project requires a conditional use permit, you must meet additional criteria in CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION. TUKWILA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM POLICIES (King County shoreline policies follow) A. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT 1. CommerciaVindustrial development along the shorelines should not favor outside interests at the expense of the local population. 2. Locate commerciaVdevelopment in areas with low potential for recreation or other public uses. 3. Preference should be given to commercial/industrial development that will provide an opportunity for a substantial number cf people to enjoy the shoreline. SSDPMT.DOC 7/3/96 6 z • i� w. re g: JU U O' ' N W, W =; co d = Wm F- o. Z 1- D, o -' 0 WW 1- 0 lL ~ z- U 0 F.:. z EXHIBIT "A" IV. IMPACTS ON SHORELINES POLICIES SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM POLICIES APPLICABLE TO PROJECT 18.44.60 Height, yard and area regulations. The maximum building height will be 35 feet using the average grades around the building within the low impact shoreline zone. The front yard setback will be not less than 25 feet, the side yard setback will be not less than 5 feet, and the rear setback will be not less than 5 feet. 18.44.70.1 Parking regulations. 18.56.050 Required number of parking stalls. The minimum number of off - street parking spaces shall be calculated as shown in Figure 18 -7. • Warehouse —1 parking space per 2000 square feet of warehouse. • Office - 3 parking spaces per 1000 square feet of office space. • Bicycle stalls --1 space per 50 parking stalls. 18.44.110 General shoreline regulations. 1. The underlying zoning district for this site is Hl -Heavy Industrial per the City of Tukwila Zoning Code and Map dated December 4, 1995. 18.34.020 Permitted uses. Item 59: Building will be used for warehouse storage and /or wholesale distribution facilities as permitted within the HI zoning district. 2. This project will not conflict with the goals and policies of the shoreline master program or the provisions of the Shoreline Act and shoreline regulations. 3. There will be no structures or accessory facilities over the river. 4. There will be no disruption of existing trees or vegetation within the river environment 5. No effluent will be discharged into the Green River. The storm water drainage system will be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards and specifications as set fourth in the Surface Water Design Manual, January 1992, published by King County Public Works Department — Surface Water Division. All storm water will drain into the P17 drainage basin. 6. All State and federal water quality regulations will be complied with. 7. Wildlife habitat in and along the river will be undisturbed. 8. Erosion control measures will be installed per the approved land altering plans and permits. 9. All necessary permits shall be obtained. z U: 0 (.0 w, W I, J H'' U) U. w O: g _. _a z� 1-- O : z I- . uj • o o — o I- ` w w, ui z =;. 0 ~. z ,• EXHIBIT "A" 11. There will be no mining. 12. There will be no solid waste disposal along the river shoreline. 13. No property will be sold for public use. 14. There will be no landfill within the river environment. 15. There are no cotton wood trees on the site. 18.44.140 Specific use regulations — low impact environment A. Low impact environment allowed uses. 1. The maximum building height within the low impact environment will be 35 feet. • 2. The parking lot will be screened from the River Environment with trees spaced at a maximum 30 feet on center. EXHIBIT "B" IV. IMPACTS ON SHORELINES POLICIES B. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES APPLICABLE TO PROJECT Policy 5.1.1 Policy 5.4.1 Policy 5.4.4 Policy 5.6.6 Policy 5.9.1 Policy 5.10.1 Urban -Open Space Environment Redevelopment of existing commercial and industrial areas. The site is between the Highway 99 bridge and South 204th. Design, locate and manage shoreline uses in a manner which maintains reasonable use and enjoyment of private property. Maintain flexibility in methods for different site conditions and private property concerns that might conflict with apcess, such as privacy, safety, and security. Provide a private natural area in lieu of physical public access. Ensure that shoreline development and activities protect riverbank vegetation. Design, locate, and manage shoreline development including streets, flood control projects, surface water drainage and sewer systems, clearing and grading activities, and landscaping in a manner that minimizes opportunities for pollutants to enter the river, provides erosion control, and otherwise protects water quality. • Z; -w; to Ilk w =; w O; 2 gJ+ U. Q' to a z ,- o z�. ILJ o ,p N. ;w W. V; Z: _' Ok" Z ., . ' 014,27/1999 16:49 12068684292 KEN LAM; l.. 1 And- Arc January 25,1999 �)egale KEN LARGE LANDSCAPE 21803 NE 17th Court Redmond, WA 980534104 Phone: 425 - 838 -4578 Fax: 425 - 868 -4292 Pager: 206-464 -1269 Cellular: 206. 818.7346 5usiner3s Park 18000 Andover Parkway, Suite 200 Tukwila, WA 9.5138 Attn: St•eve. Nelson Pea r Steve: The general requirements of the zoning code Chapter 18.52, Section 18.52.040, Item B. Coverage Standards requires 90% live ground coverage within 3 years and 40% tree coverage within 10 years. All shrubs• anti groundcovers are sized and planted to attain a continuous cover of living plant:, per standard landscape practice. PAGE 02 Most groundcc%vers are not spaced greater than 2' triangular spacing. If these plants grow 3" per year. then full coverage would occur within 3 years. The :3hrubs will grow approximately 6" per year and should be touching within 3 years. 'rhe deciduouf, trees are planted with a 8 -10' we canopy. These trees will grow 2 -3 feet !3pre.ad per year. Within 10 years the selected trees will reach mature ,canopy, more than 40% coverage. Coniferous trees are planted at approximately 30' on center. The selected varieties stay full to the ground and do not spread in canopy, as do deciduous trees. The trees specified are Installed at. 0' width, and will grow in width at the rate of 1' to 18" per year. Within 10 yea the coniferous trees will have a spread of 16'. i4 W��. UO • la w o` a. w, z�. F- o:. • Z w w' •:Ovy, • W W';. • IL liJ Z z. 01/.:27/1999 16:49 12068684292 • Segale Bu64n05S Park January 25,1999 • Page 2 Total landscape area: Total Canopy in square feet at planting: A. Deciduous (50.24 sf /ea), 40 ea Coniferous (2826 sf /ea), 67 ea C.. Total a ; planting: KEN LARGE LANDSCAPE Total Canopy ;i square feet projected in 10 years: A. • Deciduous (607.6 5f /ea), 40 ea D. Conlferou5 (200.96 sf /ea), 67 ea C. Totiai SF at 10 years Please call should you have any questions or comments. erely, 40,110 sf 2009.6 sf 1893.42 of 3903.02 (9.77.) 24,304 sf 13,464.32 sf 37,768.32 (947.) PAGE 03 Kenneth E. Large :Landscape Archi Summary Report: Slope Stability Analysis of Four Green River Bank Stabilization Repair Projects King County, Washington SHANNON §WILSON. INC. GEOTECHNICAL ANC ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 1';I(', . (1U, ,.1 fir, ”Hs .. t... : . . January 1999 Submitted To: Entranco 10900 NE 8th Street, Ste 300 Bellevue, WA 98004 By: Shannon & Wilson, Inc. 400 N. 34`h Street, Suite 100 Seattle, Washington 98103 W- 7437 -03 HANNON bWILSON, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS January 26, 1999 Entranco 10900 N.E. 8th Street, Suite 300 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Attn: Mr. Ralph Nelson • RE: SUMMARY REPORT: SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS OF FOUR GREEN RIVER BANK STABILIZATION REPAIR PROJECTS, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON SEATTLE R:CHL Ano . FAIRBANKS ANCHORAGE' EA MT LOUIS EOSTO!.I Enclosed are two copies of our geotechnical report for the referenced project. This report evaluates current King County Water and Land Resource Division (WLRD) riverbank designs and introduces conceptual alternatives developed from our preliminary analyses, literature review, and experience. This report supersedes our July 16, 1998, draft. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service and look forward to our continued involvement in river engineering with you and King County WLRD staff. Sincerely, SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Gregory! R. Fischer, P.E. Associate GRF /lkd Enclosure: Geotechnical Report cc: Terry Butler, King County WLRD (4' copies) W7437 -03 LL4/W7437- pec/lkd 400 NORTH 34TH STREET • SUITE 100 P.O. BOX 300303 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98103 206.632.8020 FAX 206.633.6777 TDD: 1.800.833.6388 W- 7437 -03 SHANNON SON. INC. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 1 2.0 RECONNAISSANCE 1 3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 2 4.0 DESIGN CONDITIONS 3 5.0 MECHANISMS OF INSTABILITY AND GENERAL REMEDIAL MEASURES 3 5.1 Maximum Discharge Stage 3 5.2 Rapid Drawdown Condition 5 5.3 Intermediate Stage 6 6.0 EVALUATION OF WLRD TYPICAL DESIGN 6 7.0 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES AND SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES 7 7.1 Analysis Cross - Section 8 7.2 Model Calibration 8 7.3 Rapid Drawdown Condition 8 7.4 Remedial Measures 9 7.4.1 General 9 7.4.2 Slope Flattening 9 7.4.3 Mid -Slope Bench 10 7.4.4 Drainage 11 7.4.5 Other Stability Measures 14 7.5 Slope and Toe Protection 14 ADDITIONAL STUDIES 16 CLOSURE W 743 7 -03. R p t d oc/p ec/ Ik d 17 W- 7437 -03 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) Table No. 1 2 3 4 Stability Results Stability Results Stability Results Stability Results SHANNON & W �IILSON, INC. Page LIST OF TABLES for Alternative 1 (Slope Flattening) 10 for Alternative 2 (Mid -Slope Bench) 11 for Alternative 3A (Slope With Gravel Shell) 12 for Alternatives 3B and 3C (Trench Drains) 13 LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. 1 Vicinity Map (2 sheets). 2 King County WLRD Typical Riverside Slope Repair - Soil Bioengineering Technique 3 Alternative 1: Slope Flattening 4 Alternative 2: Mid -Slope Bench 5 Alternative 3A: Granular Shell 6 Alternative 3B: Parallel Trench Drain 7 Alternative 3C: Perpendicular Trench Drain 8 Rock Toe Protection Detail 9 Alternative 4: "Deadman" Trenches 10 Thickened Rock Toe Concept APPENDIX A APPENDIX B REFERENCES AND LITERATURE SUMMARY APPENDIX C ELEMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN A MONTORING PROGRAM APPENDIX D GROUNDWATER SAMPLING REPORT, BOEING REVETMENT REPAIR, M.P. 17.62 APPENDIX E IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL REPORT LIST OF APPENDICES FACTORS AFFECTING GREEN RIVER FACILITY DESIGN OPTIONS W 7437- o3.RpL doc /p a dlkd 11 W- 7437 -03 ': . :!: �..::.. • re H w' 6 J U. 0O CO o'. J �. w 0. cn J. = 3. z� 0. IL al U �. O N'. w H U,: Z. w U O~ IIANNO� •i &W/WiILSON, INC. SUMMARY REPORT: SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS OF FOUR GREEN RIVER BANK STABILIZATION REPAIR PROJECTS KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON z re w This report summarizes our observations, conclusions, and recommendations regarding -I 0 geotechnical aspects of proposed bank stabilization projects along the Green River. The purpose w = of our work was to provide consultation to King County Water and Land Resource Division N u_ '. (WLRD) staff regarding their design of repairs to damaged flood control facilities along the W o; Green River. In . order to develop effective maintenance and repair designs, information in this g: report should be used in combination with knowledge of other engineering, ecological, and .!P. a w permitting issues affecting the Green River. Our work was completed in general accordance ? I- with the scope of work in our August 17, 1998, contract with Entranco. Z �i UJ 1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION o :u9, King County WLRD staff requested that Shannon & Wilson, Inc., evaluate four proposed 111 w riverbank projects, where repairs are scheduled for late summer. These four projects are all u. 0. located along the right bank (looking downstream) of the Green River and are designated as: Cu N' U (1) Desimone Levee Stabilization from River Mile (R.M.) 15.35 to 15.55, (2) Boeing Revetment r Repair at R.M. 17.62, (3) Narita Levee Stabilization from R.M. 20.4 to 21.3, and (4) Pipeline Revetment Repair from R.M. 21.9 to 22.0. The approximate locations of these projects are shown on the Vicinity Map (Figure 1). To assist in our evaluation, WLRD staff provided a description of each project and factors affecting potential designs. This information is included in Appendix A. Although these four projects were used as a basis for our evaluation, a further intent of our work was to provide generic -type comments for these and future projects along the Green River. 2.0 RECONNAISSANCE Field visits were made to the four sites on June 26, 1998, with WLRD staff to observe conditions and discuss design constraints and goals. Because detailed descriptions of the sites are provided in Appendix A, a separate summary is not included here. However, one observation made during our reconnaissance that is not included in Appendix A is in regard to discolored groundwater seepage that was observed just above the water surface at the Boeing Revetment Repair project. At the time of our site visit, it was uncertain as to the cause of this discoloration. W7437- 03.Rptdoc /pedtkd W- 7437 -03 1 ........ 1A.1tNQN WILSON, INC. Subsequent sampling and testing by King County indicated that this discoloring was caused by the presence of iron in the water (which is a natural deposit with no associated health hazards); no toxicity or fuel products were measured (Appendix D). 3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS As part of our evaluation, we searched our files to determine if we had subsurface information in the area from previous project experience. This search indicated that the only location where there was existing information sufficiently close to a facility to be considered representative was near the Desimone Levee Stabilization project. At that location, we have five logs from borings drilled along the west side of the intersection of Todd Boulevard and Olympic Avenue South, at approximately the downstream end of the project limits. These logs indicate about 5 feet of fill overlying 5 to 10 feet of very loose to loose, silty sand. The sand is underlain by soft to stiff, clayey silt with scattered organic debris and occasional peat zones to a depth of about 35 feet. Below 35 feet, the Iogs indicate the presence of dense to very dense sand. These conditions are similar to those encountered in the 1994 borings we drilled for the Segale Levee evaluation project, on the left bank of the Green River; just across the river from the Desimone Levee. In addition to data from our files, WLRD staff provided a portion of a 1981 draft report from the Seattle District Corps of Engineers (COE) regarding the levees along the Green River. We reviewed the geotechnical portion of this report, titled, "Section 3: Geotechnical Considerations, Green River Flood Damage Reduction Study." This section included logs of 35 borings (each generally about 30 to 40 feet in depth), results of laboratory testing, and a brief write -up summarizing the work completed and geotechnical engineering recommendations. The logs of borings completed near the proposed project sites include: 81 -RD -106, 81 -RD -110, 81 -RD -125, 81 -RD -126, 81 -RD -129, 81 -RD -130, 81 -RD -131, and 81 -RD -138 (this latter log was not included in the provided package). The borings generally indicate the presence of very loose to loose, silty sand and sandy silt (occasionally organic and/or clayey) to a depth of about 25 to 35 feet, underlain by medium dense to very dense, clean to silty sand. The exception was in boring 81 -RD -125 where a 30- foot - thick, very soft, clayey sand layer was encountered below a depth of 55 feet. This boring was one of three deep borings (drilled to a depth of approximately 100 feet) completed by the COE. Apparently, monitoring wells were installed in most borings. It is not known if these monitoring wells can be relocated, if they are still functioning, and/or if historic monitoring data is available. Because of its large size, the 1981 draft COE report is not included as part of our report. W7437 -03.Rptdoc/pecllkd W- 7437 -03 SHANNON ` W LSON, INC. 4.0 DESIGN CONDITIONS Flows within the Green River are mainly controlled by COE discharge from Howard Hanson Dam. As indicated in Appendix A, there are two design conditions that WLRD staff requested we address for riverbank stabilization projects along the Green River. The first condition corresponds to a discharge of 12,000 cubic feet per second (cfs), measured at Auburn, which is the maximum discharge at Auburn allowed under the original Congressional authorization for Howard Hanson Dam. High flow conditions approaching 12,000 cfs correspond to an approximately 25 -year event and can last for several days or more. It is under this condition that velocities and tractive forces (shear stresses) will be the highest (and therefore erosion and scour potential the greatest). The second condition occurs during drawdown from this high river stage. Congressional authorization specifies that Howard Hanson Dam operations not cause a drawdown ( "ramping ") rate in the river (at Auburn) that exceeds 1 foot per hour, although the COE tries to limit the maximum rate of drop to 1 to 2 feet per day. Under both drawdown conditions, excess porewater pressures may exist in the banks, which can lead to slope instability. Design constraints that affect the type of solution that can be used to repair the riverbanks along the Green River, as provided by WLRD, are provided in Appendix A. 5.0 MECHANISMS OF INSTABILITY AND GENERAL REMEDIAL MEASURES 5.1 Maximum Discharge Stage Previous analyses and experience of WLRD staff indicate that average channel velocities along the lower reach of the Green River are relatively low (about 3 to 5 feet per second), even under the maximum discharge stage (based on FEMA, 1989). For these conditions, and assuming even modest vegetative growth, bank erosion above the ordinary high water level is anticipated to be relatively minor. As such, relatively modest revegetative efforts should be sufficient to protect the upper slopes of the riverbank from erosion. However, below the ordinary high water level, where vegetation growth normally does not occur, the fine sands and silts are easily eroded and scour and undermining of the toe of the slope can occur, especially along the outside bends where velocities are higher. Removal of resisting weight at the toe can lead to slope instability. Thus, it is important to provide protection from erosion below the ordinary high water line. This has normally been in the form of riprap rock protection, with or without installation of large woody debris (LWD). W 7437-0 3. Rp t doc/pecllkd -4423: W- 7437 -03 Sl-ANNON &WILSON, INC. We completed preliminary analyses for design of riprap toe rock protection, the most positive method of protecting the toe of the slope. Assuming a 25- to 33 -foot depth of water, a relatively sharp bend (ratio of bend radius to water surface width of 2.0), and a factor -of- safety (FS) of 1.25, our analyses indicate a Dso rock size of about 0.7 to 0.9 feet is needed. Using recent American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Designation: D 6092 guidelines, R -60 to R -150 riprap with the following gradation is recommended for the water depths listed above, respectively. :;. .:: :: • . ParY cie Mssm.Pounds` ""Percent Lighter Mass .g,,.ecile' han ..... 2 fd1..f:....ater ' de:.:th ..:: ::::::;:: : : :..... 33 -foot water depth) ::,::: : :E:. 150 300 100 60 150 50 -100 30 60 15 -50 10 20 0 -15 This gradation is similar to rock with a Dloo size of 15 to 21 inches, respectively, per EM 1110 -2- 1601 (COE, 1994). These rock sizing requirements have generally been met or exceeded by recent King County projects. Although rock size is important, it is also critical to embed the rock below the potential depth of scour. If the toe rock is not embedded, then it can be displaced by scour of the riverbed below it. Unfortunately, this scour depth is not reliably calculated by available methodologies. Instead, our approach has been to use a line connecting the low elevation points of the channel thalweg and /or scour pools as a scour baseline. Considering that scour will be greatest during a flood and then filled with sediment during receding flows (after which channel beds are surveyed), it is advisable to consider the maximum scour depth as being several feet below this baseline, depending on the degree of risk, consequences of failure, and the river system (stage, discharge, and sediment load). For these proposed projects, we recommend embedding toe rock an additional 2 feet below the scour baseline established above to provide additional factor of safety. Alternatives to a rock toe are discussed later in this report. It should be noted that compliance with this recommendation would require excavations into saturated silty fine sands and fine sandy silts, sometimes up to depths of 10 feet. Based on King County's past experience, a maximum practical excavation depth in these materials is between 2 and 3 feet, below the water surface beyond which liquid soil conditions preclude further digging. As an alternative to the embedment depths recommended here, the toe of the rock slope could be W7437 -03.Rpt. doc/pec/lkd 4 W- 7437 -03 S ld,NNION INA /1LSON,1NC. thickened (by a factor of 2 to 3) into the river column (Figure 10) or King County may instead have to rely on frequent monitoring and maintenance repairs or reconstruction to undermined toe z work installations in the Green River. < z w rL 5.2 Rapid Drawdown Condition 6 v 00 In rapid drawdown situations, the riverbanks can fail as a result of high porewater pressures, co w especially in the lower portions of the slope. There are several methods that can be used to -J H increase the stability of the riverward slopes during river drawdown. These methods include w o. those that allow the development of porewater pressure but provide external means to increase g stability, and those that increase stability by dissipating porewater pressures during drawdown. L j' w Several methods are discussed below. The actual solution(s) may involve a combination of F W several of these methods. z 1--0 z1— ■ Toe Buttress: In this method, additional soil weight is placed at the toe of the bank j o to increase resisting forces and thereby increase the stability of the slope. This mass 0 m would require rock slope protection and intrude well into the stream channel. o Although this is a viable engineering alternative, there are significant environmental i ul 0 ui limitations, considering the presence of the river as a habitat resource and inability I- to encroach into it due to permitting limitations imposed by resource agencies. As 0 such, in our opinion, this type of method is not feasible for these projects. Ili co H= 0 ~,. z. Reduce Driving Weight: In this method, driving weight near the top of a slope is removed (to decrease driving force in the slide mass), while maintaining existing weight near the toe of the slope. Generally, the two approaches to reduce driving weight are by using a setback levee or flattening the slope. This method may be feasible in some areas; however, it is not anticipated to be feasible in most areas because of the lack of right -of -way. Based on discussions with WLRD staff, this alternative is generally preferred because of its compatibility with river habitat restoration measures. Drainage: Groundwater is one of the leading causes of slope instability. Providing methods of relieving porewater pressure in the soil mass during drawdown will result in an increase in the stability of the slope and should be considered as a viable alternative. Methods include drainage blankets and parallel and perpendicular trench drains. These methods have a practical advantage in that they attack the source of the problem (groundwater) that is causing instability. Soil Improvement: This methodology involves techniques to increase the strength of the soil involved in sliding. While there are several methods that can increase stability, they are normally expensive and probably not appropriate for these projects. However, overexcavation of weak soils and replacement with higher W7437 -03.Rpkdoc/pec/lkd W- 7437 -03 SHANNON &:WNILSON, INC. strength, free - draining soils was successfully used at the Segale levee and should be considered as an added benefit in conjunction with near - surface drainage measures. Soil Reinforcement: This method involves techniques to reinforce the soil mass (and slide plane) to increase its stability. Such reinforcement could range from natural or geosynthetic inclusions to large diameter drilled shafts. The former are feasible and are currently used by WLRD. The latter are expensive and not practical for these projects. 5.3 Intermediate Stage A critical stability. condition can occur in the riverbank slopes under intermediate river stage, generally occurring when the river level is about' one -third to one -half of bank height. Slope stability can be critical during this stage because of total soil unit weight conditions above the groundwater table driving a potential failure mass coupled with effective (or buoyant) soil unit weight material resisting this driving force. Although, to our knowledge, this condition has not been associated with known slope failures, it is an analysis criterion required by the COE. More importantly, it is possible to calibrate soil properties using this stage analysis. This is done by recognizing that the FS along existing riverbank slopes should be at least equal to 1.0 (i.e., on the verge of failure) under this stage (since failures are known not to occur under this condition). If the analyses indicate a FS of less than unity, then the model may need to be adjusted to reflect actual behavior and performance. 6.0 EVALUATION OF WLRD TYPICAL DESIGN This section provides comments on the typical design used by WLRD for the past approximately 6 years, as shown on Figure 2. Note that this design is a generic representation of a "typical" biostabilization approach for the Green River. Varying site conditions have led to adjustments in this design and its installation at individual project sites. These comments are: The section in Figure 2 appears to be difficult and expensive to construct as it involves several different zones and materials and hand - intensive components, some of which are below river level during construction. As indicated by the analyses above, the rock shown on Figure 2 is unnecessarily large (from a geotechnical perspective) to provide erosion protection for this river. This drives up the cost of the project and complicates the design of the filtering system. However, large rock may be advantageous if smaller rock cannot be adequately embedded and from a habitat perspective. It is understood the larger rock size may be dictated by habitat considerations or permit requirements. W 7437 -03.Rpt doc/pec/lkd W- 7437 -03 z W QQ• � JU U O• U rn w w =, J H N LL w O: aa LL Q. cn a w z� zo o; '0 — ~' w uj. H U wz • N' OH z SHANNON &WILSON, INC. ► Figure 2 indicates that the depth of the rock toe is above the river thalweg. As such, the slope has a greater potential to fail as a result of undermining at the toe. Conversely, the expense and difficulty of excavating underwater in saturated sands and silts may preclude deeper excavation. If so, construction of a thickened toe section and/or monitoring and repair of any displaced rock should be considered a priority. ► The topsoil used for the willows may erode if not adequately protected at the face. Similarly, depending on its gradation and the gradation of adjoining layers, it could pipe into underlying materials. The thickness of the clean sand and gravel and spall zones are not specified on Figure 2. While we recognize that Figure 2 is generic and this detail may change from site to site depending on specific design details, it is referenced here to reinforce the importance of the drainage measures in increasing the stability of the slope during drawdown, as discussed later in this report. ► It is important that every material shown on Figure 2 be properly filtered so that piping does not occur. The use of 2- to 8 -inch quarry spalls adjacent to native silts and sands may not provide adequate protection from piping. A better approach would be to use a geotextile behind the quarry spalls or add an additional gravel filter material between the quarry spalls and native materials. The note stating "... stake w /coir cover on top lift only" is unclear and should be reworded. ► Several details of the coir fabric are unclear from the figure. These include the precise location of the coir fabric within the system, and its length, spacing, and purpose. While logs provide habitat, they tend to float and induce buoyancy forces during floods. This condition, along with fast river flows, can result in "lever arm" forces that can "pop" a log out of a slope and damage a revetment. Therefore, if logs are used, it is important to embed them sufficiently into the slope (embedded length greater than or equal to exposed length). Alternatively, these logs can be anchored securely to large- diameter rocks, ecology blocks, or equivalent, which are placed at the base of the slope. 7.0 REMEDIAL ALTERNATNES AND SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES Slope stability analyses were performed to evaluate the stability of the existing riverbank slopes under intermediate river stages and during drawdown of the river from its maximum stage. In addition, stability analyses were completed for remedial methods. The analyses were performed W7437 -03.Rptdoc /pec/lkd W- 7437 -03 i SHANNON FJWll -SON, INC. using the computer program UTEXAS3 (Wright, 1990). The following sections present a description of the analyses and the results. 7.1 Analysis Cross - Section A simplified cross - section was developed for use in the slope stability analyses. Based on recent surveys, an average existing slope of 1.5 Horizontal to 1 Vertical (1.5H:1V) was used. This is about the maximum riverside slope observed at and adjacent to failure areas along the project reaches. For the purpose of our analysis, we assumed a 35- foot -high riverbank and a homogenous soil profile above the bed of the river. Soil strengths were estimated from laboratory data in the 1981 draft COE report. Based on our interpretation of their data, we used effective stress parameters of a friction angle, 4) ', of 33° and cohesion intercept, c', of 0, and total stress parameters of 4c„ = 26° and cc„ = 100 pounds per square foot (psi). These parameters are used to define soil shear strength in terms of undrained parameters (4 )., ccu) and drained parameters (4), c'). The former were used for rapid drawdown analyses, while the latter were used for intermediate river stage analyses. 7.2 Model Calibration As a quick check on the reasonableness of the effective stress parameters, we calculated the FS against slope instability under various intermediate river levels, assuming steady -state (horizontal flow line) seepage conditions. Our analyses indicate the critical intermediate river stage (from a slope stability standpoint) is 15 feet above the riverbed. Using the parameters stated in Section 7.1, a FS of less than 1.0 was calculated. However, this is not reasonable, in our opinion, as it is our understanding that failures do not occur during this river stage. To provide a FS of at least 1.0 (i.e., stable but on the verge of failure), c' = 15 psf is needed with 1:11s' = 33 °. These parameters were used in future analyses. 7.3 Rapid Drawdown Condition The next step was to compute the FS for an instantaneous drawdown of the river level from 2 feet below the crest to 20 feet below the crest, assuming no porewater pressure dissipation. We used the general procedures recommended by the COE for rapid drawdown as described in EM- 1110 -2 -1902 (COE, 1982). The results of this analysis indicated that the slope had a FS of 0.6, much less than the minimum value of 1.0 recommended in EM 1110 -2 -1913 (COE, 1978). W 7437 -03.Rpt doc/pec/lkd W- 7437 -03 SHANNON GY /V1LSON, INC. 7.4 Remedial Measures 7.4.1 General We next determined the degree of improvement realized by several remedial measures. Based on the discussion in Section 5.2, the alternatives evaluated included: 1) slope flattening, 2) excavating a bench at about mid - slope, 3) adding a permeable shell, 4) installing parallel trench drains, and 5) installing perpendicular trench drains. We analyzed these alternatives for two cases: (1) assuming that drawdown was instantaneous over the entire 18 -foot depth, and (2) assuming partial dissipation of porewater during drawdown. Although there is no data available regarding river drawdown and corresponding porewater pressure dissipation, for this second case we assumed that partial dissipation would be such that there would be 1 foot of groundwater drawdown in the bank for every 2 feet of river drop (i.e., for 18 feet of river drawdown, there would be 9 feet of groundwater head remaining in the bank). This rate assumes that the COE does not operate the dam such that the river drops as rapidly as 1 foot per hour. It may still be conservative for typical drawdown rates. The five remedial measures listed above were analyzed in the slope stability program and sized such that a minimum FS of 1.0 was achieved under the drawdown loading conditions. We also analyzed the slopes for a minimum FS of 1.4 for intermediate river stages. These FS values are in accordance with those recommended in EM- 1110 -2 -1913 (COE, 1978) and are commonly used as a basis for determining flood containment systems nationwide. 7.4.2 Slope Flattening The effect of flattening the riverbank slopes was evaluated in our analyses. The stability of the slopes was analyzed under the baseline (existing) 1.5H:1 V angle and at flatter angles to evaluate the effect of flattening the slope under various loading conditions. It is assumed that adequate toe protection is included in this alternative, as needed, and as shown in Figure 8. The results of the analyses are summarized in Table 1; with the minimum required FS shown in highlight for each condition analyzed. W7437 -03.Rpt doc/pec/lkd W- 7437 -03 S1 t- `,r.1NC)1\1 ZIWiVILSON.1NC. TABLE 1 STABILITY RESULTS FOR ALTERNATIVE 1 (SLOPE FLATTENING) oge„ , ■: Factor of Safety Intermediate ::,,.iyei :Sta-e Instantaneous ft Ilrawdowri:.:..:.,.... Partcal Cf:Drawdown';:;_ -0.8 1.5H:1V (existing) 1.0 0.6 2H: I V 1.3 0.7 0.9 2.2511:1V i:< 4i >s >`'" <> - 0.9 2.5H: IV 1.5 - ::<>_ 4€1>:f}: 41 t'> 3H:1V - 1 0 - The minimum factor -of- safety required per COE EM 1110 -2 -1913 is indicated in the above table by shading and thickened border. * The intermediate river stage is assumed to be 15 feet above river bottom. - Analysis not performed. As shown in Table 1, the existing slopes would have to be flattened to at least 2.25H:I V to achieve the design FS (1.4) for intermediate river stages. However, this slope has a calculated FS of less than 1.0 under drawdown conditions. Assuming partial drainage occurs (at a 1:2 ratio), a slope'of 2.5H:1 V would be required during drawdown. Figure 3 presents a schematic of this alternative. In our opinion, there is a high reliability associated with this alternative (at a slope of 2.25H :1 V or flatter) because it removes driving weight and lays back slopes to angles consistent with stable slopes along the project reach. 7.4.3 Mid -Slope Bench We understand that it may not be possible to vegetate slopes that are flattened unless a bench is placed along the riverside slope. Therefore, as another alternative, we looked at the construction of a mid -slope bench, as shown on Figure 4. With the construction of a bench near mid - slope, it is possible to use steeper local slopes (than indicated by the results presented in Section 7.4.2) for the same FS. For the purpose of our analysis, we assumed a 15- foot -wide bench located 20 feet above the bottom of the river. It is assumed that adequate toe protection is included in this alternative, as needed. The results of our analyses are summarized on Table .2 for the different loading conditions and various slope angles. Analyses were completed with the bench located at 10 and 30 feet above the river bottom. The results indicated lower FS values W7437 -03 .Rptdoc/pec/lkd W- 7437 -03 SH.6,1\NN0I A 1! SON, INC. (Table 2), as there was a greater tendency for failures occurring either above or below the bench, respectively. TABLE 2 STABILITY RESULTS FOR ALTERNATIVE 2 (MID-SLOPE BENCH) :: .::.:::..:....:<,..._]]:•:<:.:] :............ ...:.:.:.::._.:...........:..:. .:];,:.:. :2::1:55:. ....... ........FacEor:.of:5afe ..... ...:..:..::;..]. ................................................ texmedxaEe R►ver; >�:; ;:. �':.::: 255]: .; ..:;:,.,;:;:.:. ,...,,.....,,..;:;,<.; a • .:. Iixs-10.#00:4#.1.:1... 8= ft:��s <::. ;.; ; .::.::.... 5'155511] ;: >,. wd is ]i: b a ` �o :,,,,:..:::.,.:. rta�'9'`'ft:D�raw o:.::] »::: pa - Slope ] l : ] ] ]; <] .iTeighfs•of Bench:AhoveRiverBotfo�n:�feef} , { • < 2 2::.5;2..5:. .... i. a.:....;... ?., ;;•,. � .a::]]]::.]:]:,]]:::3Ei:s;:.... :..6 :.. 5] ;].. ;.: :.....�f1 ......... ] . .:.20: ..,,.. 3Q.. ;:, > > %�i: ] >...:.1Q .... ] 2 ]] :..:ZQ.. .,.. 30 .:,,. 1.5H:1V 1.1 1.2 1.1 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.7 1.7511:1V 1.3 >F`4> 1.2 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.8 ..... >J:O 0.8 2H:1V <: €1: €45 ' 1.6 1.3 0.8 ? i Xi.. : €: 0.7 0.8 1.1 0.9 The minimum factor -of -safety required per COE EM 1110 -2 -1913 is indicated in the above table by shading and thickened border. * Slopes for both the levee and the riverbank are the same. ** The intermediate river stage was assumed to be 15 feet above river bottom. Assuming partial drainage occurs during drawdown (at a 1:2 ratio), a mid -slope bench with slopes of at least 1.75H:1V would be required to achieve the minimum FS. (The horizontal distance required by this option is similar to that required by 2.25:1 slopes with no bench). Although this alternative would have a high level of reliability, in our opinion, it would be somewhat less reliable than Alternative 1 because of the increased possibility of local instability of the steep slopes above and below the bench. 7.4.4 Drainage As noted in Section 5.2, drainage is beneficial in increasing riverside slope stability by allowing more rapid dissipation of porewater pressures during drawdown. We considered three drainage alternatives. The first consists of overexcavation along the face of the slope and replacement with a free - draining sand and gravel "shell" that can drain as quickly as the river recedes. This shell material should generally contain greater than 50 percent gravel and less than 3 percent silt and be a natural filter for the native soils. Two shell widths were considered: 1) a 10 -foot width along the entire face of the slope, and 2) a 20 -foot width at the toe of the slope, decreasing to a width of 10 feet at the base of the levee or crest of the slope (Figure 5). These W7437 -03.Rpt doc/pecflkd 11 W- 7437 -03 z re 2LIJ JU U0 co • W W I. J W 0 2 J u_a �v l- _ z� z o. uj O • N: 'Cl All W. .z Cu U co 0 z 1� SH.ANNQN i ILSON. INC. two sizes were used with varying slope angles to achieve the minimum required FS values under the various loading conditions. The results of our analyses are summarized in the following table: TABLE 3 STABILITY RESULTS FOR ALTERNATIVE 3A (SLOPE WITH GRAVEL SHELL) y.;.:::: fir: :a .. .. ............ � {..i {;....:.. ti.; n:.. . :..:.;:.;::.:......i..:..... :. { :..... }3 }3:. .. .... :...:.....;..... :1'actpraf €Safety.. ;:...:...;.....,::...::......... .........::,..3 ^••3 }.,.. } ::... . ..3, Intermediate River.. ge.,:.:.;... Instantaneous ::x8:-ft: Drawdowri ,:::: ::Partil ... , :.9 fED:raw clow'a. .... }::> €<:.....5 to ..: .... . ,.: 0S€ € €OS 05 ;Qft::;.:. ::0 { :: 1.5H:1V - 1.2 - - - i10 1.75H:1V 1.3 1.3 - 0.9 ?:.:-1 ©` . - 2H:1 V L °4 15 ...................1::.0 1:1 1.1 1.2 2.25H:1V 1.5 - 1.1 - - - The minimum factor -of- safety required per COE EM 1110 -2 -1913 is indicated in the above table by shading and thickened border. * The intermediate river stage was assumed to be 15 feet above river bottom. S = Shell - Analysis not performed As shown on Table 3, to achieve the minimum required FS under intermediate river stages and during.drawdown conditions, a gravel shell combined with slope flattening would be required (a 10- foot -wide buttress combined with slope flattening to at least 2H:1 V). However, steeper slopes may be possible in combination with geosynthetic reinforcement, as discussed in Section 7.4.5 of this report. This method has a high degree of reliability associated with it, in our opinion, and is essentially the solution used at Segale Levee. The other two alternatives consider the placement of drains behind the riverside slope. In modeling the stability of Alternative 3B, a parallel trench drain was installed beneath the landslide toe of the levee or top of the slope, to a depth of about 15 feet (Figure 6). The actual depth would be dependent on many factors but was limited to 15 feet in our analysis for construction considerations. This drain would allow quicker dissipation of porewater in the soils riverward of the trench and would reduce recharge to the riverbank slope from the valley. At select locations, lateral drains sloping toward the river would be required. These lateral drains would be backfilled with similar free - draining material, include a "clay dam" or equivalent, and W7437- 03.Rpt.doc/pec/lkd W- 7437 -03 SHANNON JWILSON, INC. include a tightline pipe with flap gate (angled downriver). One performance- related issue with this series of lateral drains is that they may allow some flow of floodwaters to discharge landward of the levee during high -flow events in the river. Alternative 3C would consist of trench drains oriented perpendicular to the bank (Figure 7). The required spacing of these drains has not been determined. These drains would need to be installed at closer intervals than the laterals discussed in Alternative 3B. Future groundwater modeling would be required to determine spacing of these drains, as discussed in Section 8.0. It is difficult to determine the effectiveness of the drains in Alternatives 3B and 3C and as such there is a higher degree of uncertainty with these alternatives. Mounding of groundwater will occur between drains or between the parallel drain and the river. For the purpose of this analysis, we assumed that these drains could reduce the groundwater in the banks during drawdown to about one -half of the partial drainage condition or one - fourth of the instantaneous drawdown condition. As such, a groundwater head difference of 4.5 feet between the river and that in the bank was assumed in our analyses. Table 4 presents the results of our analyses for various slope angles. TABLE 4 STABILITY RESULTS FOR ALTERNATIVES 3B AND 3C (TRENCH DRAINS) The minimum factor -of -safety required per COE EM 1110 -2 -1913 is indicated in the above table by shading and thickened border. * Because the trench drain is above the intermediate river stage, its presence does not affect the calculated intermediate river stage FS. W 74 37-0 3.Rpt doc/pec/lkd W- 7437 -03 13 SHANNON &WILSON, INC. As shown on Table 4, if trench drains are installed, a slope of 1.75H:1V or flatter would be required to meet stability needs under drawdown conditions. However, since the bottom of the trench drain would be above the intermediate river stage, its presence does not affect the stability of the slope during intermediate stages. As such, a slope of 2.25H:1 V would be necessary to meet intermediate river stage stability, as discussed in Section 7.4.2. . 