Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit PL14-0021 - KEN LANGOLZ / CITY OF KENT - BRISCOE DESIMONE LEVEE / SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENTBRISCOE-DESIMONE LEVEE PROD MULTIPLE PARCELS PL14-0021 L14-0030 SHORELINE SUB DEV L14-0031 SHORELINE VARIANCE SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT l� City of Tukwila Allan Ekberg, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director December 12, 2017 NOTICE OF DECISION SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT REVISION TO: Ken Langholz, Applicant King County Assessor, Accounting Division Washington State Department of Ecology, NW Regional Office Washington State Attorney General Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Duwamish Indian Tribe Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition Parties of Record This letter serves as a notice of decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.104.170 on the following project and permit approval. Project File Number: Applicant: I. PROJECT INFORMATION L14-0030 Ken Langholz, City of Kent Public Works Dept. Type of Permit Applied for: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Revision Project Description: The City of Kent's Reach 1 levee repair project received a shoreline substantial development permit for work on the Green River August 20, 2014, which included installation of a structural sheet pile wall at the back of the levee, re -sloping of the river bank portion of the levee below the Green River Trail, and the planting of 170 trees to replace 29 that were removed in order to construct the sheet pile wall. After approval of the permit, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) determined that the levee in front of where the sheet pile wall was to be installed was damaged in a storm event in March, 2014, and the COE took over the portion of the levee repair project waterward of the Green River Trail. After the levee repair, the COE planted some native trees but not in sufficient quantity to fulfill Kent's mitigation planting requirement. The City of Kent was unable to locate these trees on the COE repaired levee, so an alternative planting site was located just upstream from the pedestrian/bicycle bridge that crosses the river at S. 180th Street. Location: Levee behind 18200 Cascade Ave South, Tukwila Associated Files: L14-0031, Shoreline Variance, ENV -2013-3 (City of Kent SEPA file) Page 1 of 3 June 11, 2015 W:\Planning\Planning Forms\Notice of Decision\Shoreline 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax 206-431-3665 Briscoe/Desimone Shoreline Substai Notice of Decision December 12, 2016 Development Permit Revision Comprehensive Plan Designation/Zoning Commercial/Light Industrial District: II. DECISION SEPA Determination: The SEPA Responsible Official for the City of Kent has previously: X determined that the project, as proposed, does not create a probable significant environmental impact and issued a Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance (DNS), Decision on Substantive Permit: The Tukwila Community Development Director has determined that the application for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Revision does comply with applicable City and state code requirements and has approved that application based on the findings and conclusions contained in the staff report. The Decision on this Permit Application is a Type 2 decision pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code § 18.104.010. This permit is granted pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 and nothing in this permit shall excuse the applicant from compliance with any other Federal, State or local statues, ordinances or regulations applicable to this project, but not inconsistent with the Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW). This permit may be rescinded pursuant to RCW 90.58.140(8) in the event the permittee fails to comply with the project as approved and any conditions thereof. CONSTRUCTION PURSUANT TO THIS PERMIT MAY NOT BEGIN AND IS NOT AUTHORIZED UNTIL TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AS DEFINED IN RCW 90.58.140(6) AND WAC 173-14-090, OR UNTIL ALL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS INITIATED WITHIN TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SUCH FILING HAVE TERMINATED; EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN RCW 90.58.140(5)(a)(b)(c). Construction must begin within 2 years from the effective date of the permit and be substantially completed within 5 years of the effective date of the original permit, August 26, 2014. The effective date of a substantial development permit shall be the date of receipt as provided in RCW 90.58.140(6). III. YOUR APPEAL RIGHTS One administrative appeal to the Shorelines Hearings Board of the Decision is permitted. Any person appealing to the Shorelines Hearings Board may raise certain SEPA issues as part of the appeal to the Shorelines Hearings Board. Appellants should consult the rules and procedures of the Shorelines Hearings Board for details. CL Page 2 of 3 December 9,2016 H:A\L14-0030 Briscoe-Desimone Levee Repair\Shoreline Permit RevisionANOD r _1 Briscoe/Desimone Shoreline Substant, .,.)evelopment Permit Revision Notice of Decision December 12, 2016 Pursuant to RCW 90.58.180 the decision by the City of Tukwila to issue this Shoreline Substantial Development Permit may only be appealed to the Shoreline Hearings Board. Appeals must be filed with the Shoreline Hearings Board within 21 -days from the filing of this permit with the Department of Ecology as defined in RCW 90.58.140. For more detailed information on appeals, refer to RCW 90.58 and WAC 461.08. IV. PROCEDURES AND TIME FOR APPEALING The requirements and procedures for appeals to the Shorelines Hearings Board are set forth in RCW 90.58 and WAC 461.08. V. INSPECTION OF INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Revision are available for inspection at the Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100, Tukwila, Washington 98188 from Monday through Friday between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The project planner is Carol Lumb, who may be contacted at 206-431-3661for further information. Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax purposes. Contact the King County Assessor's Office for further information regarding property tax valuation changes. The notice board must be removed at the expiration of the appeal period unless an appeal is filed. Jack ace, Director Depment of Community Development City of Tukwila CL Page 3 of 3 December 9,2016 H:\\L14-0030 Briscoe-Desimone Levee Repair\Shoreline Permit Revision\NOD / l City of Tukwila Allan Ekberg, Mayor Department of Community Development - Jack Pace, Director STAFF REPORT REVISION TO SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO: Jack Pace, Community Development Director FROM: Carol Lumb, Senior Planner DATE: December 7, 2016 SUBJECT: Revision to Shoreline Substantial Development Permit L14-0030, Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repair I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION The City of Kent's Reach 1 levee repair project received a shoreline substantial development permit for work on the Green River in 2015, which included placement of a structural sheet pile wall, re -sloping of the river bank adjacent to the wall, and the planting of 170 trees to replace 29 that were removed in order to construct the sheet pile wall. After approval of the permit, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) determined that the levee in front of where the sheet pile wall was to be installed was damaged in a storm event in March, 2014, and the COE took over the portion of the levee repair project waterward of the Green River Trail. After the levee repair, the COE planted some native trees but not in sufficient quantity to fulfill Kent's requirement to plant 170 trees along with shrubs and groundcover. The City of Kent was unable to locate these trees on the COE repaired levee, so an alternative planting site was located just upstream from the pedestrian/bicycle bridge that crosses the river at S. 180th Street. II. GENERAL INFORMATION Project Name: Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repair File Number: L14-0030 Associated Files: ENV -2013-3 (City of Kent was lead environmental agency); L14-0031, Shoreline Variance APPLICANT: Ken Langholz, for City of Kent LOCATION: Green River shoreline adjacent to 18200 Cascade Avenue South, Tukwila COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/ ZONING DISTRICT: Commercial/Light Industrial SEPA DETERMINATION: MDNS, issued April 9, 2013, by City of Kent STAFF CONTACT: Carol Lumb, Senior Planner Tukwila City Hall • 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, WA 98188 • 206-433-1800 • Website: TukwilaWA.gov Briscoe-Desimone Levee Repair Project L I4-0030 Shoreline Permit Revision December 7, 2016 ATTACHMENTS: A. October 10, 2016 Letter from Ken Langholz, City of Kent with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers February 6, 2015 Public Notice re Desimone-Briscoe School Levee Rehabilitation B. Reach 1 Revised Mitigation Planting dated September 26, 2016 C. L14-0030 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Staff Report, dated August 22, 2014 III. BACKGROUND The original project was to repair approximately 1,100 feet of compromised section of levee by installing a structural steel sheet pile wall at the back of existing levee on the Green River to reduce flood risk to the cities of Renton, Kent, and Tukwila. The Briscoe-Desimone Levee Repair project is one of four levee repairs the City of Kent has undertaken three of which fall completely or almost completely within the City of Kent's city limits. The fourth project, referred to as Reach 1, lies completely within Tukwila; the location is illustrated below. The original plans for the project showed the Reach 1 levee prism being reconfigured to a less steep angle and planted with native plants (see Attachment C). In addition, two shoreline variances were needed for the project: a variance from Tukwila's adopted levee profile, and a variance from Tukwila's adopted trail width standard. These requests were considered under a separate land use action. The City's Hearing Examiner, after conducting a public hearing on July 22, 2014 and taking public testimony, recommended approval of the variance request to the Department of Ecology, which ultimately approved the shoreline variances. Prior to the completion of the City of Kent's sheet pile wall and before the City reconfigured the levee slope and installed the plantings, the COE determined that the Desimone-Briscoe levee -Reach 1 was damaged in an event on March 10, 2014. This prompted the COE to construct a rock lined waterward slope layback to restore the 100 -year level of protection in Reach 1 in place of the more gradual levee slope proposed by the City of Kent. The COE project was completed in the same location as the City of Kent's original permitted project. The COE CL Page 2 of 18 H:\\ L14-0030\Briscoe-Desimone Levee Repair\ 2016 Shoreline Revision Staff rpt. 12/8/2016 5:43 PM f 1 f 1 Briscoe-Desimone Levee Repair Project L14-0030 Shoreline Permit Revision December 7, 2016 lined the slope with rock and a thin layer of soil; the amount of rock and soil could not support the City of Kent's mitigation planting. As a result, a new location was needed for the City's mitigation plantings. It should be noted that the COE used a different levee profile from that approved under Kent's shoreline variance. It is the policy of the COE to look at various alternatives and choose one that is viewed as a "least cost" alternative. The COE does not follow local requirements for a specific levee profile. If a local jurisdiction wants its levee profile implemented, it must bear the cost of the levee repair. The City of Kent is proposing to install its mitigation plantings just upstream of the original planting site, south of the pedestrian bridge (River Mile 14.75 to 14.96) This new location will allow the City of Kent to meet the requirements of its shoreline substantial development permit and the Tukwila Municipal Code. The City of Kent is planting 300 evergreen and deciduous trees, which exceeds the 170 trees required by the shoreline permit, in addition to just under 5,000 native shrubs (4,976 shrubs). IV FINDINGS Attachment B illustrates the planting plan for the relocated mitigation plantings while Attachment C includes the plans for the original levee profile and plantings approved under the original shoreline substantial development permit and shoreline variance. The request to revise the 2014 shoreline permit will be reviewed against the current Shoreline Master Program regulations as well as criteria from the WAC as the City's regulations do not include criteria for shoreline permit revisions. Consistency with TMC 18.44 — Shoreline Regulations 18.44.050 Urban Conservancy Environment — Uses The proposed permit revision is to revise the location of the mitigation plantings to upstream of the pedestrian bridge where there is more native soil to support the plant health. TMC 18.44.050 B. h. permits "(c)onstruction, maintenance or re -development of levees for flood control purposes, provided that any new or re -developed levee shall meet the applicable levee requirements of this chapter." The City of Kent used a different levee profile than required by Tukwila's Shoreline Master Program and received approval of a shoreline variance for that levee profile under land use file L14-0031. 18.44.070 – Development Standards The project is located in the Urban Conservancy shoreline environment. The 200 foot shoreline jurisdiction in the Urban Conservancy environment is divided into a 125 foot buffer for shorelines with constructed levees, with the remaining 75 feet outside the buffer but within shoreline jurisdiction. CL Page 3 of 18 H:\\ L14-0030\Briscoe-Desimone Levee Repair\ 2016 Shoreline Revision Staff rpt. 12/8/2016 5:43 PM Briscoe-Desimone Levee Repair Project L14-0030 Shoreline Permit Revision December 7, 2016 18.44.070 These development standards apply to all substantial development except vegetation removal within the Shoreline Project does comply Project does not comply N/A Notes B.1. Residential Environment. No residential uses are included in the proposed permit revision. C. High Intensity, Urban Conservancy and Aquatic Environment Development Standards. 1. Standards. a. The development standards for the applicable underlying zoning district (Title 18, Tukwila Municipal Code) shall apply. X The proposed revision will relocate required mitigation plantings to a nearby site just upstream from the initial planting location, that is also south - facing. b. All new development performed by public agencies, or new multi -family, commercial, or industrial development shall provide public access in accordance with the standards in the Public Access Section. X Public access is provided by the Green River Trail, which lies just above the planting location on the top of the levee. c. Development or re -development of properties in areas of the shoreline armored with revetments or other hard armoring other than levees, or with non -armored river banks, must comply with the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section, TMC Section 18.44.080. X d. Any new shoreline stabilization or repairs to existing stabilization must comply with Shoreline Stabilization Section, TMC Section 18.44.070(F). X The COE repair responded to a threat that they determined directly compromised the levee integrity. The COE used a different levee profile from that approved for the City of Kent. The COE chose not to follow local CL Page 4 of 18 H:\\ L14-0030\Briscoe-Desimone Levee Repair\ 2016 Shoreline Revision Staff rpt. 12/8/2016 5:43 PM Briscoe-Desimone Levee Repair Project L14-0030 Shoreline Permit Revision December 7, 2016 CL Page 5 of 18 H:\\ L14-0030\Briscoe-Desimone Levee Repair\ 2016 Shoreline Revision Staff rpt. 12/8/2016 5:43 PM Shoreline Master Program standards for levee repairs. e. Over -water structures shall be allowed only for water - dependent uses and the size limited to the minimum necessary to support the structure's intended use and shall result in no net loss to shoreline ecological function. Over- water structures must comply with the standards in the Over - water Structures Section, TMC Section 18.44.070(K). X 2. Setbacks and Site Configuration. a. The yard setback adjacent to the river is the buffer width established for the applicable shoreline environment. X b. A fishing pier, viewing platform or other outdoor feature that provides access to the shoreline is not required to meet a setback from the OHWM. X 3. Height Restrictions a. 15 feet where located within the River Buffer; X b. 45 feet between the outside landward edge of the River Buffer and 200 feet of the OHWM. X c. Provided, no permit shall be issued for any new or expanded building or structure of more than 35 feet above average grade level on shorelines of the State that will obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining such shorelines. For any building that is proposed to be greater than 35 feet in height in the shoreline jurisdiction, the development proponent must demonstrate the proposed building will not block the views of a substantial number of residences. The Director may approve a 15% increase in height if the project proponent provides additional restoration and/or enhancement of the shoreline buffer, beyond what may otherwise be required in accordance with the standards of TMC Section 18.44.080, "Vegetation Protection and Landscaping." If the required buffer has already been restored, the project proponent may provide a 20% wider buffer, and/or enhanced in order to obtain the 15% increase in height in accordance with TMC Section 18.44.080, "Vegetation Protection and Landscaping." X 4. Lighting a. The minimum light levels in parking areas and paths between the building and street shall be one -foot candle X CL Page 5 of 18 H:\\ L14-0030\Briscoe-Desimone Levee Repair\ 2016 Shoreline Revision Staff rpt. 12/8/2016 5:43 PM Briscoe-Desimone Levee Repair Project L14-0030 Shoreline Permit Revision December 7, 2016 b. Lighting shall be designed to prevent light spillover and glare on adjacent properties and on the river channel, be directed downward so as to illuminate only the immediate area, and be shielded to eliminate direct off-site illumination. X c. The general grounds need not be lighted. X d. The lighting is incorporated into a unified landscape and/or site plan. X D. Surface Water and Water Quality. 1. New surface water systems may not discharge directly into the river or streams tributary to the river without pre- treatment to reduce pollutants and meet State water quality standards. X The permit revision involves relocation of mitigation plantings — no surface water discharges will be involved. 2. Such pre-treatment may consist of biofiltration, oil/water separators, or other methods approved by the City of Tukwila Public Works Department. X 3. Shoreline development, uses and activities. shall not cause any increase in surface runoff, and shall have adequate provisions for storm water detention/infiltration. X 4. Stormwater outfalls must be designed so as to cause no net loss of shoreline ecological functions or adverse impacts where functions are impaired. New stormwater outfalls or maintenance of existing outfalls must include shoreline restoration as part of the project. X 5. Shoreline development and activities shall have adequate provisions for sanitary sewer. X 6. Solid and liquid wastes and untreated effluents shall not be allowed to enter any bodies of water or to be discharged onto shorelands. X 7. The use of low impact development techniques is required, unless such techniques conflict with other provisions of the SMP or are shown to not be feasible due to site conditions. X E. Flood Hazard Reduction. 1. New structural flood hazard reduction structures shall be allowed only when it can be demonstrated by a Riverbank Analysis that: X The original project was a levee repair and not a new levee system. CL Page 6 of 18 H:A\ L14-0030\Briscoe-Desimone Levee Repair\ 2016 Shoreline Revision Staff rpt. 12/8/2016 5:43 PM Briscoe-Desimone Levee Repair Project L14-0030 Shoreline Permit Revision December 7, 2016 a. They are necessary to protect existing development; X b. Non-structural measures are not feasible; and X c. Impacts to ecological functions and priority species and habitats can be successfully mitigated so as to assure no net loss. X 2. Flood hazard structures must incorporate appropriate vegetation restoration and conservation actions consistent with the standards of the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section. X 3. Levees, berms and similar flood control structures, whether new or redeveloped, shall be designed to meet the minimum levee profile, except as provided in Section 18.44.070.E.10 below. X 4. Publicly -funded structural measures to reduce flood hazards shall improve public access or dedicate and provide public access unless public access improvements would cause unavoidable health or safety hazards to the public, inherent and unavoidable security problems, or significant ecological impacts that cannot be mitigated. X 5. Rehabilitation or replacement of existing flood control structures, such as levees, with a primary purpose of containing the 1% annual chance flood event, shall be allowed where it can be demonstrated by an engineering analysis that the existing structure: a. Does not provide an appropriate level of protection for surrounding lands; or X b. Does not meet the minimum levee profile or other appropriate engineering design standards for stability (e.g., over -steepened side slopes for existing soil and/or flow conditions); and X c. Repair of the existing structure will not cause or increase significant adverse ecological impacts to the shoreline. X 6. Rehabilitated or replaced flood hazard reduction structures shall not extend the toe of slope any further waterward of the OHWM than the existing structure. X 7. New structural flood hazard reduction measures, such as levees, berms and similar flood control structures shall be placed landward of the floodway as determined by the best information available. X CL Page 7 of 18 H:\\ L14-0030\Briscoe-Desimone Levee Repair\ 2016 Shoreline Revision Staff rpt. 12/8/2016 5:43 PM Briscoe-Desimone Levee Repair Project L14-0030 Shoreline Permit Revision December 7, 2016 8. New, redeveloped or replaced structural flood hazard reduction measures shall be placed landward of associated wetlands, and designated fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. X 9. No commercial, industrial, office or residential development shall be located within a floodplain without a Flood Control Zone Permit issued by the City. No development shall be located within a floodway except as otherwise permitted. X 10. New, redeveloped or replaced flood hazard reduction structures may deviate from the minimum levee profile only as follows. A floodwall may be substituted for all or a portion of a levee back slope only where necessary to avoid encroachment or damage to a structure legally constructed prior to the date of adoption of this subsection, and which structure has not lost its nonconforming status. The floodwall shall be designed to be the minimum necessary to provide 10 feet of clearance between the levee and the building, or the minimum necessary to preserve access needed for building functionality while meeting all engineering safety standards. A floodwall may also be used where necessary to prevent the levee from encroaching upon a railroad easement recorded prior to the date of adoption of this subsection. If a floodwall is permitted under this subsection the levee slope must be 2.5H: l V unless it is not physically possible to achieve such a slope; in that instance, the levee slope must be as close to 2.5H:1 V as physically possible. X F. Shoreline Stabilization. 1. Shoreline protection shall not be considered an outright permitted use and shall be permitted only when it has been demonstrated through a riverbank analysis and report that shoreline protection is necessary for the protection of existing legally established structures and public improvements. X 2. New development and re -development shall be designed and configured on the lot to avoid the need for new shoreline stabilization. Removal of failing shoreline stabilization shall be incorporated into re -development design proposals wherever feasible. X 3. Replacement of lawfully established, existing bulkheads or revetments are subject to the following priority system: X a. The first priority for replacement of bulkheads or revetments shall be landward of the existing bulkhead. X CL Page 8 of 18 H:\\ L14-0030\Briscoe-Desimone Levee Repair\ 2016 Shoreline Revision Staff rpt. 12/8/2016 5:43 PM i Briscoe-Desimone Levee Repair Project L14-0030 Shoreline Permit Revision December 7, 2016 CL Page 9 of 18 H:\\ L14-0030\Briscoe-Desimone Levee Repair\ 2016 Shoreline Revision Staff rpt. 12/8/2016 5:43 PM b. The second priority for replacement of existing bulkheads or revetments shall be to replace in place (at the bulkhead's existing location). X 4. When evaluating a proposal against the above priority system, at a minimum the following criteria shall be considered: X a. Existing topography; X b. Existing development; X c. Location of abutting bulkheads; X d. Impact to shoreline ecological functions; and, X e. Impact to river hydraulics, potential changes in geomorphology, and to other areas of the shoreline. X 5. Proponents of new or replacement hard shoreline stabilization (e.g. bulkheads or revetments) must demonstrate through a documented river bank analysis that bioengineered shoreline protection measures or bioengineering erosion control designs will not provide adequate upland protection of existing structures or would pose a threat or risk to adjacent property. The study must also demonstrate that the proposed hard shoreline stabilization will not adversely affect other infrastructure or adjacent shorelines. X 6. Where allowed, shoreline armoring shall be designed, constructed and maintained in a manner that does not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions, including fish habitat, and shall conform to the requirements of the 2004 Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (or as amended) criteria and guidelines for integrated stream bank protection (Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, Washington), U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and other regulatory requirements. The hard shoreline stabilization must be designed and approved by an engineer licensed in the State of Washington and qualified to design shoreline stabilization structures. X 7. Shoreline armoring shall be designed to the minimum size, height, bulk and extent necessary to remedy the identified hazard. X 8. An applicant must demonstrate the following in order to qualify for the RCW 90.58.030(30(e)(iii)(ii) exemption from the requirement to obtain a shoreline substantial development X CL Page 9 of 18 H:\\ L14-0030\Briscoe-Desimone Levee Repair\ 2016 Shoreline Revision Staff rpt. 12/8/2016 5:43 PM Briscoe-Desimone Levee Repair Project L14-0030 Shoreline Permit Revision December 7, 2016 permit for a proposed single family bulkhead and to insure that the bulkhead will be consistent with the SMP: a. Erosion from currents or waves is imminently threatening a legally established single family detached dwelling unit or one or more appurtenant structures; and X b. The proposed bulkhead is more consistent with the City's Master Program in protecting the site and adjoining shorelines and that non-structural alternatives such as slope drainage systems, bioengineering or vegetative growth stabilization, are not feasible or will not adequately protect a legally established residence or appurtenant structure; and X c. The proposed bulkhead is located landward of the OHWM or it connects to adjacent, legally established bulkheads; and X d. The maximum height of the proposed bulkhead is no more than one foot above the elevation of extreme high water on tidal waters as determined by the National Ocean Survey published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. X 9. Bulkheads or revetments shall be constructed of suitable materials that will serve to accomplish the desired end with maximum preservation of natural characteristics. Materials with the potential for water quality degradation shall not be used. Design and construction methods shall consider aesthetics and habitat protection. Automobile bodies, tires or other junk or waste material that may release undesirable chemicals or other material shall not be used for shoreline protection. X 10. The builder of any bulkhead or revetment shall be financially responsible for determining the nature and the extent of probable adverse effects on fish and wildlife or on the property of others caused by his/her construction and shall propose and implement solutions approved by the City to minimize such effects. X 11. When shoreline stabilization is required at a public access site, provision for safe access to the water shall be incorporated in the design whenever possible X 12. Placement of bank protection material shall occur from the top of the bank and shall be supervised by the property owner or contractor to ensure material is not dumped directly onto the bank face. X 13. Bank protection material shall be clean and shall be of a sufficient size to prevent its being washed away by high water flows. X CL Page 10 of 18 H:A\ L14-0030\Briscoe-Desimone Levee Repair\ 2016 Shoreline Revision Staff rpt. 12/8/2016 5:43 PM Briscoe-Desimone Levee Repair Project L14-0030 Shoreline Permit Revision December 7, 2016 14. When riprap is washed out and presents a hazard to the safety of recreational users of the river, it shall be removed by the owner of such material. X 15. Bank protection associated with bridge construction and maintenance may be permitted subject to the provisions of the SMP and shall conform to provisions of the State Hydraulics Code (RCW 77.55) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineer regulations. X G. Archaeological, Cultural and Historical Resources. 1. All land use permits for projects within the shoreline jurisdiction shall be coordinated with affected tribes. X 2. If the City determines that a site has significant archaeological, natural scientific or historical value, a substantial development that would pose a threat to the resources of the site shall not be approved. X 3. Permits issued in areas documented to contain archaeological resources require a site inspection or evaluation by a professional archaeologist in coordination with affected Indian tribes. The City may require that development be postponed in such areas to allow investigation of public acquisition potential, retrieval and preservation of significant artifacts and/or development of a mitigation plan. Areas of known or suspected archaeological middens shall not be disturbed and shall be fenced and identified during construction projects on the site. X 4. Developers and property owners shall immediately stop work and notify the City of Tukwila, the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and affected Indian tribes if archaeological resources are uncovered during excavation. X 5. In the event that unforeseen factors constituting an emergency, as defined in RCW 90.58.030, necessitate rapid action to retrieve or preserve artifacts or data identified above, the project may be exempted from any shoreline permit requirements. The City shall notify the Washington State Department of Ecology, the State Attorney General's Office and the State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Office of such an exemption in a timely manner. X 6. Archaeological excavations may be permitted subject to the provision of this chapter. X 7. On sites where historical or archaeological resources have been identified and will be preserved in situ, public access to X CL Page l l of 18 H:\\ L14-0030\13riscoe-Desimone Levee Repair\ 2016 Shoreline Revision Staff rpt. 12/8/2016 5:43 PM Briscoe-Desimone Levee Repair Project L14-0030 Shoreline Permit Revision December 7, 2016 such areas shall be designed and managed so as to give maximum protection to the resource and surrounding environment. 8. Interpretive signs of historical and archaeological features shall be provided subject to the requirements of the Public Access Section when such signage does not compromise the protection of these features from tampering, damage and/or destruction. X H. Environmental Impact Mitigation. 1. All shoreline development and uses shall occur in a manner that results in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions through the careful location and design of all allowed development and uses. In cases where impacts to shoreline ecological functions from allowed development and uses are unavoidable, those impacts shall be mitigated according to the provisions of this section; in that event, the "no net loss" standard is met. X 2. To the extent Washington's State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, is applicable, the analysis of environmental impacts from proposed shoreline uses or developments shall be conducted consistent with the rules implementing SEPA (TMC Chapter 21.04 and WAC 197-11). X The City of Kent conducted SEPA review of this levee repair project as it is one of four repairs the City is making — three of the projects are within or primarily in the Kent City limits. 3. For all development, mitigation sequencing shall be applied in the following order of priority: X a. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. X b. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts. X c. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. X d. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations. X e. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments. X CL Page 12 of 18 H:A\ L14-0030\Briscoe-Desirnone Levee Repair\ 2016 Shoreline Revision Staff rpt. 12/8/2016 5:43 PM Briscoe-Desimone Levee Repair Project L14-0030 Shoreline Permit Revision December 7, 2016 CL Page 13 of 18 H:\\ L14-0030\Briscoe-Desimone Levee Repair\ 20.16 Shoreline Revision Staff rpt. 12/8/2016 5:43 PM f. Monitoring the impact and the compensation projects and taking appropriate corrective measures. X 4. In determining appropriate mitigation measures applicable to shoreline development, lower priority measures shall be applied only where higher priority measures are determined by the City to be infeasible or inapplicable. X 5. When mitigation measures are appropriate pursuant to the priority of mitigation sequencing above, preferential consideration shall be given to measures that replace the impacted functions directly and in the immediate vicinity of the impact. However, if mitigation in the immediate vicinity is not scientifically feasible due to problems with hydrology, soils, waves or other factors, then off-site mitigation within the Shoreline Jurisdiction may be allowed if consistent with the Shoreline Restoration Plan. Mitigation for projects in the Transition Zone must take place in the Transition Zone. In the event a site is not available in the Transition Zone to carry out required mitigation, the project proponent may contribute funds equivalent to the value of the required mitigation to an existing or future restoration project identified in the CIP to be carried out by a public agency in the Transition Zone. X I. Off Street Parking and Loading Requirements. 1. Any parking, loading, or storage facilities located between the river and any building must incorporate additional landscaping in accordance with the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section, or berming or other site planning or design techniques to reduce visual and/or environmental impacts from the parking areas utilizing the following screening techniques: X a. A solid evergreen screen of trees and shrubs a minimum of six feet high; or X b. Decorative fence a maximum of six feet high with landscaping. Chain link fence, where allowed, shall be vinyl coated and landscaped with native trailing vine or an approved non-native vine other than ivy, except where a security or safety hazard may exist; or X c. Earth berms at a minimum of four feet high, planted with native plants in accordance with the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section. X 2. Where a parking area is located in the shoreline jurisdiction and adjacent to a public access feature, the parking area shall be screened by a vegetative screen or a X CL Page 13 of 18 H:\\ L14-0030\Briscoe-Desimone Levee Repair\ 20.16 Shoreline Revision Staff rpt. 12/8/2016 5:43 PM Briscoe-Desimone Levee Repair Project L14-0030 Shoreline Permit Revision December 7, 2016 built structure that runs the entire length of the parking area adjacent to the amenity. The landscape screening shall comply with the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section. 3. Where public access to or along the shoreline exists or is proposed, parking areas shall provide pedestrian access from the parking area to the shoreline. X 4. Parking facilities, loading areas and paved areas shall incorporate low impact development techniques wherever feasible, adequate storm water retention areas, oil/water separators and biofiltration swales, or other treatment techniques and shall comply with the standards and practices formally adopted by the City of Tukwila Public Works Department. X J. Land Altering Activities. J.1. Clearing, Grading and Landfill. a. Land altering shall be permitted only where it meets the following criteria:X Invasive plants will be removed and the site planted with native species. (1) The work is the minimum necessary to accomplish an allowed shoreline use; X (2) Impacts to the natural environment are minimized and mitigated; X (3) Water quality, river flows and/or fish habitat are not adversely affected; X (4) Public access and river navigation are not diminished; X (5) The project complies with all federal and state requirements; X (6) The project complies with the vegetation protection criteria of the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section; X (7) The project will achieve no net loss of shoreline ecological functions or processes. In cases where impacts to shoreline ecological functions from an otherwise allowed land altering project are unavoidable, those impacts shall be mitigated according to the provisions of this section. In that event, the "no net loss" standard is met; and X CL Page 14 of 18 H:A\ L14-0030\Briscoe-Desimone Levee Repair\ 2016 Shoreline Revision Staff rpt. 12/8/2016 5:43 PM Briscoe-Desimone Levee Repair Project L14-0030 Shoreline Permit Revision December 7, 2016 (8) Documentation is provided to demonstrate that the fill comes from a clean source. X b. Clearing, grading and landfill activities, where allowed, shall include erosion control mechanisms, and any reasonable restriction on equipment, methods or timing necessary to minimize the introduction of suspended solids or leaching of contaminants into the river, or the disturbance of wildlife or fish habitats in accordance with the standards in TMC Chapter 16.54, "Grading." X J.2. Dredging. a. Dredging activities must comply with all federal and state regulations. Maintenance dredging of established navigation channels and basins must be restricted to maintaining previously dredged and/or existing authorized location, depth, and width. X b. Where allowed, dredging operations must be designed and scheduled so as to ensure no net loss to shoreline ecological functions or processes. In cases where impacts to shoreline ecological functions from allowed dredging are unavoidable, those impacts shall be mitigated according to the,provisions of this section; in that event, the "no net loss" standard is met. X K. Marinas, Boat Yards, Dry Docks, Boat Launches, Piers, Docks and Other Over -water Structures. X No marinas, boat yards, dry docks, boat launches, piers, docks or other over - water structures are included in this permit revision. L.Signs in Shoreline Jurisdiction. X No signage is proposed as part of this permit revision. 18.44.080 Vegetation Protection and Landscaping The project site vegetated with invasive plants currently and will be planted with native plants after the invasive plants are removed. See the landscaping plan, Attachment B.' 18.44.090 Environmentally Sensitive Areas within the Shoreline Jurisdiction There are no environmentally sensitive areas in the proposed project area. 18.44.100 Public Access to the Shoreline The proposed permit revision does not trigger the public access provisions of the Shoreline Master Program. CL Page 15 of 18 H:\\ L14-0030\Briscoe-Desimone Levee Repair\ 2016 Shoreline Revision Staff rpt. . 12/8/2016 5:43 PM Briscoe-Desimone Levee Repair Project L14-0030 Shoreline Permit Revision December 7, 2016 18.44.110 Shoreline Design Guidelines The shoreline design guidelines do not apply to this shoreline permit revision request. 18.44.120 Shoreline Restoration The shoreline restoration criteria do not apply to this shoreline permit revision request. 18.44.130 Shoreline Administration Shoreline Permit Revisions The Tukwila Shoreline Master Program regulations do not include criteria for consideration of a revision to a shoreline substantial development permit. Therefore, the criteria from WAC 173-27-100 will be used. WAC 173-27-100 Revisions to Permits - Review Criteria "A permit revision is required whenever the applicant proposes substantive changes to the design, terms or conditions of a project from that which is approved in the permit. Changes are substantive if they materially alter the project in a manner that relates to its conformance to the terms and conditions of the permit, the master program and/or the policies and provisions of chapter 90.58 RCW. Changes which are not substantive in effect do not require approval of a revision. "When an applicant seeks to revise a permit, local government shall request from the applicant detailed plans and text describing the proposed changes. "(1) If local government determines that the proposed changes are within the scope and intent of the original permit, and are consistent with the applicable master program and the act, local government may approve a revision. "(2) "Within the scope and intent of the original permit" means all of the following: (a) No additional over water construction is involved except that pier, dock, or float construction may be increased by five hundred square feet or ten percent from the provisions of the original permit, whichever is less; (b) Ground area coverage and height may be increased a maximum of ten percent from the provisions of the original permit; (c) The revised permit does not authorize development to exceed height, lot coverage, setback, or any other requirements of the applicable master program except as authorized under a variance granted as the original permit or a part thereof; (d) Additional or revised landscaping is consistent with any conditions attached to the original permit and with the applicable master program; (e) The use authorized pursuant to the original permit is not changed; and (f) No adverse environmental impact will be caused by the project revision." In response to the criteria above: 1. The proposed changes are within the scope and intent of the original permit and consistent with the City's Master Program. CL Page 16 of 18 H:A\ L14-0030\Briscoe-Desimone Levee Repair\ 2016 Shoreline Revision Staff rpt. 12/8/2016 5:43 PM f � Briscoe-Desimone Levee Repair Project L14-0030 Shoreline Permit Revision December 7, 2016 2. The scope of the proposed revision meets all of the criteria for "within the scope and intent of the original permit" a. No over -water construction is proposed; b. No increase in ground area coverage is proposed as a currently vegetated area is being cleared and planted with native plants. c. The proposed permit revision does not request development that exceeds height, lot coverage setback or other requirements of the City's SMP. d. The purpose of the revision is to address the need to relocate landscaping required through the original shoreline substantial development permit. e. The use authorized under the original permit is not changed. f. The project revision will not cause adverse environmental impact. V. CONCLUSIONS 1. A revision to the shoreline substantial development permit issued under L14-0030 is requested to move required mitigation plantings to a new location due to the loss of the original planting site. 2. The original shoreline substantial development permit approved the removal of 29 trees in order to install a structural sheet pile wall at the back of the existing Briscoe-Desimone levee on the Green River. A shoreline variance was approved for the construction of a levee profile that did not match Tukwila' s adopted levee profile. One hundred and seventy trees were required to be planted to replace the 29 removed trees. 3. Prior to the completion of the City of Kent's sheet pile wall, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) determined that the Briscoe-Desimone levee was damaged, which prompted the COE to construct a rock lined waterward slope layback to restore the 100 -year level of protection to the levee. 4. The COE lined the levee slope with rock and a thin layer of soil; these materials could not support the City of Kent's required mitigation plantings, requiring a new planting location with more native soil to support plant health. 5. The City of Kent is proposing to move the mitigation plantings just upstream from the original planting site between River Mile 14.75 and 14.96. The new site has room to plant the 300 evergreen and deciduous trees along with the almost 5,000 native shrubs identified on the landscaping plan. 6. The request to revise the 2014 shoreline permit will be reviewed against the current Shoreline Master Program regulations as well as criteria from the WAC as the City's regulations do not include criteria for shoreline permit revisions. 7. The site is located in the Urban Conservancy shoreline environment, which has a buffer of 125 feet within the 200 foot shoreline jurisdiction for shorelines with a levee. 8. The COE used a different levee profile from that approved under Kent's shoreline variance. It is the policy of the COE to look at various alternatives and choose one that is viewed as a "least cost" alternative. The COE does not follow local requirements for a specific levee profile. If a local jurisdiction wants its levee profile implemented, it must bear the cost of the levee repair. 9. The shoreline surface water and water quality, design guidelines, shoreline public access, and shoreline restoration regulations of the Shoreline Master Program do not apply to the permit revision request: There are no wetland or streams on the replacement planting site. 10. The proposed permit revision complies with the development standards of the underlying zoning district, which is Commercial/Light Industrial and the development standards of the Urban Conservancy shoreline environment. CL Page 17 of 18 H:\\ L14-0030\Briscoe-Desimone Levee Repair\ 2016 Shoreline Revision Staff rpt. 12/8/2016 5:43 PM Briscoe-Desimone Levee Repair Project • L14-0030 Shoreline Permit Revision December 7, 2016 11. The proposed permit revision does not involve: flood hazard reduction; shoreline stabilization; off-street parking; dredging, marinas, boat yards, dry docks, boat launches, piers, docks or other over -water structures. 12. Affected Tribes will be notified of the proposed permit revision. 13. Under the original permit, the applicant provided assurance that work will stop immediately if archaeological resources are uncovered during excavation. 14. The permit revision to move the location of the mitigation plantings will not result in a net loss to shoreline ecological functions. 15. The proposed shoreline permit revision complies with WAC 173-27-100 — the work is within the scope of the original shoreline permit, does not include over -water construction; no increase in ground cover or height is proposed; the project does not request variations for the zoning district's development standards; is consistent with the mitigation plantings required for the original permit; the use authorized under the original permit has not changed; and no adverse environmental impact will be caused by the project revision. VI. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the approval of the shoreline permit revision. CL Page 18 of 18 H:A\ L14-0030\Briscoe-Desimone Levee Repair\ 2016 Shoreline Revision Staff rpt. 12/8/2016 5:43 PM ee • fe ` KENT WASHINGTON October 10, 2016 PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING Timothy J. LaPorte P.E., Public Works Director Phone: 253-856-5500 Fax: 253-856-6500 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA. 98032-5895 Carol Lumb, Senior Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Reach 1 Levee Shoreline Permit (114-0030) Revision Dear Ms. Lumb, This letter is in response to your September 15th email requesting documentation to revise the shoreline permit that was issued for Reach 1. As part of the Green River Levee Improvement Program the City of Kent has been working to complete the planting portion of the Reach 1 Levee repair and structural sheet pile wall project. Prior to the completion of the City's project, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) determined that the Desimone- Briscoe School Levee was damaged in an event on 10 March 2014 (see the attached Notice of Preparation/Clean Water Act Public Notice from the COE dated 2/6/15). This prompted the COE to construct a rock lined waterward slope layback to restore the 100 -year level of protection in the area of Reach 1. The City of Kent's Reach 1 project was permitted under City of Tukwila Shoreline Permit L14-0030, which requires "a total of 170 trees to be planted to replace the 29 trees that [were] removed to repair the levee". Prior to completion of the City of Kent's Reach 1 project, the COE's project was completed in the same location as the City of Kent's original permitted project. The COE Tined the slope with rock which would no longer allow our mitigation planting to be done at that location. The City of Kent, COE, the City of Tukwila, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and King County Flood District have discussed the best solution to meet the planting requirements and determined that the 170 trees should be planted upstream of Reach 1. We are therefore proposing to install mitigation plantings upstream of the pedestrian bridge (RM 14.75 to 14.96, see attached project plans for planting location). This new location will allow the City of Kent to meet the requirements of the City of Tukwila Shoreline permit and the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC). The circumstances involving the COE project required the City of Kent to mitigate within the Shoreline Jurisdiction but offsite of where the impacts occurred, which is allowed by the TMC 18.44.070 H.5. The proposed Location for these planting is ideal because the location is within the same Shoreline Jurisdiction and is also along the south bank of the Green River just upstream of the original project site. Attachment A The proposed location is also within the Urban Conservancy shoreline buffer and meets the planting requirements outlined in TMC 18.44.080 C. 2. The plans were designed by a landscape architect from OTAK and specify native vegetation with all plantings above the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The site will be irrigated, monitored and maintained for three years in order to establish the plants. The attached planting plans and special provisions call out a total of 300 trees to be installed, exceeding the 170 trees required by the shoreline permit requirement and the TMC 18.44.080 B.4. The plantings address the criteria of TMC 18.44.070 H. 3.e.and f. because the City of Kent will be enhancing a neighboring bank of the Green River by removing invasive species and planting hundreds of new trees and plants. In summary, the proposed offsite planting location will satisfy Tukwila's Shoreline permit requirements for the City of Kent's Reach 1 Levee project. Please contact me at (253) 856-5516 or KLangholz(a)kentwa.gov if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you, enneth R. Lang1t4 Interim Design Engine ing Manager Attachments: Reach 1 RM 14.75 to 14.96 Mitigation Plans and Special Provisions Notice of Preparation/Clean Water Act Public Notice from COE dated 2/6/15 cc: Mike Mactutis, Environmental Engineering Manager Matt Knox, Environmental Ecologist, PWS US Army Corps of Engineers,, Seattle District Environmental and Cultural Resources Branch P.O. Box 3755 Seattle, WA 98124-3755 ATTN: Bobbi Jo McClain Notice of Preparation / Clean Water Act Public Notice Public Notice Date: 6 February 2015 Expiration Date: 9 March 2015 Reference: EN -ER -15-01 Project Name: Desimone-Briscoe School Levee Rehabilitation, Tukwila, WA Interested parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District (Corps) plans to prepare, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), an environmental assessment (EA) for proposed levee repairs to the Desimone-Briscoe School Levee on the Green River near the City of Tukwila, King County, Washington. AUTHORITY The proposed levee repair is authorized by Public Law 84-99 (33 U.S. Code Section 701n). The Corps' rehabilitation and restoration work under this authority is limited to the repair of flood control works damaged or destroyed by floods. The statute authorizes rehabilitation to the condition and level of protection exhibited by the flood control work prior to the damaging event. King County Flood Control District is the non -Federal sponsor for the proposed action. PROJECT LOCATION The Desimone-Briscoe School levee was designed and constructed by non -Federal parties, and is operated and maintained by the King County Flood Control District. It is approximately 11,600 feet long and protects residential, commercial, and industrial property. The levee is one segment of a six segment system. From upstream to downstream, the system includes: Myers Golf Levee, Kent Shops -Narita Levee, Upper Russell Road Somes-Dolan Levee, Lower Russell Road -Holiday Kennel Levee, Boeing Levee, and Desimone-Briscoe School Levee. At the downstream end, the levee ties into WA -181 / West Valley Highway; the upstream end ties into Boeing Levee under the S 200th St. Bridge. The damaged project section is located on the right bank of the Green River near river mile 14.5 within the City of Tukwila, WA. NEED Damage to the Desimone-Briscoe School Levee was reported following a recent high water event on 10 March 2014 of 9,090 cubic feet per second at US Geological Survey gage 12113000, on the Green River near Auburn. The length of the flood damage is 300 linear feet. Scour at the toe of the structure has led to lost armoring, lost embankment material, and over -steepened unstable banks. The loss of scour protection has left the levee fill material directly exposed to flood flows, and has compromised the level of protection offered by the levee. A flood could scour the damaged section of the levee to the point where it would breach. It is conservative to assume that the only level of protection offered by the levee in its damaged condition is by the 1 natural ground behind it. Therefore, the estimated flood protection provided by the damaged Desimone-Briscoe School levee in its current condition is a two-year level of protection. This levee requires an emergency repair to ensure that it will remain safe and stable for future high water events. The levee provides flood protection to approximately 7.65 square miles of highly developed warehousing, light industrial, retail, and residential land use. The proposed repair would restore the levee to its designed 100 -year level of protection. PURPOSE The purpose of the project is to restore the 100 -year level of flood protection in order to protect lives and property from subsequent flooding. In the current damaged condition, the levee offers two-year level of flood protection. PROJECT HISTORY Prior to the damaging flood event, the City of Kent had been pursuing a project to install a floodwall along the landward side of four reaches of the Desimone-Briscoe School Levee. The proposed Federal rehabilitation assistance action is co -located with a portion of Kent's work, known as Reach 1 Kent's previously planned floodwall is a steel sheetpile wall which was designed to reduce flood risk to the cities of Kent, Tukwila, and Renton. Kent has initiated construction on Reaches 2, 3 and 4 and has completed some components. The Corps' proposed Desimone-Briscoe School Levee Rehabilitation project would supplant a portion of Kent's project within Reach 1. The Federal project will complete its own environmental impacts assessment and compliance documentation for the portions of the effort which are the Federal action. PROPOSED ACTIONS Multiple alternatives for proposed work are being considered and are as follows: a. No Action Alternative: The No Action Alternative would leave the levee in its current damaged state. As a part of the No Action Alternative, the local sponsor would continue to construct their previously planned floodwall project within this reach. This floodwall is not considered to be a stand-alone flood control structure because the wall requires soil riverward and landward of the wall in order to maintain stability. Without some action to repair the damaged levee, the floodwall installation alone is not expected to fully restore the level of flood protection. This alternative would not meet the project goals due to the high likelihood of damage to protected infrastructure and homes during future flood events. b. Waterward Slope Layback to Restore the 100 -year Level of Protection: This repair would reconstruct 585 feet of levee prism and establish a safe stable (2H:1 V) armored slope and launchable toe. The 585 -foot repair includes the 300 feet of damage with 285 feet of transition zones. The pre -damaged riverward slope was approximately 1.5H:2V. This steep slope was determined to be unstable at this location and was not adequate to meet the Corps' current design guidelines. The transition zones allow gentle, smooth transitions from the slope layback (2H:1 V) to the over -steepened banks upstream 2 and downstream. But in this location, there is insufficient room for placement of an adequate toe and creation of the stable slope due to the proximity of infrastructure behind the levee. The Corps determined that this alternative would have necessitated encroachment on existing uses landward of the levee and was therefore determined to not be feasible. Further analysis of this alternative was not pursued. c. Waterward Slope Layback with Retaining Wall to Restore the 100 -year Level of Protection: This alternative would be similar to the above alternative, with the addition of a retaining wall. A retaining wall on the landward slope would be used to reduce the encroachment of the levee on property behind the levee. The repair would restore the pre -flood 100 - year level of protection while reducing the potential levee footprint, and restore armor to protect the structure from the eroding forces of the river flow. Slope protection would be achieved by rip rap with a mean particle size of 18 inches, with a toe entrenched to a potential estimated scour depth of 25 feet. Laying back the slope to 2H:1 V would provide reliable flood protection by creating a stable armored slope. This is the Least - Cost Alternative. Per Corps guidance (Engineering Regulation 500-1-1), a local sponsor can request an alternative that is different than the least cost alternative. Any increase in Federal cost resulting from the sponsor's preference of any alternative, other than the one that is least expensive to the Federal Government when all Federal costs are included, will be borne by the sponsor. d. Locally Preferred Alternative: The sponsor has requested a Locally Preferred Plan (LPP). The LPP consists of the Waterward Slope Layback with Retaining Wall Alternative (See option c above) with two variations: extension of the embankment work (190 feet) immediately upstream of the repair and substitution of a sheet pile floodwall for the retaining wall. The total project length would be 775 feet. The repair would include the above-mentioned repair of approximately 585 feet of levee toe and slope with the incorporated slope layback, launchable toe, upper slope bench, and an installed wall, plus the rebuilding of an additional 190 feet of existing levee toe and slope. The sponsor requested an LPP be considered because they are planning to continue the floodwall through this adjacent section and intend that the riverward portion of the section be fully integrated with the work that will be done to repair the damaged section of levee. e. Non -Structural Alternative: This alternative would relocate all existing structures, utilities and other infrastructure outside of the floodplain. The costs associated with this alternative are extremely high relative to the level of benefit, and this alternative was removed from further consideration. The proposal being evaluated as the current preferred alternative is the LPP Alternative. The LPP Alternative would restore the levee to the designed level of protection. The proposed repair would include construction of 775 feet of levee toe, laying back the bank to a 2H:1 V slope and 3 installation of 585 feet of floodwall on the landward shoulder of the crown. A portion of the upstream and downstream ends of the repair length would include transitions from the slope layback to the existing levee alignment to prevent scour at the tie-ins. The project would also require replacing the Green River Trail along the crown of the levee. See the attached draft designs for further detail. Construction is anticipated to occur in two phases: the floodwall installation would begin in February 2015 and would continue through May. The remainder of the work would occur in summer 2015. Summer construction duration is estimated at ten weeks. Phase 1 of the Federal project would incorporate a portion of Kent's proposed landward floodwall as a way to minimize the landward encroachment caused by the setback design. The floodwall is not designed as a stand-alone wall as it requires the riverward levee and scour protection in order to be fully effective. The wall would be installed landward of the existing levee embankment and would consist of a steel sheet pile wall topped with a reinforced concrete cap beam and barrier. The space between the existing levee embankment and wall would be backfilled. The Phase 1 effort would begin in February, with a five-month construction period (Phase 1). The installation of the planned floodwall by the non -Federal sponsor will add tangible incremental protection to the public. for the interval of time until the conclusion of the typical flood season at the end of March. The sheet piles will be installed using vibratory equipment (with no impact hammers needed). The piles will be driven to depths of between 23 and 64 feet. The above -ground portion of the wall will range from 8 to 13 feet tall. The Phase 2 work is proposed for summer 2015. The proposed toe and slope work of Phase 2 would include substantial in -water excavation. The work area would be isolated from the river for the excavation. A large amount of rock would be placed low on the slope in order to protect against potential scour depths. This rock would be placed so that it could launch into any riverward scour and continue to protect the toe of the levee. A 9 -foot wide upper -slope bench would be included. The elevation of this bench is dictated by the volume of rock estimated to be necessary to address possible scour depths of 24 feet. This rock volume is substantial due to the circumstances of the location, specifically the severity of the bend in the river at the site. Slope protection would be achieved by rip rap with a mean particle size of 1.5 feet. The slope layback will open channel capacity in this confined reach to slow velocities, particularly during higher flows. The crown of the levee would move up to 20 feet landward. Two planting lifts will be installed into the riverward face of the levee at or near ordinary high water. Planting lifts involve placing live cuttings into a layer of soil as the face of the structure. The willows are then covered by six more inches of soil. Levee armor is then placed onto the lift to continue the armored slope and a second lift is created in the same manner. Hooker's willows (Salix hookeriana), Sitka willows (S. sitchensis), and red -osier dogwood (Cornus sericea) will be spaced approximately every twelve inches in each lift. These species are considered shrubs which stay relatively small and bushy, with flexible stems. A total of 1092 shrubs will be placed within the 585 -foot least cost project length. Pacific willows (S. lasiandra) and black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) will be also placed into both lifts, one stem every 15 feet. Pacific willow and cottonwood are both fast-growing, tall tree species. A total of 78 trees will be placed within the least -cost alternative repair length. Additional plantings will occur within the LPP length (355 shrubs and 25 trees) however these are not being considered as mitigation for the Federal action because they would be fully funded by the local sponsor. Above ordinary 4 • high water, after construction is completed, a layer of topsoil will be placed onto the face of the riprap. This topsoil will be seeded with a native seed mix. Established riparian vegetation, with time and maturity, is expected to ameliorate high river temperatures by providing shade to the channel and covering the riprap slopes. The plantings are also expected to provide organic input through leaf drop to provide food for juveniles, slow river current along the levee toe, provide refuge for juvenile fish during high flows, and provide additional wildlife habitat. The slope layback will also open channel capacity in this reach to slow velocities, particularly during higher flows. Final selection of the preferred alternative and finalization of the design, including consideration of any recommendations from the impact analyses or the Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation, will occur during the NEPA process and before construction activities on the toe and riverward slope. Best management practices would be utilized to minimize project impacts. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS The Corps' preliminary analyses of the principal effects of the proposed Locally Preferred Alternative are summarized below. Wetlands: There are no wetlands at the project site and no impacts are expected. Water Quality: The lower Green River in the project area is listed on the Washington Department of Ecology's (WDOE) list of impaired waters because state standards for temperature and dissolved oxygen have been exceeded (WDOE 2014). Maximum summer temperatures recorded at RM 12 in July and August were between 23 and 24°C with minimum temperatures of 15 to16°C (NMFS 2009). No impact to water quality is expected from the floodwall installation (Phase 1). During construction of the proposed toe and slope work (Phase 2), there may be minor water quality impacts such as a temporary and localized increase in turbidity. Repairs would occur in an active channel and require work in the water to construct the toe. The work would occur during a low flow period and the area will be isolated from the active channel using silt curtains, supersacks, or similar materials. Implementation of best management practices, such as regularly checking equipment for leaks or drips, fueling of vehicles away from the water, and having a spill kit onsite would also minimize the potential for water quality impacts. The Federal action will require the removal of 17 trees on the landward side of the levee, ranging in size from a four -inch diameter hawthorn (Crataegus douglasii) to several 24 -inch diameter London planetrees (Platanus hispanica). Although they are outside the direct riparian zone, these trees provide some shading and leaf litter to the river in this reach and these functions would be impacted with their removal. As described above, the proposed action includes lower bank plantings of 78 trees and 1092 shrubs to help offset these impacts. No long term negative effects to water quality are expected. Biological Resources: The project site is an oversteepened bank with minimal vegetation on the outside of a bend in the Green River. The riverward face is dominated by herbaceous invasives including blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). The landward face includes numerous large London plane trees planted throughout the site with a mown grass understory. Landward of the levee is a parking area and business park within a commercial/light industrial zone of Tukwila. The levee crown is an asphalt trail that is a dead- end spur of the Green River Trail. The opposite bank is also an armored levee which includes anchored large woody debris. The Green River contains spawning populations of Chinook, coho, pink, and chum salmon, and winter and summer steelhead. Small numbers of sockeye salmon are also found. Bull trout use the lower river for feeding and rearing. The project area contains limited rearing habitat for these species. No spawning occurs in the project area. The following table lists threatened and endangered species potentially occurring within the project vicinity. Species Listing Status Critical Habitat Coastal/Puget Sound Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus Threatened Designated Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Threatened Designated Puget Sound Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss Threatened Proposed A biological assessment is being prepared pursuant to Sec. 7 of the Endangered Species Act to determine whether the proposed actions are likely to adversely affect these species or their designated critical habitat. Other listed species may also occur in King County but have no potential to be affected by the proposed project. The proposed project would have "no effect" on the following species and their designated critical habitat due to their sensitivities to human encroachment, lack of suitable habitat, or because their presence is so transitory that any temporal affects to these species from construction activities would not be perceived as unusual, cause disruption of behavior or lead to measurable reductions in their prey base. These species include the Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), gray wolf (Canis lupis), northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis), yellow -billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), southern resident killer whale (Orcinus orca), and Golden paintbrush (Castilleja levisecta). Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) could transit the project area while travelling between nesting and feeding areas, however the additional noise and human presence is not expected to significantly increase the ambient conditions as the project area is in an urban commercial/light industrial community. Additionally, the loudest construction effort (the vibratory pile driving) would be expected to occur in February/March which is outside of the murrelet nesting season (1 April to 23 Sept). Murrelet behavior is not expected to be affected by the proposed construction and the proposed project would have "no effect" on marbled murrelet. The Green River provides important foraging, migration and overwintering habitat for bull trout. The potential for bull trout presence during the in -water construction phase is low due to high water temperatures. Chinook and steelhead populations use the river reach in the project area for migrating and rearing. Chinook migrate upstream through the lower Green River to upstream spawning grounds from late June into early November, with large numbers entering the river by 6 July (Williams et al. 1975 in NMFS 2009, Kerwin and Nelson 2000 in NMFS 2009). Many early returning adult Chinook salmon hold in the lower river until approximately mid-September. As with bull trout, elevated water temperatures in August and early September likely result in blockage or delay of the upstream migration of adult Chinook salmon (NMFS 2009). Adult steelhead are present in the project area from January through May (NMFS 2009). Juvenile steelhead reside in fresh water year-round for two years prior to outmigrating. Some migrating/holding adult Chinook salmon and some juvenile steelhead could be in the project area during construction. Salmonids may avoid the construction area due to noise, vibration, or potentially increased turbidity. However, these fish would have nearby alternative habitat available for the short construction period. The removal of vegetation could decrease the habitat value of the shoreline from the pre -damaged condition for terrestrial insects, could decrease organic inputs to the river, and would decrease local shading. Incorporation of the layback would require the removal of 17 trees from the landward side of the levee, including several large London planetrees. The project would include planting trees and shrubs along the lower bank throughout the project length. To limit fish impacts, the project would complete the in -water construction phase within the approved work window for this area. The work window for in -water work at this location, which avoids the most sensitive periods for fish, is 1 August to 31 August. Additionally, the work area would be isolated from the river to minimize water quality and fisheries impacts. Implementation of best management practices, such as regularly checking equipment for leaks or drips, fueling of vehicles away from the water, and having a spill kit onsite would also minimize the potential for impacts to fisheries. It is anticipated that there would be no significant adverse effects to critical habitat as the project proposes to repair an armored bank where a similar armored bank had existed prior to the flood damage. Incorporation of a slope layback and bank plantings at the site would be beneficial as they would reduce velocities, improve shading throughout the project reach, provide refuge habitat, and widen this narrow channel. The Phase 1 construction is being proposed as an emergency measure to provide an incremental benefit to flood protection within the ongoing flood season. Coordination with resource agencies in was initiated in early December 2014 under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, pursuant to 50 CFR 402.05. This expedited consultation focused only on the impacts of the proposed Phase 1 work (floodwall installation and tree removal) with the understanding that a full consultation for the complete Federal action (including consideration of any impacts from both Phase 1 and Phase 2) would occur prior to the commencement of the Phase 2 construction. When completed, this levee repair is not intended or expected to generate appreciable change in habitat conditions as compared with conditions pre-existing the flood event. Repair construction work may result in short-term impacts to fish and wildlife from noise, vibration, increased human presence, and removal of vegetation. Significant impacts to these resources are not expected. 7 Cultural Resources: The Corps is currently taking actions to identify historic properties that may be affected by the proposed action as required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The Corps is consulting with the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer, Indian tribes, and other consulting parties about the project and will complete identification and evaluation for historic properties as well as make agency findings of effect for Section 106 prior to approval of the proposed action. As of this time, the Corps has not identified any historic properties within the area of potential effect and does not anticipate that the proposed project would affect historic properties. Air Quality: Construction vehicles and heavy equipment used during the proposed construction would temporarily and locally generate increased gasoline and diesel exhaust fumes. The small area of construction and the short duration of the work would limit the impact to air quality. The activity would constitute routine repair of an existing facility. generating an increase in direct emissions of a criteria pollutant or its precursors that would be clearly de minimis, and would therefore be exempted by 40 CFR Section 93.153(c)(2)(iv) from the conformity determination requirements. Emissions generated by the construction activity are expected to be minor, short- term, and well below the de minimis threshold. Unquantifiable but insignificant exacerbation of effects of CO2 emissions on global climate change would be anticipated. Noise: Temporary increases in noise would occur as a result of both phases of the construction for the proposed action. The project area is largely surrounded by commercial and light industrial properties. Two residential properties exist within 1 000 feet of the construction. Proposed work would be done from 7AM to 7 PM to limit noise impacts. Impact hammers would not be used to install sheetpile walls. Wildlife in this urban area is likely habituated to human activity and noise. No long-term change in noise levels would occur as a result of the project. Traffic: Construction -related traffic may cause temporary increases to, and disruption of, local traffic. Flaggers and signs would be used, as needed, to safely move traffic around the construction site. No long-term change in traffic would occur as a result of the project. The placement of the floodwall would occur within a parking lot. A number of parking stalls would be affected. Reorganizing the spaces would help to retain the largest number of spaces possible, however the overall number of spaces would be expected to permanently decrease. Recreation: This crown of the levee within the project area is a dead-end spur of the Green River Trail. This trail is heavily used by walkers, joggers, cyclists, and other recreational enthusiasts. Both phases of construction would temporarily close this section of the trail and cause recreational activities to be routed around the area. Following completion of the construction the crown of the levee would be paved to restore the trail. The trail would reopen, though the section through the construction area will change visually with the removal of the landward trees. Cumulative Effects: As mentioned above, the City of Kent is conducting a floodwall project along the landward side of three reaches (Reaches 2, 3, and 4) of levee in proximity to the proposed Corps' project area. Additionally, Kent is installing a longer length of floodwall at the 8 project site (designated as Reach 1 in Kent's designs) than the Federal action. At Reaches 2, 3, and 4, Kent's project involves the installation of the floodwall as well as riverward slope work above ordinary high water (OHW). Kent's riverward slope work includes a 6:1 sloped bench just above ordinary high water and a 2:1 sloped riverward face. Kent is including plantings on the riverward face of the levee as mitigation. At this time, no other projects are known for this area. Cumulative effects will be analyzed and addressed, as required, pursuant to NEPA and ESA, in the development of the EA. COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS The Corps will coordinate the proposed action with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service concerning effects of the proposed repair activities on threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat, pursuant to Sec. 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act. No significant unmitigated impact to Tribal Treaty Rights is expected as a result of the proposed activities. A tribal fishing site is located near the proposed action. The project team will continue to work with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe to ensure that access to the fishing site is available throughout the construction periods and that the site's integrity will be preserved. The Corps is consulting with the Washington State Historic Preservation Office, Indian tribes and other consulting parties about the project in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act as implemented in the regulations at 36 C.F.R. Part 800. The project would involve a discharge of fill material into waters of the United States that will be evaluated for substantive compliance with guidelines promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency under authority of Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act. The project would include minor deviations to the pre -flood condition in that the repair would include a laid back slope, changing the profile below ordinary high water. The provisions of the regional conditions under Nationwide Permit 3 allow for minor deviations in the design for the repair and maintenance of existing structures pursuant to the Corps of Engineers' Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) permitting program. The Corps intends to apply by analogy the general Water Quality Certification issued by the Washington Department of Ecology for proposals meeting the criteria of NWP 3, in order to provide reasonable assurance of compliance with the Water Quality Standards of Washington, under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. EVALUATION The Corps has made a preliminary determination that the environmental impacts of the proposed work can be adequately evaluated under the National Environmental Policy Act through preparation of an environmental assessment (EA). Preparation of an EA addressing potential environmental impacts associated with the levee rehabilitation project is currently underway. Any person who has an interest that may be affected by the discharge of fill or dredged material contemplated under this proposal may request a public hearing. The request must be submitted in writing to the District Engineer within the comment period of this notice, and must clearly set forth the following: the interest that may be affected, the manner in which the interest may be 9 affected by this activity, and the particular reason for holding a public hearing regarding this activity. The decision whether to conduct the project will be based on an evaluation of the probable impact on the public interest. That decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. The benefit, which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal, must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors which may be relevant to the proposal will be considered; among these are: conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, consideration of property ownership and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. The Corps invites submission of comments on the environmental impact of the proposal. Comments will also be considered in determining whether it would be in the best public interest to proceed with the proposed project. The Corps will consider all submissions received before the expiration date of this notice. The nature or scope of the proposal may be changed upon consideration of the comments received. The Corps will initiate an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and afford all of the appropriate public participation opportunities attendant to an EIS. if significant effects on the quality of the human environment are identified and cannot be mitigated. Submit comments to this office, Attn: Environmental and Cultural Resources Branch, no later than 30 days after the posting of this notice to ensure consideration. In addition to sending comments via mail to the above address, comments may be e-mailed to Ms. Bobbi Jo McClain, Project Biologist, at bobbi.j.mcclain@usace.army.mil. The Notice of Preparation can be found at the following website: http://www.nws.usace.army.mi l/Missions/Environmental/EnvironmentalDocuments.aspx under "Desimone-Briscoe School Levee Rehabilitation." Requests for additional information should be directed to Ms. Bobbi Jo McClain at 206-764-6968 or at the above e-mail address. REFERENCES National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009. Green River Levee Rehabilitation, Green River, 171 10013 HUC, King County, Washington Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion And Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation. NMFS Tracking Number 2008/05502. Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE). 2014. Water Quality Assessment for Washington. Online at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/wgamapviewer/default.aspx?res=1396x785. Accessed on 28 Dec 2014. 10 II esi:ns and Photos D 0 N CONCRETE BARRIER AND HANDRAIL TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY OTHERS (NIC) MATCH GRADE AT TOP OF CONCRETE CAP 3" ASPHALT TRAIL WITH 4" BASE COURSE SLOPE VARIES MAX. SLOPE 1.5H:1V HYDROSEED TOPSOIL 9' 1' TOPSOIL EXISTING PARKING LOT 1' QUARRY SPALLS 2 PLANTING LIFTS: 15' OC - 3' LIVE TREE CUTTINGS PER LIFT 12" OC - 3' LIVE SHURB CUTTINGS PER LIFT EL 19.5' SATISFACTORY COMPACTED FILL SHEET PILE WALL TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY OTHERS (NIC) 1.5 1' QUARRY SPALLS 3' CLASS IV RIPRAP LAUNCHABLE TOE, CLASS IV RIRAP 300 CUBIC FEET PER FT 1.8' 5.4' TYPICAL LEVEE CROSS-SECTION WITH TRAIL 19.5' 1" = 10' 0 10' 20' MATCH TO EXISTING TOE OF SLOPE EXISTING GRADE Figure 3. Typical cross section 13 e Photo t: Damaged section of levee, showing the rerward lace Photo 2: Damaged section of levee, showing the crown and backslope 14 WASHINGTON CITY OF SUZETTE COOKE - MAYOR DANA RALPH DENNIS HIGGINS NT MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL JIM BERRIOS BILL BOYCE BRENDA FINCHER TINA BUDELL LES THOMAS TIM LaPORTE - DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS SUE HANSON - INTERIM CITY CLERK CHAD BIEREN - CITY ENGINEER TOM BRUBAKER - CITY ATTORNEY PURD RKS J -I BRISCOE-DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS REACH 1 MITIGATION PLANTING JOB NUMBERS 09-3011 r k SHEET INDEX 1 COVER SHEET 2 REACH 1 MITIGATION PLANTING 3 REACH 1 PLANTING DETAILS 1 4 REACH 1 PLANTING DETAILS 2 PROJECT LOCMITEIORI 22355 51 : 2'2•' Si C i T" O F K E r r ` SE 2C8fH S, 52 1225n 11 si 1121,522 262.6-221. S 5'6 VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE Attachment B G:1Design109-3011 DESIMONE1dwa\Cover-Reach 1 Ptanbnq.dwq, 9116/2016 3:56:29 PM 783+00 kgs}p0' - - `820 o \y GREED Rl 68%0 v EiOy_00 F^a`1 ..O .O ♦ O►O.Virii . r7l, i Ri►fi►r . • . I► ►' . II.►4,.►i Nle ► iC,{ y ' .O✓' hlt ►: .i EP „ GREEN RNER TRAIL • "6, \\ 00 • • • • \ \ \ \ • • • \ ,\ • • • . 10 \\\ \ <6° \ CI1ARV A l ZONE- (na)A\V Q A, \\\ l•• \\ • • • —STRAW WATTLE (5) --EXISTING TREE TO REVAM, SEE PLANTING NOTE 14) PROJECT LOCATION so'\ I 297' 32 REACH 1 TREE PLANTING SCHEDULE QUANTITY SYMBOL PLANT NAME 35 40 50 25 100 S► BIG LEAF MAPLE, ACER MACROPHYLLUM OREGON ASH, ERAXINUS LATIFOUA SITKA SPRUCE, PICEA SITCHENSIS BITTER CHFRRY, PRUNUS EMARGINATA PACIFIC WILLOW, SALIX LUCIDA NOTE: SEE STRAW WATTLE DETAIL SHEET 4 50 O BLACK COTTONWOOD, POPIULUS TRICHOCARPA SSP. TRICHOCARPA TOTAL TREE COUNT FOR REACH 1 300 SIZE, NOTES 5 GALLON 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL -WORK AREA AHEAD. NARROW TRAIL BICYCLES DISMOUNT SIGN 3' LIVE STAKE, 1' EXPOSED; SPACED ALONG OHWM EVERY 36" EVENLY BETWEEN WOODEN STAKES 3' LIVE STAKE, 6" MAX. DIAMETER, 1q' EXPOSED; THREE PER SYMBOL, 3 FEET ON -CENTER TRIANGULAR SPACING 50' HOR/ SCALE • \ \ \ •• •\ • • • 50' 100' N FEET • \ \ \ \ F •\ • \\ • \ •\ • • \ \ •\ •\ \ • • • REACH 1 SHRUB PLANTING SCHEDULE o" 0 'tel { (OHW TO LOWER INSPECTION CORRIDOR BOUNDARY; 38,780 SF; APPROXIMATELY 4,975 PLANTS TOTAL) SCIENTIFIC NAME ' COMMON NAME CORNOS SERCEA REDOSIER DOGWOOD HOLCDISCUS DISCOLOR OCEANSPRAY IONICERA INVOLUCRATA PHYSOCARPUS CAP1TATUS RIBES SANGUINEUM ) ROSA NUTKANA RUBUS PARVIFLORUS RUBUS SPECTABILIS ) SALIX SIICHENSIS SYMPHORICARPOS ALBUS SIZE BLACK TWINBERRY PACIFIC NINEBARK RED FLOWERING CURRANT NOOTKA ROSE THIMBLEBERRY SALMONBERRY 1 GAL SITKA WILLOW LIVE STAKE SNOWBERRY 1 GAL_ GAL GAL GAL GAL GAL CAL GAL ESTIMATED REACH 1 QUANTITY 871 (17.5%) 149 (3%) 336 (6.75%) 323 (6.5%) 498 (10%) 373 (7.5%) 174 (3 5%) 597 (12%) 896 (18%) 758 (15.25%) NOXIOUS WEED REMOVAL AND PREVENTION 1. MOW & TREAT NOXIOUS WEEDS 2. HERBICIDE SPRAY RE-EMERGING NOXIOUS WEEDS IN STILL AIR f l __- _ L Il HS Lr ;i f !i/j / I/ / \ \ ' \ I( I I , \.\\ / I/ ,, 1 '_ 1 / l ! I JL j I / / / 9 J --- i' / I ) I /L I l J I /// - TRAIL- ACCESS POINTS i l REACH 1 SEEDING SCHEDULES MIX A (ROADSIDE AND EROSION CONTROL GRASS): SEE SHEET 3 SEED MIX A TABLE CONSTRUCTION NOTES (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) ALL TREES TO BE PLANTED 12 FEEL ON -CENTER TRIANGULAR SPACING ALL SHRUBS TO BE SPACED 3 FEET ON -CENTER TRIANGULAR SPACING ALL LIVE STAKE (LS) SNAIL BE 36 INCHES IN LENGTH OR GREATER ONCE CLEAR AND GRUB BY HAND WITHIN DRIP LINE OF EXISTING TREE, NO CULTIVATION OF NATIVE SOIL WITHIN DRIP UNE OF EXISTING TREE, AND ARBORIST MULCH SHALL BE ADDED ATOP NATIVE SOIL ALONG WITH COIR FABRIC PLACED AT TOE OF SLOPE, ABOVE OHW AT DIRECTION OF OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY, SEE TYPICAL LANDSCAPE SECTION SHEET 3 TRAIL TO REMAIN OPEN DURING CONSTRUCTION TRAIL ACCESS NOT PERMITTED THRU PRIVATE PROPERTY. TRAIL MAY HE ACCESSED FROM W VALLEY HWY OR ACCESS EASEMENT AT 6540 S. GLACIER ST. NO ACCESS PERMITTED THRU PRIVATE PROPERTY NO WORK SHALL BE DONE BELOW OHWM ! y4--0387 07SIGN'O_ 00/ 0KED GRAY, PROTECT KENT PROJECT NO. CP' u6tP Rs 17004E NO REVISION 50 DATE APP4075 Cm ET G.t.EE4 007 0174 ts ONE NCH ON 0911,,A1 00A "..,0 ADJUST SCKES ACCORD GE 0' City of Kent Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division REACH 1 MITIGATION PLANTING BRISCOE & DESIMONE S :EET 2 OF 4 LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS 1 -!LL 40. HIGHER ELEVATION SHRUB TYPICAL LAYOUT SYMBOL KEY CORNOS SERICEA HOLODISCUS DISCOLOR LONICERA INVOLUCRATA PHYSOCARPUS CAPITATUS RIBE5 SANGUINEU5 LOWER ELEVATION REDOSIER DOGWOOD OCEANSPRAY BLACK TWINBERRY PACIFIC NINEBARK RED FLOWERING CURRANT J ROSA NUTKANA 4t RUBUS PARVIFLORUS O RUBUS SPECTABILIS SALIX SITCHENSIS SYMPHORICARPOS ALBUS %N; NOTE. ALL SHRUBS TO BE SPACED 3 FEET ON -CENTER TRIANGULAR SPACING SHRUB PLANTING LAYOUT N00TKA ROSE THIMBLEBERRY SALMONBERRY SITKA WILLOW SNOWBERRY EN9816 TREE SYMBOL, SEE TREE PLANTING PLN, SHEET 1 OF 2 NOT TO SCALE WEIGHT PROPORTION SEED MIX "A" INGREDIENT MIN.% PURE SEED MIN. %GERMINATION MAX. % WEED SEED 40% PERENNIAL RYEGRASS 98% 90% 0.5% 40% CREEPING RED FESCUE 98% 85% 0.5% 10% COLONIAL BENTGRASS 98% 90% 0.5% 10% WHITE DUTCH CLOVER (PRE -INOCULATED) 98% 90% 0.5% SEED MIX A PLANT CENTER PLANT CENTER 3' O.C. TRIANGULAR SPACING DIAGRAM 12' O.C. TRIANGULAR SPACING DIAGRAM NOT TO SCALE DESIGNED: CHECK EDAS► ' NOT TO SCALE r BELOW EDGE GREEN RIVER TRAIL 5' GRASS ROLLED W/ LAWN 901119 TO BE SMOOTH le0 6" RATNE SOIL.t 11L1E6' 4 3" DEEP ARBORIST MULCH EDGE OF TRAIL TREATMENT NOTE; SEED AND TOP DRESS 5' GRASS STRIP IF SEEDED. NOT TO SCALE 1 • 11 1. KEEP LIVE STAKES MOIST/WET IN BUCKETS OR WET BURLAP SACKS. ON HOT DAYS, KEEP STAKES IN THE SHADE UNTIL YOU PLANT THEM. 2. IN HARD GROUND. USE AN IRON BAR OR STAR. DRILL TO PREPARE THE HOLES FOR THE LIVE STAKE. 3. PLACE LIVE STAKE IN PREPARED HOLE. DO NOT USE AXE OR SLEDGE FOR DRIVING LIVE STAKES. 4. AVOID STRIPPING DARK OR BRUISING UVE STAKES DURING INSTALLATION. 5. UVE STAKE LENGTH MIN. 42'. EMBED 21" IN SOIL 6. AFTER LIVE STAKE IS PLACED IN GROUND, CUT DAMAGED END OF ME STAKE TO LEAVE AT LEAST 1510 BUDS EXPOSED, MIN. 7. FILL VOID AROUND ENE STAKE WITH 5011. CUT DAMAGED END OF LNE STAKE TO LEAVE AT LEAST TWO BUDS EXPOSED PLANTING AREA PREPARATION LIVE STAKE PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE C 9 ,IR FABRIC PARALLEL TO 059 ONLY AS NEEDED TO CREATE APPROPRIATE SIZE PLANTING HOLE; FOLD COIR FABRIC TO TEMPORARILY MOVE ARBORIST MULCH AND COMPLETE PLANTING CR 0 0 COIR FABRIC ATOP ARBORIST MULCH. SEE PLANTING AREA PREPARATION DETAIL ABOVE FINISHED GRADE PLANTING AREA PREPARATION CONTAINER PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE HOLE WITH AT LEAST ROOT BALL DEPTH AND WIDTH ET RIsT CROWN ATGRADAllr 11114'-. ORIGINAL %1 EMI CONTAINER PLANTING S EP 3 STEP CKFILL TO ENSURE PLANT IS PLUMB AND ROOT FLARE 15 AT GRADE; RE -SPREAD ARBORIST MULCH AND LEVEL COIR FABRIC NOT TO SCALE t, /tfrO JO Fr,, P- ECT NO. Fr, Y t DRAWN: PRNECT E GMi 110099 SCALE: HORR: VERT; N0. REVISION BY DATE AP ROVED. Az. - Y ENGINEER DATE:Z/ / Jt ( RAR IS ONE MCH 00 ORIGINAL DRAW4G ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY 0' 1" City of Kent Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division REACH 1 PLANTING DETAILS 1 BRISCOE & DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 3 OF 4 FILE N0. NOTE: MATS/BLANKETS SHOULD BE INSTALLED VERT.CALLY DOWNSLOPE 36' O.C. SPACING WOODEN STAKES 36' OC. SPACING I1VE STAKES STRAW WATTLE - WOOLEN STAKE ONLY, NO METAL STAPLES T COIR FABRIC INSTALLATION DETAIL 2 ANCHORING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE 100 YEAR EL00D - EL 32 0' OHW - EL 155' EXISTING VEGETATiON— T8E5/SHRUB PLANTING ZONE WDTH VARIES PFR PLAY - CLEAR ZONE EXISTING TRAIL EL 35 6' - 36 6' — INSTALL STRAW WATTLE AT TOE OF SLOPE. ABOVE OHW AT DIRECTION OF OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE TYPICAL LANDSCAPE SECTION -- SEE PIANTING AREA PREPARATION DETAIL \` • NOT TO SCALE SEED BEFORE INSTALLATION. PLANING OF SHRUBS, TREES. ETC SHOULD OCCUR AFTER INSTALLATION 2. DO NOT STRETCH BLANKETS/AATTINGS PGHT - ALLOW THE ROLLS TO MOLD TO ANY IRREGULARITIES 3. SURFACE SHAT BE SMOOTH BEFORE PLACEMENT FOR PROPER SOIL CONTACT 4. IF THERE IS A BERM AT THE TOP OF SLOPE, ANCHOR UPSLOPE OF THE BERM DES4>NEC. i CHECNED. KENT NV -EC: 440. C 0`AW} 1150,721 CGNST.. 5,, A50EA4 SCBE: H^R;z - NO 1(4.040-344 BY DATE AP 40425. / ITN 5062,4EER 0415 '+ v tR.49. '0 041 ;1:CH, 01. ORIGISAL0?nm 440 ,,I),;;:,51 SC,A1L5 ACCORDINa., NOTE: PLANING AREA PREPARAIICN SHALL INCLUDE ALL SEEDO:C, SHRUB, TREE AND LIVE STAKE AREAS CLEARED& GRUBBED [-PLANINGAREA WITH ALL NOXIOUS WEEDS REMOVED 16" NATIVE SOIL 1 PLANTING AREA PREPARATION TILL OPPER 6` OF NATIVE SOIL PRIOR TO PLANTING ri +. • BOLTON GEOIO'R 704'AR APPROVED [GUN INSTALLED PER MIJIUFACRIRERS RECOMMENDAT10N5 WITH 24'♦ LONG WOODEN STAKES OSLO - NO METAL PINS; EMBED WOMEN STAKES 23', PLACE WOODEN STAKES 3' APART (LIVE STAKES CAN 8E A SUBSTITUTE FOR WOOCEN STAKE), OVERLAP FABR'.0 AT LEAST 18' 14 WATERFLON DRECTION 7 3" DEEP ARBUR150 MULCH FINISH 68ADE NOT TO SCALE PLANTING SEQUENCE 1. CLEAR AND GRUB PLANTING AREA WITH AL1 0100I011S WEEDS REMOVED 9. 0111 UPPER 6" of NATIVE SOIL 3. SPREAD 3" DEEP ARBORIST MULCH OVER ENTIRE AREA TO BE PLANTED (INCLUDING SEEDED AREA) 4. INSTALL COIR FABRIC PER DETAIL 5. INSTALL PLANTINGS 6. INSTALL IRRIGATION SYSTEM 7. AW01A15 PLANTINGS, INCLUGNG BUT NOT LIMITED 80, WELDING AND WATERING, 3 -YEARS AFTER INSTALIATION TO ENSURE NATIVE PLANT SURVIVAL -2' X 2' X 24' WOODEN STAKE • O 0 • 7 11 Yj \ 0 ;SP 0 0 STRAW WATTLE INSTALLATION µATER 1'LO'Y "-- 6000211 5TA0E5 PACIFIG 611104 ST0015 NOT TO SCALE 1 SECURELY KNOTT EACH END OF WATTLE. OVERLAP ADJACENT WATTLE ENDS 12' BEHIND ONE ANOTHER AND SECURELY BE TOGETHER 2 COMPACT EXCAVATED SOIL AND TRENCHES TO PREVENT UNDERCUTTING 3. INSTALL WATTLE PERPENDICULAR TO FtOW ALONG THE CONTOURS City of Kent Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division REACH 1 PLANTING DETAILS 2 L./ y- oo30 BRISCOE & DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director MEMORANDUM August 22, 2014 TO: Jack Pace, Director FM: Carol Lumb, Senior Planner RE: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit: L14-0030, Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repair I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project is to repair approximately 1,100 feet of compromised section of levee by installing a structural steel sheet pile wall at the back of existing levee on the Green River to reduce flood risk to the cities of Renton, Kent and Tukwila. This project is one of four levee repairs the City of Kent is undertaking; two fall completely within Kent's boundary with a third primarily in the City of Kent with a small portion in Tukwila. The project completely within Tukwila is referred to as Reach 1. The waterward side of the levee will be reconfigured and planted with native plants. The City of Kent is proposing a different levee profile than Tukwila's adopted profile, which requires a shoreline variance as well as a variance from Tukwila's adopted trail width standard. These requests were considered under a separate land use action. The City's Hearing Examiner, after conducting a public hearing on July 22, 2014 and taking public testimony, is recommending approval of the variance request to the Department of Ecology, which has final decision making authority on shoreline variances. Approximately two hundred feet of Reach 2 falls within the City of Tukwila — the major portion of the levee repair in this area is within the City of Kent. The portion of Reach 2 that falls within Tukwila is where the reconfigured levee is re -joined to the existing levee system. See Attachment 1, project plans. CPL Page l of 17 H:\\L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0030 SSDP Staff Rpt. Attachment C 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206- 431-3665 L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone LL Repair Shoreline Substantial Development Permit August 22, 2014 The riverbank along Reach 1 is over -steepened; the top of the levee is narrow and is showing signs of failure. Flows of just over 9,000 cubic feet per second (CFS) in March of 2014 caused bank sloughing and erosion. This flow is far below the 12,000 CFS 100 -year flood event storms that have occurred in the past and can be expected in this reach in the future. This sloughing is in addition to erosion that has been noted in the past — see photo below taken in 2009. Detailed analysis of the levees completed by consultants hired by the City of Kent as part of a request to FEMA for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) indicated that this area does not meet federal standards for slope stability. Hydraulic models show that a failure of Reach 1 could potentially inundate the Kent valley from approximately S. 228th St. to I-405. See Attachment 2 , Inundation Map. The movement of the bank and other factors noted indicates that repair of the levee is needed. The proposed project will construct a secondary levee on Reach 1 of the Green River to address the conditions of overly steep slopes and limited freeboard on the existing levee. Freeboard is the distance above the 100 year flood elevation used as a factor of safety. The secondary levee will serve to protect nearby properties and is being developed to facilitate FEMA accreditation for 100 -year flood protection in this location. Reach 1: 2009 Sloughing CPL Page 2 of 17 H:\\L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0030 SSDP Staff Rpt. 12/09/2016 10:12 AM i Y L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone LeJ„- itepair Shoreline Substantial Development Permit August 22, 2014 Reach 1: 2014 Scouring At Curve of River In lieu of constructing Tukwila's levee profile, which requires a fifteen foot bench with 2:1 slopes above and below the bench, the City of Kent is proposing to slope the river bank at a 6:1 slope at the river's edge and 2:1 in front of the sheet pile wall. The 6:1 sloped area would act as a bench, and be planted with native trees and shrubs to provide habitat benefits including refuge during high flows (above 2,500 cubic feet per second). Kent has determined that the overall slope of the levee profile they are proposing is 2.56:1. In order to construct the structural steel sheet pile wall at the back of existing levee, twenty-nine (29) trees will be removed from the backside of the levee. These trees will be replaced by 170 trees, a mix of evergreen, deciduous, and stakes; shrubs and groundcovers will be planted as well. The above ground portion of the wall will range from 8 feet to 13 feet tall, when viewed from surrounding businesses. To allow for re -vegetation and habitat restoration, earthen benches will be constructed where feasible along the riverbank slope. These benches will entail excavation between the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and the existing Green River trail to create a bench of up to 15 feet wide where native trees and shrubs will be planted. The existing asphalt trail will remain on top of the levee berm, but will be relocated further landward adjacent to the flood wall, which will be topped with handrails for safety. An access ramp to the trail will be located at the very north end of Reach 1. The flood wall will extend approximately 3 feet above the surface of the new trail, plus a 1.5 foot handrail. The City of Kent and Tukwila entered into an Interlocal Agreement for the levee project in Tukwila, which grants Kent the authority to process and acquire permits for Tukwila and to conduct SEPA for the portion of the project in Tukwila. During the environmental review (SEPA) conducted by the City of Kent in 2013 for the four levee repair projects including Reach 1, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe submitted comments regarding temperature conditions in the Green River and the related shading benefits provided by mature riparian vegetation on the riverbank. The Tribe commented that the vegetated area along the river proposed by Kent is not wide enough to adequately address temperature impairment. CPL Page 3 of 17 12/09/2016 10:12 AM H:\\L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0030 SSDP Staff Rpt. L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Le Repair Shoreline Substantial Development Permit August 22, 2014 The SEPA staff report prepared by Kent staff stated that construction of the proposed floodwall would provide the city with the opportunity to plant large overstory trees that are not subject to diameter or height restrictions along the banks of the river because the floodwall serves as the levee, and therefore the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) vegetation policy waterward of the "levee" does not apply. These large trees will, in time, provide significant shade to this reach of the river where very little currently exists. (Source: City of Kent SEPA Staff Report, page 6 — See Attachment 3 for SEPA related materials.) Typical Cross Section of Sheet Pile Wall Levee With Plantings, Trail II. TUKWILA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM - BACKGROUND The City of Tukwila adopted a new Shoreline Master Program (SMP) on August 15, 2011 which was approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology on October 14, 2011 and became effective October 28, 2011. The levee reconfiguration project is subject to the 2011 Shoreline Master Program. A. Shoreline Environment Designation The shoreline environment designation for Reaches 1 and 2 is Urban Conservancy; the purpose of the Urban Conservancy Environment is to protect ecological functions where they exist in urban and developed settings, and restore ecological functions where they have been previously degraded, while allowing a variety of compatible uses. The two hundred foot shoreline jurisdiction is divided into a buffer area and non -buffer area. The shoreline buffer in the Urban Conservancy environment where levees are present is 125 feet. Construction, maintenance or re -development of levees for flood control purposes is a permitted use in the Urban Conservancy environment buffer, provided that the new or re -developed levee meets the applicable levee requirements of Tukwila's Shoreline Master Program and Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC 18.44.050 B. h.). The Tukwila SMP levee profile requirements are discussed below. CPL Page 4 of 17 12/09/2016 10:12 AM H:\\L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0030 SSDP Staff Rpt. L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Le\ ,repair Shoreline Substantial Development Permit August 22, 2014 B. How Shoreline Buffer Widths Were Determined The determination of the buffer distances for each shoreline environment in Tukwila was based on several factors including the analysis of buffer functions needed for protecting and restoring shoreline ecological function and the need to allow space for bank stability and for protecting human life and structures from damage from high flows, erosion and bank failures. Ensuring that new structures are not built too close to the river's edge is crucial to avoid loss of human life and property. The 125 foot buffer widthis the maximum needed to reconfigure the river bank to the minimum levee profile illustrated below and to achieve an overall slope of 2.5:1, the "angle of repose" or the maximum angle of a stable slope. The City's adopted levee profile allows sufficient room to incorporate a mid -slope bench that can be planted with vegetation to improve river habitat. The mid - slope bench also allows access for maintenance equipment, when needed. As the Corps of Engineers does not permit planting on the levee prism, the only way to improve habitat along leveed portions of the river is to create a bench that can be vegetated that will not create a hazard for the stability of the levee. A ten foot easement is required on the landward side of the levee at the toe to allow access for levee inspection. The adopted levee profile is illustrated below: 18' Typical Shoreline Buffer in Leveed Areas -Width Will Vary Reconfigured Levee Vegetated Bench <-10' 2` \Maintenance Easement Willows Existing Levee 15' Ordinary High Water Mark OHWM . Reconfigured Slope averages 2.5:1 with bench Minimum Levee Profile Not To Scale In instances where an existing building that has not lost its nonconforming status prevents the complete construction of the minimum levee profile, achieving an overall slope of 2.5:1 may be difficult — however, the SMP states the slope should be as close to 2.5:1 as possible. The SMP also states that a floodwall is not the preferred back slope profile for a levee and may be substituted for all or a portion of the back slope only where necessary to avoid encroachment or damage to a structure legally constructed prior to the date of adoption of this Master Program and which has not lost its nonconforming status and to preserve access needed for building functionality. The floodwall shall be designed to be the minimum necessary to provide 10' (ten feet) clearance between the levee and the building or the minimum necessary to preserve access needed for building functionality while meeting all engineering safety standards. The final buffer widths adopted by the City and approved by Ecology for each shoreline environment attempted to balance shoreline ecological function needs, human life and property protection needs CPL Page 5 of 17 12/09/2016 10:12 AM H:\\L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0030 SSDP Staff Rpt. 1 L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Le tepair Shoreline Substantial Development Permit August 22, 2014 (including future levee repair/reconstruction), existing land use patterns, and state and federal agency policies. C. Vegetation on Levees During the final stages of the City's adoption of its SMP in 2010 and its approval by Ecology in 2011, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) began to revise its regulations related to vegetation on levees. For many years, the Pacific Northwest operated under a regional variance from the national maintenance requirement tokeep levees clear of all vegetation. The regional variance allowed vegetation, particularly trees, up to a certain size to remain on levees as long as they did not pose a hazard to the levee's stability. In 2011, the COE proposed new national regulations on levee vegetation that would have banned vegetation on levees and would have required local jurisdictions to apply for a vegetation variance on a case-by-case basis each time planting of vegetation, including trees was desired. This proposed revision was due to concerns about the effect of vegetation on levee stability, particularly tree root systems. The issue of vegetation on local levees is particularly important in the Pacific Northwest given the requirement of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to protect habitat of threatened and endangered species. Vegetation along rivers provides important habitat benefits to listed species and the requirement to remove it under the COE proposed rule placed local jurisdictions in jeopardy of violating the ESA. Many jurisdictions opposed the 2011 draft rule, and over the past three years, the COE has been reviewing the comments and considering revisions to the proposed rule. Recently, the COE has released a new interim policy that would allow local jurisdictions to decide whether to grow trees on levees. However, the rule is not permanent and it is not clear what the final outcome will be on the issue of allowing vegetation on levees. D. Trail Standards The Tukwila adopted trail standard is a fourteen (14) foot wide paved trail with two feet of shoulder on either side. The City of Kent requested a shoreline variance to allow a twelve (12) foot -wide paved trail, with a two foot shoulder on the river side of the trail. E. Applicable Shoreline Goals and Policies Natural Environment and Habitat Use Goal 5.9: Restored, enhanced, and protected natural environment resources along the river, including trees, wildlife habitat and features with value for long-term public, scientific and educational uses. Policy 5.9.1: Ensure that shoreline development results in no net loss of shoreline ecological function, minimizes impacts on wildlife and that significant vegetation, sandbars, wetlands, watercourses, and other critical areas identified as important for habitat are maintained through the proper location, design, construction, and management of all shoreline uses and activities. CPL Page 6 of 17 12/09/2016 10:12 AM H:A\LI4-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0030 SSDP Staff Rpt. L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Leder .Aepair Shoreline Substantial Development Permit August 22, 2014 The applicant has provided a no net loss analysis (NNL) which is provided as Attachment 3 to this staff report. The NNL analysis addresses the mitigation sequencing criteria in the SMP. The response to the criteria is below: a. Avoid the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action_ Applicant Response: If we avoid taking action on this levee project we will not meet FEMA levee safety standards for residents and businesses as well as not reducing the risk of potential flooding in the industrial areas of the Green River Valley. This levee will protect water quality by keeping flood waters from coming in contact with industrial land uses. In addition, the Green River Trail in this area will be improved. An improved riparian corridor will increase shading and reduce temperature loading as well as improve insect and leaf drop and woody debris recruitment into the Green River. Threatened salmon species will not benefit if this project is not undertaken. With this project flood refuge habitat will be available to juvenile salmonids during peak outmigration periods. Staff Comment: The information submitted with the application acknowledges that vegetation, particularly trees, will be removed from the levee in order to construct the new levee wall. The twenty-nine (29) trees that will be removed are mature trees that provide shade to the river, even though most are 50 feet or more away. Among the trees to be removed are sixteen (16) large London Plane trees on the backslope of the levee. The shade from these mature trees will be lost until the new trees, planted closer to the river, mature to provide shade. Any repair of the levee system that lays back the levee would require the removal of these trees. The proposed replacement plantings along the 6:1 and 2:1 slope in front of the levee wall will provide shading once the trees are mature and will provide better habitat function than Tukwila's adopted levee profile since the plantings will be closer to the river. To replace the 29 trees that are being removed, the City of Kent will be planting 170 trees, a mix of deciduous and evergreen along with shrubs and groundcover. b. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts. Applicant Response: Water quality impacts during construction will be mitigated by strict adherence to a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan developed to comply with all requirements of the Washington State Department of Ecology's Construction Stormwater General Permit. Soil stabilization measures will be utilized, such as hydroseeding and establishing native plants. Natural shoreline processes will not be harmed from this project; the new levee will keep flood waters contained within constructed banks. The sheet pile walls will be located at the landward toe of the levee and therefore will not impact shoreline processes. Habitat will be improved through this project by removing invasive plant species and replacing them with native vegetation as well as providing additional shallowly inundated flood refuge habitat for salmon. A planting plan is included in the permit submittal. c. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment: Applicant Response: Native trees and shrubs will be planted and soils will be stabilized with erosion control fabric, mulch and other best management practices (BMPs). Disturbed areas will be restored to original or better function and will be hydroseeded and planted following construction. As the planted area matures improved habitat function and water quality filtration will occur. CPL Page 7 of 17 12/09/2016 10:12 AM H:\\L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0030 SSDP Staff Rpt. L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone L, Repair Shoreline Substantial Development Permit August 22, 2014 d. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations; Applicant Response: The short-term negative impacts will be ameliorated with maturing native plants, increased flood storage and improved fish habitat. As plants mature and fill in, maintenance operations will be reduced to mowing along the path with other maintenance on an "as -needed" basis. e. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and Applicant Response: The impact of the project will be compensated by replacing current non-native vegetation with higher quality native vegetation. We will encourage the construction contractor to chip any trees removed and use this to mulch the newly planted trees. Current habitat resources are of a low quality (reed -canary grass, steep slopes, no canopy, etc.). Habitat will improve over time with the growth of the native plantings and construction of the planting benches. f Monitoring the impact and the compensation projects and taking appropriate corrective measures. Applicant Response: The City of Kent will obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater General Permit for the project which will require a site specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to manage stormwater and erosion as well as sediment control plans throughout the duration of the project. Water quality sampling will also be required through the permit which will ensure that environmental damage does not occur. During the disruptive portions of the project BMPs will be used to replace natural functions. These BMPs, such as silt fences, mulches and erosion control fabrics reduce runoff and minimize erosion and sediment transport. The city will also implement a Monitoring, Maintenance, and Adaptive Management Plan for the re -vegetated and landscaped areas once the project is completed. This plan will ensure that vegetation will be monitored annually for five years and maintained/replaced or adaptively managed as necessary. Staff Comment: Staff concurs with the analysis provided by the City of Kent for the NNL criteria. Shoreline regulations require monitoring of re -vegetated areas. Water Quality, Surface Water and Flood Control Use: Goal 5.10: Improved water quality and quantity control programs affecting the Green/Duwamish River that improve the river's water quality, provide habitat for fish and wildlife, protect public health and safety, and enhance public enjoyment of the river. Policy 5.10.2: Design, manage, and mitigate flood control uses to minimize impacts to other shoreline uses such as trees and riverbank vegetation, public access and recreation, and fish habitat and set them back from the river, where feasible for the project, with land areas between the water and the levee set aside as open space for public recreation or wildlife habitat. Policy 5.10.3: Consistent with project feasibility, mitigate unavoidable negative impacts on other shoreline uses owing to flood control uses through such measures as restoration of trees and native CPL Page 8 of 17 12/09/2016 10:12 AM H:A\L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0030 SSDP Staff Rpt. L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Le , epair Shoreline Substantial Development Permit August 22, 2014 l' riverbank vegetation, provision of public access to the water's edge, interpretive features, or other mitigation of loss of opportunities for shoreline multiple uses. Policy 5.10.4: Obtain additional easements, where needed, from property owners to setback levees to improve flood control and shoreline habitat functions. Where possible, as redevelopment occurs, replace bulkheads, revetments or other hard bank stabilization with more natural levees, riverbanks or other shoreline treatments, to improve flood control, ecological functions and habitat. Staff Comment: The City of Kent's design of the levee repair sets back the levee from current conditions, however the levee design varies from the City of Tukwila's levee profile. Under a separate land use permit, the City considered a request to use a different levee profile for this project from the City's adopted profile. The alternative design provides added flood protection to properties in a large area ranging from Tukwila to Renton to Kent, and mitigates impacts to the shoreline from removal of mature trees by placing replacement native plants and trees closer to the water's edge than the City's adopted levee profile. The design also avoids further impacting the developed property behind the levee. III. SHORELINE REGULATIONS: TMC 18.44.130 B. 3. Shoreline Administration states that a substantial development permit shall be granted only when the development proposed is consistent with the shoreline master program. The relevant SMP policies were discussed above. Below is a discussion of the relevant shoreline master program regulations that are incorporated into the zoning code that apply to this permit application. See Attachment 4 for City of Kent's response to the SMP no net loss criteria and a description of the project. A. Permitted Uses: TMC 18.44.050 identifies permitted uses in the Urban Conservancy environment. The proposed project is a permitted use under TMC 18.44.050 B.1.h.: "Construction, maintenance or re- development of levees for flood control purposes, provided that any new or re -developed levee shall meet the applicable levee requirements of this chapter". Tukwila's SMP requires that levees be constructed to the adopted minimum levee profile — the City of Kent applied for a variance from that standard, a public hearing has been held by the City's Hearing Examiner on the request and the Hearing Examiner is recommending to the Department of Ecology that the variance request be approved. 1. The City's adopted levee profile has two main goals — provide a less steep, more stable levee profile that will add river channel capacity to accommodate high flows and to provide habitat benefits that are lacking with the existing over -steepened levees with vegetation limited by the Corps of Engineers. The levee profile proposed by the City of Kent accomplishes these two goals in a different configuration from Tukwila's adopted profile. The City's levee profile with a 15 foot mid -slope bench would engage with the river when flows are at approximately 5,500 cubic feet per second (CFS) of river flow, which occurs only 1-2 times a year. The City of Kent's design will engage the river when the flows are approximately 2,500 CFS. This occurs CPL Page 9 of 17 H:\\L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0030 SSDP Staff Rpt. 12/09/2016 10:12 AM L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone L. epair Shoreline Substantial Development Permit August 22, 2014 on average 39 times between January and June, an extremely important time in the life cycle of out migrating salmonids. The vegetation on the river bank slopes will afford refuge opportunities during high flows to out -migrating salmonids which prevents the fish from being swept out to Elliott Bay before they have completely acclimated to salt water. The City's adopted levee profile also has an overall slope of 2.5:1. The City of Kent has determined that the overall levee slope in Reach 1 is 2.56:1, which meets the overall levee slope established by Tukwila's SMP. The use of a steel pile wall is not the preferred configuration for the backside of the levee, however, to construct Tukwila's preferred backslope would reduce the number of parking stalls further on the Riverpointe property and affect the usability of the building closest to the levee (18200 Cascade Ave. South) due to reduction in the drive aisle width and reduction in parking available to building tenants. Development Standards TMC 18.44.070 C. establishes development standards for the Urban Conservancy shoreline environment. These include setbacks, site configuration, height restrictions and lighting standards. As this project does not involve the construction of structures, setbacks, site configuration and height restrictions do not apply. No new lighting will be added for this project — the existing street lighting will remain. B. Surface Water and Water Quality TMC 18.44.070 D provides development standards for shoreline development. As noted under the no net loss discussion, the City of Kent will be obtaining a NPDES construction stormwater general permit that will require a site specific stormwater pollution prevention plan to manage stormwater and erosion as well as sediment control plans throughout the duration of the project. There will be no increase in impervious surfaces in the shoreline jurisdiction that could lead to an increase in surface water run-off. Projects are required to be designed so as to cause no net loss to shoreline ecological functions. No net loss has been addressed above under the discussion of the consistency of this project with shoreline goals and policies. C. Flood Hazard Reduction: TMC 18.44.070 E. provides standards for levees and the use of floodwall in lieu of a levee backslope. The project will include vegetation restoration as shown on the landscaping plans submitted with the permit application. The shoreline variance request has addressed the use of a levee profile other than the City of Tukwila's preferred profile. The City of Kent has prepared studies that show the current levee in Reach 1 does not provide adequate flood protection and that its failure would inundate a large geographic area in the cities of Tukwila, Renton and Kent. A floodwall may be substituted where necessary to avoid encroachment or damage to a structure legally constructed prior to the date of adoption of the SMP, or to preserve building functionality. In CPL Page 10 of 17 12/09/2016 10:12 AM H:\\ L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0030 SSDP Staff Rpt. 1 L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Lev :epair Shoreline Substantial Development Permit August 22, 2014 this case, the reconstruction of the levee using a floodwall will eliminate 25 parking stalls from the property immediately behind the repair area (18200 Cascade Avenue South). Moving the levee back further would impact the travel lane and emergency access drive which runs behind the row of parking that is being eliminated and eliminate more parking stalls. Public access will be improved as the project will widen the current trail by two feet — the current trail is 10 feet wide, with two foot shoulders on either side. Kent's proposed trail width is 12 feet with a two -foot shoulder on the river side of the trail and a paved two -foot shoulder on the landward side of the trail. Rather than make the trail two feet wider, the. City of Kent increased the riparian zone and flood refuge area by two feet. D. Landfill Activities: TMC 18.44.070, Development Standards (Section 9.11 of the SMP) addresses clearing, grading and landfill activities in the shoreline jurisdiction. The SMP requires all land altering activities in the shoreline jurisdiction to be in conjunction with an underlying land development permit, except for shoreline restoration projects. The City of Kent's application states there will be fill material added to a 2 -foot wide strip between the proposed constructed trail and wall. The existing asphalt recreational trail will be relocated adjacent to the wall. Fill material will meet the geotechnical consultant's recommendations and will be obtained from permitted excavation sites. Fill material includes suitable sand and gravel. Compost and amended topsoil will be replaced in areas that will be planted with native vegetation. In addition, all activities shall meet the following standards: 1. Land altering shall be permitted only where it meets the following criteria: a. The work is the minimum necessary to accomplish an allowed shoreline use; Response: Fill will be placed between the levee wall and the trail to provide additional width for the trail. b. Impacts to the natural environment are minimized and mitigated; Response: The environment along the river will be enhanced by the plantings on the 6:1 and 2:1 slope of the reconfigured river bank. A landscaping plan has been submitted as part of the permit and 170 trees will be planted to mitigate for the removal of 29 mature trees at the back of the current levee. c. Water quality, river flows and/or fish habitat are not adversely affected; Response: Silt fencing will be used to prevent debris from falling into the river. The project will improve fish habitat by provide refuge area during high river flows. d. Public access and river navigation are not diminished; CPL Page 11 of 17 12/09/2016 10:12 AM H:\\L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0030 SSDP Staff Rpt. L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone L, 2epair Shoreline Substantial Development Permit August 22, 2014 Response: The project will improve the current Green River Trail by widening it by two feet e. The project complies with all federal and state requirements and the project has been coordinated with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Response: The project has been designed to comply with all federal and state requirements. f. The project complies with the vegetation protection criteria of the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section; Response: A landscape plan has been submitted with proposed locations for replacement trees as well as the placement of shrubs and groundcover to improve habitat on the river side of the levee. See "Vegetation Protection and Landscaping" below for a discussion of revisions to the landscaping plan that will be made by the City of Kent. g. Documentation is provided to demonstrate that the fill comes from a clean source. Response: The source of the fill to be used in the shoreline jurisdiction has not been identified as yet. A clean source of fill is required for use in the shoreline jurisdiction. It should be noted that the discussion on fill during development of the City's SMP was focused on fill placed waterward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The fill in this project will be landward of the OHWM. 2. Clearing, grading and landfill activities, where allowed, shall include erosion control mechanisms, and any reasonable restriction on equipment, methods or timing necessary to minimize the introduction of suspended solids or leaching of contaminants into the river, or the disturbance of wildlife or fish habitats in accordance with the standards in the Grading Chapter, TMC 16.54. Response: The project will use Best Management Practices, such as silt fences, mulches and erosion control fabrics to reduce runoff and minimize erosion and sediment transport. E. Vegetation Protection and Landscaping TMC 18.44.080 provides requirements for landscaping in both the buffer and non -buffer areas of the shoreline environment. The applicant has provided a landscaping plan for the project area. The City of Kent will plant 170 replacement trees as mitigation for the removal of 29 trees from the back side of the current levee. The landscaping plan also includes shrubs and groundcovers for the 6:1 and 2:1 sloped areas in front of the floodwall to create riparian habitat. To construct the sheet pile wall, twenty-nine (29) trees will be removed, ranging in size from a four - inch Hawthorn to 24 -inch London Planes. The large, mature London Planes provide some shade to the river even though they are 50-90 feet from the river's edge. To replace the trees that are being removed, the City of Kent is now proposing to plant 170 native trees in the 6:1 and 2:1 areas on the riverside of the levee. The original landscaping plans showed 137 trees to be planted, but the City of CPL Page 12 of 17 12/09/2016 10:12 AM H:\\L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0030 SSDP Staff Rpt. 1 L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Lev,, ,repair Shoreline Substantial Development Permit August 22, 2014 �' Kent reviewed the calculations on the number of needed replacement trees and has increased that number to 170 and has specified the species of trees to be planted (August 12, 2014 e-mail from Matthew Knox, City of Kent to City of Tukwila) There will also be shrubs and groundcovers planted on the riverside of the levee: approximately 1205 on the lower slope; 360 on the middle slope and 705 on the upper slope. These plantings would be in lieu of the 15 foot mid -slope planted bench with native plants required by Tukwila's adopted levee profile. Since the sheet pile wall will serve as the levee, the plantings on the riverside of the levee will not be affected by the current or any future COE levee vegetation limitations. (See Landscaping Sheets 19-24 of Kent Plans, Attachment 1 and e-mail dated August 12, 2014 from Matthew Knox, City of Kent, Attachment 5) F. Public Access TMC 18.44.100 sets forth the public access requirements for the SMP. Public access is required when a development or use would create additional demand for public access through the addition of square footage to an existing building or the intensification in land use through the conversion of a warehouse to a retail or office use. This development standard does not apply to this project. The site does include a portion of the Green River Trail which will be relocated due to the levee reconstruction. The proposed trail width is 12' wide with a 2' wide paved shoulder along the floodwall and a 2' wide gravel shoulder along the riverward side of the trail, for a total width of 16'. The Tukwila SMP adopted an 18' minimum width for trails — as a result, the City of Kent requested a shoreline variance for their proposed 16 -foot wide trail. The variance request was considered under a separate land use permit. Tukwila's Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on the variance request and is recommending approval to the Department of Ecology, which has final decision-making authority for shoreline variances. This section of trail dead -ends at the parking lot next to West Valley Highway. The main trail bridge crosses the Green River 500' west of this project and the trail continues north and south along the river. The proposed trail width is 2' wider than the trail to which it is connecting, a slight improvement over existing conditions. In addition, this width allows the lower bench to be 2' wider which increases the riparian zone and the flood refuge habitat that it provides. G. Shoreline Design Guidelines This section of the TMC does not apply (TMC 18.44.110) as no buildings are being constructed. IV. COMMENTS: The public comment period closed on June 30, 2014. E-mail comments were received July 3, 2014 from Karen Walter, Watershed and Land Use Team Leader for the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. The e- mail from the Tribe raised concerns about Tribal fishing access to the river from the project site and impacts to fish habitat and attached a letter dated April 1, 2013 sent to the City of Kent during their environmental review process raising the same concerns. The issues raised in the Tribe's comments are below, followed by a response from the applicant. A copy of the e-mail and comment letter is found in Attachment 6. The City of Kent's response is found CPL Page 13 of 17 12/09/2016 10:12 AM H:\\L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0030 SSDP Staff Rpt. L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone L Zepair Shoreline Substantial Development Permit August 22, 2014 in Attachment 7, comprised of an email dated July 11, 2014 and Kent's response to the Tribe on April 5, 2013 during the SEPA review process conducted by the City of Kent. 1. Continuing to provide access for Tribal fishing at the site: Applicant Response: "...on July 1, 2014 we met with Karen Walter and Leo LaClair, MITFC Commissioner, on site to discuss fishing access along the river. And on Wed. this week Mr. LaClair met with Jason Bryant, our project inspector to flag the fishing site locations along the Briscoe- Desimone Levee. One site is located on Reach 1 next to West Valley Highway and the other is on Reach 3. We have assured Mr. LaClair that we will maintain access to both of these sites during construction and after project completion." 2. Fish habitat concerns Applicant Response: "As you noted, Karen Walter from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division recently submitted her April 1, 2013 comment letter to you regarding the Briscoe-Desimone Levee project. We provide (sic) a response to her letter on April 5, 2013. I provided the response letter to you previously. Please consider this to be our official response." Staff Response: Tukwila recognizes the concern about fish habitat and the loss of shading from the removal of the trees along the backslope of the levee. Any repair of the levee system that lays back the levee would require the removal of these trees. Repair of the levee is needed to correct serious structural deficiencies. The proposed plantings along the 6:1 and 2:1 slope in front of the levee wall will provide shading once the trees are mature and will provide better habitat function than Tukwila's adopted levee profile since theplantings will be closer to the river. V. SEPA: The City of Kent acted as the SEPA lead agency, as the majority of the levee repairs are taking place in Kent's jurisdiction. Kent issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance on April 9, 2013. The SEPA determination, staff report and SEPA Checklist are found in Attachment 3. VI. CONCLUSIONS 1. The proposed project, referred to as Reach 1, will repair approximately 1,100 feet of levee by installing a sheet pile wall to serve as the levee itself and reconfigure the riverside of the levee by re -sloping at a 6:1 angle and 2:1 angle and installing native plants to improve habitat. The Green River Trail will be rebuilt, adding two feet to the actual trail width and adding two foot shoulders on either side of the trail. 2. Under a separate land use application, the applicant requested a variance from Tukwila's adopted levee profile and a variance from the City's adopted trail width from 18 feet to 16 feet. The City's Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on these requests and is recommending approval to the Department of Ecology, which has final decision making authority on shoreline variances. CPL Page 14 of 17 12/09/2016 10:12 AM H:A\L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0030 SSDP Staff Rpt. f L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Lev, `repair Shoreline Substantial Development Permit August 22, 2014 / ' I 3. As the sheet pile wall will serve as the levee, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers restrictions on planting vegetation on the waterward side of the levee will not apply. 4. The City of Tukwila adopted a new Shoreline Master Program (SMP) on August 15, 2011; it was approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology on October 14, 2011 and became effective October 28, 2011. 5. The shoreline environment designation for the project area is Urban Conservancy, with a buffer width of 125 feet. The buffer width allows enough room to reconfigure the river bank with levee to achieve an overall slope of 2.5:1, the "angle of repose" or the maximum angle of a stable slope and allow for some restoration and improvement of shoreline function through the installation of native plants and other habitat features on a 15 foot wide mid -slope bench. 6. The levee in Reach 1 is currently over -steepened and is showing signs of failure, including scouring along the base of the levee and sloughing of the river side of the levee slope. The reconfiguration of the levee and use of the sheet pile wall will reduce the flood risk to adjacent properties in the cities of Renton, Kent and Tukwila and add needed freeboard to the levee. 7. The levee profile proposed by the City of Kent will provide native trees and shrubs next to the river, which, when mature, will provide shade for habitat benefits. In addition, the plantings closer to the river will provide flood refuge habitat for out -migrating threatened Chinook salmon for an average 39 days each year. This is 37 days more than Tukwila's SMP levee profile would provide since the mid -slope bench is usually inundated during high flow events only two days a year. 8. Due to concerns about the impacts of vegetation on levee stability the Corps of Engineers in the past has limited the amount of vegetation on levees although under a regional variance granted to the Pacific Northwest, some trees below a certain size have been allowed. Due to proposed revisions to rules regulating vegetation on levees it is not clear whether vegetation will be allowed on levees in the future. 9. Twenty-nine trees in the shoreline buffer are being removed for project construction. Among the trees to be removed are sixteen (16) large London Plane trees on the backslope of the levee bank that provide shade to the river. The shade from these mature trees will be lost until the new trees, planted closer to the river, mature to provide shade. A total of 170 trees will be planted to replace the removed trees as well as approximately 2,270 shrubs and ground covers at three different levels from the Ordinary High Water Mark up to the trail. 10. The City of Kent has determined that the overall levee slope in Reach 1 is 2.56:1, which meets the overall levee slope established by Tukwila's SMP. 11. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable shoreline goals/policies as follows: a) The project is consistent with natural environment and habitat goal 5.9 and policy 5.9.1 of the Comprehensive Plan as it will provide habitat improvements on the river side of the levee wall. b) A no net loss analysis was provided: avoiding the impact of reconstructing the levee altogether would leave a compromised portion of the levee system unrepaired and therefore vulnerable to failure; impacts have been minimized by the use of a sheet pile wall which will avoid the loss of a drive aisle which provides vehicle and emergency access on the property behind Reach 1 and avoid the loss of additional parking stalls beyond the 25 that will be eliminated due to the levee reconstruction; vegetation impacts are unavoidable under any scenario to lay back the levee at a more stable angle— the City of Kent will replace the 29 trees that will be lost with 170 trees. CPL Page 15 of 17 12/09/2016 10:12 AM H:\\L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0030 SSDP Staff Rpt. L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Lt. tepair Shoreline Substantial Development Permit August 22, 2014 c) The project is consistent with water quality, surface water and flood control use goal 5.10 and policies 5.10.2, 5.10.3 and 5.10.4 of the Comprehensive Plan as the alternative design for the levee profile provides added flood protection to properties in a large area, mitigates impacts to the shoreline from removal of mature trees by placing replacement native trees and plants closer to the river's edge and avoids further impacting a developed property behind the levee. 12. The project is consistent with applicable shoreline regulations in TMC 18.44: a) A levee repair is consistent with permitted uses in the Urban Conservancy shoreline environment provided it meets the standards in Tukwila's SMP. The levee profile being used does not match Tukwila's adopted profile, however, the City of Kent has requested a variance from this standard and Tukwila's Hearing Examiner is recommending approval. The Dept. of Ecology has final approval over shoreline variances. b) The use of a sheet pile wall is not the preferred backslope for a levee, however, the reconstruction of the levee will cause the loss of 25 parking stalls from the adjacent property and constructing the typical backslope would impact a drive aisle/emergency access drive behind the levee. The City of Kent has prepared studies that show the current levee in Reach 1 does not provide adequate flood protection and its failure would inundate a large geographic area in the cities of Tukwila, Renton and Kent. c) The City of Kent will obtain a NPDES construction stormwater general permit that will require a site specific stormwater pollution prevention plan to manage stormwater and erosion as well as sediment control plans for the project. There will be no increase in impervious surfaces in the shoreline jurisdiction that could lead to an increase in surface water run-off. d) The only landfill activity will involve fill placed to create the two -foot wide strip between the new trail and the sheet pile wall. The fill placement will not impact water quality, river flows or fish habitat, will improve the Green River Trail by widening it by two feet, complies with federal and state requirements and will comply with the vegetation protection and landscaping section of the SMP. The project will use BMPs, such as silt fences, mulches and erosion control fabric to reduce runoff and minimize erosion and sediment transport during construction. e) A landscaping plan for the project has been submitted, with supplemental information provided by the applicant on the number of trees that will be removed and replaced. Twenty-nine large, mature trees will be removed in order to repair the levee; 170 trees will be planted to replace the removed trees. In addition, shrubs and groundcover will be planted on the river side of the levee wall. Since the sheet pile wall serves as the levee, the plantings on the river side will not conflict with COE regulations on vegetation on levees. The landscaping plan needs to be revised to reflect the increase in replacement trees and the types of species that will be added to the planting plan. f) The required width of public trails along the river is eighteen feet — the City of Kent is proposing sixteen feet and applied for a shoreline variance of the required trail width of 18 feet. Tukwila's Hearing Examiner is recommending approval of the variance request to the Dept. of Ecology. The trail width will be widened from its current width of 10 feet to 12 feet with a two foot paved shoulder and two foot gravel shoulder. g) The project is not subject to the SMP design guideline requirements. 13. Comments were received from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe — these comments have been addressed as follows: CPL Page 16 of 17 12/09/2016 10:12 AM H:\\L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0030 SSDP Staff Rpt. L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Lev` ,.epair Shoreline Substantial Development Permit August 22, 2014 a. Preserve fishing access for Tribal members both during construction and after completion of the levee repair: The City of Kent has provided assurance that fishing access along the river at Reach 1 will be maintained for the Tribe, both during construction and after the repair is completed. b. Concern about potential impacts to fish habitat, particularly due to loss of shading from trees being removed. Any levee repair will necessitate the removal of the mature trees on the backslope of the levee. A mix of deciduous and evergreen trees will be planted to replace the removed trees and, when mature, will replace the shading provided by the removed trees. The replacement trees will be closer to the river than the removed trees. 14. The City of Kent acted as SEPA lead agency and issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignficance on April 9, 2013. VII. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of the shoreline substantial development permit with the following condition: 1. Revise the landscaping plan to show a total of 170 trees to be planted to replace the 29 trees that are being removed to repair the levee and revise the tree planting schedule to reflect the tree species that are listed in the August 12, 2014 email from Matt Knox, City of Kent. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Project Plan Sheets 2. Inundation Map 3. City of Kent SEPA Documents — SEPA Checklist, SEPA Staff Report and SEPA Determination. 4. City of Kent Project Description and Response to No Net Loss Criteria. 5. August 12, 2014 E-mail from Matt Knox, City of Kent with Attachment on Replacement Trees and July 25, 2014 E-mail from Carol Lumb, City of Tukwila with Attachment on Replacement Tree Calculations. 6. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe E-mail dated July 3, 2014 and Attachment dated April 1, 2013. 7. City of Kent Response to Muckleshoot Indian Tribe e-mail dated 7-11-14 and letter dated April 5, 2013. CPL Page 17 of 17 12/09/2016 10:12 AM H:\\L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0030 SSDP Staff Rpt. KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 41 \ I KENT WASHINGTON CITY OF KENT SUZETTE COOKE - MAYOR MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL JM BARRIOS BILL BOYCE BRENDA RNCHER DENNIS HICIGWS DANA RALPH DEBORAH RANMDER LES THOMAS 11M LAPORTE - DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS RONALD MOORE - CITY CLERK CHAD EEREN - CRY ENGINEER PAT F ITZPATRICK - CITY ATTORNEY PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS TUKWILA SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PLANS JOB NUMBER 09-3011 SHEET INDEX CML DRAWINGS 1 COVER SHEET 2 SITE PLAN 3 LEGEND, GENERAL NOTES & CONSTRUCTION NOTES 4-5 FLOODWALL PLAN & PROFILE SHEETS 6 GRADING PLAN 7-18 GRADING CROSS SECTIONS 19-21 LANDSCAPE PLANS 22 LANDSCAPE NOTES, SPECIFICATIONS & DETAILS 23-24 TREE INVENTORY PLANS STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS S1 FLOODWALL SECTIONS AND DETAILS S2 SHEET PILE WALL DETAILS S3 HANDRAIL ELEVATION, SECTIONS AND DETAILS S4 REMOVABLE BOLLARD DETAILS 55 TYPICAL FLOODWALL ELEVATION VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE EXISTING 10' WIDE TRAIL S. 182nd 51. i\ \ EXISTING \ BUILDING \ EXISTING \ PARKING \ \ -- FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION=30.5 30' WIDE EXISTING RIVERBANK PROTECTION EASEMENT PER INSTRUMENT N..'S 5222050 & 5596236 ORDINARY HIGH WATER AND CONSTRUCTION LIMITS TOP OF EXISTING BANK LANDWARD TOE OF LEVEE PROPOSED WALL AND 12' NIDE TRAIL RIVERSIDE DR. PROPOSED 15' WIDE RIVER PROTECTION EASEMENT AND CONSTRUCTION LIMITS EXISTING PARKING - 125' UREVN CONSERVANCY BUFFER PROPOSED TRAIL ACCESS RAMP — NOTE: SEE SHEET 7 FOR LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS AND TYPICAL DETAIL EXISTING BUILDING r 1/ KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PRIIKCI 09-301 rxo Cox<r. Vag, Gin, 0i OW v City of Kent Public Works Department INT Engineering Division SITE PLAN T DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SI 2 0; 24 tLE NO. DESIMONE WALL GENERAL NOTES 1. PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTVIIY, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ATTEND A SCHEDULED PRE-COHSTRUCBON CONFERENCE W1111 TIE CITY OF KENT CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION PERSONNEL AND DESIGN ENGINEERS RHONE (253) B56-5500 TO SCHEDULE CONFERENCE 2 ALL WORK AND MATERNA-5 SHALL BE N ACCORDANCE NM THE 2009 EOTON OF THE CITY OF KENT CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. THE MOOT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. 2012 EDITION AND THE KENT SPECIAL PREP/MONS FOR MIS PROJECT. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY 08111 ALL PUBLIC CONVTNIE10E AND SAFETY AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 1-07.23 TO SECTION 1-07.23(2) O THE KENT SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR STORING OF EQUIPMENT MID MATERIALS DURING NON -WORKING HOURS. 4. ME CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP STREETS CLEAN AT ALL TIMES BY STREET SWEEPING WHEN NECESSARY, OR WHEN 06001 O BY 114E CONSTRUCTION 010404 R, 5. ALL HEMS OF WORN NOT LISTED IN THE BA PROPOSAL WINCH ARE SHOWN ON THE CONTRACT DRANNGS AND ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE 114E BORK MAT IS MOM 98011 BE CVN50ERED INCIDENTAL TO THE LISTED SID METAS. B. ALL TREES AND VEGETATION NMN TIE PRQ.ECT 011115 SHALL BE REMOVED AS NOTED. All. OMER TREES SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT REMANNG TREES FROM DAMAGE RESULTING FROM CONSTRUCTOR ACTIVITIES NCLIIONG DAMAGE TO ROOT SISTER. ANY TREES DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTOR SHALL BE REPLACED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT CONTRACTORS EIOENS. 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS 04-010 AND A0100041 10 THE SITE THAT 4660 DISTURBED BY 008011100056 70 ORGNAL CONDITION UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY ME 015NE5. THE COSTS FOR GENERAL RESTORATION AND C0EAN UP REQUIRED IN COMPLIANCE WIM THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THIS PROJECT SHALL RE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO AND INCLUDED N THE UNIT CONTRACT PRICE OF OTHER BID 110105 EXCEPT FOR MOB I1EM5 INCLUDE) 114 ME PROPOSAL B. UNLESS OTIERNSE NOTED, THE WORD 140LOVE' OR 'REMOVAL' IN THE CONSTRUCTION NOTES AND SHOOT ON THE PONS MEMS REMOVAL, HAUL AND PROPER OFF-SITE CM/0541 BY THE CONTRACTOR AT THE CONTRACTORS CSENSE. B. THEM ISSUED-FIR--QT5S1RUC1.04 PLANS, THE APPROVED TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS THE APPROVED TEMPORARY ER090N/9DNENTATON CONTROL PLANS THE STANDARD 9•ECIFTCA11005 AND KENT SPECIAL PROW90805 SHALL RE ON THE JOB 9TE WHENEVER CONSTRUCTOR IS N PROGRESS 10. UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE THE CONTRACTOR 15 SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ME MEMO METIOD5 AND SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTOR AND FOR ME SAFETY OF THE WORKERS. 11. ALL EASING UTUTES SHALL REMAIN IN SERVICE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 12 IDENTIFICATION LOCATION. MARKING AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR UNDERGROUND FACILITIES OR MITES 5 GOVERNED BY THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 19.122 8EWSED CODE OF WASHINGTON. 13. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT 110 UNDERGROUND 01011105 LOCATION SEWAGE (811) AT LEAST 1180 WOOING DAYS PRIM TO CONSTRUCTION. THE OYNER 00 HIS REPRESENTATIVE AND ME ENGINEER SHALL BE CONTACTED IMMEDIATELY IF A CONFLICT EXISTS 14, CAUTION - EXTREME HAZARD - OVERHEAD AND UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL SERME LINES ARE GENERALLY NOT SHOWN ON 114E ORANNG , THE CONTRACTOR S RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING ME EXTENT OF ANY HAZARD CREATED BY OVERHEAD OR UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL POWER HN ALL AREAS AND SHALL P01108 PROCEDURES DURING CONSTRUCTION AS REQUIRED BY LAW AND REGULATION. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTOR THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MEET NM UTL11Y OWNERS AND DETERMINE THE EXTENT OF HAZARD AND REMEDIAL MEASURES ANO SHALL TAKE WHATEVER PRECAUTIONS THAT MAY BE REQUIRED. THE WORK IS IN PROXIMITY TO PRIMARY HIGH VOLTAGE POWER LNES 15. ALL LOCATIONS OF E0511110 *TURES SHORN HEREON HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED BY FREO SURVEYOR OBTAINED FROM AVAILABLE RECORDS AKE SHOULD THEREFORE BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE ONLY AND NOT NECESSARILY COMPLETE R 15 THE SOLE RE90109BNTY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO INDEPENDENTLY VERIFY TIE ACCURACY OF ALL UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN AND TO EMMET DISCOVER AND AVOID ANY OTHER *151110 NOT SH01INN HEREON MINCH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE IMPIEAE1TA110N O MIS PUN. 19. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL ONORNG AND BRACING REQUIRED TO PROTECT AND SUPPORT 005140 UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND STRUCTURES DURING CONSTRUCTOR. 17. ANY OPEN CUTS OF EASING PUBIC ROADWAYS SHALL BE BACKFILLED AND COMPACTED IN ACCORDANCE NTH CITY OF KENT STANDARDS. ALL 0115 INTO COSTING ASPHALT SHALL BE ALONG NEAT, CONTINUOUS, SAW CUT UNE. A TEMPORARY COLD MIX PATCH MUST BE PLACED IMMEDIATELY AFTER BACKFILL AND COMPACTORS. UNLESS meninx DIRECTED BY THE ENGNEEO THE COSTING SURFACING MUST BE REPLACED N KIND (0R 3 INCHES OF COMPACTED NMA PG64-22 CLASS 1/2', ASPHALT CONCRETE, WHICNEVEN IS GREATER) NMN 30 DAIS OF COLD PATCHING ME CONTRACTOR SHALL CLOSELY FOLLOW REOU0EMENIS SET FOR WRONG HOURS DETOUR AND WARDING BONS AND NOTIFICATION 00 ROAD ALTERATIONS TO THE MICE AND/OR OTHER EMERGENCY SERVICES. 181 ALL UTILITY UM, 005505, ETC. LOCATED IN THE SIDEWALK STALL BE ADJMSIED 10 GRADE 19. IT IS RIEGAL UNDER WASHINGTON STATE ADMNSTRATVE CODE 332-120 TO WLLFULLY DESTROY SURVEY MARKERS STAKES. MARKS, AND OTHER Rut/TERM POINTS SET BY CITY FORCES, AND MISTING QTY, STATE OR FEDERAL MKNUMEN5ATI0N, SHALL BE CAREFULLY PRESERVED BY 1110 CONTRACTOR. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL 8011F7 ME ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF R BECOMES APPARENT MAT A SURVEY MARKER WILL BE DISTURBED DUE TO CONSTRUCTOR. THE CONTRACTOR WILL ALLOW AMPLE TIME FOR COY SURVEY DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL TO ACQUIRE ADEQUATE INFORMATION 50 THAT THE MONUMENT MAY BE REPLACED IN 115 ORIGINAL 20515044 A TER CONSTRUCTION. 20. DRIVEWAYS SHALL REMAIN OPEN AT ALL TIMES DURING BUSINESS HOURS ME CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE HIS WORK SCHEDULE H1H THE PROPERTY OCCUPANTS TO DETERMINE 114E BEST TIME TO FULLY OR PARTIALLY CLOSE ME DRIVEWAYS N ORDER TO PERFORM HIS WORK. CONSTRUCTION NOTES BID ITEM NUMBERS ARE 00NN 1®IME811EEI2. THEY AAE PROVIDED FOR CONTRACTOR CONN/M .10E ONLY AND NOT NCLUSNE OF THE PIID.ECT WORK Ol MAME DOSING TREE, AND 00010401 BACKFILL VOD AND COMPACT PER SPECIFICATIONS O2 REMOVE EOSINS TREE STUMP AND 14001BAEL BACKFILL VOD ANO COMPACT PER 9'E00CA0ONS 0(088 O REMOVE EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT. 10)2 Of SAW CUT MISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT. 20,50 0 CONSTRUCT NEW ASPHALT TRAIL AND SUB -BASE PER DETAIL 2 SHEET 2 LOBO. 1000 © REMOVE DOSING CONCRETE STAIRWAY. IGML O REMOVE E051NG CONCRETE EXTRUDED CURB. 11142 0 00405E 501511140 BOLLARD. X 0 REMOVE DOTING SRN. 4154 C. CONSTRUCT PARKING LOT PAVTMITIT PATCH AND SUB -BASE PER DETAIL X, SHEET X. K 11 CONSTRUCT CONCRETE WOOED CURB PFA KENT STANDARD PLAN 8-31 21 12 DISTALL REMOVABLE BOLLARD PER KNO COUNTY FIG 5-018 1222 13 REMOVE EASING CONCRETE PAVEMENT. 19710 14 NBROPT POWER UNF TO EASING UGIT ON ME LANDWARD SIDE OF THE FLOODWALL INSTALL TYPE 1 JUNCTON BOK IF SAUCE WU. BE RECORD 10 ROME THE ULNT N THE NOV LOCATION SHOWN ON THE PLAN. REMOVE IMI011NG LUMINAIRE P007 AND FOUNDATION. CONSTRUCT NEW CLASS 3000 CONCRETE FOUNDATION N THE NEW LOCATION SHOWN CN THE PUN. MATCH DIMENSIONS OF EXIS7N0 FOUNDATION. INSTALL EASING UNAWARE AND POST ON NEW FOU4DATNN AND RECONNECT POWER. 1219 15 REMOVE EASING TRASH ENCLOSURE AND CONCRETE SUB AS REQUIRED. CONSTRUCT NEW SUB AFTER FLOOD WALL CANSIRUC1O. MATCH 00011410 SUB THICKNESS RE -0151011. 0051165 TRASH ENCLOSURE. X KNG COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL D 1 S T R I C T DATUM VERTICAL DATUM: NAY° BB HORIZONTAL DAVM: NAD 03/91 E CITY OF KENT BD400108K 15 050 BENCHMARK ELEVATION: 31.824 BENCHMARK DESCRIPTION: SET MAC NAIL WTN 1-1/2' OTT OF KENT ALOMINIIM WASHER IN ASPHALT ON W 90E OF WVIM AT NW CORNER OR DRIVEWAY APRON AT ENTRANCE TO BIKE TRAIL. AT N END OF RIVERPONT CORPORATE CENTER. AT 7000 BLVD MD WYH. CITY OF KENT *0)40048080 No. 8.51 B ENCHMARK ELEVATION: 33,498 BENCHMARK 345CRIPION: SET MAO NAIL WITH 1-1/2' CITY OF 1011 ALULNNUM WASHER N BIKE TRAIL ON E 90E OF GREEN RIV8) IN BRISCOE PARK. BEMND BLINDING 48020 IN CUL-DE-SAC AT 50180001gN OF S 19D 51 AND 82 AVE S NAOMI IS N TIAL W OF TW0 COVERED 240IC AREAS. VERTICAL DATUM CONVERSION NAVD RB = NAVD 29 + 3.53' ABBREVIATIONS - CIVIL BW EP EXT FG FS GB 10 0HW PT PC PCC PRC 14/04 TC TW BOTTOM OF WALL EDGE OF PAVEMENT EASEMENT EXISTING FINISHED GRADE FINISHED SURFACE GRADE BREAK INVERT ELEVATION ORDINARY HIGH WATER POINT OF TANGENCY POINT OF CURVATURE PONT OF COMPOUND CURVATURE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE RIGHT OF WAY TOP OF CAP BEAM TOP OF WALL ABBREVIATIONS - STRUCTURAL 8/GONG 13/SHEET PILE B/WATERSTOP T/1ARRIER T/RAIIING T/SHEEr PILE TW 0017048 OF CONCRETE WALL FACING B OTTOM OF SHEET PILE WALL BOTTOM OF WATERSTOP TOP OF PEDESTRIAN BARRIER TOP OF HANDRAIL TOP OF SHEET PILE WALL TOP OF WALL LEGEND EXISTD4 A 1 G App AR Sr:RFFM t O — GIPS - P TYPE 1 El NONE 2 O -41F— m ICV tf -Gwl — W-42—W- - 0�0- - 5—- ♦—S— CONSTRUCTOR NOTE SECTION LETTER OR DETAIL NUMBER SHEET NUMBER WHERE SECTION OR DOTAL 15 REFERENCED SIGN 11NLBOX HELL FENCE STREET 10GHT/5 844(1RE U7U1Y POLE W/WY TELEPHONE MANHOLE/VAULT TELEPHONE PEDESTAL UNDERGROUND TEL000NE UNE LNOERDRCIN0 CAW UNE OVERHEAD POWER LINE LNOERGROUND POWER UNE EXISTING JUNC1ON BOC NEW JUNCTION 004 POWER VAULT/CABINET OAS UNE AND VALVE FIRE HYDRANT IRRIGATOR 80114441 BOX WATER METER VALVE P0510014 NCCATOR FIRE DEPT. CONNECTOR WATER VAULT WATERLINE AND VALVE STORM SEWER LINE A CATCH BOON STORM SEWER UNE A MANHOLE STORM SEWER FORCEMAN DITCH FLOWUNE SANITARY SEWER UNE k MANHOLE CENTERLNE R/14 1110 EASEMENT UNE PROPERTY UNE AND OTRANSHT HOOK MONUMENT N CASE CASHING EDGE OF PAVEMENT CULVEtT 040011NG BUILDN0 1131011140 CONCRETE ORDINARY MGH WATER LINE DECIDUOUS TREE EVERGREEN TREE ( \ NacN ¢ RW /CENT 093011 dr*Mw 0 PROJECT OMR: 0500r, Mc41,, REY4Y/ SCALE:L N 11441, NONE RE1SION 05 DATE On EM°NEER Okft RAP 4 ON aORiNii City of Kent 4/4\41. Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division LEGEND, GENERAL NOTES & CONSTRUCTION NOTES DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 3 OF 24 FILE N0. ry 5 G: DeslgnW9.3011 DE .10-vc s0-5 tksos \\\c' , '.-->ILANOTVARD FACE OF WALL & CONST. CONTROL UNE ( -_.__ ----- -- ------- --- - .____ -- :-: ------------ = --- -- ----- c --- _.. _FLOOD ELEV.=30.5 , - -------- %It - - -- '----- -- ' - - --- -1:-L",-,_. • - _ ..., EXIEND EX. fr PIPE THROUGH WALL AND INSTALL FLAP GATE FuvERPOINIE CORPORATE CENTOT 18209 CASCADE AVE 5/ EX. PARKING LOT 15. MOE RIVER PROTECTION EASEMENT, CLEARING AND CONSTRUCTION LIMITS. • 50 30 3 • 12+00.00 BEG- CONC. GAP BEAM:AL BARRIER 166+00 30 MITE EXISTING RIVERBANK PROTECTION EASEMENT PER INSTRUMENT No.S 5222050 & 5596236 GREEN RIVER ------ • --------- 1,4 I'Ly SCALE IN FEET ---------- -------- _ ,IIT.TFF-1,-,tDGE OF 'PAVEMENT_:„ -- ------- ORDINARY HIGH WATER UNE AND CONSTRUCTION UNITS. . . -- CONC. CAP BEAM LIMITS &ELEVATION CONTROL 1.1NE/ TOP OF, CAP BEAN (TC) 0-000688: -- : - • ; TOP OF .SHEL7 PILE WALL ' \134.17± 466) GATE :. CONC.! CAP BEAM, BARRIER & BAUM° UNITS ' sHEE-i„, , : • , -- -16,66.32: I +68.37• TOP OF CONC. BARRIER • 17+37,42 • EXISTING GROUND., AT LANDWARD TOE OE WALL 50.00088 0 ! —10 141 00 50 40 30 ' 20 10 PILES AT au MIN. LNG11-4 (TYPd -20 ' -------- ' 12+00 OESIONED. : I - 14+00 H/..15+00 • 04[0.: KEW PROJECT NO 09-3011 BO IS C. NC. C.N +EI1SION BY DATE 00+84 090.tcl E/10a: Valr. WM* AomOvE. \.......City of Kent Public Works Department or, ra.sirs ',:or KENT Engineering Division 15+89.20 REACH 1 • -- • ALL PILES AT '35 'MIN LEN CG1 (PfP : - - 171-00 FLOODWALL PLAN AND PROFILE • ----;KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL 11 1 5 1 12 I C T DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET Shoreline \ Wall R1- 01.dwg, 4/16/2014 1130:19 Al —10 —20 ‘4. 400 24 FILE NO, LANDWARD FACE OF FINISHED WALL & CONST. CONTROL LINE 15' WIDE RIVER PROTECTION EASEMENT, CLEARING AND CONSTRUCTION LIMITS 1T EX „sow LOT /, ..9• „/ —,--,---- 0 A✓ d3 ii Q% / :-5.-›------ ---,-- .r!„,,:,,,,,,,,,.-.5%p.:,--/�..e.,....:-.--_--------=., ,-, 7;7,, � '/' ii: ' /-1-1-,-- -k ' i 1 / ,� //% Eiji 9i •�i�iii \ t' -1•991' i iii %mo%r✓\ ) \ \ y/ viii/�'\_- ) Gni v1:0;;;„„„„„15:7 \ .00 47%2/J r � 50 40 30 V RIVERPOINTE CORPORATE CENTER 15200 CASCADE AVE S CORNING CONICAL LADORATORIES. SAYBOLT INC., ENCORE SALES Q INNOVATION CUISINE DAT. 16251 CASCADE AVE S r EX FEMA BASE `FLOOD ELEV.. 30.5 30' WIDE I \ EXISTING \ RIVERBANK PROTECTION EASEMENT PER INSTRUMENT No'S 5222050 k 5596236 ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE Fro., \ /\ I _10 17+37.42 • -1 35.43 - - s=oo0okie ,...•• •.. , ��,\'mow •C\��� \ \^-_AND CONSTRUCTION LIMITS. GREEN RIEVER \ \ • • DNC.:CAP (BEAM.. RIER 81'RANNG L1M175"" l ” ®Wl£VATK31i CONTROL IiNEk 70P: bF CAP BEAM (TC)' .'. j, ... .. 41.4 ®N$ ... .:20+06.00 is ' . \ w•.\\\tiaw.\.,, fn • 1' TOP OF CONC BARRIER - -_ I 220750000 -INS 17;37,4 JOW--D:2. T0P 0F ..... .., • EXISTING E. AT LANDWARR OF. 5200.088............. i 22+x5 ao; . . I. .... 100009 ITVP) ...... . 4-4 KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL D I S T R. I C T RESPIE¢ (CRACKED: 1900 KENT RR -ECT OD -3011 No. REVISION By DATE ORAAN: R PR CT ENO, CO.,. NCNT. RENE* I VEAL 1000 ARNROWN 0 TE BAR rs art NO. CR ACOoRPROLY " I .ALL PILES AT 60. A11N.: (0012 i'. (1 Cityof Kent Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division 52+75.00.:.:...:,j: i, BW- 25,i00\ i .. 2:1+09' REACH 1 FLOOD WALL PLAN AND PROFILE .2.2+:00 • a' o.. Z •N 04 i7::rl H 30 z 10 - 0 279.00,: :: X6.69': R:: — ;�Q1Y. 25.: DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SKEET 5OF 24 FLE N0. BREAK UNE N RIVER / FLOW GRADING NOTES -, _- GRADING VOLUMES, --- --",,, 1. NO WORK BEL'OCV OROLNARY -HIGH VIATER SHALL BE ALLOW0. CUT - 8.201 CUBIC YARDS1•4 % 2. EXCAVATION OF THE LEVEE AND RIVER BANK SHALL BE U FILL - 1,978 CUBIC YARDS 4.- I'. --- -ro THE AVAILABLE DATES DESCRIBED IN KSP SECTIONS / 2-03.1(1) AND 6-20.3.LE, • VEE EMBANKMENT FILL (OR LOW PERMEABILJTY FILL) SHALL BE ...% \ CLA3. SUITABLE MATERIAL EXCAVATED FROM THE RIVER BANK SHALL SIZE OF 2 INCH, AT LEAST 25 PERCENT BY WEIGHT PASSING THE . Y. SILT OR SILTY/CLAYEY SAND HAVING A MAXIMUM PAR11CLEN 1 7 BE USED AS FILL MATERIAL AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. ; No. 200 SIEVE A MINIMUM PLASTICITY INDEX OF 5. A MAXIMUIA ''' 4. CONTOUR INTERVAL = 1 FOOT. -,'N- -va UOUID L/MIT OF 40 AND BE FREE OF ORGANIC AND DELETERIOUS - MATERIALS. GRADING LEGEND — 35--- EXISTING CONTOUR AND ELEVATION PROPOSED CONTOUR AND ELEVATION —OHW— ORDINARY HIGH WATER UNE o: BREAK UNE GREEN RIVER BAR NCH owPNAL EXISTING WLLOW TREES WITHIN 5 FEET OF THE OHIV LINE TO REMAIN. ADJUST 6:1 SLOPE AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER. SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR LOCATION ALL EXISTING VEGETATION BELOW THE OHW LINE TO RE/441/4. NO WORK SHALL OCCUR BELOW THE OHW UNE OHW \-• EXISTING GROUND KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ._.,DISTR_ICT \....City of Kent Public Works Department IKEN T Engineeriug Division LANDWARD FINISHED FACE OF WALL AND CONSTRUCTION CONTROL UNE. SEE WALL PROFILE PIANS 16.17' (TYP.) MADTH VARIES AT TRANSITIONS AND PARKING LOT RAMP, SEE PLANS VARIES VARIES SEE CROSS SECTIONS SEE CROSS SECTIONS 6 2 EXCAVATION AREA. SEE GRADING NOTE 2 6 1 LEWE EMBANKMENT FILL PAYMENT UMITS. SEE GRADING NOTE 3. ©TYPICAL GRADING SECTION NOT TO SCALE GRADING PLAN FLOOD WALL DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS ELEV. CONTROL PT. (TOP OF CAP BEAM) SEE WALL PROFILE FOR ELEV. SHEET 601 24 51.1 90 LANDWARD FINISHED FACE OF WALL AND CONSTRUCTION CONTROL UNE. SEE WALL PROFILE PLANS REMOVE EXIST. ASPHALT PAVEMENT V 500 YR FLOOD EL + 3 FT. MIN. TOP OF BARRIER V 100 YR FLOOD EL + 3 FT. MIN. EDGE OF GRAVEL SHOULDER FINISHED GRADE, SEE GRADING PLAN LEVEE EXCAVATION, SEE GRADING PUN GREEN RIVER V OHW UNE EXIST. GROUND 'NE 1IJJ E i---1 15 r RIVER PROTECTION EASEMENT 1 J/ CONST. 12' WIDE PAVED TRAIL PER SECTION 2 LEVEE EMBANKMENT FILL PAYMENT LIMIT. SEE GRADING PLAN CONST. CAP BEAM AND BARRIER W/ HANDRAIL SEE STRUCTURAL PLANS LI RESTORE SURFACE. SEE NOTE 1. NOR' 1. REGRADE AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION ON THE LANDWARD SIDE OF THE FLOOD WALL AS REQUIRED. INSTALL TOPSOIL (6' DEPTH) AND SOD UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON THE PLANS OR DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. CONSTRUCT FLOODWALL SFE STRUCTURAL PLANS TYPICAL LEVEE SECTION NOT TO SCALE FINISHED FACE OF WALL 1' CLEAR OF PROPERTY UNE MIN. SEE GRADING AND LANDSCAPE PLANS LANDWARD FINISHED FACE OF WALL AND CONSTRUCTION CONTROL UNE. SEE WALL PROFILE PLANS 2 SHOULDER 14.17' PAVED WIDE TRAIL (TYP.) 12' WIDE ASPHALT (TYP.) 2.17' WIDTH VARIES AT TRANSITIONS 1`_51 I-- 9' -9' DEPTH 5/8' MINUS CRUSHED SURFACING, COMPACTED PER SPECIFICATIONS 3' DEPTH ASPHALT PVMT., HMA PG 64-22, CLASS 1/2' COMPACTED PER SPECIFICATIONS. 6' DEPTH 5/e' MINUS CRUSHED SURFACING, COMPACTED PER SPECIFICATIONS LEVEE EMBANKMENT FILL PAYMENT OMITS 1 TYPICAL PAVED TRAIL SECTION CONCRETE BARRIER, SEE STRUCTURAL PLANS ELEVATION CONTROL POINT (TOP OF CAP BEAM), SEE WALL PROFILE AND SHEET 51 `EX. GROUND AT LANDWARD TOE OF WALL AS SHOWN 1 ON PROFILE NOT TO SCALE GROUND PO RV/1510N 8r on P 01E mz I -10 r. 1•+10' OW MON OP TE I' s 0 20 SCALE IN 4711177 City of Kent Public Works Department INT Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS DESSONCO 00.00, AtSACT CNA: cams,. 1.1r, AWE „oar F•-iD wpc. I• -1D' REVISION Or CC, C0CANCR nen. O NNoCA`» 10 0 I 11 to so SCALE W FEET City of Kent Public Works Department INT Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS STA: 13+50 40 30 R0 10 • E31571N0. GROOM 0NN EL•:14.47! OASE TL000,.. • _. "1"':_:. 100 90 70 60 50 40 —10 —60 —70 —90 —100 —110 —120 —130 —140 —150 —160 40 20 10 ANT PROACT 55 09-3011 10 5 0 so SCALE IN PEET' 00557 0041. 80000 92 “x,„1'.10' Rr: 1,10' N0. REVISION BY BATE AP ROM. 017/506107 suroar co City of Kent Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 9 or 24 OLE NO s1gn\09.3011 DESIMO STA: 15+00 BASE ROOD' Fl 70.50 E71,1911110 GROUND at. 19.70 EL 19:70 . no I 1 le SCALE IN RFT • 09-3011 tWs,. VOA,. R[R,9 0,„ 1--10 NO R,IVON BY 0, INCNIED City of Kent Public Works Department INT Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 10 o, 24 fLE NO. 10 11.40:46 AM 8horell ne\Rl 5eRi 50 STA: 15+50 • P601 VARIABLE WID1N . ..... . P1.000!WALL: :.. I. :.. PROIECBON EA4l1ENr..:. :.. -.:. 065509. 6019115MANCE -ACCESS . . 1 . /-AOCESS RAMP . • 0 34 8I 3 20 :. ...:... i 21: SLOPE !._.. _.._._._......._....._..._. 1 : FINISH CRAM :.EL 101.57 •• • •Or: 31.59 ' 05005055600995 BASE 55005 ' 30.55M6; .. • 1- PROPO..-., ?PFPAi1Y..tlNE._ NEST 0011E5 HWY. • ;.. ,......� ,a�A ..6; 1..$070 :._: _ .., .. • 30 10 100 90 BO 70 50 40 10 STA: 16+00 • • -10 -30 -50 -60 -70 -B0 -00 -100 -110 -120 -130 -140 -150 -160 10 T SCALE IN 9029 IREDIEED REHr ov-3011O. 90001! MGR. CORSE. 52901. 55550 NO. 509151011 BY DATE CO, fNurtER xortm1•900' R R, r-io City of Kent Public Works Department INT Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 11or 24 r0E N0. G:\Desi9n109-3011 DE o. C11 C 09-m; PRA CI C MC r—ro. RENSIO 9 RO OA ORICWIA. 004.0 00.57. SCALCS City of Kent Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 12 OF 24 IEE N0 Wenn \09-3011 OESIMON so 40 10 .. ..E10SBNC GRobtro- BASE:FLOOD 34.5o .OFirt- EL 1672 EL 1646 FL' .1497. ' J i'• MOO STA 17+50 WALL -OFF -14.00 Eli 31.79 PAVER YRA0. : PROPOSE0 16 MICE RIVER 7ROTEC E96' EASEMENT. •PMgNO-LOT I PROP'O5Ep • PROPERTY EINE • 50 40 20 40 -40 • _a_...__...:..........._"-"-_ -- '..._......... --113----._:_._ -100 -v0 -142 0 -130 -140 OFSIVIEN KEW' 093011 u to s to S1'iLLE RE FEET PROXCI WALE, 1-10' vExx 1'-10' NO. BT 0111E But i5 WE M City of Kent Public Works Department INT EngineeringDivision LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 130r 24 FEE N0. '... _. OFF.. 17-013 E>4SRNC CRO4NV EL' 3t 03 BASE ROOD EL 30.50 41000' WALL PAVED TRAIL drr> Wes 14:74 DESPORM MVO 09-3011No. DRAM: PROJECT ENO, CONS, 0101. NM. 1"-10' Rc t'-irr NO. REVISION Pr APPROVED mcoirvt City of Kent Public Works Department INT Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 14 or 24 GRE N0. ___ E%ISlR1G"GROUNIi'� .._;_OFF. EL , B4DE:R130 36.50 16.BJ. 34.971 STA: 19+50 ROOD WAL.• .. '.. PAVED 1RAR PAPpNG.IOT EL 21 SE -OPE 911001 0000E -_ • `PROPOSED • PAOREntt UNE : 40 ; : :RIVERilDE DR SLOPE, I —a 10 30 20 10 0 —10 —30 —90 —SO —60 —7D —110 —100 —130 —190 —150 —160 0M109-3011 ORA.. CW51. 0031. 1[H[9 cyr l'-10' NO. RE V5104 Or 001E Ciry [N1.W[[11 9t< "'KO' �CCOPpN00.+ City of Kent Public Works Department (CENT Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 15 or 24 PILE N0. [0151155 000(150 .. .. 1 1•. :. .. — BASE: FLOOD ... Z. R', 30.50 PARNING LOT i -09_3I1 ogniCl <0.15, 1.10.11 x107 1'10' NO. RE VISION By DALE s. City of Kent Public Works Department IMNT Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 16 or 24 GAP N0. I DESIMONE WALLS a STA: 22+00 ;PRDP.05F0.15':• i.,:..• .{..: I :1.. 410E RNER • .;. .. .. EASEMENT. � � �— — — — — =.— 1A` `-EIOSIING BUILDING ORNEWA`Y 1. : : P00PaR7 LIE 50 40 30 20 10 10 100 00 l0 60 50 40 30 LEAs EM ENEENEO. RENT RRa.Fc, Nu 09-3011 N0. RCNS0N 07 DAI ORAVG PROJECT DM, E05r, 400. RExER SCALE:1•.10• 0r 1'.10' Or ENONEER 0 it SAP CTO.M4 NMNCN -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 10 10 5G4LE IN FEET City of Kent Public Works Department [CENT Engineering Division -70 -60 -00 -100 -110 -120 -130 -140 -150 -160 LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 17 of 24 FILE N0. prENT �jo;; °SCALF c°NTI.. 4Wi. RENEW Wt Nrnr. 1-=10' REVISION 8v DA FE rRom EMWEN City of Kent Public Works Department INT Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 18 or 24 FILE N0. G:\Oeslgn\09-IOLI OESIMONE WALLS \dwg\Sh REACH 1 TREE PLANTING SCHEDULE OUAMRIY SYMBOL PAM NAME 19 10 11 13 B 20 15 BIG LEAP MAPLE ACER MACROP101.12M CASCARA RAMS PURSI1,14 DOUGLAS F1R. PSE00015UCA wagon ORFOCN ASN, MOWS UIMOIM SOBA SPRUCE PICFA SRCNBN00 WES1001 RED CEDAR, TAW PUMA BI0FR CHETRY, PRUNUS OANEGRUTA PACIFIC 1800 500. MAWS NSG MACK COTTONWOOD. POPULUS 000005NfPA SSP. 0RICNO0.MPA PACIFIC OR 0080 01100 FASCINFS (50/50 MIX) 137 TOTAL TREE MUM FOR REACH 1 CPT 09=]oi0�o. KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL D IS T R I C T NO. REHSION BY DATE PROECT MGR: CONST IMAM REA,/ NORM ClED RAIS OAR IS 041to,P=4 A.O.AlST SCALES City of Kent �'► Public Works Department KE.TIT Engineering Divisions REACH 1 DRAFT TREE PLANTING PLAN BRISCOE & DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 19 Cr 24 FIFE N0. 00-3010 01 REACH 1 SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER PLANING SCHEDULES SYMBOL PLANT MANTES 05001 NO—OWNER 610515 0001ROL S® MIX. 0 LBS/000 5F 452 CREEPING RED FESCUE 452 PERENNVZ. MORASS, 102 NFb2AM0 COLONIAL BENTO SS (DIRECT SEED SUES . • .�.,. �, ...., OR APPROVED EQUAL) ��4i14t�4 M 99T04�i 449£4 44 UPPER acre SHRUBS, 1 GALLON CONTAINER RED FLOWERING CURRANT, RIBE5 SANCUINEUM RED SRY LEAND HUS. GF BONS SN0IRHEUM 1353,15 OCEMLSPW0. NOIOOSCUS 115CO10R MOCK ORANGE. PMPOFTPRUS LEMSII TALL OREGON GRAPE MAL101414 AOLAFTERI I SYMPHOR1CORPOS ALBUS, 5x00940110 1001E SLOPE SHRUBS. 1 GALLON CONTAINER PACIFIC 1R0EBARM, PIT150fA0PUS CAPI0ADM BLACM 000201RRI. COHEIRS IMOLLGMTA 5NE AMPLE ER 01011000$4 001004RRY, MWEDS SEEM/BUS 1NMBIEBERRr, 011115 PA 101,00A 00RA ROSE ROSA 01014191A DYER SLOPE SHRUBS, 1 GALLON CONTAINER REDOSIER iROSE. 0054 L CORNUS SCAICEA 0 ACARRA PAPAS nEn, 15' WAIL CLEAR ZONE IMOROSEEDED WOH SEED MM. TYP. KIN(; COUNTY • FLOOD CONTROL : D 1 0 T R ICT 90 0 SCALE: i" �. SO' -T00-J010- N0. HEWSION BY YOrr ENDAAFED City of Kent /..... Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division REACH 1 DRAFT SHRUB PLANTING PLAN BRISCOE & DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS 0110E1 20 OF 24 FILE No 09-3010 01 REACH 1 SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER PLANTING SCHEDULES LOWER SLOPE MIDDLE SLOPE UPPER SLOPE LOWER SLOPE SHRUBS (OHWM TO EL. 19.5; 16,700 SF; APPROXIMATELY 1205 PLANTS TOTAL) amemuLMMLE mMMo.. Ur 61>i umy_.105192�. 4) COMBS SERCEA RED -OSIER 0073.0300 1 GAL 566 (47x) 4OGRP05 0APRAB15 Noir NPR:BARK 1 00. 0 P60CANA SWAMP ROSE 1 GAL • nu. STUBS 01 LOWER SLOPES TO BE SPACED 1' 1RWX%IWiLT ON-CENIER 169 (14x) 410 (324) MIDDLE SLOPE SHRUBS (EL 19.5 TO EL 22.5; 5,000 SF; APPROXIMATELY 360 PLANTS TOTAL) 90911199 NW OACER 045717AN1A NNE NAPiE 1 GAL 27 (7.514) 0 1010704 60404402112 BUCN 154122110 1 GAL 63 (17.51) \Ji(o N MOSBCWPUS CANTOS PACIFIC WEEMS( 1 021 62 (17x) /> 1 // )ROSL 271112x4 030700 NOSE 1 GAL SD (13R) COI RUMS PARNn0600 11M61EDERR0 1 GAL 40 (11x) ORUBUS SPEC7INUS SA140NBERIN 1 G4. 101 (264) 9p 1 ALL SHRUBS IN 0100LE SLOPES 10 BE SPACED 4' 101INGUURL0 Ox-GENIER UPPER SLOPE SHRUBS (EL. 22.5 TO LOWER INSPECTION CORRIDOR BOUNDARY; 9,000 SF; APPROXIMATELY 705 PLANTS TOTAL) mows 0sAs 101403 NAME 0E0-5194 0011001293 OGEAVSPRA1 TALL OREGON GRAPE MODS ORANGE RFD FLOWERING 040007 )NOWBERRT 471 1 GAL 1 GAL 1344 CA. 1 CAL 1 GAL AL SWOPS M UPPER SWOPS TO De SPACED 4 l2000UTARLY ON -CENTER _E91995* REA01 1 0»5111117 R3 (17.54) 71 (10x) 99 (11x) 102 (11.50) 172 (746) 142 (706) LOWER SLOPE TYPICAL LAYOUT 270$155114.46.-7 siee OrierifeVVWCO2 SIGNER 0104BON 7' 08;0104: MIDDLE SLOPE TYPICAL LAYOUT 0 \ 610013 1400106 Tr5, SEE TREE PORNO RAN LOWER ELEVATOR EER ELE00000 O O(\0 000©„,p,„ coo,„f fif,„ 0,0 UPPER SLOPE TYPICAL LAYOUT CN6 EIS: Ta�r`� ,�� w y mr; o .� 4.1'41.0r �1�,1,�13 4 "• i�3 .. / .'\r% Yi XI MOW/ 44* Yw�vE�;4.0 �iiaI3a iawri0w' r wer ..40.0101/4&•4`.w. 1% 414 1c n, -.47r 494603. 4 @� 0 61 KEN; COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL D I S T R. 1 C T E0EV0 10 0 10 20 SCALE: r m Ir 09-1010Y4. ORAAN PROTECT PAM COAST. MOAA RENEW No. PENSION BY 007E 37310470. COT ak City of Kent 9.no-xaW ► Public Works Department AaKENT Engineering Division REACH 1 DRAFT SHRUB PLANTING PLAN BRISCOE & DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 21 of24 PtLE 140. 09-3010 01 leo TREE PER PUN IF SPECNIU1IONS MULCH PER SPECRICATIONS SET 00018)11 ON 5UBGRADE CN AND RFY0YE TONE NA BURUP Rpt TOP AND SEs CF Roam, (mum; ALL FIRE BASKETS) AMENDED sot PER SPECIMA1INS MAMA UNDISTURBED SU8JWIE BELOW MOOT BAIL NOTE 242TREE PLANTING &L, NTING ID 8E ACCEPTAROOT FLARE SNAIL BE 2' ABOVE 5URR0UNDING GRADE CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE mD 2' FINE COMPOST. TILL FIE£ COMPOST PTO TOP B' Or TOME 5011 TOR TONAL Di t0' MENDED 500 10MER SET1IFAIEI)20 AFIWIffir SOIL AMENDMENT DETAIL MULCN A5 SPECIFIED (EE(118R MULGN AWAY ERCR! STEM EA'E) RNISHED MACE FUMED IM2. 0PER EVENLY SPREAD ROUTS NATIVE SHRUBS PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE 09-3010 Moor PRDRor .01 ScALF NOPti DIM' (SEE 28)22 or WAY PUH) 100S1I00 GROUND J tl ---- TREE PER PUN AND SPECIFICATIONS RCM CROWN 2" ABOVE FINISH GRADE ... MUCH PER SPECIFICATIONS 5ET 1001BW, ON 1111051R® SUBGRADE CUT AND 00105E TWINE AMD BURLAP FROM TOP AND SIDES OF R00T88L (RU105E AIL WALE 1)5NEIS.) AMENDED sol PER SPECMCATKNs DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE TREE/0)1000 RANTING ZONE .• PARED TRAIL coma RADE S BLANKET �\ \\\\1 rte/ // 2' c.o.,' NCURPO oTEO NTO ToSUBSOL - DEMI FINISH OR DE 1 xxxx xx xxxx! \xxxx ARBORIST IU CN FX 1UI00 WAIL \�- 2" 5,020051 1110mv0RATED INTO SUBSOIL 10 lU' OEPM TYPICAL LANDSCAPE SECTION NOT TO SCALE KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL T RIC T GROUND t. AUL 5®E0 AND MANRD AREAS TO RECETE sol MENOMENT. 2. 150E AND SPACING OF 1EGETAI05 PARRE5. SEE P1ANT LEGEND. NO SIO BY City of Keut Lf axrn, Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division REACH 1 DRAFT DETAILS BRISCOE & DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET ZZ 0,24 FEF NO. 09-3010 01 a • • LONDON- .../......`O LONDON ``�� ".y to leer PLANE TREE:. "*' • PLANE TREE 1=20 i•LONDON 1-26' `\ µ�/� PLANE TREE: \ MAPLE A 1-14' �y---T-- LANDWARD FACE OF SHED WALL & � 'C •FDONST. C6N1ROL UNE 15+00 0000490 +CNS ARaECT HAL 09-3011 °CAVA NYI N0. REVISION BY DATE RROhCT EMCs: °CNS1. MCN. REM* 11.20' 9497 4E01, 1'410' ARPROLEO. 0114 ENCWEER 04' 7-11-12 ,bccPK INCH ON wnxS`ALES 0' LEGENDi A TREE TO BE REMOVED OTREE TO REMAIN KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT City of Kent Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division TREE INVENTORY DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SNEE1 23 a 24 OLE N0. l9 61500P01N0E COILPORAIE CENTER 16200 CASCADE AVE 5. LONDON PLANE 'AEE: 4-19• ...SNOREL,INE BUFFER aj LONDON PLANE TREE: 1-16• LONDON PLANE TREE: 1-20' LONDON PLANE 'REE 3-16' CORNING CLINICAL LABORATOR A SAVSOLT INC., ENCORE SALES,' • INNOVATION CUISINE ENT,' 16251 CASCADE AVE S. xexT 06_�1xo. KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT ORP -ILC, ENV, an5r Maur, REnEA 1'-201 N0. REN9ON Or DATE Ory E.6o1 144=2"Acti City of Kent Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division TREE INVENTORY DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 24 00 24 01LE N0. DESIMONE WALLS \dwg\Shore FLOOD SIDE PROTECTED SIDE HANDRAIL 10" 5/8" X 4" WELDED STUDS (TYP) TRAIL, FINISH GRADE 1 ASPHALT SLOPE AWAY FROM WALL ^ CONST. CONTROL LINE T/RAILING '.7 T/BARRIER LIMITS OF PIGMENTED SEALER 5 141 B CONCRETE j rY ah jCAP BEAM SHEET PILE WALL EXISTING GRADE WALL CONTROL POINT TOP OF CAP T/SHEET PILE PAINT EXPOSED SHEET PILES CL SHEET PILE FINISH GRADE `-4" THICK CONCRETE MOW STRIP B/ SHEET PILE WALL SHEET PILE WALL O SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" FLOOD SIDE PROTECTED SIDE #5 © 12" 0.C. F--113" #5 CONT. (TOTAL 2) CONST. CONTROL LINE TOP OF CAP T / SHEET PILE ;e 5" 3" CLR. #6 CONT. - (TOTAL 3) (3) #6 CONT. E.F. 5/8" X 4" ELDER STUD (TYP) t6-1/2" NOTE: NO EXPANSION JOINT REQUIRED THIS SECTION. SEE NOTE ON 52 FOR EXPANSION JOINT REQUIREMENTS AT RAMP DETAIL — CONCRETE CAP BEAM AT RAMP ADJACENT TO LEVEE SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0" (NOTE 1 0) urtc.E0K0P No. PENSION NY UPTE °".• PM [" 60212339 3-#6 CONT.- E.F. • 3" CLR. #5 0 12" 11 1113" (4) 5/8", 4" WELDED STUDS 0 EA GROUP '-9" 15"1 HANDRAIL DETAIL I !!7 2—#5 CONT. CONST. CONTROL LINE CONCRETE BARRIER T / BARRIER PAY LIMIT WALL CONTROL POINT TOP OF CAP T 51-IEET PILE To 3" CLR. 5" STUD SPACING t8"I I t6 1/2" TYPICAL SECTION DETAIL O SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0" ARRIER CONCRETE CAP BEAM PAY LIMIT BASE PLATE 3/4" GROUT 3/4" CHAMFER — #6 CONT 0 TOP —1/2 D X 1" H REVEAL (TYP) 6' , #4 0 9" 0.C. ^ o #4 0 12" O.C. E.F. 1'-6" LAP -4 #5 0 9" 0.C.