Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-332-86 - WESTERN PACIFIC PROPERTIES - SOUND UTILITIES 44TH PLACE CENTERSOUND UTILITIES 44T" PLACE CENTER STORAGE YARD 13122 S. 131ST STREET EPIC 332 -86 r ,GKWILA Division ,uthcenter Boulevard •%i, Washington 98188 i 433 -1849 INSPECTION RECORD PERMIT # ;/; 420 Date / -2-U� ( Inspection / A d 1/ Date Wanted 1.49/1?f' a.m. address /3/2;% �o, /3/ �n Project f� (iL`,�, %es ;tor Phone # .1 Instructions p.m• tion Results /Comments: tor Z2? .71•VI 111 • 411.01 1 91• •v1• -r• Date 9 2---(0?"2/ of 14.25. If you need any further assistance in this matter please feel free to call me at your convenience. Sincerely, H.C.E., INC. A-71.416/A*4-AA-ema Ronald Garrow, P.E. RG:Iv 0. G tv . ...«...•• Aio �P•� i CITY OF TUKWILA '1 Building Division 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1845 Work to be done Site Address Building Use Property Owner Address Contractor Address BUILDING PERMIT Fill (2500 C.U.) 13122 S 131 St StnragP Yard Craig A_ RnwPs 1100 Maple Ave. SW same PERMIT # qz(,Qo Control # 86 -181 H734920- 0230 - 03/0235- 08/0225 -00/ Assessor's Acct. #x: - 0220 -05 Suite # Tenant Sound Utilities Assessors Account # see top line Phone # 226 -6606 Zip 98055 Phone # Renton, WA FOR BUILDING PERMIT ONLY approved for issuance by Sq. Ft. Office Warehou/ e Warehous Retail Other Occ. Load. 1st F1. 2nd Fl. 3rd F1. Total Fire Protection: [] Sprinklers [I Detectors Zoning M -1 Type of Construction Special Conditions sq. ft. @ 1st F1. $ sq. ft. @ 2nd Fi. $ sq. ft. @ other $ sq. ft. @ other $. Total Valuation of Construction $ Bldg. Permit Fee Receipt #,314// $ 135.00 Plan Check Fee Receipt #2090 $ 30.00 Demolition Receipt # $ Surcharges Receipt # $ Other Receipt # $ Other Receipt # $ TOTAL $ 165.00 FOR SIGN PERMIT ONLY O Permanent 0 Temporary O Single Face [[ Double Face LI Wall Mounted J Free Standing [I Other Building face Setbacks: Front Side Side Rear Square Footage of each sign face Total square footage of sign Special Conditions THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL i T}IE PROVISIONS /OFJ4NY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION 0 THE fEERRFO MANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. Signed Date LICENSED CONTRACTORS DECLARATION 1 hereby affirm that 1 am licensed, ovi i. e Business and Professions Code, and my license is in full force and effect. 13Contractor (signature) L �/) Date y //8 J OWNER- BUILDER DECLARATION ( ) 1, as owner of the'property, or my employees, with wages as their sole compensation, will do the work, and the structure is not intended or offered for sale. ( ) 1, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractor's to construct the project: Owner (signature) Date • • TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING September 15, 1986 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL REPORTS a. Mayor -- PROCLAMATION: "GIVE BURNS THE BOOT DAY." b. City Council c. Staff d. City Attorney e. Intergovernmental AGENDA Ord. # Res. # F.M. # 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CITIZEN'S COMMENTS: For items not included on this agenda. If you wish to comment on agenda items, time is allotted during each discussion period CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of Minutes of September 2, 1986 b. Approval of Vouchers c. A resolution of the City of Tukwila, Washington, setting a process to 1 recognize and reward the development of quality buildings and land- 1 scaping. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: An appeal of the Determination of Non Significance for Sound Utilities Storage Yard at 13122 So. 131st. 8. MISCELLANEOUS 9. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Labor Negotiations 10. ADJOURNMENT COUNCIL COMMITTEE ITEMS PUBLIC SAFETY & HEALTH COMMITTEE Meets Wed. following Reg.Mtg., 5:15 p.m. W. Morgan, Ch., C. Simpson, E. Bauch 1. Fire District #1 Progress Reports - 02 -24 2. Fire Management Study - 07 -21 FINANCE & PERSONNEL COMMITTEE Meets 1st and 3rd Mon., 5:45 p.m. E. Bauch, Ch., M. Stoknes, D. Phelps 1. Council Analyst Position - 03 -03 2. Fire Dist. #1 Negotiat.& Pers. Study- 04 -21 3. CIP and Financial Planning Model - 07 -21 4. Water /Sewer Bond Financing - 07 -21 5. Repeal Ord. 1347 - 08 -25 6. Est. Salary Classification Pjan - 09 -08 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Meets Tues. following Reg.Mtg., 5:15 p.m. M. Harris, Ch., W. Morgan, E. Bauch 1. 133rd (Gateway) - 07 -28 2. Transportation Policy Plan - 08 -18 COMMUNITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE Meets Tues. following C.O.W., 5:15 p.m. C. Simpson, Ch., W. Morgan, M. Stoknes 1. Street Contractor Standards 2. Fire District #1 Annexation 3. Technical Zoning Code Revisions 4. Sidewalk Policies 5., Storage of Flammable Liquids — 07 -2. — 07-2 - 07 -2 — 07 -2: — 08 -0, PARKS & RECREATION COMMITTEE Meets 2nd & 4th Mon., 5:45 p.m. D. Phelps, Ch., C. Simpson, M. Harris 1. Sister City Park Site - 03 -0: 2. Recreation Services Plan - 03 -0: 3. Library Board - 03 -1( 4. Community Center Study - 07 -2: 5. Recreational Trails along Green Rvr.- 07 -2: UTILITIES COMMITTEE Meets Wed. following C.O.W., 5:15 p.m. M. Stoknes, Ch., D. Phelps, M. Harris 1. TCI Cablevision requested amendment - 09 -Oc SEPTEMBER 15, 1986 • • Item CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE , TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Tukwila City Council will conduct a Public Hearing on the 15th day of September , 1986 , at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers of Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, to consider the following: An appeal of the Determination of Non Significance for Sound Utilities Storage Yard at 13122 So. 131st. Any and all interested persons are - invited to be present to voice approval, disapproval, or opinions on same. CITY OF TUKWILA Maxine Anderson City Clerk Published: Record - Chronicle, September 5, 1986 September 15, 1986 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER and PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL OFFICIALS Revise Agenda CONSENT AGENDA Resolution #1014 PUBLIC HEARING Appeal of the Determination of Non- Significance for Sound Utilities Storage Yard at 13122 So. 131st TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers Regular Meeting MINUTES In the absence of Mayor Van Dusen, Council President Duffie called the Regular Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. DORIS E. PHELPS, JOE H. DUFFIE, Council President, WENDY A. MORGAN, CHARLES E. SIMPSON, MARILYN STOKNES. MOVED BY MORGAN, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT THE ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS BE EXCUSED. MOTION CARRIED. JAMES HANEY, City Attorney, MAXINE ANDERSON, City Clerk, DON MORRISON, City Administrator, BRAD COLLINS, Planning Director, MOIRA BRADSHAW, Assistant Planner. MOVED BY MORGAN, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT THE AGENDA BE CHANGED TO PUT ITEM 4 AFTER ITEM 7. MOTION CARRIED. a. Approval of Minutes: September 2, 1986 b. Approval of Vouchers Claims Fund Vouchers #27256 - #27415 Current Fund $ 77,314,13 Golf Course Spec. Rev. 15,167.07 City Street 14,222,25 Federal Revenue Sharing 3,814.27 Land Acq.,Bldg. & Dev. 4,200.00 Water Fund 7,063.49 Sewer Fund 44,229.55 Water /Sewer Construction 31,126.67 Equipment Rental 28,682.73 Firemen's Pension 598.85 Fire Equipment Cum. Reserve 3,131.68 $229,550.69 c. A resolution of the City of Tukwila, Washington, setting a process to recognize and reward the development of quality buildings and landscaping. MOVED BY SIMPSON, SECONDED BY STOKNES, THAT COUNCIL ACCEPT THE CONSENT AGENDA AS SUBMITTED. MOTION CARRIED. Attorney Haney explained that the issue before Council is an appeal of the SEPA Responsible Official's determination of non - significance on the Sound Utilities Contractors Storage Yard at 13122 South 131st. The City Code requires Council to hold a hearing on this SEPA determination, that all testimony given must be done under oath, and requires that Council pro- vide written Findings and Conclusions in support of their decision. The decision tonight is a decision on a deter- mination of non - significance which has been appealed by Mr. Lawrence Shaw. Council is not bound by the Responsible Official's previous decision, however, the SEPA rules and State law provide that they must give that decision substan- tial weight. This means that even though Council is hearing this as though they were sitting as the SEPA Responsible Official for the City, they must take into account the fact that this has already been looked at by the Responsible Official, and unless it is found that his decision was TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING September 15, 1986 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING - Cont. Appeal of the Determination of Non - Significance for Sound Utilities Storage Yard at 13122 So. 131st (cont.) clearly in error Council should uphold his decision. In determining if a DNS or a DS should be issued, Council must determine whether there is a probable significant adverse environmental impact evidenced by this proposal. If Council is going to overturn the decision of the Responsible Official, they must find that there is an environmental impact, that this environmental impact is adverse, and that the adverse environmental impact is significant. Finally, Council must find that it is likely to occur unless it is mitigated-by some measure. Council President Duffie declared the Public Hearing open at 7:30 p.m. As required by law, Attorney. Haney swore in the following people who wish to testify during the hearing: Moira Bradshaw, Assistant Planner; Brad Collins, Planning Director, and Lawrence M. Shaw, President of Normed Wholesale Medical Supplies. Moira Bradshaw of the Planning Department reviewed the Findings and Conclusions that support the decision that has been made. The permit that required the SEPA Checklist was a fill permit for a site of approximately 44,000 square feet. The site is bounded by SR 599, South 131st Street and vacated 44th Place. The applicant has proposed a utility contrac- tor's equipment yard as the use of the site. The parcel is zoned M -1, Light Industrial, and the.purpose of this district is to provide an area appropriate for light industrial uses which are non - nuisance activities in terms of air and water pollution, noise, vibration, glare and odor. The site is currently. planted with grasses, shrubs and wet soil plants which will be removed and covered with the fill. In the environmental checklist, the applicant stated there would be four vehicular trips per day with no set pattern of time. They will have two access points, one on South 131st and one on the vacated drive which separates Normed from the Utility Contractors storage yard. Gravel driving surfaces are proposed. Mrs. Bradshaw continued. The street between the two parcels of property was vacated in April, 1980. The two property owners, Mr. Shaw of Normed and Mr. Mellon of LDR proposed to develop their sites with complimentary quality type office /distribution buildings. During the SEPA review for both sites, the SEPA determination was that BAR was required for the development on both parcels. During the environmen- tal review on the LDR site, an actual development proposal was given to the City. A five foot strip of landscaping was required of that developer along the vacated street side. The development of this site never occurred, and since has gone through several changes of ownership. Mr. Craig Bowes, cur-rent owner, is proposing the Utility Storage yard. Currently, only 15 feet of landscaping is being required and that is along South 131st Place. This is the standard for an M -1 District. Utility storage yards are required to be screened 8 feet in height on all four sides. The applicant is proposing a chain link fence with plastic screening. They applied for a variance from the Board of Adjustment for screening on the SR 599 side. The elevation of SR 599 is 10 feet above the actual height of the site and screening with an eight foot fence would not be effective. This variance was approved. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING September 15, 1986 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING - Cont. Appeal of the Determination of Non - Significance for Sound Utilities Storage Yard at 13122 So. 131st (cont.) The appellant has listed three areas of concern regarding the environmental determination. They concern landscaping, dust and screening. He stated that the storage yard has a signi- ficant adverse aesthetic impact on the adjacent office distribution use. The Responsible Official reviewed the pro- posal's impacts and did not find a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality of the subject M -1 district. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Findings and Conclusions and uphold the City's SEPA Responsible Official's Determination of Non - Significance. Council Member Morgan commented that the Chamber says the market drives construction in the Central Business District. When areas appear to be in transition because part of the areas are developed in other ways, what standard does the City have to measure that by. Mrs. Bradshaw said the SEPA Responsible Official would go into this in making a determination. Brad Collins, Planning Director, said the standard which was applied is the zoning standard which identifies M -1 uses, setback and landscape requirements, differently from a C -M type use. Both Normed and Sound Utilities are M -1 uses and, therefore, the standard would indicate that economically they are compatible. There is general agreement that there are some adverse impacts by the development of the contractor's storage yard next to Normed. Those impacts are aesthetic or visual which are intended to be mitigated by landcaping and screening requirements. There is a possibility of dust or air pollution. The primary standard applied was the M -1 zoning requirements and what Mr. Bowes proposes to do meets the zoning requirements. The proposed operation does not appear to be substantially more of a nuisance activity than other construction yards in the City. The essential issue is the significance of the existing development in establishing a quality development beyond the zoning requirements. Mr. Collins explained that it is possible to have a mitigated DNS where the finding is that there are some significant adverse impacts that could be mitigated by landscaping or paving. If this is agreed to by the applicant, he can change the pro- posal to include the features and then the City can issue a mitigated DNS. This would mean that there were significant adverse impacts, but the proposal mitigates those so they are no longer significant. At this point, the proponent could proceed without going through the Environmental Impact Statement process. The project meets the zoning code requirements. Lawrence M. Shaw, President of Normed, 4310 So. 131st Place, reviewed the points in his letter of August 20, 1986. As Mr. Collins pointed out, the code, strictly interpreted, has been followed. What Mr. Shaw is suggesting is that in the past, there has been precedence set for imposing additional miti- gating measures. He reviewed the past history of the devel- opment of the area. They purchased the property in 1978 or 79. They went through a lengthy review at that time and discussed the same type of issues that are being discussed today - -the quality of the area. Almost all of the develop- ments have been improvements in the quality of the area. The whole issue of environment has been an upgrade. They were required to go through the Board of Architectural Review and, TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING September 15, 1986 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING - Cont. Appeal of the Determination of Non - Significance for Sound Utilities Storage Yard at 13122 So. 131st (cont.). 