7.4.5 Other Stability Measures We also considered the use of soil reinforcement in the alternatives. Typical to most soil bioengineering solutions, the use of geogrids or geotextiles can increase the stability of a slope. However, from a practical viewpoint, improvements to slope stability in this application are due more to the imported material that typically accompanies geosynthetic installations than to the characteristics of the geosynthetics themselves. One reason for this is that excavations that are made to install geosynthetics usually remove much of the underlying material of concern. Most excavated bank soils consist of fine-grained and organic soils, and it is common to import sand and gravel soils to rebuild the slope.. These soils are typically of higher quality and strength, and possess better drainage characteristics. As such, slope stability is usually increased just by the overexcavation and replacement process. In addition, the potential failure surface under drawdown conditions is typically located landward of any reasonable width of reinforcement; therefore, reinforcement will add little benefit. However, reinforcement may be advantageous for the shell alternative in increasing slope stability during intermediate river stages. As indicated in Section 7.4.4, the riverward slopes meet the minimum FS for rapidly drawdown conditions (FS = 1.0) with a 1.5H:1V slope or 1.75H:1V slope, depending on the width of the shell. For these same conditions, however, the stability of the slope during intermediate river stages is only 1.2 to 1.3. (less than the recommended 1.4) and the potential failure surface is shallow. Thus, the use of geosynthetic reinforcement could be used to increase the FS during intermediate stages to 1.4 (the minimum required value) by deepening the potential failure surface. The length of geosynthetic reinforcement would require a site - specific analysis, but would be on the order of 10 feet. 7.5 Slope and Toe Protection The above alternatives provide preliminary guidance for increasing the stability of the slopes during drawdown. In addition to slope stability, it is important to protect the face of the slope against erosion. As indicated in Section 5.1, modest vegetative growth can achieve this function. However, we recommend using permanent erosion control /turf reinforcement mats or erosion control blankets with at least a two -year life. Recent research involving limited flow duration W7437 -03.Rptdoc/pec/Ikd W- 743 7 -03 S;-L NNON &WILSON. INC. tests by the Texas Department of Transportation (Northcutt, 1995) indicates that several permanent erosion controUturf reinforcement mats can withstand shear stresses up to 2.25 psf in an unvegetated state and up to 8 psf in a fully vegetated state. Our analyses indicate shear stresses under maximum flows should be about 2.25 psf in the lower reaches of the Green River. Thus, an unvegetated blanket would provide just enough protection in the event vegetation is not established prior to high river flows and a fully vegetated mat will have considerable FS incorporated in the design. Additional research would be required to estimate the FS of local vegetation in absence of the erosion control blanket (i.e., for a temporary degradable blanket). As an alternative, crushed rock (approximately 3 inches in diameter) could be used on the slopes above the ordinary high water level. It would be. important that any design of slope face protection not block seepage emanating from the slope. Regarding toe protection, we recommend using appropriate sized and graded rock riprap, as discussed in Section 5.1 of this report. Regarding rock quality and placement, the rock should be hard, sound, durable, and free from seams, cracks, weathering, or other defects that may increase . their weakness. Laboratory tests for rock quality includes soundness loss (ASTM Designation: C 88). Rock showing a loss of less than 5 percent in this test is satisfactory. Absorption is a test for weathering potential (ASTM Designation: C 127). A limit of 2 percent absorption is acceptable. The Los Angeles abrasion test (ASTM Designation: C 535) is indicative of rock durability. A loss of 45 percent or less is acceptable. Placement of rock should be by methods that permit a uniform deposit of rock, free, of pockets of fines and clusters of larger rock. Dumping on the slopes or chuting the rock to the toe should not be allowed. Although excavation is required beyond the toe in Figure 8, there is no permanent encroachment into the river above the riverbed under this scenario. However, this may still be restricted by environmental permitting limitations and /or difficulties in actual construction in such locations. We also considered an alternative that would reduce the placement of rock along the toe of the slope and limit bank disturbance, as well as incorporate other aspects of stability referenced in Section 7.4. Alternative 4 consists of "deadman" rock trenches (Figure 9). Similar in concept to Alternative 3C, these trenches would provide drainage of the bank while simultaneously protecting the toe at various intervals. The use of LWD properly positioned and anchored near the base of the slope may move the thalweg away from the toe of the slope, thereby decreasing the possibility of undermining. It is difficult to estimate the spacing of such trenches, although they will likely have to be less than 30 feet to shift the thalweg and protect the toe. The trench W7437 -03.Rpt.doc/pec/lkd 15 W- 743 7 -03 : ?'. Sr lhNNOiN J I' / LSON, INC. would have to be about 6 to 8 feet wide at the base and extend below the anticipated scour elevation. In our opinion, this alternative would have the highest degree of risk associated with it as it is uncertain whether the LWD could provide adequate toe protection, especially at the outside of bends. In addition, existing oversteepened slopes between deadman trenches could fail and jeopardize the integrity of the system. 8.0 ADDITIONAL STUDIES The following additional studies are suggested to increase our level of confidence in the above preliminary recommendations: ► Additional surveying should be completed to determine the location and depth of the thalweg and the depth of scour pools. This information is necessary for determining the depth of toe rock. More detailed slope stability analyses are required to confirm the preliminary results discussed in this report. These would include the use of more recent analysis procedures that improve on the COE method for drawdown analysis and will increase the reliability of the results. Consideration could be given to reducing the FS required for intermediate river stage (to 1.2 or 1.3) as historically bank failures have not occurred during this time. This would reduce the necessary slope angle for the sand and gravel shell and trench drain alternatives. Engineering analyses and groundwater modeling should be completed to determine the spacing needed between perpendicular trench drains to provide an adequate FS against slope instability during drawdown. In addition, groundwater modeling could better determine the differential head in the bank for various drawdown rates and remedial measures. Our preliminary recommendations are based on judgment only and may vary significantly with the completion of engineering analyses. ► Additional borings and laboratory strength testing of undisturbed soils should be considered as a means to increase the reliability of future slope stability analyses. Any solution that leaves the oversteepened riverside slopes intact (such as Alternative 4) should be further analyzed to determine the risk of local instability jeopardizing protection of the system. W7437-03 .Rp t doc/pec/lkd 16 W- 7437 -03 ► S H A N NivN:.:11i1I1LSO,l, INC. Borings along the river indicate the presence of significant thicknesses of soft soils at several locations. The use of setback levees will require engineering analyses to estimate possible levee settlement and stability resulting from new fill placement. The analysis of rapid drawdown assumes an instantaneous lowering of the river, wherein this does not actually happen. The change in piezometric pressure with time during rising and falling river stages would provide useful information in the evaluation of slope stability (as indicated by assuming one -half or one -fourth drawdown instead). As indicated in Appendix C (Elements to be Included in a Monitoring Plan), it may be possible to use existing groundwater monitoring wells to obtain this information; however, further evaluation is required to determine if the screened sections of the wells are located at depths that will provide useful data. Vibrating wire piezometers and data loggers that can be electronically monitored and continuously read should be considered at select sites as a better method to evaluate the piezometric response and groundwater lag in the soils adjoining the river. King County WLRD should initiate discussions with the COE to determine if previously installed groundwater monitoring wells can be identified and if they are still functioning. If wells are found and are screened in appropriate locations, considerable cost savings would be saved over installing new wells. As discussed in more detail in Appendix C, a thorough and concentrated effort should be made during the next major increase in river stage to monitor the river banks during drawdown to determine when slope failures occur. 9.0 CLOSURE This report only addresses the geotechnical slope stability issues of bank stabilization projects along the lower Green River. Users of the report should be aware of the listing of chinook salmon as a threatened species under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), which will be finalized in 1999. Additional fish species may be listed in the not - too - distant future. Project proponents should consult with a qualified biologist regarding compliance with ESA requirements for a biological assessment of site conditions and potential impacts of proposed projects on listed and candidate species. The biologist should also assist in developing mitgative measures, including installation ofLWD and revegetation, into the proposed project design. The analyses, evaluation, and preliminary recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they presently exist and on subsurface conditions from the previous borings described in this report; new subsurface explorations were not performed as part of our work. The recommendations presented in this report are preliminary and not intended for final design. W7437 -03.Rptdoc/pec/lkd 17 W- 743 7 -03 J SHANNON Sr?y!, INC. We have prepared Appendix E, "Important Information About Your Geotechnical Report," to assist you and others in understanding the use and limitations of our work. Erosion, aggradation, and deposition are a continual, natural process along rivers. Therefore, routine inspection and maintenance should be expected regardless of the type of remediation, if any, that is constructed. Any future levee improvements that use the preliminary recommenda- tions presented herein should consider the possible changes that have occurred since the comple -• tion of this report, and not necessarily assume that conditions are the same as indicated herein. The scope of our services did not include a hydraulic evaluation of the levee system to determine its ability to contain a given flood event or a structural evaluation of other levee locations or components. In addition, our work did not include an environmental assessment or evaluation regarding the presence or absence of wetlands or toxic or hazardous materials in the soil or groundwater at or around the site. This work focused on geotechnical aspects of these facility repairs only, and did not attempt to optimize habitat potential, or to fully account for permitting needs for each design alternative. Site - specific designs should factor in these other issues, along with the geotechnical recommendations contained herein. SHANNON & WILSON, INC. EXPIRES l0/3/ q Gregory R. Fischer, P.E. Associate GRF:WTL/lkd W7437 -03.Rptdoc/pec/Ikd W- 7437 -03 18 � �:. r4 2 6 J U: 0 co w =': 1- wO. a. =w _ Z� I- O. Z E--; LU O(A; 0 f-, w H V'. O.. • Ill Z, U- 0 vt� •': •J i 1C 33 r ..... - '_ vat p ' • _1. NwITy !, r•iir 1 i p 5. "1 U II /LT ])ON Tt . „ } " { t ! ld2A01.. T'= trr unn I IT , r i I • • ST •61111 m ,3 n :,, of 11 s�.` n 1 •.1• 4.1.IUy 1 /�B 1 d r,rluP9 x1u - _.au ..rp'H ssoo S 180TH a1aST r'�hr r \ t • t 35 I • RIVERS S of n Off ° • •i y �"1(/� 191St S( 182X0 L(TE .. •NAL • • al I 188TH V ( $ Ilk ; S IMTM�1?Ta- 18ATH ST / YALU"(. R(OOE =� ��rr )ARK i ��T' ,:I .5 •. .. ass �e 34 ^ 3 :U�• ST `� .t,tinc 1 Mn S _86TH Mitt - butt N R ryce ; ° R / \9/"1 a•[ �+� �i _ti'��t� tip/ �'«'P.49L _� I t �a100 8 •. '' ,. Desimone Levee „ T Rs Se S 196TH nU stunt a9rtTrw sts 92X0 I' 1 ail 1b.) ��s 9200/ ST *I: iii < i .. ^PIRIN:4 L1KF °ARX%r— ' ..s _ , ``\�01 .) i` % sr� ;C I t4 /T -- -. t i 1 " 1 cue / H DER I . - °�` + S 194TH I . .... i 1 „ '^rte":• \.•.t :. ' /�/ °,ei9• „, Atth : •, _<' . t Ir 11 ^� ^I <� -'I. ,. / / 5600 Cat 7 - ,s/ �3 / ' ;I - < I // / g s 19eTti, !y sr 2 -- = - ^� / s 200TH ST ' 20: ;FFr -' `I - I " „FS,.: L N cool - t so . .4. t sat-c. '-. S �r. / / zoATH 1• 204TH j C T i I . _ 20671 - . Ai sT ,aL t 8 ; - - — SA (Rr PATR(CRS / CO4CTERr, Boeing 4 �, Revetment :y 4 I2 \i , an 1 t ° S ea n ^ _ z 208TH sr _ / _ST , _ ig = 21' f r14 /� ^ J :o9rH n , ST S N MN + I 4ms �•} ., o () 212TH 1 y s zTHs r ` „' y /4._. In q :10 S 216TH t a ST V AafLSCR W MAIM-CO R • SulITS lOTf">•' 11 eoGO > -• S i_ o 216TH TT sr S7 frl� 'J C I ]zM 1""`J. V” 4]70 p V.R ` 1 \ v . r'� 1 LTH`® I , 3 nl ', . 73 Sirs .� } � T T - 1 < r ^ n `i• ' ~1 Gf '� ° I Z ST li t im. - cIR it 1• SI T 1 I K - -1 '-s_ zzoin • S'i ^� 4t: ! IARA.S 1 t.uar.c I /AAR ! 3 S ��< a. l 220TH J j ST c .n. _ "sl- _ ^ = S A 221ST 1: Sr ST 1t ' _ +i}F•S',• —• I Y• �: '< TH 1. 1;� 1 n... ♦ COAT , i S 226TH • 1 226TH 8 ^. S 229TH '^ •^ K TT S i27T1 sr \ r ° n .t, ¢ HS to � .. Pk Ftv rnr., �. r- aw,„,,„ �' ST 'r 1 l i S ,n an n 9�1.n' S 225TH ST 1 1. 4 Tell 1\ 1 IA1/15 < 1" 5 22811- -•4111 �'� f 0 1/4 1/2 Scale in Miles NOTE Reproduced with permission granted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS ®. This map is copyrighted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS®. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission. All rights reserved. N Green River Bank Stabilization Projects King County, Washington VICINITY MAP July 1998 W- 7437 -03 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants FIG. 1 Sheet 1 of 2 . < <' "1 \ \`q +Im d k 4. J SIN'S l ll _ 1 1 • • , :z]6TH^ St - ,A_, -- � COLE ST �. JD _ rt S S!(( \ \ . ,n w w .ia ® ti / ® V a • . y ES PL ' ST � '�^ v v.9 . J. ' x % ' JAHES .rw e SRO sT�+ $ n = rn t A AISSfLI 4 $ tTix 3 - r to, RfvEABENO N Narita L 1 � �a Q Q-. of .. It1�. • ` KENT WEST PALL • • ,,a¢ NOTE 0 1/4 1/2 Scale in Miles Reproduced with permission granted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS ®. This map is copyrighted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS ®. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission. All rights reserved. N Green River Bank Stabilization Projects King County, Washington VICINITY MAP July 1998 W- 7437 -03 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. GeoteCutical and Environmental Cassultants FIG. 1 Sheet 2 of 2 <•. ,.... 0.4' MIN. TOPSOIL COVER 11YDROSEEO W /IIATIVE SIIIIIJR MIX AND STAKE W /CDIR COVER ON TOP UFT• ONLY FINIS!' SLOPE 0 21I:IV: HOT TO EXCEED SLOPE PROFILE PRIOR TO SLOPE FAILURE COIR FABRIC WRAPS SANDBAGS WITIIIN COIR WRAP UVE NATIVE WILLOW AND DOGWOOD CUTTINGS IN TOPSOIL LAYERS (TYPICAL)— TOP EDGE OF LAYERED BEDDING TO DE APPROX. I' ABOVE EXISTING OHW UIIE APPROX. 0.11.W. oEI N ROAD SURFACE RAGED HABITAT LOGS INTO TOE BUTTRESS (final placement to be. determined In the field) EXCAVATE /FAILED REVETMENT SLOPE CLEAN SAND & GRAVEL FILL IN GEOGRID LAYERS (typical) 0.7' TOPSOIL LAYERS QEIVIEEN GEOGRIDS FILL AND COIR WRAPS -f- LAYERED BEDDING FOR LARGE TOE ROCK 4. -6' DIAMETER ROCK TOE BUTTRESS II;I;l; l�i�i CLEAN SAND AND GRAVEL FILL 2" —0" QUARRY SPALLS LIGHT —LOOSE RIP —RAP 4' -6' ANGULAR ROCK • Green River Bank Stabilization Projects King County, Washington KING COUNTY WLRD TYPICAL RIVERSIDE SLOPE REPAIR - SOIL BIOENGINEERING TECHNIQUE July 1998 W- 7437 -03 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geoledmical and Enviionmenlal Consultants FIG. 2 GREEN RIVER 2' Maximum Discharge Stage Drawdown and Intermediate River Stages Existing Riverside Slope \4 Q. Existing Levee Existing Thalwag See Figure 8 for detail X NOT TO SCALE NOTES: 1. This cross - section is simplified for illustrative purposes. 2. See text of report for value of x for riverside slope. 3. See text of report for discussion of slope face protection. Q. Proposed Levee Existing Landside Slope Green River Bank Stabilization Projects King County, Washington ALTERNATIVE 1: SLOPE FLATTENING January 1999 W- 7437 -03 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnical and Envlronmenlal Consultants FIG. 3 GREEN RIVER 20' 1 Maximum Discharge Stage 2' Existing Riverside Slope Q. Existing Setback Levee Levee I I _ I. Z iF' : W. re 6 • U; U O D` U) W= J ur WO J: •u. Z CJ tr' 1— O •Z O N: I—: • 0, • • U. •.Z X Existing Landside Slope • 15' Drawdown and Intermediate River Stages X 20' • See Figure 8 for detail NOT TO SCALE NOTES: 1. This cross - section is simplified for illustrative purposes. 2. See text of report for value of x for riverside slope. 3. See text of report for discussion of slope face protection. + Green River Bank Stabilization Projects King County, Washington ALTERNATIVE 2: MID -SLOPE BENCH January 1999 W- 7437 -03 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geolechnical and Environmental Consultants FIG. 4 GREEN RIVER 1 20' 1 Existing Levee Landside widening as necessary to achieve required levee width T- , Maximum Discharge Stage 2' Drawdown and Intermediate River Stages Existing Riverside Slope See Figure 8 for detail t i t tt NOT TO SCALE NOTES: 1. This cross - section is simplified for illustrative purposes. 2. See text of report for value of x for riverside slope. 3. See text of report for discussion of slope face protection. Existing Landside Slope Overexcavate . and Replace with Clean Sand and Gravel Green River Bank Stabilization Projects King County, Washington ALTERNATIVE 3A: GRANULAR SHELL January 1999 W- 7437 -03 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotecnnlcal and Environmental Consultants FIG. 5 Z s Q l2�' LW D: 0` :CO p cn W W Z: • J F w O 2QQ LL 1, �. d Z �. zo •D .0 N. ,p1—, Ww. =- V : . Z F. F.; O ' �j. GREEN RIVER 20' V, Maximum Discharge Stage Drawdown and Intermediate River Stages See Figure 8 for detail Existing Riverside Slope Existing Levee Landside widening as necessary to achieve required levee width Impervious Cap of Soil 1 Existing Landside Slope X 1 15' 1 NOT TO SCALE NOTES: 1. This cross - section is simplified for illustrative purposes. 2. See text of report for value of x for riverside slope. 3. Cross drains should be spaced at regular intervals to drain collected water back into river. 4. See text of report for discussion of slope face protection. Clean Sand and Gravel TRENCH DRAIN (located at landside toe of levee or top of existing bank) Green River Bank Stabilization Projects King County, Washington ALTERNATIVE 3B: PARALLEL TRENCH DRAIN January 1999 W- 7437 -03 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geolechnlcal and Environmental Consultants FIG. 6 GREEN RIVER 1 20' 2' Maximum Discharge Stage Drawdown and Intermediate River Stages Existing Thalwag Existing Riverside Slope See Figure 8 for detail c. Existing Levee Replace with Levee Materials Landside widening as necessary to achieve required levee width 15' NOTES: TRENCH DRAIN NOT TO SCALE 1. This cross - section is simplified for illustrative purposes. 2. See text of report for value of x for riverside slope. 3. See text of report for discussion of slope face protection. Clean Sand and Gravel Existing Landside Slope Green River Bank Stabilization Projects King County, Washington ALTERNATIVE 3C: PERPENDICULAR TRENCH DRAIN January 1999 W- 7437 -03 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. GeoI chnlcal and Envlronmenlal Consultants FIG. 7 z. H W. 6D. J U. UO U !CO ILI Jam! w 0. cod` HILI _. I- O'. Z I— W ILI U lo o H; 0. u. W Z; N U O TOE OF SLOPE (existing and proposed) Existing Thalwag Elevation t 2' (min) ROCK RIPRAP NOT TO SCALE NOTES: 1. This cross - section is simplified for illustrative purposes. 2. See text of report for additional discussion. See Figures 3 - 7 for slope configuration above toe Green River Bank Stabilization Projects King County, Washington ROCK TOE PROTECTION DETAIL July 1998 W- 7437 -03 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Grolechii c I and Envitonntenlil Cunsulunls FIG. 8 ...... Z Y.2 U' 1 N 0 tO uj . J F; g u. a: Nom,. =d O' Z W uj ;U C3 1 W W' i-U'. LL.lr -:; O, ti•Z: z GREEN. RIVER 20' Maximum Discharge Stage Rock and /or Vegetation Protection for Slope Drawdown and Intermediate. River Stages Large Woody Debris 1� Existing �,i Thalwag :11it�,'i, ' '��.T �� 1111.: i � r>1rr��:li'I Existing Riverside Slope Q. Existing Levee Replace with Levee Materials Clean Sand and Gravel to act as filter NOTES: Riprap Clean Sand and Gravel NOT TO SCALE 1. This cross - section is simplified for illustrative purposes. 2. See text of report for discussion of slope face protection. Existing Landside Slope Green River Bank Stabilization Projects King County, Washington ALTERNATIVE 4: "DEADMAN " TRENCHES January 1999 W- 7437 -03 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotcchnical and Envlronmenlal Consultants FIG. 9 ..,,,-..-.. .'� lQY g; 'U 0' co i o. !CO W J w J. ;.W< Z I— O' Zt; 2 j Up • 0 rn• = W. • t— U O. Z UN O Z• Green River Ordinary High Water Q Existing Thalwag Existing Riverside Slope Existing Levee Thickened Rock Toe, 2 -3t Conventional Riprap Thickness, t Riprap Filter NOT TO SCALE NOTES: 1. This cross - section is simplified for illustrative purposes. 2. See text of report for discussion of slope face protection. 3. This figure only presents a schematic of a thickened rock toe. Additional design details - such as the incorporation of large woody debris and protection above the ordinary high water level - should be added as appropriate. Existing Landslide Slope Green River Bank Stabilization Projects King County, Washington THICKENED ROCK TOE CONCEPT January 1999 W- 7437 -03 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnlcal and Environmental Consultants FIG. 10 Z 00 =, • ui 2 J, a. Z� Z t- w o: ;o �' {W W. = V: Z Ili • SHANNON & WILSON. INC. FACTORS AFFECTING GREEN RIVER FACILITY DESIGN OPTIONS SHANNON WILSON, INC. . APPENDLX A FACTORS AFFECTING GREEN RIVER FACILITY DESIGN OPTIONS INFORMATION FOR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTATION ON GREEN RIVER FLOOD CONTROL DESIGN OPTIONS DESIGN FLOOD LEVEL OR CONDITIONS Consider two different conditions when evaluating the stability of different facility design options: 1. Assume that the water surface is 2 feet below the top of riverbank or levee top. This corresponds to an observed freeboard at the discharge of 12,000 cubic feet per second (cfs). Assume steady state conditions. 2. Assume that the water surface is 20 feet below the top of riverbank or levee top. Assume that this condition occurs after the previous one, and that rapid drawdown has occurred. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OPTIONS Consider two main structural design options, both of which were discussed at our first meeting. Within each of the two, consider specific questions as listed below. 1. The standard approach that has been used in bank stabilization projects at King County Water and Land Resource Division (WLRD) for the past six years or so. This design option has a riprap foundation with embedded logs up to Ordinary High Water, with geogrids and live willow cuttings placed up the bank. (A "typical" drawing was provided at the first meeting.) a. How steep can the project slope be in this design and still remain stable? b. What further structural amenities are needed to make a slope steeper than 2 Horizon- tal to 1 Vertical (2H: 1 V) (e.g., to match the current slope conditions onsite)? 2. No structural amenities included; excavate the riverbank to decrease (lay back) the project slope and remove overburden; revegetate the resulting bench. (A sketch of this approach was drawn on the -board at our first meeting.) a. What slope is needed in order to be stable, with no structural amenities included? • b. What minimal structural amenity is needed to achieve a 2H:1 V slope? For example, consider such features as: W 7437 -03. Rpt doc /p a c/lkd A -1 W- 743 7 -03 z , w - 0 UO wD W= - H: u_ W 0` = a. W Z F— 0' D D, o N. D WW U; 11J . Z: U =. O 4 SHANi\1ON cIW!LSON. INC. chained rootwads ► spaced log deflectors in trenches ► deadmen installed in trenches with attached longitudinally oriented large woody debris (LWD) GLOBAL CONSTRAINTS AND ASSUMPTIONS This list is intended to describe more general design constraints that affect all Green River facility repair projects, regardless of site - specific. conditions. ► At a minimum, design a repair that will be more stable than the current (damaged) conditions. Preferably, design the repair to be stable under design storm conditions. ► Design the repair to meet appropriate standards of project life. ► Minimize fish habitat impacts. ► Maximize use of LWD for flow deflection and habitat uses. ► Avoid or minimize use of rock spurs. ► Avoid or minimize channel encroachment, while creating a stable project slope. ► Optimize, the use of riverbank revegetati on in project design. ► Look for on -site mitigation; consider off -site mitigation. ► Maximize cost - effectiveness while creating a stable, well- vegetated project. W 7437 -03. Rpt doc /p a c/!kd A -2 W- 7437 -03 SHANNON (WILSON, INC. DESIMONE LEVEE STABILIZATION SITE - SPECIFIC CONSTRAINTS OR CHARACTERISTICS 1. Project name: Desimone Levee Stabilization \. 2. River Mile and River Bank: RM 15.35 to 15.55, right bank 3. Site located on outside bend of river? Yes, the levee stabilization repair reach includes two segments of outside bends, separated by an inside bend. The reach segment occupied by the inside bend is also part of the slope stabilization effort. 4. Facility type: Raised levee, height of prism above landward floodplain approximately 4 to 10 feet 5. Type of erosion causing damage: Toe erosion damage primarily due to undercutting scour of undersized riprap, combined with slumping of oversteepened, saturated embankments during rapid drawdown events following sustained high river levels. Severity of damage: Damage is severe in several short reaches of the levee, totaling approximately 500 lineal feet. The remainder of the facility is extremely oversteepened, apparently from toe erosion and shallow- seated slumping of lower embankment slopes. 7. Extent of damage: Slope stabilization efforts this year are focused in a reach of oversteepened and.flood- damaged levee embankments extending northward from the Kent city limits for approximately 1,350 lineal feet downstream in Tukwila. 8. Consequences of facility failure: A recreational trail located along the levee crest would be affected even by relatively localized, incremental damages to the embankment slopes. A breaching failure of the levee would result in flooding affecting Tukwila's Southcenter South Industrial Park, which is immediately adjacent to the levee. In addition, any levee breach would flood State Route (SR) 181, additional roadways and commercial and industrial land uses, potentially covering the eastern portions of the Green River Valley and overtopping SR 167 and large portions of the cities of Kent, Renton, and Tukwila. Damages associated with failure of this levee system could easily total several hundreds of millions of dollars. 9. Other unique aspects of site damage? The existing levee is placed precariously close to and immediately adjoining the top -of -bank of a severely oversteepened slope. Stability of W 7437 -03. Rp i doc /p a c/lkd A -3 W- 7437 -03 z a , Xw: J U: .o 0- co 0. w= J 1— W0 2 g J za �W Z I- a Z �— D p' O ▪ D. 0'--. WW 0 . z. �--_' ;O ~ z SHANNON s V\ /ILSON, INC. the levee under these conditions is likely compromised, even where flood- related damages are not already in evidence. 10. Soil or geologic site conditions: At this point, no detailed soils information has been collected. It appears the site consists of a fairly common valley profile of intermixed alluvial sands and silts, with a constructed face of undersized (light to heavy loose) riprap. In the lower and middle bank zones, alluvial deposits of silt and sand now sit on top of the riprap layer. In many cases, it is these deposits that have slumped and failed; sometimes involving a deeper- seated failure through the rock layer. The railed containment levee fill prism (above the floodplain elevation) appears to be constructed of imported and compacted sand. and gravel fill materials, with no riprap facing in evidence. The site is located immediately across the river channel from portions of the Segale Levee, for which a detailed body of soils investigations, findings, and analyses have been produced. It is highly likely the soils materials comprising the Desimone Levee embankment are closely similar to those across the river at the Segale site. 11. Approximate project construction budget: Current construction budget is $300,000. 12. Describe land -use constraints on project slope gradient: The levee stabilization reach adjoins three separate commercial properties. At the upstream end of the repair reach, a large parking lot serving an existing warehouse abuts the landward toe of the levee, with this edge defined by a chain link fence. This property owner has agreed in principal to cooperate in setting the levee back, to overlap and intrude past the existing fenceline by a distance varying from about 8 feet at the northern (downstream) property line, to about 16 feet at the southern (upstream property line). The fenceline will be relocated to the new, setback location. A row of 25- year -old poplar trees is growing along the landward levee slope on this parcel as well. It is anticipated these trees will be removed and used within the water column of the Green River as fish habitat structures, also perhaps providing for some levels of flow deflection along the riverward toe of the existing levee slope. The next parcel downstream is presently under construction. Developers of this commercial structure agreed to modify their site plans and set the proposed structure back a minimum distance of 36 feet from the landward edge of the existing asphalt trail to allow construction of a setback levee configuration. A buried conveyance line serving the roof drains along the back wall of the building is proposed within the most landward 5 or 6 feet of this setback area. Currently, the plans also show a waterline serving a fire hydrant, to be located along the landward edge of the asphalt trail. The project engineers are modifying the current plans to allow placement of this water line within the same setback area proposed for construction of the roof drain conveyance line. A means of serving the proposed fire hydrant from this line will also have to be developed, consistent with the setback levee alignment. The top width of the levee will also need to be increased from 16 feet to 20 feet adjoining this parcel, to serve as a fire lane. Parking stalls now proposed within the levee setback area at the northwest corner of the site will also have to be relocated on revised site plans to accommodate the levee setback. W 7437 -03. Rpt doc/p a c/lkd W- 7437 -03 SHANNON &WILSON, INC. The third parcel at the downstream end of the levee stabilization reach is a small triangular segment of a larger parcel supporting a warehouse and distribution center for a manufacturer of floor coverings. This triangular segment of the larger property is separated from all actively used portions of the site by an existing railway spur line. ~w re 2 u6M JU 0 O0. N cn w w= These property owners have also agreed in principal to setting back the levee on a portion of this site area. The levee curves eastward and then northward here, closely abutting the existing railway spur line at the downstream limits of the project. Proximity of the railway spur limits the extent to which the levee can be set back at the northerly limits of the stabilization reach. Two or three poplars also present at this site on the landward levee slope will also have to be removed. This will also be used instream for fish habitat improvements to the water column. U) u. w0 13. Logistic constraints: Construction activities may impact on work separately scheduled by u_a developers of the parcel now under construction. Coordination of setback levee relocation = w with the developer's installation of footings, roof drain conveyance lines, and the water line z = will be necessary. It is anticipated this site work will be completed and allow for levee 1-- O construction after August 15, 1998. In addition, access to the site is constrained by a single w w entry from SR 18.1 in a high traffic area, followed by a long drive down the levee. For M o construction traffic to exit at the other end of the project, a new access ramp will need to be 8 cn,, provided: This may require coordination with a fourth property owner at this location. Use _ o _; of the levee crest as a recreational trail is heavy during all times of the year, but especially = v uj during the summer construction season. This will require careful attention to construction u~. R traffic routes, signage, flaggers, and attendants to all equipment. The trail will have to be ` z restored and repaved following construction. . v N OI' 14. Site constraints affecting construction: Overall height of the existing levee from the toe - of -slope at the riverbed to the crest of the levee at the top -of -bank is in excess of 30 vertical feet. Even large hydraulic excavators working from the levee crest cannot reach into the water column to remove failed slope materials, or to place new materials. The longest available reach provided by specialized hydraulic excavation equipment will extend approximately to the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of the river. Because of the reach involved, only excavation and placement of soils and smaller rock materials can be accomplished even with this specialized excavator working at this distance. It is possible for large dragline equipment to work within the OHWM from the levee crest. This would allow for excavation and removal of failed levee toe and slumping embankment materials. Placement of logs for fish habitat improvements, trenching and rock fills for log anchoring, and placement of toe rock into the water column are all possible with larger dragline equipment, but with rather poor precision in overall performance, and at high cost. An additional concern is that even large draglines are hard - pressed to handle the larger rock sizes (4- to 6- foot - diameters) preferred for instream habitat purposes. Once toe work has been completed with the dragline, all soils shaping and placement can then be accomplished with the long-reach excavator. W7437 -03. Rpt. doc/pec/lkd A -5 W- 743 7 -03 z SHANNON & 1VILSON, INC. Alternatively, setting back the levee could possibly provide enough room on the mid -slope alluvial depositional "bench" for more conventional excavators to perform instream work, including log trenches and rock placement, if needed. One problem with this approach, however, is the poor structural characteristics of these alluvial materials, together with the oversteepened configuration and obvious slumping failures present in the underlying riverbank areas. A temporary slope cut into the base of the setback levee location may provide for adequate staging of such equipment, but has the drawback of once again increasing the reach length involved. A 25 -foot distance is about the maximum reach comfortably suited to this equipment. If neither option is suited to instream work, a deeper ramp cut and a more extensive reconstruction of the lower slopes and toe areas may be needed to support conventional excavators closely enough to the water to facilitate instream work. This will probably cost enough to effectively disallow levee setback construction and instream work to both be accomplished under the existing budget, at least over the proposed project reach in its entirety. Scaling back the project may be necessary under these construction constraints. 15. Other compelling, useful, site - specific information? Vegetation on the levee face currently consists of mostly invasive species such as blackberries and reed canary grass. Landward Slopes currently range from 2H:1 V to much flatter. The landward elevations along the toe of the levee also vary, effectively allowing for greater setback dimensions in some areas than others. Smooth transitions of the levee alignment over distances of several hundreds of feet are still required, however, due to the need to maintain recreational trail alignments along the levee crest. Poplars and a stand of plum trees along various portions of the landward slope are all proposed for removal to facilitate the proposed setback. These will all be placed instream for improved fish habitat cover and possibly some added toe protection and flow deflection. W 743 7 -03 . Rp t. d o c/p a c/lkd A -6 W- 7437 -03 SHANNON iV' /ILSON, INC. BOEING REVETMENT REPAIR SITE- SPECIFIC CONSTRAINTS OR CHARACTERISTICS 1. Project name: BOEING 17.62 2. River Mile and River Bank: RM 17.62, Right Bank 3. Site located on outside bend of river? Moderate outside bend. 4. Facility type: This facility is a bank protection revetment. 5. Type of erosion causing damage: I would call it a saturation slump that occurred during drawdown. A clay layer exposed at the bottom of the slump area may have contributed to the erosion. Severity of damage: Moderate. 7. Extent of damage: The slump measures about 100 lineal feet along the river's edge, and occurred in only one section. 8. Consequences of facility failure: Consequences of' further damage or outright failure of this facility are in the realm of further erosion rather than flood flow inundation. The nearby edge of Russell Road is higher elevation than the top of this revetment. Consequences of further erosion in any one event are LOW, due to the ample (40 to 50 feet) horizontal distance from the top of scarp to edge of Russell Road pavement. The potential for ongoing erosion and ultimate threat to Russell Road is the main reason to repair this facility. Other unique aspects of site damage? There appears to be a mild channel constriction just upstream of the slump that results in this site having an eddy along the waterline. This might be incorporated into or affect the design of the repair. 10. Soil or geologic site conditions: It is assumed that the riverbanks here consist of alluvial sand and silt. Also, there is a clay layer near the bottom of the slump. A similar clay layer was encountered in repairing a damaged facility about 0.2 miles upstream. 11. Approximate project construction budget: Approx. $90,000. • 12. Describe land -use constraints on project slope gradient. There is ample horizontal distance so that there should be no constraints on achieving a 2H: I V project slope gradient. W 7437 -03. R pt d oc /p a cllk d A -7 W- 7437 -03 •• z . =z Jo • U O; to �. cn w. w J . .N w O: g w¢ X; O. WH La O —, • :al—, wW u_ Z H - : _ w .O z SHANNON iWIL SON, INC. 13. Logistic constraints: There should be no right -of -way or easement constraints to this repair. The area between Russell Road and the Green River is owned by the City of Kent, a cooperator in these repair projects. 14. Site constraints affecting construction: There should be none. Aside from ample operating room at the.slump site, there is also room for a ramp, if needed. 15. Other compelling, useful, site - specific information? If anything, the level of damage, the general site conditions, and road location present very few constraint4 on repair design at this site. There is probably more opportunity at this site than at others to try out different, previously untested designs. W 7437- 03.Rpt.doc /pec/lkd A -8 W- 743 7 -03 S', -1/ NNON i A 1LSON, INC. NARITA LEVEE STABILIZATION SITE SPECIFIC CONSTRAINTS OR CHARACTERISTICS 1. Project name: Narita Levee 2. River Mile and River Bank: RM 20.4 to 21.3, right bank 3. Site located on outside bend of river ?: Yes, with a radius of curvature between 500 and 550 feet (the Green River is about 70 to 90 feet wide through this reach). Facility type: Raised levee, height of prism above landward floodplain approximately 4 to 5 feet. Type of erosion causing damage: Erosion damage primarily due to scour of undersized riprap combined with saturation slumping due to oversteepened bank and high river levels. Toe erosion may also be a contributing factor. 6. Severity of damage: Damage is severe in several short reaches of the levee, totaling approximately 200 lineal feet. The remainder of the facility suffers from surficial erosion and lower bank, shallowly- seated slumping only. Extent of damage: See No. 6 above. 8. Consequences of facility failure: The nature of the consequences would depend greatly on the severity and completeness of the failure. The facility immediately protects a recreational trail that sits atop the levee•prism and the Riverbend Golf Course, which is located immediately adjacent to the levee's landward side. Thus, erosion during sub - bankfull flows would have localized, moderate consequences. Given that Narita functions as a flood control Levee, however, a complete failure could lead to overbank flooding on the east side of the Green River Valley, potentially inundating several roads and neighborhoods within the City of Kent. 9. Other unique aspects of site damage? The paved recreational trail on top of the levee exhibits several areas of fracture cracks, presumably due to the bank slumping. 10. Soil or geologic site conditions: At this point, no detailed soils information has been collected. It appears the site consists of a fairly common valley profile of intermixed alluvial sands and silts, with a constructed face of undersized (light to heavy loose) riprap. In the lower bank zone, alluvial deposits now sit on top of the riprap layer; in many cases, it is these deposits that have slumped and failed. There is a risk that, if not repaired, this failure of the recently deposited alluvium could lead to a deeper - seated failure through the rock layer. In fact, this may have already occurred in the most severe W 7437 -03. Rpt. doc/p edlkd A -9 W- 7437 -03 z ,,mow` re • 0 O' 'CO WI J =` N LL w0. LLQ co a Cy F- 2 I-, F-0: z�. 11J uf 0• � lW. _• U LL O: ui z 4e. S- 1ANN0N & ILSON, INC. failure locations. The upper levee prism (above the floodplain elevation). was likely constructed.of coarser materials, again with a riprap facing. 11. Approximate project construction budget: Current construction budget is $160,000. z It is likely that up to $80,000 in additional funds could be made available if the selected \- 1— w et design alternative clearly achieved not only flood protection, but also environmental goals over a significant reach length. 6 v 00 00 12. Describe land -use constraints on project slope gradient: Given that the floodplain use w w' is a golf course operated on land owned by the City of Kent, the City's support for the —J F— project will largely dictate our ability to lay the slope back. It appears we have at least w 0 Public Works Department support, so it is likely we can use some additional right-of-way 2 if necessary. 2:1 would likely be acceptable; perhaps even 2.5:1. Repair should be g Q evaluated, however, as if no limit exists. Current slope angle (toe to top of prism) varies v0 d. from approximately 1.4:1 to 2:1, with most angles falling around 1.6:1. "Full -on repair" x w should be evaluated for stability at 1.5:1. z = I- 0 zI-. 13. Logistic constraints: None. King County river protection easement allows use of as w w much landward area as necessary; constraint is what the city and golf course operator will ' , v p allow (see No. 12 above). ;0 P w uj 14. Site constraints affecting construction: Access is good along paved recreational trail. i v. Cutting a ramp to the water line is feasible; however, a ramp partway down the bank u. ~O. could risk danger of slumping underneath equipment. In order to perform toe work from w z the top of the levee prism, the effective reach length of the equipment would need to . U =? approach 60 feet in places (bank height is 30+ feet, lateral distance is 50± feet.). This z F." may be impossible to achieve with conventional excavators with a thumb. Working off of a wide bench constructed at final grade might allow toe access. Alternatively, devising a construction methodology not requiring a thumb could allow work from the top of bank. . 