Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L97-0048 - FAMILY FUN CENTER - SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENTL97 -0048 FAMILY FUN CENTER SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT SHORELINE MANAGEMENT 15034 Grady Way So. Cizy of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director anuary 29, 2001 Dick Hendry Family Fun Center 7300 Fun Center Way Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Shoreline Permit L97 -0048 Dear Mr. Hendry, Please provide the monitoring reports and completion document required as part of the riverbank restoration and habitat creation project for the Family Fun Center (see attached). This is a necessary step prior to the release of your bonds. If you have any additional questions or comments, please call me at (206) 431 -3670. Sincerely, Nora Gierloff Associate Planner . Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist C:Wora's_ Files \FAMILYFU\shoremonitoring.DOC 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Dick Hendry Family Fun Center 7300 Fun Center Way Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Request for revision to Shoreline Permit L97 -0048 Dear Mr. Hendry, I received your request for a revision to the shoreline permit for the structure on parcel 2 of the Fun Center site pursuant to WAC 173 -27 -100. The original permit covered the construction of a 152 room La Quinta Hotel as part of the 3 lot site plan. This is to be replaced by a 137 room Comfort Suite Hotel with a similar site configuration under the revision proposal. The letter and drawings you submitted document that the proposal falls within the revision criteria, therefore the City approves your revision request. In July 2000 Tukwila approved your request for a one year extension of the existing shoreline permit based on the delay in securing tenants for parcels 1 and 2. This revision approval does not change the underlying permit timeline. Construction, authorized by the appropriate permits, must start by July 29, 2001 and development activities on the site must still be completed within five years of the effective date, July 29, 2003. The City will provide notice of this revision to parties of record and the Department of Ecology per WAC 173 -27 -100 (5). If you have any additional questions or comments, please call Nora Gierloff at (206) 431 -3670. Sincerely, Steve Lancaster DCD Director CC: Parties of Record Department of Ecology C:Nora's Files \FAMILYFU\shorerev.DOC 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 z a.; _I- F.w. J 0; 00. .0. ow: =; F—: CO w; w 0' LL. a: d;. 1-- w: zI-. F— 0 Z~ D i 'O —! 'w w; tii co — F. z December 5, 2000 Shoreline Revision Request File # 197 -0048 Hydraulic Project Approval Log # 00D5025 -04 A revision of Shoreline Permit # L97 -0048 is requested because we are making some minor changes to the original approved project. We are changing the hotel from a 152 room La Quinta Hotel to a 137 -suite Comfort Suites Hotel. We are reducing the number of parking spaces to meet the current code and moving the swimming pool to the indoors from the outside. The height and the square footage will remain basically the same. All utilities are to the site and the surface water drainage system is in place. In 1998 the Family Fun Center applied for and received approval for the development of approximately 13 acres of property situated on the North side of Interstate 405 between Fun Center Way and the Green River in the City of Tukwila, King County, Washington. What was here: A substantial portion of the riverbank was overgrown with Himalayan blackberry, which provided very poor structural diversity and virtually no woody cover into the river. Several locations within the buffer region of the river showed signs of spoilage with the presence of human refuse. These areas tended to compromise the quality of the buffer and acted more as a detriment to the Riverine system than a benefit. About half of the property was an abandoned pasture with some brush and grass cover. There were also areas with stands of trees and other shrub -scrub mix most of which were adjacent to a number of abandoned homes and an old dairy on the property. In this mix were also large sections of blackberry bushes. The most part of the property had been seriously degraded and impacted with little value to wildlife. Throughout the site were upturned soils and human spoils. For a period of years a portion of the property had been used for the storage of old and wrecked vehicles and boats. Some of the structures on the property were used for vehicle repair. There was evidence of environmental compromise. There was also a large Red Barn and some horse corrals. Additionally there was a large area used to stockpile old concrete, rock, soil and slag. The property, being adjacent to the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe railroad tracks, provided an attractive stop over spot for those who "ride the rails ". This was a cause of concern because of the evidence of open fires in and around the abandoned houses. RECEIVED CITY OF TUKVIct o DEC 1 1 2000 PERMIT CENTER .•.....d.....,;,x: wtd^...,14:e%r i.r.' .,i6J;`.;ti:dX`' .. Mvi1c'::L,•.ka"rs"ifC;7i h Y:IV,Qr1p '9;:. z • W 5 0 C.) C3; ' WI • li-: •wO •ga z I-O . z -; U ; ,0 1-: ''.W•ui • IH U LLI-. O. W • z Who had input in developing the site plan: In connection with the development of the property, representatives of a number of departments, agencies with jurisdiction, and the City of Tukwila met with representatives of the Family Fun Center. The following were represented: Washington State Department of Ecology Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency - Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington State Office of Archeology and Historical Preservation King County Health Department U.S. Army Corps of Engineers King County Department of Natural Resources -Water and Land Resources Division Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Department City of Tukwila What we wanted to do: The following goals were established, using as criteria, Washington State Administrative Codes: Develop the property with a Family Fun Center, hotel and restaurant. Restore degraded portions of the existing reparian vegetation back to a high quality vegetation structure and create like habitat where none now exists. Clean up existing environmental concerns and restore and enhance the riverbank to provide a well - structured and functionally valuable habitat for terrestrial and aquatic wildlife Replace lost 100 -year flood storage capacity reduced by the development of the property. Improve the quality of the overall environment of the property and that portion of the Green River adjacent to it. How we started: Geo Engineers did extensive testing for soil and ground water invasion contaminants with borings and pits. A number of criteria for conformance were presented. Performance Abatement Services under permits received from Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency removed all asbestos materials in accordance with standard practices prior to the demolition of any structures. An historical report was prepared and submitted to the Office of Archeology and Historical Preservation on the Red Barn prior to an arson fire that destroyed the structure. The remediation plan and clean -up was developed and regulated by the Department of Ecology under there Voluntary Cleanup Program and contaminants on site were taken care of by capping and evacuation. Monitoring wells have been drilled on the site. A nationwide 27 Wetland and Reparian Restoration and Creation Activities section of the Clean Water Act was received. z 1 W. u6R, J oo CO CO W W =: W V. W o. gQ co Da' H W. z� z o. I41- V. - O, 1.51 z 0 • 17: XIJ Z To replace lost100 year flood storage capacity, a riverbank shelf and off- channel fisheries habitat pond engineered by Barghausen Engineering was constructed. The shelf was constructed at 9. The Ordinary High Water Mark of the Green River at the development site was determined to be at 8.4. They were designed with input from the City of Tukwila, the State Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe to create low flow pockets that provide refuge and holding areas for juvenile and mature fish in this stretch of the river. Wetlands Resources did an extensive biological analysis for riverbank restoration and habitat enhancement. In connection with the City of Tukwila, they supervised the work along the Green River to comply with Mitigation Standards of the Corps of Engineers, Department of Natural Resources and Department of Fish and Wildlife. What we did: Upon receiving necessary permits, work was started. Earthwork was done to move the large stockpile at the easterly portion of the property. Approximately 50,000 cubic yards of relocated materials and 10,000 cubic yards of imported soil were used to level the property and prepare for construction. Two traffic impact studies were completed by Entrance Engineers for the proposed project. Traffic circulation and levels of service issues were examined and criteria were established. Work was completed to meet City standards and mitigation fees were paid. Extensive work along the shoreline was undertaken under the direction of Geo- Engineers, the City of Tukwila, Barghausen Engineers, Weisman Design Group, State Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. A substantial portion of the bank was stripped of invasive blackberry bushes. The majority of the stand of native willows was retained. A 500 -foot long riverbank cutback above the ordinary high water mark and an off - channel fisheries habitat pond to replace lost 100 -year flood storage capacity was constructed. This would also create low flow pockets to provide refuge and holding areas for juvenile and mature fish in this stretch of the river. Large woody snags were incorporated into the bench and in the off - channel pond to add further habitat value. The shelf was also planted with a mix of native trees and shrubs suitable to this new environment. The side slopes of the shelf to the edge of the buffer were also planted with native trees, shrubs and grasses. The off - channel fisheries habitat pond was constructed with a bottom level of 6 with a narrow channel connecting to the Green River at 4. Woody debris habitat structures were placed in the channel and in the pond itself for fisheries benefit. The channel and a portion of the pond were lined with four to six man rocks for stability and habitat enhancement. The banks were planted with native trees, shrubs and grasses for further fisheries benefit. Stormwater runoff from the total sight is treated with oil /water separators and a 200 -foot biofiltration swale. The swale is designed to meet requirements for the treatment of the 2- year /24 hour post- development storm event as required by the City of Tukwila's Storm and Surface Water Ordinance prior to discharge into the Green River. A flap -gate will prevent infiltration into the on -site drainage system during high river flow events. An HPA was received for this work. A sanitary sewer pump station was designed and constructed on the property to serve the needs of the three sites. It was connected to the City's sanitary sewer lift station in Fort Dent by force main. A $46,000 contribution was made to the City as a share of the costs to upgrade the lift station. In addition to paying traffic mitigation fees to offset concurrency improvements along Interurban Avenue, extensive improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk, street widening and paving, storm drainage, street lighting and signage were provided along Fun Center Way. A public trail easement for the construction of a new City walking and bike trail was granted around the boundary of the site to provide a link between Tukwila's Interurban and River Trails. The Family Fun Center's part of the trail has been constructed in accordance with a letter agreement with the City. The City will complete its part of the trail work and connect to a planned pedestrian bridge over the Green River. We have complied with all of the provisions for the project and are therefore requesting approval of a revision to Shoreline Permit L97 -0048. We believe we qualify for the following reasons: 1. The proposed changes are within the scope and the intent of the original approval. We are changing the name of the Hotel and reducing the number of rooms, but making each one slightly larger so the total square footage is almost identical. While the number of parking spaces is being reduced slightly, all of the spaces will be standard size. 2. There is no over water construction involved with the project. 3. Ground area coverage, setbacks and height are all within the provisions of the original approval. 4. The landscaping is consistent with the original approval. 5. The use authorized under the original approval has not changed. 6. There will not be any adverse environmental impact as a result of this revision. V AUG 11 2000 COMMUNITY •• OEVEL PM .Northwest Regional Office, 3190 - 160th Ave S.E. • Bellevue, Washington 98008 -5452 • (425) 649 -7000 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY August 7, 2000 Scott Huish Family Fun Center 7300 Fun Center Way Tukwila WA 98188 Dear Mr. Huish: Re: City of Tukwila Permit #L97 -0048 FAMILY FUN CENTERS - Applicant Shoreline Substantial Development Permit #1998 -NW- 10082 -X tr w tJ U O; . W w J.� CO u. w0 2 ag u. a• ; co a _ a. z� �o z 2 An extension of the subject permit was approved by the City of Tukwila on July 6, 2000 ,g m;. and received by this office on July 17, 2000. Construction must start by July 29, 2001 w W? and completed by July 29, 2003. c.?' LL. �; If you have any questions, do not hesitate to call me at (360) 407 -6322. w z U Sincerely, Marcia Geidel Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program MG:mg EXTENSN.DOC cc: STEVE Lancaster, City of Tukwila Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION • I, L EIS L I. HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing Determination of Non - Significance Project Number: L q 1 - O J--4g Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Hearing Examiner Agenda Pkt Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Decision Planning Commission Agenda Pkt 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 . f Other 5H"QRML - /NL. r X ThN'j J oij Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this j T »day of J U1 in the year 20 DO P: \wynettaforms \FORMS AFFIDAVIT- Mail.doc, 06/29/00 SFe;>✓;.a;i ti.2. btVn'.^.: .�n�.t' <A'�,:.S:i'f ar`i:.:, ••ii4, `r..'`iII.6XU'ti ?.tG.,iY3..u'ai3J S51r;:.•,YU::,� ':,LucraAa;rvi.u. Project Name f 4M I t_ l '�_ F t kyi Project Number: L q 1 - O J--4g Mai 1er's Signature:*,Q,`-Q_, 094_0L P: \wynettaforms \FORMS AFFIDAVIT- Mail.doc, 06/29/00 SFe;>✓;.a;i ti.2. btVn'.^.: .�n�.t' <A'�,:.S:i'f ar`i:.:, ••ii4, `r..'`iII.6XU'ti ?.tG.,iY3..u'ai3J S51r;:.•,YU::,� ':,LucraAa;rvi.u. CHECKLIST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW /SHORELINE PERMIT MAILINGS ( ) U.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 ICI 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 (yCj MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE ( ) DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE ( ) SEATTLE TIMES 07/09/98 C:WP51DATA \CHKLIST (c��,..')` DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. (K DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELIND DIV (``,,1 DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION* (K) OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL * SEND CHKLIST W/ DETERMINATIONS * SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION RING 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 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 & 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 LIJ QQ n J U; UO, N p: Ul LU W 0 2 gJ.. N 2' �w S Z ~; I- O Z gal O == i0 1- '1J uj Z:. O co ~ H O Z. PARTIES OF RECORD Dan Palmer 32228 Roberts Drive Black Diamond, WA 98010 Barry Bartlett The Bartlett Group 1700 Westlake Avenue North Suite 315 Seattle, WA 98109 Doug Grimes 14473 57th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98168 William Fouty 6423 South 143rd Place • Tukwila, WA 98168 Joel Haggard Haggard Law Offices Suite 1200 IBM Building 1200 Fifth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Robert Trimble Blackriver J.V., L.L.C. 4640 95th Avenue NE. Bellevue, WA 98004 Rebecca Davidson John C. Radovich Company 2000 124th Ave N.E. B -103 Bellevue, WA 98005 Jeffrey Stock Omni Properties 31919 1st Avenue S. Federal Way, WA 98003 Chris. Clifford 2721 Talbot Road South Renton, WA 98055 Sent by: HA3GARD LAW OFFICE ;.. E. HAOC,Akr: 2066235263; 07/17/00 12:15PM;Jeffix #735;Page 2/2 rmoik , ) HAGGAR D LAW OFF1C E A' 101:NE C.JA %w SUITE 1;?('..C), If1M llit r.) Ftl• 11.1 Ayr; NI:: SEATTLE. WASHIN:.;ToN seloi lac) CI ) 6? •ti 6.)E. FA) (?Ci) 23 L ANL1 july 17, 2000 TRANSMITTED BY FAX Mr. Steve Lancaster, DCD Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 .1. e 99999.0 • RE: Extension Request - L97L-0048 (liuish/Farnily Fun Center) Dear Steve, We assume that hotel construction can be done within a 2-year dine window, Thus, Your construction start period of 2 years plus a 1•year extension may be achieved within the SDP's 5-year requirement for completion. Thus, we have no inherent objection to this 1-year extension request. However, this is without waiver or precedent as to another such request next year. In passing the facility, I have noticed overflow parking outside the facility's lot and on the .island area by Fun Center Way. I do not remember the City authorizing this. Please advise. cc: Mr. Jeff Stock JI-1/sm Autr„....wu9kNitt.71 7 Silleerj1 yours, Y .1/211,t 1, \cA, 00 LA,ALR-J•12"*J ;N--'"k"'" \e.t...,.?4‘'" c- ard *- \l'■5 uv..\k •-$:*. ‘0--• * ,e I, ,,c,_,.._ A.0 ;R x‘-t -,4 ct.:tzsk AL sAl3 e‘s c, je°r - 1"\CL t'j95 94'11 k,;:.*- Af•':. % • Z Z, 11J 3 0 0 U) 0 cow 7:1 ct. a w z C): Z IU 4 n; ,p 0 lo P . Z F:55, .01-: cry of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Scott Huish Family Fun Center 7300 Fun Center Way Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Request for extension of Shoreline Permit L97 -0048 Dear Mr. Huish, I received your request for a one year extension of the start of construction for the buildings on parcels 1 and 2 of the Fun Center site. This request must be received by the City within two years of the effective date of the permit in order to be considered. The date of filing of your permit was June 11, 1998, however per WAC 173 -27 -090 (3) the effective date was extended to July 29, 1998 when the appeal to the Shoreline Hearings Board was withdrawn. Therefore your request, which was received by the City on June 30, 2000, is timely. The City approves your request for a one year extension based on the delay in securing tenants for those parcels. Construction, authorized by the appropriate permits, must start by July 29, 2001 and development activities on the site must still be completed within five years of the effective date, July 29, 2003. The City will provide notice of this extension to parties of record and the Department of Ecology per WAC 173 -27 -090 (2). If you have any additional questions or comments, please call Nora Gierloff at (206) 431 -3670. Sincerely, Steve Lancaster DCD Director CC: Parties of Record Department of Ecology C: \Nora's Files \FAMILYFU\shoreext.DOC 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 -431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 W;. re 00 UJ =; CO IA_ w 0 1i 4 N d mow_. z 0: z�. w w` CI` O N. o UJ 1— - -O wz O F-; z ECE VED JUN 3 0 2000 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 0-. _)c)\-76•- a. (-206) As1 -3(„G5 5:04.-L5k OCcL ) c))ot. -� F -C�lS- k. t z \.)'Sll 7 Ge- 5 c� )J es `k^C -tiLS -k "45 ` -ottcc ` a, C,e'i. W' St e. ()w1A. l cue. 4 CwQ`t_ &A.l5 -CAL -5 VIcAvC ON o * �:S`c4+ 'L C cbet 6 _ `SW- A.,? e Qo' C -kkx4me uoo,M ‘oc. -' Se« iNew r - `. Cu/1cepT cceti - 1-‘7_ \M C'v `'7 . Y wvkAL a- -CV■tv x h V %.e % t i -t" At A , ks 6,Z Coe- cue C A`41 '&74:n C"5 ilk at.) 1A.;' cpe. .(5 Cw 0,4 && '\ s Tr∎r A.V . - fit^. 5 cer `-'7"1 7 Family Food'& Fun FAMILY FUN CENTER BUIJ..WINKLE'S RESTAURANT 20111 S.W. TOWN C I NTIiR LOOP W., WILSONVILLE. OR 97070 PHONE: (503) 685 -5000 FAX: (503) 685 -9694 : '0N 9NOHd 06S6 -L69 F, I T wed HS I f1H : 140e d rria,k �i iiHa+ r 4tr S Mkt Xa'v4 i�: ^ ci sts i Td WdES :0T 000E 6Z 'un.f 4.4av, %.Vyiam is r4r7**'." 7;04k. AtVgi,gG",c .Wr 4"' (4) The effective date of a substantial development permit shall be the date of filing as provided in RCW 90.58.140(6). The permit time periods in subsections (2) and (3) of this section do not include the time during which a use or activity was not actually pursued due to the pendency of administrative appeals or legal actions or due to the need to obtain any other government permits and approvals for the development that authorize the development to proceed, including all reasonably related administrative or legal actions on any such permits or approvals. 11 �� )1go • J 194. ) v 7 KJ 6P-IL ti +ftt.: ii! '.��!%«;:i1vni?iL`YZGi»i�:l[dtr n. vuaS. S' i� t: �:!'% � «iL4i�,A..•abetih >r:S.- :.n;1. •i ;..+. `• +�a.i {� V;Trz7% .• • • ••.. Sent By: family fun center; July 20, 1999 Mr. C. Gary Schulz City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98168 Dear Mr. Schulz 425 204 9665; Jul-21-99 9:02AM; Page 1/1 FRECEIvr-.0 JUL 2 1 1999 DEVELOPMENT In response to your May 27, 1999 letter, The following actions have been or will be completed. 1) The riverbank was cleared down to elevation 20. The approved plants were installed in this area just in heavier concentrations. Since our walk on July 15th we have cleared the riverbank down to elevation 15 and moved some of the new planting over into those areas. In addition, the bike path eliminated some of the existing trees but we have made an attempt to replant them in other areas not in the bike path. A temporary irrigation system has been installed and additional blackberry bushes and weeds have been removed. Family Fun Center Landscape Supervisors plan on monitoring and maintaining the specific area on a semi-annual basis for three years. In an effort to help guarantee the planting will establish and be maintained we will provide the necessary performance security measures. This will be 20% of the full cost to plant the plants $25,000, plus our maintenance and monitoring cost which we anticipate to be $3,500 for a total cost of $8,500. Thank you for your efforts. We look forward to final completion of our project on or before July 28.1999 Sincerely, Scott Huish Family Fun Center City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director May 27, 1999 Mr. John Huish Family Fun Center Fun Center Way Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Tukwila Family Fun Center Site Inspection for Riverbank and Habitat Pond Landscape Plan: Shoreline Permit #L97 -0048 & Public Works #MI98 -0087. Dear Mr. Huish: In consideration of your project schedule, I have purposely made this letter brief to send out this week. Per the request of SD Deacon, your general contractor, I visited the site last week to meet with Mike Doyle and Steve Flory, the landscape contactor, to review the plantings completed to date for the riverbank and habitat pond. This river enhancement work is permitted and conditioned by the City's Shoreline and Land Altering permits. I do not have issues with the work completed so far; however, from our discussions it is apparent that a few issues involving uncompleted requirements need to be resolved. Any uncompleted requirements related to the riverbank and habitat pond work will delay the issuance of your Occupancy Permits. I have reviewed the Shoreline Permit file and the approved Land Altering plans to provide you the following summary of uncompleted River enhancement requirements. 1) The plantings installed to date do not cover the area specified in the landscape plan drawings dated 8/21/98. These approved plans include enhancing the entire riverbank down to an elevation of 15 feet with the exception of some plantings on the lower bench. This portion of the riverbank will have blackberry removed and be site - prepped for new native plantings. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 4313670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 ea' J. MiefiGSi "_2wi ?::"%N%5rWf,°rSaS i+*..: 4i ri,S :Y9w4:4 .,`+%. fAi, s7a411AYWU',Sgf12.r8Bd47�t.;k?ar, Mr. John Huish, Family Fun Center May 27, 1999 Page 2 2) Per the plan drawings and the Riverbank Restoration & Habitat Enhancement Report completed by Wetland Resources Inc., certain obligations and requirements were approved for permits. These requirements include temporary irrigation, maintenance of blackberry and other invasive plants, a specific monitoring schedule and method, and specific criteria for success after the 3 -year monitoring period. My recommendation is to use appropriate herbicide applications to maintain the blackberry now before it becomes a significant problem and affects survival of new plants. Hand application methods in the area of the riverbank, away from direct contact with the water, will not be prohibited by the City. Refer to the label for the correct use of chemicals. It was reported there is no contract warranty on the plantings and installation that is typically a 100 percent guarantee for the first year. In addition, the DCD has not received the performance security necessary to guarantee the approved success criteria and the monitoring/maintenance program related to the landscape plans. Please provide this security as a bond or other acceptable instrument or the documentation that the performance security requirement has been completed. It is important to review and confirm the contents of this letter. We may need to schedule a meeting in order to resolve the completion of the riverbank related enhancements. Please call me at 206 - 431 -3662 if you want to discuss or arrange a meeting. Sincerely, riZaiu) C. Gary Schulz Urban Environmentalist Cc: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director Jim Morrow, Public Works Director Nora Gierloff, Associate Planner Chandler Stever, Mulvanny Partnership Mike Kleer, Weisman Design Group Cliff Palmer, Wetland Resources Mike Boyle, SD Deacon _ ., 05/28/99 10:33 FAX 425 822 4129 IMIN CEIV'BS-�D C1 V G ;Q BE(::":114 ED u�9 99 2 8 1999 1�°i7(iI COiVMUNI r,�;.�'�NITY MAY i ��• DEVELOPMJELOPMENT COMMUNITY Landscape Architecture /S -[j�J; DEVELOI'M N-' Re Planning Developmental Planning Mr. Scott Huisch Tukwila Family Fun Center 70300 Fun Center Way Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Family Fun Center Tukwila, Washington Gay 544-IULTZ & CITY or- T1JKWILA Zolo - 451.310(05 l7j 001 /001 X1-1(2 May 24, 1999 RECEIVED MAY 2 7 1999 MUMMY ARCHITECTS , W Dear Scott, I-umderstand.xhe.f nal.portion.ofdhe- landscape alnn a he Gre itRiver. is ctucentlyheing. instgUed. T wanted to offer another reminder regarding the importance of maintenance for the success of the bank revegetation. There are two main maintenance tasks that should be addressed. With the recent warm spell, water is the most pressing need for the new plantings. I recommend a temporary irrigation system or manual watering on a regular schedule for all the new plantings. A temporary aboveground irrigation system may prove to be cost effective considering the labor involved in manual watering. Watering should occur a minimum of twice per week during dry periods. The slope should be monitored between waterings to make sure the plants are receiving adequate water. Either watering system should remain operational for at least two growing seasons to allow the plants to become established. Weed control is the other maintenance task which will necd to be addressed. The blackberries will be a persistent problem but removing the sprouts for the first couple of years will allow the new plants to become established and reduce the long term maintenance requirements. You have invested a lot in the planting on this bank it would be unfortunate if the blackberries are permitted to recover the bank. Please give me a call if you'd like to discuss any of the above or if there are any other landscape issues we can help you with. Sincerely,... Michael J. K eer, ASLA WEISMAN DESIGN GROUP, INC., P.S. Cc: Mr. Chandler Stever, Mulvanny Partnership . 2329 East Madison Seattle, Washington 98112 (206) 322 -1732 .°•9.*P4 :t.%. ` ".•5 : ;d% %viii;iF+ i`44.1 c:.3 �.;•iti,E.0.46eat. ;94,!? v`J'ra i$11' b. -.`;a ir'.'Rt;u�,44∎44.40,4'i'.3:a ' :�, } t� '13.'4= 'isi;.S;iii��tli.Ni + .l..F- <;iz4+`Gwtb+i;.FS• MEMORANDUM TO: Gary Barnett, Development Engineer Shoreline Permit File FROM: Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist DATE: October 14, 1998 RE: Family Fun Center (FFC) - Shoreline L97 -0048, Land Altering MI98 -0082 Permits Site Visit & Review of combined inspection reports. This memo is written to inform you, and to document my observations of specific work on the site. I visited the site yesterday and observed some significant erosion problems affecting the habitat pond/flood storage area. Runoff from the site is uncontrolled and draining in several places into the habitat pond. With tide and high water influence this sedimentation will likely reach the River. It may be necessary to install silt fence along the top of the pond area to prevent erosion of the pond bank. This also is affecting recent hydroseeding. A similar situation is occurring along the riverbank bench top of bank but may not reach the River. All areas have now been covered with jute mat except for the bottom of the habitat pond. I have reviewed the applicant's combined inspection reports including revised geotechnical review and riverbank restoration/enhancement work that has occurred to date. Design changes are primarily related to the habitat pond/flood storage area and channel that connects the River. As you know, the channel needed to be armored with rock as the side slopes were too steep and undercutting from water movement was anticipated. This work has been inspected by GeoEngineers and it generally conforms to their recommendations. However, the toe rock work along the northeast side of the habitat pond channel does not extend all the way to the pond. In reading the reports, the work is generally accepted by GeoEngineers; however, I remember Mary Rutherford recommending rock work along the entire channel and also to support the upper rock wall built on a shelf. Their reports identify the upper rock wall not being embedded when it was constructed and recommended a quarry spall buttress be placed along the toe of the wall for soil protection. In summary, I am expecting GeoEngineers will submit an updated report regarding stability of the channel and how it was constructed. The pond channel rock wall was not entirely constructed along the north east side and it appears from reading reports the quarry spall buttress was not installed along the toe of the upper rock wall. I would appreciate your assistance with erosion control as it looks like were in for a wet winter season. Please let me know if you have questions and feel free to contact me at 431 -3662. fj. cc: Brian Shelton, City Engineer Steve Lancaster, DCD Director Nora Gierloff, Associate Planner Kelcie Peterson, Permit Coordinator Greg Villanueva, PW Inspector �:1.h1= 1:.v� +fe:r .�.a'.`Pt.hl��iv; ?d �.itY:uYCfi.oz�.' ' �Caier.��v $... .n.�i(,�'y�•:ri;'!n'.rn�`.ti'd� • z • a • u6D ; .0 O; CO W =. J N • w0 g a. =a f- _ ? f-i I-. oo gyp; 0 ut f- O• iu U =, z o... to.);1‘. viC.Ik...e..1“; SEP-24-'98 THU 16:41 DEP.T.cF.Elsmp3igs,TEL NOIAS::391.7b5EIJ ) -4 HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL RCW 7510.100 or RCW 75.20.108 zinarlfinaiiagnissibsa‘MI, 11.'44e Sma of %adores 114poonont iflt. UM HOU 14111 Crook Boollovard IVO Oaks mute Dods, W.. 911012 LOG NUMBER: 0014)5025-04 At the request of, on September' 24, 1995, this Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA), v.hich now supersedes all previous HPAI for this project, is a time antiunion and change of the original HPA issued July 6, 1998. 0 UMILIZEIXE Family Bit Centers ATTENTION: Scott Hash 2911 SOuthwest Town Center Loop West Oregon 97010 (503) 682.9742 Floc 303 613-9694 AILMISIZZELAGEELOSORIZILACIDI Wetland Resouroes ATTENTION: Bill Radian 9505 - 196 Avenue Southeast, Suite 106 Everett, Washington 95023 (425)337-3174 Fax (425)337.3045 PROJECTPESCRIPTION: Inst Outfell and Large Woody Debris Habitat Structures, Excavate Bank , Commuct Channel Pond. TROACT LOCATION: Wane= Avenue and 1-405 in Tukwila. 0 =LI EMU= 1IVtAP TO ILtalc =DMZ AMU 1 09.0001 Green River Met Hwy NWSW 24 23 North 04 No IMM1101i5 1. TIMING 1J1'iIITATIONS: The pluject nay begin Immediately sod shall be completed by October 15, 1 8. 2. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT: The marines or contractor shall notify the Area Habitat Biologist (AE) listed below, by FAX at (425)391-0553 , of the project start date. Notification shall be received by the MB at 1tas three working days prior to the oat of construction activities. The notification shall include the peresinces name, cc1 locatian, starting date for work, and the control number for this Hydraulic Project Approval. Kina 3. Welk shall be accomplished per plans and specifications-entitled," Tulwila Family Pun Center Land Alteration Permit Submittal Sot, dated August 14, 1998, and fazed Platt entitled "Channel Throat Cut Looking North" and Dix dated September 24,1998 and submitted to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, except as modifed by this Hydraulic Project Approval. These plans refieet design criteria per Chapter 220410 WAC. These plans mitigation prooedmes to significantly reduce or eliminate impacts to fish resources. A copy of these plans available on site during construction. 4. The stream bank at the point of the discharge dull be armored to prevent scouring. 5. lbo fah bobitat log structures shall be of fir, cedar, or other approved coniferous species. 6. A biologist shall be present to supervise the installation of the fish habitat log structures. Page 1 of 4 1 03i 25% 0y: 12 42533 3045 WETLAND RESOURCES - 24 -",14 IHU lb* WH L'!r!'I ll' F 1 :z*.t1bS. I mu : .Y:1 -b7' HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 DATE OF ISSUX: 9stemlua ,1998 PAGE 03 44V444 rut - -�••.— watt of Wading., uer.raaur.fMb Wwaet tegi.n 4 Once 160111)011Crwk71431 ;N Ma Croft WMMhrlos 41012 LOG Ni1MEER: pp.D 7. Bask sloping shall bc accomplished in a manner that avoids release of overburden material into the water. Overburden material resulting from the project shall be deposited so it will not re -enter the water. 8. Alteration or disturbance of the bask and'bank vegetation shall be limited to that necessary to construct the p ect. Within seven calendar days of project completion, all disturbed areas shall be protected from erosion wing getatlon or other means. Within one year of project r nupletion, the banks, including xiprap areas, shall be revegota a, shown in the landscape plan and maintained as necessary for three yearn to ensure at least 80 percent survival. 9. Equipment wed for this project ahall operate rationed on the bank. 10. Excavation to install the habitat matches and placement of riprap in the throat of the charnel shall bc done mine low tide and withthe inlet darn in place so the structures can be installed in the dry and isolated from the ' . There shall be no excavation waterward of the inlet dam. 11. If at any time, as a result of project activities, Ash are observed in distress, a fish kill nacres, or water problems develop (including equipment leaks or spills), operation& shall cease and tbo Washington Deputm f Fish and Wildlife at (360)902 -2601 and Washington Department of Ecology at (425)649 -7000 shall be c immediately. Work shall not resume until Author approval is given by the Washington Department of Fish . d Wildlifie. 12. Erosion control methods shall be used to prevent silt -laden water from entering the stream. These may ins are not limited to, straw bales, Biter fabric, temporary sediment ponds, check dams of pea gravel-filled burl other material, and/or immediate mulching of exposed seas. 13. Wastewater from project activities and water removed from within the work area shall be routed to an area ] of the ordit ay hugs water line to allow removal of fine sediment and other contaminants prior to being di the stream. 14. All waste material such as construction debris, silt, excess dirt cc overburden resulting from this project deposited above the limits of flood water in an approved upland disposal site. 15. If high flow conditions that may cause siltation arc encountered during this project, work shall stop until subsides. , but bags or dward to 16. Extreme care shall be taken to assure that no petrolatum products. hydraulic fluid, fresh cement, sediments, . laden water, chemicals, or any other toxic or deleterious materials are allowed to enter or leach into the s . SEPA: MDNS by City of Tukwila Hord on April 6, 1998: .APPLICATION d.CCJ'.PTED: June 3, 1998 . ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: Prase [P21 Philip Schneider (425) 391.4365 """'l' )k . �,� for Dilrector Afra Habitat Biologist / WDFW Page 2 of 4 610 - -7o IS e�•.1: r�Q�- iNyi}M,y ui[ : <': It:: 14• ...•i,Y214'0_0 •: ii*'Idr Z • 6 • U 0. cn •w =. • U) LL W ul.Q; to . =d • rr = Z� 0: Z 2 • U °. • W W'. 1- LI 0: .,. co uii Z. 0— ..O 1- z 09/ 25/ 1990 0:12 42'33373045 WETLAPIE) RESOURCES . SEP`2d -'99 T141.), 16:42 "Th IJA DEPT,OF i:15rieR1SS TEL NO: ^OS- 791- •Er`Th HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20400 DAM OF 1SS13E: Soptember24. 19911 cc: Martin Fox - Mnckleshoot Indian Tribe PAGE 04 Sans er Waydagw Impenitent dsbs aaat Wad= Mee Make MSS MN Os* NM Create. Woleag sa$e0r3 LOG NUMBER: 00- D5Q2,5-04 suragithfingzon This Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) pottei<as only to the provisions cline Fisheries Code (RCW 75.20). Additional auii{orit2Lloa from other public agencies msy be necessary for die project. This I4PA shall be available on the job site at all times and all its provisions followed by the pare inee rams op erstor(s) work. This HPA does not mathorire trespass. The person(s) to whom this IPA is issued may be held liable for say loss or damage to fish life or fish habitat which results from failure to comply with the provisions of this HPA. Failure to comply with the provisions of this Hydraulic Project Approval could result in a civil penalty of up to one heardred Lars per day or a Sloss misdemeanor charge, possibly punishable by file and/or imprisevmemt. All HPAs issued pursuant to RCW 73.20.100 or 73.20,160 ae subject to additional restriction, coeditiors or revocation if e Department of Fish end Wildlife determines that new biological at physical iafoasaaaon indicate she need for such arotion. The permivtee has the right pianism to Chapter 34.04 RCW to appeal ;mama decisions. All HPAs issued pursuant to RCW 75.20.1;03 may be modified by the Department of Fish teed Wildlife due to changed conditions afire consultation with the parmirram PROV1DED HOWEVER, that such modifications *di be subject to appeal to the Hydraulic Appeah Board established its RCW 75.20.1 0. IF YOU WISE TO APPEAL A DENIAL OF OR CONDITIONS `PROVIDED IN A HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROV THERE ARE INFORMAL AI4D FORMAL APPEAL PROCESSES AVAILABLE. A. INFORMAL APPEALS (WAC 220. 110.340) OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT 1'0 RCW 75.20.10. 75.20.103, 75.20.106, AND 75.20.160: • A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the fbllowing Department actions may request au itfn,mal review of (A) The dental or issuance of a HPA, or the canditia os or:provisions made pat of a FBA; or (D) Aa outer impaling civil penalties. It is recommended that as aggrieved party oozier Me Ares Habitat Biologie and discuss the Genoese. Most problems aye resolved at this level, but if not, you may elevate your concerts to hlalher supervisor. A request for m INFORMAL REVIEW shall be In WRITING to the Department of Fish and Wlldllfts. X00 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Wshi gton 98501.1091 end shall be RECEIVED by the Depattmm t within 30-days of the denial or issuance of a HPA or receipt of an cadet impoi civil penalties. The 30-day time requiremnet may be stared by the 1;7epaeuent ifnegotiations are vacating between the anti ed peaty and rite Area Habitat Biologist andtor hisliae supervisor. The Habitat Protection Services Division Manager or 'designee shall conduct a review and recommend a dccisiun to the Director or its designee. Ifyou are not satisfied with th results of this internal appeal. a formal sweat may be Sited. B. FORMAL APPEALS (WAC 220 -110 -350) OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.I00 OR. 75.20.106: A person who is %grieved or adversely affected by the following Depenusettt saunter way request art imam1 review of: (A) The dental or iswmoe of* HPA, or the mndititem or provisions made pert of a IBA; (D) An otdea uzapa+ sir civil pens1tics. or Paige 3 of 4 . ,19/25/1998 09:12 4253373045_ WETLAr ID RESOURCES ....,, .• .sEp-24-, 98 THU 16;43 1LEPT OF F I SI-ER1S TEL NO: 24O:B-391-E+./ A • HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL RCW 75.20-100 or RCW 75.20.108 It41LDLEIMIL31911101w24.122I 4 PAGE 05 .:1 11 3$ lot Dgenessat arm and wa &On 4 Oat* 1401814S Cr** MO Croat, W S4494012 (C) AnyothWagencyaettorrforwhichanadjudicative.proccoulingisrequhedundertheAdotinistrativeProcedurelAct. Chapere34.05RCW. A typo* fxs FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to the Deputizing of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Wu/ North, Olympia, %shalom 91501.1091, grail be plainly labeled WREQUEST FOR FORMAL APPEAL" and all bc DURING OFFICE HOURS by the Department Within 30-clOs of the Deputing:a action that is being challenged. The period tbr requesting a formal appeal i3 suspended during consideration of sanely internal appeal. lithe/re bu beat an • appal, the desists for rogues* • hood appeal 14heU as within 30-den af the de of the DePartmc)rs decm4n in response to the infonnal qpeal. • C. FORMAL APPEALS OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.103 or 75.20.160: A person who is aggrieved ot adversely affected by the denial* issuance of a IVA, et tin conditions or provide= =dot: put of a IVA may request a farad app eal. Its request for FORMAL1APPEAL shall be in WRITING to the Hydraulic Appeals od pa WAC 25944 at Envirmmonal Hearings Office, 4224 Sixth Ave = SE. Building Two - Rowe Six, Lacey, W 91504; telephone 36014594327. D. FAILURE TO APPEAL WITHIN THE REQUIRED T1MB SRIODS RESULTS IN FORFEITURE OF ALL AP RIGHTS. IF THERE IS NO TIMELY EQUEST FOR AN APPEAL, M DEPARTMENT ACTION SHALL BE AND UNAPPEALABLE. . • - • , ;:•• „ • -.••• • - Page 4, of 4 a MEMORANDUM TO: Gary Barnett, Development Engineer FROM: Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist DATE: August 20, 1998 RE: Family Fun Center - Recommended Conditions for Land Altering Permit- M198 -0082. As we discussed today, I will recommend the following conditions be included with the Land Altering Permit to assure the project work conforms to plans approved under the issued Shoreline Permit. 1) Prior to riverbank work starting, the existing high quality vegetation and any other vegetation being preserved for erosion control will be identified in the field using plastic barrier fence. These areas also need to be marked on the plan sheets. The riverbank and habitat pond enhancement plantings will be guaranteed by bonding or some other form of performance acceptable to the City. Maintenance and monitoring is required for a 3 -year period after installation. The performance bond is an estimated amount based on the costs of plant material and installation, and a 3 -year monitoring/maintenance program. The City requirement is 150 percent of the total. After approved installation, the amount of security can be adjusted. The performance standard, for trees and shrubs is at least 80 percent survival. 3) Plant installation in ungraded riverbank areas can be delayed but is dependent on normal weather conditions and moderate temperatures. Complete installation shall occur prior to March 1999. cc: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director Brian Shelton, City Engineer ,447-0 c C- %-e_ A :XEdY?::;ii ?.P.M�(:FF:w.t+.2'i' tai {�tfiitJ4fi��"'�.`SK,4�,�k"Xr�S�• 1•iSM1mdS Gti'o °i^,iv.iv'Si13'z't e$ SkV1 Anchorage Faitlamas Los Angeles Moura Vcmon ' Olympia Pend Sao Francisco Seaga London 11:22 0206 2''7107 LANE POWELL SPEARS LUBERSKY LANE POWELL 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4100 Seattle, WA 98101-2338 Tel: (206) 223-7000 Fax: (206) 223 -7107 Please deliver the following pages to: Name: Firm/Company: Facsimile No: From: Re: 98 AUG -4 &till :18 FACSIMILE COVER PAGE Mr. Ivficbael Jenkins CITY OF TUKWILA (206) 431 -3665 Lana Anthony for Glenn J. Amster, Esq. Jeffrey Stock v. City of Tukwila, et al. (Huish Family Fun Center) 0001/005 Client number: 1152¢8.0001 Date: August 4, 1998 Time: If you do not receive the total number of pages ( 5 ), incl. cover sheet, please call (2061 223-6127 Original Document to be mailed: Yes X No The ir�onsnation in this message is intended only for the addressee's authorized agent, The message may contain information that is prh+ilege4 c�onfrdential, or otherwise exempt from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not intended recipient or recipient's authorized agen4 then you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message Ls prohibited .(f you have received this message in error, please not), the sender by telephone and return the original and any copies of the message by mail to the sender at the address stated above. Comments: Pursuant to your request, please see attached FILE COPY. Thanks, Lana. z. mow'. 6 00 u) W` •W =' ;J g 0�` = mow; Z �- V '13 'a', Ail W' O 0 'Z V8/04/98 11:23 Woe 223 7107 LANE POWELL Glenn T. Amster (206) 22342411 Law Officas A Limited LIabLllcy Partnership Including professional Corporations 1420 Fifth Ave Suite 4100 Seattle. WA 98101-2338 (206) 223-7000 (206) 223.7107 inchoross. AK Fairbanks. AK Los Angclue, CA Mount Vernon, WA Olyinpio. WA Purl huul, OR Son Franc:ism CA Soottic. WA Lunt/(nI. EnxIosill LANE POWELL SPEARS LUBERSKY LLP lommtrame July 29, 1998 Shorelines Hearings Board 4224 - 6th Avenue SE, Bldg. 2, Rowe Six P.O. Box 40903 Lacey, WA 98504-0903 Attn: Ms. Judy Greear, Clerk of the Board Re: Jeffrey Stock v. City of Tukwila, et al. (Eluish Family Fun Center) SHB No. 98-38 Dear Ms. Greear: Q 002/005 As I indicated to you over the telephone yesterday, the parties have entered into a Settlement Agreement pursuant to which the above-referenced action is to be dismissed. Accordingly, I enclose for filing a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal. As you will see, the City Attorney's signature is being transmitted to you via facsimile copy. If the Board requires an original signature, I would ask that you forward it to him directly. I assume you will provide the parties with a copy of the Order once it has been signed by Judge Macleod. • Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions, please feel free to • give me a call. GJA:Ita Enclosure cc (w/enc.): All Parties Huish Family Fun Center SCA'M X:397526 v0 I Very truly yours, 0 ARS LUBERSKY LLP Gle J. Amster 08/04/98 11:23 1Y206 223 7107 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22, 23 24 25 26 LANE POWELL IN AND BEFORE THE SHORELINES HEARINGS BOARD OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON JEFFREY STOCK, ) ) Appellant, ) SHB NO. 98 -38 vs. ) ) CITY OF TUKWILA, a Washington Municipal ) Corporation; FAMILY FUN CENTERS, a ) California Corporation; SCOTT HUISH; and ) CHANDLER STEVER/MULVANNY ) PARTNERSHIP, ) Respondents. ) ) STIPULATION Comes now, Jeffrey Stock, Appellant, and the City of Tukwila, Family Fun Centers, Scott Huish, and Chandler Stever/Mulvanny Partnership, Respondents, by and through the undersigned counsel, and stipulate that the issues arising from this appeal have been resolved, and STIPULATION AND ORDER. OF DISMISSAL 11003/005 this appeal may be dismissed with prejudice. 2 DATED this - day of July, 1998. LANE L PEA S LUBERSKY LLP HAGGARD LAW OFFICE w T d3 By i, By W' : A No. 8372 J. Haggard, , Glenn star, ' A No. 203 Attorn s or Respondents Family Fun ttorneys for Appellant Jeffrey Stock Center = • Scott Huish STIPU ION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 1 SECT TIJ.:394067 v01 LAW POweLL SPEwRV LUBERSKY L.ir 1420 AIRI'I I AVENUE, SUITL! 4100 . sF.ATCL8.WA5HINGPUN 9BI0I.2335 (200) 2234000 ORIGINAL I— W i J U. 0 CY W =: N u_: W O; Q: sd t--_ Z I- O Z 11.1 ui I-; U �. O� '0 H. W:. H r- w F-. O_ tij Z; U co' O ~' z 08/04/98 11:23 $206 223_7107 LANE POWELL 1 CHANDLER STEVERIM[JLVANNY PARTNERSHIP 2 3 , By Respondent Chan 4 �.." 5 6 7 8 This matter having come before the Board on the parties' Stipulation that the issues raised herein have been settled and that the appeal may be disrnissed with prejudice; now, therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that this matter is dismissed with prejudice. 13 DATED this day ofJuly, 1998. Phyllis K. Macleod 17 Administrative Appeals Judge KENYON LAW FIRM, P.S. age B e Robert F. Noe, WSBA No. 19730 Attorneys for Respondent City of Tukwila lZ1 004/005 ORDER OF DISNIISSAL STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 2 SEATTLE;i94067 v01 LANK POWELLSru At sLurwi.si:v ur 1420 FIrn1 AVENUE, SUITE 4 too SEATTLE, wAsIIINcTCN 9%101.73)+ (206) 22 ).7000 •-J UO 0 . w:. • 'w. =: N w wo a. Di sd z� o z ;o N o • :w w' H V; z. 08/04/98 11:24 $206 2237107 07/22/98 11:08 FAX "A6 4: '.833 Jul -21-98 04:06P yon #Law#Fi -m trifX/fga 10:40. 1611 LANE POWELL 46; t'4Z Ur LUAR,•la • 1 p VANNY 1�"NYON LAW FIRM P. S. 2 3. By Respondent Claudia a • 4 5 6 7 S This matter having come More the Board on the patties' Stipulation that the ices raised • 9 herein have been settled and that the appeal may be dismissed with prejudice; now, therefore, 10 11 1T IS HEREBY ORDERED, that this motor is dismissed with prejudice. 12 13 DATED this day *My, 1998. 14 15 16 17 11 19 20 21 11 005/005 P.04 F. Attorneys SBA o. tided City of Tukwila ORDER 01? DISMISSAL 22 23 24 25 26 Phyllis K. Macleod Administrative Appeals Judge STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL . 2 SF.ATi'L P4J f7.v1 L ecrowtu. Rum Lunn= uv Ice Rpm A 4^ Rs<14too Vy,►TTLc,r sKINCITO t wtM4ail Pub) Wawa 2 J U' ;N'O' w w: • • W I• • Jam, .00 w. w C' w a m•D; • : w; z� ►=o` • z� D iO w w' H Vi — O iLi z . Ham,. .z STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Northwest Regional Office, 3190 - 160th Ave S.E. • Bellevue, Washington 98008 -5452 • (425) 649 -7000 June 15, 1998 John Huish Family Fun Centers 33208 Paseo Cerveza suite C San Juan Capistrano CA 92675 -4898 Dear Mr. Huish: Re: City of Tukwila Permit # L97 -0048 FAMILY FUN CENTERS - Applicant Shoreline Substantial Development Permit # 1998 -NW -10082 RECEIVED JUN 17 199E COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The subject Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit, to demolish existing structures, regrade bank, clean up and fill uplands, to construct indoor /outdoor recreational complex and hotel along Green River, with public trail and footbridge across river and off - channel habitat - enhancement pond, has been filed with this office by the City of Tukwila on June 11, 1998. The development authorized by the subject permit may NOT begin until the end of the 21 -day appeal period, July 02, 1998. 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, Bob Fritzen, Shorelands Specialist Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program BF:bf SDP.DOC cc: Jack Pace, City of Tukwila Chandler Stever, Mulvanny Partnership : 3... k��C;. r�+:s. tH.. v4t) r„ r;; i} ��+. yF'.;' r% +.�:17�i�kyii�;�!rgnL:wu,�;;r s4f.°.^tik•Y�. r. ' 0t/29/1998 11:45 4253373045 WETLAND RESOURCES HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL RCW 75.20.100 or RCW '15.20.108 DATE OF 1S UE; July 6. 1998 PAGE 02 State of Wushln Department of Region 4 Of lie�' 16018 Mill fare Mill Creek, Wa gron •I►h and v1'ihlli►e it Boulevard hington 98012 lag NUMBER: 00 -D50 5 -01 PERMITTEE Family Fun Centers ATTENTION: Scott Huish 2911 Southwest Town Center Loop West Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 (503) 682 -9742 Fax: (503)685 -9694 AUTHORIZED AGENT OR CONTRACTOR Wetland Resources ATTENTION: Bill Railton 9505 - I9'h Avenue Southeast, Suite 106 Everett, Washington 98028 (425)337 -3174 Fax: (425)337 -3045 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: install Outfall and Large Woody Debris Habitat Structures, Excavate Bank , Construct PROJECT LOCATION: # WRIA WATER BODY l 09,0001 (Ireen River Off Channel Pond. Interurban Avenue and 1 -405 in Tukwila. TRIBUTARY TO 111iot Bay PROVISIONS, 1/4 SEC. S'tC. TOWNSHIP RANGE NWSW 24 23 North 04 Bast I, TIMING LIMITATIONS: The project ma). begin June 15, 1998 and shall be completed by August 15 2. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT: The permittee or contractor shall notify the Arca Habitat Biologist (A below, by FAX at (425- 391 -6583) , of the project start date. Notification shall be received by the AHB at l working days prior to the start of construction activities. The notification shall include the permittec's name location, starting date for work, and the control number for this Hydraulic Project Approval. COUNTY King 1998. s• HR) listed 'F three 1. project ;i 1. 3, Work shall be accomplished per plans and specifications entitled," Tukwila Family Fun Center ", dated June `21, 1998, and Family Fun Center Riverbank Landscape Plan ", dated March 19, 1993, and " River Bank Restoration and Habitat Enhancement , Biological and Mitigation Description for Family Nun Centers , Tukwila, WA ", dateri May 5, 19913_ and submitted to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, except as modified by this Hydraulic Project Approval. These plans reflect design criteria per Chapter 220-110 WAC, These plans reflect mitigation procedures to significantly reduce or eliminate impacts to fish resources. A copy of these plans shall be available on site • uring construction. 4, The stream bank at the point of the discharge shall be armored to prevent scouring. The fish habitat log structures shall be of fir, cedar, or other approved coniferous species. 6. A biologist shall be present to supervise the installation of the fish habitat log structures. Page 1 of 4 .. ,.,. ,. ,,....i....L r, .. ..„x°'... et.";.,;.: �if�:;;. aia' s`.,. w: ra... b: :r'�ris`ziik�:s.:.'Y:!;,�ilkcbvs •`ss.:liviiw.t,;ii 5' SSU/✓ d#:.tK ant! I.424W*ii Iii N.:.Oar P,F%Mt,.5 .I mow. —J 0 CO CO w J= , f-; w O' g -J D . _. ZF.; I— O: Z H: ,O N, W UJ' U _z ui O I- Z 07/29/1998 11:45 425337304F_,.. WETLAND RESOURCES,, laukimun Depeetaual of new Fil?.DUFB HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 DATE OF ISSUE: JuIv 6, 1998 PAGE 03 Slate of 1►'uvhlav a,. Department of I+iah and WibllifL� Region 4 Umce 1601$ Mill Creek Boulevard M111 Creek. Wihinrlon 911012 LOG NUMBER: 00- D5015 -01 • 7. Bank sloping shall be accomplished in a manner that avoids release of overburden material into the water. • verburden material resulting from the project shall be deposited so it will not re -enter the water. 8. Excavation for the pond shall be done with a natural plug left in inlet. The inlet plug shall be excavated in during low water so the work can be done in the dry. Installation of habitat structures and bank protection shall be completed before the inlet plug is removed. 9. Alteration or disturbance of the bank and bank vegetation shall be limited to that necessary to construct the 4roject. Within seven calender days of project completion, all disturbed areas shall be protected from erosion using vegetation or other means. Within one year of project completion, thc bulks, including riprap areas, shall be revegetatcd a shown in the landscape plan and maintained as necessary for three years to ensure at least 80 percent survival. 10. Equipment used for this project shall operate stationed on the bank. 11. Excavation to install thc habitat structures shall be done during low flow so the structures can be installed i the dry. 12. If at any time. as a result of project activities, fish arc observed in distress, a fish kill occurs, or watcr quail problems develop (including equipment leaks or spills), operations shall cease and the Washington Departmei t of Fish and Wildlife at (360)902 -2601 and Washington Department of Ecology at (425)649 -7000 shall be comae ed immediately. Work shall not resume until further approval is given by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 13. Erosion control mcthods shall be used to prevent silt -laden water from entering the stream. Thcse may inclu'e, but i. are not limited to, straw bales, filter fabric, temporary sediment ponds, check dams of pea gravel -filled burlap gags or othcr material, and/or immediate mulching of exposed areas. 12. Wastewater from project activities and water removed from within the work area shall be routed to an area }ndward of thc ordinary high water line to alloy removal of fine sediment and othcr contaminants prior to being dischar * *ed to the stream. 13. All waste material such as construction debris, silt. excess dirt or overburden resulting from this project sh ll be dcpositcd above the limits of flood water in an approved upland disposal site. 14. If high flow conditions that may cause siltation are encountered during this project, work shall stop until tl1 flow subsides. 15. Extreme care shall be taken to ensure that no petroleum products, hydraulic fluid, fresh cement, sediments, ediment- . laden water, chemicals, or any other toxic or deleterious materials are allowed to enter or leach into the stream SEPA: MDNS by City of Tukwila final on April 6. 1998. APPLICATION ACCEPTED: June 3, 1998 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: Frame 1P2 Page 2 of 4 +'reWrii:g 464,nh:, ri..e.1+:ii4?: 4ar-. a2.ftva A,4.44.4 tit 1... t"'' '1t�ii 5`i'Fr•Sti+`,111 'aa.. 4i `Lif %'Mk (07/29/1998 11:45 425337304E WETLAND RESOURCES.,,. FISH ema WILDLIFE HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 DATE OF ISSUE: July 6. 1998 Philip Schneider (425) 391 -4365 Area Habitat Biologist PAGE 04 Slate of Wathi' Department of Region 4 Office 16018 MITI Crei MW Creek Wa peon ;wsh and Wildlif ik Iloulevard shington 98012 LOG NUMBER: 00- D50 5 -01 cc: Martin Fox - Mucklcshoot Indian Tribe GENERAL PROVISIONS This Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) pertains only to the provisions of the Fisheries Code (RCW 75.20). Additional uthorizationj from other public agencies may bc necessary for this project. This HPA shall be available on the job site at all titres and all its provisions followed by the permittee and operator(s) the work. This 1-IPA does not authorize trespass. The person(s) to whom this HPA is issued may bc held liable for any loss or damage to fish life or fish habitat which res failure to comply with the provisions of this HPA. Failure to comply with the provisions of this Hydraulic Project Approval could result in a civil penalty of up to one hun per day or a gross misdemeanor charge. possibly punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. All HPAs issued pursuant to RCW 75.20.100 or 75.20.160 arc subject to additional restrictions, conditions or revocatio Depanlnent of Fish and Wildlife determines that new biological or physical information indicates the need for such acti nominee has the right pursuant to Chapter 34.04 RCW to appeal such decisions. All HPAs issued pursuant to RCW 75 be modified by the Department of Fish and Wildlife due to changed conditions after consultation with the permittee: P HOWEVER, that such modifications shall be subject to appeal to the Hydraulic Appeals Board established in RCW 75.21 APPEALS - GENERAL INFORMATION IF YOU WISH TO APPEAL A DENIAL OF OR CONDITIONS PROVIDED IN A HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROV ARE INFORMAL AND FORMAL APPEAL PROCESSES AVAILABLE. A. INFORMAL APPEALS (WAC 220- 110 -340) OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.2.100, 75,20,103. 75.20,106, AND 75.20.160: A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the following Department actions may request an informal revie of: (A) Thc denial or issuance of a HPA. or the conditions or provisions made part of a HPA; or (8) An order imposing civil penalties. It is recommended that an aggrieved party contact the Arab Habitat Biologist and discuss the concerns. Most problems are EVIEW 1091 and sing civil aggrieved his/her rforming its from red dollars ,; if the n. The 20.103 (nay OVIDED .130. AL, THERE` resolved at this level. but if not, you may elevate your concerns to his/her supervisor. A request for an INFORMAL shall be in WRITING to the Department of Fish and Wildlife. 600 Capitol Way North. Olympia, Washington 98501 shall be RECEIVED by the Department within 30 -days of the denial or issuance of a HPA or receipt of an order im penalties, Thc 30-dav time requirement may be stayed by the Deparment if negotiations are occurring between the party and the Area Habitat Biologist and/or his/her supervisor. The Habitat Protection Services Division Manager o designee shall conduct a review and recommend a decision to the Director or its designee. If you arc not satisfied with the results of this informal appeal. a formal appeal may be filed. Pagc 3 of 4 '40v0attt'Y:: Itit.W: #'M3 ,tiu^``0." i r5 al ai -'' +144.f4f hYw9c aixia.wi4''Sat:44 Z F=- w. dew. J U. O 0 CO CO I. J H. Nil: W0 • -J. �_ ZH I-0' Z I— CU uj '0 • N: O H` W to = U' LL- Z ' 0 H. Z 07/29/1998 11:45 42533734., liss Nom ismi l;8W WILDLIFE WETLAND RESOURCE HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 DATE OF ISSUE: July 6, 1998 PAGE 05 State of waahWEton i Department or .lrt► end WadIIff Reglon.4 O1Tic •1 16018 Mill C k Boulevard Mill Creek, W. hinpton 90012 I. LOG NUMBER: 00- D50.5 -01 B, FORMAL APPEALS (WAC 220 -110 -350) OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20. 00 OR 75.20.106: A.person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the following Department actions may request an formal review. •f: (A) The denial or issuance of a HPA, or the conditions or provisions made part of a HPA; (B) An order imposing civil penalties; or (C) Any other "agency action" for which an adjudicative proceeding is required under the Administrative Proc :•ure Act, Chapter 34.05 RCW. A request for a FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to the Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way North, 'Olympia, Washington 98501 -1091, shall be plainly labeled as "REQUEST FOR FORMAL APPEAL" and shall be • CEIVED DURING OFFICE HOURS by the Department within 30 -days of the Department action that is being challenged. Tile time period for requesting :a formal°appeal is suspended during consideration of a timely informal appeal. If there has ben an • informal appeal, the deadline for requesting a formal appeal shalt be within 30 -days of the date of the Department's rittcn decision in response to the informal aippcal. C. FORMAL APPEALS OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.103 or 75.20.160: A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the denial or issuance of a HPA. or the conditions or provisions 1 ade part of at HPA may request a forinal appeal. The request for FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to the Hydraulic A , Is Board :! per WAC 259 -04 at Enviroauncntal Hearings Office. 4224 Sixth Avenue SE. Building Two - Rowe Six. Lacey, Was ington I 9ii504: telephone 360/459-6327. D. FAILURE TO APPEAL WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME PERIODS RESULTS IN FORFEITURE OF ALL APPE L RIGHTS.] IF THERE IS NO TIMELY REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL. THE DEPARTMENT ACTION SHALL BE FINAL A ' D UNAPP.EALABLE, .1 'i �I Page 4 of 4 t4,:k'.+7j3 Pollution Control Hearings Board Shorelines Hearings Board Forest Practices Appeals Board Hydraulics Appeals Board STATE OF WASHINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL HEARINGS OFFICE 4224 - 6th Avenue SE, Bldg. 2, Rowe Six P.O. Box 40903, Lacey, WA 98504 -0903 Joel Haggard Haggard Law Offices Suite 1200 IBM Building 1200 Fifth Avenue Seattle WA 98101 Chandler Stever/Mulvanny Partnership 11808 Northup Way Suite E -300 Bellevue WA 98005 July 2, 1998 City of Tukwila City Clerk 6299 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila WA 98188 (360) 459 -6327 (FAX) (360) 438 -7699 E -Mail: EHO @EHO.WA.GOV RE: SHB NO. 98-38 JEFFREY STOCK v. CITY OF TUKWILA & CHANDLER STEVER/IVIULVANNY PARTNERSHIP Dear Parties: A Petition for Review in the above matter was filed on June 29, 1998. A pre - hearing conference is scheduled for Thursday, July 30, 1998, at 9 :30 a.m. to be held by telephone conference call. Parties are requested to contact Judy Greear, Hearing Coordinator, of the correct name and telephone number for the conference by July 28, 1998. Joel Haggard 206/682 -5635 City of Tukwila Chandler Stever/Mulvanny Partnership 425/822 -0444 If this date poses a problem, please confer with each other and request Ms. Judy Greear of our office for an alternative date. Failure of a party to attend, without prior notification to the Board and for good cause, may result in "a default or other dispositive order ... " (RCW 34.05.440(2). At the conference, be prepared to discuss settlement, to present your proposed legal issues, witness and exhibit lists, and to schedule pre - hearing events, such as motion /discovery deadlines, etc. (The Final list of witnesses and exhibits will be filed later at a date to be determined at the Pre - Hearing Conference.) Following the conference, a Pre - Hearing Order will issue which will govern subsequent proceedings. 6r, )flc cGu z mow: ct J 0' UO: w = CO u.. wo J u_ • • I-w z p• z or ww . moo. o —' :OH 41 . �. ui U =! O ~. Pursuant to Chapter 43.21B RCW and Chapter 461 -08 WAC, the formal hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, November 3, 1998, at a time and location to be set by further notice. At the hearing, parties can present witnesses, introduce exhibits, and offer other relevant evidence when stating their case. If either party believes more time is needed, please submit your request in writing to this office. Please recognize that an extension may result in later date(s) than the • above. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.180(1) & (2), the Board must render a written decision within 180 days of the date of filing with the board of the petition for review, unless the parties agree to waive the 180 day rule; or this Board extends the date for cause, for no more than 30 days. In this appeal, the deadline for the 180 days will be December 26, 1998. The Board has mediators available to assist in negotiating a settlement of your case. Material describing Board sponsored mediation is enclosed for your review. If you are interested in pursuing mediation, please contact Judy Greear of our office for assignment of a mediator. Lastly, if a party or a necessary witness requires an interpreter or qualifies for reasonable accommodations as an individual with disabilities, that person shall notify the presiding officer at least three weeks before the hearing or situation for which assistance is needed. Enclosed is an informational sheet to assist in the hearing process. Parties are free to discuss settlement at any time, with or without the presence of the Board's Presiding Member. Do not hesitate to contact this office if you have procedural questions. Communications should be directed to the Presiding Officer shown below. Sincerely yours, • • Phyllis K. Macleod Administrative Appeals Judge PKMIjg/stock encs. cc: Don Bales - Shorelands- Ecology Leann Ryser - Ecology CERTIFICATION ' On this day, I forwarded a true and accurate copy of the documents to which this certificate is affixed via United States Postal Service postage prepaid to the attorneys of record herein. I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washi gto • that fore • o'. g is true and correct. DATED • / , at Lacey, WA. Sv roe# i' i �''a a;< K f# 24.; >'ri. t «:b at 'rr i its: tiSt 1:t„ Shoreline Management Act Permit Data Sheet and Transmittal Letter From: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Suite 100 Seattle, WA 98188 Date of Transmittal: June 10, 1998 Type of Permit: Substantial Development Local Government Decision: Approval Applicant Information: John Huish Family Fun Centers 33208 Paseo Cerveza Suite C San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 -4898 To: Department of Ecology Date of Receipt: Applicant's Representative: Chandler Stever Mulvanny Partnership 11808 Northup Way Suite E -300 Bellvue, WA 98005 Is the applicant the property owner? Yes Location of the property: SW 24/23/4 Located at the northeast corner of SW Grady Way and Interurban Avenue Water Body Name: Green River Shoreline of Statewide Significance: Yes Environment Designation: Urban Description of Project: Develop an approximately 14 acre site by demolishing existing structures and regrading the site. To accommodate required flood storage capacity a combination of off channel pond and riverbank cutback with restoration and habitat enhancement will be built adjacent to the Green River. Proposed buildings include a 9,000 square foot restaurant, a 153 room 4 story hotel, a 36,300 square foot restaurant and arcade building and 7 acres of outdoor attractions including miniature golf, bumper boats, batting cages and a go cart track. A City trail will be constructed along the perimeter of the site and will connect to a new pedestrian bridge crossing the River. Notice of Application Date: November 10, 1997 Final Decision Date: June 10, 1998 By: Nora Gierloff, Associate Planner, City of Tukwila Phone Number: (206) 433 -7141 ,�'r S . ,} t * Ate. �.rys...,,�i wea�uNix. WFi1' ?k' �`,. 5:;,.,.. l;. i' s '�ybi.:�`:rK's�xk >d495�:?'ntKOi 4:�ta,�t:r_ ! s1�1� ;iK;r:J:7�.A�:��a��rl;�,22 �it��':��. �• z, re D. Uo (� Un w CO LL w =a w. z �. 0 z , 10 D- 01_, w w' — 0' L11Z U N' 0 AFFIDAVIT 0 A-e6L ONotice of Public Hearing D Notice of Public Meeting 0 Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet []Board of Appeals Agenda Packet OPlanning Commission Agenda Packet • []Short Subdivision Agenda Packet OF DISTRIBUTION hereby declare that: ONotice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit E oreline Management Permit was mailed •g 0 Determination of Non- significance 0 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance ODetermination of Significance and Scoping Notice 0 Notice of Action 0 Official Notice 0 Other 0Other to each of the following addresses on ___ Signature 844.0/ 19V-torraf Name of Project riltn/t_li Foo File Number L97-Coq CHECKLIST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW /SHORELINE PERMIT MAILINGS ' (X) U.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 S CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT TUKWILA LIBRARIES RENTON LIBRARY KENT LIBRARY CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY 'U S WEST SEATTLE CITY LIGHT WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS HIGHLINE WATER DISTRICT SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT TCI CABLEVISION OLYMPIC PIPELINE KENT PLANNING DEPT TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: (g) PUBLIC WORKS ( ) ( 1 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 (X) MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE (0) DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE ( ) DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE ( ) VALLEY DAILY NEWS 12/24/97 C:WP51DATA \CHKLIST ( ) DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. (>() DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELANDS DIV ( ) DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION* (K) OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL * SEND CHKLIST W/ DETERMINATIONS * SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION ICING 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 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 ( ) 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 ( ) HIGHLINE TIMES (N) SEATTLE TIMES : a1tia; �txi.^; t�; w". �r�ti< vtk: ?'✓. t.'._ �F�, i? tS. ��P. �, utG�: tK: i) l��: ab vi�xt&: ?:rii��t.�Y;+.:i�+kkkv "tl.`n;1 "c:.