The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSEPA E97-0024 - FAMILY FUN CENTER - AMUSEMENT PARK, HOTEL AND RESTAURANT (NIELSON FARM SITE)FAMILY FUN CENTER NEW AMUSEMENT PARK, HOTEL & RESTAURANT ON NIELSON FARM SITE 15034 GRADY WAY S. (7300 FUN CENTER WAY) E97-0024 Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I' G(1,,,:z6tz) HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing Determinatio of Non -Significance Project Name: (i(i1 Notice of Public Meeting Project Number: E 7--- 10 0 Mitigated ated Determination of Non-) Significance. Mailer's Signature: 66/447/1`0 Board of Adjustment. Agenda Pkt Person requesting mailing: 1i crnte Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit __FAX __Mail: To Seattle Times Classifieds Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this year 20`03 day of(in the P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS/AFFIDAVIT-MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM Project Name: (i(i1 Project Number: E 7--- 10 0 Mailer's Signature: 66/447/1`0 ii2 Person requesting mailing: 1i crnte P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS/AFFIDAVIT-MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM t • MllcwQl(.i Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Co ; m niiy Development Steve Lancaster, Director CITY OF TUKWILA DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) ADDENDUM Description of original proposal: Develop an approximately 14 -acre site by demolishing existing structures and re -grading the site to build a 9,000 square foot restaurant, a 153 room 7 -story hotel, and a 36,300 square foot restaurant/arcade building with 7 acres of outdoor attractions including miniature golf, bumper boats, batting cages and a go cart track. To accommodate required flood storage capacity a combination of off channel pond and riverbank cutback with restoration and habitat enhancement was built adjacent to the Green River. A city trail will be constructed along the perimeter of the site and will connect to a new pedestrian bridge crossing the river. An addendum was adopted on Dec 28, 2000, when the project was revised from a153 room hotel to a 137 -room hotel and the site layout was slightly changed. Description of this Addendum: The restaurant building (9,000 square feet) has been changed to a 9,700 square feet building with a mix of restaurant, retail and office uses. Proponent: H2 Office LLC. Location of Proposal: Northeast corner of the intersection of Interurban Avenue South and Grady Way in the City of Tukwila. Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File Number: E97-0024 The City has determined that the addendum does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(C). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. The original DNS was issued April 20, 1998. This addendum is adopted on August 22, 2003. Steve Lancaster, SEPA Official for the City of Tukwila, Washington. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila WA 98188. (206)-431-3670 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 0 Tukwila, Washington 98188 0 Phone: 206-431-3670 0 Fax: 206-431-3665 • • City of Tukwila Department of Public Works To: Minnie Dhaliwal From: Cyndy Knighton CC: Mike Cusick, Jill Mosqueda Date: July 30, 2003 Re: Family Fun Center/Huish Office/Retail/ Restaurant Mitigation DP98-0002 Attached you will find a table documenting the change in traffic impact mitigation payment necessary for the revised Family Fun Center Parcel 1 Development. This modification to what was originally approved by the City in 1998, and then revised and subsequently approved in 2000, represents the current mitigation fees due for the current proposed development. I have used the breakdown of the 10,000 sf mixed development recommended by the traffic engineer in his letter to Mr. Dick Hendry dated March 3, 2003 — 4,000 sf High Turnover Sit Down Restaurant and 6,000 sf Specialty Retail. The fees were reduced proportionally from the original fees calculated in Table 4 of the January 1998 Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Entranco Engineers. Depending on what finally is developed, the impact mitigation fee will be adjusted accordingly within this dollar amount. h:\pubworks\cyndy\development review\tia memos by permit #\dp98-0002 family fun center mitigation revision.doc Family Fun Center/Huish Office Retail/Restaurant Building Revised Mitigation Payment Amount Location Cost Per Trip Number of PM Peak Hour Trips Mitigation Payment Original Restaurant New Mixed Use (Retail Option) New Mixed Use (Office Option) Revised Revised Original Amount - Amount - Amount Retail Office S 180th St/West Valley Highway $ 475 13 7 6 $ 6,175 $ 3,284 $ 2,940 Andover Park E/Baker Blvd $ 377 22 12 10 $ 8,294 $ 4,410 $ 3,950 Strander Blvd/Southcenter Pkwy $ 140 5 3 2 $ 700 $ 372 $ 333 Strander Blvd/Andover Park W $ 317 6 3 3 $ 1,902 $ 1,011 $ 906 Strander Blvd/Andover Park E $ 135 27 14 13 $ 3,645 $ 1,938 $ 1,736 Strander Blvd/West Valley Highway $ 283 25 13 12 $ 7,075 $ 3,762 $ 3,369 Interurban Bridge $ 1,122 28 15 13 $ 31,416 $ 16,705 $ 14,960 Total 126 67 60 $ 59,207 $ 31,483 $ 28,194 • • To: From: INFORMATION MEMO Minnie Dhaliwal Brenda Holt Cyndy Knight�o Mike Cusick `"//n/ Jill Mosque erg Date: July 10, 2003 Subject: Mitigation Huish Office/Retail/Restaurant Reference: DP98-0002, PRE00-045, PRE03-004, PRE03-010, E97-0024 Per memo from Gary Barnett to Kelcie Peterson, dated December 4, 1998 mitigation fees for all three parcels included sewer and traffic. The mitigation fees were based on the parcels having a fun center, a hotel, and a restaurant. 1. Sewer mitigation was calculated as a prorated share of improvements to the Fort Dent lift station. Total for all three parcels was $46,194. This amount was paid 01.19.99 as part of permit MI98-0163. No additional sewer mitigation will be charged. 2. Traffic Mitigation — Fees were based on Entranco traffic analysis dated January, 1998. Fees of $96,353 were paid for the fun center and hotel under permit D98- 0382. Since there was no permit application for the restaurant, this fee of $59,207 was not paid. As part of the 2003 addenda to E97-0024, the 1998 traffic study must be amended or a new study performed. New mitigation fees will be determined based on the new study. I have enclosed The December, 1998 memo and copies of receipts of payment. I have put the above information as a comment under E97-0024 in Permit Plus. • City of l ukwila tipScreening Checklist City of Tukwila Endangered Species Act Screening Checklist NCEIVEO CITY OF TUKWILA JUL 092003 PERMIT CENTER Date: Applicant Name: Street Address: City, State, Zip: Telephone: 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 will evaluate your responses to determine if "take" is indicated. January 25, 2001 ii 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 answer. 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 ® Continue 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 high 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 YES - 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 18-11). 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 response. NO Continue to Question 6-0 YES - Continue to Question 6-0 Part A (continued) Llty of '1 uIcwzla • Screening Lhecklzst 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. NO — 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. - 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 and/or 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 City of 1 ukuwlla Screening Checklist appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2-0 (Page 2) Continue to Question 1-4 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 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 2-0 (Page 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 (Page 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 (Page 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. • City of 1 ukunlaScreening Checklist NO - Continue to Question 3-0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 3-0 (Page 2) Part D: Please review each question below for projects that include work below the ordinary 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 or 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, includingboth 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 City of 1 ukmtlngr Screening Checklist 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 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 YES - 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, particularly waterfowl. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue 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. NO - Continue to Question 4-0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 4-0 (Page 2) • • July 8, 2003 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188-2599 Attn: Minnie Dhaliwal cry%114° ItA 91.61 `,� GE�Ea PEAS REOEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA j U < 0 g 2003 PERMIT CENTER Subject: SEPA Addendum, Project File Number E97-0024 Dear Minnie: By this letter we are submitting an addendum to our original approved SEPA permit. The original permit was requested for a Family Fun Center, a 163 room hotel and a 9000 sq. ft. restaurant. After the Fun Center was completed, the permit was revised to build a 138 unit hotel and a 10,000 sq. ft. foot print, three story office building. (30,000 sq. ft. total). We are requesting this addendum to provide for a 9700 sq. ft. multi-purpose building, (food service, office, retail). A recent revised traffic study by Entranco, a copy of which is attached) reflects a slight reduction in traffic from the original approval. In as much as this proposed use of the property is very similar to that which has already been approved, we request approval of this addendum. Attached is a summary report related to the SEPA application. Yours truly, C,6(41,7 Dick Hendry Attachments (2) • • RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JUL 092003 SEPA Addendum, July 8, 2003 PERMIT CENTER SEPA PERMIT APPLICATION 7100 FUN CENTER WAY A. Background: Name of Proposed Project: Mixed use Retail/Office/Food Service 1. Name of Applicant: 112 Office LLC. 2. Date Checklist prepared: 6-10-2003 3. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila 4. Proposed Timing and Schedule: Finishsite grade work August 2003 start construction October, 2003, finish project in February, 2004. 5. Do you have plans for any future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? With the completion of this complex, the development of the 14 acres will be complete with the exception of periodic updates to the attractions at the Family Fun Center 6. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Extensive environmental work has been completed, and reports prepared with regards to this parcel plus, the two adjacent parcels of property, the Comfort Suites Hotel and the Family Fun Center. (a.) A.G.I. Environmental Audit 04/26/89 (b.) GeoTech Consultants Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (E.S.A.) 06/17/94 and 07/07/94 addendum. (c.) GeoTech Consultants Phase II (E.S.A.) 01/24/97 (d.) GeoTech Report by Geo -Engineers dated 6/30/97 (e.) Traffic Study by Entranco Engineers dated 6/30/97 (f.) Revised Traffic Study by Entranco Engineers dated 11/09/2000 (g.) Associated Earth Science Geotech report dated 11/15/2000 (h) GeoTech Report by Geo -Engineers dated 11-15-2002. (i.) Revised Traffic Study by Entranco Engineers dated 3/03/03 7. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? • • There is a shoreline permit application for the Interurban Ave. Bridge widening and bike trail extension over the Green River adjacent to the property. 8. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. This site was approved for a restaurant Under the original SEPA and Shoreline permit. Common infrastructure and shoreline enhancements have already been built according to the original plans and approvals. Due to the change of use and design, reapplication for SEPA Determination, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Grading Permit, Building Permit and Board of Architectural Review Permit will be required. 9. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. This will be a building of approximately 9,700 sq. ft. on 2.56 -acres. It will be a one-story building to be used for retail, office and food service with adequate parking, according to code, and landscaping. 10. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including street address, if any, the tax lot number, and section, township and range. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. 7100 Fun Center Way, Tukwila, WA. 98188. Adjacent to the Comfort Suites Hotel and the Family Fun Center at Interurban and Grady. Way 11. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? No. The property abuts the Green River along the North boundary. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (bold one). Flat, rolling, hilly steep slopes, Mountainous, other. Flat. b. What is the steepest slope on the site, (approximate percent of the slope). The site is flat except for that portion of the parcel that abuts the Green River where the slope at places is quite steep. • • 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. Silty sand and silty gravel fill overlaying alluvial sand and silt with some organics d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate. vicinity? There is no surface indication or history of unstable soils. e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The property is basically flat. There will be some grading to spread excavation for the building footings and parking lot drainage. There will be a small amount of base brought on site for the pad for the building. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction or use? No. g. About what percentage of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt, or building)? About 70% h. Proposed measures to reduce erosion or other impacts on the earth. if any. The site is basically flat. We will provide silt fence and straw bales to control runoff into the river. 2. Air: a. What types of emissions would result from the proposal (for example, dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Only minimal emissions from grading equipment and trucks making deliveries during construction and normal auto emissions from autos once the facilities are open. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odors that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. The Renton City Sewage Treatment Plant does emit odors, which from time to time, depending on wind conditions, are quite offensive. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. None 3. Water a. Surface 1. Is there any surface body of water on or in the immediate vicinity of the site, (including year-round and seasonal streams, salt water, lakes, ponds, or wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The Green River flows along the North border of the property 2. Will the project require work over, in or adjacent to, (within 200 feet) of the described waters? If yes, please describe and a attach available plans. The parking lot and a portion of the building will come within 200 feet of the river. 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 the fill materials. None 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. None 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so note location on the site plan. Yes. Noted 6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste? materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and the anticipated volume of discharge. None b. GROUND 1. Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? If so, describe the type of waste and the anticipated volume of discharge. None 2. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage, industrial, containing the following chemicals; agricultural etc.) Describe the general size of the system, number of such systems, the number of houses to be • • served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the the system('s) are expected to serve. None c. WATER RUNOFF (INCLUDING STORM WATER) 1. Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and the method of collection and disposal, in any (including quantities if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow in into other waters? If so, describe. There will be storm water runoff that will discharge into an existing bio -filtration pond with oil/water separator, that has been designed and engineered to satisfy the needs of the total project. The water will then flow into the Green River. 2.. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground and runoff water impacts if any. Through the bio -filtration pond. 4. PLANTS: a. List types of vegetation found on the site. The site at the present time is cleared except for hydro -seed which was spread for erosion control. On the river bank north of the bike trail there are some pine and deciduous trees that are native to the area. There are also some wet soil plants. b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? None c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None d. Proposed landscaping, use of any native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any. Landscaping will generally be the same as that used at the Family Fun Center and the Comfort Suites Hotel. 5. ANIMALS: a. Circle or bold any birds or animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: Hawk; heron, eagle, songbirds, other: Geese Mammals: Deer, elk, bear, beaver, other. Rabbits. • • Fish: Bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other. b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Chinook salmon have been listed as a threatened species. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Chinook Salmon travel through the Green River on their way to and from the Puget Sound. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Extensive mitigation work was done along the Green River in relation to the three parcels of property, the Family Fun Center, Hotel and this complex when the Fun Center was built. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity and natural gas will be used for light and heat. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, describe. No c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any. Requirements of Washington State energy code will be met, including energy efficient lighting for building and site, insulation measures, and and energy efficient HVAC. 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. No 1. Describe special emergency services that might be required. Fire/First Aid/Police in emergency cases. • • 2. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any. None Noise What types of noise exist in the area, which may affect your project (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Freeway traffic on SR 405 and car and truck traffic on Grady Way and Interurban Ave. 2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term basis (for example: traffic construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Construction will generate minimal noise and traffic in and out of the site. 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any. None LAND AND SHORELINE USE: a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? This site is vacant. -It had been planned for a restaurant to compliment the Hotel and the Fun Center. To the East is the Family Fun Center and Hotel, to the North is the Green River and an office park, to the West is Interurban Ave. and to the south is SR 405. b. No question. c. Describe any structures on the site. None d. Will any structures be demolished? No e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? C/L-I f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of this site? Commercial/Light Industrial. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Urban Shoreline. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No. • • i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 25. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any. None 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses, if any. The site is zoned commercial, which applies to this project. To the North, across the Green River is the Fort Dent Way office complex. Along Interurban Ave./ West Valley Highway are retail, office and eating establishments. To the Southwest is the South Center Mall. Thus the project is compatible with adjacent land uses. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided? None b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low income housing. None 10. AESTHETICS: a. What is the tallest height of any of the proposed structure(s), not including antennas? What is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The tallest height would be approximately 25 feet. The exterior will be stucco or E.I.F. S. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any. There will be ample landscaping around the building, in the parking lot and along the river walkway/bike path with subtle lighting around the complex. The project will be reviewed for compliance with Tukwila design standards. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE: a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Parking lot and building lighting • • will be controlled by downward, shielded lights to contain light on the site. Lighting will occur at night. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts. Downward focus and cut-off shields at the perimeter will contain the direct Tight on site. 12. RECREATION: a. What designated and informal recreation opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Family Fun Center to the East, Fort Dent Park and the bike path along the Green River to the North. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, Including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any. None 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. No. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence or historic archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance to be on or next to the site. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any. None 14. TRANSPORTATION: a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plan if any. The site is served by Grady Way and Interurban Ave. • • with site access from Fun Center Way. The main freeway adjacent to the property is SR 405. See site plan. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes. The closest stop is approximately 600 feet to the North on Interurban Ave. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have. How many would the project eliminate? No spaces will be eliminated. The project will have approximately 85 spaces. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe, indicate whether public or private. No 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 will occur. See attached traffic study by traffic engineer. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if . any. None 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 )? No additional services should be required. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public service, if any. None, except preventive design in fire protection, landscape and building design that is not conducive to criminal activity and hiding places. 16. UTILITIES: a. Bold utilities currently available at the site: Electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity, which might be needed. • • Electricity and natural gas by Puget Sound Energy, water, refuse, and sanitary sewer services from the City of Tukwila, telephone service by Qwest Communications. 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 Date submitted: 03/04/03 06:58 FAX • '6110 ENTRANCO Transportation • Construction Management Site CIM Surveying Environmental Resources • Water Resources March 3, 2003 Mr. Dick Hendry Family Fun Center 7300 Fun Center Way Tukwila, WA 98188 ENTRANCO ENG. - RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWIIA JUL 092003 PERMIT CENTER Re: Family Fun Center — Parcel 1 Traffic Analyses Final Land Use for Parcel 1 Entranco Project No. 1.10.00152-60 Dear Dicic t 002/010 Per your request, we have calculated the new trip generation for the final uses planned for Parcel 1 in the Family Fun Center development in Tukwila, Washington. This is our third calculation of trip generation rates, as the preferred use(s) have evolved over time. We originally analyzed the trip generation anticipated for this Parcel in our Technical Memorandum of July 6, 1998. A synopsis of the data from our July 1998 memo titled "Initial. Trip Generation Summary" is attached. We then reanalyzed the trip generation rates for revised land uses in our Technical Memorandum of November 9, 2000. A synopsis of the data from our November 2000 memo titled "Trip Generation Summary —Revised" is attached. Our current reanalysis, described in this letter, is based on the final uses you defined in your letter of February 14, 2003 (copy attached). It is our understanding that the 10,000 square -feet of mixed- use described in your letter Lugura the.30,000 square foot general office element we analyzed in our November 2000 memo. It is also our understanding that the new mixed-use element includes the following potential uses: • 4,000 Square -foot Restaurant [Institute of Transportation Engineers (TIE) Land Use (LU) Code 832, "High Turnover (Sit Down) Restaurant"] • 0 - 6,000 Square -feet of Retail [ITE LU Code 814, "Specialty Retail") • 0 - 6,000 Square -feet of General Office [ITE LU Code 710, "General Office Building"] To analyze the above uses, we assumed two options. Option one was the restaurant with 6,000 Square -feet of Specialty Retail, and option two was the restaurant with 6000 Square -feet of General Office. The idea was that one of these options would yield the worst case for trip generation, even though the plan would be to have a mix of retail and office. A synopsis of the data for Option One titled "Trip Generation Summary —Retail Option" and for Option Two titled "Trip Generation Summary —General Office Option," are attached. A comparison of the trip generation calculated for Parcel 1 over time is shown in the attached Table 1. This table shows that, with the exception of the AM peak hour, the latest trip generation calculated for Parcel 1 for both the Retail Option and the General Office Option are less than the initial trip generation calculated and analyzed for level of service impacts in July 1998. The table also shows that the trip generation during the AM peak hour for both the Retail Option and the General Office Option are less than the trip generation calculated and analyzed for level of service impacts during the AM peak hour in November 2000. 10900 NE 81h Street Suite 300 Bellevue, Washington 980044405 Telephone 425 454 5600 Fox 425 454.0220 03/04/03 06:59 FAX • ® ENTRANCO hanspofatIon Constntctton Management Development Surveying Environmental Resources Ports/Altports Planning Water/ Wastewater Mr. Dick Hendry March 3, 2003 Page 2 of 2 Since neither of the current calculated and analyzed for further analysis is required. materials. Sincerely, ENTRANCO, INC. Kenneth Oswell, P.E. Project Manager Attachments ENTRANCO ENG; two options will generate trips in excess of what has already been level of service impacts in prior memoranda, it is our opinion that no Please let me know if you have any questions concerning the attached 81003/010 February 28, 2003 Table 1 Family Fun Center, Tukwila, Washington Comparison of Trip Generation for Initial, Revised and Final Development Options 000 = Highest number of new trips during time period R:\00152\Trip Gen Summary Table 1.xls Page 1 of 1 Entranco Bellevue. WA Initial Trip Generation Summary Trip Generation Summary - Revised Trip Generation Summary -General Office Option Trip Generation Summary -Specialty Retail Option Net New Trips Net New Trips Net New Trips Net New Trips Time Period In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Weekday AM Peak Hour 66 45 111 103 47 150 88 60 148 80 59 139 Weekday Noon Peak Hour 156 133 289 115 97 212 137 107 244 154 120 274 Weekday PM Peak Hour 151 145 296 109 139 248 132 130 262 133 136 269 Weekday Daily Total 1926 1925 3851 1444 1443 2887 1659 1660 3319 1748 1749 3497 Saturday Peak Hour 252 164 416 200 150 350 206 166 372 218 178 396 000 = Highest number of new trips during time period R:\00152\Trip Gen Summary Table 1.xls Page 1 of 1 Entranco Bellevue. WA 03/04/03 07:00 FAX 410 _ENTRANCO ENG. Family Fun Center Entranco Project No. 00152-60 Initial Trip Generation Summary [1 005/010 AM Peak Hour Family Fun Center Hotel (La Quints) Noon Peak Hour Family Fun Center Less 10% Passby Trips Less 10% Internal Trips Hotel (La Quints) Less 10% Internal Trips Restaurant Less 20% Passby Trips Less 10% Internal Trips PM Peak Hour Family Fun Center Less 10% Passby Trips Less 10% Internal Tnps Hotel (Le Qulnta) Less 10% Internal Tiips Restaurant Less 20% Passby Trips Less 10% Intemal Trips Daily Total Family Fun Center Less 10% Passby Trips Less 10% Internal Trips Hotel (La Quints) Less 10% Internal Trips Restaurant Less 20% Passby Trips Less 10% Intemal Trips ITE No. of LUC1 Units Units n/a 7.96 312 153 n/a 7.98 acres 12.81 7.67 20.48 Trip Generation Rate Trips Generated Out Total In acres 1.76 1.01 2.76 rooms (2) 0.34 0.24 0.58 Net New A.M. Peak Hour Trips n/a 153 rooms (2) 0.11 n/a 11,900 n/a Subtotals 0.08 0.19 Subtotal= GFA 7.02 8.75 15.77 Subtotal= Gross Noon Peak Hour Trips = Net New Noon Peak Hour Trips = 7.96 acres 6.91 9.30 16.21 312 153 832 11,900 Subtotal= rooms (2) 0.37 0.25 0.62 Subtotal= GFA 7.24 5.68 12.92 Subtotal= In Out Total 14 8 52 37 66 45 22 89 111 102 61 183 10 6 16 . 10 :6 16 82 49 131 17 2 15 84 17 8 69 12 . .1 11 104 21 10 73 203 177 156 133 55 6 6 43 53 5 48 88 17 9 60 74 7 7 60 42 4 38 68 14 7 47 29 3 26 188 38 18 132 , 380 289 129 13 13 103 95 9 86 154 31 15 • 107 Gross PM Peak Hour Trips a 194 184 378 Net New PM Peak Hour Trips = 151 145 298 n/a 7.96 acres 107.42 107.42 214.82 Subtotal= 312 153 rooms (2) 3.64 3.63 7.27 Subtotal= 832 11,900 . GFA 88.94 88.93 177.87 •Mot snornamornacioondiLog 11/09100):dv Subtotal= 855 85 66 884 556 55 501 1,058 211 108 741 855 86 85 684 556 56 500 1,059 212 108 741 1,710 171 171 1,368 1,112 111 1,001 2,117 423 212 1,482 Gross Daily Peak Hour Tripe a 2,469 2,470 4,839 Net New Dally Peak Hour Trips a 1,926 1,926 3,861 1 of 2 r.. aturday Peak Hour • {.110fP��..jLf7.9.19fa; tcs ITE No. of Trip Generation Rate Tri • s Generated LUC1 Units Unita In Out Total In Out Total Family Fun Center Na 7.96 acres 16.3 7.8 24.1 '130 Less 10% Passby Trips 82 192 Less 10% Internal Trips 13 6 19 13 6 19 Subtotal= .104 50 154 Hotel (La Quinta) 320 153 rooms (2) 0.31 0.39 0.70 48 59 .. 107 Less 10% Internal Trips 5 8 11 Subtotals 43 53 96 Restaurant 832 11,900 GFA 12.60 7.40 20.00 160 88 238 Less 20% Passby Trips 30 18 48 Less 10% Internal Trips 15 9 24 • Subtotals 105 81 166 Grosa Peak Hour Trips = 328 209 537 Nat New Peak Hour Trips = 252 164 416 1. ITE LUC = Institute of Transportation Engineer's Land Use Code from the Trip Generation Manual. Rooms =100 percent occupied rooms. 03/04/03 07:00 FAX • ENTRANCO ENG Family Fun Center Entranco Project No. 00152-60 Initial Trip Generation Summary (Continued) 1?)008/010 • $00132Uetine nCor wr„/1(1 uO5/OO)jks 2 of 2 03/04/03 07:01 FAX • ENTRANCO ENG_ Family Fun Center Entnnco Project No. 00152.60 Trip Generation Summary - Revised ITE Trip Rates Peak Hour Trips Land Use LUC' Ares Units' fo Out Total In Out Total A.M. Peak Hour Family Fun Centers Na 7.96 sores 1.75 1.01 2.78 14 B 22 Hotel (Comfort Sulfas) 312 140 rooms' 0.34 0.24 0.58 48 33 81 General OfficeBuilding 710 30,000 GFA 1.37 0.19 1.58 41 a 47 Subtotal for Family Fun Center, Hotel, and Office a 103 47 150 Net New A.14. Peak Hour Trips a 103 47 130 Noon Peak Hour FwNly Fun Canter IVa 7.98 acres 12.81 7.87 20.48 102 61 163 Lass Passby Trips (10%)' 10 8 15 92 55 147 Hotel (Comfort SUReC) 312 140 mane 0.11 0.08 0.19 18 11 27 General Office Buildings 710 30,000 GFA 0.22 1.05 1.27 7 31 38 Subtotal 1or Family Fun Center, Hotel, and Otlke ■ 115 97 212 P.M. Peak Hour Farr* Fun Centers Na 7.98 acres 8.91 9.30 1821 55 74 129 Less Passby Trips (10%) 4 Net New Noon Peek Hour Trlpa a 115 97 212 6 7 13 49 87 118 Hotel (Comfort Suites) 312 140 rooms' 0.37 0.25 0.82 52 96 ev General Office Building 710 30,000 GFA 0.25 1.24 1.49 8 37 45 Subtotal tor Family Fun Center, Hotel, and OMka • 109 139 249 Net New P.M. Peak Hour Tripe s 109 139 24B Daily Family Fun Center' we 7.98 acres 107.42 107.42 214.84 ass 855 1,710 Less Passby Trips (10%)' 85 88 171 770 789 1,539 Hotel (Comfort Sultea) 312 140 rooms' 3.83 3.84 7.27 509 509 1,018 General Office BuOdkng 710 30,000 GFA 5.50 5.51 11.01 185 185 330 Subtotal for Family Fun Center, Hotel, end Office a 1,444 1,443 2,887 Net New Dally Trips ■ 1.444 1,443 2,887 Saturday Peak Hour Family Fun Centel' Na 7.98 acres 18.30 7.80 24.1 130 62 192 Less Passby Trips (10%)' 13 a 19 117 58 173 Hotel (Comfort Suites) 320 140 roams' 0.34 0.42 0.78 48 58 108 General Office Building 710 30,000 GFA 1.18 1.19 2.37 35 38 71 Subtotal for Family Fun Center, Hotel, and Office • 200 150 350 Net New Saturday Peak Hour Trips a 200 150 350 Molt: 1. Mede d Tennehu do EnaY,Mn. Trp e.naeae. Manual 55l Eien,1557 ted U.. Cod. 2 GM Is Olds ibor kr ]. Room ma named to be1CO woallosnped 4. P...by Vp ndueaoe iwnnlepee Mead an Ger Jimmy 1555 Felly Run Canty 7Md ahoy e. For Ow aeb. When% 5la kb aara.aan gala aurins IM noon peak hair ass app,asbn ay 511 p.,sm al Um pj pane Hour aced on . pokpp upy sandaled In lablend be a .lair mJIdiee oewraet ace a. hp sawaeon gam who delamkl.d bead an vanilla 1101 11141 al mem Pudy Fin Cal, In wsr.ma., 04 00.7/010 11114112,011 03/04/03 07:02 FAX • Sent By: FAMILY FUN CENTER; February 14, 2003 Entranco 10900 NE 8th St. Suite 300 Bellevue, WA. 98004 Attn: Ken pat 5Oscze ll Dear Ken: ENTRANCO ENG. 425 228 7400; Feb -14.03 11:39AM; Per our conversation of this date, we are requesting a Ietter from Entranco, based on information previously obtained, and explained below, regarding development of property at So. Grady Way and interurban Ave. in the city of Tukwila. I have included a letter and report dated 11/09/00 signed by Marc Mizuta which outlines previous work done for and reports made to us. . This letter will cover traffic impact on what we refer to as parcel 1. It was originally intended to be an 11,900 square foot restaurant. We then changed to a three story, 30,000 square foot office building. Our plans are now to develop the property into a mixed use office/retail/ restaurant of between 9000, and 10,000 square feet. It is intended for the restaurant to have around 4,000 square feet and the remainder of the building built out to tenant's needs of 1200 to 1500 square foot office/retail spaces. The restaurant will be a family style facility such as an Issaquah Cafe, or Monroe Cafe. They serve from about 6:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. The cafes are designed to seat about 100 people. The City parking requirements call for about 40 cars. The office/retail will have various hours but will probably be in the 8:00-9:00 AM to 5:00 to 9:00 P.M. range. Please review the attached information and let us know if this request can be completed with a letter of explanation The City bas indicated that they feel that this can be done and is acceptable to the. You are hereby authorized to do the study and prepare the letter report. If there appear to be any problems, please contact me. Thank you in advance for your help and assistance. ours trail Y, ek 4144% Dick Hendry 425-228-7300 ext. 27 425-228-7400 fax Q008/010 Page 1 03/04/03 07:02 FAX • ENTRANCO ENC. _ ... g1009/010 Family Fun Center Entrance Project No. 0015240 Trip Generation Summary. Retail Option A.M. Peak Hour Fainly Fun Center. Na 7.98 acres 1.75 1.01 2.70 14 a 22 Hotel (Comfort Suites) 312 138 rooms' 0.34 0.24 0.58 47 33 Bo Restaurant 1332 4.000 OFA 4.82 4.45 0.27 19 18 37 Spectaity Rata1(Cloaed) 814 0 GLA 1.37 0.19 1.58 0 0 o Subtotal for Family Fun Cantor, Hotel, and Retail • 80 59 139 Net New A.M. Peak Hour Tri • a ■ 80 59 130 Land Use RE Luc' Area Units° T Rates Peek Hour TA to Out Tow in Out Total Noon Peak Hour Famly Fun Center Leas Paesby Trips (10%)4 Na 7.98 acres 12,81 7.67 20.48 102 81 183 Hotel (Comfort Suites) 312 138 rooms' 0.11 0.08 0.19 Restaurant 16 10 213 832 4,000 GFA 6.94 8.83 15.77 28 33 63 Specialty Rata6 (Hlaheat Peek Hour of Generator) 1314 6,000 GLA 3.08 3.33 6.41 18 20 38 Subtotal for Faintly Fun Canter, Hotel, and Ratall a 184 128 290 Nat New Noon Peak Hour T • a ■ 154 120 274 10 6 16 92 55 147 P.M. Peak Hour Fainly Fun Center Less Passby Trips (10%) 4 Na 7.96 acres 6.91 9.30 18.21 55 74 129 6 7 13 48 87 116 Hotel (Comfort Suttee) 312 138 rooms' 0.37 025 0.62 52 34 88 Restaurant 832 4,000 GFA 7.20 5.68 12.86 29 22 31 Specialty Reta3 814 6,000 GLA 1.11 1.48 2.59 3 13 18 Subtotal for Family Fun Canter, HoteL and Retail ■ 139 143 282 Net New P.M. Peak Hour Trl • a e 133 136 289 Dally Family Fun Canter Na 7.96 acres 107.42 107.42 Less Pessby Trips (10%)4 214.84 855 855 1.710 Hotel (Comfort Sutes) 312 138 rooms' 3.83 3.84 7.27 501 502 1,003 Restaurant 4,000 GFA 88.93 88.04 177.87 355 358 711 Specially Retail 814 6,000 GLA 20.33 20.34 40.87 122 122 244 Subtotal for Family Fun Cantor, Hotel, and Retell a 1,833 1.835 3,888 Nat New Dalt Trt • a • 1,746 1 749 3 497 8.5 86 171 770 789 1,539 Saturday Peak Hour Femly Fun Center Ns 7.90 acres PessbYdW(10%)4 T as 18.30 7.80 24.1 130 62 192 13 6 19 117 58 173 Hotel (Comfort Sultan) 312 138 rooms' 0.340.42 0.78 47 58 105 Restaurant 832 4,000 GFA 12.60 7.40 20 35 45 80 Specialty Retail (15% Of Total Daly Trips) 814 8,000 GLA 3.15 3.15 8.3 19 19 38 Subtotal for Famly Fun Center, Hotel, and Retell 0 231 184 415 Net New Saturday Puk Hour Trips • 218 178 390 Nett: 1. I441Wle N T,mnporwann aeykewe, Trp Oenweew Manuel, aril .Arra, ler tend Use Code 2. OVA le Maw Flow Arse 3. Flown we mural e be NO Prem eenped 4. Peseby Yy redwelea ereenleln beep en M Army 1111 Peney run Cons, Tref* SWy IL kw he o4100 Waby, M ro eenwetM rein Blake M nom rseb boor sea eyproeeaalely 11 Pensee N e,e p4n pee boor Woe a e owkbp HMV ew,dueled 1, Mind Ar 'WSW niked•uee oaeeneWl eM e. T weew rinse acre delrnaled Weed an veld* coos el IMAM P PIM Con* le .0.1.1.04 1430 344113 rw01 a3Jb,el Tow • Hear Opa,ak 03/04/03 07:03 FAX • Land Use A.M. Peak Hour Family Fun Center Ne 7.96 apes 1.75 1.01 2.78 14 Hotel (Comfort Sulfas)8 22 312 138 rooms' 0.34 024 0.56 47 33 eo ENTRANCO ENC. • Family Fun Center Entranco Project No. 00152-60 Trip Generation Summary - General Office Option ITE T • Rates Peak Hour T ,. LUC' Area units' ll Out Total In Out Total Restaurant 832 4.000 GFA 4.82 4.45 927 19 18 37 General Office Building 710 9,000 GFA 1.37 0.19 1.56 8 1 9 Subtotal for Famlly Fun Center, Hotel, and Office • 88 60 148 Net New A.M. Peak Hour TrI . • 86 60 148 Noon Peak Hour Family Fun Center' Na Less Passby Trips (1016)4 7.96 acne 12.81 7.87 20.48 102 81 183 f0 8 18 92 SS 147 Hotel (Comfort Sukee) 312 138 rooms' 0.11 0.08 0.19 18 /0 26 Restaurant 632 4,000 GFA 6.94 8.83 15.77 28 35 83 General office Building" 710 6,000GFA 0.22 1.05 1.27 1 7 8 Subtotal for Family Fun Canter, Hotel, end Office . 147 113 280 Net New Neon Peak Hour Trf • a 137 107 244 P.11. Peak Hour Family Fun Center' Na 7.98 acres 0.91 9.30 1821 55 74 129 Lass Passby Trips (1076)' Hotel (Comfort Suttee) 312 138 mea Restaurant 0.37 0.25 0.62 52 34 88 832 4,000 GFA 7.20 5.88 12.88 29 22 51 General Office Buldinp 710 6,000 GFA 0.25 1.24 1.49 2 7 9 Subtotal for Family Fun Canter, Hotel, and Office a 138 137 275 Net New P.M. Peak Hour Trl • e • 132 130 282 6 7 13 49 67 118 Daily Family Fun Center Na 7.98 acres 107.42 107.42 214.84 855 1,710 Less Passby Trips (10%)' 853 Hotel (Comfort Sules) 312 138a rooms 3.83 3.84 7.27 501 302 1,003 Restaurant 832 4,000 GFA 88.93 88.94 177.87 355 358 711 General Office Suldin9 710 6,000 OFA 5.50 5.51 11.01 33 33 68 Subtotal for Family Fun Center, Hotel, and Office a 1,744 1,748 3,490 Net New Dal Tr, • e ■ 1,869 1 880 3,319 85 86 171 770 769 1,539 Saturday Peak Hour Family Fun Center Ne 7.99 sero, Lass Passby Trips (10%)' 16.30 7.80 24.1 130 62 192 13 6 19 117 56 173 Hots! (Comfort Sulbe) 912 , 138 rooms 0.34 0.42 0.78 47 s8 108 Restaurant 632 4.000 GFA 12.80 7.40 20 35 45 B0 General Office Bu lklI^9 710 0,000 GFA 1.18 1.19 2.37 7 7 14 Subtotal for Family Fun Center, Hotel. and Office . 219 172 391 Nat New Saturday Peek How Taps • 208 166 372 I. hlalaaa .l TMlparbba Ensineara, Tib oaauaaaa mom.* .0, [don, 107 Lard Use Coda 2. OM b dye.. Rat Arse 1 noam w awa,•d In 100 p.rawI OS.I d 4. Pwby f* radu•bn psroeslopie based an Ow inaty tNI /way 11111 GMM 7&I Study 6. far seance buy,y, M vb is aV.q 6i. ,,.o. p8 IrauJu,1y 14 pawl da. Pin pwl hots build an a /alba NWr aar,ara.d I *Warn M. abler Mb.d•wa allba//aao.e. •, alba MINI ewe dltaWb.d bowl r.N414sew, at amen* 1 he Corer H 7raema., 011 t 010/010 160010/67 r.10016zina Tow. Dia 0a41•e4• i City ofTyskwdlla Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director CITY OF TUKWILA DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) ADDENDUM Description of Original Proposal: Develop an approximately 14 acre site by demolishing existing structures and regrading the site. To accommodate required flood storage capacity a combination of off channel pond and riverbank cutback with restoration and habitat enhancement will be built adjacent to the Green River. Proposed buildings include a 9,000 square foot restaurant, a 153 room 4 story hotel, a 36,300 square foot restaurant and arcade building and 7 acres of outdoor attractions including miniature golf, bumper boats, batting cages and a go cart track. A City trail will be constructed along the perimeter of the site and will connect to a new pedestrian bridge crossing the River. Description of Addendum: The hotel has been changed to include 137 guest suites and the building and site layout has been slightly changed. Proponent: Huish Family Fun Centers Inc. Location of Proposal: Northeast corner of the intersection of Interurban Avenue South and Grady Way in the City of Tukwila. Lead Agency: City Of Tukwila File Number: E97-0024 The City has determined that the addendum does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21c.030 (2) (c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. The original DNS was issued April 20, 1998. This addendum is adopted on December 28, 2000. Lfa.a Steve Lancaster, SEPA Responsible Official for the City of Tukwila, Washington 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 (206) 431-3670 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 0 Tukwila, Washington 98188 0 Phone: 206-431-3670 0 Fax: 206-431-3665 Date: November 15, 2000 To: City of Tukwila Subject: SEPA Revision Request Project File Number E97-0024 RECEIVED CITY OF TI DEC 1 1 2o0] PERMIT CENTS: In 1998, permits were received to develop approximately 13 acres of property situated on the north side of Interstate 405 between Fun Center Way and the Green River in the City of Tukwila, King County, Washington. The development required the demolition of existing structures, the movement of a substantial amount of dirt, and cleanup of some contaminants found on the property. To accommodate required flood storage capacity, an off -channel pond and riverbank cutback with restoration and habitat enhancement was built adjacent to the Green River. A trail was constructed along the perimeter of the site to be connected to existing City trails. A Family Fun Center including a 32,000 square foot arcade and restaurant building, plus maintenance building and approximately 7 acres of outdoor activities including, miniature golf, batting cages, electric bumper boats, go- karts, and golf driving range was built. The development of a 163 -room hotel project and 9000, square foot restaurant was also included but not built. The following Agencies with Jurisdiction had input on the project: Washington State Department of Ecology Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington State Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation King County Health Department King County Department of Natural Resources -Water and Land Resources Division Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. GeoTech Consultants and Geo -Engineers did extensive studies with many samplings, borings and pits and prepared environmental reports for measures required to conform to existing policies and regulations. A riverbank stabilization and habitat restoration report was prepared combining the efforts of Barghausen Engineers, Wetland Resources and Geo -Engineers. Recommendations were made and the work was done. Entranco Engineers did two traffic studies and mitigation as determined by the City of Tukwila was completed. A remediation plan developed with the Department of Ecology under the Voluntary Cleanup Program was carried out and contaminants on the site were removed or capped. A Nationwide 27 Wetland and Riparian Restoration and Creation Activities section of the Clean Water Act was received for the work along the riverbank which included, a 500 foot long riverbank cutback above the OHWM and an off -channel pond to provide for • • flood storage compensation. They also provide refuge areas for fish and enhance reparian habitat through the revegetation with native plant species and the placement of large wood snags. The tree snags in the river and the pond will create evening and winter habitat for salmonoids. New landscaping was installed according to Shoreline regulations, zoning code standards and the Board of Architectural Review's approved landscape plan. Non-native plants were removed and replaced with native plants of higher habitat value. Landscaping stabilized the riverbank above the OHWM. A Shoreline Substantial Development permit was issued for the project. The City of Tukwila, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Department provided input. Stormwater run-off from the project is treated with oil/water separators and a 200 -foot biofiltration swale. The swale is designed to meet the requirement for treatment of the 2- year/24hour-storm event as required by the City of Tukwila's Water Ordinance prior to discharge into the Green River. A flap gate is used to prevent infiltration into the on-site drainage system during high river flow events. Demolition of the buildings on site was done and asbestos containing materials were removed in accordance with existing rules and regulations of the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. The majority of the existing vegetation, which included extensive areas of blackberry bushes, were removed and replaced by buildings, a parking lot, attractions and approved site landscaping. A large stand of native willows along the easterly portion of the riverbank was retained at the request of the Muckleshoot Indians. A remediation plan and cleanup of environmental health concerns as described in site assessment reports reflecting potential soil and groundwater contamination was regulated by Ecology under the Model Toxics Control Act. The construction of the Family Fun Center and the provision for the walking and biking trail have provided expanded recreational opportunities for local residents and visitors, and has made this section of the Green River more accessible. An historical report was prepared on the site and sent to the State Office of Archaeology and Historical Preservation. Traffic mitigation fees per the concurrence ordinance to offset planned concurring improvements along Interurban Avenue were paid to the City. Frontal improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk, street widening and paving, storm drainage, street lighting and signage along both sides of Fun Center Way were completed A sanitary sewer pump station was constructed on the property to handle all development of the property. It was connected to the City's sanitary sewer lift station in Fort Dent by force main. A $46,00 contribution as the owners pro rata share of the City's cost to upgrade the lift station was made. In connection with the City Bridge and roadway project on Interurban Ave. over the Green River, provisions for the shares of cost and the construction of a 12" water line were agreed upon. The original SEPA was approved to include the Family Fun Center, a 163 room La Quinta hotel and a restaurant. The Family Fun Center has been constructed. We now propose to change the hotel from 163 rooms to 140 Suites. Further development, now planned as a 30,000 square foot office building, is being developed. The proposed hotel will cover approximately the same footprint as the previously approved La Quinta project. With the reduction in the number of rooms, the number of parking spaces required will be reduced. The spaces will all be standard width. The lighting will remain primarily the same. A new traffic study conducted by Entrance Engineers reflects the number of trips generated at the site will be slightly reduced from that which was previously indicated. The landscaping plan will follow closely that which was approved for the previous hotel project and the Family Fun Center. Based on the fact that the work already completed has met all of the provisions for approval of the project, the improvements which have been made to the property and the minor changes which will be made, which will have very minimal impact if any, that approval be granted. -7VA-Ffik15&tize H/76 - City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Public Works Ross A. Eamst, P. E, Director MEMO Date: December 4, 1998 To: Kelcie Peterson, Permit Coordinator From: Gary Barnett, Senior Engineer, Development Re: Mitigation fees for Family Fun Center Parcels East of Interurban Ave/North of Grady Way (Sewer and Traffic) In accordance with the City of Tukwila's concurrency ordinances, the following fees have been identified for the three parcels and proposed uses at the Family Fun Center Site. These fees are based upon engineering study and analysis and are approved by the City of Tukwila Public Works Department. The sewer mitigation fee is a prorated share of improvements to the Fort Dent Lift Station, using a preliminary engineering study by Gray and Osborne as a basis for the dollar amounts. The applicant, in addition to these mitigation fees, is responsible for constructing an on- site sewer lift station and a private force main connection from this lift station to the existing gravity sanitary sewer system north of the Green River. The traffic mitigation fees are based on traffic analysis prepared by Entranco Engineers, January 1998, for the proposed land uses as identified in Table 4. a. Family Fun Center b. Hotel c. Restaurant The applicant shall construct frontage improvements along old Grady Way (re -named Family Fun Center Way). In lieu of constructing frontage improvements to Interurban Avenue, a portion of the mitigation fees are collected for the Interurban Avenue bridge widening project scheduled for 1999 construction, which includes the Interurban Avenue frontage adjacent to the Family Fun Center parcel. 6300 Sounccenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: (206) 433-0179 • Fax (206) 431-3665 Family Fun Center Use Parcel Number 242304-9063 Hotel Use Parcel Number 242304-9013 • Sewer * Traffic Total for all Restaurant Use three parcels ,.°✓�t� Parcel Number 242304-9092 46 194.00 �� 9,207.00— `` 01-4 These mitigation fees are based on cost estimates prepared in 1997 for the specific uses identified in the respective engineering studies. If the site use changes from the assumptions made in the sewer and traffic analysis, then the mitigation fee amounts will need to be recalculated. * To be collected when off site utility permit MI98-0091 is issued. cc: Brian. Shelton Pat Brodin Qc\ 61,430.00 Thr pc 34,923.00 " 1 kb • •1 i N .Ci fi� Clea'nup Action/Plan and ' Engineering Report" • )Proposed Family Fun Center Tukwila; Washington '' Family" Fun'Centers ; ' 1 ,- \ '•�� ` ..1-",1 Y , RECEPVgF 4 , )" 1 1998 -/ 1 _ ouBLic WORKS , ` n,ginee-n's File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 r f' 4 September 14, 1998 Family Fun Centers 29111 SW Town Center Loop W Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 Attention: Scott. Huish and John Huish We are submitting two copies of our "Cleanup Action Plan and Engineering Report" for the proposed Family Fun Center site in Tukwila, Washington.- This document was requested by Gail Colburn of the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) on December 4, 1997, and finalized based on comments from Gail Colburn on June 18, 1998. Our services were conducted in accordance with our proposals dated December 9, 1997 and June 23, 1998. Our scope is consistent with the scope presented in the Model Toxics Control Act, Washington Administrative Codes 173-340-360 and 173-340-400, and is being conducted under Ecology's Voluntary Cleanup Program. We appreciate the opportunity to be of continued service to Family Fun Centers on this project. Please call if you have questions regarding this report. Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. Kurt S. Anderson, C.P.G. Associate LJB:KSA: ja p:\500to599\5925003\00\fmals\5925003 cap.doc Geol Engineers September 14, 1998 Family Fun Centers 29111 SW Town Center Loop W Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 Attention: Scott Huish and John Huish Consulting Engineers and Geoscientists Offices in Washington, Oregon, and Alaska We are submitting two copies of our "Cleanup Action Plan and Engineering Report" for the proposed Family Fun Center site in Tukwila, Washington. This document was requested by Gail Colburn of the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) on December 4, 1997, and finalized based on comments from Gail Colburn on June 18, 1998. Our services were conducted in accordance with our proposals dated December 9, 1997 and June 23, 1998. Our scope is consistent with the scope presented in the Model Toxics Control Act, Washington Administrative Codes 173-340-360 and 173-340-400, and is being conducted under Ecology's Voluntary Cleanup Program. We appreciate the opportunity to be of continued service to Family Fun Centers on this project. Please call if you have questions regarding this report. LJB:KSA: ja p:\500to599\5925003\00\finals\5925003cap.doc GeoEngineers, Inc. 8410 154th Avenue N.E. Redmond, WA 98052 Telephone (425) 861-6000 Fax (425) 861-6050 www.geoengineers.com page Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. Kurt S. Anderson, C.P.G. Associate RECEIVED SEP 2 .1 1998 TUKW!Lfkk PUBLIC WORK., RECEIV 1998 ILA PU LIC WORKS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. CLEANUP ACTION PLAN 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CONDITIONS 1 2.1 LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION 1 2.2 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS WORK 2 2.3 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION 2 2.4 POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS 3 2.4.1 Soil to Ground Water Pathway 3 2.4.2 Inland Ground Water to Surface Water Pathway 4 2.4.3 Soil to Vapor Inhalation Pathway 4 2.4.4 Soil Direct Contact Pathway 5 3.0 SUMMARY OF CLEANUP STANDARDS 5 3.1 INDICATOR HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES 5 3.2 CLEANUP AND REMEDIATION LEVELS 5 3.2.1 TPH 5 3.2.2 Other Indicator Hazardous Substances 6 3.3 POINTS OF COMPLIANCE 6 3.4 ARARS 6 4.0 SUMMARY OF SELECTED CLEANUP ACTION 6 4.1 SOIL 7 4.2 COMPLIANCE MONITORING 7 4.3 INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS 7 4.3.1 Restrictive Covenant for Ground Water Use 7 4.3.2 Confirmational Monitoring 7 4.3.3 Cap Maintenance Plan 7 4.3.4 Vapor Control 8 5.0 RATIONALE FOR SELECTION OF THE CLEANUP ACTION 8 5.1 PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 8 5.2 ATTAINMENT OF STANDARDS 8 5.3 LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS 8 5.4 COMPLIANCE WITH ARARS 8 5.5 COMPLIANCE MONITORING 8 6.0 SCHEDULE 8 7.0 PUBLIC NOTICE AND PUBLIC COMMENT 9 ENGINEERING REPORT 8.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 9 8.1 GENERAL 9 8.2 CLEANUP AND REMEDIATION LEVELS 9 8.3 CAP REMEDIAL ACTION 9 G e o E n g i n e e r s i File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Page No. 9.0 SCHEDULE g 9.1 PERMITS 9 9.1.1 Excavation- and Backfill -related 9 9.1.2 Landfill 10 9.2 FINAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 10 10.0 CONCEPTUAL PLAN OF REMEDIAL ACTION 10 10.1 SOIL EXCAVATION 10 10.2 REUSE/RECYCLING/LANDFILL 11 10.3 BACKFILL AND REGRADING 11 10.4 ENGINEERING CONTROLS 12 10.4.1 Cap 12 10.4.1.1 Subgrade 12 10.4.1.2 Surface 12 10.4.2 Vapor Control 12 10.4.2.1 Barrier 12 10.4.2.2 Passive Venting 13 11.0 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN CRITERIA 13 11.1 EXCAVATION 13 11.2 REUSE/LANDFILL/RECYCLING FACILITY DISPOSAL 13 11.3 BACKFILL AND REGRADING 13 11.4 ENGINEERING CONTROLS 13 11.4.1 Cap 13 11.4.1.1 Subgrade 13 11.4.1.2 Surface 13 11.4.2 Vapor Control 14 11.4.2.1 Barrier 14 11 .4.2.2 Passive Venting 14 11.5 ENGINEERING JUSTIFICATION 14 11.5.1 Design Criteria, Assumptions and Calculations 14 11.5.2 Selected Treatment Option, Immobilization and Containment Efficiencies 14 11.5.3 Documentation of Effectiveness 15 11.5.4 Demonstration of Compliance with Cleanup Requirements 15 12.0 SPILL CONTROL AND DESIGN SAFETY MEASURES 15 12.1 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURES AND LEAK DETECTION 15 12.2 RUNOFF AND EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROLS 16 12.3 DESIGN SAFETY 16 13.0 RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT 16 14.0 SITE-SPECIFIC CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION 16 14.1 SURFACE FEATURES 16 14.1.1 Site Access 16 14.1.2 Probability of Flooding 17 14.1.3 Seismic and Slope Stability 17 14.1.4 Probability of Wind Storm Damage 17 14.1.5 Temperature Extremes 17 G e o E n g i n e e r s ii File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Page No. 14.1.6 Precipitation 17 14.1.7 Local Planning and Development Issues 18 14.2 OTHER FEATURES 18 14.2.1 Soil 18 14.2.2 Surface Water 18 14.2.3 Ground Water 18 14.2.4 Air Quality Attainment Area Status 19 15.0 CONSTRUCTION TESTING/QUALITY CONTROL 19 15.1 SOIL EXCAVATION 19 15.2 REUSE/LANDFILL/RECYCLING FACILITY DISPOSAL 19 15.3 BACKFILL AND REGRADING 19 15.4 ENGINEERING CONTROLS 20 15.4.1 Capping 20 15.4.2 Vapor Control 20 16.0 COMPLIANCE MONITORING 20 16.1 SOIL EXCAVATION 20 16.1.1 Excavation Sampling 20 16.1.2 Removed Soil Sampling 20 16.2 BACKFILL AND REGRADING 21 16.3 GROUND WATER CONFIRMATIONAL MONITORING 21 16.4 CAP MAINTENANCE PLAN 21 16.5 PASSIVE VENTING SYSTEM 21 17.0 HEALTH AND SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS 21 17.1 SITE SAFETY PLAN 21 17.2 PROTECTION MONITORING DURING REMEDIAL ACTIVITIES 21 17.3 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES PERTINENT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY 22 REFERENCES 23 TABLES Table No. Final Indicator Hazardous Substances, Cleanup Levels and Remediation Levels for Soil and Ground Water '1 Summary of Applicable, Relevant and Appropriate Requirements 2 Summary of Samples with Soil Concentrations Exceeding Cleanup Levels 3 Summary of Remedial Alternatives for Soil 4 Evaluation of Criteria for Selection of Remedial Action 5 FIGURES Figure No. Vicinity Map 1 Site Plan 2 Contaminants of Concern That Exceed Cleanup Levels 3 Potential Exposure Pathways 4 Locations of Capped Areas 5 G e o E n g i n e e r s iii File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 CLEANUP ACTION PLAN AND ENGINEERING REPORT PROPOSED FAMILY FUN CENTER TUKWILA, WASHINGTON FOR FAMILY FUN CENTERS CLEANUP ACTION PLAN 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Cleanup Action Plan (CAP) summarizes the preferred remedy for the site, discusses rationale for the decision and includes the schedule of remediation for Family Fun Centers' proposed Family Fun Center site in Tukwila, Washington. The associated Engineering Report describes the conceptual design, assumptions and construction specifications for a successful cleanup action implementation at the proposed Family Fun Center site. CAP implementation will be concurrent with site development activities and the schedule will be largely dictated by the development schedule. This CAP was requested by Gail Colburn of Ecology on December 4, 1998. The CAP is presented in Sections 1.0 through 7.0; the Engineering Report is presented in Sections 8.0 through 18.0. The Draft CAP was issued to Ecology for review on April 22, 1998. Limited site remediation activities were completed in May and August 1998. These activities will be reported in a final cleanup action report; however, the plan for remediation of these "hot spots" (areas with contaminants currently exceeding site excavation remediation levels [see Section 3.2]) remains in this CAP and ancillary documents ("Site Safety Plan" and "Field Sampling and Chemical Analysis Plan"). The site description is generally accurate as of August 1998; however, some grading and removal of concrete foundations has occurred since April 1998. 2.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CONDITIONS 2.1 LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION The proposed Family Fun Center is located at 7300 Fun Center Way in Tukwila, Washington. The site comprises three parcels (Parcels 1, 2 and 3, from west to east) that currently are owned by Family Fun Centers. The general vicinity of the site is shown in Figure 1. The site layout and previous subsurface explorations (through February 1998) are shown in Figure 2. The site is approximately 14 acres in size. All former structures, including the most recent five residences with associated ancillary buildings, an auto repair shop, barn, former nursery retail shop, a milk processing plant and shed, have been demolished. The eastern portion of Parcel 3 is occupied by a large soil stockpile. A man-made detention pond that is seasonally wet and other wet areas are located in the northern portion of Parcel 3. Most of Parcels 1 and the northern portion of Parcel 2 currently are open pasture or overgrown with brush. The southern portion of Parcel 2 and the western portion of Parcel 3 are cleared from demolition activities; however, G e o E n g i n e e r s 1 File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 some concrete slabs of building floors remain. A high-voltage electrical transmission line crosses over the northern portion of the three parcels, and a line tower is located in the northern portion of Parcel 1. The site is bounded by the Green River and commercial property to the north, BNSF Burlington Northern Railroad (BNRR) tracks and light industrial property to the east, South Grady Way and State Route 405 to the south, and State Route 181 and undeveloped property to the west. An abandoned municipal landfill is located east of the BNRR right-of-way. 2.2 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS WORK Previous environmental and geotechnical studies conducted by others at the site from 1989 to 1997 include testing and analysis of soil and ground water samples obtained from eleven test pits, eight soil borings and four monitoring wells (GCW-14 through GCW-17). All of the approximate location of test pits, exploratory borings and monitoring wells that were provided to GeoEngineers in previous reports are shown in Figure 2. The results of environmental studies by others are summarized in Section 2.3. GeoEngineers completed a geotechnical study, Phase I environmental site assessment (ESA), Phase II ESA, underground storage tank (UST) removal monitoring, and supplemental investigation and sampling at the site in 1997 and 1998 for Family Fun Centers. The approximate locations of GeoEngineers' explorations and sample locations (through February 1998) are shown in Figure 2. "Hot spot" removal was completed on Parcels 2 and 3 in May and August 1998. The locations of the "hot spots" are shown in Figure 3. Results of the "hot spot" removal will be included in the final cleanup action report. The results of GeoEngineers' environmental studies are summarized in Section 2.3. 2.3 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION The results of previous environmental assessments at the site indicate the following potential environmental concerns at the site: • Concentrations of metals in soil immediately adjacent to slag materials were all below Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) Method A cleanup levels. • Diesel- and heavy oil -range hydrocarbon concentrations in soil stockpiled in the eastern portion of the site range from 217 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) to about 1,000 mg/kg. Heavy oil -range hydrocarbons were detected at a concentration of 310 mg/kg and chromium was detected at a concentration of 1,150 mg/kg in one soil sample obtained from approximately the base of the stockpile near the northwest portion of the stockpile. • Heavy oil -range hydrocarbons were detected at a concentration of 1,570 mg/kg in.a sample obtained from a depth of approximately 18 feet at the current detention pond. Dissolved - phase hydrocarbons were not detected in ground water at this location. • Petroleum hydrocarbons were detected at concentrations ranging from 268 to 22,730 mg/kg in shallow soil -samples obtained near the automobile repair shop. Arsenic (30.4 mg/kg), GeoEngineers 2 File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 nickel (2,720 mg/kg), chromium (196 mg/kg), beryllium (0.59 mg/kg), lead (570 mg/kg) and carcinogenic polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (cPAHs) (1.84 mg/kg) also were detected in this area. • Diesel- and heavy oil -range hydrocarbons were detected at concentrations of 5,051 mg/kg and 38,560 mg/kg in shallow samples obtained at the oil dump, north of the former automobile repair shop. • Gasoline -range hydrocarbons were detected at concentrations ranging up to 1,990 mg/kg in soil samples obtained from the north and south walls of the gasoline UST excavation, at depths of approximately 6 to 12 feet. • Heavy oil -range hydrocarbons were detected at a concentration of 535 mg/kg and insulating oil was detected at. a concentration of 226 mg/kg in a soil sample obtained from a depth of 5 feet in the vicinity of the former diesel aboveground storage tank (AST). Polychlorinated biphenyl compounds (PCBs) were not detected in the sample. • Heavy oil -range hydrocarbons were detected at concentrations up to 468 mg/kg in shallow soil samples obtained from the detention pond and the north end of the drainage ditch along the eastern property boundary. • An organochlorine pesticide (chlordane) was detected at a concentration of 834 micrograms per kilogram (p.g/kg) in one shallow soil sample obtained at the location of the former barn, where agricultural chemicals had been stored. The pesticides 4,4' -DDD and Dieldrin were detected at concentrations less than the MTCA Method A or Method B cleanup levels in this area. • The sum of diesel- and heavy oil -range hydrocarbons was detected at a concentration of 2.33 milligrams per liter (mg/1) in a water sample obtained in the location of the former diesel AST. • Arsenic was detected at concentrations ranging from 5.2 to 22 micrograms per liter (µg/1) in water samples obtained from wells at the downgradient and upgradient portions of the site. Cadmium was detected at concentrations of 44 µg/I and 15 µg/1 in water samples obtained from the upgradient well (GCW-14) in 1994 and 1996, respectively. It is our opinion that the arsenic concentrations in ground water represent natural background concentrations (GeoEngineers, April 22, 1998). Cadmium was not detected in ground water samples obtained during subsequent investigations. 