15. Other compelling, useful, site - specific information? Vegetation on the levee face currently consists of mostly invasive species such as blackberries and reed canary grass. At least one landscape tree on the levee face may have to be moved or worked around during construction. Landward Slopes are currently landscaped with golf course grass, and in some cases include planted landscape trees that may need to be replaced or relocated if the prism is moved landward. Additional right -of -way requirements under the "flattened slope" alternative may be possible to minimize by steepening the back slope (in many cases, it currently exceeds 5:1). W 7437 -03. Rpt doc /p ec/Ikd A -10 • W- 7437 -03 • SI- L' NNON W. ILSON, INC: PIPELINE REVETMENT REPAIR SITE SPECIFIC CONSTRAINTS OR CHARACTERISTICS 1. Project name: Pipeline Revetment Repair 2. River Mile and River Bank: RM 21.9 to 22.0, right bank 3. Site located on outside bend of river ?: Yes, the repair reach occupies the downstream portion of a nearly right- angled outside bend. The upstream reach segment of this sharply angled outside bend, known as the Okimoto Revetment, was stabilized in 1993. 4. Facility type: This facility was originally constructed as a revetment, with an access roadway raised only a few feet above the grade of the adjoining floodplain. Because of its historic classification as a revetment, it currently qualifies for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) disaster assistance for revetment repairs. Notwithstanding this administrative classification, a large detention pond was constructed by excavation of the floodplain landward of the levee around 1991. Because of this excavation, the facility now effectively serves as a river containment levee, standing up to approximately 10 feet in elevation above the bottom of the adjacent pond. Following repairs this summer, it is highly likely this facility will be reclassified as a river levee by the Corps of Engineers (COE). Type of erosion causing damage: Toe erosion damage primarily due to undercutting scour of undersized riprap, combined with slumping of oversteepened, saturated embankments during rapid drawdown events following sustained high river levels. Because of the sharp angle associated with this outer bend, the thalweg of the Green River is very close to the toe -of -slope along the embankment here, and unusually deep. Flows against the bank are relatively high- velocity for the lower Green River, about 8 to 10 fps, depending on river stage. The combined effects of the deep river channel, higher flow velocities, undersized riprap, and toe -scour here are exacerbated by the extremely oversteepened character of the embankment slope. 6. Severity of damage: Damage is severe in several short reaches of the levee, totaling approximately 150 lineal feet. The remainder of the facility repair reach, totaling 500 lineal feet in all, is extremely oversteepened, apparently from toe erosion and shallow - seated slumping of lower embankment slopes. Original project construction is also a factor, as adequate attention to slope angles appears to have been overlooked. 7. Extent of damage: Slope stabilization efforts this year are limited to the 500 lineal feet of oversteepened and flood - damaged embankments called out in FEMA's Damage Survey Report. This reach extends just upstream from the southerly dead -end of the Russell Road Right -of -Way in Kent. W7437 -03. Rpldoc /pec/lkd A -11 W- 743 7 -03 • *1 SHANNON JWILSON, INC.. Consequences of facility failure: A recreational trail located along the levee crest would be affected even by relatively localized, incremental damages to the embankment slopes. A breaching failure of the levee somewhere near or in this reach occurred in 1965, flooding the entire eastern portion of the Green River Valley. Similar breaching failures occurring today would result in flooding of a number of multi - family residential units immediately adjacent to the facility. In addition, any levee breach would flood both downtown Kent and additional roadways and commercial and industrial land uses, potentially covering the eastern portions of the Green River Valley and overtopping SR 167 and large portions of the cities of Kent, Renton, and Tukwila. Damages associated with failure of this levee system could easily total several hundreds of millions of dollars. 9. Other unique aspects of site damage? The existing facility is placed precariously close to and immediately adjoining the top -of -bank of a severely oversteepened slope. Stability of the levee under these conditions is likely compromised, even where flood - related damages are not already in evidence. 10. Soil or geologic site conditions: At this point, no detailed soils information has been collected. It appears the site consists of a fairly common valley profile of intermixed alluvial sands and silts, with a constructed face of undersized (light to heavy loose) riprap. Very few alluvial deposits of silt and sand are present in the lower and middle bank zones, due to the higher velocity flows present. Deeper undercutting of the toe -of- slope has a potential to result in deeper seated slope failures on these oversteepened embankments than are commonly present elsewhere along the Lower Green River. The site is located immediately downstream from portions of the river bank repaired in 1993 at the Okimoto Revetment. Large -scale excavation of the slopes involved in that repair revealed occasional deposits of smaller riprap extending several feet into the slope, with the bulk of the material composed of alluvial deposits of silty fine sands and sandy silts. Similar materials were involved in deep - seated slope failures further upstream as well at both the Signature Pointe Lower and Upper Revetment repairs constructed in 1996 and 1997, respectively. At the Signature Pointe Upper site, near River Mile 22.8, these more recent alluvial deposits were found to overlie earlier White River deposits of darker; coarser sands at depths of up to 20 feet. It is highly likely the soils materials comprising the Pipeline Levee embankment are closely similar to those encountered at these upstream locations. 11. Approximate project construction budget: Current construction budget is $121,000. 12. Describe land -use constraints on project slope gradient: The repair reach adjoins a large detention pond serving adjoining multifamily residential properties. This pond is located on private property, only a portion of which is within King County's historic River Protection Easement area. Modifying the steep river embankment slopes will require setting back the existing recreational trail along the crest of the de -facto levee segment here. This will require, in turn, either setting the existing levee cross - section back into a portion of the pond, steepening the landward side of the levee forming the W 7437 -03. Rpt doc /p a c/lkd • A -12 W- 7437 -03 SHANNON iWILSON, INC. riverward margins of the pond as well, or some combination of both. In all likelihood, this will require additional easements and/or agreements with the property owner involved. The City of Kent maintains easements here along the trail for recreational use and for maintenance of the levee, in addition to King County's easements for this latter purpose. These City easements may also require modification for this work to proceed. Kent has clearly stated its willingness and interest in cooperating with King County in stabilizing this facility along the affected reach. At the same time, Kent engineering staff believe the detention pond in question is no longer needed, at least not at its original design capacity, inasmuch as regional detention improvements subsequently constructed by the City of Kent have provided for storage formerly required at this site. Kent is willing to assist in negotiations with the property owner involved in order to facilitate any encroachment into the excavated pond area reasonably necessary for slope stabilization repairs. 13. Logistic constraints: Use of the levee crest as a recreational trail is heavy during all times of the year, but especially during the summer construction season. This will require careful attention to construction traffic routes, signage, flaggers, and attendants to all equipment. Staging of truck traffic will be made difficult by the single point of entry and egress present off Russell Road. The trail will have to be restored and repaved following construction. Chain link fencing along the landward edge will have to be relocated and replaced following construction. Vandalism of construction equipment has been frequently experienced in this neighborhood in the past. 14. Site constraints affecting construction: Overall height of the existing levee from the toe -of -slope at the riverbed to the crest of the levee at the top -of -bank is in excess of 30 vertical feet. Even large hydraulic excavators working from the levee crest cannot reach into the water column to remove failed slope materials, or to place new materials. The longest available reach provided by specialized hydraulic excavation equipment will extend approximately to the OHWM of the river. Because of the reach involved, only excavation and placement of soils and smaller rock materials can be accomplished even with this specialized excavator working at this distance. It is possible for large dragline equipment to work within the OHWM from the levee crest. This would allow for excavation and removal of failed levee toe and slumping embankment materials. Placement of logs for fish habitat improvements, trenching and rock fills for log anchoring, and placement of toe rock into the water column are all possible with larger dragline equipment, but with rather poor precision in overall performance, and at high cost. An additional concern is that even large draglines are hard - pressed to handle the larger rock sizes (4- to 6- foot - diameters) preferred for instream habitat purposes. Once toe work has been completed with the dragline, all soils shaping and placement can then be accomplished with the long -reach excavator. Alternatively, setting back the levee could possibly provide enough room on a constructed mid -slope "bench" for more conventional excavators to perform instream work, including log trenches and rock placement, if needed. One problem with this approach, however, is the poor structural characteristics of the embankment materials,. W 7437- 03.Rpt doc/pecllkd A -13 W- 743 7 -03 » ' • , S'riA,NNCN &WILSON. iNIC. together with the oversteepened configuration and obvious slumping failures present in the underlying riverbank areas. A temporary slope cut into the base of the setback levee location may provide for adequate staging of such equipment, but has the drawback of once again increasing the reach length involved. A 25 -foot distance is about the maximum reach comfortably suited to this equipment. If neither option is suited to instream work, a more extensive reconstruction of the lower slopes and toe areas may be needed to support conventional excavators closely enough to the water to facilitate instream work. This will. probably cost enough to effectively disallow levee setback construction and instream work to both be accomplished under the existing budget, at least over the proposed project reach in its entirety. Scaling back the project may be necessary under these construction constraints. One minor cost savings may be found, however, in that an access.ramp currently exists at the upstream end of the project repair reach. 15. Other compelling, useful, site - specific information? Vegetation on the levee face currently consists of dense stands of invasive blackberries. These will need to be removed and replaced with native woody species of riparian vegetation. Landward Slopes currently range from roughly 2H:1V to somewhat flatter. The landward elevations along the toe of the levee are rather uniformly about 10 feet in elevation below the levee crest. The pond depth overall is some 6 to 8 feet below the grade of the adjoining multifamily structures. Based on Kent's findings that the pond is no longer needed for detention purposes, it may be.possible and even desirable to fill in all or portions thereof. This may effectively reduce seepage gradients otherwise posing potentially questionable stability risks for levee foundation materials. Several 15- foot -high firs and cedars are currently growing along the landward slopes of the levee structure. These would have to be removed and relocated or replaced for a setback configuration to be achieved. W 7437 -03. Rpt doc /p ec/lkd A -14 W- 743 7 -03 APPENDIX B REFERENCES AND LITERATURE SUMMARY &WILSON, INC. W- 7437 -03 6 JU; U 0: cn W W =: N LL. ILI 0 u. co =a w' zF F- a z uj . o— 01. O • SHANNON F&WILSON. INC. APPENDIX B REFERENCES AND LITERATURE SUMMARY American Society for Testing and Materials (1997), Standard Designation: D 6092 -97, "Standard Practice for Specifying Standard Sizes of Stone for Erosion Control," West Conshohocken, PA. Anchor Wall Systems (1997), Comprehensive Lab Study Finds SRWs Stand up to Severe Shoreline Conditions," CM Landscapes, pp. 18 -20. Anderson, A.G.; Paintal, A.S., and Davenport, J.T. (1970), "Tentative Design Procedure for Riprap -Lined Channels," Highway Research Board, Division of Engineering, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 108, 78 p. Brown, S.A., and Clyde, E.S. (1989), Design of Riprap Revetment, Federal Highway Administration, FHWA -IP -89 -016, HEC -11, 168 p. California. Department of Transportation (1996), California Bank and Shore Rock Slope Protection Design, Practitioner's Guide and Field Evaluations of Riprap Methods; Report No. FHWA- CA- TL- 95 -10, Caltrans Study No. F9OTL03, 151 p. Coppin, N.J., and Richards, I.G., Eds. (1990), Use of Vegetation in Civil Engineering, Butterworths, London, 292 p. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (1989), Flood Insurance Study, King County, Washington and Incorporated Areas. Frobel, R.K., Werner, G., and Wewerka, M. (1987), "Geotextiles as Filters in Erosion Control," Geotextile Testing and the Design Engineer, ASTM STP 952, J.E. Fluet, Jr., Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 45 -54. Gray, D.H., and Solir, R.B. (1996), Biotechnical and Soil Bioengineering Slope Stabilization, A Practical Guide for Erosion Control, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 378 p. Lutyens, D. (1997), "The ECTC's Installation Guidelines for Rolled Erosion - Control Products," Geotechnical Fabrics Report, Vol. 15, No. 6, pp. 28 -32. Maynord, S.T. (1988), Stable Riprap Size for Open Channel Flows, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Technical Report HL -88 -4, 115 p. Maynord, S.T. (1995), "Gabion- Mattress Channel - Protection Design," Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 121, No. 7, pp. 519 -522. W 7437 -03. Rpt doc /p a c/ikd B -1 W- 7437 -03 SHANNON bWILSON, INC. Miller, D.E. (1997), "Fabric- encapsulated Soil Method for River Bank Stabilization," Geotechnical Fabrics Report, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 48 -53. Murthy, Y.K. (1971), "Use of Horizontal Sand Drains to Reduce Pore Water Pressures in Upstream Section of Earth Dams," Irrigation and Power, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 245 -252. Northcutt, P. (1995), Final Performance Analysis Through the 1994 Test Cycle, Class 1 Slope Protection, Texas Department of Transportation, 80 p. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army (1994), Engineering and Design, Hydraulic Design of Flood Control Channels, Engineering Manual No. 1110 -2 -1601, Change 1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army (1982), Engineering and Design, Stability of Earth and Roc197ll Dams Engineering Manual No. 1110 -2 -1902, Change 1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army (1978), Engineering and Design, Design and Construction of Levees, Engineering Manual No. 1110 -2 -1913. Wong, K.S., Duncan, J.M., and Seed, H.B. (1983), Comparisons ofMethods of Rapid Drawdown Stability Analysis, University of California - Berkeley, Department of Civil Engineering, Report No. UCB /GT/82 -05. Wright, S.G. (1990), UTEXAS3: A Computer Program for Slope Stability Calculations, Shinoak Software, Austin, TX, 158 p. W7437 -03.Rptdoc/pedlkd W- 7437 -03 • , _ • - W. 0 0' 1 (I) o, CD w' J N LL> w 0; LL =o. I- w z�.; �o z 1-- w w' d c ;0 N; i w;. 1— V LL 6 u i Z U� ■ O SHANNON edWILSON, INC. APPENDIX c ELEMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN A MONITORING PROGRAM W-7437-03 SHANNON &WILSON, INC. APPENDIX C ELEMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN A MONITORING PROGRAM To determine the effectiveness of a design, it is essential to develop a long -term monitoring program. This program should include periodic inspections to the site and a record of observations during that visit. An example of a form that Shannon & Wilson, Inc., uses for levee inspection work is included at the end of this appendix. This form should be filled out completely each time a site visit is made so that a time - record can be made. One of the important aspects in understanding the conditions along the Green River is the reason for instability. It is suspected that rapid drawdown conditions cause many of the slides in the riverbank. At the same time, it is recognized that toe scour also leads to instability by undermining the toe of the slope. The actual cause of landsliding may involve both of these components. To the extent possible, future monitoring along the Green River should include inspections during drawdown to determine when failures occur. Similarly, low -water level measurements of toe conditions should be made to document the time change in scour and erosion to better define its role in bank instability. Finally, records should be made of the river stages or the rate of drawdown that appear to cause instability. For example, one method of better understanding the role of rapid drawdown would be to compare two similar flood events, one during slow drawdown and the other during relatively rapid drawdown. If damages from such events are similar, then the role of drawdown may be less than toe erosion or vice - versa. It would also be useful to maintain a record of damages from slope stability associated with different high river stages to better predict repair costs during high river events. The change in groundwater during the rise of the Green River and its subsequent lowering also should be monitored. This information will be useful in determining the lag time of porewater pressure in the slope and its effect on the stability of the riverward slopes. It is possible that this could be done using existing groundwater monitoring wells installed by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., as part of the Segale Levee improvement project. It is also possible that the COE monitoring wells can be found and used for this purpose. King County Materials Laboratory has used data loggers in piezometers we installed above Big Soos Creek as a means to provide a continuous record of groundwater fluctuations with time for slope stability evaluation purposes. This equipment could be available for drawdown measurement purposes. Additional recommenda- tions are presented in the main text of the report. W7437 -03.Rpt.doc /pec/lkd C -1 W- 7437 -03 • t SHANNON NON WILSON, INC. SHANNON & WILSON, INC. LEVEE CONDITION SURVEY DATA SHEET INSPECTOR: INSPECTION DATE: REASON FOR INSPECTION: Levee Designation: Location: Length: Setback (Yes/No, Distance): Type of Levee: . Height: Top Width: Riverward Side Slope: Landward Side Slope: Date of Construction: Previous Repairs: Previous Inspections: Observations (Provide details on location, size, extent, etc.): Impinging Flow: Depressions: Erosion: Slope Instability: Cracking: Animal Burrows: Unwanted Levee Growth: Encroachments: Slope Protection: Seepage/Piping at Face: Other: SITE SKETCH (as appropriate): W7437- 03.Rpt. doc/pec/lkd • W- 7437 -03 C -2 SHANNON c;WILSON. INC. APPENDIX D GROUNDWATER SAMPLING REPORT BOEING REVETMENT REPAIR, M.P. 17.62 W- 7437 -03 • JU1. O.OE N Wt W= W O�: J _Z.H' • • H.= Z ♦ " Butler, Terri From: Clarke, Sue Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 11:41 AM To: Butler, Terry Cc: Clark, Dave Subject: Green River Sampling On August 6, 1998 water samples were taken below a seep from the bank of the Green River at the Boeing 17.62 Project site. Water samples were analyzed for microtox and fuel/oil. A pH test was taken in the field and the result was 7.2. The samples were taken to the King County Environmental lab for analysis. The test on the microtox sample was negative. The analysis incorporates flathead minnow, rainbow trout, water flea, and green alga to determine toxicity. The HDIC test for oils /petroleum products came back with a no detection at method limits. A full, written report from the Environmental Lab will follow in approximately 30 days. A copy will be forwarded to you for your files. Previous to the above analysis, an in house test was run using a Biological Activity Reaction Tube. This test is designed to indicate the absence or presence of Iron Related Bacteria. This test indicated a definite presence of the bacteria. Also, the orangish -brown residue below the seep is a positive field indicator of iron related bacteria. For your information, here are a few facts about iron related bacteria. There are three common bacteria that metabolize iron from water around them and deposit the metabolized by product in the .form of hydrated ferric oxide. The large amount of orange /brown slime that is produced may produce an unpleasant odor and an oily sheen on the water around the slime. There are no health hazards associated with the deposits. The bacteria is considered to be *a nuisance except in severe cases in drinking water supplies, where some treatment is available to destroy the bacteria. The Boeing Company has a Large parkin lot and radar testing area across Frager Rd. above the seep. The storm drains were checked for any possible connections between the storm drains and the seep area. All of the pipes go to the north, south or east. No pipes were found that could carry stormwater or pollutants from the Boeing property to the location of the seep, or in the direction of the river. The storm drainage system was clean and all drains were • stenciled with the "dump no waste" message. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Page 1 King County Water and Land Resources Division Environmental Laboratory Department of Natural Resources 32.2 West Ewing Street Seattle, WA 98119 -1507 (206) 684-2300 September 16, 1998 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Kerry Thrasher, Administrative Specialist WLRD, Regional Watershed Teams Mary Silva, Laboratory Project Manager WLRD, Environmental Laboratory • 1rsy- k y J C.-5A (2...tQ • '..1.• • ' 1 Attached Report for Project 4211958F, Water Quality Enforcement Samples L13984 -1. Attached is the comprehensive report for the water sample delivered to the laboratory on August 6, 1998. The sample was analyzed in the microbiology and organics sections of the laboratory. QA /QC data summaries are included for your information. Microbiology: The sample was delivered to the microbiology lab on August 6, 1998. Microtox analysis was performed and the sample was found to be NONTOXIC. Microtox Background Information • Microtox is a bioassay that uses luminescent bacteria commonly found in the sea as the test organism. It measures toxicity by the percent reduction of light production as a function of sample concentration. These organisms are packaged in a lyophilized state by the Microbics Corp., are mixed with a reconstitution fluid, and become a suspension that can be used for testing. Small standardized aliquots of the suspended, reconstituted organisms (containing about one million of the organisms) are transferred to a cuvette containing 0.5 ml of a standard diluent and allowed to stabilize the amount of light production. To these stabilized organisms varying known concentrations of a suspect toxicant are added, and the resulting loss of light production is monitored over time. The measure of light reduction is recorded in units called gamma. Gamma is the percentage of Tight reduction divided by 100 percent minus the percentage of light reduction ( %LR /(100 %- %LR)). Microtox results are reported in concentrations of toxicant that cause 50% light reduction. This value is called the EC50, or Effective Concentration of the toxicant to reduce the light output by 50% in a specified time interval. Concentrations are in the units of ppm or mg /kg; they may also be reported as % of .sample. The EC50 is measured at different time intervals of 5,15, and 30 minutes. The larger the gamma, the larger the reduction in light output. If the sample is toxic, the gammas will become larger as the working concentrations of the sample become larger. Negative gammas signify an increase of light output by the organisms and are indicative of a stimulatory effect by the sample. If the gamma is converted to natural logs and •91798.doe Page 1 h 1' graphed against the natural Togs of the concentrations, generally there will be a linear correlation. This will, of course, vary depending on the toxicant. Standard procedure for testing samples with Microtox involves challenging four replicates of the organisms with different dilutions of the sample. Dilutions of the sample are mixed 1:2 with the diluent containing the test organisms. The original sample is diluted 1:2 three more times and added to the diluent containing the organisms to give the final volumes of the original sample used in the test of 1:2, 1:4, 1:8 and 1:16. Converting these dilutions to parts per million of the original sample will give 500,000- 250,000- 125,000 and 62,500 ppm respectively. Due to the test procedure the highest sample concentration that can be tested is 500,000 ppm (unless the sample is physically concentrated). EC50 values are calculated by a Basic program supplied by the manufacturer. The EC50 values are derived, stated simply, by performing a natural log conversion on the gamma values and concentrations, and taking a linear regression. In mathematical terms the EC50 is the concentration, derived from the regression line, at which the log value of the gammas equals zero. Ninety -five percent confidence intervals are calculated by the program depending on the variance of the data points from the calculated linear regression line. An EC50 value will be more robust when a greater number of points are used to calculate the linear regression. The ninety -five percent confidence interval of the calculated EC50 value will be smaller as the variance of the data points from the regression line diminishes. Conventionals: WTPH -HCID Analysis WTPH -HCID screen analysis for this sample and QC were performed by method WDOE NWTPH- HC1D method using gas chromatography -FID techniques. Please note this method replaces WDOE WTPH -HCID and will be used for all future sample analyses. There we no anomalies associated with the extraction and analysis of this sample. No fuel products were found. The data have passed all internal QA /QC checks for accuracy and completeness and may be used without qualification. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at 684 -2359. 091798.doc Page 2 SHANNON V VILJON. !NC. APPENDIX E IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL REPORT W- 7437 -03 ).111111 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants W- 7437 -03 Attachment to Report Dated: January 22, 1999 Page 1 of 2 To: Entranco Attn: Mr. Ralph Nelson Important Information About Your Geotechnical/Environmental Report CONSULTING SERVICES ARE PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES AND FOR SPECIFIC CLIENTS. Consultants prepare reports to meet the specific needs of specific individuals. A report prepared for a civil engineer may not be adequate for a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise, your consultant prepared your report expressly for you and expressly for the purposes you indicated. No one other than you should apply this report for its intended purpose without first conferring with the consultant. No party should apply this report for any purpose other than that originally contemplated without first conferring with the consultant. THE CONSULTANT'S REPORT IS BASED ON PROJECT - SPECIFIC FACTORS. A geotechnicaVenvironmental report is based on a subsurface exploration plan designed to consider a unique set of project - specific factors. Depending on the project, these may include: the general nature of the structure and property involved; its size and configuration; its historical use and practice; the location of the structure on the site and its orientation; other improvements such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities; and the additional risk created by scope -of- service limitations imposed by the client. To help avoid costly problems, ask the consultant to evaluate how any factors that change subsequent to the date of the report may affect the recommendations. Unless your consultant indicates otherwise, your report should not be used: (1) when the nature of the proposed project is changed (for example, if an office building will be erected instead of a parking garage, or if a refrigerated warehouse will be built instead of an unrefrigerated one, or chemicals are discovered on or near the site); (2) when the size, elevation, or configuration of the proposed project is altered; (3) when the location or orientation of the proposed - project is modified; (4) when there is a change of ownership; or (5) for application to an adjacent site. Consultants cannot accept responsibility for problems that may occur if they are not consulted after factors which were considered in the development of the report have changed. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE. Subsurface conditions may be affe ^ted as a result of natural processes or human activity. Because a geotechnical/environmental report is based on conditions that existed at the time of subsurface exploration, construction decisions should not be based on a report whose adequacy may have been affected by time. Ask the consultant to advise if additional tests are desirable before construction starts; for example, groundwater conditions commonly vary seasonally. Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and natural events such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions and, thus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical/environmental report. The consultant should be kept apprised of any such events, and should be consulted to determine if additional tests are necessary. MOST RECOMMENDATIONS ARE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENTS. Site exploration and testing identifies actual surface and subsurface conditions only at those points where samples are taken. The data were extrapolated by your consultant, who then applied judgment to render an opinion about overall subsurface conditions. The actual interface between materials may be far more gradual or abrupt than your report indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ from those predicted in your report. While nothing can be done to prevent such situations, you and your consultant can work together to help reduce their impacts. Retaining your consultant to observe subsurface construction operations can be particularly beneficial in this respect. A REPORT'S CONCLUSIONS ARE PRELIMINARY. • The conclusions contained in your consultant's report are preliminary because they must be based on the assumption that conditions revealed through selective exploratory sampling are indicative of actual conditions throughout a site. Actual subsurface conditions can be discerned only during earthwork; therefore, you should retain your consultant to observe actual conditions and to provide conclusions. Only the consultant who prepared the report is fully familiar with the background information needed to determine whether or not the report's recommendations based on those conclusions are valid and whether or not the contractor is abiding by applicable recommendations. The • 1999 GRFCZD RIVER FACILITY REPAIR PROJECT OPTIONS PROJECT LINEAL APPROX. APPROX. GRANT/ GRFCZD NAME FEET $ /LF COST AGENCY $$ $$ DESIMONE PHASE 1 1000 300 300000 175000 125000 PIPELINE PHASE 1 500 425 212500 106000 106500 NARITA PHASE 1 600 275 165000 80000 85000 SEGALE TOE REPAIR 125 425 53125 53125 FRAGER RD. REVET. 150 675 101250 101250 BOEING 17.69 80 900 72000 72000 C. BROS. LWD 6000 6000 RR UPPER LWD 5000 5000 RR LWR LWD 3000 3000 RR LWR RAMP . 125 250 31250 31250 1999 PROJECT TOTAL 949125 361000 588125 BACKUP PROJECT STRANDER BRIDGE 65 . 300 19500 12000 7500 Project costs shown here are estimates only and reflect bare minimum cost values, compared to actual historic costs at similar sites, and with respect to total repair needs present at each site 3/25/99 1.� Geoff/ Engineers Segale Business Park P.O. Box 88028 18000 Andover Park West, Suite 200 Tukwila, Washington 98180 Attention: Steve Nelson December 22, 1998 Consulting Engineers and Geoscientists Offices in Washington. Oregon, and Alaska Report Geotechnical Engineering Services Proposed Warehouse Building Development Tukwila, Washington File No. 0291 -011 -00 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our subsurface explorations and geotechnical engineering services for design of a new Segale Business Park warehouse building in Tukwila, Washington. The project site is located south of Segale Park Drive C and east of Southcenter Parkway adjacent to the Green River as indicated on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. We understand that Segale Business Park intends to construct a dock -high warehouse at the site. The building will have an approximately 300,000 square -foot footprint and is to be located approximately as shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. We understand that the future address of the building will be 5801 to 6199 Segale Park Drive C. SCOPE OF WORK The purpose of our geotechnical services is to explore subsurface soil and ground water conditions at the project site and to develop geotechnical recommendations and design criteria for the proposed warehouse and associated improvements. Our specific scope of services for this project includes the following: 1. , Collecting samples of the soils encountered in the exploratory test pits, observing soil and ground water conditions, and maintaining a log of the explorations. In addition, we have reviewed available records of nearby subsurface explorations previously conducted by GeoEngineers and others as a basis for our recommendations. 2. Based on our observations and review, providing recommendations for site preparation and building foundation design including preload requirements and appropriate foundation design parameters. GeoEngineers, Inc. 1101 Fawcett Ave.. Suite 200 Tacoma, \CAA 98402 Telephone (253) 3834940 Fax (253) 3834923 mww.geoengineers.com RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA FEB - 5 1999 PERMIT CENTER z Z `. • u6D JU: .)Off ;• .U) U) W' w0 g5 • u_= • U-2 a: H.W. Z �. �-o 11Juj o; • ,0 -`. wW 1i.~ O; •• .'U N, O • :z Segale Business Park December 22, 1998 Page 2 3. Preparing a written report containing our conclusions and recommendations along with our supporting data. SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE CONDITIONS The proposed new warehouse site is bounded on the north by Segale Drive C and on the south by the Green River. The east half of the site is presently occupied by a crane dismantling yard. The west end of the site is covered with stockpiled soil. Based on topographic data supplied by Segale Business Park, existing ground surface elevation in the proposed building footprint ranges from about 24 feet at the east end to about 60 feet at the top of the stockpile. The property boundaries, topographic contours, and proposed building location are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS Subsurface explorations were conducted by GeoEngineers Inc. on November 19, 1998 at the approximate locations indicated on the Site Plan, Figure 2. Exploratory test pits were excavated using a rubber -tired backhoe and operator supplied by Segale Business Park. Representative bulk samples were obtained from the test pits. The explorations were located in the field by our personnel by taping or pacing from relevant site features. Test pit locations should be considered approximate. Our representative collected samples of the soils encountered, observed ground water conditions and maintained- a detailed log of the explorations. Soils were classified in general accordance with Figure 3. Existing ground surface elevations shown on the logs were estimated from topographic data supplied by Segale Business Park. Summary test pit logs are presented as Figure 4 through 7. Laboratory testing was conducted consisting of moisture content determination of selected bulk samples. Moisture content results are presented on the corresponding logs. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface soils encountered in the explorations generally consist dense sand and gravel fill with varying amounts of silt and cobbles overlying native alluvial deposits consisting of interbedded fine to medium sand, sandy silt and silt in a loose to dense or medium stiff to stiff condition. Fill soil was encountered in each of the explorations to depths ranging from 1 to 5.25 feet below existing ground surface. In test pit 1, approximately 2 feet of cobbles with silt, sand, gravel, and occasional wood debris were encountered at the ground surface. In test pit 2, from about 5.25 to 5.5 feet below existing ground surface, wood waste chips were encountered. Below the fill, to the full depth explored in each of the test pits, alluvial deposits consisting of fine to medium sand, sandy silt and silt were encountered. These soils were described as loose to dense or medium stiff to stiff and moist to wet. G e o E n g i n e e r s -;„ • File No. 0291 -011-00 Segale Business Park December 22, 1998 Page 3 Ground water was encountered in test pits 1 and 3 at approximately 2 feet and in test pit 2 at about 1.5 feet below existing ground surface. In our opinion the shallow ground water observed in these test pits is concentrated surface runoff infiltrating into the near surface soils. Ground water seepage was also observed in test pit 7 at about 11 feet below existing ground surface. Caving was noted in test pits 1 and 7 below depths 11 and 9 feet respectively. Summary logs of the test pits are presented in Figures 4 through 7. Explorations from nearby sites concur with the recent observations. Previous explorations indicate that relatively shallow ground water (on the order of 10 feet below ground surface or less) can be expected in the area. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL Based on our site explorations and observations, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed development provided the recommendations in this report are implemented. To help control post - construction settlement and allow the use of shallow spread foundations, we recommend that the site be developed by a combination of overexcavation and replacement with structural fill and preloading. This technique has been used for development in the immediate area. SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK We recommend that shallow spread footings bear on a minimum of 2 feet of compacted structural fill overlying native soil. Structural fill should meet the requirements and be placed and compacted as described in the "Structural Fill" section of this report. In areas where foundation loads are planned and unsuitable bearing soil exists, such as in the vicinity of test pit 2 where wood waste chips were encountered, we recommend removing the unsuitable material and replacing it with compacted structural fill. Where dense fill soil exists extending to underlying native sand and silt, such as was observed in test pits 1 and 3 through 8, it is our opinion that additional structural fill can be placed directly over the existing fill as required. To help control post - construction settlement, we recommend that a minimum of 4 feet (above :finish floor elevation) of preload fill be placed in the building area. Based on our discussions with you, we understand that a 6 -foot preload fill is planned. The preload should extend over the entire building footprint. The top of the preload fill should extend 5 feet beyond the outside edge of footings and slope down at about 1 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter. In areas where the existing stockpile meets the preload requirements, additional preloading is not required. Settlement of the preload fill should be monitored at 8 to 10 locations. This can be accomplished by setting survey hubs into the completed fill and taking survey elevation readings referenced to a benchmark well away from the influence of the fill. We recommend G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 0291 -011-00 . z iI- �- z 00 cnw: w z: w0 u. = a. �w Z' z �. z 1` U-1 ILI 0 N' ,o Ww 1- -. -z • ui 0 — 0 1- O z Segale Business Park December 22, 1998 Page 4 that the surcharge fill be left in place until the maximum measured settlement is less than 0.01 feet per week. We expect that any required site grading can be accomplished with conventional earthmoving equipment. The native site soils below the fill have significant silt contents and are moisture sensitive. These materials will be difficult to operate on or compact during wet weather. Operation of heavy equipment at the site under wet conditions can be expected to result in considerable disturbance to the exposed native soil subgrade. We recommend that earthwork be undertaken during periods of dry weather, if feasible, to minimize grading costs. STRUCTURAL FILL All fill beneath structures or pavements, and within utility trenches or other excavations beneath structures or pavements should be placed as structural fill. Structural fill material should be free of debris, organic contaminants, and rock fragments larger than about 6 inches. The workability of material for use as structural fill will depend on the gradation and moisture content of the soil. As the amount of fines (material passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve) increases, soil becomes increasingly more sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult or impossible to achieve. If fill material is imported to the site for wet weather construction, we recommend that it be a sand and gravel mixture such as high quality pit run, with less than 5 percent fines. Structural fill should be uniformly compacted in horizontal lifts to at least 95 percent of the Maximum Dry Density (MDD) determined in accordance with ASTM D -1557 (modified Proctor). Pavement subgrade soils and utility trench backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the MDD up to within the upper 2 feet; the upper 2 feet should be compacted to at least 95 percent. The lift thickness used during placement and compaction will depend on the moisture and gradation characteristics of the soil and the type of equipment being used. If necessary, the material should be moisture conditioned to near - optimum moisture content prior to compaction. In our opinion, during dry weather construction, any nonorganic on -site soil may be considered for use as structural fill, provided it meets the criteria described above in the structural fill section and can be compacted as recommended. If the material is over optimum moisture content when excavated, it will be necessary to aerate or dry the soil prior to placement as structural fill. RETAINING WALLS Dock -high construction will require retaining walls. We recommend that the walls be designed to resist active lateral earth pressures as well as surcharge loads including those from delivery and loading equipment. Adequate drainage behind any retaining structure is imperative. We recommend that positive drainage be provided behind retaining walls by placing a zone of free - draining sand and gravel G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 0291 -011-00 Segale Business Park December 22, 1998 Page 5 containing less than 3 percent fines (material passing No. 200 sieve) against the wall. The drainage zone should be at least 24 inches thick (measured horizontally). Smooth- walled PVC perforated drainpipe having a minimum diameter of 4 inches should be embedded within the free - draining material at the base of the wall along its entire length. This drainpipe should discharge into a tightline leading to an appropriate collection and disposal system. The lateral active soil pressures acting on reinforced concrete retaining walls depend on the nature, density, and configuration of the soil behind the wall. The recommended design values are based on level backfill placed within 2 feet of the wall being compacted by hand - operated equipment to a density of 90 percent of the MDD and consisting of sand or sand and gravel and on walls being drained as recommended previously. For walls constructed as above, we recommend using an active lateral earth pressure corresponding to an equivalent fluid density of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). The above recommended soil pressure does not include the effects of surcharges such as floor loads, traffic loads, or other surface loading. Surcharge effects should be considered as appropriate. Retaining walls founded on 2 feet of compacted structural fill as recommended above may be designed using an average allowable bearing capacity recommended in the "Foundation Support" section of this report. Lateral loads on retaining structures as described above may be resisted by friction on the base of the wall footings and as passive pressure on the sides of footings as recommended in the "Lateral Capacity" section of this report. FOUNDATION SUPPORT In general, foundation and retaining wall footings founded on compacted structural fill prepared as described above may be designed using an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) for combined dead and long -term live loads, exclusive of the weight of the footing and any overlying backfill. This value may be increased by one -third when seismic or wind loads are considered. We recommend a minimum width of 18 inches for continuous footings and 2 feet for isolated footings. All footing elements should be embedded at least 18 inches below lowest adjacent grade. LATERAL CAPACITY Lateral loads may be resisted by friction on the base of the foundation and retaining wall footings and as passive pressure on the sides of footings, or where applicable, stem walls. We recommend using a coefficient of friction of 0.5 to calculate friction between the concrete and densely compacted native soil or structural fill. Passive pressure may be determined using an equivalent fluid weight of 400 pcf. This assumes that compacted structural fill is placed against the sides of the footings. An appropriate safety factor should be applied to these values. GeoEngineers File No. 0291-011-00 z • z. aw 6 D. 10 UO w= J w • O gQ • d H= z� H O' Z F- .D o ww - U. Iii z 0 z 1 Segale Business Park December 22, 1998 Page 6 FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT We estimate that settlements of footings designed and constructed as recommended will be less than 1 inch with differential settlements measured along 25 feet of continuous wall footings or between comparably loaded isolated footings of 1/2 inch or less. Most of the settlements should occur essentially as loads are being applied. However, loose or soft soil below the footings or disturbance of the foundation subgrade during construction could result in larger settlements than predicted. SLAB -ON -GRADE SUPPORT In our opinion, provided the site is prepared as recommended, estimated slab -on -grade floor areal loads of up to 400 psf could be supported on a minimum of 2 feet of compacted structural fill as previously recommended. We recommend that slabs -on -grade be directly underlain by a 4 to 6 -inch thickness of granular base course material consisting of crushed rock or well graded sand and gravel which contains less than 3 percent fines based on the minus 3/4- inch fraction. If dry slabs are required (e.g., where adhesives are used to anchor carpet or tile to the slab), a waterproof liner, at least 6 mils thick, should be placed as a vapor barrier below the slab. A 2 -inch thickness of clean sand can be placed over the vapor barrier to protect the liner and serve as a leveling course. We estimate that settlement of a concrete slab supported as recommended above will be less than 1/2 inch over 50 feet. PAVEMENT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS We recommend that pavement sections be supported on a minimum of 2 feet of structural fill extending to underlying native sand and silt. Structural fill should be placed and compacted as recommended previously. In addition, the prepared subgrade should be thoroughly proofrolled prior to placing base course to identify any soft or loose soils. If soft or loose soils are encountered they should be recompacted if practical or overexcavated and replaced with compacted structural fill. We recommend the pavement in areas to be used exclusively for light vehicle traffic consist of a minimum of 2 inches of Class B asphalt concrete over 4 inches of crushed surfacing base course. For pavement in more heavily traveled areas or with significant truck traffic, we recommend providing a minimum of 3 inches of asphalt concrete over 6 inches of crushed surfacing base course. The base course should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density (ASTM D- 1577). Crushed rock base course should comply with Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Standard specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction Section 9- 03.9(3). These pavement sections may not be adequate for heavy construction traffic conditions such as imposed by concrete transit mixers, dump trucks, or crane loads. Additional pavement thickness may be necessary to prevent pavement damage during construction, and /or repair of damaged pavements should be anticipated. GeoEngineers Fil e No . 