8:00 p.m. • in several cases, were asked to upgrade the quality of their building. In 1980, they requested and were granted a street vacation of 44th Place right -of -way. When they developed their street, they were required to construct it to City Standards -- quality was stressed. Many conditions were imposed. They had to put landscaping on the City property out to the street. They made the decision to locate there strictly because they gotassurances from the Director of the Planning Department that this was going to be a quality deve- lopment. They had a series of conditions imposed on them that were more stringent than the actual M -1 zoning. At that time, both sides of the street were required to have a five foot landscape setback. Mr. Shaw asked Council to consider the past history. The message they got at that time was quality development. The majority of the projects are quality. However, now, there is a non - conforming construc- tion yard in the area and this proposal is for a construction yard right next to them. He asked Council to consider the environmental impact and address the issue. The issue is to take into consideration the past history and the message he got regarding quality development. The following conditions should be added to the DNS: Impose the requirement for a five foot landscaping along vacated 44th Place South, require asphalting to reduce dust and dirt and require screening from view. A variance was granted to the subject applicant to eliminate the required screening along the freeway because it is elevated. The code says the property will be screened. Based on this, the property is not appropriate for a construction yard. The granting of a variance is not in public interest. The quality of my building is affected by adjacent properties, and there is no way to mitigate this if you don't require the screening. Council should be involved in the quality of the buildings in a transition area. Construction workers spend very little time at the site, but they spend a lot of time at Normed. There are other busi- nesses there and they have voiced concern about what is going on next door. If Council would impose the planning requirements, make it a good screen and a tall screen, and ask them to pave the lot you would go a long way in solving the problems of the impact on the area. Mayor Van Dusen and Council Member Harris arrived at the meeting. Attorney Haney noted that if Council makes a deci- sion tonight, Mrs. Harris and the Mayor cannot participate because they have not heard all of Mr. Shaw's testimony. Council Member Phelps asked if the conclusion he had reached was based .on the application that states there would be no more than four vehicle trips per day. Mr. Collins said this was the calculation used for the amount of dust that might be created, Attorney Haney said that if the applicant increases the number of trips per day, the City could withdraw the DNS and withdraw approval of the project. Mr. Craig Bowes asked to be sworn in so he could testify. Attorney Haney administered the oath. Mr. Craig Bowes (owner of property at 13122 So. 131st), 1100 Maple Ave., Renton, Wa, commented that this kind of input should have been brought forth to the Council before this time. They made lawful application to use their property. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING September 15, 1986 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING - Cont. Appeal of the Determination of Non - Significance for Sound Utilities Storage Yard at 13122 So. 131st (cont.) After a determination has been made that this project is non- significant, we have to go through an appeal process and all of this additional new information is brought up. Nobody in my organization was aware of this at the time we purchased the property or made application. We agree with the City's determination that this project is non - significant. We are looking, at a one acre parcel in an area zoned M -1. There are numerous other uses for this property under the Code that would have more of an impact on the environment than theirs does. There are three more contractor's yards south of his. If the area is in transition, it was not called to their attention. The property is zoned M -1 and they have complied with the requirements of the code and have agreed to meet any of the conditions set forth by the code. Mr. Shaw is located in this area because it is M -1; he has a warehouse distribu- tion facility. The City has already determined that this project is non - significant and does not affect the environ- ment substantially, and we would like to see Council uphold this determination. Mr. Shaw commented that one of the construction yards south of them is a non- conforming yard. They have no permits and filed without permission. They have four or five vehicles. I have contacted the City about this non - conforming activity but, so far, nothing has been done about it. Mr. Bowes was informed about the past history of the property at the time of purchase. Mr. Collins noted that they did not require additional landscaping or asphalt. Council Member Morgan asked if Council accepts the findings and conclusions as written and later dust and screening become an issue, what enforcement does the City have. Mr. Collins said it would not be a violation of the zoning code, it would violate the nuisance ordinance. Attorney Haney explained if Council adopts staff's findings and conclusions they are finding there is not more than a moderate impact on the environment, therefore, there aren't mitigation measures needed. If Council determines there is a significant adverse environmental impact, then they can either order the issuance of a declaration of significance or discuss with the applicant mitigation measures Council would want done; if he agrees to them, you can issue a mitigated DNS. Councilman Simpson said he feels there is a significant impact if the City is trying to set a standard in this loca- tion. Council should address screening. Attorney Haney requested that the Staff Report, which is part of the Council packet, be made..a part of the record. Public Hearing Closed There being no further testimony, Council President Duffie 8:45 p.m. closed the Public Hearing. Councilman Simpson said he feels there is an impact on what Council is trying to develop in the City. Normed is a good development, a quality development. A contractor's yard is not good building development. It is allowed in an M -1 zone so I am asking that there be mitigating measures required. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING September 15, 1986 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARING - Cont. Appeal ' Council Member Morgan cautioned Council that in making this (continued) decision it be based on what there is to work with and not the way we wish things would be. RECESS: MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT COUNCIL RECESS FOR 9:45 P.M. FIVE MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. 9:50 P.M. REPORTS Proclamation Boundary Line Adjustment between Renton and Tukwila 1987 proposed budget limitations Amend Agenda Planning Director Council President Duffie called the Regular Meeting of the Tukwila City Council back to order with Council Members pre- sent as previously reported. MOVED BY MORGAN, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE FINDINGS AND.CONCLUSIONS OF THE STAFF AND UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE SEPA RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL TO ISSUE A DNS.* Statement: I make this motion with the understanding that we want to encourage what is quality development and we encourage the developer to create that kind of development with screening to lessen the impacts and measures to control dust. *MOTION CARRIED WITH SIMPSON VOTING NO. Mayor Van Dusen read a Proclamation sponsored by the Tukwila Fire Department proclaiming the day of October 4, 1986, as "Help Firefighters give burns the boot day." Mayor Van Dusen reported that the paperwork for the Boundary Line Adjustment between Renton and Tukwila has been submitted to the Boundary Review Board. Staff feels they will take jurisdiction since it is a significant new procedure. Mayor Van Dusen introduced the 1987 proposed budget initiatives to Council. He has allowed funds for three new employees -- Utility Worker, Utility /Mechanical Inspector, and Police Officer. There is extra labor allowed for the equiva- lent of one full time employee. The goal for next year is to follow up on department evaluations and do Public Works and General Administration in 1987. He asked the Finance and Personnel Committee to look closely at the increase in personnel. MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, TO AMEND THE AGENDA TO INCLUDE THE SALARY STUDY AS AN ITEM UNDER THE EXECUTIVE SESSION IN NO. 9 AND FOLLOWING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION THE RESOLUTION. MOTION CARRIED. Brad Collins, Planning Director, explained that he has sub- mitted a letter of resignation and tonight is his last appearance before Council as the Planning Director. He thanked Council and said he has enjoyed being at the City for five years; he has learned a lot, has met a lot of nice people, and it is hard to leave. Council Member Phelps expressed appreciation to Brad Collins. During the past five years the City has continued to make significant changes that had to do with the Planning Department, land use and building issues.. COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS CAS NO. AGENDA ITEM TITLE Appeal of Determination of Nonsignificance for Sound Utilities Original Agenda Date August 25, 1986 Original Sponsor: Council X /Admin. Apprvd. Timeline Deadline for Council Action: October 20, 1986 Purpose of Item and Objective of Sponsor: The environmental determination of the proposal must be made de novo and shall consist of the following: 1. Findings and conclusions 2. Testimony under oath 3. A taped or written transcript Sponsor's Recommended Action: Uphold responsible official's determination Alternative Action: (1) Issue a DNS with mitigating measures (2) Issue a Determination of Significance Committee Recommendations: Administration Recommendations: CAS RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION Date Action 8/25 Date of Public Hearing announced 9/15 Public Hearing COST IMPACT (if known) FUND SOURCE (if known) APPENDICES SOUND UTILITIES SEPA DETERMINATION APPEAL FINDINGS 1. The applicant, Craig Bowes, applied for a fill permit to fill 2,500 cubic yards (Exhibit A) and a building permit to erect a fence around the perim- eter of the site (Exhibit B). 2. The subject property is Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of Block 4 of Fostoria Garden Tracts and measures approximately 44,000 square feet. The site is bounded by SR 599, South 131st Street and vacated 44th Place. 3. The parcel is zoned M -1, Light Industrial, and the applicant has proposed a utility contractor's equipment yard as.the use of the site. The site is immediately bounded by an office distribution facility, a nonconforming landscape contractor's storage yard and public rights -of -way. 4. The purpose of the M -1 district is to provide area appropriate for light industrial uses which are non - nuisance activities in terms of air and water pollution, noise, vibration, glare and odor. Land development regulations such as setbacks are not as stringent as those of the CM - Industrial Park zone. 5. The site is currently planted with grasses, shrubs and wet soil plants which are proposed to be removed and covered with the fill. 6. The applicant submitted a revised environmental checklist on June 30, 1986 for the proposal. (Exhibit C). 7. Four vehicular trips per day will be generated with no set pattern of time. Two access points, on South 131st Street and on the private drive between Normed and the site, are proposed. Gravelled driving surfaces are proposed. 8. The type of items stored on the site for a utilities contractor would con- sist of a backhoe, dump truck, trailer, pipes and fittings. 9. The Public Works Department requested additional information regarding the rate of runoff. Runoff will be directed towards swales around the perimeter of site and then toward an existing swale at east property line. The pro- posed mean fill height of 14.5 feet would be adequate for a 25 -year storm runoff event. 10. The City's Responsible Official, on August 11, 1986, issued a Determination of Nonsignificance. (Exhibit D). 11. On August 20, 1986, the City Clerk received a timely appeal of the threshold determination, per Section 25.2. (Exhibit E) 12. History of the Site: In February of 1980, Mr. Shaw of Normed, and Mr. Mellon of LDR approached the City Council for the vacation of 44th Place South, SEPA DETERMINATION AP • Sound Utilities Page 2 stating that they were trying to develop the entire area as a whole. The private road to access the two sites was proposed where it would be most desirable for their planned complementary developments. In April 1980, the City Council approved the vacation of the 40 -foot right -of -way. Within the 20 -foot of right -of -way that was acquired by Normed, five feet of landscap- ing, five feet of sidewalk, and ten feet of street was required. Within the 20 foot right -of -way that went to Mr. Mellon, 20 additional feet of street improvements (for a total of 30 feet) was required per the Developer's Agreement that was attached to the vacation ordinance. Environmental checklists for the development of both sites with industrial facilities were reviewed, (EPIC- 122 -79 and EPIC - 128 -80). Comments regarding the issuance of a DNS on the LDR site were as follows: A. This negative threshold may be withdrawn if the terms and condi- tions in City Council Resolution 729 are not met. B. Board of Architectural Review approval of site, architectural, and landscape plans for this site shall be required prior to issuance of building permits. The intent of such review shall be to insure that the joint development concept with the Normed property to the north is maintained in the architectural, site, intensity, and visual quality of this project. Both sites underwent design review in September 1980. The BAR decided that in order to 'insure visual coordination of both sites, five feet of landscap- ing should be required on the LDR side in addition to the 20 foot of drive- way. The applicant appealed the decision to the City Council, who upheld the BAR's decision. Since this decision, Normed has developed Phase I of their development and made the improvements specified in the Developer's Agreement. LDR failed to develop the adjacent site, which has undergone several changes in ownership. 13. 15 feet of landscaping along the vacated 44th Place South side would have been required prior to its vacation. The City's Public Works Committee, appellant, and former subject site property owner, during vacation discus- sions, required only five feet of landscaping be located on the Normed side. 14. The appellant has listed three areas of environmental concern regarding the contractor's storage yard that he feels are significant and require mitigat- ing measures: landscaping, dust, and screening. 15. Per TMC 18.52.020, in the M -1 district, 25 feet of front yard landscaping is required, and per TMC 18.52.040(2), outside storage shall be screened from abutting public streets and from adjacent properties. Such screens shall be a minimum of eight feet high and not less that sixty percent of the height of the material stored. The applicant has indicated that the top of any equipment stored on site would be eleven feet two inches (11'2 "). Sixty percent of this height would be six feet, therefore the eight feet would be sufficient according to the code. The applicant has submitted a landscape SEPA DETERMINATION APL • Sound Utilities Page 3 plan showing a 25 -foot front yard landscape area with a grassy swale and two flowering cherry trees. 16. The applicant received a variance from the Board of Adjustment to eliminate screening along the SR 599 side of the site. The elevation of SR 599 is approximately ten feet above the top of the fence. The plastic opaque fil- ter screen proposed to be used around the remaining three fence sides was determined to be ineffective on this side. CONCLUSIONS 1. The appellant has stated that the storage yard has a significant adverse aesthetic impact on the adjacent office distribution use and highway. The initial determination regarding the view impacts was that the contractor's storage yard was to be located in an M -1, Light Industrial district and therefore its impact from an aesthetic or visual context did not have a more than moderate impact on the quality of the environment given compliance with the screening requirement. 