- 10 CLR (TYP) 4 0 12" 0.C.1i M DETAIL — BARRIER REVEAL & REINF.0 SCALE: NTS WALL CONTROL POINT TOP OF CAP 1/2" D X 1" H REVEAL DETAIL — BARRIER BOTTOM REVEAL O SCALE: NTS WEN 7-- 0, CYe1REER wrt 12-17-2013 City of Kent Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division NOTES: 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN CENTERLINE OF SHEET PILE WITH FLOODWALL CENTERLINE AT BENDS THROUGH USE OF TRANSITION SHEET PILES OR THROUGH ALLOWABLE ROTATION OF SHEET PILE INTERLOCKS. SPECIAL SECTIONS SHALL FIT WITHIN THE SPECIFIED LENGTHS AND WORK POINT LOCATIONS. TRANSITION SHEET PILES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM THICKNESS OF 3/8". CONTRACTOR I5 RESPONSIBLE FOR FINAL LAYOUT OF SHEET PILE TO FIT THE DESIGNATED ALIGNMENT. SHEET PILE SHOP DRAWINGS SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL AND SHALL INCLUDE THE LAYOUT AND ALL .THE NECESSARY DETAILS INCLUDING SPECIAL SECTIONS. 2. SHEET PILE STEEL SHALL BE ASTM A572 GRADE 50. 3. ALL MISCELLANEOUS STEEL SHALL BE ASTM A36, WITH HOT DIPPED GALVANIZED FINISH CONFORMING TO ASTM A153. 4. CONCRETE 28 -DAY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH SHALL BE 4000 PSI. 5. REINFORCING STEEL SHALL BE ASTM A706. 6. WELDED SHEAR STUDS SHALL BE ASTM A108. STUDS SHALL 8E TESTED PER AWS D1.1 SECTION 7,6. 7. WATERSTOP SHALL BE RUBBER OR PVC. RUBBER WATERSTOP SHALL CONFORM TO CORPS OF ENGINEERS CRD -513; PVC WATERSTOP SHALL CONFORM TO CORPS OF ENGINEERS CRD -0572. 8. REFER TO THE CIVIL SHEETS FOR THE SHEET PILE WALL PLAN, PROFILE AND ADDITIONAL SITE INFORMATION. 9. CONTRACTOR TO BACKFILL WALL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE CAP BEAM AND WALL FACING. 10. SEE PILE CAP DETAIL FOR ANCHOR LOCATIONS, SECTIONS A AND C, DWG. S3. 11. PROVIDE 3/4" CHAMFER ON ALL EXPOSED CONCRETE EDGES. 12. SEE SPECIAL PROVISION CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS. 13. LOADING (PER ASCE 7, SECTION 4.4.3) F = 6,000 LBS. GEI A";,' (4) 5/8" X 4" WELDED STUDS (TYP EA. SIDE) 4" MIN CLR WATER SIDE SHEET PILE t4'-7" 2-1/2" MIN CLR LAND SIDE SECTION .THRU CAP BEAM O SCALE, 3/4" = 1'-0" 4 - 4" FROM TOP, THEN 8" 0.C. 4" TYP �'— PROTECTED SIDE FLOOD SIDE SHEET PILE WALL END REINFORCEMENT DETAIL NOTE: SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" SHOWN AT SHEET PILE CAP LEVEL 180 Grand.Ave, Suite 1410 Oakland, CA 94612 510-350-2900 GE! Project 121141 BRISCOE — DESIMONE LEVEE FLOODWALL SECTIONS AND DETAILS SHEET 51 OE 5 OLE N0. Sl.drg ADDITIONAL #4 x2'-0" AT EACH EXPANSION JOINT EXPANSION JOINT T/BARRIER T/WATERSTOP ATERSTOP T/CONCRETE CAP BEAM PREMOLDED JOINT FILLER T/SHEET PILE II SECTION SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0" WATERSTOP B/WATERSTOP 8/GONG CAP BEAM 4 SHEET PILE A \1 SHEET PILE PROTECTED SIDE FLOOD SIDE MIN NOTES: 1. SEE NOTES ON SHEET 51 AS APPLICABLE. 2. EXPANSION JOINTS SPACING REQUIREMENTS: A. 24 -FOOT MAXIMUM UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. B. DO NOT PROVIDE EXPANSION JOINTS WITHIN REACH 3 PARKING LOT RAMP LIMITS (APROX. STA. 17+83 TO 18+52). C. SEE SHEET 53 FOR EXPANSION JOINT REQUIREMENTS ADJACENT TO THE REACH 3 PARKING LOT RAMP. D. 12 -FOOT MAXIMUM BETWEEN FOR A 48 FT DISTANCE UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM OF THE REACH 3 PARKING LOT RAMP (ABOUT STA. 17+35 TO 17+83 AND STA. 18+52 TO 19+00). - INSIDE CORNER WALL REINFORCEMENT NOT TO BE CONTINUOUS AROUND CORNER WALL BEND ABOVE SHEET PILE DETAIL NOTE: SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" I\-/ VERTICAL REINFORCEMENT NOT SHOWN • WATERSTOP� WELDED SHEET PILE WELDED EXPANSION JOINT THROUGH FAR SHEAR STUD SHEAR STUD SHEET PILE FLANGE EXPANSION JOINT Jjl RO CUEtj SHEET PILE TYPE A EXPANSION JOINT DETAIL SHEET PILES SCALE: 1" = 1'-0" WATERSTOP 1-1/2" MIN 1/2" P829015ED JOINT FILLER (TYP) - CHAMFER -JOINT SEALANT REINFORCEMENT 4-1/4" MIN 2" TYP DETAIL i/ 55 SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0" \ _ FOR EXPANSION WALL JOINTS WATERSTOP DETAIL % 6� SCALE: NTS DR -T60242339 WATERSTOP LOCATION (NOTE 3)- 3-1/2 PROTECTED SIDE FLOOD SIDE TYP USE TRANSITION SHEET PILE IF BEND ANGLE EXCEEDS MAXIMUM JOINT ALLOWABLE ROTATION WALL BEND BELOW TJSHEET PILE DETAIL NOTE: SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" VERTICAL REINFORCEMENT NOT SHOWN WATERSTOP- SHEET PILE WELDED SHEAR STUD EXPANSION JOINT THROUGH NEAR SHEET PILE FLANGE PROTECTED SIDE FLOOD SIDE NEAREST SHEET PILE FLANGE IN LINE WITH WATERSTOP /- WATERSTOP ® CENTER--.� OF BARRIER (TSP) WATERSTOP LOCATION (NOTE 3)— WATERSTOP LOCATION SCHEMATIC 3 MAX -- NEAREST SHEET PILE FLANGE IN LINE WITH WATERSTOP SCALE: 3/4" = I'-0" WATERSTOP NOTES: 1. WATERSTOPS SHALL BE INSTALLED AS DIRECTED BY THE MANUFACTURER. WATERSTOPS SHALL BE CAREFULLY AND CORRECTLY POSITIONED DURING INSTALLATION TO ELIMINATE FAULTY INSTALLATION THAT MAY RESULT IN JOINT LEAKAGE. ALL WATERSTOPS SHALL BE INSTALLED SO A5 TO FORM A CONTINUOUS WATERTIGHT DIAPHRAGM IN EACH JOINT. PROVISION SHALL BE MADE TO SUPPORT AND PROTECT THE WATERSTOPS DURING THE PROGRESS OF WORK. ANY WATERSTOP PUNCTURED OR DAMAGED SHALL BE REPLACED OR REPAIRED AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. THE CONCRETE SHALL BE THOROUGHLY CONSOLIDATED IN THE VICINITY OF THE WATERSTOP. SUITABLE GUARDS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO PROTECT EXPOSED PROJECTING EDGES AND ENDS OF PARTIALLY EMBEDDED WATERSTOPS FROM DAMAGE WHEN CONCRETE PLACEMENT HAS BEEN DISCONTINURD. WATERSTOPS SHALL NOT RE SPLICED. 2. STOP WATERSTOP 4" FROM T/BARRIER. PLUG TOP OF WATERSTOP WITH 2" MIN OF SOFT RUBBER. 3. MINIMUM RADIUS PER MANUFACTURER REQUIREMENTS OR PROVIDE 90' VERTICAL ELL TRANSITIONS USING HEAT FUSED FIELD WELDS PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. NO By DATE QONED 0, .u..R.' 'R 12-17-2013 City of Kent Public Works Department "•+*� KENT Engineering Division i180 Grand Ave. Suite 1410 Oakland, CA 94612 510-350.2900 GEI Project 121141 GEI , BRISCOE - DESIMONE LEVEE FLOODWALL ISNEE6 SHEET PILE WALL DETAILS 52 OF MRC NO. 52.e1, HANDRAIL NOTES: I. MATERIAL FOR PEDESTRIAN HANDRAIL SHALL BE POWDERCOATED, GALVANIZED STEEL (ASTM A53 GRADE B). 2. ALL POSTS SHALL BE PLUMB AFTER INSTALLATION. 3, CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOP PLANS FOR ENGINEER'S APPROVAL PRIOR TO FABRICATION. 4.. GALVANIZED PEDESTRIAN RAIL SHALL BE FABRICATED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE DRAWINGS AND THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS. 5. SEE CIVIL & STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DRAWINGS FOR LOCATION OF RAILING AND RAILING END SECTION. 6. LOADING (PER 45007, SECTION 4.4.1) TOP RAIL: 200 LBS CONCENTRATED OR 50-195/FT WHICHEVER 15 GREATER APPLIED ANY DIRECTION. LOWER RAIL: 50—LBS NOMINAL AT ANY POINT ALONG THE RAIL 7. EXPANSION JOINT SHALL BE PROVIDED IN RAILS. A HANDRAIL EXPANSION JOINT SHALL BE PROVIDED AT THE LOCATION OF EACH EXPANSION JOINT IN THE CONCRETE BARRIER AND CAP BEAM AND SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN ONE—FOOT HORIZONTALLY FROM THE EXPANSION JOINT IN THE CONCRETE. 8. OPENING BETWEEN BOTTOM OF RAILING AND TOP OF BARRIER SHALL BE 8—INCHES OR LESS. PL )5"x 6"x 6" W/(4) ;6" HOLES Y2" DIA. RESIN BONDED ANCHOR BOLT W/6" MIN. EMBEDMENT IN CONCRETE WALL (TYP.) HANDRAIL PLATE (PLAN)<© SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0" 1-1/2" SCH 40 X 0'-6" LG STD PIPE RAILING SPLICE T1s" FILLET WELD (TYP.) HANDRAIL SPLICE C( SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0" J 2" SCH 40 STD. PIPE K (TYP.) ® EACH POST FOR ALL RAIL SECTIONS SECTION — SCALE: 3" = 1'-0" RENSION r_RESIN BONDED ANCHOR BOLTS W. NUT & WASHER, NO MORE THAN 2 THREADS r EXPOSED, TYP. Y TYP. NON—SHRINK GROUT PAD PLATE TO BE LEVEL. GROUT TO MAKE TRANSITION TO SLOPING CONCRETE BELOW, TYP. HANDRAIL PLATE (SECTION)© SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0" 1/2" EXPANSION JOINT 2" DIA SCH 40 PIPE `1-1/2" DIA SCH 40 PIPE SECTION INSIDE 2" DIA SCH 40 PIPE RAIL EXPANSION O JOINT DETAIL (NOTE 7) SCALE: 1 1/2" = I'-0" 0nxxa: PM BY DATE ^raa,EO. wn [NSYxx 12-17-1013 TOP OF RAILING RAIL POST HANDRAIL SPLICE RAIL POST 4'-0" MIN. B'-0" MAX. 0.C. POST SPACING CORNER MITERED HANDRAIL SPLICE City of Kent /''^ Publie Works Department a»® KENT Engineering Division REVEAL 8 0" 0.C. POST SPACING EXPANSION JOINT • (—TOP OF BARRIER 4600411, PLATE 2' SCH 40 (STD. PIPE). TYP, HANDRAIL ELEVATION RAIL POST 8' 0' 0.C. POST SPACING ©EXPANSION 3016T r—TOP OF RAILING e® REVEAL TOP OF BARRIER ANORA1L PLATE 2" SCH 40 (STD PIPE), TYP. HANDRAIL END SECTION DETAIL 0 1 a GEI Ca rcu11— 180 Grand Ave. Suite 1410 Oakland, CA 94612 510-350-2900 0E1 Project 121141 L RAIL POST l BRISCOE — DESIMONE LEVEE FLOODWALL HAND RAIL ELEVATION, SECTIONS AND DETAILS J SHEET 53 5 :0.E N0. S4.d"q f FLOODSIDE LANDSIDE REMOVABLE BOLLARD -- (SEE DETAIL 2) FINISHED GRADE — 0041514640 PARK --HINGE ASSEMBLY (SEE DETAIL 1) ,.-- PADLOCK TO BE PROVIDED BY OTHERS --- FINISHED GRADE PARKING LOT TRAILHEAD WALL, SEE DWG. S12 BOLLARD CASING (SEE DETAIL 3) DETAIL - BOLLARD CASING ELEVATION SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" NOTES 1. DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE APPROXIMATE, FABRICATOR TO ADJUST AS NEEDED TO ENSURE PROPER FIT. 2. SILL PLATE BETWEEN BOLLARDS I5 4'-6-1/2" LONG. 3. HINGE TO BE FABRICATED FROM 3/8" STEEL PLATE TO GIVEN DIMENSIONS. PA PM tIM o. Kon 60 22040. 0r0"40 PE 12 0-30-2013 Oa 0 mai 15/16' 2-1/8" —1/2" 1-1/2" 1" DIA. HOLES THRU FLANGES REMOVE BURRS (4 PLCs) A36 STEEEL 14 4X13 SHAPE, ROUND ALL CORNERS, INSTALL PLUMB PAINT: 1 COAT RUSTOLEUM PRIMER #7673 2 COATS RUSTOLEUM SEMIGLOSS WHITE #7797 FULL LENGTH 1/4" DIA. STAINLESS STEEL ROD WELDED TO POST 1/8"K A` (TYP) 3 SIDES>--- 1/676 1/4" 536 STFFI. PLATE CUT _ TO CONFORM TO M SHAPE - WELD AND GRIND SMOOTH 3" 0.D. GALVANIZED STD. STEEL PIPE, SCN 40 ASTM A53 DETAIL - BOLLARD (REMOVABLE) ("2 - SCALE: 3" - 1'-0" City of Kent Public Works Department ` •"^"" KENT Engineering Division 1 11/32" — 1/2" -_ ._. (3/8" /2" 1.. —5/32" —5/32" DETAIL - HINGE ASSEMBLY BOLLARD (NOTE 3) "—(2) 1/4" DIA. X 3/4" LONG NF STAINLESS STEEL FLATHEAD SCREWS - REMOVABLE 0 SCALE: 6" = t'-0" F-1-5/32" CASE TO BE MADE OF 1/2" STEEL PLATE, CUT AND WELD TO GIVEN DIMENSIONS 7/16 3-1/16 3/16'7 PLAN 5-5/16" 3-1/2" I. D. GALVANIZED. - STD. STEEL PIPE, 518 40 ASTM A53 1 180 Grand Ave. Spite 1410 Oakland, CA 94612 510-350-2900 GEI Project 121141 1-5/32" /4" DIA. NE SCREWS TO FASTEN HINGE 5500. (SEE DETAIL 1) —31/32" 5/8" —CL 1/4" DIA. N1 TAP THRU 178.. 1/2" DIA. X 6" LONG BOLT. OCND AND WELD TO CASE ELEVATION -2'-10-15/16" DETAIL - BOLLARD CASING 3 51450: 3" = 1'-0" REMOVABLE BOLLARD DETAILS SHEI S 5 IL E N0. 52.dwg tt 24-0 " TYPICAL (EXCEPT WHERE NOTED OTHERVOSE) )— REVEAL CAP BEAM CONCRETE BARRIER (SMOOTH FINISH) (SMOOTH FINISH) I I 1 SHEET PILES — PAINT ALL EXPOSED SURFACES AND AREA TO BOTTOM OF MOW STRIP. SEE KSP 6-07.3(913) 4 Th CK CONC MOW SWIP I I_ FINISHED GRAD J RENW,ON RATE ,ApirS ocrn TYPICAL• FLOODWALL ELEVATION SCALE: 1"=2' KING COLINTY FLOOD CONTROL D ISTRICT :110,,ECY [NCI; 09-3010 C.71'...411. REV. 091: ENOIRLER "" 10-25-13 "Ta City of Kent Public Works Department *V:!Engineering Division TYPICAL FLOODWALL ELEVATION (LANDWARD FACE) BRISCOE & DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS ,HERT SS 5 RILE NO z x ; (7 SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOP P. ® ATTACHMENT '1 City of Tukwila Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Briscoe-Desimone Levee Project PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Kent proposes to install a structural steel sheet pile wall at the back of the existing levee slope to act as a secondary levee to reduce flood risk to the cities of Kent, Tukwila and Renton. The proposed flood wall will provide a minimum of 3 feet of freeboard above the predicted 500 -year flood event in order to meet FEMA accreditation requirements. The flood wall will be constructed in four segments (reaches) along the east bank of the Green River between South 200th Street and South 180th Street. The City of Kent received a shoreline permit for reaches 2, 3, and 4 within the City of Kent. The north 200' of Reach 2 and all of Reach 1 are located in Tukwila. This application is for Reach 1 and Reach 2 within Tukwila. The above ground portion of the wall will range from 8 feet to 12 feet tall, when viewed from surrounding businesses and as much as 27-50 feet underground. To allow for re -vegetation and habitat restoration, an earthen bench will be constructed where feasible along the riverbank slope. These benches will entail excavation between the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and the Green River trail to create a bench of up to 31 feet wide where native trees and shrubs will be planted. This bench will be inundated during flood flows and provide critical refuge habitat for juvenile salmonid. Three listed salmon species have been documented in the Green River, and this project will provide approximately 39 days of additional flood refuge habitat per year during peak salmon outmigration periods (January to June). This flood refuge habitat has been found to be a limiting factor for salmon survival in the lower Green River (Kerwin and Nelson, 2000). The existing asphalt bike trail will remain on top of the levee berm, but will be relocated further landward adjacent to the flood wall, and be topped with a handrail for safety. An access ramp to the trail will be located at the northerly end of Reach 1. The flood wall will extend approximately 3'-3" above the surface of the new trail, plus a 9" handrail. The City of Kent and Tukwila entered into an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) for the levee project in Tukwila. Pursuant to the ILA, Tukwila grants Kent the authority to process and acquire permits and to construct the project in Tukwila. Any utilities that may be in conflict with the wall will need to be relocated prior to construction of the wall. These utilities include but are not limited to overhead power, water main, sanitary sewer force main, storm drain and appurtenances. 1. DESCRIBE THE EXISTING CONDITION OF THE SHORELINE AREA AND RIVERBANK The project area is located along the right bank of the Green River looking downstream. Reach 1 is 1,100 feet long. West Valley highway, manufacturing and industrial buildings line the majority of the levee in the project area. A 10 -foot wide asphalt trail is located on top of the levee. 1 Lawn, ornamental trees and shrubs, commercial buildings and associated parking lots are located on the landward side of the levee. Existing vegetation on the riverward side of the levee consists of willow species (Salix spp.) near the OHWM of the Green River, red -osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), and grasses including reed -canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea). Very few trees are present on the riverward side of the levee and habitat conditions are degraded, consisting of mostly non-native, invasive vegetation and mowed grasses. The existing Green River shoreline in the project area is steep with slopes generally ranging from 50% to 100% between the OHWM and the asphalt Green River Trail on top of the levee. This trail is available to pedestrians and bicycles, and covers approximately 1/5 of the current levee's cross section. The bank material consists of silty -sand flood -plain material on the bank described by US Department of Agriculture (USDA) as Newberg silt loam (Ng), Puyallup fine sandy loam (Py), Urban Land gravelly sandy loam (Ur) and structural fill and crushed rock on the upper portions underlying the trail. There is no public access to the river's edge at this site. 2. HOW WILL YOUR PROJECT CHANGE THE EXISTING CONDITION OF THE SHORELINE DESCRIBED ABOVE? Natural shoreline processes are not likely to change as a result of this project. From a natural shoreline process perspective, the new levee will function similar to the current conditions by keeping flood waters contained within the constructed banks. Construction of the sheet pile flood wall at the landward toe of the existing levee will act as a secondary levee to reduce flood risks to the cities of Tukwila, Kent, and Renton. The existing asphalt recreational trail will be widened and relocated adjacent to the wall. Re -vegetation and habitat restoration work will occur along the river between the OHWM and the trail. No work will occur below the OHWM. The waterward side of the existing levee will be excavated to create a gentler slope and bench which will be planted with native trees and shrubs. These native plantings will provide nesting and rearing habitat for birds, small mammals, and insects and flood refuge habitat for fish. Enhanced riparian area will benefit fish by increasing shade, woody debris, and leaf litter. This project will enhance terrestrial habitat conditions adjacent to the Green River, improve riparian conditions and protect public safety. The completed projects will enhance the shoreline ecological function and will promote healthier shoreline ecosystem processes. 3. WILL THE PROJECT: A. ALTER/REMOVE VEGETATION IN THE SHORELINE JURISDICTION? YES vegetation will be removed within the shoreline jurisdiction. Trees will be removed to place the floodwall along the existing river bank. Most of these removed trees are at least 50 feet from the shoreline. Proposed tree replacement will occur much closer to the shoreline and provide increased shading within the project reach. Some existing vegetation will be removed, 2 r namely blackberry and reed -canary grass and will be replaced with a diverse riparian assemblage of native plants. B. ALTER THE RIVER BANK (i.e. re -slope bank, add armoring, etc.)? YES the river bank will be re-contoured to provide shallow planting benches will increase fish and wildlife habitat over existing conditions. C. ADD FILL IN THE SHORELINE JURISDICTION? YES there will be fill material added to the strip between the existing trail and the proposed floodwall on the far landward side of the project. The existing asphalt recreational trail will be relocated adjacent to the wall. Fill material will meet the geotechnical consultant's recommendations and will be obtained from permitted excavation sites. Fill material includes suitable sand and gravel. Compost and wood -chip mulch will be added on planted slopes to improve native plant survival. D. DISCHARGE NEW STORMWATER TO THE RIVER? NO, there will be no new storm water discharged into the river. E. STORE OR USE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IN THE SHORELINE JURISDICTION? NO, there will be no storage or use of hazardous materials in the shoreline jurisdiction. All construction equipment will be required to be in good working order and staged away from the shoreline. F. CONSTRUCT AN IN- OR OVER -WATER STRUCTURE? NO, there will be no in or over -water structures. G. INCREASE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE IN THE SHORELINE JURISDICTION? NO, there will be no increase in imperious surfaces in the shoreline jurisdiction 4. NO NET LOSS ANALYSIS: A. AVOIDING THE IMPACTALTHOGETHER BY NOT TAKING A CERTAIN ACTION OR PARTS OF AN ACTION: If we avoid taking action on this levee project we will not meet FEMA levee safety standards for residents and businesses as well as not reducing the risk of potential flooding in the industrial areas of the Green River Valley. This levee will protect water quality by keeping flood waters from coming in contact with industrial land uses. In addition, the Green River Trail in this area will be improved. An improved riparian corridor will increase shading and reduce temperature loading as well as improve insect and leaf drop and woody debris recruitment into the Green River. Threatened salmon species will not benefit if this project is not undertaken. With this project flood refuge habitat will be available to juvenile salmonids during peak outmigration periods. B. MINIMIZE IMPACTS BY LIMITING THE DEGREE OR MAGNITUDE OF THE ACTION AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION BY USING APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY OR BY TAKING AFFIRMATIVE STEPS TO AVOID OR REDUCE IMPACTS: Water quality impacts during construction will be mitigated by strict adherence to a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan developed to comply with all requirements of the Washington State Department of Ecology's Construction Stormwater General Permit. Soil stabilization measures will be utilized, such as hydroseeding and establishing native plants. Natural shoreline processes will not be harmed from this project; the new levee will keep flood waters contained within constructed banks. The sheet pile walls will be located at the landward toe of the levee and therefore will not impact shoreline processes. Habitat will be improved through this project by removing invasive plant species and replacing them with native vegetation as well as providing additional shallowly inundated flood refuge habitat for salmon. A planting plan is included in the permit submittal. C. RECTIFYING THE IMPACTS BY REPAIRING, REHABILITATING, OR RESTORING THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT: Native trees and shrubs will be planted and soils will be stabilized with erosion control fabric, mulch and other best management practices (BMPs). Disturbed areas will be restored to original or better function and will by hydroseeded and planted following construction. As the planted area matures improved habitat function and water quality filtration will occur. D. REDUCING OR ELIMINATING THE IMPACT OVER TIME BY PRESERVATION AND MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS: The short-term negative impacts will be ameliorated with maturing native plants, increased flood storage and improved fish habitat. As plants mature and fill in, maintenance operations will be reduced to mowing along the path with other maintenance on an "as -needed" basis. E. COMPENSATING FOR THE IMPACT BY REPLACING, ENHANCING, OR PROVIDING SUBSTITURE RESOURCES OR ENVIRONMENTS: The impact of the project will be compensated by replacing current non-native vegetation with higher quality native vegetation. We will encourage the construction contractor to chip any trees removed and use this to mulch the newly planted trees. Current habitat resources are of a 4 1' low quality (reed -canary grass, steep slopes, no canopy, etc.). Habitat will improve over time with the growth of the native plantings and construction of the planting benches. F. MONITORING THE IMPACT AND THE COMPENSATION PROJECTS AND TAKING APPROPRIATE CORRRECTIVE MEASURES: The City of Kent will obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater General Permit for the project which will require a site specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to manage stormwater and erosion as well as sediment control plans throughout the duration of the project. Water quality sampling will also be required through the permit which will ensure that environmental damage does not occur. During the disruptive portions of the project BMPs will be used to replace natural functions. These BMPs, such as silt fences, mulches and erosion control fabrics reduce runoff and minimize erosion and sediment transport. The city will also implement a Monitoring, Maintenance, and Adaptive Management Plan for the re -vegetated and landscaped areas once the project is completed. This plan will ensure that vegetation will be monitored annually for five years and maintained/replaced or adaptively managed as necessary. Carol Lumb SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOP. PI ATTACHMENT 5 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Carol - Knox, Matthew <MKnox@kentwa.gov> Tuesday, August 12, 2014 2:01 PM Carol Lumb Langholz, Ken; Casteel, Kelly RE: Tree Calculations Desimone Tree Replace Per Tukwila SMP.xlsx Ok, I think I finally made it through this. I can't recall how we got our original tree count at this point, but I'm comfortable with this one (see enclosed). Our replacement numbers are very close to yours (168 vs. 177) - I think the difference came with a couple of photinia that showed - up on our "tree survey" that shouldn't have been called trees, or perhaps a multiple stemmed tree or two. We will up our replacement tree planting to at least 170 trees for our Reach 1 landscaping (43 more than our draft tree planting plan (sheet 19 of the Shoreline Substantial Development Plan set) shows). Specifically, I plan to add: 5 big leaf maple; 5 cascara; 6 Douglas firs; 5 Oregon ash; 5 sitka spruce; 5 western red cedars; 6 black cottonwoods; and 6 pacific or sitka willows. Please let me know if you need any further details. Matt Knox, PWS, Environmental Ecologist Environmental Engineering 1 Public Works Department 220 Fourth Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032 Phone 253-856-5551 1 Cell 253-579-5764 mknox(TKentWA.gov CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON KentWA.gov/GRNRA/ Facebook YouTube PLEASE CO. EDER T- 'II DI .!NT BEP- PRINTI T IS - IL Tukwila Tree Replacement Requirements - Desimone Levee Improvements (Reach 1) Tukwila Ord. 2344 -Attachment A- Shoreline Master Program Update 1, page 99 (108), accessed 8/11/2014 Count by: Matt Knox, City of Kent Ecologist, 8/12/14 - 253-856-5551, mknox@kentwa.gov #of size class to Total # Replacement Trees be Replacement DBH per Tuk Ord 2344 removed Trees 4-6" 3 4 12 6-8" 4 0 0 8-20" 6 22 132 20"+ Totals 8 3 24 29 168 Starting at the downstream edge of the project and working upstream Species Quantity Remove DBH Replacement NOTES Hawthorn* 1 4 3 Hammamelis 1 4 3 Maple 1 4-6" 3 Maple 1 14 6 Photinia & 4 28 London Plane 1 20 6 London Plane 1 20 6 London Plane 1 20 6 London Plane 1 20 6 London Plane 1 20 6 London Plane 1 24 8 London Plane 2 20 12 London Plane 2 24 16 London Plane 3 20 18 London Plane 3 16 18 Pine 1 18 6 iia 5 4 45 Pine 1 10 6 Maple 1 18 6 Maple 1 18 6 Pine 3 12 18 Maple 1 4 3 Pine 1 10 6 Totals 29 Trees removed * 1 tree with (6) 4" trunks 1 tree with (3) 4" and (3) 6" trunks <Shrub> <Shrub> Located at buffer edge on Riverside Drive side of 18251 Cascaa 168 h, -e. 5 Trees to be planted r1 From: Carol Lumb jmailto:Carol.Lumb@ TukwilaWA.govj Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 4:40 PM To: Knox, Matthew Cc: Langholz, Ken Subject: Tree Calculations Hi Matt, I am attaching a cleaned up copy of my calculations on the number of trees that need to be replaced and the total number of trees needed for planting. Hopefully I counted correctly, but there is room for error on my part (math is not my strong suit), so check my math and counting capabilities please. I organized the information into two charts — one just shows the break out of # of trees by their size, the other chart lists the type of tree being removed, grouped by size and comes up with the total number of trees being removed. You indicated you had a different count, so after you have had a chance to review, let's talk. I just need to have a correct number to discuss in the shoreline substantial development permit staff report, which I need to start working on next week. Thanks very much — have a great weekend. Carol • Carol Lumb, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300SouthcenterBlvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 206-131-3661 CarolLurnh(a'Tukwili PdWa. 'ov Tukwila, the City of opportunity, the community of choice. City of Tukwila Calculations REACH 1- TREES REGULATED BY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Tree Diameter # of Trees # Replacement Trees Required (TMC 18.44.080) Total Replacement Trees 4-6" 7 3 21 Over 6-8" -0- 4 0 Over 8-20" 22 6 132 Greater than 20" 3 8 24 Total Required Replacement Trees 32 -0- 177 Type of Tree 4-6" 6-8" 8-20" Greater than 20" Total # Trees to be Replaced Hawthorn 1 -0- -0- -0- _ 1 London Plane -0- -0- 13 3 16 Pine -0- -0- 6 -0- 6 Maple 6 -0- 3 -0- 9 Total 7 -0- 22 -3- 32 CL Page 1 of 1 08/18/2014 11:31 AM H:\\L14-0030-L14-003\S SDP\Replacement Tree Calcs STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Northwest Regional Office • 3190 160th Ave SE • Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 • 425-649-7000 711 for Washington Relay Service • Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341 RE' DIVED DEC 192016 (:OP ^''i lNITY DI. VI I k A 'Ml NT December 15, 2016 Ken Langholz City of Kent Public Works Department 220 Fourth Ave. S. Kent, WA 98032 Re: City of Tukwila Permit L14-0030 — Approved City of Kent Public Works Department — Applicant Revised Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SDP) #2014 -NW -2473 Dear Mr. Langholz: On December 14, 2016, we received notice that the City of Tukwila approved your application for a revised SDP. Your permit revision moves the bulk of site mitigation plantings upstream by one-quarter of a mile. Flooding severely damaged the original onsite mitigation plantings, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had to repair this section of the levee. This work will occur within the Urban Conservancy environment designation of the Green River. By law, local governments must review all SDPs for compliance with: • The Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW).. • Ecology's SDP approval criteria (Chapter 173-27-150 WAC). • The City of Tukwila Local Shoreline Master Program. Local governments, after reviewing SDPs for compliance, are required to submit them to Ecology. We have received your approved application for a revised SDP. What Happens Next? Before you begin activities authorized by this permit, the law requires you wait at least 21 days from December 14, 2016, the "date of filing." This waiting period allows anyone (including you) who disagrees with any aspect of this permit to appeal the decision to the state Shorelines Hearings Board (SHB). You must wait for the conclusion of an appeal before you can begin the activities authorized by this permit. The SHB will notify you by letter if they receive an appeal. We recommend you contact the SHB before you begin permit activities to ensure they have not received an appeal. You may reach them at (360) 664-9160 or http://www.eluho.wa.gov/Board/SHB. g A City of Kent Public Works Depai taient December 15, 2016 Page 2 If You want to appeal this decision, you can find appeal instructions (Chapter 461-08 WAC) at the SHB website above or on the website of the Washington State Legislature at http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac. Other federal, state, and local permits may be required in addition to this shoreline permit. If you have any questions about this letter, please contact David Pater at (425) 649-4253. Sincery, David Pater, Regional Shoreline Planner Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program Cc: Carol Lumb — City of Tukwila Department of Community Development UNITED STATES.PO T4QI VICE WA ' II 0 First -Class Mail Postage & Fees Paid USPS Permit No. G-10 • Sender` Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box • Department of Community Development Code Enforcement 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Suite 100 Tiikwila \A/A 4R1RR SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can retum the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY A. Signature X ❑ Agent ❑ Addressee B. Received by ( Printed Name) C. Date of Delivery 1. Article Addressed to: Department of Ecology NW Regional Office 3190 - 160th Ave. SE Bellevue, WA 98008 DEC 21 CCr,,1r.1 DLVLL.O. }lpi.fts v if YES 2016 JITY Of (JT 3. ddscdl%m 1? 0 Yes nter delivery address belo ❑ Registe ❑ Insured Mail ❑ No 'pt for Merchandise 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. Article Number - (Transfer from service /at 7002 2410 0005 7502 2579 no r_.r "2011 nnnA r N. City of J tc(£wiea Department Of Community Development AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION Carol Lumb HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Application x Notice of Decision L14-0030 - shoreline permit revision Notice of Public Hearing Determination of Non - Significance Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Official Notice Ir r fU rt! N u1 O Q Retum Reciept Fee (Endorsement Required) . hv Domestic Mail Only, No Insurance: Coverage Provide poi. deliveryinformation Visit our website atwww usps comb t= Postage Certified Fee Restricted Delivery Fee r -R (Endorsement Required) ru nJ Total Postage & ! O Sent To 0 r' - Street, Apt. No.; or PO Box No. City, State, ZIP4-4 $ Postmark Here Department of Ecology NW Regional Office 3190 -160th Ave. SE Bellevue, WA 98008 ee,'everse;or,,nstruCrions, er: Was mailed to each of the addresses listed/attached on this 12 day of December , 2016 Project Name: Briscoe-Desimone Levee Repair -shoreline permit revision Project Number: PL14-0021 Associated File Number (s):L14-0030, L14-0031 Mailing requested by: Carol Lumb Mailer's signature: ( 444--( eeti v-1 H:\L14-0030-L14-0031 BRISCOE-DESIMONE LEVEE REPAIR\SHORELINE PERMIT REVISION\AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION.DOC AGENCY LABELS - 0050 Skotdvk.Q,1�Vt/rt;i, ( ) City Clerk Office — Christy O'Flaherty PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS NEED TO GO TO CHRISTY Ki2.0 1St On ( ) US Corps of Engineers ( ) Federal HWY Admin ( ) Federal Transit Admin, Region 10 ( ) Dept of Fish & Wildlife Section 1 FEDERAL AGENCIES ( ) US Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) ( )US Dept of HUD ( ) National Marine Fisheries Service Section 2 WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES ( ) Office of Archaeology ( ) Dept of Social & Health Services ( ) Transportation Department (WSDOT NW) (X) Dept of Ecology NW Regional Office, Shoreland Div. ( ) Dept of Natural Resources SHORELINE NOD REQUIRES RETURN RECEIPT ( ) Office of the Governor ( ) Dept of Ecology, SEPA **Send Electronically ( ) WA State Department of Commerce (formerly Community Dev) (X) Office of Attorney General ( ) WA Fisheries & Wildlife, MillCreek Office ( ) Office of Hearing Examiner (X ) WA Fisheries & Wildlife, Larry Fisher, 1775 12th Ave NW Ste 201, Issaquah WA 98027 ( ) KC Boundary Review Board ( ) Fire District # 11 ( ) Fire District # 2 ( ) KC Wastewater Treatment Div ( ) KC Dept of Parks & Recreation ( ) KC Assessor's Office ( ) KC Watershed Coordination WRIA 9 Section 3 KING COUNTY AGENCIES ( ) Health Department ( ) Port of Seattle ( ) KC Dev & Environmental Services-SEPA Info Center ( ) KC Metro Transit Div-SEPA Official, Environmental Planning ( ) KC Dept of Natural Resources (X) KC Dept of Natural Resources, Tom Bean ( ) KC Public Library System ( ) Foster Library ( ) Renton Library ( ) Kent Library ( ) Seattle Library Section 4 SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES ( ) Westfield Mall Library ( ) Tukwila School District ( ) Highline School District ( ) Seattle School District ( ) Renton School District ( ) Century Link ( ) Seattle City Light ( ) Puget Sound Energy ( ) Highline Water District ( ) Seattle Planning &Dev/Water Dept ( ) Comcast Section 5 UTILITIES ( ) BP Olympic Pipeline ( ) Seattle Public Utilities ( ) Val-Vue Sewer District ( ) Water District # 20 ( ) Water District # 125 ( ) City of Renton Public Works ( ) Bryn Mawr-Lakeridge Sewer/Water Dist ( ) Waste Management ( ) Cascade Water Alliance ( ) Tukwila City Departments ( ) Public Works ( ) Fire ( ) Police ( ) Finance ( ) Planning ( ) Building ( ) Parks & Rec ( ) Mayor ( ) City Clerk (PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS) Section 6 CITY AGENCIES / l�f^ S !I • t (X) Kent Planning Dept & Kent Public Works Dept. ( ) Renton Planning Dept ( ) City of SeaTac ( ) City of Burien ( ) City of Seattle ( ) Strategic Planning *Notice of all Seattle Related Projects No 0 Section 7 OTHER * send notice of all applications on Green/Duwamish River ( ) Duwamish River Clean Up Coalition * (X ) Muckleshoot Indian Tribe * ( X ) Cultural Resources (X) Fisheries Program (X ) Wildlife Program (X ) Duwamish Indian Tribe * ( ) People for Puget Sound * ** LOCAL AGENCIES ( ) Puget Sound Clean Air Agency ( ) Sound Transit/SEPA ( ) Puget Sound Regional Council ( ) Washington Environmental Council ( ) Futurewise ( ) Puget SoundKeeper ( ) SW KC Chamber of Commerce ( ) Tukwila Historical Society** send notices for all Tukwila projects which require public notice — via email to: tukwilahistsociety0tukwilahistory.orq and rcwieser@ comcast.net ( ) Seattle Times ( ) Highline Times Section 8 MEDIA ( ) South County Journal ( ) City of Tukwila Website W:\\Planning\Development Review Manual\LU Application Review Process\Public Notice Procedures\Mailing\Agency Checklist (i0", l{;E4 Pa(,KA i;aA -( ( z) tta 01� 5b Pr i 'No D Public Notice Mailings For Permits SEPA MAILINGS (Comment period starts on date of mailing) Notice of Application mailed to: Department of Ecology (send checklist with Notice of Application), applicant, other agencies as necessary, property owners and tenants within 500 feet. It is also posted on site. KC Transit Division — SEPA_Official would like to receive information about all projects that might affect transit demand. Tribes — For any application on the Green/Duwamish River, send the checklist and a full set of plans with the Notice of Application SEPA Determination mailed to Dept. of Ecology Environmental Review Section *Applicant *Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list) *Any parties of record * send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination Send These Documents to DOE at the time of SEPA determination: SEPA Determination Staff report SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed or sent to newspaper) SHORELINE MAILINGS: Notice of Application for a Substantial Development Permit must be mailed to applicant, property owners and residents within 500 feet of subject property, agencies with jurisdiction. Comments are due 30 days after the notice of application is mailed/posted. The Notice of Application for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit must include a statement that any person desiring to submit written comments on the application or desiring to receive notification of the final decision on the application may do so within 30 days of the Notice of Application. If a hearing will be held on the application, the hearing notice must include the information that written comments may be submitted, or oral presentation made at the hearing. Notice is sent to Ecology's NW Regional Office Shorelands & Environmental Assistance Program. Shoreline Permit Notice of Decision: Mail to: (within 8 days of decision; 21 -day appeal period begins date of filing with DOE) — Notice to DOE must be by return receipt requested mail (this requirement included in SSB 5192, effective 7-22-11). Department of Ecology Shorelands Section, NW Regional Office State Attorney General *Applicant *Indian Tribes *Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list). *Any parties of record * send only the notice of decision and staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination Send These Documents to DOE and Attorney General: One complete packet should also be sent to Muckleshoot Indian Tribe if they commented on the project during comment period. Permit Data Sheet Shoreline Substantial Development Decision (Signed by Director) Findings (staff report or memo) Shoreline Permit Application Form (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) - Site plan, with mean high water mark & improvements Cross-sections of site with structures & shoreline Grading Plan — Vicinity map SEPA determination (Signed by Director) Findings (staff report or memo) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Any background studies related to impacts on shoreline Notice of Application Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed) W:\\Planning\Development Review Manual\LU Application Review Process\Public Notice Procedures\Mailing\Agency Checklist • O'KEEFE DEVELOPMENT A REAL ESTATE COMPANY r1 0.1 i. CJ 1' FE Pzzncipal 6- CEO .Snerz Address: 1.8300 Cascade Avenue Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98188 Mailing Addra nL) Box 20399 Sea CD `1;t ag (oz. office: 206.236.6200 mobile: 206.972.1913 fax: 206.236.6160 tom@odc2.com odc2.com David R. Moffett President NEC. 7900 S.E. 28th Street, Suite 200 • Mercer Island, WA 98040 (206) 236-6130 • Fax: (206) 232-1721 Cell 12061 87,4-3626 drrniseanet.com Shoreline Management Act Permit Data Sheet and Transmittal Letter From: (local government) City of Tukwila Transmittal Date: 12-12-16 Type of Permit: (Indicate all that apply) ® Substantial Development ❑ Conditional Use ❑ Variance ❑ Revision ® Other Revision Applicant Information: Name: Ken Langholz, Kent Public Works Address: 220 Fourth Ave. S., Kent WA 09032 Phone(s): 253-856-5516 Is the applicant the property owner? ❑ Yes ® No Local permit no. L14-0030 State permit no. To: (appropriate Ecology office) David Pater, NW Regional Office Receipt Date: (provided by Ecology) Local Government Decision: ® Approval ❑ Conditional Approval ❑ Denial Applicant's Representative: (If primary contact) Name: Address: Phone(s): Location of the Property: (Section, township, and range to the nearest 14, 1/4 section or latitude and longitude, and a street address where available.) Levee behind 18200 Cascade Ave. S., Tukwila, WA Water Body Name: Green River Environment Designation: Urban Conservancy Shoreline of State Significance: ® Yes ❑ No Project Description: (Summary of the intended use or project purpose) Relocate mitigation plantings from levee face to approximately 1/4 mile upstream on a bench adjacent to the Green River. Notice of Application Date: 5-22-14 Final Decision Date: 8-25-16 By: (Local government primary contact on this application) Carol Lumb Phone: 206-431-3661 FILE NO: 500.1 ENGINEERING DIVISION - PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING AGENDA DATE: November 23, 2016 KENT NO: 09-3011 PROJECT: Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements Reach 1 RM 14.75 to 14.96 Mitigation Planting A. INTRODUCTIONS & OVERVIEW a. INTRODUCTIONS b. PROJECT OVERVIEW This project consists of planting 200 native trees and 5,000 shrubs, 3" of arborist chip mulch placed and secured with coir fabric, including 3 -years plant maintenance. i. CONTRACT AMOUNT $240,457.34 c. CONTRACTOR Watershed Environmental Solutions 11363 Morford Rd. Sedro Woolley, WA 98284 Rosie Burkoff 360-864-4004 Project Manager Office:`e Cell: E -Mail: Office: Cell: E -Mail: Superintendent 11/' Office: Cell: E -Mail: Foreman Fax : Traffic Control Sup. Cell: Cell: Alternate Cell: Alternate 11 Page KENT W*SHINOTON FILE NO: 500.1 d. OWNER City of Kent Location: 400 W. Gowe, 2nd Floor Centennial Building Mail to: 220 Fourth Ave S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 Construction Manager Construction Supervisor Construction Project Manager Eric Connor Paul Kuehne Jason Bryant Office: 253-856-5533 Office: 253-856-5543 Office: 253 856-5541 Cell: 253-797-0693 Cell: 253-740-5015 Cell: 253 261-5663 E -Mail: EConnor@KentWA.gov E -Mail: pkuehne@KentWA.gov E -Mail: JBryant@KentWA.gov e. SPECIFICATIONS i. The 2016 Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction will be used in conjunction with the project specifications. f. DURATION i. Per the Contract: Work shall be complete within 50 Working Days. 5.04/4- t7,1111(1 K9✓&C- - i. Normal working hours, Monday thru Friday, ii. Provide minimum notice of 72 hours for plans to work the weekends or g. NOTICE TO PROCEED i. Notice to Proceed as of: ii. Start Work on: h. WORK HOURS holidays. ur ovtC S C(J-cG 4.. Tires i. rho, 6 o,.: 'trisk w, 0(1 - ti/ W fr., P1 C1. t— B. PERMITS AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS PaSS'AO a. PERMITS r Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) - 5V411 0h9`'4' 0el-oP1 v`' ii. Construction Stormwater General Permit beitm7< 0 iii. SEPA Determination of Non -Significance ,o,Go,,,,./3 °4- , it-LAY" iv. City of Tukwila Shoreline Development - Pte' c`"t ' ,v\1 / V. Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Concurrence 'fs L d- fit. -- ik-a-&-L\ r 1 U vLeo % L b' J 5v1 -144" -tit 't" W AO\ u-Jro /u trr) • KEii•iiNT WASHINGTON FILE NO: 500.1 C. SAFETY AND TRAFFIC CONTROL a. SITE SAFETY i. All personnel are to comply with all State L & I safety requirements. ii. Contractor is responsible for site safety. All claims or accidents will be forwarded to the Contractor and their insurance company for resolution. Please note on page of the contract, #5, the Contractor shall defend, indemnify, and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, volunteers and assigns harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits, including all legal costs and attorney fees, arising out of or in connection with the performance of this contract, except for injuries and damages caused by the sole negligence of the City. b. TRAFFIC CONTROL i. Designate in writing to the City of Kent the Traffic Control Supervisor representing . Include a copy of the valid TCS card. ii. Submit site and activity specific traffic control plans for proposed lane closures. All plans shall be prepared and signed by the TCS, including adoption of any City prepared plans. Plans without a TCS signature will be returned. iii. All flaggers are to possess valid flagger cards. iv. Traffic Control Devices shall meet MUTCD requirements. v. Traffic Control Plan/Report D. UTILITIES a. PHONE NUMBERS i. Contact One -Call service 2 days before you dig, 811. ii. Additional phone numbers provided in KSP 1-07.17(6) pg. b. COORDINATION WITH UTILITIES i. 1-07.17(3) - Utility Markings: The contractor shall maintain marks or a record of the location of buried facilities. ii. 1-05.14 - Cooperation with Other Contractors describes known coordination activities. 3 1 Page • . KENT E. SUBCONTRACTORS AND LOWER TIER SUBS a. REQUIRED SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS i. DOT 421-012X Request to Sublet Work FILE NO: 500.1 b. CITY/CONTRACTOR/SUB RELATIONSHIP i. All correspondence from City or to City must go through . ii. Jason Bryant representation on site at all times during working hours. F. CONTROL OF WORK & MATERIALS a. SUBMITTALS i. MATERIALS 1. Send all submittals ATTN: Jason Bryant, City of Kent, 2. Electronic submittals are preferred, send via email to: JBryant@KentWA.gov. ii. SCHEDULES 1. Submittal and Overview iii. SURVEY STAKING REQUESTS 1. Completed Request for Survey form is required prior to staking services being performed. 2. 1-05.5(1) The Contractor shall provide three (3) working days notice for the survey department to process survey requests. It may take 3 WD's to arrive on site depending on work -load and complexity of the request. 3. Survey Requests need to be submitted through the Owners Rep, in person. Time does not start until received and logged in by the Owners Rep. iv. SPECIAL SUBMITTALS 1. 2. b. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND QUALITY CONTROL i. MATERIALS SAMPLING AND TESTING ii. AS-BUILTS (Prior to final paving) iii. SPECIAL CONDITIONS 4 1 Page • KENT WASHINGTON FILE NO: 500.1 1. Any changes to the Contract require prior approval by the City of Kent. The primary contact will be with the Owner's Representative in charge. 2. 1-04.9 - Prior to use of any adjacent private property, the Contractor shall provide the City with a copy of signed authorization by the registered owner of the property. Upon completion and vacation, a signed written release from the owner is also required. A copy shall be provided to the City prior to physical completion. iv. PUNCHLIST AND CONTRACT CLOSE-OUT 1. The City maintenance staff will be given the opportunity to inspect the site upon completion and prior to final payment. Items that fall within the scope of the contract will be compiled into a list. Maintenance is given a minimum of 2 weeks to conduct final walk-thru. 2. This list is expected to be complete prior to final payment and physical completion. G. PROGRESS PAYMENTS a. GENERAL i. Progress payments will include work completed through the end of each month. ii. The check will be issued around the 21st of the following month. iii. Contractor is responsible to insure all pay tickets and submittals are in on time. b. PAY ESTIMATE #1 i. Prior to Pay Estimate #1 being processed the following paperwork needs to be submitted: 1. "Statement of Intent to Pay Prevailing Wages" (L&I form F700-029-000) from and subcontractors requesting payment. 2. Certified payroll reports for and all Subcontractors. c. RETENTION i. 1-09.9(1) Retained Percentage - Complete Retainage Statement must be included, completed and on file. See project award paperwork. ii. Prior to Retention being released the following paperwork will need to be received: 5IPage 1 r� • �'� \-1 FILE NO: 500.1 KENT WASHINGTON 1. "Affidavit of Wages Paid" (L&I form F700-007-00) from and all subcontractors. 2. L&I, Employment Security and Department of Revenue releases. DISCUSSION/NOTES 3 r _ --- i amu. . 4" IVISVVA- -69 p't2'z L — Ab fav�cL• turc, s $/.4-t t- Y c tAN 14) 31'/17 ADJOURNED 6 I Page Carol Lumb From: Holcomb, Drew <DHolcomb@kentwa.gov> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 11:35 AM To: Carol Lumb Cc: Langholz, Ken; Knox, Matthew; Mactutis, Mike Subject: Reach 1 Clearing & Planting Shoreline Permit Attachments: Reach 1 Mitigation Planting Plans Signed.pdf; desimone levee NOP final.pdf; Reach 1 Planting documentation signed.pdf Carol, Please see the attached letter from Ken addressing the comments from your September 15th email. Also attached is a copy of the signed plans and the 2/6/15 letter from the COE. Please let Ken or I know if you have any questions. Thank you, Drew Holcomb, Design Engineer II Design Engineering 1 Public Works Department 400 West Gowe, Kent, WA 98032 Main 253-856-5561 dholcomb@ kentwa.c ov CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON KentWA.gov Facebook YouTube PlEA5E. CONSIDER' NY c:1 VI flor11,:t'rer ar f ORC- P.UN±INC 'H E":, 1'. From: Langholz, Ken Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 3:44 PM To: Holcomb, Drew Subject: FW: Reach 1 Clearing & Planting Contracts From: Carol Lumb [mailto:Carol.Lumb@TukwilaWA.gov] Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 11:26 AM To: Langholz, Ken Cc: Knox, Matthew; Almaroof, Abdulnaser; Mactutis, Mike; Minnie Dhaliwal Subject: RE: Reach 1 Clearing & Planting Contracts Ken, Thank you for your email. We are in agreement with the City of Kent moving forward to clear the area just upstream of the pedestrian bridge as identified on the plans you sent on August 29th and with planting the site once your contract process has run its course so that the plants can be installed prior to winter. As we have discussed, the City of Kent does need to provide documentation to revise the shoreline permit that was issued for Reach 1, L14-0030. The revision is needed so that it is clear why the original approved levee profile and plantings were not constructed and planted as originally shown on the approved plans. I will identify below the items that need to be addressed. Ideally this revision would be processed prior to the work being carried out, but since the City of Kent wants to get the alternative site cleared and planted before winter 1 arrives, the revision can be submitted as soon as possible, but no later than October 31, 2016. Please provide the following: 1. An explanation of why the plantings are being shifted to a different location — including the COE determination that an emergency existed and the revision to the approved hevee repair and slope profile. 2. No Net Loss Criteria: TMC 18.44.070 H. 3. e., f., i.e. whether moving the plantings is still compensating for the impacts to Reach 1 due to the removal of the mature trees. 3. 18.44.070 H. S., which is the code section that allows mitigation to be located at a site other than where the impacts occurred and must be discussed as part of the shoreline permit revision. 4. TMC 18.44.080 B.4. tree replacement: confirm the number of required trees to replace those removed and how many are being planted. 5. TMC 18.44.030 C. 2. River Buffer Landscaping —the alternative planting site is also within the Urban Conservancy shoreline buffer — the criteria in this subsection need to be addressed briefly. Let me know if you have any questions. I am around today and tomorrow but out of the office 9/19-26 . Carol From: Langholz, Ken [mailto:KLangholz@kentwa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 3:07 PM To: Carol Lumb Cc: Knox, Matthew; Almaroof, Abdulnaser; Mactutis, Mike Subject: Reach 1 Clearing & Planting Contracts Carol, We're in the process of getting bids from contractors to have clearing and spraying done on Reach 1 in advance of the planting contract. (See the email below from Matt Knox which describes the clearing work.) The contract for the planting work is scheduled to bid on September 27 with bid opening on October 11 and council award on October 18. By the time contract is executed and notice to proceed given, it will be early November, which is too late to spray weeds and the reason for the advance clearing contract. We are requesting permission from the City of Tukwila to proceed with the clearing contract and also approval of the planting plan (previously submitted). Please contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. Thanks, Ken Langholz, Interim Design Engineering Manager Design Engineering i Public Works Department 220 Fourth Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032 Phone 253-856-5516 I Fax 253-856-6500 klangholz@KentWA.gov CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON KentWA.gov Facebook YouTube From: Knox, Matthew Sent: Friday, September 09, 2016 10:44 AM To: Connor, Eric Subject: Reach 1 Potential Mow/Spray Contractors 2 Eric - As we discussed, please see the enclosed highlighted firms. I would recommend contacting them first for a quote for this work. The work, as I see it, includes the following: Eradicate non-native species along Reach 1 of the Desimone Levee in preparation for native planting along the banks of the river in November, 2016. This eradication will include: Mowing of the project area down to the ordinary high water line (approximately 40,000 SF), then subsequent spraying of resprouting weeds (primarily Himalayan blackberry) ideally twice before the end of October. The ideal scenario and timing follows: 1) Mow entire project site ASAP; 2) Spray resprouting weeds approximately 2 -weeks after initial mowing; 3) Spray resprouting weeds once more 2 weeks after initial spray (before the end of October). All herbicide spraying will be in accordance with Washington State laws - application shall be overseen by WSDA licensed applicators (with Aquatics endorsement) under acceptable conditions and pesticide application records will be supplied to the City of Kent for each day of application. Thanks for the help Eric. Let me know if you have questions with any of this. Matt Knox City of Kent t (1 f (1v f unrnentdl tnglneer,ny 1.71 .'Si Sb ',SS' `; ell, .'S:i 5/9 5/64 / KENT WASHINGTON October 10, 2016 PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING Timothy J. LaPorte P.E., Public Works Director Phone: 253-856-5500 Fax: 253-856-6500 Carol Lumb, Senior Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Reach 1 Levee Shoreline Permit (114-0030) Revision Dear Ms. Lumb, Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA. 98032-5895 This letter is in response to your September 15th email requesting documentation to revise the shoreline permit that was issued for Reach 1. As part of the Green River Levee Improvement Program the City of Kent has been working to complete the planting portion of the Reach 1 Levee repair and structural sheet pile wall project. Prior to the completion of the City's project, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) determined that the Desimone- Briscoe School Levee was damaged in an event on 10 March 2014 (see the attached Notice of Preparation/Clean Water Act Public Notice from the COE dated 2/6/15). This prompted the COE to construct a rock lined waterward slope layback to restore the 100 -year level of protection in the area of Reach 1. The City of Kent's Reach 1 project was permitted under City of Tukwila Shoreline Permit L14-0030, which requires "a total of 170 trees to be planted to replace the 29 trees that [were] removed to repair the levee". Prior to completion of the City of Kent's Reach 1 project, the COE's project was completed in the same location as the City of Kent's original permitted project. The COE lined the slope with rock which would no longer allow our mitigation planting to be done at that location. The City of Kent, COE, the City of Tukwila, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and King County Flood District have discussed the best solution to meet the planting requirements and determined that the 170 trees should be planted upstream of Reach 1. We are therefore proposing to install mitigation plantings upstream of the pedestrian bridge (RM 14.75 to 14.96, see attached project plans for planting location). This new location will allow the City of Kent to meet the requirements of the City of Tukwila Shoreline permit and the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC). The circumstances involving the COE project required the City of Kent to mitigate within the Shoreline Jurisdiction but offsite of where the impacts occurred, which is allowed by the TMC 18.44.070 H.5. The proposed location for these planting is ideal because the location is within the same Shoreline Jurisdiction and is also along the south bank of the Green River just upstream of the original project site. Attachment A The proposed location is also within the Urban Conservancy shoreline buffer and meets the planting requirements outlined in TMC 18.44.080 C. 2. The plans were designed by a landscape architect from OTAK and specify native vegetation with all plantings above the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The site will be irrigated, monitored and maintained for three years in order to establish the plants. The attached planting plans and special provisions call out a total of 300 trees to be installed, exceeding the 170 trees required by the shoreline permit requirement and the TMC 18.44.080 B.4. The plantings address the criteria of TMC 18.44.070 H. 3.e.and f. because the City of Kent will be enhancing a neighboring bank of the Green River by removing invasive species and planting hundreds of new trees and plants. In summary, the proposed offsite planting location will satisfy Tukwila's Shoreline permit requirements for the City of Kent's Reach 1 Levee project. Please contact me at (253) 856-5516 or KLangholz@kentwa.gov if you have any questions or concerns. Interim Design Engineing Manager Attachments: Reach 1 RM 14.75 to 14.96 Mitigation Plans and Special Provisions Notice of Preparation/Clean Water Act Public Notice from COE dated 2/6/15 cc: Mike Mactutis, Environmental Engineering Manager Matt Knox, Environmental Ecologist, PWS US Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District Environmental and Cultural Resources Branch P.O. Box 3755 Seattle, WA 98124-3755 ATTN: Bobbi Jo McClain Notice of Preparation / Clean Water Act Public Notice Public Notice Date: 6 February 2015 Expiration Date: 9 March 2015 Reference: EN -ER -15-01 Project Name: Desimone-Briscoe School Levee Rehabilitation, Tukwila, WA Interested parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District (Corps) plans to prepare, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), an environmental assessment (EA) for proposed levee repairs to the Desimone-Briscoe School Levee on the Green River near the City of Tukwila, King County, Washington. AUTHORITY The proposed levee repair is authorized by Public Law 84-99 (33 U.S. Code Section 701n). The Corps' rehabilitation and restoration work under this authority is limited to the repair of flood control works damaged or destroyed by floods. The statute authorizes rehabilitation to the condition and level of protection exhibited by the flood control work prior to the damaging event. King County Flood Control District is the non -Federal sponsor for the proposed action. PROJECT LOCATION The Desimone-Briscoe School levee was designed and constructed by non -Federal parties, and is operated and maintained by the King County Flood Control District. It is approximately 11,600 feet long and protects residential, commercial, and industrial property. The levee is one segment of a six segment system. From upstream to downstream, the system includes: Myers Golf Levee, Kent Shops -Narita Levee, Upper Russell Road Somes-Dolan Levee, Lower Russell Road -Holiday Kennel Levee, Boeing Levee, and Desimone-Briscoe School Levee. At the downstream end, the levee ties into WA -181 / West Valley Highway; the upstream end ties into Boeing Levee under the S 200th St. Bridge. The damaged project section is located on the right bank of the Green River near river mile 14.5 within the City of Tukwila, WA. NEED Damage to the Desimone-Briscoe School Levee was reported following a recent high water event on 10 March 2014 of 9,090 cubic feet per second at US Geological Survey gage 12113000, on the Green River near Auburn. The length of the flood damage is 300 linear feet. Scour at the toe of the structure has led to lost armoring, lost embankment material, and over -steepened unstable banks. The loss of scour protection has left the levee fill material directly exposed to flood flows, and has compromised the level of protection offered by the levee. A flood could scour the damaged section of the levee to the point where it would breach. It is conservative to assume that the only level of protection offered by the levee in its damaged condition is by the 1 natural ground behind it. Therefore, the estimated flood protection provided by the damaged Desimone-Briscoe School levee in its current condition is a two-year level of protection. This levee requires an emergency repair to ensure that it will remain safe and stable for future high water events. The levee provides flood protection to approximately 7.65 square miles of highly developed warehousing, light industrial, retail, and residential land use. The proposed repair would restore the levee to its designed 100 -year level of protection. PURPOSE The purpose of the project is to restore the 100 -year level of flood protection in order to protect lives and property from subsequent flooding. In the current damaged condition, the levee offers two-year level of flood protection. PROJECT HISTORY Prior to the damaging flood event, the City of Kent had been pursuing a project to install a floodwall along the landward side of four reaches of the Desimone-Briscoe School Levee. The proposed Federal rehabilitation assistance action is co -located with a portion of Kent's work, known as Reach 1. Kent's previously planned floodwall is a steel sheetpile wall which was designed to reduce flood risk to the cities of Kent, Tukwila, and Renton. Kent has initiated construction on Reaches 2, 3 and 4 and has completed some components. The Corps' proposed Desimone-Briscoe School Levee Rehabilitation project would supplant a portion of Kent's project within Reach 1. The Federal project will complete its own environmental impacts assessment and compliance documentation for the portions of the effort which are the Federal action. PROPOSED ACTIONS Multiple alternatives for proposed work are being considered and are as follows: a. No Action Alternative: The No Action Alternative would leave the levee in its current damaged state. As a part of the No Action Alternative, the local sponsor would continue to construct their previously planned floodwall project within this reach. This floodwall is not considered to be a stand-alone flood control structure because the wall requires soil riverward and landward of the wall in order to maintain stability. Without some action to repair the damaged levee, the floodwall installation alone is not expected to fully restore the level of flood protection. This alternative would not meet the project goals due to the high likelihood of damage to protected infrastructure and homes during future flood events. b. Waterward Slope Layback to Restore the 100 -year Level of Protection: This repair would reconstruct 585 feet of levee prism and establish a safe stable (2H:1 V) armored slope and launchable toe. The 585 -foot repair includes the 300 feet of damage with 285 feet of transition zones. The pre -damaged riverward slope was approximately 1.5H:2V. This steep slope was determined to be unstable at this location and was not adequate to meet the Corps' current design guidelines. The transition zones allow gentle, smooth transitions from the slope layback (2H:1 V) to the over -steepened banks upstream 2 and downstream. But in this location, there is insufficient room for placement of an adequate toe and creation of the stable slope due to the proximity of infrastructure behind the levee. The Corps determined that this alternative would have necessitated encroachment on existing uses landward of the levee and was therefore determined to not be feasible. Further analysis of this alternative was not pursued. c. Waterward Slope Layback with Retaining Wall to Restore the 100 -year Level of Protection: This alternative would be similar to the above alternative, with the addition of a retaining wall. A retaining wall on the landward slope would be used to reduce the encroachment of the levee on property behind the levee. The repair would restore the pre -flood 100 - year level of protection while reducing the potential levee footprint, and restore armor to protect the structure from the eroding forces of the river flow. Slope protection would be achieved by rip rap with a mean particle size of 18 inches, with a toe entrenched to a potential estimated scour depth of 25 feet. Laying back the slope to 2H:1 V would provide reliable flood protection by creating a stable armored slope. This is the Least - Cost Alternative. Per Corps guidance (Engineering Regulation 500-1-1), a local sponsor can request an alternative that is different than the least cost alternative. Any increase in Federal cost resulting from the sponsor's preference of any alternative, other than the one that is least expensive to the Federal Government when all Federal costs are included, will be borne by the sponsor. d. Locally Preferred Alternative: The sponsor has requested a Locally Preferred Plan (LPP). The LPP consists of the Waterward Slope Layback with Retaining Wall Alternative (See option c above) with two variations: extension of the embankment work (190 feet) immediately upstream of the repair and substitution of a sheet pile floodwall for the retaining wall. The total project length would be 775 feet. The repair would include the above-mentioned repair of approximately 585 feet of levee toe and slope with the incorporated slope layback, launchable toe, upper slope bench, and an installed wall, plus the rebuilding of an additional 190 feet of existing levee toe and slope. The sponsor requested an LPP be considered because they are planning to continue the floodwall through this adjacent section and intend that the riverward portion of the section be fully integrated with the work that will be done to repair the damaged section of levee. e. Non -Structural Alternative: This alternative would relocate all existing structures, utilities and other infrastructure outside of the floodplain. The costs associated with this alternative are extremely high relative to the level of benefit, and this alternative was removed from further consideration. The proposal being evaluated as the current preferred alternative is the LPP Alternative. The LPP Alternative would restore the levee to the designed level of protection. The proposed repair would include construction of 775 feet of levee toe, laying back the bank to a 2H:1 V slope and 3 installation of 585 feet of floodwall on the landward shoulder of the crown. A portion of the upstream and downstream ends of the repair length would include transitions from the slope layback to the existing levee alignment to prevent scour at the tie-ins. The project would also require replacing the Green River Trail along the crown of the levee. See the attached draft designs for further detail. Construction is anticipated to occur in two phases: the floodwall installation would begin in February 2015 and would continue through May. The remainder of the work would occur in summer 2015. Summer construction duration is estimated at ten weeks. Phase 1 of the Federal project would incorporate a portion of Kent's proposed landward floodwall as a way to minimize the landward encroachment caused by the setback design. The floodwall is not designed as a stand-alone wall as it requires the riverward levee and scour protection in order to be fully effective. The wall would be installed landward of the existing levee embankment and would consist of a steel sheet pile wall topped with a reinforced concrete cap beam and barrier. The space between the existing levee embankment and wall would be backfilled. The Phase 1 effort would begin in February, with a five-month construction period (Phase 1). The installation of the planned floodwall by the non -Federal sponsor will add tangible incremental protection to the public, for the interval of time until the conclusion of the typical flood season at the end of March. The sheet piles will be installed using vibratory equipment (with no impact hammers needed). The piles will be driven to depths of between 23 and 64 feet. The above -ground portion of the wall will range from 8 to 13 feet tall. The Phase 2 work is proposed for summer 2015. The proposed toe and slope work of Phase 2 would include substantial in -water excavation. The work area would be isolated from the river for the excavation. A large amount of rock would be placed low on the slope in order to protect against potential scour depths. This rock would be placed so that it could launch into any riverward scour and continue to protect the toe of the levee. A 9 -foot wide upper -slope bench would be included. The elevation of this bench is dictated by the volume of rock estimated to be necessary to address possible scour depths of 24 feet. This rock volume is substantial due to the circumstances of the location, specifically the severity of the bend in the river at the site. Slope protection would be achieved by rip rap with a mean particle size of 1.5 feet. The slope layback will open channel capacity in this confined reach to slow velocities, particularly during higher flows. The crown of the levee would move up to 20 feet landward. Two planting lifts will be installed into the riverward face of the levee at or near ordinary high water. Planting lifts involve placing live cuttings into a layer of soil as the face of the structure. The willows are then covered by six more inches of soil. Levee armor is then placed onto the lift to continue the armored slope and a second lift is created in the same manner. Hooker's willows (Salix hookeriana), Sitka willows (S. sitchensis), and red -osier dogwood (Cornus sericea) will be spaced approximately every twelve inches in each lift. These species are considered shrubs which stay relatively small and bushy, with flexible stems. A total of 1092 shrubs will be placed within the 585 -foot least cost project length. Pacific willows (S. lasiandra) and black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) will be also placed into both lifts, one stem every 15 feet. Pacific willow and cottonwood are both fast-growing, tall tree species. A total of 78 trees will be placed within the least -cost alternative repair length. Additional plantings will occur within the LPP length (355 shrubs and 25 trees) however these are not being considered as mitigation for the Federal action because they would be fully funded by the local sponsor. Above ordinary 4 high water, after construction is completed, a layer of topsoil will be placed onto the face of the riprap. This topsoil will be seeded with a native seed mix. Established riparian vegetation, with time and maturity, is expected to ameliorate high river temperatures by providing shade to the channel and covering the riprap slopes. The plantings are also expected to provide organic input through leaf drop to provide food for juveniles, slow river current along the levee toe, provide refuge for juvenile fish during high flows, and provide additional wildlife habitat. The slope layback will also open channel capacity in this reach to slow velocities, particularly during higher flows. Final selection of the preferred alternative and finalization of the design, including consideration of any recommendations from the impact analyses or the Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation, will occur during the NEPA process and before construction activities on the toe and riverward slope. Best management practices would be utilized to minimize project impacts. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS The Corps' preliminary analyses of the principal effects of the proposed Locally Preferred Alternative are summarized below. Wetlands: There are no wetlands at the project site and no impacts are expected. Water Quality: The lower Green River in the project area is listed on the Washington Department of Ecology's (WDOE) list of impaired waters because state standards for temperature and dissolved oxygen have been exceeded (WDOE 2014). Maximum summer temperatures recorded at RM 12 in July and August were between 23 and 24°C with minimum temperatures of 15 to16°C (NMFS 2009). No impact to water quality is expected from the floodwall installation (Phase 1). During construction of the proposed toe and slope work (Phase 2), there may be minor water quality impacts such as a temporary and localized increase in turbidity. Repairs would occur in an active channel and require work in the water to construct the toe. The work would occur during a low flow period and the area will be isolated from the active channel using silt curtains, supersacks, or similar materials. Implementation of best management practices, such as regularly checking equipment for leaks or drips, fueling of vehicles away from the water, and having a spill kit onsite would also minimize the potential for water quality impacts. The Federal action will require the removal of 17 trees on the landward side of the levee, ranging in size from a four -inch diameter hawthorn (Crataegus douglasii) to several 24 -inch diameter London planetrees (Platanus hispanica). Although they are outside the direct riparian zone, these trees provide some shading and leaf litter to the river in this reach and these functions would be impacted with their removal. As described above, the proposed action includes lower bank plantings of 78 trees and 1092 shrubs to help offset these impacts. No long term negative effects to water quality are expected. Biological Resources: The project site is an oversteepened bank with minimal vegetation on the outside of a bend in the Green River. The riverward face is dominated by herbaceous invasives 5 including blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). The landward face includes numerous large London plane trees planted throughout the site with a mown grass understory. Landward of the levee is a parking area and business park within a commercial/light industrial zone of Tukwila. The levee crown is an asphalt trail that is a dead- end spur of the Green River Trail. The opposite bank is also an armored levee which includes anchored large woody debris. The Green River contains spawning populations of Chinook, coho, pink, and chum salmon, and winter and summer steelhead. Small numbers of sockeye salmon are also found. Bull trout use the lower river for feeding and rearing. The project area contains limited rearing habitat for these species. No spawning occurs in the project area. The following table lists threatened and endangered species potentially occurring within the roject vicinity. Species Listing Status Critical Habitat Coastal/Puget Sound Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus Threatened Designated Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Threatened Designated Puget Sound Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss Threatened Proposed A biological assessment is being prepared pursuant to Sec. 7 of the Endangered Species Act to determine whether the proposed actions are likely to adversely affect these species or their designated critical habitat. Other listed species may also occur in King County but have no potential to be affected by the proposed project. The proposed project would have "no effect" on the following species and their designated critical habitat due to their sensitivities to human encroachment, lack of suitable habitat, or because their presence is so transitory that any temporal affects to these species from construction activities would not be perceived as unusual, cause disruption of behavior or lead to measurable reductions in their prey base. These species include the Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), gray wolf (Canis lupis), northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis), yellow -billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), southern resident killer whale (Orcinus orca), and Golden paintbrush (Castilleja levisecta). Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) could transit the project area while travelling between nesting and feeding areas, however the additional noise and human presence is not expected to significantly increase the ambient conditions as the project area is in an urban commercial/light industrial community. Additionally, the loudest construction effort (the vibratory pile driving) would be expected to occur in February/March which is outside of the murrelet nesting season (1 April to 23 Sept). Murrelet behavior is not expected to be affected by the proposed construction and the proposed project would have "no effect" on marbled murrelet. The Green River provides important foraging, migration and overwintering habitat for bull trout. The potential for bull trout presence during the in -water construction phase is low due to high water temperatures. Chinook and steelhead populations use the river reach in the project area for migrating and rearing. Chinook migrate upstream through the lower Green River to upstream spawning grounds from late June into early November, with large numbers entering the river by 6 July (Williams et al. 1975 in NMFS 2009, Kerwin and Nelson 2000 in NMFS 2009). Many early returning adult Chinook salmon hold in the lower river until approximately mid-September. As with bull trout, elevated water temperatures in August and early September likely result in blockage or delay of the upstream migration of adult Chinook salmon (NMFS 2009). Adult steelhead are present in the project area from January through May (NMFS 2009). Juvenile steelhead reside in fresh water year-round for two years prior to outmigrating. Some migrating/holding adult Chinook salmon and some juvenile steelhead could be in the project area during construction. Salmonids may avoid the construction area due to noise, vibration, or potentially increased turbidity. However, these fish would have nearby alternative habitat available for the short construction period. The removal of vegetation could decrease the habitat value of the shoreline from the pre -damaged condition for terrestrial insects, could decrease organic inputs to the river, and would decrease local shading. Incorporation of the layback would require the removal of 17 trees from the landward side of the levee, including several large London planetrees. The project would include planting trees and shrubs along the lower bank throughout the project length. To limit fish impacts, the project would complete the in -water construction phase within the approved work window for this area. The work window for in -water work at this location, which avoids the most sensitive periods for fish, is 1 August to 31 August. Additionally, the work area would be isolated from the river to minimize water quality and fisheries impacts. Implementation of best management practices, such as regularly checking equipment for leaks or drips, fueling of vehicles away from the water, and having a spill kit onsite would also minimize the potential for impacts to fisheries. It is anticipated that there would be no significant adverse effects to critical habitat as the project proposes to repair an armored bank where a similar armored bank had existed prior to the flood damage. Incorporation of a slope layback and bank plantings at the site would be beneficial as they would reduce velocities, improve shading throughout the project reach, provide refuge habitat, and widen this narrow channel. The Phase 1 construction is being proposed as an emergency measure to provide an incremental benefit to flood protection within the ongoing flood season. Coordination with resource agencies in was initiated in early December 2014 under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, pursuant to 50 CFR 402.05. This expedited consultation focused only on the impacts of the proposed Phase 1 work (floodwall installation and tree removal) with the understanding that a full consultation for the complete Federal action (including consideration of any impacts from both Phase 1 and Phase 2) would occur prior to the commencement of the Phase 2 construction. When completed, this levee repair is not intended or expected to generate appreciable change in habitat conditions as compared with conditions pre-existing the flood event. Repair construction work may result in short-term impacts to fish and wildlife from noise, vibration, increased human presence, and removal of vegetation. Significant impacts to these resources are not expected. 7 Cultural Resources: The Corps is currently taking actions to identify historic properties that may be affected by the proposed action as required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The Corps is consulting with the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer, Indian tribes, and other consulting parties about the project and will complete identification and evaluation for historic properties as well as make agency findings of effect for Section 106 prior to approval of the proposed action. As of this time, the Corps has not identified any historic properties within the area of potential effect and does not anticipate that the proposed project would affect historic properties. Air Quality: Construction vehicles and heavy equipment used during the proposed construction would temporarily and locally generate increased gasoline and diesel exhaust fumes. The small area of construction and the short duration of the work would limit the impact to air quality. The activity would constitute routine repair of an existing facility, generating an increase in direct emissions of a criteria pollutant or its precursors that would be clearly de minimis, and would therefore be exempted by 40 CFR Section 93.153(c)(2)(iv) from the conformity determination requirements. Emissions generated by the construction activity are expected to be minor, short- term, and well below the de minimis threshold. Unquantifiable but insignificant exacerbation of effects of CO2 emissions on global climate change would be anticipated. Noise: Temporary increases in noise would occur as a result of both phases of the construction for the proposed action. The project area is largely surrounded by commercial and light industrial properties. Two residential properties exist within 1000 feet of the construction. Proposed work would be done from 7AM to 7 PM to limit noise impacts. Impact hammers would not be used to install sheetpile walls. Wildlife in this urban area is likely habituated to human activity and noise. No long-term change in noise levels would occur as a result of the project. Traffic: Construction -related traffic may cause temporary increases to, and disruption of, local traffic. Flaggers and signs would be used, as needed, to safely move traffic around the construction site. No long-term change in traffic would occur as a result of the project. The placement of the floodwall would occur within a parking lot. A number of parking stalls would be affected. Reorganizing the spaces would help to retain the largest number of spaces possible, however the overall number of spaces would be expected to permanently decrease. Recreation: This crown of the levee within the project area is a dead-end spur of the Green River Trail. This trail is heavily used by walkers, joggers, cyclists, and other recreational enthusiasts. Both phases of construction would temporarily close this section of the trail and cause recreational activities to be routed around the area. Following completion of the construction the crown of the levee would be paved to restore the trail. The trail would reopen, though the section through the construction area will change visually with the removal of the landward trees. Cumulative Effects: As mentioned above, the City of Kent is conducting a floodwall project along the landward side of three reaches (Reaches 2, 3, and 4) of levee in proximity to the proposed Corps' project area. Additionally, Kent is installing a longer length of floodwall at the 8 project site (designated as Reach 1 in Kent's designs) than the Federal action. At Reaches 2, 3, and 4, Kent's project involves the installation of the floodwall as well as riverward slope work above ordinary high water (OHW). Kent's riverward slope work includes a 6:1 sloped bench just above ordinary high water and a 2:1 sloped riverward face. Kent is including plantings on the riverward face of the levee as mitigation. At this time, no other projects are known for this area. Cumulative effects will be analyzed and addressed, as required, pursuant to NEPA and ESA, in the development of the EA. COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS The Corps will coordinate the proposed action with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service concerning effects of the proposed repair activities on threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat, pursuant to Sec. 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act. No significant unmitigated impact to Tribal Treaty Rights is expected as a result of the proposed activities. A tribal fishing site is located near the proposed action. The project team will continue to work with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe to ensure that access to the fishing site is available throughout the construction periods and that the site's integrity will be preserved. The Corps is consulting with the Washington State Historic Preservation Office, Indian tribes and other consulting parties about the project in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act as implemented in the regulations at 36 C.F.R. Part 800. The project would involve a discharge of fill material into waters of the United States that will be evaluated for substantive compliance with guidelines promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency under authority of Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act. The project would include minor deviations to the pre -flood condition in that the repair would include a laid back slope, changing the profile below ordinary high water. The provisions of the regional conditions under Nationwide Permit 3 allow for minor deviations in the design for the repair and maintenance of existing structures pursuant to the Corps of Engineers' Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) permitting program. The Corps intends to apply by analogy the general Water Quality Certification issued by the Washington Department of Ecology for proposals meeting the criteria of NWP 3, in order to provide reasonable assurance of compliance with the Water Quality Standards of Washington, under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. EVALUATION The Corps has made a preliminary determination that the environmental impacts of the proposed work can be adequately evaluated under the National Environmental Policy Act through preparation of an environmental assessment (EA). Preparation of an EA addressing potential environmental impacts associated with the levee rehabilitation project is currently underway. Any person who has an interest that may be affected by the discharge of fill or dredged material contemplated under this proposal may request a public hearing. The request must be submitted in writing to the District Engineer within the comment period of this notice, and must clearly set forth the following: the interest that may be affected, the manner in which the interest may be 9 affected by this activity, and the particular reason for holding a public hearing regarding this activity. The decision whether to conduct the project will be based on an evaluation of the probable impact on the public interest. That decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. The benefit, which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal, must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors which may be relevant to the proposal will be considered; among these are: conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, consideration of property ownership and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. The Corps invites submission of comments on the environmental impact of the proposal. Comments will also be considered in determining whether it would be in the best public interest to proceed with the proposed project. The Corps will consider all submissions received before the expiration date of this notice. The nature or scope of the proposal may be changed upon consideration of the comments received. The Corps will initiate an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and afford all of the appropriate public participation opportunities attendant to an EIS, if significant effects on the quality of the human environment are identified and cannot be mitigated. Submit comments to this office, Attn: Environmental and Cultural Resources Branch, no later than 30 days after the posting of this notice to ensure consideration. In addition to sending comments via mail to the above address, comments may be e-mailed to Ms. Bobbi Jo McClain, Project Biologist, at bobbi.j.mcclain@usace.army.mil. The Notice of Preparation can be found at the following website: http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/Missions/Environmental/EnvironmentalDocuments.aspx under "Desimone-Briscoe School Levee Rehabilitation." Requests for additional information should be directed to Ms. Bobbi Jo McClain at 206-764-6968 or at the above e-mail address. REFERENCES National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009. Green River Levee Rehabilitation, Green River, 17110013 HUC, King County, Washington Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion And Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation. NMFS Tracking Number 2008/05502. Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE). 2014. Water Quality Assessment for Washington. Online at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/wgamapviewer/default.aspx?res=1396x785. Accessed on 28 Dec 2014. 10 Designs and Photos: • N CONCRETE BARRIER AND HANDRAIL TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY OTHERS (NIC) MATCH GRADE AT TOP OF CONCRETE CAP 3" ASPHALT TRAIL WITH 4' BASE COURSE 16 L SLOPE VARIES MAX. SLOPE 1.5H:1V 0 HYDROSEEDTOPSOIL 9' EXISTING PARKING LOT 1' QUARRY SPALLS 1' TOPSOIL `.EL 28.0' 2 PLANTING LIFTS: 15' OC - 3' LIVE TREE CUTTINGS PER LIFT 12" OC - 3' LIVE SHURB CUTTINGS PER LIFT SATISFACTORY COMPACTED FILL SHEET PILE WALL TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY OTHERS (NIC) 1' QUARRY SPALLS 3' CLASS IV RIPRAP LAUNCHABLE TOE, CLASS IV RIRAP 300 CUBIC FEET PER FT -------------------------- 1.8' TYPICAL LEVEE CROSS-SECTION WITH TRAIL 19.5' 1" = 10' 0 10' 20' MATCH TO EXISTING TOE OF SLOPE EXISTING GRADE Figure 3. Typical cross section 13 • Photo 1: Damaged section of°levee, showing the riverward Photo 2: Damaged section of levee, showing the crown and backslope 14 WASHINGTON CITY OF SUZETTE COOKE — MAYOR DANA RALPH DENNIS HIGGINS MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL JIM BERRIOS BILL BOYCE NI BRENDA FINCHER TINA BUDELL LES THOMAS TIM LaPORTE - DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS SUE HANSON - INTERIM CITY CLERK CHAD BIEREN - CITY ENGINEER TOM BRUBAKER - CITY ATTORNEY PUBLIC WORKS ..PROJECT BRISCOE-DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS REACH 1 MITIGATION PLANTING JOB NUMBERS 09-3011 SHEET INDEX 1 COVER SHEET 2 REACH .1 MITIGATION PLANTING 3 REACH 1 PLANTING DETAILS 1 4 REACH 1 PLANTING DETAILS 2 PROJECT LOCATION !/ 5. 211TH ST M 1 -P6 _ . tE 2•11.1 SI i VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE 1.,/q -00S0 G:\Design\09-3011 DESIMONEIdwglCover-Reach 1 Plantlnq.dwq, 9/16/2016 3:56:29 PM 00 cu E 783+00 a.,.0O ON^ fig• ' GREEN RIVER Oo 75' \ \\ • \-+B • • .'i" n183. ^180 GREEN RIVER TRAIL • I. \'. \ RAW WATTLE (5) (STING TREE r\146TO REWUN, SEE PLANTING NOTE (4) \ • 5' CLEAR ZONE (TYPP • • • • 11 297' *WORK AREA AHEAD. NARROW TRAIL BICYCLES DISMOUNT' SIGN \ \ \\\ '(\j \\\ \ \ \\ 50' 0' HORZ SCALE 50' 100' IN FEET • • •\ • REACH 1 TREE PLANTING SCHEDULE QUANTITY 35 40 50 25 100 50 300 SYMBOL PLANT NAME BIG LEAF MAPLE, ACER MACROPHYLLUM OREGON ASH, FRAXINUS LATIFOLIA SITKA SPRUCE, PICEA SITCHENSIS BITTER CHERRY, PRUNUS EMARGINATA PACIFIC WILLOW, SALIX LUCIDA NOTE: SEE STRAW WATTLE DETAIL SHEET 4 SIZE, NOTES 5 GALLON 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 3' LIVE STAKE, 1i' EXPOSED; SPACED ALONG OHWM EVERY 36" EVENLY BETWEEN WOODEN STAKES O BLACK COTTONWOOD, POPULUS TRICHOCARPA SSP. TRICHOCARPA 3' LIVE STAKE, 6" MAX. DIAMETER, 1i' EXPOSED; THREE PER SYMBOL, 3 FEET ON -CENTER TRIANGULAR SPACING TOTAL TREE COUNT FOR REACH 1 REACH 1 SHRUB PLANTING SCHEDULE • • • (OHW TO LOWER INSPECTION CORRIDOR BOUNDARY; 38,780 SF; APPROXIMATELY 4,975 PLANTS TOTAL) COMMON NAME SIZE ESTIMATED REACH 1 QUANTITY 1 GAL 871(17.5%) / 1 GAL 149 (3%) 1 GAL 336 (6.75%) I CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1 GAL 323 (6.5%) 1 GAL 98 10%) ` 1 GAL 3 (7.5%) s}°5 1 GAL II 1D3.5%) 1 GAL 597 (12%) LIVE STAKE 896 (18%) 1 GAL 758 (15.25%) SCIENTIFIC NAME 0.. CORNOS SERICEA HOLODISCUS DISCOLOR LONICERA INVOLUCRATA //PHYSOCARPUS CAPITATUS `RISES SANGUINEUM 111ROSA NUTKANA RUBUS PARVIFLORUS O RUBUS SPECTABIUS SALIX SITCHENSIS SYMPHORICARPOS ALBUS REDOSIER DOGWOOD OCEANSPRAY BLACK TWINBERRY PACIFIC NINEBARK RED FLOWERING CURRANT NOOTKA ROSE THIMBLEBERRY SALMONBERRY SITKA WILLOW SNOWBERRY REACH 1 SEEDING SCHEDULES MIX A (ROADSIDE AND EROSION CONTROL GRASS): SEE SHEET .3 SEED MIX A TABLE NOXIOUS WEED REMOVAL AND PREVENTION 1. MOW & TREAT NOXIOUS WEEDS 2. HERBICIDE SPRAY RE-EMERGING NOXIOUS WEEDS IN STILL AIR (1) ALL TREES TO BE PLANTED 12 FEET ON -CENTER TRIANGULAR SPACING (2) ALL SHRUBS TO 6E SPACED 3 FEET ON -CENTER. TRIANGULAR SPACING (3) ALL LIVE STAKE (LS) SHALL BE 36 INCHES IN LENGTH OR GREATER (4) ONLY CLEAR AND GRUB 8Y HAND WITHIN DRIP LINE OF EXISTING TREE, NO CULTIVATION OF NATIVE SOIL WITHIN DRIP UNE OF EXISTING TREE, AND ARBORIST MULCH SHALL BE ADDED ATOP NATIVE SOIL ALONG WITH COIR FABRIC (5) PLACED AT TOE OF SLOPE, ABOVE OHW AT DIRECTION OF OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTMTY, 'SEE TYPICAL LANDSCAPE SECTION SHEET 3 (6) TRAIL TO REMAIN OPEN DURING CONSTRUCTION (7) TRAIL ACCESS NOT PERMITTED THRU PRIVATE PROPERTY. TRAIL MAY BE ACCESSED FROM W VALLEY HWY OR ACCESS EASEMENT AT 6540 S. GLACIER ST. (8) NO ACCESS PERMITTED THRU PRIVATE PROPERTY (9) NO WORK SHALL BE DONE BELOW OHWM oco DESIGNED: CHECKED: kso. KEN[ ER!).J TO ( DRAWN: PROJECT CO GUT. R jpE11 Ste: HORIZ' VERT: NO. REVISION BY DATE PPROVEO. (IA CRY ENGINEER DATE/24i (0 BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING ADJUST SCANS ACCORDINGLY 0' 1' City of Kent Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division M• k,11 0• REACH 1 MITIGATION PLANTING BRISCOE & DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 2 OF 4 FILE NO. SYMBOL KEY OCORNOS SERICEA HOLODISCUS DISCOLOR LONICERA INVOLUCRATA PHYSOCARPUS CAPITATUS eRIBES SANGUINEUM REDOSIER DOGWOOD OCEANSPRAY BLACK IWINBERRY PACIFIC NINEBARK REO FLOWERING CURRANT ® ROSA NUTKANA RUBUS PARVIFLORUS' O RUBUS SPECTABILIS SALJX SITCHENSIS SYMPHORICARPOS AL8U5 NOTE:ALL SHRUBS TO BE SPACED 3 FEET ON -CENTER TRIANGULAR SPACING SHRUB PLANTING LAYOUT NOT TO SCALE NOOTKA ROSE THIMBLEBERRY SALMONBERRY STTKA WILLOW SNOWBERRY WEIGHT PROPORTION SEED MIX A' INGREDIENT MIN.% PURE SEED • MIN. %GERMINATION MAX. X WEED SEED 405 PERENNIAL RYEGRASS 985 905 0.55 405 CREEPING RED FESCUE 985 855 0.55 10X COLONIAL BENTCRASS 985 90% 0.5% 105 WHITE DITCH CLOVER (PRE -INOCULATED) 98% 90% 0.55 SEED MIX A 3' O.C. TRIANGULAR SPACING DIAGRAM 12' O.C. TRIANGULAR SPACING DIAGRAM NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE ;DESIGNED: ' CHECKED:1016H. 1' BELOW EDGE GREEN RIVER TRAA. 5' CRASS ROLLED W/ LAWN ROVER TO BE SMODTH 6' NATIVE SOIL TILLED 3' DEEP ARBORIST MULCH �si'.i'��i?�Lkl 171/7/v EDGE OF TRAIL TREATMENT NOTE SEED AND TOP DRESS 5' CRASS STRIP 1F SEEDED. NOT TO SCALE LRE STAKE INSTALLATION NOTES: 1. KEEP LVE STAKES MOIST/WET IN BUCKETS OR WET BURLAP .SACKS. ON HOT DAYS, KEEP STAKES IN THE SHADE UNIIL YOU PLANT THEM: 2. IN HARD GROUND, USE AN IRON BAR OR STAR DRILL TO PREPARE THE HOLES FOR THE LRE STAKE. 3. PLACE LIVE STAKE IN PREPARED HOLE; DO NOT USE AXE OR SLEDGE FOR DRIVING LIVE STAKES. 4. AVOID STRIPPING BARK OR BRUISING LIVE STAKES DURING INSTALLATION. 5. LIVE STAKE LENGTH MIN. 42'. EMBED 21' IN SOIL 6. AFTER LIVE STAKE IS PLACED IN GROUND, CUT DAMAGED END OF LIVE STAKE TO LEAVE AT LEAST TWO BUDS EXPOSED, MIN. 7. F10. VOID AROUND LIVE STAKE WNH SOIL. CUT DAMAGED END OF UVE STAKE TO LEAVE AT LEAST TWO BUDS EXPOSED LIVE STAKE PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE FABRIC PARALLEL TO OHIO ONLY AS NEEDED TO CREATE APPROPRIATE SIZE PLAN1170 HOLE; FOLD COIR FABRIC TO TEMPORARILY MOVE AR80RIST MULCH AND COMPLETE PLANTING .7 tii!!ii!!i!!!ii!IIi!!ii!iiil:ie!!i!!iii!!i11 II'!ii!!iiiii ii ,;>„)4„ a. aFy:�: J xi) '�hl hY. r;�>if COIR {FABRIC A1OP ARBORIST MULCH. SEE PLANTING AREA PREPARATION DETAIL ABOVE FINISHED GRADE PLANTING AREA PREPARATION CONTAINER PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE IL TO ENSURE PLANT 6 PL008 AND ROOT FLARE IS AT GRADE RE -SPREAD AR80RLST MULCH AND LEVEL COM FABRIC CONTAINER PLANTING NOT TO SCALE FIR P ECTnt N0. DRAWN: PROJECT, CON NO. REVISION BY DATE APPROVED. " j1' ENGINEER SCALE: 740912:. VERT: DATE^/.//,(Pi OAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY O' 1' City of Kent Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division REACH 1 PLANTING DETAILS 1 BRISCOE & DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 3 OF 4 FILE N0. NOTE: MATS/BLANKETS SHOULD i 8E INSTALLED VERTICALLY DOWNSLOPE .r y 36'. 0.C.. SPACING WOODENSTAKES 36' 0.C. SPACING INE STAKES STRAW WATTLE WOODEN STAKE ONLY. NO METAL STAPLES COIR FABRIC INSTALLATION DETAIL H 2' ANCHORING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE 100 YEAR FLOOD - EL 32.0' EXISTING VEGETATION (e ()Jo cf 5 67.0 yk9 OHW - EL 15.5' CLEAR ZONE EXISTING TRAIL EL 35.6'-36.6' INSTALL STRAW WATTLE AT TOE OF SLOPE. ABOVE OHW AT DIRECTION OF. OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE TYPICAL LANDSCAPE SECTION • _ ii NOT TO SCALE 1. SEED .BEFORE INSTALLATION. PLANTING OF SHRUBS, TREES, ETC SHOULD OCCUR AFTER INSTALLATION 2. DO NOT STRETCH. BLANKETS/MATTINGS 11GHT - ALLOW THE ROLLS TO MOLD TO ANY IRREGULARITIES 3. SURFACE SHALL 8E SMOOTH BEFORE PLACEMENT FOR PROPER SOIL CONTACT 4. IF THERE IS A BERM AT THE TOP OF SLOPE, ANCHOR UPSLOPE OF THE BERM DESIGNED: - CHECKED:A5 Pf o6 1(0. NOTE: PLANTING AREA PREPARATION SHALL INCLUDE ALL SEEDING, SHRUB, TREE AND LIVE STAKE AREAS CLEARED & GRUBBED PLANTING AREA WITH ALL NOXIOUS WEEDS REMOVED PLANTING AREA PREPARATION TAU. UPPER 6' OF NATIVE SOIL PRIOR TO PLANTING BELTON G.E000IR 700 OR APPROVED EQUAL INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS WITH 24'+ LONG WOODEN STAKES ONLY - NO METAL PINS; EMBED WOODEN STAKES 23', PLACE WOODEN STAKES 3' APART (LIVE STAKES CAN 8E A SUBSTITUTE FOR WOODEN STAKE), OVERLAP FABRIC AT LEAST 18' M WATERFLOW DIRECTION 3' DEEP ARBORIST MULCH FINISH GRADE Iii!!ii!iii!iii;!ii!'.iiiiii!iii!ii!!ii!iii!iii11i!i!i!iiiiii 1 Hiiiiiiiiiiii P 6. TIL1E/A SOIL i NOT TO SCALE PLANTING SEQUENCE 1. CLEAR AND GRUB PLANTING AREA WITH ALL NOXIOUS WEEDS REMOVED 2. TILL UPPER 6' of NATIVE SOIL. 3. SPREAD 3 DEEP ARBORIST MULCH OVER ENTIRE AREA 70 BE PLANTED (INCLUDING SEEDED AREA) 4. INSTALL COIR FABRIC PER DETAIL INSTALL PLANTINGS 6 INSTALL IRRIGATION SYSTEM MAINTAIN PLANTINGS, INCLUDING BLIT NOT LIMITED T0, WEEDING AND WATERING. 3 -YEARS AFTER INSTALLATION TO ENSURE NATIVE PLANT SURVIVAL 2' X 2' X 24' WOODEN STAKE STRAW WATTLE INSTALLATION NOT TO SCALE 1. SECURELY KNOT EACH END OF WATTLE. OVERLAP ADJACENT WATTLE ENDS 12' BEHIND ONE ANOTHER AND SECURELY TIE TOGETHER 2, COMPACT EXCAVATED SOIL AND TRENCHES TO PREVENT UNDERCUFRNG. 3. INSTALL WATTLE PERPENDICULAR TO FLOW ALONG THE CONTOURS 1.Ni-oases N0. REVISION DATE DRAWN: PROJECT E 6l j WI 7 ,.4FVIfN APPROVED. /f J gea* gtTY ENGINEER BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAVANG ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY 0' 1' City of Kent Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division OOOOO REACH 1 PLANTING DETAILS 2 BRISCOE & DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 4 0 F 4 FILE NO. Carol Lumb From: Langholz, Ken <KLangholz@kentwa.gov> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 9:18 AM To: Carol Lumb Cc: Knox, Matthew Subject: Reach 1 replanting Attachments: Reach 1 Planting Plan 8.16.2016.pdf Carol, Attached is the latest version of the Reach 1 planting plans. The plan shows 170 trees, which is the number required. We're going to increase the number of trees to at least 200 to account for some Toss. We'd also like to plant this fall. Are we still good with the existing shoreline permit, or do we need to modify it? Please call me to discuss this. Thanks, Ken Langholz, Interim Design Engineering Manager Design Engineering 1 Public Works Department 220 Fourth Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032 Phone 253-856-5516 1 Fax 253-856-6500 klanciholz@KentWA.gov CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON KentWA.gov Facebook YouTube PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS E-MAIL From: Tom Early [mailto:tom.early@otak.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 4:10 PM To: Langholz, Ken Cc: Knox, Matthew; Mactutis, Mike Subject: RE: Reach 1 replanting Hi Ken, Please find the updated Reach•1 replanting plans, 2 sheets. These reflect the changes back to gallon container plant material, OHW, approximate river mile alignment, including tree symbols within the shrub planting layout and noxious weed removal. I'll give you a call tomorrow afternoon to follow up on this. Thanks -Tom Otak, Inc. Tom Earl= 1 Landscape Architect 1 ISA Certified Arborist 1 ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified 1 LEED AP 11241 Willows Road NE, Suite 200, Redmond, Washington 98052 direct: 425.250.5 346 tom.ear1v@otak.com www.otak.com at Otak, we consider the environment before printing emails. The information transmitted in this e-mail message and attachments, if any, may contain confidential material, and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. Distribution to, or review by, unauthorized persons is prohibited. In the event of. the unauthorized use of any material in this transmission, neither Otak nor the sender shall have any liability and the recipient shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the sender, Otak and its principals, agents, employees and subconsultants from all related claims and damages. The recipient understands and agrees that any use or distribution of the material in this transmission is conditioned upon the acceptance of the terms stated in this disclaimer. If you have received this transmission in error, immediately notify the sender and permanently delete this transmission including attachments, if any. 1 • City of Kent Reach 1 Landscaping General Cost Estimate Prepared by: Tom Early 100% Level Cost Estimate 26 -Aug -16 Project Description: Clear and Grub approximately 43,000 square feet of noxious weeds, till soil, place arborist mulch 2 inches deep throughtout planting area, cover planting area and mulch with coir fabric. Secure colr fabric With 24 inch long wooden stakes every 3 feet. Plant shrubs and trees ranging in size from live stakes to 5 gallon container material. Maintain work for 1 year per PSIPE specifications. i Item Spec. Unit Estimated No. Section Item Description Quantity Unit Price Cost 1 2-01 Clearing and Grubbing 1 ACRE $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000.00 2 8-01 Coir Fabric (Erosion Control Blanket) 4,800 SY $ 15.00 $ 72,000.00 3 8-02 PSIPE Shrubs (1 gallon container) 4,975 EA $ 10.00 $ 49,750.00 4 8-02 PSIPE Trees (Live Stakes) 50 EA $ 2.00 $ 100.00 5 8-02 PSIPE Trees (1 gallon container) 115 EA $ 15.00 $ 1,725.00 6 8-02 PSIPE Trees (5 gallon container) 35 EA $ 35.00 $ 1,225.00 7 8-02 Arborist Mulch (2" Depth) 300 CY $ 35.00 $ 10,500.00 8 8-02 Seeded Lawn Installation 450 SY $ 2.50 $ 1,125.00 9 8-03 Temporary Automatic Irrigation System 1 LS $ 43,000.00 $ 43,000.00 Subtotal $187,425 Contingency (15%) $28,114 Total $216,000 ,- '184kp0 783+00 pNW • r,ls°GREEN RIVER o /'1146 ;��'i . -.�• ♦ 5' TYP. /♦163' • 50 // / % / / y°/ 1 / 1 k 32 297' \, 4 REACH 1 TREE PLANTING SCHEDULE QUANTITY SYMBOL PLANT NAME 30 Q; BIG LEAF MAPLE, ACER MACROPHYLLUM 35 '; OREGON ASH, FRAXINUS LATIFOUA 42 ,, SITKA SPRUCE, PICEA SITCHENSIS 23 BITTER CHERRY, PRUNUS EMARGINATA 40 Q BLACK COTTONWOOD, POPULUS TRICHOCARPA SSP. TRICHOCARPA TOTAL TREE COUNT FOR REACH 1 170 REACH 1 SEEDING SCHEDULES SIZE, NOTES 5 GALLON 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 6' UVE STAKE, 6" MAX. DIAMETER, ONE FOOT EXPOSED; THREE PER SYMBOL, 3 FEET ON -CENTER TRIANGULAR SPACING WSDOT NO -CLOVER EROSION CONTROL SEED MIX, 3 LBS/1000 SF 45% CREEPING RED FESCUE, 45% PERENNIAL RYEGRASS, 10% HIGHLAND COLONIAL BENTGRASS (DIRECT SEED SALES OR APPROVED EQUAL) DESIGNED: CHECKED: KENT PROJECT NO. DRAWN: PROJECT ENGR: CONST. MGMT. REVIEW. SCALE: HORIZ VERT. NO. REVISION BY DATE APPROVED. CITY ENGINEER DATE HORZ 50' 0' 50' 1 00 ' 1111110 SCALE IN FEET 4 REACH 1 SHRUB PLANTING SCHEDULE SHRUBS (OHW TO LOWER INSPECTION CORRIDOR BOUNDARY; APPROXIMATELY 4,975 PLANTS TOTAL) SCIENTIFIC NAME CORNOS SERICEA HOLODISCUS DISCOLOR LONICERA INVOLUCRATA PHYSOCARPUS CAPITATUS RIBES SANGUINEUM ROSA NUTKANA RUBUS PARVIFLORUS , RUBUS SPECTABIUS SAUX SITCHENSIS SYMPHORICARPOS ALBUS tJ BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY o- r COMMON NAME REDOSIER DOGWOOD OCEANSPRAY BLACK TWINBERRY PACIFIC NINEBARK RED FLOWERING NOOTKA ROSE THIMBLEBERRY SALMONBERRY SITKA I WILLOW SNOWBERRY 38,780 SF; SIZE 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL CURRANT Citic of Kent Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division ESTIMATED REACH 1 QUANTITY 871 (17.5%) 149 (3%) 336 (6.75%) 323 (6.5%) 498 (10%) 373 (7.5%) 174 (3.5%) 597 (12%) 896 (18%) 758 (15.25%) 11/1 ✓11111)( 4.A k"" NOXIOUS WEED REMOVAL s9u0/4i 4010 1. CLEAR AND GRUB NOXIOUS WEEDS 2. HERBICIDE SPRAY RE-EMERGING NOXIOUS WEEDS IN STILL AIR 3. PLANT IN FALL OR WINTER ‘550 -vi iJQ-L joki ivto f439) PLANTING NOTES Z.I so) ✓v"" l Lcwt to G1.0 (1) ALL (2) ALL (3) ALL (4) ALL r fv, w/ F-42 nwvc TREES TO BE PLANTED 12 FEET ON -CENTER TRIANGULAR SPACING SHRUBS TO BE SPACED 3 FEET ON -CENTER TRIANGULAR SPACING BAREROOT(BR) PLANTS SHALL BE 2-0 SEEDLINGS UVE STAKE (LS) SHALL BE 36 INCHES IN LENGTH OR GREATER _ -Du e. r /1-e-- - - -1,Vn ✓y- r-.. ifl- (Audi- 5ti S -b i jfa `'e.J SHEET 1 OF 2 FILE NO. City of Kent – Briscoe/Desimone Levee Improvements - Reach 1 Performance Specification Contractor Designed Temporary Irrigation System Replacement for WSDOT 8-03 Irrigation Systems: 8.03.1 Description Page 1 It is the intention of these specifications to define performance and material requirements for the selected contractor to design and install an efficient and fully automatic temporary irrigation system for all landscaping plants. The work covers a complete, automatically controlled, temporary irrigation system – including: all required design criteria, trenching, backfilling and compacting; sleeving, installation of pipe, valves, sprinkler heads, fittings, and all other appurtenances; connections to water services or water tanks, testing; installation of controller(s), electrical connections and wiring and system fine tuning. Coordinate all work with other trades. Consider installing the following components for optimal water efficiency: • Drip/micro irrigation for all areas suitable for such technology. • Check valves in all sprinklers to retain water in lateral pipes between cycles. • Demand based irrigation controls (i.e., weather or sensor based controls). • Rain, freeze, and wind sensors to interrupt irrigation during unfavorable weather conditions. A. Work and materials shall be in accordance with the latest rules, regulations and other applicable state or local—plumbing, electrical, and health codes. Nothing in the Contract Documents is to be construed to permit work not conforming to these codes. B. Obtain and pay for all permits, approvals and inspections required by the local jurisdictional authorities for the full operation of the system. C. Contractor shall coordinate all irrigation work with other trades. This includes but is not limited to: location and electrical point of connection at irrigation controller (or use of battery or solar operated controller), irrigation sleeving under pavement, irrigation water meter installation. D. Contractors must be Washington State Licensed landscape contractor with at least three years of irrigation installation experience. SUBMIITT -1LS A. Irrigation Design and Plan Review. The temporary irrigation system shall be designed in accordance with common design principles and take into account the various soil conditions, exposures, slopes, plant densities, water requirements and restrictions of the site. The Contractor shall provide two sets of irrigation plans on reproducible material or CAD format. Base sheets, planting plans, and grading plans will be provided by the City of Kent. Minimum system coverage performance criteria are head to head coverage for spray type heads and 100% plant watering for dripline irrigation. Contractor should exercise professional judgment in selection, location, height and angle of sprinkler heads to minimize overspray and run-off. Zone lawn and shrub separately. Drawings shall be clear and concise with the following information indicated at a minimum: C:\Users\carol-1\Appllata\Local \ Microsoft \ Windows \Temporary Internet Files \Content.Outlook\J7GFF5J5\Reach 1 8-03 Irrigation SP.doc City of Kent — Briscoe/Desimone Levee Improvements - Reach 1 Performance Specification Contractor Designed Temporary Irrigation System Page 2 1. Layout/location of all proposed equipment—which may include, irrigation dripline, sprinklers, main and lateral lines; sleeving; isolation, automatic and drain valves; quick couplers; backflow prevention and pressure regulation devices; controllers, weather sensors; water meter. 2. Size of all pipe, sleeves, valves (include GPM per zone), backflow prevention devices, meter (include inlet and outlet of supply line), controller etc. 3. Graphic and written legend clearly indicating symbols used for individual product types, materials and nozzles etc. 4. Graphic installation details for sprinkler types, valves, backflow preventer, quick couplers, drain valves etc. 5. Elevation of point of connection and static water pressure at that elevation. B. Water schedule: Provide two irrigation watering schedules consistent with overall project Water Budget. The schedule shall address the initial establishment phase of the landscape and the second schedule shall be designed to address an established landscape. Both schedules shall be seasonal in nature. Post both schedules, laminated, on controller. C. Contractor shall submit irrigation design drawings and hydraulic calculations a minimum of 3 weeks prior to start of work to the City of Kent for review. Review of plans and materials by the City of Kent does not change the Contractor's responsibility for the design and installation of a properly working system. Construction work will not proceed until the deign review process is complete. D. Contractor shall show hydraulic calculations for end head performance for largest zone and the zone farthest from the point of connection on the plans. E. Mainline flows should not exceed 5' per second. Lateral lines should be sized so that there are no more than a 150'0 pressure loss from the first head on the zone to the last head. F. Product Data. Submit product data with design documents (a minimum of 2 weeks before beginning work). Include data for all products to be installed in this system. Include material showing manufacturers instructions for each product. G. Point of Connection Water Pressure Test: Test water pressure at the irrigation system point of connection prior to beginning work. Verify pressure is in the range anticipated during the design of the irrigation system. Submit results of test to City of Kent project manager. SUBSTITUTIONS A. Substitutions to the recommended equipment specified will be permitted with the express written approval of the City of Kent. Substitutions will be approved only when the substituted item is equivalent or better in quality and performance than the item originally specified or as identified in these specifications. The final determination for "equivalents" rests with the City of Kent project manager. 8.03.3(10) _yS-BUILT DRAWINGS C:AUsers\carol-1\.Applyata\ Local \\licroso`t\WindowsV'Temporary Internet Files \ContentOutlook\J7GF1'5I5\Reach 1 84 )3 Irrigation SP.doc City of Kent — Briscoe/Desimone Levee Improvements - Reach 1 Performance Specification Contractor Designed Temporary Irrigation System Page 3 A. The Contractor shall maintain a current record of all pipe and equipment placement and shall record any variations from the original design. Upon completion of the system, prior to release of final payment, the Contractor shall provide the City of Kent project manager with a neat and legible "As -Built" plan of the completed system. Any pipe not installed in accordance with the planes as originally contracted, shall be sufficiently dimensioned to a permanent structure for location after burial. Pipe sizing shall also be included on As -built drawings. As -built records shall be updated DAILY. Final "As -Built" drawing shall be submitted on reproducible vellum, mylar or in as an autocad file and include as -built information showing curb and gutter, catch basin lids and grating to scale. Provide a reduced scale copy of irrigation plan, laminated, for attachment to inside of controller door. 1.02 SYS 1'EM PROTECTION A. As part of the warranty under this contract, the Contractor is responsible for deactivating and draining the system prior to the onset of the freezing season and for reactivating the system at the onset of the Spring irrigation season. Each event must be accomplished at least once during the one year warranty. If the system is completed when it will not be in use, the Contractor shall winterize the system after completion of testing (and approval by the City of Kent) and reactivate the system in the Spring. The Contractor shall, upon completion of the winterizing phase, SUBI\IIT A LETTER to the Owner certifying that the system was winterized and drained and indicate the date such action was accomplished. The Contractor shall be responsible for any damage resulting from failure to comply. 1.03 SYS I'EM FAMILIARIZATION A. Before final acceptance of the system, the Contractor shall provide the necessary keys and/or other tools necessary to operate, drain and activate the system and shall spend sufficient time with the City of Kent maintenance personnel to insure that the system operation, maintenance, and winterization can continue after the departure of the Contractor. Provide two (2) complete sets of tools and keys to City of Kent project manager or maintenance personnel (i.e., water keys, quick coupler keys with hose swivel attachments, valve cover keys and controller keys. 1.04 MAINTENANCE MANUALS A. The Contractor is to provide two (2) operation and maintenance manuals. The manuals shall be indexed and tabbed, bound in hardback 3—ring binders. Include the following items/information: 1. List of authorized distributors and service representatives (in the area), for each item of irrigation equipment: include names, addresses, and phone numbers. 2. Guarantee/warranty certificates for all equipment used and Contractor's written warranty for entire system (1) year guarantee. 3. Manufacturer's maintenance sheets, replacement parts list and equipment brochures for all equipment used. All composite data sheets shall have the specified products (used in the field) clearly highlighted. 4. Winterization and spring start up procedures. 5. A copy of each watering schedule, one for initial landscape establishment and one for the established landscape. 6. A pocket for (1) one copy of the approved record drawings. This print shall be added at the time of final inspection. C:\Users\carol-I\AppData\Local\I\ticrosoft\Windows \"Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\J7GF05J5\Reach 1 8-03 Irrigation SP.doc City of Kent — Briscoe/Desimone Levee Improvements - Reach 1 Performance Specification Contractor Designed Temporary Irrigation System 1.05 IRRIGATION SYSTEM COMPLETION AND GUARANTEE Page 4 A. All work shall be guaranteed in writing for one (1) year from date of substantial completion against all defects in materials, equipment, and workmanship. During guarantee period, check, clean and adjust sprinkler heads and otherwise insure adequate operation of system at maximum 2 month intervals during the operational year. Guarantee shall also cover repair or damage to any part of the premises resulting from leaks 01 other defects in material, equipment, and workmanship to the satisfaction of the City of Kent project manager. Repairs, if required, shall be done promptly upon notification by the City of Kent project manager and, at no cost to the City of Kent. 8.03.2 MATERIALS SUM\L\RY A. All materials used through the system shall be new, unused, and in perfect condition. Refer to these specifications for approved manufacturers of specific products. Equipment or materials installed or furnished without prior approval of the City of Kent project manager may be rejected and the Contractor required shall remove such materials from the site at his own expense. BRASS PIPE Brass pipe: 85°0 red brass, American National Standard Institute (ANSI), SCH. 40 screwed pipe. Fittings: Medium brass, screwed, 125 pound class. PLASTIC PIPE Pipe: Marked with the manufacturer's name, class of pipe, NSF seal and date of manufacturing run. Pipe shall bear no evidence of interior or exterior extrusion marks. Conform to US Standard PS 22-70, ASTM D2241, ASTM D 1784, D3139, and D1869. Class 200 pipe shall have SDR rating of 21. Fittings: Schedule 40. Cement and Solvent: Brand(s) recommended by the manufacturer of the pipe. Use Schedule 40 pipe for mainlines; Class 200 for laterals. METER Meter shall meet or exceed local code requirements. BACKFLOW PREY ENTER Per State of Washington approved list and as approved by local code. Febco, Zurn-Wilkens, Watts recommended manufacturers. MAINLINE ISOLATION VALVES C:AUsers\carol-1\.AppData\Local \;Microsoft\Windows \Temporary Internet Files \Content.Outlook\I7GFF5I5\Reach 1 8-1)3 Irrigation S1.doc City City of Kent — Briscoe/Desimone Levee Improvements - Reach 1 Performance Specification Contractor Designed Temporary Irrigation System Page 5 Brass ball valve, screw -end, 400#WOG with PFC coated round handle. Provide two operating wrenches. Wrench shall be 1/2" stock, "T" handle and forked to fit the round handle of ball valves. Mainline ball valves shall be of the same size as mainline AUTOI\L-\TIC VALVES Automatic valves shall be contamination resistant, plastic, flow control, manual bleed. 24 volt, normally closed, solenoid- operated, globe type with 150 psi CWP rating, having IPS threads and suitable for underground burial. Automatic valve manufacturer's limited warranty shall not be less than five (5) years. Manufacturer: Hunter, Weathermatic or approved equivalent. DRIPLINE Dripline shall be UV resistant tubing for subsurface or on -surface installations. In-line emitters shall be anti - siphon and pressure compensating. Use dripline in-line emitters with integrated check valves where there is a potential for low head drainage. Manufacturers: Netafim, Toro, Rainbird or approved equivalent. SPRINKLER HEADS Spray type sprinklers: 12" or 6" pup up (depending on plant density, Contractor must insure coverage). Sprinkler head shall have stainless steel retraction spring. Use bottom inlet only. Install check valve feature in any sprinkler where there is a potential for low head drainage. Manufacturers: Hunter, Toro, Rainbird, Weathermatic or approved equivalent. Rotor type sprinklers: turrent nozzle type with a 2 1/4" maximum turret diameter exposure to the surface with a minimum of 3" pop-up. Stainless steel retraction spring and a check valve device to prevent low head drainage. Manufacturers: Hunter, Rain Bird, Toro or approved equivalent. AUTOMATIC (OR BATTERY / SOLAR) CONTROLLER Microprocessor solid state controller with variable day cycle starts from one minute to 12 hour station timing, seasonal adjustment, sensor input and master valve/pump start capability. Install and wire in accordance with applicable codes. Final location of automatic controller shall be approved by City of Kent. CONTROL WIRE FOR VALVES Insulated, single strand copper designed for 24-50 volts and UL approved as UF (Underground Feeder). UL and UF designations clearly marked or embossed on the insulation jacket of the wire. Copper conductor must meet or exceed ASTM B-3 specifications. In no case shall wire be less than 14 gauge. Where control wire leaves main or lateral line, enclose it in Class 200 PVC conduit. Separate "hot" (red or black) lead for each valve. Common wire (white) shall be installed for each controller. Spare wire (different color than "hot" or common) to run from controller to the end valve on each leg of the mainline. Identify each spare at the controller. Identify wire color on the As-Builts. C:\Users\carol-1\AppData\Local \Microsoft\Windows\'Temporary Internet Files \Content.Outlook\J7GFF5J5\Reach 1 8-03 Irrigation SP.doc City of Kent — Briscoe/Desimone Levee Improvements - Reach 1 Performance Specification Contractor Designed Temporary Irrigation System UNIT, INSULATED CONNECTORS (WIRE) 3M or approved alternative direct bury splice kit. QUICK COUPLING VALVES One piece, brass, double slot, 1" locking top, rubber cover quick coupler valve. Provide two coupler keys with hose swivel to match the quick coupling valves. VALVE BOXES Page 6 Green body with locking lid use standard or Jumbo rectangular box for all electrical control valves. For double check valve assembly box use Super Jumbo OX Model. Use extensions as required to protect 4" below valves and 12" below the DCVA. Approved Manufacturers: Carson Industries, Ametek. Use 10" round box for isolation valves, air/vacuum relief valves and flush valves. PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE (IF REQUIRED) Pressure reducing valve shall be mainline size. Brass construction, factory pre-set at 60 psi. Approved manufacturers: Zurn-Wilkens, Watts. 8.03.3 CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS EXAMINATION Prior to starting work, carefully inspect the preparatory work of other trades and verify that such work is acceptable for the installation of this work. Report all unacceptable conditions to the City of Kent project manager. Do not begin work until unacceptable conditions have been resolved. Beginning work constitutes Contractor acceptance of conditions. LAYOUT Layout all work in accordance with plans and details as shown on the drawings. Locate irrigation appurtenances, equipment, etc. in planting areas wherever possible. If minor changes in location are required, or as directed by the City of Kent project manager, work shall be accomplished by the Contractor at no additional cost to the Owner provided such changes are ordered before items of work directly connect to the same area are installed, and provided no additional materials are required. TRENCHING AND BACKFILL The irrigation system is intended to be a temporary irrigation system which most likely is going to be an above ground installation. Trenches are likely to only be used to provide a water connection from off-site, if necessary. C:AVscrs\carol-1\.AppData\ Local \Nlicrosoft\WC'indows\Temporary Internet Files \Contcnt.Outlook\17GFF5I5\Reach 1 8-03 Irrigation SP.doc City of Kent — Briscoe/Desimone Levee Improvements - Reach 1 Performance Specification Contractor Designed Temporary Irrigation System Page 7 Trenches: wide enough to allow a minimum of three (3) inches horizontal separation between parallel PVC pipe lines. Pipe lines depths to provide the minimum cover from finished grade as follows: 1. 18" cover from top of mainlines 2. 12" cover from top of lateral lines Backfill trenches after all required tests are performed and approved by City of Kent . Backfill with the excavated materials approved — consisting of earth, loam, sandy clay, sand or other materials free from stones 1 1/2 " or larger. Tamp trenches adequately to prevent sunken areas due to settlement. Mechanically compact trenches under hardscapes (in two (2) lifts) to a dry density equal to 90% of adjacent undisturbed soil. Backfill must conform to adjacent grades without dips, sunken areas, humps, or other surface irregularities. If settlement occurs and subsequent adjustments in pipe, valves, sprinkler heads, lawn or planting, or other construction are necessary, the Contractor shall make all required adjustments with no additional cost to the Owner. PIPE AND FITTINGS Cut PVC pipe ends at 90 degrees to the pipe length and clean all cutting burrs prior to cementing. Use of a deburring tool is highly recommended. Wipe pipe ends clean. Apply primer to both fitting and pipe end. Apply a light coast of cement on the inside of the fitting and a heavier coat on the outside of the pipe. Insert pipe into the fitting and give a quarter turn to set the cement. Wipe excess cement from the outside of the pipe. Test pipe as indicated elsewhere in these specifications. Backfill the center of the pipe lengths until the pressure test is complete. Cure all welded joints at least 15 minutes before moving and 24 hours before water is permitted in the pipe. Insure that the inside of the pipe is absolutely clean. Protect any pipe ends not being worked on. Cleaning of cutting burrs is MANDATORY. Where possible install PVC lines and valves adjacent to hardscapes and in planting areas. Provide pipe sleeves double the diameter of the enclosed irrigation line(s). Schedule 40 PVC sleeves for sleeves 4" and smaller, Class 200 PVC sleeves for sleeves larger than 4". DOUBLE CHECK VALVE ASSEMBLY Install in accordance with local code. Use brass manifold for backflow preventer. Include a capped 3A" blow out tee or quick coupler valve for winterization purposes. Install per code with test cocks turned to the side to promote drainage during winterization. Provide 6" of 5/8" washed gravel at the bottom of the valve box. Do not contaminate. Provide positive drainage out of the valve box. Double check valve assembly must be tested by a state certified inspector following installation. BALL VALVES Install to allow isolation of mainline branches. MASTER VALVE / FLOW SENSOR (OPTIONAL) C:\Users\carol-I\Appllata\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files \Content.Outlook\f7GFF5)5\Reach 1 8-03 Irrigation SP.doc City of Kent — Briscoe/Desimone Levee Improvements - Reach 1 Performance Specification Contractor Designed Temporary Irrigation System Master valve and flow sensor size shall match mainline size. AUTOMATIC VALVES Page 8 Flush supply lines before installing automatic valves. Install one union upstream of valve in manifold. Use valve box extensions to ensure that box extends a minimum of 5" below the bottom of the valve. Leave valve pit with a clean layer of gravel in the bottom with 4" clearance (min.) between gravel and bottom of valve. SPRINKLER HEADS Install fixed spray pop up on PE (swing) pipe (6" heads must include a marlex at head inlet). Install rotor heads on Marlex triple swing joint assembly, Lasco or Hunter factory assembled swing joints. Locate all sprinkler heads in lawn areas a maximum of 2" from bed edge. Locate sprinkler heads in planting areas a maximum of 4" from bed edge. Install heads flush with finish grade and "fine tune" system to minimize overspray on adjacent pavement. Adjust "tilt" of head to various grade conditions which may exist. CONTROL WIRES Control wires are to be taped together at 10 foot intervals and placed along the mainline or lateral line whenever possible. DO NOT TAPE THE WIRE HARNESS TO THE WATER PIPE. Provide a 18" harness loop at all sleeve ends and direction changes. All splices shall be made with vinyl insulated connectors and sealed in epoxy resin, direct bury connectors. All splices must be contained in a plastic valve box. Allow long enough expansion coils for each connection so that valve bonnet may be removed and placed outside the box for maintenance. Minimum size of copper wire for this project is #14 UF. AUTONL\TIC CONTROLLERS Final location of controller shall be approved by City of Kent. If 120 volt electrical power is to be used, the controller is to be furnished by a licensed electrician. Irrigation Contractor is responsible for valve electrical hookup. SYSTEM FLUSHING Flush entire system prior to the installation of valves, sprinkler heads and dripline. PRESSURE TEST Notify the City of Kent at least 72 hours prior to the test. Valves do not need to be installed for pressure test. Valve manifold, quick couplers and drain valve swing joints may be capped. Purge all air from the mainline prior to testing. C:AUscrs\carol-I\.Appl)ata\Local\I\licrusoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\j7GFF515\Reach 1 8-113 Irrigation SP.doc City of Kent — Briscoe/Desimone Levee Improvements - Reach 1 Performance Specification Contractor Designed Temporary Irrigation System Page 9 Hydrostatically test the mainline at a pressure of 150 psi. To be valid, all tests must be performed under the direction and supervision of the City of Kent. Maximum allowable drop is 5 psi in a one hour test. Lateral lines may be subjected to a hydro -static pressure test at existing static water pressure. PERFORMANCE TEST Prior to performance test, adjust valves, sprinkler heads, check for leaks and coverage. Perform a system coverage test for each zone, in the presence of the City of Kent. Contractor is responsible for repairing any clogged or damaged irrigation components. Contractor is responsible fos changing nozzles at the discretion of the City of Kent in order to obtain full coverage with minimum overspray. These changes or adjustments shall be made without additional cost. Test system for both manual and fully automatic operation. SYS I EM OPERATION The Contractor shall schedule a training session for the Owner's maintenance personnel for the operation of the system. The City of Kent will be notified of this session at least 48 hours in advance and may be part of the training session. WINERIZATION Winterize the system with compressed air in short cycles at no more than 40 psi air pressure. Do not allow pipe close to the compressor to get hot to the touch. FINAL APPROVAL Upon completion of all tests, final approval for the system will be contingent upon Contractor providing signed and approved sprinkler/plumbing/health/electrical permits as may be applicable, as well as reproducible "as -built" drawings and two (2) three-ring binders of all catalog cuts/manufacturer's instruction/maintenance, a copy of initial landscape establishment watering schedule, and the established landscape watering schedule, operation information as well as two (2) complete sets of all tools and keys required. 8-03.4 Measurement No unit of measure shall apply to the lump sum price for irrigation system. 8-03.5 Payment Payment will be made in accordance with Section 1-04.1, for the following Bid items when included in the Proposal: "Irrigation System", lump sum. All costs for furnishing and installing irrigation system equipment and components where indicated and as detailed in the Plans, all costs of initial and annual inspections and tests performed on cross connection control C:\Users\carol-1\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files \Content.Outlook\)7GFF5J5\Reach 1 8-03 Irrigation SP.doc City of Kent — Briscoe/Desimone Levee Improvements - Reach 1 Performance Specification Contractor Designed Temporary Irrigation System Page 10 devices and electrical wire testing during the life of the Contract and As Built Plans shall be included in the lump sum price for the complete irrigation system as shown in the Plans or as otherwise approved by the Engineer. The Contracting Agency will, at no cost to the Contractor, provide water and electrical services needed for installation and operation of the irrigation system for the life of the Contract. As the irrigation system is installed, the payment schedule will be as follows: 1. Payment will be made in proportion to the amount of Work performed up to 80 percent of the unit Contract price for irrigation system when the irrigation system is completed, tested, inspected, and fully operational. 2. Payment shall be increased to 90 percent of the unit Contract price for irrigation system upon completion and acceptance of initial planting and submittal of As -Built Plans. 3. Payment shall be increased to 100 percent of the unit Contract price for irrigation system upon completion and acceptance of the first-year plant establishment. When there is no first-year plant establishment or when the Contract is completed, payment will be increased to 100 percent of the unit Contract price for irrigation system upon completion of As Built Plans. END OF SECTION C:AUsers\carol-1\.AppIata\Local\\licrosoft\\V/indowsV'1'emporary Internet Files \Contcnt.Outlook\I7GFF515\Reach 1 8-03 Irrigation SP.doc 7 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Northwest Regional Office • 3190 160th Ave SE • Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 • 425-649-7000 711 for Washington Relay Service • Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341 September 11, 2014 City of Kent Public Works Dept. Attn: Kelly Casteel 400 West Gowe Kent, WA 98032 Re: City of Tukwila Permit L14-0030 and L14-0031 City Of Kent Public Works Department - Applicant SIMULTANEOUS FILING OF Approved Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SDP) #2014 -NW- 2473 Approved Variance Permit (VAR) #2014 -NW- 287 Dear Ms. Casteel: On August 26, 2014, the Department of Ecology received the City of Tukwila decisions on your permits to repair two sections of levees along the Green River, by resloping and installation of sheet pile flood walls. The project also includes trail construction of native plant restoration. Your approved SDP, and VAR have been filed with Ecology. By law, Ecology must review Substantial Development, Conditional Use, and Variance Permits for compliance with: • The Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW) • Ecology's Substantial Development Permit approval criteria (Chapter 173-27-150 WAC) • Ecology's Variance Permit approval criteria (Chapter 173-27-170 WAC) • The City of Tukwila Local Shoreline Master Program Local governments, after reviewing SDPs for compliance, are required to submit them to Ecology. Your approved SDP has been received by Ecology. After reviewing the Variance Permit for compliance, Ecology must decide whether to approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove them. Our Decision on your Variance Permit: Ecology approves your Variance Permit, provided .your project complies with the conditions required by City of Tukwila, and the following Ecology conditions: 1. The applicant hereby authorizes Ecology staff and their designees to have access to the subject property for the purposes of compliance inspection and monitoring. Such right of tzt City Of Kent Public Works Dept. September 11, 2014 Page 2 of 2 access shall begin from the date of the receipt of this letter, during construction, and extend for a period of ten years following project completion. Ecology staff must provide reasonable verbal notice to the applicant or their designee prior to coming onto the site. Please note, however, that other federal, state, and local permits may be required in addition to these shoreline permits. What Happens Next? Before you begin activities authorized by this permit, the law requires you wait at least 21 days from September 11, 2014, the "date of filing." This waiting period allows anyone (including you) who disagrees with any aspect of this permit to appeal the decision to the state Shorelines Hearings Board. You must wait for the conclusion of an appeal before you can begin the activities authorized by this permit. The Shorelines Hearings Board will notify you by letter if they receive an appeal. We recommend that you contact the Shorelines Hearings Board before you begin permit activities to ensure that no appeal has been received. They can be reached at (360) 664-9160 or http://www.eho.wa.gov/. If yin want to appeal this decision, you can find appeal instructions (Chapter 461-08 WAC) at the Shorelines Hearings Board website above. They are also posted on the website of the Washington State Legislature at: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/. If you have any questions about this letter, please contact David Pater at (425) 649-4253. Sincerely, Erik Stockdale, Section Manager Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program cc: Carol Lumb, City of Tukwila Community Development Department N Carol Lumb From: Carol Lumb Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 8:25 AM To: Casteel, Kelly (KCasteel@kentwa.gov) Subject: FW: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Attachments: L14-0030_NOD.pdf; L14-0030_staff_rpt.pdf Kelly, We issued the shoreline substantial development permit on Monday — I sent the staff report and permit to Ken, but will attach a copy for you to this e-mail. The permit materials for both the substantial development permit and variance were received yesterday at Ecology, and in my email below to Ken, I go over the appeal process for each permit. The appeal period for the substantial development permit ends COB 9/15. Let me know if you have questions, Carol From: Carol Lumb Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 6:54 PM To: Langholz, Ken (KLangholz@kentwa.gov) Subject: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Hi Ken, I wanted to update you on the permits and appeal periods. We issued the shoreline substantial development permit today and mailed that permit, plus the shoreline variance materials to Ecology and the Attorney General's office. When Ecology receives the shoreline substantial development permit, that will begin the 21 day appeal period for that permit. Ecology has 30 days to review the shoreline variance material and issue their decision. David Pater indicated that he didn't think their review would take that long, but did not give me a time frame for their decision. When Ecology issues their decision on the shoreline variance, that will begin the 21 day appeal period for the variance permit. As the applicant, you will receive an acknowledgement from Ecology on the receipt of the shoreline permits and also notice of their final decision on the variance. Let me know if you have questions. Carol Carol Lurnb, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 206-431-3661 Carol.Lumbca. T ukwila Wa.gov Tukwila, the City of opportunity, the community of choice. 1 Carol Lumb From: Carol Lumb Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 5:09 PM To: David Pater Subject: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and Variance Hi David, Well, we have sorted things out here, re -read our code and determined that I was misreading the appeal process in our code for shoreline permits, so, I put in today's mail to you both the shoreline variance materials and the shoreline substantial development permit for the Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repair project, file #s L14-0030 (SSDP) and L14-0031 (variance). The same materials were also sent to the AG's office. I appreciate the time you have spent explaining process to me — let me know if you have any questions. Carol Carol Lurnb, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 206-431-3661 Caro1.L umb@Tukwila Wa.go v Tukwila, the City of opportunity, the community of choice. 1 Carol Lumb From: Carol Lumb Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 4:22 PM To: Larry D (DFW) Fisher; Karen Walter (KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us) Subject: Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repair Hi, We issued the shoreline substantial development permit for the Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repair (L14-0030) today, and I am putting the permit decision, staff report and two of the attachments cited in the staff report in the mail to you this afternoon. There is a lot of duplication between the shoreline variance request staff report attachments and the attachments used for the substantial development permit. Many of the attachments to the variance staff report are found on the CD I sent to you as part of the Notice of Application. If there is anything I have missed that you would like, please let me know and I will provide it to you. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks very much. Carol Carol Lumb, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300SouthcenterBlvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 206-431-3661 Carol L ujnbga Tukwila Wa.go v Tukwila, the City of opportunity, the community of choice. 1 • DEVELOPER'S•AGREEMENT' The City of Tukwila, a municipal corporation -in the State Of Washington, hereinafter referred to as "City". and.:Bruce..P... tMeCann, hereinafter: referred to as "Developer" agree as follows: WHEREAS, City operates and maintains within its boundaries'' a system of sewage disposal and a stormdrainage system..a water system, a street -lighting system and a system of'paved streets, all within its. boundaries, which can serve the property of Developer, and WHEREAS, City has a comprehensive plan covering storm drainage, sanitary sewer, water and.minimum standards for the control; and design of storm and sanitary sewer facilities Within City, as well as street lighting and paved•streets, and . WHEREAS, Developer desires to construct certain sanitary sewage, 'storm drainage, water facilities, street lighting and public streets facilities at his own cost and to.deditate.these facilities to City for connection with, delivery to and operation and ownership by City, said improvements being hereinafter called the "Development," • NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED: The land or real property for which the Development is requested and to which this Agreement applies is real estate in Tukwila; Washington, described.in .the Plat entitled South-. center South Industrial' Park and approved. May 6, 1974, by the City Council of Tukwila which is by this reference.:inade:a part' hereof as if set out in full. 2. Developer has delivered to City the plans ancl._specifi- cations for the Development and City acknowledges the:plane and specifications for the Development conform tothe standards. established by City and its engineers. Developer.shall complete the Development in accordance with said plans and specifications, end all applicable State statutes and City ordinances. Final revised plans and specifications shall.be presented to City at ].east fifteen (15) days prior to commencement of construction. 3. no construction shall be commenced before the Public Works Director of the City of Tukwila or his designee (herein the °Director"), has notified Developer in writing that the plans and specifications have been approved. 4. The Director shall perform all inspection of the Development and no development facilities shall be covered prior to inspection. If any work should be covered prior to inspection, it must, if required by the Director, be uncovered for examination. Developer agrees to comply with all of'.City's reasonable inspection requirements. Developer shall•maintain at the construction area at all times during construction a representative to whom the Director's notices may be given during construction. Said representative shall be designated in writing by Developer. 5. Upon completion of construction and upon the certifi- cation from the Director that the Development meets the minimum standards of City, Developer shall convey to City all -permanent facilities of the'Development, together with necessary easements for general utility construction and maintenance. 6. Developer shall notify City of the date the work and, construction described in this Agreement shall commence,. Said notice shall be given not less then neven (7) days before said` commencement date. After the work is commenced, it shall be. promptly carried to completion in a workmanlike manner, .Pro- OD vided that Developer's obligation to complete the Development tt N shall be extended in the event of circumstances beyond Developer's control, including but not limited to fire, flood, snow, freezing, h. rainfall, unusual weather conditions, acts of God, labor disputes, including strikes and lockouts, acts of war, riots, government' priorities and availability of materials. 7. Developer may prepare and call for bids for construc- tion described herein or negotiate.a construction agreement for. said construction; however, a construction agreement with the general contractor shall not be executed prior to approval of auch agreement by the Director for the purpose of maintaining City construc.aon and material standards and inspection rights. 8. Developer will procure all necessary State and County ; licensee and permits for construction. 9. Testing all systems within the Development shall be performed as required by the Director in accordance with City requirements to determine that such systems conform to'the plans and specifications. 10. Developer shall pay City for inspectibn fees charged by Harstad 6 associates, a awn not to exceed $15,000 during a period of. 120 days. .in addition, Developer shall.: pay all overtime charges and shall pay for all'services;. required beyond the 120 day period to complete:the_project. -3 OD t`^ wzr N_ CD 1-- such expenses shall he paid within thirty (30) days of being billed', to Developer by City. Developer agreed to deposit $4,000 with City, which' deposit shall be security for payment herein. 11, In the event that defects due to faulty labor, work- manship or materials appear in the Development within ono (1) year from date of completion, Developer shall, at his expense, correct the same. This warranty is given in lieu of all other - warranties, expressed or implied, and the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose are hereby disclaimed and excluded. Upon completion of the construction, but prior to delivery to City of the Development, Developer shall deliver to City a bond in the amount of fifteen. percent (153) of construction costs conditioned upon the prompt comple- tion of repairs necessary within one (1).year from date of com- pletion of the Development, arising from said faulty labor, workmanship or materials. The form of the bond shall be approved by City. 12. Developer hereby agrees to indemnify and hold•City harmless from any and all claims which may be asserted against City as a result of the construction or maintenance. 92 the work described in this Agreement prior to acceptance by City: De- veloper shall maintain in full force and effect during construc- tion liability insurance satisfactory to City. 13. 'City and Developer agree that in carrying out the terms of this Agreement, Developer shall be acting as an inde- pendent contractor and in no respect shall be deemed agent of City. of the expenses set forth 7 \ 7407120475 14. Developer shall' not assign this Agreement without'the written consent of City. 15. City covenants and agrees that -.it will maintein.and • operate the Development after satisfactory completion and acceptance in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. 16, Partial waiver or waiver by acquiescence byICity:. of any provisions or conditions of this Agreement shall not be a waiver of any other provision or condition of this Agreement. 17. Work and construction performed under this Agreement shall not be connected to City sewer or water lines until certified by the Director. 18. Upon completion of construction, Developer shall submit to City in writing a statement of moneys expended to perform construction described therein. 19. This Agreement shall constitute an easement and servi- tude and a covenant running with the lend upon the property described in this Agreement and shall be binding upon the heirs, assigns, grantees and successors in interest to Developer. 20. .•When notified by the Director to make any.changes or corrections to conform to the plans and specifications, Developer shall promptly make said changes or corrections. 21. Developer will landscape and maintain the landscaping of the 10' wide planting islands in the Boulevard. When fifty percent (50%) of the property is sold, the responsibility for.'' • maintenance may be assigned to and assumed by an Owner's Association through provisions of the protective covenants,, and Developer's obligation of maintenance shall thereupon bo terminated. 740712047E 22. As soon as the utilities in the streets are completed and accepted, the streets will be paved un through the.first. 1 layer of asphalt. The final layer of paving will bo delayed until the contiguous nrouertY is substantially developed. SIGNED TRIS Approved as to form, content and legality: DAY OF CITY ATTORNEY , 1974. UCE E. McCANN CITY OF' TU} WILA �P Attest: CITY CL RI( -6- 4 � � CV -•• • BRUCE E. Mcd.: 44N • 8013 Perimeter Road Sheth Geeing Field SEA111E, WASHINGTON 93108 206 RO 2-2555 2O RO 241124 TO The City. of Tukwila 14475 - 59th South Tukwila, Washington 98067 GENTLEMEN: ). Li.EITTfLilli (OF TfRikfilegiNIVTalL Lm" June 27 I ATIUIT ICH Doris 1974 - 117" "c'CS • S"- • ' .. . • r,... . . .0 . • ... ... : .....L. . • • I- ..... 1 s 11&---- WE ARE SENDING YOU XX Attached 0 Under separate cover via Shop drawings 0 Prints 0 Plans 0 Samples the following iterns: Er Specifications Copy of letter 0 Change order C: C.) ..4, inpar, i DATE NO. I . .._,....... DESCRIPTION ----.7 --4 r-- 1 • 6-27-74 Fully executed copy of the "Developer's Agreeinent" 1 : THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: REMARKS :. For approval • 0 Approved as submitted 0 Resubmit_copies for .approval ::. For your use 0 Approved us noted '.-.'i Submit —±_copies for distriblition D.( As requested 0 Returned for corrections T..] Return corrected prints -• t.. For review and comment FOR BIDS DUE 19 0 PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO •US• • rri,4',1 ••• . e';:• .. • COPY 10 • • • • • SIGNED: Bruce B. McCann 11 enclosures aro nut as noted, kindly notify us at once. 1 i•• IT; !'2;:,:•-i`• 4 JUL-1Z-T4 o o i 96 7407120478 -1100RIIED ..... REQUE.V0 ..... fig al. 12 1° 04010R RECOWDS ELECAIONS KO OMANI *kV, Igo ,ssoippv • 1'1'770181U • Isonbp8 e pio301:44:01tAr. 4 • r s4ii • % 1 at* 4Jam&a Department Of Community Development AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I, %rGSved'ah' , HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Application X Notice of Decision t-14- coo si Notice of Public Hearing Mailing requested by: Car Lw'?th- Notice of Public Meeting Determination of Non- Significance Mailer's signature: f Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance j Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit x Shoreline Mgmt Permit Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Official Notice Notice of Action x Variance x Other: CD of Application Materials Was mailed to each of the addresses listed/attached on this _25 day of _August 2014 Project Name: '8YLscoe' - Dei mane' Leweer Project Project Number: PL14-0021 Associated File Number (s): L14-0030 k t-14- coo si A 6 W^°L LCot\ v'' Mailing requested by: Car Lw'?th- Mailer's signature: f rg 9-ta j _j.—.---. W:\USERS\TERI\TEMPLATES-FORMSWFFIIT OF DISTRIBUTION.DOC 7 AGENCY LABELS / L_\1 -f --a)33 • Section 1 ( ) US Corps of Engineers ( ) Federal HWY Admin ( ) Federal Transit Admin, Region 10 ( ) Dept of Fish & Wildlife FEDERAL AGENCIES 1 JAI- e,?,{T, -4.4 ( ) US Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) ( )US Dept of HUD ( ) National Marine Fisheries Service Section 2 ( ) Office of Archaeology ( ) Transportation Department (WSDOT NW) ( ) Dept of Natural Resources ( ) Office of the Governor ( ) WA State Community Development ( ).WA Fisheries & Wildlife, MillCreek Offi WA Fisheries & Wildlife, Larry Fisher, 1775 12th Ave NW Ste 201, Issaquah WA 98027 WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES Dept of Social & Health Services Dept of Ecology NW Regional Office, Shoreland Div. SHORELINE NOD REQUIRES RETURN RECEIPT Dept of Ecology, SEPA **Send Electronically Office of Attorney General ( ) Office of Hearing Examiner ( ) KC Boundary Review Board ( ) Fire District # 11 ( ) Fire District # 2 ( ) KC Wastewater Treatment Div ( ) KC Dept of Parks & Recreation ( ) KC Assessor's Office Section 3 KING COUNTY AGENCIES ( ) Health Department ( ) Port of Seattle ( ) KC Dev & Enviro Services-SEPA Info Center ( ) KC Metro Transit Div-SEPA Official, Environmental Planning ( ) KC Dept of Natural Resources ( ) KC Dept of Natural Resources, Andy Levesque ( ) KC Public Library System ( ) Foster Library ( ) Renton Library ( ) Kent Library ( ) Seattle Library Section 4 SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES ( ) Westfield Mall Library ( ) Tukwila School District ( ) Highline School District ( ) Seattle School District ( ) Renton School District ( ) QWEST Communications ( ) Seattle City Light ( ) Puget Sound Energy ( ) Highline Water District ( ) Seattle Planning &Dev/Water Dept ( ) Comcast Section 5 UTILITIES ( ) BP Olympic Pipeline ( ) Val-Vue Sewer District ( ) Water District # 20 ( ) Water District # 125 ( ) City of Renton Public Works ( ) Bryn Mawr-Lakeridge Sewer/Water Dist ( ) Seattle Public Utilities ( ) Waste Management ( ) Tukwila City Departments ( ) Public Works ( ) Fire ( ) Police ( ) Finance ( ) Planning ( ) Building ( ) Parks & Rec ( ) Mayor ( ) City Clerk Section 6 CITY AGENCIES t sbitc. cA.45rtt-, - , 12— )4 Z)C Kent Pacing Dept Nt1;D, ( Renton Planning Dept ( ) City of SeaTac ( ) City of Burien ( ) City of Seattle ( ) Strategic Planning *Notice of all Seattle Related Projects 1 ( ) Puget Sound Regional Council ( ) SW KC Chamber of Commerce Muckleshoot Indian Tribe * Cultural Resource Fisheries Progra Wildlife Program wamish Indian Tribe * Section 7 OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES ( ) Puget Sound Clean Air Agency ( ) Sound Transit/SEPA tion * f 0 ( ) Washington Environmental Council ( ) People for Puget Sound * ( ) Futurewise * send notice of all applications on Green/Duwamish River ( ) Seattle Times ( ) South County Journal P:Admin\Admin Forms\Agency Checklist Section 8 MEDIA ( ) Highline Times • kwila Website XL- Sega 1 g 102 Public Notice Mailings For Permits SEPA MAILINGS Mail to: (comment period starts on date of mailing) Dept. of Ecology Environmental Review Section *Applicant *Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list) *Any parties of record * send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination KC Transit Division — SEPA Official would like to receive information about all projects that might affect transit demand Tribes — For any application on the Green/Duwamish River, send the checklist and a full set of plans with the Notice Of Application Send These Documents to DOE: SEPA Determination (from PermitsPlus) Findings (staff report, usu. with MDNS) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed or sent to newspaper) SHORELINE MAILINGS: Notice of Application for a Substantial Development Permit must be mailed to owners and to property owners within 500 feet of subject property, comments are due 30 days after the notice of application is mailed/posted. The Notice of Application for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit must include a statement that any person desiring to submit written comments on the application or desiring to receive notification of the final decision on the application may do so within 30 days of the Notice of Application. If a hearing will be held on the application, the hearing notice must include the information that written comments may be submitted, or oral presentation made at the hearing. Notice is sent to Ecology's NW Regional Office Shorelands & Environmental Assistance Program. Shoreline Permit Notice of Decision: Mail to: (within 8 days of decision; 21 -day appeal period begins date of filing with DOE) — Notice to DOE must be by return receipt requested mail (this requirement included in SSB 5192, effective 7-22-11). Department of Ecology Shorelands Section, NW Regional Office State Attorney General *Applicant *Indian Tribes *Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list). *Any parties of record * send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination Send These Documents to DOE and Attorney General: Permit Data Sheet Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (printed out from PermitsPlus) Findings (staff report or memo) Shoreline Permit Application Form (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) - Site plan, with mean high water mark & improvements Cross-sections of site with structures & shoreline Grading Plan — Vicinity map SEPA determination (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report or memo) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Any background studies related to impacts on shoreline Notice of Application Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed) P:Admin\Admin Forms\Agency Checklist i tont T. C -:FE O'KEEFE DEVELOPMENT Pruuipal 6 C'EO A REAL ESTATE COMPANY .Soret Address: 18300 Cascad( Avenue 8, Suite 201 8earde, \VA 98188 Mailing Address: nl) Box 20399 Scacu• )8 office: 206.236.6200 mobile: 206.972.1913 fax: 206.236.6160 rom'odc2.com • odc2.com DR.Moffet ssociates David R. Moffett President INC. 7900 S.E. 28th Street, Suite 200 • Mercer Island, WA 98040 (206) 236-6130 • Fax: (206) 232-1721 Cell (206) 6i4-3626 • drn u4seanet.com / 1 - 1)0 e - +-c/ w ti 111,00 1c Ptah ,rte 0' `C" "(-C- ,Gi Ale 14 Z • 5 1'6 lam^ w t -1O o v►'w. 7 WL Oton Sl n. -a -t -Lc. eiv4-rro-cA `l 1 n' 1- sG1,0, -,- ijdv4 Z. s►l tyr. i\ Shoreline Management Act Permit Data Sheet and Transmittal Letter From: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Suite 100 Seattle, WA 98188 To: Department of Ecology Attn: David Pater Date of Transmittal: August 25, 2014 Date of Receipt: Type of Permit: Shoreline Substantial Development Local Government Decision: Approved with Condition Applicant Information: Ken Langholz, City of Kent Public Works Dept. 400 West Gowe Kent, WA 98032 Is the applicant the property owner? No Location of the property: 18200 and 18251 Cascade Ave. South (parcel #s 788890- 0170 and -0150) and 6545 S. Glacier St. (parcel #788890- 0110) Water Body Name: Green River Shoreline of Statewide Significance: Yes Environment Designation: Urban Conservancy Description of Project: Repair approximately 1,100 feet of compromised section of levee by installing a structural steel sheet pile wall at the back of existing levee on the Green River. The river side of the levee will be reconfigured at a 6:1 and 2:1 slope and planted with native plants. The Green River Trail will be moved landward and widened two feet. Notice of Application Date: Final Decision Date: By: Carol Lumb, Senior Planner Phone Number: 206-431-3661 May 22, 2014 August 25, 2014 CL Page 1 of 1 08/25/2014 9:53 AM H:\\L14-0030-L14-0031 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repair\SSDP\Ecology Cover Sheet l ar,1.ug. u,( D o g- asAk , b per' PLEASE NOTE: Most of the attachments to the Shoreline Variance Staff Report (L14-0031) are also used as attachments to the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (L14-0030). Hard copies of all attachments referenced in the Shoreline Variance Staff Report are provided in this mailing. Where there is duplication of an attachment, a second copy is not provided with the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. KEY TO SHORELINE VARIANCE AND SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ATTACHMENTS DOCUMENT VARIANCE STAFF REPORT SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT Project Plan Sheets Attachment #1 Attachment #1 Inundation Map Attachment #2 Attachment #2 TMC 18.06-494, TMC 18.44 Attachment #3 N/A City of Kent Shoreline Variance Narrative, Response to Variance Criteria, E-mail dated 7/10/14; 7/11/14 E-mail Attachment #4 N/A Sheets 1-3 Desimone Levee Cross Sections Attachment #5 N/A Muckleshoot Indian Tribe e- mail and attachment Attachment #6 Attachment #6 City of Kent Shoreline Project Description and No Net Loss Analysis N/A Attachment #4 August 12, 2014 e-mail from Matt Knox, City of Kent and July 25, 2014 e-mail from Carol Lumb, City of Tukwila N/A Attachment #5 City of Kent Response to Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Attachment #7 Attachment #7 City of Kent SEPA Documents Attachment #8 Attachment #3 CL Page l of l H:\\L14-0031-L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repair\Attachment Key 08/22/2014 4:45 PM r City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 PERMIT FOR SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT File Number: Applied: Approved: Expiration: L14-0030 April 10, 2014 August 20, 2014 August 20, 2016 A permit is hereby granted to: City of Kent, Public Works Department to: Repair and improve approximately 1,300 linear feet of levee, in two reaches of the Green River using a structural sheet pile wall at the back of existing levee to reduce flood risk to the Cities of Kent, Renton and Tukwila. The river side of the levee will be re -graded to a 6:1 slope and 2:1 slope and be planted with native plants. To compensate for 29 trees that will be removed to construct the levee wall, 170 native trees, deciduous and evergreen, will be planted. The Green River Trail will be moved landward and two additional feet of paved trail will be added, for a total trail width of twelve feet with a two foot paved shoulder on the landward side of the trail and a gravel shoulder on the river side of the trail. Upon the following property: Address: Parcel #: Section/Township/Range: Reach 1: 18200 Cascade Avenue South Reach 2: 6545 South Glacier Street Reach 1: 788890-0170 and 788890-0150 Reach 2: 788890-0110 and 7888900120 Reach 1: NW Quarter of 36-23-04 NE Quarter of 35-23-04 Reach 2: SE Quarter of 35-23-04 Development under this permit shall comply with the following conditions: 1. Revise the landscaping plan to show a total of 170 trees to be planted to replace the 29 trees that are being removed to repair the levee and revise the tree planting schedule to reflect the tree species that are listed in the August 12, 2014 email from Matt Knox, City of Kent. This permit is granted pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 and nothing in this permit shall excuse the applicant from compliance with any other Federal, State or local statues, ordinances or regulations applicable to this project, but not inconsistent with the Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW). CL: Page 1 of 2 H:\\L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repair\Shoreline Substantial Development Permit NOD 08/22/2014 3:55 PM 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax 206-431-3665 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repair L14-0030 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit This permit may be rescinded pursuant to RCW 90.58.140(8) in the event the permittee fails to comply with the project as approved and any conditions thereof. CONSTRUCTION PURSUANT TO THIS PERMIT MAY NOT BEGIN AND IS NOT AUTHORIZED UNTIL TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AS DEFINED IN RCW 90.58.140(6) AND WAC 173-14-090, OR UNTIL ALL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS INITIATED WITHIN TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SUCH FILING HAVE TERMINATED; EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN RCW 90.58.140(5)(a)(b)(c). Pursuant to RCW 90.58.180 the decision by the City of Tukwila to issue this Shoreline Substantial Development Permit may only be appealed to the Shoreline Hearings Board. Appeals must be filed with the Shoreline Hearings Board within 21 -days from the filing of this permit with the Department of Ecology as defined in RCW 90.58.140. For more detailed information on appeals, refer to RCW 90.58 and WAC 461.08. Ja Pace, Director of Department of Community Development Construction must begin within 2 years from the effective date of the permit and be substantially completed within 5 years of the effective date of the permit. The effective date of a substantial development permit shall be the date of receipt as provided in RCW 90.58.140(6). CL: H:\\L14-0030-Briscoe/Desimone Levee RepairWOD Page 2 of 2 08/22/2014 3:55 PM / 1 City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director MEMORANDUM August 22, 2014 TO: Jack Pace, Director FM: Carol Lumb, Senior Planner RE: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit: L14-0030, Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repair I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project is to repair approximately 1,100 feet of compromised section of levee by installing a structural steel sheet pile wall at the back of existing levee on the Green River to reduce flood risk to the cities of Renton, Kent and Tukwila. This project is one of four levee repairs the City of Kent is undertaking; two fall completely within Kent's boundary with a third primarily in the City of Kent with a small portion in Tukwila. The project completely within Tukwila is referred to as Reach 1. The waterward side of the levee will be reconfigured and planted with native plants. The City of Kent is proposing a different levee profile than Tukwila's adopted profile, which requires a shoreline variance as well as a variance from Tukwila's adopted trail width standard. These requests were considered under a separate land use action. The City's Hearing Examiner, after conducting a public hearing on July 22, 2014 and taking public testimony, is recommending approval of the variance request to the Department of Ecology, which has final decision making authority on shoreline variances. Approximately two hundred feet of Reach 2 falls within the City of Tukwila — the major portion of the levee repair in this area is within the City of Kent. The portion of Reach 2 that falls within Tukwila is where the reconfigured levee is re -joined to the existing levee system. See Attachment 1, project plans. CPL Page l of 17 H:\\L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0030 SSDP Staff Rpt. 08/22/2014 3:48 PM 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206- 431-3665 L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Leve _,epair Shoreline Substantial Development Permit August 22, 2014 The riverbank along Reach 1 is over -steepened; the top of the levee is narrow and is showing signs of failure. Flows of just over 9,000 cubic feet per second (CFS) in March of 2014 caused bank sloughing and erosion. This flow is far below the 12,000 CFS 100 -year flood event storms that have occurred in the past and can be expected in this reach in the future. This sloughing is in addition to erosion that has been noted in the past — see photo below taken in 2009. Detailed analysis of the levees completed by consultants hired by the City of Kent as part of a request to FEMA for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) indicated that this area does not meet federal standards for slope stability. Hydraulic models show that a failure of Reach 1 could potentially inundate the Kent valley from approximately S. 228th St. to I-405. See Attachment 2 , Inundation Map. The movement of the bank and other factors noted indicates that repair of the levee is needed. The proposed project will construct a secondary levee on Reach 1 of the Green River to address the conditions of overly steep slopes and limited freeboard on the existing levee. Freeboard is the distance above the 100 year flood elevation used as a factor of safety. The secondary levee will serve to protect nearby properties and is being developed to facilitate FEMA accreditation for 100 -year flood protection in this location. Reach 1: 2009 Sloughing CPL Page 2 of 17 H:\\L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0030 SSDP Staff Rpt. 08/22/2014 3:48 PM L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Levee' :pair Shoreline Substantial Development Permit August 22, 2014 Reach 1: 2014 Scouring At Curve of River In lieu of constructing Tukwila's levee profile, which requires a fifteen foot bench with 2:1 slopes above and below the bench, the City of Kent is proposing to slope the river bank at a 6:1 slope at the river's edge and 2:1 in front of the sheet pile wall. The 6:1 sloped area would act as a bench, and be planted with native trees and shrubs to provide habitat benefits including refuge during high flows (above 2,500 cubic feet per second). Kent has determined that the overall slope of the levee profile they are proposing is 2.56:1. In order to construct the structural steel sheet pile wall at the back of existing levee, twenty-nine (29) trees will be removed from the backside of the levee. These trees will be replaced by 170 trees, a mix of evergreen, deciduous, and stakes; shrubs and groundcovers will be planted as well. The above ground portion of the wall will range from 8 feet to 13 feet tall, when viewed from surrounding businesses. To allow for re -vegetation and habitat restoration, earthen benches will be constructed where feasible along the riverbank slope. These benches will entail excavation between the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and the existing Green River trail to create a bench of up to 15 feet wide where native trees and shrubs will be planted. The existing asphalt trail will remain on top of the levee berm, but will be relocated further landward adjacent to the flood wall, which will be topped with handrails for safety. An access ramp to the trail will be located at the very north end of Reach 1. The flood wall will extend approximately 3 feet above the surface of the new trail, plus a 1.5 foot handrail. The City of Kent and Tukwila entered into an Interlocal Agreement for the levee project in Tukwila, which grants Kent the authority to process and acquire permits for Tukwila and to conduct SEPA for the portion of the project in Tukwila. During the environmental review (SEPA) conducted by the City of Kent in 2013 for the four levee repair projects including Reach 1, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe submitted comments regarding temperature conditions in the Green River and the related shading benefits provided by mature riparian vegetation on the riverbank. The Tribe commented that the vegetated area along the river proposed by Kent is not wide enough to adequately address temperature impairment. CPL Page 3 of 17 08/22/2014 3:48 PM H:\\L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0030 SSDP Staff Rpt. L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Leve...epair Shoreline Substantial Development Permit August 22, 2014 The SEPA staff report prepared by Kent staff stated that construction of the proposed floodwall would provide the city with the opportunity to plant large overstory trees that are not subject to diameter or height restrictions along the banks of the river because the floodwall serves as the levee, and therefore the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) vegetation policy waterward of the "levee" does not apply. These large trees will, in time, provide significant shade to this reach of the river where very little currently exists. (Source: City of Kent SEPA Staff Report, page 6 — See Attachment 3 for SEPA related materials.) Typical Cross Section of Sheet Pile Wall Levee With Plantings, Trail II. TUKWILA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM - BACKGROUND The City of Tukwila adopted a new Shoreline Master Program (SMP) on August 15, 2011 which was approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology on October 14, 2011 and became effective October 28, 2011. The levee reconfiguration project is subject to the 2011 Shoreline Master Program. A. Shoreline Environment Designation The shoreline environment designation for Reaches 1 and 2 is Urban Conservancy; the purpose of the Urban Conservancy Environment is to protect ecological functions where they exist in urban and developed settings, and restore ecological functions where they have been previously degraded, while allowing a variety of compatible uses. The two hundred foot shoreline jurisdiction is divided into a buffer area and non -buffer area. The shoreline buffer in the Urban Conservancy environment where levees are present is 125 feet. Construction, maintenance or re -development of levees for flood control purposes is a permitted use in the Urban Conservancy environment buffer, provided that the new or re -developed levee meets the applicable levee requirements of Tukwila's Shoreline Master Program and Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC 18.44.050 B. h.). The Tukwila SMP levee profile requirements are discussed below. CPL Page 4 of 17 08/22/2014 3:48 PM H:\\L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0030 SSDP Staff Rpt. / ' L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Lewd, _pair Shoreline Substantial Development Permit August 22, 2014 B. How Shoreline Buffer Widths Were Determined The determination of the buffer distances for each shoreline environment in Tukwila was based on several factors including the analysis of buffer functions needed for protecting and restoring shoreline ecological function and the need to allow space for bank stability and for protecting human life and structures from damage from high flows, erosion and bank failures. Ensuring that new structures are not built too close to the river's edge is crucial to avoid loss of human life and property. The 125 foot buffer width is the maximum needed to reconfigure the river bank to the minimum levee profile illustrated below and to achieve an overall slope of 2.5:1, the "angle of repose" or the maximum angle of a stable slope. The City's adopted levee profile allows sufficient room to incorporate a mid -slope bench that can be planted with vegetation to improve river habitat. The mid - slope bench also allows access for maintenance equipment, when needed. As the Corps of Engineers does not permit planting on the levee prism, the only way to improve habitat along leveed portions of the river is to create a bench that can be vegetated that will not create a hazard for the stability of the levee. A ten foot easement is required on the landward side of the levee at the toe to allow access for levee inspection. The adopted levee profile is illustrated below: Typical Shoreline Buffer in Leveed Areas -Width Will Vary Reconfigured Levee Vegetated Bench 2• Maintenance Easement Willows Existing Levee 15• Reconfigured Slope averages 2.5:1 with bench Ordinary High Water Mark OHWM Minimum Levee Profile Not To Scale In instances where an existing building that has not lost its nonconforming status prevents the complete construction of the minimum levee profile, achieving an overall slope of 2.5:1 may be difficult — however, the SMP states the slope should be as close to 2.5:1 as possible. The SMP also states that a floodwall is not the preferred back slope profile for a levee and may be substituted for all or a portion of the back slope only where necessary to avoid encroachment or damage to a structure legally constructed prior to the date of adoption of this Master Program and which has not lost its nonconforming status and to preserve access needed for building functionality. The floodwall shall be designed to be the minimum necessary to provide 10' (ten feet) clearance between the levee and the building or the minimum necessary to preserve access needed for building functionality while meeting all engineering safety standards. The final buffer widths adopted by the City and approved by Ecology for each shoreline environment attempted to balance shoreline ecological function needs, human life and property protection needs CPL Page 5 of 17 08/22/2014 3:48 PM H:\\L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0030 SSDP Staff Rpt. L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Leve ..epair Shoreline Substantial Development Permit August 22, 2014 (including future levee repair/reconstruction), existing land use patterns, and state and federal agency policies. C. Vegetation on Levees During the final stages of the City's adoption of its SMP in 2010 and its approval by Ecology in 2011, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) began to revise its regulations related to vegetation on levees. For many years, the Pacific Northwest operated under a regional variance from the national maintenance requirement to keep levees clear of all vegetation. The regional variance allowed vegetation, particularly trees, up to a certain size to remain on levees as long as they did not pose a hazard to the levee's stability. In 2011, the COE proposed new national regulations on levee vegetation that would have banned vegetation on levees and would have required local jurisdictions to apply for a vegetation variance on a case-by-case basis each time planting of vegetation, including trees was desired. This proposed revision was due to concerns about the effect of vegetation on levee stability, particularly tree root systems. The issue of vegetation on local levees is particularly important in the Pacific Northwest given the requirement of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to protect habitat of threatened and endangered species. Vegetation along rivers provides important habitat benefits to listed species and the requirement to remove it under the COE proposed rule placed local jurisdictions in jeopardy of violating the ESA. Many jurisdictions opposed the 2011 draft rule, and over the past three years, the COE has been reviewing the comments and considering revisions to the proposed rule. Recently, the COE has released a new interim policy that would allow local jurisdictions to decide whether to grow trees on levees. However, the rule is not permanent and it is not clear what the final outcome will be on the issue of allowing vegetation on levees. D. Trail Standards The Tukwila adopted trail standard is a fourteen (14) foot wide paved trail with two feet of shoulder on either side. The City of Kent requested a shoreline variance to allow a twelve (12) foot -wide paved trail, with a two foot shoulder on the river side of the trail. E. Applicable Shoreline Goals and Policies Natural Environment and Habitat Use Goal 5.9: Restored, enhanced, and protected natural environment resources along the river, including trees, wildlife habitat and features with value for long-term public, scientific and educational uses. Policy 5.9.1: Ensure that shoreline development results in no net loss of shoreline ecological function, minimizes impacts on wildlife and that significant vegetation, sandbars, wetlands, watercourses, and other critical areas identified as important for habitat are maintained through the proper location, design, construction, and management of all shoreline uses and activities. CPL Page 6 of 17 08/22/2014 3:48 PM H:\\L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0030 SSDP Staff Rpt. l \ L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Leveepair Shoreline Substantial Development Permit August 22, 2014 The applicant has provided a no net loss analysis (NNL) which is provided as Attachment 3 to this staff report. The NNL analysis addresses the mitigation sequencing criteria in the SMP. The response to the criteria is below: a. Avoid the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action: Applicant Response: If we avoid taking action on this levee project we will not meet FEMA levee safety standards for residents and businesses as well as not reducing the risk of potential flooding in the industrial areas of the Green River Valley. This levee will protect water quality by keeping flood waters from coming in contact with industrial land uses. In addition, the Green River Trail in this area will be improved. An improved riparian corridor will increase shading and reduce temperature loading as well as improve insect and leaf drop and woody debris recruitment into the Green River. Threatened salmon species will not benefit if this project is not undertaken. With this project flood refuge habitat will be available to juvenile salmonids during peak outmigration periods. Staff Comment: The information submitted with the application acknowledges that vegetation, particularly trees, will be removed from the levee in order to construct the new levee wall. The twenty-nine (29) trees that will be removed are mature trees that provide shade to the river, even though most are 50 feet or more away. Among the trees to be removed are sixteen (16) large London Plane trees on the backslope of the levee. The shade from these mature trees will be lost until the new trees, planted closer to the river, mature to provide shade. Any repair of the levee system that lays back the levee would require the removal of these trees. The proposed replacement plantings along the 6:1 and 2:1 slope in front of the levee wall will provide shading once the trees are mature and will provide better habitat function than Tukwila's adopted levee profile since the plantings will be closer to the river. To replace the 29 trees that are being removed, the City of Kent will be planting 170 trees, a mix of deciduous and evergreen along with shrubs and groundcover. b. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts. Applicant Response: Water quality impacts during construction will be mitigated by strict adherence to a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan developed to comply with all requirements of the Washington State Department of Ecology's Construction Stormwater General Permit. Soil stabilization measures will be utilized, such as hydroseeding and establishing native plants. Natural shoreline processes will not be harmed from this project; the new levee will keep flood waters contained within constructed banks. The sheet pile walls will be located at the landward toe of the levee and therefore will not impact shoreline processes. Habitat will be improved through this project by removing invasive plant species and replacing them with native vegetation as well as providing additional shallowly inundated flood refuge habitat for salmon. A planting plan is included in the permit submittal. c. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment: Applicant Response: Native trees and shrubs will be planted and soils will be stabilized with erosion control fabric, mulch and other best management practices (BMPs). Disturbed areas will be restored to original or better function and will be hydroseeded and planted following construction. As the planted area matures improved habitat function and water quality filtration will occur. CPL Page 7 of 17 08/22/2014 3:48 PM H:\\L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0030 SSDP Staff Rpt. L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Levey —epair Shoreline Substantial Development Permit August 22, 2014 d. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations; Applicant Response: The short-term negative impacts will be ameliorated with maturing native plants, increased flood storage and improved fish habitat. As plants mature and fill in, maintenance operations will be reduced to mowing along the path with other maintenance on an "as -needed" basis. e. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and Applicant Response: The impact of the project will be compensated by replacing current non-native vegetation with higher quality native vegetation. We will encourage the construction contractor to chip any trees removed and use this to mulch the newly planted trees. Current habitat resources are of a low quality (reed -canary grass, steep slopes, no canopy, etc.). Habitat will improve over time with the growth of the native plantings and construction of the planting benches. f. Monitoring the impact and the compensation projects and taking appropriate corrective measures. Applicant Response: The City of Kent will obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater General Permit for the project which will require a site specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to manage stormwater and erosion as well as sediment control plans throughout the duration of the project. Water quality sampling will also be required through the permit which will ensure that environmental damage does not occur. During the disruptive portions of the project BMPs will be used to replace natural functions. These BMPs, such as silt fences, mulches and erosion control fabrics reduce runoff and minimize erosion and sediment transport. The city will also implement a Monitoring, Maintenance, and Adaptive Management Plan for the re -vegetated and landscaped areas once the project is completed. This plan will ensure that vegetation will be monitored annually for five years and maintained/replaced or adaptively managed as necessary. Staff Comment: Staff concurs with the analysis provided by the City of Kent for the NNL criteria. Shoreline regulations require monitoring of re -vegetated areas. Water Quality, Surface Water and Flood Control Use: Goal 5.10: Improved water quality and quantity control programs affecting the Green/Duwamish River that improve the river's water quality, provide habitat for fish and wildlife, protect public health and safety, and enhance public enjoyment of the river. Policy 5.10.2: Design, manage, and mitigate flood control uses to minimize impacts to other shoreline uses such as trees and riverbank vegetation, public access and recreation, and fish habitat and set them back from the river, where feasible for the project, with land areas between the water and the levee set aside as open space for public recreation or wildlife habitat. Policy 5.10.3: Consistent with project feasibility, mitigate unavoidable negative impacts on other shoreline uses owing to flood control uses through such measures as restoration of trees and native CPL Page 8 of 17 08/22/2014 3:48 PM H:\\L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0030 SSDP Staff Rpt. l " L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Leveen,pair Shoreline Substantial Development Permit August 22, 2014 riverbank vegetation, provision of public access to the water's edge, interpretive features, or other mitigation of loss of opportunities for shoreline multiple uses. Policy 5.10.4: Obtain additional easements, where needed, from property owners to setback levees to improve flood control and shoreline habitat functions. Where possible, as redevelopment occurs, replace bulkheads, revetments or other hard bank stabilization with more natural levees, riverbanks or other shoreline treatments, to improve flood control, ecological functions and habitat. Staff Comment: The City of Kent's design of the levee repair sets back the levee from current conditions, however the levee design varies from the City of Tukwila's levee profile. Under a separate land use permit, the City considered a request to use a different levee profile for this project from the City's adopted profile. The alternative design provides added flood protection to properties in a large area ranging from Tukwila to Renton to Kent, and mitigates impacts to the shoreline from removal of mature trees by placing replacement native plants and trees closer to the water's edge than the City's adopted levee profile. The design also avoids further impacting the developed property behind the levee. III. SHORELINE REGULATIONS: TMC 18.44.130 B. 3. Shoreline Administration states that a substantial development permit shall be granted only when the development proposed is consistent with the shoreline master program. The relevant SMP policies were discussed above. Below is a discussion of the relevant shoreline master program regulations that are incorporated into the zoning code that apply to this permit application. See Attachment 4 for City of Kent's response to the SMP no net loss criteria and a description of the project. A. Permitted Uses: TMC 18.44.050 identifies permitted uses in the Urban Conservancy environment. The proposed project is a permitted use under TMC 18.44.050 B.1.h. : "Construction, maintenance or re- development of levees for flood control purposes, provided that any new or re -developed levee shall meet the applicable levee requirements of this chapter". Tukwila's SMP requires that levees be constructed to the adopted minimum levee profile — the City of Kent applied for a variance from that standard, a public hearing has been held by the City's Hearing Examiner on the request and the Hearing Examiner is recommending to the Department of Ecology that the variance request be approved. 1. The City's adopted levee profile has two main goals — provide a less steep, more stable levee profile that will add river channel capacity to accommodate high flows and to provide habitat benefits that are lacking with the existing over -steepened levees with vegetation limited by the Corps of Engineers. The levee profile proposed by the City of Kent accomplishes these two goals in a different configuration from Tukwila's adopted profile. The City's levee profile with a 15 foot mid -slope bench would engage with the river when flows are at approximately 5,500 cubic feet per second (CFS) of river flow, which occurs only 1-2 times a year. The City of Kent's design will engage the river when the flows are approximately 2,500 CFS. This occurs CPL Page 9 of 17 08/22/2014 3:48 PM H:\\L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0030 SSDP Staff Rpt. L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Leve. pair Shoreline Substantial Development Permit August 22, 2014 on average 39 times between January and June, an extremely important time in the life cycle of out migrating salmonids. The vegetation on the river bank slopes will afford refuge opportunities during high flows to out -migrating salmonids which prevents the fish from being swept out to Elliott Bay before they have completely acclimated to salt water. The City's adopted levee profile also has an overall slope of 2.5:1. The City of Kent has determined that the overall levee slope in Reach 1 is 2.56:1, which meets the overall levee slope established by Tukwila's SMP. The use of a steel pile wall is not the preferred configuration for the backside of the levee, however, to construct Tukwila's preferred backslope would reduce the number of parking stalls further on the Riverpointe property and affect the usability of the building closest to the levee (18200 Cascade Ave. South) due to reduction in the drive aisle width and reduction in parking available to building tenants. Development Standards TMC 18.44.070 C. establishes development standards for the Urban Conservancy shoreline environment. These include setbacks, site configuration, height restrictions and lighting standards. As this project does not involve the construction of structures, setbacks, site configuration and height restrictions do not apply. No new lighting will be added for this project — the existing street lighting will remain. B. Surface Water and Water Quality TMC 18.44.070 D provides development standards for shoreline development. As noted under the no net loss discussion, the City of Kent will be obtaining a NPDES construction stormwater general permit that will require a site specific stormwater pollution prevention plan to manage stormwater and erosion as well as sediment control plans throughout the duration of the project. There will be no increase in impervious surfaces in the shoreline jurisdiction that could lead to an increase in surface water run-off. Projects are required to be designed so as to cause no net loss to shoreline ecological functions. No net loss has been addressed above under the discussion of the consistency of this project with shoreline goals and policies. C. Flood Hazard Reduction: TMC 18.44.070 E. provides standards for levees and the use of floodwall in lieu of a levee backslope. The project will include vegetation restoration as shown on the landscaping plans submitted with the permit application. The shoreline variance request has addressed the use of a levee profile other than the City of Tukwila's preferred profile. The City of Kent has prepared studies that show the current levee in Reach 1 does not provide adequate flood protection and that its failure would inundate a large geographic area in the cities of Tukwila, Renton and Kent. A floodwall may be substituted where necessary to avoid encroachment or damage to a structure legally constructed prior to the date of adoption of the SMP, or to preserve building functionality. In CPL Page 10 of 17 08/22/2014 3:48 PM H:\\L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0030 SSDP Staff Rpt. L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Leve&pair Shoreline Substantial Development Permit August 22, 2014 this case, the reconstruction of the levee using a floodwall will eliminate 25 parking stalls from the property immediately behind the repair area (18200 Cascade Avenue South). Moving the levee back further would impact the travel lane and emergency access drive which runs behind the row of parking that is being eliminated and eliminate more parking stalls. Public access will be improved as the project will widen the current trail by two feet — the current trail is 10 feet wide, with two foot shoulders on either side. Kent's proposed trail width is 12 feet with a two -foot shoulder on the river side of the trail and a paved two -foot shoulder on the landward side of the trail. Rather than make the trail two feet wider, the City of Kent increased the riparian zone and flood refuge area by two feet. D. Landfill Activities: TMC 18.44.070, Development Standards (Section 9.11 of the SMP) addresses clearing, grading and landfill activities in the shoreline jurisdiction. The SMP requires all land altering activities in the shoreline jurisdiction to be in conjunction with an underlying land development permit, except for shoreline restoration projects. The City of Kent's application states there will be fill material added to a 2 -foot wide strip between the proposed constructed trail and wall. The existing asphalt recreational trail will be relocated adjacent to the wall. Fill material will meet the geotechnical consultant's recommendations and will be obtained from permitted excavation sites. Fill material includes suitable sand and gravel. Compost and amended topsoil will be replaced in areas that will be planted with native vegetation. In addition, all activities shall meet the following standards: 1. Land altering shall be permitted only where it meets the following criteria: a. The work is the minimum necessary to accomplish an allowed shoreline use; Response: Fill will be placed between the levee wall and the trail to provide additional width for the trail. b. Impacts to the natural environment are minimized and mitigated; Response: The environment along the river will be enhanced by the plantings on the 6:1 and 2:1 slope of the reconfigured river bank. A landscaping plan has been submitted as part of the permit and 170 trees will be planted to mitigate for the removal of 29 mature trees at the back of the current levee. c. Water quality, river flows and/or fish habitat are not adversely affected; Response: Silt fencing will be used to prevent debris from falling into the river. The project will improve fish habitat by provide refuge area during high river flows. d. Public access and river navigation are not diminished; CPL Page 11 of 17 08/22/2014 3:48 PM H:\\L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0030 SSDP Staff Rpt. L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Levet _.epair Shoreline Substantial Development Permit August 22, 2014 Response: The project will improve the current Green River Trail by widening it by two feet e. The project complies with all federal and state requirements and the project has been coordinated with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Response: The project has been designed to comply with all federal and state requirements. f. The project complies with the vegetation protection criteria of the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section; Response: A landscape plan has been submitted with proposed locations for replacement trees as well as the placement of shrubs and groundcover to improve habitat on the river side of the levee. See "Vegetation Protection and Landscaping" below for a discussion of revisions to the landscaping plan that will be made by the City of Kent. g. Documentation is provided to demonstrate that the fill comes from a clean source. Response: The source of the fill to be used in the shoreline jurisdiction has not been identified as yet. A clean source of fill is required for use in the shoreline jurisdiction. It should be noted that the discussion on fill during development of the City's SMP was focused on fill placed waterward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The fill in this project will be landward of the OHWM. 2. Clearing, grading and landfill activities, where allowed, shall include erosion control mechanisms, and any reasonable restriction on equipment, methods or timing necessary to minimize the introduction of suspended solids or leaching of contaminants into the river, or the disturbance of wildlife or fish habitats in accordance with the standards in the Grading Chapter, TMC 16.54. Response: The project will use Best Management Practices, such as silt fences, mulches and erosion control fabrics to reduce runoff and minimize erosion and sediment transport. E. Vegetation Protection and Landsca_pin� TMC 18.44.080 provides requirements for landscaping in both the buffer and non -buffer areas of the shoreline environment. The applicant has provided a landscaping plan for the project area. The City of Kent will plant 170 replacement trees as mitigation for the removal of 29 trees from the back side of the current levee. The landscaping plan also includes shrubs and groundcovers for the 6:1 and 2:1 sloped areas in front of the floodwall to create riparian habitat. To construct the sheet pile wall, twenty-nine (29) trees will be removed, ranging in size from a four - inch Hawthorn to 24 -inch London Planes. The large, mature London Planes provide some shade to the river even though they are 50-90 feet from the river's edge. To replace the trees that are being removed, the City of Kent is now proposing to plant 170 native trees in the 6:1 and 2:1 areas on the riverside of the levee. The original landscaping plans showed 137 trees to be planted, but the City of CPL Page 12 of 17 08/22/2014 3:48 PM H:\\L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0030 SSDP Staff Rpt. l \ L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Leve—epair Shoreline Substantial Development Permit August 22, 2014 Kent reviewed the calculations on the number of needed replacement trees and has increased that number to 170 and has specified the species of trees to be planted (August 12, 2014 e-mail from Matthew Knox, City of Kent to City of Tukwila) There will also be shrubs and groundcovers planted on the riverside of the levee: approximately 1205 on the lower slope; 360 on the middle slope and 705 on the upper slope. These plantings would be in lieu of the 15 foot mid -slope planted bench with native plants required by Tukwila's adopted levee profile. Since the sheet pile wall will serve as the levee, the plantings on the riverside of the levee will not be affected by the current or any future COE levee vegetation limitations. (See Landscaping Sheets 19-24 of Kent Plans, Attachment 1 and e-mail dated August 12, 2014 from Matthew Knox, City of Kent, Attachment 5) F. Public Access TMC 18.44.100 sets forth the public access requirements for the SMP. Public access is required when a development or use would create additional demand for public access through the addition of square footage to an existing building or the intensification in land use through the conversion of a warehouse to a retail or office use. This development standard does not apply to this project. The site does include a portion of the Green River Trail which will be relocated due to the levee reconstruction. The proposed trail width is 12' wide with a 2' wide paved shoulder along the floodwall and a 2' wide gravel shoulder along the riverward side of the trail, for a total width of 16'. The Tukwila SMP adopted an 18' minimum width for trails — as a result, the City of Kent requested a shoreline variance for their proposed 16 -foot wide trail. The variance request was considered under a separate land use permit. Tukwila's Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on the variance request and is recommending approval to the Department of Ecology, which has final decision-making authority for shoreline variances. This section of trail dead -ends at the parking lot next to West Valley Highway. The main trail bridge crosses the Green River 500' west of this project and the trail continues north and south along the river. The proposed trail width is 2' wider than the trail to which it is connecting, a slight improvement over existing conditions. In addition, this width allows the lower bench to be 2' wider which increases the riparian zone and the flood refuge habitat that it provides. G. Shoreline Design Guidelines This section of the TMC does not apply (TMC 18.44.110) as no buildings are being constructed. IV. COMMENTS: The public comment period closed on June 30, 2014. E-mail comments were received July 3, 2014 from Karen Walter, Watershed and Land Use Team Leader for the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. The e- mail from the Tribe raised concerns about Tribal fishing access to the river from the project site and impacts to fish habitat and attached a letter dated April 1, 2013 sent to the City of Kent during their environmental review process raising the same concerns. The issues raised in the Tribe's comments are below, followed by a response from the applicant. A copy of the e-mail and comment letter is found in Attachment 6. The City of Kent's response is found CPL Page 13 of 17 08/22/2014 3:48 PM H:\\L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0030 SSDP Staff Rpt. L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Levet ..epair Shoreline Substantial Development Permit August 22, 2014 in Attachment 7, comprised of an email dated July 11, 2014 and Kent's response to the Tribe on April 5, 2013 during the SEPA review process conducted by the City of Kent. 1. Continuing to provide access for Tribal fishing at the site: Applicant Response: "...on July 1, 2014 we met with Karen Walter and Leo LaClair, MITFC Commissioner, on site to discuss fishing access along the river. And on Wed. this week Mr. LaClair met with Jason Bryant, our project inspector to flag the fishing site locations along the Briscoe- Desimone Levee. One site is located on Reach 1 next to West Valley Highway and the other is on Reach 3. We have assured Mr. LaClair that we will maintain access to both of these sites during construction and after project completion." 2. Fish habitat concerns Applicant Response: "As you noted, Karen Walter from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division recently submitted her April 1, 2013 comment letter to you regarding the Briscoe-Desimone Levee project. We provide (sic) a response to her letter on April 5, 2013. I provided the response letter to you previously. Please consider this to be our official response." Staff Response: Tukwila recognizes the concern about fish habitat and the loss of shading from the removal of the trees along the backslope of the levee. Any repair of the levee system that lays back the levee would require the removal of these trees. Repair of the levee is needed to correct serious structural deficiencies. The proposed plantings along the 6:1 and 2:1 slope in front of the levee wall will provide shading once the trees are mature and will provide better habitat function than Tukwila's adopted levee profile since the plantings will be closer to the river. V. SEPA: The City of Kent acted as the SEPA lead agency, as the majority of the levee repairs are taking place in Kent's jurisdiction. Kent issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance on April 9, 2013. The SEPA determination, staff report and SEPA Checklist are found in Attachment 3. VI. CONCLUSIONS 1. The proposed project, referred to as Reach 1, will repair approximately 1,100 feet of levee by installing a sheet pile wall to serve as the levee itself and reconfigure the riverside of the levee by re -sloping at a 6:1 angle and 2:1 angle and installing native plants to improve habitat. The Green River Trail will be rebuilt, adding two feet to the actual trail width and adding two foot shoulders on either side of the trail. 2. Under a separate land use application, the applicant requested a variance from Tukwila's adopted levee profile and a variance from the City's adopted trail width from 18 feet to 16 feet. The City's Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on these requests and is recommending approval to the Department of Ecology, which has final decision making authority on shoreline variances. CPL Page 14 of 17 08/22/2014 3:48 PM H:\\L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0030 SSDP Staff Rpt. i\ L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Levee---epair Shoreline Substantial Development Permit August 22, 2014 3. As the sheet pile wall will serve as the levee, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers restrictions on planting vegetation on the waterward side of the levee will not apply. 4. The City of Tukwila adopted a new Shoreline Master Program (SMP) on August 15, 2011; it was approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology on October 14, 2011 and became effective October 28, 2011. 5. The shoreline environment designation for the project area is Urban Conservancy, with a buffer width of 125 feet. The buffer width allows enough room to reconfigure the river bank with levee to achieve an overall slope of 2.5:1, the "angle of repose" or the maximum angle of a stable slope and allow for some restoration and improvement of shoreline function through the installation of native plants and other habitat features on a 15 foot wide mid -slope bench. 6. The levee in Reach 1 is currently over -steepened and is showing signs of failure, including scouring along the base of the levee and sloughing of the river side of the levee slope. The reconfiguration of the levee and use of the sheet pile wall will reduce the flood risk to adjacent properties in the cities of Renton, Kent and Tukwila and add needed freeboard to the levee. 7. The levee profile proposed by the City of Kent will provide native trees and shrubs next to the river, which, when mature, will provide shade for habitat benefits. In addition, the plantings closer to the river will provide flood refuge habitat for out -migrating threatened Chinook salmon for an average 39 days each year. This is 37 days more than Tukwila's SMP levee profile would provide since the mid -slope bench is usually inundated during high flow events only two days a year. 8. Due to concerns about the impacts of vegetation on levee stability the Corps of Engineers in the past has limited the amount of vegetation on levees although under a regional variance granted to the Pacific Northwest, some trees below a certain size have been allowed. Due to proposed revisions to rules regulating vegetation on levees it is not clear whether vegetation will be allowed on levees in the future. 9. Twenty-nine trees in the shoreline buffer are being removed for project construction. Among the trees to be removed are sixteen (16) large London Plane trees on the backslope of the levee bank that provide shade to the river. The shade from these mature trees will be lost until the new trees, planted closer to the river, mature to provide shade. A total of 170 trees will be planted to replace the removed trees as well as approximately 2,270 shrubs and ground covers at three different levels from the Ordinary High Water Mark up to the trail. 10. The City of Kent has determined that the overall levee slope in Reach 1 is 2.56:1, which meets the overall levee slope established by Tukwila's SMP. 11. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable shoreline goals/policies as follows: a) The project is consistent with natural environment and habitat goal 5.9 and policy 5.9.1 of the Comprehensive Plan as it will provide habitat improvements on the river side of the levee wall. b) A no net loss analysis was provided: avoiding the impact of reconstructing the levee altogether would leave a compromised portion of the levee system unrepaired and therefore vulnerable to failure; impacts have been minimized by the use of a sheet pile wall which will avoid the loss of a drive aisle which provides vehicle and emergency access on the property behind Reach 1 and avoid the loss of additional parking stalls beyond the 25 that will be eliminated due to the levee reconstruction; vegetation impacts are unavoidable under any scenario to lay back the levee at a more stable angle— the City of Kent will replace the 29 trees that will be lost with 170 trees. CPL Page 15 of 17 08/22/2014 3:48 PM H:\\L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0030 SSDP Staff Rpt. L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Levee ..epair Shoreline Substantial Development Permit August 22, 2014 c) The project is consistent with water quality, surface water and flood control use goal 5.10 and policies 5.10.2, 5.10.3 and 5.10.4 of the Comprehensive Plan as the alternative design for the levee profile provides added flood protection to properties in a large area, mitigates impacts to the shoreline from removal of mature trees by placing replacement native trees and plants closer to the river's edge and avoids further impacting a developed property behind the levee. 12. The project is consistent with applicable shoreline regulations in TMC 18.44: a) A levee repair is consistent with permitted uses in the Urban Conservancy shoreline environment provided it meets the standards in Tukwila's SMP. The levee profile being used does not match Tukwila's adopted profile, however, the City of Kent has requested a variance from this standard and Tukwila's Hearing Examiner is recommending approval. The Dept. of Ecology has final approval over shoreline variances. b) The use of a sheet pile wall is not the preferred backslope for a levee, however, the reconstruction of the levee will cause the loss of 25 parking stalls from the adjacent property and constructing the typical backslope would impact a drive aisle/emergency access drive behind the levee. The City of Kent has prepared studies that show the current levee in Reach 1 does not provide adequate flood protection and its failure would inundate a large geographic area in the cities of Tukwila, Renton and Kent. c) The City of Kent will obtain a NPDES construction stormwater general permit that will require a site specific stormwater pollution prevention plan to manage stormwater and erosion as well as sediment control plans for the project. There will be no increase in impervious surfaces in the shoreline jurisdiction that could lead to an increase in surface water run-off. d) The only landfill activity will involve fill placed to create the two -foot wide strip between the new trail and the sheet pile wall. The fill placement will not impact water quality, river flows or fish habitat, will improve the Green River Trail by widening it by two feet, complies with federal and state requirements and will comply with the vegetation protection and landscaping section of the SMP. The project will use BMPs, such as silt fences, mulches and erosion control fabric to reduce runoff and minimize erosion and sediment transport during construction. e) A landscaping plan for the project has been submitted, with supplemental information provided by the applicant on the number of trees that will be removed and replaced. Twenty-nine large, mature trees will be removed in order to repair the levee; 170 trees will be planted to replace the removed trees. In addition, shrubs and groundcover will be planted on the river side of the levee wall. Since the sheet pile wall serves as the levee, the plantings on the river side will not conflict with COE regulations on vegetation on levees. The landscaping plan needs to be revised to reflect the increase in replacement trees and the types of species that will be added to the planting plan. f) The required width of public trails along the river is eighteen feet — the City of Kent is proposing sixteen feet and applied for a shoreline variance of the required trail width of 18 feet. Tukwila's Hearing Examiner is recommending approval of the variance request to the Dept. of Ecology. The trail width will be widened from its current width of 10 feet to 12 feet with a two foot paved shoulder and two foot gravel shoulder. g) The project is not subject to the SMP design guideline requirements. 13. Comments were received from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe — these comments have been addressed as follows: CPL Page 16 of 17 08/22/2014 3:48 PM H:\\L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0030 SSDP Staff Rpt. 7 L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Levee -.repair Shoreline Substantial Development Permit August 22, 2014 a. Preserve fishing access for Tribal members both during construction and after completion of the levee repair: The City of Kent has provided assurance that fishing access along the river at Reach 1 will be maintained for the Tribe, both during construction and after the repair is completed. b. Concern about potential impacts to fish habitat, particularly due to loss of shading from trees being removed. Any levee repair will necessitate the removal of the mature trees on the backslope of the levee. A mix of deciduous and evergreen trees will be planted to replace the removed trees and, when mature, will replace the shading provided by the removed trees. The replacement trees will be closer to the river than the removed trees. 14. The City of Kent acted as SEPA lead agency and issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignficance on April 9, 2013. VII. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of the shoreline substantial development permit with the following condition: 1. Revise the landscaping plan to show a total of 170 trees to be planted to replace the 29 trees that are being removed to repair the levee and revise the tree planting schedule to reflect the tree species that are listed in the August 12, 2014 email from Matt Knox, City of Kent. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Project Plan Sheets 2. Inundation Map 3. City of Kent SEPA Documents — SEPA Checklist, SEPA Staff Report and SEPA Determination. 4. City of Kent Project Description and Response to No Net Loss Criteria. 5. August 12, 2014 E-mail from Matt Knox, City of Kent with Attachment on Replacement Trees and July 25, 2014 E-mail from Carol Lumb, City of Tukwila with Attachment on Replacement Tree Calculations. 6. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe E-mail dated July 3, 2014 and Attachment dated April 1, 2013. 7. City of Kent Response to Muckleshoot Indian Tribe e-mail dated 7-11-14 and letter dated April 5, 2013. CPL Page 17 of 17 08/22/2014 3:48 PM H:\\L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0030 SSDP Staff Rpt. KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL l . 14/L DISTRICT KENT WASHINGTON CITY OF KENT SUZETTE COOKE - MAYOR MEMBERS CF CITY COUNCIL JM BARRIOS BILL BOYCE BRENDA PINCHER DENNIS I -IRONS DANA RALPH DEBORAH RANMKER LES THOMAS TIM LaPORTE - DIRECTOR OF PUBUC WORKS RONALD MOORE - CITY CLERK CHAD BIEREN - CRY ENGINEER PAT RTZPATRICK - CRY ATTORNEY PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS TUKWILA SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PLANS JOB NUMBER 09-3011 SHEET INDEX CML DRAWINGS 1 COVERSHEET 2 SITE PLAN 3 LEGEND, GENERAL NOTES & CONSTRUCTION NOTES 4-5 FLOODWALL PLAN & PROFILE SHEETS 6 GRADING PLAN 7-15 GRADING CROSS SECTIONS 19-21 LANDSCAPE PLANS 22 LANDSCAPE NOTES, SPECIFICATIONS & DETAILS 23-24 TREE INVENTORY PLANS STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS 51 FLOODWALL SECTIONS AND DETAILS S2 SHEET PILE WALL DETAILS S3 HANDRAIL ELEVATION, SECTIONS AND DETAILS S4 REMOVABLE BOLLARD DETAILS S5 TYPICAL FLOODWALL ELEVATION VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE Ine\Cover-Snorelln EXISTING 10' WIDE TRAIL 0 J r RIVERSIDE DR. \\ EXISTWG \ PARKING \ \ 4P'04 „A BASE FLOOD 30' WIDE EXISTING RIVERBANK ELEVATION=30.5 PROTECTION EASEMENT PER INSTRUMENT No.'S 5222050 Re 5596236 \ \.. \\ EXISTING \\BUILDING ORDINARY HIGH WATER AND CONSTRUCTION LIMITS TOP OF EXISTING BANK _�- LANDWARD TOE OF LEVEE PROPOSED WALL AND 12' WIDE TRAIL EXISTING PARKING -- -- 125'UR1341 CONSERVANCY 50E11 PROPOSED TRAIL ACCESS RAMP PROPOSED 15' WIDE RIVER PROTECTION EASEMENT AND CONSTRUCTION LIMITS L KING COUNTY FLOOD T , CONTRO 200' SHORELINE BUFFER NOTE: SEE SHEET 7 FOR LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS AND TYPICAL DETAIL O V 4 EXISTING BUILDING 3 0 T T=J D 0RW °FF0' RN .1.'1.0 Na Y. W PIIOXV [FM COM, . NCYr, REV. j , NONE.... 00. PENSION BY DATE. City of Kent Public Works Department INT Engineering Division SITE PLAN DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SNEEr 2 o 24 FRE NO. 09-3011 DESIMONE WALLS \dw9\Snoreline Cei GENERAL NOTES 1. PRIOR 10 ANY CONSTRUCTOR ACIDITY, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ATOM A SCHEDULED PRE -CONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE WM TH0 CITY OF KENT CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR PERSONNEL AND DESIGN ENGINEERS. PHONE (253) 856-5500 TO SCHEDULE CONFERENCE 2 ALL WORK AND MAIEWNS SHALL BE N ACCORDANCE MTI 111E 2009 EDITION OF TE CT' OF KEIT CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS, 714E 045TOT STANDARD SPFLTtG11WH5 2012 EDITION AND THE KENT SPECIAL PROVISIONS POR THIS PROECT. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY 191111 ALL PU911C CONVEW0ICE AND 5AF1111 A5 DESCRIBED M SECTION 1-07.23 TO SECTION 1-07.23(2) ON THE KENT SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR STORING OF EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS DURING 1409-0040040 HIDURS 4, ME CONHRACTOR SHALL KEEP SINGEF0 CLEAN AT ALL TIES BY STREET S'AEENEM WREN NECESSARY. OR WHEN DIRECTED BY THE CONSTRUCTOR ENGINEER. S AL I1EM5 00 WORK NOT USRD M ME BID PROPOSAL WMCI ARE 94OWN ON THE CONTRACT O RANNGS AND ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE WORK NAT IS SHOWN SHALL BE CONSIDERED IN000414L TO THE USED B0 DIEMS Q ALL TEES AND VEGETATION WENN 094 PROECT [NIR SHALL BE REMOVED A5 NEW. ALL OTHER TREES SHALL REMAIN IN RACE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT REMAINED TREES EWA DAMAGE RESULTING FROM CONSTRUCTION ACIMIES INCLUDING DAMAGE TO ROOT SYSTEM. ANY TREES DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE REPLACED BY TEE CONTRACTOR AT CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE AU. GNDSCMED AREAS ON-STE AND ADJACENT TO THE SITE THAT DERE DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION TO ORIGINAL CONDIITON UNLESS 011401115E DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. THE COS15 FOR GENERAL RESTORATION AND CYAN UP REQUIRED N COMPWNCE W01N 111E SPECIFICATIONS FOR 111I5 PROTECT SHALL BE CONSOERED INCIDENTAL. 10 AND *mum N TE UNIT CONTRACT PRICE OF OTHER B0 I1136 COCEPT FOR THOSE 11045 INCLUDED N THE PROPOSAL B UNLESS 0140003E NOTED, TE WORD 'GLOVE' OR 'REMOVAL' IN ME CONSTRUCTION NOTES AND SHOWN ON ME PLANS MEARS REMOVAL HAUL AND PROPER OFT -91E DISPOSAL BY 114E CONTRACTOR AT 111E CONTRACTORS EXPENSE B. MESE 459)10-POR-CON51TUCTON PLANS THE APPROVED TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS 111E APPROVED 101POVRY FROSON/SEOME0NTATI N CONRO PIANS THE STANDARD 1PEC 100110015 ARD KEIT SPECIAL PROVISIONS SHALL BE ON 111E JM SITE WHENEVER CONSTRUCTION 15 N PROGRESS. 1Q UNlffi STATED OMERMSE THE CONTRACTOR 15 SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ME MEANS METHODS AND SEOVENCE CF CON5IRUCTDN AND FOR ME SAFETY OF 17E ROWERS 11. ALL DOSTRI0 011111E5 SHALL RERAN N SERVICE UNLESS O0ERMSE NOTED. 12 0E1IRPICATON. LOCATION, MARKING AM RESPONSIBILITY FOR UNDERGROUND FAOUII0S OR W RITES 6 GOVERNED BY ME PROVISONS OF CHAPTER 19.122. RENSFD CODE OF WASHINGTON. 13. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES LOCATION SWAGE (B1)) AT LEAST 1040 WORKING DAYS PRIOR 10 CON5TRUC71014. ME OWNER OR NS REPRESENTATIVE MID ME 09041000 SHALL BE CONTACTED I000101EEY E A CONFLICT EXISTS 14. CAUEION - 0074411E HAZARD - OVERHEAD AND UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL SEWAGE LINES ARE GENERALLY NOT 9109! ON THE DRA0NGS THE COITRACIOR IS 9EEP0NN981E FOR DETETMWING 11.10 EXTENT OF ANY HAZARD CAEAIED BY OVERHEAD OR 04000OUNO ELECTRICAL POWER N ALL AREAS AND SHALL FOLLOW PROCEDURES CURNG CONSTRUCTION AS REQUIRED BY UW AND REGULATION BOOR TO CONSTRUCTION ME CONTRACTOR SHALL MEET TAM 070ITY OWNERS AND O 01031NE THE EXIOTT OF HAZARD AND REMEDIAL MEASURES AM SHALL TAKE 19M1EVER PRECAUTIONS THAT MAY BE REQUIRED. THE WORN S O PROXIMITY TO PRIMARY HIGH VOLTAGE POWER (DIES 15. ALL LOCATIONS Cf COSTING MITES 9IOTA4 HEREON HAVE BEEN ESTABU9ED BY FIELD SURVEY OR OBTAINED FROM AVAILABLE RECORDS AAD SHOULD THEREFORE BE CONSIDERED APPRONMA1E ONLY AND N0T NECESSARILY COMPLETE RIS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO INDEPENDENTLY 5001? THE ACCURACY OF ALL UTILITY LOCATIONS SHORN AND TO FURTHER DISCOVER AND AVOID ANT ODER 111.411ES NOT SHOWN HEREON NOM MAY BE A4TEC1ED BY TE IMRDAERTATON OF 114I5 PLAN. 16. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FDR ALL SHORING ARO BRACING RETUNED TO PROTEC7 AND SUPPORT COSTING UNDERGROUND MITES AND STRUCTURES DURING CONSTRUCTION. 17. ANY OPEN CUTS OF COSTING PUBLIC ROADWAYS SHALL BE BACKFILLED AND COMPACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH OTT OF 034E STANDARDS ALL CUTS 0415 EXISTING ASPHALT SHALL BE ALONE NGT, COITNUUU0 SAW WT UNES. A TEMPORARY COLD MO PATCH MUST BE PLACED IMMEDIATELY AFTER BACKFILL AND COMPACTIONS UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER THE COSI9G SURFACING 16151 BE REPLACED N OND (OR 3 INCHES OF COMPACTED NMA PG64-22 CLASS 1/00. ASPHALT CONCRETE. WHICHEVER 15 GREATER) WI NN 30 DANS OF NLD PATCHING ME CON1RACTC R SHALL CLOSELY FOLLOW REQUIREMENTS SET FOR WOIONG HOURS, DETOUR AND WARNING 51ON5 AM uonne47ON ON ROAD ALIERAT0N5 TO THE PWCE 040/019 OTHER EIERCEDY SERVICES 16 All COALY UO3, COVES. ETC. LOCATED N THE =EWER 94011 BE ADJUSTED TO GRADE 10. IT I5 ILLEGAL 1/1400 WASHINGTON STATE ADMINISTRATIVE CNE 332-120 TO WILLFULLY DESTROY SURVEY MARKERS, STAKES. MARKS, AM 014109 REFERENCE FONTS SET BY CITY FORCES, Mt CASTING CITY, 5TAlE O9 FEDERAL MONUMENTATON, SHALL BE CAREFULLY PRESERVED BY ME CONTRACTOR. ME CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY ME ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY P IT BECOMES APPARENT MAT A SURVEY MARKER WILL BE DISTURBED WE 10 CONSTRUCTOR THE CONTRACTOR TALL ALLOW AMPLE TIME FON CITY SURVEY DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL TO ACQUIRE ADEWAIE INFORMATION 50 MAT THE MONUMENT MAY BE REPLACE N 415 ORIGINAL POSTON AFTER CONSTRUCTOR 20. 00308 YS WALL PITMAN OPEN AT ALL INFS DURING BUSINESS HOURS. TIE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE 115 WON MEDIAE 00111 TIE PROPERTY OCCUPANTS TO DETERMINE THE BEST TWE TD ALLY OR PARTIALLY CLOSE TIE DRIVEWAYS N OBER TO PERFORM HIS WORK. CONSTRUCTION NOTES BRI ITEM NURSERS ARE SHOWN LMIOLByWFg DIET ARE PROVIDED FOR CONTRACTOR CONV010NCE ONLY ANO NOT INCLUSIVE TING VE (N ME PROJECT REAMPOSTREE AND PNMALL BACKFILL VOID AND COMPACT PER SPECFICA11045 MOS O REMOVE DIMING TREE STUMP AND RCOTBALL BAEKFll1 VOID AND COMPACT PER SPECIFICATIONS. MAI O REMOVE EXISTING ASPHALT RAIMENT. 1(21,2SAW WT DOSING ASPHALT PAVEMENT. 112,52CONSTRUCTHO CONSTRUCT NEW ASPHALT TRAIL A 918 -BASE PER DETAIL 2 SHEET 2 1080. x095 CI REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE STAIRWAY. DM OREMOVERDVE MST.. cONIRTF CE EXRIEED RB. /8ffi 0 IMAM COSTING BOLLARD. Y O REMOVE DOSINGCONSTRUCT PARKING LOT PAVEMENT PATCH AND 918 -BASE PER DETAR %, SHEET CONSTRUCT SIGN. Glu 0 CONSUCT CONCRETE EXTRUDED CURB PER KENT STANDARD PUN 6-33 6 NSTALL REMOVABLE BOLLARD PER MG COUNT' FES 6-015 IZD2 REMOVE EOTN0C SCONCRETE PAVdkNT. I10224 INTERCEPT POWER UK TO COSTING WORT ON TIE LANDWARD SIRE OF 111E RCO OWAL INSTALL TYPE 1 JUNCTION BOX If 9PUCE COAL BE RENAME 10 REWIRE ME NICHT N LOCATION S40161 ON THE PLAN. REMOVE EtlSTNG LUMINAIRE POSE AND FOUNDATION, OS CONSTRUCT NEW A 3000 CONCRETE FOUNDATIONDAFOUNDATIONm ON THE NEW LOCATION S101104 9ON eo o PN. MATCH DIMENSIONS OF E10511N0 FOUNDATION.. INSTALL EOSTNC WMMAND P AIE A OR NEW FORMATION0N AND RECONNECT POWER. IO e REMOVE COSMO TRASH ENCLOSURE AND CONCRETE SUB AS REWIRED. CONSTRUCT SLAB AFTER RM OWALL CONSTRUCTION. MATCH EXISTING SLAB THICKNESS RE-INSTIAL COMING MASH ENCLOSURE d KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT DATUM VERTGL DARN: MAW BB HORIZONTAL DATUM: NAD 03/81 CITY OF KENT BENCHMARK No. B50 BENCHMARK ELEVA1400 31.624 B ENCHMARK DESCRIPTION: SET MAG NAL MIN 1-1 0TY Of KENT ALUMNI/LT WASHER N ASPHALT ON W SHOE OF WM4 AT NW CORNER OF DRIVEWAY APRON AT ENTRANCE W TOE TRAM AT N ENO OF RMRPCNT CORPORATE CENTER AT TOM BLVD AHO W64. OTT Of KENT BENCHMARK No. 051 BENCHMARK ELEVATOR: 33.406 B ENCHMARK ORCRIPTON: SET MAO NAIL 'MTI 1-1/2' OTT OF KENT ALUMINUM WASHER N BINE TRAIL ON E WE OF GREEN RIVER IN BAGC00 PARK. BEHIND BUILDING 06020 IN WL -DE -SAC AT I14IERSEC1ON OF 5 190 ST AND 62 AVE S MACRO. 15 M TRAM W OF TWO COVERED PICNIC REAS VERTICAL DATUM CONVERSION NAVD 88 = NAVD 29 + 3.53' ABBREVIATIONS - CIVIL BW EP ESMT EX FG FS GB 10 OFHW PT PC PCC PRC RAY Tc TW BOTTOM OF WALL EDGE OF PAVEMENT EASEMENT EXISTING FINISHED GRADE FINISHED SURFACE GRADE BREAK INVERT ELEVATION ORDINARY HIGH WATER POINT OF TANGENCY POINT OF CURVATURE POINT OF COMPOUND CURVATURE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE RIGHT OF WAY TOP OF CAP BEAM TOP OF WALL ABBREVIATIONS - STRUCTURAL B/GONG B/SHEET PILE B/WATERSTOP T/BARRER T/RAIUNG T/SHEET PILE TW BOTTOM OF CONCRETE WALL FACING B OTTOM OF SHEET PTE WALL BOTTOM OF WATERSTOP TOP OF PEDESTRIAN BARRIER TOP OF HANDRAIL TOP OF SHEET PILE WALL TOP OF WALL LEGEND EXISTING FEATURES APPEAR SCREENED 0 — ORP- - TYPE 1 El iN TYPE 2 a_ m.0, 0 OWI TY W❑ —W-44—W- -O—HE—D— - N — 5—♦-5— CONSTRUCTION NONE SECTION LETTER OR DETAIL NUMBER SHEET NUMBER WHERE SECTION OR DEEPS S 9EFERD)CED SIGN MAILBOX WELL FENCE STREET U3147/I1/MNARE UTILITY POLE W/01Y TEL PHONE MANHOLE/VAULT TE10PNONE PEDESTAL UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE UNE UNDERGROUND 0010 LINE OVERHEAD POWER UNE UIDERGROUFID POAEt UM D051NIG ...DECREE BOK NEM .UNCTION MX POYER VAULT/CASNET OAS UNE AND VALVE FIRE IRRANT IRRIGATION CONTROL BOX WATER METER VALVE P0910N NOCAIO9 FIRE DEPT. 00444001004 WATER VAULT WAIERUNE AND VALVE STORAX SEWER UNE k CATCH BASH STORM SEWER UNE & MANHOLE 510811 SEWER 4100 IAN DITCH mDWADE SANITARY SEWER 1.1140 ! MANHOLE CENTERLINE R/04 LINE EASEMENT UNE PROPERTY UNE AND OWNERSHIP HOOK MONUMENT N CASE EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT CULVERT ROOSTING BUILDING menus CONCRETE ORDINARY HIGH WATER UNE DECIDUOUS TREE EWA:MEM TEE 0EPONE4 RW KCNT PA -3c1 ND CS -3011 08485 RW coNci. UAVT, RE1EW Rl. NONE NO. REN90N 01 DATE APPRDWD: ENWrtR DAM 00wIA4 0;0«4)0 ORDTsous City of Kent Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division LEGEND, GENERAL NOTES & CONSTRUCTION NOTES DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 3 OF 24 FEE 140. •1 t`\ st65' ----- - ------- _LAOWARD FACE OF FIN-13HEU 6WALL & CONST. CONTROL UNE •••.- vORPOWIE aRATE cENTWI Imo CASCADE AVE 0, EX. PARKING LOT / IV MOE RIVER PROTECTION EASEMENT, CLEARING AND CONSTRUCTION USETS. 0 [OA MI/ ------ _ ---- --- - ----- ---- __,„ ----- ------- ------ -- FLOOD ------------------ - ----- -- ---- 49p EXTEND EX. Er PIPE 6ITHROTI-101 WALL AND STAU. FLAP 0 L_T 30. "ADE EXISTING RIVERBANK PROTECTION EASEMENT PER INSTRUMENT No.'S 5222050 & 5596236 7813+00 ------------- -------- DbF - , -10- • --- - 70,.06 GREEN RIVER FLOW ORDINARY HIGH WATER UNE AND CONSTRUCTION UNITS. SCALE IN FEET CONC. CAP BEAM S UNIT - ; ; F1 -06°00 1E; CONC. CAP BEAM, BARRIER' & RAIUNG UNITS 12+00.00 ' _:: ,..... ..... rg - ,-, SHEETS 1 40 BEAM . & BARRIER BEG. CONC. CAP: NELEVANON CONTROL UNE/ ANA lial., WWI. TOP OF i.:ONC. BARRIER 17+37,42 in 40 r"--'-----TOPOPCONC 868909 °2 I +W.37 ' TC..3&03- - I 1 I s0.00088 lAl 30 \_-------'----------i— . . . i‘l - " . - \ .1,;4.47 • . TOP 00 SHEET 0410 WAU. " . . - 20 10 . 4. 0 - Ex. a - ' OUTFALL' ' LANDWARD TOE OF WALL ' ; • . I 1,-;'‘I 1 I611,73 •-f6.- ;'‘ el ; kl. . . . . • v) . . . ' 2C' 000'066 GROUND , AT . .' . . ;‘•1 1.'&5 . .; C4 90 10 • ; . 17+37 42 , 15+13020 - ; 0 ' <' . 8W., - 0.85 BW -p.72\ In : In ' ALL PILES AT 60' MIN. L6IGTH (TYP.) —20 ; - 1.2+0000 , . --- 12+00 I DES1.0. 13+00 14+00 H KENT PROJEC, NO CNECR[0: NO. PESiSION EV DATE P,N.UtCl CNOR: coos*, 6641 ,rtAT, omr.1'20 Public Works Department City of Kent APPROVEP ENCREEP Epp' Engineering Division 154&2.20 BW= -25.0p• AU. 'PILES AT IV 19N. LENGTH (TYF'..) • 16+00 REACH 1 FLOODWALL PLAN AND PROFILE 17+00 77 KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ID I 0 1 It_IC 69-3011 DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS ila Shoreline \ Wall R1 SNEET 4 OF 24 TEE 40. n 15' WIDE RIVER PRO1ECTON EASEMENT, CLEARING AND CONSTRUCTION OMITS LANDWARD FACE OF FINISHED WALL & CONST. CONTROL UNE iX PARKING `OT -P RIYERPOINTE CgTPORATE CENTER 13200 CASCADE AVE S EDGE OF EP P BEAM ---PAVEMENT • _ �- _�"•a iii FEMA BASE \y -EDGE OFGRAVEL --- a� SHOULDER E �.- / // ORW"-- \ROOD ELEV. 30.5 • \\ \ .• \ �. \ a ce I \\\ OE EXISTING /'\ // RIVERBANK PROTECTION \ 317 WI \ No.S 5 / EASEMENT PER INSTRUMENT � \ //▪ // / ///// I 1 `T' \ pRDINA6 HIGH WATER UNE • 222050 5596236 \ I \ \\\ `,` \ \\�\� \' •" \ \ \ \\ \ O %//,/ i//i a: GREEN RISC I / \\'\;\\\ ,••• // \ �AND CONSTRUCTION \ E�-FLOW /iiiii• •\��\ _ ✓\ /�%/�/ ///// .. .. .. • 50 I __ . 4U 17+37.i1�tit4 TOP: AIFnoNEAP cor BEAMtnoi (rcuN).E/ ®. I®�® I' 1 l �P SFC0 C B ARRIR '. 22+r5.Sto 5 0.00085 2oD 'TIONC ICAP BEAM: BARRIER &'RARING u5tiS .. 'If0P OF $71Ei �IL�` WALt •.�-EXIS'DNO •GRbRJNDAT • LANOWARD .TOE. OF WALL:: ". • .... i : :ALLPILES A'7:33 IAIN.: LENGTH (TVP) I. ..18400 BW• Q49.\ ---- 4C `.l 5..o.0[OBB 1 _....._... i .. i7+37.42 7 +37:4 2 :.I ; ... 94,00. 2i2+r5 O0 TC -35,24 I......... ...... :TOR OF ;SHEET PILE . 22+1500 16.11/6: f+; }r 1 :: : TWr3451 L 0 I:::: XV .-... • 1 .,.... . ,.: ... .. ALL' PILES AT -60' A11N.LENGTN�1]7?). .. ....I .... 1 . ... - 1 ::20+00 .n+. PRO,E<r a. . 09-3011 KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL CON T ROL DISTRICT DESIGNER REVISION By DAIS sum wmr i _YD 1.10• DAM rs aria ON MOWSChaSr 7.22+75.00. ... . BW --2530.' 50 40... 3 30. _... z a 1.2 201 '0, f 10 s 0 -10 22+75.00, 16 R: -20 OB YI^ 25.49 City of Kent Public Works Departinent ICENT Engineering Division • 2:1.00 REACH 1 FLOOD WALL PLAN AND PROFILE 22+00. DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS 5NEET 5 OF 24 OLE NO / i PI: 15+89.2 r.� 4 W SCALE IN FRT BREAK UNE GREEN RIVER E�� FLOW GRADING NOTES 1. NO WORK BEL$W ORDINARY -HIGH-WATER SHALL BE ALLOWED. 2. EOTHVIADVNAIOBLE EDALESEEDAESRIN8AP SHALL BE LIMITED F 2-03.1(1) AND 6-20.3. 3. SUITABLE MATERIAL EXCAVATED FROM THE RIVER BANK SHALL 8E USED AS FILL MATERIAL AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. GRADING LEGEND EXISTING CONTOUR AND ELEVATION PROPOSED CONTOUR AND ELEVATION ORDINARY HIGH WATER UNE 35 —OHW— ;(_y: f V144/0 -- c/ 1 0 _.. 4. CONTOUR INTERVAL = 1 FOOT. ®- k� i O BREAK LME CHW o. GREEN RIVER -. ROW RFN 09-101 moo.. Ycur. CP, OIGNEVE wmi 1.�p. n,: NONE GRADING VOLUMES, CUT'- 8,201 CUBIC.. YARDS FlLL - 1,978 CUBIC YARDS LEVEE EMBANKMENT FlLL (09 LOW PERMEABILITY FILL) SHALL BE CLAY. SILT OR SILTY/CLAYEY SAND HAVING A MAXIMUM PARTICLE SIZE OF 2 INCH, AT LEAST 25 PERCENT BY WEIGHT PASSING THE �' No. 200 SIEVE, A MINIMUM PLASTICITY INDEX OF 5, A MAXIMUM 000I0 OMIT OF 40 AND BE FREE OF ORGANIC AND DELETERIOUS MATERIALS. EXISTING WILLOW TREES 0111118 5 FEET OF THE OHW LINE TO REMAIN. ADJUST 6:1 SLOPE AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER. SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR LOCATION ALL EXISTING VEGETATION BELOW THE OHW UNE TO REMAIN. NO WORK SHALL OCCUR BELOW 111E 011W UNE 011 VARIES SEE CROSS SECTIONS LANDWARD FINISHED FACE OF WALL AND CONSTRUCTION CONTROL UNE. SEE WALL PROFILE PLANS 16.17 (TYP.) WIDTH VARIES AT TRANSITIONS AND PARKING LOT RAMP, SEE PLANS VARIES SEE CROSS SECTIONS EXCAVATION AREA. SEE GRADING NOTE 2 • LEVEE EMBANKMENT FILL PAYMENT LIMITS. SEE GRADING NOTE 3. 611 *KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL City of Kent Public Works Department INT Engineering Division EXISTING GROUND 0 TYPICAL GRADING SECTION NOT TO SCALE GRADING PLAN FLOOD - WALL DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS ELEV. CONTROL PT. (TOP OF CAP BEAM) SEE WALL PROFILE FOR ELEV. LANDWARD FINISHED FACE OF WALL AND CONSTRUCTION CONTROL UNE. SEE WALL PROFILE PLANS REMOVE EXIST. ASPHALT PAVEMENT V 500 YR FLOOD EL + 3 FT. MIN. TOP OF BARRIER V 100 YR FLOOD a. + 3 FT. MIN. EDGE OF GRAVEL SHOULDER FINISHED GRADE, SEE GRADING PLAN LEVEE EXCAVATION, SEE GRADING PLAN GREEN RIVER EXIST. GROUND V OHW UNE 6 15' RIVER PROTECTION EASEMENT 1 CONST. 12' WIDE PAVED TRAIL PER SECTION 2 LEVEE EMBANKMENT FILL PAYMENT UMIT. SEE GRADING PLAN CONST. CAP BEAM AND BARRIER W/ HANDRAIL SEE STRUCTURAL PLANS — NOTE. REMADE AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION ON THE LANDWARD SIDE OF THE FLOOD WALL AS REQUIRED. INSTALL TOPSOIL (6' DEPTH) AND SOD UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON THE PLANS OR DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. CONSTRUCT FLOODWALL SEE STRUCTURAL PLANS TYPICAL LEVEE SECTION LL� m K /RESTORE SURFACE. NOT TO SCALE SEE NOTE 1. FINISHED FACE OF WALL. 1' CLEAR OF PROPERTY UNE MIN. SEE GRADING AND LANDSCAPE PLANS LANDWARD FINISHED FACE OF WALL AND CONSTRUCTION CONTROL UNE. SEE WALL PROFILE PLANS 2 1 SHOULDER 1417' PAVED WIDE TRAIL (TYP.) 12' WIDE ASPHALT (TYP.) 2.17' WIDTH VARIES AT TRANSITIONS 1 1- 9' DEPTH 5/8' MINUS CRUSHED SURFACING, COMPACTED PER SPECIFICATIONS 3' DEPTH ASPHALT PVMT., HMA PG 64-22, CLASS 1/2' COMPACTED PER SPECIFICATIONS. 6' DEPTH 5/5* MINUS CRUSHED SURFACING, COMPACTED PER SPECIFICATIONS LEVEE EMBANKMENT FILL PAYMENT UMITS '- // 4 47/ TYPICAL PAVED TRAIL SECTION CONCRETE BARRIER, SEE STRUCTURAL PLANS ELEVATION CONTROL POINT (TOP OF CAP BEAM), SEE ALL PROFILE AND SHEET 51 EX. GROUND AT LANDWARD TOE OF WALL AS SHOWN ON PROFILE NOT TO SCALE 5111501155 110.1i 1514551 00 oxaFCr 0.1 1455?. MAI. 04* xwnt •-10' Ktr: 1.510. NO. REVISION 0v DATE COY 01.5E5 DAM 14 W f I VM 45 051011.4 0515010 K TOM�crr 10 5 0 SOME M FEET City of Kent Public Works Department ICENT Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS GROUND 50 40 30 20 10 0 L 8 S SHEET 7 or 24 011E N0. 5TA 12+50 STk13+00 K,41 PROACI 116 09-3011 MAAN: COPS', Ye4r. xe.,tw Tcvr P—ttr N0. RENTSON eT DATE CITY NCO. BM IS ONE N. 64 OALCRAW. SCALE M FEET City of Kent Public Works Department INT Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS STA: 13+50 • i •, • -BO -90 -100 -110 -130 -130 -140 -150 -160 I=.1. 10 3 010 �t SCALE 9i FEET SO 40 20 10 10 50 30 20 10 10 • KENT 093011 CRON PROJECT Or,: 3m5 5411. NDm0 KL. 1'.10' 1500 1'.10' N0. REVISION BY DATE On ENbNEER DAIS OAR ISONE INCA ON paaN. DRANK .JUSI: SCALES City of Kent Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 9w 24 E1LE N0. STA: 14+50 PROPOSED VARIABLE % TN RIVER PROIEG1RBI EASEMENT. I 11 10 20 TSCALE IN FEET KENT 9930111u. 00 DAN. PROJECT LPAR: ¢wse. VEYI. WWII R '-1U N0 RELISON BY Orr EN(AffR City of Kent Public Works Department INT Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SLEET 10o 24 ENE NO. STA: 15+50 0TA1 16+00 02SING OR21100 $( EL.: JO 0 ,-- , • 1- :PAYED 1001L 21.000 FAIL : :CAT AOCESS prtw) i EL 3056 PROPOSE) 15, 0EVER 500 N - z: i1 sioPe S0 5.1 SLOPE. OFE. .vr .1. EL 9.01 . .. • • PROPOS..1.. PROrERtT• LME i.. lgi • 1 SO 40 r1 J 100 30 20 7 t..1 SURE IN 0000 xwr 009-3015a 010.: PROJECT DIM =1ST. ue0t. RENEW 0035106 80 001E iptlr 1 0 1500 1,10. DATE 0All5.« wALESa City of Rent Public Works Department INT Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS 11 or 24 OLE N0. STA 16+50 F3051N0 090090 STA 17+00 /16/2014 11:41:36 AM PRO4C 41,1 09y 30 cort 1.4 .u.z r—Iu REVISION p4 DA 0. City of Kent Public Works Department ICEHT Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS so STA: 17+50 ......... FLOOD: WALL ENS1N0 6ROD1A0 FlD00 •2asb y PAVES 1RAS. • • P00005E0 4fi . ._ 11100 RIVER PR0TEOTIO0 • •EASEYEMI . -OFF.- 5432 FL 16,11 OHW. EL 4.67 .� - SLOPE: .21' SlAPE' • P90P0SE0 • . PROPERTY LME . I • a' 8 100 STA 18+00 I • : I 40 -50 -80 4"— s0 20 10 0 -10 l ,Em 003011 PROXCT EWA WMT. WAIT. RENER DATE • an o««EE. DAM �s0 2•scALFSWek City of Kent Public Works Department i'ENT Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS sNEE1 13o. 24 DIE N0. 5TA: 18+50 FLQOD, WALL TIDEIECTI OO117.06 . . FA009ENT..: _... _...:. il. S ... PAVED 1RM. ci EXISTING GROUND_ BASE F1.000 g ¢:: 30.50 .. .... 21.E SLOPE .. ..... STA: 19+00 PROP35E0 15 FL000, WALL NIDE RIVER PROTECTOR EATERENT PAVED 1RP lo s o 20 SCALE M FEET pantie 61111DR16. J 30 20 IG -10 PRO CI 09-3011 art. vn 1,10' IR ON OVAL 09a City of Kent Public Works Department INT Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS STA 19+50 STk20+00 ' RIN9t90): 0R.` b 30 20 I t=1 SCALE IN FEB' -70 .,....._.._.._.0..._....._..._.. __._..___,.:....... . -98 -1100 -110 -120 -130 -140 50 DESIGNED RENT RRatt' Na 09-3011 ORO.CT DM: CONST. 1I NT. RENEW 9995 V,10. NO. REVISION BY 001E 011' INRiRER ri City of Kent Public Works Department INT Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 15 or 24 FILE N0. 0 0 DESIGNER CRECIOR KF Nh 09-7011 PRII-CCI [NCR: ..OMS,. V., RIR[N Se xrA. Iav1. 1'=10' NO REVISION BY 0A IE okrr City of Kent Public Works Department ICENT Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 16 of 24 FILE N0. E WALES \dwg\Shoreline Pt S7w 22+00 100 90 6D I 51 5Si1LE 01 KU -90 -100 -110 -120 -130 -140 -150 -160 So 40 3D 20 10 0 10 oeouo: «0.T 09-3011 «00.501 dm: COW. 403 , RENE No. REVISION Dr DATE DIMEIR M 1=10' DA c5wu`oR."�P g1 Akty City of Kent Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 17 OF 24 LE N0. 5 0 0 51+ 22+50 14 11:44:31 AM 09-301ND CAC IN a„, 1'_io• Rn Y -1M BY OA EON City of Kent Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SNEE1 18of 24 LE NO REACH 1 'TREE PLANTING SCHEDULE 0019110 SYMBOL PLANT RAMS 19 Bp LEAF WR1E, ACER MM;RORMIUM 10 CASCARA NYNUS PO 1011 19 O9UOIAS nt, PSE119019163 MASCO ID OTETA111 A91. maws MEOW OCR. PICEA 11101 015 13 09011913 KO CEDAR, TAM PLACER O 139199 CHFART, PRIMUS E19I100930 9 O RAMC CRIBIPPIE, MW15 FUSCA 00 SEAM COTIOIOI00. POPULUS 1101MICARPA SSP. 13130 -.ARCA 33 RAMC OR SRI* M11Dw MTV. (50/90 MR) 137 TOTAL TREE 0919T FOR REAC O 1 KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PARKS CITT: MOO 09 3030Ru. No. RENAON BY DATE NORM OAR City of Kent Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division REACH 1 DRAFT TREE PLANTING PLAN BRISCOE & DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 19+24 3LE N0. 09-3010 01 REACH 1 SHRUB MD GROUNOCOVER PLANTING SCHEDULES SYMBOL PLANS MOPS WORM .0 -CLOVER BOSON COWAN. SOLD 1.0. 0 LBS/1000 Si ISA CREEPING FED FESCUE. 4551 PERIDOWl RVEGRASS, ID% ROLAND COLONIAL BONCRASS PDIRECT SEED SNES OP APPROVED (QUAL) UPPER SLOPE SHRUM. I t040 .0 4C055 0 'E POWENG CU T''*5109 S"" W '%ES10CENOIICE'MUSS'"'"E' °"'"'M"''rT'' 0000 0005551. PIADENULENS 9..0.. emaneeicaeereALD'''' "4.34. US, SNSPEIERPY PIDDLE SLOPE 91. WOK 1 woe CON ' P" L,O, TORRENT'°'"' . 10000000 PROW'r.."' 0100 MAPLE, *91 CIRCimm. RATA 0900748*0 INPOILIEBERR; 00005POOR. POSE: 0050 XXAVI•n/A LOWER A050 SHRUBS RED OSIER DOCNOt CORMSEM'A 001100 S 44' POSE ROSA 051450491A 5015548 1.,IONED RENT PRI.R.IECT RO KING COUNTY FLOODTR ICLT SCANT rONINT09-3500 MDR, PRICE "°"' NO. 00,10100 Br 051)0 •.° DKr, P.Doo R.. RENO V,RES • public Cityof Kent WorksOeipvartlent KENT EngineeringDis REACH 1 DRAFT SHRUB PLANTING PLAN BRISCOE & DESHAONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS 50505 20 24 OLE 50 09-3010 01 REACH 1 SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER PLANTING SCHEDULES LOWER SLOPE .\\ .\\\. MIDDLE SLOPE LOWER SLOPE SHRUBS (OHWM TO EL. 19.5; 16.700 SF; APPROXIMATELY 1205 PLANTS TOTAL) LOWER SLOPE TYPICAL LAYOUT • ALL SHRUBS IN n1,410 SLOPES TO BE SPACED 4' 14WCUIRLY 011 -CENTER 11��iE'�•l1��66 MIDDLE SLOPE SHRUBS (EL. 19.5 TO EL. 22.5; 5,000 SF; APPROXIMATELY 360 PLANTS TOTAL) C)N4 4 WAIF SOF 0171E ARAE 1 CA. 27 (7.50) SLACK TYANBn 70 1 0V. 63 (17.55) PACIFIC AMER46( 1 041 E2 (1771) 0004 A ROSE 1 C•. 66 (19E) 06080014714 1 CIL 40 (114) SVHONBFRR7 1 C4. 101 (2671) UPPER SLOPE ESTIMATED READ1 1 19,2 • ALL SHIMS R 111001E SLOPES TO RE SPACED 4' 1R0NG1ARRLY 041-<ENIER UPPER SLOPE SHRUBS (EL. 22.5 TO LOWER INSPECTION CORRIDOR BOUNDARY; 9.800 SF; APPROXIMATELY 705 PLANTS TOTAL) r✓� SPIV, MA. COMOON MANE V>F <:. C CG710116fi SANGIANEI 4 RED -51(04 CEM1011115 1 GAL 4119/� 10L006CUS DISCOLOR OCEAHSPRA7 1 CAL 01 1111101116 A041E0000 CRA 10TALI OREGON PE 1 00L PDw nus 100 004 1 0WAGE 404 0 RISES SEAMEN RED FLOWERING CURRANT I OR ^,- 5111 104GRPOS AIMS SNOYLRRRY 1 CAL 9p • AIL V124I116 I0 UPPER SLOPES 10 UE SPAM/ 4' 11111611111161111 ON -CENTER 5130400 RFA. 1 WARM, 123 (47.571) 71 (400) 99 (II0) 102 (14.50) 170 (244) 112 (204) MIDDLE SLOPE TYPICAL LAYOUT OSCINES 1R'. SEE TREE PIANIRIG FNAN 11ER DERAION ER ELEVATION Q,•'! Z14i 4141. 1.AVIa •2 Pr••t • UPPER SLOPE TYPICAL LAYOUT CHER SEAMS r*2 ,RG w NR A��Y\— /\3i \ tal l.' iii •,/,\ _ #Pkv v481''1 0.01 way n.q• \* /\erti;' acv ,w\*//A AY0l�cr KENG COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 00118 ELEVATCN 10 0 10 10 PARKS GUT: NENr PN><n 710. 09-3010 SCALE NO. PENSION BY GATE car ENIANFOI 3311. IS City of Kent Public Works Department ss•KENT Engineering Division REACH 1 DRAFT SHRUB PLANTING PLAN BRISCOE & DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SKEET 2I DR24 FILE No. 09-3010 01 CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE .DD I' fNE COMPOST. TEL INE 00*005T MTD TOP If Dr ROVE 504. TOR TOTAL Or 10' ARMED SOIL 10' AFER Er E0.100 SOIL AMENDMENT DETAIL NATIVE SHRUBS PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE 01111 (SEE moo OF MAT PIAN) EMPORE: IXlSllxE. G.RDND EROSION coNmot BUNKET 3• COMPOST INDCRPORAIED WT0 SUBSOIL TO 10- DPP1N — KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL _ D ( S T R IC T DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE \ti =TOE LONE MISR GRADE 1.141101 PAVED Mk I �FOIISH \ CWOE 1 li xxxx x xx xxl \x x X EXISTING GROUND EL000 *001 COMPOST INCORPORATED INTO SUBSOIL. TO 10, 00111 TYPICAL LANDSCAPE SECTION NOT TO SCALE 1. I, All SEEDED 1ED MFRS TO RECEIVE WV1 .E sot AMpIDENI. P. TYPE AND SPACING Of VEGETATED VARIES. SEE PENT �i010N°- 00445, 4404(.. RENEW VERT RENSON ar co. """"0 un ICY 15 0,1E:1 Car City of Kent ts��rPz,. Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division REACH 1 DRAFT DETAILS BRISCOE & DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET ZZ GF 24 FILE N0. 09-3010 01 LONDON PLANE TREE: MAPLE: 1-14' `yam rLANDWARD FACE OF / •FINISHED. WALL & -CONST.•OONTROL UNE 15+00 PLANE TREE: KENT PRO. CV NO Dg -3011 OMN! PROJECT PIM COVET. VGA?. REVEVI Qgtl•-2a RT: 1•.10'APAIST SCALES NO. RENAON BY DATE PTV ENW3N 11 7—it-12 OAR 5 ONE INCH ON 1 KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT City of Kent Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division TREE INVENTORY DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS A+EET 23 00 24 FILE NO. RIVEFP080TE CORPORATE DARTER 16100 CASCADE AVE 5. n 9Lt^ RC1 LONDON PLANE TREE: .9-18" SHORELINE BUFFER oR. R\ 9S\oE LONDON PLANE TREE: 1-18" LONDON PLANE TREE: 1-20" LONDON PLANE 1REE: 3-16" P1NE: 1-16" -LANDWARD FACE. OF FINISHED;. WALL & CONST. CONTROL -UNE, - 0601161A: 5-4" KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL D 1 S T It I C T CESIONED RENS RRucc+ Sn 00-6011 DRQ 86 NORQ:' 410 SRT. 1.410' N0. REVISION 6r DATE CITY ENaheR BAA IS ONE ORIMAL DRAWN City of Kent Public Works Department ::ENT Engineering Division TREE INVENTORY DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 24 ei 24 000 No. signw9-7011 DESIMONE w FLOOD SIDE , PROTECTED SIDE 0" — CONST. CONTROL LINE T RAILING T/BARRIER I LIMITS OF PIGMENTED SEALER 5/8" X 4" WELDED STUDS (TYP) TRAIL, FINISH GRADE— 1 ASPHALT SLOPE AWAY FROM WALL 1 WALL CONTROL POINT TOP OF CAP T/SHEET PILE SHEET PILE ALL EXISTING RADE SHEET PILE 9„ 5 'Cr PAINT EXPOSED SHEET PILES FINISH GRADE 0 0 —4" THICK CONCRETE MOW STRIP B/ SHEET PILE WALL SHEET PILE WALL O SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" FLOOD SIDE PROTECTED SIDE #5 0 12" O.C. (I J13" #5 CONT. (TOTAL 2) ~CONST. CONTROL LINE TOP OF CAP 3" CLR. 6 CONT. (TOTAL 3) (3) #6 CONT. E.F. 5/8" X 4" WELDED STUD (TYP) t6-1/2" NOTE: NO EXPANSION JOINT REQUIRED THIS SECTION. SEE NOTE ON S2 FOR EXPANSION JOINT REQUIREMENTS AT RAMP DETAIL — CONCRETE CAP BEAM AT RAMP ADJACENT TO LEVEE SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0" (NOTE 10) oaeclm a as u x r Pxacc. w. 60242339 3—#6 CONT.— 3" CLR q5 Op 12" 0.C. 1113" WELD (4) ED STUDS 5/8"o 4" ® EA CROUP CONST. CONTROL LINE WALL CONTROL POINT CONCRETE BARRIER PAY LIMIT 5" STUD SPACING ± 6-1/2" TYPICAL SECTION DETAIL 0 SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0" BARRIER #4 ® 12" O.C. E.F. 1'-6" LAP CONCRETE CAP BEAM PAY LIMIT 6" X 6" BASE PLATE 3/4" GROUT 3/4" CHAMFER 6 CONT 0 TOP _ 1/2" D X 1" H REVEAL (TYP) Ij4 0 9" O.C. 2" CLR (TYP) I )5®9"O.C.—� #4 0 12" O.C]1 10 DETAIL — BARRIER REVEAL & REINF.0 SCALE: NTS — WALL CONTROL POINT TOP OF CAP 1/2" D X 1" H REVEAL DETAIL — BARRIER BOTTOM REVEAL O SCALE: NTS NOTES: 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN CENTERUNE OF SHEET PILE WITH FLOODWALL CENTERLINE AT BENDS THROUGH USE OF TRANSITION SHEET PILES OR THROUGH ALLOWABLE ROTATION OF SHEET PILE INTERLOCKS. SPECIAL SECTIONS SHALL FIT WITHIN THE SPECIFIED LENGTHS AND WORK POINT LOCATIONS. TRANSITION SHEET PILES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM THICKNESS OF 3/8". CONTRACTOR 15 RESPONSIBLE FOR FINAL LAYOUT OF SHEET PILE TO FIT THE DESIGNATED ALIGNMENT. SHEET PILE SHOP DRAWINGS SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL AND SHALL INCLUDE THE LAYOUT AND ALL THE NECESSARY DETAILS INCLUDING SPECIAL SECTIONS. 2. SHEET PILE STEEL SHALL BE ASTM A572 GRADE 50. 3. ALL MISCELLANEOUS STEEL SHALL BE ASTM 436, WITH HOT DIPPED GALVANIZED FINISH CONFORMING TO ASTM A153. 4. CONCRETE 28—DAY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH SHALL BE 4000 PSI. 5. REINFORCING STEEL SHALL BE ASTM A706. 6. WELDED SHEAR STUDS SHALL BE ASTM A108. STUDS SHALL BE TESTED PER AWS D1.1 SECTION 7.6. 7. WATERSTOP SHALL BE RUBBER OR PVC. RUBBER WATERSTOP SHALL CONFORM TO CORPS OF ENGINEERS CRO -5133 PVC WATERSTOP SHALL CONFORM TO CORPS OF ENGINEERS CRD—0572. 8. REFER TO THE CIVIL SHEETS FOR THE SHEET PILE WALL PLAN, PROFILE AND ADDITIONAL SITE INFORMATION. 9. CONTRACTOR TO BACKFILL WALL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE CAP BEAM AND WALL FACING. 10, SEE PILE CAP DETAIL FOR ANCHOR LOCATIONS, SECTIONS A AND C, DWG. S3. 11. PROVIDE 3/4" CHAMFER ON ALL EXPOSED CONCRETE EDGES. 12. SEE SPECIAL PROVISION CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS. 13. LOADING (PER ASCE 7, SECTION 4.4.3) F = 6,000 LBS. 8 0 (4) 5/8" X 4" WELDED STUDS (TYP EA. SIDE) 4" MIN CLR WATER SIDE SHEET PILE 2-1/2" MINSIDE CLR LAND SECTION THRU CAP BEAM O SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0" 1j4 — 4" FROM TOP, THEN 8" O.C. 4" TYP PROTECTED SIDE FLOOD SIDE SHEET PILE WALL END REINFORCEMENT DETAIL NOTE: SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" SHOWN AT SHEET PILE CAP LEVEL M.PN PM wuicl CONSt. MOO. REV. ooro No. PENSION eT DAIS Oil' ENCAMP 12-17-2013 City oFKent 411°44..:40..Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division GEI 180 GrandAve, Sulte 1410 Oakland, CA 94612 510-350-2900 GEI Project 121141 BRISCOE — DESIMONE LEVEE FLOODWALL SECTIONS AND DETAILS SHEET SI cF 5 ELE NO. S.A., JOINT SEALANT ADDITIONAL #4 x2'-0" AT EACH EXPANSION JOINT EXPANSION JOINT T/BARRIER T/WATERSTOP L_ WATERSTOP T/CONCRETE CAP BEAM rr11 Ir -11 11 11 11 1 II 11 11 I1 I I I II I I II 11 II II II II II 1L Tj-- ------ PPEMOLDED JOINT FILLER II I1 T/SHEET P(LF Li it H 11 I I 5 II II LI II L JI!A JJ B/WATERSTOP SECTION r ---- SHEET PILE SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0' WATERSTOP B/CONC CAP BEAM (A /1 PROTECTED SIDE FLOOD SIDE L MIN NOTES: 1. SEE NOTES ON SHEET 51 AS APPLICABLE. 2. EXPANSION JOINTS SPACING REQUIREMENTS: A. 24 -FOOT MAXIMUM UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. B. DO NOT PROVIDE EXPANSION JOINTS WITHIN REACH 3 PARKING LOT RAMP LIMITS (APROX. STA. 17+83 TO 18+52). C. SEE SHEET S3 FOR EXPANSION JOINT REQUIREMENTS ADJACENT TO THE REACH 3 PARKING LOT RAMP. D. 12 -FOOT MAXIMUM BETWEEN FOR A 48 FT DISTANCE UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM OF THE REACH 3 PARKING LOT RAMP (ABOUT STA. 17+35 TO 17+83 AND STA. 18+52 TO 19+00). INSIDE CORNER WALL REINFORCEMENT NOT TO BE CONTINUOUS AROUND CORNER WALL BEND ABOVE SHEET PILE DETAIL n NOTE: SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0' VERTICAL REINFORCEMENT NOT SHOWN WATER STOP--- \ / —WELDED SHEET PILE SHEET PILE EXPANSION JOINT THROUGH FAR SHEAR STUD SHEET PILE FLANGE SHEET PILE TYPE A EXPANSION JOINT DETAIL SCALE: 1" = 1'-0" WATERSTOP-1 1-1/2" MIN 1/2" PREMOLDED JOINT FILLER (TYP) CHAMFER JOINT SEALANT REINFORCEMENT 4-1/4' MIN " DSP DETAIL r 5 SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-o" DNvm D'M FOR EXPANSION WALL JOINTS WATERSTOP DETAIL 6 SCALE: NTS 1 WELDED SHEAR STUD EXPANSION JOINT THROUGH SHEET PILE wEg WATERSTOP LOCATION (NOTE 3) — 1 PROTECTED SIDE FLOOD SIDE USE TRANSITION SHEET PILE IF BEND ANGLE EXCEEDS MAXIMUM JOINT ALLOWABLE ROTATION WALL BEND BELOW T/SHEET PILE DETAIL (-2-- NOTE- SCALE: ! /2" = -0" ` -/ VERTICAL REINFORCEMENT NOT SHOWN WATERSTOP--.7 SHEET PILE —/ EXPANSION JOINT THROUGH NEAR SHEET PILE FLANGE —WELDED SHEAR STUD 3_1/2" NEAREST SHEET PILE FLANGE IN LINE WITH WATERSTOP wA1ERSTOP ® CENTERS OF HARRIER (TIP) WATERSTOP LOCATION (NOTE 3)—.. 3 —2" MAX NEAREST SHEET PILE FLANGE IN LINE WITH WATERSTOP WATER STOP LOCATION SCHEMATIC 0 SCALE: 3/4" = WATERSTOP NOTES: PROTECTED SIDE FLOOD SIDE 1. WATERSTOPS SHALL BE INSTALLED AS DIRECTED BY THE MANUFACTURER. WATERSTOPS SHALL BE CAREFULLY AND CORRECTLY POSITIONED DURING INSTALLATION TO ELIMINATE FAULTY INSTALLATION THAT MAY RESULT IN JOINT LEAKAGE. ALL WATERSTOPS SHALL BE INSTALLED 50 AS TO FORM A CONTINUOUS WATERTIGHT DIAPHRAGM IN EACH JOINT. PROVISION SHALL BE MADE TO SUPPORT AND PROTECT THE WATERSTOPS DURING THE PROGRESS OF WORK. ANY WATERSTOP PUNCTURED OR DAMAGED SHALL BE REPLACED OR REPAIRED AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. THE CONCRETE SHALL BE THOROUGHLY CONSOLIDATED IN THE VICINITY OF THE WATERSTOP. SUITABLE GUARDS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO PROTECT EXPOSED PROJECTING EDGES AND ENDS OF PARTIALLY EMBEDDED WATERSTOPS FROM DAMAGE WHEN CONCRETE PLACEMENT HAS BEEN DISCONTINURD. WATERSTOPS SHALL NOT BE SPLICED. 2. STOP WATERSTOP 4" FROM T/BARRIER. PLUG TOP OF WATERSTOP WITH 2" MIN OF SOFT RUBBER. 3. MINIMUM RADIUS PER MANUFACTURER REQUIREMENTS OR PROVIDE 977 VERTICAL ELL TRANSITIONS USING HEAT FUSED FIELD WELDS PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. " "1d0214?J9 14-0 REVISION aV PATE ry ]M PROveCi C01151- 10IJI1 KM. arr [wnr[R 14-17-4013 AL City of Kent 4,644....A. Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division GEI u 180 Grand Ave. Suite 1410 Oakland. CA 94612 510-350-2900 GEI Project 121141 BRISCOE — DESIMONE LEVEE FLOODWALL Ivrcr. SHEET PILE WALL DETAILS 52 o- HANDRAIL NOTES: I. MATERIAL FOR PEDESTRIAN HANDRAIL SHALL BE POWDERCOATED, GALVANIZED STEEL (ASTM A53 GRADE B). 2. ALL POSTS SHALL BE PLUMB AFTER INSTALLATION. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOP PLANS FOR ENGINEER'S APPROVAL PRIOR TO FABRICATION. 4. GALVANIZED PEDESTRIAN RAIL SHALL BE FABRICATED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE DRAWINGS AND THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS, 5. SEE CIVIL & STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DRAWINGS FOR LOCATION OF RAILING AND RAILING END SECTION. 6. LOADING (PER ASCE7, SECTION 4.4.1) TOP RAIL: 200 LBS CONCENTRATED OR 50-LBS/FT WHICHEVER IS GREATER APPLIED ANY DIRECTION. LOWER RAIL: 50 -LBS NOMINAL AT ANY POINT ALONG THE RAIL. 7. EXPANSION JOINT SHALL BE PROVIDED IN RAILS. A HANDRAIL EXPANSION JOINT SHALL BE PROVIDED AT THE LOCATION OF EACH EXPANSION JOINT IN THE CONCRETE BARRIER AND CAP BEAM AND SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN ONE -FOOT HORIZONTALLY FROM THE EXPANSION JOINT IN THE CONCRETE. 8. OPENING BETWEEN BOTTOM OF RAILING AND TOP OF BARRIER SHALL BE 8 -INCHES OR LESS. I" PL 1z"x 6"x 6" W/(4) %" HOLES )i" DIA. RESIN BONDED ii""ANCHOR BOLT W/6" MIN. EMBEDMENT IN CONCRETE WALL (TYP.) /.) 4".i'/ 1,. 43' �5=y HANDRAIL PLATE (PLAN) 1O SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0" 1-1/2" SCH 40 X 0'-6" LG STD PIPE RAILING SPLICE FILLET WELD (TYP.) HANDRAIL SPLICE SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0" \J 2" SCH 40 STD. PIPE --j(TYP.) ® EACH POST FOR ALL RAIL SECTIONS SECTION OA SCALE: 3" = 1'-0" RESIN BONDED ANCHOR / BOLTS W. NUT & WASHER, 1+ NO MORE THAN 2 THREADS EXPOSED, TYP. Y4 TYP. NON -SHRINK GROUT PAD 4'4 PLATE TO BE LEVEL, GROUT TO MAKE TRANSITION TO SLOPING CONCRETE BELOW, TYP. HANDRAIL PLATE (SECTION)0 SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0" /2" EXPANSION JOINT ELEVATION 5" 4' 5" 2" DIA SCH 40 PIPE 1-1/2" DIA SCH 40 PIPE SECTION INSIDE 2" DIA SCH 40 PIPE RAIL EXPANSION O JOINT DETAIL (NOTE 7) SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0" EMKO "`"V0.2339 CI RE1 lE 12-1"/_2013 RAIL POST 4' 0" MIN. 8' 0" MAX O.C. POST SPACING HANDRAIL SPLICE 5 RAIL POST TOP OF RAILING 8' 0" 0.C. POST SPACING EXPANSION JOINT TOP OF BARRIER ANDRAIL PLATE 2" SCH 40 (510 PIPE), TYP, HANDRAIL ELEVATION 04 Ty RAIL POST 8' 0" 0.C. POST SPACING EXPANSION JOINT ,-TOP OF RAILING RAIL POST City of Kent /� Public Works Department �� KENT Engineering Division HANDRAIL END SECTION DETAIL 05 180 Grand Ave. Suite 1410 Oakland, CA 94612 510.350-2900 GE! Project 121141 BRISCOE — DESIMONE LEVEE FLOODWALL HAND RAIL ELEVATION, SECTIONS AND DETAILS EEi S3 OE5 C. S4 A 9 FLOODSIDE LA.N'DSIDE REMOVABLE BOLLARD --- — (SEE DETAIL 2) FINISHED GRADE TRAILHEAD PARK 1 - HINGE ASSEMBLY (SEE DETAIL 1) /r --PADLOCK TO BE PROVIDED BY OTHERS FINISHED GRADE PARKING LOT TRAILHEAD WALL, SEE DWG. 312 BOLLARD CASING (SEE DETAIL 3) DETAIL - BOLLARD CASING ELEVATION SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" NOTES 1. DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE APPROXIMATE, FABRICATOR TO ADJUST AS NEEDED TO ENSURE PROPER FIT. 2. SILL PLATE BETWEEN BOLLARDS IS 4'-6-1/2" LONG. 3. HINGE TO BE FABRICATED FROM 3/8" STEEL PLATE TO GIVEN DIMENSIONS. PP 04 0241339 44.44 vElCr RE 10 1D-30-2013 15/16" 2-1/8" -1/2" r1-1/2" I" DIA. HOLES THRU FLANGES REMOVE BURRS (4 PLC's) A36 STEEEL M 4013 SHAPE, ROUND ALL CORNERS, INSTALL PLUMB PAINT: 1 COAT RUSTOLEUM PRIMER #7673 2 COATS RUSTOLEUM SEMIGLOSS WHITE #7797 FULL LENGTH 1/4" DIA. STAINLESS STEEL - ROD WELDED TO POST 1/8"^ (TYP) 3 SIDES>-- -- 1/, 1/4" A36 STFFI PLATE CUT TO CONFORM TO M SHAPE --- WELD AND GRIND SMOOTH 3/16" 3" 0.D. GALVANIZED STD. STEEL PIPE, SCH 40 ASTM A53 DETAIL - BOLLARD (REMOVABLE) /-2-\\ SCALE: 3" = 1'-0" City of Kent 410.111.44%N.Public Works Department �+o KENT Engineering Division R=1/8" 1/8" DIA. PIN -1/4" 2-1/4" 1-11/32" - 1/2" w -r.... 3/8,. 1/2" —11" 1-5/32" 1 5/32" 1 1-5/32" L R=3/16 1 R=3/16"- 7-1/4" 1-1/4" 5=1/32" '—(2) 1/4" DIA. X 3/4" LONG NE STAINLESS STEEL FLATHEAD SCREWS DETAIL - HINGE ASSEMBLY - REMOVABLE ri\� SCALE: 6" = 1'-0" BOLLARD (NOTE 3) CASE TO 8E MADE OF 1/2" - STEEL PLATE, CUT AND WELD 10 GIVEN DIMENSIONS PLAN 5-5/16" 3-1/2" I.D. GALVANIZED-- STD. STEEL PIPE, SCH 40 ASTM A53 18D Grand Ave. Suite 1410 Oakland, CA 94612 510-350-2900 GE1 Project 121141 1-5/32" 1-5/32" 1/4" DIA. NF SCREWS TO FASTEN HINGE ASSY. (SEE DETAIL. 1) 1-31/32" 15/8" CL 1/4" DIA, NF TAP THRU ---1/2" DIA. X 6" LONG BOLT, 6END AND WELD TO CASE ELEVATION -2'-10-15/16- DETAIL 2'-10-15/16"DETAIL - BOLLARD CASING ('� SCALE: 3" = 1'-0" REMOVABLE BOLLARD DETAILS NFET 54 CF S FILE N0. sz.JwR 24'-0" TYPICAL (EXCEPT WHERE NOTED OTHERWISE) NICIF } REVEAL CAP BEAM /'CONCRETE BARRIER (SMOOTH FINISH) / (SMOOTH FINISH) SHEET PILES I— PAINT ALL EXPOSED SURFACES AND AREA TO BOTTOM OF MOW STRIP. SEE KSP 6-07.3(98) 4" THICK CONC. MOW STRIP PAIUS EVC IcENI,C. JCL, 09-3010 NO. 00 GATE CROAT/ CNCA: NEVIEW NONE 10-255-13 FINISIED GRADE tOTYPICAL. FLOODWALL ELEVATION SCALE: I"-2' KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL D I S T R I C T City of Kent Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division TYPICAL FLOODWALL ELEVATION (LANDWARD FACE) BRISCOE & DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS WET SS 5 FILE 190. '‘,__AORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOP PEE ATTACHMENT H City of Tukwila Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Briscoe-Desimone Levee Project PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Kent proposes to install a structural steel sheet pile wall at the back of the existing levee slope to act as a secondary levee to reduce flood risk to the cities of Kent, Tukwila and Renton. The proposed flood wall will provide a minimum of 3 feet of freeboard above the predicted 500 -year flood event in order to meet FEMA accreditation requirements. The flood wall will be constructed in four segments (reaches) along the east bank of the Green River between South 200th Street and South 180th Street. The City of Kent received a shoreline permit for reaches 2, 3, and 4 within the City of Kent. The north 200' of Reach 2 and all of Reach 1 are located in Tukwila. This application is for Reach 1 and Reach 2 within Tukwila. The above ground portion of the wall will range from 8 feet to 12 feet tall, when viewed from surrounding businesses and as much as 27-50 feet underground. To allow for re -vegetation and habitat restoration, an earthen bench will be constructed where feasible along the riverbank slope. These benches will entail excavation between the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and the Green River trail to create a bench of up to 31 feet wide where native trees and shrubs will be planted. This bench will be inundated during flood flows and provide critical refuge habitat for juvenile salmonid. Three listed salmon species have been documented in the Green River, and this project will provide approximately 39 days of additional flood refuge habitat per year during peak salmon outmigration periods (January to June). This flood refuge habitat has been found to be a limiting factor for salmon survival in the lower Green River (Kerwin and Nelson, 2000). The existing asphalt bike trail will remain on top of the levee berm, but will be relocated further landward adjacent to the flood wall, and be topped with a handrail for safety. An access ramp to the trail will be located at the northerly end of Reach 1. The flood wall will extend approximately 3'-3" above the surface of the new trail, plus a 9" handrail. The City of Kent and Tukwila entered into an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) for the levee project in Tukwila. Pursuant to the ILA, Tukwila grants Kent the authority to process and acquire permits and to construct the project in Tukwila. Any utilities that may be in conflict with the wall will need to be relocated prior to construction of the wall. These utilities include but are not limited to overhead power, water main, sanitary sewer force main, storm drain and appurtenances. 1. DESCRIBE THE EXISTING CONDITION OF THE SHORELINE AREA AND RIVERBANK The project area is located along the right bank of the Green River looking downstream. Reach 1 is 1,100 feet long. West Valley highway, manufacturing and industrial buildings line the majority of the levee in the project area. A 10 -foot wide asphalt trail is located on top of the levee. 1 Lawn, ornamental trees and shrubs, commercial buildings and associated parking Tots are located on the landward side of the levee. Existing vegetation on the riverward side of the levee consists of willow species (Salix spp.) near the OHWM of the Green River, red -osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), and grasses including reed -canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea). Very few trees are present on the riverward side of the levee and habitat conditions are degraded, consisting of mostly non-native, invasive vegetation and mowed grasses. The existing Green River shoreline in the project area is steep with slopes generally ranging from 50% to 100% between the OHWM and the asphalt Green River Trail on top of the levee. This trail is available to pedestrians and bicycles, and covers approximately 1/5 of the current levee's cross section. The bank material consists of silty -sand flood -plain material on the bank described by US Department of Agriculture (USDA) as Newberg silt loam (Ng), Puyallup fine sandy loam (Py), Urban Land gravelly sandy loam (Ur) and structural fill and crushed rock on the upper portions underlying the trail. There is no public access to the river's edge at this site. 2. HOW WILL YOUR PROJECT CHANGE THE EXISTING CONDITION OF THE SHORELINE DESCRIBED ABOVE? Natural shoreline processes are not likely to change as a result of this project. From a natural shoreline process perspective, the new levee will function similar to the current conditions by keeping flood waters contained within the constructed banks. Construction of the sheet pile flood wall at the landward toe of the existing levee will act as a secondary levee to reduce flood risks to the cities of Tukwila, Kent, and Renton. The existing asphalt recreational trail will be widened and relocated adjacent to the wall. Re -vegetation and habitat restoration work will occur along the river between the OHWM and the trail. No work will occur below the OHWM. The waterward side of the existing levee will be excavated to create a gentler slope and bench which will be planted with native trees and shrubs. These native plantings will provide nesting and rearing habitat for birds, small mammals, and insects and flood refuge habitat for fish. Enhanced riparian area will benefit fish by increasing shade, woody debris, and leaf litter. This project will enhance terrestrial habitat conditions adjacent to the Green River, improve riparian conditions and protect public safety. The completed projects will enhance the shoreline ecological function and will promote healthier shoreline ecosystem processes. 3. WILL THE PROJECT: A. ALTER/REMOVE VEGETATION IN THE SHORELINE JURISDICTION? YES vegetation will be removed within the shoreline jurisdiction. Trees will be removed to place the floodwall along the existing river bank. Most of these removed trees are at least 50 feet from the shoreline. Proposed tree replacement will occur much closer to the shoreline and provide increased shading within the project reach. Some existing vegetation will be removed, 2 namely blackberry and reed -canary grass and will be replaced with a diverse riparian assemblage of native plants. B. ALTER THE RIVER BANK (i.e. re -slope bank, add armoring, etc.)? YES the river bank will be re-contoured to provide shallow planting benches will increase fish and wildlife habitat over existing conditions. C. ADD FILL IN THE SHORELINE JURISDICTION? YES there will be fill material added to the strip between the existing trail and the proposed floodwall on the far landward side of the project. The existing asphalt recreational trail will be relocated adjacent to the wall. Fill material will meet the geotechnical consultant's recommendations and will be obtained from permitted excavation sites. Fill material includes suitable sand and gravel. Compost and wood -chip mulch will be added on planted slopes to improve native plant survival. D. DISCHARGE NEW STORMWATER TO THE RIVER? NO, there will be no new storm water discharged into the river. E. STORE OR USE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IN THE SHORELINE JURISDICTION? NO, there will be no storage or use of hazardous materials in the shoreline jurisdiction. All construction equipment will be required to be in good working order and staged away from the shoreline. F. CONSTRUCT AN IN- OR OVER -WATER STRUCTURE? NO, there will be no in or over -water structures. G. INCREASE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE IN THE SHORELINE JURISDICTION? NO, there will be no increase in imperious surfaces in the shoreline jurisdiction 4. NO NET LOSS ANALYSIS: A. AVOIDING THE IMPACT ALTHOGETHER BY NOT TAKING A CERTAIN ACTION OR PARTS OF AN ACTION: If we avoid taking action on this levee project we will not meet FEMA levee safety standards for residents and businesses as well as not reducing the risk of potential flooding in the industrial 3 areas of the Green River Valley. This levee will protect water quality by keeping flood waters from coming in contact with industrial land uses. In addition, the Green River Trail in this area will be improved. An improved riparian corridor will increase shading and reduce temperature loading as well as improve insect and leaf drop and woody debris recruitment into the Green River. Threatened salmon species will not benefit if this project is not undertaken. With this project flood refuge habitat will be available to juvenile salmonids during peak outmigration periods. B. MINIMIZE IMPACTS BY LIMITING THE DEGREE OR MAGNITUDE OF THE ACTION AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION BY USING APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY OR BY TAKING AFFIRMATIVE STEPS TO AVOID OR REDUCE IMPACTS: Water quality impacts during construction will be mitigated by strict adherence to a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan developed to comply with all requirements of the Washington State Department of Ecology's Construction Stormwater General Permit. Soil stabilization measures will be utilized, such as hydroseeding and establishing native plants. Natural shoreline processes will not be harmed from this project; the new levee will keep flood waters contained within constructed banks. The sheet pile walls will be located at the landward toe of the levee and therefore will not impact shoreline processes. Habitat will be improved through this project by removing invasive plant species and replacing them with native vegetation as well as providing additional shallowly inundated flood refuge habitat for salmon. A planting plan is included in the permit submittal. C. RECTIFYING THE IMPACTS BY REPAIRING, REHABILITATING, OR RESTORING THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT: Native trees and shrubs will be planted and soils will be stabilized with erosion control fabric, mulch and other best management practices (BMPs). Disturbed areas will be restored to original or better function and will by hydroseeded and planted following construction. As the planted area matures improved habitat function and water quality filtration will occur. D. REDUCING OR ELIMINATING THE IMPACT OVER TIME BY PRESERVATION AND MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS: The short-term negative impacts will be ameliorated with maturing native plants, increased flood storage and improved fish habitat. As plants mature and fill in, maintenance operations will be reduced to mowing along the path with other maintenance on an "as -needed" basis. E. COMPENSATING FOR THE IMPACT BY REPLACING, ENHANCING, OR PROVIDING SUBSTITURE RESOURCES OR ENVIRONMENTS: The impact of the project will be compensated by replacing current non-native vegetation with higher quality native vegetation. We will encourage the construction contractor to chip any trees removed and use this to mulch the newly planted trees. Current habitat resources are of a 4 7.1 low quality (reed -canary grass, steep slopes, no canopy, etc.). Habitat will improve over time with the growth of the native plantings and construction of the planting benches. F. MONITORING THE IMPACT AND THE COMPENSATION PROJECTS AND TAKING APPROPRIATE CORRRECTIVE MEASURES: The City of Kent will obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater General Permit for the project which will require a site specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to manage stormwater and erosion as well as sediment control plans throughout the duration of the project. Water quality sampling will also be required through the permit which will ensure that environmental damage does not occur. During the disruptive portions of the project BMPs will be used to replace natural functions. These BMPs, such as silt fences, mulches and erosion control fabrics reduce runoff and minimize erosion and sediment transport. The city will also implement a Monitoring, Maintenance, and Adaptive Management Plan for the re -vegetated and landscaped areas once the project is completed. This plan will ensure that vegetation will be monitored annually for five years and maintained/replaced or adaptively managed as necessary. 5 Carol Lumb DL % \ SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOP. PERK ATTACHMENT 5 �[ C From: Knox, Matthew <MKnox@kentwa.gov> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 2:01 PM To: Carol Lumb Cc: Langholz, Ken; Casteel, Kelly Subject: RE: Tree Calculations Attachments: Desimone Tree Replace Per Tukwila SMP.xlsx Carol - Ok, I think I finally made it through this. I can't recall how we got our original tree count at this point, but I'm comfortable with this one (see enclosed). Our replacement numbers are very close to yours (168 vs. 177) - I think the difference came with a couple of photinia that showed - up on our "tree survey" that shouldn't have been called trees, or perhaps a multiple stemmed tree or two. We will up our replacement tree planting to at least 170 trees for our Reach 1 landscaping (43 more than our draft tree planting plan (sheet 19 of the Shoreline Substantial Development Plan set) shows). Specifically, I plan to add: 5 big leaf maple; 5 cascara; 6 Douglas firs; 5 Oregon ash; 5 sitka spruce; 5 western red cedars; 6 black cottonwoods; and 6 pacific or sitka willows. Please let me know if you need any further details. Matt Knox, PWS, Environmental Ecologist Environmental Engineering 1 Public Works Department 220 Fourth Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032 Phone 253-856-5551 I Cell 253-579-5764 mknox@KentWA.nov CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON KentWA.gov/GRNRA/ Fa(ebook You Tube PLEASE CO IDER 7 ' /I Di NT BEF( PRINTI T IS - IL l \ i Tukwila Tree Replacement Requirements - Desimone Levee Improvements (Reach 1) Tukwila Ord. 2344 -Attachment A- Shoreline Master Program Update 1, page 99 (108), accessed 8/11/2014 Count by: Matt Knox, City of Kent Ecologist, 8/12/14 - 253-856-5551, mknox@kentwa.gov # of size class to Total # Replacement Trees be Replacement DBH per Tuk Ord 2344 removed Trees 4-6" 3 4 12 6-8" 4 0 0 8-20" 6 22 132 20"+ 8 3 24 Totals 29 168 Starting at the downstream edge of the project and working upstream Species Quantity Remove DBH Replacement NOTES Hawthorn* 1 4 3 Hammamelis 1 4 3 Maple 1 4-6" 3 Maple 1 14 6 Phetinia & 4 �0 London Plane 1 20 6 London Plane 1 20 6 London Plane 1 20 6 London Plane 1 20 6 London Plane 1 20 6 London Plane 1 24 8 London Plane 2 20 12 London Plane 2 24 16 London Plane 3 20 18 London Plane 3 16 18 Pine 1 18 6 1114et-i-n-ia § 4 1-5. Pine 1 10 6 Maple 1 18 6 Maple 1 18 6 Pine 3 12 18 Maple 1 4 3 Pine 1 10 6 Totals 29 Trees removed 168 Trees to be planted * 1 tree with (6) 4" trunks 1 tree with (3) 4" and (3) 6" trunks <Shrub> <Shrub> Located at buffer edge on Riverside Drive side of 18251 Casc_udZ 4.,.e 5 From: Carol Lumb fmailto:CaroLLf )0TukwilaWA.govl Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 4:40 PM-' To: Knox, Matthew Cc: Langholz, Ken Subject: Tree Calculations Hi Matt, I am attaching a cleaned up copy of my calculations on the number of trees that need to be replaced and the total number of trees needed for planting. Hopefully I counted correctly, but there is room for error on my part (math is not my strong suit), so check my math and counting capabilities please. I organized the information into two charts — one just shows the break out of # of trees by their size, the other chart lists the type of tree being removed, grouped by size and comes up with the total number of trees being removed. You indicated you had a different count, so after you have had a chance to review, let's talk. I just need to have a correct number to discuss in the shoreline substantial development permit staff report, which I need to start working on next week. Thanks very much — have a great weekend. Carol Carol Lurnb, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 206-431-3661 CarolLumb@TukwilaWa.. ov Tukwila, the City of opportunity, the community of choice. City of Tukwila Calculations REACH 1- TREES REGULATED BY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Tree Diameter # of Trees # Replacement Trees Required (TMC 18.44.080) Total Replacement Trees 4-6" 7 3 21 Over 6-8" -0- 4 0 Over 8-20" 22 6 132 Greater than 20" 3 8 24 Total Required Replacement Trees 32 -0- 177 Type of Tree 4-6" 6-8" 8-20" Greater than 20" Total # Trees to be Replaced Hawthorn 1 -0- -0- -0- 1 London Plane -0- -0- 13 3 16 Pine -0- -0- 6 -0- 6 Maple 6 -0- 3 -0- 9 Total 7 -0- 22 -3- 32 CL Page 1 of 1 08/18/2014 11:31 AM H:\\L14-0030-L14-003\SSDP\Replacement Tree Calcs Carol Lumb From: Knox, Matthew <MKnox@kentwa.gov> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 2:01 PM To: Carol Lumb Cc: Langholz, Ken; Casteel, Kelly Subject: RE: Tree Calculations Attachments: Desimone Tree Replace Per Tukwila SMP.xlsx Carol - Ok, I think I finally made it through this. I can't recall how we got our original tree count at this point, but I'm comfortable with this one (see enclosed). Our replacement numbers are very close to yours (168 vs. 177) - I think the difference came with a couple of photinia that showed - up on our "tree survey" that shouldn't have been called trees, or perhaps a multiple stemmed tree or two. We will up our replacement tree planting to at least 170 trees for our Reach 1 landscaping (43 more than our draft tree planting plan (sheet 19 of the Shoreline Substantial Development Plan set) shows). Specifically, I plan to add: 5 big leaf maple; 5 cascara; 6 Douglas firs; 5 Oregon ash; 5 sitka spruce; 5 western red cedars; 6 black cottonwoods; and 6 pacific or sitka willows. Please let me know if you need any further details. Matt Knox, PWS, Environmental Ecologist Environmental Engineering 1 Public Works Department 220 Fourth Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032 Phone 253-856-5551 1 Cell 253-579-5764 mknox©KentWA.ciov CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON KentWA.gov/GRNRA/ Facebook YouTube PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS E-MAIL From: Carol Lumb fmailto:Carol.Lumb@TukwilaWA.govl Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 4:40 PM To: Knox, Matthew Cc: Langholz, Ken Subject: Tree Calculations Hi Matt, I am attaching a cleaned up copy of my calculations on the number of trees that need to be replaced and the total number of trees needed for planting. Hopefully I counted correctly, but there is room for error on my part (math is not my strong suit), so check my math and counting capabilities please. I organized the information into two charts — one just shows the break out of # of trees by their size, the other chart lists the type of tree being removed, grouped by size and comes up with the total number of trees being removed. You indicated you had a different count, so after you have had a chance to review, let's talk. I just need to have a correct number to discuss in the shoreline substantial development permit staff report, which I need to start working on next week. Thanks very much — have a great weekend. 1 Carol Carol Lumb, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Soutlwenter Blvd, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 206-431-3661 Carol L. mb§TuirwiliiJ4a.gov Tukwila, the City of opportunity, the community of choice. 2 - Carol Lumb / 1 From: Carol Lumb Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 6:04 PM To: mknox@kentwa.gov Cc: Langholz, Ken (KLangholz@kentwa.gov) Subject: Shoreline Vegetation Importance: High Hi Matt, I'm hoping you can get back to me this week on the number of trees being removed from the shoreline jurisdiction, and the number of replacement trees required. My numbers didn't quite match yours but I could have miscounted either the number of trees coming out or their size. I am aiming on completing the staff report by the 13th Thanks, Carol Carol Lumb, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 206-431-3661 Carol.Lumb§a Tukwila Wa.gov Tukwila, the City of opportunity, the community of choice. 1 cV-onn Kars lCiko QJ Responses to Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Comments Tukwila Shoreline Variance July 10, 2014 Comment 1.a.: "The BA Addendum states that existing native plants will be preserved at 10 feet above the OHWM, but the plans show that the preservation width will only be 5 feet. The County [City] should explain why 10 feet of native plantings cannot be preserved." Response: The intent of this project is to preserve as much native bankside vegetation as possible, but this has been balanced with the desire to improve shallow salmonid rearing and refuge habitat (the most limiting factor for salmon in the Lower Green River). On this project in Reach 1, this shallow rearing and refuge habitat is provided by the 6:1, approximately 12' wide benches that will be constructed just above the OHWM. In order to provide as much shallow bench as possible, the toe of the bench needs to be lower on the slope, which then potentially impacts more native vegetation. However, on this reach, there is almost no native bankside vegetation to preserve (see enclosed photo). The difference between preserving 5 feet vs. 10 feet of native vegetation in this reach amounts to one 8" willow (see Sheet 22 of the Shoreline Plans - Tree Inventory). If at all possible, this willow will be maintained. Comment 1.b.: "The plans and document entitled "Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Briscoe Desimone Levee Project", which contains a project description, states that there will be a bench of up to 31 feet. Do we assume this "bench" means the 6:1 slope portion of the levee above the OHWM? The B.A. Addendum, meanwhile mentions a 12 foot wide bench. I assume the plans are showing the actual intention?" Response: The BA Addendum and SSDP description was submitted with construction plans at an earlier design phase. The updated "Shoreline" plans show the latest plans. Yes, the 6:1 slope portion is considered the "bench". The intent is to maximize the size of this "bench" without unduly affecting adjacent property owners. Levee cross-sections are shown every 50 feet on Sheets 7 - 18. The current plans (dated 4/16/14) show a bench width varying from approximately 6 feet to 20 feet wide. The average bench width is approximately 12 feet wide. Comment 2.: The plans do not indicate anything about maintenance or monitoring of the levee plantings. The B.A. Addendum states that plants will be maintained for 2 years. Even though the Shoreline code doesn't specify a maintenance period, I think we should try to get at least 3 years, until weeds are under control and all plants can survive without irrigation (especially the plants on the upper part of the levee." Response: The Hydraulic Project Approval for this project requires that plantings shall be maintained for a minimum of three years to ensure 80 percent or greater survival. The project contractor will maintain plantings for two years and plans for a third year of maintenance will be put in-place. Comment 3.: The planting plans meet the Shoreline code in terms of density and appropriate species for the site. Comment 4.: "Plan Sheet 2 of 24 . The Shoreline jurisdiction boundary is labeled as a "Shoreline Buffer", instead of a shoreline "environment". I find it to be confusing, as the actual buffer is also called a buffer "125 ft Urban Conservancy Buffer". Response: Noted. The Tukwila Shoreline Substantial Development Permit application checklist part C.4. And D.2. refers to both this 125' Urban Conservancy Buffer and the 200' Shoreline Buffer. We just followed this guidance. Comment 5.: "Plan Sheet 19 of 24. The plan shows Black Cottonwood stakes with a maximum diameter of 6 inches, which makes no sense. Is this just a typo or are fascines being proposed for the Cottonwoods, as they are for the willows?" Response: Yes, black cottonwood fascine bundles, 6" in size and buried 2/3rds into the soil are proposed for this project. These fascine bundles will be live -staked with cottonwood live stakes. Comment 6.: "Sheet 22 of 24. Provide a detail for the fascines." Response: Please see attached PDF detail. Reach 1 Looking Upstream from West Valley Highway r BURY FASCINE IN 4" DEEP TRENCH SO THAT IT IS 2/3rds DOWN IN SOIL SECURE FASCINE WITH 3' LIVE STAKES (r.3/4" DIA.). SINK BOTTOM 2' OF LIVE STAKE IN UNDERLYING SOIL. EXISTING SOIL LEVEL TWINE (JUTE) TIED EVERY N2' 6" MIN. DIA. FASCINE N 6' LONG WILLOW OR COTTONWOOD WHIPS PACK SOIL LOOSELY AROUND FASCINE TO MAXIMIZE SOIL CONTACT. 1/3rd OF FASCINE (TOP) SHALL BE EXPOSED AFTER SOIL COVERING. glom— ftNis KENT ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CITY OF KENT DRAWN RW SCALE NONE APPROVED DATE 7-9-14 FASCINE DETAIL SHEET 1 G:\Design\09-3011 DESIMONE WALLS\dwg\Reach 1\Fasciae Detail.dwg, 7/9/2014 10:43:47 AM City of Tukwila Department of Community Development f1 File Number Llai - 0030 L I Lf - 003i LAND USE PERMIT ROUTING FORM TO: I❑I Building 0 Planning 0 Public Works %Fire Dept. ❑ Police Dept. ID Parks/Rec Project: • KeAki- 13etscxx, L Des l Wtor1t e_e. -- - -Ke. Address: , l q a w Gas cod Aut. 5 . b. (v 5 4-1 S 5 . Cc.1cG . / St. Date transmitted: 5124/114 Response requested by: j -UM 12. , a01 1-1 Staff coordinator: C. coo t Date response received: REVIEWERS: Please specify how the attached plans conflict with your ADOPTED development regulations, including citations. Be specific in describing the types of changes you want made to the plans. When referencing codes, please identify the actual requirement and plan change needed. The Planning Division review does not supplant each department's ability to administer its own regulations and permits. However, project consistency at the Planning review stage is important to minimize significant later design changes. More than minimal design changes require further Planning Commission review, even if alteration is required to satisfy a City requirement. This further review is typically a minimum 60 -day process. Requirements based on SEPA (e.g., not required by an adopted development regulation) MUST identify the impact being mitigated, the policy basis for requiring mitigation, and the method used to calculate the mitigation required. Calculations of project impacts and the mitigation required (e.g., water capacity, road level of service analyses, or turning analyses) may be required of the applicant. COMMENTS (Attach additional comment sheets and/or support materials as needed.) ��✓� - fijk S 1-euv Li povt/ pat kr vnac. )NUki T-trei e.00,v t eP.,y. e ---o y i (scut 187-0 c7 (Gadautf.l Ut . S. xu/l� aan G fJ — (cam: J V6t p idui- N412. 6141,0JA r-vt 0� an, t 0 r c-ff u.,1.�-� Plan check date: Comments4. Update date: ��� l �' prepared by:)�6 TO: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development File Number Lly-Uo30 BILI -003( LAND USE PERMIT ROUTING FORM Building n Planning Public Works 'Fire Dept. 0 Police Dept. Parks/Rec Project: Sf r 3✓tSCoC I Des i Wroevc Le,) e -e- --Xe-MAY _ ?.ar.�e., 1 Address: , I q L OD Gas cGd e. Aue. 5 . & 54/ S 6 . 6---1aue.✓ $t. DateResponse transmitted: 51261114 requested by: 1Urt2 12. , �019 Staff coordinator: 6.04,01 Date response received: REVIEWERS: Please specify how the attached plans conflict with your ADOPTED development regulations, including citations. Be specific in describing the types of changes you want made to the plans. When referencing codes, please identify the actual requirement and plan change needed. The Planning Division review does not supplant each department's ability to administer its own regulations and permits. However, project consistency at the Planning review stage is important to minimize significant later design changes. More than minimal design changes require further Planning Commission review, even if alteration is required to satisfy a City requirement. This further review is typically a minimum 60 -day process. Requirements based on SEPA (e.g., not required by an adopted development regulation) MUST identify the impact being mitigated, the policy basis for requiring mitigation, and the method used to calculate the mitigation required. Calculations of project impacts and the mitigation required (e.g., water capacity, road level of service analyses, or turning analyses) may be required of the applicant. COMMENTS (Attach additional comment sheets and/or support materials as needed.) ()✓1— ?1rev C.e c J i s tiviocu�/ 6c- ..ri vr1a) r t.) � It 1;4-2.041 � 20 tooriat. X11 r n a na a on 4-0.e I�cvrrR co vv�� 1 aft A- 0 61.01, (4/c:CN , 15 Plan check date: Comments Update date: prepared by: May 22, 2014 City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION Mr. Ken Langholz, P.E. City of Kent Public Works Dept. 220 4th Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 RE: L14-0030, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and L14-0031, Shoreline Variance Dear Ken: Your applications for a Shoreline Substantial Development permit and a Shoreline Variance were determined to be complete on May 14, 2014 for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. A public hearing on the Shoreline Variance has been set for 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, July 22, 2014 in conference room number 2, located at the DCD offices, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100, Tukwila, WA. 98188. 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 permits identified above. It is your responsibility to apply for and obtain all necessary permits issued by other agencies. If you have any questions please call me at 206-431-3661 or email me at Carol.Lumb@tukwilawa.gov. Sincerely, Carol Lumb Senior Planner CL Page 1 of 1 H:\\L14-0030 & L14-0031 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repair\Complete 05/22/2014 5:03:51 PM May 21, 2013 City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director RE: L14-0030, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and L14-0031, Shoreline Variance for Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs Dear Interested Party: The City of Tukwila has received a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and Shoreline Variance request from the City of Kent for repairs to the Briscoe/Desimone levee system, portions of which lie in Tukwila. Due to the number of documents that are included with the two applications, I have placed them on a CD for your review. The CD is organized into two folders as follows: Folder #1: Application materials for the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and Shoreline Variance. The numbered items refer to the items listed on the first page under Application Materials of the City's Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SSDP) (attached). #1 Tukwila SSDP Checklist #2 Application #3 Fee Sheet #4 Project Value Sheet #5 Info on Check Submitted #6 Response to Section B of SSDP application: B1 Vicinity Map B2 Project Description B3 Refers reader to #B5 for the Biological Assessment B4 Draft FEMA Accreditation Report for the Green River Right Bank Levee Briscoe- Desimone Levee System, Volumes 1-3 prepared by GE.I Consultants, dated April, 2012 B5 JARPA, Biological Assessment Addendum, 2/20/13 Biological Assessment, 8/2008 SEPA Checklist JARPA Documents #7 Project Plans #8 Comment on reducing plans to 81/2 x 11" #9 Notes electronic copy of materials provided with application Shoreline Variance Narrative CL: H:\\L14-0030 & L14-0031\NOA Cover Sheet Page 1 of 2 05/21/2014 10:36 AM 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax 206-431-3665 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repair L14-0030 & L14-0031 Notice of Application Folder #2: Conditional Letter of Map Revision application dated 10/24/11 along with the following supporting materials: Stability & Certification Report Hydraulic Analysis Risk Based Analysis Scour Analysis O & M Manual Plans Biological Assessment Flood Response Manual FIRM Maps MT2 Form 2 MT2 Form 3 MT2 Form 1 Workmaps 1-5 A hard copy of the SEPA determination and staff report, issued by the City of Kent, is enclosed. Please let me know if you have any questions. I can be reached at 206-431-3661 or carol.lumb@tukwilawa.gov. Sincerely, Carol Lumb Senior Planner Enclosures CL: Page 2 of 2 05/21/2014 10:36 AM H:\\L14-0030 & L14-0031\NOA Cover Sheet City of Tukwila Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Briscoe-Desimone Levee Project PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Kent proposes to install a structural steel sheet pile wall at the back of the existing levee slope to act as a secondary levee to reduce flood risk to the cities of Kent, Tukwila and Renton. The proposed flood wall will provide a minimum of 3 feet of freeboard above the predicted 500 -year flood event in order to meet FEMA accreditation requirements. The flood wall will be constructed in four segments (reaches) along the east bank of the Green River between South 200th Street and South 180th Street. The City of Kent received a shoreline permit for reaches 2, 3, and 4 within the City of Kent. The north 200' of Reach 2 and all of Reach 1 are located in Tukwila. This application is for Reach 1 and Reach 2 within Tukwila. The above ground portion of the wall will range from 8 feet to 12 feet tall, when viewed from surrounding businesses and as much as 27-50 feet underground. To allow for re -vegetation and habitat restoration, an earthen bench will be constructed where feasible along the riverbank slope. These benches will entail excavation between the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and the Green River trail to create a bench of up to 31 feet wide where native trees and shrubs will be planted. This bench will be inundated during flood flows and provide critical refuge habitat for juvenile salmonid. Three listed salmon species have been documented in the Green River, and this project will provide approximately 39 days of additional flood refuge habitat per year during peak salmon outmigration periods (January to June). This flood refuge habitat has been found to be a limiting factor for salmon survival in the lower Green River (Kerwin and Nelson, 2000). The existing asphalt bike trail will remain on top of the levee berm, but will be relocated further landward adjacent to the flood wall, and be topped with a handrail for safety. An access ramp to the trail will be located at the northerly end of Reach 1. The flood wall will extend approximately 3'-3" above the surface of the new trail, plus a 9" handrail. The City of Kent and Tukwila entered into an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) for the levee project in Tukwila. Pursuant to the ILA, Tukwila grants Kent the authority to process and acquire permits and to construct the project in Tukwila. Any utilities that may be in conflict with the wall will need to be relocated prior to construction of the wall. These utilities include but are not limited to overhead power, water main, sanitary sewer force main, storm drain and appurtenances. 1. DESCRIBE THE EXISTING CONDITION OF THE SHORELINE AREA AND RIVERBANK The project area is located along the right bank of the Green River looking downstream. Reach 1 is 1,100 feet long. West Valley highway, manufacturing and industrial buildings line the majority of the levee in the project area. A 10 -foot wide asphalt trail is located on top of the levee. 1 Lawn, ornamental trees and shrubs, commercial buildings and associated parking Tots are located on the landward side of the levee. Existing vegetation on the riverward side of the levee consists of willow species (Salix spp.) near the OHWM of the Green River, red -osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), and grasses including reed -canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea). Very few trees are present on the riverward side of the levee and habitat conditions are degraded, consisting of mostly non-native, invasive vegetation and mowed grasses. The existing Green River shoreline in the project area is steep with slopes generally ranging from 50% to 100% between the OHWM and the asphalt Green River Trail on top of the levee. This trail is available to pedestrians and bicycles, and covers approximately 1/5 of the current levee's cross section. The bank material consists of silty -sand flood -plain material on the bank described by US Department of Agriculture (USDA) as Newberg silt loam (Ng), Puyallup fine sandy loam (Py), Urban Land gravelly sandy loam (Ur) and structural fill and crushed rock on the upper portions underlying the trail. There is no public access to the river's edge at this site. 2. HOW WILL YOUR PROJECT CHANGE THE EXISTING CONDITION OF THE SHORELINE DESCRIBED ABOVE? Natural shoreline processes are not likely to change as a result of this project. From a natural shoreline process perspective, the new levee will function similar to the current conditions by keeping flood waters contained within the constructed banks. Construction of the sheet pile flood wall at the landward toe of the existing levee will act as a secondary levee to reduce flood risks to the cities of Tukwila, Kent, and Renton. The existing asphalt recreational trail will be widened and relocated adjacent to the wall. Re -vegetation and habitat restoration work will occur along the river between the OHWM and the trail. No work will occur below the OHWM. The waterward side of the existing levee will be excavated to create a gentler slope and bench which will be planted with native trees and shrubs. These native plantings will provide nesting and rearing habitat for birds, small mammals, and insects and flood refuge habitat for fish. Enhanced riparian area will benefit fish by increasing shade, woody debris, and leaf litter. This project will enhance terrestrial habitat conditions adjacent to the Green River, improve riparian conditions and protect public safety. The completed projects will enhance the shoreline ecological function and will promote healthier shoreline ecosystem processes. 3. WILL THE PROJECT: A. ALTER/REMOVE VEGETATION IN THE SHORELINE JURISDICTION? YES vegetation will be removed within the shoreline jurisdiction. Trees will be removed to place the floodwall along the existing river bank. Most of these removed trees are at least 50 feet from the shoreline. Proposed tree replacement will occur much closer to the shoreline and provide increased shading within the project reach. Some existing vegetation will be removed, 2 namely blackberry and reed -canary grass and will be replaced with a diverse riparian assemblage of native plants. B. ALTER THE RIVER BANK (i.e. re -slope bank, add armoring, etc.)? YES the river bank will be re-contoured to provide shallow planting benches will increase fish and wildlife habitat over existing conditions. C. ADD FILL IN THE SHORELINE JURISDICTION? YES there will be fill material added to the strip between the existing trail and the proposed floodwall on the far landward side of the project. The existing asphalt recreational trail will be relocated adjacent to the wall. Fill material will meet the geotechnical consultant's recommendations and will be obtained from permitted excavation sites. Fill material includes suitable sand and gravel. Compost and wood -chip mulch will be added on planted slopes to improve native plant survival. D. DISCHARGE NEW STORMWATER TO THE RIVER? NO, there will be no new storm water discharged into the river. E. STORE OR USE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IN THE SHORELINE JURISDICTION? NO, there will be no storage or use of hazardous materials in the shoreline jurisdiction. All construction equipment will be required to be in good working order and staged away from the shoreline. F. CONSTRUCT AN IN- OR OVER -WATER STRUCTURE? NO, there will be no in or over -water structures. G. INCREASE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE IN THE SHORELINE JURISDICTION? NO, there will be no increase in imperious surfaces in the shoreline jurisdiction 4. NO NET LOSS ANALYSIS: A. AVOIDING THE IMPACT ALTHOGETHER BY NOT TAKING A CERTAIN ACTION OR PARTS OF AN ACTION: If we avoid taking action on this levee project we will not meet FEMA levee safety standards for residents and businesses as well as not reducing the risk of potential flooding in the industrial 3 areas of the Green River Valley. This levee will protect water quality by keeping flood waters from coming in contact with industrial land uses. In addition, the Green River Trail in this area will be improved. An improved riparian corridor will increase shading and reduce temperature loading as well as improve insect and leaf drop and woody debris recruitment into the Green River. Threatened salmon species will not benefit if this project is not undertaken. With this project flood refuge habitat will be available to juvenile salmonids during peak outmigration periods. B. MINIMIZE IMPACTS BY LIMITING THE DEGREE OR MAGNITUDE OF THE ACTION AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION BY USING APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY OR BY TAKING AFFIRMATIVE STEPS TO AVOID OR REDUCE IMPACTS: Water quality impacts during construction will be mitigated by strict adherence to a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan developed to comply with all requirements of the Washington State Department of Ecology's Construction Stormwater General Permit. Soil stabilization measures will be utilized, such as hydroseeding and establishing native plants. Natural shoreline processes will not be harmed from this project; the new levee will keep flood waters contained within constructed banks. The sheet pile walls will be located at the landward toe of the levee and therefore will not impact shoreline processes. Habitat will be improved through this project by removing invasive plant species and replacing them with native vegetation as well as providing additional shallowly inundated flood refuge habitat for salmon. A planting plan is included in the permit submittal. C. RECTIFYING THE IMPACTS BY REPAIRING, REHABILITATING, OR RESTORING THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT: Native trees and shrubs will be planted and soils will be stabilized with erosion control fabric, mulch and other best management practices (BMPs). Disturbed areas will be restored to original or better function and will by hydroseeded and planted following construction. As the planted area matures improved habitat function and water quality filtration will occur. D. REDUCING OR ELIMINATING THE IMPACT OVER TIME BY PRESERVATION AND MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS: The short-term negative impacts will be ameliorated with maturing native plants, increased flood storage and improved fish habitat. As plants mature and fill in, maintenance operations will be reduced to mowing along the path with other maintenance on an "as -needed" basis. E. COMPENSATING FOR THE IMPACT BY REPLACING, ENHANCING, OR PROVIDING SUBSTITURE RESOURCES OR ENVIRONMENTS: The impact of the project will be compensated by replacing current non-native vegetation with higher quality native vegetation. We will encourage the construction contractor to chip any trees removed and use this to mulch the newly planted trees. Current habitat resources are of a 4 low quality (reed -canary grass, steep slopes, no canopy, etc.). Habitat will improve over time with the growth of the native plantings and construction of the planting benches. F. MONITORING THE IMPACT AND THE COMPENSATION PROJECTS AND TAKING APPROPRIATE CORRRECTIVE MEASURES: The City of Kent will obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater General Permit for the project which will require a site specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to manage stormwater and erosion as well as sediment control plans throughout the duration of the project. Water quality sampling will also be required through the permit which will ensure that environmental damage does not occur. During the disruptive portions of the project BMPs will be used to replace natural functions. These BMPs, such as silt fences, mulches and erosion control fabrics reduce runoff and minimize erosion and sediment transport. The city will also implement a Monitoring, Maintenance, and Adaptive Management Plan for the re -vegetated and landscaped areas once the project is completed. This plan will ensure that vegetation will be monitored annually for five years and maintained/replaced or adaptively managed as necessary. 5 SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS February 20, 2013 Mr. Kelly Peterson City of Kent Public Works Department 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 ALASKA CALIFORNIA COLORADO FLORIDA MISSOURI OREGON WASHINGTON RE: ADDENDUM TO BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT, GREEN RIVER LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, RIVER MILE 14.25 TO RIVER MILE 22.0, KENT, WASHINGTON Dear Kelly: At the request of the City of Kent (the City), this addendum letter addresses changes to the Briscoe-Desimone Levee Project (herein referred to as "the project") description from the report titled, "Biological Assessment Green River Levee Improvements River Mile 14.25 to River Mile 22.0" dated September 27, 2011. The City has requested that Shannon & Wilson review the project changes as they relate to the Biological Assessment (BA) determinations made in September 2011 and address whether the project revisions warrant any changes to the impact assessment and effects determination. The City has provided a 35% design plan set and landscaping and planting plan sheets for the project (enclosed). Briscoe-Desimone is one of four project locations addressed in the original BA; however, it is the only location addressed in this letter. We understand that the Federal Emergency Management Agency has approved the Briscoe-Desimone portion of the BA, and that this letter will be filed with the project documentation by the City. The 2011 BA describes the Briscoe-Desimone improvement project as consisting of metal sheet pile walls along the landward toe of the existing levee. The paved recreational path on top of the levee will be widened, and the path is considered a non -pollution generating surface. Stormwater from the path was not anticipated to discharge directly into the Green River. Additionally, the BA states that all vegetation removal will occur landward of the existing levee and that riparian vegetation will not be impacted. Our understanding of the Briscoe-Desimone project revisions are based on e-mails and phone conservations on February 14 and 15, 2013. A description of revisions to the original project description follows. 400 NORTH 34th STREET — SUITE 100 PO BOX 300303 SEATTLE, WA 98103 206-632-8020 FAX 206-695-6777 TDD: 1-800-833-6388 www.shannonwilson.com 21-1-12339-012 Mr. Kelly Peterson City of Kent Public Works Department February 20, 2013 Page 2 of 4 `SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. REVISIONS TO BRISCOE-DESIMONE PROJECT DESCRIPTION The existing asphalt recreational trail on top of the existing levee will be relocated to be adjacent to the sheet pile wall, and the top of the levee will be canted to drain toward the Green River. During construction, the landward side and the top of the levee will be used as a lay down and staging area. The waterward side of the existing levee will be excavated to create up to a 12 -foot -wide bench. The sides of the levee above and below the bench will be cleared of vegetation and grubbed (Landscaping and Planting Sheets 1-4). However, existing desirable native shrubs will be retained in the planting area where possible. Based on our telephone conservation with you and Matt Knox on February 14, 2013, we understand that a minimum of 10 feet of vegetated buffer above the Green River Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) will remain undisturbed. The material excavated to construct the bench will be placed between the sheet pile wall and the landward side of the levee. The upper 15 feet of the waterward side of the levee will be hydroseeded and the remaining disturbed riparian area will be planted with native trees and shrubs. The disturbed ground on the waterward side of the levee will be stabilized prior to being exposed to the Green River's flow. Additionally, temporary cisterns and drip irrigation will be installed in the disturbed riparian area and plant maintenance will be performed for a minimum of two years. EFFECTS ANALYSIS Stormwater No in -water or over -water construction will occur in the Green River. However, ground disturbing activities conducted upslope of the Green River have the potential to affect water quality resulting from construction stormwater pollution. A Stormwater Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) Plan specific to the Briscoe-Desimone project will be prepared and implemented prior to beginning earthwork. While more ground disturbance will occur under the revised plan, it is anticipated that the SWPPP and TESC will minimize the potential for construction related water quality impacts in the Green River. Stormwater runoff from the paved footpath will be directed away from the sheet pile wall and is expected to primarily infiltrate into the levee side slope, or eventually sheet flow into the Green River. As stated in the 2011 BA, the relocated footpath is considered a non -pollution generating 21-1-12339-012-LI.docx/wp/lkn 21-1-12339-012 l � Mr. Kelly Peterson City of Kent Public Works Department February 20, 2013 Page 3 of 4 r1 -SHANNON &WILSON, INC. surface and stormwater treatment is not required. We do not anticipate that the runoff generated from the path will result in a net change in flow in the Green River, and the proposed project revisions will not significantly modify the anticipated flow. Riparian Vegetation Existing vegetation on the sides of the levee consists of willow species (Salix sp.) near the OHWM of the Green River, shrubs such as red -osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) and snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), and grass such as reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea). The majority of the temporal shading provided by riparian vegetation to the Green River is provided by willows growing near the OHWM. A minimum of 10 feet of vegetated buffer above the Green River OHWM will remain undisturbed, thereby maintaining most of the plants providing shade. The planting bench will be planted with native shrubs and deciduous and coniferous native trees (Sheet 4). Additionally, existing native shrubs growing in the proposed disturbed area will be preserved to the extent possible. While the waterward side of the levee will experience a temporal loss in riparian vegetation, it is expected that the diverse native plantings in the disturbed areas and the creation of the planting bench will increase the variety of vegetative strata and the increase in species diversity will provide a more diverse habitat than currently exists. Noise The type of equipment that will be used for the project and the associated noise levels have not changed from those described in the 2011 BA. Therefore, the noise generated from the project is not anticipated to change from the noise effects analysis already provided. EFFECTS DETERMINATION We have reviewed the endangered and threatened species list for King County and have determined that their designations have not changed and that no new species have been added since we completed the 2011 BA. After careful analysis of the anticipated impacts from the proposed project revisions, it is our opinion that the effects determinations for listed and proposed species, designated critical habitat, and essential fish habitat found in the project action area remain unchanged from the determinations listed in our 2011 BA. We have prepared the enclosed "Important Information About Your Biological Assessment (BA)/Biological Evaluation (BE) Report," to assist you and others in understanding the use and limitation of this letter. 21-1-12339-012-LI.docx/wpNcn 21-1-12339-012 Mr. Kelly Peterson City of Kent Public Works Department February 20, 2013 Page 4 of 4 Whi Please call me if you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance. My direct line is (206) 695-6738. Sincerely, SHANNON & WILSON, INC. A/;//- A ide/L‘ Katie Walter, P.W.S. Natural Resources Manager SCC:KLW/scc Enc: City of Kent 35% Design Plan Set Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements (Sheets 1-13) Briscoe/Desimone Landscaping and Planting Plans (Sheets 1-4) Important Information About Your Biological Assessment (BA)Biological Evaluation (BE) Report 21- I -12339-012-L l .docx%wp, Ikn 21-1-12339-012 WASH I1st 6-4"ON TY OF KENT SUZE 1 1 COOKE - MAYOR MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL IERTSON DENNIS HKjG NS JAMIE PERRY RON HARMON ORAH RANNK ER DEBBIE RAPLEE I PS THOMAS DIRECTOR OF PUBUC WORKS BRENDA JACOBER — CRY CUERK CITY ENGINEER TOM BRUBAKER — CITY ATTORNEY WORKS PROJECT 3RISCOE-DESIMONE E. -VEE IMPROVEMENTS JOB NUMBERS 09-3010 AND 09-30f1 1 COVER SHEET 2 LEGEND, NOTES & TYPICAL WALL SECTION 3 WALL PLAN & PROFILE SHEET INDEX MAP 4-13 SHEET PILE WALL- PLAN & PROFILES VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE ONVENIENCE AND SAFETY AS DESCRIBED W NT SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR STORING OF FURS 1 TIMES BY 51116 67 SWEEPING WHEN IN ENGINEER. U. WHICH ARE SHOWN ON THE CONTRACT iK THAT IS SI -1011.14 SHALL BE CONSIDERED ITS SHALL BE REMOVED AS NOTED. ALL SHALL PROTECT REMAINING TREES FROM YCLLDING DAMAGE TO ROOT SYSTEM. ANY PLACED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT %REAS ON-SITE AND ADJACENT TO THE IGINAL CONDITION UNLESS OTHERWISE AL RESTORATION AND CLEAN UP REQUIRED ROJECT SHALL BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL )THER 81D ITEMS EXCEPT FOR THOSE ITEMS 'REMOVAL" IN THE CONSTRUCTION NOTES NO PROPER OFF-SITE DISPOSAL BY THE OVED TRAFHC CONTROL PLANS, THE ROL PLANS. THE STANDARD . BE ON THE JOB SITE WHENEVER LY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MEANS. 11-E SAFETY OF THE WORKERS. 65S OTHERWISE NOTED. TY FOR UNDERGROUND FACILITIES OR ER 19.122, REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON. UTILITIES LOCATION SERVICE (811) AT THE OWNER OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE AND A CONFLICT DLI515. RGRCUND ELECTRICAL SERVICE LINES ARE FACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING OR UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL POWER 94 CONSTRUCTION AS REQUIRED BY LAW AND )R SHALL MEET WITH UTILITY OWNERS AND ASURES AND SHALL TAKE WHATEVER IN PROXIMITY TD PRIMARY HIGH VOLTAGE HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED BY FIELe SHOULD THEREFORE BE CONSIDERED IT IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE 1Y OF ALL UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN AND 5 NOT SHOWN HEREON WHICH MAY BE IND BRACING REQUIRED TO PROTECT AND ;TURES DURING CONSTRUCTION. L BE BACKFILLED AND COMPACTED IN JT5 INTO EXISTING ASPHALT SHALL BE :ARY COLD MIX PATCH MUST BE PLACED FSS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE ) IN KIND (OR 3 INCHES OF COMPACTED NEVER IS GREATER) 'ITHIN 30 DAYS OF 7LLOW REQUIREMENTS SET FOR WORKING N OF ROAD AL ERARONS TO THE POLICE ,TCN BASINS AND SANITARY SEWER UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. PIPE INTER OF THE STRUCTURES. WALK SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO GRADE VE CODE 332-120 TO WILLFULLY DESTROY RENCE POINTS SET BY CITY FORCES AND WALL BE CAREFULLY PRESERVED BY THE VGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF IT BECOMES D DUE TO CONSTRUCTION. THE Y DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL TO ACQUIRE BE REPLACED 1N ITS ORIGINAL POSITION BUSINESS HOURS THE CONTRACTOR PERTY OCCUPANTS TO DETERMINE THE 'AWS IN ORDER TO PERFORM HIS WORK. STRUCTURAL NOTES 1. PROVIDE STEEL SHEET PILES 'NTH A MINIMUM YIELD STRENGTH OF 50 KIPS PER SQUARE INCH (KSI). GREEN RIVER REMOVE EXIST. TRAIL TOP OF WALL V 500 YR FLOOD EL EXIST. BANK v OHW LINE T 16' OF DRIVEWAY APRON AT ENTRANCE TO BIKE TRAIL AT N END OF RIVERPOINT CORPORATE CENTER, AT TODD BLVD AND WAN. CITY OF KENT BENCHMARK Na. 851 BENCHMARK ELEVATION: 33.496 BENCHMARK DISCRIPTION: SET HAG NAIL WITH 1-1/Y CITY OF KENT ALUMINUM WASHER W BIKE TRAIL ON £ 570E OF GREEN RIVER IN BRISCOE PARK, BEHIND BUILDING #5020 1N CUL-DE-SAC AT INTERSECTION OF S 190 ST AND 62 AVE S. MAGNAIL IS IN TRAIL W OF TWO COVERED PICNIC AREAS. PROPERTY UNE CONSTRUCT 12' WIDE PAVED TRAIL CONSTRUCT SHEET PILE WALL W/HANDRAIL TYPICAL SHEET PILE WALL SECTION NOT TO SCALE Lr 1_1_1c a LJ q ' ie.r) ;; P, 1 REkIOVE TREES AS REQUIRED FOR\WALL CONSTRUCTION (TVP.) GREEN RIVER X6400 )4 . S+30 12 -•-- '1W=3640 .EXISTING LEVEE ELEVATION .. - : : 6+05.6 •TW=36.: OUTFACE : IEa31.25 EAS11NG:GRWND AT: OF. HALL 1 u : T a th110N x+30.15 : "6+05'6. •77.St.S SEE sHEEr x 4. r Q. 7+18.91 ."'""fRr36:38 7+28.76 TVP38:'38. • • • • 7+18,9} ::..1*;34. xC '; +28.76 34.00: : 0b ANO •LEVEE- ELEVA1RON• - v4. ROOD:NATION : : EXISTING Bi20UNl • OF WAIL Y T 1 m n- -377 v V % _ 4781 t�: ____-..-_ i TZ 0 _4 ------------- ---- 33__- _el. ti -------------- ------------------------------ ----------=-=_--------------- ==---- _ - _— 16' NIDE ASPHALT TRAIL 917+D13 GREEN RIVER 918+00 • Tl. • '"DNG-LEVEE faEVAT1ON 4 T 2..P.1LE4.AT.:29':.LII4d 1:.j.TYP..) 4 F?1S71NG U' ?1 AT: A.'- LENGTki.cnv) i00 YR. FLOOD :ELt.VA71ON GROUNO_AT TOE DF WALL • _ J._ 5+9 sW- o / 01 0 ---------------------------- oP+ --------------------------------------------- • _ Kli ,,-;- - .= - 16' NIDE ASPHALT TRAIL WALL_2A SEE SHEET,) ------a3— GREEN RIVER 820+00 -5+96.00. • .:..:.:.:..:..:.:.. 74-44180 TYl 3838 955.61 TW�3&93 :.r i• jn r 111111111 J. • r J5111.10 LEVEE..ELEVATION::: - .- 100 YR- .FLOOD ELEVATION - _ ,.-.013$11190 OR08ND AT:TOE -OF• WALL J 7W11.4:3380 +4� 80 8W-9.38 -. • j ALL: BILES AT:43': LENOTH {TYP) :: 9+55.61- - L ED. Lf:,T L1) 0P3 as -i{iR3 1 l �� { `tom fcl- z-r j;;C:1-1 --------- --- _ - ----------- _ _ d3 — ----------- -------------------------------------------- __ OR3�� -- --- d3 ErA2 _ d3 d3 3 -------------------------------- 5 _ -- d3 ----------------------------------------------- III _-_-----------------------:_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- -_-__-------- ------------------_-_1::::::_ -------------------------- d3' . , _•ir.3iT ------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --- ------ -------- - - ---------- --------=------- ------------ ---- - --------- -- - - - - - _ _ _ _ __ __ 16' WIOE ASPHALT TRAIL `-- _ _ _-------..:--,:.--.:4----___ - --- GREEN RIVER 845+00 846+00 847+00 1 ¢e+oo --------- 3+17.60 TW=39. AT 24' LENGTH (TyP) E�JG571NG'LEYE �LEVATION-'' - -1--�--1I 1 100 R. L000 ELEVATION : ::-EJ05T1NG:GROUN0 • 4: PILES /11: 35': LENGTh :MP) • 3+:17:60':6 BW7S.3.. -- 3313:47. AT TOE 'OT' WALL : —8W-413 ---------- 7'77771 • -._ ALL PILES A.T. 45 LENGTH- (TM) -- -8W=-5.87 • (71 `f l - SHEET PILE WALEN., ,' Ff i \ ----------------------------------- ------------ -- ----------------- '147 — g49+00 850+00 GREEN RIVER 16' WIDE ASPHALT TRAIL 851+00 6+75.14 TW=39.22- • 6+81'34' TW=39.23 8+44.61 - -TVG=39.27 8+52.88 TW=39.27- . 6+75J4 TY1-4.50 - EnIS11NG LEVEE -ELEVATION - • 100 1R: FLOOD • EL-Ei1AT1014- 6+:81 34 .... . -..1 .1. PN 36. 0: _� \18+52x.88- E3CISTING GROUND A :� f • 2 PILES AT 24' LENGTH TL'E WALL _36 T'n_ &-00 •• • r -------- .: r�• tv— G__fc t 0 a ice^ r y - - : 5i,:;, _*„ - ,,,.,,-. , , , -: U________ _ _::-:::::: - - --2-1-_-_---- -- -- --:7:-.--.E:1-_-_-ff_-=-Zitf_:_:_f:_:= == =_=_--_=_f - ifill_l_i_i_-__-__:_-_H=7: "1:-_-:::--_-_-_--11:17_-1;;=:_:::z1f--------_-_=:- :_:::'-'-------- - - - ' ' 1 • 854+00 16' WIDE ASPHALT TRAIL 855+00 GREEN RIVER --10- • • ... PILES AT -24 -LENGTH (TYP) T .. • • . 8' 4 PILES AT 35 LENGTH N, 7130911..,.... carr✓ezc --------------- -------------------------------------- 16' NIDE ASPHALT TRAIL on a)1 &59+00 GREEN RIVER 860}00 .2..1,11E5"AT-24:'MTGTfrtri.P) 4 PILES .xv -b4 (TYP> .. -. ' 8W=:4:5 PROPOSED SHEET PILE WALL 'Y..-��...�.wY...� N777 —- via. ee, iM GREEN RIVER 863+00 0 --- w 0 864+00 EP 0+32.94 TYI.=[39.59: 21+73.48 iW=39;83 ::LiI:: ... ::Lit -. ... 21+7P:48 714=- a0 - •21+79.68 /.T N=39.63 23+78 08 EXISTING GROUND [7:+79-68 .AT TOE: OF WALL 7N =39 65 7CISTING LEVEE ELVATION ' ; ' • -' 00. YR FLOOD: EIvATION..... : 234171 88 BNF T-'89 :'2 PIIZS AT'24-1ENC=TN {TyP) '-4--PILES;.p:..3rs�.'LBfSl}j.{T�P).;...;..... _... 23+78.08 BW.44.59 . EashNG 9R1dGE APPROACH: NSE: WALL 1+01 05 z 0 I1) O O f '7Wa4 .00 +95.32 TW=4,211 1+01.05 -1364=9.136 ' '.. . ' ' CONNECT:SHEET: PILE WALL •10 f9C1311NG ••••.-...--._...: _......_........... ..._ 2+9.-32 .9w9.11 2 PILES AT Zr :LENGTH: (TYP) 4:PILES:AT:M.:LENGTH (TIT) • 4/Vz>scrolipi,v6s I7/2e4F A)/11-4- . 2// .4447-r,e-A19X 51/6.-e--7967 1-711PROSEE-2> ,1VZ64- J, i // / /1 / 7/H 7/( /I r/ -/' , ,. ., .. . ,•4. .: heyart &e -,&J 10/1/-6--* - • Pt CAL- PI -4147.1/1" P1-44/1/ /2-1 CsOr MA 7r.. iref 2) z ,4 b '7 0 1A/ZDS 7'M42D3 4'/70a 5r d,y25405r 1:114-e-0 '/ e/E 6, E6» 7z FE( -1-5-77c--;4_ /©a' . 7 3 5P C Cc LI, P') 1>C/ by 4 if 5 7?ZE? C--/ :3 Pew /00' Sem 7ortc sm/o a (.. o w 1,1)lob✓ 6t ✓f s?A/cc-. �= 3 :-P� /00'seer,P/v z'o c , Ne rc-5 : PLe9,77' N/1 :gAM-7We' 5prC/r..5_ cm -Cr P4fl r Aai4-fPi-zG�/� gC �iFGr� ~ ��,97 ‘4"57-42 3/ EC 9 sf577 Ica 5i7 c/E5 /14/x/ 5/-ec LI Q 44N-r/7ie 5E SERA -,2,17•E' SHPC`: -7-VP/C/N- N. Pt/, �r/4' P44/.1 711477 ,e,dox 2/WLL z ,4f7 /6, 6,24-$.56 (C444 ,4 ,4 72AIL- F D A LL co7P2j1' echfaht pzi9AI7/.11' ,41eEti4 kt)r 74 1/.4,:a/E5) CGC-,�2 Ate/. Lag146 4 41D COPE J✓EGflta 6Es4G,y 3)/NCp4,PrnZ 7 CQAlPm57_ ///72, 8C 'C// 2' 54 -op 444 /( D1�.5eE; .2)-7/AC ete- ?I2 4 .44n4 C F 43E) /r57,41 -A- ,P4-, /J7/,✓6;$ C7 --Aiav Aft/.57,414., G/57-6eNs - DF2i4) /,e fae, 7/7.✓ /44/4/,a7/Vd✓ PG-14/077/1/GS ✓€,2 2 / SPECIES SIZE AND QUANTITY PLANTING PLAN BRISCOE FLOOD WALL MATT KNOX ISHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Attachment to and part of Report 21-1-12339-012 Date: February 20, 2013 To: Mr. Kelly Peterson City of Kent Public Works Department IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT (BA)/BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION (BE) REPORT A BA OR BE IS BASED ON PROJECT -SPECIFIC FACTORS. BA's and BE's are based on a unique set of project -specific factors. These typically include the specific location of the project, the general nature of the project, and the property involved, its size, and its configuration; historical use and practice; the location of the project on the site and its orientation; and the level of additional risk the client assumed by virtue of limitations imposed upon the study. The jurisdiction over Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species is shared between the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). As a result, one or more agencies will have jurisdiction over a particular aspect of your project with sometimes confusing regulations. It is necessary to involve a consultant who understands which agency(s) has jurisdiction over each species and what the agency(s) requirements are for that species. To help reduce or avoid potential costly problems, have the consultant determine how any factors or regulations (which can change subsequent to the report) may affect the recommendations. Unless your consultant indicates otherwise, your report should not be used: ► If the size or configuration of the proposed project is altered. ► If the location or orientation of the proposed project is modified. ► If there is a change of ownership. ► For application to an adjacent site. ► For construction at an adjacent site or on site. ► Following floods, earthquakes, or other acts of nature. Fisheries consultants cannot accept responsibility for problems that may develop if they are not consulted after factors considered in their reports have changed. Therefore, it is incumbent upon you to notify your consultant of any factors that may have changed prior to submission of our final report. Determining the effects of projects on T&E species (called "determinations of effect") made by Shannon & Wilson are considered preliminary until determinations are agreed to by the appropriate agencies. Written concurrence with the determination of effect must be received from either NMFS or the USFWS. Only these agencies can provide this concurrence. "DETERMINATIONS OF EFFECT" ARE PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS. Site investigations identify habitat conditions at only those points where investigations are performed and when they are performed, but the physical means of obtaining data preclude the determination of precise conditions. Consequently, the information obtained is intended to be sufficiently accurate for determining project impacts, but is subject to interpretation. Additionally, data derived through sampling are extrapolated by the consultant who then renders an opinion about overall conditions, the likely reaction to proposed construction activity, and/or appropriate design. Even under optimal circumstances, actual conditions may differ from those thought to exist because no consultant, no matter how qualified, and no investigative program, no matter how comprehensive, can reveal what is hidden by earth, rock, and time. Nothing can be done to prevent the unanticipated, but steps can be taken to help reduce their impacts. For this reason, most experienced owners retain their consultants through the construction stage to identify variances, to conduct additional evaluations that may be needed, and to recommend solutions to problems encountered on site. NATURAL CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE. Since natural systems are dynamic systems affected by both natural processes and human activities, changes in conditions may be expected. Therefore, BA's and BE's cannot remain valid for an indefinite period of time. For example, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' permit is valid for only two years. If a period of years have passed since the BA or BE was completed, the owner is advised to have the consultant reexamine the conditions to assess if the determinations are still accurate. Page 1 of 2 1/2013 Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and natural events such as floods, earthquakes, or water fluctuations may also affect conditions and, thus, the continuing adequacy of the BA or BE. The consultant should be kept apprised of any such events and should be consulted to determine if additional evaluation is necessary. THE BA OR BE IS SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION. Costly problems can occur when plans are developed based on misinterpretation of a BA or BE. To help avoid these problems, the consultant should be retained to work with other appropriate professionals to explain relevant ecological, geological, and other findings, and to review the adequacy of plans and specifications relative to these issues. DATA FORMS SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE BA OR BE. If data forms are part of the assessment or evaluation, then the final data forms are developed by the consultant based on interpretation of field sheets (assembled by site personnel); only final data forms customarily are included. These data forms should not, under any circumstances, be drawn for inclusion in other drawings because drafters may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process. Although photographic reproduction eliminates this problem, it does nothing to reduce the possibility of misinterpreting the forms. When this occurs, delays, disputes, and unanticipated costs are frequently the result. To reduce the likelihood of data form misinterpretation, contractors, engineers, and planners should be given ready access to the complete BA or BE. Those who do not provide such access may proceed under the mistaken impression that simply disclaiming responsibility for the accuracy of information always insulates them from attendant liability. Providing the best available information to contractors, engineers, and planners helps prevent costly problems and the adversarial attitudes that aggravate them to a disproportionate scale. READ RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSES CLOSELY. Because a BA or BE is based extensively on judgment and opinion, it is far less exact than other design disciplines. This situation has resulted in wholly unwarranted claims being lodged against consultants. To help prevent this problem, consultants have developed a number of clauses for use in written transmittals. These are not exculpatory clauses designed to foist the consultant's liabilities onto someone else; rather, they are definitive clauses that identify where the consultant's responsibilities begin and end. Their use helps all parties involved recognize their individual responsibilities and take appropriate action. Some of these definitive clauses are likely to appear in your BA or BE, and you are encouraged to read them closely. Your consultant will be pleased to give full and frank answers to your questions. THERE MAY BE OTHER STEPS YOU CAN TAKE TO REDUCE RISK. Your consultant will be pleased to discuss other techniques or designs that can be employed to mitigate the risk of delays and to provide a variety of alternatives that may be beneficial to your project. Contact your consultant for further information. Page 2 oft 1/2013 EXISTING 10' WIDE TRAIL EXISTING PARKING RIVERSIDE DR. FEMA BASE FLOOD 30' WIDE EXISTING RIVERBANK S 62nd SI PROTECTION EASEMENT PER INSTRUMENT ELEVATION=30.5 No.'S 5222050 & 5596236 ORDINARY HIGH WATER AND CONSTRUCTION LIMITS • EXISTING \ • BUILDING DRIVEWAY TOP OF EXISTING BANK LANDWARD TOE OF LEVEE 1 --1 L_J PROPOSED WALL AND 12' WIDE TRAIL EXISTING PARKING PROPOSED 15' WIDE RIVER PROTECTION EASEMENT AND CONSTRUCTION LIMITS KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PROPOSED 'TRAIL ACCESS RAMP EXISTING BUILDING r' L1g -00.se NOTE: SEE SHEET 7 FOR LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS AND TYPICAL DETAIL "I‘ 50 2-5k.1) 50 10 DESIGNED: RW DRAWN: RW I PROJECT ENGR: CONST. A/CAIT. REO, V 1 PARKS DEPT: KENT PROJECT NO. 09-3011 SCALE 1-50' HoRIZ. vERT, NONE NO. REVISION 8Y DATE APPROVED. CITY ENGINEER DATE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY 0 - City of Kent Public Works Department KEN T Eagineering Division SITE PLAN DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 2 OF 24 FILE NO. G: \Design \09-3011 DESIMONE WALLS \dwg \Shoreline Permits\Tukwila Shoreline \Site plan.dwg, 4/16/2014 11:22:39 AM ri w ` 'LANDWARD FACE OF FINISHED WALL & CONST. CONTROL UNE RIVERPOINTE CORPORATE CENTER 18200 CASCADE AVE S / rr EX. PARKING LOT r f r 15' WIDE RIVER PROTECTION EASEMENT, CLEARING AND CONSTRUCTION UMITS. A � o Go z,/,"-/ 00 o0 r„. 0, s?•si oPo 00 FEMA BASE - EX. -_ - --------------------- ECFV =30-5= _- _- _-- ORW ----------------------------------- ---------- EXTEND EX. 8' PIPE THROUGH WALL AND INSTALL FLAP GATE -EDGE OF GRAVEL __ _ SHOULDER - -- _-- -- _ ___'_ =Z:::1:::::-::-:±.7:7":.7.-:- =___ ---__ =__ =_ ==__ ____ = - '"EDGE OF -,=zo-= --_= _- _� � BREAK UNE GREEN RIVER FLOW GRADING NOTES 1. NO WORK BELOW 'ORNARY HIGH" WATER SHALL BE ALLOWED. 2. EXCAVATION OF THE LEVEE AND RIVER BANK SHALL BE UMITED TO THE AVAILABLE DATES DESCRIBED IN KSP SECTIONS 2-03.1(1) AND 6-20.3. GRADING VOLUMES. CUT - 8,201 CUBIC YARDS FILL - 1,978 CUBIC YARDS 3. SUITABLE MATERIAL EXCAVATED FROM THE RIVER BANK SHALL BE USED AS ALL MATERIAL AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. 4. CONTOUR INTERVAL = 1 FOOT. LEVEE EMBANKMENT FILL (OR LOW PERMEABILITY FILL) SHALL BE CLAY, SILT OR SILTY/CLAYEY SAND HAVING A MAXIMUM PARTICLE - SIZE OF 2 INCH, AT LEAST 25 PERCENT BY WEIGHT PASSING THE No. 200 SIEVE, A MINIMUM PLASTICITY INDEX OF 5, A MAXIMUM UQUID UMIT OF 40 AND BE FREE OF ORGANIC AND DELETERIOUS MATERIALS. GRADING LEGEND ---35-- --- EXISTING CONTOUR AND ELEVATION PROPOSED CONTOUR AND ELEVATION —OHW— ORDINARY HIGH WATER UNE 21 I -D'.,Q n '2 ---------- + N U rn a 0 0 J 1.1.1 ---)441011111111 O ��m 4 BREAK UNE g •^35-. 30- • 27 OHW GREEN RIVER ;E FLOW DESIGNED: CW PARKS DEPT: KENT PROJECT NO. 09-3011 DRAWN: Cw PROJECT ENGR: CONST. MMMT. RENE SCALE HORIZ: 1 20 VERT. NONE NO. REVISION BY DATE APPROVED: OTT ENGINEER DATE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAINING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY 0' 1- t s6 Lif) IC EXISTING WILLOW TREES WITHIN 5 FEET OF THE OHW UNE TO REMAIN. ADJUST 6:1 SLOPE AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER. SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR LOCATION ALL EXISTING VEGETATION BELOW THE OHW LINE TO REMAIN. NO WORK SHALL OCCUR BELOW THE OHW UNE OHW KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL D I S T R I C T City of Kent Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division VARIES SEE CROSS SECTIONS LANDWARD FINISHED FACE OF WALL AND CONSTRUCTION CONTROL UNE. SEE WALL PROFILE PLANS 16.17' (TYP.) WIDTH VARIES AT TRANSITIONS AND PARKING LOT RAMP, SEE PLANS VARIES SEE CROSS SECTIONS Q CL 0 0 0 0 00 1.5% 5'4.1 3' MIN. EXCAVATION AREA. SEE GRADING NOTE 2 V 100 ELEV. CONTROL PT. (TOP OF CAP BEAM) SEE WALL PROFILE FOR ELEV. LEVEE EMBANKMENT FILL PAYMENT OMITS. SEE GRADING NOTE 3. 6:1 FLOOD WALL EXISTING GROUND TYPICAL GRADING SECTION NOT TO SCALE GRADING PLAN oO3o DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS 0. 0. u1 ri 0 0 L7 c 07 C v 0` .0 0 in 0 0 w 0 0 0 0 REACH 1 TREE PLANTING SCHEDULE OUANRY SYMBOL PLANT NAME BIG LEAF MAPLE. ACER MACROPHYLLUM CASCARA, RAMNUS PURSHIANA DOUGLAS FIR. PSEUDOTSUGA MENSIEZII OREGON ASH, FRAXINUS LATIFOLIA MICA SPRUCE. PICEA SRCHENSIS WESTERN RED CEDAR, THUJA PUCATA BITTER CHERRY, PRUNUS EMARGINATA PACIFIC CRABAPPLE, MALUS FUSCA BLACK COTTONWOOD. POPULUS TRICHOCARPA SSP. TRICHOCARPA PACIFIC OR SITKA WILLOW FASCINES (50/50 MIX) 137 TOTAL TREE COUNT FOR REACH 1 SIZE, NOTES 5 GALLDN 2 GALLON 5 GALLON 2 GALLON 5 GALLON 5 GALLON 2 GALLON 2 GALLON 6' LIVE CUTTING. 6' MAX. DIAMETER, ONE FOOT ID:POSED; THREE PER SYMBOL 6' LNE CURING, 6' MAX. DIAMETER, ONE FOOT EXPOSED; THREE PER SYMBOL K ING COU NTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRJCT PROPOSED NEW TRAIL 15' TRAIL CLEAR ZONE HYDROSEEDED WRH SEED MIX. TYP. 50®0 SCALE: = 50' L /y—ocCSa DESIGNED: PARKS DEPT: KENT PROJECT NO. 09-3010 DRAWN. PROJECT ENGR: CCNST. MINT. REVIEW SCALE: H0012- VEPT: N0. REVISION BY DATE APPROVED: CITY ENGINEER DATE BAR IS ONE INCH ON OR101NAL DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDIN0 .Y 0' Y City of Kent ,00.4,4 Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division REACH 1 DRAFT TREE PLANTING PLAN BRISCOE & DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET(] f 19 OF 24 FILE NO. 09-3010 01 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development File Number 1_ N-1---0030ISI— LAND USE PERMIT ROUTING FORM Building Planning ) Public Works In Fire Dept. U Police Dept. fl Parks/Rec Project: B/tSwoe. - besLpr.on e, Lavee Comments Update date: Address: Rgetzb 1H - tg 2.00 G4S crtie. 91-4A. S / 1 % Z I/5<-/5 5 . lr14 Gc a 5C-. Date transmitted: 5) 2O I 1 L1 Response requested by: G 1 / 11 i `i Staff coordinator:GIAN©1 L Date response received: REVIEWERS: Please specify how the attached plans conflict with your ADOPTED development regulations, including citations. Be specific in describing the types of changes you want made to the plans. When referencing codes, please identify the actual requirement and plan change needed. The Planning Division review does not supplant each department's ability to administer its own regulations and permits. However, project consistency at the Planning review stage is important to minimize significant later design changes. More than minimal design changes require further Planning Commission review, even if alteration is required to satisfy a City requirement. This further review is typically a minimum 60 -day process. Requirements based on SEPA (e.g., not required by an adopted development regulation) MUST identify the impact being mitigated, the policy basis for requiring mitigation, and the method used to calculate the mitigation required. Calculations of project impacts and the mitigation required (e.g., water capacity, road level of service analyses, or turning analyses) may be required of the applicant. COMMENTS (Attach additional comment sheets and/or support materials as needed.) GIME U it t L N w £A f -e Sg./6 rru wuL k✓i Sfuvh ( cre a ioi i\ r' ori - is. c . /4),.€ 0 fit_ I Vainkk) Lir vA Plan check date: Comments Update date: prepared by: 1 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development f' File Number Cca 3 0 Llai- c03( LAND USE PERMIT ROUTING FORM TO: SCI Building Planning (%i Public Works n Fire Dept. U Police Dept. 101 Parks/Rec Project: B/iScoc - -botortoit e, Laves. Update date: prepared by: Address: eet n I - ►Q 2-0o 641,Ne_ttbe u S 1 4%ci.. 2 4e.5H5- 5 G-t4e.<. ,r 5 C. Date transmitted: 512..zilH Response requested by: G 01/ y Staff coordinator: -(AA/DC L Date response received: REVIEWERS: Please specify how the attached plans conflict with your ADOPTED development regulations, including citations. Be specific in describing the types of changes you want made to the plans. When referencing codes, please identify the actual requirement and plan change needed. The Planning Division review does not supplant each department's ability to administer its own regulations and permits. However, project consistency at the Planning review stage is important to minimize significant later design changes. More than minimal design changes require further Planning Commission review, even if alteration is required to satisfy a City requirement. This further review is typically a minimum 60 -day process. Requirements based on SEPA (e.g., not required by an adopted development regulation) MUST identify the impact being mitigated, the policy basis for requiring mitigation, and the method used to calculate the mitigation required. Calculations of project impacts and the mitigation required (e.g., water capacity, road level of service analyses, or turning analyses) may be required of the applicant. COMMENTS (Attach additional comment sheets and/or support materials as needed.) ttaxi A n ui I \ /ice ( with- i -U( 511\1"- 04).4,1-, -04). ,C, +o i i p — Is . c t l 410 Eu? (PUP, C- lJyal¢.k.5 1-[4 S iv o CDOWVet,. . c 1 1 Plan check date: Comments Update date: prepared by: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development File Number L I — 00 30 I_11-(- 0°3I LAND USE PERMIT ROUTING FORM 5k. TO: U Building Planning Public Works ❑I Fire Dept. n Police Dept. Parks/Rec Project: B liS coe - 1) of r oit e, kw Comments prepared by: Update date:/ b ` / T ` Address: Re l - ►g2 -0D 64,N(.ziLe u 5 / '46 1 Z l/5H5- 5 C.I&.Gc,i 5C. Date transmitted: 512-0 (I 1 Response requested by: 0 0/i LI Staff coordinator:L�iJI© L Date response received: REVIEWERS: Please specify how the attached plans conflict with your ADOPTED development regulations, including citations. Be specific in describing the types of changes you want made to the plans. When referencing codes, please identify the actual requirement and plan change needed. The Planning Division review does not supplant each department's ability to administer its own regulations and permits. However, project consistency at the Planning review stage is important to minimize significant later design changes. More than minimal design changes require further Planning Commission review, even if alteration is required to satisfy a City requirement. This further review is typically a minimum 60 -day process. Requirements based on SEPA (e.g., not required by an adopted development regulation) MUST identify the impact being mitigated, the policy basis for requiring mitigation, and the method used to calculate the mitigation required. Calculations of project impacts and the mitigation required (e.g., water capacity, road level of service analyses, or turning analyses) may be required of the applicant. COMMENTS (Attach additional comment sheets and/or support materials as needed.) ttiw It a t. £ N w t iA IA,t t -e1 2 H71 vv►a [ i +o loi,rt:� r- of, - 5Is_ l�� 9 WJE `tom 1 a c, v to d 6AtA(/) +" ( /r aAL-E•W f, ‘2\41-L8fcg Plan check date: Comments prepared by: Update date:/ b ` / T ` ( / '1 &V of J u;1 wiea Department Of Community Development AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION see L_t i -t - x31 rov tt— ' a( I, Teri Svedahl , xmvtn WW ,WWF. HEREBY DECLARE THAT: 4.19( Mailing requested by: Carol Lumb x Notice of Application Notice of Decision x Notice of Public Hearing Notice of Public Meeting Determination of Non- Significance Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit Shoreline Mgmt Permit Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Official Notice Notice of Action Other: Was mailed to each of the addresses listed/attached on this _21 day of May 2013 Project Name: Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repair Project Number: PL14-0021 Associated File Number (s): L14-0030 Mailing requested by: Carol Lumb Mailer's signature: 7) 7A j{,ZA______-- W:\USERS\TERI\TEMPLATES-FORMS\AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION.DOC 7 f S 180th Street 5 sect Description: Shoreline permit & variance to install sheet wall at back of existing levee to reduce flood risk at Reach 1. Vary the levee profile required by the Shoreline Master Program at Reach 1 & 2, & remove 35 stumps from the levee system adjacent to Reach 2. Reach 2 is located on the Green River adjacent to 6545 S Glacier Street, Tukwila Z l City of Tukwila Notice of Application & Public Hearing Project name/location: Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repair— Green River Reaches 1 & 2 File#s: L14-0030 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and L14-0031 Shoreline Variance Planner: Carol Lumb 206-431-3661 Carol.Lumb@TukwilaWA.gov You are receiving this notice because you are a property owner or tenant within 500ft of this project. Your written comments on the project are requested and can be delivered to DCD, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Ste 100, Tukwila, WA 98188. Comments must be received by 5:OOpm on June 23, 2014. A Public Hearing on the shoreline variance is scheduled for July 22, 2014 @ 9:30 am at the above address. You may request a copy of any decision, infor- mation on the hearing and your appeal rights by calling the number above. KING COUNTY AGENCIES ( ) Health Department ( ) Port of Seattle ( ) KC Dev & Enviro Services-SEPA Info Center ( ) KC Metro Transit Div-SEPA Official, Environmental Planning KC Dept of Natural Resources KC Dept of Natural Resources, Andy Levesque / AGENCY LABELS S(-?osTccvC, C i\Lo t . Fvvw. ke S Corps of Engineers ( Federal HWY Admin ( ) Federal Transit Admin, Region 10 ( ) Dept of Fish & Wildlife 'Office of Archaeology ( ) Transportation Department (WSDOT NW) Dept of Natural Resources- Wo C.. ► ( ) Office of the Governor ( ) WA State Community Development ( ) WA Fisheries & Wildlife, MillCreek Office *SeWA Fisheries & Wildlife, Larry Fisher, 1775 12th Ave NW Ste 201, Issaquah WA 98027 Section 1 FEDERAL AGENCIES ( ) US Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) ( ) US Dept of HUD ( ) National Marine Fisheries Service Section 2 WAS NGTON STATE AGENCIES ( Dept of Social & Health Services ,Dept of Ecology NW Regional Office, Shoreland Div. SHORELINE NOD REQUIRES RETURN RECEIPT ( ) Dept of Ecology, SEPA **Send Electronically j>3.0ffice of Attorney General ( ) Office of Hearing Examiner ( ) KC Boundary Review Board ( ) Fire District # 11 ( ) Fire District # 2 ( ) KC Wastewater Treatment Div ( ) KC Dept of Parks & Recreation ( ) KC Assessor's Office Section 3 ( ) KC Public Library System 124r Foster Library ( ) Renton Library ( ) Kent Library ( ) Seattle Library Section 4 'SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES 71. Westfield Mall Library ( ) Tukwila School District ( ) Highline School District ( ) Seattle School District ( ) Renton School District ( ) QWEST Communications ( ) Seattle City Light ( ) Puget Sound Energy ( ) Highline Water District ( ) Seattle Planning &Dev/Water Dept ( ) Comcast Section 5 UTILITIES ( ) BP Olympic Pipeline ( ) Val-Vue Sewer District ( ) Water District # 20 ( ) Water District # 125 City of Renton Public Works ( ) Bryn Mawr-Lakeridge Sewer/Water Dist ( ) Seattle Public Utilities ( ) Allied Waste Services Y‘t ( ) Tukwila City Departments Public Works ( ) Fire Police ( ) Finance ( ) Planning ( ) Building ( ) Parks & Rec ( ) Mayor ( ) City Clerk Sect' N CITY AGENCIES \V. Kent Planning Dept 14 Renton Planning Dept ( ) City of SeaTac ( ) City of Burien ( ) City of Seattle ( ) Strategic Planning *Notice of all Seattle Related Projects ( ) Puget Sound Regional Council N) SW KC Chamber of Commerce ) Muckleshoot Indian Tribe * Cultural Resources Fisheries Programme N ter +i r• Wildlife Program tl Duwamish Indian Tribe Section 7 OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES ( ) Puget Sound Clean Air Agency ( ) Sound Transit/SEPA Duwamish River Clean Up Coalition * ( ) Washington Environmental Council •(O -0. People for Puget Sound * ( ) Futurewise * send notice of all applications on Green/Duwamish River ( ) Seattle Times ( ) South County Journal Section 8 MEDIA ( ) Highline Times ( ) City of Tukwila Website P:Admin\Admin Forms\Agency Checklist scarf t 1.'c at CA..1 ,r✓.III In/ — ...MiLvi Li. . YWW. fid I . li \ r Cascade Bicycle Club P.O. Box 15165 Seattle Wa 98115 Bicycle Alliance of Washington P.O. Box 2904 Seattle Wa 98111 {nwr ) T.A- S Ov,a . y,t (M- •L►d c.v.ian May 21, 2013 f _1 City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director RE: L14-0030, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and L14-0031, Shoreline Variance for Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs Dear Interested Party: The City of Tukwila has received a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and Shoreline Variance request from the City of Kent for repairs to the Briscoe/Desimone levee system, portions of which lie in Tukwila. Due to the number of documents that are included with the two applications, I have placed them on a CD for your review. The CD is organized into two folders as follows: Folder #1: Application materials for the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and Shoreline Variance. The numbered items refer to the items listed on the first page under Application Materials of the City's Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SSDP) (attached). #1 Tukwila SSDP Checklist #2 Application #3 Fee Sheet #4 Project Value Sheet #5 Info on Check Submitted #6 Response to Section B of SSDP application: B1 Vicinity Map B2 Project Description B3 Refers reader to #B5 for the Biological Assessment B4 Draft FEMA Accreditation Report for the Green River Right Bank Levee Briscoe- Desimone Levee System, Volumes 1-3 prepared by GEI Consultants, dated April, 2012 B5 JARPA, Biological Assessment Addendum, 2/20/13 Biological Assessment, 8/2008 SEPA Checklist JARPA Documents #7 Project Plans #8 Comment on reducing plans to 81/2 x 11" #9 Notes electronic copy of materials provided with application Shoreline Variance Narrative CL: H:\\L14-0030 & L14-0031\NOA Cover Sheet Page 1 of 2 05/21/2014 10:36 AM 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax 206-431-3665 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repair L14-0030 & L14-0031 Notice of Application Folder #2: Conditional Letter of Map Revision application dated 10/24/11 along with the following supporting materials: Stability & Certification Report Hydraulic Analysis Risk Based Analysis Scour Analysis O & M Manual Plans Biological Assessment Flood Response Manual FIRM Maps MT2 Form 2 MT2 Form 3 MT2 Form 1 Workmaps 1-5 A hard copy of the SEPA determination and staff report, issued by the City of Kent, is enclosed. Please let me know if you have any questions. I can be reached at 206-431-3661 or carol.lumb@tukwilawa.gov. Sincerely, (/(1t Carol Lumb Senior Planner Enclosures CL: Page 2 of 2 05/21/2014 10:36 AM H:\\L14-0030 & L14-0031\NOA Cover Sheet Check items submitted with application Information Required. May be waived in unusual cases, upon approval of both Public Works and Planning. APPLICATION MATERIALS: x 1. Application Checklist (1 copy) indicating items submitted with application. x 2. Completed Application Form (page 7) and notarized Hold Harmless Agreement (page 9) (5 copies). (Hold Harmless Agreement Waived 4/4/14 meeting with Tukwila) x 3. Application Fee: See Land Use Fee Schedule for Standard App fee. "Add'I fees may incur x 4. Project Value Documentation. x 5. Public Notice Materials and fee. See item A (page 4) for details. x 6. Project Description/Analysis (5 copies) and other environmental reports (2copies). See item B (page 4) for details. x 7. Drawings (5 copies) Additional copies may be required upon determination that the application is complete: a). Site Plan See item C (page 4) for details. x b). Site Cross Sections along the shoreline . See item D (page 5) for details. x c). Landscape Plans. See item E (page 5) for details. x d). Civil Plans. See item F (page 5) for details. x e). Other plans to help explain the project such as elevations, lighting plan, signage etc. See item G (page 6) for details. x 8. One set of all plans reduced to 8 1/2" by 11" or 11" by 17". x 9. An electronic copy of all project application materials. x 10. Other land use applications, as applicable: SEPA Environmental Checklist, Design Review Application (see TMC 18.44.110 for review criteria), Special Permission, Director, for buffer reduction requests. tl' • WASHINGTON CITY OF KENT MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Environmental Checklist No.: #ENV -2013-3 Project: Briscoe-Desimone #RPSW-2130616 Levee Improvements Description: The City of Kent Public Works Department proposes to install a structural steel sheet pile wall at the back of the existing levee slope to act as a secondary levee to reduce flood risk to the cities of Kent, Tukwila and Renton. The proposed flood wall will provide a minimum of 3 feet of freeboard above the predicted 500 -year flood event in order to meet FEMA accreditation requirements. The flood wall will be constructed in four segments ("reaches") along the east bank of the Green River, between South 200th Street and South 180th Street. The northernmost segment ("Reach 1") and a small piece of Reach 2 are located within the City of Tukwila (see Figure 1, next page). The City of Kent is acting as SEPA lead agency for the entire project, but separate shoreline permits will be submitted to Tukwila. The sheet piles will be installed using vibratory equipment (but no impact hammers) and will be between 23 and 64 feet deep, depending on location. The above -ground portion of the wall will range from 8 feet to 13 feet tall, when viewed from surrounding businesses. To allow for re - vegetation and habitat restoration, benches will be constructed where feasible along the riverbank (see Figure 2, next page). These benches will entail excavation between the ordinary high water mark and the existing Green River trail to create a bench of up to 15 feet wide where native trees and shrubs will be planted. Approximately 40,000 cubic yards of material will be removed to create the planting benches. An estimated 277 trees and 29 stumps will be removed, in addition to invasive or non-native vegetation. A minimum of 280 trees and 3,000 shrubs will be planted as mitigation on the excavated benches. The existing asphalt trail will be removed and relocated further landward adjacent to the flood wall, with handrails placed on top of the wall. The flood wall will extend approximately 3 feet above the surface of the new trail, plus a 1.5 foot handrail. Approximately 6,000 cubic yards of fill material will be used to construct the new trail. All existing public access points will be maintained and where necessary, stairways will be constructed. The Green River Trail will be temporarily closed in sections during construction, with detours provided, and will return to normal operations after construction. The parking lot serving the Green River Trail located adjacent to the cul-de-sac bulb of South 190th Street will be raised to match the trail elevation. This will improve trail access by providing ADA accessibility as well as maintenance access. Existing use of other adjacent properties will remain unchanged. The Kent portion of the project (Briscoe) is located pn the east bank of the Green River between South 200th Street and South 189th Street, identified as King County Parcel Numbers 0222049047, 0000200044, 0000200043, 7888800090, 7888800111, 7888800140, 7888800155, and 7888800210. The Tukwila portion of the project (Desimone) is located on the east bank of the Green River between South 189th Street and South 180th Street, identified as King County Parcel Numbers 7888900110, 7888900170 and 7888900150. The project area spans several zoning districts, including M1 (Industrial Park) and M2 (Limited Industrial) in the Kent portion. The Tukwila portion is zoned C/LI (Commercial Light Industrial). Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 Figure 1: Project Map Figure 2: Cross Section of Proposed Design LO' --rr rT>7/ ILL AREA FLOOD WALL 2 of 3 v Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 Applicant: Ken Langholz, City of Kent Public Works Lead Agency: CITY OF KENT The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. X There is no comment period for this DNS pursuant to WAC 197-11-355 Optional DNS process. There is no comment period for this DNS. This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date of this decision; this constitutes a 14 -day comment period. Comments must be submitted by . This DNS is subject to appeal pursuant to Kent City Code section 11.03.520. Responsible Official: Charlene Anderson, AICP Position/Title: Planning Manager / SEPA OFFICIAL Address: 220 S. Fourth Avenue, Kent, WA 98032 Telephone: (253 Dated: April 9, 2013 Signature: 56-5454 APPEAL PROCESS: AN APPEAL OF A DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) MUST BE MADE TO THE KENT HEARING EXAMINER WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS FOLLOWING THE DATE OF THIS DECISION PER KENT CITY CODE 11.03.520. CONDITIONS/MITIGATING MEASURES: 1. The applicant shall evaluate the impacts to shallow groundwater movement through the floodwall. If impacts to groundwater are identified, appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented to mitigate the impact. Such measures could include, but are not limited to staggering the lengths of the sheet piles to allow flow through or providing openings in the sheet piles to allow for groundwater movement through the wall. 2. The applicant shall finish the flood wall on both the landward and waterward sides with aesthetic elements such as colors, textures or patterns to enhance the appearance and promote compatibility with surrounding uses. The final finish material shall be submitted for review and approval by Planning Services. j m\S: \Permit\Plan\Env\2013\2130616-2013-3dnsopt.doc • KENT W A S H I N G T O N \ f ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING SERVICES Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REPORT Decision Document BRISCOE-DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA -2013-2/ RPSP-2130617 Responsible Official: Charlene Anderson, AICP Staff Contact: Erin George, AICP I. PROPOSAL The City of Kent Public Works Department proposes to install a structural steel sheet pile wall at the back of the existing levee slope to act as a secondary levee to reduce flood risk to the cities of Kent, Tukwila and Renton. The proposed flood wall will provide a minimum of 3 feet of freeboard above the predicted 500 -year flood event in order to meet FEMA accreditation requirements. The flood wall will be constructed in four segments ("reaches") along the east bank of the Green River, between South 200th Street and South 180th Street. The northernmost segment ("Reach 1") and a small piece of Reach 2 are located within the City of Tukwila (see Figure 1, next page). The City of Kent is acting as SEPA lead agency for the entire project, but separate shoreline permits will be submitted to Tukwila. The sheet piles will be installed using vibratory equipment (but no impact hammers) and will be between 23 and 64 feet deep, depending on location. The above -ground portion of the wall will range from 8 feet to 13 feet tall, when viewed from surrounding businesses. To allow for re -vegetation and habitat restoration, benches will be constructed where feasible along the riverbank (see Figure 2, next page). These benches will entail excavation between the ordinary high water mark and the existing Green River trail to create a bench of up to 15 feet wide where native trees and shrubs will be planted. Approximately 40,000 cubic yards of material will be removed to create the planting benches. An estimated 277 trees and 29 stumps will be removed, in addition to invasive or non-native vegetation. A minimum of 280 trees and 3,000 shrubs will be planted as mitigation on the excavated benches. Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV'2013'3/RP6VV'2130616 SMC'2013'1/RPP3'2130618 SMA'2013'2/RPSP'2130617 Figure 1: Project Map Figure 2: Cross Section of Proposed Design VARES /-//'77 /7'7- SAL ARIA VARIES /"/- <-<_////' EAr^ Page 2 of 13 l Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 The existing asphalt trail will be removed and relocated further landward adjacent to the flood wall, with handrails placed on top of the wall. The flood wall will extend approximately 3 feet above the surface of the new trail, plus a 1.5 foot handrail. Approximately 6,000 cubic yards of fill material will be used to construct the new trail. All existing public access points will be maintained and where necessary, stairways will be constructed. The Green River Trail will be temporarily closed in sections during construction, with detours provided, and will return to normal operations after construction. The parking lot serving the Green River Trail located adjacent to the cul-de- sac bulb of South 190th Street will be raised to match the trail elevation. This will improve trail access by providing ADA accessibility as well as maintenance access. Existing use of other adjacent properties will remain unchanged. The Kent portion of the project (Briscoe) is located on the east bank of the Green River between South 200th Street and South 189th Street, identified as King County Parcel Numbers 0222049047, 0000200044, 0000200043, 7888800090, 7888800111, 7888800140, 7888800155, and 7888800210. The Tukwila portion of the project (Desimone) is located on the east bank of the Green River between South 189th Street and South 180th Street, identified as King County Parcel Numbers 7888900110, 7888900170 and 7888900150. The project area spans several zoning districts, including M1 (Industrial Park) and M2 (Limited Industrial) in the Kent portion. The Tukwila portion is zoned C/LI (Commercial Light Industrial). II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Any conditions applied to the following Determination of Nonsignificance are applied because identified impacts cannot adequately be addressed by existing City of Kent and City of Tukwila codes and ordinances. III. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS A. Earth The combined project area of approximately 8 acres is flat, with the exception of the existing levee berm which has slopes in the range of 50% to 80%. Soils in the area are categorized by the King County Soils Survey as Newberg silt loam, Puyallup fine sandy loam and Urban Land gravelly sandy loam. Approximately 6,000 cubic yards of fill material will be used to construct the new trail and approximately 40,000 cubic yards of material will be removed to create the planting benches. Fill material will include sand, gravel and asphalt pavement for the trail, as well as compost and amended topsoil for plantings on the excavated benches. All fill materials will be obtained from Page 3 of 13 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 permitted excavation sites and cut material will be taken directly to an approved site. No stockpiling will occur on site. Exposed, cleared or excavated areas have the potential for erosion to occur. Appropriate best management practices (BMP's) will be implemented to control erosion potential throughout the course of the project. The applicant will prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) meeting all the requirements of the Department of Ecology National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater General Permit (CSWGP). The applicant will also obtain an NPDES permit coverage letter from DOE, and will maintain the construction site and conduct water quality sampling pursuant to the CSWGP requirements. The applicant will prepare a Detailed Grading Plan and a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan for the entire development. For the Kent portion of the project, these plans are required to meet the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards and the City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual. For the Tukwila portion, plans must comply with Tukwila Municipal Code 16.54 (Grading) and 14.30 (Surface Water Management), as well as the City of Tukwila Surface Water Design Manual and Public Works Infrastructure and Design and Construction Standards. B. Air During project construction there will be a slight increase in vehicle exhaust and emissions caused by construction equipment and construction vehicles entering and leaving the project area. All construction equipment will be equipped with standard mufflers and emission control equipment. Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented during construction to suppress dust. These BMPs will include covering soil stockpiles, applying water to exposed soil during dry weather, and sweeping affected paved areas. The completed project will not cause an increase in vehicle trips or contribute to air quality degradation. C. Water 1. Surface Water The project area is within 200 feet of the Green River, a Shoreline of Statewide Significance. Applications for Shoreline Substantial Development and Shoreline Conditional Use Permits for work within the City of Kent were submitted with the Environmental Checklist for the proposed project. No work will occur below the ordinary high water mark of the Green River; however a Hydraulic Project Page 4 of 13 N Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 N Approval will be required from the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all necessary federal and state permits. No wetlands were identified within the project improvement limits, according to the Biological Assessment, Green River Levee Improvements, River Mile 14.25 to River Mile 22.0, prepared by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., dated October 3, 2011. The portion of the project area that is located on the waterward side of the existing levee berm is within the Green River floodway. Excavation of the proposed planting benches will increase flood storage by approximately 40,000 cubic yards. The applicant has submitted a completed Flood Zone Control Permit to the City of Kent and will be required to comply with the City's flood hazard regulations in Kent City Code Chapter 14.09. The applicant will also submit a Flood Zone Control Permit to the City of Tukwila to comply with Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 16.52. 