0291-011-00 _ Segale Business Park December 22, 1998 Page 7 Asphalt pavement surfacing should meet the specifications for Class B asphaltic concrete, as described in WSDOT Section 9 -03.8. We recommend that it be compacted to a minimum of 92 percent of the theoretical maximum, as described by WSDOT Test Method 705. DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS We recommend that pavement surfaces be sloped so that surface drainage flows away from the buildings. Roof drains should be collected in tightlines for diversion into the storm drain system and should not discharge into wall drains. LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for Segale Business Park and their agents for use in design and construction of the various components of this project. The conclusions and recommendations in this report should be applied in their entirety. The data and report may be provided to prospective contractors for bidding or estimating purposes; but our report, conclusions, and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. If there are any changes in the grades, location, configuration or type of construction planned, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report might not be fully applicable. If changes are made, we should be retained to review our conclusions and recommendations and to provide written modification or verification, as appropriate. When the design is finalized, we recommend that GeoEngineers be engaged to review those portions of the plans and specifications that relate to geotechnical considerations to check that our recommendations have been interpreted and implemented as intended. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. The subsurface conditions are expected to vary across the site. A contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the construction budget and schedule. Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation should be provided by GeoEngineers during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should be conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with contract plans and specifications. G e oE n g i n e e r s . 4 +I File No. 0291 -011-00 z w • 6 _10• UO: w I. J LL• wo ¢ = W. �w z� 1- O Z~ D o. U :o �. w w:. Z: w = O I- z Segale Business Park December 22, 1998 Page 8 Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in this area at the time the report was prepared. No other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. DSP:GWH:vc Document ID: 0291011R.DOC G e o E n g i n e e r s Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. David S. Phelps Geotechnical Engineer Gary W. Henderson Principal File No. 0291 -011-00 z H Z U: UO' ;U 0; • W =' 1L Q7 _; • W W; 13 � o= H . 2 Vi• 0'1: • Z; • 029101100:120198 DSP:SPS 8X1 1 thom.dwq ST 27 168TH 1 S 167TH ST ST STS STRANDER ■ BLVD TRECK OR CJIR1Y 86 NORIO NTON NcII1 172N0 CORPORA OR N CORPORA 614616R DR $ 175TH PAROAr PLAZA Ht -0 TRI' SW 43RD ST MST St 182ND RED LION c 6800 192ND ST Ar 194114 ST 0 2400 4800 Reference: This map reproduced with permission granted by THOMAS BROTHERS MAPS. This map is copyrighted by THOMAS BROTHERS MAPS. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission. SCALE IN FEET Geo ,- Engineers VICINITY MAP FIGURE 1 0 0 a Approximate Site Boundary Reference: Base drawing provided by Segale Business Park. 12/4/98. 0 I 120 240 SCALE IN FEET EXPLANATION: ijia. TEST PIT NUMBER AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION Geo `OEngineers SITE PLAN FIGURE 2 Zz W re D 0 0: (0 0. W= J I.. W J -a = H W =. Z I. O Z� D U0 'OP— O H; = V. IL O'. —Z Uj CO 0 • Z SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM • • MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP SYMBOL GROUP NAME COARSE GRAINED SOILS More Than 50% Retained on No. 200 Sieve GRAVEL • More Than 50% of Coarse Fraction Retained on No. 4 Sieve CLEAN GRAVEL GW WELL- GRADED GRAVEL, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL GP POORLY- GRADED GRAVEL GRAVEL WITH FINES GM SILTY GRAVEL GC CLAYEY GRAVEL SAND More Than 50% of Coarse Fraction Passes No. 4 Sieve CLEAN SAND SW WELL - GRADED SANG, FINE TO COARSE SAND SP POORLY - GRADED SAND SAND WITH FINES SM SILTY SAND SC CLAYEY SAND FINE GRAINED SOILS More Than 50% Passes No. 200 Sieve SILT AND CLAY Liquid Limit Less Than 50 INORGANIC ML SILT CL CLAY ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY SILT AND CLAY Liquid Limit 50 or More INORGANIC MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY ORGANIC OH ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT NOTES: SOIL. MOISTURE MODIFIERS: 1. Reid classification is based on visual examination of soil Dry - Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch in general accordance with ASTM D2488 -90. Moist - Damp, but no visible water • 2. Soil classification using laboratory tests is based on ASTM D2487 -90. Wet - Visible free water or saturated, usually soil is obtained from below water table 3. Descriptions of soil density or consistency are based on interpretation of blow count date, visual appearance of soils, and /or test data. /�p Geo �� Engineers • SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FIGURE 3 LOG OF TEST PIT DEPTH BELOW SOIL GROUP GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION (FEET) SYMBOL DESCRIPTION TEST P1T 1 Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 26 feet 0.0 - 2.0 Cobbles with silt, sand, gravel and occasional wood debris (dense, wet) (fill) 2.0 - 5.5 SM Grayish brown silty fine sand (dense, moist) 5.5 - 11.0 ML Brown silt with sand (medium stiff, moist to wet) 11.0 - 12.0 SM Grayish brown silty fine sand (dense, wet) Test pit completed at a depth of 12.0 feet on 11/19/98. Major ground water seepage observed at an approximate depth of 2.0 feet. Minor caving observed at an approximate depth of 11.0 feet. Disturbed soil samples obtained at depths of 6.5 and 11.0 feet. Sample moisture contents are 55 % and 37%, respectively. 0.0 - 2.0 2.0 - 5.25 5.25 - 5.75 5.75 - 12.0 SP SP-SM SM TEST P11' 2 Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 30 feet Brown gravelly fine to coarse sand with trace silt (dense, moist) (fill) Gray fine to coarse sand with gravel and cobbles (very dense, moist) (fill) Wood waste chips (medium dense, moist) (fill) Gray silty fine sand (dense, moist to wet) Test pit completed at a depth of 12.0 feet on 11/19/98. Major ground water seepage observed at an approximate depth of 1.5 feet. No caving observed. Disturbed soil samples obtained at depths of 1.5, 4.0, 5.25 and 11.5 feet. Sample moisture contents are 10 %, 8 %, 154% and 36 %, respectively. THE DEPTHS ON THE TEST PIT LOGS, ALTHOUGH SHOWN TO 0.1 FOOT, ARE BASED ON AN AVERAGE OF MEASUREMENTS ACROSS THE TEST PIT AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE TO 0.5 FOOT. 0291 -011-00 Geo O Engineers LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE 4 Z • :i--W 6 • :0 0 W: W =.. J � WO 2 g J. u_ Q = a. _ :Z 0' • W uj n p; O — W W —O.. tii ..z • . O ~' Z LOG OF TEST PIT DEPTH BELOW SOIL GROUP GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION (FEET) SYMBOL DESCRIPTION TEST NT 3 Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 28 feet 0.0 - 3.5 SP -SM Brown gravelly fine to medium sand with silt, occasional cobbles and boulders (very dense, moist) (fill) 3.5 - 12.5 SM Brownish gray silty fine sand (dense, moist) Test pit completed at a depth of 12.5 feet on 11/19/98. Minor ground water seepage observed at an approximate depth of 2.0 feet. No caving observed. Disturbed soil sample obtained at a depth of 9.0 feet. Sample moisture content is 18 %. TEST PIT 4 Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 31 feet 0.0 - 1.0 SM Brown gravelly fine to coarse sand with silt (very dense, moist) (fill) 1.0 - 5.0 SP -SM Brownish gray gravelly fine to coarse sand with silt and occasional cobbles (very dense, moist) (fill) 5.0 - 11.5 SM Brown silty fine to medium sand with occasional gravel (dense, moist) Test pit completed at a depth of 11.5 feet on 11/19/98. No ground water seepage observed. No caving observed. Disturbed soil samples obtained at depths of 2.5 and 10.0 feet. Sample moisture contents are 13% and 10%, respectively. THE DEPTHS ON THE TEST PIT LOGS, ALTHOUGH SHOWN TO 0.1 FOOT, ARE BASED ON AN AVERAGE OF MEASUREMENTS ACROSS THE TEST PIT AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE TO 0.5 FOOT. 0291 -011-00 Geo„ O Engineers LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE 5 LOG OF TEST PIT DEPTH BELOW SOIL GROUP GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION (FEET) SYMBOL 0.0 - 5.0 SP -SM 5.0 -12.0 SM 00-1.0 1.0-1/0 SP SP -SM DESCRIPTION TEST PIT 5 Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 32 feet Gray and brown gravelly fine to coarse sand with silt, occasional cobbles and wood fragments (very dense, moist) (fill) Brown silty fine sand with occasional gravel (dense, moist) Test pit completed at a depth of 12.0 feet on 11/19/98. No ground water seepage observed. No caving observed. TEST PIT 6 Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 25 feet Brown gravelly fine to coarse sand with trace silt (very dense, moist) (fill) Brown fine sand with silt (dense, moist) Grades to gray fine sand at 10.0 feet (dense, moist) Test pit completed at a depth of 12.0 feet on 11/19/98. No ground water seepage observed. No caving observed. Disturbed soil sample obtained at a depth of 9.0 feet. Sample moisture content is 9%. THE DEPTHS ON THE TEST PIT LOGS, ALTHOUGH SHOWN TO 0.1 FOOT, ARE BASED ON AN AVERAGE OF MEASUREMENTS ACROSS THE TEST PIT AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE TO 0.5 FOOT. 0291 -011-00 Geo ,,,O Engineers LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE 6 LOG OF TEST PIT DEPTH BELOW SOIL GROUP GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION (FEET) SYMBOL DESCRIPTION TEST PIT 7 Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 24 feet 0.0 - 1.0 SP Brown gravelly fine to coarse sand with occasional cobbles (dense, moist) (fill) 1.0 - 4.5 SM Brown silty fine sand (medium dense to dense, moist) 4.5 - 7.0 ML Brown silt with fine sand (medium stiff, wet) 7.0 - 11.5 SP -SM Gray fine to medium sand with silt (loose to medium dense to dense, moist to wet) Test pit completed at a depth of 11.5 feet on 11/19/98. Slight ground water seepage observed at an approximate depth of 11.0 feet. Minor caving observed below 9.0 feet. Disturbed soil samples obtained at depths of 6.0 and 11.0 feet. Sample moisture contents are 37% and 31 %, respectively. TEST PTT 8 Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 26 feet 0.0 - 2.0 SP Brown gravelly fine to coarse sand with occasional cobbles (dense, moist) (fill) 2.0 - 5.5 SM Gray fine sand with silt (dense, moist) Grades to silty and medium dense 5.5 - 11.0 ML Gray silt (medium stiff to stiff, wet) Test pit completed at a depth of 11.0 feet on 11/19/98. No ground water seepage observed. No caving observed. Disturbed soil sample obtained at a depth of 8.0 feet. Sample moisture content is 42%. THE DEPTHS ON THE TEST PIT LOGS, ALTHOUGH SHOWN TO 0.1 FOOT, ARE BASED ON AN AVERAGE OF MEASUREMENTS ACROSS THE TEST NT AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE TO 0.5 FOOT. 0291 -011-00 Geo Engineers LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE 7 CITY O.'NTUKWILA Permit Center 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 (206) 431 -3670 OR STAFF USE ONLY Project Number: Permit Number : :.' Miscellaneous' Permit Application Application and plans must be complete in order to be accepted for plan revieF RECEIVED Applications will not be accepted through the mail or facsimile. PfY OF TUKWILA Project Name/Tenant: Seale Business Park Building 981 Description of work to be done: " Value of Construction: ANR t 6 1999 Site Address: . . 5-801 thru 6199 Segale Park Drive "C State /Zip: T r el i `��+ r: PERMIT CENT Zi:i UJ Property Owner: LA PIANTA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Phone: Ph n (206) 575 -2000 Street Address: PO Box 88028 Tukwila WA 98138 City State /Zip: Fax if: (206) 575 -1837 Contact Person: Steve Nelson Phone: (206) 575 -2000 Street Address: PO Box 88028 Tukwila WA 98138 City State /Zip: Fax 4f: (206) 575 -1837 Contractor: T.A PIANTA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Phone: (206) Y, 575 -2000 Street Address: —Ptl Pry RS02R Tiikwi 1 a WA 981 38 City State /Zip: • Fax #: ( 206) 575 -1837 Architect: Lanrp Mnel i pr & AgGnri Arpc Phone: (706) F. 325 -2553 Street Address: 130 Lakeside Seattle WA 98122 City State /Zip: Fax #: (206) 328-0554 Engineer: Layton Sell Phone: (425) 881 -8151 Street Address: City State /Zp: 15600 Redmond Way Suite 302 Redmond WA 98052 Fax #: (425) 885 -2154 MISCELLANEOUS PERMIT REVIEW. AND.AP.P.ROVAL;REQUESTED'(TO BE FILLED OUT:.BY'APPLICANT) •::: Description of work to be done: Will there be storage of flammable /combustible hazardous material in the building? ❑ yes ® no Attach list of materials and storage location on separate 8 1/2 X 11 paper indicating quantities & Material Safety Data Sheets ❑ Above Ground Tanks ❑ Antennas /Satellite Dishes ❑ Bulkhead /Docks ❑ Commercial Reroof ❑ Demolition ❑ Fence ❑ Mechanical ❑ Manufactured Housing - Replacement only ❑ Parking Lots ❑ Retaining Walls ❑ Temporary Pedestrian Protection /Exit Systems ' ❑ Temporary Facilities ❑ Tree Cutting APPLICANT; REQUEST. FOR MISCELLANEOUS PUBLIC WORKS: ❑ Channelization /Striping ❑ Flood Control Zone ❑ Landscape Irrigation Ea Storm Drainage ❑ Water Meter /Exempt it ❑ Water Meter /Permanent # ❑ Water Meter Temp it ❑ Miscellaneous ❑ Curb cut/Access /Sidewalk ❑ Fire Loop /Hydrant (main to vault) #: Size(s): ❑ Land Altering: 0 Cut cubic yards 0 Fill cubic yards 0 sq. ft.grading /clearing ❑ Sanitary Side Sewer #: , ❑ Sewer Main Extension 0 Private 0 ❑ Street Use ❑ Water Main Extension 0 Private 0 Deduct Size(s): Size(s): Size(s): Est. quantity: gal Schedule: ❑ Moving Oversized Load /Hauling O Public O Water Only Public MONTHLY SERVICE BILLINGS TO:. ' ''' '''':":.•.:'..?. ■ Name: Phone: Address: City /State /Zip: 0 Water 0 Sewer 0 Metro 0 Standby WATER METER DEPOSIT /REFUND BILLING: Name: Phone: Address: City /State /Zip: Value of Construction - In all cases, a value of construction amount should be entered by the applicant. This figure will be reviewed and is subject to possible revision by the Permit Center to comply with current fee schedules. Expiration of Plan Review - Applications for which no permit is Issued within 180 days following the date of application shall expire by limitation. The building official may extend the time for action by the applicant for a period not exceeding 180 days upon written request by the applicant as defined in Section 107.4 of the Uniform Building Code (current edition). No application shall be extended more than once. Date application accepted: Date application expires: MISCPMT.DOC 7/11/96 Application taken by: (Initials) (''"'` �° City of Tukwila I 1J JAN 1 3 1999 N / 50 PROJECT # HIGHLINE WA'ICATE OF WATER AVAILABILITY PART A: (TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT) 1. Owner Name: Address: Phone: Agent / Contact Person: Phone: LaPianta Limited Partnership DBA Segale Business Park P.O. Box 88028 Tukwila WA 98138 206 -575 -2000 Steve Nelson 206 -575 -2000 Site Address (Attach map and legal description showing hydrant Location & size of main: See attached map for hydrant & main locations 5801 thru 6199 Segale Park Drive "C" 2. This certificate is submitted as part of an application for: U El X Residential Building Permit . Short Subdivision Commercial/Industrial Building Permit Preliminary Plat Rezone Other 3. Estimated number of service connections and meter size(s): Not Yet Determined 4. Vehicular distance from nearest hydrant to: Building Site see attached map for hydrant locations. 5. Minimum needs of development for fire flows: gpm at a residual pressure of 20 psi. . X Fire Marshall FlInsurance Underwriter Area is served by: Developer's Engineer Utility 1 city Other 1 HIGHLINE WATER DISTRICT (Utility) Owner /Agent's Signature: I Date: (Reverse side to be completed by water utility and governing jurisdiction) .RT B: (TO BE COMPLETED BY WATER U77LITY) 1. This proposed project is located within TUKWILA / KING (City /County) 2. Improvements required to upgrade the water system to bring it into compliance with the utilities' comprehensive plan or to meet the minimum flow requirements of the project before connection: Watermain Extension required to provide service to proposed facility 3. Based upon the improvements listed above, water can be provided and will be available at the site with a residual pressure of 132 psi at 2581 gpm for a duration of 2 hours at a velocity of 10 fps as documented by the attached calculations. I hereby certify that the above information is true and correct. HIGHLINB WATER DISTRICT 206- 821 -0375 Agency Phone , ,347: Keith Harris PART C: (TO BE COMPLETED BY GOVERNING JURISDICTION) 1. Water Availability - Check one: 1 13 99 Date Acceptable service can be provided to this project. Acceptable service cannot be provided to this project unless the improvements listed in Item Item #C2 are met. nSystem is not capable of providing service to this project. 2. Minimum water system improvements: (At least equal to B2 above) Agency Phone By Date \_ z Q U. UO: CO 0 WI .w = J N u.: w O: . u_ so_d =w • Z :Z 0 p �i .wW. L-6 O; �w co Z. O~ z CITY OF lThKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (P-SHORE) APPLICATION PROJEC'TBACKGROUND A. NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Segale Business Park Building 981 B. LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: 5801 Thru 6199 Segale Park Drive "C" STREET ADDRESS: ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 35234-9018 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See attached Queer: SE Section: 35 Township: 9 3N Range: 4F, (This information may be found on your tax statement) C. CONTACT: (Ftimary contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent) NAME: Steve Nelson ADDRESS: Pr) Boy 88098 Tukwila , WA g8138 (206) 575-2000 PHONE: SIGNATURE: DATE: z/-1 / RECEIVED CITY OF TU(WILA FEB —51999 PERMIT CENTER FOR'STAFFUSEONLY Planner. 1 File Number L,...tcy Receipt-Number 1 Project.File.#: V q q • 00 1 0' Applicatiorcomplete (Date: )1 SEPA File #: 0 Application incomplete (Date: ) PROJEC'TBACKGROUND A. NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Segale Business Park Building 981 B. LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: 5801 Thru 6199 Segale Park Drive "C" STREET ADDRESS: ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 35234-9018 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See attached Queer: SE Section: 35 Township: 9 3N Range: 4F, (This information may be found on your tax statement) C. CONTACT: (Ftimary contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent) NAME: Steve Nelson ADDRESS: Pr) Boy 88098 Tukwila , WA g8138 (206) 575-2000 PHONE: SIGNATURE: DATE: z/-1 / RECEIVED CITY OF TU(WILA FEB —51999 PERMIT CENTER E. CURRENT ZCNING OF PROPERTY: HI - Heavy Industrial F. PRESENT USE OF PRCPER f: The site is used as a storage yard for Seattle Tractor Co. and stockpile for pitrun material. G. SHORELINE ENVIRONMENTAL CESIGNATiON: Urban H. GENERAL DESCiiIPTiCN CF SURRCUNDING LAND USES: (Within 1,000 feet in all directrs from the deveicomei site.) The project is -surrounded generally by commercial properties. There is two residential properties, a golf driving range, City of Kent Park, and the Green River Trail System within the 1000' radius. I. TOTAL CONS T RUCTiCN CAST & FAIR MARKET VALUE Zi the proposed development: (Include additional future phases of development ccr. :a .:laud but not included ;n current proposal.) $7,059,038.00 J. BRIEF NARRATIVE DESCRIBING PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS: The project involves the construction of a concrete tilt -up building for which its primary use will be warehousing, it will also include associated offices and maintenance space. K. PORTION OF PROPOSED ACTIVITY ALREADY COMPLETED: (lf any portion or phase of the proposed activity is already completed on subject site, indicate month and year of completion.) None • L PROPOSED STARTING DATE: May 3 , .1999 ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE CF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY: December 31, 1999 . (If project will be constructed in stages, indicate dates:) . • M. TYPE AND EXTENT OF RECONSTRUCTION RUCTiON OF RIVERBANK OF ANY) AND PROPOSED RIVERBANK VEGETATiCN: None N. IF PROPOSED ACTIVITY TO CAUSE FLOODING OR DRAINING OF WETLANDS, INDICATE IMPACTED AREA (acres): . None SSDDPMT.DOC 7/7i96 3 IL TO BECOMPLETEII BY LOCAL SHOREUNEOFFICIAL A. NATURE OF EXISTING SHORELINE: (Describe hype of shoreline, such as stream, lake, marsh, flood plain, flcodway, ,delta; type of beach, such as erosion, high bank, low bank cr dike; type of material, such as sand, gravel, mud, clay, rock, riprap; and extent and type of bulkheading, if any.) B. RESIDENTIAL VIEWS OBSTRUCTEDBY STRUCTURES OVER 35' IN HEIGHT: (In the event that any proposed buildings or structures exceed a height of 35' above average grade, indicate the approximate location of, and number of, residential units, existing and potential, that will have views of the shoreline obstructed by the proposed development.) C. CONDITIONAL USE OR VARIANCE REQUIRED: (!f a conditional use is required, state in full that portion of the Master Program which provides that the proposed use may be a conditional use, or, if a variance is required, that portion from which the variance is being sought. SWPMT.DOC 7/3,96 a O. TYPE AND EXTENT OF PUBLIC ACCESS PROPOSED (if any): . None P. SETBACK OF PROPOSED PARKING/LOADING /STORAGE AREAS AND PROPOSED SCREENING: (setback measured from mean high water mark.) Edge of parking lot varies from 40 to 50 feet from landward of the 40 foot river environment line. C. HEIGHT AND SETBACK OF ALL PROPOSED BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES: (height measured from average grade level to the highest point of the structure, or mid -point of pitched roof; setback measured from mean high water mark.) Front Yard Setback: not less than 25', Side Yard Setback: not less than 5', Rear Setback: not less than 5'. R. MEASURES PROPOSED TO PROTECT WILDLIFE AND FISH HABITAT IN AND ALONG RIVER: Existing vegatation and ground cover to remain riverward of the existing levee. IL TO BECOMPLETEII BY LOCAL SHOREUNEOFFICIAL A. NATURE OF EXISTING SHORELINE: (Describe hype of shoreline, such as stream, lake, marsh, flood plain, flcodway, ,delta; type of beach, such as erosion, high bank, low bank cr dike; type of material, such as sand, gravel, mud, clay, rock, riprap; and extent and type of bulkheading, if any.) B. RESIDENTIAL VIEWS OBSTRUCTEDBY STRUCTURES OVER 35' IN HEIGHT: (In the event that any proposed buildings or structures exceed a height of 35' above average grade, indicate the approximate location of, and number of, residential units, existing and potential, that will have views of the shoreline obstructed by the proposed development.) C. CONDITIONAL USE OR VARIANCE REQUIRED: (!f a conditional use is required, state in full that portion of the Master Program which provides that the proposed use may be a conditional use, or, if a variance is required, that portion from which the variance is being sought. SWPMT.DOC 7/3,96 a UL OTHER PERMITS REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT Indicate permits for which you have applied or will apply to the federal government, the State, City of Tukwila and other agencies; include permit application date, whether the permit is pending, approved or denied, and the permit number. Tukwila Conditional Use Permit ❑ Tukwila Variance Permit {� Tukwila SEE-'A Environmental Checklist 77'� SEPA Lead Agency: SEPA decision date: Tukwila Design Review ❑ Tukwila Preliminary Flat Approval ❑ Tukwila Ficcd Control Zone Permit (per Flood Ord. 1462) Tukwila Storm Drainage Permit (per Ord. 1755) Tukwila Lard Altering Permit (per Ord. 1591) ❑ Archaeological Excavation Permit (WA DCO /Office of Public Archaeology) Section 106 Review (WA DCD /Office of Public Archaeology) r-1 Coastal Zone Management Certification (WA Dept. of Ecology) ❑ Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) (WA Dept. of Fish & Wildlife) ❑ Approval to Allow Temporary Exceedance of Water Quality Standards (WA Dept. of Ecology) ONational Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPOES) Permit (WA Dept. of Ecology) (Nationwide Permit) (WA Dept. of Ecology) OAquatic Lease (WA Dept. of Natural Resources). ❑ Section 401 Water Quality Certification Nationwide Permit (WA Dept. of Ecology) ❑ Section 404 or Section 10 Permit (Army Corps of Engineers) PERMIT # ❑ Other. SSDPMT.DOC 7 /3/96 APPLICATION DATE DATE APPROVED 5 z 1 Qw J V `. . 00: rnw�. w CO w 0:. �Q co o = 0: F=; Z 1- O. Z tu O O N" O F- w' • Z U co., O. z IV. IMPACTS ON SHORELINES POLICIES A. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM POLICIES APPLICABLE TO PROJECT: (List the Tukwila crKing County Master Program sections, goals and/or policies, including page numbers, which aeciy.) See Attached Exhibit "A" • E. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICES APPLICABLE TO PROJECT: (List the Comprehensive P!an sections, goals anc'cr policies, including page numbers, which apply.) See Attached Exhibit V_ SHORELINES DESIGN POLICIES All projects in the Shoreline Zone must be consistent with Tulewila's Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Program policies (or King County's Shoreline Master Program if project located north of the 42nd Avenue bridge). In addition, all structures requiring a building permit (except single family development of 4 or fewer lots) located in the Shoreline Zone must undergo design review with the Tukwila Board of Architectural Review (BAR). The BAR's decision is based on design guidelines contained in the Zoning Code (TMC 18.60.050) and the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan (see DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION). The SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM POLICIES and Comprehensive Plan's SHORELINE DESIGN POLICIES are summarized below. Note that more than one category may apply. In some cases, the goal for the use or area is noted to provide context for the design policies. NOTE: a) If your project requires a building permit you must meet additional criteria in DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION. b) If your project requires a variance, you must meet additional criteria in VARIANCE PERMIT APPLICATION. c) If your project requires a conditional use permit, you must meet additional criteria in CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION. • TUKWILA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM POLICIES (King County shoreline policies follow) A. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT 1. CommerciaVindustrial development along the shorelines should not favor outside interests at the expense of the local population. 2. Locate commerciaVdevelopment in areas with low potential for recreation or other public uses. 3. Preference should be given to ccmmerciaVindustrial development that will provide an opportunity for a substantial number of people to enjoy the shoreline. SSDPNIT.DOC 7/3/96 • • 6 EXHIBIT "A" IV. IMPACTS ON SHORELINES POLICIES SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM POLICIES APPLICABLE TO PROJECT 18.44.60 Height, yard and area regulations. The maximum building height will be 35 feet using the average grades around the building within the low impact shoreline zone. The front yard setback will be not less than 25 feet, the side yard setback will be not less than 5 feet, and the rear setback will be not less than 5 feet. 18.44.70.1 Parking regulations. 18.56.050 Required number of parking stalls. The minimum number of off - street parking spaces shall be calculated as shown in Figure 18 -7. • Warehouse —1 parking space per 2000 square feet of warehouse. • Office - 3 parking spaces per 1000 square feet of office space. • Bicycle stalls —1 space per 50 parking stalls. 18.44.110 General shoreline regulations. 1. The underlying zoning district for this site is HI -Heavy Industrial per the City of Tukwila Zoning Code and Map dated December 4, 1995. 18.34.020 Permitted uses. Item 59: Building will be used for warehouse storage and /or wholesale distribution facilities as permitted within the HI zoning district. 2. This project will not conflict with the goals and policies of the shoreline master program or the provisions of the Shoreline Act and shoreline regulations. 3. There will be no structures or accessory facilities over the river. 4. There will be no disruption of existing trees or vegetation within the river environment 5. No effluent will be discharged into the Green River. The storm water drainage system will be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards and specifications as set fourth in the Surface Water Design Manual, January 1992, published by King County Public Works Department — Surface Water Division. All storm water will drain into the P17 drainage basin. 6. All State and federal water quality regulations will be complied with. 7. Wildlife habitat in and along the river will be undisturbed. 8. Erosion control measures will be installed per the approved land altering plans and permits. 9. All necessary permits shall be obtained. EXHIBIT "A" 11. There will be no mining. 12. There will be no solid waste disposal along the river shoreline. 13. No property will be sold for public use. 14. There will be no landfill within the river environment. 15. There are no cotton wood trees on the site. 18.44.140 Specific use regulations — low impact environment A. Low impact environment allowed uses. 1. The maximum building height within the low impact environment will be 35 feet. 2. The parking lot will be screened from the River Environment with trees spaced at a maximum 30 feet on center. EXHIBIT "B" IV. IMPACTS ON SHORELINES POLICIES B. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES APPLICABLE TO PROJECT Policy 5.1.1 Urban -Open Space Environment Redevelopment of existing commercial and industrial areas. The site is between the Highway 99 bridge and South 204th Policy 5.4.1 Design, locate and manage shoreline uses in a manner which maintains reasonable use and enjoyment of private property. Policy 5.4.4 Maintain flexibility in methods for different site conditions and private property concerns that might conflict with access, such as privacy, safety, and security. Policy 5.6.6 Provide a private natural area in lieu of physical public access. Policy 5.9.1 Ensure that shoreline development and activities protect riverbank vegetation. Policy 5.10.1 Design, locate, and manage shoreline development including streets, flood control projects, surface water drainage and sewer systems, clearing and grading activities, and landscaping in a manner that minimizes opportunities for pollutants to enter the river, provides erosion control, and otherwise protects water quality. z QQ �: W D'.' • oo . W • o • ¢JE. lL Q•• co • =; =d: • w _• z� o: :Ili a U In w W' o. • Z:. • O D. PROPERTY OWNER DECLARATION The undersigned makes the following statements based upon personal knowledge: • I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. ▪ All statements contained in the application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. I understand that conditions of approval, which the City and applicant have jointly agreed may not be completed prior to final approval of the construction (e.g., final building permit approval) will be incorporated into an agreement to be executed and recorded against the property prior to issuance of any construction permits. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington and the United States of America that the foregoing statement is true and correct. EXECUTED at Tukwila (city), Washington (state), on February 1 199 9 . La Pianta Limited Partnership, Washington limited P� a g partnership By Metro Land Development, Inc., a Washington corporation, its General Partner By: M. A. Segale, President (Print Name) PO Box 88028, Tukwila, WA 98138 -2028 (Address) (206) 575 -2000 (Phone Number) (Signature) RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA FEB - 5 199 PERMIT CENTER Use additional sheets as needed for all property owner signatures. z =1- ,mow. J U, UO cno W =.. J F-. N LL, W O. u_ ?co = d. � i ? I— O Z U • 0 O- ct t- cn WW I— — — O: wz z CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (P- SHORE) APPLICATION CHECKLIST The materials listed below must be submitted with your application unless specifically waived in writing by the Department of Community Development (DCD). Please contact the DCD if you feel certain items are not applicable to your project and should be waived. Application review will not begin until the application is determined to be complete. The initial application materials allow project review to begin and vesting of the applicant's rights. However, submittal of these materials in no way limits the City's ability to require additional information as needed to establish consistency with development standards. The DCD Planning staff are available to answer questions about application materials at 206 - 431 -3670. APPLICATION FORMS: Application Checklist (1 copy), indicating items submitted with application Shoreline Permit Application (6 copies) Shoreline Permit Application Fee ($550) SEPA Environmental Checklist (6 copies) SEPA Environmental Checklist Fee ($325) Design Review Permit Application (if building permit required) (6 copies) ($900) Utility Permit Application for Flood Control Zone (4 copies) Utility Permit Application for Storm Drainage Review (4 copies) PLANS [Six (6) copies of the following]: Vicinity map showing location of the site. Surrounding area map showing existing land uses within a 1000 -foot radius from the site's property lines. Survey at a scale of 1" = 20' or 1"=30', with north arrow, graphic scale, and date; and the license stamp of the surveyor with surveyor's original signature. The following information must be contained on the survey: p Property dimensions, lot size and names of adjacent roads 0 Existing top of bank, landward catch -point of levee, riverbank toe, Mean High Water Mark and base flood elevation (100 -year flood) N A- 0 For work riverward of the Mean High Water Mark: - Distance work extends into the river beyond Mean High Water Mark - Distance to federal projects and navigation channels Limits of the 40 -foot River Environment and 60 -foot Low Impact Environment Existing watercourses and wetlands (if any), with required buffers (TMC 18.45.040) Existing grades at 2' contours, extending at least 5' beyond subject property's boundaries, with a notation of the slope of areas in excess of 20% CO Existing trees over 4" in diameter by size and species, and any trees to be saved r Shoreline profile cross - sections at minimum 75 -foot intervals along site's shoreline, showing: • Existing top of bank, landward catch -point of levee, riverbank toe, Mean High Water Mark and base flood elevation (100 -year flood) A) Proposed structures /improvements For work riverward of the Mean High Water Mark: - Distance work extends into the river beyond Mean High Water Mark - Distance to federal projects and navigation channels 0 Limits of the River Environment, 60 -foot Low Impact Environment and High Impact Environment Existing and proposed ground elevations Plan view location of shoreline profile cross - sections Site plan at same scale as survey, with north arrow, graphic scale, and date; and the license stamp of the architect. The following information must be contained on the site plan: qs Property lines and names of adjacent roads 0 Existing top of bank, landward catch -point of levee, riverbank toe, Mean High Water Mark and base flood elevation (100 -year flood) c Limits of the 40 -foot River Environment and 60 -foot Low Impact Environment 44 Existing watercourses and wetlands (if any), with required buffer widths (TMC 18.45.040) 0 Proposed grades at 2' contours, extending at least 5' beyond the subject property's boundaries, . with a notation of the slope of areas in excess of 20% Construction limit lines, and areas of clearing/grading /filling - Notations identifying source, composition, volume (cu. ft.) and extent (acres) of any fill material - Notations identifying composition, volume (cu. ft.) extent (acres) and proposed disposal site of any extracted material 0 Erosion control measures and tree /buffer protection measures (e.g. barricades, fencing). Location and gross floor area of existing and proposed . structure(s) with required setbacks O Lowest finished floor elevation 0 Location of driveways, fire lanes, parking, loading and service areas, with parking calculations and location and type of dumpster /recycling area screening 7" Location and type of site lighting, including parking and pedestrian areas V Location of site furniture, such as benches, bike racks; location and type of any proposed public outdoor art 0 Location and type of any trails, parks, plazas or other outdoor open space provided for employees or the public; existing and proposed open space easements and dedications, including any trail easements 4 Dike /riverbank maintenance easement (min. width: 30' riverward from catch -point of levee) Location of closest existing fire hydrant; location and size of utility lines; location and size of utilities or street/sidewalk easements or dedications Conceptual storm drainage plans with storage, detention and water - quality improvements (see Utility Application requirements for Storm Drainage Review) 0 Other relevant structures or features, such as rockeries, fences Landscape /planting plan at same scale as site plan, with north arrow, graphic scale, and date; and the license stamp of the landscape architect. The following information must be contained on the plan: Existing trees to be saved by size and species Proposed landscaping, including size, species, location and spacing Location of service areas, vaults and mechanical units with proposed screening. Building elevations and floor plans at a scale of 1/4" = 1' or 1/8" = 1' with graphic scale and date. Each sheet shall have the license stamp of the architect. Include on the elevations: IDimensions of all building facades and major architectural elements Location and type of exterior building lighting Location of mechanical units with proposed screening Floor plan and square footage for uses ilk One (1) high quality 8 1/2" x 11" reduction of the above plans. If the project undergoes significant changes, an additional set of reductions may be required. \. APPLICANTS RESPONSE TO SHORELINE PERMIT QUESTIONS & DESIGN POLICIES Written responses to attached Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application questions and Shoreline Design Policies (6 copies). OTHER MATERIALS Other documentation and graphics in support of the proposal may be included as appropriate, such as Co-dor renderinas3, perspective drawings, photographs or models. If other materials are to be considered, eight (8) copies of each must be submitted (except models). Color drawings or photos may be submitted as 8.5 x 11 -irich color photocopies. ❑ PUBLIC NOTICE: King County Assessor's map(s) which shows the location of each property within 500 feet of the subject property. Two (2) sets of mailing labels for all property owners and tenants (residents and businesses) within. 