2. The air emission impacts from an unpaved storage yard were considered. Pavement of the entire yard was not a favorable alternative due to the loss of natural surface drainage. A quantifiable value for the dust emission from four vehicular trips on a gravelled driving surface was not quantified. According to the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, the amount of dust in the air will exponentially increase above 5 miles per hour based on the distance travelled, speed, soil condition, and the type of soil. The impact on the environment and the adjacent uses appeared to be moderate at most within the area due to the anticipated low speeds and limited number of trips. The PSAPCA did suggest that emulsified oil or chip sealant would enhance the effectiveness of the gravelled surface. 3. The intent of the Zoning Code is clear that opaque screening of yards is required adjacent to public rights -of -way. Screening along the SR 599 side would not be effective with normal screening as required in the code. A taller evergreen landscape material would be more effective given time and would preserve the intent of the zoning code. However, the land uses along SR 599 are varied. The storage yard would not be significantly different from those views seen elsewhere along the highway and was therefore not determined to be significant. 4. Although several of the suggested conditions of the appellant may enhance and improve the appearance of the subject area, the intent of SEPA is to identify the possible significant adverse environmental impacts that pose a risk to or affect the environment, public health or safety. The Responsible Official reviewed the proposal's impacts and did not find a reasonable like- lihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality of the subject M -1 district. SEPA DETERMINATION APPEAL • Utilities Sound Page 4 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the above Findings and Conclusions and uphold the City's SEPA Responsible Official's Determination of Nonsignifi- cance. EXHIBITS A. Fill Plan B. Site Plan C. Environmental Checklist D. Determination of Nonsignificance E. Shaw Appeal Letter A EX r5r �L61J lo. °9 i �i 44 it o�L:ct- 5' 5err,3Grt ■ • PEb Qa/& 6kr.sr EZal < /6. o/36.03 $ 6X . CLesv /0.3 P,tt•Po • /3 °—° 1\ eteu /3. rariver /1 ikr 7;1\c 610sr SECT 5C/9-66" P,.t1 /mod . /tom ReVarx� A -A rSe: ri /6"7-72*--- .e°- P /-� �G 4 Gee/ /Zs. TO • 2 ,A.4r. ia.Q SCALL "::r'r/p APPROVED BY: DRAWN BT CA DATE.: ,:;0 /B6 '4/s /2 - 5 ./3-$7 -Tv/ wig w 2 . REVISED DRAWING NUMBER X97a59 co X W • e t 'r TaBE, 5 7 69Ce AWAY/ 6vc'/ ea fare' */36 see »T.TacD S9fi cz-lv /[ SCtidio To P /Gi41T,C • -o , 9940 Omni) k 149 o TYP, x c 1207)9/11 1 F E DETb9 /.. SCfXe �/: to 11 'Po/4CI WA F/OGv6ler/i 4 C(fcete4' ' »N4ro e/9 LWOS /TW /!/ % ' (J ES 25 / g &H. f/o 1140 f/ Misr o" Cvevs or tar sa ' 'W )1U CIPLCAOr Sc ; /Witte C2 'V. it AGE: Zo t r fv[Lnv6. 61m 22 P7- /" ,c, SegVasz T o / U P Two.) (eme...ebigo r, Cd ptM�/ pot' Caivr e'S SCALE: "9.5 /viva , APPROVED BY: DATE: 6411096 CF3i4(6 Bogies 1/572 - DRAWN BY C44115 REVISED Peo fi r` #77-- s Tv ems/ /cr9 wig !DRAWING NUMBER /79C4Sf(3 • V--8 T1),9r- ,F4141&) P1/2 Z& iP/Aae_i efrie/ ‘-i1/477,e-P//PO4-7- /Vfie*t---/= 77.e62e‘s/906- _ I5?* pa64/ AM2ee4 ›096 //2Jt/e 77-k1-7- -*%MP/77e,7V.1 _e70 Mfri/C - _77_124/4)(7. i72(90.e"D . ./f?70711 /6 PeP #01 71--/e7 47177 _s���c9� /elboieseip_ -0V-7" _ 17/7/4 /4llO�/ /ass 1111)070 b(//9.6 77/-197- ga' _ /// /1-MAJ a/gie /0,0e6 /47 ()//e /00 /1/7,7 //4/1 ii/Lje- rme zi.Ds 4-AP /7/7--/SiY/w/V. /../.--777/z. -0-77 /er'BerRieeiV pie,e~-79-s /116-oum •v44 4&i hie gel" aP/0 77/i .7,0((w-707() 6,5f4ey a* JrnzitM NorMedwholesale medical 5 P.O. Box 3644 Seattle. WA 98124 (206) 242 -8228 August 20, 1986 Ms. Maxine Anderson City Clerk City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 RitROU PLIG 2 0 1996 0 arigaw )ke);;() 9ge- Re: Determination of Non Significance for Sound Utilities Storage Yard at 13122 South 131st. Dear Ms. Anderson: In reviewing the above referenced determination, I believc that additional conditions should have been placed on this devi pment application prior to its issuance. As such, I hereby appeal this determination to the Tukwila City Council. The reasons for this appeal and the mitigating conditions which I believe appropriate are as follows: I Landscaping As a condition for the issuance of the permit for our building project, the Board of Architectural Review required a five foot landscaped setback from the former City right -of -way. Subsequently, when the former owner of the subject property (Litho Development & Research) applied for a permit, the B.A.R. also required'a similar five foot landscaped setback. This determination was appealed to the City Council and the Council upheld that determination. I believe that since this require- 11i ment was imposed both on us and the former owner, that it should be a condition of the Determination of Non Significance. II Dust 004113 Construction Equipment Storage Yards are typically quite dusty;:, Since we currently have a significant monthly expense in window= washing, parking lot cleaning and landscaping maintenance and expect that these as well as painting and other expenses could increase markedly as a result of the subject project, I believe conditions should be imposed to minimize the effect on neighbor- ing properties. I don't believe that a gravel base will. Solve this problem. (Gravel roads are very dusty.) I, therefore believe, that an additional condition for development should be that the yard be asphalt paved. • • City of Tukwila Ms. Maxine Anderson August 20, 1986 Page 2 III Screening As part of the NorMed site selection process, we relied on the assurances of former planning department officials (Kjell Stoknes and Mark Caughey) that this area would be encouraged to be developed into quality office /warehouse facilities. Based on this, we built an expensive, high quality building assuming others would follow. The subject project would be totally inconsistent with this quality objective. As such, I don't believe this location for a Construction Equipment Storage Yard is environmentally appropriate, because it is difficult to screen from view as required by the Tukwila City Zoning Code. In fact, a variance was granted to subject applicant to eliminate the required screening because the elevated freeway allows easy view of the site. I therefore believe, that to be environmentally compatible with our project, which is immediately adjacent, that the following conditions should be added to the Determination of Non Significance: 1. The site should be required to meet the intent of the City Zoning Code by having the Construction Equipment screened from view by: a) Planting tall, fast growing trees along the freeway. b) Increasing the screening height along 131st Street and on the side adjacent to our property to completely screen the equipment (minimum 12 feet). 2. The above referenced five feet of landscaping along vacated 44th Place South should be required. 3. The yard should be required to be asphalt paved to reduce the dust and dirt effects on neighboring property owners. Construction yard workers spend little actual time at the site. We at NorMed (as well as our tenants) are here all day (and often into the night). Since we spend such a large part of our lives here, we urgently request that the quality of our environment be at least maintained and hopefully encouraged to improve. We are proud to be citizens of the City of Tukwila. Thank you for your consideration of this appeal. Si c ly, 1 Lawrence . Shaw President LMS /pfm ,�� CHE IST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW MAI NGS, }o e,/ Federal Agencies ( ) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ( ) FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ( )U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( )U.S. DEPARTMENT OF H.U.D. (Region X) State Agencies ( ) WA.ST. OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY ( ) WA.ST. TRANSPORTATION DEPT. ( ) WA.ST. DEPT. OF FISHERIES ( ) OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR ( ) WA.ST. PLANNING & COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AGENCY ( ) WA.ST. DEPT. OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES )WA.ST. DEPT. OF ECOLOGY, SHORELANDS DIVISIO )WA.ST. DEPT. OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION ( A.ST. DEPT. OF GAME ( )OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL County Agencies ( ) K.C. DEPT. OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVEL. ( ) FIRE DISTRICT 18 ( ) BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD ( ) K.C. HEALTH DEPARTMENT ( ) SOUTH CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) TUKWILA LIBRARY ( ) RENTON LIBRARY. ( ) KENT LIBRARY ( ) PACIFIC NORTHWEST BELL TELEPHONE ( ) SEATTLE CITY LIGHT ( ) WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS ( ) WATER DISTRICT 75 ( ) SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT ( ) GROUP W CABLE ( ) KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT ( ) TUKWILA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ( ) TUKWILA MAYOR ( ) TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: ( ) Public Works ( ) Parks and Recreation ( ) Police ( ) Fire ( ) Finance ( ) Planning /Building ( )FIRE DISTRICT 1 ( )FIRE DISTRICT 24 ( )K.C. BLDG & LAND DEVEL.DIV. -SEPA INFO CNTR Schools /Libraries ( )HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( )KING COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY ( )SEATTLE MUNICIPAL REFERENCE LIBRARY Utilities ( ) PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT ( )VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT ( )WATER DISTRICT 20 ( )WATER DISTRICT 25 ( )WATER DISTRICT 125 ( )UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD City Agencies ( ) RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT ( )TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION ( )TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ( ) Edgar Bauch ( ) Marilyn Stoknes ( ) Joe Duffie ( ) Mabel Harris ( ) Charlie Simpson ( ) Doris Phelps ( ) Wendy Morgan Other Local Agencies ( ) PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENT (PSCOG) ( ) PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY ( ) TUKWILA /SEA TAC CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Media ( ) DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE ( ) RENTON RECORD CHRONICLE ( )METRO ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DIVISION Office /Industrial 10,000 gsf or more Residential 50 units or more Retail 100,000 gsf or more ( )HIGHLINE TIMES ( )SEATTLE TIMES WAC 197 -11 -970 Description of Proposal DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Sound Utilities Storage Yard (44th Place Center) Proponent Craig Bowes Location of Proposal, including street address, if any 13122 S. 131st Street Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC- 331-86 The lead agency for this. proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse- impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. jJ There is no comment period for this DNS [[ This DNS is issued under.197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by . The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Responsible Official Brad Collins Position /Title Planning Director Phone 433 -1845 Address 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Date g -II —S4 Signature V1A-d C.o- est�ti, You may appeal this determination to the City Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the above date by written appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You may be required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal. Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and Planning Department. FM.DNS EXHIBIT D 5 _ CITY OF`TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM CN -8d- lel EPIC - FILE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: TO: ri BLDG ri PLNG n P.W. ri FIRE n POLICE n P & R PROJECT LOCATION DATE TRANSMITTED ; RESPONSE REQUESTED B�_7�Z /��. CC STAFF COORDINATOR FILE NO. RESPONSE RECEIVED. THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. COMMENT COk (eN ` det4. // /14 o% win& 604 5tea DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND Cont( No. Epic File No. 1% ►r �i WNW cN-8 (,-181 EPic-33_ -Z Fee $100.00 Receipt No. I7Lo3 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: 2. Name of applicant: .fi 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: -ea al es 13975 Interurban Ave. So., Seattle, WA 98168 4. Date checklist prepared: 5. Agency requesting Checklist: /.WA City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Filling and preloading to occur on approval or permit. Actual fill operation to take __ six month period after approval. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. 100 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. None known Tr is pns_sihle that the adjoining property development to west, which included the adjoining road improvement at 44th Place South, addressed the development of this property. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None known. C C 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. City of Tukwila filling permit. Building permits 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized here. J. The existing site of approximately 44,000 s.f. will be filled with a.{' (ece5i feet of fill with f n,o:uI cI Z fha f s —to e (e va-f ton r ocite v e- (brinei f nkt4p7 ' z(( GtU -=� �� e f �'✓ cera vn c . (122— kcj-rt.- ', 2¢2i�- c iZte,( �o2/1;rze, tni2 S ,S' A'Q 2," L/ti,, -vi 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applica- tions related to this checklist. The land is east of 44th Place South (adjoining) between S. 134th _and S R. 599. 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? No. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLIr.0 t T = Evaluation for Agency Use Only B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): �la rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, ofher b. What is the ste pest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Less than 1% c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Some clays and crganic silts. Some peat. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the irrnediate vicinity? If so, describe. Nona Unn�.-n e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti- ties of any filling or gr •ropose.. Indicate • source of fill. • 1 • 1 — .1111 aa:..��:r w f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. None antiripated_ g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? (__ Evaluation for Agency Use Only h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Provide temporary storm drainage system with filter fencing.. , ii) /2?; U(A)7 ..cupola, 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air wou ' from the proposal (i.e., st ) a omobile od•• industrial wood smoke) during cons uction an• when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Construction drist and .ui.ment exh.0 w' 1 during_ construction. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: NBP-s.Mq;;;Nre+ed. Dust will be controlled durin• fillin• with w -ter truck. 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year - round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Not immediately b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. No. 2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sour- ces, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None anticipated_ c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Storm water will collect , f� 1 imn��� Sni t ono aos �f�. SW4LC S Difg Y,tJ 4- ee A .� t, £ eie Evaluation for Agency Use Only SAM6 t$ hr 4g, 4let(A 06 site, ( Evaluation for Agency Use Only 2) Coullti waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Nn d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: .:..ate ate v r∎voi►..iv'y: ewommi.sur.einesra_azasameusamiisu `P 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other x shrubs X grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other x other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? All grass and brush will hp removed_ c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: d. Earth fill -4 will not be landscaped at this time. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, ongbirds other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Not specifically. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Landscaping. 04 G ,u f'ROAt kwe Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Freeway traffic. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short - term or a long - term basis (for example: traf- fic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. . '.. _. .ewimiser:. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: *T- - et—u—t n}. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Road south, vacant to east, freeway to north, manufacturing to west. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Not recently. c. Describe any structures on the site. None evict_ d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No specific needs anticipated at this time. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Not anticipated. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor- tation impacts, if any: Not at this time. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Ultimately when d. For filling there are few such requirements. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Nnna prnpncPd at rhi c t i mP Evaluation for Agency Use Only Evaluation for Agency Use Only 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities cu rently available at the site: inatural s, ''i�"i► Viruse servitt, ar, er, septic system, other. ac o t ese utilities has been extended into the site. Storm drainage also serves the site. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Nnne at this time Side rnnnPrtinns fnr all utilities exist to property_ C. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make ,' 's decision. Signature: 4eff—m-ri-es—€4,4—i44.2 CIp41( 4 8ow.5 Date Submitted: -15 —M1.y 198 41,"4 "" act JO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICAN( (' Evaluation for Agency Use Only D. SUP?LEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not imple- mented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Watcr di arhargP will hp rnntrn11 ed 111 .. •11 }�P !'jPt PI'YP� n� t to �rogw'1V � Alt Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 4 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life? Some winter wet -land will 80 • . Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life are: No specific measures proposed at this time. Landscaping will add to environment. Drainage course should concentrate water, perhaps extending length of wet area. Evaluation for Agency Use Only 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? N/A Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: ° t5aretratrsiltg- 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? altered similar to the ad ioininR prolect Being completed. Proposed measures to protect such resources toofr free or reduce impacts are: Concentrate watercourse ditch area. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, inclduing whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Nn TO BE= COMPLETED BY APPLICAP( • i E. S3UPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS The °objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objem tives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the aforeegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This inforrmation provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental infor- mation provided and the submitted plans, documents, suppor- tive information, studies, etc. 1. Wdhat are the objective(s) of the proposal? To fill a site with suitable earth, raising the ground level to that of the adjoining roadways, thus Evaluation for Agency Use Only riin creating a suitable and adequate h»; I g_,..pact . 4w4c5 s1-4 Rem e ..0.40 • 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? As previous development plans allowed the adjoining roads and sites to be filled, this site must also be filled to coordinate the driveways and utilities. There are no practical means to accomplish the proposed alternative,- while elevating the site to new grades 444444-44.0.7e cl - ®� 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: The filling course of action other than no course at all is the preferred action, the only means by which the property can be developed. CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: TO: 0 BLDG 0 PLNG P.W;. PROJECT LOCATION •CN- 8-181 EPIC - 33 2- 8( FILE 0 POLICE n P & R DATE TRANSMITTED STAFF COORDINATOR FILE NO. RESPONSE RECEIVED c) THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT /o/m A 4/47 iro/iat../ (). (F- j 1 -wti--\ `-t\ n o /3(0005'. (s ^-rte rat (rt\)C u P tL c mSl tit t i CL— S/,(l.us t ' c i 'P 1 D l6 11-1 C r trso 7') 1 t J i A 5'j *YW —_ `P6\sb,P {UTI I ct,�. �� &cp. t ECI LAI LA L ►► Is Al / s,-s L1P_', tacibN:i )1.A) --m INAW DATE r -� G O ENTS PREPARED BY 23/ b C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM •CN-n-l81 EPIC - 332- 2( FILE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: TO: n BLDG PLNG n P.W. Q.FIRE ' n POLICE (n P & R PROJECT LOCATION FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED_ RESPONSE- REQUESTED-BN ! 71%4(, -t Cy STAFF COORDINATOR RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM DATE COMMENT A yza/4d//,- /4 4- r YJlii A GUI (141/ ½2'/t ,Lt /Ul p N . 4 g iU5 — coie. % r s ,j, // 77 of 6u� /d o / -e / o �- �65711 eo,1 71/2,34U2 COMMENTS PREPARED BY 2ga-c/14 C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM •CN- 8(,-181 EPIC — FILE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: TO: BBL [J PLNG n P.W. E] FIRE n POLICE n P & R PROJECT LOCATION DATE TRANSMITTED STAFF COORDINATOR FILE NO. ONSE"REQUEdS�TED BY `} -40k REYS'P RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT / ("ii >iii/o/mt,vtiaL-4, i70/166(11 l u1W? g DATE // r‘ COMMENTS PREPARED BY A'141 /06;;;:;) C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM it) • CN- 181 EPIC - -332- 2() FILE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: TO: n BLDG ri PLNG n P.W. ri FIRE ROLkE„r (] P & R PROJECT LOCATION DATE TRANSMITTED STAFF COORDINATOR FILE NO. IRESPONSE REQUESTED 0 7AZ4' aCi RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Cont( No. 'i Epic File No. •1'f1 EPiC-33 /-Z Fee 5100.00 Receipt No. no 2. Name of applicant: ( /4 A s 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact per on: _: 13975 Interurban Ave. So. Seattle WA 98168 //0e9 e.40 i Aggigurgr dri dr 4. Date checklist prepared: 4/1/40 Aft 5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Filling and preloading to occur on approval or permit. Actual fill operation to take six month period after approval. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. it0V 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. None known Tt is_posihlP that the adjoining property development to west, which included the adjoining road improvement at 44th Place South, addressed the development of this property. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None known. EXHIBIT C -2- (� Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Freeway traffic. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short - term or a long -term basis (for example: traf- fic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: rl. freeway traffic. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Road south, vacant to east, freeway to north, manufacturing to west. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Not recently. c. Describe any structures on the site. Nnne evict /- CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • �CN-B�-l81 ,EPIC - 33 2- 8( FILE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: TO: 0 BLDG F7-116Q n P.W. ri FIRE El POLICE n P & R PROJECT LOCATION DATE TRANSMITTED STAFF COORDINATOR FILE NO. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY RESPONSE RECEIVED Ufa /86 (DR.6 THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT rry; xa/Mekk4-/-ia, // lay_c r 2 Al u j; /.S 1 V,c�thf - oy -Wdr ,./roved diill!'(is 1djava /ks ? DATE 7 5 gc COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: iCN -n- l81 EPIC - 33 2" $(o FILE TO: ri BLDG n PLNG J P.W. n FIRE n POLICE+ (T P & R PROJECT LOCATION DATE TRANSMITTED STAFF COORDINATOR FILE NO. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY RESPONSE RECEIVED 7= 2 -€SYo (MO a THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT ■11-...r DATE ?////e25/- COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA Building Division 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1845 `• GRADING /FILL /EXCAVATION PERMIT APPLICATION o Site Address Suite# Project Name /Ten. %,..4. Valuation of Gradi ng*/EOPt Assessors Account# Property Owner j7 Q , eS Phone X0 //Z �2 d' . S'lJ /� nl11 � Zip / ?Off" Address Zip Architect /Engineer Address 81' -181 CONTROL# p Floor# Address Applicant Phone Phone Contractor Address. Hauling Co:. Address Li cense# / JS /syZ,5 -- Phone Zip Phone v‘_c) Zip Describe the purpose and extent of fill, excavation or grading Zip Cut (c.u.) Fill (c.u.) c3500 Two (2) sets of grading /fill /excavation plans must be submitted which meet the application requirements of Section 7006(d), 1985 Uniform Building Code. A soils engineering report and engineering geology report may also be required. An Environmental Checklist is required to be submitted ($100.00 Fee) to the Planning Depart- ment for any A Hauling permit grading /fill /excavation 500 cubic yards or more. . is required for any grading /fill /excavation of cubic yards or more. certificate of insurance, route map, and permit fee of $25.00 are required. A $2,000 bond, I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I CORRECT. Applicant /Authorized Agent Contact Person (please print) HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND (signature') Date /�v /e? (print name)(' /,/g /4 AVCS (j' 6 deS Phone Ala -4500 'EES: Grading Permit Fee Fee OFFICE USE ONLY (000/322.100) $_/.., 5 eceipt# Date Paid Plan Check Other (000/345.830) 35) 6T Receipt# - o 'Q Date Paid _7:� - ( ) Receipt# Date Paid "--- - xcavation Ordinance #1341: \CK I NG TOTAL //0.:) (OWES: $ �.�.5 `ter ) • [] Bond Required: $ Cert. of Ins. Amount $ T. DATE IN DATE OUT COMMENT .DG Approved for Issuance ' ,�, .NG 7 $ I, q pge4p ! 114, Approved (Initials) ',% `I . SEPA Checklist required: ►_ Yes I] No SEPA Determination oil SEPA File# 'C -3, -:f. oe evm ina,t - o) nee a5 t b& �naoLP GC g • 1 ,v 'D 7.a -No 1 = -66 _/5-"A Approved (Initials) . i;,r' ..ioi;.,. :. Hauling Permit Required: Yes El No - 31 (,Jame- ; iA i U e qi v / 5 )7) 0; V( I L -2- . en►.W ✓ H.C.E., Inc. CONSULTING ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS 705 SOUTH 9th, SUITE 303 TACOMA, WA 98405 TELEPHONE (206) 627 -9131 TACOMA (206) 838 -2868 DES MOINES June 30, 1986 Mr. Craig Bowes SOUND UTILITIES SYSTEMS, INC. 1100 Maple Avenue S.W. Renton, Washington 98055 RE: 44th Avenue Site in Tukwilla Dear Mr. Craig Bowes: After having reviewed the drainage system in the area of your property and discussing with you the intended use of the property as strictly a materials storage yard for utilities with no buildings, it is my opinion that the site is adequate for an equipment storage yard during a 25 year storm runoff event. The site would be appropriate at a mean fill height of 14.25. If you need any further assistance in this matter please feel free to call me at your convenience. Sincerely, H.C.E., INC. Ronald Garrow, P.E. RG:lv / / / /. 39 `7: (sr 6L6t1 (o.1. /!/u)r of A/CZ . 5' 56r434C t • 7 EX • CLe /0.3 P ofoeiD 6157/, /3°-° Pebibsesa o E1crS� Eted .,OX X "tom / 0.97 1, Eit: /l6. os /3G.oS etEu /3.69 Pao D.P()4 s a8 ' 6vsr- C 01'4 Cr, SECT A - /9 €v D%d xr6 g :614, - 97/" 41'- j ar. : Q 1-7 a / /1/4 Tr; 7Ze -e--Ps. P C- .e906174 ALL G'• Ia��li� • . rp OC'/tJ )77CC,T7e'S .37-0100.96-4- scum •.../" r,A.60 FT 6 APPROVED BY: DRAWNSY REVISED ia6 ' c -7-0 ,tw/c DRAWING NUMBER /4 76,577Z I2( uST Ez. V X0.1 ■ • c 5' 56'r 43.4ct /0.3 PebPoeT da6 /3°—° 1\ Pt'b, o eta, 0 E1c1sr Ezell Uz X T 10.97 /16.0 -r 4%45 etai /3.eot pogo roiv vaugee Scams /i.ar s � r C04'4 SECT A- 1q 5crn 1—. pteti ;:r7 'deep exec W i erree' ,Cd �/17>e'�. f f7a/ /t/( 7 f ber/S . p,ebpc335Z aci6 ./ <i G L 6.0,10,/ BCALt: 6o./7 DATE:: B6 APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY (i`.: REVISED DRAWING NUMBER /9 7 asp 72 ITY @NAME JUN 25 1986 CITY OF TUKWiLA PLANNING DEPT. OF TUKWI 'WASHINGTON �. / ORDINANCE NO. p i COUNCIL ACTION N ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA VACATING THAT PORTION F 44TH PLACE SOUTH GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN SOUTH 134TH STREET AND PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. ONE. WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila has received a valid petition re- questing vacation of a certain portion of 44th Place South and, WHEREAS, the City Council on 11 February 1980 held a public hearing in accordance with RCW 35.79.020 and WHEREAS, on 8 May 1980 a developer's agreement was executed by the petitioners setting forth stipulations regarding use of the vacated area, NOW, THERE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1.: That portion of 44th Pl. So. as described and shown on the map attached as Exhibit "A" is hereby vacated. Section 2: Pursuant to Ordinance #1086, Section 5; such vacation of land shall not become effective until persons acquiring the land to be vacated have compensated the City in an amount equal to one -half the assessed valuation of said property pursuant to RCW 35.79.030. Section 3: The total square footage of the area to be vacated is 14,800 SF and current value, based upon the adjacent property values, as shown on the records of the King County Department of Assessments is $0.50 per square foot. In accordance with Section 2 of this ordinance compensation due the City of Tukwila at one -half the total value of the land to be vacated is $3,700.00. Section 4: The individuals and /or corporations acquiring the land to be vacated shall.furnish to each' other a perpetual easement granting access rights to their individual properties as appropriate. Section 5. The City of Tukwila, in accordance with RCW 35.79.030 shall retain the right to exercise and grant easements in respect to the vacated land for the construction, repair and maintenance of public utilities and services. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON at a regular meeting thereof this /g t day of _tr.44.,t , 1980. R l,WE] JUN 251986 CITY TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM;, i C i t y Attorney Published Record Chronicle - June 20, 1980 11 ti I0 Z • um I 11 11 1. 11 1. • �l •s0 63 r tog 305 II 19 1 r. SNOT 1,3417192.2.1 1 1 65 65 f 1 1 33RD i, 69 4 /J E h ; 61-C 7L„ I 0 "4: ST: p / %. / • 5 L o Cr • NOT ^5b OPEN VP /re 4y 1 • O �V] till:1p • / U ; 41' / / I // / / . ru.t t.y1_,-A iJ E L 25 1981 C;JL`f OF RIK oil LA ,CANNING DEPT WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, STATING THEIR INTENT TO VACATE A PORTION OF 44TH PLACE SOUTH AT SUCH TIME AS CERTAIN ACTIONS ARE COMPLIED WITH. COUNCIL ACTT( ►�((IINL Irv( WHEREAS, Mr. Jon Millen. of Litho Development and Research and Mr. Lawrence M. Shaw of Normed, Inc. have submitted a Petition for Vacation of Streets to the City Clerk, and WHEREAS, on the llth day of February, 1980, the City Council held a public hearing in accordance with RCW 35.79.020. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Tukwila City Council intends to pass an ordinance vacating the portion of 44th Place South requested for vacation at such time as the applicant has submitted the following information to the City Clerk's Office: A. The executed Develo•er's A•reement which is attached as Exhibit A. B. Property Tax Statements on the two adjacent properties from the King County Assessor's Office showing square footage of each parcel and present assessed valuation. C. An affidavit that they are the owners of the abutting property to the piece being vacated. This must be notarized by a Notary Public. D. The value of the property is to be determined by the average value of the two adjacent properties and one half that figure estimated. A cashier's check in this amount is to be submitted to the City Clerk's Office. Section 2. As soon as the City Clerk receives the above items and verifies their adequacy, the ordinance will be referred to the City Council. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a regular meeting thereof this day of , 1980. ATTEST: Approved as to Form City Attorney, Lawrence E. Hard Mayor City Clerk DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT The. City of Tukwila, a municipal corporation in the•State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as "CITY" and Litho.Development and Research (a /k /a J & R Investors) and Normed, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "DEVELOPERS" agree as follows: WHEREAS, Developers.are the owners of the following described properties: 1. Litho Development & Research -- Lots 6 through 10 inclusive in Block 4 of Fostoria Garden Tracts Subdivision Blocks 1 -5 in King County 2. Normed, Inc. -- Block 3 in entirety of Fostoria Garden•Tracts Subdivision Blocks 1 -5 in King County located in the City.. of Tukwila, King County, Washington, and WHEREAS, Developers have petitioned the City for the vacation of the following described portion of right -of -way: A forty (40) foot wide street identified as 44th Place South, lying between Blocks 3 and 4 in the plat of Riverton, replat of Lots 1 to 5, Fostoria Garden Tracts, as per plat recorded in Volume 13 of plats on page 40, records of King County, formerly identified as Ruth Street, except any portions thereof taken by primary State Highway No. 1, Foster Inter- change to South 118th Street located in the City of Tukwila, and WHEREAS, the City desires said right -of -way to be constructed and improved in accordance with certain conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO,COVENANT AND AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Developers agree to maintain the full 40' wide vacated right -of -way and to construct improvements within the full width thereof. The Developers agree also to prevent any encroachment upon said right -of -way. 2: Developers agree to construct, at their sole expense, im- provements to said 40' wide right -of -way consisting of a road, free of any obstructions, on the southerly 30' there- of adjoined by a.5' wide landscaped area on the north edge of said roadway. The said landscaped area shall be adjoined on its north edge by a 5' wide sidewalk., 3. If said improvements, as described in paragraph 2 above, do not meet minimum construction standards for the City of Tukwila, the City may refuse to accept any dedication of said right -of -way. 4. This Developer's agreement shall be recorded and shall be binding upon the heirs, assigns, grantees and successors to this agreement. DATED THIS g DAY OF / A Y , 1980 l.(LLSL51JVEO 25 1986 \,JUN I o UUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. LITHO D OPMEE & RES RCH BY . Y%l- TITLE .4r1 1 NORMED, INC. 1 / BY (.k\ TITLE L ATTEST: Clerk, City of Tukwila APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney ACCEPTED: Mayor, City of Tukwila APPROVED AS TO ADEQUACY: Chairman, Public Works Comm. STATE OF ) F A iync oali SS. COUNTY OF KING ) On this day personally pipeared before me 7S-c)(\ ttellevl to me known to be the \)%( e Vr Qe i d e v\-(- , respectively of LITHO DEVELOP- MENT AND RESEARCH, the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that they were authorized to execut,e said instrument. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL THIS 8 DAY OF /lair 1980. STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS. COUNTY OF KING ) h.,i! i .L i' - cs --SH Notary •u is in an. for (a e State of -Wa&hi-ftgton-, residing at PUitkcuA i, d)S On this day personally appeared before me L &xencG t .SkNci.w to me known to be the Vice . Pres'da.M* respectively of NORMED, INC., the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that they were authorized to execute said instrument GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL. THIS. /Z*' DAY OF at) Z/4) Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at ,,ek. 1980. NorMedwholesale medical supplies P.O. Box 3644 Seattle, WA 98124 (206) 242-8228 NorMed -Shaw Partnership June 24, 1986 Ms. Mora Bradshaw Planning Department City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 MEER JUN 241986 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. Re: Vacation & Related Development Costs of 44th Place S. Dear Ms. Bradshaw: Enclosed are some of the documents relating to the vacation and co- operative development of 44th Place South. The costs incurred to date by NorMed are $84,245.00 of which $42,122.00 is the obligation of LDR and any subsequent owner. I'd appreciate the opportunity to meet with Brad Collins, Phil Frazer, Tom Hill and any other interested city official to clarify the issues. Sincerely, Lawrence M. Shaw Partner LMS /pfm Enclosures: 10 -29 -79 Letter from City of Tukwila Re: Environmental Checklist and Requirements for a Permit. 1 -30 -80 May 1980 Letter from City of Tukwila further to letter of 10- 29 -79. Resolution by City of Tukwila Re: Vacation of 44th Place S. City of Tukwila Ms. Mona Bradshaw June 24, 1986 Page 2 Enclosures: 5 -8 -80 MEW JUN 241986 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. Developer's Agreement drafted by Tukwila between parties: City of Tukwila, LDR and NorMed. 6 -16 -80 • City of Tukwila Ordinance No. 1168. 3 -9 -81 3 -31 -81 Letter from City of Tukwila to LDR Re: Development Criteria including Developer's Agreement. Letter from NorMed (formerly NW Medical Supply) to S.S.G. Re: 50 -50 split of engineering fees with LDR (invoice attached). 7 -24 -84 Letter from City of Tukwila Re: Public Works Design Criteria including 44th Place S. 11 -12 -84 Letter from NorMed to Brad Collins. Re: Concern for quality development and request for information on Permit Applications. 12 -7 -84 Letter from NorMed to LDR Re: Proceeding with Road Development and Related Costs. 12 -11 -84 Letter from NorMed to Western Pacific Properties, Inc.,. Re: Information to LDR. (Western Pacific Properties represents LDR in listing and sale of subject property.) 12 -17 -84 Letter from LDR indicating approval with NorMed letter of 12 -7 -84. 12 -19 -84 2 -14 -85 Letter to Western Pacific Properties Re: Above correspondence with LDR and intentions to complete development immediately. Letter to City of Tukwila Re: City required Maintenance Agreement of subject improvement with Agreement attached'. CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • CN-8 -I9I EPIC - g� FILE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: TO: El BLDG [ PLNG (l FIRE 0 POLICE n P & R PROJECT 44 * P lace., Ce -vs+cr LOCATION J -f Q4 44+11 PI. S. be+weevl 5.134 -45 5cic?FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED 6 la— S (D STAFF COORDINATOR M. 8ra.C( SI/1Cux) RESPONSE: REQUESTED_-BY Co".19-8(0 5 RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT .or Nis fb 2T L -3 11,9 ` / 3/� (o van,T ,f- -ON 73 au di' 77 as Dbc ok /b cA400^-tp FILL_, 37) ( 014) 00\4 ( 7s,r-'LA-- WltLs ipPFPbT Al -i►.. h au, ` V L&P T 1 b■ (-} (Li u l 1) i . / L ,) iP% ) ( I?\-1. "A: DATE / " CMENT"REA _ i(/ r C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: �CN- g EPIC FILE TO: Q BLDG P_LNG 4 El P.W. PROJECT 44 4 P IGcc2 LOCATION (� FIRE E1 POLICE n P & R f of 44+ P I S be+weer DATE TRANSMITTED (D — S (o STAFF COORDINATOR M brG(d S In(,(,uJ S.13%45 5`j9FILE NO. i `RESPONSE .REQUESTED BY-- 19-8(0 RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT ktio 4600 "1-7,40)51-74 Plabi )1a5 iye4 DATE (� Oo COMMENTS PREPARED BY it* C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: • CN EPIC - g(.0 FILE TO: 1 tBLOGA 0 PLNG (i P.W. (l FIRE 0 POLICE n P & R PROJECT 44 P lac , Cc + v LOCATION -f of 41-+ PI. S. betweev■ S.134-$ EkSici FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED 60- R �� S (p STAFF COORDINATOR M. bract S fraw R1E$S PA) NSE REQUESTED "I (`' RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT 4! . „(>4 o • DATE • /Lt"-.-(`....t.ad1. �7 (&IH, ) /. , , t � i�xi/ --_i� c: -...:a .i! 1..,0 iL,.i- i •t( -4 ../. ..•0 .1..1-/iZi , , .7 r‘ COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • . CN ISI EPIC - FILE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: TO: Q BLDG Q PLNG n P.W. 1-17 FIRE4 n POLICE . n P & R PROJECT 44 TV\ P iace, Ceo+cx LOCATION &-f' o-P 44+Y■ PI. S . be+weer S. 34-- e S Sg ?FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED (0- — S (o STAFF COORDINATOR M. broA S I at.A.) RESPONSE REQUESTED._BY- -__. _6)2417;1 1 -(o 4 RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT hcr c 0 " • Jr- DATE (9 1 3' O (O COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: • CN EPIC - 2(.0 FILE TO: 0 BLDG Q PLNG (i P.W. 1-1 FIRE n POLICE C[".P &RI PROJECT 44 th Face, Cevv+cx LOCATION a.zrf'Of 41- 1412i. S. be+weetl S.1341-$SSg9FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED (o — I. S Co RESPONSE REQUESTED BY (0:-_19::-86 STAFF COORDINATOR M. bradslAcuu.) RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT DATE e5. / ?- COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • •CN -Bto- ISI EPIC - FILE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: TO: J BLDG Q PLNG P.W. n FIRE rLICE t Q P& R PROJECT 44 Th Place, e, Ce v\+t.r LOCATION i-f of 440 PI• S. bet-web/1 S.I344SR571FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED 6 0.— 2 C STAFF COORDINATOR M. brad SIkCI,(JJ 'rRESPONSE REQUESTED BY (o'161-84, RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT THE REQUEST AT THIS TIME IS ONLY FOR A FILL PERMIT: POLICE DEPARTMENT CONCERNS: MOVEMENT OF HEAVY CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT IN THE AREA; DEBRIS FROM SITE CREATING AN UNSAFE CONDITION ON ROADWAYS; BLOWING DUST. 6/12/86 pjl DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 RECEIVED CITY OF TtjKVVILA ji.iN 10 1986 OUILLP I 1)1x0/ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Contr+No. ti" CNi(-I / Epic File No. q aLl £PIC-33.2-$6, Fee $100.00 Receipt No. no 44th Place Center 2. Name of applicant: Western Pacific Properties 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Don Moody 13975 Interurban Ave. So., Seattle, WA 98168 4. Date checklist prepared: May 15, 1985 5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Filling and preloading to occur on approval or permit. Actual fill operation to take three to four weeks during six month period after approval. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. The building facilities will be constructed. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. None known Tr is posslh1 that the adjoining property development to west, which included the adjoining_ road improvement at 44th Place South, addressed the development of this property. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None known. • • 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. City of Tukwila filling permit. Building permits and utility and road permits 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete • description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized here. The existing site of approximately 44,000 s. f . will be filled with 'ad-- -•(ecc54 fi ✓e- feet of fill with /n.ow(eo a- fhaf site e(e.�a Ion %•roteVe -46 nc4,7 rN.'( .51 a,GlUw -Feti n u�ep 't/ cera,44a L . T� 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applica- tions related to this checklist. The land is east of 44th Place South (adjoining) between S. 134th St. and S.R. 599. 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? No. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPL LICA• B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth • Evaluation for Agency Use Only a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat rolling, hilly steep slopes, mountainous, o er b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Less than 1% c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the c7 assification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Some clays and organic silts. Some peat. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. None knot'-, e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti- ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Strurfnral fill from adjoining rnnstrllrtinn sites and excavation from freeway work f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. None anticipated_ g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 80% on completion of project. • h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Provide temporary storm drainage system with filter fencing- 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air wou from the proposal (i.e., sI) a omobile od industrial wood smoke) during cons uction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Construction drist and equipment exhaust will occur during construction. On completion of project auto fumes will be emitted. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: No specifics anticipated. Dust will be controlled during filling with water truck. 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year - round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Not immediately_ Evaluation for Agency Use Only • 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Estimate &,n00 to 4,5(ln r y 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. Evaluation for Agency Use Only • Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. No. 2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sour- ces, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the .following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Nnne antiripated_ c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Storm water will collect in catch basins, pond in parking lot, and on site, then be released as allowed. During filling process filter fences will impound soil and runoff. • . Evaluation for Agency Use Only 2) Courcti waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Development of on—site storm drainage co]lerrinn and retention system/ 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other x shrubs x grass pasture crop or grain x wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other x other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? All grass and hriish will hp removed_ c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. • Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The final project when constructed will be landscaped. Earth fill and preload will not be landscaped at this time. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Not specifically. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Landscaping. • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solor) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. • •1 1 •1• - _ 1: 1 earth. Equipment requires oil. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Energy- efficient equipment. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. None anticipated. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None anticipated. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ- mental health hazards, if any: None proposed. • Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Freeway traffic. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short - term or a long -term basis (for example: traf- fic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Truck traffir and earth- spreading and rompaction equipment, 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None during construction. Building design in future will consider the freeway traffic. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Road south, vacant to east, freeway to north, manufacturing to west. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Not recently. c. Describe any structures on the site. Dune exist_ • Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? M -1 (Light Manufacturing) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Same. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Nn i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Not known at this time. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None proposed. 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com- patible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: fl i g p.r rnda and ravipw by the. city, . Evaluation for Agency Use Only 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing? None. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli- minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing. None_ c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None proposed 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Filling will not rise above existing road. Future buildings will be within code. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None. . Evaluation for Agency Use Only 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Light and glare will not occur with the filling project. Some may occur under building in future. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Not - anticipated. c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None known. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None proposed. 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational oppor- tunities are in the immediate vicinity? City park €, golf course. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None proposed. • 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or pro- posed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. None known. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. Nona known c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None prnpnged 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed accss to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. I -5, SR 599, Interurban Ave., So. 134th St., 44th Place S. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance.to the nearest transit stop? N c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Parking not proposed under the site filling proposed. Evaluation for Agency Use Only • iEvaluation for Agency Use Only d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate Whether public or private). No specific needs anticipated at this time. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, -generally describe. Not anticipated. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Vehicular trips under this proposal w i ] 1 he construction/earth hauling. Estimate at 20 trips per hour. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor- tation impacts, if any: Not at this time. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Ultimately when buildings are built the above will be required. For filling there are few such requirements. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. NnnP prnpanPA at thi c time • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities rently available at the site: i'i► mouse servi59, er, septic system, other. ese utilities has been extended into the site. Storm drainage also serves the site. tri e ep o ac o atural ar b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. None at this time Side rnnnertinns fnr all Utilities exist to prnperty C. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Don Miles 641 -1462 Date Submitted: 15 May 1985 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICAN• • Evaluation for Agency Use Only D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS . (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not imple- mented. - Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? • Water discharge will be controlled by storm drainage retention. Additional emissions wi occur rom construction rom ve is es using t e site. be detected next to freeway. an smite noise increase wi Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Tnetallarinn of a Gtarm drainage rollertinn and ri r m i nage cy qt pm 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life? Some winter wet -land will he filled, _although area is dry in summer. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life are: No specific measures proposed at this time. Landscaping will add to environment. Drainage course should concentrate water, perhaps extending length of wet area. Ili Evaluation for Agency Use Only 8. Does the proposail conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Lamd Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? No. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: None prope.s'ad. • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts area: None proposed. How does the proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan? Should comply. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Tha cite ha q anticipated the road and utilities rerpiirp -d at the site Each has been extended to rhP cite Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such.demand(s) are: None proposed. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. No conflicts anticipated. Evaluation for Agency Use Only 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? N/A _ Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resourses are: Use of energy- efficient heating and cooling equipment, use of insulation and cold .warehousing. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? altered similar to the adjoining project 'eing completed. _ . • „_ Proposed measures to protect such oncentraterwa�ercourse to to freeid or reduce impacts are: ditch area. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, inclduing whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Nn TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICA• • Evaluation for on Only y E. SSUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objecctives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the afore?going items of the Environmental Checklist. This inforrmation provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental infor- mation provided and the submitted plans, documents, suppor- tive= information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal? To fill a site with suitable earth, raising the ground level to that of the adjoining roadways, thus creating a suitable and adequate building pad. 2. (What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? As previous development plans allowed the adjoining roads and sites to be filled, this site must also be filled to coordinate the driveways and utilities. There are no practical means to accomplish the proposed alternative, while elevating the site to new grades and developing a cost - effective buidling pad. 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: The filling course of action other than no course at all is the preferred action, the only means by which the property can be developed. d • • 30 .419•4o a • Jf -. • • 4 • '1i: .1 N‘‘ ID • • it- L CO y0,. S? �, Coy 44• i0• 1 � � moo* agog • ...ri1r•I.enC1►•..•..ai,•.•r, '•p.e l•roi. •.•.r PI i•rwr• •' 4 Mall!•• ` 1,w Past's! .'��/YNi.�.^ C/r • :t /CI Alit .s, "c. •\* • • 1'7 i• '01 41 .17E •oI /e ,1. M ••Mw. O / ,i t1 / y / ^ C ,P / ♦► 0// 0 •• �.11�iS I C. te •r 1 •. tr' .1 • .1 •M•• • Z 1. A CITY OF TUKWILA Building Divisio 6200 Southcenter oulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1845 Describe work to be'doneL Site Address-) '� �"/ .S / : `� S • BUILDING PERMIT APPLICAT (Please Print) Control # 661 1 g% Valuation Plan Check Fee M 101111P JUN 2 1986 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING MIT T Suite # /VA Tenant /VA Assessors Account # Valuation of Construction Building Use A4i J fh/5 600— Type of Construction Occ. Group Grading: Fill`/ -n, cubic yardeut cubic yards Property Owner W -5te_- ft f L(4 <, j -ty Address l317,S 2. erut`f a.n Applicant' 3-24PiT# 3 LC P"17 • Address l 7 / Y 1 4`f 5.0,t6t - Ape#iteet /Engineer K.47\ 4tv-r Address 705- Y 9 � Gc 303 Phone # Z-`f(( -- Y(6//b Phone Phone # 2- / — /(a 3,Zz - ?252 Zip etv �/-'v Phone #03$-zF‘' la-417 Zip qygps-- Contractor License # Phone # Address Zip I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. Applicant /Authorized Agent (signature) (print name Contact Person (please ;.PrintiTo7 i i (8/85) Ju (D -frt TOL0cc Date S/-11F Phone # 3 ZSZ i)atoceold • • WESTERN PACIFIC PROPERTIES, INC. Commercial Brokerage Company 2 June 1986 Norm Bray Building Department City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Grading and Fill Permit, S 44th P1 & 134th St. CN 85 -155 (Resubmit) Dear Mr. Bray: I am resubmitting this application for a grading and fill permit. In order to facilitate processing, here are my responses to earlier comments: Public Works Street shall be developed as required at time of building development Soils information and existing grade sketch are attached. Full report with structural system will be developed with building permit. An engineer was hired to review drainage information and set an elevation for the project assuming drainage into the natural basin. His letter is attached. Further design of the storm drainage system will be done as part of the design of development for the site. It is assumed that flow from this site will join the ditch on the S.W. portion of the Normed property which is immediately north of the subject site. Other options will be explored, including tying in to the low pressure line of the City of Tukwila. Planning Development proposal will reflect required building setbacks Fire Streets will be cleaned according to city regulations, and frequently enough to avoid dust or mud from fill activities All applicable regulations will be observed 13975 Interurban Avenue South • Seattle, Washington 98168 • (206) 241-1616 Please let me know if additional information is required for the grading and fill permit. Yours truly, dith G. Stoloff, AICP 2 H.C.E., Inc. CONSULTING ENG' -- <S & SURVEYO2S 705 SOUTH Stn, SUFTE 3 TACC.. 98405 TE = H ._ [206) 627 -9 '31 TACO:','-1. (206) 838-2S tS DES tviC NES May 28, 1986 Ms. Judy Stoloff WESTERN PACIFIC PROPERTIES, INC. 13975 Interurban Avenue South Seattle, WA 98163 RE: 44th Street Property ,Y 2 9 19E6 Dear Judy: It is my understanding that the property owner of the above referenced site is desiring to sell the property to anyone willing to develop it. As a concern for develo,aent, this property lies in an area which can potentially be flooded during a 100 -year storm event. Consequently, the site must be filled to accommodate this condition and still allow the passage of water around the site from upstream properties. The questions are hod high must the site be filled and what measures must be taken to accomodate upstream runoff? I have reviewed the Fostoria and Gilliam Creek Basin Drainage study prepared by KCM as to how their recommendations impact the site and whether or not sufficient information is provided in the report to be able to design the site improvements of fill and storm drainage. The study recommends construction of improvements which circumvent the site and the study does not address the site specifically. Consequently this report was of limited help. I also reviewed the design of the above mentioned improvements of the Fostoria Basin (alternative three). The design was based on a 100 -year Green River flood stage coupled with a 25 -year storm runoff event. The river elevation was 12.2 feet and the resulting water level at the intersection of South 133rd Street and South 132nd Street is 15.5 feet. The subject site lies in an area between the intersection and the river. Therefore a fill height of between 12.2 and 15.5 would be appropriate. To be on the conservative side and assuming there is a restriction in the outflow of water from the region of the subject site the water would not get higher than 15.5 feet. In order to develop the property the site should have at least one foot of free board resulting in a top elevation of the fill of 16.5 feet. Paye 2 44th Street Property Cont. As relates to the sizing of the storm drainage facilities, this would require an analysis of the entire contributing area upstream of the site, as stipulated by Mr. Phil Frazier in my meeting with him on this subject. An estimate will need to be prepared for this work since it is potentially extensive in nature. If the client is interested in further pursuing this aspect of the site develoment, please let us know and we will prepare an estimate. In our reviei of the materials availabe to us and in my conversations with Mr. Phil Frazier of the city of Tukwilla, no mention had ever been made that this site was not developable. Therefore, with further justification, the owner should be able to fill the site and develop it. Sincerely, H.C.E., INC. Ronald Garrow, P.E. RG:ly r Box 3644a Sea:iie, 'i���a. 98124 February 14, 1985. NorMed NorMed -Shaw Partnership Mr. Phillip Fraser Senior Engineer City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Fraser: JUN 251986 CITY OF TUKVVILA PLANNING DEPT. Phone 622 -0444 Area Code 206 Per our letter of October 5, 1984, we have prepared and filed a Maintenance Agreement for the vacated. portion of 44th Place South. Your recorded copy of this agreement is enclosed. Please also note that, per previous input from City of Tukwila staff the Developer's Agreement executed as a condition to the vacation (Ordinance No. 1168) requires Litho Development and Research or any subsequent owner to pay to NorMed -Shaw Partnership their one -half share of the cost of developing 44th Place South including the utilities therein before Tukwila will allow said current owner to develop their property. Please see the enclosed letter copies notifying all parties of these costs. Please call if you have any. questions. Sincerely, Lawrence M. Shaw General Partner NorMed -Shaw Partnership LMS /bm enclosures: 1. Maintenance Agreement dated 2/6/85 2. Letter to LDR dated 12/7/84 3. Letter from LDR dated 12/17/84 4. Letter to Western Pacific Properties (Matt Little) dated 12/19/84 8502140696 Maintenance Agreement NorMed -Shaw Partnership hereby agrees to construct a maintain improvements in the vacated portion of 44th___ Place South generally located between South 131st Place and Primary State Highway No. 1 as delineated in a Developer's Agreement with Litho Development and Research (herein LDR) dated May 8, 1980. This agreement is a part of and condition to the vacation of said street as passed by the City of. Tukwila under Ordinance No. 1168 dated June 16, 1980, which was duly approved and recorded. In the event this street (legal description below) or the utilities therein need maintenance and the current owner of the LDR property refuses to pay their full one -half share of the cost of maintenance per the Developer's Agreement, NorMed -Shaw. Partnership will perform the maintenance for the current LDR property owner if such cost becomes a lien against that property and if any development or sale of the property will be precluded unless said lien is satisfied and the cost of said maintenance is reimbursed to NorMed -Shaw Partnership. nd CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. Legal description of subject street: A forty (40) foot wide street identified as 44th Place South, lying between Blocks 3 and 4 in the plat of Riverton, replat of Lots 1 to 5, Fostoria Garden Tracts, as per plat recorded in Volume 13 of plats on page 40, records of King County, except any portions thereof taken by primary State Highway No. 1. Legal description of property adjacent to 44th Place South between South 131st Place and Primary State Highway No. 1. m r-: i 1. Litho. Development Research Lots 6 through 10 inclusive in Block 4 of Fostoria.- Garden Tracts Subdivision Blocks 1 -5 as per plat recorded in Volume 13 of plats on page 40 records =_of. King County. . Owners: 2. .NorMed -Shaw Partnership Block 3 of Fostoria Garden Tracts Subdivision Blocks 1 -5 as per plat recorded in Volume 13 of plats on page 40 records of King County. In witness whereof said partnership has caused this instrument to be executed this 6 day of February, 1985. NorMed -thaw Partnership !.Otektt e 7' i" 1. c�P S By: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS. COUNTY OF KING General Partner R5/02/14 RECD F CASHE.L R.00 r #Ori.96 E: +:: +::►:*R 00 On this day personally appeared before me Lawrence M. Shaw to me known to be a General Partner of NorMed -Shaw Partnership, the company that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be free and voluntary act and deed of said company, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute said instrument. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL THIS 647 D;AY `0 Notary Public in and' or the State of Washington, residing at 54" -t _ 1985. NorMed P.O. Box 3644 Seattle, Wa. 98124 December 19, 1984 Mr. Matt Little Western Pacific Properties, Inc. 13975 Interurban Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98168 Dear Matt: Phone 622 -0444 Area Code 206 1L Na'LD J(JN 1986 CITY 25 W�LA PLANNING DEPT. Enclosed is a copy of LDR's response to our letter of December,7, 1984. We are proceeding immediately to complete the improvements in 44th Place South at a cost of $89,750.00. plus Washington State Sales Tax. Per the Developer's Agreement one -half of these costs will become the obligation of any new owner of LDR's property. Please be certain any prospective purchaser is fully aware of this obligation. (Tukwila has informed_ us that- "payment of this obligation will be a contit'ion for development of this property. Please give me a call if I can answer any questions for you or a prospective purchaser of the LDR property.. Lawrence M. Shaw President, NorMed Inc. Partner)NorMed -Shaw Partnership. LMS /dsp enclosure MAILED -- CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT tn -n Cro SENDER: Complete Items 1, 2, 3, and 4. Add your address In the "RETURN TO" space on reverse. (CONSULT POSTMASTER FOR FEES) • 1. The following service Is requested (check one). Show to whom and date delivered E1 Show to whom, date, and address of delivery c 12.0 RESTRICTED DELIVERY (The restricted delnery tee is charged In addition to the 'glum receipt tea.) TOTAL 3. ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO: Mr. Matt Little Western Pacific Properties, 13975 Interurban Ave South Seattle„ WA 98168 4. TYPE OF SERVICE: rn 1 LJ REGISTERED OINSURED DICERTIFIED O COD O EXPRESS MAIi Inc . ARTICLE NUMBER P493,020 876 ((Way btaln signature ot addre:see or agent) havo receiv the article described,apve. SIGUATU Add ssee' AuthcrIzed a ent 1 DATE OF DELIVER te 0F/ -8' 6. ADDRESSEE' DRE Am& reQUeSteCO F1:1 •-•1 m m 7. UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE: POST MARK (may be on reverse side) 7a. EMPLOYEE'S INITIALS la GPO: 1882-379-593 GRAPHIC ARTS DISTRIBUTOR Li? HO DEVELOPMENT 6 RESEARCH December 17, 1984 Lawrence M. Shaw President NorMed P. 0. Box 3644 Seattle, WA 98124 plana JUN 25 1986 CITY OF UioviLA PLANNING DEPT. Dear Mr. Shaw: We are in receipt of your letter dated December 7, 1984, reference the property located at South 131st Place and 44th Place South in Tukwila. At this time we do not wish to participate in the construction negotations. Thank you very much for your thoughtfulness. ry truly yours, /) /' Ralph 14. Joknson President Litho Development & Research RWJ /plb 6215 N E. J2nJ Orivo Portland, Oregon 97220 • Telephone (503) 255 -5800 NorMed P.O. Box 3644 Seattle, Wa. 98124 HAND DELIVERED December 11, 1984 Mr. Matt Little Western Pacific Properties, Inc. 13975 Interurban Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98168 Phone 622 -0444 Area Code 206 •- [UN 25 1986] CITY OF TUtcvviLA PLANNING DEPT. Dear Matt: Here's a copy of my letter to LDR and of the cost estimate by LDR's contractor /designer, S.S.G. g9nstruction. Per the Developer's Agreement, these costs will become. the obligation of any new owner of LDR's property. Give me a call,if you have any questions. Sincerely, Lawrence M. Shaw LMS /dsp enclosures c 9 NorMed P.O. Box 3644 Seattle, Wa. 98124 December 7, 1984 Mr. Ralph Johnson Mr. Jon Mellen Litho Development & Research . 6215 Northeast 92nd Drive Post Office Box 30089 Portland, Oregon 97230 rgam-or FUN 25 1986 CITY OF TUikvviLA PLANNING DEPT. • Phone 622 -0444 Area Code 206 Dear Ralph and Jon: Per our Developer's Agreement dated May 8, 1980 covering your property located on South 131st Place & 44th Place South in Tukwila, we agreed with the City of Tukwila to perform certain improvements in a portion of 44th Place South as a condition to the vacation thereof. We are now developing our property and per City requirements we are proceeding to develop the street to its full 40 foot width, along with required utilties, landscaping, and sidewalk. As you may remember your contractor /designer, S.S.G. Construction, prepared a design for the street improvements, the cost of which we split 50 -50 per the Developer's Agreement. S.S.G. Construction also prepared a cost estimate of the street work, a copy of which is attached. Our contractor states that S.S.G's estimate was probably correct in May, '81 but costs are up 10 -12% today. Based on this the cost to develop the full right -of -way today is $89,750.00. Since one -half of this cost is attributable to your property we are giving you an opportunity to participate in this construction project.. Please contact us promptly if you would like to participate in the construction negotiation, otherwise, we must assume these costs are satisfactory to you and one -half will be paid .by you. Sincerely, Lawrence M. Shaw President LMS /dsp enclosure r r��,. �n `s coo F.t.C;„W :c:c. 0) 0 3 c m 0 o SENDER: Complete Items 1, 2, 3, and 4. Add your address In the "RETURN TO" space on reverse. (CONSULT POSTMASTER FOR FEES) 1. The following service Is requested (check one). Cg Show to whom and date delivered 0 0 Show to whom, date, and address ot delivery 2. El RESTRICTED DELIVERY (The welched deevery lee Is chasm I I n ed4Mon to the return swept tee.) TOTAL 3c) ci 3. ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO: Litho Development & Research 6215 N.E. 92nd Drive POrtl and, nR CI 7 9 3C) 4. TYPE OF SERVICE: El REGISTERED 0 INSURED WEFITIFIED 0 COD 0 EXPRESS MAIL ARTICLE'NUMBER P493-020-904 (Always obleln signature of addressee or agent) 1 have' received the article described above. SIGNATURE DAdd ssee DAuthortzed agent A OF DELIVERY 6. ADDRESSEE'S ADDRESS (Only „ -',.POSTMARK )(may boi!iti'reAT &Igo 7a. EM12111YEE'S INITIALS 7. UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE: tr GPO: 1982-379-593 NorMed P.O. Box 3644 Seattle, Wa. 98124 November 12, 1984 Mr.. Brad Collins Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Collins: VUN25 198fea CITY OFF TUI:vV;LA PLANNING DEPT. Just a note to confirm our phone conversation last Friday regarding development in the area surrounding our new building. As we discussed, we are very interested in seeing the area of Tukwila which is west of State Route 599 and northwest of I -5 develop into quality warehouse/ office or similar type facilities (more like "CM " zoning). As evidenced by the Fostoria Park development as well as our new facility, the trend is in this direction. Throughout the initial proposal in 1979 and subsequent planning stages, Tukwila Planning Department personnel have indicated a desire to see this area avoid the truck parks, storage yards and related developments which can reduce an area's asthetics for a quality work environment Your support of this plan would be greatly appreciated. As we discussed, if you or Rick Beeler can remember, I would certainly appreciate being kept informed of any permits which are applied for in this area such that I might be involved in any public discussion or analysis. All of us at NorMed are very proud of our new building and of being new members of the City of Tukwila.' Because in many ways our work is our "second home ", we are concerned about the quality of life in our new community. Thanks for the help. Sincerely, CJ Lawrence M. $Maw President LMS /bm cc: Rick Beeler Tukwila Planning Department 1 22 -0444 ode 206 vit A ;1908 Ciiy of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor D; JUN 25 1986 CITY OF TUicw iLA PLANNING DEPT. July 24, 1984 via The Planning Department Gell P. Vanmins Bittman - Sanders and Associates, P.S. Architects 406 Security Building 1904 3rd Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 Re: NorMed Industrial Park- Phase I, South 131st Street & 44th Place South -Plans Sheets A -1, A -2 & M -1 Dear Sirs:. The Public Works Department has reviewed your plan submittal and approved plan sheets A -1, A -2 and M -1 per the following comments: 24 hours prior to your contractor beginning his work, he shall apply for and obtain the following permits as conditioned in this letter: 1. Private Fire Loop /Hydrant - (Permit Fee: $25.00). All fire loop mains shall be Class 52 double iron pipe, installed in Class B bedding and connected into the existing City system per the requirements of the Tukwila water official (Dave Grage, Phone: 433 - 1863). The fire hydrant shall be provided per City's Standard Plan. Blocking shall be provided at all Tees, Bends and at the end of all lines per the City Inspector's requirements. A ten inch valve shall be provided at the end of the 44th Place South just prior to capping off the line for future extension at station 2 +,73 (plus or minus) and per further requirements of the City Inspector. At the 90° bend of the 10" main in South 134th Street shall be provided with a Tee and the valve just inside 44th plane South is to be relocated on the Tee. Two(2) additional valves shall be placed just after the Tees as these lines go from the 10" main in 44th Place South onto the Development. Gell P. Vanmins July 24, 1984 Page 2 ail l51t�� \\ JJ JUN •25 19864 • CITY OF TUKWFL A PLANNING DEPT. The water main extension in South 134th Street, a public street, to the Bend shall be dedicated to the City at the time of its completion. Included in the turnover documents shall be the following: a) a letter from . the owner requesting turnover to the City; b) as -built drawing; c) permit signed off as acceptable through • technical review in the field; d) a list of materials and associated costs; e) a bill of sale. this information shall be provided by the developer's representative prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy for said development. All other mains in. South 134th Street and on private property shall be considered private mains and shall remain with the development. The developer shall provide a method by which these mains will be maintained and by whom as part of the application or for this permit. The six -inch water pipe into the property is considered a private main development_. All private water mains to remain private include tapping saddles and tapping gate valves. All pipes, private and public mains, shall be tested and approved by the Tukwila water official, Dave Grage, prior to the installation of services and service meters to the development. 2. Domestic Water Meters- (deposit for installation /regular con- nection charge per meter. One inch deposit fee $1,040.00; two inch deposit fee $2,550.00). Special connection charges, if appropriate, shall be calculated at the time of applica- tion for water meter permits. A general easement shall be provided for review and approval by City staff, to be instituted through the developer and recorded throu h Kin Count . This easement document shall be Inc u e as par o t e application for the water meter permits. The purpose of this easement is to allow the City personnel access throughout the property to install, main- tain, operate, monitor, repair, and replace water meters and services built by the City. City staff shall install water meters and services from the private main to the meter. City staff will make the final determination as to the location of these meters in the field. This work is done on a time and material basis and the difference between the deposit and the final charges shall be reimbursed /or assessed the development. 3. Curbcuts /Access /Sidewalk- (Permit Fee: $25.00). Driveway . aprons, sidewalks, concrete curbs and gutters shall be pro= Gell P. Vanmins July 24, 1984 Page 3 FP,© JUN 25 1986 CITY 0r' TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. vided per the City Standard Plans available through Sally Heye, 433 -1854 (per•Ordinance #1233). It is noted on your Plan A -2 that the sidewalk is shown at 5 :feet; however, the City's current, requirements are that this sidewalk shall be 6 feet which.may be accomplished by reducing the planting strip to 3 feet. The typical cross - section for the street pad and subsurface.shall be superceded by the City's Standard Plan for the requirements. of the City Inspector (Sally Heye, Phone: 433 - 1854). It is noted on your plans that private aprons have not been shown for the two private accesses off 44th Place South. These two private accesses shall include concrete driveway aprons,.. including handicapped ramps at both ends of the sidewalks and also including handicapped ramps at the inter- section of South 134th Street and 44th Place South. 44th Place South, per original agreement of the City for zoning of this land'and application of this development shall be built to the standards of a public street although it is to remain private. By this, it is intended that the cross section of the street shall meet the City's Standard Plan, including undergrounding of all utilities which include telephone, power, gas, Group W Cable, and street lighting. Included in this street design shall be the necessary stripping and signing of the roadway to indicate that this street has the following: 1) NO on- street parking on either side and 44th Place South. 2) a STOP sign at the intersec- tion of South 134th Street,'including stop bar. 3) buttoning to indicate this is a two -lane street. 4) a WARNING sign at the beginning of the street and at the end.of street indi- cating that this is a "Dead End" street.• All markings and signing shall be per the M.U.T.C.D. . An as -built plan shall be provided for signing /stripping. 4. Storm Drains - (Permit Fee: $25.00): All storm pipes shall be concrete, corrugated metal pipe, .(Class 14) Galvanized Steel /Aluminum- coated or Aluminum. Retention facilities shall be considered a requirement of the, private on -site storm drain design. Included in this design shall be at A. minimum surface storage for the .existing site, including a control- manhole (Type 2) to be built for King County Standard Plan.. • All storm drain pipe shall be provided with a mininam of 12 inches cover throughout: Ladd& rungs in catch basin shall be of galvanised steel only: A11 catch 6 sin shall be a minimum of Type 1 throughout. Per the'City's review of the private corrugated metai.inter= ceptor storm line in back of the property": this line' has Gell P. Vanmins July 24, 1984 Page4 [JUN 25 1986 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. created maintenance problems to the up- stream system in South 134th Street. Modification to this system shall be submitted which eliminate these drainage problems for City review and approval prior to this storm drain permit being issued. As rockeries are considered part of the drainage facility, they shall be inspected under the storm .drainage permit. 5. Private Sanitary Sewer Main - (Permit Fee: $25.00). The pri- vate sanitary sewer main as shown on sheet A -2 shall be built: as a public main although it will remain private. Included in the requirements for the construction of this main are as follows: a) the sanitary sewer main shall be built of concrete pipe, in class "B" bedding. b) the new sanitary sewer manhole shall be per APWA requirements; and built df concrete. c) the slope of 1% shall be adhered to and no deviation be allowed. d) the private main, which is to remain private, in 44th Place South shall be completed and inspected prior to application for sanitary side sewer per- mits per individual building structures. A copy of the agreement signed by the owner by which the private main shall be operated and maintained shall be provided for the City's review and approval prior to the'issuance of this permit. A detail for channelization for the sanitary sewer manhole shall be provided for the City's review and approval prior to beginning the work. 6. Sanitary Side Sewers- (Permit Fee: $170.00 regular connec- tion charge, per building, plus special connection charge to be calculated at the time of permit as appropriate). All sanitary side sewers shall be a minimum of 6 inches in diameter; a minimum of 36 inches a cover; and a 2% minimum grade; and be provided in Class "B" bedding throughout. All sanitary side sewer$ shall have cleanouts at the points which they leave each building structure and just prior to the junction to the private main. A cl.eanout should also be provided at all horizontal and vertical bends in the sanitary sewer lines. Each building structure shall have its own sanitary side sewer. This sewer shall be either cast iron pipe, ductile iron pipe, concrete or P.V.C. (Schedule 40 minimum /36 inches minimum t� co'ver). 7. Landscape -Irri a� t oh.-(i.f a'&pro'pria•t.e;. Permit Fee,..