2. Groundwater The project area is not located within a critical aquifer recharge area and no groundwater will be withdrawn as a result of this project. Joan Nolan from the Washington State Department of Ecology submitted a comment letter which indicated that this reach of the Green River is a groundwater gaining reach and raised concerns about how the sheet pile wall will affect groundwater flow. The City is evaluating the impacts to shallow groundwater movement through the floodwall reaches with consideration for the prevailing groundwater movements in this area as well as near the river, the length and orientation of the floodwall, and the geology of the site. If impacts to groundwater are identified, appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented to mitigate the impact. Such measures could include, but are not limited to staggering the lengths of the sheet piles to allow flow through or providing openings in the sheet piles to allow for groundwater movement through the wall. 3. Stormwater Runoff The main source of stormwater runoff will be the existing parking lot proposed to be raised, as well as the non -pollution generating trail. For the parking lot, the applicant will comply with the water quality control requirements of the 2002 City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual. Due to the new trail being slightly wider than before, there will be a slight increase in impervious surfaces. Page 5 of 13 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 According to the Biological Assessment, the slight increase in impervious surface will not adversely affect water quality after the project is completed largely because the trail is a non -pollution generating surface. According to the Addendum to Biological Assessment, Green River Levee Improvements Project, River Mile 14.25 to River Mile 22.0 prepared by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., dated February 20, 2013, a net change in flow in the Green River is not anticipated as a result of the project. The majority of water that falls onto the project area will infiltrate once the disturbed areas are re -planted and vegetation on the benches has become established. D. Plants A variety of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs and grasses are present in the project area; primarily located behind the existing levee berm. The waterward side of the berm is vegetated primarily with non-native species such as Himalayan blackberry and reed canary grass, with some willows and snowberry at or below the ordinary high water mark. Approximately 277 trees and 29 stumps will be removed as a result of the project (primarily on the landward side of the berm), in addition to invasive or non-native vegetation. A minimum of 280 trees and 3,000 shrubs will be planted as mitigation on the excavated benches. The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and Department of Ecology submitted comments regarding temperature conditions in the Green River and the related shading benefits provided by mature riparian vegetation on the riverbank. The Tribe feels the vegetated area along the river is not wide enough to adequately address temperature impairment. They are also concerned the new vegetation will be subject to the US Army Corps of Engineers vegetation policy which does not allow trees over 10 inch in diameter within 15 feet of accredited levees. Construction of the proposed floodwall will provide the city with the opportunity to plant Targe overstory trees that are not subject to diameter or height restrictions along the banks of the river because the floodwall serves as the levee, and therefore the Corps vegetation policy waterward of the "levee" does not apply. These large trees will, in time, provide significant shade to this reach of the river where very little currently exists. View corridors through the vegetation will be provided to ensure preservation of public views and safety for users of the Green River Trail. This will be accomplished by using several different planting zones: low, medium and high density. All planting zones will be densely covered with shrubs for habitat purposes, but the low and medium density zones will space the trees in a way to allow sightlines. Page 6 of 13 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 E. Animals Puget Sound Chinook Salmon, Coastal -Puget Sound Bull Trout, and Puget Sound Steelhead are all federally endangered or threatened species identified within the Green River, located within the project area. The Green River is also designated as critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook Salmon and Coastal -Puget Sound Bull Trout. Marbled Murrelet is a threatened species which has been documented in King County in limited instances. However, due to absence of suitable nesting habitat, no nesting is expected in the action area. Other birds including hawk, heron, eagle, kingfisher, flicker, robin, crow, towhee, blackbird, duck, junco, chickadee and dipper have been observed in the project area. Mammals and rodents including beaver, vole, rabbit, otter, coyote, raccoon, opossum and rats are known to utilize the project area as well. A biological assessment was prepared for the City in 2011 which analyzed all planned levee segments, including the Briscoe-Desimone segment. This document, entitled Biological Assessment for Green River Levee Improvements, River Mile 14.25 to River Mile 22.00, prepared by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., dated October 3, 2011 concludes that through avoidance of in -water work and with implementation of the TESC plan, SWPPP, and stormwater control and treatment measures, the project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect Bull trout, Puget Sound Chinook, Puget Sound steelhead, Marbled Murrelets and their designated critical habitat. An addendum was prepared for the Briscoe-Desimone levee segment, which analyzes design details that have changed since the 2011 report. This addendum is entitled Addendum to Biological Assessment, Green River Levee Improvements Project, River Mile 14.25 to River Mile 22.0 prepared by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., dated February 20, 2013. This addendum concludes that the effects determinations remain unchanged from the determinations listed in the 2011 report. The Briscoe-Desimone levee project will improve riparian habitat conditions along 4,400 lineal feet of the Green River. The proposed trees and shrubs to be planted on the waterward side of the existing levee berm will provide nesting and rearing habitat for birds and small mammals. The enhanced riparian area will benefit fish by increasing shade, woody debris, insect drop and leaf litter. Creation of a sloped floodplain bench that will be inundated for approximately 40 days during the primary juvenile salmonid outmigration period (January - June) will improve habitat significantly over the current, invasive dominated, steep -walled levee condition. Page 7 of 13 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 F. Environmental Health There is a slight risk of spills or fire due to the use of petroleum fuels for construction equipment. All fuel containers will be stored off-site in a staging area and will remain in secondary containment when not actively in use. Spill kits and a site specific spill response plan will be kept on-site at all times during construction. Some noise will be generated from trucks and heavy equipment during site construction and vibratory equipment will be used for sheet pile installation. Some vibration and noise may be noticeable to nearby properties during this period; however, construction activity will be temporary and will only take place Monday through Friday 7:OOam to 7:OOpm. Mufflers will be required on all vehicles and equipment with internal combustion engines. Impact hammers will not be allowed for sheet pile installation. G. Land and Shoreline Use The project area spans several zoning districts, including M1 (Industrial Park) and M2 (Limited Industrial) in the Kent portion. The Tukwila portion is zoned C/LI (Commercial Light Industrial). The corresponding Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designations are Open Space and Industrial in the Kent portion; and Commercial Light Industrial in the Tukwila portion. Properties within the project area are currently used as a levee and recreational trail. Properties surrounding the project area are developed with warehousing, manufacturing and other light industrial uses. Completion of the proposed project will not permanently alter any of the existing uses in the area, with the exception of the Riverpoint Corporate Center (APN 7888900170) near Reach 1, which may lose up to 40 parking stalls if the flood wall is shifted further south. The City is working with the King County Flood Control District to agree on the wall's location. In the event of this change, the City will work directly with the property owner to redesign the parking area. Using parallel parking spaces and other adjustments, up to 15 stalls may be gained back. The business will be compensated for any lost parking. The western portion of the Stress -Tek parking lot (APN 7888800140) and the south portion of the Rivers Edge Business Park (APN 7888800100) may be used as construction staging areas. The City will work directly with the Stress -Tek owner to minimize impacts to their business operation. Two of the three Rivers Edge Business Park buildings are vacant, with the property now owned by the King County Page 8 of 13 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 Flood Control District. A special use permit may be required from King County for staging use. The one remaining business, if still present will be consulted to minimize impacts to their business operation. The entire project area is located within 200 feet of the Green River, a Shoreline of Statewide Significance. Accordingly Reach 2, 3 and 4 of the proposed project are subject to the City of Kent Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Reach 1 and a small portion of Reach 2 are subject to the Tukwila SMP. The Kent portion of the project area is designated by the Kent SMP as High Intensity, with a parallel designation of Urban Conservancy -Open Space where the Green River Trail is located. The Tukwila portion is designated by the Tukwila SMP as Urban Conservancy. Applications for Shoreline Substantial Development and Shoreline Conditional Use Permits were submitted to the City of Kent with the Environmental Checklist. Separate shoreline permits will be submitted to the City of Tukwila at a later date. H. Aesthetics The above -ground portion of the sheet pile wall will range from 8 feet to 13 feet tall when viewed from the adjacent businesses and will diminish views of the river. On the trail side, the flood wall will extend approximately 3 feet above the surface of the new trail, plus a 1.5 foot handrail. Construction materials identified for the flood wall include steel and concrete, but the ultimate finish treatment has not yet been identified. Appearance of the proposed flood wall is important in this area as it is being constructed along a regional public trail system and through high quality, attractive industrial parks. As the new trail location will directly abut the flood wall, aesthetic treatment is necessary to maintain an attractive and enjoyable environment that encourages public use of the trail. The Industrial Park (M1) zoning district is intended to provide areas for those industrial activities that desire to conduct business in a prestigious environment. This intent is supported by aesthetic standards such as landscape screening requirements in the City's Zoning Code. In order to support the City's goals for the M1 district and to be compatible with surrounding business and recreational uses, it is important that the flood wall be finished with materials, colors or textures that create visual interest. I. Recreation The Green River Trail provides biking and walking opportunities along the river. Use of the trail will be restricted temporarily during construction, requiring users to detour around the construction area. Page 9 of 13 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 The existing trail on top of the levee berm will be removed and a new, wider (12 - 14 feet wide) paved trail will be installed further landward adjacent to the flood wall. All existing public access points will be maintained and where necessary, stairways will be constructed. The furthest distance between public access points will be a quarter mile. Hand rails will be placed on top of the flood wall to ensure safety of pedestrians using the trail. View corridors through the vegetation will be provided to ensure preservation of public views and safety for users of the Green River Trail. This will be accomplished by using several different planting zones: low, medium and high density. All planting zones will be densely covered with shrubs for habitat purposes, but the low and medium density zones will space the trees in a way to allow sightlines. John Nelier, a cyclist who regularly uses the Green River Trail submitted a comment requesting that trail users be notified a minimum of 2 weeks prior to trail closure. Mr. Nelier complained that prior levee projects did not notify trail users until the day of the closure, resulting in inconvenience and frustration especially for those using the trail to commute to or from work. The City does provide advance notification of trail closures on their website, but not on-site. The City's Shoreline Master Program includes policies and regulations regarding public access and recreation. The shoreline conditional use criteria contained in WAC 173-27-160 and referenced in the City's Shoreline Master Program require provisions for normal public use of public shorelines. Accordingly, a condition will be added to the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit regarding on-site advance notification to trail users. Briscoe Park is located in the river bend northwest of South 190th Street, which contains trails, a picnic shelter and a portable restroom. No levee work will be done within Briscoe Park itself. A separate parking lot located south of Briscoe Park adjacent to the cul-de-sac bulb of South 190th Street provides parking for Briscoe Park and the Green River Trail. This parking area will be used as a construction staging area, and consequently will be closed during construction. The Kent Parks Department indicates that Briscoe Park is primarily used by pedestrians and cyclists from the trail as opposed to recreationists arriving by car; so temporary closure of the lot will be a minor impact. The parking area typically contains 8 to 10 cars each day, primarily employees of the adjacent business to the south. Due to vacancy of other buildings in the River's Edge Business Park, adequate on-site parking is present to serve employees during closure of the City parking lot. To allow for trail and park access following construction of the flood wall, the parking lot will be raised to match the trail elevation. This will improve trail access by providing ADA accessibility as well as maintenance access. Page 10 of 13 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 1 Historic and Cultural Preservation A Cultural Resources report was prepared for this project, entitled Cultural Resources Assessment for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, City of Kent Green River Levees Improvement Project, prepared by Historical Research Associates, Inc., dated March 18, 2013. This report found no previously recorded archaeological sites, no historic - period buildings, structures or objects and no archaeological resources in the area of impact. The report notes that proximity to the Green River and historical homesteading and agriculture activities would typically mean a high probability of intact archaeological remains; but given the frequency of flooding events and ground disturbance from construction of business parks, utility lines and the levee system the probability of intact archaeological remains is in fact low to moderate. Should archaeological materials (e.g. bones, shell, stone tools, beads, ceramics, old bottles, hearths, etc.) or human remains be observed during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity should stop. The State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the City should be contacted immediately in order to help assess the situation and determine how to preserve the resource(s). Compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to archaeological resources (RCW 27.53, 27.44 and WAC 25-48) is required. The City's Shoreline Master Program includes policies and regulations regarding archaeological and historic resources. Accordingly, a condition to this effect will be added to the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe members fish in this section of the river. The tribe has requested that the City coordinate with them at least 30 days in advance of construction to avoid interference with tribal fishing activities and access. The Public Works Department has agreed to do so. The City's Shoreline Master Program includes policies and regulations regarding public access and coordination with affected tribes, and the shoreline conditional use criteria require compatibility with other authorized uses. Accordingly, a condition will be added to the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit regarding coordination with the Muckleshoot tribe. K. Transportation South 200th Street is located at the south end of the project area at Reach 4, South 190th Street is located near Reaches 2 and 3 and West Valley Highway at the north end of the project at Reach 1. Access to properties in the project vicinity will be maintained during construction. Existing levee maintenance access points will be Page 11 of 13 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 maintained, with slight modifications as needed to allow maintenance vehicles to get over the new flood wall. Maintenance access to Reach 4 may be modified to provide a direct connection to South 200th Street. Maintenance access to Reach 1 from West Valley Highway may also need some modifications. A traffic control plan will be prepared to reduce traffic impacts during construction. The proposed project will not generate additional traffic trips. L. Public Services The proposal will not generate the need for increased public services. M. Utilities An existing 8 -inch storm pipe located in Reach 1 will be extended through the new flood wall and a flap gate installed. No other utility improvements are anticipated at this time, but utility relocations may become necessary as a result of construction. IV. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION A. Per WAC 197-11-660 and RCW 43.21C.060, the City of Kent may establish conditions to mitigate any identified impacts associated with this proposal. The following supporting documents serve as possible bases for any conditions and mitigating measures: 1. City of Kent Comprehensive Plan, as prepared and adopted pursuant to the State Growth Management Act. 2. The State Shoreline Management Act and the Kent Shoreline Master Program. 3. Kent City Code Section 7.07, Surface Water and Drainage Code. 4. City of Kent Transportation Plan, Green River Valley Transportation action plan and current Six -Year Transportation Improvement Plan. 5. Kent City Code Section 7.09, Wastewater Facilities Plan. 6. City of Kent Comprehensive Water Plan and Conservation Element. 7. Kent City Code Section 6.02, Required Public Improvements. 8. Kent City Code Section 6.07, Street Use Permit Requirements. 9. Kent City Code Section 14.09, Flood Hazard Protection. 10. Kent City Code Section 12.04, Subdivision Code. 11. Kent City Code Section 12.05, Mobile Home Parks and Section 12.06, Recreation Vehicle Parks. 12. Kent City Code Section 8.05, Noise Control. 13. City of Kent International Building and Fire Codes. Page 12 of 13 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 14. Kent City Code Section 15, Kent Zoning Code. 15. Kent City Code Section 7.13, Water Shortage and Emergency Regulations, and Water Conservation Ordinance 2227. 16. Kent City Code Section 6.03, Improvement Plan Approval and Inspection Fees. 17. Kent City Code Section 7.05, Storm and Surface Water Drainage Utility. 18. City of Kent Comprehensive Sewer Plan. 19. City of Kent Fire Master Plan. 20. City of Kent Section 11.06, Critical Areas. B. It is recommended that a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) be issued for this project with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall evaluate the impacts to shallow groundwater movement through the floodwall. If impacts to groundwater are identified, appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented to mitigate the impact. Such measures could include, but are not limited to staggering the lengths of the sheet piles to allow flow through or providing openings in the sheet piles to allow for groundwater movement through the wall. 2. The applicant shall finish the flood wall on both the landward and waterward sides with aesthetic elements such as colors, textures or patterns to enhance the appearance and promote compatibility with surrounding uses. The final finish material shall be submitted for review and approval by Planning Services. KENT PLANNING SERVICES April 9, 2013 EG:jm\S:\Permit\Plan\Env\2013\2130616decision.doc Page 13 of 13 CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF APPLICATION PROJECT INFORMATION The City of Kent has filed a shoreline substantial development permit application to install a structural steel sheet pile wall at the back of existing levee on the Green River to reduce flood risk to the cities of Renton, Kent and Tukwila and a shoreline variance to construct a different levee profile from that required by Tukwila's Shoreline Master Program. The waterward side of the levee will be reconfigured and planted with native plants. The structural steel sheet pile wall will be installed on levee behind 18200 Cascade Ave. S. and is referred to as "Reach 1" of the Briscoe/Desimone levee repair. A second repair is taking place at "Reach 2", a very small portion of which (200 feet) falls within the City of Tukwila. Tukwila's portion of Reach 2 is found behind the building located at 6545 South Glacier Street. Permits applied for include: L14-0030: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit L14-0031: Shoreline Variance Other known required permits include: Public Works permit for hauling Studies required with the applications include: The City of Kent has provided the following studies: Biological Assessment, dated 10/3/11, prepared by Shannon and Wilson Engineers; FEMA Accreditation Report Volumes 1-3, prepared by GEI Consultants, dated April, 2012; and Cultural Resources Assessment, prepared by Historical Research Associates, Inc., dated March 18, 2013; and the Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLMR) Application to 1±MA dated 10/24/11 along with a number of supporting materials. A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) for the entire levee repair project, which involves four separate sites located primarily in the City of Kent, was issued by the City of Kent on April 9, 2013. FILES AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW The project files are available at the City of Tukwila. To view the files, you may request them at the counter at the Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard #100. Please call the number listed below to make arrangements to view the files. f Project Files include: L14-0030: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and L14-0031: Shoreline Variance OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT Your written comments on the project are requested. They must be delivered to DCD at the address below or postmarked no later than 5:00 P.M., June 23, 2014. Opportunity for additional oral and/or written public comments will be provided at a public hearing before the Tukwila Hearing Examiner scheduled for Tuesday, July 22, 2014 at 9:30 a.m.in Conference Room #2, at the DCD offices: 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100, Tukwila, WA 98188. To confirm the hearing date call the Department of Community Development at (206) 431-3661. APPEALS You may request a copy of any decision, information on hearings, and your appeal rights by calling DCD at (206) 431-3670. Both the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and Shoreline Variance are appealable to the Washington State Shoreline Hearings Board. For further information on this proposal, contact Carol Lumb at (206) 431-3661 or visit our offices at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100, Tukwila, WA 98188, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Application Filed: Notice of Completeness Issued: Notice of Application Issued: CL April 30, 2014 May 13, 2014 May 22, 2014 05/20/2014 5:55 PM FASTSIGNS 7825 S. 180th Street Kent, WA 98032 Phone: (206) 575-2110 Fax: (206) 575-1806 www.fastsigns.com/157 Client Information Job Number: 58484 Client: City of Tukwila Contact: Carol Lumb Salesperson: Alicia Designer: Greg Production Information Material: MDO Size: 48x48 Quantity: 2 Finishing: Standard Complete By: TBD Proof is representative of color only. Exact color matching will have to be performed in store. It is the customers responsibility to ensure all text, colors, images etc. presented in this proof are accurate. NOTICE OF LAND USE ACTION Project Name: Briscoe - Desimone Levee Repair File Number: L14-0030 and L14-0031 Permit Action: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and Shoreline Variance Site Address: Reach 1- Green River Levee at 18200 and 18251 Cascade Ave. S; Reach 2 - Green River Levee at 6545 S. Glacier St. TO SUBMIT COMMENTS OR TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE PROJECT PLANNER AT (206) 431-3670 Tukwila Planning Division 6300 Southcenter Blvd. #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Carol Lumb From: Langholz, Ken <KLangholz@kentwa.gov> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 2:30 PM To: Carol Lumb Cc: Knox, Matthew; Howlett, Mark Subject: Parcel Questions Carol, The 3 parcels you listed are the ones that have sheet pile walls on each parcel. There are approximately 35 stumps (total) to be removed on parcels 7888900152, 7888900140, and 7888900130. That leaves 3 parcels in between these parcels that we listed on the application but don't anticipate needing to do any work on. We included these parcels in the permit application because they're in between all of the other parcels and felt that we should include them. *,ss,Katex Ken Langholz, Engineering Supervisor Design Engineering 1 Public Works Department 220 Fourth Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032 Phone 253-856-5516 klangholz©KentWA.nov www.KentWA.ciov nB "° PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS E- MAIL From: Carol Lumb[mailto:CaroI.Lumb@TukwilaWA.govl Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 11:59 AM To: Langholz, Ken Subject: Parcel Questions Hi Ken, Following up on my voice mail, here are the parcels that I think are actually affected by the levee repairs (repair work is taking place on these parcels): Reach 1: 7888900170 7888900150 Reach 2: 7888900110 I'm not sure how the other parcels listed on the permit application relate to either Reach 1 or Reach 2 — I'm just trying to clarify so I know where to start the 500 ft. radius for our notification. Thanks for clarifying. You will get a letter from me soon officially notifying Kent that the applications are complete and we are starting the review process. Carol 1 Carol Lurnb, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd,, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 206-431-3661 C rral.l. imb�7'ukwila 1'Va,gov 'Tukwila, the City of opportunity, the community of choice. 2 / CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 FAX (206) 431-3665 E-mail: Planning@tukwilawa.gov SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Briscoe-Desimone Levee Project LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. The Desimone tree (Reach 1) proohect location is located along the right bank of the Green River between S. 189 Street and S. 180 Street within Tukwila, River Mile 14.47 to 14.64. The portion of the Briscoe Levee (Reach 2) withihn Tukwila is located along the right bank of the Green River at the city limits of Tukwila, north of S. 190' Street, near River Mile 15.44. LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS (this information may be found on your tax statement or NWMaps.net). ,--- / Kart. 2. 7888900170, 7888900150 7828%10110; -7=32=0,7888900130,7888900140,7888900152,7888900164,7888900162 Re_tta, ( /5 y5,-rF- -i. -°/ /\- S ovir in JaC PROJECT VALUE -(PLEASE ATTACH DOCUMENTATION): $4.3 M 'LOo 610(A44. 4, 111.51 DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR: The individual who: 5 35-3 d✓1 • has decision making authority on behalf of the owner/applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: Ken Langholz, City of Kent Public Works Department Address: 220 4th Ave. S., Kent WA 98032 Phone: 253-856-5516 E-mail: KLa gholz@KtWA>ov Signature: CPL %" (\ Page 7 of 14 W:\\Long Range Proje s\Shoreline\New Shoreline Permits - 1-12 SSDP v FAX: 253-856-6500 Date: 4/3414 / 04/13/2012 10:15 AM FOR STAFF USE ONLY Permits Plus Type: P -SHORE Planner: File Number: Application Complete (Date: ) Project File Number: Application Incomplete (Date: ) Other File Numbers: NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Briscoe-Desimone Levee Project LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. The Desimone tree (Reach 1) proohect location is located along the right bank of the Green River between S. 189 Street and S. 180 Street within Tukwila, River Mile 14.47 to 14.64. The portion of the Briscoe Levee (Reach 2) withihn Tukwila is located along the right bank of the Green River at the city limits of Tukwila, north of S. 190' Street, near River Mile 15.44. LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS (this information may be found on your tax statement or NWMaps.net). ,--- / Kart. 2. 7888900170, 7888900150 7828%10110; -7=32=0,7888900130,7888900140,7888900152,7888900164,7888900162 Re_tta, ( /5 y5,-rF- -i. -°/ /\- S ovir in JaC PROJECT VALUE -(PLEASE ATTACH DOCUMENTATION): $4.3 M 'LOo 610(A44. 4, 111.51 DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR: The individual who: 5 35-3 d✓1 • has decision making authority on behalf of the owner/applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: Ken Langholz, City of Kent Public Works Department Address: 220 4th Ave. S., Kent WA 98032 Phone: 253-856-5516 E-mail: KLa gholz@KtWA>ov Signature: CPL %" (\ Page 7 of 14 W:\\Long Range Proje s\Shoreline\New Shoreline Permits - 1-12 SSDP v FAX: 253-856-6500 Date: 4/3414 / 04/13/2012 10:15 AM PROJECT NAME: Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements City of Kent Public Works Department 220 4`r' Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Attn: Ken Langholz (253)856-5516 TEMPORARY PERMIT i7.h.j. D jZ , 6 - fie I C`t <,,(t. % iek6,4 L -L C , grant to the City of Kent a Temporary Permit to be used for access to conduct topographic survey and subsurface soils explorations in conjunction with the Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements project. This temporary permit shall be through and across a portion of tax lot number 788890-0150 situated in King County, WA. This Temporary Permit shall remain in force for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days from the date hereon. Soil exploration work and related activities shall be accomplished in such a manner that the improvements and land contours existing on the property shall not be disturbed or destroyed. In the event that they are disturbed or destroyed, they will be replaced in as good or better condition as they were immediately before the property was entered upon by the City. The City of Kent agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Property Owner, , from any and all liability, claims, action, suits, and alleged injuries arising by reason of the City's temporary permit described above. Dated this 1 (t71.1- day of /j4,4 -/L.. -ti ,.2014 Signature: Printed Name: Pt/it R., «t4 { (,r Title: 41--171,-4-6t-t• C> Address: lei ,q; s/2 -(1777 Phone Number: S'( 3 PROJECT NAME: Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements City of Kent Public Works Department 220 41-'' Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Attn: Ken Langholz (253)856-5516 TEMPORARY PERMIT 1, C'dtiekc(f. % .-k.,' IA. L. C , grant to the City of Kent a Temporary Permit to be used for access to conduct topographic survey and subsurface soils explorations in conjunction with the Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements project. This temporary permit shall be through and across a portion of tax lot number 788890-0150 situated in King County, WA. This Temporary Permit shall remain in force for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days from the date hereon. Soil exploration work and related activities shall be accomplished in such a manner that the improvements and land contours existing on the property shall not be disturbed or destroyed. In the event that they are disturbed or destroyed, they will be replaced in as good or better condition as they were immediately before the property was entered upon by the City. The City of Kent agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Property Owner, , from any and all liability, claims, action, suits, and alleged injuries arising by reason of the City's temporary permit described above. Dated this f day of /14/1/L , 2014 Signature: �'�-'Z�zi-�/'"V Printed Name: Pfl'tLR., «107 ((e Title: i11-11y/f 6/.v 1�'f�i ayz h E'L Address: I el v 5 L- L J• t?7 } 7 Phone Number: 3 & zC �✓rr cs"z �� fu ,� C4- -1 PROJECT NAME: Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements City of Kent Public Works Department 220 4Lr' Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Attn: Ken Langholz (253)856-5516 TEMPORARY PERMIT 12.11,.,,D cc•({e e I, C s t't.: L. L. C , grant to the City of Kent a Temporary Permit to be used for access to conduct topographic survey and subsurface soils explorations in conjunction with the Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements project. This temporary permit shall be through and across a portion of tax lot number 788890-0150 situated in King County, WA. This Temporary Permit shall remain in force for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days from the date hereon. Soil exploration work and related activities shall be accomplished in such a manner that the improvements and land contours existing on the property shall not be disturbed or destroyed. In the event that they are disturbed or destroyed, they will be replaced in as good or better condition as they were immediately before the property was entered upon by the City. The City of Kent agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Property Owner, , from any and all liability, claims, action, suits, and alleged injuries arising by reason of the City's temporary permit described above. Dated this j j?y. day of /14.7f -/L <-/-1 ,.2014 Signature: -"Z -LZ i -'" /_ Printed Name: Pi't-i'it (L. «1v { (e ( l Title: ,f'I-tiv.4 6/-t• 64,L. Address: s L. -• ‘,t - Phone Number: 5 S'( 3 6.. z -L 41.2 <21:j Ie.4 C'.:...� �1�cte PROJECT NAME: Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements City of Kent Public Works Department 220 4"' Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Attn: Ken Langholz (253)856-5516 TEMPORARY PERMIT I, C 5«,(f. Fr, 'k /ex L C , grant to the City of Kent a Temporary Permit to be used for access to conduct topographic survey and subsurface soils explorations in conjunction with the Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements project. This temporary permit shall be through and across a portion of tax lot number 788890-0150 situated in King County, WA. This Temporary Permit shall remain in force for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days from the date hereon. Soil exploration work and related activities shall be accomplished in such a manner that the improvements and land contours existing on the property shall not be disturbed or destroyed. In the event that they are disturbed or destroyed, they will be replaced in as good or better condition as they were immediately before the property was entered upon by the City. The City of Kent agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Property Owner, . from any and all liability, claims, action, suits, and alleged injuries arising by reason of the City's temporary permit described above. Dated this j f day of /1?if/L..c`ti ,.2014 Signature: Printed Name: pelvic) (Z. /, { Title: Address: Phone Number: Z- k, S' CI( 3 C z -C PROJECT NAME: Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements City of Kent Public Works Department 220 41t' Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Attn: Ken Langholz (253)856-5516 TEMPORARY PERMIT 12,it iD 2. 4/ 1, CC�S�u<t' l 4ct. , grant to the City of Kent a Temporary Permit to be used for access to conduct topographic survey and subsurface soils explorations in conjunction with the Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements project. This temporary permit shall be through and across a portion of tax lot number 788890-0150 situated in King County, WA. This Temporary Permit shall remain in force for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days from the date hereon. Soil exploration work and related activities shall be accomplished in such a manner that the improvements and land contours existing on the property shall not be disturbed or destroyed. In the event that they are disturbed or destroyed, they will be replaced in as good or better condition as they were immediately before the property was entered upon by the City. The City of Kent agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Property Owner, , from any and all liability, claims, action, suits, and alleged injuries arising by reason of the City's temporary permit described above. Dated this j r day of /J44i2,.2014 Signature; ��-= i .4-11-5777 Printed Name: P(1-1/ sD R,. <,r24 { {r Fr Title: Address: 5 L. Z '77) 4 2. Phone Number: 2._c:6- S S'f 3 C--. z_L cs z rlu y� c'..•'� %C PROJECT NAME: Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements City of Kent Public Works Department 220 4th Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Attn: Ken Langholz (253)856-5516 TEMPORARY PERMIT I, "Z)-(( . 1 P , grant to the City of Kent a Temporary Permit to be used for access to conduct topographic survey and subsurface soils explorations in conjunction with the Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements project. This temporary permit shall be through and across a portion of tax lot number 788890-0170 situated in King County, WA. This Temporary Permit shall remain in force for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days from the date hereon. Soil exploration work and related activities shall be accomplished in such a manner that the improvements and land contours existing on the property shall not be disturbed or destroyed. In the event that they are disturbed or destroyed, they will be replaced in as good or better condition as they were immediately before the property was entered upon by the City. The City of Kent agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Property Owner, c.eUe,vPD—f To Li—C, , from any and all liability, claims, action, suits, and alleged injuries arising by reason of the City's temporary permit described above. Dated this Signature: Y?L-( 2 - Printed Name: 7-1-zci day of itkAvaN , 2014 nue: Prz) eed--hr * /1-e. pti, /*k J 44.4_,-1<< �.� Address: (9'300 CetS CetAe 47k S ./ 2-e7 Phone Number: i- 2-3 2 27 PROJECT NAME: Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements City of Kent Public Works Department 220 4th Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Attn: Ken Langholz (253)856-5516 TEMPORARY PERMIT I, V?)L( �. A P lin , grant to the City of Kent a Temporary Permit to be used for access to conduct topographic survey and subsurface soils explorations in conjunction with the Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements project. This temporary permit shall be through and across a portion of tax lot number 788890-0170 situated in King County, WA. This Temporary Permit shall remain in force for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days from the date hereon. Soil exploration work and related activities shall be accomplished in such a manner that the improvements and land contours existing on the property shall not be disturbed or destroyed. In the event that they are disturbed or destroyed, they will be replaced in as good or better condition as they were immediately before the property was entered upon by the City. The City of Kent agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Property Owner, 02-v`f C);• --f Moo LL -C> , from any and all liability, claims, action, suits, and alleged injuries arising by reason of the City's temporary permit described above. Dated this Signature: Yd.ct %�- Printed Name: 7-7c-( '. day of iti tve,C\ Title: Pro re4--fit f /}e.c%t+ un f -,k 4/1..e-ccteta3.c.e- Address: (8300 Ca.sceL4e S .7Y 2-e'i Phone Number: 2-c16,- 0 3i - k,227 , 2014 PROJECT NAME: Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements City of Kent Public Works Department 220 4th Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Attn: Ken Langholz (253)856-5516 TEMPORARY PERMIT I, {rat( k, lcn , grant to the City of Kent a Temporary Permit to be used for access to conduct topographic survey and subsurface soils explorations in conjunction with the Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements project. This temporary permit shall be through and across a portion of tax lot number 788890-0170 situated in King County, WA. This Temporary Permit shall remain in force for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days from the date hereon. Soil exploration work and related activities shall be accomplished in such a manner that the improvements and land contours existing on the property shall not be disturbed or destroyed. In the event that they are disturbed or destroyed, they will be replaced in as good or better condition as they were immediately before the property was entered upon by the City. The City of Kent agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Property Owner, R k )e,u' PC);, -if Tio t. -u_= , from any and all liability, claims, action, suits, and alleged injuries arising by reason of the City's temporary permit described above. Dated this day of AAjtvC, \ , 2014 Signature: .LGE �. C Printed Name: T-aci K. Title : 'Pry r -hr t .4v c t-,,, Address: tg30-0eCek_scc c S Phone Number: 2-06 2-3 - PROJECT NAME: Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements City of Kent Public Works Department 220 4th Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Attn: Ken Langholz (253)856-5516 TEMPORARY PERMIT I, < trelL( � J lcr� , grant to the City of Kent a Temporary Permit to be used for access to conduct topographic survey and subsurface soils explorations in conjunction with the Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements project. This temporary permit shall be through and across a portion of tax lot number 788890-0170 situated in King County, WA. This Temporary Permit shall remain in force for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days from the date hereon. Soil exploration work and related activities shall be accomplished in such a manner that the improvements and land contours existing on the property shall not be disturbed or destroyed. In the event that they are disturbed or destroyed, they will be replaced in as good or better condition as they were immediately before the property was entered upon by the City. The City of Kent agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Property Owner, CuTi&c i. -1-c , , from any and all liability, claims, action, suits, and alleged injuries arising by reason of the City's temporary permit described above. Dated this day of itk(YYd\ , 2014 Signature: Printed Name: 7 Rc-( J Title: P2vrr ht r Address: tg,o0 C seaA'E 47& S' 2 -el Phone Number: it -it, 0L3i,- 4,z_V27 PROJECT NAME: Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements City of Kent Public Works Department 220 4th Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Attn: Ken Langholz (253)856-5516 TEMPORARY PERMIT I, (V Le ( , grant to the City of Kent a Temporary Permit to be used for access to conduct topographic survey and subsurface soils explorations in conjunction with the Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements project. This temporary permit shall be through and across a portion of tax lot number 788890-0170 situated in King County, WA. This Temporary Permit shall remain in force for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days from the date hereon. Soil exploration work and related activities shall be accomplished in such a manner that the improvements and land contours existing on the property shall not be disturbed or destroyed. In the event that they are disturbed or destroyed, they will be replaced in as good or better condition as they were immediately before the property was entered upon by the City. The City of Kent agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Property Owner, 1160evPO;�1f Ti&90 LL_C , from any and all liability, claims, action, suits, and alleged injuries arising by reason of the City's temporary permit described above. Dated this Signature: !YR.C.cl�. Printed Name: irca i' i day of ti& .p`C- \ , 2014 Title: Pi2%ee--h 4/Letclec...1 Address: t8&O a..ccti,tc 4t S' ' 2-e/ Phone Number: 06 $L3i { Z -re) 11 BRISCOE-DESIMONE LEVEE REACH 1 t_ J COST ESTIMATE Date Revised: 4/30/2014 : MKV, KRL, GEI, Shearer, Knox, Wadsworth, Walton, Otak ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST SCHEDULE I LEVEE 1000 Mobilization LS 1 240,000.00 $ 240,000.00 1005 Clearing And Grubbing LS 1 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 1010 Remove Existing Asphalt Concrete Pavement SY 2,200 10.00 $ 22,000.00 1015 Remove Exisitng Cement Concrete Pavement SY 41 40.00 $ 1,640.00 1021 Remove Existing Stairways LS 1 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 1030 Remove Cement Concrete Extruded Curb LF 832 4.00 $ 3,328.00 1045 Removal of Signs LS 2 0.00 $ 500.00 1050 Saw Cut Existing Asphalt Concrete Pavement LF 690 5.00 $ 3,450.00 1060 Levee Excavation, Including Haul and Disposal CY 5,000 20.00 $ 100,000.00 1065 Unsuitable Foundation Excavation Including Haul CY 100 25.00 $ 2,500.00 1075 Gravel Borrow, Including Haul and Compaction TON 45 15.00 $ 675.00 1076 Imported Levee Embankment Fill, Including Haul and Compactio TON 500 12.00 $ 6,000.00 1077 Levee Excavation and Embankment, Including Haul and Compact CY 2,000 10.00 $ 20,000.00 1080 Crushed Surfacing Top Course, 5/8 Inch Minus TON 700 20.00 $ 14,000.00 1085 Crushed Surfacing Base Course, 1-1/4 Inch Minus TON 55 20.00 $ 1,100.00 1095 HMA Class 1/2", PG 64-22 TON 405 95.00 $ 38,475.00 1125 Cold Plant Mix for Temporary Pavement Patch TON 25 100.00 $ 2,500.00 1210 Cement Concrete Extruded Curb LF 759 10.00 $ 7,590.00 1290 Install Removable Bollard EA 4 1,000.00 $ 4,000.00 1315 Pothole Utilities EA 2 500.00 $ 1,000.00 1320 Project Sign Installation EA 2 600.00 $ 1,200.00 1325 Quarry Spalls TON 1,235 30.00 $ 37,050.00 1326 Rock for Erosion and Scour Protectoin, Class A TON 190 30.00 $ 5,700.00 1327 Construction Geosynthetic for Permanent Erosion Control SY 345 4.00 $ 1,380.00 1355 Minor Changes CALC 1 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 Total $ 550,088.00 SCHEDULE V TRAFFIC CONTROL 5005 Traffic Control Labor HR 1,300 45.00 $ 58,500.00 5010 Construction Signs, Class A SF 200 15.00 $ 3,000.00 5015 Traffic Control Supervisor HR 700 50.00 $ 35,000.00 5020 Temporary Traffic Control Devices LS 1 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 5030 Portable Changeable Message Sign (PCMS) DAY 60 85.00 $ 5,100.00 Total $ 104,600.00 SCHEDULE IV STRUCTURAL 6005 Sheet Piling - Wall Type A (AZ19-700) SF 52,000 28.00 $ 1,456,000.00 6010 Concrete Cap Beam LF 1,089 160.00 $ 174,240.00 6015 Concrete Barrier LF 735 100.00 $ 73,500.00 6020 Sheet Pile Concrete Wall Facing SF 5,450 58.00 $ 316,100.00 6025 Handrail LF 735 135.00 $ 99,225.00 6030 Floodgate LS 1 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00 6050 Sheet Piling - Removing Obstructions or Construction Modificatior FA 1 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00 6055 Sheet Piling - Unexpected Existing Utilities FA 1 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 6060 Monitoring and Testing LS 1 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 Total $ 2,221,065.00 SCHEDULE VII TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL 7000 Seeding, Fertilizing and Mulching ACRE 1.05 1,200.00 $ 1,260.00 7005 Filter Fabric Fence LF 500 5.00 $ 2,500.00 7010 Wattle LF 1,567 3.50 $ 5,484.50 7015 Inlet Protection EA 8 125.00 $ 1,000.00 7020 Straw Mulch SY 2,750 3.00 $ 8,250.00 7025 Clear Plastic Covering SY 200 2.00 $ 400.00 7030 ESC Lead HR 130 40.00 $ 5,200.00 7055 Erosion/Water Pollution Control FA 1 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 7075 Street Cleaning HR 75 150.00 $ 11,250.00 Total $ 45,344.50 SCHEDULE VIII LANDSCAPING 8005 Topsoil, Type A CY 90 40.00 $ 3,600.00 8010 Sod Installation SY 445 8.00 $ 3,560.00 8015 Arborist Mulch CY 145 30.00 $ 4,350.00 8020 Fine Compost CY 365 22.50 $ 8,212.50 8025 Jute Matting SY 5,315 3.25 $ 17,273.75 8030 Irrigation System LS 1 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 8035 PSIPE Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas Fir) 5 gal EA 19 39.00 $ 741.00 8040 PSIPE Thuja plicata (Western Red Cedar) 5 gal EA 13 39.00 $ 507.00 1 l '1 BRISCOE-DESIMONE LEVEE REACH 1 COST ESTIMATE Date Revised: 4/30/2014 Prepared BV: MKV, KRL, GEI, Shearer, Knox, Wadsworth, Walton, Otak ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST 8045 PSIPE Picea sitchensis (Sitka Spruce) 5 gal EA 11 39.00 $ 429.00 8050 PSIPE Acer macrophyllum (Big Leaf Maple) 5 gal EA 19 41.60 $ 790.40 8055 PSIPE Fraxinus latifolia (Oregon Ash) 2 gal EA 13 31.20 $ 405.60 8060 PSIPE Rhamnus purshiana (Cascara) 2 gal EA 10 28.60 $ 286.00 8065 PSIPE Prunus emarginata (Bitter Cherry) 2 gal EA 8 33.80 $ 270.40 8070 PSIPE Cornus sericea (Red Osier Dogwood) 1 gal EA 566 10.40 $ 5,886.40 8075 PSIPE Physocarpus capitatua (Pacific Nine Bark) 1 gal EA 231 10.40 $ 2,402.40 8080 PSIPE Lonicera involucrata (Black Twinberry) 1 gal EA 63 11.70 $ 737.10 8085 PSIPE Mahonia aquifolium (Tall Oregon Grape) 1 gal EA 99 11.70 $ 1,158.30 8090 PSIPE Rosa pisocarpa (Swamp Rose) 1 gal EA 470 11.70 $ 5,499.00 8095 PSIPE Symphoricarpos albus (Snowberrry) 1 gal EA 142 10.40 $ 1,476.80 8100 PSIPE Ribes sanguineum (Red Flowing Currant) 1 gal EA 170 13.00 $ 2,210.00 8105 PSIPE Salix lucida (Pacific Willow) 6' live cutting EA 8 20.00 $ 160.00 8110 PSIPE Salix sitchensis (Sitka Willow) 6' live cutting EA 7 20.00 $ 140.00 8115 PSIPE Populus trichocarpa ssp. Trichacarpa (Black Cottonwood) 6 EA 20 20.00 $ 400.00 8120 PSIPE Malus fusca (Pacific Crabapple) 2 gal EA 9 30.00 $ 270.00 8125 PSIPE Ceanothus sanguineum (Red Stem Ceanothus) 1 gal EA 123 12.00 $ 1,476.00 8130 PSIPE Holodiscus discolor (Ocenaspray) 1 gal EA 71 12.00 $ 852.00 8135 PSIPE Philadelphus lewisii (Mock Orange) 1 gal EA 102 12.00 $ 1,224.00 8140 PSIPE Acer circubatum (Vine maple) 1 gal EA 27 12.00 $ 324.00 8145 PSIPE Rubus spectabilis (Salmonberry) 1 gal EA 101 12.00 $ 1,212.00 8150 PSIPE Rubus parviflora (Thimbleberry) 1 gal EA 40 12.00 $ 480.00 8155 PSIPE Rosa nutkana (Nootka Rose) 1 gal EA 68 12.00 $ 816.00 Total $ 92,149.65 SUMMARY: SCHEDULE I LEVEE $ 550,088.00 SCHEDULE V TRAFFIC CONTROL $ 104,600.00 SCHEDULE IV STRUCTURAL $ 2,221,065.00 SCHEDULE VII TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL $ 45,344.50 SCHEDULE VIII LANDSCAPING $ 92,149.65 Subtotal Schedules I thru VIII $3,013,247.15 30% Contingency $ 903,974.15 Construction Subtotal $3,917,221.30 9.5% Sales Tax $ 372,136.02 Total $4,289,357.32 2 t .. f� f� BRISCOE-DESIMONE LEVEE REACH 1 COST ESTIMATE Date Revised: 4/30/2014 Prepared Bv: MKV, KRL, GEI, Shearer, Knox, Wadsworth, Walton, Otak ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST SCHEDULE I LEVEE 1000 Mobilization LS 1 240,000.00 $ 240,000.00 1005 Clearing And Grubbing LS 1 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 1010 Remove Existing Asphalt Concrete Pavement SY 2,200 10.00 $ 22,000.00 1015 Remove Exisitng Cement Concrete Pavement SY 41 40.00 $ 1,640.00 1021 Remove Existing Stairways LS 1 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 1030 Remove Cement Concrete Extruded Curb LF 832 4.00 $ 3,328.00 1045 Removal of Signs LS 2 0.00 $ 500.00 1050 Saw Cut Existing Asphalt Concrete Pavement LF 690 5.00 $ 3,450.00 1060 Levee Excavation, Including Haul and Disposal CY 5,000 20.00 $ 100,000.00 1065 Unsuitable Foundation Excavation Including Haul CY 100 25.00 $ 2,500.00 1075 Gravel Borrow, Including Haul and Compaction TON 45 15.00 $ 675.00 1076 Imported Levee Embankment Fill, Including Haul and Compactio TON 500 12.00 $ 6,000.00 1077 Levee Excavation and Embankment, Including Haul and Compact CY 2,000 10.00 $ 20,000.00 1080 Crushed Surfacing Top Course, 5/8 Inch Minus TON 700 20.00 $ 14,000.00 1085 Crushed Surfacing Base Course, 1-1/4 Inch Minus TON 55 20.00 $ 1,100.00 1095 HMA Class 1/2", PG 64-22 TON 405 95.00 $ 38,475.00 1125 Cold Plant Mix for Temporary Pavement Patch TON 25 100.00 $ 2,500.00 1210' Cement Concrete Extruded Curb LF 759 10.00 $ 7,590.00 1290 Install Removable Bollard EA 4 1,000.00 $ 4,000.00 1315 Pothole Utilities EA 2 500.00 $ 1,000.00 1320 1 Project Sign Installation EA 2 600.00 $ 1,200.00 1325 Quarry Spalls TON 1,235 30.00 $ 37,050.00 1326 Rock for Erosion and Scour Protectoin, Class A TON 190 30.00 $ 5,700.00 1327 Construction Geosynthetic for Permanent Erosion Control SY 345 4.00 $ 1,380.00 1355 Minor Changes CALC 1 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 Total $ 550,088.00 SCHEDULE V TRAFFIC CONTROL 5005 Traffic Control Labor HR 1,300 45.00 $ 58,500.00 5010 Construction Signs, Class A SF 200 15.00 $ 3,000.00 5015 Traffic Control Supervisor HR 700 50.00 $ 35,000.00 5020 Temporary Traffic Control Devices LS 1 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 5030 Portable Changeable Message Sign (PCMS) DAY 60 85.00 $ 5,100.00 Total $ 104,600.00 SCHEDULE IV STRUCTURAL 6005 Sheet Piling - Wall Type A (AZ19-700) SF 52,000 28.00 $ 1,456,000.00 6010 Concrete Cap Beam LF 1,089 160.00 $ 174,240.00 6015 Concrete Barrier LF 735 100.00 $ 73,500.00 6020 Sheet Pile Concrete Wall Facing SF 5,450 58.00 $ 316,100.00 6025 Handrail LF 735 135.00 $ 99,225.00 6030 Floodgate LS 1 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00 6050 Sheet Piling - Removing Obstructions or Construction Modificatior FA 1 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00 6055 Sheet Piling - Unexpected Existing Utilities FA 1 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 6060 Monitoring and Testing LS 1 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 Total $ 2,221,065.00 SCHEDULE VII TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL 7000 Seeding, Fertilizing and Mulching ACRE 1.05 1,200.00 $ 1,260.00 7005 Filter Fabric Fence LF 500 5.00 $ 2,500.00 7010 Wattle LF 1,567 3.50 $ 5,484.50 7015 Inlet Protection EA 8 125.00 $ 1,000.00 7020 Straw Mulch SY 2,750 3.00 $ 8,250.00 7025 Clear Plastic Covering SY 200 2.00 $ 400.00 7030 ESC Lead HR 130 40.00 $ 5,200.00 7055 Erosion/Water Pollution Control FA 1 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 7075 Street Cleaning HR 75 150.00 $ 11,250.00 Total $ 45,344.50 SCHEDULE VIII LANDSCAPING 8005 Topsoil, Type A CY 90 40.00 $ 3,600.00 8010 Sod Installation SY 445 8.00 $ 3,560.00 8015 Arborist Mulch CY 145 30.00 $ 4,350.00 8020 Fine Compost CY 365 22.50 $ 8,212.50 8025 Jute Matting SY 5,315 3.25 $ 17,273.75 8030 Irrigation System LS 1 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 8035 PSIPE Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas Fir) 5 gal EA 19 39.00 $ 741.00 8040 PSIPE Thuja plicata (Western Red Cedar) 5 gal EA 13 39.00 $ 507.00 BRISCOE-DESIMONE LEVEE REACH 1 COST ESTIMATE Date Revised: 4/30/2014 Prepared By: MKV, KRL, GEI, Shearer, Knox, Wadsworth, Walton, Otak ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST 8045 PSIPE Picea sitchensis (Sitka Spruce) 5 gal EA 11 39.00 $ 429.00 8050 PSIPE Acer macrophyllum (Big Leaf Maple) 5 gal EA 19 41.60 $ 790.40 8055 PSIPE Fraxinus latifolia (Oregon Ash) 2 gal EA 13 31.20 $ 405.60 8060 PSIPE Rhamnus purshiana (Cascara) 2 gal EA 10 28.60 $ 286.00 8065 PSIPE Prunus emarginata (Bitter Cherry) 2 gal EA 8 33.80 $ 270.40 8070 PSIPE Cornus sericea (Red Osier Dogwood) 1 gal EA 566 10.40 $ 5,886.40 8075 PSIPE Physocarpus capitatua (Pacific Nine Bark) 1 gal EA 231 10.40 $ 2,402.40 8080 PSIPE Lonicera involucrata (Black Twinberry) 1 gal EA 63 11.70 $ 737.10 8085 PSIPE Mahonia aquifolium (Tall Oregon Grape) 1 gal EA 99 11.70 $ 1,158.30 8090 PSIPE Rosa pisocarpa (Swamp Rose) 1 gal EA 470 11.70 $ 5,499.00 8095 PSIPE Symphoricarpos albus (Snowberrry) 1 gal EA 142 10.40 $ 1,476.80 8100 PSIPE Ribes sanguineum (Red Flowing Currant) 1 gal EA 170 13.00 $ 2,210.00 8105 PSIPE Salix lucida (Pacific Willow) 6' live cutting EA 8 20.00 $ 160.00 8110 PSIPE Salix sitchensis (Sitka Willow) 6' live cutting EA 7 20.00 $ 140.00 8115 PSIPE Populus trichocarpa ssp. Trichacarpa (Black Cottonwood) 6 EA 20 20.00 $ 400.00 8120 PSIPE Malus fusca (Pacific Crabapple) 2 gal EA 9 30.00 $ 270.00 8125 PSIPE Ceanothus sanguineum (Red Stem Ceanothus) 1 gal EA 123 12.00 $ 1,476.00 8130 PSIPE Holodiscus discolor (Ocenaspray) 1 gal EA 71 12.00 $ 852.00 8135 PSIPE Philadelphus lewisii (Mock Orange) 1 gal EA 102 12.00 $ 1,224.00 8140 PSIPE Acer circubatum (Vine maple) 1 gal EA 27 12.00 $ 324.00 8145 PSIPE Rubus spectabilis (Salmonberry) 1 gal EA 101 12.00 $ 1,212.00 8150 PSIPE Rubus parviflora (Thimbleberry) 1 gal EA 40 12.00 $ 480.00 8155 PSIPE Rosa nutkana (Nootka Rose) 1 gal EA 68 12.00 $ 816.00 Total $ 92,149.65 SUMMARY: SCHEDULE I LEVEE $ 550,088.00 SCHEDULE V TRAFFIC CONTROL $ 104,600.00 SCHEDULE IV STRUCTURAL $ 2,221,065.00 SCHEDULE VII TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL $ 45,344.50 SCHEDULE VIII LANDSCAPING $ 92,149.65 Subtotal Schedules I thru VIII $3,013,247.15 30% Contingency $ 903,974.15 Construction Subtotal $3,917,221.30 9.5% Sales Tax $ 372,136.02 Total $4,289,357.32 2 City of Tukwila Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Briscoe-Desimone Levee Project PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Kent proposes to install a structural steel sheet pile wall at the back of the existing levee slope to act as a secondary levee to reduce flood risk to the cities of Kent, Tukwila and Renton. The proposed flood wall will provide a minimum of 3 feet of freeboard above the predicted 500 -year flood event in order to meet FEMA accreditation requirements. The flood wall will be constructed in four segments (reaches) along the east bank of the Green River between South 200th Street and South 180th Street. The City of Kent received a shoreline permit for reaches 2, 3, and 4 within the City of Kent. The north 200' of Reach 2 and all of Reach 1 are located in Tukwila. This application is for Reach 1 and Reach 2 within Tukwila. The above ground portion of the wall will range from 8 feet to 12 feet tall, when viewed from surrounding businesses and as much as 27-50 feet underground. To allow for re -vegetation and habitat restoration, an earthen bench will be constructed where feasible along the riverbank slope. These benches will entail excavation between the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and the Green River trail to create a bench of up to 31 feet wide where native trees and shrubs will be planted. This bench will be inundated during flood flows and provide critical refuge habitat for juvenile salmonid. Three listed salmon species have been documented in the Green River, and this project will provide approximately 39 days of additional flood refuge habitat per year during peak salmon outmigration periods (January to June). This flood refuge habitat has been found to be a limiting factor for salmon survival in the lower Green River (Kerwin and Nelson, 2000). The existing asphalt bike trail will remain on top of the levee berm, but will be relocated further landward adjacent to the flood wall, and be topped with a handrail for safety. An access ramp to the trail will be located at the northerly end of Reach 1. The flood wall will extend approximately 3'-3" above the surface of the new trail, plus a 9" handrail. The City of Kent and Tukwila entered into an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) for the levee project in Tukwila. Pursuant to the ILA, Tukwila grants Kent the authority to process and acquire permits and to construct the project in Tukwila. Any utilities that may be in conflict with the wall will need to be relocated prior to construction of the wall. These utilities include but are not limited to overhead power, water main, sanitary sewer force main, storm drain and appurtenances. 1. DESCRIBE THE EXISTING CONDITION OF THE SHORELINE AREA AND RIVERBANK The project area is located along the right bank of the Green River looking downstream. Reach 1 is 1,100 feet long. West Valley highway, manufacturing and industrial buildings line the majority of the levee in the project area. A 10 -foot wide asphalt trail is located on top of the levee. 1 Lawn, ornamental trees and shrubs, commercial buildings and associated parking lots are located on the landward side of the levee. Existing vegetation on the riverward side of the levee consists of willow species (Salix spp.) near the OHWM of the Green River, red -osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), and grasses including reed -canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea). Very few trees are present on the riverward side of the levee and habitat conditions are degraded, consisting of mostly non-native, invasive vegetation and mowed grasses. The existing Green River shoreline in the project area is steep with slopes generally ranging from 50% to 100% between the OHWM and the asphalt Green River Trail on top of the levee. This trail is available to pedestrians and bicycles, and covers approximately 1/5 of the current levee's cross section. The bank material consists of silty -sand flood -plain material on the bank described by US Department of Agriculture (USDA) as Newberg silt loam (Ng), Puyallup fine sandy loam (Py), Urban Land gravelly sandy loam (Ur) and structural fill and crushed rock on the upper portions underlying the trail. There is no public access to the river's edge at this site. 2. HOW WILL YOUR PROJECT CHANGE THE EXISTING CONDITION OF THE SHORELINE DESCRIBED ABOVE? Natural shoreline processes are not likely to change as a result of this project. From a natural shoreline process perspective, the new levee will function similar to the current conditions by keeping flood waters contained within the constructed banks. Construction of the sheet pile flood wall at the landward toe of the existing levee will act as a secondary levee to reduce flood risks to the cities of Tukwila, Kent, and Renton. The existing asphalt recreational trail will be widened and relocated adjacent to the wall. Re -vegetation and habitat restoration work will occur along the river between the OHWM and the trail. No work will occur below the OHWM. The waterward side of the existing levee will be excavated to create a gentler slope and bench which will be planted with native trees and shrubs. These native plantings will provide nesting and rearing habitat for birds, small mammals, and insects and flood refuge habitat for fish. Enhanced riparian area will benefit fish by increasing shade, woody debris, and leaf litter. This project will enhance terrestrial habitat conditions adjacent to the Green River, improve riparian conditions and protect public safety. The completed projects will enhance the shoreline ecological function and will promote healthier shoreline ecosystem processes. 3. WILL THE PROJECT: A. ALTER/REMOVE VEGETATION IN THE SHORELINE JURISDICTION? YES vegetation will be removed within the shoreline jurisdiction. Trees will be removed to place the floodwall along the existing river bank. Most of these removed trees are at least 50 feet from the shoreline. Proposed tree replacement will occur much closer to the shoreline and provide increased shading within the project reach. Some existing vegetation will be removed, 2 namely blackberry and reed -canary grass and will be replaced with a diverse riparian assemblage of native plants. B. ALTER THE RIVER BANK (i.e. re -slope bank, add armoring, etc.)? YES the river bank will be re-contoured to provide shallow planting benches will increase fish and wildlife habitat over existing conditions. C. ADD FILL IN THE SHORELINE JURISDICTION? YES there will be fill material added to the strip between the existing trail and the proposed floodwall on the far landward side of the project. The existing asphalt recreational trail will be relocated adjacent to the wall. Fill material will meet the geotechnical consultant's recommendations and will be obtained from permitted excavation sites. Fill material includes suitable sand and gravel. Compost and wood -chip mulch will be added on planted slopes to improve native plant survival. D. DISCHARGE NEW STORMWATER TO THE RIVER? NO, there will be no new storm water discharged into the river. E. STORE OR USE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IN THE SHORELINE JURISDICTION? NO, there will be no storage or use of hazardous materials in the shoreline jurisdiction. All construction equipment will be required to be in good working order and staged away from the shoreline. F. CONSTRUCT AN IN- OR OVER -WATER STRUCTURE? NO, there will be no in or over -water structures. G. INCREASE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE IN THE SHORELINE JURISDICTION? NO, there will be no increase in imperious surfaces in the shoreline jurisdiction 4. NO NET LOSS ANALYSIS: A. AVOIDING THE IMPACT ALTHOGETHER BY NOT TAKING A CERTAIN ACTION OR PARTS OF AN ACTION: If we avoid taking action on this levee project we will not meet FEMA levee safety standards for residents and businesses as well as not reducing the risk of potential flooding in the industrial 3 areas of the Green River Valley. This levee will protect water quality by keeping flood waters from coming in contact with industrial land uses. In addition, the Green River Trail in this area will be improved. An improved riparian corridor will increase shading and reduce temperature loading as well as improve insect and leaf drop and woody debris recruitment into the Green River. Threatened salmon species will not benefit if this project is not undertaken. With this project flood refuge habitat will be available to juvenile salmonids during peak outmigration periods. B. MINIMIZE IMPACTS BY LIMITING THE DEGREE OR MAGNITUDE OF THE ACTION AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION BY USING APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY OR BY TAKING AFFIRMATIVE STEPS TO AVOID OR REDUCE IMPACTS: Water quality impacts during construction will be mitigated by strict adherence to a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan developed to comply with all requirements of the Washington State Department of Ecology's Construction Stormwater General Permit. Soil stabilization measures will be utilized, such as hydroseeding and establishing native plants. Natural shoreline processes will not be harmed from this project; the new levee will keep flood waters contained within constructed banks. The sheet pile walls will be located at the landward toe of the levee and therefore will not impact shoreline processes. Habitat will be improved through this project by removing invasive plant species and replacing them with native vegetation as well as providing additional shallowly inundated flood refuge habitat for salmon. A planting plan is included in the permit submittal. C. RECTIFYING THE IMPACTS BY REPAIRING, REHABILITATING, OR RESTORING THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT: Native trees and shrubs will be planted and soils will be stabilized with erosion control fabric, mulch and other best management practices (BMPs). Disturbed areas will be restored to original or better function and will by hydroseeded and planted following construction. As the planted area matures improved habitat function and water quality filtration will occur. D. REDUCING OR ELIMINATING THE IMPACT OVER TIME BY PRESERVATION AND MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS: The short-term negative impacts will be ameliorated with maturing native plants, increased flood storage and improved fish habitat. As plants mature and fill in, maintenance operations will be reduced to mowing along the path with other maintenance on an "as -needed" basis. E. COMPENSATING FOR THE IMPACT BY REPLACING, ENHANCING, OR PROVIDING SUBSTITURE RESOURCES OR ENVIRONMENTS: The impact of the project will be compensated by replacing current non-native vegetation with higher quality native vegetation. We will encourage the construction contractor to chip any trees removed and use this to mulch the newly planted trees. Current habitat resources are of a 4 low quality (reed -canary grass, steep slopes, no canopy, etc.). Habitat will improve over time with the growth of the native plantings and construction of the planting benches. F. MONITORING THE IMPACT AND THE COMPENSATION PROJECTS AND TAKING APPROPRIATE CORRRECTIVE MEASURES: The City of Kent will obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater General Permit for the project which will require a site specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to manage stormwater and erosion as well as sediment control plans throughout the duration of the project. Water quality sampling will also be required through the permit which will ensure that environmental damage does not occur. During the disruptive portions of the project BMPs will be used to replace natural functions. These BMPs, such as silt fences, mulches and erosion control fabrics reduce runoff and minimize erosion and sediment transport. The city will also implement a Monitoring, Maintenance, and Adaptive Management Plan for the re -vegetated and landscaped areas once the project is completed. This plan will ensure that vegetation will be monitored annually for five years and maintained/replaced or adaptively managed as necessary. 5 #6 B3 Please see Biological Assessment for #6 B5 for Sensitive Areas Study. Because of the size of this document we have received permission to file this document as an electronic file only (Ken Langholz meeting with Tukwila 4/4/2014). #6 B4 Hard copies are provided of the bank stability maps, but due to the large size of the supporting documents (GEI B -D Accreditation in 3 volumes) they are submitted in electronic file only. • KENT W A S H I N G T O N IT ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING SERVICES Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REPORT Decision Document BRISCOE-DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA -2013-2/ RPSP-2130617 Responsible Official: Charlene Anderson, AICP Staff Contact: Erin George, AICP I. PROPOSAL The City of Kent Public Works Department proposes to install a structural steel sheet pile wall at the back of the existing levee slope to act as a secondary levee to reduce flood risk to the cities of Kent, Tukwila and Renton. The proposed flood wall will provide a minimum of 3 feet of freeboard above the predicted 500 -year flood event in order to meet FEMA accreditation requirements. The flood wall will be constructed in four segments ("reaches") along the east bank of the Green River, between South 200th Street and South 180th Street. The northernmost segment ("Reach 1") and a small piece of Reach 2 are located within the City of Tukwila (see Figure 1, next page). The City of Kent is acting as SEPA lead agency for the entire project, but separate shoreline permits will be submitted to Tukwila. The sheet piles will be installed using vibratory equipment (but no impact hammers) and will be between 23 and 64 feet deep, depending on location. The above -ground portion of the wall will range from 8 feet to 13 feet tall, when viewed from surrounding businesses. To allow for re -vegetation and habitat restoration, benches will be constructed where feasible along the riverbank (see Figure 2, next page). These benches will entail excavation between the ordinary high water mark and the existing Green River trail to create a bench of up to 15 feet wide where native trees and shrubs will be planted. Approximately 40,000 cubic yards of material will be removed to create the planting benches. An estimated 277 trees and 29 stumps will be removed, in addition to invasive or non-native vegetation. A minimum of 280 trees and 3,000 shrubs will be planted as mitigation on the excavated benches. Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 Figure 1: Project Map CITY OF KENT 1 Figure 2: Cross Section of Proposed Design Page 2 of 13 g l l 1 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 The existing asphalt trail will be removed and relocated further landward adjacent to the flood wall, with handrails placed on top of the wall. The flood wall will extend approximately 3 feet above the surface of the new trail, plus a 1.5 foot handrail. Approximately 6,000 cubic yards of fill material will be used to construct the new trail. All existing public access points will be maintained and where necessary, stairways will be constructed. The Green River Trail will be temporarily closed in sections during construction, with detours provided, and will return to normal operations after construction. The parking lot serving the Green River Trail located adjacent to the cul-de- sac bulb of South 190th Street will be raised to match the trail elevation. This will improve trail access by providing ADA accessibility as well as maintenance access. Existing use of other adjacent properties will remain unchanged. The Kent portion of the project (Briscoe) is located on the east bank of the Green River between South 200th Street and South 189th Street, identified as King County Parcel Numbers 0222049047, 0000200044, 0000200043, 7888800090, 7888800111, 7888800140, 7888800155, and 7888800210. The Tukwila portion of the project (Desimone) is located on the east bank of the Green River between South 189th Street and South 180th Street, identified as King County Parcel Numbers 7888900110, 7888900170 and 7888900150. The project area spans several zoning districts, including M1 (Industrial Park) and M2 (Limited Industrial) in the Kent portion. The Tukwila portion is zoned C/LI (Commercial Light Industrial). II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Any conditions applied to the following Determination of Nonsignificance are applied because identified impacts cannot adequately be addressed by existing City of Kent and City of Tukwila codes and ordinances. III. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS A. Earth The combined project area of approximately 8 acres is flat, with the exception of the existing levee berm which has slopes in the range of 50% to 80%. Soils in the area are categorized by the King County Soils Survey as Newberg silt loam, Puyallup fine sandy loam and Urban Land gravelly sandy loam. Approximately 6,000 cubic yards of fill material will be used to construct the new trail and approximately 40,000 cubic yards of material will be removed to create the planting benches. Fill material will include sand, gravel and asphalt pavement for the trail, as well as compost and amended topsoil for plantings on the excavated benches. All fill materials will be obtained from Page 3 of 13 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 permitted excavation sites and cut material will be taken directly to an approved site. No stockpiling will occur on site. Exposed, cleared or excavated areas have the potential for erosion to occur. Appropriate best management practices (BMP's) will be implemented to control erosion potential throughout the course of the project. The applicant will prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) meeting all the requirements of the Department of Ecology National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater General Permit (CSWGP). The applicant will also obtain an NPDES permit coverage letter from DOE, and will maintain the construction site and conduct water quality sampling pursuant to the CSWGP requirements. The applicant will prepare a Detailed Grading Plan and a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan for the entire development. For the Kent portion of the project, these plans are required to meet the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards and the Citv of Kent Surface Water Design Manual. For the Tukwila portion, plans must comply with Tukwila Municipal Code 16.54 (Grading) and 14.30 (Surface Water Management), as well as the City of Tukwila Surface Water Design Manual and Public Works Infrastructure and Design and Construction Standards. B. Air During project construction there will be a slight increase in vehicle exhaust and emissions caused by construction equipment and construction vehicles entering and leaving the project area. All construction equipment will be equipped with standard mufflers and emission control equipment. Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented during construction to suppress dust. These BMPs will include covering soil stockpiles, applying water to exposed soil during dry weather, and sweeping affected paved areas. The completed project will not cause an increase in vehicle trips or contribute to air quality degradation. C. Water 1. Surface Water The project area is within 200 feet of the Green River, a Shoreline of Statewide Significance. Applications for Shoreline Substantial Development and Shoreline Conditional Use Permits for work within the City of Kent were submitted with the Environmental Checklist for the proposed project. No work will occur below the ordinary high water mark of the Green River; however a Hydraulic Project Page 4 of 13 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 Approval will be required from the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all necessary federal and state permits. No wetlands were identified within the project improvement limits, according to the Biological Assessment, Green River Levee Improvements, River Mile 14.25 to River Mile 22.0, prepared by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., dated October 3, 2011. The portion of the project area that is located on the waterward side of the existing levee berm is within the Green River floodway. Excavation of the proposed planting benches will increase flood storage by approximately 40,000 cubic yards. The applicant has submitted a completed Flood Zone Control Permit to the City of Kent and will be required to comply with the City's flood hazard regulations in Kent City Code Chapter 14.09. The applicant will also submit a Flood Zone Control Permit to the City of Tukwila to comply with Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 16.52. 2. Groundwater The project area is not located within a critical aquifer recharge area and no groundwater will be withdrawn as a result of this project. Joan Nolan from the Washington State Department of Ecology submitted a comment letter which indicated that this reach of the Green River is a groundwater gaining reach and raised concerns about how the sheet pile wall will affect groundwater flow. The City is evaluating the impacts to shallow groundwater movement through the floodwall reaches with consideration for the prevailing groundwater movements in this area as well as near the river, the length and orientation of the floodwall, and the geology of the site. If impacts to groundwater are identified, appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented to mitigate the impact. Such measures could include, but are not limited to staggering the lengths of the sheet piles to allow flow through or providing openings in the sheet piles to allow for groundwater movement through the wall. 3. Stormwater Runoff The main source of stormwater runoff will be the existing parking lot proposed to be raised, as well as the non -pollution generating trail. For the parking lot, the applicant will comply with the water quality control requirements of the 2002 City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual. Due to the new trail being slightly wider than before, there will be a slight increase in impervious surfaces. Page 5 of 13 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 According to the Biological Assessment, the slight increase in impervious surface will not adversely affect water quality after the project is completed largely because the trail is a non -pollution generating surface. According to the Addendum to Biological Assessment, Green River Levee Improvements Project, River Mile 14.25 to River Mile 22.0 prepared by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., dated February 20, 2013, a net change in flow in the Green River is not anticipated as a result of the project. The majority of water that falls onto the project area will infiltrate once the disturbed areas are re -planted and vegetation on the benches has become established. D. Plants A variety of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs and grasses are present in the project area; primarily located behind the existing levee berm. The waterward side of the berm is vegetated primarily with non-native species such as Himalayan blackberry and reed canary grass, with some willows and snowberry at or below the ordinary high water mark. Approximately 277 trees and 29 stumps will be removed as a result of the project (primarily on the landward side of the berm), in addition to invasive or non-native vegetation. A minimum of 280 trees and 3,000 shrubs will be planted as mitigation on the excavated benches. The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and Department of Ecology submitted comments regarding temperature conditions in the Green River and the related shading benefits provided by mature riparian vegetation on the riverbank. The Tribe feels the vegetated area along the river is not wide enough to adequately address temperature impairment. They are also concerned the new vegetation will be subject to the US Army Corps of Engineers vegetation policy which does not allow trees over 10 inch in diameter within 15 feet of accredited levees. Construction of the proposed floodwall will provide the city with the opportunity to plant large overstory trees that are not subject to diameter or height restrictions along the banks of the river because the floodwall serves as the levee, and therefore the Corps vegetation policy waterward of the "levee" does not apply. These large trees will, in time, provide significant shade to this reach of the river where very little currently exists. View corridors through the vegetation will be provided to ensure preservation of public views and safety for users of the Green River Trail. This will be accomplished by using several different planting zones: low, medium and high density. All planting zones will be densely covered with shrubs for habitat purposes, but the low and medium density zones will space the trees in a way to allow sightlines. Page 6 of 13 I 1 1 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 E. Animals Puget Sound Chinook Salmon, Coastal -Puget Sound Bull Trout, and Puget Sound Steelhead are all federally endangered or threatened species identified within the Green River, located within the project area. The Green River is also designated as critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook Salmon and Coastal -Puget Sound Bull Trout. Marbled Murrelet is a threatened species which has been documented in King County in limited instances. However, due to absence of suitable nesting habitat, no nesting is expected in the action area. Other birds including hawk, heron, eagle, kingfisher, flicker, robin, crow, towhee, blackbird, duck, junco, chickadee and dipper have been observed in the project area. Mammals and rodents including beaver, vole, rabbit, otter, coyote, raccoon, opossum and rats are known to utilize the project area as well. A biological assessment was prepared for the City in 2011 which analyzed all planned levee segments, including the Briscoe-Desimone segment. This document, entitled Biological Assessment for Green River Levee Improvements, River Mile 14.25 to River Mile 22.00, prepared by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., dated October 3, 2011 concludes that through avoidance of in -water work and with implementation of the TESC plan, SWPPP, and stormwater control and treatment measures, the project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect Bull trout, Puget Sound Chinook, Puget Sound steelhead, Marbled Murrelets and their designated critical habitat. An addendum was prepared for the Briscoe-Desimone levee segment, which analyzes design details that have changed since the 2011 report. This addendum is entitled Addendum to Biological Assessment, Green River Levee Improvements Project, River Mile 14.25 to River Mile 22.0 prepared by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., dated February 20, 2013. This addendum concludes that the effects determinations remain unchanged from the determinations listed in the 2011 report. The Briscoe-Desimone levee project will improve riparian habitat conditions along 4,400 lineal feet of the Green River. The proposed trees and shrubs to be planted on the waterward side of the existing levee berm will provide nesting and rearing habitat for birds and small mammals. The enhanced riparian area will benefit fish by increasing shade, woody debris, insect drop and leaf litter. Creation of a sloped floodplain bench that will be inundated for approximately 40 days during the primary juvenile salmonid outmigration period (January - June) will improve habitat significantly over the current, invasive dominated, steep -walled levee condition. Page 7 of 13 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 F. Environmental Health There is a slight risk of spills or fire due to the use of petroleum fuels for construction equipment. All fuel containers will be stored off-site in a staging area and will remain in secondary containment when not actively in use. Spill kits and a site specific spill response plan will be kept on-site at all times during construction. Some noise will be generated from trucks and heavy equipment during site construction and vibratory equipment will be used for sheet pile installation. Some vibration and noise may be noticeable to nearby properties during this period; however, construction activity will be temporary and will only take place Monday through Friday 7:OOam to 7:OOpm. Mufflers will be required on all vehicles and equipment with internal combustion engines. Impact hammers will not be allowed for sheet pile installation. G. Land and Shoreline Use The project area spans several zoning districts, including M1 (Industrial Park) and M2 (Limited Industrial) in the Kent portion. The Tukwila portion is zoned C/LI (Commercial Light Industrial). The corresponding Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designations are Open Space and Industrial in the Kent portion; and Commercial Light Industrial in the Tukwila portion. Properties within the project area are currently used as a levee and recreational trail. Properties surrounding the project area are developed with warehousing, manufacturing and other Tight industrial uses. Completion of the proposed project will not permanently alter any of the existing uses in the area, with the exception of the Riverpoint Corporate Center (APN 7888900170) near Reach 1, which may lose up to 40 parking stalls if the flood wall is shifted further south. The City is working with the King County Flood Control District to agree on the wall's location. In the event of this change, the City will work directly with the property owner to redesign the parking area. Using parallel parking spaces and other adjustments, up to 15 stalls may be gained back. The business will be compensated for any lost parking. The western portion of the Stress -Tek parking lot (APN 7888800140) and the south portion of the Rivers Edge Business Park (APN 7888800100) may be used as construction staging areas. The City will work directly with the Stress -Tek owner to minimize impacts to their business operation. Two of the three Rivers Edge Business Park buildings are vacant, with the property now owned by the King County Page 8 of 13 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 Flood Control District. A special use permit may be required from King County for staging use. The one remaining business, if still present will be consulted to minimize impacts to their business operation. The entire project area is located within 200 feet of the Green River, a Shoreline of Statewide Significance. Accordingly Reach 2, 3 and 4 of the proposed project are subject to the City of Kent Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Reach 1 and a small portion of Reach 2 are subject to the Tukwila SMP. The Kent portion of the project area is designated by the Kent SMP as High Intensity, with a parallel designation of Urban Conservancy -Open Space where the Green River Trail is located. The Tukwila portion is designated by the Tukwila SMP as Urban Conservancy. Applications for Shoreline Substantial Development and Shoreline Conditional Use Permits were submitted to the City of Kent with the Environmental Checklist. Separate shoreline permits will be submitted to the City of Tukwila at a later date. H. Aesthetics The above -ground portion of the sheet pile wall will range from 8 feet to 13 feet tall when viewed from the adjacent businesses and will diminish views of the river. On the trail side, the flood wall will extend approximately 3 feet above the surface of the new trail, plus a 1.5 foot handrail. Construction materials identified for the flood wall include steel and concrete, but the ultimate finish treatment has not yet been identified. Appearance of the proposed flood wall is important in this area as it is being constructed along a regional public trail system and through high quality, attractive industrial parks. As the new trail location will directly abut the flood wall, aesthetic treatment is necessary to maintain an attractive and enjoyable environment that encourages public use of the trail. The Industrial Park (M1) zoning district is intended to provide areas for those industrial activities that desire to conduct business in a prestigious environment. This intent is supported by aesthetic standards such as landscape screening requirements in the City's Zoning Code. In order to support the City's goals for the M1 district and to be compatible with surrounding business and recreational uses, it is important that the flood wall be finished with materials, colors or textures that create visual interest. I. Recreation The Green River Trail provides biking and walking opportunities along the river. Use of the trail will be restricted temporarily during construction, requiring users to detour around the construction area. Page 9 of 13 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 r The existing trail on top of the levee berm will be removed and a new, wider (12 - 14 feet wide) paved trail will be installed further landward adjacent to the flood wall. All existing public access points will be maintained and where necessary, stairways will be constructed. The furthest distance between public access points will be a quarter mile. Hand rails will be placed on top of the flood wall to ensure safety of pedestrians using the trail. View corridors through the vegetation will be provided to ensure preservation of public views and safety for users of the Green River Trail. This will be accomplished by using several different planting zones: low, medium and high density. All planting zones will be densely covered with shrubs for habitat purposes, but the low and medium density zones will space the trees in a way to allow sightlines. John Neller, a cyclist who regularly uses the Green River Trail submitted a comment requesting that trail users be notified a minimum of 2 weeks prior to trail closure. Mr. Neller complained that prior levee projects did not notify trail users until the day of the closure, resulting in inconvenience and frustration especially for those using the trail to commute to or from work. The City does provide advance notification of trail closures on their website, but not on-site. The City's Shoreline Master Program includes policies and regulations regarding public access and recreation. The shoreline conditional use criteria contained in WAC 173-27-160 and referenced in the City's Shoreline Master Program require provisions for normal public use of public shorelines. Accordingly, a condition will be added to the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit regarding on-site advance notification to trail users. Briscoe Park is located in the river bend northwest of South 190th Street, which contains trails, a picnic shelter and a portable restroom. No levee work will be done within Briscoe Park itself. A separate parking lot located south of Briscoe Park adjacent to the cul-de-sac bulb of South 190th Street provides parking for Briscoe Park and the Green River Trail. This parking area will be used as a construction staging area, and consequently will be closed during construction. The Kent Parks Department indicates that Briscoe Park is primarily used by pedestrians and cyclists from the trail as opposed to recreationists arriving by car; so temporary closure of the lot will be a minor impact. The parking area typically contains 8 to 10 cars each day, primarily employees of the adjacent business to the south. Due to vacancy of other buildings in the River's Edge Business Park, adequate on-site parking is present to serve employees during closure of the City parking lot. To allow for trail and park access following construction of the flood wall, the parking lot will be raised to match the trail elevation. This will improve trail access by providing ADA accessibility as well as maintenance access. Page 10 of 13 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 J. Historic and Cultural Preservation A Cultural Resources report was prepared for this project, entitled Cultural Resources Assessment for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, City of Kent Green River Levees Improvement Project, prepared by Historical Research Associates, Inc., dated March 18, 2013. This report found no previously recorded archaeological sites, no historic - period buildings, structures or objects and no archaeological resources in the area of impact. The report notes that proximity to the Green River and historical homesteading and agriculture activities would typically mean a high probability of intact archaeological remains; but given the frequency of flooding events and ground disturbance from construction of business parks, utility lines and the levee system the probability of intact archaeological remains is in fact low to moderate. Should archaeological materials (e.g. bones, shell, stone tools, beads, ceramics, old bottles, hearths, etc.) or human remains be observed during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity should stop. The State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the City should be contacted immediately in order to help assess the situation and determine how to preserve the resource(s). Compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to archaeological resources (RCW 27.53, 27.44 and WAC 25-48) is required. The City's Shoreline Master Program includes policies and regulations regarding archaeological and historic resources. Accordingly, a condition to this effect will be added to the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe members fish in this section of the river. The tribe has requested that the City coordinate with them at least 30 days in advance of construction to avoid interference with tribal fishing activities and access. The Public Works Department has agreed to do so. The City's Shoreline Master Program includes policies and regulations regarding public access and coordination with affected tribes, and the shoreline conditional use criteria require compatibility with other authorized uses. Accordingly, a condition will be added to the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit regarding coordination with the Muckleshoot tribe. K. Transportation South 200th Street is located at the south end of the project area at Reach 4, South 190th Street is located near Reaches 2 and 3 and West Valley Highway at the north end of the project at Reach 1. Access to properties in the project vicinity will be maintained during construction. Existing levee maintenance access points will be Page 11 of 13 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 I maintained, with slight modifications as needed to allow maintenance vehicles to get over the new flood wall. Maintenance access to Reach 4 may be modified to provide a direct connection to South 200th Street. Maintenance access to Reach 1 from West Valley Highway may also need some modifications. A traffic control plan will be prepared to reduce traffic impacts during construction. The proposed project will not generate additional traffic trips. L. Public Services The proposal will not generate the need for increased public services. M. Utilities An existing 8 -inch storm pipe located in Reach 1 will be extended through the new flood wall and a flap gate installed. No other utility improvements are anticipated at this time, but utility relocations may become necessary as a result of construction. IV. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION A. Per WAC 197-11-660 and RCW 43.21C.060, the City of Kent may establish conditions to mitigate any identified impacts associated with this proposal. The following supporting documents serve as possible bases for any conditions and mitigating measures: 1. City of Kent Comprehensive Plan, as prepared and adopted pursuant to the State Growth Management Act. 2. The State Shoreline Management Act and the Kent Shoreline Master Program. 3. Kent City Code Section 7.07, Surface Water and Drainage Code. 4. City of Kent Transportation Plan, Green River Valley Transportation action plan and current Six -Year Transportation Improvement Plan. 5. Kent City Code Section 7.09, Wastewater Facilities Plan. 6. City of Kent Comprehensive Water Plan and Conservation Element. 7. Kent City Code Section 6.02, Required Public Improvements. 8. Kent City Code Section 6.07, Street Use Permit Requirements. 9. Kent City Code Section 14.09, Flood Hazard Protection. 10. Kent City Code Section 12.04, Subdivision Code. 11. Kent City Code Section 12.05, Mobile Home Parks and Section 12.06, Recreation Vehicle Parks. 12. Kent City Code Section 8.05, Noise Control. 13. City of Kent International Building and Fire Codes. Page 12 of 13 f1 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 f 1 14. Kent City Code Section 15, Kent Zoning Code. 15. Kent City Code Section 7.13, Water Shortage and Emergency Regulations, and Water Conservation Ordinance 2227. 16. Kent City Code Section 6.03, Improvement Plan Approval and Inspection Fees. 17. Kent City Code Section 7.05, Storm and Surface Water Drainage Utility. 18. City of Kent Comprehensive Sewer Plan. 19. City of Kent Fire Master Plan. 20. City of Kent Section 11.06, Critical Areas. B. It is recommended that a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) be issued for this project with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall evaluate the impacts to shallow groundwater movement through the floodwall. If impacts to groundwater are identified, appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented to mitigate the impact. Such measures could include, but are not limited to staggering the lengths of the sheet piles to allow flow through or providing openings in the sheet piles to allow for groundwater movement through the wall. 2. The applicant shall finish the flood wall on both the landward and waterward sides with aesthetic elements such as colors, textures or patterns to enhance the appearance and promote compatibility with surrounding uses. The final finish material shall be submitted for review and approval by Planning Services. KENT PLANNING SERVICES April 9, 2013 EG: jm\S: \Permit\Plan\Env\2013\2130616decision.doc Page 13 of 13 WASHINGTON STATE Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) Form1'2 US Army Corps of EngMears 4, Seanle District USE BLACK OR BLUE INK TO ENTER ANSWERS IN THE WHITE SPACES BELOW. Part 1—Project Identification naine for<your,proje'tt that`you create Exam Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement / ock or Seabrook l ane Developmen Part 2—Applicant The person and/or organization responsible for the project. [heel e iii ids# Middle Langholz, Ken )rganizatiotl (If appllcall City of Kent Public Works Department all•in cess (Street Or P $o 220 4th Ave. S. tate Kent, WA 98032 2e Phone(1) (253) 856-5516 one;(2) 2 (253) 856-5500 (253) 856-6500 klangholz@KentWA.gov 1Ad?ditional forms may be required for the following permits: O If your project may qualify for Department of the Army authorization through a Regional General Permit (RGP), contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for application information (206) 764-3495. • If your project might affect species listed under the Endangered Species Act, you will need to fill out a Specific Project Information Form (SPIF) or prepare a Biological Evaluation. Forms can be found at http://www. nws. usace.a rmy. mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Reoulstory/PermitGuidebook/EndangeredSpecies.aspx. o Not all cities and counties accept the JARPA for their local Shoreline permits. If you need a Shoreline permit, contact the appropriate city or county government to make sure they accept the JARPA. 2To access an online JARPA form with [help] screens, go to http:P/www,epermittlnq.wa.gov/site/alias resourcecenter/iarpa iarpa form/9984/iarpa form.aspx. For other help, contact the Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance at 1-800-917-0043 or helpaora.wa.00v. JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 1 of 15 Part 3 -Authorized Agent or Contact Person authorized to represent the applicant about the project. (Note: Authorized agent(s) must sign 11b of this application.) [heioi ame ,;(Last ;First Middle) Langholz, Ken anization (if applicable City of Kent Public Works Department Mailing Address (street or Po Box) 220 4th Ave. S. Kent, WA 98032 3e:. `Phone (1) 3f. Phone.(2) Fax 3h.E-mail (253) 856-5516 (253) 856-5500 (253) 856-6500 klangholz@KentWA.gov Part 4 -Property Owner(s) Contact information for people or organizations owning the property(ies) where the project will occur. Consider both upland and aquatic ownership because the upland owners may not own the adjacent aquatic land. [helpl ® Same as applicant. (Skip to Part 5.) ❑ Repair or maintenance activities on existing rights-of-way or easements. (Skip to Part 5.) ❑ There are multiple upland property owners. Complete the section below and fill out JARPA Attachment A for each additional property owner. ❑ Your project is on Department of Natural Resources (DNR) -managed aquatic lands. If you don't know, contact the DNR at (360) 902-1100 to determine aquatic land ownership. If yes, complete JARPA Attachment E to apply for the Aquatic Use Authorization. a. ar11e';(Lest First Middle) 4b. Organization (If applicable) Malling Address (street or Po Bbx d. City,State,'Zip 4e.. ;;Phone' (1j 4f. , Phone (2} :' E-mail JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 2 of 15 Part 5—Project Location(s) Identifying information about the property or properties where the project will occur. (help] ® There are multiple project locations (e.g. linear projects). Complete the section below and use JARPA Attachment B for each additional project location. type of ownership of the (Check all that apply. Ihelpl ❑ Private ❑ Federal • Publicly owned (state, county, city, special districts like schools, ports, etc.) ❑ Tribal ❑ Department of Natural Resources (DNR) — managed aquatic lands (Complete JARPA Attachment E) cess (Cannt obea PO Box if there is no address, provide;other Location information �n 5p.), Illelpl Reach 1 — RM 14.47 to 14.64 ip (tf the project is' nbt in a cit or town provide the name of the nearest city;:or„., own: [help-] Reach 1 located in Tukwila, WA 98188 .ount' King County "?rovide the -.section, towns ran e for tl rolec ocation.:,Fttelr l ectior ownsI NW 36 23N 4E rovide:the• latitude and longitude of the: project location theta] xarnple: 47 03922;N let /-122 89142 W long (Use deems[ degrees NAD 83) Reach 1: 47.439244 N / -122.245540 W to 47.439129 N / -122.248837 W Jst the tax parcel:.tiumber{s) forthe: project locattoi _ e The E:ocat,county'a'ssessor's office can provide this infor(pation 788890-0150; 788890-0170 JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 3 of 15 5h. Contact information for all adjo nirtg .property owners (If you need more space use'JARPA Attachment C). jhelpl Riverpointe Corporate Center 18200 Cascade Ave. S. Tukwila, WA 98188 788890-0170 Cascade Tukwila 18251 Cascade Ave. S. Tukwila, WA 98188 788890-0150 wetiarrds on oar a aces e proj OCat10n l-�helpl none waterbodles :(other-' an wetlands) on•or';ad�acenf rOject location [help] The Green River is adjacent to the project location 5k Is any part of the project area within a 100 year floodplain ''[hem ❑ Yes ® No El Don't know Briefly describe the vegetation and habitat conditions on the property:" "[help] Existing vegetation on the riverward side of the levee in the project area consists of willow species near the ordinary high water line of the Green River, red -osier dogwood, snowberry, grasses, including reed canary grass, Himalayan blackberry, evergreen blackberry and scotch broom. Vegetation on the landward side of the levee consists of grasses and trees such as cottonwood, Doug fir, maple, elm and poplar, the majority of which are located on adjacent properties. Very few trees are present on the riverward side of the levee and habitat conditions are degraded, consisting mostly of non-native, invasive vegetation and mowed grasses. 5m..Describe how the property,is currently. used. '[heipl" The project area is currently used as the Green River Trail, part of the regional trail system which is used for walking, jogging, bicycling and other recreational activities such as bird watching. n. Describe how the adjacentproperties are currently used: help The adjacent properties contain office buildings housing different tenants and were built in the 1980's. Describe the structures (above and below ground) on the proper condition [heipl mc[udmg their purposes JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 4 of 15 A paved 10 -foot wide trail is located on top of the levee throughout Reach 1. On the landward side of the levee, stairs from a parking lot that provide access to the levee/Green River Trail. These will be removed during construction and will be replaced with stairs or ramp. rovide driving irections„from file closest r �tal wa tbjea.;05.0.atiorfli3On The downstream end Reach 1 is located near West Valley Highway and S. 182nd Street in Tukwila. From West Valley Highway, turn west into a gravel lot providing access to the levee. See attached map. Part 6—Project Description Briefly_summarize the overall project ,ou can provide more detail InSb jhelpi The City of Kent proposes to construct 4,450 linear feet of sheet pile flood walls in four areas (reaches) along the eastern side of the Green River and landward of the levee, between S. 200th Street and S. 180' Street to protect properties in Kent, Tukwila and Renton from Green River flooding. 6b.:Describ'e'the.purpose of,.t a project and whys you want or need toperform 1t fheinj The project area contains four reaches (sections) totaling 4,450 linear feet along the Green River levee that do not meet slope and stability requirements and need repair to meet FEMA accreditation requirements. Reach 1 is located between RM 14.47 and 14.64 and totals 1,050 LF. Reach 2 is located between RM 15.44 and 15.57 and totals 850 LF. Reach 3 is between RM 15.98 and 16.36, totaling 2,350 LF, and Reach 4 is between RM 16.91 and 16.99 and totals 200 LF. Reaches 1, 2 and 3 are on the outside of sharp bends in the river and Reach 4 is just north of the S. 200th Street Bridge. Structural steel sheet pile walls will be installed at the back of the existing levee slope along Reaches 1, 2 & 3 to act as a secondary levee to reduce flood risks to the cities of Kent, Tukwila and Renton and protect the large number of warehouses, manufacturing, industrial and retail establishments located behind the levee. A cast -in-place concrete wall will be installed along Reach 4. The walls will provide a minimum of 3 feet of freeboard above the predicted 500 -year flood event. This equates to approximately 5.2 feet of freeboard above the predicted 100 -year flood event. Some re -vegetation and habitat restoration work will occur along the river between the ordinary high water mark and the trail in areas where the wall is constructed. Benches will be constructed where feasible along the riverbank. Construction on the banks of the river will occur during the dry season, June through October. 6c indt t ate icae ;the'projecc o Check ah that -a xy � pply} (helpl ❑ Commercial ❑ ® Recreational Residential • Institutional • Transportation Environmental Enhancement ® Maintenance ►1 6d indicate the mayor elements o-6ti,project (Check all that apply) iheipj : 1 ❑ Aquaculture ❑ Culvert ❑ Float ® Retaining Wall JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 5 of 15 ❑ Bank Stabilization ❑ Boat House ❑ Boat Launch ❑ Boat Lift ❑ Bridge ❑ Bulkhead ❑ Buoy ❑ Channel Modification ❑ Dam / Weir ® Dike / Levee / Jetty 0 Ditch 0 Dock / Pier ❑ Dredging 0 Fence ❑ Ferry Terminal ❑ Fishway ■ Floating Home (upland) ❑ Road ❑ Scientific Measurement Device ❑ Stairs ■ Geotechnical Survey ❑ Land Clearing ❑ Marina / Moorage ❑ Mining ❑ Outfall Structure ■ Stormwater facility ■Swimming Pool ■ Piling/Dolphin ■Utility Line ■ Raft 1/ Other: Habitat Restoration Structural steel sheet pile walls will be installed along the landward toe of the existing levee slope and adjacent to the Green River to act as a secondary levee to reduce flood risk to the cities of Kent, Renton and Tukwila. A non -hammering (either vibratory or silent press -in style) sheet pile driver will be used for installation of the sheet piles for the flood wall to limit noise impacts to adjacent properties and wildlife. Existing trees, shrubs and lawn in the impact footprint will be removed, however, existing native riparian vegetation near the ordinary high water mark will be preserved. Following construction, disturbed soil will be hydroseeded and/or mulched and planted to achieve final stabilization. The waterward side of the existing levee will be excavated to create a 10-40 foot -wide sloping planting bench (in Reach 1, 2 and 3). Areas above the bench will be cleared and grubbed, however, existing desirable native shrubs will be retained in the planting area where possible. The material excavated to construct the bench may be placed between the sheet pile wall and the landward side of the levee if suitable. The upper 15 feet of the waterward side of the levee will be hydroseeded to maintain a clear zone adjacent to the new trail. The excavated bench and cleared riparian area will be planted with native trees and shrubs and hydroseeded and/or mulched with wood chips (where wood chip mulch is used, chips will be securely stapled to the slope with jute matting). The disturbed ground on the waterward side of the levee will be stabilized prior to being exposed to the Green River's flow. See the enclosed project landscaping and erosion control plans for further details. Normal construction equipment will be used for all elements of the project and will likely include vibratory hammers (or silent press -in), water jet cranes, jackhammers, backhoes, dump trucks, pavers, vibratory roller, excavators, front-end loaders and bulldozers. All of the project area is located within 200 feet of the Green River shoreline. Bench excavation and landscaping activities are located within the 100 -year floodplain. 6f. What'are the anticipated start and end dates for project construction? (MonthlYear)` jhelol :? • •. !f the protect will be constructed in phases orstages, use JARPA Attachment'D fo list the start and.end dates of cacti phase,or stage: JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 6 of 15 Start date: May 2014 End date: November 2016 ® See JARPA Attachment D $ 18,000,000 0 Yes ® No 0 Don't know Part 7 --Wetlands: Impacts and Mitigation ❑ Check here if there are wetlands or wetland buffers on or adjacent to the project area. (If there are none, skip to Part 8.) fhelpt Scnbe ow the project has been desi o,avoid and minimize ,adverse im pacts o wetlarj ® Not applicable Nillt roject"impact wetlands? iti etpj ❑ Yes ® No 0 Don't know ::Will -the project impact_ wetland_ buffers .(hetoj Yes .® No ❑ Don't know ielineation report.been prepared? [heiDi he report ieciudirig'data sheets; with_the JARPA parka. ❑ Yes ® No All construction and landscaping will occur above the ordinary high water mark ave.the wetlands been rated using the Western Washington or Eastern` Washington Wetla;nd:,Rating system? . fheln1 If ' submit the we#land ra#mg forms.and fi•gures with #.10,'.4813.P.A package. 0 Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know N/A :........ . 7f. Have you prepared a rtmitigation planto compensate'for any adverse impacts to wetlands? ;If (es '.:submit the pian; with': the`JARP i! package and answer 7g ff No, or Not appiicable; explain below why a mitigation piansoiuidnobe requires 0 Yes ❑ No ® Not applicable JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 7 of 15 N/A 7h..Use the table below to hst the Type and rating of each wetland mpaeted, the extent and duration of tis impact, and the type `and amount'of mitigation proposed Or_if you are submitting a mitigation plan wi similar fable, you can state :(below) where we can find this Information in the ply Activity (fill, drain, excavate, flood, etc.) Wetland Name' Wetland type and rating category2 Impact area (sq. ft. or Acres) Duration of impact3 Proposed mitigation typea Wetland mitigation area (sq. ft. or acres) N/A If no official name for the wetland exists, create a unique name (such as Wetland 1 "). The name should be consistent with other project documents, such as a wetland delineation report. 2 Ecology wetland category based on current Western Washington or Eastern Washington Wetland Rating System. Provide the wetland rating forms with the JARPA package. 3 Indicate the days, months or years the wetland will be measurably impacted by the activity. Enter "permanent" if applicable. `Creation (C), Re-establishment/Rehabilitation (R), Enhancement (E), Preservation (P), Mitigation Bank/In-lieu fee (B) Page number(s) for similar information in the mitigation plan, if available: N/A or all filling activities: identified in 7h, describe the source and nature of the fill material, the amount in cu yards that will be used, and:' how and where it will be.placed.into the'. wetland Iheilpj _ For all 'excavating acttvities: identified in 7h, describe the excavation method, ty) cubic yards you will remove, and where the material well be disposed (helps JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 8 of 15 N/A Part 8—Waterbodies (other than wetlands): Impacts and Mitigation In Part 8, "waterbodies" refers to non -wetland waterbodies. (See Part 7 for information related to wetlands.) [help] ® Check here if there are waterbodies on or adjacent to the project area. (If there are none, skip to Part 9.) 0 Not applicable The Green River is located adjacent and parallel to the project location. The project is located within 200 feet of the Green River, however, there will be no fill material placed in the water nor will there be any in -water work. All work will occur above the OHWM. Best Management Practices will be planned, implemented and maintained to control erosion potential throughout the entire course of the project. The city will obtain coverage under the NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit for the project which requires a site specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to manage stormwater. Best Management Practices for erosion and sediment control will be implemented throughout the duration of the project. Water quality sampling will also be required through the permit which will also ensure that environmental impacts do not occur. A temporary erosion and sediment control plan (TESCP) and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared. Best Management Practices (BMP) such as silt fence, straw wattles, erosion control blankets, and soil cover will be implemented and maintained to minimize erosion and sediment transport during construction. A Spill Control and Response Plan will also be implemented throughout the entire course of the project. Disturbed areas will be restored to their original function. The levee will be hydroseeded and/or planted and mulched to ensure permanent stabilization. The project limits will also be clearly marked to ensure equipment and vehicles do not enter protected areas. Jill your project impact a waterbody,or the area.', around a waterbody?. [jheip] l Yes ❑ No Haye:you prepared a mitigation: plan to compensate for the project's adverse .iimpacts to non -wetland waterbodies? ihelpl .......:.. • . If..Ves, subri)it;theplan.with the JARPApacka9e;and answer 8d::i':: s . ..........:...:......:otap,li a le,.. lai:..: "ti" iplans ul 'o ere uired;':r..,;:::' If No, or:Not appl c b , exp a n below why a mit gat on _. ho. d n. t b q e.• ® Yes 0 No ❑ See project landscaping plans JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 9 of 15 There will be no adverse impacts to surface water bodies resulting from this project. In fact, riparian landscaping proposed as part of this project is expected to improve habitat and water quality as the existing riparian area is dominated by invasive species providing little shade, cover or habitat diversity. Benching near the. OHWM sloped at 6:1 on Reaches 1, 2 & 3 will provide shallow, bank habitat that, once vegetated, will provide refuge and rearing habitat for juvenile salmonids, one of the key limiting factors for Chinook salmon recoverty identified in the 2005 WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan. This plan utilized a watershed approach by systematically surveying the entire Green River from headwaters to estuary to determine what the limiting factors for salmon were. 8e. Summarize impacts to each:wateriod in e table below. 'help, Activity (clear, dredge, fill, pile drive, etc.) Waterbody name' Impact location2 Duration of impact3 Amount of material (cubic yards) to be placed in or removed from waterbody Area (sq. ft. or linear ft.) of waterbody directly affected Clear banks above OHWM Green River Reach 1 — 4 Temp. 0 CY 4,450 LF above OHWM 'If no official name for the waterbody exists, create a unique name (such as "Stream 1") The name should be consistent with o her documents provided. z Indicate whether the impact will occur in or adjacent to the waterbody. If adjacent, provide the distance between the impact and the waterbody and indicate whether the impact will occur within the 100 -year flood plain. 3 Indicate the days, months or years the waterbody will be measurably impacted by the work. Enter "permanent" if applicable. >r all activities identified in Se, describe the source and:nature of" the fill material, amount ou will use, and how and ere.it be placed Into the waterbod {heipj No fill will be placed in the waterbody (all activity above OHWM). Fora excavating or dredging activitiee'identified in $e, describe the method for• excavating or �r and amount of. rnater al; you;wlll remove, and where the_ material will be disposed.'; [heipj No excavation will occur within the waterbody (all activity above OHWM). Part 9—Additional Information Any additional information you can provide helps the reviewer(s) understand your project. Complete as much of this section as you can. It is ok if you cannot answer a question. JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 10of15 ou. ave Area �+rorke with Jan. overnmenta enciesiion this ect, list t City of Kent Erin George- Senior Planner ( 253) 856-5436 October 2, 2013 King County DNRP (River Flood Management Section Tom Bean -Green River Basin Supervisor ( 206) 477-4638 October 24, 2013 you don't know, use Washington bepartmen , iittp l/wvw ecu wa caovlproarams/wq%303dI ® Yes ❑ No Green River- Temperature 17110013 WRIA 9 at Water Resource Inventory Asea Number (VVRIA#) is the oto http //www ecy wa govlservices/grs/maps/wrialwna htm to find the WI Nrll the in water construction urbid ty? [help/ 'stan o to.httpJlwww.ecv.wa.gov/programslwalswgslentena.htrnl for thestandar Yes ❑ No 0 Not applicable 9f 'lf,the_;pro�ects within the urisdiction of theShoreline Management environment, lesignatlon?: Ihelp] don't, know contact the local planning depart►nen or more information ga to http'//www ecy wa qov/programs/sea/smallaws 73 26/211 designations htmi.' 0 Rural ® Urban ❑ Natural 0 Aquatic ® Conservancy 0 Other What. s;the;WashingtonDepartment of Natural Resources Water Type? lhelol o;to lino//www.dnr:wa:gov/Bus'inessPermitslTopics/ForestPracticesAool,cations/Pagesl€p .'.watertvprnq.aspz#or,the Forel Practices Wafer Typrng;System 0 Shoreline ❑ Non -Fish Perennial ❑ Non -Fish Seasonal JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 11 of 15 meet the Washington_' De meat of Ecology's most current stormwa rov►de thename f. the manual your projectie es►gne] to meet Yes El No Name of manual: foes the project slte have known' contaminated sediment? `(hepl If..Yes, please descr be belouv . ❑ Yes ® No ou now what the, property was used for m the past, descnbe below (F►e�pt as a cultural resource (arc es attach ►t to your JARPA packa project area? lheEpj ®Yes No :Name each species; fisted under.the federal Erdarigered Species Act that occurs area or'might be affected by the proposed work jheip in the vicinity of the .prole ct' Coastal Puget Sound Bull trout, Puget Sound Chinook salmon, and Puget Sound Steelhead are known to inhabit the Green River. Bull trout, Chinook and steelhead are currently listed as threatened species in the Puget Sound and its tributaries. m. Name each species or habitat on the Washington Department of Fish and Wildhtfe's Priority Habitats ani Species List - that might be affected by' the proposed, work-file!a} JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 12 of 15 f Coastal Puget Sound Bull trout Puget Sound Chinook salmon Puget Sound Steelhead trout Part 10-SEPA Compliance and Permits Use the resources and checklist below to identify the permits you are applying for. • Online Project Questionnaire at http://apps.ecy.wa.gov/opas/. • Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance at (800) 917-0043 or helpCa7ora.wa.gov. • For a list of addresses to send your JARPA to, click on agency addresses for completed JARPA. ompliance with the State Environmental Policy Act {SEPA} tcttecicai[thatappiy_. or more information, about SEPA,go to:www.ecv.wa qov/programs/sea/seoa/e-review html is ® A copy of the SEPA determination or letter of exemption is included with this application. ❑ A SEPA determination is pending with (lead agency). The expected decision date is ❑ I am applying for a Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption. (Check the box below in lob.) (help] ❑ This project is exempt (choose type of exemption below). ❑ Categorical Exemption. Under what section of the SEPA administrative code (WAC) is it exempt? ❑ Other: ❑ SEPA is pre-empted by federal law. C';AL`?GQVE.RNMEN Local Government Shoreline permits: ® Substantial Development . J Conditional Use ❑ Shoreline Exemption Type (explain): ❑ Variance Other city/county permits: JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 13 of 15 Part 11—Authorizing Signatures Signatures are required before submitting the JARPA package. The JARPA package includes the JARPA form, project plans, photos, etc. [help] 11a. Applicant Signature (required) [help] JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 14 of 15 ❑ Floodplain Development Permit ■ Critical Areas Ordinance ST tE GOVERNMENT .. ..'.:_.. r � a� A.. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife: I Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) ■ Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption — Attach Exemption Form Effective July 10, 2012, you must submit a check for $150 to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, unless your project qualifies for an exemption or alternative payment method below. Do not send cash. Check the appropriate boxes: 11$150 check enclosed. (Check # 672265 ) Previously submitted Attach check made payable to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. ❑ Charge to billing account under agreement with WDFW. (Agreement # ) ❑ My project is exempt from the application fee. (Check appropriate exemption) ■ HPA processing is conducted by applicant-funded WDFW staff. (Agreement # ) ❑ Mineral prospecting and mining. ■ Project occurs on farm and agricultural land. (Attach a copy of current land use classification recorded with the county auditor, or other proof of current land use.) ❑ Project is a modification of an existing HPA originally applied for, prior to July 10, 2012. (HPA # ) Washington Department of Natural Resources: ❑ Aquatic Use Authorization Complete JARPA Attachment E and submit a check for $25 payable to the Washington Department of Natural Resources. Do not send cash. Washington Department of Ecology: ❑ Section 401 Water Quality Certification ;.. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ,... , United States Department of the Army permits (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers): ❑ Section 404 (discharges into waters of the U.S.) ❑ Section 10 (work in navigable waters) United States Coast Guard permits: ❑ General Bridge Act Permit 1 Private Aids to Navigation (for non-bridge projects) Part 11—Authorizing Signatures Signatures are required before submitting the JARPA package. The JARPA package includes the JARPA form, project plans, photos, etc. [help] 11a. Applicant Signature (required) [help] JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 14 of 15 I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information provided in this application is true, complete, and accurate. I also certify that I have the authority to carry out the proposed activities, and I agree to start work only after I have received all necessary permits. I hereby authoriz the agent named in Part 3 of this application to act on my behalf in matters related to this application: (initial) By initialing here, I state that I have the authority to grant access to the property. I also give my consent to the permitting agencies entering the property where the project is located to inspect the project site or any work related to the project. (initial) \(e1(q Casfied Applicant Printed' Name 11 b. Authorized Agent Signature jhelpj • Ap t Signature Date I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information provided in this application is true, complete, and accurate. I also certify that I have the authority to carry out the proposed activities and I agree to start work only after all necessary permits have been issued. tt, 'Cst(t\ Authorized AAent Printed Name 10.2-5'13 Authoriz= • -nt Signature Date 11 c. Property Owner Signature (if not applicant). [helot Not required if project is on existing rights-of-way or easements. I consent to the permitting agencies entering the property where the project is located to inspect the project site or any work. These inspections shall occur at reasonable times and, if practical, with prior notice to the landowner. Property Owner Printed Name Property Owner Signature Date 18 U.S.0 §1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact or makes any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both. If you require this document in another format, contact the Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance (ORA) at (800) 917-0043. People with hearing Toss can calf 711 for Washington Relay Service. People with a speech disability can call (877) 833-6341. ORA publication number: ENV -019-09 rev. 06-12 JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 15 of 15 WASHINGTON STATE Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (DARPA)thelpl US Army Corps of Engineers a, Seattle District Attachment B -Reach 2: For additional project location(s) ihelpj Use this attachment only if you have more than one project location. Use a separate form for each additional location. Use black or blue ink to enter answers in white spaces below. "N TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Ihelpl Project Name: Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Location Name (if applicable): ndlcat the type of ownership of the props heck alt That'apply) ; rhelpl ❑ Private ❑ Federal ® Publicly owned (state, county, city, special districts like schools, ports, etc.) ❑ Tribal O Department of Natural Resources (DNR) — managed aquatic lands (Complete JARPA Attachment E) reet.1ddress„ annot be aPC Boz If there is no address;. provide o erlocationinformationin i6) ,rhelpl Reach 2 -- RM 15.44 to 15.57 the project is not in a city or town, ovide the darns of the nearest city or toyrn) rhelpj Kent, WA 98032 and Tukwila, WA 98188 Ifielpj King County rovida le section, township, and range for raject iocatlori ction ection owtshi range SW 35 23 4 SE 35 23 4 Reach 2: 47.433735 N / -122.245540 W to 47.439129 N / -122.248837 W JARPA Attachment B Revision 2012.1 Page 1 of 3 e tax pane e praject location fieipt e }oral county assessor's office can rovtde this?iriforrnation. 788890-0110; 788880-0070; 788880-0080; 788880-0090; 000020-0044; 000020-0043 .ontactinformation adjoining -property, owners: If you heed more space use DARPA Attachment C) fhelpl Stewart Walker Co.; Consolidated Container Co. 6545 S. Glacier St. Tukwila, WA 98188 788890-0110 The Box Maker 8206 S. Glacier St. Kent, WA 98032 788880-0070 Custom Control Concepts 6020 S. 190th St. Kent, WA 98032 788880-0080 Plastic Dynamics and Raleigh America 5900 S. 190th St. Kent, WA 98032 788880-0090 City of Kent 220 4th Ave S. 000020-0044 000020-0043 List;all wetlands on or adjacentto the project location:„lheIpt none waterbodies-(other ' an wetlands) on or adjacent to t e project location. [heipj The Green River is adjacent to the project location is any part of the project area within a 100 -year flood plain? ; [hem ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Don't know 12. Briefly• describe the vegetation and habitat conditions on the property Existing vegetation on the riverward side of the levee in the project area consists of willow species near the ordinary high water line of the Green River, red -osier dogwood, snowberry, grasses, including reed canary grass, Himalayan blackberry, evergreen blackberry and scotch broom. Vegetation on the landward side of the levee consists of grasses and trees such as cottonwood, Doug fir, maple, elm and poplar, the majority of which are located on adjacent properties. Very few trees are present on the riverward side of the levee and habitat conditions are degraded, consisting mostly of non-native, invasive vegetation and mowed grasses. JARPA Attachment B Revision 2012.1 Page 2 of 3 1 The project area is currently used as the Green River Trail, part of the regional trail system which is used for walking, jogging, bicycling and other recreational activities such as bird watching. ies`-`are'ac lrrentl The adjacent properties are commercial/industrial businesses. ructur-es (above and below ground);on the property, meiuding tttelr purpose A paved 10 -foot wide paved trail is located on top of the earthen berm levee throughout Reach 2. The upstream portion of Reach 2 is adjacent to the City of Kent Briscoe Park. Hyla irect>ons from e closest highwa; ie project location; a am From West Valley Highway, turn west onto S. 190th St. Continue to the end of the street and into the city owned parking lot which provides access to the Green River Trail. Walk northwest along the trail and through Brisoce Park. Reach 2 begins at the east edge of the park. If you require this document in another format, contact the Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance (ORA) at (800) 917-0043. People with hearing Toss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. People with a speech disability can call (877) 833-6341. ORA publication number ENV 021-09 rev. 06-12 DARPA Attachment B Revision 2012.1 Page 3 of 3 WASHINGTON STATE Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) [helpl US Army Corps of Engineers t+ Seattle District Attachment B -Reach 3: For additional project location(s) [helpl Use this attachment only if you have more than one project location. Use a separate form for each additional location. Use black or blue ink to enter answers in white spaces below. l � TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT rhelpl Project Name: Brisoce-Desimone Levee Improvement' Location Name (if applicable): ❑ Private ❑ Federal Publicly owned (state, county, city, special districts like schools, ports, etc.) ❑ Tribal 0 Department of Natural Resources (DNR) — managed aquatic lands (Complete JARPA Attachment E) tree annot e a . Bax f there is no address; er;location information in? Reach 3 •- RM 15.98 to 16.36 If the project is f10 :In Lit rowdeithe home of thc:rlearest'c�ty ar 'town) (helpl Kent, WA 98032 ount King County rovi cl e section, township, and ran or the project location f ` ectio ectiion wns NE 2 22 4 SE 35 23 4 Reach 3: 47.432561 N / -122.260611 W to 47.429092 N / -122.261326 W the tax.;p rc l nurnt er (s) for the project location': [help] Tl e:3ocai;county:.assessor's;.offce;can provide.this nlormation. ' , JARPA Attachment 8 Revision 2012.1 Page 1 of 3 000020-0044; 000020-0043; 022204-9047; 788880-0090; 788880-0111; 788880-0100; 788880-0131; 788880-0130; 788880-0140; 788880-0155 on ac tr forrnation fora olning prop rty owners _(If you need [i el Plastic Dynamics and Raleigh America 5900 S. 190th St. Kent, WA 98032 788880-0090 Mastermark 19017 62nd Ave. S. Kent, WA 98032 788880-0100 Rivers Edge Business Park 19039 62nd Ave. S. Kent, WA 98032 788880-0100 Steel Rule Concepts 19221 62nd Ave. S. Kent, WA 98032 788880-0131 McCallum Print Group & Seattle Envelope Co. 6040 S. 194th St. Kent, WA 98032 788880-0130 Stress -Tek 5920 S. 194th St. Kent, WA 98032 788880-0140 The Robbins Co. & Mytronics 5872 S. 194th St. Kent, WA 98032 788880-0155 City of Kent 220 4th Ave S. Kent, WA 98032 000020-0044 000020-0043 022204-9047 788880-0111 List all -wetlands on or adjacentto the project location. [h&1. none 1-1 ist all.water bodtes (other an wetlands on, or adjacent tothe project oraion= (heinl The Green River is adjacent to the project location Is any part of the project area w#hm a ;'(00 year flood -plain? (helpi ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Don't know nefly describe the vegetation and habitat conditions on the proper escnbe how the property is ctarrently_used;(ham. The project area is currently used as the Green River Trail, part of the regional trail system which is used for walking, jogging, bicycling and other recreational activities such as bird watching. JARPA Attachment 13 Revision 2012.1 Page 2 of 3 esc`rit3e: e;a les are::cu°r..;rent US The adjacent properties are commercialfindustrial businesses and a City of Kent parking lot which provides access to the Green River Trail and Briscoe Park. .Describethe structures (above ark own roue Ing;their purposely) [heip} A paved 10 -foot wide trail is located ontop of the earthen berm levee throughout Reach 3. The downstream portion of Reach 3 is adjacent to the City of Kent Briscoe Park. rovlde driving directions from;the ,oloseit highwa roject location, and attae a ma el From West Valley Highway, turn west onto S. 190th St. Continue to the end of the street and into the city owned parking lot which provides access to the Green River Trail. The trail at this location is near the center point of Reach 3. If you require this document in another format, contact the Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance (ORA) at (800) 917-0043. People with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. People with a speech disability can call (877) 833-6341. ORA publication number ENV 021-09 rev. 06-12 JARPA Attachment 8 Revision 2012.1 Page 3 of 3 WASHINGTON STATE Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) [help] US Army Corps of Engineers Scottie Disakt Attachment B -Reach 4: For additional project location(s) [help] Use this attachment only if you have more than one project location. Use a separate form for each additional location. Use black or blue ink to enter answers in white spaces below. / ENCY USE ONL TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT (helps Project Name: Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Location Name (if applicable): icate the type of ownership of the property (check atl that apply) ,, het ❑ Private ❑ Federal ® Publicly owned (state, county, city, special districts like schools, ports, etc.) ❑ Tribal ❑ Department of Natural Resources (DNR) — managed aquatic lands (Complete JARPA Attachment E) ree rens itgc#„, a , oz If there s no address,',provideother lova#ion information in 16) [help Reach 4 — RM 16.91 to 16.99 (If the project is not in a city'or town provide the name�of the nearest;clty or town; Ihelp[' Kent, WA 98032 King County Provide e section echo .' NW echos 2 onish 22 4 ample 47 03922. N;; la Reach 4: 47.423635 N/-122.265273 W to 47.423321 N/-122.264991 W stthe tax parcel numbers) for:the project location ° [helaj' e,:Iocal:county assessor's office. can provide this.riformation 788880-0210; 022204-9047 JARPA Attachment B Revision 2012.1 Page 1 of 3 brit4:41infpOnOtiOt. Or all adjoining property owners (lf you need more space use JARPA Attachment c) dielc j The Qwest Companies 19823 58th Pl. S. Kent, WA 98032 788880-0210 City of Kent 220 4th Ave S. Kent, WA 98032 022204-9047 List all wetlands ori or adjacent. to the project location. rhelpl none ist all waterbodies an wetlands) on or adjacent to The project location The Green River is adjacent to the project location 11. is any part of the project'area within:a.100 yearflood plalri? help] ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Don't know briefly; describe the vegetation and habitat conditions on the property rteiol Existing vegetation on the riverward side of the levee in the project area consists of willow species near the ordinary high water line of the Green River, red -osier dogwood, snowberry, grasses, including reed canary grass, Himalayan blackberry, evergreen blackberry and scotch broom. Vegetation on the landward side of the levee consists of grasses and trees such as cottonwood, Doug fir, maple, elm and poplar, the majority of which are located on adjacent properties. Very few trees are present on the riverward side of the levee and habitat conditions are degraded, consisting mostly of non-native, invasive vegetation and mowed grasses. Describe ow the prope [s.currently:use d.'ihelpt'. The project area is currently used as the Green River Trail, part of the regional trail system which is used for walking, jogging, bicycling and other recreational activities such as bird watching. escribe` how the adjacent properties :are cyrrehtlyuae The adjacent properties are commercial/industrial businesses. So. 200th Street/Russell Road South is adjacent to the south end of Reach 4. JARPA Attachment B Revision 2012.1 Page 2 of 3 )escr'lbe the_ ruptures a.. and del tAMIgrout jncki ose:(s A paved 10 -foot wide trail is located on top of the earthen berm levee throughout Reach 4. rovtde dnving directions from the dos�st e:c ocat�on; a el' From So. 200th Street/Russell Road South, tum north onto 581h Pl. S. and into the parking lot of the Quest Companies. Reach 4 is located along the southwest property line. If you require this document in another format, contact the Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance (ORA) at (800) 917-0043. People with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. People with a speech disability can call (877) 833-6341. ORA publication number ENV 021-09 rev. 06-12 JARPA Attachment B Revision 2012.1 Page 3 of 3 WASHINGTON STATE Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) [help] Attachment D: Construction sequence [help] US Army Corps of Engineers s Seattle District Use this attachment only if your project will be constructed in phases or stages. Complete the outline showing the construction sequence and timing of activities, including the start and end dates of each phase or stage. Use black or blue ink to enter answers in white spaces below. Project Name: Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement 1 May 2014 November 2015 Reach 2 & 3 — Removal of trees and stumps on the landward side of the levee in the construction project area. Construction of 3,200 linear feet (LF) (Reach 2 — 850 LF; Reach 3 — 2,350 LF) of structural steel sheet pile walls at the landward base of the existing levee. The waterward side of the levee will be excavated to create a 10-40 foot -wide sloping bench. Re -vegetation and habitat restoration work will occur between the ordinary high water mark and the edge of trail. The existing 10 -foot wide trail on top of the levee will be removed and replaced with a new 12-14 foot wide trail. Removal of stairs and installation of an ADA accessible ramp providing access to the trail. Impacted areas on both sides of the levee will be hydroseeded and/or planted with native vegetation. 2 June 2014 November 2015 Reach 4 — Removal of trees and stumps on the landward side of the levee in the construction project area. Construction of 200 linear feet of concrete walls at the landward base of the existing levee. Impacted areas on both sides of the levee at Reach 4 will be hydroseeded and/or planted with native vegetation. 3 May 2015 November 2015 Reach 1 — Removal of trees and stumps on the landward side of the levee in the construction project area. Construction of 1,050 linear feet of structural steel sheet pile walls at the landward base of the existing levee. Impacted areas on both sides of the levee will be hydroseeded and/or planted. with native vegetation. If you requi e this document in another format, contact the Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance (ORA) at (800) 917-0043. People with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. People with a speech disability can call (877) 833-6341. ORA publication number: ENV -023-09 rev. 06-12 JARPA Attachment D Revision 2012.1 Page 1 of 1 xt 1'f I SW 43rd ST *Z. BRISCOE DESIMONE LEVEE S 212TH ST 4.Y ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CITY OF KENT WA.s.m.arom APPROVED DATE 10-10-12 FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP BRISCOE DESIMONE LEVEE L Dtsiin'..01-3011 DESIMOME WALLS\drq \ SEP A \ FivrelAw9. 10/10/:012 1;26.23 Pi S 180TH ST TUKWILA LEVEE REACH S 190th ST S 196th ST REACH 3 REACH 4 CITY OF KENT KE4.NT WASMI ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CITY OF KENT DRAWN APPROVED SCALE NOT TO SCALE DATE 1O-10-12 FIGURE 2 LOCATION MAP BRISCOE DESIMONE LEVEE 0:\Oa 3gn0.09-3011 OEStM01ic WAILS. n\ SEPS.V6gur12An. 10/10/2012 i• 46.00 PM BRISCOE®DESIMONE LEVEE RIGHT BANK OF THE GREEN RIVER S. 180th ST. TO S. 200th ST. LEGEND PROPOSED SETBACK WALL CITY LIMITS RN -17 RIVER MILE NOT TO SCALE G:\Design\09.3011 DESIMONE\dwg\Levee Exhibit5.dwg, 3/6/2013 11:50:38 AM • Washington Department of FISH and WILDLIFE n 11 H1?LIRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL) RCW 77.55.021 - See appeal process at end of HPA Issue Date: November 04, 2013 Project Expiration Date: November 03, 2018 North Puget Sound 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012-1296 (425) 775-1311 Control Number: 130348-1 FPA/Public Notice #: N/A PERMITTEE City of Kent Public Works Department ATTENTION: Ken Langholz 220 4th Ave S Kent, WA 98032 253-856-5516 Fax: 253-856-6500 Project Name: Project Description: AUTHORIZED AGENT OR CONTRACTOR Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Construct 4,450 linear feet of sheet pile flood wall on four reaches along the eastern side of the Green River, between S. 200th St and S. 180th St. PROVISIONS 1. The project may begin immediately and shall be completed by November 3, 2018, provided grading of the riverbank shall occur only between June 1 and September 30. 2. Work shall be accomplished per plans and specifications approved by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) entitled, "BRISCOE-DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS REACH 1 RIVER MILE 14.47-14.64", and labelled "PRELIMINARY 10-17-13"; "BRISCOE-DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS REACH 2 RIVER MILE 15.44-15.57 REACH 3 RIVER MILE 15.98-16.36", and labelled "PRELIMINARY 10-18-13", "BRISCOE-DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS REACH 4 RIVER MILE 16.91-16.99", and labelled "PRELIMINARY 8-30 -13", except as modified by this Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA). A copy of these plans shall be available on site during construction. 3. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT: The Area Habitat Biologist (AHB) listed below (e-mail to fisheldf@dfw.wa.gov) and the Enforcement Program Officer (e-mail to richacbr@dfw.wa.gov) shall receive e-mail notification from the person to whom this HPA is issued (permittee) no less than three working days prior to start of work, and again within seven days of completion of work to arrange a compliance inspection. The notification shall include the permittee's name, project location, starting date of work or completion date of work, and the control number of this HPA. 4. Grading shall be accomplished in a manner that avoids waterward release of material. 5. The floodwalls shall be constructed in a manner that does not impede deliver of groundwater inputs to the Green River. 6. Disturbance of the riverbanks and riparian vegetation associated with the river shall be limited to that necessary to perform the project. Resloping and revegetation of the riverbank is required to mitigate for the impacts of the project on river hydraulics and existing riparian vegetation. Prior to December 31 of the year of project grading, the mitigation plantings shall be installed as detailed in the approved plans (Provision 2). These plantings shall be maintained as necessary for a minimum of three years to ensure 80 percent or greater initial survival of each species or a contingency Page 1 of 5 Washington Department of FISH and WILDLIFE HYuRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL RCW 77.55.021 - See appeal process at end of HPA Issue Date: November 04, 2013 Project Expiration Date: November 03, 2018 North Puget Sound 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012-1296 (425) 775-1311 Control Number: 130348-1 FPA/Public Notice #: N/A species approved by the AHB and shall not be trimmed or removed without prior written approval of the AHB or his successor for the life of the levee. View corridors shall not exceed 10 percent of the linear length of the planted levee length. 7. Equipment used for this project shall be free of external petroleum-based products while working around the river and wetlands associated with the river. Accumulation of soils or debris shall be removed from the drive mechanisms (wheels, tires, tracks, etc.) and undercarriage of equipment prior to its working within the floodplain of the river. Equipment shall be checked daily for leaks and any necessary repairs shall be completed prior to commencing work activities along the river and wetlands associated with the river. 8. If at any time, as a result of project activities, fish are observed in distress, a fish kill occurs, or water quality problems develop (including equipment leaks or spills), immediate notification shall be made to the Washington Emergency Management Division at 1-800-258-5990, and to the AHB. 9. Erosion control methods shall be used to prevent silt -laden water from entering the river and wetlands associated with the river. These may include, but are not limited to, straw bales, filter fabric, temporary sediment ponds, check dams of pea gravel -filled burlap bags or other material, and/or immediate mulching of exposed areas. 10. Prior to starting work, the selected erosion control methods (Provision 9) shall be installed. Accumulated sediments shall be removed during the project and prior to removing the erosion control methods after completion of work. 11. All waste material such as construction debris, silt, excess dirt or overburden resulting from this project shall be deposited above the limits of floodwater in an approved upland disposal site. 12. Extreme care shall be taken to ensure that no petroleum products, hydraulic fluid, fresh cement, sediments, sediment -laden water, chemicals, or any other toxic or deleterious materials are allowed to enter or (each into the river or wetlands associated with the river. PROJECT LOCATIONS Location #1 Reach 1 RM 14.47 to 14.64 WORK START: November 04, 2013 !WORK END: November 03, 2018 WRIA: Waterbody: Tributary to: Elliott Bay Duwamish River/Green River 09.0001 1/4 SEC: Section: Township: Range: Latitude: Longitude: County: 04 E N 47.43924 W 122.24554 King 36 23 N NW 1/4 Location #1 Driving Directions The project area, located between S. 200th Street and S. 180th Street, can be accessed from a city parking lot located at S. 190th Street and 62nd Ave. S., near the middle of the project area. The lot can also be accessed by turning north onto 62nd Ave. S. from S. 196th Street. A ramp from this lot leads to the top of the levee at Reach 3, near RM 16.17. From West Valley Highway in Kent, turn west onto 190th Street and follow to the end of the road Page 2 of 5 6• a Washington _ Department of FISH and WILDLIFE HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL\� RCW 77.55.021 - See appeal process at end of HPA Issue Date: November 04, 2013 Project Expiration Date: November 03, 2018 Control Number: FPA/Public Notice #: North Puget Sound 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012-1296 (425) 775-1311 130348-1 N/A where the city lot is located. See attached location map. Location #2 Reach 2 - RM 15.44 to 15.57 WORK START: November 04, 2013 (WORK END: November 03, 2018 WRIA: Waterbody: Tributary to: 09.0001 Duwamish River/Green River Elliott Bay 1/4 SEC: Section: Township: Range: Latitude: Longitude: County: S 1/2 35 04 E N 47.439129 23 N W 122.248837 King Location #2 Driving Directions The project area, located between S. 200th Street and S. 180th Street, can be accessed from a city parking lot located at S. 190th Street and 62nd Ave. S., near the middle of the project area. The lot can also be accessed by turning north onto 62nd Ave. S. from S. 196th Street. A ramp from this lot leads to the top of the levee at Reach 3, near RM 16.17. From West Valley Highway in Kent, turn west onto 190th Street and follow to the end of the road where the city lot is located. See attached location map. Location #3 Reach 3 -RM 15.98 to 16.36 WORK START: November 04, 2013 (WORK END: November 03, 2018 WRIA: Waterbody: Tributary to: 09.0001 Duwamish River/Green River Elliott Bay 1/4 SEC: Section: Township: Range: Latitude: Longitude: County: NE 1/4 02 N 47.432561 22 N 04 E W 122.260611 King Location #3 Driving Directions The project area, located between S. 200th Street and S. 180th Street, can be accessed from a city parking lot located at S. 190th Street and 62nd Ave. S., near the middle of the project area. The lot can also be accessed by turning north onto 62nd Ave. S. from S. 196th Street. A ramp from this lot leads to the top of the levee at Reach 3, near RM 16.17. From West Valley Highway in Kent, turn west onto 190th Street and follow to the end of the road where the city lot is located. See attached location map. . Location #4 Reach 4 - RM 16.91 to 16.99 WORK START: November 04, 2013 (WORK END: November 03, 2018 WRIA: Waterbody: Tributary to: 09.0001 Duwamish River/Green River Elliott Bay 1/4 SEC: Section: Township: Range: Latitude: Longitude: County: NW 1/4 02 22 N 04 E N 47.423635 W 122.265273 King Location #4 Driving Directions The project area, located between S. 200th Street and S. 180th Street, can be accessed from a city parking lot located at S. 190th Street and 62nd Ave. S., near the middle of the project area. The lot can also be accessed by turning north onto 62nd Ave. S. from S. 196th Street. A ramp from this lot leads to the top of the levee at Reach 3, near RM 16.17. From West Valley Highway in Kent, turn west onto 190th Street and follow to the end of the road where the city lot is located. See attached location map. Page 3 of 5 okWashington Department of FISH and WILDLIFE HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL RCW 77.55.021 - See appeal process at end of HPA Issue Date: November 04, 2013 Project Expiration Date: November 03, 2018 North Puget Sound 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012-1296 (425) 775-1311 Control Number: 130348-1 FPA/Public Notice #: N/A APPLY TO ALL HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVALS This Hydraulic Project Approval pertains only to those requirements of the Washington State Hydraulic Code, specifically Chapter 77.55 RCW (formerly RCW 77.20). Additional authorization from other public agencies may be necessary for this project. The person(s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued is responsible for applying for and obtaining any additional authorization from other public agencies (local, state and/or federal) that may be necessary for this project. This Hydraulic Project Approval shall be available on the job site at all times and all its provisions followed by the person(s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued and operator(s) performing the work. This Hydraulic Project Approval does not authorize trespass. The person(s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued and operator(s) performing the work may be held liable for any loss or damage to fish life or fish habitat that results from failure to comply with the provisions of this Hydraulic Project Approval. Failure to comply with the provisions of this Hydraulic Project Approval could result in a civil penalty of up to one hundred dollars per day and/or a gross misdemeanor charge, possibly punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. All Hydraulic Project Approvals issued under RCW 77.55.021 are subject to additional restrictions, conditions, or revocation if the Department of Fish and Wildlife determines that changed conditions require such action. The person(s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued has the right to appeal those decisions. Procedures for filing appeals are listed below. MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THIS HPA: You may request approval of minor modifications to the required work timing or to the plans and specifications approved in this HPA. A minor modification to the required work timing means up to a one-week deviation from the timing window in the HPA when there are no spawning or incubating fish present within the vicinity of the project. You may request subsequent minor modifications to the required work timing. A minor modification of the plans and specifications means any changes in the materials, characteristics or construction of your project that does not alter the project's impact to fish life or habitat and does not require a change in the provisions of the HPA to mitigate the impacts of the modification. Minor modifications do not require you to pay additional application fees or be issued a new HPA. To request a minor modification to your HPA, submit a written request that clearly indicates you are requesting a minor modification to an existing HPA. Include the HPA number and a description of the requested change and send by mail to: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, PO Box 43234, Olympia, Washington 98504-3234, or by email to HPAapplications@dfw.wa.gov. Do not include payment with your request. You should allow up to 45 days for the department to process your request. MAJOR MODIFICATIONS TO THIS HPA: You may request approval of major modifications to any aspect of your HPA. Any approved change other than a minor modification to your HPA will require issuance of a new HPA. If you paid an application fee for your original HPA you must include payment of $150 with your written request or request billing to an account previously established with the department. If you did not pay an application fee for the original HPA, no fee is required for a change to it. To request a major modification to your HPA, submit a written request that clearly indicates you are requesting a major modification to an existing HPA. Include the HPA number, check number or billing account number, and a description of the requested change. Send your written request and payment, if applicable, by mail to: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, PO Box 43234, Olympia, Washington 98504-3234. If you are charging the fee to a billing account number or you are not subject to the fee, you may email your request to HPAapplications@dfw.wa.gov. You should allow up to 45 days for the department to process your request. Page 4of5 Washington Department of FISH and WILDLIFE 11 �1 HYD-RAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL`- RCW 77.55.021 - See appeal process at end of HPA Issue Date: November 04, 2013 Project Expiration Date: November 03, 2018 North Puget Sound 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012-1296 (425) 775-1311 Control Number: 130348-1 FPA/Public Notice #: N/A APPEALS INFORMATION If you wish to appeal the issuance, denial, conditioning, or modification of a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) recommends that you first contact the department employee who issued or denied the HPA to discuss your concerns. Such a discussion may resolve your concerns without the need for further appeal action. If you proceed with an appeal, you may request an informal or formal appeal. WDFW encourages you to take advantage of the informal appeal process before initiating a formal appeal. The informal appeal process includes a review by department management of the HPA or denial and often resolves issues faster and with less legal complexity than the formal appeal process. If the informal appeal process does not resolve your concerns, you may advance your appeal to the formal process. You may contact the HPA Appeals Coordinator at (360) 902-2534 for more information. A. INFORMAL APPEALS: WAC 220-110-340 is the rule describing how to request an informal appeal of WDFW actions taken under Chapter 77.55 RCW. Please refer to that rule for complete informal appeal procedures. The following information summarizes that rule. A person who is aggrieved by the issuance, denial, conditioning, or modification of an HPA may request an informal appeal of that action. You must send your request to WDFW by mail to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife HPA Appeals Coordinator, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington 98501-1091; e-mail to HPAapplications@dfw.wa.gov; fax to (360) 902-2946; or hand -delivery to the Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington St SE, Habitat Program, Fifth floor. WDFW must receive your request within 30 days from the date you receive notice of the decision. If you agree, and you applied for the HPA, resolution of the appeal may be facilitated through an informal conference with the WDFW employee responsible for the decision and a supervisor. If a resolution is not reached through the informal conference, or you are not the person who applied for the HPA, the HPA Appeals Coordinator or designee will conduct an informal hearing and recommend a decision to the Director or designee. If you are not satisfied with the results of the informal appeal, you may file a request for a formal appeal. B. FORMAL APPEALS: WAC 220-110-350 is the rule describing how to request a formal appeal of WDFW actions taken under Chapter 77.55 RCW. Please refer to that rule for complete formal appeal procedures. The following information summarizes that rule. A person who is aggrieved by the issuance, denial, conditioning, or modification of an HPA may request a formal appeal of that action. You must send your request for a formal appeal to the clerk of the Pollution Control Hearings Boards and serve a copy on WDFW within 30 days from the date you receive notice of the decision. You may serve WDFW by mail to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife HPA Appeals Coordinator, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington 98501-1091; e-mail to HPAapplications@dfw.wa.gov; fax to (360) 902-2946; or hand -delivery to the Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington St SE, Habitat Program, Fifth floor. The time period for requesting a formal appeal is suspended during consideration of a timely informal appeal. If there has been an informal appeal, you may request a formal appeal within 30 days from the date you receive the Director's or designee's written decision in response to the informal appeal. C. FAILURE TO APPEAL WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME PERIODS: If there is no timely request for an appeal, the WDFW action shall be final and unappealable. ENFORCEMENT: Sergeant Chandler (34) P1 Habitat Biologist Larry Fisher Q.✓ for Director 425-313-5683 WDFW CC: Page 5 of 5 / #10 Tukwila SMP Due to the Targe file size, please see section #6B5 for Biological Assessments or look at the electronic file #10 Tukwila SMP. ) MH ),311VK 143M JO 3NI1831N30. STA: 12+00 o Z 0 CO m W F= <. OJ CO w. > z� F- F- X W W_ Q J CO Q w O .. Qa W N w < J Wd f5,46,f VIOZ/6Z/b'6Mp'suopoaS ib\auIIaJOVS apolal\5]Iwiad aua15\6mp\Sl15M 3NOWIS30 T10C-6D06aa0\:9 a O J \ \. \... _ _. _• N \ 0 0 0 50 O o -J N Qw 0 [3' \ I. I 2. 0 \ I. z I 0 \. .I N O O O O In 50 N O O rl 0 N O 0 0 0 0 rl O U) 0 f0 0 O 0 m O O DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS STA: 18+50 Wd EI:Sb E DS02/6Z/17'6Mp'SuoIAdS itl\aulla,ONS el1m191\s1iwiad a/Ma/o/S\6N.p\SllvM 3NOWI530 /I OE-60\ufiisaO\:9 STA: 22+00 PROPOSED FLOOD WALL / / < Wd E979b:E etOi/62/D '6mp•sumyas [b\aullaioys ampioys\57,\5y1VM 3NOWIsJa IiOE-60\u61sa0\:9 0 O O O r) O N O 1- O to O n DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS 0 U 0 a 2 O O U O Z t ON 1- w Z NO u, O V W -J r1 c -, Biological Assessment �JGreen River Levee Improvements River Mile 14.25 to River Mile 22.00 Kent, Washington October 3, 2011 Submitted To: Mr. Tobias Hallock City of Kent Public Works Engineering 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032 By: Shannon & Wilson, Inc. 400 N 34th Street, Suite 100 Seattle, Washington 98103 21-1-12339-002 TABLE OF CONTENTS &I IANNON FiWILSON, INC. Page 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 1 1 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Project 3 1.2 Boeing Levee Project 4 1.3 Lower/Lowest Russell Road Levee Project 6 1.4 Upper Russell Road Levee Project 7 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 9 3.0 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS) 10 4.0 ACTION AREA 11 5.0 HABITAT AND SPECIES INFORMATION 12 5.1 Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus Marmoratus) 13 5.2 Coastal -Puget Sound Bull Trout (Salvelinus Confluentus) 13 5.3 Puget Sound Chinook (Oncorhynchus Tshawytscha) and Puget Sound Steelhead (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) 14 6.0 EFFECTS ANALYSIS 14 6.1 Water Quality 14 6.2 Noise 15 7.0 EFFECTS DETERMINATION 15 7.1 Endangered Species Act (ESA) —Listed Species and Designated Critical Habitat15 7.2 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) 16 8.0 CLOSURE 17 9.0 REFERENCES 18 TABLES 1 Project Sites 2 2 Quantity of Fill and New Impervious Surfaces 3 3 Existing Conditions 10 4 Construction Noise 12 21-1-12339-002-R1.docx/ 1 21-1-12339-002 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont) 1 Vicinity Map 2 Levee Sites 3 Action Area FIGURES APPENDICES � 1 \- SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. A Noise Analyses B Important Information About Your Biological Assessment (BA)/ Biological Evaluation (BE) Report 21-1-12339-002-Rl.docx/ 11 21-1-12339-002 ,iHANNON &WILSON, INC. BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT GREEN RIVER LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS RIVER MILE 14.25 TO RIVER MILE 22.00 KENT, WASHINGTON Shannon & Wilson, Inc. was contracted by the City of Kent (City) to conduct a Biological Assessment of proposed Green River levee improvement projects in Kent, Washington. The projects are located in the Township 22N, Range 4E, Sections 2, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 23 and Township 23N, Range 4E, Sections 35 and 36 (Figure 1). The City proposes to conduct the following four levee improvement projects along the Green River between river mile 14.25 and 22.00 (Figure 2). • Briscoe/Desimone Levee Project • Boeing Levee Project • Lower/Lowest Russell Road Levee Project • Upper Russell Road Levee Project These four projects are collectively referred to herein as "the projects." The projects consist of constructing secondary levees at nine separate locations (herein referred to as "sites") within the Cities of Kent and Tukwila. It is our understanding that levee improvements are being proposed by the City so that the levee system can be accredited by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and that FEMA is acting as the federal lead agency. This letter has been prepared to assess the projects' potential impact to threatened and endangered species, critical habitat, and essential fish habitat (EFH) as required under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Following our assessment, it is our determination that the proposed project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect marbled murrelet, bull trout, Chinook, and steelhead; may affect but is not likely to adversely affect critical habitat for bull trout and Chinook; will have no effect on other listed species or critical habitat; and will not adversely affect EFH. 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed projects will construct secondary levees on the Green River to address conditions of overly steep slopes and limited freeboard on the existing levees. These secondary levees 21-1-12339-002-R1 .docx/ 1 21-1-12339-001 �\ 'HANNON bWILSON, INC. would serve to protect nearby properties and are being developed to facilitate FEMA accreditation for 100 -year flood protection in these locations. The secondary levees will be constructed on the right bank of the Green River landward of the existing levees. Secondary levees will be comprised of either an interlocking metal sheet pile wall or an earthen berm, depending on the project location. Sheet pile walls will be constructed at the four Briscoe/Desimone Levee Project sites. Earthen berms will be constructed at the two Lower/Lowest Russell Road Levee Project sites and the two Upper Russell Road Levee Project sites. Both an interlocking sheet pile wall and an earthen berm will be constructed at the Boeing Levee Project site (Table 1). TABLE 1 PROJECT SITES Improvement Project Project Number Improvement Sites 7 Proposed Improvements Briscoe/Desimone Levee 09-3010/ 09-3011 Four sites between South 180th Street and South 200th Street Total of approximately 5,000 linear feet (1f) of sheet pile wall to act as secondary levees Boeing Levee 09-3009 One site at Three Friends Fishing Hole park south of South 200th Street Approximately 1,680 if of sheet pile wall and 230 if of earthen berm to act as secondary levee Lower/Lowest Russell Road Levee 09-3007/21P 09-3008 Two sites between South Street and South 231st Way Total of approximately 5,700 if of earthen berm to act as secondary levees Russell UpperTotal Road Levee 09-3006 Two sites between South 231St Way and West Meeker Street of approximately 2,900 if of earthen berm to act as secondary levee Generally, the projects will require demolition and repavement of driveways, parking lots, and asphalt trails as well as realignment of one roadway intersection. New asphalt trails will be installed on top of some of the earthen berms to provide access for inspection and maintenance vehicles. Other than use by inspection and maintenance vehicles approximately twice a year, trails will be restricted to non -motorized vehicles. New pollution -generating surfaces will be limited to the roadway realignment at the West James Street/Russell Road intersection. All together, the projects will place approximately 69,180 cubic yards (cy) of fill material (gravel borrow, clay/silt material, crushed rock, and topsoil) and create approximately 43,713 square feet 21-1 -12339-002-R1 .docx/ 2 21-1-12339-002 ,HANNON Z1WILSON, INC, (sf) of new impervious surface (Table 2). Source of fill material will be up to the Contractor; however, it is anticipated materials will come from existing commercial sources. Approximately 2,000 sf of wetland areas will be permanently impacted by fill material in the Lower/Lowest Russell Road Levee Project. All other fill will be placed in uplands. TABLE 2 QUANTITY OF FILL AND NEW IMPERVIOUS SURFACES Improvement Project Quantity of Fill (cubic yards) Wetlands Impacted by Fill (square feet) New Impervious Surfaces Quantity (square feet) Description Briscoe/Desimone Levee 6 000 0 9 000 Widened paved trail (non -pollution -generating) Boeing Levee 6,000 0 No new impervious surfaces Lower/Lowest Russell Road Levee 42,890 2,000 No new impervious surfaces Upper Russell Road Levee 14 290 0 32 832 New paved trail (non - pollution -generating) and new roadway (pollution generating) A description of each of the projects, including construction methods, equipment, and sequencing is provided below. 1.1 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Project Levee improvements at the four Briscoe/Desimone Levee sites will consist of installing interlocking metal sheet pile walls along the landward toe of the existing levee. Sheet piles will be vibrated approximately 30 feet into the ground with a vibratory hammer. No impact hammering will be required. Approximately 6,000 cy of fill material and topsoil will be placed behind sheet pile walls to meet existing levee grades. The asphalt trail atop the existing levee will be demolished and repaved. The trail will be widened in some areas to make it easier for maintenance vehicles to access during occasional levee inspections and/or maintenance work. Widening the trail will result in approximately 9,000 sf of additional impervious surfaces. The trail will be accessible only to non -motorized vehicle use except during routine maintenance. Motorized vehicles will use these trails for levee maintenance activities approximately twice a year. According to City regulations, no stormwater 21-1-12339-002-RI.docx/ 3 21-1-12339-002 f --HANNON M NILSON, INC. treatment is required for these trails, because they are considered non -pollution -generating surfaces and will not discharge directly into the Green River. Existing trees, shrubs, and lawn in the impact footprint will be removed; however, all vegetation removal will occur landward of existing levees and will not impact riparian vegetation. Following construction, disturbed soil will be hydroseeded to achieve final stabilization. The construction sequence will be generally as follows: 1. Mobilization and establish staging/laydown areas. 2. Request utility locates and survey clearing limits. 3. Install temporary erosion control best management practices (BMPs) and fencing. 4. Remove trees and stumps as needed and haul away. 5. Grind and blend existing asphalt trail with subgrade material. 6. Drive interlocking sheet piles into ground to create levee walls. 7. Haul in and install fill between sheet pile walls and existing levee. 8. Re -install asphalt trail on top of existing levee. 9. Install topsoil and hydroseed disturbed areas. 10. Remove and restore staging/laydown area. 11. Temporary erosion control/fencing removal and demobilization. Typical construction equipment on this project will likely include: vibratory hammers, water jet cranes, jackhammers, backhoes, dump trucks, pavers, excavators, front-end loaders, and bulldozers. Staging areas will consist of adjacent commercial parking lots and atop existing levee. Work is expected to commence in June 2012 and be completed in 2014. 1.2 Boeing Levee Project Improvements at the Boeing Levee site will consist of installing an interlocking metal sheet pile wall along the eastern boundary of Three Friends Fishing Hole park landward of the existing levee. Additionally, an earthen berm will be constructed in the northern portion of the park from the sheet pile wall to the South 200th Street Bridge. Sheet piles will be vibrated approximately 30 feet into the ground with a vibratory hammer. No impact hammering will be required. Fill material and topsoil will be placed behind sheet pile walls to meet existing grades. 21-1-12339-002-R1.docx/ 4 21-1-12339-002 SHANNON &WILSON, INC. The existing parking lot that serves the park will be demolished and topsoil and vegetation will be removed to provide a suitable base for the earthen berm. Fill material will be installed to create berm and gradual side slopes and topsoil will be applied. Approximately 6,000 cy of fill material will be placed. The parking lot will be repaved on top of the new berm. The parking lot will be repaved to its existing size of 22,500 sf and no additional impervious surfaces will result from proposed work at the Boeing Levee Project. The construction sequence will be generally as follows: 1. Mobilize and establish staging/laydown area. 2. Request utility locates and survey clearing limits. 3. Install temporary erosion control BMPs and fencing. 4. Remove trees as needed and haul away. 5. Clear, grub, and remove topsoil. 6. Grind and blend existing asphalt parking lot with subgrade material. 7. Drive interlocking sheet piles into ground to create levee wall along eastern boundary of park property. 8. Excavate an inspection trench in location of proposed berm, remove material, and inspect, replace, and compact suitable material. 9. Grade and compact subgrade material for berm. 10. Haul in and install gravel borrow, clay/silt material, and crushed surfacing for earthen berm between sheet pile wall and South 200th Street. 11. Bring stormwater utilities up to grade and repave parking lot. 12. Final grade the berm and place fill to create more gradual slopes. 13. Install topsoil and hydroseed disturbed areas. 14. Remove and restore staging/laydown area. 15. Remove and demobilize temporary erosion control/fencing. Typical construction equipment on this project will likely include: vibratory hammers, water jet, cranes, jackhammers, backhoes, dump trucks, pavers, excavators, compactors, front-end loaders, and bulldozers. 21-1-12339-002-RI.docx/ 5 21-1-12339-002 f `SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. Staging areas will consist of adjacent commercial parking lots and atop existing levee. Work is expected to commence in June 2012 and be completed in by November of 2012. 1.3 Lower/Lowest Russell Road Levee Project Improvements at the two Lower/Lowest Russell Road Levee sites will consist of the construction of earthen berms landward of the existing levees. Topsoil and vegetation and asphalt will be removed to provide a suitable base for the berms. Fill material will be installed to create levee embankments and gradual embankment slopes. Topsoil will be placed on levee slopes. Approximately 42,890 cy of fill material will be placed. Several paved driveways intersect the location of proposed improvements. These driveways will be demolished and then repaved atop the new berms in kind. Crushed rock may be placed on top of the earthen berms to allow access for levee maintenance vehicles. If crushed rock surfacing is not installed, the top of berms will be seeded with grass. According to City regulations, no stormwater treatment is required for the crushed rock surfacing areas because they are considered non -pollution -generating surfaces and will not discharge directly into the Green River. Levee setback at the Lower/Lowest Russell Road levee will permanently fill approximately 2,000 sf of emergent wetland in the Green River Natural Resources Area (GRNRA). Unavoidable wetland impacts will be compensated for as required by the Kent Municipal Code and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Existing trees, shrubs, and lawn in the impact footprint will be removed; however, all vegetation removal will occur landward of existing levees and will not impact riparian vegetation. Following construction, disturbed soil will be hydroseeded to achieve final stabilization. The construction sequence will be generally as follows: 1. Mobilize and establish staging/laydown area. 2. Request utility locates and survey clearing limits. 3. Install temporary erosion control BMPs and fencing. 4. Remove trees as needed and haul away. 5. Clear, grub, and remove topsoil. 6. Grind and blend existing asphalt driveways with subgrade material. 21-1-12339-002-RI.docx/ 6 21-1-12339-002 .,HANNON LSON, INC. 7. Excavate an inspection trench, remove material, inspect, replace and compact suitable material. 8. Grade and compact subgrade material for berm. 9. Haul in and install gravel borrow and crushed surfacing for levee embankment. 10. Final grade the berm. 11. Install crushed rock on top of berm. 12. Repave existing driveways. 13. Install topsoil and hydroseed disturbed areas. 14. Remove and restore staging/laydown area. 15. Remove and demobilize temporary erosion control/fencing. Typical construction equipment on this project will likely include: backhoes, dump trucks, pavers, compactors, excavators, front-end loaders, and bulldozers. Staging areas will consist of adjacent parking lots, atop existing levee, and other upland locations. Work is expected to commence in February of 2013 and be completed in September of 2013. 