500 feet of the subject property. (Note: Each unit in multiple- family buildings --e.g. apartments, condos, trailer parks-must be included.) See Attachment A. 0 A 4' x 4' public notice board will be required on -site within 14 days of the Department determining that a complete application has been received. See Attachment B. z • • _ �. �-W:. J V U O: CO o U) w, WZ. . J�.... 'CO LL . w O; • D.. a. Z�: I- O Z 2o • O ,0H, 'w F=- V Z. U N O 'Z • eo Engi n neers Segale Business Park P.O. Box 88028 18000 Andover Park West, Suite 200 Tukwila, Washington 98180 Attention: Steve Nelson January 22, 1999 Consulting Engineers and Geoscientists Offices in Washington. Oregon, and Alaska Geotechnical Engineering Services Green River Levee Proposed Warehouse Building Development Tukwila, Washington File No. 0291 -011 -00 INTRODUCTION This presents our assessment of the effects of site grading on the Green River levee adjacent to the proposed Segale Business Park warehouse. The proposed new dock -high warehouse is anticipated to have an approximately 300,000 square foot footprint. Finish floor elevation is anticipated to be about 32 feet. The proposed warehouse site is bounded on the south and east by the Green River. A Site Plan showing the proposed warehouse layout and sections showing existing and proposed site grades along the levee is attached. The plan and sections were prepared by Segale Business Park. We understand that there is a concern that site grading may adversely effect the Green River levee. We have previously prepared a geotechnical engineering report, dated December 22, 1998, for this site. Our report addresses site preparation, earthwork and other geotechnical issues associated with this project. Over the years a number of repair and stabilization measures have been conducted along the river side of the levee. In February 1996, during high water conditions, a quantity of gravel was placed along the inland side of the levee at the northeast corner of the site to slow seepage which surfaced from under the levee. Geo Engineers, Inc. 1101 FawcettAve., Suite 200 Tacoma, WA 98402 Telephone (253) 333 -4940 Fax (253) 383=1923 www.geoengineers.com Printed on recycled paper.: RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA FEB - 5 1999 PERMIT CENTER Segale Business Park January 22, 1999 Page 2 CONCLUSIONS Proposed grading operations at the site will be limited to the inland side of the levee and will increase the top of levee width from a minimum of 13 feet to a minimum of 15 feet. All inland Levee slopes are to be graded no steeper than 2 to 1. Based on our review of the Site Plan and sections 0 +00 through 17 +25 provided, we understand that final grading at the east end of the site will increase site elevations. In the northeast corner, where gravel was placed to control seepage and stabilize the levee, an additional 2 feet of fill will be placed which will further improve stability. In our opinion, placement of fill at the east side of the site will add support to the existing levee, and help reduce seepage under the levee during high water events. Grading operations at the west end of the site will include removing stockpiled soil and grading the site to elevations similar to the fill areas. In our opinion, removal of the stockpiled soil and site grading to the profiles provided will not adversely effect the levee. Based on information provided by Segale Business Park, levee slopes on the river side are flatter that 2. to 1 (horizontal to vertical) . A portion of the site (outside the area of stockpiled soil) will be preloaded with fill. The preload will be about double the average weight of the building. This preload will not produce any settlement of the levee or reduce its stability. In our opinion, based on the information provided and our understanding of past improvements, the river side levee slopes are presently stable and adequately protected and do not require additional protection. If the site elevations or slopes are changed from those shown on the sections provided and discussed above, we should be consulted regarding potential effects on the levee. G e o E n g i n e e r s File No: 0291 -011-00 Segale Business Park January 22, 1999 Page 3 We trust that this letter provides the information you require. If you have questions or need additional information, please call. //t DSP:GWH:vc Document ID: 029101100L1.DOC GeoEngineers Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. David S. Phelps Geotechnical Engineer Gary W. Henderson Principal File No: 0291 -011-00 THIS INSTRUMENT IS BEING RE- RECORDED TO CORRECT THE TOWNSHIP File No. 6- 1991 -006 9108210298 RIVER PROTECTION EASEMENT ASSIGNMENT AS TENANTS IN COMMON xx WHEREAS, King County, a legal subdivision of the State of Washington was granted River Protection Easements by MARIO A. SEGALE dud LOUIS SEGALE in docuri,enta duly recorded and identified under King County recording No. 6027015 recorded May 11. 1966 and recording No. 6027013 recorded May 11. 1966 for the area described in Exhibits A and B, for the following rights and purposes: "to enter upon the above described land to construct, reconstruct, maintain and repair a bank protection and /or other flood control works, including all appurtenances thereto together with right to trim. cut. fell and remove all such trees. brush and other natural growth and obstructions as are necessary to provide adequate clearance and to eliminate interference with, or hazards to the structures." and, WHEREAS, to promote and advance the purpose of the River Protection Easements described above. King County has determined that all the rights and responsibilities granted to King County in the River Protection Easements should be, held by•King County, the City: of Tukwila, Washington and the Green River Flood Control Zone District as tenants in common; THEREFORE. to benefit the purpose of the easements and for valuable consideration, King County clues hereby assign. as tenants in common with itself. to the City of Tukwila, Washington and the Green River Flood Control Zone District. all tiie rights and responsibilities granted to King County in the above identified River Protection Easements and as described in Exhibits A and No party shall take any action on the described easements that would injuriously affect or render the easements appreciably less convenient and useful to any one of the other tenants in common. Dated this ,4( day of Filed For Record At The Request Of • � JE US SANCH For 95► 1oSi21 S=D, King County Real Property Division KING COUNTY EXECUTIVE RECD F t2:111:00 IN KIKG =III KEC7t/S co? J1 fa .1991 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) se County of King .00 000299 9 (Title) "CASHEL EXCISE TAX NOT REQUIRED . KlnO Co. Rcadt Division , Deputy On is v2dr/ day of &( , 1.9 , personally appeared before me icNO!lry �, to me known to be the individual that executed and foregoing instrument on behalf of King County, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act of King County for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the official seal of King County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year firs. t above written. 1 0,r'G * * * * *.00 NO State of • / • MA (3,40 1UBI.. (..! itr-anetor the AArtu,tA Residing at My cotnmission expires WI 1 Mb 3/18 10:32 Z W. 00 W =: J I— 'Li O' J LL =. • a I— _+ Z� I— O Z H. U• , O tn. O E- W W. 1— U`. W O U W. O 0 Z EXIIIBIT A. xx z L N Z: ayw QQ2,. Green River Levee W D; JU City of Tukwila Project No, 86 -DR21 U O; to 0`. w w; I Legal Description for Proposed Levee Easement _1 11 Segale Property along River from South 180th Street to GACO Western Tract co LL Title No. 136362 2 J LL Q. That portion of the following described Tract "X" lying within the 30.0 foot easement = D granted Id King County by instruments recorded under Recording Numbers 6027013 and ~ _; 6027015. z ~ t-O z t- Tract "X . 23 t U p: All of Government Lot 5 in Section 35, Township 11' North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King ;O - County. Washington; 01..., wuj U' EXCEPT that portion of said Government Lot described as follows: !— O Beginning at the northwest corner of said Government Lot; .. z Thence S87 °56'03 "E along the north line thereof, 112.46 feet; ' 2 _` Thence S 17 °28' 13 "W, 432.63 feet to the west line of said Government Lot; p t' Thence NO2 °24' 12 "E along said west line, 417.09 feet to the point of beginning; ?. TOGETHER WITH that portion of Government Lot 6 in said Section described as .follows;• Beginning at a point on the cast line of said Government Lot, 417.09 feet south of the northeast corner thereof; Thence 317°28'13"W. 134.55 feet; • . Thence S66 °31'27 "E. 37.48 feet to the said east line; Thence NO2 °24'12 "E along said east line 143.40 feet to the point of beginning; AND EXCEPT that portion thereof lying within the, following described property: Commencing at a monument at the northeast corner of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of said Section; Thence S07 °44'56 "W, 956.67 feet to a point of curve; Thence along a curve to the right having a radius of 2,500 feet through a central angle of 05°22'20 ", an arc distance of 234.41 feet Thence N76 °52'44"W 30.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning; (Exhibit A. cont.) Thence N69° 15'04 "W 55.31 feet; Thence N30 °55' 15 "W 52.59 feet; Thence N82 °15'05 "W 187.64 feet; Thence S07 °44'56 "W 48.23 feet to a point of curve; Thence along a curve to the right having a radius of 477.465 feet, through a central angle of 13 °00'00" an arc distance of 108.33 feet; Thence S20 °44'56 "W 399.00 feet; Thence S69 °1.5'04 "E 180.00 feet; Thence S20 °44'56 "W 12.00 feet; Thence S69 °15'04 "E 85.77 feet; Thence along a curve to the left, whose center bears N63 °30'32 "W, having a radius of 2.470.00 feet, through a central angle of 13 °22'12" an arc distance of 576.38 feet to the True Point of Beginning; EXCEPT that portion described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of Government Lot 2 in said section; Thence S87 °56'03 "E along the line common to Government Lots 2 and 5, 177.19 feet; Thence S09 °03'25 "W, 148.27 feet; Thence S06 °44'45 "W, 82.23 feet; Thence N66 °54'09 "W, 338.39 feet; Thence northerly along a curve to the left, the center of which bears N7 1° 16' 17 "W, having a radius of 2,530 feet through a central angle of 02 °31'46 ", an arc distance of 111.70 feet to the said line between the government lots; Thence S87 °56'03 "E along said common line, .133.76 feet to the point of beginning; AND all that portion of Government Lot 2 of said Section, lying south of South 180th Street. and easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the northwest corner of said Government Lot 2; Thence S87 °50'09"E along the north line thereof. 309.0 feet; Thence along a curve to the left having a radius of 300 feet, through a central angle of 22°30'12". an arc distance of 117.81 feet; Thence S20°20'21 "E. 36.0 feet to the south margin of said South 180th Street, and the point of beginning of the line; Thence S36 °31'53 "W, 335.86 feet; Thence along a curve to the left, having a radius of 430 feet, through a central angle of 14 °28'22 ", an arc distance of 108.63 feet; Thence S22 °03'26 "W, 34.28 feet; Thence along a curve to the left, having n radius of 800 feet. through a central angle of 18°44'11", an arc distance of 261.61 feet; xx. z < z. rt e. JU UO U 0 to w W= J H, w 0: g< co 3 1=- _; z Z 0'. U �' o w UJ; t=- U LI ,z Ft 0 z a• • (Exhibit A. cont.) Xx Thence 503°19'14"W, 141.75 feet; Thence along a curve to the right, having a radius of 3,500 feet, through a central angle of 03 °41'20 ". an arc distance of 225.31 feet: Thence S07 °00'35 "W, 26.08 feet; Thence S09 °03'25 "W, 579.24 feet; Thence S06 °44'45 "W, 82.23 feet to the terminus of the aforesaid line, AND that portion of Government Lot 6 of said section Lying southerly of the north line of the flood control easement defined as follows: Commencing at a point S89 °01'50 "E 505.54 feet and north 00°58'10"E 313:17 feet from the southwest corner of said Government Lot 6; Thence S66 °31'59 "E 343.91 feet to the north line of said flood control easement and the True Point of Beginning; Thence easterly along said north line to the .easterly line of said Government Lot 6; AND that portion of City of Tukwila Short Plat #86 -45SS according to Short Plat recorded under Recording Number 8609081152 in Government Lot 2 of said section, lying easterly of the easterly line of Lots 2, 3, and 4 of said Short Plat. End of Tract "X" EXHIBIT B. • ;"14P, STEWART TITLE COMPANY • "-1 t of Washington. Inc. • 4:4:.; •' ORDER NO 1 IMPORTANT: Thls is not a Plat of Survey U Is furnished as a convenience to locate the land indicated hereon with reference to streets and other land. No !lability is assumed by reason of valiance hereon. PO t •rta Ft- -.ppm 11/4•*•71"-.41 \\`‘ • • I. • • lif„I ct ••••■ • i /hi I /Ili I III\ IP; H!i 1.4 ,,t4e(9 ;11 iStadure. ""...4.5:1 11 . • TU SP Mr••7111P-SS 1 I dt‘ lAtt tat'P. 1 f ops • / epot "a Pa+ a"" 1/ 1 1 tOP'4 • 0/.1' I 1 r 111;:t. / /1 1 'I/ i • if • 044 et' , I./T 111 roe. op 71.1 sp .4 se AP :?posene,. LOT • It Id' tit 0 •••• t Poit..-rnm au VJ tYl 2J1 C Lcir- —.1) XX NOR TN' • EXHIBIT B. STEWART TITLE COMPANY of Washington, Inc. ORDER NO 15(...-.zo. IMPORTANT: This Is not a Plat of Survey. It Is furnished as a convenience to totals the land indicated hereon with reference to streets and other lend. No liability is assumed by reason of reliance he eon. r j jay SP B•r�9_59 4_t 1 • •Wit1=r ei r tO 4 O i. it r = , y tS2 #r •. 3�o i t : ~ r r r m • • 6 4A aszrt.n mzn �` • Lo c— C. s -q • NORM • • STEWART TITLE COMPANY ji EXI-IIBIT B. ' of Washington, Inc. ORDER NO. IMPORTANT: Thls Is not a Plat of Survey. R Is furnished as a convenience to locate the and Indicated hereon with reference to streets and other land. No liability Is assumed by reason of reliance hereon: S'1 �!!. t�..•r Il1f. N .. •. /. M .N • 1 Pal, i TT 1 Iowa It ✓lif 0 l , f ..:: 044 e. cr, r r "• I • 1 J".; 1r•' r f{ t#` .�... t,• 1 -rJ .h I1 • / . S •!j1 • N. N • . H . •. N !•• •• 11. Po 1rt: vrn o ii odzien ert r-- 1,0 'z3 - 4 NORTH ;H W WD 00 W2. 1 tL 0: LL?:. In t- W _ . t- O. z 1—: � �': W W' H U', • Z. VN' . z 6027013 RIVER PROTECTION EASENLEN ' Pro j . 705- 127 -65 R/W 2 g # 260 1966 , THIS INDENTURE, made this 22nd day of April between louis Segale Grantor, an K ng County, a ega subd v s on o t e State of Was ington, Grantee: C') --� WITNESSETH, that first party, in consideration of $1.00 receipt of which is acknowledged, and the benefits which will accrue to is. the land of Grantor by the exercise of the rights herein granted, do hereby N remise, release and forever grant unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns, an easement and right -of -way for the purposes hereinafter stated along the Left bank of Green River, within a strip of land 30 feet in width that is parallel to and landward of the top of the river bank as constructed or reconstructed on the following describ- ed property. T.L. 18 All of Gov Lot 5 in Section 35, Twp. 23 N.R. 4 E.W.M. T.L. 36 Portion of Gov Lot 6 lying East of County Road, less portion Southwesterly of line beginning on the Easterly margin of said Road 313.17 ft. north of the south line of Lot 6, thence S. 67 °361 East to White River. Said 30 foot Easement and right of way shall be •confined and restricted to the alignment of the top of the bank, as shown on Drawing Numbered B -68 -1, B -68 -2, and B -68 -3, on file at the King County Flood Control Office Said easement and right -of -way are for the following purposes: The right to enter upon the above described land to construct, reconstruct, maintain and repair a bank protection and /or other flood control works, • ;,including all appurtenances thereto, together•with right to trim, cut, ,fell and remove all such trees, brush and other natural growth and obstruct- ,' 'ions as are necessary to provide adequate clearance and to eliminate inter - ference with, or hazards to the structures. • The consideration above mentioned, is accepted as full compensation to the exercise of the rights above granted. To have and to hold, all and singular, the said easement and right - of -way, together with appurtenances, unto Grantee, its.successors'and assigns. " IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Grantor hereunto set his hand, the day .and year above written. • Grantor Grantor STATE OF WASHINGTON )ss COUNTY OF KING ) On this day appeared before me Louis Segale to me known '.o be the individual described in and who executed the • foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. xE..t,^ Given under my hand and official seal this 22nd: day+; cct':'' � <�''•� X66 :) • ` .a �' ` - t \ • 4-. � Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residin: 210/64 ` of j' . • 'Kent�'s� ':�4. CTS . mpm Filed (or,�Record '7 /1 19 4 l0 /� j ;Pt. J Q1 .S.0%/„./ Rc ce:i of Board of C .inly Commissioners ' ..+.cwwxr...... -... � z Z' re u4 O 0 w W • LL • O' 2 • g Q =d z= 1- w f- U D. ,o wW LI O • Z U� O F. z res no 31833 . • • • . : "■•' WHEREAS, !tins County has:. Si cure d River. Zrote a tion Easement for,4f• Y:L.; ••• . • • xi), Green River Flood Control ....:'1';:, • „MAI ,2)•,..::1.1.,,.• • •;....; : ': :',•:ir... t ••.I.:. •.k:••;17:74;1'f).:•:‘.',..... , ••••, - ,:.:...!••••• ••••,•:• • t :;:::•,• ':,•,14.s, ,1.. • ! ,• • .,...:7•t.:. ., • ).;7, •!.1 v.:: , .-. • • Grantor: . • Louis Segal'''. - Grantor, *nd ?iztg County, • a. 1 '.. subdivision`,;,:•:: . •: • of the State. of Washington, .Clrantea t • ..••!•,:(,•,.; ' •••'•••••':•,•i:? ••••• 1 ••,. - • ' '" • "•••• ':•.% lir:',,v-•' , •• • : .• • • ,,, ::. ./..: • , •It,..i.z.a.,•i. ..•••• • 1 • ' WITH ESS:r.TA ; i hat first party,' ;lin eonsideration 'Of 41:00 .rseeipt of :which : 4. • . • . • • •••••••- ..!,•• • • . • Said easement and': riiiihti, af •::ws.y..•.. are ..fo.r...:.tiihi' following ....purpos s 1:10,::?,., : • . , • • • , . '..::.....•.:The right to .entor. upon tho. abtive -descri'bod4and. to cons truat, . reconstruct, : ••;''..inaintaira and 'epair a bank- Preitiicition. iladioi..2.Othor :flood' control igirk.i.b"-, (•I'itto luding. all appurtenances. thereto, ' togothoi with right to 'trim; out;?:‘,....% • ••'- .4•011 and romovo 4111 such tress i :brush and.;other natural. *growth and obstruct-. ',ions as are necessary to••'provide adegtuate*.olearanoe. and ..to?e1istinatein,t,ar, Terence with, or hazard s . to the . struo tursi • ,,.: i•ii-....• .....:.: . - • • -.:-.i.• i• - .. • . ...!..•':.'='; ., ‘. • b.. • . • : . . 1.• .4 .: ...., . • The a oniideration, above .suitatiOned,.•.is sac Cepted'! as full .comPensation to the exorcise of the rights, above....granted...:?,,, . :. •••••.• • • : .• ;.4'. • • . - ••. . ••• :•:.i4: • . • • • • ..7... • • To have . and to hoid,•,:s.11and ai-ngglar, • the amid . easement and right of way, together with apPurtenanoesi unto;.+Orantees:. its s.ucasesors and,: •:: : assigns. ..., : • . . . •• ,y .:. • • • . ,.• • ,• ,.....„. • 3.,...,7 • • • . • . •,..i..: 4. •:.•:” .,i ;.' 1. . • i • , .. .. : • .•::. : , ,(..,,... •• • - • • .. * V .• '.! '■ '.,' ,s, • •, . .. '. • ... .. 4 . • , • . .. :1%... • v.nd i • rril8R.EAS, said River •:irotec..:tion •BaSe.ifent:ka a .ueeful. and neCaisa4 • • . . part or thro County Flood Control.. . ',••.• ','• :•,:*;•:,: .•:•!,':. • • .. ' ' • : . • „. .s.s. • ., -.,,... . ..".•• . :-•:.:. . •••-:-.,:• • ' • • V. , 7•4 ryg IT RESOLVED that 'said RiVer 'Protection Zasement..be aocepted .by Ping County and the Clerk of. the Board be and la hereby' authorized '..,1.• • to Tile said River Protection .Easerient, for. rseard in the King County d..1'...: Auditor's Offi . ee. ... r-/•:. • • 6.--. ,,,L, i: • - • • • -• • ..: • ,. .. ',.::fi , . • • • . . • ,..;,:t • • .-<. .,.:0 • . .. • • -.? PASSED this dar•of • •e'- • • BOARD OF p ATTEST; ROBERT A. NORRIS Clark of the Board By RALPH STRIMER • . Deputy - C.71,/ado Attachment • 1966 -,: •.!si; r COMMISSIONERS • W.A.SHINGTOX • )7,:• ., . • • •• o •..:1-...7. : - • • • • :•‘;-:=,1,*=. 7 . •i) .60OTT•WALLACE • - - - : 'Lliiii1177-77-777-7----77-7an - ' ' . •.. . • .: ....A., ..,, • ,..-....- ...... , _ • •••• .0•• • • • • 1 • • : • :..-11:,:. : ..,. . • .... • • . .. • RD =no as ...... i . 75 , O:,.....:. .- :! . ... • ...—;.,i:.:.::1:; " : —or. l. e2.,. . :. • .• . • d,, . ; 1;.. . • . : .• • . • •• •• .•• ,• . . .M74'144 6027015 217015 GREEN RIVER RIVER PROTECTION EASEMENT] Pro j . 705-127-65 THIS INDENTURE, made this 22nd between Grantor, an King County, a legs subd vis on o the State of Washington, Grantee: Mario Segale day of April WITNESSETH, that first party, in consideration of $1.00 receipt of which is acknowledged, and the benefits which will accrue•to the land of Grantor by the exercise of the rights herein granted, do hereby remise, release and forever grant unto' the Grantee, its successors and assigns, an easement and right -of -way for the purposes hereinafter stated along the Left bank of Greeiz River, within a strip of land 30 feet in width. that is parallel to and landward of the top of the river bank as constructed or reconstructed on the following describ- ed property. T.L. 55 Gov Lot '2, the S.W.4 of the N.E.4 and portion of the S.E.4 of the N.W.4 lying Easterly of Ann Mess County Road, less beginning at a point L4.49.50 feet East of the Northwest corner of the S.W. of the N.E.*, thence S.1° 05'14" West, 401.77 ft., thence S. 88 °54'46" West, 424.89 ft., thence S. 86°58/00" West, 103.76 ft., thence S. 58°20150" West to Easterly margin of road, thence northerly along road to North line of S.E.4•of the N.W.4, thence East to beginning, less beginning on easterly margin of Road 724.86 ft. Southerly of North line of Subdivision, thence continuin southerly 151 ft., thence S. 71 °43/4A" East 203.51 ft., thence N. 16 °28/50" East 151.08 ft., thence N. 71 °43140" West, 199.53 ft. to beginning, less County Road in Section 35, •Twp. 23 N.R. 4 E.W.M. Baid 30- ::foot Easement and right of way shall be ' confined and restricted to the alignment of the top of the bank as shown on drawings Numbered B- 68 -1,- B. 68-2 and B-68 -3 on file at the King County Flood Control Office Said easement and right -of -way are for the following purposes: The right to enter upon the above described land to construct, reconstruct, •maintain and repair a bank protection and /or other flood control works, including all appurtenances thereto, together•with right to trim, cut, fell and remove all such trees, brush and other natural growth and obstruct - ions as are necessary to provide adequate clearance and to eliminate inter - ference with, or hazards to the structures. The consideration above mentioned, is accepted as full compensation to the exercise of the rights above granted. .• To have and to hold, all and singular,-the said easement and right- . %of-way, together with appurtenances, unto Grantee, its successors•and J. assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Grantor hereunto set his .`hand, the day and year above written. STATE OF WASHINGTON )ss -COUNTY OF KING Grantor Grp t On this day appeared before me Mario A. Segale to me known ':o be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed, for .the uses and purposes therein mentioned. ;. ° \E......... * No�� Given under my hand and official seal this 22nd day :.•�� .• P��-- '9 "... r l tA: • d-,,.,cam &-7_ ..1 /r7 4, - . Notary Public in and for the State a' Washington, res ing '. %...:,,:.:: r, 44 0 ,� r °� 2/10/64 D1 (; : mm Fi!od Ior.,Record4%'Q`� it 19 L �O 1d-- : M. dd�� Request of Board oI C .inly CommisSloners ..n.nT . r.Ar'pPIS Could)? Audilor �S:: �I '•HA *,•M..:..'1�34i::11�L�tTi's ai' 1f4MrolYa�' eU .lr., mP ih :iiS•. .: {SiiZIATI-v':•. :,r�2iY•:.••'.v' •r- '...rn.wwCxiMb.:1 resolution 31835 WIiz:ra Z, Ping County has •aoeurod River l'roteatioa Basamsnt for • Green River Flood Control r (R/r! 2) , ':' Grantor t. • Mario A. ,agalo, Grantor,' and•;. ';County, a:.7:4grtil subdivi,io.n of the State of Washington, grantee: ;i• ::; ; ;, " • • WlTZiOSSETE . that first party$:•:: in. consideration of, 11.00 receipt of which iau aal:nowlodgod, and the benefits whicii':.will•:, ::accrue • to the land of.• Grantor by the 'exercise of the • rights• heroin- grintedj:• do .haraby.'romise, re3,eaos • and forevor grant unto the Graent;eei•: its*: nuaaoatsore and c.saigna • an 'slue- vent and right of way'.tar tbe:: purpoaes••.horaitsafter • stated' along the', Left bunk of Green River, .. withl,a a strip `of gland 30 feet. in width .that is parallel to : and landward • of the • top of .t1 • river , barnk as ;:tons acne. or reconstructed on the toll.oeti.ttg .Oooribed ,proporty. ;• �,•1 • • ..`, '�.Y;: r ?:j.,1 :i''n..• rid:.• :� , �� •1.�� • late •�. • :4: . T.L. KS r t :��::•�� = . .. • :;,,• ;'.� •• Gov. Lot 2, the SW\:e of ,:the `N t ,end 'portliou''•o. the .S31• of •the Tit t •lying • Tilaxuter1y of, Ann Rees County Road, •lees_ :beginning at a• point 44.9:50: to et • • Bast or the' Northwest: vornor=..ot` tha••SV -of. the • then a : :S. • 1'05'147: West, ?x.01 77 rt. #•••.thence S. • 88. °514.ti,.6" . Went 4214:89 :lit: ; = thence -.6. • 86°58100. ' '�►est, . 103.76 ft. t thefoe;. S. ••58"2Ot'S0 "; Wast''.-to 'Easterly rs_a�r� n •of road, theneo northerly along road: :to. Borth linc:.0f :SEA Of •the • thsnoa ft t to beginning, -lens begitutitig::•on ealtorl.y' gi.ri or• Road 7,i'1t.86 ft '.i3outher1 or north lino of S ubdivision ,;;:thence • aoutini a southvrly,.•151 •tt: •:.fhetaa S. 71°43 1 0" East . 203.51.••.tt. r ,thence • 1i,4':16°26 t " Zast .151..08 'tt.; •:#enae • Ile 71 °1.3140 7 West, 199.3 • 't.,i 't4 't�aginnin,g•, : sea ;County •Road 1G1 sera }':: 3> 'Twp. • 2'3 .N. R. 11. :.W.M. • • r r, <::.. :,.: .. ' :: t • Said 30 tout • Hemement : And ripest ' o'wa is►ll.. i ..contitxed •'and read tri4ted to : the ulignnent or the :::top :of: tt,a bank! ;•aS uhown on drawings Numbered B Sal. 64 -2 and '-683 3.on file ate 'tshe Xing County• '.food control.•,: Office. rr .itr'yl •. Said casement and right • of way are for the .following purposes t • . The right' to enter upon'the above described land to construct, •reoonst:ruct, maintain and repair a back protection and/or. :other . flood control woa'ka, including all appurtenances thoz'e tot► tog-ethei±. wi.th'right''to .trim, tut, full and remove all such' trees, ' brush and other natural growth and obstruct- ions as are necessary to provide adequate'. clearance and to . etlimituata;': inter- teranoa with, or hazards., to the dtz'uaturos. •' t. • The consideration above' r nti.aned,. is • accepted as' • full, camponeation i.to the oxnroi.ac, of the rights above 'granted'', ' -• '•':, .. • To hare and to hold, all and singular, • Cher 'said easement and right of way, ' togother with appurtenances, , unto.Grantee, its suae©snors and assigns. ;'. , and, ". . iiHi iti.AS f said River Prbt:eotion Easement: :`is a useful and necosaury part of the County Flood Control.. .. . . . BE IT RNSOLVED that said River: Protection Eaeement be aceeptedAy Ring County and the Clerk or :the • Board be, and is. hereby authorized to filo said !liver Protection,.paeeiment 'tor •rOcnrd. in the Dina County: Auditor's Officio, PASSM this ATTEST: ROB A. MORRIS Clerk of the Board day-; :or BOARD •01' o R11000 By :tALM R. STr °. :it �...�.. _. 'epu1y `',`c' cs Y C OS S5I 0NBR8 Y. WASIII9TON SCOTT WALT A.C' ' ED mina' d ;) ' • • • • ZOTIV--••�•--T T. b' 1311 1, • :•, �;Q1'G�111!1 R onor 5222051 .6017 Airport Way Mario Segale RIVER PROTECTION EASEMENT Green R..br ;pia. A/01_ (19 PAGE2( }c) Party of the first part, does hereby, in consideration of one d'llar, in hand paid, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, GRANT to the County of King, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Washington, party of the :second part, the right construct and maintain a rip -rap bank protection and remove debris along the Left bank of Green River :River, on the following described property: Tax Lot 55 Gov Lot 2, the S.W. q of the N.E.g and portion of the S.E.. of the N.W.* lying \�, as er y o +n 'ess o. . •., ess •eg nning a po n . 1 . as o e Norbhcrest corner of the S.W. q of the N.E. t, thence S. 1° 051 14" W., 401.77 ft. thence L 88° 541 46" W., 424.8V rt., thence S. 86' ...8T uu" west, 10j.76 rt., thence S. 58 °201.50" W. to Easterly margin of road, thence northerly along ;road to Worth line or 6.E-.4 of e 1. n. .1, ence as o •eg nn ng, ess •eg.nnine on easterly margin of Road 724.86 ft.4outherly of north line of Subdivision, thence continuing southerly .0 .1 rt., thence B. (.L °43'40" E. 2u3.51 ft., trenee N. 16 °28'50" E. 151.08 ft., thence N. 71° 43' 40" W., 199.53 ft. to beginning, Less county Road in Bec. j, Wwp•. Zj N.H. 4 E.TN.M. •1' ;Also any reasonable access necessary for River Improvement work, IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties set their hands and seals on this 1 i STATE OF WASHINGTON)ss !COUNTY, OF KING hereunto have subscribed their names and f• '2/6 - day ( 4 1 . - 1 9 ‘ • ` : 7- e -; ff This' is to certify . that on this • '�% . l day of /10 271-/ 19e. before me, 'the undersigned, a. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioner' and sworn, personally came to me known to be the individual- who executed the within instr iacknowledged to me that - ho- signed and sealed the same as ;free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therin mentioned. ant, and t• i WITNESS my hand and seal the day and yeah - - -iii this certificate first tbovo mentioned. CL:MM ;7/20/60 pt,ary• °Public in a 'W hington, residi U fi :od lo: . ".r:ord �' /a 15 0 // v}.M. Roue of beard of aunty Commissioners I ?C11trP'r A rinPRIS +fmcll, ,,,,e iinti7.7, NhX.r for the Stato 0 ad-! " ,y/ lii bc'. .,;E.,,,,�,..:.,�.�.,.,.,,...: .a.,.�,,;,,.r vel�n9�ay�x: !+i'N; Y''- , • 'n 31''( t Emergency. Employment of Army and Other Resources NaturaiDisaster 'Procedures US Army Corps of Engineers z �W. WD. J U: U O: U O; CO W. W =: J I-; wO J v H W, Z O: Z H: W U ; 3O N W w• . O:. 111 Z' w' O ~: z Regulation No. 500 -1 -1 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Washington, DC 20314 -1000 Emergency Employment of Army and Other Resources NATURAL DISASTER• PROCEDURES TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Purpose 1 -1 1 -1 Applicability 1 -2 1 -1 References 1 -3 1 -1 Explanation of Abbreviations and Terms 1-4 1 -1 Responsibilities 1 -5 1 -3 ER 500 -1 -1 11 March 1991 Paragraph Page CHAPTER 2. DISASTER ASSISTANCE Authorities 2 -1 2 -1 Delegation of Authority 2 -2 2 -2 Funding for Disaster Preparedness 2 -3 2 -5 and Assistance General Policies 2-4 2 -5 Coordinating Instructions 2 -5 2 -8 Assistance Procedures 2 -6 2 -9 Other Assistance 2 -7 2 -10 Internal Control Systems 2 -8 2 -10 CHAPTER 3. DISASTER PREPAREDNESS Policy 3 -1 3 -1 Annual Preparedness Budget 3 -2 3 -1 Organization 3 -3 3 -1 Planning 3-4 3 -1 Training 3 -5 3 -2 Exercises 3 -6 3 -2 This regulation supersedes ER 500 -1 -1, 21 December 1983, and Change 1, 2 December 1987; and replaces RCS: DAEN- CWO -65 with CECW -O -65. z rw. om; JU 0 Wes. v) w: W I- -I H CO wO g cn D. =a. _;. z 1: 1- a z� D o� w ur H V: U. • z`. to .01 z ER 500-1-1 11 Mar 91 Paragraph Page CHAPTER 3. DISASTER PREPAREDNESS (Cont'd) Facility 3-7 3-2 Equipment and Supplies 3-8 3-3 Non-Federal Flood Control Works 3-9 3-4 Inspection Program CHAPTER 4. EMERGENCY OPERATIONS Policy 4-,1 4-1 Authorities • 4-2 4-2 Procedures 4-3 4-5 Reporting 4-4 4-6 • CHAPTER 5. REHABILITATION Policy 5-1 5-1 Project Deficiencies on Corps 5-2 5-4 Constructed FCW Corps Permits 5-3 5-4 Cost Share Determination 5-4 5-5 Non-Federal FCW's Procedures 5-5 5-6 CHAPTER 6. CHAPTER 7. EMERGENCY WATER ASSISTANCE SECTION I - Assistance Due to Contamination Policy 6-1 • 6-1 Emergency Water Assistance 6-2 6-2 Procedures 6-3 6-3 SECTION II - Assistance to Drought • Policy • 6-4 6-4 Procedures 6-5 6-8 ADVANCE MEASURES Policy 7-1 7-1 Advance Measures Assistance 7-2 7-2 Advance Measure Applications 7-3 7-3 Procedures 7-4 7-5 ER 500 -1 -1 11 Mar 91 • Paragraph Page , ii-: C HAPTER 8. HAZARD MITIGATION ' c4 w Policy 8 -1 8 -1 un E Background 8 -2 8 -1 c) o N° HMT Concept of Operation 8 -3 8 -2 u) w Procedures W = 8-4 8 -3 -J ,,, o�. CHAPTER 9. ASSISTANCE TO FEMA 2 1-7-ti FEMA Terms 9 -1 9 -1 N ' 9 -2 9 -1 1- W FEMA Organization 9 -3 9 -2 z x Procedures 9-4 9 -2 1- 0 Funding 9 -5 9 -5 z I- LO uj CHAPTER 10. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ASSISTANCE o D o N. o— Policy .10-1 10-1 W w: Department of Defense Delegation 10-2 10-2 of Authority and Areas of •` o: +' z;. Responsibility iii N;. Procedures v 10-3 10-2 0 �' z CHAPTER 11. NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN General 11 -1 11 -1 Policy 11 -2 11 -1 Authority 11 -3 11 -1 Background 11-4 11 -1 USACE Participation 11 -5 11 -2 Procedures 11 -6 11 -3 CHAPTER 12. EMERGENCY CONTRACTING Policy 12 -1 12 -1 Preparation Procedures 12 -2 12 -2 Contracting Procedures 12 -3 12 -3 Supply 12-4 12 -6 111 "�£�, . ER 500-1-1 11 Mar 91 CHAPTER 13. APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F APPENDIX G APPENDIX H APPENDIX I APPENDIX J APPENDIX K APPENDIX L APPENDIX M APPENDIX N PUBLIC AFFAIRS Policy Procedures Paragraph 13-1 13-2 REFERENCES PUBLIC LAW 84-99 AS AMENDED COOPERATION AND PARTICIPATION AGREEMENTS INTERNAL CONTROL CHECKLIST OUTLINE NON-FEDERAL FCW INSPECTION GUIDES PROJECT APPROVAL/FUNDING REQUEST SITUATION REPORT AFTER ACTION REPORTS REHABILITATION PROJECT APPROVAL Page 13-1 13-1 D-1 E-1 F-1 G-1 H-1 I-1 USACE/SOLL CONSERVATION SERVICE J-1 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WATER ASSISTANCE PROJECT APPROVAL K-1 ADVANCE MEASURES PROJECT APPROVAL L-1 USACE/FEMA MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT M-1 MAPS N-1 iv ER 500 -1 -1 11 Mar 91 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCI`ION 1 -1. Purpose. This regulation prescribes policies, guidance and procedures for the Domestic Emergency Program (Disaster Preparedness and Emergency /Disaster Response) of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under the authorities of Public Law (PL) 84 -99 and PL 93 -288, as amended, and AR 500 -60. 1 -2. Applicability. This regulation applies to HQUSACE /OCE elements, major subordinate commands, districts, laboratories and field operating activities (FOA). It applies to the fifty states; the District of Columbia; Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; the Northern Marianas Islands; Virgin Islands, American Samoa; Guam; and the Republic of Palau. 1 -3. 1-4. References. See Appendix A. Explanation of abbreviations and terms. a. Abbreviations. (1) C&P - Cooperation and Participation Agreement (2) DSR - Damage Survey Report (3) EOC - Emergency Operations Center (4) EPA - Environmental Protection Agency (5) FCCE - Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies (6) FCO - Federal Coordinating Officer (7) DFO - Disaster Field Office (8) FCW - Flood Control Works (9) FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Agency (10) HMT - Hazard Mitigation Team (11) HQUSACE - Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1 -1 \s z • tu re 2 J U' 'U O. U3 w CO UJ LL,; w 0. gaj =a w .z I- 0, D o; w Lu -- 'v; . L H z. V it N: I: z ER 500 -1 -1 11 Mar 91 (12) NCP - National Contingency Plan (National Oil Substance Pollution Contingency Plan) (13) PDA - Preliminary Damage Assessment (14) PL - Public Law (15) SITREP - Situation Report (16) USACE - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers b. Terms. (1) Beach Nourishment Projects. Projects designed and constructed to build or maintain a beach by placement of material to nourish and stabilize the shoreline. (2) Codes 100, 200, etc. Feature numbers in the appropriation structure for PL 84 -99 under Appropriation 96x3125. They are: (a) Code 100. Disaster Preparedness. (b) Code 200. Emergency Operations, to include Flood Response and Post Flood Response. (c) Code 300. Rehabilitation assistance to flood control works and federally constructed hurricane and shore protection projects. (d) Code 400. Emergency Water assistance to drought distressed regions or ..:localities with contaminated source of water supply. . (e) Code 500. Advance Measures assistance against an identified, imminent flood threat. (f) Code 600. Provision of support to Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team activities. (3) Federally Authorized Projects. A project authorized for construction by Congress, or by USACE continuing authorities. 1 -2 z z .mow U, UO: w =: N LL: w0 g LL <. z a; z�: zo w uj 0; U w; -O z• j �, O ER 500 -1 -1 11 Mar 91 (4) Flood Control Works (FCW). Structures designed and constructed to have appreciable and dependable effects in preventing damage by irregular and unusual rises in water level. They may include levees, channels, dams and federally authorized and constructed hurricane or shore protective structures. Structures designed and constructed to protect against salt water intrusion or tidal fluctuations are not considered FCW. (5) Flooding. Abnormally high water flow or water level that overtops the natural or artificial confining boundaries of a waterway. (6) Hurricane /Tsunami Protective Structure. Structures designed and constructed to prevent damage and flooding caused by a hurricane /tsunami surge. (7) Non - Federal Project. A flood control work not authorized by Congress or under other Federal agency authority. Works Progress Administration (WPA) projects are considered non - Federal FCW for the application of PL 84 -99 authority. (8) • Operating Division. Divisions performing district functions. The operating divisions are New England and Pacific Ocean and are included when the term "district" is used in this regulation. (9) Public Sponsor. A legal subdivision of a state or a state government; local unit of government; qualified Indian tribe, Alaska Native Corporation or tribal organization; or a state chartered organization, such as a levee board. (10) Political Subdivision. A city, town, borough, township, county, parish, district, association, or other public body created by or pursuant to state law and having jurisdiction over the water supply of such public body. (11) Shore Protective Structure. Structures designed and constructed to protect the beach or waterfront areas from erosion. (12) Stream. A body of water flowing in a definite natural or manmade course that has the potential to flood. The term stream refers to rivers, streams, creeks, brooks, etc. 1 -5. Responsibilities. a. Commander, HQUSACE will- (1) Establish policies and procedures to implement USACE authority to provide emergency /disaster assistance under PL 84 -99 and AR 500 -60, and in support of other agency authorities. ER 500 -1 -1 11 Mar 91 (2) Establish and maintain an emergency management organization. (See ER 10 -1 -3, Appendix XX.) (3) Provide guidance to subordinate elements in supporting other agencies with emergency /disaster assistance. (4) Maintain all USACE elements in a state of readiness to respond to disasters and emergencies. (5) Manage the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies Appropriation. (6) Maintain liaison and /or coordinate USACE program with appropriate Federal agencies and ensure timely support to requests for assistance. b. Division Commanders will- (1) Establish and maintain an emergency management organization to include appropriate personnel, space and facilities to manage the required preparedness and response programs. (2) Through publication of supplements or other documents, develop guidance and procedures to implement emergency /disaster response authorities within division boundaries. (3) Establish and maintain contacts with appropriate Federal, state and military agencies and coordinate the USACE emergency program as necessary. (4) Manage the disaster preparedness program and response activities division - wide within delegated authorities. (5) Review and approve funding actions and project proposals within . delegated authorities. (6) Provide guidance to . subordinate elements in supporting other agencies with. disaster assistance. (7) $stablish and maintain an operable EOC. c. District Commanders will- (1) Establish and maintain an emergency management organization to include appropriate personnel, space and facilities to manage the required preparedness and response programs. 1-4 ..�. .. •._ ,'..._...... ,.� ER 500 -1 -1 11 Mar 91 (2) Establish and maintain operational plans and procedures to respond to emergencies and disasters within authorities within their geographic area of responsibility. (3) Maintain sufficient required emergency supplies and equipment. (4) Ensure personnel are prepared to respond to emergencies and disasters. (5) Establish and maintain an operable EOC. (6) Conduct exercises. (7) Establish and maintain contacts with appropriate officials from military, Federal, state, local and charitable agencies. (8) Prepare and submit annual budget to higher headquarters and manage allocated funds. 1 -5 ER 500 -1 -1 11 Mar 91 CHAPTER 3 DISASTER PREPAREDNESS 3 -1. Policy. Division and district commanders will be prepared to provide immediate and effective response and assistance during emergencies and disasters. Preparedness includes an emergency management organization, planning, training, exercises, adequate command and control facilities, supplies, tools and equipment, and a non - Federal flood control works (FCW) inspection program. 3 -2. Annual Preparedness Budget. The division and district Disaster Preparedness programs are funded annually from the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies (FCCE) Appropriation, 96x3125. Budgets will be submitted in accordance with guidance in ER 11 -1 -320 and supplemental instructions iri the annual EC on the Civil Works budget. 3 -3. Organization. Division and district commanders will provide adequate staffing for an emergency management organization to accomplish the preparedness mission as defined by this chapter and ER 10 -1 -3, Appendix XX. In addition to an emergency management staff, divisions (where appropriate) and districts will have cadre(s) or team(s).readily available to: a. Staff the emergency operations center. b. Provide assistance under USACE's authorities in a flood emergency. c. Perform PDA, DSR, or direct assistance work for FEMA. d. Respond to an oil or hazardous materials spill. e. Execute the Federal Disaster Response Plan. 3-4. Planning. a. Supplements. Divisions are authorized to prepare supplements to this regulation. b. Plans. Headquarters,divisions and districts will prepare and maintain necessary plans for emergency /disaster assistance. The plan or plans will be published as office memorandums and /or regulations and will address emergency /disaster assistance procedures under all applicable authorities and potential mission assignments. Other plans or standing operating procedures (SOP) may be developed to enhance emergency operations. Any directories prepared will comply with the Privacy Act. 3 -1 z re LLI2' 6 JU. •U O'. U) f-, N LL J u) Da'. w, I-O Z ~; 2 D. o o -, = U. z. iu z ER 500 -1 -1 11 Mar 91 c. Distribution. Supplements, office memorandums and regulations on emergency /disaster assistance procedures will be forwarded to HQUSACE, Readiness Branch (CECW -OE). 3 -5. Training. • a. Divisions and districts will ensure personnel assigned emergency assistance responsibilities are properly trained to accomplish them. b. The Emergency Management element is responsible for managing the required training. An Engineer Regulation (ER 500 -1 -19) that is being published identifies required and recommended training for Corps personnel assigned to emergency /disaster assistance activities. 3 -6. Exercises. Divisions and districts are required to conduct an exercise at least once every three years but will be allowed to. waive that requirement if actual emergency response was conducted during the three -year period. The Division /District Emergency Manager will make a recommendation to the Commander as to the need for an exercise and the level of participation required and the commander will make the final decision. After action reports for the exercise will be prepared and forwarded to the next higher headquarters for review. In the event that a division or district determines that a programmed exercise is not needed for a given year, any funds allocated for such an exercise will be offered for revocation. 