2.4 POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS The exposure pathways evaluated for the site are discussed below. These exposure pathways are shown in Figure 4. 2.4.1 Soil to Ground Water Pathway The results of our Phase II assessment and supplemental assessment in March 1998 indicate that petroleum hydrocarbons in soil in the vicinity of the former diesel AST are in contact with GeoEngineers 3 File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 ground water. Although dissolved -phase total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) were detected in ground water at the point of the former diesel AST, dissolved -phase TPH were not detected in the downgradient monitoring wells (GCW-16 and GCW-17) and ground water grab samples obtained from direct -push borings near the Green River. Concentrations of dissolved constituents in water collected from direct -push borings usually are higher than when collected from monitoring wells. It is our opinion that the dissolved -phase TPH concentrations detected in SP -19 should be considered as qualitative. Actual concentrations may be lower. Gasoline -range hydrocarbons in soil in the vicinity of the former gasoline UST were in contact with ground water, but were removed to concentrations less than the MTCA Method A cleanup level in August 1998. Further, Family Fun Centers will use city water and not use ground water beneath the site for any purpose. Therefore, the soil to ground water pathway is not of concern at this time. Confirmational monitoring will be completed, as discussed in Section 16.3, and will be described in detail in a separate compliance monitoring plan. 2.4.2 Inland Ground Water to Surface Water Pathway The results of our Phase II ESA indicate that an inland ground water to surface water pathway is not complete for indicator hazardous substances at the site (see Section 3.1). We have discussed with Ecology that onsite conditional points of compliance adjacent the Green River will be installed at the completion of construction activities. Confirmational monitoring of the points of compliance for any indicator hazardous substances (IHSs) above cleanup levels remaining on site in soil at the completion of remedial activities will be used to verify that IHSs are not reaching the Green River at concentrations that exceed surface water standards. 2.4.3 Soil to Vapor Inhalation Pathway Fractionation data from several soil samples obtained in October 1997 (GeoEngineers, January 6, 1998) indicate that a minor percentage of the TPH present at the limits of May and August "hot spot" excavations likely are lighter than equivalent carbon -16. Benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene or xylenes are not present at concentrations exceeding the MTCA Method A cleanup levels. Hydrocarbons lighter than equivalent carbon -16 generally are considered to be volatile. Ecology has not yet provided prescriptive rule or guidance on methods to evaluate the potential risk posed by TPH vapors. As a precaution, vapor control will be installed beneath the Family Fun Centers building on Parcel 3 for two reasons: (1) soil with TPH concentrations exceeding MTCA Method B cleanup levels, including some hydrocarbons lighter than equivalent carbon -16, will remain on Parcel 3, and (2) Parcel 3 is proximal to (but at an unknown exact distance from) the former landfill located to the east of the site, from which methane may be emanating. Potential migration of soil vapors . to indoor air in Parcel 3 will be mitigated by installing a passive venting system and vapor barrier beneath the Family Fun Center building. These engineering controls will effectively cut off the potential soil vapor to indoor air pathway. GeoEngineers 4 File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 2.4.4 Soil Direct Contact Pathway This pathway is not of concern for the planned site use because all soil with contaminants exceeding the site-specific direct contact cleanup levels will be capped. A deed restriction will identify the capped areas, depth of soil with contaminants and the IHSs by name and concentration in the event that site use changes or the cap needs to be disturbed for any reason. 3.0 SUMMARY OF CLEANUP STANDARDS 3.1 INDICATOR HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES The IHSs for the site soil were selected based on the criteria in WAC 173-340-708(2). The final IHSs are listed in Table 1. 3.2 CLEANUP AND REMEDIATION LEVELS 3.2.1 TPH A site-specific MTCA Method B soil cleanup level for TPH (exclusive of the former gasoline UST area) was calculated using equations in MTCA and Ecology's Interim Interpretive and Policy Statement, Cleanup of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (Interim TPH Policy) (GeoEngineers, January 6, 1998). Family Fun Centers will remediate TPH in soils beneath Parcel 2 to the Method B soil cleanup level of 2,984 mg/kg (Parcel 2 excavation remediation level), of which no more than 1,786 mg/kg may consist of "aromatic compounds. TPH in soils beneath Parcel 3 will be capped if the TPH concentration exceeds the MTCA Method B soil cleanup level (Parcel 3 capping remediation level), with the following exceptions: • The excavation remediation level for benzene and gasoline -range hydrocarbons in soil is 0.5 mg/kg and 100 mg/kg, respectively. • The excavation remediation level for sediment in the existing detention pond, and the northern portion of the drainage ditch that will not be capped, will be the MTCA Method A cleanup levels. • If Family Fun Centers elects to leave higher concentrations of benzene or gasoline -range hydrocarbons in soil, these constituents will be added to the list of analytes included in the ground water points of compliance sampling. The Parcel 2 excavation remediation level for TPH is the same as the site-specific TPH (diesel- and heavy oil -range hydrocarbons) cleanup level. The Parcel 3 capping remediation level will be concentrations of TPH (diesel- and heavy oil -range hydrocarbons) greater than 2,984 mg/kg. Consistent with the Interim TPH Policy, we applied Raoult's Law to the TPH fractionation data for selected October 1997 soil samples, and one sample from the former gasoline UST area. Our calculations indicate that, except for the gasoline UST area, petroleum hydrocarbons in the "hot spots" would not impact ground water relative to the MTCA Method A drinking water cleanup level for TPH, even if the soil was in direct contact with ground water (GeoEngineers, GeoEngineers 5 File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 January 6, 1998). These calculations indicate that the capping remediation level for TPH (diesel - and heavy oil -range hydrocarbons) in Parcel 3 will be protective of ground water. This is a conservative comparison because ground water at this ,site will not be used for drinking water. The primary receptor of ground water is the adjacent Green River. Therefore, the appropriate standards are for protection of surface water. Further precaution will be taken by aerating soil excavated from the petroleum -related "hot spots" and adding nutrients prior to placing the soil in Parcel 3. Our analysis of data for one sample from the former gasoline UST area, obtained in February 1998, indicated that the residual gasoline -range hydrocarbon concentration may not be protective of ground water quality. Therefore, gasoline -range hydrocarbon concentrations exceeding 100 mg/kg were excavated from the former gasoline UST area in August 1998. The ground water cleanup level for TPH at the points of compliance adjacent to the surface (see Sections 3.3 and 16.3) will be consistent with NPDES discharge limits. As stated in Section 2.4.2, the criteria of WAC 173-340-730 to protect surface water also will be met. 3.2.2 Other Indicator Hazardous Substances Indicator hazardous substances other than TPH in soil will be remediated to their respective MTCA Method A residential cleanup level or the most stringent MTCA Method B cleanup level for the given compound (Table 1). The Parcel 2 excavation remediation level for these compounds equals the cleanup levels listed in Table 1. The Parcel 3 capping remediation levels for these compounds will be concentrations greater than the respective MTCA Method A or B cleanup levels. 3.3 POINTS OF COMPLIANCE Conditional points of compliance to protect surface water will consist of monitoring wells situated adjacent to the Green River (see Section 16.3). We have discussed with Ecology the use of conditional points of compliance to protect surface water and Ecology agrees that this meets MTCA requirements. Compliance monitoring wells will be installed upon completion of the site development construction activities. If surface water quality standards are not met at the conditional points of compliance, appropriate actions to address the contaminant concentrations will be developed and implemented. 3.4 ARARS Federal, state and local applicable, relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) for the selected remediation at the proposed Family Fun Center site are listed in Table 2. 4.0 SUMMARY OF SELECTED CLEANUP ACTION The areas of the site where IHSs in soil exceed the cleanup and remediation levels are shown in 'Figure 3. Concentrations of IHSs in ground water do not exceed the site cleanup levels. Therefore, only cleanup action alternatives for soil have been evaluated. Alternatives for cleanup of soil at the site were evaluated with respect to criteria that determine if the cleanup action is G e o E n g i n e e r s 6 File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 permanent to the maximum extent practicable. The alternatives considered for soil are summarized in Table 4. The final cleanup actions selected are described in Sections 4.1 through 4.4 and consistent with MTCA (WAC 173-340-360): • They are protective of human health and the environment. • They comply with cleanup standards defined in WAC 173-340-700 through —760. • They comply with ARARs. • They provide for compliance monitoring. • They provide permanent solutions. • They provide for a reasonable restoration time frame. 4.1 SOIL The selected remedy (Alternative 3) for soil includes (1) excavation of soil on Parcell and Parcel 3 with concentrations of IHSs exceeding the cleanup levels, (2) placement and capping on Parcel 3 of excavated soil from Parcel 2, (3) off-site treatment of soil with IHSs other than TPH, (4) capping of IHSs on Parcel 3 that exceed cleanup levels, and (5) implementation of institutional controls (see Section 4.3). The evaluation of criteria for the selection of the cleanup action for soil is summarized in Table 5. 4.2 COMPLIANCE MONITORING Compliance monitoring will be completed to confirm protection, performance and confirmation of the cleanup action during and after construction activities (WAC 173-340-410). Our compliance monitoring plan for soil is presented in Section 16.1; the compliance monitoring plan for ground water is addressed in Section 16.3. 4.3 INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS 4.3.1 Restrictive Covenant for Ground Water Use Although only one location in ground water exceeded drinking water standards, a deed restriction will specify that ground water may not be used at the site. 4.3.2 Confirmational Monitoring The confirmational monitoring plan for ground water at the points of compliance is discussed in Section 16.3. 4.3.3 Cap Maintenance Plan Soil with TPH exceeding the site-specific MTCA Method B cleanup level (diesel- and heavy oil -range hydrocarbons) will be placed in Parcel 3 under a cap' consisting of (1) imported fill material, and (2) asphalt pavement or a building. Locations available for capping-TPH in soil are shown in Figure 5. The cap maintenance plan is discussed in Section 16.4. G e o E n g i n e e r s 7 File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 4.3.4 Vapor Control A passive venting system and vapor barrier will be installed under the Family Fun Center building. The vapor control design will be presented in a separate document once the building foundation type is finalized. 5.0 RATIONALE FOR SELECTION OF THE CLEANUP ACTION The selected cleanup actions for soil at the site are in accordance with WAC 173-340-360, as summarized in the following sections and Table 5. 5.1 PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT The preferred remedial action method for soil is protective of human health and the environment because the IHSs in soil exceeding the cleanup levels will be removed from the site or contained beneath a cap on Parcel 3. 5.2 ATTAINMENT OF STANDARDS The planned remedial action in Parcel 2 will remove soil with IHS concentrations exceeding the cleanup levels. On Parcel 3, IHSs above site-specific cleanup levels will be capped. The sediments from the detention pond and northern portion of the drainage ditch will be excavated and placed under the cap on Parcel 3. 5.3 LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS The remedial option for soil will involve source removal and capping; therefore, this option is expected to result in permanent elimination of risks related to direct exposure to contaminated soil. Indicator hazardous substances other than TPH will be removed from the site and treated. Also, TPH in soil beneath the cap will be mixed with nutrients prior to placement. Although not necessary, it is expected that this action will augment in-situ natural degradation of TPH. 5.4 COMPLIANCE WITH ARARS The remedial option will comply with federal, state and local ARARs, as discussed in Section 3.4. 5.5 COMPLIANCE MONITORING A Site Safety Plan (see Section 17.1) will address protection monitoring during the cleanup action; soil samples will be obtained during excavation to comply with compliance monitoring (see Section 16.0); and ground water confirmational monitoring will be conducted at points of compliance for a period of time after the cleanup action (see Section 16.3). In addition, a maintenance plan for the institutional controls will be developed and implemented. 6.0 SCHEDULE Areas in Parcel 2 with TPH (diesel- and heavy oil -range hydrocarbon) concentrations exceeding the site-specific MTCA Method B cleanup level, the sediments in Parcel 3 with TPH G e o E n g i n e e r s 8 File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 concentrations exceeding the MTCA Method A cleanup levels, the soil in Parcel 3 with gasoline - range hydrocarbon concentrations exceeding the MTCA Method A cleanup level, and areas in Parcels 2 and 3 with other IHSs exceeding the MTCA Method A or Method B cleanup levels will have been excavated prior to the commencement of grading activities, with two exceptions: sediments in the northern portion of the drainage ditch and chromium in soil near the base of the existing stockpile cannot be accessed and removed until the northern portion of the stockpile is moved. Grading activities are scheduled to start on about August 24, 1998. 7.0 PUBLIC NOTICE AND PUBLIC COMMENT This CAP is subject to Ecology review because the site has been entered into the Voluntary Cleanup Program. Public notice and comment are not required, however, because Family Fun Centers is completing remedial activities as an independent remedial action. ENGINEERING REPORT 8.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 8.1 GENERAL This Engineering Report presents the conceptual design, assumptions and construction specifications for a successful cleanup action at the proposed Family Fun Center site. The site location and description, summary of previous work conducted at the site, and nature and extent of contamination are provided in Section 2.0 of the CAP. 8.2 CLEANUP AND REMEDIATION LEVELS The cleanup and remediation levels for the site are presented in Section 3.2 of the CAP. 8.3 CAP REMEDIAL ACTION The selected remedial actions are presented in Section 4.0 of the CAP. Remedial actions that will be completed before and during construction activities are presented in Sections 11.1 through 11.3. 9.0 SCHEDULE 9.1 PERMITS The following permits either are or may be necessary to conduct remedial action at the site. 9.1.1 Excavation- and Backfill -related • SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) from the City of Tukwila • Land Altering Permit from the City of Tukwila • Shorelines Substantial Use Permit from the City of Tukwila • Rough Grading Permit from the City of Tukwila • Hauling Permit from the City of Tukwila Ge o En g i n e e r s 9 File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 9.1.2 Landfill No permits are expected to be needed to transport soil to a landfill, other than waste clearance from the receiving landfill facility. 9.2 FINAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION The contractor has not prepared a schedule past September 15, 1198. Riverbank stabilization, some movement of the existing stockpile to access the off -channel pond and Family Fun Center building pad, pre -load of the Family Fun Center building pad, and grubbing in general will occur during the period between August 24 and September 15. The existing stockpile will be further graded after September 15. Construction will begin after the pre -load period is completed. 10.0 CONCEPTUAL PLAN OF REMEDIAL ACTION 10.1 SOIL EXCAVATION The areas that exceed the cleanup and remedial levels are shown in Figure 3. An overview of the sequencing and events associated with remedial activities conducted before and during construction is presented below. • Clear any large vegetation from areas planned for excavation. Construct temporary erosion and sediment control measures. • Prepare temporary soil stockpile areas. • Prepare an equipment staging area, decontamination station for workers, residuals storage area, and site ingress and egress. • Delineate health and safety -regulated areas (exclusion zone, contamination reduction zone and support zone). • Excavate documented or encountered "hot spots" in Parcels 2 and 3 (areas with soil IHSs exceeding the excavation remediation levels) with a backhoe or track -mounted excavator. The equipment operator will take due care not to track through "hot spot" areas. • Field screen soil during excavation for evidence of TPH. • Place the soil from the "hot spots" with diesel- and heavy oil -range hydrocarbons in a temporary stockpile in Parcel 3. Soil in the former gasoline UST area with gasoline -range hydrocarbon concentrations exceeding the remediation level will be placed in a separate stockpile or will be transported off site to a soil treatment facility. • The initial limits of excavation of the "hot spot" areas with TPH only, or with commingling of TPH and other IHSs, will be determined based on the results of field screening of soil samples. The initial excavation of soil with chlordane exceeding the cleanup level will be limited to the upper 18 inches of soil. This will be completed in the area that was formerly a storage area adjacent to the barn. These soils will be transported off site to a soil treatment or disposal facility. • Remove slag accumulations from the site surface, and when encountered in recoverable volumes from the subsurface or within the existing soil stockpile in the eastern portion of the G e o E n g i n e e r s 10 File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 site. Place the slag in the temporary stockpile with TPH (diesel- and heavy oil -range hydrocarbons) concentrations exceeding the Parcel 2 excavation remediation levels. • Implement dewatering, if necessary, to allow removal of soil. It is anticipated that ground water will not be encountered and that the excavations may only need dewatering of surface water runoff. • Grading of the existing soil stockpile with TPH concentrations less than the site-specific MTCA Method B cleanup level onto Parcels 1, 2 and/or 3. Any organic soil or debris will be placed in construction debris piles. Stained soil and slag will be placed in a temporary stockpile for later reuse, as fill soil under a cap, on Parcel 3. • GeoEngineers will obtain samples from the stockpiled soil that appears to contain IHSs that exceed remediation levels based on field screening results. • The soil sampling of the "hot spot" excavations and soil stockpiles will be conducted in accordance with GeoEngineers' "Field Sampling and Chemical Analysis Plan" for the site. 10.2 REUSE/RECYCLING/LANDFILL Soil with TPH (diesel- and heavy oil -range hydrocarbons) concentrations exceeding the remediation levels from Parcels 2 and 3 will be placed as backfill under a portion of Parcel 3. These soils will be capped (see Section 10.4.1). If any soil is to be disposed of at a recycling or soil disposal facilities, the sequencing for handling is as follows: • Load the temporary_ stockpile into trucks or into transport containers, which will be loaded onto trucks. • Transport to the soil recycling facility, landfill or landfill transfer station. Truck routes, work days and times for truck traffic may be subject to approval by the City of Tukwila. • Document the number of trucks and approximate bulked volume of soil that is transported from the site and the weight of material received at the soil recycling facility or landfill. 10.3 BACKFILL AND REGRADING If appropriate structural fill material, soil with IHS concentrations less than cleanup levels will be used as backfill in "hot spot" excavations. Other backfill material will consist of imported noncontaminated soil. The backfill soil will be compacted in accordance with our geotechnical recommendations (GeoEngineers, June 30, 1997). Near the completion of construction activities, the temporarily stockpiled "hot spot" soil from Parcels 2 and 3 will be moved to an area in Parcel 3. These soils will be graded, covered with a subsurface cap, and surfaced with asphalt concrete (see Section 10.4.1). Soil with IHS concentrations less than the cleanup levels currently is stockpiled in the eastern portion of the site. This soil will be graded onto Parcels 1, 2 and 3, to bring the entire site grade up from the current average grade. GeoEngineers 11 File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 Parcel 3 will be developed in the construction season of 1998/1999 with buildings, pavement and landscaping, in accordance with Family Fun Centers' development plan. Parcels 1 and 2 will be sold to purchasers who also intend to develop with buildings, pavement and landscaping. 10.4 ENGINEERING CONTROLS 10.4.1 Cap All soil with TPH (diesel- and heavy oil -range hydrocarbons) concentrations exceeding the site-specific Parcel 2 excavation remediation levels and recoverable slag will be contained and managed by capping in Parcel 3. These materials will be placed in Parcel 3, at a depth not to exceed 8 feet below the ground surface, and compacted according to GeoEngineers' geotechnical specifications. A deed restriction will be filed, which states that the cap should not be disturbed unless necessary. If the cap is disturbed, potential soil direct contact issues will be addressed by making a health and safety plan available. Health and safety considerations will apply in areas that may be disturbed where soils contain concentrations above the site-specific Method B direct contact cleanup level for TPH. 10.4.1.1 Subgrade A minimum 1 -foot -thick layer of noncontaminated structural fill, either imported or soil from the site that is essentially free of organic material, will be placed above the contained soil. The structural fill will be placed to within approximately 6 to 9 inches of the final site grade. The imported fill will be compacted to GeoEngineers' geotechnical specifications. The structural fill will be covered with a minimum of 4 to 6 inches of densely compacted crushed rock surfacing (GeoEngineers, June 30, 1997). 10.4.1.2 Surface The surface cap placed over contained soil will consist of 2 to 3 inches of asphalt pavement, in accordance with Family Fun Centers' development plan. Soil exceeding site-specific cleanup levels in Parcel 3 will remain in situ and be capped with asphalt or portland cement concrete pavement, buildings and/or landscaping, in accordance with Family Fun Centers' development plan. 10.4.2 Vapor Control The vapor control for Parcel 3 is addressed in this Engineering Report. The rationale for including vapor control is discussed in Section 2.4.3 of the CAP. 10.4.2.1 Barrier An impermeable material, such as a geosynthetic membrane material, will be placed under the footprint of the Family Fun Center building to act as a vapor barrier. Any seams in the impermeable material and contacts with building materials will be sealed. GeoEngineers 12 File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 10.4.2.2 Passive Venting A passive venting system will be installed beneath the vapor barrier. The details of the passive venting system will be provided in a design document once the final foundation design is selected. In general, the passive venting system will consist of horizontal, perforated polyvinyl chloride (PVC) piping surrounded by gravel. A protective geotextile layer will be placed over the gravel and under the vapor barrier. The vent pipe(s) will daylight in landscaped areas, and will include a 180 -degree sweep. 11.0 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN CRITERIA 11.1 EXCAVATION The areas planned for excavation were determined based on soil analytical data from previous studies, as discussed in Section 2.2. These are the areas where IHS concentrations are documented to exceed soilcleanup levels. No specific design criterion is necessary to excavate the "hot spot" soil. 11.2 REUSE/LANDFILL/RECYCLING FACILITY DISPOSAL There are no applicable design criteria for reuse of the site soil or for transporting soil to a recycling facility or landfill, unless the City of Tukwila requires such in their Land Altering Permit. 11.3 BACKFILL AND REGRADING Any design criteria for backfill and regrading will be determined by the City of Tukwila in the Land Altering Permit conditions. 11.4 ENGINEERING CONTROLS 11.4.1 Cap The design criteria for the caps are listed below. 11.4.1.1 Subgrade Crushed rock should conform to Section 9-03.9(3) of the 1996 Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction. 11.4.1.2 Surface Asphalt concrete should be Class A or B, as specified in the 1996 WSDOT Specifications. Where soil exceeding the cleanup levels from Parcel 3 remains, the cap must meet the requirements of asphalt concrete or portland cement concrete (designed using a value of 100 pounds per cubic inch [pci] for the modulus of subgrade reaction). The cap will be inspected periodically and repaired as necessary to maintain the cap integrity, as discussed in Section 16.4. G e o E n g i n e e r s 13 File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 11.4.2 Vapor Control 11.4.2.1 Barrier We recommend a vapor barrier of 30 -mil -thick PVC or an approved equivalent, such as a spray -on material. 11.4.2.2 Passive Venting Piping used in the passive venting system should be machine -slotted PVC pipe manufactured by Advanced Drainage Systems (AASHTO M2252 Type SP), or an approved equivalent. Gravel bedding material should meet the requirements of Section 9-03.12(4) of the 1996 WSDOT Specifications. 11.5 ENGINEERING JUSTIFICATION 11.5.1 Design Criteria, Assumptions and Calculations The locations and depths of remaining soil exceeding cleanup levels are based on results of soil samples obtained during previous phases of assessment and excavation. Samples of soil from the site with IHS concentrations exceeding the cleanup levels are shown in Figure 2 and the chemical analytical data are summarized in Table 3. The estimated volume of soil exceeding cleanup levels is based on the locations and depths of these samples, and the assumption that "hot spot" contamination in Parcels 2 and 3 is shallow because of the nature of the sources of contamination. We assumed that contaminated soil at the "hot spots" will be excavated to a depth of at least 0.5 foot below the deepest contaminated sample obtained during our previous assessments. The estimated volume of soil (80,000 cubic yards) with TPH concentrations less than the cleanup level, currently stockpiled in the eastern portion of the site, was provided to us by Barghausen Consulting Engineers. Moisture/density tests of soil samples from the site indicate that the average in-place unit weight of the native soil is 1.4 tons per cubic yard. The volume of contaminated soil in the "hot spots" in Parcel 2 is calculated by assuming a rectangle of soil at each location of an average length, width and depth. The estimated in-place volume of soil in the "hot spot" areas of Parcels 2 and 3 is 600 cubic yards. This volume is equivalent to approximately 900 tons, based on the in- place unit weight. Design criteria are not applicable for potential dewatering during excavation, because large volumes of water from precipitation are not anticipated. 11.5.2 Selected Treatment Option, Immobilization and Containment Efficiencies The engineering justification for selecting excavation of "hot spots" in Parcels 2 and 3 as the preferred option is that excavation is a practical remedy for the depths that are being remediated. Soil excavation of "hot spots" soil in Parcels 2 and 3 , placement of a cap in Parcel 3, possible dewatering, and vapor control measures in Parcel 3 constitute immobilization and containment measures. G e o E n g i n e e r s 14 File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 11.5.3 Documentation of Effectiveness The effectiveness of soil excavation to remove contaminated soil at the "hot spot" locations in Parcels 2 and 3 will be documented by compliance samples, as described in Section 16.1. Past experience at similar sites provides the engineering justification that excavation will be effective in removing contaminated soil at the "hot spot" locations. For example, soil excavation has been successfully used at hundreds of sites in the Puget Sound region to remove contaminated soil. 11.5.4 Demonstration of Compliance with Cleanup Requirements Compliance with soil cleanup levels on Parcels 2 and 3 will be demonstrated by sampling and testing soil samples from the "hot spot" excavation limits. Compliance with remediation levels on Parcel 3 will be demonstrated by sampling and testing soil samples from the temporary stockpile prior to capping the soil beneath Parcel 3. Compliance with ground water cleanup levels at the site will be demonstrated by periodic ground water monitoring. The sampling frequency for soil is presented in Section 16.1 and in our "Field Sampling and Chemical Analysis Plan." The engineering justifications for these elements are based on Ecology guidance, soil conditions and past experience at similar sites. 12.0 SPILL CONTROL AND DESIGN SAFETY MEASURES 12.1 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURES AND LEAK DETECTION Soil excavation activitieswill be completed within the boundaries of the site. Excavated soil will be temporarily stockpiled before either being reused on site or transported off site. The excavation, loading and stockpile areas will be segregated from other active and inactive site areas. Fluids that may be generated during the remedial activities and grading of soil with TPH concentrations less than the MTCA Method B cleanup level include the following: • Decontamination wash and rinse water for personnel. • Decontamination rinse area for the buckets of heavy equipment when working in areas with non-TPH-related contamination and at the end of the field activities. • Wastewater from excavation dewatering. Excavation dewatering should only be necessary if runoff from the surface accumulates in the excavations during periods of precipitation. These fluids will be channeled via drainage swales to the temporary erosion control pond in the western portion of the site. The control pond will be constructed in September 1998. Water in the detention pond will be sampled periodically for the potential presence of IHSs. If IHS concentrations and turbidity are less than surface water discharge criteria, the water will be discharged through a pipe into a dispersion trench, with an outfall onto the site before the water enters into the Green River. Sediment at the base of the control pond will be removed and placed under the cap in Parcel 3 when the control pond is no longer needed. G e o E n g i n e e r s 15 File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 12.2 RUNOFF AND EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROLS Temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control plans were provided with the Land Altering Permit application that Barghausen Engineers submitted to the City of Tukwila. Erosion and sediment control measures, such as straw bales, soil berms and filter fabric will be used as needed to prevent runoff from entering the stockpile area, and to prevent runoff from leaving the stockpile area. Additionally, stockpiles (except the existing stockpile in the eastern portion of the site) will be covered if rainfall is expected. A filter fabric fence will extend along the southern and eastern boundaries of Parcel 3. In most areas of the site, the surface is not paved. This surface allows for general reinfiltration of precipitation, except in the northeast portion of the site, where surface water perennially ponds. A street sweeper will be used as necessary during hauling activities to keep the egress from the site clean of soil. Truck tires will be kept clean of soil debris to the extent possible by placing quarry spalls in the construction exit. 12.3 DESIGN SAFETY All construction activities will be completed in accordance with design criteria, OSHA and state regulations for construction safety and work at hazardous wastes sites, and local standards of practice for construction. 13.0 RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT Residuals that are expected to be generated during remedial activities and movement of soil currently stockpiled in the eastern portion of the site include: • Decontamination wash and rinse water for personnel. • Decontamination rinse water for heavy equipment. • Used personal protective equipment (PPE), such as TyvekTm, gloves and respirator cartridges. • Noncontaminated solid waste such as plastic bags, rope and plastic sheeting. Residuals will be stored in a designated area. The residuals management area will be secured within the site fence and labeled to prevent access by unauthorized personnel. Wastewater will be handled as discussed in Section 12.1. Used PPE and noncontaminated solid waste residuals will be placed in the on-site trash dumpster, which will be serviced by a licensed solid waste disposal company for disposal. 14.0 SITE-SPECIFIC CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION 14.1 SURFACE FEATURES 14.1.1 Site Access There are no current site facilities that would restrict times of access. Monster Road is the access to the site, and currently is fenced with a locking gate. Access will be restricted to G e o E n g i n e e r s 16 File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 authorized personnel during remedial activities. Gate(s) will be securely locked at the end of each day of field activities. 14.1.2 Probability of Flooding The site is located within the 100 -year flood plain, but is not expected to be subject to flooding during or after remedial activities. Remedial activities are planned to be completed from April through October 1998, during which flooding of the river is not likely to occur. During precipitation, surface water is likely to collect in the temporary erosion control pond in Parcel 1 (after the pond is constructed). Between April and August 1998, any surface water likely collected in the existing detention pond in Parcel 3. The sediments in the detention pond were excavated during "hot spot" removal in August 1,998. If standing water occurs in areas to be excavated, or if surface water collects in excavations, the water will be managed as dewatering fluids, if necessary (Section 12.1). 14.1.3 Seismic and Slope Stability The soils beneath the site may liquefy during an earthquake (GeoEngineers, June 30, 1997). Therefore, capping at the site could fracture during a seismic event. Section 16.4 addresses cap maintenance. There are no slope stability issues in the areas of remedial activities, other than worker concern about falling hazards when heavy equipment is operating on the existing soil stockpile. This potential hazard is discussed in our Site Safety Plan. 14.1.4 Probability of Wind Storm Damage Given thesite's location and the geography of the area, there is a low probability of wind damage to equipment related to the remedial action planned for this site. 14.1.5 Temperature Extremes It is unlikely that low temperature extremes during construction will occur because remediation of soil will not take place in the typically colder winter months. High temperatures (greater than 80 degrees Fahrenheit) in the summer could cause difficult conditions for workers protected in Level D or Level C. The Site Safety Plan will address precautions for workers to take in the case of heat stress. High temperatures also could cause equipment to overheat. Equipment usage and temperatureswill be monitored during activities to prevent damage or potentially unsafe conditions. 14.1.6 Precipitation The grading activities are anticipated to occur during the drier months to minimize possible difficulties caused by precipitation, as the soils on the site are moisture -sensitive. Grading of the site surface and erosion and sediment control measures will be used to minimize surface runoff from accumulating in the excavation and stockpile areas. GeoEngineers 17 File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 14.1.7 Local Planning and Development Issues The proposed remedial action is not expected to conflict with any local planning and development issues known to Family Fun Centers at this time. Ultimate development and reuse of the property is consistent with public policies that encourage recycling of "brownfields" sites. 14.2 OTHER FEATURES 14.2.1 Soil The site is located within an alluvial valley of sediments deposited by the Green River. It is likely that several meander channels existed at the site prior to filling of the site. As a result of the meander channels and filling, subsurface conditions vary horizontally and vertically beneath the site. The existing soil stockpile in Parcel 3 consists of imported silty sand, silty gravel, and silt with variable amounts of sand and gravel. Much of the stockpile material contains organic matter. Debris, consisting of wood, concrete, brick, metal, wire, slag, drums and other items, has been encountered in the stockpile. Based on our explorations and those completed by others, the site generally is underlain by variable fills and alluvial silt and sand deposits. Site fill extends to depths of zero to approximately 21 feet across the site. The fill consists of sand, sand with silt, silty sand, and silt with varying amounts of sand. Debris consisting of wood, concrete, brick, slag and railroad ties has been encountered in the fill. Slag is present on the surface and in the fill in Parcels 2 and 3. The results of GeoEngineers' testing indicate that the slag is nonexpansive. Slag handling is discussed in Sections 10.1 and 10.4.1. Native soil beneath the site generally consists of soft silt interbedded with loose sand, ranging in thickness of 4 to 15 feet, underlain by medium dense to dense sand. We encountered loose sand, grading to medium dense sand at a depth of approximately 30 feet, beneath the site fill in Parcel 1. 14.2.2 Surface Water The nearest surface water body is the Green River, which is adjacent to the northern property boundary. Remedial actions are not expected to affect the Green River. Surface water that accumulates on the site during precipitation events will be diverted into a temporary erosion control pond, which will be completed in September 1998. The pond will be sampled after storm events, or when the pond fills prior to discharge, for petroleum hydrocarbons. If petroleum hydrocarbons are present at concentrations exceeding surface water discharge criteria, the water will be treated to concentrations less than the discharge criteria prior to discharge into Green River. 14.2.3 Ground Water The depths to ground water measured previously at the site range from approximately 11 to 14 feet below the current site grade. Additionally, perched water was encountered in test pits and the gasoline UST excavation at depths ranging from approximately 3 to 13 below the ground surface. In general, ground water conditions at the site should be expected to fluctuate in GeoEngineers 18 File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 response to the water level of the Green River, and as a function of season, precipitation and other factors. Notably, the ground water gradient appeared to have locally reversed from to the river to away from the river near the detention pond during the winter months of 1997/1998. This may be the result of recharge of surface water in this area. Soil excavation is not expected to occur beneath the ground water table. Some perched water may be encountered during excavation. 14.2.4 Air Quality Attainment Area Status Excavation and stockpiling activities are likely to result in localized petroleum odors. Health and safety air quality monitoring will take place within the active work areas, and periodically at the downwind site perimeter to ensure that workers or the public are not exposed to harmful vapors. Because the "hot spots" are located in the interior of the site and the contaminants are predominantly heavy end with relatively low volatility, nuisance odors are not anticipated to affect the public. However, engineering controls or specific work practices will be employed to reduce vapors and/or nuisance odors if detected. Engineering controls and work practices that may be used on this site to reduce vapors include (1) covering excavations and the stockpile of soil from the "hot spots" with plastic sheeting at the end of each field day; (2) limiting the rate of excavation and movement of soil on a daily basis; (3) temporarily stopping work, if necessary; and (4) using a foam suppressant to minimize vapor generation. The worker -breathing zone will be monitored in accordance with procedures described in the Site Safety Plan to evaluate potential exposures. Work practices will be modified as needed to mitigate vapor generation. Odors or potentially hazardous vapors could result from soil loading activities. Engineering controls and work practices outlined in the previous paragraph may be used to reduce odors or vapors. Additionally, loaded trucks may be covered, if necessary, to reduce odor or vapors. 15.0 CONSTRUCTION TESTING/QUALITY CONTROL 15.1 SOIL EXCAVATION Quality control protocols to be followed by the chemical analytical laboratory are managed by the laboratory and are not addressed in this Engineering Report. GeoEngineers' review of chemical data are described in the "Field Sampling and Chemical Analysis Plan," which will be submitted as a separate document. 15.2 REUSE/LANDFILL/RECYCLING FACILITY DISPOSAL Soil construction testing and quality control are managed by the recycling or landfill facility and are not addressed in this Engineering Report. 15.3 BACKFILL AND REGRADING Construction testing and backfill material placement and compaction will occur during. backfilling of the "hot spot" excavations. The compliance monitoring for backfilling is discussed in Section 16.1. GeoEngineers 19 File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 15.4 ENGINEERING CONTROLS 15.4.1 Capping Construction testing and backfill material placement and compaction of the subsurface cap will occur during emplacement of the subsurface cap. The compliance monitoring for the emplacement of the subsurface cap is the same as the backfilling discussed in Section 16.1. 15.4.2 Vapor Control GeoEngineers will monitor the placement of the passive venting system and vapor barrier. 16.0 COMPLIANCE MONITORING 16.1 SOIL EXCAVATION 16.1.1 Excavation Sampling As generally discussed in Section 10.1, confirmation sampling of the "hot spot" excavations will include the following tasks: • Obtain confirmatory soil samples from the "hot spot" excavation limits according to the frequency in our "Field Sampling and Chemical Analysis Plan." • Select sample locations based on the results of field screening. In general, the area sampled will be where field screening indicates a potential for the highest concentration of IHSs for characterization purposes. Sample locations and depths will be documented in the field. • Analyze excavation soil samples by the analytes of concern at each excavation, as discussed in the "Field Sampling and Chemical Analysis Plan." • Evaluate confirmation sample analytical results by comparison with the soil cleanup levels. • Complete additional excavation if confirmation sampling indicates that contaminant concentrations exceed the cleanup levels. Resampling will be completed to confirm that soil with concentrations of contaminants exceeding the cleanup levels has been successfully removed. 16.1.2 Removed Soil Sampling Stockpiles will be used for temporarily holding soil. The stockpiles will include soil from the following activities: • "Hot spot" excavations, both petroleum contamination only and non -petroleum related contamination. • Existing stockpile where field screening results indicate that IHS concentrations may exceed documented concentrations. Confirmation samples will be obtained from the temporary stockpiles. The sampling frequency will be in accordance with Ecology guidance. If soil from the temporary stockpile is disposed of at a recycling facility or landfill, confirmation sampling results will be submitted to the recycling facility or landfill as part of the waste approval process. GeoEngineers 20 File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 16.2 BACKFILL AND REGRADING Backfill placement and compaction will be monitored to evaluate compliance with the design specifications (Section 11.3). Monitoring will be performed under the direction of a license professional engineer registered in Washington. Monitoring and compaction testing results will be documented in daily field reports and summarized in our report documenting geotechnical services. 16.3 GROUND WATER CONFIRMATIONAL MONITORING The compliance monitoring plan for ground water will be presented in a separate document. In general, points of compliance will be installed adjacent to the Green River. Periodic monitoring of ground water at the points of compliance will be conducted upon the completion of the cleanup action. If surface water quality standards are not met at the conditional points of compliance, appropriate actions to address the contaminant concentrations will be developed and implemented. 16.4 CAP MAINTENANCE PLAN Placement and compaction of the subsurface portion of the subsurface cap will be monitored to evaluate compliance with the design specifications (Section 11.4.1). Monitoring of the placement of the surface portion of the cap will be performed under the direction of a licensed, professional engineer registered in Washington. Monitoring and compaction testing results will be documented as other backfill results (Section 16.2). 16.5 PASSIVE VENTING SYSTEM Placement of the passive venting system and vapor, barrier will be monitored to evaluate compliance with the design specifications (Section 11.4.2 and specific design in preparation). Monitoring results will be summarized in our report documenting environmental services. 17.0 HEALTH AND SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS 17.1 SITE SAFETY PLAN A copy of the site safety plan will be kept on site and will be made available to authorized visitors to the site for general information. The contractors must maintain their own site safety plan. 17.2 PROTECTION MONITORING DURING REMEDIAL ACTIVITIES Air monitoring and sampling will be performed to document exposure levels and to assure that necessary precautions are taken to protect on-site personnel and the general public. Real- time air monitoring and air sampling will be conducted during all site activities that have a potential for generating chemical exposures. Excavation activities and movement of the existing stockpile will be monitored closely. The Site Safety Plan contains a description of action levels and instruments for air monitoring and sampling. G e o E n g i n e e r s 21 File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 17.3 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES PERTINENT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY The following measures will be employed to assure that remedial activities conform to site health and safety requirements: • Copies of the Site Safety Plan will be maintained on site at all times during remedial activities. • Site personnel will conduct a detailed pre -construction safety meeting. At that time, all aspects of the Site Safety Plan will be reviewed. • Brief tailgate safety meetings will take place before the start of work each day. The site personnel will discuss safety issues related to the work to be performed. • Daily field logs will be prepared that document site safety meetings and events and document the results of health and safety air monitoring. G e o E n g i n e e r s 22 File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 REFERENCES AGI. April 26, 1989. "Environmental Audit and Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Nielson and Homewood Properties, Tukwila, Washington" (prepared for Hillman Properties Northwest [without figures)). Geotech Consultants, Inc. June 17, 1994. "Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment, Tukwila Park and Reid/Nielson Property, South Grady Way and Interurban Avenue, Tukwila, Washington" (prepared for D. Michael Dunne [without Plates 1 and 2]). Geotech Consultants, Inc. January 24, 1997. "Supplemental Phase 2 Environmental Characterization Study, Nielson Property, Southwest Grady Way and Interurban Avenue" (prepared for Scott Huish). GeoEngineers, Inc. June 30, 1997. "Geotechnical Engineering Services, Family Fun Center, Tukwila, Washington" (prepared for Mulvanny Partnership Architects). GeoEngineers. November 17, 1997. "Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report" (prepared for Family Fun Centers). GeoEngineers. January 6, 1997. "Site-specific Method B Soil Cleanup Level for Petroleum Hydrocarbons" (prepared for Family Fun Centers). GeoEngineers, Inc. April 22 1998. "Report of Environmental Services, Underground Storage Tank Removal Monitoring, Supplemental Subsurface Assessment and Research Findings" (prepared for Family Fun Centers). Washington State Department of Ecology. January 16, 1997. "Interim Interpretive and Policy Statement, Cleanup of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)," Publication No. ECY97-600. Washington State. November 24, 1993. "Model Toxics Control Act - Cleanup," Chapter 173- 340 WAC. GeoEngineers 23 File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 TABLE 1 FINAL INDICATOR HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES, CLEANUP LEVELS AND REMEDIATION LEVELS FOR SOIL AND GROUND WATER FAMILY FUN CENTER TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Ground Water Compound Cleanup Level (mg/I) Analytical Method Diesel and Heavy Oil -range Hydrocarbons 101 WTPH-D extended or NWTPH-Dx Soil' Compound Cleanup Level and Parcel 2 Excavation Remediation Level (mg/kg) Parcel 3 Capping Remediation Level (mg/kg) Parcel 3 Excavation Remediation Level Analytical Method TPH2 (diesel- and heavy oil -range hydrocarbons) TPH (sediment in detention pond and drainage ditch) Gasoline -range Hydrocarbons Benzene Arsenic Nickel Chromium Beryllium Lead cPAHs Chlordane 2,9843 200/200 100 0.5 20.04 1,6005 1004 0.2335 2504 1.04 0.7695 >2,984 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 200/200 100 0.5 NA NA 100 NA NA NA NA WTPH-D extended or NWTPH-Dx WTPH-G or NWTPH-Gx EPA Method 8021B EPA 6000/7000 series methods EPA 6000/7000 series methods EPA 6000/7000 series methods EPA 6000/7000 series methods EPA 6000/7000 series methods EPA Method 8270C or 8310 EPA Method 8081A Notes: 'National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge criteria•. t.TPHCleanup Level applies to,all diesel- and heavy oil -range hydrocarbons in Parcels 2 and 3, except the sediment in the detention pond and drainage ditch"along,the easit stern e boundary The; cleanupIevels for sediment are MTCA Method A criteria:' 200 mg/kg fordiesel-range hydrocarbons; and 200 mg/kg for heavy oil -range hydrocarbons. Site -speck Model Toxics Control Act"(MTCA)•Method B cleanup level using equations m the ""Interim Interpretive and Policy Statement• ,; Cleanup of Total Petroleum"Hydrocarbons (Ecology, 1997) MTCA Method A residential cleanup level. MTCA Method B cleanup level -from "MTCA Cleanup Levels (CLARC 1I) Update" dated February 1996. mg/I =;; milligrams perliter mg/kg,: milligrams per NA not_applicable P:\500to599\5925003\finals\5925003tables.xls\ I — — TABLE 2 (Page 1 of 2) SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE, RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS FAMILY FUN CENTER TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Requirement Source Description Comments Federal Clean Air Act 42 USC § 7401 Established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) that may be applicable to remedial actions that would result in "major sources" of emissions. Requirements, although generally applicable, are superceded by state standards. Washington Clean Air Act RCW 70.94 State ambient air quality standards supercede the NAAQS. These standards are anticipated to be applicable to activities that would result in "major sources" of emissions. Remedial excavation may be subject to these regulations. General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources WAC 173-400 Regulation establishes policy to provide control and/or prevention of air pollution and standards for emission of contaminants in the state. Remedial excavation may be subject to these regulations. Model Toxics Control Act WAC 173-340 Establishes administrative processes and standards to identify, investigate and clean up state sites. Primary regulation governing cleanup of site. Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Air emissions permits are required of all new sources according to established procedures and criteria. Not applicable unless a point source of vapors. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments 42 USC § 7401-7642 and 40 CFR 264.94 Comprehensive regulations regarding the management of RCRA hazardous wastes, including control, transport, storage and disposal. Not applicable unless hazardous wastes are managed at the site, which is not expected. Dangerous Waste Regulations WAC 173-303 Regulations regarding control, transport, treatment, storage and disposal of state dangerous wastes. It is not expected that contaminated soil will classify as a dangerous or extremely hazardous waste. Federal Water Quality Criteria (CWA) 33 USC § 1251 (a)(1) Established criteria based on designated or potential use of water and designated use of the receiving waters. Nonenforceable guidance developed under CWA and used by states to set water quality standards. Washington Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters RCW 90.48, WAC 173- 220 and 173-201A Established state's water quality standards for surface waters. May apply to ground water discharge to surface water. However, indicator hazardous substances have not exceeded surface water cleanup levels in ground water. Minimum Standards for Construction and Maintenance of Wells WAC 173-160 Establishes minimum standards for water supply and resource protection wells. Applies to decommissioning existing resource protection wells and construction of new wells. State Water Resources Management Program RCW 90.44.050 Applies to the withdrawal of greater than 5,000 gallons of day of ground water for treatment. Unlikely to apply. Notes appear on Page 2 of 2 P:\500to599\5925003\finals\5925003t2.xls TABLE 2 (Page 2 of 2) Requirement Source Description Comments Standards for Solid Waste Handling RCW 70.95 and WAC 173-304 These state rules would apply to the disposal of contaminated solid waste on-site or off-site that did not constitute a hazardous waste (RCW 70.95; WAC 173-304). Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) 29 CFR 1910 and SARA Sec. 126 Requires that onsite workers engaged in hazardous waste operations complete 40 -hour health and safety training. Applies to workers at the site performing remediation -related tasks. Washington Safety and Health Act (WISHA) WAC 296-62-300 Establishes training requirements for workers at hazardous waste sites. Applies to workers at the site performing remediation -related tasks. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) RCW 43.21 and WAC 197-11. These rules promote welfare of human health and the environment. An environmental checklist was completed for the SEPA permit, which currently is pending City of Tukwila approval. City of Tukwila, Land Altering and Rough Grading Permits City Ordinance No. 1591 Establishes requirements for conducting land -altering activities in the City of Tukwila. Remedial excavation is subject to this ordinance. Hydraulic Project Approval RCW 75.20.100 and 75.20.108 Regulates projects that will use, divert, obstruct or change the natural flow or bed of any fresh or salt water of the state. Section 401 Water Quality Certification 33 USC§1341 RCW 90.48.260 Necessary from Ecology when federal approval required for a project. Applies to the site because of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Nationwide Permit 19. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 Nationwide Permit 19 for Minor Dredging Federal Register Vol. 61, No. 241 and 33 USC§1341 Required for discharge or excavation of dredged or fill material waterward of high water mark or the mean higher high tide in waters of the U.S. P:\500to59915925003\finals\5925003t2.xls - TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF SAMPLES WITH SOIL CONCENTRATIONS EXCEEDING CLEANUP LEVELS FAMILY FUN CENTER TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Sample Identification' Date Sampled Approximate Sample Depth (feet) General Location' Hot Spot Area Designation Compound and Concentration Estimated Cubic Yards Per Area HA -2-0.5 10/06/97 0.5 Parcel 2/3, Adjacent to Former Barn A Chlordane 0.834 mg/kg 60 SP -23-0.5 10/03/97 0.5 Parcel 2/3, Near Former Auto Repair Shop B Diesel -range Hydrocarbons 3,650 mg/kg Arsenic 30.4 mg/kg Nickel 2,720 mg/kg Chromium 196 mg/kg 35 EX -B4-1.0 05/05/98 1.0 Parcel 2, Near Former Auto Repair Shop B Beryllium 0.59 mg/kg Lead 570 mg/kg HA -4-0.5 10/06/97 0.5 Parcel 2, Near Former Auto Repair Shop C Diesel -range Hydrocarbons 3,530 mg/kg Heavy Oil -range Hydrocarbons 19,200 mg/kg cPAHs 1.84 mg/kg 10 HA -6-0.5 10/06/97 0.5 Parcel 2, Former Oil Dump Area D Diesel -range Hydrocarbons 4,350 mg/kg 10 SP -25-1.0 10/06/97 1.0 Parcel 2, Former Oil Dump Area D Diesel -range Hydrocarbons 6,860 mg/kg Heavy Oil -range Hydrocarbons 31,700 mg/kg SP -7-30.0 10/02/97 30.0 Parcel 3, North End of Stockpile E Chromium 1,150 mg/kg 40 HA -1-1.0 02/26/98 1.0 Parcel 3, Sediment in Detention Pond F Gasoline -range Hydrocarbons 1,990 mg/kg 350 EX -G1-7 02/25/98 7.0 Parcel 3, Former Gasoline UST Area G Gasoline -range Hydrocarbons 235 mg/kg 30 EX -G3-7 02/25/98 7.0 Parcel 3, Former Gasoline UST Area G Benzene 1.16 mg/kg HA -3-0.5 02/26/98 1.5 Parcel 3, Sediment in Drainage Ditch H Heavy Oil -range Hydrocarbons 400 mg/kg 70 .................._........ ................ . Notes: 'The complete dataset results for these samples either are reported In ;GeoEngineers Phase II ESA final cleanup action report. The approximate sample locations are shown in Figure 3. mg/kg milligrams per kilogram cPAHs = carcinogenic polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons.:, UST underground storage tank dated; November 17, :1997 or will be summarized in;'a P:\500to599\5925003\finals\5925003tables.xls\3 TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR SOIL FAMILY FUN CENTER TUKWILA, WASHINGTON P:\500to59915925003\finals\592500314.xls Alternative Description 1. Natural Attenuation and Institutional Controls Institutional controls and degradation of petroleum contaminants by natural attenuation. Deed restriction, passive venting under buildings and natural attenuation of TPH. 2. Parcel 2 "Hot Spot" Removal, Capping Under Parcel 3 and Institutional Controls Excavate soil in Parcel 2 exceeding MTCA Method B cleanup levels; cap the removed soil under Parcel 3; passive venting on Parcel 3 under buildings; and deed restrictions. 3. Parcel 2 "Hot Spot" Removal, Capping of TPH Under Parcel 3, Off -Site Disposal of Non-TPH, and Institutional Controls Excavate soil in Parcel 2 exceeding MTCA Method B Cleanup levels; cap the removed soil with TPH under Parcel 3; passive venting under buildings on Parcel 3; off-site disposal of soil from hot spots with chlordane, cPAHs and metals; and deed restrictions. 4. Excavate all IHSS in Soil to MTCA Method A Cleanup Levels Excavate soil with concentrations exceeding MTCA Method A cleanup levels on Parcels 2 and 3, and off-site disposal. No deed restrictions with respect to soil. 5. In-situ Treatment of TPH, and Excavate and Dispose of Non-TPH In-situ treatment of soil with TPH concentrations exceeding MTCA Method A cleanup levels on Parcels 2 and 3; excavation of non-TPH contaminants on Parcels 2 and 3; off-site disposal of non-TPH contaminants. No deed restrictions with respect to soil. P:\500to59915925003\finals\592500314.xls TABLE 5 (Page 1 of 2) EVALUATION OF CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF REMEDIAL ACTION FAMILY FUN CENTER. TUKWILA, WASHINGTON TUKWILA, WASHINGTON WAC 173-340 Evaluation Criteria Alternative 1-- Natural Attenuation and Institutional Controls Alternative 2 -- Parcel 2 Hot Spot Removal; Capping Under Parcel 3; and Institutional Controls Alternative 3 — Parcel 2 Hot Spot Removal, Capping of TPH Under Parcel 3; Off-site Disposal of Non-TPH; Institutional Controls Alternative 4 — Excavate All IHSs in Soil to MTCA Method A Cleanup Levels Alternative 5 — In-situ Treatment of TPH, and Excavate and Dispose of Non-TPH Overall Protection of Human Health and Environment Concentrations of IHSs exceed levels protective of human health and environment. Concentrations of IHSs that exceed cleanup levels would be protected by a cap. Removal of impacted soils would be subject to health and safety requirements. Concentrations of IHSs that exceed cleanup levels would be protected by a cap. Removal of impacted soils would be subject to health and safety requirements. Removal of impacted soils would be subject to health and safety requirements. Would be protective without institutional controls. Soil with IHS concentrations that exceed cleanup levels would not remain at the site or be treated on site. Removal of impacted soils would be subject to health and safety requirements. Compliance with Cleanup Standards Concentrations of IHSs are not in compliance with cleanup standards. Concentrations of IHSs would be in compliance with the site-specific cleanup and remediation levels. Concentrations of IHSs would be in compliance with the site-specific cleanup and remediation levels. ' Concentration of IHSs would be in compliance with non -site- specific MTCA Method A cleanup. Concentration of IHSs would be in compliance with non -site - specific MTCA Method A cleanup. Use of Permanent Solutions to Extent Possible With time, the natural degradation of hydrocarbons would be permanent. Concentrations of IHSs in Parcel 2 would be permanently reduced to levels below cleanup standards. The reduction of mobility and exposure to IHSs in Parcel 3 would be permanent. Concentrations of IHSs in Parcel 2 would be permanently reduced to levels below cleanup standards. TPH in Parcel 3 likely would degrade over time. However, soil concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons may not decrease to less than the site-specific MTCA Method B cleanup level for a long time. The reduction of mobility and exposure to IHSs in Parcel 3 would be permanent. Alternative would provide permanent reduction of IHSs below cleanup standards. Alternative would provide permanent reduction of IHSs below cleanup standards. P:1500to599\5925003\finals\5925003 T5. xls Table 5 (Page 2 of 2) WAC 173-340 Evaluation Criteria Alternative 1— Natural Attenuation and Institutional Controls Alternative 2 — Parcel 2 Hot Spot Removal; Capping Under Parcel 3; and Institutional Controls Alternative 3 — Parcel 2 Hot Spot Removal, Capping of TPH Under Parcel 3; Off-site Disposal of Non-TPH; Institutional Controls Alternative 4 -- Excavate All IHSs in Soil to MTCA Method A Cleanup Levels Alternative 5 -- In-situ Treatment of TPH, and Excavate and Dispose of Non-TPH Compliance with ARARs Intrinsic biodegradation requires no intervention and complies with ARARs, except MTCA. Excavation and maintenance of institutional controls subject to requirements of ARARs. Excavation, maintenance of institutional controls and off-site disposal subject to ARARs. Excavation and off-site disposal subject to ARARs. Excavation, on-site treatment and off-site disposal subject to ARARs. Compliance Monitoring Ground water monitoring would document that ground water that has been impacted by soil concentrations is protective of surface water standards. Ground water monitoring would document that containment of IHSs in soil is protective of surface water standards. Ground water monitoring would document that containment of IHSS in soil is protective of surface water standards. Ground water monitoring would document that removal of IHSs in soil is protective of surface water standards. Ground water monitoring would document that treatment and removal of IHSs in soil is protective of surface water standards. Reasonable Restoration Time Frame Restoration time frame may be tens of years. Restoration time frame would be several months. Restoration time frame would be several months, given that the cap in Parcel 3 is at the least a containment action. Restoration time frame could be a year. Restoration time frame could be several years. Rough Estimate of Comparative Cost $150,000 (assumes 15 years of ground water monitoring) $200,000* $150,000" $15,000,000 $2,000,000* `Does not include screening of approximately 80,000 cubic yards of soil that currently is stockpiled, which may be $200,000 to $400,000. P:\500to599\5925003Vinals\59250031.5.xls r, cnN to 0 0 0 L') L7 J 0 ',I� `)/,‘:k. '04• ''r ' I <''"i:^ -=: s q' LA,r,Srow !