�:: CITY OF TUKWILA DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: NEW AMUSEMENT PARK, 153 ROOM HOTEL, AND RESTAURANT INCLUDING APPROXIMATELY 7 ACRES OF OUTDOOR ATTRACTIONS, THE SITE WILL..BE FILLED...T0 RAISE IT ABOVE THE FLOOD PLAIN AND•COMPENSATORY STORAGE WILL BE PROVIDED BY CUTTING BACK THE RIVERBANK AND BUILDING AN OFF;- CHANNEL . POND PROPONENT: FAMIL Y FUN CENTERS LOCATION OF PROPOSAL,' INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS, IF ANY ADDRESS: ` '15034 GRADY . WY 'S PARCEL NO: 242304-9013 '5EC!TWNtRNG ` LEAD AGENCY: CITY OF TUKWILA FILE NO: E97 -0.024 The City has determined that the . proposal cries not have a probable significant adverse impact on the-environment. An environmental. impact :tatenent; (EI'=,) is not required under RCW 43 .21c..030(2) (c) . This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist ::`and;''other�' intormat:ion on. file with the lead' agency. This information is ,available to the public on request. k; t; k• kk• k****• k: 1•. k• k• k •k•k*•k•.4•k•k•k:lc•k•k:k•k•.k * k• k** k• k*** kk• k• k•kk:F•k•k:t•k.*Plek•k•k•k:k•k* k•k* k;i* k** • Thi.. DNS is, issued under, 197 -11- 340(2). comments must be submitted by t;1 ?.�LlriSS The lead agency wi l 1 not act on days from the date below. this proposal -'for Steve Lancaster,`R.esponsibie Official City of Tukwila, (206) 431 -3630 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Date Copies of the procedures for 'SEPA. appeals are available with the Department of Community Development. k 'S r wiYl•`.e °r;sti iavi esrs1;,',4ds otk,7a x. a+ CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION AND POSTING OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGNS) State of Washington County of King City of Tukwila I. GI44Ni g"TP—VF (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 1),r <`(2'- 97... the Public Notice Board(s) in accordance with Section 18.104.110 and other applicable guidelines were posted on the property located at 15 0 2j 1 rm SI:Y so as to be clearly seen from each right -of -way providing primary vehicular access to the property for application file number Ell °- 00 Affiant (Applicant Signature) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of �%,7v , 19 9 NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington ,, residing at .3A Oa, q 7 '`A �`/ ec.)? L -egr My commission expires on 5 /lo -92 x., .. ,., •.,: r. ...iyg;c..•.. ,.....iii: M'-', ; s: w: 4-r�aSii; �•; Y. �.' r$ <:x�.3•t,ck<:haK;�;d�C: *,+'bk i��k"e .i `d�ji�.?fi� =iss%k s 3:seihn..:+F�1a,.Stk- isis!S: iii? sJv7�. r+ �• �x. td(, a" ikt,���r�Y+.ki�r..�o-;nzriif%r. :hn a5 ;Ynii4a`}, T �W J U U O; { :CO O w ='. W o` 2 gQ YI a z zI • uiZ:. U Ni 'OH_ z • ?"--s: • r NOV 12 1997 OMM fl ITV F I..OP WENT : Wi Dr: • • : A./ 1■.' OC , • zi- ujL F_1 z. • MEMORANDUM TO: Jack Pace, Planning Manager FROM: Nora Gierloff, Associate Planner RE: Shoreline Permit - Family Fun Center Site DATE: June 1, 1998 Project File No. L97 -0048 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project involves developing an approximately 14 acre site by demolishing existing structures and regrading the site. To accommodate required flood storage capacity a combination of off - channel pond and riverbank cutback with restoration and habitat enhancement will be built adjacent to the Green River. Proposed buildings include a 9,000 square foot restaurant, a 153 room 4 story hotel, a 36,300 square foot restaurant and arcade building and 7 acres of outdoor attractions including miniature golf, bumper boats, batting cages and a go cart track. A City trail will be constructed along the perimeter of the site and will connect to a new pedestrian bridge crossing the River. 2. POLICIES OF THE SMA/SMP: The site is within the jurisdiction of the Tukwila Shoreline Master Program. The policies of the SMP are categorized into the following elements: A. The Economic Development Element requires that development be economically advantageous to the community, maximize use of the shoreline and consider the visual impact of the development on the surrounding area. B. The Public Access Element requires that the development provide for public access to the shoreline and develop or enhance the trail system. C. The Circulation Element requires that roads and transportation facilities be designed in a way that provides for pedestrian access and recreational activities. D. The Recreational Element requires that recreational opportunities along the river should be preserved and enhanced. E. The Shoreline Use Element requires that uses along the shoreline should be appropriate, protect and enhance the river, be water dependent or compatible with water dependent uses, and allow for multiple uses. • L97 -0048 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Page 2 F. The Conservation Element requires that the river be buffered from the effects of development, where feasible facilities for intensive recreational activities should be provided, and scenic views should be protected. G. The Historical /Cultural Element requires areas having historical, cultural, educational, or scientific value be protected, restored, and made accessible to the public. The Family Fun Center project will redevelop a vacant site for use by three new businesses. The Interurban Trail will make a loop around the edge of the site, thereby increasing public access to the shoreline. The City will construct a new pedestrian bridge across the Green River that will land on the site and provide a connection point for the new trail. The Family Fun Center amusement park is a recreational use and the La Quinta hotel has placed its pool and patio on the river side of the building. The multiple uses planned for the site are compatible with the river environment. Extensive fish and wildlife habitat enhancement including log snags and native plantings are planned for the riverbank and off - channel pond. No damage to the river environment is anticipated because the project will control the effects of the development by containing and treating stormwater in a bioswale and other water quality features prior to release into the river. No historic structures remain on the site. The historic dairy barn was documented in a report circulated to the State Office of Archaeology prior to being destroyed in an arson fire. 3. SHORELINE REGULATIONS: Following are the relevant review criteria as contained in the Shoreline Overlay Zone: The Shoreline Overlay is a district which extends 200 feet landward from the mean high water mark of the Green River, throughout Tukwila. The district is divided into three management environments with specific regulations. River Environment - the first 40 feet landward of the mean high water mark. This is the most restrictive environment and only allows for limited public access, transportation and utility uses and structures. Low Impact Environment - the next 60 feet landward of the River Environment. This environment allows structures up to 35 feet, landscaped and screened parking lots, transportation and utility uses and structures. High Impact Environment - the next 100 feet landward of the Low Impact Environment. This environment allows all uses permitted in the underlying zoning district The riverbank and off - channel pond in the River Environment will be extensively landscaped with native plants. The uses proposed for the River and Low Impact Environments are landscaping, a public trail, and a landscaped parking lot, all of which meet the Shoreline Overlay regulations. The uses proposed for the High Impact Environment are the restaurant and hotel buildings and some of the outdoor attractions of the amusement park which are either allowed L97 -0048 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Page 3 outright in the Commercial/Light Industrial zone or allowed under the conditional use permit granted by the Planning Commission. General Shoreline Regulations: (1) The use is in conformance with the regulations of the underlying zone district; A conditional use permit is required to establish an amusement park in the C/LI Zoning District. This was granted by the Planning Commission on April 23, 1998. An appeal of the conditional use permit was filed May 13th and the City Council will hold a closed record hearing on the matter in late June. (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. See section 2 for a discussion of the policies of Tukwila's Shoreline Master Program. (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 a part of an approved shoreline substantial development permit; The riverbank will be benched and an off - channel pond will be constructed to provide compensatory flood storage for filling on other parts of the site. Non - native invasive plant species will be removed from the bank and replaced with native plants with higher habitat value according to a riverbank restoration plan developed by Wetland Resources Incorporated. (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; Only stormwater runoff is expected to be discharged into the River. It will be treated in an oil /water separator and a bioswale along the riverbank prior to discharge per the King County Surface Water Design Manual standards. (6) All State and federal water quality regulations shall be strictly complied with; The project will require permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers and the State Department of Fish and Wildlife. These agencies will enforce their own water quality regulations. (7) Wildlife habitat in and along the river should be protected. z • �W 6 5 o o. w J I.. N LL. wo. u. J' = C� z �o z� ww V �. O P- 1— tu • w. H V' .z U N.. z signs at neighborhood entrances. Responsible Department and their Role The Parks and Recreation and Community Development Departments will coordinate with the Tukwila Arts Commission on z a process to design and install neighborhood signage. Q H The Public Works Department will assist in contracting with zw. manufacturers and installing signs. 6 r4 JU Urban Forestry Planting Plan o o ? N t The City will develop an Urban Forestry Plan that includes a ...co w =; planting plan of suggested materials, locations and methods for , -I 1- planting trees in the neighborhoods, participate in seeking funds :uj p' and assist in implementing the program. 2 Responsible Department and their Role , i , ! ti g • The Department of Community Developmen jn..co idination with = W' Parks and Recreation and Public Works weoid'develop a program ~ _ that recommends materials and establis1ies guidelines for selection, z ~ F- O maintenance and replanting. Z I' Stream Restoration Program D °' ;o u. The City will develop stream restoration plans for the watercourses ;0 I-; located within the City, which primarily run through private = w, property. � i= —O Responsible Department and their JRole j Z The Public Works Department is the o£.the Storm �. _,. and Surface Water Utility, which manages the stream corridors or O watercourses for flood control purposes. Z Foster community identity, pride, and improvement through public art in the corridor The City will develop a public art program for the corridor, with the following components: • identification of potential applications (gateways, transit improvements, sculpture, murals, etc.) sites, and funding sources for public and public private art within the corridor; • identification of capital projects which should incorporate public art; • identification of projects that should include an artist in project development; • establishment of a minimum percentage of project costs or a minimum fixed cost for public art within the corridor for budgeting and project coordination purposes; and • identification of artists within the community including community participation techniques for public art. Draft Council Strategies Page 7 L97 -0048 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Page 4 Most of the wildlife habitat on site is of low value and will be improved through the revegetation of the bank with native plant species, installation of log snags along the riverbank and construction of an off - channel pond. The majority of a significant stand of willows at the east edge of the site will be retained. (9) All necessary permits shall be obtained from federal, State, county or municipal agencies. In addition to this Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and a SEPA checklist the project is also applying for a Nationwide 27 Wetland and Riparian Restoration and Creation Activities permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers for construction of the bench and pond and an HPA permit from the State Department of Fish and Wildlife for the outfall. 4. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SHORELINE POLICIES The policies of the Comprehensive Plan that affect shoreline development are found in the Shoreline Element. Shoreline Element - Development should minimize impacts on important habitat features, protect and restore degraded riverbanks, and mitigate unavoidable disturbance of vegetation and habitat - Development should minimize water pollution, provide erosion control, and protect water quality - Capital improvement projects and private development should not endanger public health, safety, welfare, or the capacity of the river to provide long -term community benefits - Over -water structures or reinforcement of the riverbank allowed only when it provides long -term public benefit or is essential to a water - dependent use - Development should reflect the river's role in Tukwila history, protect the long -term public use of the river, and reflect community traditions Development should include high- quality site planning, architecture, landscaping, provide for open space, and provide a trail for public access along the river (for areas included in Green River Trail Plan) — Development should maintain views of the water, encourage water enjoyment uses, provide for multiple uses, and encourage efficient use of land The majority of an existing significant stand of willows along the riverbank will be preserved. Other areas of the bank with lower habitat values will be replanted with native plant species. Stormwater from the site will be treated in a bioswale prior to discharge into the river. Erosion z I. Z. • re2. W 3, 00 N 0. cn w w= • uQ a` H w' z� m. zI- U 0, ;Ocn'. • :0 w w. p u_ - O. .. Z. w co • O H. z I" ()\ Responsible Department and th it Role The Parks and Recreation Department a Tukwila Arts Commission, will be the lead Department i weber in the development of the program. Other Departments such as Public Works and. Community Development will be responsible for Q coordinating on implementation through specific development projects, such as the Pacific Highway Improvement project. Improve the appearance and function of new private development in the Pacific Highway area Adopt the Pacific Highway Design Manual (Design Criteria & Guidelines) A draft Pacific Highway Design Manual has been developed for the Neighborhood Commercial Center, Regional Commercial and Mixed Use Office districts in the Pacific Highway Corridor. This development guide will be forwarded to the Planning Commission to begin the legislative review and adoption process. z ~ w. Jo. o O. (0 0 w =° J 0) w.: w o. gQ. — d. I-w z � o Amend the Regional Commercial (RC) Zone to w LLI require Board of Architectural Review (BAR) of all > development o ww 1-U ~; 0: • Z Amend the landscape chapter of Zoning Code to Li, rn increase quality of landscaping along street o fronts and in parking lots, create a harmonious z The City will develop the necessary Zoning Code modification and forward it to the Planning Commission to begin the legislative review and adoption process. pattern along Pacific Highway, while allowing for flexibility The City will enhance the Landscape Chapter of its Zoning Code to provide clearer direction for streetscape improvements that are compatible with City street improvements, to provide interior parking lot landscape minimums and to provide flexibility in the location and design of plantings. Develop a sign amortization program to improve the appearance of business signs and the streetscape along the Highway The City will modify the City's Sign Code and implement modifications that provide an amortization schedule for existing non- conforming signs and consider modifications to the current standards. Responsible Department and Their Role The Department of Community Development will author required Draft Council Strategies Page 8 L97 -0048 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Page 5 will be controlled according to a plan approved by the Tukwila Public Works Department. The Family Fun Center project will provide a public benefit by enhancing public access to the river. No over -water structures are planned, other than the new pedestrian bridge which will be covered through a separate SEPA and Shoreline permit process. The development has received design review approval and a conditional use permit from the Tukwila Planning Commission/Board of Architectural Review. The development will increase the public's access to and enjoyment of the river. 5. COMMENTS Verbal comments were received from representatives of the Muckleshoot Tribe Fisheries Department, King County Department of Natural Resources, and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife at a series of coordination meetings held by the City of Tukwila. These comments have influenced the evolution of the final riverbank design. In addition a written comment letter was received from Phil Schneider of the State Department of Fish and Wildlife based on earlier plans for the riverbank work. He made the following points: 1. The log barbs /root wads will provide good cover and refuge area for fish and he recommended that some be grouped together to form a more complex habitat. 2. Portions of the project do not provide the 100 to 150 foot buffer from the OHWM recommended in the WDFW Wild Salmonid Policy. 3. Stormwater discharge into the Green River should meet the requirements of DOE's Stormwater Manual. An HPA will be required for the outfall and habitat structures. Response: 1. The log snags will be grouped. 2. Wetland Resources Inc. has addressed this issue in their report. Rather than providing the full buffer width the river habitat will be enhanced through grading, placement of log snags, construction of an off - channel pond and revegetation of the riverbank. 3. The stormwater will be treated per code requirements and the developer has applied for an HPA. A comment letter was received from Chris Clifford with concerns about both SEPA and shoreline issues. 1. The right in and right out access would be inadequate for the intensity of the use and would pose an unacceptable danger to the public and patrons of the facility. 2. Analysis of the project's impacts on wildlife and protected bird species that use the large trees on site should be conducted. 3. The impact of the construction of the bench along the shoreline on native fish runs is unknown. 4. The proposal is for a commercial use that is not consistent with the Shoreline Master Plan urban designation for the shoreline. simr z Z. LY W QQ2: -J C.) U O. N0. N W W J H: W O: ga co v I— _ Z F— O; Z i- o 'O - 0 E- Ww =- U 11 O` ui U =' O~ z code changes and administer the legislative review and adoption process. Insure successful implementation of strategies through continuous and meaningful public information, involvement and marketing programs The City will develop a long term communications and public relations strategy for informing affected parties, publicizing City and other groups' efforts, and marketing the area to prospective businesses. The City will strategize and develop a joint marketing program with adjacent Cities. Responsible Department and Their Role The Mayor's Office veitiewpisessowp would be the lead on maintaining dialogue with affected individuals and groups affected by construction activities on the Highway and other related projects. They would also be responsible for developing the public relations programs aimed at potential investors and developers in the corridor. Ensure safe and efficient use of public rights -or -way and transportation facilities through a • Pedestrian Pathways, Bicycle Facilities and Transit Connections Plan A Bicycle Facilities, Transit Connections and Pedestrian Pathways Plan will integrate roads, pathways or trails, transit and other related facilities in an area -wide network. Recommendations also would include methods of safety training on adopted rules and information on rules governing the interaction between pedestrian, bicyclists and motorists, and identify existing and proposed additional facilities for transit, pedestrians and bicycles. 'Responsible Department and their Role The Public Works Department will develop the Plan with the assistance of the Departments of Community Development and Parks and Recreation. Increase educational opportunities for Tukwila residents and improve the overall quality of the Tukwila School District by working with the district on the following joint opportunities for implementing their Strategic Plan (1997 (,0(10); - 2002) / r i G �, jlt�'r�•ct'k �bo,,�1�. �'r , .T Gr1 �tnxJ -Ire St)`�1 1 I `� "I�f. f" The City will coordinate and - agree- an..roles -and actions that it can , perform to assist and supplement the education of the City's €\ vesidents. The District has identified the following needs and the City of Tukwila as playing a key role in accomplishing these facilities and /or programs. Draft Council Strategies ..,..." c� :t�r;,:u;�ras:•:.Ai,�iY.{:'Mf . +L%CeiW�fRSQ!NfM.[d�4if1CL`+r.. `f0.�CiWFA�.E• Page 9 L97 -0048 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Page 6 5. The magnitude of the project's impacts on the quality and economic vitality of the area warrant an environmental impact statement. Response: 1. Circulation issues were examined in the Traffic Impact Study completed by Entranco Engineers. Entranco concluded that queuing would be a maximum of one car, resulting in Level of Service ratings of A or B for both driveways and Monster Road intersections. 2. There are no threatened or endangered bird species on site. The intensive landscaping of the river bank buffer with native species will enhance the habitat value of the site. 3. The flood storage bench has been redesigned to start at elevation 9.0, above the ordinary high water mark, so that it will be inundated only during flood conditions. It was designed with input from the State Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe to create low flow pockets that will provide refuge and holding areas for juvenile and mature fish in this stretch of the River. Large woody snags have been incorporated into the bench and an off - channel pond to add further habitat value and mitigate for the necessary vegetation removal and interim loss of riparian habitat during construction. 4. Tukwila's Shoreline Plan defines the urban environment as including "areas to be managed in high intensive uses, including residential, commercial and industrial uses, while providing for restoration and preservation to ensure long -term protection of natural and cultural resources within the shoreline." 5. The project will redevelop a largely vacant site for three commercial uses, remediate contamination on the site, provide flood storage and improve fish and wildlife habitat. These actions are not expected to create substantial unmitigated negative impacts on the surrounding area, therefore an EIS is not warranted. The attorney handling the appeal of the conditional use permit, Joel Haggard, sent a letter to the City containing shoreline comments on May 1 lth. Most of the comments stemmed from misunderstandings of Tukwila's current regulations and difficulties in reading the drawings. City staff responded in a letter dated May 19th and copies of both letters are attached. 6. SEPA: A determination of non- significance was issued on April 6, 1998. 7. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the shoreline substantial development permit. u;iten4.Lifew:?�i.:�w: , c. 7M4; ±ut5't«. �iG .L;+i�fyt:;iL *.ir:t��'::i:+sd: iA::. ati-' t::. r.' F= ".vEdk &nt5611i3�ih(CixwL`ft"., , -, ^a'o;r'�::4�- ��+�._ ,n�sd. ,. '?Jk7 ii3air.;.:6:3'galit z z' w 00. ` co w = J H; • CO w O: g Q. 0a I- w z�, I- 0 Z I- ut .0 0. fri w w. —0 z w : 0 - 0 z • Off - school site learning facilities • Sports recreation for students • Teen center in the Pacific Highway corridor Responsible Department and Role -The- mayeri efface =is -they moi— ia-E F- oFthe clij with -the -- W $.d pt Distriet. The Mayor's Office will coordinate with the 6 School District on shared facility opportunities, and in conjunction v with the City's Park and Recreation Department, discuss U o programming solutions for additional recreationc��' 9pf,��•i'y .ni�!�' �. ° N (Li. :c1 alZ N LL; tu0' tQ. I-W. z1.-. 1- O. Z C1' O co --s Cl H; 2 U'. LI0 Z 0� z. INFRASTRUCTURE at FACILITIES INVESTMENT Improve the safety, function and appearance of Pacific Highway The successful reconstruction of Pacific Highway requires a multi- faceted approach that addresses physical design issues, operational issues and related community objectives, such as the economic redevelopment of the corridor. The short term needs of existing businesses must be addressed as well as the long term goals of redevelopment and revitalization. The goals for the Revitalization Plan as they relate to street redesign are: improved mobility for people and goods; supportive, attractive, comfortable street design for customers, residents and transit users; and safety. These goals have been distilled in four key design objectives - reducing traffic speeds, limiting and consolidating driveways, improving the streetscape, and undergrounding and upgrading the utilities. The following is a discussion of the means by which the Plan goals for the street may be achieved. The information that supports the choices laid out below are in the Pacific Highway Draft Revitalization Plan, Appendix B: Existing Conditions - Transportation (December 1997.) Reduce traffic speeds The section of Pacific Highway between S. 139 St. and S. 152 St. has the highest pedestrian accident rate on the Washington State Department of Transportation system. In addition to the specific pedestrian facilities that are recommended as part of this Plan, reduced vehicular speeds will also assist in creating a more compatible environment for pedestrians. Reduced speeds will also assist in the overall improvement of this section of the Pacific Highway corridor, which serves as a main street for the community. Design street for speeds of 35 m.p.h. The standard design criteria preferred for the Pacific Highway section between S. 152 and S. 139 Streets are in the Table below Draft Council Strategies Page 10 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director May 19, 1998 Joel Haggard Haggard Law Offices Suite 1200, IBM Building 1200 Fifth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 RE: Your letter of May 11th, 1998 Dear Mr. Haggard, Enclosed per your May 11 request is a copy of the Family Fun Center Shoreline Permit application, drawings of the shoreline work, and information about Tukwila's Shoreline Management Environments. I apparently misunderstood your April 20 letter, which included the following request: "Please promptly provide a copy of all applications to county, state and federal jurisdictions." I interpreted that to mean that you wanted copies of the applications Family Fun Center had filed with other jurisdictions such as the Army Corps of Engineers. I asked you about this point at the April 23rd public hearing, and advised you to seek these directly from the applicant as the City does not have copies of them. Since you did not mention this matter during one of the several telephone conversations we have had in the intervening weeks I assumed that no further action was needed. You have raised questions about work on the shoreline and the cleanup of the site that is regulated by other agencies and imply that the applicant has not pursued these approvals. The riverbank bench and the habitat pond have been designed with input from the City of Tukwila, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Muckleshoot Tribe Fisheries Department. Family Fun Center has applied for a Nationwide 27 Wetland and Riparian Restoration and Creation Activities permit for construction of the bench and pond from the US Army Corps of Engineers. The remediation and cleanup plan is being developed with the Department of Ecology under the Voluntary Cleanup Program, see attached letter from DOE. Family Fun Center will apply for an HPA from the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. The site plan attached to the Notice of Decision for the design review, conditional use, and special permission approvals shows the mean high water mark and the 40 foot setback from that line for the River Environment. If the drawing is not clear a full size set is available for 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 review as part of the project file. The 40', 100', and 200' setbacks from the mean high water mark are measured from its postdevelopment location. The use matrix and use regulations from Tukwila's Shoreline Master Program have been repealed and replaced with the Shoreline Overlay TMC 18.44, which I have provided to you. For further clarification see the attached figure 18.1 from the Zoning Code. The project is compatible with the majority of the overall goals of the SMP, namely items 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 listed on page 4.1. Each goal is not relevant to every shoreline project and therefore projects are not likely to address them all. To avoid confusion in the future please make any information requests on the attached Request for Public Records form. Sincerel Nora Gierloff Associate Planner Enclosures CC: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist 1 Wet/aijdN?sorces, k, f I .i Delineation / Mitigation / Restoration / Habitat Creation / Permit Assistance l•i RIVERBANK RESTORATION AND HABITAT ENHANCEMENT BIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION DESCRIPTION FOR FAMILY FUN CENTERS TUKWILA, WA. WETLAND RESOURCES, INC. PROJECT #98045 Prepared By: Wetland Resources, Inc. 9505 19th Avenue SE, Suite 106 Everett, Washington 98208 (425) 337 -3174 For: Family-Fun Centers 29111 S.W. Town Center Loop West Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 9505 19th Avenue S.E. Suite 106 Everett, Washington 98208 (425) 337 -3174 Fax (425) 337 -3045 7,e; , ., . , , ti: d:,.A. nc:,; t .',.ti :l !i F':. i f? f rr.5y °i :..,t, ttr. t -r Ss•: : :lricc:.c Bottom Log Securing- Each bottom log shall be secured using 15" diameter, 6' long posts augured into the riverbank a minimum of 4'. Logs will be attached to augured posts with 1/2" cable. Additionally, logs will be anchored to large rocks (3 to 5 foot diameter and z angular in shape) placed adjacent to the logs and attached with 1/2" cable. Bolts to secure cable will be drilled in the rock and attached with epoxy. z tr w Top Log Securing- Top logs shall be positioned after bottom logs are secured. Each log 6 D will be anchored to 1" diameter, 10' long rebar driven into the riverbank a minimum of o o, 9'. Each log will also be anchored to bottom logs using five foot length of 3/4 " rebar and s W to large rocks (3 to 5 foot diameter and angular in shape) placed adjacent to the logs • w = and attached with 1/2" cable. Bolts to secure cable will be drilled in the rock and attached N u~. with epoxy. w O Rocks and Sandbags_:_ Shall be placed adjacent to the logs to provide additional anchoring, 4a prevent undercutting and provide a planting medium. Rocks will be 3 to 5 foot in diameter <. and angular in shape and will be placed adjacent to the logs and attached with 1/2" cable. = c�, Bolts to secure cable will be drilled in the rock and attached with epoxy. Sandbags will be Z z: several cubic feet in size aligned and stacked behind individual logs. Willow and dogwood '— will be densely planted on the downstream side of each structure. z o U C. This project shall be deemed successful if at the end of a three year bonding and monitoring period 0 I— no more than 20% of the mitigation site has dominance by non - native species, 80% of the planted z W vegetation in the mitigation site has survived and is vigorously growing and 80% aerial coverage of I— F the mitigation site has been achieved. The log structures shall continue to provide fisheries habitat L'-- to as designed and shall not create erosion or bank instability. w = U O ~` z Definition of Success Erosion Control The Riverbank Restoration and Habitat Creation Project shall be constructed during the low flow period, generally July through October. A pre construction meeting shall be held on site between the consulting habitat biologist, City of Tukwila, the earth moving contractor and WDFW prior to beginning this mitigation project. The purpose of this meeting shall be to approve final sequencing and erosion control measures. A low earth berm with erosion control fencing shall be constructed between the.river.and the elevation 9 shelf as the shelf is being excavated to insure that runoff from storm events shall not enter the river system. All habitat structures shall be placed at this time. The berm shall be removed as the last element of earth construction. The site shall be hydra seeded and hydra mulched immediately upon completion of the earth moving project. Temporary irrigation shall be placed and the site planted as specified. Erosion control fencing shall be left in place until grass has established.. The erosion control. fencing shall be removed before fall water elevations exceed the OHWM. In construction of the off-channel" pond; the River connection shall. be the final portion of excavation. This pond shall be excavated during the low flow period of the River, generally July through October. Monitoring and Evaluation The Riverbank Restoration and Habitat Creation Project shall be monitored for a period of three years from the completion of the mitigation project. Upon completion of the mitigation project, the consulting habitat biologist shall prepare a completion document showing the project has been constructed and planted as designed, and shall include any approved changes to the design. Following completion, monitoring shall occur two times during the first winter after construction to assure stability of the habitat structures and to allow for immediate action if any problems are evident. Following the first winter monitoring sequence, the site shall be monitored twice yearly, in the spring and fall. A condition report shall be prepared and presented to the City of Tukwila by October 31 of each year of the monitoring period. At the end of the monitoring period, following a determination of success and agreement from the City of Tukwila, the assurance device provided by the developer shall be released. Monitoring shall include transact vegetation evaluation for mortality and vigor of the planted species, evaluation of non - native plant invasion, stability condition of the habitat structures and a visual evaluation of wildlife species observed during the monitoring. Immediate action to correct deficiencies or control invasive species may be recommended depending on the water elevations and weather conditions. Contingency Plan If during any portion of the monitoring period the Riverbank Restoration and Habitat Creation Project is determined to have less than 80% survival of the planted species, the City of Tukwila shall be notified in writing and action to correct the deficiency shall be taken depending on river elevations and the season of the year. Action may include but not be limited to planting of similar species, changing species, increasing planting size, soil amendments and continuation of use of the irrigation system. Aerial coverage of the mitigation site for the Riverbank Restoration and Habitat Creation Project shall be evaluated at the end of the three year monitoring period. At the end of two years 60% aerial coverage of the planted areas shall be a specific goal. If at the end of two years, 60% aerial coverage during the fall inspection (while the plants are still in leaf) has not been achieved, the City of Tukwila shall be notified in writing and action to correct the deficiency shall be taken depending on river elevations and the season of the year. Action may include but not be limited to additional planting of similar species or new species, soil amendments and continuation of use of the irrigation system. If during any portion of the monitoring period more than 20% non native invasive species are established on the mitigation site, the City of Tukwila shall be notified writing and action shall be taken to remove and or eliminate these invasive species depending on specific recommendations related to weed control. Action may include by not limited to removal by hand or hand machines or herbicide licensed for use in the River environment. Any application of herbicide shall be performed by -a licensed applicator. - If during any portion of the monitoring period the habitat. structures become unstable or appear to not function to provide habitat as designed, the City of Tukwila shall be notified in writing and a meeting between the City, the private habitat biologist designated by the project owner, and the WDFW shall be organized and remedial action shall be determined. Action shall include but not be limited to reconstruction of the habitat structures and redesign and construction of the habitat structures. Performance Security An assurance device determined by the City of Tukwila and in a form approved by the City Attorney, shall be required to guarantee the success of this Riverbank Restoration and Habitat Creation Project. Assurance is typically required to cover monitoring and correction of possible deficiencies. The Performance Security may be conditioned by the Public Works Department and King County if they assume a maintenance obligation. 10 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W Rants, Mayor Mr. John M. Huish, President Family Fun Center 1155 Graves Avenue North El Cajon, CA 92021 Dear Mr. Huish: Recently. a representative called me to discuss the LaQuinta Hotel's responsibilities related to construction of the Interurban Trail. As I was reviewing the Trail Easement language, I discovered an error in Section 2, line nine. The copy 1 previously sent stated the Grantor (developer) would pay for engineering and construction costs related to the paving of the shoreline section of the trail for the east side trail and for the bridge approach ramps. Our verbal agreement indicated the City would do the paving; therefore, please consider the attached Trail Easement to be the document we all will sign, which brings up several questions. • For the hotel property, will they sign a separate Trail Easement agreement or will you sign it before the land is sold? • What about the restaurant property, who will sign and commit to the trail easement? • What will be the timing for signing these easements? • When will drawings be ready to use as Exhibit A which will be attached to each Trail Easement? I would appreciate a response in writing for my files as soon as possible. We are nearing the summer months when we hope to bid our bridge /trail project, and I am concerned about timing and want to know who I'll be working with. Construction coordination is another issue. Please call me if you have questions, 206 - 433 -1843. Sincerely, Don Williams, Director Parks and Recreation cc: Dick Henery, Family Fun Center Scott Huish, Family Fun Center Chandler Stever, Mulvanny Partnership Brian Shelton, City Engineer Robin Tischmak, Associate Engineer Nora Gierloff, Assistant Planner Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • City Hall Fax: (206) 433 -1833 si.ii�...•: i' w+l sas.:.:. .l�:i~wiM.:c�ia1,LY'n "ik�eLtiliL 11'.�_4.iT.::t1.}i}t+: i`iR .»�v. : �F. f'✓.+ �tLLa'.: L�7 1 %,:V.:.i)o+.:>..vS'A%:44 \A':w: •:.1_a Mw...niv»aalntl'h a:n..tAL_.___ '.1.ISi1N+�+i..,:ix�e.?; rtt_�i��'r�i.: d::8i9'r• _ �:�.•`R.. `•t� re 2 ug .JU CD;' 4 In C3 w w` c w 0: uQ �_ z t- O, Z F-: W w; U0. i0 N' w w LL. F- z iii �. U —= z ti RECREATIONAL /RIVER BANK/DIKE TRAIL EASEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between the FAMILY FUN CENTER (hereinafter referred to as "the Grantor "), and the CITY OF TUKWILA, a Washington optional municipal code city (hereinafter referred to as the "the Grantee "). WHEREAS, Grantor owns or has an interest in certain real property (hereinafter z referred to as "the Property") located adjacent to Green River in the City of Tukwila, F z, Washington more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated re 6 herein by this reference as if set forth in full; and 6 3 U O' WHEREAS, Grantee is in the process of developing a public recreational trail under ' CO Highway 1 -405 and along the Green River within Grantee's corporate limits; and N LL wo WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila and other agencies require access to the river bank 2 for maintenance, monitoring, construction of future possible dike /levee and /or river bank g a stabilization improvements, and cn d WHEREAS, Grantor has agreed to grant an easement to z I. g g nt o Grantee to develop the Property as an outdoor recreation trail for public use and Grantee has agreed to utilize the z Property for such use according to certain terms and conditions; ? o. UN NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits and conditions o i hereinafter contained, Grantor hereby conveys and grants to Grantee, its successors and _ u. assigns, a perpetual, nonexclusive easement across, along, in and upon, the Property described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if set w z. forth in full, subject to the following terms and conditions, by which Grantee agrees to be c) co bound: i= �' 0 1. Use of the Property. Grantee's use of the Property shall be for the purpose of landscaping, developing and maintaining the Property for public recreational trail purposes and of installing, maintaining and providing for public use of recreational facilities thereon. The use of the recreation trail will be restricted to pedestrian and bicycle use. Camping, campfires, the use of firearms and any other activities that would be inconsistent with the safe use of the Property by the public will be prohibited. In addition to the restrictions on use provided herein, Grantee shall have the power to promulgate and enforce such other rules and regulations for use of the trail by the public as it may deem fit and proper to promote safe and equitable use. Access to and also maintenance, monitoring, construction of riverbank stabilization and /or new dike /levee systems by the City or other public agencies, will be carried out on this easement. 2. Construction and Maintenance. The design of the public recreation trail and bridge across the Green River shall be the sole discretion of the Grantee. Grantee agrees to make reasonable attempts in designing the public recreational trail and bridge to accommodate any plans for development by Grantor on property adjacent to the trail. All z design, engineering and construction costs incurred in completing the gravel base along the Green River shoreline shall be at the sole cost and expense of the Grantor. All design, engineering and construction costs incurred in completing the gravel base on the east side of the Grantor's property shall be at the sole cost and expense of the Grantee. The Grantee shall pay for all engineering and construction costs related to the paving of the shoreline trail and east side trail sections and for river bridge and related approach costs. Grantee shall be responsible for all maintenance and repair costs incurred with respect to the trail, unless damage is caused by the Grantor, their representatives, or future owners of Grantor's property. The Grantor shall maintain all grounds up to the edge of the asphalt trail on the land side of the asphalt trail. The Grantee shall maintain the asphalt trail and all lands towards the river as it relates to trail use. The construction and maintenance of trail systems and associated landscaping shall be in accordance with the most current riverbank stabilization studies conducted for this property. 3. Indemnity. Grantee shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Grantor from and against any and all claims, losses or liability, or any portion thereof, arising from injury or death to persons or damage to property occasioned by a negligent act, omission or failure of the Grantee, its officers, agents and employees, in maintaining the recreational trail. 4. Successors. This Agreement shall be recorded with the King County Auditor and shall constitute an easement and servitude running with the land, inuring to the benefit of the parties hereto, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns. Executed by the Grantor on Executed by the Grantee on , 1998 , 1998. GRANTEE: GRANTOR: CITY OF TUKWILA By John W. Rants, Mayor Title: ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: Jane Cantu, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney GRANTEES City STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that John W. Rants and Jane Cantu signed this instrument, on oath stated that they were authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the Mayor and City Clerk of THE CITY OF TUKWILA to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated Signature of Notary Public Title My appointment expires GRANTORS mow; re 2 Jo o t N °i U) wi w=. J I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this w o` Corporate STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) instrument, on oath stated that were authorized to execute the instrument J and acknowledged it as the of to be the free <` and voluntary act of such party for uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Lo ° z'— Dated o z Ili w Signature of Notary Public o_ Title o co My appointment expires o w. = V. o: w =; 0 ~. z Individual STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF ) 1 certify that 1 know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Trail \FCCease.doc Dated Signature of Notary Public Title My appointment expires City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MEMORANDUM TO: Nora Gierloff, Associate Planner FROM: Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist DATE: April 24, 1998 RE: Family Fun Center (FFC) - Shoreline Permit L97 -0048, Review of combined reports dated March 19, 1998. I have reviewed the applicant's combined reports including a revised geotechnical review, engineering report, and proposed riverbank restoration/enhancement. The document describes the current design revisions primarily related to habitat enhancement, flood storage, and riverbank work. I have provided both general comments, and the necessary revisions to the Riverbank Restoration And Habitat Enhancement report. Riverbank Restoration/Enhancement (Wetland Resources, Inc.) Please note the following suggested revisions: 1. Page 1- Sensitive Area Description a. The City does not regulate the Green River through its Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Therefore, the River is not a Type 1 Watercourse but is rated by the State as a Water Type 1 drainage. b. The Shoreline River Environment is a 40 -foot setback zone that only allows for specific structures or uses (TMC 18.44.130). In addition, the setbacks for all shoreline zones extend from the Mean High Water mark defined as the elevation that corresponds with a discharge flow rate of 9,000 cfs (TMC 18.06.570). However, the term OHWM does apply to Army Corps of Engineers and State Fish and Wildlife regulation. Please clarify this difference in the report regarding setbacks for the river. 2. Page 2 - Mitigation Description a. Per the City's code requirements, there are no "sensitive areas" on the site. Perhaps this could be changed to "river habitat areas ". 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 * wxnye! r+ nMlle" rrvea. ws• aC9A V?:.. ".'.YlMAVOIr,CRaMw«7s;1.nrwlel. Family Fun Center Shoreline Memo April 29, 1998 Page 2 3. Page 2 - Alternative Process Description z a. The project's shoreline design is not a sensitive area mitigation but was initiated as the City' s w • coordination responsibility with other agencies for SEPA review, Army Corps permitting, and the Shoreline 6 D Substantial Development Permit. -J v 0 cop; b. There is no clear and specific discussion of project impacts, so the statement of "avoided and ' w w w =: minimized to the greatest extent possible" is questionable. Page 3 states that mitigation is for potential loss of , :— F-: habitat; however, the report has noted that there is a lack of existing habitat and the most significant areas of N p native riparian vegetation will be preserved (Page 2). 2 Please re- evaluate this approach. Flood storage impact is being mitigated but the habitat restoration and enhancement design is based on SEPA review and shoreline issues relative to Army Corps of Engineers, State P. a. Fish & Wildlife, and Muckleshoot Tribal review and permitting. I' _ z 1.- 4. Page 2, 3 - Riverbank Restoration And Habitat Creation Project Summary z g. 2 a. What is the status of the data for recorded flow elevations? It seems the statement in the 1st 0 co paragraph should be updated to indicate how the information will be used in final design? 0 NI 0E-. b. Based on the mapping, it appears some willow or dogwood cover could be impacted by the = al v' 1- construction of the off - channel pond's outlet area. u.. ~O ui z; c. The last paragraph discusses potential impacts. As stated in 3. above, I don't believe the project's U w habitat enhancement or creation is being required as a result of impacts. There are essentially no impacts to ~O F=-: the significant riparian habitat. The recommended buffer widths from Fish & Wildlife are policy related, and z on this site they would provide little improvement without some enhancement. 5. Page 3 - Baseline Information For The Project Impact Zone... a. The report states "The objective of the wildlife study was to determine species presence and potential occurrence ". There is no background information about species of fish and no list of species observed on the site. These may not be necessary for the study but it is identified as part of the report. b. Page 4 - Most of the northeastern riparian area is not on the site. I measured about 1,130 feet of on- site habitat. c. Page 5 - With the on -site portion of the riparian habitat being over 1,000 feet long, the current condition would not be compromised by it size. d. Page 5 - Of the 25,000 sq. feet of area, the stated 16,000 sq. feet should be changed to 14,000 sq. feet of blackberry? ifri< K: iY2<.: tiri€ i'. f��"•'• m.`^'�'d ?+i'.s' ?�`�'u�tr'�Ai�.r �tt�`"+'..Y.n".�yY•. :;34-4,k41 .4i7v;A: r'..:i`d�'. zip;, • Family Fun Center Shoreline Memo April 29, 1998 Page 3 6. Page 5 - Mitigation Goals and Objectives a. Change 16,000 sq. feet to 14,000? Is the 58,600 sq. feet from creating the off - channel pond? Where does this number come from? b. "stream restoration" should probably be riverbank or riparian restoration. 7. Page 7 - Mitigation Condition And Function a. Is 85,000 sq. feet the total area of enhanced riparian habitat that includes the off - channel pond? The increase of 74,600 sq. feet of functional riparian habitat is understood but the 85,000 sq. feet of new buffer is not clearly identified. The City has not required this type of mitigation analysis using area replacement for the Shoreline permits. However, there are enough numbers on different pages that I would recommend that this information be summarized in a table format. b. Please explain the statement about a physical barrier separating the site from the river. The existing blackberry cover appears to be providing a significant level of protection form intrusion. It should be recognized that the new buffer will not provide a "high functional quality" until it is established and maturing. 8. Page 8 - Mitigation Standards a How was the 62,600 sq. feet of riparian habitat calculated? See 7.a. above. b. Please change the reference of "streambed" for securing the logs to "riverbank" or another term. c. The GeoEngineers' report specifically recommends the use of conifers for the log structure durability. Also, rip rap is recommended on the shelf and lower bank in the vicinity of the log snag groups. d. Page 10 - The Performance Security may be conditioned by the Public Works Dept. and King County if they assume a maintenance obligation. e. Page 11 - Please remove the reference to "sensitive area impacts" and "as required by the City of Tukwila ". The mitigation work is being done as a result of agency meetings through the SEPA review process and permits related to working in the waters of the State. The City would require some restoration for work occurring in the Shoreline River Environment. Most of the mitigation is caused by the methods chosen to compensate for filling the floodplain areas. Please let me know if you have questions and feel free to contact me at 431 -3662. cc: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director Kelcie Peterson, Permit Coordinator Gary Barnett, Senior Engineer - Development Chandler Stever, Mulvanny Partnership z re 6R. JU U O: U: W=,. w • 0:. u.< I- w. Z Z 0.. 2 >> n o. O — am I-: w W' --• V: u_ ~O ui O ~� Z UUN 16:10 FAX HAoo r2D L4tw OFFICE Arn:I)NF•Y ANI) i:f)IJN:iF 1 S)ti•AI•LAW SIJITC 12013. 'UM IiIJILC)ING; 1200 F'WT1-1 AvrNI Ir SEAl•I L. WA5I•IINGTQN :;t3I01 (r't) ) i ;8 •51535 rAx: (2O5) 523 LANG 1 JO .L E. HAGGARD April 20, 1998 TRANSMITTED BY FAX Ms. Nora Gierloff, DCD City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 .R.F: Family Fun Center /SDP per SMP Dear Nora, .)I :1t 1.11.1. NOS. We -understand that the Family Fun Center has applied for a SDP pursuant to the City's SMP and State SMA. We had requested on April 20, 1998 a copy of this application from the City. We have yet to receive it and renew our request for it under applicable public records law. Our preliminary comments follow. We first incorporate here all comments in our April 20, 1998 letter to you. This is particular relevant to the issues of SEPA compliance (Le., DNS is clearly erroneous) and the attempt to just put too much development on the site which is inconsistent with SMP policies. The proposal involves substantial work in the River and adjacent shoreline. Accordingly, a }IPA, COE individual permit, and a DOE §401 Certification is required at a minimum. Our primary concerns relate to the timing of work and how it is conducted to reasonably assure hazardous wastes on the property and within the work area will be controlled to avoid adverse impact upon water quality and adequate biota. The numerous geo -tech studies contain many recommendations, but few of which are elements of the proposal. All such recommendations should be made conditions of the SDP. Further conditions, however, are needed to avoid discharge or release of hazardous materials to the River. The map of the proposal attached to the recent CUP decision [NOTE: such decision subject to appeal] does not contain a boundary line delineating the boundaries of the River Zone, the Low Impact Zone, or the High impact Zone. Our comments that follow are based upon reasonable inferences and scaling. We do question, under your SMP, as to whether the management zones are to be applied based upon the 1002 z ~ W. 6 00 W "J H: CO LL; • 0; 2 g J: • a; a Z1. Z o. 111 uj n 0, o N' 0 H ww F=- •• LI 0 wz O ION 16:11 FAX Ms. Nora Gierloff, DCD May 11, 1998 Page 2 10003 before or after shoreline location. Please clarify at your earliest convenience. We also have difficulty reading the symbols in the Use Matrix on. the copy we have. Thus, we are not sure at this time if the proposed uses and locations are non - compatible or have restricted compatibility. This needs further review and clarification. The SMP policies do provide some basic instruction which raises questions as to the proposal's compliance with the SMA and SMP (and definitely with SEPA). One overall goal of the SMP is to encourage recreational activities unique to or dependent upon river use (see Goal 10, p. 4.1, SMP). The proposed restaurant and the hotel have no dependence upon river use. Alternative locations on the property are available if applicant's intensive use is scaled back. This alternative is consistent with the encouragement of inland locations in Goal 4, Economic Development (p. 4.2, SMP). The upland location concept is further strengt:h.ened by Policy 2, Circulation (p. 4.4, SM.P). The applicant proposes extensive parking only 40 feet from top of bank (Q. before or after bank modification). Yet, this still locates parking within the 40 to 50 feet band for the River Zone. This may be contrary to the Use Matrix. Based upon SMA and SMP policies, City should apply the 50 -foot setback. Besides, the Use Matrix uses the 50 -foot number regulatorily. The proposed use of the 40 -foot setback is another example of trying to just fit too many uses on this site [NOTE: the location of the 40 -foot setback line on the map is uncertain despite the arrow designating it]. Parking and structures (baseball batting cages and restaurant) also appear to impermissibly intrude incompatibility with Use Matrix restrictions. This is particularly true at the northeast and the northwest corners of the site. These should be relocated, deleted, or reduced. Upon receipt of the SDP application and supporting file documents (requested pursuant to the public records act), we will provide timely review and comments as warranted. cc: Mr. Steve Lancaster. Mr. Mark Hood . -7/sm 2O \2077o1lr.511 Sincerely ours, i� el Haggard ie:76ti3F,i: tejseal.4i;: ilsw� 14,i . s ' 3;;n,4,,,,, 0 ti x'; '• �; Y�2S+'K:+1 +`.. -i:. iai�.dn r`e�r�i��iy'� �`p�c:l,'.`�'i.i:i�si64,�.'z�r. c:4�; a�bil:�l11„{dN�GI'xid?i. Z` Cr U4 JV; o O` , N o. W =' J 1—'. w O; gQ W d` 1—w z� HO z I-: 2 O irk O 0. O —. 0 H. w w 1— - • F- o ui z O _. o1-- . z City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Public Works Ross A. Earnst, P. E., Director Minutes of the Meeting held on February 26, 1998 @a City of Tukwila Project Name: Family Fun Center Location: 15034 Grady Way South File: SEPA E97 -0024 The following were in attendance: Eric Thompson - Muckleshoot Fisheries Dept. Martin Fox - Muckleshoot Fisheries Dept. Andy Levesque - King County ;Nora'Gierloff `� City of Tukwila Phil Fraser - City of Tukwila Scott Huish - Family Fun Center Gary Barnett - City of Tukwila - Senior Engineer - Development Brian Smith - Barghausen Consultants Bill Railton - Wetland Resources, Inc. Chandler Stever - Mulvanny Mary Ann - Geo Engineers Gary Schulz - Environmental City of Tukwila Phil Schneider - WDFW Tammy Frederick - City of Tukwila Chandler - We initially had a plan that you probably saw with 50 logs snags down here, the City staff indicated that they felt that there was some instability with that design and going basically just above OHWM and having a little off channel pond behind the bench. Andy - Actually I have not seen it, but I don't think I really need to, after looking at some of the options with the City at the first meeting. Just to state where our participation is as the County, we run the agreement of flood control zone we use this as our municipal tax and we use those revenues to the Green River facilities maintenance and repair. Where we enter into this, which is in the City, is that the City has a transits of asking private developers to first look at the bank line, see if it is stable and if it is not bring it up to standard in one way or another and then provide an easement to 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: (206) 433 -0179 • Fax (206) 431-3665 mow; 0! U O; w 0 w =: J ~ i w uw g J` =a w z 0. z Do o N; = v`. 0 z: 0~ z the district who would then, in agreement that it is stabilized, proceed on the public's dollar to maintain the stability of the bank. Now, that's the City's discretion. We have agreed that where facilities have been brought up to County standards and have an easement to the District, that we would include them in our annual assessment prioritization. This doesn't mean that they are going to get fixed it just means if they are badly damaged and nothing else is higher priority, then we would use the available funds at that site at some point and time. So we don't have to participate, but it is the City's call. They don't have to have us have maintenance there unless they decide to do that. Chandler - And therefore you would not maintain it. Andy - Correct, but it would still be owned by the land owner just like any private owner. It would also be feasible, for example if the City where to give the Mackleshoot Tribe an easement. That doesn't mean they would have an obligation to maintain it, but they might have the right to go on it not only because of their treaty, but spelled out and agreed upon by the property owner for specifics. I just wanted to put it in context, it is not like we have a rubber stamp or a big mallet to crush the project. We are simply trying to make sure we do not put the public in a position to promise to maintain something that we don't agree is stable to begin with. So when you mentioned the bench cut we had proposed that be back, first of all it kept most of the existing vegetation, then sloped back into the water, provided some habitat, then stabilized with rock toe and make the base a 2 to 1 vegetated slope and that was the last I saw. Chandler - OK. Just to draw a very quick diagram, we had a slope coming down, rock coming down to a toe, the off channel pond and essentially this is OHWM and we had log snags coming in. The problem that the City staff felt is that during high flows, water is going to come up and this whole thing is going to be highly unstable in this case and either become depositional and therefore we would lose area that we would need to call flood storage or fill in the habitat. Any habitat we would put in here would wash away. So they asked us to re- evaluate the entire situation. Andy - OK Chandler - Doing this cut which ... Andy - Just to comment on this, our interest would be here and any dynamic experienced over here we would just write off, and we have done this in other areas in the river. There has been some scouring, some logs are buried and some are exposed. We do not expect it to stay. That to stay the same way. There has been some re- vegetation in some areas and we do not expect it to stay the same. By in large, it is flood refuge if nothing else, and low water refuge to some extent. Chandler - With the understanding that what most of the riverbank was relatively if not reasonably stable the question was asked, "why are we really changing that and potentially creating an unstable situation ?" There may have been some solutions to that. What we did instead of doing a cutback along the entire area, we proposed a much larger volume of that flood compensation in an off channel habitat pond, such as it could be hydraulically connected and maintained for fish and in 2 z 6 JU. 00 CO X.. J H N u„ w0 ga� _ d I- i z� I- o. Z F- LU uj 0 H w uj 0. u.� _ z, ; ui U2 O~ conjunction the balance of the compensation for flood would be then cut into a bench probably a little higher up than previous, such that the stability that was there would be better maintained. Then we put log snags in selected areas in groups as shown here in these locations and would also create some habitat. That is where we are at right now. There have been some questions as to water velocities and elevations. Phil F. - We have had two riverbank stabilization reports and from the findings in those reports the z Geo Tech felt that the bank is basically stable. I don't know, Andy, if you have read those reports 1 I, and concur with them or not. ry. I Andy - It is not a constructed structure its a deposit in a flood plain with an altered river duration v o, frequency distribution based on operation of the dam. + cow. w =' J H: Phil F. - Is the riverbank stable? co w' w 0, 2 Andy - The mechanism of the stability, of course, is whatever dynamic the river might chose to qa u.¢ exhibit, the bank slope suffers most likely by saturated slumping and draw down. We have had vo d' previously experienced were habitat was that a bank not be altered, but left in its natural state. They x w. agreed to put m an easement and then later requested a bond in the amount of the estimated cost to z �,. going back in and fixing it with a five year sign off. We inspected it and it had fallen in. We z 0. attached the bond and spent it which altered the project. We do not have a problem accepting maintenance, but we would like to be assured that the initial ,g =, o. F-, construction costs of anything that might be required to build up the bank should it fail isn't handed w w back to the public through the District. This all goes back to the inter - locals between all the City's_ — and the County to activate the District. The idea is that the initial facilities construction costs are u- O more in the local jurisdiction, whether it is through permitting, an obligation from the developer, or ui N. through the City's own investment of capital project. After which time if you are up to County I' standard then we would think about it. z z Phil F. - If it is a stable riverbank could you sign off with an easement for future budgeted construction. Andy Who would do the future facility construction? Phil F. - That is the question. Andy - Well according to the local it would not be the County. Phil - It would probably be the District. Andy - No, the District does the maintenance and restoration not the construction. Phil F. - If it is left in its natural state a bond is done. I'd like to hear form the Geo Tech's as to the what you see as terms of instability. 3 q:i' r2i` tuM. tif9als%. ia`- i S: i_: i2ir:' i> ?t"' "' '' L'.' v,,. ffi4' sil43.i; 4: aiiF i,' �$.",:; Sia,,Y, F„ a 'Of `;:` i:: r:+! isie `:�.�i't�.r,�'�Y�}..1�iY�C4:: Sidi. �: i' tiic�tti�. t�< i` JS�,. �"" r.0 �n» +F+lii�lt,',�`�.+5�4e`'- t�1r5 }. 04}.�s4us-4:ie'4n.'ik:wTcrx Mary Ann - Well that is actually a difficult question to answer. In looking at the configuration of the channel as we did on an aerial photo. And we are a little handicap from Mary Rutherford not being here. But I think the most recent air photo I looked at and looking at the configuration of the channel where things have been rip rapped, at least in the immediate vicinity, we are thinking that the channel dynamics haven't changed due to the constructed control upstream. I think modifications of the bank up here, any time you trip the system you also are looking at potential of changing bank stability. But under the existing conditions our position is still that the bank looks stable and we see no reason to expect a bank failure. z • w. re 2 JU' U O Phil F.- With the exception of the corner. { co 0' wi. Mary Ann - Well the corner is a fixed point, the channel comes down and makes a right angle turn u.' there and that position is locked in space and time. 0. Phil S. - It is the Railroad's property right now. PI a �a Mary Ann - So as I see it, if we have instability we will see instability right back here in this area i' z� where the river makes a right angle turn. But up here I really don't see any reasons or concerns for O changes in the existing stability of the bank. If you asked for that in writing for a specific time, 10 w uj . years out, I would have to do some more homework because of the modifications of this bench. 2 o Phil F. - I guess ultimately that is part of it, the wrap up of if we finally settled on something. The 01—; question is what is your final report. WW 1-- U! u' O. Andy - Another angle of that is does not protect anybody else except the property owner from bank Z failure any improvements here such as the edge of the pedestrian pathway, which I assume are not v =. City facilities. z 0 - Phil F. - Yes it is. Andy - Well then there is a public facility involved and the stability of that facility is the focus of the discussion. We in the district would not guarantee maintaining stability at that facility unless it was initially constructed in the manner consistent with our standard for bank stability, which are in our guidelines for bank stability in King County'. It generally shows vegetated reinforcement, but also we strongly urge that in water features be secured by a rock toe and certainly the inclusion of log clusters. Basically a structural feature and not counting on the banks mud's to be the structure and they may very well serve that, it is just if it is the City's trail and they want to take the mud bank and go with it and maintain it we are basically out of the discussion and it is fine with us. Chandler - How high up. Andy - We never bring our rock up above OHWM. 4 « Chandler - Let me rephrase that, if we have a stable bank and we are going to provide a shelf, how high up would you recommend we go up that would create a situation that we would not need rock. We flagged a mark at elevation 7.8, which you flagged, which was deemed to be, correct me if I am wrong on this, the point in which you do not want to see disturbance below. Andy - We were offering that as an indication of the elevation below which most of the banks current native vegetation would remain, a very minor disturbance of existing vegetation would occur if cuts were made below that rather than major disturbance to the existing vegetation if you cut below that. Gary S. - Well I told them something in a previous meeting so.. Andy - Which is? Gary S. - Well I remember you kind of methodically looking at the silt line determining that if there was a high flow it wouldn't hit that upper part. Andy - Basically because that is what the vegetation looked like, but it is all a part of the same thing. That is not in disagreement. Chandler - For your information, what happened then was that point was surveyed and that property line that you see along the river is that elevation all the way across. Brian - Not necessarily, that is the property line of the original OHWM which was assumed at the elevation 10. It comes close to what was originally deemed to be OHWM, but since you went out and did your marking it ended up being at elevation 7.8. Andy - But OHWM is down somewhere around 4.8 or 5.8, somewhere around there. Phil F. - Didn't you see it as 5? Brian - Well that's a break point that the surveyors found in the bank, underneath the water where they could see and physically kind of feel. They did the best they could, but it could get a heck of a lot deeper and I am sure it does further out. What we intended to do it to take the elevation that you flagged out there and assume that to be the OHWM. What our second design here was.. Andy - Wait a minute here. To preserve a band of vegetation along the water you have to start at the OHWM and go up, and we started at the top of the bank of vegetation. So it is not the same as OHWM. The OHWM is down a couple of feet from that. Brian - Right, which is something all of us just learned when you just said that. But, it does not really matter. It is beside the point. We had a shelf that was built above that marker anyway which allowed us to get the required storage that we needed for the project. Since then, maybe I am • ...nilc ' Y.z i; Y ?; 5 Ykx3F•.: �e6ia "t.