3 -7. Facility. a. Emergency Operations Center (EOC). Headquarters, divisions, and districts will provide a dedicated facility, for an EOC to provide command and control for emergency /disaster response or recovery activities. The EOC will not be utilized on a "—daily basis for non - compatible uses (i.e., office space, storage, etc.) but will be maintained under the control of the Emergency Management element for immediate activation to accommodate the emergency operations staff . or crisis management team. The EOC will be located with or adjacent to the Emergency Management element and near as possible to the message control center. The EOC should be located in the most secure portion of the building on the ground floor or below for access during power outages or in local disasters. b. Funding. The FCCE appropriation is used for meeting the requirements as defined by this regulation. 3 -2 ER 500 -1 -1 11 Mar 91 c. EOC Requirements. To support the emergency activities under the Disaster Preparedness Program the following minimum requirements for the EOC will be provided. (Note: Additional requirements for operability during national emergencies or exercises should also be incorporated into plans and funded under other programs) (1) Communication. Telephones, high speed digital facsimile, computer telecommunication, and high frequency single side band radio. (2) Furniture. Furniture suitable and conducive to an EOC and in the quantity to meet the staffing level specified by the emergency /disaster assistance plan. Custom furniture may be justified in order to conserve space and maintain operability. Furniture should allow for expanded operations when necessary. (3) Power. Emergency backup power will be provided for the EOC either separately or within the emergency power supply for the entire building. (4) Size. Divisions and districts will utilize the information in Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL) Technical Report P -147, June 1983, along with pertinent General Services Administration criteria to design and calculate space requirements for the EOC to meet staffing, equipment, and operational needs in accordance with emergency response plans. (5) Auxiliary Air Conditioning /Heating. Independent air conditioning and heating systems will be provided for the EOC in order to insure operability during weekends and /or after duty hours. For buildings where the entire system must be on to heat /cool the EOC, the controls in the EOC will allow for system activation or arrangements must be made to have the system activated during these times. (6) Life Support. Minimum life support items such as a refrigerator and a microwave oven /range and access to potable water and restroom facilities will be maintained in.or near the EOC for operability in local or long term disaster operations. In regions subject to widespread devastations where basic life support may not be available for several days following .a disaster, the EOC will provide additional life support in the form of sleeping facilities, showers, self contained emergency power and water, and cooking /dining areas for emergency operations /crisis management staff. 3-8. Equipment and Supplies. a. Equipment and Supplies for Emergency Response Personnel. Divisions and districts will maintain equipment and supplies to be readily available for use by the EOC, disaster field offices, and disaster field teams. Equipment procured for field use may be special, compact, lightweight and /or portable. Such equipment and supplies may include but not be limited to the following: 3 -3 ..� z Hz w 00 cn• w • LL. w0 LL cod 1— Wm z� 0 z1 uj U co 0 I- w w 0 w z. 0 z ER 500 -1 -1 11 Mar 91 (1) Field kits, office supplies, pagers, telephone answering machines, and telephones. (2) Safety and protective personnel items such as hard hats, overshoes, safety glasses, rain gear, or items as defined by EFARS 17/9002(e). (3) USACE visibility items such as red jackets, signs, banners, arm bands, and caps with the words "Emergency Operations" printed on them. These items will be centrally procured by CDR USACE (CECW -OE), WASH DC 20314. Districts /divisions are required to stock these items. Division Emergency Managers are authorized to approve division /districts requests for other types of visibility items (not centrally procured) to meet local needs in accomplishing mission. • (4) Audio and video equipment and supplies. (5) Communication devices for weather and news data. b. Equipment and Supplies for Emergency Operations. Equipment and supplies may be stockpiled for use only during emergency operations. Accountability for all equipment and supplies will be maintained using division or district procedures, or procedures established by the Emergency Management Office. Inventories. will be performed annually, and results of inventories will be kept on file. Equipment and supplies will not be issued for stockpile to any non -USACE activity. Additional pumps for use by non - Federal interests during flood emergencies will not be procured under the Disaster Preparedness Program. However, maintenance to existing pumps will be funded under Code 200 during the emergency /disaster or Code 100 afterwards. Pumps required for Corps flood emergency use will be procured and maintained under the appropriate project or other authority. 3 -9. Non - Federal Flood Control Works Inspection Program. Districts will establish a non- Federal flood control works inspection program. This program includes the establishment of a FCW Catalog system, the performance of Initial Eligibility Inspections, and the performance of regularly scheduled Continuing Eligibility Inspections. It will be funded under Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies, 96x3125, Code 9.10 -140. District annual budgets will include funds for Continuing Eligibility Inspections only. Funding for Initial Eligibility Inspections will be requested from HQUSACE on an as needed basis. a. FCW Catalog. Districts will establish and maintain a FCW Catalog of all non - Federal flood control works that have been inspected. The catalog will contain: (1) The FCW Data Sheet as shown in Appendix E, which contains the rating and results of the Initial Eligibility Inspection. 3-4 z w 6 00 N o • w J = w0 J L ?. co a =w F- _ zF.- Z o, Lij w 2• o U O -. o � w uj 1- ..z _. O ▪ 1—. z ER 500 -1 -1 11 Mar 91 (2) The rating and result of all Continuing Eligibility Inspections. - (3) The current eligibility status (active or inactive). If inactive, provide the date the district placed it in an inactive status. b. Inspection Procedure. The Non - Federal Inspection Guides (Appendix E) will be used to establish the acceptable and minimum performance levels for non - Federal FCW to be eligible for the Corps rehabilitation program and also provide criteria for unacceptable performance levels. No flood control project that is deemed as being in poor condition (severe deficient maintenance, or unsound engineering) by the inspection team or where the owner /sponsor does not have apparent intent or capability to maintain will be placed in an "active" status. See paragraph 3 -9 e(1) below. These guides are to be used as a management tool to evaluate rehabilitation application and will be provided to all known sponsors of non - Federal FCW's for their use in maintaining or upgrading their projects in order to remain eligible for the Corps rehabilitation program. The inspection data will identify all areas where work is required to upgrade the FCW to an acceptable performance level, and be used to establish an appropriate time period and schedule to accomplish the work. If sponsors fail to accomplish the required work on schedule, they will be notified that the FCW is not eligible for consideration for rehabilitation under PL 84 -99. The FCW will then be placed in the inactive status. No further inspections will be made of a facility that is ineligible until the sponsor provides notification by letter indicating that noted deficiencies have been corrected. c. Initial Eligibility Inspections. Districts were directed to perform Initial Eligibility Inspections for all non - federally constructed flood control works that have received USACE rehabilitation assistance under PL 84 -99 by July 1989. (NOTE: HQUSACE later granted exceptions.) Any sponsor or owner of a non - Federal FCW that has not received USACE rehabilitation assistance may request an Initial Eligibility Inspection for the purpose of recording the inspection rating in the district's FCW Catalog. If a request for assistance is received for damaged flood control works not in the FCW Catalog, an Initial Eligibility Inspection must be conducted to determine eligibility for rehabilitation assistance. A rating in accordance with the instructions in Appendix E will be given for each FCW. d. Continuing Eligibility Inspections. Districts will conduct a Continuing Eligibility Inspection utilizing the Maintenance Compliance Guide (Figure E -3) for-all flood control works that are in an "active" eligibility status. See paragraph 3 -9e(1) below. These subsequent inspections will be for the purpose of detecting significant changes to project conditions from the Initial Eligibility. Inspection which . impact the integrity of the FCW. A rating in accordance with Appendix E (same as Initial Inspection) will be given for each inspection conducted and will be performed at least once every two years. 3 -5 z <z 00 1 w o' -d =W o. w 2 0 0. ff'. 0 H =U LL 0. Z. • • 0 z ER 500 -1 -1 11 Mar 91 e. Eligibility Status. (1) Active. Flood control works listed as "active" in the FCW Catalog are eligible for PL 84 -99 assistance. An active flood control work is one that: (a) Received a rating of "acceptable" or "minimally acceptable" based on the Engineering Guide in Figure E -2; and (b) received a rating of "acceptable" or "minimally acceptable" based on the Maintenance Compliance Guide in Figure E -3 or is providing upgrade of noted deficiencies according to schedule and to the districts satisfaction after receiving an "unacceptable" rating. Though the goal is to complete all necessary work prior to the next flood season, the district may establish a reasonable time period and schedule that is to be coordinated with the appropriate division office and owner /sponsor. In the event that a flood disaster damages the FCW before the public sponsor can correct the maintenance deficiencies, the deferred maintenance policy of Chapter 5 (paragraph 5 -Ij) will apply to the remaining incomplete FCW. (2) Inactive. Flood control works listed as "inactive" in the FCW Catalog are ineligible for PL 84 -99 rehabilitation assistance. The FCW remains in an inactive status until the public sponsor improves the FCW and requests a subsequent Eligibility Inspection. An inactive flood control work is: (a) A FCW that received an "unacceptable" rating based on the Engineering Guide; or (b) a FCW that received an acceptable or minimally acceptable rating based on the Engineering Guide but failed to make improvements according to approved schedules or to the districts satisfaction after receiving an unacceptable rating on the Maintenance Compliance Guide. However, applicants that receive an "unacceptable" rating in the Maintenance Compliance portion, may be given an opportunity to upgrade their project if this appears to be in the best interest of the rehabilitation program and project benefits are clear. ft Reinstatement. FCW in an inactive status due to non- compliance with the Maintenance Compliance Guide may be reinstated and placed in an active status provided they are able to achieve an "acceptable" rating. Reinstated FCW must always meet the "acceptable" rating to be maintained in an active status. 3 -6 . . ER 500-1-1 11 Mar 91 g. Eligibility Disagreements. In the event the public sponsor disagrees with the "unacceptable" ratings given by USACE, a district will inform the sponsor to submit his engineering data for review. If the district stands by its original decision, the district will explain why it rejects the sponsor's data and advise him that he may appeal to the division engineer. Districts and divisions will recognize appeals up to the Chief of Engineers and will consider his decision as final. 3-7 3 E, • ER 500 -1 -1 11 Mar 91 APPENDIX B PUBLIC LAW 84 -99 AS AMENDED 33 U.S.0 701n. Flood Emergency preparation; authorized expenditures (a)(1) There is authorized an emergency fund to be expended in preparation for emergency response to any natural disaster, in flood fighting and rescue operations, or in the repair or restoration of any flood control work threatened or destroyed by flood, including the strengthening, raising, extending, or other modification thereof as may be necessary in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers for the adequate functioning of the work for flood control; in the emergency protection of federally authorized hurricane or shore protection being threatened when in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers such protection is war- ranted to protect against imminent and substantial loss to life and property; in the repair and restoration of any federally authorized hurricane or shore protective structures damaged or destroyed by wind, wave, or water action of other than an ordinary nature when in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers such repair and restoration is warranted for the adequate functioning of the structure for hurricane or shore protection. The emergency fund may also be expended for emergency dredging for restoration of authorized project depths for Federal navigable channels and waterways made necessary by flood, drought, earhtquake, or other natural disasters. In any case in which the Chief of Engineers is otherwise performing work under this section in an area for which the Governor of the affected State has requested a determination that an emergency exists or a declaration that a major disaster exists under the Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1974, the Chief of Engineers is further authorized to perform on public and private lands and waters for a period of ten days following the governor's request any emergency work made necessary by such emergency or disaster which is essential for the preservation of life and property, including, but not limited to, channel clearance, emergency shore protection, clearance and removal of debris and wreckage en- dangering public health and safety, and temporary restoration of essential public facilities and services. The Chief of Engineers, in the exercise of his discretion, is further authorized to provide emergency supplies of clean water, on such terms as he determines to be advisable, to any locality which he fords is confronted with a source of contaminated water causing or likely to cause a substantial threat to the public health and welfare of the inhabitants of the locality. The appropriation of such moneys for the initial establishment of this fund and for its replenishment on an annual basis is authorized: Provided, that pending the appropriation of sums to such emergency fund, the Secretary of the Army may allot, from existing flood control appropriations, such sums as may be necessary for the immediate prosecution of the work herein authorized, such appropriations to be reimbursed from the appropriation herein authorized when made. The Chief of Engineers is authorized, in the prosecution of work in connection with rescue operations, or conducting other flood emergency work, to acquire on a rental basis such motor vehicles, including passenger cars and buses, as in his discretion are deemed necessary. (2) In preparing a cost and benefit feasibility assessment for any emergency project described in paragraph (1), the Chief of Engineers shall consider the benefits to be gained by such project for the protection of- "(A) residential establishments; "(B) commercial establishments, including the protection of inventory, and "(C) agricultural establishments, including the protection of crops." • .... . .. - z mw 6 J 00 N • to w; MI I. 1-; tu g _. NCl =w _. Z� O: Z U• D .0 I- w w- Z LL f - •id ' •o Z -- z' • O H Z ER 500 -1 -1 11 Mar 91 "(b)(1) The Secretary, upon a written request for assistance under this paragraph made by any farmer, rancher, or political subdivision within a distressed area, and after determination by the Secretary that (A) as a result of the drought such farmer, rancher, or political subdivision has an inadequate supply of water, (B) an adequate supply of water can be made available to such farmer, rancher, or political sub- division through the construction of a well, and (C) as a result of the drought such well could not be constructed by a private business, the Secretary, subject to paragraph (3) of this subsection, may enter into an agreement with such farmer, rancher, or political subdivision for the construction of such well. "(2) The Secretary, upon a written request for assistance under this paragraph made by any farmer, rancher, or political subdivision within a distressed area, and after a determination by the Secretary that as a result of the drought such farmer, rancher, or political subdivision has an inadequate supply of water and water cannot be obtained by such farmer, rancher, or political subdivision, the Secretary may transport water to such farmer, rancher, or political subdivision by methods which include, but are not limited to, small - diameter emergency water lines and tank trucks, until such time as the Secretary determines that an adequate supply of water is available to such farmer, rancher, or political subdivision. "(3)(A) Any agreement entered into by the Secretary pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection shall require the farmer, rancher, or political subdivision for whom the well is constructed to pay to the United States the reasonable cost of such construction, with interest, over such number of years, not to exceed thirty, as the Secretary deems appropriate. The rate of interest shall be that rate which the Secretary determines would apply if the amount to be repaid was a loan made pursuant to Section 7(b)(2) of the Small Business Act. "(B) The Secretary shall not construct any well pursuant to this subsection unless the farmer, rancher, or political subdivision for whom the well is being constructed has obtained, prior to construction, all necessary state and local permits. "(4) The Federal share for the transportation of water pursuant to paragraph (2) of this subsection shall be 100 per centum. "(5) For purposes of this subsection- "(A) the term ' construction' includes construction, reconstruction, or repair; "(B) the term 'distressed area' means an area which the Secretary determines due to drought . conditions has an inadequate water supply which is causing, or is likely to cause, a substantial threat to the 'health and welfare of the inhabitants of the area including threat of damage or loss of property; "(C) the term 'political subdivision' means a city, town, borough, county, parish, district, association, or other public body created by or pursuant to state law and having jurisdiction over the water supply of such public body; "(D) the term 'reasonable cost' means the lesser of (i) the cost to the Secretary of constructing a well pursuant to this subsection exclusive of the cost of transporting equipment used in the construction of wells, or (ii) the cost to a private business of constructing such well; "(E) the term 'Secretary' means the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers; and "(F) the term 'state' means a state, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American samoa, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands." ER 500 -1 -1 11 Mar 91 Historical Note Codification. The Department of War was designated the Department of the Army, and the title of the Secretary of War was changed to Secretary of the Army by Section 205(a) of Act July 26, 1947, c. 343, Title II, 61 State. 501. Section 205(a) of Act July 26, 1947, was repealed by Section 53 of Act August 10, 1956, c. 1041. 70A Stat. 641. Section 1 of Act August 10, 1956, enacted "Title 10, Armed Forces ", which in Sections 3011 -3013 continued the military Department of the Army under the administrative supervision of a Secretary of the Army. 1990 - Section 302 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (PL 101 -640) amends PL 84-99 by striking "flood emergency preparation" and adding "preparation for emergency response to any natural disaster." It also authorizes the use of the emergency fund for emergency dredging for restoration of authorized project depths for Federal navigable channels and waterways made necessary by flood, drought, earthquake, or other natural disaster. • 1987 - Section 9 of the Farm Disaster Assistance Act of 1987 (PL 100 -45) amends PL 84-99 by requiring the Corps of Engineers to consider benefits to residential establishments, commercial estab- lishments and agricultural establishments in preparing a benefit -cost analysis for any emergency project. . 1986 - Section 917 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (PL 99 -662) amends PL 84-99 by removing the word "drinking" in each place it appears. It also authorizes the Chief of Engineers perform- ing emergency work in a disaster area to perform emergency work on public and private lands and waters for a period of ten days following a Governor's request for assistance. 1977 - Amendment: PL 95 -51 approved 20 June 1977, added subsection (b) giving the Secretary the authority to construct wells and transport water during drought situations. 1974 - Amendment: PL 93-251 deleted the specified amount of the emergency fund, and authorized the emergency provision of clean drinking water to any locality confronted with a contaminated source. 1962 - Amendment: PL 87 -874 authorized expenditures from the emergency fund for the protection of federally authorized hurricane or shore protection being threatened when such is warranted to protect against imminent and substantial loss to life and property, and for the repair and restoration of any such federally authorized hurricane or shore protective structure damaged or destroyed by wind or water action of an extraordinary nature when such is warranted for the adequate functioning of the structure for hurricane or shore protection. 1955 - Amendment: Act June 28, 1955, PL 84-99, authorized expenditure for flood emergency preparation and eliminated the requirement of maintenance of flood control works threatened by flood. 1950 - Amendment: Act May 17, 1950, expanded scope of work considered under emergency repairs to flood control structures and increased the appropriation from $2,000,000 to $15,000,000. 1948 - Amendment: Act June 30, 1948, added provisions relating to the strengthening, extending, or modification of flood control work. 1946 - Amendment: Act July 24, 1946, increased authorization from $1,000,000 to $2,000,000. 1941 - Section 5 of the Flood Control Act of August 18, 1941 (PL 77 -228) established the authority for the expenditure of not more than $1,000,000 per year for rescue or in the repair or maintenance of any flood- control work threatened or destroyed by flood. B -3 ER 500 -1 -1 11 Mar 91 APPENDIX E NON - FEDERAL FCW INSPECTION GUIDES E-1. Purpose. The purpose of this appendix is to provide instructions and guidance in the inspection, evaluation, and rating of Non - Federal Flood Control Works (FCW). E-2. Rating. The FCW will be given an overall rating based on the results of the engineering rating and maintenance compliance rating as determined in the Initial Eligibility Inspection. The overall rating will be determined using the guidance in Table E -1 and inserted under Item 26 on the FCW Data Sheet (Figure E -1). Continuing eligibility inspection ratings are inserted under Item 32 on the data sheet. TABLE E -1 Condition A - Acceptable M - Minimally Acceptable U - Unacceptable Item Recommendation No immediate work required. A deficient condition(s) exist(s) which needs to be improved by the Levee owner. The inspectors evaluation should establish specific time periods within which the minimally accept- able performance items must be upgraded to acceptable. Items which fall within this category may render the FCW ineligible for rehabilitation under PL 84-99 unless immediate corrective action is taken by owner /sponsor to upgrade the deficiencies to at least minimally acceptable. Though the goal is to accomplish all necessary work prior to the next flood season, the district may establish a reasonable time period and schedule that is to be coordinated with the appropriate division office and owner /sponsor. The Emergency Management Division/Branch will notify the owner of potential impacts of this condition. E-3. FCW Data Sheet. Districts will complete and maintain FCW Data Sheet for each Initial Eligibility Inspection conducted. The minimum information to be maintained is shown in Figure E -1. Much of the information will be evaluations made through visual observation and analysis of engineering and performance data. Extensive calculations are . not required and those made will be made from existing data. When there is no data available, the Inspection Program Manager may authorize surveys. ER 500 -1 -1 11 Mar 91 FCW IDENTIFICATION 1. Project Name. A name given to identify a FCW. To conform to automated databases, recommend the name given be limited to 30 characters or less. 2. State. Self explanatory. 3. County. ' Self explanatory. 4. City. Self explanatory. 5. CWIS Number. The Civil Works Information System number if one is assigned. 6. River. The name of the river which the FCW is on. 7. River Basin. The name of the river basin. 8. Type of FCW. Indicate levee, dam, channel or combination thereof. 9. Other Purpose. Indicate if the project has another purpose other than for flood control and protection. OWNER INFORMATION 10. Owner's /Sponsor's The owner's /sponsor's name of the FCW such as the state, a Name county, city, district, or individual. 11. Point of Contact. The name of an individual representing the owner. 12. Address/Phone No. Self explanatory. TECHNICAL DATA 13. Dimensions. Describe the physical features of the FCW. For example, if the FCW is a levee, provide the dimensions for the height, crown width, side slopes, length, etc. In place of a narrative description, a sketch of the FCW may be made as an attachment to the Data Sheet. 14. Material. Describe the material used in the construction of the FCW. Example, for levees, provide the type of soil, and lining or rip rap used, etc. 15. Dfa*age Area. The total drainage area of the FCW at the downstream end of the project if the information is readily available. 16. Level of Protection. Estimate the level of protection in terms of exceedance frequency in percent chance. Figure E -1. Information for FCW Data Sheets E -2 z w 6 U' 0 0: p, CO w' W= 1 _ �w. . w 0. g Q: =0 Z 0: • 2j 0 0: • 10 N 2 0 u' O ui Z N; 0 F ER 500 -1 -1 11. Mar 91 17. Freeboard. Self explanatory. 18. Geotechnical. Statement describing the geotechnical aspects of the FCW. 19. Hydraulics Design. Statement describing the hydraulics features of the FCW. 20. Gage Locations. List the locations of gages in the vicinity of the flood control work. ECONOMIC INFORMATION 21. Area Protected. The total area protected by the FCW in terms of square miles. 22. Land Usage /Value. List all the different land usage, the area of the land usage in terms of percentage of total area protected, and value of the land usage, such as: Agricultural Residential Undeveloped land Public recreation Commercial retail Industrial HISTORY 50% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% $20,000 $450,000 510,000 S25,000 S650,000 S950,000 23. Historic Floods. List all past historic flood events that caused considerable damages to the FCW. 24. Previous Repairs. List all dates, expenses, and sources of funds spent on previous repairs due to flood damages. Do not include routine maintenance costs. 25. CURRENT SATUS Active or inactive. RESULTS OF INITIAL ELIGIBILITY INSPECTION 26. Date 1st. Inspection. The date the first Initial Eligibility Inspection was performed. 27. First Rating. The Engineering, Maintenance and overall rating assigned for the first inspection. 28. Date of Inspections. The date of other inspections performed if the owner failed to receive an "A" or "M" rating in the first inspection. 29. Subsequent Ratings. The ratings for each subsequent inspection. 30. Deficiencies. List all the deficiencies noted during the inspection(s). 31. Inspectors. Name, Title or position, Grade, and office of the inspector(s). Figure E -1. Information for FCW Data Sheets (Coned) E -3 z u6= • JU U O. () w =, —I W O. u. c �. z 1-0' .Z 1- UO us, .0 H. W uJ u.0: —O wZ =: 0 z ER 500 -1 -1. 11 Mar 91 CONTINUING ELIGIBILITY INSPECTIONS 32. Inspections. Results and ratings. Figure E -1. Information for FCW Data Sheets (Cont'd) Q: • �w • UO Np;• . Ufi W =; • • :CO (L ' •g Q; • 1-_. • • Z o' w• w: U os. N` 1H, . W W' • O ER 500 -1 -1 11 Mar 91 E -4. Engineering Guide. This guide (Figure E -2) is used to assign a rating (Table E -1) for the Initial Eligibility Inspection. This guide is not intended as an absolute standard, nor is it intended to establish design standards for non - Federal flood control works. The guide is provided to establish uniform procedure in assigning rating. codes to the FCW. Initial Eligibility Inspection should be conducted by technical staff experienced in FCW design, construction, maintenance, and damage investigations. a. Suggestions for Source of Data and Evaluations (Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis) (1) Investigation procedures may include noting stream characteristics, such as meandering, braiding, and excessive depositions. Also, observation should include things that may affect future stream changes, such as; debris on bridge structures and historical changes, as related by local interests or filed news accounts of flooding events. (2) Collection of data such as high water marks, location of bench marks, bridge cross - sections, flooding, and gage information may be available through searching in -house files or contacting local Department of Highways, County Engineers, and /or state water agencies. Agencies with the US Department of Interior, such as the U.S. Geological Survey. and Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Soil Conservation Services (SCS) or Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture may be a good source of information on flooding. Also, another valuable source of information may be obtained through photographs of impacted areas through contacts with local residents and the news media. (3) Gauge data and /or regional equations are generally the first choice for estimating peak flood flow probability, where applicable. The USGS has published information on estimating the probability of floods in a location without any gauges. These documents are available to provide a simple means of obtaining flood probabilities that are essentially unaffected by changes in the watershed, conveyance, storage, or runoff characteristics for natural sites without gauges. The USGS also has flood probability data on its computer system for various gaged locations. Regional equations and other types of relations, rather than the USGS information may be used. Watershed modeling may be done if necessary, because the watershed characteristics have been altered, etc. (4) Available data and /or profiles based on known water surface and flow information are generally the first choice for water surface profiles. However, when water surface profiles are not available and simple procedures, such as .end area slope, are not applicable, the profiles can be computed with cross- sections and roughness values and computer programs such as HEC -2. Roughness values can be estimated from field inspection and photographs of the channel and over bank areas taken within . -' E -5 ER 500 -1 -1 11 Mar 91 the last 12 months. Cross - sections can usually be developed using aerial photos, topographic maps, and from over bank and channel cross section surveys gathered by inspectors. Other information (i.e., levee location, distances, floodways, and historical high water marks are also needed for hydrologic study. (5) Each inspection will document the effectiveness of existing erosion control features, and /or the need for protection against erosion in areas being threatened by wave action or surface flows, including erosion around appurtenant structures. Inspector(s) knowledgeable in bank protection, sediment transport, river morphology and generally familiar with the region, should be enlisted for this inspection. b. Suggestions for Source of Data and Evaluations (Geotechnical Analyses) (1) The geotechnical evaluation will be based primarily on a detailed visual inspection using the parameters provided in Section I of the Rating Guide. Soil samples should be taken as determined necessary by the geotechnical evaluator, who will then decide how extensive the analysis should be. (2) The initial inspection should identify critical areas where slope stability appears weakest and document the location, reach, and cross - section at these points. Appropriate monitoring and evaluations should be recommended to document changes at these locations. Immediate monitoring of new areas which become suspect because of erosion or movement of the embankment should also be recommended. Table E -2 is provided only as a guide for the initial visual inspection and evaluation of slope stability. TABLE E -2 Cross Section Template Data Maximum Levee Riverward rial Side -Sl Clay 1V on 2 1 /2H 1V on 3H Maximum Landward Maximum Top date ope Side -Slope Height Width 1V on 2 1/2H 12 Feet 10 Ft Sand 1V on 4H 15 Feet 10 Ft (3) It is recognized that to observe the most critical seepage conditions, the insp€ccions should be conducted coincident with high river stages. z _I F.. w JQQg V. '0 0 co 0 row uJ J H. moLL; • g 5: I- al zt.- r- o. zf-, _fn; • :o . ua W. o V N F=- _ 0 z Rating codes: A- Acceptable Performance Level M- Minimally Acceptable Performance Level U- Unacceptable Performance Level ER 500-1-1 11 Mar 91 ITEM RATING GUIDE 1. Level of Protection A- The designed section is for an exceedance frequency greater than 10% chance (10 yr.) with minimum freeboard of 2 feet. M- The designed section is for an exceedance frequency between 20% to 10% chance (5-10 yr) with minimum freeboard of 1 foot. U- The designed section is less than the minimum required for an M rating. 2. Erosion Control A- Erosion protection in active areas is capable of handling the designed flow velocity for the level of protection for the entire FCW. . • M- Erosion protection is capable of handling the designed flow velocity for the level of protection for 75% or more of the FCW. U- Erosion protection measures protects less than 75% of the FCW; or if erosion protection was not provided and there is evidence indicating a need for erosion protection. 3. Embankment A- Fill material for embankment is suitable to prevent slides and seepage for the existing side slopes. Fin material is uniform and adequately compacted through the entire FCW. M- Material is adequate and suitable to prevent major slides and capable of handling localized seepage for the existing side slopes. Fill material is uniform and adequately compacted in 75% or more of the FCW. U- Material is unsuitable and likely to cause numerous slides and allow excessive uncontrolled seepage. Ftll material is not uniform, or there is no compaction and evidence indicates a need for compaction. 4. Foundation A- Foundation materials will not cause piping, sand boils, seepage, or settlements which reduce the level of protection. M- Foundation materials may show signs of excessive seepage, minor sand boils, and localized settlements. U- Foundation materials are unsuitable and likely to cause excessive uncontrolled seepage, sand boils, and piping. Figure E-2. Engineering Guide E-7 ; ER 5004 -1 11 Mar 91 Structures A- Structures are capable of performing their design functions and show no signs of failure. M- Structures are performing their design functions but show signs of overtopping and bypassing flows. U- Structures are not performing their design functions or show signs of structural failure. Figure E -2. Engineering Guide (Cont'd) Hz Z, n, ILE U. O N c' N UP. WI • W }O. = Ci W; • Z 1— O': • :Z f— 'W W. • U Cr • .' U ,l-- Z;. •i111 U�. ER 500 -1 -1 11 Mar 91 E-5. Maintenance Compliance Guide. This guide (Figure E -3) is used to assign a rating for maintenance compliance during the Initial Eligibility Inspection and the Continuing Eligibility Inspection. The evaluation should reflect the level of maintenance required to insure the intended degree of flood protection and actions required by the owner /sponsor for a FCW to remain eligible for the rehabilitation program under PL 84 -99. Rating codes: A- Acceptable Performance Level M- Minimally Acceptable Performance Level U- Unacceptable Performance Level ITEM RATING GUIDE 1. Depressions A- Minimal depressions or potholes; proper drainage. M- Some depressions that will not pond water. U- Depressions 6' vertical or greater which endangers the integrity of the levee. 2. Erosion A- No erosion observed. M- LEVEES: Erosion of levee crown or slopes that will not interrupt inspection or maintenance access. OTHER: Erosion gullies less than 6 inches deep or deviation of 1 foot from designed grade or section. U- LEVEE Erosion of levee crown or slopes that has interrupted inspection or maintenance access. OTHER: Erosion gullies greater than 6 inches or deviation of 1 foot or more from designed grade or section. 3. Slope Stability A- No slides present, or erosion of slopes more than 4' deep. M- Minor superficial sliding that with deferred repair does not pose an immediate threat to FCW integrity. No displacement or bulges. U- Evidence of deep seated sliding (2 ft. vertical or greater) requiring repairs to re- establish FCW integrity. 4. Cracking A- No cracks In transverse or longitudinal direction observed in the FCW. M- Longitudinal cracks are no longer than the levee height. No displacement and bulging. No transverse cracks observed. U- Longitudinal cracks are greater than levee height with some bulging observed. Transverse cracks are evident. Figure E -3. Maintenance Compliance Guide. E -9 :" '... . ... • • ER 500 -1 -1 11 Mar 91 5. Animal Burrows A- Continuous animal burrow control program that eliminates any active burrowing in a short period of time. M- Animal burrows present that will not result in seepage or slope stability problems. U- Animal burrows present that would result in possible seepage or slope stability problems. 6. Unwanted Levee . Growth A- No large brush or trees exist in thc FCW. Grass cover well maintained. CHANNELS: Channel capacity for designed flows is not affected. M- Minimal tree (2' diameter or smaller) and brush cover present that will not threaten FCW integrity. (NOTE Trees that have been cut and removed from levees should have their roots excavated and the cavity filled and compacted with impervious material). CHANNELS: Channel capacity for designed flows is not adversely affected. U- Tree, weed and brush cover exists in the FCW requiring removal to re- establish or ascertain FCW integrity. (NOTE If significant growth on levees exists, prohibiting rating of other levee inspection items, then thc inspection should be ended until this item is corrected.) CHANNEL,; Channel obstructions have impaired the floodway capacity and hydraulic effectiveness. 7. Encroachments A- No trash, debris, excavations, structures, or other obstructions present. M- Trash, debris, excavations, structures, or other obstructions present or inappropriate activities occurring that will not inhibit operations and maintenance performance. U- Trash, debris, excavations, structures or other obstructions present or inappropriate activities that would inhibit operations and maintenance performance. Rlprap /Revetment A- Existing protection works which is properly maintained and undamaged. M- No scouring activity that could undercut banks, erode embankments, or restrict desired channel flow. U- Meandering and /or scour activity that is undercutting banks, eroding embankments (such as levees), or impairs channel flows by causing turbulence, meandering or shoaling. Figure E -3. Maintenance Compliance Guide (Cont'd) Z = H' W. Ce D ..J U: U O' 'CO 0. W =; J 1- w o• g. • co IL • H =. Z F-: I- O: Z h- U.D. tlf Ijf U• • Z• • UN 0 H Z • ER 500-1-1 11 Mar 91 9. Stability of A- Tilting, sliding or settling of structures, that has been secured which preserves Concrete Structures the integrity or performance. M- Uncorrected sliding or settlement of structures of a magnitude that doesn't affect performance. U- Tilting or settlement of structures that has resulted with a threat to the structure's integrity and performance. 10. Concrete Surfaces A- Negligible spoiling or scaling. No cracks present that are not controlled by reinforcing steel or that cause integrity deterioration or result in inadequate structure'perfonnance. M- Spoiling, scaling and cracking present but immediate integrity or performance of structure not threatened. U- Surface deterioration or deep, controlled cracks present that result in an unreliable structure. 11. Structural A- No scouring or undermining near the structures. Foundations M- Scouring near the footing of the structure but not close enough to impact structure stability during the next flood event. U- Scouring or undermining at the foundation which has impacted structure integrity. 12. Culverts A- [a] No breaks, holes, cracks in the culvert that would result in any significant water leakage. No surface distress that could result in permanent damage. [b] Negligible debris or silt blocking culvert section. None or minimal debris or sediment present which has negligible effect on operations of the culvert. M- [a] Culvert integrity not threatened by rpalls, scales or Surface rusting. Cracks are present but resulting leakage is not impacting the structure. [b] Debris or sediment present, which is proposed to be removed prior to the next flood event, that minimally affects the operations of the culvert. U- (al Culvert has deterioration such as surface distress and/or has significant leakage in quantity or degree to threaten integrity. [b] Accumulated debris or settlement which has not been annually removed and severely affects the operations of the culvert. Figure E-3. Maintenance Compliance Guide (Cont'd) E-11 ' • • z < • 11— r," 111 6 5 o o co w -J CD U_ w 0 a tu Z '— 1— 0 Z WW. 2 D 0 = 0 1-- W ai 0 L-1-1 b Z w z I?. I I- 0 ' ER 500 -1 -1 11 Mar 91 13. Gates A- Gates open easily and close to a tight seal. Materials do not have permanent corrosion damage and appear to have historically been maintained adequately. M- Gates operate but leak when closed, however, leakage quantity is not a threat to performance. All appurtenances of the facility are in satisfactory condition. U- Gates leak significantly when closed or don't operate. Gates and appurtenances have damages which threaten integrity and /or appear not to have been maintained adequately. • 14. Closure Structures A - Closure structure in good repair. Placing equipment readily available at all times. U- Closure structure in poor condition. Parts missing. Placing equipment may not be available within normal warning time. 15. Pumps and Motors A- All pumps and motors are operational. Preventive maintenance is occurring and system is periodically subject to performance testing. M- All pumps are operational and minor diiscrepancies are such that pumps could be expected to perform through the next projected period of usage. U- Pumps are not operational, or noted discrepancies have not been corrected. 16. Power A- Adequate, reliable, and enough capacity to meet demands. U- Power source not considered reliable to sustain operations during flood condition. 17. Pump Control System A- Operational and maintained free of damage, corrosion or other debris. M- Operational with minor discrepancies. U- Not operational, or uncorrected noted discrepancies. 