$25:UQ`)', Backflow prevention device's shall be noted: "D:S.ft S:" approved. Four sets of irri ation, . as retuuired b'y tie Planning Department, and /or elected by the development, shall be provided to Public Works for Review and app'roVals. Gell P. Yanmins July 24, 1984 Page 5 JUN 251986 CITY OF TUMN■LA PLANNING DEPT. Enclosed you will find one copy of the approved plans per the above ncites. An agreement as to how and who will maintain the private streets in 44th. Place South and 'private utilities shall be submitted to the City for reyiew and approval prior to issuance of any permits. If you have any questions. regarding this matter do not hesitate to call me at 433-1856. Sincerely, Phillip F aser Senior Engineer /cs cc: Tukwila Maintenance Shops Fire Marshall Associate Planner Assistant Engineer Building Official file Enclosures: (3) DAY.END4A P.O. Box 3644 Seattle, WA 98124 Northwest Medical Supply. -EMa JUN 25 1986 CITY OF TVI\VVILA PLANNING DEPT. Mr. Steve M. Gwinn S.S.G. Construction, Inc. P.O. Box 33978 Seattle, Washington 98133 Dear Steve: 7-3(-'( $I -- Per our discussion of this morning, Normed agrees to split 50 - 50 an estimated $800 - 900.00 engineering fee to design the common access road between LDR's and our property in Tukwila. As we discussed, I would appreciate an estimate of the costs for this road at your earliest convenience. Thanks, Steve. LMS /bt Sincerely, Lawrence M. Shaw President Normed, Inc. Phone 622 -0444 Area Code 206 I N V O I C E e7 . eatutnuaiarti gn.6 . GENERAL CONTRACTORS 8117 - 240th S.W. • P.O. Box 33978 Edmonds, .WA 98020 • Seattle, WA 98133 (206) 774 -5138 HNET, JUN 25 1986 CITY OF OF TUKWiLA PLANNING DEPT. 0 Northwest Medical Supply P.O. Box 3644 Seattle, WA 98124 ATTN :. Mr. Larry Shaw May 10, 1981 INVOICE NUMBER: 883 JOB NUMBER: #81 -09 PROJECT: LDR All Invoices Dui and Payable 10th . of the Following Mont h. 1% Interest Pet Month Charged on All Past Due Accounts. PROGRESS BILLING To bill you one half of the civil utility design costs per March 31, 1981 letter. Costs $410.38 5% OH 20.52 Subtotal $430.90 W.S.S.T. 21.55 TOTAL $452.45 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Public Works Department 433 -1850 LDR, Inc. P.O. Box 80705 Seattle, WA 98108 Dear Sir: March 9, 1981 E-61-0)L'CLgL {J JUN 25 198E CITY OF TUKvvii.A PLANNING DEPT. Re: LDR Office & Warehouse The Public Works Department has completed our review of utility drawing #Land requested resubmittal per the following comments: Per Item #1 of Mark Caughey's letter dated March 5., 1981, the proposed development you have provided is inconsistent with the stipulations in the Developer's Agreement (Auditor's File 48007280474). You are requested to resubmit your plan that shows a full development of a new street in 44th Place S. per this Developer's Agreement. Also, noted in Mr. Caughey's letter, under Item #2 -B, an automatic landscape irrigation system has been a priof stipulation for the site development. Future submittals for the site *are to include the irrigation plan for Public Works review and approval and permit issuance. Other comments by staff to be addressed in your resubmittal are the following: 1) Under 'General Notes ", 41, Line #1, add "and Tukwila" after the word "A.P.W.A. ". 2) All storm drains shall be provided at a minimum of 0.5% grade throughout to allow adequate flushing velocities in the pipe. 3) A fire sprinkler pit shall be provided per City Standards.. This pit shall be located on private property and close to the southerly property line as possible. 4) The proposed plan indicates that two connection for water services are to be provided. Water District 4125 is the franchised owner /operator of the most southerly 10" (actually 6" diameter per our information) diameter water main in S. 134th Street. Tukwila's 10" diameter water main is the most northerly of the two water mains in S. 134th Street. � LDR, Inc. . March 9, 1981 page 2 IBM11NE JUN 2.5 1986 CITY OF TUj(WILA PLANNING DEPT, 5) You are requested to come off the City's 10" water main only. If this is to be a single connection, then the domestic service and meter shall be indicated coming off the service in the public right -of -way (or easement) prior to the sprinkler pit. 6) Sidewalks, curb /gutters required per Ordinance #1158 in S. 134th Street and shall be shown on plans fronting the property.' 7) Clean -outs on sanitary side sewer shall be provided at the point the sewer leaves the building and at all joints and bends to the line. The connection to the existing 8" diameter sanitary sewer line in S. 134th Street shall be indicated as either by a saddle, fabricated tee or by the installation of a Type II manhole in S. 134th Street. Cut and patch work in the pavement in S. 134th Street shall be per the City's Standard Plan. Also, requested is a clarification of this "double clean -out" indicated on your drawing. 8) The access point in the southwest corner of the lot shall be 30 1.f. driveway entrance with a 10 1.f. return radius for the northerly return. 9) All D.I.P. shall be designated with Class #52 minimum. I request along with your engineer at the site to review If you have any questions me (433- 1856). • submittal, a field trip with your hydraulics the existing State drainage system. regarding this review, do not hesitate to contact Sincerely, Phillip R. Fraser Senior Engineer PRF /jm cc: Mark Caughey, Acting Planning Director Al Pieper, Building Official Tukwila Maintenance Shops Attachments City of Tukwila Planning Division 6200 Southcenter Boulevard .Tukwila, Washington 98188 433 -1845 Office of Community Development Bittman, Sanders, Hasson Architects Securities Building 1904 Third Avenue Seattle, WA. 98101.. Attn: David Hasson, A.I.A. Re: Normed Industrial Park, Threshold Determination (EPIC- 122 -79) • 30 January 198.0 C JUN 25 1986 CITY dr TUK0.61.A PLANNING DEPT. The material which our office requested for this project in our letter of 16 November 1979 was received on 14 January 1980 and has been reviewed in accordance. with WAC 197 -10 -320 of the State Environmental Policy Act guide- lines. After.extensive review by the planning and public works staffs, the traffic study and drainage calculations appear to be inadequate to complete our thres- hold determination. We note the following difficulties with the subject docu- ments: TRAFFIC STUDY.(Christopher Brown, P.E. - December 1979) The document is extremely valuable in regard 'to the overall content and format of the material presented. Our concern relates to the "sight - clearance" mitiga�. tion measure suggested on p. 14 for the intersection of S. 132nd St./ S. 133rd St. Please be more specific as to the actual "improvements" which "should be implemented ". If these improvements pertain to tree - trimming as mentioned in paragraph 2 of page 13, please indicate whether the trees in question are on public or private property, and if on private property, what means are open to the developer to implement an off -site mitigation measure. _STORM DRAINAGE STUDY (Samual Roskin, P.E. - December 12, 1979) Phil Fraser, Acting Public Works Director, has examined Mr. Roskin's submittal in some detail, and has called into question some of the assumptions contained therein. A) "Time of Concentration" The study addresses a 10 -year event for purposes of estimating quantita- tive discharge to the Duwamish River a 60 minute "duration" factor was assungd based on a rationale contained on page 11/22 in the study appen- dix. Mr. Fraser's reference indicates that a duration factor not ex- ceeding 15 minutes is proper for a ten -year event, and suggests recal- culation based on the more conservative factor. / f`Bittman, Sanders, Hasson Arch. Normed Industrial Park JUN 25 1986 art, cir oi:vviLA PLANNING DEPT. Page 2 30 January 1980 B) "C- Factor Determination" Page 3/8 assumes no additional commercial /industrial development in the drainage catchment area. This assumption is valid for present conditions but may result in an underestimation of discharge quanti- ties if the properties on either side of Normed develop industrially as indicated by your response to Section I -II of the environmental checklist. Mr. Fraser suggests that the following "C" factors be used in the recalculation effort: R-1 - C = 0.50 (not C =0.35) Indus /Comm. = 0.70 -0.90 The proposed catchment area division of one -half R -1 and one -half open spaces should be reduced to include a reasonable amount of comm./ indus. future development consistent with the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. At such time as this revised information is received and evaluated, a final determination of environmental significance can be made. Please direct questions in this )otter to my attention. Mark Caughey Assistant Planner MC /mkb cc: Phil Fraser City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Public Works Departme JE lj lS© CITLJUN ?. .41986 KWiLA PLANNING DEPT. 50 Mr. Larry Shaw Normed, Inc. 1508 - 1st S! P.O. Box 3644 Seattle, WA 98124 October 29, 1979 Re: Industrial Park for Northwest Medical Supply • Dear Mr. Shaw: The review of Sheet No. G -1 ( "The Grading Plan and Preliminary Hydraulics Concept ") for the proposed Industrial Park for Northwest Medical Supply at S. 134th Street and 44th Place South, and review of the Environmental Checklist form has been provided by the Public Works Department for the purpose of issuance of a grading permit. From this review, we have the following concerns and requests: 1) Environmental Checklist Form, Item Nos..3b, c, f, g; (water) are indicated impacts by the proposal. To insure these potential' impacts can be mitigated, you are requested to provide a hydraulic analysis of the site and receiving storm system by a qualified engineer. Environmental Checklist Form, Item Nos. 13a, b (Transportation /Circulation) are indicated impacts'by the proposal and, per this review, Item 13c may also create a significant impact by the proposal. You are requested to provide a traffic study which° includes: k a) 'additional peak traffic flows generated.to;north and southbound lanes of Interurban Avenue South b) ,number of stalls for each type of vehicle c) the study will address Items 13a, b, & c and provide solutions to mitigate potential impacts. 3) Plan No. G -1, provide note on plans that all interim drainage on site due to grading activities (prior to installation of drain system) shall be contained within the property lines. Further, required ditching shall be provided which carries drainage to original point of exit on the site. Also, a desiltation pond shall be provided just upstream of exit point to protect downstream properties and storm water systems. Mr. Larry Shaw October 29, 1979 page 2 OBREM JUN 25 1986 CITY OFT KU WiLA PLANNING DEPT Please provide the hydraulic analysis, traffic study, and address review comments in Item 3 above for Plan G -1 and resubmit two sets of your Environmental Checklist and six sets.of Plan No. G -1 for Public Works Review. Sincerely, cc: Kjell Stoknes, Director O.C.D. Al Pieper, Building Official. Enclosure Phillip R. •Fraser; Senior Engineer Geotechntcal Engineering and Geology 12893 N.E. 1 Sth Place, Bellevue, Washington 98005 / Phone: (206) 45S-2018 November 6, 1978 E -694 Thomas A. Sconzo, Architect 13219 Northup Way Bellevue, Washington 98005 Attention: Hr. Dennis Sconzo Subject: Design Criteria for Pile Foundations LDR Property • 44th Avenue South and South 134th Street Tukwila, Washington Dear Mr. Sconzo: As requested we have developed design criteria for pile foundations for the subject property. We had earlier developed recommendations for surcharging the subject site and presented them in our letter report dated August 29, 1978. It is our understanding that property line restrictions may prevent use of surcharge methods for site deve Topment, hence pile foundations are now being, considered for support of the proposed structure. Our analyses indicates that the structure may be supported on driven . timber pile foundations or on augercast concrete piles. The piles will function as end bearing in glacial The ertinentsdesignddata 31 to 33 feet augercasteand the existing ground surface. P driven timber piles are presented below. Estimated Depth Below Capacity (tons) Carrying Pile Type Tip Diameter Existing Grade (feet) Driven Timber 8" 35 35 Augercast 10" 35 '425 Augercast 12" 35 35 Thomas A. Sconzo, Architect November 6, 1978 E -69'1 Page one If timber piles are to be used, they should be drivn with a hammer with a rated energy of 15,000 foot - pounds /blow. For this hammer the piles should be driven to•a final blow count of 3.blows per inch for the final 6 inches of pene- tration. If a different sizelhanmer is to be used, we should be consulted for the applicable design criteria. We trust this letter presents adequate information to enable you to assess the feasibility of pile foundations on this project. If you need additonal data, please call. AB /dw , .'L U 0 a Po, ..s„,+ ( 4hr ', c at lk I. . w % Anil Butail, P. E. o, ��. �,o , �% Chief :Engineer c,sTa :.r Respectfully submitted, EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC. Earth Consultants, Inc. ]Ear Consu Inc. Thomas A. Sconzo, Architect 13219 Northup Way Bellevue, Washington 98005 Subject: A.) le Geotechnical Engineering and Geology e evu , t455.2018 1 V-, '` �� 6 yr -3)750 August 29, 1978 Preliminary Soil Engineering Recommendations LDR Property 44th Avenue South and South 134th Street Tukwila, Washington Dear Mr. Sconzo: E -696 As requested, we have conducted a soil investigation at the site of the subject project. Final laboratory test data is pre- sently being compiled and we will prepare the final report once this work has been completed. However, we have prepared this letter summarizing our recommendations to enable you to proceed with planning of the project. It is our understanding that the site will be used for con- struction of a warehouse type building with a dock -high fill. In our analysis we assumed that the floor loads, in addition to the dock -high fill loading, would be on the order of 250 pounds per square foot. Site Conditions Our subsurface exploration indicated the site is underlain by 26 to 33 feet of highly compressible layers of silty clays, clayey silts, organic silts, and peats. These materials have very poor strength characteristics and are not capable of supporting the proposed loads in their existing condition. These materials are underlain by very stiff clayey to sandy silts which `dre followed at a depth of about 31 to 33 feet by very dense, silty sand with gravel (glacial till). Groundwater was noted in all our borings at depths of 1 to 2 feet below the existing ground surface. RECEIVED JAN 1 2 197g Thomas A Sconzo, Architect • August 29, 1978 E -696 Page two Foundation Alternates In developing our recommendations, we first evaluated the magnitude of the settlements that the structure would be subjected to. For a 4 -foot dock high fill and the assumed floor loading of 250 psf, we estimate settlements will be in the range of 8 to 12 inches. This magnitude of settlements is not considered acceptable for any type of structure, hence, special foundations or treatment will be required. We considered use of either pile foundations and surcharge techniques. Based on preliminary discussions with you, it is our understanding the pile foundations could seriously affect the economic feasibility of this project, hence our recommendations are directed toward the surcharge or preload concept for site preparation. Surcharging To preload the site, we recommend that 10 feet of surcharge fill be placed over the building area and extending at least 20 feet outside the building perimeter. After the preload has been in place for approximately 3 months, we estimate that most of the long term settlements should be completed and the building may be constructed. With this program, we anticipate that post construc- tion settlements will be on the order of 1 to 1.5 inches, which we feel are reasonable limits for ;this type of structure. If greater amounts of settlement can be tolerated, we will be pleased to work out alternate surcharge programs. Foundations The warehouse may be supported on conventional spread footings bearing on a minimum of 2.5 foot thick structural fill mat compacted to 95 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM D- 1557 -70. The structural fill mat should also extend a minimum of 3 feet beyond the perimeter of all footings. Foundations should be at least 2 feet below lowest adjacent final grade and may be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 2000 psf. We trust the recommendatior presented herein are adequate for. your present requirements. However, if you need additional informa- tion, please call. AB /dw Respectfully submitted,' EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC. Anil 8utail, P. E. Chief Engineer Earth Consultants, Inc. RECEIVED jAN; T taxi • PARKING • B -3 a� 0, / I (tap) 1 -13 S.'i 0 1V-13 Ciotti Si 11 } 4 - Se«s. v �� 0 0 0 4- PROPOSED BLDG (F. F. 16) 1 6.2 Clay? Wei 1 • r' or 4 A KG 4w,paf (5010 143 , /S; Sa mi Leos. ) 1 ' 30' Clam 5.74 e„, 5f 30 - 35' SIN Sfail (Dermal i B-2 (10) 7 , • APPROX. BORING a 1 B-3 LOCATIONS 2Li,l1 iy'1 _ 1 /'.33( Sea 'EXISTING SHED • 1 1 1 1 LEGEND �0 1 1 —at.. —1 S 134 ST. SITE PLAN SCALE I" = 40' Earth Consultants Inc. OCOTECNNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY Work Order E- 6 96