Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L01-064 - BONDS AND SONS - FIVE RIVERS DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENTFIVE RIVERS DEVELOPMENT 53 AVE S &158 ST BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT LO1-064 kag,LA-Lito6t_� LD -ayc7 c(E °°S� Chronology of Five Rivers Plat applications • The Department of Community Development received the subdivision and SEPA applications on October 22, 2001. • A notice of incomplete application and technical review comments were sent to you on November 19, 2001. Additional comments from City's Public Works Department were sent to the applicant on December 28, 2001 and January 4, 2002. • The applicant requested an extension to submit the additional information. A one 120 -day extension was granted till June 19, 2002. • A partial resubmittal was received on June 19, 2002. The applicant submitted the completeness items but did not address the technical review comments. For the purposes of completeness review your application was considered complete on June 20, 2002. However code based review could not proceed because the technical review comments were not addressed. In the June 19, 2002 resubmittal the applicant requested the Director to review wetland report and the request for deviation from sensitive areas ordinance (filling of wetlands). The applicant was informed that a request to fill a wetland is a separate Type 2 permit. Type 2 permit application was provided to the applicant. However we did not receive any Type 2 permit application. • Nevertheless the City did some preliminary review of the wetland report as part of your SEPA application and the letter dated September 13, 2002 provided comments related to the review of the wetland report. The applicant was also informed that he must address all comments listed in the previous letters dated November 19, 2001; December 28, 2001; and January 4, 2002 for the city to complete its review of your SEPA and Subdivision applications. • The applicant requested that the wetland issues be resolved first and a revised wetland report was submitted on September 25, 2002 and a revised survey was submitted on October 7, 2002. • Letter dated November 15, 2002, was sent to inform the applicant that the City's wetland biologist is in the process of reviewing their wetland report and it may be helpful to set up an on -site meeting with their biologist and Gary Schultz. • Subsequent to the on -site meeting, Gary sent an email on February 12, 2003, to their biologist summarizing the wetland issues discussed on -site. • Peer review comments from Shannon and Wilson regarding geotechnical report were received on May 2, 2003 and were sent to the applicant on May 6, 2003. • A letter was received from their wetland biologist on June 5, 2003, as a follow -up to the on- site meeting along with the revised wetland boundaries. • A letter was sent on July 1, 2003, by Gary Schultz, after the on -site assessment of the revised wetland boundaries and he asked for some further documentation and a complete wetland report. • On September 5, 2003, the applicant resubmitted the wetland report and the geotechnical report with slope stability review as requested by Shannon and Wilson in May, 2003. • Gary Schultz sent an email on September 17, 2003, clarifying some information with their biologist. • Peer review letter was received from Shannon and Wilson on September 23, 2003 stating that the applicant's revised geotechnical report that was submitted on September 5, 2003 meets the standards of Tukwila Municipal Code. • On September 25, 2003, the applicant submitted the revised wetland report taking into account Gary's comments sent by email on September 17, 2003, along with the revised survey map for just 8 lots instead of 12. The applicant stated that if everything looked good to Gary then he would submit for Special Permission application for wetland impacts. • Letter was sent on October 16, 2003, along with Gary's letter dated October 14, 2003, and Public Works comments dated October 9, 2003. Gary's letter approved the revised wetland boundaries and asked the applicant to submit a written request for wetland impacts. • The applicant submitted Special Permission application for wetland impacts on January 20, 2004. A letter of complete applicant and request for additional information was sent on February 18, 2004. • A meeting was scheduled with Steve Lancaster, Public Works, the applicant and his consultants on August 12, 2004. The applicant was asked to explore possibilities of avoiding the impact to the wetlands and address the geotechnical issues. • A letter was sent to the applicant on December 10, 2004, informing them that the City will be adopting the new Sensitive Areas Ordinance and their options for vesting. The applicant's wetland consultant advised them to be reviewed under the new code. So they filed a new Short Plat and SEPA application on June 17, 2005. • Notice of complete application was sent on June 23, 2005. The notice requirements were met oxisittotworommoon June 27, 2005. • Request for additional information regarding wetland boundaries was sent on July 29, 2005. • Re- submittal was received on September 14, 2005. • Sandra Whiting, Urban Biologist revisited the site to confirm the reflagging effort. An on -site meeting was scheduled with Larry Fisher, Washington Fisheries Department to confirm that the drainage channel in the northwest corner of the lot was not a regulated stream. It was not called a regulated watercourse. Since there was a potential of change in lot layout due to wetland comments, detailed comments from Planning, Public Works and Sandra Whiting were sent together on November 3, 2005. JAEGER ENGINEERING 9419 S. 204 PLACE KENT, WASHINGTON 98031 PHONE (253) 850.0934 Fax (253) 850 -0155 June 17, 2004 Ale Kondelis Cramer NW, inc. 945 Central Ave. , Suite 104 Kent, WA. 98032 RE: Preliminary Plat of Five Rivers - City of Tukwila Ale, I have prepared a revised preliminary engineering Plan for submittal to the City to assist you in your response to the City's letter dated February 18, 2004. There were items in that letter that relate to other professionals, such as the traffic engineer and the'geotechnical engineer. The attached preliminary engineering plan has been revised to, show the proposed grading for the interior cul -de -sac road, the necessary concrete retaining wall along this road and 53rd Ave: S., and the foundation setback along the east property line as noted in the geotechnical report: To prepare this plan, I have reviewed the geotechnical reports /letters from LSI Adapt, dated September 4, 2003 and the letter from Spears Engineering Technical Services, dated May 28, 2004. The City's letter of Feb. 18, 2004, included concerns and a request for additional information. The items in that letter are addresses as follows: The proposed short plat road will necessitate the filling of a portion of wetland C, a class 2 wetland. Approx. 800 SF of the northern tip of the wetland would need to be filled to accommodate the road and sidewalk. The City may allow this wetland to be .filled if there are no other reasonable alternatives for the location of this road. The road cannot be moved to the south, as this would place it within the body of .wetland C and would require a greater amount of the wetland to be filled. The location of the road was chosen partly to minimize the impact on the wetland and because this is the highest elevation of the interior property slope along 53rd Ave. S. There is an existing retaining wall behind the existing roadway along 53rd .Ave. S., south of the proposed road. location. To the north of . the proposed road location, there is an existing 10' high steep slope down from the back of the road, into the property. Even more . significant, there is a depression along the north property line where the cul -de -sac bulb would be if the road were placed in this location. This depression is 8' lower than the elevation of the cul -de- sac bulb, if placed in this location. The elevation of the bulb is dictated by the internal road having a maximum grade of 15 %. This would create a grade transition problem with the property to the north of the site. 2. The operation and safety study for the street offset, between the proposed short plat road and S 159th St. will be prepared by the traffic consultant. Please include copies of this study in your resubmittal package to the City. 3. I have prepared a proposed grading plan so that the proposed wetland fill area can be accurately shown. In order to minimize the wetland fill, I am showing a 6' high concrete retaining wall along the south side of the internal road along the wetland interface length. This concrete wall would then be extended to the south along 53rd Ave. S. for the construction of the sidewalk. This was also done to minimize the impact to the wetland. The revised plan, as shown, more accurately reflects the impact on the wetland by the proposed project. 4. The proposed grading for the internal road has been shown. It requires fills that exceed the 2' maximum depth as recommended in the LSI Adapt letter. The letter from Spears Engineering further reviewed the site and the previous geotechnical information and now states that this fill limitation can be exceeded. 5. I have added the 30' buffer along the east property lines to the plans. This 30' buffer was recommended in the LSI Adapt report. I discussed this buffer requirement with LSI and it was stated that this buffer only applies to basements and deep foundations. The purpose of this buffer is to ensure that any excavations would not disturb the existing soil drains that were installed in this area by WSDOT. These drains are deep enough that a standard 30" to 36" footing would not impact them. This is shown and noted on the revised plans. This addresses all of the comments on the City's letter. Please call me if there are any additional concerns. Thank you. 9csLQ1-ro James Jaeger. P.E. 06/16/05 I S INSPECTION & TING SERVICES GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION/PROJECT MANAGEMENT SPECIALIZING IN ROADS & BRIDGES HTTP: //W W W. SPEARS -ENG I NEER I NG. COM AMERICAN CANADIAN REAL ESTATE, INC. PO Box 3280 Kent, WA 98032 Attn: Mr. Saraj Khan Re: Project: Report Date: Gentlemen: • SPEARS ENGINEERING & TECHNICAL SERVICES Subsurface Soils Investigation Five Rivers Short Plat 05/28/2004 As per your request, we have reviewed the letter from the City of Tukwila (dated 2/18/2004) from their Senior Planner concerning the proposed development for the above referenced project along with the report from LSI Adapt (dated 9/4/2003). The results of this review, together with our investigation and recommendations, are to be found in the following report. We have provided three copies for your review and distribution. During our review, the recommendation from LSI Adapt that site grading is limited to no more than 2 feet vertical and only in localized areas was extensively reviewed. We reviewed the site plan prepared and supplied to us by Jaeger Engineering. Additionally we took the site plan and prepared a visual reference for the proposed final grading with the finished % slopes as marked (see attached drawing). It is our opinion that the proposed road location and grading exceed the recommendations from LSI Adapt for more than 2 feet of vertical fill. The major concern for this limit on the placement of vertical fill seems to be so that there would not be any major earthwork performed on lots 4 through 7'which might impact the steep slope to the northeast side of the project area. However the proposed road and grading should be acceptable for the road area grading operations provided that the following recommendations are followed. • All fill operations to be monitored by a representative of our firm. • All fill to be placed and compacted to least 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D -1557. • All slopes on graded fill areas will not exceed 21/2:1 (H: V) and preferably they will not exceed 3:1. • Once completed all fill areas and slopes will be seeded. Often, because of design and construction details that occur on a project, questions arise concerning soil conditions. We would be pleased to continue our role as geotechnical engineers during the project implementation We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you and we look forward to working with you in the future. If you have any questions concerning the above items, the procedures used, or if we can be of any further assistance please call us at (253) 833 -7967. Respectfully Submitted, SPEARS ENGINEERING 1?� �`� • ' _ ES J. Frank Spears, P.E. Principle P.O. Box 1007 AUBURN, WASHINGTON 98071 -1007 PHONE: (253) 833 -7967 FAX: (253) 735 -2867 I EXPIRES Report # 04001 -077 Page 1 of 14 MEMORANDUM TO: FILE FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. — David McPherson, Development Engineer DATE: May 18, 2004 SUBJECT: Five Rivers - 8 Lot Short Plat 53rd Ave. South @ South 158th Street Geotechnical & Miscellaneous Comments I spoke with the Geotechnical Engineer for this project, this afternoon. The Geotechnical Engineer has informed the Owner, that after reviewing the Geotechnical Reports provided by the City, additional borings and/or wells will be required. This project does not appear to be going forward, based on the response from the Owner /Applicant. The proposed field work, is in addition to geotechnical investigation/research which has been conducted by LSI Adapt, Inc. going back to April 20, 2004. This project will not be approved by the Public Works Department, until the required geotechnical assessment is provided. There are also several other issues to be resolved prior to project approval. These include, storm drainage discharge, location of private street, and wetland mitigation. LSI Adapt, Inc. and our peer reviewer (Shannon & Wilson, Inc.) have several geotechnical documents, which we provided over the past few months. FIVE RIVERS DEVELOPMENT TUKUVILA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FIVE RIVERS DEVELOPMENT c/o CRAMER "NORTHWEST, INC.„ 945 N. Central, Suite 104 Kent, WA 98032 April 30, 2004 Transportation Planning & Engineering, Inc. 2223 - .112th Avenue N.E., Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98004 -2952 Telephone: (425) 455 -5320 Facsimile: (425) 453 -5759 FIVE RIVERS DEVELOPMENT - TUKWILA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Prepared for FIVE RIVERS DEVELOPMENT c/o CRAMER NORTHWEST, INC. 945 N. Central, Suite 104 Kent, WA 98032 Prepared by TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 2223 - 112th Ave. N.E., Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Telephone - (425) 455 -5320 Fax - (425) 453 -5759 http: / /www.tranplaneng.com April 30, 2004 �pE VICTOR H. BISHOP, P.E. President DAVID H. ENGER, P.E. Vice President TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Mr. Jas Sekhon FIVE RIVERS DEVELOPMENT c/o Ms. Aleanna Kondelis CRAMER NORTHWEST, INC. 945 N. Central, Suite 104 Kent, WA 98032 Re: Five Rivers Development - Tukwila Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Sekhon: 2223 - 112th AVENUE N.E., SUITE 101 - BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004 -2952 TELEPHONE (425) 455 -5320 FACSIMILE (425) 453 -5759 April 30, 2004 At the request of Ms. Aleanna Kondelis, we are pleased to submit this traffic impact analysis report for the proposed Five Rivers Development consisting of eight single family residential lots. The project site is located on the east side of 53rd Ave. S. across from S. 159th St. in the City of Tukwila. This analysis was prepared based on the City's concurrency standards, which require analysis of all City intersections impacted by five or more net new vehicle trips. This analysis is also based on our phone conversations with Ms. Cyndy Knighton, Traffic Engineer for the City of Tukwila, and the data she provided. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Figure 1 is a vicinity map showing the location of the site and the surrounding street network. Figure 2 shows a plan of the project site. The project would consist of eight single - family lots. The site plan shows the location of these proposed lots, the proposed cul -de -sac street with pedestrian sidewalks and the site access street onto 53rd Ave. S., which is located approximately 120 feet north of S159th Street. Full development and occupancy of this project is expected to occur by the end of 2005 pending timely permit approval. However, to ensure a conservative analysis 2006 is used as the horizon year for this study. EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS Project Site The project site presently is undeveloped. C:IWORK DOCUMENTS1- PROJECTS1T08 Tukwda1T08 Fiver Rivers- Tukwtla.doc Mr. Jas Sekhon FIVE RIVERS DEVELOPMENT April 30, 2004 Page 2 Street Facilities �pE Figure 3 shows existing traffic control, number of street lanes, number of approach lanes at the analysis intersections, and other pertinent information. The primary streets and King County's classifications within the study area are as follows: Klickitat Dr. 53rd Ave. S. /Slade Way S. 159th St. Collector Arterial Local Access Street Local Access Street Fifty Third Ave. S. is a two -lane street with a posted speed limit of 25 MPH. It has a grade of approximately 8% adjacent to the project site. South 159th St. is a "dead -end" street that provides access to the adjacent Crystal Springs Park and about three single - family residences. Pedestrian and Bicycle Activity Sidewalks, curb and gutter exist on the west side of 53rd Ave. S. adjacent to the project site, and on at least one side of the other streets near the project site. Some pedestrian and bicycle activity was observed on the streets near the site during our field visit. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Traffic Volumes Figure 4 shows existing peak hour traffic volumes at the 53rd Ave. S. /S. 159th St. and 53rd Ave. S. /Klickitat Dr. intersections. We conducted the manual turning movement count on Thursday April 1, 2004 for the 53rd Ave. S. /S. 159th St. intersection. The traffic volume count data for the 53rd Ave. S. /Klickitat Dr. intersection was provided by City staff. The existing traffic volume count data sheets are attached. Level of Service Analysis Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic flow, and the perception of these conditions by drivers or passengers. These conditions include factors such as speed, delay, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Levels of service are given letter designations, from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions (free flow, little delay) and LOS F the worst (congestion, long delays). Generally, LOS A and B are high, LOS C and D are moderate, and LOS E and F are low. The level of service (LOS) was calculated for existing conditions at the 53rd Ave. S. /Klickitat Dr. analysis intersection. The LOS was calculated using the procedures in the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 Edition. The Signal 2000 CAWORK DOCUMENTSI- PROJECTS1T08 Tukwda1T08 Fiver Rivers- Tukw,7a.doc Mr. Jas Sekhon FIVE RIVERS DEVELOPMENT April 30, 2004 Page 3 software was used for the signalized intersection analyses. The LOS and corresponding average control delay in seconds are as follows: TYPE OF INTERSECTION No. of Accidents B C D E F Signalized _< 10 > 10 and <_ 20 >20 and <_ 35 > 35 and <_ 55 > 55 and _< 80 >80 Stop Sign Control < 10 > 10 and <_ 15 >15 and <_ 25 > 25 and _< 35 > 35 and _< 50 >50 The 53`d Ave. S. /Kickitat Dr. intersection is currently operating at LOS A overall during the analyzed PM peak hour. The LOS calculation sheets are attached. Accident Data The City staff provided accident summary data for the 53rd Ave. S. /Klickitat Dr. intersection for the three -year period from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2003. A copy of the accident data is attached. The following table summarizes the accident data provided. This table also shows the average accident rate per million entering vehicles. Intersection No. of Accidents Total Accidents (2001 -2003) Accidents Per Mev* 2001 2002 2003 53rd Ave. S. /Klickitat Dr. 6 4 4 14 0.76 Notes: * Accidents per million entering vehicles. King County's Accident Rates for Arterial Roadways does not contain data on average accident rates per million entering vehicles at intersections. However, based on our experience, an accident rate of less than one is generally considered to indicate that an intersection is operating satisfactorily, one to two is typical, and over two requires further review. Based on the accident rate calculated and our field review, no apparent accident problem exists at the analysis intersection. Sight Distances Per the City's request we conducted a sight distance analysis at the proposed site access onto 53rd Ave. South. Our sight distance measurements were taken on Friday, April 2, 2004. Results of the available stopping sight distance (SSD) and entering sight distance (ESD) C:IWORK DOCUMENTSI- PROJECTSITO8 Tukwila1TO8 Fiver Rivers- Tukwila.doc TpF Mr. Jas Sekhon FIVE RIVERS DEVELOPMENT April 30, 2004 Page 4 measurements at the proposed street access onto 53rd Ave. S. are shown in the following table: Proposed Site Access To /From the South To /From the North AASHTO Design Criteria Stopping Sight Distance (ft.) --300 To Klickitat Dr. intersection 260 (300*) Entering Sight Distance (ft.) -625 To Klickitat Dr. intersection 480 Notes: * Adjusted for the northbound SSD (for vehicles approaching from the south) to account for the approx. 8% downgrade. This table also shows the City's SSD and ESD criteria per the American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials ( AASHTO)- Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Figure IX -40 "Intersection Sight Distance at At -Grade Intersection" (attached). According to Figure IX -40, an SSD of 260 feet is recommended and an ESD of 480 feet is recommended based on a design speed of 35 MPH. Typically the design speed used is the posted speed limit (25 MPH on 53rd Ave. S.) plus 10 MPH. This provides a more conservative approach when estimating safe sight distances. Furthermore, the northbound SSD recommendation, for vehicles approaching from the south, was adjusted to account for the approx. 8% downgrade on 53rd Ave. S. and the increased breaking distance required. Our field measurements show that the County's SSD criteria of 260 (300 *) feet would be met to both the north and south at the site access intersection. The County's ESD criteria of 480 feet would also be met for both directions at the site access intersection. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROJECT Traffic Volumes and Background Growth Figure 5 shows the projected year 2006 PM peak hour traffic volumes without the project. A growth rate of 2% per year was applied to the existing traffic volumes to calculate the background growth. Ms. Knighton, the City's Traffic Engineer, indicated that 2% per year is likely a conservative rate of growth but is acceptable for study purposes. Level of S -rvi e Table 1 shows the calculated 2006 PM peak hour LOS for the without project conditions at the analysis intersection. The analysis intersection is expected to continue to operate at LOS A overall in 2006. C:IWORK DOCUMENTSI- PROJECTSITO8 Tukwila1T08 Fiver Rivers - Tukwila.doc TpE Mr. Jas Sekhon FIVE RIVERS DEVELOPMENT April 30, 2004 Page 5 TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION Trip Generation The proposed project is expected to generate the new vehicular trips during an average weekday and during the street traffic AM and PM peak hours as shown in the table below: Time Period Trip Generation Rates Trips Entering Trips Exiting Total Trips Weekday T = 9.57(X) 38 (50 %) 38 (50 %) 76 AM Peak Hour T = 0.75(X) 2 (25 %) 4 (75 %) 6 PM Peak Hour T = 1.01(X) 5 (63 %) 3 (37 %) 8 Where T = Trips Generated X = Number of Dwelling Units (X = 8) A vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination (exiting or entering) inside the study site. These trip generation values account for all site trips made by all vehicles for all purposes, including resident, visitor, and service and delivery vehicle trips. The trip generation is calculated using the average rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, Seventh Edition, 2003 for Single Family Detached Dwelling (ITE Land Use Code 210). Trip Distribution Figure 6 shows the projected trip distribution and the calculated site - generated traffic volumes. The trip distribution is based on the characteristics of the road network, existing traffic volume patterns, the location of likely trip origins and destinations (employment, shopping, social and recreational opportunities) and expected travel times. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH THE PROJECT Traffic Volumes Figure 7 shows the projected 2006 PM peak hour traffic volumes with the project. The site - generated PM peak hour traffic volumes shown on Figure 6 were added to the projected background traffic volumes shown on Figure 5 to obtain the Figure 7 traffic volumes. C:IWORK DOCUMENTSI- PROJECTSITO8 Tukwila1T08 Fiver Rivers - Tukwila.doc Mr. Jas Sekhon FIVE RIVERS DEVELOPMENT April 30, 2004 Page 6 Level of S -rvi e TpE Table 1 shows the calculated 2006 PM peak hour LOS for with - project conditions at the analysis intersection. The LOS at the analysis intersection is expected to remain unchanged (LOS A) from the without - project conditions except for a slight increase in delay. Site A c -ss S a .ing The proposed site access onto 53rd Ave. S. is shown to be constructed approximately 120 feet north of S. 159`h St. on Figure 2 (Site Plan). Typically, 125 feet is the minimum access spacing distance required between residential access streets in other jurisdictions. However, Ms. Knighton indicated that the City of Tukwila does not have formal site access spacing criteria and that site access spacing is determined based on engineering judgment. Both intersections are shown to be generating very few left turning vehicle trips during the PM peak hour, five total. Due to this low number of left- turning vehicle trips we do not foresee any significant conflicts occurring between the left turning vehicles of these two intersections. We believe that the site access spacing between the proposed site access street and S. 159`h St. is sufficient. TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION FEE REQUIREMENTS Per our conversation with Ms. Knighton, Traffic Engineer for the City, the City of Tukwila's traffic impact fees are based on the number of development - generated PM peak hour trips impacting nearby City road improvement projects. The threshold for evaluation is 5 development - generated PM peak hour trips. The City is currently revising their list of road improvement projects. However, Ms. Knighton indicated that there is no City road improvement project planned at the pertinent 53rd Ave. S. /Klickitat Dr. intersection. Therefore, no traffic impact mitigation fee is anticipated for this development. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This report reviewed the operation of the adjacent streets and the 53rd Ave. S. /Klickitat Dr. intersection without and with the proposed eight single - family lot project. Our analysis shows that the projected eight PM peak hour trips generated by the proposed development are not expected to create a significant adverse impact at the analysis intersection or on the operation of the adjacent streets. Furthermore, the City's sight distance criteria would be met for both directions at the proposed site access intersection onto 53rd Ave. South. Therefore, based on our analysis, the Five Rivers Development should be approved with the following traffic mitigation measures: 1. Construct the site access street to City of Tukwila criteria. 2. Construct the proposed project in accordance with the required City of Tukwila C:IWORK DOCUMENTSI- PROJECTSITO8 Tukwila1T08 Fiver Rivers - Tukwila.doc Mr. Jas Sekhon FIVE RIVERS DEVELOPMENT April 30, 2004 Page 7 standards. �pE No further traffic mitigation is anticipated. If you have any questions, please contact Mikhail (Mike) Ekshtut, E.I.T., Transportation Engineer or me at 425 - 455 -5320. We can also be contacted via e-mail at sgteks©tranplaneng.com. Very truly yours, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. David H. Enger, P.E., P.T.O.E. ME:me Vice President C:IWORK DOCUMENTSI- PROJECTSITO8 Tukwila1T08 Fiver Rivers- Tukwda.doc 140TH a °� 4400 142N0 SI 146TH CAM "9 V1 1., S 1 ni Sr HAZELNUT TIN PARK • 1;I LIB KI. FS ST 60� r N O` 1. 1491H S oTli Ti Sip . v' 7T fir. S I ,,r2 lJ .,.�T JI. S� vl "MC `�^ 23" < 151* Sr S 152ND ST I s isf o► y 5 152ND PL I118 1D m In �tiJ t11�L���T171 4. S 156T 1 158TH )TH ST . s h `" .y4`1: .. r.is94 � N 99TTAH P/! 4 I615T ARI6i ' 5 16 D � ST `S t• , PL 4 � �^ _4 _ u » S al< / 164II5ysQ9 /5 ST 1 $ ...S ..166T11 sJ 27 S 167111 ST 1 168TH ST an 1601 S S 168TH LN S 168111 17011-1 3 ! $T ST �' 1' i 170T a 1400 5100 /O 172ND ST "' SOUTNCENTER N "RD 1.71_T, ST STRANDER CC • e axeana[ SOUTHCENT sarrs PLAZA 26 , COMM' BY H4RRIO ;'K eaaeatr PARK S 172ND 1 / MINKLER CORPORAT DR N CORPORAT DR S m on "Reproduced with permission granted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS ®. This map is copyrighted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS ®. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission. All rights reserved." VICINITY MAP FIVE RIVERS DEVELOPMENT — TUKWILA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS E SITE PLAN FIVE RIVERS DEVELOPMENT - TUKWILA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 1 N not to scale 51st Ave. S. S d SOUthcenter B/ �d >�O Trn wi /a L ,a 1 Irt N E N % A Strander Blvd LEGEND O Traffic Control Signal 41 Stop Sign XX mph Posted Speed Limit Approach Lane & Direction XL Number of Roadway Lanes EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS FIVE RIVERS DEVELOPMENT — TUKWILA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS E N not to scale N 53rd it. 4 1114Puu thcenter \^ Tukwila pkwy ° Olaf o ■p Wednesday 4/17/02 Southcenter Pkwy Thursday 4/01/04 LEGEND X--� PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume & Direction Strander Blvd I EXISTING 2004 PM PEAK HOUR (1630 -1730) TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIVE RIVERS DEVELOPMENT - TUKWILA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS S\ rFIGURE \ 4 LEGEND X-1.- PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume & Direction 2006 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT FIVE RIVERS DEVELOPMENT - TUKWILA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS N > 1 N not to scale t Project— Generated PM Peak Hour Trips: Enter 5 (64 %) Exit 3 (36 %) Total 8 LEGEND xx% Trip Distribution Percentage X--•■ PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume & Direction Strander Blvd PROJECT- GENERATED TRIP DISTRIBUTION FIVE RIVERS DEVELOPMENT - TUKWILA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS X--■ PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume & Direction 2006 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH PROJECT FIVE RIVERS DEVELOPMENT - TUKWILA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TTRAFFIC DATA GATHERING TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM 4:00 - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:30 PM TO 5:30 PM Klickitat Drive Klickitat Drive in 775 v 700 620 80 INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUME IN 1,672 OUT 1,872 N w Q M 4 758 117 873 197 700 N. 19 80 99 .4- 298 HV PHF S8 #N /A #N /A NB 4% 0.80 WS 1% 0.89 ES 1% 0.93 INTRS. 1% 0.92 Klickitat Drive @ 53rd Avenue 9 Tukwila, WA COUNTED BY: BW REDUCED BY: CN DATE OF REDUCTION: 'Mon. 5/13/02 HV = HEAVY VEHICLES PHF g PEAK HOUR FACTOR DATE OF COUNT: Wed. 4/17/02 TIME OF COUNT: 4:00 - 8:00 PM WEATHER: Sunny TRUCK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIGHT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB THRU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEFT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' TRUCK 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 5 5 5 RIGHT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB THRU 0 23 28 30 21 0 0 0 102 102 102 ' LEFT 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 4 4 4 TOTAL 0 23 29 32 22 0 0 0 106 106 106 TRUCK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIGHT 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 4 4 4 EB THRU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEFT 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 4 4 4 TOTAL 0 2 0 4 2 0 0 0 8 8 8 INTERVAL TOTAL: TRUCKS 0 2 3 2 2 0 0 0 9 9 9 VEHICLES 0 76 70 73 63 0 0 0 282 282 282 NB SB EB WB %HV 5 2.38095 0 # # # # ## PHF 0.65 0.71 0.38 # # # # ## PED T08504.xls TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 2101 112TH AVE NE, SUITE 110, BELLEVUE, WA 98004 455 -5320 JURISDICTION: LOCATION: ID NO: WEATHER : SURFACE : VEHICULAR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUME COUNT 159th St./ 53rd Ave. S. T08504 Clear & Sunny Dry DATE : DAY : PK FIR: TECHNICIAN LANE CONFIGURATION DIAGRAM NORTH 19 11 TURNING MOVEMENT DIAGRAM NORTH 274 168 R T L 7 161 0 106 1/28/2003 Thursday 1630 -1730 ME 0 R 0 T 0 L 0 L 8 T R T08504.xls 4 0 165 271 4 102 0 L T R 106 0 Report Period: 01/01 /2001 to 01/29/4004 ILocation: 53 AVE S at KLICKITAT DR irec an um ' um Veh 1 Veh 2 Fat i• 0 Inj PDO Run Veh W - >b N - >S E- >W E - >W Prk Prk E->W E->W U 0 0 0 P P P Z 2 3 3 4 Totals: 0 0 4 0 10 Time 01 Case Collision Number 04:35 PM 03 -1591 09:40 AM 03 -02404 06:20 PM 03 -2743 08:40 PM 03 -8410 Type of Collision Rearitiicr Backing Rear End Head On Direction Num Num — iit 8i; Tot Veh 1 Veh 2 Fat Inj PDO Run Veh E>89 E - >W 0 Ir 2 Bck 13 ' 0 1 2 E - >W E - >W 0 P 2 S - >W W ->E 0 1 2 Number of Collisions: 4 Grand Totals: Number of Collisions: Number of Vehicles Involved: Number of Fatalities: Number of Injuries: Number of PDOs: Collision Rate: 0.00 c •'-I 14 31 0 (0.00 %) 5/7 (35.71 %) 9 (64.29 %) Pagel Totals: 0 2 2 0 8 AA 1 .rt "1n . I- Troy/ 1 . I Five Rivers Development - Tukwila Klickitat Dr. /53rd Ave. S. 2004 PM Peak Hour SIGNAL2000 /TEAPAC[Ver 1.00.02] - HCM Input Worksheet Intersection 04/09/04 18:39:19 0 - Area Location Type: NONCBD 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 Key: VOLUMES -- > WIDTHS v LANES \ 0 0.0 0 . / \ / \ - - 756 12.0 1 0 0.0 0 / + / 117 12.0 1 North 620 12.0 1 80 0.0 0 \ \ I / 19 0 80 0.0 12.0 0.0 0 1 0 Phasing: SEQUENCE 12 PERMSV N Y N N OVERLP N N N N LEADLAG LD LD N E S W RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Heavy veh, %HV 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Pk -hr fact, PHF .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 Pretimed or Act A A A A A A A A A A A A Strtup lost, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext eff grn, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival typ, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Ped vol, vped 0 0 0 0 Bike vol, vbic 0 0 0 0 Parking locatns NO NO NO NO Park mnvrs, Nm 0 0 0 0 Bus stops, NB 0 0 0 0 Grade, %G .0 .0 .0 .0 Sq 12 1 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 1 Phase 4 1 Phase 5 1 Phase 6 /I\ North < + + ++ * * ** v <* *> * * * * * * * *> * * ** v 1 C= 60" G= 7.8" G= 6.1" G= 34.1" Y +R= 4.0" Y +R= 4.0" Y +R= 4.0" G= 0.0" G= 0.0" G= 0.0" Y +R= 0.0" Y +R= 0.0" Y +R= 0.0" Five Rivers Development - Tukwila Klickitat Dr. /53rd Ave. S. 2004 PM Peak Hour SIGNAL2000 /TEAPAC[Ver 1.00.02] - HCM Volume Adjust & Satflow Worksheet 04/09/04 18:39:19 Volume N E S W Adjustment RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Volume, V 0 0 0 0 756 117 80 0 19 80 620 0 Pk -hr fact, PHF .00 .00 .00 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 Adj my flow, vp 0 0 0 0 840 130 89 0 21 89 689 0 Lane group, LG TH LT RT +TH +LT RT +TH Adj LG flow, v 840 130 110 778 Prop LT, PLT .000 1.00 .191 .000 Prop RT, PRT .000 .000 .809 .114 Saturation N E S W Flow Rate RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Base satflo, so 1900 1900 1900 1900 Number lanes, N 1 1 1 1 Lane width, fW 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Heavy veh, fHV .980 .980 .980 .980 Grade, fg 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Parking, fp 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Bus block, fbb 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Area type, fa 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Lane util, fLU 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Left -turn, fLT 1.000 .607 .991 1.000 Right -turn, fRT 1.000 1.00 .891 .985 PedBike LT,fLpb 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 PedBike RT,fRpb 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Local adjustmnt 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Adj Satflow, s 1863 1131 1644 1834 Prot LT fLT .000 .950 Prot LT Satflo 0 1770 Five Rivers Development - Tukwila Klickitat Dr. /53rd Ave. S. 2004 PM Peak Hour SIGNAL2000 /TEAPAC[Ver 1.00.021 - HCM Capacity and LOS Worksheet 04/09/04 18:39:19 Capacity N E S W Analysis RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Lane group, LG TH LT RT +TH +LT RT +TH Adj Flow, v 840 130 110 778 Satflow, s 1863 1770 1644 1834 Lost time, tL 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Effect green, g 44.2 6.1 7.8 34.1 Grn ratio, g/C .736 .102 .130 .568 LG capacity, c 1372 180 214 1042 v/c ratio, X .612 .722 .514 .747 Flow ratio, v/s .451 .073 .067 .424 Crit lane group * * * Permitted Phases of Compound Left Turns Adj Flow, v 0 Satflow, s 1131 Lost time, tL .0 Effect green, g 38.1 Grn ratio, g/C .635 LG capacity, c 718 v/c ratio, X .000 Flow ratio, v/s .000 Crit lane group Sum crit v /s,Yc 0.565 Crit v /c, Xc .706 Total lost, L 12.0 Delay N E S W and LOS RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Lane group, LG TH LT RT +TH +LT RT +TH Adj Flow, v 840 130 110 778 LG capacity, c 1372 898 214 1042 v/c ratio, X .612 .145 .514 .747 Grn ratio, g/C .736 .736 .130 .568 Unif delay, di 3.8 4.1 24.3 9.7 Incr calib, k .20 .11 .12 .30 Incr delay, d2 .8 .1 2.1 3.0 Queue Delay, d3 .0 .0 .0 .0 Unif delay, dl* .0 .0 .0 .0 Prog factor, PF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Contrl delay, d 4.6 4.2 26.5 12.7 Lane group LOS A A C+ B+ Final Queue,Qbi 0 0 0 0 Appr delay, dA 4.5 26.5 12.7 Approach LOS A C+ B+ Appr flow, vA 970 110 778 Intersection: Delay 9.3 LOS A Five Rivers Development - Tukwila Klickitat Dr. /53rd Ave. S. 2004 PM Peak Hour SIGNAL2000 /TEAPAC[Ver 1.00.02] - Capacity Analysis Summary 04/09/04 18:39:19 Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v /c) 0.63 Vehicle Delay 9.3 Level of Service A Sq 12 Phase 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 /I\ North < + + ++ * * ** v *> * * * * * *> * * ** v G/C =0.130 G= 7.8" Y +R= 4.0" OFF= 0.0% G/C =0.102 G= 6.1" Y +R= 4.0" OFF =19.7% G/C =0.568 G= 34.1" Y +R= 4.0" OFF =36.5% C= 60 sec G= 48.0 sec = 80.0% Y =12.0 sec = 20.0% Pod= 0.0 sec = 0.0% Lane Width /1 g/C I Service Rate Adj I I HCM I L I Queue Group I Lanes' Reqd Used I @C (vph) @E 'Volume' v/c I Delay I S Model 11 S Approach 26.5 C+ IRT +TH +LTI 12/1 10.102 10.130 I 151 I 209 I 110 10.514 I 26.5 I *C +I 86 ftl E Approach 4.5 A TH I 12/1 10.473 10.736 1 1372 I 1372 I 840 10.612 I 4.6 I A I 327 ft1 LT I 12/1 10.000 10.102 I 873 I 898 I 130 10.145 I 4.2 *A I 89 ftl W Approach 12.7 B+ IRT +TH 1 12/1 10.449 10.568 1 1019 1 1042 1 778 10.747 I 12.7 I *B +1 465 ftl Five Rivers Development - Tukwila Klickitat Dr. /53rd Ave. S. 2006 PM Peak Hour without Project SIGNAL2000 /TEAPAC[Ver 1.00.02] - HCM Input Worksheet Intersection # 0 - 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 645 12.0 1 83 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 04/09/04 18:37:46 Area Location Type: NONCBD Key: VOLUMES -- > WIDTHS v LANES \ 0 0.0 0 - - 787 12.0 1 + / 122 12.0 1 \ 20 0.0 0 0 12.0 1 83 0.0 0 / North Phasing: SEQUENCE 12 PERMSV N Y N N OVERLP N N N N LEADLAG LD LD N E S W RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Heavy veh, %HV 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Pk -hr fact, PHF .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 Pretimed or Act A A A A A A A A A A A A Strtup lost, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext eff grn, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival typ, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3. 3 3 Ped vol, vped 0 0 0 0 Bike vol, vbic 0 0 0 0 Parking locatns NO NO NO NO Park mnvrs, Nm 0 0 0 0 Bus stops, NB 0 0 0 0 Grade, %G .0 .0 .0 .0 Sq 12 /•\ North Phase 1 1 Phase 2 < + + ++ * * ** v <* *> * * * * Phase 3 * * * *> * * ** v Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase 6 C= 60" G= 7.8" Y +R= 4.0" G= 6.1" Y +R= 4.0" G= 34.1" Y +R= 4.0" G= 0.0" Y +R= 0.0" G= 0.0" G= 0.0" Y +R= 0.0" Y +R= 0.0" Five Rivers Development - Tukwila Klickitat Dr. /53rd Ave. S. 2006 PM Peak Hour without Project 04/09/04 18:37:46 SIGNAL2000 /TEAPAC[Ver 1.00.02] - HCM Volume Adjust & Satflow Worksheet Volume N E S W Adjustment RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Volume, V 0 0 0 0 787 122 83 0 20 83 645 0 Pk -hr fact, PHF .00 .00 .00 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 Adj my flow, vp 0 0 0 0 874 136 92 0 22 92 717 0 Lane group, LG TH LT RT +TH +LT RT +TH Adj LG flow, v 874 136 114 809 Prop LT, PLT .000 1.00 .193 .000 Prop RT, PRT .000 .000 .807 .114 Saturation N E S W Flow Rate RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Base satflo, so 1900 1900 1900 1900 Number lanes, N 1 1 1 1 Lane width, fW 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Heavy veh, fHV .980 .980 .980 .980 Grade, fg 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Parking, fp 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Bus block, fbb 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Area type, fa 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Lane util, fLU 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Left -turn, fLT 1.000 .608 .990 1.000 Right -turn, fRT 1.000 1.00 .891 .985 PedBike LT,fLpb 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 PedBike RT,fRpb 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Local adjustmnt 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Adj satflow, s 1863 1132 1644 1834 Prot LT fLT .000 .950 Prot LT Satflo 0 1770 Five Rivers Development - Tukwila Klickitat Dr. /53rd Ave. S. 2006 PM Peak Hour without Project 04/09/04 18:37:46 SIGNAL2000 /TEAPAC[Ver 1.00.02] - HCM Capacity and LOS Worksheet Capacity N E S W Analysis RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Lane group, LG TH LT RT +TH +LT RT +TH Adj Flow, v 874 136 114 809 Satflow, s 1863 1770 1644 1834 Lost time, tL 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Effect green, g 44.2 6.1 7.8 34.1 Grn ratio, g/C .736 .102 .130 .568 LG capacity, c 1372 180 214 1042 v/c ratio, X .637 .756 .533 .776 Flow ratio, v/s .469 .077 .069 .441 Crit lane group * * * Permitted Phases of Compound Left Turns Adj Flow, v 0 Satflow, s 1132 Lost time, tL .0 Effect green, g 38.1 Grn ratio, g/C .635 LG capacity, c 718 v/c ratio, X .000 Flow ratio, v/s .000 Crit lane group Sum crit v /s,Yc 0.587 Crit v /c, Xc .734 Total lost, L 12.0 Delay N E S W and LOS RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Lane group, LG TH LT RT +TH +LT RT +TH Adj Flow, v 874 136 114 809 LG capacity, c 1372 898 214 1042 v/c ratio, X .637 .151 .533 .776 Grn ratio, g/C .736 .736 .130 .568 Unif delay, dl 3.9 4.2 24.4 10.0 Incr calib, k .22 .11 .14 .33 Incr delay, d2 1.0 .1 2.6 3.8 Queue Delay, d3 .0 .0 .0 .0 Unif delay, dl* .0 .0 .0 .0 Prog factor, PF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Contrl delay, d 4.9 4.3 27.0 13.8 Lane group LOS A A C+ B+ Final Queue,Qbi 0 0 0 0 Appr delay, dA 4.8 27.0 13.8 Approach LOS A C+ B+ Appr flow, vA 1010 114 809 Intersection: Delay 9.9 LOS A Five Rivers Development - Tukwila Klickitat Dr. /53rd Ave. S. 2006 PM Peak Hour without Project SIGNAL2000 /TEAPAC[Ver 1.00.02] - Capacity Analysis Summary 04/09/04 18:37:46 Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v /c) 0.66 Vehicle Delay 9.9 Level of Service A Sq 12 1 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 < + + ++ * * ** v <* *> * * * * * * * *> * * ** v G/C =0.130 G/C =0.102 G/C =0.568 G= 7.8" G= 6.1" G= 34.1" Y +R= 4.0" Y +R= 4.0" Y +R= 4.0" OFF= 0.0% 1 OFF =19.7% 1 OFF =36.5% C= 60 sec G= 48.0 sec = 80.0% Y =12.0 sec = 20.0% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% Lane Width /1 g/C 1 Service Rate Adj 1 1 HCM 1 L 1 Queue Group 1 Lanes Reqd Used 1 @C (vph) @E 1Volumel v/c 1 Delay 1 S Model 11 S Approach 27.0 C+ IRT +TH +LT1 12/1 10.105 10.130 1 151 1 209 1 114 10.533 1 27.0 1*C +1 90 ftl E Approach 4.8 A TH 1 12/1 10.490 10.736 1 1372 1 1372 1 874 10.637 1 4.9 1 A 1 352 ftl LT 1 12/1 10.000 10.102 1 872 1 898 1 136 10.151 1 4.3 l *A 1 93 ftl W Approach 13.8 B+ IRT +TH 1 12/1 10.465 10.568 1 1019 1 1042 1 809 10.776 1 13.8 *B +1 500 ftl Five Rivers Development - Tukwila Klickitat Dr. /53rd Ave. S. 2006 PM Peak Hour with Project SIGNAL2000 /TEAPAC[Ver 1.00.02] - HCM Input Worksheet Intersection # 0 - 04/09/04 18:33:31 Area Location Type: NONCBD 0l 0l 0l 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 01 of of 1 1 \ 0 0.0 0 / 1 \ 0 0.0 0 645 12.0 1 Key: VOLUMES -- > 1 WIDTHS v LANES 787 12.0 1 + / 124 12.0 1 /i\ North \ I / 85 0.0 0 \ 21 0 1 85 Phasing: SEQUENCE 12 0 . 0 12.0 1 0 . 0 1 PERMSV N Y N N 1 1 0 j 1 1 0 1 OVERLP N N N N 11 LEADLAG LD LD N E S W RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Heavy veh, %HV 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Pk -hr fact, PHF .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 Pretimed or Act A A A A A A A A A A A A Strtup lost, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext eff grn, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival typ, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Ped vol, vped 0 0 0 0 Bike vol, vbic 0 0 0 0 Parking locatns NO NO NO NO Park mnvrs, Nm 0 0 0 0 Bus stops, NB 0 0 0 0 Grade, %G .0 .0 .0 .0 Sq 12 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 /1\ North < + + ++ * * ** v * Phase 3 1 Phase 4 * * * *> * * ** v Phase 5 1 Phase 6 C= 60 "1 G= 7.8" G= 6.1" G= 34.1" G= 0.0" G= 0.0" G= 0.0" 1 Y +R= 4.0" 1 Y +R= 4.0" 1 Y +R= 4.0" 1 Y +R= 0.0" I Y +R= 0.0" 1 Y +R= 0.0" Five Rivers Development - Tukwila Klickitat Dr. /53rd Ave. S. 2006 PM Peak Hour with Project SIGNAL2000 /TEAPAC[Ver 1.00.02] - HCM Volume Adjust & Satflow Worksheet 04/09/04 18:33:31 Volume N E S W Adjustment RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Volume, V 0 0 0 0 787 124 85 0 21 85 645 0 Pk -hr fact, PHF .00 .00 .00 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 Adj my flow, vp 0 0 0 0 874 138 94 0 23 94 717 0 Lane group, LG TH LT RT +TH +LT RT +TH Adj LG flow, v 874 138 117 811 Prop LT, PLT .000 1.00 .197 .000 Prop RT, PRT .000 .000 .803 .116 Saturation N E S W Flow Rate RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Base satflo, so 1900 1900 1900 1900 Number lanes, N 1 1 1 1 Lane width, fW 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Heavy veh, fHV .980 .980 .980 .980 Grade, fg 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Parking, fp 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Bus block, fbb 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Area type, fa 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Lane util, fLU 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Left -turn, fLT 1.000 .608 .990 1.000 Right -turn, fRT 1.000 1.00 .892 .984 PedBike LT,fLpb 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 PedBike RT,fRpb 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Local adjustmnt 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Adj Satflow, s 1863 1132 1645 1834 Prot LT fLT .000 .950 Prot LT Satflo 0 1770 Contrl delay, d 4.9 4.3 27.4 13.9 Lane group LOS A A C+ B+ Final Queue,Qbi 0 0 0 0 Appr delay, dA 4.8 27.4 13.9 Approach LOS A C+ B+ Appr flow, vA 1012 117 811 Intersection: Delay 10.0 LOS A Five Rivers Development - Tukwila Klickitat Dr. /53rd Ave. S. 2006 PM Peak Hour with Project SIGNAL2000 /TEAPAC[Ver 1.00.02] - Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v /c) 04/09/04 18:33:31 Capacity Analysis Summary 0.66 Vehicle Delay 10.0 Level of Service A Sq 12 1 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 * * / ** /I\ North < + + ++ * * ** v *> * * * *> * * ** v G/C =0.130 1 G= 7.8" Y +R= 4.0" OFF= 0.0% G/C =0.102 G= 6.1" Y +R= 4.0" OFF =19.7% G/C =0.568 G= 34.1" Y +R= 4.0" OFF =36.5% C= 60 sec G= 48.0 sec = 80.0% Y =12.0 sec = 20.0% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% Lane Width /1 g/C 1 Service Rate Adj I 1 HCM 1 L 1 Queue 1 Group 1 Lanes Reqd Used 1 @C (vph) ®E 'Volume v/c 1 Delay 1 S Model 11 S Approach 27.4 C+ IRT +TH +LTI 12/1 10.107 10.130 1 151 1 209 117 10.547 1 27.4 l *C +I 93 ftl E Approach 4.8 A 1 TH 1 12/1 10.490 '0.736 1 1372 1 1372 1 874 10.637 1 4.9 1 A 1 352 ft1 1 LT 1 12/1 10.000 10.102 1 873 1 899 1 138 10.154 1 4.3 licA 1 95 ft1 W Approach 13.9 B+ IRT +TH 1 12/1 10.465 10.568 1019 1 1042 1 811 10.778 1 13.9 *B +1 503 ftl 762 AASIITO— Geometric• Design of 11ighways and Sheets w Z 4 J N U N N CC U W -J U w w • CL. O LA- (-) N z ' Q O CC <L Z cD z U 1- L) 1- W S ll,.. Qom.. JW W CL U --,A. J CL U `= > CI- w N Q CC O U U O CC CC Q -- W h v O U W W Q �w J Q_ _ N U 2 Q ISN� d3 > CC N CD W Cl- CC U Q O J CC Q O 1- W O zz W >-w UQ W Lc) ▪ N J l.ti U zvr-: pcp V) w - J m • Z 4 oz E O ,t + F- CC 1-. J O m la- d W U N � 0 J cC N J 1 ,1 1 UJ CO w w Q.. N C7 N W cC '4- O w N TO 85% OF DESIGN SPEED. (SEE DIAGRAM) z 1- z Q CC P- O w r-J W Q_ CC O LA- W L./ 1-- N U 0 W 4J 0. N _ CC CL Q_ W d E5 THE LEFT ANO REDUCING FROM DESIGN SPEED TO CC 11 85Z OF DESIGN SPEED. 0 0 w I J1 0 t llid)i) O33dS NOIS30 O ri to N O 0 0 w w 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 SIGHT DISTANCE c 0 0 CL) N w 0 L �U Ei � N a)V �N -0 C C O 03 N w eV 0 0 h. 1, cue 1111 . mi• if M. ; i - e 0 0 w I J1 0 t llid)i) O33dS NOIS30 O ri to N O 0 0 w w 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 SIGHT DISTANCE c 0 0 CL) N w 0 L �U Ei � N a)V �N -0 C C O 03 N w eV 0 0 CITY OF TUKWILA INTER - OFFICE MEMO TO: Dennis Robertson n / FROM: Steve Lancaster SUBJECT: Proposed 8 -lot short plat at 53rd Ave S and S 159th Street DATE: March 10, 2004 Attached is Jim Morrow's March 9 response to the questions you posed concerning geotechnical issues in your Febrtiary 14 memo. You posed three additional questions not directly related to geotechnical issues. Jim's memo responds to the third of these (regarding groundwater discharge to the sanitary sewer system). I'll respond to the remaining two. 1. Minimum lot size. Properties containing wetlands, watercourses and associated buffers are eligible to apply for reduced lot size under the PRD provisions of the zoning code (Chapter 18.46 TMC). Lot size may be reduced by as much as 15% under certain circumstances. This would mean that lots could be as small as 5525 square feet under a PRD approval. DCD has not yet taken a position as to whether reduced lot sizes should be supported for this proposal. 2. Class III wetland. Isolated Type 3 wetlands may be altered or relocated with the permission of the Director of Community Development (TMC 18.45.080 C). Where such alterations are allowed, mitigation must occur. A decision to allow or disallow the proposal to modify this wetland has not been made. In fact, we have instructed the applicant to investigate revisions to the proposal that would avoid wetland impacts. Please let me know if you would like to meet with Jim and me to discuss these matters further. Cc: Jim Morrow Nora Gierloff Minnie Dhaliwal Q: \STEVE\DEVEL\Robertson 5Rivers.doc Page 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM TO: DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FROM: DIRECTOR PUBLIC WORKS DATE: March 9, 2004 SUBJECT: Five Rivers — 8 Lot Short Plat 53rd Ave. South & South 158th Street Short Plat LO1 -064 Geotechnical Reports The following information in numerical order, is provided in response to Councilmember Robinson's memo dated February 14, 2004. 1. Herein is a complete list of documents, see attachment, sent to LSI Adapt, Inc. and Shannon & Wilson, Inc. The two documents in question were included. a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. J. Joel E. Haggard letter to City of Tukwila ref. WSDOT drainage system dtd. 1/29/89. Attorney General of Washington letter to Joel E. Haggard ref. Valley View Estates landslide area and storm drainage system dtd. 2/7/89. Dames & Moore report of Engineering Consultation — review of plans for proposed Valley View Estates for City of Tukwila dtd. 3/6/8_9. WSDOT letter to GeoEngineers, Inc. ref. Valley View Estates slope stability dtd. 3/23/89. GeoEngineers, Inc. letter to WSDOT ref. slope stability and factor of safety dtd. 4/10/89. WSDOT letter to City of Tukwila ref. Valley View Estates slope stability dtd. 4/19/89. WSDOT Materials Lab to WSDOT Dist. #1 ref. Valley View Estates slope stability dtd. 4/19/89. Instrumentation plan — slope stability and ground water levels — City of Tukwila building permit conditions 5 and 7 — Valley View Estates, Tukwila - dtd. 1/27/89. Instrumentation monitoring action plan — slope stability and ground water levels — City of Tukwila building permit conditions 5 and 8 — Valley View Estates, Tukwila — dtd 1/27/89. List of additional report, documents, and letters — see attached. 2. Each development is evaluated on a case -by -case basis depending upon given conditions. Permit requirements are created to address certain concerns and difficulties resulting from peer reviews and technical analyses. 3. The applicant has been informed that they must secure WSDOT approval for storm drainage discharge to the DOT system. This provides DOT an opportunity to review the application and establish criteria for approval. • 4. The City does not allow for storm water to be discharged to the sewer sys tem. Each development must design a system that meets the requirements of the King County Surface Water Design Manual. toeview of Previous Records LSI Adapt, Inc. As a part of our study, we reviewed the following documents within the WS archives which pertain the previous Iandsliding activity in the vicinity of the site (listed in a chronological order): • Shannon & Wilson, Inc.; C.S. 1727, 1758 PSH (SR 5) — S.O. 184th St. to So. 144" St. — Contract No. 7401; May 8, 1964. • • Shannon & Wilson, Inc.; Tukwila Slide= Agreement No. Y -713; May 19, 1964. . • •Shannon & Wilson, Inc.; Agreement No. Y -713; July 2, 1964. • Ralph B. Peck; Tukwila Interchange— Stability of Slopes; January 18, 1965. • Washington State Highway Commission - Department of Highways; Inter - departmental Communication — Proposed Industrial Excavation, Vicinity of.South 178` Street, January 26, 1965. • Shannon & Wilson, Inc.; Tukwila Interchange; August 13, 1965. • Washington State Highway Department — District No. 1; Slope Indicator Report, December 1, 1965. • • Shannon & Wilson, Inc.; Extensometer Data — Tukwila Interchange - Agreement Y -713, Sup 6 & 10; December 9, 1966. • Shannon & Wilson, Inc.; Field Observations and Supplemental Recommendations — fan. 11 thru 'Feb. 19, 1967 — Tukwila Interchange — Agreement Y -713, Sup. 6 & 10; February 23, 1967. • Washington State Highway Commission — Department of Highways; Contract 7401 PSH 1 (SRS) — South 184''' St. to South 144`x' St. - Tukwila Interchange Slide Correction , April 13, 1967. • Shannon & Wilson, Inc.; Landslide Investigation — Sta. A- 14 +00, 100 Rt. — Tukwila Interchange — Agreement Y -713, Sup 6, 10 & 1.1; May 5, 1967. • Washington State Highway Commission — Department of Highways; Contract 7401 — Agreement Y -713 — Shannon & Wilson, Inc. - Sup. 6, 10 & 11, May 9, 1967. • Washington State Highway Commission — Department of Highways; Inter - departmental Communication — Surveillance and Maintenance of the Tukwila Interchange Vicinity, January 2, 1968. • Washington State Highway Commission — Department of Highways; Internal Memorandum — Contract 7401, SR 5 So. 184th St. to So. 144th St..— Agreement Y -713, Supplement 6, 10, 11 and 13 — Shannon & Wilson Inc., May 31, 1968. Shannon & Wilson, Inc.; Summary Report - Soil Conditions and Earth Movements - Vicinity of the Tukwila Interchange; June 21, 1968. Shannon & Wilson, Inc.; Final Report of Field Observations - Tukwila Interchange — Agreement Y -713, Supp. 6, 10, 11 & 13; June 27, 1968. Shannon & Wilson, Inc.; Memorandum — Tukwila Interchange Data; July 15, 1968. • Washington State Highway Commission — Department of Highways; Inter - departmental Communication — SR 5 So. 184`'' S1. to So. 144`'' St. — Agreement Y- -713, Tukwila Slide Area, July 24, 1968. • Washington State Highway Commission — Department of Highways; Inter - departmental Communication — Instrumentation C -7401 Tukwila Interchange, May 2, 1969. • General File Document; Tukwila Interchange — Group 2 Well Data, January 21, 1970. City of Tukwila Public Works Department; Storm Drainage in S. 1584 Street, July 21, 1981. • Washington State Department of Transportation; Intra - departmental Communication — SR 5 — Tukwila Interchange Drainage, August 6, 1981. To: Minnie'Dhaliwal From: Dennis Robertson Re: Geotechnical review reports for 8 -lot short plat at 53"h Ave S. and S. 159th Street Attachments: (1) Wash. State Atty General 8/23/85; (2) WSDOT 1/19/89; (3) Wash Atty General 2 /7/89; (4) Dames & Moore 3/6/89; (5) City of Tukwila Public Works 4/12/89; (6) WSDOT 4/19/89 Date: Feb 14, 2004 Minnie, I've reviewed the documents you provided and some I had from late 1980's and have a few questions. 1. The "LSI Adapt 9/4/03 Report" you provided lists a wide variety of documents LSI Adapt reviewed which pertained to previous landslide activity in the general area of the Five Rivers site. The documents are dated 1964 through 1981. Why weren't later documents generated on the immediate area landslide potential reviewed, most significantly the WSDOT 4/19/89 document and the Dames & Moore 3/6/89 report? Wouldn't reviewing all of the relevant documents be critical since the LSI Adapt report stated: "Our conclusions and recommendations are based in part or wholly on the information contained in these documents. As such, our geotechnical recommendations are only as good as the accuracy of these previous documents." 2. Why hasn't the city levied the same requirements on the Five Rivers project as it did on the Valley View Estates project? Especially since LSI Adapt identified the importance of the WSDOT system in their 9/4/03 report and Dames & Moore in their 3/6/89 report stated that the WSDOT systems are not fully operational and there is no indication the 8 recommended repair and maintenance procedures have been implemented. The city required Valley View Estates, in 1989, to monitor both the hillside and the condition of the WSDOT drainage system and to provide for maintenance of the WSDOT system. This turned out to be an almost insurmountable problem because WSDOT, in both their 8/23/85 and 2/7/89 letters, stated that their drainage system was intended to protect the highway, not encourage development on a site which would possibly be too unstable in its natural condition to support the proposed development. WSDOT also stated that their drainage system wasn't designed to accommodate any increased soil loadings or changes in drainage which might stem from such development. Furthermore, WSDOT declined to monitor or provide standby services to maintain their drainage system for the life of the proposed development. 3. Finally, WSDOT, in their 4/19/89 letter to the city identified errors in the Valley View Estates geotechnical analysis. To quote from the letter: "The first problem is an error in the geotechnical analysis resulting in a factor of safety somewhat less than the minimum we would find acceptable for structures and residential developments of this type. The second problem involves the location of the critical section that was chosen for analysis. ... Using the WSDOT critical section for a stability analysis results in a factor of safety below WSDOT's minimum standard for cut slopes without structures. The third problem relates to the functioning of the WSDOT well system. The system is currently not operating at full capacity. Due to the design of the wells, our engineers are not satisfied with the data they have on the status of the groundwater levels at the site. We are planning to drill test wells that will provide data on which to base a decision on whether additional maintenance or construction of new wells is required. Despite the concern over the wells, our analysis indicate the even with a fully functional well system, an acceptable factor of safety could still not be achieved." My question is why are these three problems not relevant to the Five Rivers project? I have several other questions from reading LSI Adapt's report that are not related to geotechnical problems. 1. The proposed Five Rivers lot sizes appear to be just over 5,500 square feet. I thought the city's minimum was 6,500. 2. Why is the class III wetland being allowed to be filled? 3. The LSI Adapt 9/4/03 report states that the groundwater should be discharged to the municipal sewer system. Do we allow that? Where could they discharge the storm water? • Cizy of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director October 16, 2003 James Jaeger Jaeger Engineering 9419 South 204th Place Kent WA 98031 Re: Five Rivers Development- proposed 12 -lot subdivision located at NE corner of South 158`h Street and 53rd Avenue South. File numbers LO1 -064 and E01 -027. Dear Mr. Jaeger: The wetland letter report prepared by Thomas Deming has been reviewed by the city's Urban Environmentalist, Gary Schulz. You were mailed a copy of his review letter. Also, the City's Public Works Department has looked at your revised eight -lot layout and they have some comments in addition to those provided to you previously. Please see attached. Let me know if you have any questions.. Minnie Dhaliwal Senior Planner 1 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director October 14, 2003 Mr. Jim Jaeger Jaeger Engineering 9419 South 204th Place Kent, WA 98031 Re: Five Rivers Preliminary Plat, Permit #L01 -064: Wetland Boundary /Classification Review. Dear Mr. Jaeger: I reviewed the wetland letter report (Thomas Deming, 9/3/03) provided by Habitat Technologies for this project. I emailed preliminary comments to Tom Deming to address and discuss unresolved questions and issues. Subsequently, a•revised wetland letter report was prepared and submitted to the city (Thomas Deming, 9/16/03). Included with the letter report is a revised site plan drawing showing a total of 8 lots proposed for the plat dated 9/23/03. The following summarizes the comments I sent to Tom on 9/17/03. I still have the email and can send to you, if needed. 1) Your reference to a Type 5 Water is not necessary. It appears the swales on the site do not exhibit an OHWM and have characteristics of "Watercourses" as defined per our code - TMC 18.45.06.920. 2) Wetland table on page 1 of your letter indicates Wetlands A and C are not forested and not Type 2. This was not demonstrated per my 7/1/03 letter (attached) addressed to you. Please review comment #4. There are a significant number of trees rooted or partially rooted in those wetlands. 3) Pioneer species - My research into this indicates that according to Cowardin 1979, the USFWS Classification system does not include trees as "pioneer species ". Please see page 41, Appendix C - Glossary of Terms. It appears that it only refers to cleared areas or bare areas in early succession. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Mr. Jim Jaeger, 5 Rivers Plat October 14, 2003 Page 2 Additionally, I researched the use of measuring basal area for trees and it can be used for determining dominance /dominant species (1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) but am not sure about the application for determining percent cover of in a wetland area. 4) Wetlands B & D may be filled without the standard 1.5:1.0 replacement mitigation per TMC 18.45.115. A written request for the exception is needed for Director approval. The revisions included in the recent wetland letter report (Thomas Deming, 9/16/03) have incorporated all of the above the review comments. In addition, the site plan drawing has been revised to reflect changes from the review comments. The intent of my review is not to make final determinations on aspects of wetland planning without adequate research/field data or other scientific information being submitted to consider. In summary, the re- flagging effort appears to have corrected the wetland areas. The site has both surface water and groundwater hydrology influencing and supporting wetland areas. On -site wetland creation should be feasible for the mitigation of fill.. Please provide a written request for both the Wetland B and D exception to fill, and the partial wetland fill for construction of new essential streets and roads, rights -of -way and utilities (TMC 18.45.080 B.) Also, my observations of Wetlands B and D are that they would be considered emergent dominant wetlands. If you have questions, feel free to contact me by telephone or email. Sincerely, Gary Schulz, ban Environm&talist Cc: Minnie Dhaliwal, Senior Planner Tom Deming, Habitat Technologies • MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING DEPT. — Minnie Dhaliwal, Senior Planner FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. — David McPherson, Development Engineer DATE: October 9, 2003 SUBJECT: Five Rivers — 8 Lot Short Plat 53rd Ave. South & South 158th Street Short Plat and Misc. Comments Short Plat — LO1 -064 1. Provide Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) approval, for discharge of storm water, within their right -of -way, if applicable. 2. Provide sanitary sewer certificate from Val -Vue Sewer District. 3. Dedicate 10' along 53rd Ave. S. for Public Street. The on -site street including cul -de -sac, shall be private and within easement. 4. Provide draft, private ingress /egress and utilities maintenance agreement, for review by Public Works. 5. `Tract A Drainage', shall be private and maintained by the owner's of the short plat. The private detention sha11•be underground per the geotechnical report, and required by the Public Works Department. The detention tank/vault, shall be per King County Surface Design Manual. The detention tank/vault and private street, including street lighting, shall be built to City Public standards. 6. Provide operation and safety study for street off -set, between proposed cul -de -sac street and South 159th Street. 7. Wetland `C' is shown on the survey map, to be partially filled. The private street will be elevated and have side slopes. Therefore, the area to be filled is not shown correctly on the survey map. 8. The CCR should include a joint private ownership and maintenance of (1) private storm system (2) street lighting within the private street, including payment of the monthly power bill to provider (3) the private street. 9. The CCR should also include a Sensitive Area Covenant and Hold Harmless Agreement. • • Short Plat Survey Site Plan 1. Provide note on short plat map, to comply with the Geotechnical Engineering Report, by LSI Adapt, Inc., dated August 6, 2001, and September 4, 2003, and subsequent geotechnical reports. 2. Provide legal description for proposed private storm drainage tract, on short plat map. 3. Provide note on short plat, that no runoff, including downspouts, shall be infiltrated into the ground through "dry wells" or perforated infiltration pipes and trenches. 4. Owner shall sign a Sensitive Areas Ordinance Hold Harmless agreement, to be recorded at King County Office of Records, separate from the CCR. Informational Comments Short Plat Site Development Plan 1. Provide street lighting plan, to be constructed to current City Public standards. 2. Provide approved plan sheet(s) from Val -Vue Sewer District. 3. Provide note on site development plan, to comply with the Geotechnical Engineering Report, by LSI Adapt, Inc., dated August 6, 2001, and September 4, 2003 and subsequent geotechnical reports. 4. Individual house foundation and drainage system, shall meet a specific geotechnical assessment, with final design recommendations. 5. All utilities are required to be underground, per City ordinance. 6. Provide landscaping plan, for private storm drainage detention tank/vault. Miscellaneous Permit 1. The applicant shall apply for Public Works and Building permit approval. 2. Civil site plans shall be designed per City of Tukwila standards, details, and specifications. 3. An infrastructure design and construction standard manual, is available at the Public Works Department. 4. Provide a storm water technical information report, based on the King County Surface Water Design Manual. 5. Turnover documents will be required for the infrastructure along 53`d Ave. South: for sidewalk, pavement, curb /gutter, and street lighting; within the City Right -of- Way. 6. Street Use permit is required including Bond/Insurance for work within City right -of -way. 7. Street lighting, on -site, shall be privately owned, maintained, and the monthly power bill shall be paid by property owners of the Short Plat. City of Tukwila Department of Community Development • FILE NUMBER LEA— cb9f Land Use Routing form for Revisions TO: ❑ Building ❑ Fire Dept. ❑ Police Dept jParks/Rec. Public Works: (please list the name) ))41-'`e- Mc Project: ��;,,Q, Address: S 2, -,.,a( w- t Sly c4--- Date transmitted 9.'(-i ( ?AP 3 Response requested by: Planner: Mil,.,,,,,2, G ,i,,,74 Date response received: COMMENTS ❑ DRC review requested ❑ Plan submittal requested ❑ Plan approved Plan check date: Comments prepared by: TL . QA a t c,(30- ck e.J Lu- 6 Lk, U .. k:.,_ )..e4-t k et e.J,..e. der.sv\ -I-o [Os -Cw. Po Li cal-k- Q orr U 4-, t■t ".4Z, V- ( a\AJ - f. c -- -a-t -L-e-- S' '►\ —fr - 1 GA-- 64 /4-crA cD Cow .rs y,,1 RECEIVED ioNo3 OCT 01 2003 TuKWILA PUBLIC WORKS ❑ DRC review requested ❑ Plan submittal requested ❑ Plan approved Plan check date: Comments prepared by: JAEGER ENGINEERING 9419 S. 204th Place KENT, WASHINGTON 98031 (253) 850 -0934 FAX (253) 850 -0155 TO m Wo-1 RECEIVED U.A SEP 2 103 WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Attached E r set t cover via ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints Unde ❑ Plans CRY 4111u DATE ATTENTION RE: Mt t RA JOB NO. FreA ". o$- R- O Samples the following items: ❑ Specifications ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION Z `tIR01o3 -- P e 4i see9 wPi oAc9. At v a-liavl 4- i ReiteQ p reJum - pro t--1--- e( e[,.._„, THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ For your use ❑ As requested ❑ For review and comment ❑ ❑ FOR BIDS DUE ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS IM"A 1 ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ Return corrected prints e_r mvp0 1 QM o rt' pIckt pl a 1 . Lie care.. �,ow r 1'o �b (e f 'S SC) c.c�o o t - tip 10- 117 S-hort [ Pizb . D W nyv V\e J a n e,Ce..s-Y a�n Wetto.Yn4 " fir- *e roao2. P[exxs reii1ew -e- 1 &A rt>ute- --1D Ga-,r\f 5 c.ku Ltz. -r-- rrexu e.u.). w t U u Crt -rhe V e f"e r. ft) W 'P A.