• Rn ^i �:..d� ; • .FLY1 • > � f ! JI1 ma=r,/ I • �� /v J Mp r4n� SG ? I / ao a: .' /J �' ..i,At' \ d YN 7vi r. n^r o : KS �. I ,T S _ : , 1 ; S 132"40 -r� � s 133RD IST � Tr��Ar�, J. i'*�T e+fi"r s_ 1• /7 E f l/ ",�.,a r��s� ,\��r�,^. _ \ ,�g L FQ GOLF •-`� �Q �a • - '14 ,,,.,./ cp� COJJPSf � R 1 i x sr' J JUjIG I � R ,J I WY �w V N - • t ig "a ; ,, a . &rh at 41 (yyn sy I S I I sr nI, " r c - sir sr>� �� n �;� Li + s y j S. ', - n Sen, 3 .,l int r 1K3Rp �_ /mac'84' JL ,i"TH i <�sT Is 1 cRD ''\ S ]S W� -, /-1 s 1�' `�. po/�. 1. rl.ra, .7 el ..... DARK \� / �'•'.y' :�.. \ / LIB <' ;-:3 ^' ":: ;�\� < �? J• ` w 1J.;- '1 '1 8 _ PARK <' .' 1 ' f s le9f?{ ST STI co ...iv :n�tr� � r •F��1 .f- , p • R..: 4I NTON J ' _. ,'„ Q'� I:. J .I 3 �'. 5 rj`r (/Ij ,� pY - yl "' . • nI - 23 '<7 51ST s J _ sr 1 I. sr •`•, _-. - ..` • \ 1_4, A ,v/► _ 11 �'I I�' <� S � 52MD•s; S tromp •. - � ` .. T. - �i ' — H _t •. �,S ]$2ND PL 1� `. ,n .nl `f <-..k�a�1� ,�1' E Y i- N �,. '� s00 153RD \''=�;; 3 •' _7 J iiII(ILi ..,..if.-----. ,..4 ■B`v It‘1,.. ----_,. 1 s I I .- aRr F .,- . SOU HLM7 R iwn _' \aj � 3 , P.KM'Y 1_ GRc_H —+ _ 't I r - f C 1 .i'. 1 1 P 162—smST 4> CI.1 I _ ;D. BAKER BLVD3 > �1 - 1'r 1•- "y SM ?3RD $7S I." .L I �+ + 3 a.+I IC , ("�"`_ , 1 '< I.., . \� 7 'L__ -.__.1. a 1 I . �!-� i� STRANDER i BLVD 'S414' ! 1 -.0 i K_iss • SOUTFICE ilI. ',..REN TON 277}1 ST • r I ' ,nl TUCK 1 I t, • 15,x, �� 6NC2 i0N 29TH S; ST J . L 1 ` - T isw 30TH i 5106 tI I �`• T omear ,< �ac - \\ow � �a 1 1T I \q v' Sil' 33RD Ski( 0 sr i''' 2l I T i ST a1 .. .. .C' lzJ _ . ! l CI PL 1 / r COROORATt1 I i 1 bl r ` DR _ MINKLER - _ I I I BLVD W 1 .... ,..7 $ .. �' 1 PARA7/AY { ` ".1 1 .1 I S•,�`._. SV/-••• ST 1 -' fr../I j \ PLAZA 1 1 of T • +� ST MTnI GNB na!i T - , 1 - ,,, -a., - 0 2000 4000 SCALE IN FEET with permission grcnted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS. This mcp is copyrighted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or ony part thereof, whether for personal use or resole, without permission. IReproduced GeoEn 'veers `.� VICINITY MAP FIGURE 1 EXPLANATION: TP -1 -61 - HA -1 •+l• MW -1 • 8P-1 0 HA -1+ GCB -18 -� GCWf-14 O GCT -1* AB -2 -�- AT-4 -Elf TEST PIT COMPLETED BY GEOENGINEERS (02/98) HAND AUGER COMI'LL• I EI) BY GL• OL• NGINL• ERS (02/98) MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GEOENGINEERS (11/97) STRATOPROBEBORING COMPLETED BY GEOENGINEERS (10/97) HAND—AUGERED BORING COMPLETED BY GEOENGINEERS (10/97) BORING COMPLETED BY GEOTECH CONSULTANTS (STUDY DATED JANUARY 24, 1997) MONITORING WELL COMPLETED BY GEOTECH CONSULTANTS (STUDY DATED JANUARY 24, 1997) TEST PIT COMPLETED BY GEOTECH CONSULTANTS (STUDY DATED JANUARY 24, 1997) BORING COMPLETED BY APPLIED GEOTECHNOLOGY (STUDY DATED APRIL 26, 1989) TEST PIT COMPLETED BY APPLIED GEOTECHNOLOGY (STUDY DATED APRIL 26, 1989) Al !A' UNE OF (SEE FIGURE CROSS SECTION FORCROSS SECTION) q1 Approximate Limits of Existing Soil Stockpile <Po \\ ♦ 8P-2 AB -2 rr / 8P-23 A -43 -AT -7 8P-22 8P-18 • aO o� 0 OCT -1 ♦ 8P-13 AT -8 41- ♦ 8P-17 sW MONSTER Ra40 98012301-3-8 E:\ 5925003\59 25003A. DWG + H A-12 +HA -9 HA -10+ HA -11- 100 200 SCALE IN FEET Note: The locations of all features shown are approximate. Note: Explorations as of February 1998 shown. Reference: Drawing entitled "Concept Site Plan" provided by Mulvanny Partnershlp Architects, doted June 17, 1997. SITE PLAN FIGURE 2 0 r7 0 0 tn (V 0) to t7 O 0 N 0) w EXPLANATION: SP -1 A STRATOPROBETh BY GEOENGINEERS (1100/9)MPLETED HA -1+ HAND-AUGERED BORING COMPLETED BY GEOENGINEERS (10/97) EX -24® EXCAVATION SAMPLE OBTAINED BY GEOENGINEERS ��" (FEBRUARY 1998 AND MAY 1998) rj^J (MAY ORO AUGUST r V19908) BY GEOENGINEERS 8 BENZENE (mg/kg) BY EPA METHOD 80218 G GASOLINE -RANGE HYDROCARBONS (mg/kg) BY ECOLOGY METHOD NWTPH-GX D DIESEL -RANGE HYDROCARBONS (mg/kg) 8Y ECOLOGY METHOD WTPH-D EXTENDED OR M NWTPH-DX 0 HEAVY OIL -RANGE HYDROCARBONS (mg/kg) BY ECOLOGY METHODMETHOD WTPH-D EXTENDED OR METHOD NWTP CPAH CARCINOGENIC POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (mg/kg) BY ECOLOGY INTERIM TPH METHOD Chr CHLORDANE (µg/kg) BY EPA METHOD 8081 M ARSENIC (mg/kg) BY EPA METHOD NI NICKEL (mg/kg) BY EPA METHOD Cr CHROMIUM (mg/kg) BY EPA METH Be BERYLLIUM (mg/kg) BY EPA METHOD Pb LEAD (mg/kg) BY EPA METHOD 6 ER ' I � � � 4go ndoty `T ©� 1.0 400 HA -6 0 6000/7000 SERIES 0.5 I 6000/7000 SERIES D 0 ', OD 6000/7000 SERIES #„0,174,Gio:_c_sig504.357„, 1.0860 31,700 10D 6000/7000 SERIES�.�000/7000 SERIES 0 CPAH 0.5 3,530 19,200 1.84 _ sr -23 D 0 N NI Cr "° //-- 0.5 3,650 369 30.4 2,720 196 I EX -B4 1.0 Se 4 44„). Approximate Limits of Existing Soil Stockpile EX -G1-7 EX -G3-7 5N MONSTER R040 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET Notes: 1.Site Plan applies through August 1, 1998. 2.Somples are provided in depth (feet) ++° below ground surface. ' Reference: Drawing entitled "Concept Site Plan" — provided by Mulvanny Partnership Architects, • dated June 17, 1997. Note: The locations o all features shown are approximate. 0CD CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN THAT EXCEED CLEANUP LEVELS FIGURE 3 UB:HLA E:\5925003\5925003C.DWG 08/20/98 A BOUNDARY 0 PARCEL 2 0 z NO INFILTRATION 0 BIKE PATH ASPHALT –20 - 0 ASPHALT POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS/RECEPTORS 0 INLAND GROUND WATER TO SURFACE WATER ® SOIL TO GROUND WATER Q SOIL DIRECT CONTACT (SITE WORKER) ® SOIL VAPOR TO NR HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 100' VERTICAL SCALE: 1" = 20' z z 6 (c) z ® ASPHALT PARCEL 3 FAMILY FUN CENTER BUILDING VAPOR BARRIER AND ® PASSIVE VENTING SYSTEM DISSOLVED PHASE TRANSPORT 10 f NO INFILTRATION ASPHALT �CONTAMINATED %L � SOIL FILL 0/ 0 GROUND WATER FLOW PROPERTY BOUNDARY LEGEND ►— WATER INF1LTRATION/FLOW -•01— DIRECTION OF DISSOLVED PHASE TRANSPORT GCW-17n MONITORING WELL DISSOLVED—PHASE HYDROCARBONS A' SOUTH GRADY WAY CROSS SECTION LOCATION SHOWN ON FIGURE 2 GeolpEngineas FAMILY FUN CENTER TUKWILA, WASHINGTON POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS FIGURE 4 EXPLANATION: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT UNOCCUPIED AREA TO BE CAPPED WITH ASPHALT CONCRETE (PRIMARY SOIL CONTAINMENT AREA) UNOCCUPIED AREA TO BE CAPPED WITH OTHER MATERIAL OCCUPIED BUILDING LANDSCAPING 11344 812.8 OFF—CHANNEL POND 541 MONSTER ROgp A 59 25003 59250030.DW• 5 J 100 200 SCALE IN FEET Note: Explorations (os of April 1998) are exploinedn in Figure 2. Reference: Drawing entitled "Concept Site Plan" provided by Mulvanny Partnership Architects. doted June 17, 1997. — — Note: The locations of all features shown ! are approximate. LOCATIONS OF CAPPED AREAS FIGURE 5 //: Site Safety Plan , 1/998 Construction Activities Family Fun Center Tukwila, Washington ' ' " File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 CONTENTS Page No. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN 1 3.0 BACKGROUND 1 3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION 1 3.2 SCOPE OF WORK 2 4.0 RESPONSIBILITIES 2 4.1 CERTIFIED INDUSTRIAL HYGIENIST (CIH) 2 4.2 HEALTH AND SAFETY COORDINATOR (HSC) 2 4.3 DESIGNATED SITE SAFETY OFFICER (SSO) 3 4.4 PROJECT MANAGER (PM) 3 4.5 OCCUPATIONAL MEDICAL CONSULTANT (OMC) 3 4.6 PERSONNEL 3 5.0 EMERGENCY PLANNING 3 5.1 EMERGENCY SERVICES 3 5.2 EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBERS 4 6.0 HAZARD ASSESSMENT 5 6.1 CHEMICAL EXPOSURE 5 6.2 FIRE AND EXPLOSION 5 6.3 OXYGEN -DEFICIENCY 5 6.4 BIOLOGIC HAZARDS 5 6.5 SAFETY HAZARDS (PHYSICAL) 5 6.6 HEAT/COLD STRESS 6 6.7 NOISE 6 6.8 ELECTRIC HAZARDS 6 7.0 HEALTH AND SAFETY TRAINING 6 7.1 TRAINING REQUIREMENTS 6 7.2 DAILY SAFETY MEETINGS 7 8.0 MEDICAL SURVEILLANCE 7 9.0 PERSONNEL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT 7 9.1 GENERAL 7 9.2 LEVEL D OPERATIONS 7 9.3 LEVEL C OPERATIONS 7 10.0 SITE CONTROL 8 10.1 SITE SECURITY 8 10.2 SITE WORK ZONES 8 10.2.1 General RECEIVED 8 10.2.2 Support Zone 9 SEP 21 1998 TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS G e o E n g i n e e r s i File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 CONTENTS (Continued) Family Fun Center Perimeter Air Monitoring A-1 G e o E n g i n e e r s ii File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 SITE SAFETY PLAN 1998 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES FAMILY FUN CENTER TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 1.0 INTRODUCTION. GeoEngineers has prepared this site-specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) for 1998 construction activities at the Family Fun Center Site. This HASP is to provide guidance and procedures for GeoEngineers' personnel performing site operations in support of soils handling during construction activities at the site. Appendix A contains the procedures for perimeter air monitoring. 2.0 HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN Site work shall comply with federal, state and local regulations. In addition, GeoEngineers' personnel shall comply with provisions of the GeoEngineers Corporate Health and Safety Program Manual dated May 1992. Other contractors and GeoEngineers' subcontractors working on the site will continue to provide their own site-specific HASP. GeoEngineers will not review, approve or accept liability for contractor or subcontractor HASPs or employees. Personnel subcontracted to GeoEngineers will have a HASP at least as stringent as GeoEngineers' HASP to cover their work on the site. 3.0 BACKGROUND 3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION The 14 -acre Family Fun Center site is located at 7300 Fun Center Way in Tukwila, Washington (Figure 1). Interurban Avenue and South Grady Way border the west and south property boundaries. A pedestrian/bicycle trail is located beneath the elevated South Grady Way in the vicinity of the site. The Green River and Burlington Northern Railroad tracks border the north and east property boundaries. Access to the site is provided near the southwest corner of the site from Monster Road. The site formerly was occupied by a farm, milk processing plant, plant nursery, residences, auto repair shop and topsoil plant. The site plan is provided in Figure 2. Documented contaminants remaining at the site (as of May 1, 1998 and updated August 1, 1998) include gasoline -range hydrocarbons (up to 1,990 milligrams per kilogram [mg/kg]) in the vicinity of the former gasoline underground storage tank (UST); concentrations of a few hundred to 1,000 mg/kg diesel- and heavy oil in the soil stockpile in the eastern portion of the site; concentrations of diesel -and heavy oil -range hydrocarbons (up to 38,560 mg/kg) in a former oil dump area and near the former auto repair shop; chromium (1,150 mg/kg) beneath the north end of the stockpile; chromium (196 mg/kg), nickel (2,720 mg/kg), arsenic (30.4 mg/kg), lead (570 mg/kg) and beryllium (0.59 mg/kg) in the vicinity of the former auto repair shop; the pesticide chlordane (834 micrograms per kilogram [µg/kg]) in the area of the former barn; and carcinogenic polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (cPAHs) (1.84mg/kg) near the former auto repair shop. GeoEngineers 1 File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 3.2 SCOPE OF WORK The scope of GeoEngineers' services are presented in our "Work Plan" dated April 23, 1998, and our "Draft Cleanup Action Plan" dated April 22, 1998. GeoEngineers' general scope of services as the project consultant will include the following field activities: • Monitor "hot spot" removal of petroleum hydrocarbons, cPAHs, chlordane and metals. Sample the limits of the "hot spot" excavations. Soil with non -petroleum hydrocarbons will be temporarily placed in a stockpile separate from soil with only petroleum hydrocarbons until the non -petroleum impacted soil can be disposed of offsite. • Monitor the removal of railroad ties, slag and other surface and subsurface debris located in the vicinity of the proposed Family Fun Center building. • Monitor and document the grading of the existing soil stockpile located in the eastern portion of the site. Assist the contractor in segregating stained soil, slag and debris from the soil that is graded onto the remainder of the site. • Monitor the removal of sediments from the drainage ditch extending along the eastern property boundary and from the existing detention pond where these areas will not be covered by an asphalt pavement cap. Obtain base samples of sediment from the ditch and detention pond area after the upper sediments are removed to verify that petroleum hydrocarbons were successfully removed to concentrations less than the MTCA Method A cleanup levels. • Obtain soil samples from the resulting stockpiles of segregated soil for field screening and chemical analyses. • Monitor and document dewatering and other water handling activities during construction. Obtain water samples for characterization from dewatering of excavations and/or water accumulated in a temporary detention pond for surface water runoff. • Conduct health and safety worker breathing zone and perimeter air monitoring. • Monitor compliance of site activities with applicable permits. 4.0 RESPONSIBILITIES 4.1 CERTIFIED INDUSTRIAL HYGIENIST (CIH) If industrial hygiene services are required, one of the following contract consultants will be retained: • David Kernan, Environmental Health Sciences, Inc., (425) 455-2959 • Jim Neely, JMN Associates (206) 286-0355 4.2 HEALTH AND SAFETY COORDINATOR (HSC) The Health and Safety Coordinator (HSC) is referred to as the Health and Safety Program Manager (HSPM). In addition to the duties described in the site-specific HASP, the HSPM will prepare or review addendums to the site-specific HASP. The HSPM will not notify a CIH if a stop work order related to health and safety is issued, unless the services of a CIH are required (to be determined by the HSPM). GeoEngineers 2 File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 4.3 DESIGNATED SITE SAFETY OFFICER (SSO) The GeoEngineers designated Site Safety Officer (SSO) is David Baumgarten. 4.4 PROJECT MANAGER (PM) The GeoEngineers Project Manager (PM) is Lisa Bona. 4.5 OCCUPATIONAL MEDICAL CONSULTANT (OMC) The GeoEngineers Occupational Medical Consultant is the director of Virginia Mason's Occupational Medical Center in Bellevue, Washington. 4.6 PERSONNEL All GeoEngineers' employees at the site are responsible for reading and understanding this site-specific HASP. They will be held accountable for complying with all aspects of the HASP. Contractors and their subcontractors will be responsible for establishing their own site-specific HASP. GeoEngineers' subcontracted personnel have a HASP at least as stringent as GeoEngineers' HASP to cover their work on the site. 5.0 EMERGENCY PLANNING 5.1 EMERGENCY SERVICES In the event that an injury occurs to on-site staff, the following steps will be taken. 1. Reduce risk to injured person: • Turn off equipment in the vicinity of the victim • Move from injury location (if possible) • Keep warm • Perform CPR (if necessary) 2. Get help • Send another worker to phone 911 (if necessary) • Notify GeoEngineers and contractor project managers of situation 3. Transport injured person to medical treatment facility • By ambulance (if necessary) or GeoEngineers vehicle • Stay with person at medical facility • Keep GeoEngineers manager appraised of situation 4. Notify human resources manager (Karen Erne) Highline Riverton Community Hospital is the nearest hospital; driving directions are shown on the Hospital Route Map (Figure 3) in the HASP and are as follows: Highline Riverton Community Hospital, 2400 South 240th Street, Des Moines. From the site, travel westbound on Southcenter Boulevard, which becomes 154`h Street. Go right on Highway 99 for approximately 1 block and go left (northwest) onto Military Road South. Continue northbound on Military Road South to Highline Riverton Community Hospital, which is on the east side of the street, near the cross street of 130th Place. Additional emergency procedures are included in Section 10.5. GeoEngineers 3 File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 5.2 EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBERS Site Address: 15034 South Grady Way, Tukwila Site Telephone (Dave Baumgarten's pager): (425) 570-5191. Emergency: 911 Fire (2 minute response): 911 Ambulance: 911 Police: 911 Poison Control Center: (206) 526-2121 Highline Riverton Hospital: (206) 244-9970 Washington State Department of Ecology Emergency Spill Response: (425) 649-7000 Occupational Medical Consultant: (425) 822-3651 GeoEngineers Health and Safety Program Manager (Julie Wilson): (503) 603-6695 GeoEngineers Project Manager (Lisa Bona): (425) 861-6057 or (206) 300-298 GeoEngineers Project Associate (Kurt Anderson): (425) 861-6077 Contractor's Main Office (SD Deacon): (425) 454-5038 On-site personnel Emergency Contact Home Telephone Numbers GeoEngineers Project Manager (Lisa Bona): (425) 861-8210 GeoEngineers Project Associate (Kurt Anderson): (425) 868-8551 GeoEngineers HAS Program Manager (Julie Wilson): (503) 691-6484 GeoEngineers Site Safety Officer (Dave Baumgarten): (425) 867-3829 Non -Emergency Tukwila Fire Department: (206) 575-4404 Tukwila Police Department: (206) 433-1808 Tukwila Department of Public Works: (206) 433-0179 Washington State Department of Ecology Site Manager (Gail Colburn): (425) 649-7058 Main Office: (425) 649-7000 GeoEngineers' Office: (425) 861-6000 GeoEngineers 4 File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 ■� 6.0 HAZARD ASSESSMENT 6.1 CHEMICAL EXPOSURE Site workers may be exposed to petroleum hydrocarbon compounds, cPAHs, the pesticide chlordane, arsenic, nickel, lead, beryllium and chromium during site activities. Table 1 lists the hazardous properties and exposure information for the contaminants at the site. In addition, soil excavation, stockpiling and loading create a exposure risk to airborne particulate matter (dust) containing petroleum hydrocarbon -related compounds and metals. This risk will be minimized by the use of water as needed as a dust suppressant. 6.2 FIRE AND EXPLOSION The risk of fire or explosion during site activities is minimal. The following measures will be employed to further minimize potential for fire or explosion: • No smoking is allowed inside the fenced areas of the site. • Diesel fuel will be used in heavy equipment operating at the site. Fuel refilling of equipment used on site will be performed a safe distance away from potentially flammable materials. • If flammable materials are stored or used on site, the materials will be stored and dispensed in accordance with Tukwila Fire Department or other applicable requirements. • Good housekeeping practices will be followed at all times. 6.3 OXYGEN -DEFICIENCY An oxygen -depleted atmosphere is not anticipated during remedial excavation site activities. 6.4 BIOLOGIC HAZARDS Biologic hazards are not expected at this site. 6.5 SAFETY HAZARDS (PHYSICAL) The principal physical safety hazards are those associated with the movement of soil and heavy equipment. Safety risks will be controlled by a variety of methods including the following: • Daily site safety meetings will be held. Topics discussed will include an overview of activities scheduled for the day and procedures to reduce the physical hazards for each activity. • Workers shall be aware of their location in relation to heavy equipment and attempt to situate themselves as far as possible away from the equipment. Workers should especially be cautious when working with heavy equipment on the existing soil stockpile to ensure that no one becomes trapped between machinery and a steep drop off. • Appropriate site layout for equipment ingress and egress, loading and unloading: • Pre -construction utility locates and maintaining appropriate clearance from overhead lines. • The use of warning lights and back-up alarms during trucking operations. • Worker monitoring and protection measures as described elsewhere in this safety plan. • Personnel shall not walk on the railroad tracks adjacent to the site. G e o E n g i n e e r s 5 File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 • Excavation work shall be in accordance with Chapter 196-155 WAC Part N (Excavation, Shoring and Trenching). 6.6 HEAT/COLD STRESS Construction activities are planned for September through January 1999. It is possible that the use of PPE and moderate exterior temperatures during September could result in heat stress. The following measures will be employed to minimize the risk of workers developing heat - related disorders: • Workers will individually monitor their own radial pulse rate and body temperatures. • Workers shall qualitatively evaluate each other for indications of possible heat stress such as extreme heavy breathing, lethargy, or reddened faces. • If a worker experiences potentially high body temperature or elevated pulse due to heat, the worker will take a rest break until their conditions stabilize, and/or seek medical attention. • Ice vests will be available for worker comfort and to reduce the risk of heat stress. 6.7 NOISE Exposure to noise will occur during excavation, soil loading and soil hauling. The action level for noise exposure will be 85 dBA 8 -hour TWA. Ear plugs will be available at the site at all times for worker comfort. Workers will wear appropriate hearing protection at all times. Workers will follow the practices outlined below to minimize exposure to excessive noise: • Ear plugs will be available at the site at all times for worker comfort. • Workers will wear appropriate hearing protection at all times. • Workers will situate themselves as far as possible from noisy equipment to the extent possible. 6.8 ELECTRIC HAZARDS Electric hazards are not anticipated. 7.0 HEALTH AND SAFETY TRAINING 7.1 TRAINING REQUIREMENTS GeoEngineers employees working at the site will have received the required 40 -hour training for work at hazardous waste sites and 8 -hour refresher training in accordance with federal and Washington State regulations. In addition to the above requirements, site personnel should take part in project -specific training and sign the Field Team Review Form prior to the commencement of field work. Project -specific training will include the material presented in this site-specific HASP. Training records are maintained at the GeoEngineers office. In addition, GeoEngineers personnel carry wallet -size cards issued by the HSPM indicating the levels of training received. All workers entering the exclusion zone must have appropriate health and safety training. The SSO will be responsible for verifying that all workers entering the exclusion zone (defined in Section 10.2) have the appropriate training. GeoEngineers 6 File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 7.2 DAILY SAFETY MEETINGS Site-specific tailgate safety meetings will be conducted daily by the SSO to discuss the day's operations, any modifications to the site-specific HASP, and to ensure that site personnel have the necessary information to conduct their jobs safely. 8.0 MEDICAL SURVEILLANCE GeoEngineers employees working at the site will participate in the GeoEngineers Medial Surveillance Program. The GeoEngineers medical surveillance program is administered by Virginia Mason Medical Center. Medical surveillance documentation is maintained at the GeoEngineers office by the HSPM; actual medical examination results are maintained at Virginia Mason. Information concerning medical clearance is included on the wallet -size cards referred to in Section 7. Direct hire and new employees are given a baseline physical and current employees will be up-to-date with respect to their annual exam. The examining physician will verify in writing whether each individual is fit to work at hazardous waste sites and utilize protective equipment, including respirators. Additional medical exams may be required during the course of the project if overexposure to site contaminants or an injury occurs. In addition, exit physicals may be required upon project completion or an employee's termination. Such exams are performed at the discretion of the Occupational Medical Consultant if the previous exam was conducted less than six months prior to project completion or employee termination. 9.0 PERSONNEL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT 9.1 GENERAL During all field operations, personnel shall wear work clothes or rain suit, hard hats, safety glasses and steel -toed safety boots. Rain suits should be decontaminated on-site. Work clothes can be cleaned at the Redmond office. Nitrile gloves shall be worn by workers during soil sampling activities. 9.2 LEVEL D OPERATIONS Level D operations will include heavy equipment operators and all site personnel. Level D personnel will wear work clothes, work gloves and work boots and have in their possession an air purifying respirator (half- or full -face) with organic vapor and particulate cartridges. Personnel outside heavy equipment will wear a hard hat. 9.3 LEVEL C OPERATIONS Level C protection shall be used in areas where task -specific air monitoring indicates that the action level (section 11.2) is reached. Level C protective clothing will consist of the Level D equipment plus an air purifying respirator equipped with organic vapor/particulate cartridges. In addition, inner nitrile gloves, outer nitrile gloves, Tyvek or Saranex-coated Tyvek coveralls, depending on moisture content of the soil, and safety glasses or goggles will be worn. GeoEngineers 7 File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 10.0 SITE CONTROL 10.1 SITE SECURITY The site will be fenced at Monster Road to prevent entrance of unauthorized personnel. A "No Smoking" sign will be posted at the gate(s). In addition, an AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL ONLY sign will be posted at the gate(s). No one will be allowed to enter the site Exclusion Zones (see below) unless they have been given permission to do so by the PM and the SSO, and otherwise follow applicable portions of this HASP. Only those persons who have completed the medical monitoring and health and safety training specified in this plan may enter any exclusion zone. Site visitors must be accompanied by an authorized site employee at all times when they are within the site fence. A daily sign -in log will be maintained onsite. SITE WORK ZONES 10.2.1 General Access to the site at the Monster Road entrance will be restricted by security fence that will be maintained for the duration of construction activities at the site. Work zones are considered restricted areas and only authorized personnel (those meeting the training and medical requirements) will be allowed to enter. Three work zones will be established (Figure 4): • Exclusion Zone. This area includes an approximate 10 foot radius surrounding the locations of excavation and stockpiles of contaminated soil. For logistical reasons, the 10 -foot radius does not apply beyond the site property lines. Cones will be used to designate the exclusion zone. • Decon Zone. This area will be the point of entry and exit from the exclusion zone around the excavations. The Decon Zone surrounding excavations will be designated by GeoEngineers' staff person using yellow caution tape. A decon station will be set up near the stockpiles. An equipment and truck decon station, consisting of an equipment wash trough and broom for sweeping, also will be set up near the egress from the site. • Support Zone. All areas outside the exclusion and decon zones but inside the site boundaries. Vehicles may be parked in the support zone. GeoEngineers 8 File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 10.2.2 Support Zone The "command post" will be located in or near the contractor's job trailer. The following supplies will be maintained at the command post: • Sign in/sign out book • Monitoring equipment • Site safety plans and sampling plan • Field reports and other daily records • Ice vests • Supplies for sample collection • Potable water • First aid kit • Eyewash kit • Fire extinguisher • Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) • Map to Hospital • List of emergency personnel and phone numbers 10.3 DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES 10.3.1 Personnel All personnel will decontaminate fully when (1) when known or suspected of being contaminated with hazardous materials, before re-entry into the Support Zone, and (2) before leaving the site. a. Drop equipment on plastic or covered boxes. b. Rinse off outer PPE, including boots. Discard Tyvek coverall, if worn, in a labeled trash receptacle (such as a 55 -gallon drum). c. Remove respirator, if worn, and discard respirator cartridges in the trash receptacle. d. Remove inner gloves and discard in the trash receptacle. e. Remove face mask, if worn and, place on plastic sheet or uncovered box. f. Wash hands and face. g. "Wet Ones," "Handiwipes," or equivalent should be maintained in the support area so personnel may wash their hands and face prior to leaving the site. No showers will be available on site. Shower as soon as possible after work shift. h. If no outer PPE were worn, wash work clothes at GeoEngineers. 10.3.2 Equipment The decontamination procedure for equipment is provided in the "Field Sampling and Chemical Analysis Plan." 10.4 DISPOSAL OF WASTE Wastewater will be transferred to the waste water storage tank or to the temporary holding pond for sampling prior to discharge. Used PPE will be disposed of at a sanitary landfill. GeoEngineers 9 File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 10.5 EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN Emergency response procedures have been developed for extraordinary events that could occur during field operations. These events include accidents and/or injuries, chemical exposure, spills, and fires. In general, the following actions shall be implemented in the event of an emergency: 1. First aid or other appropriate initial action will be administered by those closest to the accident/event. This assistance will be coordinated by the designated Site Safety Officer and will be conducted so that those rendering assistance are not placed in a situation of unacceptable risk. The primary concern is to avoid placing a greater number of personnel in jeopardy. 2. The Project Manager, Site Safety Officer, and Health and Safety Coordinator will be notified immediately. They will in turn notify the Family Fun Centers representative. 3. An Accident/Incident Report is completed by the injured individual or witness and site Supervisor. The Accident Report is then forwarded to the Project Manager. Upon reviewing and commenting on the accident/incident, the form is forwarded to the Health and Safety Coordinator who in turn will investigate and make comments on the accident/incident. Any necessary changes to the operation will be made to prevent the same accident or near miss situation from occurring in the future. 10.5.1 Accidents and Injuries The following response procedures should not be considered inflexible. Every accident presents a unique event that must be dealt with by trained personnel working in a calm, controlled manner. In the event of an accident/unusual event, the prime consideration is to provide the appropriate initial response to assist those in jeopardy without placing additional personnel at unnecessary risk. 10.5.1.1 Accident/Injury in Contaminated Area. If a person working in a contaminated area is physically injured, American Red Cross first aid procedures will be followed. Depending on the severity of the injury, emergency medial response may be sought. If the person can be moved, they will be taken to the edge of the exclusion zone (on a. stretcher, if needed) where contaminated clothing will be removed (if possible), emergency first aid administered, and transportation to a local emergency medical facility awaited. 10.5.1.2 Accident/Injury in Noncontaminated Area. For accidents/injuries in a noncontaminated hazardous area, the procedures above should be followed with the exception that the injured individual should not be moved and the removal of contaminated clothing would not be necessary. 10.5.2 Chemical Exposure If the injury to the worker is chemical in nature (e.g., overexposure), the following first aid procedures are generally to be instituted as soon as possible. G e o E n g i n e e r s 10 File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 10.5.2.1 Eye Exposure. If contaminated solid or liquid gets into the eyes, they will be washed immediately for 15 to 30 minutes at the emergency eyewash station using large amounts of water and lifting the lower and upper lids occasionally. Medical attention will be obtained immediately. (Use of contact lenses is not permitted in the designated exclusion zones.) 10.5.2.2 Skin Exposure. If contaminated solid or liquid gets on the skin, the affected area will be promptly washed with soap or mild detergent and water. If contaminated solids or liquids penetrate through the clothing, clothing will be immediately removed and the skin washed with soap or mild detergent and water. Medical attention will be obtained as indicated by the MSDS or if symptoms warrant. 10.5.2.3 Inhalation. If a person breathes in a large volume of potentially toxic vapors, they will be moved to fresh airat once. If breathing has stopped, artificial respiration will be performed. The affected person will be kept warm and at rest. Medical attention will be obtained immediately. 10.5.2.4 Ingestion. If contaminated solid or liquid is swallowed, medical attention will be obtained immediately. Before first aid is given, the Poison Control Center shall be called. 10.5.3 Fires Fire extinguishers will be available onsite in support areas and in all vehicles or heavy equipment. Fire extinguishers will be 20 pound ABCs rated. Personnel will be trained in the proper use of fire extinguishers, techniques for smothering fires, and emergency evacuation procedures. All personnel will be instructed to summon the Tukwila Fire Department if afire should occur. 10.5.3.1 Small Fires. In the event of a small fire at the site, the following actions shall be taken: 1. Evacuate all unnecessary personnel from the area. 2. Attempt to extinguish fire using portable fire extinguishes or by smothering (personnel protective equipment may be required). 3. Request emergency response assistance (ambulance, Tukwila Fire Department, hospital, poison control center) as appropriate for any injuries or exposures to hazardous chemicals which occur during suppression of the fire. 4. Notify the GeoEngineers Project Manager and Health and Safety Coordinator. 5. Notify the Family Fun Centers representative. GeoEngineers 11 File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 10.5.3.2 Large Fires. In the event of a large fire, or small fire which cannot be extinguished, the following actions shall be taken: 1. Evacuate all personnel from the area, preferably to an upwind location. 2. Notify the Tukwila Fire Department and other emergency response agencies. 3. Notify the Family Fun Centers representative. 10.6 EMERGENCY FOLLOW-UP AND EVALUATION The Field Supervisor will notify the Project Manager and Health and Safety Coordinator as soon as possible after an emergency situation has been stabilized. The Project Manager will then notify the Family Fun Centers representative, appropriate agencies, and environmental contacts. If an individual is injured, an Accident/Incident Report will be filed with the HSC. 10.7 PROCEDURES FOR REPORTING TO STATE, LOCAL, AND FEDERAL AGENCIES In all cases, the Project Manager will be notified. She, in turn, will contact the client and any regulatory agencies. 10.8 EMERGENCY EVACUATION PROCEDURES In the event of a site emergency, all workers at the site will be notified by the SSO or designee to stop work immediately and offer assistance. Those not needed for immediate assistance will decontaminate per normal procedures and leave the site. 10.9 GENERAL SAFE WORK PRACTICES 10.9.1 Buddy System A minimum of two employees, in constant communication with each other, will be required to perform site work utilizing level C respiratory protection equipment. A buddy system is used to provide rapid assistance in case of an emergency. Workers will not be allowed to enter the exclusion zone alone unless there is another worker on site with whom they can maintain visible contact. The buddy system will not be utilized when site personnel are working in level D. 10.9.2 Minimization of Contamination Personnel and equipment used in the contaminated area should be minimized, consistent with effective site operations. Contamination of field gear will be avoided wherever possible, by not kneeling on contaminated ground, avoiding puddles where possible, and using plastic drop cloths and equipment covers. 10.9.3 Sampling Procedures Standard operating procedures will minimize the risk of personnel exposure to hazardous materials during sampling, packaging, shipping and analysis; and minimize the risk of exposure of others to spilled or residual waste materials. G e o E n g i n e e r s 12 File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 10.9.4 Safety Equipment An eyewash, first aid kit, fire extinguisher, stretcher, and blanket will be maintained in the support area. Potable water is provided on site and can be used in cases of skin contact with contaminants. 10.9.5 Forbidden Activities • Eating, drinking, chewing gum or tobacco, smoking, or any practice that increases the probability of hand-to-mouth transfer and ingestion of materials in the exclusion zones or contamination reduction zones. • Ignition of flammable liquids or starting open flames. • Use of nonprescription controlled substances or alcohol on site. • Walking on the railroad tracks. 11.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 11.1 PATHWAYS FOR HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE DISPERSION This section assesses the pathways along which chemicals could escape site boundaries during field operations in the solid, liquid, or vapor state. Solids would most readily escape only if they were small enough and/or light enough to become airborne or if transported by a vehicle. In this case, particles would be distributed in a large area downwind from the site. Measures shall be taken to assure that dust levels are kept to a minimum onsite. Decontamination procedures shall be implemented to prevent chemicals from being carried offsite by either personnel or equipment. In addition, air samples may be collected to determine if such transport is occurring (see Air Monitoring, Section 11.2). Surface liquids would escape most likely by flowing into the Green River. A retention pond is being constructed to assure that contaminated liquids could not flow freely offsite. 11.2 AIR MONITORING Air monitoring shall be performed to document exposure levels and to assure that all necessary precautions are taken to protect on-site personnel and the general public. Real-time air monitoring shall be conducted during all site activities. Excavation activities will be monitored most stringently. Two types of air monitoring shall be conducted during site activities. The first type of air monitoring shall be referred to as area air monitoring while the second type of air monitoring is referred to as task -specific air monitoring. A Photovac MicroTIP PID will be used for perimeter and personal air monitoring. Personal air monitoring will be performed approximately hourly during soil excavation, stockpiling or loading activities. In addition, benzene badges may occasionally be worn. Perimeter air monitoring will be performed in accordance with the Perimeter Air Monitoring plan, which is contained in Appendix A of this plan. The following action levels and procedures will be followed at the site: • The site action level is 150 ppm (8 -hour TWA) organic vapor concentration measured in the worker breathing zone using the PID and 1 ppm benzene measured with a Sensidyne tube. This action level of 150 ppm equals 1/2 the gasoline TWA of 300 ppm. If the action level of G e o E n g i n e e r s 13 File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 150 ppm measured by the PID is reached, benzene monitoring using Sensidyne tubes will take place. If benzene concentrations are less than 1 ppm, work may continue with continual monitoring with a PID; at 250 ppm workers will upgrade to modified Level C (half- or full - face respirators with organic/HEPA filters). If the benzene concentration is 1 ppm or greater, work will be temporarily suspended and the area will be ventilated. Work will continue when the benzene concentrations are less than 1 ppm. Benzene is not expected to be encountered at concentrations exceeding 1 ppm. • No respirator protection will be necessary if the PID readings are less than 150 ppm and the benzene concentration is less than 1 ppm. • Workers will upgrade to half- or full -face respirators (Level C) if PID readings are greater than 2,000 ppm. 11.3 HEAT/COLD STRESS MONITORING Heat stress monitoring will be conducted for individuals engaged in heavy manual labor in Level C protection if outside temperatures exceed 70°F. Oral temperatures will be taken with a clinical thermometer for three minutes. If the worker's temperature exceeds 99.6° F, the next work period will be shortened by one-third. Radial pulse will be taken for 30 seconds early in each rest period. If the pulse exceeds 100 beats per minute, the next work cycle will be shortened by one-third. The frequency of monitoring will be according to Table 11-1. Table 11-1. Frequency of Monitoring for Heat Stress Adjusted Temperature' (° F) Normal Work Clothes Impermeable Work Clothes > 90 After 45 minutes After 15 minutes 87.5 — 90 After 60 minutes After 30 minutes 82.5 — 87.5 After 90 minutes After 60 minutes 77.5 — 82.5 After 120 minutes After 90 minutes 72.5 — 77.5 After 150 minutes After 120 minutes ' Adjusted Temperature = Air Temperature (° F) + 13 x percent: Sunshine) where percent Sunshine is an estimate ranging: from 100 percent (no. clouds, sharp shadows) to;0;percent (cloudy no. shadows) If outside temperatures fall below 40°F for two consecutive hours during work, a warm shelter will be provided, and breaks will be taken in that area once every two hours. 11.4 ESTABLISHING BACKGROUND LEVELS Background levels of organic vapors will be established on a daily basis upwind of the site for area and task -specific air monitoring instruments. G e o E n g i n e e r s 14 File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 11.5 CALIBRATION AND MAINTENANCE All air monitoring equipment shall be calibrated daily or according to the manufacturers specifications. A record of calibration and maintenance will be noted in the field log books. 11.6 DATA ACQUISITION Air monitoring results shall be maintained by GeoEngineers and released to Family Fun Centers on request. 1. Plan Prepared 2. Plan Approval 12.0 APPROVALS Signature CY-14 a .) • &InG qio 19 Date P/Z7 /9R PM Signature Date .SLw HSPM Signature Date GeoEngineers 15 File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 TABLE 1 (Page 1 of 2) EXPOSURE INFORMATION FOR CONTAMINANTS OSHA (29 CFR PART 1910.1000) FAMILY FUN CENTER SITE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Contaminant 8- or 10 -Hour TWA Ceiling IDLH LEL Odor Route Health Hazard Symptoms Target Organs Benzene 1 ppm* carcinogenic Other recommendations for benzene: NIOSH 8 -hr. TWA = 0.1 ppm 15 -min. ceiling = 1 ppm 5 ppm (10 min) 25 ppm (15 min) 2,000 ppm 1.3% Aromatic Solvent -like Inhalation Absorption Ingestion Skin contact Irritant to eyes, nose, respiration system, giddy, headache, nausea, fatigue, dermatitis, bone marrow depression, abdominal pain Blood, CNS, skin, bone marrow, eyes, respiratory system Gasoline 300 ppm 890 mg/m3 500 ppm (15 min) 1,500 mg/m3 Benzo(a)pyrene1 • 0.02 ppm Tar Inhalation Ingestion Absorption Kidneys Skin Xylenes 100 ppm 150 ppm 1,000 ppm 1.0% Aromatic Inhalation Absorption Ingestion Skin contact Dizziness, drowsiness, irritated eyes, nose, throat CNS, eyes, GI tract, blood, liver, kidneys, skin Refined petroleum 500 ppm Lead, inorganic 50 pg/m3 Other recommendations for lead: NIOSH: <100 mg/m3 Pb TWA (ambient air) <60 mg/100 g blood Pb -workers EPA 0.14 mg/m3 RAL 24 hr Reference Ambient Level) Inhalation Ingestion Contact Lassitude, insomnia, pallor, anorexia, abdominal pain, anemia, tremors GI tract, CNS, blood, kidneys, gingival tissue. Blood monitoring required Notes appear on page 2 of 2 TABLE 1 (Page 2 of 2) Contaminant 8- or 10 -Hour TWA Ceiling IDLH LEL Odor Route Health Hazard Symptoms Target Organs Particulates Total dust Respirable 10 mg/m3• 5 mo/m3 Beryllium 2 pg/m3 Other recommendation: NIOSH: 0.0005+B28 mg/m3 TWA Inhalation Eye irritation, fever, respiratory system irritation, skin irritation, weakness Lungs, skin, eyes, mucous membranes Chromium 1 mg/m3 Other recommendation: NIOSH 0.5 mg/m3 500 mg/m3 Inhalation Ingestion Dizziness, respiratory system irritation, skin irritation, vomiting Respiratory system Arsenic 10 pg/m3 Other recommendation: NIOSH: 0.002 mg/m3 (15 -min) 100 mg/m3 Inhalation Absorption Contact Ingestion Abdominal pain, comatose, convulsions, diarrhea, fever, respiratory system irritation, tremors, vomiting, weakness Liver, kidneys, skin, lungs, lymphatic systems Nickel 1 mg/m3 Other recommendation: NIOSH: 0.015 mg/m3 Inhalation Ingestion Contact Convulsions, diarrhea, drowsiness, nausea, respiratory system irritation, skin irritation, vomiting Lungs, paranasal sinus, CNS Chlordane (total) 0.5 mg/m3 Chlorine -like Inhalation Absorption Ingestion Contact Blurred vision, confusion, delirium, cough, abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, tremors, convulsions CNS, eyes, lungs, liver, kidneys, skin Dieldrin 0.25 mg/m3 Chemical Inhalation- Absorption Ingestion Contact Headache, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, limb jerks, convulsions CNS, liver, kidneys, skin Notes:""%+��•at.a:6f?•Y.,:.n 'Data for coal,tar pitch �volatileseas nenzot 1PYrene ? , r k +. a ,:-.-I- x i.; 4 ....„, Y' 'WISHA�(WAC 296-62 Part• ' t 4 xa : w• i� r, q, � - ? • r ; ,v. 47\ .f ,i} s,r . g ppm 'parts per million of vapor for gasper millronpof contaminated air by;volume at 25 mg/ m? v, milbgrams of contaminant -per cubic meter,of dobtamirtatedkair ;'"i crograms :of contaminant per cubic;meter of contaminated air p: \500to599\5925003\finals\5925003-t 1. x is rn N 0 Yr1 0 0 I U) .. 1 `' +. \ \oy y <j: ' r S `� LANGSTON 1^ .. "' I iI � "., 7 RD e��ta R : 1. J R •�, Psi '/'I, 1 ARE-- I - q/ �i i ' 270 Pt <, \ �, /,. Ar----- _ N0 5 K T32 sr .. ST'��M ° ALYr.S■ I GI 5 133RD S i 11z.0 II= 132ND ST / M 2ND iiru [!4poL!R `' ; O sby \ ,Arm �.�/ //14 \\` }�T • $ ' .i„ s 176^'5 €.p SE STER134TR �9ti FN F SIN G 1 \\$ J 38 I\ _ : 1347>♦s� Sr s " TN sr 13 ST 00 . , \\\r "; $ r s\ <' �� t 1347 .�' ST zti•I>lj• ST , s g' ��,. >I A �, sgi a •s RD Not' .. t.srIAum5Y $ `^ s -i01 •n 1 a �14]: < CT \ \\\ 3 \ . i y 1 •` e.., `:."�\ 1 S 14 ' . � -� SF1 t 1-11^—r"11 900 , i !' 1 L ile b" tc .-1 �1 IMO. 4 1 1 �', ' "L 1 -i <' ›, .= �� HAZELNUT n; S 14 1. ` i.LIB S ]4,411,/ L1 ,\ .s ST! :,' � ,\\\ -F. s .4 ,4\�P V �' 4,14 �� N ..c" d ■ �'8 I : SK 511 tt A 7TH �\ i�� _�^ e°rb :1 ~ =,\ ` NTON _, 1 541 to l� '5210 1rT/may] I ` 15�r n 1 ST _ =149,, S7 SIS umi D N P = S' ;r, 23 3,151 S 152ND $T I 1 s us Si. =.� e:¢�j+..7" sr �'' L\\\\: -/'SITE r " �% ._ .. ... �` • ��. ST <.., i "6 4 S .4 S 152ND PL I0 .... i " 7. •�� -<.‘. -- /' 1G]H - 1 sr � .n 4,.r. �o 51 _ 400 16TH ST\ s 153RD j% o • '4��' ]�" am., CH ]i BLVD ' l, y' i • I , 1 j.. SIL,ILLJ § I - SW 19TH sr•-.. �.' 'i. I PKWY 1 ; CI—'• ;' r"- -. ..- sari: 16DM- •r'1 SOUn10ENTER \ o. , GREEN: EMS "LACK • .> W n SU ex.1 .1 •" I ,.. - - r- ' m .G i6s �� ! D �_f BAKER BLVD ry' 1 `� S14 23RD 57 mrm; d•I,I DER SiRAN27 t BLVD sr < iK�TMs WIN : , CCa R NTON �1 :, SI I H , O SOUiHCENTER TRECK IND& D& s I • �26 DR :. NCTIOTM s 16BT(t rn COUNTY .,• ■ i 25 30 S ST i 'a' BY HARRI, '� S ' 5Y11 5100 3 {N CORPORATE Y Z a - - o Fs j oom Q" ( :. ��` iBl) w Sll 33RD >. ST sse ..I S7 .. 33RD Sr 'I PL i' CORPORATE r NINKLER DRS , BLVD •l a A cm I � 11- PAIMAr { I PLAZA T.t I .. 1 Mibi ANL nd ; �Z T i 0 2000 s► / �o`3BIH ", S7. 4000 slvtr �I 1I sr , 1 ..-.1.. — / SCALE IN FEET Reproduced with permission granted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS. This mop 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. —A Geo4 0Engineers VICINITY MAP FIGURE 1 E:\ 5925003\ 5925003E. DWG 0 EXPLANATION: UST AST S❑ PAD -MOUNTED TRANSFORMER POLE -MOUNTED TRANSFORMER UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANK ELECTRICAL VAULT ELECTRICAL SWITCH BOX AIR PERIMETER MONITORING STATION C r OMM 5kG11\L PROPE.R GREEN R1vER bound% Pro% y Parcel 2 Concrete Electrical Transmission Line Tower S,p6q/1/ X 61 I'F 1 100 200 SCALE IN FEET Note: All Structures were removed in 1997 or' 1998. Reference: Drawing entitled "Concept Site Plan" provided by Mulvanny Partnership Architects, dated June 17, 1997. Parcel 1 goss rsl loc0e ., Bushes SW MONSTER ROAD UNDEVELOPED / star f' Gee / CP I Oil f A\ooa ) / Shed �—`I ---I General 55 -gallon L Storage z .-. i 5 -' I VI I 0.(1)--/ Ecology Blocks ,'Various\ \0i1,Stains 1 0 Oil Dump Burned Boat 1 Staining Barn �- Nurse L Y ry -I- Former / Former 8 J & G Nursery \Sawdust/ Sawdust Diesel ASTI 1 `(Rernoved) \ -7 Approximate Boundary of Soil Stockpile �oGkOe S �X\St�t,9 Spy\ leox ing Leak JOil Ilooting Oil UST Fill Pipe Heating Oil AST 55 -gallon Drum Motor Oil RoodWoy Slag/ / 1 1Garage1Shed L7140J'-\ 9 (Repair Slag \i ,sil 1. jShop) L_ Sawdust 1 1/ LJ` RR Ties'4-'l i Garage 7LZ! Parcel 3 Bushesr Gross 0 0 Oil Stains \a/4 �rJ� Slag Heating Oil UST 1 b I 1 6S J 7160 1 Fuel L — _j Shed 'Fuel Pump & Gasoline UST Grass 0 O \v, )(Wood Debris `Ecology Blocks X �IIJ r—Forr(IT1'k' 1-P4ocessirl9 `1 Plant n 17170 Shed C (Collapsed) I (ID Possible Heatin•-01 UST Sov — — — Note: The locations o tJ �jGaragp / BlockberN Open\ Shed all features shown are approximate. — 0 Bushes 0 Geo J Engineers MEI SITE PLAN — FORMER FACILITIES FAMILY FUN CENTER SITE FIGURE 2 5925-003-00 11 t 125111 2700 -O S 14 4 1 HA MIp PAM S 12511 ST'. 1. 5--1241 5-12511 176111\r 51 \17611 S T....l:.•1'i.liiiii i1� e9Oft S SKYWAY PARK 5'FS SHS \y >L 51 • 128111 5 13234 29111 >a 130111 ST / S 130111 PL s 13151 L.111111! '$I S 3 N 1200 S 134TH ST r? A`S HI611LINE 1VERTON CHIUNITY' 1105P 130TH S 13411151 "VA ti 1r� sT "I 600 5_177" 1200 7600 so - .74:11291 ) PL51 S 129111 51 l.uilil 51 �nl .." St.4 3011 5 1, n "-1 r T 1rc LAN i5ION 1111 i. 5.11_157 rt_' -" -Wo { OLACK R LR r 132ND ;, -j/ ansl a AI T HS ■ i S 133RD �" s 11211 s1 134 LN 1�4S � Sr 13 `' 3400 S 136111 5.137111 RIVERran. cAEsr c174 ST ST vi SI ›.'1/7" Q i co s m r7 • rS a <,I- [ , o 14157 '— 4`400 6 sT 4 142ND_ „` sq' 1421:ST FOS ER E N1D 66 N - HS 144 11 II Sr RANK NO[ • 5 Ise i )-$' yUt I55R1`,'-;-. 511 JOS! 1 ;l g R 139 PK loin ir i JNG t.;,,,-,43I._A ', j NJO -;u., RIVER',, BLACK: RIVER', , • g'\ sr= 7. RIPARIAN. FOREST t_S 1" 150TH S 152111) 20 2 HICIILINE 115HS; MF..: IUSNIER IVSNIER ?: PARK ; NEHORIAL S':156TH - - L. 4200 ST S I!9�,,Sr 5 15081 ST 2Lq k g r ' _ IS151 5r 11 ENTO N- •, 158114 5T 00 0 SEATTLE TACOMA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (�O S 161ST ST S 156T-1 ST 158TH A o" iT a 44 0 162110 5T ST • CRESTYIEM PARK t S� ' • 'S 163nrtPl ST --f r�IT ST fi Z7 S 161111 ST 168TH ST I -I Es f[NITS 16 CRYSTA SPR11V6 - 1615T IOW ST 51 5T a '-1 29> "6100014 L H o1 5 rp.1. S 'Q4 5 S 1715 5 172NTs- AIRPORT, 1481 5 51411 rNORTH SATELLITE TERMINAL :miry 1 vow (0IR(55 CONCOURSE A-0 167111 Pl. ,`,AUsu • , ANIMA Myr ,[t11IIR(RPI I 'IMI/AR e Of 170TH r ru1Aw Ara NAR+w ST ST; r RP/sl AIR ST 1 r 11.Y AIR IYA ST uuw 151341 r.anc 113RO,1 L SOUTH ST SATELLITE S TERN1NAL , 11(1,5(1 ST 4400 130 172NDY NORTH SATEL L I TE TERMINAL RIK SOUTIICENTER 65 5T L i1 Lt 164m sy,Q4 � 116681 ST I � 5'. 16811 5T, 5100 STRANDER _.NION N,CTJON '- ,RENWi '25 WoLANDs : (n SN 33RD ST 173RD 112110 PL - 1 ---- --- - ST 178111 ST nAovueV (fi Reproduced with permission granted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS. This rnap is copyrighted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS. 11 is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission. Geo ki0099 Engineers. ST NO SCALE o SH - 38111 HOSPITAL ROUTE FROM FAMILY FUN CENTER SITE FIGURE 3 Drainage D'tc SEDIMENT EXCAVATION s' EXPLANATION: econ rea Detention Pond EXCLUSION ZONE "HOT SPOT" EXCAVATION FORMER OIL DUMP HOT SPOT Decon Area Existing Soil Stockpile Limits 'pecan Area FORMER AUTO REPAIR SHOP HOT SPOT . 0 W 0 Decon Area Decon Area — SW MONSTER ROAD E:\5925003\5925003G.DWG P.( -- FORMER GASOLINE UST AREA HOT SPOT / ' / r \` 1. i �/ / APPRO IM.TE,CONTAMINATe' ' OCKP LE i 100 200. �p�05 � SR SCALE IN FEET Note: The locations of all features shown are approximate. Reference: Drawing entitled "Concept Site Plan" provided by Mulvanny Partnership Architects, doted June 17, 1997. ,t • Geo J Engineers HEALTH AND SAFETY ZONES FAMILY FUN CENTER SITE FIGURE 4 APPENDIX A PERIMETER AIR MONITORING PLAN 1998 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES FAMILY FUN CENTER TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE Air monitoring and visual observations in the work space area and along the perimeter of the site are necessary to evaluate potential risk to passersby, to determine the effectiveness of engineering controls for mitigation of vapor hazards, and to reevaluate levels of protection. Perimeter air monitoring will be conducted during excavation and sampling activities in conjunction with work space monitoring. The purpose of these procedures is to document the levels of petroleum vapors at the site perimeter during remedial activities. 2.0 PROCEDURES 1. The site perimeter will be monitored for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at least four times daily using a calibrated Photovac MicroTIP photoionization detector (PID) and/or compound -specific Sensidyne detector tubes (benzene). The PID will be calibrated at least twice a day using manufacturers' recommended procedures. A calibration record will be maintained during the remedial activities. Calibration drift, if present, will be used to correct recorded values. 2. Perimeter monitoring points will be established along the property lines downwind of active excavation and stockpiling/loading activities. Perimeter monitoring points will be spaced at approximately 50- to 100 -foot intervals along the site boundary, as shown in Figure 2. The perimeter also will be monitored for nuisance odors. Monitoring data will be recorded on the appropriate field data sheet. 3. Ambient background VOC concentrations will be measured daily at the work site and at three downwind perimeter locations prior to starting work for the day. If weather conditions change significantly, measurements will be repeated. 4. If the VOC concentrations at a perimeter monitoring station exceed 150 parts per million (ppm) above ambient background levels for more than 1 minute, the Sensidyne tube(s) will be used to assess the concentrations of benzene. If readings of the Sensidyne tube(s) exceed perimeter health and safety action levels (1.0 ppm for benzene), work will be stopped and engineering control. measures (such as fans, polyethylene covers over stockpiles, or foam suppressant) will be employed as needed to minimize potential exposures. Work will resume after the health and safety action levels for benzene and/or xylenes are no longer exceeded. Work will continue without engineering controls if Sensidyne tube measurements do not exceed the health and safety action levels. G e o E n g i n e e r s A-1 File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 5. If VOC concentrations at a perimeter monitoring station exceed 250 parts per million (ppm) above ambient background levels sustained for more than 1 minute, then work will be stopped and engineering control measures mentioned above will be employed as needed to minimize potential exposures. If the engineering controls are not sufficient to decrease the VOC concentrations to less than 250 ppm at the site perimeter, work activities will temporarily cease, and the Site Safety Officer will 'contact the Project Manager to determine how to proceed. G e o E n g i n e e r s A-2 File No. 5925-003-00-1150/091498 TABLE A-1 FAMILY FUN CENTER PERIMETER AIR MONITORING Perimeter Station Number Date Time MicroTIP Organic Vapor Concentration (ppm) Approximate Wind Direction Nuisance Odors (None, Slight, Mod., Heavy Benzene Tube Reading (ppm) Visible Dust (None, Slight, Mod., Heavy) Notes�..{.g7 }WI yy�l *y ,.t.. , ,} 14 s C MICRO PR,I#iMARYACTION LST , EL�,`r7150 ppm (8'-hr,TWA) for tiriihU_te .7Measur fdr benzene• ;.use engineering controls.as3necessaryA S SENSIDY -TUBEiSECONDAFt ACT O ,, •LEEVEL3 i+,Benzene 1.0 ppm " i � ;Ftr;�; ` rf ^4°a¢a+Ls+'. Tr t>a;'`.'.•' T_P's'oi; i s I ?fi `:3•., g > l�t=?S`ECON ARY ACTION »•:;:'47',"••=: VEL,,OFr1 0 QFM BENZENE OR 250 PPM ONgTHE 1MICROTIP AREEXCEEDED ,,STOP WORK �Use enngin�eer,ng!controjsttoetempt toireduce;contaminant concentiations':;ff,�controls fail to r duce concehtra ionslAphone is to Health& S yt ^KT �+ 4°44 ':d•�.9 ,. �'s>.....K` w `�%. .. {Rr'u::a."4_ t2"i? La,..P'C•T'a'.✓• .<. hA a ppantime restrictiaccess`to hf.kp.te;perimeter;and;upgradelto, 0.,gi;01taOropri*e:s : � >};� a} vtcti" ,; `rr'', P:\500to599\5925003\finals\5925003airxis Geo 10 Engineers Family Fun Centers 29111 SW Town Center Loop West Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 Attention: Scott Huish September 14,1998 Consulting Engineers and Geoscientists Offices in Washington, Oregon, and Alaska Revisions to Report Underground Storage Tank Removal Monitoring, Supplemental Subsurface Assessment and Research Findings Family Fun Center Tukwila, Washington GEI File No. 5925-003-00 This letter presents revisions to our report titled "Underground Storage Tank Removal Monitoring, Supplemental Subsurface Assessment and Research Findings" dated April 22, 1998, for the above-mentioned site. The revisions were completed at the request of Gail Colburn of the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) in a meeting with GeoEngineers on June 18, 1998. These revisions were requested because the site-specific MTCA Method B cleanup level calculated for TPH would not apply for the residual soil contamination in the vicinity of the former gasoline underground storage tank (UST). While the residual concentrations in February 1998 were, protective of soil direct contact in the former gasoline UST area, they were not protective of the soil to ground water pathway. Therefore, MTCA Method A cleanup levels were selected for the former gasoline UST area. Additionally, these revisions reflect the recommendation from Gail Colburn, in the June 18 meeting, that the MTCA Method A cleanup level for heavy oil -range hydrocarbons be used for sediment in Parcel 3. The following amend statements presented in the April 22 report. 1. "Site Cleanup Levels" section, page 4. The site-specific MTCA Method B cleanup level for TPH was calculated for diesel- and heavy oil -range hydrocarbons sampled in Parcel 2. A site-specific MTCA Method B cleanup for gasoline has not been calculated. We have selected the MTCA Method A cleanup levels for benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene and xylenes (BETX) and gasoline -range hydrocarbons at the former gasoline UST area. GeoEngineers, Inc. 8410 154th Avenue N.E. Redmond, WA 98052 Telephone (425) 861-6000 Fax (425) 861-6050 www.geoengineers.com RECEIVED SEP 21 1998 TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS Family Fun Centers September 14, 1998 Page 2 2. "Fuel Tank Removal and Closure and Remedial Excavation, General" section, page 7. Custom Backhoe excavated and removed the four USTs, associated short lengths of piping, and three ASTs on February 25 and 26. 3. "Gasoline UST" section, page 8, last paragraph. BETX and gasoline -range hydrocarbons concentrations in sample EX -G3-7 and the gasoline -range hydrocarbon concentration in EX -G1-7 exceeded the MTCA Method A cleanup levels. BETX and gasoline -range hydrocarbons either were not detected or were detected at concentrations less than the MTCA Method A cleanup levels in the remaining samples. 4. "Soil Stockpile" section, page 9. BETX and gasoline -range hydrocarbons were detected at concentrations exceeding the MTCA Method A cleanup level in sample CSP -1, obtained from the gasoline -contaminated soil stockpile. 5. "Test Pits and Hand Auger Explorations" section, page 11, fourth paragraph. Diesel- and heavy oil -range hydrocarbons either were detected at a concentration less than the site-specific MTCA Method B cleanup level for TPH in the sample from TP -2. Heavy oil - range hydrocarbons were detected at a concentration less than the MTCA Method A cleanup level in the sample from HA -2. Heavy oil -range hydrocarbons were detected at concentrations exceeding the MTCA Method A cleanup level in sediment samples from HA -1 and HA -3. 6. "Conclusions, Fuel Tank Removal" section, page 12. Approximately 15 cubic of petroleum - contaminated soil at concentrations exceeding the MTCA Method A cleanup levels for BETX and gasoline -range hydrocarbons were excavated with the gasoline UST. Gasoline -range hydrocarbons were detected at concentrations exceeding the MTCA Method A cleanup levels for gasoline -range hydrocarbons and/or BETX in soil samples obtained from the north and south walls of the gasoline UST excavation, at depths of approximately 7 feet below the ground surface. 7. "Additional Assessment" section, page 13, first paragraph. Heavy oil -range hydrocarbons were detected at concentrations exceeding the MTCA Method A cleanup level in sediment samples obtained from the hand auger borings completed in the drainage ditch and detention pond (HA -1 and HA -3). 8. Tables 2, 3 and 4 and Figure 3 have been revised and are attached to this letter. G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 5925-003-00-1150 Family Fun Centers September 14, 1998 Page 3 Please do not hesitate to call us if you have questions regarding this letter. Respectfully submitted, GeoEngineers, Inc. Lisa J. Bona Project Geologist Kurt S. Anderson, C.P.G. Associate LJB:KSA:ss P:'5925003\00\finals\saserrata.doc Attachments cc: Gail Colburn Washington State Department of Ecology 3190 — 160th Avenue SE Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 GeoEngineers File No. 5925-003-00-1150 TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF SOIL FIELD SCREENING AND CHEMICAL ANALYTICAL DATA HAND AUGER BORINGS AND TEST PITS FAMILY FUN CENTERS TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Notes: 'Approximate soil sample locations are shown in Figure 2. Field screening methods are described in Appendix A. NS = no sheen, SS = slight sheen, HS = heavy sheen. 3Analyzed by Ecology Method NWTPH-Gx. 4Analyzed by Ecology Method NWTPH-Dx. 6Analyzed by EPA 6000/7000 series methods. Priority pollutant metals include antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium copper, lead nickel; selenium silverthallum 6Chemical analyses either resulted in concentrations less than detection level or concentrations Iess than the MTCA Method A or Method B cleanup level for soil mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram, = not analyzed Chemical analyses conducted by North Creek Analytical of Bothell, Washington. The laboratory report is presented in Appendix B P \500to599\5925005\ finals\5925005Table.xls\2 Field Screening Depth Results2 Gasoline- Diesel- Lube Oil- Insulating Oil of Range Range Range Range Priority Headspace Pollutant Metals5 Arsenic and Sample Date Sample Vapors Hydrocarbons3 Hydrocarbons' Hydrocarbons Hydrocarbons' and Barium Lead5 Number/ Sampled (feet) (ppm) Sheen (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) 98012301-1-8 01/23/98 0.75 <100 NS - - -- -- _ Below cleanup levels6 98012301-2-8 01/23/98 0.75 <100 NS -- - -- - __ Below cleanup levels6 98012301-3-8 01/23/98 0.75 <100 NS -- - -- - - Below cleanup levels6 HA -1-1.0 02/26/98 1.0 <100 NS <10.0 <10.0 400 <25.0 Below cleanup levels6 -- HA-2-0.5 02/26/98 0.5 <100 NS <10.0 <10.0 59.1 <25.0 Below cleanup levels6 __ HA -3-0.5 02/26/98 0.5 <100 NS <10.0 <10.0 468 <25.0 Below cleanup levels6 __ TP -2-5.0 02/26/98 5.0 <100 HS <10.0 <10.0 535 226 - -- TP-2-8.0 02/26/98 8.0 <100 SS <10.0 <10.0 <25.0 <25.0 -- - Notes: 'Approximate soil sample locations are shown in Figure 2. Field screening methods are described in Appendix A. NS = no sheen, SS = slight sheen, HS = heavy sheen. 3Analyzed by Ecology Method NWTPH-Gx. 4Analyzed by Ecology Method NWTPH-Dx. 6Analyzed by EPA 6000/7000 series methods. Priority pollutant metals include antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium copper, lead nickel; selenium silverthallum 6Chemical analyses either resulted in concentrations less than detection level or concentrations Iess than the MTCA Method A or Method B cleanup level for soil mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram, = not analyzed Chemical analyses conducted by North Creek Analytical of Bothell, Washington. The laboratory report is presented in Appendix B P \500to599\5925005\ finals\5925005Table.xls\2 TABLE 3 (Page 1 of 2) SUMMARY OF SOIL FIELD SCREENING AND CHEMICAL ANALYTICAL DATA EXCAVATION LIMITS AND SOIL STOCKPILE FAMILY FUN CENTERS TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Sample Number' Date Sampled Sample Location' Depth of Sample (feet) Field Screening Results2 Headspace Vapors (Ppm) Sheen BETX3 (mg/kg) B E T X Gasoline - range Hydrocarbons4 (mg/kg) Diesel - range Hydrocarbons5 (mg/kg) Heavy Oil - range Hydrocarbons5 (mg/kg) UST No. 1 Heating 011 Tank of Former Residence 7160:' 7160B-6 02/25/98 Base 6.0 <100 NS <10.0 <25.0 UST Nos. 2 and 3 - Heating Oil Tanks at Former Residence 7140 7140B-5 7140EB-5.5 02/25/98 02/25/98 West Base East Base 5.0 5.5 <100 <100 NS NS 13.2 12.7 <25.0 <25.0 UST No. 4 Gasoline UST `>. EX -G1-7 EX -G2-7 EX -G3-7 80 B -G-12 02/25/98 02/25/98 02/25/98 02/25/98 02/25/98 North Wall East Wall South Wall West Wall Base 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 12.0 550 150 600 <100 <100 SS SS SS SS NS <0.0500 0.101 1.16 <0.0500 <0.0500 <0.0500 0.0791 24.5 <0.0500 <0.0500 <0.100 0.739 55.5 <0.0500 <0.0500 10.1 3.45 208 0.159 <0.100 235 !. 37.1 1,990 <5.0 <5.0 Soil Stockpile<(UST No' 1 and:: UST:No.>4:Excavations)' CSP -1 02/26/98 800 MS 156 395 782 8,030 .: MTCA Method A Cleanup Levels 0.5 20 40 20 100 200 200 Notes appear on page 2 of 2. P:\500to599\5925005\finals\5925005Tab1e.xls\3 TABLE 3 (Page 2 of 2) Notes: 'Approximate soil sample locations are shown in Figure 3. 2Field screening methods are described in Appendix A. NS = no sheen, SS = slight sheen, MS = moderate sheen. 