1.4 Upper Russell Road Levee Project Improvements at the two Upper Russell Road Levee sites will consist of the construction of earthen berms landward of the existing levees. Topsoil and vegetation and asphalt will be removed to provide a suitable base for the berms. Fill material will be installed to create levee embankments and gradual embankment slopes. Topsoil will be placed on levee slopes. Approximately 14,290 cy of fill material will be placed. A new asphalt trail will be built on top of the earthen berms to allow for future levee maintenance. The new trails will be accessible only to non -motorized vehicle use except for levee maintenance activities to occur approximately twice a year. According to City regulations, no stormwater treatment is required for these trails because they are considered non -pollution - generating surfaces and will not discharge directly into the Green River. In order to construct the earthen berm at Upper Russell Road Levee, approximately 1,000 if of roadway at the West James Street/Russell Road intersection will need to be realigned. This road realignment will result in additional pollution -generating impervious surfaces. Runoff from the West James Street/Russell Road realignment will be directed to the City's stormwater system 21-1-12339-002-R1.docx/ 7 21-1-12339-002 f 1 dHANNON iWELSON, INC. and treated at the GRNRA stormwater facility. Approximately 32,832 sf of new impervious surfaces, including new trails and new roadway, will result from the Upper Russell Road Levee Proj ect. Existing trees, shrubs, and lawn in the impact footprint will be removed; however, all vegetation removal will occur landward of existing levees and will not impact riparian vegetation. Following construction, disturbed soil will be hydroseeded to achieve final stabilization. The construction sequence will be generally as follows: 1. Mobilize and establish staging/laydown area. 2. Request utility locates and survey clearing limits. 3. Install temporary erosion control BMPs and fencing. 4. Remove trees as needed and haul away. 5. Clear, grub, and remove topsoil. 6. Relocate existing utilities as needed and install new storm system utility for West James Street/Russell Road realignment. 7. Remove any existing curb, gutter, and sidewalk. 8. Grind and blend existing asphalt with subgrade material. 9. Construct West James Street/Russell Road revision/realignment. 10. Excavate an inspection trench for berm, remove material, inspect, and replace and compact suitable material. 11. Grade and compact subgrade material for berm. 12. Haul in and install gravel borrow, clay/silt material, crushed surfacing, and topsoil for levee embankment. 13. Final grade the berm; bring utilities up to grade. 14. Install asphalt trail on top of berm. 15. Repave existing driveways. 16. Install topsoil and hydroseed disturbed areas. 17. Remove and restore staging/laydown area. 18. Temporary erosion control/fencing removal and demobilization. Potential staging areas include the City maintenance facility and parking lot on West James Street, and the top of the existing levee. Staging areas will not be located in wetlands or streams. Work is expected to commence in June of 2012 and be completed in September of 2014. 21-1-12339-002-RI.docx/ 8 21-1-12339-002 6HANNON 6WILSON, INC. Typical construction equipment on this project will likely include: jackhammers, compactors, backhoes, dump trucks, pavers, concrete mixers, excavators, front-end loaders, and bulldozers. 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The Green River flows generally south to north through the Cities of Kent and Tukwila toward the Duwamish River, which outlets to Elliott Bay on the Puget Sound. Within the project boundaries, the Green River is confined within earthen levees built along both sides of the river. Paved roads or trails run along the top of the existing levees. The waterward side of the levees is generally vegetated with willows and other riparian vegetation, as well as Himalayan blackberry. No work will occur on the waterward side of the existing levees. Work will occur landward of the existing levees and will include areas of the Russell Road right-of-way, the City GRNRA, several City of Kent Parks Department properties, and several commercial and residential properties (Table 3). On August 18 and 19, 2011, Shannon & Wilson biologists Brooke O'Neill and Sarah Corbin visited the nine improvement sites proposed for the projects. Sites were assessed for suitable habitat for threatened and endangered species as well as to identify potential wetlands. No suitable habitat for ESA -listed terrestrial, avian, or marine species was observed in the project vicinity. Suitable habitat for ESA -listed anadromous fish within the project vicinity appeared to be limited to the Green River. Two emergent wetland areas were identified and delineated in the GRNRA in proximity to one of the proposed Lower/Lowest Russell Road Levee sites. According to the City of Kent, the GRNRA is a 304 -acre, man-made, multi -use wildlife refuge. It contains a combined stormwater detention and enhanced wetland facility created on the site of an abandoned sewage lagoon system. The GRNRA stormwater detention facility provides flood control and water quality treatment to the Mill/Springbrook Creek watershed (Kent, 2011). Wetlands observed on site are at the upper edge of a large wetland complex that extends from the proposed levee improvement corridor east to this stormwater detention pond. Wetlands observed on site drain toward the GRNRA stormwater pond and do not directly connect to the Green River, which is located west of the site. However, discharges from the stormwater pond contribute to Mill/Springbrook Creek which enters the Green River at river mile 11.00. 21-1-12339-002-R1.docx/ 9 21-1-12339-002 f1 'SHANNON toWILSON, INC. TABLE 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS Project Existing Conditions on Project Sites Surrounding Environment Briscoe/Desimone Levee • Paved Green River Trail • Lawn and ornamental trees and shrubs • Commercial buildings and associated parking lots • City park (Briscoe Park) • Riparian vegetation along bank of Green River Boeing Levee • Lawn grass and ornamental trees associated with city park • parking lot for park patrons • Commercial buildings • Paved Green River Trail • Riparian vegetation along bank of Green River Lower/Lowest Russell Road Levee • Ornamental and native trees and shrubs landward of existing levee • Paved driveways and trail • Wetland and upland areas within the GRNRA • Livestock pasture • Paved recreational vehicle campground road (KOA Campground) • KOA Campground • Wetland and upland areas within the GRNRA • City nursery • Commercial buildings • Residential homes • Paved road (Russell Road South) • Riparian vegetation along bank of Green River Upper Russell Road Levee • Lawn grasses and ornamental trees and shrubs in right-of-way landward of exiting levee, • Paved pedestrian walkways, • Paved road way (West James Street/Russell Road South intersection) with gravel shoulder • 64th Avenue • Residential homes, • Parking lot for City's maintenance facility • Paved Green River Trail • Riparian vegetation along bank of Green River • Private road Notes: City = City of Kent GRNRA = Green River Natural Resources Area 3.0 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS) While construction methods are ultimately left to the contractor, site-specific temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) plans and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) will be prepared for the projects. The TESC plans and SWPPPs will describe BMPs the Contractor will be required to implement. These BMPs will likely consist of: 21-1-12339-002-R1.docx/ 10 21-1-12339-002 JHANNONaWILSON, INC. • Limiting the amount and duration of disturbed area subject to erosion and sediment transfer and covering all disturbed areas as soon as possible. • Capturing all stormwater generated on the construction site and treating it to meet the Washington State Department of Ecology's water quality standards before it is released. • Providing sedimentation features such as triangular silt dikes, filter fabric fence, and catch basin inserts to capture sediments before they enter the storm drainage system. All BMPs will be monitored daily for effectiveness and, if necessary, additional BMPs will be applied to ensure that the release of sediment -laden surface water from the site is avoided. BMPs such as silt fence, stabilized construction entrances, and plastic sheeting over stockpiled erodible materials would be required at all staging areas. In addition, all temporarily disturbed areas would be restored to their original contours and conditions. 4.0 ACTION AREA The action area for the proposed projects is limited by the area of potential impact from both direct and indirect effects (Figure 3). The action area width is not uniform because of the different extent of construction noise at sites with pile driving and sites without pile driving. The potential impact areas associated with the project include: • The extent of construction activities, including the new earthen berms (levees) and sheet pile wall in the Russell Road right-of-way, access improvements to the City Parks Department property and the adjacent commercial properties, and the potential staging areas identified above. • Areas downslope of ground -disturbing activities as far as the temporary stormwater containment and/or spill contaminant barriers (whichever is further downslope). • Surface water receiving stormwater discharge from the site. • Areas within 6,591 to 9,527 feet from construction activities that will experience temporary elevated in -air noise levels generated by the use of heavy equipment and pile driving (Table 4 and Appendix A). 21-1-12339-002-RI.docx/ 11 21-1-12339-002 -SHANNON &WILSON, INC. TABLE 4 CONSTRUCTION NOISE Improvement Project Loud Construction Activity Construction Noise* (dBA) Extent of Construction Noise (feet) Briscoe/Desimone Levee Boeing Levee Lower/Lowest Russell Road Levee Upper Russell Road Levee Terrestrial Pile Driving of Metal Sheet Piles using Vibratory Hammer 102 9,527 Pavement Demolition and Earthwork Equipment 98 6,591 Note: * 50 feet from construction and estimated based on Washington State Department of Transportation guidance. 5.0 HABITAT AND SPECIES INFORMATION The following is a list of all species identified as threatened or endangered within King County by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as of August 2011. 1. Golden paintbrush (Castilleja levisecta) 2. Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) 3. Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) 4. Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) 5. Gray wolf (Canis lupus) 6. Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos = U a. horribilis) 7. Coastal -Puget Sound bull trout (Salvelinus conjluentus) 8. Puget Sound steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 9. Puget Sound Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 10. Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) 11. Southern resident killer whale (Orcinus orca) 12. Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) 13. Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) 14. Canary rockfish (Sebastes pinniger) 15. Yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus) Orca whale, humpback whale, Steller sea lion, Bocaccio, canary rockfish, and yelloweye rockfish are precluded from the action area due to lack of marine or estuarine habitat. Golden 21-1-12339-002-R1.docx/ 12 21-1-12339-002 iHANNON FIWILSON, INC. paintbrush, Northern spotted owl, California lynx, gray wolf, and grizzly bear are excluded from the action area due to the densely urban nature of the site and lack of suitable wildlife corridors or habitat. Therefore, those species that may occur in the vicinity of the site include marbled murrelet, coastal -Puget Sound bull trout, Puget Sound Chinook and Puget Sound steelhead. 5.1 Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus Marmoratus) Marbled murrelet occurrence has been documented in King County although their presence is considered limited. Winter activities include foraging along the Puget Sound shoreline during the day and moving farther off -shore during the evening. Marbled murrelet nesting typically occurs between April 1 and September 15. Due to their small size and reclusive nesting behavior, the number of existing nests is unknown. The marbled murrelet prefers mature coniferous forest within 60 miles of a marine foraging area for nesting sites. Gary Bell, biologist with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), reported that the closest known occupied site is located over 28 miles southeast of the project. Due to absence of suitable nesting habitat (mature trees with platform branches), no marbled murrelet nesting is expected in the action area. Critical habitat for the marbled murrelet has been designated within King County but is limited to federal lands designated as late successional reserves (Federal Register, Volume 61, Number 102, pages 26256-26320). No known federal late successional reserve land is located within the action area. The USFWS Critical Habitat Mapper shows critical habitat for marbled murrelet located approximately 45 miles from the action area (USFWS, 2011). Further, no marbled murrelet habitat was identified in the Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) data acquired for the site from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife PHS data for Township 22N, Range 4E, Sections 2, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 23 and Township 23N, Range 4E, Sections 35 and 36, 9/7/2011 (WDFW 201la). 5.2 Coastal -Puget Sound Bull Trout (Salvelinus Confluentus) Based on WDFW PHS data, Bull trout are present in the Green River within the project vicinity. Bull trout migrate through this reach of the Green River in the action area and use it for rearing habitat (WDFW, 2011b). Additionally, critical habitat has been designated for Bull trout in the Green River within the project vicinity (USFWS, 2010). 21-1-12339-002-R1.docx/ 13 21-1-12339-002 � 1 dHANNON 6WILSON, INC. 5.3 Puget Sound Chinook (Oncorhynchus Tshawytscha) and Puget Sound Steelhead (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) Based on WDFW PHS data, Puget Sound Chinook and Puget Sound steelhead are present in the Green River. The WDFW SalmonScape website documents that these fish migrate through this area of the Green River and use it for rearing habitat (WDFW, 2011b). According to the Federal Register, Volume 70, Number 170, pages 52630-52858, Puget Sound Chinook critical habitat has been designated to include all marine, estuarine, and river reaches accessible to Puget Sound Chinook. Therefore, the Green River is considered critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook. Critical habitat for Puget Sound steelhead is under development but has not yet been designated or proposed. 6.0 EFFECTS ANALYSIS 6.1 Water Quality No in -water or over -water construction will occur in the Green River. However, earthwork activities conducted upslope of the Green River have the potential to affect water quality resulting from erosion and construction stormwater pollution. Site-specific SWPPP and TESC Plans will be prepared prior to beginning earthwork under the projects' National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction Stormwater General Permit (to be obtained by the City). It is anticipated that the implementation of the sediment and flow control BMPs described in the TESCs and SWPPPs will minimize the potential for water quality impacts within surface waters in the action area, including the Green River. The proposed projects will impact 2,000 sf of emergent wetland. Direct impacts to the wetland will result from excavation and placement of fill. The implementation of BMPs will prevent turbid construction stormwater from leaving the site and impacting off-site aquatic areas. Additionally, wetlands temporarily or permanently impacted by the project discharge to a stormwater detention pond, where water is treated prior to entering streams or rivers. It is also anticipated that the projects' net increase in impervious surfaces will not adversely affect water quality after projects are completed. A portion of the new impervious surface increase is a result of the construction of paved trails, which are considered non -pollution - generating surfaces. Runoff from new trails will be allowed to infiltrate similarly to existing conditions and will not significantly increase flow levels. New pollution generating surfaces will 21-1-12339-002-R1.docx/ 14 21-1-12339-002 HANNON &WILSON, INC. be limited to the roadway realignment at the West James Street/Russell Road intersection as part of the Upper Russell Road Levee Project. Stormwater from these surfaces will be captured and directed to the GRNRA stormwater facility for treatment prior to entering the Green River. 6.2 Noise The noise generated from the project is anticipated to reach 102 dBA from terrestrial pile driving in accordance with noise levels provided within the Washington State Department of Transportation's (WSDOT's) Noise Analysis guidance (WSDOT, 2010). Pile -driving activities are anticipated to occur for approximately four months. The estimated background noise levels during construction in the vicinity of the project are approximately 45 dBA, based on population density. Assuming a transmission loss of 7.5 dBA per doubling distance across the residential community and vegetated open space, considered "soft sites," noise levels from pile driving would reach background level (45 dBA) 9,527 feet from the project corridor. However, this does not account for background levels generated from Interstate 5 and SeaTac Airport, which are located approximately 2,200 to 6,500 feet to the west of the project. Therefore, noise impacts likely extend less than 9,527 feet from the project to the west. Noise generated during construction is above the estimated disturbance threshold (78 dBA) and injury threshhold (92 dBA) for marbled murrelet as estimated based on the WSDOT guidance and the USFWS biological opinion for the Olympic National Forest program activities (USFWS, 2003). The thresholds are specific to the Olympic National Forest and may not apply directly to the site. However, for the purposes of estimating potential impacts to marbled murrelet, we are using these thresholds. Noise levels from the project are estimated to fall below the estimated 78 dBA disturbance threshold 456 feet from pile -driving activity and below the estimated 92 dBA 126 feet from pile -driving activity. 7.0 EFFECTS DETERMINATION This ESA and EFH determination of effects addresses potential direct and indirect effects of the project to listed and proposed species, designated critical habitat, and EFH. 7.1 Endangered Species Act (ESA) —Listed Species and Designated Critical Habitat No known or suitable habitat for marbled murrelet is present in the action area. Although unlikely, marbled murrelets may fly over the project site. We estimate that noise generated from 21-1-12339-002-R1.docx/ 15 21-1-12339-002 dHANNON iWILSON, INC. pile driving will be at levels high enough to injure marbled murrelets within 126 feet from construction and disturb marbled murrelets within 456 feet from construction. However, due to the lack of suitable habitat in and around the action area, the potential for marbled murrelets to be exposed to high noise levels from the project is considered minimal. Therefore, the project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect marbled murrelets. The closest mapped critical habitat for marbled murrelet is located approximately 45 miles to the south east of the action area (USFWS, 2011). Therefore, the project will not affect critical habitat for marbled murrelets. Puget Sound bull trout, Puget Sound Chinook, and Puget Sound steelhead are present within the action area. Additionally, critical habitat for bull trout and Chinook is designated in the Green River in the vicinity of the project. The project will avoid work in the Green River. Through the implementation of the site-specific TESC plan and SWPPP, and stormwater control and treatment measures, there is minimal potential for the project to impact water quality or flows in the Green River. Therefore, the project will have may affect but is not likely to adversely affect Bull trout, Puget Sound Chinook, and Puget Sound steelhead and their designated critical habitat. The project will have no effect on orca whale, humpback whale, Steller sea lion, bocaccio, canary rockfish, or yelloweye rockfish, as these species are precluded from the action area due to lack of marine or estuarine habitat. The project will have no effect on golden paintbrush, northern spotted owl, California lynx, gray wolf, and grizzly bear, as there is no suitable habitat for these species in the action area. 7.2 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) The Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires that federal agencies consult with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries on all activities or proposed activities authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect EFH. The Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC) has designated EFH for the Pacific salmon fishery, federally managed ground fishes, and coastal pelagic fisheries (PFMC, 1999). EFH for the Pacific salmon fishery includes all streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other water bodies currently or historically accessible to salmon in Washington. The EFH designation for ground fishes and coastal pelagics is defined as those waters and substrate necessary to ensure the production needed to support a long-term sustainable fishery. The marine extent of ground fish and coastal pelagic EFH includes those waters from the near -shore and tidal submerged environment within Washington. 21-1-12339-002-RI.docx/ 16 21-1-12339-002 SHANNON WILSON, INC. The Pacific salmon management unit includes Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch), and pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha). Based on WDFW PHS data, Chinook, coho and pink salmon are present in the Green River. EFH for Pacific salmon is present in the action area in the Green River. The project will avoid work in the Green River. Through implementation of the site-specific TESC plan and SWPPP, and stormwater control and treatment measures, there is minimal potential for the project to impact water quality or flows in the Green River. EFH for ground fishes and coastal pelagic is not present within the action area. Therefore, the project will not adversely affect EFH for ground fishes, coastal pelagics, or Pacific salmonids. 8.0 CLOSURE The findings and conclusions documented in this report have been prepared for specific application to this project and have been developed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill normally exercised by members of the environmental science profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the area and in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in our signed proposal. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this letter are professional opinions based on interpretation of information currently available to us and are made within the operational scope, budget, and schedule constraints of this project. No warranty, express or implied, is made. We have prepared Appendix B, "Important Information About Your Biological Assessment (BA)/Biological Evaluation (BE) Report," to assist you and others in understanding the use and limitations of our report. SHANNON & WILSON, INC. t_C:211_,--„Brooke O'Neill Biologist i4V '€pat Sarah Corbin Biologist SCC:BEO:KLW/beo 21-1-12339-002-R1.docxhvp/cip 17 21-1-12339-002 r\ 'dHANNON iWILSON, INC. 9.0 REFERENCES Bell, G., 2011, Closest documented occurrence of marbled murrelet to project area: Telephone conversation with Gary Bell, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Sarah Corbin, Shannon & Wilson, Inc., Seattle, Wash., September 9. City of Kent, 2011, The official website for the City of Kent: Green River Natural Resources Area: available: http://www.ci.kent.wa.us/GRNRA/ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service, 2011, Species lists: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/, accessed September. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1996, 50 CFR 17, Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; final designation of critical habitat for the marbled murrelet; final rule: 61 FR 26256, May 24, available: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr2961.pdf. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2003, Biological opinion and letter of concurrence of effects on bald eagles, marbled murrelets, northern spotted owls, bull trout, and designated critical habitat for marbled murrelets and northern spotted owls from Olympic National Forest Program Activities for August 5, 2003, to December 31, 2008, reference number 1-3-03-F-0833. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2010, 50 CFR 17, Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; revised designation of critical habitat for bull trout in the coterminous United States; final rule: 75FR 63898, October 18, available: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR- 2010-10-18/pdf/2010-25028.pdf#page=l . U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2011, Critical Habitat Portal; Critical Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Species, available: http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/crithab/, accessed: September. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2011, Listed and proposed endangered and threatened species and critical habitat; candidate species, and species of concern in King County, available: http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/speciesmap/KingCounty080111.pdf, accessed September. U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS, 2005, 50 CFR 226, Endangered and threatened species; designation of critical habitat for 12 evolutionarily significant units of west coast salmon and steelhead in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho; final Rule: 70 FR 56212, September 26, available: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Publications/FR- Notices/2005/upload/70FR52630.pdf. 21-1-12339-002-R1.docx/wp/clp 18 21-1-12339-001 SHANNON &WILS©N, INC. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), 2011a, Priority habitat and species on the web, available: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/, accessed September. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), 2011b, Salmonscape, version 4.0: WDFW Interactive Mapping, available: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/, accessed September. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), 2011, WSDOT Biological assessment guidance, Terrestrial noise calculator, available: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/EnvironmentBiologyBA/BAguidance.htm#Noise, accessed August. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), 2010, Biological assessment preparation for transportation projects advanced training manual: Olympia, Wash., WSDOT, February. 21-1-12339-002-R1.docx/wp/clp 19 21-1-12339-002 Path: T:\Project\21-1\12339_Kent_Levees\AV_mxd\Vicinity.mxd Date: 10/3/2011 User: beo r„ W G T O Ttecytrlb X10 _ PagrndNavp Slas2y Manchester Parkwood saA 1.1.nd Park 1.051 Port chard (180 Artoadale Gig / I rbar 6 Tacoma Norm -ors A 1,1 Ibx Island Al P9e1 Derrnce Psi Yashon 1#tm Tacoma Greeff tate Park 527 7 m iii Fun 7Pin MJ ii 7 Vramrt Par% Untyersty ol A Cattle a 516 Sean •Tacana Mte ttonat Federal 107a way 0 0 Part 9 A Bellevue Pa L Rork 0 County •• T C D00 i^ HnaGOntl Club a! COu0A'1 MaoriNerycague MOUNTAIN 167 ltay gar alootar. CTnt harE POA "Sane Renton funictpel Arpon w -J T Project Location 51S 'Kent F 14041 TA Spmp UI Caul Mira POA Auburn Mu rut par Creel Arpott Aap alk 167 99 _t tittuwlty Fel; ce C u'nt 179m a• 202 !auk cO. I)iamund N 0 2.5 5 10 Scale in Miles Green River Levee Improvements River Mile 14.25 to River Mile 22.00 Kent, Washington VICINITY MAP October 2011 21-1-12339-002 SHANNON MMISON, INC. GEOTECNNrCA. AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS FIG. 1 Legend Propos3d Earthe Prop os=d Sheet Road Realignme 1,5C© Scale in Fee 0 d a 0 N Dan, T•\Prni.M\91_1\1911Q Kant 1 P.vaaR\AV mxd\ActionArea.mxd Date: 10/3/2011 Extent of In -Air Wcise from Construction B is:oe/Desimone Pile Driving) Boelu Pile Drivels) Lcwer/Larest Russell Road Upper Russell Rc a t West James Str^.e. Realig "No Levee Sites ActionArea Note: Pile: driving activities on northern levee sites increase the action .area. 0 s 7,000 Scale in Feet Green Rider Levee Improvements River Mile 14.25 to River Mile 22.00 IKent, Washington October 2011 ACTION AREA 21-1-12339-002 SHANNON WILSON. INC. GEOTECHNICAL MW ENVIRONMENTAL. CONSULTANTS IF1G. 3 APPENDIX A NOISE ANALYSES SHANNON &WILSON, INC. 21-1-12339-002 City of Kent Green River Levee Im( 1rements Projects Noise Analysis - For Levee Projects with Pile Driving Construction In -Air Noise' Equipment Lmax at 50 ft Vibratory Pile Driver 101 Shears (on backhoe) 96 Water Jet Deleading 92 Combined Lmax: 102 Background Noise` Population Density (U.S. Census tract 283, King County, 2000) 850 persons/sq.mile Background Leq exclusive of traffic 45 dBA Attentuation rate for soft site 7.5 dB Distance from Construction (ft) Construction Noise Background Noise 50 102 45 100 94.5 45 200 87 45 400 79.5 45 800 72 45 1600 64.5 45 3200 57 45 6400 49.5 45 12800 42 45 Trendline equation: y=-10.8In(x) + 144.33 150 49 Alert 63 Disturb 78 100 92 50 —♦— y =-10.821n(x) + 144.33 • 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Distance at which construction noise equals 50 dBA: Marbled Murrelet -- Noise thresholds Detect 49 Alert 63 Disturb 78 Injure 92 9,527 feet Distance from site where noise attentuates to 78 dB: 456 ft Distance from site where noise attentuates to 92 dB: 126 ft 21-1-12339-002 1 Lmax from WSDOT biological assessment preparation advanced training manual Table 7-4. `Background Leq from WSDOT biological assessment preparation advanced training manual Table 7-6. City of Kent Green River Levee Irr vements Projects 21-1-12339-002 Noise Analysis - For Levee Projects with No Pile Driving Construction In -Air Noise' Equipment Lmax at 50 ft Shears (on backhoe) 96 Water Jet Deleading 92 Pavement Scarafier 90 Combined Lmax: 98 Background Noise` Population Density (U.S. Census tract 292.06, King County, 2000) 580 persons/sq.mile Background Leq exclusive of traffic 45 dBA Attentuation rate for soft site 7.5 dB Distance from Construction Construction Noise Background Noise 50 98 45 100 90.5 45 200 83 45 400 75.5 45 800 68 45 1600 60.5 45 3200 53 45 6400 45.5 45 12800 38 45 Trendline equation: y=-10.821n(x) + 140.3 Distance at which construction noise equals 45 dBA: Marbled Murrelet -- Noise thresholds Detect 49 Alert 63 Disturb 78 Injure 150 100 y =-10.821n(x) + 140.33 50 • 0 0 2000 I 4000 6000 1 1 8000 10000 I 12000 14000 Distance at which construction noise equals 45 dBA: Marbled Murrelet -- Noise thresholds Detect 49 Alert 63 Disturb 78 Injure 92 6,591 ft Distance from site where noise attentuates to 78 dB: 315 ft Distance from site where noise attentuates to 92 dB: 87 feet 1 Lmax from WSDOT biological assessment preparation advanced training manual Table 7-4. `Background Leq from WSDOT biological assessment preparation advanced training manual Table 7-6. SHANNON & I�fiiLSON, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Attachment to•and part of Report 21-1-12339-002 Date: October 3, 2011 To: Mr. Tobias Hallock City of Kent Public Works Engineering IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT (BA)/BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION (BE) REPORT A BA OR BE IS BASED ON PROJECT -SPECIFIC FACTORS. BA's and BE's are based on a unique set of project -specific factors. These typically include the specific location of the project, the general nature of the project, and the property involved, its size, and its configuration; historical use and practice; the location of the project on the site and its orientation; and the level of additional risk the client assumed by virtue of limitations imposed upon the study. The jurisdiction over Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species is shared between the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). As a result, one or more agencies will have jurisdiction over a particular aspect of your project with sometimes confusing regulations. It is necessary to involve a consultant who understands which agency(s) has jurisdiction over each species and what the agency(s) requirements are for that species. To help reduce or avoid potential costly problems, have the consultant determine how any factors or regulations (which can change subsequent to the report) may affect the recommendations. Unless your consultant indicates otherwise, your report should not be used: ► If the size or configuration of the proposed project is altered. ► If the location or orientation of the proposed project is modified. ► If there is a change of ownership. ► For application to an adjacent site. ► For construction at an adjacent site or on site. ► Following floods, earthquakes, or other acts of nature. Fisheries consultants cannot accept responsibility for problems that may develop if they are not consulted after factors considered in their reports have changed. Therefore, it is incumbent upon you to notify your consultant of any factors that may have changed prior to submission of our final report. Determining the effects of projects on T&E species (called "determinations of effect") made by Shannon & Wilson are considered preliminary until determinations are agreed to by the appropriate agencies. Written concurrence with the determination of effect must be received from either NMFS or the USFWS. Only these agencies can provide this concurrence. "DETERMINATIONS OF EFFECT" ARE PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS. Site investigations identify habitat conditions at only those points where investigations are performed and when they are performed, but the physical means of obtaining data preclude the determination of precise conditions. Consequently, the information obtained is intended to be sufficiently accurate for determining project impacts, but is subject to interpretation. Additionally, data derived through sampling are extrapolated by the consultant who then renders an opinion about overall conditions, the likely reaction to proposed construction activity, and/or appropriate design. Even under optimal circumstances, actual conditions may differ from those thought to exist because no consultant, no matter how qualified, and no investigative program, no matter how comprehensive, can reveal what is hidden by earth, rock, and time. Nothing can be done to prevent the unanticipated, but steps can be taken to help reduce their impacts. For this reason, most experienced owners retain their consultants through the construction stage to identify variances, to conduct additional evaluations that may be needed, and to recommend solutions to problems encountered on site. NATURAL CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE. Since natural systems are dynamic systems affected by both natural processes and human activities, changes in conditions may be expected. Therefore, BA's and BE's cannot remain valid for an indefmite period of time. For example, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' permit is valid for only two years. If a period of years have passed since the BA or BE was completed, the owner is advised to have the consultant reexamine the conditions to assess if the determinations are still accurate. Page 1 of 2 1/2011 HANNON LSON, INC. APPENDIX B IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT (BA)/BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION (BE) REPORT 21-1-12339-002 � 1 7" 1 Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and natural events such as floods, earthquakes, or water fluctuations may also affect conditions and, thus, the continuing adequacy of the BA or BE. The consultant should be kept apprised of any such events and should be consulted to determine if additional evaluation is necessary. THE BA OR BE IS SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION. Costly problems can occur when plans are developed based on misinterpretation of a BA or BE. To help avoid these problems, the consultant should be retained to work with other appropriate professionals to explain relevant ecological, geological, and other fmdings, and to review the adequacy of plans and specifications relative to these issues. DATA FORMS SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE BA OR BE. If data forms are part of the assessment or evaluation, then the fmal data forms are developed by the consultant based on interpretation of field sheets (assembled by site personnel); only final data forms customarily are included. These data forms should not, under any circumstances, be drawn for inclusion in other drawings because drafters may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process. Although photographic reproduction eliminates this problem, it does nothing to reduce the possibility of misinterpreting the forms. When this occurs, delays, disputes, and unanticipated costs are frequently the result. To reduce the likelihood of data form misinterpretation, contractors, engineers, and planners should be given ready access to the complete BA or BE. Those who do not provide such access may proceed under the mistaken impression that simply disclaiming responsibility for the accuracy of information always insulates them from attendant liability. Providing the best available information to contractors, engineers, and planners helps prevent costly problems and the adversarial attitudes that aggravate them to a disproportionate scale. READ RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSES CLOSELY. Because a BA or BE is based extensively on judgment and opinion, it is far less exact than other design disciplines. This situation has resulted in wholly unwarranted claims being lodged against consultants. To help prevent this problem, consultants have developed a number of clauses for use in written transmittals. These are not exculpatory clauses designed to foist the consultant's liabilities onto someone else; rather, they are defmitive clauses that identify where the consultant's responsibilities begin and end. Their use helps all parties involved recognize their individual responsibilities and take appropriate action. Some of these definitive clauses are likely to appear in your BA or BE, and you are encouraged to read them closely. Your consultant will be pleased to give full and frank answers to your questions. THERE MAY BE OTHER STEPS YOU CAN TAKE TO REDUCE RISK. Your consultant will be pleased to discuss other techniques or designs that can be employed to mitigate the risk of delays and to provide a variety of alternatives that may be beneficial to your project. Contact your consultant for further information. Page 2 of 2 1/2011 #6 B5 JARPA Due to the large size of this document we have enclosed it in our electronic file only. See #6 BS JARPA Documents. /1 f1 a \,i `. J 111 SHANNON iWILSON, INC. NEW GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS February 20, 2013 Mr. Kelly Peterson City of Kent Public Works Department 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 ALASKA CALIFORNIA COLORADO FLORIDA MISSOURI OREGON WASHINGTON RE: ADDENDUM TO BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT, GREEN RIVER LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, RIVER MILE 14.25 TO RIVER MILE 22.0, KENT, WASHINGTON Dear Kelly: At the request of the City of Kent (the City), this addendum letter addresses changes to the Briscoe-Desimone Levee Project (herein referred to as "the project") description from the report titled, "Biological Assessment Green River Levee Improvements River Mile 14.25 to River Mile 22.0" dated September 27, 2011. The City has requested that Shannon & Wilson review the project changes as they relate to the Biological Assessment (BA) determinations made in September 2011 and address whether the project revisions warrant any changes to the impact assessment and effects determination. The City has provided a 35% design plan set and landscaping and planting plan sheets for the project (enclosed). Briscoe-Desimone is one of four project locations addressed in the original BA; however, it is the only location addressed in this letter. We understand that the Federal Emergency Management Agency has approved the Briscoe-Desimone portion of the BA, and that this letter will be filed with the project documentation by the City. The 2011 BA describes the Briscoe-Desimone improvement project as consisting of metal sheet pile walls along the landward toe of the existing levee. The paved recreational path on top of the levee will be widened, and the path is considered a non -pollution generating surface. Stormwater from the path was not anticipated to discharge directly into the Green River. Additionally, the BA states that all vegetation removal will occur landward of the existing levee and that riparian vegetation will not be impacted. Our understanding of the Briscoe-Desimone project revisions are based on e-mails and phone conservations on February 14 and 15, 2013. A description of revisions to the original project description follows. 400 NORTH 34th STREET — SUITE 100 PO BOX 300303 SEATTLE, WA 98103 206-632-8020 FAX 206-695-6777 TDD: 1-800-833-6388 www.shannonwilson.com 21-1-12339-012 Mr. Kelly Peterson City of Kent Public Works Department February 20, 2013 Page 2 of 4 SHANNON &WILSON, INC. REVISIONS TO BRISCOE-DESIMONE PROJECT DESCRIPTION The existing asphalt recreational trail on top of the existing levee will be relocated to be adjacent to the sheet pile wall, and the top of the levee will be canted to drain toward the Green River. During construction, the landward side and the top of the levee will be used as a lay down and staging area. The waterward side of the existing levee will be excavated to create up to a 12 -foot -wide bench. The sides of the levee above and below the bench will be cleared of vegetation and grubbed (Landscaping and Planting Sheets 1-4). However, existing desirable native shrubs will be retained in the planting area where possible. Based on our telephone conservation with you and Matt Knox on February 14, 2013, we understand that a minimum of 10 feet of vegetated buffer above the Green River Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) will remain undisturbed. The material excavated to construct the bench will be placed between the sheet pile wall and the landward side of the levee. The upper 15 feet of the waterward side of the levee will be hydroseeded and the remaining disturbed riparian area will be planted with native trees and shrubs. The disturbed ground on the waterward side of the levee will be stabilized prior to being exposed to the Green River's flow. Additionally, temporary cisterns and drip irrigation will be installed in the disturbed riparian area and plant maintenance will be performed for a minimum of two years. EFFECTS ANALYSIS Stormwater No in -water or over -water construction will occur in the Green River. However, ground disturbing activities conducted upslope of the Green River have the potential to affect water quality resulting from construction stormwater pollution. A Stormwater Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) Plan specific to the Briscoe-Desimone project will be prepared and implemented prior to beginning earthwork. While more ground disturbance will occur under the revised plan, it is anticipated that the SWPPP and TESC will minimize the potential for construction related water quality impacts in the Green River. Stormwater runoff from the paved footpath will be directed away from the sheet pile wall and is expected to primarily infiltrate into the levee side slope, or eventually sheet flow into the Green River. As stated in the 2011 BA, the relocated footpath is considered a non -pollution generating 21-1-12339-012-LI.docx/wp/lkn 21-1-12339-012 Mr. Kelly Peterson City of Kent Public Works Department February 20, 2013 Page 3 of 4 SHANNON &WILSON, INC. surface and stormwater treatment is not required. We do not anticipate that the runoff generated from the path will result in a net change in flow in the Green River, and the proposed project revisions will not significantly modify the anticipated flow. Riparian Vegetation Existing vegetation on the sides of the levee consists of willow species (Salix sp.) near the OHWM of the Green River, shrubs such as red -osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) and snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), and grass such as reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea). The majority of the temporal shading provided by riparian vegetation to the Green River is provided by willows growing near the OHWM. A minimum of 10 feet of vegetated buffer above the Green River OHWM will remain undisturbed, thereby maintaining most of the plants providing shade. The planting bench will be planted with native shrubs and deciduous and coniferous native trees (Sheet 4). Additionally, existing native shrubs growing in the proposed disturbed area will be preserved to the extent possible. While the waterward side of the levee will experience a temporal loss in riparian vegetation, it is expected that the diverse native plantings in the disturbed areas and the creation of the planting bench will increase the variety of vegetative strata and the increase in species diversity will provide a more diverse habitat than currently exists. Noise The type of equipment that will be used for the project and the associated noise levels have not changed from those described in the 2011 BA. Therefore, the noise generated from the project is not anticipated to change from the noise effects analysis already provided. EFFECTS DETERMINATION We have reviewed the endangered and threatened species list for King County and have determined that their designations have not changed and that no new species have been added since we completed the 2011 BA. After careful analysis of the anticipated impacts from the proposed project revisions, it is our opinion that the effects determinations for listed and proposed species, designated critical habitat, and essential fish habitat found in the project action area remain unchanged from the determinations listed in our 2011 BA. We have prepared the enclosed "Important Information About Your Biological Assessment (BA)/Biological Evaluation (BE) Report," to assist you and others in understanding the use and limitation of this letter. 21-1-12339-012-LI.docx/wp/lkn 21-1-12339-012 Mr. Kelly Peterson City of Kent Public Works Department February 20, 2013 Page 4 of 4 Please call me if you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance. My direct line is (206) 695-6738. Sincerely, SHANNON & WILSON, INC. 4c Katie Walter, P.W.S. Natural Resources Manager SCC:KLW/scc Enc: City of Kent 35% Design Plan Set Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements (Sheets 1-13) Briscoe/Desimone Landscaping and Planting Plans (Sheets 1-4) Important Information About Your Biological Assessment (BA)/Biological Evaluation (BE) Report 21-1-12339-012-L I.docx%w•p' Ikn 21-1-12339-012 Vi/AS H I N13-1;014 TY OF KENT SIZE 1 IL COOKE - MAYOR MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL IEHTSON DENNIS HKgGINS JAMIE PERRY FjON HARMON ORAH RANNKR DEBBIE RAPLEE I FS THOMAS DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS BRENDA JACOBER - CITY CLERK CRY ENgINEEIE TOM BRUBAKEFj - CITY ATTORNEY WORKS PROJECT 3RISCOE-DESIMONE iVEE IMPROVEMENTS JOB NUMBERS 09-3010 AND 09-30f1 1 COVER SHEET 2 LEGEND, NOTES & TYPICAL WALL SECTiON 3 WALL PLAN & PROFILE SHEET INDEX MAP 4-13 SHEET PILE WALL- PLAN & PROFILES VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE OHWNIENCE AND SAFETY M DESCRIBED IN NT SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR STORING OF )URS I. TIMES BY STREET SWEEPING WHEN )N ENGINEER. U. WHICH ARE SHOWN ON THE CONTRACT TK THAT IS SHOWN SHALL BE CONSIDERED ITS SHALL BE REMOVED AS NOTED. ALL SHALL PROTECT REMAINING TREES FROM 'CLUEING DAMAGE TO ROOT SYSTEM. ANY PLACED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT AREAS ON—SITE AND ADJACENT TO THE IGINAL CONDITION UNLESS OTHERWISE AL RESTORATION AND CLEAN UP REQUIRED ROJECT SHALL BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL )THER BID ITEMS EXCEPT FOR THOSE ITEMS 'REMOVAL.' IN THE CONSTRUCTION NOTES NO PROPER OFF—SITE DISPOSAL BY THE OWED TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS, THE ROL PLANS, 111E STANDARD . BE ON THE JOB SITE WHENEVER LY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MEANS THE SAFETY OF THE WORKERS FSS OTHERWISE NOTED. TY FOR UNDERGROUND FACILITIES OR ER 19.122, REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON. UTILITIES LOCATION SERVICE (811) AT THE OWNER OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE AND A CONFLICT EXISTS 71GRCUND ELECTRICAL SERVICE LINES ARE RACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING OR UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL POWER IN CONSTRUCTION AS REQUIRED BY LAW AND R SHALL MEET WITH UTILITY OWNERS AND ASURES AND SHALL TAKE WHATEVER IN PROXIMITY 16 PRIMARY HIGH VOLTAGE HAVE BEEN ESTABUSHED BY MID SHOULD THEREFORE BE CONSIDERED IT IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE R OF ALL U11UTY LOCATIONS SHOWN AND S NOT SHOWN HEREON WHICH MAY BE AND BRACING REQUIRED TO PROTECT AND :TURES DURING CONSTRUCTION. L BE BACKFILLED AND COMPACTED IN JTS INTO EXISTING ASPHALT SHALL BE ARY COED MIX PATCH MUST BE PLACED FSS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE 1 1N KIND (OR 3 INCHES OF COMPACTED NEVER 1S GREATER) )WITHIN 30 DAYS OF DLLOW REQUIREMENTS SET FOR WORKING N OF ROAD ALTERATIONS TO THE POLICE ,TCN BASINS AND SANITARY SEWER UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. PIPE NTER OF THE STRUCTURES VALK SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO GRADE. VE CODE 332-120 TO WILLFULLY DESTROY RENCE POINTS SET BY CITY FORCES, AND TALL BE CAREFULLY PRESERVED BY THE +IGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF IT BECOMES 0 DUE TO CONSTRUCTION_ THE Y DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL TO ACQUIRE BE REPLACED 114 RS ORIGINAL POSITION BUSINESS HOURS THE CONTRACTOR XPERTY OCCUPANTS TO DETERMINE THE 'AYS IN ORDER TO PERFORM HIS WORK. STRUCTURAL NOTES 1. PROVIDE STEEL SHEET PILES WITH A MINIMUM YIELD STRENGTH OF 50 KIPS PER SQUARE INCH (KSt). GREEN RIVER 3] REMOVE EXIST. TRAIL TOP OF WALL v 500 YR FLOOD EL EXIST. BANK T OF DRIVEWAY APRON AT ENTRANCE TO BIKE TRAIL AT END OF RIVERPOINT CORPORATE CENTER, AT TCDD BLVD AND YAH. CITY OF KENT BENCHMARK No. 851 BENCHMARK ELEVATION: 33,496 BENCHMARK DISCRIPT1ON: SET MAG NAIL WITH 1-1/2' CITY OF KENT ALUMINUM WASHER IN BIKE TRAIL ON E 510E OF GREEN RIVER IN BRISCOE PARK, BEHIND BUILDING 5020 IN CUL-OE—SAC AT INTERSECTION OF S 19D ST AND 62 AVE S. MAGNAIL IS IN TRAIL W OF TWO COVERED PICNIC AREAS. PROPERTY UNE 16' 15' CONSTRUCT 12' WIDE PAVED TRAIL v OHW LINE FILL CONSTRUCT SHEET PILE WALL W/HANDRAIL Ci") TYPICAL SHEET PILE WALL SECTION - NOT TO SCALE 1' MIN. —0— TYPE 1 E -VI- —5_ ARREVIA71 1W 12 BW BC IE IN r1 G L V' (-i REMOVE TREES AS REQUIRED FOR \ WALL CONSTRUCTION (TYP.) EXTEND EX Er PIPE THROUGH _ - -------------- _ WALL AND INSTALL FLAP CATS -TO-- 766+00 765'+76400 GREEN RIVER 7 ASPHALT TRAIL :EXISTING LEVEE fLEVAMION - - - 5+30.12 ..-. - • - -TW=3690. OUTFALL : IE=31;25 ; • Ejis-nmc 160 GRO1)ND AT NALL '!R::FL00 E3= A710N. 1 SFE SHEET X �'r _ 6+y�,��0- `3 16' VADE AS TRAIL• • 0 • Q. Y.+aa.e1.... SYF36:3F1:`- -: .7+28/6- 71,136.387. +2676_ -71,136:387. : 7+18,94 1W14.34.1[... 7+28.76 :- i1y34.00 EA57iNG:Wki OO.YR.: F -00D ELEVATION: kt.EvAlloti : EXISI1NG GROUND AT TOE OF•WAU, _—r - FI ars si���:' 1 m to+ C. 1.0:446C\115) () n• 0 ----------------------------- ------------- 8177+-+--- ---------------------- ----------------- --------------- r: GREEN RIVER 16' HIDE ASPHALT TRAIL 818+00 8�s*Lb -------------------- 2_PILES. 7 29'1224a1H-.(.TYP..) e+9 _ sw / 0 010 ------------ ()Pi 3 - -•T...'...=89 17--------- x..35 d3 -------------::::-____-___-__H----- ---__ _ d3. - ----7---;;;:::::::::::!! - --- - _; `sem _- -;-' 7. 16' WIDE ASPHALT TRAIL - - = '' ---- _ �'- GREEN RIVER _ ' - ; = ' _-' zl WALL: -2A SEE SHEEt;) ------------------ 1320+00 620+00 821* ......:...... .. -5+96.00- - 'Nj�38.j'4: 7+44!80 9+55.&1 :17 - Li I .. _- -0 • 5f96A0� B1 9341 1 AT 7+44 60 _..._...M=-4.63.= 43 LrNGTH:{F/P) :: 1Do 111:. FLOOD ELEVA110N ••. ••- •i. `-,NGEpasTIGROUND• AT:TOF Y F WALL .1 • • • TW�843. -9+55. 1- - " - ' - - " ALL: BILES: AT:4Y LENGTF1 ( UJ .LI 0 fR GREEN RIVER 845+00 846+00 -' - 48+00 AT :24' LENGTH (TYP) `4: PILES AT: 35'. LENGTH :(T7P) " 3+17.60 TW33.73 3+1:50.., ALL PILES A.T. 45 LENGTH'(r ) 8W -5.87 • • to SHEET PILE WAIT O �iral'i / .13 otcl Jam— 1 f __ ——'---- —Vi = 3 — ---- _ — -_-.L--_--_--_-_-.=_-_-_-.-7..-- 711----11-7;717------117-1:1-17-!--117----:-----117:-12--:=--- -'=----- - - - --"17-. - -d-1- ------------------------------ --------------- g49+00 850+00 GREEN RIVER 16' WIDE ASPHALT TRAIL 851+00 -- '5+75.14 -- •1W=3922 • 6+81.34 TW=39.23 8+44.61 --- • .. 6+75.14 :: IH y4.¢G • 6+:81 34 TW=3640 J._._ EXISTING LEVEE •ELEVAi10N -100-YR: FLOOD• ELEVATION ::. ..:� .kms- •EXISTING :GROUh10 A • •1W-39.27 d112111e�� . \'.8+5288• =T6H3&00 =36. .. TOE •• • WALL 8+52.88 TW=3A.27:: • .. • .2 +PILES AT 241 AT 35 LENGTYr (TYP 0 14+.00 0 16' WOE ASPHALT TRAIL 855}00 GREEN RIVER 856+00 • • E705-1NG: LEVEE AMON UO :iii' : F1 dbo :aVATILN -.4i- . T-+ S1G GROUND:AT l TOE OF WALL • '-t.--- - _� : ... 2-PTLE'S AT-24-LENGTH.(TYP)• € PILES AT 1 8' 35' LENGTH • rGC�7� - 781x0 •• � 4` J� .13 - .7=-7 - ---- Z - ----------• ----------------------------------------------------- - ........................... ... -_-_--_-_---------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- _- - d -- ^- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- Z - 8556+00 -�r r d3- 8.59+00 16' FADE ASPHALT TRAIL --- - GREEN RIVER 860+00 ----------------------- _2204 ' - - - -E__,__ G:-FL11LEVEE EI.EV : b0►i - • -100-YR:-COD ELEVAi101 ... :::.. NG OUfIDAT IDE. OFWALL" .2" PILES' Ar24`'L.SIO713 (T.YP)- :a -riLEs-.: : ci ...r > .;.- _.. • 20+24.6- EW=15 55 20-6322 8W4. 4:5 PROPOSED SHEET PILE WALL -WV] -731- -x--.25 _ __ _- --- _--------------------- ------------- --- --I-- ----- =_________=_-------------------------------------------------- _-__ `_ _ ; --_ _::?-: -?----:-1---12--1---_:::-_::::1:=1-_=-1-_=1----_ -- — ------------- -____.-:i : -;" 7:::-,::: :-:-_::.:-:11-1-7-1- -1 --_::-_--_: .--- - 111-1: ; L --- ____ '- - -- - 16' WIDE ASPHALT TRAIL ` 50tld---------------- -------------- di— ------------ ---____-___-- GREEN RIVER 863+00 J J Q Z W 03 EP ------------- --� N ` l - -- 864+00 .. N !rl ::LL 0+3294 IW ::39.59 21+7t348 1 W=39:63 21+79.68 /1W=39.63- 23+78:08 71=39;69 Q. 20+3294 31W 1:58 '20+32.94 PICFS"'AT:24''LENGTH' :(TYP) •AT -35'_ LBH 6l} F .(TYP): • z oa : 2371 88 ffir, 7 / :..23+78_08_/ • 8W-4.59 bast 19Ri6GE APPROACH: MSE: Wp.LL 1+01.65 .a Z TW4205 +95.32 TW=d21t: _14T1NGL_VE .A1TON..:..;_:.: • CONNECT:SHEET PILE WALL •TOEXISTING• . .• .........TASE-WALL._ :::::.: 0 :.... :.:1OQ'TR. FLOOD- ELEVATION • EXISi1N GROUND: AT: TOE :OF :WAIL. Lf) 0 0 1+09:32 BW=19.06 - 89t=9. 06 2+8 2+95.-32 • .. - • •BW=9.1 2 PRgS 4T 23: IENGTH: (TYP) L. =4•PILES:AT 33' :LENGTH (TSP)' " • • “-A/z>scelpipt(6' — 712,4F r .4447r ,e-evIOX 51/6.6.- 7-62 -7-7171-77-7- ' s./ 7724-/i— • • ‘, • •--N -2 4 •••• • — /• ,/ /,1 ,s( fr1yPRO5E2> //7 // / /// • / t / / / Pi c t. Pt- 4,J7i/ ' PL -AA 1 aor i- a vert_ In 7?.. 461,e),K 2/63/3 0 O o 000 0 0 n 70-04-2,95 }E /oo/ 2.0' N/$DO 5G 0625075 = ei-oz6g6eAl 7Z ' ("1,5 PCS-- /Pa' .5'no7-/a,1' Spero ✓ 1 /0. e e c Li+Pe) J 1> C/ 1,l,! 41,5 0Ec (-^' 3 PCS too' 5 7 0" FAO /0a: erfe0r'?F,o = 5H2 v ' 55 pc:4- /oo' cr c 5FA-esen p = lit)16,611 Li V 5.1.4 4F- ..4,30-3o:-.PFg. /oo ` sescr,p,V rx4-C r fi4,4fir ,04-r/P,.LS /)/!ti 5C F/91-1,-� 7' 7 z 7 �7 ECa 61577 ® % 5Pc,Es /-14/x/ 5/ .4etr 42 Z44N71 ie 5E6' '� E 1 �'yP/ce-1. PL4f7✓.d4` P4,4I ,8/2/5 4p 6 , p w/9- 7/1477 M'V X *Os /6' <7&4/L 4,,SsE.c (c 4-) /4)tze34 Sic, fl14Nc/7/N6 ACC -At EX 577,-i6' Gni G/n/L, (9/1-1/7i 51' Ae'4" wd-7c5; r-XC,441/A7"r G.evCN /#4C-.04 .c' Gg€9& f er!›.5C44PE .,4, 4: OEGQw 36o10 -,L/ D /r/C414P®,Z 7F ee Pk,57 /d 17 gWW"C/-,' 5/ oPE •4 l€ //(' 'Pc E -„0 Q-9i2C" et 4i2Z4 7-4-1•13604 ) /r6 74 ,04,4)07/,167".5 (c -- A34,04) /o1 S7,4/4„ Ci57E,2Ns 3-- J /P , ,4 7/ w 141,41,,P7:4/.../ PL -,4 J7/, -"S Z 2-1/ 05, PG.q;v r,,Q /71 --AW P -01E5, 5( 4/41r, .Pti4 i7<?2/. 6/21.5c-,06 F4 -Dab / /j'l�47- NOK Z//3%<3 Algol- G4ra-�410A1 Met/14 Sete -1,177 FiC NAm G S 1 e PfieVA-LFNce Q7' DooGew4-5 F/X w657 -c -.r2-14./ CE1,4' S! 7/44 .5,' /.tce Psetileti5i 1 m&,iFiesti ?"hw el /6 tietc4 . jai earn SE:.leheas:i s - , / 5 .5 274, 2rP Z %/ / / % I IPQ°ln/I( 2D% %.... 53% 55,, 35%$f.,4 2v9d 2-0,,,,/-4-C/G Zo 7O . . . ?.0:�0 IP qp /0% 0 0 4-5# a/4 5e.,444 x/77' 2- Cf/gay og C/G ilveh.JTi/ 2 4( ;yjJ 7;41roii GI . Rho elnk; s ptite"SA of e7 q f ��tvhiis . ip," eft���t -ro'�Gr ep dog; 1 i 07264 d 0 0 0 d5/c4 p.paktioo-' ,9,4,,,,,..._.1//riJi4'ZJL TWi . & 'V .SS -W4 IP ,.a.o. I Ce.vp,40"/ 5e oacri , R -54-A-491,4104/4/6 41124N7 CO rn;.r 5 , SGs^1C PG A Saaor�;-15 Ca/OiEcP��rS .. L i'cevr�a io vr����e r4 ,e Sq ,,s�of ce o.z rfDo► 5 Aftblelfegg%oos 4/4/4 A= / be 5 ..''�."' "444 eA o 0 0 RAC/P/c- 1114-141.) 56-nGr- op 5COm r,E-4.S P7/11.-&01,) cA6t& 6 4C.,c/4 S',Ait x •-ts tAe.-f1si_ f (fe ri a ri ..4 V t5 * 3' GS 54 3' L.5..71c #e7.7, Mil za% Ls = L 1 ✓C 57,¢ge, 57A-ges Stti �''gE 3X/s/-2„�•J A�r4�t E'7�/L -11 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Attachment to and part of Report 21-1-12339-012 Date: February 20, 2013 To: Mr. Kelly Peterson City of Kent Public Works Department IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT (BA)/BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION (BE) REPORT A BA OR BE IS BASED ON PROJECT -SPECIFIC FACTORS. BA's and BE's are based on a unique set of project -specific factors. These typically include the specific location of the project, the general nature of the project, and the property involved, its size, and its configuration; historical use and practice; the location of the project on the site and its orientation; and the level of additional risk the client assumed by virtue of limitations imposed upon the study. The jurisdiction over Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species is shared between the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). As a result, one or more agencies will have jurisdiction over a particular aspect of your project with sometimes confusing regulations. It is necessary to involve a consultant who understands which agency(s) has jurisdiction over each species and what the agency(s) requirements are for that species. To help reduce or avoid potential costly problems, have the consultant determine how any factors or regulations (which can change subsequent to the report) may affect the recommendations. Unless your consultant indicates otherwise, your report should not be used: ► If the size or configuration of the proposed project is altered. ► If the location or orientation of the proposed project is modified. ► If there is a change of ownership. ► For application to an adjacent site. ► For construction at an adjacent site or on site. ► Following floods, earthquakes, or other acts of nature. Fisheries consultants cannot accept responsibility for problems that may develop if they are not consulted after factors considered in their reports have changed. Therefore, it is incumbent upon you to notify your consultant of any factors that may have changed prior to submission of our final report. Determining the effects of projects on T&E species (called "determinations of effect") made by Shannon & Wilson are considered preliminary until determinations are agreed to by the appropriate agencies. Written concurrence with the determination of effect must be received from either NMFS or the USFWS. Only these agencies can provide this concurrence. "DETERMINATIONS OF EFFECT" ARE PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS. Site investigations identify habitat conditions at only those points where investigations are performed and when they are performed, but the physical means of obtaining data preclude the determination of precise conditions. Consequently, the information obtained is intended to be sufficiently accurate for determining project impacts, but is subject to interpretation. Additionally, data derived through sampling are extrapolated by the consultant who then renders an opinion about overall conditions, the likely reaction to proposed construction activity, and/or appropriate design. Even under optimal circumstances, actual conditions may differ from those thought to exist because no consultant, no matter how qualified, and no investigative program, no matter how comprehensive, can reveal what is hidden by earth, rock, and time. Nothing can be done to prevent the unanticipated, but steps can be taken to help reduce their impacts. For this reason, most experienced owners retain their consultants through the construction stage to identify variances, to conduct additional evaluations that may be needed, and to recommend solutions to problems encountered on site. NATURAL CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE. Since natural systems are dynamic systems affected by both natural processes and human activities, changes in conditions may be expected. Therefore, BA's and BE's cannot remain valid for an indefinite period of time. For example, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' permit is valid for only two years. If a period of years have passed since the BA or BE was completed, the owner is advised to have the consultant reexamine the conditions to assess if the determinations are still accurate. Page 1 of 2 1/2013 ll 1 Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and natural events such as floods, earthquakes, or water fluctuations may also affect conditions and, thus, the continuing adequacy of the BA or BE. The consultant should be kept apprised of any such events and should be consulted to determine if additional evaluation is necessary. THE BA OR BE IS SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION. Costly problems can occur when plans are developed based on misinterpretation of a BA or BE. To help avoid these problems, the consultant should be retained to work with other appropriate professionals to explain relevant ecological, geological, and other findings, and to review the adequacy of plans and specifications relative to these issues. DATA FORMS SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE BA OR BE. If data forms are part of the assessment or evaluation, then the final data forms are developed by the consultant based on interpretation of field sheets (assembled by site personnel); only final data forms customarily are included. These data forms should not, under any circumstances, be drawn for inclusion in other drawings because drafters may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process. Although photographic reproduction eliminates this problem, it does nothing to reduce the possibility of misinterpreting the forms. When this occurs, delays, disputes, and unanticipated costs are frequently the result. To reduce the likelihood of data form misinterpretation, contractors, engineers, and planners should be given ready access to the complete BA or BE. Those who do not provide such access may proceed under the mistaken impression that simply disclaiming responsibility for the accuracy of information always insulates them from attendant liability. Providing the best available information to contractors, engineers, and planners helps prevent costly problems and the adversarial attitudes that aggravate them to a disproportionate scale. READ RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSES CLOSELY. Because a BA or BE is based extensively on judgment and opinion, it is far less exact than other design disciplines. This situation has resulted in wholly unwarranted claims being lodged against consultants. To help prevent this problem, consultants have developed a number of clauses for use in written transmittals. These are not exculpatory clauses designed to foist the consultant's liabilities onto someone else; rather, they are definitive clauses that identify where the consultant's responsibilities begin and end. Their use helps all parties involved recognize their individual responsibilities and take appropriate action. Some of these definitive clauses are likely to appear in your BA or BE, and you are encouraged to read them closely. Your consultant will be pleased to give full and frank answers to your questions. THERE MAY BE OTHER STEPS YOU CAN TAKE TO REDUCE RISK. Your consultant will be pleased to discuss other techniques or designs that can be employed to mitigate the risk of delays and to provide a variety of alternatives that may be beneficial to your project. Contact your consultant for further information. Page 2 of 2 1/2013 DEFIARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Allyson Brooks Ph.D., Director State Historic Preservation Officer PoOtP;" the PO:- Sr:- e the Future March 27, 2013 Mr. David Radabaugh Department of Ecology PO Box 47600 Lacey, Washington98504-7600 Re: Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project Log No: 032713-03-ECY Dear Mr. Radabaugh: We have been contacted by Ms. Robyn Bartelt, City of Kent Public Works pursuant to Executive Order 05-05. We have reviewed the materials she provided for the proposed Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project, King County, Washington. We concur with a determination of No cultural resources impacts. We would appreciate receiving any correspondence or comments from concerned tribes or other parties that you receive as you consult under the requirements of Executive Order 05-05 In the event that archaeological or historic materials are discovered during project activities, work in the immediate vicinity must stop, the area secured, and the concerned tribes and this department notified. These comments are based on the information available at the time of this review and on the behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer. Should additional information become available, our assessment may be revised. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and a copy of these comments should be included in subsequent environmental documents. Sincerely, Robert G. Whitlam, Ph.D. State Archaeologist (360) 586-3080 email: rob.whitlam@dahp.wa.gov State of Washington • Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation P.O. Box 48343 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 • (360) 586-3065 www.dahp.wa.gov Shovel Probe Maximum Depth Below Surface Description Cultural Materials Identified 35 47 cm 0-8 cmbs: manicured lawn, dark brown silty loam with rootlets 8-47 cmbs: very compact yellowish -brown very coarse sand (fill) with 60-70% pea gravels and 5-10% medium to large cobbles N/A 36 282 cm 0-55 cmbs: grayish -brown silty loam with very few subround pea gravels 55-78 cmbs: grayish -brown sandy loam with very few subround pea gravels 78-150 cmbs: light gray very fine sandy silt loam with few to no gravels. Began augering at 100 cmbs, with little change until 156 cmbs 150-180 cmbs: tone/color change to richer brown color with silty sediment. 180-282 cmbs: interbedded silty rich brown sediment with gray sand N/A 37 200 cm 0-150 cmbs: light grayish -brown silty sand 150-200 cmbs: yellowish -brown slightly silty fine sand N/A 38 15 cm Located in manicured lawn of a business. Probe terminated due to PVC pipes and netting located directly under the sod layer Modern debris -3 pieces of PVC pipe and netting material at 15 cmbs 39 15 cm Located in manicured lawn of a business. Probe terminated due to PVC pipes and netting located directly under the sod layer Modern debris -2 pieces of PVC pipe and netting material at 15 cmbs PVC- Polyvinyl chloride 32 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, City of Kent Green River Levees Improvement Project, Kent, King County, Washington Shovel Probe Maximum Depth Below Surface Description Cultural Materials Identified 30 172 cm 0-110 cmbs: dark grayish -brown medium coarse sandy silt with few gravels and rootlets common from 0-20 cmbs. Began augering at 110 cmbs 110-172 cmbs: dark grayish -brown medium coarse sandy silt with few gravels and rootlets Modern debris—rusted iron non-diagnostic can in N wall at 30 cmbs; 4 colorless glass fragments from 40-65 cmbs 31 194 cm 0-100 cmbs: dark yellowish -brown sandy loam with no gravels and small roots being few throughout. Began augering at 110cmbs 100-194 cmbs: dark gray medium coarse sand with lenses of reddish -brown silt throughout $ Modern debris -1 non-diagnostic colorless glass fragment, 1 piece of white glossed earthenware and 1 sire nail 2.5 inches in length from 0-65 cmbs 32 200 cm 0-108 cmbs: dark grayish -brown medium coarse sandy silt that is loose with few gravels. Began augering at 108 cmbs. 108-200 cmbs: dark grayish -brown medium coarse sandy silt that is loose with few gravels with silty river sediments down to bottom and has no gravels N/A 33 200 cm 0-17 cmbs: dark brown silty loam with organics and small roots being common 17-55 cmbs: yellowish -brown very coarse sand (fill) with 60-70% pea gravels and 5-10% subround medium to large cobbles 55-100 cmbs: very compact dark yellowish -brown silt with no gravels 100-200 cmbs: dark gray medium coarse sand Modern debris -1 non-diagnostic colorless glass fragment, 1 dark purplish red earthenware drain pipe and 1 plastic ruler fragment from 0-60 cmbs 34 200 cm 0-32 cmbs: dark grayish -brown medium coarse sandy silt that is compact with 50% subround and subangular gravels and cobbles 32-105 cmbs:moderately compact dark grayish -brown medium coarse sandysilt and fewgravels. 103-210 cmbs: began augering at 105 cmbs. Moderately compact dark grayish -brown medium coarse sandy silt and few gravels. Modern debris -1 non-diagnostic 8 cm piece of rusty iron at 25 cmbs; 8 red brick fragments, 4 colorless glass fragments and 1 white ceramic shard at 40 cmbs Cultural Resources Assessment for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, City of Kent Green River Levees 31 Improvement Project, Kent, King County, Washington Shovel Probe Maximum Depth Below Surface Description Cultural Materials Identified 25 125 cm 0-65 cmbs: dark grayish -brown, moderately compact, well drained sandy silty loam 65-125 cmbs: dark gray, loosee loamy sand, becoming unconsolidated below 1 meter and having 1% pea gravels, decreasing with depth N/A 26 170 cm 0-110 cmbs: dark grayish -brown medium grained sand with roots present from 0-30 cmbs and few gravels. Began augering at 110 cmbs 110-170 cmbs: dark grayish -brown medium grained sand N/A 27 170 cm 0-17 cmbs: organic duff layer- dark reddish -brown silty loam with 5-10 % gravels and rootlets 17-34 cmbs: dark brown silt loam with rootlets and small roots being common and 5-10 % pea gravels 34-60 cmbs: yellowish -brown very coarse sand (fill) with 60% pea gravels and 5-10% subround medium to large cobbles 60-170 cmbs: dark gray silt that is compact with gray medium coarse sand lenses from 100-160 cmbs N/A 28 110 cm 0-15 cmbs: dark brown, duff organics with no gravels 15-65 cmbs: compact gray coarse sand (fill) and —75% gravels and cobbles 65-110 cmbs: dark grayish -brown medium coarse sand with some mottling that is loose with few gravels. Began augering at 110 cmbs, with the sediment being the same and no gravels N/A 29 168 cm 0-150 cmbs: overlaid with grass and blackberry, is dark yellowish- brown silty loam with 1% pea gravels and small roots. Began augering at 110 cmbs 150-168 cmbs: dark yellowish -brown silty loam with 1% pea gravels and small roots with lenses of grey medium coarse sand. Possible historic - colorless glass bottle base in SW wall from 17-23 cmbs; Modern debris -10-20 colorless glass fragments found in screen 30 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, City of Kent Green River Levees Improvement Project, Kent, King County, Washington Shovel Probe Maximum Depth Below Surface Description Cultural Materials Identified 20 140 cm 0-88 cmbs: dark grayish -brown slightly sandy silt with less than 5% gravels and cobbles 88-125 cmbs: dark gray slightly silty sand 125-140 cmbs: yellowish -brown, mottled with gray fine silty sand N/A 21 165 cm 0-8 cmbs: poorly drained sod layer 8-100 cmbs: homogenous, dark grayish -brown sticky sandy, clayey loam with brown oxidation mottles throughout. Began augering at 100 curbs 100-165 cmbs: extremely sticky fine silty/clayey loam with intense strong brown oxidation mottles and sand layers increasing with depth. Soil is saturated below 150 cmbs N/A 22 100 cm 0-20 cmbs: dark brown silt with lots of roots 20-27 cmbs: dark gray sand with 50% gravels and cobbles27-85 cmbs: light grayish -brown sandy silt 85-100 cmbs: fine to medium dark gray sand N/A 23 173 cm 0-15 cmbs: dark brown, moderately compact sticky sandy loam with medium to large active roots and organics 15-63 cmbs: dark gray, compact gravelly loam (fill) with —50% pea gravels to cobbles that are unsorted 63-98 cmbs: dark grayish -brown, moderately compact, sticky sandy loam with marked decrease in gravels. Avoided roots below 65 curbs and severely constricted probe diameter. Augered 98-173 cmbs: mottled orange/gray loamy sand with strong brown oxidation mottles and coarse gray sand N/A 24 150 cm 0-10 cmbs: duff 10-30 cmbs: dark brown silt 30-70 cmbs: yellowish -brown slightly sandy silt 70-90 cmbs: yellowish -brown silty sand 90-150 cmbs: dark grayish -brown lightly silty fine sand N/A Cultural Resources Assessment for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, City of Kent Green River Levees 29 Improvement Project, Kent, King County, Washington Shovel Probe Maximum Depth Below Surface Description Cultural Materials Identified 15 290 cm 0-18 cmbs: dark yellowish -brown silty loam with 200/o pea gravels and small to medium roots being common 18-34 curbs: yellowish -brown very coarse sand (fill)with 60-70% pea gravels and 5-10 % subround medium to large cobbles 34-100 cmbs: yellowish -brown silty loam with 0% gravels 100-290 cmbs: yellowish -brown silty loam with lenses of gray medium coarse sand N/ 16 295 cm 0-40 cmbs: dark grayish -brown loose organic rich sandy/gravely loam with 50% unsorted pea gravels up to medium size cobbles 40-75 cmbs: dark gray fine to medium coarse sandy loam with –75% unsorted gravels 75-107 cmbs: dark gray sandy loam with the gravels decreasing with depth. Began augering at 107 cmbs through the same sediment, but with –1% unsorted pea gravels Modern debris - concrete, asphalt, and plastic in fill from 0-40 cmbs 17 295 cm 0-100 cmbs: homogenous grayish -brown, moderately compact sandy loam with less than 10% pea gravels. Organics were present from 0-45 cmbs 100-280 cmbs: yellowish -brown, fine to medium coarse sand with oxidation mottles and no gravels N/A 18 160 cm 0-140 cmbs: dark grayish -brown sandy silt (fill), with –10% gravels and cobbles 140-160 cmbs: dark gray fine to medium coarse sand N/A 19 118 cm 0-45 cmbs: dark gray, very compact sandy loam with –50% poorly sorted gravels 45-90 cmbs: dark gray, moderately compact sandy/gravely loam (fill) with –50% round to subangular pebbles 90-118 cmbs: dark grayish -brown, moderately compact sandy loam with increasing round pebbles to small cobbles. Appears to be more intact Modern debris - asphalt and concrete from 0-35 cmbs 28 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, City of Kent Green River Levees Improvement Project, Kent, King County, Washington Shovel Probe Maximum Depth Below Surface Description Cultural Materials Identified 10 288 cm 0-40 cmbs: brown silty loam with several gravel inclusions within the soil matrix 40-190 cmbs: light brown slightly silty sand homogenous with few to no gravel content. At 180 to 190 cmbs, it oxidized slightly. 190-210 cmbs: gray sand 210-288 cmbs: grayish -brown clayish sand with mottled oxidation inclusions N/A 11 180 cm 0-30 cmbs: dark grayish -brown silt with lots of roots 30-140 cmbs: grayish -brown sandy silt with lots of gravels and cobbles at 40 cmbs 140-180 cmbs: dark yellowish -brown mottled with grayish -brown silty sand N/A 12 193 cm 0-12 cmbs: dark brown/black organic rich sandy loam that is loose, gravely, and has an active root layer 12-40 cmbs: dark grayish -brown compact sandy/gravelly matrix (75% unsorted gravels that is consistent of fill) 40-73 cmbs: dark grayish -brown sandy loam with a dramatic decrease in gravels to 25% subround gravels 73-100 cmbs: dark gray sandy loam with gravel content steadily decreasing and oxidation mottling. Began augering at 100 cmbs, with it being yellowish -brown fine silty loam with few gravels 135-200 cmbs: dark grayish -brown fine to medium sand with less than 1% gravels. N/A 13 210 cm 0-55 cmbs: grayish -brown very coarse silty sand fill with 75% subangular gravels and cobbles that is very compact and has rootlets being common. 55-103 cmbs: grayish -brown medium coarse sandy silt that is loose and damp with few pea gravels. Began augering at 103 cmbs N/A 14 200 cm 0-180 cmbs: dark grayish -brown silty sand 180-200 curbs: dark yellowish -brown sandy silt N/A Cultural Resources Assessment for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, City of Kent Green River Levees 27 Improvement Project, Kent, King County, Washington Shovel Probe Maximum Depth Below Surface Description Cultural Materials Identified 6 173 cm 0-17 cmbs: dark brown organic horizon, pebbly and consistent of fill 17-98 cmbs: yellowish -brown moderately compact silty loam with less than 1% pea gravels. Began augering at 98 cmbs 98-147 cmbs: yellowish -brown moderately compact clayey silty loam 147-173 cmbs: dark gray loamy sand, with the sand content increasing with depth. N/A 7 205 cm 0-35 cmbs: dark brown matrix with imported angular gravels, clearly consistent with fill and wasn't screened 35-65 cmbs: grayish -brown fine sandy loam with few gravels 65-105 cmbs: dark gray fine to medium coarse sandy loam with few gravels. Began augering at 105 cmbs, with the sediment being the same until 170 cmbs 170-185 cmbs: yellowish -brown moderately compact fine silty loam with no gravels and sand intrusions 185-205 cmbs: transitioning back to dark gray fine to medium loose sand N/ `� 8 130 cm 0-100 cmbs,: dark grayish -brown medium coarse sandy silt with roots and rootlets being common. Round and subround pea gravels are —50% from 0-70 cmbs and decreasing to —25% by 90 cmbs. Soil is loose, despite gravel volume. Began augering at 100 cmbs, with the sediment being the same until 130 cmbs. N/A 9 204 cm 0-80 cmbs: overlaid with leaves, dark yellowish -brown silty loam with 0% gravels and small to medium roots common from 0-35 cmbs 80-110 cmbs: dark yellowish -brown medium coarse sandy loam with 0% gravels 110-204 cmbs: various lenses of gray medium coarse sand, reddish -brown silty loam, and gray silt N/A 26 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, City of Kent Green River Levees Improvement Project, Kent, King County, Washington Appendix A -Shovel Probe Table Table A-1. Results of Shovel Test Probes in the Project Area. Shovel Probe Maximum Depth Below Surface Description Cultural Materials Identified 1 70 cm 0-70 cmbs: light grayish sandy silt with —5% pea gravels and cobbles throughout Modem debris— asphalt at 70 cmbs 2 180 cm 0-70 curbs: compact grayish -brown fill layer with 75% pea gravels 70-180 cmbs: grayish -brown silty sand with pea gravels decreasing with depth N/A 3 200 cm 0-65 cmbs: extremely compact sand and gravels from parking lot; materials weren't screened 65-83 cmbs: dark gray, moderately compact fine to medium sandy loam. Began augering at 83 cmbs with the sediment being the same —110 cmbs: began seeing lenses of gray silty loam N/A 4 203 cm Overlaid with grass and located on a -25 degree slope 0-35 cmbs:, dark yellowish -brown silty loam with angular, subangular, round, and subround peas gravels being 25% and compact 35-105 cmbs: moderately compact dark yellowish -brown silty loam with 10% angular, subangular, round, and subround peas gravels 105-203 cmbs, yellowish -brown silty loam with lenses of reddish - brown silty loam and gray medium coarse sand. Small roots were few throughout N/A 5 205 cm 0-95 cmbs: brown medium coarse sandy loam with roots common from 0-20 cmbs. -S0% subround and poorly sorted gravels and is relatively loose. Began augering at 95 cmbs. 95-205 cmbs: brown medium coarse sandy loam with roots, common gravel content decreased with depth N/A Cultural Resources Assessment for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, City of Kent Green River Levees 25 Improvement Project, Kent, King County, Washington United States Surveyor General (USSG) 1862 General Land Office Map, Township 22 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian. On file at the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia. 1863 General Land Office Map, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian. On file at the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia. Whitlam, Rob 1983 Archaeological monitoring of the SW 43rd Street (S. 180th Street) Construction Project. University of Washington, Institute for Environmental Studies, Seattle. On file at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. 24 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, City of Kent Green River Levees Improvement Project, Kent, King County, Washington Kelly, Katherine M., David Grant, and Ronald J. Kent 2008 Draft Cultural Resource Survey and Archaeological Monitoring Plan for Six 2008 Green River Levee Rehabilitation Projects, King County, Washington. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Washington Environmental Resources Section, Seattle. On file at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. Kent, Ronald J. 2007 Historic Properties Survey and Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the 2007 Briscoe School Levee PL 84-99 Rehabilitation Project, City of Kent, King County, Washington. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Washington Environmental Resources Section, Seattle. On file at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. King County Assessor's Office 2011 Information on Tax Parcel 2322049027, 5821 W. James St. King County iMAP. Electronic document, http://www.kingcounty.gov/operations/GIS/Maps/iMAP.aspx, accessed December 2011. Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC, Online (NETR) 2009 Historic Aerials, Kent, Washington. Electronic document, http://www.historicaerials.com/, accessed 2012. Scott, Todd 2008 Historic Resources Survey Inventory Kent, Washington. King County Historic Preservation Program, Office of Business Relations and Economic Development, Seattle, Washington. Submitted to City of Kent, Planning Services, Kent, Washington. Society for Historical Archaeology (SHA) 2013 Owens-Illinois Glass Company. Electronic document: http://www.sha.org/research/owens- Illinois article.cfin, accessed February 27, 2013. Toulouse, Julian Harrison 1971 Bottle Makers and Their Marks. Thomas Nelson, Inc., New York. Tu, Janet I. 2004 Briscoe Memorial School. The Seattle Times. February 16. United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1900 Tacoma, WA 30 -Min. Topographic Quadrangle. USGS Internet Store, Map Downloader. Electronic document, http://store.usgs.gov/b2c usgs/usgs/maplocator/(ctype=areaDetails&xcm=r3standardpitre x prd&carea=%24ROOT&layout=6 1 61 48&uiarea=2)/.do. accessed February 19, 2013. 1949a Des Moines, WA 7.5 -Min. Topographic Quadrangle. USGS Internet Store, Map Downloader. Electronic document, http://store.usgs.gov/b2c usgs/usgs/maplocator/(ct5pe=areaDetails&xcm=r3standardpitre x prd&carea=%24ROOT&layout=6 1 61 48&uiarea=2)/.do, accessed February 19. 2013. 1949b Renton, WA 7.5 -Min. Topographic Quadrangle. USGS Internet Store, Map Downloader. Electronic document, http://store.usgs.gov/b2c usgs/usgs/maplocator/(ctype=areaDetails&xcm=r3standardpitre x prd&carea=%24ROOT&lavout=6 1 61 48&uiarea=2)/.do, accessed February 19, 2013. Cultural Resources Assessment for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, City of Kent Green River Levees 23 Improvement Project, Kent, King County, Washington 7. References Boersema, Jana 2008 Archaeological Survey of the Wells -Fargo Bank CV Operations Location Tukwila, Washington. Cascadia Archaeology, Seattle, Washington. Prepared for Craft Architects, Seattle, Washington. Brown, Lionel A. 1977 Cultural Resource Inventory Report Green River Watershed, King County, Washington. Grays Harbor College, Aberdeen, Washington. Submitted to United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) 2011a Mess Cemetery -Cemetery Detail Report. Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. Electronic document, accessed December 12, 2012. 2011b St. Patrick Catholic Cemetery -Cemetery Detail Report. Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. Electronic document, accessed December 12, 2012. Entrix, Incorporated 2005 Archaeological and Historical Resources Technical Report for the Tukwila South Project. Entrix, Incorporated, Seattle, Washington. Prepared for La Pianta, LLC, Tukwila, Washington. Gilpin, Jennifer, Jenny Dellert, Faith Haney, Serah Timm, and Greg Rainka 2012 Cultural Resource Inventoryfor the City of Kent Green River Levees Improvement Project, King County, Washington. Historical Research Associates, Inc., Seattle. Submitted to City of Kent, Kent, Washington. Hannum, Michelle 2002 Letter to Laurie Kochian, Vertex Engineering Services, Inc. RE: WA -0672 (Orillia) Cingular Wireless Tower Site. Prepared by Cascadia Archaeology for Vertex Engineering Services, Inc.., Burlingame, CA. On file at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation., Olympia, Washington. Hudson, Lorelea, and Robert M. Weaver 2003 Letter Report to Steve Shipe regarding 1-5 Pierce County Line to Tukwila I/ C Stage 2N Agreement No. Y-7856, Task Order AN. Northwest Archaeological Associates, Seattle, Washington, and Hart Crowser, Seattle, Washington. Submitted to Washington State Department of Transportation, Northwest Regional Office, Seattle. Kelly, Katherine M. 2008 Draft Cultural Resource Survey and Archaeological Monitoring Plan for 2009 Green River Levee Rehabilitation Projects, King County, Washington. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Washington Environmental Resources Section, Seattle. On file at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. 22 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, City of Kent Green River Levees Improvement Project, Kent, King County, Washington Cultural Resources Assessment for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, City of Kent Green River Levees Improvement Project, Kent, King County, Washington Submitted to: City of Kent Public Works Department Submitted by: Historical Research Associates, Inc. Jenny Dellert, M.A. Angus Tierney, M.A. Jennifer Gebhardt, B.A. Seattle, Washington March 18, 2013 arlft HISTORICAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC. This report was prepared by HRA Research Archaeologist Jenny Dellert, M.A. and HRA Archaeologist Angus Tierney, M.A., who meet the Secretary of the Interior's professional qualifications standards for archaeology, and HRA Archaeologist Jennifer Gebhardt, B.A. This report is intended for the exclusive use of the Client and its representatives. It contains professional conclusions and recommendations concerning the potential for project -related impacts to archaeological resources based on the results of HRA's investigation. It should not be considered to constitute project clearance with regard to the treatment of cultural resources or permission to proceed with the project described in lieu of review by the appropriate reviewing or permitting agency. This report should be submitted to the appropriate state and local review agencies for their comments prior to the commencement o f the project. Cultural Resources Assessment for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, City of Kent Green River Levees Improvement Project, Kent, King County, Washington Executive Summary Historical Research Associates, Inc. (HRA), was contracted by the City of Kent (City) to conduct additional cultural resources work with for the Green River Levees Improvement Project (Project). The 2013 work was conducted along the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, which involves four Areas of Impact (AI) locations along the eastern landward side of the Green River Trail, in the cities of Kent and Tukwila. The AIs are situated between SW 43`d St and S 200th St, in Township 22 North, Range 4 East, Section 2, and Township 23N, Range 4 East, Sections 35 and 36, Willamette Meridian. This report provides for compliance with requirements of the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA), as no federal funding is currently involved. The City proposes to construct four setback levee walls along sections (reaches) of the Green River, as they do not meet slope and stability requirements for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) accreditation. The general AI dimensions include an approximate 5 -foot (ft) wide trench, with a depth of approximately 4 ft. The total approximate length of trenching for the Project is 5,570 ft. Reach 1 extends from River Mile (RM) 14.47 to RM 14.63, approximately 1,050 linear feet (1f). Reach 2 is between RM 15.45 and RM 15.57, approximately 850 If. Reach 3 is located between RM 15.98 and RM 16.36, approximately 2,3501f. Reach 4 is between RM 16.95 and 17.00, approximately 2001f. Steel sheet piles will be installed in the trench and will extend above the existing levee to act as a floodwall. Large tree stumps and roots will be removed in places between the reaches where they could compromise levee stability and/or are in the construction area. Staging areas will be located in paved parking lots along the trail. The exact locations of these had not been determined at the time this draft of the report was written. HRA conducted archival research of the vicinity for background context information prior to a pedestrian survey and excavation of shovel probes in February 2013. No archaeological materials were observed during the survey portion. Modern trash, possible historic -period debris, landscaping cloth and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe were noted in fill sediments during the subsurface investigation, none of which were diagnostic in nature. HRA excavated 39 shovel probes in the four AI areas. The vicinity has undergone extensive alterations of the landscape, with the construction of the Green River Trail and various business parks and parking lots. Cultural Resources Assessment for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, City of Kent Green River Levees j Improvement Project, Kent, King County, Washington Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 1.2 AREA OF IMPACT 3 1.3 REGULATORY CONTEXT 3 2. ARCHIVAL RESEARCH 4 2.1 RESEARCH METHODS AND MATERIALS REVIEWED 2.2 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH RESULTS 2.2.1 PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDIES 2.2.2 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES 2.2.3 CEMETERIES 2.2.4 HISTORIC -PERIOD BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, AND OBJECTS 2.2.5 HISTORIC GENERAL. LAND OFFICE MAPS 2.2.6 HISTORIC USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE AIS 2.2.7 DAHP PREDICTIVE MODEL 3. ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXT 3.1 EXPECTATIONS FOR HUNTER -FISHER -GATHERER, ETHNOGRAPHIC PERIOD, AND HISTORIC - PERIOD CULTURAL RESOURCES 4. FIELD STRATEGY AND METHODS 4.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVENTORY 4 4 4 6 6 7 7 7 9 10 5. ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVENTORY RESULTS 5.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 5.1 .1 PEDESTRIAN SURVEY 5.1.2 SHOVEL PROBES 6. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 10 11 11 12 12 12 12 21 6.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 21 6.2 ACCIDENTAL DISCOVERY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 21 6.3 DISCOVERY OF HUMAN REMAINS 21 7. REFERENCES 22 APPENDIX A -SHOVEL PROBE TABLE 25 ii Cultural Resources Assessment for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, City of Kent Green River Levees Improvement Project, Kent, King County, Washington List of Figures Figure 1. Project Areas of Impacts (Als) and vicinity. 2 Figure 2. Pedestrian transects and shovel probes in Als 4 and 5. 13 Figure 3. Pedestrian transects and shovel probes in Als 6, 7, 8, and 9. 14 Figure 4. Pedestrian transects and shovel probes in Als 7 through 12. 15 Figure 5. Pedestrian transects and shovel probes in Al 13. 16 Figure 6. Overview of Green River Trail and Reach 3 corridor, view west. 17 Figure 7. Overview of shovel probe locations between Trail and business park in Reach 3, view southeast. 17 Figure 8. Excavation of shovel probes within a windrow in Reach 3, view north-northwest. 18 Figure 9. Close-up view of Shovel Probe 27. 19 Figure 10. Possible historic -period bottle base with Owens-Illinois maker's mark identified in Shovel Probe #29. 19 Figure 11. Sketch of Owens-Illinois maker's mark found on possible historic -period bottle base identified in Shovel Probe #29. 20 List of Tables Table 1. Previous Cultural Resources Studies within Approximately 1 Mile of the Project. 5 Table 2. Historic -period to modern map and aerial photographs examined for the Als (Section 2 is Boeing Levee Al and Sections 14/21 is Russell -James Al). 8 Table A-1. Results of Shovel Test Probes in the Project Area. 25 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, City of Kent Green River Levees iii Improvement Project, Kent, King County, Washington 1. Introduction Historical Research Associates, Inc. (HRA) conducted a cultural resource inventory for a different portion of the Green River Levees Improvement Project (Project) in 2012, the results of which can be found in Cultural Resource Inventory for the City of Kent Green River Levee Improvement Project, King County, Washington (Gilpin et al. 2012). This document constitutes an amendment to that report and describes the cultural resource inventory undertaken for a separate section of the Project. 1.1 Project Description HRA was contracted by the City of Kent (City) to conduct additional cultural resources work with for the Project, for the Briscoe-Desimone section of the levee. The Project is located in Township 22 North, Range 4 East, Section 2, and Township 23N, Range 4 East, Sections 35 and 36, Willamette Meridian (Figure 1). The Briscoe-Desimone Levee is located along the right bank (easterly side) of the Green River between S 200`'' Street and S 180th Street, (Figure 1). The Briscoe levee is located along the right bank of the Green River between S 200`h Street and S 189`'' Street within the City of Kent. The Desimone levee is located along the right bank of the Green River between S 189`h Street and S 180`h Street in the City of Tukwila. Together these levee segments are approximately 2.7 miles (mi) in length and protect properties within the cities of Kent, Tukwila, and Renton. Tilt -up style buildings (manufacturing and industrial) are located adjacent to the entire stretch of levee. Four sections (reaches) of the levee, approximately 4,450 linear feet (If), do not meet slope and stability requirements and need repair to meet Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) accreditation requirements. Structural steel sheet pile walls are proposed to be installed at the back of the existing levee slope to act as a secondary levee to reduce flood risk to the cities of Kent, Tukwila, and Renton and protect the large number of warehouses, manufacturing facilities and some retail establishments behind these levees. In addition, large stumps and roots will be removed in areas between the four reaches along the levee where they could compromise levee stability and/or are in the construction project area. Cultural Resources Assessment for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, City of Kent Green River Levees Improvement Project, Kent, King County, Washington Service L•ayer.Dredita: 6bpyrightt®'2Q1j1 National, Geographk Scciety;itube Coordinate,:;,N D 1983; UT A exon;10N;,Metera ! 1 mewl ORAN 1 Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Vii". ._.. RENTON _ 11.11 .'` Reach 4 JProject Area of Impact (Al) QTownship/Range Q USGS 7.5 -Minute Quad Index 0 0.25 0.5 Kilometers M Miles 0 0.25 0.5 1 Historical Research Associates Inc. Seattle WA Figure 1. Project Areas of Impacts (AIs) and vicin ty• 2 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, City of Kent Green River Levees Improvement Project, Kent, King County, Washington The walls will provide a minimum of 3 feet (ft) of freeboard above the predicted 500 -year flood event. This equates to approximately 5.2 ft of freeboard above the predicted 100 -year flood event. This proposal allows for some re -vegetation and habitat restoration work along the river between the ordinary high water line and the trail in areas where the wall is constructed. A terraced side slope will be constructed where feasible along the riverbank for habitat improvements. The approximate 2 -ft wide strip between the proposed constructed trail and wall will be paved or filled with suitable material. In areas where the wall is proposed, the existing asphalt recreational trail will be relocated to be adjacent to the wall. The public access, located at the west end of S 190`h St will be reconstructed to current standards, including an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible ramp. 1.2 Area of Impact The Area of Impact (AI) is composed of four AI reaches situated between S 180`h St and S 200`h St. The Desimone Levee is located between S 189`h St and S 180`h St in Tukwila, and includes Reach 1. The Briscoe Levee portion extends from S 200`h St to S 189th St in Kent, and includes Reaches 2-4. Altogether, the levee sections are approximately 2.7 mi in length. Reach 1 is located between River Mile (RM) 14.47 and 14.63 and totals 1,050 If. Reach 2 is located between RM 15.45 and 15.57 and totals 850 If. Reach 3 is between RM 15.98 and 16.36, totaling 2,350 if, and Reach 4 is between RM 16.95 and 17.00 and totals 2001f. Reaches 1, 2 and 3 are on the outside of sharp bends in the river and Reach 4 is just north of the S 200`h Street Bridge. Overall trench dimensions at each location will be approximately 5 ft wide, with a depth of approximately 4 ft, for an approximate total length of 5,570 ft. Sheet piles will be driven into the trench at varying depths to provide flood protection. 1.3 Regulatory Context The Project is part of a larger effort to achieve FEMA certification on the entire City of Kent levee system. This study was conducted to meet State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) requirements. Compliance with state laws concerning the protection of archaeological resources, including RCW 27.44 Indian Graves and Records (as amended) and RCW 27.53 Archaeological Sites and Resources (as amended). Additionally, State of Washington Executive Order (EO) 05-05 compliance will also be required. EO 05-05 includes requirements for consultation with interested Native American Tribes. Interested tribes for this Project include the federally recognized Tulalip and Muckleshoot Tribes, and the non -federally recognized Duwamish Tribe. Cultural Resources Assessment for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, City of Kent Green River Levees 3 Improvement Project, Kent, King County, Washington 2. Archival Research 2.1 Research Methods and Materials Reviewed Prior to fieldwork, HRA archaeologist Angus Tierney, M.A. conducted an archival record search for the vicinity of the AIs, using a 1 -mi search radius. Tierney searched the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation's (DAHP) online database, the Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD), for archaeological site records, previously conducted cultural resources survey reports, and cemetery records. Historic -period nineteenth- and twentieth-century maps from the United States Surveyor General (USSG) General Land Office (GLO) and other historic maps for the presence of structures, sites, and features that might be extant within the AIs, as well as possible archaeological sites and historic land use patterns. A statewide predictive model layer on DAHP's WISAARD was reviewed for probability estimates for archaeological resources, and to aid in developing the field strategy. Mr. Tierney also reviewed the King County Parcel viewer for buildings over 50 years of age within the parcels where the project will take place. 2.2 Archival Research Results 2.2.1 Previous Cultural Resources Studies Ten previously recorded investigations were conducted within 1 mi of the AIs (Table 1). One investigation was for a survey and inventory of historic -period resources in the City of Kent. Two hundred and ten buildings were documented, one within 0.5 mi of the AIs (Scott 2008). This study encompassed Reaches 2, 3, and 4, and beyond. Four cultural resources surveys were related to levee rehabilitation and flood control improvements (Brown 1977; Kelly 2008 [within Reach 1]; Kelly et al. 2008 [within Reaches 1, 2, and 3]; Kent 2007 [within Reach 3]). No cultural resources were identified during any of these four projects. Another two cultural resource investigations were undertaken for transportation and public works -related improvement projects (Hudson and Weaver 2003; Whitlam 1983). Neither of these studies identified any cultural resource. One investigation conducted ahead of a cellular tower project was also negative for cultural resources (Hannum 2002). 4 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, City of Kent Green River Levees Improvement Project, Kent, King County, Washington Table 1. Previous Cultural Resources Studies within AflDroximately 1 Mile of the Proiect. NADB # Reference Title Nearest AI Distance to Project Segment Identified Cultural Resources 1330666 Whitlam 1983 Archaeological monitoring of the SW 43rd Street (S. 180th Street) Construction Pmject Reach 1 -0.25 mi northeast None 1331024 Brown 1977 Cultural Resource Inventory Report Green River Watershed, King Cour0,, Washington Reach 4 —0.5 mi south None 1340991 Hannum 2002 Letter Report to Laurie Kochian regarding WA -0672 (Orillia) Reach 3 —0.25 mi south None 1342167 Hudson and Weaver 2003 Letter Report to Steve Ship regarding 1-5 Pierce County Line to Tukwila //C Stage 2N Agreement No. Y- 7856, Task Order AN Reach 3 —0.5 mi west None 1345556 Entrix 2005 Archaeological and Historical Resources Technical Report for the Tukwila South Pmject Reaches 2, 3, and 4 Adjacent west to AIs, within 0.5 mi Inventoried 8 BSOs, one eligible but demolished after being reported 1349795 Kent 2007 Historic Properties Survey and Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the 2007 Briscoe School Levee PL 84-99 Rehabilitation Project, City of Kent, King County, Washington Reach 3 Within AIs None 1351290 Boersema 2008 Archaeological Survey of the Wells- Fargo Bank CV Operations Location. Tukwila. Washington Reach 1 -0.1 mi north None 1352086 Scott 2008 Historic Resources Survey & Inventory Kent, Washington Reaches 2, 3, and 4 Encompasses Documented 210 aboveground BSOs, one 0.5 mi south Cultural Resources Assessment for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, City of Kent Green River Levees 5 Improvement Project, Kent, King County, Washington NADB # Reference Title Nearest AI Distance to Project Segment Identified Cultural Resources 1352477 Kelly et al. 2008 Draft Cultural Resource Survey and Archaeological Monitoring Plan for Six 2008 Green River Levee Rehabilitation Projects, King County, Washington Reach 1, 2, and 3 Within and adjacent to AIs None 1353234 Kelly 2008 Draft Cultural Resource Survey and Archaeological Monitoring Plan for 2009 Green River Levee Rehabilitation Projects, King County, Washington Reach 1 Within and adjacent to AIs None Two cultural resources investigations are related to commercial development (Boersema 2008; Entrix 2005). Eight historic -period buildings, structures, or objects (BSOs) were documented for a retail and commercial development campus project, none within or adjacent to the AIs; all but one (the Mess Family House) were recommended not eligible for listing in the NRHP (Entrix 2005). This NRHP eligible property was later demolished and is therefore no longer eligible. The other commercial development survey, for Wells -Fargo Bank, reported no cultural resources (Boersema 2008). 2.2.2 Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites No previously recorded archaeological sites were identified within the AIs or the 1 mi search radius surrounding each AI. 2.2.3 Cemeteries Two previously recorded cemeteries are located within 1 mi of the AIs. The Mess Cemetery, located approximately 0.5 mi northwest of Reach 4, was established in 1878 on what was part of the Mess and Lessinger farmsteads. The cemetery was started after a diphtheria epidemic claimed the lives of two young Mess children. The cemetery was expanded to accommodate other families in the area who wanted to use the land for burials. By 1910, when the last -known burial occurred, approximately 20-50 burials had been interred at the Mess Cemetery. The land was bequeathed to the City of Kent in 1966 in the will of Marie Mess (DAHP 2011a). The second cemetery, St. Patrick Catholic Cemetery, was established in the 1880s and is located approximately 1 mi southwest of Reach 4. Most Catholic pioneers and settlers from the Orillia and O'Brien areas are buried in this cemetery. The land for the cemetery was donated by John O'Connell 6 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, City of Kent Green River Levees Improvement Project, Kent, King County, Washington and was part of his original homestead. The cemetery was transferred to the Archdiocese of Seattle in 1902 and remains active (DAHP 2011b). 2.2.4 Historic -period Buildings, Structures, and Objects No BSOs 50 years old or older have been previously recorded adjacent to any of the AIs. The closest previously recorded BSOs to the AIs are located far enough away from the AIs, or are situated so that other structures and/or landscape features prohibit a view of the proposed levee structure. There are no previously recorded BSOs within view of the AIs. HRA searched the King County Assessor's internet site, and found that one building, the Omlid Family Residence, is located approximately 0.5 mi south of the Reach 4 levee improvement. This building was constructed in 1922, and therefore is 91 years old (King County Assessor 2011). Further internet research uncovered a newspaper article regarding the Briscoe Memorial School. The school was opened in 1909 by what was the Diocese of Nisqually (now the Archdiocese of Seattle) and in 1914 was taken over by the Christian Brothers at the request of Bishop Edward O'Dea. The school operated at first as an orphanage and later as a Catholic boarding school until 1968, when the property was sold to the Union Pacific Railroad (Tu 2004). 2.2.5 Historic General Land Office Maps Historic nineteenth-century maps and notes compiled by the USSG GLO were reviewed for historic -period structures and buildings (USSG 1862, 1863). By 1863, three homesteads were located within the immediate vicinity of the AI (USSG 1863). On the east bank, the P. Hays cabin was a few hundred feet west of where the Area 12 levee improvement would be. The P. O'Brien cabin was just a few hundred feet south of where Area 13 at the Russell Rd/S 200th St Bridge would be. On the west bank, the J. Thomas cabin was approximately 0.25 mi west of Reach 4. The historic maps document several unnamed trails following the meanders of the Green River (roughly north—south) and a few bearing east—west. The north -south bearing United States Military Road from Seattle to Steilacoom followed the base of the glacial terrace approximately 0.5 mi west of the Green River (USSG 1862, 1863). 2.2.6 Historic Use and Development of the Als The AIs, and their vicinity, were used for homesteads and agriculture, in particular dairy farms, until the mid -twentieth century. A flood decimated the Kent region in 1959, causing extensive damage to many of the agricultural areas. HRA examined a series of historic -period maps and aerial photographs to document the development of the Levee Improvement Areas (Table 2). Cultural Resources Assessment for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, City of Kent Green River Levees 7 Improvement Project, Kent, King County, Washington Table 2. Historic -period to modern map and aerial photographs examined for the AIs (Section 2 is Boeing Levee AI and Sections 14/21 is Russell -James Al). Title Source/Date Location Comments Tacoma, WA USGS 1900 T. 23N R. 4E Sec 36 Ferry crossing at S 180t St at Orillia, multiple small structures shown on east bank T. 23N R. 4E Sec 34, 35 Road same alignment as West Valley Road, changes alignment south of Reach 1 T. 22N R. 4E Sec 2 Aerial photograph HistoricAerials.com 1936 view (NETR 2009) T. 22N R. 4E Sec 2 Briscoe Memorial School, within Reach 3 Aerial photograph HistoricAerials.com 1940 view (NETR 2009) T. 23N R. 4E Sec 36 Bridge connecting Orillia at S180th St, north of Reach 1 Des Moines, WA USGS 1949a T. 22N R. 4E Sec 2 Trail follows east bank of Green River, passes through Reaches 2 and 3 Renton, WA USGS 1949b T. 23N R. 4E Sec 36 A few small structures within each 1, south of Orillia, on the east side of the West Valley Highway Aerial photograph HistoricAerials.com 1964 view (NETR 2009) No noticeable new developments Aerial Photograph HistoricAerials.com 1968 view (NETR 2009) T. 23N R. 4E Sec 36 Large office park building south of Reach ion east side of West Valley Highway Aerial Photograph HistoricAerials.com 1980 view (NETR 2009) T. 22N R. 4E Sec 2 Briscoe Memorial School (demolished), within or adjacent to Reach 3 T. 23N R. 4E Sec 35, 36 Many office park buildings within and between Reaches 1 and 2, on both sides of the river Aerial Photograph HistoricAerials.com 1990 view (NETR 2009) T. 23N R. 4E Sec 35, 36 T. 22N R. 4E Sec 2 East side of the river entirely filled in by office park buildings within all Reaches. All roads on east side of the river in modern alignment 8 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, City of Kent Green River Levees Improvement Project, Kent, King County, Washington Title Source/Date Location Comments Aerial Photograph HistoricAerials.com 1998 view (NETR 2009) T. 22N R. 4E Sec 2 Bridge being constructed, connecting Russell Road S with S 200th St, within Reach 4 2.2.7 DAHP Predictive Model DAHP's predictive model is based on statewide information, using large-scale factors. Information on geology, soils, site types, and landforms, and GLO maps were used to establish or predict probabilities for prehistoric cultural resources throughout the state. DAHP's model uses five categories for the predictions: Low Risk, Moderately Low Risk, Moderate Risk, High Risk, and Very High Risk. The DAHP predictive model map indicates a Very High Risk in the AIs, due to their proximity to the Green River and their flat topography. HRA used the information obtained from the DAHP predictive model and archival research to aid in establishing a field strategy and implement field investigations. Cultural Resources Assessment for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, City of Kent Green River Levees 9 Improvement Project, Kent, King County, Washington 3. Environmental and Cultural Context As noted earlier, HRA conducted a cultural resource inventory for the project in 2012. The report of the results of that inventory, Cultural Resource Inventory for the City of Kent Green River Levees Improvement Project, King County, Washington (Gilpin et al. 2012), included environmental and cultural context material applicable to this study. The reader is directed to that report for detailed information about these subjects. 3.1 Expectations for Hunter -fisher -gatherer, Ethnographic Period, and Historic -Period Cultural Resources Environmental factors (e.g., proximity to water and available food and material resources), the DAHP predictive model, and ethnographic and historic records suggest a high probability of intact archaeological remains in the vicinity of the AIs. Prehistoric and ethnographic period resources that may be identified within the AIs vicinity include trails, lithics (flakes of stone from tool making, cores or core fragments, and projectile points), and resource procurement or processing sites. Ethnographic -period resources would be similar to those associated with prehistoric sites, with the inclusion of Euroamerican goods. Historic -period resources would be focused on homesteading, agriculture, and suburban development. Remnants of these historic -period activities may be present in the area. Artifacts associated with this type of land use may consist of concrete foundations, metal, glass, brick, bottles and other industrial or agricultural items (plow heads) may be present. The AI has been previously disturbed by the construction of the historic -period homesteads, agriculture, business parks, several utility lines, and, of course, the levee system, which is topped by Green River Trail. The vicinity of the AIs was extensively altered during the historic period with the growth of Kent, especially the establishment of the local businesses along West Valley Highway. The AIs have a low to moderate probability for intact archaeological resources, given the frequency of flooding events, meandering of the river, and ground disturbance from agriculture, homesteading, and development in historic and modern times. However, intact archaeological resources could be present on the old channel banks and natural levees beneath alluvial sediments deposited during flood events. The earliest resources may be buried under hundreds or even thousands of years of alluvium. 10 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, City of Kent Green River Levees Improvement Project, Kent, King County, Washington 4. Field Strategy and Methods 4.1 Archaeological Inventory HRA archaeologists Carol Schultze, Ph.D., and Jenny Dellert, M.A., conducted a field visit and pedestrian survey on February 20, 2012, prior to the subsurface investigation in order to examine utility locations and strategize shovel probe placement. Pedestrian transects were spaced approximately 5 meters (m) apart, or closer depending on available unpaved areas and dense vegetation. HRA examined all soil exposures (non -paved areas such as lawn, pathway, etc.). No archaeological resources were identified during the pedestrian survey. Ms. Schultze and HRA archaeologists Joey Baumgartner, B.A., Justin Butler, B.A., Adam Fruge, B.A., Jennifer Gebhardt, B.A., and Alicia Sawyer, B.A., conducted subsurface investigations of the AIs on February 21 and 22, 2012. Shovel probes were excavated in areas of proposed ground disturbance during the archaeological inventory. Modern trash and possible historic -period debris were noted in fill sediments during the subsurface investigation. Observations regarding soils, vegetation, ground visibility, and disturbance were recorded in field notes and on shovel probe forms. Photographs were taken of the general location of each AI and specific shovel probe areas. Locations of shovel probes were recorded using a Trimble GeoXT Global Positioning System (GPS) unit. Cultural Resources Assessment for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, City of Kent Green River Levees 11 Improvement Project, Kent, King County, Washington 5. Archaeological Inventory Results 5.1 Archaeological Resources 5.1.1 Pedestrian Survey The pedestrian survey is depicted on Figures 2-5. The Project is located along the Green River Trail in the Kent industrial area (Figure 6). Most of the AIs are paved or landscaped, with the Trail on the artificial, elevated platform of the levee. Figure 2 shows transects in Reach 1. Figure 3 shows the pedestrian survey of Reach 2 and the northern portion of Reach 3. Survey of the southern portion of Reach 3 is detailed on Figure 4, while Figure 5 shows the survey of Reach 4. The vegetation in the AIs consisted of grass, dense thickets of Himalayan blackberry, and landscaped maple and cedar trees and ornamental bushes. No cultural material was observed during the pedestrian survey. 5.1.2 Shovel Probes Thirty-nine shovel probes in the four AIs were placed strategically based upon field observations, the locations of the proposed work, slope, and known locations of utilities, commercial business parks, paved areas, and areas of previous disturbance/modification, such as the current levee/Trail. Locations of the shovel probes are depicted on Figures 2-5. The results of the shovel probes are depicted in the table in Appendix A. All probes that were excavated were located either between a parking lot and the trail or a building and the trail (Figures 6 and 7). Probes were primarily located in blackberry bushes or manicured lawns. Vegetation in the AIs vicinity consisted of mixed grasses, salal, blackberry, various ferns, maple trees, Douglas firs, and birch trees. Additionally, windrows of cottonwood and poplar trees were part of the landscaped vegetation along the AI corridor (Figure 8). Excavated soils were screened through 1/4 -inch hardware mesh. Sediments and depositional structure were recorded on standardized field forms, and the probes were then backfilled. Digital photographs were captured by Canon Powershot and Olympus Stylus cameras. 12 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, City of Kent Green River Levees Improvement Project, Kent, King County, Washington Shovel Probe- Negative • Shovel Probe- Positive Transects Area of Impact (Al) 60 Meters Feet 560 nc . Seattle. WA Figure 2. Pedestrian transects and shovel probes in AIs 4 and '5. Cultural Resources Assessment for. the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, City of Kent Green River Levees j 13 Improvement Project, Kent, King County, Washington Layer C edits, Copy n, i<u, "; USD User Community Cawef: BURIEN, WA Township/Range: T23N-R04E, T22NR04E Coordinate: NAD 1983.111114 Zone ION, Meters Shovel Probe- Negative Shovel Probe Positive Transects =Area of Impact tAI) 0 4fi 80 160 Meters Feet 0 140 280 560 Historical Research Associates, Inc., Seattle, WA : Figure 3. Pedestrian transects and shovel -probes in AIs 6, 7, 8, acid 9. 14 j Cultural Resources Assessment for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, City of Kent Green River Levees Improvement Project, Kent, King County,: Washington (HT1 alE1313 BUM= pow— Copyright:© 2011.Iia -) f ... .01:v eoEyeZ 2(Fl-t1 Township/Range: NAD Coordinate T29N-RQ4E; Reach 2 SP"21 Reach 3 o Shovel Probe- Negative Cr Shovel Probe- Positive ==-4* Transects .:Area of Impact (Al) 0 40 80 160 Meters Feet 4: 150 300 600 Historical Research Associates Inc., Seattle WA Figure 4. Pedestrian transects and shovel probes in AIs 7 through 12. Cultural Resources Assessment for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, City of Kent Green River Levees 15 Improvement Project, Kent, King County, Washington 1 Shovel Probe- Negative • Shovel Probe- Positive Transects Area of Impact (A1) 40 80 Feet 0 120 240 480 Nnstoncai Research Associates. inc Seattle. WA Figure 5. Pedestrian transects and shovel probes in AI 13. 16 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, City of Kent Green River Levees 1 Improvement Project, Kent, King County, Washington Figure 6. Overview of Green River Trail and Reach 3 corridor, view west. Figure 7. Overview of shovel.probe locations between_ Trail and business park in Reach 3, view southeast. Cultural Resources Assessment for. the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, City of Kent Green River Levees 117 Improvement Project, Kent, King County, Washington Figure 8. Excavation of shovel probes within a windrow in Reach 3, view north- northwest. The vast majority of probes went from fill into native soils (Figure 9). Soils in the shovel probes primarily consisted of very compact fill sediments with modern trash including asphalt, concrete, plastic, glass, and nails. Some native soils were observed in Shovel Probes 2 and 4, at the bottom of the excavated areas. Most of the shovel probe depths exhibited a high degree of disturbance. Modern trash—such as unidentifiable metal fragments and colorless glass fragments, landscaping cloth,and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe—were noted in fill sediments during the subsurface investigation, none of which were diagnostic in nature (Appendix A). One possible historic -period bottle base (circa 1930s -present) was also identified within Shovel Probe #29, in Reach 3. The colorless bottle base had an Owens-Illinois maker's mark circa 1930s -present, but since the manufacture date is not diagnostic of a particular period, it was not documented as a cultural isolate (SHA 2013; Toulouse 1971) (Figures 10 and 11). 18 j Cultural Resources Assessment for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, City of f Kent Green River Levees Improvement Project, Kent, King County, Washington Figure 9. Close-up view of Shovel Probe 27. Figure 10. Possible historic -period bottle base with Owens-Illinois maker's mark identified in Shovel Probe #29. Cultural Resources Assessment for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, City of Kent Green River Levees 119 Improvement Project, Kent, King County, Washington 44(<> Figure 11. Sketch of Owens-Illinois maker's mark found on possible historic -period bottle base identified in Shovel Probe #29. 20 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, City of Kent Green River Levees Improvement Project, Kent, King County, Washington 6. Summary and Recommendations 6.1 Archaeological Resources No archaeological resources were identified during the course of the inventory. As a result, no further study is recommended. 6.2 Accidental Discovery of Archaeological Resources In the event that archaeological deposits are inadvertently discovered during construction in any portion of the AIs, ground -disturbing activities should be halted immediately, and the City should be notified. The City would then contact DAHP and the interested Tribes, as appropriate. 6.3 Discovery of Human Remains Any human remains that are discovered during construction of the Project will be treated with dignity and respect. The affected Native American Tribes are the federally recognized Tulalip and Muckleshoot Tribes, and the non -federally recognized Duwamish Tribe. If ground -disturbing activities encounter human skeletal remains during the course of construction, then all activity that may cause further disturbance to those remains must cease, and the area of the find must be secured and protected from further disturbance. In addition, the finding of human skeletal remains must be reported to the King County Medical Examiner and local law enforcement in the most expeditious manner possible. The remains should not be touched, moved, or further disturbed. The King County Medical Examiner will assume jurisdiction over the human skeletal remains, and make a determination of whether those remains are forensic or non -forensic. If the King County Medical Examiner determines the remains are non -forensic, they will report that finding to the DAHP. DAHP will then take jurisdiction over those remains and report them to the appropriate cemeteries and affected tribes. The State Physical Anthropologist will make a determination of whether the remains are Indian or non -Indian, and report that finding to any appropriate cemeteries and the affected tribes. The DAHP will then handle all consultation with the affected parties as to the future preservation, excavation, and disposition of the remains. Cultural Resources Assessment for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, City of Kent Green River Levees 21 Improvement Project, Kent, King County, Washington CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT COVER SHEET Author: Dellert, Jenny, Angus Tierney, and Jennifer Gebhardt Title of Report: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, City of Kent Green River Levees Improvement Project, Kent, King County, Washington Date of Report: March 18, 2013 County(ies): King Section: 2 Township: 22 North Range: 4 East Sections 35 and 36 Township 23 North Range 4 East Quad: Des Moines and Renton, WA quads Acres: 0.6 PDF of report submitted (REQUIRED) NI Yes Historic Property Inventory Forms to be Approved Online? n Yes 67 No Archaeological Site(s)/Isolate(s) Found or Amended? n Yes N No TCP(s) found? n Yes RI No Replace a draft? n Yes N No Satisfy a DAHP Archaeological Excavation Permit requirement?r1 Yes # Fl No Were Human Remains Found? n Yes DAHP Case # [I No DAHP Archaeological Site #: • Submission of PDFs is required. • Please be sure that any PDF submitted to DAHP has its cover sheet, figures, graphics, appendices, attachments, correspondence, etc., compiled into one single PDF file. • Please check that the PDF displays correctly when opened. PLEASE ATTACH A COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF A 7.5 SERIES USGS QUAD MAP AND OUTLINE THE PROJECT INPACT AREA. USGS Quad maps are available on-line at http://maptech.mytopo.com/onlinemaps/index.cfm Project Location Township: 22 North/23 North Range: 4 East/4 East Section: 2/35 and 36 Address: right bank of Green River between S. 200d' St. and S. 180th St. City: Kent County: WA Mail this form to: Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation or E-mail to: 1063 S. Capitol Way, Suite 106 P.O. Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Robert Whitlam, Ph.D. State Archaeologist, DAHP (360) 586-3080 rob.whitlamRdahp.wa.00v (Within 30 days DAHP will mail their opinion back to you.) Please be aware that this form may only initiate consultation. For some projects, DAHP may require additional information to complete our review such as plans, specifications, and photographs. An historic property inventory form may need to be completed by a qualified preservation professional. IN Describe the existing project site conditions: The existing site currently consists of the levee with a 10 -foot wide asphalt regional trail on top. The landward side of the existing levee is generally covered by grasses and some trees, such as cottonwood, Douglas fir, maple, elm and poplar, the majority of which are located on adjacent properties. Vegetation on the waterward side of the levee consists of willow species near the ordinary high water mark, red -osier dogwood, snowberry, grasses, including reed canary grass, Himalayan blackberry, evergreen blackberry and scotch broom. ® Describe the proposed ground disturbing activities: The ground distrubing activies will consist of removing existing trees, shrubs and lawn in the impact footprint along the landward side of the project area. The steel sheet pile walls will be installed at the back of the existing levee slope. The waterward side of the existing levee will be excavated to create a 10-40 foot wide sloping bench in Reaches 2 and 3. Areas above and below the bench will be cleared and grubbed, however, existing desirable native vegetation will be retained where possible. These areas will be replanted with native riparian vegetation. The excavated material may be placed between the sheet pile wall and the landward side of the levee if suitable. The existing asphalt trail in the project area will be removed and and new, 12-14 foot trail will be constructed adjacent the the sheet pile wall. ❑ Check if building(s) will be altered or demolished. If so please complete a DAHP Determination of Eligibility "EZ2" form for each building effected by the proposed project. PROJECT REVIEW SHEET - EZ1 HISTORIC & CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW PROPERTY / CLIENT NAME: city of Kent FUNDING AGENCY: Department of Ecology Project Applicant: Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements Contact Person: Ken Lanqholz Address: 400 West Gowe City, State: Kent, WA Zip: 98032 Phone/ FAX: (253) 856-5516 E -Mail: Klanoholz@KentWa.gov County: Kinq Funding Agency: Organization: Address: City, State: Phone: Department of Ecology (Dave Radabauqh) 3190 160th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA Zip: 98008-5452 (425) 469-4260 PLEASE DESCRIBE THE TYPE OF WORK TO BE COMPLETED (Be as detailed as possible to avoid having to provide additional information) ® Provide a detailed description of the proposed project: The Briscoe-Desimone Levee is located along the right bank (easterly side) of the Green River between S. 200th Street and S. 180th Street. The Briscoe levee is located along the right bank of the Green River between S. 200th Street and S. 189th Street within the City of Kent. The Desimone levee is located along the right bank of the Green River between S. 189th Street and S 180th Street in the City of Tukwila. Together these levee segments are approximately 2.7 miles in length and protect properties within the cities of Kent, Tukwila and Renton. Tilt -up style buildings (manufacturing and industrial) are located adjacent to the entire stretch of levee. Four sections (reaches) of the levee, approximately 4,450 linear feet, don't meet slope and stability requirements and need repair to meet FEMA accreditation requirements. Reach 1 is located between RM 14.47 and 14.63 and totals 1,050 If. Reach 2 is located between RM 15.45 and 15.57 and totals 850 If. Reach 3 is between RM 15.98 and 16.36, totaling 2,350 If, and Reach 4 is between RM 16.95 and 17.00 and totals 200 If. Reaches 1, 2 and 3 are on the outside of sharp bends in the river and Reach 4 is just north of the S. 200th Street Bridge. Structural steel sheet pile walls are proposed to be installed at the back of the existing levee slope to act as a secondary levee to reduce flood risk to the cities of Kent, Tukwila and Renton and protect the large number of warehouses, manufacturing facilities and some retail establishments behind these levees. In addition, large stumps and roots will be removed in areas between the four reaches along the levee where they could compromise levee stability and/or are in the construction project area. This proposal includes some re -vegetation and habitat restoration work along the river between the ordinary high water mark and the trail in areas where the wall is constructed. Disturbed soil will be hydroseeded and or mulched and planted. Benches will be constructed where feasible along the riverbank. In areas where the wall is proposed, the existing asphalt recreational trail will be relocated to be adjacent to the wall. l \ Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 14. Kent City Code Section 15, Kent Zoning Code. 15. Kent City Code Section 7.13, Water Shortage and Emergency Regulations, and Water Conservation Ordinance 2227. 16. Kent City Code Section 6.03, Improvement Plan Approval and Inspection Fees. 17. Kent City Code Section 7.05, Storm and Surface Water Drainage Utility. 18. City of Kent Comprehensive Sewer Plan. 19. City of Kent Fire Master Plan. 20. City of Kent Section 11.06, Critical Areas. B. It is recommended that a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) be issued for this project with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall evaluate the impacts to shallow groundwater movement through the floodwall. If impacts to groundwater are identified, appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented to mitigate the impact. Such measures could include, but are not limited to staggering the lengths of the sheet piles to allow flow through or providing openings in the sheet piles to allow for groundwater movement through the wall. 2. The applicant shall finish the flood wall on both the landward and waterward sides with aesthetic elements such as colors, textures or patterns to enhance the appearance and promote compatibility with surrounding uses. The final finish material shall be submitted for review and approval by Planning Services. KENT PLANNING SERVICES April 9, 2013 EG: jm\S: \Permit\Plan\Env\2013\2130616declsion.doc Page 13 of 13 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA -2013- 2/RPS P-2130617 maintained, with slight modifications as needed to allow maintenance vehicles to get over the new flood wall. Maintenance access to Reach 4 may be modified to provide a direct connection to South 200th Street. Maintenance access to Reach 1 from West Valley Highway may also need some modifications. A traffic control plan will be prepared to reduce traffic impacts during construction. The proposed project will not generate additional traffic trips. L. Public Services The proposal will not generate the need for increased public services. M. Utilities An existing 8 -inch storm pipe located in Reach 1 will be extended through the new flood wall and a flap gate installed. No other utility improvements are anticipated at this time, but utility relocations may become necessary as a result of construction. IV. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION A. Per WAC 197-11-660 and RCW 43.21C.060, the City of Kent may establish conditions to mitigate any identified impacts associated with this proposal. The following supporting documents serve as possible bases for any conditions and mitigating measures: 1. City of Kent Comprehensive Plan, as prepared and adopted pursuant to the State Growth Management Act. 2. The State Shoreline Management Act and the Kent Shoreline Master Program. 3. Kent City Code Section 7.07, Surface Water and Drainage Code. 4. City of Kent Transportation Plan, Green River Valley Transportation action plan and current Six -Year Transportation Improvement Plan. 5. Kent City Code Section 7.09, Wastewater Facilities Plan. 6. City of Kent Comprehensive Water Plan and Conservation Element. 7. Kent City Code Section 6.02, Required Public Improvements. 8. Kent City Code Section 6.07, Street Use Permit Requirements. 9. Kent City Code Section 14.09, Flood Hazard Protection. 10. Kent City Code Section 12.04, Subdivision Code. 11. Kent City Code Section 12.05, Mobile Horne Parks and Section 12.06, Recreation Vehicle Parks. 12. Kent City Code Section 8.05, Noise Control. 13. City of Kent International Building and Fire Codes. Page 12 of 13 � 1 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 3. Historic and Cultural Preservation A Cultural Resources report was prepared for this project, entitled Cultural Resources Assessment for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, City of Kent Green River Levees Improvement Project, prepared by Historical Research Associates, Inc., dated March 18, 2013. This report found no previously recorded archaeological sites, no historic - period buildings, structures or objects and no archaeological resources in the area of impact. The report notes that proximity to the Green River and historical homesteading and agriculture activities would typically mean a high probability of intact archaeological remains; but given the frequency of flooding events and ground disturbance from construction of business parks, utility lines and the levee system the probability of intact archaeological remains is in fact low to moderate. Should archaeological materials (e.g. bones, shell, stone tools, beads, ceramics, old bottles, hearths, etc.) or human remains be observed during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity should stop. The State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the City should be contacted immediately in order to help assess the situation and determine how to preserve the resource(s). Compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to archaeological resources (RCW 27.53, 27.44 and WAC 25-48) is required. The City's Shoreline Master Program includes policies and regulations regarding archaeological and historic resources. Accordingly, a condition to this effect will be added to the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe members fish in this section of the river. The tribe has requested that the City coordinate with them at least 30 days in advance of construction to avoid interference with tribal fishing activities and access. The Public Works Department has agreed to do so. The City's Shoreline Master Program includes policies and regulations regarding public access and coordination with affected tribes, and the shoreline conditional use criteria require compatibility with other authorized uses. Accordingly, a condition will be added to the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit regarding coordination with the Muckleshoot tribe. K. Transportation South 200th Street is located at the south end of the project area at Reach 4, South 190th Street is located near Reaches 2 and 3 and West Valley Highway at the north end of the project at Reach 1. Access to properties in the project vicinity will be maintained during construction. Existing levee maintenance access points will be Page 11 of 13 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 The existing trail on top of the levee berm will be removed and a new, wider (12 - 14 feet wide) paved trail will be installed further landward adjacent to the flood wall. All existing public access points will be maintained and where necessary, stairways will be constructed. The furthest distance between public access points will be a quarter mile. Hand rails will be placed on top of the flood wall to ensure safety of pedestrians using the trail. View corridors through the vegetation will be provided to ensure preservation of public views and safety for users of the Green River Trail. This will be accomplished by using several different planting zones; low, medium and high density. All planting zones will be densely covered with shrubs for habitat purposes, but the low and medium density zones will space the trees in a way to allow sightlines. John Neller, a cyclist who regularly uses the Green River Trail submitted a comment requesting that trail users be notified a minimum of 2 weeks prior to trail closure. Mr. Neller complained that prior levee projects did not notify trail users until the day of the closure, resulting in inconvenience and frustration especially for those using the trail to commute to or from work. The City does provide advance notification of trail closures on their website, but not on-site. The City's Shoreline Master Program includes policies and regulations regarding public access and recreation. The shoreline conditional use criteria contained in WAC 173-27-160 and referenced in the City's, Shoreline Master Program require provisions for normal public use of public shorelines. Accordingly, a condition will be added to the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit regarding on-site advance notification to trail users. Briscoe Park is located in the river bend northwest of South 190th Street, which contains trails, a picnic shelter and a portable restroom. No levee work will be done within Briscoe Park itself. A separate parking lot located south of Briscoe Park adjacent to the cul-de-sac bulb of South 190th Street provides parking for Briscoe Park and the Green River Trail. This parking area will be used as a construction staging -area, and consequently will be closed during construction. The Kent Parks Department indicates that Briscoe Park is primarily used by pedestrians and cyclists from the trail as opposed to recreationists arriving by car; so temporary closure of the lot will be a minor impact. The parking area typically contains 8 to 10 cars each day, primarily employees of the adjacent business to the south. Due to vacancy of other buildings in the River's Edge Business Park, adequate on-site parking is present to serve employees during closure of the City parking lot. To allow for trail and park access following construction of the flood wall, the parking lot will be raised to match the trail elevation. This will improve trail access by providing ADA accessibility as well as maintenance access. Page 10 of 13 f1 f1 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 Flood Control District. A special use permit may be required from King County for staging use. The one remaining business, if still present will be consulted to minimize impacts to their business operation. The entire project area is located within 200 feet of the Green River, a Shoreline of Statewide Significance. Accordingly Reach 2, 3 and 4 of the proposed project are subject to the City of Kent Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Reach 1 and a small portion of Reach 2 are subject to the Tukwila SMP. The Kent portion of the project area is designated by the Kent SMP as High Intensity, with a parallel designation of Urban Conservancy -Open Space where the Green River Trail is located. The Tukwila portion is designated by the Tukwila SMP as Urban Conservancy. Applications for Shoreline Substantial Development and Shoreline Conditional Use Permits were submitted to the City of Kent with the Environmental Checklist. Separate shoreline permits will be submitted to the City of Tukwila at a later date. H. Aesthetics The above -ground portion of the sheet pile wall will range from 8 feet to 13 feet tall when viewed from the adjacent businesses and will diminish views of the river. On the trail side, the flood wall will extend approximately 3 feet above the surface of the new trail, plus a 1.5 foot handrail. Construction materials identified for the flood wall include steel and concrete, but the ultimate finish treatment has not yet been identified. Appearance of the proposed flood wall is important in this area as it is being constructed along a regional public trail system and through high quality, attractive industrial parks. As the new trail location will directly abut the flood wall, aesthetic treatment is necessary to maintain an attractive and enjoyable environment that encourages public use of the trail. The Industrial Park (M1) zoning district is intended to provide areas for those industrial activities that desire to conduct business in a prestigious environment. This intent is supported by aesthetic standards such as landscape screening requirements in the City's Zoning Code. In order to support the City's goals for the M1 district and to be compatible with surrounding business and recreational uses, it is important that the flood wall be finished with materials, colors or textures that create visual interest. I. Recreation The Green River Trail provides biking and walking opportunities along the river. Use of the trail will be restricted temporarily during construction, requiring users to detour around the construction area. Page 9 of 13 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 F. Environmental Health There is a slight risk of spills or fire due to the use of petroleum fuels for construction equipment. All fuel containers will be stored off-site in a staging area and will remain in secondary containment when not actively in use. Spill kits and a site specific spill response plan will be kept on-site at all times during construction. Some noise will be generated from trucks and heavy equipment during site construction and vibratory equipment will be used for sheet pile installation. Some vibration and noise may be noticeable to nearby properties during this period; however, construction activity will be temporary and will only take place Monday through Friday 7:OOam to 7:OOpm. Mufflers will be required on all vehicles and equipment with internal combustion engines. Impact hammers will not be allowed for sheet pile installation. G. Land and Shoreline Use The project area spans several zoning districts, including M1 (Industrial Park) and M2 (Limited Industrial) in the Kent portion. The Tukwila portion is zoned C/LI (Commercial Light Industrial). The corresponding Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designations are Open Space and Industrial in the Kent portion; and Commercial Light Industrial in the Tukwila portion. Properties within the project area are currently used as a levee and recreational trail. Properties surrounding the project area are developed with warehousing, manufacturing and other light industrial uses. Completion of the proposed project will not permanently alter any of the existing uses in the area, with the exception of the Riverpoint Corporate Center (APN 7888900170) near Reach 1, which may lose up to 40 parking stalls if the flood wall is shifted further south. The City is working with the King County Flood Control District to agree on the wall's location. In the event of this change, the City will work directly with the property owner to redesign the parking area. Using parallel parking spaces and other adjustments, up to 15 stalls may be gained back. The business will be compensated for any lost parking. The western portion of the Stress -Tek parking lot (APN 7888800140) and the south portion of the Rivers Edge Business Park (APN 7888800100) may be used as construction staging areas. The City will work directly with the Stress -Tek owner to minimize impacts to their business operation. Two of the three Rivers Edge Business Park buildings are vacant, with the property now owned by the King County Page 8 of 13 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC -2013=1/ RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 E. Animals Puget Sound Chinook Salmon, Coastal -Puget Sound Bull Trout, and Puget Sound Steelhead are all federally endangered or threatened species identified within the Green River, located within the project area. The Green River is also designated as critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook Salmon and Coastal -Puget Sound Bull Trout. Marbled Murrelet is a threatened species which has been documented in King County in limited instances. However, due to absence of suitable nesting habitat, no nesting is expected in the action area. Other birds including hawk, heron, eagle, kingfisher, flicker, robin, crow, towhee, blackbird, duck, junco, chickadee and dipper have been observed in the project area. Mammals and rodents including beaver, vole, rabbit, otter, coyote, raccoon, opossum and rats are known to utilize the project area as well. A biological assessment was prepared for the City in 2011 which analyzed all planned levee segments, including the Briscoe-Desimone segment. This document, entitled Biological Assessment for Green River Levee Improvements, River Mile 14.25 to River Mile 22.00, prepared by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., dated October 3, 2011 concludes that through avoidance of in -water work and with implementation of the TESC plan, SWPPP, and stormwater control and treatment measures, the project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect Bull trout, Puget Sound Chinook, Puget Sound steelhead, Marbled Murrelets and their designated critical habitat. An addendum was prepared for the Briscoe-Desimone levee segment, which analyzes design details that have changed since the 2011 report. This addendum is entitled Addendum to Biological Assessment, Green River Levee Improvements Project, River Mile 14.25 to River Mile 22.0 prepared by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., dated February 20, 2013. This addendum concludes that the effects determinations remain unchanged from the determinations listed in the 2011 report. The Briscoe-Desimone levee project will improve riparian habitat conditions along 4,400 lineal feet of the Green River. The proposed trees and shrubs to be planted on the waterward side of the existing levee berm will provide nesting and rearing habitat for birds and small mammals. The enhanced riparian area will benefit fish by increasing shade, woody debris, insect drop and leaf litter. Creation of a sloped floodplain bench that will be inundated for approximately 40 days during the primary juvenile salmonid outmigration period (January - June) will improve habitat significantly over the current, invasive dominated, steep -walled levee condition. Page 7 of 13 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 According to the Biological Assessment, the slight increase in impervious surface will not adversely affect water quality after the project is completed largely because the trail is a non -pollution generating surface. According to the Addendum to Biological Assessment, Green River Levee Improvements Project, River Mile 14.25 to River Mile 22.0 prepared by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., dated February 20, 2013, a net change in flow in the Green River is not anticipated as a result of the project. The majority of water that falls onto the project area will infiltrate once the disturbed areas are re -planted and vegetation on the benches has become established. D. Plants A variety of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs and grasses are present in the project area; primarily located behind the existing levee berm. The waterward side of the berm is vegetated primarily with non-native species such as Himalayan blackberry and reed canary grass, with some willows and snowberry at or below the ordinary high water mark. Approximately 277 trees and 29 stumps will be removed as a result of the project (primarily on the landward side of the berm), in addition to invasive or non-native vegetation. A minimum of 280 trees and 3,000 shrubs will be planted as mitigation on the excavated benches. The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and Department of Ecology submitted comments regarding temperature conditions in the Green River and the related shading benefits provided by mature riparian vegetation on the riverbank. The Tribe feels the vegetated area along the river is not wide enough to adequately address temperature impairment. They are also concerned the new vegetation will be subject to the US Army Corps of Engineers vegetation policy which does not allow trees over 10 inch in diameter within 15 feet of accredited levees. Construction of the proposed floodwall will provide the city with the opportunity to plant large overstory trees that are not subject to diameter or height restrictions along the banks of the river because the floodwall serves as the levee, and therefore the Corps vegetation poky waterward of the "levee" does not apply. These large trees will, in time, provide significant shade to this reach of the river where very little currently exists. View corridors through the vegetation will be provided to ensure preservation of public views and safety for users of the Green River Trail. This will be accomplished by using several different planting zones: low, medium and high density. All planting zones will be densely covered with shrubs for habitat purposes, but the low and medium density zones will space the trees in a way to allow sightlines. Page 6 of 13 f 1 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 Approval will be required from the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all necessary federal and state permits. No wetlands were identified within the project improvement limits, according to the Biological Assessment, Green River Levee Improvements, River Mlle 14.25 to River Mile 22.0, prepared by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., dated October 3, 2011. The portion of the project area that is located on the waterward side of the existing levee berm is within the Green River floodway. Excavation of the proposed planting benches will increase flood storage by approximately 40,000 cubic yards. The applicant has submitted a completed Flood Zone Control Permit to the City of Kent and will be required to comply with the City's flood hazard regulations in Kent City Code Chapter 14.09. The applicant will also submit a Flood Zone Control Permit to the City of Tukwila to comply with Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 16.52. 2. Groundwater The project area is not located within a critical aquifer recharge area and no groundwater will be withdrawn as a result of this project. Joan Nolan from the Washington State Department of Ecology submitted a comment letter which indicated that this reach of the Green River is a groundwater gaining reach and raised concerns about how the sheet pile wall will affect groundwater flow. The City is evaluating the impacts to shallow groundwater movement through the floodwall reaches with consideration for the prevailing groundwater movements in this area as well as near the river, the length and orientation of the floodwall, and the geology of the site. If impacts to groundwater are identified, appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented to mitigate the impact. Such measures could include, but are not limited to staggering the lengths of the sheet piles to allow flow through or providing openings in the sheet piles to allow for groundwater movement through the wall. 3. Stormwater Runoff The main source of stormwater runoff will be the existing parking lot proposed to be raised, as well as the non -pollution generating trail. For the parking lot, the applicant will comply with the water quality control requirements of the 2002 City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual. Due to the new trail being slightly wider than before, there will be a slight increase in impervious surfaces. Page 5 of 13 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 permitted excavation sites and cut material will be taken directly to an approved site. No stockpiling will occur on site. Exposed, cleared or excavated areas have the potential for erosion to occur. ,Appropriate best management practices (BMP's) will be implemented to control erosion potential throughout the course of the project. The applicant will prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) meeting all the requirements of the Department of Ecology National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater General Permit (CSWGP). The applicant will also obtain an NPDES permit coverage letter from DOE, and will maintain the construction site and conduct water quality sampling pursuant to the CSWGP requirements. The applicant will prepare a Detailed Grading Plan and a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan for the entire development. For the Kent portion of the project, these plans are required to meet the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards and the City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual. For the Tukwila portion, plans must comply with Tukwila Municipal Code 16.54 (Grading) and 14.30 (Surface Water Management), as well as the City of .Tukwila Surface Water Design Manual and Public Works Infrastructure and Design and Construction Standards. B. Air During project construction there will be a slight increase in vehicle exhaust and emissions caused by construction equipment and construction vehicles entering and leaving the project area. All construction equipment will be equipped with standard mufflers and emission control equipment. Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented during construction to suppress dust. These BMPs will include covering soil stockpiles, applying water to exposed soil during dry weather, and sweeping affected paved areas. The completed project will not cause an increase in vehicle trips or contribute to air quality degradation. C. Water 1. Surface Water The project area is within 200 feet of the Green River, a Shoreline of Statewide Significance. Applications for Shoreline Substantial Development and Shoreline Conditional Use Permits for work within the City of Kent were submitted with the Environmental Checklist for the proposed project. No work will occur below the ordinary high water mark of the Green River; however a Hydraulic Project Page 4 of 13 t - Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC=2013.1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 The existing asphalt trail will be removed and relocated further landward adjacent to the flood wall, with handrails placed on top of the wall. The flood wall will extend approximately 3 feet above the surface of the new trail, plus a 1.5 foot handrail. Approximately 6,000 cubic yards of fill material will be used to construct the new trail. All existing public access points will be maintained and where necessary, stairways will be constructed. The Green River Trail will be temporarily closed in sections during construction, with detours provided, and will return to normal operations after construction. The parking lot serving the Green River Trail located adjacent to the cul-de- sac bulb of South 190th Street will be raised to match the trail elevation. This will improve trail access by providing ADA accessibility as well as maintenance access. Existing use of other adjacent properties will remain unchanged. The Kent portion of the project (Briscoe) is located on the east bank of the Green River between South 200th Street and South 189th Street, identified as King County Parcel Numbers 0222049047, 0000200044, 0000200043, 7888800090, 7888800111, 7888800140, 7888800155, and 7888800210. The Tukwila portion of the project (Desimone) is located on the east bank of the Green River between South 189th Street and South 180th Street, identified as King County Parcel Numbers 7888900110, 7888900170 and 7888900150. The project area spans several zoning districts, including M1 (Industrial Park) and M2 (Limited Industrial) in the Kent portion. The Tukwila portion is zoned C/LI (Commercial Light Industrial). II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Any conditions applied to the following Determination of Nonsignificance are applied because identified impacts cannot adequately be addressed by existing City of Kent and City of Tukwila codes and ordinances. III. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS A. Earth The combined project area of approximately 8 acres is flat, with the exception of the existing levee berm which has slopes in the range of 50% to 80%. Soils in the area are categorized by the King County Soils Survey as Newberg silt loam, Puyallup fine sandy loam and Urban Land gravelly sandy loam. Approximately 6,000 cubic yards of fill material will be used to construct the new trail and approximately 40,000 cubic yards of material will be removed to create the planting benches. Fill material will include sand, gravel and asphalt pavement for the trail, as well as compost and amended topsoil for plantings on the excavated benches. All fill materials will be obtained from Page 3 of 13 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 Figure 1: Project Map Figure 2: Cross Section of Proposed Design Page 2 of 13 •/ KENT WASHINGTON ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING SERVICES Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REPORT Decision Document BRISCOE-DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS ENV -2013-3/ RPSW-2130616 SMC -2013-1/ RPP3-2130618 SMA -2013-2/ RPSP-2130617 Responsible Official: Charlene Anderson, AICP Staff Contact: Erin George, AICP I. PROPOSAL The City of Kent Public Works Department proposes to install a structural steel sheet pile wall at the back of the existing levee slope to act as a secondary levee to reduce flood risk to the cities of Kent, Tukwila and Renton. The proposed flood wall will provide a minimum of 3 feet of freeboard above the predicted 500 -year flood event in order to meet FEMA accreditation requirements. The flood wall will be constructed in four segments ("reaches") along the east bank of the Green River, between South 200th Street and South 180th Street. The northernmost segment ("Reach 1") and a small piece of Reach 2 are located within the City of Tukwila (see Figure 1, next page). The City of Kent is acting as SEPA lead agency for the entire project, but separate shoreline permits will be submitted to Tukwila. The sheet piles will be installed using vibratory equipment (but no impact hammers) and will be between 23 and 64 feet deep, depending on location. The above -ground portion of the wall will range from 8 feet to 13 feet tall, when viewed from surrounding businesses. To allow for re -vegetation and habitat restoration, benches will be constructed where feasible along the riverbank (see Figure 2, next page). These benches will entail excavation between the ordinary high water mark and the existing Green River trail to create a bench of up to 15 feet wide where native trees and shrubs will be planted. Approximately 40,000 cubic yards of material will be removed to create the planting benches. An estimated 277 trees and 29 stumps will be removed, in addition to invasive or non-native vegetation. A minimum of 280 trees and 3,000 shrubs will be planted as mitigation on the excavated benches. Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW -2130616 Applicant: Ken Langholz, City of Kent Public Works Lead Agency: Cm OF KENT The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. X There is no comment period for this DNS pursuant to WAC 197-11-355 Optional DNS process. There is no comment period for this DNS. This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date of this decision; this constitutes a 14 -day comment period. Comments must be submitted by . This DNS is subject to appeal pursuant to Kent City Code section 11.03.520. Responsible Official: Charlene Anderson, AICP Position/Title: Planning Manager / SEPA OFFICIAL Address: 220 S. Fourth Avenue, Kent, WA 98032 , Telephone: (253) 56-5454 Dated: April 9, 2013 Signature: APPEAL PROCESS, AN APPEAL OF A DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) MUST BE MADE TO THE KENT HEARING EXAMINER WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS FOLLOWING THE DATE OF THIS DECISION PER KENT CITY CODE 11.03.520. CONDITIONS/ MITIGATING MEASURES: 1. The applicant shall evaluate the impacts to shallow groundwater movement through the floodwall. If impacts to groundwater are identified, appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented to mitigate the impact. Such measures could include, but are not limited to staggering the lengths of the sheet piles to allow flow through or providing openings in the sheet piles to allow for groundwater movement through the wall. 2. The applicant shall finish the flood wall on both the landward and waterward sides with aesthetic elements such as colors, textures or patterns to enhance the appearance and promote compatibility with surrounding uses. The . final finish material shall be submitted for review and approval by Planning Services. jm\S : \Permit\Plan\Env\2013\2130616-2013-3d nsopt. doc 3 of 3 f _1 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 Figure 1: Project Map CITY OF KENT ' Figure 2: Cross Section of Proposed Design AREA ►D� -7-7-777177 ROOD FAIL iM51IND GRDUND 2 of 3 614P KENT WASHIMOTOM CITY OF KENT MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Environmental Checklist No.: #ENV -2013-3 Project: Briscoe-Desimone #RPSW-2130616 Levee Improvements Description: The City of Kent Public Works Department proposes to install a structural steel sheet pile wall at the back of the existing levee slope to act as a secondary levee to reduce flood risk to the cities of Kent, Tukwila and Renton, The proposed flood wall will provide a minimum of 3 feet of freeboard above the predicted 500 -year flood event in order to meet FEMA accreditation requirements, The flood wall will be constructed in four segments ("reaches") along the east bank of the Green River, between South 200th Street and South 180th Street. The northernmost segment ("Reach 1") and a small piece of Reach 2 are located within the City of Tukwila (see Figure 1, next page). The City of Kent is acting as SEPA lead agency for the entire project, but separate shoreline permits will be submitted to Tukwila. The sheet piles will be installed using vibratory equipment (but no impact hammers) and will be between 23 and 64 feet deep, depending on location. The above -ground portion of the wall will range from 8 feet to 13 feet tall, when viewed from surrounding businesses. To allow for re - vegetation and habitat restoration, benches will be constructed where feasible along the riverbank (see Figure 2, next page). These benches will entail excavation between the ordinary high water mark and the existing Green River trail to create a bench of up to 15 feet wide where native trees and shrubs will be planted. Approximately 40,000 cubic yards of material will be removed to create the planting benches, An estimated 277 trees and 29 stumps will be removed, in addition to invasive or non-native vegetation. A minimum of 280 trees and 3,000 shrubs will be planted as mitigation on the excavated benches. The existing asphalt trail will be removed and relocated further landward adjacent to the flood wall, with handrails placed on top of the wall. The flood wall will extend approximately 3 feet above the surface of the new trail, plus a 1.5 foot handrail. Approximately 6,000 cubic yards of fill material will be used to construct the new trail. All existing public access points will be maintained and where necessary, stairways will be constructed. The Green River Trail will be temporarily closed in sections during construction, with detours provided, and will return to normal operations after construction. The parking lot serving the Green River Trail located adjacent to the cul-de-sac bulb of South 190th Street will be raised to match the trail elevation. This will improve trail access by providing ADA accessibility as well as maintenance access. Existing use of other adjacent properties will remain unchanged. The Kent portion of the project (Briscoe) is located on the east bank of the Green River between South 200th Street and South 189th Street, identified as King County Parcel Numbers 0222049047, 0000200044, 0000200043, 7888800090, 7888800111, 7888800140, 7888800155, and 7888800210. The Tukwila portion of the project (Desimone) is located on the east bank of the Green River between South 189th Street and South 180th Street, identified as King County Parcel Numbers 7888900110, 7888900170 and 7888900150. The project area spans several zoning districts, including M1 (Industrial Park) and M2 (Limited Industrial) in the Kent portion. The Tukwila portion is zoned C/U (Commercial Light Industrial). SHEET INDEX 1 COVER SHEET 2-6 TREE SURVEY 'KENT WASHINGTON CITY OF KENT SUZETTE COOKE - MAYOR MEMBERS OF CRY COUNCIL 9.RABEHI ALBE i1SON BML BOYCE - DENIS MOMS JAMIE HERBY DANA RALPH f) RANIdCfR 1.E9 THOM46 ", TMA LAPORTE - D1RECTO9 OF PUSUC WORKSRONALD MOORE - CITY CLERK CHAD alma - CITY etviEei TCM BRI.BAKER- CITY ATTOSNEY PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT BRISCOE-DESIMONE LEVEE TREE SURVEY JOB NUMBERS 09-3010 AND 09-3011 G:\Desia1909-301: DESIMO1JE WALL59/99LSEPA\Coy er-SHA-Tree Survey919p, 2/17/20139 51:51131 MIL .1. AVIV es eT oulu ea" City of Kent Public Works Department TNT rn8ineoring Divisor TREE SURVEY PLAN STA. 815+00 TO 819+00 BRISCOE• & DESIMONE • • -LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS 2a a G:\Oe !;n\093011 GESiMGNE tvAIJ Sidwp�SEVA\Trte Survey 6.Mq 3/]3/]01310:10:36-A ottott. tor Da -re DT ODIT DAD City of Kent Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division - TREE SURVEY PLAN STA. 819+00 TO 823+00 BRISCOE & DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS S. n\00-3011 OESIMONE WALLSd,p\SEPA\Tree Survey>.du. 2/22/201310:13:32 A City of Kent • Public Works Depetmcn3 •RENT Engineering Division TREE SURVEY PIAN STA. 844+00 TO 849+00 BRISCOE & DESIMONE • LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS 4cs e G:\Des1On\09-3011 DESIMONE WALL$\d.,ASEPA\Tree Survey O.Owp, 2/22/2013 10:10:26: AM anoto oas r -m VA K 014 City of Kent Public Works Department HENT Engineering Division TREE SURVEY PLAN STA. 849+00 TO 853+00 BRISCOE & DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS snttr se e G_\Dc n\09-3011 DESIMptiE WnLLS\NY9\SEVWree Ra Y 9.Ew9 2/22/201 EVAInglion Mae 't OCR Mtmeo City of Kent Public Works Depntfinent KENT EngineelingDivLian TREE SURVEY PLAN STA. 853+00 TO 858+00 BRISCOE & DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS • eae G:\Design\09-3011 DESIMONE WALLS \RwW\SEM \Tree Surrey 10.tlw9 2/13/30 astaotv ins sinzo ri City of Kent Public Works Department KEN? Engineering Division TREE SURVEY PLAN STA. 858+00 TO 863+00 BRISCOE & DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS Sae GA0esien109.301I DESIMONE WALLS\Qvp'SEPA\Trce Survey 11A,g 2122/201310:53:12 AM REACH 3 REACH 4 TREE SURVEY PLAN STA. 863+00 TO 864+00 AND STA. 895+00 TO 897+00 BRISCOE & DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS G:1De>Kn109-3011 DES11.011 CIALLS00,o SESA\Trtc Survey 12.6.9 2/32/2013 40:33:35 PLACE TOP OF 000180LL I INCH ABOVE THE LEVEL OF NATIVE SOL. 3 INCH 000 1 HOO NEL MULCH NOT WOWG STEN T ORCUNG ROOTS AND SPREAD OR -BUTTERFLY ROOTBHL MATY£ SOL TOW (EL 393) OUSTING GROUND TREE TE SHALL NOT CONSTRICT TREE DEIELOPIIENT STAKE ONLY R NECESSARY (TYPICALLY IF TREE IS GREATER THAN 4 FEET TALL) STAKE TREE AT 1/3 HEIGHT OF TIE. USE 'TREE TIES OR ENGINEER APPROVED DREVALENT. REMOVE STAKE AND TE AFTER 1 YEAR REST BOTDM OF IV019AAL ON UNDISTURBED NATVE SOL MATH OF PLANTING HOE SHALL BE 0T LEAST 1.5 TINF5 THE NAIH OF THE ROOTBALL SPREAD A 3 FOOT MNNULT DIAMETER MULCH NG (DONUT) AROUND RIE PLANING HOE TYPICAL TREE PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE 514 0,)q PAVED TRAIL - ROOD WALL T3 -EL 36.45 RED ROME} 05 CURRANT (6). OR COMMON SNOWRERRY (5') RED SRN LEAP/0I19/S (101. OR TALL OREGON GRAPE (B) EOM. 1. HEIGHTS USTED ARE TYPICAL MATURE HEIGHT OF RESPECTIVE SHRUB SPECIES. MACK TIWNBERRY (10) NPA (13')) NEBARK (1 STATION: 9+50 omicron ED (s) SHRUBS ONLY LANDSCAPE SECTION EXISTING SCALE: 1• _ 5' VECETATRN 3 0401 DEPTH HOG FUEL MULCH NOT RNICIING STAR OFT CIRCLING ROOTS AND SPREAD OR 'euTTEIZRY RODTBALL PLACE TOP OF ROOTBALL 1 INCE ABOVE TIE LEVET. OF lNATVE SOL MTH NATIVE SOL BY ONLY.AND COMPACT MODERATELY EST BOTTOM OF OOTBALLON LRAISTURB10ED TWINE SOIL 1101H OF TING HOLE CNN (EL 17) LIVE STAKING AREA: BURY AT LEAST 2 UIERAL BUDS BELOW GRADE. TYPICALLY PLANTING HOE1[2 OF STAKE LENGTH 2' OR S' LINE STAKES. 3/4" - 2 OW! FR TYPICAL LIVE STAKE PLANTING DETAIL PREDRILL NAYS WITH A PUNCH APPROAWTLY THE DIAMETER OF INE STAKES TYPICAL SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE StiLt RENSION Di DIY PIN•Ti City of Kent Public Works Department LENT Engineering Division REACH 3 LANDSCAPE DETAILS BRISCOE & DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS AMYL 19 a 19 I r\ >bo, OR.O.R FIDECT Pi Weft YOWL WW1 City of Kent Public Works Department It�NT Engineering Division REACH 3 LANDSCAPE DETAILS BRISCOE & DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS Va 19 TOWARDS DULL TOWARDS RIVER TOWARDS WALL TOWARDS RIVER 1W' VARIES SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN 011 SHEET X EDGE 00 CLEAR AREA x X) o.. \ x X X X X x x X X X X X X X x X X x X x X X X �..l.IXX X X X> X XXXxX x X BW X X X X x X 0 x OX X X X 0 0 X 0 0 0 X X X 00 s� 00x x00000 0 000 X 00 XG 00 �0 0 oVo"N �oO00�000000 000Oe°3o�JDo0 oo GRANTEE$ EVERGREEN TREES: 3 DECIDUOUS TREES: 3 SHIRT SHRUBS 30 TALL SHRUBS 60 WALLOW 30 =GENE. BLL: BIO LEAF MAPLE CA CASCARA DH: BLACK HAWTHORN DF. DOUGLAS LTR C. WESTERN RED CEDAR SP: SNORE PRE TYPICAL PLANT SPACING DETAIL LIGHT DENSITY LANDSCAPE AREA NOT TO SCALE 100. VARIES, SEE LANDSCAPE PUN 081 SHEET X EDGE OF CLEAR AREA OUANEUTIE( DECIDUOUS EVERGREEN TREES 5 DECIDUOUS TREES 6 SHORT SHRUBS: 40 TALL SHRUBS 6D MALLOW 6D PRFND BC: OMER CHERRY CA: CASCARA BIM: BIG LEAF MAPLE DP DOUGLAS R BH: BLACK HAWTHORN OA: IREGOR ASH C. WESTERN REO CEDAR S STK/ SPRUCE TYPICAL PLANT SPACING DETAIL HIGH DENSITY LANDSCAPE AREA NOT TO SCALE s. go€ 3 LANDSCAPE LEGEND ., \ EVERGREEN TREE G TALL SHORT SHRUBB //V'' X SHRUB 1 0 WILLOW 0VE STAKE (\\ ,,) maims TREE TOWARDS WALL TOWARDS RIVER GENERAL NOTES 1. ALL PLANTS MILL BE NAT VE SPECIES 2 EXACT PLANT LOCATIONS WILL FIELD -ADJUSTED BY CITY Or KENT ECOL0IISE 3. FOR SPECIES MIX, 92E AND DUANTIIES, SEE PUNTMG SCHEDULE 100' VARIES. SEE LANDSCAPE PUN ON SHEET X E0GE OF CLEAR AREA 91.538M9E5 EVERBA091NEN1(4 TREES 4 DECIDUOUS TREES 4 SHORT SHRUBS 40 TALL SHRUBS: 60 WILLOW: 40 I EC.END BLL: MG LEAF MAPLE DE: DOUGLAS FR ACK HAWTHORN OA: OREGON ASH 0: BL C: WESTERN RED CEDAR S: SMA SPRUCE CA. CASCARA TYPICAL PLANT SPACING DETAIL MEDIUM DENSITY LANDSCAPE AREA NOT TO SCALE 4/00-01) M �I /po WryofDem JN Nug Works Department V I4.NT Engineering Division REACH 3 LANDSCAPE DETAILS BRISCOE & DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS 6 o 19 1 GENERAL NOTES 1. N0 RORK BELOW ORDINARY HGH WATER, CROWD AS ELEVATION 10.5-17, SEE GRADING PLAN. SHEET 13, RAL BE ALLOWED. STA: 1+90 P1 ANnNc APIN*N6F 1. EXCAVATE BENCH AREA. 2. INCORPORATE COMPOST INTO BENCH AND 90PE AREA. 3. 410R05EED ENTIRE C1EAREO AREA (SEPTEMBER). 4. INSTALL PLANTINGS (OCTOBER -NOVEMBER . 5. 11 CISTERNS AND DRIP IRRIGATION. ) 6. MAINTNN PLANTINGS FCR TAO YEARS. TYPE AND SPACNG OF VEGETATION VARIES. SEE HATCH LEGEND EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION EXCAVATED BENCH VARIES AA TYPICAL LANDSCAPE SECTION NOT TO SCALE STA 2W3D EDSTNG GRd/NO STA: 5490 01TW (E_ 16.5-17, SEE p 6RADINNGPLAN. SNET 13) STA: 16.20 STA: 15+70 GOB STA: 10460 a i 00.Kei 1�N DTIV 1 S 190th ST HATCH LEGEND I NYDROSEED AREA )On n n j/ SS_ SHRUBS ONLY LANDSCAPE AREA SEE, SEE SHEETS A5 LABELED LIGHT ONSET LANDSCAPE AREA SEE DETAIL 1 ON 540£6 16 MEDIUM DENSITY LANDSCAPE AREA SEE DETAIL 2 ON SHEET 16 Hd DENSITY LANDSCAPE MEA SEE DETAIL 3 ON SHEET 16 REVISION BY (IBIS Oulbe mor arc Row. ImP City of Kent Public Works DPpolment KENT Engineering Division REACH 3 LANDSCAPE PLAN BRISCOE & DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS 91LET 15 G6 19 nu NO. LANDSCAPE SPECIFICATIONS FtBIER A 1. PEDAL PROVEMOX AND 1HE SGWIARO WFP.pt('An1M5 FOR All N ANT MATERIALS 001 MDR FTF NSTAI 1 ARON AND MAINTENANCE 0*1DItA1 NOTTS MALI, A591RALR 1.PLANTS SHALL MEET OR EXCEED TIRE SPECIFICATIONS OF FTDERAL STATE AND LOCAL LAWS REWIRING INSPECTION FOR PLANT DISFAW AND INSECT CONTROL 2. PLANTS SHALL BE HEALTHY, WOORWS Ng YIEII FCY TH WELL DEVELOPED, FIBROUS ROOT SYSTEMS FREE FROM DEAD BRANOES CR ROOTS.PLANTSSH PLANTS ALL BE FREE FROM DAMAGE CAUSED BY TEMPERATURE EXTREMES. LACK OR EXCESS OF MOISTURE, INSECTS, DISEASE AND ME.AHICAL INJURY. PRINTS IN LEAF SHALL BE WELL EQUATED AND OF 0000 COLOR. PLANTS MOLL BE HABITUATED TO THE OUTDOOR ENNRONMENTAL CONDITIONS INTO WHICH RET WILL BE PLANTED (HARDD,E). -OFF 3. TEES WITH DAMAGED. CROOKED, MULTIPLE OR BROKEN LEADERS WLL BE REJECTED. WOODY PLANTS 00TH ABRASIONS DE THE BARK OR WNSOND WE_ SE REJECTED. 4. NOIENCUTURE PLANT NAMES SHALL CONFORM TO ROTA OF THE PACIFIC WORTHME5T BY HITCHCOCK AND 00ON0UST, UW0 OF WASHINGTON PRESS 1923 AND/OR 10 A FIELD GUIDE TO THE COMMON W:TLAND PLANTS OF WESTERN WASHINGTONk NORTHWESTERN OREGON, ED. SARAH SPEAR COOKE, MATTE AUDUBON SOCIETY, 1992. DEFINITIONS 1. PUNTS/PUNT MATERIALS PLANTS AND PLANT MATERIALS SHALL INCLUDE ANY UE PLANT MATERIAL USED ON THE PROJECT. MS NGLDE5 BUT 5 NOT MATED TO CONTAN. CROWN, MB OR BARER00T PUNTS UE STALES AND EASON S (MARRIES); TUBERS. CORMS, BULBS, ETC.; SPRIGS RUGS AND HERS. 2. CONTAINER GROWN. CONTAINER CROWN PLANTS ARE THOSE WHOSE 000 440LLS AFE EN0.0.0 INA POT OR BAG N WADI THAT PLANT CREW. 3. 40 STAKES. UE STAKES ARE CUT FROM DORMANT, 0 4050Y, PAC INONWALB O' TRE SPECIFIED PUNT 5PECES AT TE SPECIFIED SZE AND ARE TO BE PLANTED BEFORE ROOTS FORM. UE STARES SHALL HAVE A STRAIGHT TOP CUT MLEDDATELY ABO. BLIT NOT INTO A NODE. THE LOWER, R0017110 ENO OF THE U. STAKE SHALL BE CUT ATA 45 -DEGREE ANGLE UE STAKES ARE OUT FROM ONE TO ONO YEAR OD WOOD AND NAE NO BRANCHES ,no,s-nnrontisc 1, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN SPECIFIED MATERIALS N ADVANCE IF SPECAL GROWING, MARKETING OR OPER ARRANGEMENTS MUST BE MADE IN ORDER TO 9rPPLY SEARED MATERIALS. 2. 9ES0OF PLANT MATERIALS NOT THE PROJECT UST ALL HOT SE AUTHORIZED PERMITTED UNLESS AUIZED IN MANG BY THE CT' OF KENT. 3. ( PROP OF 44 IS UON SMUTTED THAT ANY PLANT MATERIAL SPECIFIED IS NOT OBTAINABLE, A PRCFOSAL WLL BE CONSIDERED FOR USE OF THE NEAREST EORVALENT SIZE OR ALTERNATE SPECIES. WA CORRESPONDING ADA/SILENT OF CONTRACT PRICE. NSPECTNN' 1. PUNTS .ALL BE SUBJECT TO INSPECTION AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF KENT FOR CONFORMANCE TO SPECIFICATIONS EITHER AT ONE OF DEU.RY ON-SITE CR AT THE GROWER'S NURSERY. APPROVAL OF PUNT MATERIALS AT ANY ONE SHALL NOT WEAR THE SUBSEOVENT RIGHT OF INSPECTION AND REJECTION WRING PROGRESS OF THE WORK. 2 PANTS 105PECTE0 ON SITE AND REJECTED FOR NOT NETTING SPECIFICATIONS MUST BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY FROM SITE OR RED -TAGGED AND REMOVED AS 900/4 AS POSSIBLE. 3. TE OT 0f KENT MAY ELECT TO INSPECT PUN1T MATERIALS AT TIE PUC . GROWTH. AFTER INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE ME CITY OF KENT MAY REWIRE THE INSPECTED PLANTS BE LABELED AIA RESERVED FOR PROJECT SUBSTATION OF THESE PLANTS 001H OTHER NDINDUALS, ELN Of THE SAME SPECIES AND SIZE, IS UNACCEPTABLE. MPAODREMMTS OU PLANA 1. PLANTS SHALL CONFORM TO SIZES SPECIFIED UNLESS 9N501UTIONS ARE MACE N ADVANCE. 2. HEIGHT AND SPREAD DIMENSIONS SPECIFIED REFER TO MAN BODY 00 PUNT AND NOT BRANCH OR ROOT TP 10 TP. PLANT DMENSONS SHALL BE MEASURED WHEN TIER BRANCHES OR R00T5 ARE N THEIR NORMAL POSITION. 3. WIRER A RANGE OF 920 00 OVEN, NO PUNT SHALL BE 1E55 THAN THE MINIMUM SIZE AND AT LEAST 50S OF THE PLANTS .ALL BE AS URGE AS THE MEDIAN OF THF SIZE RANGE. (EXAMPLE: E THE SIZE RANGE E 12' TO 14'. AT LEAST 500 OF PLANTS MUST BE 15. TALL) DELIVERY HAKKAN k SIDRAGF• CATICN I. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY ENGINEER 4B HOURS OR MORE IN ADVANCE OF UtUVER1E5 50 THAT THE DA OF KENT MAY ARRANGE FOR IN9'ECTION. p1 ANT MATERIAL S. 1. TRANSPORTATION - WINING SHIPPING. PLANTS SHALL BE PACKED TO PARADE PROTECTCH AGAINST CLIMATE EXTREMES. BREAKAGE AND DRYING PROPER ETIOLATION AND PREVENTION OF DAMAGE TO BARK, BRANCHES AND ROOT SYSTEMS MUST BE ENSURED. 2. SDEDUUNG AND STORAGE - PUNTS 91211. BE DELIVERED AS CLOSE TO PUNTING AS POSSIBLE. PUNTS IN STORAGE MUST BE PROTECTED AGAINST ANY CONDITION THAT IS DETRIMENTAL TO THEN CONTINUED HEALTH ANC ICOR. 3. HANDLING - PLANT MATERIAL SHALL NOT BE HAREM BY ITE TRUNK. PPS. OR (WADE BUT ONLY BY CONTAINER. BALL. BOK OR OTHER PROTECTIVETR STRUCTURE E%CT BAREROOT PLANTS SHALL BE KEPT IN BUNDLES UNTIL PUNTING AND THEN(9 HANDLED CAREFULLY BY THE TRUNK OR STEM. LABELS - TS SHALL NAVE DURABLE, LEGIBLE L.ABEL5 STATING CORREET 0(5, BAGS, HARE AND SIZE. TEN PERCENT OF CONTAINER CROWN PLANTS IN INDIVIDUAL POTS SHALL BE LABELED. PLANTS %EAU. N MTS, RACKS. BOXES, BAGS, OR BUNDLES SHALL HAVE ONE LABEL PER GROUP. WARRANTY' PLANY WARRANTY AND MAINTENANCE PERIOD 1. PUNTS MUST BE GUARANTEED TO BE TRUE TO SGENTEC NAME ALA SPECIFIED 92E, AND 10 BE HEALTHY AND CAPABLE OF =PIOUS GROWTH, 2. A TWT -EAR CONTRACTOR MANTNANCE PERIOD SHALL APPLY KEPI AGEMENT' 1. PUNTS 10T FOUND MEETING ALL 00 THE REQUIRED CONDITIONS MUST BE REMOVED ERONA SEE AND REPLACED MME0ATELY AT THE CITY 00 KENOS DISCRETION. 2. RANTS NOT SURWMNG AFTER ONE YEAR SHALL BE REPLACED. ANT MATERIAL 7. P054 1. PUNTS SHALL BE NURSERY CROWN IN ACCORDANCE 00TH 0000 00010.1101020 PRACTICES UNDER CLIMATIC CONDITIONS SIMILAR TO 0R MORE SEVERE MAN MDSE a THE PROJECT SITE. 2. MAN. SHALL BE IRU[ LO SPECIES AND vARIE1Y OR SUBSPECIES. NO CIILTVARS OR NPA+: D VARIETIES SHALL BE USED UNLESS SPEGFlED RS 5010. ROOT NFATMFNT CONTAINER GROWN PUNTS (INCLUDES PLUGS), PUNT ROOT BALLS MUST POD TOGETHER WHEN THE PUNT IS REN0.0 FROM THE Poi, E%CEPT THAT A 9.11 AmouNT of LoosE 2. PUNTS MUST NOT BE 81 ok mAy BE oN ToP F -0N0 THERE 01/57 BE NO RAE CIRCLING CIRCLING ROOTS PRESENT IN ANA PLANT IN5PLCIED. 3. R003BALL5 5127 HALE CRACKED 0R BROKEN WHEN REMOED FROM THE ONTARER SHALL BE REJECTED. !. UE STAKES (NGLDES FA5GNE5. WILLOW WATOES) LIVE STAKES MUST BE INSTALLE0 BEFORE R00TNG OCCURS. PLANTS THAT ALRU01 HAV R0015 AT THE TIME. or INSTALLATION WILL B_ REJECTED. City of Kurt Public Warks Department KENT Engineering Division LANDSCAPE NOTES 1 CONTRACTOR 15 TO MAKE EERY EFFORT TO PRESERVE THE EXISTING SITE TREES DURING CONSTRUCTION . IF A 'REE NEEDS TO BE 4E80.2 IT SHALL BE REPLACED 4151 A MINIMUM 2' GRIPER TREE OF THE SAME SPECIES, OR AN EO*IVA1ENT APPROVED BY THE PROJECT ENGINEER. 