(11 to the �,r r: yam_ COPY TO SIGNED. If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify - once. _fJ SHANNON bWILSON, INC. S GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS September 22, 2003 Mr. Dave McPherson, Associate Engineer City of Tukwila Department of Public Works 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 -2544 RECEIVED SEP 2 3 • 2003 PUBLIC WORKS RE: FOLLOW -UP GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW, FIVE RIVERS SHORT PLAT, SOUTH 1591.11 STREET, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Dear Mr. McPherson: SEATTLE RICHLAND PORTLAND FAIRBANKS ANCHORAGE DENVER SAINT LOUIS We have reviewed the letter provided by LSI Adapt, Inc. (ADAPT) dated September 4, 2003, in which they provide a response to our comments regarding their geotechnical report for the subject project. Our review comments were presented in a letter to you dated April 30, 2003. Our issue with the ADAPT report was that it did not address previous slope instability on and adjacent to the property during construction of the Tukwila Interchange in 1966. In our opinion, ADAPT has provided adequate review and analysis regarding this issue, and their recommendations to enhance stability of the property during and after development are appropriate. The geotechnical report and letter dated September 4, 2003, may be accepted as meeting the standards of Tukwila Municipal Code 18.45.080 E. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions, I am available at (206) 695 -6875. Sincerely, SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Martin W. Page, P.E., C.E.G. Senior Principal Engineer MWP:TMG /mwp 21 -1- 09892. 002- LI /wp /Ikd 400 NORTH 34TH STREET • SUITE 100 P.O. BOX 300303 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103 206.632.8020 FAX 206.695.6777 TDD: 1.800.833.6388 1 EXPIRES 4/21/ . A 21 -1- 09892 -002 Gary Schulz - Re: Five Rivers Plat Page 1 From: Gary Schulz To: Thomas Deming Date: 9/17/03 11:16AM Subject: Re: Five Rivers Plat Tom, My mistake and sorry to confuse us. Good thing I didn't write the letter yet. I revised the attached email so when you receive this message please check it again for clarification. The forested class is always a judgement but I was hoping to to be able demonstrate one way or other the tree cover by survey. This is what I have requested on other projects with this issue. Anyway, there are trees growing in Wetlands A & C. Regardless of tree cover and wetland type, it appears that Wetland C would be partly impacted by the access road if location is approved by Public Works. For every square foot of proposed wetland fill, you lose 1.5 feet of ground thru mitigation, so I suggested to Jim J. that maybe a lot could fit at the east end of the culdesac and move the detention tract towards the wetland ? ?? I will try to call you. Gary Schulz 206 - 431 -3662 »> "Thomas Deming" <habitattech @gwest.net> 09/16/03 07:34PM »> Thank you for the letter. There appears some confusion about which wetlands would be considered forested. It appears that your review have Wetlands A and C (the two biggest wetlands) considered forested and Wetlands B and D considered small enough that they may be filled without the standard 1.5 to 1.0 mitigation. Your July 1, 2003 letter. says Wetlands A and C are forested but your September 16 e-mail says that Wetlands A and B are forested. However, if Wetland A is forested how can we fill it without the standard 1.5 to 1.0 mitigation ? ?? Original Message From: "Gary Schulz" <gschulz @ci.tukwila.wa.us> To: <HabitatTech @Qwest.net> Cc: "Minnie Dhaliwal" <mdhaliwal @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 11:53 AM Subject: Five Rivers Plat Hi Tom, Received your calls and am providing this as a reply. I have not issued a review letter as yet but I am requesting corrections to your 9/3/03 letter. The corrections are listed as follows: 1) Your reference to a Type 5 Water is not necessary unless you want to process an HPA with the State for piping. My opinion is that the swales on the site do not exhibit an OHWM and would not be considered "Watercourses" per our code - TMC 18.45.06.920. 2) Wetland table on page 1 of your letter indicates Wetlands A and C are Gary Schulz - Re: Five Rivers Plat • not forested and not Type 2. This was not demonstrated per my 7/1/03 letter (attached) addressed to you. Please review comment #4. There are a significant number of trees rooted or partially rooted in those wetlands. 3) Pioneer species - I don't recall giving you guidance or direction on this because I was not sure about your interpretation over the telephone. My research into this indicates that according to Cowardin 1979, the USFWS Classification system does not include trees as "pioneer species ". Please see page 41, Appendix C - Glossary of Terms. It appears that it only refers to cleared areas or bare areas in early succession. Additionally, I researched the use of measuring basal area for trees and it can be used for determining dominance /dominant species (1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) but not sure about the application for percent cover of a wetland.? 4) Wetlands B & D may be filled without the standard 1.5:1.0 replacement mitigation per TMC 18.45.115. A written request for the exception is needed for Director approval. This is basically the contents of a review letter to be issued but I thought I would give you the opportunity to reply beforehand. Gary Schulz Tukwila 206 -431 -3662 Page 2 HABITAT TECHNOLOGIES September 16, 2003 Mr. 2041 P ace Jaeger Engineering oin�opruovu Kent, Washington 98031 SEP 2 ,,5 20o Fax 1- 253 - 850 -0155 pages ERMJr carrel RE: Five Rivers Preliminary Plat, City of Tukwila Dear Mr. Jaeger, The September 3, 2003 letter has been revised below to include the comments received via an e-mail from Mr. Gary Schulz, City of Tukwila. Following your review of this revised letter please contact me with any questions or wish to meet with City of Tukwila staff. WETLAND DETERMINATION Wetland determination for the Five Rivers Preliminary Plat was based on sample plots which contained hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology in accordance with the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Wash. Manual) and the._Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987 Manual). Based on these methods four (4) areas that exhibits all three of these criteria were identified onsite. In addition, a very seasonal swale was identified generally along the southern site boundary. However, as discussed with Mr. Schulz, this swale does not exhibit an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and does not meet the City of Tukwila definition as a "watercourse" under TMC18.45.06.920. This swale terminated at a public stormwater facility and does not provide direct habitats for fish species. WETLAND SIZE (sqft) CLASSIFICATION (USFWS) CITY OF TUKWILA WETLAND TYPE FUNCTION AND VALUE RATING STANDARD BUFFER WIDTH A 4,320 sqft PFOC 2 low 50 feet B 898 sqft PSSC 3 low 25 feet C 3,503 sqft PFOC 2 low 50 feet D 663 sqft PEME, PSSE 3 low 25 feet PFOC Palustrine, forested, seasonally flooded PSSC Palustrine, scrub /shrub, seasonally flooded PSSE - Palustrine, scrub /shrub, seasonally. flooded /saturated PEME Palustrine, emergent, seasonally flooded /saturated wetlands, streams, fisheries, wildlife -- mitigation and permitting solutions 1 P.O. Box 1088, Puyallup, Washington 98371 5- Rivers 01248 voice 253 - 845 -5119 fax 253 - 841 -1942 e-mail habitattech @gwest.net CITY OF TUKWILA — Sensitive Areas Overlay — Chapter 18.45 • Wetland and Stream Types The City of Tukwila regulates activities in and around wetland and stream areas. Such regulations also require that an undisturbed native vegetation buffer be retained along the upland side of the identified wetland areas. To assist in this regulation the City has defined "types" by which to regulate wetlands, streams, and their associated buffer area. These types are based on such features as size; the presence of endangered or threatened plants, fish, or animals; regionally rare wetlands; wetlands of local significance for wildlife or stormwater functions; the number of wetland classes and subclasses; and percentage of open water. A Type 1 Wetland means those wetlands which meets any of the following criteria:. 1. The presence of species listed by the federal government or state as endangered, or threatened, or the presence of critical or outstanding actual habitat for those species; 2. Wetlands having 40% to 60% permanent open water in dispersed patches with two or more classes of vegetation; 3. Wetlands equal to or greater than five acres in size and having three or more wetland classes, one of which may substituted by permanent or open water. A Type 2 Wetland means those wetlands which meet any of the following criteria: 1. Wetlands greater that one acre in size; 2. Wetlands equal to or less that one acre in size and having three or more wetland classes; 3. Wetlands equal to or less than one acre that have a forested wetland class comprised of at least 20% coverage of total surface water; 4. The presence of heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees; 5. The presence of native plant associations of infrequent occurrences. A Type 3 Wetland means those wetlands that are equal to or Tess than one acre in size and have two or fewer wetland classes. Streams (i.e. watercourses) are rated using the City of Tukwila methodology and criteria as defined within the City's "Watercourse Study" (1990). A Type 1 Watercourse scores from 21 to 33 points. A Type 2 Watercourse scores from 11 to 20 points. A Type 3 Watercourse scores from 3 to 10 points. 2 5- Rivers 01248 • Wetland /Stream Alteration The City of Tukwila allows a limited amount of alterations to wetlands and streams (i.e. watercourses) provided all impacts are mitigated pursuant to an approved mitigation plan approved by the City of Tukwila. • Required Buffers The City of Tukwila has established a standard buffer to be applied to a wetland or stream to ensure protection of the wetland function and value. This buffer area is measured perpendicular to the defined wetland edge or perpendicular to the identified ordinary high water mark of a stream. WETLAND TYPE STANDARD BUFFER WIDTH 1 100 feet 2 50 feet 3 25 feet WATERCOURSE STANDARD BUFFER WIDTH 1 70 feet 2 35 feet 3 15 feet • Identified Onsite Wetlands Wetland A: This wetland was located within a shallow depression at the eastern end of the defined onsite swale along the southeastern project site boundary. This wetland was dominated by a shrub and sapling plant community that had been altered by prior land use actions. As discussed with City of Tukwila staff a scattering of trees (red alder — Alnus rubra, black cottonwood — Populus trichocarpa, Pacific willow - Salix lasiandra) were present along the edge of this wetland. This wetland appeared to remain ponded into the early growing season. Hydrology for this wetland was provided by stormwater runoff from onsite and adjacent parcels. Surface water that left this wetland eventually entered a stormwater catchment near the southeast corner of the project site. Based on a review of the project site and discussions with City of Tukwila staff, Wetland A meets the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) criteria for classification as a palustrine, forested, seasonally flooded (PFOC). Since this wetland was less than one acre in total size, included a scattering of trees rooted along the edge, and exhibited a forested plant community over 20% of the wetland area this wetland meet the criteria for designation as a City of Tukwila Type 2 Wetland. 3 5- Rivers 01248 Wetland B: This wetland was located within a shallow depression within the east - central portion of the project site. This wetland was dominated by a shrub and sapling plant community that had been altered by prior land use actions. The wetland was well shaded by red alder trees rooted primary outside the defined wetland boundary. This wetland appeared to be the result of an internal roadway which had compacted this small depression. This wetland appeared to remain ponded into the early growing season. Hydrology for this wetland was provided by stormwater runoff from onsite. Wetland B meets the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (Cowardin et al. 1979) criteria for classification as a palustrine, scrub /shrub, seasonally flooded (PSSC). Since this wetland was less than one acre in total size and did not exhibit a forested plant community over 20% of the wetland area this wetland meet the criteria for designation as a City of Tukwila Type 3 Wetland. Wetland C: This wetland was located within a shallow depression near the southwestern corner of the project site. This wetland was dominated by a forested plant community composed of young red alder (approximately 15 years old) rooted both within and outside the defined wetland boundary. This wetland appeared to have formed following the removal of an old homesite and included the old concrete foundation and assorted garbage. This wetland appeared to remain ponded into the early growing season. Hydrology for this wetland was provided by stormwater runoff from onsite and offsite, and from a number of seeps along the toe of the adjacent fill supporting 53rd Avenue South. Based on a review of the project site and discussions with City of Tukwila staff, Wetland C meets the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) criteria for classification as a palustrine, forested, seasonally flooded (PFOC). Since this wetland was Tess than one acre in total size, included a scattering of trees rooted along the edge, and exhibited a forested plant community over 20% of the wetland area this wetland meet the criteria for designation as a City of Tukwila Type 2 Wetland. Wetland D: This wetland was located within a shallow depression formed by an old internal roadway within the project site. This wetland was dominated by a shrub and emergent plant community that had been altered by prior land use actions. This wetland appeared to remain saturated well into the growing season. Hydrology for this wetland was provided by stormwater runoff from onsite. Wetland D meets the USFWS criteria for classification as a palustrine, scrub /shrub, seasonally flooded /saturated (PSSE); and palustrine, emergent seasonally flooded /saturated (PEME). Since this wetland was less than one acre in total size and did not exhibit a forested plant community over 20% of the wetland area this wetland meet the criteria for designation as a City of Tukwila Type 3 Wetland. 4 5- Rivers 01248 • Proposed Wetland Modifications As discussed with Mr. Schulz, the City of Tukwila may allow for the filling of Wetlands B and D pursuant to TMC 18.45.115.A. This provision notes that with the approval of the Director, isolated wetlands that are 1,000 square feet or smaller in area, and which are low in value according to the rating methodology used by the City's Water Resource Rating and Buffer Study, may not require the compensatory mitigation standards established by the City within Chapter 18.45. Pursuant to 18.45.080.0 no use or development may occur in a Type 1 or Type 2 Wetland or its buffer except as specifically allowed by TMC. 18.45.080.A, 18.45.080.B, and 18.45.080.H. One of these specifically allowed provisions is for the construction of new essential streets and roads, rights -of -way, and utilities (TMC 18.45.080. B.1). Following your review of this information it is the recommendation of Habitat Technologies that a copy of this letter and a copy of the new survey be provided to Mr. Gary Schulz at the City of Tukwila for wetland verification. Please contact me at 253 - 845 -5119 with any questions or suggestions. Sincerely, Thomas D. eming 5 5- Rivers 01248 September 4, 2003 LSI Adapt Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 AIA International Development 306 North IS` Avenue Kent, Washington 98032 Attention: Mr. Saraj Khan LSI Adapt, Inc. 800 Maynard Avenue South, Suite 403 Seattle, Washington 98134 , RECEIVED °ID by `?UkWNILA SEP 0 5 2003. PERMIT CENTER Suliject: Geotechnical Supplement No. 4— Slope Stability.Review Five Rivers Development 53rd Avenue South and South 159th Street Tukwila, Washington Dear Saraj: Tel (206) 654 -7045 Fax (206) 654-7048 www.lsiadapt.com At your request, LSI Adapt, Inc. (Adapt) is pleased to submit this letter providing a summary of our supplementary geotechnical review for the above - referenced project. The purpose of our limited geotechnical study was to perform a comprehensive review of available records in the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) archives relating to previous landslide activity in the vicinity of the subject site (Tukwila Interchange along the I -5 highway), and to evaluate whether the proposed development would adversely affect the stability of this previous landslide area. These additional studies were required by Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (S &W), the City of Tukwila peer review consultant, in their letter dated April 30, 2003. Our limited engineering review was based on our previous Geotechnical Engineering Report for the subject project (dated August 6, 2001), general subsurface conditions obtained from a review of published geologic maps, .and information available in-the WSDOT archives. Our work was performed in general accordance with the scope of work identified in our Proposal for Additional Services (dated June 23, 2003). Written authorization for this work was _provided by facsimile on June 23, 2003. This letter supplements the conclusions and recommendations presented in our previous geotechnical report. - This geotechnical engineering evaluation has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. This letter has been prepared for the exclusive use of AIA Internatio0nal Development; and their agents, for specific application to the planned project and site. Use or reliance upon this report by a third party is at their own risk. Adapt does not make any representation or warranty, express or implied, to such other parties as to the accuracy or completeness of this report or the suitability of its use by such other parties for any purpose whatever, known or unknown, to Adapt. • LSI Adapt, Inc. , Site and Project Description The subject site is located along the east side of 53rd Avenue South, across from.159t Street, in Tukwila, Washington. It is our understanding that the development will include several single- family residential dwellings on individual building lots. Our original geotechnical report was based on the Tukwila Sensitive Area maps identifying portions of the subject site as Class 3 Area Area of Potential Geologic Instability; high landslide potential with general slopes between 20 and 40 percent and if certain adverse subsurface conditions exist). Specifically, the topographic survey for the site indicated that the site slopes generally ranged from 3H:1V (33 percent). to 4H:1 V (25 percent). Subsequent information revealed during the City of Tukwila peer review process indicated that the site actually should have been identified as a Class 4 (Area of .Potential Geologic Instability; very high landslide potential, including existing mappable landslide deposits). This classification was based on previous landsliding activity related to the construction of the nearby Tukwila Interchange (junction of I -5 & S.R. -518/I -405). Given the new sensitive area classification, the -City of Tukwila has required a comprehensive review of all relevant documents available in the WSDOT archives to evaluate the impact of the proposed development on the subject site and adjacent area. Review of Previous Records As a part of our study, we reviewed the following documents within the WSDOT archives which pertain to the previous landsliding activity in the vicinity of the site (listed in a chronological order): 4, Shannon & Wilson, Inc.; C.S. 1727, 1758 PSH (SR 5) — S.O. 184`" St. to So. 144`" St. — Contract No. 7401; May 8, 1964. • Shannon & Wilson, Inc.; Tukwila Slide — Agreement No. Y -713; May 19, 1964. • Shannon & Wilson, Inc.; Agreement No. Y -713; July 2, 1964. • Ralph B. Peck; Tukwila Interchange — Stability of Slopes; January 18, 1965. •• Washington State Highway Commission — Department of Highways; Inter - departmental Communication — Proposed Industrial Excavation, Vicinity of South 178`" Street, January 26, 1965. • Shannon & Wilson, Inc.; Tukwila Interchange; August 13, 1965. •• Washington State Highway Department — District No. 1; Slope Indicator Report, December 1, 1965. • Shannon & Wilson, Inc.; Extensometer Data — Tukwila Interchange - Agreement Y -713, Sup 6 & 10; December 9, 1966. • Shannon & Wilson, Inc.; Field Observations and Supplemental Recommendations — Jan. 11 thru Feb. 19, 1967 — Tukwila Interchange — Agreement Y -713, Sup. 6 & 10; February 23, 1967. • Washington State Highway Commission — Department of Highways; Contract 7401 PSH 1 (SR5) — South 184`" St. to South 144`" St. - Tukwila Interchange Slide Correction , April 13, 1967. Shannon & Wilson, Inc.; Landslide Investigation — Sta. A- 14 +00, 100 'Rt. — Tukwila Interchange — Agreement Y -713, Sup 6, 10 & 11; May 5, 1967. AIA Intemational Development . September 4, 2003 LSI Adapt Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 Page 2 • LSI Adapt, Inc. • Washington State Highway Commission — ;Department of Highways; Contract 7401 — Agreement Y -713 — Shannon & Wilson, Inc. Sup. 6, 10 & 11, May 9, 1967. • Washington State Highway Commission — Department of Highways; Inter - departmental Communication — Surveillance and Maintenance of Tukwila Interchange Vicinity, January 2, 1968. • Washington State Highway Commission — Department of Highways; Internal Memorandum — Contract 7401,.SR 5 So. 184`" St. to So..144`" St. — Agreement Y -713, Supplement 6, 10, 11 and 13 — Shannon & Wilson Inc., May 31, 1968. .• .Shannon & Wilson, Inc.; Summary Report - Soil Conditions and Earth Movements - Vicinity of the Tukwila Interchange; June 21, 1968. • Shannon & Wilson, Inc.; Final Report of Field Observations - Tukwila Interchange — Agreement Y -713, Supp. 6, 10, 11 & .13; June 27, 1968. • Shannon & Wilson; Inc.; Memorandum — Tukwila Interchange Data; July 15, 1968. • Washington State Highway Commission — Department of Highways; Inter - departmental Communication — SR 5 So. 184th St. to So. 144`" St. — Agreement Y -713, Tukwila Slide Area, July 24, 1968. • Washington State Highway Commission — Department of Highways; Inter - departmental Communication - Instrumentation. C -7401 Tukwila Interchange, May 2, 1969. • General File Document; Tukwila Interchange — Group 2 Well Data, January 21,1970. • City of Tukwila Public Works Department; Storm Drainage in S. 158`" Street; July 21, 1981. • Washington State Department of Transportation; Intra- departmental Communication — SR 5 — Tukwila Interchange Drainage, August 6, 1981. Our conclusions and recommendations are based in part or wholly on the information contained in these documents. As such, our geotechnical recommendations are only as good as the accuracy of these previous documents. Adapt assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions resulting from possible inaccuracies on these documents prepared by others. We recommend that Adapt be retained to perform supplementary engineering evaluations and field observations during construction, in order to address any deviations that may become evident during the construction phase of this project. - Subsurface Conditions . Generally, our test pits across the subject site reveled the presence of varying amounts of uncontrolled fill soils overlying interlayered medium stiff to stiff silt/sandy silt and medium dense sand, medium dense to dense gravelly, silty sand, all underlain by a very stiff to hard, massive silt at depths ranging from 8 to 11 feet. The deeper boring logs (by others) that we reviewed for this study indicates that these surface soils are underlain by laminated silts, clayey silts, fine to medium sands, and gravel lenses of glacial origin. Artesian groundwater was encountered at depth in some of these previous borings. AIA International Development September 4, 2003 LSI Adapt Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 Page 3 • • LSI Adapt, Inc. Previous Landslide Activity.and Stabilization Efforts Based on our review of the above - referenced documents, the subject site is located within the down slope area of an historic, regional landslide (occurring about 10,000 years ago), although not identified as such on available_ United States Geological Survey (USGS) maps. The scarp (upper limits) of this regional landslide was interpreted by S &W be located along the 300 -foot elevation contour line on the southwest side of the subject site (uphill). The estimated vertical displacement of this historic landslide was on the order of 25 to 35 feet. Based on our review of available WSDOT documents relevant to the area of the subject site, the recent landsliding activity along the hillside on the southwest side of the Tukwila Interchange started in late summer of 1960, as a result of soil borrow excavations along the toe of the slope down hill from Slade Way south of the subject site, as well as observed high artesian groundwater pressures some of the underlying laminated silts. Deep horizontal drains were installed to tap into these artesian groundwater zones and to stop these initial earth movements. Subsequently, a series of additional, localized, landslides occurred within the initial landslide area, as a result of progressive earth movements moving upslope. A series of deeper borings, slope inclinometer wells; and piezometer wells were installed within the observed landslide area and along the hill side to the north (subject site) and northwest, in order to monitor the landslide movement and to develop a stabilization program for the planned I -5 Tukwila Interchange construction, which included several additional cuts for retaining walls (R -1 and R -2) along the planned road alignments. The stabilization program consisted primarily of the installation of deep, 5 -foot diameter, vertical, dewatering wells (pumped) along the lower portion of the hill sides to the south and west of the planned interchange construction area. These vertical wells were later tapped into by a series of permanent, horizontal gravity drains. A second series of horizontal forger drains were also installed uphill of the deeper system to stabilize local cut slopes. Additional remedial measures included redesigning the planned 2.5H:1V cut slopes to a flatter inclination (4H:1V). S &W reported in their Summary Report (June 1968) that these remedial measures successfully stabilized the central and southem portions of the construction area, although additional measures were required to stabilize several localized landslide areas near the northwest end of the construction area (more than 500 feet northwest of the subject site). The S &W report stated that "...under the present static conditions the entire project area is stable. The performance of other cut slopes in similar materials during the major Puget Sound are earthquake of April 29, 1965 indicate that these materials are unlikely to be significantly affected by seismic activity ". Our review of WSDOT file documents indicates that subsequent monitoring of the slope indicator wells and piezometer wells through January 1970 confirmed that slope movement had ceased and that the deeper (drained). water levels remained stable. Later correspondence by the City of Tukwila Public Works Department indicates that the deep well drainage system was still operational in July 1981. Based on the absence of groundwater seepage in our test pits along the eastern margin of the subject site (groundwater was observed in all of the other test pits within the subject site), we infer that the remedial finger drain system installed just east of the site (downhill) is still functioning. AIA Intemational Development September 4, 2003 LSI Adapt Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 Page 4 • LSI Adapt, Inc. Conclusions and Recommendations Based on our file review, it appears that the previous landslide activity (1960's) in the vicinity of . the subject site were initiated as a result of borrow excavations into the toe of the hillside and the upward pressure from underlying, artesian groundwater zones, and that the remedial measures .undertaken during the construction of the I -5 Tukwila Interchange successfully stabilized the area. It should be noted that no active landslides were observed within the area of the subject site, nor was any movement observed within the slope indicator wells (S -5 and S -6) placed directly east of (downhill) the subject site. All the reported landslide activity occurred north or south of the subject site. Our file review also revealed that the subject site is essentially unchanged topographically from the site plans developed at the time the remedial measures were implemented. Based on these findings, and given the observed soil conditions and current slope inclinations across the site, we do not believe that a detailed slope stability analysis is warranted. It is our opinion that the proposed development will not adversely affect the stability of the hillside or surrounding areas, provided that the recommendations of our original geotechnical engineering report and the construction limitations subsequently outlined in this letter are implemented into the final design. Given the past history of "slope instability in the vicinity of the site, we recommend that the following construction limitations "be incorporated into the final design: 1; No surface water or roof runoff should be infiltrated on -site; instead we recommend that all runoff water be collected and tight lined to a suitable discharge point along the municipal sewer system. 2 If a retention/detention system is required to control the off -site runoff water flows, we recommend that a buried concrete /metal vault or tank be used to contain the surface water runoff. All pipe /tank joints should be sealed to prevent leaks into the site soils. 3. Any site grading should be limited to no more than vertical feet and only in localized areas. 4. In order to protect the previously installed, remedial finger drain system, we recommend that any structure (basement, foundations, etc.) and utilities be set back at least 30 feet from the east property line in lots number 5, 6, and 7. Closure The conclusions and recommendations provided in this letter are based, in part, on our limited review of available geotechnical documents for the project site, and our interpretations and assumptions regarding subsurface conditions; therefore, if any changes to the existing site conditions are observed at a later time, Adapt should be contacted to review those changes and modify_ our geotechnical evaluation, if needed. AIA International Development September 4, 2003 LSI Adapt Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 Page 5 LSI Adapt, Inc. We appreciate the opportunity to be of continued service to you. Should you have any questions concerning this letter, or if we can assist you further, please contact_ us at 206-654-7045. Respectfully submitted, LSI Adapt, Inc. Rolf B. ' llseth, P. . Senior Geotechnical Engineer Kurt Groesch, ' .E. Senior Review EXPIRES 6 5/ m Enclosures: Figure 2 - Site & Exploration Plan (LSI Adapt Geotechnical Report, August 6, 2001) Fig. 1- Site Investigation Plan (S &W Summary Report, June 21, 1968) Fig. 2 — Plan of Completed Remedial Measures( S &W Summary Report, June 21, 1968) Distribution: AIA International Development (4) Attn: Mr. Saraj Khan AIA International Development LSI Adapt Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 September 4, 2003 Page 6 Catch Basin Rim: 136.59 IEB'W: 132.14 Catch Basin Rim: 145.01 IE81V: 142.65 \ \ 1 58815'1 306. Sanitary Sewer Monhok Rim: 146.70 \\ \ \ \ 1 T- IE Ctr: 136.81 1 \ .1 P -5 1 L...--_::\\\\\ 9r . \\ \ I — \\ \ I LOT \ \��„r'� •1N,Z \ \. LOT 3 \ �., \I \ X NN \ .\ a \\ x \ \ \\ \7 \ \ \ \ \ ,\ \ \ \ ,\Q., \�\ \ \ \ \ \ t \\ i\ Sanitary Sewer Manhol \ • G \ \ \\ \ \ \ Rim: 166.32 - I IE Ctn 158.00 t - \ \ • \ \ ..'N \ g� (� \ \--�0 12 �—� I I I \ ��, �' \ \ \ \ ! ���l�� LOT 1, \1 ''I T21 \\ \ \r g, r�i O, \ \\:1\,\\\15\-, � 1":\,,L, a t _4\41:\, x\\\\\:. _ \ \ 1 \ \ \ \\ 2 \\ \ \ \��\ \ ar! TP76 TP -3 _ OF! LOT 5 TP-1 LEGEND: , TEST PIT NUMBER AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION NOTE: BASED ON LOT PLAN AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BY JAEGER ENGINEERING (DATED 01/29/1999) Sanitary Sewer Manhole Rim: 128.58 IEl2 CCtr. 118.76 • TP -9 \\. / �\ LOT 6 TP -8 \ \ \ \\ \\ \\ (�� !� \\\\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \\ — \ '`� \\ \\ \ \ \ \\ C\ I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \N •\ \ \\ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ 1 \ \ \ \ \\ 'a7 1 \'.I I\ \\ Ill.\ \\ I III I � ill_ A-- _t i- 1 111 11 ).)/ 1 J r{7('cio66 r(Dc ,0.8 1 \ mgr \ 1 1 _,.-9 \ \\ I I v e k �� I�\ I OLI \ \\Z9L— 11 \ 1 .I \\ I I i / 1.....-..-.-..:..,,:iN •'?'- :i. 0 • \,.., T. . . ( \ 4Cl —\ I I TP -1 -1 \ �\_= \ \ T IL e.1 ..ep \\ \ ` f_ —\ \ \ \ \ \ 1 ( ; - ~\ \ \\ \\ \\ \\ \ ; \ \ \\ \\ \ \ \ a \\ \\ ' \ .., I sam rE 46631• \r -- \ \ l tch Basin Rim: 169.95 IE121V: 167.7 ZLt /( 0RAJ.N'AGE OT 8 \ \ '/! • • TP -11 ) / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Og! A8 r a 60 120 SCALE IN FEET Sanitary Sewer Manhole Rim: 134.97 1E12.10Ctr. 120.49 Sanitary Sewer Manhole Rim: 127.00 ABANDONED LSI ADAPT _ 800 Maynard Avenue S., Suite 403 Seattle, Washington 98134 • Ph : 206.654.7045 Fax : 206.654.7048 Storm Manhole Rim: 98.79 IE24 -: 86.04 Storm Manhole Rim: 98.91 IE12 -S: 92.51 IE 1 B'S: 85.66' 1E241N: 85.71 1E24 -NE Out: 85.11 Sanitary Sewer Manhole Rim: 125.29 ABANDONED FIGURE 2 - Site & Explora -tion Plan Project : Five Rivers Preliminary Plat - Location : 53rd Avenue South & South 158th Street Tukwila, Washington Client : Five Rivers Development, Inc. Date : 07/02/01 Job * :S— WA -01- 6475 -0 c, \ -0 • • 242 208 244 246 ' "DH-13A 23I 8 \ s 2058 a•).. I6# 204E r D8M8'•. 1961) • locotion of prehistoric ie scarp \ \\\ LEGEND PIEZOMETER 46 SLOPE INDICATOR OBSERVATION WELL ® I2 °TORSIONAL VANE SHEAR TEST INCLINOMETER O DRILL HOLE (From previous reports) Q _ TEST PIT SLIDE MOVEMENT STAKE HORIZONTAL DRAIN (Installed prior to Jon. 1966) 85 *j INDICATES INSTRUMENT DESTROYED • t ‘C.1..Ly./RECENT SLIDE SCAPP ( unless .noted os Deing older) 1—La. STATE RIGHT OF WAY LINE 0 100 200 300 400 500 SCALE: FEET TUKWILA INTERCHANGE AGREEMENT Y -713, SUPPLEMENT 13 SITE INVESTIGATION PLAN Morch 31,1966 W- 0468 -2 SHANNON & WILSON . SOIL MECHANICS' G FOUNDATION ENGINEERS Revised,Oct.I966, Feb.196 ?, May 1966 FIG. i • ox. location of Ilstoric slide scarp -. —.- 0 0- -- LEGEND Horizontal Drains (existing) Original test drains Recommended drain (Grade: 8 -10 %) Recommended drain (Grade I-3%) Other Features Cylinder pile wall Rock buttress Proposed intercepter drain 8 ditch Existing or proposed Right of Way Additional vertical drains (6 to 9 in. dia.) • Large diameter (5'),deep well 4'1 - Finol excovoted slope'( horizontal: vertical) 100 200 300 400 500 SCALE: FEET TUKWILA INTERCHANGE AGREEMENT Y -713, SUPPLEMENT 13 PLAN OF COMPLETED REMEDIAL MEASURES Morch 31, 1966 SHANNON & WILSON SOIL MECHANICS a FOUNDATION ENGINEERS Remised. May 1968 W -0468 -2 V•• V V ,.. 1 1 0 V i .421. 1 C \. 1 11 1 V • MG C 7 • HABITAT TECHNOLOGIES GJJOT �TG September 3, 2003 Mr. Jim Jaeger, @ Jaeger Engineering 9419 South 204`" Place Kent, Washington 98031 Fax 1- 253 - 850 -0155 RE: Five Rivers Preliminary Plat, City of Tukwila Dear Mr. Jaeger, pages CITY of rul,N/ui SEP042003 PERMIT CENTER Following our recent discussions, Habitat Technologies and the survey team have re- defined the onsite wetlands to include the addition of Wetland D previously noted as an old internal roadway. WETLAND DETERMINATION J. 1 Wetland determination was based on sample plots which contained hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology in accordance with the 1987 Manual and the Wash. Manual. Based on these methods three wetlands were identified onsite (see attachment). In addition, a very seasonal swale was identified generally along the southem site boundary. As noted during January and February 2002 this swale exhibited a continuous surface flow and meet the established criteria for designation as a State of Washington Type 5 Water. This swale appeared to begin onsite within a series of hillside seeps adjacent to an old homesite area within the southwestern portion of the project site. This swale terminated at a public stormwater facility and does not provide direct habitats for fish species. WETLAND SIZE (sqft) CLASSIFICATION (USFWS) CITY OF TUKWI WETLAND TYPE FUNCTION AND VALUE RATING STANDARD BUFFER WIDTH A 4,320 sqft PSSC 3 low 25 feet B 898 sqft PSSC 3 low 25 feet C 3,503 sqft PSSC 3 low 50 feet D 663 sqft PEME, PSSE 3 low 25 feet PSSC Palustrine, scrub/shrub, seasonally flooded PSSE Palustrine, scrub/shrub, seasonally flooded /saturated PEME Palustrine, emergent, seasonally flooded/saturated CITY OF TUKWILA — Sensitive Areas Overlay • Wetland and Stream Types The City of Tukwila regulates activities in and around wetland and stream areas. Such regulations also require that an undisturbed native vegetation buffer be retained along the upland side of the identified wetland areas. To assist in this regulation the City has wetlands, streams, fisheries, wildlife - mitigation and permitting solutions 1 P.O. Box 1088, Puyallup, Washington 98371 5- Rivers 01248 voice 253- 845 -5119 fax 253 - 841 -1942 e-mail habitattech@gwest.net Jet, 'LIZ of V/: l/ l p ndol LdL • Ieunnolo6les ciao -► 1c P. c defined "types" by which to regulate wetlands, streams, and their associated buffer area. These types are based on such features as size; the presence of endangered or threatened plants, fish, or animals; regionally rare wetlands; wetlands of local significance for wildlife or stormwater functions; the number of wetland classes and subclasses; and percentage of open water. A Type 1 Wetland means those wetlands which meets any of the following criteria: 1. The presence of species listed by the federal government or state as endangered, or threatened, or the presence of critical or outstanding actual habitat for those species; 2. Wetlands having 40% to 60% permanent open water in dispersed patches with two or more classes of vegetation; 3. Wetlands equal to or greater than five acres in size and having three or more wetland classes, one of which may be substituted by permanent or open water. A Type 2 Wetland means those wetlands which meet any of the following criteria: 1. Wetlands greater that one acre in size; 2. Wetlands equal to or Tess that one acre in size and having three or more wetland classes; 3. Wetlands equal to or less than one acre that have a forested wetland class comprised of at least 20% coverage of total surface water; 4. The presence of heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees; 5. The presence of native plant associations of infrequent occurrences. A Type 3 Wetland means those wetlands that are equal to or less than one acre in size and have two or fewer wetland classes. Streams (i.e. watercourses) are rated using the City of Tukwila methodology and criteria as defined within the City's "Watercourse Study" (1990). A Type 1 Watercourse scores from 21 to 33 points. A Type 2 Watercourse scores from 11 to 20 points. A Type 3 Watercourse scores from 3 to 10 points. • Wetland /Stream Alteration The City of Tukwila allows a limited amount of alterations to wetlands and streams (i.e. watercourses) provided all impacts are mitigated pursuant to an approved mitigation plan approved by the City of Tukwila. • Required Buffers The City of Tukwila has established a standard buffer to be applied to a wetland or stream to ensure protection of the wetland function and value. This buffer area is measured perpendicular to the defined wetland edge or perpendicular to the identified ordinary high water mark of a stream. 2 5- Rivers 01248 aep ua uo ui.utp naL1LaL • iecnnotogtes CJJ09 14,g9C WETLAND TYPE STANDARD BUFFER WIDTH 1 100 feet 2 50 feet 3 25 feet WATERCOU RSE STANDARD BUFFER WIDTH 1 70 feet 2 35 feet 3 15 feet Wetland A: This wetland was located within a shallow depression at the eastern end of the defined onsite swale along the southeastern project site boundary. This wetland was dominated by a shrub and sapling plant community that had been altered by prior land use actions. A scattering of trees (red alder — Alnus rubra, black cottonwood — Populus frichocarpa, Pacific willow - Salix lasiandra) were present along the edge of this wetland, however, the majority of these trees were rooted outside the defined wetland boundary and were not considered part of the wetland plant community. This wetland appeared to remain ponded into the early growing season. Hydrology for this wetland was provided by stormwater runoff from onsite and adjacent parcels. Surface water that left this wetland eventually entered a stormwater catchment near the southeast corner of the project site. P. Wetland A meets the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) criteria for classification as a palustrine, scrub /shrub, seasonally flooded (PSSC). Since this wetland was Tess than one acre in total size and did not exhibit a forested plant community over 20% of the wetland area this wetland meet the criteria for designation as a City of Tukwila Type 3 Wetland. Wetland B: This wetland was located within a shallow depression within the east - central portion of the project site. This wetland was dominated by a shrub and sapling plant community that had been altered by prior land use actions. The wetland was well shaded by red alder trees rooted primary outside the defined wetland boundary. This wetland appeared to be the result of an intemal roadway which had compacted this small depression. This wetland appeared to remain ponded into the early growing season. Hydrology for this wetland was provided by stormwater runoff from onsite. Wetland B meets the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (Cowardin et al. 1979) criteria for classification as a palustrine, scrub /shrub, seasonally flooded (PSSC). Since this wetland was less than one acre in total size and did not exhibit a forested plant community over 20% of the wetland area this wetland meet the criteria for designation as a City of Tukwila Type 3 Wetland. Wetland C: This wetland was located within a shallow depression near the southwestern corner of the project site. This wetland was dominated by a forested plant community composed of young red alder (approximately 15 years old) rooted both 3 5 -Rivers 01248 ..0 r+ V- V I V 1..J i I. rI ON1 MC4 • 1 CGrlrlu 1 0161 C�J CJ0T 1 1 .79C • within and outside the defined wetland boundary. This wetland appeared to have formed following the removal of an old homesite and included the old concrete foundation and assorted garbage. This wetland appeared to remain ponded into the early growing season. Hydrology for this wetland was provided by stormwater runoff from onsite and offsite, and from a number of seeps along the toe of the adjacent fill supporting 53nd Avenue South. p.9 Wetland C was initially identified to meet the USFWS criteria for classification as a palustrine, forested, seasonally flooded (PFOC). However, following further discussion with City of Tukwila staff and further review of the City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Overlay Wetland C was identified as not dominated by a forested wetland class. Discussion: The City of Tukwila has identified that for purposes of defining wetland Types, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services' Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States FWS /OBS -79/31 (Cowardin et al. 1979) contains the descriptions of wetland classes and subclasses (18.45.020.C). The Cowardin et al. (1979) document uses life forms (trees, shrubs, emergents) to define classes because they are relatively easy to distinguish and have traditionally been used as criteria for classification of wetlands. If vegetation (except pioneer species) covers 30% or more of the substrates, that the life form of the plants that constitute the uppermost layer of vegetation and that posses an areal coverage of 30% or greater. Wetland C was dominated by a red alder forest canopy. However, red alder is generally considered a "pioneer species" in Western Washington. As such, using the guidance provided by the City of Tukwila and the USFWS (Cowardin et al. 1979) the forest canopy provided by the red alder trees would not be used to define the dominant life form of this wetland. Wetland C would not be considered a forested wetland. Wetland C would meet the USFWS criteria for classification as a palustrine, scrub /shrub, seasonally flooded (PSSC). Since this wetland was less than one acre in total size and did not exhibit a forested plant community over 20% of the wetland area this wetland appeared to meet the criteria for designation as a City of Tukwila Type 3 Wetland. Wetland D: This wetland was located within a shallow depression formed by an old internal roadway within the project site. This wetland was dominated by a shrub and emergent plant community that had been altered by prior land use actions. This wetland appeared to remain saturated well into the growing season. Hydrology for this wetland was provided by stormwater runoff from onsite. Wetland D meets the USFWS criteria for classification as a palustrine, scrub /shrub, seasonally flooded /saturated (PSSE); and palustrine, emergent seasonally flooded /saturated (PEME). Since this wetland was less than one acre in total size and did not exhibit a forested plant community over 20% of the wetland area this wetland meet the criteria for designation as a City of Tukwila Type 3 Wetland. 4 5- Rivers 01248 Sep O3 03 O7:O1p Habitat Technologies • 2538411942 Following your review of this information it is the recommendation of Habitat Technologies that a copy of this letter and a copy of the new survey be provided to Mr. Gary Schulz at the City of Tukwila for wetland verification. Please contact me at 253 - 845 -5119 with any questions or suggestions. Sincerely, Thomas D. Deming 5 5- Rivers 01248 p.5 ' 0 • City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director July 1, 2003 Mr. Tom Deming, Principal Habitat Technologies P.O. Box 1088 Puyallup, WA 98371 Re: Five Rivers Preliminary Plat, Permit #L01 -064: Wetland Boundary Verification. Dear Mr. Deming: Per the request in your letter dated May 29, 2003, I revisited the site last week to review the adjusted wetland boundaries on the project site. The site is located along 53rd Avenue S. just south of the intersection with Klickitat Drive. Thank you for attaching a map of those wetland areas we looked at during our site visit several months ago. The re- flagging effort appears to have corrected the wetland area locations we discussed on the site. Here are my comments to proceed with the re -survey of wetland areas, wetland report update, and any revisions to the site plan / wetland planning. 1) Although all flags are new, there are no flag numbers to determine the surveyed locations. Wetlands and flagged boundaries need to be labeled for reference mapping purpose. I suggest the project surveyor mark the flags in the field at the time of survey and field data collection. Each flag in the field needs to be marked - Example, Wetland A, Flags A -1 thru A- 32. 2) The wetland flagged and labeled as "old road depression" should likely be identified as Wetland D. Although an old trail runs through this area, the hydrology that supports wetland vegetation and formed hydric soil is mostly groundwater. Even last week this area had moist to saturated soil and is dominated by "Facultative Wetland" or wetter plant species - fowl mannagrass, giant equisetum, lady fern, and speedweed. The flags that mark the boundary of this area need to be re- labeled as D -1 thru D -? 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 . Mr. Tom Deming, Five Rivers Plat July 1, 2003 Page 2 A very, small portion of this wetland seep on the south side was not flagged and appears to be less than 100 square feet. Depending on the area of the flagged portion, this excluded area may be significant for determining regulation versus exemption status. Please respond as to how we may resolve this before the area is surveyed. 3) Please include any new data plots with your revised wetland report. 4) Both Wetlands A and C appear to be Type 2 wetlands because of the presence of a forested wetland class comprised of at least 20 percent coverage (TMC 18.45.020 C.). If the revised wetland study determines either Wetland A or B to be rated as Type 3, associated trees will need to be surveyed. All trees within or near the wetland boundary (partly or entirely rooted in the wetland) that are at least 4" diameter at breast height (DBH) or 20 feet tall will need to be surveyed and mapped. This survey data is necessary to assist with the professional judgement or estimate related to tree cover associated with a forested wetland class. In summary, the site has both surface water and groundwater hydrology influencing and supporting wetland areas. The site visit last week observed shallow groundwater present even though there hasn't been recent, significant rainfall events. As previously stated in my 2/12/03 email message, I did not observe any surface water features on the project site that would be regulated as watercourses per the City's definition found in TMC 18.06.920. If you have questions, feel free to contact me by telephone or email. Sincerely, Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist a. Cc: Minnie Dhaliwal, Senior Planner Siraj Khan, Five Rivers Development Jim Jaeger P.E., Jaeger Engineering • HABITAT TECHNOLOGIES May 29, 2003 Mr. Gary Schulz, Ecologist @ City of Tukwila, Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 RE: Five Rivers Preliminary Plat Dear Mr. Schulz, RECEIVED JUN 0 5 2003 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I would first like to thank you for meeting with the project team to review existing site conditions. Following our meeting I have been able to revisit the site and review spring hydrology patterns. In addition, I have reflagged the wetland areas as we discussed onsite. Please find attached a field map of the reflagging. It is the understanding of the project team that you will revisit the project site to verify the reflagged wetland boundaries. Once verified, the project team will re- survey (if necessary) these boundaries and update the overall site plan. The project team will also update the wetland report to include any boundary modifications and wetland classifications as discussed during our site meeting. Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you would like me to meet you onsite please contact me at 253 - 845 -5119. Sincerely, Thomas D. Deming Attachment — reflagging field map cc. Mr. Siraj Khan, @ Five Rivers Development Inc., 27010 — 115th Avenue SE, Kent, Washington 98031 Mr. Jim Jaeger, @ Jaeger Engineering, 9419 South 204th Place, Kent, Washington 98031 wetlands, streams, fisheries, wildlife -- mitigation and permitting solutions 1 P.O. Box 1088, Puyallup, Washington 98371 voice 253 - 845 -5119 fax 253 - 841 -1942 5- Rivers 01248 ‘`‘ \ \ - \ \ \ \ \ \ e?, \tr. SIDEWALK \ -‘ ,/±IR A 0 1 30 \(/ DRAINAy. .7-TERT CURB/GUT • GRAPHIC SCALE 0 15 30 • • " \ •. f\s/. / s• J, V' ' 60 ( IN FEET) 1 inch =-- 30 ft. \ EW 21 - - Y•‘‘ \ \, • ■ Luc., co..1 Ex 'Sanitary Sewer' M Rim: 128.58 IE12"@Ctr: 118.76 120 1 SSMH liaziee" -"" .440,110°' LOT. LOT •LOT 6 •■••1111.. EX. PVMT 0 •. CITY Or .SEATTLE \AAATER. • MAIN ROW S88 12'49"E 3862f.' E • \FLOW RESTRICTOR CATCH BASIN . „ • • Egionamm 0 SHANNON iWILSON, INC. MOW GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS April 30, 2003 Mr. David McPherson, Associate Engineer City of Tukwila Department of Public Works 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 -2544 RE: GEOTECHNICAL PEER REVIEW, FIVE RIVERS —12 LOT SHORT PLAT, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Dear Mr. McPherson: This letter presents the results of our review of a geotechnical engineering report for the proposed Five Rivers — 12 Lot Short Plat project. The project will be located in undeveloped land near the intersection of South 159`h Street and 53`d Avenue South, Tukwila, Washington. The purpose of our work is to offer an opinion as to the appropriateness and adequacy of the geotechnical engineering report submitted with the permit application. SEATTLE RICH!_.;;:: FAIRi:A!,�: AriCHCP G. DEN /EP SAINT i BOST ;' The geotechnical report for this project was prepared by LSI ADAPT, Inc. (ADAPT) dated August 6, 2001. The report presents the results of eleven test pit explorations and geotechnical recommendations for site development. The test pit explorations extended to depths of 11.5 to 13.5 feet. They encountered medium stiff to stiff silt and loose to medium dense sand overlying very stiff to hard silt. Approximately 12 feet of loose fill was encountered in TP -1, located within proposed Lot 11. Ten feet of fill was encountered in TP -7, located within proposed Lot 5. Additional fill was encountered elsewhere on the site and is expected to vary significantly. Groundwater seepage was observed in the test pits at relatively shallow depths. The report provided descriptions of the site geology and subsurface soil, groundwater, and seismic and environmentally critical area conditions. It provided opinions and recommendations regarding site preparation, foundation design, earth pressures, fill placement, drainage, and other geotechnical design issues. -top NORTH 34TH STREET • SUITE 100 PO. 60' 300003 SEATTLE. ,i /ASHIi'JCiTQN i.;,i cl[ 1-300.1-:33•3::::-3,H: 21 -1- 09892 -001 • • Mr. Dave McPherson, Associate Engineer City of Tukwila Public Works Department April 30, 2003 Page 2 Our services included review of : • The ADAPT report SHANNON &WILSON, INC. ► A preliminary grading and utility plan by Jaeger Engineering ► Various letters from the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and GeoEngineers (1989) regarding stability of the adjacent property to the south ► Our observations of current site conditions • Our files related to the Tukwila Interchange landslide study of 1966 In summary, the subject property was included in an extensive landslide study performed by our firm for WSDOT during construction of the Tukwila Interchange in 1966. Several subsurface explorations were performed near the subject property. While we did not see reports of active sliding on the subject property, based on a brief review of our files, it appears that older slides occurred on the property. Several horizontal drains were installed beneath the property during work on the Tukwila Interchange. Horizontal drains and vertical drains were also installed on the adjacent property to the south. The vertical drain well heads are still present on that property to the south. It is our opinion that, because of the reported older (pre- historic) slide on the property, the significant landslide problems.on adjacent properties in 1966, and the potential for landslides given the geology in the project vicinity, this site should be considered a Class 4 landslide hazard in accordance with Tukwila Municipal Code section 18.45.020.E. A comprehensive review of slope stability issues on the subject property should therefore be performed. As a minimum, a comprehensive review should include review of all relevant documents related to the 1966 landslides and subsequent mitigation measures employed. Detailed slope stability analyses must be done for this Class 4 area. We recommend that the project geotechnical consultant perform the above - recommended studies and determine whether the proposed development can be designed so that any potential adverse impact to the project and surrounding properties is eliminated, and slope stability is not decreased by either grade changes or groundwater or surface water alterations. 21-1 -09892 -00 1 -L I /MVP /LKD 21 -1- 09892 -001 Mr. Dave McPherson, Associate Engineer City of Tukwila Public Works Department April 30, 2003 Page 3 SHANNON ZIWILSON. INC. In our opinion, with the exception of the slope stability study discussed above, the geotechnical report prepared by ADAPT for this project meets the generally accepted standards of practice in this area and meets the minimum standards of Tukwila Municipal Code 18.45.080 E. We recommend however, that the issue identified above be addressed by the geotechnical consultant prior to issuance of permits for this project. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions, I am available at (206) 695 -6875. Sincerely, SHANNON & WILSON, INC. EXPIRES 4/21/ 0 4 Martin W. Page, P.E., L.E.G. Senior Principal Engineer MWP:TMG /mwp 21-1-09892-001 -L I /W P /LKD 21 -1- 09892 -001 Gary Schulz,- Fiver Rivers Project From: Gary Schulz To: HabitatTech @Qwest.net Date: 2/12/03 11:20AM Subject: Fiver Rivers Project Hi Tom, Thought I would send something of a summary to our field meeting last week her in Tukwila. I don't have Jim Jaeger's email address and want to get this out today. So her are the highlights of what I think we agreed on. 1) Please re -check / re -flag all wetlands - A thru C. Based on observed hydric soils, there appears to be wet area outside of the current boundaries. Since the flagging is old it would really help to add new. 2) A wetland seepage area is present just east of Wetland C that needs to be delineated. If it is isolated from Wetland C, this will actually identify 5 separate wetland areas. 3) Based on Tukwila's watercourse definition (TMC 18.06.920), I would not identify the intermittent swale area on the south as a watercourse. This area is not continuous, has irregular topography, and does not exhibit much influence from moving surface water. It does appear that shallow groundwater moves through this area. Please address this with the new review so that the wetlands are determined to be isolated from each other or connected. Please also address the swale area just west of Wetland B. 4) It appears that Wetlands A- complex and B may be forested based on trees rooted in or partly inside the wetland boundaries. If 20% cover, they would be rated as Type 2. 5) If wetlands are Type 2 based on tree cover, there is a provision in the sensitive areas ord. to allow use for "essential streets, roads, rights -of -way, and utilities (TMC 18.45.080 B.) This is a Director decision and mitigation is still required. I think this summarizes the wetland issues; however, I have not walked the entire site. Please review and let me know if there are questions. Also, we can provide a letter of this summary. Gary Schulz Tukwila Env. 206 -431 -3662 CC: Minnie Dhaliwal Dennis L. Robertson 16038 48'h Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98188 February 4, 2003 Kevin VanHook Homesite Realty 4720 200th Street Lynnwood, WA 98036 Mr. Van Hook, • RECEIVED FEB 10 2003 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Your firm, Homesite Realty, is advertising an "Eight Lot Subdivision" in the city of Tukwila on Slade Way and South 160`h. When I discussed this property with you last month you indicated that Homesite Reality owns the property, that it is in `pre - submission' status with the city and that it is also available, as -is, for approximately $500,000. The purpose of this letter is to provide you information that should be valuable to both your firm and any potential buyer of the property. I expect that, based upon full disclosure requirements, you will provide copies of the attached `April 19th, 1989 Washington State Department of Transportation' letter and `April 24, 1989 Tukwila Office of the City Attorney' letter to anyone who is interested in purchasing the property or future lots on it. Sincerely, L/1-± Dennis L. Robertson Attachments: Letter (April 19, '1989), James L. Lutz, P.E., Washington State Dept of Transportation Letter (April 24, 1989), Lawrence E. Hard, City of Tukwila Attorney cc: Minnie Dhaliwal (Associate Planner, City of Tukwila) Jack Pace (Deputy Director Planning and Community Services, City of Tukwila) City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director November 15, 2002 James Jaeger Jaeger Engineering 9419 South 204th Place Kent WA 98031 Re: Five Rivers Development- proposed 10 -lot subdivision located at NE corner of South 158th Street and 53rd Avenue South. File numbers LO1 -064 and E01 -027. Dear Mr. Jaeger: This is in response to the wetland report that was submitted on September 25, 2002. A revised survey drawing and revised page number 9 was received on October 7, 2002. You had requested the wetland delineation report be reviewed first and then you will reevaluate and redesign the project to meet the sensitive area buffers and other requirements. The city is in the process of reviewing your wetland report. The City's wetland biologist, Gary Schultz has been in conversation with your wetland consultant, Habitat Technologies to resolve some of the questions. It may be helpful to schedule an onsite meeting between Gary Schulz and the biologist from Habitat Technologies to resolve some of the questions. I will also call you to discuss the possibility of scheduling an on -site meeting. Also, following is the summary of the review process timeline: • The Department of Community Development received your application on October 22, 2001. • A notice of incomplete application and technical review comments were sent to you on November 19, 2001. Additional comments from City's Public Works Department were sent to you on December 28, 2001 and January 4, 2002. • You requested an extension to submit the additional information. A one 120 -day extension was granted till June 19, 2002. 1 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 • • A partial resubmittal was received from you on June 19,2002. You submitted the completeness items but did not address the technical review comments provided to you. For the purposes of completeness review your application was considered complete on June 20, 2002. However code based review could not proceed because the technical review comments were not addressed by you. In your resubmittal you requested that you would like the Director to review wetland report and the request for deviation from sensitive areas ordinance (filling of wetlands). As per our conversation you were informed that a request to fill a wetland is a separate Type 2 permit. Type 2 permit application was provided to you. However we did not receive any Type 2 permit application. • Nevertheless the City did some preliminary review of the wetland report as part of your SEPA application and the letter dated September 13, 2002 provided comments related to the review of the wetland report. You were also informed that you must address all comments listed in the previous letters dated November 19, 2001; December 28, 2001; and January 4, 2002 for the city to complete its review of your SEPA and Subdivision applications. • You requested that the wetland issues be resolved first and a revised wetland report was submitted on September 25, 2002 and a revised survey was submitted on October 7, 2002. If you have any questions you can reach me at 206 -431 -3685. Sincerely, Minnie Dhaliwal Senior Planner 2 HABITAT TECHNOLOGIES e op ukwt SEP 2 5 2002 PERMIT CENTER WETLANDS EVALUATION AND DELINEATION REPORT FIVE RIVERS RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY PRELIMINARY PLAT CITY OF TUKWILA, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON prepared for Jaeger Engineering @ Mr. Jim Jaeger 9419 South 204th Place Kent, Washington 98031 prepared by HABITAT TECHNOLOGIES P.O. Box 1088 Puyallup, Washington 98371 -1088 253 - 845 -5119 June 18, 2002 wetlands, streams, fisheries, wildlife -- mitigation and permitting solutions P.O. Box 1088, Puyallup, Washington 98371 voice 253 - 845 -5119 fax 253 - 841 -1942 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 4 STUDY PURPOSE 4 SITE DESCRIPTION 4 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 5 NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY 5 STATE OF WASHINGTON PRIORITY HABITATS AND SPECIES 5 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES STREAM CATALOG 5 KING COUNTY WETLAND INVENTORY 5 SOILS MAPPING 5 ONSITE ANALYSIS 5 CRITERIA FOR WETLAND IDENTIFICATION 5 WETLAND STUDY METHODS 6 FIELD OBSERVATION 6 ❑ Soils 6 ❑ Hydrology 7 ❑ Vegetation 8 WETLAND DETERMINATION 8 WETLAND FUNCTION AND VALUE ASSESSMENT 10 ONSITE WETLAND VALUATION 12 REGULATORY CONSIDERATION 12 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS - SECTION 404 12 CITY OF TUKWILA — SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY 13 ❑ Wetland and Stream Types 13 ❑ Wetland /Stream Alteration 14 ❑ Required Buffers 14 SELECTED ACTION PLAN 15 FIGURES 16 REFERENCE LIST 17 APPENDIX A - FIELD DATA FORMS 18 APPENDIX B — WATERCOURSE RATING FORM 19 STANDARD OF CARE Prior to extensive site planning, this document should be reviewed and the wetland boundaries verified by the appropriate resource and permitting agencies. Wetland boundaries, wetland classifications, wetland ratings, and proposed buffers should be reviewed and approved by the City of Tukwila and potentially other regulatory agencies. Habitat Technologies has provided professional services that are in accordance with the degree of care and skill generally accepted in the nature of the work accomplished. No other warranties are expressed or implied. Habitat Technologies is not responsible for design costs incurred before this document is approved by the appropriate resource and permitting agencies. Thomas D. Deming Habitat Technologies Certified Professional Wetland Scientist INTRODUCTION This report details the culmination of activities and onsite evaluations undertake to complete a wetland evaluation as an element of the planning and site development of the Five Rivers Residential Community, located at 53rd Avenue South and South 158th Street, in the City of Tukwila, King County, Washington (Figure 1). The evaluation and delineation of onsite and adjacent wetlands and drainage corridors is a vital element in the planning and selection of a site development action. The goal of this approach is to assure that planned site development does not result in adverse environmental impacts to regulated wetland areas. Wetlands are generally defined as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." (Washington State Wetlands Delineation Manual). STUDY PURPOSE The purpose of this document is to present the results of an onsite assessment and evaluation of wetland areas within the project site following the methods and procedures outlined in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Wash. Manual) and the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987 Manual). Onsite assessment noted that there were no differences in the identified wetland boundaries as a result to using either the Wash. Manual or the 1987 Manual. Drainage corridors were also assessed in accordance with the criteria established by the City of Tukwila and the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Forest Practice Rules (WAC 222 -16 -030). This study was designed to accommodate site planning and potential regulatory actions and is suitable for submittal to federal, state, and local authorities for wetland boundary verification and permitting actions. SITE DESCRIPTION The project site was bounded on the north by an existing single- family homesite, on the south by a City of Seattle Water Pipeline, on the west by 53r Avenue South, and on the east by an elevated pedestrian walkway and Klickitat Drive. The site sloped generally from west to east. Prior land use actions onsite and within the adjacent parcels appeared to have greatly altered this project site. The site had been modified by a number of prior land use actions, which included forest harvest, clearing, grading, the development/removal of a homesite, and ditching. A homesite, now removed, appeared to have at one time dominated the southwestern portion of the project site. 4 5 Rivers 01248 BACKGROUND INFORMATION SOILS MAPPING ' The soils mapping inventory completed by the Soils Conservation Service was reviewed as a part of this assessment. This mapping identified the soils generally throughout the project site as Argents, Alderwood material. Alderwood soil is moderately well drained and formed in glacial deposits. Alderwood soil is not listed as "hydric" (Figure 4). ONSITE ANALYSIS CRITERIA FOR WETLAND IDENTIFICATION Wetlands are transitional areas between aquatic and upland habitats. In general terms, wetlands are lands where the extent and duration of saturation with water is the primary factor determining the nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal communities living in the soil and on its surface (Cowardin, et al., 1979). Wetlands are generally defined within land use regulations as "areas that are inundated or saturated by 5 5 Rivers 01248 surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions" (1987 Manual). Wetlands exhibit three essential characteristics, all of which must be present for an area to meet the established criteria within the Wash. Manual and the 1987 Manual. These essential characteristics are: 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation: A predominance of plants that are typically adapted for life in saturated soils. 2. Hydric Soil: A soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper horizons. 