3Analyzed by EPA Method 8021B. B = benzene, E = ethylbenzene, T = toluene, X = xylenes. °Analyzed by Ecology Method NWTPH-Gx. 6Analyzed by Ecology Method NWTPH-Dx. "—" = not analyzed ppm = parts per million mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram UST = underground storage tank Shading indicates concentration exceeds the MTCA Method A soil cleanup level. Chemical analyses conducted by North Creek Analytical of Bothell, Washington. The laboratory report is presented in Appendix B. P:\500to599\5925005\finals\5925005Table.xls\3 TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF SOIL FIELD SCREENING AND CHEMICAL ANALYTICAL RESULTS FEBRUARY 1998 GASOLINE UST EXCAVATION FAMILY FUN CENTER TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Description EX -G3-71 MTCA Method A or Method B2 Cleanup Level (mg/kg) Date Sampled 02/25/98 Depth of Sample (feet bgs) 7.0 Field Screening Results3 Headspace Vapors (ppm) 600 Sheen SS TPH4 (mg/kg) Gasoline -range 1,990 100 VPH5 (mg/kg) Aliphatics EC5-EC6 <100 EC6-EC8 <100 EC8-EC10 <100 EC10-EC12 160 EC12-EC13 Aromatics EC8-EC10 338 EC10-EC12 246 Other Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons5 (mg/kg) Benzene 1.38 34.5 Ethylbenzene 16.7 8,000 Toluene 45.9 16,000 Xylenes 178.3 160000 Naphthalene <0.200 3,200 MTBE <1.00 NE Notes 'Approximate exploration locations are shown in Figure 2. 2 From MTCA,Cleanup;Levels and Risk Calculations (CLARC II)UpdateFebruary.1996 Publication #94-145. Field screening procedures are described in Appendix A. .NS = no sheen, -SS = slight sheen, MS = moderate sheen, HS = heavy sheen 'TPH:= total petroleum hydrocarbons. Gasoline,diese!-and heavy,oil-range: hydrocarbons: analyzed by Ecology WTPH series. 5VPH =volatile petroleum hydrocarbons, BETX, naphthalenes and methyl tert butylether (MTBE) by Ecology Method (June 1997). = not analyzed or measured ppm = parts per million NE = not established Chemical:; analyses; conducted; by North' Creek^Analyticallof;Bothell :Washington The laboratory reports.are presented in Appendix B. P:\500to599\5925005\finals15925003T4.xls co co N CO 0 D:\5925003\5925003H.DWG EXCAVATION 2 1,000 -GALLON & 650 -GALLON HEATING OIL UST v ♦ � ♦ It%EXCAVATION 1 300 -GALLON HEATING OIL UST --' Former Diesel AST r' _J ♦• Or'-'"' r - - I `sJl=\ i Former Repair r -- I S li2p J I Former Garage L J r- 1 i I L -J Former 7140 7140EB-5.5 71400-5 GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY r- i 1 7160B-6 ;GG� o e �1 1 r—Irl--,1 �_ _ 1 1 1 1 1 1 h Former 1 7160 EX -G1-7 tI -� r o EX -G2-7 r_-',1 �— B -G-12 ___� 1. ii(r- Former 1 EX Milk P Plontsing 11 EX -G3-7 �.- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J EXCAVATION 3 500 -GALLON GASOLINE UST Note: The locations of all features shown are approximate. Reference: Drawing entitled "Concept Site Plan" provided by Mulvanny Partnership Architects, dated June 17, 1997. EXPLANATION: SOIL SAMPLE WITH PETROLEUM HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATIONS EXCEEDING TI -IE MTCA .. METHOD A SOIL CLEANUP LEVELS PJ SOIL SAMPLE WIII-I PETROLEUM HYDROCARBON , CONCEN I IZAlIONS LESS THAN T11E MICA ME -11-10D A SOIL CLEANUP LEVELS UST, UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK AST! ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANK O 1 POLE—MOUNDED TRANSFORMER 0 50 100 SCALE IN FEET Geo 0 En ineers EXCAVATION SOIL SAMPLE LOCATIONS FIGURE 3 -1 - Field Sampling -and - , Chemical Analysis Plan Family Fun Center Tukwila, Washington September 14,'1998 RECEIVED SE0 ~21 1998,' .TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS , rs. G e o;E n ;g i nye e r s • File No. '5925-003-00-1150\091498 CONTENTS Page No. 1.0 FIELD PROCEDURES 1 1.1 GENERAL 1 1.2 DOCUMENTATION OF FIELD ACTIVITIES 1 1.3 SOIL SAMPLING PROCEDURE 1 1.3.1 Excavation Confirmation Samples 1 1.3.2 Stockpile Soil Samples 2 1.3.3 Logging of Soil Samples 3 1.3.4 Field Screening 3 1.4 SAMPLE MANAGEMENT 4 1.4.1 Designation and Labeling 4 1.4.2 SAMPLE HANDLING 5 1.4.3 SAMPLE CUSTODY 5 1.5 DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURE 6 1.6 EQUIPMENT CALIBRATION PROCEDURES 6 2.0 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS PLAN 6 2.1 CHEMICAL ANALYTICAL PROGRAM 6 TABLES Summary of Soil Sampling and Analytical Pian FIGURES Hot Spot Excavation Areas Table No. 1 Figure No. 1 RECEIVED SEP 21 1998 TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS G e o E n g i n e e r s i File No. 5925-003-00-1150\091498 FIELD SAMPLING AND CHEMICAL ANALYSIS PLAN FAMILY FUN CENTER TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 1.0 FIELD PROCEDURES 1.1 GENERAL The purpose of this Field Sampling and Analysis Plan is to specify the standard field procedures, field quality control (QC) protocol and chemical testing program to be implemented during the remedial activities to ensure that environmental data generated are scientifically valid, legally defensible and of known and acceptable quality. Descriptions of the field sampling procedures and documentation are provided in this appendix. Table 1 presents a summary of the sampling and analytical plan for this project. Site conditions may make it necessary to modify these procedures. Variations or modifications implemented during the remedial activities and the reason for the modification will be documented in field records and final cleanup report. 1.2 DOCUMENTATION OF FIELD ACTIVITIES Daily field activities, including observations, remedial excavation logs, measurement data, and variations in field procedures will be recorded on appropriate field forms. The original field forms will be maintained in GeoEngineers' office files. Copies of the completed forms will be maintained in a binder and sequentially numbered field file for reference during field activities. Indelible ink will be used unless prohibited by weather. Photographic documentation of field activities will be performed as appropriate. The daily record of field activities will include the following information: • Date • Time of arrival and departure • Weather condition description (including temperature, wind direction and approximate wind speed) • Field team description • List of daily activities and times conducted • Observation descriptions • List of samples collected with sample designations and locations specified • Photograph log • Field monitoring data, including health and safety monitoring • List of equipment used and calibration records, if appropriate • Site visitors • List of additional data sheets and maps completed • Signature of person completing field record 1.3 SOIL SAMPLING PROCEDURE 1.3.1 Excavation Confirmation Samples Soil for field screening and chemical analysis will be obtained from the limits of hot spot excavations and from the limits of the excavations to remove sediments in the drainage ditch and GeoEngineers 1 File No. 5925-003-00-1150\091498 existing detention pond. Soil samples will be collected using a backhoe or track -mounted excavator bucket. Discrete soil samples will be obtained by hand from the center of the excavator bucket using a decontaminated stainless steel sampling spoon. Confirmation samples will be obtained at the rate of approximately one sample per 200 square feet of excavation surface area (except as noted below). Additional excavation will take place if confirmation sampling indicates that contaminant concentrations are greater than the excavation remediation levels. Resampling after overexcavation will take place to confirm that soil with concentrations of contaminants greater than the soil excavation remediation levels has been successfully removed. The excavation locations are shown in Figure 1.. Sample locations will be based on either the highest field screening results for each area, or the proximity to ground water. The sample location (horizontal and vertical) will be mapped. A portion of each sample will be retained for logging and field screening. Selected samples will be submitted for chemical analysis, as described in Section 2.0. Samples submitted for chemical analysis will be immediately placed in 4- or 8 -ounce laboratory -prepared glass sample containers. Each container will be filled completely to minimize headspace. The sample containers will be labeled and placed in a cooler with ice during transport to the laboratory. 1.3.2 Stockpile Soil Samples Soil excavated during hot spot removal, drainage -ditch and detention pond sediment removal, subsurface debris removal, and soil graded from the existing stockpile in the eastern portion of the site will be segregated accordingly: a) soil with contaminants other than petroleum hydrocarbons; b) soil with field screening results that indicate petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations are likely less than the site-specific cleanup level; and c) soil with field screening results that indicate petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations likely exceed the site-specific cleanup level. Slag that is encountered during soils handling will be placed in the stockpile of soil with petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations exceeding the site-specific cleanup level. In addition, debris, such as concrete, wood, metal and plastic, will be sorted out for disposal at a sanitary landfill or use on site. The soil with contaminants other than petroleum hydrocarbons will be sampled to document contaminant concentrations and transported off site to a recycling facility. Soil with petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations less than the cleanup level will be used in Parcels 1, 2 and/or 3 as fill soil. Soil with petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations exceeding the cleanup level will remain in Parcel 3 in a stockpile, until it is graded and capped. Prior to capping, the stockpiled soil will be sampled to document residual petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations. The volume of disposed soil will be estimated visually and volumes will be confirmed by landfill receipts. The volume of stockpiled soil to be capped and the soil graded onto Parcels 1, 2 and 3 will be estimated visually on a daily basis. Discrete samples will be obtained from the segregated soil. Samples will be obtained from at least 6 inches below the stockpile's exposed surface. The sampling frequency is presented in Table 1. Samples will be obtained by hand using a decontaminated stainless steel sampling G e o E n g i n e e r s 2 File No. 5925-003-00-1150\091498 trowel. A portion of each sample will be retained for logging and field screening. Selected samples will be submitted for chemical analysis as described in Section 2.0. Samples submitted for chemical analysis will be immediately placed in laboratory -prepared glass sample containers. Each container will be filled completely to minimize headspace. The sample containers will be labtled and placed in a cooler with ice during transport to the laboratory. Field records indicating the sample identification and the origin of the sample will be maintained. 1.3.3 Logging of Soil Samples Soil samples obtained from excavations will be visually observed and the soil type classified in general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D-2488-90. Soil classifications will be included in the field sample log information. 1.3.4 Field Screening The rationale for the proposed field screening methods for this project, and the uses of field screening results for this project are as follows: • Field screening results are not intended to confirm that cleanup levels or remediation levels are attained. • Field screening will be performed to assist in classifying soil removed from the hot spot excavations, removed during subsurface debris removal and when the existing stockpile is graded. Stockpile segregation and classification is discussed in Section 1.3.2. Samples of soil segregated as containing petroleum hydrocarbons at concentrations exceeding the site- specific cleanup level, and soil with contaminants other than petroleum hydrocarbons will be submitted for,chemical analysis to establish actual concentrations of contaminants. • The field screening methods to be used for this project include (1) visual examination, (2) sheen screening, and (3) headspace vapor screening with a Bacharach TLVTM Sniffer. Field screening results are site-specific. The effectiveness of field screening results will vary with temperature, moisturecontent, organic content, soil type and type and age of contaminant. Visual screening consists of inspecting the soil for stains indicative of petroleum -related contamination. Water sheen screening involves placing soil in water and observing the water surface for signs of sheen. Sheen screening may detect both volatile and nonvolatile petroleum hydrocarbons. Sheen classifications are as follows: No Sheen (NS) Slight Sheen (SS) Moderate Sheen (MS) No visible sheen on water surface. Light, colorless, dull sheen; spread is irregular, not rapid; sheen dissipates rapidly. Natural organic matter in the soil may produce a slight sheen. Light to heavy sheen; may have some color/iridescence; spread is irregular to flowing, may be rapid; few remaining areas of no sheen on water surface. G e o E n g i n e e r s 3 File No. 5925-003-00-1150\091498 Heavy Sheen (HS) Heavy sheen with color/iridescence; spread is rapid; entire water surface may be covered with sheen. The presence or absence of a sheen or headspace vapors does not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of petroleum hydrocarbons. Headspace vapor screening involves placing a soil sample in a plastic sample bag. Air is captured in the bag, and the bag is shaken to expose the soil to the air trapped in the bag. The probe of a Bacharach TLVTM Sniffer combustible gas indicator (CGI) is inserted in the bag, and the TLVTM Sniffer measures the concentration of combustible vapors present within the sample bag headspace. Headspace vapor screening targets volatile petroleum hydrocarbon compounds. The TLVTM Sniffer measures combustible vapor concentrations in parts per million (ppm) and is calibrated to hexane. The TLVTM Sniffer is designed to quantify combustible gas concentrations in the 100 to 10,000 ppm in this application. 1.4 SAMPLE MANAGEMENT 1.4.1 Designation and Labeling Each sample obtained will be identified by a unique sample designation that will correspond to the source of the sample (e.g., hot spot excavation or soil stockpile). The sample designation will be included on the sample label. The designation system used for samples obtained from excavations will refer to the sequential sample number from the particular excavation and the approximate sample depth. The samples from soil stockpiles will not refer to a sample depth. Sample Designation Example: EX -B1-3.0 where: EX = Excavation. "S" will be used for stockpile samples. B = Excavation or stockpile designation. 1 = Sequential sample from the excavation or stockpile 3.0 = Approximate depth in feet (excavation soil samples only). The sample designation example shown above may be modified; however, consistent designation will be used for the project. Sample labels will be completed in permanent ink. Sample labels will include the following information: • GeoEngineers' job number • Sample designation • Date of sample collection (month/day/year) • Time of sample collection (hours:minutes) • Chemical analyses to be conducted • Sample preservation, if appropriate GeoEngineers 4 File No. 5925-003-00-1150\091498 • Initials of sampler 1.4.2 SAMPLE HANDLING The following procedures will be used at all times during collection of samples obtained during the remedial excavation activities. Neoprene, nitrile or vinyl gloves will be worn by the sampler when collecting samples. The gloves either will be decontaminated before each sample is collected, or new disposable gloves will be used by the sampler to collect each sample. All samples obtained for chemical analysis will be transferred into clean sample containers supplied by the project analytical laboratory. Sufficient sample volume will be obtained for the laboratory to complete the method -specific QC analyses on a laboratory batch basis. Sample labels will be completed for each sample following the procedures previously described. Immediately after the samples are obtained they will be stored in a cooler with ice until they are delivered to the analytical laboratory. Standard chain -of -custody procedures will be followed for all samples collected. All samples will be submitted to the laboratory within 24 hours after their collection, except when samples are obtained on a Friday or Saturday, in which case samples will be submitted to the laboratory on the following Monday. If it is necessary to ship samples to the laboratory, the following protocol will be used. 1. Individual sample containers will be packed to prevent breakage and transported in a sealed cooler with ice or other suitable container. The drainage hole at the bottom of the cooler will be sealed and secured in case of sample container leakage. 2. Each cooler will be delivered directly to the analytical laboratory. 3. Glass bottles will be separated in the shipping container by cushioning material (for example, Styrofoam or absorbent material) to prevent breakage. 4. Blue IceTM in sealed bags will be used in each cooler to maintain the sample temperature at approximately 4 degrees Celsius. 5. The chain -of -custody form and sample request form will be taped inside the lid of the cooler and delivered to the laboratory. Chain -of -custody tape will be used to seal the sample shipping container in conformance with EPA protocol. 6. Signed and dated chain -of -custody seals will be applied to each cooler prior to transport of samples from the site. 1.4.3 SAMPLE CUSTODY All samples collected for analysis will be recorded in the field report or data sheets. A chain - of -custody form will be completed at the end of each sampling day prior to transfer of samples to the laboratory, and will accompany the samples to the laboratory. A signed and dated custody seal will be affixed to the lid of the shipping container. Upon receipt of the samples at the laboratory, the custody seals will be broken, the chain -of -custody form will be signed when received by the laboratory, and the conditions of the samples will be recorded on the form. The original chain -of -custody form will remain with the laboratory and copies will be returned to the relinquishing party. G e o E n g i n e e r s 5 File No. 5925-003-00-1150\091498 1.5 DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURE The objective of the decontamination procedure is to minimize the potential for cross - contamination between samples and between hot spots and other areas of the site. A designated decontamination area will be established for decontamination of reusable sampling equipment. The excavator (if necessary) and excavator bucket will be decontaminated using a hot water pressure washer between conducting work in separate excavations and before being demobilized. Sampling equipment, including stainless steel sampling tools, will be decontaminated in accordance with the following procedures. 1. Brush equipment with a stiff brush, if necessary, to remove large particulate matter. 2. Wash with nonphosphate detergent solution (LiquinoxTM and potable tap water). 3. Rinse with potable tap water. 4. Rinse with distilled water. All decontamination solutions, including pressure wash water, will be collected and stored temporarily on site with other wastewater pending chemical analysis for disposal. 1.6 EQUIPMENT CALIBRATION PROCEDURES Field equipment requiring calibration will be calibrated to known standards in accordance with manufacturers' recommended schedules and procedures for each instrument. Calibration checks of the combustible gas indicator (CGI) and photoionization detector (PID) (used for health and safety monitoring) will be conducted daily, and the instruments will be recalibrated if required. Calibration measurements will be recorded in the daily field logs. If field equipment becomes inoperable, its usage will be discontinued until the necessary repairs are made. In the interim, a properly calibrated replacement instrument will be used. 2.0 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS PLAN 2.1 CHEMICAL ANALYTICAL PROGRAM The target analytes and proposed analytical test procedures for samples obtained during the remedial project are listed in Table 1. G e o E n g i n e e r s 6 File No. 5925-003-00-1150\091498 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PLAN FAMILY FUN CENTER TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Sample Source' Sampling Frequency' Target Analytes Test Method Hot Spot Excavation - Former Pesticide Storage Area One per approximately 400 square feet (minimum) of excavation surface area, with a minimum of 5 samples. Pesticides (Area A) EPA 8081A Hot Spot Excavation - Former OH Dump Area One per approximately 1,200 square feet (minimum) of excavation surface area, with a minimum of 5 samples. t. Diesel- and Heavy Oil -range Hydrocarbons (Area D) Ecology NWTPH-Dx Hot Spot Excavation - Former Auto Repair Shop Area One per approximately 1,500 square feet (minimum) of excavation surface area; with a minimum of 1 sample per individual excavation. cPAHs3 (Area C) EPA 8270C BETX2 (Area B) EPA 8021B Gasoline -range Hydrocarbons (Area B) Ecology NWTPH-Gx Diesel- and Heavy Oil -range Hydrocarbons (Area B and Area C) Ecology NWTPH-Dx Priority Pollutant Metals and Barium (Area B) EPA 6000 and 7000 Series Hot Spot Excavation - Former Gasoline UST Area One per approximately 200 square feet (minimum) of surface area, with a minimum of 2 samples. BETX2 EPA 8021B Gasoline -range Hydrocarbons Ecology NWTPH-Gx Hot Spot Excavation - Chromium Beneath Existing Stockpile One per approximately 200 square feet (minimum) of surface area, with a minimum of 2 samples. Chromium EPA 6000 and 7000 Series Sediment Excavations Detention Pond Drainage Ditch One per approximately 1,500 square feet (minimum) of surface area, with a minimum of 3 samples per excavation. Diesel - and Heavy Oil -range Hydrocarbons Ecology NWTPH-Dx Potentially Contaminated Stockpile (Hydrocarbons) Bulk Cubic Yards of Soil Minimum Number of Samples Diesel- and Heavy Oil -range Hydrocarbons Ecology NWTPH-Dx - 0-100 101-500 501-1,000 1,000-2,000 >2,000 3 5 7 10 10+1 for each additional 500 cubic yards _ Potentially Contaminated Stockpile for Off -Site Treatment (Petroleum and Other Compounds) Bulk Cubic Yards of Soil Minimum Number of Samples cPAHs3 (Area C) EPA 8270C 0-100 101-500 501-1,000 1,000-2,000 >2,000 3 5 7 10 10+1 for each additional 500 cubic yards Priority Pollutant Metals and Barium EPA 6000 and 7000 Series , Pesticides EPA 8081A BETX` EPA 8021 B Gasoline -range Hydrocarbons Ecology NWTPH-Gx Diesel- and Heavy Oil -range Hydrocarbons Ecology NWTPH-Dx Notes' 'Discrete samples will be obtained from excavations and stockpiles. 2BETX = benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene and xylenes. 'cPAHs= carcinogenic polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons P:\592500301 T1.XLS CAPPED WITH ASPHALT CONTAINMENT AREA) UNOCCUPIED AREA TO BE WITH OTHER MATERIAL CAPPED FORMER PES11CIDE STORAGE AREA HOT SPOT t:\3 LOuuJ\3 L3UUJu.urvI Note: Explorations are explained in Figure 2. Reference: Drawing entitled Concept Site Plan" provided by Mulvanny Partnership Architects, dated June 17, 1997. JOEL E. HAGG.ARU I3.AGGARD Lww OFFICE • Al 1O14Nsv AND C.pWNSEL.0M•AT•LAw SURE 1200, IBM 61111 DING 4.Cx) F,FTH AvENuL SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 9C101 (206) 682.56:746 FAX: (206) 62J•L.ANr May 21, 1998 Ms. Gail C. Colburn Aquatic Unit Supervisor Toxics Clean -Up Program Department of Ecology - NW Division 3190 - 160th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 GuPF'4E NO. S-20770 RE: Family Fun Center Development/15031 S Grady Way, Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Gail, We received a copy of your January 22, 1998 letter to Ms. Nora Gierloff of the City of Tukwila. The letter references a VCP effort by the developer. Our client supports this concept of a voluntary and cooperative effort between the developer and DOE. Numerous technical studies have been provided to the City by the developer on the issues of soil, toxic wastes, geo-tech, and hydrology. We assume you have been provided a copy of all these studies since they are material to the VCP. We also enclose some preliminary comments earlier provided to the City. We hope your efforts on the VCT' will consider them. Sincerel our oel Haggard enc. cc: Ms. Nora Gierloff • Mr. Mark Hood Mr. Jeff Stock Mr. Gary Vanllusen JH/sm c:\...\a•:D\Z 77O1v.5 11 dDVd 99ZS9Z990Z:XVd 3DIddO MV1 QEVOOVH Nd 0v:f70 flHi 96-Il-AVW MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission/Board of Architectural Review FROM: Nora Gierloff, Associate Planner RE: Comments on the Family Fun Center Project DATE: April 23, 1998 I have received two telephone calls from citizens who wished to give comments on the Family Fun Center development. Doug Grimes 14473 57th Avenue South Called in support of the project. William Fouty 6423 South 143rd Place Called to express the following concerns: • Tukwila is already overcommercialized and does not need an amusement park • Traffic is already a problem in the area and this development would make it worse MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Lancaster, SEPA Responsible Official FROM: Nora Gierloff' ssociate Planner RE: Comment letter on SEPA Threshold Determination for E98-0024 DATE: April 22, 1998 The attached comment letter from attorney Joel Haggard was received on 4/20/98, the last day of the SEPA comment period. It raises questions about the adequacy of the background analysis on which our determination of non -significance for the Family Fun Center project was based. The comments fall into two categories, I have responded to the questions raised below. Traffic Impact Study 1. The site plan has evolved since the date of the study, however the traffic generating uses are unchanged. The access points have been approved by the City Engineer. 2.-4. The issues raised regarding the procedures used in the traffic study may have some impact on the LOS calculations at nearby intersections, however the purpose of LOS calculations would be to determine whether the development would be liable for off-site traffic improvements. The applicant has already agreed to pay traffic mitigation fees per Tukwila's Concurrency Ordinance. The City is already planning on constructing capital projects to improve or maintain current levels of service in the area, the cost of which would be shared by new development such as Family Fun Center per the Concurrency Ordinance. Traffic mitigation fees will be assessed at the time of application for building permit. 5. The right in/right out turns from Grady Way and Interurban Avenue will be controlled by the existing c -curb medians. The City does not anticipate difficulty in having the "right turn only" signs installed. Toxic Waste and Water Quality The cleanup of the Family Fun Center site is regulated by the Department of Ecology under the Model Toxics Control Act. The City has received notification from DOE that the site has been placed on Ecology's Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites List and that the applicant is working with DOE on a cleanup plan under the Voluntary • • Cleanup Program. DOE will provide technical assistance prior to and during the cleanup to assure that the cleanup is in compliance with the MTCA and that the site is no longer a threat to human health and the environment at the completion of the cleanup. Then DOE will review the final cleanup report to determine if a No Further Action status can be given to the site, at which time the site will be removed from the CSCSL List. Any land altering permits issued by the City will have to be in conformance with the cleanup plan approved by DOE. DOE has also stated in reference to the Family Fun Center Project that they encourage "the cleanup and beneficial reuse of contaminated properties." April 22, 1998 Mr. Steve Lancaster Director of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Public Hearing Comments/Board of Architectural Review Family Fun Center Dear Mr. Lancaster: RECEIVED APR 2 4 1998 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT As neighbors to the proposed "Family Fun Center", we would like to take this opportunity to endorse the proposed use and design of the project. Having taken the time to visit the applicant's existing site in Wilsonville, Oregon, we had the chance to see firsthand that the Family Fun Center is a clean and well organized development, giving the community a healthy environment for family entertainment. However, as stated in our earlier comments to the City of Tukwila dated November 18, 1997, our primary concern for the project continues to be traffic impact. Having hired a traffic consultant to review the Family Fun Center's traffic study, we found it to be gravelly inadequate and cause for serious concern. Not only did the study not address the traffic impact of several adjacent - intersections, but in some cases the traffic counts relied upon were from 1994! Attached you will find a memorandum outlining our concerns. Our intent with these comments is not to oppose the specific use or design of this development. It is to state, once again, that traffic impact and mitigation has been grossly underestimated. The result will have serious consequences, not only for adjacent property owners, but the Family Fun Center itself. Sincerely, J %�:1►.•_ RADO%SICH D VELOPMENT COMPANY ebecca Dabidson JOI11l11.1.IdOV1C11 Development Company 2000 - 124th Ave. N.E. B-103 Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 454-6060 MEMORANDUM To: -Ms.. ,RebeccaDavidson From: .J .0 V,.. Brown, P . E . Date: : -:April-.21', :1 9.98 . Re :. Family Fun .Center DNS ,.Traffic•Circulation.Elements,;. Alb 21 1998 Per your request I have reviewed the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) for the proposed Family Fun Center in Tukwila, ,located off Monster Road near Interurban Avenue S. (SR 181) and S.W. Grady Way. The TIS was produced by Entranco and dated January, 1998. The fundamental parameters -of interest include the following. 1. Family Fun Center occupying 7.96 acres on the southeast sector of the total site and having a building of primary 60,500 gsf building with parking on the east and south sides. 2. The inclusion of a La Quinta Hotel on 2.87 acres. The hotelwill-be a . 4 -story structure with 153 rooms. A proposed„high.,turnover restaurant of 11,900 gsf on 2.09 acres:onhe,westernside of the site next to Interurban Avenue andounded-on the north by the Green River and the , sou.th• :by. Monster,- Road . As noted in the TIS it may be a Red Robin, Tony Roma's or similar type but to date there is no defined tenant. There is one minor access drive linking the southern parking lot of the Family Fun Center to Monster Road about half a block north of the S.W. Grady way intersection. The major site access is about midway on. Monster Road and includes a --single inbound lane with a small median that separates the right turn out and left turn out lanes. Traffic count data used in the TIS covers the span 1989 through 1997. The only recent traffic count data is at S. 180th Street and Andover Park E. This is dated June, 1997. Count data on Interurban Avenue at I-405 is dated much earlier (12/94) as is the data for the West Valley Highway at I-405. Christopher Brown Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N., 'Suite A-201 Renton, WA 98055-1380 (206) 772-1188 MEMORANDUM To: Ms. Rebecca Davidson From: C. V. Brown, P.E. Date: April 21, 1998 Page: 2 I am not sure if this is an issue you may wish to raise but you might note the reported traffic data are too old to have any validity. Even data three years old may be suspect let alone that which has now been modified by recent major freeway interchange reconstruction - which is the rule for this part of the highway network. The trip generation data appear to be adequate including the use of pass -by trips and internally generated traffic. For your files you may note the following. P.M. Peak Hour of the Street System Net Trips In Out Total Family Fun Center 41 56 97 veh.hour Hotel 45 36 81 veh./hour Restaurant 56 44 100 veh./hour Gross Site P.M. Peak 194 Net Site P.M. Peak 142 184 378 veh./hour 136 278 veh./hour Gross Avg. Daily Traffic 2,469 2,470 4,939 veh./day Net New Daily Traffic 1,926 1,925 3,851 veh./day Level of Service (LOS) analyses was limited to only Monster Road at both Interurban Avenue and at S.W. Grady Way. No LOS analysis was published for any of the major intersections along Interurban Avenue such as at Fort Dent, the 1-405 ramps, Strander Boulevard, etc. The absence of an LOS analysis at Grady Way/Interurban and at Fort Dent Way/Interurban, with any Christopher Brown C4 A'ssociates 879 Rainier Avenue N., Suite A-201 Renton, WA 98055-1380 (206) 772-1188 • • MEMORANDUM To: Ms. Rebecca Davidson From: C. V. Brown, P.E. Date: April 21, 1998 Page: 3 estimated queuing, is an oversight of major concern in my judgement. For example, how will a motorist exit Monster Road at Interurban Avenue in the p.m. peak hour or, better yet, is it even possible in the peak hour? In my estimation, the entire access issue at the main arterial highway - Interurban Avenue S. - has not been examined in sufficient detail. With only the two LOS data available in the TIS, no assessment of peak hour traffic conditions is possible. As a consequence, it is not practicable to tell how access to your site via Fort Dent Way and Interurban Avenue S. will function in the future after project implementation. I realize this may a provincial outlook but, for your buildings, how will your future access be restrained (or constrained if that is a better word) by this project and can anything be done to ensure your current LOS, that you now enjoy at Fort Dent/Interurban, will continue in the future? In addition, I did not see any horizon year forecasts (such as the year 2000), both with or without the project, and so no determination is possible with respect to your site's access under horizon year conditions for the build and no -build conditions. Traffic mitigation fees are described for impacted intersections (seven all told as shown on Table 4 of the TIS). The aggregated total is $155,560. In summary, and apart from the above, from your perspective there are three items that should be of concern to you. These are as follows. 1. To what extent will new or unfamiliar drivers fail to make the site's access via Monster Road and end up on Fort Dent Way and, after that, then have to make a 'U' turn, exit back onto Interurban Avenue S. and, as a consequence, thus compete for scare "green time" at the Christopher Brown & Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N., Suite A-201 Renton, WA 98055-1380 (206) 772-1188 • • MEMORANDUM To: Ms. Rebecca Davidson From: C. V. Brown, P.E. Date: April 21, 1998 Page: 4 signal on Fort Dent Way. This will impact your tenants who already endure long delay times at the signal. Will more traffic be added to your access system by this project? What will those impacts be? How will they be managed and inhibited? 2. To what extent will familiar drivers, wanting to avoid the awkward circulation system of Monster Road, park on Fort Dent Way or its abutting properties (such as yours) and then use the new pedestrian bridge to walk to the restaurant. In essence, does the new pedestrian bridge and the close proximity of the restaurant lead to the restaurants future tenants parking on your site(s)? How will this be controlled? Who will bear the responsibility for ensuring this remote parking concept does not impact your current properties parking needs? 3. As noted earlier, there is no discussion of the traffic impacts on the main arterial serving your site(s). Just how will Interurban Avenue S. function in the "after" condition at the major intersections of Fort Dent Way, S.W. Grady Way, the I-405 southerly ramps, and Strander Boulevard? No analysis of these has been found. Christopher Brown Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N.. Suite A-201 Renton, WA 98055-1380 (206) 772-1188 • • HAGGARD LAW OFFICE ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR -AT -LAW SUITE 1200, IBM BUILDING 1200 FIFTH AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 (206) 682-5635 FAX: (206) 623 -LAND RECEIVED APR 201998 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JOEL E. HAGGARD OUR FILE NO: April 20, 1998 TRANSMUTED BY FAX & HAND DELIVERED Mr. Steve Lancaster, SEPA RO Ms. Nora Gierloff, DCD City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: SEPA DNS Comments (File No. E97-0024 - Family Fun Centers) Dear Steve and Nora, We have had a review done as to the proposed Family Fun Center. The review has been limited to the following available documents, i.e., a) City DNS dated April 6, 1998, b) Memo to Lancaster from Gierloff dated April 6, 1998, and c) all documents listed in the April 6, 1998 Gierloff memo except the 7/7/94 Addendum for Document #2 which was not provided to us. Our preliminary comments are thus limited to the data sources at this time. RE: Traffic Impact Study: We appreciate the effort Entranco has made in its original and revised reports. We have concerns essential to that analysis. Assuming the correctness of the comments, a further revision is required to fully disclose, pursuant to the SEPA duty, the probable, worst case significant adverse impacts [see WAC 197-11-335, -340(2)(f)]. We do not believe that the cost of having an adequate study available is exorbitant. 1. Does the site plan (Figure 2) reflect current plans? Are access points in compliance with City standards, particularly as to entry radius and location? Due to distance from Interurban and Grady, would not one access point be required or appropriate? Mr. Steve Lancaster, SEPA RO Ms. Nora Gierloff, DCD April 20, 1998 Page 2 2. Traffic counts were obtained over the time period of 1989 through 1997 (see p. 4). The data does not appear to reflect current conditions nor project background levels to the proposal's horizon year. Use of outdated data not reflective of current conditions does not result in full disclosure of worst case intersection and roadway service levels nor of operational issues for site ingress/egress. 3. Vehicle count- data were averaged from Thursday and Friday data (see p. 8). A brief review of Attachment B indicates this averaging technique results in as much as a 12% to 30% underestimate of actual, worst case or peak volumes. Revision is needed to bound the probable, worst case condition and provide full disclosure. 4. We are intrigued by the logic used to discuss internal trip reductions set out at p. 11. The study uses a 15% reduction for internal trips. Yet, at the top of p. 11, the analysis states that "... most internal trips will probably become pedestrian trips rather that vehicle trips." Accordingly, there should be no or little internal trip reduction used. 5. Apparently, the City has requested that "right turn only" signs be provided at both Monster Road intersections and Interurban and Grady. Since the City has only "requested" this, it should be a condition of a MDNS due to significant adverse impacts on street/intersection operation and vehicular accident probabilities. Accident data should be provided to allow full evaluation. We also question, maybe due to our misunderstanding, whether the trip distribution and LOS calculations reflect this turn movement requirement. If not, the analysis should be revised. RE: Toxic Waste and Water Quality: Extensive reports have been prepared on preexisting site conditions. These reports are as important for what they say as for what they do not say. For example, the 11/17/97 Geo -Engineer Report clearly affirms the site is "dirty" and is subject to state regulated clean up (see pp. 1-2). But, methane is not addressed since the consultant could not obtain information (p. 2), an inadequate limitation on disclosure due to experienced and possible sources. Mr. Steve Lancaster, SEPA RO Ms. Nora Gierloff, DCD April 20, 1998 Page 3 The site is listed by DOE (see 7/16/96 letter included in 8/12/97 Geo -Engineer Report). Perhaps PLPs have not been identified. Nonetheless, there reasonably appears that hazardous substances are present on the site as a result of prior industrial activities. If so, then conversion of this site to the proposed non -industrial uses appears precluded by state law until DOE provides approval [see RCW §70.105D.030(2)(e)]. Thus, any action by the City prior to DOE approval appears to suggest authorization contrary to law. The technical reports provide sufficient basis for establishing that there are on- site hazardous wastes. More critical is the location of known concerns relative to riverbank excavation and filling. Due to the known concerns of on-site pollutants there is no record information evaluating these probable impacts. Thus, the DNS is predicated upon ignoring, rather than fully disclosing, the probable significant adverse impacts of the proposal. Perhaps DOE will address this in a clean-up plan or a 401 Certification, or perhaps Fish & Wildlife will address this in the HPA. But, this has not been done. The City's DNS attempts to avoid such analysis and disclosure. We suggest this absence of information and analysis is essentially contrary to SEPA, particularly as related to water quality, fishery resource and public health impacts. The issues have been signaled (i.e., 11/17/97 Geo -Engineers Report, pp. 1-2, 6-7, 9-10; 8/12/97 Geo -Engineers Report, Executive Summary pp. 2-6, 9-10, 12-13, 15-17; 6/30/97 Geo -Engineers Report, pp. 6-12; 1/24/97 Geotech Consultants Report, pp. 1-3, 6-12), but no such reasonable analysis has been provided as to such probable, significant adverse impacts, particularly as to water quality, fisheries and human health, for the proposed actions on this site. Of additional importance to the DNS inadequacy is the failure to establish by an MDNS as conditions all of the recommendations made by the consultants. The 3/19/98 Riverbank Restoration Report and the 1/26/98 Geo - Engineers Report only serve to reinforce the inadequacies of record information and issue review inherent in the DNS. RE: SEPA: We understand the City provides for no administrative appeal of a DNS [see TCC §21.04.280(a)]. If we are incorrect, please promptly advise us so that an appeal can be timely pursued. Alternatively, the City may desire to avoid future issues by requesting of the applicant adequate information on the subjects discussed above so as to allow either a DS or a MDNS to be issued. The 4/6/98 Staff memo appears conclusionary and contrary to the information record. If not done, please recognize that an appropriate appeal is likely when the first City action is taken on the proposal. This would be unfortunate since it is always better to have full disclosure Mr. Steve Lancaster, SEPA RO Ms. Nora Gierloff, DCD April 20, 1998 Page 4 under SEPA to allow an informed decision various state and federal agencies). Please promptly provide a copy of all jurisdictions. JH/sm c: \... \s-20\20770Itr.420 -maker (which besides the City includes applications to county, state and federal Sincerely yours el Haggard CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT INFORMATION Family Fun Centers has filed applications for development of an entertainment facility, which includes an arcade, go-carts, bumper boats, batting cages, restaurant, and an adjoining hotel and restaurant to be located at 15031 Grady Way South, Tukwila,Washington. Permits applied for include: L97-0069 Design Review L97-0068 Conditional Use Permit - Land Use L97-0071 Special Permission Parking L97-0072 Special Permission Sign Other known required permits include: Building Permits, Land Altering Permit, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Sign permits, Flood Zone Control Permit and Misc. Utility Permits FILES AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW These and additional project files are available at the City of Tukwila. To view the files, you may request them at the permit counter of the Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard #100. Additional Files: E97-0024 SEPA Environmental Review L97-0048 Shoreline Permit OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT You are invited to comment on the project at the public hearing before the Board of Architectural Review, scheduled for April 23, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers at City Hall. The hearing is subject to change. You may confirm the time and date by calling Nora Gierloff at the Department of Community Development at 433-7141. For further information on this proposal, contact Nora Gierloff at (206) 433-7141 or visit our offices at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Application Filed: October 24, 1997 Notice of Completeness Issued: November 21, 1997 Notice of Application Issued: November 26,1997 SEPA Threshold Determination Issued: April 6, 1998 Notice of Hearing Issued: April 9, 1998 AFFIDAVIT Notice of Public Hearing Notice of riBoard of Packet Board of Packet Planning Packet Public Meeting Adjustment Agenda Appeals Agenda Commission Agenda IlShort Subdivision Agenda Packet n Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit IlShoreline Management Permit OF DISTRIBUTION hereby declare that: Determination of Non- significance Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance O Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice Notice of Action Official Notice 0 Other Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on Jelz- a3traxJ/LL_:, Name of Project' ,j'VLI1A1 canerPrVier File Number 61-1— 007_4 Signature 4=7 . CITY OF TUKWILA DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: NEW AMUSEMENT PARK, 153 ROOM HOTEL, AND RESTAURANT INCLUDING APPROXIMATELY 7 ACRES OF OUTDOOR ATTRACTIONS, THE SITE WILL,, BE._FIL-L.ED.:Tp_RAISE IT ABOVE THE FLOOD PLAIN-AWCOMPEN;',A=TORY' STOR-AGE WILL BE PROVIDED BY.:`.i UT°'TING BACK THE RIVEPBANk;. AND BUILDING AN,OFF-CHANNEL" POND PROPONENT: FAMILY,FUN CENTERS LOCATION OF PRt1POSALt INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS, IF ANY: ADDRESS'::- 15034 GRADY . WY, : S PARCEL Nn:. 242304-9013 '.EC./TWN/RNt1: LEAD AGENCY}: CITY OF TUr::WILA_ FILE NO: E97-0024 The C. i ty has determined tha - the- :pr.'opbsa 1 does rnot .have a probable,: significant adverse impact on : the -..env i,ronment..' 'An environmental. impact statement- (EI'=�) is. not requir'e,d' under- RCW �43.2,1c..030(2) (c) . This deci,siion wad. made atteryr:e.vi'ew of a complete'i_,r'.'iivir^onmen.tal checklist, and other; int ormat:i on, on file wi t.h the lead -agency. This,: informationi:s _.available to the puh.1:i;c urri ec7uest. • k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k.k k :k k k k*:* k :k k k -k k k.* k k k k k k k k k.** * k.* **k*** Thi..; DNS is.,°.i.s.s.,u=ed-under' 197-11-340(2).: commentS must -he submitted by s.l Z�LIS58 . . The ; l,eadt..agency will not aa!`t on thisproposai for, -days from the date below: I+J Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official City of Tukwila, (206). 431-3630 6300 Southcenter Boul eYar,d Tukwila, WA 98138 Li -6 Date Copies of the procedures for.. SEPA appeals are available with the Department of Community Development. • • City of Tukwila Department of Community Development / 6300 Southcenter BL, Suite 100 / Tukwila, WA 98188 / (206) 431-3670 Parcel No.: 2423049013 Address: 15034 GRADY WY S TUKW Suite No: Tenant: COMFORT SUITES PERMIT COMMENTS Permit Number: E97-0024 Status: APPROVED Applied Date: 07/30/1997 Issue Date: 04/06/1998 1: 9/29/97 - REVISION SUBMITTED BY CHANDLER STEVER - FOUR COPIES OF RIVERBANK STABILIZATION STUDY AND FOUR COPIES OF PARCEL #2 (HOTEL) GEOTECH REPORT SUPPLEMENT. FORWARDED TO JACK FOR ROUTING. KJP. 2: 10/01/97 PW RECEIVED 2 COPIES OF GEOENGINEERS RIVERBANK STA- BILIZATION REPORT AND PRELIMINARY GEOTECH RECOMMENDATIONS PARCEL 2,FFC SITE - BOTH REPORTS DATED SEP 26, 1997. JJS 3: 10/8/97 - REVISION SUBMITTED BY MULVANNY PARTNERSHIP - SIX COPIES OF HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEY PLUS AND ORIGINAL COPY. FORWARDED TO JACK. KJP. 4: 2-3-98 - GARY BARNETT CALLED BARGHAUSEN ENGINEERS AND SPOKE TO BRIAN SMITH REGARDING TIMING OF FAMILY FUN CENTERS DEVELOPMENT. MOST PARTICULARLY INDENTIFIED THAT THERE MAY BE A CONFLICT WITH CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULING BETWEEN THE CITYS INTERURBAN BRIDGE PROJECT AND THE NEED TO OPEN LA QUINTA INN THE SANITARY SEWER FORCE MAIN FOR THE PROJECT IS TO BE LOCATED ON ONE OF THE CITYS BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN RIVER. THE CITYS CONCERN IS THAT THE CITY PROJECT WILL NOT PROVIDE THE ANTICIPATED PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE COMPLETED PRIOR TO 5: DESIRED OPENING OF LA QUINTA. BRIAN UNDERSTOOD THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS ISSUE AND WILL DISCUSS THE SCHEDULE WITH HIS CLIENT. GARY OFFERED SEVERAL OPTIONS FOR DISCUSSION WITHOUT ANY FIRM RESOLUTION OR DIRECTION AT THIS TIME. #1 - FAMILY FUN CENTER WILL DESIGN, PERMIT, AND CONSTRUCT THE FORCE MAIN IN INTERURBAN WAY USING THE EXISTING BRIDGE STRUCTURE PRIOR TO THE CITY CONTRACTOR ARRIVING ON SITE IN JULY. COORDINATION WITH ENTRANCO DESIGN WILL BE NECESSARY. #2 - THE WORK CAN NOT BE ACCOMPLISHED IN A TIMELY MANNER AND THE CITY WOULD THEN INCLUDE A SLEVE IN THE BRIDGE GURDERS FOR FAMILY FUN CENTER. CITY WOULD THEN MAKE THIS AN EARLY PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AND MEET THE LA QUINTA INN OPENING SCHEDULE. ADDITIONALLY A WATER LINE EXTENSION IS REQUIRED ACROSS THE FRONTAGE OF INTERURBAN AVE. CITY HAS QUESTION WETHER THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CONSTRUCT THIS WATER LINE AND OR FORCE MAIN PRIOR TO THE CITYS BRIDGE PROJECT, ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC CONTROL AND INCONVENIENCE TO THE PUBLIC WOULD BE 6: REQUIRED TO OPEN THE STREET. FIRST FOR UTILITY CONSTRUCTION AND THEN FOR BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION. GARY REQUESTED THAT BRIAN CALL HIM BACK IN A WEEK WITH INITIAL DIRECTION AND FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT REQUIREMENTS AND APPROACH TO GETTING SANITARY SEWER SERVICE IN A TIMELY MANNER FOR FAMILY FUN CENTER. - TKF 7: 2/17/98 - RECEIVED VIA US MAIL - LETTER FROM JACK KENNEDY (CORPS OF ENGINEERS) RE: RESPONSE TO 11/24/97 LETTER FROM MUCKELSHOOT INDIANS RE: RIVERBANK STABILIZATION; MEMO FROM GEO-ENGINEERS TO BRIAN SMITH (BARGHAUSEN) RE: RIVERBANK STABILIZATION WITH REVISED GEO-TECH REPORT DATED 1/26/98; AND GRADING PLANS. COPIES TO NORA, JOANNA, AND GARY SCHULZ. KJP. 8: 3/19/98 - REVISION SUBMITTED BY CHANDLER STEVER - PROPOSED RIVERBANK RESTORATION AND HABITAT ENHANCEMENT REPORT DATED 3/19/98. FIVE NEW SETS OF DRAWINGS. EVERYTHING FORWARDED TO NORA FOR REVIEW. KJP. doc: Comments E97-0024 Printed: 07-10-2003 • City of Tukwila Department of Community Development / 6300 Southcenter BL, Suite 100 / Tukwila, WA 98188 / (206) 431-3670 9: 4/01/98 PW RECEIVED A REVISED TEMP EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN (TWO SHTS TOTAL) REVISED BY BARGHAUSEN ENGINEER FROM NORA-G. JJS 10::^Mitigation - Per memo from Gary Barnett to Kelcie Peterson, dated December 4, 1998 fees for all three parcels follow. The mitigation is based on parcels havin a fun center, a hotel and a j restau"rant. 1: Sewer mitigation calculated as a prorated share of improvements to the Fort Dent lift.stationTotal for all three parcels is $46,194. This amount was paid 01.19.99 as part of pe mit M198-0163. No additional sewer mitigation will be charged. 2. Traffic Mitigation - Fees based on Entranco traffic analysis dated January, 1998. Fees of -' $96,353 were paid for the fun center and hotel under permit D98-0382. Since there was no permit application for the restaurant, this fee was not paid. As part of the 2003 addenda. to E97-0024, the 1.998 traffic study must be amended or anew study performed. New mitigation fees will be determined based on the new study. doc: Comments E97-0024 Printed: 07-10-2003 • • CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY 2001 to 2006 PROJECT: Lift Station Nos. 6 & 7 Pumps LINE ITEM: 403 / 02 . 501 . 35x .4c .. 27 PROJECT NO. 92-SW05 Design and construct station upgrades to include new pumps, electrical and emergency generators. 1997 DESCRIPTION: Design Report determined the capacity needs and estimated costs to handle new development at Grady/Interurban Ave (Family Fun Center Site). Flows have increased significantly. Development activity will increase flow more. LID 25 lift stations are unable to handle future flows which exceed those currently being discharged. JUSTIFICATION: STATUS: MAINT. IMPACT: COMMENT: Combine emergency site generator for LS 6 with main project contract. Reduced maintenance on pumps and less power use. FINANCIAL Thru Est',mted In $000's 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 .2004 2005 2006 BEYOND TOTAL EXPENSES Engineering 24 25 49 Land (RMI) 0 Construction 39 135 75 249 TOTAL EXPENSES 63 135 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 298 FUND SOURCES Awarded Grant 0 Proposed Grant 0 Mitigation Actual 46 46 Mitigation Expected 4 4 City Oper. Revenue 63 85 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 248 TOTAL SOURCES 63 135 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 298 S 149 St S 151 St PROJECT LOCATION 96 MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Lancaster, SEPA Responsible Official FROM: Nora Gierloff, Associate Planner t in RE: SEPA - Family Fun Center DATE: April 6, 1998 Project File No. E97-0024 Project Description: Develop an approximately 14 acre site by demolishing existing structures and regrading the site. To accommodate required flood storage capacity a combination of off channel pond and riverbank cutback with restoration and habitat enhancement will be built adjacent to the Green River. Proposed buildings include a 9,000 square foot restaurant, a 153 room '4 story hotel, a 36,300 square foot restaurant and arcade building and 7 acres of outdoor attractions including miniature golf, bumper boats, batting cages and a go cart track. A City trail will be constructed along the perimeter of the site and will connect to a new pedestrian bridge crossing the River. Agencies With Jurisdiction: Washington State Department of Ecology Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington State Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation King County Health Department U. S. Army Corps of Engineers King County Department of Natural Resources - Water and Land Resources Division Documents submitted with SEPA Checklist: 1. A.G.I. Environmental Audit 4/26/89 2. Geotech Consultants Phase II Environmental Site Assessment 6/17/94 and 7/7/94 Addendum 3. Geotech Consultants Phase II 1/24/97 4. Geotech Report by Geo -Engineers 6/30/97 5. Geotech Report on riverbank stabilization by Geo -Engineers dated 9/26/97 and revised 1/98 6. Environmental Report (Phase I E.S.A.) by Geo -Engineers dated 8/12/97 7. Environmental Report (Phase II E.S.A) by Geo -Engineers dated 11/17/97 • • 8. Traffic Study by Entranco Engineers dated 6/30/97 and revised 1/98 9. Revised Riverbank Stabilization and Restoration Habitat Report by Barghausen Engineers, Wetland Resources and Geo -Engineers dated 3/19/98 Comments to SEPA Checklist: A comment letter was received from Chris Clifford with the following concerns: 1. The right in and right out access would be inadequate for the intensity of the use and would pose an unacceptable danger to the public and patrons of the facility. 2. Analysis of the project's impacts on wildlife and protected bird species that use the large trees on site should be conducted. 3. The impact of the construction of the bench along the shoreline on native fish runs is unknown. 4. The proposal is for a commercial use that is not consistent with the Shoreline Master Plan urban designation for the shoreline. 5. The magnitude of the project's impacts on the quality and economic vitality of the area warrant an environmental impact statement. Response: 1. Circulation issues were examined in the Traffic Impact Study completed by Entranco Engineers. Entranco concluded that queuing would be a maximum of one car, resulting in Level of Service ratings of A or B for both driveways and Monster Road intersections. 2. There are no threatened or endangered species on site. The intensive landscaping of the river bank buffer with native species will enhance the habitat value of the site. 3. The flood storage bench has been redesigned to start at elevation 9.0, above the ordinary high water mark, so that it will be inundated only during flood conditions. It was designed with input from the State Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe to create low flow pockets that will provide refuge and holding areas for juvenile and mature fish in this stretch of the River. Large woody snags have been incorporated into the bench and an off -channel pond to add further habitat value and mitigate for the necessary vegetation removal and interim loss of riparian habitat during construction. 4. Tukwila's Shoreline Plan defines the urban environment as including "areas to be managed in high intensive uses, including residential, commercial and industrial uses, while providing for restoration and preservation to ensure long-term protection of natural and cultural resources within the shoreline." 5. The project will redevelop a largely vacant site for three commercial uses, remediate contamination on the site, provide flood storage and improve fish and wildlife habitat. These actions are not expected to create substantial unmitigated negative impacts on the surrounding area, therefore an EIS is not warranted. A comment letter was received from the John C. Radovich Development Company with the following concerns: • • 1. The trips generated by the project as a whole will add to an already overburdened traffic system. 2. The right in and right out access would result in customers using Fort Dent Way to make U- turns. Response: 1. Circulation and trip generation issues were examined in the Traffic Impact Study completed by Entranco Engineers and reviewed by the Tukwila Public Works Department. The study concludes that the project will not lower the Level of Service at affected intersections below B. The City is currently planning to widen the Interurban Avenue Bridge to ease traffic congestion for vehicles entering I405. 2. Family Fun Center customers may make U-turns on Fort Dent Way, however that is a public street designed with a turnaround and no safety hazards are expected to result from the use. Summary of Primary Impacts: 1. Earth - The project will involve remediation of contaminants on the site by excavation and capping. The remediation plan is being developed with the Department of Ecology under the Voluntary Cleanup Program. The site will be filled with a combination of 40,000 to 50,000 cubic yards of relocated and 10,000 to 20,000 cubic yards of imported materials. Geotechnical reports stating that the earthwork can be done without a loss of stability on the riverbank have been prepared for the site by GeoEngineers. An erosion control plan has been submitted by GeoEngineers and must be approved by the Tukwila Public Works Department. It is likely that some minor erosion of the bank and the pond outlet may still occur before the plantings have become established. A 500 foot long riverbank cut-back above the ordinary high water mark and an off -channel pond will be constructed to provide flood storage compensation for filling on the rest of the site. They will also provide refuge areas for fish and enhance riparian habitat through revegetation with native plant species and the placement of large wood snags. The bench has been designed with input from the City of Tukwila, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Muckleshoot Tribe Fisheries Department. 2. Air - Demolition of existing buildings requires the approval of the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. There will be exhaust emissions from construction equipment and trucks carrying the building debris, fill soil and construction materials during the project. If necessary dust control measures will be taken during construction. The project's air emissions when complete will consist of automotive traffic to and from the site, bumper boat and go cart engines. A traffic impact study prepared by Entranco Engineers was submitted as part of the environmental review. 3. Water - To provide 100 year/7 day storm water storage volume approximately 500 feet of the riverbank will be cut back for approximately 20 feet at elevation 9.0 and a 23,000 square foot off- • • channel pond in the northeast comer of the site will be constructed. The riverbank and the sides of the pond will be stabilized with native plantings and riprap according to a plan prepared by GeoEngineers and Wetland Resources Inc. The only construction planned below the ordinary high water mark is the outlet for the off -channel pond which will be at an approximate elevation of 4.0. Family Fun Center will apply for a Nationwide 27 Wetland and Riparian Restoration and Creation Activities section of the Clean Water Act for construction of the bench and pond. Stormwater run-off will be treated with oil/water separators and a 200 foot biofiltration swale. The swale is designed to meet the requirement for treatment of the 2-year/24-hour post -development storm event as required by Tukwila's Storm and Surface Water Ordinance prior to discharge into the Green River. A flap gate will be used to prevent infiltration into the on-site drainage system during high river flow events. No hazardous wastes are expected to be released during or after construction. 4. Vegetation - The majority of the existing vegetation will be removed and replaced by buildings, parking lots, attractions and site landscaping. The majority of a significant stand of willows along • the eastern portion of the riverbank will be retained for wildlife habitat as requested by the Muckleshoot Tribe Fisheries Department. New landscaping will be installed according to Shoreline regulations, Zoning Code standards and the Board of Architectural Review's approved landscape plan. Non-native plants such as Himalayan blackberry will be removed and replaced with native plants of higher habitat value. The riverbank above the ordinary high water mark will be stabilized by landscaping. 5. Animals - The riverbank and off -channel pond will be revegetated with native plant species to improve riparian wildlife habitat in accordance with the comments received from agencies with jurisdiction including the Muckleshoot Tribe Fisheries Department, State Department of Fish and Wildlife, and King County Water and Land Resources Division. Groups of tree snags will be placed along the riverbank and within the off -channel pond to create evening and winter habitat for salmonids. There are no endangered species on site, though Chinook salmon in the adjacent Green River are proposed to be listed as a threatened species. 6. Energy and Natural Resources - The project will require energy for construction equipment, vehicles coming to the site and building operation after completion. The project will be required to meet current energy codes. 7. Environmental Health - Phase I and II environmental site assessment reports submitted with the checklist list potential soil and groundwater contamination and confirm the presence of petroleum, metals, solvents, PCBs, pesticides and small amounts of asbestos and arsenic. The site has been placed on the Department of Ecology's Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites List. The remediation plan and cleanup will be regulated by Ecology under the Model Toxics Control Act. Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency regulations require that all asbestos containing materials be removed from buildings prior to demolition. Tukwila required PSAPCA approval prior to issuance of demolition permits for the existing houses on the site. Construction equipment operation will need to comply with Tukwila's noise ordinance. 8. Land and Shoreline Use - The proposed uses are permitted or conditional uses under the site's Commercial/Light Industrial zoning and are allowed by the Urban shoreline designation. A conditional use permit will be required for the amusement park. A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit will also be required for the project. 9. Housing - Five dilapidated abandoned houses on the site have been demolished. The proposal contains no new housing. 10. Aesthetics - The project, its landscaping and all buildings are subject to the design review process including a hearing before the Tukwila Board of Architectural Review. The building permit drawings must agree with the BAR approved design. 11. Light and Glare - Site lighting will be provided by new light standards, but offsite lighting will be controlled by focusing the light downwards and using cut-off shields at the perimeter of the site. 12. Recreation - The proposed amusement park will expand recreational opportunities for local residents and visitors. A new City walking and biking trail will be constructed around the boundary of the site to provide a link between Tukwila's Interurban and River Trails. The trail will connect to a new pedestrian bridge across the Green River that will be constructed by the City. 13. Historical and Cultural Preservation - The dairy barn on the site was proposed for the State Historic Register but never listed. It was documented in a report prior to burning down on August 31, 1997. The documentation was sent to the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. According to an environmental assessment prepared for a proposed commuter rail project in 1994 the Neilson Farm site has a high probability for hunter -fisher -gatherer archaeological resources. If construction activities penetrate fill to native soils Family Fun Center has agreed to provide archaeological monitoring of the excavation. 14. Transportation - A trip generation study prepared by Entranco Engineers was submitted along with the checklist. In lieu of frontage improvements along Interurban Avenue Family Fun Center will pay the City's traffic mitigation fee per the concurrency ordinance to offset planned concurrency improvements to the intersection. Frontal improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk, street widening, storm drainage and street lighting will be required along both sides of Monster Road. Family Fun Center will provide a public trail easement along the perimeter of the site and construct a portion of the trail per a letter of understanding with the City dated 9/24/97. The grades of the trail will be coordinated to match City plans for a new pedestrian bridge across the Green River. 