��')aei`id`�4VFi1ei'b0.. uRkiiliExFh'gtCe1E:L"*.l getting a little bit ahead but, we offered the modification of providing the alcove in the NE corner of the project in lieu of providing this bench. We were trying to maintain a little more natural habitat and natural stability of the river bank. What happened in our last meeting is that Martin Fox suggested that maybe we could do a combination of both. Keep the alcove in the NE corner and still provide benching to increase the width of the river in order to slow down the flows. In a sense that is what we have done, I think the issue of the OHWM at this point does not really matter, we are not having to deal with that at this point. Andy - Just to keep it straight, OHWM is the point above which vegetation normally is established on a stable bank, so it is then identifiable in the field as the water mark on the bank above which vegetation is. Chandler - Is it looking like we need to establish that point for these drawing purposes? Phil F. - It is good to see it on the drawings. Andy - It actually defines the location below which you need to get a HPA, so it is definitely worth doing. Chandler - Would you be available to go flag what you deem to be that point? Andy - The differences is you see water then mud and then vegetation so right there is the OHWM, it is not uniform but establishable. The decisions that are made to work above or below that differ in our guideline. Work below that we want to make sure it does not undercut that and start falling in. The City would like that I am sure, because they have a trail on top and there are many places along the trail that are falling in. Then there is expense to go in below OHWM and with the tribes to please let us stabilize this slope and put in some habitat and vegetate. What I see happening here is we have kept the vegetation above there and sloping back and proposing more vegetation and setting it all back and eliminate all that improvement for some time and I don't have an issue with it. I would just suggest that the public needs to nedge its underwriting position on repair and maintenance of that slope through the request of a bond. We can not make that request directly and I don't know if the City can. Phil F. - Our code basically says if it is a stable riverbank and it is projected to continue to be a stable riverbank, I don't know that until I see the final Geo Technical report, but if that is the case, the agencies can't say we reject this we do have an obligation to make sure there is something if something happens that is unforeseen but it potential could happen then underwriting I agree in a sense. What I am hearing you say, even though we say it is a stable riverbank potential though the consultant and we agree with it this is still a very iffy world, this is not pure science like when we have a concrete wall. There is some uncertainly there and at some point of time it may be necessary to provide a Andy - I just know that in the County just because it good idea to ask for a bond doesn't mean we can do that. You might check your codes. ,.. ` `'u' ,:ir;?, c Jix'``3 `rr 0.iiNsh:A5;ezezpro r.., z o~cw 6D: UO No • U) W: J I N W: g -J i pi', _ f- z F=O. Z �. U� • WW z. s 0 ~. z s;. Phil S. gets up to leave Brian - Phil S. I have the flap gate details here and for Martin Fox's verification I would like you to look at that and see if it is one you prefer. Phil S. - I guess with a flap gate, as long as it closes when it is supposed to. Yes that is what it typically looks like. Phil F. - Andy, the City, and the Corps are all looking at a series of recommendation to identify what is considered maintenance and is it maintainable. Again we show a panel of engineers a riverbank in a natural state to what level of maintenance and how can we maintain it, is it maintainable. Chandler - With that aside, I'd like to continue a little more. Lets say your water mark is around 6 or 7, lets establish that, and the top is at 23, it is up there and we are going to come up to 14 or 15 and cut a bench in that would be compensatory area with some habitat areas and then within the lower portion we will have log snags hanging down. Martin - I have a question, I thought you were going to have your bench at 7.8. Chandler - We did that first and the City said we feel that this is unstable and they said they would not give us SEPA determination because we feel this is an unsolved situation and asked us to back up and try again. Andy - Was it because of the elevation? Chandler - It was because of the configuration, because of the back river pond. Andy - Here is my response. At elevation 15 we will probably see maybe 2 weeks max., at elevation 8 we will probably see for 15 - 18 weeks. It just seems to me if it is well vegetated and is above OHWM it could be maintained, but the higher you put it, like if you put it another 8 feet it will be inundated so rarely it will still be good vegetation but it will not be good refuge. Chandler - And we were proposing more for log snags along that area to be the refuge and that device there being the primary year round refuge which would provide approx. half of the flood volume, required storage. So we will be doing cut backs in other areas as well, but they are not meant to be fish habitat all year round, the log snags and the plants in the existing bank will provide for habitat along the edge. Martin - At what elevation do you intend to. Brian - 15 Martin 15, that is the bottom. ..C`�a. % .,� , s �... ,. +isi'i,is�'•ty {:,r':;.�.`�iA3 i';;i�.At',a.,'��vftiiiS.Le atilxt •'�ii'v7th;+'w'x'a:ii:su`+`.Yea " tiey >ai3i:`vA }?die'rF,:!.'tbNe titiits>:L`!r'kVtw:yt "r.'+'W;g Rr'`- ..:..ai1.£'i�1' ` i. ��` i1•' X? Y�f,+{ �r�i�u. 45i. C, �. �: V J �' tin.4u•G.,•y:r,�¢T i'tfu+Ba`:I7:s?4,4'44;4'4 �v�mSGG:v.Y z 1- w: • 0; 0O; NO; U) ILL W z; q gQ' _ zF 1- 0: wI 01-� Z0 1- -, O .z. W H =' 0 F" z Brian - Yes that is the bottom of the bench riverside. One thing I would like to clarify with everybody here, Andy I need your feedback on this, is what are we going to call the OHWM. The situation, the City came up with this last time, that we need to verify how this was done and make sure it was excepted. What we did in the field, our surveyors went out and took a shot at that flag and what they did is they took a the shot of ground directly below the bottom of that flag which determined the elevation of 7.8 is that what you had intended or what. Andy - No. But Scott - He said earlier that was not the intent. Brain - Yes, he is saying that it is actually 3 feet below that point. But what I am trying to determine here is, I want the City's agreement and yours if possible if we can come up with an agreed OHWM. If your interpretation of that is approx. the OHWM might be 3 feet below that point there that would put the OHWM at 4.8 is that what you were thinking. Andy - Yes, subject to verification. Brian - Verification by who? Andy - Usually by the engineer in the field or the surveyor. Chandler - Should we do it? Phil F. - The Corps would determine it or verify it. Chandler - Yes, but we have a biologist here that could go out and establish what he feels would be what you described as mud, water and vegetation line, which we will call OHWM. You know the criteria, right? Andy You can not really use the green canary grass because it slopes off and it lays there under water, you mean you have done this? Bill - Yes. Andy - Well, there you go. Bill - We are going to be proposing some work below the OHWM. Andy - I'd be glad to stop by and nod my head. Chandler - Would you guys like to do it together. 8 Q z 1. re J U? ..0 O, .co C w 0' J W = CI H =, z 17: 1"": W -D o. O :W H V` O: • ti z v•••-• o: I; Andy - I am willing to show up. Bill - Really that is the driving force, if the elevation is high enough. Andy - Just to clarify on your drawing here, what Gary S. and I intended and what we left the meeting promising to do was. There was the question, where is the OHWM? and what is the existing wooded edge? So what we did is we went out there determined that approx. 80% to 90% of the willows were below this flag, so if you stay above here with your cut that you would preserve 80 % to 90 % of the existing vegetation and we believe that is probably a good approach of simply setting an elevation and satisfy the agencies. But then of course the OHWM is somewhere down in here, but since your surveyors took that point at 7.8 it may be 5.8, 6.8 or 4.8 but your consultant could certainly tell you. Brian - OK, so what we will do is we will discuss with Bill. Andy - Right, if you are up here with your cut you will leave a lot more than 80% to 90% of it. But this doesn't serve much as an inundation zone during lower velocities and during normal winter season for juvenile flood refuge, if that was the intent. Brian - Well no, not really. We created that alcove pond to do that, this was merely per the recommendation of Martin Fox to provide a secondary source of habitat. Martin - What we envisioned is kind of how Andy described it, that bench would be down to be utilized during each winters flows, so whatever that would be, you can find out. Andy - So the trade off is that you can take it all the way down to OHWM and lose the existing bench, but provide lots of inundation or keep most the bench and keep it low enough to provide frequent inundation. Gary S. and I understood that the second option was the desire to develop so we hung the flag in that direction. Brian - Well, I am kind of getting the feel that we are almost back to where we were originally, that being determine the OHWM, dig the bank down so we can provide habitat for most of the year and in a sense that would act as our storage requirements and therefore we would meet all those requirements just in the bank cutback. So we would actually not do this alcove, if that's what the owner wants and everybody is in agreement to. Is that not correct. Martin - What we had discussed at the end on Monday is that the area of the bench along where the swale was going to be, we could bring that down to the original bench that you had originally planned. Brian - At 7.8 or 8. Martin - Lower actually, wherever it would be inundated by ordinary winter flow and this way it would still be incorporated, a portion of that and so that would enable some filtration frequently. 9 ...,.+n arr.,... .m ' tarit�� '?b3YY'�'ui"dp:'•F'+iC�s'�i, nti< J.!'` i> 41' f. 1il '�Yih�+�ar.%c5F11��YJh'.2'•�. - xr1u..�...• r • rAR c You have already made room for the pond and swale. This bench is at 15, if you drop that down lower is that going to make the cutback more severe to the bank. Brain - Not really, you are just going to get a smaller shelf area, because we are just going to go out and meet the existing grade which is basically just a flat plane out there. Bill - The lower you go, the more rock you have to put in. Brian - Martin, so you can visualize this a little bit. This is kind of the intent at this time. What we are planning on doing is cutting back at a 2 to 1 slope, basically we have a distance of about 4 feet to the bike path. So what we are doing is cutting down at a 2 to 1 slope from that point to elevation 15 and then cutting it straight across which creates this little bench. Martin - How wide is that bench. Brian - It varies for 0 to 25 feet or move. Chandler - In some areas 40 feet, this hatched area is the shelf, it is pretty big. Brian - So basically what you are asking for here is if we determine we can actually go down to this elevation down in here, what we would end up doing is continuing this 2 to 1 slope to a point that matches that elevation that we all agree on, whatever that is. So in a sense what is happening here is we are generating more storage area we are decreasing the area of that shelf because your 2 to 1 slope is going to be coming closer to the existing grade that we are going to match. Andy - One question I have, Brian, is if you keep that 4 foot off the bike shoulder you are creating more volume from the deeper cut, would you guys then skinny up the bench just because you did not need to provide more. Brian - No. Andy - You would just keep your 2 to 1 slope. Brain - Yes. Andy - So if you ran all the way down to OHWM and took out all the existing willows you would get inundation. Brian - But then you are eliminating a lot of the habitat, and trees seem to be the.. Andy - Yes, you are eliminating a lot of existing vegetation, but you could move that back by staking. If you keep above the existing vegetation you have got less inundation. Gary S - I see what's going on in your head is to get the best spot that keeps the stability of the bank and still do the bench at the same time and not do all this work below OHWM. That's what I kind 10 crMH VVUawsnt, �K�. Y��: Cidra3: �. ttde:i3itA]w:,. r.` z Fz re 6 w.. 00 � No CO w W =. J F_ w o. J I— W Z �. I-- O. z�— U� 'O co. 0 H; W W' O; ui z c.),;(02 O z of thought that was going through your mind although we did not verbalize on it. What I was going to add, Martin, is that I see kind of a trade off here, and I do not want to persuade anybody one way or the other, but the bank out there has some poor vegetation and some good vegetation but it has this natural shelf area kind of where there is cover. My experience has been, and Andy does not have to agree with this, but when you go in and rock it to create your bench, you lose that for a long time. You will lose that overhang and it takes a long time to come back, and sometimes it does not come back because the willows are already back into the slope so far that they don't ever get out z over the river, so I thought I would throw that out for what it is worth. Because that is one of the CC 2' things that Gary B. and I were discussing when we were out there; what do we get, what do we 6 v lose, what kind of trade off is happening. 0 O co a cntit; Chandler - And also, I don't know if you can put it into perspective on the situation, since we discussed some of this work with the contractor we determined that there are going to be some CO O severe budgetary constraints. Discussing doing cutback the entire length of the river, I think it is completely out of the question. The costs associated with re- stabilizing an area of linear footage we . ¢. are looking at here is about 1/2 million range and what we proposed previously is in about the cn d $500,000 range, there is no way the funds are there. _ Z F-- O Z r- U O� ww. - O: w Z — Z' O ~. z Scott - Just like any City or Company, you only have certain amount of funds and if you go over the top of that line it does not work anymore. Chandler - So now we are in a position of trying to figure out what can be done with budgets that are available and so leaving the bank that is currently stable as is seems to be the most feasible approach and placing some log snags within that area also seems reasonable and to do this big area down here, that is a feature and maybe within reason. I guess. Bill - There are time constraints on this too, we think we can build this with a Nationwide Permit. If we start going below the OHWM an Individual would be needed. That is the problem with the bench below the OHWM. Chandler - If there was a bunch of public moneys to upgrade habitat along here that would be great, but I don't see that happening. We are in a position of seeing how to make it work within budget constraints. Brian - So we are kind of stuck. Chandler - We are defiantly in a situation and essentially if we don't do the off channel area maybe we could do a segment of area along the river that could be a cutback, but it just seems like this is a better solution. i E Bill -.At the last meeting, we were talking about cutting above the OHWM but extending woody debris by cables below the OHWM figuring that it would not require any additional permits. Martin - You would still need HPA 11 Bill - Yes, but not an Individual, is what I am saying. Gary B. - I would like to put together two emerging pieces of information that I have heard today for the first time and kind of put them up here. The first one, I think the OHWM is going to be below 7.8 and for discussion purposes lets say it is 6. Then also I heard discussion of what is the winter flow regime, what is the Howard Hansen dam really doing. Find that out. Again 15 was only going to occur maybe 2 weeks out of the year, Andy - Maybe Gary B. Well conceptually, just getting the concept, to research where the more frequent high winter flows might be, speculating 8 or 10. So look at your winter ordinary, call it 10. OK so we have about 4 feet between what would be the OHWM and the ordinary winter high and this would be a zone where you would get velocity reducing, juvenile relief and a variety of these things would come together in this zone. This would more than likely be a zone of stability in that only down here where they were excavating below OHWM, whatever that elevation was, were they started requiring rock for stability, spending dollars and not putting that back totally back into habitat. Basically, I think that was just getting volume for flood storage, as much as anything. Flood storage is now occurring in the off channel pond. So the speculation for the discussion would be: Is this a zone of benefit and a zone of ideas, values and goals? Andy - There are two cons to that. One is you remove most of the existing back vegetation, but that could be replaced. Two would be, because you are taking it right down to the OHWM you probably don't get new vegetation on the bench itself and therefore stability is a bit reduced. If you creep up a little bit we can get the same winter inundation and some vegetation. Gary B. - Yes, do not push your stability issues right down to the OHWM. Stay up for stability benefit and also to minimize removal of vegetation, but do enough of it below what would be discovered to be a reasonable ordinary winter flow regime. I am wondering if one thing we could suggest for you to take away today is that you confirm this and this (OHWM and Ordinary Winter Flow) and see what those numbers really mean. Hopefully there is 4 or 5 feet between them because if there is 2 feet between them then this concept falls apart. But if there is a good distance between them, that is the balance point for all the issues, perhaps. Chandler - So above a certain point that you do not need the rocks. Andy - Above OHWM you do not need the rocks. Brian - There is one other issue still that is relative, this right here this pond is $500,000. This right here plus the pond is about $800,000. Chandler - Additional excavation probably would not go that much higher. Scott - Where will we stand with our storage with that cutback. 12 six: =Sr* �`o.,i�Li�.aagit +¢ia "jrv�SZ3LWI�:P.;�d�ftl , !$.Rfamm tvo. L`na: i4suaTid'rP..rld` z • _ H' 6 —I C.) U0: cnw "Ill I J I. w 0: g Q. 1. N D. w z� z 0. o1 .0 0 H» W w, U O' wz U— O~ z Brian - With this major cutback here, we can handle it. Chandler - But we do not know how much over the requirement. Brian - Well, if you figure the floor at 8, you know we met it. Chandler - We are way over, that is the point. Brian - Yes, I would say that at this elevation we would still do it. Gary B. - Let me ask a question, kind of taking your concerns and comments about dollars and I am also going to ask a stability question. We need to stay up high, lets say 8, but to still maintain volume down below for in stream habitat, maybe not come back up at a 2 to 1 but, ascertain if 1 to 1.75 would be stable, given that we are starting that at a higher elevation and work it that way. Andy - That would be right at the margin of safety. Mary Ann - Plus given one of the issues here is stability and if you foresee a future, then we would not be comfortable with it. Andy - Just as a point of comparison, many of our banks of the Green are steeper, so we are delighted to see 2 to 1. Phil F. - I still suspect you will not get a 100% stability even with a 2 to 1. Andy - Well I see two figures, I see $500,000 and $800,000 are they being offered as options, or is one of them something you can not support. Chandler - $500,000 is more than we had planned. Phil F. - Is providing the woody debris an element? Brian - I don't know if the contractor figured that in? Scott - I don't know. Phil F. - Woody debris provides habitat for fish for resting and also reduces velocities near the shoreline and also provides for stability. I think it is necessary. Brian - Martin, can I get you to kind of feedback on some of the things that you have heard. Martin - I am not sure how to summarize everything that I have heard, although I want to say that cost as one of the considerations for trading off. I think strongly that the bench be below the OHWM and thus provide flows and function. 13 4' �t'., ' � •-: #:- yta .. 'y 121;s S,�i'"' 'iti^ fir∎i ttdi: ta- A,7aik: ;;witAtit SS} if >}:ifXsN " „a``i�;�t�YfR3La "e;:'k w 7k`riNi�'i:iL��;t.Ss"i:4: r�.i a�.i,iFrs.,�i�.k� ,. •r%+Lti'� k , +:�a • r-. Brian - So you are calling for an individual permit. Martin - I consider OHWM as the ordinary high for the year winter high just so that the wood structures you have out there will be utilized. I like the idea of steepening the bank so it gives us more bench and also maybe shaving a foot or two off the bike path. Brian - You have to factor in the safety factor, too. F'.. re 2 Martin - How big is that path. 00 3 CO 0. Brian - 12 feet. w =. Martin - It seems like you could take a couple of feet off of that. w 0, Andy - It is a standard. Y u. a: a; Chandler - Let me ask you this, would you rather see just the cutback? I know you don't want to w choose between the two. If both of them are not feasible (and they are not), is one preferred over the z ~; 1- 0 other? If we take out the off channel pond and do some kind of cutback that does not involve going z t- below OHWM is that a preferred path? If we go to 8 or 9 and create a shelf that doesn't need rocks 2 uj and provide some snags, would that be a preferred path at this time? v 0;. ±O N. 0 F-: Martin - In exchange for excluding the pond? I think a combination of the pond and the bench is w w` • absolutely a minimum that I think is feasible for areas of sensitivity. You are already compromising_- - that the fact the we will never see vegetation of large woody matter along here. u 0. uiz U Brian What if we could provide some large woody material, there is enough area in there. z Martin - Well, as far as growing trees along here, you got power lines. Chandler - The power lines sit here, so you actually have area between that is available. Gary S. - I might have mentioned before a new project for planting trees in the next year. I had mentioned this site as a volunteer site if the applicant would provide help in supply material and they thought it was great. So depending on what is left over, additional trees could be planted. Chandler - With our available experts we could certainly provide an argument that would say what would be an equitable trade off for a 150 feet of area with higher density and actual features that would be a route that would probably sell. Doing all the features here is out, we need to be up front about that. Martin - It seems like that configuration due to steepening the bank, you could still get what you are after originally. 14 4,1Y �t , J. .'o$a�?7 td": ' "-. fir ;: S�-a t/ �si�t3n� ,:ti3:isU+iafvR�:r:Y ?ESi<N�nbxs� .fc�siiy`n�in1'�ji2 Andy - I think what I hear Martin saying is that the volume of cut you do not perform (the difference between 2 to 1 and 1.75 to 1) might be offsetting. Brian - Would that be acceptable to you, if we reduce the size of the pond by compensating by going to a 1.75 to 1 slope. Bill - If the pond is smaller it becomes dysfunctional. Andy - What is the cost of the pond by itself? Brian - about half probably. Martin - Is that what the issue is, we have to reduce the size of the pond in exchange for this because of costs? Brian - Well we are asking that. We have, this is personal here but, we as a design team have really tried to kick our butts here trying to make everybody happy and we keep running into a wall. We have not seen any flexibility from you at all, so we are asking if you would be a little bit flexible and allow us to try and reduce some of this cost, I mean that is a large chunk of money. Martin - As far as how the engineering goes I don't care how it happens Chandler - You want to see a bench and an off channel pond, you want to see both. Bill Martin, one of the things we could do, if we do not do the off channel pond, is increase the amount of wood habitat to be placed along the river and do what Phil was asking for: Working above that OHWM but extending woody debris down into the flow of the river. The pond itself as we alter the OHWM and as we determine what the ordinary low is, that affects the bottom elevation of the pond and the channel into the river which affects the side slopes and the size of whole thing. On top of that being in a depostional area, there is some question of maintenance. How do we keep that open channel into that pond functioning so that the long term functioning of this pond. This is a conceptual design, is what I am saying. Martin - Well here is a little bit of flexibility we can offer the summer capacity of the lower river is marginal. How about if we bring the elevation of a lot of that pond up so its about the same height of the bench so it becomes inundated during OHW but it will be above the normal low. Bill - So it would dry out during the summer Martin - and vegetating it would be great. Chandler - Wouldn't that trap fish. Martin - Well the thing would be very hot as it is. 15 ....nv�esmrr41.(10Assu a .....,, V1w:J1+fY31~41PWAW4 and MMIrat z Z ix 6D J C) c..)0: co 0. } W = Jam. co u_ WO u. Via. z zI 11.1 uj oy Wa H V: LI O Z w O z. . Bill - As long as we do not create a trap in there, I think we would be OK. Andy - Well you could slope the out to 2.8 and bring it up to 6 or 7 to do what Martin is saying and still have better inundation than the bench itself. Martin - It would be nice to have the water flow through there so we do not get stagnant water, but if it is only inundated during the winter, we solve that problem. Gary B. - It could also be used for the clean portion of the site water, like footing drains, roof drains, into that year round. Andy - Wait a minute. If the water quality system is taking storm water, it is a good idea not to put it through the pond. But the water from the footing drains are probably a good idea. Another thing I would suggest is you look at an elevation of roughly 6 in the pond and then 2.8 bottoms you show make your cuts steep and put some of your woody debris in there and you would get local turbulence around the wood and it helps. Gary B. - Is this kind of what folks are thinking they are doing? (Gary writes on the board) 1. Find the OHWM 2. Find the winter 8 -12 week flow elevation. 3. Pond bottom at 6' + / -. 4. Pond extended slope with wood to keep sediment out. 5. Bench starts at 2' above OHWM. 6. Geo analysis of 1.75 to 1 - failure mechanism, sacrifice zone. 7. Investigate long stability, public obligation, Bond, County maintenance with easement. 8. Clean site water to pond. Chandler Scott has said he agrees with the concept based on verification of costs and based on being able to afford this project, he is willing to investigate this. We are going to have contractors take a look at the cost. Maybe the length of the cutback areas are a way to achieve the right balance. We do not want to agree to do this without having the costs looked at. Would there be a time, Andy, where you could go'out with Bill and perhaps Gary S. and establish OHWM. Andy - I am capable of stopping of at the site any morning on the way to work. Chandler - Bill, could you coordinate that. ba'8ti:h.'}^+.4aeu;:ilF.k kit +fi:1'6'': {?;aLl;V27.?1= 6i'i:iYFY.C. hdilxi:t+fS.ii. {.IIC'Y.�iSe4 1�''•.N.%i3�i{'it`441s6�+:Y iti,Lv. i'' ^'.i• i .•. u�aeiSrR'FS'��'S}2•r� Chandler, Post -1V Fax Noterm 7671 Date 484 / 1pag s. / From ,0fc_.—):eri • Co. ---3 To ( j1ef "��eS- Co. /Dept. Phone # '40- I ■ &? /L/41 Phone # a0t '/ -7114 Fax # 4a /3,,,a0 .A...//2.9 Fax # I'd like to provide some initial comments on the plans shown at our Monday 2.23.98 meeting with the resource agencies. That meeting was not intended as detailed plan review, but more of conceptual review and buyin. A lot of that happened. These comments are intended to provide overall guidance regarding City requirements for the pond and bank work. Please contact Dick Hedry for additional information, as we spoke this morning together with Nora. 1. The trail geometry needs to have broad sweeping curves that can be negotiated by bicycles. Use the WSDOT design manual as a guideline for radii. 2. The pond was shown with 2:1 slopes. Some shallow slopes (6:1) or level benches are needed to develop a variety of habitat conditions. The "edges" of water courses and wetlands are the richest zones. The edges of the pond should be widened to provide more area for the habitat richness. 3. I'm sure that Bill as he starts the design concept will include a variety of habitats and not just focus on fish, but also birds, small mammals, insects and microorganisms. This variety is important. Please ask Bill to identify the target species and habitats that will guide the design. In water, edge and upland environments should receive similar attention and priority. 4. Evaluate pedestrian safety in context of steep banks and water hazards at the bottom. Fencing should be a last resort. Landscape materials and grade breaks can provide much of the needed safe environment. For example, consider a bicylcist that swerves around a pedestrian and loses balance at the pavement edge. Would they tumble down into the water with nothing to catch them? . .•:41Y1`.•.vr .. ... v. ...•..::L- Y.:y4..,. hw . .v9�tL .. a •L.zea.b:•:it. @acriY�L2'i`.S'9k •U' al:�S .. 5A� �G6 ;:a; 'j:a f:.`" ,iy°.•:;:; 9�.'f�:�br ,•.. r..,.�•. � �. >at v. �x,i?ss � 1iUwa.- �stisu 4itta� .�...;ti�,�:�i�tir�:<,:'�,. se�okSe. Luc... �3.":: jairJ.... r..,;: i+:% r. �n, iruYl; ..n'n•�4�."nw�ein��:,1Vh.�..... z Z. w J U': U O: rn o W w; w =: J H` CO w O; w u) ; a. z�. 1- O• z1-; U !O — o I: ww rO R-- 0 .z 0E- z City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Public Works Ross A. Earnst, P. E., Director Minutes of the Meeting held on February 23, 1998 @ City of Tukwila Project Name: Family Fun Center Location: 15034 Grady Way South File: SEPA E97 -0024 The following were in attendance: Eric Thompson - Muckleshoot Fisheries Dept. Martin Fox - Muckleshoot Fisheries Dept. Jake Pace - Planning Division 'NoraGierloff.'- City ofTukwila Phil Fraser - City of Tukwila Scott Huish - Family Fun Center Dick Hendry = Family Fun Center Gary Barnett - City of Tukwila - Senior Engineer - Development Brian Smith - Barghausen Consultants Bill Railton - Wetland Resources, Inc. Chandler Stever - Mulvanny Gary Schulz - Environmental City of Tukwila Phil Schneider - WDFW Tammy Frederick - City of Tukwila Gary B. - Well this meeting that we have put together is a collaboration of City staff, the applicant, and the design teams. The City in looking at the project, has a variety of questions that remain unanswered about the earthwork, the riverbank work, and some fisheries enhancement items and so we met and discussed some of those concerns last week and wanted to bring the agencies together with the applicant and the City to look at the options that are available and to move the project forward. I know that what the applicants concern is and the City would like to essentially get closure on all the resource issues that remain. So that will be the purpose of this meeting to follow on from where we were last week, and let the applicant and the design team outline what they want to approach the project and let you the 1 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: (206) 433 -0179 • Fax (206) 431-3665 moZ . J U. OO CO CI to W: W=' CO LL' W O; LL =; z�; H O: Z t— LU 0 O ,off; ww z U. al co, O z:. resource agencies have a fresh and current look at that effort. So, Chandler, I'll let you go from here. Chandler - Well essentially we had a plan that was questioned by the City as probably being difficult to construct and maintain, we had a riverbank cutback all along this area with a burred area down below that was identified as being unstable and there was questions as to whether it would ultimately stay in place. After getting the engineers around the table last week, we concluded that it would be almost impossible to keep this area in place and we discussed other options. One of them being what you see in front of you now which literally came about Friday, so what you are looking at is the weekends work to bring in front of you as a new option. One that we feel will satisfy the design criteria of this project and provide the flood volume that is required and provide some habitat and essentially we left most of the bank alone so that we don't dig it up and create area that are going to erode or potentially erode, while maintaining what we identified last time as plant material in the lower corner area that seems significant and is still remaining untouched and right at the top of that would be a new channel that would be hydrological connected and always have water in it, hopefully being a spot for refuge or for fish: it would be double purpose. We considered putting an outlet in this area as well, but we then discussed with biologist and it seamed difficult at best to clean water and not go in here to call it fish habitat so we then separated that to go up here. By in large what we are looking at is a solution that primarily stays away from 90% of the riverbank, therefore it doesn't create an unstable situation. Phil S. - So what would that cut in front of the bank do to eliminate when you got all your storage compensation right there. Chandler - A combination of bio- filtration swale which is also required for water quality prior to the outlet. Gary B. - What does the term bankfill here mean? Brian - Basically we are required to provide 2' of freeboard above the 500 year flood elevation level, which in this case I believe is 22, so we are required to go up to an elevation of 24 minimum across the front of qur site. In the areas where you see the bankfill there, what it is the existing . grade is down at approx. 18 to about 21', so we had to put in a few fill of extra filter in that area to get up to the elevation 24, so that is what this is. Gary B. - Does that become a levy type system or is the site behind it filled to that elevation? Brian - The site behind it is also filled to that elevation. Gary B. - OK Brian - Does anyone have any questions on this plan that you have right up front, I haven't really got into any detail yet. But if you have any questions up front I can try to help you with them. I apologize for the clarity of this, but we didn't have a lot of time to make it look neat. 2 z ,z; U O' U p; cn w; • w =: N L w O; • L •a: no = a, • 1-• z�.; Z I' ut DI •U UI - ;0 F- w w. uiz. 1- o F". z 1 Phil S. - Will you still include the landscape along there? Brian - Yes, there will still be landscape along the bank side. Phil F. - I just have a few quick comments, it appears here you are trying to keep riverbank stability except for in the very corner this has been reviewed by the geo engineers to be a stable area and so you recognize this and instead of providing a lot of work along the riverbank itself, and that was problematic. The second thing is because you are provide this cut into the storage area just in back of the riverbank, I personally don't think that that is a change in channel conditions and a flip that goes on from the process of FEMA that would require you going back to FEMA and require change. I would like to confirm that that's also your professional opinion. Chandler - The system we have built helps in a number of ways, basically it provides an out -cove for fish habitat and with the planting we are going to have in there it could actually be really nice enhancement area. I know your concern is the fish habitat, as well as compensating for flood storage obviously. We felt that its more beneficial to those, not only that but it is keeping the existing bank as is by not doing anything to that in changing habitat. Scott - Bill, maybe you could take a second to describe what your envisioned treatment is. Bill - Well this is the first time I've seen it other than we have talked about it conceptually. But, essentially underwater habitat would still utilize log snags or rock structures, deep water with some emergent shelves and there's some 5' and 10' deep water and re- vegetation of the banks to get shade on it. And we talked all along that we need to distribute this along the riverbank. Jack - Will this work require Corps permits? Bill - It will require a Nation Wide Permit, I anticipate a higher discharge which Barghausen has already applied for. Phil S. So the idea is we still plan on putting in the wood and all that. Bill - No we aren't planning on putting any logs along the riverbank, those would be off channel. We would be putting surface and underwater habitat utilizing some snags and rocks in the off channel portion. Martin - In that retention pond? Bill - Actually it's going to be an off channel, a dual purpose; 100 year flood storage and fisheries habitat but no water quality. Chandler - This would only provide volume during floods because of filling on land we have to provide area for water to go so it doesn't flood downstream areas. 3 1 Phil S. According to your hydrologist how much of a damper effect will that area have for releasing downstream. Chandler - Well this essentially takes place of anything to go on -site, so its a one to one tradeoff. There is a certain percentage of on -site and its below the flood plain currently. Brian - And if you look in the upper right hand corner we have the calculations for the storage, we have provided 296,296 cubic feet of storage where we were only required to put in 291,776 so we are actually giving more of a fish habitat area than what we have to do. Martin - Could you clarify, that amount of storage is for? Brian - That's for the 100 year Phil F. That's your 100 year 7 day storage plus the most of the river to offset the backfill material. Chandler - So this is strictly fed by the river. Bill - Its going to be below the river low water level so there's always a hydraulic connection between the river and the pond and nothing can get trapped. Martin - That center piece of ground there, what does that consist of? Bill - The entrance there? Martin - Yes Bill - I'm going to let the geotech design that for stability, that would be my concern is the stability of that and look at what we can do with habitat around this area. Chandler - With experience you're probably looking at some type of a rock structure. Bill - What we have talked about is that this is a depositional ( ) harbor, in a quick sort, our velocities will be somewhat less on this side than what they are on the other side. This is to say the very least a preliminary sketch. Jack - If that's the case, why didn't you just design this in more like in this area. Chandler - Because that's where the best habitat is existing. Brian - Not only that, it's not our property. Jack - So, you're just trying to go around it basically. 4 1 Brian - See, there is a notch out of the corner of our property that is actually Burlington Northern's. So I was avoiding that, plus there's a lot existing habitat over there along with vegetation. Phil F. - At the last agencies meeting the Muckleshoots and Phil S. said they would like to preserve this area because it provides a natural habitat. They are looking for some off site ponds where the fish can rest. Phil S. - Initially it looks really good, but I'm disappointed that the other wood that was proposed in your first plan. I sort of thought - well I don't know if we are going to get the 100' setback on this project, but I thought that the wood that was put in would be a good mitigation for a lack of any chance that this section of river to ever get any wood. Phil F. - Could you elaborate on the 100' setback? Brian - Oh you're asking me, I'm sorry. Actually Bill was the one who told me about this 100' setback. Phil F. - I'm talking about how your project physically is right now relative to the 100' setback. Brian - Well 100' back, basically the criteria that we followed was the City of Tukwila's criteria for the 40' high impact environments and the additional 60' low impact. Basically what we have provided is no improvements whatsoever under the bike trail, which is exempt in this case. 40' back from the OHM and then beyond that is the 60' setback which you can not have structures above 35' in that area, so we just provided parking areas and whatnot. As for a 100' setback we didn't deal with that, it really wasn't an issue at the time. Chandler - Essentially our area of encroachment merely is just about 20' we are not completely right up to the 40' point, a lot of this area is setback beyond 40'. A very small area here encroaches and a very small area here encroaches. Jack - I think you have a bigger issue with the utilities, the power lines are preventing you from doing anything large they go right along the shoreline, that's a bigger issue. - Several people talking at once about the property lines and power lines also figuring where the 100' mark is on plans. Phil F. - You have to get down to where the power lines are in order to even find something that's in the 100' until you hit here, and I was told that only the corner of that building, the very tip of that building and this part of the trail was actually in, otherwise you were outside of this 100'. Is that right? Chandler - Yes Phil S. - I guess I'm just looking at the profile that shows the parking lot. 5 z _�. w' rt 6 -J U O' ■ U 0 w= J.I wo g -J d �_ z� i— 0 z U.1 uj 2 D 0. 0 I- = U, z U w. 0 z - That's the previous one. Phil S. - Oh, I see, OK Chandler - What's happening now is that the whole cutback area is about 20 - 30' is going to be there. Brian - I tell you what, why don't you turn to sheet 3, you'll get an idea of what's happening down in the lower right hand corner I've got two of the section modified there and they kind of show what's happening in a sense at the bio- filtration area. You can see that we have an area of fill up at the bike path that looks to be about 4 feet or so and we are sloping down at a 2:1 slope. Actually if you look down here in the lower right hand corner, the ones I have bubbled there, we are sloping down at a 2:1 slope down to a point where I have my bio - filtration swale, which is located at an elevation of 18 approx. and what we are going to do is provide 3 to 1 side slopes and about a 5 foot bottom to that swale and then slope back up to the existing grade at also a 3 to 1. Beyond that to the left there is the existing bank area of the river, so we aren't actually encroaching into any of the riverbed any more. Chandler - And there is an opportunity to provide some planting in this area. Brain - Yes, as well as on the fill slopes. Bill - Yes, anywhere that we are out from underneath the power lines, we can plant trees in these areas. Phil S. - So this is the actual OHWM. Brian - Yes it is. And actually sheet 4, I've got a couple of sections of the off channel pond and how it relates to the site development and the existing bank. Phil F. - At the last meeting with the Muckleshoots that there was a lot of concern about going into the natural riverbank area and doing all that work and were providing some nice habitat. So they went back to see if they could reduce that. What is good about the project is providing more side channel at this point. Chandler - And I think the long term of development down here is you would see nothing but improvements compared to what's there now, the additional landscape material brought in would be perhaps not your recommendations of what you want to see there but it would certainly be embellishing the place. Phil S. - Will this bio -swale meet the DOE requirements? Chandler - Yes it will. Martin - During high flows will this be opened up? 6 Chandler - Yes. That's included in the flood storage calculations. Martin - I think that's a problem, maybe it won't. But this will be a grass line? Chandler - Yes Martin - You don't see problems with it scouring it out or... Brian - The main velocities of the river are, like Bill says, on the other side of the river. The velocities on our side are minimal, maybe 3% or something like that. So this scouring is really not going to be occurring so much on that side of the bank. Phil F. - The City's drainage program will require a maintenance schedule, it has to be maintained for ever more. Chandler - You may see some deposition in long term floods, that's once in a hundred years; supposedly. Phil S. - Where is the trail on here? Brian - On those two sections it's the same that it's always been, right at the top of the bank there. Phil S. - I don't know, but it seems to me that having the bio -swale here and having the high flows over the bio -swale it might sort of cancel out the trapping sediment for the bio -swale because the flows may take the sediment. Brian - That's something that always happens. I mean when we have like a wet pond situation like what I had before, it is designed to have the exact same thing happen if we had a flood situation the water would back up into that pond anyway. That is kind of a standard design feature. Chandler - Isn't there exemption during flood events from closure. Brian - I mean we have an option of actually bringing that up in height if we want, the problem being is we would end up needing a pump station to pump the site water up to that elevation. Chandler - One of the other options we looked at and perhaps would entertain would be to do something like this and shovel it off at this point. Instead of making this a swale or in other areas, so in fact that would be acting like a shelf to which if you look on the other side of the river from this exact location you will see two of them that are fairly big and they are quite a bit above OHWM which we would be here too. But instead we are making a bowl shape, which I think will improve stability. - How many lineal feet is that. 7 m "5L'1SSiF°w1i ',`1ttitN ,:tl;y.1- ;.xtti . `%"igilgt pxi4w • 1 rte` Brian - That swale is 200. Phil F. - Because of the Howard Hansen Dam we are actually trying to get our flows in as quickly as possible. We do need the additional storage for the impact here so if there's a demand system there are all these things here that can be built. Detention would be necessary relative to a water quality facility to have it go through that facility. Brian - Turn over to page 4, if you want there. Martin - What would it take to raise the elevation of the outer bank. Brain - To raise the elevation of the outer bank? Martin - Yes, to prevent the river from inundation that channel and thus.. Brian - It would take about a $75,000 pump station. To pump the water on -site up to an elevation of your swale. Martin - That would raise the elevation of the swale at the outer berm, to prevent the river from Brian - In other words to raise it up to an elevation 24. Martin - What I'm getting at is that we don't want the river, when it floods, to be contaminated by un- filtered storm water. Chandler - Well that what the swale is for. Martin - The outer berm though is lower elevation than the 100 year flood elevation. Brian - Yes. I'm sorry I'm not really understanding what the concern is. Martin - Well won't this swale be inundated by the river during flood stages? Brian - Yes. Martin - And so the filtration at that point the detention water from parking lots etc. will be un- filtered as it goes into the river. Brian - Correct. Martin - So my question is can we build up the outer berm above the 100 year flood plain, therefor keeping the flood stage of the river Brian - Well by doing that you're going to end up filling into the river, because if you bring that berm up to elevation 24, which is what you would need, you are obviously pushing your slope out ..�..•ii t:. �1 s ^..uM :s.e is J.t^:RS. s`. .. 9:Mi',i:. 41,..;LiG`.,:t;', Sri. f:. L- .M4E2611>.es6;9.e:1t?!;4, of ww?1ueai:2t5•i:...;r vzn to-: :r.::cc?lwy:rivawtsi:• .., 7srm.! toward the river further. Then you have to go down at a 2 to 1 slope which is going to push the bank further out into the river, so actually we would be constricting the river. Martin - Actually I was thinking going the other way, into the site. Brian - The swale on the site side. Martin - Yes Chandler - So rather than pushing this out into the river pulling away from the river. Brian - Yes, well the only limitation on the is the layout for the La Quinta Hotel which we have proposed, the area where I have the swale shown, it gives me room to put it in. On the La Quinta side, basically we are up against parking lot which we don't really have a lot of options right now to reconfigure that so it is kind of more of a site configuration issue than anything. This just happens to be the best area that I can get it to fit and work properly. Chandler - And you are looking at a very rare event that would get up to the height of this. When you have a flood event like that you can see, so much sediment through the rest of the river this would be insignificant. Gary B. - Let me ask a question here, I think your site elevation is such that you are going to have a flap gate on your discharge. Right. Brain - Yes Gary B. - I think that flap gate is going to hold back site water when the river comes up to it, hence the water will stay on site until the river recedes and then it would enter the bio swale when the river is down below that elevation. Is that an appropriate way of characterizing this? Brian - Well typically your flap gate is located after your discharge point, not into the river, which in this case is going to be after the bio- filtration swale. We can always install a flap gate before you get to that point. Gary B. - So during high flow events the river elevation comes up and you're going to see a bit from the site drain off into the river just due to hydraulic grades and when the river comes back down, only then is the site beginning to drain into the bio - swale. Martin - Meantime the water will be stored there backed up behind the flap gate. Brian - Just within the conveyance system on the site. Martin - These pipes are underneath the parking lot and how much capacity would that be? Chandler - How big are the pipes? 9 z mow; 6D. JU U O; coo; Nw. w 0. g u_ = w z�: F--O;. Z F- LU al o' off'; ,0 =w F'2 U- O ~` Lii z Brain - Up to 18" to 24" something like that. This is design criteria we go through all the time, this is final design stuff we deal with. Chandler - So your concern is that we not have direct oil flowing into the river. Martin - Well, yes. The purpose of a filtration system is to build it with the assumption that you're going to have flooding. Brian - But in a flood situation, that's not the case, you are not required to still provide treatment for water in a flood situation. You don't have to do that. So the design that we have here completely follows DOE requirements. Phil S. - Well, I think he is right, because when you get heavy rains in a flood situation the bio swale ceases to function because there is so much flow. It is just during lower flows when you get the first flush of oil it actually gets filtered out. My concern is that it is stable and it doesn't slush out and anything that you collect there doesn't get flushed into the river. Phil F. - During low flows the bio swale operates. In a flood stage the dilution factor is so great that it is no longer problematic. During low flows is when there is potential of causing a real damage to the fisheries. During a flood stage you have lots of sediment flowing through there but also a huge dilution process which is not problematic to the fisheries. Gary B. - How often does the river flow over an elevation of 14 - 15, does anybody know offhand what the return interval is for that? Brian - Well the 100 year is 21.7 so your probably looking at maybe every 5th year, depending upon the release rate. Phil F. - I think you see this on a annual basis. You know the last couple of years we have seen 9,000 - 12,000 cfs going through. Martin - Are you still putting an oil separator in there anywhere? Brain - No we are not proposing that. Phil. S. - You're not proposing any oil separator, I'm not a fan of oil separators. Martin - Neither am I, but they do work. Phil S. - They do perform in emergency types where you have oil leaks. Phil F. - So there is no oil separator proposed. If there was a spill it would go right over to that oversize manhole and be taken out. 10 Chandler - My understanding is that there is also a trade off, we will provide bio- filtration up to a certain volume or have a bio filtration - what do you call it? CPS. We have enough space on site to give you all of that. Phil F. - Will you be proposing some riverside enhancements for habitat? Phil S. - Will you be removing the blackberries and doing planting in this area to make it better or do you just plan to leave it or what? Brian - Well the area that we are leaving as natural we are not going to do enhancements because of the blackberries and everything else, but Bill - We are definitely not planning on getting below the OHWM to remove any vegetation or hanging blackberries trailing. Chandler - Do you look at that as a benefit, in terms of having blackberries hanging over the riverbank? Martin - Well, you know if they eat berries that would be good. I'm still a fan of larger wood, it's going to provide some sort of a dam complexity, and blackberries may be native around here but. Bill - I think they are more common than native. Gary B. - You are talking about something that is higher in value for habitat. Martin - Yes, although there is some cover of the flow still. It's just not as good as having 6 to 8 blocks of wood, so maybe in conjunction with. Chandler - What is your view of the proposal as it stands? Are there things you don't like or.. Martin - I guess I have some confusion on how to recognize how that retention area is actually going to damper floods. I realize that it holds a lot of water, but if the water is not flowing through there, therefore the volume on the banks is still as it is. Once its full of water it doesn't seem like it's ( going to take any more water during flood stage. Chandler - Oh, this will be bare banks, exposed. That's almost 10 feet high, which will be all exposed planted material most of the time. Phil S. - What will be planted? Chandler - We will put in vegetation that would be accepted as habitat in the whole area which is all dry most of the time. In the base of this area is going to be connected down at the base to the actual river. 11 •z •- .re m' JU' • U O: moo: AO I• w O'. • LQ E..a • I- w Z H I- 0. z F-: D� ca io = U`. .. z. w z Martin - I do recommend you to put this side channel in, because it is a great idea if we can prevent it from filling up with sediment. Actually an inlet and outlet which would let it act as a expanded side channel of the river would keep sedimentation from accumulating. Chandler - Wouldn't that collect if you have a flow through? That was one of the concerns last time when we had kind of an off channel pond, the Geo Engineer called that area a depositional area so that the same thing would happen here, I would imagine. That would be a depositional situation. Martin - A side channel could actually do that. Brian Would you consider this a side channel? Martin - No. Phil F. - It would be a good resting place during the high flows. Somewhere for the fish to get outside during major flows. Martin - Especially for a valley that is rapidly constricting the river from ever being able to migrate again. Gary S. - Could you possibly design this to support Coho during the winter? Martin - Usually detention areas like this are conducive to Coho. Gary S. That would be good, because we don't have much of that habitat. Martin - So I guess it would take more engineering background than what I have to ensure that the sediment wouldn't compound in there. Phil F. - That is something we are concerned about with the flood control zone permit. And I assume under the maintenance program which is also required under the drainage permit. A maintenance schedule in order to maintain it periodically. Jack - If they exceed the requirements it is usually the answer. If he is providing 100 SF and he need to provide 90, so there's 10'. Phil F - Yes, beyond that but only to the requirement to met purpose and function. Bill - Yes, we definitely want to describe the habitat function and have maintenance on that, so we don't just go back in and auger the thing out to a bathtub. Phil F. - We want something that is habitat friendly and a maintenance operation that is friendly to the habitat and the fisheries as well. 12 Bill - A side channel you can't really structurally design it so that it doesn't collect sediment but you can approach it with maintenance. Phil S. - It might be good to design any wood that you put in there, could be taken out. Bill - At least locate where they are. Phil S - Yes, so they could be taken out so you could do that maintenance on it. I like this portion of it but I still like the idea of the original, even though there was bank work, I think the wood snags were a good feature and I think you should still have some good wood components in your project along the bank. We will never have good size trees there that would contribute to the river there. Phil F. - Why is that? Phil S. - Because the Family Fun Center will be there and you have the power lines. Brian - The banks below the power lines. Bill - Yes, we can do planting on the banks. Phil F. - Yes, Andy offered that before too, to plant trees on it.. Phil S. - OK we are looking far into the future, once you do have large trees. You know part of the idea is to have those trees ending up in the river, and once they start falling in, Tukwila will be calling us and saying - we have these trees and our bank is eroding and you need to do something here. So any wood that we can get will be a plus. Chandler - How would you achieve that in the existing bank? Phil S. - I'm not exactly sure. Gary S. - You could have your trees dipping down on the bank extending into the water and have them tied into the bank so you don't have to fill or excavate. Phil S. - You know there are ways of designing structures that collect wood, where you put one structure in and things actually catch on. Bill - That would have to be created below the OHWM. Phil S. - Yes. Gary S - What I was thinking, Bill, is if you have instead of doing the logs that are normally cut off both ends and push them in is you get a tree size deal that you can anchor in along the bank and 13 z w cc QQom: J U U 0'. CO is J F-; w O ga co =cy - w z` z �. 1-0 Z F- LU Lu VD 10 co O F-. w w - 00 • Ili Z U= O F- z. have a the roots hanging out. I've never seen it done, but I don't see why it couldn't work and you would not be needing a Corps permit for that. Just anchor it in with cables, there are different ways to do it but you don't need to dig and excavate below the OHWM. Chandler - What about the floods, I guess the cables would hold them in. Gary S. They would have to be anchored pretty deeply in, but its just an idea. w Phil F. - In those types of flows, above OHWM, its best if possible to wedge them at about 30 - 45 6 v'. degree angle upstream and so as the flows come done they push the logs into the bank and it works co O to strengthen the bank. It makes sense for the fact that you have a stability area and have fisheries w w. preserved. wO Phil S. - Can you reach over the side? 2 g J. u- < Chandler - You can just drive, I mean some of the plans we have is driving wood piles into the river cn D, and attaching log to them group wise. w Z Phil S. - That attracts debris considerably, I don't know if you are going to have that.. Z O Chandler - We have a couple of post and other things. Do U ON Phil S. - Yes, but if an excavator could get in there and push it down and then cable it. w w Gary S. - Have you seen any of theses? O . z Phil S. - Yes, I have details on it. 17- 1—, O z Gary S. - I guess we are trying to create a conversation that if getting some wood debris in there in some manner, not like what was shown - not the density that was shown, but some wood in there in some way, then Phil S. and the Tribe review will be more favorable is what I'm hearing. Chandler - So in the primarily undisturbed area if we would put in a couple of habitat features. Martin - There are certain components when you add wood to the river. Wood is typically stored in jams that is where the majority of the habitat gathers. Another thing, personally I am disappointed is that the revetment from the bank isn't going to store as much wood capacity as is was and in part just having the wood in there creates that terrace effect and the other function of this was to provide some dissipation as a storage component. Chandler - Its actually the same square footage. Martin - If you were to bring the bank back 15' and go through that area, that's similar - that's what you are saying? i;r: �YW :�vG;,aL•:.S.te °.+ao.,....�'.t.�u,�..cr�.«.�, 14 st rwv! s` edf�! 4" dNS�9 .�+:'tSR�p.19K�tR9Y)Si�gY.., Chandler - The river cut back that we did is the same volume. Brian - I thought, Martin, at the last meeting you were at you stated that you were against any modifications to the existing bank that the natural vegetation was the best way to go and that you would prefer to see an alcove type facility. Martin - For that 90 degree bend corner. Brian - That is kind of what we did. Eric - We are talking about the rest of the bank now, wood being there. Chandler - The primary problem that we ran into is stabilization in this area would essentially either collect deposits and /or distribute sediments. With all the engineers in the room, we could not solve that problem of creating this bench and having floods coming across it all the time, so we are trying to find another solution. Martin - Isn't that more storage though by having flowing river moving past a revetment rather that once an off channel pond is filled with water it can't take any additional water. Brain - The cubic storage of water is the same so during a 100 year event if you have your bank cut back it serves the exact same amount of storage as this alcove does. Chandler - In fact with this here the elevation is currently 4, your normal water is about 8, so during flood events it is going to go all the way up to the top it won't go over the banks. But this whole thing, if you look at the area above it, that's a huge volume. Martin - I'm thinking in terms of cfs, is the enough to meet differences in cfs. Phil F. - The storage is the same. Gary . B. At least you are at one of the wider sections of the river already, so hence the cross section is wide and is probably one of the lower velocity sections in the river existing presently without a cut back on the land. Gary S. - You know there are some many places, even in the lower river that are falling apart every winter that need to be fixed that we as City staff have talked about whether if it was a good idea to go ahead and disturb an area that was already stable. King County typically allowed it to happen a lot or they thought it was a good idea. We fixed that Boeing Customer Service center, that had to be fixed twice and it's in a slower moving velocity wise but more tidal influence. It wasn't done correctly the first time and had to be redone and the second time it was done it was done mostly with rock so it didn't turn out to be a habitat feature like it was supposed to be . .,,...`, +.z :........zii ,;..tis. )> is. ia: r: �� :i'`SC:L' +z%�ei ^,.ti'u::`;ucSt +� • -C.i w�L'::it ::e "sa, :uuY5:'44 siac:tsA� •l'- rYGisu "-"' . dayl'xf: z w D' U O` J =' CO U. lu �Q to a � w' z �o Ua. • o 1. •w w. o, iil co • 0 z Phil F. - I see this pond area as serving 4 functions, it provides fisheries habitat, refuge, wet pond and 7 day 100 year flood storage, but it would have to be maintained that way. It is a unique feature and actually I think its a good example of a flood storage as a multi facility that serves fish habitat. Bill - Also there is a higher probability of success in this kind of design. z Phil F. - We think we got to the cutting edge of providing riverbank with habitat on them with : z, constructed geo -grid but I still don't think that some of these have really addressed this area of the re fact that these are sediment bearing area. Sediment wipes out some of the things we thought were so -I c0 good and we do need to have an active maintenance after the project is done and complete that takes t (0 o` care of this to meet a diverse set of values: storage, habitat and water quality. w =; co IL Bill - Well when Gary S and I went out there, what I saw from biologists eyes and he said we are w 0: going to lose a lot of enhancements here by changing this design, and I said the bank can still be g enhanced its stable and it can be enhanced, it does not need to be altered to be enhanced and to fix u- a the stability problem. I mean the blackberries can be controlled and I think log structures could be CO d. put on it. So my answer to him was that I don't see the need to go in and alter it greatly to get some 1- i kind of habitat here. You know its just taken over by blackberries and it doesn't have the bench like 1- o. you would probably like to see for fish, which there aren't many places in the lower river that have z I- that anyway. 2 D'. D o; .0 N. Chandler - Maybe we could target a couple of the blackberry areas that could be taken down and ;0 I: that could be a focus of a log snag or something. = w. U. H H Phil S. - I think there should be wood component and I sort of like the landscape plan you proposed z on the last one and that's going to be basically gone , except of the upper area, right. SO on the v (.0 . bank itself you are basically going to leave the blackberries and not do any native landscaping. p z Chandler - No, we are still planning on planting. Plants are inexpensive. I think that a consistent edge treatment would not be overly expensive and provide habitat that you are looking at. Phil F. - For riverbank stability the flood control zone permit would look for something like red ozier, dogwood, or willows that will provide a real massive network underneath that provides for riverbank stability and I think the fish and wildlife would go along with that there maybe some other things that you've talked about that makes sense too. Phil S. - Yes, I would look at trees and shrubs, trees on the upper bank and... Chandler - Was the mix of plants you saw before acceptable to you? Phil S. - Yes 16 Chandler - We can maintain much of what you have seen, again that's of very little cost to place plant material and if it's going to increase the stability and provide habitat. Jack - There is no problem with the County on storm water. Other projects we have been told we can't plant anything because of flood control. Phil F. - Any kind of structure that you know a tree getting over a certain size, this is where Andy will provide some comment. but I think it would be best to get his locations making sure we get something that makes sense for the other values like shade of the fisheries. Like something that provide some area for the fish to get into. That's where the logs come in, it actually slows the water down right next to the riverbank for fish to rest. We are looking for woody debris, I understand that, but where can we provide it best. Obviously the outfalls, there are two of them here one for the pipe and one for the river. And also there are some areas that they are providing some new riverbank, so there are three areas. Phil S. - What I'm not understanding, why only three areas. Phil F. - I'm just saying I see three candidates right off. Phil S. If you look at the length of the riverbank three just doesn't seem. Phil F. - Well I don't know how long that third area is, but it looks like a third of the project. Bill - From this outlet here to this area down here will all be completely striped and replanted. Phil S. - Oh, OK. Bill So there is opportunity there. Phil F. - This isn't a small program at all, but I think it is sometimes showed in cookie cutter formula every 30 feet. Chandler - It was never intended that way, in fact when you look at this detail its a little more spread out but at this point, I see maybe several locations. I don't see an array going up every 20 feet necessarily, but maybe we can identify a few areas that make sense and go in and do a nice arrangement of a couple of logs. Phil S. - I can give you details on the driven ones. Martin - I think what we are after is getting some jams here, not every 20 feet because these large rivers don't function that way naturally. Maybe you could target the overall quantity of wood but put them in 3 or 4 sites and that would function. Dick - You want conifers right? 17 Martin - Right. Dick - We have 26 on the property right now, pretty good sized ones. So we could pull out the root system on those and cut in 25 or 30 foot lengths or whatever it is and make snags out of those, we would not have to import any. I think that would be a relatively easy thing to do. Chandler - Yes, and do 3 or 4 spots with a group of 4, I can't see much more than a group of 4. Phil S. - Yes, right. Chandler - Martin, would there be any benefit from doing it near this channel? Martin - Yes, that might be a way to armor it. What usually happens in this kind of a system like that you put your jams at the entrance of these alcoves. It acts like a diversion to the river and at the same time it may help to simulate that back water area. Bill - That may be a way to mitigate some rock armor around that site, that's going to be an area where we have to get a Nationwide Permit anyway. Martin - Plus it will protect this area in here. Chandler - I guess the only problem with that is, once you get on the down flow side of this it is not our property and on top of that, that is where those large willows are sitting and if you cut those out you are taking out good habitat. Brian - Well actually we do have a corner in here. Chandler - Maybe it could be anchored right in the excavation area. Eric - You're not going to have the bank armoring to protect it, that's where you want that wood. Phil F. - I'm concerned about, usually it is the last log that creates the eddy and it start to on the up stream side to dissipate that tubular section before it hits. Martin - Well if this is going to carry out in the channel aways it will create a quiet area plus it will let some flow in there. Its all an experiment. Phil F. - I see all these logs as being a refuge for fisheries. Gary S - we might be able to, like the side of the pond that is next to the end, maybe for safety sake it might have some rock enforcement on the bank. Well you could build in a bench to create an area like Bill was talking about and actually give it more juvenile fish habitat for those intermediate summer time flows and that kind of thing and the also provide some re- enforcement along that side. �ssl:cr.Lii 18 Brian - I think that it would work, because we are probably looking at some rock walls in there anyway. Chandler - I'm curious, when is the typical run for Coho and Shanook? Martin - There are different times. Chandler - What time of the year are we primarily looking at having them come through here. Martin - Well typically during the winter. Chandler - I guess most of our work is to help them get up to they can spawn, but you're saying more for juveniles coming down. Martin - I think that's documentary to an off channel pond. Phil S. - Usually they come in September and then out in the Spring, so basically year round. It's not too far off to have something saying what the Family Fun Center has done here for habitat, I don't know if people will have the opportunity to go off the trail. Bill - It shows the trail going around this side of the pond. Brian - You would see it. Bill - So there is opportunity for signing. Chandler - We have already talked about doing a historical plaque describing what has happened throughout he course of history to this site, maybe that could be an addition to that. Gary B. - Well a lot of ideas have been shared and I would like to see if everybody feels that they have gotten their ideas onto the table. Also what specifically people want to take out of this meeting. I imagine the design team wants to have a sense of certainty that they are coalescing on design concepts that will work for everybody in one way or another. At a minimum I would like to summarize what you propose to do based on what you have seen today, so everybody here today can go yes, we can live with that, and yes this is a great plan. Chandler - And before we do that I would like to take one last, on the table is there something here that disturbs you to a point that you do not want to see this project go forward, or if it is going to go forward I want to get a sense of what we need to do to be able to go forward. Martin - I think we have already stated that, I still think we prefer a more benched area as discussed. Gary B. Is that specific to this location or are you thinking more system wide. 19 . .5$4= ;:Oiiafi a ?. z ▪ Z et w. oo CO 0 COW. WI O w w0 J co _: =a w z_ i- 0 z U :0 a o w uj; ai z U C° 0H z Martin - System wide, there are not many areas along the Green River that have potential to have this type of mitigation done, therefore everything we can do to return the system to mimic natural conditions is good. Chandler - Well if you don't see that, is that going to be something to prevent your approval? Martin - I think it is necessary for mitigation of further restricting the channel. I think there is certain ways you can design this. Well the back water area as explained to me is that a revetment such as this is more active storage which reduces the amount of velocity and I think that is what we are after. Phil F. - But it's a static storage requirement, they could have placed it anywhere in the development, but the dynamics of that particular pond is that as the flows go up that it would go in and remain during high water and then go down. You don't consider that though as an active cfs storage. Martin - What I am after is something to reduce the velocities with benches such as that would help. Chandler - Well the bench that we had, we got rid of primarily because we could not find a way to stabilize it. With that situation occurring do you feel we could provide elements in here that would satisfy to a point without providing a bench. A bench doesn't seem to be something we have been able to solve without having the whole thing erode and going down river. Martin - More so than the potential it has now? Chandler - Well, right now we are not going to touch a great portion of it. Previously we were showing cuts going down to just over 8 feet and everybody was concerned that the whole area would be completely unstable and get washed down. Martin - Is that material different material that what is existing now? Chandler - Well what is existing now.. Martin - You know the planted area along the banks. Chandler - Because the previous situation took out existing growth and exposed raw area and this little bump up here was discussed as being something highly unstable. Martin - Because it is raw at that point. Chandler - And to stabilize it would take many years and it would probably wash away before that happened. Martin - So the blackberries are now the stabilizing element. 