3. Wetland Hydrology: Permanent or periodic inundation, or soil saturation to the surface, at least seasonally. WETLAND STUDY METHODS Habitat Technologies completed a specific onsite evaluation of the site during January, February, and March 2002. The objective of this evaluation was to define and delineate potential wetland areas which may be present within the project area as defined by the three - parameter criteria test noted within the Wash. Manual and 1987 Manual. Boundaries between wetland and non - wetland areas were established by examining the transitional gradient between wetland criteria along a number of west to east transects through the site. Field data sheets are provided in Appendix A. FIELD OBSERVATION As defined by existing site conditions and aerial photos the entire project site, along with the adjacent properties, had been managed and manipulated for several decades. Site management and manipulation activities appeared to have at one time included a single - family homesite and associated yard areas. The development of onsite and adjacent public utility corridors and public roadways also appeared to have altered onsite conditions and in particular modified the movement of the surface water and shallow ground water across the project site. • Soils The surface soil throughout the majority of the project site had been impacted and modified by prior land use actions. The shallow sub - surface soil ranged from gravelly loam to sandy loam and did not exhibit prominent redoximorphic features. This soil appeared to drain well following seasonal storm events. The surface soil color was generally very dark brown (10YE 3/2) to gray (10YR 4/2) to a depth of six (6) to twelve (12) inches. The sub -soil was mixed (10YR 4/3 and 10YR 3/3) and dominated by loamy 6 5 Rivers 01248 sand and gravelly loam. This soil did not exhibit prominent mottles and did not meet the "hydric" soil criteria. The surface soil within identified onsite depressional pockets was very mixed and ranged in color from black (10YR 2/1) to very dark brown (10YR 3/2). The subsoil within these areas was also very mixed and ranged in color from black (10YR 2/1) to gray (10YR 5/2). The subsoil also exhibited prominent redoximorphic features and was generally saturated to the surface during the onsite assessments. This soil met the "hydric" soil criteria. • Hydrology Onsite hydrology appeared to be the result of seasonal stormwater runoff from onsite and adjacent properties, short-term seasonal ponding within compacted small depressions, and soil characteristics. Onsite hydrology patterns had also been greatly altered by onsite and adjacent land uses. Stormwater surface runoff through the project site was directed by topography, compacted internal roadways, and ditches generally to the southeastern corner of the project site. At the southeastern corner of the project site seasonal surface water runoff was captured within a stormwater system appeared to eventually enter the Lower Green River via a public stormwater system. An excavated ditch was present near the northwestern corner of the project site. This excavated ditch appeared to be an old property boundary ditch and was not continuous through the project site. This excavated ditch was along the northwestern boundary of the project site and then again along the northeastern boundary of the project site. As noted during this assessment there did not appear to be a direct surface connection between these two areas. This excavated ditch exhibited areas of a well- defined channel from by prior excavation. The defined channel ranged between three (3) to five (5) feet in width in the northwestern portion of the project site. A drainage swale was present within the southern portion of the project site. This swale started within the area of the old homesite in the southwestern portion of the project site. This swale appeared supported by seasonal storm events and a series of small, hillside seeps near the roadway fill that formed 53rd Avenue South. This swale generally continued downslope to the east along the southern site boundary to the southeastern corner of the project site. Surface flow within this drainage corridor did not create a continuous defined channel, however, evidence of the passage of surface water along this swale was present. This southern drainage swale had been disturbed at approximately the midpoint of the southern boundary by previous clearing activities. Large tire ruts and exposed subsurface soils were visible within this area. These activities had also disturbed the vegetation and hydrology patterns within this area. 7 5 Rivers 01248 • Vegetation The majority of the project site was dominated by an upland mixed forest plant community. This plant community exhibited a dense canopy which acted to limit the development of the understory plant community. As a result of prior clearing and grading the understory was dominated by dense thickets of blackberries (Rubus procera and Rubus laciniatus). The forest plant community included red alder (Alnus rubra), Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii), big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), Western red cedar (Thuja plicata), Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa). This plant community was identified as non - hydrophytic in character (i.e. typical of uplands). Onsite, the plant community within the northern excavated ditch was dominated by young Pacific madrone, young and mature red alder, Himalayan blackberry, and Pacific red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa). This plant community was identified as non - hydrophytic in character (i.e. typical of uplands). The southern boundary of the project site was formed by the City of Seattle Water Pipeline. The plant community within the pipeline corridor was regularly managed and was dominated by various grass species typical of an erosion control seed mixture. Outside of the managed waterline corridor the onsite plant community was dominated by young and mature red alder, young and mature black cottonwood, salmonberry (Rubus laciniatus), wild rose (Rosa gymnocarpa), Pacific red elderberry, and blackberries. This plant community was identified as non - hydrophytic in character (i.e. typical of uplands) and had been impacted by management actions associated with the pipeline corridor. The plant communities within the identified onsite depressions were dominated by red alder, black cottonwood, Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra), salmonberry, and blackberries. These plant communities were identified as hydrophytic in character (i.e. typical of wetlands). WETLAND DETERMINATION Wetland determination was based on sample plots which contained hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology in accordance with the 1987 Manual and the Wash. Manual. Based on these methods three wetlands were identified onsite (see attachment). In addition, a very seasonal swale was identified generally along the southern site boundary. As noted during January and February 2002 this swale exhibited a continuous surface flow and meet the established criteria for designation as a State of Washington Type 5 Water. This swale appeared to begin onsite within a series of hillside seeps adjacent to an old homesite area within the southwestern portion of the project site. This swale terminated at a public stormwater facility and does not provide direct habitats for fish species. 8 5 Rivers 01248 REctiv my _ CITY OF TUVOLA OCT - 7 2002 PERMIT CENTER WETLAND SIZE (square feet) CLASSIFICATION (USFWS) CITY OF TUKWILA WETLAND TYPE FUNCTION AND VALUE RATING STANDARD BUFFER WIDTH A 1!073 SF_ PSSC 3 low 25 feet B -1 -73 SP' PSSC PFOC 3 2 low low 25 feet 50 feet C 35 /00 SF PSSC Palustrine, scrub /shrub, seasonally flooded PFOC Palustrine, forested, seasonally flooded Wetland A: This wetland was located within a shallow depression at the eastern end of the defined onsite swale along the southern project site boundary. This wetland was dominated by a shrub and sapling plant community that had been altered by prior land use actions. This wetland appeared to remain ponded into the early growing season. Hydrology for this wetland was provided by stormwater runoff from onsite and adjacent parcels. Surface water that left this wetland entered a stormwater catchment near the southeast corner of the project site. Wetland A meets the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) criteria for classification as a palustrine, scrub /shrub, seasonally flooded (PSSC). Since this wetland was less than one acre in total size and did not exhibit a forested plant community over 20% of the wetland area this wetland appears to meet the criteria for designation as a City of Tukwila Type 3 Wetland. Wetland B: This wetland was located within a shallow depression within the east - central portion of the project site. This wetland was dominated by a shrub and sapling plant community that had been altered by prior land use actions. This wetland appeared to be the result of an internal roadway which had compacted this small depression. This wetland appeared to remain ponded into the early growing season. Hydrology for this wetland was provided by stormwater runoff from onsite. Wetland B meets the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) criteria for classification as a palustrine, scrub /shrub, seasonally flooded (PSSC). Since this wetland was less than one acre in total size and did not exhibit a forested plant community over 20% of the wetland area this wetland appears to meet the criteria for designation as a City of Tukwila Type 3 Wetland. . Wetland C: This wetland was located within a shallow depression near the southwestern corner of the project site. This wetland was dominated by a forested plant community composed of young red alder. This wetland appeared to have formed following the removal of an old homesite. This wetland appeared to remain ponded into the early growing season. Hydrology for this wetland was provided by stormwater runoff from onsite and offsite, and from a number of seeps along the toe of the adjacent fill supporting 53rd Avenue South. Wetland C meets the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) criteria for classification as a palustrine, forested, seasonally flooded (PSSC). Since this wetland exhibited a 9 5 Rivers 01248 WETLAND SIZE (square feet) CLASSIFICATION (USFWS) CITY OF TUKWILA WETLAND TYPE FUNCTION AND VALUE RATING STANDARD BUFFER WIDTH A 2,965sqft PSSC 3 low 25 feet B 1,144sgft PSSC 3 low 25 feet C 4,210sgft PFOC 2 low 50 feet PSSC Palustrine, scrub /shrub, seasonally flooded PFOC Palustrine, forested, seasonally flooded Wetland A: This wetland was located within a shallow depression at the eastern end of the defined onsite swale along the southern project site boundary. This wetland was dominated by a shrub and sapling plant community that had been altered by prior land use actions. This wetland appeared to remain ponded into the early growing season. Hydrology for this wetland was provided by stormwater runoff from onsite and adjacent parcels. Surface water that left this wetland entered a stormwater catchment near the southeast corner of the project site. Wetland A meets the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) criteria for classification as a palustrine, scrub /shrub, seasonally flooded (PSSC). Since this wetland was less than one acre in total size and did not exhibit a forested plant community over 20% of the wetland area this wetland appears to meet the criteria for designation as a City of Tukwila Type 3 Wetland. Wetland B: This wetland was located within a shallow depression within the east - central portion of the project site. This wetland was dominated by a shrub and sapling plant community that had been altered by prior land use actions. This wetland appeared to be the result of an internal roadway which had compacted this small depression. This wetland appeared to remain ponded into the early growing season. Hydrology for this wetland was provided by stormwater runoff from onsite. Wetland B meets the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) criteria for classification as a palustrine, scrub /shrub, seasonally flooded (PSSC). Since this wetland was less than one acre in total size and did not exhibit a forested plant community over 20% of the wetland area this wetland appears to meet the criteria for designation as a City of Tukwila Type 3 Wetland. . Wetland C: This wetland was located within a shallow depression near the southwestern corner of the project site. This wetland was dominated by a forested plant community composed of young red alder. This wetland appeared to have formed following the removal of an old homesite. This wetland appeared to remain ponded into the early growing season. Hydrology for this wetland was provided by stormwater runoff from onsite and offsite, and from a number of seeps along the toe of the adjacent fill supporting 53rd Avenue South. Wetland C meets the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) criteria for classification as a palustrine, forested, seasonally flooded (PSSC). Since this wetland exhibited a 9 5 Rivers 01248 forested plant community over 20% of the wetland area this wetland appears to meet the criteria for designation as a City of Tukwila Type 2 Wetland. Onsite Watercourse: A very seasonal swale was identified generally along the southern site boundary. As noted during January and February 2002 this drainage corridor exhibited a continuous surface flow and meet the established criteria for designation as a State of Washington Type 5 Water. This drainage corridor appeared to begin onsite within a series of hillside seeps adjacent to an old homesite area within the southwestern portion of the project site. This drainage terminated at a public stormwater facility and does not provide direct habitats for fish species. As defined using the City of Tukwila Watercourse Rating Form (Appendix B) this very seasonal swale received a total instream score of four (4). WETLAND FUNCTION AND VALUE ASSESSMENT Wetlands are known to perform significant roles in the ecosystem, some of which are of immediate value to society. These roles vary greatly with the size, type, hydrology, vegetation, and location of wetland areas. Although the ecological functions performed by these wetlands are complex, interrelated, and difficult to assess and quantify, methods have been developed for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Adamus et al. 1987: Reppert et al. 1979). The functions provided by wetlands include hydrologic support, shoreline protection, stormwater and floodwater storage, water quality, groundwater recharge, and provision of wildlife habitat. The HYDROLOGIC SUPPORT FUNCTION is defined by the measure of hydrologic stability and environmental integrity which the wetland provides. This function is measured by the frequency of inundation and saturation by tidal actions, stream flow, runoff, and precipitation. Wetlands permanently inundated or saturated, or intertidal wetlands are valued as high. Medium valued wetlands are seasonally flooded or are open water systems that remain saturated during most of the growing season. Wetlands that are intermittently flooded or hydrologically isolated are considered of low value. The SHORELINE PROTECTION FUNCTION is defined by the measure of shielding from wave action, erosion, or storm damage which a wetland provides. This function is measured by the location and width of the wetland along shoreline areas, types of vegetation present, and the extent of development along the shoreline. A high value is given to wetlands along a shoreline that have a width greater than 200 yards and dense woody vegetation. A medium value is given to a wetland with a width of 100 to 200 yards, sparse woody vegetation, and dense emergent vegetation. Wetlands less than 100 yards in width and emergent or lacking vegetation are considered of low value. 10 5 Rivers 01248 The STORMWATER AND FLOODWATER STORAGE FUNCTION is defined by the ability of a wetland to store water and retard flow during periods of flood or storm discharge. Wetlands of larger size are generally considered to have greater ability to provide this function. In addition, wetlands nearer to urban, potentially develop -able areas are also considered to provide greater flood protections than wetlands which are in undeveloped areas. The WATER QUALITY FUNCTION is defined by the physical, biological, and chemical processes which wetlands provide to naturally purify water. This function removes organic and mineral particulates through natural filtration. In general, wetlands of greater size, more dense vegetation, and those which are close to point sources of pollution are considered to be of higher value. Wetlands which are small ( <5 acres), lacking dense vegetation, and not close to point or non -point sources of pollution are considered of low value. The GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FUNCTION is defined by the interaction of the underlying geology and soils, and the surface topography. This function provides for the movement of surface water into groundwater systems. Important to this function is wetland size, period of inundation, and depth of standing water within the wetland. High value is given to permanently inundated wetlands greater than 10 acres in size. Medium value is given to wetlands which are seasonally flooded and 5 to 10 acres is size. Wetlands less than 5 acres in size, isolated, and temporarily saturated are considered of low value. The NATURAL BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION is defined by the complexity of physical habitats and biological species within the wetland area. The value given to a wetland depends upon its ability to provide habitat for nesting (spawning), incubation, feeding, rearing, and cover of aquatic and terrestrial animal and fish species. In addition, the ability of a wetland to provide support for varying food chains is an important element in value assessment. Wetlands of high species diversity, three or more habitat types, unique habitat features, large in size, and associated with a permanent stream or tidal marsh is considered of high value. Wetlands with moderate species diversity, two habitat types, moderate in size, and associated with an intermittent stream or high salt marsh are considered of medium value. A low value is given to wetlands of low species diversity, small size, and isolated. These six functions are rated low, moderate, or high, based on the criteria outlined above. These criteria are guidelines compiled from Adamus (1987) and Reppert (1979) and professional judgment must be exercised in assessing these criteria. Overall values for a wetland are assigned, based on a synthesis of individual values. In addition to intrinsic functions, extrinsic functions are also recognized. These extrinsic functions provide social values that have indirect benefits to wetlands. Education and recreational opportunities are most often mentioned as extrinsic functions. Associated values are often in the eye of the beholder and are thus difficult to evaluate. As such, 11 5 Rivers 01248 these functions are not rated, but are nonetheless important when considering creation, restoration, or enhancement projects. ONSITE WETLAND VALUATION The wetland areas identified within the site were evaluated following the functional value assessment process noted above. As identified in this assessment Wetlands A, B, and C would be considered to have the overall value rating of LOW. • Hydrologic Support and Water Quality Benefits - These wetlands are smaller than one acre in total size and located in a rapidly developing part of the City of Tukwila. These wetlands appeared to retain Tess than 25% of the runoff which occurs and exhibited a vegetation density less than 80 %. The primary water quality benefit provided by these wetlands includes the biofiltration of a limited amount of surface stormwater from onsite and offsite areas. • Stormwater Storage and Groundwater Support - These wetlands smaller than one acre in size, and located in a rapidly developing part of City of Tukwila. A limited amount of stormwater from onsite and offsite appeared to be retained onsite. Evidence of shallow seasonal ponding and saturation to the surface are present into the early part of the growing season. • Natural Biological Function - These wetlands exhibit a limited range of plant diversity and vegetation complexity. These wetlands have a single habitat type. The plant community has been modified by past and ongoing land use activities. These wetlands do not exhibit any unique features and because of the limited seasonal pattern of shallow ponding did not appeared to provide suitable amphibian spawning areas. REGULATORY CONSIDERATION The proposed alteration of lands defined by various federal, state, and local authority rules and regulations as "wetlands" raises environmental concerns that are generally addressed in the development review process. These concerns center on the development's potential adverse impacts to the structure, function, value, and size of these "wetland" areas. Such adverse impacts may include a reduction in wildlife habitats, reduced surface water quality, reduced water retention, a reduced ground water recharge rate, reduced plant species diversity, and the reduction in the function and value of other associated wetland and non - wetland characteristics. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS - Section 404 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States" without a permit from the Corps of Engineers (Corps). The Corps has jurisdiction over freshwater systems waterward from 12 5 Rivers 01248 the ordinary high water line of a water body or waterward from the upland boundary of the adjacent wetland. The definition of fill materials includes the replacement of aquatic areas with dry land, grading which changes the surface contour of a wetland, and mechanized land clearing in wetlands. For the purposes of Section 404 permitting the Corps makes the final determination as to whether an area meets the wetland definition and would be subject to regulation under the Corps program. Currently the Corps has two specific types of permits which apply to wetland fill proposals. These two types are a series of specific Nationwide Permits and the Individual Permit. The Nationwide Permit process identifies specific categories of work that can be undertaken following a set of specific conditions applicable to each Nationwide Permit number. The Corps requires an Individual Permit where a proposed activities within an identified jurisdictional wetland area can not be authorized under one of the Nationwide Permits. Within the Individual Permit process the Corps undertakes a much more in- depth review of the proposed project and the proposed impacts. The Corps must evaluate whether the benefits derived from the project outweigh the foreseeable environmental impacts of the project's completion. All projects that proceed forward using either one of the Nationwide Permits or the Individual Permit process must also comply with the provisions of the Endangered Species Act. In addition, projects that may be exempt from Section 404 jurisdiction may still require review by the Washington State Department of Ecology to ensure consistency with State water quality protection provisions. CITY OF TUKWILA — Sensitive Areas Overlay • Wetland and Stream Types The City of Tukwila regulates activities in and around wetland and stream areas. Such regulations also require that an undisturbed native vegetation buffer be retained along the upland side of the identified wetland areas. To assist in this regulation the City has defined "types" by which to regulate wetlands, streams, and their associated buffer area. These types are based on such features as size; the presence of endangered or threatened plants, fish, or animals; regionally rare wetlands; wetlands of local significance for wildlife or stormwater functions; the number of wetland classes and subclasses; and percentage of open water. A Type 1 Wetland means those wetlands which meets any of the following criteria: 1. The presence of species listed by the federal government or state as endangered, or threatened, or the presence of critical or outstanding actual habitat for those species; 13 5 Rivers 01248 2. Wetlands having 40% to 60% permanent open water in dispersed patches with two or more classes of vegetation; 3. Wetlands equal to or greater than five acres in size and having three or more wetland classes, one of which may be substituted by permanent or open water. A Type 2 Wetland means those wetlands which meet any of the following criteria: 1. Wetlands greater that one acre in size; 2. Wetlands equal to or Tess that one acre in size and having three or more wetland classes; 3. Wetlands equal to or less than one acre that have a forested wetland class comprised of at least 20% coverage of total surface water; 4. The presence of heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees; 5. The presence of native plant associations of infrequent occurrences. A Type 3 Wetland means those wetlands that are equal to or Tess than one acre in size and have two or fewer wetland classes. Streams (i.e. watercourses) are rated using the City of Tukwila methodology and criteria as defined within the City's "Watercourse Study" (1990). A Type 1 Watercourse scores from 21 to 33 points. A Type 2 Watercourse scores from 11 to 20 points. A Type 3 Watercourse scores from 3 to 10 points. • Wetland /Stream Alteration The City of Tukwila allows a limited amount of alterations to wetlands and streams (i.e. watercourses) provided all impacts are mitigated pursuant to an approved mitigation plan approved by the City of Tukwila. • Required Buffers The City of Tukwila has established a standard buffer to be applied to a wetland or stream to ensure protection of the wetland function and value. This buffer area is measured perpendicular to the defined wetland edge or perpendicular to the identified ordinary high water mark of a stream. WETLAND TYPE STANDARD BUFFER WIDTH 1 100 feet 2 50 feet 3 25 feet WATERCOURSE STANDARD BUFFER WIDTH 1 70 feet 2 35 feet 3 15 feet 14 5 Rivers 01248 SELECTED ACTION PLAN The Selected Action Plan of the Five Rivers Residential Community focuses on the creation of independent Tots suitable for the development of single - family homesite consistent with the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. However, since the project site exhibits three small wetlands and a single watercourse, the majority of which appears to have been created by prior land use actions, the final Selected Action Plan would be dependent upon City of Tukwila review of this wetland and drainage corridor report. 15 5 Rivers 01248 FIGURES 16 5 Rivers 01248 HABITAT TECHNOLOGIES Figure 1 Site Vicinity .1444 Ft 14,7 er Figure 2 NWI. Resource Mapping .27 1"• -; - :3 • .4. HABITAT Figure 3 TECHNOLOGIES PHS Resource Mapping • HABITAT TECHNOLOGIES Figure 4 Soil Mapping REFERENCE LIST Adamus, P.R., E.J. Clairain Jr., R.D. Smith, and R.E. Young. 1987. Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET); Volume II: Methodology, Operational Draft Technical Report Y -87, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, FWS /OBS- 79/31. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y -87 -1, US army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Hitchcock, C.L., A. Cronquist. 1977. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. Reppert, R.T., W. Sigleo, E. Stakhiv, L. Messman, and C. Meyers. 1979. Wetland Values - Concepts and Methods for Wetland Evaluation. Research Report 79 -R1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soils Conservation Service. Soils Survey of King County Area Washington, June 1976. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Publication Number 96 -94. Washington State Department of Fish eries, Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization, Volume 1., 1975 17 5 Rivers 01248 APPENDIX A - Field Data Forms 18 5 Rivers 01248 SAMPLE PLOT SPA DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project/Site 5 Rivers Tukwila Applicant/Owner: Investigator: Habitat Technologies Date: 31 JAN 02 County: King State: Washington Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO Community ID: Is the area a potential Problem area? YES NO Transect ID: (If needed, explain on reverse) Plot ID: VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) SPA Dominant Plant Species Indicator 1 Dominant Plant Species 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 8. Alnusrubra T FAC _"� VvM�v Bare ground Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC -). Include species noted ( *) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: Dense canopy of red alder limiting understory development 100% HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other X No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: Remarks: None 12 inches Surface Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated X Saturated in upper 12" X Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " X Water- Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Upper end of seasonally wet swale Area appears: to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Field indicators of wetland hydrology present Map Unit Name:. Arents, Alderwood material Taxonomy (Subgroup) Profile Description: Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Mottle Colors Moist) ( Munsell Moist) SAMPLE PLOT SPA Drainage Class: Mod. well Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type Yes No Mottle Texture, Concretions, Abundance /Contrast Rhizospheres, etc. 0 -6 6 -16 10YR 3/1 10YR 4/1 10YR 4/6 Prominent & common Organic Loam Silty clay Hydric Soil Indicators: X Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Concretions X High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Field indicators of hydric soil present WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: NO NO NO Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? . WETLAND CRITERIA MET Sample plot located within southwestern portion of the site at start of seasonal swale Area appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Dense canopy of red alder limiting understory development SAMPLE PLOT SPB DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project/Site 5 Rivers Tukwila Applicant/Owner: Investigator: Habitat Technologies Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO Is the area a potential Problem area? YES NO (If needed, explain on reverse) Date: County: State: Community ID: Transect ID: Plot ID: 31 JAN 02 King Washington SPB VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) Dominant Plant Species 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Sambucus racemosa S FACU Rubus procera S FACU Equisetum arvense H FAC Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC -). Include species noted ( *) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: Dense thicket of blackberries within very seasonal ditched drainage 33% HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other X No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: None 6 inches 6 inches Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated X Saturated in upper 12" Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " Water- Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Area appears ditched for a short distance Water is entering sample plot from side, not from below Area appears to drain well following seasonal storm events Field indicators of wetland hydrology NOT present Map Unit Name: Arents, Alderwood material Taxonomy (Subgroup) - Profile Description: Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Mottle Colors Moist) (Munsell Moist) SAMPLE PLOT SPB Drainage Class: Mod. well Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type Yes No Mottle Texture, Concretions, Abundance /Contrast Rhizospheres, etc. 0 -6 6 -16 10YR 4/2 10YR 4/3, 3/3 NONE 10YR 4/6 Prominent & common Loam Loamy sand Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Area appears ditched for a short distance Appears to drain well following seasonal storm events Field indicators of hydric soil NOT present WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: YES YES YES Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? WETLAND CRITERIA NOT MET Dense thicket of blackberries within very seasonal ditched drainage Area appears to drain well following seasonal storm events Area appears ditched for a short distance SAMPLE PLOT SPC DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project/Site 5 Rivers Tukwila Applicant/Owner: Investigator: Habitat Technologies Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO Is the area a potential Problem area? YES NO (If needed, explain on reverse) Date: 31 JAN 02 County: King State: Washington Community ID: Transect ID: Plot ID: SPC VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) Dominant Plant Species Stratum 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 7. 8. Alnus rubra T FAC Ilex aquifolium S UPI_ Polystichum munitum H FACU Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC -). Include species noted ( *) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: 33% Remarks:. Dense overstory of red alders, area appears to have been cleared a number of years ago HYDROLOGY Recorded. Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other X No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: Remarks: None None 14 inches Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated Saturated in upper 12" Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " Water- Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Onsite assessment during period of seasonal storm events Area appears to drain well following seasonal storm events Field indicators of wetland hydrology NOT present Map Unit Name: Arents, Alderwood material Taxonomy (Subgroup) - Profile Description: Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Mottle Colors Moist) (Munsell Moist) SAMPLE PLOT SPC Drainage Class: Mod well Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type Yes No Mottle Texture, Concretions, Abundance /Contrast Rhizospheres, etc. 0 -14 14 -16 10YR 3/2 1 OYR 4/3 NONE 10YR 4/6 Prominent & common Sandy loam Sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Appears to drain well following seasonal storm events Field indicators of hydric soil NO,T present WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: YES YES YES Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? WETLAND CRITERIA NOT MET Sample plot located within central portion of the site Area appears to drain well following seasonal storm events Dense overstory of red alders, area appears to have been cleared a number of years ago SAMPLE PLOT SPD DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project/Site 5 Rivers Tukwila Applicant/Owner: Investigator: Habitat Technologies Date: 31 JAN 02 County: King State: Washington Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO Community ID: Is the area a potential Problem area? YES NO Transect ID: (If needed, explain on reverse) Plot ID: VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) SPD Dominant Plant Species Stratu 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 7. 8. Alnus rubra T FAC Rubus spectabilis S FAC+ Bare ground Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC -). Include species noted ( *) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: Dense overstory of red alders, area appears to have been cleared a number of years ago 100% HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph . Other X No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: Remarks: None None 14 inches Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated Saturated in upper 12" Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " Water- Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Onsite assessment during period of seasonal storm events Area appears to drain well following seasonal storm events Field indicators of wetland hydrology NOT present Map Unit Name: Argents, Alderwood material Taxonomy (Subgroup) Profile Description: Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Mottle Colors Moist) (Munsell Moist). SAMPLE PLOT SPD Drainage Class: Mod well Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type Yes No Mottle Texture, Concretions, Abundance /Contrast Rhizospheres, etc. 0 -5 5 -16 10YR 4/3 10YR 2/2 NONE Sand Sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Prominent redoximorphic features NOT present Appears to drain well following seasonal storm events Field indicators of hydric soil NOT present WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? WETLAND CRITERIA NOT MET Sample plot located within central portion of the site Area appears to drain well following seasonal storm events Dense overstory of red alders, area appears to have been cleared a number of years ago Project/Site Applicant/Owner: Investigator: SAMPLE PLOT SPE -a DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) 5 Rivers Tukwila Habitat Technologies Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO Is the area a potential Problem area? YES NO (If needed, explain on reverse) VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) Date: 31 JAN 02 County: King State: Washington Community ID: Transect ID: Plot ID: SPE -a Dominant Plant Species 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 7. 8. Alnus rubra T FAC Rubus procera S FACU Phalaris arundinacea H FACW Bare ground Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC -). Include species noted ( *) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: 66% Remarks: Dense overstory of red alders, area appears to have been cleared a number of years ago HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other X No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: 2 inches Wetland Hydrology Indicators: X Inundated Saturated in upper 12" Water Marks Drift Lines X Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " X Water- Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks; Onsite assessment during period of seasonal storm events Water is ponded on surface within compacted tire rut Area appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events Field indicators of wetland hydrology present Map Unit Name: Arents, Alderwood material Taxonomy (Subgroup) - Profile Description: Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Mottle Colors Moist) (Munsell Moist) SAMPLE PLOT SPE -a Drainage Class: Mod well Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type Yes No Mottle Texture, Concretions, Abundance /Contrast Rhizospheres, etc. 0 -6 10YR 2/1 6 -16 10YR 4/2 10YR 4/6 Prominent & common 16 -17 10YR 2/1 Compacted Loam Compacted Loam Loam Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor X Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions X Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Concretions X High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Surface soil compacted, area is bull dozed and tire ruts are visible Appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events Field indicators of hydric soil present WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: NO NO NO Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? WETLAND CRITERIA MET Sample plot located within compacted tire rut Area appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events Area is bull dozed with tire ruts visible, surface soil is compacted which is ponding water during storm events Area is within a tire rut adjacent to sample plot SPE Sample plot SPE does not meet the wetland criteria SAMPLE PLOT SPE DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project/Site 5 Rivers Tukwila Applicant/Owner: Investigator: Habitat Technologies Date: 31 JAN 02 County: King State: Washington Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO Community ID: Is the area a potential Problem area? YES NO Transect ID: (If needed, explain on reverse) Plot ID: VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) SPE Dominant Plant Species Indicator 1 Dominant Plant Species 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 8. Alnus rubra T FAC __ v Rubus procera S FACU Phalaris arundinacea H FACW Bare ground Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC -). Include species noted ( *) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: 66% Remarks: Dense overstory of red alders, area appears to have been cleared a number of years ago HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other X No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: Remarks: 18 inches 12 inches Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated X Saturated in upper 12" Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " Water- Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Water is ponded on surface within adjacent compacted tire ruts Area appears to drain well following seasonal storm events Field indicators of wetland hydrology NOT present Map Unit Name: Arents, Alderwood material Taxonomy (Subgroup) Profile Description: Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Mottle Colors Moist) ( Munsell Moist) SAMPLE PLOT SPE Drainage Class: Mod well Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type Yes No Mottle Texture, Concretions, Abundance /Contrast Rhizospheres, etc. 0-4 4 -15 15 -20 10YR 2/2 10YR 3/3 10YR 4/3 10YR 4/6 10YR 4/6 Few faint Few faint Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Duff Loam Gravelly Loam Gravelly Loam Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: adjacent to compacted area, tire ruts are visible Appears to drain well following seasonal storm events Field indicators of hydric soil NOT present WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: NO YES YES Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? NO WETLAND CRITERIA NOT MET Area appears to drain well following seasonal storm events Water is ponded on surface within adjacent compacted tire ruts Dense overstory of red alders, area appears to have been cleared a number of years ago SAMPLE PLOT SPF DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project/Site 5 Rivers Tukwila Applicant/Owner: Investigator: Habitat Technologies Date: 31 JAN 02 County: King State: Washington Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO Community ID: Is the area a potential Problem area? YES NO Transect ID: (If needed, explain on reverse) Plot ID: VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) SPF Dominant Plant Species Stratum 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Alder rubra T FAC Salix lasiandra S FACW+ Sambucus racemosa S FACU Rubus spectabilis S FAC+ Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC -). Include species noted ( *) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: 75% Remarks: Dense overstory of red alders, area appears to have been cleared a number of years ago HYDROLOGY _ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other X No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: Remarks: 6 inches Wetland Hydrology Indicators: X Inundated X Saturated in upper 12" X Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " X Water- Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Sample plot located within shallow depressions within seasonal swale Area appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Field indicators of wetland hydrology present Map Unit Name: Arents, Alderwood material Taxonomy (Subgroup) - Profile Description: Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Mottle Colors Moist) (Munsell Moist) SAMPLE PLOT SPF Drainage Class: Mod well Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type Yes No Mottle Texture, Concretions, Abundance /Contrast Rhizospheres, etc. 0 -12 12 -16 10YR 2/1 10YR 4/1 10YR 4/6 Prominent & common Organic loam Sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor X Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions X Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Concretions X High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Prominent redoximorphic features present Appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Field indicators of hydric soil present WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: ES YES YES 0 NO NO Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? WETLAND CRITERIA MET Sample plot located within shallow depressions within seasonal swale Area appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Dense overstory of red alders, area appears to have been cleared a number of years ago SAMPLE PLOT SPG DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project/Site 5 Rivers Tukwila Applicant/Owner: Investigator: Habitat Technologies Date: 31 JAN 02 County: King State: Washington Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO Community ID: Is the area a potential Problem area? YES NO Transect ID: (If needed, explain on reverse) Plot ID: SPG VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator � Dominant Plant Spec Indicator 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Alder rubra T FAC Sambucus racemosa S FACU Rubus spectabilis S FAC+ . Rubus procera S FACU Rubus laciniatus S FACU Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC -). Include species noted ( *) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: Dense overstory of red alders, area appears to have been cleared a number of years ago 20% HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other X No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: Remarks: 4 inches Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated Saturated in upper 12" Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " Water- Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Sample plot located adjacent to seasonal swale Area appears to drain somewhat well following seasonal storm events Field indicators of wetland hydrology NOT present Map Unit Name: Arents, Alderwood material Taxonomy (Subgroup) - Profile Description: Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Mottle Colors Moist) (Munsell Moist) SAMPLE PLOT SPG Drainage Class: Mod well Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type Yes No Mottle Texture, Concretions, Abundance /Contrast Rhizospheres, etc. 0 -4 4 -16 10YR 3/2 10YR 3/3 10YR 4/6 Few faint Loam Sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing. Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Prominent redoximorphic features NOT present Appears to drain somewhat well following seasonal storm events Field indicators of hydric soil NOT present WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: YES 'NO YES NO YES NO Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? WETLAND CRITERIA NOT MET Sample plot located adjacent to seasonal swale Area appears to drain somewhat well following seasonal storm events Dense overstory of red alders, area appears to have been cleared a number of years ago SAMPLE PLOT SPH DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project/Site 5 Rivers Tukwila Applicant/Owner: Investigator: Habitat Technologies Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? Is the area a potential Problem area? (If needed, explain on reverse) VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) YES NO YES NO Date: 31 JAN 02 County: King State: Washington Community ID: Transect ID: Plot ID: SPH Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1 Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Alder rubra T FAC Sambucus racemosa S FACU Rubus spectabilis S FAC+ Rubus procera S FACU Rubus Iaciniatus S FACU Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC -). Include species noted ( *) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: Dense overstory of red alders, area appears to have been cleared a number of years ago 20% HYDROLOGY _ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other X No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: Remarks: 2 inches Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated Saturated in upper 12" Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " Water- Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Sample plot located adjacent to seasonal swale Area appears to drain somewhat well following seasonal storm events Field indicators of wetland hydrology NOT present Map Unit Name: Arents, Alderwood material Taxonomy (Subgroup) - Profile Description: Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Mottle Colors Moist) (Munsell Moist) SAMPLE PLOT SPH Drainage Class: Mod well Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type Yes No Mottle Texture, Concretions, Abundance /Contrast Rhizospheres, etc. 0 -9 9 -20 10YR 3/2 10YR 3/3 10YR 4/6 Few faint Loam Sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Prominent redoximorphic features NOT present Appears to drain somewhat well following seasonal storm events Field indicators of hydric soil NOT present WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: YES YES YES Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? NO WETLAND CRITERIA NOT MET Sample plot located adjacent to seasonal swale Area appears to drain somewhat well following seasonal storm events Dense overstory of red alders, area appears to have been cleared a number of years ago SAMPLE PLOT SPM1 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project/Site 5 Rivers Tukwila Applicant/Owner: Investigator: Habitat Technologies Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? Is the area a potential Problem area? (If needed, explain on reverse) YES NO YES NO Date: 8 MARCH 02 County: King State: Washington Community ID: Transect ID: Plot ID: SPM1 VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1 Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 7. 8. Alder rubra T FAC Polygonum cuspidatum H FACU Urtica dioica H FAC+ Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC -). Include species noted ( *) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: Dense overstory of red alders, old homesite area, ground compacted 66% HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other X No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: Surface Surface Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated X Saturated in upper 12" X Water Marks X Drift Lines Sediment Deposits X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " X Water- Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Seeps present to west at toe of slope Sample plot located within depressional area Area appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Field indicators of wetland hydrology present Map Unit Name: Arents, Alderwood material Taxonomy (Subgroup) - Profile Description: Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Mottle Colors Moist) ( Munsell Moist) SAMPLE PLOT SPM1 Drainage Class: Mod well Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type Yes No Mottle Texture, Concretions, Abundance /Contrast Rhizospheres, etc. 0 -10 10 -15 15 -20 10YR 3/1 10YR 2/1 10YR 4/1 10YR 4/6 10YR 4/6 Few faint Few faint Hydric Soil Indicators: X X X Remarks: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Loam Sandy loam Sandy loam Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Prominent redoximorphic features present Appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Field indicators of hydric soil present WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: WETLAND CRITERIA MET NO NO NO Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? Sample plot located within depression formed by old homesite removal Area appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Dense overstory of red alders, old homesite area, ground compacted Compacted area of seasonal ponding. SAMPLE PLOT SPM2 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project/Site 5 Rivers Tukwila Applicant/Owner: Investigator: Habitat Technologies Date: 8 MARCH 02 County: King State: Washington Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO Community ID: Is the area a potential Problem area? YES NO Transect ID: (If needed, explain on reverse) Plot ID: VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) SPM2 Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1 Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 7. 8. Acer macrophyllum T FACU Rubus procera S FACU Polygonum cuspidatum H FACU Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC -). Include species noted ( *) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: Area adjacent to old homesite 0% HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other X No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: - dry Depth to Saturated Soil: 15 inches Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated Saturated in upper 12" Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " Water- Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Sample plot located outside depression Area appears to drain somewhat well following seasonal storm events Field indicators of wetland hydrology NOT present Map Unit Name: •Arents, Alderwood material Taxonomy (Subgroup) - Profile Description: Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Mottle Colors Moist) (Munsell Moist) SAMPLE PLOT SPM2 Drainage Class: Mod well Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type Yes No Mottle Texture, Concretions, Abundance /Contrast Rhizospheres, etc. 0 -10 10YR 3/2 mixed Loam 10 -20 10YR 4/3 10YR 4/6 Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Few faint. Gravelly loam Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Prominent redoximorphic features NOT present Appears to drain somewhat well following seasonal storm events Field indicators of hydric soil NOT present WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? YES YES YES Remarks: WETLAND CRITERIA NOT MET Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? Area appears to drain somewhat well following seasonal storm events Area adjacent to old homesite SAMPLE PLOT SPM3 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project/Site 5 Rivers Tukwila Applicant/Owner: Investigator: Habitat Technologies Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO Is the area a potential Problem area? YES NO (If needed, explain on reverse) Date: 8 MARCH 02 County: King State: Washington Community ID: Transect ID: Plot ID: SPM3 VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1 Dominant Plant Soeci 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Alder rubra T FAC Acer macrophyllum sap FACU Fraxinus latifolia sap FACW Urtica dioica H FAC+ Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC -). Include species noted ( *) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: Dense overstory of red alders, old homesite area, ground compacted 75% HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other X No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: Surface Surface Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated X Saturated in upper 12" X Water Marks X Drift Lines Sediment Deposits X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " X Water- Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Seeps present to west at toe of slope Sample plot located within depressional area Area appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Field indicators of wetland hydrology present Map Unit Name: Arents, Alderwood material Taxonomy (Subgroup) - Profile Description: Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Mottle Colors Moist) (Munsell Moist) SAMPLE PLOT SPM3 Drainage Class: Mod well Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type Yes No Mottle Texture, Concretions, Abundance /Contrast Rhizospheres, etc. 0 -6 10YR 3/1 Loam I6 -20 10YR 4/1 10YR 4/6 Hydric Soil Indicators: X X X Remarks: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Common prom. Sandy clay Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Prominent redoximorphic features present Appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Field indicators of hydric soil present WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: NO NO NO Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? YES WETLAND CRITERIA MET Sample plot located within depression formed by old homesite removal Area appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Dense overstory of red alders, old homesite area, ground compacted Compacted area of seasonal ponding. SAMPLE PLOT SPM7 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project/Site 5 Rivers Tukwila Applicant/Owner: Investigator: Habitat Technologies Date: 8 MARCH 02 County: King State: Washington Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO Community ID: Is the area a potential Problem area? YES NO Transect ID: (If needed, explain on reverse) Plot ID: VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an `) SPM7 Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1 Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Salix lasiandra S FACW Rubus spectabilis S FAC+ Urtica dioica H FAC+ Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC -). Include species noted (*) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: Shallow depression along swale dominated by shrubs 100% HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other X No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: Remarks: Surface Surface Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated X Saturated in upper 12" X Water Marks X Drift Lines Sediment Deposits X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " X Water- Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Sample plot located within depressional area along swale Area appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Field indicators of wetland hydrology present Map Unit Name: Arents, Alderwood material Taxonomy (Subgroup) - Profile Description: Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Mottle Colors Moist) (Munsell Moist) SAMPLE PLOT SPM7 Drainage Class: Mod well Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type Yes No Mottle Texture, Concretions, Abundance /Contrast Rhizospheres, etc. 0 -8 10YR 2/2 Loam 8 -20 10YR 2/2 10YR 4/6 Hydric Soil Indicators: X X X Remarks: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Common prom. Sandy loam Concretions X High Organic Content in Surface Layer X Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Prominent redoximorphic features present Appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Field indicators of hydric soil present WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: YES YES YES NO NO NO Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? WETLAND CRITERIA MET Sample plot located within depression along seasonal swale Area appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Shallow depression along swale dominated by shrubs SAMPLE PLOT SPM9 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project/Site 5 Rivers Tukwila Applicant/Owner: Investigator: Habitat Technologies Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? Is the area a potential Problem area? (If needed, explain on reverse) YES YES NO NO Date: 8 MARCH 02 County: King State: Washington Community ID: Transect ID: Plot ID: SPM9 VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1 Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 7. 8. Alnus rubra sap FAC Rubus spectabilis S FAC+ Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC -). Include species noted ( *) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: Shallow depression that is very compacted and along old internal roadway 1 00% HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other X No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: Surface Surface Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated X Saturated in upper 12" X Water Marks X Drift Lines Sediment Deposits X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " X Water- Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Shallow ponding evident in this compacted depression Sample plot located within depressional area along swale Area appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Field indicators of wetland hydrology present Map Unit Name: Arents, Alderwood material Taxonomy (Subgroup) - Profile Description: Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Mottle Colors Moist) (Munsell Moist) SAMPLE PLOT SPM9 Drainage Class: Mod well Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type Yes No Mottle Texture, Concretions, Abundance /Contrast Rhizospheres, etc. 0 -8 10YR 2/1 Clay Loam 8 -20 10YR 4/2 10YR 4/6 Common prom. Mixed loam Hydric Soil Indicators: X X X Remarks: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Concretions X High Organic Content in Surface Layer X Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Prominent redoximorphic features present Appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Field indicators of hydric soil present WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: NO NO NO Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? YES WETLAND CRITERIA MET Area appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Shallow depression that is very compacted and along old internal roadway SAMPLE PLOT SPM10 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project/Site 5 Rivers Tukwila Applicant/Owner: Investigator: Habitat Technologies Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? Is the area a potential Problem area? (If needed, explain on reverse) YES NO YES NO Date: 8 MARCH 02 County: King State: Washington Community ID: Transect ID: Plot ID: SPM9 VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plan 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 7. 8. Rubus procera S FACU Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC -). Include species noted ( *) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: Blackberry thicket 0% HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other X No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: Remarks: 15 inches 10 inches Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated Saturated in upper 12" Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Oxidized Root•Channels in Upper 12 " Water- Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Sample plot located outside depression Area appears to drain somewhat well following seasonal storm events Field indicators of wetland hydrology NOT present Map Unit Name: Arents, Alderwood material Taxonomy (Subgroup) Profile Description: Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Mottle Colors Moist) (Munsell Moist) SAMPLE PLOT SPM10 Drainage Class: Mod well Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type Yes No Mottle Texture, Concretions, Abundance /Contrast Rhizospheres, etc. 0 -10 10YR 2/1 Clay Loam 10 -20 10YR 4/3 10YR 4/6 Few faint. Gravelly loam Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Prominent redoximorphic features NOT present Appears to drain somewhat well following seasonal storm events Field indicators of hydric soil NOT present WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: YES YES YES Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? WETLAND CRITERIA NOT MET Area appears to drain somewhat well following seasonal storm events Blackberry thicket • APPENDIX B — Watercourse Rating Form 19 5 Rivers 01248 j _g ■,.., s r CJ 43e- '-- —!hi Q —0 . .n 4.i 4i 7 %I 8 e ,� d 4- 3 w F INSTREAM ELEMENTS 0 u V Q 3 O , V Q u 0 a' . 0 U 0 0 H O II 8 5 o 11 > 2 0 0 0 in 6. u 0 O M y' II • 3o:: 0 w as 0 0 0 .0 U 0 0 H O 1I H 0 5 t8 0r 0 .0 •0 o d y 4 2 4 N q O .L W 5 vj CL) II 8.0 2 zp0 q11 0 O N w c0i N Fish habitat 0 5 TOTAL INSTREAM SCORE CORRIDOR FEATURES d a..urrwur Darner 6I 0' I 0 0 h 0 •0 L. 4. 0 0 4.. 0 d •0 .N. O ›• + T O 0 44 y 8 a0 8 .2 tu • oo .0 . 'fl , O .� 7 3. E 0 0 ORRIDOR SCORE Cizy of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director September 13, 2002 James Jaeger Jaeger Engineering 9419 South 204th Place Kent WA 98031 Re: Five Rivers Development- proposed 10 -lot subdivision located at NE corner of South 158th Street and 53"1 Avenue South. File numbers LO1 -064 and E01 -027. Dear Mr. Jaeger: The Department of Community Development received your application to subdivide one residential lot into 12 lots at a site located at NE corner of South 158th Street and 53rd Avenue South on October 22, 2001. A notice of incomplete application and technical review comments were sent to you on November 19, 2001. Additional comments from City's Public Works Department were sent to you on December 28, 2001 and January 4, 2002. You requested an extension to submit the additional information. A one 120 -day extension was granted till June 19, 2002. A partial resubmittal was received from you on June 19, 2002. You submitted the completeness items but did not address the technical review comments provided to you. For the purposes of completeness review your application was considered complete on June 20, 2002. However code based review could not proceed because the technical review comments were not addressed by you. In your resubmittal you requested that you would like the Director to review wetland report and the request for deviation from sensitive areas ordinance (filling of wetlands). As per our conversation you were informed that a request to fill a wetland is a separate Type 2 permit. Type 2 permit application was provided to you. However we did not receive any Type 2 permit application. Nevertheless we have done some preliminary review of the wetland report as part of your SEPA application. Following are some comments based on that review: 1 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 • 1. The wetland report states on the first page that it is not intended to meet the City of Tukwila standard requirements of a formal wetland delineation report. Is there another complete report? 2. Based on review of the report and a site visit by the City's wetland biologist, it appears that there are some inconsistencies in the report and the delineation shown on the survey drawing. The report also talks about a type 3 watercourse and no watercourse is shown on the survey. Also, the sample plots in the report and the delineation flags at the site are not the same. Please show the flag numbers on the survey so that they can be compared with the flags on site. 3. It also appears that wetland C as shown on the survey is actually larger and continues along the toe of the slope on the proposed lots 9 and 8. It is also likely that it may be a Type 2 wetland. Please note that Special Permission Type 2 Directors Decision can be applied for filling of Type 3 wetlands only and that too if the proposal meets all code criteria. However filing of Type 2 wetlands will require a reasonable use exception and it must meet all code criteria listed under TMC 18.45.115, including documentation that application of sensitive areas ordinance would deny all reasonable use of the property. 4. It appears like prior to getting approval for filling and creation of wetlands, the first step is to accurately delineate the wetlands and categorize them pursuant to the City's sensitive areas ordinance. A complete delineation report that is consistent with the survey drawing and flags in the field must be submitted. Once an agreement is reached on the wetland/watercourse boundaries you may decide on how you want to proceed. If you decide to present a proposal for filling and creation of wetlands, appropriate mitigation plan and site layout must be submitted with the request along with an analysis on how you meet the code criteria for deviation from the code requirement. Further the following are-some additional comments on your application: 1. Landscape plan submitted on June 19 has a different lot layout than the plat drawing. For the calculation of replacement trees, a separate drawing must be included that shows the existing trees, location of steep slopes and sensitive areas and the trees to be removed from the sensitive areas or their associated buffers must be clearly marked. Also note that due to revised lot layout additional trees will be removed than are currently shown on the landscape plan (particularly lot 8). 2. Dave McPherson from Public Works had contacted you to get authorization to proceed with the peer review of the geotechnical report. We have not received affirmation from you. Applicant is responsible for the payment of the peer review. The preliminary cost estimate from Shannon and Wilson is for $1600 for their review. Please provide a written statement on your agreement to reimburse the city for payment to the city's consultant. The city will authorize Shannon and Wilson to start their review subsequent to receiving your written response. 2 Please note that you must address all comments listed in the previous letters dated November 19, 2001; December 28, 2001; and January 4, 2002 for the city to complete its review of your SEPA and Subdivision applications. Please call to discuss how you plan to proceed with this application. You can reach me at 206 - 431 -3685. Sincerely, Minnie Dhaliwal Senior Planner JAEGER ENGINEERING 9419 S. 204 PLACE - KENT, WASHINGTON 98031 PHONE (253) 850-0934 FAX (253) 850 -0155 June 19, 2002 Minnie Dhaliwal, Planner City of Tukwila c trFLruke l Department of Community Development b" ruel 6300 Southcenter Blvd:, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA. 98188 PER„,,, i c n, Eq RE: Five Rivers Preliminary Plat, File No. L01 -064 and E01 -027 Dear Minnie, The City has requested additional information related to the above plat application to continue the review. Part of the additional information was a wetland delineation. The wetland review discovered 3 wetland areas on the site as shown on the attached revised plat plan. The wetland areas conflict with the proposed plat road and many of the proposed Tots. We cannot move the proposed location of the plat road because of constraints with grades and retaining walls at the connection with 53rd Ave. S. We are proposing to relocate the wetland areas B and C as shown on the plan. AU of the onsite wetlands are type 3 and the City code allows relocation of type 3 wetlands with the approval of the Director. I have submitted a written request to the Director for the proposed wetland relocation. If allowed, the number of lots will be reduced from 12 to 10. Additionally, this lot yield will only work with a PRD development. Thus, I will be amending our application to include a PRD. The configuration of the plat, or even the potential of revising to a short plat, is based on the decision of the Director regarding our request to relocate the wetlands. Until we receive his decision, I would request that the additional requested information be delayed. All of the requested information would be substantially changed depending on the results of our request. Please call me with any concerns on this issue. We just received the wetland information that is generating these changes. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, James Jaeger JAEGER ENGINEERING 9419 S. 204 PLACE - KENT, WASHINGTON 98031 PHONE (253) 850 -0934 FAx (253) 850 -0155 June 19, 2002 Steve Lancaster, Director City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA. 98188 Rr. . J nEdyratT CENTER CITY OF TUKWILA 22 PERMIT CENTER RE: Five Rivers Preliminary Plat - Request for Relocation of Wetland File No. L01 -064 and E01 -027 Dear Mr. Lancaster, An application for a residential plat has been submitted to the City for the proposed Five Rivers Plat. The initial application included 12 Tots and a • drainage tract. The City has since requested a wetland review of the site. This review was performed and resulted in the discovery of 3 wetland areas on the site. These wetland areas were surveyed and are shown on the revised plat plan. All three wetland areas have been identified as type 3 wetlands. The proposed plat road would encroach into the wetland C and B as shown on the plan. We cannot relocate the plat road because of existing retaining walls and grade constraints at the connection with the frontage road, 53rd Ave. S. Additionally, the wetland areas and respective buffers would essentially render this site unusable with respect to the necessary lot yield to remain feasible. We respectfully request that you allow us to fill wetland B and C. As mitigation, we propose to create new wetland area around existing wetland A. The creation area would be at a minimum of ratio of 1.5:1 for the wetland area that is eliminated. This area around wetland A is the best area for wetland creation due to the availability of the necessary hydrology for a wetland to survive. This is also one of the low areas of the site. We would be able to provide the required 25' buffer around the new wetland and would not locate the wetland so as to impose a buffer onto an adjacent property. The new wetland area would be placed within a sensitive area tract A detailed wetland mitigation plan would be submitted to the City. It is anticipated that the applicant will provide a bond for the wetland monitoring and survival. The proposed wetland relocation area is shown on the revised plat plan. Due to the discovered wetlands, we have reduced the number of lots from 12 to 10. Additionally, to allow the 10 lot yield, a PRD is now proposed for the site. The application will be amended to reflect the request for a PRD. To qualify for the PRD, the sensitive area tract is larger than that required only for the wetland. This will allow the addition of trails and passive recreational usage within this tract. Please review this request and allow the relocation of the wetland areas B and C. TMC 18.45 provides for type 3 wetlands to be relocated with the permission of the Director. We feel that the combined wetland area would be of greater benefit than the existing smaller, separated wetlands. A wetland report is available for review, but the proposed mitigation/ creation area plan has not been prepared. We would like to know if the proposal is acceptable in principle before more resources are expended. Please feel free to call me with any questions. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, James Jaeger, P.E. • City of Tukwila • Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director February 25, 2002 James Jaeger Jaeger Engineering 9419 South 204 Place Kent WA 98031 Re: Request for extension for submittal of additional information for Five Rivers 12 lot subdivision at NE corner of South 158th Street and 53rd Avenue South. File numbers L01 -064 and E01 -027. Dear Mr. Jaeger: This is in response to your request for an extension of the 90 -day time limit to submit additional information requested by the City in the letter dated November 19, 2001. Pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.104.070, the Department shall cancel an incomplete application if the applicant fails to submit the additional information within 90 days following notification from the Department that the application is incomplete. The Department may extend this cancellation date up to 120 additional days if the applicant submits a written request for an extension prior to cancellation. Based on the review of your request for an extension, one 120 -day extension as provided under TMC 18.104.070 is granted. Please note that additional information as listed in the City's previous correspondence to make a determination of completeness for your application must be submitted within 120 -days of February 19, 2002, i.e. by June 19, 2002. If you have any further questions, please call me at 206 - 431 -3685. Sincerely, Jltck Pace Deputy Director 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 HABITAT TECHNOLOGIES February 22, 2002 Mr. Jim Jaeger, P.E. @ Jaeger Engineering 9419 South 204th Place Kent, Washington 98031 Fax 1- 253 - 850 -0155 r OFTuirw 1 PERMIT cENTER pages RE: Wetland and Drainage Corridor Site Reconnaissance Assessment Five Rivers Project Site, City of Tukwila, King County Dear Mr. Jaeger, Following your request Habitat Technologies has completed an onsite reconnaissance of wetland and drainage corridor features within the approximately 3 -acre site located along 53`d Avenue South southeast of the intersection of 53`d Avenue South andLSouth 158th Street within the City of Tukwila, King County, Washington (Figure 1). Onsite assessment followed the established criteria and methods as defined within the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987 Manual), the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Wash. Manual), the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Forest Practice Rules, and the City of Tukwila Title 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay. As we have discussed, please keep in mind that this letter report is intended for internal planning purposes only and is NOT intended to meet the City of Tukwila standard requirements of a formal wetland delineation report. BACKGROUND INFORMATION National Wetland Inventory Mapping The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping completed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was reviewed as a part of this assessment. This mapping resource did not identify any wetlands or drainage corridors within the project site. This mapping resource did identify a small wetland area offsite to the east within the Interstate 5 interchange (Figure 2). State of Washington Priority Habitats and Species The State of Washington Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) Mapping was reviewed as a part of this assessment. This mapping resource did not identify any priority habitats or species within the project site. This mapping resource did identify the same wetland area as noted within the NWI mapping (Figure 3). wetlands, streams, fisheries, wildlife -- mitigation and permitting solutions P.O. Box 1088, Puyallup, Washington 98371 1 voice 253 - 845 -5119 fax 253 - 841 -1942 5 Rivers Reconn 01248 State of Washington Department of Fisheries Stream Catalog The State of Washington Department of Fisheries Stream Catalog was reviewed as a part of this assessment. This mapping resource did not identify any streams within or adjacent to the project site. King County Wetland Inventory The King County Wetland Inventory was reviewed as a part of this assessment. This mapping resource did not identify any wetlands or drainage corridors within or immediately adjacent to the project site. Soil Mapping The soils mapping inventory completed by the Soils Conservation Service was reviewed as a part of this assessment. This mapping identified the soils generally throughout the project site as Argents, Alderwood material. Alderwood soil is moderately well drained and formed in glacial deposits. Alderwood soil is not listed as "hydric" (Figure 4). ONSITE EVALUATION Evaluation Methodologies Onsite wetland and drainage corridor reconnaissance was completed during January 2002. This assessment followed the methodologies and procedures defined in the 1987 Manual, the Wash. Manual, the WDNR Forest Practice Rules, and the City of Tukwila Title 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay. Onsite assessment was completed during a period of seasonal storm events. Field Observations Onsite reconnaissance activities encompassed the entire project site. The project site was bounded on the north by an existing single - family homesite, on the south by a City of Seattle Water Pipeline, on the west by 53rd Avenue South, and on the east by an elevated pedestrian walkway and Klickitat Drive. The site sloped generally from west to east. The site had been modified by a number of prior land use actions, which included forest harvest, clearing, grading, the development/removal of a homesite, and ditching. • The majority of the project site was dominated by an upland mixed forest plant community. This plant community exhibited a dense canopy which acted to limit the development of the understory plant community. As a result of prior clearing and grading the understory was dominated by dense thickets of blackberries (Rubus procera and Rubus laciniatus). As noted onsite the southeastern and eastern portions of the project site had undergone recent clearing and grading actions apparently to remove blackberries and allow access to the site. 2 5 Rivers Reconn 01248 The forest plant community included red alder (Alnus rubra), Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii), big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), Western red cedar (Thuja plicata), Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa). The surface soil throughout the majority of the project site had been impacted by prior land use actions. The shallow sub - surface soil ranged from gravelly loam to sandy loam and did not exhibit prominent redoximorphic features. This soil appeared to drain well following seasonal storm events. • A drainage corridor was present near the northwestern corner of the project site. This drainage corridor appeared to be an old property boundary ditch and was not continuous through the project site. This drainage corridor was along the northwestern boundary of the project site and then again along the northeastern boundary of the project site. As noted during January 2002 there did not appear to be a direct surface connection between these two areas. This drainage corridor exhibited areas of a well- defined channel from by prior excavation. The defined channel ranged between three (3) to five (5) feet in width in the northwestern portion of the project site. Onsite, the plant community within the drainage corridor is dominated by young Pacific madrone, young and mature red alder, Himalayan blackberry (Rubus procera), and Pacific red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa). As identified at SPB within the northwestern portion of this drainage the surface soil is a mixture of loam and loamy sand materials. The surface soil color is gray (10YR 4/2) to a depth of 6 inches. The sub -soil is mixed (10YR 4/3 and 10YR 3/3) and dominated by loamy sand. This soil did not exhibit prominent mottles and did not meet the "hydric" soil criteria. • The southern boundary of the project site is formed by the City of Seattle water pipeline. The plant community within the pipeline corridor is regularly managed and is dominated by various grass species typical of an erosion control seed mixture. Outside of the managed waterline corridor the onsite plant community was dominated by young and mature red alder, young and mature black cottonwood, salmonberry (Rubus laciniatus), wild rose (Rosa gymnocarpa), Pacific red elderberry, and blackberries. The majority of this area appeared impacted by the development of the waterline. • A drainage corridor was present within the southern portion of the project site. This drainage starts within a shallow depression in the southwestern portion of the project site adjacent to what appeared to be an old homesite. This drainage appeared supported by seasonal storm events and a series of small, hillside seeps. This drainage generally continues downslope to the east along the southern site boundary to the southeastern corner of the project site. Surface 3 5 Rivers Reconn 01248 flow within this drainage corridor did not create a continuous defined channel, however, evidence of the passage of surface water along this corridor was present. Surface flow within this drainage was captured within a stormwater system along the eastern site boundary and appeared to eventually enter the Lower Green River via a public stormwater system. • Three small depressional pockets were identified onsite as associated within the southern drainage corridor. These small pockets appeared to pond seasonal surface water runoff for short periods into the growing season. These small pockets were dominated by a plant community typically associated with saturated soil conditions. These small pockets also exhibited prominent redoximorphic features within the soil. • This southern drainage corridor had been disturbed at approximately the midpoint of the southern boundary by previous clearing activities. Large tire ruts and exposed subsurface soils were visible within this area. These activities had also disturbed the vegetation and hydrology patterns within this area. — FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Onsite reconnaissance was completed during January 2002 following the methodologies and procedures defined in the 1987 Manual, the Wash. Manual, the WDNR Forest Practice Rules, and the City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Overlay. This reconnaissance identified that the majority of the project site did not exhibit characteristics typically associated with a wetland or drainage corridor. As a result of prior land use actions the majority of the project site was dominated by a dense forest overstory and dense thickets of blackberries within the understory (Figure 5). • Onsite reconnaissance identified an old drainage corridor generally along the northern site boundary. This old drainage corridor did not exhibit continuous surface flow and did not meet the wetland criteria. This old drainage corridor appeared to be an old property line ditch that had been isolated by the development of 53rd Avenue South and prior onsite grading actions. • Onsite reconnaissance identified a drainage corridor generally along the southern site boundary. This drainage corridor exhibited a continuous surface flow and meet the established criteria for designation as a State of Washington Type 5 Water. This drainage corridor appeared to begin onsite within a series of hillside seeps adjacent to an old homesite area within the southwestern portion of the project site. This drainage terminates at a public stormwater facility and did not provide habitats for fish species. As defined following the City of Tukwila water resource rating system this small drainage appeared to meet the City's criteria for designation as a Type 3 Watercourse. The City's standard buffer for such a watercourse is 15 feet as measured from the edge of the watercourse. 4 5 Rivers Reconn 01248 • Onsite reconnaissance identified three (3) small depressions associated with the Type 3 Watercourse generally along the southern edge of the project site. These small depressions exhibited all three of the established criteria for designation as a "wetland." These small depressions appeared to meet the City's criteria for designation as a Type 3 Wetlands. The City's standard buffer for such a Type 3 Wetlands is 25 feet as measured from the edge of the wetland. RECOMMENDATION The City of Tukwila, as well as a number of other resource agencies, regulates development activities in and around wetland and watercourse areas. The City of Tukwila requires that wetland, watercourse, and associated buffer areas be identified as an initial element of any proposed land use actions. Should site development planning move forward it is the recommendation of Habitat Technologies that the boundaries of the onsite wetlands and watercourse be identified, surveyed, and made a part of the project site plan. The identification of wetland and watercourse boundaries will allow for a more formal understanding of the amount of developable property present within the project site and how much area will be required for retention or mitigation of wetlands and associated buffers. This identification process should include a formal wetland delineation report which would be submitted as a part of the permit application. Thank you for allowing Habitat Technologies the opportunity to assist with this project. Should you have any questions or require additional assistance please call us at 253- 845 -5119. Sincerely, Angela Freudenstein Wetland Ecologist Thomas D. Deming Certified Professional Wetland Scientist 5 5 Rivers Reconn 01248 FIGURES 6 5 Rivers Reconn 01248 ST STRANDER 27 168TH WATER UTILITY EASEMENT existing park 53rd AVENUE SOUTH old homesite CITY OF TUKWILA TYPE 3 WATEE COURSE P s CITY OF TUKWILA TYPE 3 WETLAND SPD 9 SPE 0QSPEa CITY OF TUKWILA TYPE 3 WETLAND dry difchA AfiSP 0 SCB SPC ry ditch HABITAT existing homesite Snumdered sample plot i ) NOT FROM SURVEY RECONNAISSANCE FIELD MAPPING Figure 5 TECHNOLOGIES Five Rivers, City of Tukwila FIELD DATA SHEETS 7 5 Rivers Reconn 01248 Project/Site Applicant/Owner: Investigator: SAMPLE PLOT SPA DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) 5 Rivers Tukwila Habitat Technologies Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO Is the area a potential Problem area? YES NO (If needed, explain on reverse) Date: County: State: Community ID: Transect ID: Plot ID: 31 JAN 02 King Washington SPA VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator I Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Alnus rubra T FAC Bare ground _ Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC -). Include species noted ( *) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: 100% Dense canopy of red alder limiting understory development HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other X No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: Remarks: None 12 inches Surface Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated X Saturated in upper 12" X Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " X Water- Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Upper end of seasonally wet swale Area appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Field indicators of wetland hydrology present Map Unit Name: Arents, Alderwood material Taxonomy (Subgroup) - Profile Description: Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Mottle Colors Moist) (Munsell Moist) SAMPLE PLOT SPA Drainage Class: Mod. well Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type Yes No Mottle Texture, Concretions, Abundance /Contrast Rhizospheres, etc. 0 -6 6 -16 10YR 3/1 10YR 4/1 10YR 4/6 Prominent & common Organic Loam Silty clay Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor X Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions X Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Concretions X High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Field indicators of hydric soil present WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? NO NO NO Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? Remarks: WETLAND CRITERIA MET Sample plot located within southwestern portion of the site at start of seasonal swale Area appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Dense canopy of red alder limiting understory development SAMPLE PLOT SPB DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project/Site 5 Rivers Tukwila Applicant/Owner: Investigator: Habitat Technologies Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? Is the area a potential Problem area? (If needed, explain on reverse) YES NO YES NO Date: 31 JAN 02 County: King State: Washington Community ID: Transect ID: Plot ID: SPB VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1 Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Sambucus racemosa S FACU Rubus procera S FACU Equisetum arvense H FAC Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC -). Include species noted ( *) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: Dense thicket of blackberries within very seasonal ditched drainage 33% HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other X No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: None 6 inches 6 inches Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated X Saturated in upper 12" Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " Water- Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Area appears ditched for a short distance Water is entering sample plot from side, not from below Area appears to drain well following seasonal storm events Field indicators of wetland hydrology NOT present Map Unit Name: Arents, Alderwood material Taxonomy (Subgroup) - Profile Description: Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Mottle Colors Moist) (Munsell Moist) SAMPLE PLOT SPB Drainage Class: Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type Mod. well Yes No Mottle Texture, Concretions, Abundance /Contrast Rhizospheres, etc. 0 -6 10YR 4/2 NONE 6 -16 10YR 4/3, 3/3 10YR 4/6 Prominent & common Loam Loamy sand Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Soils tilt Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Area appears ditched for a short distance Appears to drain well following seasonal storm events Field indicators of hydric soil NOT present WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: YES YES YES Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? WETLAND CRITERIA NOT MET Dense thicket of blackberries within very seasonal ditched drainage Area appears to drain well following seasonal storm events Area appears ditched for a short distance SAMPLE PLOT SPC DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project/Site 5 Rivers Tukwila Applicant/Owner: Investigator: Habitat Technologies Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO Is the area a potential Problem area? YES NO (If needed, explain on reverse) Date: 31 JAN 02 County: King State: Washington Community ID: Transect ID: Plot ID: SPC VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an') Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1 Dominant Plant Species ratu Indicator 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Alnus rubra T FAC Hex aquifolium S UPL Polystichum munitum H FACU y Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or 33% FAC (except FAC -). Include species noted (') as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: Dense overstory of red alders, area appears to have been cleared a number of years ago HYDROLOGY _ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other X No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: Remarks: None None 14 inches Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated _ Saturated in upper 12" Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " Water- Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Onsite assessment during period of seasonal storm events Area appears to drain well following seasonal storm events Field indicators of wetland hydrology NOT present Map Unit Name: Arents, Alderwood material Taxonomy (Subgroup) - Profile Description: Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Mottle Colors Moist) (Munsell Moist) SAMPLE PLOT SPC Drainage Class: Mod well Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type Yes No Mottle Texture, Concretions, Abundance /Contrast Rhizospheres, etc. 0 -14 14 -16 10YR 3/2 10YR 4/3 NONE 10YR 4/6 Prominent & common Sandy loam Sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Appears to drain well following seasonal storm events Field indicators of hydric soil NOT present WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: YES YES YES Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? WETLAND CRITERIA NOT MET Sample plot located within central portion of the site Area appears to drain well following seasonal storm events Dense overstory of red alders, area appears to have been cleared a number of years ago SAMPLE PLOT SPD DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project/Site 5 Rivers Tukwila Applicant/Owner: Investigator: Habitat Technologies Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO Is the area a potential Problem area? YES NO (If needed, explain on reverse) Date: 31 JAN 02 County: King State: Washington Community ID: Transect ID: Plot ID: SPD VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an') Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1 Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Alnus rubra T FAC Rubus spectabilis S FAC+ Bare ground _ Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC -). Include species noted (') as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: - Dense overstory of red alders, area appears to have been cleared a number of years ago 100% HYDROLOGY _ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other X No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: None Depth to Free Water Pit: None Depth to Saturated Soil: 14 inches Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated _ Saturated in upper 12" Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " Water- Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Onsite assessment during period of seasonal storm events Area appears to drain well following seasonal storm events Field indicators of wetland hydrology NOT present Map Unit Name: Argents, Alderwood material Taxonomy (Subgroup) - Profile Description: Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Mottle Colors Moist) (Munsell Moist) SAMPLE PLOT SPD Drainage Class: Mod well Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type Yes No Mottle Texture, Concretions, Abundance /Contrast Rhizospheres, etc. 0 -5 5 -16 10YR 4/3 10YR 2/2 NONE Sand Sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Prominent redoximorphic features NOT present Appears to drain well following seasonal storm events Field indicators of hydric soil NOT present WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: YES YES Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? WETLAND CRITERIA NOT MET Sample plot located within central portion of the site Area appears to drain well following seasonal storm events Dense overstory of red alders, area appears to have been cleared a number of years ago SAMPLE PLOT SPE -a DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project/Site 5 Rivers Tukwila Applicant/Owner: Investigator: Habitat Technologies Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO Is the area a potential Problem area? YES NO (If needed, explain on reverse) Date: 31 JAN 02 County: King State: Washington Community ID: Transect ID: Plot ID: SPE -a VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an ') Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1 Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Alnus rubra T FAC Rubus procera S FACU Phalaris arundinacea H FACW Bare ground Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC -). Include species noted (') as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: Dense overstory of red alders, area appears to have been cleared a number of years ago 66% HYDROLOGY _ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gaoe Aerial Photograph Other X No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: 2 inches Wetland Hydrology Indicators: X Inundated Saturated in upper 12" Water Marks Drift Lines X Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " X Water- Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Onsite assessment during period of seasonal storm events Water is ponded on surface within compacted tire rut Area appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events Field indicators of wetland hydrology present Map Unit Name: Arents, Alderwood material Taxonomy (Subgroup) - SAMPLE PLOT SPE -a Drainage Class: Mod well Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type Yes No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color (Munsell Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance /Contrast Rhizospheres, etc. 0 -6 6 -16 16 -17 10YR 2/1 10YR 4/2 10YR 4/6 10YR 2/1 Compacted Loam Prominent & Compacted common Loam Loam Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Concretions Histic Epipedon X High Organic Content in Surface Layer Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking X Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List X Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Surface soil compacted, area is bull dozed and tire ruts are visible Appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events Field indicators of hydric soil present WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: NO NO NO Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? WETLAND CRITERIA MET Sample plot located within compacted tire rut Area appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events Area is bull dozed with tire ruts visible, surface soil is compacted which is ponding water during storm events Area is within a tire rut adjacent to sample plot SPE Sample plot SPE does not meet the wetland criteria SAMPLE PLOT SPE DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project/Site 5 Rivers Tukwila Applicant/Owner: Investigator: Habitat Technologies Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO Is the area a potential Problem area? YES NO (If needed, explain on reverse) Date: 31 JAN 02 County: King State: Washington Community ID: Transect ID: Plot ID: SPE VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an') inant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1 Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator - 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Alnus rubra T FAC Rubus procera S FACU Phalaris arundinacea H FACW Bare ground _ Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC -). Include species noted (') as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: Dense overstory of red alders, area appears to have been cleared a number of years ago 66% HYDROLOGY _ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other X No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: Remarks: 18 inches 12 inches Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated X Saturated in upper 12" Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " Water- Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Water is ponded on surface within adjacent compacted tire ruts Area appears to drain well following seasonal storm events Field indicators of wetland hydrology NOT present Map Unit Name: Arents, Alderwood material Taxonomy (Subgroup) - Profile Description: Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Mottle Colors Moist) (Munsell Moist) SAMPLE PLOT SPE Drainage Class: Mod well Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type Yes No Mottle Texture, Concretions, Abundance /Contrast Rhizospheres, etc. 0-4 4 -15 15 -20 10YR 2/2 10YR 3/3 10YR 4/3 10YR 4/6 10YR 4/6 Few faint Few faint Duff Loam Gravelly Loam Gravelly Loam Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Sons List Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: adjacent to compacted area, tire ruts are visible Appears to drain well following seasonal storm events Field indicators of hydric soil NOT present WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: NO YES YES Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? NO WETLAND CRITERIA NOT MET Area appears to drain well following seasonal storm events Water is ponded on surface within adjacent compacted tire ruts Dense overstory of red alders, area appears to have been cleared a number of years ago SAMPLE PLOT SPF DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project/Site 5 Rivers Tukwila Applicant/Owner: Investigator: Habitat Technologies Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO Is the area a potential Problem area? YES NO (If needed, explain on reverse) Date: 31 JAN 02 County: King State: Washington Community ID: Transect ID: Plot ID: SPF VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1 Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Alder rubra T FAC Salix lasiandra S FACW+ Sambucus racemosa S FACU Rubus spectabilis S FAC+ Percent of Dominant species that are OBL. FACW, or FAC (except FAC -). Include species noted (') as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: Dense overstory of red alders, area appears to have been cleared a number of years ago 75% HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other X No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: Remarks: 6 inches Wetland Hydrology Indicators: X Inundated X Saturated in upper 12" X Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " X Water- Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Sample plot located within shallow depressions within seasonal swale Area appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Field indicators of wetland hydrology present Map Unit Name: Arents, Alderwood material Taxonomy (Subgroup) - Profile Description: Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Mottle Colors Moist) (Munsell Moist) SAMPLE PLOT SPF Drainage Class: Mod well Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type Yes No Mottle Texture, Concretions, Abundance /Contrast Rhizospheres, etc. 0 -12 12 -16 10YR 2/1 10YR 4/1 10YR 4/6 Prominent & common Organic loam Sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: X X Remarks: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Concretions X High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Prominent redoximorphic features present Appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Field indicators of hydric soil present WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: l' ES •YES YES NO NO NO Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? WETLAND CRITERIA MET Sample plot located within shallow depressions within seasonal swale Area appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Dense overstory of red alders, area appears to have been cleared a number of years ago JAEGER ENGINEERING 9419 S. 204 PLACE - KENT, WASHINGTON 98031 PHONE (253) 850 -0934 FAx (253) 850 -0155 February 20, 2002 PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE ANALYSIS FIVE RIVERS PRELIMINARY PLAT CITY OF TUKWILA File Nos. L01 -064 & E01 -027 PREPARED -FOR: Five Rivers Development, Inc. 27010 115th Ave. SE Kent, WA. 98031 (253) 653 -6491 PREPARED BY: James Jaeger, P.E. Fl U E R\vE-tRS tr2p- I rJ A GE_ c_c-c) L o N �- - PRE- De-v 01 co e JP r 7c 0 -o)- em+1 r Sal.__t xc.st v\c, rn %2 _s_`lv: (I 0--y) - slt� c are. - -- S 2-9 Q - - .=- p, -�e�- 1 2 3 l 30= _ ffeZtrN. vs� c y C I l `J�. 1_ LeCo �ovs'- 0 2 -_- 5.3 - -- 2 73 I.0 1. Pr Ose n e., sau r e ot- r- ia_ s v r- �-�n -e Pre_ cAiv oP C c� LNm z , 82- Ate ,(3- SO c l T\ Fis w oec� fir-{ es. f 1:1-o to us O�1- s-i j�e. CA.)( - - so, c_ /)o ( , 3 c ) -- L 2 (17- = t 3 cp c� �3 sF 2 n . �J o V s-es Sir, u .Jo-y s 4000 e iz (4-occ. = 4- '3000 N-v e S j—rv"'". C (e? 1.0 9' SC 5F w 2t'f sn d so 1 c_er cam- -ECG 4 5 . T * - -1 may .�.r�o�s: —► (2)24. z-F C4, S Ptc- RID S \rl0L)5 2-ca)-2- - ) •_ (RS- P)--c. Use_ Lew) Is ► 3 .\n -I / �'r ( o L)se_. rc STS , _. L i - ( 1 Flow Cr-\-r0 05-e. ;ck5-1 G up_ e-r- . o k_$j PRE - DEVELOPED PEAK FLOWS - KCRTS TIME SERIES TOTAL AREA: 2.82 AC. IMPERVIOUS: 0.09 AC. PERVIOUS: 2.73 AC. (FOREST) Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:5rivpre.tsf Project Location:Sea -Tac - -- Annual Peak Flow Rates-- - Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.186 2 2/09/01 18:00 0.063 7 1/05/02 16:00 0.150 3 2/28/03 3:00 0.022 8 8/26/04 2:00 0.090 6 1/05/05 8:00 0.147 4 1/18/06 20:00 0.132 5 11/24/06 4:00 0.255 1 1/09/08 9:00 Computed Peaks Flow Frequency Analysis - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period _ 0.255 1 100.00 0.990 0.186 2 25.00 0.960 0.150 3 10.00 0.900 0.147 4 5.00 0.800 0.132 5 3.00 0.667 0.090 6 2.00 0.500 0.063 7 1.30 0.231 0.022 8 1.10 0.091 0.232 50.00 0.980 DEVELOPED PEAK FLOWS - KCRTS TIME SERIES TOTAL AREA: 2.82 AC. IMPERVIOUS: 1.65 AC. PERVIOUS: 1.17 AC. (LAWN) Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:5rivdev.tsf Project Location:Sea -Tac - -- Annual Peak Flow Rates-- - Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.504 6 2/09/01 2:00 0.406 8 1/05/02 16:00 0.608 3 2/27/03 7:00 0.433 7 8/26/04 2:00 0.523 5 10/28/04 16:00 0.535 4 1/18/06 16:00 0.629 2 10/26/06 0:00 1.03 1 1/09/08 6:00 Computed Peaks Flow Frequency Analysis - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 1.03 1 100.00 0.990 0.629 2 25.00 0.960 0.608 3 10.00 0.900 0.535 4 5.00 0.800 0.523 5 3.00 0.667 0.504 6 2.00 0.500 0.433 7 1.30 0.231 0.406 8 1.10 0.091 0.894 50.00 0.980 FIVE RIVERS PRELIMINARY PLAT DETENTION POND DATA KCRTS LEVEL 1 Retention /Detention Facility Type of Facility: Detention Pond Side Slope: 2.00 H:1V Pond Bottom Length: 70.44 ft Pond Bottom Width: 35.22 ft Pond Bottom Area: 2481. sq. ft Top Area at 1 ft. FB: 5592. sq. ft 0.128 acres Effective Storage Depth: 5.00 ft Stage 0 Elevation: 120.00 ft Storage Volume: 18352. cu. ft 0.421 ac -ft Riser Head: 5.00 ft Riser Diameter: 12.00 inches Number of orifices: 2 Full Head Pipe Orifice # Height Diameter Discharge Diameter (ft) (in) (CFS) (in) 1 0.00 1.35 0.110 2 3.75 1.15 0.040 4.0 Top Notch Weir: None Outflow Rating Curve: None Stage Elevation Storage Discharge Percolation Surf Area (ft) (ft) (cu. ft) (ac -ft) (cfs) (cfs) (sq. ft) 0.00 120.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.00 2481. 0.01 120.01 25. 0.001 0.006 0.00 2485. 0.03 120.03 75. 0.002 0.008 0.00 2493. 0.04 120.04 100. 0.002 0.010 0.00 2498. 0.06 120.06 150. 0.003 0.012 0.00 2506. 0.07 120.07 175. 0.004 0.013 0.00 2510. 0.08 120.08 200. 0.005 0.014 0.00 2514. 0.10 120.10 250. 0.006 0.015 0.00 2523. 0.11 120.11 275. 0.006 0.016 0.00 2527. 0.21 120.21 530. 0.012 0.023 0.00 2570. 0.31 120.31 789. 0.018 0.027 0.00 2613. 0.41 120.41 1053. 0.024 0.032 0.00 2657. 0.51 120.51 1321. 0.030 0.035 0.00 2700. 0.61 120.61 1593. 0.037 0.038 0.00 2744. 0.71 120.71 1870. 0.043 0.042 0.00 2789. 0.81 120.81 2151. 0.049 0.044 0.00 2833. 0.91 120.91 2436. 0.056 0.047 0.00 2878. 1.01 121.01 2726. 0.063 0.049 0.00 2924. 1.11 121.11 3021. 0.069 0.052 0.00 2969. 1.21 121.21 3320. 0.076 0.054 0.00 3015. 1.31 121.31 3624. 0.083 0.056 0.00 3062. 1.41 121.41 3933. 0.090 0.058 0.00 3108. 1.51 121.51 4246. 0.097 0.060 0.00 3155. 1.61 121.61 4564. 0.105 0.062 0.00 3202. 1.71 121.71 4886. 0.112 0.064 0.00 3250. 1.81 121.81 5214. 0.120 0.066 0.00 3298. 1.91 121.91 5546. 0.127 0.068 0.00 3346. 2.01 122.01 5883. 0.135 0.070 0.00 3395. 2.11 122.11 6225. 0.143 0.071 0.00 3444. 2.21 122.21 6572. 0.151 0.073 0.00 3493. 2.31 122.31 6923. 0.159 0.075 0.00 3542. 2.41 122.41 7280. 0.167 0.076 0.00 3592. 2.51 122.51 7642. 0.175 0.078 0.00 3642. 2.61 122.61 8009. 0.184 0.080 0.00 3693. 2.71 122.71 8380. 0.192 0.081 0.00 3743. 2.81 122.81 8757. 0.201 0.082 0.00 3794. 2.91 122.91 9139. 0.210 0.084 0.00 3846. 3.01 123.01 9526. 0.219 0.085 0.00 _3898. 3.11 123.11 9919. 0.228 0.087 0.00 3950. 3.21 123.21 10316. 0.237 0.088 0.00 4002. 3.31 123.31 10719. 0.246 0.090 0.00 4055. 3.41 123.41 11127. 0.255 0.091 0.00 4108. 3.51 123.51 11541. 0.265 0.092 0.00 4161. 3.61 123.61 11960. 0.275 0.093 0.00 4215. 3.71 123.71 12384. 0.284 0.095 0.00 4269. 3.75 123.75 12555. 0.288 0.095 0.00 4290. 3.76 123.76 12598. 0.289 0.096 0.00 4296. 3.77 123.77 12641. 0.290 0.097 0.00 4301. 3.79 123.79 12727. 0.292 0.098 0.00 4312. 3.80 123.80 12770. 0.293 0.100 0.00 4318. 3.81 123.81 12813. 0.294 0.103 0.00 4323. 3.82 123.82 12857. 0.295 0.106 0.00 4328. 3.83 123.83 12900. 0.296 0.107 0.00 4334. 3.85 123.85 12987. 0.298 0.108 0.00 4345. 3.86 123.86 13030. 0.299 0.108 0.00 4350. 3.96 123.96 13468. 0.309 0.114 0.00 4405. 4.06 124.06 13911. 0.319 0.119 0.00 4460. 4.16 124.16 14360. 0.330 0.123 0.00 4516. 4.26 124.26 14814. 0.340 0.127 0.00 4571. 4.36 124.36 15274. 0.351 0.131 0.00 4627. 4.46 124.46 15740. 0.361 0.134 0.00 4684. 4.56 124.56 16211. 0.372 0.137 0.00 4740. 4.66 124.66 16688. 0.383 0.140 0.00 4797. 4.76 124.76 17170. 0.394 0.143 0.00 4855. 4.86 124.86 17659. 0.405 0.146 0.00 4912. 4.96 124.96 18153. 0.417 0.149 0.00 4970. 5.00 125.00 18352. 0.421 0.150 0.00 4994. 5.10 125.10. 18854. 0.433 0.461 0.00 5052. 5.20 125.20 19363. 0.445 1.030 0.00 5111. 5.30 125.30 19877. 0.456 1.760 0.00 5170. 5.40 125.40 20397. 0.468 2.550 0.00 5229. 5.50 125.50 20923. 0.480 2.840 0.00 5289. 5.60 125.60 21454. 0.493 3.090 0.00 5349. 5.70 125.70 21992. 0.505 3.330 0.00 5409. 5.80 125.80 22536. 0.517 3.550 0.00 5470. 5.90 125.90 23086. 0.530 3.760 0.00 5531. 6.00 126.00 23642. 0.543 3.960 0.00 5592. 6.10 126.10 24205. 0.556 4.140 0.00 5654. 6.20 126.20 24773. 0.569 4.320 0.00 5716. 6.30 126.30 25348. 0.582 4.490 0.00 5778. 6.40 126.40 25929. 0.595 4.660 0.00 5841. 6.50 126.50 26516. 0.609 4.820 0.00 5904. 6.60 126.60 27110. 0.622 4.970 0.00 5967. 6.70 126.70 27709. 0.636 5.120 0.00 6030. 6.80 126.80 28316. 0.650 5.270 0.00 6094. 6.90 126.90 28928. 0.664 5.410 0.00 6158. 7.00 127.00 29547. 0.678 5.540 0.00 6223. Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Storage Target Calc Stage Elev (Cu -Ft) (Ac -Ft) 1 1.03 * * * * * ** 0.79 5.16 125.16 19146. 0.440 2 0.50 * * * * * ** 0.37 5.07 125.07 18704. 0.429 3 0.51 0.15 0.15 5.00 125.00 18350. 0.421 4 0.54 * * * * * ** 0.14 4.70 124.70 16903. 0.388 5 0.61 * * * * * ** 0.14 4.53 124.53 16051. 0.368 6 0.32 0.09 0.09 3.48 123.48 11412. 0.262 7 0.41 * * * * * ** 0.08 2.39 122.39 7212. 0.166 8 0.43 * * * * * ** 0.07 1.86 121.86 5366. 0.123 G 1,0 Po S _ ;___ .\to - )- - R= crj 17 _.....77 1 + -_ II-7 47-%0) - 57.), Los- sF _.�o.. _ .(17. I. O, 2-.S Soy 5 __o 4-1 - -- -?383_ _•.4Z. - - - - =- 4. _. -Vol !(\e__ Pro v 303(_ - C c u r e - 6 x - e.QV , I ( .0 tea - -- i vY 1 L axe `' eet. OP-1? 2)2_5' (30ciA)- (101 2 0-7e-77 __C 0 A C co Z N v - ( - 1 H- o er JAER ENGINEERIAlk 9419 S. 204 PLACE - KENT, WASHINGTON 98031. PHONE (253) 850-0934 FAx (253) 850 -0155 February 19, 2002 Minnie Dhaliwal City of Tukwila Planning Dept. 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA. 98188 RE: Five Rivers Preliminary Plat- File #L01 -064 # #E01 -027 Request for Extension to Submit Information Dear Minnie, Please allow a time extension to submit the additional information requested in your letter of November 19, 2001 regarding the Five Rivers preliminary plat application. I have assembled all of the requested material except for the wetland reconnaissance study. The field work has been performed by the wetlands consultant, Habitat Technologies, but I have not yet received the written report. I understand that you would like to receive all of the material in one submittal rather than partial submittals. I should have this report within a week. Please grant a 2 week extension to submit this information. Please call me with any concerns. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, James Jaeg r, P. • • SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS January 28, 2002 Mr. Dave McPherson, Associate Engineer City of Tukwila Public Works Department 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 -2544 SEATTLE RICHLAND FAIRBANKS ANCHORAGE DENVER SAINT LOUIS BOSTON RECEIVED JAN 2 8 2002 TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS RE: GEOTECHNICAL PEER REVIEW FOR FIVE RIVERS —12 LOT SHORT PLAT, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Dear Mr. McPherson: This letter confirms your request for Shannon & Wilson, Inc. to conduct a peer review of a geotechnical engineering report for proposed Five Rivers Short Plat at 53rd Avenue South and South 159`h Street, Tukwila, Washington. The purpose of our work will be to offer an opinion of the appropriateness and adequacy of the geotechnical engineering report that has been prepared by others. Our fee and the terms under which our services are offered will be in accordance with the attached Standard General Terms and Conditions and on a lump sum basis. Our fee will be $1,600, which includes review of the geotechnical report that has been prepared for this project, a visit to the site and preparation of a written summary of our findings. The findings and geotechnical conclusions will be limited to and based on our visual site observations, the City of Tukwila - provided information and experience with similar projects. Invoices for payment will be submitted to you as our client. Please sign in the space provided and return a copy of this letter, which will then serve as an agreement between us. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., has prepared the attached "Important Information About Your Geotechnical 400 NORTH 34TH STREET • SUITE 100 P.O. BOX 300303 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103 206.632.8020 FAX 206.695.6777 TDD: 1.800.833.6388 21 -3- 15002 -001 • • Mr. Dave McPherson City of Tukwila Public Works Department January 28, 2002 Page 2 SHANNON MMLSON, INC. Proposal" to assist you and others in understanding the use and limitations of our proposals The opportunity to be of service to you is appreciated. Sincerely, SHANNON & WILSON, INC. -4e Martin W. Page, P.E. Senior Principal Engineer MWP:TMG /mwp Enclosures: Standard General Terms and Conditions, SEA -LS -2002 (1/2002) Important Information About Your Geotechnical Proposal I accept the above conditions and authorize the work to proceed. By Signature (print) Organization 21- 3- 15002- 001 -L1 /WP /LKD Date 21 -3 -15002 -001 SHANNON & WI•N, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Attachment to and part • Proposal: 21 -3 -15002 -001 January 28, 2002 Date: To: Re: Mr. Dave McPherson 12 Lot Short Plat, Tukwila, Washington STANDARD GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS (ALL PURPOSE) ARTICLE 1 — SERVICES OF SHANNON & WILSON Shannon & Wilson's scope of work (Work) shall be limited to those services expressly set forth in its Proposal and is subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein. Shannon & Wilson shall procure and maintain all business and professional licenses and registrations necessary to provide its services. Upon Client's request (and for additional compensation, if not already included in Shannon & Wilson's Proposal), Shannon & Wilson shall assist Client in attempting to obtain, or on behalf of Client and in Client's name attempt to obtain, those permits and approvals required for the project for which Shannon & Wilson's services are being rendered. Client acknowledges, depending on field conditions encountered and subsurface conditions discovered, the number and location of borings, the number and type of field and laboratory tests, and other similar items, as deemed necessary by Shannon & Wilson in the exercise of due care, may need to be increased or decreased; if such modifications are approved by Client, Shannon & Wilson's compensation and schedule shall be equitably adjusted. If conditions actually encountered at the project site differ materially from those represented by Client and/or shown or indicated in the contract documents, or are of an unusual nature which materially differ from those ordinarily encountered and generally recognized as inherent for the locality and character of the services provided for in Shannon & Wilson's scope of work, Shannon & Wilson's compensation and schedule shall be equitably adjusted. Without increasing the scope of work, price, or schedule contained in Shannon & Wilson's Proposal, Shannon & Wilson may employ such subcontractors as Shannon & Wilson deems necessary to assist in furnishing its services. If Shannon & Wilson's scope of work is increased or decreased by Client, Shannon & Wilson's compensation and schedule shall be equitably adjusted. ARTICLE 2 — FEES AND EXPENSES FOR RENDERING SERVICES LUMP SUM AMOUNT Shannon & Wilson's total fee for performing all of the services described in the Scope of Work shall be the lump sum amount of $1,600. Shannon & Wilson shall be entitled to monthly progress payments in proportion to the percentage of the completed Work bears to all of the services described the Scope of Work. Fees For Additional Services Fees for Shannon & Wilson's services attributable to any additional services provided by Shannon & Wilson which are not specifically included in our Scope of Work will be based on the actual time expended on the project, including travel, by our personnel and will be computed by multiplying the actual number of hours worked times the employees direct salary rate times 3.3. The hourly rates for the services of our staff will be doubled for time spent actually providing expert testimony. ADDITIONAL REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES Expenses other than salary costs that are directly attributable to any additional services provided by Shannon & Wilson which are not specifically included in our scope of work will be invoiced at our cost plus 15 percent. Examples include, but are not limited to, expenses for out -of -town travel and living, information processing equipment, instrumentation and field equipment rental, special fees and permits, premiums for additional or special insurance where required, long distance telephone charges, local mileage and parking, use of rental vehicles, taxi, reproduction, local and out -of -town delivery service, express mail, photographs, film, laboratory equipment fees, shipping charges and supplies. A unit price of $7.00 per hour will be charged for computer time to prepare spreadsheets, $25.00 per hour for AutoCAD and modeling software use, and $35.00 per hour for GIS computer work. ARTICLE 3 — TIMES FOR RENDERING SERVICES Shannon & Wilson shall perform its services in accordance with the schedule set forth in its Proposal. If Shannon & Wilson's Proposal sets forth specific periods of time for rendering services, or specific dates by which services are to be completed, and such periods of time or dates are extended or delayed through no fault of Shannon & Wilson, Shannon & Wilson's compensation and schedule shall be equitably adjusted. If Shannon & Wilson's schedule is increased or decreased by Client, Shannon & Wilson's compensation shall be equitably adjusted. ARTICLE 4 — PAYMENTS TO SHANNON & WILSON Invoices shall be prepared in accordance with Shannon & Wilson's standard invoicing practices and shall be submitted to Client by Shannon & Wilson monthly. The amount billed in each invoice shall be calculated as set forth in Shannon & Wilson's Proposal. Unless Shannon & Wilson's Proposal contains a fixed lump -sum price, Shannon & Wilson's actual fees may exceed the estimate contained in its Proposal. Shannon & Wilson shall not exceed the estimate contained in its Proposal by more than ten percent (10 %) without the prior written consent of Client; provided however, unless the Client authorizes additional funds in excess of the estimate contained in Shannon & Wilson's Proposal, Shannon & Wilson shall have no obligation to continue work on the project. SEA -LS -2002 (1/2002) Page 1 of 6 Invoices are due and payable within 30 d receipt. If Client fails to pay Shannon & Wilson ice within 30 days after receipt, the amounts due Shannon & Wilson shall accrue interest at ate of one and one -half percent (1.5 %) per month (o maximum rate of interest permitted by law, if less) after the 30's day. In addition, Shannon & Wilson may, after giving seven (7) days written notice to Client, suspend services under this Agreement until Shannon & Wilson has been paid in full. If Client disputes Shannon & Wilson's invoice, only the disputed portion(s) may be withheld from payment, and the undisputed portion(s) shall be paid. Records of Shannon & Wilson's direct and indirect costs and expenses pertinent to its compensation under this Agreement shall be kept in accordance with generally accepted accounting practices and applicable federal, state, or local laws and regulations. Upon request, such records shall be made available to Client for inspection on Shannon & Wilson's premises and copies provided to Client at cost. ARTICLE 5 — CLIENT'S RESPONSIBILITIES Client shall grant or obtain free access to the project site for all equipment and personnel necessary for Shannon & Wilson to perform its services. ARTICLE 6 — STANDARD OF CARE / ABSENCE OF WARRANTIES / NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR SITE SAFETY OR CONTRACTOR'S PERFORMANCE Standard of Care The standard of care for all professional services performed or furnished by Shannon & Wilson under this Agreement shall be the skill and care ordinarily exercised by other members of Shannon & Wilson's profession, providing the same or similar services, under the same or similar circumstances, at the same time and locality as the services were provided by Shannon & Wilson. The construction, alteration, or repair of any object or structure by Shannon & Wilson shall be performed in a good and workmanlike manner in accordance with general industry standards, and conform to this Agreement. Shannon & Wilson warrants for one (1) year from substantial completion of the Work, all goods delivered hereunder shall be new and free from defects in material or workmanship, and shall conform to the specifications, drawings, or sample(s) specified or furnished, if any, and shall be merchantable and fit for their intended purpose(s). Shannon & Wilson warrants that Shannon & Wilson has good and marketable title to all goods delivered hereunder, and that all goods delivered hereunder shall be free and clear of all claims of superior title, liens, and encumbrances of any kind. Subsurface explorations and testing identify actual subsurface conditions only at those points where samples are taken, at the time they are taken. Actual conditions at other locations of the project site, including those inferred to exist between the sample points, may differ significantly from conditions that exist at the sampling locations. The passage of time or intervening causes may cause the actual conditions at the sampling locations to change as well. Interpretations and recommendations made by Shannon & Wilson shall be based solely upon information available to Shannon & Wilson at the time the interpretations and recommendations are made. Shannon & Wilson shall be responsible for the technical accuracy of its services, data, interpretations, and recommendations resulting therefrom, and Client shall not be responsible for discovering deficiencies therein. Shannon & Wilson shall correct any substandard work without additional compensation, except to the extent that such inaccuracies are directly attributable to deficiencies in Client - furnished information. No Warranties Shannon & Wilson makes no guarantees or warranties, express or implied, under this Agreement or otherwise, about Shannon & Wilson's professional services. Client - Furnished Documents Shannon & Wilson may use requirements, programs, instructions, reports, data, and information furnished by Client to Shannon & Wilson in performing its services under this Agreement. Shannon & Wilson may rely on the accuracy and completeness of requirements, programs, instructions, reports, data, and other information furnished by Client to Shannon & Wilson. Client shall, only to the fullest extent permitted by law, waive any claims against Shannon & Wilson and its subcontractors, and indemnify and hold Shannon & Wilson and its subcontractors harmless from any claims, liability, or expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs) arising from Shannon & Wilson's reliance on Client - furnished information, except to the extent of Shannon & Wilson's and its subcontractor's negligent or wrongful acts, errors, omissions, or breach of contract. Site Damage Shannon & Wilson shall take reasonable precautions to minimize damage to the project site, but it is understood by Client that, in the normal course of Shannon & Wilson's services, some project site damage may occur, and the correction of such damage is not part of this Agreement unless so stated in Shannon & Wilson's Proposal. Client shall, only to the fullest extent permitted by law, waive any claims against Shannon & Wilson and its subcontractors, and indemnify and hold Shannon & Wilson and its subcontractors harmless from any claims, liability, or expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs) arising from any project site damage caused by Shannon & Wilson, except to the extent of Shannon & Wilson's and its subcontractor's negligent or wrongful acts, errors, omissions, or breach of contract. Buried Structures If there are any buried structures and/or utilities on the project site where subsurface explorations are to take place, Client shall provide Shannon & Wilson with a plan showing their existing locations. Shannon & Wilson shall contact a utility locator service to request that they identify any public utilities. Shannon & Wilson shall use reasonable care and diligence to avoid contact with buried structures and/or utilities as shown. Shannon & Wilson shall not be liable for any loss or damage to buried structures and/or utilities resulting from inaccuracy of the plans, or lack of plans, or errors by the locator service relating to the location of buried structures and/or utilities. Client shall, only to the fullest extent permitted by law, waive any claim's against Shannon & Wilson and its subcontractors, and indemnify, and hold Shannon & Wilson and its subcontractors harmless from any claims, liability, or expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs) arising from damage to buried structures and/or utilities caused by Shannon & Wilson's sampling, except to the extent of Shannon & Wilson's and its subcontractor's negligent or wrongful acts, errors, omissions, or breach of contract. Aquifer Cross - Contamination Despite the use of due care, unavoidable contamination of soil or groundwater may occur during subsurface exploration when drilling or sampling tools are advanced through a contaminated area, linking it to an aquifer, underground stream, or other hydrous body not previously contaminated and capable of spreading contaminants off the project site. Because Shannon & Wilson is powerless to totally eliminate this risk despite use of due care, and because sampling is an essential element of Shannon & Wilson's services, Client shall, only to the fullest extent permitted by law, waive any claims against Shannon & Wilson and its subcontractors, and indemnify and hold Shannon & Wilson and its subcontractors harmless from any claims, liability, or expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs) arising from cross - contamination caused by Shannon & Wilson's sampling, except to the extent of Shannon & Wilson's and its subcontractor's negligent or wrongful acts, errors, omissions, or breach of contract. SEA -LS -2002 (1/2002) Page 2 of 6 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Opinions of Probable Construction Costs If opinions of probable construction costs are included in Shannon & Wilson's Proposal, Shannon & Wilson's opinions of probable construction costs shall be made on the basis of its experience and qualifications and represent its judgment as a professional generally familiar with the industry. Opinions of probable construction costs are based, in part, on approximate quantity evaluations that are not accurate enough to permit contractors to prepare bids. Further, since Shannon & Wilson has no control over: the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or services furnished by others; the contractor's actual or proposed construction methods or methods of determining prices; competitive bidding; or market conditions, Shannon & Wilson cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction cost will not vary from opinions of the components of probable construction cost prepared by Shannon & Wilson. If Client or any contractor wishes greater assurance as to probable construction cost, Client or contractor shall employ an independent cost estimator. Review of Contractor's Shop Drawings and Submittals If review of a contractor's shop drawings and submittals are included in Shannon & Wilson's Proposal, Shannon & Wilson shall review and take appropriate action on the contractor's submittals, such as shop drawings, product data, samples, and other data, which the contractor is required to submit, but solely for the limited purpose of checking for general overall conformance with Shannon & Wilson's design concept. This review shall not include a review of the accuracy or completeness of details, such as quantities; dimensions; weights or gauges; fabrication processes; construction means, methods, sequences or procedures; coordination of the work with other trades; or construction safety precautions, all of which are the sole responsibility of the contractor. Shannon & Wilson's review shall be conducted with reasonable promptness while allowing sufficient time, in Shannon & Wilson's judgment, to permit adequate review. Review of a specific item shall not be construed to mean that Shannon & Wilson has reviewed the entire assembly of which the item is a component. Shannon & Wilson shall not be responsible for any deviations by the contractor in the shop drawings and submittals from the construction documents, which are not brought to the attention of Shannon & Wilson by the contractor in writing. Construction Observation If construction observation is included in Shannon & Wilson's Proposal, Shannon & Wilson shall visit the project site at intervals Shannon & Wilson deems appropriate, or as otherwise agreed to in writing by Client and Shannon & Wilson, in order to observe and keep Client generally informed of the progress and quality of the work. Such visits and observations are not intended to be an exhaustive check or a detailed inspection of any contractor's work, but rather are to allow Shannon & Wilson, as a professional, to become generally familiar with the work in progress in order to determine, in general, whether the work is progressing in a manner indicating that the work, when fully completed, will be in accordance with Shannon & Wilson's general overall design concept. Shannon & Wilson's authority shall be limited to observing, making technical comments regarding general overall compliance with Shannon & Wilson's design concept, and rejecting any work which it becomes aware of that does not comply with Shannon & Wilson's general overall design concept. Shannon & Wilson's acceptance of any non - conforming work containing latent defects or failure to reject any non - conforming work not inspected by Shannon & Wilson shall not impose any liability on Shannon & Wilson or relieve any contractor from complying with their contract documents. All construction contractors shall be solely responsible for construction site safety, the quality of their work, and adherence to their contract documents. Shannon & Wilson shall have no authority to direct any contractor's actions or stop any contractor's work. If Shannon & Wilson is not retained to provide construction observation of the implementation of its design recommendations, Client shall, only to the fullest extent permitted by law, waive any claims against Shannon & Wilson, and indemnify and hold Shannon & Wilson harmless from any claims, liability, or expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs) arising from the implementation of Shannon & Wilson's design recommendations, except to the extent of Shannon & Wilson's and its subcontractor's negligent or wrongful acts, errors, omissions, or breach of contract. No Responsibility for Site Safety Except for its own subcontractors and employees, Shannon & Wilson shall not: supervise, direct, have control over, or authority to stop any contractor's work; have authority over or responsibility for the means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures of construction selected by any contractor; be responsible for safety precautions and programs incident to any contractor's work; or be responsible for any failure of any contractor to comply with laws and regulations applicable to the contractor, all of which are the sole responsibility of the construction contractors. This requirement shall apply continuously, regardless of time or place, and shall in no way be altered because a representative of Shannon & Wilson is present at the project site performing his/her duties. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, Shannon & Wilson shall never be deemed to have assumed responsibility for the project's site safety by either contract or conduct. No act or direction by Shannon & Wilson shall be deemed the exercise of supervision or control of any contractor's employees or the direction of any contractor's performance. Any direction provided by Shannon & Wilson shall be deemed solely to ensure the contractor's general overall compliance with Shannon & Wilson's design concept. No Responsibility for Contractor's Performance Except for its own subcontractors and employees, Shannon & Wilson shall not be responsible for safety precautions, the quality of any contractor's work, or any contractor's failure to furnish or perform their work in accordance with their contract documents. Except Shannon & Wilson's own employees and its subcontractors, Shannon & Wilson shall not: be responsible for the acts or omissions of any contractor, subcontractor or supplier, or other persons at the project site, or otherwise furnishing or performing any work; or for any decision based on interpretations or clarifications of Shannon & Wilson's design concept given without the consultation and concurrence of Shannon & Wilson. Approval of Contractor's Applications for Payment If approval of a contractor's applications for payment are included in Shannon & Wilson's Proposal, Shannon & Wilson shall review the amounts due the contractor and issue a recommendation about payment to Client. Shannon & Wilson's review and approval shall be limited to an evaluation of the general progress of the work and the information contained in the contractor's application for payment and a representation by Shannon & Wilson that to the best of the Shannon & Wilson's knowledge, the contractor has performed work for which payment has been requested, subject to further testing and inspection upon substantial completion. The issuance of a recommendation for payment shall not be construed as a representation that: Shannon & Wilson has made an exhaustive check or a detailed or continuous inspection check of the quality or quantity of the contractor's work; approved the contractors means, methods, sequences, procedures, or safety precautions; or that contractor's subcontractors, laborers, and suppliers have been paid. ARTICLE 7 — CONFIDENTIALITY AND USE OF DOCUMENTS Confidentiality Shannon & Wilson agrees to keep confidential and to not disclose to any person or entity (other than Shannon & Wilson's employees and subcontractors), without the prior consent of Client, all information furnished to Shannon & Wilson by Client or learned by Shannon & Wilson as a result of its work on the project; provided however, that these provisions shall not apply to information that: is in the public domain through no fault of Shannon & Wilson; was previously known to Shannon & Wilson; or was independently acquired by Shannon & Wilson from third - parties who were under no obligation to Client to keep said information confidential. This paragraph shall not be construed to in any way restrict Shannon & Wilson from making any disclosures required by SEA -LS -2002 (1/2002) Page 3 of 6 law. Client agrees that Shannon & Wilso n ill use and publish Client's name and a general descri f Shannon & Wilson's services with respect to the project in describing Shannon & Wilson's ence and qualifications to others. Copyrights and Patents — Shannon & Wilson shall indemnify, hold harmless, and defend Client from any and all actions, damages, demands, expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs), losses, and liabilities arising out of any claims that any goods or services furnished by Subcontractor infringe any patent, trademark, trade name, or copyright. Use of Documents All documents prepared by Shannon & Wilson are instruments of service with respect to the project, and Shannon & Wilson shall retain a copyrighted ownership and property interest therein (including the right of reuse) whether or not the project is completed. Shannon & Wilson grants to Client a non - exclusive, irrevocable, unlimited, royalty -free license to use any documents prepared by Shannon & Wilson for Client. Client may make and retain copies of such documents for their information and use. Such documents are not intended or represented to be suitable for reuse by Client, or others, after the passage of time, on extensions of the project, or on any other project. Any such reuse without written verification or adaptation by Shannon & Wilson, as appropriate for the specific purpose intended, shall be at Client's sole risk, and Client shall, only to the fullest extent permitted by law, -waive any claims against Shannon & Wilson and its subcontractors, and indemnify and hold Shannon & Wilson and its subcontractors harmless from any claims, liability, or expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs) arising from such reuse, except to the extent of Shannon & Wilson's and its subcontractor's negligent or wrongful acts, errors, omissions, or breach of contract. Any verification or adaptation of the documents for extensions of the project or for any other project by Shannon & Wilson shall entitle Shannon & Wilson to additional compensation to be agreed upon by Client and Shannon & Wilson. Copies of documents that may be relied upon by Client are limited to the printed copies (also known as hard copies) that are signed or sealed by Shannon & Wilson. Text, data, or graphics files in electronic media format are furnished solely for the convenience of Client. Any conclusion or information obtained or derived from such electronic files shall be at the user's sole risk. If there is a discrepancy between the electronic files and the hard copies, the hard copies govern. Because data stored in electronic media can deteriorate or be modified inadvertently or otherwise without authorization of the data's creator, the party receiving an electronic file agrees that it shall perform acceptance tests or procedures within 60 days after its receipt, after which, unless notice of any errors are given in writing to the delivering party, the receiving party shall be deemed to have accepted the data thus transferred. Any errors reported within the 60- day acceptance period shall be corrected by the party delivering the electronic files at their sole expense. Shannon & Wilson shall not be responsible for maintaining documents stored in electronic media format after acceptance by Client. When transferring documents in electronic media format, neither Client nor Shannon & Wilson makes any representations as to long -term compatibility, usability, or readability of documents resulting from the use of software application packages, operating systems, or computer hardware differing from those used for the document's creation. ARTICLE 8 - INSURANCE Shannon & Wilson shall purchase and maintain during the term of this contract, the following insurance coverage at its sole expense: Commercial General Liability - $1,000,000 each occurrence/$2,000,000 annual aggregate Bodily Injury/Property Damage Combined Single Limit including Blanket Contractual Liability, Broad Form Products and Completed Operations, Explosion/Collapse /Underground (XCU) Exposures, and Washington Stop Gap coverage. Auto Liability - $1,000,000 Bodily Injury/Property Damage Combined Single Limit including Owned, Hired, and Non -Owned Liability coverage. Umbrella Liability - $10,000,000 Bodily Injury/Property Damage combined Single Limit in excess of Commercial General Liability, Auto Liability, and Employers' Liability. Workers' Compensation - Statutory in monopolistic states and $500,000 per accident/$500,000 per disease/$500,000 disease policy aggregate Employers' Liability in non - monopolistic including if applicable, U.S. Longshore & Harbor Workers coverage. Professional Liability - $5,000,000 per claims /$5,000,000 annual aggregate for professional errors and omissions including Pollution Liability coverage. If requested in writing by Client, Shannon & Wilson shall name Client as an additional insured on its Commercial General Liability policy. If requested in writing by Client, Shannon & Wilson shall deliver to Client certificates of insurance evidencing such coverage. Such certificates shall be furnished before commencement of Shannon & Wilson's services. Client shall cause Shannon & Wilson and its subcontractors to be listed as additional insureds on any Commercial General Liability insurance carried by Client that is applicable to the project. Client shall require the project owner to require the general contractor on the project to purchase and maintain Commercial General Liability, Automobile Liability, Workers Compensation, and Employers Liability insurance, with limits no less than set forth above, and to cause Shannon & Wilson and its subcontractors to be listed as additional insureds on that Commercial General Liability insurance. Client shall require the project owner include the substance of this paragraph in the prime construction contract. All insurance policies shall contain a waiver of subrogation. ARTICLE 9 - HAZARDOUS ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Disclosure of the Existence of Hazardous Environmental Conditions Client has disclosed to Shannon & Wilson all data known to Client concerning known or suspected hazardous environmental conditions, including but not limited to, the existence of all asbestos, PCBs, petroleum, hazardous waste, or radioactive material, if any, located at or near the project site, including its type, quantity, and location, or has represented to Shannon & Wilson that, to the best of Client's knowledge, no hazardous environmental conditions exist at or near the project site. If any hazardous environmental condition is encountered or believed to exist, Shannon & Wilson shall notify Client and, to the extent required by applicable laws and regulations, the project site owner, and appropriate governmental officials. SEA -LS -2002 (1/2002) Page 4 of 6 Disposal of Non - Hazardous Samples and Hazardous or Toxic Substances All substances on, in, or under the project site, or obtained from the project site as samples or as byproducts (e.g., drill cuttings and fluids) of the sampling process are the project site owner's property. Shannon & Wilson shall preserve such samples for forty -five (45) calendar days after Shannon & Wilson's issuance to Client of the final instrument of service that relates to the data obtained from them. Shannon & Wilson shall dispose of all non - hazardous samples and sampling process byproducts in accordance with applicable law; provided however, any samples or sampling process byproducts that are, or are believed to be, affected by regulated contaminants shall be packaged by Shannon & Wilson in accordance with applicable law, and turned over to Client or left on the project site. Shannon & Wilson shall not transport store, treat, dispose of, or arrange for the transportation, storage, treatment, or disposal of, any substances known, believed, or suspected to be affected by regulated contaminants, nor shall Shannon & Wilson subcontract for such activities. Shannon & Wilson shall, at Client's request (and for additional compensation, if not already included in Shannon & Wilson's Proposal), help Client or the project site owner identify appropriate alternatives for transportation, storage, treatment, or disposal of such substances, but Shannon & Wilson shall not make any independent determination about the selection of a transportation, storage, treatment, or disposal facility. Client or the project site owner shall sign all manifests for the transportation, storage, treatment, or disposal of substances affected by regulated contaminants; provided however, notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement to the contrary if Client directs Shannon & Wilson, Shannon & Wilson's employees, or Shannon & Wilson's agents to sign such manifests and/or to hire for Client or the project site owner a contractor to transport store, treat, or dispose of the contaminated substances, Shannon & Wilson shall do so only as Client's disclosed agent. Contaminated Equipment and Consumables Client shall reimburse Shannon & Wilson for the cost of decontaminating field or laboratory equipment that is contaminated by regulated materials encountered at the project site and for the cost of disposal and replacement of contaminated consumables. In some instances, the cost of decontamination may exceed the fair market value of the equipment, were it not contaminated, together with the cost of properly transporting and disposing of the equipment. In such instances, Shannon & Wilson will notify Client and give Client the option of paying for decontamination or purchasing the equipment at its fair market value immediately prior to contamination. If Client elects to purchase equipment, Client and Shannon & Wilson will enter into a specific agreement for that purpose. Any equipment that cannot be decontaminated shall be considered a consumable. Client's Liability for Hazardous or Toxic Materials Except to the extent caused by Shannon & Wilson's and its subcontractor's negligent or wrongful acts, errors, omissions, or breach of contract, and only to the maximum extent permitted by law, Client shall: indemnify and hold harmless Shannon & Wilson, its subcontractors and their partners, officers, directors, employees, and agents; from and against any and all actions (whether sounding in tort, contract (express or implied), warranty (express or implied), statutory liability, strict liability, or otherwise), claims (including, but not limited to, claims for bodily injury, death, property damage (including bodily injury, death, or property damage to Shannon & Wilson's own employees), or arising under CERCLA, MTCA, or similar federal, state, or local environmental laws), costs, damages (including without limitation, economic, non - economic, general, special, incidental, consequential), demands, expenses (including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of defense), fines, judgments, liens, liabilities, and penalties of any kind whatsoever; arising from the arrangement for and/or ownership, operation, generation, labeling, transportation, storage, disposal, treatment, release, or threatened release of any hazardous or toxic materials, as defined by CERCLA, MTCA, or similar federal, state, or local environmental laws, on and/or from the project site. • SHANNON & WILSON, INC. ARTICLE 10 - ALLOCATION OF RISK Indemnification of Client To the maximum extent permitted by law, Shannon & Wilson shall: indemnify and hold harmless Client, its appointed and elected officials, partners, officers, directors, employees, and agents; from and against any and all actions (whether sounding in tort, contract (express or implied), warranty (express or implied), statutory liability, strict liability, or otherwise), claims (including, but not limited to, claims for bodily injury, death, property damage, (including bodily injury, death, or property damage to Shannon & Wilson's own employees) or arising under CERCLA, MTCA, or similar federal, state, or local environmental laws), costs, damages (including without limitation, economic, non - economic, general, special, incidental, consequential), demands, expenses (including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of defense), fines, judgments, liens, liabilities, and penalties of any kind whatsoever; arising from the negligent or wrongful acts, errors, or omissions, or breach of contract or warranty express or implied, by Shannon & Wilson or any of its subcontractors; but only to the extent of Shannon & Wilson's and its subcontractor's relative degree of fault. In furtherance of these obligations, and only with respect to Client, its appointed and elected officials, partners, officers, directors, employees and agents, Shannon & Wilson waives any immunity it may have or limitation on the amount or type of damages imposed under any industrial insurance, worker's compensation, disability, employee benefit, or similar laws. Shannon & Wilson acknowledges that this waiver of immunity was mutually negotiated. Limitation of Shannon & Wilson's Liability A. Total Liability Limited to Insurance Proceeds Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, and only to the maximum extent permitted by law, the total liability, in the aggregate, of Shannon & Wilson, its subcontractors, and their partners, officers, directors, employees, agents and, or any of them, to Client and/or anyone claiming by, through, or under Client, for any and all actions (whether sounding in tort, contract (express or implied), warranty (express or implied), statutory liability, strict liability, or otherwise), claims (including, but not limited to, claims for bodily injury, death, property damage, (including bodily injury, death, or property damage to Shannon & Wilson's own employees) or arising under CERCLA, MTCA, or similar federal, state, or local environmental laws), costs, damages (including without limitation, economic, non - economic, general, special, incidental, consequential), demands, expenses (including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of defense), fines, judgments, liens, liabilities, and penalties of any kind whatsoever, arising out of, resulting from, or in any way related to the project or this Agreement, shall be limited to the insurance proceeds payable on behalf of or to Shannon & Wilson by any insurance policies applicable thereto. If you are unwilling or unable to limit our liability in this manner, we will negotiate this limitation and its associated impact on our approach, scope of work, schedule, and price, with you. You must notify us in writing before we commence our work of your intention to negotiate this limitation and its associated impact on our approach, scope of work, schedule, and price. Absent your prior written notification to the contrary, we will proceed on the basis that our total liability is limited as set forth above. B. Professional Liability Limited to $50,000 or 10% of Fee With respect to professional errors or omissions only, notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, and only to the maximum extent permitted by law, the total liability, in the aggregate, of Shannon & Wilson, its subcontractors, and their partners, officers, directors, employees, agents, or any of them, to Client and/or anyone claiming by, through, or under Client, for any and all actions (whether sounding in tort, contract (express or implied), warranty (express or implied), statutory liability, strict liability, or otherwise), claims (including, but not limited to, claims for bodily injury, death, property damage (including bodily injury, death, or property damage to Shannon & Wilson's own employees) or arising under CERCLA, MTCA, or similar federal, state, or local environmental laws), costs, damages (including without limitation, economic, non - economic, general, special, incidental, consequential), demands, expenses SEA -LS -2002 (1/2002) Page 5 of 6 (including, but not limited to, reasonable a s' fees and costs of defense), fines, judgments, lien lilies, and penalties of any kind whatsoever, arising out of, resulting from, or in any way rela the professional errors or omissions of Shannon Ison, its subcontractors, or their partners, officers, directors, employees, agents or, or any of them, shall not exceed the aggregate total amount of $50,000.00, or ten percent (10 %) of the total compensation actually paid to Shannon & Wilson under this Agreement, whichever is greater. If you are unwilling or unable to limit our professional liability to these sums, we will negotiate the amount of this limitation and its associated impact on our approach, scope of work, schedule, and price, with you. You must notify us in writing before we commence our work of your intention to negotiate the amount of this limitation and its associated impact on our approach, scope of work, schedule, and price. Absent your prior written notification to the contrary, we will proceed on the basis that our total professional liability is limited to $50,000.00 or ten percent (10 %) of the total compensation actually paid to Shannon & Wilson under this Agreement, whichever is greater. ARTICLE 11 — MISCELLANEOUS Termination This Agreement may be terminated without further obligation or liability by either party, with or without cause (for convenience), upon 30 days prior written notice to the other. Shannon & Wilson shall be entitled to compensation for all services performed prior to the termination of this Agreement. This Agreement may be terminated by the non - breaching party upon any breach of this Agreement that remains uncured after 10 days notice to the breaching party by the non - breaching party. Upon payment of all amounts due Shannon & Wilson, Client shall be entitled to copies of Shannon & Wilson's files and records pertaining to services performed prior to the termination of this Agreement. Successors, Assigns, and Beneficiaries This Agreement shall be binding upon each party's assigns, successors, executors, administrators, and legal representatives. Neither Client nor Shannon & Wilson may assign or transfer any rights under or interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the other. No assignment shall release or discharge the assignor from any duty or responsibility under this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to create, impose, or give rise to any duty owed by Client or Shannon & Wilson to any third -party. All duties and responsibilities undertaken under this Agreement shall be for the sole and exclusive benefit of Client and Shannon & Wilson. There are no intended third -party beneficiaries. Notwithstanding the foregoing, should a court find a third -party to be a beneficiary of this Agreement, it is the intent of the parties that the judicially created third -party beneficiary be bound by and subject to all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Jurisdiction, Venue, and Choice of Law Any applicable Statute of Limitation shall be deemed to commence running on the date which the claimant knew, or should have known, of the facts giving rise to their claims, but in no event later than the date of substantial completion of Shannon & Wilson's services under this Agreement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, as a condition precedent to commencing a judicial proceeding, a party shall give written notice of their claims, including all amounts claimed, and the factual basis for their claims, to the other party within one (1) year of when the claimant knew, or should have known, of the facts giving rise to their claims, but in no event later than one (I) year from the date of substantial completion of Shannon & Wilson's services under this Agreement. As a condition precedent to commencing a judicial proceeding, a party shall first submit their claims to non - binding mediation through and in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association. This Agreement shall, be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws (except choice and conflict of law provisions) of the state in which the Project is located. Any judicial action shall be brought in the state in which the Project is located. Attorneys' Fees Should any dispute or claims arise out of this Agreement, whether sounding in tort, contract (express or implied), warranty (express or implied), statutory liability, strict liability, or otherwise, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, including upon appeal and in the enforcement of any judgment. Should neither party prevail on all of their claims or receive all of the relief they sought, then the substantially prevailing party shall be awarded their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, including upon appeal and in the enforcement of any judgment. Waiver A waiver of any of the terms and conditions or breaches of this Agreement shall not operate as a subsequent waiver. Headings The headings used in this agreement are for general ease of reference only. They have no meaning and are not part of this Agreement. Integration This Agreement, together with all attachments hereto, are incorporated by reference into each other, and supercede all prior written and oral discussions, representations, negotiations, and agreements on the subject matter of this Agreement and represent the parties' complete, entire, and final understanding of the subject matter of this Agreement. Survival Notwithstanding completion or termination of this Agreement for any reason, all representations, warranties, limitations of liability, and indemnification obligations contained in this Agreement shall survive such completion or termination and remain in full force and effect until fulfilled. Severability If any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement are found to be void or unenforceable for any reason, the remainder of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect, and the court shall attempt to judicially reform the void or unenforceable provisions to the maximum extent possible, consistent with the original intent expressed in the provisions, to render it valid and enforceable. If the court is unable to reform the provisions to render it valid and enforceable, the court shall strike only that portion which is invalid or unenforceable, and this Agreement shall then be construed without reference to the void or unenforceable provisions. SEA -LS -2002 (1/2002) Page 6 of 6 SHANNON & W�N, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Attachment to andillof Proposal 21 -3- 15002 -001 Date: January 28, 2002 To: Mr. Dave McPherson City of Tukwila Public Works Dept. Important Information About Your Geotechnical/Environmental Proposal More construction problems are caused by site subsurface conditions than any other factor. The following suggestions and observations are offered to help you manage your risks. HAVE REALISTIC EXPECTATIONS. If you have never before dealt with geotechnical or environmental issues, you should recognize that site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions at those points where samples are taken, at the time they are taken. The data derived are extrapolated by the consultant, who then applies judgment to render an opinion about overall subsurface conditions; their reaction to construction activity; appropriate design of foundations, slopes, impoundments, recovery wells; and other construction and/or remediation elements. Even under optimal circumstances, actual conditions may differ from those inferred to exist, because no consultant, no matter how qualified, and no subsurface program, no matter how comprehensive, can reveal what is hidden by earth, rock, and time. DEVELOP THE SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PLAN WITH CARE. The nature of subsurface explorations —the types, quantities, and locations of procedures used —in large measure determines the effectiveness of the geotechnical/environmental report and the design based upon it. The more comprehensive a subsurface exploration and testing program, the more information it provides to the consultant, helping to reduce the risk of unanticipated conditions and the attendant risk of costly delays and disputes. Even the cost of subsurface construction may be lowered. Developing a proper subsurface exploration plan is a basic element of geotechnical/environmental design, which should be accomplished jointly by the consultant and the client (or designated professional representatives). This helps the parties involved recognize mutual concerns and makes the client aware of the technical options available. Clients who develop a subsurface exploration plan without the involvement and concurrence of a consultant may be required to assume responsibility and liability for the plan's adequacy. READ GENERAL CONDITIONS CAREFULLY. Most consultants include standard general contract conditions in their proposals. One of the general conditions most commonly employed is to limit the consulting firm's liability. Known as a "risk allocation" or "limitation of liability," this approach helps prevent problems at the beginning and establishes a fair and reasonable framework for handling them, should they arise. Various other elements of general conditions delineate your consultant's responsibilities. These are used to help eliminate confusion and misunderstandings, thereby helping all parties recognize who is responsible for different tasks. In all cases, read your consultant's general conditions carefully and ask any questions you may have. HAVE YOUR CONSULTANT WORK WITH OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS. Costly problems can occur when other design professionals develop their plans based on misinterpretations of a consultant's report. To help avoid misinterpretations, retain your consultant to work with other project design professionals who are affected by the geotechn- ical/environmental report. This allows a consultant to explain report implications to design professionals affected by them, and to review their plans and specifications so that issues can be dealt with adequately. Although some other design professionals may be familiar with geotechnical/environmental concerns, none knows as much about them as a competent consultant. Page 1 of 2 1/2002 OBTAIN CONSTRUCTION MOI.RING SERVICES. • Most experienced clients also retain their consultant to serve during the construction phase of their projects. Involvement during the construction phase is particularly important because this permits the consultant to be on hand quickly to evaluate unanticipated conditions, t to conduct additional tests if required, and when necessary, to recommend alternative solutions to problems. The consultant can also monitor the geotechnical /environmental work performed by contractors. It is essential to recognize that the construction recommendations included in a report are preliminary, because they must be based on the assumption that conditions revealed through selective exploratory sampling are indicative of actual conditions throughout a site. Because actual subsurface conditions can be discerned only during earthwork and/or drilling, design consultants need to observe those conditions in order to provide their recommendations. Only the consultant who prepares the report is fully familiar with the background information needed to determine whether or not the report's recommendations are valid. The consultant submitting the report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the adequacy of preliminary recommendations if another party is retained to observe construction. REALIZE THAT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED. If you have requested only a geotechnical engineering proposal, it will not include services needed to evaluate the likelihood of contamination by hazardous materials or other pollutants. Given the liabilities involved, it is prudent practice to always have a site reviewed from an environmental viewpoint. A consultant cannot be responsible for failing to detect contaminants when the services needed to perform that function are not being provided. ONE OF THE OBLIGATIONS OF YOUR CONSULTANT IS TO PROTECT THE SAFETY, PROPERTY, AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. A geotechnical /environmental investigation will sometimes disclose the existence of conditions that may endanger the safety, health, property, or welfare of the public. Your consultant may be obligated under rules of professional conduct, or statutory or common law, to notify you and others of these conditions. RELY ON YOUR CONSULTANT FOR ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE. Your consulting firm is familiar with several techniques and approaches that can be used to help reduce risk exposure for all parties to a construction project, from design through construction. Ask your consultant, not only about geotechnical and environmental issues, but others as well, to learn about approaches that may be of genuine benefit. The preceding paragraphs are based on information provided by the ASFE /Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences, Silver Spring, Maryland Page 2 of 2 1/2002 January 4, 2002 • City of Tukwila • Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director James Jaeger Jaeger Engineering 9419 South 204th Place Kent WA 98031 Re: Traffic comments regarding proposed Five Rivers 12 lot subdivision located at NE corner of South 158th Street and 53rd Avenue South. File numbers LO1 -064 and E01 -027. Dear Mr. Jaeger: A letter of incomplete application and technical review comments was sent to you on November 19, 2001. Additional comments from the City's Public Works Department were sent to you on December 28, 2001. The City's traffic engineer has reviewed the letter submitted by Christopher Brown & Associates and has the following comments: 1. The letter from Christopher Brown & Associates confirms that the proposed development will indeed generate more than 5 peak hour trips and is therefore required to comply with the City's concurrency requirements in addition to any other applicable requirements determined under SEPA review. This means that a traffic impact analysis must be submitted that looks at the level of service of all intersections, which will be impacted by the new trips generated by the plat development. Analysis will need to be done for the year of opening as well as opening plus six years. The study will have to demonstrate compliance with the City's concurrency code (Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 9.48). 2. In addition, the proposal is showing an offset intersection from the existing South 159`h Street. The report needs to provide a safety and accident analysis to justify the offset of such a small distance. An accident analysis in this location needs to also include a sight distance analysis given the terrain. The development will need to comply with sight distance requirements outlined in the AASHTO Green Book. If you have any questions, you can reach me at 206 -431 -3685. Or if you have specific questions regarding the traffic issues you can contact Cyndy Knighton, Senior Transportation Engineer at 206- 433 -0179. Sincerely, i \% Minnie Dhaliwal Associate Planner 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 -431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Minnie Dhaliwal - Five Rivers Preliminary Plafraffic Elements _ _ • Page 1 From: Cyndy Knighton To: David McPherson; Minnie Dhaliwal Date: 1/2/02 2:42PM Subject: Five Rivers Preliminary Plat: Traffic Elements Dave had asked me to look at the letter submitted by Christopher Brown & Associates which was included as the traffic analysis for the Five Rivers preliminary plat. This letter confirms that this development will, indeed, generate more than 5 peak hour trips and is therefore required to comply with our concurrency requirments in addition to meeting SEPA requirements. This means that the applicant will need to submit a traffic impact analysis that looks at the level of service of all intersections which will be impacted by the new trips generated by the plat development. Analysis will need to be done for year of opening as well as opening plus six years. The study will have to demonstrate compliance with our concurrency code (TMC 9.48). In addition, the proposal is showing an offset intersection from the existing S 159th Street. The report needs to provide a safety and accident analysis to justify the offset of such a small distance. An accident analysis in this location needs to also include a sight distance analysis given the terrain. The development will need to comply with sight distance requirement outlined in the AASHTO Green Book. If you have any questions, please let me know, but this is what I will need to have to review before the project can be given a final decision on approval /denial. Thanks! Cyndy Cyndy Knighton Senior Transportation Engineer City of Tukwila 206.433.0179 206.431.3665 fax • City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director December 28, 2001 James Jaeger Jaeger Engineering 9419 South 204th Place Kent WA 98031 Re: Public Works comments regarding Five Rivers Development- proposed 12 lot subdivision located at NE corner of South 158th Street and 53rd Avenue South. File numbers LO1 -064 and E01 -027. Dear Mr. Jaeger: A letter of incomplete application and technical review comments was sent to you on November 19, 2001. Attached are additional comments from the City's Public Works Department. There may be some additional comments related to traffic impact analysis that we will send to you once I receive them from the City's traffic engineer. If you have any questions, you can reach me at 206 - 431 -3685. Or if you have specific questions regarding the attached memo you can contact David McPherson, Associate Engineer at 206 -433- 0179. Sincerely, Minnie Dhaliwal Associate Planner Encl: Public Works comments. 1 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 • • MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING DEPT. — Minnie Dhaliwal, Associate Planner FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. — David McPherson, Associate Engineer DATE: December 28, 2001 SUBJECT: Five Rivers —12 Lot Short Plat 53'd Ave. South & South 158th Street SEPA, Short Plat and Misc. Comments I SEPA COMMENTS — E01 -027 1. Please note that the response to item #16 in the environmental checklist is incorrect. The subject site is within Val -Vue Sewer District 2. A peer review of the geo- technical report is required per Tukwila Municipal Codes 18.45.080.E and 21.04.140.A. Applicant is required to pay for peer review of geo - technical reports and studies. Once we receive the applicant's agreement to pay for the peer review, we will authorize the city's consultant to start the review process. Please call David McPherson at 206 - 433 -0179 to indicate your agreement for the payment. II SHORT PLAT COMMENTS — LO1 -064 1. Provide Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) approval, for discharge of storm water, within their right -of -way. 2. Provide sanitary sewer certificate from Val -Vue Sewer District. 3. In addition to the 10' to be dedicated along 53'd Ave. S., the cul -de -sac street shall be dedicated to the City as a public street. 4. `Tract A Drainage', shall be public and dedicated to the City. The public detention pond shall be built to City standards and turned over to the City for future maintenance. 5. Provide operation and safety study for street off -set, between proposed cul -de -sac street and South 159th Street. 6. The following information must be included on the plat map: a) Provide note on short plat map, to comply with the Geotechnical Engineering Report, by LSI Adapt, Inc., dated August 6, 2001, and subsequent geotechnical reports. b) Provide legal description for proposed public storm drainage detention pond, on short plat map. c) Provide note on short plat, that no runoff, including downspouts, shall be infiltrated into the ground through "dry wells" or perforated infiltration pipes and trenches. 7. The following information must be included on the site development plan: a) Please show easements where there is possible cross drainage between lots. Also, note that cross drainage agreements between lots may be required. b) Provide note on site development plan, to comply with the Geotechnical Engineering Report, by LSI Adapt, Inc., dated August 6, 2001, and subsequent geotechnical reports. 8. All utilities are required to be underground, per City ordinance. 9. The landscaping plan must show any proposed or existing landscaping in the public storm drainage detention pond area. III. Informational items for the Miscellaneous Permit 1. The applicant shall apply for Miscellaneous and Building permit approval. 2. Civil site plans shall be designed per City of Tukwila standards, details, and specifications. 3. An infrastructure design and construction standard manual, is available at the Public Works Department. 4. Provide a storm water technical information report, based on the King County Surface Water Design Manual. 5. Individual house foundation and drainage system, shall meet a specific geotechnical assessment, with final design recommendations. 6. Provide street lighting plan. 7: Provide approved plan sheet(s) from Val -Vue Sewer District. • Cizy of Ti1ICWZI3 Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director November 19, 2001 James Jaeger Jaeger Engineering 9419 South 204th Place Kent WA 98031 Re: Notice of incomplete application for Five Rivers Development- proposed 12 lot subdivision located at NE corner of South 158th Street and 53rd Avenue South. File numbers LO1 -064 and E01 -027. Dear Mr. Jaeger: The Department of Community Development received your application to subdivide one residential lot into 12 lots at a site located at NE corner of South 158th Street and 53rd Avenue South. Based on a review of your submittal relative to those requirements as set out in the Complete Application Checklists for Subdivision Preliminary Plat and SEPA review, your applications are deemed incomplete. The following information is required in order for Subdivision Preliminary Plat application to be determined complete: 1. A landscape - planting plan by a Washington State licensed landscape architect. One set of plans and analyses shall have an original ASLA stamp and signature. Additional copies of the signed set may be submitted to satisfy the total number of copies required. Pursuant to TMC 17.20.030.A.2, in addition to meeting the requirements of TMC Chapter 18.54, Tree regulations, every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing trees and vegetation and integrate them into the subdivision's design. Also, per 17.20.030.G.1, each lot within a new subdivision shall be landscaped with at least one tree in the front yard to create a uniform streetscape. Also, street trees along 53rd Ave South and the new cul -de -sac road must be shown. 2. Clearing of trees on any steep slopes is subject to tree regulations of TMC Chapter 18.54. All significant trees must be shown on the survey and those that are proposed to be removed must be identified. Significant trees are defined as all trees except cottonwoods that are 4" in caliper measured 4.5' above grade. Further refer to TMC 18.54.080 for other information related to trees that must be shown on the survey and landscape plan. Also refer to TMC 18.54.130 for criteria to be used to authorize removal of significant trees on steep slopes. Specifically refer to the replacement tree ratios and sizes for replacement trees. 1 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98.188 • Phone: 206- 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 , w .. 3. There is potential for surface water features and wetlands on this property. A wetland reconnaissance study must be prepared by a qualified wetland biologist. If any wetlands are found, a delineation report is required and the proposal must meet all requirements listed in TMC Chapter 18.45, Sensitive Areas Overlay. 4. Preliminary storm drainage report is required. The following information is required in order for SEPA application to be determined complete: 1. ESA screening checklist. This is part of the SEPA application packet that was provided to you at the preapplication. You can also download it from the City's web site. After receipt of the requested information, we will notify you within 14 calendar days whether your applications are complete, or if incomplete, what information is still needed to complete the application. It is important to note that this application will expire if we do not receive the additional information within ninety (90) days of the date of this letter unless an extension is granted pursuant to Section 18.101/.070(E). Additionally, we have started code - related review and have following comments that need to be addressed: Subdivision Preliminary Plat: 1. The subject site is zoned Low- Density Residential (LDR), which requires a minimum lot size of 6,500 square feet. A number of proposed lots are shown to be below the minimum lot size requirement. Please be aware that Planned Residential Development (that allows a maximum reduction of 15% for lot areas) is only permitted when there are wetlands, watercourses and associated buffers on lots. Your current application does not show any wetlands or watercourses. If your intention is to do a Planned Residential Development (PRD), a separate application for PRD must be submitted and all other requirements listed under TMC Chapter 18.46, Planned Residential Development including 20% open space requirement must be met. The assessor's map must highlight the properties within 500 feet of the subject site. Also, one additional set of mailing labels is required. 3. The survey plat map must show all easements referenced in the title report. Also, it must include signature blocks for City Officials. Please refer to the application handout for details. Further a note must be added regarding the drainage tract as distinguished from lots stating its purpose and any limitations. 4. Site development plan must include the following information: a) Owners of adjacent land and the names of adjacent subdivisions. b) Lot area, dimensions, average widths and numbering for each lot. c) Location, dimensions and purpose of existing and proposed easements. d) Location of any sensitive areas and associated buffers (wetlands and steep slopes). e) Location, size and species of any trees within a sensitive area or its buffer with retention/removal plan. f) Expected location of new residences, their driveways and finished floor elevations. 5. Preliminary grading plan is required to fully understand the impacts associated with the massive grade and fill of 5,000 cubic yards. 6. Fire Department Comments: a) A portion of the proposed road exceeds the maximum permitted grade of 15 %. As noted on the attached plan is 17.1%. b) House placement of lots 8, 12 may exceed 150', from fire hydrant path of travel. 7. Building Department Comments: SEPA: The building permit applications when submitted should contain geo- technical information regarding the location of all fill materials that they say are on the site and the soil conditions or design criteria for the house foundations. Following are comments pertaining to corresponding item in the checklist: A.7 A wetland reconnaissance or delineation report must be prepared by a qualified wetland biologist as there is potential for surface water features and wetlands on the property. B.1.d. Known landslide areas are present on properties directly south. The site is also in an area of significant groundwater discharge and potential landslide hazard. Please revise the response to include the correct information and provide more specific information to fully evaluate any impacts. B. 1.e. Be more specific about the proposed grading. Detailed information and preliminary grading plan is required to analyze any environmental impacts. B.3.b.1 Geo- technical report states that ground water is present at approximately 10 feet below surface and it is likely that this level fluctuates and the geo - technical 3 • analyses was done during a very dry period. Also, substantial grading is proposed for the infrastructure and foundations of residential structures. Please discuss what measures are proposed if groundwater is encountered during grading and discuss the impacts associated with it. B.3.c.1 Have you contacted Washington State Department of Transportation to get their approval for discharging storm water to their existing drainage system? B.4.b. The proposal must meet all TMC regulations related to vegetation removal. Information requested above under subdivision preliminary plat, related to wetlands and significant trees within any sensitive areas including slopes is required to determine if all impacts associated with vegetation removal will be addressed by existing city codes. B.7.b.1. Is any mitigation proposed to reduce the noise from the adjacent freeway? B.12.a. Is any pedestrian connection proposed to the Crystal Springs Park? The City's Public Work's Department is in the process of reviewing your applications and will have additional comments including those related to street improvements, street lighting, drainage issues and geo- techinal report. I will forward their comments to you within the next couple of weeks. If you have any questions, you can reach me at 206 - 431 -3685. Sincerely, Minnie Dhaliwal Associate Planner Encl: TMC 18.54 (Tree permit) TMC 18.46 (PRD) Red Lined plan from Fire Department 4 RECEIVED City of Tukwila takieDepartment of Community Devi Y DEVELOPMENT File Number LAND USE . PERMIT ROUTING . FORM TO: Building ❑ Planning RPublic Works e2(Fire Dept. ❑ Police Dept. ❑ Parks /Rec Project: 1� \`� ( u12L,S ) Address: '31"-ei 0- t='. -P Cu— S . ci& L`- S �� Date cam, 2 Z transmitted: U 17 Response requested by: ,� 1' �- / 2a ctaff coordinator: `9 r I 1,"2--s '� -� Date response received: COMMENTS r'e. 6 c C C A JO(CR e S 1 J ,0 S j/1 k is I-1 i ,h Q\_cszvwu� 61n Los 9( 1 Z vv\o‘ - exc-eA_ 160 -Fcow\ kro L ❑ DRC review requested Plan check date: i l / b I � J ❑ Plan submittal requested Comments prepared by: ❑ Plan approved C s3 03/14/44 ADaPT OCT 22 2001 L'L @ j,/ GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT FIVE RIVERS PRELIMINARY PLAT 53rd AVENUE S. and S. 159th Street Tukwila, Washington Submitted To: AIA International Development 306 North 1st Avenue Kent, Washington 98032 WA01- 6475 -0 August 2001 1, / August 6, 2001 WA01- 6267 -0 ADaPT AIA International Development 306 North 1 s` Avenue Kent, Washington 98032 Attention: Subject: Dear Mr. Khan: Mr. Saraj Khan Geotechnical Engineering Report Five Rivers Preliminary Plat 53rd Avenue South and South 159t Street Tukwila, Washington CCT 2 2 2001 LSI ADAPT (ADAPT) is pleased to submit this report summarizing our geotechnical engineering evaluation for the above - referenced project. The purpose of our evaluation was to derive design conclusions and recommendations concerning site preparation, excavations, foundations, floors, drainage, retaining walls, and structural fill. As outlined in our proposal letter dated May 31, 2001, our scope of work comprised a field exploration, geotechnical research, geotechnical analyses, and report preparation. We received your written authorization for our evaluation on June 6, 2001. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of AIA International Development, and their agents, in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice and for the specific application to this project. Use or reliance upon this report by a third party is at their own risk. ADAPT does not make any representation or warranty, express or implied, to such other parties as to the accuracy or completeness of this report or the suitability of its use by such other parties for any purpose, whether known or unknown to ADAPT. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Should you have any questions concerning this report or need further assistance, please contact us at (206) 654 -7045. Respectfully Submitted, LSI ADAPT // Rolf B. llseth, P.E. Senior Geotechnical Engineer Distribution: AIA International Development (3) Attn: Mr. Saraj Khan Jaeger Engineering (1) Attn: Mr. Jim Jaeger 800 Maynard Avenue South Suite 403 Seattle, Washington 98134 LSI ADAPT, Inc. Tel (206) -654 -7045 Fax (206) 654 -7048 www.adaptengr.com LSI ADAPT, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS WA01- 6475 -0 1.0 SUMMARY 1 2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2 3.0 EXPLORATORY METHODS 3 3.1 Test Pit Excavation Procedures 4 3.2 Laboratory Testing Procedures 4 4.0 SITE CONDITIONS 4 4.1 Surface Conditions 4 4.2 Soil Conditions 5 4.3 Groundwater Conditions 5 4.4 Seismic Conditions 6 4.5 Environmentally Critical Area Conditions 6 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6 5.1 Site Preparation 7 5.2 Spread Footings 9 5.3 Deep Foundation Options 11 5.4 Slab -on -Grade Floors 12 5.5 Backfilled Walls 13 5.6 Drainage Systems 16 5.7 Structural Fill 16 6.0 RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL SERVICES 19 7.0 CLOSURE 20 Figure 1 Location/Topographic Map Figure 2 Site & Exploration Plan Test Pit Logs TP -1 through TP -11 Grain Size Analysis Report (1 pg) AIA Intemationat D elopment LSI ADAPT Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 August 6, 2001 Table of Contents LSI ADAPT, Inc. 1.0 SUMMARY Based on our field explorations, research and analyses, the proposed construction appears feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, contingent on the implementation of the recommendations presented in this report. The following summary of project geotechnical considerations is presented for introductory purposes and, as such, should be used only in conjunction with the full text of this report. • • • Project Description: Development plans call for constructing residential houses on up to 12 lots at the subject site. The specific type, size and location of these houses were not available at the time of this report. Exploratory Methods: We explored subsurface conditions by means of eleven test pits advanced at strategic locations within driveway and building lot areas across the site, to depths ranging from about 11.5 to 13.5 feet below ground surface (bgs). Soil Conditions: The native soils underlying the site generally consist of interlayered medium stiff to stiff silt/sandy silt and medium dense to dense gravelly, silty sand, partially underlain by a very stiff to hard, massive silt at depth. Extensive amounts of uncontrolled fill material were disclosed within the upper 1.5 to 12.0 feet bgs in our explorations within two areas of the site: the southwest corner and the level bench areas along the north and east property lines. The site soils are mantled by approximately 6 to 12 inches of forest duff, grass, sod and topsoil. Groundwater Conditions: At the time of exploration (June 2001), groundwater seepage was disclosed at depths of up to about 10 feet within the central and western portion of the site. The observed groundwater seepage is interpreted to be perched atop the underlying, relatively impermeable, stiff silt or sandy silt. Environmentally Critical Area Considerations: Portions of the proposed site is located within an Area of Potential Geologic Instability identified on City of Tukwila Sensitive Area maps, with a high landslide potential and general slopes between 20 and 40 percent (Class 3 Area). Provided that the recommendations of this report are implemented, the project is considered feasible and is not anticipated to adversely affect the stability of the subject site or adjacent properties. Shallow Spread Foundations: In our opinion, the proposed houses can be supported by conventional spread footings that bear on the native, medium stiff to stiff silt/sandy silt and medium dense to dense gravelly, silty sand. Any uncontrolled fill material will need to be overexcavated and replaced with structural fill, to minimize foundation settlements. For properly prepared footing subgrades, these spread footings may be designed for an AIA International Development LSI ADAPT Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 August 6, 2001 Page 1 • • • LSI ADAPT, Inc. allowable, static bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) and a seismic bearing pressure of 2,660 psf. Deep Foundation Options: Where the uncontrolled fill material is too deep to allow for a cost - effective overexcavation and structural fill replacement, we are providing general design recommendations for alternative pin pile or helical pier foundations to support the houses. The deep foundations would be designed to bear within the native soils below the fill soils. Floors: Typical soil- supported, slab -on -grade floors are feasible at this site, contingent on proper subgrade preparation. Any uncontrolled fill material will need to be overexcavated and replaced with structural fill, to minimize floor slab settlements. For the deep foundation option, the house floors should be structurally supported. Subsurface Walls: In our opinion, conventional backfilled, cast -in -place concrete walls will adequately support the proposed basement and site perimeter retaining wall system. These walls should be designed to withstand appropriate lateral pressures, as discussed in this report. Seismic Considerations: Based on our literature review and subsurface interpretations, we recommend that the project structural engineer use the following seismic parameters for design of buildings, retaining walls, and other site structures, as appropriate. Design Parameter Value Acceleration Coefficient 0.30 Risk Zone (1997 UBC) 3 Soil Profile Type (1997 UBC) SD Temporary Excavation Considerations: All temporary soil cuts associated with site regrading or excavations should be adequately sloped back to prevent sloughing and collapse. For the loose to medium dense silty sand and medium stiff sandy silt that will likely be encountered within the anticipated excavation depths, we tentatively recommend maximum, temporary cut slope inclinations of 1' /2H:1 V and 1 H:1 V, respectively. If groundwater seepage is encountered within the excavation slopes, the cut slope inclination should not exceed 1 %2H:1 V. 2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject site is located along the east side of 53rd Avenue South, across from 159th Street, in Tukwila, Washington, as shown on the enclosed Location /Topographic Map (Figure 1). This parcel measures about 330 by 400 feet and comprises 12 residential building lots located around the perimeter of a AIA International Development LSI ADAPT Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 August.6, 2001 Page 2 LSI ADAPT, Inc. 1 proposed dead -end street extension with a cul -de -sac. Site boundaries are generally delineated by 53'd Avenue South on the west, by an adjacent wooded area on the north, by a relatively steep slope downwards to Klickitat Drive on the east, and by a City of Seattle Right -of -Way (ROW) area on the south. The site is presently undeveloped and slopes moderately to steeply downwards to the east - northeast, with an overall topographical relief of about 50 feet. The enclosed Site & Exploration Plan (Figure 2) illustrates these site boundaries and adjacent existing features. It is our understanding that the lots will be developed for single - family residential dwellings. The type, size, and location of the planned houses were unknown at the time of this study; however, we anticipate that foundation support will consist of a system of shallow spread footings and basement retaining walls. We anticipate that the building walls and columns will impose relatively light foundation loads. A detention pond is planned near the southeast corner of the site (Tract A Drainage area on the site plans). We understand that the material excavated as a part of grading activities in this area may be used to raise grades at the west end of the proposed access roadway to match street elevations along 53rd Avenue South along the western property line. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on our understanding of the currently proposed utilization of the project site, as derived from layout drawings, written information, and verbal information supplied to us. Consequently, if any changes are made in the currently proposed project, we may need to modify our conclusions and recommendations contained herein to reflect those changes. 3.0 EXPLORATORY METHODS We explored surface and subsurface conditions at the project site on June 15, 2001. Our exploration and testing program comprised the following elements: A visual surface reconnaissance of the site; 11 test pits (designated TP -1 through TP -11) advanced at strategic locations across the proposed building lot and driveway areas; 1 grain size analysis; A review of published geologic and seismologic maps and literature. The following text sections describe our procedures used for performing the test pits and the laboratory testing. Figure 2 depicts their approximate relative locations. The specific number, locations, and depths of our explorations were selected in relation to the existing and proposed site features, under the constraints of surface access, underground utility conflicts, and budget considerations. We estimated the relative location of each exploration by measuring from existing features and scaling these measurements onto a layout plan supplied to us. Then we estimated their elevations by interpolating between elevation contour lines shown on this same plan. Consequently, the locations depicted on Figure 2 should be AIA International Development LSI ADAPT Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 August 6, 2001 Page 3 LSI ADAPT, Inc. considered accurate only to the degree permitted by our data sources and implied by our measuring methods. It should be realized that the explorations performed for this evaluation reveal subsurface conditions only at discrete locations across the project site and that actual conditions in other areas could vary. Furthermore, the nature and extent of any such variations would not become evident until additional explorations are performed or until construction activities have commenced. If significant variations are observed at that time, we may need to modify our conclusions and recommendations contained in this report to reflect the actual site conditions. 3.1 Test Pit Excavation Procedures Our exploratory test pits were excavated with a rubber -tired backhoe operated by an independent firm working under subcontract to ADAPT. A geotechnical engineer from our firm continuously observed the test pit excavations, logged the subsurface conditions, and obtained representative soil samples. All samples were stored in watertight containers and later transported to our laboratory for further visual examination and testing. After we logged each test pit, the hoe operator backfilled it with excavated soils and tamped the surface. The enclosed Test Pit Logs indicate the vertical sequence of soils and materials encountered in each test pit, based primarily on our field classifications and supported by our subsequent laboratory examination and testing. Where a soil contact was observed to be gradational or undulating, our logs indicate the average contact depth. We estimated the relative density and consistency of the in -situ soils by means of the observed excavation characteristics and the stability of the test pit sidewalls. Our logs also indicate the approximate depths of any sidewall caving or groundwater seepage observed in the test pits, as well as all sample numbers and sampling locations. 3.2 Laboratory Testing Procedures As a part of our geotechnical evaluation, we performed a series of grain size analyses and moisture content determinations. A grain size analysis indicates the range of soil particle diameters included in a particular sample. Grain size analyses were performed on representative samples in general accordance with ASTM:D -422. Moisture content determinations were made in general accordance with ASTM:D -2216. The results of these laboratory tests are presented on the enclosed grain size analysis reports and on the exploration logs. 4.0 SITE CONDITIONS The following sections of text present our observations, measurements, findings, and interpretations regarding surface, soil, groundwater, and seismic conditions at the project site. 4.1 Surface Conditions The subject site is vegetated by second - growth trees and a relatively dense understory growth. Topography at the site slopes from the southwest corner downwards toward the northeast at a moderately AIA International Development LSI ADAPT Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 August 6, 2001 Page 4 LSI ADAPT, Inc. steep inclination, with intermediate, relatively level bench areas midway along the west property line and along the majority of the north and east property lines. The moderately steep slope separating the two bench areas traverse diagonally across the central portion of the site from the northwest corner to the midpoint of the south property line. We did not observe surface water seepage or ponding at the site during our site visit. 4.2 Soil Conditions According to published geological maps, the general soil conditions at the site location consist of Vashon Drift material, comprised of lacustrine silts and clays, overlain by recessional sand and pebble outwash. Our on -site explorations generally confirmed the mapped native soil conditions, as modified by the placement of extensive amounts of uncontrolled fill soils overlying these native soil within two areas of the site: the southwest corner and the level bench areas along the north and east property lines. The site soils are mantled by approximately 6 to 12 inches of forest duff, grass, sod and topsoil. The native soils underlying the fill material in the southwest corner and most of the moderately steep slope crossing the central area of the site generally consist of interlayered medium stiff to stiff silt/sandy silt and medium dense sand, partially underlain by a medium dense to dense gravelly, silty sand at depth of 5 to 6 feet. Within the eastern one -third of the site, the native soils underlying the fill material and along the gently sloping area in the southeast corner of the site consisted of medium dense to dense gravelly, silty sand, underlain by a very stiff to hard, massive silt at depths ranging from 8 to 11 feet. This underlying hard soil unit, which is interpreted to be glacially overridden and overconsolidated, was also disclosed at depth in test pit TP -4 near the top of the slope in the northwestern corner of the site. Uncontrolled fill material was disclosed to a depth of 12.0 and 1.5 feet in test pits TP -1 and TP -3, respectively, within the southwest corner of the site (Lots No. 11, 12, and westernmost 100 feet of proposed road), which corresponds with a contact elevation of approximately 148 feet in both test pits. The fill material is interpreted to make up most of the small hill in this corner of the site and we anticipate that the area southwest of the 148 -foot surface contour line is underlain by varying amounts of fill material. The majority of the level bench area in the northeast one -third of the site (Lots No. 2 through 8) is also interpreted to be underlain by uncontrolled fill. Specifically, uncontrolled fill was disclosed to a depth of about 3.0 feet in test pits TP -8 and TP -11 (Lots No. 6 through 8), whereas the fill depth was 6.5 and 10.0 feet in test pits TP -5 and TP -7, respectively (Lots No. 2 through 5). The depth of the fill material may vary significantly in unexplored areas of the is lower bench area. 4.3 Groundwater Conditions At the time of exploration (June 2001), groundwater seepage was disclosed at depths generally ranging from about 5 to 10 feet within the central and western portion of the site. The observed groundwater seepage is interpreted to be perched atop the underlying, relatively impermeable, stiff silt or sandy silt. Within the upper bench area along the western property line, the perched groundwater seepage was observed at a depth of approximately 1.5 feet (test pit TP -3). Because our explorations were performed during an extended period of generally dry weather, these observed groundwater conditions may closely AIA International Development LSI ADAPT Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 August 6, 2001 Page 5 LSI ADAPT, Inc. represent the yearly low levels; somewhat higher levels probably occur during the winter and early spring months. Throughout the year, groundwater levels would likely fluctuate in response to changing precipitation patterns, off -site construction activities, and changes in site utilization. 4.4 Seismic Conditions Based on our analysis of subsurface exploration logs and our review of published geologic maps, we interpret the on -site soil conditions to correspond to seismic soil profile type SD, as defined by Table 16 -J of the 1997 Uniform Building Code and Table 1615.1.1 of the 2000 International Building Code. This soil profile type is characterized by stiff soils with an average blowcount ranging from 15 to 50 within the upper 100 feet bgs. Current (1996) National Seismic Hazard Maps prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey indicate that a peak bedrock site acceleration coefficient of about 0.30 is appropriate for an earthquake having a 10- percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (corresponding to a retum interval of 475 years). According to Figure 16 -2 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code, the site lies within seismic risk zone 3. 4.5 Environmentally Critical Area Conditions Portions of the proposed site is located within an Area of Potential Geologic Instability identified on City of Tukwila Sensitive Area maps, with a high landslide potential and general slopes between 20 and 40 percent (Class 3 Area). Specifically, the topographic survey for the site indicates that the south portions of Lots No. 11 and 12 slopes at an inclination ranging from 3 /4H:1 V (133 percent) to 3H:1V (33 percent) downward towards the north - northeast, while the northwest and central portions of the site contain slopes with inclinations on the order of 4H:1V (25 percent) or less downward towards the northeast. The recommendations and conclusions of this geotechnical engineering report address the concerns related to the steep slope designation, in general accordance with the Sensitive Areas Overlay of the City of Tukwila building code. Provided that the recommendations of this report are implemented, the project is considered feasible and is not anticipated to adversely affect the stability of the subject site or adjacent properties. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Development plans call for the construction of new residential houses at the site. Based on our findings and the results of our analyses, the project is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided that the recommendations of this report are implemented. The type, size, and location of the planned houses were unknown at the time of this study; however, we anticipate that foundation support will consist of a system of shallow spread footings and basement retaining walls. The following text sections of this report present our specific geotechnical conclusions and recommendations concerning site preparation, spread footings, slab -on grade floors, backfilled walls, drainage systems, and structural fill. WSDOT Standard Specifications and Standard Plans cited herein refer to WSDOT publications M41 -10, 2000 Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction, and M21 -01, 2000 Standard Plans for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction, respectively. AIA International Development LS1 ADAPT Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 August 6, 2001 Page 6 LSI ADAPT, Inc. As discussed in the subsequent sections, overexcavation of uncontrolled fill material and replacement with structural fill will be required in all structural development areas, such as below foundations, slabs and roadways. If at all possible, we recommend that the planned houses be situated on those portions of the lots where the least amount of uncontrolled fill is expected, so as to minimize the anticipated overexcavation and associated construction costs. If other site constraints limit the siting of the houses to the deeper fill areas, we recommend that the cost of removal and replacement with structural fill be compared with the cost of supporting the house on deep foundations embedded within suitable native bearing soils below the uncontrolled fill, as discussed in the sections below. Alternatively, the affected house could be designed with a basement to limit the cost of structural fill placement. For street access, we anticipate that the houses on Lots No. 1, 2, 3, 9, and 10 will be situated on the moderately steep slopes within the central and the northwest portions of the site. To minimize grading and potential erosion on the slope areas, we recommend that the spread foundations of these houses be designed to follow the natural topography by stair- stepping down the slope face. We do not recommend that any house or structure be situated within the slope areas on Lots No. 11 and 12 which are underlain by uncontrolled fill, unless the houses are designed with daylight basements supported on native soils or site grades are modified by removal and replacement of the uncontrolled fill material. 