1 15. Public Services - The project will cause a modest increase in demand on public services such as fire, police and emergency medical from the current level due to the more intensive use of the site. 16. Utilities - The project will increase the use of utilities on site. The developer will connect to the City's sanitary sewer lift station in Fort Dent by force main. Family Fun Center will either construct its portion of pipe prior to the City's start of bridge and roadway construction or reimburse the City for portions of the force main constructed as part of the bridge and roadway project. Family Fun Center will contribute $46,000 as its prorata share of the City's costs to upgrade the lift station. The estimate is based on a 1998 sewer flow rate analysis by Gray and Osborne. Family Fun Center will construct a 12" waterline for the length of the Interurban property frontage. If construction is not completed prior to July, 1998 when the City bridge and roadway project starts, Family Fun Center will request the City install all or portions of said waterline. They will reimburse the City unit contract prices for waterline, fittings, bedding, blocking, trench excavation and backfill and other associated waterline improvements. Waterline shall be installed or estimated payments made to the City as a condition of the first building permit issued for the site. Recommended Threshold Determination: Determination of Non -Significance. March 31, 1998 Ms. Nora Gierloff Associate Planner City of Tukwila Community Development Department 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Wash. 98188 Dear Ms. Gierloff In conncetion with our letter dated March 20, 1998, we also agree to the following provisions. 1. To make adjustments to straighten the bike trail by the electrical tower and the batting cages where feasible. 2. Provide coalescing plate seperator and/or sand oil seperator if required in conjunction with water quality treatment prior to entering the bio-swale. 3. Provide spill containment at the gasoline dispensing area. 4. Provide some form of safety barrier in the way of low fencing or shrubs along the bike trail by the off channel pond. Huish Family Fun Center Family Food 'n Fun EL CAJON FAMILY FUN CENTER k Y�CVs�I�IGD APR 0 2.1998 COMMUNITY BULLWINKLE'SDRESTAURANTNT 1155 GRAVES AVENUE, EL CAJON, CA 92021 PHONE: (619) 593-1155 FAX: (619) 593-6897 • Catty of Tukwila epartment of Community Development MEMORANDUM TO: Nora Gierloff, Associate Planner FROM: Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist DATE: March 27, 1998 RE:_ Family Fun Center (FFC) - SEPA E97-0024 / Shoreline L97-0048. John W. Rants, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director Per your request, I have reviewed the revised SEPA checklist which describes the recent changes mainly related to habitat, flood storage, and bank work. My comments are only focused on potential inconsistencies in the SEPA as related to the recent reports. SEPA Checklist 1) Page 2, A.10.: Depending on the final design, Nationwide Permit 13 (Bank Stabilization) may be needed. The GeoEngineer's report recommends rock/rirap be used at both ends of the new river bench for stabilization (Page 6). 2) Page 3, 1.d.: GeoEngineer's report has identified surface instability as minor sloughing on riverbank areas on the east and west sides of the site. This was also mapped in their report. They also made a point to again discuss the instability at the 90 degree riverbend. 3) Page 4, 1.f.: The potential for erosion is unavoidable particularly for ;;; constructing the outlet channel for the habitat/storage pond. Some erosion will likely occur on the excavated riverbank and related biofiltration swale. 4) Page 4, 1.h.: The phased construction to avoid work directly adjacent to the river is described in the Barghausen Engineers report. As stated on page 4, riverbank excavation will begin in June and the rough grading operations will be complete by July 1. This is not consistent with SEPA and documentation from past meetings. Also, weather conditions and potential runoff flows combined with slight tidal influence need to be considered before starting this work. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite #100 0 Tukwila, Washington 98188 ° (206) 431-3670 0 Fax (206) 431-3665 .. • • Family Fun Center SEPA Memo 3/27/98 Page 2 5) Page 8, 5.b. & c.: The proposed listing of the Chinook salmon should be mentioned on b. The River is migratory for anadromous fish and Tukwila is in the Pacific Flyway migratory route for birds. I have substantive comments related to the reports and will prepare those after discussion with consultants and Public Works. Please let me know if you have questions. cc: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director Kelcie Peterson, Permit Coordinator Gary Barnett, Senior Engineer - Development FROM : Panasonic TAD/FAX • PHONE NO. : • Mar. 20 1998 11:34AM P1 March 20, 1988 Nora Gierloff Associate Planner Community Development Department City Of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Wash. 98188 Dear Me. Gierloff In connection with our application for a SEPA threshold determination, Huish Family Fun Centers agrees to the following project items. 1. Provide archaeological monitoring for any construction work that intrudes into native soil. 2. Provide a public trail easement to the City and construct a portion of that trail per our letter of understanding with the City dated September 24, 1997. 3. Install curbing and drainage along the island side of Monster Road between Grady Way and Interurban Avenue. 4. Connect to the City of Tukwila sanitary sewer lift station located in Fort Dent by force main.. Have our system constructed prior to July,',1998 or reimburse the City for any work done on our behalf with regards to this project, and pay estimated force main coats at the time of building permit issuance, with a final adjustment made when the project is complete. 5. Contribute the sum of $46,000.. as our share of the City project to upgrade and improve the Fort Dent lift station capacity. Estimated costs to be adjusted for inflation using the ENR construction index with February 1998 as the base. 6. Construct a 12" water line for the length of the Interurban property frontage. Work to be completed prior to July 1998, or we will reimburse the City for all of our associated costs pertaining to this part �f the. City bridge and roadway project adjacent to our property. I3uish Family Fun Center Family Food 'n Fun EL CAJON FAMILY FUN CENTER BULLWINKLE'S RESTAURANT 1155 GRAVES AVENUE, EL CAJON, CA 92021 PHONE: (619) 593.1155 FAX: (619) 593-6897 CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development Building Division -Permit Center 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 MAR 1 9 1998 COiviMUNITy`' D :'v`c .OPtilENT L- - el 7-004S G� DATE: - (9 - t E PLAN CHECK/PERMIT NUMBER: r - 17 XDZ4. PROJECT NAME: FPthITFUN C-GNTEg V1=1-0PP-10, 7 - PROJECT ADDRESS: l 501'4- ��12,40y 4)/ CONTACT PERSON: _r,HAK117I. S-rEVEfZ PHONE: 425) Szz-o444 MuVvaNiwy t342.7vrisiiir At2c44 i REVISION SUMMARY: tiR EV(S'f=� S I — 0--"W I 1-pl4C) C VF j& -r 1=2/40. Ear SHEET NUMBER(S) "Cloud" or highlight all areas of revisions and date revisions. SUBMITTED TO: JO(RA 37d- 776e - e i�A vM .- n1 -s v7 z 7 i 93 3/19/96 FAMILY FUN CENTER - DRAFT 'OPTIMAL' SCHEDULE Permit name PreApp SEPA Shoreline Design Rev CUP land us SP Parking SP Sign Permit type NA NA Type 2 Type 4 Type 4 Type 2 Type 2 Required support materials NA Staff Rpt Staff Rpt Staff Rpt Staff Rpt DR Staff DR staff Decision-making body DRC PC PC BAR PC BAR BAR Permit number Pre96-037 E97-0024 L97-0048 L97-0069 L97-0068 L97-0071 L97-0072 Mtg date 10/31/97 ' . ~44: - Submit application Completeness denied Re -submit application Completeness response due 14 days Completeness response due 28 days Mail notice of application within 14 days Post site within 14 days Affidavit of posting req'd within 14 days Public comment period on Notice - 14 days Issue preliminary Determination Comment period on Determination 14 days Appeal period for SEPA 14 days Issue final Determination Public comment period on notice - 21 days Issue shoreline permit Appeal period for Shoreline 21 days 7/30/97 7/30/97 10/24/97 10/24/97 8/28/97 8/28/97 10/24/97 10/24/97 11/7/97 11/7/97 10/24/97 10/24/97 • F . 11/21/97 11/12/97 11/12/97 11/26/97 11/21/97 11/26/97 11/21/97 11/21/97 11/26/97 11/26/97 11/12/97 11/12/97 11/26/97 11/12/97 11/12/97 11/26/97 11/26/97 12/10/97 11/26/97 11/26/97 12/10/97 11/26/97 11/26/97 11/26/97 11/26/97 12/10/97 12/10/97 4/8/98 . w�-� 4/21/98 \l **5/4/1998 = ;. . : �a�:t '!�::4,06145-vnii,ko-N9eN "4/22/98 5/12/98 Hearing 60+ days from Completeness Mail notice of hearing 14 days prior Post notice of hearing 14 days prior Earliest date for public hearing Mail Notice of Decision Appeals to be filed within 21 days of Notice 4/9/98 4/9/98 4/23/98 4/24/98 4/9/98 4/9/98 4/23/98 4/23/98 4/24/98 4/24/98 4/24/98 NOTES: Public comment period would expire 12/10/97, except that public notice to newspapers was not published until 11/21/97 & 11/28/97, & the 21 day comment period extends from 11/28/97. ""Note that SEPA appeals can be filed anytime through the last appeal period on last decision on project. ***Shoreline permit cannot be issued while SEPA comment period is on. Highlighted areas indicates Not Applicable. Bold dates are actual, or actual projected dates. 3/20/9811:04 AM Page 1 Highway 99 Study Area Commercial and Multifamily Zoned Parcel Information Page 3 HWY99_PR.XLS Parcel Street Street Lot Property/ # Taxpayer Use Land Zone Land Improvmt. Total Ratio number numbr name size business name Units code use dist. value value value 339538-0030 4038 S 158 Ln 2185 Hollycrest Townhouses 1 Abbot, Richard 131 R/MF HDR 87,600 8112,400 8120,000 004300-0170 3900 S 154 St 71717 Riverton Ridge Apts 39 Fung Family Trust 112 R/MF HDR 8251,000 81,223,200 81,474,200 886400-0985 13911 Pacific Hy S New United Motors Geninco Insurance Trust Auto 886400-0985 13911 Pacific Hy S United Motors Geninco Insurance Trust Auto 886400-0985 13911 Pacific Hy S 20000 Jesse James Auto Sales Geninco Insurance Trust 531 Garage RC $150,000 81,000 8151,000 004000-0072 3416 S 146 St 5670 Apartment 4 Gillen Kevin + Margaret 104 R/MF HDR 822,600 $101,100 8123,700 004000-0310 3530 S 146 St 18605 Apartment 4 Ginn Ardella 103 R/MF NCC 874,400 861,600 8136,000 092304-9394 12437 Pacific Hy S 15617 Ivy Hills Apts 13 Gipson, James 112 R/MF CLI $54,600 8221,000 8275,600 004100-0335 14835 Pacific Hy S 38290 Sea -Tac Airport Motel Goodhill Inc 161 H/M RC 8382,900 81,469,100 81,852,000 004100-0160 3743 S 148 St 9600 Single family 1 Gookstetter Richard E 101 R/SF MDR 840,200 844,800 885,000 161000-0025 3724 S 141 St 12060 Apartment 4 Grant Earl + Darlene E 104 R/MF MDR 830,100 895,900 8126,000 004000-0825 14628 Military Rd S 14140 Triplex/single family 4 Grant Earl + Darlene E 101 R/SF RC 885,500 890,400 8175,900 004100-0089 14812 Military Rd S 6260 Single family 1 Grant Earl E 101 R/SF RC 861,700 85,000 866,700 161000-0056 14013 Pacific Hy S 9360 Big Wheel Auto Parts Graversen Charles 251 Retail NCC $74,800 884,900 8159,700 161000-0057 14013 Pacific Hy S 5400 Used with MI #0056 Graversen Charles 251 Retail NCC 843,200 80 843,200 339538-0220 4037 S 159 Ln 3135 Hollycrest Townhouses 1 Gray William + Patricia 131 R/MF HDR $10,900 8109,100 8120,000 339538-0060 4026 S 158 Ln 2660 Hollycrest Townhouses 1 Greig James F 131 R/MF HDR 89,300 8110,700 8120,000 734060-1025 13475 Pacific Hy S 8343 Luckys Used Trucks Gronewold E 403 Auto MUO 825,000 $0 $25,000 004300-0260 15416 40 Av S 10600 Apartment 4 Guettler James D + Carol C 104 R/MF MDR 837,100 8146,200 8183,300 152304-9187 14331 37 Av S 9600 Single family 1 Hall Joyce A 101 R/SF MDR 836,000 845,000 881,000 161000-0005 3711 S 140 St 14400 Single family 1 Halstead William A 101 R/SF MDR 841,000 877,400 8118,400 886400-0910 13802 38 Av S 7300 Single family 1 Haney, Harold 101 R/SF 835,000 853,100 888,100 161000-0215 14126 37 Av S 7682 Single family 1 Hansen Bradley N 101 R/SF MDR 835,000 834,300 869,300 004000-0835 14612 Military Rd S 18748 Airport Valley Vinyl Harbor Holdings Inc 502 Industrial RC 8112,400 897,600 8210,000 339538-0170 15834 40 Ln S 4578 Hollycrest Townhouses 1 Hart Keiko K 131 R/MF HDR 816,000 8109,000 8125,000 004100-0494 15030 Military Rd S 21143 Retail Hawley Enterprises Inc 251 Retail RC 8211,400 8221,200 8432,600 004100-0690 15025 Pacific Hy S 4628 Parking Hawley Enterprises Inc 422 PKGC RC 848,500 8100 848,600 004100-0493 15037 Pacific Hy S 31515 Trudy's Tavern Hawley Enterprises Inc 430 Tavern RC 8315,100 86,800 8321,900 004100-0161 3739 S 148 St 30544 Vacant Hazen Jeanene + Weiths Lois 901 VAC/R MDR 883,000 $0 883,000 004100-0517 15001 Pacific Hy S 10827 Check X -Change Henkle Family Trust 251 Retail RC 8119,000 859,200 8178,200 155420-0037 14228 41 Av S 7791 Single family 1 Hennum, Kenneth 101 R/SF NCC $38,800 829,500 868,300 162304-9339 2801 S 128 St 22417 South Sea Womens Clinic Highline Community Hospital 302 Office 0 874,100 8169,700 8243,800 162304-9001 12844 Military Rd S 29.06 A Riverton Hosp Tax Portion Highline Community Hospital 415 Hospital MDR/0 8630,900 86,348,900 86,979,800 162304-9171 13030 Military Rd S 45302 Riverton Medical Center Highline Community Hospital 303 Office 0 836,300 8151,000 8187,300 162304-9006 13100 Military Rd S 35700 South Sea Surgical Center Highline Medical Build Assoc 302 Office 0 8214,200 8215,200 8429,400 734060-1044 13508 37 Av S 6000 Single family 1 Hihm, Kathleen 101 R/SF MUO 832,000 854,900 886,900 004100-0141 14802 Pacific Hy S 34526 Hillstead's Surplus Sales Hillstead Robert W 251 Retail RC 8217,100 8144,200 $361,300 004100-0141 14802 Pacific Hy S Fem de Fem Hillstead Robert W Retail 004100-0141 14802 Pacific Hy S King's Gold Hillstead Robert W Retail 004100-0141 14802 Pacific Hy S Maya's Lingerie Hillstead Robert W Retail 004100-0141 14802 Pacific Hy S Park's 99 Cent Store Hillstead Robert W Retail 004100-0141 14802 Pacific Hy S Pick and Choose Hillstead Robert W Retail 004100-0141 14802 Pacific Hy S Precision Sound Auto Hillstead Robert W Retail 004100-0141 14802 Pacific Hy S Seattle Fashion Hillstead Robert W Retail 161000-0295 14207 Pacific Hy S 22917 7-11 Store Hirschburg Peter L 410 Retail NCC 8183,300 $136,800 8320,100 339538-0150 15822 40 Ln S 2088 Hollycrest Townhouses 1 Holt Mary Alice 131 R/MF HDR 87,300 8112,700 8120,000 004000-0243 4030 S 146 St 20160 Single family 1 Holt R L 101 R/SF HDR 870,300 825,800 896,100 810860-0882 15603 42 Av S 9743 Hope Cement Finishing Hope Thomas W 104 R/MF HDR 834,100 8102,200 8136,300 Page 3 HWY99_PR.XLS Control No. Epic File No. E q7 - OOa Fee $325 Receipt No. RCW 197-11-960 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Proposed Family Fun Center/Hotel/Restaurant on Nielsen 1 .r`i Site. 2. Name of applicant: Family Fun Centers 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Mr. Scott Huish Family Fun Centers 29111 S. W. Town Center Loop W. Wilsonville, OR 97070 Contact: Mr. Chandler Stever/Mulvanny Partnership Architects P.S. Telephone: (425) 822-0444 4. Date checklist prepared: June 26, 1997. REVISED January 23, 1998. REVISED March 18, 1998. 5. Agency Requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Mass grade to begin May 1998. Construction for hotel to begin June 1998. Complete November 1998. Construction for Family Fun Center, May 1998. Completion to be December 1998. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Yes. Future additional 20,000 S.F. building area for the Family Fun Center with 10,000 S.F. first floor and 10,000 S.F. second level. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. a.) A.G.I. Environmental Audit 04/26/89. b.) Geotech Consultants Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (E.S.A.) 06/17/94 and 07/07/94 Addendum. LE torr • • c.) Geotech Consultants Phase II (E.S.A.) 01/24/97. d.) Geotech Report by Geo -Engineers dated 06/30/97. e.) Geotechnical Report on riverbank stabilization by Geo -Engineers dated 09/26/97 and revised 01/98. f.) Environmental Report (Phase I E.S.A.) by Geo - Engineers dated 08/12/97. g.) Environmental Report (Phase II E.S.A.) by Geo - Engineers dated 11/17/97. h.) Traffic Study by Entranco Engineers dated 06/30/97 and revised 01/98. 1) Revised Riverbank Stabilization and Restoration Habitat Report including wetland recourse by Barghausen Engineers and Geo -Engineers dated March 19, 1998. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. SEPA Determination; Tukwila Flood Control Zone Permit — Ordinance #1462; Tukwila Storm Drainage Permit — Ordinance #1755; Hydraulic Project Approval (H.P.A.) — WA Dept. of Fish & Wildlife; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit — Nationwide; Section 401 Water Quality Certification Nationwide Permit — Outfall; Bank Excavation — Section 404 or Section 10 Permit — Nationwide Section 27 — Wetland Riparian Restoration - Army Corps of Engineers; "Approval of Temporary Storm Drainage System and Outfall to Accommodate Phased Construction"; Shoreline Substantial Development Permit; Demolition Permit; Conditional Use Permit; •Y i , Building Permit; Clearing — Grading/Utilities Permit; King County Health Dept. Permit Food Service; Board of Architectural Review -Permit; Boundary Line Adjustment. Ap"1''' 11. Give a 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 you proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized here. Develop approximately 14 acres of site, demolishing existing structures and grading the dirt mounds to a generally flat grade. A combination wet pond and riverbank cutback with restoration and habitat enhancement adjacent to river to accommodate flood Page 2 • • storage. We propose a restaurant or hotel, 153 room 4 - story hotel and a 22,800 S.F. (at first floor) 2 -level Family Fun Center arcade building with approximately 7 acres of outdoor attractions such as miniature golf, batting cage and go-cart track. 12. Location of the proposal. Please give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. N.E. corner of Interurban Avenue South and Grady Way, Tukwila, WA. See attached legal description. 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? No. The property abuts the Green River along the north side of its property line. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth General description of the site (circle one): flat, rolling, hilly, steep, slopes, mountainous, other Flat, with mound. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent of the slope)? Most of site is flat with stockpiles at east end of site used for a topsoil operation, exceeding 5% slopes. Slopes of up to 100% existing on the Green River. 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. Silty sand and silty gravel fill overlaying alluvial sand and silt with some organics and debris. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe There is no surface indication or history of unstable soils on site. Page 3 • e. Describe the purposes, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Approximately 40,000 — 50,000 c.y. of material will be relocated on site with approximately 10,000 — 20,000 c.y. of imported base course for building pad and trenches. Import fill will be provided from an approved fill source. Approximately 20,000 c.y. of material will be excavated from the riverbank as part of the bank excavation stabilization work and used as on-site fill, as suitable. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. g. No, the proposed construction will provide a stable riverbank and site while silt fences and straw bales will -be constructed to contain erosion during construction. What percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? About 65% to 70%. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impact to the earth, if any: Erosion control will be per requirements of City of Tukwila Public Works Dept. which, in general, will include rock check dams, silt fences, settling ponds, straw bales and temporary construction entrances during grading phases of construction. Also, phased construction to avoid work directly adjacent to river except between the months of July through October. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e. dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities, if known. Emissions would be limited to construction vehicles during construction with dust control and automobile emissions, go-carts and bumper boats after construction. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your' proposal? If so, generally describe. No. Page 4 • c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. Operation of well maintained and properly tuned construction vehicles to minimize emissions. Provide for dust control if necessary during grading/construction. 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water 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. Yes, the Green River. 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. Yes, a riverbank excavation and re -stabilization, restoration and habitat enhancement is proposed along the Green River to provide the necessary storm water storage and flood plain compensation volume. See attached conceptual grading and drainage plans. 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. To provide site storm water detention volume, a portion of the north property line adjacent to the river will be cut back approximately 30'-0" creating approximately 20,000 c.y. of material which will be placed on site, as suitable. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No, on site storm drainage will convey on site to biofiltration swales and detention with controlled discharge rates to the Green River, based on the 100 year, 7 day storm event. Page 5 • 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Yes, portions of the site lie within the 100 year flood plain indicated at el. 21'-6". Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground: 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn or will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None. 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. The source of run-off will be from rainfall. The on- site storm system will consist of an on-site conveyance system biofiltration swales, detention and oil water separators for treatment. After water quality treatment, storm water will be discharged to the Green River via annex outlet. Construction as part of the riverbank excavation/restabilization, restoration and habitat enhancement work. 2) Could waste materials leak into ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No. Page 6 • d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and run-off water impacts, if any: On-site biofiltration swales with flap gates will provide water quality treatment of storm water. The riverbank excavation/restabilization, restoration and enhancement plan will provide the required storage volume for flood plain compensation and the 100 year, 7 day storm event. 4. Vegetation a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous trees: alder, maple, aspen, other X evergreen trees: fir, cedar, pine, other X shrubs _,grass X 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? Existing trees along the west and south property line will be removed along with brush and small alders at riverbank. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Landscaping will be provided that will meet and exceed minimum zoning requirements and shoreline requirements including use of native and riparian plants for riverbank restoration and habitat enhancement and designed around existing willow stands to be preserved. Decorative planting to be provided in the miniature golf area, outdoor attraction area, hotel entrance and site entrance. Page 7 • 5. Animals a. Bold any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other Does not apply. b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Revegetated and stabilized riverbank will provide new enhanced riparian wildlife habitat with log snags and an off channel pond area will provide reduced river flow volumes that will benefit juvenile salmon and fish during high river flows. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. 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. Electricity will be used for lighting and power needs and cooling while natural gas will be used for heating and restaurant use. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any. Requirements of Washington State Energy Code will be met, including energy efficient lighting for building and site, insulation measures, and energy efficient HVAC. Page 8 �O�• cx�mvrZ 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. 1,000 gallon above grade gas tank for the go-carts and bumper boats. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Fire Dept./First Aid/Police in emergency cases. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Contained concrete spill area with curbs for go-cart refueling, as per code, with 1,000 gallon tank provided with proper shut off switches, ventilation and fire extinguishers. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Freeway traffic on S.R. 405 and heavy car and truck traffic on Grady Way and Interurban Avenue. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Construction operations will generate short term noise. Traffic and go-carts will create some long term noise although less decibels than the freeway. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Noise reducing measures, mufflers, etc. will be installed on go-carts and bumper boats with properly maintained engines. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is mostly undeveloped and has been used as a dirt stockpile operation (see attached Phase II report by Geotech Consultants dated 01/24197). To the east is railroad tracks, to the north is the Green River with an Page 9 • office park and hotel on the other side, to the west is Interurban Avenue and to t he south is S.R. 405. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Yes. Over 25 years ago it was a dairy farm. c. Describe any structures on the site. All structures have been removed. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? All structures have been removed or demolished. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? CIL-I f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Commercial/Light Industrial. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Urban Shoreline. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive". area? If so, specify. No. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? J• Approximately 90 employees would be employed at the site. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None. 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land use plans, if any: The site is zoned commercial which applies to the Family Fun Center building (with restaurant inside) and the hotel and restaurant. There is a hotel with office buildings to Page 10 • the north, similar in scale to the Family Fun building. The Fort Dent Park across the river provides outdoor recreation and games, as will the proposed Family Fun Center attractions. Thus the proposal is compatible with adjacent land uses. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? None. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low income housing. All six housing structures have been demolished. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas? What is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Both the hotel and the Family Fun building will be approximately 45' tall (to midpoint of roof). The Skymax ride will swing up to approximately 100', however, it will sit on the ground at around 0: tall 99.9% of the time. The hotel will be stucco with reWe e roof, the Family Fun building will be decorative metal with stucco base and concrete and the Skymax ride is galvanized steel. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. Views would be altered at ground level from the south of lot to the north with buildings. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Decorative elements on building elevation will break up Targe masses with roof hips and gables to provide relief; ample landscaping will soften building impact. Also, river walkway bike path with landscaping will provide aesthetic access to river with its restoration and habitat enhancement. Page 11 • • 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Parking lot and building lighting/glare will be controlled by downward focused lighting with shields at perimeter to contain direct light on site in evening hours. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any. Downward focus and cut-off shields at perimeter will contain direct light on site. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Fort Dent Park and bike path along Green River. 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: Family Fun Centers include miniature golf, batting cages, go-carts, food, games, etc. and will also include a new scenic bike path and walk along the river. Page 12 • 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. The old dairy barn, on site, which no longer exists, has been documented to H.A.B.S. level and submitted to the State and City. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. A Targe barn. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Photo and historical documentation of the barn's structure. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the sit, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The site is served by Grady Way and Interurban Avenue with all site access from "Old Grady Way" named "Monster" Road. The main freeway adjacent to the site is S.R. 405. See Site Plan. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes. The closest bus stop is approximately 600 feet to the north on Interurban Avenue. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Approximately 560 stalls will be provided. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Yes. Curb gutter/sidewalk and illumination at public street (Monster Road) with some new asphalt and modified grades at street. Page 13 • e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. The project sits adjacent to railroad track lathe east. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes will occur. g. See attached traffic study by the traffic engineer. What are proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: See attached traffic study. 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. No additional fire or police protection would be required except emergencies. Health care should have no additional requirements. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public service, if any. Preventative design in fire protection, landscape and building designs that are not conducive to criminal 'activity and hiding places and fence to be provided at railroad to keep public away. 16. Utilities a. Bold utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Improvements to sewer. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricity by Puget Sound Energy; Natural Gas by Puget Sound Energy; Water Service by City of Tukwila; Refuse Service by City of Tukwila; Telephone Service by U.S. West Communications; Sanitary Sewer Service by City of Tukwila. Page 14 C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: 9) • (1 ' etg Page 15 PROPOSED FAMILY FUN CENTER DEVELOPMENT TUKWILA, WA Architect: RIVERBANK RESTORATION AND HABITAT ENHANCEMENT REPORT Date: March 19, 1998 MULVfl flY PftRTf1ERSH 1 P ARCHITECTS P. S. Jew Ouhn Les • MDchN & h • Carol Than ■ RL>nold Web= 11820 Ncrthtpp Way 0E300, Bellevue, WA 98005 (929822-0999 FAX (9261822-9129 Civil Engineer: GeotechnicalEngineer: Biologist/Scientist: 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA U8032 (206)251-6222 (206)251-8782 FAX CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING. ELPARONMENTAL SERv10ES Geo Engi-neers CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND OEOSCIENTISTS 8410 15(111 NVEI UE KE P. -WM FEB1010. W4 90362 P_ -E0® Wet/Awd? soarce8, /no au...4 ,./.uy,.or.iLS.a_.r..1J64 �...:../61._:x.:+._ xsosisu.l..9a1.9G.`d.ar, ?s..!4 911.4474..1tem ex...Ats/m.au 414. /scs/m,,ws RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA MAR 1 9 1998 PERMIT CENTER INDEX 1. INTRODUCTION By: Mulvanny Partnership Architects P.S. 2. CIVIL ENGINEERING REPORT By: Barghausen Consulting Engineers • Design Calculations • Ordinary Highwater Mark • Riverbank Cutback • Habitat Pond 3. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER FOR RIVERBANK STABILIZATION REPORT By: GeoEngineers • Green River Bank Conditions • Subsurface Conditions • Conclusions and Recommendations 4. RIVERBANK RESTORATION AND HABITAT ENHANCEMENT — BIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION DESCRIPTION By: Wetland Resources Inc. • Project Site Description • Restoration Creation Summary • Baseline Information • Mitigation Goals and Objective • Mitigation Condition and Function • Mitigation Standards • Figures and Details M.R1° 1998 MULVAFrnnY PPtRTflERSHIP ARCHITECTS P. S. INTRODUCTION The proposed Family Fun Center Development consists of a hotel on approximately 3.75 acres, a future pad site on approximately 2.56 acres and The Family Fun Center and Bullwinkles Restaurant on approximately 8.07 acres. The 14 plus acre site is located in Tukwila, Washington on the northeast corner at the intersection of Interurban Avenue and Grady Way and adjacent to S.R. 405. The Green River borders the site to the north and the Burlington Northern railroad is adjacent to the eastern boundary. The Family Fun Center will include outdoor attractions such a miniature golf, go-karts, bumper boats, batting cages and various rides. Inside, approximately 36,000 square feet, two-story building will include a restaurant, laser tag, climbing structures for children, video games, etc. The site will hold approximately 580 parking stalls with 300 plus for Family Fun Center, 161 parking stalls for the hotel and 120 plus parking stalls for the future pad site. Also proposed on site, construction of a City funded bike path running along the river frontage, then to the south along the eastern edge of the site. A portion of the site is currently within the Green River flood plain (datum 21.5 above sea level). The proposed development includes grading flat, a former sand and gravel operation stock pile of approximately 30,000 to 40,000 cubic yards and dispersing over the site which raises the ambient grades above the flood plain. Per regulations, any filled flood plan must be compensated for on- site. The detention is to be designed for a 7 day, 100 -year storm event. We propose to create an off - channel habitat pond for fish and a riverbank bench cutback in the Green River to provide the compensatory flood volume storage for filling the flood plain. The contours, grading, volume of flood storage and design of water quality and drainage are detailed by Barghausen Civil Engineers in this report. As a result of new riverbank work, we have a need to provide a stable, long-term environment adjacent to the river which will protect the site and the publicly funded bike trail running parallel to the river. The soils analysis, river flow data and recommendation for constructing a stable bank are detailed in this report by Geo -Engineers Inc. As proposed mitigation for work next to the Green River, we propose to restore and enhance wildlife habitat adjacent to the river specifically geared towards, but not limited to, salmon habitat. Jerry Quinn Lee • Mitchell Smith • Carol Simpson • Ronald Maddox 11820 Northup Way, #E 300 • Bellevue, WA 98005 • (425) 822-0444 • FAX: (425) 822-4129 Introduction Family Fun Center Development March 19, 1998 Page 2 With the identification of several significant stands of existing river vegetation at the edge of the river (i.e. willow, etc.), we have altered our design of new construction around these areas. New and enhanced vegetation habitat would be added at areas that are currently blackberry brambles with low habitat value. All other areas of significant value would be saved and built around. The result is a nearly continuous stretch of significant habitat along the entire river frontage of the property. The biology and habitat, including tree snags, and the habitat pond, are detailed in this report by Wetland Resources. The enclosed data indicates that the proposed development adjacent to the river will provide water quality, flood volume capacity, riverbank stability and significant fish and wildlife habitat enhancement on this property. Concept Landscape Plan AMEN r LwWds a-i;—Architect./ ArchltecY' j Family Fun Center • NORTH 0 20. 40' -NOTE SEE Si -CET L-3 FOR RrvERBANw LANDSCAPE LEGEND AND NOTES. f�4 C..1 I"=WA" MULVNfl nY PRRTf1ERSHIP AICN I 1 E t��Nw W P WILLOW Ano DOGWOOD CLUSTER R_LNTINI .S --- -- BENCH AREA (ABOVE ORDINARI NIGH WATER WATER MAGI: ) TRANSITION SLOPE —L Riverbank Landscape PEW BOTTOM OF BANK (MELN PEW TOP NIDI WATER) OF BANK 40' SETBACK— 2.1 SLOPE—�\ N BIOFIL:RATION SWALE LOG HABITAT ST RUC TIRE 7 ATCHLINE yll��j��l1c v, BIOFILTRATION SWI.LE LOG :WBITLT STRUCTURE GREEN BENOH AREA (ABOVE /— TRANSITION SLOPE ORDINLR) 1 -)GH WATER WATER MAR).) 21 SLOPE R I V E)( SPECIMEN WILLOWS. 71 P PRESERVE --- AND PROTECT E R OFF cNAnrJa POND --- FOCI: RETAINING WALL _..__. -- WILLOW AND DOGW000 PLANTING CLUSTERS --- i -J U PUGET Oet�D POWER & LIGHT CO >~ Family Fun Center Tit W'nshinetnn IL I “NOTE, SEE Si-EET L.3 FOR RIVEPRAiX LANDSCAPE LEGEND AND NOES. Seale 1" = 7(Y_n. Landscape Architect WeI[aput�p Architect i MULVRt111Y ^ PRRTt1ERSHIP ARCHITECTS CS SITE LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE 8 CONDITIION 2'-211• cal, well -branched, Shade Trees doer ruby m 'Red Dower' Gledit.le t. 'Dl.d61,3,1 r' Pyru. celleryana 'Bradford' Ffaelnu. o. 'Reywood' 9 Small Deciduous Trete Acer 0Irciret/3n OAcer gimala Flames Press sp. Cornus kousa Prunus bllrelana Evergreen Trees Red Sunset Maple above 5', 12-14' bight, 049 5hedemester Honey Locust 0radford Colley Pear Repood Ash MIr- 1.112" cal.. multi-trW.ed, ',nne Maple Flame Alex Maple Flowering Cherry Kobe oowood Flossing Plum wail -branded. 0.5 �r^N Pinus conlorte `Di'GI Psaudotsuga mmizls.il ,.a, Chabetcyp r, o. 'Grec111 e' O+5�7 Pinup nigra Th.Ja p. Fastigiate' Shore Plne Douglas Fir knob Cypress 4ustrlan Bleck PIM Hogan Cedar Th4J0 0. 'Emerald Green' Emerald Arbofvbe 0 Chamaecyparle 54eGracllni Dwarf, 11,1061 Cypr Plcsa 9.'Conlca' n Dwarf Albete Spruce 0$ Larne Shrubs Min, 6-66' ht, full . bushy to base, B.B 3-4' bight, full 8nd bushy to 08.4, 0.46 Min. IB -:4' ht.. spread, lei . Arbutus undo 'Compacta' Berber,. tlurbergll .s Jae onica ice nfornica le renate Csmc a /n. osevay, Prunus 4.0113nice 0000-- - on sp. FhormWn 'rax Pyraoant - 'Teton' Small Shrubs .d� • Dwarf Strawberry Tree Japanese Barberry Perils Pacific War Myrtle Convex Lear Japanese Holly Holly, lea C.menth. Portugal Laurel Fhododenor0n New Zealand Flak 0.100 Pyracantha full . bushy. 040 or container. Mm. 15'-18' ht, 4 spread, !+'Delle g.'0- .rd Go ire' Berbsls g. w1 .m Penn' Ilex crenate 'Gr- -. Island' Juniper. 4p. Clstu. purpureus 04.aree bvkwood P roue I. 'Otto L R0cbdendron sp. Pima moo Moo' Viburnum devldo Cotonea.ter dunned Arctostephylos uva- Oroundc over / Perennials Edward Goucher 4bella William Perm Barberry Crean bland Japanese Holly Juniper Orchid Rocrbo.e Fragrant Osrearea Otto Ledbm. Laurel Rhododendron Ih.go Pin David vlbr.un Bearberry KImIWmIc4 full 4 bushy, B46 or container 4eedere h 'Balt/ca' Ju/lperus sp. "Arca minor Hameocanls sp. Cnysanthemum .45e.bim Hoene sp. Lavandula angustifolla Pemisetvn 'Hameln' Mlscenthe s. 'Gracnlllmue' Mulched Areas Baltic Ivy Juniper vinca Dayluy Sheba D6169 Hosie Lavender FOtntain Grass Malden Grass I gallon pots • 24' on center 19allon pots • 16-24' on center I gallon pots Dee soeciflcatlons `77 —1] Seeded/Sodded Lawn 4n.�-� Existing Vegetation to Remain LANDSCAPE NOTES I. All nee landscape areas to be served by an automatic Irrigauon system. 2. An .84 landscape areas to be covered with a 2' layer cr organic mulch 3 4Urere ero,c1cover is indicated It 'hall be planted trcupnc..t the planting bed including areas beneath trees aro errab.. Family Fun Center Tukwila. Washineton RIVERBANK LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE Landscape Schedules 8YM/DUAN. BOTANICAL NAME SIZE & CONDITION ' COMMON NAME Bench 86 Cornus stolondera Red1049 00912000 524;, L,tan0e cit,' (Allow Sall. scoulemlana 5cou'se 0010.4. Pcpulus trlchocarpe 5/304 Cotton b0d 7 to 5 gel size, fun 2 to 5 gel size full 2 to 5 gal size, full / 5 gal size. fun and bushy Hydr seed all disturbed areas with seeded r 4 mo, Seed et rate or 1 lbs. per 1064 .f. 306 Paarnlel Ryes Fescue 106 Highland Bentqrase 206 Meadow Foetal! antlre shad to be coursed with B" high 01.41119 105.011 x306 organo matter/ prior 10 plantlrg. Log Habitat Structure Area Plantings 60 Salle acoulerlana 9coular allow B0 Conus stolon1404 Redu:lig Cocwood Oft -Channel Pond total area •1,900 square feet total plants pop d.2B0 approelmate spaclng 3 en cents plant In group. of 10-20 lea species 2 to 5 gal, size, fun 2 to 5 gal. size, tali total area •1,000 square feel total plants proposed•160 approximate spacing •30" on center plant in groups or 2-0-i0 11110 'pedes [_-1] 31'll etre 4 YT �t�v t 0 (30 Elev., trona f.IO.8 w:d en e,4ien Sedge Sall. las1Gndra .90/00 tallow Elevations el to 10 Sall. laelancra Pacific allow Cornus stolonlfera Readers Dbawa00 Popu/us trlcbcarpa Black Cottonwood ep.1 wan -rooted plant ie•• oo ` healthy rhizomes 2 to 5 gal. size, full 2 to 5 gal. size, full 2 to 5 gal. alb, run (` 2 to 5 gat .,ze. fun Elarallon4J 1QJ4 Hydroseed ell disturbed areas with Seeds., ro109h grass mix. Seed at rate of 1 lbs. per 1000 f. 406 Red Creeping Red Fescue 406 . ererdal Rya 106 ILhlte Clove 106 Highland Bstgrass Salix scoulerlana Scouts 044/04 Cornus ,tolon113'8 904002/6? Dogwood ferrous .5ectabnls Sa/mab y Ele.vations.143p.2Q Hydroseed all disturbedaeas with Seeded rough grass 86. Seed at rate or 1 lbs. per 1000 cf. 406 Red Creepig Red Fescue 006 Peem141 Rye 0hl1e Clover 106 441gnland Bentgrn.. 2 to 5 gal size, full 2 to 5 gal, size, full : to 5 gal. size. full PDsenet:sFuruga menz/es11 ag/es Th43 pucate c',a4tern .sed Gash urns cvcl..wm Maple Acer ma0rophylllm B/9/03! 4-14411. 5.410 0rlcarpo. alba 9rbuby Rosa nootkane !wrke .Rose 2 to 5 dal. size, full 2 to 5 gal. size, full 2 to 5 del, 41x0 rule 5 gal. size, rule 2 to 5 gal. 4140. full 2 to 5 gal. size, r.11 total plants proposed • 1000 plants opecing•18" on cuter, plant 1n groups f 40-60. Entire floor area will not be covered. 150 plants. Plant In clusters of 10 plants at 4' oc. spacing. Concentrate plantings 8,0100 around log habitat structures. 200 totallants, 50-100 of each Plant In cluster. or 5 at 4' oz. spacing. As shod?. 200 10141 Slants, 60-15 or each Plant In 01us1.ers of 15 plants at 4. 00 058crng As shown As shown As shown As shown 200 total plant., 15-100 of aa Plant In cluster. of 1 plants at a' oc. spacing. RIVERBANK SCHEDULE (continued) SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME SIZE & CONDITION COMMON NAME 2:1 SIopee -install B" of high quality topsoil 00% organic natter 1 over entire 2:I -Hope. remove ail existing 018010erry ;n these areas V Pseuaotsuga senz1eeil 1 gallon pots, full and busty Douglas P.., QTNJ. 511081/3? HMseam R.d Cedar O Pooulus trenulodes GLekino A2Fw Acre 0 oro 1,0!ne .:lC.e tum Pepulue tr iono03154 Back Cottonwood &cleat:lapis'y gallon pots, fun and bushy gallon pots, well -branched gallon cots, wa11-018,0180 gallon pots. tali•crancheo gallon pots cell -branched Prysocarpus upnatus bare root. 12.24' sten length P 0,0/0 N'iebert 6.12• root spread D.mphorIcapos elbus bare root 0-24' sten length. b0.adserry 8-121 rent spread Rosa 1,1410810 bare root, 12.24' sten length Noce,. Rose 8-12' root spread Merhonl3 equlr011um bora root. 12-24' stern length, 0340900 Craps 8-12' root spread total area • 1,500 s r 410 1 tai plants % 1:5-150 of each varlet I\ Plant In olusters In h soo areas .. ep teas 0, on center ed all oietvb60 areas uith — 5aeoae rough grass mix. Seed at rate or 1 Ice/1000, r, 406 Creep/Pc Red 52024.6 406 Perennial Rye I0., usvte Clover 106 Higniand 0.em1grees Bioliltratlon Swale Hydroseed all disturbed areas 2.10, BIOfIltrallon Swale Deed Mix. Seed at rate of 215 las oe. 000 sr 306 Kentucky 5144e908se 406 Cr eeping Red Fescue 306 Perem1al Rye RIVERBANK NOTES 1.190414 0r941'O 00411 .6 prov10•0 10 411 new pr.1.9 orae.. 630.409 on .aeon. 08.3 root psntn9s Hwy b• 4400111.444 f0 2 tc 5 gal • she'. enn approve or w•t9Ms Morog9l 3. Rarer to .31 logwh t I , 30d.10101 514,11,9 4forrnstic4 no getout -240441 .Spa. for Inn r•gera1g cops 4 parer ut.+ labrn.411c1 ..rive.. Landscape Architect a�4ef1(�IY1NR'4��~ Architect MULVRfl flY PARTflERSHIP ARCHITECTS PS — Site Section Typical Section at Green River SCALE 1/4" = I'-0" Family Fun Center Landscape Architect Architect MULVAfl nY PARTfERSH1P AAtIlITECTSPS r — GH'4G ..ii14 ,444Aws CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 00, OUR JOB NO. 6125 MARCH 16, 1998 Prepared By: BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WASHINGTON 98032 (425) 251-6222 INTRODUCTION The civil engineering section of this report will provide a breakdown of the technical requirements for the development of this project. A listing of the special permits will be addressed with the goals and objectives to achieve the recommendations and requirements of the overseeing agencies. The project development is located within Section 24, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, King County, State of Washington. More specifically, the project is located in the northeast corner at the intersection of Interstate 405 and Interurban Avenue, south of the Green River, in the City of Tukwila. The project is bounded by Interurban Avenue to the west, Grady Way to the south, Burlington Northern Railroad to the east, and the Green River to the north. The development of this project consists of a Family Fun Center development along with a proposed hotel and a future development to be determined at a later date. The requirements, as set forth by the City of Tukwila, based on King County design criteria, will be to provide detention storage for the on-site storm drainage runoff based on a 100-year/7-day storm event, in addition to flood storage compensation for the portions of development that infill the portion of the existing site utilized currently as flood storage area. We will be proposing to provide a riverbank cut-back and a habitat pond to meet these requirements. An on-site storm drainage conveyance system will be developed to direct all drainage toward the river cut-back area. We propose to install a drainage splitter device which will direct a portion of the flow into a treatment feature with the rest bypassing directly into the river. Treatment of the on-site storm drainage runoff will be provided in the form of a biofiltration swale which will treat the 2 -year post -developed design conditions. This biofiltration swale will be located within the new portions of the riverbank cut-back area. A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit will be obtained based on the requirements by the City of Tukwila, adopted from the King County Shoreline Management Act of 1971, for development extending within the 200 -foot shoreline setback landward from the existing mean high-water mark of the Green River. The mean high-water elevation has been determined to be elevation 18.0, as shown on the FEMA documentation within the appendix section of this report. Site layout for the entire project has been developed to meet this criteria. No development will occur within 40 feet of the mean high-water mark (high impact environment), no structures will be built 60 feet beyond the high impact environment (low impact environment), and structures no taller than 35 feet will be constructed within the 100 -foot shoreline setback. -1- 6125.008 [BS/kn/sm] DESIGN CALCULATIONS As previously mentioned, the design parameters for the proposed development, as set forth by the City of Tukwila, will be to provide storage for the 100-year/7-day storm event and compensate for removal of the existing flood storage area located on site. The total site area for the development is approximately 14.4 acres, 2.1 acres of which is existing flood storage area, as outlined within the storm drainage calculations located within the appendix of this report. The actual flood storage elevation, as determined by FEMA maps, is indicated as being elevation 21.7. All areas located on site below this elevation are considered to be flood storage area. The total amount of rainfall for a 100-year/7-day event has been determined to be 7.25 inches, as indicated on the 100-year/7-day isopluvial map located within the appendix of this report. Together with this information, the calculations for the amount of storage to be provided is approximately 479,765 cubic feet. Credits in the amount of 311,185 square feet for existing structures, pavement, gravels, and grasses yield a total of 187,989 cubic feet of credit to be subtracted from the required storage. The result of this calculation requires a total of 291,776 cubic feet of storage to be provided within the riverbank cut-back and habitat pond locations. Upon preliminary design of the habitat pond, we are yielding approximately 278,000 cubic feet of storage, and approximately 18,000 cubic feet of storage within the biofiltration swale located within the riverbank cut-back area. These two features alone yield 296,296 cubic feet of storage volume. This will provide the adequate storage required for the project development stipulations. The riverbank cut-back area will provide additional storage area over and above the requirements for the project. Exact calculations of the total storage provided will be determined once the final design of all these features has been established. Treatment for the on-site storm drainage runoff will be provided through the use of a biofiltration swale located within the riverbank cut-back area. This biofiltration swale is designed to meet the requirement for treatment of the 2-year/24-hour post -development storm event. The swale will be approximately 20Q feet in length and 5 to 10 feet in width along the bottom, and will slope to the west at approximately 0.5 percent. A flap gate that meets the requirements of the Department of Ecology standards will be provided at the outlet point to the biofiltration swale from the on-site drainage system to prevent influx from high river flow events that would infiltrate into the on-site drainage system. We have provided a detail of this structure within the appendix section of this report. During storm events greater than the 2-year/24-hour, on-site storm drainage is exempt from being treated and will be released through the bypass drainage system designed up to the 100-year/24-hour storm events. During these higher stages, depending upon the level of the river due to release rates from the Howard Hanson Dam, the biofiltration swale may be submerged for a period of time that would make it inoperable. During these events, though, the function of the biofiltration swale is not required. -2- 6125.008 [BS/kn/sm] ORDINARY HIGH-WATER MARK The basis for establishing the lowest elevation of our bank cut-back design is based on establishing the elevation of the ordinary high-water mark along the river side of the project. We intend to propose the riverbank cut-back section down to an elevation just above the ordinary high-water mark to provide our detention and flood storage compensation for the on-site requirements. On March 3, 1998, Mr. William Railton, certified professional wetland scientist (#245 SWS) met with Mr. Gary Shulz, urban environmentalist with the City of Tukwila, on site to collectively determine the ordinary high-water mark of the Green River adjacent to our development. Mr. Railton and Mr. Shulz agreed that the ordinary high-water mark was an obvious break in the vegetation separating the river water line from the natural habitat. Mr. Railton and Mr. Shulz inserted a wire pin flag at the agreed-upon location, and contacted Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., to request a survey of this flag to certify the elevation and establish the constraints of our riverbank cut-back depth. We directed a survey crew that afternoon to tie this flag in. The resulting effort confirmed an elevation of 8.41 as representative of the ordinary high-water mark. Confirmation of this survey can be located in the appendix section of this report. Please reference the Wetland Resources section, Riverbank Restoration and Habitat Enhancement Biological Analysis, of this report for further discussion on the establishment of the ordinary high-water mark. -3- 6125.008 [BS/kn/sm] RIVERBANK CUT-BACK The institution of the riverbank cut-back development will provide multiple functions to serve the development of this project. Primarily, the function of this riverbank cut-back will be to provide for on-site detention and flood storage compensation away from the proposed development. Secondly, this cut-back will provide a source for habitat enhancement that will benefit fish and wildlife species. Please refer to the • Wetland Resources section, Riverbank Restoration and Habitat Enhancement Biological Analysis, for further discussions of this topic. Thirdly, the act of "widening" the river provides more surface area for river flow, which reduces velocities to aid the upstream migration of fish habitat. Construction of this riverbank cut-back will be developed in stages in order to provide a beneficial environment for natural habitat throughout the course of construction operation. The first phase will begin approximately April 1, 1998, with the installation of erosion control measures that will protect the river from construction and any valuable existing native plant material that will remain intact once construction of this project has been completed. Phase 2, beginning approximately June 15, 1998, will begin riverbank excavation. The contractor will increment cuts to 15 -foot sections so that bank stabilization measures can be implemented in a cooperative manner. Please refer to the Geotechnical section of this report for stabilization design. At the same time, construction of the habitat pond will begin under the same phasing routine. Please refer to the Habitat Pond section of this report for further discussion. During the course of the Phase 2 operations, we propose to install wood snags along portions of the riverbank to provide a protective refuge for salmonid rearing and protection. These permanent wood snags will be placed in a manner that the root wads will extend below the ordinary high-water mark with the trunk of the tree being placed across the cut bank shelf or along the existing bank and anchored by using rocks and posts with cable ties. Please refer to the Wetland Resources section, Riverbank Restoration and Habitat Enhancement Biological Analysis, for further descriptions and details of the log structure, intent, and anchoring procedures. In the third phase of this project, beginning July 1, 1998, rough grading operations will be complete, and stabilization and hydroseeding of the exposed slopes will be implemented. Please refer to the Landscaping section of this report for further discussions on vegetation replacement of the riverbank area. -4- 6125.008 [BS/kn/sm] HABITAT POND The new habitat pond will serve as a multi -functional facility, as will the riverbank cut-back section. The primary function of this facility will be to provide storage for on-site detention and flood storage compensation. This feature also allows us to create as a fish habitat pond with emergent and native shrubs with special habitat features. Log structures will be placed intermittently around the base and on the banks of this facility to provide further habitat features and resting areas for salmonid species. Please refer to the Wetland Resources section, Riverbank Restoration and Habitat Enhancement Biological Analysis, for further discussion. As previously noted, the construction of this facility will be performed in phases as described in the Riverbank Cut -Back section of this report. Rock walls will be placed within the banks of the pond to allow for a deeper channel pond for fish habitat, and provide an opportunity to create a more natural environment. A function of this habitat pond will be to provide protection for fish habitat during higher river flow events. As the river water recedes in elevation, the water from the habitat pond will recede back into the river so as not to entrap any fish habitat that may be present during these higher stages. The mouth of this connection to the Green River will be at an approximate elevation of 4.0. This elevation is 4.41 feet below the established ordinary high-water mark. The bottom of the habitat pond will be at an approximate elevation of 6.0. Due to the depth of the habitat feature being below the ordinary high-water mark, we anticipate that a Nationwide 27 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will need to be obtained. This permit, in part, will allow activities in the waters of the United States associated with the creation of wetlands and riparian areas on private land with notification to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. -5- 6125.008 [BS/kn/sm] STORM IbRAINAGE CALCULATIONS , 'e lMfte frac,%! O.QiWA-6€ C9L cutATf0ne3 C.'/7?7r/1 : ,9/2Of//OE' S1"0?.96c' Fe'? /Oo 70e/7 09/ .570,(A/ t v w AV ' !'o'-//c,A✓5.4 7? .-die /2 cWoPC.C, E yifr�,/G �Zoao Sm,e46 E- On/- GidcT/= 761:74 Sill' ^er.4 = CZ6, 68Z.o7 5.F = A/.3i �c Tor -Ac oao fro t•46er o ✓- s/rr- = 2_ //doe /0/, /Vf C,C (17/.7 ro ,,,va4 /00 )/'e/ 4'43/ Sra.e.v r Ve- ' - = Z ZS"' Kier- c<.e- ) T0779c 57-0/20466 REG?C ,f D (4fCe_ CLGbo 1/DiC0426< Oori".4'eA/f/?1/eW% = 62 6,6 82. 0 7 x 7 2 5 378 620. Sez C.« /o/, /VS = I/79, 76 S. yz cF CAc ccAn' 5e /?7.9-C7- " 5 W05774/6 /ry/°ex'Vror s Su.Q�.4CC 5/,euC7r-49r! /4.40% 30, 260_ SS Sf= .oA //cA/ wr @ /Do c/ = f//, /80. Oo 5F = 6,07VEZS 80% = ,Z/S/ yyz.9Z 5 _ &e4ff(-s Zo90 = 3Yo 7963. 07 sf = 3o, 260. 8r <//, /80.0O /si5- 3V 68 /59. 6/ 3//, /SK. 8o S,=- = 3//, /58o X 7-Z5' _ /87 y. 36 c- 5/7, 76 5 VZ - /5P 98y. 36 = 29/ 776.06 �'AeeueArz� 570,e s c , o✓PDev - Csfy4n/n/EZ. ibAea = 273, 296 CF Z9/, 376 - 278, t7 = /3 V8o .f, x,- B/ca47c TRA2-7xo", -CA./076C _ /8, OW C'` - 276, F 278, 296 1 /4 COO 296, Z96 -oo . Z9/, 776, % o, 2/23/98 10:58:36 am Barghausen Engineers Family Fun Center Storm Drainage Calculations page 1 BASIN SUMMARY BASIN ID: 'A' NAME: 2 YR/24 HR. POST -DEV SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • 12.00 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE TYPE1A PERV IMP PRECIPITATION 2.00 inches AREA..: 2.40 Acres 9.60 Acres TIME INTERVAL 10.00 min CN • 86.00 98.00 TC 6.30 min 6.30 min ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 PEAK RATE: 4.28 cfs VOL: 1.59 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min FROM :KPFF ENGINEERS SEP 7.0' TO 2064313655 1994.12-20 t3 ♦.'-� • 03:43PM 1$470 P.02/05 0.0 103 11.0 113 1.0 83 7.S Total Precipitation in Inchcs j jl.n 1;4; • 11•x,, ( 4.814 1.'1! ••: *, 0 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 e Mlle& 1: 300,000 9.0 93 10.0 113 11.0 103 Trapezoidal Channel Analysis & Design Open Channel - Uniform flow Worksheet Name: family fun Comment: biofiltration swale Solve For Bottom Width Given Input Data: Left Side Slope Right Side Slope Manning's n Channel Slope Depth Discharge Computed Results: Bottom Width.... Velocity Flow Area Flow Top Width Wetted Perimeter Critical Depth Critical Slope Froude Number design 3.00:1 (H:V) 3.00:1 (H:V) 0.027 0.0500 ft/ft 0.30 ft 4.28 cfs 2.21 ft 4.58 fps 0.93 sf 4.01 ft 4.11 ft 0.40 ft 0.0165 ft/ft 1.67 (flow is Supercritical) Open Channel Flow Module, Version 3.41 (c) 1991 Haestad Methods, Inc. * 37 Brookside Rd * Waterbury, Ct 06708 FEMA MAP 100 YEAR ELEVATION EXHIBIT 122°1500" 47°2807" ZONE AE (EL 20) ELEVATION IFFET NGVO1 O W O O • I. O t • i• t• i 1 : • J O J N A J J m 0 r -4 -a D .r 2 co n m Z F m cn D Cs 0 0 m a O C N os ELEVATION (FEET NOVO) O CONFLUENCE OF BLACK RIVER • FORT DENT PARK ROAD ' INTERURBAN • AVENUE SOUTH INTERSTATE. .icl k: , ' 'Nx..i-,. k q - i , . : ..t> . N.., . .11 : .. � ... .. . • • • O • Is .... • HIGHWAY 405 • STRANDER • .. -. BOULEVARD O 0 W 0 O -4 , - mO0.� v • o�� m D" C) Z. C Dr 00, ZDi 2 Dpi E FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY KING COUNTY, WA AND INCORPORATED AREAS -FLDOD PROFILES GREEN RIVER (WITH LEVEES) wnr+c Sunni saac •.•r vnrwisa M1r.. ...- .-.:rmewe s_..nt•a•wewsewv.+ Feb -27-98 12:24P FLAP GATE DETAIL Al= -41 ALUMINUM DRAINAGE (FLAP) GATES • SPIGOTBACK, FLATBACK OR FLANGEBACK • SIZES 12" - 84" • SEATING HEADSTO 40 FEET. • A CORROSION -RESISTANT RUST -PROOF AUTOMATIC DRAINAGE GATE DESIGNED FOR USE WITH ALUMINUM CORRUGATED PIPE, OR FO11 FLANGE MOUNTING • PRF.VENTS ELECTROLYSIS ASSOCIATED WITH CAST IRON GATES TO ALUMINUM PIPE CONNECTIONS. • J -BULB NEOPRENE ADJUSTABLE SEATS PROVIDE EXCELLENT SEALING AGAINST RETURN FLOW. • FRAME, COVER, RETAINER RING, HINGE ARM, AND PIVOT LUG ARE OF ALUMINUM ALLOY 6061- T6. GATE HARDWARE IS STAINLESS STEEL. • HEAVY DUTY CONSTRUCTION. • SPIGOTBACK FOR MOUNTING TO CORRUGATED METAL PIPE. (ALUMINUM, STEEL OR PLASTIC) • FLATBACK FOR MOUNTING TO HEADWALL. • FLANGEBACK TO MATE WITH 258 OR 125# PIPE FLANGE. P.02 13 Feb -27-98 12:24P P.03 AF -41 ALUMINUM DRAINAGE (FLAP) GATE - SPIGOTBACK O Dr • 1TIADIING NAROVAPI RT 0fI(P l0 CONTRACTOR TO P OYIOL cult KIN: ITPf SEAL AS MECUM O L AF -41 ALUMINUM DRAINAGE (FLAP) GATE FLATBACK (FLANGEBACK SIMILAR BUT t1VITH ASA STANDARD FLANGE DIMENSIONS) E PIPE /sew 111 P111 A 014 PARTS UST No. Name 1 Pronto 2 Seal 3 Aatemar Ring 4 Hex Hd DalUNut 5 Cover 6 Hsng9 Arm 7 Pivot Lug 6 Hex H1 NdVNut 9 /loge Pin 10 Rushing 11 Washer 12 Spring fin DIMENSIONS IN INCHES •3 ttr A 8 C 131 Ul E O.D. B.C. M P 01 0 2' •; 131/8 1311 10'% 8% a ••t: 4 174 tbY. 4 1 1 OM, >z,, 18 1/8 17 12% 9% 1. • •'I 4 20% 18% Y 1 2 • 1�18..AB 19118 20 14Y 8% U 'd3 4 234 71 6 Y 1 2 s :,2.1.:0„ 25 1/8 26% 18% eY 5 • •I1 4 30 5/8 28% 34 11,1 7 ,4011 ,; 311/N 3234 19Y 104 1.1'.:5 4% 365/6 34% Y 1% 3 1.:.3'i,48 37 1/8 3834 24 10% to 7/9 4% 42 5/8 4034 Y 1'% 3 81`42`0 ad 43118 40 28 13 3: 118 6% 48 5/6 46% Y. 116 3 tl, 49 115 52 31 135/8 1 • ". 5% M 6/3 62Y 34 134 4 CJ • �� 561/e 5e 38 13% 1' i8 6% 60518 WA 5/0 2 4 ..y419'1 611/6 64 3a 15Y. 11. to 0% 665/0 64% lie 2 4 85147 $• 73 118 79 444 17 I/8 • • . TY. 78 big 78% 5/8 7 4 4,A81.wr two I' .IONS ON APPLICA 11ON 101'1)1.1 M.•1 I:t10f • 1 C _.J 1.31 11.] Add grOIII pod thickness 10 enclwr holt pmjaclion. 2. oleo avail/am with fluttye end .11Etn9 to attars to a 1265 standard ppo llangc. U II ytuul ped m ninhny is used add groin 01Icsncr.s to dimension. M)USIRF.IID.. Nom I UR PRELIMINARY 11 1110.11 PURPpgt : t,Mo r 1,0 NOT USE 11.111 1/"TALLA1 R/II UNI 4.1/8 PMT 00 111 1111) CED F APPRITV) a 1.,1.44111 AI Feb -27-98 12:24P P_O4 TYPICAL SPECIFICATIONS AF -41 ALUMINUM DRAINAGE (FLAP) (TIDE) GATES General Tile flap gate shall be designed to allow free outflow and prevent backflow for maximum seating heads of 40 feet. Gates shall be Waterman Model AF -41 or equal. Construction The frame shall be aluminum of flatback, spigotback or fiangeback design (or oil ter specified design configuration as required) with seating surface inclined from vertical at a minimum of 21/2° to assn' rt positive closure. The aluminum cover shall be attached to the frame in such a manner as to allow proper seating and full opening of cover. Built in ctops shall be provided to prevent the cover from rotating sufficiently to become: wedged in the open position. A resilient neoprene seal shall be attached to the inside of the frame opening and !.hall act as a seat for the cover to seal against. The seal shall be retained by an aluminum ring bolted or welded i!) the frame. TI ie linkage system shall be of the double pivoted type, attached to fixed pivot pon ils on cover and frame. Hinge links shall be of structural aluminum shapes. The heavily reinforced hinge arm of the Andel AF -41 is fastened to the pivot lug by means of heavy stainless steel hinge pins inserted through a durable nonmetallic bushing. The hinge pin is al ranged in a double shear configuration at extremely close tolerances thus severely limititg.iateral movement. This, in conjunction with the protruding rubber seat (in lieu of a recessed seat) insures pno:itive seating at all times regardless of the angle of tidal action. Finish Mill finish on all surfaces. Materials Frame and Cover - Aluminum Alloy 6061-T6. Hinge Link - Aluminum Alloy 6061-T6. Assembly Hardware - Stainless Steel Type 18-8. 4 15 1 z O 0 a -fit -98 4 zC -' 1 I It 1q ' /7z811 .88 1.Z`?;/l/Q.?831 /73380 :(573 F4 = •2'.4 SS. E '1 29:01B, 3'SS3 F,4D ; liicj ' Wt ;+1-1 Onn Ni..% niAR IC eV 6%J: F1n y i • FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY BASE FLOOD WATER SURFACE ELEVATION CROSS SECTION DISTANCE1 WIDTH (FEET) SECTION AREA (SQUARE FEET) MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND) REGULATORY WITHOUT I FLOODWAY (FEET WITH FLOODWAY NGVD) INCREASE Green River (Without Levees) Cont'd Z 12.02 180 3,082 3.9 21.1 21.1 21.5 0.4 -.- AA 12.23 215 3,701 3.3.E 21.5 21.5 21.8 0.3 ....•0100 AB 12.39 137 2,546 4.860, 21.6 21.6 21.9 0.3 AC 12.60 185 3,076 3.9 22.4 22.4 22.7 0.3 AD 12.72 183 3,023 4.0 22.7 22.7 23.0 0.3 AE 12.91 168 3,103 3.9 23.2 23.2 23.5 0.3 AF 13.07 175 3,015 4.0 23.5 23.5 23.8 0.3 AG 13.20 174 2,999 4.0 23.8 23.8 24.1 0.3 AH 13.38 166 2,720 4.4 24.2 24.2 24.4 0.2 AI 13.52 209 3,137 3.9 24.6 24.6 24.8 0.2 AJ 13.70 128 2,512 4.8 25.0 25.0 25.2 0.2 AK 13.93 139 2,581 4.7 25.4 25.4 25.6 0.2 AL 14.18 160 2,661 4.5 25.8 25.8 26.2 0.4 AM 14.46 152 2,856 4.2 26.3 26.3 26.8 0.5 AN 14.48 163 2,821 4.3 26.3 26.3 26.8 0.5 AO 14.68 141 2,463 4.9 26.6 26.6 27.2 0.6 AP 14.90 152 2,660 4.5 27.2 27.2 27.7 0.5 AQ 14.94 179 2,844 4.3 27.3 27.3 27.8 0.5 AR 15.14 155 3,017 4.0 27.6 27.6 28.2 0.6 AS 15.39 142 2,679 4.5 27.9 27.9 28.6 0.7 AT 15.73 . 161 3,112 3.9 28.2 28.2 29.1 0.9 AU 16.01 185. 3,381 3.6 28.6 28.6 29.5 0.9 AV 16.33. 174 2,735 4.4 29.1 29.1 30.0 0.9 AW 16.54 175 3,193 3.8 29.6 29.6 30.4 0.8 1Miles Above Mouth co T A B L E FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY KING COUNTY, WA AND INCORPORATED AREAS FLOODWAY DATA GREEN RIVER (WITHOUT LEVEES) 4 ._ , . . .� • AAKe As/o, 2 0 y w Z w Q • • . t -r i i -. '1 !..;..! }.. ; LEGEND 501 11.2 11.4 11.6 11.8 12.0 12.2 12.4 • 12.6 12.8 13.0 101 50 10 STI CR( Revised Report Geotechnical Engineering Services Riverbank Stabilization Proposed Family Fun Center Facility Tukwila, Washington March 19, 1998 For Family Fun Centers G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 5925-001-00/031998 -ip.