20 . 1 1 - , u . • • • J 0 UO NO. J I- I- N LL; wO LL d: a im _, Z H--O: Z E-', tO :0 H. wu1 O ..z w N; U =, O~ z Phil F. - They don't provide much stabilization. They have a shallow root system. Martin - It seems to me, that in a short enough time vegetation along the bank that had operation whether its acting as bio- vegetation or straw matting or whatever it could start growing back in a season. I think that bank is going to have further erosion. Brian - It's a depositional area and it is the inside of the turn. According to the geotech, the flows are mainly out in the middle. Chandler - Actually its outside on the very corner when it turns back to the north but before it hits that point it's hitting the north side of the bank where the eddy happens. Martin - You can see that it is kind of depositional because of that outside bend. You know it seems like the force of the river is on that outside bank like you said and you would not have the scouring components on the South side. There is no armoring material that is there now, it is basically sand. So if you moved that bench back you would not be changing the soil composition or the material there so it would not be any less chance of erosion than it does now. Chandler - Maybe it was having the sediment buildup. Martin - Plus by expanding the width of the channel you reduce energy. The wider the channel the less energy Brian - Between the two options, the off channel alcove or the bank cut back, which do you prefer. Martin - I am not sure why we have to choose on or the other. Brian - Are you asking for both? Martin - Yes, I think it is a good idea. Brian - So in other words, the bank cut back area alcove, at a monetary standpoint, you are looking at a $200,000 job to do. That is asking a lot to do both of these. Chandler - Well and the other factor is if you do the river bank area then this thing gets so small that is it worth calling a habitat at all if it gets reduced in size? Lets say you take half the volume out and do half the bench cut back you are talking about, and maybe we do it high enough above OHWM so it does not encroach the river channel. Again if that thing gets reduced it doesn't do any good. Martin - Do you think you really need to reduce it, you could taper the edge from the point and gradually work it back. 21 : 4: uu+ ytt �dt ds2za�4+ f: ':•rac'.�n ^.:.:aw:xvs;es�rsv:.w �y .�.'HQ�nr'�'4.E's!:?'cx.9PFin� •..,tiaiv:iSA3 c.. f ..vau girt., Chandler - Well we are looking at it from a requirement of having to provide x amount of volume in storage, that is our equation and in so doing. Brian - We have already given up a lot of usable land that these guys were going to use by putting in this alcove. Martin - I guess I wasn't aware Brian - No I mean in lieu of the bank cut areas we took out a lot more of their usable land which they were going to use for expansion of parking lot. Chandler - Yes, parking actually sat in part of this previously and then before all the swale that are up here used to be right here. That is what's traded off right now. Bill - Don't we already have 500 feet of this bank that is going to be down for flood storage. Brian - No. It is not required now. Chandler -, What is going to happen is you are going to have a bio -swale at the top so we are staying out of the lower portions. Phil F. - But there is a function of increasing or lowing the velocity of the river if you provide a bench or you provide this pond which you are providing for some of the volume of the river will be slower. That then reduces the overall river and it means there is a slower river because you don't have as much. They both serve the same thing because you literally provided additional storage for some of the river whether its dynamically or a pond. The overall river is going slower because you have that pond, no matter what configuration they are. The other thing is that you have a side channel area here where the fishery can go in and rest. So it actually meets two criteria here. Martin - Without that wider channel I don't think you will see a reduction in velocities. Phil F. - Effectively you do, if you had enough ponds behind and took all that water down to the base of the green river you would see a less to about 800 cfs. Chandler - And also according to flow data almost 2 - 3 seconds which is not very fast. Gary B. In this area here the bio -swale is in fact increasing the bank width. There will be some marginal reducing in channel velocities, not a lot. I think a technical piece of information we are missing is what are elevations throughout the season and how often do various features come into play. It should be pretty easy to ascertain just from the flow data. Chandler - Phil F. says it is once a year. 22 pyvY1%i- rs + Yolk',' o? :m 14.: -aht,d 1,,,,t%`CAfia .44.71A;A. '�l: i y a`5 .•. iX. y s" �' 1^'... i'''�NSani'�",i�'S,R'k'`%x:�.i' r�Aa.�iti y "''�c'!.rkfr. tr "i✓.�4a-:i'R�i"� z z: re W. U 0 U N W.. W =' J � W O: a4 u- d H W `. z� I- 0 Z U • 0. O CI I- I • 0: • Lo- p Gary B. - During the big event of the year that you are up at 14 feet, that seems to be right. The 50 year flows are only marginally smaller than the 100 year, the 100 year being 21.6 the 50 year might be 21 and if you come on down the 10 year flow it about 75 to 80% of your 100 year flow. So I think at elevation 10 - 12 - 14 - 16 we are still talking about flows in a 6 month to 2 year reoccurrence. Chandler - I guess in the overall picture of this project there are reasonable constraints and Family Fun is willing to do some improvements to what is currently there and we are trying to come up with the best mix of what is feasible and what if we do this and do some habitat features in here it is going to be improvement, hopefully. And if it is not then why are we doing it. Maybe we can't make a perfect world, but if we can make it better that would help. Phil F. - I could see this thing functioning 3 or 4 times a year. Martin - I guess I am also confused, the proposed development when you originally talked about the bench still comes to where it does now except in the place you have here. The detention water is now in the swale here rather than in the pond, is that right? Chandler - It is an addition to the alcove area. Martin - So the alcove area is where the original detention pond was going to be therefore enabling us to bench the river. Brian - It wasn't the intention of the pond that was just the treatment Martin - Now that we have the alcove for fish habitat we have displaced the site area for water treatment. Brian - For storage. Chandler - Storage occurs along here on the banks. Brian - See the bank cut back originally along the frontage of our property was developed for storage in the 100 year event and the flood storage compensation. We had the wet pond design that was originally in that corner which acted as the treatment for the site. Now what we have done is we have flopped it, we now have the detention, alcove storage area, up in that corner where we had the wet pond before. Now we moved that bio swale to the middle of the site. We did this in order to create a better situation by leaving the rest of the bank alone. Chandler - That is supposedly stabilized. Maybe you are arguing that it is unstable, but some engineers thought otherwise. Phil S. - Was it more of a concern the off channel type portion that was unstable or /es :;:1.awa.c!mb.h4 .` . z 1 : W 00. (n 0. :cnw WI J 0 IL W O, g� u. ¢; �w Z Z �. I- O. Z t— ON oI- '. w uj H V O. W Z O iv--. z 1 Chandler - Yes, all of it was created with log snags that were sitting in the middle of that mound that made that whole area. Martin - I guess what we are really after is if we can move this bio- filtration, are there any ponds on site that could be used. We could move that water from the parking lots to a pond on site for treatment. Brian - Remember with installation of a flap gate you are not going to get contamination water into the river. Chandler And that is something we can do to change what was shown here is install that. Brian - It is a call out. It is literally just a flap gate that sits in front of the outlet of the pipe that we would put up stream from the bio - filtration swale. So when the water rises in the river what it does is it backs up into the bio swale and... Phil S. - Does this work? Yes Martin - I have not seen many sites like that. You mean that as the water recedes the backed up water gets in there. Brian - As long as there is water back against it, it will not open. Martin - But if there is build up of water in there as the river recedes the gate will open. Brain - Yes, but you figure that flap gate is going to be down about the elevation of the bio swale anyway. So in other words if it starts to operate, the water is going to recede down the bank to the bio Swale anyway. Phil F. - Then it would be treated. Phil S. - You know I was thinking about that it is not metered out. Brian - No, actually what we are going to do is we are going to propose to put in a splitter. Because we are only required to treat a 2 year storm with that. All the rest of the connections bypass the bio filtration swale, so we are going to have a structure right at the beginning of that bio - filtration swale that is going to direct the equivalent of a 2 year storm into it. Phil F. So it always takes the initial flow and treats it, that is when you get most of the pollution, in the initial flush off. Martin - Maybe you could move this detention from the parking lots somewhere else. r w U O` (f)w WX J CO LL..'. wO 2 J'. 5.2 a _ Z 0i n p. 0 c F- LU Ws O: w .. z; O ~' z 3 Brian - So if I somehow move it on the other side of the bike path, is that what you are after? Chandler - So it would be outside of the flood plain? Brian - You know I can't push the bike trail out too far because I would be filling into the river because we have to have a 2 to 1 side slope on that . So basically the limits of my bio filtration swale river side is about the extent I could push the bike path out and then I would have to put the swale on the opposite side, which we may be able to squeak in there. Phil S. - It would not allow of expanding the bank Brian - You would not get any expansion, correct. Martin - I can't come up with any engineering to the site here but I don't think you've exhausted your options. Chandler - You mean doing all of our site run off into facilities. Martin - I don't know, I don't know if they are there. Chandler - I don't believe we have investigated doing drainage as a storm facility. Several discussions all at once about where, maybe. Gary S. - Well this elevation 14.2, Martin, is probably not going to serve to much extra capacity that you are looking for. Phil S. - I'm just not sure, I'm not an engineer. Brian - In the meeting we had last week I asked the Geo Engineers why would they consider creating a bench with no rock, and their reply was that they had checked out the csf and it was low enough that they didn't have any concerns. Gary B. - I just want to put up what has been proposed ultimately as the low flow off channel was developed through the engineers work. Here is the main stream and the top of the separation is the existing condition of the bank so every thing is behind OHWM, not below, but behind. Then it cuts down to the elevation of about 4 or 5 in this off channel. But this area was strongly recommended for large rock to keep that stable. This area here basically receiving flows on a freshly worked surface would be 1 -1/2" min. rock to keep it in place. Then root wads here would require excavation into this knob and disturbing the soil and hence anchoring back large rock. It was excavating this area here for the root wad then basically making it unstable. Kind of a cycle of doing the work to get the benefit. of the raw soil and making it stable with rock so the whole system was becoming rock to provide the benefit. 25 re 2 00 N w. J, LL: wo ?. El a. z z o. w uj no o N. ww - O: z U .' z This was the area to be cut back from here to here. This was providing the cubic yardage of storage and that balanced the cycle. What you were seeing, Martin, was this was a widening of the channel producing flow velocities that you have identified as benefit. Doing the habitat thing started to get a little problematic engineering wise. We were not sure that any of this stuff would stay there without throwing lots of rock at it. Conversely, being depositional, this area here would more than likely fill up. So we started looking it as a whole system and going OK, what are you doing? You are digging a hole out, throwing a whole lot of rock in, then you are going to see it fill up to here anyway and burying your big rocks that you did unless you do a continuos maintenance cycle for 1200 feet of the river which doesn't make sense. So that was the challenge of this design that you folks saw previously. Phil S. - What about just removing that outer berm altogether and putting the toe Brian - Well you see King County had a requirement to be able to maintain that area too. That was the intention of the berm anyway, that was a maintenance access road. So without that they can not get down there to maintain it. Chandler - They said they would not undertake the maintenance of this bank if they had to do it from the top so if we did not provide some means to get down below to maintain it then we would be on our own. There is one final issue that we have to bring up, . our determination of us not doing this, is it would incur an individual permit to do the work in the flat area and, if that happens it would essentially kill the project because of timing. Timing becomes an issue. Lets say it takes a year to get approval, this project may not occur at all. Martin - Is it possible not to clear it all the way to the edge so you wouldn't have that difference there? Brian - The existing grade does not turn down into our proposed bank, the 18 to 20 still continues across where it matches with the original grade line, like that. So now what we are doing is we are just providing that upper portion of fill from 18 to 24, we are eliminating that lower half. Gary S. - I guess if you were to stay out of the Corps permit and cut the bank back, you are not going to get as much benefit of widening the channel. Phil S. - If you stay above the OHWM and cut the thing back it would give you the room for high flows and lower velocities, but you would not have a channel. Gary S.- Staying out of a Corps permit if possible. Chandler - The logs snag, according to your conversation with the Army Corps in order to get them in place, that would require a Nationwide Permit. Brian - Because you have to excavate. 26 ::'^': it n..i._.r v k;,t4,4pi%-51.2,, Yvi4� ?t ! '" >1``��iYit}eE'.1'34134:044 41, Gary B - An alternative project is to cut back above the OHWM and you can enhance here or you could put it here for high flow conditions, staying out of the Corps Permitting process by being above OHWM. Also staying reasonably stable below ordinary high and you are not changing the existing bank configuration. These are kind of the alternatives to this, but are not what you see here with the off +:.iiannel pond. Chandler - There are all kinds of issues we are learning about and there are economics, space allocations, if we do a bench too high up then we need to essentially go further into the site which renders a larger portion unusable. So then you are balancing what is useful space there. So there is a variety of things. And it comes down to, is doing something here better than nothing. There is a certain limit. If you cut back too far and it becomes unusable space. Part of the constraints are the power easements, that kills about 40% of the site in terms of use, you can park on it but it makes it difficult. Martin - Sure everyone can appreciate the sensitivity of a site that is located along the river. It may not be the most freedom for uses on the site but thats not our concern. Chandler - You are just saying moving the filtration pump? Martin - The area that is currently the filtration swale, to make that scenario where you are cutting back the bank, which leaves us the problem of finding a location of put the waste water treatment. Chandler - But with in the economic sketch to do the excavation and the re- stabilization is actually significant. Martin - Where else could you put the bio- filtration? Chandler - I guess there are only so many dollars to do the project and so much space and we are trying to find the right balance of how far to go. The section cut you see there with the rocks represented about a half million dollars, which is significant. And if you do that and do the off channel pond and you take another acre away to do the bio- filtration, the whole thing starts to be problematic. Martin - According to the Geotech Engineer they say it is unstable. I don't understand the material is the same composition as it is now. Chandler - The freshly cut material is the biggest problem. Martin Yes, I can see that. Phil S. - They have calculations that you can put fabric, you know, over the cut to a certain velocity that, you know, that can handle and you can plant. 27 .a..a.._ ...w "*""`°*, z ~w' U:. c.) 0: ,, U U' (0w z; J I—. w0 gQ Via. - w. m. O z1—. U p. N: 0 H. 1 F-� u-- O, w .z - t-_ O I- z Chandler - That was considered. Brian - It wasn't considered. That is what we were planning on doing. Chandler - And then they said the fabric would come up on the corner. Then the whole thing gets water underneath it and generally ends up down river. Gary B - I'm going to see if I can get a summary of the options here and let people confirm that these are the options and see if a single choice comes. One option is essentially what was done several months ago which represents doing something shaped like this, basically getting a wider channel and reducing velocities. The likelihood is not a lot more would happen. We are not sure if the logs would stay embedded or not. The other one is what we see before us on drawings today which basically keeps the bank in its current condition adds a bio -swale about 2 /3rds of the way up, puts some new vegetation here that will provide shading and habitat. The third option would be a hybridized approach to things that have been discussed today and in attempting not to destabilize this area, but to gain some in channel width and hence reduce flow velocities and also allow to be permitted under Nationwide Permit rather than individual permit by starting work above OHWM. Cut back a bunch to get the desired volume for flood storage and that will produce, at least in higher flow events, lower velocities. Whether or not you would find that after you have done this amount of excavation, the project land area budget to do an off channel pond is not known. Those are kind of the three areas I see before us and I have not felt a clear direction where everybody says yes, one of these makes more sense than the other. I don't think any of them are ideal for all goals. But I'm not hearing a consensus around any of them. So I wanted to identify the three and see if a consensus would form around one of them. Is that a fair way to try to bring some closure to our gathering today? Dick - I don't think we can have them all, that's not an economical answer to this. Gary B. - Both cutting back and having a pond. Dick - Somewhere we need to come to something that is reasonable. Gary B. Brian asked the question earlier, if there is an either or, and I know it is not the position anybody likes to be in. For the sake of discussing, is there a preference between doing today's proposal with an off channel pond and a bio -swale with some fresh habitat above OHWM and no work below. Or do you prefer doing a lot of work in the area of OHWM and not doing the pond. If you had to chose one or the other which way would you want to lean? Martin - It's not that simple, I don't think we should have to chose between resources. 28 kN#x? 1 Chandler - In this case the development, as it currently stands, would be not as well off as with some enhancements. The site as it currently sits is not great and if we do this proposal it would benefit the condition. Martin - Anytime you develop within a river you are polluting. It is not our problem that this site is along side the river, calling for some boundaries that we have to work with. Chandler - At some point it is going to become unfeasible to do any projects. Phil S. - That is what I don't understand about this. Another project could come over here and propose something that is not as intensively developed or designed differently looking at the site constraints as looking at a type 1 plus river with the proper setbacks and maybe fisheries concerns. Chandler - We could maintain a hundred feet out, in fact we are almost doing that now. The bike path is something that is, we are looking at that as something else, maybe the materials of it is the only issue. Phil S. - The thing about it is the 150' is in the salmon policy and eventually it is going to happen especially with the endangered species coming up. Phil F. - Wasn't that policy just recently adopted? Phil S. - It was adopted 3 weeks ago. Dick - Is it policy or law? Phil S. - Basically it is a policy, it is not a law. Bill I think a lot of the habitat offered to enhance the quality of the buffer along the river, we are addressing that. Basically the 150 feet of what is out there today is not a valuable as, in the short or the long term, the combination of the stuff we are talking about here. Martin - I'm not sure. Bill - Well if you have exactly what you have out there today, with 150' buffers, you have .something less down to 100' buffers and you have off channel pond, you have woody debris placed into the river as deflectors and snag habitat, you have re- vegetation of the bank with native species, we have replaced flood storage that originally existed in there. I believe that what we are talking about is mitigated for some of the trade offs. Chandler - My point is that would be better for the fish than just walking away with a 150' setback and doing nothing. I'm asking if you agree with that. That is my perspective, is if we do some of these measures it is going to greatly improve, verses doing 150'. c +t:1 °.:� 5'7:25;,•rX:r'�a5'aa-rlc�i. l,'resr.Eay�3.`', 29 u!+?3a:J3:Cxlig� is ti , 00 NW Nw w On Q� E a, H- _. Z U.1 w. moo' ,O N', a f- wtu 15 _ 0 ' ..z'. Bill - I have an idea about what we are talking about on Gary's map up here, if one of the things is desirable to increase the channel width we are really talking about this distance here of being X. How much material do you remove below the 100 year and above the OHWM? One of the things Phil S. is asking for is more vegetation on the banks above the OHWM, so that can be done. What the developer is looking at is how much material and what are the costs of removing that material. There is some flexibility in this X volume here, we can increase the channel width and have reduction of the velocities and create a place were we can do a lot of re- vegetation along the banks z and the cost is somewhat undetermined. There may be use for some of this material on the site. I z think the off channel habitat is a really good feature, I don't want to lose that. The thing about the bio -swale within the 100 year flood is that it is an approved policy of fish and wild life and it meets -J DOE. It functions to clean water to the two year storm, beyond that it is not a requirement of DOE, o. of the fisheries. It is pretty standard that you not provide water quality treatment for the site beyond vi w w =; the two year storm. There is a number of ways to try to add some benefits to that. I think the cost -J �-- of putting in any kind of water quality treatment above the 100 year storm, that is the area that I see p being extremely costly. Maybe that is the area we have a lot of disagreement but we may have a lot 2 2 of agreement in the off channel pond. Q �' a Phil F. - I heard the Muckleshoots say that they prefer the combination of the pond and the w expansion of the channel. I am having a hard time understanding why, just from what you said, it z sounded like maybe that is possible in a certain segment that you are working in the river channel z 0 anyway and just grading it and expanding it in those areas. I'm having a hard time wondering if LIJ ui, there is any real significant disagreement, also saying we can't do both at all because you would lose v o: too much in that pond by taking out so much square feet for expansion. a f- iw Brian - There are a couple of ways to look at this. #1 we have meet the requirements that we had to F- ? provide for, so all of this is extra work, which it depends on the cost. Like I said before, to do that O whole channel work, I said it is about $200,000. I know it is more than that, that's a serious hit to v y do that in addition to the pond. I don't have a-problem if maybe, in some areas, we could provide some of the bench and maybe reduce the size of the detention pond. Chandler - Then it becomes usable property if you take out all of the area that was being cut out previously and that. Phil F. - I'm not looking at expanding the volume. Chandler - I think there is a way to do some, maybe little portions of, but to go down and do the rock base. I think it would be nice to avoid that. Bill - I don't think we are talking about going back to the rock. We are not talking about going below. Phil F. - I am talking about working between the OHWM and the 100 year flood elevation. At the original meeting I think all the agencies definitely did not want to go below the OHWM. Preferably they did not want to go below where that flag was placed which is supposed to be higher, but 30 S1R': i',�?hL�l; 3. of :�:i�a_ + ";ti+•z�,`��.ver;:cvjeb sxia;',,'? rttx:,'',. 1 f ,,:S:x1;: >: 'i: ^sc w^dt«i:'.��. %;r"•r`;fi:.t�1'.tk k`^cu's,:s' »M747;ik.oticta.;, ,E Y °S>r•'a3; somewhere between the 100 year and the OHWM might make sense, I am not sure. But you don't have to go in and do the expensive rip rap structure. Bill - That is not the $200,000 thing that we talked about. Chandler - a big project expense. Bill - The rocks are out. Chandler - and doing as many log snags is part of it too and the middle portion. If we were to V propose something in a scaled back version of what you are talking about, to reach the right balance, V O we ultimately trying to reach something. vi w: w =. "J H'. Martin - Maybe we should find out what engineers would propose on what we could do to reduce ;N p the velocities of the river. gJ; IL <: Bill - That's a good idea. D. a;. Martin - And find out how large the bench would need to be to cause a dampering effect. ? x; I- O zI- Phil F. - Well one of the things I would like to have done, if that is the case, is taking a flow gauge 2 �; out. Put them out in the river at about the same distance where you don't have logs and then where v 0' you do have logs because I think that does more for slowing down the river next to the bank than .0 D. o I. anything. w w = V:. Bill - It would be interesting to see how much the volume stored in here would reduce the flows of z V co. Martin - I think that a quick and dirty mitigation would be to look at the Green River above Hwy. z 18 and find some sections that don't have flood storage on it and measure where the OHWM is there and then use flow gauges to see what the capacity of the channel needs to be. the river. Chandler - Is it a lot slower flowing up there. Martin - Well you miss Soos Creek, New Whatcom and others that come in, but you can correlate it to the bank flow, width, channel capacity, given the flows of the river and make some calculation. To find out how wide of a bench that you would need to mimic natural conditions in the river. It would have to be an average. Chandler - What kind of flows do you imagine would be necessary, they are 2.5 to 5 now. Martin - Well you're not going to make a lake out of it, I think you'll have some fast and slow parts, but the most important thing would be to maybe we could make this slow velocity with the log structures. 31 Brian - Well if that's the case, why do you need the cutback if you are going to generate slow enough velocities. Martin - Because I think the river is at higher volume there and if it is expanded to the mimic the natural channel shape. Various discussions on, can we do this or that. Discussion of where to put the bio - swale. Scott - We have already taken out all of this over here, so the only place we can put the bio -swale is here. We could move it a little closer here and then keep the river back into here. If this is 200 feet here, let's take this 200 feet and move it down here. Then we will have this to bring the river in. I don't know how much he is going to require us to do, but if he just say to move the bio - swale. Chandler - You are asking to put the bio -swale above the 100 year. Scott - No he is just saying he wants the river widened, so lets move the bio -swale down here 200', same size bio -swale and move the river back here. Brian - I don't know how much you want, are you talking the entire frontage? Scott - No he was just talking the bio - swale, what I heard about 200 feet. You're just saying if you could just take the bio -swale out and expand the river that much. Martin - The bio -swale extends... Scott - 200 feet, so really if we say we will do the bio -swale 200' area and we can make this river cutback for high flow as far as we can allow. Chandler - The power tower is a restriction we can't do work in that area, so that would be an ending point or a beginning point. Scott - And we will just bench it out just like it is on the other side of the river. Brian - How far down are you looking at this shelf to be? Martin - You mean the depth? Brian - Yes. Chandler - You know, how many If. Martin - Well lets look at some channels upstream and get a ratio. Chandler - I think there is a quantifiable limit, if we take bio -swale and put it there 200' that gives us about 300- 400' left over, we could do that area without any further studies. That is a given that 32 65. . s1`.la.Lr;: �iZ i'.' V46LoA «a,..;$ k;14tAl'"k i. ' ?k amt+` + '3�i"rd',iiSS °ixS�as`�'e� f4i ; : 4s `::',TA re w, 2. U 0 W o; U) w - i u. w 0; 1 a. 'co �, zF. moo: z� D U 0: 0 = w, Z, U N 0 :z works within the confines that we are creating. We could certainly look at existing conditions as well to make a determination. Brian - Martin is saying that he thought the bio -swale was considered the whole frontage of the property. Martin - Yes, but still we want filtration effectively. Chandler - That is what I am saying, you want it above the 100 year then. Martin - Not necessary above the 100 year, but off the edge of the river bank. Scott - So you are not buying into the trap door then. Because there are places that the water will store on site if that trap door is closed. Martin - I think that there is some uncertainty there, whether it will actually keep the oil contaminated water filtering through swale. Brian - This is actually a State requirement. Phil S., you can probably fill him in a little on that. Phil S. - Except I don't know exactly the details. Brain - That is a DOE standard. Phil S. - Right, still once you get a certain amount of flow in the swale it does not move anything, so in a way it doesn't really mater. Phil F. - When there is a minimal flow going through, the concentration of the initial flow that is dangerous for the fish. But when you have a full river it is so diluted. Scott - So do you buy into if we do the bio -swale down here and do cut back here, will that be adequate for you? Martin - We envisioned that you would use the whole area. Brian - Well we do have a pedestrian bridge that takes up a lot of area that we can not touch and their head wall goes all the way back to, if you look, to right about where the end of my toe to my slope is, that real heavy line going down. So every thing from that point and across the bridge we have no control over. In other words, we can not cut that area back because it has no footing. Phil S. - Who's bridge is that again? Its the City's. Martin - Well you know what we can do is that as soon as we can start cutting it back 33 .....,....��. <u tLk�."%.'Y r�ti �••]S:;l':tif^t�k+i 'r I &-,04A Brian - Which would be around that tower. Martin - could you cut the bankfill Brian - Well yes, it is required to get the site up to grade we need our 2' requirement, but where . that comes down at a 2 to 1 slope and we match the existing grade, we can continue that slope down to shelf point. Scott - So you do not have a recommendation on how low the shelf needs to go? Martin - Well my observation is being to pipe the water into some pond in the golf course, or the bumper boat pond or somewhere in there and that would solve a lot of it. Plus it wouldn't take away from the development. Brian - You can not pump parking water into a bumper boat pond - the Health Dept. would shut the place down in a second. Martin - What about a detention area within the golf course? Brian - It would have to be 5' to 6' deep. That what we had originally designed, was to create all flood storage on site, actually it was in addition to some bank cutback areas. But the only way we could do it and make it work was to literally drop the entire golf course area 5 feet down from the building area so you would have a big bowl effect and then it became an issue of maintenance. If we where to actually flood that area out, you know it affects all the electrical systems, all their lighting and all of that. Who knows what it does to the actual features out there. That is why we elected to try to get down in the bank as far as we could and still maintain our storage requirements which is what prompted Andy to go out there and determine what he thought was OHWM, which allowed us to drop our bank further to gain more storage area, so that's kind of how that happened. Now with this new situation we were trying to eliminate some of that by keeping some of the habitat out there as is and still providing a system that allows us our storage and still provide a nice habitat enhancement area. Scott - If you look across the river there is minor cutbacks you can see it from here 5'- 10'- 15' for . maybe only 30'. Chandler - So the main thing is to find another place for the bio- swale. There are not that many places. We know that you are not interested in the economics. Martin - Well we do sympathize, but its not our primary interest. Phil S. - Well I thought that the original plan was pretty much on track too. It provided restoration and a lot of planting and the wood. •10,.1.1 kwJv `c.4�r6Y21tACtSb1.'6"en'v"e: Scott - It did not work for the engineers and it did not work for us and we are not interested in it. . We are interested in a combination of the two to get the project going, but if we have to come in and we have to re -do our whole site that is going to put us out of our time line which you don't care about again, but if we can work through this issue here. I mean we are willing to make the shelf cutbacks and stabilize this which is a major plus for everyone, but we just need to know how much and if we go to this point what will we find out is next. Phil F. - What I hear you asking for is to provide some benching here between the bank and the pond and you are also asking for reducing flows. Martin - I think I understand what you are saying is if the wood would create sufficient habitat without widening the channel. Phil F. - I am personally convinced that it slows down the river flow on the side of the channel. There are various ways to reduce river flows and I know that it is necessary. Martin - You are right, the velocities are reduced. Brian - Are you in agreement though with us providing this alcove plus additional cutback. Martin - I think if you are going to do bank cutback, you want to do it on the majority of the site. Brian - We are talking 600' cutback. Chandler - I still hear the concern of bio -swale - if we can provide sufficient data that shows that it works. Brian - There is nothing to show a bio -swale is a bio - swale. If you put it in the riverbank side you are still providing bank cutback and you are still providing treatment. It serves two purposes. Chandler - You are concerned about oily flows. If we can show that our containment methods do work with scientific data, is that sufficient? Martin - Sure, put something out there for us to take a look at. Chandler - We can make it so that there are very few times that which any water would come out there. But I think it still needs to be in the region that it's in because of the way the site works. The reason that is, is you got the setback requirements with the electrical easements that literally cuts off use. I think we have some direction and can do quite a bit of what we talked about here. It is a matter of doing enough. Martin - It appears that the location of the bio -swale will constrict the channel. 35 z. � w 2: u6 UO co 0. co w W =. J1_, w O' g-J co =d 1— Wm: z� 1-0. Z f—: cu D o! o W w'. o; :z: Ail co, U =: z Phil F. - It would be very minimal. Chandler - It will be far enough back, it is going to be right next to the bike path. In a quick synopsis, if we can do some bench work, come in with a couple of areas of log snags, maybe 3 bunches, with maybe 4 plus and then build up the bio -swale in this area high enough so that it will be above what would be a normal high water, I think that does not affect our layout. 36 �,.. .. .,,- ea'•':r.:'vSTViL"',:.u..rr i�.nacrw +n'.+Y.d .r. ✓.11..'1.1.0. .;k22na.r Swt¢ ..Y....+t4:�".t Riverbank Work Issues raised by City in 2/19/98 letter to Chandler Stever Function of off - channel ponds for habitat Construction sequence and impacts Stability of riverbank when complete Vegetation verses erosion mats on slopes Datum correlation, OHWM determination Role of biologist Permitability Meeting Agenda Family Fun Center /City of Tukwila February 20, 1998 Timing of sewer force main . Cost for upgrade of Fort Dent lift station Timing /Cost to install water main on bridge and Interurban Renton's traffic mitigation fee Archeological monitoring of construction activities that penetrate native soils +..Lt-tii a ,r..«�t1t�.... ;c:.twl.S :tea:... City of Tukwila Department of Public Works John W. Rants, Mayor Ross A. Eamst, P. E., Director Minutes of the Meeting held on February 20, 1998 @ City of Tukwila Project Name: Family Fun Center Location: 15034 Grady Way South File: SEPA E97 -0024 The following were in attendance: Bill Railton - Wetland Resources, Inc. Chandler Stever - Mulvanny „Nora`,Gierloff ",= City of Tukwila Scott Huish - Family Fun Center Dick Hendry - Family Fun Center Phil Fraser - City of Tukwila Gary Schulz - Environmental City of Tukwila Brian Smith - Barghausen Consultants Mike Kleer - Weisman Design Group Mary Rutherford - Geo.Engineers Jake Pace - Planning Division Gary Barnett - Senior Engineer - Development Jim Nottoli - West Lake Assoc. Paul Sexton - La Quinta Inns Tammy Frederick - City of Tukwila Gary B. - This meeting is being held basically to share information and review comments received over the past several weeks and for you to outline to us items in the proposal that we may not be fully understanding. It is not likely that we will have time this morning to discuss all options and come to a resolution. I am going to use my letter as a format for presenting our information. With all information submitted presently we are now fully able to evaluate and comment on them and move from this point to a point of closure. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: (206) 433 -0179 • Fax (206) 431 -3665 1 Chandler - Obviously the goal is for us to come away with a understanding of what we need to provide in order to make this work. Gary B. - The points that we need to come to a. closure are numbered in this letter, so we will use it as a guide. One of the goals would be to clarify what the workable ideas would be, so that when your leave today you will know exactly how you are going to approach this. a The project appears to have some difficulties working in the riverbank area and have some re w P � environmental concerns that we would like to be mitigated, but at this point and time we don't know J U., if they are fully mitigated or can in fact be mitigated over a long term. U O. uj We feel that there are some engineering issues that have not been fully compiled and also biological 1 aspects of the project that have really not been fleshed out. p The third theme that we would like to deal with is "Permitability", we are not comfortable with the g Q idea that a corps permit would not be required. The present proposal appears to need a corps co a permit. The issue for us at the City is not is a permit required, a certain type or not. The ultimate _ desire is only that the work that is accomplished be sound both engineering wise and biologically. ? The permit route is not a key consideration, please keep that in mind. z O, I- LL! uj On page 2, Design and Methodology - One item that has come up repeatedly is that the project is v o' only working above OHWM and many of the design plans indicates work below the OHWM. We o �', need to identify what you are really doing and call it what it is and if this does not require a permit w u�: that is fine, but let us be consistent about what is going on. —O Chandler - On your comment OHWM you clarified in all the calls we discussed that this is work w N` behind the OHWM - so it depends on what the definition is. If you are saying an elevation can not be encroached on anywhere in the site, then we have an encroachment on that. However, if you z !— define OHWM as the river edge then we are not encroached below that point. We have been directed by Andy that this was his recommendation, he said anything behind this point would not be counted as going below OHWM. He said we must put rocks in to provide stability, we must channel it below what he considered OHWM to get the V shaped area to create a place for the rocks. And then of course there is an additional off channel pond that is all behind the OHWM. So that definition (OHWM) is in question. Gary B. -- Yes, and really that comes down to the permitability and it is not an issue that you can't work beiow the OHWM, that's not what we are saying at all, we just want you to identify it for what it is. In our minds we think, talking with Gary S., that as you carve out and create your new toe and rock it below the high water the fish channel really becomes the future river and even as the river comes up later in the season it now becomes part of the river channel. Only at the moment that your are starting work is it not in the channel. So its definitional. It's not necessarily a key point, unless its a key to you doing something permit wise with the corps of instance. For us it is key that it be engineered well and have appropriate biological resources. } ir #4,;R WI" a3idut'= ,'6is:,fiixi "s'ir9sfa 1kit,,714A;i" 444' —4 '141aS iL Cdrue. gfiki '+` kazi- 4i , Jack - I think this is a key point, you have a time schedule which you want to do this work and you're doing something the corps says you're going to need a permit for. This is going to delay you and your expectations. Chandler - If we would have understood that in the first place we would not have planned to carve below a threshold, and that was our goal. - I think we need to do is get clarification of OHWM. Gary B. - Phil Fraser has spoken to Andy since your design submittal in late January and has some feedback. Phil - I'd like to go back to that conversation, he didn't have a full set of plans when he made these comments, so some of this may be out of context. I got in touch with Andy about a week and a half ago on a phone conversation, he had six issues. First of all he had gone out right after our meeting and placed a flag that was put at some point on the site that was intended to be above OHWM. From the meetings we had with various agencies it was a flag, that if there was no excavation on the face of the riverbank below that, approximately. 85 % of the vegetation would be preserved. In describing the plan, and also reflecting from the letter from Barghausen to the Corps of Engineers, it was assumed from that meeting that the OHWM was determined to be 7.8 or 8. Andy, in his discussion on the phone, was not clear as to if this was 7.8 then this flag should be somewhere above it and that may be a point of conjecture concern between what the flag meant relative to the OHWM. He was concerned about whether to appropriate data was used. Just to speculate on the phone he said that this should be somewhere between 10, 12 or 14 if your OHWM is 8. Brian - For clarification from the meeting, Andy had interpreted from Gary and himself going out to the site and analyzing it and placed the flag above the OHWM at 7'. Then I directed my survey crew to actually survey, so if Andy placed the flag where 85 % of the vegetation remains then that elevation of 7.8 is that actual elevation of the flag. Phil - Well then I think there are some differences as to what the flag is intended to do. The natural toe of the river is 5 so there is a concern about what that elevation actually is in relative to the placement of the flag and I think that is something that needs to be clarified. The second thing that Andy looked at was the rip rap along the side of the bank that was only 3 -5 rocks, this didn't reflect the section that he had provided. Also he had provided basically to stabilize the riverbank back behind this bench, that if the bench should become destabilized in the future this then could become the structural section. Mary - This bank is actually the deposition side of the bank, the other side is the erosive side. Do we have some leverage to not go to such extremes if we can demonstrated through science that we are not going to get erosion. Gary B. - Mary, yes I think the short answer to your question is yes if science says it can work then that is a good basis. auifititikxauv4ut�z's''�Rx aa%ksa°i. • z :1- • z re g. 6 —J C.) O 0. moo` vOw. • w =. J �. W LL wO ga• - LL j: CO I— _ I— 0 w I—; U • c s O :0 IL w. :H - r:: O Z IMl CO I.- ▪ _ 0 H' z • Phil - What we are concerned about is the bench section remaining in place. Would it just get washed into the river or would the pond just eventually fill up? Andy thought that perhaps a maintenance schedule could be set up to keep the pond in the proposed condition would be a viable solution. Jack - If the pond will just end up in- filling, why do it? Is there a better alternative? Phil - Rip rap on logs should be put on both sides to allow more rip rap on face. Normally the logs are put in place so the river pushes the logs into the bank face. There is an unstable area that has not been addressed. The new discharge point, which was in the corner, has been moved and Andy says that this really doesn't work and the rip rap needs to go down to the toe. Brian - Did he say why? Phil - He said the way the flow is coming through the bank is going to give way at the south channel. Gary B. - The City shares that same concern. Phil - The riverbank is now stable, why change it? Gary B. - Referring to the letter regarding OHWM. The bank is already stable. Maybe you need to look at another way of getting a flood storage volume. We would need allot of supporting documentation if this is the way you are going to do it. Gary B. - continues to go over the items in the letter and brings up identifying OHWM. Chandler - Who can identify the OHWM, if Andy can not? Gary B. - Where the most confidence would arise out of establishing this elevation as a firm point on the ground, among people here or others. Chandler - Is there not a definable line? Bill - Yes there is a biological line and it sounds like that is what Andy established out there. Brian - Are you saying that what Andy has provided us with is not sufficient? Gary B. - We would like it verified and confirmed. The flag was only tied onto a tree limb and was 18" long, in my mind I was thinking where is the point on the ground? I don't know where the surveyors picked up from. The flag looked about OHWM, this just needs to be clearly established. Gary S. - Andy tried to pick an appropriate point to start work and he flagged a point 1 or 2' above OHWM. You could see the silt line which was higher than the vegetation line. i& izit'! C+':' e: sxSa$:.`.;:+ f'.ii:Nrri.«`i�'it?as�Si`>'i�:. rr'ii'i3sss�+2'll'$aiG i:. ..,l#N4:i'umta•v an, Gary B. - That elevation is critical as to how the application proceeds and what we would like to do, is to get it tentatively established. We need to make the point rock solid. Chandler - Designate it as the OHWM. If a wetland scientist defined that point, would you accept that? Gary B. - absolutely Gary S. - The river does not have uncontrolled flows - I am happy with the way that Andy hung the flag. If Gary B wants that re- evaluated that fine, but I think its put in a place that takes in account fluctuation in the water level. Andy has the experience working in the river to pick a point that is a good place to start. Brian - So you (Gary S.) are happy with the location of the OHWM. Gary S. - Yes Brian - So maybe its a matter of me going out there hopefully with you and we can review and support that. Gary B. - Sure, do that, and just confirm the location. Gary S. - For regulatory purposes the Corps of Engineers either agrees to it or doesn't. It should be their responsibility and in part the City's, but we need to feel comfortable with it from an engineering standpoint. But the Corps from the regulatory standpoint needs to say, yes this is OK. Then you can start your work, and I don't think that's been done yet. Gary B. - We will get OHWM established and then we will hold that for the rest of the project. We would like a clear tangible scheduled approach that will let the work be stable come high flow time. Tell us about how you are balancing the site, are you importing or exporting material? What will happen with the material from the riverbank? Brian - That material will be put on site up to whatever elevation that it will generate. There will be additional soils on the site. There maybe a possibility of importing or exporting materials depending on soil suitability. This will have to be determined on site. Chandler - Our goal is to balance the site. Mary - Poor material could be used in landscaping areas. Gary B. - I did not see a usability and /or suitability report for these bank materials for on site use. v.. �meun/xD!IKkIiK'ARi .z I • z': w .J o 0 • N° cn w; w z; J • w w O; n`. LL co d mow' _, �O z w U ' 2w O • .z, UN z Mary & Chandler - There is a separate soils report. Gary B. - Referring to the 90 degree bend area that has been receding. We would like you to clarify how you are going to deal with that. Chandler - The property lines show that most of the sensitive area is the RR property. Where the 90 degree bend in the river is, the RR property. This is also a resting spot for fish, and if the Indians are not happy, this project is not going to happen. Gary B. - Give us some indication on how you are going to share this information so that the RR can respond. Chandler - Do you want us to notify the RR? Phil - Could you send the Geo Tech report to the RR. They need to know what the problem is. If the erosion continues the way it has within 5 years it would erode into your property. Gary B. - Our interest in this is to have the stability out there, ultimately this is a problem that will effect the RR and it could also effect your site. You identify it as part of your project, how could it effect your project in the future. Phil - Suggests to ask the RR what they plan on doing to stop this problem. Gary B. - Refers to item 5 in letter. This is a high risk area that needs complete evaluation to see if it is doable and that the methods used will bring stability to it rapidly and permanently. This wraps up the engineering issues. Gary S. has talked with the Corps and perhaps you (Gary S.) can talk about what we call Permitablity. Gary S. - In training that the Corps provided, they made statements that habitat features would not be considered fill and the additional fill or excavation, to put them in, may not be considered regulated or conditional permit, or a permit that exceeds the Nationwide Permit threshold. I talked to them last week, they said if you use logs, or whatever your habitat feature is, you excavate or add fill to the river, you will get pulled into a permit and that would be at a minimum a Nationwide Permit. The difference being, if you are doing work in the river were you already need a Nationwide Permit. Habitat features may not be counted as additional fill that would throw you into a bigger individual permit. The Corps made clear to me that they would look at the log features and probably determine that a Nationwide Permit would be necessary, just because the way they are being placed. If they were anchored with cables into the bank I think they would let it go and not try to create a permit just on that basis. Currently it is up in the air, as far as I am concerned you never know what they are going to say. But in talking to them, and in training, that is what they z re w. 6 J U. C.) o' W z' w O; g:3 = d. z� Z oo IL km U 0. 'O N, CI H. w w. Hf 9--O z. Uc _. O ~` z indicated to me. Notification is required and you have done that. The outfall feature also requires notification. The logs as shown now appear to need a Nationwide Permit. Chandler - What is the time frame on this? Bill - 45 to 60 days depending on their work load and who gets the request. Phil - In Gary S. memo, attached to this letter, it indicates that the Corps is very sensitive with the Muckelshoot Indian Tribe as you will find their correspondences go directly to the Corps. The 6 sooner you can get a definitive answer from the Muckelshoots that you can send to the Corps. the 0 0 better. The Corps tends to put off that review process until they get that response. That has been N w my experience. . _I wO Chandler - There has been a letter from the Muckelshoot that we understand is to say they 2 recommend an individual Army Corps permit. We didn't understand that until just recently, that an g n individual permit was required. is. a 1w Phil - I think you should pursue clarification as to what the basis of asking for an individual permit z 1 is.. ►- O'. z f—' 11.1 uj Gary S. - At the time the letter was written, after the first meeting, they had not seen a set of plans n 0.. that had mitigations on them. So I think they wrote that letter to urge these mitigations to be ;o -' incorporated into the plans. They still need to look at that. I feel you need to go to the Corps and w w` make sure you get them to respond to your submittal. I-, �` O: Phil - The Muckelshoots asked a couple of times for a side channel and I think that may not be Cu N possible. You have come back and provided a pond, I'd be curious to see if the Muckelshoots will 17-: Ii see that as a side channel, simply because there is no connection to the river. z Chandler - We understand that it won't work for fish habitat, except for in a very few cases. It's not intended for fish habitat. There is no reason why we couldn't make a connection to the river to maybe provide this. • z • • :�W CG Bill - I feel that it may only be partially designed and needs some fine tuning. Gary B. - I think that represents a concept and we are expecting to receive a biological evaluation and documentation of what the anticipated benefits are, and how its going to work. Are there other ways to accomplish the project goals? You're doing a lot of difficult earthwork and then putting in a marginal biological offset. Chandler - If we were to eliminate the pond and make it flat somehow. That would solve the issue of deposition, right? Mary - You mean create a shelf? %H ➢aii :f ks�stoLlr a: -NFui tro4:44611.s.4 ..vodr c l`.g, i Chandler - Yes, just a shelf shape which would increase the amount of cut back needed. Gary B. - And then that would occur all above OHWM and basically not getting into doing allot of habitat work. Chandler - Abandoning the off channel pond which may be unstable in general, or require dredging every two years which seems unacceptable. Is there a solution that the off channel pond could stay? It just doesn't sound like it. Maybe we should just take it off the drawings, if there is really no solution to keeping the pond from filling up. What if the entire bike path is placed on a plateau? Observing the other side of the river there are several plateaus cut in, assuming those are for flood storage. Gary B. - That option and the questions you pose are ones that you and your design team should evaluate in light of the information shared today. Bill - There is an opportunity to do some fisheries manifest that certainly agreeing that this section is lacking in resting areas for salmon. To trade that off because we can't accept some maintenance and laundering of dynamic systems. Maybe we need to look a little further into the design of it. Mary - There is a possibility of a self flushing system, a certain amount of flow that could carry out sediments. Bill - We have created rock riffle pool effects where you could direct the flow of the water. I don't think you need to be thinking about inflow /outflow, more of a downstream outflow below water connection, but something that directs water to be forced to keep the channel clear during high flow periods. There are some opportunities to supply wildlife and water habitat and I hate to miss the salmon species. There are some mitigation associated with that, because it's difficult, it's not the easy way out. Gary B. - Well, what Bill has done is started the dialog about what can work and how it can work. That is a good thing and we would like to hear more about how the project team wants to develop these ideas. Chandler - I have a question for Mary. When the project first proposed the bench, did Geo Engineers design this bench without using a rock toe? Mary - The reason why we were not doing anything with the toe is because we wanted to leave the existing bank below OHWM stable. Chandler - One other thing I do remember talking about is the data about the dikes above, they were showing 2 - 3 cubic feet per second flows and we are looking at designs for 5. You mentioned 5 to 7, but you mentioned yesterday you didn't feel the flows were high enough to demand all this extra design elaboration. .„00.3 nnr aFCKesrtrrzrwrB+3rpfty. !. a ti+C.. Mary - It was a pretty straight forward calculation, just getting flow data from the gauging station and looking at the amount of flow. It looks like we are certainly below that 5 cfs threshold. Gary S. - The reason I'm asking this is because I have worked with Geo Engineers on several other projects and rock was usually the solution. But in this case, creating a bench that would require maintenance the City could accept it, but it is usually preferred that the County accepts. So I'm just z asking how that can be explained so that the County will feel good about accepting it. re 2: Phil - The Corps, the City, and the Flood Dist. are all looking at accepting it as a stable bank and o o the appropriate easements to have access to it, so we have the ability to go in there to provide vi wI maintenance, in the future. LL w =, wO Mary - So you do need some more information supporting the long term performance of it. 2 ga id �.w Chandler - Also, in conversation with Geo Engineers, we have discussed what it would take to hold ? down that shelf and the studies show that a min. of 1 -1/2" rock would suffice, 2 - 4" would z certainly take care of it based on the flows that are there. F- ill tu U Phil - That is an issue that needs to be directed not only to the City, but also to Andy. o S2, w ui 1- - w O, _z ui Jack - When do you think you can get those responses, as mentioned we are trying to do the SEPA o �: and Shoreline review and we need to schedule a time for a meeting. We need to know when to z expect this so we can make our decisions. Phil - Right. Gary B. - We described putting together a multi - disciplinary report that covers topics talked about this morning and we talked about some new ideas. Now lets move to some other issues. Chandler - A couple of weeks - I think. Jack - We have several items that need to go to public hearing and I need to know when to put this on the docket. We need more than a one week notice. Do you think you could have it here by next Friday? Chandler - Are you saying next Friday would be a deadline to make the end of March meeting? Jack - I just want to get out of this meeting that we are working for some goal. The staff needs to know when to expect it, so they can have time to look at it. Gary B. - We have a meeting set up for Monday afternoon and I think a lot a clarity will come out of that meeting on how to proceed with your design. That's why we set that meeting so close, so you can come up with a single permitable and doable design. Chandler - Maybe that meeting is a little too close. Gary B. - That's your option, we put the meeting together on your behalf. Jack - I think realistically we are looking at the 2nd Thurs in April or the 4th Thurs. in April. You're looking at mid -March just getting decisions made. Chandler - So if we get the meeting in April, what is the likelihood to begin clean up operations? Would SEPA determination been made by that time? Jack - Yes, that would be done along with the Shoreline determination by mid to late March. Chandler - We could submit permit drawings as soon as we have them after the SEPA determination, not before. Jack - We could work something out. From my understanding, you are not looking at moving the building. So check with the permit center, you could probably submit your building permit sooner. Nora - If there are changes, it sets you back by resubmitting. Chandler - One other issue - we received a letter from the Wildlife and Fisheries and they recommend a 100' - 150' setback from OHWM, obviously we are not doing that, it this a dead issue? Nora - The City has a master program that requires a 40' setback. Gary B. - We will move to the Agenda page: Force Main, Cost for Lift Station, SSS, Water Main, issues. Force Main - how do you think that is going to come together as far as schedule? Brian - Are you referring to the bridge expansion - the timing issue? Gary B. - Yes, very much so, at one time we thought we would do part of that work to hang force main on the pedestrian bridge - we are not gong to have that in place by March or April of 99. (Your opening date) Brian - The City has said that we might have the option of tying into the existing bridge or including it in part of the expansion. Gary B. - They are the same thing. We have a strong need and desire to have that done before we bring our contractor on site in July. Brian - When your saying that, does that mean having the installation of the final force main or just the conduit attached to the bridge. fi'�i.4xk- ,44- d:"i,'1lear" 4''41' " %;;Akti. ]`.;�. S:e:9s . bllts'.+`:i ni '3i'"ue',Y??+. 'µ'"%ti9ii'v.'mi€3;t4'it %ib` J:i7 d.'�ny. .,;a i ".t .i.6 'ri'tw[,'r.'•Iw z • I- w. -o U00 N W I u.. w O' ¢' 0 D. • = d' I- O •z i- w .0 �, i"r. F-V: •z. 0 z • Gary B. - We just don't want our contractor claiming delay due to your contractor's work. Brian - What is the City's anticipated timing on this? Gary B. - July - of course your whole system is much larger than the work in Interurban and across the bridge and there is no need to have that completed by July. The work in and near the right of way should be complete by July 1998. Associated with that is the water main, a water main is going to connect across the bridge. The bridge and North is our expense. The area south of the bridge is your expense. Do you want to build that piece of water line within the same window complete by July 98, or alternatively we can give you a choice of us building it from some point of connection that you choose. Pricing wise, we have unit prices in our contract and would give you that price without additional charges, in order to coordinate work. We also would like to disrupt traffic as little as possible. If you accept our prices we would only be disrupting traffic once. So think about it and let me know your choice. Brian - What about the construction of the SSS would the City want to do that portion of the work? Gary B. - Can't guarantee the time line. Its not a no, its just more complicated and more money, but it is an option. We would need to charge for design, coordination, and construction administration for the City to include force main across river in the bridge contract. Next the cost of the lift station, we have had discussions on the cost to upgrade, you received the report from Gray & Osborne. You have identified a couple of different flow scenarios based on uses. It doesn't make a difference of what you put on site as to the pumps that we have to install, the peak factors are the same. The price is $46,000 to be included into your mitigation. Dick - What about cost for the other areas around us? Gary B. - The project cost is around $200,000, we determined that your cost is only the portion for your area, determined on the amount flow, about 1/4. Next item, Renton Traffic Mitigation. Nora - Originally they wanted to look at the traffic flows for intersection improvements. We sent them information and they never said that they wanted to meet with you. I assume that means they will not be asking for traffic mitigation fees. Chandler - Another issue that may be a concern - Bill brought up. Bill - Yes, I was just curious if the fisheries is going to require a hydraulics permit on this project. Phil - They stated in a meeting that it would be necessary. Bill - There is some potential that the fisheries can make some requests. Phil - You are concerned about this 100' - 150' that was brought up, I know that there is some current legislation. What you have identified is that all of your development except a corner of one building is outside of 100'. So I think that is something we need to request from Phil Schneider as to what the exact regulatory basis for his requests. Gary S. - The conversation I had with him too, Bill, was he didn't understand that the off channel pond wasn't connected to the river. He does now. He made that remark in his letter about the side channels and I pointed out to him that they are not really side channels. So he said he would take another look. :. t�.... u.. va�fmciw, i�sai�r, >'hiv:?i:�;t§`:s:�l+."!'•;.A.,` ��ri: ��:.:' r'^ kiSi:;.'.• i� .ii ?:.' «A;,l' +iS.= '+XAlr >di:�: City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor February 19, 1998 Department of Public Works Ross A. Earnst, P. E., Director Chandler Stever Mulvanny Architects 11820 Northup Way #E300 Bellevue WA 98005 Re: Family Fun Center Riverbank Excavation and Environmental Mitigation - L97 -0048 Dear Mr. Stever: The City of Tukwila has reviewed the application materials submitted January 27, 1998. These materials outline your proposal to excavate approximately 10,700 cubic yards of soil from the banks of the Green River. This material presumably will be used as on site fill to raise site grades. The excavation is intended to balance the volume of cut and fill within the 100 year flood plan for the Green River. To compensate for environmental impacts associated with this earthwork, a fish channel is proposed to be constructed. In addition to our review of the revised riverbank stabilization report dated January 26, 1998 by Geo Engineers and the revised site drawings by yourself and Barghausen Engineers, we have also used previously submitted materials to evaluate the proposed development as it relates to the riverbank work. Taken all together, the application materials and engineering data leave us with the following concerns in three significant areas. 1. Engineering design and methodology. 2. "Permitability" in context of City, State, and Federal regulatory agencies. 3. Biological value and long -term viability of proposed mitigation. To assist you in understanding our concerns, I will expand on each of the items above. The numbered paragraphs indicate required information. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: (206) 433 -0179 • Fax (206) 431 -3665 o.v.v..ovox.vxrn. o.frsareemairrAtea .:fl v4t razia. 'W "'FPril': 'Cam& alk ini:f.. 141,.. . z • ~w re 2 6 JU: 0 0; cn W I- u. w0 J: w: z f-: 1 0, Z W. 0 o -: ww • U f- I U . 0; Z al U N'. T. 0 Chandler Stever Mulvanny Architects Page 2 February 19, 1998 z 1I. Engineering Design and Methodology tu r4 2 The engineering design approach to this project has emphasized working only above the ordinary o o ry ' high water mark (OHWM). By taking this approach some significant elements of design and ' vi w construction have been potentially compromised. In order to be permitted by the City, the engineering design work must comprehensibly demonstrate a long term stable configuration. In w p order to be made stable, much of the proposed work will require rock armoring below the OHWM. 2 u.Q Identified work below the OHWM is: Rock armor protection at outfall for storm drainage discharge, cn a toe stabilization for off channel pond, 1 1/2" rock to stabilize the bench between the off channel i _ pond and river, excavation within the bench to embed logs and the rocks necessary to anchor the z F- logs. z o' ilt uj The rock work below the OHWM has several potential consequences including degradation of the v 0; co o in -river environment that is not mitigatable by upland enhancements. Placing rock below the ,o — OHWM to stabilize the excavated and shaped riverbank also conflicts with the design intent of 111 W staying above the OHWM to avoid securing a Corps of Engineers permit. Refer also to memo from Gary Schulz regarding permitting for further discussion of this aspect of the design. — o: The proposed bank stabilization concept conflicts with the findings and recommendations of Geo I. Engineers in two ways. First, the existing stable riverbank is being excavated to provide compensatory flood storage. Secondly, the portion of the riverbank that is failing and is recommended for repair is not included in this proposal. Quoting from the Geo Engineers January 26, 1998 report. "In general, very little evidence of bank instability was observed during our site reconnaissance." "It is our opinion that the river dynamics in the vicinity of the Family Fun Center are generally resulting in deposition of sediment during low to moderate flows on the south riverbank and that the vegetation on the existing bank provides adequate protection against significant bank failure during high flow periods." "Additional stabilization measures on the existing bank are not required." "Additional stabilization measures are necessary at this location (East end of the project site at the sharp 90 degree bend in the river) to reduce the potential for further erosion." Chandler Stever Mulvanny Architects Page 3 February 19, 1998 Now quoting from report titled, Geotechnical Engineering Services. Riverbank Stabilization proposed Family Fun Center Facility, Tukwila, WA, by Geo Engineers dated September 26, 1997. "The erosion that is occurring at the east end of the project site is likely due to strong back ' currents that result from the sharp 90 degree bend in the river in this location. The erosion which has occurred indicates that these currents are sufficiently strong to erode bank material in this location. Further erosion will exaggerate the sharp bend at this location, which will likely increase turbulence resulting in further erosion. In our opinion, additional stabilization of the bank is necessary at this location." The current proposal must provide engineering documentation of all facets of design and construction. The following items will be required for the City to complete the SEPA review of this project to determine that the proposed construction will not have an adverse impact. 