5.1 Site Preparation Preparation of the project site should involve temporary drainage, clearing, stripping, cutting, filling, excavations, dewatering, and subgrade compaction. The paragraphs below discuss our geotechnical comments and recommendations concerning site preparation. Temporary Drainage: We recommend intercepting and diverting any potential sources of surface or near - surface water within the construction zones before stripping begins. Because the selection of an appropriate drainage system will depend on the water quantity, season, weather conditions, construction sequence, and contractor's methods, final decisions regarding drainage systems are best made in the field at the time of construction. Nonetheless, we anticipate that curbs, berms, or ditches placed along the uphill side of the work areas will adequately intercept surface water runoff. Clearing and Stripping: After surface and near- surface water sources have been controlled, the construction areas should be cleared and stripped of all trees, bushes, sod, topsoil, debris, asphalt, and concrete. Our explorations indicate that an average thickness of about 6 to 12 inches of forest duff, sod, duff, and topsoil will be encountered across the site, but significant variations could exist, especially where tree root balls are encountered. Furthermore, it should be realized that if the stripping operation proceeds during wet weather, a generally greater stripping depth might be necessary to remove disturbed, surficial, moisture- sensitive soils; therefore, stripping is best performed during a period of dry weather. Demolition: As a part of the initial site preparation, any existing structures present within the construction areas should be demolished. Any associated underground structural elements or utilities, such as old footings, stemwalls, and drainpipes, should be exhumed as part of this demolition operation. AIA International Development LSI ADAPT Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 August 6, 2001 Page 7 LSI ADAPT, Inc. Excavations: Site excavations ranging up to about 10 feet deep may be required to accommodate the proposed house construction and potential removal of uncontrolled fill. Based on our explorations, we anticipate that these excavations will encounter loose fill soils, medium stiff to stiff sandy silts, or loose to medium dense silty /gravelly sands within the anticipated site excavations. Some perched groundwater seepage zones will likely be encountered at various depths within the site soils. These soils can likely be cut with conventional earth working equipment such as small dozers and trackhoes. Temporary Cut Slopes: All temporary soil cuts associated with site regrading or excavations should be adequately sloped back to prevent sloughing and collapse. For the various soil layers that will likely be encountered in the excavation, we tentatively recommend the following maximum cut slope inclinations: Soil Type Maximum Inclination Loose Fill Soils 1'1H:1 V Loose to Medium Dense Silty /Gravelly Sand 1 %/H:1 V Medium Stiff to Stiff Sandy Silt 1 H:1 V If groundwater seepage is encountered within the excavation slopes, the cut slope inclination should not exceed 1'AH:1 V. However, appropriate inclinations will ultimately depend on the actual soil and groundwater seepage conditions exposed in the cuts at the time of construction. It is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that the excavation is properly sloped or braced for worker protection, in accordance with OSHA guidelines. In addition to proper sloping, the excavation cuts should be draped with plastic sheeting for the duration of the excavation to minimize surface erosion and ravelling. Dewatering: Our site surface and subsurface exploration reveled the presence of perched groundwater seepage at depths generally ranging up to about 10 feet within the central and western portion of the site. The proposed site excavations might encounter perched groundwater seepage, depending on the actual excavation depth and time of year. If groundwater is encountered, we anticipate that an internal system of ditches, sump holes, and pumps will be adequate to temporarily dewater the excavations. Subgrade Compaction: Exposed subgrades for footings, floors, pavements, and other structures should be compacted to a firm, unyielding state, if warranted by soil moisture conditions. Any localized zones of loose granular soils observed within a subgrade should be compacted to a density commensurate with the surrounding soils. In contrast, any uncontrolled fill material or organic, soft, or pumping soils observed within a subgrade should be overexcavated and replaced with a suitable structural fill material. Permanent Slopes: All permanent cut slopes and fill slopes should be adequately inclined and revegetated to minimize long -term ravelling, sloughing, and erosion. We generally recommend that no permanent slopes be steeper than 2H:1 V. For all soil types, the use of flatter slopes (such as 2.5H:1 V) would further ALA International Development LSI ADAPT Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 August 6, 2001 Page 8 LSI ADAPT, Inc. reduce long -term erosion and facilitate revegetation. It should be noted that a portion of the existing fill slope between Lots No. 11 and 12 appeared to be oversteepened (3/4H:1 V) and should be regraded to a more stable inclination, as discussed above. Slope Protection: We recommend that a permanent berm, swale, or curb be constructed along the top edge of all permanent slopes to intercept surface flow. Also, a hardy vegetative groundcover should be established as soon as feasible, to further protect the slopes from runoff water erosion. Alternatively, if slopes are too steep for vegetation to take hold, permanent slopes could be armored with quarry spalls or a geosynthetic erosion mat. 5.2 Spread Footings In our opinion, conventional spread footings will provide adequate support for the proposed houses if the subgrades are properly prepared. This will involve overexcavating any existing, unsuitable fill material and replacing with properly compacted structural fill. Altemativ deep foundation options are discussed in the subsequent section of this report. We offer the following comments and recommendations for purposes of footing design and construction. Footing Depths and Widths: For frost and erosion protection, the bottoms of all exterior footings should penetrate at least 18 inches below lowest adjacent outside grades, whereas the bottoms of interior footings need penetrate only 12 inches below the surrounding slab surface level. All footings should bear within the native, medium dense silty /gravelly sand or medium stiff to stiff sandy silt. Continuous (wall) and isolated (column) footings should be at least 18 and 24 inches wide, respectively, to act as a true footing element providing the specified bearing capacity. Footing Overexcavation: To limit settlements, we recommend that any uncontrolled fill soils below the footing subgrade elevation be overexcavated and replaced with a structural fill pad. Any locally deeper zones of organics or soft soils encountered at the base of the overexcavation should be removed and replaced with structural fill. Because foundation stresses are transferred outward as well as downward into the bearing soils, all footing overexcavations also should extend horizontally outward from the footing edge a distance equal to the overexcavation depth for structural backfill. Therefore, an overexcavation that extends 5 feet below the footing base should extend 5 feet outward from the footing edges (a 1H:1V projected line from the bottom of the footing to the bottom of the fill prism). Soil Replacement: After the footing overexcavations have been completed, the overexcavated soil should be replaced with either a controlled density fill (CDF) or a properly compacted, approved granular structural fill material, as specified in the structural fill section of this report. If subgrade soils at the base of overexcavations are in a wet condition, a drainage layer of washed rock, crushed rock, or quarry spalls may be required to stabilize the base and allow placement and compaction of structural fill. Slope Desi n Considerations: For the houses that may be located on the moderately steep slopes within the central portion of the site, the spread foundation elements should be designed to follow the natural AIA International Development LSI ADAPT Project No. WA0.1- 6475 -0 August 6, 2001 Page 9 LSI ADAPT, Inc. contour lines in a stair -step manner. Generally, we recommend that the base of an upper footing be placed below a 1H:1V plane extending upwards from the heel of any lower footing, in order to reduce the risk for surcharging any backfilled footing stem walls or footing- supported retaining wall. The outside edge of the base of any footing placed on a slope should be embedded at least 18 inches below the downhill slope surface. Bearing Suberades: The native, medium dense silty/gravelly sand or medium stiff to stiff sandy silt underlying the proposed house lots appear well- suited for supporting the proposed shallow spread footing system. Alternatively, the footings may be founded on a structural fill prism placed directly onto these native soils. Before concrete is placed, any localized zones of loose soils encountered in the footing subgrades should be compacted to a firm, unyielding condition, if warranted by soil moisture conditions. Any uncontrolled fill material within the house footprint area will need to be overexcavated and replaced with structural fill, as previously discussed. Subgrade Verification: All footing subgrades should consist of firm, unyielding, dense, undisturbed, native soils. Footings should never be cast atop loose, soft, or frozen soil, slough, debris, existing uncontrolled fill, or surfaces covered by standing water. We recommend that the condition of all subgrades be verified by an ADAPT representative before any concrete is placed. Bearing Capacities: Based on the bearing subgrade conditions described above, we recommend that all footings be designed for the following allowable bearing capacities for static and seismic loadings: Design Parameter Allowable Value Static Bearing Capacity Seismic Bearing Capacity 2,000 psf 2,660 psf Footing Settlements: We estimate that total post - construction settlements of properly designed footings bearing on properly prepared subgrades will not exceed 1 inch. Differential settlements could approach one -half of the actual total settlement between adjacent foundation elements. Footing and Stemwall Backfill: To provide erosion protection and lateral load resistance, we recommend that all footing excavations be backfilled on both sides of the footings and stemwalls after the concrete has cured. Either imported structural fill or non - organic on -site soils can be used for this purpose, contingent on a suitable moisture content at the time of placement. Regardless of soil type, all footing backfill soil should be compacted to a density of at least 90 percent (based on ASTM:D - 1557). Lateral Resistance: Footings and stemwalls that have been properly backfilled as described above will resist lateral movements by means of passive earth pressure and base friction. Passive pressure acts over the embedded front of the footing (neglecting the upper 1 foot for soil foreslopes) and varies with the foreslope inclination. For site - specific design purposes, we are providing recommended allowable AIA International Development LSI ADAPT Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 August 6, 2001 Page 10 LSI ADAPT, Inc. passive pressure values for level and 4H: 1 V foreslopes. The level foreslope condition may be assumed if the ground surface is level within a horizontal distance equal to two times the footing depth. We recommend using the following design values, which incorporate a static safety factor of at least 1.5: Allowable Design Values Design Parameter Level Foreslope (4H:1V) Foreslope Static Passive Pressure 250 pcf 180 pcf Seismic Passive Pressure 330 pcf 240 pcf Base Friction Coefficient 0.30 0.30 5.3 Deep Foundation Options Given the depth and extent of uncontrolled fill within the northeast portion and southwest corner of the site, overexcavation and replacement with structural fill may be prohibitively expensive. If a basement design is not an option, the house could be founded on deep foundations extended to bear within suitable native soils below the uncontrolled fill material. Generally, cost - effective deep foundation systems for single - family residences consist of either small- diameter steel pipe (needle) piles or Chance helical piers. For planning and cost comparison purposes, we have provided general recommendations for these two deep foundation options below. We recommend that ADAPT be retained to review final soil parameters and geotechnical design values appropriate for each specific house location where a deep foundation option is selected. Depending upon the specific location and house plan, it may be necessary to perform additional explorations to evaluate depth of unsuitable fill material and suitability of the underlying native soils. For either deep foundation option, we have provided estimated or typical compressive vertical capacities. For properly installed deep foundations, we anticipate that settlement would be less than %z inch, with differential settlement between pile- supported elements approaching approximately half of the total settlement. Lateral capacities are limited due to the small diameter of the needle piles/helical shafts and the unknown quality of the surficial fill soils; instead, we recommend that lateral resistance be provided by buried grade beams and stem walls fixed to the top of the deep foundation members. For either option, we recommend that the design incorporate an allowance for pile relocation, in the event that obstructions in the fill are encountered during installation. Steel Pipe Piles: Small diameter (needle) piles typically range from 2 to 4 inches in diameter and are installed with hand -held hydraulic hammer or mechanical hammers mounted on a small pile driving rig. The 2- inch - diameter piles are typically driven to a refusal penetration rate of 1 inch/minute, while the refusal rate for the larger diameter (3 or 4 inches) piles depends on the type of hammer used. The piles should be driven a minimum of 5 feet into the medium dense to dense native soils below the unsuitable fill to provide adequate vertical compressive capacities. The table below presents typical, static, vertical, A1A International Development LSI ADAPT Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 August 6, 2001 Page 11 LSI ADAPT, Inc. compressive capacities for needle piles of varying diameter driven to refusal within granular native soils, based on the specified refusal criteria for the hammer used. These typical, allowable values incorporate a safety factor of about 2 and are typically increased by one -third for seismic design capacities. The specific location, size, and configuration of the pipe piles should be designed by a structural engineer based on the expected loading conditions for the house. We recommend that a load test be performed on at least one of the piles installed into the native soils underlying the existing fill material. Typical Allowable Compressive Capacities Pipe Pile Diameter (inches) Static Capacity (kips) 2 4 3 10 4 15 Chance Helical Piers: A helical pier consists of single or multiple helical steel plates of varying diameter welded onto an axial rod that is `screwed' into the soils using standard augering equipment. The helical piers should penetrate at least 5 feet into the medium dense to dense native soils underlying the unsuitable fill material to develop adequate design capacities. The table below presents typical, static, vertical compressive capacities for single -helix piers of varying diameter installed to adequate embedment into the native dense soils (minimum 10 feet bgs). Increased capacities may be achieved with deeper embedment or with the use of multiple -helix piers within the bearing soil layer. These typical, allowable values incorporate a safety factor of about 2 and are typically increased by one -third for seismic design capacities. The specific location, size, and configuration of the helical piers should be designed by a structural engineer based on the expected loading conditions for the house. The helical piers should be installed and the estimated capacities should be verified in the field by monitoring the installation torque in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. Typical Allowable Compressive Capacities Helix Diameter (inches) Static Capacity (kips) 8 4 10 6 12 8 5.4 Slab -on -Grade Floors In our opinion, soil- supported slab -on -grade floors can be used for the proposed houses if the subgrades are properly prepared. This will involve overexcavating any existing, unsuitable fill material and replacing with properly compacted structural fill. If one of the deep foundation option discussed above is selected to support the house foundations, we recommend that the floors be structurally supported on the AIA International Development LSI ADAPT Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 August 6, 2001 Page 12 LSI ADAPT, Inc. house foundation grade beams. A crawl space should be provided for moisture protection of interior floors with the structural floor option. We offer the following comments and recommendations concerning slab -on -grade floors. Capillary Break: To retard the upward wicking of groundwater beneath the floor slab, we recommend that a capillary break be placed over the subgrade. Ideally, this capillary break would consist of a 4 -inch- thick layer of pea gravel or other clean, uniform, well- rounded gravel, such as "Gravel Backfill for Drains" per WSDOT Standard Specification 9- 03.12(4). Vapor Barrier: We recommend that a layer of plastic sheeting (such as Crosstuff, Visqueen or Moistop) be placed directly between the capillary break and the floor slab to prevent ground moisture vapors from migrating upward through the slab. During subsequent casting of the concrete slab, the contractor should exercise care to avoid puncturing this vapor barrier. Vertical Deflections: Soil- supported slab -on -grade floors can deflect downward when vertical loads are applied, due to elastic compression of the subgrade. In our opinion, a subgrade reaction modulus of 200 pounds per cubic inch (pci) can be used to estimate such deflections upon a native soil or structural fill subgrade. Subgrade Verification: All slab -on -grade floors should bear on firm, unyielding native soils or on suitable structural fill soils. We recommend that the conditions of all subgrades and overlying layers be verified by an ADAPT representative before any concrete is placed. 5.5 Backfilled Walls In our opinion, backfilled concrete retaining walls can be used around the below -grade portions and to support interior shear walls of the houses. Our wall design recommendations and comments are presented below. Footing Depths: For frost and erosion protection, all perimeter and basement retaining wall footings should penetrate at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent ground surface, whereas the bottoms of interior wall footings need only penetrate 12 inches below the surrounding slab surface level. All footings should bear within the native, medium dense silty /gravelly sand or medium stiff to stiff sandy silt. Curtain Drains: To preclude hydrostatic pressure development behind the perimeter retaining walls, we recommend that a curtain drain be placed behind the entire wall along the perimeter of the houses. This curtain drain should consist of pea gravel, washed rock, or some other clean, uniform, well - rounded gravel, extending outward a minimum of 2 feet from the wall and extending from the footing drain upward to within about 12 inches of the ground surface. The fines content of the drainage material should be 5 percent or less, based on the 3/4 -inch soil fraction. We also recommend that a 4- inch - diameter AIA International Development LSI ADAPT Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 August 6, 2001 Page 13 LSI ADAPT, Inc. perforated drain pipe be installed behind the heel of the wall, as described for Perimeter Drains in the Drainage Systems section of this report. Backfill Soil: The on -site granular soils could be used as backfill placed behind the curtain drain, if they are near the optimum moisture content. Alternatively, the wall backfill would consist of clean, free - draining, granular material, such as "Gravel Backfill for Walls" per WSDOT Standard Specification 9- 03.12(2). Backfill Compaction: Because soil compactors may induce significant lateral pressures on retaining walls, we recommend that only small, hand - operated compaction equipment be used within 3 feet of a completed wall. Also, all backfill should be compacted to approximately 90 percent of the maximum dry density (based on ASTM:D - 1557); a greater degree of compaction closely behind the wall would increase the lateral earth pressure, whereas a lesser degree of compaction might lead to excessive post - construction settlements. Grading and Capping: To retard the infiltration of surface water into the backfill soils, the backfill surface of exterior walls should be adequately sloped to drain away from the wall. We also recommend that the backfill surface directly behind the wall be capped with asphalt, concrete, or 12 inches of low - permeability (silty) soils. Applied Loads: Overturning and sliding loads applied to retaining walls can be classified as static pressures, surcharge pressures, seismic pressures, and hydrostatic pressures. We offer the following specific values for design purposes. Static Pressures: Yielding (cantilever) retaining walls should be designed to withstand an appropriate active lateral earth pressure, whereas non - yielding (restrained) walls should be designed to withstand an appropriate at -rest lateral earth pressure. The criteria for yielding walls may be applied where the top of the wall is allowed to translate or rotate a distance equal to 0.001 to 0.002 times the wall height. These pressures act over the entire back of the wall and vary with the backslope inclination. For the anticipated range of backslope angles for this site, we recommend using the following active and at- rest pressures (given as equivalent fluid unit weights): Backslope Active At -Rest Angle Pressure Pressure Level 35 pcf 55 pcf 4H:1V 44 pcf 62 pcf • Surcharge Pressures: Static lateral earth pressures acting on a retaining wall should be increased to account for any surcharge loadings from traffic, construction equipment, AIA International Development LSI ADAPT Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 August 6, 2001 Page 14 LSI ADAPT, Inc. • material stockpiles, or structures. We have assumed that the retaining walls supporting the proposed basement and perimeter walls will be placed far enough apart so as not to exert surcharge pressure on the lower walls. This requires that the base of an upper wall footing is placed below a 1H:1V plane extending upwards from the heel of any lower wall. Seismic Pressures: Static lateral earth pressures acting on a retaining wall should be increased to account for seismic loadings. These pressures act over the entire back of the wall and vary with the backslope inclination, the seismic acceleration, and the wall height. Based on a design acceleration coefficient of 0.25 to 0.30 and a wall height of "H" feet, we recommend that these seismic loadings be modeled as the following uniform horizontal pressures for various backslope angles: Backslope Active At -Rest Angle Pressure Pressure Level 4H psf 12H psf 3H:1 V 6H psf 18H psf 4H:1 V 8H psf 24H psf Hydrostatic Pressures: If groundwater is allowed to saturate the backfill soils, hydrostatic pressures will act against a retaining wall. If an adequate drainage and discharge system is installed behind the retaining wall, we do not expect that hydrostatic pressures will develop. Resisting Forces: Static pressures, surcharge pressures, seismic pressures, and hydrostatic pressures are resisted by a combination of passive lateral earth pressure, base friction, and subgrade bearing capacity. Passive pressure acts over the embedded front of the footing (neglecting the upper 1 foot for soil foreslopes) and varies with the foreslope inclination, whereas the base friction and bearing capacity act along the bottom of the footings. For site - specific design purposes, we are providing recommended allowable passive pressure values for level foreslopes. The level foreslope condition may be assumed if the ground surface is level within a horizontal distance equal to two times the footing width. We recommend using the following design values, which incorporate a static safety factor of at least 1.5: AIA International Development LSI ADAPT Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 August 6, 2001 Page 15 LSI ADAPT, Inc. Design Parameter Allowable Design Values Level Foreslope (4H:1 V) Foreslope Static Passive Pressure 250 pcf 180 pcf Seismic Passive Pressure 330 pcf 240 pcf Base Friction Coefficient 0.30 0.30 Static Bearing Capacity 2,000 2,000 Seismic Bearing Capacity 2,660 2,660 5.6 Drainage Systems In our opinion, the houses should be provided with permanent drainage systems to minimize the risk of future moisture problems. We offer the following recommendations and comments for drainage design and construction purposes. Perimeter Drains: We recommend that the houses be encircled with a perimeter drain system to collect seepage water. This drain should consist of a perforated pipe within an envelope of pea gravel or washed rock, extending at least 6 inches on all sides of the pipe, and the gravel envelope should be wrapped with filter fabric to reduce the migration of fines from the surrounding soils. The drain invert should be installed no more than 8 inches above or below "the base of the perimeter footings. All perimeter drains should discharge to a municipal storm drain, sewer system, or other suitable location by gravity flow. Runoff Water: Roof - runoff and surface - runoff water should not discharge into the perimeter drain system. Instead, these sources should discharge into separate tight line pipes and be routed away from the house to a storm drain or other appropriate location. Grading and Capping: Final site grades should slope downward away from the house so that runoff water will flow by gravity to suitable collection points, rather than ponding near the house. Ideally, the area surrounding the house would be capped with concrete, asphalt, or low- permeability (silty) soils to reduce surface -water infiltration. 5.7 Structural Fill The term "structural fill" refers to any placed under foundations, retaining walls, slab -on -grade floors, sidewalks, pavements, and other such features. Our comments, conclusions, and recommendations concerning structural fill are presented in the following paragraphs. Materials: Typical structural fill materials include clean sand, granulithic gravel, pea gravel, washed rock, crushed rock, quarry spalls, controlled - density fill (CDF), lean -mix concrete, well - graded mixtures of sand and gravel (commonly called "gravel borrow" or "pit- run "), and miscellaneous mixtures of silt, AlA International Development LSI ADAPT Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 August 6, 2001 Page 16 LSI ADAPT, Inc. sand, and gravel. Recycled asphalt, concrete, and glass, which are derived from pulverizing the parent materials, are also potentially useful as structural fill in certain applications. Soils used for structural fill should not contain any organic matter or debris, nor any individual particles greater than about 6 inches in diameter. Fill Placement: Generally, pea gravel, washed rock, quarry spalls, CDF, and lean -mix concrete do not require special placement and compaction procedures. In contrast, clean sand, granulithic gravel, crushed rock, soil mixtures, and recycled materials should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness, and each lift should be thoroughly compacted with a mechanical compactor. On -Site Soils: Because relatively large cuts are planned for the project, we expect that large quantities of on -site soils will be generated during earthwork activities. We anticipate that fill will be needed to backfill footings and retaining walls at the site. We performed a laboratory grain size analysis and a moisture content determination on a representative portion of the site soils within the proposed detention pond excavation area (proposed on -site fill material) to evaluate their suitability for use as structural fill. The results of these tests indicate a relatively high silt content (45 percent) and moisture content (20 percent), as shown on the enclosed laboratory test report and noted on the attached exploration logs. Given that the site soils are predominantly fine- grained and, as such highly moisture- sensitive, we recommend that the construction planning includes a contingency for importing "clean", granular fill, in the event that adequate soil aeration is not feasible within the construction time -frame due to unfavorable site and weather conditions. As such, we offer the following evaluation of these on -site soils in relation to potential use as structural fill. Surficial Organic Soils: The sod, duff, topsoil, and organic -rich soils mantling most of the site are not suitable for use as structural fill under any circumstances, due to their high organic content. Consequently, these materials can be used only for non - structural purposes, such as in landscaping areas. Silty (Gravelly) Sand / Sandy Silt: The silty sand, silty gravelly sand, and sandy silt units underlying the surficial organic and uncontrolled fill soils appeared to be significantly above their optimum moisture condition. We anticipate that these sandy soils may be reworked and recompacted, given favorable weather conditions when they can be aerated to reduce their moisture content. However, these soils would be difficult to reuse during wet weather, due to their high silt content. Compaction Criteria: Using the Modified Proctor test (ASTM:D -1557) as a standard, we recommend that structural fill used for various on -site applications be compacted to the following minimum densities: AIA International Development LSI ADAPT Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 August 6, 2001 Page 17 LSI ADAPT, Inc. Minimum Fill Application Compaction Footing subgrade or bearing pad 90 percent Footing and retaining wall backfill 90 percent Slab -on -grade floor subgrade and subbase 90 percent Roadway embankment (upper 2 feet) 95 percent Roadway embankment (below 2 feet) 90 percent Concrete sidewalk subgrade 90 percent It should be noted that many municipal compaction standards for construction work within right -of -way areas requires 95 percent density, based on the Standard Proctor test (ASTM:D -698). This requirement is generally equivalent to about 90 percent compaction using the more stringent Modified Proctor criteria (ASTM:D - 1557). Subgrade Verification and Compaction Testing: Regardless of material or location, all structural fill should be placed over firm, unyielding subgrades prepared in accordance with the Site Preparation section of this report. The condition of all subgrades should be verified by an ADAPT representative before filling or construction begins. Also, fill soil compaction should be verified by means of in -place density tests performed during fill placement so that adequacy of soil compaction efforts may be evaluated as earthwork progresses. Soil Moisture Considerations: The suitability of soils used for structural fill depends primarily on their grain -size distribution and moisture content when they are placed. As the "fines" content (that soil fraction passing the U.S. No. 200 Sieve) increases, soils become more sensitive to small changes in moisture content. Soils containing more than about 5 percent fines (by weight) cannot be consistently compacted to a firm, unyielding condition when the moisture content is more than 2 percentage points above or below optimum. For fill placement during wet - weather site work, we recommend using "clean" fill, which refers to soils that have a fines content of 5 percent or less (by weight) based on the soil fraction passing the U.S. No. 4 Sieve. CDF Strength Considerations: CDF is normally specified in terms of its compressive strength, which typically ranges from 50 to 200 psi. CDF having a strength of 50 psi (7200 psf) provides adequate support for most structural applications and can be readily excavated with hand shovels. A strength of 100 psi (14,400 psf) provides additional support for special applications but greatly increases the difficulty of hand - excavation. In general, CDF having a strength greater than about 100 psi requires power equipment to excavate and, as such, should not be used where future hand - excavation might be needed. AIA International Development LSI ADAPT Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 August 6, 2001 Page 18 •' LSI ADAPT, Inc. 6.0 RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL SERVICES Because the future performance and integrity of the structural elements will depend largely on proper site preparation, drainage, fill placement, and construction procedures, monitoring and testing by experienced geotechnical personnel should be considered an integral part of the construction process. Consequently, we recommend that ADAPT be retained to provide the following post -report services: • Review all construction plans and specifications to verify that our design criteria presented in this report have been properly integrated into the design; • Prepare a letter summarizing all review comments (if required by City of Tukwila); • Attend a pre - construction conference with the design team and contractor to discuss important geotechnically related construction issues; Observe all exposed subgrades after completion of stripping and overexcavation to confirm that suitable soil conditions have been reached and to determine appropriate subgrade compaction methods; • Monitor the placement of all structural fill and test the compaction of structural fill soils to verify their conformance with the construction specifications; • Check all completed subgrades for footings and slab -on -grade floors before concrete is poured, in order to verify their bearing capacity; • Observe the installation of all perimeter drains, wall drains, and capillary break layers to verify their conformance with the construction plans; • Prepare a post - construction letter summarizing all field observations, inspections, and test results (if required by City of Tukwila). Upon request, we could submit a proposal for providing some or all of these construction monitoring, inspection, and testing services. Such a proposal is best prepared after the project plans and specifications have been approved for construction. AIA International Development LSI ADAPT Project No. WA01 -6475-0 August 6, 2001 Page 19 • LSI ADAPT, Inc. 7.0 CLOSURE The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based, in part, on the explorations that we performed for this study; therefore, if variations in the subgrade conditions are observed at a later time, we may need to modify this report to reflect those changes. Also, because the future performance and integrity of the project elements depend largely on proper initial site preparation, drainage, and construction procedures, monitoring and testing by experienced geotechnical personnel should be considered an integral part of the construction process. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions regarding this report or any aspects of the project, please feel free to contact our office. Respectfully submitted, LSI ADAPT, Inc. Rolf B. Hyllseth, P.E. Senior Geotechnical Engineer roesch, P.E. Senior eotechnical Review vQ� AIA International Development LSI ADAPT Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 August 6, 2001 Page 20 h1 gir L — ea& Pkigh i . mkktm MEW MEW Eft v" 1 _At 36 Footbrid 4;1 ■ 4 it • IMO k 'I Soulhcenter Mall ma 26 sof of s 1 • MN • noiIr or/..., '` ar ?1 a-11! '',, • 1 10174 414.91." Me - mem 1. even eaTac !,1 Iti ow ke I 1.1 `_, 34--4. %- `i� 7 !1:t o . Ride ff !i /�;. 9 dia Seb �` 9 i ..4..., r Park 'moire -- +:. . L.:71 \ ,.'.1.10 l.J1- 9 1/2 1 MILE 9=35155=51 1000rsn 9 loom t000m Pasted 9om TOPOI ®1999 Wildflower Prodectioar (www.topoown) i !rlio '!ii . ` 43" 'Sub 111 LSI ADAPT 800 Maynard Avenue S., Suite 403 Seattle, Washington 98134 Ph : 206.654.7045 Fax : 206.654.7048 FIGURE 1 - Location /Topographic Map Project : Five Rivers Preliminary Plat Location : 53rd Avenue South & South 158th Street Tukwila, Washington Client : Five Rivers Development, Inc. Date : 07/02/01 Job # :S— WA -01- 6475 -0 • '' Catch Basin Rim: 136.59 I28 -W: 132.14 LEGEND: TP -1 -1 TEST PIT NUMBER AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION Catch Basin Rim: 145.01 IE81y: 142.65 �0. \ \\ \\ \\ Sanitary Sewer Manhole Rim: 146.70 IE Ctr. 136.81 yy� 9y tl Sit OSl ZS \\ \ \ \\ \ 1\ \ \\ I \ \`re,`\ LOT \ \ 1 r) 1 58815'le `.706.04' \\ • I\ TP -5f1 1\,Z \ 11\ LOT 3 7 4 �1 �\ \ \� \\ \. L¢T �- I TP-4x r•, °', N\� \ \ , e, \ / .�, \\ \ \\ \ \ \I\ NON\ t \�i• 1 \- \ \ \ \ )...\ / --ii---. \ \ I I \I TP -9 \ N c Ilit/ —� \ l � LOT 7 TP -3 �\ \ ,� °��\ \\ \\ \. :> 1. it \ \\\ \^ \\ �\ �\ o� \ s0 12 \ --- I l \ �` \` ' �` �._ ,t, � LOT 1\1 1 Tf 2 � �\ `k %;, .... -\ I I �OT V LqT 9 \1 1 -\��`\. I.\\ :I \ o \\ I j \ Ls OT 8 P -11 II o \\ \ .-� \ ;I \ 1 I _ err r'. .. \\ \ \ \ \ I t ■ \ \ \ \ \ 1 \ \ ` 1 0 \ . ,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ i I �ee1r`:91 —.\ \ / \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \\ \ \\ \ \ \ '1 \ \ \\ \\ ` yr`'r, B r \�h a, OD 1 I l TP -7 or, LOT 5 NOTE: BASED ON LOT PLAN AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BY JAEGER ENGINEERING (DATED 01/29/1999) Sanitary Sewer Manhole Rim: 128.58 IE12.00tr. 118.76.. r LOT 6 TP-8 Sanitary Sewer Manhole Rim: 166.32 IE Ctr. 158.00 etch Basin Rim: 169.95 0Ct IE121y: 167.7 1 I 1 L L L \\ \\ \\ \ \ \\\ \ \\' " °97 95', N 9i \ \ \ 0 60 120 SCALE IN FEET 1 / /���TRA.CT �\ DR AIWA GE TP -10 :r \\ i` - -1 Y/A� \\ tl J°0 Sanitary Sewer Manhole Rim: 134.97 IE12.00tr. 120.49 LSI ADAPT Sanitary Sewer Manhole Rim: 127.00 ABANDONED 800 Maynard Avenue S., Suite 403 Seattle, Washington 98134 Ph : 206.654.7045 Fax : 206.654.7048 6 Sanitary Sewer Manhole Rim: 125.29 ABANDONED Storm Manhole Rim: 98.79 1E24': 86.04 Storm Manhole Rim: 98.91 IE12 "S• 92.51 IE18'S 65.66 . 1E24-S1. 85.71 1E24-NE Out: 85.11 FIGURE 2 - Site & Exploration Plan Project : Five Rivers Preliminary Plot Location : 53rd Avenue South & South 158th Street Tukwila, Washington Client : Five Rivers Development, Inc. Flle Name : Test Fit ' LSI ADAPT TEST PIT LOG 600 Mayes Avenue south, Suns 403 Seattle, Washington 96134 TEL: 206.654.7045 FAX: 206.654.7048 PROJECT : Five Rivers Preliminary Plat Job Number : WA01- 6475 -0 Test Pit No.: TP- 1 LOCATION : 53rd Avenue South & South 158th Street Tukwila, Washington Five Rivers Development, Inc. Ground Surface Elevation : 161 ft Elevation Reference : N/A Page . 01 of 01 tf m MATERIAL DESCRIPTION _0, 1 2 3 — - — — _ — _ — — — — - — — — _ 0 Surface weeds over loose, moist, medium brown, silty, fine SAND with some gravel and small rootlets (Fill) Loose, moist, tan to tan -gray with oxidation, silty, fine to medium SAND — (Fill) ..._., toot 1000 g toot 100o g — — — _ — — Loose, moist to saturated, gray, silty, fine SAND with some silt -rich zones and asphalt (Fill) — _ Loose, moist to saturated, gray, silty, fine SAND, some gravel, with roots and logs (Fill) — interbedded, silty, fine SAND and PEAT (Relict topsoil ?) —5, (44 — '1 4 — — — -10 Medium dense, saturated, gray, silty, fine SAND � _ Test pit terminated at 12.5 feet. Slow seepage observed at 8.5 to 9.0 feet. Excessive caving observed throughout. — _ _ — - -15- -20- LEGEND v Bewire Mc.1a Mama. cornea nL) DY Steno Water Level of Ddeirp c 7 Stags water Level Bucket san 100 t 1000 g sla Belo $0^Fl• ‘44 A, water Seepage Indicate ° Grain Sae Mslysb (IL fines shown) g„a,el -!e Perched Groundoatr 1 )OL tart Date : 06/15/01 ompietion Date : 06/15/01 y : U.L.i. . LSI ADAPT TEST PIT LOG 800 Maynard Avenue South, Suite 403 Seattle, Washington 98134 TEL: 206.654.7045 FAX: 206.654.7048 PROJECT : Five Rivers Preliminary Plat Job Number : WA01- 6475 -0 Test Pit No.: TP- 2 LOCATION : 53rd Avenue South & South 158th Street Tukwila, Washington Five Rivers Development, Inc. Ground Surface Elevation : 141 ft Elevation Reference : WA P Page : 01 of 01 C DEPTH i T 00) a V Vte / /11 I IV WATER BEARING ZONE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION L LABORATORY TESTNO - - - - - - - D - _ Loose, moist, brown, silty, fine SAND (Topsoil) Loose, moist to wet, oxidized gray, silty, fine SAND and rootlets . L . 1 100 le. - - B A.: . - . - - . 10 - _ S .. - 1111 Test pit terminated at 13.0 feet. _ Slow to moderate seepage observed at 4.0 feet. Severe caving observed in upper 10.0 feet. . - 15 - 20 - LEGEND - - 1 Water Bearing 4i:sap j Bucket SangN 1 loom e+0 Sae4b else. Oran Size D 4/, Water S Start Date : 06/15/01 ompletion Date : Logged by : C.C.C. • LSI ADAPT TEST PIT LOG • 800 Maynard Avenue South, Sutle 403 Seattle, Washington 98134 TEL: 206.654.7045 FAX: 206.654.7048 PROJECT : Five Rivers Preliminary Plat Job Number : WA01- 6475 -0 Test Pit No.: TP- 3 LOCATION : 53rd Avenue South & South 158th Street Tukwila, Washington Five Rivers Development, Inc. Ground Surface Elevation : 149 ft Elevation Reference : N/A Page . 01 of 01 E I a q a if Iv o o � MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LABORATORY -0 1 2 - - _ - _ - - _ - - - _ _ - _ - _ Soft, wet, black, organic -rich, fine, sandy SILT with fill debris (concrete) roots and wood (Fill) - - Loose, wet, gray, silty, fine SAND locally varying to fine, sandy SILT - - Becomes medium dense Dense, damp to wet, gray, silty, fine SAND with some gravel, cobbles (up - to 6- inches diameter), and silt -rich zones - = 4 gig - _ - _ _ - - - -5- ,00to 10005 - _ ° 1000 g - _ - - -10- Test pit terminated at 12.5 feet. Slow seepage observed at 1.5 feet. No caving observed. -15- -20- LEGEN D 7 water Bearing Mc .ro( M.I.M. Cement %) Static Water Level 1 Dream Siege Wear lead Bucket S°mW. 10010 1000 0 Bag Sample 4 :::: Gnat SOAP ArWysL . —Dyrr 5 gal _L p.rdrw Groundwater Bucket Ai , Water Seepage Irak:ate (% fires shown) rt Date : 06/15/01 Completion Date : 06/15/01 gecl 13y : C.G.G. ' . , ' LSI ADAPT • 800 Maynard Avenue South. Sulte 403 TEST PIT LOG Seattle, Washington 98134 TEL 206.654.7045 FAX: 206.654.7048 PROJECT : Five Rivers Preliminary Plat Job Number : WAO1- 6475-0 Test Pit No.: TP- 4 LOCATION : 53rd Avenue South & South 158th Street Tukwila, Washington Five Rivers Development, Inc. Ground Surface Elevation : 146 ft Elevation Reference : WA Page ' 01 of 01 El N h pi i If <. m MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LABORATORY TESTING -0 1 - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - Soft, brown, fine, sandy SILT (Topsoil) - Soft to medium stiff, moist, brown and gray, fine sandy SILT, root zone to 2.0 feet Becomes stiff - - Becomes very stiff Becomes gray and generally massive, with some finely laminated oxidized zones - 1DO 1000 g - - - - - - - - -5- -10- Test pit terminated at 11.5 feet. No seepage observed. No caving observed. -15- -20 -_ LEGEND / Water Bean j MC XX Moisture Content (%) Static Water Leval at Dolby DATE -� Stdc Water Lev° DATE Perched arouneNnar ^ Budat Sar ple 100 lo 10000 - Bap Sam* 14 6G► 4 Water Seepage k�tr °O cram Sire Ana �j i !Le! fir— sham) Start Date : 06/15/01 Completion Date : 06/15/01 Logged By : C.C.C. rile Name : I ay1 YII psi ADAPT TEST PIT LOG 800 Maynard Avenue South Suhe 403 Seattle, Washington 98134 TEL: 206.654.7045 FAX: 206.654.7048 PROJECT : Five Rivers Preliminary Plat Job Number : WA01- 6475 -0 Test Pit No.: TP- 5 LOCATION : 53rd Avenue South & South 158th Street Tukwila, Washington Five Rivers Development, Inc. Ground Surface Elevation : 124 ft Elevation Reference : N/A Page : 01 of 01 Vm Ve a a. MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LABORATORY _0 — _ — _ _ _ — — — — — _ _ — _ _ _ _ _ — _ _ - ii4 4- inches _ Loose, — Grades — _ Organic _ Medium — black, organic -rich, silty, fine SAND (Topsoil moist, tan -gray with oxidized inclusions, fine SAND, some silt (Fill) to medium dense, silty SAND -rich, fine, sandy SILT with PEAT and wood to 6 -inch diameter dense, wet, gray, silty, fine SAND wet, strongly oxidized — — — 100 Kt 1000 g — _ _ _ — — — — -5— -10- _ — — — — — — Becomes Test pit terminated Slow seepage No caving at 12.5 feet. observed at 8.0 to 9.0 feet. observed. -15- 20- LEGEND !L Static DATE C� Static Water Level at Drilling Wats layer Groundwater t Bucket Sam & j N WaterBa„t,p Mc - roc Moisture Comoro (%) SW Smola ii. I/ Water Seepage Indicator e!ae (%a nis s I I/ c%1 ) 100 to 1000 g DATE _Z Perched Start Date : 06/15/01 Completion Date : 06/15/01 Logged By: C.C.C. Fea Name : rest Pit ' —'--7 LSI ADAPT TEST PIT LOG 800 Maynard Avenue South, Sutte 403 Seattle, Washington 98134 TEL 206.654.7045 FAX: 206.654.7048 PROJECT : Five Rivers Preliminary Plat Job Number : WA01- 6475 -0 Test Pit No.: TP- 6 LOCATION : 53rd Avenue South & South 158th Street Tukwila, Washington Five Rivers Development, Inc. - Ground Surface Elevation : 129 ft Elevation Reference : WA Page 01 of 01 t DEPTH (000 ii ir 1 II li m MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LABORATORY TESTNG -0 1 2 3 - - - - — _ _ - - - - - — _ - - - o Loose, moist, dark brown, silty, fine SAND (Topsoil) Loose, moist to damp, silty, gravelly, fine SAND, some cobbles (up to 6- inches diameter) Becoming medium dense - 1000 1000 g 11:::', - - -5- Stiff, damp to wet, gray, SILT, with some fine sand with sand -rich interbeds Grading to wet, silty, fine SAND -10- 144 — _ - - 1000 10000 - - - Test pit terminated at 12.5 feet. Slow seepage observed at 10.0 to 10.5 feet. No caving observed. -15- -20- LEGEND IS Static Water Level at Drilling r Water Beatify MC -,� ►, Content (%) DATE h S)0Ec Water level Bi l 100 0 1000 g 4 iiu Grain Size Analysis Perched '�� Wafer Seepage htdiofa f% first Moon) Start Date : 06/15/01 Completion Date : 06/15/01 ogged By : C.C.C. Vile NaRIB: 1831 VII _a ; '' LSI ADAPT TEST PIT LOG 800 Maynard Avenue South, Suite 403 Seattle, Washington 88134 TEL: 206.654.7045 FAX: 206.654.7048 PROJECT : Five Rivers Preliminary Plat Job Number : WAO1- 6475 -0 Test Pit No.: TP- 7 LOCATION : 53rd Avenue South & South 158th Street Tukwila, Washington Five Rivers Development, Inc. _ Ground Surface Elevation : 130 ft Elevation Reference : N/A Page 01 of Ot LI g re (u m MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LABORATORY -0 Brown, silty, fine SAND (Forest Topsoil Loose, moist, tan -brown with dark brown interbeds, silty, fine SAND with - - - - _ silt-rich zones (Fill) 7 - Loose, moist, medium brown, silty, fine SAND with rootlets 1 _ _ - - -5- - - - - - - v - - Loose /Soft, wet, gray, silty, fine SAND with interbedded wood pieces and PEAT, intermixed with topsoil and decayed wood (Fill) 1 • loop 1000 g -10- - — — — — Loose, wet, gray, silty fine SAND, with silt -rich and sand -rich zones Test pit terminated at 13.5 feet. - _ _ - - Slow seepage observed at 6.0 to 7.0 feet. Minor caving observed in upper 6.0 feet. -15- - - - - - - - - - - -20- LEGEN D rd water B.1Wrp MC - �« Content (%) Water Leaat at DAII;r j� DATE 100 to s- Slink Water lad 5 gal Bucket Budut SanDY 1000 5 BIG Sande I :::i Grain SW Analysis j', Water Seepage Indicator (% fines shown) Perched Groundwater 4 X7L tart Date : 06/15/01 omoletion Date : 06/15/01 ged By : C.C.C. Fl le Name : Te_•t P11 '� LSI ADAPT TEST PIT LOG 800 Maynard Avenue South, Sidle 403 Seattle, Washington 96134 TEL: 206.654.7045 FAX: 206.654.7048 PROJECT : Five Rivers Preliminary Plat Job Number : WA01- 6475 -0 Test Pit No.: TP- 8 LOCATION : 53rd Avenue South & South 158th Street Tukwila, Washington Five Rivers Development, Inc. Ground Surface Elevation : 130 ft Elevation Reference : N/A Page . Otof01 5 g• Im 3a MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LABORATORY TESTING —0 1 2 3 — — — _ — — — — — — — — — — — — - — — — — — _ — _ — — — — — — — — 3- inches Topsoil _ - Loose, oxidized brown, silty, gravelly, fine SAND with rootlets; 3- inches — silt -rich zone at base (Fill) Loose, moist, dark brown, silty, fine SAND (Relic Topsoil) — Loose, moist, tan- brown, silty, fine SAND, with some gravel and cobbles (up to 6- inches diameter) Becoming medium dense — With more abundant cobbles and gravels, and gravelly, fine to coarse SAND zones — 0b 1000 0 100°0 _ "'' 100b 1000 p — — —5— ,00b 100D 9 — — — -10- Very stiff, moist, blue -gray SILT, massive Test pit terminated at 12.0 feet. No seepage observed. No caving observed. -157 -20-- LEGWater Bearing Stack Water level al DANN ,,, � ��L� MC -. Maaturo Cornell (%) ` DATE � Static Wrier level Bucket Sanp4 100 to 1000 p W Sa a thin I / ..-.7"" pe Great Sae Analysis �� 6 Bucket Water Seepage k cator Perched Groundwater �'4 (%. fines clown) tart Date : 06/15/01 Completion Date : 06/15/01 ged By : C.C.C. ,�1 r LSI ADAPT TEST PIT LOG BOO Maynard Avenue South, Sidle 403 Seattle, Washington 98134 TEL: 206.654.7045 FAX: 206.654.7048 PROJECT : Five Rivers Preliminary Plat Job Number : WA01- 6475 -0 Test Pit No.: TP- 9 LOCATION : 53rd Avenue South & South 158th Street Tukwila, Washington Five Rivers Development, Inc. Ground Surface Elevation : 130 ft Elevation Reference . N/A Page : 01 of 01 • DEPTH VIGO r l U g q m MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LABORATORY _0 _ — — — _ — — — — — _ — — — _ — - _ — _ — — Black, silty, fine SAND (Topsoil) — 7 Loose /medium dense, moist, gray -tran with oxidation, finely bedded silty, fine SAND, some rootlets and minor small organic inclusions _ Medium stiff to stiff, moist to wet, medium brown with oxidation, fine, sandy SILT, some rootlets; varying to loose /medium dense, silty, fine SAND Becomes gray — 5 _ ird — _ — — -10- Test pit terminated Slow seepage No caving at 12.5 feet. observed at 5.5 to 6.0 feet on North side of test pit. observed. -15- -20- LEGEND T Static water Lei at Ddtinp DATE D� Statik YVaas is4el _y_ Perched Grounder/1w v Water Bearing Mc . >oc Moisture Centers ex) eaG Sam* 4 ai.I Grain Sla AnNyals / Water �W l 4I � 7of fines shown) 100 to 1000 0 Start Date : 06/15/01 Completion Date : 06/15/01 Logged By: C.C.C. ;1,;. LSI ADAPT TEST PIT LOG 800 Maynard Avenue South, Sub Seattle, Washington 98134 TEL: 206.654.7045 FAX: 206.654.7048 PROJECT : Five Rivers Preliminary Plat Job Number : WA01- 6475 -0 Test Pit No.: TP- 10 LOCATION : 53rd Avenue South & South 158th Street Tukwila, Washington Five Rivers Development, Inc. Ground Surface Elevation : 126 It Elevation Reference : N/A Page 01 of 01 €I ri m vF i a P, d i 3s m MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LASORAIDRY -0 1 - - r - ix,. ,000 g - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3- inches Topsoil Medium stiff to stiff, moist, gray- tan - brown, fine, sandy SILT with some - gravel and cobbles - Medium dense, moist, oxidized brown, silty, fine SAND, with some gravel and cobbles - -5- MC=20 .111•.1.. 1111... w.. - - - Dense, gravelly, silty, fine to coarse SAND with silt -rich interbeds Grades to wet, gray, fine SAND, with some silt -10- Very stiff to hard, damp to wet, gray with oxidation, finely laminated SILT Test pit terminated at 12.5 feet. No seepage observed. No caving observed. - -15- -20- LEGEND Water Swi p Static Water level m Drilled n� / MC - XX Moisture Content (%) DATE D� Stills WaM focal S Bucket Sample 1000 g BM Sample i ails Seepage IMrafor ° Grain She Analysis (% ahem) Budget Water —° 'V Perdwd Urourrdeaaer �� � -=" tart Date : 06/15/01 orn Ietion Date : 06/15/01 ged By : C.C.C. r Ile Neel° : 1051 r11 L LSI ADAPT TEST PIT LOG 600 Maynard Avenue South, sulte403 Seattle, Washington 98134 TEL: 206.654.7045 FAX: 206.654.7048 PROJECT : Five Rivers Preliminary Plat Job Number : WA01- 6475 -0 Test Pit No.: TP- 11 LOCATION : 53rd Avenue South & South 158th Street Tukwila, Washington Five Rivers Development, Inc. . Ground Surface Elevation : 132 It Elevation Reference : N/A Page 01 of 01 El VI V P Zia'- WATER BEARING ZONE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION UISORATORY -0 2- inches Topsoil Loose, moist -dry, oxidized orange - brown -gray, silty, gravelly, fine to ` ` _ _ _ medium SAND (Fill) - - - _ _ Soft, damp to wet, medium brown, fine to medium, sandy SILT, some gravel (Relic Topsoil) Stiff, moist, oxidized gray, fine to medium, sandy SILT Medium dense, moist to damp, oxidized gray, gravelly, silty, fine SAND -5- - - - - Q - - _ _ -- _ With gravel/cobble - rich zones and silty, fine SAND interbeds - - - - - -10- Medium stiff to stiff, gray SILT, finely laminated to massive _ ` Test pit terminated at 12.0 feet. Slow to moderate seepage observed at 5.5 to 6.0 feet on ` - - East side of test pit. Caving observed below 6.0 feet depth. -15- - - - - - - - - - -20- LEGEND Water Bowing Stabs Wafer Level m Drlllirq MC - XX Moisture Content (%) DATE Static . . 100 to Water Leval �°t Sempl. 1000 9 &G Sarrpl. "' Lib Gain S¢. 's PerdwE Oroundrefar ��� .Wafer Ssepap. Indicator ea fetes 'Wan) Start Date : 06/15/01 Completion Date : 06/15/01 Logged By: C.C.C. ■ Grain Size Analysis Report 1-1/2 in 3/4 in 3/8 in #4 # 10 # 20 # 40 # 60 # 100 # 200 O O O v /aravel (TP- 10/S -11 - O = O - \- - O Silt or Clay - - - - - - - - - - - - - c t/) - - - Medium - O - - - 0 - 0 rIujecL IYUrnUer; vvMU I-0413 -u Date: 7/26/01 Test Standard: ASTM:D -422 Gravel Fine - -- - - - - - -- - -- salggoj O O T I I 0 6) 0 co I 0 I` 4q6 I 0 CO em /(q I 0 in Ouissed I 0 ,t 1 0 C'7 lueoie O N j 1 1 I 0 T I 0 LSI ADAPT, Inc. Christopher brown 0 Associates 9688 Rainier Ave. b. 6eattle, WA 98118 -5981 (206) 722 -1910 Fax (206) 722 -1909 July 21, 2001 Mr. Jim Jaeger, P.E. Jaeger Engineering 9419 South 204th Place Kent, WA 98031 CCT 2 2 2001p Re: City of Tukwila — Public Works Check List Item 14 Five Rivers Prel;•r,inary Plat Traffic Elements Dear Mr. Jaeger: For the referenced plat the trip generation is based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 6th edition, for Land Use Code 210, the applicable reference for single family residential developments. The published average trip rates are used due to the very small scale of the project. (For example, the use of regression equations would lead to abnormally high a.m. peak hour demands — double those that are typically found for a project of this scale.) TABLE I Trip Generation — Five Rivers Time Interval A.W.D.T. A.M. Inbound A.M. Outbound P.M. Inbound P.M. Outbound S -F, 12 DU 115 Trips/Day 2 vehicles /hour 7 vehicles /hour 8 vehicles /hour 4 vehicles /hour These trips can be distributed onto the local network on the basis of the PSRC Year 2010 employment forecast within a 10 mile radius of the site. This will cover the area up to the Seattle CBD,' _1st Hill, Mercer Island, South Bellevue and to the south down to Federal Way, North Auburn, Kent and its industrial areas, and east to Renton and its environs. Naturally it also includes Sea -Tac, Burien, and to the northwest up to Alki /Admiral. A sketch of the p.m. peak hour distribution is attached as page 2, for your reference. Traffic Engineers 0 Transportation Planners Mr. Jim Jaeger, P.E. July 21, 2001 Page 2 !� /�c,21 `cam 3 Le In r: t5 77/1/ Peak C/OG(r Nth ,'L1cvemtN71 P.M. Peak Hour Trip Assignment Note that at the site's access onto 53`a Avenue S. the assignment does not include local traffic to the immediate neighborhoods to the south and southwest. There will only be minimal demands to those areas of the community. Thus, these are considered "minor movements ". If you !rye anv questions; please feel free to call. Yours truly, C. V. Brown, P.E. cvb /s • i o ilrimopertati°" DATE: Apr FROM: J. R. PHONE: Maters TO: 198 ada /S. M. Lowell Lab, QM- 21 SUBJECT: R. E. Bockstruck /P. M. Briglia District 1, MS -113 INTRA-DEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION Valley View Estates At the request of Ms. Marjorie Smitch, WSDOT Assistant Attorney General, we have reviewed GeoEngineers' geotechnical engineering analysis of the proposed Valley View Estates located adjacent to WSDOT's right -of -way off Interstate 5 and bordered to the south and west by Slade Way and 53rd Avenue South. As part of this review, we also ran additional stability analyses on other portions of the site and conducted an evaluation of the vartiaal wall elystam preaan " within WSDOT' a right of way j uat upslope of,Klickitat Drive. In our geotechnical review, the pri- mary fools is the stability of the hillside (in which the proposed development is located) as it relates to the artesian - activated deep- seated sliding block failure that occurred on this site in the 1960's. As we understand, this landslide occurred as the result of borrow excavation for fill in a private development in the Andover Industrial Park prior to interstate highway design /construction. A major element in our analysis was the detailed review of GeoEng- ineers' slope stability analysis along Section A -A as shown in Figure 1. The stability analysis GeoEngineers conducted, with the Aid of nnmpnter mnriel i ng with STARTS, i nd i rlaitpd A Far`tnr of ,Safety (FS) for the site under static conditions in the range of 1.5 to 1.6. GeoEngineers stated that "slopes having a factor of safety greater than 1.5 are considered to have an acceptable low risk of sliding and are considered to be stable ". We agree with this statement since we consider, in general, a factor of safety of 1.5 to be a minimum acceptable level in terms of structures and major residen- tial developments of this nature. For purposes of convenience in conducting additional stability analyses and enhanced eamputer output graphics, we inputted into our PC STABL 4 computer program GeoEngineers' stability analysis utilising the cot profiler] (groundlineo /ooil contracts), 3oi1 parameters, groundwater conditions and failure surface search boxes as indicated in the Hasa easy outputs provided to us Ly Geonmyiii, eers on r'ebruary28, 1989. We then reran the various slope stability scenarios performed by GeoEngineers. • • Bockstruck /Briglia April? 19, 1989 Page ;2 Durirlg p.uuvess we discovered an input error in the location of Z Lallu UV ulas VL imea..L Vll Lhe analy- sis and actual factor of safety for the proposed development under current static and estimated dynamic conditions. The results of this input error (see Figure 2A and 2B) haw driven the failure surface into the underlying higher strength glacially compacted soil (GeoEngineers Unit C) in which GeoEnginoorc stated "the elide plane probably does not pass ". We then revised the failure search box to reflect the conditions that were intended (e.g., sliding block failure surface through "a zone of weak material overlying Unit C which the slide plane passes ") and reran the computer analysis. Thf rnrulten cif thir, nnrrrnfirri nnnlynin in nq fn11r' ,i Stability Analysis Revised Factor Conc~j.t.ion of Safety 1985 Topography and Water Levels = 15° C = 0 1985 Topography, Water Levels and Dynamic Load of 0.15g = 15° G = 500 pa 1.24 1.08 Thr rnnultn ref thin r1rirrnntr 1 r9nr11y5iii hr1m fillh'i1 nnl iin111r rednred the overall factor of safety of the site and is, in our opinion, below what we would consider appropriate for this site. In addi- tion, our analysis indicates that a general rise in the groundwater conditions of +20 feet (hydrostatic) would drop the factor of safety (FS = 0.82) to well below unity and would result in slope failure within the site. Furthermore, in our opinion we believe that the critical section that GeoEngineers selected for analysis of deep-seated sliding block failure mode does met relate direetly to conditions that way exist within WSDOT's Group I vertical well field (e.g., GeoEngin- eer's critical section is located outside of the Group I well field and subsurface conditions are significantly different). In their June 12, 1964 report of the Slade Avenue Slide, Shannon and Wilson described subsurfar.P nnnri i t,i nns in this area as different than conditions found elsewhere within the site. The subsurface exploration within this portion of the site revealed the presence of A hdried fluvial channel which has cut into tho glacially 1 • • Bocks. ruck /Briglia April; 19, 1989 Page 3 compacted soils (GeoEngineers' Unit C). In their opinion, this fluvial channel which consists of silts, clays, . and sands, has apparently altered the normal flow of groundwater. This altering of the groundwater has resulted in a steep downslope hydraulic gradient in the hillside at this locality. Based on this data, we selected what we concidorod to be a critical section tli .uuyli Lhe vertical well system (see Figure 1) and,developed soil profiles based upon test holes generated from GeoEngineer's Borings H, J, and L, and supplemented by Shannon and Wilson's Borings 3 and 4 (1964). Ground profiles were based on Figure 1 of Shannon Wilson's report dated June 21, 1968. G12%5ul %lwaLez levels were hAseri nn groundwater levels measured by GeoEngineers in their boreholes (Holes H, J, and L) and measurements in the vertical well system by WSDOT on March 10, 1989. All data utilized were inputted into our PC STABL 4 computer slope stability program. The initiation points for our analysis were based on the headscarp location of the Circa 1960 landslide as reported in Shannon and Wilson'c gootcchnical report dated June 21, 1968 with exit points of the failure surface based on Shannon and Wilson's April 14, 1966 report. The search boxes along the failure Surfar:P wPrP hAsed on locations deccribad in Ehannan and Wilson's report dated June 12, 1964. Results of this slope stability analy- sis (sliding block) indicates that under existing static conditions the site has a factor of safety of 1.18. This is below the desired Factor of Safety (FS = 1.5) for this site. It is also below acceptable W9DOT stands uls of FS = 1.25 for cut slopes without structures. It is our opinion that this critical section is more representative of the conditions that exist within the subject site and is a much superior section in terms of groundwater response within the Group 1 vertical well field as it relates to the over- all stability of the site. In terms of the dynamic (earthquake) reopQn24 -(a.g. , eeLthQui1 ; 111,10 - r'1, 150) , the analysis: inuivatco that the factor of safety falls to FS = 0.86 which would result in the failure of the site under existing groundwater conditions., In addition, we felt it necessary to determine the maximum factor of safety that should be reasonably obtained if the groundwater levels were reduced to levels as recommended by Shannon and Wilson (e.g., r1rawdnwn level of Elevation +e0). The stability analysis i nrii r,atP,s A maximum factor of cafoty of 1.29. This demonstrates Lu nn kiosk rl•■ mill dill 1 11 t 11 1 1 1 l.t. 26U & 4lcvelvyuuG,iL ve Lhlb Lype witn grounawater (artesian) control only. As part of our analysis, we also requested the slope inclinometer data from GeoEngineers Boring F which we received on March 15, 1989. Review of that data (which includes a March 13, 1989 slope inclinometer reading) indicates slope movement within the boring down to 24 foot below the cxigting around Surf ti►':r nl iuly I lir A axis Bockstlruck /Briglia April :19, 1989 Page 4 of the slope inclinometer casing (see Figure 3). In all probabil- ity, slope movement at this depth is not aurficial movement as stated in CooEngineer'a facsimile transmittal of March 19, lgR9. As an integral part of our analysis of this site, we also conducted an evaluation of the vertical well field and the horizontal drains that tap the vertical system. Comparisons were made of the water levels in the vertical system and water flows from the horizontal system as reported in 1968 and the water levels and flows as mea- sured by WSDOT on March 10, 1989. The comparison of the water Levels in the vertical well system as reported in 1968 and those a.411 levels as measured in 1000 shows an average rico in tho water of 17.4 feet (range 6.4 to 47.7 feet). Flow measurements, 1989, of the horizontal drain systems-that-tar _into the vertical well system chow a 62% reduction in flow when r_omrareri try the flnws rRpnrtPd in 1968. In our opinion, this would indicated that the vertical well/ horizontal drain system is not functioning as originally designed even with ongoina nearly maintenance by WSDOT. In terms of slope stability within this site, in our opinion, the critical unknown is the groundwater conditions. The measurements within the vertical well system may or may not be an accurate reflection of what may be occurring in the deep artesian aquifer. In tnd vertical well system, there. iM MUM'. i nd i ua Li wu L?iaL the wells may be plugged as a result of siltation, thus cutting off the lower artesian aquifer. In addition, the well casings are apparently perforated full depth and, thus, are crossing both the perched aquifer of the overlying lacustrine silts and clays and the lower artesian aquifer within the fluvial channel sediments. Based on this unknown and the condition of the vertic41 well /horizontal drain system, the calculated factor of safety in our analysis is not conservative. The critical uncertainty of groundwater and the apparent marginal stability suggests analyses done to date may overstate implied hillside stability. When evaluating risk in terms of slope stability, there are two components to the risk equation. The first component to risk is the physical analysis (slope stability) in which a number of variable are modeled with the end result being a measure of sta- bility (e.g., factor of safety). WSDOT has very definite criteria in terms of minimum factors of safety. 'or common cut slopes and embanklnenLe, we use d minimum favt.vi' of safety of 1.25, while a factor of safety of 1.5 is utilized for .elopes combined with structures finch AA bridges. The second com- ponent in the risk equation is the consequence of failure in terms uP, rut' axamplw, UaivasJc tb critical facilities, r11olietery 100000 to the facility, and potential for personal injury. For instance, a cut clop. or emhankmPnt failure has, in general, less severe consequences in terms of financial loss to the facility than does • • Bockst uck /Briglia Aril '01 MP Page 5 a failure of, say, a bridge structure. In terms of the slope that has been analyzed in this review, there is an-order of magnitude of difference in risk (factor of safety plus the consequence of failure) when one compares a hillside that is underdeveloped and the same hillside with high density residential development and critical facilities such as an interstate highway and a trunk water line). In summary, the corrected nlepe stability unalyaics has shown tho overall stability of this slope to be a level below which GeoEngineers has stated to be adequate for a development of this type (e.g., high density residential development). An independent stability analysis conducted along a critical section, considered by the WSDOT Geotechnical Unit to be more representative, indicates an even lower factor of safety (i.e., 1'S = 1.10 of the slope. Review of the vertical well /horizontal drain system indicates that the system is not functioning as originally designed, and there are questions of whether or not the water, levels measured in the verti- cal well system are an accurate reflection of groundwater condi- tions in the lower tu.Lersiau ayuircL . 6ddition, GeoEngineers slope inclinometer data fr.nm Rnring F indicates slope movement down to 24 feet below the existing ground surface. In our opinion, the combination of all these factors would tend to demonstrate that the hillside does not exhibit sufficient stability and carries a high risk in terms of the development as proposed. If you should have any questions concerning our analysis nr r,nnrl usi nns, please. contact Steve Lowell at SCAN 234 -4660 at your convenience. JRS:jr SML cc: R. J. Rennie, D -1, MS -110 Margie Smitch, AAG, PB -71 SL -Brigl lir dill .4 I •� qa,;•" M • — • • -. f'•1 • Ajd • • !- �wic����,. mow• • • • • iL 1- 0 cn 0 1 IM In il 1 U) 0 W ca 0 a. 0 1- z Z O O 0 0 O O to w ( 4) S I XY -- Jl cn x O O x O O O O 0 O 0 0 • o •-ek 4. 0 gm t17 � • 0 • deflection in millimeters NO . Vt. . . • r 1 • • TADLE 1 VALLEY VIEW ESTATES STABILITY ANALYSIS COMPARISON, (Ceeengineoro Section A •A) STABILITY ANALYSIS GEOENCINEERS (1) WSDOT(1) Backanalysis -Old 1.01 1.02 ' Topography Nev Topography And 1.56 1.24(2) Water Levels Nev Topography And 1.00 0.82(2) +20 Foot Rise In Groundwater New Topography And 1.13 1.08(2) Water Level With 0.15g Earthquake Load (1) Minimum ?actor or Safety (2) WSDOT Revised Search Box Location • STABILITY ANALYSIS TABLE 2 WSDOT STABILITY ANALYSIS TRRU VERTICAL WELL FIELDS MINt!M•! ?ACTOR OR SAr a i x Existing Topography 1.18 And Water Levels Existing Topography With 1.00 +20 Foot Rise In Groundwater Existing Topography With No Artesian Pressure E.C. Groundwater At Elev. +80 Rxisting Topography And Water Levels With 0.15g Earthquake Load 1.29 0.86 • �Wa4hington State �I/ Department of Transportation Districts 15325:S.E. 30th Place Bellevue, Washington 98007 April 19, 1989 Mr. Rick Beeler Planning Director City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Duane Berentson Secretary of Transportation RE: SR 5 MP 154.0 Valley View Estates Dear Mr. Beeler: On January 27, 1989, Ron Bockstruck, District 1 Administrator of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) received a letter from Mr. Joel E. Haggard, attorney for Puget Western. The letter transmitted an instrumentation monitoring action plan and an instrumentation plan for the slope on which the proposed Valley View Estates development is to bo con- structed. These plans were prepared to comply with city of Tukwila building permit conditions No. 5, 7, and 8. The action plan established a "trigger" level for the Valley View Estates geotechnical professional to recommend maintenance or remedial measures to the WSDOT. A response to Mr. Haggard from Marjorie T. Smith, Assistant Attorney General, dated Febru- ary 7, 1989, discussed the problems, both logistical and legal, WSDOT would have with compliance with this plan. A copy of this response was sent to you. A copy of Mr. Haggard's letter and our response are attached. A meeting was held on February 23, 1989, with representatives from the developer, the geotechnical consultant and WSDOT in attendance. It was agreed that WSDOT would review the devel- oper's geotechnical analysis. We have completed our review and offer this response to the city regarding the developer's attempt to use the monitoring action plan to reach an agreement with the WSDOT regarding maintenance and remedial measures necessary to maintain the stability of the project site and the WSDOT right -of -way. Mr. Rick Beeler April 19, 1989 Page 2 A copy of a summary of our analysis is attached. Also attached are copies of a letter from us to GeoEngineers pre- senting the results of our analysis and Geoengineers' response. The summary includes responses to several points raised in the April 10, 1989, response from GeoEngineers to the WSDOT. Aside from the logistical and legal problems of providing on -call maintenance services to benefit a private development, our analysis indicates that there are several technical problems which prevent us from entering into an agreement to provide maintenance services sufficient to sup- port development on this hillside. The first problem is an error in the geotechnical analysis resulting in a factor of safety somewhat less than the minimum we would find acceptable for structures and residential devel- opments of this type. The second problem involves the location of the critical section that was chosen for analysis. The WSDOT analyzed a critical section through the vertical well system. The geotechnical consultant selected a critical section outside the vertical well field. Using the WSDOT critical section for a stability analysis results in a factor of safety below WSDOT's minimum standard for cut slopes without structures. In our opinion, this critical section is more representative of the conditions that exist within the site. The third problem relates to the functioning of the WSDOT well system. The system is currently not operating at full capac- ity. Due to the design of the wells, our engineers are not satisfied with the data they have on the status of the ground- water levels at the site. We are planning to drill test wells that will provide data on which to base a decision on whether additional maintenance or construction of new wells is required. Despite the concern over the wells, our analysis indicates that even with a fully functional well system, an acceptable factor of safety could still not be achieved. An additional item concerns the stability of the swale used to carry the drainage from the project's southerly outfall. A geological investigation would need to be made of this swale before it could be approved to handle this drainage. Mr. Rick Beeler April 19, 1989 Page 3 We would be happy to meet with the city to discuss this proj- ect and our analysis, if necessary. Please contact Pete Briglia at 562 -4227 if you would like to arrange a meeting. Steve Lowell of our geotechnical unit in Tumwater should be contacted at 753 -4660 regarding any geotechnical questions. PB:les L4:PB0418 Attach.. Sinc rely, S L. LUTZ, P. lities /Developer Engineer cc: Dharlene West, President, T -MAC Steve Lowell, QM -21 Marjorie Smitch, PB -52 • O - J 4 *ILA - 4 _4 . •1.4' ..•■,._'L sy Cit Tukwila Z PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ▪ 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -0179 Ross A. Earnst, P.E. Director 1908 April 12, 1989 Mr. Harbans L. Chabra Dames & Moore _ 500 Market Place Tower 2025 First Avenue Seattle, Washington 98121- Dear Mr. Chabra: RE: Valley View Estates Geotechnical /Hydrological Review This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation this morning. Under our consultant support review services contract for the Valley View Estates development, your are requested to use the March 23, 1989, WSDOT letter of Alan P. Kilian, P.E., Chief Geotechnical Engineer, the April 10, 1989, letter of Jack K. Tuttle, Principal (by Gordon M. Duby) and - previous information you've received for this project and provide a draft report to the City no later than Friday at 1:00 p.m, April 14, 1989. We will get back to you with any comments by the end of the workday (5:00 p.m.) Friday, April 14, 1989. Your final report to the City is requested by 12:00 p.m., Monday, April 17, 1989. This report is requested in memorandum form, using past technical information related to the geotechnical /hydrological aspects of the proposed Valley View Estates development, and from perspective of deciding whether or not to allow the proposed development to be constructed on the hillside. Also requested, are identification of minimum factors of safety for like developments and conditions used in other local jurisdictions (i.e. City of Seattle, Bellevue, Kent, Auburn, King County, etc.). We would like the report to recommend approval or denial of the building permit based on your professional opinion of the hillside. Considerations and qualifications in your recommendation should be "bulletted" or enumerated. Finally, this report is to be used by the City in deciding whether or not to issue a building permit at this time. Your professional opinion and expertise is instrumental in that decision. If you have any questions do not hesitate to call me, or in my absence, Ron Cameron, City Engineer, at 433 -0179. Sincerely, Phil Fraser Senior Engineer CC: Ross Earnst, Ron Cameron, Rick Beeler, Duane Griffin, Moria Bradshaw, Becky Davis /Permit File, City Attorney Development File: Valley View Estates SUBJECT. LLL -`I \fiL - "L�, �SYIik_s COMMENTS /MESSAGE: n -, Li: n :_k t- 11 / la (69 ! (L /-\N S K1(1- -I C I- I)11LiD1)• :!" , (_ (I) .11. 1rhV \Lfk a_ -I � t 171 U.L c.,�) \vrL) TD(REct &F (1ZLc \Jtj f1-0 v 101 t\-4.1- I.) ``) Iti 1 L fl 11 - -I ltL. 1\1'•( °.I \(-I -IL1 - Q u S i I uk. SLJ\ UI (LS ' �;,:. v: wA< a+ �w: exa::::. isaa: J.:'t :.u::::::S:a.:»:::;.`„•..�ti.+• -TO: MANAIITTAL FAX NUMBER: (206) 433 -1833 1 \ 3/\N S crl A«kA TITLE: `Pizl KlaPAL DATE: COMPANY: 'DAMES 00 tt DEPARTMENT: IN-1( C AL. FAX NO. LIL+ • -iC19 L) -1//a/-39 FROM: • if tL F RASE:L: TITLE: (Oil_ E N I Iv E Lk_, DEPARTMENT: Cr WOkIC S TOTAL NO. OF PAGES TRANSMI'1'1ED, INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET: SENT BY (INITIALS): IF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT CLEARLY RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL: E t 1 L. I/ AS LI L TUKWILA CITY HALL - 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 - (206) 433 -1800 03/14/99 TRANSMISSION CONFIRMATION REPORT No.= 000080 DATE /TIME APR 12, 1989 8 :25AM DURATION lm 36s TRANSMITTER CITY OF TUKWILA 206 433 1833 RECEIVER 206 448 — 7994 PAGES XMITTED 02 PAGES ERRORED RESULT OK COMM. MODE G3 RESOLUTION NORMAL 100500784 M E 1CF_ i ROSS TO: ROSS EARNS T , PUBLIC WORK DIRECTOR qE::::: FROM: PHIL ERASER. SENIOR ENGINEER DATE: 4/17/89 SUBJECT: PUBLIC WORKS F, _.