• Geo Engineers March 19, 1998 Family Fun Centers c/o Mulvanny Partnership Architects P.S. 11820 Northup Way, Suite E300 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Attention: Chandler Stever Consulting Engineers and Geoscientists Offices in Washington. Oregon. and Alaska We are pleased to submit our "Revised Report, Geotechnical Engineering Services, Riverbank Stabilization, Proposed Family Fun Center Facility, Tukwila, Washington." Our report has been revised to address design changes. This report supercedes our previous reports dated September 26, 1997 and January 26, 1998. We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical engineering services on this interesting project. We will be pleased to respond to any questions you have, to provide further consultation during design, and to assist you during construction of this facility. DJM:MSR:cdl P:15925001 R6.DOC Fde No. 5925-001-37-0 GeoEngineers. Inc. Plaza 600 Building 600 Stewart St.. Suite 1215 Seattle. WA 98101 Telephone (206) 728-22674 Fax ( 206) 728-2732 www.geoengineers.com Printed on recycled caner Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. e Mary S. Rutherford, P.E. Associate CONTENTS Pane No. INTRODUCTION 1 SCOPE 1 GREEN RIVER BANK CONDITIONS 2 SURFACE CONDITIONS 2 General Conditions on the Green River 2 Historic Changes in the Green River 2 Observations on the Existing Riverbank 3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4 General 4 Soil Conditions 5 Ground Water Conditions 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5 GENERAL 5 PROBABLE CAUSES OF SURFICIAL BANK FAILURES AND EROSION 5 BANK STABILIZATION 6 SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK 7 LIMITATIONS 8 FIGURES Vicinity Map Site Plan Green River Bank Figure No., 1 2 3 APPENDICES Page No. Appendix A - Field Explorations and Geotechnical Laboratory Testing A-1 Field Exploration A-1 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing A-1 APPENDIX A FIGURES Figure No. Soil Classification System A-1 Logs of Test Pits A -2...A-4 Results of Moisture Content Determinations A-5 Appendix B - Exploration Logs from Previous Studies G e o Eng i n e e r u i File No. 5925-001-37-1130/092697 REVISED REPORT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES RIVERBANK STABILIZATION PROPOSED FAMILY FUN CENTER FACILITY TUKWILA, WASHINGTON FOR FAMILY FUN CENTERS INTRODUCTION This revised report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services to develop recommendations for riverbank stabilization for the proposed Family Fun Center facility to be located in Tukwila, Washington. The site is located northeast of the intersection between Interurban Avenue South and Southwest Grady Way, south of the Green River and west of the Burlington Northern Railroad. This report has been revised to address changes in the riverbank stabilization plan which is shown on the drawings prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. This report supersedes our previous reports dated September 26, 1997 and January 26, 1998. The proposed Family Fun Center development includes modifying the existing Green River bank. Modifications are planned to provide compensatory flood storage above the ordinary high water level (Elevation 8.4 feet) for flood storage that will be lost on site as a result of raising grades to accommodate the proposed development. The proposed modifications to the existing bank will start approximately 80 feet east of the east edge of the Interurban Avenue bridge and extend to approximately 90 feet west of the east property line of the Family Fun Center site. The lower portion of the bank extending from the channel bottom up Elevation 9.0 feet will not be modified. A shelf up to 15 feet wide and about 360 feet long will be excavated out of the existing bank at Elevation 9.0 feet. A new bank with a 2H:1V (horizontal to vertical) sideslope will be constructed above the bench. Large wood snags will be placed on the bank at six locations which will extend into the river channel. A bioswale approximately 140 feet long will be constructed above a portion of the bench at Elevation 15.0 feet. An off channel pond will be located at the northeast corner of the site. The pond bottom will be at Elevation 6.0 feet and the mouth of the channel connecting the pond to the Green River will be at Elevation 4.4 feet. The proposed bank, bioswale and pond are shown on the Barghausen drawings. The top of the new bank will be at least 2 feet above the 500 -year flood elevation (Elevation 22.0 feet). A paved recreational trail will be constructed along the top of the new bank. The recreational trail will also provide access for maintenance vehicles and for flood -fighting efforts as necessary. OeoEngineers 1 File No. 5925-001-00/031998 GREEN RIVER BANK CONDITIONS SURFACE CONDITIONS General Conditions on the Green River The Green River in the vicinity of the project site is a slow-moving river that has been highly channelized by development adjacent to the channel, levees, and bank stabilization measures which generally consist of riprap rock on the lower steeper portions of the bank and vegetation on the banks above the ordinary high water level. Flows in the Green River are controlled by the Howard Hanson Dam. Peak flows are limited to 12,000 cfs (cubic feet per second) at the project site for the 100 -year flood. The Green River adjacent to the Family Fun Center site flows generally in an east-northeast direction. The channel adjacent to the Family Fun Center site varies in width from approximately 125 feet where it flows under the Interurban Avenue bridge to about 230 feet at the east end of the Family Fun Center site where the river makes a sharp 90 degree turn to the northwest. The sharp turn is the result of channelization of the river to accommodate the Burlington Railroad grade which runs along the eastern boundary of the Family Fun Center site and extends northwest of the site along the eastern bank of the Green River. Historic Changes in the Green River We reviewed the historic changes in channelization of and development along the river in the vicinity of the Family Fun Center site by reviewing a total of nine aerial photographs taken at the following times; 1936, 1946, 1956, 1960, 1969, 1974, 1980, 1985 and 1995. The aerial photographs indicate that the geometry of the Green River has changed little over the 61 -year period from 1936 to 1995 in the project area. The 1936 aerial photo indicates that the railroad grade east and northeast of the site, and Interurban Avenue are present. The railroad embankment and the Interurban Avenue bridge foundations are reinforced with riprap rock. The former river bend, located east of the railroad grade, that was cut off by the railroad embankment retains its former shape and still contains water, suggesting that the railroad embankment likely had not been in place for an extended length of time. A marsh and small inlet extend about 75 feet into the eastern end of the Family Fun Center site. The former river bend located east of the railroad grade was infilled and graded by 1956. Interstates 5 west of the project site and Interstate 405 south of the project site are present in the 1969 air photo. By 1969 the marsh at the east end of the Family Fun Center site had been completely infdled. Areas of riprap rock along the banks of the Green River in the project vicinity appear similar to those seen today. Observations on the Existing Riverbank GeoEngineers conducted a geologic reconnaissance along the Green River bank on August 29, 1997 to identify existing bank conditions. We observed the existing bank along the north margin of the Family Fun Center property for evidence of bank instability due to erosion, GeoEngineers 2 F'deNo. 5925-001-00/031998 slumping, oversteepened slopes, undercutting and/or ground seepage. We also observed the condition of the bank across the channel from the Family Fun Center site as well as the condition of the bank downstream of the Family Fun Center site along the Burlington Northern railroad tracks. Our reconnaissance also included general observations of river channel flow characteristics on the stretch of the Green River adjacent to the site. We made observations of variations in water depth to estimate the location of the thalweg of the channel. Based on our observations of water depth and the general configuration of the channel in the vicinity of the project site, we estimate that the thalweg is situated closer to the north bank of the river on the western end of the Family Fun Center site and gradually moves to the south bank on the eastern end of the site. The channel banks in the vicinity of the Family Fun Center site are comprised of steep (45 to 60 degree) banks generally reinforced with riprap and less steep (generally 25 to 45 degree) unarmored banks. We observed riprap rock 1/2 to 2 feet in diameter on the south bank of the river starting west of the Interurban Avenue bridge upstream of the Family Fun Center site and extending downstream about 30 feet from the east edge of the bridge structure. Riprap rock 1/2 to 2 feet in diameter is present on the north bank of the river beginning west of the Interurban Avenue bridge and extending downstream about 600 feet east of the east edge of the bridge structure. We believe that riprap rock is also present on the north bank of the river downstream of this location (600 feet east of the bridge) for an additional distance of about 450 feet, however, thick vegetation along the bank made it difficult to confirm its presence. Rip rap rock generally 2 to 3 feet in diameter was also observed along the east bank of the river downstream of the Family Fun Center site adjacent to the Burlington Northern railroad grade. The riverbank on the Family Fun Center site is unarmored with the exception of the area immediately east of the Interurban Avenue bridge. The banks are generally inclined at about 25 to 45 degrees. Fine to medium sand with a trace of silt was exposed on the lower 3 feet of the bank above the river level on August 30, 1997. Vegetation consisting primarily of blackberry extend above the exposed soils to the top of the bank. We did not observe zones of ground water seepage emerging from the bank at the time of our site visit. However, the thick cover of blackberry made it difficult to make observations of ground water seepage along the bank. We observed occasional small surface failures of sediments on steeper banks along the Family Fun Center site. The surficial failures were less than 10 feet wide and a few inches deep. One of the surface failures was observed on the western end of the bank and four surface failures were observed on the eastern half of the bank. Erosion was observed over a distance of about 50 feet along the bank at the sharp 90 -degree bend in the river at the east end of the site. We estimate that bank retreat at this location is on the order of 5 feet based on our observations of exposed tree roots at this location and may be up to about 10 feet over the last approximately 30 years since infilling of the marsh area was completed. aeoEngineers 3 File No. 5925-001-00/031998 We also observed a wooden timber box about 3 feet by 3 feet located on the riverbank about 350 feet downstream of the east edge of the Interurban Avenue bridge structure. Adjacent to the box we observed a 3 -inch -diameter PVC pipe. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS General Subsurface soil and ground water conditions in the vicinity of the riverbank on the Family Fun Center site were explored by excavating six test pits, TP -1 through TP -6, to depths ranging from 12.0 to 14.5 feet below the ground surface using.a rubber -tired backhoe on September 3, 1997. In addition, two borings, AB -2 and AB -3, and one test pit, AT -4 were completed in the vicinity of the riverbank for a previous study by Applied Geotechnology, Inc., dated April 26, 1989. In addition, one monitoring well, GCW-16, was completed by Geotech Consultants for a study dated January 24, 1997 along the riverbank. Details of the field exploration program and the explorations logs are presented in Appendix A. Details regarding the laboratory testing program and results are also presented in Appendix A. The logs of the borings and test pit explorations completed for previous studies are presented in Appendix B. The approximate locations of the explorations are shown in Figure 1. Soil Conditions Subsurface soil conditions are generally consistent along the bank. Fill soils 2 to 10 feet thick consisting typically of loose to medium dense fine silty sand (TP -2, -3, -5, -6, AB -3 and GCW-16), clean fine sand (TP -4) and silt with varying amounts of sand (TP -1 and AT -4) were encountered in the explorations. Pieces of slab concrete were encountered at the bottom of the fill soils in test pits TP -1, -2 and -4, and debris, including slag, wood, brick and concrete, was found throughout the fill in AB -3. Beneath the fill, the explorations encountered alluvium consisting of clean fine to medium sand with varying amounts of silt in a loose to medium dense state to the depths explored. Ground Water Conditions Ground water was encountered in seven out of ten explorations along the bank at depths ranging from 9 to 18 feet below the ground surface. Ground water levels are expected to fluctuate as a function of season, precipitation, water levels in the Green River and other factors. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL In our opinion, the proposed bank modifications which include a new shelf at Elevation 9.0 feet, a bioswale, an off -channel pond and a newly constructed bank inclined at 2H: 1V above the shelf are feasible. Our recommendations are applicable when construction is undertaken according to the schedule provided in Barghausen's report. The 2H:1 V slope on the upper bank above the bench can be stabilized with vegetation. Below the bench, slopes which are G e o E n g i n e e r i 4 File No. 5975-001-00/031998 disturbed should be protected with riprap. In our opinion, additional stabilization such as riprap rock will not be required on the existing banks which will be undisturbed. We understand that the portion of the bank where erosion is occurring at the sharp 90 - degree bend in the river at the east end of the Family Fun Center site is owned by the Burlington Northern Railroad. We also understand that the Muckleshoot Tribe prefers to maintain the present configuration of the bank in this area for fish and wildlife habitat. In our opinion, this portion of the bank will continue to erode if stabilization measures are not implemented. At a minimum, we recommend that this portion of the bank be monitored to identify potential instability which may affect the Family Fun Center site. We also recommend that Burlington Northern Railroad be notified of the condition of the bank and the potential for instability. PROBABLE CAUSES OF EXISTING SURFICIAL BANK FAILURES AND EROSION In general, very little evidence of bank instability was observed during our site reconnaissance. It is our opinion that the river dynamics in the vicinity of the Family Fun Center site are generally resulting in deposition of sediment during low to moderate flows on the south riverbank and the vegetation on the existing bank provides adequate protection against significant bank failure during high flow periods. Five areas were identified where small surficial failures less than 10 feet wide and a few inches deep had occurred on the south riverbank on the Family Fun Center site. In our opinion, these failures have resulted from failure of sand which was very loosely deposited on the bank during periods of higher flows. The very loose saturated sand deposited on the bank did not have sufficient shear strength to support itself on the steeply inclined bank. Therefore, the recently deposited material slumped and failed. In our opinion, these failures do not indicate a potential for bank instability in the area and additional stabilization measures on the existing bank are not required. The erosion that is occurring at the east end of the project site is likely due to strong back eddy currents that result from the sharp 90 -degree bend in the river at this location. The erosion which has occurred indicates that these currents are sufficiently strong to erode the bank material in this location. Further erosion will exaggerate the sharp bend at this location which will likely increase turbulence resulting in further erosion. In our opinion, additional stabilization measures are advisable at this location to reduce the potential for further erosion. BANK STABILIZATION General We estimate that average channel velocities during peak flow periods will be less than 5 fps (feet per second) in the project area. FEMA floodway data indicates that the mean velocity in the Green River channel in this area ranges from 3.3 to 4.8 fps (feet per second) during flooding. The 1993 King County Guidelines for Bank Stabilization Projects indicate that stabilization using vegetation is appropriate where average channel velocities are below 5 fps. G e o E n g i n e e r s 5 File No. 5925-001-00/031998 Using this criteria and considering our observations of existing bank performance on the Family Fun Center site (with the exception of the east end), it is our recommendation that the newly constructed 2H: 1V bank above Elevation 9.0 feet can be adequately stabilized with vegetation. Appropriate vegetation for the new bank should be selected with due consideration to the type of soil present in the bank, drainage conditions, exposure to sun and wind and site elevation. A Riverbank Landscape plan has been prepared by Weiseman Design Group which indicates that rooted stock and live stakes will be used for permanent vegetative bank stabilization. The soils encountered in the test pits indicate that the bank materials will likely consist of loose to medium dense fine sand with varying amounts of silt. These materials will have a high susceptibility to erosion. The newly constructed banks will be particularly susceptible to erosion during the first year to two years after construction when the woody plant material is rooting. We recommend that consideration be given to planting ground cover such as grasses as soon as possible following construction of the new bank. The ground cover will provide temporary bank stabilization while the woody vegetation is getting established. The newly constructed bank at the upstream and downstream ends of the bench at Elevation 9.0 feet will be subject to erosion. We recommend that erosion protection which will likely include rip rap be incorporated into the final design in these locations. Wood Snags Wood snags are planned along the bank at six locations. We recommend that the wood snags consist of confers such as Douglas Fir or Western Red Cedar because of their durability. The snags should be placed with the root wads pointing at least slightly upstream and in the downward direction. The snags must be adequately anchored into the bank so that they are stable and relatively immobile. Some erosion of the existing bank and the shelf could occur in the vicinity of the log snags due to localized eddying, increases in flow velocities and turbulence. In our opinion, rip rap on the shelf and the lower bank will be necessary in the vicinity of the log snag groups to reduce the potential for erosion in these areas. Off -Channel Pond Slopes of the off -channel pond will be excavated no steeper than 2H: IV. A rockery up to 4 feet high will be constructed on the north and southwest sides of the pond. The rockery should consist of four -to five -man rocks. We recommend that the lowest course of rocks be embedded below the bottom of the pond at least 12 inches or one-half the diameter of the rock, whichever is greater. Voids behind and between the rocks should be filled with 2 -inch minus quarry spalls. Recommendations for vegetating the new bank along the Green River also apply to the pond. We have preliminarily evaluated the gradient and configuration of the channel which connects the pond to the Green River. It is our opinion that the flow velocities of water exiting O e o B n g i n e e rs 6 File No. 5925-001-00/031998 the pond will be adequate to flush out minor amounts of sediment which may be deposited when the pond fills with water. We recommend that the channel be checked once a year to observe whether adequate flushing is occurring. If some deposition has resulted in the channel, it can be cleaned out by hand during dry periods. 90 -Degree Bend We understand that the portion of the bank at the east end of the Family Fun Center site where erosion is occurring due to strong back eddy currents is owned by Burlington Northern Railroad. Current project planning indicates that this portion of the bank will be left undisturbed. In our opinion, erosion of the bank in this area will continue if stabilization measures are not implemented. At a minimum, we recommend that this portion of the bank be monitored to identify signs of instability which may affect the Family Fun Center site. We also recommend that Burlington Northern Railroad be notified of the banks conditions. Recommendations for stabilization, if required, are presented below. SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK We recommend that vegetation below the ordinary high water. level be left undisturbed during construction to protect the existing bank. Erosion control measures including but not limited to silt fences, sediment traps, runoff collection systems, mulching, etc., should be installed prior to starting earthwork to reduce the potential adverse impacts to the river during construction. Following installation of appropriate erosion control measures the area where the shelf, bioswale, off -channel pond and new bank will be constructed should be cleared, grubbed and stripped. Excavation of new banks and the channel to the pond may extend below the water table. We recommend that excavations be completed incrementally, proceeding from one end of the bank to the other, to minimize traffic and disturbance. The proposed bench, bioswale, off -channel pond and new bank will be constructed by removing existing fill and native soil. When grading is complete, we recommend that these areas be trackrolled prior to hydroseeding and/or planting. Depending on the time of the year when construction takes place, it may be necessary to provide further temporary bank stabilization by installing erosion mats, such as jute or coconut fiber matting; a surficial layer of coarse gravel; or other temporary erosion control measures on the bank until vegetative growth has progressed to a degree where the vegetative root system provides adequate bank protection. LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for use by Family Fun Centers, Mulvaney Partnership Architects and other members of the design team for use in the design of a portion of this project. The conclusions and recommendations in this report should be applied in their entirety. The data and report should be provided to prospective contractors for bidding or G e o E n g i n e e r s 7 File No. 5925-001-00/031998 estimating purposes; but our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. If there are any changes in the grades, location, configuration or type of construction planned, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report might not be fully applicable. If such changes are made, we should be engaged to review our conclusions and recommendations and to provide written modification or verification, as appropriate. When the design is finalized, we recommend that we be engaged to review those portions of the specifications and drawings that relate to geotechnical considerations to see that our recommendations have been interpreted and implemented as intended. There are possible variations in subsurface conditions between the locations of explorations and also with time. Some contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the project budget and schedule. We strongly recommend that sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation be provided by our firm during construction to (1) determine if the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, (2) provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and (3) evaluate whether or not earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with the contract plans and specifications. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in this area at the time the report was prepared. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. 4 4► We trust this provides the information you require at this time. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. Please contact us should you have any questions concerning our findings or recommendations, or should you require additional information. Respectfully submitted, G Engineers, Inc. �P:RES 2� MSR:edl P:1500to59915925001 \5na415925001 R6. DOC Copyright' 1998 by GeoEngineers, Inc. All rights reserved. Mary S. Rutherford, P.E. Associate G e o E n g i n e e r s 8 File No. 5925-001-00/031998 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING FIELD EXPLORATION Subsurface conditions at the site were explored on September 3, 1997 by excavating six test pits designated TP -1 through TP -6 using a rubber -tired backhoe under subcontract to GeoEngineers. The test pits were excavated to depths ranging from about 12.0 to 14.5 feet below the existing ground surface. The locations of the explorations were determined in the field using topographic information and by pacing distances from existing site features. Ground surface elevations indicated on the exploration logs are based on interpretation of topographic data provided by Mulvanny Partnership relative to the exploration locations. Locations of the explorations are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 1. A geologist from our firm continuously monitored the test pit excavations, prepared a detail log of the test pits, and visually classified the soils encountered. Disturbed representative soil samples were obtained from the test pit explorations. The exploration logs are based on our interpretation of the field and laboratory data and indicate the various types of soils encountered. They also indicate the depths at which these soils or their characteristics change, although the change might actually be gradual. The soils are classified in general accordance with the classification system presented in Figure A-1. Logs of the test pits are presented in Figures A-2 through A-4. GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING Soil samples obtained from the explorations were transported to our laboratory and examined to confirm or modify field classifications. Representative samples were selected for geotechnical laboratory testing including moisture content determinations. The results of the moisture content determinations are presented in Figure A-5. GeoEngineers A-1 Fde No. 5925-001-00/031998 EXPLANATION: TP -1 -f TEST PIT COMPLETED BY GEOENGINEERS (CURRENT STUDY) GB -1 4- BORING COMPLETED BY GEOENGINEERS (STUDY DATED JUNE 30, 1997) / GT -1 4- TEST PIT COMPLETED BY GEOENGINEERS (STUDY DATED JUNE 30, 1997) - GCB -18 + BORING COMPLETED BY GEOTECH- CONSULTANTS (STUDY DATED JANUARY 24. 1997) GCW-14 O MONITORING WELL COMPLETED BY GEOTECH CONSULTANTS (STUDY DATED JANUARY 24, 1997) GCT -1 - TEST PIT COMPLETED BY GEOTECH CONSULTANTS (STUDY DATED JANUARY 24, 1997) AB -2 4' BORING COMPLETED BY APPLIED GEOTECHNOLOGY (STUDY DATED APRIL 26, 1989) AT -4 4- TEST PIT COMPLETED BY APPLIED GEOTECHNOLOGY TP -3 (STUDY DATED APRIL 26, 1989) GB -1 ;ICICT-4 -- N rn 0 0 0 PARCEL THREE MONSTER ROAD ` \ E:\ 5925001\ 5925001 A. DWG 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET Reference: Drawing entitled "Concept Site Plan" provided by Mulvanny Partnership Architects, dated June 17, 1997. .13 WSW Note: The locations of all features shown are approximate. Geo j Engineers SITE PLAN FIGURE 2 Note: The locations of all features shown are approximate. Reference: Topographic Survey prepared by Lin & Associates dated June 23, 1995. 41 16 APPENDIX A -, GEI 85-85 Rev. 05/93 SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP SYMBOL GROUP NAME COARSE GRAINED SOILS More Than 50% Retained on No. 200 Sieve GRAVEL More Than 50% of Coarse Fraction Retained on No. 4 Sieve CLEAN GRAVEL GW WELL -GRADED GRAVEL. FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL GRAVEL WITH FINES GM SILTY GRAVEL GC CLAYEY GRAVEL SAND More Than 50% of Coarse Fraction Passes No. 4 Sieve CLEAN SAND SW WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND SP POORLY -GRADED SAND SAND WITH FINES SM SILTY SAND SC CLAYEY SAND FINE GRAINED SOILS More Than 50% Passes No. 200 Sieve SILT AND CLAY Liquid Umit Less Than 50 INORGANIC ML SILT CL CLAY ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY SILT AND CLAY Liquid Umit 50 or More INORGANIC MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY. ELASTIC SILT CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY ORGANIC OH ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT NOTES: SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS: 1. Field classification is based on visual examination of soil Dry - Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch in general accordance with ASTM 112488-90. Moist - Damp, but no visible water 2. Soil classification using laboratory tests is based on ASTM D2487-90. Wet - Visible free water or saturated, usually soil is obtained from below water table 3. Descriptions of soil density or consistency are based on interpretation of blow count data, visual appearance of soils. and/or test data. 6 Geo �� Engineers SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FIGURE A-1 DEPTH BELOW SOIL GROUP GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION (FEET) SYMBOL LOG OF TEST PIT DESCRIPTION TEST PIT 1 Approximate Elevation: 16.0 feet 0.0 - 3.0 ML Brown fine sandy silt (medium stiff, moist) (fill) 3.0 - 4.0 SM Brown silty fine and with occasional cobbles (loose, moist) (fill) Pieces of slab concrete encountered at 4.0 feet 4.0 - 11.5 SM Brown silty fine sand (medium dense, moist) 11.5 - 13.0 SM Gray silty fine and (loose to medium dense, moist to wet) Test pit completed at 13.0 feet on 09/03/97 No ground water seepage observed No caving observed Disturbed soil samples obtained at 2.5, 6.0 and 10.5 feet TEST NT 2 Approximate Elevation: 17.0 feet 0.0 - 5.4 SM Brown silty fine sand (loose. moist) (fill) Pieces of slab concrete encountered at 5.4 feet 5.4 - 10.5 SM Brown silty fine sand (loose to medium dense, moist) 10.5 - 11.5 SM Gray silty fine sand (loose. moist to wet) 11.5 - 12.5 SP Gray fine sand (loose, wet) Test pit completed at 12.5 feet on 9/3/97 Slight to moderate ground water seepage observed at 12.0 feet No caving observed Disturbed soil samples obtained at 3.0 and 12.0 feet THE DEPTHS ON THE TEST PIT LOGS, ALTHOUGH SHOWN TO 0.1 FOOT, ARE BASED ON AN AVERAGE OF MEASUREMENTS ACROSS THE TEST NT AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE TO 0.5 FOOT. Geo; Engineers LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE A-2 DEPTH BELOW SOIL GROUP GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION IFEET) SYMBOL LOG OF TEST PIT DESCRIPTION TEST PIT 3 Approximate Elevation: 18.0 feet 0.0 - 2.0 SM Brown silty fine sand (loose to medium dense, moist) (fill) 2.0 - 9.5 SP Brown fine sand with a trace of silt (loose to medium dense, moist) 9.5 - 12.7 SP -SM Brown fine sand with silt (loose to medium dense, moist) 12.7 - 14.5 SP Brown fine sand (loose to medium dense, moist to wet) Test pit completed at 14.5 feet on 09/03/97 Slight to moderate ground water seepage observed at 14.0 feet Minor caving observed at 4.0 to 8.0 feet Disturbed soil samples obtained at 4.5 and 14.0 feet TEST PIT 4 Approximate Elevation: 18.5 feet 0.0 - 3:5 SP Brown fine sand with a trace of silt (loose to medium dense, moist) (fill) Pieces of slab concrete encountered at 3.5 feet 3.5 - 7.8 SP Brown fine sand with a trace of silt (loose to medium dense, moist) 7.8 - 12.0 SP -SM Brown fine sand with silt (loose to medium dense, moist) Test pit completed at 12.0 feet on 09/03/97 No ground water seepage observed Severe caving observed at 4.0 feet Disturbed soil samples obtained at 3.0 and 7.0 feet THE DEPTHS ON THE TEST PTT LOGS, ALTHOUGH SHOWN TO 0.1 FOOT, ARE BASED ON AN AVERAGE OF MEASUREMENTS ACROSS THE TEST NT AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE TO 0.5 FOOT. Geo Engineers LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE A-3 DEPTH BELOW SOIL GROUP GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION (FEET) SYMBOL LOG OF TEST PIT DESCRIPTION TEST PIT 5 Approximate Elevation: 17.0 feet 0.0 - 2.5 SM Brown silty fine sand (loose, moist) (fill) 2.5 - 12.0 SP Brown fine sand with a trace of silt (loose to medium dense, moist) Test pit completed at 12.0 feet on 09/03/97 No ground water seepage observed Minor caving observed at 3.0 to 8.0 feet Disturbed soil samples obtained at 1.5, 7.0 and 11.5 feet TEST PIT 6 Approximate Elevation: 20.5 feet 0.0 - 9.0 SM Brown silty fine sand (medium dense, moist) (fill) 9.0 - 12.0 SP Brown fine sand with a trace of silt (loose to medium dense, moist) Test pit completed at 12.0 feet on 09/03/97 No ground water seepage observed No caving observed Disturbed soil samples obtained at 3.0 and 11.0 feet THE DEPTHS ON THE TEST PIT LOGS, ALTHOUGH SHOWN TO 0.1 FOOT. ARE BASED ON AN AVERAGE OF MEASUREMENTS ACROSS THE TEST PIT AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE TO 0.5 FOOT. Geo„,Engineers' LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE A-4 RESULTS OF MOISTURE CONTENT DETERMINATIONS Test Pit Number Depth of Sample (feet) Soil Classification Moisture Content (%) TP -1 2.5 ML 19 TP -1 6.0 SM 16 TP -2 3.0 SM 14 TP -3 4.5 SP 8 TP -4 3.0 SM 6 TP -4 7.0 SP 6 TP -5 1.5 SM 12 TP -5 7.0 SP 8 TP -6 3.0 SM 9 TP -6 11.0 SP 4 Doc ID: 5925001.MC2 Geo Engineers MOISTURE CONTENT DATA FIGURE A-5 APPENDIX B EXPLORATION LOGS FROM PREVIOUS STUDIES GEO ENGINEERS »»» SEATTLE Z002 4 Laboratory Tests SA _ • _ m iO OO 5 4 14.7 82 3 31.3 72 DS 5 38.1 76 8 25.1 95 14 iG 0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Equipment Mobile B-61 Not measured 3/31/89 co Elevation Date Sod. BROWN SAND (SP) very loose to loose. moist; fine to medium grained. Becomes wet, fine grained, with trace silt. With some silt. Becomes saturated. Becomes medium to coarse drained. Groundwater encountered at approxi imateiy 12 -foot depth during drilling. Applied Geotechno ogy Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Geology & Hydrogeology Log of Boring 8-2 Hillman Properties NW Tukwila Development 'LATE 4 spa NJueEQ 15.339.002.01 DRAWN EC R DATE 11EYIsED DATE 12 April 89 09/10/97 WED 12:49 FAX 425 861 6050 GEO ENGINEERS ».• SEATTLE 003 Laboratory Tests 7d 2U 6 o. Equipment 'Pp E o o en Elevation Not measured Mobile B-64 0.0W 011 04 6."414 Date 3/31/89 7 35.9 74 - 10 23.7 102 18 25.8 96 7 36.1 80 6 7 26.6 87 9 26.6 97 16 18 33 25.1 101 10- MM. 0- 15- 5- t] • 20- 20- 25- 25- 30- 30- 35 35 - 40 - BROWN AND GRAY MOTTLED SILTY SAND (SM) loose, moist to wet; fine to medium grained, with some gravel, and trace burned wood and brick fragments (Fill). With some slag fragments and wood debris. With some concrete pieces. BROWN.SILTY SAND (SM) loose, moist to wet; fine to medium grained. with trace to some fine gravel. Becomes gray, wet, with trace decayed organics. GRAY SAND (SP) loose, saturated; fine to medium grained, with occasional silt interlayering. Becomes dark gray. Becomes medium dense. Applied Geotechnology Inc. GeotecnnIcaI Engineering Geology & Hydrogeology Log of Boring B-3 (0-40') Hillman Properties NW Tukwila Development RATE 5 JDe MJ 8ER DRAWN 15,339.002.01 ECR APPROVED S DATE REVISED DATE 12 April 89 GEO ENGINEERS »•» SEATTLE 2004 Laboratory Tests c H a As r • C m 2U Oo o 40 Equipment Mobile 8-61 E Elevation_ Not measured Date 3/31/89 �3• 457 ni 'ti1 - 17 50 — 40 38 37 16.2 113 50 6o 55- 60- 65— • 1 70— . 0— . I. 75- 80-: 5- 80— With some organics, trace fine gravel. LIGHT BROWN SANDY SILT (ML) hard. moist; very fine to fine grained. with trace to some clay (Weathered Si1tstone?). Groundwater encountered at approxi - Matey' 18 -foot depth during drilling. Applied Geotechno ogy Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Geology & Hydrogeology Log of Boring B-3 (40-74') FRIlman Properties NW Tukwila Development RATE 6 JOS NtHeE4 tyuww 15,339.002.01 ECR sarp O TE REVISED o TE 12 AprII 8 9 09/10/97 WED 12:50 FAX 425 861 6050 GEO ENGINEERS ••» SEATTLE LOG OF TEST PITS (Continued) TEST PIT 4 Depth (Feet) Classification Description Zoos 0 to 5 HL Brown Sandy Silt (til.); soft, moist to wet; fine to medium -grained, with some slag to 2 -foot diameter, concrete to 5 - foot diameter; bricks and wood debris (Fill). 5 to 9 SM/SP Gray Silty Sand (SM); Dark Brown Sand (5P); to medium -grained. • interlayered with loose, wet; fine 9 to 11 5P Dark Brown Sand (SP); loose, wet; fine to medium -grained, vith some silt. Test Pit completed April 3, 1989. Seepage noted at approximately 9 -foot depth during excavation. Bulk samples obtained at 2- and 2 -1/2 - foot depths. TEST PIT 5 0 to 5 SN/HL Brown and Gray Sandy Silt and Silty Sand (SH/M.); soft, loose. wet; fine-grained, with trace gravel, concrete and slag to 6 -inch diameter (Fill). 5 to 9 SH Brown Silty Sand (SM); loose, saturated, fine to coarse-grained, vith some gravel (Fill). 9 to 11 SM Gray Silty Sand (SM); loose, saturated; with some gravel and concrete (Fill). Test Pit terminated due to caving April 3, 1989. Groundwater encountered at approximately 5 -foot depth during excavation. Bulk sample obtained at 3 -foot depth. Applied Geotechnology Inc. Geological Engineering Geology & Hycirogeology Test Pits 4-5 Hillman Properties NW Tukwila Development PLATE 11 Joe'an+OER 15,339.002 DRAwN APPPOYED •Strf OATE R£NSED DATE 4/25/89 BORING B-16/MW-16 10 15 20 Y c y 15 15 30 >50 ,o • • • • • • • • • •.• [ S P • • . • •. • Description Comments Pasture, grass, and bare soil - Grayish brown, silty SAND, fine-grained, with organics, some slag, gravel, moist, medium dense (FILL) - Brown SAND, fine- to medium -grained, moist, medium dense. - Dark brown SAND, medium- to coarse-grained, with silt, wet, dense. - Dark gray to black SAND, coarse-grained, wet, very dense. No hydrocarbon odor detected. No hydrocarbon odor detected throughout boring. * Boring drilled to 17.5 feet and sampled to 19.0 feet on November 1, 1996. * No olfactory indication of contamination in soil. * A monitoring well was completed in this boring. * Groundwater depth measured at 11.52 feet below ground surface on November 4, 1996. * Well completed with locking above -ground monument. * Headspace measured using Photovac 2020 PID. BORING LOG B-16/MW-16 NIELSEN PROPERTY SW GRADY WAY AT INTERURBAN AVE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Job No: 88387E Due:I Logged bJ: DEC 1888 TAJ Plate: 4 Delineation / Mitigation / Restoration / Habitat Creation / Permit Assistance RIVERBANK RESTORATION AND HABITAT ENHANCEMENT BIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS FOR FAMILY FUN CENTERS TUKWILA, WA. WETLAND RESOURCES, INC. PROJECT #98045 Wetland Resources, Inc. 9505 19th Avenue SE, Suite 106 Everett, Washington 98208 (425) 337-3174 For: Family Fun Centers 29111 S.W. Town Center Loop West Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 March 18, 1998 9505 19th Avenue S.E. Suite 106 Everett, Washington 98208 (425) 337-3174 Fax (425) 337-3045 Table of Contents Project Site Description 1 Restoration and Creation Summary 2 Baseline Information 3 Mitigation Goals and Objectives 5 Mitigation Condition and Function 7 Mitigation Standards 8 Use of this Report 11 Figures 1. Log Structures - Riverband - Top View 2. Log Structure - Riverbank - Side View 3. Log Structure - Channel Entrance East Site 4. Log Structure - Channel Entrance West Site 5. Off Channel Pond - Top View 6. Off Channel Pond - Cross Section 7. Off Channel Pond Log Structures Photos 1. Existing Poor Condition 2. Existing Poor Condition 3. Desired Product Example 4. Desired Product Example Report References Professional Biographies PROJECT DESCRIPTION Location The Family Fun Center proposes to develop this approximately 20 acre site in the City of Tukwila. WA. immediately adjacent to the Green River. The Green River is a Shorelines of the State and supports a population of native Chinook salmon and Coho salmon, along with terrestrial wildlife species. The site is situated on the north side of Interstate 405 between Monster Rd, SW and the Green River in King County, Washington. The site is legally located as a portion of Section 24, Township 23N, Range 4E., W.M.. Sensitive Area Description No sensitive areas, wetlands or streams exist on the development site or in the immediate vicinity of the development site except for the Green River and the steep slopes along the riverbank of the Green River. The Green River is a Shorelines of the State and a Type 1 watercourse in the City of Tukwila, WA. The City of Tukwila requires a minimum 40 foot river environment buffer setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) for Shorelines Substantial Development Permits. The Proposed Family Fun Center will require a Shorelines Substantial Development Permit because work is proposed within 200 feet of the OHWM of the Green River. The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife recommends 100 to 150 foot buffers adjacent to waters supporting Chinook salmon. Mitigation Description The Family Fun Center project proposes to replace lost 100 year flood storage capacity by construction of a riverbank shelf and construction of an off channel fisheries habitat pond (See Barghausen Engineering Calculation). The riverbank shelf will be constructed at elevation 9. The OHWM of the Green River at the development site has been determined to be 8.4. The off channel pond will be constructed with a bottom elevation of 6 and a narrow channel connecting to the Green River at elevation 4. The riverbank shelf will be enhanced by placement of woody debris for fisheries habitat and will be planted to a mix of native trees and shrubs suitable to this new environment. The side slopes from the shelf to the edge of the buffer will also be planted to native trees, shrubs and grasses and will be irrigated during the first two years of establishment. The off channel pond will have woody debris habitat structures placed in the channel and in the pond itself for fisheries benefit. The pond and channel will be planted to native trees, shrubs and grasses (See Weisman Design Group Riverbank and Off Channel Pond Landscape Plan for details of all plantings). The Family Fun Center proposes to mitigate for reduction of the recommended WDFW recommended 100 to 150 foot buffer by creation, enhancement and restoration of the riverbank shelf and off channel pond. The loss of flood storage will be compensated by replacement of the lost capacity in the riverbank shelf and off channel pond. Disturbance of the existing riverbank will be compensated by revegetation of the area with native trees, shrubs and grasses. The proposed mitigation project will greatly increase the functions of the River Environment adjacent to the Green River for fishery and wildlife habitat by providing greatly increased aquatic and terrestrial habitat. Invasive plant species will be replaced by selected native plant species. Woody aquatic structures and varying elevation shelves and off channel habitat areas will be created to benefit the local fisheries, as well as local wildlife species. Flood storage will be replaced at a minimum of 1:1. Mitigation for fish and wildlife habitat and flood storage will be supplied on site. By implementation of this mitigation plan the functions of the sensitive areas on this site will be greatly improved over existing conditions. The functions will be greatly improved over the WDFW standard recommendation of 100 to 150 foot buffers without restoration. Alternatives Process Description The development and sensitive area mitigation design for the Family Fun Centers, Tukwila, WA. Project has evolved through many meetings with the Family Fun Centers design team, the City of Tukwila, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), King County and the Muckelshoot Tribal Fisheries. The concept of construction of a riverbank shelf immediately above the OHWM with extensive woody debris and native plantings has been supported in concept by all of the above mentioned groups. The concept of an off channel pond with extensive woody debris and native plantings has also been supported in concept by all of these groups. The proposed buffer is greater than the 40 foot required buffer under the City of Tukwila Shoreline Overlay. The restored and enhanced buffer proposed under this mitigation plan will function to a much higher degree for the benefit of fish and wildlife than the WDFW recommended 100 to 150 foot buffer without restoration. The Family Fun Center has adjusted and redesigned the configuration and infrastructure of their project to accommodate the extensive buffer restoration and habitat creation project currently proposed. Impacts have been avoided and minimized to the greatest extent possible. Any further loss of development area or increase in mitigation scope and content would force Family Fun'Centers to abandon this site as a viable project location. RIVERBANK RESTORATION AND HABITAT CREATION PROJECT SUMMARY This riverbank restoration and habitat creation project is planned to develop riparian fisheries and wildlife habitat above the Ordinary High Water Mark of the Green River. The OHWM for this section of the Green River has been determined to be elevation 8.4. A riverbank shelf will be constructed at elevation 9.0 for approximately 500 feet immediately adjacent to the riverbank. This shelf will average twenty feet wide and will be planted to native grasses, shrubs and trees. This will allow the elevation 9.0 shelf to become inundated a estimated 3 months per average year. Wetland Resources currently is waiting to receive exact data from King County on recorded flow elevations on this streach of the Green River. This data will be available near the end of March. We believe this estimate is reasonable accurate based on discussions with WDFW, the City of Tukwila and King County. The slopes above the riparian shelf will be graded at 2:1 and planted to native grasses, shrubs and trees. In addition, five large masses of conifer tree snags with root wads will be placed along this shelf for the benefit of native fisheries. These log masses will be held in place with rock and post anchors and heavily planted to native willow and dogwood species. The root wads will extend into the river channel several feet and will angle to a point below the OHWM. Existing native willow along this section of the Green River will not be disturbed during the construction of this project. The project has been designed to protect valuable existing native plant material. The vast majority of the riverbank is dominated by Himalayan blackberry. The blackberry will be removed along all portions of the riverbank on the Family Fun Center property and replaced with native grass, shrub and tree species. An off channel pond will be developed at the northeast corner of the property. This pond will have a low bottom elevation of 6.0 with shelves at elevation 8.0 and 10.0. These shelves will be planted to native sedge and bulrush, willow, dogwood and cottonwood trees. The area above 10.0 will be 2 planted to native conifer and hardwood trees and shrubs. The pond will be connected to the Green River by a sloping channel which will enter the river at approximate elevation 4.0 (below OHWM). This will allow the off channel pond to remain inundated a estimated 6 months per average year. Wetland Resources currently is waiting to receive exact data from King County on recorded flow elevations on this streach of the Green River. This data will be available near the end of March. Based on a pond outlet below the designed pond bottom elevation, we can be sure that during periods of low flow the pond will drain and not become a fish trap. Log habitat structures will be placed in the pond and on either side of the entrance channel. A rock wall will be constructed within a portion of the pond to form a transition between shelf areas within the pond and the 2:1 side slopes above the pond. This extensive riverbank restoration and habitat creation project is intended to mitigate for potential loss of habitat from a reduction in buffer widths from the 100 to 150 feet recommended by Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to a project minimum width of 50 feet. The WDFW recommendation of 100 to 150 buffers adjacent to waters directly associated with Chinook Salmon is a new recommendation which was adopted in February 1998. The City of Tukwila requires a minimum 40 foot River Environment buffer under a Shorelines Substantial Development permit. The riparian and wetland habitat creation project will also replace flood storage area which will be lost as a result of development of the Family Fun Center. Calculations for flood storage loss are presented by Barghausen Engineering in the Civil Engineering section of this report. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit Request The Riverbank Restoration and Fisheries Habitat Creation Project associated with the Family Fun Center Development will be submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers for permit determination. It is our intent to request authorization under the Nationwide 27 Wetland and Riparian Restoration and Creation Activities section of the 404 Clean Water Act. This permit, in part, allows activities in waters of the United States associated with creation of wetlands and riparian areas on private land with notification to the Corps of Engineers. BASELINE INFORMATION FOR THE PROJECT IMPACT ZONE AND THE PROPOSED MITIGATION SITE. Project Site Description A wildlife study was conducted by Wetland Resources, Inc. in March, 1998 at a site proposed for the Tukwila Family Fun Center. The property is approximately 20 acres in size and situated on the north side of Interstate 405 between Monster Rd., S.W. and the Green River in King County, Washington. The site is legally located as a portion of Section 24, Township 23N., Range 4E., W.M.. The objective of the wildlife study was to determine the functions and values of wildlife habitat present and determine species presence and potential occurrence. Special emphasis was given to salmonid presence in the Green River and habitat features available to them. Topographically the property site is level throughout with several large man-made earthen mounds located at the eastern end of the site. The northern edge of the property drops off as a steep bank into a reach of the Green River. The vegetative component for most of the site consists of abandoned pasture with much of its area disturbed by human activities. There are several groups of trees found in different locations on the site. The first group is along the northern edge of the site where it borders the Green River, the second is adjacent to the southern property line. The trees along the river include conifers on the upland and willow species closely adjacent the water. 3 The stand of trees along the southern boundary consists of conifer and maple species intermixed in an upland area that appears to have been a yard in the past. Methodology The area was first studied through examination of existing maps and aerial photographs to determine its general habitat layout and relationship to adjacent lands. Once gaining a preliminary overview of the site's condition and possible dynamics, a field reconnaissance was conducted. The area was investigated on foot by walking transects to locate and identify key wildlife components and determine the site's habitat quality, functions, values and species presence. The field study was conducted by visiting all areas of the site and surveying visually with binoculars and listening for auditory indicators. Habitat Components Wildlife habitat can contain any combination of features and attributes that give it a particular range of functions and values for wildlife. The vegetative, topographic and structural associations they present will dictate in part the diversity and densities of wildlife found. It is these areas and the systems they form that deserve attention here. At this property site there are two predominant habitat types. Riparian Zone: Found along the entire northern boundary of the site this habit is sandwiched between the abandoned pasture land and the Green River. The on-site portion of this habitat is approximately twelve hundred and fifty feet in length and an average of twenty feet wide yielding approximately 25,000 sq. ft.. The quality of the habitat varies throughout its length ranging from sections with good vegetative diversity and structure to large portions dominated by invasive species. The central portion of the on-site stretch (approximately 16,000 sq. ft.) is over grown with Himalayan blackberry and offers very poor structural diversity and virtually no woody cover into the river. The best quality riparian habitat on site is found in the northeast corner and extends approximately two hundred feet up river. This portion of the riparian zone has good vegetative diversity and structure and is connected to a large area of like habitat extending off-site to the north running down river. There is a smaller patch of moderate quality riparian habitat (willow cluster) located in the northwestern corner of the site. Abandoned Pasture: This habitat type comprises the vast majority of what is found on the site. Within this component there are areas containing trees and others with a shrub -scrub mix. By and large the entirety of this habitat component has been seriously degraded and impacted. There remain only a few small pockets that retain any value to wildlife, these include some grass and brush patches along with some of the trees scattered about. Throughout the site there are upturned soils, human spoils (construction materials and trash), and in several locations standing pools of water with oil or some type of distillate in them. Wildlife Features In any area there can exist special habitat features that can enhance its value to wildlife. These characteristics can either meet the specialized needs of an individual species, or the fulfillment of a range of functions for entire communities. The presence of some special habitat features may very well dictate whether a species or group of species utilizes the area at all. Riparian Zone: The eastern portion of this area along the Green River provides several features that define its value to wildlife. The vegetative composition is fairly typical of riparian zones found in the area. Plant species present include Sitka willows, Pacific willows and some scrub -shrub species. In its current condition the riparian vegetation provides some benefit for both the terrestrial and aquatic zones. Terrestrially, the area provides both cover and forage potential for 4 local and resident wildlife species. On a larger scale the riparian zone is part of the movement corridor formed by the Green River and its adjacent habitats. Aquatically, the woody vegetation extending from shore into the river channel is of note. Although currently limited, these woody fingers can create habitat features that are beneficial for salmonids. Features such as riffles, deepened water pools and shelter areas are of value to all salmonid age classes and a range of different species. The time and type of use can and will vary between life stages and species. Condition and Function Existing: The wildlife habitat on site is less than optimal. Many areas have been seriously degraded as a result of human activities. There have been changes in vegetation and topography that have altered the site and decreased or eliminated much of its functional value. Wildlife usage of the area is therefore held below those levels that would be expected and are possible. The area currently has limited capacity to function as a reservoir for resident wildlife and to contribute as part of a movement corridor moving through the greater area. At present, there is evidence of use by a moderate number of avian and mammalian species. Uses include feeding, roosting and nesting by some avian species and foraging and habitation by several mammalian species. The riparian zone along the Green River forms the most valuable habitat on site, however, in its current condition, it is compromised in value by its limited size and predominantly poor structural quality. The aquatic component along the rivers edge is a straight reach with a mostly sandy substrate for its entire length. The amount of woody vegetation extending from the shore into the water is very limited and leaves this stretch of river with little riffle effect, few cover areas and little ability to trap additional biotic material moving down stream. There are several locations within the buffer region of the river that have been spoilt with the presence of human refuse including oils and distillates. These areas compromise the quality of the buffer and in all probability act more as a detriment to the Riverine system than a benefit. A recommended 150 foot set back from the river would provide approximately 187,500 square feet of buffer of which a very low percentage provides adequate protection. The riparian zone stretching along the north end of the property constitutes the majority of functional buffer. Of its 25,000 sq. ft. total only 11,000 sq.ft. of moderate to good quality habitat remains. The majority, (16,000 sq.ft.) is overgrown by Himalayan blackberry and of very poor structure and diversity. MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Environmental Goals The goal of the mitigation plan is to: one; restore the degraded riparian vegetation (16,000 sq.ft.) back to a high quality vegetative structure, two; create approximately 58,600 sq.ft. of like habitat where none currently exists. Additionally, the plan calls for the restoration and enhancement of in - stream habitat in the form of a riverbank shelf slightly above OHWM (elevation 9.0), and the creation of an off -channel pond with an open connection to the Green River. The stream restoration area, off channel pond and the associated buffers will be planted with native trees, shrubs and grasses. The mitigation will provide a well structured and functionally valuable habitat for terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. 5 Environmental Objectives Water Regime River System: A reach of river approximately 500 feet in length will be enhanced with the construction of a high water shelf at elevation 9.0'. Five large log structures will be placed on this shelf extending into the river channel below the OHWM (See Log Structure Detail, Figures 1-4) These structures will be designed and anchored so as to remain stable as constructed and provide viable fisheries habitat for the long term. Off -Channel Pond: An area of approximately 23,000 sq.ft. of upland will be converted into an off -channel pond with bottom elevations of 6.0 and shelves at 8.0 and 10.0 (OHWM established at 8.4). Half log structures will be constructed within the pond to provide additional salmonid habitat (See Log Structure Detail, Figures 7). These structures will be designed and anchored so as to remain stable as constructed and provide viable fisheries habitat for the long term. Vegetative Structure River System: An area of approximately 51,600 sq. ft. will be planted with native tree and shrub vegetation. Species will generally conform to those shown on the Weisman Design Landscape Plan for Riverbank and Off Channel Pond. Not more than 20% of the site will be dominated by non-native vegetation. Success will be determined by survival of 80% of the planted species with 80% aerial coverage of the planting area at the end of the designated monitoring period. Temporary irrigation will be provided for the first two growing seasons for upland planting areas. Off -Channel Pond: The entrance channel, the pond and the side slopes above the pond (a total area of 23,000 sq.ft.) will be planted with riparian, shrub and tree species which will generally conform to those shown on the Weisman Design Landscape Plan for Riverbank and Off Channel Pond. Not more than 20% of the site will be dominate by non native vegetation. Success will be determined by survival of 80% of the planted species with 80% aerial coverage of the planting area at the end of the designated monitoring period. Temporary irrigation will be provided for the first two growing seasons for upland planting areas. Habitat Attributes Log Structures will provide evening and winter habitat for salmonids. Deep water pools and riffles formed by log structures will create shear zones for feeding and contribute to upstream movement. The riverband shelf and off channel pond with habitat structure will reduced water velocity and will lower the amount of downstream displacement of salmon and allow greater ease of movement up stream. Improved riparian vegetation will create in -channel vegetation providing cover and trapping more biotic material. Improved riparian vegetation will increase invertebrate food and biotic material contributions to river system. 6 Off -Channel Pond will provide additional evening cover and winter rearing habitat. Restored stretch of riparian habitat will increase connectivity Riverine environment by linking with adjacent Wildlife and Fisheries complex. Improved terrestrial upland buffer plantings will provide food and cover for a diverse mix of wildlife species. MITIGATION CONDITION AND FUNCTION Post -Development Functional quality and value will certainly increase with the enhancement of the riparian zone and associated river habitat. The area of the riparian zone will increase to approximately 85,600 sq. ft. of high quality habitat. Total buffer width will be on average 65 ft. with high vegetative structure and diversity throughout. The habitat restoration is specifically designed to enhance for the presence of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. In object of terrestrial needs the vegetative component designed will create a multiple canopy structure with greater patchiness and edge increasing wildlife presence. Diversity of wildlife species is believed to be closely related to edge area, both rising and declining in unison. The ability of the on-site band of riparian habitat to function as part of the greater movement corridor should also be significantly increased. Aquatically, the improved riparian habitat will now extend the length of this reach of river. This added vegetation will increase the areas invertebrate food contribution and available cover. Creation of a river bank shelf with vegetation and enhancement structures will reduce water velocity during periods of high flow over the Ordinary High Water Mark. Reduced water velocity will lower the amount of downstream displacement of salmon and allow greater ease of movement up stream. Special habitat features have been included to provide for the needs of salmonid species along the stretch of Green River associated with the site. Large log structures will be put in place on the shelf with root wads extending several feet into the river channel below the Ordinary High Water Mark. These log structures will provide a number of habitat features currently lacking. Log structure presence will create deep water pools, backwaters, eddies and shear zones. These valuable off -channel features allow salmon to remain close to food carrying currents without constantly subjecting them to energy draining currents. Equally as valuable will be the increase in evening cover, territorial stations and the formation of a movement ladder through the area. A high water pond being created in the northeastern corner of the site will supply a substantial off -channel area. This additional area will add greatly to the amount of available winter rearing habitat, evening and territorial stations. The enhanced quality of the buffer region will afford a greater level of protection for the Riverine system than currently exists. The total area of the new buffer will be approximately 85,600 sq.ft. with the entirety being of high functional quality. This will be an increase of approximately 74,600 sq. ft. of functional riparian habitat. The increased vegetation will stabilize the bank and decrease the amount of run-off and siltation from the site, lending to the long term restoration of the aquatic habitat. Additionally, physical a barrier will be formed limiting intrusion into the immediate river area. This isolation will make the area more attractive to use by terrestrial species. 7 MITIGATION STANDARDS Performance Standards Water Regime River System: A reach of the Green River approximately 500 feet long will have increased usable aquatic habitat with riffle effects and shear zones creating additional flood storage capacity and fish and wildlife habitat. Off -Channel Pond: An area of approximately 23,000 sq.ft. will be delivering functional aquatic habitat and over -flow for high water periods. Vegetative Structure River System: The areas along the river will have approximately 62,600 sq.ft. of riparian and shrub and tree habitat with no less than 80% survival and 80% aerial coverage at the end of the designated monitoring period. Off -Channel Pond: The pond and its surrounding banks will have approximately 23,000 sq.ft. of riparian, shrub and tree vegetation with no less than 80% survival and 80% aerial coverage at the end of the designated monitoring period. Detailed Construction Plan Description ( also See Barghausen Engineering. Civil Eng. Section) Log Structure: Constructed using logs with rootwads attached. Large logs will be placed in a mass on the riverbank shelf (elevation 9.0). Logs are to be placed with rootwads facing downstream. A habitat biologist shall supervise construction of habitat features to insure proper placement. Natural habitat features are difficult to describe in text and drawings and need to be installed with supervision from an experienced habitat biologist. Bottom Log Securing- Each bottom log shall be secured using 15" diameter, 6' long posts augured into the stream bed a minimum of 4'. Logs will be attached to augured posts with 1/2" cable. Additionally, logs will be anchored to large rocks (3 to 5 foot diameter and angular in shape) placed adjacent to the logs and attached with 1/2" cable. Bolts to secure cable will be drilled in the rock and attached with epoxy. Top Log Securing- Top logs shall be positioned after bottom logs are secured. Each log will be anchored to 1" diameter, 10' long rebar driven into the stream bed a minimum of 9'. Each log will also be anchored to bottom logs using five foot length of 3/4 " rebar and to large rocks (3 to 5 foot diameter and angular in shape) placed adjacent to the logs and attached with 1/2" cable. Bolts to secure cable will be drilled in the rock and attached with epoxy. Rocks and Sandbags - Shall be placed adjacent logs to provide additional anchoring, prevent undercutting and provide planting medium. Rocks will be 3 to 5 foot diameter and angular in shape) placed adjacent to the logs and attached with 1/2" cable. Bolts to secure cable will be drilled in the rock and attached with epoxy. Sandbags will be several cubic feet in size aligned and stacked behind individual logs. Willow and dogwood will be densly planted on the downstream side of each structure. 