1. Ordinary high water mark has been identified at several different elevations in the project documents. The methodology used to determine the OHWM should be identified. The individual who has made the determination should submit written verification of their methodology and qualifications to determine the OHWM. 2. Please provide information regarding construction methods, including erosion control, that will contain the work disturbance above the ordinary high water mark. However, the application documents as noted below and in the plan documents conflicts with the statements that no work will occur below the OHWM. Page 7 same report "The snag should be placed below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM)... The remaining portion of the snag should be embedded into rock filled trenches, four to five rocks with diameters of 3 to 5 feet placed along the embedded portion of the snag is considered appropriate for securing the snags, light loose rip rap should be used to fill the voids around the large rocks and to backfill around the snags." Page 7 "The South bank of the off channel pond will be protected by .placing 4 to 5 man stet to the OHWM." 3. The proposed site filling and riverbank excavation requires substantial earthwork. Please provide copies of the design calculations stamped by a licensed professional engineer that indicate the methodology and the results of the earthwork calculations. This information may be average end areas for the riverbank and square footage at contour intervals for the site area. Manual or electronic output may be provided to substantiate the volume calculations. Chandler Stever G %v vsrvv h1:= 4 +ana:h l ?Ja��it6ud � rii a..t A+x55�ri�?c4vl ia'r,�.,uiFtH f�1.HUfz;Nxa44- 41ii4;..(4 49a#t445tXIXS.A`� ."u .ra�k�yntK�4a:53Y'Si444:• z w J U� 0 0. N W = F. iL w 0: ga co a Iw z I- I- 0 Z f- � p; ww 1--V u. F' r- id z r_-_. 0 I— z 1 Mulvanny Architects Page 4 February 19, 1998 The proposal previously indicated that repair and stabilization of the sharp 90 degree bend area was required. Geotechnical Engineering Services Riverbank Stabilization proposed Family Fun Center Facility, Tukwila, WA, by Geo Engineers dated September 26, 1997, Page 3. "Erosion was observed over a distance of about 50 feet along the bank at the sharp 90 degree bend in the river at the east end of the site. We estimate that bank retreat at this location is on the order of 5 feet based on our observation of exposed tree roots at this location and maybe up to about 10 feet over the last approximately 30 years since en- filling of the marsh area was completed." 4. Erosion continues as this area is not stabilized. The present proposal now indicates that no action will be taken in this area. Please indicate the engineering basis for this decision and proposed anticipated measures to be taken in the future to prevent erosion. Please indicate why this erosion, which contributes sediment to the river should not be stabilized at this time. 5. The construction sequence, operational difficulties, and proposed solutions to working below the OHWM to excavate the off - channel pond, to place rocks for toe stabilization, to excavate for logs of 20 foot intervals anchored with large rock should be fully developed. Additionally, information found in Geo Engineers report that indicates the following design and construction issues that must be addressed. "The newly constructed banks will be particularly susceptible to erosion during the first year to two years after construction... These materials will have a high susceptibility to erosion." "We recommend that the vegetation below the ordinary high water level be left undisturbed during construction to protect the existing bank. Erosion control measures... should be installed prior to starting earthwork to reduce the potential adverse impacts to the river during construction." "Excavation of trenches and off channel pond may extend below the water table" The proposal does not indicate the source of fill for the on -site work, it is presumed that the excavation from the riverbank will be used to fill the site. The Geo Engineers report does not identify the potential use of this material as fill. The April 26, 1989 Hillman Properties Report prepared by Applied Geotechnology indicates that the riverbank material: Is a "silty sand in a loose, soft to medium stiff, wet to saturated condition with high moisture sensitivity" is "not suitable for on -site fill" _ r Y;Ifer,c5:iu 144.2:str.arr ""' 14t4iiirJ; t, 414-43i ; 4'- '4.4VA; :+ rir= cxsi['r= tt`d'Pir. ,'v :vd �• "K ;' t- k�.Fii' 'say at ,'�• .' i4�caxiarktk .4i:�s'+i�'i vi o� z a W. J U • 00 .N w UJI: J 1—; CO IL' w0:. . u_ a. O. W' z�—: zo w: .:U 0. C-12' 0 H: = V - w z: z Chandler Stever Mulvanny Architects Page 5 February 19, 1998 It further indicates that "suitability as pavement sub -grade when not subject to frost action is variable, maybe suitable if properly moisture conditioned ", further, "suitability for foundation support ... not suitable." 6. Please provide current geotechnical information regarding use of riverbank material as on site fill. Permitability The proposed project has attempted to avoid a Corps of Engineers (COE) permit. Based upon our review of COE permit requirements and experience with similar projects, we believe that the proposed project as currently configured will require a COE permit for the reasons outlined in Gary Schulz's 2 -19 -98 memorandum, copy attached. Further, this proposal ultimately will be conditioned to be designed in accordance with the geotechnical report, City requirements, and King County Guidelines for Bank Stabilization Projects. Each of these sources require significant work below the OHWM, thus also requiring a COE permit. Regardless of the exact design configuration, a COE permit will be required. The type of COE permit is not yet determined. This would be determined upon notification to COE. To date you have not applied for a permit, but have corresponded with the COE regarding possible project exemption. The City has received correspondence from the Muckelshoot Tribe indicating that they anticipate that a COE permit will be required for this project. The Tribe further indicates that the permit should be an individual permit and not one of the Nationwide permits. Refer to their letter dated November 24, 1997 that says "By copy of this letter, we request that the US Army Corps of Engineers not issue a NWP or a LOP for any bank stabilization work within the Corps' jurisdiction. Due to the project's location in a critical reach of the Duwamish river, an individual permit should be required." Biological Values 7. The proposed fish channel appears to have limited long term viability and value as habitat enhancement. No information has been provided that indicates the usefulness of this channel or how it will perform. A complete biological resource evaluation of existing and proposed conditions after mitigation is required to complete the SEPA evaluation. .. �:s.x't�:i'?�o.ik�.tit,it; r r. �F..+ w•.. �. wrsnts�u4Ari '.Y?.+{i�I�'.iM�:!3'�S,'s jr1 ` : c : tom` '-iitK• '"'.il 4wtf3Y"zi'il:{?? 4 i•5y a�ji',ry ...i -ter... Chandler Stever Mulvanny Architects Page 6 February 19, 1998 The geotechnical report indicates that this south bank of the river is subject to deposition. "Five areas were identified where small surface failures less than 10 feet wide and a few inches deep had occurred on the south riverbank on the Family Fun Center Site. In our opinion these failures have resulted from failure of sand that was very loosely deposited on the bank during periods of higher flows. Very loose saturated sand deposited on the bank did not have sufficient sure strength to support itself on the steeply inclined bank, therefore the recently deposited material slumped and failed." "It is our opinion that the river dynamics in the vicinity of the Family Fun Center are generally resulting in deposition of sediment during low to moderate flows on the south riverbank and that the vegetation on the existing bank provides adequate protection against significant bank failure during high flow periods." Hence, the proposed off channel pond is anticipated to fill with sediments and thus does not provide a viable long term environmental mitigation. 8. Supporting documentation that outlines the design, construction, maintenance, and function of the habitat mitigation area is needed. The existing information does not provide information regarding biological conditions as they currently exist or as proposed. The environmental determination must be based on the clear documentation of the biological inventory at present and the proposed biological features of the proposed mitigation. Conclusion 9. To assist the City of Tukwila and the other involved agencies with the evaluation of the proposed riverbank excavation and enhancement, please provide a multi - disciplinary analytical report that documents existing and proposed conditions, construction methodologies, expected biological results, probability of long term success and substainability of the habitats. Presently the project application information is located in various reports, drawings, and design supplements. Include recommendations for long term establishment and maintenance. Specific technical areas to be included in this report are: biological resource (both fisheries and riparian habitat) landscape architecture, civil engineering, geotechnical engineering, river hydraulics, and sediment transport. A comprehensive multi - disciplinary report will allow the City of Tukwila to review the proposed application for SEPA compliance, Shoreline Permit under Shoreline Management Act, and the City's Land Alteration Ordinance. Other regulatory agencies will benefit similarly from this same report. Our goal is to clearly understand and to comprehensively evaluate your proposal. ... v l • 24er-X .xs ed,1' �tjri .�he; �.%+.ar ''�"" Chandler Stever Mulvanny Architects Page 7 February 19, 1998 In our view there remain several significant engineering design and habitat enhancement issues. We welcome your comprehensive multi - disciplinary approach to these issues. Or alternatively, we are open to alternative approaches that would achieve similar results for the proposed development of the Family Fun Center, Hotel and Restaurant Complex while meeting City requirements. The City staff has scheduled a meeting with you and your design team for Friday, February 20, 1998. At that meeting we will further explain our concerns outlined in this letter. Together we will clarify and develop the necessary approach to completing the multi - disciplinary engineering and mitigation report. On Monday, February 23, 1998, we have scheduled a meeting with your design team, City staff and the various State and Federal regulatory agencies plus the Muckleshoot Tribe and the King County Water and Land Resource Section. At this meeting we will provide you the opportunity to outline your proposed course of action to develop the multi - disciplinary report, design options, and other supporting information. We will advise the other agencies of our concerns and the multi - disciplinary approach to the project. If in the interim you have any questions or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to call me at (206) 433 -0179. Sincerely, Gary Barnett, PE 0(1,� Se 'or gineer- Development cc: Brian Shelton, City Engineer Steve Lancaster, Director of. Community Development Gary Shulz, Urban Environmentalist Phil Fraser, Senior Engineer Nora Gierloff, Associate Planner Jack Pace, Planning Manager enclosure: Gary Schulz's 2 -19 -98 memo. Corps of Engineers regulatory information (separate cover) "5 ...a ✓:. .-:: s,'=..^_ F. t�: c..>:, r?^ a:^ i? i+:%. i�.. vR. a"..:.:.: i;. ii. 7. i2] 1GRiS t:. zw�C�:_ a�4iNF: tiia? �xw,.. u: ��., �r. 94& 3:-': ��'- i=<:^ yU% �7rM�' s�Sr.! 3 ::L {9if %i.6�1KS1zJi1a��:'1.A.;. {,±atluistiJi.7.k ». `�_�• !,• >. 7,y;r 'rw, 1, i=• n�:< if�lisis :,fi:S:?�czF.d:�:ava::m'. • • .mow; tD 0 O; N.O. CD W; W =: J I-! CO Li- W O. J' d _ z� z� LLJ 2 Di ,D Ca' — wu Oi V'E W U =i .O z City of Tukwila Department of Community Development MEMORANDUM TO: Gary Barnett, Development Engineer Nora Gierloff, Associate Planner FROM: Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist DATE: February 17, 1998 RE: Corps of Engineers Permitting: Family Fun Center (l-l-C) Bank Stabilization Work, SEPA E97-0024 / Shoreline L97-0048. John W. Rants, Mayor Steve Lancaster; Director Per your request, I have written a synopsis of permitting requirements based on the current Corps' Nationwide Permits (authorized by 404 Clean Water Act) and telephone communication with the Corps staff. To keep this memo brief and concise I've attempted to cover only those permits and processes that pertain to the FFC project. 1) Notification is a procedure to get a determination from the Corps - District Engineer determines whether an activity requires a permit and if it may proceed under a Nationwide Permit (NWP) or if an Individual Permit is necessary. Detailed plans may be necessary for the Corps to make a determination. This is also referred to a Pre-Construction Notification (PCN). (The 2/12/98 letter and plan submittal from Barghausen Engineers to Jack Kennedy of the Corps appears to provide the necessary information for Notification.) 2) District Engineer's Decision determines whether an activity authorized by the NWP will result in more than minimal individual or cumulative adverse environmental effects or may be contrary to the public interest. Comments from agencies are considered concerning the proposed activity's compliance with the terms and conditions of the NWPs. These comments include the need for mitigation to reduce the project's adverse environmental effects to a minimal level. • n' • «ti,g4'..,t,',,,:e2iriZioaliaeeeiv.A..t,zatay..1.4a.iiirie:414434,..",s '9,,,434k4-v48,4n:-M4,44,14A.11;!....441.4tttfit11,11i L! Family Fun Center Permitting Memo 2/17/98 Page 2 Any mitigation proposal must be approved by the District Engineer prior to commencing work. Mitigation proposals must be appropriate and practicable. (The Muckleshoot Tribe is an agency with jurisdiction that usually does not influence the Nationwide Permit process). 3) Current project design/permit status involves two Nationwide Permit activities. Based on the current site design, NWP 7. Oufall Structures, and NWP 13. Bank Stabilization are likely permits needed for the project. Outfall Structures - Work below the OHWM is the decisive factor but Notification is required for the activity. .A 401 Water Quality Certification will also be required for this NWP. Bank Stabilization - Any bank work greater than 500 feet in length requires Notification. In Washington State the threshold for needing a permit is 1/2 cubic yard per running foot of fill material below OHWM. If the work exceeds one cubic yard per running foot of fill, the project may not be permitted with NWP 13. A 401 Water Quality Certification will likely be necessary. If the 401 Certification is necessary, a CZM (Coastal Zone Management) Consistency Response must be obtained for coastal zone counties including King County. In summary, I contacted a staff person at the regulatory branch of the Corps Seattle District office earlier this week to get clarification on some of the issues related to this project. The following was discussed: 1) The project site is not considered navigable waters and ,therefore, a Section 10 Permit does not apply to in- water work. The habitat logs will likely require a NWP 13 permit because excavation work to install them below the OHWM will be considered for the 1/2 cubic yard threshold of the Regional Conditions. Please let me know if you have questions. You will need to refer to the Corps' 3/5/97 Special Public Notice for more details on the permits. cc: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director Kelcie Peterson, Permit Coordinator 5t, „6:44F6v0;VA4,v4:44,4e,3' ;M:In4 ,,t4,,ihvi# :;::1lC N,:iifv11,.','d14,;• isohle214;(',KioliiV£„is5; Mr. Jack Kennedy Department of the Army Seattle District Corps of Engineers ATTN: Regulatory Branch P.O. Box 3755 Seattle, WA 98124 -2255 RE: Family Fun Center - Tukwila, Washington Our Job No. 6125 Dear Mr. Kennedy: CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES February 12, 1998 This letter responds to the November 24, 1997, letter from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Department relative to the bank stabilization improvements proposed as part of the Family Fun Center project. Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., has been and will continue to work with the City of Tukwila and other agencies to address any issues related to the scope of this project. Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., has reviewed the Muckleshoot letter and has revised the preliminary engineering plans to accommodate the concerns as noted, and has incorporated modifications relative to the revised river bank stabilization geotechnical report prepared by GeoEngineers dated January 26, 1998. A copy of the revised preliminary engineering plans and the revised geotechnical report are enclosed for your review. The intent of this letter is to request that the Army Corps of Engineers re- review the proposed development to determine whether the Department of the Army has any further interest or requires any permits for the project based on the modifications made to the plans. The proposed project will provide detention based on the City of Tukwila's requirement for a 100- year /7- day /24 -hour storm event. In addition to this detention, flood storage compensation will also be required, since the project will result in filling a portion of the existing flood storage area located on site. To meet this criteria, we have proposed bank excavation and stabilization above the ordinary high water mark within the Green River to compensate for this combined storage. In doing so, we have requested the cooperation of multiple agencies to accomplish this task: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., has coordinated with Mr. Andy Levesque of King County Surface Water Management to establish the ordinary high water mark, which Mr. Levesque has determined to be elevation 7.8 across the frontage of the site along the Green River. We based our modified design using elevation 8.0 as the bottom of the cut -bank shelf to provide a buffer so as not to extend below the ordinary high water mark. We have been coordinating closely with the City of Tukwila to address any concerns the City has with respect to its overseeing jurisdiction of the project. We have extended bike /pedestrian pathways as requested to provide easy access to the site, and have cooperated with the Tukwila Parks Division to incorporate a pedestrian bridge over the Green River, located east of the existing Interurban Avenue arterial bridge. The Muckleshoot Indian tribe has responded with several concerns. They feel that the proposed riparian vegetation removal and bank stabilization may have adverse impacts upon salmon habitat and adult and juvenile salmon in an important part of the Green - Duwamish River basin. In addition to this concern, the Muckleshoot Indian tribe stated in reference to the report by GeoEngineers dated September 26, 1997, that additional bank stabilization required where bank erosion is occurring at the downstream end of the Family Fun Center site is one of the few large, deep holding areas found in the Duwamish River and the lower Green River for use by upstream migrating adult salmon, particularly Chinook, for holding and resting as 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251 -6222 (425) 251 -8782 FAX ;14.4,GS$;Zeir.;''tx'i *' ''ciiisuzrk:ircS !' .v13i1 3J" ,. , r' ""`its ..' i+.+`�.: C't�i 31.2)5W,. Mr. Jack Kennedy Department of the Army Seattle District Corps of Engineers -2- February 12, 1998 well as for rearing of juvenile salmon. The Muckleshoot Indian tribe is concerned that the vegetation removal and measures to stabilize this area as listed in the report by GeoEngineers will adversely impact this area. In response to their concerns, we have modified our design to best accommodate this issue by eliminating the excavation and bank stabilization at this location and retaining the existing trees and vegetation. We have also re- directed the outfall location for the on -site storm drainage system to the west to discharge within the proposed bank cut -back area, avoiding the existing groups of trees that the Muckleshoot Indian tribe has determined protect the salmon habitat and provide a source of food. To enhance upstream migration of salmon, we are proposing to place large woody debris along the river bank below the ordinary high water mark to create a habitat for juvenile salmon. This will be accomplished by placing tree snags buried within the shelf of the bank cut -back area, exposing the root system into the river channel area. These tree snags will be anchored by placing man rocks along the sides to protect them from disturbance. In addition, we are proposing to provide off - channel ponds, which will be located within the shelf portion of the bank cut -back areas, to provide habitat for the juvenile salmon during high flow periods. Family Fun Centers and their consultants involved with this project appreciate the cooperation and comments received from the overseeing jurisdictions, and will continue to make ourselves accessible and will respond to any concerns that other agencies may have. We previously submitted a letter and preliminary design plans to you on August 19, 1997, as a follow -up to a discussion you had with Mr. Dan Balmelli of this office. The letter confirmed your previous determination that the Department of the Army Corps Regulatory Branch would not have any jurisdiction nor require any permits if the excavation and bank stabilization work did not extend below the ordinary high water mark. The stabilization work as proposed with the changes indicated above is still above the ordinary high water mark. We are therefore requesting your confirmation that the proposed work will not require a permit from the Corps. We appreciate your attention in this regard. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at this office or respond by correspondence. Respectfully, Brian Smith Design Engineer BS /kn 6125C.008] cc: Mr. Andy Levesque, King County Surface Water Management Mr. Gary Barnett, City of Tukwila, Development Services Mr. Phil Fraser, City of Tukwila, Public Works Ms. Joanna Spencer, City of Tukwila, Public Works Mr. Gary Shulz, City of Tukwila, Department of Community Development 1VI's lYora Gierloff ,Cit ;tof;`fukwila Depart "T en'fof Community Development;, Mr. Erick Thompson, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Mr. Phil Schneider, Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife Mr. Scott Huish, Family Fun Centers Mr. John Huish, Family Fun Centers Mr. Dick Hendry, Family Fun Centers Mr. Chandler Stever, Mulvanny Partnership Ms. Mary Rutherford, GeoEngineers, Inc. Mr. Daniel K. Balmelli, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. �:�•.e�l r�:,w•$?.R^ .�:•;�`3•w..,".'h'.tY:: �1.Y,..t�T; sn,n•. .,... •z • I w U0 co O, .u) w =. J H. Q w 0: LL a. d: mow; • z 1— 0• •Z w ay N; O ' O F- w W: • z F- U ui O H, z 0211U /tit; "rur; its: FAA 4L5 061 bUSU utu EI iilEtato Geo Engineers MEMORANDUM 6 Redmond LEI uul TO: Brian Smith / Barghausen Consulting Engineers FROM: Mary Rutherford / GeoEngineers, Inc. 171-e€A7 eac&teoz, Douglas Morgan DATE: February 10, 1998 FILE. 5925 - 0013'1 Task 4 SUBJECT: Family Fun Center - Tukwila, Washington This memorandum summarizes our telephone conversation on February 10, 1998 regarding riverbank stabilization at the Family Fun Center site located in Tukwila, Washington. We provided recommendations for riverbank stabilization in our revised report entitled "Geotechnical Engineering Services, Riverbank Stabilization, Proposed Family Fun Center Facility, Tukwila, Washington," dated January 26, 1998. This memorandum provides clarification of two issues presented in our report. The fast issue is the use of erosion mats. In our report, we recommended that the new banks be planted with ground cover such as grasses as soon as possible following construction. If construction extends into the later portion of the summer and ground cover does not have sufficient time to become established, we recommend that the banks be protected using erosion mats. The erosion mats should consist of jute or coconut fiber matting. The mats should extend from the top of the rocks lining the south side of the off- channel pond and extend up to the crest of the bank. The mats should be securely anchored to the slope in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. The second issue is the use of a gravel blanket on the bench (access road) between the off channel pond and river. We recommend that the gravel blanket consist of material with a minimum particle size of at least PA inches. Rounded gravel may be used; however, angular material such as quarry spalls will be more stable. Quarry spalls will also provide better support for maintenance vehicles if future access to the bench is necessary. The thickness of the gravel blanket should be at least twice the diameter of the largest particle of the blanket material. We trust this provides the information you require at the present time. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call. Cc: Chandler Stever / Mulvanny Partnership ��uzsiS3; i �a?axSY ii Sti s. "a c' 4k'.; M.ioMr; t fii,' aA { ss:ax t aL.s 4d yX:11.,41.6.1 M.W=' a e o E n g i n e e r s Revised Report Geotechnical Engineering Services Riverbank Stabilization Proposed Family Fun Center Facility Tukwila, Washington - January 26, 1998 Rau. For Family Fun Centers File No. 59254101 -37- 1130/012698 ,.. <...... ,,.., �, �t: �Y, �,..::.?:.- �; i�F'<;. fv�!' r.::l �:. t�:', J; ii�k:,•'; i�liii�'' �l S. ii:,;. riu;''- ti��'°i::> r�; Zr'i<` ^,t:�aDit`�_Cxi;P�F'tj4+.w��vn January 26, 1998 Family Fun Centers c/o Mulvanny Partnership Architects P.S. 11820 Northup Way, Suite E300 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Attention: Chandler Stever Consulting Engineers and Geoscientists Offices in Washington. Oregon. and Alaska We are pleased to submit six copies of our "Revised Report, Geotechnical Engineering Services, Riverbank Stabilization, Proposed Family Fun Center Facility, Tukwila, Washington." Our report has been revised to address comments and design changes that were discussed in two meetings at the City of Tukwila on November 7, 1997 and November 20, 1997. This report supercedes our previous report dated September 26, 1997. The scope of services for this study is described in our proposal dated August 22, 1997. We previously completed a geotechnical report for the proposed Family Fun Center facility dated June 30, 1997 and a Phase I ESA dated August 12, 1997. We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical engineering services on this interesting project. We will be pleased to respond to any questions you have, to provide further consultation during design, and to assist you during construction of this facility. DJM:MSR: PA5925001 R5.DOC File No. 5925- 001 -37 -1130 GeoEngineers. Inc. 84 10 154th Avenue N.E. Redmond. VA 98052 Idephunc ( 42 5) 861{)00(1 fax (425)861-6050 www.geoengineers.com Panted on recycled paper. Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. r/tan S. Rutherford, P.E. Associate TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 SCOPE 2 GREEN RIVER BANK CONDITIONS 2 SURFACE CONDITIONS 2 ¢ 2f. General Conditions on the Green River 2 U. ; Historic Changes in the Green River 3 0 0'' Observations on the Existing Riverbank 3 N.O. 9 tAW, SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4 W ='- General 4 ico u,: Soil Conditions 5 w 0, . Ground Water Conditions 5 2 ? g J, u_a CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5 N > GENERAL 5 x w PROBABLE CAUSES OF SURFICIAL BANK FAILURES AND EROSION 6 ='. BANK STABILIZATION 6 'Z 1.-• General 6 z 1' Wood Snags 7 ;w w' Off - Channel Pond 7 j 0 90- Degree Bend 7 }O N;. SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK 8 10 i--: ;w_ Wi LIMITATIONS 9 H v; til (1)' —I 0 f.; Z FIGURES Vicinity Map Site Plan Green River Bank Features 1 2 3 APPENDIX A - FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING....A -1 FIELD EXPLORATION A -1 GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING A -1 APPENDIX A FIGURES Soil Classification System Logs of Test Pits Moisture Content Data APPENDIX B - EXPLORATION LOGS FROM PREVIOUS STUDIES 0 e o E n g i n e e r s FIGURE NO. A -1 A- 2...A -4 A -5 File No. 5425-001 -37- 11301012698 DOW REVISED REPORT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES RIVERBANK STABILIZATION PROPOSED FAMILY FUN CENTER FACILITY TUKWILA, WASHINGTON FOR FAMILY FUN CENTERS INTRODUCTION This revised report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services to develop recommendations for riverbank stabilization for the proposed Family Fun Center facility to be located in Tukwila, Washington. The site is located northeast of the intersection between Interurban Avenue South and Southwest Grady Way, south of the Green River and west of the Burlington Northern Railroad. The site is shown relative to surrounding physical features on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. This report has been revised to address comments and design changes discussed in two meetings at the City of Tukwila on November 7, 1997 and November 20, 1997. This report supercedes our previous report dated September 26, 1997. We have also reviewed an updated set of plans for the project including the following: • Concept Landscape Plan dated January 7, 1998 by Weisman Design Group. • Riverbank Landscape Plan dated January 15, 1998 by Weisman Design Group. • Preliminary Grading and Storm Drainage Plan, Shoreline Cross - Sections Plan and Rough Grading and Temporary Erosion Control Plan, dated January 6, 1998 by Barghausen Consulting Engineers. The proposed Family Fun Center development includes modifying the existing Green River bank. Modifications are planned to provide compensatory flood storage above the ordinary high water level (Elevation 7.8 feet) for flood storage that will be lost on site as a result of raising grades to accommodate the proposed development. The proposed modifications to the existing bank will start approximately 60 feet east of the east edge of the Interurban Avenue bridge and extend to approximately 160 feet west of the east end of the site. The lower portion of the bank extending from the channel bottom up to the ordinary high water level (OHWL) will not be modified. A shelf up to 40 feet wide will be excavated out of the existing bank at Elevation 8.0 feet. A new bank with a 2H:1 V (horizontal to vertical) sideslope will be constructed above the bench of the OHWL. At the toe of the new bank, an off - channel pond will be excavated. The pond will be up to about 12 feet wide with 2H:1 V sideslopes. The bottom of the pond will range from about Elevation 3.0 feet to Elevation 6.0 feet. Large wood snags will be embedded into the bank at approximately 20 -foot spacings and extend into the river channel. G e o E n g i n e e r s 1 File No. 5925-001 -37- 1130/012698 r s:ati"".tme. .' ,. ••z = z' oc •w J0: • 0 00: u) w i. CO • LL. w 0: gJ; z d. zF.. ►-o z f-: O N. ;w H V'. • 0. ..z U =; • • •o� The top of the new bank will be at least 2 feet above the 500 -year flood elevation (Elevation 22.0 feet). A paved recreational trail will be constructed along the top of the new bank. The recreational trail will also provide access for maintenance vehicles and for flood - fighting efforts as necessary. SCOPE The purpose of our geotechnical engineering services is to complete a reconnaissance of the existing bank and explore subsurface soil and ground water conditions along the bank as a basis for developing geotechnical recommendations and design criteria for riverbank stabilization. Our specific scope of services includes the following tasks: 1. Explore subsurface soil conditions along the riverbank by completing six test pit explorations to depths ranging from 12.0 to 14.5 feet below the ground surface. 2. Complete a geologic reconnaissance along the existing riverbank to identify existing bank conditions. We will identify locations of bank instability due to erosion, slumping oversteepened slopes, undercutting and /or seepage. 3. Complete moisture content determinations on selected soil samples obtained from the test pit explorations to characterize the riverbank soils. 4. Review aerial photographs to identify historic river channel meandering and flood patterns. 5. Evaluate the probable causes of areas of instability identified during our reconnaissance. 6. Review the King County design standards for riverbank stabilization measures and assess their applicability to the Family Fun Center site. 7. Develop recommendations for alternative riverbank stabilization measures as necessary. 8. Prepare a report presenting our conclusions and recommendations along with supporting field and laboratory data. GREEN RIVER BANK CONDITIONS SURFACE CONDITIONS General Conditions on the Green River The Green River in the vicinity of the project site is a slow- moving river that has been highly channelized by development adjacent to the channel, levees, and bank stabilization measures which generally consist of riprap rock on the lower steeper portions of the bank and vegetation on the banks above the ordinary high water level. Flows in the Green River are controlled by the Howard Hanson Dam. Peak flows are limited to 12,000 cfs (cubic feet per second) at the project site for the 100 -year flood. The Green River adjacent to the Family Fun Center site flows generally in an east - northeast direction. The channel adjacent to the Family Fun Center site varies in width from approximately 125 feet where it flows under the Interurban Avenue bridge to about 230 feet at the east end of the Family Fun Center site where the river makes a sharp 90 degree turn to the northwest. The sharp turn is the result of channelization of the river to accommodate the 43eoEngineers 2 File No. 5925-001 -37- 1130/012698 E • 7 Burlington Railroad grade which runs along the eastern boundary of the Family Fun Center site and extends northwest of the site along the eastern bank of the Green River. Historic Changes in the Green River We reviewed the historic changes in channelization of and development along the river in the vicinity of the Family Fun Center site by reviewing a total of nine aerial photographs taken at the following times; 1936, 1946, 1956, 1960, 1969, 1974, 1980, 1985 and 1995. The aerial photographs indicate that the geometry of the Green River has changed little over the 61 -year period from 1936 to 1995 in the project area. The 1936 aerial photo indicates that the railroad grade east and northeast of the site, and Interurban Avenue are present. The railroad embankment and the Interurban Avenue bridge foundations are reinforced with riprap rock. The former river bend, located east of the railroad grade, that was cut off by the railroad embankment retains its former shape and still contains water, suggesting that the railroad embankment likely had not been in place for an extended Length of time. A marsh and small inlet extend about 75 feet into the eastern end of the Family Fun Center site. The former river bend located east of the railroad grade was infilled and graded by 1956. Interstates 5 west of the project site and Interstate 405 south of the project site are present in the 1969 air photo. By 1969 the marsh at the east end of the Family Fun Center site had been completely infilled. Areas of riprap rock along the banks of the Green River in the project vicinity appear similar to those seen today. Observations on the Existing Riverbank GeoEngineers conducted a geologic reconnaissance along the Green River bank on August 29, 1997 to identify existing bank conditions. We observed the existing bank along the north margin of the Family Fun Center property for evidence of bank instability due to erosion, slumping, oversteepened slopes, undercutting and /or ground seepage. We also observed the condition of the bank across the channel from the Family Fun Center site as well as the condition of the bank downstream of the Family Fun Center site along the Burlington Northern railroad tracks. Our reconnaissance also included general observations of river channel flow characteristics on the stretch of the Green River adjacent to the site. We made observations of variations in water depth to estimate the location of the thalweg of the channel. Based on our observations of water depth and the general configuration of the channel in the vicinity of the project site, we estimate that the thalweg is situated closer to the north bank of the river on the western end of the Family Fun Center site and gradually moves to the south bank on the eastern end of the site as shown in Figure 3. The channel banks in the vicinity of the Family Fun Center site are comprised of steep (45 to 60 degree) banks generally reinforced with riprap and less steep (generally 25 to 45 degree) unannored banks. We observed riprap rock 1/2 to 2 feet in diameter on the south bank of the river starting west of the Interurban Avenue bridge upstream of the Family Fun Center site and G e o En g i nee r ..... � _ `i�,- w�•':;%$z;�'''' ti's %n7i �c°,R{5"+f.•r"$tl:e 3 File No. 5925-001 -37- 1130/012698 extending downstream about 30 feet from the east edge of the bridge structure. Riprap rock 1/2 to 2 feet in diameter is present on the north bank of the river beginning west of the Interurban Avenue bridge and extending downstream about 600 feet east of the east edge of the bridge structure. We believe that riprap rock is also present On the north bank of the river downstream of this location (600 feet east of the bridge) for an additional distance of about 450 feet, however, thick vegetation along the bank made it difficult to confirm its presence. Rip rap rock generally 2 to 3 feet in diameter was also observed along the east bank of the river downstream of the Family Fun Center site adjacent to the Burlington Northern railroad grade. The riverbank on the Family Fun Center site is unarmored with the exception of the area immediately east of the Interurban Avenue bridge. The banks are generally inclined at about 25 to 45 degrees. Fine to medium sand with a trace of silt was exposed on the lower 3 feet of the bank above the river level on August 30, 1997. Vegetation consisting primarily of blackberry extend above the exposed soils to the top of the bank. We did not observe zones of ground water seepage emerging from the bank at the time of our site visit. However, the thick cover of blackberry made it difficult to make observations of ground water seepage along the bank. We observed occasional small surface failures of sediments on steeper banks along the Family Fun Center site. The surficial failures were less than 10 feet wide and a few inches deep. One of the surface failures was observed on the western end of the bank and four surface failures were observed on the eastern half of the bank. Erosion was observed over a distance of about 50 feet along the bank at the sharp 90- degree bend in the river at the east end of the site. We estimate that bank retreat at this location is on the order of 5 feet based on our observations of exposed tree roots at this location and may be up to about 10 feet over the last approximately 30 years since infilling of the marsh area was completed. We also observed a wooden timber box about 3 feet by 3 feet located on the riverbank about 350 feet downstream of the east edge of the Interurban Avenue bridge structure. Adjacent to the box we observed a 3- inch - diameter PVC pipe. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS General Subsurface soil and ground water conditions in the vicinity of the riverbank on the Family Fun Center site were explored by excavating six test pits, TP -1 through TP-6, to depths ranging from 12.0 to 14.5 feet below the ground surface using a rubber -tired backhoe on September 3, 1997. In addition, two borings, AB -2 and AB -3, and one test pit, AT-4 were completed in the vicinity of the riverbank for a previous study by Applied Geotechnology, Inc., dated April 26, 1989. In addition, one monitoring well, GCW -16, was completed by Geotech Consultants for a study dated January 24, 1997 along the riverbank. Details of the field exploration program and the explorations logs are presented in Appendix A. Details regarding the laboratory testing GeoEngineers 4 it44 r.14 at< - File No. 592.5-001-37-1130/012698 program and results are also presented in Appendix A. The logs of the borings and test pit explorations completed for previous studies are presented in Appendix B. The approximate locations of the explorations are shown in Figure 2. Soil Conditions Subsurface soil conditions are generally consistent along the bank. Fill soils 2 to 10 feet thick consisting typically of loose to medium dense fine silty sand (TP -2, -3, -5, -6, AB -3 and GCW -16), clean fine sand (TP-4) and silt with varying amounts of sand (TP -1 and AT-4) were encountered in the explorations. Pieces of slab concrete were encountered at the bottom of the fill soils in test pits TP -1, -2 and -4, and debris, including slag, wood, brick and concrete, was found throughout the fill in AB -3. Beneath the fill, the explorations encountered alluvium consisting of clean fine to medium sand with varying amounts of silt in a loose to medium dense state to the depths explored. Ground Water Conditions Ground water was encountered in seven out of ten explorations along the bank at depths ranging from 9 to 18 feet below the ground surface. Ground water levels are expected to fluctuate as a function of season, precipitation, water levels in the Green River and other factors. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL In our opinion, the proposed bank modifications which include a new shelf at Elevation 8.0 feet, an off - channel pond and a newly constructed bank inclined at 2H :1V above the shelf are feasible. Our recommendations presented below are applicable when the work is performed during lower flow periods in the summer and fall. The 2H:1V slope on the upper bank can be stabilized with vegetation above the OHWM. Below the OHWM, the 2H: 1V slope should be protected with riprap. In our opinion, additional stabilization such as riprap rock will not be required on the existing banks which will be undisturbed . We understand that the portion of the bank where erosion is occurring at the sharp 90- degree bend in the river at the east end of the Family Fun Center site is owned by the Burlington Northern Railroad. We also understand that the Mukleshoot Tribe prefers to maintain the present configuration of the bank in this area for fish and wildlife habitat. In our opinion, this portion of the bank will continue to erode if stabilization measures are not implemented. At a minimum, we recommend that this portion of the bank be monitored to identify potential instability which may affect the Family Fun Center site. We also recommend that Burlington Northern Railroad be notified of the condition of the bank and the potential for instability. G e o E n g i n e e r c 5 File No. 5925-001-37-1130/012698 l:e 'rr 'az ,hteA1ui <Vixa4e.t1M'ar 9ii:4.44 S Std :t "1 AY %c�ix`t „ h �liL'rt'� kEi` "?t l5a 1 'ftt�waiitsn"r��}5y,`t�i �+�knt�R c_�`;iC�x. z Z o:2 v0: w= 1 N O, w u- d, CO _ °w; Z 1.—. Z Off` 111 uj U0 0.N` iw LI H U 1.1/ z` u) O Z , PROBABLE CAUSES OF SURFICIAL BANK FAILURES AND EROSION In general, very little evidence of bank instability was observed during our site reconnaissance. It is our opinion that the river dynamics in the vicinity of the Family Fun Center site are generally resulting in deposition of sediment during low to moderate flows on the south riverbank and the vegetation on the existing bank provides adequate protection against significant bank failure during high flow periods. Five areas were identified where small surficial failures less than 10 feet wide and a few inches deep had occurred on the south riverbank on the Family Fun Center site. In our opinion, these failures have resulted from failure of sand which was very loosely deposited on the bank during periods of higher flows. The very loose saturated sand deposited on the bank did not have sufficient shear strength to support itself on the steeply inclined bank. Therefore, the recently deposited material slumped and failed. In our opinion, these failures do not indicate a potential for bank instability in the area and additional stabilization measures on the existing bank are not required. The erosion that is occurring at the east end of the project site is likely due to strong back eddy currents that result from the sharp 90- degree bend in the river at this location. The erosion which has occurred indicates that these currents are sufficiently strong to erode the bank material in this location. Further erosion will exaggerate the sharp bend at this location which will likely increase turbulence resulting in further erosion. In our opinion, additional stabilization measures are necessary at this location to reduce the potential for further erosion. Specific recommendations will be described in the bank stabilization section. BANK STABILIZATION General We estimate that average channel velocities during peak flow periods will be less than 5 fps (feet per second) in the project area. The 1993 King County Guidelines for Bank Stabilization Projects indicate that stabilization using vegetation is appropriate where average channel velocities are below 5 fps. Using this criteria and considering our observations of existing bank performance on the Family Fun Center site (with the exception of the east end), it is our recommendation that the newly constructed 2H:1V bank above the ordinary high water level (Elevation 7.8 feet) be stabilized with vegetation. Appropriate vegetation for the new bank should be selected with due consideration to the type of soil present in the bank, drainage conditions, exposure to sun and wind and site elevation. A Riverbank Landscape plan has been prepared and indicates that rooted stock and live stakes will be used for permanent vegetative bank stabilization. The soils encountered in the test pits indicate that the bank materials will likely consist of loose to medium dense fine sand with varying amounts of silt. These materials will have a high susceptibility to erosion. The newly constructed banks will be particularly susceptible to erosion during the first year to two years after construction when the woody plant material is rooting. We recommend that consideration be given to planting ground cover such as grasses G e o E n g i n e e r s r:'�3`7t�4aaSfitz'ue1 &SA "rtn:li� 6 tea «pit ^.T+?34th@{.V ,4,2•.yCr':�ikMFax�Stit File No. 5925-001 -37- 1130/012698 z • =• I-, ~ w' JU O 0 N 0: vow W I U) u_ uJ 0, g Q, `.a �w s z�. Z 0. LL/ uj n o. o co in 1- ww m. Li- w z. I U I O z as soon as possible following construction of the new bank. The ground cover will provide temporary bank stabilization while the woody vegetation is getting established. Wood Snags Wood snags will be placed along the bank at approximately 20 -foot spacings. We recommend that the wood snags consist of confers such as Douglas Fir or Western Red Cedar because of their durability. Snags on the order of 20 feet long and at least 20 inches in diameter are considered appropriate. The snags should be placed below the OHWM to maintain a saturated condition and extend into the river channel a distance of about 5 to 8 feet at a 30 to 45 degree angle to the bank and at a downwards angle of 2 to 20 degrees. The remaining portion of the snag should be embedded into rock -filled trenches. Four to five rocks with diameters of 3 to 5 feet placed along the embedded portion of the snag is considered appropriate for securing the snags. Light loose riprap should be used to fill the voids around the large rocks and to backfill around the snags. Off - Channel Pond Slopes of the off - channel pond will be excavated at 2H:1V. The south bank of the off - channel pond will be protected by placing four- to five -man rocks up to the OHWM. We recommend that the lowest course of rocks be embedded below the bottom of the pond at least 12 inches or one -half the diameter of the rock, whichever is greater. Voids behind and between the rocks should be filled with 2 -inch minus quarry spalls. 90- Degree Bend We understand that the portion of the bank at the east end of the Family Fun Center site where erosion is occurring due to strong back eddy currents is owned by Burlington Northern Railroad. Current project planning indicates that this portion of the bank will be left undisturbed. In our opinion, erosion of the bank in this area will continue if stabilization measures are not implemented. At a minimum, we recommend that this portion of the bank be monitored to identify signs of instability which may affect the Family Fun Center site. We also recommend that Burlington Northern Railroad be notified of the banks conditions. Recommendations for stabilization, if required, are presented below. We recommend that the bank be stabilized using a riprap blanket. The riprap blanket should extend in the upstream direction about 50 feet from the westerly limits of the erosion area through the erosion area and downstream to the riprap blanket along the bank below the railroad grade. The riprap blanket should be keyed into the bottom of the channel and extend up to the bench at the ordinary high water level. A riprap blanket should also be placed on the 2H: IV slope above the bench extending up to the 500 -year flood elevation of 22.0 feet. Two alternatives are possible for the riprap blanket on the lower portion of the bank below the bench at the ordinary high water level. One alternative includes leaving the existing bank in its current configuration and placing light loose riprap on the existing approximately 1H:1V d e o E n g i n e e r s 7 File No. 5925-001 -37- 1130/012698 rJ "rY+t'n. place, it may be necessary to provide further temporary bank stabilization by installing erosion mats, such as jute or coconut fiber matting; a surficial layer of coarse gravel; or other temporary erosion control measures on the bank until vegetative growth has progressed to a degree where the vegetative root system provides adequate bank protection. Z w', re 2, 6 U0 U w =- w u. Q 22 d' ZOO; D • o O co C3ff w w, cy 0 Z U cn Z LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for use by Family Fun Centers, Mulvanny Partnership Architects and other members of the design team for use in the design of a portion of this project. The conclusions and recommendations in this report should be applied in their entirety. The data and report should 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 such changes are made, we should be engaged to review our conclusions and recommendations and to provide written modification or verification, as appropriate. When the design is finalized, we recommend that we be engaged to review those portions of the specifications and drawings that relate to geotechnical considerations to see that our recommendations have been interpreted and implemented as intended. There are possible variations in subsurface conditions between the locations of explorations and also with time. Some contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the project budget and schedule. We strongly recommend that sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation be provided by our firm during construction to (1) determine if the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, (2) provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and (3) evaluate whether or not earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with the contract plans and specifications. 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 warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. G e o E n g i n e e r s 4 + ► 9 File No. 5925-001 -37- 1130/012698 ::5'rhr w l v kt� :::is3 n''1a:: 'eu:G�P'kb- 2Y,riSUaCLC3 :C+ .^iR?ii4'Jlts"Y3:� S..,x4vi4i4"u .,,W,Vor.. ?1r:!i to We trust this provides the information you require at this time. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. Please contact us should you have any questions concerning our findings or recommendations, or should you require additional information. .. f 71ii0!J 4 Jii C7r7rE17 t. ril rti 4% • r7r7:177:afe, raw L. MSR:wd P: \SOOto599\5925001 \5nals\5925001 R5.DOC E Copyright' 1998 by GeoEngineers, Inc. All rights reserved. G e o E n g i n e e r s Respectfully submitted, GeoEngineers, Inc. Douglas J. Morgan Project Engineer Mary S. Rutherford, P.E. Associate 10 File No. 5925-001 -37- 1130/012698 xr ...n.i...�..2':'.r.".�Yi.1�ae1T Lr..v�.':�iV:r::Sj,�:4 i;:iJj.�:'e•L ?�..: si•.4 b. ... State of Washington DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Mailing Address: 600 Capitol Way N • Olympia, WA 98501 -1091 • (360) 902 -2200, TDD (360) 902 -2207 Main Office Location: Natural Resources Building • 1111 Washington Street SE • Olympia, WA February 9, 1998 1 3 1998 $..(—I hl NT Mr. Phil Fraser City of Tukwila Department of Public Works 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Ste. 100 Tukwila, Washington 98138 Subject: Family Fun Center and Riverbank Stabilization Issues/ SEPA on the Duwamish River. Dear Mr. Fraser: Thank you for sending the plans for this project for review. The following are my comments and concerns: 1. The addition log barbs/ root wads will provide good cover and refuge area for fish. I would recommend that some of the logs be grouped together to make a more complex structural habitat for fish . Ecology blocks should be used to anchor the logs in place. The revegetation plan is good and the addition of the side channels will provide some additional refuge habitat. Portions of this project as it is proposed, is inconsistent with the direction and intent of the recently adapted WDFW Wild Salmonid.Policy. I'he policy recommends 100 to 150 foot buffer Water Types 1 - 3 measured horizontally from the ordinary high water line or disturbance zone. The Duwamish River is a Type 1 + Shorelines of Statewide Significance. Trails or parking lots should not be constructed in this buffer area. We have the opportunity to prevent further intrusions into the Green River riparian areas by establishing functional riparian habitat that will be beneficial to both fish and wildlife. It is not too late to protect and restore the some of the riparian habitat along the Lower Green River. 3. Stormwater discharge into the Green River should meet the requirements of the Department of Ecology's Stormwater Manual for th,i Puget Sound Basin. A Hydraulic Project Approval wilL be required for the outfall and the installation of the habitat structures and stormwater outfall. 'JS Fair � i n ,: r;•`.e''�,.:iS:ii:;^:�+'Wh3':�i r.S.�in3 ;':t�'iS e.,vx'3�.Y.�. d,�+ k y�.v� y 1� y�._ 1.3 .1k4 y. `.i � ,le4 Sw! ' �!}.' �A. �1. Ul uF�fA�3 ?f'S�+ "^�FJ,iIN;.Vik. MietFi�.e�''JIIT.-+V£.ry z Z • Z. tY2 0 O o - � w= J .0) w wO g -. u.¢'. ZO. D 10 : 0 t— w w; U. O_ .iz U N. 1= _ O ~: z .M ±...Phil Fraser Page 2 February 9, 1998 I would like to thank you for your cooperation in our efforts to protect and perpetuate our state's fish and wildlife resources. If you have any questions contact me at (425) 391 -4365. Philip Schneider Area Habitat Biologist cc Ted Muller- Mill Creek, WDFW Martin Fox - Muckleshoot Tribe Chandler Stever - Mulvanny Partnerships Reiker - Olympia, WDFW Nora Gierloff - City of Tukwila • . City of Tukwilla Plamilng Department RE: Family Fun Center Proposal Dear City Official, . EC/ENE) • • .DEC • • • • DEVELOPMENT. • • • . I am writing regarding the. Family Fun Center Complex proposal located at the corner of Interurban and Grady Way. • • I have.a nutnber of conceins regarding this proposal. These range from -traffic impacts, ingress and egress from the property, environmental issues involving protected species, inconsistency of this proposal with the City of Tukwilla's 'Shoreline Master Plan, filling of the.flood plain,. and the volume and effectiveness of the "cutting" of the bank to compensate for the filling of the flood plain. • As proposed this project would only have one primary exit into.and out of the proposed. • site. This would allow for .only a right hand entry from the west and a right hand exit to the west. The intensity of the use of this proposed project makes such a limited access • unacceptable. The inherent danger to the public and patrons of this facility would. obviously be unacceptable. The environmental studies and lack of at. ly analysis regarding 'wildlife and protected bird • . . species that utilize the large existing trees on the sitefieeds to be reviewed: The impact on native fish runs in relation to the cutting away of the rivers edge is also an unknown risk. The current Shoreline Master Plan.calls for urban use of all shorelines in Tukwilla. This •proposal is clearly a commercial intensity use that is not consistent:with the Shoreline . Master Plan. This project'has applied. for nearlyevety possible variance imaginahle. from lie City of Tukwilla. It would appear that this project and the intended use'are of•suclimagnitude that a full Environmental Impact Statement must be required of those proposing this use. That is the only responsible way to insure that the impacts do not min the quality and economic vitallity of those who utilize this area. . .. • . . . . • .. . . . . . . . . Respectfully submitted this 10th day of December, •1997. .* . . . . . . • • . . . . .. . • . . , • • • • • . . : . .. . Chris Clifford • - .. 2721 Talbot Rd. S.• Renton;' WA. 98055 (425) 226-5024 •• it City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director November 26, 1997 Chandler Stever Mulvanny Partnership 11808 Northup Way, Suite E300 Bellevue, WA 98005 RE: Family Fun Center L97 -0048 - Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Dear Chandler: This is to notify you that, pursuant to 18.104.130(A) (1), we are requesting revisions of your project proposal that reflect recommendations and decisions made in meetings held with City and other agency staff on November 7, 1997 and November 20, 1997. Please note that this list is not inclusive of all comments on your proposal. It also is not inclusive of remarks and the requirements of other agencies with jurisdiction. We anticipate that the following changes will influence the site plan to the degree that a re- submittal will be necessary, once these and related issues are resolved. i 1-! mow' 6 J U: o O; 0 vii w' u1= w• o gQ �w z �o zr D p; O N, off The following factors should be taken into consideration in preparing your re- submittal: = v: • the identified Ordinary High Water Mark of the river; i-- • the desire to save existing shoreline vegetation; z • the plan to modulate the planned 'bench' in the river; twi cn`. • the planned pedestrian bridge, as currently proposed; • re- location of the proposed outfall; z • the creation of new habitat areas on the proposed bench; • the need to have access for maintenance purposes to the bench; • re- design of the bench with the goal of not working within the OHWM in the NE corner of the site; • re- vegetation that reflects Corps of Engineers, King County, and City recommendations. Note that we will need revisions to your Riverbank Stabilization Study to reflect the project proposal. We will also ultimately need easements that reflect the project proposal. The submitted tree survey should reflect the most recent survey of significant vegetation in the shoreline area. As noted in the meetings, we will need an interim erosion control and temporary drainage plan to accompany the phasing plan for land altering work on site. This must also take into consideration the remediation work. We will also need a determination by the Army Corps of Engineers as to whether any aspect of work in the shoreline will require a Corps permit. Please feel free -to call me or other City staff if you have any questions. My number is 431 -3661, and the Public Works number is 433 -0179. Sincerely, Diana Painter Associate Planner 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 ; „i -• F•.. ; . "�,. �a , � 3 t', % 7.4:Un.Wi,.`oi eattez i '"dad ^'" .fl A F F I D A V I T O F D I S T R I B U T I O N �✓u� ( C-, c, hereby declare that: 0 Notice of Public Hearing ODetermination of Non - significance 0 Notice of Public Meeting El Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance Board of Adjustment Agenda Li Determination of Significance Packet and Scoping Notice 0 Board of Appeals Agenda D Notice of Action Packet O Planning Commission Agenda D Official Notice Packet {-- 0 Short Subdivision Agenda �ther `"r �e, �= -cc„� y\_' Packet O Notice of Application for O Other Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses on `7204.1Y I Ig cfl7 — A-4 01c)--4J 11 -ze-` ri Name of Project l- �un1 - 12 Signature File Number, ),N9 / GtA6 _ �: e` SF:: �F�: n��u' i= 5'. �e.;: e�;' SV.;` �.'.' e` M. a= isv% c�mS�' i�' 1". It," �.. i' Yh1'a4t.'aeJi3i #inifi:M1V`»S�Y�k' ✓l r��:': Ri.: ii, a"+ 1�,` 9i.: �: �i" ciwC�t�k15 +`�r.+t.�ifiitrrf:3n1.'�7n ,a�.va ec± # =( w^�.: nl�a .zs �R' -.5'tr i?ia1�., Rai�..i�^_ia.E.' • c . - J 6 CHECKLIST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW /SHORELINE PERMIT MAILINGS )'U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ( ,) FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE FEDERAL AGENCIES ( ) U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( ) U.S. DEPT OF H.U.D. WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES `'.(%C) ;OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY ' 5) TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ( ) DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES ( ) OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR ( ) DEPT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ijk DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE ( ) DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. :(X) ,DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELANDS DIV )DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION* ( ) OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL * SEND CHECKLIST WITH DETERMINATIONS * SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION KING COUNTY AGENCIES ( ) K.C. PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEV. ( ) BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD ( ) FIRE DISTRICT #11 ( ) FIRE DISTRICT #2 rdo;K.C. WATER POLLUTION CNTRL SEPA OFFCL ( ) S CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) TUKWILA LIBRARIES ( ) RENTON LIBRARY ( ) KENT LIBRARY ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY ( U SWEST SEATTLE CITY LIGHT WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS HIGHLINE WATER DISTRICT SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT TCI CABLEVISION OLYMPIC PIPELINE ( ) K.C. DEPT OF PARKS ( ) HEALTH DEPT ( ) PORT OF SEATTLE ( ) BUILDING & LAND DEV DIV SEPA INFO CENTER ( ) 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. PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT WATER DISTRICT #20 WATER DISTRICT #125 CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS RAINIER VISTA SKYWAY CITY AGENCIES (�G) RENTON PLANNING DEPT ( ) CITY OF SEA -TAC ( ) CITY OF BURIEN ( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ( ) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER ( ) SEATTLE OFFICE OF MGMNT PLANNING ( ) KENT PLANNING DEPT ( ). TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: ( ) PUBLIC WORKS ( ) FIRE ( ) POLICE ( ) FINANCE ( ) PLANNING ( ) BUILDING ( ) PARKS & REC. ( ) MAYOR OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES ( ) PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL ( ) P.S. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY ( ., ) SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE r: ), MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE ?DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE VALLEY DAILY NEWS 2/10/97 C:WP51DATA \CHKLIST ( ) METRO ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DIV. OFFICE /INDUSTRIAL 5,000 GSF OR MORE RESIDENTIAL 50 UNITS OR MORE RETAIL 30,000 GSF OR MORE MEDIA (• ) HIGHLINE TIMES ( ) SEATTLE TIMES .L+ " "'nr:,� KiS;,, .: :�.t'r.�1.5':4.':. ;R:+�sam�. %IxJ,<: °F�ti��ti 1 1.t'��i`•Y'as�i6Si":i:�'�:.'� "' ..`'` x.' d�tFe '+ii%�q�itb`�.rifit)t'S'�asAi« ref'. n{ i�t'xif�'.�At�f�trr�:�iim ?%75.. lii44�" . Z • Z: W D, 0: 0-Cr W =• J F- C0 tL W O, •N cf 1..W Z 1.-' E- O: 'Z n. D p; p 1-' W W` cy LL O., Z'. U N. 0 ~` Z fti NOTICE OF APPLICATION DATED NOVEMBER 10,1997 The following application has been submitted to the City of Tukwila Department of Community Development for review and decision. APPLICANT: LOCATION: FILE NUMBERS: PROPOSAL: OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: The Mulvanny Partnership for Family Fun Center 15031 Grady Way South, Tukwila,Washington L97 -0048 (Shoreline Substantial Development Permit) To construct an entertainment facility, which includes an arcade, go- carts, bumper boats, batting cages, large swing, restaurant, and an adjoining hotel and restaurant. Conditional Use Permit (2) Variance Special Permission Parking Permit Special Permission Sign Permit Design Review Permit Land Altering Permit Building Permits Utility Permits These files can 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 December 19, 1997. This matter is not yet scheduled for a public hearing. If you are interested in being notified of the future hearing date, please contact the Department at (206) 431 -3670. 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 Planning Commission. If you have questions about this proposal contact Diana Painter, the Planner in charge of this file. 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 Planning Commission on a project or obtain information on your appeal rights by contacting the Department of Community Development at 431 -3670. A decision from the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council. DATE OF APPLICATION: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: NOTICE OF APPLICATION POSTED: NOTICE OF APPLICATION PUBLISHED: C:s ,�3+naa+:..i 51i #aii'i7'?C�uJ`saw`..�f„eUdar:+: July 30, 1997 November 7, 1997 November 10,1997 November 21 & 4 1997 It.'1sto.pi?z.vigzx K' • ~w re 2 -.I C.) U O' vow w =;. U) w 0, c� w z_ F: I-- O, zI ui U C, to -. 'o w`. z': U N: 0 z City of Tuk %la John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director ovember- .7N19 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION Chandler Stever The Mulvanny Partnership 11808 Northup Way, Suite E -300 Bellevue, Washington 98005 RE: Family Fun Center L97 -0048 Dear Mr. Stever: Your Shoreline Substantial Development Permit application for the Family Fun Center, located at 15031 Grady Way has been found to be complete on November 7, 1997 for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. The project has been assigned to Diana Painter. The Design Review portion of this project has been tentatively scheduled for a public hearing before the Board of Architectural Review in February 1998. Scheduling of this hearing depends, however, on procuring the appropriate permits from other agencies. The next step is for you to install the notice board on the site within 14 days of the date of this letter. You received information on how to install the sign with your application packet. If you need another set of those instructions, 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. This notice is available at DCD. After installing the sign with the laminated notice, you need to return the signed Affidavit of Posting to the our office. This determination of complete application does not preclude the ability of the City to require that you submit additional plans or information, if in our estimation such information is necessary to ensure the project meets the substantive requirements of the City or to complete the review process. This notice of complete application applies only to the permit identified above. It is your responsibility to apply for and obtain all necessary permits issued by other agencies. In our initial review it appears the project is subject to an Army Corps of Engineers permit, as well 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 0 Tukwila, Washington 98188 4 (206) 431 -3670 o Fax: (206) 431-3665 t;:; *4i.2:0a;:;4sanSa e a, ruwaz aei, d� n :;At • °tiiiu4V4Vis -.i'" 1.1 6 0 0' J H. N 0 w a. 1- _, Z,. Z 1- o. 0 N: oI- LL! r - 0. z U u) o~ z as permits from the appropriate State agencies. You what their application requirements are. There may which we have not identified. Please let me know when you intend to post the site. me at 431 -3661. Sincerely, Diana Painter Associate Planner cc: Reviewing City Departments should contact them directly to find out be permits from other agencies required If you have any questions, please call FAMILY FUN CENTER MEETING NOTES November 7, 1997 A draft of these notes was circulated to those who attended the meeting, and no comments were made.If Phil Fraser (PF) - In the future, the (King County) Green River Flood District may carry out riverbank/levee maintenance; and, the Army Corps of Engineers has maintenance /levee standards which are to be met for this section of the riverbank to be eligible for funding for maintenance and future repairs. It's important that the County and Corps approves of the flood control features and bank and maintenance /repair easement. The issues they look at drainage, flood protection, flood storage, and habitat. Dan Baimelli (DB) - The proposal is to cut back river banks and stabilize for flood storage, both required flood storage due to the location of the project in the flood plan, and for additional flood storage that will be lost on site due to development. They've chosen to do flood storage - 4,000 - 5,000 cubic feet required - in the bank rather than on -site, because the proposed density of development on site precludes using it for flood storage. The proposal is to cut back the bank and slope it back towards site at 2:1 slope. The trail and maintenance easement is part of the proposal. PF - Flood storage must be provided for all new impervious surfaces. The site is largely pervious now. Douglas Morgan (DM) - The existing slope ranges from 1:1 to 2:1, and is covered with grass and brush. [Describes soil borings done]. The proposal is to re- stabilize the slopes after construction with hydroseeding. The existing bank is fairly stable, with the exception of the 'bend.' A rip -rap blanket is necessary where the bend occurs, due to eddies. There is also tidal influence in this location. Sloughing of the bank occurs at the bend both above and below the OHWM. It is estimated, from a visual reconnaissance, that 10' of the bank in this location has been lost over a 30 year period. Question - Is there fill in this area? DM -Yes. DB - We have forwarded the plan and a letter to the Corps and they have confirmed that we do not need a permit if we're not working below the OHWM. PF - Since your geotechnical report indicates you're working below the OHWM, 1 would presume that you need that [Corps] permit. DB - The area with the eddies is also not part of the project property. PF - Bank stabilization would be mitigation for developing the project, for the life of the project. You must also either re- locate the discharge point, or gain permission to work on someone else's property. Who's property is it? [the railroad's - djp] Philip Schneider (PS) - The first step is to find out what work needs to be done below the OHWM. This will require an hydraulics permit. Discharges and rip- rapping requires an hydraulics permit. i recommend bio- engineering and geo -grids on the bank above the OHWM, and wood and rocks below the OHWM. I also have concerns about water quality. 150' setback from the river is recommended for structures and pavement. Re- vegetation with native trees and shrubs is recommended. Family Fun Center Meeting Notes November 7, 1997 Page1 z re 1.1 U 0 too • w= • LL w 0. 