18. Metallic Items A- All metal parts in a plant/building protected from permanent damage from corrosion. Trash racks free from damage /debris and are capable of being cleared, if required, during operation. Gates operable. M- Corrosion on metal parts appears maintainable. Trash racks free from damage and minimum debris present, and capable of being cleared before next flood even or during operation. Gates operable. U- Metal parts need replacement. Trash racks damaged, have accumulated debris that have not been cleared annually or cannot be cleared during operation. Figure E -3. Maintenance Compliance Guide (Cont'd) E -12 ER 500 -1 -1 11 Mar 91 A- Clear of debris and obstructions, and mechanisms are in place to maintain this condition during operation. M- Clear of large debris and minor obstructions present and mechanisms are in place to deter further accumulation during operation. U- Large debris or major obstructions present in sump or no mechanism exists to prevent debris accumulation during operation. Figure E -3. Maintenance Compliance Guide (Cont'd) .. a z re 2 —I C.) U 0` NOS CD lit WX. J1-; CD IL., w 0 r u- a: W` z�.. z w U '0 —1 ui H:. 0. UN H 0. • Chapter 11 —Corps of Engineers (4) An area inclosed by. an arc with r •ius of 3.000 yards, centered C -.ras Island Lighthouse and exte in from Point Puerca to Point caj (b The regulations. No vessel all ente •r remain within the rest cted areas t any time unless on • ficial busine , except that fishing esscls are pe itted to anchor i Playa Blanca. . sing through the r . tricted area des ibed in paragraph a)(1) of this sect' • ' to and from c orage on as near a 'rth -south co s as sailing conditions •ermit. U1 r no condi• '' u --(ions' will fi ing be prr ted in the restricted ar: . V (13 FR 9564. D § 207.817 Carib restricted are (a) The areas gular area boun coordinates: La(t(udr 17 44 42' N. 17 43'06' N. 17 44 30 N. (2) Area "B' St. Croix. V.1.: ca "A': A trian- y the following Longitude 64 54 18 W. 64 54 18 W. 64 53 30 W. A [angular area bounded by th follow L 1 17 41 1.1'4 (b) ,-1e the rest( the exc owned have b so by tic Fl (2) gra m g coordinates: L gt(ude N. 6 -41)0' W 64 - I R' W. 64 40 W 645 '8'W ' N. N. 8" N. gulations. (1) A horing in ed areas is prohi 'ted with Lion of U.S. Go rnment ssels and private ves - is that n specifically authoriz • to do e Commanding Officer. slan- t Range Support Facility The regulations in Ibis •ara- shall be enforced by the om- ing Officer. Atlantic Fleet R. ge S port Facility, Roosevelt Ro ,•s. P ' ., and such agencies as he may ate. 4 FR 19030. Nov. 29. 19691 § 208.10 PART 208—FLOOD CONTROL REGULATIONS I • ee. 208.10 Luca! flood protection works: matn- trnanct• and operation of structures and racily it's. 8.11 Regulations for use of storage al Gated for flood control or nav atio servoirs constructed wholly ‘t ii •art. h Fed!'rat funds. 208.19 Mansfield (Marshall r (L,,_ . • m and (R'. voir) Lake Travis. tp r .o River. Texas,. 208.22 Tv: Buttes Da Reservoir. Middle a. South C� ' :fivers. Tex. 208.25 Penxa a D�' d Reservoir. Grand taro, .t River •kia. 208.26 'Altus Da an Reservoir. North Fork Red River. 208.27 Fort Cobb D. and Reservoir. Pond (Cobb) Creek. a •ma. 208.28 Foss Da • and .ser'oir. Washita River. Okla! )a. 208.29 uc ' Dam and . ke of the Ar. bur . •ck Creek. Okla 208.:12 . .•rd Dam and La Meredith. Car::: • n River. Tex. 208.:13 wne'y Darn and Reservo North F of Ninnescah River. Karts. 21)8. Norman Dam and Lake Th • • der - ird. Lit tie River, Okla. 2' .82 Hetch Hetchy. Cherry Valley. Don Pedro Darns and Reservoirs. AUTHORITY: SPC. 7. 58 Stat. 890: 33 U.S.C. 709. unless otherwise noted. 2118.11) I.ncal fluid protection work.: maintenance and nperation of strut• tures and facilities. (a) General. (1) The structures and facilities . constructed by the United States for local flood protection shall be continuously maintained in such a manner and operated at such times and for such periods as may be neces- sary to obtain the maximum benefits. (2) The State. political subdivision thereof. or other responsible local agency. which furnished assurance that it will maintain and operate flood control works in accordance with regu- lations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army. as required by law. shall ap- point a permanent committee consist- ing of or headed by an official herein- after called the "Superintendent." who shall bt responsible for the devel- opment and maintenance of. and di- rectly in charge of. an organization re- sponsible for the efficient. operation D-2 .. ... .. .. .. .. ,,'!',,,, ..-- ...- -, § 208.10 Title 33— Navigation and Navigable Waters and maintenance of all of. the struc- tures and facilities during flood peri- ods and for continuous inspection and maintenance of the project works during periods of low water, all with- out cost to the United States. (3) A reserve supply of materials needed during a flood emergency shall be kept on hand at all times. (4) No encroachment or trespass which will adversely affect the effi- cient operation or maintenance of the project works shall be permitted upon the fights -of -way for • the protective facilities. (5) No improvement shall be passed over, under, or through the walls, levees, .improved channels or flood - ways, nor shall any excavation or con - struction be permitted within the liinits of the project right -of -way, nor shall any change be made in any fea- ture of the works without prior deter- mination by the District Engineer of the Department of the Army or his authorized representative that such improvement, excavation. construc- tion, or alteration will not adversely affect the functioning of the protec- tive facilities. Such improvements or alterations as may be found to be de- sirable and permissible under the above determination shall be con- structed in accordance with standard engineering practice. Advice regarding the effect of proposed improvements or alterations on the functioning of the project and information concern- ing methods of construction accept- able under standard engineering prac- tice shall be obtained from the Dis- trict Engineer or, if otherwise ob- tained, shall be submitted for his ap- proval. Drawings or prints showing such improvements or alterations as finally constructed•shall be furnished the District Engineer after completion of the work. (6) It shall be the duty of the super- intendent to submit a semiannual report to the District Engineer cover- ing inspection. maintenance, and oper- ation of the protective works. (7) The District Engineer or his au- thorized representatives shall have access at all times to all portions of the protective works. (8) Maintenance measures or repairs which the District Engineer deems necessary shall be promptly taken or made. (9) Appropriate measures shall be taken by local authorities to insure that the activities of all local organiza- tions operating public or private facili- ties connected with the protective works are coordinated with those of the Superintendent's organization during flood periods. (10) The Department of the Army will furnish local interests with an Op- eration and Maintenance Manual for each completed protect, or separate useful part thereof. to assist them in carrying out their obligations under this part. (b) Levees —(1) Maintenance. The Superintendent shall provide at all times such maintenance as may be re- quired to insure serviceability of the structures in time of flood. Measures than be taken to promote the growth of sod, exterminate burrowing ani- mals. and to provide for routine mowing of the grass and weeds, remov- al of wild growth and drift deposits, and repair of damage caused by ero- sion or other forces. Where 'practica- ble, measures shall be taken to retard bank erosion by planting of willows. or other suitable growth on areas river- ward of the levees. Periodic inspec- tions shall be made by the Superin- tendent to insure that the above main- tenance measures are being effectively carried out and, further, to be certain that: (1) No unusual settlement, sloughing. or material loss of grade or levee cross section has taken place: • (ii) No caving has occurred on either the land side or the river side of the levee which might affect the stability of the levee section: (iii) No seepage. saturated areas. or sand boils are occurring: (iv) Toe drainage systems and pres- sure relief wells are in good working condition. and that such facilities are not becoming clogged: (v) Drains through the levees and gates on said drains are in good work- ing condition: D- 3 Chapter II —Corps of Engin••rs (vi) No revetment work or riprap has been displaced, washed out, or re- moved: '(vii) No action is being taken. such as burning grass and weeds during in- appropriate seasons, which will retard or destroy the growth of sod; (viii) Access roads to and on the levee are being properly maintained; (ix) Cattle guards and gates are in good condition; • (x) Crown of levee is shaped so as to drain readily, and roadway thereon, if any;••is well shaped and maintained; 'Ixi) There is no unauthorized graz- ing or vehicular traffic on the.levees: (xis) Encroachments are not being made on the levee right -of -way which might endanger the structure or hinder its proper and efficient func- tioning during times of emergency. Such inspections shall be made im- mediately prior to the •beginning of the flood season: immediately follow- ing each major high water period, and otherwise at intervals not exceeding 90 days, and such intermediate times as may be necessary to insure the best possible care of the levee. Im :nediate steps will be taken to correct danger - ous conditions disclosed by such in- spections. Regular maintenance repair measures shall be accomplished during the appropriate season as scheduled by the Superintendent. (2)* Operation. During flood periods the levee shall be patrolled continu- ously to locate possible sand boils or unusual wetness of the landward slope and to be certain that: • (1) There are no indications of slides or sloughs developing; (ii) Wave wash or scouring action is not occurring; (iii) No low reaches of leave exist which may be overtopped: (iv) No other conditions exist which might endanger the'structure. Appropriate advance 'measures will be Laken to insure •the availability of adequate labor and materials to meet all contingencies. Immediate steps will be taken to control any condition which endangers the levee and to repair the damaged section. walls —(1) M. '^ Periodic e made by ntendent to be ce .. �.- �.�..- .+. (.d, c th ( whi and (iv) cracks extent ity of t. (v)• upon th danger t functioni ("1) Car vent accum adjacent to no fires are (vii) No ba riverward of t danger its stab (viii) Toe dra sure relief well condition, and t not becoming clo Such inspectio mediately prior t the flood season, ing. each major h otherwise at ince days. Measures ments and effe sary by such dertaken im shall be ceptable tice. (2) Op the wall flood pert at monol neath th will not up to. t essary pass a quate tect join to c ge §•208.10 (i) No seepage. saturated areas, nd boils are occurring; ii) No undue settlement has red which affects the stability wall or its water tightness; No trees exist, the roo might extend under the fer accelerated seepage pa he concrete has not and g. chipping, or breakin hick might affect th wall or its water ere are no enc ight -of -way w e structure tz- in time of f1Qg is being exe latiori of 1 alls, antZ ing buil�n caving c e wall 'ty; age s are t co •a1 eli rep pectio ediately plished b ndard eng of all s; gone to an stabil- n ess: hments ight'en- inder its ed to pre - and debris insure that r them; ditions exist ich might en- tems and pres- good working ch .facilities are hall be made im- the beginning of mediately follow - •ater period, and of exceeding 90 inate encroach - s found neces- s shall be un- All repairs methods ac- eering prac- on. Continuo all be mainta to locate possi h joints or seep wall. Floating plan e allowed to lie agai wall. Should it bec uring a flood emerg hor cables over the wa easures shall be taken e concrete and constr . Immediate steps shall be rect any condition which en the stability of the wall. s patrol of ed during e leakage e under - or boats t or tie e nec- cy to ade- pro- tion ken n- (d) Drainage structures —(1) Mainte- nance. Adequate measures shall be taken to insure that inlet and outlet channels are kept open and that trash, drift, or debris is not allowed to accu- § 208.10 Title 33— Navigation arid Navigabi. Wateri mulate near drainage structures. Flap gates and manually operated gates and valves on drainage structures shall be examined, oiled, and trial operated at least once every 90 days. Where drain- age structures are provided with stop log or other emergency closures, the condition •of the equipment and Its housing shall be inspected regularly and a trial installation of the emergen- cy closure shall be made at least once each year. Periodic inspections .shall be made by the Superintendent to be • c.e tain that: (i) Pipes, .gates, operating mecha- nism, riprap, and headwalls are in good condition; (ii) Inlet and outlet •channels are open: (iii) Care is being exercised to pre- vent the accumulation of trash and debris near the structures and that no fires are being built near bituminous coated pipes; (iv) Erosion is not occurring adjacent to the structure which might endan- ger its water tightness or stability. Immediate steps will be taken to repair damage, replace missing or broken parts, or remedy adverse •condi- tions disclosed by such inspections. 12) Operation. Whenever high water conditions impend, all gates will be in- spected a short time before water reaches the invert of the pipe and any object which might prevent closure of the gate shall be removed. Automatic gates shall be closely observed until it has been ascertained that they are se- curely closed. Manually operated gates and valves shall be closed as necessary to prevent inflow of flood water. All drainage structures in levees shall be inspected frequently during floods to ascertain whether seepage is taking place along the lines of their contact with the embankment. Immediate steps shall be taken to correct any ad- verse condition. Closure structures --(1) Ma nanc •sure structures f. - attic openings s be inspec - •y the Su- perintendent e - " • ays to be cer- tain that: (1) No p (ii e missin 1 parts are adequa cov- with paint; (iii) All movable parts are in satisfac ry working order; iv) Proper closure can be ma p mptly when necessary; ( Sufficient materials are on h- d for he erection of sand bag clos es and hat the location of such m - - ri- als 1 be readily accessible in es of e• gency. Too and parts shall not be re oved for of r use. Trial erections of •ne or more c sure structures shall • made once e- • year, alternat _ • • struc- tures c . -'en so that each will be erected least once e 3 -year period. al erection •., - closure structures hall he ma change is - de in key sonriel. W - - re rail makes trial - ecticn o ture infeasi s e, rig and drill of • erating be substituted herefor of sand bag cl .ures enever a ating per - operation osure struc- inspection rsonnel may rial erection not required. Closure materi w be carefully checked prior • an• following flood periods. and dam : e • or missing parts shall be repaired eplaced immedi- ately. (2) Operation- E able closure shall cient time to pe. flood waters . re structure sill. Li.fo the proper met dividual clos with an estim by an experie erection ycljl and Mart be furn• .pletion o tures wil during fl no undu drains leakage Boats lowed to di the (f' nc sp tion of each mov- started in suffi- t ompletion before h ; he top of the tion regarding d of ecting each in- stru ure, together �e of th time required ced crew • • complete its e given in ' e Operation a.nce Manu which will local interes • upon com- ae project. C1• -ure struc- be inspected requently d periods to asc- tain that eakage is occurrin : - d that ovided to care for •rdinary are functioning • operly. floating plant shall n• be al- tie up to closure struct res or arge passengers or carg over D- 5 Pumping plants —(1) M •- te- e. Pumping plants shall b- in- ted by the Superintendent at 'n- te 2!s riot to exceed 30 days dur • g od seasons and 90 days during o od seasons to insure that all e-qui ent is in order for instant use. A ' Chapt•r II- -Corps of En ;in.ers egular intervals. proper measures all be taken to provide for cleaning p . t. buildings, and equipment, re- pal ing as necessary, and lubricating all hinery. Adequate supplies of lubric- •ts for all types of machines, fuel fo gasoline or diesel powered equipme and flash lights or lan- terns for = ergency lighting shall be kept or h- • at all times. Telephone service shall - maintained at pump- ing plants. A equipment, including switch gear, - fortners, motors, pumps, valves, an gates shall be trial operated and che ed at least once -- every 90 days. Megg: tests of all insu- lation shall be made enever wiring has been subjected to u sue dampness and otherwise at inte als not to exceed one year. A rec• • shall be kept showing the results o uch tests. Wiring disclosed to be in a unsatis- factory condition by such te- shall be brought to a satisfactory co • ition or shall be promptly replaced. ► esel and gasoline engines shall be sir, ed at such intervals and allowed to for such length of time as may be n essary to insure their serviceability in times of emergency. Only skilled elect tricians and mechanics shall be e. ployec on tests %nd. repairs. Op-° personnel for the plant shall be Y -re- sent during tests. Any equipme re- moved from the station for r- -ir or replacement shall be retAri or re- placed as soon as practic . rid shall be trial operated after tallation. Repairs requiring remov of equip- ment from the plant - Il be made during off -flood seas • insofar as practicable. (2) Operation.. Co. •etent operators shall be on duty pumping plants whenever it. appe s that necessity for pump operatio imminent. The op- erator shall t • • roughly inspect, trial operate. an •face in readiness all plant equip ent. The operator shall be familia• • ith the equipment manu- facturers instructions and drawings and wit • the "Operating Instructions" for ea• station. The equipment shall be o -rated in accordance with the abo -- mentioned "Operating Instruc- ti• " and care shall be exercised that per lubrication is being supplied all uipment, and that no overheating, § 208.10 undue vibration or noise is occurrin Immediately upon final recession . f flood waters. the pumping st. on shall be thoroughly cleaned, mp house sumps flushed. and equ' . ment thoroughly inspected. oil: and greased. A record or log of •umping plant operation shall be ke - for each station, a copy of which all be fur- nished the District Engi • er following each flood. (g) Channels and floodways—(1) Maintenance. Perio inspections of improved -thane and floodways shall be mad eC e Superintendent to be certai (1) The c of debris, . (ii) T being Z' ted waste a rials, ized � ctures merits: (iii he capacity of the channel or floo ay is not being reduced by the fo . ation of shoals: iv) Banks are not being damaged by in or wave wash, and that no slough- ing of banks has occurred: (v) Riprap sections and deflection •kes and walls are in good condition: i) .Approach and egress channels ad)- ent to the improved channel or floo • 'ay are sufficiently clear of ob- struct •ns and debris to permit proper functio ': ng of the project works. Such i sections shall be made prior to the be ning of the flood season and other se at intervals not to exceed 90 d- s. Immediate steps will be taken to re • edy any adverse condi- tions disclose • •y such inspections. Measures will b - aken by the Super- intendent to pro •te the growth of grass on bank slop - and earth deflec- tion dikes. The Su intendent shall provide for periodic •air and clean- ing of debris basins. c ck darns, and related structures as be neces- sary. (2) Operation. Both ba of the channel shall be patrolled d 'ng peri- ods of high water, and measu -s shall be taken to protect those - ches being attached by the current by wave wash. Appropriate me- es shall be taken to prevent the fo tion of jams of ice or debris Large o or floodway is clear and wild growth: el or floodway is not by the depositing of building of unauthor- or other encroach- D -6 _ §20&1} which biome lodged •again all be removed. The channe floodway sha oughly ins • ed imm ing each ma,jo soon as practi snags and ot• de moved - all damag riprap, ' flection dikes e outlets, or other fl structures repaired. (h) Miscellaneous facilities-41) Maintenance. Miscellaneous struc- tures and facilities constructed as a Rant" of the protective works and other structures and facilities which func- tion as a part of, or affect the efficient functioning of the protective works, shall be periodically inspected by the Superintendent and appropriate main- tenance measures taken. Damaged or unserviceable parts shall be repaired or replaced without delay. Areas used for pending in connection with pump- ing plants or for temporary storage of interior run -off during flood periods shall not be allowed to become filled with silt, debris, or dumped material. The Superintendent shag take proper steps to p..-event :emu ;c_ e : b•r`.d e openings and, where practicable, shall. provide for temporary raising during . floods of bridges which restrict chan- nel capacities during high flows. (2) Operation. Miscellaneous facili- ties shall be operated to prevent or reduce flooding during periods of high water. The facilities constructed as a part of the protective works shall not be used for purposes other than flood protection without approval of the District Engineer unless designed therefor. (Sec. 3, 49 StaL 1571, as amended: 33 U.S.C. 701c) • (9 FR 9999, Aug. 17, 1944; 9 FR 10203. Aug. 22, 194-4] M a 33--- Navfgction and Navigable Wat•n ved thor- ,ely follow - ter period. As thereafter, all shall be re- bsnks, walls, n- Regulations for use of sto for flood control or n. Lion irs constructed • ly or in eral fun at r part with (a) Purpose. Procedures. scribes th- . • icy and regula ' . the use of storag for • • • control or navigati% es at all reservoirs capable of of Policy and ulation pre - ure for ocated ur- s egulation and constructed wholly part with Federal funds provided t e basis of such purposes, except p Ls owned and operated by the Co Engineers; the Internati. al dart' and Water Co •• •• • n, States and Mexico; and ose the jurisdiction of the Col • bia ty. The intent of this ' egu- to establish an unders • ding project owners, o • rating and -the Corps of En : eers. The basic • • of the Engineers for • g out onal •• of the tyis set fo , • ow: 7 of the . • d Control (58 Stat. ' 33 U.S.C. eSecrgt t' the Army gulatiork r flood con - tion c - e following of Bo Uni and Rive lation —betw agenci (b) Corps o the Co cited auth (1) Secti •Act of 194 709) directs to prescribe trol and na manner. 0- 7 Hereafter, it sh be th retary of War to the use of storage or navigation at wholly or in put vided on the basis of operation of any such c-ordsnce with such that this section s ne_see Valley Auth of danger from 11 and Mississippi Ri rs th Authority is dim .dtor of -r Ohio ire: it - •rdance tions as rrsY 'ued by rnenL 1^� duty of the Sec - regulations for for flood control rvoirs constructed ederal funds pro- h purposes; and the roject shall be in a.c- latioru_ Provided, t apply to the Ten - except that to cas-e the lower Ohio Tennessee Valley ate the release River into the h such irstruc- e War Depart- (2) Tb "•fief of En: eers, U.S. Army, Co • of Engineers, designat- ed the du] authorized re • esentative of the - - Cary of the to exer- cise the - • thority set out the Act. This Re: •lation will normal be im- plement • by letters of unde anding betwee the Corps of ESngin - rs and projec •caner and will incorpo to the provis ns of such letters of nder- stand g prior to the time co truc- tion nders the project capable • sig- nifi• it impoundment of wate A wa control agreement signed by bo parties will follow when deli • -r- at impoundment first • beg • o ' ' ' at such time as the respo ity for physical operation, maint ce, and certain water control re ponsibDities of any Corps -owned pro- ' 9404060591 After recording ratan to: Jim Xramer, Manager Surface Water Managaneu Dividers Long County Deponent of Public Workr 703 Fl lh Amur, Suite 2200 Sonde, Washington 98104 ORIGINAL 7a; . aNtI rtes I ALIT; t e• 17 S • • . •CsO.. I. M . ill ; •1r' . I; OF F7.000 CONTROL LEVEE The Grantor, hereinafter called the 'Owner'. hereby grata to Dag County, the Grmtee, a political eubdivisioa of the Stun of Warhiagmo, bereiaafter called 'Icing Cotmty', a permanent right of entry for the purports hereinafter set frith. argon Lads of the owner he:manttes' deeeibed ire Attachment "A" which is incorporated bend's by this tsfertaee, aubjexa to the following tams and coeditiocs: 1. This irtavomble pat right of a ury for inspection. maintenance and repair ('Pe:ma:cot Right of Entry" is in addition to those River Protection Easements previously recorded in favor of Ring Camay in long County Auditor's Office under file numbers 6027013 sad 6027015 (the 'River Protection Easemm4). 2. This Pennine= Right of Entry includes the right to mesa, repair. and mainti- a flood =trot levee as de ceibed in the ArBuilt plans atlacbmd hereto as Attachment 'B', hereinafter referred to as 'Levee% and all appurtmaoca thereto, along the left bank of the Cr een River. Attachment 'B' L iawrporatod herein by this reference. 3. This Permanent Right of Entry includes the right to imxpeet. repair ad maintain such worts on hods of al the Owner hereinafter shown and described in Attachment 'C', which easy extend beyond the boundaries set forth Gin the River Protection Easements. Attachment 'C' is iamrponted herein by this reference. 4. This Permanent Right of Entry shalt be limited to inspection, repair and maintenance of the Levee, slug erthe left balk of the Green River. G7 • ▪ 5. This Permamt Right of Entry shall not preclude the Owner from exercising any and all of its right to the property denaibed ire Attachment 'C' for any propose iocludiag but not limited to the tam, camstronioe. extsaaoo; repair and/or maintenance of any facilities on the property including but not limited to buildings, pig lot, yard stooge tsar, railroad spur tracks. utilities. leadsaping or any other facilities. 6. All tools. equipment and crow property taken upon or placed upon said lad by King County shall remain the property of King County ad shall be removed by King Corm y at ay time within a reasonable period after the term of their valuation in the exercise of rights trader this Permanent Right of Entry. 7. Ring County will be responsible for damages arising from the activity of King Gutty, its offcert, agents, eaotsaetoa, employees, or representatives on said land, in the exercise of rights under this Permanent Right of Entry, and promptly following the exercise of any right granted hereunder. shall ro.ore rho property to its condition, including lime. glade and slope. prior to such exercise. 8. This Permamt Right of Entry is granted as of the date hereof. 9. The land affected by this Permanent Right of Entry is located in the Sum of Washington. County of King, u desenbed is Atta seat 'A' and 'C' hereto. 10. In the event this instalment is not recorded with the King County Auditor's office within sixty (60) dtye of the data of execution, the'greememt evidenced by this instrument shall be null and void and of no further force or effect. 00' Id 909 5•03311 WWI Sag IN ODtettfA 160.90K46 PERMANENT RIGHT OF WIRY FOR LNSPECT10N. MAINTENANC E AND REPAIR OF F1.000 CONTROL LEVEE hre1of2 • -- :::' -; . -4,''. z _ W re aim JU .0 O .fn 0. .(A W': W =, J • LL wO.. IL =. D. a � W H O: z f -; N, .0 H.. w w O. w 1. O~ Z • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have set their !tads this � day of _M15h.. - .49 ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO BY KING COUNTY, WA. ORANTOR, Mario A. , a monied awa acting with respect to his sews* property sod estate, d/b/a SEOAIE BUSINESS PARK B, STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF RTNO King Count APPROVED AS TO FORM: • By: r Prosecuting Attorney Oo this day personally appeared before toe MARIO A. SEQA .3, a married mm dealing in his eeparats property and estate, d/b /a SEGAL BUSINESS PARK. !mown to ma to be the individual deaatbed in and wbo a=oauod the foregoing L u t. and achowledged that he signed rho same ss his fres sod voluntary act and deed for the uses acrd purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN y zder my hand sod official seal this 1a* day of _\= _, Hat,. �•`'"tOtLd4t:)i1 `O� ... ....� ! tt Stgnatwi of Not r O ?`:glop F,•eyt 4 G e L. btu ( s ;e 11OTARr O p al Notary 1 . u y, 3 Print or Stan Nor � i Cp reading Pullin . r the stars of Washington, �, PU8 EI% -0 oe' My commission ospirra t2119149 /49�ee:'•.. ;..'�C� ~? t 1 1T STATE OF WASHINGTON II s...,„ Rs�`a COUNTY OF KING )u I certify that 11mow cc have sari 'dawn that SaiaSt4tti is the person who perm appeared before m and mid p achowledgod• 1!a she si • -• this • • • moat. on • stated that she VAS attborixod to came the instrument sod admowl it u the ► • w... ► . of Mee �.- re, Washington. s ,,Kirin! subdivision of the State of Wathipausu to bs the free ao • value •'r - ofsttsh worpontioa far the uses and purposes =Won is Us iaammmt. y GIVEN under my hand sad trial seal d day of • 4Plltl L-- OTARY PUBLIC State of Washington Prier or Scamp Name of Norco. WINNERS Notary Public io and fo State o Visslitztam residing at bairn ants x. ISIT My commission expires 3n1q J . PERMANENT its /HT OF MAY FOR INSPECTION, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF FLOOD CONTROL LEVEE Pass 20'2 � W. 6 JU O 0 U) W JIB: LOLL. W0 � Q d F=-2 Z Z 0' .. W W. D.p 0 —: ipH.. W W ,. = - fJ — O: W Z, F- Z � • • • ATTACH: ENT c LAND DESCRIPTION commencing at the most northeasterly corner of Xing County Short Plat No. 8609081152, Records of Xing County, Washington; thence S 36 -31 -53 W a distance of 135.86 feat along the easterly boundary of said short plat to a point of curvature; thence continuing southerly along said boundary 108.62 feet along the arc of a tangent curve to the left having a radius of 430.00 feet, through a central angle of 14 -28 -22 : thence continuing along said boundary S 22 -03 -26 W a distance of 34.28 feet to a point of curvature; EFJ thence continuing along said bou• ndary 103.21 feat along the las arc of a tangent curve to the lett having a radius of 800.00 feet, through a central angle of 7-23-31: thence N 75 -20 -00 W a distance of 9.05 feet more or less to river a • protection easeaentM recorded dMay 11,x1966 under recording number 6027015, records of Xing County, Washington and the TRUE POINT OP BEGINNING; thence continuing N 75 -20 -00 W a distance of 31.23 feet; thence S 8 -18 -37 W a distance of 48.46:feet; thence S 6 -15 -12 Fla distance of .48.00 feet; thence S 5 -22 -35 W a distance of 51.88 feet; thence S 1 -44 -44 W a distance of 54.54 feet ;' thence S 0 -59 -37 W a distance of 49.32 feat; thence S 1 -26 -02 W a distance of 51.42 feat; thence S 1 -09 -37 W a distance of 45.75 feet; thence S 6 -52 -34 W a distance of 49.46 feet; thence S 6 -23 -30 W a distance of 48.57 feet; thence S 6 -47 -00 W a distance of .48.11 feet; thence S 7 -09 -06 W a distance of 51.18 feet; page 1/2 + ......, W d 2 6 -J C.) UO N W WI J 0 LL . W 0. g tL Q' co - f- W, H 0' W U p: O.N 0)- = L0 <— I11 Z H =` 0 z } • thence S 11 -38 -13 W a distance of 48.38 feet; thence S 10 -32 -20 W a distance of 49.71 feet; thence S 11 -38 -57 W a distance of 47.56 feet: thence S 9 -37 -46 W a distance of 49.48 feet; thence S 9 -23 -33 W a distancav of 49.57 feat: thence S 7 -08 -54 W a distance of 53.06 feet; t2ience *S °8=19 -38 W e distance of 53 :68�teet; . thence S 11 -22 -19 W a distance of 50.89.feet; thence S 8 -39 -42 W a distance of 48.97 feet: _ thence S 10 -08 -14 W a distance of 205.93 feet; 07 thence S 14 -18 -13 W a distance of 90.98 feet; thence 3 23 -38 -09 W a distance of 75.48 feet: thence S 29 -45 -56 W a distance of 52.12 feet; thence S 41 -22 -46 W a distance of 164.08 feet; thence S 44 -55 -59 W a distance of 183.39 feat; thence S 35 -55 -33 W a distance of 75.30 feet; thence S 30 -17 -06 W a distance of 65.71 teat: thence S 24 -18 -06 W a distance of 106.25 feet; thence S 16 -10 -23 W a distance of 83.66 feet; thence S 12 -30 -39 W a distance of 70.00 feet; thence S 77 -29 -21 3 a distance of 21.49 feet, more or less; to a point on the landward boundary of of said river protection easement; thence northerly along the landward boundary of said river protection easement to the true point of beginning. page 2/2 ■•••••• 9108210298 THIS .STRUMENT IS BEING RE- RECORDED TO r--QECT THE TOWNSHIP cc ,d•`°`�i File No. 6 -1991 -006 R. Auc 21 II o; 1;t1 '91 RIVER PROTECTION EASEMENT ASSIGNMENT AS TENANTS IN COMMON xx WHEREAS, King County, a legal subdivision of the State of Washington was granted River Protection Easements by MAR1O A. SEGALE and LOUIS SWALE in documents duly recorded and identified under King County recording No. 6027015 recorded May 11, 1968 and recording No 6027013 recorded May 11, 1966 for the area described in Exhibits A and B, for the following rights and purposes: to enter upon the above described land to construct, reconstruct, maintain and repair a bank protection and /or other flood control works, including all appurtenances thereto, together with right to trim, cut, fell and remove all such trees, brush and other natural growth and obstructions as are nece ary to provide adequate clearance and to eliminate interference with, or hazards to the structures' and, WHEREAS, to promote and advance the purpose of the River Protection Easements described above, King County has determined that all the rights and responsibilities granted to King County in the River Protection Easements should be held by King County, the City of Tukwila, Washington and the Green River Flood Control Zone District as tenants in common; THEREFORE, to benefit the purpose of the easements and for valuable consideration, King County does hereby assign, as tenants in common with itself, to the City of Tukwila, Washington and the Green River Flood Control Zone District, all the rights and responsibilities grantee' to King County in the above identified River Protection Easements and as described in Exhibits A and 11. No party shall take any action on the described easements that would injuriously affect or render the easements appreciably less convenient and useful to any one of the other tenants in common. Dated this Filed For Record At The Request Of 0 King County Real Property Division STATE OF WASHINGTON County of King On is daI day of , 19__, personally appeared before me to me known to be the individual that executed e within oregomg instrument on behalf of King County, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act of King County for the uses and purpoees therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he /she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the official seal of King County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. )es 1. , Deputy day of ,1991 . t Mo2ia KING COMM IOCWY ECD R .00 CA�iSL (Title) EXCISE TAX NOT REQUIRED long Co. Ramie WW1 * * * * *.00 1 \ . •'• ' • • I • NO BL1C (an or the 'State of i'VA •r iAAA Residing at My oomminsion expires . : EXHIBIT A Green River Levee City of Tukwila Project No. $6 -DR22 Legal Description for Proposed Levee Easement Segale Property along River from Soutk l$OlY Street to GACO Western Tract Title No. 136362 XX That portion of the following described Tract 'X' lying within the 30.0 foot easement granted to King County by instruments reconled under Reconling Numbers 6027013 and 6027015. Tract "X" 23 All of Government Lot 5 in Section 35, Township 11' North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King County. Washington; EXCEPT that portion of said Government Lot described u follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of said Government Lot; Thence S87•56'03 "E along the north line thereof, 112.46 feet; Thence S 17.28' 13"W, 432.63 feet to the west line of said Government Lot; Thence NO2.24' 12 "E along said west line. 417.09 feet to the point of beginning; TOGETHER WITI1 that portion of Government Lot 6 in said Section described as follows: Beginning at a point on the east line of said Government Lot, 417.09 feet south of the - northeast comer thereof; Thence S 17.28' 13 "W, 134.55 feet; Thence S66•31'27 "E, 37.48 feet to the said east line; M Thence NO2.24' 12"E along said east line 143.40 feet to the point of beginning; C7 AND EXCEPT that portion thereof lying within the following described property: 0') Commencing at a monument at the northeast corner of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of said Section; Thence S07•44'56"W, 956.67 feet to a point of curve; Thence along a curve to the right having a radius of 2,500 feet through a central angle of 05•22'20 ", an arc distance of 234.41 feet; Thence N76•32'44 "W 30.00 feet to the True Point of beginning; 25x1❑ Z w edLI. J • UO to W 1_, WO. • Qf yw Z O 2 pi Uf m. SW` I— U: • U N. .H 0 (Exhibit A. cont.) Thence N69•15'04'W 55.31 feet; Thence N30•55'15'W 52.59 feet; Thence N82•1S'05'W 187.64 feet; Thence S07•44'56"W 48.23 feet to a point of curve; Thence along a curve to the right having a radius of 477.465 feet, through a central angle of 13'00'00" an arc distance of 108.33 feet; Thence S20•44'56'W 399.00 feet; Thence S69•15'04 "E 180.00 feet; Thence 520°44'56"W 12.00 feet; Thence S69•15'04 "E 85.77 feet; Thence along a curve to the left, whose center bears N63•30'32'W. having a radius of 2,470.00 feet, through a central angle of 13.22'12' an arc distance of 576.38 feet to the True Point of Beginning; EXCEPT that portion described u follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of Government Lot 2 in said section; Thence S87•56'03 "E along the Tine common to Government Lou 2 and 5, 177.19 feet; Thence S09•03'25'W, 148.27 feet; Thence S06 °44'45'W, 82.23 feet; Thence N66•54'09 "W. 338.39 feet; Thence northerly along a curve to the left, the center of which beats N71•16'17 "W. having a radius of 2,530 feet through a central angle of 02.31'46 ", an arc distance of 111.70 feet to the said line between the government lots; Thence S87•56'03 "E along said common line, 133.76 feet to the point of beginning; AND all that portion of Government Lot 2 of said Section. lying south of South 180th Street, and easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the nonhwest corner of said Government Lot 2; Thence S87•50'09'E along the nonh line thereof. 309.0 feet; -- Thence along a curve to the left having a radius of 300 feet. through a central angle of Col 22630'12". an arc distance of 117.81 feet; -- Thence S20•20'21 "E, 36.0 feet to the south margin of said South 180th Street, and the Q: point of beginning of the line; Thence S36•31'53 "W. 333.86 feet; Thence along a curve to the left, having a radius of 430 feet, through a central angle of 14'28'22 ", an arc distance of 108.63 feet; Thence 522.03'26 "W. 34.28 feet; Thence along a curve to the left, having a radius of 800 feet, through a central angle of 1844'11". an arc distance of 261.61 feet; XX • (Exhibit A. cont.) >a Thence S03.19' 14'W, 141.75 feet: Thence along a curve to the right, having a radius of 3.500 feet. through a central angle of 03'41'20% an arc distance of 225.31 feat Thence S07'00'35"W. 26.08 feet; Thence S09•03.256W. 579.24 feet; Thence S06•44'45 W. 82.23 feet to the terminus of the aforesaid line. . AND that portion of Govemtent Lot 6 of said section lying southerly of the north line of the flood control easement defined as follows: Commencing at a point S89•01'S01E 505.54 feet and north 00.58'10'13 313.17 feet from the southwest comer of said Government Lot 6; Thence S66'31'59'E 343.91 feet to the north lino of said flood control easement and the True Point of Beginning: north Thence easterly along said Government to the easterly line of said Government Lot 6; AND that portion of Qty of Tukwila Short Plat 1/86-45 SS Zaccordin section, tying eases under Recording Number 8609081152 in Governmen of the easterly line of Lots 2.3. and 4 of said Short Plat. End of Tract 'X' .." 25 F=-Z IX W 2 erg D' J U: U O; co o' :n W W Z:. J W 0' 5 a: (d W, X. ,Z i- Oi Z W gip`. Otn WW. H V;. ll Z i'• U Ni O z • rr 1ti 0 z _ 1 1' I= . t.... `g am us lAW W J sm. La S CC O U. N ems 1= 1■•• i g H Lai t LLI H ..0.• -� EXHIBIT B. ' STEWART TITLE COMPANY of Washington. Inc. I.15(.'S{.� ORDER NO. IMPORTANT: Tits Is not a Plat o1 Swvey. R b furnished as a convenience to bests IM land Indicated Minn with tolerance to stints and NMI land. No abntnty is assumed by Lesson of tehance written. t11 1 • 4• • •1 ••• (020,1 1 !,* 1. l� ,ry XX : •r, • •. Pal-trim sine ?• 6 c Rovtth mtn c' I o r L 3 s- 'Ds —4 25X10 ....� z jLL W 0 0. Nom` fn W, W 2' W O. LQ co • H W z t.-, Z 0 Wi U0 '. Ww'. :2 —O z: V co H f z EXIIIIIIT 13. STEWART TITLE COMPANY of Washington, Inc. ORDER NO. f 31.94'] IMPORTANT: Tees Is not a Plat of Survey. It Is furnished as • convenience to locate IM land Indicated Hereon with reference to streets and otter land. No liability is assumed by reason of ..Hants hereon. WAIF. r e.41 PO I ... N 1 X,C • • •.•N 0 1. M.•• • SP PODS poS_rr re% o4 80v=InMt11(— z 'SS- • • 1 EXHIBIT B. STEWART TITLE COMPANY of Washington, Inc. ORDER NO. to31.:Z IMPORTANT: This Is not • Plat of Survey. ft Is furnished as a convenience to locate Nut land Indicated with relevance to streets and other land. No liability Is assumed by reason of reliance hriteon. via PO r •1 foie .r 1:,,P;s0- r°' 4 • r —ikapw.iteqral • - 1 / • • r .,•••••• z Z rt 2 6 n —J 0 O 0 CO 0 W WI ILI 0, F. LI- < CO — Z F- 0 Z LLI n O a 11J w I• 0 ..z U. 1— — 0 • W p y, 9009110868 agreement TO GRANT PERMANENT RIGHT OF ENTRY File 17A (4) Env. 2 Parcel 112 B THIS AGREEMENT TO GRANT PERMANENT RIGHT OF ENTRY ( "Agreement ") made and entered into this ^,t day of August , 1990, by and between MARIO A. SEGALE, a married an acting with respect to his separate property and estate d /b /a SEGALE BUSINESS PARR (hereinafter referred to as "Segale ") and KING COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington (hereinafter referred to as "Xing County "). WHEREAS, King County has agreed to perform certain works and make certain improvements along the left bank of the Green River upon certain real property owned by Segale; WHEREAS, Segale has granted to King County a Temporary Right of Entry for Construction of Flood Control Levee in order to facilitate such construction; and WHEREAS, King County has requested a permanent right of entry over portions of Segale's real property for the purpose inspecting, repairing and maintaining such works and improvements. NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows: 1. Upon completion of the work provided for in the Temporary Right of Entry for Construction of Flood Control Levee dated August 10, 1990, King County shall prepare an "As Built" survey of said CD works and improvements. A copy of the same shall be provided to Segale for its review. QC i 2. From such survey the County shall prepare a legal description 9.0 for a permanent right of entry over the area located between the westerly line of the River Protection Easements previously recorded in favor of King County in King County Auditor's Office under file numbers 6027013 and 6027015 and the westerly line of said improvements. A copy of the same shall be provided to Segale for its review. c • 9009114186H STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) On this day personally appeared before me MARIO A. SEGALE, a married man dealing in his separate property and estate, d /b /a SEGALE BUSINESS PARK, known to me to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this 14'121' day o fcti)� 1i , 199Sc'• Jq,L A P!N . •, i PIPLIC STATE tcYPvWASNINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF KING (got ry blic in and for the Stet of Washington, ryes ing at 'aarrt l C My c mmission expires fri,tottr,. On this day before me the undersigned, personally appeared d I certify that I know or have atis£actory evide ce that signed the foregoing instrument, on oath stated that (he /she) was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged as the of KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, to be ftee and voluntary act of said entity for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. VEN under my hand and official seal this day AOLI O• F,L•': . �Ore-4.:::;;;;",:•:.4.:;;\• Notary Public in and s�' the State of Wa on��� l�k. 4 ia%ofis,,�`, residing ,t : ;, My commi io expires /.to/ri.3 ! AGREEMENT TO GRANT PERMANENT RIGHT OP WAY Page 2 • • LTRIBTT "A" to AOREENENS TO GRANT PERMANENT RIGHT OF ENTRY PER1OINBRT RIGHT OF :"TRY FOR ;NSP6CTIOW. NAINTRNAWCE AND REPAIR OF FLOOD CONTROL tat7RX The Grantor, hereinafter called the 'Owner', hereby grants to Ring County, the Grantee, • political subdivision of the State of Washington, hereinafter called 'Ring County', • permanent right of entry for the purposes b fter set forth, upon lands of the Owner hereinafter described in Attachment "A" which is incorporated herein by this reference, subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. This irrevocable permanent right of entry for inspection, maintenance and repair (*Permanent Right of Entry') is in addition to those River Protection E is previously recorded in favor of Xing County in King County Auditor's Office under file numbers 6027013 and 6027015 (the 'River Protection Easemonts "). 