2 HYDRO.. ALL CONSTRUCTION DISTURBED AREAS WITH SEED M% USED A5 SHOWN ON PLANS 3. OEM ALL IW1AIAYAN BLACKBERRY, EVERGREEN BLACKBERRY, JAPANESE KN0IWEED, SCOTCH BROOM, ENGLISH IW. MORNING GLORY. ENGL0SI1 1AU0, EUROPEAN HAWTHORN AND OTHER INVA9. NON-NATIVE M®5 ENCOUNTERED IN CONSIPUCOON AREAS, ANY REED LEWD AS A KING COIMTY NOXIOUS WEED MUST BE REMOVED FROM WTWN THE PROJECT UNITS. CLEAR ANO PP ROOTS. AND DISPOSE OFT-9TE 0. WI01040ANONG AREAS OE11RJED 041 THESE PLANS ARE APPROXIMATE AREAS MAY NEED TO BE ADJUSTED 91GN111 BY THE CITY OF KENT IN TIE 0E1D CURING CON5TRUCTOI. S INSTALL PUNTS GENERALLY A5 SHOWN ON EUTA MELD ADJUST TDR LOCAL *108091E CONDITIONS. fi. ADJUST 1KIOATOH15 AS NEEDED TD AMID PLANTING TREES PER 0R WORN 5-0' TIF EXIS4NG OR PROPOSED WAREN UTILITIES CONTRACTOR TO STAKE ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED UTILITIES. PLANTING SCHEDULE SYMBOL CDLMIO1 NAME SCIENTk1C NAME SIZE QUANTITY DETAL * DOUGLAS FIR PSEOCO151UGA MEN2IESI 5 CAL Q WESTERN REO CEDAR MUGM PLICATA 5 GAL 5 0ALNU SMA SPRUCE PICA 9TCHENSS SNORE PINE PINUS CONTORT* 5 GAL IC)DRETAN BIC t1A< MAPLE *CER MACROPHYLLUM 5 CAL Q NEr ASN fAAXINUS LAOFOJA 2 GAL CASCARA BI11Ot CHERRY RHAMNUS PURSHI05* 2 GAL PRUNUS E4MGINATA 2 CAL BLACK HAWTHORN CRATAEWS DOUCLASII 2 GAL O TALL SHRUBS RED 09ER DOGWOOD COMAS SERICE* 1 GAL 1 CAL 1 GAL Mk Ng PACIFIC NINEBARK PHISOC*RPUS CAPITATUS LDINICERA 1NVWULRATA BUCK TNINBERRY OCEANSPRAY _____ NNE Amp, MOCK ORANGE HDL0015CUS DISCOLOR *CER CIRCINATUTA 1 GAL 1 GAL __ PNIUE/OPHUS MASA 1 GAL X SHORT SHRUBS SWAMP ROSE ROSA PI50CMPA 1 GAL ND COMMON 9NOWBERRY RED -FLOWERING CURRANT TALL OREGON GRAPE 0 SAM CEANOIHUS 501PH0RICARPOS ALBUS PIBES S*NWINEUM MAMOWA AWIFWLM CEANDIHUS SANGUINE. 1 GAL 1 GAL I GAL_ 1 GAL 0 PACIFIC WILLOW SRU% LUGDA 3' 15' gik girr 9700 WILLOW SLOUIFR'S WILLOW SALIX 91GHEN95 SRU% SCOULEIAANA 3' L5' 3' LSP LSI - LIE STAKE 5TAKE5 SHALL BE 3' • 3/4-1 I/O' 15 DIAMETER. REACH 3 LANDSCAPE PUN, NOTES, AND SPECIFICATIONS BRISCOE h DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS `j 1 VARIES VARIES FLOOD WALL GROUND v I WI'IIII - 0 TYPICAL GRADING SECTION NOV TO SCALE 1 (' cos", 934C5' ootrz.: : roo:se a0auv, GENERAL NOTES L NO WORK BELOW ORDINARY INH WATER. DOWEL AS ELEVATION 165-17 WILL BE ALLOWED. S 190th ST L KY. Ok620 00-3010 DATE 3-13 City of Kent Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division REACH 3 GRADING PLAN BRISCOE 3 DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET „ or ,W P ED ESTRIAN ACCESS SHEET X Cf 31.E7ME 14.4 E SING INEOUND LAAIDrfAlt0 TOE 0 vosu. L L _ 2 pILCS , 7 �1.1111 (1,) --I \--4 RILES Ai 40. 10/0111 21+00 22+00 City of Kent ."1,157417 Works Dep rtrnent KENT Engineering Division I , . - ---- 3*147. ,0 • W-210 23+00 1: REACH 3 SHEET PILE WALL PLAN AND PROFILE BRISCOE & DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS 10 or 30 20 10 0 r; ,Des,gq \09•3011 DESIP1ONE WALLS \ dwy..6111 Reach 3- 05 , 4/9/1013 9 49 19 NH sal RAE 0,,00,07.11 \ i:Maul LANA .00 LANDWARD FACE OF . CONST. BASELINE D-51Tsa•, B -m09. LANDWARD FACE OF WALL L CONST. BASELINE L-170.10: T.8663• LANDWARD FACE OF WALL Q CONST. BASF6E S 75'10'16• W. Is6.01' CONST. SHEET PILE WALL i% • i .1 I - 1 .. : 1 rlfP b-aWe: aNqu ' 1. 40 1-. ... 1 -L. 30 4 1 20 t -- ---------- el — =—==c—._ -.Tom'= -- --_-- — — _ - \` ' \\'r\ / lv I I I I , I. :: :: .. is ..1W-5 .8s ...1 .. 40 J 30 1 .... 10 rot—A.. . 7-1 0 BW-- .88.: .... 164-00 oNaT ?ENO, T'R�: WW9M'„1Fs . . 40'1.0461N (m . . 17+00 :At::: 18+00 ": ]0«368 19 285. City of Ken Public Works Department INT Engineering Division 19 REACH 3 SHEET PILE WALL PLAN AND PROFILE 20+00 BRISCOE h DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS DIEL. b 19 FLE NO. G:\D.4gn\093011 OESIMONE WALLS\Try\Wall R.. 3- OI.d&g. 4/9/1013 9:30:59 AM - NOWARO FAV DF WArLL D-OB'45'BASEl1NE s.O.Da L-58.10',i-4EBs. LANDWARD FACE OF WALL de CPIST. BASELINE D-Ahem•.18=107.00' LAIELTAZ. T -Boar LANDWARD FAL£ OF WNL Cd151. SHEET wtE WALL doONST. BASELINE 0559'08, R-SOO.DO' LANDWARD DACE OF WAIL LNS2.23.. T-26.14' WAIST. BASELNE S 2528'W E 4896' LAOWWW L. FACE OF WALL BAS11E LNR9s94. T-1SA08' 7 sEEL Ing 10221 6.6 AVE 40 30 1 20 10 1 0 P E5 AT D LEN6 H (TTP 11+00 12+00 . 13+00 City of Kent Public Works Depamnenl KENT Englneenng DivrciDn 14+00 15+00 REACH 3 SHEET PILE WALL PLAN AND PROFILE BRISCOE & DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS ET 8a fo G'.\De0On\09-3011 DES]MONE waLLS\Owg\wall Reach 3- /3.Ow9, 4/9/2013 8'. 5>:5> AH tANDWABIf AF S OF WALL MUST BASEL,. LANDWARD FACE OF WALLS 4012'2E E 11.91 CONST. BA5 D-1421'10-, R-400-400 .00 -tT3a LANDWARD FACE OF WALL & CONST. BASELINE D-099009', R-SOD.00' - 300OaLL 0 FACE OLL SCONST. BASEL0E \ ]199'19' E 4$112' \ PARKING LOT Oj\ ion to O 60 -_�,� _ —AiWLD RaUlf1— mo'- ----_,_—__7_=-L.---7------- --- — T:-._,_-,---_---,-.=_-==.— =—a= /14 CF WNL 19 CONST. BASELINE sPRE WALL ZAI4,s'PLxf.E, 51.42 Q I C l'tii.CONDI SHEET LANDWARD fACE OF WALL CONST. 9ASE(1NE 5 1920'37 E 5070. 7.CREWEARD-FACE OF WALL -d CCNST. BASELINE 43.09'93'S7. R-400.00' 10 LANDWARD CON300 FACE OF WALL D-1050054', R.200.00' L-D.e>. T-1099' LANDWARD FACE OF WALL a CORSI. BASELINE 0 0735,7 E, 61.09'. 3 th '.7777 40W1 3B:B4 : N: rt I 94 8+'00' :' l -- 1 • 1,0Cei �w,e V3NWARpLr e�L • r PILES AT. 27 Lf)'OTN (1Tq:i 4 FILES 1' 0.IENtRi,(TtP)I s,1/00' • L:. lit 49, • L e4 N • 10 74100 DAM City of Kent • Public WOrka Department \.44KENT Engineering Division REACH 3 SHEET PILE WALL PLAN AND PROFILE Of: 9.21.'3 BRISCOE & DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS Dar 19 5'.\Des104109-3011 DESIFIONE WALLS\awg\Wall Reach 3- 02.6.49, 4/9/2013 2:42:05 AR FDWARO FACE OF WAIL D-4Y3.2'OS. 1.99.1121• 14493.52., h36-55 3.4AW00 FACE OF WALL D�1Z1503'. R�1201.00' sow 3 NMI ST. CONST. MEET RL` LANDWARD FACE OF WILL CONS,. BASELINE 5 605035• E. 9828• LNNDWARD FACE OF WNL COST BASELINE LmSS52', 3.27.79', LANDWARD FA¢ OF WALL Q WNST. BASELINE S 54'33'38' 4. 2384 --___=—_—_—:: -1:77,-_,—:::::::::—_,_—__7--1-----_---S--='=--- ---- _______ R —____--- — �35D.35. Z13 — ___:PSD=Y5', R.20.W_ —=--_---- _—--_--_2 _—___—_-_-_=.17.17----- _ — _ —__ 4.4____ \ _ ——_— �\�__- ------ —__ / \�\ - GREEN RIVEJ2 \ _ / I - _ y 40 3 30 om 20 10 -10 0 04•2920. 37.B9 D. • nr.sc.39 -. #F-OLMS BARRIER CC.mNR eNm 3rES 6b tm a SMSET FILE 14.14 0 a 031'.01 BW449..35 2254 7 .26.10; -27.09 8. AT 2r:LENCAI Liir1J FLU :AI-RO.IE3434 TTP EOM C GROUND LAJ _WARD T06: Dr 7.90 3tuQ 311.14-1247 212to /. • 5+4082 Br�E�ae. PILE 50 52 LENOEN'( 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00' 30_. 20 0 -10. op 0 1-13 City of Kent Public Works Department IOENT Engineering Division REACH 3 SHEET PILE WALL PLAN AND PROFILE BRISCOE & DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS 6 o 19 G \D499F\09-3011 DESIMONE I4AUS\Bw9\wag Reach 3- 0l Ow , 4/9/2213 9:56.44 AM i' K i' STAKE OPEq STRAW WATTLE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE SURFACE SINAL BE 5400111 BEFORE PLACEMENT FOR PROPER SOIL CONTACT IF THERE M A BERM AT ME ANCHOR TO SONE MN 1 TOP C SLOPE, 0 ANCHOR 1/2' x 1 1/Y • 1r*monC THE BERM STARES AT 5' CENTER 10 COLTER MAX OF 4' OF STAKE TO BE EXPOSED MN. n• OVERLAP DO NOT STRETCH MAME15/IMTRNGS TIGHT - ALLOW THE ROTS 0 MON TO MY IRREGULARITIES FOR SLOPES LESS TUN 3Ht1V, RCM. MAY RE PLACED HORIZONTALLY ACROSS SLOPE 6'x6' LIM TRENCH MIN 1 1/2' x 1 1/2' x WOOD STAKES ATts CENTER TO CENTER BRNO MATERIAL DOWN TO AMTS OF CONSTRUCTION, TORN THE END UNDER 4' 0010 00 AND ANCHOR MN 1 1/2' x 1 1/2• x 12. WOW STAKES AT 5' OBITER TO CENTER. SEED BEFORE IMSTALUTCN. MARTINO OF DAMS, TREES. ETC 5HGAD OCCUR AFTER INSTALLATION. CONTRACTOR STALL OVERLAP EROSION CONTROL BUIIKEIS SUCH NAT SEIM ELMS5031. THROUGH DRAINAGE DITCH 00 DO NOT UNERMNE BLANKET PLACEMENT 0 q EROSION CONTROL BLANKET NOT TO SCALE REBM FOR BAG REMOVAL ORATE PUCE FILTER FABRIC SACS OR APPROVED EQUAL UNDER TAUT GRATE ggER EXISTING INLET u:^fix C)4 33 INLET PROTECTION NOT TO SCALE TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES: 1. THE ILPIF]dTATNN OF THE TESC LEASURES, INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION, M4NTENANCE ANDSC FAMED.. IS THE RESPSIBIUTY OF THE DDITRA411ORG UNTIL ANLL CO CONSTRUCTION IING OF DE5 CCOWIET © At0 ACCIM1ONBYTHE CITY. 2 21.1. CC£A1WG UMTS SHALL BE CLEARLY MARKED AND/OR FLAGGED ON THE STE 10 ENSURE THAT NO DISTURBANCE OCCURS BEYOND THE PROJECT NETS OR IN SEASIDE AREAS MARKED CIEARNO WAT5 SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR THROUGHOUT THE ENTRE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION. 1 111E TESC FACAUTES MOM ON MHS PLAN SET MUST BE CONSTRUCTED N C0143.24111011 MT OR PRIOR TO AL1 CLEARING AND GRADING ACTIVITIES. AND N SUCH A MANNER AS TO ENSURE THAT SEDIMENT LADEN WATER ODES NOT ENTER TILE OtANAGE SYSTEM OR VIOLATE STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS. THE 1E5C FACNTES RUST BE FUNCTIONAL BEFORE OTHER LAND D64URBNG T1TES TARE PEACE. 4. 111E TF -SC FACEIIIES SHOWN ON DRS PLAN SET ARE THE MINDEN RE0INREMENTS FOR ANTICIPATED SIh COMMONS DIMING TIE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. THESE TESC FA0UTES SHALL BE UPGRADED UNT PE R 00011 SLAPS EVE TSTS ASS TION ECTED 0111MES E EN01E FVICES, Erc) As NEEDED FOR 5. THE TESC FACILITES SHALL BE NSPECIFD BY RE CONTRACTOR ENKE OR A5 OLTECRIED BY TIE ENGINEER. TE50 7400105 SHALL BE SURNAMED AS NECESSARY 10 45URE THEY CONTINUE TO FUNCTION AND OPERATE AS INTENDED. MIEN TEMPORARY CONTROL DEVICES ME 140 LONGER NEEDED, TEE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE THEM ARD IMMEDIATELY WORK TO STASUZE THE AREAS THEY OC UPED A5 THE 04*0EM DIRECTS 6. ANY ETPO;ED AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN STRPPFD OF VEGETATION, MOJONG ROADWAY EMBANKMENTS. SHALL BE 00000400 MTI APPROVED TESL METHODS (EC MEMO, MIL0ING APRIL 30) 006 7 DAYS DURINGTHETHEZDAYS DURING DRY SEASON (MANY 1 THROUGH SEBET SEASON PTET 06 b)CTOBER 1 1OR AS A DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. T. ALL TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MIP5 SHALL BE CLEANED MIEN SEDIMENT REACHES 1/3 THE CAPACITY OF THE BMP. ALL SEDIMENTS ROAMED DURING THE CLEANING OPERATION SIL BE PREVENTED FROM ENTERING 11(10 THE CITES SmRI0WA1ER SYSTEM OR ANY SURFACE WATER SYSTEMS (51141505, STREAMS. MOMS ETC). G STABILIZED CONSTRUC1105 ENTRANCES SHALL BE INSTALLED AT DE BEGINNING OF CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTAINED FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT. ADDI1ONAL STABNTZATON AND SEEMING MAY BE REWIRED TO ENSURE THAT TRACK -OUT DOES NOT OCCUR OFF OF TE OTE AND ALL PAVED ,REAS ARE KEPT CLEAN FOR THE DURATION OF 111E PROJECT. B. WHERE SEEDING FOR TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL IS REWIRED, WSW STANDARD EROSION SEED 41% (4511 0401616 RFD FESCUE, 450 PERENNIAL RYE:HASS 1019 HIGHLAND COLOAAL BENIGRASS) MALL BE APPLIED. SHOED THE AREA BE DISTURBED DUE TO RAIEALL EVENTS BEFORE 040FIRHT GRASS GROWN, 0006 PROLECTIVE MEASURES MI BE REQUIRED MEDIATELY TO PREVENT EROSION MINN NAT AREA ID. WHERE STRAW MULCH FOR TEMPORARY ERMIW CONTROL IS REQUIRED, TT SHALL BE APPUED AT A MINIMUM THICKNESS OF 3 INCHES, 11. 5HOM RE CONTRACTOR FAIL TO INSTALL THE REDLINED TESL MEASURES, OR TO PERFORM MAINTENANCE N A MELT' MANNER. OR FAILS TO TAKE IMMEDIATE AC110N TO 115TALL AOTITIONAL APPROVED PROIECTITE MEASURES, ALL FNM, COST OF CLEANUP, COSTS FOR CLAYS AND 00X01 -TIME SHALL BE HOME BY 111E CONIRACTOL 12. MESE TESC REQUIREMENTS SHALL APPLY 10 ALL AREA5 OF THE SITE SUBJECT TD CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY, INCLUDING CONTRACTOR CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT FACILITES CONTRACTOR STAGING AREA5, CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL PARKING AREAS, EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL STORAGE YDOVN AREAS, AND OTHER MEAS U1IUZE0 BY THE CONTRACTOR FOR MAPIETON OF TIE WORK 13. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MEET ALL REM/BERME OF THE DEPORTMENT W ECODGY NPOES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT. 60C ' REPORT SPILLS victier1 & WATER POUTN + 25.8LL5.5600IO R4 ,e to RABIN 4N1 BMW, Ms 00-3010 BY DAIE 4-3-13 City of Kent Public Works Department INDENT Engineering Division TESC NOTES AND DETAILS BRISCOE it DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS 5O 10 1 STRAW WATTLE PLACED AT EDGE OF TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT E%ISRNG GROUND CA11311 BASIN INLET IN ALL STRUCTURES ADJACENT TO WORK ZONE EMSING WHD GENERAL NOTES 1, SEE SHELF 5 FOR TESC NOTE AND DETAILS 2. N0 WORK BELOW ORDNARY NISH WATER, 0171NE0 A5 ELEVATION 115-11, SEE CRADN6 PUN, SIFT 13, WILL BE ALLOWED. KEYED NOTES 0 CATCH 13091 INLET PROTECTION. SEE DETAIL 3 ON SHEET 5 EROSION CONTROL FABRIC ON ALL EXPOSED SLCPES COSMIC 11117— VEGETATION `ROOD WALL INTERMEDIATE STRAW WATTLE PLACED AT TOE OF 2.1 SLOPE STRAW WATTLE I' FD AT TIDE OF 6:1 SLS ROVE CPT AA TYPICAL PLANTING SECTION NOT TO SCALE STRAW WAT0E PLACED AT TOE OF 6:1 SLOPE, AND TOE OF 2:1 SLOPE FOR ENTIRE LEVEE REACH, SEE D ONW (EL: 16.5-1), SEE pp CRAM° PUN, SHEET 13) 36 0 bier 4. 440 Ot l. o, aWI, 44*4*'• FR05ION CONTROL BLANKET, SEE DETAIL 2 ON SHEET 5 STRAW WATTLE PLACED AT EDGE OF TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT FOR ENTRE LEVEE REACH, SEE DETAIL 1 ON SHEET 5 0 etx 4-3-13 City of Kent Public Works Department I(E T Engineering Division REACH 3 TESC PLAN S 190th ST BRISCOE k DESIIAONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS GENERAL NOTE$ CONSTRUCTION NOTES RID MA mimes SHOP,E021IED 1. PRP TO AMY -II:TNc>a :m. m'OF MPw "xCT..MR "aoa 1° OO mnMc c AM .00rem. P.M SOP IND cow,�er cm socrscAno.s m. OP MO .O Peen MEC MOT Pro -OP ro MM'"M. _ IREE _ MY ] sCCMAAI ELEVATOR KENT COMIRLICIP MOKENT SPECIAL PROM. mll' MP MMOT swan UM. 2 ALL MK/. WPM PAIL SF IN ACCORDANCE ""''m,c rwIM E°s m11pM�z�mnw ATIE ND .'Hc O mhos PSITICSITATOM PM, ,.u� �>» wen ammo. ,PCITALL MOM. moo ..n ,: nn. an vr COT OF PIT smarms, ON WM. PO P ,.�? ON a OP NV - lUuf OP OP MAMMY CORMEM AMP PORATE AT MD70 �9.vu AND TM ew. 1 THE COMM. P. COMPLY MN ALL P.M COMMENCE MA SAFETY AM MUM. M ©E OJT EPPS ASPHALT PAL PM SECTION MD. PI EMENT WO MATERIALS BURRO "'oDI CMP MORROW A STEM 6 ©come= POPCM PAmIELEVATION" 33ADE nut AMMO TRAE AND SI.-eaE PER �A< x stew, nu REITEmim"LVA`". OR MAL o�,Ens aux ASY TM U> sown seem. moi © mow COMP Daum nom, pm a1-1./ °mOF KE. a DI PE= PAW L -CE -SAC AT 3. ALL wIEM K Mm NOT MED IN I. WO ARE REMISED TO DOPROPOSE RO LA E WMMAT E P O a COMO= OF CE s ST NO ES MEPOMP. AMC. RASP M TAKE TRAIL CR E •Warl e M TM. • CRASKPOITAL TO TE USED OP ITE. • ALL TEM AM TEMP. TM. TIE PROP, PATS MALL ME ROPED W NOM AM OMER PP MALL REP. C ONWIE MAIMS `'MAW. IRECE MOO °° ' ate" TREES LIPPED DM TR PERMED STRUCTURAL NOTES OWITMET.13 PERE T. 81E 111.AT CONTRACTOR E DIPPED BY WPPLICTRESTWIE AIL t•TION 10 ORME COPT. IMSEM TO °TERMS E P ECTED ST TIE MITHERR. ME MP FOR SPERM APP.. NO CLEAN UP REMMMO DI CAMMME MN TIE MOTICATICEP RR MS PROST EMIL SE COMPED INCEPTAL 113 NO MOS. DI . WO COMM PRP OF OMR EP OPTS MOW MR MOSE moos WIMP PI MIE PIPPO., • MPS MOORE NOTED. THE RCP RENO, OR ROPE M CONSTRUCTER NOM MO MOM ON 11M ELMS MOW OE cm EIM�O'CISE'UL HAUL AUL PROPER Lw --SITE MvosALL BY ITE S. 1NTII 130.10-FOR-COSmUMON PPM. IED: APPROVED WARID COME PPM. THE AMMO PROP. ATDRE ' A SHALL BESUMP PECIFICAMS WO PROEM CIE MEM. DATUM PPM. DAMP NM EOM TO. PIMP STATED OTHERESE ITE OCCIRACT. 13 SOLELY ESTRAEOLE PER IRE REAM. MEMOS AP PEEP OF CONSTRUCTOR ASO M M SAFETT If ME WPM ALL REM. SEPACE LL �uAMEDEPMIMAR WO M RT FOR DTPP OE HnEImes OfMATER, M..D CODE Of R11 THE CONTRACTOR SHAM CONTACT TW OPERCROM MAT. PCP. VAPHI E MST PO IORKINO MP PRICE TO COIRIMMOTTE 11. MINER CR HE RATAS TIC MOMS MALL BE CONTACTED INECTIATELY A COMM PEP P. CAMP - MERE PPP - MOW. MO MMES. ELECITIM PIM MS ARE MEP. NOT RPM CR THE WORM THE OWIRACTDR ROTFONSPIL FOR DETPIANNO RC PRET or PM IMMO MATED BY OMEN) OR PERREMIND MCP.. POWR ALL MSAS P. PM FOLLOW PROMS. MED CONSTRUCTON AS RIMMED BYE. NC REOULATON PPR TO MEM ° `"m DEMISE THE PROM WMAPMT PECAUTIORS TOY MAY EC REMELT THE IPPY IS IN PROESTY TO PRIM. MI SEIM POSER LIM P. ALL =PPM Cf DDDMO MIMS POMC MONPETREY M.P. Dr nun sums oft ammo FROM ASAME MOWS AND SHOP RmnORE r MEOLD APPROMATE OM AM NOT RECESSARLY MOLEX IT IS TE SOLE REPOICIERM or n• COMM. TD MICIPPOTTLY MOM ME PURA. OF PLL ITEM LOWERS SHOP ATP 10 PIMP own. PM AVM ANY OMER PAM NOT PM ETV. M. MY OE MRCP M SOLLEPTATON OP MS RA. IS. M =INTRA.. IS KEMPLE FOR MEMO MO BRACING REWIRED TO PROTECT MO SUPPORT PT. UESPROUND MUM WO STEPPES DMIC COMMUCTOS 17. ANT OPER OAS CC DEM PUNIC ROPEY! PALL SE BACIPLIS AHD COAPACTED M ALUM MAL Awn 03*SMI 4 1MSS ATDERFACTSMS. MD WA 201 WETI RE PLLArm POWER IE MM. SWAM NM RE EPLAC. Ai RP (OR s CRM 6 soMACIED . i R OMEER .Mn SCOW= SCORE. o,RD.,HDN a Ra.DSERMONS'TO „E 'PUCE IS. STEERS OR DISTAICES HOMO FOR SPE SEVER CAM EARNS AND SAMMY SEER .1.0.121 ARE MOM TT TIC Cf STRICT. MPS 0114.113E NOM. PPE MOMS NO SLOPE. ME CATEILATIS FR. ME OMR OP MC SELOCIPP ,R. ALI UMW LAE DOWNS EIC LOCATED MM IM PPM SMALL DE WASTED To CCM E. IT IS SEEM SURVEY WPM OMSIMSMS IMAM STATE omTq ARR mxLEPCOE POINTS LET TO CIT FORM ALA PETTNI CITY. STATE OR REPEL LAMruTAT. SAAR BE [MOPS POWERED SY THE coineecsog ME COMPEER MOLL MET lE 0ME031 MRE.AIILY E n BECOMES APPARENT MT A SUM. MEER SE COMMON VP ALM MEW TEE FOR Ort PPP=PPM PWOMMILTOPPE ALCITIM IMPATON SO MAT M NOME. NAT SF RPM= IN 113 CREME POEM AMR CONSFROOTION. SI. ORMRATT MOLL REIM OPEN AT All IRKS CORM WPM ICURS TEE COMA.. SHALL [CORONAE FM WOK SCH.. WIN RC PROPERTY EPOJAINP 10 DETERNME TFE ▪ 111( TO PELT OR PAPALLY CLOSE ME WPRIPAYS IN CROP TO PERFORM /43 1. IM. EFEET Ml WA 1...N ,m E HD, DDE ED Ag m• SENSE W. GREEN RIVER J p 500 YR 41000 EL REMOVE EXIST. TRAIL 15• EXIST. BANK - - CONSTRUCT I2' WIDE PAVED TRAIL v ONW LINE RLL CONSTRUCT SHEET PILE WALL W/NANDRAIL OTYPICAL SHEET PILE WALL SECTION NOT TO SCALE 1 N. LEGEND 1/051116.111MBELAPPTAILIGREEMI • ORISMCION MOTE MIER OR DMA OR MED 1•32102 RICE LEM SIMM E REFERENCEDm`TA" Cue O FEL eb-#(ETWET UENTAMMMIE 4,—. MIRY PMP MOUT p TOPHOENAMELE,IMMT 0 TMEMME PEOMTEL —1— LaMEIMCOM IINENICR2 INE • UNDERGROUND CAW ME - DVERNEAD POWER UNE 0 MN TWEIeoPIPE 2 NEW ;WIEN9DR POINUI .T/DANN — NS AUL RAW • TME 0455ANT • renOMON COMM NM ▪ INIOR WEN tf nee COT. CONNECIIM WRIERUN 412 VALVEOIINIER wart — 0- -a—DWORN M1RM UNE WIN USN — D�D_Sm. MYER NNE 42 NAINME J rnr,r MESTRATHONR 0T 4/u RE PROPENE UNE HO MM. HOGE YEOMEN, IN MEM EER A,EEM DUIRDIND OWING GONGREW MR RAW OWN VRML UR MAME MAL DECMUNS 1mE P 101. OP WALL • eancw OF TM C MOM MVP. TOMMY, W ROMPH BY DATE OR peg. Tom 4-3-13 City of Kent Public Works Dep0rtmcnt I'SEM Engineering Division GENERAL NOTES, CONSTRUCTION NOTES, LEGEND AND TYPICAL SHEET PILE WALL SECTION BRISCOE & DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS svvir JO 10 RI HO G:\OR0IOn\09-3011 OESIMOYE WALLS\OWM\Legend.WEI0.OWR 4/3/301310:13:0400 MOW von; HOME MO By DOT City of Kent Public Works Department IONT Engineering Division WALL PUN & PROFILE SHEET INDEX MAP BRISCOE & DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS Slierr 2s 19 OLE MO G:\Oesign\09-3011 OESIMONF vocus kvounUex-watis.Ewg, 4/3/201310:4):52 A o SHEET INDEX A� 1 COVER WALLPLSHEET /Iy, 3 WALLPLANNPROFILE SHEETODERMCP 3 LEGEND, GENERAL NOTES & CONSTRUCTION NOTES 4-5 TEMPORARY EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL 6-10 WALL PLAN & PROFILE Nes NO% 11 PARKING LOT RAMP PLAN & PROFILE KENT9,\....);.,`" INLLU 12 MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS �O 13 PARKIN GRADING PLAN /,{% Ai/5' pl.,44/ 1419 LANDSCAPE PLAN WASHINGTON S&7" CITY OF KENT SUZETTE COOKE - MAYOR M6rBERS OF CRY COUNCL ELIZABETH AL ERTSON BLL BOYCE DEWS was JAMIE PERRY DANA RALPH DEBORAI1 RAMMER LES THOMAS TLA LAPORTE - DIRECTOR OF PLEILIC WORKS RONALD MADOFE - CRY CLERK CHAD B61EN - CRY ENGINEER TOM RRUBAKER - CRY ATTORNEY PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT BRISCOE—DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS JOB NUMBER 09-3010 PROJECTI LOCATION`, i/i L t. ���a�11 A. ¢1� a VICINITY MAP NOT 10 SCALE G:IW$,o,,\00-3011 DESIMONE WALLS\Ew0\Cover-WaHs.Owg, 4/3/1013 11:41:03 AM CITY OF KENT BRISCOE-DESIMONE LEVEE RIGHT BANK OF THE GREEN RIVER S. 180th ST. TO S. 200th ST. LEGEND PROPOSED SETBACK WALL CITY LIMITS RM -t7 RIVER MILE NOT TO SCALE G:\Design\09-3011 DESIMONE\dwg\Levee Exhibit5.dwg, 3/6/2013 11:50:38 AM '\ fl S 180TH ST SW 43rd 7. ST. TUKWILA LEVEE REACH S 190th ST S 196th ST REACH 3 REACH 4 CITY OF KENT #1 Pc a T WASH1NOTOM ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CITY OF KENT DRAWN scqu NOT TO SCALE APPROVED DATE 10-10-12 FIGURE 2 LOCATION MAP BRISCOE DESIMONE LEVEE G'0e o\00-30I1igDESIIAOHE WALLS.viveg \ SEP A ,„ Figune 2.dr.q. 10/10/2012 1 4600 PM 180TH ST SW 43rd ST TUKWILA S 200TH ST BRISCOE DESIMONE LEVEE CITY OF KENT S 212TH ST W. VALLEY HWY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CITY OF KENT DRAWN SCALE APPROVED DATE NOT TO SCALE 10-10-12 ,S 208TH FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP BRISCOE DESIMONE LEVEE \ Design\09— 3011 DESIMC,HE',VALLS \ .HPA,,Fiyur..0.dw.4. 10/10/2012 02623 P0 3 • • • October 2013 November 2016 Reach 1 — Removal of trees and stumps on the landward side of the levee in the construction project area. Construction of 1,050 linear feet of structural steel sheet pile walls at the landward base of the existing levee. Impacted areas on both sides of the levee will be hydroseeded and/or planted with native vegetation. If you require this document in another format, contact the Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance (ORA) at (800) 917-0043. People with hearing Toss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. People with a speech disability can call (877) 833-6341. ORA publication number: ENV -023-09 rev. 06-12 JARPA Attachment D Revision 2012.1 Page 1 of 1 WASHINGTON STATE Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) [help] Attachment D: Construction sequence [help] DS Army Corps of Engineers semule District Use this attachment only if your project will be constructed in phases or stages. Complete the outline showing the construction sequence and timing of activities, including the start and end dates of each phase or stage. Use black or blue ink to enter answers in white spaces below. Date received AGENCY USE ,°NI Y to Agency. reference #: Tax Parcel':#iso_ (he101 Project Name: Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement 1 Phase or '. Stage. Start :Date End Date Activity Description T July 2013 November 2014 Reach 3 — Removal of trees and stumps on the landward side of the levee in the construction project area. Construction of 2,350 linear feet (LF) of structural steel sheet pile walls at the landward base of the existing levee. The waterward side of the levee will be excavated to create a 10-40 foot -wide sloping bench. Re -vegetation and habitat restoration work will occur between the ordinary high water mark and the edge of trail. The existing 10 -foot wide trail on top of the levee will be removed and replaced with a new 12-14 foot wide trail. Removal and replacement of stairs and ADA accessible ramp providing access to the trail. Impacted areas on both sides of the levee will be hydroseeded and/or planted with native vegetation. 2 October 2013 November 2015 Reach 2 and Reach 4 — Removal of trees and stumps on the landward side of the levee in the construction project area. Construction of 1,050 linear feet of structural steel sheet pile walls at the landward base of the existing levee (Reach 2 — 850 LF, Reach 4 — 200 LF). The waterward side of the levee at Reach 2 will be excavated to create a 10-40 foot wide sloping planting bench. Re -vegetation and habitat restoration work will occur between the ordinary high water mark and the edge of trail. The existing 10 -foot wide trail on top of the levee will be removed and replaced with a new 12-14 foot wide trail. Removal and replacement of stairs in Reach 2. Impacted areas on both sides of the levee at Reaches 2 and 4 will be hydroseeded and/or planted with native vegetation. JARPA Attachment D Revision 2012.1 Page 1 of 1 WASHINGTON STATE Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) Form1°2 US Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District. USE BLACK OR BLUE INK TO ENTER ANSWERS IN THE WHITE SPACES BELOW. Part 1—Project Identification ect ►me nrame foyotlr project that you :ereati Examples Smiths DOtkbt1 eabrooklLane Development) .jhelt ; Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Part 2 --Applicant The person and/or organization responsible for the project. rheipi me IrSt lvrladte Langholz, Ken anizatlon (if applicable): City of Kent Public Works Department Ma l nr dress (Street or PO So 220 41h Ave. S. Kent, WA 98032 orae; 2h. (253) 856-5516 (253) 856-5500 (253) 856-6500 kaangholz@KentWA.gov Additional forms may be required for the following permits: • If your project may qualify for Department of the Army authorization through a Regional General Permit (RGP), contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for application information (206) 764-3495. • If your project might affect species listed under the Endangered Species Act, you will need to fill out a Specific Project Information Form (SPIF) or prepare a Biological Evaluation. Forms can be found at http://www.nws. usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Requlatory/PermitGuidebook/EndangeredSpecies.aspx. • Not alt cities and counties accept the JARPA for their local Shoreline permits. If you need a Shoreline permit, contact the appropriate city or county government to make sure they accept the JARPA. 2To access an online JARPA form with [help) screens, go to http://www.epermittinq.wa.gov/site/alias resourcecenter/iarpa iarpa form/9984rarpa form.aspx. For other help, contact the Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance at 1-800-917-0043 or help at7.ora.wa.gov. JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 1 of 15 ,. Part 3—Authorized Agent or Contact Person authorized to represent the applicant about the project. (Note: Authorized agent(s) must sign 11b of this application.) [helpl Name (Last, First, Middle) Langhoiz, Ken City of Kent Public Works Department 3c. ; Mailing Address (Street or Po Box) 220 4th Ave. S. 3d. City, ;State, Zi j Kent, WA 98032 3e. Phone (1) 3f:Phone (2) 3g. Fax 3h.' -mail! (253) 856-5516 (253) 856-5500 (253) 856-6500 klangholz@KentWA.gov Part 4—Property Owner(s) Contact information for people or organizations owning the property(ies) where the project will occur. Consider both upland and aquatic ownership because the upland owners may not own the adjacent aquatic land. Ihelpl Same as applicant. (Skip to Part 5.) ❑ Repair or maintenance activities on existing rights-of-way or easements. (Skip to Part 5.) ❑ There are multiple upland property owners. Complete the section below and fill out JARPA Attachment A for each additional property owner. ❑ Your project is on Department of Natural Resources (DNR) -managed aquatic lands. If you don't know, contact the DNR at (360) 902-1100 to determine aquatic land ownership. If yes, complete JARPA Attachment E to apply for the Aquatic Use Authorization. a. Name (i_ast, First, Middle);; b. Organization (lf applicabe 4c. Mailing Address (Street orPQ Box 4d.' City, State, Zi 4e. Phone (1) 4f. Phone (2) 4g. Fax JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 2 of 15 Part 5 -Project Location(s) Identifying information about the property or properties where the project will occur. ihelpt ❑ There are multiple project locations (e.g. linear projects). Complete the section below and use JARPA Attachment B for each additional project location. cate # etype of ownership of the property. (check ail that apply)• help ❑ Private ❑ Federal Publicly owned (state, county, city, special districts like schools, ports, etc.) ❑ Tribal ❑ Department of Natural Resources (DNR) — managed aquatic lands (Complete JARPA Attachment E) Street Address (Cannot be ox if there is no address, provide other location information in ap. Reach 1 — RM 14.7 to 14.63; Reach 2 — RM 15.45 to 15.57; Reach 3 — RM 15.98 to 16.36; Reach 4 — RM 16.95 to 17.00 Sta te, Zip (If the protect is not in a ci j or town provide: the name of the,nearesi city ortown, he101 Reach 1 and approx. north 20 feet of Reach 2 are located in Tukwila, WA 98188; Reaches 2, 3 and 4 are located in Kent, WA 98032. ,.urt Ihelp1 King County rovi e section • township, and range for the project location )help) ect ectron wnship ;anne NW, NE 2 22N 4E NE, SW, SE 35 23N 4E NW e_latitude an 36 :4104g,!.911.*„ 23N rofect Iocatlon thelo1 se decimal degrees NAD 83; 22 89142 icing 4E Project Reach 1 through 4: 47.438799 / -122.245774 to 47.423326 / -122.265043 022204-9047; 000020-0043; 000020-0044; 788880-0070; 788880-0080; 788880-0090; 788880-0010; 788880-0111; 788880-0130; 788880-0131; 788880-0140; 788880-0210; 788890-0110; 788890-0150; 788890-0170 5h Contact Information for all adjoining property owners (If ou need more space use JARPA Attachment 11 & S Machine Works 19713 58th Place S. Kent, WA 98032 788880-0200 JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 3 of 15 Acoustical Designs, Ltd. 5820 S. 194th St. 788880-0190 Kent, WA 98032 American Printing 5844 S. 194th St. 788880-0180 Kent, WA 98032 Automatic Products 5858 S. 194th St. 788880-0170 Kent, WA 98032 none all waterbodies_ an wetlan aCen to the, roject Iocatton: [helm qi The Green River is adjacent to the project location Is any part of the project area within a 100 year floodplain? (heIID 0 Yes ® No 0 Don't know 1. -Briefly -describe they etation and habitat.conditions on the property (heipl` Existing vegetation on the riverward side of the levee in the project area consists of willow species near the ordinary high water line of the Green River, red -osier dogwood, snowberry, grasses, including reed canary grass, Himalayan blackberry, evergreen blackberry and scotch broom. Vegetation on the landward side of the levee consists of grasses and trees such as cottonwood, Douglas fir, maple, elm and poplar, the majority of which are located on adjacent properties. Very few trees are present on the riverward side of the levee and habitat conditions are degraded, consisting mostly of non-native, invasive vegetation and mowed grasses. • im :';Describe how the propel IS, currently used: lhelpl The project area is currently used as the Green River Trail, part of the regional trail system which is used for walking, jogging, bicycling and other recreational activities such as bird watching. The 7 -acre Briscoe Park, located between River Mile (RM) 15.98 and RM 15.57, is owned by the City of Kent. The walk-in park is located near the Kent/Tukwila border and is used by the public for picnics, fishing, bird watching and other passive recreation activities. !escribe how the. adjacent, properties are curreri y:us [heioT The adjacent properties contain warehouses, manufacturing, industrial and some retail establishments, many of which were built in the 1980's. The entire area was built out in 1990's and early 2000. escribe the.etru Ondition jielpj including their purpose(s JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 4 of 15 A paved 10 -foot wide trail is located on top of the levee throughout the project area. On the landward side of the levee, there are three sets of stairs and one ADA ramp from parking areas that provide access to the levee/Green River Trail. These will be removed during construction and up to four new access points will be replaced with stairs or ramps. rovide driving directions frorn the closest hi hwa project location, and; attach a map heti The project area, located between S. 200th Street and S. 180th Street, can be accessed from a city parking lot located at S. 190th Street and 62nd Ave. S., near the middle of the project area. The lot can also be accessed by turning north onto 62nd Ave. S. from S. 196th Street. A ramp from this lot leads to the top of the levee at Reach 3, near RM 16.17. From West Valley Highway in Kent, turn west onto 190th Street and follow to the end of the road where the city lot is located. See attached location map. Part 6—Project Description Briefly summarize the overall project 'Y u•can rovide more detail In! help The City of Kent proposes to construct 4,450 linear feet of sheet pile flood walls in four areas (reaches) along the eastern side of the Green River and landward of the levee, between S. 200d' Street and S. 180th Street to protect properties in Kent, Tukwila and Renton from Green River flooding. escribe oseo to proje� ana wn ou want:or need t jhelpi The project area contains four reaches (sections) totaling 4,450 linear feet along the Green River levee that do not meet slope and stability requirements and need repair to meet FEMA accreditation requirements. Reach 1 is located between RM 14.47 and 14.63 and totals 1,050 LF. Reach 2 is located between RM 15.45 and 15.57 and totals 850 LF. Reach 3 is between RM 15.98 and 16.36, totaling 2,350 LF, and Reach 4 is between RM 16.95 and 17.00 and totals 200 LF. Reaches 1, 2 and 3 are on the outside of sharp bends in the river and Reach 4 is just north of the S. 200th Street Bridge. Structural steel sheet pile walls will be installed at the back of the existing levee slope to act as a secondary levee to reduce flood risks to the cities of Kent, Tukwila and Renton and protect the Targe number of warehouses, manufacturing, industrial and retail establishments located behind the levee. The walls will provide a minimum of 3 feet of freeboard above the predicted 500 -year flood event. This equates to approximately 5.2 feet of freeboard above the predicted 100 -year flood event. Some re -vegetation and habitat restoration work will occur along the river between the ordinary high water mark and the trail in areas where the wall is constructed. Benches will be constructed where feasible along the riverbank. Construction on the banks of the river will occur during the dry season May through October. �icate the`project category (Check all that apply) (help] ❑ Commercial • Maintenance ❑ Residential ❑ Institutional ❑ Transportation ® Environmental Enhancement Recreational trate e major;elemerits_o rojec eel all that -apply JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 5 of 15 ❑ Aquaculture ❑ Culvert ❑ Dam / Weir ❑ Float ❑ Floating Home ❑ Geotechnical Survey ❑ Land Clearing ❑ Marina / Moorage• ❑ Mining ❑ Outfall Structure ❑ Piling/Dolphin ❑ Raft ❑ Retaining Wall (upland) ❑Road ❑Scientific Measurement Device ■ Bank Stabilization ❑ Boat House ❑ Boat Launch ❑ Boat Lift ❑ Bridge c/ Dike / Levee / Jetty ❑ Ditch ❑ Dock / Pier 0 Dredging ❑ Fence ❑ Ferry Terminal Stairs 0 Stormwater facility 0 Swimming Pool • Bulkhead ❑ Buoy ❑ Channel Modification • Utility Line ■ Fishway 1i4 Other: Habitat Restoration Structural steel sheet pile walls will be installed along the landward toe of the existing levee slope and adjacent to the Green River, to act as a secondary levee to reduce flood risk to the cities of Kent, Renton and Tukwila. A non -hammering (either vibratory or silent press -in style) sheet pile driver will be used for installation of the sheet piles for the flood wall to limit noise impacts to adjacent properties and wildlife. Existing trees, shrubs and lawn in the impact footprint will be removed, however, most areas of existing native riparian vegetation riverward of the new floodwall will be preserved. Following construction, disturbed soil will be hydroseeded and/or mulched and planted to achieve final stabilization. The waterward side of the existing levee will be excavated to create a 10-40 foot -wide sloping planting bench (in Reach 2 and 3). Areas above and below the bench will be cleared and grubbed, however, existing desirable native shrubs will be retained in the planting area where possible. A minimum of 10 feet of vegetated buffer above the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) will remain undisturbed to maintain existing desirable riparian vegetation. The material excavated to construct the bench may be placed between the sheet pile wall and the landward side of the levee if suitable. The upper 15 feet of the waterward side of the levee will be hydroseeded to maintain a clear zone adjacent to the new trail. The excavated bench and cleared riparian area will be planted with native trees and shrubs and hydroseeded and/or mulched with wood chips (if wood chip mulch is used, chips will be securely stapled to the slope with jute matting). The disturbed ground on the waterward side of the levee will be stabilized prior to being exposed to the Green River's flow. Normal construction equipment will be used for all elements of the project and will likely include vibratory hammers (or silent press -in), water jet cranes, jackhammers, backhoes, dump trucks, pavers, vibratory roller, excavators, front-end loaders and bulldozers. All of the project area is located within 200 feet of the Green River shoreline. Bench excavation and landscaping activities are located within the 100 -year floodplain. What are the: anticipated start and: end dates forproject construction? (Month./Year) (help if the protect will be constructed in phases or stages, use DARPA Attachment D:to list the start and end dates•of each phase o JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 6 of 15 Start date: June 2013 End date: November 2016 ® See JARPA Attachment D $ 18,000,000 yes,hst each agency pov�d�ng furl 0 Yes ❑ No ® Don't know Part 7—Wetlands: Impacts and Mitigation 0 Check here if there are wetlands or wetland buffers on or adjacent to the project area. (If there are none, skip to Part 8.) lhelpl escrlbe OW:the project has been designed to avo d and'mtn►mlze adverse impacts to wetlan ® Not applicable 0 Yes ® No 0 Don't know Yes 0 No 0 Don't know ellneattori report been:prepare; es, submit the report, mcludmg!data sheets, with the JARPA packag 0 Yes ® No All construction and landscaping will occur above the ordinary high water mark 0 Yes 0 No 0 Don't know N/A Ottprepared a mitigation plan -to compensate for any adverse impacts to wet lan, ds?i es, submit the pian with the JARPA package anti answer 7g lo or Not applicable explain below why a mitigation plan shou;id not berequired 0 Yes 0 No ® Not applicable JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 7 of 15 7g..Summarize what the mitigation plan is meant to accomplish, and.describe• how; a watershed approach was to design the'plan. het N/A 11se the table below to list the type and:rating .of each wetland mpacfed, the extent and duration of the impact, and fhe type and amount of mitigation; proposed O,r if you are submitting a mitigation plan with a., strrtiilar table, ,you. can state (below) where we .can find this information in fhe pian.. jt,elpl Activity (fill, drain, excavate, flood, etc.) Wetland Name' Wetland type and rating category2 Impact area (sq. ft. or Acres) Duration of impact3 Proposed mitigation types Wetland mitigation area (sq. ft. or acres) 1If no official name for the wetland exists, create a unique name (such as "Wetland 1"). The name should be consistent with other project documents, such as a wetland delineation report. 2 Ecology wetland category based on current Western Washington or Eastern Washington Wetland Rating System. Provide the wetland rating forms with the JARPA package. 3 Indicate the days, months or years the wetland will be measurably impacted by the activity. Enter "permanent" if applicable. `Creation (C), Re-establishment/Rehabilitation (R), Enhancement (E), Preservation (P), Mitigation Bank/In-lieu fee (B) Page number(s) for similar information in the mitigation plan, if available: i For all:fllmg ,aCtiyitieS identified in 7h, describe the source and nature of the fill material, the amount tri cubic; yard'sT that Will beAused, and how and where it wilt be iplaced: into ti a wetland. Ihelpl N/A or all excavating activities identified, in` 7h, describe the excavation method, type and amount of material':. in cubic yards you will`remove, andiwherethe materiat'will be;';disposed [heipl JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 8 of 15 N/A Part 8—Waterbodies (other than wetlands): Impacts and Mitigation In Part 8, "waterbodies" refers to non -wetland waterbodies. (See Part 7 for information related to wetlands.) Ihelol ® Check here if there are waterbodies on or adjacent to the project area. (If there are none, skip to Part 9.) 0 Not applicable The Green River is located adjacent and parallel to the project location. The project is located within 200 feet of the Green River, however, there will be no fill material placed in the water nor will there be any in -water work. All work will occur above the OHWM. Best Management Practices will be planned, implemented and maintained to control erosion potential throughout the entire course of the project. The city will obtain coverage under the NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit for the project which requires a site specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to manage stormwater. Best Management Practices for erosion and sediment control will be implemented throughout the duration of the project. Water quality sampling will also be required through the permit which will also ensure that environmental damage does not occur. A temporary erosion and sediment control plan (TESCP) and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared. Best Management Practices (BMP) such as silt fence, straw wattles, erosion control blankets, and soil cover will be implemented and maintained to minimize erosion and sediment transport during construction. A Spill Control and Response Plan will also be implemented throughout the entire course of the project. Disturbed areas will be restored to their original function. The levee will be hydroseeded and/or planted and mulched to ensure permanent stabilization. The project limits will also be clearly marked to ensure equipment and vehicles do not enter protected areas. Will your project impact a waterbody or th•e area aroun•d a waterkody� -helaj ❑ Yes ® No C. Have you prepared a mitigation plan to compensate for tte project's adverse :impacts to non wetland aterbodies?.jhelpl • If Yes submit the pian with the DARPA package an d answer•8•d • If No, or N.ot applicable, explain below why a mitigation plan should not be required. 0 Yes ❑ No ® Not applicable JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 9 of 15 There will be no adverse impacts to surface water bodies resulting from this project. After landscaping is completed, the improved riparian area is expected to improve habitat and water quality. 8d. Summarize what the mitigation plan is meant to accomplish Describe how a watershed approach was used: to design the plan 1f you already completed 7g you! do not need to restate your answer here.. [heia} N/A e Summarize impacts) tai each waterbody in thetable Activity (clear, dredge, fill, pile drive, etc.) Waterbody name' Impact Iocation2 Duration of impact3 Amount of material (cubic yards) to be placed in or removed from waterbody Area (sq. ft or linear ft.) of waterbody directly affected N/A ' If no official name for the waterbody exists, create a unique name (such as "Stream 1") The name should be consistent with other documents provided. 2lndicate whether the impact will occur in or adjacent to the waterbody. If adjacent, provide the distance between the impact and the waterbody and indicate whether the impact will occur within the 100 -year flood plain. 3lndicate the days, months or years the waterbody will be measurably impacted by the work. Enter "permanent" if applicable. 8f. Forel]. activities identified in 8e, describe the source and nature of the-fill'material, amount (in cubic yards) ou will; use, end'how and where it will be placed into the waterbody [heir( N/A 8 N/A For alt excavating or dredging activities: identified in 8e, describe the method for excavating &and :aMount ofrmaterial youwill remove, and where the material will be disposed. [help redgiri Part 9—Additional Information Any additional information you can provide helps the reviewer(s) understand your project. Complete as much of this section as you can. It is ok if you cannot answer a question. a If you have already worked With any OVerninent agencieson this project, list them below. JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 10 of 15 f � \ ( 253) 856-5436 King County DNRP (River Flood Management Section Tom Bean -Green River Basin Supervisor ( 206) 296-8377 March 5, 2013 February 27, 2013 re any of the wetlands or waterbodies identif ied In ;Part 7 or Par 8 of this JA )epartment of Ecology's 303(4)' List? ;[helpl tf Yes, list the parameter(sj below If you-Oon't know, use Washington Department of Ecology s. Water Quality Assessment tools f http //wwwecy watgov/programs/vrq/303d/'; ®Yes El No Green River- Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen 000040.1 -Survey Hydrological Unit Code (HUC) is the protect Ing [help] fpub epa gov/surf/locatehndex cfm to help identify the .HUC a 17110013 WR1A 9 Will the in water construction work com turbidity? ;[t elol . Go tb http //www.ecy.wa.aov/programs/wg/swgs/criteria.htiril forthe standar Yes ❑ No ❑ Not applicable F the'projei t is within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act, what Is the local shoreline environment designation? [help] • tf'you don't know, contact.the focal planning department • For more information go #o http.//www ecv wa qov/programslsea%sma/laws rules/173 26/291 designations ntmi ['Rural ® Urban ['Natural ❑ Aquatic ® Conservancy ❑ Other at is the Washington Department of Natural Resources. lo.to htto:!/www.dnr wa.gov/BusinessPermitstTopics/ForestPracticesAooIications/Pades/fp' watertypinq aspx forthe: Yp ractices:WaterT'. in S stem ;.. ; ❑ Shoreline ® Fish ❑ Non -Fish Perennial ❑ Non -Fish Seasonal h Will this pro' ect be designed to meet the Washington Department of Ecology's mostcurrent storrwateri JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 11 of 15 Yes ❑ No Name of manual: project site' have known: contaminated sediment? ❑ Yes No ou know what the' property was used for in the past, describe below. {help as a cultural resource (archaeologica es attach it to your JARPA packai Yes ❑No • ame each species listed:`under the federal Eridangered Spec[es:Act that occurs in the vicinity area or might be affected by the proposed work: lhelp1 Coastal Puget Sound Bull trout, Puget Sound Chinook salmon, and Puget Sound Steelhead are known to inhabit the Green River. Bull trout, Chinook and steelhead are currently listed as threatened species in the Puget Sound and its tributaries. JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 12 of 15 Coastal Puget Sound Bull trout Puget Sound Chinook salmon Puget Sound Steelhead trout Part 10—SEPA Compliance and Permits Use the resources and checklist below to identify the permits you are applying for. • Online Project Questionnaire at http://apps.ecv.wa.00v/opas/. • Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance at (800) 917-0043 or help(a7ora.wa.gov. • For a list of addresses to send your JARPA to, click on agency addresses for completed JARPA. hand with :the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (Check all that appl r' more lnformatton about SEPA go to www ecy wa qov/proaramslsea/sepa/e review htn l ® A copy of the SEPA determination or letter of exemption is included with this application. ❑ A SEPA determination is pending with (lead agency). The expected decision date is ❑ 1 am applying for a Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption. (Check the box below in 10b.) [help] ❑ This project is exempt (choose type of exemption below). ❑ Categorical Exemption. Under what section of the SEPA administrative code (WAC) is it exempt? ❑ Other: ❑ SEPA is pre-empted by federal law. Local Government Shoreline permits: ® Substantial Development ® Conditional Use ❑ Shoreline Exemption Type (explain): ❑ Variance Other city/county permits: JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 13 of 15 Part 11—Authorizing Signatures Signatures are required before submitting the JARPA package. The JARPA package includes the JARPA form, project plans, photos, etc. [help] 11a. Applicant Signature (required) [help] JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 14 of 15 • Floodplain Development Permit ❑ Critical Areas Ordinance STATE G0vERNMEN7 ...:... ... Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife: I Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) ❑ Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption — Attach Exemption Form Effective July 10, 2012, you must submit a check for $150 to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, unless project qualifies for an exemption or alternative payment method below. Do not send cash. your Check the appropriate boxes: ►„1$150 check enclosed. (Check # 672265 ) Attach check made payable to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. ❑ Charge to billing account under agreement with WDFW. (Agreement # ) ❑ My project is exempt from the application fee. (Check appropriate exemption) ■ HPA processing is conducted by applicant -funded WDFW staff. (Agreement # ) • Mineral prospecting and mining. ❑ Project occurs on farm and agricultural land. (Attach a copy of current land use classification recorded with the county auditor, or other proof of current land use.) _ ❑ Project is a modification of an existing HPA originally applied for, prior to July 10, 2012. (HPA # ) Washington Department of Natural Resources: ❑ Aquatic Use Authorization Complete JARPA Attachment E and submit a check for $25 payable to the Washington Department of Natural Resources. Do not send cash. Washington Department of Ecology: ❑ Section 401 Water Quality Certification FEDERAL MEN GOVERNT :.... United States Department of the Army permits (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers): ❑ Section 404 (discharges into waters of the U.S.) ❑ Section 10 (work in navigable waters) United States Coast Guard permits: ❑ General Bridge Act Permit ■ Private Aids to Navigation (for non -bridge projects) Part 11—Authorizing Signatures Signatures are required before submitting the JARPA package. The JARPA package includes the JARPA form, project plans, photos, etc. [help] 11a. Applicant Signature (required) [help] JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 14 of 15 l I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information provided in this application is true, complete, and accurate. I also certify that I have the authority to carry out the proposed activities, and I agree to start work only after I have received all necessary permits. I hereby auth ri he agent named in Part 3 of this application to act on my behalf in matters related to this application. (initial) By initialing here, 1 state that I have the authority to grant access to the property. I also give my consent to the permitting agencies entje property where the project is located to inspect the project site or any work related to the project. +;(initial) ‘f"' Aoplicant Printed Name A•plicant Signa ure 11 b. Authorized Agent Signature lhelpj I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information provided in this application is true, complete, and accurate. I also certify that I have the authority to carry out the proposed activities and I agree to start work only after all necessary permits have been issued. 4-1A`^e-f� %- A t rized Agent Printed Name horized A. - t Signat 11 c. Property Owner Signature (if not applicant). [help] Not required if project is on existing rights-of-way or easements. I Date 2013 I consent to the permitting agencies entering the property where the project is located to inspect the project site or any work. These inspections shall occur at reasonable times and, if practical, with prior notice to the landowner. Property Owner Printed Name Property Owner Signature Date 18 U.S.0 §1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact or makes any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both. If you require this document in another format, contact the Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance (ORA) at (800) 917-0043. People with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. People with a speech disability can call (877) 833-6341. ORA publication number: ENV -019-09 rev. 06-12 JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 15 of 15 WASHINGTON STATE Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) [het US Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District Attachment C: Contact information for adjoining property owners. fhelpi Use this attachment only if you have more than four adjoining property owners. nter answers in white spaces below AGENCY USE ONLY Date received: Agency reference #: Tax Parcel #(s): -------------------------------------- TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT (help] Project Name: Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Location Name (if applicable): 1. Contact information for all adjoining property owners. [help] Name Mailing Address Tax Parcel # (if known) World Wide Imports 5862 S. 194th St. Kent, WA 98032 788880-0160 The Robbins Co. 5866 S. 194th St. Kent, WA 98032 788880-0150 Seattle Bindery & Cascade Flooring 6540 S. Glacier St. Tukwila, WA 98188 788890-0120 Warehouse 18375 Olympic Ave. S. Tukwila, WA 98188 788890-0130 Pacific Metals 18325 Olympic Ave. S. Tukwila, WA 98188 788890-0140 Multi -Tennant Warehouse 18235 Olympic Ave. S. Tukwila, WA 98188 788890-0152 Wanke Cascade 18260 Olympic Ave. S. Tukwila, WA 98188 788890-0162 Thompson Tile 6700 Riverside Drive Tukwila, WA 98188 788890-0164 Cascade Tukwila 18251 Cascade Ave. S. Tukwila, WA 98188 788890-0155 If you require this document in another format, contact the Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance (ORA) at (800) 917-0043. People with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. People with a speech disability can call (877) 833-6341. ORA publication number: ENV -022-09 rev. 06-12 JARPA Attachment C Revision 2012.1 Page 1 of 1 f1 To be completed by Applicant: SEPA CONTACTS AND PROFESSIONALS Please fill out applicable boxes for all different professionals: Name: /feN LANF*ty Company Name: ,Gt l"fy DF rCE it vatN,rE 4 Contact Person: gsN Lt4N6ittyL Address: Z2c, APEA 4 VE . S. City: 14vN7' State: wA Zip: 913032 Phone(s): ?9 -856-55/6 Fax:25.3.,85 ,_ ,i, Email: ktAm itid i! Q kQsff do. 9.V I ropertyOwner #1 (if more than t property owner,' use additional sheets) Owner Name: Company Name: Engineer Name: Contact Person: Contact Person: Address: Address: City: State: Zip: Phone(s): Fax: Fax: Email: Email: •Project:Contact(personrecaivtngal!projectcommunrca if. different;from Name: Company Name: Contact Person: Address: City: State: Zip: Phone(s): Fax: Email: Contractor:;;.;;;:::': Company Name: Engineer Name: ID#: Exp. Date: Address: City: State: Zip: Phone(s): Fax: Email: WH1-1 Architect Company Name: Engineer Name: ID#: Exp. Date: Address: City: State: Zip: Phone(s): Fax: Email: noineer Company Name: G! 1 fy d F Jkr'r "NG't Nfff2IN4 Engineer Name: Mpg RV iso w LETT Exp. Date: 6/2.5/11.1 Address: z -o 44k AVS _ S, ID#: 32.1 68 City: 1J7" State: A1A Zip: 98037— Phone(s): 253-$56-5523Fax: Email: rM%o, je W k°16%'41. slot, Consultant` , 'ark ,....0 . — >.. ..0 ..r...r....... ... I' ........v....tyeev G n. Company Name: %<Y•.,., ..ss a...r. .... Irl: �ss ~ Engineer Name: Contact Person: Address: City: State: Zip: Phone(s): Fax: Email: psd4008_W03464_8_11 p. 2 of 20 �-/ KENT WASHINGTON CITY OF KENT PLANNING SERVICES (253) 856-5454 'LIGATION FEE: 1 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON INDIVIDUAL PARCEL: $250 ALL OTHERS: $700 PUBLIC NOTICE BOARD S1f fl FACH ROAM') ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST APPLICATION FORM TO BE COMPLETED BY STAFF: APPLICATION #: KIVA #: RECEIVED BY: DATE: PROCESSING FEE: A. STAFF REVIEW DETERMINED THAT PROJECT: Meets the categorically exempt criteria. Has no probable significant adverse environmental impact(s) and application should be processed without further consideration of environmental effects. Has probable, significant impact(s) that can be mitigated through conditions. EIS not necessary. Has probable, significant adverse environmental impact(s). An Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. An Environmental Impact Statement for this project has already been prepared. Signature of Responsible Official Date B. COMMENTS: C. TYPE OF PERMIT OR ACTION REQUESTED: D. ZONING DISTRICT: r City of Kent Planning ServiCt,s Environmental Checklist — Page 2 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT: A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 1. Name of Project: Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements 2. Name of Applicant: City of Kent Mailing Address: 220 4th Ave. S., Kent WA 98032 Contact Person: Ken Langholz Telephone: 253-856-5516 3. Applicant is (owner, agent, other): Owner 4. Name of Legal Owner: City of Kent Telephone: 253-856-5500 Mailing Address: 220 4th Ave. S., Kent WA 98032 5. Location. Give general location of proposed project (street address, nearest intersection of streets and section, township and range). The project site extends along the right bank, or easterly side, of the Green River, from South 200th Street to South 180th Street. The area is located within the NW and NE 1/4 of Section 2 Township 22N Range 4E, the SW, SE, and NE 1/4 of Section 35, Township 23N, Range 4E, and the NW 1/4 of Section 36, Township 23N, Range 4E. 6. Legal description and tax identification number a. Legal description (if lengthy, attach as separate sheet): See Attachment A b. Tax identification number: 2222049047, 0000200044, 0000200043, 7888800090, 7888800111, 7888800140, 7888800155, 7888800170, 7888800210 7. Existing conditions: Give a general description of the property and existing improvements, size, topography, vegetation, soil, drainage, natural features, etc. (if necessary, attach a separate sheet). The project area, Briscoe-Desimone levee, is located along the right bank (easterly side) of the Green River, between River Mile (RM) 14.3 and RM 17 (between S. 180th Street and S. 200th Street). Manufacturing and industrial builings line almost the entire length of the levee in the project area. The City of Kent owned Briscoe Park, parcel number 0000200044, is located midway along the levee near RM 16. The site is relatively flat except for the riverbanks and levees. Land east of the levee drains to the northeast. Soils are classified under Section B.1.c of this document. City of Kent Planning Servii..6 Environmental Checklist — Page 3 Existing activities on the site consist of flood protection (levees) and recreational uses. The Green River Trail is located on parcels owned by the City of Kent (parcel numbers 0222049047 and 0000200043), and within easements in the City of Tukwila. The Green River Trail on top of the levees is used for walking, jogging, cycling and other recreational activities such as bird watching. Side slopes on the river side of the levees have mixed vegetation of blackberries, grass and riparian vegetation along the bank of the Green River. Lawn, trees, shrubs, parking lots and commercial buildings are adjacent to the trail along the landward side. 8. Site Area: Approximately 8 acres Site Dimensions: Approximately 80' X 4450' 9. Project description: Give a brief, complete description of the intended use of the property or project including all proposed uses, days and hours of operation and the size of the project and site. (Attach site plans as described in the instructions): The Briscoe-Desimone Levee is located along the right bank (easterly side) of the Green River between S. 200th Street and S. 180th Street, (see Figure 1, Vicinity Map). The Briscoe levee is located along the right bank of the Green River between S. 200th Street and S. 189th Street within the City of Kent. The Desimone levee is located along the right bank of the Green River between S. 189th Street and S 180th Street in the City of Tukwila. Together these levee segments are approximately 2.7 miles in length and protect properties within the cities of Kent, Tukwila and Renton. Tilt -up style buildings (manufacturing and industrial) are located adjacent to the entire stretch of levee. Four sections (reaches) of the levee, approximately 4,450 linear feet, don't meet slope and stability requirements and need repair to meet FEMA accreditation requirements. Reach 1 is located between RM 14.47 and 14.63 and totals 1,050 If. Reach 2 is located between RM 15.45 and 15.57 and totals 850 If. Reach 3 is between RM 15.98 and 16.36, totaling 2,350 If, and Reach 4 is between RM 16.95 and 17.00 and totals 200 If. Reaches 1, 2 and 3 are on the outside of sharp bends in the river and Reach 4 is just north of the S. 200th Street Bridge. Structural steel sheet pile walls are proposed to be installed at the back of the existing levee slope to act as a secondary levee to reduce flood risk to the cities of Kent, Tukwila and Renton and protect the large number of warehouses, manufacturing facilities and some retail establishments behind these levees. These areas are shown on Figure 2, Reach Location Map. In addition, large stumps and roots will be removed in areas between the four reaches along the levee where they could compromise levee stability and/or are in the construction project area. The walls will provide a minimum of 3 feet of freeboard above the predicted 500 - year flood event, (see Typical Section within the 35% design plans). This equates to approximately 5.2 feet of freeboard above the predicted 100 -year flood event. This proposal allows for some re -vegetation and habitat restoration work along the river between the ordinary high water line and the trail in areas where the wall is constructed. Benches will be constructed where feasible along the riverbank. l \ City of Kent Planning Sery x$ Environmental Checklist — Page 4 The approximate 2 -foot wide strip between the proposed constructed trail and wall will be paved or filled with suitable material. In areas where the wall is proposed, the existing asphalt recreational trail will be relocated to be adjacent to the wall. The public access, located at the west end of S. 190th St will be reconstructed to current standards, including an ADA accessible ramp. The Green River Trail will be temporarily closed in sections during construction of the project with detours provided, and will return to normal operations after construction. Proposed use of adjacent properties will remain unchanged. Construction of the project will be Monday through Friday from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. or as stated in Kent City Code 8.05. 10. Schedule: Describe the timing or schedule (include phasing and construction dates, if possible). Construction is anticipated to occur between July 2013 and 2015. 11. Future Plans: Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. The City of Kent is currently in the process of having the entire right bank levee system within the city limits accredited by FEMA. This project is one segment of the system improvements submitted for accreditation. 12. Permits/Approvals: List all permits or approvals for this project from local, state, federal, or other agencies for which you have applied or will apply as required for your proposal. DATE AGENCY PERMIT TYPE SUBMITTED* NUMBER STATUS'" City of Kent SEPA WDFW JARPA City of Kent City of Kent DOE Shoreline Conditional Use Shoreline Substantial Development NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit City of Kent Planning Servic,,,s Environmental Checklist— Page 5 *Leave blank if not submitted **Approved, denied or pending 13. Environmental information: List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Biological Assessment and Wetland Delineation Report by Shannon and Wilson, October 3, 2011. Addendum to Biological Assessment by Shannon and Wilson, dated February 20, 2013. Cultural Resources Assessment -Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey Report by Historical Research Associates, (pending, expected date March 8, 2013). Conditional Letter of Map Revision Application (CLOMR) — GeoEngineers, October 2011. CLOMR — GE] Consultants, April 2012. 14. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None known r City of Kent Planning Services �. Environmental Checklist — Page 6 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth General description of the site (circle one): Qf rolling, hilly, tee mountainous, other: The land is flat on top of the existing levee with steep slopes on the river side and landward side to the valley floor where the ground is flat. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The riverbank has slopes in the range of 50% to 80%. 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. The USDA classifies the underlying soils in the project area as Ng (Newberg silt loam), Py (Puyallup fine sandy loam) and Ur (Urban Land gravelly sandy loam). Structural fill underneath the existing Green River Trail to a depth of approximately 10 feet has been added at some time in the past. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Damaged (eroded) levee segments can fail due to saturated, fine- grained, unstable soils. The reach of the Green River near this levee has experienced surficial failure along the riverbank in several locations. These failures have been monitored or repaired as necessary by the King County Flood Control District. Geotechnical reports are available for review and are included in the CLOMR referenced in Item 13. The reports were completed for the FEMA accreditation report. e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Metal sheet pile walls will be installed along the landward toe of the existing levee to protect warehouses and the Kent valley from flooding. Fill material meeting the geotechnical consultant's recommendations will be obtained from permitted excavation sites. Fill material includes sand and gravel. Benches will be constructed where feasible along the right bank of the river. Compost and amended topsoil will be placed in areas that will be planted with native vegetation. The existing asphalt trail will be removed and a 1 �J EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist — Page 7 new asphalt trail will be constructed adjacent to the wall. The amount of fill is approximately 6,000 cubic yards and additional asphalt trat will total approximately 22,000 square feet. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. g. There is a potential for erosion of the exposed, cleared or excavated areas to occur. However, appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be planned, implemented and maintained to control erosion potential throughout the entire course of the project. The City will obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater General Permit for the project which will require a site specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to manage stormwater and erosion and sediment control plans throughout the duration of the project. Water quality sampling will also be required through the permit which will also ensure that environmental damage does not occur. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? The asphalt surface of the trail will cover approximately one-fifth of the levee's cross-section and will total approximately 66,000 square feet. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any. A Temporary Erosion/Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) wilt be prepared. BMPs such as sift fence, straw wattles, erosion control blankets, and soil cover will be implemented and maintained to minimize erosion and sediment transport during construction. Disturbed areas will be restored to their original function and the sides of the levee will be hydroseeded, seeded, and planted following construction. Native vegetation is also proposed on the waterward side of the levee. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (Le., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Dust and exhaust emissions from construction equipment will be generated during construction. The completed project will not EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY f 1 City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist — Page 8 cause and increase in vehicle trips or contribute to air quality degradation. 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. All construction equipment will be equipped with standard mufflers and emission control equipment. BMPs will be implemented during construction to suppress any dust that occurs. BMPs include covering stock piles, applying water to exposed soils during dry weather, and sweeping affected paved areas. 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, salt water, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or'river it flows into. Yes, the project site is adjacent to the Green River, which flows northerly into Elliott Bay and the Puget Sound, via the Duwamish 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, the project worksite is within 200 feet of the ordinary high water line of the Green River for a total of approximately 4,450 linear feet. 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. There will not be any fill material placed in any surface water or any material dredged from a surface water as a part of this project. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if rti EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist — Page 9 known. No 5) Does the proposal He within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No (ref. 1995 Flood Insurance Rate Map, Panel 967) 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 ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No ground water will be withdrawn as a part of this project. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, 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. Does not apply. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. The main source of runoff will be from the non -pollution generating trail. There will be a slight increase of impervious surfaces which will affect runoff after the project is completed. During the construction phase of the project a site specific SWPPP and TESC Plan will be prepared prior to any earthwork under the projects' NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit. The implementation of the sediment and flow control BMPs described in the TESC plan and SWPPP will minimize the potential for water quality EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist — Page 10 impacts within surface waters in the project area, including the Green River. The majority of water that falls onto the levee will infiltrate once the side slopes are replanted and vegetation is established. The projects' minimal increase in impervious surface will not adversely affect water quality after the project is completed. Runoff from the new trail will be allowed to infiltrate similarly to existing conditions and will not significantly increase flow levels. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. During construction, dust control and other .BMP's will .be. employed to prevent materials from entering the Green River. The asphalt trail will be removed and a new asphalt trail installed, however BMPs will be employed to ensure that all material is contained and prevented from coming into contact with surface waters. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: The SWPPP and TESCP will plan for specific BMPs that will be installed and maintained throughout the entire course of the project to ensure that all runoff from the construction project will take place in a controlled fashion and planned discharge areas. The discharges will also be monitored to ensure that surface water standards and/or permit water quality benchmarks are met to ensure that there is not degradation caused to adjacent or downstream waterbodies or groundwater. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X Deciduous tree: alder, maple aspen, black cottonwood, cherry, Jacific willow flowering dogwood X Evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, hemlock X_._Shrubs: vine maple, salmonberryjnowberr X Grass Pasture Crop or grain EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist — Page 11 Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other Water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other X Other types of vegetation: Himalayan blackberry, evergreen blackberry, scotch broom, reed canary grass, red -osier dogwood b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? 277 evergreen and deciduous trees will be removed for wall construction. 29 large stumps and invasive and or non-native vegetation such as grass and shrubs, blackberry bushes and reed canary grass will also be removed. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. There are not any endangered or threatened plant species known to exist on or near the project site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Native trees and plants will be planted along the waterward slope of the levee as noted in the planting mitigation plan. Riparian enhancement will total 4.76 acres. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds haw , eroa on•bird other: kingfisher, fiicker% robin, crow, towhee, blackbird, duck, junco, chickadee, dipper Mammals: deer, bear, elk,.(beavee, other: vole, rabbit, otter, coyote, raccoon, opossum, rat Fish: bass, salmo • trou herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Coastal Puget Sound Bull trout, Puget Sound Chinook salmon, and Puget Sound steelhead are known to inhabit the Green River. All three are currently listed as threatened species in the Puget Sound and its tributaries. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY f 1 City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist -- Page 12 c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Yes. Anadromous and resident fish migrate through the Green River during certain times of the year. Waterfowl and other migratory birds use the entire Green River valley as part of the Pacific Flyway route. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: The majority of the areas impacted by the levee construction will be re -vegetated along the riverward slope with native species. This vegetation will provide nesting and rearing habitat for birds and small mammals. The enhanced riparian area will benefit fish by increasing shade, woody debris, insect drop and leaf litter. 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. Petroleum fuels will be used to operate the construction equipment during the project. After the project is completed, no further source of energy is needed. 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: There are none proposed for this project. 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. The potential for spills of toxic or hazardous materials, and related risks of fire or explosion, are very minimal and limited to petroleum fuels used in the equipment necessary for the construction of the improvements. AH fuel containers will be stored off-site in a staging area and will remain in secondary containment when not actively in use. Spill kits will be kept on-site any time work is being conducted EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist — Page 13 and a site specific spill response plan must be on-site during construction. The contractor will be required to have a spill response plan. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. There are not any emergency services that are anticipated for the project. However, in the event of a spill, the Department of Ecology may be required. Kent staff will be available to assist with spill response. In addition, the Kent Fire Department is available. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: BMPs such as secondary containment, chemical handling and spill prevention education to the contractor, a spill response plan and spill kits on-site will help to prevent and/or reduce the instance of any environmental health hazards. City staff will also be closely monitoring construction operations and any chemical handling and storage practices. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment operation, other)? Existing traffic noise is generated by vehicles using S. 200th Street, West Valley Highway and other local surface streets. The noise from those sources will not affect this project. 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. Noise will temporarily be created during construction and may be noticeable to nearby properties between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. No long-term generation of noise is expected as a result of this project. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Construction activity will be limited to Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Mufflers will be required on all vehicles and equipment with internal combustion engines. Vibratory equipment will be used for sheet pile installation. Impact hammers will not be allowed for installation of sheet EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 1 1 City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist — Page 14 piles. Construction activity will only take place during periods allowed by Kent City Code. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is currently in use as a levee and recreational trail. Adjacent properties are developed for warehousing, manufacturing, and other light industrial uses. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No recent agricultural uses have taken place in this area. Parts of this land were farmed prior to the 1980s. c. Describe any structures on the site. The only structures located on the project site are three sets of stairs from the parking lots of parcel numbers 7888900170, 7888800140, 788880090 providing access to the levee/Green River Trail. A city owned parcel number 7888800111 provides an ADA ramp to the trail. Up to four of the access points will be replaced with stairs or ramps. The existing ADA ramp will be removed and replaced with a new ADA- pedestrian ramp. Tilt -up buildings are adjacent to nearly the entire length of the levee. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Yes, the access structures will be demolished and up to four new pedestrian stairs and a ramp will be installed as part of the project. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The riverbank and levee are not classified. Adjacent land is zoned M1 (Industrial Park), M2 (Limited Industrial), and MA (Industrial Agricultural). f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The riverbank and levee have no land use designation. Adjacent land is designated as I (Industrial) and OS (Parks and Open Space). If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? g. The Green River Trail throughout the project area is designated Urban Conservancy -Open Space. The land adjacent to the trail on the right in the project area from S. 200th Street to Briscoe Park is EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist — Page 15 designated High Intensity. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. The site project limits are within the buffer area of the Green River which is considered to be an environmentally sensitive area. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? None j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None. The sheet pile wall avoids displacement impacts. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. The uses currently occurring on or near the parcels in the project area will not change under this project, so the proposed work is compatible with the existing land uses in the area. It will enhance terrestrial habitat conditions adjacent to the Green River, and will allow for continued use of the area for recreational purposes. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low income housing. None b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low income housing. None 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 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist — Page 16 antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The sheet pile walls will extend a minimum of 2'8" to a maximum of 5' in height above the levee/trail, and a minimum of 8' to a maximum of 13' in height above the ground on the landward side. Pedestrian handrails at a height of 4.6 feet above the trail will be installed on top of the walls. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Some of the existing vegetation will be removed, creating a temporary altered view until the new native vegetation matures. In the areas where sheet pile walls are installed, views of the vegetated slope and trail will be obstructed from behind the sheet pile walls. Landscaping plans will group trees together and leave some openings to maintain view of the river for recreationists. Shrubs and trees will be tightly spaced on the final planting plan, but the drop in elevation off the waterward side of the levee will allow recreationists views over the top of most shrubs. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any. There are strict restrictions on the type and amount of vegetation that is allowed on accredited levees. Any vegetation placed on or near the levees will need to comply with these restrictions. The city will work within these restrictions to screen the secondary levee as necessary. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of Tight or glare will the proposals produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Does not apply. c. What existing off-site sources of Tight or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any, None EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist — Page 17 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The non -motorized asphalt trail on top of the levee is part of the Green River Trail system, a popular recreational facility for walkers and cyclists. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. Use of the existing trail along the river will be restricted during construction, requiring trail users to temporarily detour around the construction area. A new, wider (12 —14 feet wide) paved surface will be installed on top of the levee to provide trail access along the river upon completion of the project. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any. A detour will be in place while the project is under construction. 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. See the Cultural Resources Report. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known 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 plans, if any. S. 200th Street is located at the south end of the project area at Reach 4 and West Valley Highway at the north end of the project at EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 1 City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist — Page 18 7 Reach 1. Access to the properties in the project vicinity will be maintained during construction. Access to Reach 4 may be modified to provide a direct connection to S. 200th Street. Access to Reach 1 is currently from West Valley Highway. Some modifications to this access may be necessary. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The project doesn't have any parking. Approximately 40 parking stalls may be eliminated at Reach 1 if the wall is moved further from the river. Approximately 3-5 parking stalls may be eliminated at Reach 3 from constructing the new ADA ramp located in the city owned parcel number 7888800111. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? • If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. g. No new vehicle trips will be generated by this project. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. For the completed project, no measures to reduce or control transportation impacts are proposed. During construction, the contractor will be limited to using specific haul routes to minimize traffic impacts. A traffic control plan will be developed to review and reduce any impacts to traffic during construction. 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. i EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist — Page 19 No b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. None on the project site. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utilities providing the service and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity, which might be needed. None C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is rvying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date: '2.7; 272- 3 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services , Environmental Checklist — Page 20 DO NOT USE THIS SHEET FOR PROJECT ACTIONS D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emission to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life? 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5: How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist — Page 21 Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. P:IADMINt2000Forms\SEPA.frm.doc (REVISED 6/00) EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY } SW 43rd ST TUKWILA S. 188T S 190th ST IS 1 9/4th S 200TH ST iii n= x 11% ..,. vil Qi . z 1.1 II 11 S 196th 4T BRISCOE i `\ DESIMONE LEVEE 0 CO OF 2 KENT S 212TH ST 3 ti ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CITY OF KENT KE)dT WAS HI IIOTO11 APPROVED DATE 10-10-12 \_ In J/1 r� rd FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP BRISCOE DESIMONE LEVEE C:\Do iqn\0S-3O11 OESIMONE WALLS\dr9\SEPA\Figvrel4•n9. 10/10/2012 I:26.23 Pal S 180TH ST LEVEE S 190th ST S 196th ST REACH 3 REACH 4 CITY OF KENT ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CITY OF KENT KEN A WA/MIMOTE. scmi NOT TO SCALE APPROVED DATE 10-10-12 FIGURE 2 LOCATION MAP BRISCOE DESIMONE LEVEE O: \Oesir0.09-3011 OESlMO E W?LLS\a.9\SEP A\fiqurt2.dw9, 10/10/20)2 1-46:00 PM George, Erin From: bikenstein@q.com Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 11:14 PM To: George, Erin Subject: Green River Trail Closure I spoke to you Friday regarding the impending closure off sections of the Green River Trail between S 200th St and S 180th St. During that conversation I mentioned that Hawley Rd, which is part of a bicycle and pedestrian route in another part of Kent, was to be closed without advanced notification of the date of the closure, and you indicated that the city has no requirement for such notification to the public, and no process for doing so, and that you were not aware that such unannounced closures would be of concern to trail users. I am sending this message to assure you that trail users do consider such surprise closures an issue. I would suggest that a minimum of two weeks notice should be provided. Such trails are used not only for recreational purposes, but also by bicycle commuters, who certainly would not appreciated being delayed getting to or from work because of the lack of notification. I am also a member of a bicycle club which schedules rides most days of the year; since we publish our schedules monthly, it would certainly be helpful to us to be aware of closures two months ahead so we can avoid scheduling rides in closed areas. In any case, I cannot understand what advantage the city realizes by not providing such timely notification. John Neller 1 U) w, nom, , /•& c, George, Erin From: Casteel, Kelly Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 11:48 AM To: George, Erin Cc: Langholz, Ken; Mactutis, Mike Subject: FW: Briscoe-Desimone Levee Plans Mike's summary of conversation with Chris...FYI Xuo From: Mactutis, Mike Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 3:25 PM To: Casteel, Kelly Cc: Langholz, Ken; Howlett, Mark Subject: RE: Briscoe-Desimone Levee Plans Kelly, I talked to Chris. He said he had the items put in the letter just to make sure they were being considered. We went into a few details about how we are dealing with his issues, but I did assure him that the items in the letter are things we have either resolved or are working on. I mentioned that the species of the larger trees aren't ones that we are going to be planting, so we wouldn't be looking to move the large trees into the new bench. He said he probably would still attend the meeting, but would just be there to listen. I just received an email from Emiko Atherton from Julia Patterson's office. She will be attending. Mike 1 George, Erin From: Casteel, Kelly Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 11:49 AM To: George, Erin Cc: Langholz, Ken Subject: FW: Briscoe-Desimone Floodwall Meeting in Kent (UNCLASSIFIED) FYI no Corp involvement... Kelly Original Message From: Smith, Jonathan NWS [mailto:Jonathan.SmithOusace.army.mil] Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 3:12 PM To: Zieman, Zelma (ORA); Casteel, Kelly; Langholz, Ken Cc: Bennett, Matthew 3 NWS; Anderson, Suzanne NWS Subject: RE: Briscoe-Desimone Floodwall Meeting in Kent (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Zelma, thank you for the additional information on proposed plans. It clearly looks like there will not be any work in wetlands, streams or the Green River, so I don't see any need for Corps Regulatory's involvement in the Kent meeting on April 3, 2013. Jonathan Smith Original Message From: Zieman, Zelma (ORA) [mailto:Zelma.Zieman@iora.wa.gov] Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 1:48 PM To: Smith, Jonathan NWS; Casteel, Kelly; KLangholzftkentwa.gov Subject: RE: Briscoe-Desimone Floodwall Meeting in Kent (UNCLASSIFIED) Importance: High Hi, Jonathan. We need to be clear BEFORE the meeting on Wednesday whether or not there is a Corps permit required for this project. Kelly and Ken - in previous conversations, we discussed that a Corps permits would not be required. Are there wetlands involved in the project? Will there be any work below the OHWM? The attached documents indicate "no." If something has changed, please let me know what it is. Jonathan - please find the SEPA, DRAFT JARPA, and project drawings. I need to know if there is Corps jurisdiction or not. Please give me a call. Thanks, 1 George, Erin From: Carol Lumb <Carol.Lumb@TukwilaWA.gov> Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 5:44 PM To: George, Erin Cc: Minnie Dhaliwal; Jack Pace; Bob Giberson; Ryan Larson Subject: Comments on SEPA Checklist for Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repair Hi Erin, Thank you for the opportunity to review the SEPA Checklist for the Briscoe/Desimone levee repair project in both the Cities of Kent and Tukwila. We have the following corrections or questions on the information in the Checklist. Section A.12. Under the list of permits needed, Tukwila should be listed as an agency from which a shoreline substantial development permit is needed. Section B. 7.d. the response to this question states that native trees and plants will be planted along the waterward slope of the levee, but the response to 10 c. states that there are restrictions on the type and amount of vegetation that is allowed on accredited levees. Are you anticipating that it will be possible to plant on the waterward slope of the levee? Will it be possible to replace all the removed trees? If not, how will the removal of the trees be mitigated? 8.e. The zoning for the portion of the project in Tukwila is Commercial/Light Industrial. 8.f. Comprehensive Plan designation for portion in Tukwila city limits is Commercial/Light Industrial 8. g. Shoreline Environment designation is Urban Conservancy 14.c. The plan drawings do not reflect the possible movement landward of the wall and subsequent Toss of parking stalls in Reach 1— if parking stalls are lost, what impact does this have for the buildings these parking stalls serve? Does there need to be mitigation for these parking stalls? Thanks again for the opportunity to comment after the close of the comment period. Please let me know if you have any questions. Carol Carol Lumb, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite too Tukwila, WA 98188 206-431-3661 Please note new e-mail address: caroLlumb(Q)tukwilawagov 1 George, Erin From: Satterstrom, Fred Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 4:54 PM To: George, Erin Cc: Anderson, Charlene Subject: FW: Briscoe-Desimone Levee FYI From: Jack Pace[mailto:Jack.Pace@TukwilaWA.gov] Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 4:52 PM To: Satterstrom, Fred Cc: Carol Lumb; Bob Giberson Subject: RE: Briscoe-Desimone Levee Hi Fred, I agree that the City of Kent will act as lead agency for SEPA review of the entire project, since a majority of the project is located within Kent, and the City of Tukwila would issue the Shoreline Permit for the portion in Tukwila. Kent Engineering staff were brief on the need to comply with Tukwila's adopted Shoreline Master Plan. Carol Lumb will be providing SEPA comments. If you should have any questions, please feel free to call or email. Jack Pace, DCD Director City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 - 2544 From: Satterstrom, Fred [mailto:FSatterstrom@kentwa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 1:31 PM To: Jack Pace Cc: George, Erin; Anderson, Charlene Subject: Briscoe-Desimone Levee Jack... I understand you spoke with Planning Manager Charlene Anderson (and Kent's SEPA Responsible Official) in February regarding the Briscoe-Desimone levee improvement project. As a portion of the project is located in Tukwila but the majority is located within Kent, the City of Kent proposed to act as lead agency for SEPA review of the entire project. It was my understanding that you agreed to this proposal and noted that separate shoreline permits will be submitted to Tukwila. We issued the Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Nonsignificance on March 1, 2013, published notice in the Kent Reporter and posted on the site. A copy of the notice was sent to your office at the same time. The 30 -day public comment period ended April 1, 2013 and we have not received comment from Tukwila. Erin George in my office has spoken to Carol Lumb who is reviewing the project and plans to get any comments to us no later than tomorrow, April 4, 2013. Due to the state funding restrictions, this project has a very tight timeline so we appreciate your prompt response. 1 MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE Fisheries Division 39015 - 172nd Avenue SE • Auburn, Washington 98092-9763 Phone: (253) 939-3311 • Fax: (253) 931-0752 April 25, 2013 Mr. Ken Langholz, Engineering Supervisor Public Works Design Engineering 400 West Gowe St Kent, WA 98032 RE: Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project, reply to the City's April 5 response letter Dear Mr. Langholz: Thank you for your April 5, 2013 letter responding to our Briscoe-Desimone Notice of Application/Proposed DNS comments. We met recently with Kent Public Works staff to discuss the project in more detail, revisit the status of other Green River plans, and review Green River habitat needs and opportunities. As Public Works staff is aware, we remain concerned about the sustainability of the lower river as a migration corridor for juvenile and adult salmon and steelhead. We recognize the need for a safe levee system and the high costs of levee setbacks in the lower Green River. At the same time, the lower river must be improved so that suitable water temperatures and necessary habitat elements for salmon will exist in the future. It is important to understand that a viable migration corridor in the lower river is not biologically optional, and cannot be exchanged for habitat improvements in the Middle Green River or elsewhere. To protect the designated aquatic life uses of salmonid rearing and migration downstream of Mill Creek, the highest 7 -day average daily maximum water temperature must not exceed 17.5°C (63.5°F) at a frequency of more than once every 10 years on average [WAC 173 -201A -200(c) and 173-201A-602]. In contrast, the highest 7 -day average daily maximum temperatures in the lower Green River frequently exceed 21°C, and have exceeded 23°C (73.4°F). We recognize the City's efforts to improve fish habitat and levee structures described in the booklet "Green River Projects -Achieving Flood Protection, Habitat Restoration, and Economic Sustainability." While several of the projects may produce measurable habitat benefits, others are either conceptual at this stage or primarily address levee improvement-- and the detail or certainty needed to assess the fish habitat benefits is lacking. Moreover, these projects alone cannot sufficiently reduce the lethal and near -lethal summer river temperatures, largely attributed to low shade cover, as documented in the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study for the Green River (Coffin et al., 2011). For example, using descriptions in the Green River Projects booklet and other sources, we estimate that these projects would result in tree planting along a total of about 2.5 miles of river bank (including at the Downey site in King County). This is a small fraction (roughly 15%) of the 16.5 miles of predominately shade -deficient river bank in the City of Kent. For those levee projects in the Green River Projects booklet where the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) vegetation variance policy would apply, we expect continued limits on the location, size, and density of vegetation allowed. For riparian vegetation, appropriate density, tree height, and buffer width are required along the majority of both banks of the Green River to reduce temperatures and protect salmonids. While we appreciate that no limits on tree height and tree diameter are planned riverward of the Briscoe-Desimone floodwalls, the floodwall setback leaves little room for planting. Kent staff suggests that the actual bench space available for planting may average 15-25 feet wide, enough for a single row of mature trees in most places—too narrow compared to even a minimally adequate riparian buffer. The proposed 50 -foot vegetation -free zone along the floodwalls for maintenance and trail purposes removes more planting opportunity from needed riparian buffers. The City's letter states that the Briscoe-Desimone project will have a net -positive effect on temperatures, producing more shade in 10 years than current conditions. This is not clearly demonstrated however. The City has not quantified the planting area or acknowledged the likelihood of recurring disturbance by erosion. The draft FEMA Accreditation Report (GEI Consultants, Inc., 2012) notes riverbank instability problems and predicts that the riverbank will need repairs to prevent future sloughing and instability. In this case, trees planted to improve riparian conditions are at risk of removal with a low opportunity for replacement. The City's April 5 response letter, the Shoreline Master Plan, and the WRIA 9 Green River Salmon Habitat Plan all state that the City of Kent is interested in setting back Green River levees as far as possible to maximize floodplain functions and habitat. If so, a setback levee could be constructed instead of a floodwall section at the location using the land that the Flood Control District recently purchased for that very purpose. Although the City estimates that the floodwalls can be removed in the future for $lmillion and a levee setback constructed at a later date, that prospect seems unlikely. The City's letter states that the Briscoe-Desimone project will improve fish habitat conditions by creating a sloped floodplain bench inundated about 40 days from January to June when juvenile salmon move down river. An inundation frequency analysis and other information have not been provided to allow assessment of potential habitat improvement. The width and elevation of benches remain undefined along most of the project length, so salmonid rearing habitat cannot be quantified. At our recent meeting, Kent staff shared copies of cross-section drawings for 5 specific locations; however, they do not show the extent of proposed rearing habitat or planting area. The bench width illustrated in the drawings varies from 0 to 42 feet, while information in the SEPA documents describes the benches as up to 15 feet wide. The relationship between river stage and discharge is not documented for the project site, and bench elevations are unknown outside 5 cross sections, so the inundation frequency across the extent of the undefined bench area cannot be determined. The City notes that the trees to be removed from the back side of the levee for the floodwalls are 50-90 feet from the river's edge and provide very little shade to the river. Aerial photos actually show that these trees do provide some shade and much of the only total summer shade in the project reach. Construction of the Green River Projects will involve removal of many mature trees along the lower Green River. No mitigation has been proposed for the temporal impacts of tree removals. Regarding the claim that vegetation to be planted on levees in the future will improve shade considerably along the river, more assurance is needed that future vegetation or shade levels will be sufficient to generate the temperature reduction required to meet State water quality criteria, or even to approach the criteria. The timeframes are unspecified, and it is uncertain that large trees will be allowed to grow again on or near the levees if they remain in the Corps' levee program, even under approved vegetation variances. The challenge in providing shade to the river amidst the adjacent land uses in Kent are made more difficult by the City Parks' interest in making extensive view corridors, open canopy, and broad treeless areas along the Green River Trail a specific, up -front design objective for the projects in the Green River Projects booklet. We urge the City to regard river views and park space along the trail as secondary to the survivability of salmon in the Green River. Finally, we remain concerned about the City's phased environmental review of its plan to have the entire right bank levee system accredited by FEMA — its choice to implement individual projects without considering the environmental impacts of the overall plan. The City has not yet responded to this concern, stating only that "it it is appropriate to analyze each project separately" with respect to federal safety standards for levees. Kent has not met its SEPA obligation to evaluate collectively the parts of its proposal that are related closely enough to constitute a single course of action, as required in WAC 197-11-060(3). The individual project elements required for FEMA accreditation of the right bank levee system, such as the floodwalls, are clearly interdependent parts of a larger proposal, and depend on that larger proposal as justification. The City's project -by -project review approach thus far avoids disclosure of cumulative impacts of its overall plan to obtain FEMA accreditation for its levee system. We recommend the following measures to address these concerns: 1. The City should provide additional information and cross-sections for the proposed planting areas and bench areas for the Briscoe- Desimone floodwalls so that they can be evaluated for potential shade and rearing habitat outcomes. 2. A cumulative -impacts assessment of all lower Green River levee projects and maintenance programs should be prepared to evaluate their combined effects on existing and future potential trees and shade. 3. A river corridor plan should be developed to identify how, where, and how much shade will be provided along the lower Green River as required to implement the Green River Temperature TMDL and meet Clean Water Act standards. This should include opportunities for planting left bank agricultural lands, future levee setbacks, withdrawals from the Corps' PL 84-99 program in favor of Flood Control District levee maintenance, as well as any other available tools. 4. Levee setbacks should be facilitated by continued acquisition of additional built and unbuilt lands along the Green River. 5, Continuous monitoring of Green River temperatures by the USGS or King County should be implemented, preferably with USGS gage stations at S. 180th Street and at the East Valley Highway, and real time data made available online. We would like to continue working with Kent staff to try to resolve these issues, and look forward to your response to our recommendations. If you have any questions, please call me at 253-876-3360. Sincerely, Holly Coccoli Fisheries Biologist Cc: Tim LaPorte, Public Works Director, Kent Chad Bieren, City Engineer, Kent Mike Mactutis, Environmental Engineering Manager, Kent Mark Howlett, Design Engineering Manager, Kent Charlene Anderson, Planning Manager, Kent STA:I f OF WASl IING1ON [ATARI -NUN -1 Or CICU LOGY Northwest Regional Office • 3190 160th Ave SU • 1luNevue, WA 911008 5•1.52 • 4774;49-7000 711 for thV_rshinelon Relay Service • Persons with a speech disability' ran call 877,831-6141 April 1, 2013 Erin George, Senior Environmental Planner City of Kent 400 West Gowe Kent, WA 98032 Dear Ms. George: Re: Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements — SEPA Comments Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the SEPA for Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements. The Department of Ecology Water Quality Program recognizes the City of Kent has selected the Briscoe-Desimone Levee floodwall alternative and has reviewed the project background information and has the following comments: • A reduced levee bank will reduce areas for trees to shade the river, potentially increasing river temperature. Green River TIvIDL Pub. No. 11-10-016 shows that river shade is critical to provide non -lethal temperatures for at -risk fish including salmonids. • Suggest salvaging trees of less than 12" diameter for replanting using a hydraulic spade. • Sections in between sheet piling sections are at greater risk for overtopping as these will be around 4.5 feet lower. • Erosive force of the river will still impact current levee. Maintenance of the existing levee is not part of project plan and needs to be submitted for review. Will the existing levee receive rip -rap along the ordinary high watermark that will need to be maintained? Maintenance by rip -rap will be subject to erosive force, and earth can be scooped out above and below the rip -rap. • Sheets 2 and 27 of the Briscoe-Desitnone Levee Improvements plans show the sheet piling wall installed below the river bottom elevation. This could potentially impact the flow of groundwater and hyporheic zone both into and out of the river. The impact of lowering cooler flows into the river channel by groundwater and hyporheic flow can lessen potential cooling effects needed to meet Green River temperature TMDL (Green River TMDL Pub. No. 11-10-046). during flood stage conditions as more water is kept in the channel. • During flood stage conditions the decrease in available bank storage volume will lead to fully saturated conditions within the levee material making it more susceptible to erosion. Fully saturated soils in the levee bank are more easily scoured out, and can make result in a net increase in erosion during these high flow and saturated conditions. Ultimately the levee can be eroded completely to the piling wall. Once exposed the non -eroding piling wall will further increase flow velocity and erosion downstream of the segments where it becomes exposed. Additionally the exposed wall may be at risk of failing due to removal of the supporting material on the waterward face. • Green River T[LIDL Pub. No. 11-10-046 studies do show the Green River reach between Meeker Street, Kent, and 180th, Tukwila, to be a groundwater gaining reach. Project proponents need to verify this is the project area and investigate the potential impacts. What is the surface and groundwater interaction and how will the wall affect this particularly during flood stage? Ecology recommends that the City of Kent consider the above comments. The Water Quality Program may be able to assist you with this. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions. We look forward to working with you as this proposal moves forward. Sincerely, Joan Nolan Cedar and Green TMDL Lead Water Quality Program e -cc: Tammy Sacayanan — Ecology SEPA Coordinator - 'o KENT WASHINGTON April 5, 2013 Ms. Karen Walter Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39015 - 172nd Avenue SE. Auburn, Washington 98092-9763 Re: Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project Response to April 1, 2013 letter Dear Ms. Walter, PUBLIC WORKS DESIGN ENGINEERING Mark Howlett, P.E. Design Engineering Manager 400 West Gowe Kent, WA 98032 Fax: 253-856-6500 PHONE: 253-856-5500 The City of Kent appreciates the input from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division regarding the Notice of Application, environmental checklist, available plans and related documents for the Briscoe-Desimone levee improvement project. We share the tribe's concern for the habitat conditions for fish and other species within and adjacent to the Green River and throughout the watershed. However, we feel that this project has been mischaracterized. The city's commitment to providing habitat enhancement and flood protection for local residents and businesses is evident in the many current projects along the Green River that the city is involved in (see "Green River Projects" booklet at http://www.ci.kent.wa.us/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=21367&IibID=20916). Within the next five years, the city expects to complete over 3,500 LF of side -channel and floodplain wetland enhancement projects along the main stem of the Green as well as make improvements as needed to accredit approximately 11 miles of existing levee. All of these projects will include significant habitat enhancement features and will improve habitat conditions along the lower Green River. The Briscoe-Desimone levee project will improve riparian habitat conditions along 4,000 LF of the Green River by setting back the levee trail by approximately 20' and creating a sloped floodplain bench riverward of the trail. Thousands of native plantings along the bench, that will be inundated for approximately 40 days during the primary juvenile salmonid outmigration period (January - June), will improve habitat significantly over the current, invasive - dominated, steep -walled levee condition. In addition, construction of the proposed floodwall along the landward side of the trail will provide the city with the opportunity to plant large overstory trees that are not subject to diameter or height restrictions along the banks of the river because the floodwall serves as the levee, and therefore the Corps vegetation policy waterward of the "levee" does not apply. These large trees will, in time, provide significant shade to this reach of the river where very little currently exists. o Mature cottonwoods and poplars are currently found on the back -side of the existing levee, 6 though the closest of these trees is 50' away from the river's edge and typically 90' away. Aerial photographs show that these existing trees, even at low sun angles, provide very little v shading to the river. Native plantings proposed along the river's edge under the proposed project are expected to provide more shading than the current trees in less than 10 years. In the longer timeframe, the proposed plantings will provide significantly more shade than current 3 MAYOR SUZETTE COOKE City of Kent Public Works Department Timothy 1 LaPorte, P.E,,, Public Works Director conditions. Cumulatively, this project along with recent, current and future projects will improve river shading. Many of the recent projects that you highlighted in your letter have only had 4-5 years to mature, an unrealistic timeframe to expect major shading improvements. Compared with the previous conditions at all of these project sites, the plantings that are currently maturing will improve shading considerably. The city shares the tribe's interest in setting the levees along the Green River back as far as possible to maximize floodplain functions and salmon habitat. In this reach, however, setting the levee back the 200' to 600' recommended by King County is cost prohibitive. The $416 - $920 million (King County estimate) that would be necessary to purchase and relocate businesses, as well as construct a larger set -back project, is not available within City or Flood District budgets in the foreseeable future. In the meantime, the existing levee does not meet federal levee safety standards and is covered in invasive reed -canary grass and blackberry. Construction of a sheet pile floodwall will not preclude the future design or implementation of a wider levee setback or more comprehensive river corridor approach to improve fish habitat conditions along this stretch of the river. City estimates have determined that the cost to remove this floodwall in the future is approximately $1 million, a fraction of the total levee setback cost. The City is committed to and involved in the comprehensive vision and long- term, system -wide plan for managing flood risk in the Green River valley. However, due to the current condition of the levees at issue, it is in the public's best interest to act now to provide meaningful, near-term flood protection for the valley. The city recognizes the Muckleshoot tribe's treaty -protected fishing rights. Tribal members' access to the river will not be denied or hindered and will be addressed in the project specifications. As we have done with prior levee projects, the city will coordinate with you and/or Glen St. Amant when construction schedules and activities are being finalized. Each of the levee repair projects being proposed by the City of Kent to address safety deficiencies in the levee and meet federal levee safety standards provides independent and meaningful improvement to the reach of the levee where it is located. Consequently, it is appropriate to analyze each project separately. While the separately named levees are tied into each other to form larger portions of the complete Lower Green River Levee system, each separate levee has separate deficiencies which can be repaired separately to improve flood protection to the area it protects. The improvements being proposed as part of the Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project will have a net -positive effect on fish migration, rearing and refuge habitat as well as riparian shade and water temperature. This levee project has incorporated specific design features to improve these conditions. Also, as mentioned earlier, the city is in the midst of implementing a number of large projects designed expressly for fish habitat enhancement that are expected to improve fish refuge and rearing conditions in the Green River valley dramatically. As you mentioned, the city has made some changes to the plan set that was distributed for SEPA permitting. One of the main changes has been to lower the waterward side of the planting bench down to just above the ordinary high water line, and to slope the planting bench at a 6:1 angle so that shallow areas will be available to fish at flow levels of approximately 2,500 to 3,500 CFS (Auburn gage). This change was made because of concerns from Patrick Reynolds of your staff about recent Corps of Engineers and King County constructed benches that did not provide benefit to fish except in extreme (>6,000 CFS) flood events. Some planting changes have also been made to improve view corridors for trail users. Thank you for your careful review of the Briscoe-Desimone Levee plans and supporting details. We would be happy to meet with you to discuss this project further. Please contact me at 253- 856-5516 or at klangholz@kentwa.gov. Sincerely, Ken Langhofz Engineering Supdrvjsor Cc: Tim LaPorte, P.E., Public Works Director Chad Bieren, P.E., City Engineer Mike Mactutis, P.E., Environmental Engineering Manager Mark Howlett, P.E., Design Engineering Manager Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager Erin George, Senior Planner Ms. Erin George Kent Planning Services 220 4th Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE Fisheries Division 39015 -172"d Avenue SE • Auburn, Washington 98092-9763 Phone: (253) 939-3311 • Fax: (253) 931-0752 April 1, 2013 RE: Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project, Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non -Significance, Permit No. ENV -2013-3 (RPSW-2130616); Shoreline Substantial Development SMA -2013-2 (RPSP-2130617); Shoreline Conditional Use Permit SMC - 2013 -1 (RPP3-2130618) Dear Ms. George: The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program has reviewed the Notice of Application; environmental Checklist; available plans; and related documents for the Briscoe-Desimone levee improvement project that would install sheet -pile flood walls and conduct related work above the ordinary high-water mark (OHWM) at four locations in the Green River between river mile 14.5 and 17 over a total length of 4,000 feet. Kent Public Works and Engineering staff indicate that certain project designs have changed since these documents were issued. While these changes may add habitat features, the floodwall project will nevertheless cause direct, indirect, and cumulative adverse impacts to salmon and their habitat, and could impair Muckleshoot tribal fishing access. The purpose of this letter is to provide comments on the environmental documentation for the project, as well as, to provide comments on the larger context for our concerns. The project site and the lower Green River are a critical migration corridor for adult and juvenile life stages of two ESA listed species: Puget Sound Chinook and steelhead, and for other salmon species that provide subsistence, ceremonial, and commercial fisheries for Muckleshoot tribal members. The Green River is adjacent to the Muckleshoot Indian Reservation, and is a mainstay of the Tribe's salmon and steelhead treaty -protected fisheries. Salmon migration conditions along the length of the lower Green River in Kent and Tukwila are severely degraded by floodplain land use and flood control facility construction and maintenance. Water quality in the lower river is impaired by high and sometimes lethal temperatures (Coffin et al., 2011), and a lack of rearing habitat limits recovery of salmon runs (Kerwin and Nelson, 2000; Anchor Environmental, LLC, 2004). The river suffers from a severe shade deficiency along the levees and revetments, which constrain the river channel so much that the river is deeply entrenched. The result is nursery and refuge habitat for juvenile salmon are nearly non-existent. Even MITFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project ODNS holding pools required by adult salmon and steelhead are scarce. April 1, 2013 Page 2of16 As Tribal Chair Virginia Cross indicated in a letter to Executive Constantine and Kent Mayor Cooke (2012) about the Briscoe-Desimone Levee project, the Muckleshoot Tribe supports setting back the Green River levees wherever feasible. In discussions with Kent staff beginning in 2010, we recommended an alternative approach for flood protection along the Briscoe-Desimone levee and in the lower Green River using levee setbacks. The National Marine Fisheries Services (2012) expressed support for the setback levee based on habitat benefits compared to the floodwall alternative stating that the floodwall would "maintain non-functional conditions." The Washington Department of Ecology (2013) also expressed support for the setback levee approach and expressed its concerns about the floodwall based on potential effects on groundwater flow to the river, floodplain connectivity, erosion, and habitat complexity and questioned its consistency with the City's approved 2009 Shoreline Master Program, as well as, the King County Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan. That plan recommends that the Briscoe Levee be setback in order to rebuild the existing, unstable levee and to increase flood conveyance capacity. Treaty Fishing Access Muckleshoot tribal members fish in this section of the river where project construction could interfere with this activity, including but not limited to vehicle parking and access, foot access, setting and retrieving nets. Project elements should be designed and maintained so as not to pose a future hindrance for tribal fishers accessing their fishing sites. To address these concerns for construction activities, we understand that the City is committed to adopting provisions for contract specifications, and addressing treaty fishing access during construction meetings. To facilitate this commitment, we request that the City coordinate the construction schedule and activities at least 30 days in advance by having the Project Manager contact me at 253-876-3116 (or alternatively, Glen St. Amant at 253-876-3130) to assist with this coordination. We request also that the City meet with us to discuss preserving access trails to fishing sites and other ways to avoid interfering with net fishing at those sites. Biological Assessment and Addendum In the Biological Assessment (BA) Addendum (2013) for the City's levee improvement projects, the project consultants now acknowledge that "the waterward side of the levee will experience a temporal loss in riparian vegetation." However, the BA Addendum does not identify that the project area is listed as temperature impaired in the Clean Water Act 303(d) list for the State and that a temperature TMDL study has been completed by Ecology requiring that actions be taken in the lower and middle Green River to address a shade deficiency, nor analyze the project's near-term or cumulative impacts to water temperature. Further, the BA Addendum does not analyze the temporal (near-term) riparian impacts or identify mitigation measures for these impacts. Figure 1 illustrates that temporal loss of riparian vegetation at other recent projects on the lower Green River caused widespread cumulative impacts to riparian shade, and that such losses yield direct impacts that persist for years while riparian shade is eliminated or reduced. The BA Addendum also failed to identify that the project will permanently remove many trees on the landward side of the levee within the project area, including all trees on the existing slope and proposed 15 -foot -wide access easement landward of the present levee crest. These trees currently shade the river, MITFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project ODNS April 1, 2013 Page 3 of 16 but neither short-term nor cumulative impacts of their removal have been considered, and nor has the permanent exclusion of trees from the landward levee slope and proposed access easement. Finally, neither the BA nor its Addendum consider the effects of future bank repairs on vegetation, shade, water temperature, or salmon habitat needs. King County (2013) has noted that the project floodwalls rely on the presence of river banks that will remain unstable, and thus require future bank maintenance and repair that is "not conducive to the establishment of functioning riparian habitat." Phased Environmental Review The City has avoided discussion of cumulative impacts by phasing environmental review without disclosure of its broader flood control plan for the Green River by considering each individual flood control project separately. While the Environmental Checklist acknowledges the Project is merely one component of a larger plan and specifies that the City is "in the process of having the entire right bank levee system within the city limits accredited by FEMA ", and that this Project "is one segment of the system improvements submitted for accreditation", there is no cumulative impact analysis. Phased review under SEPA is appropriate when going from plan -level to project -level, but in this case, the environmental impacts of the larger plan have not been identified, and potential alternatives and mitigation measures for the larger plan have not been considered. The City should analyze the cumulative environmental impacts of its overall effort to construct a series of levee projects and have the entire levee system within the city limits accredited by FEMA. Design Changes We understand that design changes have made subsequent to the project descriptions provided in the Notice of Application (and its referenced documents), Environmental Checklist, and design plans dated February 22, 2013. The list below summarizes our understanding of design changes explained during phone conversations and meetings since the Notice of Application was circulated for public comment: Habitat and Planting Bench Dimensions: • Benches will start at an elevation close to Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) (i.e., inundation will commence at flows about 500 cfs or less above OHWM) • Benches will commonly start closer than 10 feet horizontal distance from OHWM (unless large, overhanging willows are present) • Benches within Reaches 1, 2, and 3 will have a total length of about 4000 feet (no bench is planned for Reach 4) • Benches will range up to about 40 feet in width, and average 25 feet in width • Benches will drop toward the river at about 6:1 slope Vegetation Plans: • Excavations for benches will generally avoid disturbance of existing willows rooted near OWHM and overhang the river • All vegetation waterward of the flood walls will be exempt from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers MITFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project ODNS April 1, 2013 Page 4 of 16 vegetation standards for levees (because the floodwall is the levee) • The City plans to maintain a 15 -foot -wide path inboard of the Green River trail so that is largely free of vegetation other than grass. • The City plans to maintain view corridors through bank vegetation along about 20 percent of the project length • Apart from view corridors and the Green River trail margin, there will be no restrictions on tree height, or trunk diameter inboard of flood walls • Trees planted on benches will be spaced at about 15-20 feet on center and one row deep in most places, allow to grow 10 inches in diameter or possibly larger • Trees will be planted on slopes between excavated benches and the Green River trail for an average width of 25 feet of planting buffer. • The City plans to enroll Briscoe-Desimone levee in PL84-99 program Conclusions and Recommendations We are concerned that the floodwalls do not provide sufficiently wide space for both a wide vegetated buffer and for habitat benches for juvenile fish. The potential benefits for either shade or rearing habitat appear to be uncertain, speculative, and/or illusory. It is not clear to us what vegetation maintenance standards will eventually be applied to the floodwall facilities in the O&M manual required by FEMA. It should be noted that 10 inch diameter trees approved by Kent's certifying engineers are roughly half as tall compared to a system potential tree height of 105 feet noted in the TMDL study, and that a buffer of 75- 150 feet will likely be needed to address temperature impairment. The remainder of the Briscoe- Desimone Levee, if not set back an adequate distance, and if enrolled in the PL 84-99 program, will likely remain shade deficient even with an approved vegetation variance from the Corps of Engineers based on the draft variance policy guidance. Moreover, given that the riverbank is expected to continue to erode towards the floodwall sections, it seems likely that the planted vegetation will be subject to bank erosion or disturbance from future repairs or armoring of the existing levee in front of the floodwall. The project's impacts to riparian shade and water temperature in contrast to a setback levee have not been adequately considered. The City has not conducted a comprehensive analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts arising from its larger plan for Green river levee improvements and FEMA accreditation so that appropriate mitigation can be provided. It seems to us that the floodwall plan will only make it more difficult (in the System Wide Improvement Framework or otherwise) to develop a river corridor plan that can achieve a sustainable migration and floodplain rearing habitat for salmon. This project just makes levee setbacks elsewhere in the lower Green River even more important. Before plans are finalized and permitted, we request an opportunity to meet with Kent staff to discuss project plans for levee vegetation, which could be improved by reducing the extent of view corridors, and planting trees locally within 15 feet of the Green River trail. It is also important to clarify whether vegetation management will differ in relation to the presence or absence of a floodwall along different MITFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project ODNS April 1, 2013 Page 5 of 16 portions of the Briscoe-Desimone levee. In addition, the section of the Briscoe-Desimone Levee Operation and Maintenance Manual that pertain to vegetation (GEI, 2012) should be examined to clarify the extent to which bank instability will limit tree height and diameter growth. We appreciate an opportunity to review this proposal and look forward to the City's responses. We would appreciate a written response to these comments before the City submits permit applications for a Hydraulic Project Approval. Please call me at 253-876-3116 if you have any questions or would like to meet to discuss these comments further. Sincerely, k16/1,1A, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Cc: Larry Fisher, WDFW, Region 4 References Anchor Environmental, L.L.C, 2004, Lower Green River Baseline Habitat Survey Report, Report prepared for WRIA 9 Technical Committee and King County Department of Natural Resources. Coffin, C., S. Lee, and C.L DeGasperi, 2011, Green River temperature total maximum daily load: water quality improvement report: Publication No. 11-10-046, June, 2011, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA, 163 p. (accessed 2012-02-15 at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/1110046.pdf). Kerwin, J., and Nelson, T.S., (eds.), 2000, Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment Report, Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watersheds (WRIA 9 and Vashon Island): Washington Conservation Commission and the King County Department of Natural Resources. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., 2011, Biological assessment, Green River levee improvements, river mile 14.25 to river mile 22.00, Kent, Washington: report 21-1-12339-002, by O'Neill, B., and Corbin, S., submitted to City of Kent Public Works Engineering, Kent, WA, October 3, 2011, 19 p., 3 figures, 2 appendixes, and attachment. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., 2013, Addendum to biological assessment, Green River levee improvements project, river mile 14.25 to river mile 22.00, Kent, Washington: 4 p. MITFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desimone Levee .Improvement Project ODNS Figure .1. Shade deficiencies at recent levee projects on lower Green River. April 1, 2013 Page 6 of 16 Horseshoe Bend Site #1 levee project, constructed 2009 on RB (at right in photo). View DS from near RM 26.0 on 2012-08- 27, about 1430. Water is not shaded by project vegetation three years after construction. Most water in view would be shaded if the rt project site hosted mature trees like those on far bank. MITFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project ODNS April 1, 2013 Page 7 of 16 Downstream end of Kent Shops / Narita levee project, constructed 2008 on RB (at left in photo). View US from near RM. 20A on 2012-08- 27, about 1450. Here water is not shaded by project vegetation four years after construction. MITFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project ODNS April 1, 2013 Page 8 of 16 Figure 1 (continued). Shade deficiencies at recent levee projects on lower Green River. Wide view of Briscoe Levee 4 project, constructed 2007 on RB (above center in photo). View US from near RM 16.3 on 2012-08-27, about 1640. MITFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project ODNS April 1, 2013 Page 9 of 16 Close view of Briscoe Levee 4 project, constructed 2007 on RB (above center in photo). View US from near ISM 16.3 on 2012-08-27, about 1640. Five years after construction, project vegetation shades only several square meters of water surface near project's downstream end. MITFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project ODNS April 1, 2013 Page 10 of 16 tiwer Green River. tinned Shade deficiencies at cent levee ro'�a ,cts on lower TUpstream end of Tukwila Site #3 levee project, constructed 2008 on LB (at left in photo). View DS from near RM 14.6, on 2012-08- 27, about 1530. Shaded water on right side of channel (opposite Tukwila Site #3 project) illustrates a direct benefit of nature levee vegetation. That shade will be eliminated by the project. MITFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project ODNS April 1, 2013 Page 11 of 16 Downstream end of Tukwila Site #3 levee project, constructed 2008 on LB (at right in photo). View US from near RM 14.4, on 2012-08- 27, about 1550. Shadows from trees on opposite bank illustrate a fraction of the historical shade potential for this portion of project site. Here, however, water is not shaded by project vegetation four years after construction. MITFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project ODNS April 1, 2013 Page 12 of 16 Horseshoe Bend Site #1 levee project, constructed 2009 on RB (at right in photo). View DS from near RM 26.0 on 2012-08- 27, about 1430. Water is not shaded by project vegetation three years after construction. Most water in view would be shaded if the project site hosted mature trees like those on far bank. Downstream end of Kent Shops / Narita levee project, constructed 2008 on RB (at left in photo). View US from near RM 20.4 an 2012-08- 27, about 1450. Here water is not shaded by project vegetation four years after construction. MITFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project ODNS April 1, 2013 Page 13 of 16 Figure 1 (continued). Shade deficiencies at recent levee projects on lower Green River. Wide view of Briscoe Levee 4 project, constructed 2007 on RB (above center in photo). View US from near RM 16.3 on 2012-08-27, about 1640. MITFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project ODNS April 1, 2013 Page 14 of 16 Close view of Briscoe Levee 4 project, constructed 2007 on RB (above center in photo). View US from near RM 16.3 on 2012-08-27, about 1640. Five years after construction, project vegetation shades only several square meters of water surface near project's downstream end. MITFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project ODNS Fiore l (continued). Shade deficiencies at recent levee lronj er Gre April 1, 2013 Page 15 of 16 River. ipstream end of lukwila Site #3 evee project, constructed 2008 on LB (at left in )hoto). View DS om near RM 14.6, en 2012-08- 27, about 1530. Shaded water on right side of channel (opposite Tukwila Site #3 project) illustrates a direct benefit of mature levee vegetation. That shade will be eliminated by the project. MITFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project ODNS April 1, 2013 Page 16 of 16 Downstream end of Tukwila Site #3 levee project, constructed 2008 on LB (at right in photo). View US from near RM 14.4, on 2012-08- 27, about 1550. Shadows from trees on opposite bank illustrate a fraction of the historical shade potential for this portion of project site. Here, however, water is not shaded by project vegetation four years after construction. Check items submitted with application Information Required. May be waived in unusual cases, upon approval of both Public Works and Planning. APPLICATION MATERIALS: x 1. Application Checklist (1 copy) indicating items submitted with application. x -N/A Hold Harmless 2. Completed Application Form (page 7) and notarized Hold Harmless Agreement (page 9) (5 copies). (Hold Harmless Agreement Waived 4/4/14 meeting with Tukwila) x 3. Application Fee: See Land Use Fee Schedule for Standard App fee. *Add'I fees may incur x 4. Project Value Documentation. x 5. Public Notice Materials and fee. See item A (page 4) for details. x 6. Project Description/Analysis (5 copies) and other environmental reports (2copies). See item B (page 4) for details. x 7. Drawings (5 copies) Additional copies may be required upon determination that the application is complete: a). Site Plan See item C (page 4) for details. x b). Site Cross Sections along the shoreline . See item D (page 5) for details. x c). Landscape Plans. See item E (page 5) for details. x d). Civil Plans. See item F (page 5) for details. x e). Other plans to help explain the project such as elevations, lighting plan, signage etc. See item G (page 6) for details. x 8. One set of all plans reduced to 81/2" by 11" or 11" by 17". x 9. An electronic copy of all project application materials. x 10. Other land use applications, as applicable: SEPA Environmental Checklist, Design Review Application (see TMC 18.44.110 for review criteria), Special Permission, Director, for buffer reduction requests. Check items submitted with application Information Required. May be waived in unusual cases, upon approval of both Public Works and Planning APPLICATION MATERIALS: X 1. Application Checklist (1 copy) indicating items submitted with application. X 2. Completed Application Form and drawings (4 copies). X see SSDP #7 3. One set of all plans reduced to 8 1/2" x 11" or 11" x 17". N/A (meeting with Tukwila 4/4/2014) 4. Completed and notarized Affidavit of Ownership and Hold Harmless Permission to Enter Property (1 copy attached). X See #3 of SSDP 5. Application Hearing Examiner Fee: See Land Use Fee Schedule. The applicant is also responsible for paying the costs before issuance of the decision. PUBLIC NOTICE MATERIALS: X See #5 SSDP 6. Payment of a $365 notice board fee to FastSigns Tukwila site within 14 days of the Department determining that a complete Public Notice Sign Specifications Handout). OR provide a 4' x 4' public notice board o application has been received (sec X See #3 SSDP 7. Pay the fee as established by the an excel spreadsheet of mailing labels within 500 feet of the subject property. trailer parks—must be included. Once your project is assigned to a planner, mailing label spreadsheet in the following fields as an individual column: Land Use Fee Schedule for generating mailing labels; OR provide and tenants (residents and businesses) family buildings e.g• apartments, condos, to provide an electronic copy of the Address, City St Zip, with each of thes, for all property owners Each unit in multiple you will be required format: Name, Street Name Street Address City, St, Zip Mr. Smith 1234 Park Ave S Tukwila WA 98188 Check items submitted with application Information Required. May be waived in unusual cases, upon approval of both Public Works and Planning PLEASE NOTE: Regardless of whether you pay the City to generate the mailing labels or you provide them, there is an additional fee for postage and material as listed under Public Notice Mailing Fee on the Land Use Fee Schedule. Payment of this fee is due prior to issuance of the decision and you will receive a separate bill for this fee. N/A 8. If providing own labels, include King County Assessor's map(s) which shows the location of each property within 500 ft. of the subject lot. Check items submitted with application Information Required. May be waived in unusual cases, upon approval of both Public Works and Planning PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS: X 9. A written discussion of project consistency with the review criteria found on pages 6-8 of this Application. This is your opportunity to present the merits of your request. X 10. Any additional drawings or information needed to explain or support the variance request. Maximum size of any drawing is 24" x 36". SITE PLAN: X 11. (a) The site plan must include a graphic scale, north arrow and project name. Maximum size 24" x 36". X (b) Existing and proposed building footprints. X (c) Vicinity Map with site location; does not have to be to scale. X (d) Highlight the change being requested through the variance. X (e) Parking Tots, landscape areas and other site improvements. X (f) Fences, rockeries and retaining walls with called out colors, height and materials. X (g) For a shoreline variance, identify the location of the ordinary high water mark, the 200 foot shoreline jurisdiction, and the location of the applicable shoreline buffer (Residential, Urban f Check items submitted with application Information Required. May be waived in unusual cases, upon approval of both Public Works and Planning Conservancy or High Intensity). CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 FAX (206) 431-3665 E-mail: Planning@tukwilawa.gov 'we Ice ce k)__Q e.d&.er) < ,4.43aS zt-Q-t( SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Briscoe-Desimone Levee Project LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. The Desimone Iree (Reach 1) proohect location is located along the right bank of the Green River between S. 189 Street and S. 180 Street within Tukwila, River Mile 14.47 to 14.64. The portion of the Briscoe Levee (Reach 2) withihn Tukwila is located along the right bank of the Green River at the city limits of Tukwila, north of S. 190t Street, near River Mile 15.44. LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS (this information may be found on your tax statement or NWMaps.net). 7888900170, 7888900150, 7888900110, 7888900120, 7888900130, 7888900140, 7888900152, 7888900164, 7888900162 PROJECT VALUE (PLEASE ATTACH DOCUMENTATION): $4.3 M DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR: The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the owner/applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: Ken Langholz, City of Kent Public Works Department Address: 220 4th Ave. S., Kent WA 98032 Phone: 253-856-5516 FAX: 253-856-6500 E-mail: KLngh Iz(«�)<ent)4IA.gov yQ \.Shore Signature: 1' --. CPL �� +l Page 7 of 14 W:\\L.ong Range Proj line\New Sho ine P ts\4-11-12 SSDP Date: 4/3O/1� /09/13/2012 10:15 AM FOR STAFF USE ONLY Permits Plus Type: P -SHORE Planner: File Number: L 1 L4 ._.. aA Application Complete (Date: ) Project File Number: epe__ / L/ , 6 Application Incomplete (Date: ) Other File Numbers: NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Briscoe-Desimone Levee Project LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. The Desimone Iree (Reach 1) proohect location is located along the right bank of the Green River between S. 189 Street and S. 180 Street within Tukwila, River Mile 14.47 to 14.64. The portion of the Briscoe Levee (Reach 2) withihn Tukwila is located along the right bank of the Green River at the city limits of Tukwila, north of S. 190t Street, near River Mile 15.44. LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS (this information may be found on your tax statement or NWMaps.net). 7888900170, 7888900150, 7888900110, 7888900120, 7888900130, 7888900140, 7888900152, 7888900164, 7888900162 PROJECT VALUE (PLEASE ATTACH DOCUMENTATION): $4.3 M DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR: The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the owner/applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: Ken Langholz, City of Kent Public Works Department Address: 220 4th Ave. S., Kent WA 98032 Phone: 253-856-5516 FAX: 253-856-6500 E-mail: KLngh Iz(«�)<ent)4IA.gov yQ \.Shore Signature: 1' --. CPL �� +l Page 7 of 14 W:\\L.ong Range Proj line\New Sho ine P ts\4-11-12 SSDP Date: 4/3O/1� /09/13/2012 10:15 AM 0 BRISCOE-DESIMONE LEVEE RIGHT BANK OF THE GREEN RIVER S. 180th ST. TO S. 200th ST. LEGEND PROPOSED SEISACIC WALL ---- cur IJINTS • RM -17 RIVER MILE NOT TO SCALE GNoNyiWFJ011 01901' .v.— rroute,. npi/lm, can MI KING C.IOUNIY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT KENT WASHINGTON CITY OF KENT SUZETTE COOKE - MAYOR MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL JIM BARRIOS BILL BOYCE BRENDA FINCHER DENNIS HIC GINS DANA RALPH DEBORAH RANNIGER LES THOMAS TIM LaPORTE - DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS RONALD MOORE - CITY CLERK CHAD BIEREN - CITY ENGINEER PAT FITZPATRICK - CITY ATTORNEY PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS TUKWILA SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PLANS JOB NUMBER 09-3011 SHEET INDEX CML DRAWINGS 1 COVER SHEET 2 SITE PLAN 3 LEGEND, GENERAL NOTES & CONSTRUCTION NOTES 4-5 FLOODWALL PLAN & PROFILE SHEETS 6 GRADING PLAN 7-18 GRADING CROSS SECTIONS 19-21 LANDSCAPE PLANS 22 LANDSCAPE NOTES, SPECIFICATIONS & DETAILS 23-24 TREE INVENTORY PLANS REACH 1 PROJECT LOCATION STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS S1 FLOODWALL SECTIONS AND DETAILS S2 SHEET PILE WALL DETAILS S3 HANDRAIL ELEVATION, SECTIONS AND DETAILS S4 REMOVABLE BOLLARD DETAILS S5 TYPICAL FLOODWALL ELEVATION VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE Lig...003o N CC; 0 0 U d C 0 L IDE C L V) w 0 0 0 0 C 0 <-„ \ 0 0 ,.......4 ,..., 4,.......... ...-- ,...---44,-... -44-, , \ .-- EXISTING 10' WIDE TRAIL --- , --- ..."" ...444" .,,,... ..., \ ,- A82 -"d SI' s. EXISTING , • PARKING \ \ FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVA1ION=30.5 30' WIDE EXISTING RIVERBANK PROTECTION EASEMENT PER INSTRUMENT No.'S 5222050 & 5596236 ORDINARY HIGH WATER AND CONSTRUCTION UMITS TOP OF EXISTING BANK LANDWARD TOE OF LEVEE PROPOSED WALL AND 12' WIDE TRAIL RIVERSIDE DR. EXISTING PARKING PROPOSED TRAIL ACCESS RAMP PROPOSED 15' WIDE RIVER PROTECTION EASEMENT AND CONSTRUCTION LIMITS KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL D ISTRICT EXISTING BUILDING 14' ,44-44 .,,,....., 1 --- 'I ,-.-_., r- , I r-' , • ', / /C , \ / n . / ,..,. , / / __- NOTE: SEE SHEET 7 FOR LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS AND TYPICAL DETAIL DESIGNED: my PARKS DEPT: DRAWN: RW IIPROJECT EGR: CONST. PGIAT. REVIEW KENT PROECT NO 09-3011 SCALE: HORIZ: m.5° VERT: NONE NO. REVISION BY DATE APPROVED. CITY ENGINEER DATE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAIONG ADJJST SCALES ACCORDINGLY Cr 1 - Cay of Kent -4110.11\. Public Works Department INDENT Engineering Division WASMI SITE PLAN DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 2 oF 24 FILE NO. G: \Design \09-3011 DESIMONE WALLS \dwg \Shoreline Permits\Tukwila Shoreline\Site plan.dwg, 4/16/2014 11:22:39 AM GENERAL NOTES 1. PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ATTEND A SCHEDULED PRE—CONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE WITH THE CITY OF KENT CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION PERSONNEL AND DESIGN ENGINEERS. PHONE (253) B56-5500 TO SCHEDULE CONFERENCE 2. ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 2009 EDITION OF THE CITY OF KENT CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS, THE WSDOT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, 2012 EDITION AND THE KENT SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR THIS PROJECT. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 1-07.23 TO SECTION 1-07.23(2) OF THE KENT SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR STORING OF EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS DURING NON—WORKING HOURS 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP STREETS CLEAN AT ALL TIMES BY STREET SWEEPING WHEN NECESSARY, OR WHEN DIRECTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER. 5. ALL ITEMS OF WORK NOT USTED IN THE BID PROPOSAL WHICH ARE SHOWN ON THE CONTRACT DRAWINGS AND ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE WORK THAT IS SHOWN SHALL BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO THE USTED BID ITEMS. 6. ALL TREES AND VEGETATION WITHIN TIE PROJECT OMITS SHALL BE REMOVED AS NOTED. ALL OTHER TREES SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT REMAINING TREES FROM DAMAGE RESULTING FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES INCLUDING DAMAGE TO ROOT SYSTEM. ANY TREES DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE REPLACED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS ON—SITE AND ADJACENT TO THE 511E THAT WERE DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION TO ORIGINAL CONDITION UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. THE COSTS FOR GENERAL RESTORATION AND CLEAN UP REQUIRED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THIS PROJECT SHALL BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO AND INCLUDED IN THE UNIT CONTRACT PRICE OF OTHER BID ITEMS EXCEPT FOR THOSE ITEMS INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSAL 8. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE WORD REMOVE' OR 'REMOVAL' IN THE CONSTRUCTION NOTES AND SHOWN ON THE PLANS MEANS REMOVAL. HAUL AND PROPER OFF—SITE DISPOSAL BY THE CONTRACTOR AT THE CONTRACTORS EXPENSE 9. THESE ISSUED—FOR—CONSTRUCTION PLANS, THE APPROVED TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS, THE APPROVED TEMPORARY EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLANS. THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND KENT SPECIAL PROVISIONS SHALL BE ON THE JOB SITE WHENEVER CONSTRUCTION IS IN PROGRESS. 10. UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE THE CONTRACTOR IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MEANS, METHODS AND SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION AND FOR THE SAFETY OF THE WORKERS. 11. ALL EXISTING UTIUTIES SHALL REMAIN IN SERVICE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 12. IDENTIFICATION. LOCATION, MARKING AND RESPONSIBIU Y FOR UNDERGROUND FACILITIES OR UTIUTIES IS GOVERNED BY THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 19.122, REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON. 13. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES LOCATION SERVICE (811) AT LEAST TWO WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE OWNER OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE AND THE ENGINEER SHALL BE CONTACTED IMMEDIATELY IF A CONFUCT EXISTS. 14. CAUTION — EXTREME HAZARD — OVERHEAD AND UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL SERVICE UNES ARE GENERALLY NOT SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING 'THE EXTENT OF ANY HAZARD CREATED BY OVERHEAD OR UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL POWER IN ALL AREAS AND SHALL FOLLOW PROCEDURES DURING CONSTRUCTION AS REQUIRED BY LAW AND REGULATION. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MEET WITH UTILITY OWNERS AND DETERMINE THE EXTENT OF HAZARD AND REMEDIAL MEASURES AND SHALL TAKE WHATEVER PRECAUTIONS THAT MAY BE REQUIRED. THE WORK IS IN PROXIMITY TO PRIMARY HIGH VOLTAGE POWER UNES. 15. ALL LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED BY FIELD SURVEY OR OBTAINED FROM AVAILABLE RECORDS AND SHOULD THEREFORE BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE ONLY AND NOT NECESSARILY COMPLETE IT IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO INDEPENDENTLY VERIFY THE ACCURACY OF ALL UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN AND TO FURTHER DISCOVER AND AVOID ANY OTHER UTIUTIES NOT SHOWN HEREON WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS PLAN. 16. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL SHORING AND BRACING REQUIRED TO PROTECT AND SUPPORT EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND STRUCTURES DURING CONSTRUCTION. 17. ANY OPEN CUTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC ROADWAYS SHALL BE BACKFILLED AND COMPACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF KENT STANDARDS. ALL CUTS INTO EXISTING ASPHALT SHALL BE ALONG NEAT, CONTINUOUS, SAW CUT UNES. A TEMPORARY COLD MIX PATCH MUST BE PLACED IMMEDIATELY AFTER BACKFILL AND COMPACTIONS. UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER THE EXISTING SURFACING MUST BE REPLACED IN KIND (OR 3 INCHES OF COMPACTED HMA PG64-22. CLASS 1/2'. ASPHALT CONCRETE. WHICHEVER IS GREATER) WITHIN 30 DAYS OF COLD PATCHING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CLOSELY FOLLOW REQUIREMENTS SET FOR WORKING HOURS. DETOUR AND WARNING SIGNS AND NOTIFICATION OF ROAD ALTERATIONS TO THE POLICE AND/OR OTHER EMERGENCY SERVICES. 18. ALL UTILITY UDS, COVERS, ETC. LOCATED IN THE SIDEWALK SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO GRADE. 19. IT IS ILLEGAL UNDER WASHINGTON STATE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 332-120 TO WILLFULLY DESTROY SURVEY MARKERS. STAKES, MARKS, AND OTHER REFERENCE POINTS SET BY CITY FORCES, AND EXISTING CITY, STATE OR FEDERAL MONUMENTATION, SHALL BE CAREFULLY PRESERVED BY THE CONTRACTOR. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF IT BECOMES APPARENT THAT A SURVEY MARKER WILL BE DISTURBED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR WILL ALLOW AMPLE TIME FOR CITY SURVEY DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL TO ACQUIRE ADEQUATE INFORMATION SO THAT THE MONUMENT MAY BE REPLACED IN ITS ORIGINAL POSITION AFTER CONSTRUCTION. 20. DRIVEWAYS SHALL REMAIN OPEN AT AU. DUES DURING BUSINESS HOURS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE HIS WORK SCHEDULE WITH THE PROPERTY OCCUPANTS TO DETERMINE THE BEST TIME TO FULLY OR PARTIALLY CLOSE THE DRIVEWAYS IN ORDER TO PERFORM HIS WORK. �r CONSTRUCTION NOTES BID ITEM NUMBERS ARE SHOWN UNDERLINED. THEY ARE PROVIDED FOR CONTRACTOR CONVENIENCE ONLY AND NOT INCLUSIVE OF THE PROJECT WORK. O REMOVE EXISTING TREE, AND ROOTBALL. BACKFILL VOID AND COMPACT PER SPECIFICATIONS. 1.222 O REMOVE EXISTING TREE STUMP AND ROOTBALL BACKFILL VOID AND COMPACT PER SPECIFICATIONS 1005 O REMOVE EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT. 1010 O SAW CUT EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT. 1050 O CONSTRUCT NEW ASPHALT TRAIL AND SUB—BASE PER DETAIL 2, SHEET 2. 1080. 1095 © REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE STAIRWAY. 1021 O REMDVE EXISTING CONCRETE EXTRUDED CURB. 1030 © REMOVE EXISTING BOLLARD. K O REMOVE EXISTING SIGN. 4145 10 CONSTRUCT PARKING LOT PAVEMENT PATCH AND SUB—BASE PER DETAIL X. SHEET X. K 11 CONSTRUCT CONCRETE EXTRUDED CURB PER KENT STANDARD PLAN 6-33. K 12 INSTALL REMOVABLE BOLLARD PER KING COUNTY FIG. 5-018. 1290 13 REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE PAVEMENT. 1070 14 INTERCEPT POWER UNE 10 EXISTING UGHT ON THE LANDWARD SIDE OF THE FLOODWALL INSTALL TYPE 1 JUNCTION BOX IF SPLICE WILL BE REQUIRED TO REWIRE THE LIGHT IN THE NEW LOCATION SHOWN ON THE PLAN. REMOVE EXISTING LUMINAIRE, POST AND FOUNDATION. CONSTRUCT NEW CLASS 3000 CONCRETE FOUNDATION IN THE NEW LOCATION SHOWN ON THE PLAN. MATCH DIMENSIONS OF EXISTING FOUNDATION. INSTALL EXISTING LUMINARE AND POST ON NEW FOUNDATION AND RECONNECT POWER. 1710 15 REMOVE EXISTING TRASH ENCLOSURE AND CONCRETE SLAB AS REQUIRED. CONSTRUCT NEW SLAB AFTER FLOOD WALL CONSTRUCTION. MATCH EXISTING SLAB THICKNESS. RE—INSTALL EXISTING TRASH ENCLOSURE K KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL D I S T R ICT DATUM VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD BB HORIZONTAL DATUM: NAD 83/91 CITY OF KENT BENCHMARK Na 850 BENCHMARK ELEVATION: 31.824 BENCHMARK DESCRIPTION: SET MAG NAIL WITH 1-1/Y CITY OF KENT ALUMINUM WASHER IN ASPHALT ON W SIDE OF WVH AT NW CORNER OF DRIVEWAY APRON AT ENTRANCE TO BIKE TRAIL AT N END OF RIVERPOINT CORPORATE CENTER, AT TODD BLVD AND WVH. CITY OF KENT BENCHMARK No. 851 BENCHMARK ELEVATION: 33.496 BENCHMARK DISCRIPTION: SET MAC NAIL WITH 1-1/Y CITY OF KENT ALUMINUM WASHER IN BIKE TRAIL ON E SIDE OF GREEN RIVER IN BRISCOE PARK. BEHIND BUILDING /6020 IN CUL—DE—SAC AT INTERSECTION OF S 190 ST AND 62 AVE S MAGNAIL IS IN TRAIL W OF TWO COVERED PICNIC AREAS. VERTICAL DATUM CONVERSION NAVD 88 = NAVD 29 + 3.53' ABBREVIATIONS - CIVIL BW EP ESMT EX FG FS GB IE OHW PT PC PCC PRC R/W TC TW BOTTOM OF WALL EDGE OF PAVEMENT EASEMENT EXISTING FINISHED GRADE FINISHED SURFACE GRADE BREAK INVERT ELEVATION ORDINARY HIGH WATER POINT OF TANGENCY POINT OF CURVATURE POINT OF COMPOUND CURVATURE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE RIGHT OF WAY TOP OF CAP BEAM TOP OF WALL ABBREVIATIONS - STRUCTURAL B/CONC BOTTOM OF CONCRETE WALL FACING B/SHEET PILE BOTTOM OF SHEET PILE WALL B/WATERSTOP BOTTOM OF WATERSTOP T/BARRIER TOP OF PEDESTRIAN BARRIER T/RAILING TOP OF HANDRAIL T/SHEET PILE TOP OF SHEET PILE WALL TW TOP OF WALL G. fqoso LEGEND EXISTING FEATURES APPEAR SCREENED 0 o MB O O T ❑ T T TV OHP P 121 TYPE 1 E4 ® TYPE 2 IPI G M m ICV O VPI -W- N—W— D—�D- -D ® D— FM EP > < P7T7/77777/� ✓✓ A OHW CONSTRUCTION NOTE SECTION LETTER OR DETAIL NUMBER SHEET NUMBER WHERE SECTION OR DETAIL IS REFERENCED SIGN MAILBOX WELL FENCE STREET LIGHT/LUMINAIRE UTILITY POLE W/GUY TELEPHONE MANHOLE/VAULT TELEPHONE PEDESTAL UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE UNE UNDERGROUND CATV UNE OVERHEAD POWER UNE UNDERGROUND POWER UNE EXISTING JUNCTION BOX NEW JUNCTION BOX POWER VAULT/CABINET GAS UNE AND VALVE FIRE HYDRANT IRRIGATION CONTROL BOX WATER METER VALVE POSITION INDICATOR ARE DEPT. CONNECTION WATER VAULT WATERLINE AND VALVE STORM SEWER UNE & CATCH BASIN STORM SEWER UNE & MANHOLE STORM SEWER FORCEMAIN DITCH FLOWUNE SANITARY SEWER LINE & MANHOLE CENTERUNE R/W UNE EASEMENT LINE PROPERTY UNE AND OWNERSHIP HOOK MONUMENT IN CASE EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT CULVERT EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING CONCRETE ORDINARY HIGH WATER UNE DECIDUOUS TREE EVERGREEN TREE DESIGNED. RW CHECKED: KENT PROJECT NO. 09-3011 DRAWN: RW PROJECT ENGR: CONST. 1.45141 REVIEW SCALE: MOBIL NONE VERT: NONE NO. REVISION BY DATE APPROVED. CITY ENGINEER DATE BAR 15 ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY O" City of Kent Public Works Department •••••• KENT Engineering Division LEGEND, GENERAL NOTES & CONSTRUCTION NOTES DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 3 of 24 FILE NO. G:\Design\09-3011 DESIMONE WALLS\dwg\Shoreline Permits\Tukwila Shoreline\Legend R1.dwg, 4/16/2014 11:23:51 AM 1 I y LANDWARD FACE OF FINISHED WALL & CONST. CONTROL UNE 0 RIVERPOINTE CORPORATE CENTER 18200 CASCADE AVE. S / rf EX. PARKING LOT \ , 15' WIDE RIVER PROTECTION EASEMENT, CLEARING AND CONSTRUCTION UMITS. ------- FEMA BASE ------ --------- 20 15 10 20 40 i—..a -_ -_ -_FLOOD ELEV.=30.5 - -- EXTEND EX. 8- PIPE THROUGH WALL AND INSTALL FLAP GATE '__ `EDGE OF GRAVEL --___ -- ---_-SHOULDER _ -_-- __- _- _-_--- `- _` ,- i-:-.;7-:i-;i-i--;-i-;,- ;-,a2-,---,---7-_:--:--_ :---_:::4- _—_- 25-'--------- ----- -- - `-- ` DGE _-:_::-: -- =___-- _.__-_--_-_ ----------- -EDGE OF ------ -r =-: --=---= :=-_==_-= ___-;PAVEMENT,- - ------------- 766+00 30' WIDE EXISTING RIVERBANK PROTECTION EASEMENT PER INSTRUMENT No.'S 5222050 & 5596236 x0 O 755+ ORDINARY HIGH WATER UNE AND CONSTRUCTION OMITS. 787 GREEN RIVER fir- FLOW --------------------------------------------------------------------------- SCALE IN FEET 4/q- otogyd 5 CON.0 : CAP :BEAM :UMITS FLOOD GATE....... CONC. CAP: BEAM :BARRIER & RAILING :LIMITS 40 12+00.00 BEG.: CONE; :CAP BEAM & BARRIE 30 J J TC 34:56. TOP OF: CONC:. BARRIER• ELEVATION: CONTROL UNE/ 11DP: Of CAP: BEAD: (TC):: Ark Wir NW' 15:+68:37 TC -34:88 ro co SEE 'S - SHEETS i 0, 50 N 15+88.37 - =0.00088 ATO OF CONC.: BARRIER +37 42 T>r=34:90 . - 40 S=0.00088 2 10 0 • 13+17t to TOP:.OF SH PILE: WALL --- EX.' B' OUTFALL IE=29± EXISTING :GROUND A LANDWARD- TOE OF WALL p 0 •+ N y) m to V) tn. 30 0 - 64 – 1 15+89.20 BW==O 85. ALL PILES AT 60' :MIN. :LENGTH: (TYR.: 17+37.42 BW= -0.72 1,0 N 10 ALL PILES 'AT :35'. M N. LENGTH (TYP 0 – 20 12+00.00 BW= -6.19 15+89.20 BW= -25.8x5 12+00 _ .. . :13+00 KENT PROJECT NO. 09-3011 DRAWN: Ryi PROJECT ENCR: SCALE NO. REVISION BY DATE CITY ENGINEER DATE 14+ 00 BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAAING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY 15+00 40.14 City of Kent Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division 16+00 REACH 1 FLOODWALL PLAN AND PROFILE 17+00..- _kr- KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL D 1 S T R. 1 C T DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET –10 –20 FILE NO. G:\Design\09-3011 DESIMONE WALLS\dwg\Shoreline Permits\Tukwila Shoreline\Wall R1- 01.dwg, 4/16/2014 11:30:19 AM If n 15' WIDE RIVER PROTECTION EASEMENT, CLEARING AND CONSTRUCTION LIMITS LANDWARD FACE OF FINISHED WALL & CONST. CONTROL UNE E . P PRKYNG -° Y RIVERPOINIE CORPORATE CENTER 18200 CASCADE AVE S. CORNING CLINICAL LABORATORIES, SAYBOLT INC., ENCORE SALES & INNOVATION CUISINE ENT. 18251 CASCADE AVE S. 20 15 10 0 40 r - SCALE IN FEET EX. BLDG. d3 EDGE OF CAP BEAM EP — -EDGE OF GRAVEL — :SHOULDER GE OF -PAVEMENT-J=1= FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEV. =30. 5 • • - 30' WIDE EXISTING • RIVERBANK PROTECTION / EASEMENT PER INSTRUMENT NO.'S 5222050 & 5596236 • 7201.00 1694°13 GREEN IRNER-/ FLOW •• r )0RDINARY HIGH WATER UNE AND CONSTRUCTION UMITS. / 1,00 • • 1�� • co 5 BEAM,: BARRIER & :RAILING LIMITS 40 3 20 1 0 - 10 0 17+37 42 Arkiglik 50 22+75 00 TOP -OF TOP OF -SHEET .EXISTING :GROUND AT LANDWARD TOE OF WALL - 20 18+00 KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 9+00 17+ 7.42 22+7500 TC=35.50 13.81 R 0 20+00 AT 60! 21+00 22+00 16.08': R 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 'PROJECT ENGR: DESIGNED: CHECKED: 1CONST. MOAT. REVIEW KENT PROJECT No. 09-3011 REVISION DV DATE CITY ENGINEER DATE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWiNG ADXST SCALES ACCORDINGLY Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division REACH 1 FLOOD WALL PLAN AND PROFILE DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 5 or 24 FILE NO. G:\Design\09-3011 DESIMONE WALLS\dwg\Shoreline Permits\Tukwila Shoreline\Wall R1- 02.dwg, 4/16/2014 11:49:27 AM BREAK UNE GRADING NOTES GREEN RIVER -411C--ria— FLOW r, .._.,. i.✓ s GRADING VOLUMES 1. NO WORK -BELOW 'ORQINARY HIGH-WATER SHALL BE ALLOWED. 2. EXCAVATION OF THE LEVEE AND RIVER BANK SHALL BE UMITED TO THE AVAILABLE DATES DESCRIBED IN KSP SECTIONS I 2-03.1(1) AND 6-20.3. 3. 4. SUITABLE MATERIAL EXCAVATED FROM THE RIVER BANK SHALL BE USED AS FILL MATERIAL AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. CONTOUR INTERVAL = 1 FOOT. GRADING LEGEND --35 - EXISTING CONTOUR AND ELEVATION --1351-- PROPOSED CONTOUR AND ELEVATION —OHW— ORDINARY HIGH WATER UNE z1 n M n N rn 0,7 0 %O 23+00'. '"'" BREAK UNE 25 GREEN RIVER FLOW DESIGNED: CW PARKS DEPT: PROJECT ENGR: KENT PROJECT NO. D9-3011 CONST. AIGMT. REVIE REVISION APPROVED OTY ENGINEER SCALE HORIZ: 1 "=20' VERT, NONE DATE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY o' r OHW CUT - 8,201 CUBIC. YARDS FILL - 1,978 CUBIC YARDS 4^' LEVEE EMBANKMENT FILL (OR LOW PERMEABIUTY FILL) SHALL BB CLAY, SILT OR SILTY/CLAYEY SAND HAVING A MAXIMUM PARTICLE - SIZE OF 2 INCH, AT LEAST 25 PERCENT BY WEIGHT PASSING THE No. 200 SIEVE, A MINIMUM PLASTICITY INDEX OF 5, A MAXIMUM UQUID UMIT OF 40 AND BE FREE OF ORGANIC AND DELETERIOUS MATERIALS. EXISTING WILLOW TREES WITHIN 5 FEET OF THE OHW LINE TO REMAIN. ADJUST 6:1 SLOPE AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER. SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR LOCATION ALL EXISTING VEGETATION BELOW THE OHW UNE TO REMAIN. NO WORK SHALL OCCUR BELOW THE OHW UNE -� OHW VARIES SEE CROSS SECTIONS KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL City of Kent Public Works Department [ENT Engineering Division EXISTING GROUND EXCAVATION AREA. SEE GRADING NOTE 2 LANDWARD FINISHED FACE OF WALL AND CONSTRUCTION CONTROL UNE. SEE WALL PROFILE PLANS 16.17' (TYP.) WIDTH VARIES AT TRANSITIONS AND PARKING LOT RAMP, SEE PLANS VARIES SEE CROSS SECTIONS V 100 3' MIN. 6:1 LEVEE EMBANKMENT FILL PAYMENT UMITS. SEE GRADING NOTE 3. TYPICAL GRADING SECTION NOT TO SCALE GRADING PLAN FLOOD / WALL) C /'/-oaSo i DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS ELEV. CONTROL PT. (TOP OF CAP BEAM) SEE WALL PROFILE FOR ELEV. SHEET 6 OF 24 FILE NO. G:\Design\09-3011 DESIMONE WALLS\dwg\Shoreline Permits\Tukwila Shoreline\Grading RI- 01.dwg, 4/21/2014 3:44:55 PM { LANDWARD FINISHED FACE OF WALL AND CONSTRUCTION CONTROL UNE. SEE WALL PROFILE PLANS REMOVE EXIST. ASPHALT PAVEMENT V 500 YR FLOOD EL + 3 FT. MIN. TOP OF BARRIER V 100 YR FLOOD EL + 3 FT. MIN. EDGE OF GRAVEL SHOULDER FINISHED GRADE, SEE GRADING PLAN LEVEE EXCAVATION, SEE GRADING PLAN GREEN RIVER 50. 30 20 V OHW UNE EXIST. GROUND 1 2 CONST. 12' WIDE PAVED TRAIL PER SECTION 2 LEVEE EMBANKMENT FILL PAYMENT UMIT. SEE GRADING PLAN CONST. CAP BEAM AND BARRIER W/ HANDRAIL SEE STRUCTURAL PLANS NOTE: 1. REGRADE AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION ON THE LANDWARD SIDE OF THE FLOOD WALL AS REQUIRED. INSTALL TOPSOIL (6" DEPTH) AND SOD UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON THE PLANS OR DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. 16.17' 15' RIVER PROTECTION EASEMENT CONSTRUCT FLOODWALL SEE STRUCTURAL PLANS TYPICAL LEVEE SECTION z La W a 0 0 a NOT TO SCALE .¥O1IW 100 90 BO STA: 12+00 ASE. FLOOD : • . - Q EL: 30.50 : FJOSTING GROUND:... i - ..-FLO9D. WALL. E1: . 14.40..:. . i ..:....�.. .... J RESTORE SURFACE SEE NOTE 1. FINISHED FACE OF WALL 1' CLEAR OF PROPERTY UNE MIN. SEE GRADING AND LANDSCAPE PLANS 2 LANDWARD FINISHED FACE OF WALL AND CONSTRUCTION CONTROL UNE. SEE WALL PROFILE PLANS i- 2' SHOULDER 14.17' PAVED WIDE TRAIL (TYP.) 12' WIDE ASPHALT (TYP.) 2.17' WIDTH VARIES AT TRANSITIONS 1.5% 9" DEPTH 5/8" MINUS CRUSHED SURFACING, COMPACTED PER SPECIFICATIONS 3" DEPTH ASPHALT PVMT., HMA PG 64-22, CLASS 1/2" COMPACTED PER SPECIFICATIONS. 6" DEPTH 5/8" MINUS CRUSHED SURFACING, COMPACTED PER SPECIFICATIONS LEVEE EMBANKMENT FILL PAYMENT OMITS CONCRETE BARRIER, SEE STRUCTURAL PLANS ELEVATION CONTROL POINT (TOP OF CAP BEAM), SEE WALL PROFILE AND SHEET S1 EX. GROUND AT LANDWARD 7 -- ONE OF WALL AS SHOWN ON PROFILE TYPICAL PAVED TRAIL SECTION NOT TO SCALE EX. GROUND '20 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 —10 —20 10 20 SCALE IN FEET —60 —70 —90 —100 —110 —120 —130 —140 —150 [. /4- 0030 —160 10 0 DESIGNED: CHECKED: KENT PROJECT NO. 09-3011 DRAWN: PROJECT ENCR: CONST. MOAT. REVIEW SCAB: HORIZ: 1.;;10. VERT: 1 =10' NO. REVISION BY DATE APPROVED: CITY ENGINEER DATE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY O' City of Kent 4,444b4N4a Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 7 of 24 FILE NO. G:\Design\09-3011 DESIMONE WALLS\dwg\Shoreline Permits\Tukwila Shoreline\R1 Sections.dwg, 4/16/2014 11:40:00 AM 40 - --.:._.---- 20 cHW:. . OHW EL:. DOSING .GROUND\ : 4.42 ' / •: STA: 12+50 100 90 Bo 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 STA: 13+00 • • EXISTING BUILDING it : 2:• W; ' 30 ... - - ...--.._--- 10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -70 —8o -90 -100 -110 -120 -130 -140 -150 -160 20 10 oNw y! 8..1445;./. • BASE FLOOD EL 30.50 "_- FLOOD WALL WEST VALLEY HWY. 0 • 100 90 80 70 60 50 DESIGNED; CHECKED: KENT PROJECT NO. 09-3011 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -70 —80 -90 -100 -110 -120 -130 -140 -150 -160 10 5 0 SCALE IN FEET 10 20 L./ V,- 0630 ::0 ' 10 10 10 DRAWN: PROJECT ENGR: CONST. 14GI4T. REVIEW SCALE: HORIZ Y 10 VERT- 1'=10' NO. REVISION BY 1 DATE APPROVED: CITY ENGINEER DATE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY 0- City of Kent Public Works Department (CENT Engineering Division MA•w1 LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 8 of 24 FILE NO. G:\Design\09-3011 DESIMONE WALLS\dwg\Shoreline Permits\Tukwila Shoreline\R1 Sections.dwg, 4/16/2014 11:40:19 AM 50 30 . 20 10 0 f STA: 13+50 • : BASE FLOOD E S1ING, GROUND: EL 30.50 OHW EL: .14.47 0 0 N 100 90 BO 70 60 50 40 30 50 20 10 0 —10 —20 —30 —40 —50 —60 —70 —80 —90 —100 —110 —120 —130 —140 —150 —160 STA: 14+00 30I • • : .—wEST VALLEY. HWY.: 90 BO 70 60 30 20 10 0 —10 —20 10 5 0 I SCALE IN FEET • 10 • 20 • • w• rc 0 01• a —60 —70 —80 —90 —100 —110 —120 —130 • —150 —160 /y -G6136 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 50 40 30 20 10 —10 DESIGNED: CHECKED: KENT PROJECT NO. 09-3011 DRA PROJECT ENCR: CONST. moor. REVIEW SCALE: HORIZ' 1'x10' VERT r=10' NO. REVISION BY DATE APPROVED: CITY ENGINEER DATE BAR IS ONE MCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY 0 - City of Kent 'moo Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 9 or 24 FILE NO. G:\Design\09-3011 DESIMONE WALLS\dwg\Shoreline Permits\Tukwila Shoreline\R1 Sections.dwg, 4/16/2014 11:37:55 AM 50 STA: 14+50 14.ESJ. VALLEY MWY. — 40 • • • • • • 100 90 BO 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -70 -80 -90 -100 -110 -120 -130 -140 -150 -160 STA: 15+00 40` 30 BASE FLOOD EL 30.50 . DQSTING.GPQUND :i; :OFF: 35.15: ' ' . EL 19:70 20 OFF: -5. EL 34.76 FINISH GRADE • PROPOSED • VARIABLE WIDTH RIVER PROTECTION EASEMENT. .. . WEST VALIEY:HWY. • • 1'ROPOSEO ... .. ... PROP.ERTY. UNE • • • 10 i : I 30H • • 100 90 BO 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 5 0 SC -ALE IN FEET -40 -50 -60 -70 -80 -90 -100 -110 -120 -130 -140 -150 -160 10 20 04'- ooS' 10 DESIGNED: CHECKED: KENT PROJECT NO. 09-3011 DRAWN: PROJECT ENGR: CONST. UGIT, REVIEW SCALE: HOR1Z: VERT: 1-10. NO. REVISION BY DATE APPROVED_ CITY ENGINEER DATE BAR 15 ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY 0- 1 - City of Kent \. Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 10 of 24 FILE NO. G:\Design\09-3011 DESIMONE WALLS\dwg\Shoreline Permits\Tukwila Shoreline\R1 Sectlons.dwg, 4/16/2014 11:40:46 AM 40 30 20 10 0 STA: 15+50 FLOOD: WALL GRAVEL -:MAINTENANCE .ACCESS • . • OFF: 5.00 E1.-:;-34,.81:' i BASE FLOOD : la.: 30.50• EXISTING GROUND DiAv ONW EL: 14.5 PROPOSED: VAR1ABLE440TH:RIVER ' .PROTE0110N EASEMENT : ' .. . :1` ACCESS RAMP . 6:1 SLOPE • 21 SLOPE : : PROPERTY UNE :FlNISH GRADE ; OFF.: 37.57 EI •18.52.- • • • • • • • • 40 • 30 —! 20 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 • • • • • • • 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -70 -80 -90 -100 -110 -120 -130 -140 -150 -160 STA: 16+00 30 EXISTING GROUND BASE FL00D : : : ' • EL• :30.60 : . • PAVED. TRAIL- . FL000 :(AT ACCESS: RAMP)• : :_.. ' -. OFF: 23.85. . . • :a 34.56 _ ' • • OHW:....;. 0H.W az 14.60 6:1 SLOPE: 2-1 FINISH `GRADE OFF: 54.97 EL 19.01 0 100 90 WALL• : PROPOSED 15' • WIDE RIVER PROTECTION EASEMENT SLOPE • PROPOSED PROPERTY UNE • • PARKING LOT • 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 10 5 0 10 20 SCALE IN FEET 200' ISHOREUNE S 10 0 10 50 30 20 -60 -70 -80 -90 -100 -110 -120 -130 -140 -150 -160 1.14' -040636 -10 DESIGNED: CHECKED: KENT PROJECT NO. 09-3011 DRAWN: PROJECT ENGR: CONST. MGT• RENEW SCALE: HORZ:1•�1D VERT: =10' NO. REVISION BY DATE A PROVED_ CITY ENGINEER DATE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY o' City of Kent Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 11 or 24 FILE NO. G:\Design\09-3011 DESIMONE WALLS\dwg\Shoreline Permits\Tukwila Shoreline \R1 Sections.dwg, 4/16/2014 11:41:13 AM 50: STA: 16+50 401 . • EXISTING GROUND BASE FZOOD:.. :/ EL 30.50 : ---------OFF: ---1-7.00 EL 34.71 • • ..... FLOOD WALL PAVED TRAIL :PROPOSED 15' ; WIDE RIVER. PROMOTION EASEMENT OH+ ..: EL 1.4.62 i • 7 0 -- OFF: 52.16 21 SLOPE NISH'GRADE' ...:- .1' . `PROPOSED PROPERTY UNE : EL" 17.12 : • • 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -70 -60 -90 -100 -110 -120 -130 -140 -150 -160 EXISTING GROUND_\ BASE FLOOD EL: 30.50 FLOOD STA: 17+00 PROPOSED 15' MADE RIVER PROTECTION EASEMENT 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 :-150 OFF: '17.00 • El_'• .34.75. ; . • NISH GRADE PROPOSED PROPERTY UNE PARKING LOT: : 100 90 70 60 30 20 10 -10 -20 -50 -60 10 5 0 10 20 SCALE IN FEET -70 -80 -90 -100 -110 -120 -130 -140 -150 -160 L Pia-000,3ci • 30 20 0 DESIGNED: CHECKED: KENT PRO.ECT NO. 09-3011 DRAWN: PROJECT ENGR: CONST. 11G1AT. REVIEW SCALE: HmIZ. 1'e10' VERT- NO. REVISION BY DATE APPROVED: CITY ENGINEER DATE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY O" City of Kent Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS HEET 12 of 24 ILE NO. G:\Design\09-3011 DESIMONE WALLS\dwg\Shoreline Permits\Tukwila Shoreline\R1 Sections.dwg, 4/16/2014 11:41:36 AM 50 l • • BASE: Fl-OOD • EL:: 30.50 •.OFF:•- 17.00. Eli 34.79 STA: 17+50 FLOOD; WALL • PAVED TRAIL PROPOSED -15' : WIDE RIVER • "PROTEC'110N : EASEMENT OFF:: 54:22 EL. 16.16 i . 2:1- SLOPE- ... 20 OH 0H* • EL'•.14.67.' 100 " �6:i--SLOPE--------�- : : : • • 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 �PROP:OSEO; PROPERTY UNE • -PARKIN. • LOT • • • • 20 10 0 —10 —20 —30 —40 —50 —60 —70 —80 STA: 18+00 : PROPOSED -15' WIDE RIVER PROTEC`110N EASEMENT WALL: OFF: 17.00 ExISTINO ORouND BASE FLO00 E1 30.50 EL 34.84 PAVED TRAIL 2:1 SLOPE ..: OHW. . OHW . ..:.EU.1 10 100 90 70 60 NN_ PROPOSEO: PROPERTY UNE PARK NO- LOT • -90.. 20 10 0 —10 —20 —30 —40 —50 —60 —70 10 5uu0 10 20 SCALE IN FEET —100 —110 —120 SHORELINE BUFFER : : —130 —140 —150 —160 50 30 120 10 —10 • —90 —100 —110 —120 —130 —140 —150 —160 oO2o 10 0 —10 DESIGNED: CHECKED: KENT PROJECT NO. 09-3011 DRAWN: PROJECT ENCR: CONST. 4GnT. REVIEW SCALE: HORIZ VERT: 1 .=10' NO. REVISION BY DATE APPROVED: CITY ENGINEER DATE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY 0' 1- City of Kent Public Works Depai ent KENT Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 13 of 24 FILE NO. G:\Design\09-3011 DESIMONE WALLS\dwg\Shoreline Permits\Tukwila Shoreline\R1 Sections.dwg, 4/16/2014 11:42:03 AM 50 30 20 10 0 STA-. 18+50 ... • ; • . , . . !--• ---- ---..- — --i- :— — --:, — r--! • .... . ; . .... . • • • • ; • • • • ; . ; I :IXISTING BLRLDING : PARKING LOT : ; : : • : . . .... : .. . . 50 ; 40 • m i..i .. .. . . .. .. . i . .. .... ... ; . .. ... ! . z 114 0 x cn 0 0 ... 20 100 90 SO 70 50 40 30 20 10 0 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 —10 —20 —30 —40 —50 —60 —70 —80 —90 —100 —110 —120 —130 —140 —150 —160 STA: 19+00 ... • . .. • .... • OFF: 55.62 EL- 15 62 • OHW EL; 14 74 ..... • • GRouND OFF:: 17.0D ' PAVED TRAIL :p34.93• ; PROPOSED 15' WIDE RIVER PROTECTION EASEMENT z \‘: : 2:1.:S1, PE • FINISH GRADE PROPOSED' ; • PROPERTY UNE : . .... ; .; .... . PARKING LOT . . .1 • ; EXISTING BUILDING • • • a .. • . • ..... .. . .. ... • • .... • .... • . : .. ! .. .. . • • • • • • • 100 90 80 70 60 50 30 20 10 —10 . : —20 —30 —40 —50 —60 —70 —80 —90 —100 —110 —120 10 5 0 to 20 SCALE IN FEET . , : 1 : : . • , . . . . , . . —130 —140 —150 —160 Z.N..-003o 10 50 40 30 20 10 0 —10 DESIGNED: CHECKED: KENT PROJECT NO. 09-3011 DRAWN: PROJECT ENGR: CONST. k4GLIT. REVIEW HOW: SCALE: 1* -10' VERT: NO. REVISION BY DATE APPROVED. CITY ENGINEER DATE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRA*NG ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY 0' 1" City of Kent 40,14.: Public Works Department SCENT Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 14 oF 24 FILE NO. G: \Design \09-3011 DESIMONE WALLS \dwg\Shorellne Permits\Tukwila Shoreline \ R1 Sections.dwg, 4/16/2014 11:42:27 AM STA: 19+50 50: • • • • • 20 FLOOD WALL OFF.._1693.; PAVED 1RAIL 7ClSTING "GROUND EL: 34,97 T • / BASE FLOOD ' :% Y; iEL' 30.50 PROPOSED .15' • WIDE RIVER P.ROTEO11ON EASEMENT �.. r .... • ' — .:" - .... QF, ....53.23. / . 21 SCOPE PEL• 16.85 ' :% : . : : . 10t-..._..--------..._:-----------._€- ----- : : : : % : OHW . EL:. 14.77[ '1' : : PROPOSED : ...._. __.. I ' PROPERTY UNE • :F1NISH GRADE : : ' --- • • PARKING: -LOT RIVERSIDE DR • . SLOPE- -- 0=- ..... ._.. --... ---- ..._. .-- - ...._ __... _- ; .._... .__...... • • $-- 50 ---------- 10 100 90 301-- 201 0HW 014. -:.. . EL .14.79 : : : % 10 ...... ...t..f..._ 70 60 50 t 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 STA: 20+00 ; PROPOSED .15' WIDE RIVER PRO1tL'ION EASEMENT EXISTING GROUND BASE;FL00D !EL:: 30. • :. :SLOPE._ 100 90 80 70 • FINISH -GRADE QFF:.. 50.95 Et 18.05. : PROPOSED PROPERTY UNE • • 60 50 20 10 0 -10 -50 -60 -70 -80 -90 -100 -110 -120 -130 -140 -150 -160 PARKING -LOT : 110 5 0 10 20 SCALE IN FEET 0 10 10 • -80 -90 -100 -110 -130 -140 -150 /ti—Uo3o -160 DESIGNED: CHECKED: KENT PROJECT N0. 09-3011 DRAWN: PROJECT ENGR: CONST. I,IGIAT. REVIEW SCALE: HOR1Z VERT: 1-=10' NO. REVISION BY DATE APPROVED. CITY ENGINEER DATE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY 0 l' City of Kent Public Works Department �•/ KENT Engineering Division w... LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 15 of 24 FILE NO. G:\Design\09-3011 DESIMONE WALLS\dwg\Shoreline Permits\Tukwila Shoreline\R1 Sections.dwg, 4/16/2014 11:42:51 AM STA: 20+50 I. 1 20` 10 50 40 30 20 OHW OHW :..: EL. 14.61 EXISTING GROUND BASE: FLOOD Y: EL: 30.50 FLOOD WALL - OFF: 17:00 PAVED TRAIL EL --35.06-----'— ..........._.. • OFF: 50.06 :.._� EL: 1E4.53 2:1 :SLOPE FINISH GRADE- .....• :....:....._ • • PROPOSED .15' WIDE RIVER •PROTECTION • EASEMENT "1' NPROF!OSED : PROPERTY UNE • • • PARK ING•LOT --777777 • • • 50 40 --' 30 20 -- 0 100 90 60 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 —10 —20 —30 —40 —50 —60 —70 —80 —90 —100 —110 —120 —130 —140 —150 —160 STA: 21+00 WALL OHW • ..PROPOSED .15' • : WIDE RIVER : •P,ROTECD0N•7 EASEIAQdT • 1 1' .: PROP.,OSED • PROPERTY LINE • EXIST] G:BUILDING: ; a N 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 —10 —20 —30 —40 —50 —60 —70 —80 —90 —100 —110 10 5 0 I SCALE IN FEET 10 20 —120 —130 —140 —150 —160 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 DESIGNED: CHECKED: KENT PROJECT NO. 09-3011 DRAWN: PROJECT ENGR: CONST. MCL T. REVIEW SCALE HORIZ: 1•.10' VERT: 1-=1 No. REVISION BY DATE APPROVED: CITY ENGINEER DATE BAR 15 ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAYoNG ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY 0' City of Kent Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 16 or 24 OLE NO. STA: 21+50 • PROPOSED .15' • : WIDE RIVER :' PROTECTION . • EASEMENT..• 1' • • • NN -PROPOSED : PROPERTY UNE 1.''''HEXIS11NG BUILDING m:. PARKING: LOT z' 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -70 -80 -90 -100 -110 -120 -130 -140 -150 -160 STk22+00 FLOOD WALL 0 PAVED TRAIL • PROPOSED .15' • RADE RIVER PROTECTION -: .EASEMENT i PROPOSED PROPERTY UNE DR VEWAY EXISTING 'BUILDING I • 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -70 -80 -90 -100 -110 -120 -130 -140 -150 -160 t0 5 0 10 2D SCALE IN FEET Llq•vol0J0 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 50 30 20 0 0 10 DESIGNED: CHECKED: KENT PROJECT NO. 09-3011 DRAWN: PROJECT ENR CONST. LAGHT. REVIEW SCALE: HORIZ- 1�a1D' VERT: NO. REVISION BY DATE APPROVED. CITY ENGINEER DATE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY c - City of Kent 4405°N4o.,Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 17 or 24 FILE NO. G:\Design\09-3011 DESIMONE WALLS\dwg\Shoreline Permits\Tukwila Shorellne\R1 Sections.dwg, 4/16/2014 11:43:49 AM • l 50 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 50 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -70 -80 -90 -100 -110 -120 -130 -140 -150 -160 STA: 23+00 :.PROPOSED is' WIDE RIVER : 'PROTEC'TION EASEMENT 30 I -• - 20 .....: 10 �.ONW OHW EL: _ 14.94. • 100 90 EX I NG GROUND : BASE: FLOW OFF: 25.44 EL35.29... • • i SX: EL•: 30.50 : 70 60 50 • MATCH EXISTING 1' • C0NS1RUCTION :CONTROL UNE PROPOSED : PROPERTY UNE • rT EXISTING BU LDING -20 -30 10 5 0 10 -50 20 SCALE IN FEET • 30 20 0 10 50 • 20 : I -70 -80 -90 -100 -110 -120 -130 -140 -150 -160 L. ly-oo3o DESIGNED: CHECKED: KENT PROJECT NO. 09-3011 DRAWN: PROJECT ENGR: CONST, MGVAT, REVIEW SCALE: HDRIZ' 1 1E3' VERT: 1'-10' N0. REVISION BY DATE APPROVED: CITY ENGINEER DATE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY 0 - City of Kent 4 Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 18 or 24 FILE NO. G:\Design\09-3011 DESIMONE WALLS\dwg\Shoreline Permits\Tukwila Shoreline\R1 Sections.dwg, 4/16/2014 11:44:31 AM REACH 1 TREE PLANTING SCHEDULE QUANTITY SYMBOL PLANT NAME 19 0 BIG LEAF MAPLE, ACER MACROPHYLLUM 10 CASCARA, RAMNUS PURSHIANA 19 E DOUGLAS FIR. PSEUDOTSUGA MENSRZII 13 0 OREGON ASH, FRAXINUS LATIFOLIA 11 IN SITKA SPRUCE. PICEA SRCHENSIS 13 WESTERN RED CEDAR, THUJA PUCATA 8 t BITTER CHERRY, PRUNUS EMARGINATA 9O PACIFlC CRABAPPLE, MALUS FUSCA 20 BLACK COTTONWOOD, POPULUS TRICHOCARPA SSP. TRICHOCARPA 15 0 PACIFIC OR STEM WILLOW FASCINES (50/50 MIX) 137 TOTAL TREE COUNT FOR REACH 1 SIZE. NOTES 5 GALLON 2 GALLON 5 GALLON 2 GALLON 5 GALLON 5 GALLON 2 GALLON 2 GALLON 6' INE CUTTING. 6' MAX. DIAMETER, ONE FOOT EXPOSED THREE PER SYMBOL 6' UVE CUTTING, 6" MAX. DIAMETER, ONE FOOT EXPOSED: THREE PER SYMBOL KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DIST R I C T PROPOSED NEW TRAIL 15' TRAIL CLEAR ZONE HYDROSEEDED WITH S2LJJ MIX. TYP. / / j L1qooS° 50®0 SCALE: 1 = 50' DESIGNED: PARKS DEPT: KENT PROJECT NO. 09-3010 NO. REIASION BY DRAWN: PROJECT E'GR: CONST- MMT. RENEW SCALE: HOP10- VERT: DATE APPROVED: CITY ENGINEER DATE BAR IS ONE INCH ON GRIDINAL DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINDEY 5' City of Kent � Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division REACH 1 DRAFT TREE PLANTING PLAN BRISCOE & DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 19 0F24 FILE NO. 09-3010 01 REACH 1 SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER PLANTING SCHEDULES SYMBOL PLANT NAMES WSDOT NO -CLOVER EROSION CONTROL SEED NIX. 3 LBS/1000 SF 45% CREEPING RED FESCUE. 