2 g• < CO =a 1—w Z F-0. Z I— w w UO O N" s111 H U. u- g O iu z. UN O I—, z Chandler Stever (CS) - The hotel is set back 140' to 150'; the proposed bike path is within the 40'. The trail doubles as a maintenance trail for the dike. PS - I don't like the setback for pervious surfaces. It's ok for the maintenance path to be within the 150' though. PF - What is the status of easements for the trail? Don Williams (DW) - The FFC is reviewing the standard easement agreement. The easement can be described with a map or legal description as "Exhibit A" with the agreement. The actual location of the easement can be settled once the top of the bank is established. PF - The Corps and County [Flood District] needs to review this. It [plans and easement] goes to the Green River Basin Technical Committee for review and approval. DB - The Shoreline Management program setbacks are 40', 60' and 100' from the Mean High Water Mark (as opposed to the Ordinary High Water Mark). PF - The 30 linear- foot -wide dike /riverbank easement is a minimum and starts at the landward catchpoint of a proposed levee section with 2:1 slopes, and goes riverward to the property line. Question - Will there be wetponds? DM - No on -site detention is planned. DB - The geo -tech report makes recommendations for species for revegetation. PS - Plantings at 3' on center are recommended, to ensure survival. DB - Are snags recommended? PF - As the Flood District has recently held public hearings on this matter, the County will have something to say about snags. [rootwads] The bank is steep now. This is a real opportunity for habitat enhancement. Gary Schulz (GS) - 1 looked at the riparian area. There are stands of willows and dogwood. The identified wet marsh /pond doesn't appear to be a real wetland. There an existing bench in the riverbank. Is the 10' elevation, shown as the OHWM, above the observed bench? DB - The project is planning to stay above the 10' elevation (estimate of OHWM) by 1' to 1 1/2'. 7 1/2' to 8' is the line of vegetation. The project excavation will come down another 1' or so with the re- design. [needs to be clarified - djp] GS - The biggest stand of willows and existing bench with habitat is at about cross sections J through M. The bank work appears to be above the bench area. PF - We need to talk to Andy Levesque and the Corps of Engineers about the proposed benching. GS - The vegetation on the existing bench could be repeated elsewhere above the proposed bench for habitat and stabilization. DB - We'd like to go lower than 10'. We will have to 'locate' clumps of willows. 1� =�r r�u��;��.y( dpi:. �.. �... t..;; ���r;' ro. r;' i:: n7k�Sly .;ii�>:k�%,'d{%au�t {tt".• r . Family Fun Center Meeting Notes November 7, 1997 Page2 t Y � nY % S ` a • GS - Saving existing rooted vegetation is beneficial. PS - The work will need to be done during summer. It could start in July. PF - According to your geotechnical report recommendation, the bank work should be done in late summer /early fall. The applicant needs to develop a schedule and phasing and present it for our review /approval as part of your submittal. Also, the window for this work must conform to State Fish and Wildlife HPA requirements. PS - August/September is the preferred time frame. CS - Is there way to establish a limit of work so we can proceed with work on the site? The existing soil can't be stabilized if it's too wet, it can't be compacted. PS - In addition to hydroseeding a geogrid on the slopes will be necessary. PF - The applicant will need to look at the King County Riverbank Stabilization guidelines as far as appropriate plantings. DM - Whether planting or riprap is used for stabilization depends on flow velocity. PF - Also, the Corps has a plant list that they may restrict plantings too (attached). PS - Wood snags would be good in the eddy area. They could be outside the flow area so they wouldn't impact recreational uses. You can also use rebar or rocks to anchor snags. We will comment on this via the Shoreline and SEPA permits. We will require woody debris if riprap is added below the OHWM. This is an opportunity to provide habitat. Martin Fox (MF) - Agrees with PS about importance of habitat. The bend in the river is one of the few backwater areas along the river. They are very important for fish. Upstream there are willows and grasses, which are good habitat. The applicant will need to mitigate for the impact of the project. Wood is good - logs in the bank will re -coup loss of vegetation. The fish need logs along the whole bank. A terraced bench with logs helps; the deeper the better. 400 - 700 Togs per mile is recommended. [The County recommends logs every 30' to 40'l. Root wads are critical. Two logs (a pair) are better than one. They should be put in at a 30 degree angle pointing upstream. It is good if they extend beyond the shelf into the river. Cabling is another option for anchoring. An alcove is also good. They can be used to create backwaters and eddies for refuge during high flows. Question about using concrete chunks to anchor logs. MF - that would be okay if there's dirt on top. Family Fun Center Meeting Notes November 7, 1997 Page3 t iZ it 2 16 :. JU 0 0' ,W • W= W w; w 0: La tI/ CS = Z �.. Z a' ILI us U 'O N. 0 I— W 0. LL-O: H O • It is very important to preserve the bend with the existing vegetation. "As is" is best. Restabilization would be disruptive. Loosing 10' of bank in 30 years isn't bad. DB - We can leave the 'bend' alone. PF - The proposed discharge point is cited in the geotech report as being unstable, and needs to be Z stabilized. It is possible to move the source of discharge as currently shown so it's away from = H the bend area. [at the northeast corner of site] I.-- w ix 2 MF - I will review the proposals through the ordinary SEPA, Corps permit and HPA permit 6 v processes. U O DW - Regarding the pedestrian bridge for the trail, this was designed using the original proposal. J z: The topography and proposal has now changed, and doesn't work as well with our bridge co u. proposal. It makes the bridge more expensive, because there's additional excavation on the w O new proposal. Is it possible to change this back to what was originally proposed? 2 CS - What determines where the bridge is proposed? u_ I DW - There are slope and radius issues, as well as ADA issues. More excavation also requires more retaining walls, which makes for a less attractive trail. z� zI- PF - The eddy area (bend) is off -site. Andy Levesque will need to comment on this. Stabilizing LIJ ?; this area is on a list of prioritized projects of the GRBTC. .v 0 GS - Modulation of the river bench (up and down) would be best where the blackberries currently 01— are. You can put the logs in the lowest areas to help keep them submerged. = uj: PS - This will also work better for the logs. It doesn't do any good to have logs in the river if they U. O then fill up with sediment. v ai Z F- H PF - If a valve at the end of the wetpond was provided along with a high river monitoring and O operations program it would be possible to use it for the 7 day/ 100 year flood storage. Z Doug Sexton (DS) - We would like to start land altering as soon as possible, April 1st if possible. When is it estimated that permits will be issued? Can a grading permit be issued before other permits? Diana Painter (DP) - I can't speak for other departments. The earliest that land use permits could be issued is late February - late March. PF - You need an interim erosion control and temporary drainage plan for project phasing purposes. Then we will know how you might proceed with grading on different portions of the site in advance of riverbank work. CS - May 15th is generally the earliest that grading can occur here, due to rains. It doesn't do any good to get any early start if it then starts raining. That will just delay the project. PF - Unless your geotech recommendations change [on riverbank stabilization needs], we will need riprap keyed into the toe of the slope at the proposed outfall area to stabilize. DB - It's my estimation that this won't trigger a Corps permit, because it won't trigger the threshold for it. Family Fun Center Meeting Notes November 7, 1997 Page4 PF - The Corps' letter indicates otherwise. Question: What was submitted to the Corps? Joanna Spencer (SP) - [spoken directly to Brian Smith and Dan Balmelli]. A letter of consent from Puget Sound Energy is required prior to obtaining City permits. The contact person is Richard Downs, 462 -3026, and the review fee is $250.00. A complete set of plans will be required, as well as a copy of the CUP permit application for the swing. CS - Do we know the distance from the eddy to the planned outfall? MF - It's possible to create oxbows that would be better for habitat purposes. Question - does this involved work below the OHWM? MF ; yes, but certain exceptions to permitting can be obtained because you're creating habitat. DM - This type of work would create additional instability, and require a 404 permit. It is unlikely that we will do this. NOTE: Phil Fraser will try to set up a meeting with the County and Corps for the week of November 10th to continue this discussion, and get feedback from these agencies on the above issues. a''.:.a 3 ;sYMs�Sraelr*rr..^ :xh.rri�:;::,t�ntit #as x Ek`ai' Family Fun Center Meeting Notes November 7, 1997 Pages z w; ug D'. 0 0; .( w =` ICU-■ . w 0; g a � w! Z I- 0i Z D o. W' - O w i Z '-; Z /7.Q ,e7,1A ter- 4Feti4r/ gov/74/ Ot-tAl•Ji2L-E-F- Tss./ 61z- UP • S C'Aor5cvi \ L. JOELtAil,a PHIL f LD • /Zhe cie-A4i/rtw • 16.1=24.“(TEP-e-7 parA.4 _rug aTeks • - • G e. 0 • W 2;2:" • .4t) 4L3/ L‘./ (/D-- ‘z Azs OSZ- - 6444 g-1 z 5 - 84 00 u os3 - 902 ;,• - • 4'1 '.,ZA A4.1,14„,..-40V4,..44044= 10/30/97 08:49 FAX 2062518782 MM.v TO ATTCNTION or Regulatory Branch BARGEAUSEN ENG 1;21002/002 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SEATTLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 3755 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98124.2255 Daniel Balmelli Barghausen Engineering. 18215 72nd Avenue South. Kent, Washington 98032 Dear. Mr. Balmelli: OCT 2 8 1997 Reference: 97 -4 -01991 Family Fun Center This is in response to your letter of August 19, 1997, concerning how Department of the Army (DA) permit requirements might apply to bank stabilization•work along the Green River at Tukwila, Washington. For wetlands and other non - navigable waters like the Green River, a DA permit is required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for all work involving fill, excavation, and land clearing. In the absence of wetlands, our regulatory jurisdiction begins at the line of Ordinary High Water (OHW) and extends waterward. We do not know the precise elevation of OHW at your Tukwila site, but on rivers, OHW usually corresponds to a horizontal line along the bank, below which the predominant upland vegetation does not grow. Our regulations (33 CFR Part 328.3(e) provide the following definition: The term "ordinary high water mark• means the line in the shore established by the fluctuation of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impressed upon . the bank, shelving, changes in the character of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas. If your project does not involve work performed in wetlands, or in the Green River itself waterward of the line of OHW, no form of DA authorization is required. Other local or state agencies may retain their own forms of jurisdiction, and their requirements must still be met. The nearest levee in which the Corps maintains proprietary interest has its downstream end at SR 405. If any part of the project is to affect this section of levee, you should contact our Emergency Management Branch, at (206) 764 -3406. Any other questions should be directed to Mr. Jack Kennedy, telephone., x(2O6)i.64-6907.!. ... ,. . ,.. ZI W: UO: tt rn O.:. • W =. W O' = 163 • Z� E- 0 •Z h- af ON :W W! • Z. 0 H. Z... City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Family Fun Center Our Job No. 6125 tea -oo¢Q 017-002s1 CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES October 24, 1997 RECEIVED OCT 2 4 1997 00MMUNIT;' DEVELOPMENT The enclosed resubmittal package for the above - reference project reflects changes pursuant to the Notice of Incomplete Application for the SEPA Application, Shoreline Application, Design Review, and Conditional Use Permit. This resubmittal will satisfy all conditions noted within each Notice of Incomplete Applications. The preliminary grading, storm, and utility plan has been modified to show the proposed contours to clarify the proposed elements for the site. The topographical survey previously submitted is a combination of a survey performed by Lin & Associates and enhanced with an aerial mapping and contour generation performed by NIES Mapping Group. This topographic base has been used as our base for the design of the Family Fun Center. Our survey team has performed minor topographical surveys to enhance this survey base even further for areas around the toe of the Green River and tree locations. We also performed minor grade verifications and have found that the survey provided by Lin & Associates is correct in nature. Dan Balmelli from our office has confirmed with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) that they will they will not require a permit. I have requested a written letter of confirmation from the USACE in this matter. Once I receive this letter I will forward it to you for your records. As previously mentioned, our survey team has performed a topographical survey of the existing toe of the Green River. This information has been added to the preliminary grading, storm, and utility plan for reference. The design concept being proposed will create a new shelf within the south side of the Green River at elevation 10.0, for compensatory flood storage due to the drainage requirements on -site. From the south end of this shelf we will provide a 2:1 slope up to the top of the levee. The elevation at the top of this levee will not be below elevation 24.0, as this is the elevation of the 500 -year storm plus 2 feet of freeboard. The proposed site will increase in elevation from this point to a maximum grade elevation of 25.0. Therefore, there will be no landward catch point of the levee within the existing grade of the site. Additional flood storage compensation will be contained within the miniature golf and batting cage locations shown on the site plan. This is required due to the King County Stormwater Management criteria for a 100- year /7 -day storm event. Treatment for the on -site drainage will be provided through a biofiltration swale located at the northeast corner of the site. This biofiltration swale will outfall within the Green River embankment at approximately elevation 16.5. 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251 -6222 (425) 251 -8782 FAX ‘t-1/21-7 :a•:c't °�.5'rk :t?srA+>d'iKvas! _ F- ~ w' (: U; 0 O { co0 (/) w, CO E-� w 0. g 7:11 a: =a. t- w. z� I--0 Z ILI D 0' ,0 w, :H V Z;. tii 0 N` Z City of Tukwila Department of Community Development -2- es%) October 24, 1997 We are currently preparing an ALTA survey that we will submit to the City of Tukwila for review. This information will help clarify ownership boundaries and adjacent properties owners. The enclosed resubmittal package will satisfy all requirements for the City of Tukwila's acceptance of the above -noted applications. If further information is required or if you have questions, please contact me at the number listed below. Thank you for your cooperation. BDS /jss 6125C.004 enc: As Noted cc: John Huish, Family Fun Center Scott Huish, Family Fun Center Chandler Stever, Mulvanny Partnership Daniel K. Balmelli, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Brian D. Smith Design Engineer 03 :18PM TUKWILA DCD /PI,J MEMORANDUM TO: FIRE DEPT. Nick Olivas PW PERMITS Joanna Spencer FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. Pat Brodin DATE: Sept. 30, 1997 SUBJECT: Flow Test at Hydrant 4260 15600 -15800 West Valley Hwy. Fire flow tests were performed at the above location on the morning of September 29, 1997. The results of the test were: _3514 gpm available at 20 psi residual The West Valley corridor system is a 12 -inch dead -end line that feeds from the south and terminates on the north side of I -405 at Grady Way. A plan is currently in place for 1998 to loop the system to the north across the Green River bridge and connect at Interurban Ave./Fort Dent Way. The results of this flow test provide adequate fire flow volumes to new development such as the proposed Family Fun Center site which is situated at least 1000 lineal feet north of the test location. C:\MSOFFIC>;IwINW ORD; firemcm2.doc P. 2/2 _- H W .. C4 2 —J C.) 00 NW w =: u_ w0 ;. lL Q I-- Ili z WW' D 0 CO: 0 I--; W W�. Z V— 0 Z NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION 6 _ Mr. Chandler Stever Mulvanny Partnership 11808 Northup Way, Suite E300 Bellevue, Washington 98005 . Family Fun Center Shoreline Application L97 -0048 Dear Mr. Stever: Your Shoreline Substantial Development Permit application for the Family Fun Center has been found to be incomplete. In order to be a complete application, the following items marked "Incomplete /not submitted" must be submitted to the Permit Center. Please note that additional supporting studies or revisions to studies that have been discussed in the Pre - Application conference or in previous correspondence and have not been submitted may be noted as Incomplete /not submitted. This does not preclude the need for additional studies or revised studies in the future, as project review proceeds. Complete Incomplete/ not submitted • Application Checklist ❑ Shoreline Permit Application ❑ Shoreline Permit Application Fee ❑ SEPA Environmental Checklist (1) ❑ SEPA Environmental Checklist Fee (1) • Design Review Permit Application (2) • Utility Permit Application for Flood Control Zone • Utility Permit Application for Storm Drainage Review • Plans (see notes below) ❑ Reduced plans • ■ • • (1) Submitted separately. ❑ Applicant's response to shoreline permit questions 8L design policies. • Other materials (3) ❑ Public Notice - Assessor's Maps ❑ Public Notice - Two sets of mailing labels • Public Notice - a notice board (4) (2) Please note that a Parking Study must be submitted along with your Design Review application. This study should include not only information about how parking was provided on other Family Fun Center sites, but also standard parking ratios for uses such as this from one or more national sources such as the America Planning Association or Parking Consultants Council National Parking Association. Special Permission for the parking for Family Fun Center will be granted by the Planning Commission. Also please note that the landscape plan must reflect any mitigation required according to the City's tree regulations, and must meet minimum code requirements for landscaping. (3) Perspective sketches and /or photo montages may be required as a part of Design Review. (4) Must be provided at the time your Application is determined to be Complete. The following items must also be submitted prior to substantive review of your Shoreline Permit application. These are items that are required as part of your Application Checklist under "Plans" or have been mentioned in your Pre - Application conference or previous correspondence. This list does not preclude the need for additional studies, revised studies, plans or permits that may be required in the future, as project review proceeds. PLAN REQUIREMENTS ❑ All plans and cross sections must be prepared using your topographical survey, not a topographical drawing prepared from an aerial photograph. ❑ Topography must be noted at least 5' into adjacent properties. ❑ It should be noted whether the Army Corps of Engineers considers the Green River a navigable channel at this location. ❑ A tree survey must be prepared and submitted, and a replacement plan for trees removed in the shoreline provided. (The survey and plan is necessary to obtain a Tree Permit.) ❑ The landward catch -point of the levee needs to be noted on cross - sections. ❑ Cross sections need to be extended to show to of existing riverbank. ❑ All required land altering information must be provided, as per the checklist. ❑ A riverbank maintenance and access easement must be provided (minimum 30'). ❑ A tree survey for trees in shoreline must be provided. ❑ Landscape scheme must meet landscape code, at minimum. OTHER REQUIREMENTS The following requirements are associated with the plans, studies and permits listed above, but do not appear as standard items in your Application Checklist. ❑ Riverbank Stabilization Analysis ❑ Remediation Plan and any other permits or plans required by other agencies ❑ Tree Permit (A tree survey and replacement plan must be prepared and approved prior to issuance of a Tree Permit.) • ❑ J.and Altering Permit ❑ 500 year (standard project flood) flood elevation for dike /levee design (with minimum 2+ feet of freeboard) O Property line noted on cross sections ❑ 30' (minimum) river easement, to begin at catchpoint of levy, landward side of project, to future levee catchpoint with river toe ❑ Preliminary grading plan must be provided ❑ Must show location of wetponds and oil /water separators O Traffic control agreement for restricted movement at access points to site ❑ Access easements for shared access to /between parcels ❑ See separate letter from Park Department, dated 8/18/97 w UJU O; cn w; w I i—'; N LL: Upon receipt of the items noted above, the City will review them for completeness and will mail you w O: written notification of completeness or incompleteness within 14 days. ,2 ; These applications will expire if we do not receive the additional information within ninety days of the w �' date of this letter unless an extension is granted pursuant to Section 18.105.070(E). _ a . ' If you have any questions please feel free to call me at 431 -3661. z ►_—` Sincerely, Diana Painter Associate Planner jack Pace Joanna Spencer Gary Schulz Phil Fraser 1-O: Z 1-': w w fin; p; w ui V 0; cot w Z. _' O ~: •z Jack Kennedy U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District/NPSOP -RF P.O. Box C -3755 Seattle, WA 98124 -2255 CIVIL ENGINEERING. LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Augast .19; 1997 RE: Riverbank Excavation and Stabilization Plan for Proposed Family Fun Center Tukwila, Washington Our Job No. 6125 Dear Jack: This letter is to summarize our discussion relative to the proposed excavation and stabilization plan for the proposed new Family Fun Center located along a portion of the Green River near the intersection of Interurban Avenue and Grady Way within the city of Tukwila, Washington. You indicated that as long as the construction work will be completed at or above the ordinary high water mark, which was determined at elevation ± 10.0, and construction will not be completed within any wetlands, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will not need to review the proposed construction plans or issue any type of permit for the project. Based on this information, we will proceed to complete the design plans under this criteria and, unless otherwise notified, we will not forward any plans for your review. Enclosed is one copy of the Preliminary Grading, Drainage and Utility Plan for this project indicating the conceptual design of the proposed site work improvements and bank excavation work. If you have any questions or if any of the information I have summarized is not correct, please contact me immediately. Thank you for your assistance. DKB /sm /es 6125C.003 enc: cc: Sincerely, Daniel K. Balmelli, P.E. Executive Vice President (1) Copy Preliminary Grading, Drainage and Utility Plan Scott Huish, Family Fun Centers Chandler Stever, Mulvanny Partnership Diane Painter, City of Tukwila Planning Department Phil Fraser, City of Tukwila Public Works Department RECEIVE- AUG 2 2 1g9-- COMMUNI° DEVELOPMi- 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251 -6222 (425) 251 -8782 FAX MEETING NOTES Family Fun Center 8 -7 -97` Attendees: Phil Fraser (PW), Joanna Spencer (PW), Gary Schulz (DCD), Diana Painter (DCD) SHORELINE There are three major issue areas related to the shoreline for this project: 1. The riverbank 2. Flood storage required due to added impervious surface 3. Loss of existing flood storage due to filling. Shoreline permit is tied to: • Riverbank Stabilization Study - records 8L evaluates existing conditions; • Flood Control Zone Permit - issued by City on behalf of FEMA, also approved by DOE; • SEPA - surface water, flood issues, ground water, storm water, habitat, land altering; • Other permits from state agencies; • All Corps permits - .issued by Corps of Engineers. The following agencies /departments (at minimum) have an interest in the shoreline, and will be reviewing shoreline - related studies and proposals: • Tukwila Public Works - easement issues, flood control issues, riverbank stabilization issues (Phil Fraser 8t Joanna Spencer): • Tukwila DCD - tree regulation, sensitive areas issues (Gary Schulz); • Tukwila DCD - shoreline permit (Diana Painter); • Tukwila Parks Department - trail issues (Don Williams); • Tukwila Fire Department - emergency access issues; • King County Flood control - access issues; • King County Surface Water Management - water quality issues (Andy Levesque); • Army Corps of Engineers - flood control issues; • Green River Flood Control District(City acts on behalf of) - flood control 8t maintenance issues; • WSDOT - drainage; • State - hydraulic project approval; • State Fish 8t Wildlife - habitat issues; • Muckleshoot Indians - riverbank design, access 8t habitat issues; • DOE - for 401 Corps permits. No decisions on shoreline treatment can be made until the Riverbank Stabilization Study is complete and evaluated by concerned agencies. There are three alternative actions possible, as a result of the Riverbank Stabilization Study: 1. Leave the riverbank alone, because it's stable; 2. Fix the riverbank, because it's unstable; or 3. Re -build the riverbank, for flood control or other purposes, to city 8t other agency standards. FLOOD STORAGE If the riverbank is re- built, there must be: • 2' of freeboard above the 500 year flood level; • a 12' wide 'top' minimum, according to the Corps (30' min. for City); • 2:1 slope on the bank on the river side. Storage must be supplied on site for a 7 day /100 year flood. Project can: z ice : E— z; mow` • J 6 U; U O; N D`; L11 cn u-. • w 0 :• .1 <; . • _; . • z • 1-0 •w ): U U� 0 H. w w' HU . z. I'll N; Ot-i. • bench the river to add additional capacity • pipe flood waters into parking area for additional capacity • or put it in a tank. If water is discharged into river, don't have to do detention on -site. Any added fill that 'fills in' existing flood capacity, due to the fact that the existing topography is below the 100 year flood level, must be compensated for. Replacement is at a 1:1 rate. The project needs to use City standards for riverbank stabilization; or submit a geotech report that says alternatives are adequate. King County will also have to approve alternatives. Even if a bench for flood storage is built above the Ordinary High Water line, the excavation process can involve a Corps permit, because construction occurs below the Ordinary High Water mark; or because riverbank below Ordinary High Water mark is unstable, and needs to be stabilized before bench is constructed. After the Riverbank Stabilization Study is submitted and evaluated by the affected agencies, the City will organize an inter - agency meeting on the project to discuss issues. WATER QUALITY The thresholds for different types of water quality treatment based on additional paved areas (does not include roofs). Drainage review required if: • add 500,000 sf to site - add coalescing plate or bioswale; • 1 acre or more - add wetpond • 5 acres or more - add coalescing plate. If project is discharging into the river or the public system, a Type 2 emergency water separator must be supplied. The following agencies will have an interest in any outfalls: • Muckleshoot Indians • Corps of Engineers • State Fish 8i Wildlife (Phil Schnider). UTILITIES The project will not be allowed to connect to the Renton sewer system. They have the option to connecting to our system to the south or north. The water system has to 'loop'; there's a gap on Interurban. In addition to obtaining permits, the project needs to supply easements and title reports to proceed with work. ;�J,r`,;..,.'47. .'.iY.:,.n ».'�:te;' . r�::: ia�: L;'. ti::: ��' s.•' r.'. ii: 5123iu1i3�+ aY. �iY<". i�CS%.°l iF9'• t�.- `fi£?#= 'wf�.ittivcvaw�..,n...., z • ~w 2 J O 0 0, moo: to HI Lu , uj u- Q'. s d: i; z 1- O Z W W;. O 0 1-'. 2 W' U_ U NI O peas' US Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District Regulatory Branch Post Office Box 3755 Seattle, Washington 98124 -3755 Telephone (206) 764 -3495 Pudic Notice 5, March 1997 . , FINAL REGIONAL CONDITIONS, 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION CONDITIONS, COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT CONSISTENCY RESPONSES, FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS FOR THE SEATTLE DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON Effective Date: 22 February 1997 TABLE OF CONTENTS ..INTRODUCTION 6 ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS SPECIAL PUBLIC NOTICE 6 BACKGROUND 6 401 CERTIFICATION 7 THE CERTIFYING AGENCIES AND THE NWP PROGRAM 7 CZM CONSISTENCY RESPONSE 8 CZM CONSISTENCY RESPONSES AND THE NATIONWIDE PERMIT PROGRAM 9 DEFINITIONS OF 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION AND COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT CONSISTENCY DECISIONS Nationwide Permits / Corps beuu,c L./LA, , __ . Contact the FWS to determine if a bald eagle nest, nocturnal roost, or wintering concentration occurs near your proposed project: West of Cascades: Olympia Office - (360) 753 -9440 East of Cascades: Moses Lake - (509) 765 -6125 or Spokane - (509) 891 -6839 Mainstem of the Columbia River downstream from McNary Dam: Portland - (503) 231 -6179 LIST OF NATIONWIDE PERMITS: Legend for NWP Section: NWP number NAME OF NWP. National requirements and conditions of this nationwide. Words in parenthesis following each national NWP wording refer to the authorizing legislation as follows: (Section 10 [of the Rivers and Harbors Act - pertains to structures and work in navigable waters] and/or Section 404 [of the Clean Water Act - pertains to the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S.]) Notification Requirement -- Helps to identify requirements for notification of this NWP. (See expanded notification discussion in National General Condition 13). Regional Conditions -- Restrictions placed on the use of this NWP in the State of Washington. , EPA, State, and Puyallup Tribe 401 Certification -- Status of 1 the Clean Water Act 401 certification. (See previous 401 Certification discussion). CZM Consistency Response -- Status of the CZM consistency response. (See previous CZM Consistency discussion). :4r:`i' n. +. : k.:.: �=: ii= ia,: F:%: i�: ir:➢ t` M: r'±: v. .`.'�,w'iai£c:c'iyt'iai.Vi:�tr .` fly 24 3 .'.W:t., vluitail4E:r:t4A4; a,. ?iS'ti'iA"!'Ia'ls�� .`i'3Di�Cf S�;',`�'st'aik�''u;`,Yi(!'tc .�i�M1S 4 t,',7gicis.4,.?i fitn``.tAkg,A z - z. • � o •.cw;. w= J f—i • w .O. _. 'co w, Co' z I; ALI we ei • -. 11-o. • w z. 0 z onwide Permits / Corp;. _tattle District / 22 February 1997 6. The construction and operation of the utility line shall not permanently dewater wetlands or other waters of the State. 7. If a utility line is to be pressure tested using water or chlorinated water, and such water is to be discharged to waters of the State upon completion of the test, such discharge shall not cause an exceedance of State water quality standards. CZM Consistency Response -- Partially denied without prejudice subject to the 401 Certification conditions. An individual CZM Consistency Response must be obtained for projects requiring individual 401 Certification and located within counties in the coastal zone. 13. BANK STABILIZATION. Bank stabilization activities necessary for erosion prevention provided the activity meets all of the following criteria: a. No material is placed in excess of the minimum needed for erosion protection; I b. The bank stabilization activity is less than 500 feet in length; c. The activity will not exceed an average of one cubic yard per running foot placed along the bank below the plane of the ordinary high water mark or the high tide line; d.. No material is placed in any special aquatic site, including wetlands; No material is of the type, or is placed in any location, or in any manner, so as to impair surface water flow into or out of any wetland area; f. No material is placed in a manner that will be eroded by normal or expected high flows (properly anchored trees and treetops may be used in low energy areas); and, g. The activity is part of a single and complete project. Bank stabilization activities in excess of 500 feet in length or greater than an average of one cubic yard per running foot may be authorized if the permittee notifies the District Engineer in accordance with the "Notification" general condition and the District Engineer determines the activity complies .with the other terms and conditions of the NWP and the adverse environmental effects are minimal both individually and cumulatively. This NWP may not be used for the channelization of a water of the United States. (Sections 10 and 404) ...s=1 045.2esi 35 �� icsrf 41�ti et;M1 3tfaYfo-a{ " ?(w iuu 4 i #.c Nationwide Permits / C s Seattle District / 22 February 199', Notification Requirement -- Yes. If project is greater than 500 feet in length, if the fill exceeds 0.5 cubic yard per running foot or if the project includes upright structures. See National General Condition 13 - Notification, for specific requirements. Regional Conditions -- 1. The following bank stabilization activities may be authorized if the pennittee notifies the District Engineer in accordance with the "Notification" general condition and the adverse impacts are determined to be minimal: a. Activities exceeding 1/2 cubic yard per running foot of fill material; or, b. Proposed projects using any upright structures (e.g., retaining walls, concrete or timber bulkheads, etc.). 2. Alteration or disturbance of existing bank vegetation shall be held to a minimum, and revegetation shall occur in areas where vegetation was destroyed by riprap placement or project construction. Measures such as hydroseeding with annual, or non - invasive grasses may be used for temporary erosion control. EPA 401 Certification — Partially denied without prejudice. All projects receiving coverage under this NWP are subject to the following conditions: 1. An individual 401 certification is required for projects over 250 feet long or exceeding and average of 1/2 cubic yard of material per running foot. 2. The linear distance may be increased to a total project length of 500 feet long if bioengineering, approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or National Marine Fisheries Service, is incorporated into the bank stabilization project. 3. The 1/2 cubic yard limitation can be increased to incorporate the placement of fish enhancement structures into the bank stabilization project (i.e. rock barbs). This work shall be approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or National Marine Fisheries Service. 4. An individual 401 Certification is required for all upright (vertical or near vertical) bank stabilization structures (i.e. poured concrete, concrete block and rock gabion retaining walls, timber bulkheads). 36 z • •i ~ cc J U: U0. ;.NW z: w O. �a • U D D. w F' z� 1-1): z�-: D� .0N 2 U; LI o ; U • 0 • z • C' ermits / Co- "") Seattle District / 22 February 1997 Puyallup Tribe 401 Certification -- Denied without prejudice. An individual 401 Certification is required for all Section 404 activities. State 401 Certification -- Partially denied without prejudice. An individual 401 Certification is required for the following: , 1. Projects that do not incorporate structures andior modifications beneficial for fish or wildlife habitat (e.g., soil bioengineering, biotechnical design, rock barbs, etc.) as approved by WDFW; 2. Proposed projects using any upright structures (e.g., retaining walls, concrete or timber bulkheads, etc.); or, 3. Projects that are greater than 500 feet in length. For proof of consistency with State 401 Certification Condition #1 above, the applicant may provide a copy of the Hydraulic Project Approval issued for the project, or a letter from WDFW stating that the project design meets WDFW approval for incorporating structures and /or modifications beneficial for fish or wildlife habitat. For projects below the thresholds in Conditions 1, 2, or 3 above (i.e., projects not requiring 401 Certification), the following conditions apply: • 1. Care shall be taken to prevent any petroleum products, chemicals, or other toxic or deleterious materials from entering the water. If an oil sheen or distressed or dying fish are observed in the project vicinity, the operator shall cease immediately and notify Ecology of such conditions. Contact the appropriate Ecology regional office: Northwest Regional Office Southwest Regional Office Central Regional Office Eastern Regional Office (206) 649 -7000 (206) 407 -6300 (509) 575 -2491 (509) 456 -2926 If construction might result in water quality exceedances beyond those permitted in the Short-Term Water Quality Modification issued for use with these Nationwide Permits, an individual modification may be required. The applicant should contact the appropriate Ecology Regional Office at least 30 days before construction begins. 2. Any riprap used in this project shall be composed of clean, angular material of a sufficient size to prevent its being washed away by high water or wave action. Concrete slabs or rubble shall not be used. 37 uu 1 Z. cc ggam`. 0 0•. .N 0. w= N u,° 'La O: u. 'co a: Nw z o, ICU U o 1. z ii Nationwide Permits / Ci _ s Seattle District / 22 February 1997 CZM Consistency Response -- Partially denied without prejudice subject to the 401 Certification conditions. An individual CZM Consistency Response must be obtained for projects requiring individual 401 Certification and located within counties in the coastal zone. 14. ROAD CROSSINGS. Fills for roads crossing waters of the United States (including wetlands and other special aquatic sites) provided the activity meets all of the following criteria: a. The width of the fill is limited to the minimum necessary for the actual crossing; b. The fill placed in waters of the United States is limited to a filled area of no more than 1/3 acre. Furthermore, no more than a total of 200 linear feet of the fill for the roadway can occur in special aquatic sites, including wetlands; c. The crossing is culverted, bridged or otherwise designed to prevent the restriction of, and to withstand, expected high flows and tidal flows, and to prevent the restriction of low flows and the movement of aquatic organisms; ft 6 00 CO 0 • wI J H, LL' w0 2 co LL <. a w z= 0 w�-: w 2 C.) (0 - oI- . The crossing, including all attendant features, both temporary and permanent, is w w part of a single and complete project for crossing of a water of the United States; �; and, '6o • Z e. For fills in special aquatic sites, including wetlands, the permittee notifies the District Engineer in accordance with the "Notification" general condition. The notification must also include a delineation of affected special aquatic sites, including wetlands. This NWP may not be combined with NWP 18 or NWP 26 for the purpose of increasing the footprint of the road crossing. Some road fills may be eligible for an exemption from the need for a Section 404 permit altogether (see 33 CFR 323.4). Also, where local circumstances indicate the need, District Engineers will define the term "expected high flows" for the purpose of establishing applicability of this NWP. (Sections 10 and 404) Notification Requirement -- Yes. In special aquatic sites (e. above) and in tidal waters (regional condition 1. below). See National General Condition 13 - Notification, for specific requirements, especially (4). Regional Conditions — 1. Road crossing activities in tidal waters waterward of mean higher high water may be authorized if the permittee notifies the District Engineer in 38 U co o� z • operations and maintenance manual lower green river flood damage reduction project (a) pipes; flap gates, and flap gate operating mechanisms are in good operating condition; (b) inlet drainage systems and outlet channels are open, and trash, drift, and debris are not accumulating near drainage structures; and (c) riprap is in good condition and erosion is not occurring adjacent to any structure which might endanger its water tightness or stability. (2) Immediate steps shall be taken to repair damage, to replace missing or broken parts, or to remedy adverse conditions. b. Operation. Flap gates shall be inspected during high water conditions, and any object or condition which might prevent closure of the gates shall be immediately removed or corrected. 4.05 Existing Facilities. Other structures and facilities not constructed as a portion of this project, but which function as a part of the protective works, such as pumping plants, interior drainage storage ponds, ditches, manholes, catch basins, and storm drains, shall be periodically inspected by the Superintendent. Damaged or unserviceable items shall be repaired or replaced. Ditches, ponding areas, and enclosed portions of the storm drainage system shall be kept clear of silt, debris, and growths which may inhibit the function or design capacity of such facilities. YY�( 4.06 Landscaping and Vegetation. Vegetation shall be maintained . as follows: a. Grass or sod, where turf is indicated on the drawings, shall be maintained in good condition free of noxious weeds. Turf shall be mowed to maintain a length between 2 and 12 inches. b. All existing trees or shrubs specifically preserved or planted within the rights - of-way for this project shall be inspected to ensure that fallen limbs or trunks are removed, that the top of the levee is unimpeded to vehicle passage, and that erosion of the riverward embankment in the root zones has not occurred. Dead vegetation shall be removed and replaced with suitable species when and where feasible. b. Vegetation on the riverward side of the levee system not specifically preserved for this project shall be managed by mowing or by selective cutting or pruning to maintain a maximum height of growth of less than 25 feet and a maximum individual stem diameter at 4 feet above the ground of approximately 4 inches. As an alternative to mowing, cutting, or pruning, existing or volunteer vegetation (including black cotton wood, 4 -4 kvim Lott_ k - -., g Ili eJ . l e .:�. ?� 1z 6 mow. U O NO w x • LL w ga. LL ?. I- al z i' Z I- w uj 2 o. co 0— CI H, w w. IU LLO Z w N. U= 0 z • red alder, and blackberries) may be replaced by more desirable species. Such species may include trees, such as Salix hookeriana, the Hooker willow, and S. rigida, the erect willow; and shrubs,'such as red osier dogwood, bitter cherry, snowberry, and spirea, when such species are maintained to allow adequate access and visibility. 4 -5 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING FIELD EXPLORATION Subsurface conditions at the site were explored on September 3, 1997 by excavating six test pits designated TP -1 through TP-6 using a rubber -tired backhoe under subcontract to GeoEngineers. The test pits were excavated to depths ranging from about 12.0 to 14.5 feet below the existing ground surface. The locations of the explorations were determined in the field using topographic information and by pacing distances from existing site features. Ground surface elevations indicated on the exploration logs are based on interpretation of topographic data provided by Mulvanny Partnership relative to the exploration locations. Locations of the explorations are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. A geologist from our firm continuously monitored the test pit excavations, prepared a detail log of the test pits, and visually classified the soils encountered. Disturbed representative soil samples were obtained from the test pit explorations. The exploration logs are based on our interpretation of the field and laboratory data and indicate the various types of soils encountered. They also indicate the depths at which these soils or their characteristics change, although the change might actually be gradual. The soils are classified in general accordance with the classification system presented in Figure A -1. Logs of the test pits are presented in Figures A -2 through A-4. GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING Soil samples obtained from the explorations were transported to our laboratory and examined to confirm or modify field classifications. Representative samples were selected for geotechnical laboratory testing including moisture content determinations. The results of the moisture content determinations are presented in Figure A -5. G e oE n g i n e e r s A -1 File No. 5925-001 -37- 1130/012698 ivar177.'ir %,s,5 z, w; JU U0 p. • cnw w =. J F—; Uw w g U Q d �w T z�. Z 0` U O =: o1 = w` V w .z 0 H- z GEI 85 -85 Rev. 05/93 • ra'- ::i! .0�3:1n':.2; (- �pX+MC1iMM2�'Y 44141:410%7H`S nke,,Aft 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 SAND. 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. 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 data, visual appearance of soils, and/or test data. �� Geo „ Engineers SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FIGURE A -1 • ra'- ::i! .0�3:1n':.2; (- �pX+MC1iMM2�'Y 44141:410%7H`S nke,,Aft DEPTH BELOW SOIL GROUP GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION IFEETI SYMBOL LOG OF TEST PIT DESCRIPTION TEST PIT 1 Approximate Elevation: 16.0 feet 0.0 - 3.0 ML Brown fine sandy silt (medium stiff, moist) (fill) 3.0 - 4.0 SM Brown silty fine and with occasional cobbles (loose. moist) (fill) Pieces of slab concrete encountered at 4.0 feet 4.0 - 11.5 SM Brown silty fine sand (medium dense, moist) 11.5 - 13.0 SM Gray silty fine and (loose to medium dense, moist to wet) Test pit completed at 13.0 feet on 09/03/97 No ground water seepage observed No caving observed Disturbed soil samples obtained at 2.5. 6.0 and 10.5 feet 0.0 - 5.4 5.4 - 10.5 10.5 - 11.5 11.5 - 12.5 SM SM SM SP TEST PIT 2 Approximate Elevation: 17.0 feet Brown silty fine sand (loose. moist) (fill) Pieces of slab concrete encountered at 5.4 feet Brown silty fine sand (loose to medium dense, moist) Gray silty fine sand (loose, moist to wet) Gray fine sand (loose, wet) Test pit completed at 12.5 feet on 9/3/97 Slight to moderate ground water seepage observed at 12.0 feet No caving observed Disturbed soil samples obtained at 3.0 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. Geo ,,,O Engineers LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE A -2 a9 zlharvo"rtF« IZra b3 ni'r' 'r; ,• DEPTH BELOW SOIL GROUP GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION (FEET) SYMBOL LOG OF TEST PIT DESCRIPTION TEST PIT 3 Approximate Elevation: 18.0 feet 0.0 - 2.0 SM Brown silty fine sand (loose to medium dense. moist) (fill) 2.0 - 9.5 SP Brown fine sand with a trace of silt (loose to medium dense, moist) 9.5 - 12.7 SP -SM Brown fine sand with silt (loose to medium dense. moist) 12.7 - 14.5 SP Brown fine sand (loose to medium dense, moist to wet) Test pit completed at 14.5 feet on 09/03/97 Slight to moderate ground water seepage observed at 14.0 feet Minor caving observed at 4.0 to 8.0 feet Disturbed soil samples obtained at 4.5 and 14.0 feet TEST PIT 4 Approximate Elevation: 18.5 feet 0.0 - 3.5 SP Brown fine sand with a trace of silt (loose to medium dense. moist) (fill) Pieces of slab concrete encountered at 3.5 feet 3.5 - 7.8 SP Brown fine sand with a trace of silt (loose to medium dense. moist) 7.8 - 12.0 SP -SM Brown fine sand with silt (loose to medium dense, moist) Test pit completed at 12.0 feet on 09/03/97 No ground water seepage observed Severe caving observed at 4.0 feet Disturbed soil samples obtained at 3.0 and 7.0 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. Geo Engineers LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE A -3 ...: e�itt'•k3.Y:a�s �vu l+iT:z,':zal';;,?:h:�r `- ld,1144R`':21.c.%xi': f��, i3 :''ki:n"?i:'is�.h4�f..4�t:>re`i s�.:•ITS.3(ixrtisjl r'i ':yy isK:: 1• DEPTH BELOW SOIL GROUP GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION (FEET) SYMBOL LOG OF TEST PIT DESCRIPTION TEST PIT 5 Approximate Elevation: 17.0 feet 0.0 - 2.5 SM Brown silty fine sand (loose. moist) (fill) 2.5 - 12.0 SP Brown fine sand with a trace of silt (loose to medium dense. moist) Test pit completed at 12.0 feet on 09/03/97 No ground water seepage observed Minor caving observed at 3.0 to 8.0 feet Disturbed soil simples obtained at 1.5. 7.0 and 11.5 feet TEST PIT 6 Approximate Elevation: 20.5 feet 0.0 - 9.0 SM Rrown silty fine sand (medium dense, moist) (fill) 9.0 - 12.0 SP Brown fine sand with a trace of silt (loose to medium dense. moist) Test pit completed at 12.0 feet on 09/03/97 No ground water seepage observed No caving observed Disturbed soil samples obtained at 3.0 and 11.0 feet THE DEPTHS ON THE TEST PIT LOGS, ALTHOUGH SHOWN TO 0.1 FOOT. ARE BASED ON AN AVERAGE OF MEASUREMENTS ACROSS THE TEST PTT AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE TO 0.5 FOOT. Geo Engineers LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE A-4 .,a4r.�. ;; ti;ci:rw .btu'niru;:.airsr.�.n. ;l ::ray+c?� 5:'rFi:a „..;:3�i�Fe3i�'yi3 `.:v'�;9.aPkwas .,,,;;...,..,.�a vx. xwnsrr: r�L�%- soP.rkl: ^:I.b':,'�'.:Tc•'?�.'�' RESULTS OF MOISTURE CONTENT DETERMINATIONS Test Pit Number Depth of Sample (feet) Soil Classification Moisture Content (%) ■ 1 TP -1 2.5 ML 19 TP -1 6.0 SM 16 TP -2 3.0 SM 14 TP -3 4.5 SP 8 TP -4 3.0 SM 6 TP -4 7.0 SP 6 TP -5 1.5 SM 12 TP -5 7.0 SP 8 TP -6 3.0 SM 9 TP -6 11.0 SP 4 Doc ID: 5925001.MC2 Geo,,Engineers MOISTURE CONTENT DATA FIGURE A -5 APPENDIX B . EXPLORATION LOGS FROM PREVIOUS STUDIES ,' OUI Uv:■U t v v Laboratory Tests SA 5 DS 14.7 82 lt 0 o Elevation Equipment Mobile B -61 0 Not measured Date 3/31/89 3 31.3 72 f. r � 10— 9 5 38.1 76 15— 25.1 95 20— '. 14 25— 307 35 J 40 — Sod. BROWN SAUD (SP) very loose to loose, moist; fine to. medium grained. Becomes wet, fine grained, with trace silt. With some silt. Becomes saturated. Becomes medium to coarse grained. Groundwater encountered at approx= imatefy 12 -foot depth duffing drilling. iii;Applied Geotechnology Inc. Geotecnnicel Engineering Geology & Hydrogeology Log of Boring B -2 Hillman Properties . NW Tukwila Development . titre 4 Joe wuueEe 15.3 3 9.00 2.01 peA ed ECR AppRovE r 4101, a. DATE 12 A•flI e9 AEVISE0 DATE .Z • =H • „, u..2? C. Y: • ;0 0; •U) .tnlL Wr. J P-r W O; J; u. a: a. _ a • •1-=. 1-- or. Z f- D0: • O N` • • 1C11-- w W' • = C), •11. O, lil Zi .0 • : • z 0/10'57 WED 12:45 FAX 425 b61 6050 - • SEATTLE 41003 Laboratory Tests 8 Equipment 6 7 35.9 74 10 23.7 102 18 25.8 96 7 36.1 80 6 Mobile B -6L Elevation Not measured Da1e x/31 /8�3 BROWN AND GRAY MOTTLED SILTY SAND (SM) +i. 4? loose, moist to wet; fine to medium :3-4`.4 grained, with some gravel, and trace burned wood and brick fragments ~; ;. (Fill). With some slag fragments and wood L debris. .47.4.41 With some concrete pieces. BROWN.SILTY SAND (SM) loose, most to wet; fine to medium grained, with trace to some fine gravel. Becomes gray, wet, with trace decayed organics. GRAY SAND (SP) loose, saturated; fine to medium grained, with occasional silt interlayering. Becomes dark gray. • Becomes medium dense. iii;Applied Geotechnology Inc. Geotechnlcai Engineering Geology & Hydrogeology Log of Boring B -3 (0 -40') Hillman Properties NW Tukwila Development DATE 11EwSED 12 A•rIi 89 Joe Aurae% 15 339.002.01 DAAMfM ECR APPOOVED PLATE 5 DATE r`i'S,!t r • �._.:;ti. i; ,�e::in. �i':2: t %;.. i::SL'i:51 »Y -cci' d +t KSJsC i -ti:.; 14:443.z: x'.11:4 UV/1V/7 n:u OU1 Ov5V Laboratory Tests dA' L a o e 0. E © MU oc p co 40 23 17 40 45— 50 55— 38 60- 37 16.2 113 50 60 55 w 75 80 — Equipment Mobile 5 -61 Elevation _ Not measured Date 3/31/89 With some organics, trace fine gravel. LIGHT BROWN SANDY SILT (ML) hard. moist; very fine to fine grained, with trace to some clay (Weathered Si1tstone ?). Groundwater encountered at approxi- matel.y•18 -foot depth during drilling. iiiii;1 Applied Geotechno ogy Inc. Gaotschnlcal Engineering Geology & Hydrogeology Log of Boring B-3 (40 -74') . Hillman Properties NW Tukwila Development . SKAISER 15,330.002.01 DRAWN ECR APPROVED 3 DATE 12 April E 9 REVISED DATE /LATE 6 ki7' r'1'rA'ii- 4.. U.A fT ''Y • „_...<..,,,..,.,.,. �'. r� i; ke�,�;:eat'�hy�a3:,�...rir%ia�4 •:zw:is»�.r�sM.A.t��tF,' is�i; dv��a4 ;;r ":,tY��nnfi7a.tia<a'Aw6 LOG OF TEST PITS (Continued) TEST PIT 4 Depth (Feet) Classification Description 0 to 5 HL Brown Sandy Silt (ML); soft, Taoist to wet; fine to medium - grained, with some slag to 2 -foot diameter, concrete to 5— foot diameter; bricks and wood debris (Fill). 5 to 9 SH /SP Gray Silty Sand (SH); interlayered with Dark Brown Sand (SP); loose, vet; fine to medium- grained. • 9 to 11 5P TEST PIT 5 Dark Brown Sand (SP); loose, wet; fine to medium- grained, with some silt. Test Pit completed April 3, 1989. Seepage noted at approximately 9 -foot depth during excavation. Bulk samples obtained at 2- and 2 -i /2- foot depths. 0 to 5 SH /HL Brown and Gray Sandy Silt and Silty Sand (SH /HL); soft, loose, wet; fine- grained, with trace gravel, concrete and slag to 6 -inch diameter (Fill). 5 to 9 SH Brown Silty Sand (SK); loose, saturated, fine to coarse - grained, vith some gravel (Fill). 9 to 11 SH _ Gray Silty Sand (SH); loose, saturated; with some gravel and concrete (Fill). Test Pit terminated due to caving April 3, 1989. Groundwater encountered at approximately 5 -foot depth during excavation. Bulk sample obtained at 3 -foot depth. Applied Geotechnology Inc. Geological Engineering Geology & Hydrogeolopy Test Pits 4 -5 Hillman Properties NW Tukwila Development PLATE ao• NumsEA 15,339.002 DR vM APPROVED Ire DATE 4/25/89 REVISED DATE �iC.,...;�ri�dr'4ir.•;if4k4��:; fi{ r. �: lilwi�l:; w�rttYx. �z? �:, iss; to "vtir;ia'z,�s�a.+rv'b3dsi;ra�'xi�Y 5 10 15 20 t 5 ° 5 BORING B- 16/MV-16 Description Comments IRMO VOW T ORM OMM MOM 15 15 30 >50 1 2 [ •a • • • • • • • • • LSP� • • • • • • • Pasture, grass, and bare soil - Grayish brown, silty SAND, fine - grained, with organics, some slag, gravel, moist, medium dense. (FILL) - Brown SAND, fine- to medium - grained, moist, medium dense. - Dark brown SAND, medium - to coarse - grained, with silt, wet, dense - Dark gray to black SAND, coarse- gained, wet, very dense. No hydrocarbon odor detected. No hydrocarbon odor detected throughout boring. * Boring drilled to 17.5 feet and sampled to 19.0 feet on November 1, 1996. * No olfactory indication of contamination in soil. * A monitoring well was completed in this boring. * Groundwater depth measured at 11.52 feet below ground surface on November 4, 1 996. * Well completed with locking above - ground monument. * Headspace measured using Photovac 2020 PID. BORING LOG B-16/MW-16 NIELSEN PROPERTY SW GRADY WAY AT INTERURBAN AVE • TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Job A'o: Date: Loud by: 98387E I DEC 1996 1 TAJ Ptak: 4 .�. ,k :<,� rr.2 " }'. n. 7�Si�zs�: k� .a•r;.?iT,'•n4 :i!....•a�;.+rJ, n!:1.�'!{%.•oitihra6�i:.:aS ' 3SUCCW'' 'F.`Si :,�,r`,`Lrzl.`wE{+Iia95�. vii" v:`u m.' 4i1a`- Y.'�i.''•�y1+'�;titii'Fn'k °;C$s J 3G t; �;rl,. p21i �'KS`da,u:. z Jo t.0: tn0 CO LL W 0' d = w z �. t-- o' zl—■ LU UO • ff. • 0 t--' uj — o Z 0 N'. z PROPOSED FAMILY FUN CENTER DEVELOPMENT T U KW I LA, WA RIVERBANK RESTORATION AND HABITAT ENHANCEMENT REPORT Date: March 19, 1998 KE1/ISE. 5.5 • lb 2 gtVidue* O.28 -9'f!" MULVftfl fY PfRTflERSH I P A R C H I T E C T S . P.5. Jerry Oulnn Le . I MIkhsI $1lh ■ Carol 91mpwcn . ■ . Ronald Moddax 11820 NcrlhupWay 0E300, Bellevue; WA 98005 (9251822 -0494 FAX (92)822.9129 :ivil Engineer: ;_ �eotechnicalEngineer :. ,iologist/Scientist .1821: 72ND AVENUE SOD1H ' KENT. W. 98032 (206'1251-6222 .. (2041251 -8782 F4( CIVIL 00011I078N0, .IP11C PL ilI4IN„ SIIIWEANC. ' PQNMENTA.faWv10E5 CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND OEOSCIENT1STS 11410 13.414 AVENUE -WE FE064 546 9BC12.HE 0M P. q,: Wet /Am/k'esoirces, /Ha Asa sa.d,4s94 91.444V, leina4 491tel viCa 9eror 9x...../ars /.cr7.vrn 1 Fie- :?1.7P7.,npiv'•' i�ty . "S"x xh f,�;�..,,y�,tr M.✓< t..v,; -,• u �:':r? y ^�i w ..:'� � ,��5� "t��` "�.'•.'�'' ^nt ±; µ;,i.� �.r at. +srt �,Nti t M �� ,,t z �w JU 00 co 0 to W J F- LL WO gQ =a • Z= Z° W U• 0 O N O I_- W W 2 Li- O 0 wZ O~ Z INDEX INTRODUCTION By: Mulvanny Partnership Architects P.S. CIVIL ENGINEERING REPORT By: Barghausen Consulting Engineers • Design Calculations • Ordinary Highwater Mark • Riverbank Cutback Habitat Pond GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER FOR RIVERBANK STABILIZATION REPORT By: GeoEngineers • Green River Bank Conditions • Subsurface Conditions • Conclusions and Recommendations RIVERBANK RESTORATION AND HABITAT ENHANCEMENT — BIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION DESCRIPTION By: Wetland Resources Inc. • Project Site Description • Restoration Creation Summary • Baseline Information • Mitigation Goals and Objective • Mitigation Condition and Function • Mitigation Standards • Figures and Details • MULVfl11flY PPtRTflERSHIP A R C H I T E C T S P. S. INTRODUCTION The proposed Family Fun Center Development consists of a hotel on approximately 3.75 acres, a future pad site on approximately 2.56 acres and The Family Fun Center and Bullwinkles Restaurant on approximately 8.07 acres. The 14 plus acre site is located in Tukwila, Washington on the northeast corner at the intersection of Interurban Avenue and Grady Way and adjacent to S.R. 405. The Green River borders the site to the north and the Burlington Northern railroad is adjacent to the eastern boundary. The Family Fun Center will include outdoor attractions such a miniature golf, go -karts, bumper boats, batting cages and various rides. Inside, approximately 36,000 square feet, two -story building will include a restaurant, laser tag, climbing structures for children, video games, etc. The site will hold approximately 580 parking stalls with 300 plus for Family Fun Center, 161 parking stalls for the hotel and 120 plus parking stalls for the future pad site. Also proposed on site, construction of a City funded bike path . running along the river frontage, then to the south along the eastern edge of the site. A portion of the site is currently within the Green River flood plain (datum 21.5 above sea level). The proposed development includes grading flat, a former sand and gravel operation stock pile of approximately 30,000 to 40,000 cubic yards and dispersing over the site which raises the ambient grades above the flood plain. Per regulations, any filled flood plan must be compensated for on- site. The detention is to be designed for a 7 day, 100 -year storm event. We propose to create an off- channel habitat pond for fish and a riverbank bench cutback in the Green River to provide the compensatory flood volume storage for filling the flood plain. The contours, grading, volume of flood storage and design of water quality and drainage are detailed by Barghausen Civil Engineers in this report. As a result of new riverbank work, we have a need to provide a stable, long -term environment adjacent ..to. the .river, .which._will proAect the site and the publicly.. funded bike trail running,parallel to the river. The soils analysis, river flow data and recommendation for constructing a stable bank are detailed in this report by Geo- Engineers Inc. As proposed mitigation for work next to the Green River, we propose to restore and enhance wildlife habitat adjacent to the river specifically geared towards, but not limited to, salmon habitat. Jerry Quinn Lee • Mitchell Smith • Carol Simpson • Ronald Maddox 11820 Northup Way, #E 300 • Bellevue, WA 98005 • (425) 822 -0444 • FAX: (425) 822 -4129 :iiih SA�11 " • z w JU UO: co o w U1 . wo gQ wd w. z1... f-- o: zi-: w w UD o w U-o ui.i z. UN 0 z Introduction Family Fun Center Development March 19, 1998 Page 2 With the identification of several significant stands of existing river vegetation at the edge of the river (i.e. willow, etc.), we have altered our design of new construction around these areas. New and enhanced vegetation habitat would be added at areas that are currently blackberry brambles with low habitat value. All other areas of significant value would be saved and built around. The result is a nearly continuous stretch of significant habitat along the entire river frontage of the property. The biology and habitat, including tree snags, and the habitat pond, are detailed in this report by Wetland Resources. The enclosed data indicates that the proposed development adjacent to the river will provide water quality, flood volume capacity, riverbank stability and significant fish and wildlife habitat enhancement on this property. tudu!cisum 86/61/E 7.11-L6 / ..v*vmmv.‘v, clommAt-t,grnIII•vmmfq•icowil.o'P• • 1 1 aNnHOIVW cape Architect a _,Family Fun Center NOSSEIEEMENIMMINI,IrrrIty,rtrAt_mimpmetm.mr1VM;Mrlia, z < • • 1• w 1._ z 6 O 0 • ° W• I W LL ui 0 2 < "±" a Z CI ZI- W• LU D 0• - WW i 1- wz LI 0 w -1 0 /- z Landscape Schedules RIVERBANK LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE o� p° 0 S to D g.1.I.. run 2 to s gat .tz.. roit 3 O11- Channat Pond 43 as 01 uou2ulysc/ \ l llnvin.L 86/61/£ ZII-L6 0 2 3 3 3 3 • }} i 1 -: i i 'r Y d1 m m i' 3 a a ,•, n n n n n i Ti - 9 4 3 p o 0 li, g. • i , d • ,. ,. ,. e_;� pp E pp pp u :-y' i Ey%�Q LI i 4 j ry� pEuP u Li 311- §i ,.. g I .J i t i f' l.'s 31 31- fi = 1 t I ogy tt46 11 nE 01 0 W C 8 3 n tk be 341 l; 303 © O© '£:. i.awIiM mi 1: or4. YN,Afi.H?S'e1X(ru't7i 140 1 uNA 3 um3uiysepet 'elln∎xnl 86/61/f ZII-L6 OUR JOB NO. 6125 MARCH 16, 1998 Prepared By: BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH GHq` KENT, WASHINGTON 98032 • ' ‘tiVi (425) 251 -6222 i CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 4 �.. . ;r -v� s-• .. •>'� ' r'N �.�.�"w')t*+61�a". 4.,MA't2`i� �xZ:l��i1a'', , i�YiY "64x1?1Y:tf?c'.alv'.'+`t��� >��7 .taMt+.i�' WLe.imSt2fWAD INTRODUCTION The civil engineering section of this report will provide a breakdown of the technical requirements for the development of this project. A listing of the special permits will be addressed with the goals and objectives to achieve the recommendations and requirements of the overseeing agencies. The project development is located within Section 24, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, King County, State of Washington. More specifically, the project is located in the northeast corner at the intersection of Interstate 405 and Interurban Avenue, south of the Green River, in the City of Tukwila. The project is bounded by Interurban Avenue to the west, Grady Way to the south, Burlington Northern Railroad to the east, and the Green River to the north. The development of this project consists of a Family Fun Center development along with a proposed hotel and a future development to be determined at a later date. The requirements, as set forth by the City of' Tukwila, based on King County design criteria, will be to provide detention storage for the on -site storm drainage runoff based on a 100 - year /7-day storm event, in addition to flood storage compensation for the portions of development that infill the portion of the existing site utilized currently as flood storage area. We will be proposing to provide a riverbank cut -back and a habitat pond to meet these requirements. An on -site storm drainage conveyance system will be developed to direct all drainage toward the river cut -back area. We propose to install a drainage splitter device which will direct a portion of the flow into a treatment feature with the rest bypassing directly into the river. Treatment of the on -site storm drainage runoff will be provided in the form of a biofiltration swale which will treat the 2 -year 24 -hour design conditions. This biofiltration swale will be located within the new portions of the riverbank cut -back area. A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit will be obtained based on the requirements by the City of Tukwila, adopted from the King County Shoreline Management Act of 1971, for development extending within the 200 -foot shoreline setback landward from the existing mean high -water mark of the Green River. The mean high -water elevation has been determined to be elevation 18.0, as shown on the FEMA documentation within the appendix section of this report. Site layout for the entire project has been developed to meet this criteria. No development will occur within 40 feet of the mean high -water mark (high impact environment), no structures will be built 60 feet beyond the high impact environment (low impact environment), and structures no taller than 35 feet will be constructed within the 200 -foot shoreline setback. -1- 6125.0081BS /kn/smj z• zI— moU12 JU •U O w z` J � wO. u- Q: D. d. • z �. zI: .0 N_ ww 1- •u-O, Z U N` 0 z 1 -1 DESIGN CALCULATIONS As previously mentioned, the design parameters for the proposed development, as set forth by the City of Tukwila, will be to provide storage for the 100 - year /7-day storm event and compensate for removal of the existing flood storage area located on site. The total site area for the development is approximately 14.4 acres, 2.1 acres of which is existing flood storage area, as outlined within the storm drainage calculations located within the appendix of this report. The actual flood storage elevation, as determined by FEMA maps, is indicated as being elevation 21.7. All areas located on site below this elevation are considered to be flood storage area. The total amount of rainfall for a 100 - year /7-day event has been determined to be 7.25 inches, as indicated on the 100- year /7-day isopluvial map located within the appendix of this report. Together with this information, the calculations for the amount of storage to be provided is approximately 479,765 cubic feet. Credits in the amount of 311,185 square feet for existing structures, pavement, gravels, and grasses yield a total of 187,989 cubic feet of credit to be subtracted from the required storage. The result of this calculation requires a total of 291,776 cubic feet of storage to be provided within the riverbank cut -back and habitat pond locations. Upon preliminary design of the habitat pond, we are yielding approximately 278,000 cubic feet of storage, and approximately 14,000 cubic feet of storage within the riverbank cut -back area. These two features combined yield 292,000 cubic feet of storage volume. This will provide the adequate storage required for the project development stipulations. Exact calculations of the total storage provided will be determined once the final design of all these features has been established. Treatment for the on -site storm drainage runoff will be provided through the use of a biofiltration swale located within the riverbank cut -back area. This biofiltration swale is designed to meet the requirement for treatment of the 2- year /24 -hour post - development storm event. The swale will be approximately 200 feet in length and 5 to 10 feet in width along the bottom, and will slope to the west at approximately 0.5 percent. A flap gate that meets the requirements of the Department of Ecology standards will be provided at the outlet point to the biofiltration swale from the on -site drainage system to prevent influx from high river flow events that would infiltrate into the on -site drainage system. We have provided a detail of this structure within the appendix section of this report. During storm events greater than the 2- year /24 -hour, on -site storm drainage is exempt from being treated and will be released through the bypass drainage system designed up to the 100 - year /24 -hour storm events. During these higher stages, depending upon the level of the river due to release rates from the Howard Hanson Dam, the biofiltration swale may be submerged for a period of time that would make it inoperable. During these events, though, the function of the biofiltration swale is not required. -2- 6125.008 [BS /kn/sm] ORDINARY HIGH - WATER MARK The basis for establishing the lowest elevation of our bank cut -back design is based on establishing the elevation of the ordinary high -water mark along the river side of the project. We intend to propose the riverbank cut -back section down to an elevation just above the ordinary high -water mark to provide our detention and flood storage compensation for the on -site requirements. On March 3, 1998, Mr. William Railton, certified professional wetland scientist ( #245 SWS) met with Mr. Gary Shulz, urban environmentalist with the City of Tukwila, on site to collectively determine the ordinary high -water mark of the Green River adjacent to our development. Mr. Railton and Mr. Shulz agreed that the ordinary high -water mark was an obvious break in the vegetation separating the river water line from the natural habitat. Mr. Railton and Mr. Shulz inserted a wire pin flag at the agreed -upon location, and contacted Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., to request a survey of this flag to certify the elevation and establish the constraints of our riverbank cut -back depth. We directed a survey crew that afternoon to tie this flag in. The resulting effort confirmed an elevation of 8.41 as representative of the ordinary high -water mark. Confirmation of this survey can be located in the appendix section of this report. Please reference the Wetland Resources section, Riverbank Restoration and Habitat Enhancement Biological Analysis, of this report for further discussion on the establishment of the ordinary high - water mark. -3- RIVERBANK CUT -BACK The institution of the riverbank cut -back development will provide multiple functions to serve the development of this project. Primarily, the function of this riverbank cut -back will be to provide for on -site detention and flood storage compensation away from the proposed development. Secondly, this cut -back will provide a source for habitat enhancement that will benefit fish and wildlife species. Please refer to the Wetland Resources section, Riverbank Restoration and Habitat Enhancement Biological Analysis, for further discussions of this topic. Thirdly, the act of "widening" the river provides more surface area for river flow, which reduces velocities to aid the upstream migration of fish habitat. Construction of this riverbank cut -back will be developed in stages in order to provide a beneficial environment for natural habitat throughout the course of construction operation. The first phase will begin approximately April 1, 1998, with the installation of erosion control measures that will protect the river from construction and any valuable existing native plant material that will remain intact once construction of this project has been completed. Phase 2, beginning approximately June 15, 1998, will begin riverbank excavation. The contractor will increment cuts to 15 -foot sections so that bank stabilization measures can be implemented in a cooperative manner. Please refer to the Geotechnical section of this report for stabilization design. At the same time, construction of the habitat pond will begin under the same phasing routine. Please refer to the Habitat Pond section of this report for further discussion. During the course of the Phase 2 operations, we propose to install wood snags along portions of the riverbank to provide a protective refuge for salmonid rearing and protection. These permanent wood snags will be placed in a manner that the root wads will extend below the ordinary high -water mark with the trunk of the tree being placed across the cut bank shelf or along the existing bank and anchored by using rocks and posts with cable ties. Please refer to the Wetland Resources section, Riverbank Restoration and Habitat Enhancement Biological Analysis, for further descriptions and details of the log structure, intent, and anchoring procedures. In the third phase of this project, beginning July 1, 1998, rough grading operations will be complete, and stabilization and hydroseeding of the exposed slopes will be implemented. Please refer to the Landscaping section of this report for further discussions on vegetation replacement of the riverbank area. 6125.008 [BS /kn/sm] z = Z JU 0 O CO W: w z; w• O g a, w z � O Z Ul Oa wuj 0. O, alto: O z EABITAT POND The new habitat pond will serve as a multi - functional facility, as will the riverbank cut -back section. The primary function of this facility will be to provide storage for on -site detention and flood storage compensation. This feature also allows us to create as a fish habitat pond with emergent and native shrubs with special habitat features. Log structures will be placed intermittently around the base and on the banks of this facility to provide further habitat features and resting areas for salmonid species. Please refer to the Wetland Resources section, Riverbank Restoration and Habitat Enhancement Biological Analysis, for further discussion. As previously noted, the construction of this facility will be performed in phases as described in the Riverbank Cut -Back section of this report. Rock walls will be placed within the banks of the pond to allow for a deeper channel pond for fish habitat, and provide an opportunity to create a more natural environment. z U! • 00.. fA 0; W N LL; A function of this habitat pond will be to provide protection for fish habitat during higher river flow events. to O As the river water recedes in elevation, the water from the habitat pond will recede back into the river so 44 as not to entrap any fish habitat that may be present during these higher stages. The mouth of this ¢; connection to the Green River will be at an approximate elevation of 4.0. This elevation is 4.41 feet below co a.. the established ordinary high -water mark. The bottom of the habitat pond will be at an approximate H elevation of 6.0. z 0: z Due to the depth of the habitat feature being below the ordinary high -water mark, we anticipate that a ?: Nationwide 27 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will need to be obtained. This permit, in 'part, will allow activities in the waters of the United States associated with the creation of wetlands and U . riparian areas on private land with notification to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. .o 2 U. wz • :O~ z -5- 6125.008 [BS /kn/sm] , STORM bRAINAGE CALCULATIONS fpv/c y Aim/ erzmr • ,Qt-wep S1d,en.1 O•m/A/ACC. C9G cue.9-T/ors cle /nom? /•0 : • ,Ooc/i0E` .S1URA6e" Fc✓1 /ea •n /, 0.41)/ 5T2,(A/ t vrx/T /j-01/O co 1,' ✓Si'7r Fe.IX lent/or: c Eyir,- �LOaO 5,0,646 4*- C4' S' /rep 6idc,A/. 