-,N Rte. r": , T EWS ECR `J ALL7Y VIEW 77TAT - PER OUR DISCUSSION ON 4/ 11/ S9 _ YOU HA V E D I ZF7"FD M c TO 777P - CURRENT -LAN REVIEW PROCESS, WHICH INCLUDES MY DEVELOPMENT = . i ADDITIONAL PLANS AND OTHER SUBMITTAL REVIEW C ^;hE wTc z =Ni r AND "' S ASSISTANCE ON HE GEOTECHNICAL/HYDROLOr,ICA1 ASP7O77 OF THIS En ALSO, PUBLIC WORKS REVIEW ASSISTANCE TG THE JIBJ ATTORNEY THE DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT AND � USE ^:1`_M_ NT DOCUMEN S. THIS PLAN REVIEW PROCESS WILL 3E PUT _N `(mot UN_ _ t RECEIVE FURTHER NOTICE FROM YOU. J:II err, _ ;20=n, Yr �U'' D I RSL.. i =:., ME i MMED I A E.y FUT TOGETHER _ARRIE_ OUT RIGHT AWAY WITH D. AND 1. -- . -TF 1 WORK PRODUCT 18 Sr =. - ' iC: I� ^! y" _ ^ H`- . _-_ r, • _ 1.7E7 DSO IFTTER TO D. M. , WAS F :v_EWED WITH THE CITa -NGid - AND FAXED TO D. M. EARLY THI` 1OPNINGG, D. & M. `R- ._C �_ _ r 'J IT . _ HIS WfF - PRODUCT. TTACHMENT . MAYOR i 7 ATTORNEY N r :Z 'J: CAMERON �i RICK BEELER DUANE GRIFFIN 3ECKY DAV I S/ F,ERM I T FILE i l . V 1 EY VIEW ESTATES DAMES °< MOORE, HABANS CHAE'RA Geb Engineers • • Mr. Alan P. Kilian, P.E. Chief Geotechnical Engineer Washington State Department of Transportation Transportation Building KF -01 Olympia, Washington 98504 -5201 Dear Mr. Kilian: April 10, 1989 Re: Valley View Estates Tukwila, Washington Consulting Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists We have reviewed the slope stability analyses which the Materials Laboratory has performed in reviewing the studies made for the proposed Valley View Estates project by GeoEngineers, Inc. As you have pointed out, an error was made in the input of coordinates of one of the search boxes used in analyzing the stability of the slope for the 1985 topo- graphic conditions. The net result of this error was to overstate the computed factor of safety by about 0.3; i.e., 1.55 rather than 1.25. You have indicated that the stability of the hillside, both in its present state and when developed, is and would be below the "industry standard" of 1.5. We believe there are sound technical reasons backed by historic precedent which demonstrate that a factor of safety lower than 1.5 is acceptable for a project such as this. After review of the`WSDOT analyses, as well as our own, we conclude that the lower factor of safety of 1.25 is acceptable, providing the site drainage requirements which we have previously set forth are met. Our rationale for this conclusion is described below. The "factor of safety" concept in engineering analysis has as its basis the risk associated with our knowledge of the soil and ground water parameters and the correctness of the analytical method. A factor of safety of 1.5 has historically been found to satisfy the inherent risk in the analysis of a slope where the slide mechanism is not known and the soil and ground water conditions are typically established by testing of soil samples on a relatively limited basis and measurement or modeling of the ground water regime. However, in the case of an existing slide, a significant amount of the risk is mitigated by improved knowledge of the parameters used in the analysis and confidence in the analytical method GeoEngineers, Inc. 2405 140th Ave. NE, Suite 105 Bellevue, WA 98005 Telephone 1206) 746-5200 Fax (206) 746.5068 Washington State Department of Transportation April 10, 1989 Page 2 itself. This has, in our experience, resulted in the ability to success- fully complete projects on sites where the calculated factor of safety is on the order of 1.2 to 1.3. One of the primary parameters in the stability analysis is the strength of the soil along the slide plane. The soil strengths along the identified zone of sliding on the Valley View Estates site have been evaluated by three separate investigators (Dames & Moore, Shannon & Wilson and GeoEngineers). Each firm reached very similar conclusions on the residual strength parameters. (This in itself is testimony to our assertion that there is reduced risk in selection of parameters in an existing slide condition.) It should be pointed out that the strength parameters selected for the analyses represent the low end of the range of probable soil strengths calculated. Thus, the level of risk associated with the results of analyses using this parameter should be regarded as being small, A similar argument may be made with regard to the correctness of the assumed failure mechanism in the slope stability analysis. In this case, information is available on the slide plane from a number of inclinometer measurements. Hence, the confidence in the assumed failure mechanism is increased and the risk of incorrect modeling in the analysis is reduced. In the back analysis of an existing failure, there is a certain degree of dependence between the assumed failure plane and the shear strength yielded by the analysis. This dependence also contributes to an increased confidence level in the analysis itself and, accordingly, a lower risk level. There are a number of successful projects in known slide areas in the Puget Sound area for which lower factors of safety have been determined from analyses of the known conditions. These projects have performed satisfactorily. The following are some examples: 1) The Meadowdale slide in the City of Edmonds represents a zone of extensive earth movement. Following studies of the mechanism of sliding and appropriate remedial action, the city has lifted their building moratorium and residential construction in this area is now allowed. The factor of safety of the slide mass in this area is considered to be between 1.2 and 1.3; 2) A slide along 44th Avenue Southwest in the City of Seattle encompassed a section of parkland as well as a number of residences at both ends of the slide area. Stabilization measures consisting of subsurface drainage and a reinforcing toe berm were installed to stabilize the area. The factor of safety achieved is calculated to be about 1.2. Other examples such as the stabilization of the Sahalee Way slide near Redmond and stabilization of a segment of I -90 a short distance west of 76th Avenue Southeast on Mercer Island for which factors of safety of 1.2 to 1.3 were achieved can be cited. • • Washington State Department of Transportation April 10, 1989 Page 3 We have reviewed the alternate section analyzed by WSDOT. It is our opinion that this section is slightly more stable than the section selected by GeoEngineers. The reason for our disagreement with your analysis results is that the locations of the search boxes in the central portion of the slide mass do not correlate well with either the known configuration of the 1960 -61 slide mass or the section developed by Shannon & Wilson in their 1968 studies. Specifically, the search box coordinates used by WSDOT are some 20 to 25 feet lower than the slip plane defined by the slope indicator in Dames & Moore Boring 3 in the 1960 -61 studies. Further, Remedial Section A (see Figure 3, Summary Report, Soil Conditions and Earth Movements, Vicinity of the Tukwila Interchange, by Shannon & Wilson dated June 21, 1968) shows the lower limit of the silty clay stratum along which the slide has been demonstrated to occur as intersecting the reshaped slope at about the top of the wall. By contrast, the slip plane assumed in the WSDOT analyses is shown to pass below the' wall. We understand that the slip plane selected for your analyses is based on data in a 1964 study by Shannon & Wilson. We do not know the basis for the information which they presented in that report. However, the information in the 1968 Shannon & Wilson summary report appears to better represent the known slip plane. Reanalysis of this section using a slip plane compatible with that defined by the Dames & Moore and the 1968 Shannon & Wilson studies together with the water level data recently obtained by both WSDOT and GeoEngineers yields a factor of safety of 1.29. It also appears that the analyses performed to evaluate slope stability for earthquake conditions were conducted using the same drained residual strength values rather than using undrained strength parameters which include a cohesive value and which are considered to be more representative for this loading condition. In doing this, we obtain a factor of safety of about 1.05. While low by "conventional" standards, we consider this acceptable for a situation where we have a good definition of the failure mechanism. We conclude that a factor of safety of 1.25 is acceptable for the Valley View Estates project and that the corrected analyses show this to be realistically achievable if the WSDOT drainage system is kept function- ing in a condition comparable to that which has existed through 1986. We say 1986 because there is some indication that portions of the system have deteriorated since that time. Readings of the water levels in the deep wells obtained on March 27, 1989 indicate that some of the wells and /or horizontal drains are not functioning as well as about two years ago. The water levels in several of the wells have risen some 4 to 5 feet and, in two instances, over 15 feet. • Washington State Department of Transportation April 10, 1989 Page 4 There is not a regular pattern in the way the water levels have risen with the exception that the two wells which have risen the most are located in the northernmost well group. This suggests to us that it would be prudent to consider doing more than just flushing the horizontal drains during the next maintenance activity. We note that the northernmost group of wells is adjacent to the right -of -way in 'which a major water line and the Olympic Pipeline to SeaTac Airport are located. Slope movements in this area could have serious consequences. In summary, we believe that the analyses done by WSDOT and GeoEngineers are in general agreement when taken on the same basis. Further, it is our opinion, based on the results of our analyses and our experience with stabilization of many similar landslides, that a factor of safety of 1.25 is acceptable for this project. We do not, in any way, want to diminish the importance of maintaining satisfactory drainage of the deep aquifer with regard to sustaining an adequate factor of safety against deep- seated failure. Also, the improvement of near - surface drainage is critical to arresting the more shallow, creep -type movements which have been evidenced on the site. Obviously, the matter of how these drainage systems are kept in good repair goes beyond a purely technical issue which we cannot address. We thank you for the technical review made by your staff and hope that this information is helpful to you. Please call, if there are any points which you wish to discuss. Yours Very Truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. TJk 4 Jack K. Tuttle G?ID:JKT:wd Principal cc: Puget Western, Inc. Attn: Mr. Richard Causey Mr. Joel Haggard Haggard Law Offices Mr. Phil Fraser City of Tukwila Mr. Larry Hard File No. 0340 -09 -1 � Washington State �I/ Department of Transportation Transportation Budding KF•01 Olympia:, Washington 98504.5201 (206) 753.6005 GeoEngineer Inc. Attention: Mr. Jack Tuttle 2405 140th Avenue HR Suite 105 Bellevue, WA 98005 Dear Mr. Tuttle: March 23, 1989 VIEW RE: Valley -Crerr Estates Duane Bsrentaon Secretary of Transportation As requested by Ms. Marjorie Smitch (WSDOT Assistant Attorney General), we have reviewed your geotechnical engineering analysis for the proposed Valley View Estates located adjacent to WSDOT's right -of -way off Interstate 5 and bounded to the south and west by Slade Way and 53rd Avenue South. The primary focus, in our geotechnical review, is the stability of the hillside (in which the proposed development is located) as it relates to the artesian activated deep seated sliding block failure that occurred on this site in the 1960's. To that end, a major element in our analysis was the review of your firm's slope stability analysis along Section A -A, as shown on Figure 1. The stability analysis your firm conducted (with the aid of computer modeling with STABL) indicated a Factor of Safety (F.S.) for the site (under static conditions) in the range of 1.5 to 1.6. A minimum acceptable level of safety for structures and residential developments of this nature is a factor of safety greater than 1.5. For purposes of convenience in conducting additional stability analysis and enhanced computer output graphics, we inputed into our PC STABL 4 computer program your firm's stability analysis utilizing the exact profiles (groundlines /soil contacts), soil parameters, groundwater conditions and failure surface search boxes as indicated in the hard copy output provided to us by your firm on February 28, 1989. When we reran the various slope stability scenarios we discovered an input error in the location of a failure surface search box that has a major impact on the analysis and actual factor of safety for the proposed development under current static and estimated dynamic conditions. The results of this input error (see Figure 2 A and B) has driven the failure surface into the underlying higher strength glacially compacted soil (Unit C) in which your geotechnical report states "the slide plane probably does not pass." (Appendix C Page C -2). We then revised the failure search box to reflect the conditions in which I'm sure your firm intended (e.g.,- sliding, block failure surface through Unit B "a zone of weak material overlying Unit C which the slide plane passes ") and reran the computer analysis. The results of this corrected analysis is as follows: Mr. Tuttle Page 2 March 23, 1989 Stability Analysis Revised Factor Condition of Safety 1985 Topography and 1.24 water levels 1985 Topagraphy, water levels and dynamic load of 0.15g 1.08 As you can see, the results of this corrected analysis substantially reduces the overall factor of safety of the site to well below a level that is accepted (F.S. =1.5) for structures and residential developments. In addition, a general rise in groundwater condition of +20 feet would result in a factor of safety (F.S. =0.82) that would fall well below unity and result in slope failure within the site. Furthermore,, in our opinion, we believe that the critical section that your firm selected for deep seated sliding block failure does not relate directly to conditions that may exist within WSDOT's Group I vertical well field (e.g., Geoengineers critical section is located outside of Group I well field). To that end, we selected what we considered to be a critical section through the vertical well system (See Figure 1) and developed soil profiles based upon test holes generated from Geoengineers Borings H, J, and L, and supplemented by Shannon and Wilson's borings 3 and 4 (1964). Ground profiles were based on Figure 1 of Shannon and Wilson's report dated June 21, 1968. Groundwater levels were based on groundwater levels measured by Geoengineers in their bore holes (Holes H, J, and L) and measurements in the vertical well system by WSDOT on- March 10, 1989. All data utilized were inputted into our PC STABL 4 computer slope stability program. The initiation points for our analysis were based on the headscarp location of the Circa 1960 landslide as reported in Shannon and Wilson's geotechnical report dated June 21, 1968, with exit points of the failure surface based on Shannon and Wilson's April - 14, 1966 report. Results of this slope stability analysis (sliding block) indicates that under existing static conditions the site has a factor of safety of 1.18. Again, this is well below an acceptable factor of safety of 1.5, and is also below acceptable minimum WSDOT standards (F.S. =1.25) for cut slopes without structures. It is our opinion that this critical section is more representative of the conditions that exist within the subject site, and is a much superior section in terms of modeling groundwater responses within the Group I vertical well field as it relates to the overall stability of the site. In terms of the dynamic (earthquake) response (e.g., earthquake load = 0.15g) the factor of safety fall to 0.86 which results in the failure of the site under existing groundwater conditions. In addition, we felt it necessary to determine the maximum factor of what could be reasonably obtained if the groundwater levels Mr.'Tuttle Page 3 March 23, 1989 were reduced to the levels, as recommended by Shannon and Wilson (e.g., drawdown level of Elev. +80). The stability analysis indicates a maximum of (F.S.) 1.29. This demonstrates that the site will not attain an acceptable factor of safety (F.S. =1.5) for the development with groundwater (artesian) control only. We also requested the slope inclinometer data for (GeoEngineers) Boring F, which was received on March 15, 1989. Review of that data (which includes a March 13, 1989 slope inclinometer reading) indicates movement within the boring down to 24 feet below the existing ground surface along the A axis of the slope inclinometer casing. (See Figure 3). Since the A axis, is the most reliable direction in which to interpret slope inclinometer data, it would indicate that this movement (at 24 feet) in all probability is not surficial movement as you stated in your facsimile transmittal of March 15, 1989. In summary, a minor input error into your firm's STABL computer aided slope stability analysis (Section A -A) has resulted in a reduction in the overall stability of this proposed development to a level which, in our opinion, is below acceptable industry standards under static conditions (i.e., FS=1.50). In addition, an independent STABL 4 stability analysis of a critical section, considered by the WSDOT Geotechnical Unit to be more representative, indicts the same order of magnitude in factor of safety (i.e., FS =1.18). The combination of both the revised analysis of your firms critical section and our critical section would, tend to show conclusively that the proposed development does not exhibit the adequate stability (F.S. =1.5) for a development as proposed. If your firm should have any questions concerning our analysis or conclusions, please contact Steve Lowell at (206) 753 -4660 at your convenience. JRS:hd SML 13/10 Sincerely, JOHN R. STRADA, P.E. Materials Engineer Qe., P. Ifs,, BY: ALAN P. KILIAN, P.E. Chief Geotechnical Engineer • 00'OGG 00'OPP 00'0EE 00'OE2 00'OTi (44) SIXV - Jl O 0 O CO CD 0 o- 0 N 0 0 0 (OO o ^► o .� 0 ‘1•• W 0 0 0 H Nir o a 0 0 o x m 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 • L) 0 0 Eic '0 0 0 0 0 • 0 H 1 *deflection in millimeters 0 0 • a • AMMO MON co 0 1--tG- i E. 3 (- ,EUF.�- -E,tI.LEe 1 t TABLE I VALLEY VIEW ESTATES STABILITY ANALYSIS COMPARISON: (Geoengineers Section A -A) STABILITY ANALYSIS GEOENGINEERS(1) WSDOT(1) Backanalysis -Old 1.01 1.02 Topography New Topography And 1.56 1.24(2) Water Levels New Topography And 1.00 0.82(2) +20 Foot Rise In Groundwater New Topography And Water Level With 0.15g Earthquake Load (1) Minimum Factor or Safety 1.13 1.08(2) (2) WSDOT Revised Search Box Location TABLE 2 WSDOT STABILITY ANALYSIS THRU VERTICAL WELL FIELDS STABILITY ANALYSIS MINIMUM FACTOR OR SAFETY Existing Topography 1.18 And Water Levels Existing Topography With 1.00 +20 Foot Rise In Groundwater Existing Topography With No Artesion Pressure E.G. Groundwater At Elev. +80 Existing Topography And Water Levels With 0.15g Earthquake Load 1.29 0.86 REPORT OF ENGINEERING CONSULTATION REVIEW OF PLANS PROPOSED VALLEY VIEW ESTATES FOR: THE CITY OF TUKWILA 6833-036-016 March 6, 1989 DAMES & MOORE REPORT OF ENGINEERING CONSULTATION REVIEW OF PLANS PROPOSED VALLEY VIEW ESTATES FOR: THE CITY OF TUKWILA 6833-036-016 March 6, 1989 ames • 1 :U L-1. 1*-- DAMES & MOORE A PROFESSIONAL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 500 MARKET PLACE TOWER, 2025 FIRST AVENUE, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121 (206) 728 -0744 March 6, 1989 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Attention: Mr. Phil Fraser, P.E. Gentlemen: • Enclosed are five copies of our "Report of Engineering Consultation. Review of Plans, Proposed Valley View Estates" for the City of Tukwila. Our services were performed in accordance with our contract dated February 10, 1989. Based on our review, we have found deficiencies and we recommend that the plans be resubmitted. Prior to resubmission we recommend that the plans be reviewed by the GeoEngineers, Inc. If you need any clarification on the contents of this report, please call us. HLC:emw Enclosure 1 OFFICES WORLDWIDE Yours very truly, DAMES & MOORE Har1ans L. Chabra Principal Engineer /Associate REPORT OF ENGINEERING CONSULTATION REVIEW OF PLANS PROPOSED VALLEY VIEW ESTATES for THE CITY OF TUKWILA INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our engineering review of the plans and selected geotechnical and hydrological support documents for the proposed Valley View Estates condominium development located southwest of the junction of Interstates 5 and 405 in Tukwila, Washington as shown on Plate 1. The primary focus of our review was to determine if the plans conform to the EIS, Geotechnical Engineers' (GeoEngineers, Inc) reports, and the conditions of the permit issuance. SCOPE The scope of our consulting engineering services is outlined in Exhibit A to your standard consultant agreement. Our scope of services includes a review of the building and site plan submittals from the applicant (submitted 3 February 1989) to determine conformance to mitigations identified in the published Environmental Impact Statement and available geotechnical and hydrological studies. In addition, our scope of services includes a written report presenting, as appropriate, our findings, guidelines, recommendations, and /or requests for additional submittals from the developer to complete the plans review. This report provides our findings and recommendations for City approval or disapproval of the building and site submittals. Specifically, the scope of our services includes: 1. Findings and recommendations for slope stability of the proposed site /grading plan relative to adjacent public rights of ways and properties per information provided by geotechnical /hydrological studies. 2. Findings of proposed construction of new utilities and relocation or abandonment of existing utilities. Utilities shall include storm drains, ditches, swales, culverts and detention facilities; water mains, fire lines, irrigation lines and domestic services; sewer mains and services; retaining walls and rockeries and associated french drains; building footing drains. Included will be a recommendation of the construction of these relative to soil stability and erosion control. 3. Findings on temporary erosion control plan, including review of developer's proposed schedule for staging, maintaining and monitoring combinations of temporary erosion controls and permanent drainage systems throughout construction phase. Included will 2 be an opinion and recommendation of erosion control plan /schedule for approval or non - approval. 4. Review of developer's overall schedule for building and site construction and phasing of construction. Included will be a recommendation to accept or reject the schedule. 5. Findings and recommendation for approval or non - approval for permanent monitoring action plan, instrumentation plan for permanent drainage systems, including storm drains, rockery drains, pavements, detention facilities, and building footing drains. 6. Findings and recommendation of existing WSDOT installed drainage system, including increased maintenance requirements caused by proposed Valley View Development. 7. Review of the history of the piezometric levels and the available geotechnical /hydrological studies for the site and relate to the final proposed slopes of banks, structures, building foundation materials, parking lots and driveways, and fill materials for slope stability. Included will be a recommendation for acceptance or rejection of all or part of the proposed site plan as related to the building foundations. WSDOT will be contacted for any available piezometric elevations of WSDOT wells since 12 March 1985. 8.' Findings and recommendation for sewer and water construction per Water District No. 125, Val Vue Sewer District and City of Tukwila Standards for sewer and water related to adequate protection of these facilities against unstable soils. 9. A final recommendation to accept plans or reject plans and /or request resubmittal. Included in the rejection and request for resubmittal will be a summary listing of our findings and recommendation creating the resubmittal request. PERTINENT DOCUMENTS During the course of this study the following documents were reviewed: I. "Geotechnical and Hydrological Studies for the Proposed Valley View Estates, Slade Way and 53rd Avenue South, Tukwila, Washington ", by GeoEngineers, 25 April 1985. 2. "Plan Resubmittal, Procedures, and Conditions" for Valley View Estates by City of Tukwila, no date. 3. Architectural and Structural Plans for Valley View Estates, Sheets A -0.0, A -1.0, A -2.0, A -3.0, A -4.0, S 1 through S 4, by Mithun Partners, 31 January 1989. 4. Civil Plans for Valley View Estates, Sheets C -I through C -7, by Wilsey & Ham, Inc., January 1989. 3 5. Letter from Mr. Joel E. Haggard to Mr. Ron Bockstruck, 27 January 1989. 6. Letter from AG of Washington to Mr. Joel E. Haggard. 7 February 1989. 7. "Instrumentation Plan, Slope Stability and Ground Water Levels, City of Tukwila Building Permit Conditions 5 and 7, Valley View Estates, Tukwila, Washington ", by GeoEngineers, 1 February 1989. 8. "Instrumentation Monitoring Action Plan, Slope Stability and Ground Water Levels, City of Tukwila Building Permit Conditions 5 and 8, Valley View Estates, Tukwila, Washington ", by GeoEngineers, 1 February 1989. REVIEW COMMENTS AND FINDINGS The review comments presented below are based on our geotechnical and hydrological evaluation of the documents identified in the Pertinent Documents section above. Deep- seated slope stability continues to be a major concern as mitigation measures are proposed and evaluated. Therefore, a review of related information is presented along with recommendations for additional documentation and presentation to better understand the overall site conditions and the influence of the confined aquifer. DEEP - SEATED SLOPE STABILITY Drainage Systems. The proposed development is located in an area which has a history of slope instability. An earthslide occurred at the site in 1960 as material was excavated from a borrow area immediately downslope of the site. Based upon slope inclinometer data the failure surface was suspected to be in the silty soils near the top of the confined aquifer. The slide movement was thought to have resulted from the combined effect of the excavation downslope, the substantial hydrostatic pressures acting on the base of the silt layer, and possibly a reduction in shear strength due to the action of the ground water. In the summer of 1961, a total of 20 6 -inch diameter slotted pipe drains with lengths from 100 to 150 feet were installed along the toe of the Slade Way fill in the southwest corner of the site and in the south - central portion of the site. The GeoEngineers' report of 1985 stated that the movement was reported to continue at a diminished rate in 1961. The Shannon & Wilson reports of 1966 and 1968 reported ten to twelve landslides in the area of the construction for the I- 5/SR405 interchange and related roadways both to the north and below the Valley View Estates site. 4 Following some test drain installation, the WSDOT subsurface drainage system was installed consisting of 24:5 -foot diameter vertical wells tied into 200 -foot long horizontal drains of 1- 1/2 -inch diameter unperforated plastic pipe with 10 -foot long stainless steel well point tips. A number of small diameter vertical drains were installed in between the large wells. The drainage system also included a cylinder pile wall retaining structure at the base of the hillside. Considering the soil units continue to generally follow the existing topography, the ground surface at the retaining walls was lowered when WSDOT cut the slopes back to 4 Horizontal:1 Vertical, the base of the retaining wall represents at least a 30 -foot vertical cut, then many of the 200 -foot long horizontal drains are probably located in the confined sand and gravel aquifer. Piezometric Surface. Water level readings in the Shannon & Wilson piezometers before the installation of the WSDOT drainage system were higher than the readings after the installation indicating that the WSDOT system was effective in lowering the piezometric surface of the confined aquifer in the area below the site_ Also, the water levels in the 1985 GeoEngineers piezometers are lower than the levels found in the nearby earlier Dames & Moore borings. The assumption has been made that the present lower piezometric surface at the site is due to the drainage systems down slope. Water level readings from June 1968 to November 1983 were not presented in the GeoEngineers report; nor were readings after March 1985. Without additional water level readings opinions regarding the seasonal fluctuations and drainage system effectiveness are difficult to defend. This could influence the validity of the recommended trigger levels used in the monitoring program. Even more important is the unexplained anomalies in the presented water level readings. The Shannon & Wilson piezometer readings show that in June 1968 most of the levels increased from October of the previous year, which should be expected after the rainy season. But, the levels increased in different amounts varying from 1 foot to as much as 21 feet. The GeoEngineers piezometers D and G located roughly the same distance down the slope but the water levels differed by 21 feet. Shannon & Wilson piezometers 1 A and 1B are located less than 50 feet from each other, their tip elevations are 85 and 100 feet respectively but their pre -drain water levels were at 155 and 115; a 40 -foot difference. The October 1967 reading for piezometer 1B is at 97 feet; 3 feet below the tip elevation! All of these anomalies can be, and should be, explained but it will be more difficult if the geology is not known. Since the confined aquifer is considered the primary condition contributing to potential deep - seated sliding, it is essential that the piezometric levels in this aquifer be closely monitored and action taken should the trigger levels be reached. WSDOT Drainage Systems GeoEngineers stated in their 1985 report that it is of prime importance that both of the WSDOT drain systems remain fully operational. They then state that it appears that, with the exception of the four wells (19, 22, 23, and 24), all of the horizontal drains and /or vertical wells are blocked to some degree. In the following paragraph they state that in spite of the indicated 5 • reduced performance of the WSDOT drain system, the water levels at the site are still significantly below the levels that existed at the time of the slide and the system(s) is(are), in their opinion, still effective in maintaining the water level in Unit C low enough for adequate (F.S. =1.6) deep- seated stability of the hillside. Conclusion: The systems are not fully operational but, in the opinion of GeoEngineers, they are still effective. GeoEngineers listed 8 recommended repair work and maintenance procedures to be implemented by WSDOT as soon as possible. There has been no documentation presented that any of the eight recommendations have been followed. These measures are necessary for ensuring continued performance of the drainage system necessary for overall stability at the site. To date, we have not seen any documentation from WSDOT indicating that they will implement the recommended measures to ensure continued stability at the site. INSTRUMENTATION AND MONITORING ACTION PLAN The adequacy of the inclinometers and piezometer is difficult to evaluate. The area appears to be adequately covered. Details should be presented regarding the design of the piezometer, criteria for selecting the tip elevation, installation procedures, and provisions for protecting the deep piezometer from surface and near - surface water. Slope monitoring stakes are a good idea but are easily disturbed during construction activities. The sensitivity and reliability of the piezometer readings are still questionable. Only piezometers C and H out of the eight piezometers show any reasonable consistency. Based on the stability analysis presented, the 10 -foot water rise for a trigger seems reasonable. However, based upon the piezometer data presented to date, the ability to detect a l0 -foot water level rise throughout the confined aquifer is highly doubtful. The basis for selecting the trigger level for inclinometer data of an increase in horizontal displacement of more than 0.2 inches should be presented. The remedial action when trigger levels 'occur for deep- seated stability are unrealistic due the apparent reluctance that WSDOT has in taking action that will benefit a private development. CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE The developer's overall schedule for building and site construction and phasing of construction has not been presented and it is not possible to evaluate the conformance with the geotechnical engineer's recommendations (see GeoEngineers recommendations of p. 21 through p. 24). ARCHITECTURAL, STRUCTURAL, & CIVIL PLANS It appears that the geotechnical engineer has not had a chance to review the plans. They should have been reviewed and revised before submitting to the City per GeoEnginers Report (see p. 31 of GeoEngineer's report dated April 25, 1985). 6 Architectural Plans. Sheet A -4.0 -- Should have a complete footing drain detail per geotechnical report rather than refer to drainage detail for the retaining walls. Should specify minimum distance between overlying tight line pipe and footing drain pipe. Structural Plans. Sheet S 1-- GeoEngineer's report recommended a thickened slab rather than the slab on grade and continuous footings as shown. General Notes -- Foundations: Soil bearing is 2000 psf for stiff native soils below topsoil layer per soils report... General Notes -- Inspections: Inspect footing excavations just prior to concrete placement to insure footing is at the recommended bearing strata and the subgrade has not been disturbed. Sheet S 3-- Should have a complete footing drain detail per geotechnical report. Typical retaining wall design is different from the civil plans Civil Plans. Sheet C- 1-- Typical pavement and curb section; Subgrade compacted to at least 92 % of maximum dry density (ASTM D- 1557). Sheet C- 2-- Outline Specification No. 3: Plans show all perforated underdrain pipe as PVC rather than ADS plastic pipe. ADS plastic pipe is not recommended for underdrains at a depth greater than 4 feet. Sheet C- 6 - -The design criteria for soldier pile walls should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer of record (GeoEngineers, Inc.). The soil pressures of 35 PCF used for design is only applicable to clean granular backfill and not to the native soils. In our opinion, in addition to balancing of forces and movements, the design should also consider deflections. Based on our experience, cantilever soldier piles are only viable for up to 12 feet height in native soils beyond which tieback anchors have to be used. Sand backfill should have a gradation specified. Sheet C -7 -- Interceptor Ditch: Minimum depth = 7 ft. should have an additional note stating that the depth should extend to the top of the grey silt which varies in depth between 7 and 12 feet. How are these to be installed without causing instability off the upper silt layer (Unit A)? Gully French Drain: Sand and gravel filter material should have a gradation specified. Additional Notes should read "installed from the downstream end working up the existing gully" and "French drains should be installed in any wet areas to the west of the building units." Should specify how the edges of the filter fabric will be secured. 7 RECOMMENDATIONS Deep- seated slope stability continues to be a major concern as mitigation measures are proposed and evaluated. Either the WSDOT drainage system has to be maintained and restored (see GeoEngineers Report, p. 20 and p. 21) or another system installed that provides the same level of protection against buildup of piezometric lead in the confined aquifer. o The geotechnical report stated that the sequence of operations required to develop the site is critical to the successful completion of the project. Therefore, the plans cannot be accepted until the developer submits their overall schedule for building and site construction and phasing of construction. The schedule should include installation of new monitoring instrumentation at Least two months prior to beginning of clearing and grading (GeoEngineers instrumentation plan dated February 1, 1989. o The architectural, structural, and civil plans appear to be relatively standard. However, they have not been reviewed by the geotechnical engineer of record to verify conformance with his recommendations. One major issue is the design of cantilever soldier piles for permanent retention of native soils. Based on the foregoing deficiencies, we recommend that the developer resubmit the plans after review by his geotechnical engineer of record. If you have any questions, please call. March 6, 1989 06833 - 036 -016 cia {� 4",, 8 Respectfully Submitted, DAMES & MOORE 7 Harbahs L. Chabra, P.E. Principal Engineer /Associate • Ken Eikenberry ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 7th FLOOR, HIGHWAYS - LICENSES BUILDING • OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98504 -8071 February 7, 1989 Mr. Joel E. Haggard Suite 1515, IBM Building 1200 Fifth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 RE: SR 5 MP 154.0 Valley View Estates Dear Mr. Haggard: This is in response to your letter transmitting the instrumentation and monitoring action plans for the Valley View Estates development to Mr. Ron Bockstruck, District Administrator for District 1 of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). Mr. Bockstruck has asked me to reply since it would appear that this is as much a matter of legal liability as it is a matter of technical feasibility. Your description of the deep drainage system along and above Klickitat Drive fails to address the presence of an algae -like organism that is present in the clay soil of this hillside. The air admitted by the weep drains that comprise the horizontal drainage system stimulates the growth of this organism with the result that the pipes become clogged. WSDOT's maintenance crews have been flushing these pipes once a year for the past several years to keep these drains open. Under present circumstances, this level seems to be sufficient to maintain the stability of the slope and, thus, the integrity of the roadway system in the area. We are very concerned about the conclusory statements in your letter that the proposed Valley View Estates project will have no impact on the functioning or effectiveness of our deep drainage system. As we have indicated in the past, the hillside for your proposed development is within a landslide zone and the proposed complex would be located on clay -type soil over a sliding -block failure surface and partially encompassing the zone of generated critical failure surfaces. It is a very unstable area. Our drainage system was not designed nor intended to withstand high density development on your proposed site nor was our drainage system designed to accommodate any increased soil loadings or OFFICEtF THE ATTORNEY GENE Joel E. Haggard February 7, 1989 Page 2 changes in drainage which would stem from your development. Furthermore, we decline from accepting the increased liability should our system fail due to your client's proposed development nor will we accept the burden of additional monitoring and stand- by services for the life of the proposed condominium development. Regarding the surface drainage, your preliminary drainage plans have been reviewed; however, the WSDOT reserves comment at this time. The WSDOT has suspended all plan review on this project until the deep drainage issue can be resolved. Regarding the instrumentation monitoring action plan, the WSDOT has the following comments: 1) WSDOT does not have the legal authority, the funds, or the personnel to provide what are, essentially, "on- call" maintenance personnel to benefit a private development. 2) WSDOT will not assign responsibility for determining what "remedial measures" are necessary and who should perform them, to a Geotechnical Professional representing the interests of a private developer. 3) WSDOT has no plans nor funds programmed to restore full functioning of the drainage system, reinstall all the pumps in the vertical well system, install new horizontal drains, nor implement localized slope stabilization measures. They would be unable to program funds to accomplish those tasks for the benefit of a private development. If a change in the water level occurs during or after construction of this development, remedial action must be the responsibility of the developer. Sincerely, MARJE T. SMITCH Assistant Attorney General (206) 753 -4961 MTS:vf cc: Mr. Rick Beeler, City of Tukwila Ms. Dharlene West, President, T -MAC Mr. Ron Bockstruck, WSDOT Mr. Peter Briglia, WSDOT • • • JOEL E. HAGGARD ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR•AT -LAW SUITE 1515. IBM BUILDING 1200 FIFTH AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 (206) 682.5635 January 27, 1989 TRANSMITTED BY FAX Mr. Ron Bockstruck District Administrator 15325 S.E. 30th P1. Bellevue, WA 98006 Dear Ron: RECEIVED JAN 311989 OUR FILE NO. P- 17150.11 WSDOT D;S! 1 UTILITIES WSDOT installed a drainage system along and above Klickitat Drive in Tukwila some time ago. We understand the deep drainage system consists of a series of wells which were drilled prior to making the excavation for con- struction of Klickitat Drive and the subsequently installed horizontal drains. The purpose of the system is to main- tain the hillside stability and keep Klickitat Drive open. We understand the system works by relieving water pressures that would otherwise accumulate in a relatively deep acqui- fer. Rechange of this acquifer apparently results from surface water infiltration into the ground over a large area to the southwest of the proposed Valley View Estates project proposed by our client. Our geotechnical consul- tant, Mr. Jack Tuttle, advises me that the amount of re- change to this acquifer will not be measurably affected by construction of Valley View Estates. Thus, Mr. Tuttle has concluded that construction of Valley View Estates will have no impact on the functioning or effectiveness of the deep drainage system. We understand that the D -3 drain and other sur- face drainage facilities installed by WSDOT are designed to handle surface runoff separately from the above men- tioned deep drainage system. Mr. Tuttle informs me that the design of surface drainage facilities for Valley View Estates takes into account the volume of runoff from that site into the D -3 drain and other surface drainage facili- ties. Mr. Tuttle, therefore, has concluded that construc- tion of the Valley View Estate detention system to limit flow from the property at the levels now experienced will result in no impact to WSDOT's drainage system. Mr. Ron Bockstruck January 27, 1989 Page 2 Mr. Tuttle has developed a Draft Instrumentation Plan for Slope Stability and Ground Water Levels to be used in the Valley View Estates development. A copy of the most recent draft is enclosed for your' information. While the plan is finalized in the next week, it will be sub- mitted to the City with other building permit revisions. This plan is required by the City for building permit con- ditions. The drainage plans for Valley View Estates are in the process of being finalized. They will be sent to the City next week with the building permit revisions and hope- fully, a copy will be provided to Mr. Tim Weeks ( WSDOT) today. We are replacing with a tight line or abandoning a major portion of the D -3 line. In its place will be an underdrain in the parking lot area to intercept near sur- face supage. There will be wall drains to supplement this. Additionally, the above ground storm drain (18 ") that runs on 160th down to 53rd will be picked up at the old D -3 location with a new drain down to the WSDOT system. Overall, a creative and effective drainage system should result. We have wanted to keep you informed, since as neighbors we both have an interest in doing the right job. We will appreciate an expedited review to iron out any questions you or Tim may develop in reviewing the drainage plans. Since yo rs, J 1 Haggard JH /jeg ENCLOSURE cc: Mr. Tim Weeks ( WSDOT) Mr. Dick Causey (Puget Western) Mr. Jack Tuttle (GeoEngineers) 0134j INSTRUMENTATION MONITORING ACTION PLAN SLOPE STABILITY AND GROUND WATER LEVELS CITY OF TUKWILA BUILDING PERMIT CONDITIONS 5 AND 8 VALLEY VIEW ESTATES TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Regular long —term monitoring of the instrumentation will be accomplished. Baseline data on all new instrumentation and the existing drainage system will be obtained at least 'two months prior to start of site work.. The inclinometers and piezometers will be monitored monthly, thereafter, during periods of construction activity. Data will be gathered bimonthly between construction seasons. Benchmarks on building foundations and selected retaining walls will be surveyed when they are set. Subsequently, they will be read when each building unit is about 50 percent complete and upon completion. Monitoring data will be gathered twice yearly (February and August) when the project is initially com- pleted. As trends in data change are evaluated, it may be appropriate to change this interval. Slope monitoring stakes will be surveyed during construction on an every— other —day basis while grading activities are under way in the immediate vicinity of each row of stakes. When on —site grading in the immediate area is project completion. completed, monthly observations will be made until Unless there are indications that slope movements are occurring, the slope stake systems will be removed before final land- scaping is accomplished. All monitoring will be accomplished by the Geotechnical Professional. The instrumentation will be monitored and readings obtained in accordance with the schedule described above. WSDOT will be contacted periodically to obtain updates with respect to their maintenance activities on the deep drainage system which exists between the Valley View Estates property and K1±ckitat Drive. The Geotechnical Professional will advise WSDOT of water level readings in the deep wells of the WSDOT system. An overall rise of water level of 10 feet in the deep aquifer should be considered a "trigger" level by WSDOT to initiate actions to assure that the drain system continues to function as designed with respect to maintaining stability of the hillside. Trigger levels for the inclinometer data will be based on an increase in- horizontal displacement of more than 0.2 inches per year. Analyses of the data obtained from the instrumentation readings will be accomplished by the Geotechnical Professional on an ongoing basis as each set of readings is obtained. A record-of each set of readings together with the Geotechnical.Professional's assessment of the per- formance of the drainage systems will be submitted to the project owner and the City of Tukwila within 30 days after the field data are obtained. Each summary report will include a tabulation of the instrumentation data, an evaluation of the state of stability of the hillside, conclusions with respect to the effectiveness of maintenance and overall functioning of the various drainage systems, and the scheduled time for the next set of readings. If a trend in water level changes occurs such that the Geotechnical Professional determines that the trigger levels in either ground water conditions or slope movements are being approached, he will develop recommendations for necessary remedial measures to lower the ground water levels and maintain stability of the hillside and indicate who, in his opinion, is responsible for the necessary work. The most probable types of remedial action will likely include more intensive maintenance and /or restorative work to reestablish full functioning of the WSDOT drain system or on --site drain systems, as appropriate; reinstalling pumps in the vertical wells of the WSDOT system to enable rapid reduction in water levels in the deep aquifer; installation of new horizontal drains to supplement existing drains of the WSDOT deep drainage system; or, in the case of surf icial earth movements, implementation of localized slope stabilization measures on the Valley View Estates property. 2 N!--ft-;H=7: INSTRUMENTATION PLAN SLOPE STABILITY AND GROUND WATER LEVELS CITY OF TUKWILA BUILDING PERMIT CONDITIONS 5 AND 7 VALLEY VIEW ESTATES TUKWILA, WASHINGTON A network of instrumentation will be installed to monitor slope stability performance and ground water levels during construction and operation of the project. The purpose of the instrumentation is to -provide data for evaluating the performance of various on- and off -site drainage systems. The instrumentation will include a series of inclinometers to monitor any hillside movements, standpipe piezometers to monitor ground water levels in the upper zone which is subject to seepage from surface runoff from the higher elevations to the south and west and in the deeper aquifer which is recharged by ground water infiltration throughout a much larger drainage basin, and benchmarks on building foundations to monitor elevations. In addition, a series of survey stakes on slopes which are regraded or which have cuts made at the toe of existing slopes will be installed to be monitored during construction to detect any movements which may occur as the result of earthwork. The inclinometer (Boring F) and piezometers installed in borings drilled by GeoEngineers, Inc.-in 1983 will be maintained and incorporated in the instrumentation program to the extent that they are not disturbed by construction. The locations of these explorations are shown in the attached Instrumentation Plan, Figure 1. Six additional inclinometers will be installed, four along the easterly boundary line of the property .and two on the westerly portion of the site. These inclinometers will be installed in a manner that will permit them also to function as piezometers to monitor ground water levels in the deep aquifer. Two or three Piezometers will be installed at other locations to monitor water levels in the deep aquifer. In addition approximately ten pieaometers will be installed across the site to monitor ground water levels more shallow soils the soils where the perched water. table is affected by infiltration and shallow seepage on the site and from immediately west of Slade Way venue „ y and 53rd c properties South. The planned locations of the inclinometers and standpipe piezometers are sh Figure 1. own on Most of the instrumentation will be located adjacent to areas which by will be disturbed construction in order to minimize the need for additional site clearing. The inclinometers and standpipe will be installed at least two months prior to beginning pxez °meters 1„g clearing and grading activities. Slope monitoring stakes will be installed during site grading to monitor any shallow soil movements. SOWS of stakes on 20— to 40 —foot centers will be P laced across areas where the existing ground surface is modified by grading or above areas where cuts are made at the toes of slopes. Elevation and alignment records will be maintained for each r of stakes to determine whether or not any movements ow ents occur in the surfic;al soils as a result of the grading activities. Permanent benchmarks will be established at or near the four corners of each building as the foundations are constructed and on selected retaining walls. The elevations of these will be recorded and subsequent elevation readings taken to provide a basis for determining if there are any elevation changes as the result of foundation settlements or hillside 2 movements. These data will supplement the inclinometer data. All instrumentation will be installed under the direct supervision of GeoEng?nesrs, Inc, (or an alternate qualified that accepts GeoEngineers' re ort geotechnical professional P , conclusions and recommendations dated April 25 etc., ' 1987). The Geotechnical Professional will also be responsible for subsequent monitoring of the instrumentation ev data and reportin � aluation of g, as described in the Instrumentation Monitoring Action Plan. 3 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL August 23, 1985 Mr. Joel E. Haggard Attorney at Law Suite 2426 Financial Center 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98161 Re: SR 5 14P 154.0 - Valley View Estates Dear Mr. Haggard: Your letter of May 15, 1985 to Richard Johnson, the Washington State Department of Transportation District 1 design engineer, has beer referred to this office for response. As we understand it, your client is proposing to construct a large condominium complex to be called Valley View Estates on a hillside above the intersection of SF 5 and SR 518 at Tukwilla. The hillside in question is . apparently ° well recognized as being within a very large, prehistoric, landslide zone. A major landslide was recorded in the area of the proposed complex a5 recently as 1960. The proposed complex is indicated in the Gec Engineers, Inc. report as being located on clay -type soil over a. sliding block failure surface, and partially encompassing the zone of generated critical failure surfaces. This appears to be a ver) unstable area. As you know, in the mid 1960's, the Washington State Department of Transportation installed a drainage system in the area to stabilize the hillside through improving natural drainage. While this drainage system may incidentally benefit uphill property owners, its purpose 15 to protect the roadway. The drainage system was not intended tc encourage high density development on a site which would possibly bE too unstable in its natural condition. Nor was the drainage systeu designed to accommodate any increased soil loadings or changes it drainage which might stem from such high density development on the hillside. The Washington State Department of Transportation will continue tc maintain the existing drainage system to the degree the department feels is necessary to protect the roadway. The Washington State Department of Transportation has no further responsibility. Any development by your client on that hillside, with the attendant Joel E. Haggard August 23, 1985 Page Two F OF THE ATTORNEY GERAL changes in soil loading and in drainage, must be at your client's own risk. I have attached for your information a recent letter from Mr. Johnson to the city of Tukwilla setting out Washington State Department of Transportation concerns with the Valley View Estates project. The department continues to be willing to make available to interested parties technical data relating to the area in question. Your client, of course, must rely on its own experts as no warranty is attached to the department's information. Any further requests by you or your client for information should be communicated through this office. Yours very truly, WI LI G. BO Assistant Attorney General WGB:JWH:dg cc: R. F. Johnson, District 1 Enclosure Smooth Feed Sheets T M Use template for 5 60 Holdings L L C Mds 13467 Macadam Rd S Tukwila, WA 98168 Holdings L L C Mds 13467 Macadam Rd S Tukwila, WA 98168 John & Jean Barnes 1582851St Ave S Seattle, WA 98188 John & Teresa Tamburelli 646 SW 134Th St Seattle, WA 98146 Alfred Schmid 1525 Taylor Ave N #101 Seattle. WA 98109 Puget Sound Investment Group Inc 4720 200Th St SW #201 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Linda Bogart 16030 51St Ave S Tukwila, WA 98188 Gordon Solem 5155 S 160Th St Seattle, WA 98188 Holdings L L C Mds 13467 Macadam Rd S Tukwila. WA 98168 Holdings L L C Mds 13467 Macadam Rd S Tukwila, WA 98168 City Of Tukwila 14475 59Th Ave S Seattle. WA 98168 Vikram -Deep Singhan 15816 53Rd Ave S Tukwila, WA 98188 Alfred Schmid 1525 Taylor Ave N Seattle, WA 98109 City Of Tukwila PO Box 1261 Carnation, WA 98014 Puget Sound Investment Group Inc 4720 200Th St SW #203 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Puget Western Inc. 19515 North Creek Pkwy, #310 Bothell, WA 98011 Holdings L L C Mds 13467 Macadam Rd S Tukwila. WA 98168 J L Barnes 15814 51St Ave S Seattle, WA 98188 City Of Seattle Public Util 710 2Nd Ave 49Th Seattle. WA 98104 Puget Sound Investment Group Inc 4720 200Th St SW #203 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Puget Sound Investment Group Inc 4720 200Th St SW #203 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Ronald Gatty 16014 51St Ave S Tukwila, WA 98188 Gerard Mcelholm 5165 S 160Th St Seattle, WA 98188 Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® Holdings L L C Mds 13467 Macadam Rd S Tukwila, WA 98168 Holdings L L C Mds 13467 Macadam Rd S Tukwila, WA 98168 John & Jean Barnes 15828 51St Ave S Seattle, WA 98188 John & Teresa Tamburelli 646 SW 134Th St Seattle, WA 98146 Alfred Schmid 1525 Taylor Ave N #101 Seattle, WA 98109 Puget Sound Investment Group Inc 4720 200Th St SW #201 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Linda Bogart 16030 51St Ave S Tukwila, WA 98188 Gordon Solem 5155 S 160Th St Seattle, WA 98188 `& AVERY® Address Labels Holdings L L C Mds 13467 Macadam Rd S Tukwila, WA 98168 Holdings L L C Mds 13467 Macadam Rd S Tukwila, WA 98168 City Of Tukwila 14475 59Th Ave S Seattle, WA 98168 Vikram -Deep Singhan 15816 53Rd Ave S Tukwila, WA 98188 Alfred Schmid 1525 Taylor Ave N Seattle, WA 98109 City Of Tukwila PO Box 1261 Carnation, WA 98014 Puget Sound Investment Group Inc 4720 200Th St SW #203 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Puget Western Inc. 19515 North Creek Pkwy, #310 Bothell, WA 98011 Holdings L L C Mds 13467 Macadam Rd S Tukwila, WA 98168 J L Barnes 15814 51St Ave S Seattle, WA 98188 City Of Seattle Public Util 710 2Nd Ave #9Th Seattle, WA 98104 Puget Sound Investment Group Inc 4720 200Th St SW #203 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Puget Sound Investment Group Inc 4720 200Th St SW #203 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Ronald Gatty 16014 51St Ave S Tukwila, WA 98188 Gerard Mcelholm 5165 S 160Th St Seattle, WA 98188 1 agar 4o4f'1r" Parcel # Owner Name MetroScan / King (WA) Site Address YB Owner Phone 115720 0070 115720 0070 115720 0070 115720 0070 115720 0070 115720 0071 115720 0072 115720 0080 115720 0081 115720 0100 115720 0101 262304 9138 537920 0005 537920 0006 537920 0010 537920 0030 537920 0061 537920 0062 537920 0065 537920 0215 537920 0225 537920 0232 537920 0226 Mds Holdings L L C Mds Holdings L L C Mds Holdings L L C Mds Holdings L L C Mds Holdings L L C Barnes J L Barnes John G & Jean M City Of Tukwila 15817 53Rd Ave S Tukwila 98 15817 53Rd Ave S Tukwila 98 15817 53Rd Ave S Tukwila 98 15817 53Rd Ave S Tukwila 98 15817 53Rd Ave S Tukwila 98 15814 51St Ave S Seattle 98 15828 51St Ave S Seattle 98 *No Site Address* Tukwila City Of Seattle Public Uti *No Site Address* Tukwila Tamburelli John F /Teresa E *No Site Address* Tukwila Singhan Vikram -Deep 15816 53Rd Ave S Tukwila 98 Puget Sound Investment Gro *No Site Address* Tukwila Schmid Alfred *No Site Address* Tukwila Schmid Alfred *No Site Address* Tukwila Puget Sound Investment Gro 53Rd Ave S Tukwila Puget Sound Investment Gro 53Rd Ave S Tukwila City Of Tukwila 16010 51St Ave S Tukwila 98 Gatty Ronald A 16014 51St Ave S Tukwila 98 Bogart Linda R 16030 51St Ave S Tukwila 98 Puget Sound Investment Gro *No Site Address* Tukwila Mcelholm Gerard A 5165 S 160Th St Seattle 981 1956 206 - 243 -4970 Solem Gordon M 5155 S 160Th St Seattle 981 1959 Puget Western Inc 19515 North Creek Pkwy, #310, Bothell 1957 1960 1946 1903 1960 1929 206 - 242 -4880 1944 206 - 243 -5403 1906 206 - 244 -3305 206 - 284 -4670 206 - 284 -4670 1962 1962 206 - 439 -9662 1960 Information compiled from various sources. Real Estate Solutions makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of information contained in this report. , Fidelity National Title mpany of Washington Plat Certificate, Page Our Number 0275452 LEGAL - DESCRIPTION OCT 2 2 2001 Tract 9, BROOKVALE GARDEN TRACTS, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Volume 10 of Plats, Page 47, in King County, Washington; EXCEPT that portion thereof within a tract of land conveyed by deed recorded under Recording No. 5372503, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North line of said Tract 9, 330 feet West of the Northeast corner thereof; THENCE East 330 feet to the Northeast corner'bf said Tract; THENCE South along the East line of said Tract to the Southeast corner thereof; THENCE along the'South line of said Tract, a distance of 170 feet to a point on a curve whose radius bears South 89 °59'24" West; THENCE Northerly and Westerly along the arc of said curve to the left with a radius of 382.47 feet to a point 50 feet South of the North line of said Tract and 300 feet West of the East line; THENCE Northwesterly in a straight line to the point of beginning; EXCEPT the South 30 feet thereof conveyed to the City of Seattle for pipeline by deed recorded under Recording No. 3641174; AND EXCEPT the South 30 feet thereof lying Easterly of a line drawn Northerly at right angles to the South line of said Tract 9 from a point on said South line which is 200 feet Westerly of the "W" line survey of Primary State Highway No. 1 South 178th Street to South 126th Street as conveyed to the State of Washington by deed recorded under Recording No. 5568710; AND EXCEPT that portion of the remainder lying Southwesterly of a line drawn parallel with and 20 feet Northeasterly from the D2 centerline of Primary State Highway No. 1, South 178th Street to South 126th Street, as conveyed to the State of Washington by deed recorded under Recording No. 5653378. Situate in the County of King, State of Washington. NOTE FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY: The following may be used as an abbreviated legal description on the documents to be recorded, per amended RCW 65.04. Said abbreviated legal description is not a substitute for a complete legal description within the body of the document. Ptn Tr 9, BROOKVALE GARDEN TRACTS • Fidelity National Title Company of Washington Underwritten by Fidelity National Title Insurance Company 3500 188th Street SW #300 Lynnwood, Washington 98037 (425) 771 -3031 / 527 -1432 Fax No. (425) 224 -0837 Direct Line (425) 640 -3508 / 640/3505 Toll Free: 1- 800 - 776 -3021 PLAT CERTIFICATE TO: FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE - ESCROW DEPT. 3500 188TH STREET SW, #110 LYNNWOOD, WA 98037 Attention : -- Your Number : -- Reference Name: DHALIWAR & SEKHON & CHAHIL & GREWAL & KHAN OUR NUMBER 0275452 - Plat Certificate CERTIFICATE FOR FILING PROPOSED PLAT Dear Sirs: OCT 222001 Premium $ 390.00 Sales Tax: $ 33.54 In the matter of the above described Plat submitted for your approval, this Company has examined the records of the County Auditor and County Clerk of King County, Washington, and from such examination hereby certifies that: TITLE TO the following described land is vested in: AVTAR S. DHALIWAR, JASWINDER SEKHON, GURBACHAN KAUR CHAHIL, HAKAM S. GREWAL, and SAIJAD A. KHAN, each presumptively subject to the community interest of their respective spouses, if married. THE LAND is situate in said King County, and is described as follows: (See Attached - Page Two) Fidelity National Title :'mpany of Washington Plat Certificate, Page Our Number 0275452 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Tract 9, BROOKVALE GARDEN TRACTS, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Volume 10 of Plats, Page 47, in King County, Washington; EXCEPT that portion thereof within a tract of land conveyed by deed recorded under Recording No. 5372503, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North line of said Tract 9, 330 feet West of the Northeast corner thereof; THENCE East 330 feet to the Northeast corner of said Tract; THENCE South along the East line of said Tract to the Southeast corner thereof; THENCE along the South line of said Tract, a distance of 170 feet to a point on a curve whose radius bears South 89 °59'24" West; THENCE Northerly and Westerly along the arc of said curve to the left with a radius of 382.47 feet to a point 50 feet South of the North line of said Tract and 300 feet West of the East line; THENCE Northwesterly in a straight line to the point of beginning; EXCEPT the South 30 feet thereof conveyed to the City of Seattle for pipeline by deed recorded under Recording No. 3641174; AND EXCEPT the South 30 feet thereof lying Easterly of a line drawn Northerly at right angles to the South line of said Tract 9 from a point on said South line which is 200 feet Westerly of the "W" line survey of Primary State Highway No. 1 South 178th Street to South 126th Street as conveyed to the State of Washington by deed recorded under Recording No. 5568710; AND EXCEPT that portion of the remainder lying Southwesterly of a line drawn parallel with and 20 feet Northeasterly from the D2 centerline of Primary State Highway No. 1, South 178th Street to South 126th Street, as conveyed to the State of Washington by deed recorded under Recording No. 5653378. Situate in the County of King, State of Washington. NOTE FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY: The following may be used as an abbreviated legal description on the documents to be recorded, per amended RCW 65.04. Said abbreviated legal description is not a substitute for a complete legal description within the body of the document. Ptn Tr 9, BROOKVALE GARDEN TRACTS Fidelity National Title 7-mpany of Washington Plat Certificate, Page Our Number 0275452 SUBJECT TO the exceptions shown herein. No search has been made as to the taxes and assessments. THIS CERTIFICATE shall have no force or effect except as a basis for the Certificate applied for. Records examined to August 10, 2001 at 8:00 A.M. Fidelity National Title Company of Washington By: Bill Fish r, Sr. Title Officer /Vice- President Fidelity National Title ^nmpany of Washington Plat Certificate, Page Our Number 0275452 EXCEPTIONS 1. GENERAL TAXES PAYABLE AFTER FEBRUARY 15TH: THE FIRST HALF TAXES ARE DUE PRIOR TO MAY 1ST; THE SECOND HALF TAXES ARE DUE PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 1ST: Year: Amount Billed: Amount Paid: Amount Due: Tax Account No.: Levy Code: Value of Land: To expedite payment of 2001 $2,292.36 $1,146.18 $1,146.18 115720- 0090 -06 2380 $160,000.00 your taxes, you may mail the payment direct to: King County Treasurer 500 4th Ave, Room 600 Seattle, WA 98104 2. QUESTION OF THE MARITAL STATUS OF AVTAR S. DHALIWAR, JASWINDER SEKHON, GURBACHAN KAUR CHAHIL, HAKAM S. GREWAL, and SAIJAD A. KHAN, who acquired title by Statutory Dated: Recorded: Recording No.: Warranty Deed: August 16, 2000 August 24, 2000 20000824001902 3. EASEMENT AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED THEREIN, AS CONVEYED BY INSTRUMENT: Recorded: May 13, 1905 Recording No.: 337824 Purpose: A right of way for the purpose of laying water pipes The description contained in the above instrument is not sufficient to determine its exact location within the property herein described. 4. EASEMENT AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED THEREIN, AS GRANTED BY INSTRUMENT: Recorded: Recording No.: In Favor Of: Purpose: Affects: December 17, 1974 7412170397 Val Vue Sewer District A sewer pipeline and lines with all necessary connections and appurtenances thereto A strip of land 5 feet on each side of a line beginning on the South property line at a point 25 feet West of the Southeast property corner and extending Northeasterly to the Northeasterly property line 200 feet Northerly of the South property line END OF EXCEPTIONS THANK YOU FOR YOUR ORDER IF WE MAY BE OF FURTHER ASSISTANCE, PLEASE GIVE US A CALL Fidelity National Title Company of Washington Underwritten by Fidelity National Title Insurance Company 3500 188th Street SW #300 Lynnwood, Washington 98037 (425) 771 -3031 / 527 -1432 Fax No. (425) 224 -0837 Direct Line (425) 640 -3508 / 640/3505 Toll Free: 1- 800 - 776 -3021 TO: JAEGER ENGINEERING 9419 S 204TH PLACE KENT, WA 98031 Attention : -- Your Number : -- Reference Name: DHALIWAR Order Number : 0275452 Thank you for giving us the opportunity to serve you. We appreciate your business and will strive to merit the confidence you have shown in us. Enclosed: PLAT CERTIFICATE DOCUMENT COPIES Please call us whenever we can be of further assistance. DATED: AUGUST 20, 2001 Fidelity National Title Company of Washington AFTER RECORDING MAIL TO: Avtar S [Thelma' cfo 24719 43rd Ave S Kent, WA 98032 200008 019 ill �LPT {Y pI T o uo te.ee KKING4000NTy, E1772284 ea /24/2eee 15 34 KING COUNTY, 1N sa_� �130,eei 000 paGE 001 OF K2 STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED Escrow No 200827 Title Order No 0284867 THE GRANTOR Full Gospel Church, a Washington non -profit corporation for and in consideration of Ten Dollars and other good and valuable consideration in hand paid, conveys and warrants to Avtar S Dhaliwai, AS HIS SEPERATE ESTATE and Jaswinder Sekhon, AS HIS SEPERATE ESTATE and Gurbachan Kaur Chahil. as Her Separate Estate and Hakam S. Grewal, AS HIS SEPERATE ESTATE and SaJJad A. Khan. AS HIS SEPERATE ESTATE the following described real estate, situated in the County of King, State of Washington Legal Description (abbrevlated)• Ptn of Tract 9, Brookvale Garden Estates3 additional legal(%) on page A Assessor's Property Tax Parcel /Account Number(s)• 115720- 0090 -06 Subject to on Exhibit 'B' attached hereto and made a part hereof by thls reference. Dated August 16. 2000 Seattle Full Gospel Church, a Washington corporation By :X J ':IDELITY NATIONAL TITLE State of Washington }ss County of Kinq I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Su/U� Hoe • is/are the person(s) who appeared before me, and said person(s) acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath st @ted that he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged It as the -y4t,' ke^! S7r>Gv of Full Gospel Church to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument Dated KwkNef -$ R E does rz 9 AC-A4 Notary Public in aq the State of Washington Residing at �y�/ 417 My appointment expires "'Are 2 LAB -10 r.XHIRI" "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION Tract 9, BROOKVALE GARDEN TRACTS, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Volume 10 of Plats, Page 47, in King County, Washington, EXCEPT that portion thereof within a tract of land conveyed by deed recorded under Recording No. 5372503, described as follows. Beginning at a point on the North line of said Tract 9, 330 feet West of the Northeast corner thereof, THENCE East 330 feet to the Northeast corner of said Tract, THENCE South along the East line of said Tract to the Southeast corner thereof; THENCE along the South line of said Tract, a distance of 170 feet to a point on a curve whose radius bears South 89'59'24" West, THENCE Northerly and Westerly along the arc of said curve to the left with a radius of 382 47 feet to a point 50 feet South of the North line of said Tract and 300 feet West of the East line, THENCE Northwesterly in a straight line to the point of beginning; EXCEPT the South 30 feet thereof conveyed to the City of Seattle for ntnolino by rood rornrrlo,1 iinrior Pornrritnn Nn 1641174 AND EXCEPT the South 30 feet thereof lying Easterly of a line drawn Northerly at right angles to the South line of said Tract 9 from a point on said South line which is 200 feet Westerly of the "W" line survey of Primary State Highway No 1 South 178th Street to South 126th Street as conveyed to the State of Washington by deed recorded under Recording No 5568710; AND EXCEPT that portion of the remainder lying Southwesterly of a line drawn parallel with and 20 feet Northeasterly from the D2 centerline of Primary State Highway No. 1, South 178th Street to South 126th Street, as conveyed to the State of Washington by deed recorded under Recording No 5653378. Situate in the County of King, State of Washington END EXHIBIT "l," o • DIED Of 1RUSf AND THEREOF Grantor trustee Beneficiary Original Amount Dated Recorded 'Recording No Affects EXHIBIT "B" ADD11IONAL ADVANCES. iF ANY AND 111E TERMS AND CONDI1111NS V P Associates. a Washington general partnership consisting of Hobart J Cree and Jeanne N Crop huslr.u,a and wife. and Cli J AIuu and IleheLra U Aloe hoshand and wife Ticor Title Insurance Company Great Western Federal Savings 5440 ROD 00 plus Interest July 31 1985 August 1. 1985 8508010495 Said premises and other proper t> EXTENSION AGREEMENT Retween And Recorded Recording No Great western Bank V P Associates September 28 1990 9009280135 ASSUMPTION AND MODIFICATION AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDiIIONS 1111111Ili Recorded August 30. 