8 Definition of Success This project shall be deemed successful at the end of a three year bonding and monitoring period if no more than 20% of the mitigation site has dominance by non-native species, 80% of the planted vegetation in the mitigation site has survived and is vigorously growing and 80% aerial coverage of the mitigation site has been achieved. The log structures shall continue to provide fisheries habitat as designed and shall not create erosion and bank instability. Erosion Control The Riverbank Restoration and Habitat Creation Project shall be constructed during the low flow period, generally July through October. A pre construction meeting shall be held on site between the consulting habitat biologist, City of Tukwila, the earth moving contractor and WDFW prior to beginning this mitigation project. The purpose of this meeting shall be to approve final sequencing and erosion control measures. A low earth berm with erosion control fencing shall be constructed between the river and the elevation 9 shelf as the shelf is being excavated to insure that runoff from storm events shall not enter the river system. All habitat structures shall be placed at this time. The berm shall be removed as the last element of earth construction. The site shall be hydra seeded and hydra mulched immediately upon completion of the earth moving project. Temporary irrigation shall be placed and the site planted as specified. Erosion control fencing shall be left in place until grass has established. The erosion control fencing shall be removed before fall water elevations exceed the OHWM. In construction of the off channel pond, the River connection shall be the final portion of excavation. This pond shall be excavated during the low flow period of the River, generally July through October. Monitoring and Evaluation The Riverbank Restoration and Habitat Creation Project shall be monitored for a period of three years from the completion of the mitigation project. Upon completion of the mitigation project, the consulting habitat biologist shall prepare a completion document showing the project has been constructed and planted as designed, and shall include any approved changes to the design. Following completion, monitoring shall occur two times during the first winter after construction to assure stability of the habitat structures and to allow for immediate action if any problems are evident. Following the first winter monitoring sequence, the site shall be monitored twice yearly, in the spring and fall. A condition report shall be prepared and presented to the City of Tukwila by October 31 of each year of the monitoring period. At the end of the monitoring period, following a determination of successful and agreement from the City of Tukwila, the assurance device provided by the developer shall be released. Monitoring shall include transact vegetation evaluation for mortality and vigor of the planted species, evaluation of non-native plant invasion, stability condition of the habitat structures and a visual evaluation of wildlife species observed during the monitoring. Immediate action to correct deficiencies or control invasive species may be recommended depending on the water elevations and weather conditions. 9 Contingency Plan If during any period of the monitoring the Riverbank Restoration and Habitat Creation Project is determined to have less than 80% survival of the planted species, the City of Tukwila shall be notified in writing and action to correct the deficiency shall be taken depending on river elevations and the season of the year. Action may include but not be limited to planting of similar species, changing species, increasing planting size, soil amendments and continuation of use of the irrigation system. Aerial coverage of the mitigation site for the Riverbank Restoration and Habitat Creation Project shall be evaluated at the end of the three year monitoring period. At the end of two years 60% aerial coverage of the planted areas shall be a specific goal. If at the end of two years, 60% aerial coverage during the fall inspection (while the plants are still in leaf) has not been achieved, the City of Tukwila shall be notified in writing and action to correct the deficiency shall be taken depending on river elevations and the season of the year. Action may include but not be limited to additional planting of similar species or new species, soil amendments and continuation of use of the irrigation system. If during any period more than 20% non native invasive species are established on the mitigation site, the City of Tukwila shall be notified writing and action shall be taken to remove and or eliminate these invasive species depending on specific recommendations related to weed control. Action may include by not limited to removal by hand or hand machines or herbicide licensed for use in the River environment. Any application of herbicide shall be performed by a licensed applicator. If during any period the habitat structures become unstable or appear to not function to provide habitat as designed, the City of Tukwila shall be notified in writing and a meeting between the City, the private habitat biologist designated by the project owner, and the WDFW shall be organized and remedial action shall be determined. Action shall include but not be limited to reconstruction of the habitat structures and redesign and construction of the habitat structures. Performance Security An assurance device determined by the Director for the City of Tukwila and in a form approved by the City Attorney, shall be required to guarantee the success of this Riverbank Restoration and Habitat Creation Project. Assurance is typically required to cover monitoring and correction of possible deficiencies. Mitigation Timing A pre construction meeting shall be held on site between the approved consulting habitat biologist, City of Tukwila, the earth moving contractor and WDFW prior to beginning this mitigation project. The purpose of this meeting shall be to approve final sequencing and erosion control measures. A private habitat biologist familiar with installation of fisheries habitat structures shall be present during construction of all habitat features. A habitat biologist shall meet on site with the landscape architect and plant material contractor prior to planting to assist in approval of plant material and final placement of plant material. The Riverbank Restoration and Habitat Creation Project shall be constructed during the low flow period of the River, generally July through October. A earth berm with erosion control fencing shall be constructed between the river and the elevation 9 shelf as the shelf is being excavated to insure that runoff from storm events shall not enter the river system. All habitat structures shall be placed at this time. The berm shall be removed as the last element of earth construction. The site shall be hydra seeded and hydra mulched immediately upon completion of the earth moving project. 10 Temporary irrigation shall be placed on the upland site as specified. Erosion control fencing shall be left in place until grass has established. The erosion control fencing shall be removed before fall water elevations exceed the OHWM. Determination Of Ordinary High Water Mark On March 3, 1998 William Railton, Certified Professional Wetlands Scientist (#245 SWS) met with Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist with the City of Tukwila on the proposed Family Fun Center site in Tukwila, WA. to determine the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of the Green River adjacent to the development site. The south bank of the river immediately adjacent to the proposed development site was observed from the north bank trail and parking lot. The River elevation on the day of investigation was approximately two feet below an obvious natural line impression in the shoreline which separated the terrestrial vegetation from the relatively non -vegetated and slumping shoreline. From this vantage point both Mr. Railton and Mr. Schulz agreed the OHWM was this obvious break in vegetation. There were a few small areas of deposition slightly above this agreed to line and slumping patches of Reed canarygrass below this agreed to line. The line could be clearly seen for several hundred feet up and down stream. Mr. Railton and Mr. Schulz then went to the south side of the Green River and descended to the agreed to point above the water line. Further investigation showed that the natural line impression seen from the other side of the River extended under some overhanging blackberry vine and was visually obvious from the new vantage point. A wire pin flag was placed at the agreed to OHWM and designated as such. Barghausen Engineering was contacted and they surveyed the designated point on the same afternoon. Their survey has placed the pin flag and OHWM at elevation 8.41. This elevation appears correct in relation to what was observed in the field on March 3, 1998. USE OF THIS REPORT This Riverbank Restoration and Habitat Enhancement Analysis and Mitigation Description is supplied to The Family Fun Centers as a means of evaluating and mitigating for sensitive area impacts as required by the City of Tukwila, WA. during the permitting process. This report is based largely on readily observable conditions and to a lesser extent, on readily ascertainable conditions. No attempt has been made to determine hidden or concealed conditions. Reports may be adversely affected due to the physical condition of the site and the difficulty of access which may lead to observation or probing difficulties. Construction of biological habitat and installation of natural landscaping requires experienced supervision during construction with experienced landscape and equipment operation professionals. The laws applicable to sensitive areas are subject to varying interpretations and may be changed at any time by the courts or legislative bodies. This report is intended to provide information deemed relevant in the applicant's attempt to comply with the laws now in effect. The work for this report has conformed to the standard of care employed by wetland ecologists. No other representation or warranty is made concerning the work or this report and any implied representation or warranty is disclaimed. Wetland Resources, Inc. William Railton Clifford Palmer Certified Professional Wetland Scientist 11 Habitat Biologist Sandbags STRUCTURE T'Op View Trees with Root Wads Rebar '�----- ORDINARY HIGH WATER SHELF t- ARK EDGE Figure 1. Anchoring Posts 15 Diameter 18' long Sunk to 15' Trees with Root Wads 25' to 35+ Diameter 30' long Placed at varying angles Sandbags Size adjustable Prevent undercutting Provide Planting Platform Rocks Variable Sizes Provide structure and Anchoring Points Gable-Tles Large Guage Gable Spiked and Wrapped for Anchoring Sandbags LOG STRUCTURE Side View Trees with Root Wads Anchoring Posts 15" Diameter 18' long Sunk to 15 Trees with Root Wads 25" to 354 Diameter 30 long Placed at varying angles Sandbags Size adjustable Prevent undercutting Provide Planting Platform Rocks Variable Sizes Provide structure and Anchoring Points Gable-Tles Large Guoge Gable Spiked and Wrapped for Anchoring Figure 2. Anchoring Posts Ordinary High Water Mark EAST END OF POND ENTRANCE Log Structure and Orientation ,Anchoring Posts Figure 3. Gable -ties Trees with Root Wads Trees with Root Wads 25" to 35"+ Diameter 30' long Placed at varying angles Sandbags Sandbags Size adjustable Prevent undercutting Provide Planting Platform Upper Rocks Variable Sizes Provide structure and Anchoring Points Gable-Tles Large Guage Gable Spiked and Wrapped for Anchoring Shelf Edge Ordinary High Water Mork WEST END f,,POND ENTRAN E Figure 4. Log Structur- Glnd Bank Orientation Anchoring Posts \ Gable -ties Trees with Root Wads Anchoring Posts 15" Diameter 18' long Sunk to 15' Trees with Root Wads 25" to 35"+ Diameter 30 long Placed at varying angles Sandbags Sandbags Size adjustable Prevent undercutting Provide Planting Platform Rocks Variable Sizes Provide structure and Anchoring Points Gable -Ties Large Guage Cable Spiked and Wrapped for Anchoring Shelf Edge Ordinary High Water Mark Fig. 5 Hal? L.LI ±itrut-+QVe.. 2-4 WettaffdRgsarces — — --- Fig. 6 Jet. 1"=51 20 15 10 8 6 4 z Gvwi.ly FrA C ev\-\'ev' ©W Chalone I Fancl X S ec%iov>` Z -Zi f lal F Loe) Si'wctuvp , 01-1‘018.4 1I 2 2 5' Rock vJall Shelf EIQv,10 Shelf Mev. B I oift, EIev .6 o+oo 04 -ZS o 4-5o O r-75 1}ovz 1'=20' 1 +-oo IrZS Wet/a`rdT 8attirs 03/19/199E: 13: 31 4253373045 Table 1. Buffer/Habitat Development WETL:;lID RESOURCES F'gGE u_ * High Quality Buffer/Habitat: For the purpose of this report is considered to be a vegetative component with a multiple canopy structure, high plant species diversity and density with features advantageous to wildlife. ** Low Quality Buffer/Habitat: For the purpose of this report is considered to be a vegetative component lacking any canopy structure and having poor plant species diversity and lacking any special features advantageous to wildlife. Total Buffer/ Habitat Area sq.ft High Quality Buffer/ Habitat Area sq.ft. Low Quality Buffer Area sq.ft. Wildlife Function and Value Existing 187,500 11,000 176,500 Poor Proposed 85,600 85,600 0 High * High Quality Buffer/Habitat: For the purpose of this report is considered to be a vegetative component with a multiple canopy structure, high plant species diversity and density with features advantageous to wildlife. ** Low Quality Buffer/Habitat: For the purpose of this report is considered to be a vegetative component lacking any canopy structure and having poor plant species diversity and lacking any special features advantageous to wildlife. REFERENCE LIST Crispin V., R. House, D. Roberts., 1993. Changes in downstream Habitat, Large Woody Debris, and Salmon Habitat after the Restructuring of a Coastal Oregon Stream. North American Journal of Fish Management. 13: 96-102. Government of Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 1990. Stream Enhancement Guide. British Columbia Ministry of Environment. House RA., 1996. An evaluation of Stream Restoration Structures in a Coastal Oregon Stream. 1981-1993. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 16: 272- 281 Hitchcock C.,Leo, Cronquist A.,1981. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. Hunt R.L., 1993. Trout Stream Therapy. University of Madison Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press. Hunter C.J., 1991. Better Trout Habitat: A Guide to Stream Restoration and Management. Montana Land Reliance. Island Press. Washington, DC. PROFESSIONAL BIOGRAPHIES Wetland Resources, Inc. WILLIAM RAILTON Corporate President Certified Professional Wetland Scientist #000245 William Railton is a certified Professional Wetland Scientist (Society of Wetland Scientists, Certification #245). He has a Bachelors degree in Local Government Administration and Biology from Colorado State University. He also have a Natural Resource Scientist rating with the federal government with specialized training in wetland and stream ecosystem conservation from the U.S. Natural Resource & Conservation Service (NRCS). He was employed by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources for three years and for ten years by the NRCS (formerly Soil Conservation Service) as a resource planner and engineering technician in Pend Oreille, Spokane and Snohomish Counties in Washington State. During this time his project responsibilities included planning, designing and constructing ponds, shallow water wetlands, streams, animal waste control systems and site drainage systems. In addition, he operated as a senior planner in forestry management, wildlife enhancement, and critical site stabilization. Mr. Railton also was responsible for wetland determination and delineation on over 100 farms.in Snohomish County prior to 1989, related to the 1885 Farm Bill. In 1989, Mr. Railton created Wetland Resources, Inc. to focus on the private sector's need for a full-service natural resource counsel as a result of the government's protection of ecologically sensitive areas. His 21 years experience in both the private and public sector with wetland delineation, mitigation, restoration and creation has enabled him to operate effectively with all members of the development and management community. As a private wetland scientist he has delineated wetlands and developed sensitive area mitigation and restoration plans throughout the United States including Connecticut, New Jersey, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Washington and Oregon. He directly oversees more than 200 projects per year with the assistance of five full time professional wetland biologists. CLIFFORD PALMER Associate Wetland Ecologist / Wildlife Biologist Cliff holds a bachelors of science degree in Environmental and Systematic Biology from California Polytechnic State University and is currently working towards a masters degree in Wildlife Sciences at the University of Washington. For the past ten years he has worked as a wildlife biologist and research scientist for both federal and state agencies and with several private institutions. Projects have included the development of forest and park management plans, design of monitoring protocols, wildlife inventories, and specialized endangered species studies. Cliff's primary responsibilities involve ensuring compliance with wildlife regulations, conducting wildlife studies, assisting in wetland delineation, report writing, mitigation planning, monitoring, site analysis, and computer aided mapping. No Canopy Structure Photo 1. Exiting Riparian Habitat East End. Vegetation composition is poor with little or no canopy structure. Barren Bank, No Woody Vegetation Present in Channel Photo 2. Existing Riparian Habitat West End. Vegetation structure is poor with little or no woody vegetation in river. Poor Vegetative Structure Multi -Layer Canopy Structure Woody Vegetation In River and Off -Channel Pool Photo 3. Existing Riparian Habitat North of Site. Desired product of restored vegetion with additional structural diversity and height. Photo 4. Existing Riparian Habitat North of Site. Desired product for river bank restoration Vegetative Moterlal In River Provides Cover • • • • • NORTHWEST BUILDING SURVEY PROJECT [NWBS NO. WA- 001] FRED NELSON BARN / OLD RIVERVIEW FARMS DAIRY BARD Grady Way SW & Interurban Ave., Tukwila, (King County), Washington Report prepared for: Family Fun Centers Mulvanny Partnership Architects 29111 SW Town Center Loop W. 11820 Northup Way, #E300 • Willsonville, Oregon 97070 Bellevue, Washington 98005 • • • • For submission to: The City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation State of Washington Olympia, Washington Report Text prepared by: Katheryn H. Krafft Historic Resource Specialist Krafft & Krafft CRM Seattle, Washington Photography prepared by: John Stamets Architectural Photographer Seattle, Washington September 30, 1997 1 RECEIVED OCT 08 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • E. PROJECT BACKGROUND The Family Fun Centers is considering developing the site of the old Fred Nelson Farm as a family amusement center. The proposed project anticipated the demolition of the Fred Nelson Barn. As • part of the environmental Review process, it was determined by the City of Tukwila that the demolition, if or when undertaken, would adversely impact the barn, an historic resource identified as potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Based on consultation with the Washington State Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation (OAHP), the City • required the project proponents to submit a written and photographic report of the Fred Nelson Barn in order to mitigate the lose of the historic resource. In late July 1997, Katheryn H. Krafft (Historic Resource Specialist) and John Stamets (Architectural Photographer) were hired by the project proponents to prepare a report based on (but not strictly following) the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) recordation guidelines and format. Ms. Krafft and Mr. Stamets completed the necessary field examination and photographic records by mid-August 1997. Prior to the completion of the report, the entire barn was destroyed by an arson fire in the • early hours of August 31, 1997. Due to the lose of the historic resource, the Recommendations section intended to guide selective removal (of portable architectural features and historic building fabric) has been deleted from the report format. This report was prepared and submitted in order to meet the • initial stipulations of the City of Tukwila and OAHP. It is anticipated that copies of this report shall be made available to the public through the City of Tukwila and the University of Washington Libraries. • II. HISTORICAL INFORMATION A. Physical History 1. Date of Erection: c.1902 • 2. Architect/builder: Fred Nelson • • • 3. Original & subsequent owners: Fred Nelson (1898-c.1954) Jacob Nielsen (c.1954-n.d) Ray Nielsen (n.d.- present) 4. Alterations & additions: Cow Barn [Flatbarn] (c.1925) Equipment Shed (c.1960) Loafing Shed (c. 1962) B. Historic Context Fred Nelson Farm - Fred Nelson was one of three Nelson brothers - James, Herman and Fred - who all emigrated from Denmark in the 1880s and settled in the White -Green River Valley vicinity. He 2 • was born in Denmark in 1871 and was raised in a region where dairy farming was dominant and as a child he worked as a hired hand on dairy farms. After coming to the United States in 1889, he traveled directly to the home of his brother James, who had previously settled in the White -Green River Valley and acquired • extensive acreage for farming. He worked for local farmers over the next several years. In 1898 he married Dora Jorgensen, the daughter of Chris Jorgensen, one of the local farmers who he had worked for. The Fred Nelsons acquired 100 acres of land adjacent to the Green River from James Nelson and like James, established a dairy farm. The Nelsons first built a large Victorian farmhouse (c.1901) with the help of a carpenter, Mr. Olsen and the following year constructed a large hay barn (c.1902) that included 20 wooden stanchions. The design and construction of the Fred Nelson Barn is similar to the earliest dairy barns found in the Puget Sound region. These • are typically multi-purpose barns, that are simple gable -roofed structures constructed with peeled cedar logs set into the ground. This barn type is further defined by the orientation of an interior wagon alley and large open areas for the storage of loose hay from floor to ceiling. Partial lofts are limited to areas above livestock stalls (for horses or oxen), feed storage areas • and enclosed milking alleys/stanchion lines. The pole barn was identified as early as 1863 in the American Agriculturist as a "cheap and convenient" method of construction for barns in the Pacific Northwest. The Nelson Barn clearly follows this typology, however with 20 stanchions was relatively large and finished with more sophisticated cladding [milled board & (routed) batten] • rather than the typical wide vertical board found in the earliest barns. The Nelsons, with the help of their children, proceeded to develop a large prosperous dairy farm on this site. An undated historic photograph included in Tukwila - Community at the Crossroads • (p.74) shows the farmhouse and hay barn c.1912. Within close proximity to the barn were two small wooden buildings each with a gable roof form. Due to their sizes and physical relationships to the barn, the house and the river, they appear to possibly be the original and second (c.1912) milk houses. In about 1925, a modern cow barn (also known as a "flatbarn") was added to the west end of • the original multi-purpose hay barn. The cow barn included 40 metal stanchions, concrete floors with gutters, electricity, easily whitewashed interior finishes and improved ventilation. The design and construction of the Nelson cow barn followed a widely used plan and is indicative of early 20th C. advances in dairy technology, specialization, modern sanitation methods and • the increasing size of the typical dairy herd. [See Historic Photo A & B] By 1937, while the acreage of the Nelson Farm had been reduced to approximately sixteen acres the farm included two residences and at least eight farm buildings in addition to the hay and cow barn. • Historic tax record photographs (1938) of the barns clearly show a wood stave silo adjacent to the north side of the cow barn and other (possibly early loafing) sheds situated to the northeast of the hay barn. These records also indicate that a "lean-to" 3 • • equipment shed had been added to the east end of the hay barn by 1938. Archival Assessor's Record Cards with historic photographs (1938 and 1949) show the evolution of the second milk house constructed • c.1912. The milk house is a critical component of any dairy farmstead and often includes design alterations necessary to accommodate changing health regulations, the evolving technology of milk storage, and new modes of transportation from farm to market. A 1961 aerial photograph shows the complex as it had evolved to that date and appears to show the evolving milk house • in place where an abandoned feed shed is currently situated. The dates of the demolition of the milk house and silo have not been confirmed, however the modern loafing shed, feed shed and equipment shed are all similar in construction and were probably constructed in the early 1960s and the earlier farm buildings were removed. • It is unclear as to when Fred Nelson ceased operating the farm and dairy. The Bergsma family began milking for Fred Nelson in 1934 and tax records indicate that the farmhouse and barns were in use in 1938 and remained in his ownership until 1954 when they were acquired by Jacob Nielsen, a dairyman operating the adjacent Riverview Farm. Dora and Fred Nelson raised a family of six daughters (who ran the hay fork and processed the milk) and one son (who for a period drove the milk route). Both Fred and Dora were heavily involved in community and civic affairs. They each served at local, state and regional levels in the Grange, served on the Renton School Board and were active in Danish fraternal and • religious organizations. Fred Nelson was also the District Representative to the Washington State Legislature from 1917 until 1919 and later helped to found Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound. Dora Nelson died in 1938 and Fred lived to the age of 92, dying in 1963. The Fred Nelson Junior High School (constructed 1963) was dedicated in appreciation of his community service. Renton Junction - The Interurban railway, an electric commuter rail line began operating on September 25, 1902. It provided fast, frequent and economical commuter service between Seattle and Tacoma via Kent and Auburn. One of the busiest stops along the route was Renton Junction where the Renton branch joined the • north -south rail line. The station and tracks, along with a telegraph office, were elevated on a trestle and situated in relative close proximity to the Fred Nelson Barn. Historic photographs show that the southern side of the barn roof was painted to include advertising that could be easily seen along the railway route. The area around the station became a social and • commercial hub. By 1907, the acreage associated with the Fred Nelson Farm was crossed or bordered by a macadam paved county road, and three rail lines including the Northern Pacific (completed in 1887), the Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Paul (built shortly thereafter) and the Interurban railway, • Maple Grove Park - In 1908 Fred Nelson developed an attractive portion of his pasture land on the bank of the Green River (and south of the Interurban trestle) into a public picnic grounds. Known as Maple Grove Park, it included picnic facilities and 4 • • shelters. Due to its close proximity to Renton Junction, the park became a popular gathering place for community, political and social events. Soon after establishing the park, Fred Nelson added a bowling alley and dance pavilion. After the Interurban railway stopped service in 1928, the activity at Renton Junction decreased and then the Depression brought about the closure of Maple Grove Park. Fred Nelson sold the park, however it continued - to operate through the 1930s. For a brief period it included a roller skating rink until it was finally closed with the advent of W.W.II. • Riverview Farm - Jacob Nielsen began to operate Riverview Farm in 1928. The farm was initially established on an eastern portion of Fred Nelson's original acreage and appears to have included farm structures originally built (c.1910) as part of the Nelson Farm. Beginning with 20 cows, the Nielsens built up the herd until they had 600 cows and seven milk delivery routes. Jacob Nielsen did • not acquire the portion of the property that included the original hay barn, cow barn, milk house and old farmhouse until- 1954, however he most likely leased the property for a period of time prior to purchasing it. The original hay and cow barns were clearly used by Jacob Nielsen who painted the west end of the cow barn with a "Riverview Farm" sign. Nielsen also made the loafing • shed and equipment shed additions (c.1960) to the barn(s) in order to modernize his sizable dairy operation. At its peak, Riverview Farm had 17 employees who worked in the various barns and a large bottling plant. The dairy farm operated until 1975 and Riverview Farm continued three wholesale routes until 1990. [See Historic Photo C] III. ARCRITECTORAL INFORMATION INote:Text describes physical condition prior to fire destruction] A. General Statement 1. Architectural Character: The layout and plan, materials of construction and roof form of the main hay barn are all indicative of the earliest multi-purpose dairy barns typically built in the Puget Sound during the late nineteen and first decade of the 20th C. The architectural character of the main hay barn is defined by its simple construction, prominent broken gable roof form and peeled log structural system, all essential characteristics of the earliest Puget Sound barns. This barn type is further defined by the orientation of the interior wagon alley and large open areas for the storage of loose hay from floor to ceiling. The Cow Barn ("flatbarn") addition is conventional wood frame construction and is indicative of early 20th C. advances in dairy technology and specialization, modern sanitation methods and the increases in the typical dairy herd size. • • 2. Condition of building fabric: A significant portion of the building is seriously deteriorated and inaccessible. The entire south wall of the main hay barn is collapsed and is overgrown with shrubs on the exterior and has debris piled up on the interior side, such that it was too dangerous for close examination. The 5 • roofs of both the Equipment Shed and the Loafing Shed are partially collapsed. Ceiling finish materials within the cow barn have also collapsed. Original cladding, doors, window sash and roofing materials are also highly damaged and/or deteriorated. B. Description of Exterior • 1. Overall dimensions: Main Hay Barn (64'x 72') Cow Barn [Flatbarn] (32'x 64') Equipment Shed (27'x 58') Loafing Shed (50'x 64') 2. Foundations: Concrete flooring materials were observed in portions of the hay barn, however no concrete appeared to be used for structural support. The cow barn (f latbarn) , equipment shed and loafing shed utilize concrete foundations. • 3. Walls: Hay Barn (board & batten cladding) Cow Barn (rustic siding) Equipment Shed (corrugated metal) Loafing Shed (corrugated metal) 4. Structural System: Main Hay Barn- Cedar pole construction • (typ. 10"-13" round) with milled cross members & angle braces. Loft girder sizes typ. 8" x 16", milled post members typ. 11"x 11", angle braces approx. 6" x 6", cross beams approx. 4" x 10", loft rafters approx. 3" x 10" 'V 2'o.c., roof rafters 2x8 2'o.c.(with ridge cross ties). No ridge beam w/ all roof loads carried by rafters to pole & cross beam system [See Sketch Plan • and WA -001-1 to 8] Cow Barn- Conventional wood frame construction 2x6 @ 2'o.c. with 2x roof/ceiling gable truss system @ 2'o.c. 5. Exterior features: Building form- Hay barn is a prominent side gable/English barn form with central wagon alley perpendicular to ridge line. Low plate height/eave line.[WA-001-1] Cow barn is a low gable form with a prominent window pattern.[WA- 001-8] Cladding- 1x12 cedar with millwork routed batten 3/4"x 2.5" at original hay barn. Cladding at cow barn is typical rustic (T&G) type.[WA-001-9] Paint color- Barn Red with white trim (original cladding/paint is visible at connection between hay barn & cow barn) Signage- Carved into gable end window head trim OR east elevation)is the date of construction "1902". Sign at Cow Barn west elevation wall "Riverview Farms" [WA -001-9] 6. Openings: Wagon doors- Constructed w/ typ. board & batten cladding material, approx. 12' high x 6' wide w/ gable cut angle & Z -brace support. Set located ID north & south elevations (not visible from exterior). North elevation- Segmental arched opening at concrete bin & X -brace sliding doors (appear to be modern construction). East elevation- One small square opening at gable peak. South elevation- Original milking alley windows (small square w/multi-pane wooden sash). Cow barn- Eight double sash (hopper type upper member) at North & South elevation, typical 6/6 • multiple panes. [WA -001-12] 7. Roof: Typical asphalt roofing o/ cedar shingles o/strip sheathing. Side gable/English barn form with central through 6 • • wagon alley that runs perpendicular to ridge line. Low plate height/eave line at North & South elevations with low gabled roofs over wagon alley entry openings at North & South elevations. Soffit at rake and eave lines (approx. 1'0" overhang).[WA-001-1] Prominent roof ventilator (gable form with arched louvered • openings at ea. elevation - accentuated by white trim).[WA-001-10] The original "prancing horse weather vane" has been removed from the top of the ventilator. Two original roof ventilators (very similar in design) have also been removed from cow barn. Kneebraces (west elevation) and exposed rafter ends at cow barn. [WA -001-9] C. Description of Interior 1. Floor plan: [See Sketch Plan] Main hay barn is divided into five bays w/central through wagon alley, Large open floor to ceiling hay mow and partial lofted areas over original milking * alley at south side. Several operable wooden type stanchions remain in place.[WA-001-2 to 8] Cow barn plan configuration appears to have originally been w/side feed alleys and central cow and manure removal alley. All stanchions have been removed from cow barn. [WA -001-11] • 2. Flooring: Plank (3x10) flooring on mud sills visible in east end of hay barn. Concrete slab visible in original milking alley including manure trough. Concrete slab visible in portions of wagon alley and adjacent spaces. Cow barn has entirely concrete floor (manure & feed troughs no longer distinguishable). • 3. Wall & ceiling finishes: Extent of whitewashed area indicative of degree of milk handling and size of herd.: Whitewash areas located throughout all lower portions of perimeter of hay barn and throughout entire cow barn.[WA-001-8] Interior is dominated by cedar pole and heavy timber structural members. Beaded board (whitewashed) wall & ceiling finishes throughout cow barn. [WA -001-11] 4. Openings & Hardware: Some interior sliding doors are visible. Standard utilitarian commercial type latches/sliding mechanisms. D. Site 1 General siting and orientation: Historic dairy barns are typically situated at a high point in relation to a river valley with ample pasture land and a source of cool water originally needed for milk storage. The Fred Nelson Barn is sited in relationship to the meandering channel of the White -Green River and the alignments of historic roadways. The river channel and the old roadway routes have been altered by historic railroad alignments and modern freeway construction. An abandoned feed shed is situated adjacent to the barn and near the site of the old milk house which was carefully sited between the river bank and • the barn at a point easily accessible by wagon or truck. A wood stave silo once stood in the vicinity of where the collapsed loafing shed is currently situated. The old farmhouse, now heavily altered and vandalized, is situated directly to the east 7 • • of the barn. Miscellaneous other houses and farm or dairy buildings associated with the Riverview Farm are located to the east and south of the farmhouse. The site is traversed by Puget Sound Power & Light transmission lines supported on towers. Portions of the site include piles of gravel related to a former gravel pit that was operated on the site.[See Historic Photo 3] ;V. SOURCES OF INFORMATION A. Bibliography . Aerial Survey, War Department, Corps of Engineers, US Army, 1944. Courtois, Shirley. Regional Transit System South Corridor Commuter Rail Project Draft Technical Report - Environmental Assessment • Historic Resources, June 1994. Dole, Philip. "The Calef's Farm in Oregon", Images of an American Land(ed. Thomas Carter), University of New Mexico Press, 1997. • . King County Assessors Property Record Cards (1937-1972), Washington State Archives, Puget Sound Regional Depository. . King County Assessor's Property Ownership Maps (1905-1940), Washington State Archives, Puget Sound Regional Depository. • Multiple Property Documentation Form. January 1993. Lentz, Florence K. Dairy Farm Properties of the Snoqualmie Valley, • • • "Maplewood, a model dairy farm", Intelligencer, November 26, 1905 Sec.2, p.10. The Seattle Post Marsh, Dennis Wayne. Skagit Barns. University of Washington Master's Thesis. 1980. . Metsker's Atlas of King County, 1936. . Pacific Aerial Surveys, 8-7-61 {University of Washington Map Collection] Reinartz, Kay Frances. Tukwila Community at the Crossroads, Published by the City of Tukwila, 1991. . "Suspected arson destroys landmark", Highline News, September 3, 1997, p.1 Weiss, Glen. 1994 Historic Properties Survey. [Report prepared for Airport Communities Coalition], 1994-95. 8 • • • • • Historic Photo A - View of south side of Fred Nelson Barn c.1938. [King County Assessor's Property Record Cards, Washington State Archives, Puget Sound Regional Depository] 9 • • Historic Photo B -View of south side of Fred Nelson Cow Barn c.1938. [King County Assessor's Property Record Cards, Washington State Archives, Puget Sound Regional Depository] 10 • • Historic Photo C Enlarged view of aerial photograph of Sec.24/T.23/R.4E, showing the Fred Nelson Barn (center) and Riverview Farms 8-7-61, Pacific Aerial Surveys. [University of Washington Libraries, Map Collection] 11 100-dM-cvtdMN 1'1J ft�..1. � �� H i t%l o 51 1N It" IA ,r?149 l'7192/1 4-1 • • jJ,zJ�4� • MOS... . 1 141•V Vim: -x...1... •• w -r.- • ?•7J4LL4,^ aHS • • • • • • • ` • • • • • • • . • • • • • • NORTHWEST BUILDINGS SURVEY Index To Photographs Fred Nelsen Barn/Old Riverview Farm Dairy Barn Grady Way S.W. & Interurban Ave. Tukwila Ring County Washington John Stamets, Photographer 403 14th Ave. E. Seattle, WA 98112 Tel. 206-323-1155 NWBS No. Description WA -001- 1 • WA -001- 2 WA -001- 3 • WA -001- 4 WA -001- 5 WA -001- 6 WA -001- 7 WA -001- 8 WA -001- 9 WA -001-10 WA -001-11 WA -001-12 NWBS No. WA -001 August 1997 Oblique exterior view of original Hay Barn showing NE corner. Other exterior views are photos WA -001-9 and -10. Interior view of open hay mow and wagon alley, defined by the six poles and running north -south. Camera is pointed ENE. Interior view looking W at open hay mow and wagon alley, showing structural system of poles and timber cross beams. Roofline in silhouette in distance is that of Cow Barn, also seen in photos WA -001-9, -11 and -12. Wagon entrance on N side, as viewed in elevation from the center of the barn. View includes sloping roof and structure, cedar poles with timber cross members and angle braces. Milking alley (under loft) in SE corner of original Hay Barn. Interior oblique view showing enclosed milking alley in south section of Hay Barn. Camera is pointed SE. Interior elevation view of NW section of Hay Barn showing interior walls, cedar poles and cross members. Lower wall is seen from the opposite side in photo WA -001-8. This room is under the loft area immediately west of main entrance, or wagon alley. Note extent of whitewashed area, a requirement in dairy farms. Wall is seen from opposite side in photo WA -001-7. Exterior view of west sides of Loafing Shed (left), Hay Barn center background) and Cow Barn (right). Note faint signage (RIVERVIEW) still visible on Cow Barn. Detail of roof of Hay Barn shows ventilator, shingles, and wooden slats for climbing to rooftop. Interior view looking W in Cow Barn shows interior space and white-whashed beaded board finish. Interior view of SE corner of Cow Barn shows typical window openings. Vertical boards are west side of original Hay Barn. NWBS No. WA -001— 1 Oblique exterior view of original Hay Barn showing NE corner. Other exterior views are photos WA -001-9 and —10. NWBS No. WA -001- 2 Interior view of open hay mow and wagon alley, defined by the six poles and running north -south. Camera is pointed ENE. NWBS No. WA -001- 3 Interior view looking W at open hay mow and wagon alley, showing structural system of poles and timber cross beams. Roofline in silhouette in distance is that of Cow Barn, also seen in photos WA -001-9, -11 and -12. NWBS No. WA -001— 4 Wagon entrance on N side, as viewed in elevation from the center of the barn. View includes sloping roof and structure, cedar poles with timber cross members and angle braces. NWBS No. WA -001— 6 Interior oblique view showing enclosed milking alley in south section of Hay Barn. Camera is pointed SE. NWBS No. WA -001- 7 Interior elevation view of NW section of Hay Barn showing interior walls, cedar poles and cross members. Lower wall is seen from the opposite side in photo WA -001-8. NWBS No. WA -001— 8 This room is under the loft area immediately west of main entrance, or wagon alley. Note extent of whitewashed area, a requirement in dairy farms. Wall is seen from opposite side in photo WA -001-7. NWBS No. WA -001- 9 Exterior view of west sides of Loafing Shed (left), Hay Barn (center background) and Cow Barn (right). Note faint signage RIVERVIEW) still visible on Cow Barn. NWBS No. WA -001-10 Detail of roof of Hay Barn shows ventilator, shingles, and wooden slats for climbing to rooftop. NWBS No. WA -001-11 Interior view looking W in Cow Barn shows interior space and white-whashed beaded board finish. NWBS No. WA -001-12 Interior view of SE corner of Cow Barn shows typical window openings. Vertical boards are west side of original Hay Barn. ': Jesse Tanner, Mayor CIT '100F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator February 16, 1998 Nora Gierloff City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188-2599 • SUBJECT: TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PROPOSED FAMILY FUN CENTER COMPLEX Dear Ms. Gierloff: rai 1 7 1999 1 r�.r ; r i LOPE , ;N T 0 Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing the Traffic Impact Study for the proposed Family Fun Center. Our review of the study has resulted in the following comments: • The vehicular trip generation assumptions and methodology are acceptable and our prior request for trip distribution estimates at three intersections in the City of Renton has been adequately addressed. • At the bottom of page 4 of the study, please revise "City of Renton Engineering Department" to "City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Department". • On Figure 3, the existing signal at S.W. Grady Way and Powell Avenue S.W., approximately 800 feet east of Oakesdale Avenue S.W., should be identified. Also, S.W. Grady Way between Lind Avenue S.W. and Oakesdale Avenue S.W. is a 5 -lane section, not a 6 -lane section as shown on Figure 3. Gregg Zimmerman, P.E. Administrator c: Joanna Spencer, Tukwila Department of Community Development Sandra Meyer Jana Huerter H:\TRANS\PLNG\RLM\REVIEWS\FUN CTR.doc 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 ® This paper contains 50% recycled material, 20% post consumer FEB -11—'98 WED 13:41 ID:WA DEPT OFFISHERIES TEL NO : 206-391-6583 • 11772 P02 State of Washington DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Mailing Address: 600 Capitol Way N • Olympia, WA 98501-1091 • (360) 902-2200, TDD (360) 902-2207 Main Office Location: Natural Resources Building • 1111 Washington Street SE • Olympia. WA February 9, 1998 Mr. Phil Fraser City of Tukwila Department of Public Works 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Ste. 100 . Tukwila, Washington 98188 Subject: Family Fun Center and Riverbank Stabilization Issues/ SEPA on the Duwamish River. Dear Mr. Fraser: Thank you for .sending the plans for this project for review. The following are my comments and concerns: 1. 'The addition log barbs/'root wads will provide good -cover and refuge area for fish. I would recommend that some of the logs be grouped together to makes a more complex structural habitat for fish . Ecology blocks should be used to anchor the logs in place. The revegetation plan is good and the addition of the side channels will provide some additional refuge habitat. 2. Portions of this project as it is proposed, is inconsistent with the direction and intent of the recently adapted WDFW Wild Salmonid.Policy. The policy recommends 100 to 150 foot buffer Water Types 1 - 3 measured horizontally from the .ordinary high water line or disturbance zone. The Duwamish River is a Type 1 + Shorelines of Statewide Significance. Trails or parking .lots should not be constructed in this buffer area. We have the opportunity.to prevent further intrusions into the Green River riparian areas by establishing functional riparian habitat that will be beneficial to both fish and wildlife. It is not too late to protect. and restore the some of the riparian habitat along. the Lower Green River. Stormwater discharge into. the Green River should meet the requirements of the Department of.Ecology's Stormwater Manual for the: Puget Sound Basin. A Hydraulic Project Approval will be required for the, outfall and the .installation of the habitat structures and stormvater outfall. . EB -11-'98 WED 13:41 ID`WA DEPT OF _FISHERIES TEL NO:206-39 6583 #772 P01 Mr. Phil Fraser Page 2 February 9, 1998 I would like to thank you for your cooperation in our efforts to protect and perpetuate our state's fish and wildlife resources. If you have any questions contact me at (425) 391-4365. Philip Schneider Area Habitat Biologist cc Ted Muller- Mill Creek, WDFW Martin Fox - Muckleshoot Tribe Chandler Stever Mulvanny Partnerships Reiker - Olympia, WDFW Nora Gierloff - City of Tukwila • • CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development Building Division -Permit Center 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 REVISION SUBMITTAL DATE: a -7/c7 PLAN CHECK/PERMIT NUMBER: 617- 00c PROJECT NAME: PROJECT ADDRESS: CONTACT PERSON: PHONE: REVISION SUMMARY: 4 _ c,, _ c'e-vv)�vr\ Ge -P/4- ; w,` SHEET NUMBER(S) "Cloud" or highlight all areas of revisions and date revisions. SUBMITTED TO: ki_io CITY USE ONLY Bldg:` Plan, Fire PAlblic Wo 3/19/96 MULVflflflY PFtFICSHIP A R C H I T E C T S P. S. I "1"-`f of 7-6 14.0 I LPA / Oe -Pr: TO: oF- Got-4MUIJ IT`( DE-VELcPMENTDATE: ATTENTION: svfZA Cc00 Sbo-rme ref Swr KW i.,Ac / WA g9,tg� RE: T7''SFp F0f. er_. MEMO For your: Action required: JAN 27 1998 COMMUNITY MEMO PROJECT NO: l7 PROJECT: C-AMILie FuN (iF_NT'eR rulcwu.a, f.vA Pl>- . ter BY: ❑ Fax # ❑ Information and use ❑ As indicated /# pages ❑ Review and comment ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ F.O.D. # ❑ As requested ❑ For signature and return REMARKS: itO i!QePotx 17) youp. A'L'T !' QAl_t 1 -15 - q% �Ela1�Rl�li 1'I EMS tRt o(FZ,Z Fop-. eThF_. 'A osfr 3_2M imT/oPJ / LOS I4AVP VI ■ —ANA Gra _01" i .-. E EE 4 rr - 1 , p.avis 1, cametec= [C� =,i NEW P.,t"HAVT A -r" — . • AI n. I.oPE- I Noc- = y. C.,opt _S -I- S%2 r' c ScMt= ij 12`( ofryo - F ICatNEF. S/ Witte -p/ l2F—L>=CT FEA.,1S tot'JE FI vtoo sI,Y 1.4e1.01:1 lam( (r -r' I- Z!a -q d (4 cop, AtrAckt 2 S -r urNr E Ncc, ca1NF rrs . (oA-rr:' I ' (4- coj ' j t&eo G3° /iezzoKnf luA 1 O Siztit4.1 sMt 1 TN G PRCnNidu f Tr) E< GJA'1'I=/& ,c Sr -w - - (SS U I WAVE- Ce -4-i4 4oLV it)(11-1 PLAT SizolOhLt. STo120-64 e- C-AL.GuLA-r i ot4S . BY (SIGNATURE): CvG� i> COPY TO: Privileged and Confidential Information: The information in this facsimile is intended only for use of the recipient above named. Any wrongful review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If errors occur in transmission, kindly notify us at once. 11820 Northup Way, #E300, Bellevue, WA 98005 • .42-s O6j 822-0444 ■ FAX L2O6'j 822-4129 MULVaThnY PaRTIERSHIP ARCHITECTS P. oP Tv1cwi1. ` p¢ TO: DP Ce,MMtJiJrry 1 EVELcPM.r..�NT ATTENTION: H e7� r e��rf S. RECBV JAN 2 7 '1998 DATE: MEMO PROJECT NO: CC 7 - �,� Z PROJECT: FA1�'LLY pu,14 TuKtA)11,A L4J RE: T-st-fs Fi EQO F02 SEpp. l 7P T: BY: C tAt 4PL.1z Z v MEMO For your: Action required: REMARKS: O Fax # ❑ Information and use ❑ As indicated /# pages ❑ Review and comment ❑ Returned for corrections Pte+- (2� a. • GP' - _. ❑ F.O.D. # ❑ As requested ❑ For signature and return Lis - 7751r> hi.1 So f'SM tit/62(4 � i cor )) O _ - D SEP- ' 1 _► -NL.A��t IVa#C 'PI.�f.1Tl1.�l� F'L41.1 WN fG1-1 Hpc:› & 1.40-1/4/E42- ru ►s.c) ()pp- t.)14ew Lo - - wS— L.I<PT olaP PRF.-t✓tcxsst)-( gs'z- X (1 —c -101.3 Q .I. ■ .d i g f Arr- 11tg TIME t— MF K1 J c) ) 41AI- 1111-.1.1 L g. IIx - BY (SIGNATURE): COPY TO: Privileged and Confidential Information: The information in this facsimile is intended only for use of the recipient above named. Any wrongful review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If errors occur in transmission, kindly notify us at once. 11820 Northup Way, #E300, Bellevue, WA 98005 • (206) 822-0444 ■ FAX (206) 822-4129 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Northwest Regional Office, 3190 - 160th Ave S.E. • Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 • (206) 649-7000 January 22, 1998 RECE VE JAN 2 3 1998 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ms. Nora Gierloff City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Ms. Gierloff: Re: Proposed Family Fun Center Development at the Former Renton Sand and Gravel/Riverview Farms Property at 15031 S. Grady Way, Tukwila, WA 98188 This is to inform you that the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) is aware that contamination exists at the above property, in the form of petroleum compounds, PAHs, metals, and pesticides, and that the site has been placed on Ecology's Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites List (CSCSL List). Ecology is the appropriate agency with the regulatory authority under the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA), RCW 70.105D, to deal with the contamination issues at this site. Family Fun Center; the present owner and proposed developer of the above property, approached Ecology in December of 1997 to discuss their development plans for the property, the further site assessment work that had been performed to delineate the contamination at the property, and their preliminary approach to cleanup issues at the site. On December 4, 1997, Ecology received a Request for Assistance form and application fee under the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP), from Family Fun Center, to enter into a technical assistance and review for fee program with Ecology. Family Fun Center will fund an Ecology staff person's time to provide them with technical assistance, prior to and during their cleanup, to assure that any cleanup that is done at the property is in compliance with MTCA and that the site is no longer a threat to human health and the environment at the completion of the cleanup. Ecology will review the final cleanup report to determine if a No Further Action status can be given to the site, at which time the site will be removed from the CSCSL List. Family Fun Center Page 2 January 22, 1998 I am the reviewer who has been assigned to this project. Please feel free to call me at any time, should you have any questions relating to this project. I can be contacted at (425) 649-7058. It is my understanding that you have requested this letter, in order to start the permitting process for the project. Ecology encourages the cleanup and beneficial reuse of contaminatedco�properties. 1 cerely, Gail C. Colburn Aquatic Unit Supervisor Toxics Cleanup Program GCC:gc:11 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development January 15, 1998 Chandler Stever Mulvanny Partnership 11808 Northup Way, Suite E300 Bellevue, WA 98005 John W. Rants, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director r--p,r , „--Y, ? t, LL:'u RE: Family Fun Center SEPA Dear Chandler: I had a meeting with Public Works and Gary Schulz on Monday to find out what items we still needed in order to make a SEPA determination. They are as follows: a-atz i4Avri4-1 1. The Monster Road/Grady Way intersection redesign needs to beapproved by the City Engineer, Brian Shelton. 2. The requested revisions to the Riverbank Stabilization report have not been received. 3. p4. 5. �1'�ARC�HAu The Traffic Impact Study errata sheets discussed by Entranco and PW have not been received. The water and sewer issues have not been resolved; please contact Pat Brodin in PW. The flood storage calculations need to be revised to match the current plan, please contact Phil Fraser. I would like to get your SEPA determination issued as soon as possible, so let me know when I can expect the information listed above. If you are interested in incorporating the City's proposed mitigation measures into your proposal we should meet about a week after you submit the information. Sincerely, Nora Gierloff Associate Planner cc Joanna Spencer, PW Gary Barnett, PW Gary Schulz, Environmentalist Dick Hendry, Family Fun Centers 6300 Southcenter Boulevar4, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 Date: 13 -Jan -98 15:14:56 From: GARY-SCHULZ (GARY•HULZ) To: NORA Copies -to: JACK Subject: FFC SEPA Message -id: F084BB3401000000 Application -name: MHS Nora, I suggested to Steve that he review the Muckleshoot Tribe letter sent to us. Based on our meeting, I guess I don't have any SEPA conditions. However, I'm not convinced that the bank work should not have conditions. Phil says he will not approve bank work unless stamped by GeoEngineers or their review approves plan. I will call the Corps to find out where the Tribe gets their authority outside the permit process. gary 111 ************************ ************************* ************************* * User name: SHARON (1 Queue: TD n2/COMPAQ_DCD_Q * * File name: Server: COMPAQ_DCD * * Directory: * * Description: AutoCAD Plot * * December 19, 97 2:29pm * ******************************************************************************** * * * L SSS TTTTT * * L S S T * * L S T * * L SSS T :: * * L S T * * L S S T :: * * LLLLL SSS T :: * * * ******************************************************************************** * * 1 66 888 .77777 * 11 6 8' 8 7 * 1 6 8 8 7 * 1 6666 888 7 * 1 6 6 8 8 7 * 1 6 6 8 8 7 * 11111 666 888 7 * ******************************************************************************** • City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director January 8, 1998 Chris Clifford 2721 Talbot Rd S Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mr. Clifford: Thank you for your December 10 letter regarding the Family Fun Center proposal. We will consider your comments and concerns as we continue to review this project. I anticipate making my determination as to whether an environmental impact statement will be required within the next several weeks, and will notify you of that determination. I am a bit confused by your statement regarding the proposal's consistency with Tukwila's Shoreline Master Plan. As you correctly noted, the property is designated for urban uses. However, you seem to be indicating that "commercial intensity uses" are not appropriate in "urban" designated shoreline areas. This is not the case. Tukwila's Shoreline Plan defines the urban environment as including "areas to be managed in high intensive land uses, including residential, commercial and industrial uses, while providing for restoration and preservation to ensure long-term protection of natural and cultural resources within the shoreline" (p. 5.1, Shoreline MasterPlan). If I have misinterpreted your point, I would be eager to discuss the matter further with you. Again, thank you for your interest. If you have additional concerns or questions about this letter, please feel free to contact Associate Planner, Nora Gierloff or myself at 206-431-3670. Sincerely, Steve Lancaster, Director, Department of Community Development SJL/sds c:/clifford.ltr 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 MARSHA HEDRICK PHD • Hoffman Planning + Design 1517 11th Avenue West Seattle, Washington 98119 206-281-8834 Memorandum Date: December 11, 1997 To: Diana Painter Nora Gierloff From: John Hoffman 6217007 • Planning Urban 1)csign Ambilcctun;. P.O1 Re: Meeting Notes, Design Review Meeting with Chandler Stever, Mulvanny Partnership Family Fun Center/La Quinta Hotel I have summarized the discussion at the Design Review meeting held in the Tukwila Conununity Development offices on December 1 1th, 1997. The site plan and coordinating architect is Mulvanny Partnership of Bellevue and the architect for La Quinta hotel is Todd Associates of Phoenix. Chandler Stever of Mulvanny Partnership represented the project. Issue: Site Plan Elements Discussion: Because the Family Fun Center is the dominant foreground of the visual field: for the majority of observers (from Grady Way and Monster Road), it was felt important that this visually predominant development should set the the tone for the larger site. The site and architectural characteristics of the Family Fun project should lead the site aesthetic. While the architectural forms are very unique, if some colors are consistent throughout the site, the overall development image would read as a whole. Coordination of exterior colors of the Family Fun Center and the La Quinta hotel should be explored. Issue: Roof Form and Color of proposed La Quinta hotel Discussion: The roof of La Quinta was depicted as a long gable with an uninterrupted ridge line for the length of the room wing. This roof form was modulated by smaller. lower gable elements that did not rise to the height of the longitudinal ridge. The overall roof massing was colored dark red and is proposed to be constructed of metal formed to resemble tile roofs typically associated with architectural styles of the American Southwest. This resemblance to Spanish tile roof material creates an association with the Spanish references of the hotel name. The question arose whether the importation of a American Southwest theme for the architecture and color scheme was appropriate for the Tukwila context. The roof massing, accentuated by the dark color, appeared visually heavy . The use of the "Galvalunle" material that was presented on the material boards in a standing metal seam form was discussed as an alternative to the red ersatz tile of the Page 1oft MARSHA HEDRICK PHD • Family Fun Center original proposal. This "go away gray" material can be seen on the Costco building on north Aurora Avenue, in ,Seattle. Issue: Massing of the La Quinta Hotel Room Wing Discussion: Although the roof form was modulated through the use of smaller transverse gable elements, the overall image was perceived as a long uninterupted form, largely because,of the continuity of the ridgeline. Additional height of the transverse gable elements, to create a cross gable roof form and bring the smaller elements into a larger proportion was discussed. These cross gable roof forms were designed with a protrusion of the facade. The depth of this facade element was disussed, with a focus on the shadowing of this element in the elevation rendering that appeared exaggerated. Alternatively, reconfiguration of the long room wing was discussed, including splitting the wing into two smaller wings that spring from the lobby pavilion, bending the long wing or offsetting a portion of the wing at the mid point to provide a sense of enclosure for the swiming pool area. Previous "L" shaped wings were explored, but this configuration was determined to be inefficient for La Quinta operations and affected Family Fun site opportunities negatively. Issue: Puget Energy Easement Discussion: Dick Downs of Puget Energy wanted more site plan detail regarding any building overhangs that may intrude into powrline easement. There was concern on his part over the installation of the metal batting cage within the easement arca. The restrictions of strucutres within the easement area were that no elements over fifteen feet were allowed and any metal strucutres like the batting cage must be electrically grounded. The easement for the Puget Sound Energy lines could be coordinated with other agencies access requirements, including Tukwila Parks, Tukwila Public Works and King County Flood Control. Part of the river bank on this site was lowered for flood control maintenacne opertions. A recoufigured shoreline will be submitted to Mulvanny by 12/12/97. Changes to site depth and increases in pervious surfaces are expected_ It is anticipated that the amount of parking area for the LaQuinta development will probably not change. Issue: Roadway Grade Discussion: Some grading changes were proposed to the site plan to modify the Family Fun entrance drive. These changes inay raise the elevation of the Family Fun entrance at Monster Road. This change may also require the raising of Monster Road back to the "meet and match" point near Grady Way. Page 242 • • OUTSTANDING ISSUES FOR FAMILY FUN CENTER Family Fun Center has informally agreed to the following project items and should memorialize them in a letter to the City to provide a basis for the SEPA threshold determination and future permit decisions. 1. Agreement to provide archaeological monitoring for any construction work that intrudes into native soils. This is based on an EIS prepared for the South Corridor Commuter Rail Project and Chandler has copies of the relevant pages. 2. Agreement to provide a public trail easement to the City per comments by Don Williams given to Chandler. 3. Install curbing and drainage along the island side of Monster Road between Grady Way and Interurban Avenue. 4. Grant necessary slope easements and/or right-of-way for City construction of Interurban Avenue improvements. In lieu of required frontage improvements, applicant will pay the City's traffic mitigation fee per the concurrency ordinance. The Interurban improvements are part of the listed concurrency improvements. Hence no frontal improvements are required. 5. Construct a pedestrian trail to City standards and coordinate grading to match City plans for a new pedestrian bridge. 6. To mitigate offsite traffic impacts, the applicant will pay the traffic mitigation fees as required by the City's concurrency ordinance prior to building permit issuance. 7. The applicant will connect to the City of Tukwila sanitary sewer system lift station located in Fort Dent. The connection will be a force main. The applicant will construct this system prior to the City's start of bridge and roadway construction. Or, alternatively, if construction cannot be completed prior to July, 1998, the applicant will reimburse the City for portions of the force main constructed as part of the bridge and roadway project. City will be reimbursed for actual construction costs construction administration and engineering and prorata design costs (if necessary). The applicant will pay estimated force main costs at the time of building permit issuance, with a final adjustment made when the total project costs are known. 8. The applicant will contribute $46,000 (a 1/4 prorata share) to the City prior to building permit issuance to improve the Fort Dent lift station capacity. The estimate is based upon 1998 sewer flow rate analysis by Gray and Osborne. The actual contribution will be allocated to each site use as determined by that study. The estimated costs will be adjusted for inflation using the ENR construction cost index, with February 1998 taken as the base. • • 9. The applicant will construct a 12" water line for the length of the Interurban property frontage. If construction is not completed prior to July, 1998 when the City bridge and roadway project commences, the applicant will request the City install all or portions of said waterline. Applicant will reimburse the City unit contract prices for waterline, fittings, bedding, blocking, trench excavation and backfill and other associated waterline improvements. Waterline shall be installed or estimated payments to city made as a condition of the first building permit issued for the site. City of Tukwilla Planning Department RE: Family Fun Center Proposal Dear City Official, I am writing regarding the Family Fun Center Complex proposal located at the corner of Interurban and Grady Way. I have,a number of concerns regarding this proposal. These range from traffic impacts, ingress and egress from the property, environmental issues involving protected species, inconsistency of this proposal with the City of Tukwilla's Shoreline Master Plan, filling of the flood plain, and the volume and effectiveness of the "cutting" of the bank to compensate for the filling of the flood plain. As proposed this project would only have one primary exit into and out of the proposed. site. This would allow for only a right hand entry from the west and a right hand exit to the west. The intensity of the use of this proposed project makes such a limited access unacceptable. The inherent danger to the public and patrons of this facility would.. obviously be unacceptable. r The environmental studies and lack of any analysis regarding. wildlife and protected bird species that utilize the large existing trees on the site needs to be reviewed. The impact on • native fish runs in relation to the cutting away of the rivers edge is also an unknown risk. The current Shoreline Master Plan calls for urban use of all shorelines in Tukwilla. This proposal is clearly a commercial intensity use that is not consistent with the Shoreline Master Plan. This project has applied for nearly every possible variance imaginable. from the City of Tukwilla. It would appear that this project and the intended use'are of such magnitude that a full Environmental Impact Statement must be required of those proposing this use. That is the only responsible way to insure that the impacts do not ruin the quality and economic vitallity of those who utilize this area. Respectfully submitted this 10th day of December, 1997. Chris Clifford 2721 Talbot Rd, S. Renton, WA 98055 (425) 226-5024 ,' • City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director November 26, 1997 Chandler Stever Mulvanny Partnership 1 1808 Northup Way, Suite E300 Bellevue, WA 98005 RE: Family Fun Center E97-0024 - SEPA Dear Chandler: This is to notify you that, pursuant to 18.104.130(A) (1), we are requesting revisions of your project proposal that reflect recommendations and decisions made in meetings held with City and other agency staff on November 7, 1997 and November 20, 1997. Please note that this list is not inclusive of all comments on your proposal. It also is not inclusive of remarks and the requirements of other agencies with jurisdiction. We anticipate that the following changes will influence the site plan to the degree that a re -submittal will be necessary, once these and related issues are resolved. The following factors should be taken into consideration in preparing your re -submittal: • the identified Ordinary High Water Mark of the river; • the desire to save existing shoreline vegetation; • the plan to modulate the planned 'bench' in the river; • the planned pedestrian bridge, as currently proposed; • re -location of the proposed outfall; • the creation of new habitat areas on the proposed bench; • the need to have access for maintenance purposes to the bench; • re -design of the bench with the goal of not working within the OHWM in the NE corner of the site; • re -vegetation that reflects Corps of Engineers, King County, and City recommendations Note that we will need revisions to your Riverbank Stabilization Study to reflect the project proposal. We will also ultimately need easements that reflect the project proposal. The submitted tree survey should reflect the most recent survey of significant vegetation in the shoreline area. As noted in the meetings, we will need an interim erosion control and temporary drainage plan to accompany the phasing plan for land altering work on site. This must also take into consideration the remediation work. We will need a determination by the Army Corps of Engineers as to whether any aspect of work in the shoreline will trigger a Corps permit. We will also need a determination by Puget Sound Energy as to whether the proposal meets their standards for development within their easement area. In terms of the remediation efforts, we will need documentation from the Department of Ecology that they agree with your approach .to the remediation plan, and a plan that shows what you are planning to do, and where. This is not the full extent of information that will be needed at the land altering permit stage, but will allow us to proceed with review for SEPA purposes. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 • Please feel free to call me or other City staff if you have any questions. My number is 431-3661, and the Public Works number is 433-0179. Sincerely, Diana Painter Associate Planner r • • CITY OF TUKWILA 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Telephone: (206) 431-3670 AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION AND POSTING OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGNS) State of Washington County of King City of Tukwila I G11sj iDL .. STEVE (Print Name) understand that Section 18.104.110 of the Tukwila Municipal Code requires me to post the property no later than fourteen (14) days following the issuance of the Notice of Completeness. I certify that on 1 the Public Notice Board(s) in accordance with Section 18.104.110 and other applicable guidelines were posted on the property located at 15031 CCr7'f j,J,6`? so as to be clearly seen from each right -of -way providing primary vehicular access to the property for application file number L. — 00 , SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ,.•••'soya°°° . '. SpIARYFN z. day of Affiant (Applicant Signature) ,19 NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State residing at ?2 N9 7" of My commission expires on 5 - /G of Washington -Yd RECE v ED NOV 121997 DEVELOPMENT NOTICE OF APPLICATION DATED NOVEMBER 10, :1997 - The following application has been submitted to the City of Tukwila Department of Community Development for review and decision. APPLICANT: The Mulvanny Partnership for Family Fun Center LOCATION: 15031 Grady Way South, Tukwila,Washington FILE NUMBERS: E97-0024 (SEPA Checklist) PROPOSAL: To construct an entertainment facility, which includes an arcade, go-carts, bumper boats, batting cages, large swing, restaurant, and an adjoining hotel and restaurant. OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Conditional Use Permit (2) Variance Special Permission Parking Permit Special Permission Sign Permit Design Review Permit Land Altering Permit Building Permits Utility Permits These files can be reviewed at the Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100, Tukwila, WA. Please call (206) 431-3670 to ensure that the file(s) will be available. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT You can submit comments on this application. You must submit your comments in writing to the Department of Community Development by 5:00 p.m. on November 24, 1997. This matter is not yet scheduled for a public hearing. If you are interested in being notified of the future hearing date, please contact the Department at (206) 431-3670. If you cannot submit comments in writing by the cutoff date indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and give your comments on the proposal before the Planning Commission. If you have questions about this proposal contact Diana Painter, the Planner in charge of this file. Anyone who submits written comments will become parties of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. APPEALS You may request a copy of any decision by the Planning Commission on a project or obtain information on your appeal rights by contacting the Department of Community Development at 431-3670. A decision from the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council. DATE OF APPLICATION: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: NOTICE OF APPLICATION POSTED: July 30, 1997 November 7, 1997 November 10,1997 • City of Tu lla John W Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION November 7 _1997 - Chandler Stever. ,The Mulvanny Partnership 1 1808 Northup Way, Suite E-300 Bellevue, Washington 98005 RE: Family Fun Center E97-0024 Dear Mr. Stever: Your SEPA application for the Family Fun Center, located at 15031 Grady Way has been found to be complete on November 7, 1997 for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. The project has been assigned to Diana Painter. The Design Review portion of this project has been tentatively scheduled for a public hearing before the Board of Architectural Review in February 1998. Scheduling of this hearing depends, however, on procuring the appropriate permits from other agencies. The next step is. for you to install the notice board on the site within 14 days of the date of this letter. You received information on how to install the sign with your application packet. If you need another set of those instructions, you may obtain them at the Department of Community Development (DCD). Also, you must obtain a laminated copy of the Notice of Application to post on the board. This notice is available at DCD. After installing the sign with the laminated notice, you need to return the signed Affidavit of Posting to the our office. This determination of complete application does not preclude the ability of the City to require that you submit additional plans or information, if in our estimation such information is necessary to ensure the project meets the substantive requirements of the City or to complete the review process. This notice of complete application applies only to the permit identified above. It is your responsibility to apply for and obtain all necessary permits issued by other agencies. In our initial review it appears the project is subject to an Army Corps of Engineers permit, as well 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 ° Tukwila, Washington 98188 © (206) 431-3670 o Fax (206) 431-3665 • as permits from the appropriate State agencies. You should contact them directly to find out what their application requirements are. There may be permits from other agencies required which we have not identified. Please let me know when you intend to post the site. If you have any questions, please call me at 431-3661. Sincerely, 7-a-2 Diana Painter Associate Planner. cc: Reviewing City Departments 11/07/1997 12:29 20634302 November 7,-1997 HRA, INC. Memo to: Vern Umetsu, City of Tukwila From: Gail Thompson, HRA6,r Subject: Mapping Archaeologically Sensitive Areas for the MIC PAGE 01 As you requested, I have conducted some overview research into archaeological ources and historical maps with respect to mapping archaeologically sensitive areas for he MIC. The following paragraphs summarize my findings and suggestions. Archaeological sources suggest that defining sensitive areas, at least for the MIC, '11 probably be considerably simpler than for Clark County. Recent archaeological •%ports provide useful information. Here are the types of lands forms that we should map archaeologically sensitive: • the edges of former Duwamish River channels and meanders; they should be recognizable as relatively higher ground on historical maps with narrower contour intervals. • the margins of lakes (such as White Lake) that historically existed in the Duwamish River floodplain. the confluences of streams that flowed into the Duwamish River • the edges (terraces) of the hills that flank the Duwamish River floodplain. • the margins of bedrock knobs that occur within the floodplain.. Because the Duwamish River floodplain north of the Black River confluence ormed during the past approximately 2,000 years, archaeological sites associated with lder channels of the Duwamish River shouldbe located within a few feet below the 'storical surface elevation of the floodplain. This means that archaeological monitoring an be restricted to within a few feet felow the native soil surface. Since the old meander channels and other low features have been filled beginning ound the turn of the century, we need to find old contour maps at a large enough scale af o indicate the locations of the floodplain landforms listed above. We can then input the mutation into your GIS system (if you maintain such maps). I reviewed the historical USGS 30, 15, and 7!/2 -minute maps at the UW Suzzallo- llen Libraries' Map Collection. Unfortunately, the older maps are at too small a scale with too large a contour interval to help us define the old floodplain landforms. The 71/2 • Per Policy 4.6.1 to preserve paleontological and archaeological information: A. Excavations into historically native soil when in an area of archaeological potential, shall have a professional archaeologist on site to ensure that all State statutes regarding archaeological conservation/preservation are implemented. The applicant shall provide a written commitment from the applicant to stop work immediately stop work upon discovery of archaeological remains and to consult with the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) to assess the remains and develop appropriate treatment measures. These may include refilling the excavation with no further responsibility. B. An applicant who encounters Indian burials shall not disturb them and shall consult with OAHP and affected tribal organizations pursuant to State statutes. C. If there is a potential to disturb archaeological resources, a cultural resources assessment shall be conducted and, if warranted, an archaeological response plan and provisions for excavation monitoring by a professional archaeologist shall be made prior to beginning construction. The assessment should address the existence and significance of archaeological remains, of buildings and structures over 50 years of age, and observable paleontological deposits and may include review by the State Archaeologist. D. It is strongly recommended that the applicant coordinate a predetermination study by a professional archaeologist during the geotechnical investigation phase, to determine site archaeological potential and the likelihood of disturbing archaeological resources. E. The Director is authorized to: 1. conduct studies to generally identify areas of archaeological/paleontological potential, 2. require from the applicant, such information as is necessary to make all determinations to implement these provisions and 3. waive any and all the above requirements if the proposed action will have no probable significant impact on archaeological or historical resources that are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, or on observable paleontological resources. Examples of such actions include excavation of fill materials, disturbance of less than 10,000 s.f. of native soils to a depth of 12 inches, penetration of native soils with pilings t.t4 over a maximum 8% of the building footprint, and paving over native soils in a manner which does not damage cultural resources. The above examples are illustrative and not determinative. A case-by-case evaluation of archaeological/paleontological potential value and proposed disturbance must be made. • cIO.0041 17- Do 2 V City of Tukwila • Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Family Fun Center Our Job No. 6125 CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES [ Qctober.24, 1997 77 The enclosed resubmittal package for the above -reference project reflects changes pursuant to the Notice of Incomplete Application for the SEPA Application, Shoreline Application, Design Review, and Conditional Use Permit. This resubmittal will satisfy all conditions noted within each Notice of Incomplete Applications. The preliminary grading, storm, and utility plan has been modified to show the proposed contours to clarify the proposed elements for the site. The topographical survey previously submitted is a combination of a survey performed by Lin & Associates and enhanced with an aerial mapping and contour generation performed by NIES Mapping Group. This topographic base has been used as our base for the design of the Family Fun Center. Our survey team has performed minor topographical surveys to enhance this survey base even further for areas around the toe of the Green River and tree locations. We also performed minor grade verifications and have found that the survey provided by Lin & Associates is correct in nature. Dan Balmelli from our office has confirmed with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) that they will they will not require a permit. I have requested a written letter of confirmation from the USACE in this matter. Once I receive this letter I will forward it to you for your records. As previously mentioned, our survey team has performed a topographical survey of the existing toe of the Green River. This information has been added to the preliminary grading, storm, and utility plan for reference. The design concept being proposed will create a new shelf within the south side of the Green River at elevation 10.0, for compensatory flood storage due to the drainage requirements on-site. From the south end of this shelf we will provide a 2:1 slope up to the top of the levee. The elevation at the top of this levee will not be below elevation 24.0, as this is the elevation of the 500 -year storm plus 2 feet of freeboard. The proposed site will increase in elevation from this point to a maximum grade elevation of 25.0. Therefore, there will be no landward catch point of the levee within the existing grade of the site. Additional flood storage compensation will be contained within the miniature golf and batting cage locations shown on the site plan. This is required due to the King County Stormwater Management criteria for a 100-year/7-day storm event. Treatment for the on-site drainage will be provided through a biofiltration swale located at the northeast corner of the site. This biofiltration swale will outfall within the Green River embankment at approximately elevation 16.5. 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 FAX City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 2 October 24, 1997 We are currently preparing an ALTA survey that we will submit to the City of Tukwila for review. This information will help clarify ownership boundaries and adjacent properties owners. The enclosed resubmittal package will satisfy all requirements for the City of Tukwila's acceptance of the above -noted applications. If further information is required or if you have questions, please contact me at the number listed below. Thank you for your cooperation. Respectfully, Brian D. Smith Design Engineer BDS/jss 6125C.004 enc: As Noted cc: John Huish, Family Fun Center Scott Huish, Family Fun Center Chandler Stever, Mulvanny Partnership Daniel K. Balmelli, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. J3:18PM TUKWILA DCD'PW. • MEMORANDUM TO: FIRE DEPT. Nick Olivas PW PERMITS Joanna Spencer FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. Pat Brodin DATE: Sept 30, 1997 SUBJECT: Flow Test at Hvdrant #260 15600-15800 West Valley Hwy. Fire flow tests were performed at the above location on the morning of September 29, 1997. The results of the test were: 3514 gpm available at 20 gsi tesidual The West Valley corridor system is a 12 -inch dead-end line that feeds from thesouth and terminates on the north side of I-405 at Grady Way. A plan is currently in place for 1998 to loop the system to the north across the Green River bridge and connect at Interurban Ave./Fort Dent Way. The results of this flow test provide adequate fire flow volumes to new development such as the proposed Family Fun Center site which is situated at least 1000 lineal feet north of the test location. C:\MSOFFICE\wINWORDAfiremcm2.doc P.2' NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION August 278, 199 Mr. Chandler Stever Mulvanny Partnership 1 1808 Northup Way, Suite E300 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Re: Family. Fun Center SEPA Application E97-0024 Dear Mr. Stever: Your SEPA application for, the Family Fun Center has been found to be incomplete. In order to be a complete application, the following items marked "Incomplete/not submitted" must be submitted to the Permit Center. Please note that additional supporting studies or revisions to studies that have been discussed in the Pre -Application conference or in previous correspondence and have not been submitted may be noted as Incomplete/not submitted. This does not preclude the need for additional studies or revised studies in the future, as project review proceeds. Complete Incomplete/ not submitted • ❑ Environmental Checklist • ❑ Full size plans • ❑ Reduced plans ■ Supporting studies Geotechnical studies (1) ❑ Report Geotechnical Engineering Services, 6/30/97 ❑ Environmental Audit 8i Preliminary Geotechnlcal Evaluation, 4/26/89 ❑ Phase! Environmental Site Assessment Report, 8/12/97 ❑ Phase 2 Environmental Assessment, 6/17/94 ❑ Supplemental Phase 2 Environmental Characterization Study, 1/24/97 • Riverbank Stabilization Analysis (see Shoreline Notice of Incomplete Application) • Historic Resources Survey (2) ❑ Traffic Impact Study • Checklist Application ❑ Mailing labels ❑ Filing fee (1) Your Phase 1 Environmental Assessment was received August 12, 1997. I understand you will be revising your Phase 2 Environmental Assessment as a result of the new Phase 1 Assessment. Please note that we will need to review your Remediation Plan also as a part of the SEPA review. (2) 1 understand that this is forthcoming. Note that this can be done prior to the SEPA determination, in which case its completion will not be a condition of SEPA. The Survey must be accepted by the State, however, and the SEPA comment and appeal period must have expired prior to permits being issued. Alternatively, the completion and acceptance of the Survey may be a condition of the SEPA determination. Please note that your SEPA determination must be complete, comment and appeal periods expired, and all relevant conditions relating to demolition must be fulfilled prior to issuing demolition permits. In addition, we will also need to have your PSAPCA permits on file prior to issuing demolition permits. The same conditions apply to any Land Altering permits. Please see Notice of Incomplete Application for the shoreline permit for other related studies, plans and permits. Upon receipt of the items noted above, the City will review them for completeness and will mail you written notification of completeness or incompleteness within 14 days. These applications will expire if we do not receive the additional information within ninety days of the date of this letter unless an extension is granted pursuant to Section 18.105.070(E). If you have any questions please feel free to call me at 431-3661. Sincerely, Diana Painter Associate Planner cc: Jack Pace Joanna Spencer Gary Schulz Phil Fraser • • D. PROPERTY OWNER DECLARATION The undersigned makes the following statements based upon personal knowledge: • I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. All statements contained'in the application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. I understand that conditions of approval, which the City and applicant have jointly agreed may not be completed prior to final approval of the construction (e.g., final building permit approval) will be incorporated into an agreement to be executed and recorded against the property prior to issuance of any construction. permits. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington and the United States of America that the foregoing statement is true and correct. EXECUTED at ) -u_ .4.10c� (city), ()t-)t1JC/I?x4 (state), on StSprEttraF-4 5 2S , 1 )c (Print Name) . 2c0 t)w(\ Ce4 f Lc) (Address) 0-S) � 2-��Z ( ne Nu •:.-r) (Signature RECE ISE If, , ,11,11c i CT 2 4: 199:,x.. . COMMUNiTY DEVELOUPse aldic tional sheets as needed for all proPerty owner signatures. CITY OF UKWILA DepartmentTf-Community Development 111 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JUL 3 0 1007 PERMIT CENTER SEPA APPLICATION CHECKLIST FOR STAFF USE ONLY Planner: i Aoc Etko File Number: E-1-7 .OD4 Receipt. Number: Cross-reference files: L - 004 Applicant notified of incomplete application: Applicant notified :of complete application: Notice of application:: issued:: A. NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Family Fun Centers/Hotel/Restaurant Proposed on the Nielsen Site. B. LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: (address and accessors parcel number(s)) N.E. corner of Interurban. Ave. South & Grady Way, Tukwila, WA Tax Lot 2423049013 (Map Grid 655 J4) Quarter: w Yz Section: 24 Township: 23 N. Range: 4 E -) 14.M. (This information may be found on your tax statement) C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed arcade building/amusement park, with batting cages, go-carts, bumper boats, miniture golf. Hotel and restaurant. D. APPLICANT: NAME: Chandler Stever/Mulvanny Partnership Architects P.S. ADDRESS: 11820 Northup Way, Suite E-300, Bellevue, WA 98005 PHONE: SIGNATURE: (425) 822-0444 Ext. 111 DATE: Ju nP 30 . 1 9 9 7 • • Control No. Epic File No. -jo2 Fee $325 Receipt No. RCW 197-11-960 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Proposed Family Fun Center/hotel/restaurant on Nielsen Site. 2. Name of applicant: Family Fun Centers 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 29111 S.W. Town Center Loop W., Wilsonville, OR 97070 Contact: Chandler Stever at Mulvanny Partnership Architects (425) 822-0444 4. Date checklist prepared: June 26, 1997 5. Agency Requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Mass grade to begin April 1997. Construction for hotel to begin May 1997. Complete November 1998. Construction for Family Fun Center May 1998. Completion to be December 1998. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Yes. Future additional 40,000 s.f. building area for the Family Fun Center with 20,000 S.F. First Floor and 20,000 S.F. Second Level. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. a.) A.G.I. Environmental Audit 04/26/89. b.) Geotech Consultants Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (E.S.A.) 06/17/94 and 07/07/94 Addendum. c.) Geotech Consultants Phase II (E.S.A.) 01/24/97. d.) Geotech Report by Geo -Engineers dated 06/30/97. e.) Traffic Study by Entranco Engineers dated 06/30/97. Wilf4 y6ylvwolvv,u4,47vi p\ -se -71 r,4,1— p�,o✓�, Ail 1 Z, 9 7 J:\doc\chandler\sepadoc RECEIVED CPPV OF TUKWILA • JL) a TB7 PLiFma CENTER • • 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. SEPA Determination; Tukwila Flood Control Zone Permit - Ordinance #1462; Tukwila Storm Drainage Permit - Ordinance #1755; Hydraulic Project Approval (H.P.A.) - WA Dept. of Fish & Wildlife; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit - Nationwide; Section 401 Water Quality Certification Nationwide Permit - Outfall; Bank Excavation - Section 404 or Section 10 Permit - Army Corps of Engineers; "Approval of Temporary Storm Drainage System and Outfall to Accommodate Phased Construction"; Shoreline Substantial Development Permit; Demolition Permit; Conditional Use Permit; Variance Permit; Building Permit; Clearing - Grading/Utilities Permit; King County Health Dept. Permit Food Service; Board of Architectural Review Permit; Boundary Line Adjustment. 11. Give a 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 you proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized here. Develop approximately 14 acres of site, demolishing existing structures and grading the dirt mounds to a generally flat grade, and river cutback detention. We propose a 11,900 s.f. restaurant, 153 room 4 story hotel and a 22,800 s.f. (at first floor) 2 level Family Fun arcade building with approximately 7 acres of outdoor attractions such as miniature golf, batting cage and go cart track . 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. N.E. Corner of Interurban Avenue South and Grady Way, Tukwila. See attached legal description. Page 2 • 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? No. The property abuts the Green River along the north side of its property line. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH • a. General description of the site (circle one): flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. Flat, with mound. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent of the slope)? Most of site is flat with stockpiles at east end of site used for a topsoil operation, exceeding 5% slopes. Slopes of up to 100% existing on the Green River. 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. Silty sand and silty gravel fill overlaying alluvial sand and silt with some organics. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. There is no surface indication or history of unstable soils. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate the source of fill. Approximately 40,000 - 50,000 c.y. of material will be relocated on site with approximately 10,000 - 20,000 c.y. of imported base course for building pad and trenches. Import fill will be provided from an approved fill source. Approximately 20,000 c.y. of material will be excavated from the riverbank as part of the bank excavation stabilization work and used as on site fill, if suitable. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. No, the proposed construction will stabilize the river bank and site while silt fences and straw bales will be constructed to contain erosion during construction. g. What percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? About 65% to 70%. Page 3 • • h. Describe proposed measures to reduce or control erosion or other impact to earth, if any. Erosion control will be per requirements of City of Tukwila Public Works Dept. which, in general, will include rock check dams, silt fences, settling ponds, straw bale and temporary construction entrances during grading phases of construction. 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e. dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities, if known. Emissions would be limited to construction vehicles during construction with dust control and automobile emissions, go-carts and bumper boats after construction. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Operation of well maintained and properly tuned construction vehicles to minimize emissions. Provide for dust control if necessary during grading/construction. 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. Yes, the Green River. 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. Yes, a riverbank excavation and restabilization plan is proposed along the Green River to provide the necessary storm water storage and flood plain compensation volume. See attached conceptual grading and drainage plan. 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 Page 4 • site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. To provide site storm water detention volume the majority of the north property line adjacent to the river will be cut back approximate 30'-0" creating approximately 20,000 c.y. of material which will be placed on site, if suitable. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No, on site storm drainage will convey on site run off on site to biofiltration swales and wetponds with controlled discharge rates to the Green River, based on the 100 year, 7 day storm event. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Yes, portions of the site lie within the 100 year flood plain indicated at el. 22.0. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste material to surface waters? If yes, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn or will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None 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. The source of run off will be from rainfall. The on site storm system will consist of an on site conveyance system biofiltration swales, wetponds and oil water separators for treatment. After water quality treatment, storm water will be discharged to the Green River via annex outlet. Construction as part of the riverbank excavation/restabilization work. Page 5 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and run-off water impacts, if any: On site biofiltration swales and wetponds will provide water quality treatment of storm water. The riverbank excavation/restabilization plan will provide the required storage volume for flood plain compensation and the 100 year, 7 day storm event. 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous trees: alder, maple, aspen, other: X evergreen trees: fir, cedar, pine, other: X shrubs X 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? Existing trees along the west and south property line will be removed along with brush and small alders at river bank. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any. Landscaping will be provided that will meet and exceed minimum zoning requirements and shoreline requirements including use of native and riparian plants with decorative planting in the miniature golf area, outdoor attraction area, hotel entrance and site entrance. 5. ANIMALS a. Bold any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish Page 6 • • b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any. Revegetated and stabilized river bank will provide new enhanced riparian wildlife habitat. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. 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. Electricity will be used for lighting and power needs and cooling while natural gas will be used for heating and restaurant use. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any. Requirements of Washington state energy code will be met, including energy efficient lighting for building and site, insulation measures, and energy efficient HVAC. 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. 1,000 gallon above grade gas tank for the go carts and bumper boats. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Fire Dept./First Aid/Police in emergency cases. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Contained concrete spill area with curbs for go- cart refueling, as per code, with 1,000 gallon tank provided with proper shut off switches, ventilation and fire extinguishers. • b. Noise • 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example, traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Freeway traffic on S.R. 405 and heavy car and truck traffic on Grady Way and Interurban Avenue. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short -term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Construction operations will generate short term noise. Traffic and go carts will create some long term noise although less decibels than the freeway. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Noise reducing measures, mufflers, etc. will be installed on go carts and bumper boats with properly maintained engines. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is mostly undeveloped and has been used as a dirt stockpile operation (see attached Phase II report by Geotech Consultants dated 01/24/97). To the east is railroad tracks, to the north is the Green River with an office park on the other side, to the west is Interurban Avenue and to the south is S.R. 405. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Yes. Over 25 years ago it was a dairy farm. c. Describe any structures on the site. There is an abandoned barn and a few vacant houses. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? All structures on the site will be removed or demolished. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? C/L-I f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Commercial. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Urban Shoreline. Page 8 • h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 90 employees would be employed at the site. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. • k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any. None. 1. Proposed measures to ensure 'the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land use plans, if any. The site is zoned commercial which applies to the Family Fun Center building (with restaurant inside) and the hotel and restaurant. There is a hotel with office buildings to the north, similar in scale to the Family Fun building. The Fort Dent Park across the river provides outdoor recreation and games, as will the proposed Family Fun Center attractions. Thus the proposal is compatible with adjacent land uses. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? None. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low income housing. None. All structures are vacant. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. None. 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas? What is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Both the hotel and the Family Fun building will be approximately 45' tall (to midpoint of roof). The skycoaster ride will be 100 feet tall. The hotel will be stucco with red clay tile roof, the Family Fun building will be decorative metal with brick color masonry base and the skycoaster ride is galvanized steel. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. Page 9 • • c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any. Decorative elements on building elevation will break up large masses with roof hips and gables to provide relief, ample landscaping will soften building impact. Also river walkway bike path with landscaping will provide aesthetic access to river. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Parking lot and building lighting/glare will be controlled by downward focused lighting with shields at perimeter to contain direct light on site. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or. interfere with views? No. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any. Downward focus and cut-off shields at perimeter will contain direct light on site. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreation opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Fort Dent park and bike path along Green River. 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. Family Fun Centers include miniature golf, batting cages, go carts, food, games, etc. 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. No. Page 10 • b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. A large barn. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any. Photo and historical documentation of the barn's structure. 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans if any. The site is served by Grady Way and Interurban Avenue with all site access from "Old Grady Way" named "Monster" road. The main freeway adjacent to the site is S.R. 405. See site plan. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes. The closest bus stop is approximately 600 feet to the north on Interurban Avenue. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Approximately 560 stalls will be provided. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Yes. Curb gutter/sidewalk and illumination at public street (Monster Road). 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 will occur. See attached traffic study by the traffic engineer. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. See attached traffic study. 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. No additional fire or police protection would be required except emergencies. Health care should have no additional requirements. Page 11 • • b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public service, if any. None, except preventative design in fire protection, landscape and building designs that are not conducive to criminal activity and hiding places. 16. UTILITIES a. Bold utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricity by Puget Sound Energy; Natural Gas by Puget Sound Energy; Water Service by City of Tukwila; Refuse Service by City of Tukwila; Telephone Service by U. S. West Communications; Sanitary Sewer Service by City of Tukwila. 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: Date Submitted: Page 12 - -q7 • • PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY KING COUNTY A KITSAP COUNTY e PIERCE COUNTY A SNOHOMISH COUNTY • June 11, 1997 PSAPCA Asbestos Checklist for Demolition Projects The attached document is designed to help guide property owners through the regulatory requirements for demolition projects and to provide contractors with a pre -demolition checklist. Please feel free to copy this.: document for your own use and distribution to your customers. Be advised that the checklist is an overview of Puget Sound Air Pollution Control's (PSAPCA) demolition requirements and is not a substitute for PSAPCA's Regulation III, Article 4. For a copy of PSAPCA regulations, Notice of Intent forms or any questions concerning this document please contact me at (206) 689-4058. Attachment Commissioner, Kitsap County Member at Large Mayor, Everett Sincerely, Thomas J. Hudson Air Pollution Engineer Dennis J. McLerran, Air Pollution Control Officer BOARD OF DIRECTORS Mayor, Bremerton Snohomish County Council King County Executive RECEIVED JUN _1 a _19V COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mayor, Tacoma Mayor, Seattle Pierce County Executive 110 Union Street, Suite 50.0, Seattle, Washington 98101:2038 A (206) 343-8800 A (800) 552-3565 & FAX:(206)343-7522 printed on recycled paper PUGET SOMID AIR POLLUTION CONTROL A4INCY 110 Union StWet, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98101-2038 Telephone: (206) 343-8800 or 1-800-552-3565 Fax: (206) 343-7522 ASBESTOS CHECKLIST FOR DEMOLITION PROJECTS This checklist is provided by Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA) as a brief summary of PSAPCA's regulations pertaining to demolition projects. PSAPCA regulations define a demolition project as the wrecking, razing, leveling, dismantling, or burning of a structure (by a fire department for training purposes), making the structure permanently uninhabitable or unusable. The following checklist is a quick reference guide and not a substitute for PSAPCA regulations. For a copy of PSAPCA regulations, Notice of Intent forms, or any questions concerning this document; contact a customer service representative at (206) 343-8800 or 1-800-552-3565 or see PSAPCA's web site at http://www.psapca.org. DEMOLITION PROJECT REQUIREMENTS: ❑ An asbestos survey must be conducted by a certified Asbestos Hazardous Emergency Response Act (AHERA) building inspector. AHERA inspectors are listed in the Yellow Pages under asbestos consulting and testing. ❑ A complete Notice of Intent must be submitted toP SAPC120 or all demolition eet. Noticejiss involving structures with a projected roof area greatsquare of Intent is not required for structures with a projected roof area less than 120 square feet, but all other demolition and asbestos requirements remain in effect. ❑ A copy of the asbestos survey and Notice of Intent must be kept on site and be available for review by PSAPCA inspection personnel. ❑ All asbestos -containing materials (ACM) 'must be removed in accordance with PSAPCA regulations by persons trained in accordance with Washington State Department of Labor & Industry standards or Occupational Safety and Health Administration for federal facilities prior to demolition. PSAPCA recommends that the building owner and/or demolition contractor perform a walk- through inspection of the structure prior to demolition to ensure all ACM identified on the asbestos survey have been removed. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: In addition to PSAPCA requirements, most building departments require a demolition permit (separate from PSAPCA's Notice of Intent). The Washington State Department of Labor & Industry and the local fire marshal may also require notification for asbestos removal projects. Telephone numbers for these entities are listed in the blue pages (Government Listings) of the telephone book. PSAPCA Form No. 66 -183 -(revised 2/97) ACM • PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY 110 Union Street, Suite 500 • Seattle, Washington 98101 (206) 343-8800 • (800) 552-3565 Air::Pollution Regulations In King, Kitsap; Pierce and Snohomish Counties Basic requirements Three regulatory programs administered by PSAPCA are: A Asbestos projects and building demolitions A survey for asbestos materials is required prior to undertaking a renova- tion or demolition project. The agency must be notified on agency -supplied forms in advance of any asbestos project (construction, demolition, repair, main- tenance or renovation) and whenever a building will be demolished. A fee is charged. For further information, contact the asbestos program staff at the address above or at 689-4058. A Construction and operating permits Agency approval is required in advance for installation, modification or construction of most businesses that may emit air pollutants. • In addition, operating permits will be required for major air pollution sources beginning in early 1995. A fee is assessed for these permits. For further information, write to the permits program staff at the address above or call 689-4052. A Annual registration for air pollution sources Most stationary sources of air pollution must register with the agency and pay an annual fee. For further information, write to the registration program staff or call 689-4051. PUGET SOUND:'AIR,-POLLUTION'CONTROL AGENCY - :' (PSAPCA) ::: PSAPCA. was established-In.1967 under the authority of the W ashington-Clean A1r Act. It Is a local government agency responsible for the release, of -pollution: to the outside air:. The agency enforces federal, state and local.alr pollution regulations In Its four =county area, March 1994 Puget Sol Air Pollution Control AgSy 110 UnionStreet, Suite 500 ♦ Seattle•WAe98101-2038 (206) 343-8800 Guidelines for Application to Perform a Demolition Who must file.for a demolition permit? Any property owner -who is going to'burn or demolish any structure, including, but not limited to, commercial buildings, or abandoned structures on private property. The purpose of the permit is to certify that the building is asbestos -free prior to demolition. Why must I file for a_demolition permit with PSAPCA?• I already filed one with the building department; Building departments do not regulate asbestos. Federal law rewires the filing of. a demolition permit with the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, arid removal of all asbestos. • What should I do first? You must hire an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) accredited inspector to survey your structure for asbestos. A copy of this survey must be available for inspection during demolition You cannot demolish a building with any asbestos still present. • Look for qualified inspectors in the yellow pages under Asbestos Removal, Laboratories Analytical, Building Inspection, Asbestos or Environmental.Consulting and Testing. What if the inspector finds asbestos in the building? If tliere is asbestos in the building, it must be removed prior to demolition. You must hire a certified asbestos abatement contractor for removal. What do I peed as far as paperwork is. concerned? O A completed Application to Perform a Demolition $25 check payable to PSAPCA. - OCopy of survey stating the structure has been inspected and no asbestos was found, or an Application to Perform an Asbestos Project filed by an asbestos contractor to remove any asbestos in the building. Please include all of the required paperwork with your application or a permit cannot be issued.. How long will it take? You may begin demolition on the 11th -working day after you have provided us with the required information. Your approved Demolition Permit will be mailed to you within 10 -working days after receipt by the Agency. PSAPCA Form No. 66-181 (5/94) jrs ell I 0 §a • I 86/9I/£ ZII-L6 /%ii' >,:-=, /jam i ii • •.\aa • fi. 1.‘ \ ;(/' \ \ , . _ • • -7 .• ::1 • • "•••••-• Concept Landscape Plan .-fc. • /fp.* 4fik t,„p Nr:V.Z616' \ «i )//, :,, \ • \ • s ••,‘ `. • 2 • \ •••• • Architect favr-ti,.. • , „ • 74, • f i' • ,1 Family, Fun Center oPt1"-- „S'a• • . • a•NOTE- SEE EI-EET L• 3 FOC .7.0/Ek'BANI‹. As • IQ 1\5 1 NORTH ,•\ .30 80 LANDSCAPE LEG•340 AND NOTES EVE trE4Ii ARCHITECTS P.S 11623 Natty, WA, .1.302.0.m.” VA RCS Mei/SO. 013.2,1119 w z Riverbank Landscape Plan LOC:. wABITLT ST;IX rLQE WILLOW AND DOGWOOD r..._USTER PLANTINGS -- NEW BOTTOM OF BANK WEAN NEW TOP BENCH AREA (ABOVE ORDINAM I-IIGN 'A I ATE 4G -I VI1A-E0 -' \ OP_PANis 40 5E Tatz:'), — \ -- WA-57 N141:'" ) i ) I BIOFILTRATION SWALE —\ TPANC,ITION GLOPE -- \ - - - - - - — II: -11- - - - - - - - --- -- - ----------- 2 i 5LOPE 4,11tV` -714. -•-•-• • TAL1,1 - • ATCHLINE \ F__ 1310FILTVATION SWALE GREEN RIVER oFF =0Nr. •--• • uy, L.ARit --‘ PENT:.1-1 LEA,LBOVE TRANSITION ar_PE E\ 7PECI‘EN zyy:K '4,F)74.1NING WALL • 0G+DINA:, WA 'EP t ; •:•71L'UCT•JPE»ML» CtAS TiP WATE.Q ) - -7 / I GLOP' —1 WEWVE WiLLOVV AN.1.0 o.pGvoc. - - - - - - t.ND Pc`01•01" `. ANT1^1; it - ea from PUGET 4011...D POWER Sc 1_11:411. .'""^ =mm..1 r12 tt .-7.irc-161 --.7.001ft i;1 L1 Family Fun Center •.NOTE •fEE F,:x? PI VEPBANI- LANC.S,CAPE 1.4%E1C1 LAD NOTES MAR 1 9 1998 COMMUMW DEVELOPMENT Landscape Architect Wei Architect MULVfM AY PaRTAERSH IP ARCHITECTS PS SITE LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE & CONDITIION 0 Shade Trees 2'-21:' cal -well -branded, Acer maxum 'Red Sunset' Red Sunset Maple above 5..12-14' bight, BIB Gledltsla t. 'Shademaaler' Shedemaete Honey Locust Pyrue calleryana 'Bradford' Bradford Gallery Pear Pax.. 0. 'Raywood' Rayw0Od Ash Small Deciduous Trees Acer clrclne:un Acer gime la Flame' Prunus sp. Cornua kou•a Prunus bllrelana Evergreen Trees `fine Maple Flame A Maple Flowering Cherry Nouse Dogwood Flowering 511.811 Min. 1-1/2" cal.. multl-trunked. weal -branched, BIB O%_ Pinus contort Pseudoteuga menziesIl Chamaecyparle 0. 'GracI IIs' P41ua nigra T1uJa p. Fastigiate' Shore Pine Douglas Fir Hindu Cypre Austrian Black Pine Hogan Cedar TIvJa o. 'Emerald Green' Emerald Arborvitae Chamaecyparls Nana 0180/12' Dwarf Hlnoki Cypress 51055 9. 'Conics' Dwarf Albert Spruce Large Shrubs Arbutus a' uredo 'Compact Berbera thwtbergll errs Japonica ca teornoca cre Our t 0elavay Prunus lusitanlca Rode, _ . On .p. Phormlum *rax Pyracan• - 'Teton' Small Shrubs 4belle g. 'E- -rd Goucher Berber,. 9.'011 -m Perri Ilex crenate 'Gr-. !eland' Junlperua sp. O Cletus purpureus Osmaree teakwood Prunus I. 'Otto Lu Rododendron ep. Pinta mu90 Ttago' 0104rkm 9801911 Cotoneaster dammer 4ctostaphylos ave 1u Dwarf Strawberry Tree Japanese Barberry Piens aclric WaxMyrtle __ Lea' ase Ho11y Sony,/ Osman:hea' Portugal Laurel Rhododendron New Zeeland Flax Teton Pyrecantha Mtn. 6-8' M., full • Pushy_ to base, B49 3-4' height, full and bushy to bene, BIB Mie. 15-24' ht. 4 spread, NII 4 bushy, B4B or contain,. Oroundcover/Perennials Min 15'-18' ht. 2 spread, Edward Goutl.er Abell. full I bushy, 548 or contain William Pens Barberry Green !eland Japanese Holly Juniper Orchid Rockrose Fragrant osmarea Otto Luykene Laurel Rhododendron flugo Pine David Vibunnm Bearberry Klmiklmick Hedsra hs'Baltice' JunIperus Vines dolor p Hsnerocallis sp. Chysanthenvm. superbum Hosts sp. Lavandule angustirolla Pemisettm 'Hameln' Miscanthus 2. 'Graclilimus' Mulched Areas Baltic Ivy Juniper ulna Dayllly Shasta Daisy Poeta Lavender Fountain Grass Malden Gress Seeded/Sodded Lawn I gallon pots • 24' on center 1 gallon pots • 18-24' on center 1 gallon pots See epeolfications See specifications, c/ ExIating Vegetation to Remain LANDSCAPE NOTES. I .:11 new landscape areae to be served by an automatic irrigation system. 2 All new landscape areas to be covered with a 2' layer of organlo mulch 3 uhere groundcovsr Is Indicated It snail be planted tneughOut the planting bed IncludIng areas beneath trees and shrubs. Family Fun Center RIVERBANK LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE Landscape Schedules SYM/DUAN. BOTANICAL NAME SIZE & CONDITION COMMON NAME ' Bench 120 Cornus atoionifera Red50/g Dogwood ^ _•. Salix laelendra a Pac/J/c 110/lou 9' Sall& scoulerlana 8x'00/s W/1/ow 2 to 5 gal size, full 2 to 5 gni size fun 2.10 5 gal size, NII Populue tridvcarpa 5 gal size, full and bushy Bled Cottonwood Hydroseed all disturbed areas with '1 a dad r-eua/1 grass ml&. Seed at rate of lbs. per 1000 S.F. 30% Red Gr Ing Fescue 30% Peremiai Ry 20% Highland Banteras. 20% Meadow Forte -11 topsoitire l area covered s matter) p prior to piantIng Lo Habitat Structure Area Plantings total area •1,900 welters feet total plants propo ed•280 ppr Imate spacing. 3 n center plant In group f I0-20 Ilk• species • 50 Salm scouleriana "- .Cara-1.V/lou 80 Cerr.e etolonlfera Redtwlg Dogwood Oft -Channel Pond 2 to 5 gal. size, full 2 to 5 gal. size, hitt total area.1000 square feet tote plants propo 0.160 epproxlmate sp mq•30" onen plant In groups of 20-40 like species LII a P4" n; G 0Q Elavatipf to 8 Scirpus aoutus dards:en BuhOO Care• opta 5 4sdgbrue •prig., well -rooted 1 plem 18" ot. 1 healthy rhizoma• Sall, as!andr8 2 to 5 gal. size, full Pap ':0 09110: Elevation! 8 to 10 Sant Iasiandre Pac1,10 00//00 Conor stolonIfera ,Reece/en 009-5000 Poptlue triu0001 p8 B/act 010150x9008 2 to 5 gal. size, NII 2 to 5 gal..lzet, full (1 2 to 5 981 ales, full Elevaticra 10 to 15 H ydr, seed all disturbed areas with Seeded rough grass mix. Seed at rate of 1 be per 1/000 ..f. 4015 Red Creeping Red Fescue 401% Peremlel Rye 1,35 White Clover 10% 4(9hland 9entgraes Salix s0oulerlan8 2 to 5 gal. size, NII S couter UAl/ow Correa etolonifera 2 to 5 gal. size, full Rados'® Dogwood Rube speotablll. 2 to 5 gal_ eiza. full 5ilmdtbe-ry Elevations 15 to 20 Hydroeeed all disturbed areas with Seeded rough grass, mix. seed at rate of 1 cos. per 1,000 s,1. 40% Red Creeping Red Fescue 40% Peremlel Rye ITL lhite Clover le . 41948nd Bent9raes Peeudotsu9em ar121erali 2 to 5 951 size, full Doug/as F/ Tlv/a plicate 2 to 5 gal. eiza, fru (ureters, .Red cedar Acer circlnatre 0/ro Maple Acer macrophyIlun B/gl reapl Rosa nootkene hbtke Roes, 2 to 5 gal. else full 5 gal. size Nn 2 to 5 gal. size, Nu l 2 to 5 gal. size, full (fr tori planta proposed • 1,000 plants sspecing=1.8" on center, pant Ingrows 0. f 40-6Entire floe area will not be covered. 150 plants. Plant In ciutere of 10 plants at 4' oc. spacing. Concentrate plantings around around log habitat etructurea. 200 total plana, 50-100 of each Plant In clusters or 5 at 4' oc. spacing As shown. 200 total plants, 60-15 of each Plant in clusters of 15 plants at 4' oc. spacing. Ae shown Ae shown As shown As sheen RIVERBANK SCHEDULE (continued) SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME SIZE & CONDITION COMMON NAME 2:1 Slope -Install 8" of 919q9 quality topsoil (30% organic matter/ over entire 2:r slope. -r=ote all existing blackberry In these areas PeeudoeuF/ uga m enzlesn 1 gallon pots, full and bush) D g/s Th..Ja plmatum (1,(1.160, Red Ceadar Popuius tramuloide. cw1,•ng Aapm Acer circinawm I gallon pots well -branched ',he Made Popuhu trichccarpa I gation pot, wen-orancheo Back C0tt011,000 Acer mac110595lwn I galla: pot , well -branded e/gleer le pie 1 gallon pots, full and bushy 1 gallon pots, wen -branched Phporarpu caplttus bare root, 12-24' ete& length. Peci!/c Nirlaberk 8.12' root .pread Symphorloapoe albus bare root, 12.24' eta, length, drooPerry 8-12' root spread Rosa nulkan1 Moods Rose Mdronld aquifoualn 00.0011 Gaga bare root, 12-241 stem length 8-12' root spread bare root, 12-24' sten length 8-12' root spread total area • 1500.11. 410 total planta 125-150 or each variety. Plant In clusters In areashown, approx. 4' on center. Hydroesed all disturbed areas with -Seeded rough grass mix. Seed at rate of 1 Ibs./10004.r 40% Creeping Red Fescue 40% Peremlel Rye 10% 0 -lite Clover 10% 41991end Bentgrasa Biofiltration Swale Hychoaeed all disturbed areas with Biofiltration Seals Seed Mix. Seed at rate or 2.15 Ibe. per 1.000 ..f. 305 Kentucky Bluegrass 40% Creeping Red Fescue 305 Pereelal Rye RIVERBANK NOTES 1'ovary Irre00n Droll bre provided for 111 new pantxg arse. -. 0 vntlsg onowe root plantings may be .Wsututsd tor 2 t• 5 911. 30 RoCron Mnb. Mtn apprcv wstl6 . bloioelet ry d wetland blob91:t.0rayon ro edam,. planting xRornatbt 4r Rare. to seetsdnlcal report tor Inromatlos .29814lrg slops .tb111iatlon Rw2ass. RFC -FM -7D MAR 1 9 1998 C72MMUNIIY DEVELOPMENT 200 total plants, 15-100 of ea. Plant In cluster& or 1 plana at • 4' oz. spacing. Landscape Architect Architect MULVAffY PRRTfERSH I P ARCHITECTSP,S Ne' ' tcox+p'n *'"* waawwz.slzw -HAfYE:. DNW11....._: 7FF�S-= •:MAST E,OF_W2Lowlid:. 7vn6WooDJ7!_t.7Gy: :11"4,14, r1aen'A7..Sawnn tE Typical Section at Green River SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0" Family Fun Center 0 4, r MAffMQ- _-.:_ __...... ELED 120/E_-_: L YE6&rAt b. 724. scop,=- .2734 Site Section ti MAR 1 9 1998 0 CCCMMUM u ! .®EVEL•PMEN lT Landscape Architect r-- Architect muLvfrn nigPRRTf1ERSHIP ARCHITECTS PS aaa�.0010 , e."' w .y a 721 co 00 T 111. ;vim 1 1\\ :9 1 PRELIMINARY GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN 1_, 5 18215 72111) AVENUE SOUIN MFM. WA 98032 (206)251-6222 (206)251-8782 FAX CM. 06409* .wmt986. amara nnu W°. SMM25 For. FAMILY FUN CENTERS 29111 S.W. TOWN CENTER LOOP WEST WILSONVILLE, OREGON 97070 TINS: PRELIMINARY GRADING AND STORM AND DRAINAGE PLAN TUKWIL , FAMILY FUN CENTER 1 mo -4 1--a CO CO S ' - PRELIMINARY SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN EXTENSION PLAN 2„ 18215 7290 AVENUE SOUTH KENT. WA 98032 ' (206)251-6222 (206)251-8782 GO u++ For: sm0KiQlW4. MO AwWc, mw. 1.03100. mns FAMILY FUN CENTERS 29111 B.W. TOWN CENTER LOOP WEST WI SONVILLE• OREGON 97070 TOW: PRELIMINARY SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN EXTENSION PLAN TUKWRq FAMILY FUN CENTER SHORELINE CROSS-SECTIONS 30 '.7:-.-1----00.:77;':::r.',...*::� �z i wv /_ .A A SICIMIDO IOC I71 •( ate, .... .. .. SECTION B ACCESS E.6000. MMOMOICE 20 w� u, Lx, rzaoo is ° SECTION C .a.cl OaA'lY4'r NO. SMOAK resmc war 20 _ _ ._._ is — — ° SECTION O IMCOLME AO' OWL SECTION F 910110.1C NNE A .ar 77, KO • b t -fib _ _. o SECTION G 3 • SECTION H NOV A I wO 0 SECiIONI_. RIECI_JVED o n - ao 7rr. 0.610101 1.51 0 41111 11111 30 SHORELINE CROSS—SECTIONS SECTION K 20 ' SECTION L •.M Wni lOr 09.n/01 01c,v,.,I�t 1 L . 0 SECTION M SECTION N . ... . tpmli. oMawNrC _ OMR FP 30 =Wt.-7:±1� _ate SECTION 0 20 SECTION F ll L' _ . LC i J I MAR 1 9 1998 Ir^ Ct�bMUNI'TV a a, P iVE N EAST BD OF POND ENTRANCE LOO STRUCTURE AND ORIENTATION dat. hoot WEST ED OF POND ENTRANCE LOO STRUCTURE AND BANK ORENTATIDN 70 RIVER AND FISHERIES HABITAT DETAILS LOO STRUCTURE -MP VEW (TYPICAL) "sal Sba HABITAT POFD PLAN VEW HABITAT POND SECTION A -A 1171-1,700, i l= MAR 1 9 1598 Laa'VE-LCi fi :1 J t1e[andRisor /na P '17117. ase file A 1 !I - Hi � ri1i in Ali 1 a 1ld� iii ilii lis ` I T i i �� iad�r p � a� �g � i 3 5iyyada� t �,i rgi Igg: ��i 1111�i �i d 6 f � i; ' @ z1, !ii 11 ^a 11 ag1'a $ il I ti 6125 PIO _2_ 03215 72140 AVENUE SOUTH NEW, WA 93032 (206)251-6222 (206)251-3732 FM 9./.211 wwo o rO. SERVICES FRAVIONL NOV. 1113 - EauAWL 1dNU Yoe For. FAMILY FUN CENTERS 29111 S.W. TOWN CENTER LOOP WEST WILSONVILL , OREGON 97070 Tins: ROUGH GRADING AND TEMPORARY EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN TUKWI A, FAMLY FUN CENTER RA D. . Li I.v I 1 ROUGH GRADING AND TEMPORARY EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN CO Ccs CO 0 G. 100 ei lg Ron Ag 411 f it WO 18215 72610 AVENUE SOUTH KENT. WA 98032 (206)251-8222 (208)251-8782 Oa SUR411.3. 0.11.1161101. SWAM Nee. dal Ra. 1111tee For. FAMILY FUN CENTERS 291118.W. TOWN CENTER LOOP WEST WILSONYLLE, OREGON 97070 TItlox TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL NOTES AND DETAILS FAMILY FUN CENTER � Conct EieVa ion rid 0 N ORT I LELEALATJ OH • / -pJM1L1411A14.ES "F�•I'Pa gPMNw.'.PnAo. fi NOR.I_H W_E_ST-ELE V A?LONI • gp d !!,a s,,r LIMr 45.e i--"iM LiH^!1�4. aavu ELE_V_A_T_I.ON. r 14^40.. TNTC, GMMRI Mit. PY.1e4_ <mr) Ve1C11 Pieeto ibTK TCFL- GW CIW✓'iL M., Woe, 0•r :C_I{ $ O_U THELE YAT I_O N . v �S OU_T kI E.A.S T_EL E V AI "G r71 I1 -1-1F.&' '1 1_ VATI'31J- MA114 T,-13L1%th E A!Sfn E L EV_. AT IO N MAR -1 9 1998 c ,rAro rJ];T1'' E'"V,,i1, aGa` -'7, J 04'8' • 16' Architect MULI/KA mg PRRT(IERSH I P ARCHITECTSP.S it 8821388 2889*12888 ".‘tin•rAReinn 94i44995?99'?vK5 d ya:rX_bsa32atseesitermee9 f� 08fs9satee28811MTae'_644y co co co 18215 7280 AVENUE SOUTH KEIR. WA 98032 (425)251-6222 (425)251-6782 F20 S E 1261.ISt41NN S2 42 Per 01.41.112 For. FAMILY FUN CENTER TREE LOCATION SURVEY 8111s: topographic survey 111 SOUTH ELEVATION I T I EAST ELEVATION .w, 139 S•.1m 3/31/15 Uu w A -Map ;m o .... .... - ...• .... O u ul NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION w . :•/0 dam ELEVATION MATERIAL LEGEND • nsSar1.1 0 COMM MONS 0 MUM. ILO( PAWL KCMG O mr-RM95O MAMMY 2251013 C PIS -5•1950 MAMMY AS. WMAS O 219330 ammo 0 1052590 3035. WI10 - PM= 0 10111001D DUM 10113 - PAIR Q MRK MCA BOARD-- ON1 O• lMOM kgi"" NNNA. ® Ylaaa13 111113011f0 9211 - ILLS. O 05101501 ROM fort © 103a 10R. SS COWL 3/3112 0 01151510 0.i m On IWO. 10 Dn. 5/N00 ® S2 01041111 NON 5 5. 00. GENERAL NOTES ,.E: .i 110.1051 PAM MS E167 2. 0 LOOM 2A1wK 0[000 i5omla 0532. 52223101 • 5 O 0E40101 WINDOW 0 913 mos .. .Qat 21m.i m BE ma 3-1 DNA S. • ONgNS r OLA IYfiX 5191 ma name slag a?n 0510 0 .- SP 0"550 N10f.AAaq ST. BC m►. 51351 50 FIXT. COLOR SCHEDULE O s2 nu - a2o2Dco Baa CD 10 225 - Kamm Sao 0 52-3351 - mama a.la1 (003) ©i 52-2351 - 0511352 WO (a®I) Q CI - BN 25 MI0330 0 tamp, - DOO! 1.2 SFa291 II BUILDING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS LA QUINTA INNS, NC. 1R EAST PECAN STREET SAN ANTON°. TEXAS 70205 ORB S16m1ttd Ycbltecl2re/PhIW25/)a1doe3pe Ar26iteet5n 5awo sr • San a. NMI • 551-13 • ma0O1w10 u) R$1 Yr Mi 5.s 2 5.6•0 Y Pa Gammon .R4.• 15,24,,, 12a1 WWI -AMATORY TITLE- OSKOUTr o'1i 110.1 rK. . 9a SWAN r oO092 SAHEB FAY. FLI4 comeENEELMAKE CIVIL ENGINEER x, ▪ AA KOK VICR100 pap' 2 06.1.441 TKO/ DIM.= ARCHITECT/APPLICANT LOLO KG•SA1111 M 441. oorc14.1. NOCK FICK o.• 0i0 ,. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ▪ .412-9,22 dna SITE DATA; MAK COM klaCt 0211.80 MOP 14-1 OKLIVLICK48 net .I« •2.119 MS. ALLOWIE 01.4.43 KKR 0,V al IV•.MOO .2 MEE :.IV2.0 K WM951 09S poor DDu6Y J. =MUM MAIM t.a®Ma. (MEM, SZIO ▪ I WSIGIIRS 55555 5/ son MOM. IOW on 5/ TIM 92220MEM , • mom 096 010211211 ImCp6m 511951511pp s.aem o mK mrmieoca a A PM Oma ma avn 9Ci92 141.101K1110001 BUILDING AREA CALC K ILL UAW •na•0• KKK av win aiuµc - 050. v. 90692 q9s v. PARKING CALC 406106 ''Flp7nwi m'514.V.or Zoar. 1P:155.5 t otas•Kr 5,15,5,. 1 PAL 11411. REOutNED 9ETHACIC 624¢06606 ▪ IMO NZ u VIVO 00r MP N UR MFO ePrucc e re um SYMBOL SCHEDULE ® .COCCS..9...K,4401-KaSAKI twc.rm.t Km m C. en.o 0011:2OCa.•a0C M..• LCCLO1 a 4.•a e.s rIV 01110.91. • q 254, 921- BA 11/C1141 ACM *CR at al -Q Fr moo Par PIP wino 5199mr norm - * PLAN emu 9• . erg 3 Z 90% PROGRESS SET Architecture Planning/ Landscape Architecture 4146 North 48th stmt Phoenix, Arbon. 66018 % 1602) H0-91 FAX 62 kW os-aouot Date: 0.400 Sheet DaacripUon: erne PLAIN Revte1On: Sheet C1201 of Shts. . . ' i - • -, , ' . TYPICAL 2ND AND 3RD FIR. PLANS RCVD 7, EPJLDNO ;0111....0 SeK2S POC,IS. .5341,5IRYCI ;VIM • 00 fIDOR 7 KO 11111,0 .n.001.1 OA] S.7.• SO v. COT,Vit. f _ 1111:101“ 068 „. • • ...is sa • • ,1....1!! SO•17 LOBBY FLOOR PLANS • • • . . • LA QL/INTA NORTH • SIDE OF OLD GRAD Y. ROAD . . • U1-ESUBYINC. TA INNS, IN: - - STORAGE MAR 1 9 1998 3igte p-471. D V LC?g11N ELEV. EQUIP. CD .... ....... er CIO me LIEI - au MI ELEV LOBBY r)% yam ... . 'mi lip . Vilk,i.. c•ICst :.I. ttl p'Ft MMI1le-... •irai , loet i• .. .T ... ,.r.it LOBBY BUdDPICi ' MST 11Creft SCOW flOOP wax Sias 2898 zeve • I 436 034 we w. sne co. .eNf sa n. MST 11.00. SeC010 ROC. COMM 0.130P 202 AC, 17 045 TOT roRAG ELEV. _ . . . . . . .. . - - am — lina • n ' •- ELEV. ''''''' .. LOBBY.• ,, • ri,.aw* „JR ,.....lope ,, alk. • .1i • Iter"N7 ...1 Tic*- m . 0 ..w.o.. - ,1. .... , 4v..... : ,... • fa. • •In.m. MAR 1 9 1998 Miti:U :\TFY LOFEff LOeer eiii.Ona r1211 I1.01101 SIC000 11.0(01 Mg FLOM 11211i1S10002r.S saga SPAC/S 11. POWS S1112/1 1,36 Cei SO. (1. 634 S.116 SO. S.7111 SO IT. 1S.S15 SO. FT. ouarnvtaO 11.02/1 CUEST9001112 P1A1.1C Si,. /41. 'NC 00214S SI01/3011411 TOT. 11 13201 1111110 00102 13.001 [OWN ROM 13.201 00 0 0 0 0 9 • 2432 • . cuEs • . . 1,70 SO. FL 80,723 SO NORTH SIDE OF. OLD GRADY :ROAD LA QUNTA /NNS, INC - • . '1E EAST PECAN -STREET• SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS mos ELEVATOR _ VESTIBULE STORAGE U ' 11-0' 9'—a'-3 TORAGY 300 •EQUELEVP. ® 305 -' ® LL_.I LJ ! 309 `.. EEO • • I. U. "TLJ _ ® • LJ- -. ® IJ :• 1t9 Si, .c [ii . EL'Ev L O88Y r .. \oiCt. h ymir ia7.— I9 '' {Cs 'i 7*: 6 di . OfCS' is7♦ - ' CORRIDOR -• SEGO. FLCOP Mm 8444 - ,003 SO FT 5.7113 SO it SO. ft SECOND and noltn, f1.001 .o.r- 64723 64. n. . 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 TOR:ti:U• FFlCEPM I' '-... !DRAG o ED ELEV. EQUIP. - EXERCISE . ROOM _ . - .• A EITAI . - B. ® _ . -. ® - _ _ ® _ ® ®. ;•,.-11 E ELEV^ £I.... l0® . Ct' _ ii T♦ AIM!ate.: \ra-1 IWOO iii •V ♦Cs .:tea it•-: 7* 1• , . CORRIDOR .r714..00. I surriamta TOIN ms m Fest +wro ROM mv.- lasts sa.ri. GLIESTWOVG FIRST FLOOR PLAN (b) Co MLAst Floor Llama • L 4 WDA ;. % 19."Li . AFa 5"' it Y — I .' ZOO" 5F 9060'3 F amf y Fun Cn: L'1' MAR 9 1999 0 8' 16' 24' PLAN NORTH Architect MULVAT1f1Y PRRTfiERSHIP tib ARCHITECTS P.S ' Co • 20-0 Concel?t Second Koo: P_an 70,4 • z/ I / I \ C\e' 9111, 4 \VA:it\ )1/1. kjk .e2?' ARCADE 5.955 I \ \ I • \\‘' EAT CAEN 1,1COPOLle. LAZER RINPIER S.25 SF ____Farn.Ly Fun Cente , • - - — - — - 7' -!--- MAR TE -9-1.9-9-b---- ,,./ - i .--cf3o.r.uNr,y_ ---, ' CHVEL.CiP:\i,S1 CVED o 24' imlimmlimmm°1 PLAN NORTH 01.010 ROM •PLA • OM 11F. Architect mu Lyn flY PARTI1ERSH1P ARCHITECTS P. -111•4- Nome 122°1500" 47°2807" 1 ZONE AE (EL 20) 1 • . 1 ; • - • : i. • . • 1 ..... - . • . . • i .. . • • ; 1 • ; • I 1 . .1. , • • ; . , • L7 • 0 co 0 0; • .. ••• • ; . . . 6 , • . : , . ,• -, -- , • > c„, 10 - ,.7• z . . . 1.. i • u_ 1 • • : :- , ; ---- ; , 11. .... ; • I ':" ; -7! !!! --:- t t 1 Z : • • : z r-. I. 1 .. : .:._: . _ -.„1.: . • - ; : .. :- -• ...i. . IN .J i - • . Id/ i ... 7 . ,....... .• . tr'• : - z • 0 -1 • • • • • • - 4- • ... - .. ; . .1- I : . - . • - • cr > 0.5 03 . : 1 . • FL 00 DSAS REGULATED BY11-1HCIWARD A4HANSON DAM; : l• 1 j . • ; : 4-•1- 4 -J.-- • ' -;•-• - •t- -I-I -1 •-1,---; r ':. : I : . • • : ; ; .• . . . I. ; . ; ; ;.. 4...;......1..- - 1..'.- -i ..' -: -:.--- : .: ' ; • .r. i ii .. .. - 4 ; I i. . • : ! ' . . IL.. : . .: !: ; .; - I , . ; . • " '7 :- ''''-'' ÷- • -4 -t ..-1".-i. -' • A"-' ... - • .4! ;. • .1 • • .: . ; .. ..4., . -t. ..-i ..; ..; ..T...1..4, . t.. i .t... .:1 .. •i . 71. i . .: ; ....1 ; .: . .:.:.:..: - •-_7--7 7--,--: T.-, : -• - • . 4_4_4_4... „_,,_._ ..1..i. -1_1.-....i..-,'. .1 -...."..; !.. . : : . , 1 . .... • • : • 1,-; 1.-: 4...-; • .• , ••••• ! • I. . : 1 • 1 • •:• : • '' ! •• 1 i-•;- '• 4•••=•; .1-i ---t-1 -• 1. ; 1- i-: •! • -; -i•-;•-; 1 : ', .. • • • j. - .........: : , .: _ ; . •:,•!:--,-. ••• : I-- : ! - i • 4 :• :_„_. • .. , :.•:, ••• i..., , :. : .4--, -- , : ... - 7 -•!',- '; .1-77,77-1- : r • : • ! : ,- -.. -. ' - - i -"....., • ,.. ... 7. . . ; - ! -- 1 ' -,-- 1 : ' -.17 ,' : , ; , . .. . . .4. . . • . • 1 • • ; i - -/ • - 1 -1 ' 1. -!'' I • . • • I . ; ..,„ • ' I 4 . 1 . 1 4 ' ; 1 -' ' ' .. . ..1.....;•.• t :, ; ; .I.. . 4 , I ! ' -7 1* • i -7--;• • •1 7: 7,---i-i-i -i: I I.--; 1- •••• -;:• --I t • i: ' 1 : 1 . 4 •••. - - 4f- -4- 4- 4- -.--L4••-•• ----I--4---;•;•.i 4 , .. , : , .,-,........_..1..;._- j.__•,. I..: ...,..: ..,..... .....:. .. 7 ••:-•-.....-- - i-- ... . ...,. : .i , . .,...; : •,...1 :_1...:-.4..:.+.1. _1_4..1. I .; :_., .; . _L.,. I : : -4 4-1:-4•444 •-4 - 1 ; 4••• . t . 1 . .. I • • • j • ; • : : • 1 J , • • 1 40 . . : 1 . 1 : 1 . ' • ' I ' 1 ' ..:' ...; ... . . .; • . 4 - •-1-• .4' ; 4 i•-.; .:, ., ., •• 1+. i :I 4 ;,...; • j !. •• `, ' i-'•-• • ' ; 7 !. ': • •j _1. :. t_. i_. t ..,• U•1 . .1-1 ."! t'i ''' • : .. t : " -7 . , 1 : , • ' ; , ! ; ; -,i, • • _, 1 _: . • . .i.,, .. : . .: , L 4 ; 4 .. . ,.. __.„ , . ' '--1 -4. 1 I -1•• • "..', . . .... , .1.- ! , • 4 : : : : : , • !..4 7 . 0 • , ' . i , - - . - ' - '• 1 1 ; '' .' . • . • . . .1 -.1 .. 1: I - . . ",. : .:!':. '4...-'.: .....1'. 4..-i!' :. i'.- 1 .''', _Li .1. .• _.1.U..i ...-r-.; .• . '' • • -"" - . . 1. 4., .....:- 1... • • I I • *. ' ' • I .',. i I' ' - '',-4, -1.' CI j -i 1" :- .1' -I ' ' -1.- • ; • : . . . j. . 1 . . : . • I ••• ! • , . , .1* . • . ; ! • - ; • 1 " ;71 "1. 1 , 7 I 17 • • 7 7 I, ' • : '•••• • • : rep;v4--i-IrYnride) • - t Li; ctx. ; • .1 :z • • 1 : I I-• .1- ! ; •I-- • : 7 1 -10 7 10 .2 I • - 7- • '•1 • I , • 1 • . ; • • , - 1 ' • :••••,.. • • . -1 • • •; --;•••1• , '• • 1 f- 7 • , -.1• • .•:. • • • • • •• :,••I ; • • •-!, ; : • 1 • 1 : : • : , • 1 , • 7 . " ; • • ; 7 1 1 • • 4 . ; -4 • ' ; ' 1 .. : .. : " •,. ! : 1...' - ' - , , • • • : 1. , !! , 1 1 I. ' -. . -: , - -• " -; ' . . - !" ! :• I" ' -'' -1- ' i• . . : . 1. . 1 . ' . 1 ; ' 10.4 10.6 10.8 11.2 • 11.4 •_•. _ 11.6 STREAM DISTANCE IN MILES ABOVE MOUTH !!! "-•t: .4, , I • • • • : • • 11.8 .1. ..-. 1 ._ ... • 1 ; ; • I : .... ; . . • -.44 LEGEND 500 - YEAR FLOOD 10 0 -10 -7 100 - YEAR FLOOD 50- YEAR FLOOD 10 - YEAR FLOOD STREAM BED CROSS SECTION LOCATION 12.0 12.2 12.4 12.6 12.8 C=1 ,C:21 CZ2' FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 22P ••••••••....101" ELEVATION (FEET NGVD) 40 30 20 10 0 -10 11.0 u- 0 0 w 0 z w -J z 0 0 cc w > i 0 5 sod,, ye :EG='22 pt (cdg5 /'#9T7ve) STRANDER BOULEVARD 20 3. 10 0 1-o za wO 0 cc CC CC I- Y 0< LLa LEGEND 500 - YEAR FLOOD 11.2 11.4 11'.6 11.8 12.0 12.2 STREAM DISTANCE IN MILES ABOVE MOUTH • 12.4 12.6 100 - YEAR FLOOD 50 - YEAR FLOOD 10 - YEAR FLOOD STREAM BED CROSS SECTION LOCATION 128 13.0 13.2 13.4 P