2. This Permanent Right of Entry includes the right to access, repair, and maintain a flood control levee as described in the As -Built plans attached hereto as Attachment '8', hereinafter referred to as 'Levee', and all appurtenances thereto, along the left bank of the Green River. Attachment '8" is incorporated herein 6y this reference. 3. This Permanent Right of Entry includes the right to inspect, repair and maintain such works an lands of the Owner hereinafter show and described in Attachment "C ", which may extend beyond the boundaries set forth in the River Protection Easements. Attachment 'C" is incorporated herein by this reference. 4. This Permanent Right of Entry shall be limited to inspection, repair and maintenance of the Levee, along the left bank of the Green River. S. This Permanent Right of Entry shell not preclude the Owner from exercising any and all of its rights to the property described in Attachment 'C' for any purpose including but not limited to the use, construction, extension, repair and /or maintenance of any facilities on the property including but not limited to buildings, parking lots, yard storage areas, railroad spur tracks, utilities, landscaping or any other facilities. 6. All tools, equipment and other property taken upon or placed upon said land Ge by Ring County shall regain the property of Xing County and shall be removed by Ring County at any time within • reasonable period after the term of their utilisation in the exercise of rights under this Permanent Right of Entry. ;74 7. Sing County will be responsible for damages arising from tho activity of r.j King County, its officers, agents, employees, or represontativec on said land, CI in the exercise of rights under this Permanent Right of Entry, and proaptly C following the exercise of any rights granted hereunder, shall restore tho �— property to its condition, including line, grads and slope, prior to such 25 exercise. 8. This Permanent Right of Entry is granted as of , 19 Y ?G •Z • • 2• : D • .JU Uo U p: W= W O g.1 LL Q d': I- _, Z �' H o: Z H: •i0 W • W. LL • O: Z'. _' o' •z 18036 57th Ave. Kent, Wash. ,.--.., Orson River R/W 2 R # 260 1964 April 6027013 between Louis segale Grnntor,ina King County, • regal suodiviaion of the State of Washington, Grantee: WI'VNESSETH, that first party, in considerat!on of $1.00 receipt of which is acknowledged, and the benefits which will accrue to tho land of Granter by the exercise of the rights herein granted, do hereby remise, relesne and forever grant unto the Grantee, its sucoe.aors and assigns, an easement and right -of -way for the purposes herein ter stated nlnng the Loft bank of Green River, within • strip of land 30 feet in width that is parallel to and landward of the top of the river bank as constructed or reconstructed on the following describ- ed property. T.L. 18 All of Oov Lot 5 in Section 35, Twp. 23 N.R. 4 E.W.M. T.L. 36 Portion of Gov Lot 6 lying East of County Road, less portion Southwesterly of line beginning on the Easterly margin of said Road 313.17 ft. north of the south line of Lot 6, thence S. 676361 East to White River. Said 30 foot Easement and right of way shall be confined and reatrioted to the alignment of the top of the bank, as shown on Drawing Numbered R -68 -1, B -68 -2, and 8.68.3, on file at the King County Flood Control Office Said easement and right -of -way are for the following purposes: The right to enter upon the above described land to conetrnct, reconstruct, maintain and repair a bank protection and /or other flood control works, including all appurtenances thereto, together with right to trim, cut, fell and remove 111 such trees, brush and other natural growth and obstruct- ions as are necessary to providm adequate clearance and to eliminate inter - fermnce with, or hazards to the structures. Thrr consideration above mentioned, is accepted se full compensation to the exercise of the rights above granted. To hal'e and to hold, .11 and singular, the said easement and right - or -way, together with appurtmnancoe, unto Grantee, its successors and asntrrne. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Grantor hereunto set his hand, the day ind year above writtmn. :' :.'ATI•: OF WASHINGTON Ins 'WV! OF KIN1 On this day appeared berore me Grantor uront•or Louie Segal. K,,own , he the individual deacrihnd in and wEo executed the :',ir e.vnfr,r• Instrument, and acknowI god to me that he signed the :,r..; • n:, from and voluntary act sn oe , fo:the uses nu'I I,nrpn:,.. :► t u.r..tn :m•nt,ioned. �iE Gtvon unfit'r my hand and official seal this 22nd doy. 0 APi :~••• 66 ;;oter; ruhlt- to non For the State of Washington, reeld n* t 'Z IL) eV Kett_ :a 'i, :.r,�' ,,.., I,,a• �,� 1 /d‘. a taki / em 1,...1 oI Ce»iy C.npn•+n►wn tc.•:11 A ..4011Iii. Catoolv Awl**. • .' ' • : •■•.! • .'i'... IA 'i',?. ': , ", FM Ea ILL5 , King County haa'..,...a.ahred. aver.: ?rats stiOn . Eon ironic tor,4:.',•:'.i .• . • Groan River. Flood ContrOl .. .....ti,i. • ..(R/W .t);1!,i',10.1..1., ••••. i ' '.- ' 1 f.,r.k..!.., ,,,•ii !:'.4i..'.1..iirp,,p'••:,..-: - • ■ ••; ••••,. ••••:!Iii.'-'.!•,:ii-•.:••• / 1,•.••,'),: ''' • ' • '')1-!"i•-•, •-: i- • ", •1:1.01.1•;•', - - • Grantor I • ..Louis tiegale;: Grantor,' 'inCEing' OFnantyi. a' law& subdivisip&o.'•; -, • or the State of Washington; aright's! • .;....,:e.(.! .!..q.;:.„,.....:.,..e.rf, ...,..,1 ... • . .1.;q1..,..: . ...,... .....,.;!' , ;;,..:. ..:, .'!.:..4..z. .:..i .r...-0.1.',.; '..... .. .. ;'• ...Y;1•1... "II... - •: A;■•ig• P7.1:— s' • . . . e . ' WITNESS/MT, that first party; !!.in "onsideration 'of 1:00 .re :Mt oh : : • is acknowledged, • and exc.. benefits •whieh'...vill'. accrue .to • the, land of •gi...q.'1. ,': Grantor by.the oxeroise of tha'rights herein' graintod, dolmoratry. royale; nasals* and faro vim grant untO;•th* arantesi ittiwuocessora; and assigns, . . . an easement . and right of ..war tor. the. purposWbareinafter4tated along ,. • . the Lott bank of Green'. River;lWithin a!strip.i..S0r:land .'30.•feet itti.width ...• •.. . • that la . parallel bo and -14uidWard . of'. tbil,'d;Prot,.:the !. river bank' gs .00qi : . . • ' a truo tod or , re oons tructsd on .the 'following:described property. ;I:i.', -,(...,: • .1: i''''; ". •,..• T.L. 18 • •:•.!; • •• ••; All of.:•'00v• Lob :5:in asOti . ion 'j p; :1*.1;p3;Nr A. '4': 3.110)$■" ,,. ::,::: • . •::' • ••,•••04 • • • • •Pq .! • . ., . • . Said easement and !ga ig1it or:Wat, aro f011owing ....purposes . . . - The right to entor upon tho "hire's • delioribii4 :land. to Don't:Inas; rcloongtrUct, • maintain and 'repair a blink ProtietiOn iind/or.::othir :flood' control' wOrkai. including all oppur townies* • theroto; 'together With right to' 'trim; out;''..;: • • fell and rottovs all ouch trees; .brush anC-othor natiral. 'growth and obatruot - ion" • as are necessary to4rovide adequate ••olcegranoe end ..to'eliminateAntor- teronos with, or hazards • to ph, .atruobtFrai./..t.iii..0•• • • . •L'?' • • ./; /••:•••••••;.!-•::: ' ' . , .1,t' • • • The. oanilderation. abai, 'oeintioned; • Ittielep.tlid: as. f.u.11; oomPensation to the exorcise ot the rights, abort: icrantuld• Ct* • • • To have and to holdiall :end ait grnigi;'. the said. easement and right of way, together with appurtenanoea; untO:.arahtee,:. its. suagossors aruti assigns. . • and, • MOMS, Bald River FretiCtion' Baia•Aint A 'willful and necessary. part or tho County rlood OontrOl • , . • • . BE IT RESOLVED that "aid •ProtootiOn• Easerientbe aocepted .tyy in counvy and the Clerk • of. the Board b. and ;.is hereby authorised •:!•• to rs.lo said River Froteotion .Basement for rigord in tho Xing County . . . . Auditor Is article . -; r-fi:-.." .....':'• ..• ;. ••••• ' ••■• v.* ; ' - : L•.....• . ' • .:.•;11:':. • . • r • — ' rfti:. .:, • • • , *!' ••• ;::ti • • • • 4, -- .. dal,' :a•jr. :...•,! 1966.0:: •.• I ' PASS F4') this —_,, . 136ii6 CiP o r commasxmcoalk . •. ATTEST: • • . r: : •••,•: xxNa, c l'i ..14/A.8111110TOX • J' • , •t',' • ROBERT A. MORRIS :f.; • Cler1c• of tha hoard -, ••,y).* h .144. : ::. •• ..' . ....;. • ' • • 'La': ... . o : .:aaderr'it . .....;;;LI..a kts. • D7 . nAr__at 871.__Pli altra21 •••: : '2:: • • ,...., W1114271111111 1. • ,.• • • . . s ..... • , ; ,75.. .. • Pu Y .'• . • ',f %.I. ... 1%. mi Immo . . • ',I . .. .00 :::".-------7.'..k• • . ..',.$,T.7. _ , i. .■ irP . • ..M.7240 0 Ella PIZ ' SS ono r • , ,1,, • • . • , • . • an/ado A ftal.inent 6027015 GREEN RIVER G.lf 1ti010 57th Soot lroj. 705- 127 -65 Kent, Washington IIVi:H i'xOTECTIOil EASEMh.N'. R/W 2 gN 259 THIS INDENTURE, made this 22ad day of Apri], 1964 hvtween Mario A. Seale canter, end King County, a legal subdivision of the State of Washington, Gr snteu: '": WITNESSETIi, that first party, in consideration of $1.00 receipt of which is acknowledged, and the benefits which will accrue to the lend of Grantor by the exercise of the rights herein granted, do hereby remise, releeee and forever grant unto the Grantee, its succeettora and assigns, en easement and right -of-way for the purposes hereinafter stated along the Left bank of River, within a strip of laird-1U Teet in width the ; pars e o •n landward of the top of the river bank as constructed or reconstructed on the following describ- ed property. T.L. 55 Gov Lot 2, the S.W.} of the N.E.} add potion of the 3.E.} of the H.W.} lying Easterly of Ann Mess County Road, less beginning at a point 149.50 feet Esat of the Northwest corner of the S.W.} of the N.E.=, thence S.16 •' 05'14" West, 401.77 ft., thence 3. 88.54'46" West, 424.89 ft., thence S. 86 °58'00" West, 103.76 ft., thence S. 58620'50" West to Easterly margin of road, thence northerly along road to North line of S.E. } of the N.W. thence East to beginning, leas beginning on easterly margin of Road 724.6 ft. Southerly of North line of Subdivision, thence continuing southerly 151 ft., thence 3. 71.43'40" East 203.51 tt., thence N. 16.28'50" East 151.08 ft., thence N. 71.43'40" West, 199.53 ft. to beginning, loss County Road in Section 35, Twp. 23 N.A. 4 E.W.M. Ovid 30 feet Easement and right of way shall be confiners end restricted to the alignment of the top of the bank as shown on drawings Numbered 5- 6 :4 -1,- B. 68 -2 and B -68 -3 on file at the King County Flood Control Office :;aid easement and right -of -way are for the following purposes: Th^ right to enter upon the above described land to construct, reconstruct, mnlntein and repair a bank protection and /or other flood control works, including ell appurtenances thereto, together with right to trim, cut, f "lt and remove all ouch trees, brush and other natural growth and obstruct- !on as ere: necessary to provide adequate clearance and to eliminate inter - i'"•r•.•nce with, or hazards to the structures. Thy consideration above mentioned, i3 accepted as full compensation to the exercise of the rights above granted. To have and to hold, all and singular, the said easement and right - c1' -way, together with appurtenances, unto Grantee, its successors and ac:r.gr.3. I!N WITNESS WHEREOF the Grantor hereunto set his hand, the day inl year above written. ;.•;!.. OF W,1s71n:1TON ;,s ,, r f oF KING on this day •p nared before inn ran or Grantor Mario A. 3.gale .:r,own Drs the individual described in end who exocut.nd the ,:•••.,')11,v irlstru�l"nt, and seknow =aged to me that he signed the • en his free and voluntary act an ee , for t�tiRN,ruses :,rot parj,c,:r••:1 ttrr:r "ln :tonti,oned. . No1� • ,• ... i!•:er, und'•r my hand and official seal this 22ad day .A;iiiley''•.,'!f In and for f h' State o sal ng on, ras ••� :t' (. ^!' r'.d I•• I•.o.rl�,: a. 1? 1941 rel.. S•�,. :, ,; Cc' Co,nm,t,,aw.rt 11OE11t A MOUIS. A.,dna ,H z • Z, W: re J0: .0 O W =; • tl . WQ O:. uu- 1• a Z Z �. I— 0. Z W U � .O •0 H: 2V 1- -. O 111 Z', . U =. 0 01 Z 04/14/1999 15:12 r--\.205-5134 KC WLRD RIVERS SEC. . A S S O 1..II T: I. 0 I • Wnrnli43, King Oounty haia:aeoured itiier'?robeotioa Easssasnb tor,:: Green nivsr Flood Control • (A/W,2)•`.:" : ��,.:. • Grantors Mario A. 8ogalo, Orsaitor�` anC•Xiagl,'County, a`.•.ligal• subdivision of the .State or Wsahinngtous .OrsntOui ;� `«.rM1 ;:;. + �,;: :;' !• :': ,:+ ;lei,':• i;y • WIT2fl 8E`TH1•..that first parbyiiin:oonsidsration ot,$1.00 receipt or latch is aoknowled ad, and the benefits : wliiah' +rNi11`N►o°rue • to .the land ot• Grantor by the 'axe:oles of the • rights berein•'gr,9ntedk. do .bereby.'remise, release and forever rant unto the Oraatesi°.its:auao*nsars and assigns, an'ease- menb and right of wayy'.tar bbi:�purposes'•bereinsartsr • stabed'. along the: Loft bank of Green River., :Within a sbrip:'ot?land Q feet.;inn vidth.that is parallel to:and landxard•of bbs.to or ths•rtwr,bank as ;eons truote4. or rsoonatruoted on the tolloving;d eripa¢.:prgpsz'tr; o • ( T.:J. r1s "! ! +. ', •.�1 `.1 ., •'�4,' .:i :�j,';' ''w'i= 1~''::• •:. • • ;' :1��:1' '1;,g .1.' its• oov. Lot 2, ": the SW14 of Abe Hltlit and 'poir oti 'o! the..ts84 :or''tha 1110 'lyifg ` • • ittsterly ot,Ann Mess County .RDad,. ••lsfls 'boginaing at a• point 1449 :50. feet • East or tho•tlorthwest:oornerl.ot the. 3vVor•the•)1; • tbsnoe;•3.'1.05'll ":Wst, 401.77 rt.,':•thenoe B..88.°514.114.6"...• Wet • :l4?1i :89 ::,rt: �: thence .40,4)6,5800W 00• 'West, •103.76 tb., theme,'.s, :58,6201.505fleet.t0'Easterly margin 'of road, • thence northerly along road4O.:8orth'liu..of(AB1/4 of •the 311131, •thensailtaat to beginning,...lens beginning::,on eastorlp' margia.'..at.:Raad. 7211.86` tt:',3uutherls of north lino of Subdivision�'ithenatr•oontinuia aoUtherly :.l51•.ft:;.;.then°. 3. 71 °43'40" Beet .203.5 '•tt.i thoriao.lir• ' t� 1b ° ,2Q/ Zait .l51:08'1't., tthenoe' Ll. 71°4.31407 West, 199.53. fti..,..tcp •beginning`,• a,ess ;County Road its' afro4' 35* 'Twp, 23••A. R. 1 la.Vt.11.' a�' ,,;! !..: 1 r . s. • ,.r : ° P.,.. Baia 30 riot ?teeetosnt :pad right'' ori�war•shs.11.be confined•`aand restricted to • the aligieot or the :top ; o.. tits" '• -s;s ,shown on drawings 'Numbered • Office...- B. 68 -2 and ;A -48. 3•;op,11.%e ab;;i X.i g County. Flood* Control. ;, t•,:• Baia easement and right • of w•y kr• for the :following dt way.* 8 Pte'p ore a t • • :';;: • The right to enter upon the above'donoribed."aand to • cons truot••reboxnatriat, maintain and repair a batik protoetion an d/or;otber.flood control works, including all appurte nanoes therebo, •together. with .right r'to•, trim, • out, tell and remove all such' tries, •brush an& other natural growth and obstruct- lone as are neeesnn.ry to provide adequate`•alearanoa and tq eliminate•inter- toronee with, or haaardsr to the etruotures. .;+ The oonaideration abate' reentionbd; is ag9optod as ru11 oemu,.noation';.Co the • exeroiso of the rights' above' grantec].t•::, :ti,; •; •. • ,. ;:,. , t _. • To hare and to hold, all and singu1er,•tbi'aiid estseaaont and right of way, " together with appurtenanooI ,,unto';Qranteo,'its successors and assign•. • and, WHltit&S, said River Protection Raflomantt,is a uaoful and ueoosasary part of tho County Flood Control.. . ' BE IT R188OLVan that fluid 'liver!Protention Boetnent be accepted.thy King County and the Clerk of :the • Board be, and i+. hereby authorised to. Silo said River troteotion.psselnent '!or'ripper& in tho Ting County Auditor,c Office. . PASSED this ATTTw9T s ROBERT A. )ORR 1 Clerk of the Board ds 1.or ' . Damp' Oi: By BALM R, SWIM n WALLACE '1 Deputy rraan-4; ;; 7i_iara3so ewer ' :.:' . aLn 'T. 0' fHi)',H r.• neioner 5222051 Greer River 4,0 RIVER PROTECTION EAsement gMbh ,d .fr ^t Mario Segale Party of the first part, does hereby, in conaideration 0? one dmllar, in band r^, paid, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, GRANT to the Crunty of King, a Municipal Corpmration of the State of Washingten, party of the second part, the right t, construct and maintain • rip -rap bank protection and remove debris along the Left bank of Green River River, on the following described property: Tax Lot 55 Gov Lot 2, the S.W. } of the N.E. ; and portion of the S.E.1 of the N.W. ; lying r.as er y o es o. '•., - - I III'. • • r. ,, Northwest corner of the S.W. ; of the N.E. }, thence S. 1° 05' 14" !J., 401.77 ft. .- --7=r, ., t., tnenoe S. fib" -)6, uu-• nest, Luj. (6 rt^; Z thence S. 58° 20' 50" W. to Easterly margin of road, thence northerly along O on easterly margin or Road 724.86 ft.$outherly of north line of • •:. • sly :,ubdivision, lono,. c •' u . • . , + v. , , • • • .. V• , N. 16 °28'50" E. 151.08 ft., thence N. 71° 43' 40" W., 199.53 ft. tc beginning, less county tcoaa in sec. j2, TWp• e/-11•11.0 4 n.11.11!. Alan any reasonable access necessary for River Impr "vemcnt wrrk. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereunto have subscribed their names and s•:t th»•ir hands and seals on this :,TAT-r OF I•WASHINGTO!!) as COTT= CF KING 11/• , , • day n / - . , 19 This is to certify that on this s - day of J' r• /,:?,,v- i'..' bt• 'Nr" mo, the undersigned, a Notary Pubic. in and fcr the Stoic or '1, :!hi1:K +. "n, duly co:nmission:d and sworn, porsonally camo /_1 /t'7.-• e, riles c -r .-own o e. c n• v •ua - w o execu c• c w Iirrilitrunont, and cc•know1•:•igrd to ma that - h:- signed and soaled tho same as ,41/%3 fr• •end vnluntnry net and decd for the uses and purposes thorin mentinnud. ':I'P!h:SS :*" hand and s :al the day and year tt� this cortificato first n..:r.tinncd. 7/''1: /i, r, Notary c in or the Strt,; �fashington, residinfg at_ - , �% TAO 0,1.. i.e.,_ :•�. ,,. •. d of Cooley Comduiom,t . 4.. CiRT A. MORRIS, Cwt./ Audio► ng Highline water district intertie Water district 75 intertie Water district #75 intertie JAN —?4.99 10:03 FRCM:HIGHLINEV RDIST. 20E2240375 10/07/93 TO:20""°751837 PAGE:002 HIGHLINE WATER DISTRICT HYDRANT FLOW RECORDS Page 1 1 HYDRANT: ADDRESS: 18221 ANDOVER PK W HYDRANT Al NOZZLES FLOWED: 2 NOZZLE SIZE: 1 2.50 IN. Al PITOT READING: 60 PSI A2 STATIC PRESSURE: 147 PSI A2 RESIDUAL PRESSURE: 92 PSI HYDRANT A3 NOZZLES FLOWED: 2 NOZZLE SIZE: 2.50 IN. A3 PITOT READING: 66 PSI RESIDUAL HYDRANT A2: ADDRESS: 18221 ANDOVER PK W FLOW HYDRANT A3: ADDRESS: 18205 ANDOVER PK W PROJECTED FLOW AT 92 PSI: 5300 GPM DATE FLOWED: 9/28/93 . COMMENTS: SEGALE BUSINESS PARK AREA FLOWS ARE CONTROLLED BY P.R.V. STATIONS WITH FLOW LIMITING CONTROLS. THIS TEST IS ALSO BASED ON AUXILIARY SUPPORT FROM CITY OF TUKWILA. ALSO SEE FLOW TEST FOR 9/15/93 WHICH SHOWS 2800 GPM AT 38 P.S.I. WITHOUT TUKWILA SUPPORT. 18221 ANDOVER PK. WEST. D ST. Ira SOUTHCENTER PKWY. vav fir' L CST. u'd wrnax. ,00 rr. \o/ mussuFte Reuar TUKWILA INTERTIE 18125 3 18205 A-1 18221 rO 18271 1 18223 )11 ANDOVER PARK WEST A -2 11( 18292 NOV - 1 1993 r \tncArtrcl rstAsac,.wc s -c7 -ys Q IY 2 U O; coo cow u. W =' J F—. W LL N . _.. ? Z O. W LLJ np w W` II-- O. O. U Z .... ^:��.:.. a,e • NEW CONTOUR LINE, TYP. RI OTE 1 EAS MENTS 87 6014672, RES. 3 E SEGALE BUSINESS PARK nmm, vauw,a Iwo ma. mr BUILDING 981 SHORELINE PROFILE CROSS SECTIONS imago . =MO MEW w11c- wc- IYR"-� • I. " t= man, • 7 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA FEB -51999 PERMIT CENTER •Z ti Z: 6: , UO • .(Ap N W; W Jam:. N LL, wo J" u. W Z� I- a 1de ▪ Di gyp;. OU WW. ▪ U, • rL• Z,. U. • I ION NNW 1533 N�lf1 1W W UVU. 1» * WW1 35 30 25- 20 -50 LSI w—+ ON/OMEN 1 t oWI 101.11155 MCI ONNIONNIl v rM i WOW. not 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 +75.00 *KM NMI atu Iatfw 11NINANO 153 25 20 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 +00.00 IN NM NON U. NM NON Ara ft. ESN 35 30 we 1fwl no a1545 25 20 -50 w UN a CINNUM r 111VIOO do rff. 6 R16 ttf ft name iw' 35— 30 1041 era 25-` 20 T►. 1 1 1 1 50 100 150 200 250 300 2 +25.00 NIGH W a00 n rff. IF MK IS/et Or -50 1 1 1 1 1 1 50 100 150 200 250 300 1 +50.00 SEGALE BUSINESS PARK 1010.44 11■1■0410 ow. web BUILDING 981 SHORELINE PROFILE CROSS SECTIONS MOW .li,. ,.�>r -- ....- men— ...2 -7 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA FEB ° 5 1999 PERMIT CENTER 35 MI KM 30 U. i 47 e1w101`"101 25 NI WIN rya a.LIM RIM IfWAIQ it o LAI ma IMi1�MfOM laOM/7 O 1 .I I I I -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 3 +75.00 I n ONMONINT miaow ff. Q aw 35-- 30 nav WILWA ?5— DU i I 1 1 1 1 1 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 3 +00.00 NO VIM nano RIM NWIAIU Il. M.71 Mr Iw rum U.. MAO KAN MN A1CR U. 40 35 mat LOW IMPACT DM'r DNIIDKMI MW NKI DNMDACMI /rr. Q KM a I I 1 1 1 1 - 50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 5 +25.00 - 50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 4 +50.00 SECALE BUSINESS PARK 7YIVRA. vMMIOies ow= BUILDING 981 SHORELINE PROFILE CROSS SECTIONS MONO N ig Niel. MEM. WON 411•1•16-- W WV-- Mi--- AM ININNMUMMNINNYMMMIM -.3.7 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA FEB w51999 PERMIT CENTER -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 3 +00.00 NO VIM nano RIM NWIAIU Il. M.71 Mr Iw rum U.. MAO KAN MN A1CR U. 40 35 mat LOW IMPACT DM'r DNIIDKMI MW NKI DNMDACMI /rr. Q KM a I I 1 1 1 1 - 50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 5 +25.00 - 50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 4 +50.00 SECALE BUSINESS PARK 7YIVRA. vMMIOies ow= BUILDING 981 SHORELINE PROFILE CROSS SECTIONS MONO N ig Niel. MEM. WON 411•1•16-- W WV-- Mi--- AM ININNMUMMNINNYMMMIM -.3.7 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA FEB w51999 PERMIT CENTER U. SUN 1WM +1G a as 111 Q LEVU. Ir. -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 6 +75.00 NUN INPOCI DI�I�OIOQ rrff r1c M/ n* ►Lm a 11.71 a. in -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 6 +00.00 IN nm nos tt. 11.14 40 35 DIVIW1`MII NV NW MU DMRMRKIII `riff ILK NUM WWII —sat-- -50 11 WI ruff IL run IL 2323 we RIVER DWI 40- 35 2311 UN N_ LMVL1[11[MI IP. 11r. 1 50 100 150 200 250 300 8 +25.00 las MICH MU ONIb1(MI -50 riff KR6 1 1 1 1 ----1- 50 100 150 200 250 300 7 +50.00 SECALE BUSINESS PARK nnva�. vM N woo SRAM semerosasisarr BUILDING 981 SHORELINE PROFILE CROSS SECTIONS OM . as a _$_ _t- wry No 4•.7 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA FEB - 5 1999 PERMIT CENTER IL. IVM NOW= D. Ian 35 20 at IWO awl IOV WM • ■Nl. w WM W Ct ONIOeo1 � rra aw 7 _* , N° -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 9 +75.00 SNP eTw tw , NW NM DNIf riff KW aM It* NOMATu CL 111 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 9 +00.00 NO Wn rt (L S , 25 35 30 La DWI Cwumea lr NW DDM RNT rr0 •K w fl* rues D. WA WAN NDAIATC* a nn 20 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 35 20 11 +25.00 Q lW :VII NW ist MCI twn, DNeaua DNl I€NT rra IIIb 1ii -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 10 +50.00 (:) SECALE BUSINESS PARK TIMVRA. VMNMDUI...w.r IIMMIMIIIIMENMENIMMO IOW BUILDING 981 SHORELINE PROFILE CROSS SECTIONS NNW 1. MIN ONO IIM{lc� W 116" Ilu.14 -"un_ ...5.7 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA FEB ° 5 1999 PERMIT CENTER --w- COM 65-- 60-- 55-- 50, 45--- 40– a am ru! 30 IKMVATTR ELKU TUN KAI 4 KO NOMITTI oumivla ' 15,4,4. l Or IVIOI is frr.v KU TV. r Mt KM ft= n. mu 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 ww %KT [MOM! ter w*U (In rr.Or Kte. ITP. KIM MOM U. tae -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 13 +50.00 14 +25.00 35 or MKT I [w l�lCT ' iv . IIMpIMI� a rr. Cr ata M . ,1 Mt. jI DA 1 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 12 +00.00 OOTIONCE 40– 35 » MK non 30 Alt! —+]C -- 20 i4L u NM LIMPOODIT MO rr, a mis. T1Y. -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 12 +75.00 SEGALE BUSINESS PARK %MIA. 100011101a• so.* BUILDING 981 SHORELINE PROFILE CROSS SECTIONS ...I. ___ ...- ..r..- 'ma'— •"^ 6"7 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA FEB ° 5 1999 PERMIT CENTER • ti NI V VIM "m' a� a° 55 RIVr! UN trot drier Div 20 -50 wrtu.ns a.aw NUN IpIA1O a t17I Nei NW NWT ONIMENCIN //7. Or Ap race 50 100 50 200 250 300 15 +75.00 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 17 +25.00 KM nor ate. nil NUN a. natq IN ru. RON IL 29.0 -50 0 50 100 50 200 250 300 16 +50 00 RMR LQI NIA wori ONNOUa 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 EL A1° 25 20 -50 tut NW NNW rNVNCINDO rat Of NANO 50 100 50 200 250 300 15 +00 00 ORNIO SEGALE BUSINESS PARK nave vawc,aao ..aw miseres BUILDING 981 SHORELINE PROFILE CROSS SECTIONS INNINNMENNINLINLINNINI moon NMIw ...��- RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA FEB - 5 1999 PERMIT CENTER ,1 t..■•• ••• ••••1r Il /r •••• fro. LI 4.1. t.•••.44 z P•v1 a 04 slaII•muraa 1 I. We 40 LAW. or ENLARGED PLAN @' .ENTRY %Mt r••r • iJ 1 i • /1 • or •••• C••••r 7, 4. N W..kr.itl.'!L 1 (11•0• Coro.* 1•I. ••• 4.+ R (0.M• 1.4• IJ■1al111111•11f rw 1.U• ••• FIN? u0nro • • MIL !roam ow ow* inboot A a...••, Mor•w law. b.. 1r fl• •v�l �W �•y \ \ • \' M1N •••.41•+•. • /. /•l •• L4.••• . ..M 1 ,..r ICIA • • 1.a •••■• ••• ••••• ••.y l•• ,1 11. Nl 1 r• 1.•. •■••■ ••••• INN IWO ]•'.a • 1 Lla"" �l..r MOO CCO X rat 1•.a•. O•w 1..4 •••■1 N 14 V4 .7.1V NI r aWw • 1•f H• I» [t w 0..4 O... •••• Iar •11. lrl >• !.*. •11••04 1 M A' N w Al AO •_ b OM ••• 0••11.1 •' • • O 7 4 II I* at I.a•.1•• lowly F..•. V. •••■•' R. _4_N ••• •••• w u —L• .-7 �ll.o•flLC4 11.• 1C. , •I b •. 4K1.4 41a1*0•,••..w ••• h••••■ O M 1• ••• •-I /•r I.•••W • Al F• ••••••••••••••• 1.• ly.' 441.•• ••• 1.4• W • • 1.44.1. W y.••. ). ar ▪ i l.1 044 04.4.1 •• •••• C401' I •. . K •• •••••• FAX A • 11. lY ® U ..•.•.,••r. r. •+4. I,.. on • re*I• t 141I111 • M 1•-.• 140 00I.l • 10 a•4 •Ia•w •••12.. LANDSCAPE PLAN IUI• C • O PRIVATE OUTDOOR OPEN AREA 4001•C. If RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA FED r 1999 PERMIT CENTER ""` —_ -- - <.. �• INIIIIIMa\CIIMI•••••••••••11 BUILDING 981 LANDSCAPE PLAN ••w= It ..... imam. law ►._ ••11•1r— ▪ YM•1(1 _I•VM _ �•I yep ••• I 1 Rear L•>,r Nor M. A. SEC1AI.E, iNc. 1 ASPHALT OPPI _ 1 SEGALE BUSINESS PAR, a •irwir L.11111 �e�,�E�LEVAATIOONN: G R 30.00 foun410( pia 103.11013 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA FEB ° 5 1999 PERMIT CENTER INNWA BUILDING 981 SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPROX RIVER BANK TOE SURVEY 40' RIVER ENVIRONME MEAN HIGH WATER -' MARK ELEV, 26,00 LANDWARD CATCH POINT OF LEVEE la= Ikuit:LT. CAD NOPOUR wo Z Z w 2 QQ 0 JU -)O •U) W ;CO LL. wO LL Q. w =a • w z� z o. W ❑: O fA: ❑ I- . Gj W. H WO -I O~ z BLDG. BLDG. 783 752 �.. 60. .i„q110 JO WV MITA,. 1 f«.91}. W.1. * - f*Mt aft n0.n1112* ra,.je. 1.,. ..li.!IS .W WPM 40w 1W IV V1.1 l Ml. rH. 00 fro14. H0041o11 rtn 11101010 of SEGALE BUSINESS PARK BUILDING 981 Imam- _: sals-- aw 641- MINA MOMMINNIUMMINIMMII IMMO 111/1/0 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA FEB - 5 1999 PERMIT CENTER \. 1 11 It RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA FEB ° 5 1999 PERMIT CENTER 1 Or 3 Z .Q �Z rt U. U0. U N W; W CO W -J.. J. v, W. z� 1- O z • WW; 2 o cn. w;. = U. O Z. UN; Z • /���y' M , t•'t )• eta .2L � w w rte. --- _._.__._ MINIM NM MN—awe MOM PUS MEM RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA FEB - 5 1999 PERMIT CENTER 1f 1 II I !I 1 Z .6 U W a g J. LL W a _�. !I-O :Z1-' V �. 'O N V' O. • Z :. RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA FEB ° 5 1999 PERMIT CENTER 1 I1 1 It 11 $ s • 3 OF 3 File: L 99 -0006 RENSIONS: 100' HIGH, IMPACT ENVIRONMENT 60' LOW IMPACT ENVIRONMENT. SEGALE BUSINESS PARK TUKWILA, WASHINGTON (we) ss -snoo mio 40 GA BUILDING EVISED'SITE` Z UO U) W : J = H W O. g Q: - d. = F- W Z� I- O: Z LLI U �. :O D. O I-: Ww O .Z. W =. Z MEAN HIGHWATER LINE SEGALE BUSINESS PARK BUILDING 981 SITE PLAN Z �QQ � W � J U: U O: u) W W =; J f—. u- w g u. 'co -d. = : w • _: I-a. • Z F- uji •U W W' 1 Z ' 1 1— U W 0 0 rn a! 2 a ce O 0 t< • 4 �n.e1 A2 Z '= 11' • •J 0 L) 0: 0• ow• 1J _' J tO LL' L 0 a. Q Ttn = i• I— Wm: Z Z O0' 2 w wi 0. Iw =, O H. Z mow ~wr •• 1 ra. ; ar wr wr . wr w.r •• w e r� re rr te•• ea• erer er...rya.r..wrv.r ere r Var.." w...7" ear''wear wqr v.r war,'" er•'r. war; rear .." war . ear e''r ear 14.". r.r r• .re're ..- ♦a e .1......7...-..;,.. rr In ` It 1 • 4 1 y k . M M 3000 8F OFFICE i MEZZANINE ENTRY 10,000 -MEZZANINE-OVER 0 EF OFFICE 0 0 0 0 0 1 f 0 0 0 O O o 0 0 o O o O ♦ 3000 SF STORAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 6EGALE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r ` 1 ° II' k o ♦♦ I 1 N j rr tow war r 1 1— U W 0 0 rn a! 2 a ce O 0 t< • 4 �n.e1 A2 Z '= 11' • •J 0 L) 0: 0• ow• 1J _' J tO LL' L 0 a. Q Ttn = i• I— Wm: Z Z O0' 2 w wi 0. Iw =, O H. Z z a 0 0 • • ,A3 1 Z W: 6 U O co 0' CO ILI, J I- W O' Q Ia W _,. Z Z O uj U O �( O I W W • U, Z O I- ' rr G&W rr rr wr r r V.V. r r rr rr • 74.,,11.01..;•4•1 r •r r•r• 'rr ;'r•r •r r•r �'r• r ...11'... 'r •r ''r•r• ''•r •r• •r W. .r•.4"••1• '..••r 41. M.V. rr .r '• V.V. t 3000 w, 6F OFFICE t i e i 0 o a o '_ a a o a a 1 a a a a i 0 0 0 a o a a o a I o o a o o a a a a .1 $ o 0 0 0 o a a o o ` I a O a a 2I5000 6F =REF 014E CI a = a C3 , I o 0 0 0 o a o a a o 0 0 0 o a a a a ; 0 0 o a o a a a C3 ; 7 a a a a a Cl a a i a a a E3 a a C1 ■ -. rr L.-1 1.. .. ..... �r .. z a 0 0 • • ,A3 1 Z W: 6 U O co 0' CO ILI, J I- W O' Q Ia W _,. Z Z O uj U O �( O I W W • U, Z O I- P P tm'in a+i• Y .414 AIEO OUN ItCOCIPCNI Al um P Cf) rMISLA AIEO •l.b•� MOM Iliad •I.IIn NORTH ELEVATION • • • 1 - • — ...cam Gaga —PAtL • PAIR • / I'1 mac-. • • 1/ �� umnmmnglu D_ E. L I I I l I I I I I IIII■ ...7.--= IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 2 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII•IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1111 EI IIIIII11111•IIIIIIII11111 .1111111 IKIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII41_ nyiplilllllllll IIII Iilllll •• • 4111 1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIill11111111111114 LLLLL IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIU411111111IIIIIII _l ; . .. ' ' 4 _EJ KII AC • 3 -17Fr . - U r i 2_2_2_2 0_a_ . - 1 _E g_Q_ Q_Q,.E_Q D_� L► 1 1 1 1 mi-�- -� 1 =,B —Q P Cf) rMISLA AIEO •l.b•� MOM Iliad •I.IIn NORTH ELEVATION q T=T- 1)001 • • - • • • I'1 mac-. COG • 1_ umnmmnglu D_ E. 4g4n4umn4lnngmm114uuqIu!411u �_Q. 0 1111 IIII■ mlliunmuqulpupyi4 .0 Q igilit npump _2 mppglpuunpuugLqulgpqum4ug4 E l t gigpnlnpquugnu I D A Q_Et Un4ng41Lngm• a _ RIaO 1 min�glgmglq __E- u n uimlgngl�I1 nmpU4nl u .1_1_l�l_ LLLLL 11111_ _l . .. ' ' 4 _EJ KII AC • i E 1 0 3 -17Fr . - U r i JIT E _ . - 1 q T=T- 1)001 11.01• I0 CLA.• AIM p1 •All ■I■■ n n MINN ?T7T •1•cui CPC. �neIw••o KTLL CLr.n 0 LIDA n 1_LLL 1 EAST ELEVATION R RETURN ELEVATION 1 00 WEST ELEVATION Y P RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA FEB ° 5 1999 PERMIT CENTER n 11 MCA ‚MCI. n IGaga run nn I_I_1_1_L n ggIIIijL 111111 II rt .cv+trt-- 11 1lnnmlpllnuq II III JIII4111nIIggW F 1_7, M°�"61 LiU1W""" I Ipnpinllllll LLD D D 0_C1 LJ,n -rrm LT_I_LL SOUTH ELEVATION t.1 0 a -1 J •l 2 -J 0 s m A4 z z. cc QQ W W 2. -1U 0 N 0. W= J CO LL. w0 2 g Q d I- w z z I_ ON CI ww LL-'O w .z ' U =:, 0 z 4 1_ 1 1 1 1 1 1 I f I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ■ ■I■■ ■III■ n� °OO n °° L ■" ■■ I 1 1 I 1 III '■ 1 1 1 1 1 ■II■■ ■IIII 11.01• I0 CLA.• AIM p1 •All ■I■■ n n MINN ?T7T •1•cui CPC. �neIw••o KTLL CLr.n 0 LIDA n 1_LLL 1 EAST ELEVATION R RETURN ELEVATION 1 00 WEST ELEVATION Y P RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA FEB ° 5 1999 PERMIT CENTER n 11 MCA ‚MCI. n IGaga run nn I_I_1_1_L n ggIIIijL 111111 II rt .cv+trt-- 11 1lnnmlpllnuq II III JIII4111nIIggW F 1_7, M°�"61 LiU1W""" I Ipnpinllllll LLD D D 0_C1 LJ,n -rrm LT_I_LL SOUTH ELEVATION t.1 0 a -1 J •l 2 -J 0 s m A4 z z. cc QQ W W 2. -1U 0 N 0. W= J CO LL. w0 2 g Q d I- w z z I_ ON CI ww LL-'O w .z ' U =:, 0 z 100 YEAR F1000 EL 29.86 LEAN IICIIOATER EL 26.22 RMER DAVI 55 60' LON IMPACT EMARON1EN1 MOT PACT EMAKINApR -50 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 mut LOM PACT Ewa ENMRONOENT 50 4 45 — 40 — I9'. 1111. 35— rl. Nw.TYP. 100 IEAR R000-3 CL. 29.90 IEAN 161MA1ER EL 26.20 —25r -50 0 15 +75.00 50 I00' 16N IPACT DAWO1MENT 100 150 17 +25.00 200 250 300 fro WAR 0.000 EL 29.69 MEAN 11G6YATCR EL 2626 RNER ENWi 45 40 35 — 3 —I0• LON IMPACT ENVIRONMENT IOW 16N IMPACT ENARONMENI EMT. GRADE. TYP. NEW (RASH JOKE. IYP. -50 0 50 100 50 200 250 300 16 +50.00 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 100 Awl 8000 3 EL 29.85 MEAN 161fMARR EL 26.18 25 20 -50 0 50 100 150 '200 250 300 15 +00 00 SE-GALE BUSINESS PARK IuaRIA WAV NICta u0. own. cc-- 1116:.--- 1141611-Tn- �• - tjo• KIM I KIM I . Io • 100 YEAR 11000 EL 29.63 11EV1 NQMATER 11. 26.12 100 YEAR 11000 EL 29.80 LEAK R621501ER EL 2645 RNEA EI6YI 65 — 60 55 50 45 — 40 35 •�10• LOW NP/CT 0M4ONIERT -x-15. TIP. 100' NOR IYPACI EltAROMENT rFi. OF BLDG, m'. -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 13 +50.00 -50• 60• 100• RA99 LOW WWI 1109 YPACT Ewa EMIRON0041 DAIRO .8(911 NEW 111611 35 — %-D I10. ❑051. GRADE. IYP. `F.F. OF RIDO, 11P. 25 20 --1 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 12 +00.00 100 YEAR 11000 EL 29.81 1f W 4901101ER EL 2k15 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 LON 111PACI ERVROwEM 10' IIIC11 LOCI E1111110 6(61 15 /F.F. OF BIRO. 110. -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 [KKR 16406 1.0W YPACI ENVIROHMENI 40 — 35 100 YEAR 16000 30 EL 2981 KM HOMER EL 26.08 2TJ 20 -50 14 +25.00 100. INCH NAV EIMRORYENI F.F. OF RO6. TM. -f- 1 1 1 -I 1 50 100 150 200 250 300 12 +75.00 SEGALE BUSINESS PARK 11161141056010101 Or100 cr- KNI: 1" 10 • Z H Z'. J U; OO: U) p . U)w: W Z. 1- • CALL" iw O . • ALL. Qi W 1— O: uf •Z 1-; Dp! H, !,w W 1•- V` V y: Z 100 YEAR IRMO El. 29.76 YEAR HOIMA1ER EL 25.93 35 40' ANN RIVER EON MALI 1181 WALT 0 0 FINRON[RT QMRORYERT r.r.or moo. 20 —50 .0 50 100 150 200 250 300 100 YEAR 11.000 EL 29.75 WEAN I68MATER EL 2550 40 9 +75.00 b' 60' 100' mat 1011 NOV 1164 ARAM . oho EIMROIUERT E4OONIEM rF.Or RDG. —50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 9 +00.00 100 YEAR (LOCO EL 29.79 RNA EOM WPAT RyyY�ENY6b1NYEM 35 — 30 YEAR NBAYAIER 25 EL 26.01 100 YEAR 0000 (L 29.78 IRAN IICIMATER EL 25.97 100' HIGH IYPACT EINARO WERI 20 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 —50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 35 40' RkER E9NI1 m' LOW WPACI EMIRORI¢AR 11+25.00 00' 1181 NIPARI ERJIRORYERI rF.0r EDO. 20 —50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 10 +50.00 SEGALE BUSINESS PARK TIIR*1A WA7w107041 tai 4.444.4 IMMO WEI. s7:1.' - 169' 91: 16• 10104 NANO FYI 40 35 103 1EM 11030 0. 29.72 WA Koran -25 EL 2500 10P OF LEVEE 111*. 40' 60• 100' AMR 101 WPC( NCH IMPACT DIV111 DAVIONIVIT ENVIRCPIENT MST. 07004, 191'. Evor, OLEG. -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 40 6+75.00 40' so' fro' • LOW IMPACT 1101 owl offiroattra ENVIIONUEHT F.F.Of MM. h. wt. Tr loo YEAR 11030 EL 29.71 WAN 11105911FR 71. 2577 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 6+00.00 10395471 11030 u. 29.74 OEM 110NI61ER R. 2551 100 MR /1.000 EL 29,73 YEW HOW/ATER EL 2553 40 35 A aluiL 40' so' 130' MLR LOW ISOCI 1901 11PACT DWI ENV71OHLEN1 07M0011.10 E1.01 ti.DC. - 50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 8+25.00 40' IOW RNER LOW 61P0Cl tot 111PACI ENN.Ln 011111014100 05910111100 - 50 0 50 100 150 200 250 .300 7+50.00 SEGALE BUSINESS PARK 04560101044 MOO OM .1101^0 MOM .11.••■[ WM& 106 YEAR MOO 11 29.67 MEAN 1IE2617.1ER U., 25.65 35 30 5 f0' too' DAIROMIENT LOW • -50 35 160 701E R000 30 E1. 29.66 14/1 HONMARR EL 25.62 rD nnv 25 20 ff. Of BUG 1 11 1 1 50 100 150 200 250 300 `b. tOM WI0T trroRanvrt 3 +75.00 ID0' 1754 MINCE EMW1paRNf ff. Of MC. -50 1 1 1 1 1 1 50 100 150 200 250 300 3 +00.00 40 35 100 YEAR flOao 30 EL 29,70 1411 1DG1101ER EL 25.71 100 TEAR 11,000 TL 29.66 IIfN1 NIGOIA1ER EL 25.66 uwT LOW W ICY twaftert ,O0' MO IMPACT (1MRO11ENI ff. Of 1180. 15--1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 5+25.00 35 Fro 40' FNNff I'"P i LOW WAC1 EMfRON/EM 1W21 U'ACI EM'WOfaENI �ff. U �• BIOG. -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 4 +50.00 SE-GALE BUSINESS PARK IIMMA •007* C10M 1� _ aCrUE Va1L �• _ 140' KR,: 10 100 YEAR ROOD FL 29.61 li/91 11CIMATER EL 2555 101' Of 'LEVEE. RP. a'- f]M1'T 35 — 30 25 20 N0• 100' LOW 'PACT HICI1 IWAtr (IMMINENT DMRONMENT -50 rgmy WM NMI a1-60 40 N.91 35 — 100 YEAR 0.000 EL 29.6 MEAN NCHWAIER EL 255 ?I. wt. IYP. NEW roe' rGRADE. IYP. MST CRAX. ITP. 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 +75.00 —100' - MIG1 [+PACT FMWgINENt 25 20 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 +00.00 100 YEAR ROOD EL 29.61 —a' RMR DAVI 35 — 30 NTMI 11CIN1ATO? EL 2559 25 100 YEAR 8000 EL 29.62 NEAR HOMIER EL 25.56 �00'- EON 1NPACT ENVIRONMENT 00' Hai BOAC! EFAIROHYENI rr. OF BLDG. 20 I I -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 35 3 2 +25.00 NWT HIGH IIIPITEE-1 (6001 E(IMMI NENT I CNNRONNENT 25 20 rr. OF MX. I I -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 1+50.00 SEGALE BUSINESS PARK IAA VIA51111101C11 W w- 0_.m a-- 11002: l- . 10 �• ill•C art. z �dd Wes: 00: co a COW W =; 11 -: N W o: T.111 1- O. Z U flu f W W I=- U", 111 Z ~; 1 0 U NORTH 60- N. N lal Approximate 0 Building v 40- Location t •.• cd 1111 hll .III ;III!'IIII� IIII! IIII Ill, 111111111 I Proposed t� F' Parking 20 Fill -Silty Gravely Sand K =0.085 ft/day (3x10-5CM /sec) -20- -40- EXPLANATION: T 4 1 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF BORING OR TEST PIT — — — — INFERRED GEOLOGIC CONTACT Finish Grade El. 33 fe Area !III Illl�tal d ' 111'11111 1111 1111 III, ICI I!II 911 Ili II Ili Z.Silty Sand K=0.085 ft /day (3x to -5 CM /sec) / 47. Approximate Water Level During Standard Project Flood Level 31.3' MSL SOUTH Medium to Fine Sand with Silt • K =85 ft /day (3x 10 -2 CM /sec) SCALE: HORIZONTAL 1"=20' VERTICAL 1"=20' 60 -40 -20 - -20 - -40 NOTES: 1. Profile Data provided by Segole Business Pork. 2. This cross section is a diagrammatic interpretation of subsurface conditions based on interpolation and extrapolation of data from widely spaced explorations. Actual conditions are substantially more complex than depicted. GeoEngineers does not represent the conditions illustrated as exact. ELEVATION IN FEET Engineers CROSS SECTION PROFILE AT STATION 8.76.00 FIGURE 3 z File: L 99 -0006 5mm Drawing #2 -4 File: L 99 -0006 35mm Drawing #1 • '01 • •0 o a o - o ,. en 10 0 7 1. ' ,, \ . o • 0 1 o 0 o . .. ,..,. ii ..:, o - . ... .• .. -- ,...._,....... o .........,, 0 _.------- . Fl . . imicithST CO I% ...... ...---- ! '•1•, ). • •• 1 • I • • ' • • , • .1 •'.• - ,• 0. 0 !WK.' • .‘ rr, , -27 E L ............................................... L " '':i.'1")61(611illlilil'ili1(11/11ililil/11.(111:110.1'1."1,1-1(1:iiiiiiii1111111i1111161111111.11111111111011111111111111111'111111111111,11ifiliinlilliiii,fficd. PREFINI514 ED METAL COPING PRECAST CONC. _ ) PANEL - PAINT --, --, ---- __„. 9 -000 35mm .Drawing. #Z -4 III 1 J.1 1 1. 1 1 1 }11111111 iiilll,Il i011I i 1,1 IIICIIL LIII.11lli illllllll Uii1111I liiililil 1.1 tIii11ifli1i iiillill.�;.. • 4 'lf: mi-To4.4",oui R7AfAta Ra Wic me 1CiM�Si `.GHQ'Q�DLfRIm"vsroesevwsd lt`iB�3LLTiiiT,,,s lcvw/Y13:ma, . Anu)us.uausoacida2rattvmw INNIMIERININI V 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f' EXISTING BUILDING 0 " NEW RETAINING t WALL 1 BUIDING 981 100' HIGH IMPACT ENVIRONMENT' 60' LOW IMPACT f ENVIRONMENT. MEAN HIGH WATER MARK 40' RIVER ENVIRONMENT SEGALE BUSINESS PARK TUKWILA, WASHINGTON (201) 95 -1000 BUILDING 981 REVISED SITE PLAN DESIGNED En PEOIEf.t NUIENEIN MOM ED PDA CHECKED Em uoo r11 REVISIONS ISSUE CAM 1" — 50' ar 10/7/99 DMIKNO imam s1 pr--t LI ,,.L ,UI Q Z:�_ .L .,L. t 1 o: 1IIIII111111IIIIIIII1IIIIIIIII1IIIIIIIII1I1111 .1 II1.IIIIIIIII1IIIIIIIII1IIIIIIIII1IIIIIIIII1IIIIIIIII1IIIIIIIII1IIIIIIIII1IIIIIIIII1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i • 0 STA. 0 +10 90 BEND 3/4" CHAMFER ALL EDGES, WP. a B.O.F. 22.00 1 1/2' FEATURE STRIP (2 -3/4" CHAMFER) — AT 8' CENTERS 4" WEEP HOLE AT 8' CENTERS EAST RETAINING WALL EAST ELEVATION. 10/14/99 F.G. 0.83 REM** LAST SEGALE BUSINESS PARK TUKWILA, WASHINGTON fang are -2003 TMEs BUILDING 981 EAST RETAINING WALL mmeatz w PROJECT NUI6EIG DRAM en PDA aaa® an nno f2L: EWALL ISSUE DOE: SORE 1/4" = 1' a� 10/15/99 WAKING RUMOR r . SIj Vi Li ii .:.0 UI .. 0 L,. "y .�r-,r:- G I d. Im1hin6iidiigh111111ulnulInIIIIII minuhiiiluiiliiuluu111111iiiilunlunliinlunhiu6whifi6IiImnlonL1iilm11lppl .' ° 6.01 I t B.O.F. 22.00 1 1/2' FEATURE STRIP (2 -3/4" CHAMFER) — AT 8' CENTERS 4" WEEP HOLE AT 8' CENTERS EAST RETAINING WALL EAST ELEVATION. 10/14/99 F.G. 0.83 REM** LAST SEGALE BUSINESS PARK TUKWILA, WASHINGTON fang are -2003 TMEs BUILDING 981 EAST RETAINING WALL mmeatz w PROJECT NUI6EIG DRAM en PDA aaa® an nno f2L: EWALL ISSUE DOE: SORE 1/4" = 1' a� 10/15/99 WAKING RUMOR r . SIj Vi Li ii .:.0 UI .. 0 L,. "y .�r-,r:- G I d. Im1hin6iidiigh111111ulnulInIIIIII minuhiiiluiiliiuluu111111iiiilunlunliinlunhiu6whifi6IiImnlonL1iilm11lppl .' '.60 Thug Pwomidtlis 14 (worms Nolo'Compact 6 Rhoda GW 10 Ilea Crenate Con PRIVATE OUTDOOR OPEN AREA SCALE: 1••15' ' 1. Rog. OWo,on n. C Mde Concrete Slob 4 Oats • LaLM 16 Molal.. .s 10 nee Crenate 00, 00,0 5 Euonpnes Nola 'Compact* oG Erica Cornea Ica 6 Rhoda Mob 10 Mobenia 4 Rhoda G Junberus ad Cold 15 Euspnus Palo 'Canpoclo' 30 Po 'Otttlu A 5 Rhodo Elisabeth Erica Cameo 'Yammers Rd 2 Fa • s 5 wtica'Purred 21 Prunus Laurocerosus ouoluyeen 28 no,pus Gaycmpe hoywood 10 Sokoto Buhnodo Anthony wooer 004 0ulnaohes 11 EAC 10 Sr. Creole Convex ]S Moloolopo o Ua 4P 10 Pious Mounlah rue 12 Prunus Lauroeermus 0tlNUyke* 3 enlocedms Ono 5 Euon us Nolo 'Convect* 1— SHELM EASEMENT 4/22/99 2- CHANGES PER CM OF TUKVII.A V/ MODIFICATIONS 5/19/99 Sce enlarged pion for entry planting 16 Rhododendron Mott Kruschtte 28 nbanum Dovidi 4 Pious Nigro 10 Prunus touracnosus 'OIIMuyAen 5 Eue)mus Noto'Compac 5 Rhoda GW 3 Colocedrus 0ecurrens VAULT 10 Ilea Crenate Cevem Ea4 10 Ilex Crenate Cevexo Erica Cornea 'Karnmers Red 4 Fo ua 5 vMica Pie urea 17 lee Crenate Convex° Eska Cornea 'Sommers Red Colanester Lowlosl PLANT LEGEND 0 oR REM ESN �!1 0 • O 0 0 005 ABBR. GREEN RIVER BOTANICAL NAME 12 CO Colocedrus Decurrens 4 200 62 Eck EAC 'ESP •••'.96I• larejoiroltraiiraito u mseaed Crass �Oitt COMMON NAME SIZE/NOTES Crocosmla Luciler Gko Cornea 'Kramman Red' Euonymus Akita'Compaclo', , Fagua Sylvotica 'Purpurea' 28 FOR Frootnus Oxycorpa 'Roywood 84 ue 127 ICC 30 316 16 5 10 7 18 4 10 68 71 135 JOG Lo 1J PLO Gaultheria .501100 Ilex Crenala Conveso Juniperus h. Blue Rug Juniperus 'Old Gold' Leurolhoe °ANarls Lonkera Byer Beauty Mahonlo Repass Phoriumienao 'Bronze Incense Cedar .12' Full to ground, dug twice during digging season and heeled 1 gal 1 got. 18. 0.C..101. sp. 18 -2x• 000 3.5• cal. Burning Bush Purple Beech Ruywood Ash 2.5• cal. lull rounded limbs beginning at 6• 1 gal. 18• Irl op. Jopenese Holly 15 -18• B &B 1 gol. 18• td Sp. Juniper 15 -18 B &B 1 gal. I gal, 1 got. 50 gal. Piero Mountain Fire Pious Nigro Austrian Pine Sp'roea Bulmada Anthony Waterer buys P)eamidalis 6 -7' Gledilsio Trtoncanlhos 'Shademosler •Honey Loculs 2 1/2• C. Prunus 6011r0cereslu '0110 Luken' Otlo Luyken Loure115 -18' B &B 18 -21•, 1 gal. 18 -20' lull, bushy specimens .57 , .RhodnGW .Rhododendron :Comet. Waterer' 17 Rhododendron Anoh Kruschke 11 Rhododendron Elizabeth Hydroseeded Grass 72 Y6urnum 00*411 54 Arclo,tophylos Uva Ural ...18- 2f•..6 /0 30 -36• 15 -18• 1 tbs /100 a1 12 s 12• B &B Knninntck 1 gallon con 0 24• Irl..p. 2 Prunus Lwrocerasus '011duy4en' Erica Cornea Yammers R, 14 Prunus Laurncelo:us 'Otloluy4 J % 8 Pieria Mountan F.e mf 18 Prunus luurae,uan '011tluysen' / 11 Prunus touraerasus '011olu,Sen' 3 Colon,& s Decu°e.•s SEGALE BUSINESS PARK 9 JUIOPERUS IXD 6060' 1 CALOCEORUS DE0760E115 60 GIS 30' RIVER P001060ON EASEMENT 244130 River EnJ amen) O'knikq ....._,,,,1ilyg fly, 01 1824 I.I.\ 30 • 60 trees m*Num 30' EASEMENT Lguyed. • WATS ees provided • 60 LANDSCAPE PLAN SCALE: 1• • 60' 17 Pesdodmbm MM :ux4e 7 Perin, I, . 6:mre Me Ru T6 Vanrum A Bewly 60 net remote Cmww 3 Pious Mao 20 Prunus loutooaous 0n**m 30 4.1' •nur BUILDING 981 LANDSCAPE PLAN ENLARGED PLAN @ ENTRY SCALE: 1:•15' Lamm m KL snot rx: Mere oxn, aW" VARIES b•s" 4/26/99 __0 MaMO: L -1.0 17* AY7ES7,,yss,F,.. • si ,- 11— t1`,L1-?-);_.:..51 '' �..+D�.._ _17ST �I..^'.1 -.:6 t f .1 111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1IIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIB1RIdll ll�lllllllll1lllllllll�lllllllll6lllll1lllllllll III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1ul1h4011lUl11nlup1 '•