1991 Recording No 9108300721 MODIFICATION AGREEMENT, AND THE TERMS AND CONDIiIONS TIIEIITOF Recorded August 12 1996 Recording No 9608121071 ASSIGNMENT OF LEASES AND RENTS AND LICENSE. AND lilt 1IRMS AND CJNIli1101P, THEREOF Assignor V P Associates Assignee Great Western Federal Savings (lank Dated July 8. 1985 Recorded August 1. 1905 Recording No 8508010496 Affects Said premises and other property DEED OF TRUS1 AND ADDITIONAL ADVANCES. IF ANY AND THE TERMS AND CDNDIIION', THEREOF Grantor Seattle Full Gospel Church also known as SealtIn suit Gospel Church Inc . a Washington nonprofit corpw alien Trustee Chicago Title Insurance Company Beneficiary Great Western Bank Original Amount Not disclosed Dated August 28. 1991 Recorded August 30, 1991 Recording No 9108300539 Any rights of the parties in possession of said land based upon an unrecorded agreement contract or lease. as disclosed by inspection and investigation This Company will require that a full copy of any unrecorded agreement contract or lease be submitted to us, together with all supplements assignments and amendments before issuing any Policy of 'title Insurance • Evidence of the Corporate existence of FIVE RIVERS DEVELOPMENT INC a corporation should be submitted. together with evidence of the identity and authority of the officers to execute the forthcoming instrument The legal description shown in Schedule A was determined from the properly address provided at the time of application The description should be examined and approved by all the parties to this transaction prior to closing EASEMENT AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED THEREIN. AS CONVEYED BY INSTRUMENT Recorded May 13. 1905 Recording No 337824 Purpose A right of way for the purpose of laying water pipes The description contained in the above instrument. is not sufficient to determine its exact location within the property herein described EASEMENT AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED THEREIN AS GRANTED BY INSTRUMEN1 Recorded December 17 1974 Recording No 7412170397 In Favor Of Val Vue Sewer District Purpose A sewer pipeline and lines with all necessary connections and appurtenances thereto Affects A strip of land 5 feet on each side of a line beginning on the South property line at a point 25 feet West of the Southeast property corner and extending Northeasterly to the Northeasterly property line 200 feet Northerly of the South property line EXHIBIT "B" Fidelity National Title Company of Washington Underwritten by Fidelity National Title Insurance Company 3500 188th Street SW #300 Lynnwood, Washington 98037 (425) 771 -3031 / 527 -1432 Fax No. (425) 224 -0837 Direct Line (425) 640 -3508 / 640/3505 Toll Free: 1- 800 - 776 -3021 TO: JAEGER ENGINEERING 9419 S 204TH PLACE KENT, WA 98031 Attention : -- Your Number : -- Reference Name: DHALIWAR Order Number : 0275452 Thank you for giving us the opportunity to serve you. We appreciate your business and will strive to merit the confidence you have shown in us. Enclosed: TAX ASSESSOR MAP & LIST OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY Please call us whenever we can be of further assistance. DATED: OCTOBER 11, 2001 Fidelity National Title Company of Washington CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplan @ci.tukwila wa us SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY Sierra Type: P -PSUBP Planner: File Number: L. O 1 — 0 l; q Application Complete (Date: ) Project File Number: e e.l: tv 0 - 05 z Application Incomplete (Date: ) Other File Numbers: G 01 —o 2,1. NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: FKra. Rive.Rn IEVa1.0 rmi .rr 12- L O T R X51 DeN n fr L PLAT" LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS 1S -8 53`4 PJE S. LOT c oF 8ROOKVAt. 14c -TS T . 4: 11572.0- oy O -o(s) Quarter: SVI Section: 23 Township: Z3 ,Range: ,4- (This information may be found on your tax statement) DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: (Y1 ES JprECee 1 P. - . / 3— GEi2 GI∎SC91 Address: Cl 4 I°( S • 2D4 PL . k- F-44r, WA, . -903/ Phone: 153) gSO — CY�.'x -I— FAX: (2.53) g S D - D155- Signifure: • i ¢t) Date: IO /ZZ/ D GAPPHAMLANDUSE.APPIS UBPR95.DOC. 06126/00 OCT _2 2 2001.• • Cm:]a:4'.� .. PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW CRITERIA ,OCT 22 2001 L i The review critieria used by the City Council for approval of Preliminary Plats are shown below: (TMC 17.14.020 (C)) Please respond to these criteria, if you need more space use a separate sheet 1. The proposed subdivision is in conformance with the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and any other City adopted plans. (� Pain Sl IS try GeN1��"Mo. e-� 2. Appropriate provisions have been made for water, storm drainage, erosion control and sanitary sewage disposal for the subdivision which are •nsistent with current standards and plans. The- CAM ro i -I A ra.tr\o fa. It .. t. I1 - b-An 1.r IL- ,i • _I ■a - ■ ■ - 1 .- _ • .i._) a n 6T �cl. �IrQ. \YW�Q�� e-01' IW1 Ce t �� ' re- ee r kkvia- COU v►i.� U t%N yy\ae. "U o-1 . d 3. Appropriate provisions have been made for road, utilities and other improvements, which are consistent with current standards and plans. to of Tv L t a._ Siu■ - a-rr;QS. 4. Appropriate provisions have been ma • a fo dedications, easements and eservations. NeA.J ro o-.J 1 cy." S Vl P.c.t� ants vA sZ e ,nn e.r b are_ 4t o c -t. e_ Rl�.. 5. The design, shape and orientation of the proposed lots are appropriate to the proposed use for which the lots are intended and are compatible with the area in which they are located. The_ lot's ax-2 ova- Sc .x Sl= 0...."c4 uP 1Ooco sF . 11) - mee* mom u m v m 1 6. The subdivision complies with the relevant requirements of the Tukwila Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances, and all other rel vant local regulations. Th- sil6dtvistvr\ © • ;n /n c-e-- te In 7. Appropriate rovisions for maintenance of privately weed common facilities have been made. -� no-f-- �Y �t-,✓ -e_.4,1 -Fe lfres . GAPPHRO ANDUSEAPInSU8PRDS.DOC. 06126100 • 8. The subdivision complies wi RCW 58.17.110. �l1'1P_ n)bdU 1.51. (N1 u) t 1 Off' I. • Lam G APPHAMLANDUSLAPPISUBPR9S.DOC. 0626100 STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF laNG CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplan@citukwila.wa.us OCT 2 2 ?OD') I5 ��Z� '7 'rn - AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY The undersigned being duly sworn and upon oath states as follows: I . I am the current owtur of the property which is the subject of this application. 2. AU statements contained in the applications have been prepared by me or my agents and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. 4. Owner grants the City, its employees, agents, engineers, contractors or9then representatives the right to ter (Pd"M n Owner's real property, located at l SSakk S3 Ave, S', ( Fsve- I�\uers plat Pif 11 S720 -009 0) for the purpose of application review, for the limited time necessary to complete that purpose. 5. Owner agrees to hold the City harmless for any loss or damage to persons or property occurring on the private property during the City's entry upon the property, unless the loss or damage is the result of the sole negligence of the City. 6. The City shall, at its discretion , cancel the application without refund of fees, if the applicam does not respond to specific requests for items on the "Complete Application Checklist" within ninety (90) days. EXECUTED at Q`; • stoR F .'P_ Z hpTAlik 9 •Y Atf ft, '•,; - WAS ‘O k%'* On this day personally appeared before me ShQ to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing - instrument and acknowledged thaafie signed the same as i er voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes (city), L) P\ (state), on l0' o3c7 t O 57i/M.-3- /t HA A) (Print Name) 7Lr /41— k .4V, s (Address) K A/r wleF g O `mod- 2_ 2.53 _ 653 — 9/ (Phone Number) (Signature) mentioned therein. • SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME ON THIS «C& , ZOO \ NOTARY PUBLIC in and for e State of residing at hington My Commission expires on - \`k. •': ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of Checklist: r r 2 ^ ; 7'11 The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Govemmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or " does not apply'. Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations; such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for non - project proposals: Complete this checklist for non - project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply'. IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For non - project actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project", "applicant ", and "property or site" should be read as "proposal ", "proposer", and "affected geographic area" respectively. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Proposed Five Rivers Plat - 12 Lot residential subdivision 2. Name of Applicant: Five Rivers Development, Inc. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Owner & Applicant: Five Rivers Development, Inc. Siraj Khan 27010 115 Ave. SE Kent, WA. 98031 (253) 653 -6491 Contact : James Jaeger, P.E. Jaeger Engineering 9419 S. 204 Place Kent, WA. 98031 (253) 850-0934 3. Date checklist prepared: Octo. 1, 2001 1 Evaluation For Agency Use Only 4. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila Planning Dept. 5. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Begin construction in summer 2002, or as soon as possible after receiving all required approvals. Project will continue with most work being performed during Summer & Fall of 2002. 6. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? if yes, explain. There are no plans for future additions, expansion or further activity related to or connected with this proposal. 7. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. A Geotechnical analysis of fill and steep slopes has been performed. A traffic analysis has been performed. Storm drainage analysis and report, and a level 1 downstream drainage analysis will be performed for the engineering submittal. 8. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes; explain. No current applications are pending. A permit will be required by the WSDOT for the drainage system connection to the existing drainage system along the Interstate 5 ROW. 2 9 Ust any govemment approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, If known. Applications and approvals will be required for the sanitary sewer and water main from the City of Tukwila. The drainage system connection will require a permit from the WSDOT. The fire marshal) will review and approve the fire hydrant location. The USPS will approve the mail box locations. 11. 10. ive 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. The proposed project is a 12 lot residential subdivision consisting of single family, detached dwelling units. The property has a total area of 2.69 acres and is zoned LDR. There will be a drainage Tract for on -site stormwater control and treatment. Access to the Tots will be from a single cul-de -sac that is connected to 53rd Ave. S. Frontage improvements will be made to 53rd Ave. S. with new curb, gutter and sidewalk. All Tots will be serviced with public water and sewer. 11. 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.slte(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. Location: The property is located on the east side of 53rd Ave. S, at S. 159th St. There is no site address. It is located in Section 23, Township 23 N, Range 4 E., W.M. Legal Description: A portion of Tract 9, BOOKVALE GARDEN TRACTS, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Volume 10 of Plats, Page 47, in King County, Washington.ding to the plat thereof, recorded in volume 12 of plats, page 60, records of King County, Washington. 12. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? No 3 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (under line one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes mountainous, other. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The steepest slope on the site is approximately 40%, within future Lot 12 near the southwest comer of the property. 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. Soils investigation discovered that a portion of the site is covered with a fill material. The native soils are Alderwood sandy, gravelly loam (AgC). No agricultural or farmland. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? 0 so, describe. None. e. Describe The purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Substantial grading in the form of fill has already occurred under previous a previous ownership not known at this time. Future grading of approx. 5000 CY is anticipated for utilities and for road construction. It is anticipated that the cut and fill will be balanced within the site. If possible, the needed fill material will be taken from the on -site cut material. However, it is possible that existing fill will need to be removed and structural fill imported. The source is not known at this time. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? if so, generally describe. Yes, during rainy construction periods erosion could occur on un- protected disturbed slopes. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? The impervious surfaces for the proposed project will Include the new roads, houses, driveways, decks, walkways and other residential elements. The approx. percentage of area of impervious surface will be 25 %. 4 h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other Impacts to the earth, It any: Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth include temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control measures as specified within the King County Surface Water Design Manual. Temporary erosion and sediment control measures include the installation of silt fence or hay bales, sedimentation ponds, interceptor ditches, seeding or mulching exposed surfaces that are expected to remain as such for long periods of time, the application of water to exposed surfaces during dry seasons for dust control. Permanent erosion and sediment control measures include seeding exposed pervious areas for vegetation. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (Le. dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Dust (suspended particulates) and construction exhaust emissions to the air will occur during the temporary . construction period. Automobile emissions will result from the completed project from the resident traffic and wood smoke from fireplaces. No quantities are known. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. In general, the adjacent freeway can be a source of off-site emissions and odors. These would be related to the vehicular traffic associated with a busy freeway. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Contractors will be required to implement standard practices for dust suppression such as the application of water to exposed surfaces, during construction. Standard exhaust filters will be on the construction equipment. 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. None. 5 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. None. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No surface water withdrawals or diversions are proposed. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplaln? If so, note location on the site plan. The site is not located within a 100 -year flood plain. 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. The proposal does not involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No groundwater will be withdrawn and no water will be discharged to groundwater as part of this project. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, If any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, 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. No septic systems. The City of Tukwila provides complete sewer service. 6 c. Water Run -off (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of run -off (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 run-off from all impervious surfaces will be collected in road gutters, catch basins, roof drains, etc. and directed into a piping system. The pipes will direct the water to detention pond/ wetpond and will be discharged to the existing drainage system within the west side of the 1-5 Freeway. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Waste materials, such as road oils /contaminants, could enter the surface water if they are introduced into the system and are not removed by water quality facilities. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and run -off water impacts, if any: Best Management Practices proposed for erosion /sedimentation control during construction. Facilities for drainage control including detention ponds will be used. Facilities for water quality enhancement such as wetponds, catch basin sumps, and oil /water separators will be used. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other - omamental shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass,'milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? The site is covered with second growth trees and sparse grasses and shrubs. Clearing will be extensive because most of the site will be regraded due to the exsting fill area. Most of the alder and evergreen trees will be removed for road and utility construction. . c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site None are known. 7 d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Much of the completed landscaping will be new residential type landscaping consisting of lawn, shrubs and omamental trees. 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: X Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other. crows, robins X Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other. squirrel, rodents, rabbits _ Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: Eastem gray squirrel and songbirds are typical of westem Washington forests and residential neighborhoods. 7 b. list any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered species are known to be on or near the site. c. is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. The Puget Sound area is part of the Pacific Flyway. Birds that inhabit the area vary seasonally due to migrations. However, the area is not part of a larger, permanently preserved migratory bird habitat. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None. 6. Energy and Natural Resources What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether It will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. The energy needs for the project site will be met through services offered by Puget Sound Energy. Puget Sound Energy will be servicing the project site with natural gas and electricity. These services will be used for heating, appliances and general household uses. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. 8 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, ff any: The contractors will comply with applicable City of Tukwila and other local energy conservation requirements, such as the UBC. 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. There are no known environmental heath hazards that would be of potential concem during construction of the proposed project. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. It is not anticipated that there will be any additional demand for special emergency services to serve the site as a result of the proposed project. Typical emergency services such as fire, police, medical may be required as is typical for any residential development. 2) Proposed measures to-reduce or control environmental health hazards, ff any: Since there are no known environmental health hazards associated with the project, no measures are proposed. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? The adjacent freeway will produce noise that likely will affect the finished podduct. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a Tong -term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. The operation of construction vehicles on -site during clearing, grading, sitework and the construction of the proposed houses will cause a short-term increase in daytime noise levels in the project vicinity. Construction would take place during normal hours for construction as permitted by the City. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, If any: Contractors will be required to confine on -site construction activities to daytime hours, in accordance with County ordinances. Equipment will be equipped with mufflers. No mitigation proposed for the freeway noise. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What Is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The existing site is undeveloped and vacant. it was previously graded and is now in a state of re- vegetating. The adjacent uses are typically moderately sized residential lots, City street or State freeway. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any structures on the site. None d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? LDR - Low Density Residential. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Single family residential. D. site? 9 H applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the The site is not within a Shoreline Environment. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensifive" area? if so, specify. No 1. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Based on an estimated average of 3.5 people per house, there will be approx. 42 people residing in the completed development. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: 10 The proposal is consistent with site zoning and Comprehensive Land Use Plan Designations for the property. Building setbacks will be in accordance with the City of Tukwila requirements. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle or low - income housing. 12 new housing units will be provided. It is anticipated that these units will be in the middle - income price range. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle or low - income housing. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not applicable. 10. Aesthetics What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas: what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The tallest height of the typical proposed house structure is estimated to be 30 feet. The principal exterior building materials for the houses will be wood siding and comp shingle roofs. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? No views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: No such measures will be needed since no such impacts are expected. 11. Eight and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? The proposed project will install street lighting as may be required by the City, or as is standard installation by Puget Sound Energy for residential developments. It is likely the Tight and glare will slightly increase during the night as the result of the proposed project. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? None that we are aware of. 11 c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Existing off -site sources of light and glare in the project vicinity would be from streetlights and motor vehicles operating on adjacent roadways. These sources or Tight and glare are not considered to significantly affect the proposed project. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control Tight or glare impacts, if any: Any street lights that are installed will be low- glare, directed down. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunitjes are in the immediate vicinity? Designated recreational opportunities closest to the site include Crystal Springs Park, located directly west and across 53rd Ave. S. from the property. 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: A fee is proposed to be paid in lieu of providing a recreational site. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. There are no known places or objects listed for, national, state or local preservation registers within or near the project. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. There are no known landmarks or evidence of historic; archaeological; scientific; or cultural importance located on or near the site. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None proposed. 12 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, ti any. The proposed plat plan shows access from 53rd Ave.. A central on -site cul- de-sac is proposed to service all of the lots. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The site and its immediate surroundings are not served by public transit. The nearest public transit site is approx. 1/2 mile to the southeast at southcenter. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The completed project will provide 48 parking spaces based on four parking spaces per lot. Depending on the length of the driveways, there may be more. There is no existing parking on the site. d. WIII 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). The site will require construction of the interior plat road as shown on the proposed plat plan. Frontage road improvements are also proposed for that portion of 53rd Ave. S. that fronts the property. The street inside the plat will be public. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, Indicate when peak volumes would occur. It is generally considered that one residential lot will generate 10 vehicle trips per day. With this ratio, the estimated new vehicular trips will be 120 per day. There will be approx. 1 peak AM and PM trip per day per lot. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, If any: Traffic mitigation fee will be paid as required by the City. 13 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? if so, generally describe. The project will result in a potential increased need for fire protection, medical and police protection services. It will also increase the demand on the school system. The need for these services are typical for a residential development. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. The required impact fees will be paid. The finished Tots will be added to the tax base to provide tax support for the public services. , 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. b. Describe the uti Hies 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. Proposed utilities for the project include the extension of water, sewer, electricity, gas and telephone within the plat. These services are generally located within the future public right -of -way. The services will be provided by: Sewer and water. City of Tukwila Telephone: Qwest Electricity & Gas: Puget Sound Energy 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: 9.0-9)2u Date Submitted: 22-- � 2O City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist City of Tukwila Endangered Species Act Screening Checklist ri OEIVED CITY OFTUKWILA Date: J y I LP S ZoDZ PERMIT CENTER DIRECTIONS This Screening Checklist has been designed to evaluate the potential for your project to result in potential "take" of chinook salmon, coho salmon, or cutthroat trout as defined by Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act. The checklist includes a series of "Yes" or "No" questions about your project, organized into four parts. Starting with Part A on Page 1, read each question carefully_ circle "Yes" or "No," and proceed to the next question as directed by the checklist. To answer these questions, you may need to refer to site plans, grading and drainage plans, critical areas studies, or other documents you have prepared for your project. The City \ \ill evaluate your responses to determine if "take" is indicated. January 5, 2001 1 City of Tukwila ES.4 Screening Checklist Part A: Please review and answer each question carefully. Consider all phases of your project including, but not limited to, construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes wer. January 25, 2001 7 1 -0 Will the project require any form of grading? Grading is defined as any excavating, filling, clearing, or creation of impervious surface, or any combination thereof, which alters the existing ground surface of the earth (see Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Chapter 18.06, Zoning Code, Page 18 -11). Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2 -0 GPContinue to Question 1 -1 (Page 3) 2 -0 Will the project require any form of clearing? Clearing means the removal or causing to be removed, through either direct or indirect actions, any vegetation from a site (see Chapter 18.06, Page 18 -8). Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -0 YES Continue to Question 2 -1 (Page 4) ' 3 -0 Will the project require work, during any time of the project, below the ordinary hig5 water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers or in wetlands? Ordinary high water mark is the mark that is found by examining the bed and banks of a stream and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual as to distinctly mark the soil from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation (see TMC Chapter 18.06, Page 18 -15). Please circle appropriate response. NO -- Continue to Question 4 -0 (& j Continue to Question 3 -1 (Page 5) 4 -0 Will the project result in the processing or handling, storage, or treatment of hazardous substances? This does not include the proper use of fuel stored in a vehicle's fuel tank. Hazardous substances are any liquid, solid, gas, or sludge, including any material, substance, product, commodity, or waste, regardless of quantity, that exhibits the characteristics or criteria of hazardous waste as defined by Washington Administrative Code 173 -303 (see TMC Chapter 18.06, Tukwila Zoning Code, Page 1S -11). This includes fuel or other chemicals stored on -site during construction. Please circle appropriate response. NO Continue to Question 5 -0 YES - Continue to Question 5 -0 5 -0 Will the project result in the withdrawal, injection, or interception of groundwater? Examples of projects that may affect groundwater include, but are not limited to: construction of a new well, change in water withdrawals from an existing well, projects involving prolonged construction dewatering, projects installing French drains or interceptor trenches, and sewer lines. For the purpose of this analysis, projects that require a geotechnical report pursuant to the requirements of TMC 18.45.060 and 18.45.080E.4, or would require a geotechnical report if not exempt under TMC 18.45.080A, should answer Yes. Please circle appropriate res • onse. NO Continue to Question 6 -0 - YES - Continue to Question 6 -0 January 25, 2001 7 Ciny of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist Part A (continued) 6 -0 Will the project involve landscaping or re- occurring outdoor maintenance that includes the regular use of fertilizers. pesticides, or herbicides? This does not include the one -time use of transplant fertilizers. Landscaping means natural vegetation such as trees, shrubs, groundcover, and other landscape materials arranged in a manner to produce an aesthetic effect appropriate for the use of the land (see TMC Chapter 18.06, Tukwila Zoning Code, Page 18- 13). For the purpose of this analysis. this includes the establishment of new lawn or grass. Please circle appropriate response. N — Checklist Complete Checklist Complete Part B: Please answer each question below for projects that include grading. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 1 -1 Will the project involve the modification of a watercourse bank or bank of the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers between the ordinary high water mark and top of bank? This includes any projects that will require grading on any slope leading to a river or stream, but will not require work below the ordinary high water mark. Work below the ordinary high water mark is covered in Part C. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 1 -2 YES - Continue to Question 1 -2 1 -2 Could the construction, operation, or maintenance of the project result in sediment transport off site or increased rates of erosion andor sedimentation in watercourses, the Green/Duwamish rivers, or the Black River? Most projects that involve grading have the potential to result in increased erosion and'or sedimentation as a result of disturbances to the soil or earth. If your project involves grading and you have not prepared a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan specifically designed to retain 100 percent of the runoff (including during construction) from impervious surface or disturbed soils, answer Yes to this question. If your project is normally exempt under the Tukwila Municipal Code and would not require the preparation of a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan, BUT may still result in erosion or sediment transport off site or beyond the work area, answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 1 -3 Continue to Question 1 -3 1 -3 Will the project result in the construction of new impervious surfaces? Impervious surfaces include those hard surfaces which prevent or restrict the entry of water into the soil in the manner that such water entered the soils under natural conditions prior to development; or a hard surface area that causes water to run off the surface in greater quantity or at an increased rate of flow from the flow presented under natural conditions prior to development (see TMC Chapter 18.06, Tukwila Zoning Code, Page 18 -12). Such areas include, but are not limited to, rooftops, asphalt or concrete paving, compacted surfaces, or other surfaces that similarly affect the natural infiltration or runoff patterns existing prior to development. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2 -0 (Page 2) - Continue to Question 1 -4 January 25, 2001 3 City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist Part B (continued) 1 -4 Will your project generate stormwater from the creation of impervious surfaces that will not be infiltrated on site? For the purpose of this analysis, infiltration includes the use of a stormwater treatment and management system intended to contain all stormwater on site by allowing it to seep into pervious surface or through other means to be introduced into the ground. If your project involves the construction of impervious surface and does not include the design of a stormwater management system specifically designed to infiltrate stormwater. answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2 -0 (Pace 2) Continue to Question 2 -0 (Pace 2) Part C: Please review each question below for projects that include clearing. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 2 -1 • Will the project involve clearing within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a, watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. NO Continue to Question 3 -0 (Pace 2) YES - Continue to Question 2 -2 2 -2 Will the project involve clearing of any trees within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? A tree is defined by TMC 18.06.845 as any self - supporting woody plant, characterized by one main trunk, with a potential diameter- breast- height of 2 inches or more and potential minimum height of 10 feet. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2 -3 YES - Continue to Question 2 -3 2 -3 Will the project involve clearing of any evergreen trees from within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green'Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis evergreen means any tree that does not regularly lose all its leaves or needles in the fall. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2 -4 YES - Continue to Question 2 -4 2 -4 Will the project involve clearing within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -0 (Pace 1) YES - Continue to Question 2 -5 2 -5 Will the project involve clearing within 40 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 3 -0 (Pace 2) January 25, 2001 4 City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist Part D: Please review each question below for projects that include work below the ordinan high water mark of watercourses or the Duwamish /Green or Black Rivers or in wetlands. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to, construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 3 -1 Will the project involve the direct alteration of the channel or bed of a watercourse, the Green/Duwamish rivers. or Black River? For the purpose of this analysis, channel means the area between the ordinary high water mark of both banks of a stream, and bed means the stream bottom substrates, typically within the normal wetted -width of a stream. This includes both temporary and permanent modifications. Please circle appropriate response. NO Continue to Question 3 -2 YES - Continue to Question 3 -2 3 -2 Will the project involve any physical alteration to a watercourse or wetland connected to the Green/Duwamish River? For the purpose of this analysis, "connected to the river means" flowing into via a surface connection or culvert, or having other physical characteristics that allow for access by salmonids. This includes impacts to areas such as sloughs, side channels, remnant oxbows, ditches formed from channelized portions of natural watercourses off• any area that may provide off channel rearing habitat for juvenile fish from the Duwamish River. This includes both temporary construction alterations and permanent modifications. Watercourses or wetlands draining to the Green/Duwamish River that have a hanging culvert, culvert with a flap gate, diversion, or any entirely man -made or artificial structure that precludes fish access should answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO Continue to Question 3 -3 YES - Continue to Question 3 -3 3 -3 Will the project result in the construction of a new structure or hydraulic condition that could be a barrier to salmonid passage within the watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, a barrier means any artificial or human modified structure or hydraulic condition that inhibits the natural upstream or downstream movement of salmonids, including both juveniles and adults. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -4 YES - Continue to Question 3 -4 3 -4 Will the project involve a temporary or permanent change in the cross - sectional area of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, the cross - sectional area is defined as a profile taken from the ordinary high water mark on the right bank to the ordinary high water mark on the left bank. Please circle appropriate response. NO Continue to Question 3 -5 YES - Continue to Question 3 -5 3 -5 Will the project require the removal of debris from within the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, debris includes, but is not limited to fallen trees, logs, shrubs, rocks, piles, rip -rap, submerged metal, and broken concrete or other building materials. Projects that would require debris removal from a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers as part of a maintenance activity should answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO Continue to Question 3 -6 YES - Continue to Question 3 -6 January 25, 2001 5 Ciry of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist Part D (continued) 3 -6 Will the project result in impacts to watercourses or wetlands that have a surface connection to another watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers but do not contain habitat conditions that support salmonid use? Such areas may include, but not be limited to hillside seeps and wetlands isolated from the watercourse or river that have a surface water connection to the watercourse or river but are not assessable, nor would be assessable to salmonids under natural conditions. Wetlands with a "functions and values" rating for baseflow /groundwater support of 9 and above (or moderate) as described in Cooke (1996) should be included. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -7 �-ES Continue to Question 3 -7 3 -7 Will the project include the construction of artificial waterways or wetlands connected to a \watercourse containing salmonids? For the purpose of this analysis, the construction of artificial waterways or wetlands includes wetlands, channels, sloughs, or other habitat feature created to enhance wildlife use, particularly waterfowl use, or may be attractive to wildlife, pcularly waterfowl. Please circle appropriate response. ontinue to Question 3 -8 YES - Continue to Question 3 -8 3 -8 Will the project include bank stabilization? For the purpose of this analysis, bank stabilization includes, but is not limited to, rip -rap, rock, log, soil, or vegetated revetments, concrete structures, or similar structures. Please circle appropriate response. Continue to Question 4 -0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 4 -0 (Page 2) January 25, 2001 6 0-e r WATER UTILITY EASEMENT existing park 53rd AVENUE SOUTH / SPA SPMI ®.p.p- Q old homesite SPM2 0 `'O- . l� • SPM3 WETLAND C FLAGGED MIXED SHRUBS AND TREES D.F INt. DI.[CH fLAU a SPM11 SPB .e9 SPC WETLAND 2 SPD Fb4GGED Ct �: SPF p 1 Q te1;' SPM7 b; d WETLAND A FLAGGED 0, .SP •S 5 9 � s SPMIO. WETLAND 8 ' LAGGED 'Cefine ditch and culvert MIXED SHRUBS AND TREES Sc8 /1- existing homesite DEFINE DITCH FLAGGED`1 censer line flagged s numbered sample plot numbered we edge flog not from survey Five Rivers, City of Tukwila. HABITAT Wetland Delineation Map TECHNOLOGIES �•d 71.0 T T 1.oCC7 C.l T fl T (](11 J'].i 1 '1P'1 T Ll T in Dr T 11f1 Ex Catch Boni Rim: 145.01 IE8"W: 142.65 0003260 Tes n 04226982. LOCK • STAMP TO STUD IE1 7r? m STA.13 0 TO rs 98 A1 a.M SR POND•x* r LA. Dux ,AA04 2. DIEM EDGE P m. Dux x+26 uD MOA VIDE O ASET ,110/10 P alUa MT DOM a TREE STAKING .DETAIL MM.. 4T: NIC PLANT PIT Tx¢ ROOTSUE DAU. SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL ,ETa Ex. Son Sewer Manhole Rim: 146.70 IE Ctr. 136.81 NEW 5' SIDEWALK NEW VERT. CURB /GUTTER EX. SAN SEWER EX. WATER MIN Sanitary Sewer Manhole Rim: 166.32 IE Ctr.•158.00 s. I \ ■ . /r 16z. FM (70 BE /.\ ‘ RELOCATED 2i9tla. 1 IND MEV VA V1EB* ;111111;245*' l,,,- ,.�� `�i' ��JsiriAs w �c�l -�� .._ -cam �� �`Ii��I �����1�vr��JD�!�∎ 1,.. :�11ra11��1��� °_I�- w-, N► ®',..- Ell Olritik .;:1N1 1 1 iP=� a�1ul/ i. euu9aK. WON • STAPLE TO STUa r Dux x604 r Cam Era u•119 TOO TWO Or BURN • MEOW IR ILEDID7 10//J0N1: CONIFEROUS TREE STAKING ILES .-.IQT 2.. Ex Sanitary Sewer Manhole Rim: 128.58 1E12 "OCtr 118.76 128 EXISTING TREE REMOVAL SYMBOL TREES TO BE REMOVED 54" MAPLE 50" MAPLE 20" ALDER 16" ALDER 15° ALDER 12" ALDER 15" ALDER 12" ALDER 16" ALDER 22" ALDER 18° ALDER 18" ALDER 15" ALDER 14" ALDER 14" ALDER 52" MAPLE TOTAL REPL. TREES AND .REPLACEMENT CALCULATIONS REPLACEMENT TREES 8 8 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 4 4 4 8 84 PLANT LIST OT. PLANT COMMON NAME SIZE SPACING 84 PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESI DOUGLASFIR 6' -8' B &B 10' -20' 0.C. 19 ACER RUBRUM RED MAPLE • ' .2 1/2" CAL. 30 -50' 0.C. NOTE DIFFERENT SPACING DUE TO UNKNOWN DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS, AVERAGE SPACING IS 40'. THESE TREES ARE DESIGNATED STREET TRES. DRAINAGE DETENTION POND /VETPOND TOP. 6706 sr 2 ELEV. 126.0 MAX. W. L. 6012 31 8 ELEV 125.0 TOP VETPOND. 3094 SF 8 ELEV, 120.0 80T VETPOND- 825 SF 8 ELEV, 114.0 VETPOND VOLUME. 11757 Cr DETENTION VOLUME, 22765 Cr. 2 f, -09 Catch Boein Rim: 169.95 Ott- IE12"W: 167.7 -Sa- - 5' SIDEWALK VERT. CURB /GUTTER - -. I - LOT 11 I e _ a 97E1� 7Smb" t , r o , tlPvN r1` .E .IC �5'- � ^.?1mi •. "!' j', PL3tr � . 1'�� Rtml \ 71 AM'. 12'Wr \a 51986 Ire, ro � �� �4�,�� =i_►� a,li►tI►�t�ar® \FLOW RESTRICTDR -) CATCH BASIN • or Ex Storm .Manhole Rim: 98.79 IE24": 86.04 Ex storm Manhole Rim: 98.91 IE12 "S: 92.51 IE1 B "5: 85.66 IE24"N: 85.71 IE24"NE Oat 85.1 Ex Sanitary Sewer Manhole Rim: 127.00 ABANDONED DRYCO Surveying, Incorporated 12714 MALLET NAME FAST SUMMER t me- FAX 103 - me -4703 Ex Sander; Sewer Manhole Rim 134.97 IE12'OCtr 120.49 CITY OF TUKWILA -FILE No. `Er Sanitary Sewer .manhole Rim: 125.29 ABANDONED NOTES I INSTALL 1/3 CUBIC YARD OF TOPSOIL PER .TREE. AVOlEl rLANiiNG 14i`■r11N i5 OF uTILi I'T LINKS - INSTALL 3" BARK MULCH IN 3' RADIUS OF ALL TREE TRUNKS. INSTALL 60Z. 16 -16 -16 FERT AROUND EACH TREE AT 12° DEPTH. IF TREES ARE WITHIN 8' OF ANY PAVING, • INSTALL 12' LENGTH OF ROOT BARRIER 12" FROM PAVING•EDGE TO A DEPTH OF 24 ". PROVIDE ONE YEAR WRITTEN WARRANTY FOR ALL TREES.' . ORANGE PROTECTIVE FENCING SHALL BE INSTALLED AT THE DRIP LINE OF ALL TREES WHICH ARE-NOT TO BE REMOVED. NO.GRADING OR ROOT DISTURBANCE WILL BE 'ALLOWED WITHIN THE FENCED AREA.. IF ANY TREES ARE REMOVED WHICH WERE SCHEDULED TO BE SAVED, THEY WILL BE REPLACED PER THE CITY TREE REPLACEMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS. THE ONLY TREES WHICH ARE TO BE REMOVED ARE THOSE INDICATED ABOVE ALL OF WHICH ARE WITHIN THE . 1, DESIGNATED LIMITS OF CLEARING. wmairismss Arl]OQ" Aligsbi 4 rTss Pyle !Sense APPLCJOIT FIVE RIVERS DEVELOPMENT. INC. 27010 115th AYE SE KE747. WA 98031 PNQNL (206) 901 -2800 IINEozLT FlVE RIVERS PRLIMINARY PLAT 12 L07 SUBDIVISION • 53rd AVE S. h S. 758th ST. LANDSCAPE PLAN Dote: 2 -11 -02 Seale: 1" x 30 Dress's By D.B.L Approved By: Revised: HAGLH DESIGN 28007 NE 27th DR. REDMOND. WASHINGTON 98053 1 TEL. (425) 898 -8833 FAX (425) 868 -2184 Sheet L -1 at 1 DRYCO \3± Ex Catch Baal Rim: 145.01 IE81Y: 142.65 E. San Sewer Manhole Rim: 148.70 IE Ctr. 136.81 NEV 5' SIDEWALK NEV VERT. CURB /GUTTER - EX SAN SEVER EX. VATER MAIN A PORTION of the S.W. 1 /4, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 23 N., RANGE 4 E., W.M. E: Catch 8oain Rim: 136.59 IE816 132.14 n 1\ / I 1 \� / �1 111 X. F15 (TD BE RELOCATED ND IIEV V K) FLOW RESTRICTOR RISER AND 12' OUTLET DRAINAGE DETENTDON V TVALLT DESIGN VATER LEVEL. ELEV. *26.5' TOP VETPOND ELEV. 1213 DOT VETPQID ELEV. 1173 VETP@ID VOLUME, 11294 CF DETENTION VOLUME. 14105 CF -;s eU E X6.01' Sanito y Seer Manhole-. Rim: 166.32 . IE CM 158.00 S. 159 ST._ 31.0' DRAING VAULT 1T A . 'DRAINAGE SETBACK FOR BASEMENTS FOR FOUNDATIONS GREATER THAN 36' DEEP. Ea Sanitary Sewer :Londe Rim: 128.58 IE12'OCtr: 118.78 NM •RAMP CLASS 2 RETTAAIMNG `\ \, �9 � \ 1 WETLAND C VALL \ A : /��\ S. 3..03 SF _ TI L17.1 `8\ R4 y: �L (F_ °.TIC:'. 'CI 1.. T_, �•\ `FILLED) I a, ., \\ �% �\� \ \� 1 . ' (U \ \\ \ Catch Bohn Rim: 169.95 LI \E121M 167.7 Li t - 5'. SIDEWALK VERT. CURB /GUTTER DRYCO \ 7� S`- I ` . W T A coNC.� \\ 6 6 3f SF °Ib2 �`\ .RETAINING 9 s( \N.. �'h . • (tttitt0 1) \ \ N. WALL _` \�'`., \ \ \ ▪ \ j' CLEAR N a.,.,' r L MI' I \ \\...,,..::....... 1 A .r.IJ W TLA A \+.�I l _ TRACT I tr ($ R ^,�� 1 I ��� \ANt. AREA -- f\ j�_ow e i I / A / ) 9_ - 1 r r� 193.9' CITY OFISEATTLE .TER \598 12x2\ Ea Storm Manhole Rim: 98.79 IE24', 86.04 Ea Storm Manhole Rim: 98.91 IB12S: 92.51 1E18'S: 85.66 1E24-N: 85.71. 1E24-NE Out: 85.11 . Surveying, Incorporated 12714 VALLEY AVENUE EAST SUMNER. WA 98390 253 - 826 -0300. FAX 253- 826 -9703 2000202 DBE PMIIER 1/23/2401 ,c '9.s. � . \ \z9/ os, N N "s/ . ' 30 Ex Sanitary Sewer Manhole RI= 127.00 ABANDONED GRAPHIC SCALE 0 15 30 60 120 ( DP P227 ) 1 inch - 30 1t. En Sanitary Sewer Manhole Rim: 134.97 IE12'0Ctr. 120.49 Ea Sanitary Sewer Manhole am: 125.29 ABANDONED REM90N5: L RFV PFR GRADING GEOTECN 3 -20-04 z W (3_ " *a3) ZCMOO O O 1 t O V). 0 0 03 i9 Z L3�N • W (2 ii v Z rnY c 0 W rn 0,`` 0 W 84 0 2 TUKWILA FIL O LLJ W •-• 10 N I wE = • kJ 5: ! 0z 0 N O d • DAM 12/18/03 SCALE: 1' - 30' OESIGN 801 JJ ORMN. BY: J,AI APP. 8N. 008 No s 7 E. Catch 8asi Rim: 145.01 IEB1v, 142.65 Ex. San Sewer Manhole Rim: 146.70 IE Ctr. 136.81 NEV 5' SIDEWALK NEV VERT. CURB /GUTTER EX. SAN SEVER EX. VATER•NAIN Somta, Sewer Mambo! Rim 166.32 12 CM: 158.00 S. 159 ST. A PORTION of the S.W. 1 /4, SECTION 23, . TOWNSHIP 23 N., RANGE 4 E., W.M. Ex Catch Basin Rim: 136.59 IE811': 132.14 0 X. FH•(•0 BE 1 RELOCATED 1 IBEMIND i)IEV VA2,K) '19E 3[6114 t 1 \ ' \ID' DRAIN NT 11r ST,1.. 1l\1 TO B —{— \02111 /\('TCD \ 1 �' �0�; J•\ 120T ILOT 3 I �1\ L o, E. Sanitary Sewer Manhole Rim: 128.58 IE12'OCtr: 11 8.76 'ay DRAINAGE DETENTION POND /VETPIIND 4480, V.L., 6012'SF 2 ELEV. 129.0 TOP VETPOND, 3094 SF 2 ELEV. 124.0 907 VETPOND, 825 Sr 2 ELEV, 118.0 VETPOND VOLUME, 11757 CF DETENTION VOLUME, 22765 CF NEV"FDTE! • MT DRANT RACT DRAIN 14.0' 4 3 ^. \ 1 - 071 5' SIDEVALK VERT. CURB /GUTTER 2I Cotch Baran Rim: 169.95 IE125s1 167.7 77 1--_ LOT - LOT Ei - ' I \ . 3 •\ \.\ o E j v\ • ■ ER IN ROW 1 \ _ TL AND "I' -- CRE Al ION - -• 6862 SF AR/�1l . BUF ■ 9a \FLOV 6551616702 F\ATCH BASIN • 1' \ \ \ \\ , =B, ,1'{7.0`2. DRYCO DRYCO Surveying, IIIe•orlloIi11 l :U6AIVEF, 253-?,26-0Z00 FkX : _.. :_ . 2000202 TAR FR\116 30 GRAPHIC SCALE 0 15 30 60 120 (DI FEET). 1 inch . 90 ft. Ex Sonitory Sewer Manhole Rim 127.00 ABANDONED —Ex Sanitary Sewer Monhole Rim: 134 97 IE12'OCtr: 120.49 Ex Sorytory Sewer Manhole Rim: 1 5.29 ABANDONED il REVISIONS Z EE CITY OF TUKWILA FILE No. 1` Q J O J0 Ct CL co 0 • cc CC- • • N Q U Z � 1 W 2a •x a, W 'n3N O ~ V cr NYy (4.1 g � 08TS: 10/05/01 SCALE: 1' - 30'' 05/06 8r:'... JJJ 8266. 8T: 4,.) APP. BT: ' CONCEPT. DRAINAGE, ROAD & UTILITY PLAN JOB No. SHEET OF 1 PLAT NO. CITY OF TUKWILA KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON DECLARATION KNOW ALL PEOPLE BY THESE PRESENTS thot we, the undersigned owners • in fee simple of the land herein described do hereby make a long subdivision thereof pursuant to RCW 58.17.060 and acknowledge that said subdivision shall not be further divided in any manner within a period of five years, from date of record, without the filing of a final plot. The undersigned further declare this plat to be the graphic representation of said long subdivision and the some is made with the free consent and in accordance with the desire of the owner(s). IN WITNESS WHEREOF we set our hands and seals. Name Nome Name Nome Name Nome STATE OF WASHINGTON County of King I certify that 1 know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his /her) free and voluntary oct for the uses and purposes mentioned in the. instrument. Signature of Notary Public Dated My appointment expires STATE OF WASHINGTON County of King I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his /her) free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Signature of Notary Public Dated My appointment expires STATE OF WASHINGTON• County of King I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his /her) free and voluntory act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Signature of Notory Public Dated My appointment expires TREASURER'S CERTIFICATES: There ore no delinquent special ossessments, and all special assessments on any cif the property that is dedicoted os streets, alleys or for other public use -ore paid it 1oII. Exomined and approved this dote by. this deportment. City of Tukwillo Finance Director Dote I certify that all property taxes are paid and that o deposit hos been mode in su1¢cient omount to pay the taxes for the following year; thot there are no delinquent spedc al • assessments certified to this office for collection; and thot all speciol -ossessments n any of the property herein dedicated os streets, alleys, or for other public use ore �poid in full. Examined and approved this dote by th' department. Kino County Treasurer's Office Dote KING COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT Examined and approved by this department this doy of 2000 Director COUNTY ASSESSOR'S APPROVAL Examined and approved by this department this _—_ doy of 2000 Assessor Deputy Assessor RECORDING NO. VOL. /PAGE SCALE: 1" = 50' 50 0 25 50 100 - 200 PORTION OF SW 1/4, SW 1/4, S 23, T 23, R 4 E air 20' f/) W IQ S /'iwt1 I. 599 SF DF Z WE LAND A TO E FILI ED 2011' Be 3239E I? 8.79' 7•-r- A,P,N: 115720 -0090 588 15'18'E 306.04' 75.0' LOT 2 5555 SF LOT 4 5534 SF LEGAL DESCRIPTI ❑N Tract 9, ER000V/,Z GARDD: TRACTS. .according to the Plat thereof recorded in Vclu,ne :0 cf Plats. Page 47, in )ring County, Washington; - EXCEPT that portion thereof within a ::act of land conveyed by deed :eccrded under Recording No. 5372503, described as 'follows: Beginning at • point co the North line cf said Tract 9, 3330 feet West • of the Northeast corner :hereof; =:17C0 East 330 feet to the Northeast cone: of said Tract; i-M10E South alcog the East line cf said Tact to the Southeast corner - :hereof: =ME along the Soth line cf said :':act. a distance cf 170 feet to point cn a curve whose radius bears South ES•59'24• West; »CE Northerly and westerly along the'are of said curve to the left with a radius cf 1E2.47 feet to a point 50 feet South of the North line of said Tract and 300 feet West cf•:he Last line; • '7— CE Scrt3:w'e5te :2y in a straight line to the prim: of beginning: EXCEPT the South 50 fee: thereof conveyed to the City .of Seattle for pipeline by deed recorded under Recording No. 1E41214; • ;:D EX.CEP? the South 3D fee: thereof .lying Easterly of a. line ca.' ..:r :.`.e :ly a: rich: angles :o the South line cf said Tract 9 from a point. cn said South lime which is 100 fee: westerly cf the 'W' line survey of Primary State Eghway 1o. 1 Sc_:, 17Fth Street to South 22Eth Street as conveyed to the State cf Washington by deed recorded. under Recording i/o. .__fE72v, 245.3' 59 ST 4 4'6 CLASS 34743% '' GILLED) TD 9F \IE \\11, •CLASS 3 VETLAND B (CT (TD BE sr / FILLED4 50.5' . LOT 5 5565 SF LOT 8s 5598 SF `u m I WETLAND � fm ILL SF ED kF) I v'S'll // • TRACT B SENS. AREA : 471085 SF • 26,X7.. 55' / . a ;D E:CEP7 that portion of the remainder lyre Southwesterly of a lime . craw-s parallel with and i0 feet Northeasterly from the 02 centerline of Primary State Highway i/o: 1 , South :7E :h Street to Eolith 12Eth Street. as conveyed to :.`.e S :a :e•cf . Washington by deed recorded :under Recording No. :f53_ :E. LOT 6 5675 SF / 97,4' LOT 7 / 1 6258 SF — �393.9' / / /! I a — "� / a- / _J 0 1 4320 SF + 1803 SF / 40/ v Bi \I 10' SAN. SEWER ESMT. VICINITY MAP 988 12'49"E 98.39 \6E6 12'49'E 36621 CITY OF SEATTLE 0A/ER MAIN ROW VERTICAL DATUM NAVD88 ESTABLISHED BY: WSDOT ID: HC17 -6 Located in the kity of Tukwila, west of the Southecenter Moll on the Klickitat Drive /I -5 undercrossing. The mark is a WSDOT brass disk set n the center of the sidewalk in the southeast comer of the idge. It is 129.0 feet west of the centerline of the SouthcenterrjParkwoy and 28.0 feet south of the centerline of Klickitat Drivg. TOTAL AREA: 117,210 SF 2.69 ACRES NO. OF LOTS: 8 CURRENT ZONING: LDR OPEN SPACE: 47785 SF (40.87.) Q`c% e�S �O o O� 1 inch = 50 ft. RECORDER'S CERTIFICATE filed for record this day of 2001..at M in book of at page of the request of. the City of Tukwillo. Deputy Director, King County Director, King County 'Assessor AIU DRYCO DRYCO Surveying, Inc. SURVEYOR'S CERITIFICATE: I, G. PHIL SARGENT, CEI A SURVEY MADE BY ME WITH THE REOUIREMEN' AlF12714 VALLEY AVENUE EAST SUMNER, WASHINGTON (253) 826 -0300 FAX (253) 826 -9703 IFY THAT THIS MAP CORRECTLY REPRESENTS R UNDER MY DIRECTION IN CONFORMANCE OF THE SURVEY RECORDING ACT. G. PHIL SARG NT PLS. 34145 a J 0 FIVE RIVERS DEVELOPMENT, INC. 27010 115 AVE SE KENT, WA. 98031 DWN. BY JJJ DATE 9/23/2003 JOB NO. CHKD. BY SCALE 1" = 50' SHEET 1 OF 1 JN PLAT- N O. TREASURER'S CERTIFICATES: . There are no delinquent special •'assessments, and all- special assessments on any of the property that is :dedicated as streets, alleys or for other public use are paid in full -Examined and •approved this HEALTH. DEPARTMENT Examined and approved by this department ' this day of 2000 RECORDING 'NO. .. VOL./PAGE • _ CITY OF TUKWILA KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON •date by'this deportment City of Tokwilla Finance Director Dote I certify that all property taxes are paid and that o deposit has been mode in sufficien amount to pay the taxes for' the following year; that there are no delinquent spedcial assessments "certified to this office .for collection; and that all special assessments on any of the property herein dedicated as streets, alleys, or for other public use are paid in full. Examined and approved this Director COUNTY ASSESSOR'S APPROVAL Examined and approved by this deportment this of 2000 50 SCALE: 0 25 50 100 200 1" = 50' DECLARATION 'PORTION: OF •. SW 1 "/4, .SW 1/4, S 23, T 23, R 4 E •KNOW ALL PEOPLE BY THESE PRESENTS that we, the undersigned owners in fee •simple' of the land herein described do hereby make a long subdivision thereof pursuant to "RCW 58.17.060 and acknowledge that said subdivision •sholl not be further divided in • any manner within o period of five years, from •date of • record, without the filing of o final plat: The undersigned further declore this plot to be the graphic representation of said long subdivision and the same is mode with the free consent and in accordance with the desire of the owner(s). IN WRNESS WHEREOF we set our hands-and seals. _day dote by.Th' department. King County Treasurer's Office Date i Assessor Deputy Assessor 'w 1 (i! E LEGAL DESCRIPTION ' A . P , N : 115 7 2 0 — 0 0 90 - 3 nets Snoosvuz< G.R D. cTS. .ceocding to t're., ?lat tLezeofreccrded • ia^volnme " of:Plats., Pa9e,42, a Rta9 Comity cathlagtoa; ;• " SE 3.239• aa0s. ikEPT that potion therecf,Withto a t act of land: c olieyea` ' by .deed f ecgiaea cnaer necerdip9J.o S3 2503 described as fallow"; I I I - "— - - - _ \ I begimPiag •.,.pos :1 t ;c the $crt c o .said Tract 9 330, feet.Welt of ,itbe Northeas corner "thereof : e - ?�10E- 'East °30 .. eet e. .sst Ro_- [:east te�ez of said Tzaet:- 't2iCE $outb along tae Tat t ae: cf sal d•Tract to the Southeast corner . W - A IS 20' W < L a 20' S��� (-P-' 57A' i thereof i Tref.atc.i9 the South line of" said act. a dsstiace of 1- 7 D.: feet to a I \ post:oa a carve vhcse ras~ -s heals So•i:h'E9 59 >i "•i.est• EM.G£-NCrthbzly'aad ,Kesteily -a'_oag. ye•are of said curne•to the left with l''- adius.of 3'E2.47 feet ta•• point 50 f met.SO14th of the. North line \ cf said 2rsct ?dad 300 feet West of the Last 1 e '. .... -, • �7CE Ncrthvestezly is 'a straight lac to the po -t of beginning: • ' - PT ibe Soi:ib 30 eet. St eCf core �e3•.to the C'ty of Seattle Cr f ie,= •04 r peliae by deed eccrdca adez nett d.9 Aa 641171 - Nome Nome Nome Nome Nome Nome STATE OF WASHINGTON County of King I certify that I know or hove satisfactory vidence y y that S. 159 I S .. fa sE LOT 1 A. 5623 SF lan c on a �S: o Q az.o'- 554 LOT 2 5555 SF ' o 1 a ss.a __ 551Y . 5555 Sr c • 2 I ssA' 55,0' - .55058 SF iql 011 rr, 550 744' `�` AND E =7^ ae so- th 30 feet ._e.ee ly ?g Easterly of a line n.a.•a. LOT 5 ' .. " Nertheri at 5* anc:es o the ee h ne cf sa a,Zract 9 iiom a ?cis: ea sat! So th line �bieh - -s 2D0 fee: •es erlp ci ibe � 1aaesvz+ev of 5284 SF m„ - c =ve ea o ';e : to c• bass netca by eeeoeeecc-ced under Recc d-i 9 No. - 50' 4,.fr• ;66'710, , .. ,. .. .. :.. r .2.J ZXCEP thattpc -t_ca c .he _eza .e_ ly rig So- twesterly of •a.: ins • ' ; rra�� aral*el ._ti, dad 20 eet u- eaa erly f e m «aterlt�e e . ?- aazy' State e 3 9FC. Sa, :: a E a t eet to.$O' to 1 6th Street; .` as er e1 =8 to he a-e;c as.`: ca Eeea eccrced.trier Aecot a_. 'ACT' 1 signed this instrument and acknowledged, it to be (his /her) free and voluntary act for. the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. . . . Signature of Notary Public 2453 -- 24 I �" DRAIN F , ' �'" " • Dated • 20' • 20' - e4a -� _ _ % �� v My appointment expires 1 ti f 7 .�. Ct,�,�, VET 3' B TRAC76�'' `�j1 a 46.0' of MI t11 q 4j.5 �. Sr EA� N. < S S IJ i Yi1r �'} v� 7 Ttµ� �e�q, \11' STATE OF WASHINGTON • County of King I certify that I know or hove satisfactory evidence that 9.. mmm RD ratF7s ;e a) `- 550 _ 20A' s 19R s SR t CLASS 9 6 WETLAND 9 "" : 56.36 26:7 ` 7 - S�fAf2 I .. / -9�` .I WETLAND ' �� ae70 SF I . / W 7 l � � I i:s. % aAr� 3. r� , (pg��-` �sj i'S- . . � �� I, Z]..` Qifd a o ° 0 a • 1 .� • \ a,Q� ,r - signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be • (his/her) ee and o untary act fora the uses •and free voluntary purposes mentioned in the instrument. Signature of Notary Public Doted ST f� m LOT 10 5595 SF __57 • j a OT 9 a 27.5 SF -_� y 55.0' 2.o' o QsTatrmf9 ' • 1 . j •; g ..-;� �� :',c „7 3 7F LOT 6 i 5522 SF i • 4320 SF Q �i ,_.� I VICINITY MAP ,, / % ji / vCrtwmw� y . I I 10' SAN. SEWER ESMT: //'r. �•. o LOT 8 8736.8 SF ,y // MEATIER i / i 4)71-7-1-..... 134.0' „„ �► /i - %0, 1 50' 1 S � / / 1 / OAP' . BM 12'49'E 98:39' pE $ BYO My .appointment expires ' "- 12'49•E 36621' - `- 1328 SF OF • CITY "Dr SEATTLE • VATER SET 0 5 2003 STATE OF• WASHINGTON • County of King 1 certify that I know or hove satisfactory evidence that ' 1 MAIN ROV WETLAND A ° V TI3 -BF - PER/MTCENTER i w Q a \ � 0 FILLED . VERTICAL DATUM" NAVD88 • 1 ESTABLISHED . BY: WSDOT TOTAL AREA: 117,210 SF ID: HC17 -6 2.69 ACRES e - N❑: OF LOTS: 10 •Located in the City, of ,'TOkwila, "west of the Southecenter Mali CURRENT Z❑NING: "LDR on the Klickitat • Drive /1 -5 undercrossing. The mark' is a -WSDOT OPEN SPACE: 31349 SF 126.7%) brass disk set In the center of the sidewalk in the southeast • corner of the bride. It is 129.0 feet , west of the • centerline of � the Southcenter •Parkwa and 28.0 feet south of the centerline ( inch tom) - Y 1 inch = of Kliakitdt Drive. I -.. 60 ft. signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be • "(his /her) free and voluntary act for the uses and .purposes •mentioned in the instrument: Signature of • Notary Public Dated My appointment expires RECORDER'S CERTIFICATE . filed for record this • cloy of 2001..at" M in book of of page of the request: of the' City .of "Tukwiva, _ Deputy Diltctor,. IGng County • Director, King County Assessor" SURVEYOR'S. CERTIFICATE: • I, G: PHIL SARGENT., .CERTIFY I;THAT THIS MAP CORRECTLY REPRESENTS , D R Y • O " A SURVEY' MADE BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION IN CONFORMANCE . WITH • THE : REQUIREMENTS OF THE SURVEY RECORDING ACT. DRYCO • Surveying," Inc. ••w 4 a WAs,t- ,� L`3� 0 4t► = g FIVE RIVERS DEVELOPMENT, INC. 2%01..0 115 AVE SE ..KENT, • WA: 98031 ® 12714 VALLEY AVENUE EAST SUMNER, . WASHINGTON ` •d- 74 o� ��∎ft LA .. 9�tt DWN BY JJJ DATE 10/1/2001 JOB NO. CHKD BY SCALE 1 . = 50 - • SHEET OF 1 (253) '826 -0300 FAX (254.-826 9703 c '.. G ';PHIS. SARGENT P.L S. 34145.:. CITY OF TUKWILA KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON DECLARATION KNOW ALL PEOPLE BY THESE PRESENTS that we, the undersigned owners in fee simple of the land herein described do hereby moke o long subdivision thereof pursuant to RCW 58.17.060 and acknowledge that said subdivision shall not be further divided in any manner within a period of five years, from date of record, without the filing of a final plat. The undersigned further declare this plat to be the graphic representation of said long subdivision and the some is made with the free consent and in accordance with the desire of the owner(s). IN WITNESS WHEREOF we set our hands and seols. Nome Name Name Nome Nome ' Nome STATE OF WASHINGTON County of King I certify that I know or have sotisfactory that evidence signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his /her) free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Signature -of Notary Public Doted My appointment expires the property that is dedicated as streets, alleys or for. other public use ore paid in full:, Examined and opproved this date by this deportment. City of Tukwilla Finonce Director Date I certify that all property taxes are paid and that o deposit has been mode in sufficient amount to pay the taxes for the following year that there are no delinquent spedciol ossessments certified to this office for collection; and that all special assessments on any of the - property herein dedicated as streets, alleys, or for other public use are paid, in full. Examined and approved this date by this., deportment. King County Treasurer's Office Date this _ day bgz 2000 Y RFD Director COUNTY ASSESSOR'S APPROVAL Examined and approved by this department this _ day of .2000. Assessor Deputy Assessor SCALE: 1- = 50' 50 0 25 50 100 200 PORTION OF SW 1/4, SW 1/4, S 23, T 23, R 4 E STATE OF WASHINGTON County of King I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his /her) free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Signature of Notary Public 'Dated My appointment expires STATE OF WASHINGTON County of King 1 certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his /her) free and voluntory act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Signature of Notary Public Dated My appointment expires S. 159 ST 20' fn W Q L M U7 ' 20' A,P,N: 115720 -0090 see 31?39'E tee: S88615'181 306.04' 60.01 97.6' LOT 1 6371 SF LOT 2 6000 SF. LEGAL DESCRIPTI ❑N Tract 9, BROOXVALE GARDEN TRACTS, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Volume 10 of Plats, Page 47, in King County, Washington; ' EXCEPT that portion thereof within a tract of land conveyed by.deed ® recorded under Recording No. 5372503, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North line of said Tract 9, 330 feet West of'the'Northeast corner thereof; • THENCE East 330 feet-to the Northeast corner of said Tract; THENCE South along the East line cf said Tract to the Southeast corner thereof; THENCE along the South line of said Tract, a distance of 170 feet to a point on a curve whose radius.. bears South 89 °59'24" West; THENCE Northerly and-Westerly along the arc of said curve' to the left with' a radius of 382.47 feet to a point SO feet South' of the North line of said Tract and 300 feet West of the East .line; THENCE Northwesterly in a straight line to the point of beginning; EXCEPT the Soutb.30 feet thereof conveyed to the City of Seattle•for pipeline by deed recorded under Recording No. 3641174.; AND EXCEPT the South 30 feet thereof lying Easterly of a line drain Northerly at right angles•to the South line of said Tract 9 from a point on said South line which is 200 feet Westerly of the "W" line survey of Primary State Highway No. 1 South 176th Street to South 126th Street- as conveyed .to the State of Washington by deed recorded under Recording. No. 5568710; 40.0' 60.0' 20' 245.3' LOT 6 AND EXCEPT that portion of the remainder lying southwesterly of a line drawn parallel with and 20 feet Northeasterly from the D2 centerline of Primary State Highway No. 1, South 178th Street to South 126th Street, as ,conveyed to the State of Washington by deed recorded under.Recording No. 5653378. 5213 SF 91.0' 60.0' 20' LOT 12 9591 SF LOT 11 9591 SF TRACT A DRAINAGE 16948 SF 9555 SF 10' SAN. SEWER ESMT. VICINITY MAP 65.0' 60.0' S88' 12'49'E 36621' ' CITY OF SEATTLE WATER MAIN R0V 95,81' / OCT 2 2 200` C 'vLLa rr E' 117 qpal f ` \Tye. .653, eiag6.6 r VERTICAL DATUM NAVD88 ESTABLISHED BY: WSDOT ID: HC17 -6 Located in the City of Tukwila, west of the Southecenter Mall on the Klickitat Drrve /I -5 undercrossing. The mark is a WSDOT brass disk set in the center of the sidewalk in the southeast corner of the bridge. It is 129.0 feet west of the centerline of the Southcenter Parkway and 28.0 feet south of the centerline of Klickitat Drive. RECORDER'S CERTIFICATE filed for record this day of 2001 o M in book of at page at the request of the City of Tukwillo. Deputy Director. King Countv. Director. Iona Countv Assessor � DRYCO DRYCO Surveying, Inc. APF12714 VALLEY AVENUE EAST SUMNER, WASHINGTON (253) 826 -0300 FAX (253) 826 -9703 SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE: • I, G. PHIL SARGENT, CERTIFY; THAT THIS MAP CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A SURVEY MADE BY ME OR ONDER MY DIRECTION IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SURVEY RECORDING ACT. G. PHIL SARGENT I •P.LS. 34145 .I OT -P,L, I A'. f 11,2-10 SF 2.(07 Ac. No . O Lots !2. _uRR_l.JT .Zprs+t<; LDP; 1 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 50 ft. w a. J 0 FIVE RIVERS DEVELOPMENT, INC. 27010 115 AVE SE KENT, WA. 98031 DWN. BY DATE JJJ 10/1/2001 CHKD. BY SCALE 1" = 50' JOB NO. SHEET 1 nr A PORTION of the S.W. 1/4, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 23 N., RANGE 4 E., W.M. Ex Catch Basin Rim: 136.59 1E8 W 132.14 REMSIDNS Ex Cotch Bosi L >t Rim: 145.01 IEB'W: 142.65 Ex. San Sewer Manhole Rim: 146.70 IE Ctr. 136.81 NEV 5' SIDEWALK NEV VERT. CURB /GUTTER l I 1 \ \la oIMINA td TD E 5I MATED* \ • \ 1` `94-1\ \'�,\ I -----_,------: ..,•\:: \:/.72? I i LOT \1\\ '' �T \2\\ ., .LOT 3 1111 II it 7 i°kh1 �g ` \' \ \ \. \\ \ `\ `g2/ \ n \ NY FIR I ® �I II�� a n 14-0' Y � 1 1. IIRII RA RAM- NEV S$NN 1 9; R !� -LO 12 r \ br sr,_ - 9`— - e9 EX. SAN SEVER EX. WATER NAIN Sanitory Sewer Manho Rim: 166.32 IE Ctr. 158.00 12' ST G0IJTla� VICINITY MAP Ex Sanitary Sewer Manhole Rim: 12858 IE12'OCtr. 118.76 S. 159 ST. 9g Catch Basin Rim: 169.95 04I 1E12-W: 167.7 5' SIDEWALK VERT. CURB /GUTTER r4 \\‘. \ \J \k\\\ c..."-- . ) P \ \l, / / ' \ \\\\\ 1� DRAINAGE DETENTION POND/WEIRDO `� \ 1 � TOP,, 67118 ST ! ELEV. 126.0 / / { \\`� 1 g VETPOND VOLIME, 0757 CE. • l \ DETENTION VOLUME. 22765 CF / / w m1 \ 1 II \' \ \11 �\ 5\� 1 \\ �\ Joo i��\ 1'` I 'l I )1 ►'h r„ DRYCO Ex Storm Manhole Rim: 98.79 IE24'. 86.04 36621\ ATCH BASIN \ \ \ ♦ \g., • \ \ 0 \ tai 2g / `Ag n J Ex Storm Manhole Rim: 98.91 IE12.5: 92.51 1E18-S: 85.66 IE24'N: 85.71 1E24-NE Out: 85.11 2;'1•70.Q■et DRYCO Ay Surveying, Incorporated 12714 VALLEY AVENUE EAST' SUMNER, WA 98390 253- 826 -0300 FAX 253- 826 -9703 2000 20 2 DUE PRIMED 1/23/2031 jA 'N As gg' Ex Sanitary Sewer Manhole Porn: 127.00 ABANDONED 30 GRAPHIC SCALE 15 30 60 120 ( OlFEeT) 1 inch a 30 1t. Ex Sanitary Sewer Manhole Rim. 134 97 IE12'OCtr. 120.49 Ex Sanitary wer Manhole Rim 125.29 ABANDONED • 0CT 222001 co(;'Cfwwi'i•Y DEVELOPITEHT 8 DATE 10/05/01 SCALE: 1' •• 30' DESIGN BY: JJJ 5111W4. BY: JJJ JOB No. 19 22 Rim: 136.59 IEEW: 132.14 5881239E 21353M' Catch Basin Rim: 145.01 IE8•w: 142.65 R39'S19112E6320• • Sanitary Sewer Monho Rim: 146.70 IE CU: 138.81 998'519 30664' Sanitary Sewer Manhole Rim: 128.58 IE12.0Ctr: 118.76 • 149 ?,SS Man Basin Rim: 169.95 ills 1E12 -W: 167.7. Storm Manhole Rim: 98.79 IE24•: 86.04 Stone Manhole Rim: 98.91 IE12•S: 92.51 IElrs: 85.66 IE24•N: 85.71 IE24•NE OA: 85.11 0 GRAPHIC SCALE , 30 60 1 ".30' 90 VERTICAL DATUM . NAVDB8 ESTABLISHED 8Y: WSDOT ID: HC17 -6 Located in the City of Tukwila. west of the Southecenter Mot on the KFicldtat 0rive/1 -5 onderarosaino. The mark is a *SCOT Mass disk set In the center of the sidewalk In the southeast comer of the bridge. It is 129.0 bet west of the centerline of the Southcenter Parkway and 28.0 feet south of the centerline of KBckitot DrM. • \� \\� ' , \\ \ \\\\\ \2 \ \\ \ \y A9 9/ � \ \ DRYCO Surveying, Incorporated 12714 VALLEY AVENUE EAST SUMNER, WA 98390 253 -826 -0300 FAX 253- 826 -9703 9. N3312•41711 ME8 SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE: THIS MAP CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A SURVEY MADE BY. 141 OR UNDER MY DIRECTION IN CONFORMANCE 0RH THE . REOUIREMENTS OF THE SURVEY RECORDING ACT. 940. •� -23�of G. PHIL SARGE PLS. 34145 Sanitary Sewer Manhole Rim: 134.97 IE12.00tr. 120.49 Sanitary Sewer Ma Rim: 127.00 ABANDONED REV. 5YM DATE Project Name Five Sanitary Sewer Manhole Rim: 125.29 ABANDONED Ri vers. Project Location SW /4 SW /4, S 23, T 23 N, R 4 E City of Tukwila, King County, Washington OCT 222001 G6'rLOP EN ORAWN L Sargent SCALE: r - 30 DOE AMER December, 2000 APPROVED: 811E PRMER 1/23/20)1 J08 Na: 2000202