7L{777c Si Td" ..4e- ,437ecair _ X 26, 6 82. o7 S.#' x 77)7794 ,c-cop• f7v . - er O"✓- 5I"7 = 2_� /"Pc /o /, /sir (2%.7tov, z.41 /Oo y.• pr AA)/ srn eA E -Ye-A,• = Z ?5 e') T7,Q Sra/?A66' .cE ttc', fez' (;.✓cc. recsao franc (Iv.u.ot.vs 4"W) = 6 2 6, 6 82.6 7 x its " = 378 620. Vz /o /, /s/S 1/79, c.- 5.0617M-C7- CRev,r5 /.yPr e✓roeAs Sue, =.4ccs St/eucn s ec-s 6 /00% 54 2 6o. 8 s- SF 4Q vc evr @ /000 = fir, /80, 00 5.e' G,e a vas d. 13;o°4 = 1 /s; wt.? SA- 61e.4 xi" c s c 2o9e = 3Yg 7? 07 sf = 30, Z60. 83" 4/4 /80.0o /7/, .5TY. 3V 68, /S9. 6/ .air, /Sy 8o sc 3/4 /5348o x _ /8,3 yfly. 36 cc VP9, 76 S. Y2 - /5 ye?. 36 = 29/,'T6 , O6 e/fcc• /e•r7.. 5 bR#9 c O2o✓i0e-tr : • Cst9 /EZ Pomp = Z78, Zy6 cc atreqc-/croe407/04 ' / $V9e c = /8, cob C,- t96 s /4 COO 276, Z96 .00 297, 7776, 0, K z Q • H Z 6 Jo U0- • coo' w 111: I- (0 0 w }r gJ: �D �_w Z 1.7 ,- 0• z I: w us ' '0 N w w`.: • o, Z U CO. 0 z 2/23/98 10:58:36 am Barghausen Engineers Family Fun Center Storm Drainage Calculations page 1 BASIN SUMMARY BASIN ID: 'A' NAME: 2 YR /24 HR. POST -DEV SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • 12.00 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE TYPE1A PERV IMP PRECIPITATION 2.00 inches AREA..: 2.40 Acres 9.60 Acres TIME INTERVAL 10.00 min CN 86.00 98.00 TC • 6.30 min 6.30 min ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 PEAK RATE: 4.28 cfs VOL: 1.59 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min hfi ';�- zPJ:a�)i'..%t�s"r.,'f.�.J.f FROM : KPFF ENGINEERS SE% TO 20543136ES 7 2.994. 3-a-20 0 •3 V- 03: 43PM *4470 P . 02/05 0.0 103 11.0 113 IZ.0 1 83 1 j L0 100-YEAR. 7-DAY ISOPLUVIALS West King County 7.5 Total Precipitation in Inches foal pm( flAk •- pli.• • :1' •it• • "'It` 1.f.d. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I Wu 10.0 1120 S 11.0 10.5 7.Y.',27:•7r4tr•nf ."10A. • ...1P•k... , Trapezoidal Channel Analysis & Design Open Channel - Uniform flow Worksheet Name: family fun Comment: biofiltration swale Solve For Bottom Width Given Input Data: Left Side Slope Right Side Slope Manning's n Channel Slope Depth Discharge Computed Results: Bottom Width.... Velocity Flow Area Flow Top Width Wetted Perimeter Critical Depth Critical Slope Froude Number design 3.00:1 (H:V) 3.00:1 (H:V) 0.027 0.0500 ft /ft 0.30 ft 4.28 cfs 2.21 ft 4.58 fps 0.93 sf 4.01 ft 4.11 ft 0.40 ft 0.0165 ft /ft 1.67 (flow is Supercritical) Open Channel Flow Module, Version 3.41 (c) 1991 Haestad Methods, Inc. * 37 Brookside Rd * Waterbury, Ct 06708 .,as_.,.i:?,.o,. {tt'i.;7. tdf,: 4r .}, .S,rr,.%J >1r:`;�::.'uc•'w b's'A:erv:2,t'�: :41U1:414`1. ew i�kiaSV�ftiil .rik'rsv:`ur.P.lrli•kitf•':4. E-.z±: •a: w J 0 w =. C L, W o`. co J: = (3;. _; o D 0 i0 �O Ww 1. iu co. .z 1 pal t Pr**, . • FEMA MAP 100 YEAR ELEVATION EXHIBIT ZONE AE t22015'00" (EL 20) 4702807" ' ;4' mm Drawing# Feb -27 -98 12:24P • FLAP GATE DETAIL A1=-41 ALUMINUM DRAINAGE (FLAP) GATES • SPIGOTBACK, FLATBACK OR FLANGEBACK • SIZES 12" - 84" • SEATING HEADSTO 40 FEET. • A CORROSION - RESISTANT RUST-PROOF AUTOMATIC DRAINAGE GATE DESIGNED FOR USE WITH ALUMINUM CORRUGATED PIPE, OR FOn FLANGE MOUNTING • PRF.VENTS ELECTROLYSIS ASSOCIATED WITH CAST IRON GATES TO ALUMINUM PIPE CONNECTIONS. • J -BULB NEOPRENE ADJUSTABLE SEATS PROVIDE EXCELLENT SEALING AGAINST RETURN FLOW. • FRAME, COVER, RETAINER RING, HINGE ARM, AND PIVOT LUG ARE OF ALUMINUM ALLOY 6061 - T6. GATE HARDWARE IS STAINLESS STEEL. • HEAVY DUTY CONSTRUCTION. • SPIGOTBACK FOR MOUNTING TO CORRUGATED METAL PIPE. (ALUMINUM, STEEL OR PLASTIC) • FLATBACK FOR MOUNTING TO HEADWALL. • FLANGEBACK TO MATE WITH 25* OR 1264 PIPE FLANGE. P.02 AF- . 13PIGOTACK AF-41 FLATBACK 13 J 0, .0 O:. .N 0` ,w w` w =! J � N � w O; -J z� Z• ut 'U ftv w w. 0 LL- LLico: z'. --- O F -, z Feb -27 -98 12:24P P_03 AF-41 ALUMINUM DRAINAGE (FLAP) GATE - SPIGOTBACK L Or t ATIADIII6 MANNAR 11? 011111 CONTRACTOR TO IMOVIOI C4t11IN'. 1/PC 1UL At AMR' D L61 L r PIN vow 111•114 A DIA PARTS UST No. N•n1• 1 7 rem• 2 Seal 3 N*oinar Ring 4 Sex WI 861UNu1 5 Cover 6 Hangs Alm 7 Pivot Lug 6 Hex HI tlolINut 0 HIii s Pin 10 hushing 11 Washtrr 12 Sprnp On AF-41 ALUMINUM DRAINAGE (FLAP) GATE FLATBACK (FLANGEBACK SIMILAR BUT WITH ASA STANDARD FLANGE DIMENSIONS) u SAN SIONS IN INCNIS ht z 3�y A '311L21 . v B C DI 1)2 Oft"; 13 141 1560, )S 16 1IS Mule v 14I ,44 u 6.24.14„ „20115.. .l..• fttr�l ti 31 IM • 131 11194 17 1211 20 141 x554.. Oa% 654 614 , 6%, 1014 E 4 O.D. B.C. 1694 M SS P n 4 2015 10% 94 2 4 2315 94 1 2 .w Me, 2854 54 , 1YA 11 t 371N 2614 24 1094 414 36 516 541i Y4 154 3 Ill 3M 43111 40 I11 Lia 56115 .14044 61 115 1 .. „h 66'670/0 73111 419.61••4x. 46 26 53 31 66 114 76 IS 35 139. 36 1514 M7i 17 IN 4% 42 514 41561 4094 ref. Y 194 3 1» 594 64615 654 1194 • 60 5►6 06516 4214 SS • 510 194 4 2 6416 2 4 4 794 74 WI 7654 DIMS I' 40115 ON APPUCA I ION % • • Feb -27 -98 12:24P P_04 TYPICAL SPECIFICATIONS AF-41 ALUMINUM DRAINAGE (FLAP) (TIDE) GATES General Tile flap gate shall be designed to allow free outflow and prevent backflow for maximum seating heads of 40 feet. Gates shall be Waterman Model AF-41 or equal. Construction The frame shall be aluminum of flatback, spigotback or flangeback design (or o1 per specified design configuration as required) with seating surface inclined from vertical at a minimum of 21.4° to ass, n positive closure. The aluminum cover shall be attached to the frame in such a manner as to allow proper seatinc and hill opening of cover. Built in stops shall be provided to prevent the cover from rotating sufficiently to become wedged in the open position. A resilient neoprene seal shall be attached to the inside of the frame opening and shall act as a seat for the cover to seal against. The seal shall be retained by an aluminum ring bolted or welded k the frame. Tiro linkage system shall be of the double pivoted type, attached to fixed pivot points on cover and frame. Hinge links site!' be of structural aluminum shapes. The heavily reinforced hinge arm of the Kindel AF-41 is fastened to the pivot lug by means of heavy stainless steel hinge pins insetted through a durable non metallic bushing. The hinge pin is ac ranged in a double shear configuration at extremely close tolerances thus severely 11mlllos.lateral movement. This, in conjunction with the protruding rubber seat (in lieu of a recessed seat) insurespnv:itive seating at all times regardless of the angle of tidal action. Finish Mill finish on all surfaces. Materials Frame and Cover - Aluminum Alloy 6061 -T6. Hinge Link • Aluminum Alloy 6061-T6. Assembly Hardware - Stainless Steel Type 18-8. Waterman +,. . oO: i :ow,. • w.o! u. In a • = w; i- a z UJ U Ca '0 w; U. • Z: z 3- 4 -98 • * * * ** 6125 ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK SURVEY DATA FAMILY FUN CENTER NEC INTERURBAN & SR -405 TUKWILLAPag * * ** ** COORDINATE FILE : 6125.CRD LIST COORDINATES LIST POINT t [.THRU POINT t] : 14250 OHW FLAG 3/4/98 CM LIST POINT t 1,THRU POINT *3 : PTt NORTH EAST ELEV 14250 173292.53996 1291025.08796 8.41 \/ Rop t I n e S° i3.s. • 4 , Z S TM1 mJ- 5,46 ? l 1 1.- ) ov 40.34 , (f•01. quv '; #'. Sp i j N ! I/ 7 33 1:3(!. ( 5 73 i F iv '= i S S& N, N1,4 ' 3zo- 3$ !SS 231.92 — fte.94 y. Let, ! iMARICed! IdL; FIQy I i i l j i t j i { i I l' I' I I i1! l �!, i i i i i M ITI it it jl!l !1 IY iII1 1 1111 ':Ij i i i• i i j i j i i, 1. • • ._'R.53i• ...,.a,., Yi y'id'W wtkw!kl -tn g,a`K7i'K*mrrH„ 't! t €t rri z 0 rn 0 v s-4-943 (o , Z S i I i! i i i i I ? l 1 # I4' d ,/7Z81(: ;88 - ! ! ES-`= 3/•u) ' ' E i29;it/8'rz.831,;! '; #'. Sp i j N ! I/ 7 33 1:3(!. ( 5 73 i F iv '= i S S& ! i :6: . 129,0131 ,:3SS3 ! ; j taD i / INI+Fr f UN/ /Irk/ ! iMARICed! IdL; FIQy I i i l j i t j i { i I l' I' I I i1! l �!, i i i i i M ITI it it jl!l !1 IY iII1 1 1111 ':Ij i i i• i i j i j i i, 1. • I 3iedt'tlA p143VYyc;CN'ixM. . -T: r13'n gra .,.]�7 iT=51V)a.T''.'?yRln!i k�dr klisi'7AEiFl+<i i[s kGS UNI FEMA MAP RIVER VELOCITY EXHIBIT BASE FLOOD WATER SURFACE ELEVATION INCREASE ..7MMMMMMMN NNNN7tntn�DU1u1�Dn01MMW 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O u1 CO M 0.O 1 O •-1 �? CO N VD N W CO N f` 141 O .7 •-1 •-1 ,4 N M M M u1 u1 VD VD O W M M O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M M • WITHOUT FLOODWAY .-1 u1VD. Nu1W0V 0OstWMMVONMVD0 C . • • • • • • • . • • • • • • . • • • . . . . .- i. -4.--1 N NMMM. 7•7441u1u1�D�D�D00W010% N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N IREGULATORY .-1u1�D�7f N11WN%0O.7WMMVDNMVDMNVO.1VD . . . . . . • . . . . . • . . • . . . . . • . • • -16.4•- 1NNMMM�7�7u1u1u1V0�D�Dn f`f`00MMO1 N N N N N N N N N N •N N N N .N N N N N N N N N N FLOODWAY I MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER 11 . M M CO 01 0 0 0 0 .7 01 W f` u1 N M M to M O U1 M M M M �7 M .7 M .7 M 07 .7 .7 ,7 4 M M .7 M t `•� G a M t W � N .-1 VD V0 M M M O O r` N .-1 .• �0 .-1 fr 01 N .-1 1,1 0 CO O .7 0∎ N O •--r 01 N M .-1 00 ..D 1,1 N �D %O �7 •-1 r- .--r 00 M 01 0 r\1,1O0. -1 O O1r`. -1 �0WW.7t000 O VO•-4M r-.-1 .. w w w •. w w w a w w a a w a a w w w w w w w w M M N M M M M N N M N N N N N N N N M N M M N M oW ; - Ou1^u1MCON�7�DO W47/0NM.--1NO\u1N.- 1u1�7tn 00 .4M000 DONM'.Du1«0.7tnr�ul�7�D00 .-1 N .-4 .4 .4 -4 .-1 .i .-1 N .--1 .-1 .--1 .4 .4 .-1 .4 ....... Z M 0 • ("4 M 01ON•-1 N- 00N0M00".0WW0.41,T MM.+MN7 0NMaONM111r.01. -1�7�7 �D00- 1r'r-OMir1 NNNNNNMMMMMM.47..1 -'•7.7..7 u1u1tn'.DVDVD .4 .-1 .--1 .■1 .--1 •■1 .i .■ .■1 .■1 ■■ .■1 •■1 .-1 .-1 .-1 ..I .-1 .■1 .-1 .•1 r1 .-1 r1 1 FLOODING i0 CROSS SECTION m 1+ 0) 0) d .�+ WV Wc" It 3 v tr . FLOODWAY DATA W W W J • D 0 1-• W z W W i-QmJW ....,._ , ;.rter� Y -• , • • .:......• __ .._ • rs,: •�._,.� i • i..._. . .1—« i. •_1 . - -. _ -. . •• • .- - •4. -. . -. _ e ._3. • —r• 2 i r i o h C) 2 W W .•1 i . i....•_i.. �_. 4ot AVMHDIH • _ H1nOS 3f1N3AV _ .: NVallf1a31NI.... -.. •• .. • • • ••_ : • •• • - •• . • . ! ... . .. . . • • I • -.i • • • } • OVOH )1aVa 1N3Q .L1iOd • • 0 ID r • J • • • 1 • • • r 1• gnla )IOV1a • - 3ON3n1 JNO3 • Revised•,Report K Geotechnical Engineering Seniiceso ' �Rivirbank Stabilization - Proposed Family Fun Center Facility Geo •OEngineers March 19, 1998 Family Fun Centers c/o Mulvanny Partnership Architects P.S. 11820 Northup Way, Suite E300 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Attention: Chandler Stever Consulting Engineers and Geoscientists Offices in Washington, Oregon, and Alaska We are pleased to submit our "Revised Report, Geotechnical Engineering Services, Riverbank Stabilization, Proposed Family Fun Center Facility, Tukwila, Washington." Our report has been revised to address design changes. This report supercedes our previous reports dated September 26, 1997 and January 26, 1998. We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical engineering services on this interesting project. We will be pleased to respond to any questions you have, to provide further consultation during design, and to assist you during construction of this facility. DJM:MSR:cd1 P A5925001R6.DOC File No. 5925-001 -37-0 GeoEngineers, Inc. Plaza 600 Building 600 Stewart SL, Suite 1215 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone (206) 728 -2674 Fax (206) 728 -2732 ww,rw.geoengineers.com Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. Mary S. ' utherford, P.E. Associate "; CONTENTS Paae No. INTRODUCTION 1 SCOPE 1 GREEN RIVER BANK CONDITIONS 2 SURFACE CONDITIONS 2 General Conditions on the Green River 2 Historic Changes in the Green River 2 Observations on the Existing Riverbank 3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4 General 4 Soil Conditions 5 • Ground Water Conditions 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5 GENERAL 5 PROBABLE CAUSES OF SURFICIAL BANK FAILURES AND EROSION 5 BANK STABILIZATION 6 SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK 7 LIMITATIONS 8 FIGURES Vicinity Map Site Plan Green River Bank APPENDICES Appendix A - Field Explorations and Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Field Exploration Geotechnical Laboratory Testing APPENDIX A FIGURES- Figure No. 1 2 3 Pane No. A -1 A -1 A -1 Fioure No: Soil Classification System A -1 Logs of Test Pits A- 2...A -4 Results of Moisture Content Determinations A -5 Appendix B - Exploration Logs from Previous Studies G e o E n g i n e e r r 1 File No. 5925- 001 -37- 1130/092697 ?: JO O 0;. (n w =; .0) 1I w 0' J. u 1- w. • 1-0 z uj ;0 N, =U;.. U Jz: U c0 ;0 z • • REVISED REPORT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES RIVERBANK STABILIZATION PROPOSED FAMILY FUN CENTER FACILITY TUKWILA, WASHINGTON FOR FAMILY FUN CENTERS INTRODUCTION This revised report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services to develop recommendations for riverbank stabilization for the proposed Family Fun Center facility to be located in Tukwila, Washington. The site is located northeast of • the intersection between Interurban Avenue South and Southwest Grady Way, south of the Green River and west of the Burlington Northern Railroad. This report has been revised to address changes in the riverbank stabilization plan which is shown on the drawings prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. This report supercedes our previous reports dated September 26, 1997 and January 26, 1998. The proposed Family Fun Center development includes modifying the existing Green River bank. Modifications are planned to provide compensatory flood storage above the ordinary high water level (Elevation 8.4 feet) for flood storage that will be lost on site as a result of raising grades to accommodate the proposed development. The proposed modifications to the existing bank will start approximately 80 feet east of the east edge of the Interurban Avenue bridge and extend to approximately 90 feet west of the east property line of the Family Fun Center site. The lower portion of the bank extending from the channel bottom up Elevation 9.0 feet will not be modified. A shelf up to 15 feet wide and about 360 feet long will be excavated out of the existing bank at Elevation 9.0 feet. A new bank with a 2H:1V (horizontal to vertical) sideslope will be constructed above the bench. Large wood snags will be placed on the bank at six locations which will extend into the river channel. A bioswale approximately 140 feet long will be constructed above a portion of the bench at Elevation 15.0 feet. An off channel pond will be located at the northeast corner of the site. The pond bottom will be at Elevation 6.0 feet and the mouth of the channel connecting the pond to the Green River will be at Elevation 4.4 feet. The proposed bank, bioswale and pond are shown on the Barghausen drawings. The top'of the new bank will.be at -least 2•feet above the•500 -year flood elevationl(Elevation, 22.0 feet). A paved recreational trail will be constructed along the top of the new bank. The recreational trail will also provide access for maintenance vehicles and for flood - fighting efforts as necessary. QeoEngineere 1 File No. 5925-001-00/031998 +; • z • 1- w ` Q� JU • o O0' • wI • CO L w O, g a. • z� • z o. 2 • U� SON. w W. 1-v u' O: Z, w U =, 0 z , • GREEN RIVER BANK CONDITIONS SURFACE CONDITIONS General Conditions on the Green River The Green River in the vicinity of the project site is a slow- moving river that has been highly channelized by development adjacent to the channel, levees, and bank stabilization measures which generally consist of riprap rock on the lower steeper portions of the bank and vegetation on the banks above the ordinary high water level. Flows in the Green River are controlled by the Howard Hanson Dam. Peak flows are limited to 12,000 cfs (cubic feet per second) at the project site for the 100 -year flood. The Greea River adjacent to the Family Fun Center site flows generally in an east- northeast direction. The channel adjacent to the Family Fun Center site varies in width from approximately 125 feet where it flows under the Interurban Avenue bridge to about 230 feet at the east end of the Family Fun Center site where the river makes a sharp 90 degree turn to the northwest. The sharp turn is the result of channelization of the river to accommodate the Burlington Railroad grade which runs along the eastern boundary of the Family Fun Center site and extends northwest of the site along the eastern bank of the Green River. Historic Changes in the Green River We reviewed the historic changes in channelization of and development along the river in the vicinity of the Family Fun Center site by reviewing a total of nine aerial photographs taken at the following times; 1936, 1946, 1956, 1960, 1969, 1974, 1980, 1985 and 1995. The aerial photographs indicate that the geometry of the Green River has changed little over the 61 -year period from 1936 to 1995 in the project area. The 1936 aerial photo indicates that the railroad grade east and northeast of the site, and Interurban Avenue are present. The railroad embankment and the Interurban Avenue bridge foundations are reinforced with riprap rock. The former river bend, located east of the railroad grade, that was cut off by the railroad embankment retains its former shape and still contains water, suggesting that the railroad embankment likely had not been in place for an extended length of time. A marsh and small inlet extend about 75 feet into the eastern end of the Family Fun Center site. The former river bend located east of the railroad grade was infilled and graded by 1956. Interstates 5 west of the project site and Interstate 405 south of the project site are present in the 1969 air photo. By 1969 the marsh at the east end of the Family Fun Center site had been completely infdled. Areas of riprap rock along the banks of the Green River in the project vicinity appear similar to those seen today. Observations on the Existing Riverbank GeoEngineers conducted a geologic reconnaissance along the Green River bank on August 29, 1997 to identify existing bank conditions. We observed the existing bank along the north margin of the Family Fun Center property for evidence of bank instability due to erosion, QeoEng neeri :: 2 File No. 5925-001-00/031998 ' `' ; 3 File No. 5925-001-00/031998 c z ~w UO 0 w =. —I 1—: N LL' w O' co d. Iw Z �. Z o. n o' U oa 0 I- wW U IL 8 .z w U =: O~ z c in disturbed should be protected with riprap. In our opinion, additional stabilization such as riprap rock will not be required on the existing banks which will be undisturbed. We understand that the portion of the bank where erosion is occurring at the sharp 90- degree bend in the river at the east end of the Family Fun Center site is owned by the Burlington Northern Railroad. We also understand that the Muckleshoot Tribe prefers to maintain the present configuration of the bank in this area for fish and wildlife habitat. In our opinion, this portion of the bank will continue to erode if stabilization measures are not implemented. At a minimum, we recommend that this portion of the bank be monitored to identify potential instability which may affect the Family Fun Center site. We also recommend that Burlington Northern Railroad be notified of the condition of the bank and the potential for instability. PROBABLE CAUSES OF EXISTING SURFICIAL BANK FAILURES AND EROSION In general, very little evidence of bank instability was observed during our site reconnaissance. It is our opinion that the river dynamics in the vicinity of the Family Fun Center site are generally resulting in deposition of sediment during low to moderate flows on the south riverbank and the vegetation on the existing bank provides adequate protection against significant bank failure during high flow periods. Five areas were identified where small surficial failures less than 10 feet wide and a few inches deep had occurred on the south riverbank on the Family Fun Center site. In our opinion, these failures have resulted from failure of sand which was very loosely deposited on the bank during periods of higher flows. The very loose saturated sand deposited on the bank did not have sufficient shear strength to support itself on the steeply inclined bank. Therefore, the recently deposited material slumped and failed. In our opinion, these failures do not indicate a potential for bank instability in the area and additional stabilization measures on the existing bank are not required. The erosion that is occurring at the east end of the project site is likely due to strong back eddy currents that result from the sharp 90- degree bend in the river at this location. The erosion which has occurred indicates that these currents are sufficiently strong to erode the bank material in this location. Further erosion will exaggerate the sharp bend at this location which will likely increase turbulence resulting in further erosion. In our opinion, additional stabilization measures are advisable at this location to reduce the potential for further erosion. BANK STABILIZATION General We estimate that average channel 'velocities during peak flow periods will be less than 5 fps (feet per second) in the project area. FEMA floodway data indicates that the mean velocity in the Green River channel in this area ranges from 3.3 to 4.8 fps (feet per second) during flooding. The 1993 King County Guidelines for Bank Stabilization Projects indicate that stabilization using vegetation is appropriate where average channel velocities are below 5 fps. G e o E n g i n e e r s ». 5 F'de No. 5925. 001 - 00/031998 z = Z w ~ 00 N cn w W =, -J w • 0 id 1_ w Z ZO� w ul U 0- O 1—. w U w. � • o. wz U= O~ z 1 :1 Using this criteria and considering our observations of existing bank performance on the Family Fun Center site (with the exception of the east end), it is our recommendation that the newly constructed 2H:1V bank above Elevation 9.0 feet can be adequately stabilized with vegetation. Appropriate vegetation for the new bank should be selected with due consideration to the type of soil present in the bank, drainage conditions, exposure to sun and wind and site elevation. A Riverbank Landscape plan has been prepared by Weiseman Design Group which indicates that rooted stock and live stakes will be used for permanent vegetative bank stabilization. The soils encountered in the test pits indicate that the bank materials will likely consist of loose to medium dense fine sand with varying amounts of silt. These materials will have a high susceptibility to erosion. The newly constructed banks will be particularly susceptible to erosion during the first year to two years after construction when the woody plant material is rooting. We recommend that consideration be given to planting ground cover such as grasses as soon as possible following construction of the new bank. The ground cover will provide temporary bank stabilization while the woody vegetation is getting established. The newly constructed bank at the upstream and downstream ends of the bench at Elevation 9.0 feet will be subject to erosion. We recommend that erosion protection which will likely include rip rap be incorporated into the final design in these locations. Wood Snags Wood snags are planned along the bank at six locations. We recommend that the wood snags consist of confers such as Douglas Fir or Western Red Cedar because of their durability. The snags should be placed with the root wads pointing at least slightly upstream and in the downward direction. The snags must be adequately anchored into the bank so that they are stable and relatively immobile. Some erosion of the existing bank and the shelf could occur in the vicinity of the log snags due to localized eddying, increases in flow velocities and turbulence. In our opinion, rip rap on the shelf and the lower bank will be necessary in the vicinity of the log snag groups to reduce the potential for erosion in these areas. Off - Channel Pond Slopes of the off - channel pond will be excavated no steeper than 2H: lV. A rockery up to 4 feet high will be constructed on the north and southwest sides of the pond. The rockery should consist of four -to .five- man.rocks. We. recommend „that.the.lowest,course of rocks, be.embedded... below the bottom of the pond at least 12 inches or one -half the diameter of the rock, whichever is greater. Voids behind and between the rocks should be filled with 2 -inch minus quarry spells. Recommendations for vegetating the new bank along the Green River also apply to the pond. We have preliminarily evaluated the gradient and configuration of the channel which connects the pond to the Green River. It is our opinion that the flow velocities of water exiting a e o E n g i n e e r i .,• iiiiia4'z:tt.S'tf ..':c�Iwvilln'.i +)”' u:`aS'iil `'' `'t,it).4+:i44rya4:." 6 File No. 5925-001-00/031998 the pond will be adequate to flush out minor amounts of sediment which may be deposited when the pond fills with water. We recommend that the channel be checked once a year to observe whether adequate flushing is occurring. If some deposition has resulted in the channel, it can be cleaned out by hand during dry periods. 90- Degree Bend We understand that the portion of the bank at the east end of the Family Fun Center site where erosion is occurring due to strong back eddy currents is owned by Burlington Northern Railroad. Carrent project planning indicates that this portion of the bank will be left undisturbed. In our opinion, erosion of the bank in this area will continue if stabilization measures are not implemented. At a minimum, we recommend that this portion of the bank be monitored to identify signs of instability which may affect the Family Fun Center site. We also recommend that Burlington Northern Railroad be notified of the banks conditions. Recommendations for stabilization, if required, are presented below. SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK We recommend that vegetation below the ordinary high water. level be left undisturbed during construction to protect the existing bank. Erosion control measures including but not limited to silt fences, sediment traps, runoff collection systems, mulching, etc., should be installed.prior to starting earthwork to reduce the potential adverse impacts to the river during construction. Following installation of appropriate erosion control measures the area where the shelf, bioswale, off- channel pond and new bank will be constructed should be cleared, grubbed and stripped. Excavation of new banks and the channel to the pond may extend below the water table. We recommend that excavations be completed incrementally, proceeding from one end of the bank to the other, to minimize traffic and disturbance. The proposed bench, bioswale, off - channel pond and new bank will be constructed by removing existing fill and native soil. When grading is complete, we recommend that these areas be trackrolled prior to hydroseeding and /or planting. Depending on the time of the year when construction takes place, it may be necessary to provide further temporary bank stabilization by installing erosion mats, such as jute or coconut fiber matting; a surficial layer of coarse gravel; or other temporary erosion control measures on the bank until vegetative growth has progressed >to a, degre&.where, the _vegetative root . system provides adequate, bank protection., LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for use by Family Fun Centers, Mulvanny Partnership Architects and other members of the design team for use in the design of a portion of this project. The conclusions and recommendations in this report should be applied in their entirety. The data and report should be provided to prospective contractors for bidding or a e o E n s i n e e r i 7 File No. 5925-00140/031998 NMl�'?:iKe,W!7t Q ■=•• Z ft/ LU 0 O' N 0; v) w' w= J 1-- w O' g D. d. _. Z�.; I— 0, Z 1--. 0 0 I- 11.1 u. 0 Z UN z 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 such changes are made, we should be engaged to review our conclusions and recommendations and to provide written modification or verification, as appropriate. When the design is finalized, we recommend that we be engaged to review those portions of the specifications and drawings that relate to geotechnical considerations to see that our recommendations have been interpreted and implemented as intended. There are possible variations in subsurface conditions between the locations of explorations and also with time. Some contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the project budget and schedule. We strongly recommend that sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation be provided by our firm during construction to (1) determine if the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, (2) provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and (3) evaluate whether or not earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with the contract plans and specifications. 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 warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. We trust this provides the information you require at this time. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. Please contact us should you have any questions concerning our findings or recommendations, or should you require additional information. ,�N•,l VIA - `f14YY� .vt . Respectfully submitted, • GeQEngineers, Inc. 231V.; dIss j , • 3/19/9 - Mary S. Rutherford, P.E. Associate MSR:cdl PAS00to59915925001 %nabtS 925001 R6. DOC Copyright' 1998 by OeoEsgiaeera, Inc. All righta reserved. O e o i8 a s i n e e r s 8 File No. 5925-001-00/001998 • z re • 00 to 0. w i' w o: d. 1t 1 • z� 1--O w p !O N • • o� ww • .H tJ• 1- u_z ui• 1. 0 .z i1 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING FIELD EXPLORATION Subsurface conditions at the site were explored on September 3, 1997 by excavating six test pits designated TP -1 through TP-6 using a rubber -tired backhoe under subcontract to GeoEngineers. The lest pits were excavated to depths ranging from about 12.0 to 14.5 feet below the existing ground surface. The locations of the explorations were determined in the field using topographic information and by pacing distances from existing site feature. Ground surface elevations indicated on the exploration logs are based on interpretation of topographic data provided by Mulvanny Partnership relative to the exploration locations. Locations of the explorations are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 1. A geologist from our firm continuously monitored the test pit excavations, prepared a detail log of the test pits, and visually classified the soils encountered. Disturbed representative soil samples were obtained from the test pit explorations. The exploration logs are based on our interpretation of the field and laboratory data and indicate the various types of soils encountered. They also indicate the depths at which these soils or their characteristics change, although the change might actually be gradual. The soils are classified in general accordance with the classification system presented in Figure A -1. Logs of the test pits are presented in Figures A -2 through A-4. z w; -J U. UO N D w =, J H wo g Q. 92. a F_ Lux. z�;. I- o; z r~-: wuj:. D'. —' D Ir. W w` Z. GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING _' Soil samples obtained from the explorations were transported to our laboratory and z examined to confirm or modify field classifications. Representative samples were selected for geotechnical laboratory testing including moisture content determinations. The results of the moisture content determinations are presented in Figure A -5. 0 e o E n g i n e e r r A -1 File No. 5925-00140/001998 SOR 1 GE! 8543 Rev. � DEPTH BELOW SOIL GROUP GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION (FEET) SYMBOL LOG OF TEST PIT DESCRIPTION Approximate Elevation: 16.0 feet 0.0 - 3.0 ML Brown cute sandy silt (medium stiff, moist) (fill) 3.0 - 4.0 SM Brown silty fine and with occasional cobbles (bone, moist) (fill) Pieces of slab concrete encountered at 4.0 feet 4.0 - 11.5 SM Brown silty fine sand (medium dense, moist) 11.5 - 13.0 SM Gray silty fine and (loose to medium dense, moist to wet) Test pit completed at 13.0 feet on 09/03/97 No ground water seepage observed No caving observed Disturbed soil samples obtained at 2.5, 6.0 and 10.5 feet TEST PIT 2 Approximate Elevation: 17.0 feet 0.0 - 5.4 SM Brown silty fine sand (loose, moist) (fill) Pieces of slab concrete encountered at 5.4 feet 5.4 - 10.5 SM Brown silty fine sand (loose to medium dense, moist) 10.5 - 11.5 SM Gray silty fine sand 0oose, moist to wet) 113 - 12.5 SP Gray fine sand (loose, wet) Test pit completed at 12.5 feet on 9/3/97 Slight to moderate ground water seepage observed at 12.0 feet No caving observed Disturbed soil samples obtained at 3.0 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 Prr AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE TO 0.5 FOOT. Geo 440 En ' eers LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE A -2 " Z ce W. 6 U: UO ! CO Q, N W`, W =; J I—'. WO q LL co 2 Ci Z Z 1- O: Z I—: 11.1 ui n O N W; Z' O~ DEPTH BELOW SOIL GROUP GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION (FEET) SYMBOL LOG OF TEST PIT DESCRIPTION Approximate Elevation: 18.0 feet 0.0 - 2.0 SM Brown silty fine and (loose to medium demo, moist) (fill) 2.0 - 9.5 SP Brown fine sand with a trace of aih (loose to medium dense, moist) 9.5 - 12.7 SP-SM Brown fine sand with silt (loose to medium dense, mast) 12.7 - 143 SP Brown faro and (loose to medium dense, moist to wet) Test pit completed at 14.5 feet on 09/03197 Slight to moderate ground water seepage observed at 14.0 feet Minor caving observed at 4.0 to 8.0 feet Disturbed soil samples obtained at 4.5 and 14.0 feet 0.0 -' 3.5 3.5 - 7.8 7.8 - 12.0 TEST PIT 4 Approximate Elevation: 18.5 feet SP Brown fine and with a trace of silt (loose to medium dense, moist) (fill) Pieces of slab concrete encountered at 3.5 feet SP Brown fine and with a trace of silt (loose to medium dense, moist) SP -SM Brown fine and with silt (loose to medium dense, moist) Test pit completed at 12.0 feet on 09/03/97 No ground water seepage observed Severe caving observed at 4.0 feet Disturbed soil samples obtained at 3.0 and 7.0 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. Geo Engineers LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE A -3 W` •W =' • • •v0 rn ° W . U) W =; • N W' • =; • g a 2 Z :Z 2p (.6! O . W W' 'lL ~j • —0 . Z�. U N`, i. O ~' • , DEPTH BELOW SOIL GROUP GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION (FEET) SYMBOL LOG OF TEST PIT DESCRIPTION TEST PIT S Approximate Elevation: 17.0 feet 0.0 - 2.5 SM Brown silty fine sand (loose, moist) (fill) 2.5 - 12.0 SP Brown fine sand with a trace of silt (loose to medium dense, moist) Test pit completed at 12.0 feet on 09/03/97 No ground water seepage obse -ved Minor caving observed at 3.0 to 8.0 feet Disturbed soil samples obtained at 1.5, 7.0 and 11.5 feet TEST PIT 6 Approximate Elevation: 20.5 feet 0.0 - 9.0 SM Brown silty fine sand (medium dense, moist) (011) 9.0 - 12.0 SP Brown fine sand with a trace of silt (loose to medium dense, moist) Test pit completed at 12.0 feet on 09/03/97 No ground water seepage observed No caving observed Disturbed soil samples obtained at 3.0 and 11.0 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. Geo En ' eers LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE A-4 Z Z, �W; Wg' UO W D W W I' u. WO IL ° . ZI W W: W tL ~' — O: Z; U =. O RESULTS OF MOISTURE CONTENT DETERMINATIONS Test Pit Number Depth of Sample (feet) Soil Classification Moisture Content I%) r TP -1 2.5 ML 19 TP -1 6.0 SM 16 TP -2 3.0 SM 14 TP -3 4.5 SP 8 TP -4 3.0 SM 6 TP -4 7.0 SP 6 TP -5 1.5 SM 12 TP -5 7.0 SP 8 TP -6 3.0 SM 9 TP -6 11.0 SP 4 Doc ID: 5925001.MC2 Geo kt Engineers MOISTURE CONTENT DATA FIGURE A -5 .. „ .. GE 85 -85 Rev. 05/93 -: " DEPTH BELOW SOIL GROUP GROUND SURFACE CIASSIRCATION (FEET) SYMBOL LOG OF TEST PIT DESCRIPTION TEST PIT 1 Approximate Elevation: 16.0 feet 0.0 - 3.0 ML Brown fine sandy silt (medium stiff, moist) (fill) 3.0 - 4.0 SM Brown silty fine and with occasional cobbles (loose, moist) (fill) Pieces of slab concrete encountered at 4.0 feet 4.0 - 11.5 SM Brown silty fine sand (medium dense, moist) 11.5 - 13.0 SM Gay silty fine and (loose to medium dense, moist to wet) Test pit completed at 13.0 feet on 09/03/97 No ground water seepage observed No caving observed Disturbed soil samples obtained at 2.5, 6.0 and 10.5 feet TEST PIT 2 Approximate Elevation: 17.0 feet 0.0 - 5.4 SM Brown silty fine sand (loose, moist) (fill) Pieces of slab concrete encountered at 5.4 feet 5.4 10.5 SM Brown silty fine sand (loose to medium dense, moist) 10.5 - 11.5 SM Gray silty fine sand (loose, moist to wet) 11.5 - 12.5 SP Gray fine sand (loose, wet) Test pit completed at 12.5 feet on 9/3/97 Slight to moderate ground water seepage observed at 12.0 feet No caving observed Disturbed soil samples obtained at 3.0 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. Geo En ' eers ��� gui LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE A -2 ; � DEPTH BELOW SOIL GROUP GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION (FEETI SYMBOL • LOG OF TEST PIT DESCRIPTION TEST PIT 3 Approximate Elevation: 18.0 feet 0.0 - 2.0 SM Brown silty fine sand (loose to medium dense, moist) (fill) 2.0 - 9.5 SP Brown fine sand with a trace of silt (loose to medium dense, moist) 9.5 - 12.7 SP-SM Brown fine sand with silt (loose to medium dense, moist) 12.7 - 14.5 SP Brown fine sand (loose to medium dense, moist to wet) Test pit completed at 14.5 feet on 09/03/97 Slight to moderate ground water seepage observed at 14.0 feet Minor caving observed at 4.0 to 8.0 feet Disturbed soil samples obtained at 4.5 and 14.0 feet TEST PIT 4 Approximate Elevation: 18.5 feet 0.0 - 3.5 SP Brown fine sand with a trace of silt (loose to medium dense, moist) (fill) Pieces of slab concrete encountered at 3.5 feet 3.5 - 7.8 SP Brown fine sand with a trace of silt (loose to medium dense, moist) 7.8 - 12.0 SP -SM Brown fine sand with silt (loose to medium dense, moist) Test pit completed at 12.0 feet on 09/03/97 No ground water seepage observed Severe caving observed at 4.0 feet Disturbed soil samples obtained at 3.0 and 7.0 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. GeoEngineers �. . • DEPTH BELOW SOIL GROUP GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION (FEET) SYMBOL LOG OF TEST PIT DESCRIPTION TEST PIT 5 Approximate Elevation: 17.0 feet 0.0 - 2.5 SM Brown silty fine sand (loose, moist) (fill) 2.5 - 12.0 SP Brown fine sand with a trace of silt (loose to medium dense, moist) Test pit completed at 12.0 feet on 09/03/97 No ground water seepage observed Minor caving observed at 3.0 to 8.0 feet Disturbed soil samples obtained at 1.5, 7.0 and 11.5 feet TEST PIT 6 Approximate Elevation: 20.5 feet 0.0 - 9.0 SM Brown silty fine sand (medium dense, moist) (fill) 9.0 -.12.0 SP Brown fine sand with a trace of silt (loose to medium dense, moist) Test pit completed at 12.0 feet on 09/03/97 No ground water seepage observed No caving observed Disturbed soil samples obtained at 3.0 and 11.0 feet THE DEPTHS ON THE TEST PIT LAGS, 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. Geo En ' eers LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE A-4 RESULTS OF MOISTURE CONTENT DETERMINATIONS Test Pit Number Depth of Sample (feet) Soil Classification Moisture Content (96) 1 TP -1 2.5 ML 19 TP -1 6.0 SM 16 TP -2 3.0 SM 14 TP -3 4.5 SP 8 TP -4 3.0 SM 6 TP -4 7.0 SP 6 TP -5 1.5 SM 12 TP -5 7.0 SP 8 TP -6 3.0 SM 9 TP -6 11.0 SP 4 Doc ID: 5925001.MC2 Geo En ' eers MOISTURE CONTENT DATA FIGURE A -5 % { appendix b exploration logs from previous studies 09/10/97 WED 12:49 FAX 425 861 6050 • GEO ENGINEERS -•�-. SEATTLE 2002 Laboratory Tests SA 5 A s s g 20 Era • Q 4 14.7 82 Equipment Mobile 8 -61 Elevation, Not measured pate 3/31/89 at 3 31.3 72 - 10 9 DS 5 38.1. 76 7 8 25.1 95 20-+ 14 15 - • 25- . 30 • 40 - Sod. BROWN SAND (SP) very loose to loose, moist; firie to. medium grained. Becomes wet, fine grained, with trace silt. With some silt. Becomes saturated. Becomes medium to coarse grained. Groundwater encountered at approx= imatel•y 12 -foot depth during drilling. Applied Geotechnoiogy $nc. Geotectlnicer Engineering Geology & Hydrog.ology Joe r+uw(* 115.339.002.01 ECR ; , Log of Boring B -2 Hillman Properties NW Tukwila Development ,►r11, 1 DATE oATt �cwsEO 12 Apr1I e 9 • .ATC 4 Z I.Z. rrw. 0 O' W'S: 1,11° g . u. wd = i— W Z,, i- 0. ZZc H. , U `W W' ai 0 ~' Z 09/10/97 WED 12:49 FAX 425 861 6050 • GEO ENGINEERS •.-... SEATTLE Z003 Laboratory Tests sir Ta a E m 20 oo o co 0 6 7 35.9 74 10 23.7 102 18 25.8 96 7 36.1 80 6 15 7 26.6 87 20 Equipment • Mobile B -6I Elevation Not measured Date 3/31/89 BROWN AND GRAY MOTTLED SILTY SAND (SM) loose, moist to wet; fine to medium grained, with some gravel, and trace burned wood and brick fragments (Fill). With some slag fragments and wood debris. With some concrete pieces. BROWN.SILTY SAND (SM) loose, moist to wet; fine to medium grained, with trace to some fine gravel. Becomes gray, wet, with trace decayed organics. GRAY SAND (Se) loose, saturated; fine to medium grained, with occasional silt interlayering. Becomes dark gray. • Becomes medium dense. ililApplied Geotechnology Ine. GeotecInIcsl Engineering Geology & Hydrog.ology Log of Boring B -3 (0 -40') Hillman Properties NW Tukwila Development DATE 12 Aorll 89 Joe kuleitut 15,330.002.01 Dome EC R ". 09/10/97 WED 12:49 FAX 425 861 6050 GEO ENGINEERS -•+•+ SEATTLE a 004 AL Laboratory Tests iF ,^ Mobile B -G 1 t m Equipment is 2 o o n Elevation. Not measured Date_ 3/31/89 23 40 • 45— • J 17•: �~ • 50 • 4o 38 37 16.2 113 50 60 Applied Geotechno ogy Inc. G.ot.chnical Engineering Geology & Hydrogeology Alt KA M 15,330.002.01 DRAWN ECR a • • 60— • ti , 75- • 80- - With some organics, trace fine gravel. LIGHT BROWN SANDY, S.1 LT, moist; very fine to fine grained, with trace to some clay (Weathered Si1tstone ?). Groundwater encountered at approxi- mately 18 -foot depth during drilling.. Log of Boring B -3 (40 -74') . Hillman Properties NW Tukwila Development APPROVED PLATE 6 3 .a • j r i. 09/10/97 WED 12:50 FAX 425 861 6050 GEO ENGINEERS -. +.. SEATTLE LOG OF TEST PITS (Continued) Zoos TEST PIT 4 Depth (Feet) Classification Description 0 to 5 ML Brown Sandy Silt (ML); soft, moist to wet; fine to medium - grained, with some slag to 2 -foot .diameter, concrete to 5- foot diameter; bricks and wood debris (Fill). 5 to 9 SH /SP Gray Silty Sand (SH); interlayered with Dark Brown Sand (SP); loose, wet; fine to medium - grained. • 9 to 11 5P Dark Brown Sand (SP); loose, wet; fine to medium - grained, with some silt. Test Pit completed April 3, 1989. Seepage noted at approximately 9 -foot depth during excavation. Bulk samples obtained at 2- and 2 -i /2- foot depths. TEST PIT 5 0 to 5 SH /ML Brown and Gray Sandy Silt and Silty Sand (SH /ML); soft, loose, wet; fine - grained, with trace gravel, concrete and slag to 6 -inch diameter (Fill). 5 to 9 SH Brown Silty Sand (SM); loose, saturated, fine to coarse - grained, vith some gravel (Fill). 9 to 11 SH Gray Silty Sand (SH); loose, saturated; with some gravel and concrete (Fill). Test Pit terminated due to caving April 3, 1989. Groundwater encountered at approximately 5 -foot depth during excavation. Bulk sample obtained at 3 -foot depth. iii;)Applied Geotechnology Inc. Geological Engineering Geology & Hyorogeology Test Pits 4 -5 Hillman Properties NW Tukwila Development R/CTC 11 .loe tannin 15,339.002 DRAWN OATS 4/25/89 REVISED OATS ofn^J�Yt''yt- :AamA''p -T Pik- 5e"-`' iii" 10, 2: a*m.:44.14 1,11 5 10 15 20 BORING B- 16/MW -16 y o� F tit tiJ t4 \P. •t���y��'b`o 4� 5 5� Description Comments to 15 15 30 >50 2 [ • • • • • • • • • • . • • Pasture, grass, and bare soil - Grayish brown, silty SAND, fine - grained, with organics, some slag, gravel, moist, medium dense. (FILL) - Brown SAND, line- to medium - grained, moist, medium dense. - Dark brown SAND, medium - to coarse - grained, with silt, wet, dense. - Dark gray to black SAND, coarse - grained, wet, very, dense. No hydrocarbon odor detected. No hydrocarbon odor detected throughout boring. * Boring drilled to 17.5 feet and sampled to 19.0 feet on November 1, 1996. * No olfactory indication of contamination in soil. * A monitoring well was completed in this boring. * Groundwater depth measured at 11.52 feet below ground surface on November 4, 1996. • Well completed with locking above - ground monument. * Headspace measured using Photovac 2020 PID. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS BORING LOG B- 16/MW -16 NIELSEN PROPERTY SW GRADY WAY AT INTERURBAN AVE • TUKWILA, WASHINGTON IJob No: 8TE C198t; IL°ed wA I Pule: 4 • Z v. H W' Q�Q U .0 O' t tnO. U)= J � W • LL =. = C� Zf..' :I— O: •Zt — O N O I— W UJ u- O. Ali z. •-- O ~` z Wet/and?esoHrces, /ilC. Delineation / Mitigation / Restoration / Habitat Creation / Permit Assistance RIVERBANK RESTORATION AND HABITAT ENHANCEMENT BIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION DESCRIPTION FOR FAMILY FUN CENTERS TUKWILA, WA. WETLAND RESOURCES, INC. PROJECT #98045 Prepared By: Wetland Resources, Inc. 9505 19th Avenue SE, Suite 106 Everett, Washington 98208 (425) 337 -3174 For: Family Fun Centers 29111 S.W. Town Center Loop West Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 As V, May 5, 1998 9505 19th Avenue S.E. Suite 106 Everett, Washington 98208 (425) 337 -3174 Fax (425) 337 -3045 r.:,:?;,.. r: zit�i; )1nG:,cti:,:,:�at,.L:S,:af.u.n�; min:. �4•''& ik'? 4':.'' S:, Ni" iai';: tAtm`• 4: tR ;it.= .'ki�bF ^.fa ?m'i,`r�+.r+ -,; yak?.- �i.', lf< ll�,.; i�rJd:: i,," ai: 3. 4w�ft..'",. i, �i- P, tiG,.d,�ar�CiA.iA ?s°iiidt..;ib'. Table of Contents Project Site Description 1 Restoration and Creation Summary 2 Baseline Information 3 Mitigation Goals and Objectives 5 Mitigation Condition and Function 7 Mitigation Standards 8 Use of this Report 11 Figures 1. Log Structures - Riverband - Top View 2. Log Structure - Riverbank - Side View 3. Log Structure - Channel Entrance East Site 4. Log Structure - Channel Entrance West Site 5. Off Channel Pond - Top View 6. Off Channel Pond - Cross Section 7. Off Channel Pond Log Structures Tables 1. Buffer/Habitat Development Photos 1. Existing Poor Condition 2. Existing Poor Condition 3. Desired.Product,Example._' 4. Desired Product Example Report References Professional Biographies �'�.. ::T ^ <' '�V."y A. l +F'�i�`r.'✓ - icy i" wrMili 'M°4Viv`[ tt, .efv� - .i,..- .....: M14'h^�:^M, iT�:�:�`�s„i.. 7th% e4k.!•" Ai Y; n. 2^ �`'. vLP1:. a+ nM: t�G�it�:: .:'11ti0i:(1'4„: a0.04:!'.Aiq .z. ILI • Df UO y C;.. :CO LW -J 1- (/) u-' • .w u_Q ,z_�', •1- O • z Do. • • ' U i0 Id,- V; p( Z., • UNi H 1_' z PROJECT DESCRIPTION Location The Family Fun Center proposes to develop this approximately 13 acre site in the City of Tukwila, WA. immediately adjacent to the Green River. The Green River is a Shorelines of the State and supports a population of native Chinook salmon and Coho salmon, along with terrestrial wildlife species. The site is situated on the north side of Interstate 405 between Fun Center Way and the Green River in King County, Washington. The site is legally located as a portion of Section 24, Township 23N, Range 4E., W.M.. Area Description No sensitive areas, wetlands or streams exist on the development site or in the immediate vicinity of the development site except for the Green River and the steep slopes along the riverbank of the Green River. The Green River is a Shorelines of the State and rated by the State as a Water Type 1 drainage. The City of Tukwila requires a minimum 40 -foot Shorelines River Environment setback zone which allows specific structures or uses (TMC 18.44.130). In addition, the setbacks for all shoreline zones extend from the Mean High Water mark defined as the elevation that corresponds with a discharge flow rate of 9,000 cfs (TMC 18.06.570). The US Army Corps of Engineers and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife both have jurisdiction to regulate activities which occur within and below the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of the Green River as defined by the US Army Corps of Engineers as that line which corresponds to the horizontal line along the bank below which the predominant upland vegetation does not grow (33 CFR Part 328.3(e)).. The Proposed Family Fun Center will require a Shorelines Substantial Development Permit for work proposed within 200 feet of the OHWM of the Green River. The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) will require a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) for any work proposed adjacent to or below the OHWM of the Green River or any work which could potentially have a negative effect on the fisheries of the Green River. WDFW currently recommends 100 to 150 foot buffers adjacent to the Green River based on the existence of a Chinook salmon population in the river. The US Army Corps of Engineers will regulate activities below the OHWM of the Green River. Mitigation Description The Family Fun Center project proposes to replace lost 100 year flood storage capacity by construction of a riverbank shelf and construction of an off - channel fisheries habitat pond (See Barghausen Engineering Calculation). The riverbank shelf will be constructed at elevation 9. The OHWM of the Green River at the development site has been determined to be 8.4. The off channel pond will be constructed with a bottom elevation of 6 and a narrow channel connecting to the Green River at elevation 4. The riverbank shelf will be enhanced by , placement . of .. woody debris, for.. fisheries habitat and will be planted to a mix of native trees and shrubs suitable to this new environment. The side slopes from the shelf to the edge of the buffer will also be planted to native trees, shrubs and grasses and will be irrigated during the first two years of establishment. The off channel pond will have woody debris habitat structures placed in the channel and in the pond itself for fisheries benefit. The pond and channel will be planted to native trees, shrubs and grasses (See Weisman Design Group Riverbank and Off Channel Pond Landscape Plan for details of all plantings). 1 : iioa.v'id:: "Y1:id.".�..`�''ia@ :`rwi'�4[;"u1c�k:Ak. iLiS"niliiib'✓s tu'll1i�Kx"'F.at #' ,. The Family Fun Center proposes to mitigate for reduction of the recommended WDFW recommended 100 to 150 foot buffer by creation, enhancement and restoration of the riverbank shelf and off channel pond. The loss of flood storage will be compensated by replacement of the lost capacity in the riverbank shelf and off channel pond. Disturbance of the existing riverbank will be compensated by revegetation of the area with native trees, shrubs and grasses. The proposed mitigation project will greatly increase the functions of the River Environment adjacent to the Green River for fishery and wildlife habitat by providing greatly increased aquatic and terrestrial habitat. Invasive plant species will be replaced by selected native plant species. Woody aquatic structures and varying elevation shelves and off channel habitat areas will be created to benefit the local fisheries, as well as local wildlife species. Flood storage will be replaced at a minimum of 1:1. Mitigation for fish and wildlife habitat and flood storage will be supplied on site. By implementation of this mitigation plan the functions of the river habitat areas on this site will be greatly improved over existing conditions. The functions will be greatly improved over the WDFW standard recommendation of 100 to 150 foot buffers without restoration. Alternatives Process Description The development and shoreline area mitigation design for the Family Fun Centers, Tukwila, WA. project is not a condition required by the City of Tukwila but has evolved through the City's coordination responsibility for SEPA review, Army Corps permitting and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. The City of Tukwila has coordinated multiple meetings between the Family Fun Centers design team, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), King County and the Muckelshoot Tribal Fisheries in an effort to design a project which address the concerns of each agency and group. Project impacts to the river habitat environment as related to the City of Tukwila, consist of direct replacement of lost flood storage capacity on site. Project impacts to the river habitat environment related to the Army Corps of Engineers are associated with an open channel between a proposed fisheries habitat pond and the Green River. Impacts below the OHWM will amount to 7.1 cubic yards calculated as a 4.4 -foot high wedge from a 2:1 slope, spanning the width of a 10 -foot channel. Project impacts to sensitive areas related to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife HPA consist of buffer width reductions from standard recommendations, limited impacts below the OHWM and water quality and storm water detention as they impact fisheries of the Green River. The majority of this Riverbank Restoration and Habitat Enhancement Plan is designed to support a reduction in buffer from the WDFW recommended 100 to 150 feet to the proposed minimum 50 feet. The existing buffer is highly disturbed and of low value, but could provide some protection to the river environment habitat by greater separation of the proposed development from the OHWM. The combination of native planting of the reduced buffer, construction of fisheries habitat structures immediately above the OHWM, development of an off - channel pond with an open water connection to the Green River and native planting of the off - channel pond, are designed to mitigate for the reduced distance between the proposed development and the river environment habitat. The concept of construction of a riverbank shelf immediately above the OHWM with extensive woody debris and native plantings has been supported in concept by all of the above mentioned groups. The concept of an off channel pond with extensive woody debris and native plantings has also been supported in concept by all of these groups. The proposed buffer is greater than the 40- foot setback required under the City of Tukwila Shoreline Overlay. The restored and enhanced buffer proposed under this mitigation plan will function to a much higher degree for the benefit of fish and wildlife than the WDFW recommended 100 to 150 foot buffer without restoration. 2 z w 6 00.: CO 0 w= u.• ai J u_ - a. =w 1 z�. f- 0' w~ U 0 ON :0 I- ww LI z U =. 0~ z The Family Fun Center has adjusted and redesigned the configuration and infrastructure of their project to accommodate the extensive buffer restoration and habitat creation project currently proposed. Impacts below the OHWM have been avoided and minimized to the greatest extent possible while adding to the existing fisheries habitat. RIVERBANK RESTORATION AND HABITAT CREATION PROJECT SUMMARY This riverbank restoration and habitat creation project is planned to develop riparian fisheries and wildlife habitat above the Ordinary High Water Mark of the Green River. The OHWM for this section of the Green River has been determined to be elevation 8.4. A riverbank shelf will be constructed at elevation 9.0 for approximately 500 feet immediately adjacent to the riverbank. This shelf will average twenty feet wide and will be planted to native grasses, shrubs and trees. This will allow the elevation 9.0 shelf to become inundated an estimated 3 months per average year. We believe this estimate is reasonably accurate based on discussions with WDFW, the City of Tukwila and King County. The slopes above the riparian shelf will be graded at 2:1 and planted to native grasses, shrubs and trees. In addition, five large masses of conifer tree snags with root wads will be placed along this shelf for the benefit of native fisheries. These log masses will be held in place with rock and post anchors and heavily planted to native willow and dogwood species. The root wads will extend into the river channel and angle to a point below the OHWM. The vast majority of existing native willow and dogwood along this section of the Green River will '41 not be disturbed during the construction of this project. The project has been designed to protect valuable existing native plant material. The vast majority of the riverbank is dominated by Himalayan blackberry. The blackberry will be removed along all portions of the riverbank on the Family Fun Center property and replaced with native grass, shrub and tree species. } u An off - channel pond will be developed at the northeast corner of the property. This pond will have a low bottom elevation of 6.0 with shelves at elevation 8.0 and 10.0. These shelves will be planted to native sedge and bulrush, willow, dogwood and cottonwood trees. The area above 10.0 will be planted to native conifer and hardwood trees and shrubs. The pond will be connected to the Green River by a sloping channel which will enter the river at approximate elevation 4.0 (below OHWM). This will allow the off channel pond to remain inundated an estimated 6 months per average year. Based on a pond outlet below the designed pond bottom elevation, we can be sure that during periods of low flow the pond will drain and not become a fish trap. Log habitat structures will be placed in the pond and on either side of the entrance channel. A rock wall will be constructed within a portion of the pond to form a transition between shelf areas within the pond and the 2:1 side slopes above the pond. This extensive riverbank restoration and habitat creation project is intended to mitigate for potential loss of habitat from a reduction in buffer widths from the 100 to 150 feet recommended by Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to a project minimum width of 50 feet. Habitat impact relates to placement of the development within 50 feet of the River Environment Habitat rather than .maintaining 'the, recommended' 100:to:.150teety The WDFW recommendation of 100 to 150 buffers adjacent to waters directly associated with Chinook Salmon is a new recommendation which was adopted in February 1998. The City of Tukwila requires a minimum 40 foot River Environment setback under a Shorelines Substantial Development permit. The Riverbank Restoration and Habitat Enhancement project will also replace flood storage area which will be lost as a result of development of the Family Fun Center. Calculations for flood storage loss are presented by Barghausen Engineering in the Civil Engineering section of this report. 3 z re w 0 0 cnw J= w o. g Q. = a. w z �o zI- w U 0. co '0- o I ww • o wz U- H Z. O F'. z 6 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit Request The Riverbank Restoration and Habitat Enhancement Project associated with the Family Fun Center Development has been submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers for permit determination. On May 12, 1998 varification was received from the Corps that NWP 19 of the 404 Clean Water Act will authorize the proposed restoration and enhancement work.. This permit, in part, allows minor discharges in waters of the United States. BASELINE INFORMATION FOR THE PROJECT IMPACT ZONE AND THE PROPOSED MITIGATION SITE. Project Site Description A study was conducted by Wetland Resources, Inc. in March, 1998 at a site proposed for the Tukwila Family Fun Center. The property is approximately 13 acres in size and situated on the north side of Interstate 405 between Monster Rd., S.W. and the Green River in King County, Washington. The site is legally located as a portion of Section 24, Township 23N., Range 4E., W.M.. The objective of the study was to assess the functions and values of wildlife habitat. Special emphasis was given to salmonid presence in the Green River and habitat features available to them. Topographically the property site is level throughout with several large man-made earthen mounds located at the eastern end of the site. The northern edge of the property drops off as a steep bank into a reach of the Green River. The vegetative component for most of the site consists of abandoned pasture with much of its area disturbed by human activities. There are several groups of trees found in different locations on the site. The first group is along the northern edge of the site where it borders the Green River, the second is adjacent to the southern property line. The trees along the river include conifers on the upland and willow species closely adjacent the water. The stand of trees along the southern boundary consists of conifer and maple species intermixed in an upland area that appears to have been a yard in the past. Methodology The area was first studied through examination of existing maps and aerial photographs to determine its general habitat layout and relationship to adjacent lands. Once gaining a preliminary overview of the site's condition and possible dynamics, a field reconnaissance was conducted. The area was investigated on foot by walking transects to locate and identify key wildlife components and determine the site's habitat quality, functions, values and species presence. The field study was conducted by visiting all areas of the site and surveying visually with binoculars and listening for auditory indicators. Habitat Components Wildlifethabitat.can contain any,combination of features and attributes that give' it- a, particular range • of functions and values for wildlife. The vegetative, topographic and structural associations they present will dictate in part the diversity and densities of wildlife found. It is these areas and the systems they form that deserve attention here. At this property site there are two predominant habitat types. Riparian Zone: Found along the entire northern boundary of the site this habit is sandwiched between the abandoned pasture land and the Green River. The on -site portion of this habitat is approximately twelve hundred and fifty feet in length and an average of twenty feet wide yielding 4 • approximately 25,000 sq. ft.. The quality of the habitat varies throughout its length ranging from sections with good vegetative diversity and structure to large portions dominated by invasive species. The central portion of the on -site stretch (approximately 14,000 sq. ft.) is over grown with Himalayan blackberry and offers very poor structural diversity and virtually no woody cover into the river. The best quality riparian habitat on site is found in the northeast corner and extends approximately two hundred feet up river. This portion of the riparian zone has good vegetative diversity and structure and is connected to a large area of like habitat extending off -site to the north running down river. There is a smaller patch of moderate quality riparian habitat (willow cluster) located in the northwestern corner of the site. Abandoned Pasture: This habitat type comprises the vast majority of what is found on the site. Within this component there are areas containing trees and others with a shrub -scrub mix. By and large the entirety of this habitat component has been seriously degraded and impacted. There remain only a few small pockets that retain any value to wildlife, these include some grass and brush patches along with some of the trees scattered about. Throughout the site there are upturned soils, human spoils (construction materials and trash). Wildlife Features In any area there can exist special habitat features that can enhance its value to wildlife. These characteristics can either meet the specialized needs of an individual species, or the fulfillment of a range of functions for entire communities. The presence of some special habitat features may very well dictate whether a species or group of species utilizes the area at all. Riparian Zone: The eastern portion of this area along the Green River provides several features that define its value to wildlife. The vegetative composition is fairly typical of riparian zones found in the area. Plant species present include Sitka willows, Pacific willows and some scrub -shrub species. In its current condition the riparian vegetation provides some benefit for both the terrestrial and aquatic zones. Terrestrially, the area provides both cover and forage potential for local and resident wildlife species. On a larger scale the riparian zone is part of the movement corridor formed by the Green River and its adjacent habitats. Aquatically, the woody vegetation extending from shore into the river channel is of note. Although currently limited, these woody fingers can create habitat features that are beneficial for salmonids. Features such as riffles, deepened water pools and shelter areas are of value to all salmonid age classes and a range of different species. The time and type of use can and will vary between life stages and species. Condition and Function Existing: The wildlife habitat on site is less than optimal. Many areas have been seriously degraded as a result of human activities. There have been changes in vegetation and topography that have altered the site and decreased or eliminated much of its functional value. Wildlife usage of the area is therefore held below those levels that would be expected and are possible. The area currently has limited capacity to function as a reservoir for resident wildlife and to contribute as part of a movement corridor moving through the greater area. At present, there is evidence of use by a moderate number of avian and mammalian species. Uses include feeding, roosting and nesting by some avian species and foraging and habitation by several mammalian species. The riparian zone along the Green River forms the most valuable habitat on site, however, in its current condition, it is compromised in value by its limited size and predominantly poor structural quality. The aquatic component along the rivers edge is a straight reach with a mostly sandy substrate for its entire length. The amount of woody vegetation extending from the shore into the water is very limited and leaves this stretch of river with little riffle effect, few cover areas and little ability to trap additional biotic material moving down stream. 5 z w 6 00 Uo CO ILI J= LL w 0. gQ =w z� 1- 0 z�— O N: o'- wW Z O wz 0 z There are several locations within the buffer region of the river that have been spoiled with the presence of human refuse. These areas compromise the quality of the buffer and in all probability act more as a detriment to the Riverine system than a benefit. A recommended 150 foot set back from the river would provide approximately 187,500 square feet of buffer of which a very low percentage provides adequate protection. The riparian zone stretching along the north end of the property constitutes the majority of functional buffer. Of its 25,000 sq. ft. total only 11,000 sq.ft. of moderate to good quality habitat remains. The majority, (14,000 sq.ft.) is overgrown by Himalayan blackberry and of very poor structure and diversity. MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Environmental Goals The goal of the mitigation plan is to: one; restore the degraded portion of the existing riparian vegetation (14,000 sq.ft.) back to a high quality vegetative structure; two, create approximately 58,600 sq.ft. of like habitat where none currently exists through restoration of degraded buffer. Additionally, the plan calls for the restoration and enhancement of riverside habitat in the form of a riverbank shelf slightly above OHWM (elevation 9.0), and the creation of an off- channel pond with an open connection to the Green River. The riverbank restoration area, off channel pond and the associated buffers will be planted with native trees, shrubs and grasses. The mitigation will provide a well structured and functionally valuable habitat for terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. Environmental Objectives Water Regime River System: A reach of river approximately 500 feet in length will be enhanced with the construction of a high water shelf at elevation 9.0'. Five large log structures will be placed on this shelf extending into the river channel below the OHWM (See Log Structure Detail, Figures 1 -4) These structures will be designed and anchored so as to remain stable as constructed and provide viable fisheries habitat for the long term. Off- Channel Pond: An area of approximately 23,000 sq.ft. of upland will be converted into an off - channel pond with bottom elevations of 6.0 and shelves at 8.0 and 10.0 (OHWM established at 8.4). Half log structures will be constructed within the pond to provide additional salmonid habitat (See Log Structure Detail, Figures 5.6). These structures will be designed and anchored so as to remain stable as constructed and provide viable fisheries habitat for the long term. Vegetative Structure X4 River System: An area of approximately 51,600 sq. ft. will be planted with native tree and shrub vegetation. Species will generally conform to those shown on the Weisman Design Landscape Plan for Riverbank and Off Channel Pond. Not more than 20% of the site will be dominated by non - native vegetation. Success will be determined by survival of 80% of the planted species with 80% aerial coverage of the planting area at the end of the designated monitoring period. Temporary irrigation will be provided for the first two growing seasons for upland planting areas. Off - Channel Pond: The entrance channel, the pond and the side slopes above the pond (a total area of 23,000 sq.ft.) will be planted with riparian, shrub and tree species which will generally conform to those shown on the Weisman Design Landscape Plan for Riverbank and Off Channel Pond. Not more than 20% of the site will be dominated by non - native `,V;V..cd.pw;x"t ""^.' i'e: ^:i; ,•i Y5:3 4.7i "'.s i'ti{'AF ...• �ti9i 5+At�vi: ssi S4b'n 44,1WAS".d+ z X • ~w r4 2 O 0 moo. W =. N LL w0 _; z� I-O Z f- w C1. 0 o I w • w. O. ..z U N' O ~. z vegetation. Success will be determined by survival of 80% of the planted species with 80% aerial coverage of the planting area at the end of the designated monitoring period. Temporary irrigation will be provided for the first two growing seasons for upland planting areas. Habitat Attributes Log Structures will provide evening and winter habitat for salmonids. Deep water pools and riffles formed by log structures will create shear zones for feeding and contribute to upstream movement. The riverbank shelf and off channel pond with habitat structure will reduce water velocity and will lower the amount of downstream displacement of salmon and allow greater ease of movement up stream. Improved riparian vegetation will create in- channel vegetation providing cover and trapping more biotic material. Improved riparian vegetation will increase invertebrate food and biotic material contributions to river system. Off - Channel Pond will provide additional evening cover and winter rearing habitat. Restored stretch of riparian habitat will increase connectivity Riverine environment by linking with adjacent Wildlife and Fisheries complex. Improved terrestrial upland buffer plantings will provide food and cover for a diverse mix of wildlife species. MITIGATION CONDITION AND FUNCTION Post - Development Functional quality and value will certainly increase with the enhancement of the riparian zone and associated river habitat. The area of the riparian zone will increase to approximately 85,600 sq. ft. of high quality habitat including the off - channel pond. Total buffer width will be on average 65 ft. with high vegetative structure and diversity throughout. The habitat restoration is specifically designed to enhance for the presence of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. To provide for terrestrial needs the vegetative component has been designed to create a multiple canopy structure with greater patchiness and edge, promoting increased wildlife presence. Diversity of wildlife species is believed to be closely related to edge area, both rising and declining in unison. The ability of the on -site band of riparian habitat to function as part of the greater movement corridor should also be significantly. increased. Aquatically, the, improved riparian habitat: will. now. extend. the .length. of.. this reach of river. This added vegetation will increase the areas invertebrate food contribution and available cover. Creation of a river bank shelf with vegetation and enhancement structures will reduce water velocity during periods of high flow over the Ordinary High Water Mark. Reduced water velocity will lower the amount of downstream displacement of salmon and allow greater ease of movement up stream. Special habitat features have been included to provide for the needs of salmonid species along the stretch of Green River associated with the site. Large conifer log structures will be put in place on the shelf with root wads extending into the river channel below the Ordinary High Water Mark. - . 7 z • :. �w ce 00 CO i` Jf.. (o u-. w O. a. =d Lit z� 1- 0 zI W 25, 0 �. W w. 1- U O wz U =. 0 z ;rt E ■ These log structures will provide a number of habitat features currently lacking. Log structure presence will create deep water pools, backwaters, eddies and shear zones. These valuable off - channel features allow salmon to remain close to food carrying currents without constantly subjecting them to energy draining currents. Equally as valuable will be the increase in evening cover, territorial stations and the formation of a movement ladder through the area. A high water pond being created in the northeastern corner of the site will supply a substantial off - channel area. This additional area will add greatly to the amount of available winter rearing habitat, evening and territorial stations. The enhanced quality of the buffer region will afford a greater level of protection for the Riverine system than currently exists. The total area of buffer including the off - channel pond will be approximately 85,600 sq.ft. with the entirety being of high functional quality. The quality and value of this buffer will increase as the habitat continues towards maturity. This will be an increase of approximately 74,600 sq. ft. of functional riparian habitat. The increased vegetation will stabilize the bank and decrease the amount of run -off and siltation from the site, lending to the long term restoration of the aquatic habitat. Additionally, physical a barrier will be formed limiting intrusion into the immediate river area. This isolation will make the area more attractive to use by terrestrial species. MITIGATION STANDARDS Performance Standards Water Regime River System: A reach of the Green River approximately 500 feet long will have increased usable aquatic habitat with riffle effects and shear zones creating additional flood storage capacity and fish and wildlife habitat. Off - Channel Pond: An area of approximately 23,000 sq.ft. will be delivering functional riparian and aquatic habitat with capacity for over -flow storage at high water periods. Vegetative Structure River System: The combined existing high quality and restored areas along the river (excluding the off - channel pond will have approximately 62,600 sq.ft. of riparian and shrub and tree habitat with no less than 80% survival and 80% aerial coverage at the end of the designated monitoring period. Off- Channel Pond: The pond and its surrounding banks will have approximately 23,000 sq.ft. of riparian, shrub and tree vegetation with no less than 80% survival and 80% aerial coverage at the end of the designated monitoring period. Detailed Construction Plan +Description,( also.See,Barghausen Engineering, Civil, Eng. Section) Log Structure: Constructed using conifer logs with rootwads attached. Large conifer logs will be placed in a mass on the riverbank shelf (elevation 9.0). Logs are to be placed with rootwads facing downstream. A habitat biologist shall supervise construction of habitat features to insure proper placement. Natural habitat features are difficult to describe in text and drawings and need to be installed with supervision from an experienced habitat biologist. During final design, imput from the geotechnical engineer will address structural integrity related to any additional rock rip rap necessary to secure the log structures. The potential additional rock will be installed with the supervision of a habitat biologists. 8 z i • w. CC 2 JU. 0 o: . No LL, wO 2 gQ v_:�d Z �. F-- o, Z 1-, 111 La U N O — .. w w 1- a • U z UN O~ z Bottom Log Securing- Each bottom log shall be secured using 15" diameter, 6' long posts augured into the riverbank a minimum of 4'. Logs will be attached to augured posts with 1/2" cable. Additionally, logs will be anchored to large rocks (3 to 5 foot diameter and angular in shape) placed adjacent to the logs and attached with 1/2" cable. Bolts to secure cable will be drilled in the rock and attached with epoxy. Top Log Securing- Top logs shall be positioned after bottom logs are secured. Each log will be anchored to 1" diameter, 10' long rebar driven into the riverbank a minimum of 9'. Each log will also be anchored to bottom logs using five foot length of 3/4 " rebar and to large rocks (3 to 5 foot diameter and angular in shape) placed adjacent to the logs and attached with 1/2" cable. Bolts to secure cable will be drilled in the rock and attached with epoxy. Rocks and Sandbags - Shall be placed adjacent to the logs to provide additional anchoring, prevent undercutting and provide a planting medium. Rocks will be 3 to 5 foot in diameter and angular in shape and will be placed adjacent to the logs and attached with 1/2" cable. Bolts to secure cable will be drilled in the rock and attached with epoxy. Sandbags will be several cubic feet in size aligned and stacked behind individual logs. Willow and dogwood will be densely planted on the downstream side of each structure. Definition of Success This project shall be deemed successful if at the end of a three year bonding and monitoring period no more than 20% of the mitigation site has dominance by non - native species, 80% of the planted vegetation in the mitigation site has survived and is vigorously growing and 80% aerial coverage of the mitigation site has been achieved. The log structures shall continue to provide fisheries habitat as designed and shall not create erosion or bank instability. Erosion Control The Riverbank Restoration and Habitat Creation Project shall be constructed during the low flow period, generally July through October. A pre construction meeting shall be held on site between the consulting habitat biologist, City of Tukwila, the earth moving contractor and WDFW prior to beginning this mitigation project. The purpose of this meeting shall be to approve final sequencing and erosion control measures. A low earth berm with erosion control fencing shall be constructed between the river and the elevation 9 shelf as the shelf is being excavated to insure that runoff from storm events shall not enter the river system. All habitat structures shall be placed at this time. The berm shall be removed as the last element of earth construction. The site shall be hydra seeded and hydra mulched immediately upon completion of the earth moving project. Temporary irrigation shall be placed and the site planted as specified. Erosion control fencing shall be left in place until grass has established. The erosion control fencing shall be removed before fall water elevations exceed the OHWM. In construction of the off:channel" pond; the River connection shall be the final' portion of excavation. This pond shall be excavated during the low flow period of the River, generally July through October. Monitoring and Evaluation The Riverbank Restoration and Habitat Creation Project shall be monitored for a period of three years from the completion of the mitigation project. Upon completion of the mitigation project, the consulting habitat biologist shall prepare a completion document showing the project has been constructed and planted as designed, and shall include any approved changes to the design. 9 P f Following completion, monitoring shall occur two times during the first winter after construction to assure stability of the habitat structures and to allow for immediate action if any problems are evident. Following the first winter monitoring sequence, the site shall be monitored twice yearly, in the spring and fall. A condition report shall be prepared and presented to the City of Tukwila by October 31 of each year of the monitoring period. At the end of the monitoring period, following a determination of success and agreement from the City of Tukwila, the assurance device provided by the developer shall be released. Monitoring shall include transact vegetation evaluation for mortality and vigor of the planted species, evaluation of non - native plant invasion, stability condition of the habitat structures and a visual evaluation of wildlife species observed during the monitoring. Immediate action to correct deficiencies or control invasive species may be recommended depending on the water elevations and weather conditions. Contingency Plan If during any portion of the monitoring period the Riverbank Restoration and Habitat Creation Project is determined to have less than 80% survival of the planted species, the City of Tukwila shall be notified in writing and action to correct the deficiency shall be taken depending on river elevations and the season of the year. Action may include but not be limited to planting of similar species, changing species, increasing planting size, soil amendments and continuation of use of the irrigation system. Aerial coverage of the mitigation site for the Riverbank Restoration and Habitat Creation Project shall be evaluated at the end of the three year monitoring period. At the end of two years 60% aerial coverage of the planted areas shall be a specific goal. If at the end of two years, 60% aerial coverage during the fall inspection (while the plants are still in leaf) has not been achieved, the City of Tukwila shall be notified in writing and action to correct the deficiency shall be taken depending on river elevations and the season of the year. Action may include but not be limited to additional planting of similar species or new species, soil amendments and continuation of use of the irrigation system. If during any portion of the monitoring period more than 20% non native invasive species are established on the mitigation site, the City of Tukwila shall be notified writing and action shall be taken to remove and or eliminate these invasive species depending on specific recommendations related to weed control. Action may include by not limited to removal by hand or hand machines or herbicide licensed for use in the River environment. Any application of herbicide shall be performed by a licensed applicator. If during any portion of the monitoring period the habitat structures become unstable or appear to not function to provide habitat as designed, the City of Tukwila shall be notified in writing and a meeting between the City, the private habitat biologist designated by the project owner, and the WDFW shall be organized and remedial action shall be determined. Action shall include but not be limited to reconstruction of the habitat structures and redesign and construction of the habitat structures. Performance Security An assurance device determined by the City of Tukwila and in a form approved by the City Attorney, shall be required to guarantee the success of this Riverbank Restoration and Habitat Creation Project. Assurance is typically required to cover monitoring and correction of possible deficiencies. The Performance Security may be conditioned by the Public Works Department and King County if they assume a maintenance obligation. 10 z w 000 CO 0 w= J � CO I. w o. 2 • gQ 112a �_ z �. �o w~ !O N` .0 H ww O .z. w co z • lorsi • 1 aural Mitigation Timing A pre - construction meeting shall be held on site between the approved consulting habitat biologist, City of Tukwila, the earth moving contractor and WDFW prior to beginning this mitigation project. The purpose of this meeting shall be to approve final sequencing and erosion control measures. A private habitat biologist familiar with installation of fisheries habitat structures shall be present during construction of all habitat features. A habitat biologist shall meet on site with the landscape architect and plant material contractor prior to planting to assist in approval of plant material and final placement of plant material. The Riverbank Restoration and Habitat Creation Project shall be constructed during the low flow period of the River, generally July through October. A earth berm with erosion control fencing shall be constructed between the river and the elevation 9 shelf as the shelf is being excavated to insure that runoff from storm events shall not enter the river system. All habitat structures :,hall be placed at this time. The berm shall be removed as the last element of earth construction. The site shall be hydra seeded and hydra mulched immediately upon completion of the earth moving project. Temporary irrigation shall be placed on the upland site as specified. Erosion control fencing shall be left in place until grass has established. The erosion control fencing shall be removed before fall water elevations exceed the OHWM. Determination Of Ordinary High Water Mark On March 3, 1998 William Railton, Certified Professional Wetlands Scientist (#000245 SWS) met with Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist with the City of Tukwila on the proposed Family Fun Center site in Tukwila, WA. to determine the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of the Green River adjacent to the development site. The south bank of the river immediately adjacent to the proposed development site was observed from the north bank trail and parking lot. The River elevation on the day of investigation was approximately two feet below an obvious natural line impression in the shoreline which separated the terrestrial vegetation from the relatively non - vegetated and slumping shoreline. From this vantage point both Mr. Railton and Mr. Schulz agreed the OHWM was this obvious break in vegetation. There were a few small areas of deposition slightly above this agreed to line and slumping patches of Reed canarygrass below this agreed to line. The line could be clearly seen for several hundred feet up and down river. Mr. Railton and Mr. Schulz then went to the south side of the Green River and descended to the agreed to point above the water line. Further investigation showed that the natural line impression seen from the other side of the River extended under some overhanging blackberry vine and was visually obvious from the new vantage point. A wire pin flag was placed at the agreed to OHWM and designated as such. Barghausen Engineering was contacted and they surveyed the designated point on the same afternoon. Their survey has placed the pin flag and OHWM at elevation 8.41. This elevation appears correct in relation to what was observed in the field on March 3, 1998. USE OF THIS REPORT This Riverbank Restoration and Habitat Enhancement Analysis and Mitigation Description is supplied to The Family Fun Centers as a means of evaluating and mitigating for riverbank work impacts as required by the state and federal agencies, during the permitting process. This report is based largely on readily observable conditions and to a lesser extent, on readily ascertainable conditions. No attempt has been made to determine hidden or concealed conditions. Reports may be adversely affected due to the physical condition of the site and the difficulty of access which may lead to observation or probing difficulties. Construction of biological habitat and installation of natural 7. �. a': ey. �4` tiiGia:i;i:f'1:1'^os+�•,:1"� =iYi x''�i'. 11 Z w 0 UO CO 0 U)= J F- w0 1n u. co Da � W Z Z F- W 2p ON Ll I-- ww I- a .z. w U= O~ z landscaping requires experienced supervision during construction with experienced landscape and equipment operation professionals. The laws applicable to these type of restoration and enhancement projects are subject to varying interpretations and may be changed at any time by the courts or legislative bodies. This report is intended to provide information deemed relevant in the applicant's attempt to comply with the laws now in effect. The work for this report has conformed to the standard of care employed by wetland ecologists. No other representation or warranty is made concerning the work or this report and any implied representation or warranty is disclaimed. Wetland Resources, Inc. William Railton ' ` Cliffoi`d Palmer Wildlife Biologist/Wetland Ecologist Certified Professional Wetland Scientist 12 Sarkiora ni 'taVA.4a4.WiwAgoaagxvWNoia*J4.o.AOi,iw4-s46i5 , 4.4,41,--vimAtvlataNa,‘,a,10...4w941:2,:a4(%.*4.144 • -g-klicmher;p40,0falk4vAiii,,,Wooi'd41441144.-eAke.0/ qesilitaieoa.M2i4t4?-3N-T': z • Z uJ re 2 6 D O 0 C3 • UJ WI W U. ui 0 u. < - ,_ z 0 • z U.1 ui t) 05 0 — 13 uj U. . z 0 _ - 0 ow4274,3_446.16.,"1- • Asq4-4,(A,ti, 'MAP }W. " 'rlek,%1104 .2A.V31 '41.1;*441-PorR4 i ... r•rif;ti 4�.•:. y n .n ..,y,., y., • ewe' 4 ceK8. 4uv;' fs? az1�4rGii�s�:�r�4;C��•:3.�eti�Yu xa�:: K=` 4r: 6' r': Faii, 5s: �, �,' A. i `+iSiYeti�c..;s� <�'x:3<r+SSF'�zi a3 xi,�f�s:r,4 Table 1. Buffer/Habitat Development * High Quality Buffer/Habitat: For the purpose of this report is considered to be a vegetative component with a multiple canopy structure, high plant species diversity and density with features advantageous to wildlife. ** Low Quality Buffer/Habitat: For the purpose of this report is considered to be a vegetative component lacking any canopy structure and having poor plant species diversity and lacking any special features advantageous to wildlife. _.S. •,�. r t: .�' -; .�. .a. t .iarll yM ��� ,5�;.' ^d�.:'• S• >,�: ac�. t,:.y�, �•,�- �:�.:. 1 ,. nS. �. ".: ., .....a r.t 3a :' li.,' 3, �:,! isn.. x. r< n. a. �di. S.. 1Y. 11v..: tl1L�' a,.:. �wil. �2w; C_.. i$:`+:. 4..}': �t' �. rl.•i.6�i:'?'iCt... "5�3�., -:J�f th.ax.n:��*`fL_�,:: I��r��y �i.% r1r... li. st'•. ���iJ1 rur•Skt3F%i� % %i`�}ttr.�{'. "Ihi. }ii�r�i"�r5� {Y:r.{t -Jur.i ;•..i. z re 2 6 oO? 11.1 =' J H N LL WO LL a. w. O' z W. N; o w = Vj U co; 0 Total Buffer/ Habitat Area sq.ft High Quality Buffer / Habitat Area sq.ft. Low Quality Buffer Area sq.ft. Wildlife Function and Value Existing 187,500 11,000 176,500 Poor Proposed 85,600 85,600 0 High * High Quality Buffer/Habitat: For the purpose of this report is considered to be a vegetative component with a multiple canopy structure, high plant species diversity and density with features advantageous to wildlife. ** Low Quality Buffer/Habitat: For the purpose of this report is considered to be a vegetative component lacking any canopy structure and having poor plant species diversity and lacking any special features advantageous to wildlife. _.S. •,�. r t: .�' -; .�. .a. t .iarll yM ��� ,5�;.' ^d�.:'• S• >,�: ac�. t,:.y�, �•,�- �:�.:. 1 ,. nS. �. ".: ., .....a r.t 3a :' li.,' 3, �:,! isn.. x. r< n. a. �di. S.. 1Y. 11v..: tl1L�' a,.:. �wil. �2w; C_.. i$:`+:. 4..}': �t' �. rl.•i.6�i:'?'iCt... "5�3�., -:J�f th.ax.n:��*`fL_�,:: I��r��y �i.% r1r... li. st'•. ���iJ1 rur•Skt3F%i� % %i`�}ttr.�{'. "Ihi. }ii�r�i"�r5� {Y:r.{t -Jur.i ;•..i. z re 2 6 oO? 11.1 =' J H N LL WO LL a. w. O' z W. N; o w = Vj U co; 0 Multi -Layer Canopy Structure Woody Vegetation in River and Off - Channel Pool Photo 3. Existing Riparian Habitat North of Site. Desired product of restored vegetion with additional structural diversity and height. Photo 4. Existing Riparian Habitat North of Site. Desired product for river bank restoration Woody Vegetation in River Good Vegetative Structure Vegetaive material in river provides cover irti;$g w!i:a. ,�., ,'`'.:J "•�.. y,:'... a:��ar. ,� 4f a,,�,�z��r .:M rl`;�.': +3.,h ?..`:r,.,�;1 �yiUsl No Canopy Structure Photo 1. Exiting Riparian Habitat East End. Vegetation composition is poor with little or no canopy structure. Barren bank, No Woody Vegetation Present in Channel Photo 2. Existing Riparian Habitat West End. Vegetation structure is poor with little or no woody vegetation in river. Poor Vegetative Structure N��NX-�:ycKy; rag e2?t.?i`; "t�'`. � �:w�n.�c:at ;a� +H »�.. �....�:."'�i�A....`.. �. �.0 n�',a�!_•r:Y.;.sx. �..t.�i;..... ...ti_.�'....�.��_.....�. �.._..._...L _. >.�.... s. i��...{.:..� � �..�.. �''�' REFERENCE LIST Crispin V., R. House, D. Roberts., 1993. Changes in downstream Habitat, Large Woody Debris, and Salmon Habitat after the Restructuring of a Coastal Oregon Stream. North American Journal of Fish Management. 13: 96 -102. Government of Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 1990. Stream Enhancement Guide. British Columbia Ministry of Environment. House RA., 1996. An evaluation of Stream Restoration Structures in a Coastal Oregon Stream. 1981 -1993. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 16: 272 - 281 Hitchcock C.,Leo, Cronquist A.,1981. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. Hunt R.L., 1993. Trout Stream Therapy. University of Madison Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press. Hunter C.J., 1991. Better Trout Habitat: A Guide to Stream Restoration and Management. Montana Land Reliance. Island Press. Washington, DC. '�t�a4?�s;::idtxi`a ?.i.`2�:'L y4( w`4'$sYr:..; bpi.' �, �" rtq� .A:h4= tt,3.�:�..e.1�8r�a'A�.M1 a. tanF iG4�. F:. r'+ w.ara#ii,: «rASt�fSt+sS'3'kYEJf, kili�4 `yiilz�./Ss!.;i 1 • PROFESSIONAL BIOGRAPHIES Wetland Resources, Inc. WILLIAM RAILTON Corporate President Certified Professional Wetland Scientist #000245 William Railton is a certified Professional Wetland Scientist (Society of Wetland Scientists, Certification #245). He has a Bachelors degree in Local Government Administration and Biology from Colorado State University. He also have a Natural Resource Scientist rating with the federal government with specialized training in wetland and stream ecosystem conservation from the U.S. Natural Resource & Conservation Service (NRCS). He was employed by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources for three years and for ten years by the NRCS (formerly Soil Conservation Service) as a resource planner and engineering technician in Pend Oreille, Spokane and Snohomish Counties in Washington State. During this time his project responsibilities included planning, designing and constructing ponds, shallow water wetlands, streams, animal waste control systems and site drainage systems. In addition, he operated as a senior planner in forestry management, wildlife enhancement, and critical site stabilization. Mr. Railton also was responsible for wetland determination and delineation on over 100 farms in Snohomish County prior to 1989, related to the 1885 Farm Bill. In 1989, Mr. Railton created Wetland Resources, Inc. to focus on the private sector's need for a full- service natural resource counsel as a result of the government's protection of ecologically sensitive areas. His 21 years experience in both the private and public sector with wetland delineation, mitigation, restoration and creation has enabled him to operate effectively with all members of the development and management community. As a private wetland scientist he has delineated wetlands and developed sensitive area mitigation and restoration plans throughout the United States including Connecticut, New Jersey, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Washington and Oregon. He directly oversees more than 200 projects per year with the assistance of five full time professional wetland biologists. CLIFFORD PALMER Associate Wetland Ecologist / Wildlife Biologist Cliff holds a bachelors of science degree in Environmental and Systematic Biology from CaliforniaPolytechnic,State University and is. currently: working towards a. masters degree in Wildlife Sciences at the University of Washington. For the past ten years he has worked as a wildlife biologist and research scientist for both federal and state agencies and with several private institutions. Projects have included the development of forest and park management plans, design of monitoring protocols, wildlife inventories, and specialized endangered species studies. Cliff's primary responsibilities involve ensuring compliance with wildlife regulations, conducting wildlife studies, assisting in wetland delineation, report writing, mitigation planning, monitoring, site analysis, and computer aided mapping. "i' :R vtWf..''%.3i,"gast4yz, !`a'•:£ &nu .'b?,,' z I I- ~w CC 2 JU 00 N 0- W= LL; w o. g Q: �w z� I- o; w w I- 0 ww al N II. 0 WELEO MH A7'IVd YIMWU. ST J.301111BN.....3$161d Q v H34I mut OZOC6 NO0300 '3T7ANOSIM .1S3M d0O1 GL 30 NMO1'MS W&Z SkE LHO NM A71Vd Iwo. Pr lone •• ]n.4r. w■r.o..l 741.n T...* o., ,Coon w nt CIIu -I t(,O ) ttt)■Kt)gt) ZING n'I41. MIMS 1n.1.. 04/ GIL�1 RIVER AND FISHERIES HABITAT DETAILS 4 etc.; ?.A:4. As :,taiYtC3 »idL4a1'wiA+�'�kr. 831 Nfld All VIVA S11Vi30 ONY S31ON 1081NOO NOIlY1N3P1103S ONY NOIS083 A8V80dW31 L OLOLO N00380 '3TIMIOSIM 1S3M d0011$1N33 NMOl'M's IU Z S831N30 Mid A1rNd xi } q 5. s � pia ill 1 1Cq gig ale rrl 1 ':. Ye @ r 'ii'i; VII g2 I A 1aiis_ :lei�I ifi11 :: > A ogle 2 � Iii ii ii 1� e g a ix 4 iiii h, s /i -11 I Pit it i 1i l3 ei'l 6 it i'5ix iie g r i i !q „ii i .p ii ii t..1 i4d! a °_ ill ti °i 1 1 ymga t. 5l >'1 y 11 1 ipi ;kg A ; iie9 i la pig s1 g- pp l ,,a 5 o w p1 log - :II 6i .2 id is i' $ gy ! !� ;pa ill i . In i3 H ie !NW a Qn : E lea ' &! 11' 0 tat ipp111 :fig�t 1t12 ,11. -- IliBil:.111.1:9 :1ir!zi°,liiiix- i,§ • °s tyi. 1!a Ili MLA eiMMI WWI .r 3 11 171 ♦1Y..u..17YlW, i.M . OM1 Si.1Mr1 lH ai [a[a- 11[02[1 2[21- 1c4220 [[222 .. •un. woos runny CNU 11[21 rtu'a'AiLicasWa l rihti'ig..&rta irk10tiT i 1 „,,-- \''t ..4,---",::(.2. ' • V .4.:-.;'” ..- ''----- ./- . .,/ ; . ---"7,-- .7. 4.7.; ' ,...)...„;;Y• V %;•:(/4.- ''' ' „ .• ,..'52---,%' ,---'-'. ..• ./' ..• .'"' \ \\ \\\•,\,\‘• 5 ,••■•:; ." „ r ' - V. ■\ ,\ . \\\V\\.\\ \ ucaultivaht L6/9Z/V. II-L6 f:1 1 2 PERMIT CENTER = A g :7/ , . / / /; /1 / / . "/ ' /// /,% ,\ \ \\//,' . ' . % ' , / 4 - -' f „- - - - - - = - - - - - - ';'-\ • . / "i4V;Z, gat, '45z11 9 Tukwila, Washington IELLNEICI NI1.1 AlDWA ya.hort.i. 911,130 1Y.U13V.. 43:43431.1 CFO' EGAN umU. • , . °LOCO NO0-3:10 VTIANOSVA ISSM d001 kEl1.N30 NhK1.1 M W5 SIEL11B3 A-111Y :10d • • "/: .••• ••• , Sr•VII von "raliKal rti tIn-itthOt) MIS 1 'I.3. mum Y*1. NU S S SZU) • , ' atfitt"a44,"iiiv *04' Tii..'tAgg'41hetp, 61:aitutg4".;.13...4,44.•Tokart...nik ' Z 0 z c, 6 —J 00 , 0 V) IL X: H. u.. Lu 0 g u_ < D 111 I– a Z • Lu, 2 7 Ca O uy 10 — .01–; 111 I '61 U-2 0 • Z1 Lol 2 ▪ I. 0 lf31 Nld All VIVA 81IY130 ONY S31ON 1OtlLN00 NOLLV.N3IN1038 ONV N0190113 AUVII0a431 �uil 1 OLOLe N00-310 -ry JOSIM LSBM dO0'1181N30 NMOL'MB Inez 9SLN30 Nfk! A7'PYd :Ai Y.i 8 xs ilh le i1gi Ii 01 11. 111 °�° xp ill' 3 a1$ !Ii ill . i 1 ° il°l 41 t l 1 a li 131' ! 13 11 4is`& $1 :• a� s1 4a19l1a 3� 1f a ir, ei ii., 1 ,01 01.01 i 9p 1111 r 1sI I 41 y .1^.111, , °slir.i='°i11:[i1 :Mill t 1 3 753,t44.4t4` 4," —44.44 (41:1At4agl'IG'3iL,ef'sCili :s.a i�iY65'lhiu °d1Slf'Yi�i"- 'Cb".ai z Z, w U O. co W = J I—i • u. w0 J, LL • d. F =` Z H. ZO0, w U N = w, —• o w z. =`. z.. 1.4;44 .4“ti -§44AS.WAW: 4,...441:40:14.#11 I I- I_ z • w 6 _i U 0 0)0, U) W w• 0, g • < 1-- III Z 1- 0 Z LU w wz 2 0 0 O - C3 W w • 0 0 = 0 • ft ."•1 • 1— : z re LAI -J 0 00: tww U) 1.)) (1) uj 0 2 co no' I- III zI-• I- 0 Z W uj 2 D 0 U), cl U.1 uj •I 0 Z tu A 9 • 0 ■=1 (i/D.r....• 4 'AO .4 11 PERMIT CENTER A:41iikfr4 ' 4,1" ; 1 1 1 rt w 6 D: -.I 0 • 0 (OW • LUI. LL w 0, LL. a, u) D. 171.1 Z I- CY Z ILI uj. 2 a 0' ,0 1-, w ujI e- l- l• r- .= 0 • Z CU co • = r: O /- Z 86/61/£ 11: ti 1-L6 uoitiunislyet 1 • • 11- z w ce 6 —J 00 ° Uj u_ w 0 g U— < U) D. •I a I— ILI Z I-0 Z 0 0 I— w 0 1— • U— F-• - 0 z w. 1=1 0 z Landscape Plan aNI1HO1VIN 0 ,„Alytwo54:4714,1mg,t;Avrimm,„.,,,,, Landscape Schedules 012E 1 CONDITION SIIE 1 CONDITION <W iz uo °mu 0 1,L U 0 U u a a L m m m "or 3 W v n z2 0 ° a 0 2 to 5 ea; st:e ron p. 63T .Sa 010 0 on WOO • 0 0 0 F m 0 51 p d "� :A 3p. m 6 �$ 94 q _� 1U 3� �n �a A3 3•, „d ^o° u° °- • 0 RIVERBANK NOTES Ue0 ........y ^•:ti ei..'.li.•L 86 /61 /C z11-L6 SITE LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE b 8 m 8 W t1S>''•"F 6tliakd.1.` kiRElFU7QirnlSr}..`.kS" ..,ta"w4iidic ;�YfilkoK� -0itky . •y Y.: ;• M Seeded /Sodded Lawn Ej.±.12 Vegetation to Remain W 1— 0 z W 0_ 0 0) z J e 0 0 Ml1 z 1• 1—: . cL 2C: G JU O 0: 0 ' CO W J =. N LL. W O' L Q co 3 W ZI- 'W U N: 0 I—. =W -. W Z. co 0— — O f-. z uol8u!gs¢M •uf!^]. 86 /61 /E Z11-L6 ac it 1 SCALE 1/4" = I' -0" OLOL6 N003H0 '3TTIANOSIIM 123M dOOI H3IN Z NMO1'M'B Itt& SH31N30 Nfl:f A'lIWVd :,oi ,t# I t9.9- ,St(c0tl 1 ICS -,G:(900 tT09! V. 'NIA �nnn vmV ONtt G1t9I � „».o.Na�;`i': • ?:::.)=<f�'"S+�rt° ,�1;�"� `�S•r.+°'f�•Y9Cv±Y.�MY 4 OZOL6 NOORE10 •alliANOSIWt ISSM .1001 1,131N33 WW1 'M B 1116Z Stlal.N30 Nrld AllYWd .44 uJ ZU/O-lie9OZ) Lte9-ISI(90t) • EGO96 141v ■Uf.cS P./1.4 Steil 9 4 • y ; AftVgAtk.`",...A404We:04.,4,6i:: 4434;10%‘. la.ro rind AllVIVA V1IMNfU. 8NOU.0.39SSOU3 3t13110HS hill 010L6 NO0380 '3111AN01311M .1.9M d0011:131/00 NM0.1. VS 1116Z • St13.11430 Nfli Alv.n.eJ re.m1.11.1 vAlven 0+,1 Vt, • tr I 4fini-lit(9) iu LLZI-LSVOZ) . • • zrosa 1. Mint JHi OW, WWI c Ois *TM= VAgt+11.1341AWrsrpnL- , Ortkt WritAVA,64 ..trz,rt z Lu• 2 6 C) O 0 , w WI co u_ 'Li 0 g u_ < I a 11-1 Z I-0 Z W 2 C.) O —. • 1— w• o 1— u_ P. — 0 z O co i= O 1— z Sis`•s3� �:w�, ",;� : �",:; fia% �?�' riw: �ieirs. SM, w4a�Are `��z.E1Lc,�.�:a`i'uiiEYr? 1f.1d1() g ever QQaa r7.ii a l eere , aaaa g CPC a a r E 1 ;Sit ?33 P 11 „ 11111 I ill 1! 5 1 111 1111 5 ;z,tt 44 :. w-4,vi ,de?.z i ,g *ii (64,,:x4,•s S g vee ;ill e i erre g " hut 1 i hat 1 i 1'11 11'1 1 Mg 2 Ltt, 1M5 il .11 MI I ill 1 2 PERMIT CENTER Z < • I I- Z CY LI uI 0 • CO ILI: U.1 • uj 0 2 tt..< w Da I; IA z 1._ o z w C3' 0 == ° ba, 1A1 0 z SQ l= 0 I- 1' • I I 3 3 1' PERMIT CENTER . ""S8aultitAREaY.k...(4+:244` ,Am1.0.1"a fAwtit,04:444.1.0A-kalzigtv .. . .d _ d d d d d , 1111 1111 i 1M 2 Ili 1111 1111 011: 1 1::g /I 1' • I I 3 3 1' PERMIT CENTER . ""S8aultitAREaY.k...(4+:244` ,Am1.0.1"a fAwtit,04:444.1.0A-kalzigtv grill eer e erre OP: e i 1 ha 1 b231 i 1 1 _Is 1 1 1 1 II ill 11m I n 14 rif 1 00 all PERMIT CENTER *- .-4.:-,;•..."kilets....,:t.:.:kirk<0..4.0.K.ai.p4:zszi.,11..*444-./..420.44-,..i.04%.4,.;6v.1, • ..V.A...,p4s4;.:41,*.02.,4 .11.04V; g c3 1 id Ekt 1j y ,, ,�,:x.. � =r.s. 7...•. i. t-f sr�cY�ir' � :ifs'iir$irI" °i ^,'.c'n ".'d�W'iu x'7t`M'`sulm31a ='sir, 1Stt`:s;tndt:Fd. ii!i;;�'fr.�' '` ".''ii: •a .:e+4i22'.a•'• z ;. JU, .0 O: • w= w O; LL. Q' N D, • F=— w: Z �. 1—O: .• ZH • N:.. • ww 1 -- �O .. Z UN • O H': Z eee a aaa S i a a e I eeee o ggeg N p L�` e a I fee ■C4 !C 1I„ 1„„ " "" 111 rill ,, ,�,:x.. � =r.s. 7...•. i. t-f sr�cY�ir' � :ifs'iir$irI" °i ^,'.c'n ".'d�W'iu x'7t`M'`sulm31a ='sir, 1Stt`:s;tndt:Fd. ii!i;;�'fr.�' '` ".''ii: •a .:e+4i22'.a•'• z ;. JU, .0 O: • w= w O; LL. Q' N D, • F=— w: Z �. 1—O: .• ZH • N:.. • ww 1 -- �O .. Z UN • O H': Z p 1 1 5 ill i:Lj I I! d: di/11111h I i M : III ii1411111111 �li 6000 • l 9 @mom .000000000 ®©®®0® tiasFSi::;::;eaiC¢:id+.;'r.�', 51 wp PERMIT CENTER • ..'lck4.N1,4*;'::1'etCjil'AVVAr-'7,;qC4:k1g.LI.At 4"A, V4X.MEA .4.. 'VA/4; 4414ailagelWALZ, .1.344,44*, Ajf CC < w 0 .--t 11' A S 31 -t2MMOMItIV5=5, z LLI2 -J 0 00 U) U.I Ill uj 0 g co I 1- Wm z 1._ I.-0 •z uj 0 - C3 I- W 20 LI 0 .Z Wu) 0 I- 1 1 I PI !!!!: 1 li Iii it V PI En 11111/1 1/1111 I hill I 1101;11 118.11111/ ,dit, 1 ki01/111 IMInalliiiill g AO! ' 'iir UCDU; Q�. -00000000elecommeti • ..'lck4.N1,4*;'::1'etCjil'AVVAr-'7,;qC4:k1g.LI.At 4"A, V4X.MEA .4.. 'VA/4; 4414ailagelWALZ, .1.344,44*, Ajf CC < w 0 .--t 11' A S 31 -t2MMOMItIV5=5, z LLI2 -J 0 00 U) U.I Ill uj 0 g co I 1- Wm z 1._ I.-0 •z uj 0 - C3 I- W 20 LI 0 .Z Wu) 0 I- Shore 1 i ne Management Act of 1971 PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT File Number: L97 -0048 Status: APPROVED Applied: 07/30/1997 Approved: 06/10/1998 Expiration: 06/08/2000 Pursuant to RCW 90.58. a permit is hereby granted to: to undertake the following development: CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 3 LEVEL FAMILY FUN ARCADE BUILDING WITH APPROXIMATELY 7 ACRES OF OUTDOOR ATTRACTIONS. A FUTURE RESTAURANT AND A 153 ROOM HOTEL. upon the following. property: Address: 15031.GRADY WY 'S Parcel No: 242304- 9013 Sec. /Twn /Rage: THEPROPOSEDPROJECT WILL BE WITHIN THE AREA OF THE GREEN RIVER AND,:ITS ASSOCIATED WETLANDS. WHICH IS A SHORELINE OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE AND I5 DESIGNATED AS AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT... The following master program provisions are applicable to this development: !GMASTER 08 Development pursuant to this permit shall be undertaken pursuant to the attached -' terms and conditions' This permit is granted pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 an nothing in this permit shall excuse the applicant from compliance with any other 'Federal, State or local statutes, ordinances or regulations applicable to this project, but not inconsistent with the Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW) This permit niay be rescinded pursuant to RCW 90.58.140(8) in the event the permittee.fails to comply with the terms or conditions hereof. CONSTRUCT ION PURSUANT TO 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 RCW 90.58.140(6) AND WAC 173 -14 -090. OR UNTIL ALL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS INITIATED WITHIN TWENTY -ONE (21) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SUCH FILING HAVE TERMINATED; EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN RCW 90.58.140(5)(a)(b)(c). Date: i)VQ 1 19s 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. :i j',•�4?,., .. .1.rr.. �iyY ...w ..�: :<w . .Me.ii Zit, c�_ "i• '^.4•+'+:a'i?uf%i -`G .il'!J"FiiwS++"m. uid.�w' . n 1F,,truengi1aki4;i'Aiiir * %/C,4 -iix z �z ry ba. NC w 00 CO ='. cn LL. wO n- u. a I- al Z �. I- O Z w UO ON ill w V ~O ..z w rn 0 z 1 • i1 CITY OF TUfc VVILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (P- SHORE) APPLICATION • FOR. STAFF`USE ONL Y . . • Planner: File Number:•• 41-7 - Uv: • Receipt: Number: `•;• Project File #: PRe; ❑ Application. complete (Date:. SEPA File #: El Application incomplete (Date: I. PROJECT BACKGROUND A. NAMEOFPROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Family Fun Center B. LOCATION OF PROJECT /DEVELOPMENT: STREET ADDRESS: NEC of Grady Way and Interurban Avenue South 295490 -0466, 0430 ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 242304-9092.9080,9079,9013,9063,9027 LEGALDESCRIPTION: See attached. Quarter: SW Section: 24 Township: 23 Range: 4E (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: Chandler Stever / Mulvanny Partnership ADDRESS: 11808 Northup Way, Suite E -300, Bellevue, WA 98005 PHONE: (425) 822 -0444 SIGNATURE: DATE: z _ -. • • : 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. 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 __L5 Jtit= (city), (.) A51 -1 JCIT? (state), on St prswa 5 , 199 7 . cci-W, 51 \ (Print Name) (Address) 6_ -,S2- 9:142___ ( . 0 - (Signature R ;CE N D ,vw.',)\e or COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT additional sheets as needed for all property owner signatures. z . 6 D' U O. co wi: J � • ILL: w o. aa' -• J id 1-120. z f- Ulu • U� coy = V; i- — u. f" wZ U •Q .0 z E. CURRENT ZONING OF PROPERTY: The current zoning of the site is M -1 Light Industry F. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY: Site is currently undeveloped with a portion of the site being used as a soil stockpile operation. Several old houses and barns occupy the site. G. SHORELINE ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGNATION: The shoreline environmental designation is Urban Shoreline. H. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING LAND USES: (Within 1,000 feet in all directions from the development site.) To the north is the Green River and an office park. To the south is Grady Way, I -405 and an industrial development. To the east is existing BN Railroad tracks, Monster Road and a manufacturing development. To the west is Interurban Avenue, I -405 on -off ramps and the Green River. I. TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST & FAIR MARKET VALUE of the proposed development: (Include additional future phases of development contemplated but not included in current proposal.) The total estimated construction cost and fair market value is 5.4 million for Family Fun & 7.8 million tor LaOuinta. J. BRIEF NARRATIVE DESCRIBING PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS: The proposed development will include a new 3 level Family Fun Arcade building with approximately 7 acres of outdoor attractions including miniature golf, batting cage and go cart track, a future restaurant pad and a 153 room 4 story hotel. K. PORTION OF PROPOSED ACTIVITY ALREADY COMPLETED: (If any portion or phase of the proposed activity is already completed on subject site, indicate month and year of completion.) No portion of the proposed work has been completed. L. PROPOSED STARTING DATE: Spring 1998 ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY: December 1998 . (If project will be constructed in stages, indicate dates:) M. TYPE AND EXTENT OF RECONSTRUCTION OF RIVERBANK (IF ANY) AND PROPOSED RIVERBANK VEGETATION: Proposed improvements to the river bank include excavation to the ordinary high watermark at a sideslope of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical to provide the required flood storage and flood plain compensation. A river bank restabilization plan, landscaping and an access road will also be constructed. N. IF PROPOSED ACTIVITY TO CAUSE FLOODING OR DRAINING OF WETLANDS, INDICATE IMPACTED AREA (acres): The proposed activity will not cause flooding or draining of wetlands. SSDPMT.DOC 7/3/96 3 O. TYPE AND EXTENT OF PUBLIC ACCESS PROPOSED (if any): A 12' combined bike and pedestrian path will be constructed along the top of the river bank within a new river pro- tection easement. The bike /pedestrian path will also extend along the east side of the site, under Grady Way and connect to Interurban Avenue. P. SETBACK OF PROPOSED PARKING/LOADING /STORAGE AREAS AND PROPOSED SCREENING: (setback measured from mean high watermark.) Minimum setback for parking and loading areas is 40'. The minimum setback for proposed buildings is ± 60'. Q. 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.) The height and setbacks of the buildings are: 1.) Family Fun -45' high; 320'setback 2.) Future Building -35' high; 45' setback 3.) Hotel -45' high; 120'± setback. R. MEASURES PROPOSED TO PROTECT WILDLIFE AND FISH HABITAT IN AND ALONG RIVER: A river bank stabilization plan with habitat features and shade trees is proposed along the river for protection and enhancement of fish habitat. II. TO BE COMPLETED BY LOCAL SHORELINE OFFICIAL A. NATURE OF EXISTING SHORELINE: (Describe type of shoreline, such as stream, lake, marsh, flood plain, floodway, delta; type of beach, such as erosion, high bank, low bank or dike; type 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 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: (If 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. SSDPMT.DOC 7/3/96 4 III. 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 XI Tukwila SEPA Environmental Checklist SEPA Lead Agency: 7"U Kw l LA- SEPA decision date: ❑ Tukwila Design Review ❑ Tukwila Preliminary Plat Approval rm Tukwila Flood Control Zone Permit (per Flood Ord. #1462) ga Tukwila Storm Drainage Permit (per Ord. 1755) ❑ Tukwila Land Altering Permit (per Ord. 1591) ❑ Archaeological Excavation Permit (WA DCD /Office of Public Archaeology) ❑ Section 106 Review (WA DCD /Office of Public Archaeology) ❑ 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) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (WA Dept. of Ecology) (Nationwide Permit) (WA Dept. of Ecology) ❑ Aquatic Lease (WA Dept. of Natural Resources) an 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 APPUCAT1ON DATE DATE APPROVED 5 "ifi�Y1iY is a a 5: tinen%)io, "e,',44 tai .' 4P4..4 " 'r brad ttngt�''u..:`!"J$8irO'>,f4. .z 6 D U Oi U)o: W= J H N LL •w 0 Q. = O'. 1— z1. 1= o: Z 2 0 :w = U_`' IL O. •iZ UD. .z IV. IMPACTS ON SHORELINES POLICIES A. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM POLICIES APPLICABLE TO PROJECT: (List the Tukwila or King County Master Program sections, goals and/or policies, including page numbers, which apply.) B. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES APPLICABLE TO PROJECT: (List the Comprehensive Plan sections, goals and/or policies, including page numbers, which apply.) V. SHORELINES DESIGN 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 (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 commercial /development in areas with low potential for recreation or other public uses. 3. Preference should be given to commerciaVindustrial development that will provide an opportunity for a substantial number of people to enjoy the shoreline. SSDPMT.DOC 7/3/96 6 4. Determine and consider the visual impact that the commercial /industrial development will have on the surrounding area. 5. Encourage provisions for public access, especially visual and pedestrian, as an integral part of commerciaVindustrial waterfront development. 6. Design new commerciaVindustrial facilities and improve existing ones in such a way as to minimize wasteful use of the shoreline. 7. Encourage multiple use types of commerciaVindustrial development to provide public access and promote round - the -clock utilization of the shorelines. 8. Short-term economic gain or convenience in developments should be evaluated in relation to long -term and potential impairments to the desirable biological features of the river and its shoreline. B. PUBLIC ACCESS ELEMENT 1. Public access to and along the water's edge should be provided in new developments. a. Water - dependent economic activities should be designed to allow substantial public access to the shoreline. b. For non -water dependent economic activities, where permitted, the entire water's edge should be available for public access, consistent with private property rights. c. For multi - family residential developments, the water's edge should be kept free of buildings and fences with public access made possible. d. For a new single - family dwelling unit, the water's edge should be kept free of buildings and fences. e. For other non - specified development, the water's edge should be available for public access. f. All public shorelands, except as noted in other policies, should be available for public access to the water's edge. 2. Any modifications or extensions to existing development should be designed to allow public access. 3. A trail system should be developed along the river. a. Trails should be developed for linear access through public shoreline areas. b. Access points to and along the river should be linked by a system of trails. c. The connection of other trails in the region to the shoreline trail system should be encouraged and developed. d. To assist in developing a trail system, incentives should be offered to property owners for utilizing set -back areas. C. CIRCULATION ELEMENT 1. Roadways adjacent to the shoreline should be designed primarily for slow- moving traffic that would provide for recreational activities. 2. Parking facilities should be located upland with provisions for adding pedestrian access to the shoreline. 3. Public transportation should be designated to facilitate access to and along the shoreline. 4. Railroads should be encouraged to offer their rights -of -way for multiple use consistent with a shoreline location and with public safety. D. RECREATIONAL ELEMENT 1. Publicly owned recreational uses should be enhanced and, when feasible, enlarged. SSDPMT.DOC 7/3/96 7 a. The public should have first option to buy shoreland as it becomes available for sale, based on an acquisition plan with clear public intent. b. The opportunity for sport fishing in the river should be enhanced. 2. Recreational uses should be incorporated with other shoreline activities. 3. Those unique or fragile areas of the shoreline which cannot be maintained in a natural condition under human uses should be designed and maintained as open space for passive forms of recreation. a • 4. Views of the shoreline and water from shoreline and upland areas should be preserved and z. enhanced. re 6 . a. New shoreline development should not significantly obstruct views of the shoreline or v O the water. o, b. Enhancement of views shall not be construed to mean excessive removal of vegetation. w w. E. SHORELINE USE ELEMENT w O. 1. Shoreline activities identified as being appropriate shoreline uses should be planned for and encouraged. u_ <. a. Short-term economic gain or convenience in developments should be evaluated in = w relationship to long -term and potential impairments to the desirable biological and Z aesthetic features of the river and its shoreline. H o b. Preference will be given to those activities which protect and enhance the desirable w w. features of the river, depend on a shoreline location, and /or provide public access to the o. shoreline. 8 oco — c. Shorelines particularly suited for a specific and appropriate use or activity should be w ~ planned for and designated. �° d. Multiple use of shorelines should be planned for locations where integration of LL O compatible uses is feasible.. ui w 2. Relocation of those activities 'Identified as being inappropriate should be planned for and rz encouraged. 3. Aesthetic considerations should be encouraged when contemplating a new development, redevelopment of existing facilities or for general enhancement of shoreline areas. 4. Planning, zoning, capital improvements and other policy and regulatory standards should not tend to increase the density or intensity of activities on the shoreline. F. CONSERVATION ELEMENT 1. Determine and consider the visual impact a commerciaVindustrial development will have on the surrounding area. 2. Develop regulations requiring the maintenance of a buffer of permanent vegetation between developed areas and associated water bodies to improve the aesthetic qualities of the river, retard surface run -off, maintain constant water temperature and reduce siltation. 3. Promote linear shoreline access, especially pedestrian and other non - motorized types, in the areas close to population centers; such areas would also serve as buffer between water and developed areas. 4. Develop regulations for site coverage, building height, set -backs and density to insure visual access to water, promote interesting development and prevent encroachment over water. 5. Provide facilities for intensive recreational activities where the sewage disposal and vector control can be accomplished to meet public health standards without adversely altering the natural features attractive for recreational uses. SSDPMT.DOC 7/3/96 8 6. Evaluate the effect of proposed recreational developments on environmental quality and natural resources of an area. 7. Develop standards for preservation and enhancement of scenic views and vistas. 8. Outfalls and surface run -offs should be controlled to minimize adverse effects on the river. 9. Open space should be distributed along the river. G. HISTORICAL/CULTURAL ELEMENT w 1. Protect and restore areas having historical, cultural educational or scientific values. ce 2 2. Access to such sites should be made available to the general public. 6 3. Visitors should be provided with clear identification and interpretation of historicaVcultural o O co ° sites. w 11,1 4. Public and private cooperation should be encouraged in site preparation and protection. 5. Suspected significant sites should be retained. 6. Newly discovered sites should be kept free from other intrusions until their value is g 5. determined. ` a COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SHORELINE DESIGN POLICIES Z al H 0. A. ALL SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT w w 1. The development minimizes impacts on wildlife & significant vegetation, sandbars, wetlands, . n watercourses, and other important habitat features are maintained through the proper .0 N location, construction, management of shoreline uses (5.9.1). ° ww 2. The development protects riverbank vegetation and, where feasible, restores degraded �? riverbanks (5.9.2). - O 3. The development mitigates unavoidable disturbances of significant vegetation or habitat v through replacement of habitat & provision of interpretive features (5.9.3). 4. Streets, flood control, surface water drainage and sewer system projects, clearing/grading z activities and landscaping are designed, located and managed in a manner that minimizes water pollution, provides erosion control, and protects water quality (5.10.1) 5. The proposed development does not appear to cause significant adverse impacts on flooding, erosion & natural resources in Determine and consider the visual impact a commerciaVindustrial development will have on the surrounding area. Determine and consider the visual impact a commercial /industrial development will have on the surrounding area. within & outside of Tukwila's jurisdiction (12.1.6). 6. Capital improvement projects & private development are designed, located and managed in a manner which does not endanger public health, safety, welfare or capacity of river to provide long -term community benefits (5.11.1). 7. The development is designed and located to minimize impacts to habitat, vegetation, access, recreation, historical resources and flood control (5.3.2). 8. Where over -water structures or structural reinforcement of the riverbank is proposed, it is necessary for a significant long -term public benefit or water dependent use (5.3.3). 9. The proposed development reflects the river's historical role and protects the Tong -term public use of the river as historical resource, by providing for the identification, protection & interpretation of unique historic /archaeological features (5.8.1). 10. The public development is designed to reflect the river's natural features & community traditions (5.8.2). SSDPMT.DOC 7/3/96 9 w�ihezraxrwe xvn rxa. �rnt Are�nr�paxau tr?e�rx+u N .Ar,.. « w _. 3f 11. (EXCEPT FOR TUC and MIC) The development is designed and located to provide for multiple uses; provide water enjoyment uses as transitions between river & non -water dependent uses; & to encourage efficient use of land through clustering, shared parking, mixed use, etc. (5.3.8). 12. (EXCEPT FOR MIC) The development reflects high - quality site planning, architecture and landscaping; and includes setbacks, buffers, height/bulk provisions for open space ,(5.5.1). 13. (EXCEPT FOR MIC) Areas included in Green River Trail Plan: The development provides a trail for public access along the river (5.6.6). 14. (EXCEPT FOR MIC) Areas not included in Green River Trail Plan: The development provides public access or a private natural area in lieu of physical public access (5.6.6). 15. (EXCEPT FOR MIC) The development maintains views of the water from the shoreline and from upland areas, through building height, bulk, modulation, windows, breezeways & outdoor spaces (5.6.8). 16. Where public access is provided: a) Access is designed and located appropriately in relation to the particular site conditions and private property concerns (5.4 ;2). b) Access is designed to be safe and convenient, and includes amenities such as benches, drinking fountains, and parking lighting (5.6.7), (5.6.10). c) Access is designed and located for diverse types and variable levels of intensity to minimize impacts on natural environment & private property (5.6.3); where there are issues of safety, security, personal privacy or wildlife habitat preservation, public access to the river is limited to appropriate levels (1.5.5). 17. Where appropriate, the commercial development provides a connection between concentrations of commercial activity and the trail network (1.11.4). B. PROJECTS WITHIN TUKWILA URBAN CENTER (TUC): (Meet this additional) The development is designed and located to encourage water enjoyment uses; to provide for multiple uses; to provide additional benefits such as riverbank restoration, fishing piers, boat launches, views, interpretation; and to encourage efficient use of land through clustering, shared parking, mixed use, etc. (5.3.7). C. PROJECTS WITHIN MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL CENTER (MIC): (Meet these additional) 1. The development maintains or enhances existing visual quality; provides trees and landscaping as buffers; and provides amenities that enhance employees' enjoyment of river (5.5.2). 2. The non -water dependent development provides for multiple shoreline uses or provides mitigation for loss of multiple use opportunities (5.3.9). 3. The development emphasizes restoration of riverbank vegetation (11.1.8). 4. Development on the east side of the river improves employee access (11.1.8). 5. MIC properties included in Green River Trail Plan: The development provides a trail for public access along river. Where provision of a public trail would jeopardize site security or lot coverage needed for successful industrial operations, the development provides either a public trail, private natural area, public access elsewhere along the river, or other commensurate off-site mitigation (5.6.9). 6. MIC properties not included in Green River Trail Plan: The development provides public access or a private natural area in lieu of public access, or otherwise mitigates the loss of public access (5.6.11). SSDPMT.DOC 7/3/96 • ..4 is• nn eihi azz, vty imrsxrrn_1217 10 7. Development on the west side of the river improves public access, protecting owner's rights to reasonable use and enjoyment (11.1.8). 8. Development supports the Duwamish River becoming a natural feature amenity in the MIC (11.1.7). D. FLOOD CONTROL USES (Meet these additional) 1. Where feasible, the flood control project mitigates impacts on other shoreline uses, through restoration of trees & riverbank vegetation, public access, interpretive features, or other mitigation for loss of shoreline multiple uses (5.10.3). 2. The flood control project is designed and managed to minimize impacts on trees, riverbank vegetation, public access /recreation and fish habitat (5.10.2) 3. Where feasible, flood control structures are set back from the river, with land areas between the water and levee set aside as open space for recreation or habitat (5.10.2). E. TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS (Meet these additional) 1. Where the transportation project is located within the shoreline zone or within corridors identified as river cross - connections, it provides safe /convenient/attractive pedestrian, bicycle & boater access facilities for public transportation (5.7.2). 2. The transportation project is designed and located to provide for multiple shoreline uses, such as trees, habitat, public parking, boat ramps, biofiltration swales, public art or interpretive signs (5.7.1). 3. The transportation project minimizes impacts on the natural environment, such as noise, odors and pollution (5.7.3). SSDPMT.DOC 7/3/96 „l dcis•.;' s..:. t.<�:s ?�;��.�'�;.s:.v::�:a,L., .-.�. k.�. � �..�y. �..;,,t..u�,,x ir= �aiF?x;6114.V.1. '�a= r�'i3»:o'SAiaaaiiiw27eStv�r' 11 0 UO. 0 ' W=, J CO u_. w 0; J. =a �w _. z~` z�-: W; 0 w w'. .11- V Z U w; 0 Z' J C" ?,7 n k -4- .01-11^1M i11 Q,-F- LV lG,✓\ aft s�c�` of v c,.� n yes- .Sea/e r=36' 4Ximate � 1i12✓rl c •-1 I� '7o n) e-ssn 6_4- ,22 /07R 7 nwiee- -�^ t z • z` 6 0 O 0. ww J= H WQ 0'. LL Q. d HW Z 1, 1— 0: Z 1—' U0 ON 1— WW 2 1L 0 —O • Z; 0 D- li • O z J 0 .:,i:.,t�..�:.c��'1.0 :oir77saii:.s'4a. _•ss rAL".;:.if;r7f:k<:.,.t +ice. ,1— Z;. 4. cc C . • JU UW: la pi, W 2' J I; LL. Qi U D.. W 1- O H; Jac Di p" = W; •Z U N! 0 z DDLI mm •Drawing# . • • SHORELINE CROSS - SECTIONS IIIELLN33 1411.1 Alrnd YliM)111.1. • SNOU.0-23-boOtIO 3■1113:10H9 OLOZ6 r00 TIMOTIM 1133M 400183PM NM01 M WEL SI:E1/430 141:1 AIVIVd ow. spoon, ..n.wooral 'Yew,/ pan .5•17.1■1 Ina rwl Z/ZI-Isttloz1 tron 'mg 41110S 3,01‘• OWL GItil g ...... . .... . . R g 0 ' am- • I 1 I H3.1180 NM PIMA YIMW11 SNOlt035 !0 31 �lON3 OLOL6 NCO-330 3T IANOSIM 1S3M 4001 H iN33 NMOl'M•S IIUBL 1UIrn ^e Mo. M1anton "wane , Ow, 7wltlnnil w) 1'1'1 It/1- 1St11GC) Litt- IR1141 Mat 'IM7r rom% NWNr Gut/ SIM 0) z 0 w U) U) rr w Z .J w CC 0 2 U) z z U k� 0 0 z U �b W k: (A ••• S v 122 °15'00" 47 °28'07" 3 n. ZONE AE (EL 20) Yi "W tOi • ile: DOR mm Drawing# f �.} u: i3lr.'=.+ �N+% �:."..'}' �' fiJ�' ri:"✓ SV�i; 4d! r'• nViCdb .'- .tt.xrv.vwu43tt3!'ri"+YKi3:ii4Y CI; ..UOi fa LU W 0, u. J. 'N Dry".; t•, 12' • EBOARD != 24.0 500 'YEAR FLOOD! E. '= 2 I; ! • pA\i'IN .6V i 100: YEAR ':FLOOLI EL.'21'7 . • :.. ` i ' ' ' 1 '�' ' : ; ; : 4 ' ' • ! • MEAN ' HIGH WATER' MARK' EL'. != 18.0 PROPOSED ' IX TOP .... ... OF: DANK i• • GRADE:... Et =10.0 . ORDINARY •HIGH WATER. MARK NEW •SHELF ' i• P/L SECTION 1"=20' HORZ 1"=1.0' VERT 200' 40' HIGH IMPACT ENVIRONMENT , IMPACT ENVIRONMENT 60'• LOW • 30'. • RIVERBANK 1 MAINTENANCE AND. ACCESS • EASEMENT 12' ! 'PATH NEW ASPHALT • 2' FREEBOARD. =' 24.0 PAVING • •• ; • : • • • 500 YEAR FLOOD. EL — 22.0• • 100: YEAR: 5LOOD.:EL: — 21:.7 ' .' :0 • ; . : ma4l14,':i!)i4I1 • . ...F ,�IX:TOP .... . ....0F. BANK: = 10.0 . w ::cx • 1 ' MEAN HIGH • WATER 'MARK 'EL: — 8.0 PROPOSED ; RDINARY HIGH ! WATER MARK ' ! i : 14EW SHELF i i. i SECTION J 1 " =20' HORZ 1"=10' VERT 6v. 1 .L_ 1 _ �Li.G LG i is O O {S z Ce W: 6 0 O. 0 co w. w =, 0. g 1. cn d` w. z I—O• z Llf U0 co ;0 H'. LL I— Z W col 0 =i O ~; z t: F File: ELEVATION (FEET NGVD) 40 30 20' 10 ' ' . • ' : NOTE: PROFILE REPRESENTS•10 -' ' • . : ; . . : . • -. ; , ; _ -- c • .• AND 100 -YEAR FREQUENCY, ' ' I' • I i 1 FLOODS AS REGULATED BY; •: • • , : ",. :� ;• . 1 : f. : i 1 '. : -• " . .THE;HdWARD'A HANS'ON DAM' 1. ., _�.., . .j_... 11 �._!.._ _ _. , .4. - - - • . - 0 . :, ... - : . ; . i . i . . ,,,. i . 1: . .. _ i: , ii. ._ .-.H 30. - }_j._1. , 1 • •'.•.. ; ;.i..i. •1 - A r''•: • 1. .1 . F._i I I. ., _{..; , . • 1. 7': • 1. • ,.i.. . . ,SOIL ye. • eG= ;Z?. o't •.E'co4s47e y 7i 4j.: ' • - -,20 cc w 0 CC z H co) 0 • • CC w . O • •1 : . .: .. . : I...... • i • •I 11.0 11.2 11.4 11`,6 11.8 12.0 12.2 STREAM DISTANCE IN MILES ABOVE MOUTH 12.4 - 12.6 �- ^~•� '4 10 0 -10 LEGEND • 500 - YEAR FLOOD 100 - YEAR FLOOD 50 - YEAR FLOOD 10 - YEAR FLOOD STREAM BED CROSS SECTION • LOCATION 12.8 13.0 13.2 134 } w C7 Q 'Q H CZ W � Q O d • � W • Z >- =.4=1 O Z o:•C3 O cc Z Z w • ]C .w J CC w 0 w 35P 91.. t►.I.: .. Cl • ;,..Zl 'Lt d° 0� 6 : g: w���� r�9.; -.:,5 ii iliiiiliiiiiii1.111111111il iiil i lik11ii liu 111.11Iiiiil1iii.li.ii1li i1l11i1111l1liii .1011111f1 u 40 • f• 1.• •• ; ••;-i-; -1-• • -i-• •-•4,. •: • • .. • • , ; • 't • • • I • • • • • , , 20 .-10 LEGEND 500 - YEAR FLOOD 100 - YEAR FLOOD 50 - YEAR FLOOD 10 - YEAR FLOOD STREAM BED CROSS SECTION LOCATION 11.8 120 • 122 "P• „ - • (4.1,1.FM7.-----!•: :145:1.:1•71-!11,1,11•.14;!;,1„.•):f ,;' s....11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111,11111.111111;111.11111j.11.1111,1111111i1)1111,111.1(1111111011111IldijdlZ511111li'ill11:11111:61il11' 12.4 12.6 12.8 >'* : O 1. e... ••••• LU O t'l"' ,. .: •tr. i" 1.11 c■•■::: ........" 2 ..,,,,,, t..: : LU *4.. CU .1.,.. < Z ).• < 0 •7 • .I.E.72.:■;1 . ' '"...fl•L'I'l ^••••." • • 111..." ..... .•••• i ..; il* 0 , CV ......„ .. .... L ICC' -- "" .. i al 7, ••••• r........; i ...1 .!..T., ........ : ..1 i. LU t7. Ca ,; 1/1 U. 22P It File: L9 irt • rn 0 0 0 E: \5925001 \5925001 A.DWG 0 EXPLANATION: TP -1 41- TEST PIT COMPLETED BY GEOENGINEERS (CURRENT STUDY) GB -1 + BORING COMPLETED BY GEOENGINEERS (STUDY DATED JUNE 30, 1997) GT -1 -ell- TEST PIT COMPLETED BY GEOENGINEERS (STUDY DATED JUNE 30, 1997) GCB -18 + BORING COMPLETED BY GEOTECH CONSULTANTS (STUDY DATED JANUARY 24, 1997) GCW -14 O MONITORING WELL COMPLETED BY GEOTECH CONSULTANTS '(STUDY DATED JANUARY 24, 1997) GCT -1 * TEST PIT COMPLETED BY GEOTECH CONSULTANTS (STUDY DATED JANUARY 24, 1997) AB -2 + BORING COMPLETED BY APPLIED GEOTECHNOLOGY (STUDY DATED APRIL 26, 1989) AT -4 4- TEST PIT COMPLETED BY APPLIED GEOTECHNOLOGY. (STUDY DATED APRIL 26, 1989) TP -4 PARCEL TWO GT -10 AT -7 PARCEL THREE MONSTER ROAD - GT -2 100 200 SCALE IN FEET Reference: Drawing entitled "Concept Site Plan" provided by Mulvanny Partnership Architects. dated June 17, 1997. Note: The locations of all features shown are approximate. AIM I�rl. i��i% ���iliii ..l_ILIIIlILII¶I- 'I'i'1llll� T1�1rILI'1 1�l!:1`':I�li r.l.�l'1'r'i.L'i' c1�III' LILIIIIi_.i INCH.. r� I I ! I I 0 CHINA 1 r, , 2 3 • 4' 5 6 Sl . f+l El Zl l���r - Ol a.6.;, A: L 9::. 5 ►:` E Z L I'o Iiiiililllllllllllllllliil111iliIIIIIIiiII�IIIIIIIIIIIILLIIIIIIfIIII. IIILIIIIILIIIIItIIIIIjllilllijjil( ijllLlliljJ► iIL�III�II ►ll�lll�lllllllll►lill11,11 ,� SITE PLAN Note: The locations of all features shown are approximate. Reference: Topographic Survey prepared by Lin & Associates dated June 23, 1995. 1P-PiTtrITITTI-111-,I 1 , 1 1 .1 11.1, 1 1 r•! j 1 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 .11*.1111jn1 0111111 1.1 1 111 j IT11-1 INCH • 1 , • 5 . CHINA • • 91 .1'1 • CI ' ;L • Z fil) • :..111111111111111(111111.61.1111'1116kiiiii11 iiili1 ijililii'illiiiiii(14111.11111.111111111ilfiii[lithi1111111,1i11.(11111.111,111,11111111111 IIII,1111111 GREEN RIVER BANK FEATURES t File: L51 35mm •DrOvvin... • -3, ELEVATION (FEET NGVD) 40 30 20 10 0 -10 • • • • .. . . . 11.0 0 uJ 0 z 111 0 0 • . . • . • . • . . I . • • 1 • :1 ; ..... t. • • • • • . • . . . .. ' . .. . .... •1 •. • _4_ ...1 • . , . • • , . . : • . . . .. : .... .. ..... • /f2;eali-cr,v; cOc4r/.9.4/ . , ' • 1 ' • 1 • • 1 ... -t• • • - i - ANL, ;1 UU - il' C•n rni.-.L.4.uctut... I . FLOODS AS REGULATED BY • • ' ' ' • THE HOWARD A HANSbN OAM • • • : • . •. : i • . , • • 1 i : ..; • . ; .. . i • 7 • ' . ' • ' • ; . : ; , : • . • f -4- - • 40 1 • , . 1 •, 4. • : : . " 1 '' ' ' 1 ' • 1 . : ' ' .. - - . .. - I • 1 • • 4. , . • • . .... !.. ; . • • • : • • • •i •;. • .• , . , • ;Ai° : :* • : ..54, Ye. :ez,F. /44tril) : . . . 1 .• • • ' ' • • • ••• . .. . • . . . • 11.2 11.4 11.8 12.0 20 10 -10 LEGEND • 500 - YEAR FLOOD 100 - YEAR FLOOD 50 - YEAR FLOOD 10 - YEAR FLOOD STREAM BED CROSS SECTION • LOCATION 12.2 12.4 • 12.6 12.8 STREAM DISTANCE IN MILES ABOVE NIOUTH 13.0 13.2 13.4 • • :CHINA •• ••••:-. 1 • 11 I. • •../ • 1 •■ ••■ 4.• • • • • • • . . . , "■ : • •; ' ' ! ', - ' • ' i UJ : • • Jli '• ° • i i : . . . . t . ..,: • . •., :4i . .:;:._ :,! . ..,:i : i • .; :i ...1:;....i.: f; .. '...•';';' . ....1•:•“.:i 1 ...i : , 4 1.. 4'' '." : „ ' ' . .: .' * • : • : • . i : • rt.' ? 7 :" : •i ■ ••7 , • I i '• -i •• -1 " - 4 ' ! • • •11 • • • , ...::1.:,..•. , .1..! ..1. . I240 '''''.7".7. . 4 :: __t .„_„1 11 , ,k4. • 14:. . ... -I. " ' . •■ i •• : i • I I " !,- • • '.. .: ..,, : -1..•1• • , • . • . , • I ...f.......1...... .i... .,,...i. 4. ,........, ,. i ; i : :, • ! : • • .. •• .. •H 7 ' ! ' I •0 ; . ' • I • Iii ! • I ! I • ....f....1.. t .1..: .1.;..1 ! . • • • ' ' • • : : 1 ..• !... ..",......'.1...: -.:' i..• : ' . .. 1 . . : . i • i • 7:":1*:••:171:1-:-:11-•-1....1..1:1Ir:•-1•:', 1.:.-Ii.....1•1•1:111••.';•--! :•:j.1,-.1 ' . • : • ; :. • . .. . . . . I ct I ... , . .. I li ' • l• ' ! i•-• • , . ; I , • , • :. • , • ; • • ' ; 0 . . I 0 ,. : ,, ..; .L.i...„...1 : 7'. ; J.._ . .....,..., ,..,. . I. .... .. , • : . A 1..., •'. t. ... 1.. 1.-; • ; -., ... 1.-1. 1.. 1...-•;• .1-.: .1 -; 1-1 • •••••■ • •-t• ••-••: • . .;• - ••• ; • ' ! •i 7 1.••• 7 •••••• ; • : • . • .. • . • ,,. :•.'7.•:.:;••••:•.1: 0 7 ...... i IL 1 Z • ...I • • • 1 : ' .* :' • ! • • : • .• . • • ...• i • • i I ..: ' 1 . '' i .1 • 1 ;. ' i. l.' .: • : , . • 1 • •,....'41.. ••• , , , • .... • •77 • ' . ' , • , • . ,...• i ,, 4;•-7, ... • •• .1.... , • ; •• 1 ' ::• i + 1 ; ,i, . 1 ! .• •• ..• ' I .1 'A...I • i".4 • 1•••: • t 4 --1..r :-;•• *1-=': ::* - : „ .;...1 .i..I. :..I.. • 4. : .. 1 ; .. '. .:..i 1..1_ i_.., .i . i..!..±..1 ,j • • • ,..- i •.* • • :.1.....:. ' '..; *•..' ': • ' 1 ;-u- ' I 0 . 1 ,., : . i .. : .. .. , . ,, . . 30 •-••••••-• : .::-- - ••...••. .......„..........T • • • -I- 0 • . • . ...1--i-' ..t"-................4.....,...•:„.....•_•.....„7:_... ...._:.... .......... ...4„..,.. • •.• : , ; : , • f • • • . : • ', • i.• .' i • . .• • ■ . ■•• . ■ .. I :. ' . • .,,. e . • . • • • ; • 7 1, •., • , . • i • , ; ......". • "...I ..i • ••,...I....".•J•.1.-1:1. •••• : • • : •••• • • , • ......i .j.. I !....i...I.•.... •:• j ••: - • , , ...; . •.. . • i .:-.: .■ ..! i 4.4...4. 4. ; .1....1:_;. I . : .. .., „ .• . . , . , . :•• i ., -:. t -.:•••'. : :- • •I.•-• ; ' • , - ': . t • . - • 1 .. i. ; . . . : 1 •i-.J:77: ".. j•-•!-i.:7 I -Ir 1 -I.-4 .i. ; .4.4. •••• : ' ' ' • • • • i.. 1 'il" 41-1: " - .' ' i • ' . , , ' - • ! • • I • i ; . . .... 1. .. . . • . : .:.,t 1 1 : •:-• •-: • •' : • •• . ' 1 1 : • . i . ... . 't . 1 ! : . • 1 • • • • ! • : • • .• , . " ' !. • • • : ' q ••; :• 7 . ' • ; '. . . : . : • . . .. ; ., r; .; .i.., .1. i ; j . i.-1.-1. . :1 1-1...i.-{-.1 .; ..1 •; . 7. . .: .: .7 . . • je4kirC, .i I .. : , . . . I . ;. • : .; , ;.• .1. .{....!. ,, t..; , .1_4 I .,••••••.- 1 1 , .. . ...: : 1 .1 .•,. - - •• • !• "•• 7 • : • 1 l• . • - 1... i...2:7::. .. , • •i. . ...• .; .1...1.....11.. 1, ••••;'.1. T. 1 1...i . . 'i. 1. ..' .i• I ..., ..;•:;.•"•••-•; ; . ; . . .....!....1.-1. :. ; ...I .. !. ..• :. • .. . ,!. .1;•• 1. ' . ,-; :..; .1 ... . • ., 1 ••••1-••■•••••• ■ ••• : 1 ••; . ... .: •1 • • ••• . : 7 • • , j' ., . ... : :: , .• .4. ••••• ••• .: • •••• • • •••••• !..; I • t , 4 l• •‘• ■ •• 1.- -t- r-r cr.-, •-.•• ...• I ;., . . • ••••• -. • i.... ••• ••• • - i'-,, 1 •,.! ••.; ,. ;. iH. 1-- , i i•41--...i.t.-1•1*- ,1--4.-.1-i•-4-!,.1 • ._, . : i i• 1-i---f i .1.: •• , , •••.• I. i 4• , . • ; • i . . ; : : . , :..,..:.•,:•, ; v.,. ,., 114 ..:, .itti:..1...1.,.......+4.....i,..,1...11:1..±....:., • :.:..;.; ! . : , . . 20•---1.-1-7."1•••I''''''' •74''''+•`;'-:"÷±t-l• •4-1---1-1•••••••:-7-7...7.i -:•••••• •1••••••••7•-•••• 7- •••••••••■•••••17••••;•••.• • •••••••-•! 7 ..........,....„.......,____...; . ,. , I, . . . . . . , . . , . ...„ ...,...•_,• , : ,.. • • I ..1 4 •■ •••• , •• 1 0. .1 • .t.•••■• , .. ,... : 1 . .., ..: • , I , t • • 4 .... • . , . , ... .• • 4 • •• • . , 1, 44.4 ••4 .4 4 • i•• •1■•• .4. •••• •■••• ....i,..1..i...1.:.!...:'. ..i. , -": ,.... L.. : ..i... 4 - :.... . i. 4 . , . ' .4. t. i ' •• • • ;......... • i .1. . . . .. .: . ... 1 : .i. I ... • ..1. ; .1. ! .. :•.i. . ; ! :1...I • '. ! 1-.1..4.-./..4 .±.!.....1.-1,..1. 1.4. .1.1 • : . j : •.. • ; • - • . i.: 1.1. , : • , ; • • .: i .4- • • • • i : • ; . • ••• I : -• i ''. •! t - • ••"I• • .. '. ': - - `• " I ": •1 - • • .: • , 1 - ! • ; t . - • ' •'. i . 4 •'.: • • • ; : ; :. i•• - . , ,. , ..., ... -i• •,-,.. v..; 1 •,.• 1 : • : • .. • t .,. .. • . ,..: • , 1-1- r•- •• • • • • . , . • ,,•! I.- ; • i ..".•• • - • ...! • . • . • , 1 • • ; , , f • • 1 ; . • ;,•: ; 1 • ! : . : . ,. 4 6-4- '' 4*-1' 11 .1- ' :4 ...- • :,' 7 ••• • :' 7 . 7 - v7 + •1•• I .7'7. ••• , • ..' • 1 • .,••; •! • i• •: 'I 'I' ---1" 2/:;.7:-`. *: . . I.-- - . - ' .. ; - • -: "••• ; - - -11.::-1-1.1-i.-1-1.- a -4.i i-,..1..i. • . , ;....... ....: :..i; •:..., .1 ,. • 0 1 1 : . :- .7... ; .. • , . ' .: . : • . i ' ; . , :. . . . t. . , 1. . ; . 4 . : : . , .i7eit ieA-7", tif) - , . : . • v 13 • • ; • ; . • , '.. ' ' t • . 7 1 • • . i : : . ' > • • • ; .. •. . . ' - . : • .. .. : : - 1 ' • 1 i . .. : . ; ... 1 • • .......t. j. . • • . .• : ,. ' 1 •• • ; , .. : 4. .: 1 ,, ! i., ,. 1.. . %. • t. r., .,..: ,...t..., .4-4 il :.:.1• ; .... ..... i • 2 - -•• -"••• • -.-..- •,--1.-1--,--, :::1•--t !:•.+.1.•::-T• tt,,,,,,...:7'-177- • • -1-''' - - - • , T. ' • i 1 • 1.. " 1 ..... .; • ; •;• , ... . •• • , , •. .,.• • ; • .. . • . • • .T• . • ••.. : • ui in . la • . ..'-': r t. CI: .1.-4 -I. i--4 • • : • : • • •:• • • '". 1 i- 7 • '• ! .1 • !• 1•••• ..• • °. .4. I••••• • • ., .. • •I■ ,;1•° $•• • I e I •••‘• : •• ' • • • •• , i • ■ • 1_,I ...... 1•••1, . ... i; : i. ... • . • .. . .:. ; ..' :: . • • ' '... . • 11. LI. i • • • ; i • ••• : • . ; . 1 t 4. • •• • ..• . ; ,. .. ....... . , . , .. . :-..! .• 1 . . : I • . . • : • ,. . . : • . • , : 1, ...:. ,...1, : .. ...r,. . . .... i..i..f.1 :., .,.. ...: ....L. :,..; 1 ...i..:: . .. ,•,. ..:,...4...!...,...1.1c3 2.:.....;....t ,, .. , 15. >. , .. • . • • • _ . :..:..... ,....,..1 .; :..::.,.. ....... i , :., .....: ... t.,.., , . ..._ . ....:.,...... . : 1 1 , . 1 ,•.. " ,'• -, • -. < < • i ... ....,..1..::•..... . • • ..."..1.: 7 *•.* ; ' I • ' ': " '--- • • .- T-1... .1 • -• ..:..1 ..,, . .. , • , . . . ...:. - .. . . . .. _ ., . ... _ 1 .1. •,, , 1. 1 ., : . s .7 I ;_ 1 .c t „ ; .1.1 .:_„., , ..,.........4..• . I. - -,. .t.. el „ I....Tr, .. 1.. ..i ,...; , .. ,......... .. ;,....r ..; .j...i. 1.-, ..;..,. ...-.:. i...t.-.!-•,-. i .i. :„.• x. • • •• •• • • • . •. • • • . .' t • 1 i .. • ! I" 1 ! . : i • . i .. n ...i...i..-t."!-I-".-1 -4" Ie.-. • i ..,"": 11-1-1 I • • ', 1 ' ."*, 1 ''. "PI '1,•-,1*-I'l !z ..,.IUI 1.1-i "•:' :z 0 ; •• : .-. . , .... .....i..•••,..:-.;.:4 • .. -4.-1 ,.9.- i, ,. -.1 : ...! ; i. : _... • • • ••••; : • ,:'• i 7 •••••• 1- 1•••!' • •••t-l• .,-,...w 2: f-% -1-.-t.:!::::..-: -..CC . , . • • . • . •• ,„,„,. • • . : , . i 1,:t...1, :. `...1 ., i. i '•.'7' ....".• 1'1 . ; l''':-! 'Ft "al • •s.. . • - ; • . : 1. : ! • z Z i . : 1 . : . : !. • , • • . • • • . . • • 1 MI : . : ' • ' I : • . 1 i....j..f...i . •:. t i. .......'.. ' . , 1 ._... ; 1 , I ... .,.: , : : I i • ....j.. ,.. L. . .. , ; . '. ..---1 .1 • I. 1 . .. " ••• I 1 : 1. ' 1 I ' ft" -H : . '• • 1 tsg .. ,.. ;. . ! :. :,.. .. . '. :. ; . ; . .. . . . L • : . • ! . ' . . , ,• .-...1..,. 1.-1, ...AI j• . 4 ....; .: .. Vi i . .1' • : -!• : • :• , j.•1 • ' • 1 • .1 • : 1 :. . ; . ••• • • ; :• : I. :. .i ,• i . • : . : ; i...: . .1. t. • 1. 4., .',1;.:i : , ......1...t. _i.2.....t..11...1..t.i, ;; I ;,. , ... ! : ............1. .. -1....i.-4 .i. i.. 4 ... t i . .,... i ' : . . .L'..• I. ::.:1..._: '...:..! . : 4,•-• ••■•: .... .. • • • ; • ••• - • • • -• •• .... • ' • 1 ' " j • ; . • • • .. : . . . .• . !. 4, • . ,• , 2.11•12:11 I•• •;••• • 1:*,? • 1 , hi-1...i • ••• . . • . ... . . • • 40 • • • ••••• 1 I , • .11 • i • . • . . . • :■:7“7 i 1-.47 I 71 1; 7 7• • • : • • • • • • •• ••• ; ;•••j• •• ! • ; • .. .• ....... • • • • , . • • . • • • - • . ; • . . : . , . , • • • ::•:..: • • 4 1•'..41.1 ... • : " 1 : • J.. . . ... ":.-17 ' 7 " ' ..• •• -4 7.7! *-'••••• I . • • •• : • • • • " 4 ... .1. • .• • 1.. . :: ' . ..; .,., ..! i.; 1 ••,": •• ■• • - 1- .t... -. • • . • . . • t • ! • • ■ i . • ; • .; • • • : • • 1 • • • • ..•; , . • I ! . . : :•.• •,, ..: 1.....:....; • .i..1.'.1.:::. T.:-1 I .:. ....' 1...!...: :' • • ... I.., • ,. •• • , . .: .,. I. 7 .7:: 1: ,.....,•?•-•.- I • . : ; • •• .. : .. : , . ,. ,.................... ..... ,....... .i ••1- • I-. ; .i.., • . .. . , • • : : ; ; i. . •1-1..7: r .1--; ,• T • . :-. 7 •••,-• -1 -• •• •: , , ! , • ; i• : • 1 •• . i . • ' • ! '1•1" j •• 7-; : ; - .; • • • ..j. r ..... . • • • ; . t • . • • • ! • 4 i • ; ;• • • .-;•• ; ' - • • • 1 ' ; • ; • : . • : : •. , . . ; . -!•,•! • • ..1• •.• • • : • ; •••• --;-• • i• • • • • .. .`. 1• •-; ••i •• • ••• • -." • • - , • 11.2 11.4 11.6 11.8 STREAM DISTANCE IN MILES ABOVE MOUTH LEGEND 500 - YEAR FLOOD 100 - YEAR FLOOD 50 - YEAR FLOOD 10 - YEAR FLOOD M71/4•74 STREAM BED CROSS SECTION LOCATION • 0 • .10 12.0 12.2 • 12.4 .12.6 ' 12.8 u. 22P • '" CHINA - • I.: H... I., • .. (111(1: kl" 1.1 • . 1 J... • i e F * • BUILDING AND SITE STATISTICS: • BUILDING CODE :UBC'94 • ZONING :FORMERLY M2 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL - NOW SR -1 • SITE AREA :3 ACRES APPROX. (130,680 SF) • BUILDING AREAS :EX. SHOP: 24,500 SF EX. OFFICE: 2,200 SF PER FLOOR (2 STORY) EX. WEST SHOP: 4,800 SF EX. COATING SHOP: 3,400 SF EX. SANDBLAST SHOP: 2,100 SF 37,000 SF (28.3%) • CONSTRUCTION TYPE: EX. SHOP - II -N • OCCUPANCY GROUP: F1 • PROPOSED AREA OF WORK: 1,500 SF • PARKING REQUIRED: OFFICE el 2.5/1000 = 4,400 +2.5/1000 =11 CARS MFG. tl 1 /1000 = 37,000 + 1/1000 = 37 CARS 48 CARS PARKING SHOWN: 59 CARS LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 33, 34, & 35 BLOCK 6, C.D. HILLMAN'S MEADOW GARDENS ADDITION, DIVISION 1 ACCORDING TO PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 12 OF PLATS, PAGE 64, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TAX PARCEL* 334740-1330-07 OWNER: UNION TANK WORKS, INC. 12065 44TH PLACE 50. TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 CONTACT: MR. BILL O'CONNELL, 3RD - 450-5566 ENGINEER: JOHN LOSCHEIDOR, PE, SE. P.O. BOX 2440 RENTON, WASHINGTON 98056 - 255-0128 • ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST: 522,800 •/11-1119' frtr 140 Oaf. RECEIVED CITY OFTUKWILA • JUL •1 81997 PERMITCENTER • RECENEE ) R0" 97 j,gpi IN • 0 Y 5 F 1 Rg a aN rn Ott m • I or • IlIlhlT��lllllllllllilllilllitil lllllll1 11jiIITijlliirplrj_ iliitiplililliljipjllljljijllip OINCH • 1 '4`a' 2 5 6 • CHINA . • . 9l lit El el ,'141:•: "•Ol •8...0 ...L,:.9 9. P E Z Vp�O IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII18�IIIIlIBpIIpII��IIIgUIIIIIIIIIi�lllllllllllllllllll�ulilml�lllllllll�llllllllll .