45% PERENNIAL RYEGRASS, 10% HIGHLAND COLONIAL BENTGRASS (DIRECT SEED SALES OR APPROVED EQUAL) - UPPER SLOPE SHRUBS. 1 GALLON CONTAINER RED FLOWERING CURRANT. RIBES SANGUINEUM RED STEM CEANOTHUS, CFANOTHUS SANGUINEUM OCEANSPRAY, HOLODISCUS DISCOLOR MOCK ORANGE, PHIIADEIPHUS LEWISII TALL OREGON GRAPE. MA.HONIA AQUFOLJUM SYMPHORICARPOS ALBUS, SNOWBERRY MIDDLE SLOPE SHRUBS, 1 GALLON CONTAINER PACIFIC MNEBARK, PHYSOCARPUS CAPITATUS BLACK TWINBERRY, LONICERA IIWOLUCRATA VINE MAPLE, ACER CIRCINATUM SALMONBERRY, RUBUS SPECTABILJS THIMBLEBERRY, RUBUS PARVFLORA NOOIKA ROSE, ROSA NUTKANA LOWER SLOPE SHRUBS. 1 GALLON CONTAINER RED OSIER DOGWOOD, CORNUS SERICEA SWAMP ROSE, ROSA PISACARPA i J KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRJCT 00+99L p0+L9L.0114:0u�� �P1L. seFly'-•. �r1F1© ti)44671- ..4,' `�4FA: �ii�rs o."►^0I'm'' 7.7"1" 10J...�/re..b �'�pF .., ��vz-'>'. .. - ' . ^ l®AFe7LF1FtFAFAFie1 •�: _ PROPOSED NEW TRAIL 15' TRAIL CLEAR ZONE HYDROSEEDED WRH SEED MIX. TYP. 1 Mem ;1!seli 50 0 50 100 SCALE: I " = 50' jqoo36 DESIGNED: PARKS DEPT: KENT PROJECT NO. 09-3010 DRAWN: PROJECT ETGR: CONST. M_MT. REVIEW SCALE: HORIE NO. RE V1S10N BY DATE APPROVED: CITY ENGINEER CATE BAR 10 ONE INCH ON GRINAL DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINC{Y D` City of Kent 41011111\>. Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division REACH 1 DRAFT SHRUB PLANTING PLAN BRISCOE & DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 20 OF 24 FILE N0. 09-3010 01 REACH 1 SHRUB AND GOU \DCOVER PLANTING SCHEDULES LOWER SLOPE MIDDLE SLOPE UPPER SLOPE y LOWER SLOPE SHRUBS (OHWM TO EL. 19.5; 16,700 SF; APPROXIMATELY 1205 PLANTS TOTAL) CORNUS SERICEA PHYSOCARPUS CAPRATUS ROSA PISOCARPA RED -OSIER DOGWOOD PACIFIC NINEBARK SWAMP ROSE 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL • ALL SHRUBS IN LOWER SLOPES TO BE SPACED 4' TRIANGULARLY ON -CENTER MIDDLE SLOPE SHRUBS 566 (47%) 169 (14%) 470 (39%) (EL. 19.5 TO EL. 22.5; 5,000 SF; APPROXIMATELY 360 PLANTS TOTAL) N • ACER CIRCINATUM LONICERA INVOLUCRATA 'U PHYSDCARPUS CAPITA7US ROSA NUTKANA RUBUS PARVIFLORUS ORUBUS SPECTABILIS NAM NNE MAPLE BLACK TWINBERRY PACIFIC NINEBARK NOOTKA ROSE THIMBLEBERRY SALMONBERRY GAL GAL GAL GAL GAL GAL ALL SHRUBS IN MIDDLE SLOPES TO 8E SPACED 4' TRIANGULARLY ON -CENTER UPPER SLOPE SHRUBS (EL. 22.5 TO LOWER INSPECTION CORRIDOR BOUNDARY; 9,800 SF; APPROXIMATELY 705 PLANTS TOTAL) c • NAM SI._ H R- 1 27 (7.5x) 63 (17.50) 62 (177.) 68 (19%) 40 (11%) 101 (28%) LOWER SLOPE TYPICAL LAYOUT n h/ OPAI _ 4 • 1k• �il MIDDLE SLOPE TYPICAL LAYOUT LLOW FASCINES TVP, SEE TREE PLANTING PLAN HWM IGHER ELEVATION Ak JAI NNOVeW n LOWER ELEVATION /HIGHER ELEVATION Alii R •. 1 • •JIII CEANOTHUS SANGUINEUM HOLODISCUS DISCOLOR MAHONIA AQUIFOLIUM yPHILADELPHUS LEWIS!! RIBES SANGUINEUM SYMPHORICARPOS ALBUS 6 RED -STEM CEANOTHUS OCEANSP RAY TALL OREGON GRAPE MOCK ORANGE RED FLOWERING CURRANT SNOWBERRY 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL • ALL SHRUBS IN UPPER SLOPES TO BE SPACED 4' TRIANGULARLY 0N -CENTER 123 (17.5%) 71 (107.) 99 (147.) 102 (14.57.) 170 (24%) 142 (20%) UPPER SLOPE TYPICAL LAYOUT Jr^"' "EN �� 11 K1NC; COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL —_: DISTRICT ,� aJJ� Qui OA }f \ W 'Gh \r4 G1tJ Li ik WA. t7G1\"Jf a ` m& . 0G1@9 X11 101-- L J(� , 4 C 0 ii OWER ELEVATION ELEVATION /HIGHER ELEVATION Oto J a► _%(1 1 U41 ANEW 10 0 10 20 SCALE: 1' = 10” L/'/- 00,30 DESIGNED: PARKS DEPT: KENT PROJECT N0. 09-3010 DRANK: PROJECT E'CR: CONST. *GMT. RE''.1EW SCALE: HORIZ VERT: N0. REVISION BY DATE APPROVED: GTE ENGINEER DATE RAR. 15 ONE INCH C* ORIGINAL 0RAW7NG ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINLEY 0' City of Kent Public Works Department �••/ KENT Engineering Division REACH 1 DRAFT SHRUB PLANTING PLAN BRISCOE & DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 21 GFZ¢ FILE NO. 09-3010 01 TREE PER PLAN & SPECIFICATIONS MULCH PER SPECIFICATIONS SET RODIBFL.L ON SUBGRADE CUT AND REMOVE TWINE AND BURLAP FROM TOP AND SIDES OF ROOTBALL (REMOVE ALL WIRE BASKETS.) AMENDED SOL PER SPECIFICATIONS MAINTAIN UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE BELOW ROOT BALL NOTE FOR TREE PLANING TO BE ACCEPTABLE ROOT FLARE SHALL BE 2" ABOVE SURROUNDING GRADE CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE ADD 2" FINE COMPOST. TILL FINE COMPOST INTO TOP B" OF NATIVE SOIL FOR TOTAL OF 10" AMENDED SOIL 2' COM 70" AFTER SETILEM NATIVE SOI SOIL AMENDMENT DETAIL MULCH AS SPECIFIED (FEATHER MULCH AWAY FROM STEM BASE) FINISHED GRADE AMENDED SOIL PER SPECIFICATIONS EVENLY SPREAD ROOTS NATIVE SHRUBS PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE DESIGNED: NOT TO SCALE PARKS DEPT: KENT PROJECT NO. 09-3010 DRAWN: PROJECT ENCR: CONST. MCA AT. REVIEW SCALE: HOPI'• `dEPT NO. REVISION BY DATE APFROvED: aTT ENGINEER DATE BAR IS ONE INCH ON CRIQNAL DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ' ccORDINCLY 0' OH1V (SEE RIGHT OF WAY PLAN) Q EXISTING GROUND J TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL BLANKET 2 COMPOST INCORPORATED INTO SUBSOIL TO 10" DEPTH TREE/SHRUB PLANTING ZONE i TREE PER PLAN AND SPECIFICATIONS ROOT CROWN 2" ABOVE FINISH GRADE MULCH PER SPECIFICATIONS SET ROOTBALL ON UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE CUT AND REMOVE TWINE AND BURLAP FROM TOP AND SIDES OF ROOTBALL (REMOVE ALL WIRE BASKETS.) AMENDED SOIL PER SPECIFICATIONS DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE PAVED TRAIL / \ / \ / 1 /i FINISH• 1 GRADE \�\ KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRCT City of Kent Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division 1 1 / ___— 1 Or U/ ///--- FINISH \ L / GRADE 1 I �XXXX XXXXXI \XXXXXXX 3" ARBORIST • — — MULCH EXISING GROUND FLOOD WALL 2" COMPOST INCORPORATED INTO SUBSOIL TO 10' DEPTH TYPICAL LANDSCAPE SECTION NOT TO SCALE REACH 1 DRAFT DETAILS NOTE: 1. ALL SEEDED AND PLANTED AREAS TO RECEIVE SOIL AMENDMENT. 2. TYPE AND SPACING OF VEGETATION VARIES, SEE PLANT LEGEND. 1.. / 0 0 .30 BRISCOE & DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET zz GF 24 FILE NC. 09-3010 01 LONDON U PLANE TREE: PLANE TREE: �� 0 1-20" i LONDON 1-20" N. R�i Q PLANE TREE: \ 1-20" LONDON RIVERPOINTE CORPORATE CENTER 18200 CASCADE AVE. S. LANDWARD FACE OF FINISHED WALL do CONST: CONTROL UNE 14+0Q- 15+00 LONDON PLANE TREE: 1-20" • O ORDINARY Nicl WATER ANL -CONSTRUCTI0I411I LEGEND:' A TREE TO BE REMOVED 6OTREE TO REMAIN i KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL D I S T R I C T L./ - 003o DESIGNED: CHECKED: KENT PROJECT NO. 09-3011 DRAWN: RW PROJECT ENGR: CONST. MCMT. REVIEW SCALE; HORIz, 1 —20' VERT: 1 =10' NO. REVISION BY DATE APPROVED: CITY ENGINEER DATE 7-11-12 BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL ORAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY 0' r City of Kent 4#4414>*.Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division TREE INVENTORY DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 23 of 24 FILE NO. G:\Design\09-3011 DESIMONE WALLS\dwg\Shoreline Permits\Tukwila Shoreline\Trees- 01.dwg, 4/16/2014 1:46:12 PM RIVERPOINTE CORPORATE CENTER 18200 CASCADE AVE 5. o V 9 tp F` • LONDON PLANE TREE: 4h]8" 200' SHORELINE BUFFER LONDON PLANE TREE: 2-16 LONDON PLANE TREE 1-20" 'CORNING CLINICAL LABORATORIES. SAYBOLT INC., ENCORE SALES:'' & INNOVATION CUISINE ENT.' 18251 CASCADE AVE 5. LANDWARD FACE OF FINISHED WALL & CONST. CONTROLiJNE*- KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL D I S T lZ l C T L/4'- 003d DESIGNED: CHECKED: KENT PROJECT NO. 09-3011 DRAWN: RW PROJECT ENGR: CONST. MGMT. REVIEW SCALE: HORIZ' VERT- 1"..10' N0. REVISION BY DATE APPROVED_ CITY ENGINEER DATE 7-11-12 BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY 0- 1 - City of Kent 440.°°\. Public Works Department (CENT Engineering Division r.xx, TREE INVENTORY DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 24 of 24 FILE NO. G:\Design\09-3011 DESIMONE WALLS\dwg\Shoreline Permits\Tukwila Shoreline\Trees- 02.dwg, 4/16/2014 1:30:28 PM FLOOD SIDE PROTECTED SIDE HANDRAIL 1 5/8" X 4" WELDED STUDS (TYP) TRAIL, FINISH GRADE- 1 SLOPE AWAY I I FROM WALL 11 CONCRETE I CAP BEAM • CONST. CONTROL LINE T/RAILING J T/BARRIER —LIMITS OF PIGMENTED SEALER WALL CONTROL POINT TOP OF CAP T/SHEET PILE SHEET PILE WALL EXISTING GRADE SHEET PILE 1 5 i PAINT EXPOSED SHEET PILES FINISH GRADE w > SHEET PILE PAINTING 4" THICK CONCRETE MOW STRIP 8/ SHEET PILE WALL SHEET PILE WALL SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" FLOOD SIDE #5 © 12" O.C. 1 113" 2'-7" #5 CONT. (TOTAL 2) 3" CLR. 1 -.-CONST. CONTROL LINE PROTECTED SIDE TOP OF CAP ►-.lit• t ..-•.,mw:!:❖:.t�2m T / SHEET PILE 3 ' CLR. #6 CONT.- (TOTAL ONT-(TOTAL 3) (3) #6 CONT. E.F. 5/8" X 4" WELDED STUD (TYP) ±6-1/2" NOTE: NO EXPANSION JOINT REQUIRED THIS SECTION. SEE NOTE ON S2 FOR EXPANSION JOINT REQUIREMENTS AT RAMP DETAIL - CONCRETE CAP BEAM AT RAMP ADJACENT TO LEVEE SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0" (NOTE 10) PAY LIMITS 2 1'-9" 1 HANDRAIL /S4 DETAIL 3-#6 CONT. E.F. 3" CLR. #5 @ 12" 0.C. 113" (4) 5/8"x 4" WELDED STUDS @ EA GROUP 2-#5 CONT. 2" CLR. iF---- CONST. CONTROL LINE T / BARRIER - CONCRETE BARRIER PAY LIMIT i IL 3" CLR. ±8" WALL CONTROL POINT TOP OF CAP T / SHEET PILE 1) m -5" STUD SPACING ±6 1/2" TYPICAL SECTION DETAIL O SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0" T/BARRIER in #4 @ 12" 0.C. E.F. 1'-6" LAP In #5 @ 9" 0.C. i L CONCRETE CAP BEAM PAY LIMIT 6" X 6" BASE PLATE 3/4" GROUT X3/4" CHAMFER #6 CONT @ TOP Ar 10" 1/2" D X 1" H REVEAL (TYP) , 6 #4 @ 9" O.C. oI N 2" CLR (TYP) #4 @ 12"rin O.CJ DETAIL - BARRIER REVEAL & REINF.0 SCALE: NTS WALL CONTROL POINT TOP OF CAP 1/2" D X 1" H REVEAL DETAIL - BARRIER BOTTOM REVEAL O SCALE: NTS NOTES: 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN CENTERLINE OF SHEET PILE WITH FLOODWALL CENTERLINE AT BENDS THROUGH USE OF TRANSITION SHEET PILES OR THROUGH ALLOWABLE ROTATION OF SHEET PILE INTERLOCKS. SPECIAL SECTIONS SHALL FIT WITHIN THE SPECIFIED LENGTHS AND WORK POINT LOCATIONS. TRANSITION SHEET PILES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM THICKNESS OF 3/8". CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FINAL LAYOUT OF SHEET PILE TO FIT THE DESIGNATED ALIGNMENT. SHEET PILE SHOP DRAWINGS SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL AND SHALL INCLUDE THE LAYOUT AND ALL THE NECESSARY DETAILS INCLUDING SPECIAL SECTIONS. 2. SHEET PILE STEEL SHALL BE ASTM A572 GRADE 50. 3. ALL MISCELLANEOUS STEEL SHALL BE ASTM A36, WITH HOT DIPPED GALVANIZED FINISH CONFORMING TO ASTM A153. 4. CONCRETE 28 -DAY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH SHALL BE 4000 PSI. 5. REINFORCING STEEL SHALL BE ASTM A706. 6. WELDED SHEAR STUDS SHALL BE ASTM A108. STUDS SHALL BE TESTED PER AWS D1.1 SECTION 7.6. 7. WATERSTOP SHALL BE RUBBER OR PVC. RUBBER WATERSTOP SHALL CONFORM TO CORPS OF ENGINEERS CRD -513; PVC WATERSTOP SHALL CONFORM TO CORPS OF ENGINEERS CRD -0572. 8. REFER TO THE CIVIL SHEETS FOR THE SHEET PILE WALL PLAN, PROFILE AND ADDITIONAL SITE INFORMATION. 9. CONTRACTOR TO BACKFILL WALL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE CAP BEAM AND WALL FACING. 10. SEE PILE CAP DETAIL FOR ANCHOR LOCATIONS, SECTIONS A AND C, DWG. S3. 11. PROVIDE 3/4" CHAMFER ON ALL EXPOSED CONCRETE EDGES. 12. SEE SPECIAL PROVISION CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS. 13. LOADING (PER ASCE 7, SECTION 4.4.3) F = 6,000 LBS. FLOOD SIDE PANEL SIDE c. SHEET PILE (4) 5/8" X 4" WELDED STUDS (TYP EA. SIDE) 10" 4" MIN CLR WATER SIDE SHEET PILE ±4'-7" 2-1/2" MIN CLR LAND SIDE SECTION THRU CAP BEAM O SCALE: 3/4" = r-0" - #4 - 4" FROM TOP, THEN 8" 0.C. i m 4" TYP PROTECTED SIDE FLOOD SIDE SHEET PILE WALL END REINFORCEMENT DETAIL NOTE: SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" SHOWN AT SHEET PILE CAP LEVEL DE9GNED: AA 01ECKED: KDR KENT PRO.ECT NO. 60242339 DR P PROJECT ENGR: CONST. AIGMT. PE\1E SCALE: ROME' VERT: - NO. REVISION BY DATE APPROVED: CITY ENGINEER ATE 12-17-2013 BAR IS ONE INCN ON ORIGINAL GRAINING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY 0' City of Kent Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division GEIConsultants 180 Grand Ave, Suite 1410 Oakland, CA 94612 510-350-2900 GEI Project 121141 L /4 -0030 BRISCOE — DESIMONE LEVEE FLOODWALL SECTIONS AND DETAILS SHEET S1 OF FILE NO. S1.dwg JOINT SEALANT EXPANSION JOINT T/BARRIER T/WATERSTOP ADDITIONAL #4 x2'-0" AT EACH EXPANSION JOINT WATERSTOP T/CONCRETE CAP BEAM PREMOLDED JOINT FILLER T/SHEET PILE irl B/WATERSTOP B/GONG CAP BEAM SECTION SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0" SHEET PILE WATERSTOP SHEET PILE EXPANSION JOINT THROUGH FAR SHEET PILE FLANGE SHEET PILE TYPE A EXPANSION JOINT DETAIL SCALE: 1" = 1'-0" PROTECTED SIDE FLOOD SIDE WELDED SHEAR STUD 3'-0" MIN 1 0 e7 z NOTES: 1. SEE NOTES ON SHEET S1 AS APPLICABLE. 2. EXPANSION JOINTS SPACING REQUIREMENTS: A. 24 -FOOT MAXIMUM UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. B. DO NOT PROVIDE EXPANSION JOINTS WITHIN REACH 3 C. SEE SHEET 53 FOR EXPANSION JOINT REQUIREMENTS D. 12 -FOOT MAXIMUM BETWEEN FOR A 48 FT DISTANCE LOT RAMP (ABOUT STA. 17+35 TO 17+83 AND STA. �- INSIDE CORNER WALL REINFORCEMENT NOT TO BE CONTINUOUS AROUND CORNER WALL BEND ABOVE SHEET PILE DETAIL f -a NOTE: SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" VERTICAL REINFORCEMENT NOT SHOWN WATERSTOP —` WATERSTOP 1 1-1/2" MIN 1/2" PREMOLDED JOINT FILLER (TYP) DETAIL CHAMFER JOINT SEALANT REINFORCEMENT 4-1/4" MIN 2" TYP 5� SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0" DESIGNED: AA FOR EXPANSION WALL JOINTS SHEET PILE / "-WELDED SHEAR STUD EXPANSION JOINT THROUGH SHEET PILE WEB WATERSTOP DETAIL % 6� SCALE: NTS CHECKED: KDR WATERSTOP LOCATION (NOTE 3) 3-1/2" NEAREST SHEET PILE FLANGE IN LINE WITH WATERSTOP PROTECTED SIDE FLOOD SIDE WATERSTOP © CENTER OF BARRIER (TYP) WATERSTOP LOCATION (NOTE 3) 1,-0" TYP PARKING LOT RAMP LIMITS (APROX. STA. 17+83 TO 18+52). ADJACENT TO THE REACH 3 PARKING LOT RAMP. UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM OF THE REACH 3 PARKING 18+52 TO 19+00). USE TRANSITION SHEET PILE IF BEND ANGLE EXCEEDS MAXIMUM JOINT ALLOWABLE ROTATION WALL BEND BELOW T/SHEET PILE DETAIL (2� NOTE: SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" -/ VERTICAL REINFORCEMENT NOT SHOWN WATERSTOP--\ SHEET PILE 2" MAX WELDED SHEAR STUD EXPANSION JOINT THROUGH NEAR SHEET PILE FLANGE NEAREST SHEET PILE FLANGE IN LINE WITH WATERSTOP WATERSTOP LOCATION SCHEMATIC O SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0" WATERSTOP NOTES: PROTECTED SIDE FLOOD SIDE Lige.-000,r 1. WATERSTOPS SHALL BE INSTALLED AS DIRECTED BY THE MANUFACTURER. WATERSTOPS SHALL BE CAREFULLY AND CORRECTLY POSITIONED DURING INSTALLATION TO ELIMINATE FAULTY INSTALLATION THAT MAY RESULT IN JOINT LEAKAGE. ALL WATERSTOPS SHALL BE INSTALLED SO AS TO FORM A CONTINUOUS WATERTIGHT DIAPHRAGM IN EACH JOINT. PROVISION SHALL BE MADE TO SUPPORT AND PROTECT THE WATERSTOPS DURING THE PROGRESS OF WORK. ANY WATERSTOP PUNCTURED OR DAMAGED SHALL BE REPLACED OR REPAIRED AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. THE CONCRETE SHALL BE THOROUGHLY CONSOLIDATED IN THE VICINITY OF THE WATERSTOP. SUITABLE GUARDS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO PROTECT EXPOSED PROJECTING EDGES AND ENDS OF PARTIALLY EMBEDDED WATERSTOPS FROM DAMAGE WHEN CONCRETE PLACEMENT HAS BEEN DISCONTINURD. WATERSTOPS SHALL NOT BE SPLICED. 2. STOP WATERSTOP 4" FROM T/BARRIER. PLUG TOP OF WATERSTOP WITH 2" MIN OF SOFT RUBBER. 3. MINIMUM RADIUS PER MANUFACTURER REQUIREMENTS OR PROVIDE 90' VERTICAL ELL TRANSITIONS USING HEAT FUSED FIELD WELDS PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. KENT PRO,ECT NO. 60242339 DR A V: PM PROJECT ENGR: JN CONST. 9C -IAT. REb1EW SCALE: HORIZ. EPT: — NO. REVISION 8Y DATE APPROVED: ary ENGINEER DATE 12-17-2013 8AR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAw1NG ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY O" City of Kent 180 Grand Ave. Suite 1410 Public Works DepartmentOakland, CA 94612 +C015510-350-2900 '°* KENT Engineering Division GEI Consultants GEI Project 121141 BRISCOE — DESIMONE LEVEE FLOODWALL SHEET PILE WALL DETAILS SHEET S2 OF 5 FILE NO. S2.dwg HANDRAIL NOTES: 1. MATERIAL FOR PEDESTRIAN HANDRAIL SHALL BE POWDERCOATED, GALVANIZED STEEL (ASTM A53 GRADE B). 2. ALL POSTS SHALL BE PLUMB AFTER INSTALLATION. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOP PLANS FOR ENGINEER'S APPROVAL PRIOR TO FABRICATION. 4. GALVANIZED PEDESTRIAN RAIL SHALL BE FABRICATED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE DRAWINGS AND THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS. 5. SEE CIVIL & STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DRAWINGS FOR LOCATION OF RAILING AND RAILING END SECTION. 6. LOADING (PER ASCE7, SECTION 4.4.1) TOP RAIL: 200 LBS CONCENTRATED OR 50–LBS/FT WHICHEVER IS GREATER APPLIED ANY DIRECTION. LOWER RAIL: 50–LBS NOMINAL AT ANY POINT ALONG THE RAIL. 7. EXPANSION JOINT SHALL BE PROVIDED IN RAILS. A HANDRAIL EXPANSION JOINT SHALL BE PROVIDED AT THE LOCATION OF EACH EXPANSION JOINT IN THE CONCRETE BARRIER AND CAP BEAM AND SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN ONE–FOOT HORIZONTALLY FROM THE EXPANSION JOINT IN THE CONCRETE. 8. OPENING BETWEEN BOTTOM OF RAILING AND TOP OF BARRIER SHALL BE 8–INCHES OR LESS. 1" PL Y2"x 6"x 6" W/(4) %" HOLES ) " DIA. RESIN BONDED ANCHOR BOLT W/6" MIN. EMBEDMENT IN CONCRETE WALL (TYP.) HANDRAIL PLATE (PLAN) SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0" 1-1/2" SCH 40 X 0'-6" LG STD PIPE RAILING SPLICE 345' FILLET WELD (TYP.) HANDRAIL SPLICE SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0" 2" SCH 40 STD. PIPE SECTION —< (TYP.) © EACH POST FOR ALL RAIL SECTIONS SCALE: 3" = 1'-0" ^ RESIN BONDED ANCHOR / BOLTS W. NUT & WASHER, NO MORE THAN 2 THREADS EXPOSED, TYP. Y4 TYP. NON–SHRINK GROUT PAD PLATE TO BE LEVEL, GROUT TO MAKE TRANSITION TO SLOPING CONCRETE BELOW, TYP. HANDRAIL PLATE (SECTION) SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0" DESIGNED: AA 1/2" EXPANSION JOINT ELEVATION `2" DIA SCH 40 PIPE 4 SECTION \--1-1/2" DIA SCH 40 PIPE INSIDE 2" DIA SCH 40 PIPE RAIL EXPANSION JOINT DETAIL (NOTE 7) SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0" CHECKED: KDR DRAWN: RM PROJECT ENGR: JN KENT PROJECT N0. SCALE: 60242339 HG%Z: CONST. MGMT. RENEW VERT: — N0. RE'.1SION 8Y DATE A. FRDJED. CITY ENGINEER GATE 12-17-2013 ��— TOP OF RAILING HANDRAIL SPLICE RAIL POST 4' 0" MIN. 8.-0" MAX. O.C. POST SPACING T6" f BFR IS ONE INCH ON ORI3NAL DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY 0' Y RAIL POST T —REVEAL vv 8'-0" 0.C. POST SPACING EXPANSION JOINT FTOP OF BARRIER HANDRAIL PLATE 2" SCH 40 (STD. PIPE), TYP. HANDRAIL ELEVATION O 1" = 1'-0" RAIL POST 8' 0" 0.C. POST SPACING I 2 RAIL POST EX;'ANSION JOINT TOP OF RAILING TOP OF BARRIER _r - RAIL POST CORNER MITERED HANDRAIL SPLICE City of Kent Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division G \ \ REVEAL vv HANDRAIL PLATE 2" SCH 40 (STD. PIPE), TYP. --\ HANDRAIL END SECTION DETAIL 0 1" = 1'—o" IConsultants L,q000 180 Grand Ave. Suite 1410 Oakland, CA 94612 510-350-2900 GEI Project 121141 BRISCOE — DESIMONE LEVEE FLOODWALL HAND RAIL ELEVATION, SECTIONS AND DETAILS SHEET S3 OF 5 FILE NO. S4.dwg / //\� r 1 FLOODSIDE LANDSIDE REMOVABLE BOLLARD - (SEE DETAIL 2) M FINISHED GRADE TRAILHEAD PARK •v -�– HINGE ASSEMBLY (SEE DETAIL 1) PADLOCK TO BE PROVIDED BY OTHERS FINISHED GRADE PARKING LOT / I —TRAILHEAD WALL, SEE DWG. S12 BOLLARD CASING (SEE DETAIL 3) D .,d DETAIL - BOLLARD CASING ELEVATION SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" NOTES 1. DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE APPROXIMATE, FABRICATOR TO ADJUST AS NEEDED TO ENSURE PROPER FIT. 2. SILL PLATE BETWEEN BOLLARDS IS 4'-6-1/2" LONG. 3. HINGE TO BE FABRICATED FROM 3/8" STEEL PLATE TO GIVEN DIMENSIONS. DESIGNED: AA CHECKED: KOR KENT PROJECT NO. 60242339 DRAWN: PM PROJECT E\GR: JN CONST. MOAT. REOOEW SCALE: HOPJ=- rERT - NO. REVISION 9'Y DATE APPROVED: CITY ENGINEER GATE 10-30-2013 BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCOROINSY 0" 15/16" 2-1/8" 4" 1-1/2" I 1 r-1-1/2" 1" DIA. HOLES THRU FLANGES REMOVE BURRS (4 PLC's) A36 STEEEL M 4X13 SHAPE, ROUND ALL CORNERS, INSTALL PLUMB PAINT: 1 COAT RUSTOLEUM PRIMER #7673 2 COATS RUSTOLEUM SEMIGLOSS WHITE #7797 FULL LENGTH 1/4" DIA. STAINLESS STEEL ROD WELDED TO POST 1/8" (TYP) 3 SIDES 1/8" 1/4" A36 STEEL PLATE CUT TO CONFORM TO M SHAPE WELD AND GRIND SMOOTH 3/16' 3" O.D. GALVANIZED STD. STEEL PIPE, SCH 40 ASTM A53 DETAIL - BOLLARD (REMOVABLE) �. SCALE: 3" = 1'-0" City of Kent Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division (,ly-0030 GETConsultants R=1/8" m Ln -4- 1/8" DIA. PIN 5- 1-1/4" 2-1/4" 1 11/32" 1/2" 3/8" 1" 1" 1-5/32" 1-5/32" R=1/32" (2) 1/4" DIA. X 3/4" LONG NF STAINLESS STEEL FLATHEAD SCREWS DETAIL - HINGE ASSEMBLY - REMOVABLE (Th BOLLARD (NOTE 3) SCALE: 6" = 1'–O" CASE TO BE MADE OF 1/2" STEEL PLATE, CUT AND WELD TO GIVEN DIMENSIONS PLAN 7/16" 3-1/16" 3/16 1-5/32" 1-5/32" 1/4" DIA. NF SCREWS TO FASTEN HINGE ASSY. (SEE DETAIL 1) 5/8" CL 1/4" DIA. NF TAP THRU 3-1/2" I.D. GALVANIZED STD. STEEL PIPE, SCH 40 ASTM A53 180 Grand Ave. Suite 1410 Oakland, CA 94612 510-350-2900 GEI Project 121141 1/8„ 1/2" DIA. X 6" LONG BOLT, BEND AND WELD TO CASE ELEVATION -2'-10-15/16" DETAIL - BOLLARD CASING ri--\ SCALE: 3" = 1'-0" REMOVABLE BOLLARD DETAILS SHEET r s4 0, 7 FILE NO. S2.dwg a.; m cL w SHEET PILE WALL DESIGNED: PARKS DEPT: KENT PROJECT O. 09-3010 E;RAVN:RW PROJECT ENGR: CONST. MG6IT. REVIEW SCALE: H,R12. VDT: NONE NO. REVISION BY DATE A?PROJED. CITY ENGINEER E:ATE 10-25-13 TYPICAL FLOODWALL ELEVATION SCALE: 1"=2' BAR IS CNE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY a - 1::1 KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL, DISTR. IC \`••••City of Kent Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division TYPICAL FLOODWALL ELEVATION (LANDWARD FACE) og -moos° BRISCOE & DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEE r S5o, FILE NO. .,,0,301IDESIMONE WALLS E.at 1- f) z o (7) z a a. x La 24'-0" TYPICAL (EXCEPT WHERE NOTED OTHERWISE) 1— "oz z 0 c7) z a a_ x al REVEAL CAP BEAM FICONCRETE BARRIER (SMOOTH NISH) (SMOOTH FINISH) SHEET EXPOSED AREA STRIP. 1 TO 1 PILES SURFACES BOTTOM SEE KSP 1 — PAINT 6-07.3(98) 1 ALL AND OF MOW 4" THICK CONC. MOW STRIP ir- FINISHED GRADE ,\,,////,, /'`',%>>.V.i.,-.:j,./,'',.•/3&K.%',A ‘,.....,... A...vs...< . '`'''`''\''`N.\/\ / .,/ . .. / — \ ,,,,,,,,,..,,,,, `>-.,,,,,,,\;,, \.,,,,/ v.., . ..,/,-.,,v.,./ \'' \ ,,,,,,,,,,5,,,,. / \\'' - \/%'\,' \ >'' \'/ -,,,- v. \ \/' . -%/'-';'•(-/\" . , ,,./. ... \\/>:)/,. ,—,- ' /,‘Y/V.),.'W,.>->X.\ , ' •,.' ,- A\iv'-'"\‘; \'-'''\7s7;,W)',-s>.,>,,\/>\,,\%;)/:',)>'/‘ '.›/•• ..'.'';\,,>' \/.- \/,'''\,..)- '2.' PARKS DEPT: KENT PROJECT O. 09-3010 E;RAVN:RW PROJECT ENGR: CONST. MG6IT. REVIEW SCALE: H,R12. VDT: NONE NO. REVISION BY DATE A?PROJED. CITY ENGINEER E:ATE 10-25-13 TYPICAL FLOODWALL ELEVATION SCALE: 1"=2' BAR IS CNE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY a - 1::1 KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL, DISTR. IC \`••••City of Kent Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division TYPICAL FLOODWALL ELEVATION (LANDWARD FACE) og -moos° BRISCOE & DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEE r S5o, FILE NO. .,,0,301IDESIMONE WALLS E.at BRISCOE-DESIMONE LEVEE PROJ MULTIPLE PARCELS PL14-0021 L14-0030 SHORELINE SUB DEV L14-0031 SHORELINE VARIANCE SHORELINE VARIANCE City of Seattle Office of Hearing Examiner P.O. Box 94729, Seattle WA, 98124-4729 P(206) 684-0521 F(206) 684-0536 Physical/ Delivery Address: 700 5th Avenue, Suite 4000, Seattle, WA 98104 T RECEIV - OC i" 10 201k t;,()ty11/1a,:4l I t u.11 t_84141 --IMI" To: City of Tukwila Mayor's Office 6200 Southcenter BLVD Tukwila, WA 98188 Travel Rate/Fee 20.00 per trip Pay to: Date: September 22, 2014 Tax ID: 91-6001275 Invoice #: 1W2014-03 Customer ID: TW City of Seaftle Office of Hearing Examiner P.O. 94729 Seattle, WA 98124-4729 Hourly Rate Mileage 105.00 per houra6 cents per mile' Payment Terms Net 30 Date Case# Service Description Hours Examiner Line Total 7/22/14 8/7/14 8/11/14 L14-0031 City of Kent Public Works Dept. L14-0031 City of Kent' Public Works Dept. 114-0031 City of Kent Public Works Dept. Hearing Prepare Decision Complete Decision 13 Watanabe 3.2 Watanabe 1 Watanabe $136.50 $336.00 $105.00 $0.00 $0.00 Date Case # Out of Pocket Expenses Quanitiy Examiner Line Total 8/11/14 8/11/14 114-0031 City of Kent Public Works Dept. 114-0031 City of Kent Public Works Dept., Mailing of decision and original record Postage 0.2 1 Vee Vee Service Total Out of Pocket Total Amount Due Make all checks payable to — City of Seattle $6.00 $5.49 $577.50 11.49 5 588.99 COr I City of Seaffle Date: October 3, 2014 Office of Hearing Examiner Tax ID: .....5752 P.O. Box 94729, Seattle WA. 98124-4729 P(206) 684-0521 F(206) 684-0536 Invoice #: TW2014-03AW Physical/ Delivery Address: 700 5th Avenue, Suite 4000, Seattle, WA 98104 Customer ID: TW To: City of Tukwila Mayor's Office 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Travel Rate/Fee 20.00 per trip Pay to: Anne Watanabe Hearing Examiner, Pro Tempore 7614 So. Mission Drive Seattle, WA 98178 Hourly Rate Mileage 105.00 per houri56 cents per mile. Payment Terms Net 30 Date Case# Service Description Hours Examiner Line Total $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Date Case # Out of Pocket Expenses Quanitiy Examiner Line Total 114-0031 City of 7/22/14 Kent Public Works Dept. 114-0031 City of 7/22/14 Kent Public Works Dept. Mileage 24 Watanabe $13.44 Travel Fee 1 Watanabe $20.00 Make all checks payable to — Anne Watanabe Service Total Out of Pocket Total Amount Due $0.00 33.44 $ 39.44 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Northwest Regional Office • 3190 160th Ave SE • Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 • 425-649-7000 711 for Washington Relay Service • Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341 September 11, 2014 City of Kent Public Works Dept. Attn: Kelly Casteel 400 West Gowe Kent, WA 98032 Re: City of Tukwila Permit L14-0030 and L14-0031 City Of Kent Public Works Department - Applicant SIMULTANEOUS FILING OF Approved Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SDP) #2014 -NW- 2473 Approved Variance Permit (VAR) #2014 -NW- 287 Dear Ms. Casteel: On August 26, 2014, the Department of Ecology received the City of Tukwila decisions on your permits to repair two sections of levees along the Green River, by resloping and installation of sheet pile flood walls. The project also includes trail construction of native plant restoration. Your approved SDP, and VAR have been filed with Ecology. By law, Ecology must review Substantial Development, Conditional Use, and Variance Permits for compliance with: • The Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW) • Ecology's Substantial Development Permit approval criteria (Chapter 173-27-150 WAC) • Ecology's Variance Permit approval criteria (Chapter 173-27-170 WAC) • The City of Tukwila Local Shoreline Master Program Local governments, after reviewing SDPs for compliance, are required to submit them to Ecology. Your approved SDP has been received by Ecology. After reviewing the Variance Permit for compliance, Ecology must decide whether to approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove them. Our Decision on your Variance Permit: Ecology approves your Variance Permit, provided your project complies with the conditions required by City of Tukwila, and the following Ecology conditions: 1. The applicant hereby authorizes Ecology staff and their designees to have access to the subject property for the purposes of compliance inspection and monitoring. Such right of City Of Kent Public Works Dept. September 11, 2014 Page 2 of 2 access shall begin from the date of the receipt of this letter, during construction, and extend for a period of ten years following project completion. Ecology staff must provide reasonable verbal notice to the applicant or their designee prior to coming onto the site. Please note, however, that other federal, state, and local permits may be required in addition to these shoreline permits. What Happens Next? Before you begin activities authorized by this permit, the law requires you wait at least 21 days from September 11, 2014, the "date of filing." This waiting period allows anyone (including you) who disagrees with any aspect of this permit to appeal the decision to the state Shorelines Hearings Board. You must wait for the conclusion of an appeal before you can begin the activities authorized by this permit. The Shorelines Hearings Board will notify you by letter if they receive an appeal. We recommend that you contact the Shorelines Hearings Board before you begin permit activities to ensure that no appeal has been received. They can be reached at (360) 664-9160 or http://www.eho.wa.gov/. If you want to appeal this decision, you can find appeal instructions (Chapter 461-08 WAC) at the Shorelines Hearings Board website above. They are also posted on the website of the Washington State Legislature at: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/. If you have any questions about this letter, please contact David Pater at (425) 649-4253. Sincerely, Erik Stockdale, Section Manager Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program cc: Carol Lumb, City of Tukwila Community Development Department at* of J uinviea Department Of Community Development AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I, re-i>Svec/a/lb , HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Project Number: PL14-0021 Notice of Application X Notice of Decision Associated File Number (s): L14-0030 Notice of Public Hearing L I g - o C 31 Notice of Public Meeting n "' Determination of Non- Significance Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Mailer's signature: Short Subdivision Agenda / Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit x Shoreline Mgmt Permit Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Official Notice Notice of Action x Variance x Other: CD of Application Materials Was mailed to each of the addresses listed/attached on this 25 day of _August 2014 Project Name: 13ri coei - De i navt&Lvve&Project Project Number: PL14-0021 Associated File Number (s): L14-0030 L I g - o C 31 A C4-- �� n "' Mailing requested by: Car Lu.,nb- Mailer's signature: /V ye / / / W:\USERS\TERI\TEMPLATES-FORMS\AFFIT OF DISTRIBUTION.DOC AGENCY LABELS 1.14-0333 51,korc ,+‘.( ( ) US Corps of Engineers ( ) Federal HWY Admin ( ) Federal Transit Admin, Region 10 ( ) Dept of Fish & Wildlife Section 1 FEDERALAGENCIES 1�Gj i - eNnuiy ( ) US Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) ( ) US Dept of HUD ( ) National Marine Fisheries Service Section ( ) Office of Archaeology ( ) Transportation Department (WSDOT NW) ( ) Dept of Natural Resources ( ) Office of the Governor ( ) WA State Community Development ( ) WA Fisheries & Wildlife, MillCreek Offi WA Fisheries & Wildlife, Larry Fisher, 1775 12th Ave NW Ste 201, Issaquah WA 98027 2 WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES Dept of Social & Health Services Dept of Ecology NW Regional Office, Shoreland Div. SHORELINE NOD REQUIRES RETURN RECEIPT Dept of Ecology, SEPA **Send Electronically Office of Attorney General ( ) Office of Hearing Examiner ( ) KC Boundary Review Board ( ) Fire District # 11 ( ) Fire District # 2 ( ) KC Wastewater Treatment Div ( ) KC Dept of Parks & Recreation ( ) KC Assessor's Office Section 3 KING COUNTY AGENCIES ( ) Health Department ( ) Port of Seattle ( ) KC Dev & Enviro Services-SEPA Info Center ( ) KC Metro Transit Div-SEPA Official, Environmental Planning ( ) KC Dept of Natural Resources ( ) KC Dept of Natural Resources, Andy Levesque ( ) KC Public Library System ( ) Foster Library ( ) Renton Library ( ) Kent Library ( ) Seattle Library Section 4 SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES ( ) Westfield Mall Library ( ) Tukwila School District ( ) Highline School District ( ) Seattle School District ( ) Renton School District ( ) QWEST Communications ( ) Seattle City Light ( ) Puget Sound Energy ( ) Highline Water District ( ) Seattle Planning &Dev/Water Dept ( ) Comcast Section 5 UTILITIES ( ) BP Olympic Pipeline ( ) Val-Vue Sewer District ( ) Water District # 20 ( ) Water District # 125 ( ) City of Renton Public Works ( ) Bryn Mawr-Lakeridge Sewer/Water Dist ( ) Seattle Public Utilities ( ) Waste Management ( ) Tukwila City Departments ( ) Public Works ( ) Fire ( ) Police ( ) Finance ( ) Planning ( ) Building ( ) Parks & Rec ( ) Mayor ( ) City Clerk Section 6 CITY AGENCIES ) Ri/AA_ - Lav- 0 (Z X( Kent Planning jtkico Nw.. v n� ( ) Renton Planning Dept " ( ) City of SeaTac ( ) City of Burien ( ) City of Seattle ( ) Strategic Planning *Notice of all Seattle Related Projects ( ) Puget Sound Regional Council ( ) SW KC Chamber of Commerce Muckleshoot Indian Tribe * Cultural Resources.` .. Fisheries Progra Wildlife Program wamish Indian Tribe * 11 p 1 Section 7 OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES ( ) Puget Sound Clean Air Agency ( ) Sound Transit/SEPA tion * N.O ( ) Washington Environmental Council ( ) People for Puget Sound * ( ) Futurewise * send notice of all applications on Green/Duwamish River ( ) Seattle Times ( ) South County Journal P:Admin\Admin Forms\Agency Checklist Section 8 MEDIA ( ) Highline Times ukwila Website 2 ear, 41 INA, o ` (6e -L diZ / \ f O'KEEFE DEVELOPMENI A REAL ESTATE COMPANY O'.t L. FE Principal er CEO .SreetAddress: 18300 Cascade Avenue S, Suite 20 Seattle, WA 98188 l9ailrng Addres>. PO Box 20399 Seam vN office: 206.236.6200 mobile: 206.972.1913 fax: 206.236.6160 tom@odc2.com odc2.com DR.Moffett. ssociates David R. Moffett President INC. 7900 5.E. 28th Street, Suite 200 • Mercer Island, WA 98040 (206) 236-6130 o Fax: (206) 232-1721 Celt: 121)6) 854-3626 • dun'seanet.com Lawn - 0,v\ (z, - t - L-)Ce_J (-V toe - }L/ V. (-l/ 3 11 Sl bre (. � ww�� s► -'b 1 1- MTU-th n -a l'S `! w &-L-( L)0471 cent, V - �t� 0, 5 r1,-(4 Alis, ofum.AA0 c- Ott SIA0 e/i/ + 4.rr '4 15 SL( VI -Pt -Ar (Lel 17ivv\s i /nom c -w -V e ��v L 1 Sadv Z. Cr -DM eqr--. — ++ SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complet0 items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. II Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: Department of Ecology NW Regional Office 3190 - 160th Ave. SE Bellevue, WA 98008 COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY A. Sign X c&GJ VEO ❑ Agent ❑ Addressee B. F eceived by (Printed Name) C. Date' of Delivery I R` 26 2014 g -its D. I vet)"address different fromffi1? 0 Yes If YF: enter delivery address4oi: 0 No 3. Se ce Type Certified Mail ❑ express Mail ❑ Registered —XI, Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ Insured Mail 0 C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. Article Number ++ (Transfer from service iabeO — 7009 2250 0002 2865 7533 PS Form 3811, February 2004 +1- — ++ ++ —++ ++ — — ++ m m r - L.1 • .o r1J .ru t= O 'l7 .Lr) rL .0 0 • O .r - Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 onsurance Coverage Provided) (4,0 ,n#o mat)on visit ourbwebsite at www uspslcom Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Postagr Z -- Sent To Street, Apt. No. or PO Box No. City, State, ZIP, Postmark Here 6636 MAcX C_u.41/,. Department of Ecology NW Regional Office 3190 - 160th Ave. SE Bellevue, WA 98008 MerMTOom gusMFd j. \ Tom T. O'KEEFE O'KEEFE DEVELOPMENT Principal & CFC) A REAL ESTATE COMPANY Street Addr, s: 18300 Cascade Avenue S. Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98188 $l tiling Addie,.. - PC) Box 20399 Seattle, \X'A 98102 office: 206.236.6200 mobile: 206.972.1913 fax: 206.236.6160 tom@ odc2.com wvs w.odc2.com DR.Moffet ssociates INC. David R. Moffett President 7900 S.E. 28th Street, Suite 200 • Mercer Island, WA 98040 (206) 236-6130 • Fax: (206) 232-1721 Cell: (206) 854-3626 • drm@seanet.com lz-Ke S o c2,, Shoreline Management Act Permit Data Sheet and Transmittal Letter From: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Suite 100 Seattle, WA 98188 To: Department of Ecology Attn: David Pater Date of Transmittal: August 25, 2014 Date of Receipt: Type of Permit: Shoreline Substantial Development Variance Local Government Decision: Recommend Approval Applicant Information: Ken Langholz, City of Kent Public Works Dept. 400 West Gowe Kent, WA 98032 Is the applicant the property owner? No Location of the property: 18200 and 18251 Cascade Ave. South (parcel #s 788890- 0170 and -0150) and 6545 S. Glacier St. (parcel #788890- 0110) Water Body Name: Green River Shoreline of Statewide Significance: Yes Environment Designation: Urban Conservancy Description of Project: Requesting two variances from adopted Tukwila shoreline standards: (1) Repair approximately 1,100 feet of compromised section of levee by installing a structural steel sheet pile wall at the back of existing levee on the Green River. The river side of the levee will be reconfigured at a 6:1 and 2:1 slope and planted with native plants. The proposed levee profile varies from the City of Tukwila's adopted levee standard. (2) The Green River Trail will be moved landward and widened two feet to 16 feet but does not meet Tukwila's adopted trail standard of 18 feet. Notice of Application Date: Final Decision Date: By: Carol Lumb, Senior Planner Phone Number: 206-431-3661 May 22, 2014 August 21, 2014 CL Page 1 of 1 08/25/2014 9:52 AM H:\\L14-0030-L14-0031 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repair\SSDP\Ecology Cover Sheet PLEASE NOTE: t cco .„A-6,& po ..01 - Most of the attachments to the Shoreline Variance Staff Report (L14-0031) are also used as attachments to the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (L14-0030). Hard copies of all attachments referenced in the Shoreline Variance Staff Report are provided in this mailing. Where there is duplication of an attachment, a second copy is not provided with the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. KEY TO SHORELINE VARIANCE AND SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ATTACHMENTS DOCUMENT VARIANCE STAFF REPORT SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT Project Plan Sheets Attachment #1 Attachment #1 Inundation Map Attachment #2 Attachment #2 TMC 18.06-494, TMC 18.44 Attachment #3 N/A City of Kent Shoreline Variance Narrative, Response to Variance Criteria, E-mail dated 7/10/14; 7/11/14 E-mail Attachment #4 N/A Sheets 1-3 Desimone Levee Cross Sections Attachment #5 N/A Muckleshoot Indian Tribe e- mail and attachment Attachment #6 Attachment #6 City of Kent Shoreline Project Description and No Net Loss Analysis N/A Attachment #4 August 12, 2014 e-mail from Matt Knox, City of Kent and July 25, 2014 e-mail from Carol Lumb, City of Tukwila N/A Attachment #5 City of Kent Response to Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Attachment #7 Attachment #7 City of Kent SEPA Documents Attachment #8 Attachment #3 CL Page 1 of 1 H:\\L14-0031-L14-0030 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repair\Attachment Key 08/22/2014 4:45 PM 7 at* ofSanaa Department Of Community Development AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I, Carol Lumb , HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Mailing requested by: Carol Lumb Mailer's signature: �?Ii -( { vyt4/ Notice of Application X Notice of Decision Notice of Public Hearing Notice of Public Meeting Determination of Non- Significance Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit Shoreline Mgmt Permit Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Official Notice Notice of Action Other: Was mailed to each of the addresses listed/attached* on this 21 day of August , 2014 Project Name: Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repair Project Number: L14-0031 Associated File Number (s): L14-0030 Mailing requested by: Carol Lumb Mailer's signature: �?Ii -( { vyt4/ *all recipients received NOD and Hearing Ex. Staff rpt. via e-mail except Duwamish Tribe, which was mailed U.S. Postal Service. WAADMINAADMIN FORMS\AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION.DOC AGENCY LABELS ( ) US Corps of Engineers ( ) Federal HWY Admin ( ) Federal Transit Admin, Region 10 ( ) Dept of Fish & Wildlife Section 1 FEDERAL AGENCIES ( ) US Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) ( )US Dept of HUD ( ) National Marine Fisheries Service Section 2 ( ) Office of Archaeology ( ) Transportation Department (WSDOT NW) ( ) Dept of Natural Resources ( ) Office of the Governor ( ) WA State Community Development WA Fisheries & Wildlife, MillCreek Office WA Fisheries & Wildlife, Larry Fisher, 1775 12th Ave NW Ste 201, Issaquah WA 98027 WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES ( ) Dept of Social & Health Services ( ) Dept of Ecology NW Regional Office, Shoreland Div. ******* NOD REQUIRES RETURN RECEIPT ( ' Dept of Ecology, SEPA **Send Electronically Office of Attorney General- ( ) Office of Hearing Examiner ( ) KC Boundary Review Board ( ) Fire District # 11 ( ) Fire District # 2 ( ) KC Wastewater Treatment Div ( ) KC Dept of Parks & Recreation ( ) KC Assessor's Office Section 3 KING COUNTY AGENCIES ( ) Health Department ( ) Port of Seattle ( ) KC Dev & Enviro Services-SEPA Info Center ( ) KC Metro Transit Div-SEPA Official Environmental Planning KC Dept of Natural Resources ( ) XC Dept of Natural Resources, Andy Levesque ( ) KC Public Library System ( ) Foster Library ( ) Renton Library ( ) Kent Library ( ) Seattle Library Section 4 SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES ( ) Westfield Mall Library ( ) Tukwila School District ( ) Highline School District ( ) Seattle School District ( ) Renton School District ( ) QWEST Communications ( ) Seattle City Light ( ) Puget Sound Energy ( ) Highline Water District ( ) Seattle Planning &Dev/Water Dept ( ) Comcast Section 5 UTILITIES ( ) BP Olympic Pipeline ( ) Val-Vue Sewer District ( ) Water District # 20 ( ) Water District # 125 ( ) City of Renton Public Works ( ) Bryn Mawr-Lakeridge Sewer/Water Dist ( ) Seattle Public Utilities ( ) Allied Waste Services ( ) Tukwila City Departments ( ) Public Works ( ) Police ( ) Planning ( ) Parks & Rec ( ) City Clerk ( ) Fire ( ) Finance ( ) Building ( ) Mayor Section 6 CITY AGENCIES VP I C) ' N %Kent Planning Dept ( ) Renton Planning Dept ( ) City of SeaTac ( ) City of Burien ( ) City of Seattle ( ) Strategic Planning *Notice of all Seattle Related Projects Ke 1.403(401 z ( ) Puget Sound Regional Council ( j SW KC Chamber of Commerce Muckleshoot Indian Tribe * ( ) Cultural Resources Fisheries Program ) Wildlife Program Duwamish Indian Tribe * Section 7 OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES ( ) Puget Sound Clean Air Agency ( ) Sound Transit/SEPA ( ) Duwamish River Clean Up Coalition * ( ) Washington Environmental Council ( ) People for Puget Sound * ( ) Futurewise * send notice of all applications on Green/Duwamish River ( ) Seattle Times ( ) South County Journal Section 8 MEDIA ( ) Highline Times ( ) City of Tukwila Website Vt& ewCL 4 P:Admin\Admin Forms\Agency Checklist ct lane Seu.ne`.wW, ek O' Kw4-e. Ocw c I'le L+p t't ruum; 111UUGC P1411mus rur rermuLs SEPA MAILINGS Mail to: (comment period starts on date of mailing) Dept. of Ecology Environmental Review Section *Applicant *Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list) *Any parties of record * send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination KC Transit Division — SEPA Official would like to receive information about all projects that might affect transit demand Tribes — For any application on the Green/Duwamish River, send the checklist and a full set of plans with the Notice Of Application Send These Documents to DOE: SEPA Determination (from PermitsPlus) Findings (staff report, usu. with MDNS) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed or sent to newspaper) SHORELINE MAILINGS: Notice of Application for a Substantial Development Permit must be mailed to owners and to property owners within 500 feet of subject property, comments are due 30 days after the notice of application is mailed/posted. The Notice of Application for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit must include a statement that any person desiring to submit written comments on the application or desiring to receive notification of the final decision on the application may do so within 30 days of the Notice of Application. If a hearing will be held on the application, the hearing notice must include the information that written comments may be submitted, or oral presentation made at the hearing. Notice is sent to Ecology's NW Regional Office Shorelands & Environmental Assistance Program. Shoreline Permit Notice of Decision: Mail to: (within 8 days of decision; 21 -day appeal period begins date of filing with DOE) — Notice to DOE must be by return receipt requested mail (this requirement included in SSB 5192, effective 7-22-11). Department of Ecology Shorelands Section, NW Regional Office State Attorney General *Applicant *Indian Tribes *Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list). *Any parties of record * send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination Send These Documents to DOE and Attorney General: Permit Data Sheet Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (printed out from PermitsPlus) Findings (staff report or memo) Shoreline Permit Application Form (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) - Site plan, with mean high water mark & improvements — Cross-sections of site with structures & shoreline - Grading Plan — Vicinity map SEPA determination (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report or memo) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Any background studies related to impacts on shoreline Notice of Application Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed) P:Admin\Admin Forms\Agency Checklist 7 � Carol Lumb From: Carol Lumb Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 11:37 AM To: Langholz, Ken (KLangholz@kentwa.gov); Karen Walter (KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us); Larry D (DFW) Fisher; Tom@ODC2.com; David Moffett (drm@seanet.com) Subject: Notice of Decision, L14-0031 Attachments: HE Decision w corrected pg.pdf; NOD_L14-0031.pdf Ken, et al, Attached please find the Notice of Decision issued by the City's Hearing Examiner for the shoreline variance request along with a copy of the Hearing Examiner's decision. Please let me know if you have any questions. Carol Carol Lurnb, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 206-431-3661 CarolLumb@TukwilaWa.gov Tukwila, the City of opportunity, the community of choice. 1 August 21, 2014 / \ City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director NOTICE OF DECISION TO: Ken Langholz, City of Kent, Applicant King County Assessor, Accounting Divisio All Parties of Record Agencies with Jurisdiction This letter serves as a notice of decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.104.170 on the following project and permit approval. Project File Number: L14-0031 Applicant: Type of Permit: Project Description: Location: Associated Files: Shoreline Environment Comprehensive Plan Designation/Zoning District: I. PROJECT INFORMATION Ken Langholz for City of Kent, Public Works Department Shoreline Substantial Development Variance Vary the design of the levee profile from that adopted in Tukwila's Shoreline Master Program and reduce the required width of the Green River Trail from 18 feet to 16 feet. The City of Tukwila's levee profile includes 2:1 slopes with a 15 - foot mid -slope bench for planting of native vegetation, for an overall slope of 2.5:1. The City of Kent is proposing 6:1 slope and 2:1 slope planted with native plants and a sheet pile wall installed behind the existing levee. The sheet pile wall will serve as the levee. The overall levee slope would be 2.56:1 under the City of Kent's proposal. The Department of Ecology issues a final decision on the shoreline variance request. Green River, behind 18200 Cascade Avenue South (Reach 1) Green River behind 6545 South Glacier Street (Reach 2) L14-0030, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Urban Conservancy Commercial/Light Industrial CL: H:\\L14-0031-Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repair\NOD Page 1 of 2 08/21/2014 10:33 AM 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax 206-431-3665 Shoreline Variance: Briscoe/Desi ie Levee Repair Notice of Decision L14-0031 II. DECISION SEPA Determination: The City of Kent acted as SEPA Responsible Official for this project as it is part of four projects, the majority of which are located within the City of Kent. The City of Kent SEPA Responsible Official has previously determined that the project does not create a probable significant environmental impact if specific mitigation conditions are imposed on the project and issued a Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance (MDNS) requiring compliance with those mitigation conditions. Decision on Substantive Permit: The Hearing Examiner has determined, following an open record hearing, that the application for a Shoreline Substantial Development Variance does comply with applicable City and state code requirements and has recommended approval of that application to the Department of Ecology based on the findings and conclusions contained in the staff report. No conditions of approval are recommended. The Department of Ecology has final decision making authority for shoreline variances. III. YOUR APPEAL RIGHTS The Decision on this Permit Application is a Type 3 decision pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code § 18.104.010. One administrative appeal to the Shorelines Hearings Board of the Decision is permitted. Any person appealing to the Shorelines Hearings Board may raise certain SEPA issues as part of the appeal to the Shorelines Hearings Board. Appellants should consult the rules and procedures of the Shorelines Hearings Board for details. IV. PROCEDURES AND TIME FOR APPEALING The requirements and procedures for appeals to the Shorelines Hearings Board are set forth in RCW 90.58 and WAC 461.08. V. INSPECTION OF INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the Shoreline Substantial Development Variance are available for inspection at the Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100, Tukwila, Washington 98188 from Monday through Friday between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The project planner is Carol Lumb, who may be contacted at 206-431-3661 for further information. Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax purposes. Contact the King County Assessor' s Office for further information regarding property tax valuation changes. Dep ent rtniy Development City of Tukwila 0 ommunit CL: Page 2 of 2 08/21/2014 10:33 AM H:\\ L14-0031-Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repair\NOD TUIKWILA HEARING EXAMINER FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION ,Applicant: File Number: Application: Location: SEPA Determination: Comprehensive Plan/ Zoning Designation: Recommendation: Public Hearin Exhibits: City of Kent Public Works Department L14-0031 Shoreline Variance to allow levee repair design which varies from the levee profile in the SMP, and to reduce the required width of the Green River Trail from 18 feet to 16 feet, and to vary the Green River Reach 1 Mitigation Determination of Non -significance issued on Apri19, 2013 by City of Kent as SEPA Lead agency Commercial/Light Industrial Department of Community Development recommends approval. The Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on the application on July 22, 2014, at the Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100, Tukwila, WA. The following exhibits were entered into the record: A. Department Staff Report dated July 14, 2014 with Attachments 1-8 1. Project Plan Sheets 2. Inundation Map 3. TMC 18.06.494 and TMC 18.44 4. City of Kent Shoreline Variance Narrative; Response to Variance Criteria; E- mail dated 7/10/14 re: loss of parking; email dated 7/11/14 re: average slopes 5. Sheets 1-3 Desimone Levee Cross Sections 6. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe email dazed 7/3114 and attachment dated 4/1/13 7. City of Kent email dated 7/11/14 and letter dated 4/5/13, to Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 8. City of Kent SEPA documents (checklist, staff report and SEPA MDNS) Hearing Examiner Decision L14-0031 City of Kent Shoreline Variance Page 2 of 10 B. Department Staff Report Addendum dated July 15, 2014 C. Power Point slides from presentation on July 22, 2014 D. Aerial phots of 18200 Cascade Avenue South and map depicting parking stalls E. Department and City of Kent Responses to Hearing Examiner questions with Attachments: 1-7 1. Protective Covenants 2. April 29,1974 Tukwila City Council special meeting minutes 3. May 6, 1974 Tukwila City Council regular meeting vote on approval of plat 4. Southcenter South Industrial Park recorded plat 5. July 15, 1985 Tukwila City Council minutes 6. Resolution 965 adopted July 15, 1985 7. November 12, 1985 Tukwila City Council discussion notes The following persons testified at hearing: City: Carol Lumb, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development Applicant: Ken Langholz, Senior Engineer, City of Kent Public Works Department Matt Knox, Conservation Analyst, City of Kent Public Works Department Public: Todd O'Keefe David Moffett Introduction The applicant, City of Kent Public Works Department, seeks a Shoreline Variance for levee repair work within the City of Tukwila. A hearing on the application was held by the Hearing Examiner on July 22, 2014, at the Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA. The record was held open after the hearing to receive more information from the Department and applicant concerning construction and trail location impacts on nearby business' parking areas. The information was submitted to the Hearing Examiner on August 1, 2014, and the record was closed at that time. Represented at the hearing were: the Department, by Carol Lumb, Senior Planner, and the applicant, City of Kent Public Works Department, by Ken Langholz, Engineering Supervisor, and Matt Knox, Conservation Analyst, City of Kent Public Works Department. All references to TMC or Code refer to the Tukwila Municipal Code. After due consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, the following shall constitute the findings of fact, conclusions and decision of the Hearing Examiner on this application. \ Hearing Examiner Decision L14-0031 City of Kent Shoreline Variance Page 3of10 Findings of Fact 1. The City of Kent is undertaking repairs of the Briscoe-Desimone Levee System which lies along the Green River. The levee repairs are located in four segments or "reaches" along the east bank of the River where between S. 180th Street and South 200th Street, as shown in the record. Reach 1 lies within the City of Tukwila and totals approximately 1,100 linear feet, and extends approximately 700 feet west of West Valley Highway to the shoulder of West Valley HTiighway. Approximately 200 feet of Reach 2 is also within the City of Tukwila but this portion is where the reconfigured levee is re- joined to the existing levee system, and does not require a variance. 2. The shoreline environment designation for Reach 1 is Urban Conservancy. The shoreline buffer in the Urban Conservancy environment, where levees are present, is 125 feet. Construction, maintenance, or redevelopment of levees for flood control purposes is a permitted use in the Urban Conservancy buffer, provided that the new or redeveloped levee meets the applicable levee requirements of the City's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and the Code. Public trails are a permitted use in the Urban Conservancy Environment buffer. 3. The SMP standards designate a levee profile which achieves an overall slope of 2.5:1, or as close to 2.5:1 as possible. The SMP also provides that a floodwall is not the preferred back slope profile for a levee but may be substituted for all or a portion of the back slope only where necessary to avoid encroachment or damage to a structure legally constructed prior to the date of the adoption of the current SMP that has not lost its nonconforming status. 4. In 2011, the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) proposed new national regulations that would have banned vegetation on levees and would have required Local jurisdictions to apply for a vegetation variance on a case-by-case basis each time planting of vegetation, including trees was proposed. The COE has released an interim policy to allow local jurisdictions to decide whether to place trees on levees. This policy is not a permanent rule, and it is unclear what the COE's final position will be on allowing vegetation on levees. 5. The applicant City of Kent's engineering studies indicate the top of the levee is overly narrow and showing signs of failure. The applicant's evaluation concludes that flows of just over 9,000 cubic feet per second (CFS) in March of 2014 caused sloughing and erosion, but 12,000 CFS 100 -year flood event storms can be expected in the Reach. Exhibit 2 shows the area of potential inundation in the event of a failure of Reach 1, with the inundation of the Kent Valley extending from approximately S. 228x` Street to 1-405. 6. The proposed project is to install a structural steel sheet pile wall at the back of the existing levee at this location to act as a secondary levee in order to reduce flood risk. The proposed flood wall would provide a minimum of three feet of freeboard above the predicted 500 -year flood event, in order to meet the Federal Emergency Management Hearing Examiner Decision L14-0031 City of Kent Shoreline Variance Page 4 of 10 Agency (FEMA) accreditation requirements. The waterward side of the levee would be reconfigured, creating lower bench and upper slope areas that would be planted with vegetation to create new fish and wildlife habitat. 7. The proposed design creates a 6:1 slope on the lower portion of the bank adjacent to the ordinary high water mark, and a 2:1 upper slope. The average overall slope for the proposed design would be 2.56:1 (as measured between the OHWM and the edge of the trail). The sloping lower bench would be engaged whenever the river reaches approximately 2,500 CFS. This occurs on average 39 days each year between January and June, the period when threatened Chinook salmon out -migrate from the Green River. (In contrast, the 15 -wide bench adopted as the SMP minimum levee profile engages when the river is at approximately 5,500 CFS, which is on average once or twice each year). 8. The existing segment of the Green River trail at this location would be removed and a new trail segment created. The new trail would include a 12 -foot -wide asphalt trail, a 2 -foot wide concrete shoulder on the landward side, and a 2 -foot wide gravel shoulder on the riverward side, for a total of 16 feet in width. 9. The proposal would require the removal of 36 trees from the project area. The trees range in size from a four -inch diameter Hawthorn to several 24 -inch diameter London Plane trees. The large London Plane trees are located 50-90 feet from the river's edge. 10. The applicant proposes to plant 137 native trees in the 6:1 and 2:1 areas on the riverside of the levee. The proposal also includes the planting of shrubs and groundcovers on the riverside of the levee, with approximately 1205 plantings on the lower slope; 360 on the middle slope; and 705 on the upper slope. Because the sheet pile wall will serve as the levee, the applicant does not expect plantings on the riverside to conflict with current or future COE levee vegetation limits. It is anticipated that the new plantings, in 10 years or less, will provide more shading than is currently provided by the existing trees which are located some distance from the river's edge. 11. The proposed levee repair project will require elimination of 42 parking stalls which serve an office building addressed as 18200 Cascade Avenue South (the Riverpointe Two office park). After the project is completed, 17, parking stalls would be located along the back wall of the levee, for a net loss of 25 parking stalls. 12. The City of Kent as SEPA lead agency reviewed the larger levee repair project, (including levee repair actions located within the City of Kent), and issued a Mitigated Determination of Non -significance (MDNS) on April 9, 2013. 13. The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe submitted comments to the Department. The comments are shown at Attachment 6. The comments addressed fishing site locations, including a site located on Reach 1, and the impacts on fish habitat from tree removal and other conditions. Hearing Examiner Decision L14-0031 City of Kent Shoreline Variance Page 5 of 10 14. The City of Kent's response to the comments are shown at Attachment 7. The City of Kent has met with the Tribe and intends to maintain access to the fishing sites on the affected Reaches during construction and after the project is complete. 15. At the public hearing, two members of the public testified, both of whom own property near the levee. One speaker, representing the Riverpointe Two LLC, requested that the project be redesigned so as to ensure that there are 4 parking stalls per 1,000 square feet to serve the building's tenants. The other commenter voiced concerns about the impactsof construction -related traffic and its impacts on parking, and how those impacts could be addressed consistent with the parking provisions of protective covenants for the Southcenter South Industrial Park. 16. The Hearing Examiner asked the staff and applicant to respond to the comments, and left the record open after the hearing until August 1, 2014, to receive their responses. The responses were filed on August 1, 2014 and have been added to the record on this matter. Codes 17. TMC 18.44.130.D contains the approval criteria for a shoreline variance permit. 3. Shoreline Variance Permits . should be granted in circumstances where denial of the permit would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58 020. In all instances the applicant must demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances exist and the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 4. Approval Criteria. A Shoreline Variance Permit for a use, activity or development that will be located landward of the ordinary high water mark and/or landward of any wetland may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: a. The strict application of the bulb dimensional, or performance standards set forth in this chapter preclude or significantly interfere with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by this chapter. b. The hardship described in TMC Section 18.44.130.D.4. is spec f cally related to the property and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, 'size, or natural features and the application of this chapter, and not from the owner's own actions or deed restrictions; and that the variance is necessary because of these conditions in order to provide the owner with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated c. The design of the project will be compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the Hearing Examiner Decision L14-0031 City of Kent Shoreline Variance Page 6 of 10 Comprehensive Plan and SMP and will not cause adverse impacts to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment. d The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other properties in the area. e. The variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief f The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 18. WAC 173-27-170 includes the above criteria as well as the following additional criteria for granting of a shoreline variance permit: In the granting of all variance permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example if variances were granted to other developments and/or uses in the area where similar circumstances exist the total of the variances shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not cause substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. Variances from the use regulations of the master program are prohibited 19. WAC 173-27-200 provides that: (1) After local government approval of a conditional use or variance permit, local government shall submit the permit to the department for the department's approval, approval with conditions, or denial. The department shall render and transmit to local government and the applicant its final decision approving; approving with . conditions, or disapproving the permit within thirty days of the date of submittal by local government pursuant to WAC 173-27-110. (2) The department shall review the complete file submitted by local government on conditional use and variance permits and any other information submitted or available that is relevant to the application. The department shall base its determination to approve, approve with conditions or deny a conditional use permit or variance on consistency with the policy and provisions of the act and except as provided in WAC 173-27-210, the criteria in WAC 173-27-160 and 173-27-170. (3) Local government shall provide timely notification of the department's final decision to those interested persons having requested notification from local government pursuant to WAC 173-27-130. f _/ Hearing Examiner Decision L14-0031 City of Kent Shoreline Variance Page 7 of 10 Conclusions 1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction over this application pursuant to TMC 18.104.010. Under that section, shoreline variances are Type 3 decisions. Under RCW 90.58.140 and WAC 173-27-200, the state Department of Ecology shall review a shoreline variance permit and issue a final decision to approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the permit within thirty days of submittal by local government to Ecology. 2. In order to be approved, the applicant must demonstrate that all of the criteria for a shoreline variance are met. 3. The first criterion is that strict application of the bulk, dimensional .or performance standards preclude or significantly interfere with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited. This criterion is met. The strict application of the 2.5:1 slope standard would require removal of a portion of West Valley Highway, and would require the demolition of existing buildings and relocation of current businesses. The levee repair project would be delayed by the resulting need to move the highway and acquire adjacent private properties. Strict adherence to a 2.5:1 slope would also eliminate the ability to incorporate the 6:1 bench on the lower portion of the bank, which is intended to provide additional flood refuge habitat for migrating Chinook salmon, as well as to provide planting areas that will provide increased shading of the waterway and additional habitat. The applicant's proposed uses, to repair the levee and replace a portion of the trail, are reasonable uses not prohibited by the by the Shoreline Master Program. The use of the floodwall as part of the proposed design is allowed under the SMP when the presence of existing legal nonconforming structures leave insufficient room for a levee backslope. 4. The applicant also seeks a variance from the required 18 -foot trail width, in order to create the proposed 16 -foot wide trail. The trail is constrained by the location of , adjacent developed properties, and strict adherence to the required 18 -foot width would significantly interfere with the creation of the enhanced riparian zone and flood refuge habitat, which are reasonable uses. 5. The next criterion is that the hardship is specifically related to the property and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the Master Program, rather than the owner's own actions or deed restrictions; and that the variance is necessary because of these conditions in order to provide the owner with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated. This criterion is met The hardship in achieving the 2:5:1 overall slope required by the SMP is caused by the fact that Green River Reach 1 is adjacent West Valley Highway and the two developed private -owned parcels. These conditions were not created by the owner's actions or deed restrictions. The hardship related to required trail width is the result of the location of the existing trail, which is adjacent the levee. Requiring an 18 -foot width at this location would result in the loss of proposed habitat area associated with the levee repair project. The proposed Hearing Examiner Decision L14-0031 City of Kent Shoreline Variance Page 8 of 10 trail segment width will meet King County trail standards, and will be wider than the existing trail. The variances are necessary in order to provide the applicant with the ability to meet federal Levee safety standards and to provide flood protection and wildlife habitat along this Reach, similar to that permitted to other properties along the Green River. 6. The next criterion is that the design of the project will be compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and SMP and will not cause adverse impacts to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment. This criterion is met. The proposed levee design would be compatible with other authorized uses and with uses planned for the area; the utilization of the floodwall design provides flood protection meeting federal standards, while minimizing intrusion into the adjoining developed properties. The .design would add flood refuge habitat for migrating salmon and add significant amounts of vegetation to the shoreline area in order to improve habitat. The proposed trail segment would be two feet wider than the existing trail, and would serve as the connecting segment with other portions of the Green River Trail. 7. Although approximately 25 parking stalls on an adjacent commercially developed site would be removed, the loss of the spaces would not be incompatible with uses that are authorized within the Commercial/Light Industrial Zone. The number of stalls remaining would be sufficient to meet the Code -required ratio of 3 stalls per 1,000 square feet, and the applicant has also noted that the reconfiguration of certain site features (e.g., landscape islands or. re -striping of parking stalls) could make up for the 25 lost stalls. The property owner believes that a ratio of 4 stalls per 1,000 square feet is necessary for his tenants, but the potential effect on leases or other business impacts associated with a reduction in parking stalls, are not impacts that may be considered in a shoreline variance decision. The applicant has noted that it will be offering compensation to the property owner. Construction impacts to parking supply in the vicinity would be addressed by the City Engineer, through the authorization of temporary on -street parking. The covenants for the Southcenter South Industrial Park would not limit the City Engineer's authority to authorize on -street parking in this area. 8. The next criterion is that the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other properties in the area. Although the factors here are somewhat unique in that the project is a levee repair and public trail, the variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege. Relief from the slope ratio or the trail width requirements for other properties within the City of Tukwila would be subject to the same shoreline variance criteria. Thus, this criterion is met. 9. The variance must be the minimum to afford relief. The application here is for the minimum relief necessary to achieve the repair of the levee, while minimizing impacts on the parking and drive aisles of private property adjacent the site. The requested two -foot reduction in overall trail width is the minimum necessary to create the new trail segment at this location. f " f 1 Hearing Examiner Decision L14-0031 City of Kent Shoreline Variance Page 9 of 10 10. The next criterion is that the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. The granting of the variance from the levee profile will allow the levee at Reach 1 to be repaired so as to provide more certain flood protection, while allowing for plantings closer to the river to provide shade, and to provide shallow flood refuge areas for salmon during high flow times. The new trail segment would be wider than the existing trail. No substantial detrimental effect on the public interest would occur from the proposed variance. 11. Consideration is also to be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. The City's SMP anticipates the necessity of varying the adopted levee profile, due to the developed nature of the shoreline in the city and the number of structures within the shoreline jurisdiction that are located behind established levees in need of repair. The goals of the City's adopted levee profile are to provide a less steep, more stable levee profile that will add river channel capacity to accommodate high flows, and to provide habitat benefits that are lacking with the existing over - steepened levees, whose vegetation is limited by Corps of Engineers regulations. The variances from levee profile and trail width are consistent with the SMP goals regarding levee profile, and similar requests for like actions would be measured against the variance criteria and SMP goals and policies concerning levee profiles and trail widths. No cumulative impacts are anticipated to result that would not be addressed by the SMP and Codes. 12. Variances from the use regulations of a shoreline niaster program are prohibited. The variance relief requested is not from the use regulations of the Tukwila SMP. 13. The applicant has demonstrated that extraordinary circumstances exist, that the public interest will suffer no . substantial detrimental effect, and that all approval criteria for the granting of a shoreline variance have been met by the application. The application should therefore be approved. Decision The City of Kent's application for a Shoreline Variance regarding slope and trail width is approved. Under RCW 90.58.140, the Department of Ecology shall render a final decision approving, approving with conditions, or disapproving a shoreline variance permit. Entered this 11th day of August, 2014. at, Anne Watanabe Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner Decision L14-0031 City of Kent Shoreline Variance Page 10 of 10 Concerning Further Review TMC 18.44.040 provides that "Any appeal of a decision by the City on a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use or Shoreline Variance must be appealed to the Shoreline Hearing Board" August 21, 2014 f .'t 11 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development NOTICE OF DECISION TO: Ken Langholz, City of Kent, Applicant King County Assessor, Accounting Divisio All Parties of Record Agencies with Jurisdiction Jim Haggerton, Mayor Jack Pace, Director This letter serves as a notice of decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.104.170 on the following project and permit approval. Project File Number: Applicant: Type of Permit: Project Description: Location: Associated Files: Shoreline Environment Comprehensive Plan Designation/Zoning District: I. PROJECT INFORMATION L14-0031 Ken Langholz for City of Kent, Public Works Department Shoreline Substantial Development Variance Vary the design of the levee profile from that adopted in Tukwila's Shoreline Master Program and reduce the required width of the Green River Trail from 18 feet to 16 feet. The City of Tukwila's levee profile includes 2:1 slopes with a 15 - foot mid -slope bench for planting of native vegetation, for an overall slope of 2.5:1. The City of Kent is proposing 6:1 slope and 2:1 slope planted with native plants and a sheet pile wall installed behind the existing levee. The sheet pile wall will serve as the levee. The overall levee slope would be 2.56:1 under the City of Kent's proposal. The Department of Ecology issues a final decision on the shoreline variance request. Green River, behind 18200 Cascade Avenue South (Reach 1) Green River behind 6545 South Glacier Street (Reach 2) L14-0030, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Urban Conservancy Commercial/Light Industrial CL: H:\\L14-0031-Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repair\NOD Page 1 of 2 08/21/2014 10:33 AM 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax 206-431-3665 Shoreline Variance: Briscoe/Desimo—evee Repair Notice of Decision L14-0031 II. DECISION SEPA Determination: The City of Kent acted as SEPA Responsible Official for this project as it is part of four projects, the majority of which are located within the City of Kent. The City of Kent SEPA Responsible Official has previously determined that the project does not create a probable significant environmental impact if specific mitigation conditions are imposed on the project and issued a Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance (MDNS) requiring compliance with those mitigation conditions. Decision on Substantive Permit: The Hearing Examiner has determined, following an open record hearing, that the application for a Shoreline Substantial Development Variance does comply with applicable City and state code requirements and has recommended approval of that application to the Department of Ecology based on the findings and conclusions contained in the staff report. No conditions of approval are recommended. The Department of Ecology has final decision making authority for shoreline variances. III. YOUR APPEAL RIGHTS The Decision on this Permit Application is a Type 3 decision pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code § 18.104.010. One administrative appeal to the Shorelines Hearings Board of the Decision is permitted. Any person appealing to the Shorelines Hearings Board may raise certain SEPA issues as part of the appeal to the Shorelines Hearings Board. Appellants should consult the rules and procedures of the Shorelines Hearings Board for details. IV. PROCEDURES AND TIME FOR APPEALING The requirements and procedures for appeals to the Shorelines Hearings Board are set forth in RCW 90.58 and WAC 461.08. V. INSPECTION OF INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the Shoreline Substantial Development Variance are available for inspection at the Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100, Tukwila, Washington 98188 from Monday through Friday between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The project planner is Carol Lumb, who may be contacted at 206-431-3661 for further information. Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax purposes. Contact the King County Assessor's Office for further information regarding property tax valuation changes. Depent o ommunity Development City of Tukwila CL: Page 2 of 2 08/21/2014 10:33 AM H:\\ L14-0031-Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repair\NOD r \ Carol Lumb From: Carol Lumb Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 5:25 PM To: Langholz, Ken (KLangholz@kentwa.gov); Karen Walter (KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us); mknox@kentwa.gov; Tom@ODC2.com; David Moffett (drm@seanet.com) Subject: FW: Corrected page Attachments: corrected decision 00001.PDF Dear Interested Parties: Attached please find a revised page 1/2 of the Hearing Examiner's staff report — the original staff report on page two did not list the response provided by the City of Kent to the Hearing Examiner's questions at the July 22, 2014 public hearing as an exhibit reviewed by the Hearing Examiner. Carol From: Vee, Linda Finailto:Linda.VeeOseattle.gov] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 3:55 PM To: Carol Lumb Subject: Corrected page Hi Carol, Attached is the corrected page of the decision issued on the City of Kent Public Works Department matter. Please distribute. Thank you. Linda Linda Vee LEGAL ASSISTANT Office of Hearing Examiner (Phone) 206.615.1718 I (fax) 206.684.0536 http://seattle.gov/examiner/ 1 Carol Lumb From: Watanabe, Anne <Anne.Watanabe@seattle.gov> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 3:38 PM To: Carol Lumb Cc: Vee, Linda Subject: RE: City of Kent Public Works Department, Hearing Examiner File No. L14-0031 Hi Carol, I intended the City of Kent's letter to be included as part of Ex. E, but I agree that it should be specified as being part of that exhibit. I will issue a corrected replacement page with that change. Thanks. Anne Watanabe Deputy Hearing Examiner City of Seattle P.O. Box 94729, Seattle WA 98124-4729 (206) 684-0521 From: Carol Lumb[mailto:Carol.Lumb@TukwilaWA.gov] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 3:01 PM To: Vee, Linda Cc: Watanabe, Anne Subject: RE: City of Kent Public Works Department, Hearing Examiner File No. L14-0031 Linda & Anne, I don't see mention in the list of exhibits of the response from the City of Kent during the time period that the hearing was kept open. Anne makes note of it in the staff report, but it is not noted in the Exhibit listing. I had initially forwarded Kent's response on 7/31 and then included it again when I sent our response on 8/1. Thanks, Carol From: Vee, Linda [mailto:Linda.Vee@seattle.gov] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 1:53 PM To: Carol Lumb; klangholz@kentwa.gov; kcasteel@kentwa.gov; mknox@kentwa.gov; kwalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us; tom@odc2.com; drm@seanet.com Cc: Cole, Patricia Subject: City of Kent Public Works Department, Hearing Examiner File No. L14-0031 Good Afternoon, Attached is the Examiner's decision for the above entitled matter. Thank you. Linda 1 Linda Vee LEGAL ASSISTANT Office of Hearing Examiner (Phone) 206.615.1718 I (fax) 206.684.0536 http://seattle.gov/examiner/ 2 TUKWILA HEARING EXAMINER FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION Applicant: City of Kent Public Works Department File Number: L14-0031 Application: Shoreline Variance to allow levee repair design which varies from the levee profile in the SMP, and to reduce the required width of the Green River Trail from 18, feet to 16 feet, and to vary the Location: Green River Reach 1 SEPA Determination: Mitigation Determination of Non -significance issued on April 9, 2013 by City of Kent as SEPA lead agency Comprehensive Plan/ Zoning Designation: Commercial/Light Industrial Recommendation: Public Hearing: Exhibits: Department of Community Development recommends approval. The Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on the application on July 22, 2014, at the Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100, Tukwila, WA. The following exhibits were entered into the record: A. Department Staff Report dated July 14, 2014 with Attachments 1-8 1. Project Plan Sheets 2. Inundation Map 3. TMC 18.06.494 and TMC 18.44 4. City of Kent Shoreline Variance Narrative; Response to Variance Criteria; E- mail dated 7/10/14 re: loss of parking; email dated 7/11/14 re: average slopes 5. Sheets 1-3 Desimone Levee Cross Sections 6. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe email dated 7/3/14 and attachment dated 4/1/13 7. City of Kent email dated 7/11/14 and letter dated 4/5/13, to Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 8. City of Kent SEPA documents (checklist, staff report and SEPA MDNS) Hearing Examiner Decision L14-0031 City of Kent Shoreline Variance Page 2 of 10 B. Department Staff Report Addendum dated July 15, 2014 C. Power Point slides from presentation on July 22, 2014 D. Aerial phots of 18200 Cascade Avenue South and map depicting parking stalls E. Department Response to Hearing Examiner questions dated August 1, 2014 with Attachments: 1-7 1. Protective Covenants 2. April 29, 1974 Tukwila City Council special meeting minutes 3. May 6, 1974 Tukwila City Council regular meeting vote on approval of plat 4. Southcenter South Industrial Park recorded plat 5. July 15, 1985 Tukwila City Council minutes 6. Resolution 965 adopted July 15, 1985 7. November 12, 1985 Tukwila City Council discussion notes The following persons testified at hearing: City: Carol Lumb, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development Applicant: Ken Langholz, Senior Engineer, City of Kent Public Works Department Matt Knox, Conservation Analyst, City of Kent Public Works Department Public: Todd O'Keefe David Moffett Introduction The applicant, City of Kent Public Works Department, seeks a Shoreline Variance for levee repair work within the City of Tukwila. A hearing on the application was held by the Hearing Examiner on July 22, 2014, at the Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA. The record was held open after the hearing to receive more information from the Department and applicant concerning construction and trail location impacts on nearby business' parking areas. The information was submitted to the Hearing Examiner on August 1, 2014, and the record was closed at that time. Represented at the hearing were: the Department, by Carol Lumb, Senior Planner; and the applicant, City of Kent Public Works Department, by Ken Langholz, Engineering Supervisor, and Matt Knox, Conservation Analyst, City of Kent Public Works Department. All references to TMC or Code refer to the Tukwila Municipal Code. After due consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, the following shall constitute the findings of fact, conclusions and decision of the Hearing Examiner on this application. l 1 Hearing Examiner Decision L14-0031 City of Kent Shoreline Variance Page 3 of 10 Findings of Fact 1. The City of Kent is undertaking repairs of the Briscoe-Desimone Levee System which lies along the Green River. The levee repairs are located in four segments or "reaches" along the east bank of the River where between S. 180th Street and South 200th Street, as shown in the record. Reach 1 lies within the City of Tukwila and totals approximately 1,100 linear feet, and extends approximately 700 feet west of West Valley Highway to the shoulder of West Valley Highway. Approximately 200 feet of Reach 2 is also within the City of Tukwila but this portion is where the reconfigured levee is re- joined to the existing levee system, and does not require a variance. 2. The shoreline environment designation for Reach 1 is Urban Conservancy. The shoreline buffer in the Urban Conservancy environment, where levees are present, is 125 feet. Construction, maintenance, or redevelopment of levees for flood control purposes is a permitted use in the Urban Conservancy buffer, provided that the new or redeveloped levee meets the applicable levee requirements of the City's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and the Code. Public trails are a permitted use in the Urban Conservancy Environment buffer. 3. The SMP standards designate a levee profile which achieves an overall slope of 2.5:1, or as close to 2.5:1 as possible. The SMP also provides that a floodwall is not the preferred back slope profile for a levee but may be substituted for all or a portion of the back slope only where necessary to avoid encroachment or damage to a structure legally constructed prior to the date of the adoption of the current SMP that has not lost its nonconforming status. 4. In 2011, the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) proposed new national regulations that would have banned vegetation on levees and would have required local jurisdictions to apply for a vegetation variance on a case-by-case basis each time planting of vegetation, including trees was proposed. The COE has released an interim policy to allow local jurisdictions to decide whether to place trees on levees. This policy is not a permanent rule, and it is unclear what the COE's final position will be on allowing vegetation on levees. 5. The applicant City of Kent's engineering studies indicate the top of the levee is overly narrow and showing signs of failure. The applicant's evaluation concludes that flows of just over 9,000 cubic feet per second (CFS) in March of 2014 caused sloughing and erosion, but 12,000 CFS 100 -year flood event storms can be expected in the Reach. Exhibit 2 shows the area of potential inundation in the event of a failure of Reach 1, with the inundation of the Kent Valley extending from approximately S. 228th Street to I-405. 6. The proposed project is to install a structural steel sheet pile wall at the back of the existing levee at this location to act as a secondary levee in order to reduce flood risk. The proposed flood wall would provide a minimum of three feet of freeboard above the predicted 500 -year flood event, in order to meet the Federal Emergency Management Hearing Examiner Decision L14-0031 City of Kent Shoreline Variance Page 4 of 10 Agency (FEMA) accreditation requirements. The waterward side of the levee would be reconfigured, creating lower bench and upper slope areas that would be planted with vegetation to create new fish and wildlife habitat. 7. The proposed design creates a 6:1 slope on the lower portion of the bank adjacent to the ordinary high water mark, and a 2:1 upper slope. The average overall slope for the proposed design would be 2.56:1 (as measured between the OHWM and the edge of the trail). The sloping lower bench would be engaged whenever the river reaches approximately 2,500 CFS. This occurs on average 39 days each year between January and June, the period when threatened Chinook salmon out -migrate from the Green River. (In contrast, the 15 -wide bench adopted as the SMP minimum levee profile engages when the river is at approximately 5,500 CFS, which is on average once or twice each year). 8. The existing segment of the Green River trail at this location would be removed and a new trail segment created. The new trail would include a 12 -foot -wide asphalt trail, a 2 -foot wide concrete shoulder on the landward side, and a 2 -foot wide gravel shoulder on the riverward side, for a total of 16 feet in width. 9. The proposal would require the removal of 36 trees from the project area. The trees range in size from a four -inch diameter Hawthorn to several 24 -inch diameter London Plane trees. The large London Plane trees are located 50-90 feet from the river's edge. 10. The applicant proposes to plant 137 native trees in the 6:1 and 2:1 areas on the riverside of the levee. The proposal also includes the planting of shrubs and groundcovers on the riverside of the levee, with approximately 1205 plantings on the lower slope; 360 on the middle slope; and 705 on the upper slope. Because the sheet pile wall will serve as the levee, the applicant does not expect plantings on the riverside to conflict with current or future COE levee vegetation limits. It is anticipated that the new plantings, in 10 years or less, will provide more shading than is currently provided by the existing trees which are located some distance from the river's edge. 11. The proposed levee repair project will require elimination of 42 parking stalls which serve an office building addressed as 18200 Cascade Avenue South (the Riverpointe Two office park). After the project is completed, 17 parking stalls would be located along the back wall of the levee, for a net loss of 25 parking stalls. 12. The City of Kent as SEPA lead agency reviewed the larger levee repair project, (including levee repair actions located within the City of Kent), and issued a Mitigated Determination of Non -significance (MDNS) on April 9, 2013. 13. The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe submitted comments to the Department. The comments are shown at Attachment 6. The comments addressed fishing site locations, including a site located on Reach 1, and the impacts on fish habitat from tree removal and other conditions. / \ \ Hearing Examiner Decision L14-0031 City of Kent Shoreline Variance Page 5 of 10 14. The City of Kent's response to the comments are shown at Attachment 7. The City of Kent has met with the Tribe and intends to maintain access to the fishing sites on the affected Reaches during construction and after the project is complete. 15. At the public hearing, two members of the public testified, both of whom own property near the levee. One speaker, representing the Riverpointe Two LLC, requested that the project be redesigned so as to ensure that there are 4 parking stalls per 1,000 square feet to serve the building's tenants. The other commenter voiced concerns about the impacts of construction -related traffic and its impacts on parking, and how those impacts could be addressed consistent with the parking provisions of protective covenants for the Southcenter South Industrial Park. 16. The Hearing Examiner asked the staff and applicant to respond to the comments, and left the record open after the hearing until August 1, 2014, to receive their responses. The responses were filed on August 1, 2014 and have been added to the record on this matter. Codes 17. TMC 18.44.130.D contains the approval criteria for a shoreline variance permit. 3. Shoreline Variance Permits should be granted in circumstances where denial of the permit would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances the applicant must demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances exist and the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 4. Approval Criteria. A Shoreline Variance Permit for a use, activity or development that will be located landward of the ordinary high water mark and/or landward of any wetland may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: a. The strict application of the bulk, dimensional, or performance standards set forth in this chapter preclude or significantly interfere with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by this chapter. b. The hardship described in TMC Section 18.44.130.D.4. is specifically related to the property and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of this chapter, and not from the owner's own actions or deed restrictions; and that the variance is necessary because of these conditions in order to provide the owner with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated. c. The design of the project will be compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the Hearing Examiner Decision L14-0031 City of Kent Shoreline Variance Page 6 of 10 Comprehensive Plan and SMP and will not cause adverse impacts to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment. d. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other properties in the area. e. The variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief f The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 18. WAC 173-27-170 includes the above criteria as well as the following additional criteria for granting of a shoreline variance permit: In the granting of all variance permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example if variances were granted to other developments and/or uses in the area where similar circumstances exist the total of the variances shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not cause substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. Variances from the use regulations of the master program are prohibited. 19. WAC 173-27-200 provides that: (1) After local government approval of a conditional use or variance permit, local government shall submit the permit to the department for the department's approval, approval with conditions, or denial. The department shall render and transmit to local government and the applicant its final decision approving, approving with conditions, or disapproving the permit within thirty days of the date of submittal by local government pursuant to WAC 173-27-110. (2) The department shall review the complete file submitted by local government on conditional use and variance permits and any other information submitted or available that is relevant to the application. The department shall base its determination to approve, approve with conditions or deny a conditional use permit or variance on consistency with the policy and provisions of the act and, except as provided in WAC 173-27-210, the criteria in WAC 173-27-160 and 173-27-170. (3) Local government shall provide timely notification of the department's final decision to those interested persons having requested notification from local government pursuant to WAC 173-27-130. f 1 Hearing Examiner Decision L14-0031 City of Kent Shoreline Variance Page 7 of 10 Conclusions 1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction over this application pursuant to TMC 18.104.010. Under that section, shoreline variances are Type 3 decisions. Under RCW 90.58.140 and WAC 173-27-200, the state Department of Ecology shall review a shoreline variance permit and issue a final decision to approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the permit within thirty days of submittal by local government to Ecology. 2. In order to be approved, the applicant must demonstrate that all of the criteria for a shoreline variance are met. 3. The first criterion is that strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards preclude or significantly interfere with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited. This criterion is met. The strict application of the 2.5:1 slope standard would require removal of a portion of West Valley Highway, and would require the demolition of existing buildings and relocation of current businesses. The levee repair project would be delayed by the resulting need to move the highway and acquire adjacent private properties. Strict adherence to a 2.5:1 slope would also eliminate the ability to incorporate the 6:1 bench on the lower portion of the bank, which is intended to provide additional flood refuge habitat for migrating Chinook salmon, as well as to provide planting areas that will provide increased shading of the waterway and additional habitat. The applicant's proposed uses, to repair the levee and replace a portion of the trail, are reasonable uses not prohibited by the by the Shoreline Master Program. The use of the floodwall as part of the proposed design is allowed under the SMP when the presence of existing legal nonconforming structures leave insufficient room for a levee backslope. 4. The applicant also seeks a variance from the required 18 -foot trail width, in order to create the proposed 16 -foot wide trail. The trail is constrained by the location of adjacent developed properties, and strict adherence to the required 18 -foot width would significantly interfere with the creation of the enhanced riparian zone and flood refuge habitat, which are reasonable uses. 5. The next criterion is that the hardship is specifically related to the property and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the Master Program, rather than the owner's own actions or deed restrictions; and that the variance is necessary because of these conditions in order to provide the owner with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated. This criterion is met. The hardship in achieving the 2:5:1 overall slope required by the SMP is caused by the fact that Green River Reach 1 is adjacent West Valley Highway and the two developed private -owned parcels. These conditions were not created by the owner's actions or deed restrictions. The hardship related to required trail width is the result of the location of the existing trail, which is adjacent the levee. Requiring an 18 -foot width at this location would result in the loss of proposed habitat area associated with the levee repair project. The proposed Hearing Examiner Decision L14-0031 City of Kent Shoreline Variance Page 8 of 10 trail segment width will meet King County trail standards, and will be wider than the existing trail. The variances are necessary in order to provide the applicant with the ability to meet federal levee safety standards and to provide flood protection and wildlife habitat along this Reach, similar to that permitted to other properties along the Green River. 6. The next criterion is that the design of the project will be compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and SMP and will not cause adverse impacts to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment. This criterion is met. The proposed levee design would be compatible with other authorized uses and with uses planned for the area; the utilization of the floodwall design provides flood protection meeting federal standards, while minimizing intrusion into the adjoining developed properties. The design would add flood refuge habitat for migrating salmon and add significant amounts of vegetation to the shoreline area in order to improve habitat. The proposed trail segment would be two feet wider than the existing trail, and would serve as the connecting segment with other portions of the Green River Trail. 7. Although approximately 25 parking stalls on an adjacent commercially developed site would be removed, the loss of the spaces would not be incompatible with uses that are authorized within the Commercial/Light Industrial Zone. The number of stalls remaining would be sufficient to meet the Code -required ratio of 3 stalls per 1,000 square feet, and the applicant has also noted that the reconfiguration of certain site features (e.g., landscape islands or re -striping of parking stalls) could make up for the 25 lost stalls. The property owner believes that a ratio of 4 stalls per 1,000 square feet is necessary for his tenants, but the potential effect on leases or other business impacts associated with a reduction in parking stalls, are not impacts that may be considered in a shoreline variance decision. The applicant has noted that it will be offering compensation to the property owner. Construction impacts to parking supply in the vicinity would be addressed by the City Engineer, through the authorization of temporary on -street parking. The covenants for the Southcenter South Industrial Park would not limit the City Engineer's authority to authorize on -street parking in this area. 8. The next criterion is that the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other properties in the area. Although the factors here are somewhat unique in that the project is a levee repair and public trail, the variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege. Relief from the slope ratio or the trail width requirements for other properties within the City of Tukwila would be subject to the same shoreline variance criteria. Thus, this criterion is met. 9. The variance must be the minimum to afford relief. The application here is for the minimum relief necessary to achieve the repair of the levee, while minimizing impacts on the parking and drive aisles of private property adjacent the site. The requested two -foot reduction in overall trail width is the minimum necessary to create the new trail segment at this location. / 1 Hearing Examiner Decision L14-0031 City of Kent Shoreline Variance Page 9 of 10 10. The next criterion is that the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. The granting of the variance from the levee profile will allow the levee at Reach 1 to be repaired so as to provide more certain flood protection, while allowing for plantings closer to the river to provide shade, and to provide shallow flood refuge areas for salmon during high flow times. The new trail segment would be wider than the existing trail. No substantial detrimental effect on the public interest would occur from the proposed variance. 11. Consideration is also to be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. The City's SMP anticipates the necessity of varying the adopted levee profile, due to the developed nature of the shoreline in the city and the number of structures within the shoreline jurisdiction that are located behind established levees in need of repair. The goals of the City's adopted levee profile are to provide a less steep, more stable levee profile that will add river channel capacity to accommodate high flows, and to provide habitat benefits that are lacking with the existing over - steepened levees, whose vegetation is limited by Corps of Engineers regulations. The variances from levee profile and trail width are consistent with the SMP goals regarding levee profile, and similar requests for like actions would be measured against the variance criteria and SMP goals and policies concerning levee profiles and trail widths. No cumulative impacts are anticipated to result that would not be addressed by the SMP and Codes. 12. Variances from the use regulations of a shoreline master program are prohibited. The variance relief requested is not from the use regulations of the Tukwila SMP. 13. The applicant has demonstrated that extraordinary circumstances exist, that the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect, and that all approval criteria for the granting of a shoreline variance have been met by the application. The application should therefore be approved. Decision The City of Kent's application for a Shoreline Variance regarding slope and trail width is approved. Under RCW 90.58.140, the Department of Ecology shall render a final decision approving, approving with conditions, or disapproving a shoreline variance permit. Entered this 11th day of August, 2014. Anne Watanabe Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner Decision L14-0031 City of Kent Shoreline Variance Page 10 of 10 Concerning Further Review TMC 18.44.040 provides that "Any appeal of a decision by the City on a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use or Shoreline Variance must be appealed to the Shoreline Hearing Board." 0 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF SEATTLE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that on this date I sent true and correct copies of the attached DECISION to each person listed below, or on the attached mailing list, in the matter of CITY OF KENT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, Hearing Examiner File L14-0031, in the manner indicated. Party Method of Service Carol Lumb City of Tukwila Carol.lumb@tukwilawa.gov ❑ U.S. First Class Mail, postage prepaid ❑ Inter -office Mail ' E-mail ❑ Fax ❑ Hand Delivery ❑ Legal Messenger Ken Langholz City of Kent klangholz@kentwa.gov Kelly Casteel City of Kent kcasteel@kentwa.gov ❑ U.S. First Class Mail, postage prepaid ❑ Inter -office Mail 0 E-mail ❑ Fax ❑ Hand Delivery ❑ Legal Messenger Matt Knox City of Kent mknox@kentwa.gov Karen Walter kwalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us ❑ U.S. First Class Mail, postage prepaid ❑ Inter -office Mail E-mail ❑ Fax ❑ Hand Delivery ❑ Legal Messenger Tom O'Keefe tom@odc2.com ❑ U.S. First Class Mail, postage prepaid ❑ Inter -office Mail 1 E-mail David Moffett drm@seanet.com ❑ Fax ❑ Hand Delivery ❑ Legal Messenger Dated: August 11, 2014 Linda Vee Legal Assistant Carol Lumb From: Sent: To: Subject: Hi Linda, Carol Lumb Monday, August 11, 2014 1:24 PM 'Vee, Linda' RE: City of Kent Public Works Department, File No. L14-0031 Here are the folks who should receive the e-mail: Ken Langholz: Kelly Casteel: Matt Knox: Karen Walter: Tom O'Keefe: David Moffett: Thanks, Carol Klangholz@Kentwa.gov KCasteel@Kentwa.gov Mknox@Kentwa.gov Kwalter@Muckleshoot.nsn.us tom@odc2.com drm@seanet.com Carol Lurnb, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Sou Owen ter Blvd, Suite 100 Tukwila, Wl 98188 206-431-3661 .Carol Liunb@Tuk T'Va 4.,-,19 v Tukwila, the City of opportunity, the community of choice. From: Vee, Linda [mailto:Linda.Vee©seattle.govj Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 12:28 PM To: Carol Lumb Subject: City of Kent Public Works Department, File No. L14-0031 Importance: High Hi Carol, The Examiner has completed her decision in the above entitled matter. I'm going to send the decision electronically to the parties. Please provide me with a list of recipients that should be copied on the email. Thank you. Linda i Linda Vee Vee LEGAL ASSISTANT Office of Hearing Examiner (Phone) 206.615.1718 (fax) 206.684.0536 http://seattle.gov/examiner/ 2 City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director MEMORANDUM August 1, 2014 To: Anne Watanabe, City of Tukwila Hearing Examiner FM: Carol Lumb, Senior Plarke RE: Response to Hearing Examiner Questions BACKGROUND At the public hearing on July 22, 2014, the Hearing Examiner requested the City of Tukwila's comments on the Protective Covenants (Covenants) for Southcenter South Industrial Park (Industrial Park), recorded on April 21, 1977 and introduced into the record at the hearing and also attached to this memo. The Industrial Park is the location of the properties on which the levee repairs will take place. The questions raised are as follows: 1) how do the Covenants and Tukwila Municipal Code relate to temporary impacts on parking at affected sites during levee construction? and 2) how do the Covenants and Tukwila Municipal Code relate to permanent impacts to parking at the Riverpointe 2 development, located at 18200 and 18300 Cascade Avenue? The original developer of the Industrial Park drafted protective covenants for the Industrial Park and recorded these against the lots in the development. One of the covenants is a prohibition on on -street parking within the Industrial Park and reads as follows: "(C) Parking. No parking of any vehicles, whether by employees, customer or other person or entity, is permitted outside the boundaries of any lot in SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK nor on public or private streets therein. It is the responsibility of each of the Owners to provide such minimum onsite parking facilities as are required by the City of Tukwila ordinances. Any such onsite parking facilities or any onsite truck maneuvering areas shall be paved with asphalt or concrete." (pg. 6) At the public hearing on July 22, 2014, one of the members of the public testified that the on -street parking prohibition was not only binding on property owners within the Industrial Park but also had been adopted by the City of Tukwila when the City had accepted the turn over documents for the public roads serving the development. CL: Page 1 of 3 08/01/2014 4:18 PM H:\\L14-0031 Shoreline Variance\Response to Hearing Examiner Questions 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax 206-431-3665 L14-0031 Shoreline Variance Response to Hearing Examiner Questions August 1, 2014 Staff has researched the issue of whether the City of Tukwila adopted the Protective Covenants and has not found evidence of such adoption. The documents reviewed are: • April 29, 1974 Tukwila City Council Special Meeting Minutes — Final Plat of Southcenter South Industrial Park (pg. 1). • May 6, 1974 Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting — Final Plat of Southcenter South Industrial Park — vote on approval of plat (pg. 3). • Southcenter South Industrial Park recorded plat, recording #7408070363. • July 15, 1985 Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting — Consent Agenda approval of Resolution #965, authorizing execution of Southcenter South Industrial Park Agreement, including acceptance of ....street improvement....(pg. 2). • Resolution 965 — adopted July 15, 1985 • November 12, 1985 Tukwila City Council Committee of the Whole — discussion of requiring sidewalks in the central business district- testimony from representative of property owner on whether this should apply to the Southcenter South Industrial Park — discussion notes the timing of the streets going from private to public right of way (pg. 3). Resolution 965 references a Developer's Agreement between the City of Tukwila and the developer of the Southcenter South Industrial Park, Mr. Bruce E. McCann, entered into on June 27, 1974 and recorded under the recording number 7407120478. Staff was unable to find this Developer's Agreement either in City records or in the County's records. The documents noted above are attached to this memo. Question 1: What is the temporary impact of the levee construction on the two properties on which the construction will take place? Response: Tukwila staff believes that the on -street parking prohibition citied in the Covenants for this development is meant to ensure that development in the Industrial Park accommodate all required parking on-site. This would be in line with City regulations that also require that all parking required for a particular development be accommodated on private property and not on the public right-of-way. The construction impacts to parking will be addressed by the City by permitting, on a temporary basis, on -street parking while construction is under way that displaces parking at either the Moffett or O'Keefe properties in the Industrial Park. The City Engineer is authorized to permit such temporary parking. Question 2: How do the permanent impacts to parking stalls on the Riverpoint 2 site relate to Tukwila Municipal Code and the Covenants? Response: The City's parking standard for office uses is three (3) parking stalls per 1,000 sq. ft. of usable floor area. The site currently has 389 parking stalls. The levee repair will result in the permanent loss of 25 parking stalls, leaving 364 parking stalls. The total net square footage for the buildings at 18200 and 18300 Cascade Avenue South is 97,283, according to King County Assessor records. The number of required parking stalls, per the Tukwila Municipal Code is 291 — therefore there is an excess of 73 parking stalls above what the Code requires taking into account the loss of the 25 parking stalls. The CL: Page 2 of 3 H:\\L14-0031 Shoreline Variance\Response to Hearing Examiner Questions 08/01/2014 4:18 PM f L14-0031 Shoreline Variance Response to Hearing Examiner Questions August 1, 2014 property owner's stated desire to have four (4) parking stalls per 1,000 square feet of usable floor area is above what City code requires. The Covenants do not speak to a minimum or maximum number of parking stalls, but rather state that each development must accommodate its parking on-site, comply with Tukwila Municipal Code and that on -street parking is prohibited. CONCLUSION Staff reviewed a number of documents related to the Southcenter South Industrial Park and did not find any that indicate City of Tukwila adoption of the Protective Covenants that apply to properties within the Industrial Park. The temporary impacts to parking during construction can be accommodated by temporarily allowing on -street parking. The number of parking stalls at Riverpointe 2 complies with Tukwila's requirement of three parking stalls per 1,000 square feet of usable floor area both currently and after the loss of 25 stalls due to the levee repair. Attachments: 1. Protective Covenants, Recording #7704210775 2. April 29, 1974 Tukwila City Council Special Meeting Minutes — Final Plat of Southcenter South Industrial Park (pg. 1). 3. May 6, 1974 Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting — Final Plat of Southcenter South Industrial Park — vote on approval of plat (pg. 3). 4. Southcenter South Industrial Park recorded plat, recording #7408070363. 5. July 15, 1985 Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting — Consent Agenda approval of Resolution #965, authorizing execution of Southcenter South Industrial Park Agreement, including acceptance of ....street improvements....(pg. 2). 6. Resolution 965 — adopted July 15, 1985 7. November 12, 1985 Tukwila City Council Committee of the Whole — discussion of requiring sidewalks in the central business district (CBD) and whether the Southcenter South Industrial Park is considered part of the CBD — discussion notes the timing of the streets going from private to public right of way (pg. 3). CL: Page 3 of 3 H:\\L14-0031 Shoreline Variance\Response to Hearing Examiner Questions 08/01/2014 4:18 PM First American Title f ` ATTACHMENT 1 --II 3. 3 1. 1 I v .+ a 1. J ••• PROTECTIVE COVENANTS SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF KING KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That CORPORATE PROPERTY INVESTORS, a Massachusetts Business Trust (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "Developer"), as the owne- and developer of the property known as SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK, which property is more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, has hereby adopted a development plan of the real prop- erty described on Exhibit A which real property shall be known and referred to collectively herein as SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARE, situate in the City of Tukwila, King County, State of Washington; and the undersigned .does hereby establish the mutual protective covenants hereinafter set forth, subject to which ail tracts, parcels, lots, lands and area. in SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK shall be held, sold, purchased or used by Devel- oper, its successors or assigns, which mutual protective cove- nants are for the bene' of the real property contained in. SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK and of all persons who may become the owners of any right, title or interest therein. These mutual protective covenants shall attach to and shall pass with the real property contained in SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK and each and every part and parcel thereof and shall be binding upon the owner of all or any portion of such real estate or any right, title or interest therein and the heirs, assigns, suc- cessors, devisees and administrators of any such owner (the owners of all or any portion of the real estate in SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK or any right, title or interest therein and the heirs, assigns, successors, devisees and administrators of such owners are hereinafter collectively referred to as "Owner" or "Owners"). 3-24-7' First American Title First American Title 1. USE RESTRICTIONS All of SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK is for industrial, commercial and warehousing purposes; provided, however, the Owners shall use such real estate only for such purposes and under such conditions and restrictions as are hereinafter set forth. No real estate in SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK shall be • used and no buildiny, structure or other improvement thereor j shall be used for any use other than such uses as are presently permitted and expressly listed as numbers (1), (3), (5), (6), (9) • through (1.), (13), (15), (18) through (24), (26) through (28), CD • (29) except for "cement products, including cement and cinder • blocrs," (30) through (34), (36) through (43) and (45) through (48) under City of Tukwila Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Section 18.40.010; provided, however, the Owners shall use such real estate only for such purposes and under such conditions as are set forth in these covenants and; provided, further, however, notwithstanding the foregoing, no such real estate or building, structure or other improvement shall be used at any time for the manufacture, storarje, distribution or sale of any products or items which shall unreasonably increase the fire hazard of other property in SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK or for any purpose or use in violation of the laws of the United States, the State of Washington or the City of Tukwila or in violation of any of the covenants contained herein. II. ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE (Referred to as "the A.C.C.") (A) (i) The A.C.C. shall initially be composed of the fol- lowing three (3) members: (1) Bruce E. McCann; (2) Charles 0. Baker; and (3) Randall A. Hack. In the event of the death or refusal or incapacity to act of any of the foregoing designated members of the A.C.C., Developer shall appoint a successor or successors by instrument in writing filed with the Kinn County Department of Records and Elections of the State of Washington. (ii) At such time as fifty percent (50%) of the total square feet of property in SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK has been sold by Developer, Developer shall appoint two additional members to the A.C.C. and the A.C.C. shall from that time forward be composed of five (5) members. Subject to the provisions of Section 11(A)(iii) below, in the event of the death or refusal or incapacity to act of any of the five (5) members of the A.C.C., -2- 3-24-77 First American Title First American Title 71042IU715 Developer shill appoint a successor or successors by instruner.t in writing filed with the King County Department of Records and Elections of the State of Washington. (iii) At such time as seventy percent (708) of the total square feet of property in SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK has been sold by Developer, tt. A.C.C. shall continue to be composed of five (`) members, but in the event of the death or refusal or incap.city to act of any of such members a successor or successors shall be selecttd as follows. One of such members shall always be Developer or its appointee. In the event of the death or refusal or incapacity to act of any of the other four (4) members of the A.C.C., the remaining memtars of the A.L.C. are authorized by simple majority vote to appoint a successor by instrument in writing filed with the King County Department of Records and Elections of the State of Washington; provided, however, in the event a majority of the members of the A.C.C. are unable to agree upon a successor within tiirty (30) days of the death or refusal or incapacity to act of any of such memoers DevelJper shall appoint such successor; provided further, however, in the event that there are less than three (3) members remaining on the A.C.C. at any time under the provisions of this Section 12 (A)(iii), Developer sha:l appoint a temporary member or members to the A.C.C. to make up a total mem'-ership of three (3) so that regular members may be appointed by simple majority vote to fill vacancies. Such temporary member or members shall act only to appoint regu- lar members to the A.C.C. and shall serve only until such number of regular members is appointed so that a total of three (3) regular members of the A.C.C. exists who are duly qualified to serve as regular members, at which time the tenure of the ap- pointed members shill end. The three (3) regular members there- after shall then proceed to fill all remaining vacancies by simple majority vote pursuant to the procedures established above. All such regular members appointed to the five (5) member A.C.C. shall be appointed from among the Owners, if practical. (B) All ap).lications to the A.C.C. for any approval pursuant to these covenants shall be in writing, shall be served upon the A.C.C. at the office of the Chairman of the A.C.C. and shall be supplemented by such supporting data as the A.C.C. shall request. The Chairman of the A.C.C. shall, immediately upon receipt of applications for approval, cause written notice thereof to be provided each member of the A.C.C., which notice shall set forth the time and place at which such application and any action thereon shall be considered or taken by the A.C.C. For the purpose of these covenants, applications for approval shall be deemed to include all matters submitted by Owners or any other person or entity for the consideration, approval or other action of the A.C.C. pursuant to the provisions of these covenants. 3-24-77 -3- First American Title First American Title 7704210775 A majority of the members of the A.C.C. shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business at any A.C.C. meeting but, if less than a majority ,s present dt a meeting, a majority of the members of the A.C.C. pres-:nt may adjourn the meeting from time to time without any requirement of further notice to any perLon or entity. The act of a majority of the members cf the A.C.C. present at a meeting at which there is a quorum shall be the act of the A.C.C. Unless otherwise e r ressly required herein, no approval by the A.C.C. of any action of the Owners affecting SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK is required; provided, however, if any Owner so chooses, such Owner may submit any such contemplated action affecting SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK to the A.C.C. for its consideration, approval or such other action as the A.C.C., in its sole discretion, may deem appropriate. If the A.C.C.'s approval is expressly required in these covenants, it shall be in writing. In the event the A.C.C. fails to approve or disapprove any application for such approval, whether or not such application is requ'red under these covenants, within thirty (30) days after such application has been submitted to it, approval will not be required, and the related covenant or covenants shall be deemed to have been fully complied with; provided, however, the A.C.C. may extend such thirty (30) day period by written notice to the Owner or Owners submitting such application prior to the expiration of such thirty (30) day period; provided further, however, no more than one such thirty (30) day extension may be made by the A.C.C. without the prior written consent of the Owner or Owners submitting such application. (C) The A.C.C. and the members thereof shall nut be liable in damages to the Owners or any other person or entity submitting an application for approval by reason of ristele in judgment, negligence or nonfeasanc, of itself, its agents or employees, arising out of or in connection with the ;.pproval or disapproval of, or failure to approve, any such application and anyone so submitting an application to the A.C.C. for epproval, by the submitting of such application, and the Owners by acquiring any r`ght, title or interest in all or any portion of SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK agree that they will not bring any action or suit to recover for any such damages against the A.C.C. or any member thereof. (D) The A.C.C. shall have the authority from time to time to contract for such professional services as may be necessary tc carry out its functions, including but not limited to authority from time to time to enter into an agreement with an architect or firm of architects for the purpose of providing supporting 3-24-77 -4- First American Title First American Title 7704210775 services to the A.C.C. Said services may include, without limi- tation, the receipt of applications, preparation and transmittal of notices of A.C.C. meetings and the preparation of recommenda- tions for A.C.C. action upon applications. The A.C.C. shall also have the authority to establish and charge any Owner or Owners submitting an application for approval to the A.C.C. reasonable fees for the submission of any such application, the amount thereof to be used exclusively for the payment of the supportive services and any reasonable cost or expense relating to the processing of such application. (E) The A.C.C. shall have the power to and may, after receipt of an application for approv-1 thereof from an Owner or Owners, impose reas.nable requirements in addition to the require- ments of these covenants; provided, however, any such reasonable requirements shall be consistent with the intent and purpose of these covenants. The A.C.C. shall also have the power to and may authorize variances from the provisions or requirements of these covenants after receipt of an a,plication therefor from an Owner or Owners if the literal interpretation and strict application of the provisions or requirements of these covenants would cause undue and unnecessary hardship. (F) The A.C.C. may enact bylaws it considers appropriate and helpful to the administration of its responsibilities, includ- ing, without limitation, the expenditure of any funds received by the A.C.C. Said bylaws shall be subordinate to and consistent with the intent and purpose of these covenants. (0) M. ,er^ of the A.C.C. shall not be entitled to any com- pensation for services performed pursuant to these covenants. III. GENERAL PROVISIONS All buildings, structures or other improvements in SOUTH - CENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK shall meet the standards provided in these covenants. The written approval of the A.C.C. shall be obtained prior to the construction or structural alteration of any such building, struc`ure or other improvement. Two copies of an application for approval of any such proposed construction or structural alteration shall be submitted to the A.C.C. together with such other documents, including without limitation the plans and specifications thereof, as may be appropriate or requested by the A.C.C. (A) Setback. All setbacks shall be measured from the lot boundary lines to the wall lines of buildings exclusive of archi- tectural features. Minimum setbacks shall be 30 feet on front 3-24-77 -5- First American Title First American Title • yards and 15 feet on side and rear yards. The portion or por- tions of all lets facing a public street or highway shall be considered "frcnt" yards. In no case will the wall line of a building of "unlimited size," as defined by the Uniform Building Code, be permitted within 30 feet of its lot boundary 1. -nes. The minimum setback to the wall lines of buildings along the Green River shall be 50 feet from the property line (mean high-water mark) in accordance with the Shoreline Management Master program of the City of Tukwila, provided, that the minimum setback from the south boundary line of SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK shall be 30 feet except for the lot located in the southeast corr.?r of SJUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK. CV (B) Easements and Reservations. Developer hereby reserves, together with the right to convey the same, and all tracts, parcels, lots, land and areas in SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK are conveyed subject to: 1) a 10 -foot utility easement over, under and across frontage streets; 2) 10 -foot rail ease- ments on each side of the centerline of the lead tracks; 3) in addition to the foregoing 10 -foot rail easements, 13 -foot ease- ments over, under and across each side of the lead tracks begin- ning 10 feet from the centerline of such lead tracks for util- ities and spur tracks; 4) utility easements over, under and across a r-ght-of-way 5 feet in width on each side of the common boundary of any two lots except that there shall be no such 5 - foot utility easements with respect to sideyard boundaries formed by lead track easements; 5) a 30 -foot easement commencing at the mean high-water mark of the Green River for maintenance and public access. The Owners shall, at such times and from time to time, when so requested by Developer or the A.C.C., execute and recor:' such further instruments as are necessary or appropriate in Developer's or the A.C.C.'s judgment to reflect the existence of the foregoing easements. (C) Parking. No parking of any vehicles, whether by em- ployee, customer or other person or entity, is permitted outside of the boundaries of any lot in SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK nor on public or private streets therein. It is the responsi- bility of each of the Owners to provide such minimum onsite parking facilities as are required bi the City of Tukwila or- dinances. Any such onsite parking facilities or any onsite truck maneuvering areas shall be paved with asphalt or concrete. (D) Utilities. All utility service lines, whether part of the primary e srvice connections or secondary services to the buildings or other facilities, shall be entirely underground. (E) Entrance and Exit to Streets. Driveways which are used for automobiles only shall be no wider than 24 feet. Driveways -6- 3-24-77 First American Title First American Title which are used for trucks shall be a maximum of 40 feet in width. No dri-,eway will be permitted closer than 50 feet to the other front lot line on a corner lot. (F) Landscaping. The front yards of all lots shall be landscaped from the edge of the street ,:nd highway curbs to a minimum of 4 feet inside the lot line (except at driveways). Each lot shall be landscaped except for buildings and similar structt.res, walks, paved parking areas, driveways and storage Ul ... areas. All of such lots shall, as a minimum requirement, be • covered with ground -cover seeding, lawn, bark, river rock or • plantings, such as trees and shrubs, which will prevent wind or Cy water erosion of earth and weed growth. Maintenance and upkeep of designated common areas and street N boulevard landscaping will be accomplished under the supervision of the A.C.C. as follows. The A.C.C. will contract for such work by accepting, in its reasonable judgment, the lowest responsible bid therefor. The costs and expenses of such work shall be charged and prorated the Owners upon the basis of the square footage of land in SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK as the same relates to the square footage of any such land owned by each of the Owners. (G) Signs. No freestanding roof signs shall be permitted in SCJTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK and all other freestanding signs shall be of a low silhouette type. No sign shall exceed the height of the wall of the building upon which such sign is placed. No sign shall have more than two surfaces used for the display of advertising or •_o identify the owner or occupant of the property or for any other display and no surface of any such sign shall exceed 150 square feet. Except for traffic regulation and direction signs, all signs in SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK shall relate to a use of the property upon which such sign is located. Plans and specifications for the design, construc- tion, installation, alteration, illumination and erection of all signs including, without limitation, traffic regulation and direction signs, must first be submitted to and have the written approval of the A.C.C. (H) Construction. Any buildings erected in SOU'iHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK shall conform in all respects to the Build- ing Code and Fire Zone restrictions officially adopted for the City of Tukwila by the Council thereof. In addition thereto, all buildings shall conform to the further requirement that the exterior walls must be of architectural concrete (painted, colored, e ,osed aggregate or textured surface), architectural concrete masonry units (standard cement block not acceptable), -7- 3-24-77 First American Title First American Title 7704210715 architectural window wall units, brick or equivalent quality _finish m.terials. In no event will wood siding (except for design emphasis), plywood or plain or corrugated sheet metal or other materials of similar appearance be permitted. (I) Maintenance of Property. Owners shall maintain their properties and any and all improvements thereto in a manner that will not depreciate the value of other properties in SOU'iHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK. Exposed, painted surfaces of 1- ildings, structures or other improvements or signs will be kept in good condition, and landscaping will be kept watered, weeded and free of deed material. Yard lights will be kept properly lamped. lArking areas and landscaping shall be kept free of trash or waste. The A.C.C. or Developer, upon approval of the A.C.C., may, after written notice to such of the Owners as are delinquent in this respect, perform any work necessary to bring the property into conformance with the provisions of this paragraph III(I) and charge such delinquent Owner with the cost and expense thereof. (3) Storage. All plans and specifications for the us.. of any portion of any lot or other area of SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUS- TRIAL PARK as a storage yard must first be submitted to and have the written approval of the A.C.C. No storage yard shall be permitted within 30 feet of a public or private street or high- way. The A.C.C. may impose reasonable requirements relating to any such storage yard, such as, sufficient landscape screening for the full height and length of anticipated storage so that no portion of any such anticipated storage or storage yard may be seen from a public or private street. (K) Refuse Containers. No dumpster, compactor or other refuse container in SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK shall be located outside of any building in SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK unless plans and specifications showing the location thereof have first been submitted to and have received the prior written approval of the A.C.C. The A.C.C. may impose reasonable require- ments relating to the location and landscape screening of any such dumpster, compactor or other refuse container. IV. SUBDIVISION/ADMINISTRATIVE AND OTHER EXPENSES The subdivision of any portion of SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK shall satisfy all terms and conditions of these covenants. If, after the expiration of one year from the closing of any sale or other conveyance of a portion of SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK, the purchaser thereof shall not have in good faith com- menced the construction of an acceptable building thereon, the seller or other per: n or entity making such conveyance may, at 3-24-77 -8- First American Title First American Title 77042107/5 its option, rescind such sale or conveyance, refund all or such portion of the purchase price as has been pa.d, if any, without interest, and enter into possession thereof. The A.C.C. may, from time to tir _ as it Peems necessary, charge each of the Owners an amount or amounts sufricient to pay administrative costs and such other costs and expenses as are reasonably incurred by the A.C.C. in connection with or as a result of its responsibilities under these covenants; provided, however, the A.C.C. shall not incur any custs or expenses not otherwise expressly authorized herein without first submitting to each of the Owners a proposed operatic.g budget or other item- ization of such proposed costs and expenses and receiving the approval thereof by Owners of a majority of the square footage of land in SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK. Such charges shall be prorated upon the basis of the square footage of land in SOUTH - CENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK as the same relates to the square footage of any such land owned by each of the Owners. Such charges shall be promptly paid by the Owners upon receipt of notification thereof. The A.C.C. shall receive such funds at the office of the Chairman of the A.C.C. and shall establish proper procedures for accepting and disbursing all sums received from this source or any other source. v. ENFORCEMENT AND TERMINATION OF COVENANTS The covenants contained herein may bn enforced by appro- priate legal action by any Owner or Owners, Developer or the A.C.C. Any such Owner or Owners, Developer or the A.C.C. shall, if determined to be the prevailing part- therein, be entitled to all costs and expenses incurred with respect to such action, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees related thereto, in addition to such other relief as the court deems appropriate. Each coverant contained herein shall terminate and be of no further effect on March 31, 2057; provided, however, that at any time the A.C.C. or Owners of seventy percent (70%) of the square footage of land in SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK may alter, amend or extend these covenants. Any such alteration, amendmen or extension shall be effective at such time as a written declara- tion, signed and acknowledged by the A.C.C. or by such Owners, is recorded in the Department of Records and Elections of King County, Washington. Invalidation of any of the foregoing protective covenants shall not affect the validity of any other of such covenants, but the same shall remain in full force and effect. 3-24-77 -9- First American Title First American Title EXECUTED this 5C day of Nit , 1977. Attest: Secretary STA.E 00i4-4. ) COUNTY OF It‘iA ) ) On this_. day of ,'I,(,2 CS- , 1977, before me personally appeared Ae.„o 0. 0a.4.....4 amel , to me known to be the fla.. .d and ...A.Qtua&PIAL of a trust, execute t e wit in anoregoing Protective Covenants, South - center South Industrial Paik, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said Massachusetts Business Trust, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that they were authorized to execute said instru- ment. ss. CORPORATE PROPEINVESTORS, a Ma -achusetts siness Trust By Hens '-utner Its PRESIDENT IN WITNESS WHEREOF, my official seal the day 4.. 131, 3-24-77 I have hereunto set my hand and affixed and year first above written. {lr ,, . IGcrL Notary P"u b l iand for the State of iu., 0e , residing at ,;yi, f 41.`,1 YI I,t, o -10- E. YM awild_4044w Mao 70. 4 7 S First American Title April 29, 1974 7:30 P.M. FLAG SALUTE AND CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL DRS DISCUSSION TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES ATTACHMENT 2 P9 Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers Mayor Todd led the Pledge of Allegiance and called the Special Meeting to order. GARTNER, STERLING, DAVIS, HARRIS, SAUL, JOHANSO1. MOVED BY DAVIS SECOND BY STERLING, TO EXCUSE ABSENT COUNCILMAN TRAYNOR. CARRIED. Councilman Traynor arrived at 7:36 P.M. Mayor Todd announced the purpose of the Special Meeting to dis- cuss the final plat submitted by the McCann Development Corpora- tion for their proposed Southcenter South Industrial Park. He then read a letter from Gary Kucinski, Planning Director, which stated the Planning Commission had reviewed the final plat at its regular meeting of April 25 and had unanimously recommended the City Council approve the final plat and engineering drawings. In addition, the letter stated, "the quality and completeness of the plat was such that both the developer and the City staff is to be commended." Steve Hall, Public Works Director, presented the area of the plat on the map and detailed the area on the blackboard. He then presented copies of the plat to the Council Members for review. He stated the drawings had been reviewed by the staff, the City Attorney and the Planning Commission. All details of the plans meet the City's standard requirements and that all agencies in- volved with review have approved by report all access, utilities, etc. Steve Hall explained some of the changes which had been made on the final plat and stated that the zoning is M-2 with M-1 attachments. Councilman Saul stated this is the second major project with 50 foot setbacks which is in line with the Shore- lines Management Act. Gary Crutchfield, Planning Technician, stated there is an agreement also signed by the City of Tukwila, McCann Development Corporation and the Department of Ecology re- garding the approval of a Shorelines permit. Councilman Sterling asked about the sewer service. Steve Hall stated there is a cul- de-sac indicated on the drawings that the developer opted to leave out because there is a commitment for one large warehouse. Access and utilities easements will be determined once the build- ing is located. Councilman Gardner asked about street elevations, Steve Hall stated all elevations have been approved through King County and the Department of Ecology. Steve Hall then presented the engineering drawings to the Council Members. Councilwoman Harris asked if the plans for sewage were firm with McCann. Steve Hall stated not at this time; either way, the plans as presented have been approved by the State Health Department and Metro. Each page of the engineering drawings was explained. Councilwoman Harris asked the status of the sewer situation with the City of Kent. Steve Hall stated McCann has agreed to pay all engineering costs for sewage facilities. He stated the sanitary sewage sys- tem is projected to go through Kent, with alternate plans across the bridge at 180th or under the river, and the storm sewer is to go to P-5 Channel. He stated the Department of Ecology is writing a letter to the Kent City Cduncil. There was a meeting last week between the Valley public works directors and Mr. Tom McCann of the Department of Ecology and members of his staff. The letter will aims in the direction of forcing Kent to accept the proposal to allow McCann Development to use City of Kent's sewer facilities. He stated if this proposal is not approved, then alternate plan to go north across the Green River would be utilized. Details of both alternates were discussed. Councilman Sterling stated he would not want to approve the plat without the alternatives included. Steve Hall stated the alternates are included in the Comprehensive Plan. Councilwoman Harris stated if Kent does not want to extend services, then how can they be pushed -- who's pushing who? Mayor Todd stated Kent is willing to provide sewer if they can also provide water. Would the Coun- cil agree to this arrangement? We would then have to amend the Comprehensive Plan if the plat is accepted with the stipulation that Kent provide both water and sewer services. Steve Hall TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL FETING April 29, 1974 Page 2 DISCUSSION - Cont. 90 stated it is expensive for McCann and the City of Tukwila to provide these services. He stated the Kent line is looped and it would be feasible to supply water services to *Cann. Councilman Saul stated he had no objections. Councilman Sterling stated the Boundary Review Board might have something to say about this pro- posal. Mayor Todd stated they have no legal jurisdiction to direct any annexation or de -annexation. They can only make a recommendation. Councilman Traynor stated the Council is trying to work for the people of Tukwila which includes McCann. If we can get the job done for him cheaper by pushing Kent, then we ought to do it. Councilwoman Harris stated if it is the policy of Kent to not provide service out of their City areas, then who can overrule that policy? Mayor Todd repeated his question: Are there any objections to using Kent water and sewer services. Perhaps we should accept Kent's proposals to use Kent's sewer if we use their water also. We need approval to have an agreement with Kent. He stated he and Councilman Traynor could go to the Kent Council meeting next Monday if there are no objections. Councilwoman Harris stated she would like to see the proposal before it is presented to Kent. Mayor Todd stated it is a good deal all around to go this route. He stated the sewer and water charges by the City of Kent are reportedly less than Tukwila's which is good for the developer and the taxpayers of Tukwila will be relieved of having to maintain the pumping station. Council- man Sterling asked if this proposal would be strictly between the City of Kent and the developer. Mayor Todd stated yes, the developer would install the facilities meeting the requirements of the Cities of Kent and Tukwila, then would deed the equipment by bill of sale to the City of Kent who would maintain it. Coun- cilman Sterling stated if Kent would go along with this, with the City of Tukwila as the moving party, we would get away from the hazards of the river crossing. Councilwoman Harris asked if all the records, proposals and correspondence is a matter of record with the City. Mayor Todd stated it would be difficult to legally make records of telephone conversations. Council- woman Harris stated there should at least be a recap or memo to follow up any discussions. She would like to review this infor- mation. Councilman Sterling stated the Council should be aware of any agreements made. Mayor Todd stated there have been no agreements. He objected to the continuing insinuations that agreements have been made around the Council. No action of this kind can be taken without the approval of the City Council. Councilman Traynor stated he felt it would be advisable to go to Kent with the proposals and would like to know if there is sup- port for the idea here first. Mayor Todd noted he made the pro- posal to Councilman Traynor to make the contact with the City of Kent. Councilwoman Harris stated the Council is being asked to take a stand without reading everything there is to be read. Mayor Todd then withdrew his request and asked for a better solu- tion from Councilwoman Harris. Councilman Johanson stated the only information he can go on is what he had heard at the pre- vious meeting involving three City Council Members and staff of Tukwila and Council Members and staff of Kent. It was stated then that if McCann wanted Kent's water and sewer, then McCann would have to annex to Kent. If there is some correspondence to support the claim that Kent would be willing to allow McCann to use their water and sewer, it would help to clarify this for the Council. Mayor Todd stated that copies of all correspondence regarding this have gone to Council President Traynor who is not keeping secrets from anyone. Mayor Todd agreed that one Council Member at Kent (Jean Masters) does feel strongly about annexation but that is the opinion of only one person. The idea of de • - annexation from the City of Tukwila by McCann is absurd. The line acquired through E.D.A. by Kent was paid for by U.S. citi- zens for the use of Kent and others. Councilman Sterling stated he felt Councilwoman Harris was justified in asking to see the correspondence. Mayor Todd stated anyone is welcome to look at the files of the City and the Mayor and that Councilman Traynor receives all pertinent information. He stated it is hard to justify running the copy machine for everyone for each piece of paper. There is nothing concealed. Councilwoman Harris stated the sewer system in Kent is designed to accommodate only Kent. She then read a portion of the letter of March 19, 1974 from the U. S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administratior. f1 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEETING April 29, 1974 Page 3 DISCUSSION - Cont. ADJOURNMENT 8:30 P.M. ATTEST: G9/ addressed to Mayor Todd regarding E.D.A. Project No. 07-1-00103, City of Kent. Mayor Todd then read the complete letter as follows: "Thank you for your letter of March 12, 1974 relative to sewer services provided to the City of Kent under the above - referenced Economic Development Administration project. Our records indicate that the sewage interceptor in question is located solely within the Kent municipal limits. It was design- ed to contribute to the creation of new jobs and to the economic growth of the City of Kent and of the surrounding area. No parts of Tukwila or other municipalities apart from Kent were singled out in the project justification. We appreciate the opportunity of clarifying this matter and if there are additional questions, we will be glad to hear from you. Sincerely yours, Ross B. Manley, Chief Technical Support Divi- sion." Attorney Parker stated the action of the Council is now to set a date for a public meeting at which they will accept or reject the final plat of Southcenter South Industrial Park. Attorney Parker stated this would mean the next regular meeting, and read from the R.C.W. to clarify. MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY SAUL, TO SET MAY 6, 1974 TO ACCEPT OR REJECT THE SO THCFNTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK FINAL PLAT." Councilman Gardner stated he was concerned about possible law suits over the water and sewer problems. Councilwoman Harris asked Councilman Traynor if he plans to attend the May 6 Kent Council meeting. Councilman Tray- nor stated he would attend the meeting at which Kent would sche- dule discussion of the water and sewer situation. Councilwoman Davis suggested another joint meeting. Councilman Traynor stated all we will discuss is alternates to this situation. If we don't go one way with the water and/or sewer, then we will go the other. "ROLL CALL VOTE: 5 AYES - TRAYNOR, STERLING, DAVIS, JOHANSON, SAUL; 2 NOS - GARDNER, HARRIS. CARRIED. MOVED BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY TRAYNOR, THAT THE SPECIAL MEETING ADJOURN. CARRIED. Cr7ZZ c '<C `C '/ Fria Todd, Mayor /7 (X/ %Z 967 irlee A. Kinney, City C erk May 6, 1974 8:00 P.M. FLAG SALUTE AND CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTE APPROVAL VW[ ER APPROVAL TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING ATTACHMENT 3 Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers MINUTES Mayor Todd led the Pledge of Allegiance and called the meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order. GARDNER, STERLING, TRAYNOR, DAVIS, HARRIS, SAUL, JOHANSON. MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY STERLING, THAT THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 15 and 16 REGULAR MEETING BE APPROVED AS PUBLISHED. CARRIED. MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY JOHANSON, THAT THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 22, 1974 REGULAR MEETING BE APPROVED AS PUBLISHED. CARRIED. MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY STERLING, THAT THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF APRIL 29, 1974 BE APPROVED AS PUBLISHED. CARRIED. MATED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY JOHANSON, THAT THE BILLS BE ACCEPTED AND WARRANTS BE DRAWN IN THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS.* Councilman Traynor stated Councilwoman Davis does not approve of Voucher *2756. Mayor Todd asked what specifically is the voucher for. Councilwo- man Davis stated the voucher is for Wayne Parker in the amount of $1,257.50. Mayor Todd asked what the money applies to. Council- woman Davis stated she did not know. Mayor Todd stated we have to find out. Councilwoman Davis asked why. Councilman Traynor stated the voucher is for the monthly retainer of $1,100 and three trial preparations, a court appearance and a Sane amish Commercial and City of Tukwila appearance in court to set a trial date. Mayor Todd asked Councilwoman Davis if she is withholding approval on that specific number. Councilwoman Davis stated she was withholding approval on all charges. Councilwoman Harris stated she objected to Warrant R-2 and another warrant from J. Carroll Shoe F, Associates pertaining to LID *20 for consulting services to date, June - July and October, 1972 with a notation "Not Funded". It is in the amount of $875.00. She stated she questioned why we are now paying for something that occured in 1972. Mayor Todd stated it is because LID *20 was funded at the last Council meeting by borrowing interim financing dollars from Seattle -First National Bank, the law bidder. City Clerk Shirlee Kinney stated it is customary to hold payment until funding comes about. Mayor Todd asked if Councilwoman Harris was satisfied with the explanation. Councilwoman Harris stated she was not aware that this is the standard procedure. Councilman Gardner stated he questioned LID *20 Warrant R-4 which mentions the Interurban pump station and force main for engineering services in 1972. Mayor Todd stated at that time, LID *20 was contemplated to consist of a force main and lift station and that is when the bill was incurred. The reason this has not been to the Council table prior to now is that the financing had not been arranged. The engineering was later changed when it was discovered a lift station was not needed. At the time the bill was submitted, the engineer- ing had not been changed. Councilman Sterling asked if there is a force main on LID #20 now. Mayor Todd replied no, it is all gravi- ty line now. Mayor Todd then stated he wanted to know why Council- woman Davis disapproved of Voucher *2756. If there is something legally wrong with the voucher, he stated he wanted to know. Coun- cilwoman Davis stated there is nothing legally wrong with it. She noted D.R.A. 1.1 J., Violation of the code of professional respon- sibility of the profession adopted by the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. Mayor Todd asked Councilwoman Davis to read it. Councilwoman Davis stated that was the code. Mayor Todd asked what in the code applies to the case of her objection. Council- woman Davis stated that was up to another Councilman to state. Mayor Todd asked who the other Councilman is. Councilwoman Davis stated her reason is sufficient. Councilman Sterling stated it is not improper for a Council member to question a voucher. Mayor Todd agreed and stated it is also not improper for the Chair to question the reason for the objection. We have heard the title of the D.R.A., but not the text. Councilwoman Davis stated Attorney Parker had not complied with the City Council by ordinance when the Council directs him. She cited R.C.W. 35.24.110 which refers to City Attorney duties. Mayor Todd refered to D.R.A. 1.1 J., stating he wished to hear the text which supports her position. Council- woman Davis declined to comment. She stated it is up to another TURWILA CITY COUNCIL METING May 6, 1974 Page 2 93 VOUCHER APPROVAL Cont. Councilman to answer. Mayor Todd asked which other Councilman. Councilwoman Harris stated it is herself. She stated Mrs. Davis and herself question the propriety of the City Attorney . . Councilwoman Davis asked Mrs. Harris to speak for herself. Council- woman Harris stated, speaking for herself, she questioned the pro- priety of the City Attorney apparently transferring and conveying paper work regarding the recall against five Council members down to the County building. This should be the function of the Commit- tee and/or their attorney. If the City Attorney does not work for us, then who? Mayor Todd asked how R.C.W. 35.24.110 applies to this. Councilwoman Davis stated it referred to the time she had asked for a written opinion and being refused a written opinion on whether or not she could vote on the City Hall site. She stated the fact it had been included in that meeting's Minutes was all right, but would have preferred to have it in writing. Mayor Todd asked if her question at that time had been answered. Councilwoman Davis stated Attorney Parker had replied his secretary was tired. Councilman Sterling asked Attorney Parker if he had conveyed the recall charges to the Prosecuting Attorney's office. Attorney Parker stated he took then to Mr. Dillon. They must be delivered immediately and the City Clerk had asked him to take them himself since he was going there anyway. Councilman Sterling asked Attorney Parker if he is a member of the Committee. Attorney Parker stated no, he is the City Attorney acting on behalf of the City of Tukwila in response to the City Clerk who is responsible for forwarding the documents to the Prosecuting Attorney's office. Councilwoman Davis stated she had been referring to what same other Councilman knew. Attor- ney Parker stated the City Clerk had referred to an outdated stat- ute which stated the documents must go to the City Attorney for preparation of the ballot synopsis. He stated he took copies of the charges to his office and then found out from a new statute that the ballot synopsis is the responsibility of the Prosecuting Attorney and so advised the City Clerk. The City Clerk then asked me personally to deliver then. Attorney Parker stated he called Mr. Ralph Dillon's office and was told to bring the papers there first, they they would be forwarded to Chris Bayley's office. And that's what I did. Councilwoman Harris stated she had said it was apparent the City Attorney had delivered the papers to the Court House. Attorney Parker stated the papers were not delivered to the Court House. Mayor Todd requested a vote on the vouchers. Councilwoman Davis asked President Traynor if she voted 'yes" on the vouchers, she had already signed noting her intention to delete that voucher, will that be deleted? Councilman Traynor indicated it would be deleted on the one voucher for her signature only. Mayor Todd stated if the vouchers are approved, the voucher sheet goes with them and any remarks will be forever noted on it. *ROLL CALL VOTE: GARDNER - NO, STERLING - YES, TRAYNOR - YES, DAVIS - YES. Councilwoman Harris stated she would approve all the vouchers with the exception of #2756, R-2 and R-4 of LID #20. Mayor Todd called Councilwoman Harris out of order in making conditions in her vote at this time. Councilwoman"Harris appealed the order. Mayor Todd stated it would be better to vote "no" rather than clutter up the records with something after the fact. City Clerk Shirlee Kinney asked for a clarification of Councilwoman Harris' vote. MOVED BY HARRIS THAT THE COUNCIL APPEAL THE CHAIR'S DECISION TO RULE ME OUT OF ORDER. Mayor Todd stated it should be clear that re- marks on a roll call vote are illegal and will not be allowed. Councilwoman Harris clarified her motion: MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY JOHANSON, THAT THE COUNCIL APPEAL THE CHAIR'S DECISION TO RULE OUT OF ORDER MY DESIRE TO WITHHOLD MY APPROVAL ON SOME VOUCHERS.** Councilman Saul questioned whether Councilwoman Davis' and Council- woman Harris'procedures were in fact not the same thing. Mayor Todd stated yes, but that Councilwoman Davis had signed her name and Councilwoman Harris had not. He stated he had no objection to written comments on the vouchers; the voucher should be properly noted and signed before the vote so that there is something to vote on. Councilman Sterling stated a person in discussion can state any and all bills within the list of the vouchers that he is for or against being paid. Upon doing that, it is a matter of record. Then when that is signed, you can indicate any and all vouchers you do not approve. If you vote for the passage of the acceptance of the vouchers, those others are excluded. Mayor Todd stated the better record is for Councilwoman Harris to put her objections in f 1 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 6, 1974 Page 3 VOUCHER APPROVAL - Cont. PROCLAMATION Municipal Clerk's Week CORRESPONDENCE AND CURRENT 94 writing. He then asked Councilwoman Harris to enter her remarks on the voucher sheet excluding those she is not signing for and we can vote. **MOTION TO APPEAL THE CHAIR'S DECISION FAILED, WITH HARRIS VOTING YES. *ROLL CALL VOTE: HARRIS - NO, SAUL - YES, JOHANSON - YES. CARRIED. Vouchers #2711 - 12842 Current Fund #2711 - #2779 Park Fund #2780 - #2793 Enver. Empl. #2794 Street Fund #2795 - #2812 City Shop #2813 Fire Station #2814 Water Fund #2815 - #2829 Sewer Fiord #2830 - #2842 LID #20 Cash 1-4 $16,212.85 Rev. R-1 - R-4 16,212.85 LID #21 Cash 14-15 $462.51 Rev. R-9 - R-10 462.51 LID #22 Cash 15-16 $15,316.58 Rev. R-11 - R-12 15,316.58 LID #24 Cash 1-2 $12,798.96 Rev. R-1 - R-2 12,798.96 LID 125 Cash 1 $17,605.82 Rev. R-1 17,605.82 $ 36,270.50 1,300.19 105.46 20,438.35 35,021.37 32,551.72 16,517.25 17,219.16 $159,424.00 Mayor Todd read the Proclamation honoring Municipal Clerks during the week of May 5 through May 11, 1974. Mayor Todd stated City Clerk Shirlee Kinney has been doing an excellent job and deserves the admiration and respect of everybody in Tukwila. He challenged any city to have better records and procedures. Councilwoman Davis commented that Shirlee had been very polite and professional in serving the public. Shirlee Kinney stated she appreciated the effort to work with the administration and the City Council. There are the good times and the bad times you will find anywhere, but it is a great City. She stated she felt her heart was here and not in Renton where she lives. BUSINESS Presentation of final plat - McCann development Southcenter South Industrial Park MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY SAUL, TO AMEND THE AGENDA TO INCLUDE ITEM 7f. AT THIS POINT. CARRIED. Councilman Sterling asked if the 35 foot setback had been changed in the design to be 50 feet. Jon Stack, Harstad Associates, replies yes, in conformance with the De- partment of Ecology. Gary Kucinski, Planning Director, read from the plat and gave a map presentation of the final plat. A discuss- ion followed on the alternate water and sewer facilities. Mayor Todd pointed out it is the responsibility of the Council to rely upon the staff in Planning and Public Works to decide the best utilities design. Duncan Sturrock, Office Engineer, stated there are three alternatives listed in the text of the plat. Councilwoman Harris stated there is no performance bond and developers agreement signed at this point. She stated those documents should be executed and signed. Mayor Todd stated there would be no way to enforce something that is not in the Code, it states that these documents come after the plat is approved. Councilwoman Harris asked if that refers to the preliminary plat or the final plat. She stated once the plat is recorded, there is no assurance without a performance bond or developers agreement that these functions will be done. Duncan Sturrock read froom T.M.C. 17.16.030 which states the bonds will be posted after the final plat is recorded with the County. Mayor Todd stated when McCann cones in for a building permit 6 9S TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 6, 1974 Page 4 CORRESPONDENCE AND CURRENT BUSINESS - Cont. McCann plat - Cont. to install the utilities, he will be asked to produce a performance bond first before the permit is granted. Councilman Gardner stated he is concerned with the water pressure. He asked the Fire Chief if we hook into Andover East with a 12 inch line, will that affect our fire fighting ability or fire rating. Fire Chief Hubert Crawley stated the system is designed to carry 3,500 gallons per minute. If a building is designed to require an excess of 3,500 gallons per minute, the developer will be required to build auxiliary capacity on site, which means holding tanks. Mr. Blaine stated it is impor- tant to them not to be penalized by fire insurance rates because of inadequate water supply. We took this to our insurance agent, Washington Survey F Rating Bureau, and the water pressures and flow are satisfactory for the purposes of our building, sprinkler systems and fire fighting in the area. Councilwoman Harris referred to T.M.C. 17.24.010, stating a plat bond equal to 50% of the estimated cost of the improvement and a plat maintenance bond equal to 121/2% of the cost of the improvement is required at the time the plat is filed with the City. Mr. Blaine stated there has been no final filing. This action tonight will be for the approval of the plat. We will now gather all the signatures required, and at that point, it will be ready to file and we will have the bonds at the point of filing. Gary Kucinski stated the procedure is for the Council to authorize the Mayor to sign the face of the plat. The Council can make it subject to a bond being in the City's hand prior to his signing the plat if they wish. Councilwoman Harris stated if we give our approval, there are the alternate methods which will be the developer's burden to achieve completion of one or another and the City will be out of it. Mr. Blaine stated the City is to fur- nish us with services and they have agreed that they will in some form. When the City determines how they will present these services to us, we will take our lines and hook in. Mayor Todd stated the City is far from out of it. Councilwoman Harris stated she meant it is up to the developer now to make his arrangements with which City (Tukwila or Kent) will provide him the services. Mr. Blaine replied no, it will be at the direction of the City of Tukwila which way they will go. Mayor Todd stated when the City gets the best possible method of servicing sorted out, Steve Hall and the developer will get together and discuss it and agree by posting the bonds that the facilities will be built according to City specifi- cations. If the sewer and water system goes through Kent, then they will be built according to Kent's specifications because they will be deeded to Kent for their maintenance. Duncan Sturrock stated the Public Works Department still has to issue the permits for sewer, water, streets, etc. We are not done with this by far. MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE COUNCIL AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE FINAL PLAT OF McCANN DEVELOPMENT, SO[AHCEMER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK." Councilman Gardner stated there should be a loop for the water supply, perhaps with Kent on one side and Tukwila on the other. Mr. Blaine stated that could not be done since there would be Seattle water mixing with well water. Mayor Todd stated the minimum water needs seem to be there, but it is the job of the Public Works Department to see that the developer meets all City and County and State specifications. Councilwoman Davis stated she had talked to a man at King County who said once the final plat is approved and filed, it is done with. If any Council members feel there are changes needed, we should not continue with it. Mayor Todd stated the plat has gone through Planning Commission and Council public hearings and he sees no need to change anything. It has been reviewed thoroughly. Councilman Saul stated this is one of the most complete and best presented plats we have ever had in the Planning Commission. The requirements according to the Shorelines Management Act are met far in excess. He stated he is not concerned that everyone will not live up to their obligations. Councilwoman Davis stated she wanted an explanation of the loop system. Mr. Blaine stated it is not their wish to have a dead-end line. We would hope the City will further extend to the south to give us a tie in because we are paying a small insurance penalty for lack of it now. Chief Crawley stated there is nothing to loop the line into. Mayor Todd stated at some date in the future, we f1 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 6, 1974 Page 5 CORRESPONDENCE AND CURRENT BUSINESS - Cont. McCann Plat - Cont. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Res. #429, Authorizing Mayor to grant an easement to Val Vue Sewer District for installation of sewer lines Proposed resolution to create an LID (So. 152nd Street) Proposed ordinance vacating a portion of So. 152nd Street Ord. #861, Accepting donations for the Aid Car AND CURRENT 1' may be able to hook into Water District #75. *ROLL CALL VOTE: 5 AYES - STERLING, TRAYNOR, DAVIS, SAUL, JOHANSON; 2 NOS - GARDNER, HARRIS. CARRIED. Councilwoman Harris stated she voted no because she feels the bonds should be furnished at this time; she is not criticizing the plat plans. Councilman Traynor asked to be excused from the meeting at 8:50 P.M. MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT STERLING BE APPOINTED COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO -TEM FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE MEETING. CARRIED. MOVED BY JOHANSON, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT PROPOSED RESOLUTION BE READ. CARRIED. Attorney Parker read proposed resolution authoriz- ing the Mayor to grant an easement to the Val Vue Sewer District for installation of sewer lines within the public right of way in an area of the City of Tukwila. MOVED BY STERLING, SECONDED BY DAVIS, THAT RES. #429 BE APPROVED AS READ.* Councilman Sterling stated there is an agreement with Metro that as soon as the line is to be used, there will be a charge of approximately $20,000. Mayor Todd stated Val Vue will be using the line and will pay the charge. There is no City money involved. Councilwoman Harris asked why the easement is necessary. Mayor Todd stated it is the only way Val Vue can cane through the City and hook into the Metro line with ULID #6. Councilwoman Harris stated she would like to see more identification on the documents -- such as a map. Duncan Sturrock pointed out the area on the City map. Mayor Todd then explained the contract signed with Val Vue for the rights of way. *CARRIED. Duncan Sturrock, Office Engineer, stated more ground work is necess- ary and requested the Council to Table the proposed resolution. MDVED BY STERLING, SECONDED BY SAUL, TO TABLE. CARRIED. MNED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY SAUL, TO TABLE. CARRIED. MOVED BY STERLING, SECONDED BY JOHANSON, THAT PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ. CARRIED. Attorney Parker read proposed ordinance accept- ing donations for Fire Department Aid Car. MOVED BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT ORD. #861 BE ADOPTED AS READ.* Council- man Saul stated this is a very fine thing and we should try to get more clubs to participate. Mayor Todd stated the Rotary has saaething planned for next fall. *CARRIED. BUSINESS Letter from Anne Altmayer re: Park Board American Public Works Association Award of Honor - 1973 to Tukwila Mayor's report on labor negotiations Discussion: City Attorney's fees Councilwoman Harris read a letter from Anne Altmayer thanking the Mayor, City Council and City staff for aid and support during her term of office on the Park Board. The letter reviewed the success- ful programs of the past and expressed hope for the recreational programs of the City for the future. Mayor Todd read the letter announcing Tukwila as winner of the Award of Honor for 1973 to Tukwila and read his letter of congratu- lations to Steve Hall, Gene Isler and all the Public Works Depart- ment employees. Mayor Todd stated there is a tentative agreement for the Police Guild with the City. He requested an executive session with the Council at the May 13 regular meeting. The agreement with the Public Works employees should be ready by then also. He stated he has not met yet with U.S.T.M.E. Mayor Todd read a letter frwn City Attorney Wayne Parker regarding legal fees and monthly retainer, dated April 29. Councilwoman Davis stated she did request of the administration what Mr. Parker made in 1973 and was given a slip of paper which read $21,000 including LIDS. The breakdown figures out to about $14,000 and she is wondering what is missing. Mayor Todd suggested Council- woman Davis review the letter first. Attorney Parker stated he TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 6, 1974 Page 6 CORRESPONDENCE AND CURRENT BUSINESS - Cont. City Attorney's fees Cont. Letter from A. Wesley Hodge re: sale of Foster Golf Links NEW BUSINESS Claim for damages - Katherine J. Zahn Approval of extra work order $ request of additional funds re: City Shop Phase II Request for additional funds - Fire Station primary power service Discussion: Proposed adoption of food service establishment of rules $ regulations by King County Board of Health Letter frau Mr. Gil Goldsmith re: soils tests Letter from Mr. Benjamin McAdoo re: Goldsmith & Lee property 697 provided the copies of warrants from his file rather than try to have them sorted out from all the warrants in the City's file. Councilwoman Davis stated she realized Attorney Parker is doing quite a service for the amount of money he is making when it would cost $40 per hour from someone else. Mayor Todd read a letter dated April 22 offering the Foster Golf Links, Inc. for the sum of $2,900,000. Councilman Sterling stated at one time it was suggested that the Council find out what the purchase price would be in order to present it on a bond issue for the voters. Mayor Todd stated the price they are asking is far in excess of the appraisal. At this time, there is no funding avail- able and it would seem there are other priorities this year. MOVED BY HARRIS THAT THE COUNCIL SET A DATE FORA SPECIAL MEETING TO DISCUSS THIS WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOLF COURSE.* Council- man Johanson stated the Council can go into executive session to discuss the purchase of land. Councilwoman Harris suggested going into executive session during the special meeting. It would be nice to have public input on this to see what the people feel. Councilman Johanson stated the point is that until you have same - thing to offer the public, what is the point of wasting their time to dicker with the golf course people in public. *MOTION WITHDRAWN. Councilman Johanson suggested setting up a committee to discuss the golf course. Councilman Sterling suggested having an executive session with the golf course representatives and then have a special meeting with the public to discuss what has been learned. Mayor Todd suggested inviting someone from Foster F, Marshall to discuss the bonding possibilities. City Treasurer Mae Harris stated she sent a letter to Councilman Traynor to discuss setting a meeting with Foster $ Marshall; perhaps we could accomplish both purposes together. Councilman Sterling read the letter from the City Treas- urer to Councilman Traynor. MOVED BY STERLING TO MEET WITH REPRE- SENTATIVES OF FOSTER GOLF LINKS AND FOSTER T, MARSHALL DURING EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 8:00 P.M. ON MAY 13 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. MOVED BY STERLING, SECONDED BY SAUL, TO REFER THE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES TO THE INSURANCE CARRIER FOR THE CITY. CARRIED. Councilman Sterling read a letter from Steve Hall, Public Works Director, regarding an extra work order for installation of conduit and raceways for intercom system. Steve Hall also requested addi- tional funds to be transferred from Shop Equipment Fund to Shop Construction Fund in the estimated amount of $1,482.38. City Clerk Shirlee Kinney stated the resolution for this has not yet been pre- pared. MOVED BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY HARRIS, TO TABLE. CARRIED. MOVED BY STERLING, SECONDED BY DAVIS, TO TABLE. CARRIED. MOVED BY JOHANSON, SECONDED BY DAVIS, TO TABLE. CARRIED. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE LETTER FROM MR. GOLD- SMITH BE INCLUDED ON THE AGENDA. CARRIED. Councilman Sterling read a letter from Mr. Gil Goldsmith which stated in part, "I stated that I was willing to permit the obtaining of soil samples with the under standing that such permission in no way implied a desire on my part to sell my property on any terms other than my own. I further stated that my present plans call for developing or otherwise uti- lizing my property as an income source rather than as a capital gain source." MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY DAVIS, THAT THE LEITER BE INCLUDED Clt THE AGENDA. CARRIED. Councilman Sterling read a letter frail Mr. Ben- jamin McAdoo, Architect, which reiterated the comments Mr. Gil TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 6, 1974 Page 7 NEW BUSINESS - Cont. Letter from Mr. McAdoo - Cont. Hold harmless agreement - Southcenter Corp. B City of Tukwila Council response to City uniformed personnel RECESS 9:50 P.M. - 10:00 P.M. 7Th 691 Goldsmith made, listed estimates of the cost of soils tests on the Site *6 property and requested information about the legality of Mr. Goldsmith representing Mr. Lee on the plans for their property. Councilman Saul asked what action is necessary in order to go ahead on Site #6. Do we want to go ahead and spend the $2,000. Councilman Sterling asked if anyone had contacted Mr. Goldsmith to find out if he speaks for Mr. Lee. Mayor Todd stated Mr. Goldsmith claims to speak for General Lee, but legally, he may not be able to unless he has some sort of power of attorney. Mayor Todd stated Mr. McAdoo is requesting some authority from the City Council to spend approximately $2,000 for the soils tests. Councilman Sterling stated if we can be assured that Mr. Goldsmith speaks for his partner, then go ahead. He suggested Mr. Goldsmith provide a letter stating his authority to also represent Mr. Lee. Mayor Todd offered to contact Mr. McAdoo and ask him to confirm that Mr. Gold- smith is in fact legally speaking for General Lee, then offered to contact Mr. Goldsmith himself. Councilwoman Davis asked the status of the hold harmless agreement for the proposed Police Dept. office at Southcenter. Attorney Parker stated the agreement was returned for revision to the South - center Corporation and it is still at that office. Councilman Sterling stated Councilman Traynor stated he had received the letters from the Council late and did not have a chance to compile and draft a reply to the uniformed officers. He stated each letter was very different from the others. Councilman Sterling stated the Council should get together, discuss the letters, and come to one solid statement. Councilwoman Harris stated the Council could recess until Wednesday night since Tuesday night's schedule was taken with Municipal Court. Mayor Todd stated it would then be necessary to recess until Tuesday and then recess to Wednesday. Councilman Sterling stated this is not a budget matter. Attorney Parker stated it is necessary to give notice of a special meeting and it is not a special meeting if the regular meeting is recessed from one day to the next. That eliminates the necessity of a notice. Mayor Todd stated if the Council cannot hold a meeting here tomorrow night and will actually continue it on Wednesday night, then we must recess to Tuesday then recess again until Wed- nesday. Attorney Parker stated that is right because otherwise the notice requirement would not be satisfied. Councilman Johanson stated he thought the day-to-day meeting only applied to the budget meetings. Councilman Sterling requested the Attorney to show in writing where his interpretation of meetings comes from. Attorney Parker stated he thought if a regular meeting is scheduled, you can adjourn to the next day. There is no possible way of giving notice as required by the Open Meeting Law. If you want to adjourn to next Wednesday, then you must give public notice and it is then called a special meeting, not a regular meeting. He stated the Council cannot hold two meetings in one week either. If you want to continue this meeting, then continue it to tomorrow and then on to the next day. Councilman Sterling again requested to have in writing the source of that interpretation. Mayor Todd directed Attorney Parker to provide a written statement. Attorney Parker suggested the Council call a special meeting with 24 hours notice and go into executive session during that meeting. MOVED BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY SAUL, TO RECESS. CARRIED. Mayor Todd called the meeting to order with all Council members present with the exception of Councilman Traynor. Attorney Parker stated if tonight's meeting is adjourned beyond tomorrow, you must deliver a notice in compliance with R.C.W. 42.30.080 which is the same notice as given for a special meeting at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting indicating time and place. The adjourned meeting is not limited to one subject matter. Councilman Sterling stated the Council will convene the recessed meeting at 7:00 P.M. on Wednesday, May 8 in the Council Chambers. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 6, 1974 Page 8 NEW BUSINESS - Cont. Change order 01 - tennis courts Change order N3 - LID #22 699 Duncan Sturrock read his letter to the Mayor regarding the construc- tion of tennis courts in the City Park. Recommendations for the fence and gates were discussed. MOVED BY STERLING, SECONDED BY SAUL, TO ACCEPT PROPOSED REO WENDATION FOR CHANGE ORDER #1. CARRIED. Councilman Sterling read a letter from Duncan Sturrock regarding Change order #3 on LID #22 requesting a 12 inch gate valve and removal of unsuitable material on the site. Councilman Sterling asked why is it necessary to install a gate valve. Duncan Sturrock stated it is a good practice to follow especially when there is such a long stretch of line. MOVED BY STERLING, SECONDED BY SAUL, TO APPROVE RECCIMENDATION OF CHANGE ORDER #3. CARRIED. Councilman Saul stated he would like Steve Hall to report on this at the next meeting. DEPARTMENT AND CONMIrrEE REPORTS Police Department Chief John Sheets reported April was a poor month due to a large increase of major crimes. The most outstanding of all was the robbery at the Frederick and Nelson store at Southcenter. Fire Department Chief Hubert Crawley reported at least half of the emergency calls in April were for the aid car which pointed out the need for a new aid car. He stated the new fire station is progressing now, but several strikes in the construction business may slow the work through the summer. He reported inspections during the month re- sulted in 113 letters of violation of the Fire Code and 11 viola- tions of the business license requirement. Public Works Department Gene Isler, Field Superintendent, reported Phase II of the City Shops will begin within a week. Duncan Sturrock reported the new tennis courts in the City Park will be completed in June. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Zip code for Tukwila Mr. Rudy Regal stated all the money and services of the City are spent in the industrial area while the residents suffer the incon- veniences of the zip code mix up. How can 11 mailers dictate that Tukwila's post office designation be Seattle 98188? Those busi- nesses should be recognized as Tukwila. Why can't we rename the streets? Why doesn't Tukwila have a B $ 0 tax on businesses? If we taxed those businesses more, we could pay to have the streets renamed. Mayor Todd explained he received a letter from the Post Master suggesting the City poll its businesses which we have done and the results are about 50/50. Many businesses state it would be very costly to replace stationery with new addresses. Some of those companies are branches of major concerns in the East and Seattle is a world-wide known City whereas Tukwila is not. Some businessmen stated if they had advance lead time to change their letterheads, they would be glad to assist the City in getting its own zip code. City Clerk Shirlee Kinney stated she would compile the results of those zip code questionnaires and present than at the next Council meeting. Mayor Todd stated that with the compromise on lead time, it would be easier to change the zip code with the businessmen's cooperation. We cannot force the post office to give Tukwila its own address designation. Councilman Sterling stated he is not much concerned with the paper costs of the businesses since they came to Tukwila only because it is cheaper to operate here. Our citizens provide the services and the businesses still are refusing to ack- nowledge their own presence in Tukwila. He stated he realized the Mayor has put a lot of effort into trying to resolve the zip code issue. Mrs. Rena Holloway pointed out that 59th Ave. So. was at one time Warren Avenue. Why can't we reverse that? Mayor Todd stated we had better not lose sight of the fact that at least 75% of the tax revenue of the City comes from the businesses; any fur- ther taxation would only discourage development at the expense of the residents. He stated that soon the entire County will be sys- tematically addressed and used the example of 911 emergency phone f'\ TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 6, 1974 Page 9 700 AUDIENCE COMMENTS - Cont. Zip code for Tukwila - exchange. Councilman Johanson stated to have our own name and zip Cont. code would give better control over some of the half -cent sales tax we have lost in the past due to the address confusion. Mr. Ed Robinson stated the confusion has cost him time in delays of his deliveries and lost mail. Mrs. Phyllis Pesicka stated it has been confusing for the postal workers at our local post offices also. Perhaps the postal workers' union could give us sane help in resolv- ing this. RECESS 10:13 P.M. May 8, 1974 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS EXECUTIVE SESSION 7:04 P.M. - 7:'30 P.M. Council reply to uniformed employees AUDIENCE O +M NFS Val Vue sewer petitions Metro rate increase meeting MOVED BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY HARRIS, TO RECESS TME MEETING AND TO RE -CONVENE WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 1974 AT 7:00 P.M. CARRIED. * * * * * * * * * * TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL Tukwila City Hall RECESSED REGULAR MEETING Council Chambers MINUTES Mayor Todd called the recessed regular meeting of the City Council to order. GARDNER, STERLING, TRAYNOR, DAVIS, SAUL, JOHANSON. MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY SAUL, TO EXCUSE ABSENT COUNCILWOMAN HARRIS. CARRIED. MOD BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY STERLING, TO HOLD EXECUTIVE SESSION OF THE COUNCIL TO DISCUSS COUNCIL'S REPLY TO THE UNFORMED EMPLOYEES CARRIED. Mayor Todd called the meeting back to order at 7:30 P.M. Councilman Traynor read the letter in reply to the uniformed employees of the City from the Council regarding Councilman Johanson's remarks about the LEFF benefits and public employees during the April 16, 1974 Council meeting. Councilman Sterling then read a reply from Coun- cilman Johanson regarding his remarks during that meeting. Copies of both letters are on file in the City Clerk's office. Mayor Todd stated the City has received petitions from Tukwila resi- dents who wish to hook into the proposed ULID #6 facilities. He stated he would be meeting with the Public Works Department, the City Attorney and the Val Vue Sewer District commissioners to see if this is now feasible. Mayor Todd stated this proposal was offer- ed to those residents in 1973 and the Council's resolution was killed by the citizens' petition at that time. Councilman Gardner stated he would attend a meeting at Seattle Center Orcas Roam at noon on May 14 to discuss the proposed rate increase. Bicentennial Flag Councilman Saul stated the Bicentennial Commission Flag presentation presentation to all King County Mayors on May 22 at noon at the Seattle Center Flag Paviliion will start off the commemoration. He announced re- ceiving a check in the amount of $500 from the Suburban Mayors Association to the Seattle/King County Bicentennial Commission. Shoreline Master Ron Mettler, Planning Commission Chairman, announced the purpose of Program the May 9 Planning Commission meeting is to review the Shorelines Master Program and the environmental impact statement prepared by Wilsey $ Ham. The deadline on this Program is May 20; the Council will review it during the May 13 meeting. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE MEETING ADJOURN. 7:45 P.M. CARRIED. ATTACHMENT 4 SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK A PORTION OF HENRY ADAMS LAND CLAIM NO. 43 SECTIONS 35 55 36,TOWNSHP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W M. CITY OF TUKWILA, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON DESCRIPTION That portion of the Henry Adams Donation Land Claim No. 43 in sectIona; 76.And 36, Township 23 North, Range 4 East. 6.5. in the City 00.1 1.11 , King Conn ry;:91gs6- ington, described as follows: beginning + of said Section 35; t N 11.'13'50" E along : the centerline nofsSecondarycState Highway No.t 219, • distance of .0115.77 fee thence1488'49'10" N. a distance of 30.49 feet t west910 of said S.S.M. . 20 and the True Point of Beginning; thence continuing 0 88'49'10" u almng the north property line of that c of land described un2er King fpu54.y Auditor's Elle No. 2462007, a distanceof1064.41 feet more of: less to fhb t6p.of the right bank of the Green River; then. along said top of the right dank of the Green River the following courses and distances: • M47.12.8 a 0istence of 17 feet; 844:10.E a distance of 100 feet; *32'00'( a distance of 98 feet; 024.158E a distance of 99 feet; 920.228E a distmce of 103 feet; N10801'E a distance of 96.feel; M14'I8'E a distance of 100 feet; 920'04'1 a distance Of 100 feet; 833129.E a distance of 99 feet; 1143:04.E a distance of 99 fe-e,; 1944'55'1 a distance of 100 feet; N43'17'E a distance of 102 fete: 9341058E a distance 0f 99 feet; 026'27'1 a dist...sof:, 88, feet.:, 020'26'8 a distance of 100 feet; 1915'42'1 a 0is5atide of '99'seet; 011.32.E . distance of 100 feet; 809815.E + distance of 97 Wm.; 0'51'E a distance of 102 feet; 809854.E •diet.. of 100 fee 911804'8 • distance of 99 feet; 812.068 tance of 99 fee 00 9.508E a distance of 100 feet; 900845.E( 64. a distance o4,,98feet; 8068078E a dist.. of 101 feet; 0407'16'8 a distance: of '90. feet; 1.101'17'E • dis.nce of 99 feet; 1104.498E a,.dlstanc2 of 101"Reef; N73'41'E a distance of 41 feet; N16'40'E .'distend of 59 feet; 060'09'9 a of 99 feet; 9468068E a'.ris.nce pf 103 feet; N63.00'E a distance of 100 feet; H81728'E a distance Of, 99 feet'; 575.458E a distance of 100 feet: 656.11'E a 6is.nce 00 198 feet: 544.268E a distance of 100 feet; 537'39.1 a distance of I00,f995.; S36749'E a distance of 99 feet; 536'08'( a 01distance of 100 feet; 535.35.E a distance of 99 feet; 629.38.E a diste"pe of 99 feet: 5258208E a distance of 100 feet; 5134091•1.; ylis.n,4,of 99 feet; 514'51' a distance of 100 feet; 5447198E a diltance '00,101 feet; 559'43'19 a dls.ncc of 98 feet; 672717.E a distiliea of't990.et;,•:: 501'08'6 • distance of 100 feet; ;X78'54'1 a distance -,f 097.69 " N68.34'E + of 99 feet; :'x77.00'73"E a dis..,I of 97.69 feet more or less to the dwest n...gin of said S.S:H. 80. 2176hhence I.vlhg said topOm right bank of the Green River along said rest m ' ygin o 0curve 00.1 right. . e the center of which bears 147.33.20N having i radius:elf 543.1,.feet, a " distance of87.08 I feet, through a central angle of 00!'11'10"- thence 551'37.5o.00alnng said we mar- gin a distance of i34.40 feet; thence along;.? curve '00th. Ief[, on said west having a radius of 603.14 feet', an ar9'dlitance 423.53 9eet throughcen- tral ce r. t - ral ngle of 40'14'00"; thence 1.27.5.h, along said *est marble a distance of 1445.62 feet to the True Point of1 bey7nnsh. RESTRICTIONS .:: APPROVALS CITY COUNCIL Exmi.d and .p r d nls Pim Oat of ..7.4762E pursuant to Title 17. Tukwila Munlci9.1 Code Chapter 58,17, aror ILANNING COMMISSION ,sem .,,Examined L',/ and approved this day by the City of Tukwila PlenniAg Camission. Q,a. fes- ititth, Chairman , Sec re DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS -/ Examinedaa nd '•l a5990rovi'l eed this 2day ot• 3a,., , 19L. Tukwila - Director 0 CITY TREASURER by certify that there aree '.Mo delinquent ;aerial • certified t this offi.ce for.'lle[tion and that all:.spec;al assesipents onn s property Mere in tained'•duediu[ee; is st.Zets, eijays, or for. o'tliar public use + path in full this _AC i day of'.. \!twermisr / 141.x. 6:• T I CitY eahlef 80 lot or portion of . 1990 in this plod:shan b.Clppd, jA}d0 manner Inconsistent with OFKIEE OF THE C011PTR01LEI.'„ the Clay of Tukwlla's N-1 District Light Ibdu try 969(ng'. 'r; ; he pert of airy railroad 5554 tra06, as delineated an the face of the plat, :hail Ile eeebdme ify rs+,,nt', d it. t 'bars art 10R., collection ln.re ar . that ail s withal • 50'foot inland c1Nl.rvee7'e; (or such'le.ser z may in the future be spec.lyasi a !•lad th th i,, Ice F, fCe lec10100 any. that alb see. established bythe Clty'f(Tuk64 la und4A i. Shot.1E Man.genent frogs.), measured h herein i, his Keem. fyr collection on he n of the property A, :'here &tN leer;; Aeelutad '9 aVee61A•a11eYs, or for othar+publ is us are from the ordinary high Wier mark alm9iAe, wes tarlY QvanMry of ane Piet. W d ,ncfuM- The + In fee s eple, tnehsurcessers or Ysssgnj res the flym to ,s /O% ..Y•.fd: }' 19 7 the obligation to lbnascoe and ieaintain plsnting:¢ilanOs reserve the city streets. Dated .' o Then shall be no direc0591 .6 to 586181 through lots abutting. SA -lel with the =,2 ac p. y. /1 rA yr [✓ .. ▪ pains of .cess to the'Rablic parkini:Nrea for teen un and access for e 0 4"' putt rgencY xi n9 c unh Cuq[rof_ler Ring Ceun [Y c L'- • • UTILITY:.EASEMENTS The utility easewebts Indicated'. the f.cilef the plat are to he 54 for the *- fit of said plat foi'pede.round dil)itlts and drainage purposes end Incidental 940' • poses thereto. S.id ..,lents can 82.90tered upon .t .ny future d.. for aist...se • ranstjutelon purposes *541,. the puoses of .erring other properties with 06ll- I[Ies. •Ease.bnt a and drp snmenents thereon which are damped In the course of rvicl'n9...I'nte(ance or o .cnn o} utilities shall be restored by the owner of 1hq utility. EASEMENT RESERVATIONS • 0aei.lc pede.erlah:access will be aliawed tnr0u,0oul the length of the shoreline.Mof Cls Ci0en River 00'90, feet Inland fro. the water edge of the top of the dike.:Such • .mene:ihall not ha'1n.nslstent:with the existing diking maintenance eese.e71. • • ....The right is',Yrved 9, !the Skin in he shale of the land hereby platted andtheir• sdeces1000 end ae4lg1. to e.4atl l.h rellroad flghn<fray and grant to railcard 00 .tiles the right'ct and maintain railroad tracks. Including lqa6•'ttacksl and spa -Et -arks, and operaa locootives and ors therms. LAND ' FiVEYOR`•S CERTIFICATE •l:lieeeb0 certifte,that I have surveyed this plat of SOUTIICEMTER 5141[, 11m0894IAL .NARK::ela heretef5re described tract of land and that all aistances,.coursei•md .9115 9hwn theieVr, anrtetmm and that all lets shall be staked dad aen\e, : shall Le 999 where shorn an the map. .. pa. .T!NARSYAD asgol019s,.INE. CComSh IIcffnngg_bigiiiinneer5 /:acd/6(NMaI 83 strayer 0. 0..1'3731 CERTIFICATE M8070343 .,, DEPARTIlPlfr,0l;IfEC0(lS S ELECTIONS Yrl.d for record ar the request of the C 5 City of Tukwila t ]a at of AlIR15T 974t0winutes pest 10 Ta kkM and 0.64/11.0 in 001u.e V oi=i 7, on Pages tl'4S records of King Cnun69., Washington. MU OWN SAES • DEPARTMENT Of A55ESS110111 Exaiinee ,na ,pp .aa this ,r d•r of 51ARLEY H HOPPF a! . 197 King Counts. Assessor • •1p County Assessor SHEET 1 OF 4 SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK A PORTION OF HENRY ADAMS LAND CLAIM NO. 43 SECTIONS 35 8136,TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W M. CITY OF TUKWILA, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS STRTE Of0-X[V YORX )ss COUNTY r XEY YORR ) ' e 3/end of "/4/ 19/1, personal lY appealya N.fore w andnet, as Trustee for seer ana c - bu ee or yorpetat0.0 i, nd In- anh n t iiia duffle, to w dime toba the party gedct i.t iga who executed within m foregoing Act Dedication and a pew lengee t signed [ a [free and n and Oda of Corporate Property, fincial SNel,,r n athe aw.ase and purpeseslu^tarYnewnti nee. WITNESS my hand and Oficial day and year firs[ ed above.o NOPNLHC i e for the State of New York rami dingTLb' .` r • tram commission exp res t — a _»..ram. t.dr Yore arl*;r STATE 01 Y5SHINOTON )ss COUNTY Of NIXL This is to day of 0,0bmforeShirleythen undersigned, t a Ne regnally ,DRured *rota E0.Nctann d ShirlR. McCann, M1'wife, [ known o hp the tndl:llmis who eae&yted withinthe and foregoingRedicat ion andacknowledged e ledged t aid initrusent te'Lbe • freea voluntary A and Deed of saidindi Widdlsfor the uses and purposes therein reed. Wt TNESS ey nand and off icia) ,Beal the:pay and vier ire mentioned above. • • NOTARY 000LIC .n and for the State of 0asnington res ding in ref co:mei ss ion PP, res STATE Os WA HNLTON ) OUXTY Of XSXL )s certifyThis that on is /7. 00E of JV , Ig 7Y. baferes0. undersigned,ta Hos ry 7b(i .'.'pe rsonaIly }opera& Harold R. and H wife. to ng lino -NC to bet ifdividuals whoa tedson and foregoing Dedication mrd, actlsowledgednthe'seid the within and voluntary Act and Deed of spiel indivudNS.ior the u anet purposes mentioned.therein WITNESS my heed and orf icia l See) the day .00 v*., first DEDICATION KNOW ALL NEN BY THESE PRESENTS that the undei'elgned hanby'declares tOis plat and dedicate to the use of the public forever the fo1Iowing: A. A11 streets aid amens sham an the plat. edit* can theran%'.for all pW1ec Pao" not Inconsistent with the use thereof for publ'lt. highway puim5es, extept- Ing W rewto es ino un the undersigned fa'e'.pnr era ecpess0l, nmn anO.eslgns rights and se tans rest .IRYI.. Lparate a tljoad [facial' mrd facilities and utilities Ethos;:g. and %ell Ethos Impsand mums sale Waists and its snob .mar. hammer, an Pet m Pera.}ptly dmrj. 09$Sbig1!M facil- ities located theme; ,'.i, she right to make all necessary sladry(I for cuts and ll.ts ,pon'fe lots and Blacks shownon this plat In the original enable grading of the ,streets and avenues (here hereon; L'. Public miring ere for t.A;Juto.bilesYl• *MInRVacn; .1'0. Ca wm.lrt gee public pYestrian accord. Mmugllout th.'Iingtf of the shore- ': line for M feet inland from he.ter,adte of the f the dike sob shown hereon. iN WITNESS WHEREOF w have hpreanto est our.Malds and dale. . APPROVED: Shirley h. Wenn 0PP095ED: C0R .E.1 0R[RTY INVESTORS, • Naf.t[• *f inad crust I Rine C. Meat. , a Trustee f0.'dlf and her Trustees. !tied. not personally N01I IIY ell ;n andor tAe St a of Vaihlogt commission asp res JUSVE 21s /9 74 SHEET 2 OF 4 SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK A PORTION OF HENRY ADAMS LAND CLAIM NO. SECTIONS 35 a 36, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WM CITY OF TUKWILA, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON elf...C.retauk. Pue MOOMP.r.• Leur — —GREEN-- — — — — Aul,OLoo, mrvs'-eo, Au,H:wer. nur.o,a, Atft.r.4•1-. .• InOre4Otel DI.• ‚4 Re.3410.17.N.1 . .... .• ... X;.,,,,K ,-,.........4,33\ ..... Morecoal a., • •• Ibc.'. ........,.... . .• .• • • .. '',.• ';f4eforrAgn'tig:;it.\ ...1 .... ... .. ... :'. \ .::. . . i: ..• .. , . . -,.,... .• .• .. '',,. .........,''' / j 1! . . .. .. / .. .. . - . . . .. . . . , . .. . •.-... . .... •••, . . ..• / / ...... / / . ., ., .... ",.. . .. / /d; i. ''''............ . .• . ,. .. .. ' . / // ate 4,Lifr ememon 0 .4 /6 1 : 0 0g4:... 1:g4= • srnr5 r.e4eouir.„: • j.T:wsr 77T, VALLer UPL44'1.).5, ".4/ES ( Vol .92 /WU MW AttcreCTIOM ni10 ..froteL • . Z.I.KULAU/Le 31.21000 AO• adfatfu ro‘a2A•tters7fle6sue 049/S BEARINCS 1.41/4Wr CAW- Nagh4 %AVE NOTE, ArrowAre awe ts Ao..fonw wow ..rearmere ...wow/ ow: nee Afro, for rota' CM> 10.610•ZO AlatUt nral "AIN or MOrMefor P.M rare. * ova,. sm.., Aram.* 7f, nor WY I. NICrt ,INO Ant neustoo, ommea W.. Ms ',drilla 44440. SHEET 3 OF 4 SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK A PORTION OF HENRY ADAMS LAND CLAIM NO. 4 SECTIONS 35 & 36 ,TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WM CITY OF TUKWILA, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON • ANNA 50"`.x. fl42U. <tt Sute,. / /06%, B/S/S BIBU.a/.46s • c.ae-ir:GP,B-NGATN dONE NG7C..w .)rs..vu,:As ro were, .44..taer /VF '.rnm.u»t.te* e,.., ila*cirritr 47,41Z "Alfa /4 OMir 4=6MBE AOn '. ..x is asetnuo =t o .t,. WEST VRL.LEY HIGHWAY SR - /B/ Sit ,tcbI '::; / .. G%1L« „w,.o,n-,-+ F:'4iY/i CVC, 9P, RSS[S B46P46: SHEET 4 OF 4 July 15, 1985 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER and PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL OFFICIALS IN ATTENDANCE REPORTS Fire District #1 Annex Petiton Fire Truck Repairs Social Services Needs Study CONSENT AGENDA Ord. #1355 ATTACHMENT 5 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers Regular Meeting MINUTES Mayor Van Dusen called the Regular Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. LIONEL C. BOHRER, EDGAR D. BAUCH, Council President, JOE H. DUFFIE, WENDY A. MORGAN, CHARLES E. SIMPSON. MOVED BY MORGAN, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT COUNCIL MEMBER HARRIS BE EXCUSED. MOTION CARRIED. JAMES HANEY, City Attorney; MAXINE ANDERSON, City Clerk; DON MORRISON, City Administrator, BYRON SNEVA, Public Works Director. Council President Bauch reported that the Council has received an official communication from the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney. They have certified that the petition for the Fire District #1 Annexation is sufficient. Don Morrison, City Administrator reported that the Fire Department pumper blew a head gasket and the repair estimate is $11,000. This may run the repair budget in the red. He reported that the Mayor has received a reply from the Cities of Renton and Auburn in regards to the inquiry to see if they would co -fund a social service needs assessment. They both have the feeling that the responsibility should not be borne by the municipalities but by other agencies that have already gathered needs information. a. Approval of Minutes: July 1, 1985 b. Approval of Vouchers Claims Fund Vouchers #22478 - #22601 Current Fund $ 32,188.49 Golf Course Spec. Rev. 9,924.95 City Street 24,597.08 Arterial Street 23,323.30 Federal Shared Rev. 593.47 Land Acq, Bldg, Dev. 37,323.48 Water Fund 29,841.51 Sewer Fund 36,251.80 Equipment Rental 2,567.18 Firemen's Pension 186.55 $196,797.81 c. Accepting the petition of intention to commence annexa- tion on a small parcel of property adjacent to So. 133rd (Macadam Road). d. An ordinance of the City of Tukwila vacating certain pro- perty located in the City of Tukwila dedicated for street purposes, said property being described as So. 133rd St. lying easterly of So. 134th Place. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 2 CONSENT AGENDA - cont. Res. #964 Res. #965 Ord. #1356 Res. #966 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING Continued From June 17, Appeal of Board of Arch. Review decision by Windmark Homes e. A resolution of the City of Tukwila approving a collec- tive bargaining agreement between the City of Tukwila and Public, Professional & Office -Clerical Employees and Drivers Local Union No. 763 for the period commencing January 1, 1985 and ending December 31, 1986 and authorizing the Mayor to sign the same on behalf of the City. f. A resolution of the City of Tukwila authorizing the exec- ution of the Southcenter South Industrial Park Agreement, including the acceptance of Southcenter South Industrial Park utilities and street improvements, easements, and street right-of-way dedications. An ordinance of the City of Tukwila to appropriate unan- ticipated revenues in the Current Fund for a temporary secretary position, supplies, professional services and other services and charges to implement Effluent Transfer System Agreement with Metro. h. A resolution of the City of Tukwila designating the Daily Record Chronicle as the official newspaper of the City for the purpose of publishing ordinances and legal notices. 9. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE CONSENT AGENDA BE ADOPTED AS SUBMITTED. MOTION CARRIED. Council Member Phelps arrived. Mayor Van Dusen noted that this Public Hearing was continued from the meeting of June 17, 1985 with the approval of both parties. The application for Phase III of the Sunwood Development was filed with the City in January, 1984, by Pacific Townhouse Builders. It went before the Board of Architectural Review for design review. In February, 1984, the Planning Commission tabled consideration of the application at the request of the applicant. In March, 1985 a new application was filed with the City showing Windmark Homes as owner. The Planning Commission held a Public Meeting on April 25, 1985 to review the application. Based on testimony received, they denied the application. An appeal on behalf of the applicant was filed May 3, 1985. The intention of the applicant is to present revised plans and demonstrate that the concerns of the Board of Architectural Review have been satisfied. Mayor Van Dusen asked if there were any challenges against he or the Council over the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. There was no comment. Brad Collins, Planning Director, presented the following Exhibits: 1. Master Land Use Application filed January 5, 1984 2. Master Land Use Application filed March 6, 1985 3. Revised staff report to Planning Commission 4. Minutes of April 25, 1985, Planning Commission meeting 5. Appeal of Planning Commission decision received May 3, 1985 6. Planning Commission findings and conclusions 7. Notice of June 17, 1985, Public Hearing of the City Council 8. Notice of April 25, 1985, Public Hearing of the Planning Commission, mailing list and affidavit of distribution TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING - cont. Windmark Homes Appeal 9. Letter of April 25, 1985, from Lawrence E. Hard on behalf of Sunwood Condominium homeowners and presented to Planning Commission at the April 25, 1985, Public Hearing. 10. Memorandum of April 23, 1985, from Lawrence E. Hard to Sunwood Homeowners Association and presented to Planning Commission at the April 25, 1985 Public Hearing 11. Letter of March 1, 1985, from Pacific Townhouse Builders notifying City of the sale of the property to Windmark Homes. Lawrence E. Hard, Attorney representing Sunwood Condominium Homeowners, presented a letter written by him dated July 15, 1985 to the City Council and it was labeled Exhibit 12. Mayor Van Dusen opened the Public Hearing to consider an appeal filed by Windmark Homes, Inc. He noted that 12 exhi- bits had been read into the record. Mayor Van Dusen asked everyone wishing to speak during the hearing to stand and be sworn in. Attorney Haney issued the oath. Brad Collins, Planning Director, gave the opening remarks. This is an appeal of a decision by the Board of Architectural Review that was heard at their April 25, 1985 meeting. The Findings and Conclusions of the Planning Commission are listed in Exhibit 6. He reviewed the Findings and Conclusions and listed the options the Council has in reviewing the appeal. 1. Review the information presented to the BAR and make their own decision regarding the criteria and the ade- quacy of the application in meeting the criteria. 2. Review and agree with the BAR. 3. Since the applicant has submitted revisions to the site plan, the decision could be remanded back to the BAR to review the new information. George Kresovich, Attorney with the firm of Hillis, Cairncross, Clark and Martin at 403 Columbia Street, Seattle, said he represents the applicant, Windmark Homes. Their pre- sentation will consist of statements by: 1. John Lane, Architect for the project 2. Steven Shea, Landscape Architect 3. John Snyder, President of Windmark Homes John Lane, Architect and Planner representing Windmark Homes, 115 West Denny Way, Seattle, discussed their project. The zoning allows 77 dwelling units on the site, but they are proposing 66 units in 8 buildings - 3 six-piexes and 6 nine- plexes. The location of the structures is in agreement with the site plan submitted by the previous owner. The building locations have been maintained, but the density has been cut. Exhibit #13, Proposed Site Plan for the development, was recorded. Mr. Lane said they reviewed slopes of drives, Fire Department access to buildings and maximum building areas and they concluded that the site plan developed by the previous plan- ners and themselves is, not only the best, but possibly the only solution for an efficient development of the site. Their proposal sits very well with existing development and are consistant with existing structures to the north. They are proposing two story buildings with daylight basements and units two or three wide. The buildings are cedar siding and shingles and earthtone colors as suggested by the Planning TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING - cont. Windmark Homes Appeal (Cont.) Staff. Mr. Lane displayed Exhibit #3, Attachment 0 (Side Elevation Study) which shows end gables. They are also showing carports and covered trash receptacles. To mitigate impacts the proposal may have on the community, they have added an indoor Jacuzzi and barbecue structure throughout the site. The total of the recreation and open space areas is 18,000 square feet. Their structures are well within the R-4 zoning requirements. The setback from the development to the north is a minimum of 60 feet, and in some places 80 feet. Their elevation of 200 is well below the eye level of occu- pants of all of the units east of Sunwood Boulevard. There is a view corridor between Buildings 1 and 2. Exhibit #14, Building Location Plan, was recorded. Steven Shea, Landscape Architect at Thomas Bing and Associates, said they were hired to redesign the landscaping. Planning Staff has reviewed their plan and concur with it. He explained the landscape plans as shown on Exhibit #13. Along with the landscape plan there is a path system that allows access throughout the site that connect the recreation areas and gazebos. They have addressed the con- cerns of the Board, have provided better views and still pro- vided separation between the units. Council Member Morgan asked who monitors landscaping for compliance. Mr. Collins said the Planning Department in cooperation with the Building Official. John Snyder. Vice President and Project Manager for Windmark Homes, 510 Rainier Avenue South, Seattle, commented that they obtained the property in February, 1985. It had already been rezoned to R-4 allowing up to 20 units per acre. The concep- tual site plan was used throughout the proceedings. Their present proposal asks for approval for 66 units. They will be the same type units as in Sunwood I and II. They have done everything they could to respond to the concerns of the Homeowners' Association, but it has been to no avail. They feel the Homeowners are primarily interested in using this process to leverage the settlement of their dispute with Pacific Townhouse Builders, the previous owners. They have settled the concerns expressed by the Association. They have assured the Homeowners that they intend to build con- dominiums, that the purchase prices will be around $85,000, that their parking ratio is 2 to 1, and they had a joint maintenance agreement drafted and sent to the Association. They have never responded. The Homeowners agreed to drop their appeal if Windmark agreed to join their Association. Then, they were told that the compliance with the Homeowners' request was not good enough. Mr. Snyder said they want to build a fine project in Tukwila - one they can be proud of - and they want to comply with all the requirements. They want to be treated like everyone else. He asked Council to approve their project. Attorney Haney explained that Council is sitting as the Board of Architectural Review. Council has the same criteria to look at as they did. George Kresovich, Attorney, said they agreed to join the Homeowners' Association providing they would not oppose this project and informed their attorney of the agreement. The Homeowners' Association was not agreeable. In reviewing the BAR decision, it is clear there are three major problems: TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING Cont. Windmark Homes Appeal (Cont.) 1. Adequacy of the recreation areas and facilities. In an effort to satisfy the concerns of the Board of Architectural Review the recreation areas were revised. 2. The Landscape Plan. The BAR said the Landscape Plan was incomplete. Rather than fight about it, they prepared a new plan, which was developed by professionals. 3. Concern about view blockage. The Board of Architectural Review relied on two provisions in the Code to make their findings. The first says that the height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to its site. The next says buildings should be to appropriate scale and be in harmony with neighboring developments. The type of buildings that are proposed for this site are precisely the same type and precisely the same scale as the buildings in the existing Sunwood Development. The buildings have been sited very carefully in order to minimize the view blockage. The project has been designed to be a good neighbor. Mr. Kresovich asked that the same standards be applied to them that have been applied to other developments. He asked Council to approve the project as proposed. Lawrence E. Hard, Attorney representing the Sunwood Homeowners, 2400 Columbia Center, Seattle, said he was asked to assist the Homeowners with some problems relating to their application of Windmark Homes. He prepared a letter, now marked Exhibit 12, that has been distributed to Council. There are three people that would like to speak. 1. Ryan Thrower, President of the Board of the Homeowners' Association 2. Dick Taylor, Homeowner 3. Joan Hernandez, Board Member. Mr. Hard said he is concerned about statements that have been made by Mr. Snyder and Mr. Kresovich about conversations and statements that have been made. If this were a trial those would be hearsay and not admissible. He asked to have these comments taken with a grain of salt. He is concerned about the impression trying to be made here that the Sunwood Homeowners' Association consists of nothing but a bunch of angered Homeowners - angered, not at what is happening at the Windmark side, but at the company that sold them their homes. He reminded Council they are to consider only the application of Windmark Homes. The Homeowners are concerned about what is going to be placed on the piece of property immediately to the south of them. The property was originally part of the Sunwood development. It was to be developed by the same people as Phase III, but in March of this year, they were no longer dealing with these people, but rather with a company called Windmark Homes. Ryan Thrower, 15232 Sunwood Boulevard, is President of the Homeowners' Association and a member of the Board of Directors. There are 178 households in Sunwood. When they bought their homes, they thought they were buying into a total community. They felt they would have a voice in how the community would be run, how rules would be adopted and enforced. At the time of purchase, they received a copy of the declarations of the Condominium Association which con- tained a legal description of the Phase III property. The legal said the property was subject to the convenants and restrictions of the Homeowners' Association. They found that this did not give them the protection they thought they had. Now they are looking to Tukwila and the Land Use Planning Policies to protect their investment. They asked that, if the development is allowed, they have to live up to the same TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARING - Cont. Windmark Homes Appeal (cont.) set of standards that the Sunwood Complex followed. We feel this proposal is lacking recreation facilities. It would be easy for residents of another complex to wander in and use their facilities. He asked the City to help them to protect their investments, stand behind the decision of the Planning Commission and reject any project that does not meet the requirements. Dick Taylor, 15278 Sunwood Boulevard, expressed concern over blockage of their view. At the time they bought they were given a maximum elevation for Phase III. He recalled that it was 203 feet. There have been several figures discussed so he asked what the "iron clad" maximum elevation is at this time. Joan Hernandez, 15224 Sunwood Boulevard said she is on the Board of Directors for the Homeowners' Association. A copy of her letter to the Planning Commission is included in Exhibit #3 as Iter H. Sunwood is a beautiful place to live and she would like to stay there. She hopes that this deve- lopment will not affect their quality of life. She would like to have the Phase III property governed under the same convenants and restrictions they live by. She would not like to see the cheap housing units being built in the area deve- loped on this property. She said she has faith in the Council that they will not allow a developer to ruin their property. Lawrence E. Hard called attention to Exhibit #12, his letter dated July 15, 1985. It outlines the legal reasons why the Homeowners are asking the City Council to affirm the decision of the Planning Commission sitting as the Board of Architectural Review. That decision was to require this developer to go back and resubmit a design plan that met the requirements of the Tukwila Municipal Code. The applicant has submitted a revised site plan, but it does not address the fundamental problems that the Planning Commission had with the plan. They continue to have a concern over 1) who is the applicant and 2) who is the record property owner. The deed to the property is to Windmark Homes, Inc. whereas, the applicant is Windmark Homes Tukwila, Inc. Their con- cerns are that Council has had inadequate materials for a proper review. The landscaping plans are not sufficiently detailed, there has been no analysis of the slope profile, and a more detailed environmental analysis should be made. The fundamental problem with this application is the question of adequate recreation space. The Code requires 200 square feet of recreation space per unit. Nothing shows how this applicant has calculated the recreation space. What they have done is say open space equals recreation space. There has been no analysis of the amount of open space on slopes over 4 to 1. This applicant has not complied with the Tukwila Municipal Code on its analysis of what is proper recreation space. It is up to the Council to make the deci- sion as to whether or not the application meets the intent of the code. This proposed application does not meet commit- ments that were made by the previous owner. He asked that the City Council affirm the decision of the Planning Commission at their meeting of April 25, 1985. If Council wishes to modify the application and approve it, he asked that the applicant be required to submit a new environmental checklist and that a new environment review be made. Council Member Morgan asked what happens if Council upholds the Board of Architectural Review decision. Mr. Collins said they could submit a new application or proceed their appeal through the Court System. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 7 PUBLIC HEARING Cont. Windmark Homes Appeal (cont.) ,7,.(,/ Attorney Haney noted that TMC 18.90.020 provides that the City Council shall affirm, deny or modify the decision of the Planning Commission (BAR) within 90 days after the filing of the appeal. Prior to making a decision, the City Council may hold a Public Hearing. If Council wanted Staff to prepare additional information, the hearing could be continued and Staff directed to bring the information back. John Lane clarified the issue of height of the buildings. The buildings will be 168 feet above floor grade and 32 feet above that to the peak. We are going to stand on the 200 feet for the record. The condominium market is very com- petitive and you do not put out a bad product and expect it to sell. George Kresovich discussed the new information they had sub- mitted to Planning Staff and the Homeowners' Association for review. He commented that it was not new information just for this evening. If the developer intended to put as many units on the property as he could and then leave, he would not be reducing the number of units. The property was rezoned in 1981 to allow 77 units. The developer is trying to build a marketable product that people can afford to buy and will be in keeping with the neighborhood. Lawrence E. Hard stated that they do not think Council has enough information to make an intelligent decision. If Council does not affirm the decision of the Planning Commission, they do have the power to send it back to them and allow them to reconsider the application with the addi- tional information. If Council does not do this, they ask that the application be denied because it is not clear. There is no analysis of open space versus recreation space or how much of it is on slopes of 4 to 1. If Council should go ahead and permit this design plan as proposed, we think that the applicant should be required to submit a new environmen- tal check list. There is not enough adequate data here for anybody to make a decision. Lastly, nothing has been said about who the applicant is or who the owner of the property is. This should be of concern to Council. If the applicant says something is going to be done, what assurance do you have when we do no even know for sure who the applicant is or that is is the property owner. We have presented information that raises that question. We think this is another reason why the Council should affirm the action of the Planning Commission. Attorney Haney suggested that Council look over the City of Tukwila Board of Architectural Review Design Review Evaluation Guide which lays out the criteria by which Council needs to decide whether or not this application should be approved or denied. If Council wishes to ask any additional questions, now is the time before you close the Public Hearing. Mayor Van Dusen asked if anyone had anything more they would like to put into the record. Council Member Phelps asked what the relationship to the street is as far as a shared use for ingress and egress for the development. Mr. Kresovich said that there is an ease- ment across the Windmark property to the Sunwood Homeowners' Association so they have a right to use the right-of-way and both properties have that right. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY BOHRER, THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING BE CLOSED. MOTION CARRIED. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 8 PUBLIC HEARING - Cont. Windmark Homes Appeal (cont.) RECESS: 9:30 P.M. 9:35 P.M. OLD BUSINESS Proposed Ordinance - Amending the Comp. Land Use Map to change certain property from Low Density Residen- tial and Commercial to Professional Office MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL REMAND THIS BACK TO THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW.* *COUNCIL PRESIDENT BAUCH WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH APPROVAL OF THE SECOND. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY MORGAN, THAT COUNCIL CONCUR WITH THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND ADOPT THEIR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY MORGAN, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT COUNCIL RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Van Dusen called the Regular Meeting of the Tukwila City Council back to order with Council Members present as previously reported. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Van Dusen read an ordinance of the City of Tukwila, Washington, amending the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map adopted by Ordinance Number 1039 to change the designatin of certain property previously shown as low density residen- tial to professional office. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE ORDINANCE BE ADOPTED AS READ.* Attorney Haney explained the Exhibits attached to the ordi- nance. Exhibit A is the legal description of the entire annexation area. Exhibit B should change the designation from Low Density Residential to Professional Office. Exhibit C should be the commercial property. It was difficult to draft the Exhibits now knowing what Council was going to do with some of the property. He reminded Council that they need to adopt Findings and Conclusions. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO ASK THAT STAFF PREPARE THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS AND THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS FOR COUNCIL THAT SUPPORT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT.** Mr. Collins explained that Exhibit B is the proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan. It designates the properties shown as 16218, 16228 and 16234 to Professional Office. The properties at 16238 and 16360 are designated Commercial. Council Member Phelps asked is the Office designation or any other, other than R-1, applicable to the DiGiovanni property. Mr. Collins explained that 4230 and 4220 So. 164th Street would remain Low Density; there would be no change in the City's Comprehensive Plan, per the Planning Commission recom- mendation. Mr. Collins explained that Day Care facilities require a Conditional Use Permit. The facility on Mr. DiGiovanni's property would be Grandfathered in. Any changes they might make would require a Conditional Use Permit. Councilman Bohrer said he favors the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Mr. DiGiovanni submitted a request for TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 9 OLD BUSINESS Proposed Ordinance - Amending the Comp. Land Use Map to change certain property from Low Density Residen- tial and Commercial to Professional Office (cont.) Proposed Ordinance - Amending the official zoning map by estab- lishing zoning classi- fications on recently annexed property known as McMicken Heights f 1 zoning to the County for 21 units on 2/3 of an acre. It is very high density and is as dense as anything we currently have in Tukwila and would require a buffer. It would be opening the door to further multi -family in the area. Our cascading zoning approach doesn't allow us to designate 4220 as office. If we were to do that, it would permit RMH or multi -family. There is no way, at this general session, that Council could change it to permit office use. It could only come from a contractural rezoning request. The other pro- perty that has been discussed is the Markham property located at 42nd and the freeway. The request to designate this as multiple family opens, again, the penetration of multiple family into the entire area and it would be the only multiple family designation in the area. It is not unique; it is similar to all the other land along the freeway. Council should go forward with the approach that is recommended by the Planning Commission. Council Member Phelps said that, where Mr. DiGiovanni's pro- perty is concerned, there is a special economic hardship involved. However, I would not approve a density of 21 units on that lot. It far exceeds what Tukwila has in mind as far as adequate standards for development. A lower density might seen more reasonable. I feel that an R-1.7200 designation is not fair on parcel 4220. As far as the Markham property is concerned, I would prefer to look at a rezone request so that specific conditions or controls could take place. Councilman Duffie said he looked at the Markham property; then, he surveyed the citizens. He asked the people how they feel about apartments coming into the neighborhood --5 people were for; 5 people don't care; 47 people said, no; and 1 was neutral. The people are very concerned about what is going on in their neighborhood. Councilman Simpson said that in the case of Mr. DiGiovanni, he got caught in the middle. I don't agree that high density is the way to go; low density would be the best compromise in this situation. As far as the Markham property, people who are building single family houses do not want to build them next to a freeway. Apartments next to a freeway would be appropriate. Council President Bauch said the Comprehensive Plan has been in effect since the early 80's. The planning area is shown as low density for this area. The County Council has con- sistently turned down zoning changes to higher density. **MOTION CARRIED WITH PHELPS AND SIMPSON VOTING NO. *MOTION CARRIED WITH PHELPS AND SIMPSON VOTING NO. Council President Bauch said this will come forward as soon as the legal descriptions and the Findings and Conclusions are ready. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT STAFF PREPARE THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS AND THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS THAT SUPPORT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION.* Council President Bauch clarified that this adopts the zoning to match the Comprehensive Plan. *MOTION CARRIED WITH PHELPS VOTING NO. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 10 NEW BUSINESS Ordinance #1357 - Appropriate unanti- cipated revenues in the Fed. Rev. Sharing Fund Approval to purchase two ton roller MISCELLANEOUS Undergrounding Utilities MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney Haney read an ordinance of the City of Tukwila, Washington, amending the 1985 Budget adopted by Ordinance No. 1340 of the City, passed by the City Council on December 17, 1984, as amended by Ordinance No. 1346, passed by the City Council on April 1, 1985, and Ordinance No. 1351, passed by the City Council on June 17, 1985, to appropriate unan- ticipated revenues in the Federal Revenue Sharing Fund for chemical suits, typewriter, Council Chambers equipment and estimated ending fund balance and establishing an effective date. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT ORDINANCE NO. 1357 BE ADOPTED AS READ.* Council President Bauch commented that he does not like the changes that happen in mid-term. The chemical suits are an emergency, but the other two items are just things that would be nice to have. He specifically objected to Council Chambers improvements without having requested any comment from Council. *MOTION CARRIED WITH BAUCH VOTING NO. Don Morrison, City Administrator, explained that this request is to substitute the purchase of one capital item in the Equipment Rental Fund for another. It was recommended that the paint striper go through a rebudgeting process for 1986 and to purchase a self-propelled 2 -ton vibrating roller compactor at this time. MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT COUNCIL CONCUR WITH THE REQUEST FROM ADMINISTRATION TO PURCHASE A TWO -TON ROLLER FROM THE EQUIPMENT RENTAL DEPARTMENT.* Council President Bauch said that Council spent many hours reviewing the Capital Improvement Plan. The first thing we do is violate the program. We don't have a plan. We don't know how this purchase fits in with the other priorities in this City. Unless something is an emergency, we should not consider capital items until the next budget period. Mr. Morrison explained that the intent is not to buy a new toy for the Street Department, but to provide a roller that meets compaction standards under the codes. After adding up the rental costs, the analysis is that we purchase a more cost effective approach. *MOTION CARRIED WITH BAUCH AND BOHRER VOTING NO. Mr. Morrison explained that the 55th Avenue Street project is under construction. The past several months there has been on-going discussions with Puget Power and City Light regarding undergrounding the overhead utilities. The City has an undergrounding agreement with Puget Power to do the work at their own expense. City Light refuses to consider any language in an undergrounding agreement which obligates them to pay for the undergrounding. There are three options; stop the 55th Avenue Street Project; require them to relo- cate the overhead lines; or go ahead with the undergrounding, pay for it, and send them a letter stating we will seek reim- bursement. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 11 MISCELLANEOUS Undergrounding Utilities (cont.) EXECUTIVE SESSION 10:43 P.M. ADJOURNMENT 10:50 P.M. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE CITY PROCEED WITH THE PROJECT AND BILL CITY LIGHT. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY MORGAN, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT COUNCIL GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. MOTION CARRIED. Executive Session called to discuss the N.A.A.C.P. Lawsuit. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT COUNCIL GO OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT THE MAYOR BE AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE SOUTH CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT TO SHARE THE COST OF THE FOSTER PARK PROPERTY LITIGATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,250, THAT THE TERM OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT BE EXTENDED TO 30 YEARS, AND THAT AN AMENDMENT BE DRAWN TO TAKE THE FUNDS OUT OF ENDING FUND BALANCE. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL ADJOURN. MOTION CARRIED. MaScine Anderson, City Clerk ATTACHMENT 6 CITY of TUKWILA WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 9VC5_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF THE SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK AGREEMENT, INCLUDING THE ACCEPTANCES BY THE CITY PROVIDED THEREIN OF SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK UTILITIES AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS, EASEMENTS, AND STREET RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATIONS, ALONG WITH THE RELEASE BY THE CITY PROVIDED THEREIN OF CERTAIN UTILITY EASEMENTS WHEREAS, a Developer's Agreement, entered into by the City of Tukwila and BRUCE E McCANN (hereinafter referred to as "Developer"), on the 27th day of June, 1974, recorded under No 7407120478 ("Developer's Agreement"), contained obligations constituting "an easement and servitude and a covenant running with the land", and WHEREAS. disputes have arisen over the respective obligations of City and CORPORATE PROPERTY INVESTORS, a Massachusetts business trust (hereinafter referred to as "Owners"), who were assigns, grantees and successors in interest to Developer, with respect to matters arising from the Developer's Agreement, and WHEREAS, City and Owners desire to resolve the disputes without resort to litigation, and WHEREAS, City and Owners have determined an equitable and fair resolution of the disputes, all contained in the Southcenter South Industrial Park Agreement, NOW. THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS 1 That the Mayor is authorized to execute on behalf of the City the Southcenter South Industrial Park Agreement (a copy of which is attached to this resolution), after determining with the Owners a reasonable Closing Date to be added to Section 3d of the Southcenter South Industrial Park Agreement, and 2 On or before the Closing Date, upon conditions of the Southcenter South Industrial Park Agreement being fulfilled, that the Mayor is authorized to accept on behalf of the City the following (a) Bill of Sale (Exhibit C to the Southcenter South Industrial Park Agreement), (b) Easement for utility lines (Exhibit D-1 to the Southcenter South Industrial Park Agreement), (c) Easement for storm drain (Exhibit D-2 to the Southcenter South Industrial Park Agreement), and (d) Quit Claim Deed (Exhibit D-3 to the Southcenter South Industrial Park Agreement), and 3 Upon the conditions of the Southcenter South Industrial Park Agree- ment being fulfilled on or before Closing Date, that the Mayor execute on behalf of the City the Quit Claim Deed (Exhibit E to the Southcenter South Industrial Park Agreement) -2 - PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA. WASHINGTON, at a regular meeting thereof this .L4Eday of,Gj , 1985 Approved as to Form ATTEST Edgar D Bauch, Council President iE ANDERSON, City Clerk November 12, 1985 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS OFFICIALS IN ATTENDANCE REPORTS City Council Staff City Attorney CITIZEN'S COMMENTS Flashing yellow light at Pavilion Crossing. PUBLIC HEARING 7:16 - 8:05 P.M. Central Business Dist. Sidewalk Plan & Policy. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING ATTACHMENT 7 S336 City Hall Council Chambers MINUTES Council President Bauch called the Committee of the Whole Meeting to order and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. L. C. BOHRER, MABEL J. HARRIS. EDGAR D. BAUCH (COUNCIL PRESIDENT), CHARLES E. SIMPSON Gary L. Van Dusen (Mayor), Maxine Anderson (City Clerk), Phil Fraser (Senior Engineer), Jim Haney (City Attorney), Lucy Lauterbach (Legislative Coordinator), Don Morrison (Adminis- trative Assistant), Ross Earnst (City Engineer), Byron Sneva (Public Works Director). Council President Bauch introduced Marilyn Stoknes, new Council Member who will take office in January. Council President Bauch reported he had received a response to the request for suggested name for the new park. The name suggested was Joel Shomaker Memorial Park in honor of the first Mayor of Tukwila. Byron Sneva, Public Works Director, stated the south half of the Grady Way bridge will be open to traffic within five or six days. Attorney Jim Haney stated he attended the State Association of Municipal Attorneys. Of special interest was the subject of municipal liability insurance. Another subject discussed was the precedent established in Bothell where a police officer was sued by four individuals. The City defended the police officer and malicious intent prosecution was established. The City was reimbursed all legal fees. Council Member Harris reported receiving citizen comments that a flashing yellow light in the pedestrian lane crossing from the two parking lots at the Pavilion is needed. Council President Bauch stated letters had been received from the Chamber of Commerce and Pembrook Management, Inc., stating their views on the Sidewalk Plan Policies. Byron Sneva, Public Works Director, gave an updated report on the Sidewalk Plan. George Reynolds, Bell -Walker, explained the plan and reviewed the history of the Sidewalk Plan. Jack Link, Tri -Land Corporation representing William E. Boeing Co., said flexibility in the policy is the key and that is excellent. The LID aspect is good in getting the sidewalks in as quickly as possible. Those who have already participated could be excused. The problem is how to get everyone agreed in the CBD. Councilman Bohrer asked Mr. Link if it was his contention that an area that has sidewalks will not benefit from construction of the plan and therefore should be excluded from the LID. Jack Link said that is from the work benefit, that they were already "either required or did it on their own." We have land that is still undeveloped that would be required to fit with this to connect the missing portions. In the area, for example, on Baker Boulevard, that one block there on the Andover Park East side would need to participate and we would go back to the time when we were required to put in a block of concrete that went to nowhere and that should not be whether it was a benefit now, or a benefit then or a benefit in the future for the people who will be using it. It will be a benefit to the people who will be using it. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING November 12, 1985 Page 2 S3 3/ PUBLIC HEARING - Contd. Central Business Dist. Currently it is a benefit to the future. We would go again to Sidewalk Plan & the word flexibility. Policy. - contd. Councilman Bohrer said Mr. Link seems to be saying that the only people who will benefit from construction of new sidewalks is the people who currently do not have sidewalks and all of those who do have sidewalks won't benefit from any new construction. Mr. Link said the ultimate is that everyone is going to benefit. He said he would say that the people who put them in are paying twice. The plan is to benefit the City so we have the missing parts. Councilman Bohrer asked if these other properties benefit shouldn't they be included in the LID? Mr. Link replied to the extent they are forgiven that part they have already put in. Council President Bauch asked Mr. Link to read the October 18 version of the funding and phasing of the sidewalk plan. Council Member Harris said Mr. Sneva has said that the policies have gone through all of the committees. That is true, but the Transportation Committee did not go along with Policy 4 and 5 for the financing of it. Today at the Chamber meeting she said she was inundated with people asking, "Now you surely don't mean to go ahead with construction of the sidewalks under the financing that is in the present policy?" She felt as City officials they should be fair to everyone and to charge some people twice when they have already put in sidewalks in front of their property and then have to pay for the rest of the sidewalks with tax money which would be coming out of their pockets would be double dipping for them. She felt it was unfair. Council President Bauch asked Council Member Harris if she had read Policy 6? Council Member Harris said she had and she felt the LID method would be much fairer as Mr. Link said the people who have already done thier part of the sidewalks should be excused from having to pay again. This seems a fair and equitable way and is the way the City has done in the past. Everything that has been developed down there has either been done by the developer on their property or by an LID and that seems equitable. Councilman Bohrer said the City should be fair and if he can be shown a way that is imminently fair to all in the CBD he would gladly adopt it. He stated he disagreed with the LID method. The position the committee has taken from the outset and it was recognized by the Chamber's Transportation Committee at one time that there is not a totally fair way to do this. The people who developed in the CBD developed under a different set of rules that the City had that allowed them to put in landscaping, beautiful landscaping, that is a benefit to the City. To now ask those same people to put in a sidewalk when over the years they have borne the cost of maintaining the landscaping which is probably greater than maintaining the cost of sidewalks that went in other areas, but to now require them to put in sidewalks for the benefit of others when they will not directly benefit from them does not seem fair. There are some instances where that will occur. The issue of funding is one that needs to be addressed further. Namely, what portion of these sidewalks that the City under the current policy would put in might the City reasonably expect reimbursement for at a future time because those current properties are undeveloped or perhaps more speculatively could be subject to redevelopment. The reason the proposal was made this way was inconsonance with the Chamber's Transportation Committee original recommendation and thought, one that the Community Affairs Committee still endorses that there are some areas where we should move rapidly to institute the sidewalks and an LID will be a lengthy process. If we can agree f1 Li �J TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING November 12, 1985 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING - Contd. CBD Sidewalk Plan & Policy - contd. 5332, on some of the areas where we can move rapidly this is the best place to do it. In driving through that area in the morning, it is amazing the number of people you see walking along the streets, on the streets, and through the bushes and you see trails in the bushes, there are hazards there. Sidewalks are needed and the City needs to move rapidly. He said he was concerned that there are two sides to this story in terms of fairness. If you try to create an LID and assess what the real benefits are it will be another ten years before the sidewalks are off and running. There are two sides to the story and the concern is getting something to happen as fast as possible. One of the comments made in the Chamber letter was that the City was going to have to raise taxes to do this. He said he had not heard that. Robyn Wilhelme, representing Pembrook Management and Chairperson of the Transportation Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, said she looked at the policy in a number of ways. She has seen the progress from the beginning. Her question is more specifically to the properties that she is involved with which is the Southcenter South Industrial Park. According to the letter she submitted to the Council, they feel they are outside the CBD. Until this month they may not even have had to be involved in this because the streets were private streets until October 31. They are now public streets which is the reason for the concern in the properties being included in the definition of the CBD. They feel they have no pedestrian traffic in the park, with the exception of going from a parking lot to an office building where there are already sidewalks to walk on. To put in sidewalks throughout the rest of the park so these people might go elsewhere they feel is not going to happen. If there is an opinion of the Committee she would like to hear it in this meeting and if not she will come again until a decision is made. Councilman Bohrer said we could ask Mr. Reynolds, Bell -Walker, to give an interpretation of what the plan says for sidewalks construction in Southcenter South. Mr. Reynolds said they do not show any recommended sidewalks in that area. It would be low priority. based on the condition and nature of the development. Consideration that should be made would be plotting into the trail system and sidewalks. Robyn Wilhelme said in the talking earlier about an LID it was said that if the City were to impose an LID they might require property that currently has sidewalks to participate. Council Member Harris said it seems those would be included in and would be given credit for the sidewalks they have. Councilman Bohrer said in the matter of assessing an LID is it on the basis of past contributions or on the basis of present benefits such contributions might be assessed? Attorney Haney said as far as assessments in an LID the general rule is that properties in an LID are to be assessed according to the special benefit which they receive from the improvements that are constructed. That special benefit is to be measured by increase in market value of the property which accrues by virtue of the improvements themselves. Some questions that have come up, it is according to the present benefits that the property will receive from the improvements therefore it is a special benefit, the present benefit to the property. The question has come up as to whether or not properties that already have sidewalks could or would be assessed if they were included in an LID. It is possible that they would be depending upon how much they benefited from the fact that the sidewalks which they had constructed themselves how much the value of their property is raised by the fact that those sidewalks are now connected with others in the district. Their assessment would likely be lower than those properties which do not have sidewalks because their benefit from sidewalks actually being constructed would be much greater. Generally what is done in an LID is to have a special benefit study prepared showing how each property will benefit from the sidewalk construction. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING November 12, 1985 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING - Contd. CBD Sidewalk Plan Policy - contd. S 33 & Council Member Harris asked where she would benefit if the fellow next to her who has not had a sidewalk but has been benefiting from her sidewalk, he would then have to pay special for the benefit he has received from her sidewalk. That does not make sense if you already have a sidewalk that you would be assessed for extra benefit from the sidewalk that went on before you. The same way for a street -- you are not assessed for a street if it is in front of your property. Attorney Haney said the question is whether or not the value of a particular piece of property that already has a sidewalk in front of it would rise due to the fact that the sidewalk is now connected with a City-wide sidewalk system and if that is the case there may be same special benefit. That is taken care of in a benefit study. They have an appraiser do that study. There could be some benefit. Council Member Harris asked about a person who has landscaping. Is a sidewalk part of landscaping or could a sidewalk be part of landscaping and the landscaping altered to include a sidewalk which would then be part of the lanscaping? Attorney Haney said that would depend on what the City code required. The City code currently has not defined a sidewalk as included within landscaping although it could give credit. That is one of the things that has been discussed. Council Member Harris said the policy says the businesses will donate rights-of-way or easement. She thought it would be illegal for the City to tell anyone they have to donate something. Attorney Haney said generally you can require donation through a couple of things. One, there is specific authority in the State subdivision statute for cities requiring property owners to dedicate land for any public purpose as a condition of subdiv- ision. There may not be very many subdivisions. Another way is through impact through an environmental study of a particular development proposal. For example, the developer comes to the City and says he wants to put in a 20 -story office building and there will be 5,000 people in the building. In looking at the impact, the city could specify as a mitigating measure that the individual was going to donate land for a public right-of-way for streets because there was going to have to be transportation, etc. Those are ways it could be done. They have to be specifically related on a project -by -project basis. You are correct in saying the City could not just pass an ordinance saying that everyone in town will donate 5 feet of right-of-way along the edge of their property to the city. That would be condemnation of people's property. Council Member Harris said that is what she found wrong with Policy 5. Attorney Haney said as he understood the policy it was that if individuals would not donate the right-of-way then the City could simply not build the sidewalks there, if they desired not to do that. The policy was not mandatory in requiring the donation of the right-of-way. Council Member Harris said then if anybody did not want to donate property the City would not put a sidewalk there. Attorney Haney said the City certainly has the power to condemn. Council Member Harris said but if it were done by the LID method they could be given credit. Attorney Haney said they could be given credit against their assessments for the donations. f1 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING November 12, 1985 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING - Contd. CBD Sidewalk Plan & Policy - contd. • Robyn Wilhelme said from what she is hearing if the plan is on a City Councilmanic bond or on an LID that the property like her own will be included. They could not be assessed and have their property increased in value because of the sidewalk going into the CBD if they were not part of the CBD. Council President Bauch said they are part of it by definition. It is everything east of I-5 and south of 405, within the City limits. Robyn Wilhelme said it seems it was said that it was not necessary and it was not included in the study. Council President Bauch said it was not said that it was not included in the study, it just says at the present time the traffic is such that it would not be now. To state that nobody is going to walk or you are not going to have offices or retail in Southcenter South is premature. Robyn Wilhelme said it may happen some day, but their attitude is that they would like to put it in at that time when there is a need. Council President Bauch said by City code they would have to. If you change any use of those buildings and they are on public streets you would have to put in a sidewalk. Council Member Harris said if there is an LID it is doubtful that part would be encompassed in the LID. Councilman Bohrer said in the letter from the Chamber that Robyn Wilhelme and Mr. Jordan in the fifth paragraph said " we have since learned that the City will most likely be required to raise taxes in order to retire the bonds." What is the source of that information? Robyn Wilhelme said her source of information was Pam Thorsen, the Chamber Director. Pam Thorsen, Chamber of Commerce, said that is the information she received at a committee of the whole meeting. She thought it was relayed to her. Councilman Bohrer said they have heard a lot of discussions here at this meeting about options of funding. Mayor Van Dusen said he thought this idea has come about through discussions. If the City does all of the things they have been wanting to do with budget and CIP there would be only one way to do it and that would be to raise the one-half cent sales tax. It was probably just discussion. Councilman Bohrer said he would like to go back to the opposite side of the coin on the costing. He said he would pick out a warehouse that he drives by on a daily basis that has beautiful landscaping in front of it and adequate parking for its own people. He asked if it seemed a likelihood that such a business which does not depend in general on foot traffic would be materially benefited by construction of a sidewalk or even that its property value would be substantially increased by so doing. Attorney Haney said he would say that the benefit there would certainly be a lot less than in a multi -family complex or some retail outlet. There may be some benefit, but how much it would be hard to say. Councilman Bohrer said his suggestion is that it is probably as unlikely that they are benefited as that there is a carry-over benefit to some of the areas that already have sidewalks. He said he would put the two of them in sort of the same category of probability. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING November 12, 1985 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARING - Contd. CBD Sidewalk Plan & Policy - contd. OLD BUSINESS Approval of Minutes: October 28, 1985 Prop. Ord. amending official zoning map & estab. zoning classifi- cation on prop. recently annexed to City known as 51st Ave. So. between S. 164th & S. 166th Annexation. NEW BUSINESS Prop. Res. accepting turnover of storm sewer manhole construc- ted by Solly Dev. So. on east side of 52nd Ave. South. King Subregion Special Transportation Projs. Program, Green River Valley Transportation Action Plan. Prop. Ord levying gen. taxes for fiscal year 1986 on property, real & personal. S-3 34, Council Member Harris said she would go back in history. Originally, Andover West was the dividing point that everything to the west of Andover was commercial and everything to the east was industrial and no commercial was allowed in the industrial part not even a sandwich shop. That was where the big landscaping beds were with the setbacks to make this industrial park a thing of beauty and everyone just drove through, there was no need of any walking because they went to their place of business, they got out of their parked car and walked in. It was mandatory to have landscaping. Now things have changed, it is no longer sacred that on one side we have commercial and on the other industrial. It is rapidly becoming commercialized and the chance of it becoming greatly more is happening all of the time. Now sidewalks are needed. They have pulled up all of the land- scaping and are remodeling and putting in sidewalks. The era is coming where there are very few places where a sidewalk is not entirely needed. It seems that everyone would benefit from sidewalks, some a lot more than others. We should concentrate on the ones that are needed desperately now and attempt to get something started and done. She said that LID's don't take much longer than any other -- you have to go out for bids, you have to get your contractor, in the meantime you start your financing. It takes about 70% of the property owners to approve an LID. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:05 P.M. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT THE SIDEWALK POLICY BE ON THE AGENDA OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL AT THE DISCRETION OF THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT THE MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING HELD OCTOBER 28, 1985 BE APPROVED AS PUBLISHED. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE ON THE AGENDA OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY SIMPSON, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT THE CITY COMMITMENT IN THIS PROJECT BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE ON THE AGENDA OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED. f1 ,$ 337 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING November 12, 1985 Page 7 NEW BUSINESS - Contd. Prop. Ord. amending 1985 MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE budget to appropr. BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL. unanticipated revs. in MOTION CARRIED. Land Acq., Bldg., & Dev. Fund for future park dev. land. EXECUTIVE SESSION 8:30 - 8:55 P.M. ADJOURNMENT 8:56 P.M. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT THE COUNCIL GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO CONSIDER PURCHASE OF PROPERTY FOR PARK PURPOSES. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCIL MEMBER PHELPS ARRIVED AT THE MEETING AT 8:35 P.M. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE COUNCIL MOVE OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING ADJOURN. MOTION CARRIED. 8 Edgar D auch, Council President Noa ~ Booher, Recording Secretary SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK A PORTION OF HENRY ADAMS LAND CLAIM NO. 43 SECTIONS 35 6136 ,TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. CITY OF TUKWILA, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON DESCRIPTION That portion of the Henry Adams Donation Land Claim No. 43 in Sections•35. and 36, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, M.M. in the City of.Tukwila, King County;••tiash- ington, described as follows= Beginning at the southeast corner of said Section 35; thence N 1023'50" E along .1 the centerline of Secondary State Highway No. 2M, a distance of 1115.77 feet; thence N 88°49'l0" W, a distance of 30.49 feet to the west margin of said S.S.H. No. 2M and the True Point of Beginning; thence continuing N 88°•49'10" W a•l,ong the north property line of that certain tract of land described under King County. Auditor's File No. 2462007, a distance of 1864.41 feet more of less to the tfsp,of the right bank of the Green River; thence along said top of the right bank of flee Green River the following courses and distances: N47°12'E a distance of 17 feet; N44°10'E a distance of IDb feet; N32°00'E a distance of 98 feet; N24°15'E a distance of 99 feet; N20°22'E a distnace of 103 feet; NI8°02'E a distance of 98'•,feet; ' N14°18'E a distance of 100 feet; N20°04'E a distance of 100 feet; N33°29'E a distance of 99 feet; N43°04'E a distance of 99 feet; N44°55'E a distance of 100 feet; N43°17'E a distance of 102 feet.;, N34°05'E a distance of 99 feet; N26°27'E a distance•Of;•98 feet;'.. N20°26'E a distance of 100 feet; N15°42'E a distahte •of •90eet; NII°32'E a distance of 100 feet; N09°15'E a dis;t'ance of 97 feet.; N10°51'E a distance of 102 feet; N09°54'E a distance of 100 feet;". N12°04'E a distance of 99 feet; N12°01'E a distance of 99 feet; ' N09°50'E a distance of 100 feet; N08°45'E a a'istance ob•,98 feet; N06°07'E a distance of 101 feet; NO3°26'E a:distance•rif '96 feet; N01e17'E a distance of 99 N33°41'E a distance of 41 N26°18'E a distance of 99 N63°00'E a distance of 100 575°45'E a distance of 100 S44°26'E a distance of 100 S36°49'E a distance of 99 S35°35'E a distance of 99 S25°20'E a distance of 100 524°51'E a distance of 100 559°43'E a distance of 98 582°08'E a distance of 100 feet; N04°49'E a+distance. of 101 •feet; feet; NI6°40'E a:d istance of 59 feet; • feet; N46°06'E a'd,istance••of 103 feet; feet; N82°28'E a distance of 99 feet; • feet; 556°11'E a d±,stance of •'•,.9,9 feet; feet; 537°39'E a distance of IOb; feet; feet; S36°08'E a diseince of 100 feet; feet; 529°38'E a distahte of 99 feet; feet; S23"04°,'E• a ;di.stande•.of 99 feet; feet; S44:°29'E a d'is•tance•'of;,101 feet; feet; 3../2°17'E a distahte of'l0.1•.feet; ,• feet; :N78°54'E a distance -•of 99'ret;'' N68°34'E a distance of 99 feet; •'N73e00'33"E a distance. of 97.69 feet more or less to the west margin of said 5.5•;H. No. 2141:t;hence leaving said top of the right bank of the Green River along said west marlin orl.;a curve to..the right, the center of which bears N1.7°33'20"W having 4 radius"of 543.f4•feet, an+arc distance of 87.08 feet, through a central angle of 0;°11'10"; thence S51°37'50"11•,along said west mar- gin a distance of 131.40 feet; thence alonrj a curve tothe left, on said west mar- gin, having a radius of 603.14 feet an ar4'distance of•423.53 feet through a cen- tral angle of 40°14'00"; thence S11'2.3'50';W along said west margin a distance of 1445.62 feet to the True Point of Beg!•nn;hg. RESTRICTIONS No lot or portion of a 1pt In this plat'.shali be:•usell in arty manner inconsistent with the City of Tukwila's M,1 District Light Industry Zoning: No part of any railroad 'lead track, as delineated on the face of the plat, shall lie within a 50 -`foot inland cbnservacy'oofe (or such'6eyser zone as may in the future be established by the Ci•ty'•of;Tuksrila under its Shoreline Management Program), measured from the ordinary high water mark along 'the.westerly boundary of the plat. The owners in fee simple, their.successors or'assigrts reserve the right to assume the obligation to landscape and maintain planting;islands within the city streets. There shall be no direct ;access to SR.183 through lots abutting on SR -181 with the exception of access to the -public parking area for ten cars and access for emergency vehicles. • UTILITY:. EASEMENTS .• ..• The utility easeeebts Indicated'on the face•'•bf the plat are to be used for the bene- fit of said plat foi gnderground utilities and drainage purposes and incidental pur• - poses thereto. Said easements can be'•eptered upon at any future date for maintenance or consteuttlon purposes altd.for the purposes of serving other properties with util- ities.,•Easement areas and improvements thereon which are damaged ln.•the course of servicing, maintenance or construction of utilities shall be restored by the owner of the utility.' EASEMENT RESERVATIONS Pub{.tc pedestrian;access will be allowed throughout the length of the shorelinerof the 61gen River for•30 feet Inland.from the water edge of the top of the dike. ';Such easement'••shall not be'inconslstent'.with the existing diking maintenance easement. ;:04e right is's''erved to:.the dwriers in fee simple of the land hereby platted and:their, successors and as.Lgos••to establish railroad rights-of-way and grant to raiLroad companies the right to construct and maintain railroad tracks, including leid'••5Facks•'• and spurtracks, and operate locomotives and cars thereon. LAND SURVEYOR`•S CERTIFICATE APPROVALS CITY COUNCIL Examined and approved this efai day of ZZ,Mc . )974. pursuant to Title 17, Tukwila Municipal Code a, Chapter 58.17, R:,G.W. "T ayor PLANNING COMMISSION ....Examined and approved this 177 day by the City of Tukwila Planning Commission. '. Lity [O'er , 197 f „t. ,.°-- Ch'airman SLin ecretpry • DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Examined and a N approved this 27'.L day of-. Si7Ne 19147. • Tukwila Director Of Public Wdrks CITY TREASURER 1 hereby cei'tlT,y, that there aro delinquent epecial assessments certified to this office for.'colletion and that al'l•..special assest;ments on any property here in contained'.dedicatea'.ds st/ ets, alleys, or for, otSBr public use are paid in full this __Al s{ day of'•••...,_„,„„e;%...,_„,„„e;%„: , 19..74L. / ea0I cer 0FFIt. OF THE COMPTROLLEIj; • 1 hereby'certify that 'al.l prap>S rxy baxes are paid, there are no delinquent special asseDsments cert'lf.jed ib thi•g office for collection and that all spe- .Lai.a9sessmen'6s certified `tp this p'ffice fypr collection on any of the property •' herein'thmtained•,;.dedicated at stree'61 alleys, or for other public uses, are Dated this p .. day Of:: ...671t••S. ` . 194Y • • :. ..1. V. Irrfr fee). yv fy4 dting Count}r Comptro4ler T•8 puty King County C RECORDING .CERTIFICATE 7406070363 :;, DEPARTMF.NT,OF• IfRCORDS 6 ELECTIONS Fel'ed for record at the request of the City of Tukwila this 7'1' day of AUGUST , 1974 , at 0 minutes past 10 o clock AM and redoreed in Volume 97 o Puts, on Pages 22-25 records of King Countg. Washington. rJ 11r4N;1. JAMES 'MGA. DE4.ARTMENT OF I1SSE9SMENTS r Exaained and approved this !!'7. day yoof )U.-< 197 ”, ;HARF.EY R Hf PPF. A 0-t4•0-, 1 King County Assessor 0e t County Assessor l:'Isereby certify,that I have surveyed this plat of SOUTHCENTER SOUTH LNDUSTBIAL. :•'PARK;•che heretofore described tract of land and that all distances,.courses••and angles ;sham thereon are correct and that all lots shall be staked arid monumenhs. :shall•be set where ..shown on the map. ,'•'HARSTAD MCSSQCIATES,+INC. as r Consulting Pngineers 11 / •P r•f s • al"L3nd:Suurveyor srtificate No..13731 • SHEET 1 OF 4 SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK A PORTION OF HENRY ADAMS LAND CLAIM NO. 43 SECTIONS 35 6 36 ,TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, VV.M. CITY OF TUKWILA, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON • ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF NEW YORK )5s. On the .J'day of /74/ , 197,K, personally appearfd before Hans C. Mautner, as Trustee for self and co -trustees of Corporate.Property In- vestors and not individually, to me known to be the party described in and who . . executed the within and foregoing Dedication and acknowledged ttiet he signed the • . . ' . same as a free and voluntary Act and Deed of Corporate Property. Investors%for '.'.... the uses and purposes therein mentioned. WITNESS my hand and Official Seil'..9he day and year first mentioned above. . . _ . . NO Y PUBLIC in and for the State of New York residing in . . mycommission expires i','Wot:IA% . . . . . , • . . .. . • . . - . Nt .:.--.m•- .. .. ... . . - . . .:,,....m.d n Woo, e.c.or*, ...AN_ . • • . .• Caertrirowe. 31.3.•1•• Meuse 33 II,. • • .. • STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF KING )ss. This is to certify that on this day of before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public, personally appeared Bruce and Shirley R. McCann, his wife, to me known to Ba the indiY1bdals who executed the within and foregoing Dedication and acknowledged theiaid in.rwrnent to",pe the free and voluntary Act and Deed of said inclii,iduals for the usat and purposes therein mentioned. WITNESS my hand and official iSeal the,,day and yip" first mentioned above. NOTARY PUBLIC in 'r and for the State of Washington resding in my commission expires ."' • CSTATE OF WASHINGTON OUNTY OF KING )ss. ) This is to certify that on this 144'. diy, ofs.7c4.6 , , 197'?', before me, the undersigned, a NoTa77-.bliC....personally hppeared1 Harold R. Iverson and Marion E. Iverson, his wife, to me knowii to be the i9dividuals who executed the within and foregoing Dedication aria_acknowledged.the.said iiiitrument to be the free and voluntary Act and Deed of eaitl indivudarc4or the uses and purposes therein mentioned. WITNESS my,hand and official Seel the day and year first 1 one • • .• • NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washi,ogton my commission expiresci64V67 /9214' • • • • • DEDICATION •J KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that the undeYsioned herebY..dgclares 'this plat and -"... dedicate to the use of the public forever the following: . • . . . . ...... . .. .., .. . . . . , A. All streets and avenues shown on the plat, and the use thereor.for ail Ph.b,lic purposes not inconsistent with the use thereof for pubri.c. highway purposes, exCept- ing and reserving unto the undersigned fee;owners, their ilticcessors and assigns, rights and easements to construct, mainiain,'bperate, renew 'and use railroad tracks'.;' and facilities and utilities and facilities in;'.opon and across said staets and avenues, In such manner, however, as pot to permanently damage thr.high*ay facil- ities . located thereon; . . . . . .".13. The right to make all necessary slopes'ffx cuts and fills uponthe lots and 61fcks shown on this plat in the original reasonable grading of the :streets and avinues shown hereon;. .. ,.%;',%;,,,, . . _ . . '- • . . . . .C. Public parking area for ten..1aUtomobiles is...shown hexfon; ..• . . :.'11. An easement for public pedestrian acceis throughout th.6%.1e.ngth of the shore- line for 30 feet inland from the water edge of the to of the dike as shown hereon. :.. IN WITNESS WHEREOF we have hdreunto stOU;'Keirids and seal. . . . . .. . . . .. , .. • .. '...... Bruce E..iMcCann ' ......%.._,.:: - • ... , APPROVED: Shirley R. McCann :01;r2INVESTORS, Harold R, Iverson • • aMas By Marion.. E:.;tverson h etts Business Trust • qins C. Mautner, as Trustee fo,self and other Trustees, rd not personally ,... ., .. . .,..., .„ , .. ... . . . ........... ,',.......... ........... ............. . . . . . . . . . . . .. '''....,. ...... .....'''....... .. . „.... ..,. ,, .... .. :.........%%..... "..: . .. . .......,. .,, .. ..... - • • • • SHEET 2 OF 4 • SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK A PORTION OF HENRY ADAMS LAND CLAIM NO. 43 SECTIONS 35 Ei 36, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M.• CITY OF TUKWILA, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON FLOOD am/T204 WORKs NOs. 522Zd50.1/0 5596536. 0061/C REDESTR/AN ACCESS, Fite CAVE A AHD 5433 ACOTecTionl 0/Z aoo.) cAurgot. -jtp 305.<5 EASEMENT Peg 4555/TOR.5 pece •s 1105. 5e220so 3110 5594292, TOP 0".4:171.15' 31702.510e 8.45/3 Lic BEAR/NES' LAMBERT QR/0- NORTH ROME /VOTE: 325430e0 imt- /5 1517.48'/i /75 4.••w59le..rre PaNnos, mizr: 789 tATewr AOR rme 240/0 528919(0 mevelm 005 ~mew AVM 70/6 0.3 6ME.WAMAT 83/08 70/809. Desores 000v11000017 ALL ariLiTY cAsemears 45 sHoVIM 77/15 AXE 569/2.376.0 To Me' 0/11 Of TIXWI11 P 7/10/3 1155 41/0 AO/Z. TAE (.15.0oP (//74/71E5 55,C0//15 PLATTED LAW. 17130 N47,/2=005 et, SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK A PORTION OF HENRY ADAMS LAND CLAIM NO. 4 4 4 4 --_ SECTIONS 35 &36,TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, VV.K ----_ CITY OF TUKWILA, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON .. „.. ,,. , AWN N. lemr=oo-r. ____erim• Of 0 ----.. ire 98 co' /00.00 O.'S(' ' PMSLIC PEOEST,C/A// ACCeSs 7--- - ---... AND 840,13RROTECPON OR fL00.9 Z .. CONTROL woRRS EASEMENT RCR .. ADOIraeS Aloe Nos SRZESa Alla 55962S4- ---------_-: _ -- -. ----------11---:--- - .... --- - -' - .. 4, • ... Sc; ,, r, /Ob'''.... BASIS OF 8(1R/,s• , L oingoir%frho - n/ZiPx.1/ zo/v4- ., NOTE enczhvora C/( /5 °NANA, INir$,,I.APAox/Aorr Pos/romONCY TN( wra-Nr ro:A%roie- LAA/0 sorn-1-:$40 04,94-10..885 80111/40 FROM ... ...rim- US 6OVERNMEAr..PR/01? TO /889 .... . .. .... 811".84710740 .410N13Alid‘ .. .. . . . . .... . At ethst.7"V EASEMEN* .4.5.81900/N. 05- 7/9/5 PL.87 ARE DEINCAMe.7077/E CD -Y OF T(//<I(/4A ROR 7-1/RAt 5-36 4/10 ...„, ........ . ,A0/447TrNeRve/S44t.A3riste .:17. / fret 5 $66W41/9: 7#6 ---. NAV . e • 13 , vuorr eAsc-NeN1 (---yrrIleA1) je4,0. _ LaLLQ9:. 4 o•-zr,So"F.,. 60'/Ze5.e89e.'57Reir.OM[4 86 DeDRATCO 'DION /97. 5.90/9 ME COY 05 71/86/LA RADKRCO 71/AT THC.40/0/NN/6 fitoler,ert. THE 5001/1.0R.77/4- ne47 /5 • , I/141860 wazeik.s. YEARS DR 7Ne DATE lieg(Oe 13,484/444 MANNER. 4570 Movioe s7ze85o0ti1?oleil79 NNW nye ise•cre .srAlszT/806/1 . • 13 / .0 um frr e455824T • • • • • • • -. • %al • .• WEST /44/905. /1,3:,T'r 072.39' V;4k.4.EY HIGHWAY SR -/8/ IAD .16" ,L?4,1,7';( ripc, 88513,) 5731' /4 130 64/1 O..€0551N6 .4/6/.7 AND eASeMe.NT ,375013750 SHEET 4 OF 4 1 l Carol Lumb From: Carol Lumb Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 4:23 PM To: Anne Watanabe (Anne.Watanabe@Seattle.gov) Cc: Langholz, Ken (KLangholz@kentwa.gov); Tom@ODC2.com; 'DRM@davemoffett.com'; Minnie Dhaliwal Subject: Tukwila Response to Hearing Examiner Questions Attachments: Southcenter South Industrial Park Plat.pdf; CCR's 7704210775.pdf; Southcenter_South_plat_history.pdf; Response to Hearing Examiner Questions.pdf; HE l ette r_2014_07_3 0. pd f Dear Anne, I am attaching the City's response to the questions posed at the end of the public hearing on July 22, 2014 along with the attachments referenced in our document. I am also sending again the response from the City of Kent. Please let me know if you have any questions. Carol Carol Lurnb, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 206-431-3661 Carol.L umb§a. Tukwila Wa.gov Tukwila, the City of opportunity, the community of choice. 1 Carol Lumb From: Carol Lumb Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 11:18 AM To: anne.watanabe@seattle.gov Cc: Langholz, Ken (KLangholz@kentwa.gov); Casteel, Kelly (KCasteel@kentwa.gov) Subject: FW: L14-0031, Shoreline Variance Attachments: HE letter_2014_07_30.pdf Anne, I am forwarding the City of Kent's follow up comments from the hearing on July 22, 2014. I am finalizing our responses to your questions to Tukwila and will have them to you tomorrow, hopefully by early afternoon, if not sooner. I believe you ended up with the sign in sheet for the hearing — could you please send me a copy of the sign -in for my files. I forgot to make a copy before giving it to you. Thanks very much, Carol From: Casteel, KeIIy [mailto:KCasteel@ kentwa.govl Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 7:30 AM To: Carol Lumb Cc: Langholz, Ken; Howlett, Mark; Bieren, Chad; LaPorte, Tim Subject: L14-0031, Shoreline Variance Carol, Please forward this response to Tukwila's hearing examiner, Anne Watanabe, for the shoreline variance L14-0031. Thanks! KeIIy Casteel, P.E., Design Engineering Supervisor Design Engineering 1 Public Works Department 220 Fourth Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032 Phone 253-856-5500 1 Direct 253-856-5561 KCasteel0KentWA.gov CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON KentWA.gov Facebook YouTube PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS E-MAIL 1 KENT WASHINGTON July 30, 2014 Anne Watanabe, Hearing Examiner c/o City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: L14-0031, Shoreline Variance Briscoe-Desimone Levee Repair Dear Ms. Watanabe, PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRAITON Chad Bieren, P.E. City Engineer 400 West Gowe Kent, WA 98032 Fax: 253-856-6500 PHONE: 253-856-5500 -- At the shoreline variance hearing on July 22nd, 2014, you requested the City of Kent submit a response to how we will address the lost parking stalls in Riverpointe Two LLC's parcel. The City of Kent hired an appraiser to determine the market value of the subject property, "before and after" a potential fee acquisition and river protection easement over portions of the property for this levee project. From this report and a subsequent review appraiser's report, the City will prepare an offer to purchase for Riverpointe Two LLC which will include monies for any impacted site improvements. The property owner has reported that the "before condition" parking ratio was 4.0 stalls per 1,000 net square feet of building and, even considering any loss of stalls caused by this project, the parking ratio will still be in excess of the CL1 zoning requirement of 3 stalls per 1,000. Even if, as the property owner has stated, existing leases may afford tenants a ratio of 4 stalls per 1,000 square feet, we are confident that reconfiguration of certain site features (hardscape plaza features and landscaping islands) and/or restriping of standard size stalls to compact stalls in accordance with City of Tukwila standards may make up for stalls that would otherwise be lost due to the levee project. In summary, the offer package the City prepares for Riverpointe Two LLC will include compensation for any damages to either the site or the building, including loss of parking stalls if such losses cannot otherwise be mitigated. The 0 c c a) O MAYOR SUZETTE 000KE E City of Kent Public Works Department Timothy J. LaPorte, P.E. Public Works Director proposed levee profile minimizes property acquisition to the extent possible and completely avoids acquisition of buildings, while also minimizing disruption of business activity during construction. Sincerely, Kelly Casteel Design Engineering Supervisor Carol Lumb From: Carol Lumb Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 5:08 PM To: 'Tom@ODC2.com' Subject: Protective Covenants Dear Mr. O'Keefe, To respond to the Hearing Examiner questions raised at the end of the hearing on July 22, 2014, I have been researching the issue of whether Tukwila adopted the Protective Covenants that apply to the Southcenter South Industrial Park. So far I have not located any documents indicating such adoption. Do you have anything in your files that would show such adoption? Thanks very much, Carol Lumb Carol Lunab, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 206-431-3661 Caral.Lun2b@TukwilaWa.gov Tukwila, the City of opportunity, the community of choice. 1 Carol Lumb From: Carol Lumb Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 8:54 AM To: Langholz, Ken (KLangholz@kentwa.gov); Casteel, Kelly (KCasteel@kentwa.gov) Subject: Documents Attachments: Riverpoint 2 BSIP.pdf; Southcenter South Industrial Park Plat.pdf Ken and Kelly, Attached are the BSIP for Riverpointe 2 and the plat that created Southcenter South Industrial Park for your files. Carol Carol Lurnb, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 206-431-3661 OrolLumb@TukwilaWa.gov Wa.gov Tukwila, the City of opportunity, the community of choice. 1 Carol Lumb From: Carol Lumb Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 8:42 AM To: 'Langholz, Ken' Subject: RE: On Street Parking Thanks Ken, Carol From: Langholz, Ken [mailto:KLangholz@kentwa.govl Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 5:18 PM To: Carol Lumb Cc: Casteel, Kelly Subject: RE: On Street Parking Carol, Here are the email addresses: Tom T. O'Keefe David R. Moffett Ken tom@odc2.com drm@seanet.com From: Carol Lumb[mailto:Carol.Lumb@TukwilaWA.gov] Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 5:05 PM To: Casteel, Kelly Cc: Langholz, Ken Subject: RE: On Street Parking Kelly, I am working on my response currently but in the research I've done I don't find anything on the plat for the oridinal Industrial Park that binds Tukwila to the covenants adopted by the property owners within the Park. There isn't anything on the Binding Site Improvement Plaqn for the Riverpointe 2 development either that indicates the City of Tukwila adopted the covenant restrictions on on -street parking. I am working at home this afternoon, so don't have access to the plat/BSIP documents but will forward them in the morning. On a different note, do either of you have the email addresses for Mr. O'Keefe and Mr. Moffitt? I need to include them in our response to the Hearing Examiner and I have misplaced the business cards they gave me at the hearing. thanks. Carol From: Casteel, Kelly [KCasteel@kentwa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 2:18 PM To: Carol Lumb Cc: Langholz, Ken Subject: RE: On Street Parking 1 Carol, Did you have an opportunity to look into Ken's question about the City recognizing Riverpointe's CCR about no parking on City streets? Thanks! Kelly Casteel, P.E., Design Engineering Supervisor Design Engineering 1 Public Works Department 220 Fourth Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032 Phone 253-856-5500 I Direct 253-856-5561 KCasteel@KentWA.gov CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON KentWA.gov Facebook YouTube From: Carol Lumb[mailto:Carol.Lumb@TukwilaWA.gov] Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 4:07 PM To: Langholz, Ken Cc: Robin Tischmak Subject: On Street Parking Hi Ken, I have talked with the City Engineer, Robin Tischmak about temporary on -street parking during construction of the levee repairs. He said that Tukwila can approve temporary on -street parking. As you talk to the property owners about parking, please make sure they understand that the on -street parking will be temporary, only during the levee repair and that the no on -street parking will be re -instated once the levee repairs are complete. Please make an official request for the on -street parking to Robin at: Robin.Tischmak@TukwilaWa.gov. As part of the request, please identify the streets for which on -street parking is requested and provide the time frame for the parking. Thanks — let me know if you have questions. Carol Carol Lurnb, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, W4 98188 206-431-3661 C arol L, wnb@TiJkWi1a 11'a.bUor Tukwila, the City of opporturriti/, the community of choice. 2 7/22/2014 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Reach 1 `- KENT low Rt rn t "r " 47%s City of Tukwila Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Variance Hearing July 22, 2014 Green River Levees S. 180th St. to S. 277th St. itolervi4fect IC t r- e(A 1 Briscoe/Desimone Levee City of Kent, Washington Briscoe-Desimone Levee System Repair Reach 1: (1140 f eet) Repair Reach 2: (600 feet) Repair Reach 3: (2120 feet) Repair Reach 4: (200 feet) Potential inundation Area 7/22/2014 2 • 7/22/2014 3 7/22/2014 4 0 0 7/22/2014 5 7/22/2014 1 0 7/22/2014 2 Benefits of Reach 1 Improvements • Protects the public & businesses from Green River flooding. • Maintains public access at W. Valley Hwy. • Green River trail will remain. • Paved trail width will be increased from 10' to 14'. • Improves safety by flattening overall riverward slope. • Project will not interfere with normal public use of shorelines. • Sheet pile walls have the least impact on adjacent properties. Ecological Benefits • Enhances the shoreline by planting native vegetation and. increase shading and reduce temperature loading. • Lower bench provides 39 days (average) inundation. • Trait will be 10' to 20' farther from the river. 7/22/2014 3 0 0 Reach 2 Under Construction Artist's rendering of Reach 1 7/22/2014 4 PUBLIC HEARING: L14-0031 SHORELINE VARIANCE FOR BRISCOE/DESIMONE LEVEE REPAIR July 22, 2014 Please sign in below NAME ADDRESS CITY, STATE, ZIP E-MAIL Ke,„,LA,,k.t.z_ .moo w . C/o vie- 54 ,L S'u t Z6v 1 c _j1. ` t^ 2. /j%/477 ,i✓0,)( 2204/0- ,ft E. 5 • , 7 i'vA % $D3 Z . .->^ ke, .,}c@ f + r,I rt,J„ 3. 7D4 Q 74_e 441e S .rF z 9 t tea , tom, /4- /44 ? i 8c j1 Cv( r u/' er e (g t @ 'PC 2 , C ti 4. PAVE 9 g , a 4 eel na, (b.2-15(( Q dive 5. /o ` 1—U vl,f Sr. ? IC v‘vkt-✓ ; .x 6. 7. 8. CL Page 1 of 2 H:\\L14-0030-L14-0031\L14-0031 Shoreline Variance\Sign-in Sheet 07/21/2014 11:29 AM DATE: City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER ADDENDUM July 15, 2014 NOTIFICATION: Notice of Application and Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to the applicant; surrounding property owners and tenants; and agencies with jurisdiction on May 22, 2014. Public Hearing Notice posted on the site on 7-8-14 FILE NUMBER: L14-0031 ASSOCIATED FILES: L14-0030, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit APPLICANT: Ken Langholz, for City of Kent Public Works Department REQUEST: Vary the design of the levee profile from that adopted in Tukwila's Shoreline Master Program and reduce the required width of the Green River Trail from 18 feet to 16 feet. Applicant has requested a shoreline variance from the above mentioned standards. The City of Tukwila staff makes a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner, who after holding a public hearing makes a recommendation to the Department of Ecology. The Department of Ecology issues a final decision on the shoreline variance request. LOCATION: Green River, behind 18200 Cascade Avenue South (Reach 1) Green River behind 6545 South Glacier Street (Reach 2) SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATION: Urban Conservancy COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/ ZONING DISTRICT: Commercial/Light Industrial SEPA The City of Kent acted as SEPA lead agency and issued a Mitigated DETERMINATION: Determination of Nonsignificance on April 9, 2013. STAFF CONTACT: Carol Lumb, Senior Planner CL: Page 1 of 2 H:\\ L14-0031-114-0030 Briscoe/Deesimone Levee Repair\Shoreline Variance\Staff Rpt. Addendum 07/21/2014 9:47 AM 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax 206-431-3665 L14-0031 Briscoe/Desimone Lev .epair Shoreline Variance Staff Report — Addendum July 15, 2014 ADDENDUM TO: III SHORELINE REGULATIONS After the issuance of the staff report for the shoreline variance, staff noticed in reviewing the criteria in WAC 173-27-170 two additional criteria that should have been included in the review of the shoreline variance request. They are as follows: 1. In the granting of all variance permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example if variances were granted to other developments and/or uses in the area where similar circumstances exist the total of the variances shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 9058.020 and shall not cause substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. Staff Response: The Tukwila SMP anticipated that it might be necessary to vary the adopted levee profile given the developed nature of the shoreline in the City and the number of structures that fall within the shoreline jurisdiction that lie behind established levees in need of repair. Any future request to vary the adopted levee profile would be reviewed to determine whether the proposed levee profile achieves the two goals of the City's levee profile: improve levee safety be reducing the overall slope to 2.5:1, or as close to that as possible; and improving habitat. Future requests to vary the levee profile would be required to address the question of cumulative impacts of similar requests. 2. Variances from the use regulations of the master program are prohibited. Staff Response: The City of Kent is not requesting a variance from the use regulations of Tukwila's Shoreline Master Program. ADDENDUM TO: VI. CONCLUSIONS Add to #14 the following: g. The cumulative impacts will be considered if any future requests for levee profile variances are received. Future applicants would be required to address this issue as part of the permit process. e. The City of Kent is not requesting a variance from the use regulations of the SMP. CL: Page 2 of 2 H:\\1.14-0031-114-0030 Briscoe/Deesimone Levee Repair\Shoreline Variance\Staff Rpt. Addendum 07/21/2014 9:47 AM 7 AGENCY LABELS ( ) US Corps of Engineers ( ) Federal HWY Admin ( ) Federal Transit Admin, Region 10 ( ) Dept of Fish & Wildlife Section 1 FEDERAL AGENCIES ( ) US Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) ( ) US Dept of HUD ( ) National Marine Fisheries Service Section 2 ( ) Office of Archaeology ( ) Transportation Department (WSDOT NW) ( ) Dept of Natural Resources ( ) Office of the Governor ( ) WA State Community Development ( ) WA Fisheries & Wildlife, MillCreek Office ( ) WA Fisheries & Wildlife, Larry Fisher, 1775 12th Ave NW Ste 201, Issaquah WA 98027 WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES ( ) Dept of Social & Health Services ( ) Dept of Ecology NW Regional Office, Shoreland Div. ******* NOD REQUIRES RETURN RECEIPT ( ) Dept of Ecology, SEPA **Send Electronically ( ) Office of Attorney General ( ) Office of Hearing Examiner lov\ COuV i•ev - ptuf✓& rtI s - dek ''16`l °I ` 33 eg ( ) KC Boundary Review Board ( ) Fire District # 11 ( ) Fire District # 2 ( ) KC Wastewater Treatment Div ( ) KC Dept of Parks & Recreation ( ) KC Assessor's Office Section 3 KING COUNTY AGENCIES ( ) Health Department ( ) Port of Seattle ( ) KC Dev & Enviro Services-SEPA Info Center ( ) KC Metro Transit Div-SEPA Official, Environmental Planning ( ) KC Dept of Natural Resources ( ) KC Dept of Natural Resources, Andy Levesque ( ) KC Public Library System ( ) Foster Library ( ) Renton Library ( ) Kent Library ( ) Seattle Library Section 4 SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES ( ) Westfield Mall Library ( ) Tukwila School District ( ) Highline School District ( ) Seattle School District ( ) Renton School District ( ) QWEST Communications ( ) Seattle City Light ( ) Puget Sound Energy ( ) Highline Water District ( ) Seattle Planning &Dev/Water Dept ( ) Comcast Section 5 UTILITIES ( ) BP Olympic Pipeline ( ) VaI-Vue Sewer District ( ) Water District # 20 ( ) Water District # 125 ( ) City of Renton Public Works ( ) Bryn Mawr-Lakeridge Sewer/Water Dist ( ) Seattle Public Utilities ( ) Allied Waste Services ( ) Tukwila City Departments ( ) Public Works ( ) Fire ( ) Police ( ) Finance ( ) Planning ( ) Building ( ) Parks & Rec ( ) Mayor ( ) City Clerk Section 6 CITY AGENCIES I?ubl,c t Jo it, - LniiA0 ( ( ) Kent Planning Dept ( ) Renton Planning Dept ( ) City of SeaTac ( ) City of Burien ( ) City of Seattle ( ) Strategic Planning *Notice of all Seattle Related Projects ( ) Puget Sound Regional Council ( ) SW KC Chamber of Commerce ( ) Muckleshoot Indian Tribe * ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Fisheries Program ( ) Wildlife Program ( ) Duwamish Indian Tribe * K/eu\ wait 1v/ Section 7 OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES ( ) Puget Sound Clean Air Agency ( ) Sound Transit/SEPA ( ) Duwamish River Clean Up Coalition * ( ) Washington Environmental Council ( ) People for Puget Sound * ( ) Futurewise * send notice of all applications on Green/Duwamish River ( ) Seattle Times ( ) South County Journal Section 8 MEDIA ( ) Highline Times ( ) City of Tukwila Website P:Admin\Admin Forms\Agency Checklist f( a tl7.e.CLim n,3+4LL Q-- M 1 t-\ 5rildhfir. SEPA MAILINGS Public Notice Mailings For Permits Mail to: (comment period starts on date of mailing) Dept. of Ecology Environmental Review Section *Applicant *Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list) *Any parties of record * send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination KC Transit Division — SEPA Official would like to receive information about all projects that might affect transit demand Tribes — For any application on the Green/Duwamish River, send the checklist and a full set of plans with the Notice Of Application Send These Documents to DOE: SEPA Determination (from PermitsPlus) Findings (staff report, usu. with MDNS) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed or sent to newspaper) SHORELINE MAILINGS: Notice of Application for a Substantial Development Permit must be mailed to owners and to property owners within 500 feet of subject property, comments are due 30 days after the notice of application is mailed/posted. The Notice of Application for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit must include a statement that any person desiring to submit written comments on the application or desiring to receive notification of the final decision on the application may do so within 30 days of the Notice of Application. If a hearing will be held on the application, the hearing notice must include the information that written comments may be submitted, or oral presentation made at the hearing. Notice is sent to Ecology's NW Regional Office Shorelands & Environmental Assistance Program. Shoreline Permit Notice of Decision: Mail to: (within 8 days of decision; 21 -day appeal period begins date of filing with DOE) — Notice to DOE must be by return receipt requested mail (this requirement included in SSB 5192, effective 7-22-11). Department of Ecology Shorelands Section, NW Regional Office State Attorney General *Applicant *Indian Tribes *Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list). *Any parties of record * send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination Send These Documents to DOE and Attorney General: Permit Data Sheet Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (printed out from PermitsPlus) Findings (staff report or memo) Shoreline Permit Application Form (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) - Site plan, with mean high water mark & improvements - Cross-sections of site with structures & shoreline - Grading Plan — Vicinity map SEPA determination (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report or memo) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Any background studies related to impacts on shoreline Notice of Application Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed) P:Admin\Admin Forms\Agency Checklist COURIER RESPONSIBILITY LOG SHEET Phone Number: 206 624-3200 Account Number: 13600 Control # Courier Signature W:\Permit Center\Templates\Forms\ENA Courier Sheet l 1 / 1 City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER DATE: July 14, 2014 NOTIFICATION: Notice of Application and Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to the applicant; surrounding property owners and tenants; and agencies with jurisdiction on May 22, 2014. Public Hearing Notice posted on the site on 7-8-14 FILE NUMBER: L14-0031 ASSOCIATED FILES: L14-0030, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit APPLICANT: Ken Langholz, for City of Kent Public Works Department REQUEST: Vary the design of the levee profile from that adopted in Tukwila's Shoreline Master Program and reduce the required width of the Green River Trail from 18 feet to 16 feet. Applicant has requested a shoreline variance from the above mentioned standards. The City of Tukwila staff makes a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner, who after holding a public hearing makes a recommendation to the Department of Ecology. The Department of Ecology issues a final decision on the shoreline variance request. LOCATION: Green River, behind 18200 Cascade Avenue South (Reach 1) Green River behind 6545 South Glacier Street (Reach 2) SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATION: Urban Conservancy COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/ ZONING DISTRICT: Commercial/Light Industrial SEPA The City of Kent acted as SEPA lead agency and issued a Mitigated DETERMINATION: Determination of Nonsignificance on April 9, 2013. STAFF CONTACT: Carol Lumb, Senior Planner CPL Page 1 of 15 H:\\L14-0031 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0031 Shoreline Variance Staff Rpt. 07/14/2014 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206- 431-3665 L14-0031Briscoe/Desimone Leve-.epair Shoreline Variance July 11, 2014 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Project Plan Sheets 2. Inundation Map 3. TMC 18.06.494 and TMC 18.44 4. City of Kent Shoreline Variance Narrative; Response to Variance Criteria; E-mail dated 7-10- 14 regarding loss of parking with accompanying two maps; 7-11-14 e-mail regarding average slopes 5. Sheets 1-3 (81/ x 11) Desimone Levee Cross Sections 6. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe E-mail dated July 3, 2014 and Attachment dated April 1, 2013 7. City of Kent Response to Muckleshoot Indian Tribe e-mail dated 7-11-14 and letter dated April 5, 2013 8. City of Kent SEPA Documents — SEPA Checklist, SEPA Staff Report and SEPA Determination I.. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project is to install a structural steel sheet pile wall at the back of existing levee on the Green River to reduce flood risk to the cities of Renton, Kent and Tukwila using a different levee profile from that required by the City of Tukwila's Shoreline Master Program (See Attachment 1). This project is one of four levee repairs the City of Kent is undertaking, with the others falling primarily in the City of Kent. The waterward side of the levee will be reconfigured and planted with native plants. The shoreline variance is needed for Reach 1 of the project, where the slope of the river bank will be 6:1 at the river's edge and 2:1 in front of the sheet pile wall rather than Tukwila's adopted levee profile. Approximately two hundred feet of Reach 2 falls within the City of Tukwila — the major portion of the levee repair in this area is within the City of Kent. The portion of Reach 2 that falls within Tukwila is where the reconfigured levee is re -joined to the existing levee system and therefore does not require a variance from the City's levee profile. CPL Page 2 of 15 07/14/2014 H:\\L14-0031 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0031 Shoreline Variance Staff Rpt. f � L14-0031 Briscoe/Desimone Levees -,pair Shoreline Variance July 11, 2014 The riverbank along Reach 1 currently is over -steepened. The top of the levee is narrow and is showing signs of failure. Flows of just over 9,000 cubic feet per second (CFS) in March of 2014 caused bank sloughing and erosion. This flow is far below the 12,000 CFS 100 -year flood event storms that have occurred in the past and can be expected in this reach in the future. This sloughing is in addition to erosion that has been noted in the past — see photo below taken in 2009. Detailed analysis of the levees completed by consultants hired by the City of Kent as part of a request to FEMA for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) indicated that this area does not meet federal standards for slope stability. Hydraulic models show that a failure of Reach 1 could potentially inundate the Kent valley from approximately S. 228th St. to I-405. See Attachment 2, Inundation Map. The movement of the bank and other factors noted indicates that repair of the levee is needed. The proposed project will construct a secondary levee on Reach 1 of the Green River to address the conditions of overly steep slopes and limited freeboard on the existing levee. Freeboard is the distance above the 100 year flood elevation used as a factor of safety. The secondary levee will serve to protect nearby properties and is being developed to facilitate FEMA accreditation for 100 -year flood protection in this location. Reach 1: 2009 Sloughing CPL Page 3 of 15 07/14/2014 H:\\L14-0031 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0031Shoreline Variance Staff Rpt. L14-0031 Briscoe/Desimone Leve -pair Shoreline Variance July 11, 2014 Reach 1: 2014 Scouring At Curve of River Moving the levee back from its current location will eliminate 42 parking stalls from the office building located at 18200 Cascade Avenue South. After the levee is reconstructed, 17 parallel parking stalls will be located along the back wall of the levee, with an overall loss of 25 parking stalls on the site. The property owner has stated to the City of Kent that a parking ratio of 4 parking stalls per 1000 square feet of usable area in the building must be maintained — going below this ratio is not acceptable to the property owner. During the environmental review (SEPA) conducted by the City of Kent in 2013 of the four levee repair projects including Reach 1, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe submitted comments regarding temperature conditions in the Green River and the related shading benefits provided by mature riparian vegetation on the riverbank. The Tribe commented that the vegetated area along the river proposed by Kent is not wide enough to adequately address temperature impairment. The SEPA staff report prepared by Kent staff stated that construction of the proposed floodwall would provide the city with the opportunity to plant large overstory trees that are not subject to diameter or height restrictions along the banks of the river because the floodwall serves as the levee, and therefore the Corps vegetation policy waterward of the "levee" does not apply. These large trees will, in time, provide significant shade to this reach of the river where very little currently exists. (Source: City of Kent SEPA Staff Report, page 6 — See Attachment 8 for SEPA related materials.) CPL Page 4 of 15 07/14/2014 H:\\L14-0031 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0031 Shoreline Variance Staff Rpt. f\ L14-0031 Briscoe/Desimone Levee--epair Shoreline Variance July 11, 2014 Typical Cross Section of Sheet Pile Wall Levee With Plantings, Trail The City of Kent is also requesting a variance from the adopted standard for trails in the SMP. The City of Kent is proposing twelve (12) feet of paved trail with a two foot wide gravel shoulder on the river side of the trial and a concrete barrier/wall on the landward side of the trail. II. TUKWILA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM - BACKGROUND The City of Tukwila adopted a new Shoreline Master Program (SMP) on August 15, 2011 which was approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology on October 14, 2011 and became effective October 28, 2011. The levee reconfiguration project is subject to the 2011 Shoreline Master Program. A. Shoreline Environment Designation The shoreline environment designation for Reaches 1 and 2 is Urban Conservancy; the purpose of the Urban Conservancy Environment is to protect ecological functions where they exist in urban and developed settings, and restore ecological functions where they have been previously degraded, while allowing a variety of compatible uses. The two hundred foot shoreline jurisdiction is divided into a buffer area and non -buffer area. The shoreline buffer in the Urban Conservancy environment where levees are present is 125 feet. Construction, maintenance or re -development of levees for flood control purposes is a permitted use in the Urban Conservancy environment buffer, provided that the new or re -developed levee meets the applicable levee requirements of Tukwila's Shoreline Master Program and Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC 18.44.050 B. h.). The Tukwila SMP levee profile requirements are discussed below. B. How Shoreline Buffer Widths Were Determined The determination of the buffer distances for each shoreline environment in Tukwila was based on several factors including the analysis of buffer functions needed for protecting and restoring shoreline ecological function and the need to allow space for bank stability and for protecting human life and CPL Page 5 of 15 07/14/2014 H:\\L14-0031 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0031Shoreline Variance Staff Rpt. L14-0031Briscoe/Desimone Levecpair Shoreline Variance July 11, 2014 structures from damage from high flows, erosion and bank failures. Ensuring that new structures are not built too close to the river's edge is crucial to avoid loss of human life and property. The 125 foot buffer width is the maximum needed to reconfigure the river bank to the minimum levee profile illustrated below and to achieve an overall slope of 2.5:1, the "angle of repose" or the maximum angle of a stable slope. The City's adopted levee profile allows sufficient room to incorporate a mid -slope bench that can be planted with vegetation to improve river habitat. The mid - slope bench also allows access for maintenance equipment, when needed. As the Corps of Engineers does not permit planting on the levee prism, the only way to improve habitat along leveed portions of the river is to create a bench that can be vegetated that will not create a hazard for the stability of the levee. A ten foot easement is required on the landward side of the levee at the toe to allow access for levee inspection. The adopted levee profile is illustrated below: Typical Shoreline Buffer in Leveed Areas -Width Will Vary Reconfigured Levee Vegetated Bench Willows Existing Levee 1 15' • Reconfigured Slope averages 2.5:1 with bench Ordinary High Water Mark OHWM Minimum Levee Profile Not To Scale In instances where an existing building that has not lost its nonconforming status prevents the complete construction of the minimum levee profile, achieving an overall slope of 2.5:1 may be difficult — however, the SMP states the slope should be as close to 2.5:1 as possible. The SMP also states that a floodwall is not the preferred back slope profile for a levee and may be substituted for all or a portion of the back slope only where necessary to avoid encroachment or damage to a structure legally constructed prior to the date of adoption of this Master Program and which has not lost its nonconforming status and to preserve access needed for building functionality. The floodwall shall be designed to be the minimum necessary to provide 10' (ten feet) clearance between the levee and the building or the minimum necessary to preserve access needed for building functionality while meeting all engineering safety standards. The final buffer widths adopted by the City and approved by Ecology for each shoreline environment attempted to balance shoreline ecological function needs, human life and property protection needs (including future levee repair/reconstruction), existing land use patterns, and state and federal agency policies. CPL Page 6 of 15 07/14/2014 H:\\L14-0031 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs \L14-0031 Shoreline Variance Staff Rpt. l \ L14-0031 Briscoe/Desimone Levees-epair Shoreline Variance July 11, 2014 C. Vegetation on Levees During the final stages of the City's adoption of its SMP in 2010 and its approval by Ecology in 2011, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) began to revise its regulations related to vegetation on levees. For many years, the Pacific Northwest operated under a regional variance from the national maintenance requirement to keep levees clear of all vegetation. The regional variance allowed vegetation, particularly trees, up to a certain size to remain on levees as long as they did not pose a hazard to the levee's stability. In 2011, the COE proposed new national regulations on levee vegetation that would have banned vegetation on levees and would have required local jurisdiction to apply for a vegetation variance on a case-by-case basis each time planting of vegetation, including trees was desired. This proposed revision was due to concerns about the effect of vegetation on levee stability, particularly tree root systems. The issue of vegetation on local levees is particularly important in the Pacific Northwest given the requirement of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to protect habitat of threatened and endangered species. Vegetation along rivers provides important habitat benefits to listed species and the requirement to remove it under the COE proposed rule placed local jurisdictions in jeopardy of violating the ESA. Many jurisdictions opposed the 2011 draft rule, and over the past three years, the COE has been reviewing the comments and considering revisions to the proposed rule. Recently, the COE has released a new interim policy that would allow local jurisdictions to decide whether to grow trees on levees. However, the rule is not permanent and it is not clear what the final outcome will be on the issue of allowing vegetation on levees. D. Trail Standards The Tukwila adopted trail standard is a fourteen (14) foot wide paved trail with two feet of shoulder on either side. III. SHORELINE REGULATIONS: The Shoreline Administration section of the City's Zoning Code provides criteria for approval of a shoreline variance request (TMC 18.44.130 D). The purpose of a shoreline variance permit is strictly limited to granting relief from specific bulk, dimensional or performance standards of the shoreline master program where there are extraordinary or unique circumstances relating to the physical character or configuration of property such that the strict implementation of the SMP regulations will impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant. The SMP levee profile standards are codified in TMC 18.06.494 (the definition of the minimum levee profile) and TMC 18.44.070 E. 3. and 10. Trail standards are codified in TMC 18.44.100 C.1. The regulations are found in Attachment 3. Under the Washington State Shoreline Management Act, the City makes a recommendation to Ecology however, the Department of Ecology makes the final decision on a shoreline variance. CPL Page 7 of 15 07/14/2014 H:\\L14-0031 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0031 Shoreline Variance Staff Rpt. l 1 L14-0031Briscoe/Desimone Levee- pair Shoreline Variance July 11, 2014 Approval Criteria: A Shoreline Variance Permit for a use, activity or development that will be located landward of the ordinary high water mark and/or landward of any wetland may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following listed below. The Applicant's narrative response and response to the variance criteria are found in Attachment 4, along with two e-mails providing clarifying information. 1. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional, or performance standards set forth in the Master Program preclude or significantly interfere with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by the Master Program; Applicant Response (drawn from both the response to the variance criteria and the variance narrative): The SMP requires a 2.5:1 overall slope on the riverward side of the levee. Along Reach 1, this is not possible due to the location of existing buildings and parking. Setting the levee back to the location required by the SMP would require purchasing additional parking and drive aisles which would diminish property values. This configuration diminishes the loss of parking, maintains the drive aisles and allows the businesses to stay. As shown on the attached levee cross section comparisons, (See Attachment 5) the minimum levee profile would extend into West Valley Highway and the driveways and fire lanes of the adjacent businesses. Strict compliance with the code would then require relocating West Valley Highway which would require purchasing and demolishing buildings and relocating businesses located along the easterly side of the road. Also, the minimum levee profile would impact the driveway and fire lane of the businesses to the south of the levee. This would require disruption and relocation of business parking and property landward of the levee. The added time and expense of acquiring these properties would delay completion of this project. The proposed levee profile minimizes property acquisition to the extent possible and avoids acquisition of buildings and disruption of business activity. The proposed design includes a 6:1 bench on the lower portion of the bank adjacent to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), a 2:1 upper slope topped by a 16' wide trail adjacent to a sheet -pile flood - wall (See Plans, sheets 6-7). This proposed new levee system will provide 3 feet of additional flood protection above the 500 -year flood event. This levee proposal has been thoroughly reviewed and accepted by knowledgeable structural engineers. According to the approved Tukwila SMP, "Where there is insufficient room for a levee backslope due to the presence of legal nonconforming structures existing at the time of the adoption of this SMP, a floodwall may be substituted" (pg. 13). The sloping bench will be engaged whenever the river reaches approximately 2,500 CFS. This occurs on average 39 days each year between January and June, the period when threatened Chinook salmon are typically out -migrating from the Green River. The 15' wide bench shown on the SMP minimum levee profile only engages when the river is at approximately 5,500 CFS. This flood level occurs on average only once or twice each year. Flood refuge habitat is recognized as one of the limiting factors for salmon recovery in the Green River. The proposed levee profile will increase this flood refuge habitat substantially over the profile prescribed in the Tukwila SMP. CPL Page 8 of 15 07/14/2014 H:\\L14-0031 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0031 Shoreline Variance Staff Rpt. 11 L14-0031Briscoe/Desimone Levee epair Shoreline Variance July 11, 2014 After recontouring, this proposed lower bench as well as the adjacent slopes will be replanted with hundreds of native shrubs and trees. This planting will markedly increase available shoreline habitat for fish and wildlife and improve natural shoreline functions. Shading will also increase on a waterway that experiences frequent exceedances of State temperature standards. The proposed trail width is 12' wide with a 2' wide paved shoulder along the floodwall and a 2' wide gravel shoulder along the riverward side of the trail, for a total width of 16'. The Tukwila SMP shows an 18' minimum width. This section of trail dead -ends at the parking lot next to West Valley Highway. The proposed trail width meets King County trail standards and is 2' wider than the trail it is connecting to. In addition, this width allows the lower bench to be 2' wider which increases the riparian zone and the flood refuge habitat that it provides. Staff Analysis: The section of the levee to be repaired is adjacent to a developed business park and a major north/south route through the Kent Valley — West Valley Highway. Staff concurs that to use the City's adopted levee profile would necessitate moving a portion of West Valley Highway and would impact adjacent businesses in the City of Renton and parking and emergency access that serves the building located at 18200 Cascade Avenue South. See Attachment 5 for levee cross sections. The City's adopted levee profile has two main goals — provide a less steep, more stable levee profile that will add river channel capacity to accommodate high flows and to provide habitat benefits that are lacking with the existing over -steepened levees with vegetation limited by the Corps of Engineers. The levee profile proposed by the City of Kent accomplishes these two goals in a different configuration from Tukwila's adopted profile. The use of a steel pile wall is not the preferred configuration for the backside of the levee, however, to construct Tukwila's preferred backslope would reduce the number of parking stalls further on the Riverpoint property and affect the usability of the building closest to the levee (18200 Cascade Ave. South) due to reduction in the drive aisle width and reduction in parking available to building tenants. To construct the sheet pile wall, thirty-six (36) trees will be removed, ranging in size from a four -inch Hawthorn to 24 -inch London Planes. The large, mature London Planes provide some shade to the river even though they are 50-90 feet from the river's edge. To replace the trees that are being removed, the City of Kent is proposing to plant 137 native trees in the 6:1 and 2:1 areas on the riverside of the levee. There will also be shrubs and groundcovers planted on the riverside of the levee: approximately 1205 on the lower slope; 360 on the middle slope and 705 on the upper slope. These plantings would be in lieu of the 15 foot mid -slope planted bench with native plants required by Tukwila's adopted levee profile. Since the sheet pile wall will serve as the levee, the plantings on the riverside of the levee will not be affected by the current or any future COE levee vegetation limitations. (See Landscaping Sheets 19-24 of Kent Plans, Attachment 1) The reduction of the trail width from the City's adopted standard of 18 feet to 16 feet allows additional area to be planted in the river's riparian zone. The trail will be widened from its current width of 10 feet, with two foot shoulders on each side, to 12 paved feet, with a two foot shoulder on the river side, a slight improvement over the existing conditions. CPL Page 9 of 15 07/14/2014 H:\\L14-0031 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0031Shoreline Variance Staff Rpt. r \ L14-0031 Briscoe/Desimone Levee, ,pair Shoreline Variance July 11, 2014 2. That the hardship described above is specifically related to the property and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the Master Program, and not from the owner's own actions or deed restrictions; and that the variance is necessary because of these conditions in order to provide the owner with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated; Applicant Response: The City of Kent is currently working in conjunction with The City of Tukwila and the King County Flood Control District under Interlocal Agreements (ILA) to protect citizens and businesses by reinforcing the levee system to meet federal levee safety standards and provide flood protection to Tukwila, Renton, and Kent. The Desimone Levee is located in Tukwila but is designed by and will be built by Kent under the 1LAs. Tukwila Municipal Code requires a 2.5:1 overall slope to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). This is not possible with the size and shape of the property and compliance would require purchasing additional parking and drive aisles which would diminish the values (sic) neighboring warehouses. In addition, strict compliance with the SMP would require that West Valley Highway be relocated, which is not technically or financially feasible. The added time and expense of acquiring properties and relocating WVH would endanger the potential of completing this project. Staff Analysis: Reach 1, on the eastern side, abuts West Valley Highway and two developed parcels with associated parking. The City of Kent had no approval authority over the location of West Valley Highway, or the development on the site adjacent to the levee in need of repair. The variance for the installation of the proposed levee profile, including the sheet pile wall, allows the continued use of the building located at 18200 Cascade Avenue South. Incorporating the Tukwila levee profile with the required backslope would require the removal of additional parking and possibly eliminate the drive aisle that provides access for vehicles and emergency services. 3. That the design of the project will be compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and SMP and will not cause adverse impacts to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment; Applicant Response: The augmentation of the desired design to the proposed design provides an excellent solution. It will allow the warehouses to continue operation as well as improve their circumstances in cases of high water. Users of the Green River Trail will continue to be able to enjoy the river views. The proposed design will improve the shoreline environment over current conditions with more connectivity between the river and the shoreline and greatly improve the life of salmonids reliant upon the river. The proposed project will create a different levee profile than the SMP requirements with CPL Page 10 of 15 07/14/2014 H:\\L14-0031 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0031 Shoreline Variance Staff Rpt. 11 L 14-0031 Briscoe/Desimone Levee -,pair Shoreline Variance July 11, 2014 improvements over current conditions. These current conditions do include a fifteen foot (15') bench, but this bench only engages with the river at approximately 5,500 cubic feet per second (CFS) of river flow. This design will engage the river at approximately 2,500 CFS. This occurs on average 39 times between January and June, an extremely important time in the life cycle of out migrating salmonids. The new slope will be replanted with hundreds of native shrubs and trees. This planting will increase available shoreline habitat for fish and wildlife and improve natural shoreline functions. The shading afforded by the trees will help lower water temperatures in the river. The proposed overall trail width is 16' which includes a 12' wide asphalt trail, a 2' wide concrete shoulder on the landward side and a 2' wide gravel shoulder on the riverward side. The SMP requires an overall trail width of 18'. The main trail bridge crosses the Green River 500' west of this project and the trail continues north and south along the river. This section of the trail connects the main trail to the parking lot next to West Valley Highway and receives very little use. The proposed 2' narrower trail section allows the lower bench to be 2' wider and flattens the overall slope. Therefore, a variance is being requested for the narrower trail width. Staff Analysis: The repair of the levee will be compatible with, and adds protection to, the current uses in the area as well as future uses permitted under the Shoreline Master Program and the underlying zoning. As noted in the 7-11-14 email from Ken Langholz, City of Kent Public Works Department, the overall slope of the levee is 2.56:1, which is the desired slope of the City's levee profile. The trail width, while less than the City's adopted standard, provides some additional width for trail users. 4. That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other properties in the area; Applicant Response: This project is for the common good of both Tukwila and Kent. No other people or businesses in the area will be displaced with the proposed design. This would not constitute special privilege. Rather, it is an opportunity to complete this project satisfactorily within a reasonable time. By granting the variance for the design change there will be a small portion of the riverbank in Tukwila that does not have the desired slope and trail width, but it will provide overall improvement with the least negative issues for all involved. Staff Analysis: The shoreline variance process is available to any applicant who believes the criteria apply to their project. Any variance request would be analyzed against the City's adopted Shoreline Master Program standards. CPL Page 11 of 15 07/14/2014 H:\\L14-0031 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0031 Shoreline Variance Staff Rpt. r \ L14-0031 Briscoe/Desimone Levees-ipair Shoreline Variance July 11, 2014 5. That the variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief; and Applicant Response: The riverbank along Reach 1 is currently over -steepened and is showing signs of failure. Without the variance, the project will not be able to proceed and the necessary work to protect the public will not be done. Staff Analysis: The relief from the Tukwila SMP levee profile and the adopted trail standard width is the minimum necessary to afford relief. The use of the sheet pile wall as the levee minimizes the impact on the adjacent property owner's parking and drive aisle serving the northern portion of the site. 6. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. Applicant Response: The public interest will be served with the completion of this project. The proposed levee section is an improvement of the SMP requirements because of the lower bench. The overall levee slope is slightly steeper, but allows the project to be completed. Without the variance, public interest could be detrimentally affected if the levee were to fail. Implementation of the proposed design will allow the businesses to continue operation as well as improve their flood protection. Users of the Green River Trail will continue to be able to enjoy the river views. The proposed design will improve the shoreline environment over current conditions with more connectivity between the river and the shoreline and greatly improve the life of salmonids reliant upon the river. Staff Analysis: In this instance, the public interest will not suffer a substantial detrimental effect by using a different levee profile from that adopted by the City of Tukwila. The levee profile proposed by the City of Kent provides habitat benefits beyond what the City of Tukwila's levee profile would provide as it brings the native plantings closer to the river where more shade will be provided once the trees mature and it provides more days of flood refuge for out -migrating salmon during high flow times. The repaired levee provides more certain flood protection for properties behind the levee. The trail width, while two feet less than the City's adopted standard, is still wider than current conditions. IV. COMMENTS: The public comment period closed on June 30, 2014. E-mail comments were received July 3, 2014 from Karen Walter, Watershed and Land Use Team Leader for the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. The e- mail from the Tribe raised concerns about Tribal fishing access to the river from the project site and CPL Page 12 of 15 07/14/2014 H:\\L14-0031 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0031 Shoreline Variance Staff Rpt. L14-0031 Briscoe/Desimone Leveed pair Shoreline Variance July 11, 2014 impacts to fish habitat and attached a letter dated April 1, 2013 sent to the City of Kent during their environmental review process raising the same concerns. The issues raised in the Tribe's comments are below, followed by a response from the applicant. A copy of the e-mail and comment letter is found in Attachment 6. The City of Kent's response is found in Attachment 7, comprised of an email dated July 11, 2014 and Kent's response to the Tribe on April 5, 2013 during the SEPA review process. 1. Continuing to provide access for Tribal fishing at the site: Applicant Response: "...on July 1, 2014 we met with Karen Walter and Leo LaClair, MITFC Commissioner, on site to discuss fishing access along the river. And on Wed. this week Mr. LaClair met with Jason Bryant, our project inspector to flag the fishing site locations along the Briscoe- Desimone Levee. One site is located on Reach 1 next to West Valley Highway and the other is on Reach 3. We have assured Mr. LaClair that we will maintain access to both of these sites during construction and after project completion." 2. Fish habitat concerns Applicant Response: "As you noted, Karen Walter from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division recently submitted her April 1, 2013 comment letter to you regarding the Briscoe-Desimone Levee project. We provide (sic) a response to her letter on April 5, 2013. I provided the response letter to you previously. Please consider this to be our official response." Staff Response: Tukwila recognizes the concern about fish habitat and the loss of shading from the removal of the trees along the backslope of the levee. Any repair of the levee system that lays back the levee would require the removal of these trees. Repair of the levee is needed to correct serious structural deficiencies. The proposed plantings along the 6:1 and 2:1 slope in front of the levee wall will provide shading once the trees are mature and will provide better habitat function than Tukwila's adopted levee profile since the plantings will be closer to the river. V. SEPA: The City of Kent acted as the SEPA lead agency, as the majority of the levee repairs are taking place in Kent's jurisdiction. Kent issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance on April 9, 2013. The SEPA determination, staff report and SEPA Checklist are found in Attachment 8. VI. CONCLUSIONS 1. The applicant is requesting a variance from Tukwila's adopted levee profile to avoid moving a portion of West Valley Highway, purchasing several businesses in Renton and impacting the drive aisle, fire lane and more than 25 parking stalls of a business located at 18200 Cascade Avenue South. The applicant is also requesting a variance from the City's adopted trail width from 18 feet to 16 feet. CPL Page 13 of 15 07/14/2014 H:\\L14-0031 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0031Shoreline Variance Staff Rpt. L14-0031 Briscoe/Desimone Leve_epair Shoreline Variance July 11, 2014 2. The proposed project will repair approximately 1,100 feet of levee by installing a sheet pile wall to serve as the levee itself and reconfigure the riverside of the levee by re -sloping at a 6:1 angle and 2:1 angle and installing native plants to improve habitat. The Green River Trail will be rebuilt, adding two feet to the actual trail width and adding two foot shoulders on either side of the trail. 3. As the sheet pile wall will serve as the levee, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers restrictions on planting vegetation on the waterward side of the levee will not apply. 4. The City of Tukwila adopted a new Shoreline Master Program (SMP) on August 15, 2011; it was approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology on October 14, 2011 and became effective October 28, 2011. 5. The shoreline environment designation for the project area is Urban Conservancy, with a buffer width of 125 feet. The buffer width allows enough room to reconfigure the river bank with levee to achieve a slope of 2.5:1, the "angle of repose" or the maximum angle of a stable slope and allow for some restoration and improvement of shoreline function through the installation of native plants and other habitat features on a 15 foot wide mid -slope bench. 6. Levee construction, maintenance and re -development is permitted in the Urban Conservancy environment provided it meets the standards in Tukwila's SMP. 7. Due to concerns about the impacts of vegetation on levee stability the Corps of Engineers in the past has limited the amount of vegetation on levees although under a regional variance granted to the Pacific Northwest, some trees below a certain size have been allowed. Due to proposed revisions to rules regulating vegetation on levees it is not clear whether vegetation will be allowed on levees in the future. 8. Laying back the river bank using the City's adopted levee profile would require the re -location of a portion of West Valley Highway, the purchase of businesses located in Renton, reduce parking available at 18200 Cascade Avenue South below the level acceptable to the property owner and reduce the fire lane and drive aisle widths of the building. 9. Thirty-six trees in the shoreline buffer are being removed for project construction. Among the trees to be removed are sixteen (16) large London Plane trees on the back slope of the levee bank that provide shade to the river. The shade from these mature trees will be lost until the new trees, planted closer to the river, mature to provide shade. A total of 137 trees will be planted to replace the removed trees as well as approximately 2,270 shrubs at three different levels from the Ordinary High Water Mark to the trail. 10. The levee in Reach 1 is currently over -steepened and is showing signs of failure, including scouring along the base of the levee and sloughing of the river side of the levee slope. The reconfiguration of the levee and use of the sheet pile wall will reduce the flood risk to adjacent properties in the cities of Renton, Kent and Tukwila and add needed freeboard to the levee. 11. The levee profile proposed by the City of Kent will provide native trees and shrubs next to the river, which when mature, will provide shade for habitat benefits. In addition, the plantings closer to the river will provide flood refuge habitat for out -migrating threatened Chinook salmon for an average 39 days each year. This is 37 days more that Tukwila's SMP levee profile would provide since the mid -slope bench is usually inundated during high flow events only two days a year. 12. The City of Kent has determined that the overall levee slope in Reach 1 is 2.56:1, which meets the overall levee slope established by Tukwila's SMP. 13. The reduction of the trail width from the City's adopted standard of 18 feet to 16 feet allows additional area to be planted in the river's riparian zone. The trail will be widened from its current width of 10 feet, with a two foot shoulders on each side, to 12 paved feet, with a two foot shoulder on the river side, a slight improvement over the existing conditions. CPL Page 14 of 15 07/14/2014 H:\\L14-0031 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0031 Shoreline Variance Staff Rpt. l 1 L14-0031Briscoe/Desimone Leve4.-epair Shoreline Variance July 11, 2014 14. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable shoreline variance criteria as follows: a) The strict application of the Tukwila SMP levee profile would require additional parking stalls to be removed and affect the drive aisle and emergency access to the northern portion of the property located at 18200 Cascade Avenue South and would require moving a portion of West Valley Highway. b) The hardship is related to the developed nature of the property and its location adjacent to West Valley Highway. c) The design of the levee will be compatible with other authorized uses in the area and is proposed in part to avoid adverse impacts to the building on the site. There will be temporary impacts to the river with the loss of the shade until the new trees mature. d) The variance does not constitute the granting of a special privilege — variances are reviewed on a case-by-case basis and is a process available to any applicant who believes they meet the approval criteria. e) The use of the sheet pile wall as the levee minimizes the impact on the adjacent property owner and West Valley Highway so is the minimum necessary to afford relief. f) The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect as the levee, which is currently compromised from a safety standpoint, will be repaired and over the long term fish habitat will be improved over what the City's adopted levee profile affords. The Green River Trail will be improved over existing conditions and widened, although not completely to the City's adopted standard. 15. Comments were received from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe — these comments have been addressed as follows: a. Preserve fishing access for Tribal members both during construction and after completion of the levee repair: The City of Kent has provided assurance that fishing access along the river at Reach 1 will be maintained for the Tribe. b. Concern about potential impacts to fish habitat, particularly due to loss of shading from trees being removed. Any levee repair will necessitate the removal of the mature trees on the backslope of the levee. A mix of deciduous and evergreen trees will be planted to replace the removed trees and, when mature, will replace the shading provided by the removed trees. The replacement trees will be closer to the river than the removed trees. 16. The City of Kent acted as SEPA lead agency and issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignficance on April 9, 2013. VII. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of the shoreline variance to the Department of Ecology. CPL Page 15 of 15 07/14/2014 H:\\L14-0031 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs\L14-0031 Shoreline Variance Staff Rpt. L KING COUNTY Y FLOOD CONTROIJ D I S T R ICT WASH I N GTO N BI ZE 1 1 t GOOKS - MAYOR MEMBERS OF CRY COUNCIL JIM BARRIOS BILL BOYCE BRENDA FINCHER DENNIS HI GINS DANA RALPH DEBORAH RANNICER LES THOMAS TIM LaPORTE - DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS CHAD BIEREN - CITY ENGINEER RONALD MOORE - CITY CLERK PAT FRZPATRICK - CITY ATTORNEY PU ria ,LIC - _IIIIII/k 7*JECTW0U:?KS; DESIF-- ONE LEVEE 1 P' 'OVEMENTS TUKILA SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PLANS JOB NUMBER 09-3011 SHEET INDEX CML DRAWINGS 1 COVER SHEET 2 SITE PLAN 3 LEGEND, GENERAL NOTES & CONSTRUCTION NOTES 4-5 FLOODWALL PLAN & PROFILE SHEETS 6 GRADING PLAN 7-16 GRADING CROSS SECTIONS 19-21 LANDSCAPE PLANS 22 LANDSCAPE NOTES, SPECIFICATIONS & DETAILS 23-24 TREE INVENTORY PLANS STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS S1 FLOODWALL SECTIONS AND DETAILS S2 SHEET PILE WALL DETAILS S3 HANDRAIL ELEVATION, SECTIONS AND DETAILS S4 REMOVABLE BOLLARD DETAILS S5 TYPICAL FLOODWALL ELEVATION VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE ATTACHMENT 1 PARKING \ EXISTING \ BUILDING \ DRIVEWAY EXISTING 10' WIDE TRAIL -a EXISTING 30' WIDE VT FEMA BASE FLOOD PROTECTION EASEMENT PER INSTRUMENT ELEVATION=30.5 No.'S 5222050 & 5596236 ORDINARY HIGH WATER AND CONSTRUCTION LIMITS / i' RIVERSIDE DR. LANDWARD TOE OF LEVEE PROPOSED WALL AND 12' WIDE TRAIL EXISTING PARKING 125' URBAN CONSERVANCY BUFFER ER PROPOSED TRAIL ACCESS RAMP PROPOSED 15' WIDE RIVER PROTECTION EASEMENT AND CONSTRUCTION LIMITS KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT i 200' SHORELINE BUFFER EXISTING BUILDING NOTE: SEE SHEET 7 FOR LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS AND TYPICAL DETAIL S. 1g2nd ST. zz u j 1 f- I 3 La 3 / 50 25 0 50 100 DESIGNED: RW DRAWN: RW IIPROJECT ENGR: CONST. MOAT. REVIEW PARKS DEPT: KENT PRO.£CT O. 09-3011 SCALE: HORIZ: 1 50 VERT- NONE N0. REVISION BY PATE APPROVED: CITY ENGINEER DATE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY D" 1' City of Kent Public Works Department NT Engineering Division SITE PLAN DESIIAONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 2 of 24 FILE NO GENERAL NOTES 1. PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ATTEND A SCHEDULED PRE -CONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE WITH THE CITY OF KENT CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION PERSONNEL AND DESIGN ENGINEERS. PHONE (253) 856-5500 TO SCHEDULE CONFERENCE 2. ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 2009 EDITION OF THE CITY OF KENT CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS, THE WSDOT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, 2012 EDITION AND THE KENT SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR THIS PROJECT. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 1-07.23 TO SECTION 1-07.23(2) OF THE KENT SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR STORING OF EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS DURING NON -WORKING HOURS. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP STREETS CLEAN AT ALL TIMES BY STREET SWEEPING WHEN NECESSARY, OR WHEN DIRECTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER. 5. ALL ITEMS OF WORK NOT LISTED IN THE BID PROPOSAL WHICH ARE SHOWN ON THE CONTRACT DRAWINGS AND ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE WORK THAT IS SHOWN SHALL BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO THE LISTED BID ITDAS. 6. ALL TREES AND VEGETATION WITHIN 719E PROJECT LIMITS SHALL BE REMOVED AS NOTED. ALL OTHER TREES SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT REMAINING TREES FROM DAMAGE RESULTING FROM CONSTRUCTION- ACTIVITIES INCLUDING DAMAGE TO ROOT SYSTEM. ANY TREES DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE REPLACED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS ON-SITE AND ADJACENT TO THE SITE THAT WERE DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION TO ORIGINAL CONDITION UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. THE COSTS FOR GENERAL RESTORATION AND CLEAN UP REQUIRED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THIS PROJECT SHALL BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO AND INCLUDED IN THE UNIT CONTRACT PRICE OF OTHER BID ITEMS EXCEPT FOR THOSE ITEMS INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSAL 8. UNLESS OTHERW7SE NOTED, THE WORD 'REMOVE' QP. `REMOVAL' IN THE CONSTRUCTION NOTES AND SHOWN ON THE PLANS MEANS REMOVAL HAUL AND PROPER OFF-SITE DISPOSAL BY THE CONTRACTOR AT THE CONTRACTORS EXPENSE 9. THESE ISSUED -FOR -CONSTRUCTION PLANS, THE APPROVED TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS, THE APPROVED TEMPORARY EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLANS, THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND KENT SPECIAL PROVISIONS SHALL BE ON 'ME JOB SITE WHENEVER CONSTRUCTION IS IN PROGRESS 10. UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE THE CONTRACTOR 15 SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MEANS, METHODS AND SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION AND FOR THE SAFETY OF THE WORKERS. 11. ALL EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL REMAIN IN SERVICE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 12 IDENTIFICATION, LOCATION, MARKING AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR UNDERGROUND FACILITIES OR UTILITIES I5 GOVERNED BY THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 19.122. REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON. 13. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES LOCATION SERVICE (811) AT LEAST TWO WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE OWNER OR HIS REPREstNTATIVE AND THE ENGINEER SHAD. BE CONTACTED IMMEDIATELY IF A CONFLICT EXISTS 14. CAUTION - EXTREME HAZARD - OVERHEAD AND UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL SERVICE UNES ARE GENERALLY NOT SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING THE EXTENT OF ANY HAZARD CREATED BY OVERHEAD OR UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL POWER IN ALL AREAS AND SHALL FOLLOW PROCEDURES DURING CONSTRUCTION AS REQUIRED BY LAW AND REGULATION. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MEET WITH UTUTY OWNERS AND DEIIURMINE THE EXTENT OF HAZARD AND REMEDIAL MEASURES AND SHALL TAKE WHATEVER PRECAUTIONS THAT MAY BE REQUIRED. THE WORK IS IN PROXIMITY TO PRIMARY HIGH VOLTAGE POWER ONES. 15. ALL LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UTUTIES SHOWN HEREON HAVE BEEN ESTABUSHED BY FIELD SURVEY OR OBTAINED FROM AVAILABLE RECORDS AND SHOULD THEREFORE BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE ONLY AND NOT NECFt'SARILY COMPLETE IT IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBIUTY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO INDEPENDENTLY VERIFY THE ACCURACY OF ALL UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN AND TO FURTHER DISCOVER AND AVOID ANY OTHER UTIUTIES NOT SHOWN HEREON WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS PLAN. 16. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL SHORING AND BRACING REQUIRED TO PROTECT AND SUPPORT EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTIUTIES AND STRUCTURES DURING CONSTRUCTION. 17. ANY OPEN CUTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC ROADWAYS SHALL BE BACKFILLED AND COMPACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF KENT STANDARDS ALL CUTS INTO EXISTING ASPHALT SHALL BE ALONG NEAT, CONTINUOUS, SAW CUT LINES. A TEMPORARY COLD MIX PATCH MUST BE PLACED IMMEDIATELY AFTER BACKFILL AND COMPACTIONS. UNI FCC OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER THE EXISTING SURFACING MUST BE REPLACED IN KIND (OR 3 INCHES DF COMPACTED HMA PG64-22. CLASS 1/2'. ASPHALT CONCRETE. WHICHEVER IS GREATER) WITHIN 30 DAYS OF COLD PATCHING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CLOSELY FOLLOW REQUIREMENTS SET FOR WORKING HOURS, DETOUR AND WARNING SIGNS AND NOTIFICATION OF ROAD ALTERATIONS TO THE POLICE AND/OR OTHER EMERGENCY SERVICES. 18. ALL UTILITY UDS, COVERS. ETC. LOCATED IN THE SIDEWALK SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO GRADE 19. R IS ILLEGAL UNDER WASHINGTON STATE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 332-120 TO WILLFULLY DESTROY SURVEY MARKERS. STAKES, MARKS, AND OTHER REFERENCE POINTS SET BY CITY FORCES, AND EXISTING CITY, STATE OR FEDERAL MONUMENTATION, SHALL BE CAREFULLY PRESERVED BY THE CONTRACTOR. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF IT BECOMES APPARENT THAT A SURVEY MARKER WILL BE DISTURBED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION_ THE CONTRACTOR WILL ALLOW AMPLE TIME FOR CITY SURVEY DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL TO ACQUIRE ADEQUATE INFORMATION 50 THAT THE MONUMENT MAY BE REPLACED IN ITS ORIGINAL POSITION AFTER CONSTRUCTION. 20. DRIVEWAYS SHALL REMAIN OPEN AT ALL TIMES DURING BUSINESS HOURS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE HIS WORK SCHEDULE WITH 111E PROPERTY OCCUPANTS TO DEIENMINE THE BEST TIME TO FULLY OR PARTIALLY CLOSE THE DRIVEWAYS IN ORDER TO PERFORM HIS WORK. CONSTRUCTION NOTES BID ITEM NUMBERS ARE SHOWN UNDFRUNFD. THEY ARE PROVIDED FOR CONTRACTOR CONVENIENCE ONLY AND NOT INCLUSIVE OF THE PROJECT WORK. 0 REMOVE EXISTING TREE, AND ROOTBALL BACKFILL VOID AND COMPACT PER SPECIFICATIONS. 1005 2O REMOVE EXISTING TREE STUMP AND ROOTBAU_ BACKFILL VOID AND COMPACT PER SPECIFICATIONS. 1005 O REMOVE EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT. 1010 0 SAW CUT EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT. 1050 O CONSTRUCT NEW ASPHALT TRAIL AND SUB -BASE PER DETAIL 2, SHEET 2. 1080. 1095 © REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE: STAIRWAY. 1021 (7 REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE EXTRUDED CURB. 1030 8O REMOVE EXISTING BOLLARD. g REMOVE EXISTING SIGN. 4145 10 CONSTRUCT PARKING LOT PAVEMENT PATCH AND SUB -BASE PER DETAIL X. SHEET X. g 11 CONSTRUCT CONCRETE EXTRUDED CURB PER KENT STANDARD PLAN 6-33. g 12 INSTALL REMOVABLE BOLLARD PER KING COUNTY FIG. 5-018. 1290 13 REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE PAVEMENT. 1020 14 INTERCEPT POWER UNE TO EXISTING UGHT ON THE LANDWARD SIDE OF THE FLOODWALL INSTALL TYPE 1 JUNCTION BOX IF SPLICE WILL BE REQUIRED TO REWIRE THE UGHT IN THE NEW LOCATION SHOWN ON THE PLAN. REMOVE EXISTING LUMINAIRE. POST AND FOUNDATION. CONSTRUCT NEW CLASS 3000 CONCRETE FOUNDATION IN THE NEW LOCATION SHOWN ON THE PLAN. MATCH DIMENSIONS OF EXISTING FOUNDATION. INSTALL EXISTING LUMINARE AND POST ON NEW FOUNDATION AND RECONNECT POWER. 1210 15 REMOVE EXISTING TRASH ENCLOSURE AND CONCRETE SLAB AS REQUIRED. CONSTRUCT NEW SLAB Al- ItK FLOOD WALL CONSTRUCTION. MATCH EXISTING SLAB THICKNESS. RE -INSTALL EXISTING TRASH ENCLOSURE g KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL D I S T R I C T DATUM VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD BB HORIZONTAL DATUM: NAD 83/91 CITY OF KENT BENCHMARK Na 850 BENCHMARK ELEVATION: 31.824 BENCHMARK DESCRIPTION: SET MAG NAIL WITH 1-1/2' CITY OF KENT ALUMINUM WASHER 1N ASPHALT ON W SIDE OF WVH AT NW CORNER OF DRIVEWAY APRON AT ENTRANCE TO BIKE TRAIL AT N END OF RIVERPOINT CORPORATE CENTER, AT TODD BLVD AND WVH. CITY OF KENT BENCHMARK Na 851 BENCHMARK ELEVATION: 33.496 BENCHMARK DISCRIPTION: SET MAG NAIL WITH 1-1/2' CITY OF KENT ALUMINUM WASHER IN BIKE TRAIL DN E SIDE OF GREEN RIVER IN BRISCOE PARK, BEHIND BUILDING #6020 IN CUL-DE-SAC AT INTERSECTION OF 5 190 ST AND 62 AVE S. MAGNAIL IS IN TRAIL W OF TWO COVERED PICNIC AREAS. VERTICAL DATUM CONVERSION NAVD 88 = NAVD 29 + 3.53' ABBREVIATIONS — CIVIL BW EP ESMT EX FG FS GB 1E OHW PT PC FCC PRC R/W TC TW BOTTOM OF WALL EDGE OF PAVEMENT EASEMENT EXISTING FINISHED GRADE FINISHED SURFACE GRADE BREAK INVERT ELEVATION ORDINARY HIGH WATER POINT OF TANGENCY POINT OF CURVATURE POINT OF COMPOUND CURVATURE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE RIGHT OF WAY TOP OF CAP BEAM TOP OF WALL ABBREVIATIONS — STRUCTURAL B/CONC B/SHEET PILE B/WATERSTOP T/BARRIER T/RAILING T/SHEET PILE TW BOTTOM OF CONCRETE WALL FACING BOTTOM OF SHEET PILE WALL BOTTOM OF WATERSTOP TOP OF PEDESTRIAN BARRIER TOP OF HANDRAIL TOP OF SHEET PILE WALL TOP OF WALL LEGEND EXISTING FEATURES APPS SCREENED O CONSTRUCTION NOTE GMB O 0 O ❑ T Tv OHP P TYPE 1 ® n TYPE 2 n G--D}— w ICV 65 OVPI n - w- Id—*— D Ir D— — D---®—D— Flk-- -S--—S— EP 7/77 W7/7T/9) OHW 0 SECTION LEIItR CR DETAIL NUMBER SHEET NUMBER WHERE SECTION OR DETAIL I5 REFERENCED SIGN MAILBOX WELL FENCE STREET LIGHT/LUMINAIRE UTILITY POLE W/GUY TELEPHONE MANHOLE/VAULT TELEPHONE PEDESTAL UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE UNE UNDERGROUND CATV UNE OVERHEAD POWER UNE UNDERGROUND POWER UNE EXISTING JUNCTION BOX NEW JUNCTION BOX POWER VAULT/CABINET GAS UNE AND VALVE FIRE HYDRANT IRRIGATION CONTROL BOX WATER METER VALVE POSITION INDICATOR FIRE DEPT. CONNECTION WATER VAULT WATERUNE AND VALVE STORM SEWER UNE & CATCH BASIN STORM SEWER UNE & MANHOLE STORM SEWER FORCEMAIN DITCH FLOWUNE SANITARY SEWER UNE & MANHOLE CENTERUNE R/W UNE EASEMENT UNE PROPERTY UNE AND OWNERSHIP HOOK MONUMENT IN CASE EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT CULVERT EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING CONCRETE ORDINARY HIGH WATER UNE DECIDUOUS TREE EVERGREEN TREE DESIGNED: R CHECKED: KENT PROJECT N0. 09-3011 DRA RW PROJECT ENGR: CONST. WGIIT, RENEW SCALE: HORIZ- NONE VERT: NONE N REVISION Y DATE A PROVED: CITY ENGINEER DATE BAR 15 ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING ADXST SCALES ACCORDINGLY 0' 1 - City of Kent s Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division LEGEND, GENERAL NOTES & CONSTRUCTION NOTES DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 3 of 24 FILE N0. 50 ----------- 'LANDWARD FACE OF FINISHED WALL & CONST. CONTROL UNE RIVERPOINTE CORPORATE CENTER 76200 CASCADE AVE S EX. PARKING LOT 15' WIDE RIVER PROTECTION EASEMENT, CLEARING AND CONSTRUCTION OMITS. 20 15 1'0 20 SCALE IN FEET 40 G• �. 2�x co.x /' <5.•Q EXTEND EX. 8' PIPE THROUGH WALL AND INSTALL FLAP GATE ORDINARY HIGH WATER UNE AND CONSTRUCTION OMITS. -.GONG:CAR _BEAM:LIMITS FLOG GATE,.. CONC. CAP BEAM, BARRIER RAILING LIMITS 40 30 20 10 12+00.00 BEG OONC; CAP -BEAM & BARRIER '1Cr34:55. TOP: OF: ONC.:BARRIER 5=0.00088 --- 1 3417± EX. 8 ELEVATION:CONTROL UNE/ TOP- OF CAP: BEAM: (TC)- 0UTFALL;- IE=29�. TOP::OF :SHEET. PILE: WAIL' .`-EXISTING :GROUND AT . .LANDWARD::T-OE:OF WALL. . 0 — 10 " SEE :7S_.. SHEETS: 0 50 ▪ 15+88.37 ..fif:=34:9f7. 'TOP : OF CONC:: BARRIER 17437 42 S=0.00088 TC 35.03 Id ::T5+89.20. BW -=0:85. — 20 :AL1 PILES:AT 60' :MIN.. LENGTH:(TYP.): 12+00-00 BW= -6.19 40 30 4�[ • ALL PILES AT 5`. :MIN.: LENGTH (TYR)::: -.: : 15+89.2D BW= --25.85, 12+0.0- 13+00 .14+:00: 15+00- 16+-0.0: 1 7+0:0: : KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL D 1 S T R. 1 C T 20 10 0 —1e —2C DESIGNED: CHECKED: KENT PROJECT NO. 09-3011 DRAWN: RW PROJECT ENGR: CONST. MGM T. RENEW SCALE HORIZ: VERT- 1=iD' NO. REVISION BY DATE APPROVED: CITY ENGINEER DATE BAR IS ONE INC. ON ORIGINAL DRA`fpNG ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY 0" City of Kent mePublic Works Depaitiuent itur Engineering Division REACH 1 FLOODWALL PLAN AND PROFILE DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 4 of 24 FILE NO. r ( J J pp,RoG "cc' (7) 15 WIDE RIVER PROTECTION EASDAENT, CLEARING AND CONSTRUCTION UNITS LANDWARD FACE OF FINISHED WALL & CONST. CONTROL UNE RIVERPOINIE CORPORATE CENTER 182D0 CASCADE AVE S. CORNING CLINICAL LABORATORIES, SAYBOLT INC-, ENCORE SALES & INNOVATION CUISINE ENT. 18251 CASCADE AVE. S. 20 15 10 20 \ 40 SCALE IN FEET EX. BLDG. / ip•--%;,-,--) f!-- / / <5.5.,''. ,,,,....,/, • '1,,,•;,.. ‘C ...'" ,....' •;,.. ' .3... . .‹. '''''''' '''' •' ,. ,e e'S'%.. '7 ,..,./‹7. 0..7., 7. ' „...,....,,,,,........„.............7. ' ,,,,.. ,.... "...•':‘,„‹,;;:. ..,..:5c.,...: •,::,. i . .,' ' ".. , " '''''. .7';••• ...•,... ''. :„....;...' ,.• .-7...' ./i''''......r., ,<, • 1,72,7<',.< '.', .,....5%,,,, ''''' / 7 ' . ,A..• ' ' .7.' ' <' ';';';';';';<;) • ." 0.',.• . ..''' ..''''''.Z..,, ',.,'' "'''- 'f';'...., '''';',.:''' z.,:011C , .;...7e ,,,, •:,..,'..;,:,V • ";....;:;:'- ,.,';',,,,,,;:r;: ..........- - ..7 , ' ''...' ;,'/.'1:Z. ;:?.,*''',/j'Z '2 • '2 1 i , f ' - .„.--- ..--_,..._.--:.!;"----- - ---- -.--#.0-_,--- .----------- ...„.. 1 ----;------rs---.-T------------,-%-i---"_------;.---------2-2------- „..--_-., ..---- !ow,' ,---_,..” -.>-;_"--...-_-_,-/.-!---__ -.-----_. ,..----- ..--::„..---„,:s. -_,... -..- . , . - • - ..„.....2,---'_,,,,,,5-,---...,----.2 ,•-••'' ..,....-1. ,-..-... .--'''' .... ,--• _...• - ' ...‹..„--••••-•j>-•--•;..,--i•-' .v.„-- ::-.., ..,..•-• „....' ,./...- .,•''-'. ••••••:.;',,Ir., -:,,,,.' ...',.."--..,.....---• -'5,. '''-<:.-, •,'' ''• __,..- _.....• „.,•• ,-.• ... , - ''• - ....- •-' ___,. _,....., ' ,.....,-;-,<;/••••-•-1--e- '.....:--•-•, •••-•.... . ,...-' ...-•-' .•-••••;,•.. ..--' -'••••' • ••• ,..• ';....-;,.--.....,%.,-j-- ,,..-• ......../ /..,/,'"/ • '•-••'.. - ''',....''.04-',_._-.--. •---5:a. ...---•->-''':-<:-.<•,.. - ...,' ,.--;''''' ,...--. ...:'-'„,.•:. ,.--•'' .,;..- •-•-•''.- .-"'-.. ':-.• ---•"- -•'-'.--. ..,-- ..-'-' -' . .-^- :,.:::.,•••-p::;;-<''''':-: :..., f.•;;;;=.<:::-.-,• •'-•-•--'••••Tra;.<.: ' ''..7 I -.- .- ... '....., .2:,-..........--••• ..-': -.--:_,-,.- •-%"---.--' _____.-., .--- ,.., ,---• !......-•,...-- --•-•;„...-,',,,,-- \ , • ....., ....."%.,/,s...„.. ,--<,•-•••;,, ..........--'•-• ....- '...%•.-'-'5,--'''';''''- •''''..:--''' '''--- ••,..---..-..--;/:,,•-• e •--,<-;--,<-%•--'' -•-:.-",-..:',.''' ."'"'..- ..,•-, ..-- ..-' . - .."'- ..•-•'' ".,,,.....-• '..."' --.-:„.-- 5..!.,,,,;64c ."..,....;>:„.;..., -,......-_,, _ ..,.....-,, 1 ,..,./......";,./ . ,•••,..2.,....,;;, -:,../..-- ...../ \ \ ••;.:'••:, , , .•-•>..,/, ''......%_,-, / .-- ' >;-'•;:;'<2 • ..-•••?•'"..- N • 0 0 () d3 EDGE OF CAP BEAM EP _EE- EP - EX. FEMA CP 13, - - - ; : : -,--...,;.7.!-- - : .. ..-.. - - -:,,,- - -- : = = = L.-- : AVEMENT-- ---.- -- .-..--- ---- ." --...""....:.:; :::-"" -=-1----.,"•:-.- -:',.":-. --.."--,---__----_ _-_--__ -__:•;-_ F-____-___-;:--_,--_,,-5--=__:--S_HOU_L.D______ER __________Izz-j:„:---____-___;_____: --- .----_-- ---73.--_---__--zS:z----:-----z__-- •---='-z,-!-- ---zr----'*FLOOD ELEV.=-30.5 — -- -_. __--- --__ ----.--- - .----z.------:.----.2.,,, BA ---SE---------- :----- ----____------1:7,-„....t's'''-!---::::' -...„...„-!..„ -_, _ ___-7_, — -_-_;---27-.2,----..-7-7--------_---- - -,-!--•-...---. • • <!-- _-7- - - - .., - . ••-• .., „:-.... ,- ...., - - - - • ' - !- - .- - - . V ' --- \ \ \ . - / ---.--------- -------::,,,,--z.--. ---',„.„:••••••,--;•-•.„.... ---„,......:-_,- .1.--...-_,--.----------->----:.- ---__, ----,---•'--•-•-'------ ----:-...- - ---- \,, ,„,:,..„,s-,.._,,,„;.-„<:,::=-...-:„.,..„,,_, ,,,,,<--,:-<„,c1:,_:_ .,...z.,---•--.--_,,<,----2,,...:...„,..___ '' - - -_--- -----... . -__ --__ ''':<-'::::---,:„--'''''''.''::•-•=."-:"....---.-----._'-'''%'.-2'N.:,S':'', ------.4-1" ..„ , ...-. '-.1„,-- .:-- „--,--„,!--•*.:S.---.=:--,-, RIVERBANK PROTECTION EASEMENT PER INSTRUMENT \.- — ----. ...'"\ ,___ -- \ \ •--."--,---<-%•-'1-":...:- .„--:!---.:.---2:::•-:.7.Z- ---- "--- ---- „I':'-'-'-----:..„'-':':"-T,':'':-'A--'::.:•.-'-"•T-.''''-!••::„------ ----- . -....„ , •-• 'N, --, -:„...-- -....;-_- , ....„ --"•., `-•----__-----......____-..‹.,2,--,___•-.„,,-,,,„.„ ,:-----,-,,,,_„-,,,---,-...--:::„...„,,,....--,„,.. -..„. ...„ - ----- ----::,-z-:-.„..„-- ,...S„.'s.s.•,:;,....... , •:—• ;7— \ I \ -.„ /\ 'A! c'y r\f_gs- - • 30' WIDE EXISTING \ -7( \ ••'" 16 100 \ \ No.'S 5222050 & 5596236 \ _ r 'ORDINARY HIGH WATER UNE GREEN TRNER----/ ,AND CONS • • • • "--", I -,•:--.:N.'N›!,,, • ' ' .---'..--.---- - --- N , :!--.:- •--• •--.-!---..-... "N- ---,-. I / - ...--- .,,,,,,,..- \ I__ 1 \ ' •- 's • — ,:',.......-:----- - ' --. ---. •-•, ! I ----;-..:--- :--- :".- .--- -..,-z-,,,-.S. '- - .., ----. •-, .--- :::''.:::: •,:f.---.7........_z:-._:C. ',.. -".--::..,..---.;•-•-,..--;-.."\\':-.:\ ..„.„!..... --..,_ ". ,.. .::..., "2:11:.....,..:::2,,,..>".... "........ • •-•". ..):,,,./. --- '•".... .-- ,........ I, /..' i : s• ---::::\--..."`"."... . ., .-",..,"'..›.--"- "--..."--..,' " !!.... ' ".. "... N" N."- 7""...,,,.:"...„`"."---.„..."\--„T.:.11":,..7...„--` ....›...",..,....,,.....Z - ) \-....\-.--,..--'::::.--•--'-'-' --....':::::- ...,_'N -,,. '-, / -•\ N \ ‘ i I -,..1" ..„."..."..;‘,.,.....„......:,.....,<!...<",.. ..,..‹.....,"":-., .2,!". ,..2.-...,, ......_ __ . .,.--. ...". ".‹... "...... - ••••.....,,, ..... ".. ' "....... ..... ".. \ / . , 1-"- "--=',,-:'-k.\\------c•----*-->--.--------Z--.1,•.---_,--, -...• \ -... "-.............„,,Y,....L.;;-,,,,,,,..., : ..". ‘...".."...."-...."... ":""Clr..'" :, --.. *--. - -... -", "--.•".... -,....Z...".. "... .----,--------<-::J --- ..e -rt.,-- FLOW 1 / .-1-- --..„ ... ; . I / . \ ' •-- • \-\:-!!!-:--Z's '-."-- - '''• , •--- - --- __„„ 50 . . • • CONC. -CAP BEAM,: BARRIER' & :RAILING LIMITS • ... 40 3 7+37.42 .... . . .. ELEVAllON• CONTROL UNE/ .... TOP: 2F :CAP: BgAltol (TC): : Amish %crew zo+oaoo TG -35-26- S,0.000BB 0 0re to; 22+7500, TOP OF CONC. BARRIER 22+75.00 .1,1r.-5 R TC -'35:29 S=0 . . F- 20 TOP• OF SHEET -PILE WALL- • • . . .. ...... . ..... . . .... . . . : . . . •,•••" ..••••• 50 40 . • -TOP !OF:SHEET • 22+1500, PILE 16.08 R : : 30 1 TWo-f34:51 ..... . .EXIS11N.O GROLiND. AT • LANDWARD 'TOE OF :WALL:: -. 0 —10 --20 • 0 1.11 0 17+37.42. • • . .... : : . • 17+3.7.42. • BW•0.-49: ft) . . . . . . ALI_ PILES: AT :35': MIN.: I_ENGT11: TYP) KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL :18+:O�. NO. REVISION BY DATE . . . . ... ! . : • - 17+37:42. !! DESIGNED: CHECKED: KENT PRO.ECT NO. 09-3011 DRAWN: RW APPROVED: 9+00 IIPROJECT ENGR: CONST. I•AGMT. REVIEW CITY ENGINEER SCALE: HOW: 1-20 vERT110 - DATE . : . : . . . AIX PILES :AT '60" :MIN: LENGTH: (TYP): .. : .. 22+75.00• • • .. • N 10 1- 0 —1c 22+75_00: 16.05: R —2C :01.Yr=-25.4 BAR IS ONE IN04 ON ORIGINAL DRAWING AD.uST SCALES ACCORDINGLY 20+00 City of Kent Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division . 21 +00 REACH 1 FLOOD WALL PLAN AND PROFILE 22+00 DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 5 OF 24 FILE NO. <4, szs / 4s ,, , :5, ? v // 20 15 10 0 20 40 -29 A BREAK UNE GREEN RIVER FLOW GRADING NOTES 1. NO W0 -BELoW 'ORD,INARY 4-1IGH-WATER SHALL BE ALLOWED, 2. EXCAVATION OF THE LEVEE AND RIVER BANK SHALL BE LIMITED - TO THE AVAILABLE DATES DESCRIBED IN KSP SECTIONS 7 2-03.1(1) •AND 6-20.3. 3. SUITABLE MATERIAL EXCAVATED FROM THE RIVER BANK SHALL BE USED AS FILL MATERIAL AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. r ,,, / ./ '.•o , , ! / 1 • GRADING VOLUMES- t._ CUT .- 8,201 CUBIC YARDS, — FILL - 1,978 CUBIC YARDS 4. CONTOUR INTERVAL = 1 FOOT. LEVEE EMBANKMENT FILL (OR LOW PERMEABIUTY F11.1) SHALL BE CLAY, SILT OR SILTY/CLAYEY SAND HAVING A MAXIMUM PARTICLE‘ SIZE OF 2 INCH, AT LEAST 25 PERCENT BY WEIGHT PASSING THE No. 200 SIEVE, A MINIMUM PLASTICITY INDEX OF 5, A MAXIMUM UQUID UMIT OF 40 AND BE FREE OF ORGANIC AND DELETERIOUS MATERIALS. -«.-•\ ; ,,/ --- GRADING LEGEND —35— EXISTING CONTOUR AND ELEVATION ---1351-- PROPOSED CONTOUR AND ELEVATION —OHW--- ORDINARY HIGH WATER UNE N --------- + 21 21 -FDD -4- 23+00'. EXISTING WILLOW TREES WITHIN 5 FEET OF THE OHW LINE TO REMAIN. ADJUST 6:1 SLOPE AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER. SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR LOCATION ALL EXISTING VEGETATION BELOW THE OHW LINE TO REMAIN. NO WORK SHALL OCCUR BELOW THE OHW UNE A VARIES SEE CROSS SECTIONS EXCAVATION AREA. SEE GRADING NOTE 2 LANDWARD FINISHED FACE OF WALL AND CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE. SEE WALL PROFILE PLANS 16.17' (TYP.) WIDTH VARIES AT TRANSITIONS AND PARKING LOT RAMP, SEE PLANS VARIES SEE CROSS SECTIONS 3' MIN. 100 7(& ELEV. CONTROL PT. (TOP OF CAP BEAM) SEE WALL PROFILE FOR ELEV. OHW BREAK UNE GREEN RIVER \ FLOW PARKS DEPT: SCALE PROJECT ENGR: c0)451-. 1,401,1T, REVIE HORIL VERT- NONE REVISION APPROVED: BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAONG ADJJST SCALES ACCORDINGLY CITY ENGINEER 25 KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL IDISTR.ICT KE City of Kent Public Works Department T Engineering Division EXISTING GROUND 6:1 LEVEE EMBANKMENT FILL PAYMENT UMITS. SEE GRADING NOTE 3. TYPICAL GRADING SECTION NOT TO SCALE FLOOD WALL GRADING PLAN DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 6 OF 24 FILE NO. GREEN RIVER 50 LANDWARD FINISHED FACE OF WALL AND CONSTRUCTION CONTROL UNE. SEE WALL PROFILE PLANS —� Li_ CC nG_O w o REMOVE EXIST. ASPHALT PAVEMENT 77 500 YR FLOOD EL + 3 FT. MIN. TOP OF BARRIER 16.17' TYP. 0 100 YR FLOOD EL + 3 FT. MIN. FINISHED GRADE, SEE GRADING PLAN LEVEE EXCAVATION, SEE GRADING PLAN Q 01-W UNE EXIST. GROUND EDGE OF GRAVEL SHOULDER - —j1 LEVEE EMBANKMENT 2 FILL PAYMENT OMIT. SEE GRADING PLAN CONST. 12' WIDE PAVED TRAIL PER SECTION 2 CONST. CAP BEAM AND BARRIER W/ HANDRAIL SEE STRUCTURAL PLANS NOTE: 1. REGRADE AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION ON THE LANDWARD SIDE OF THE FLOOD WALL AS REQUIRED. INSTALL TOPSOIL (6" DEPTH) AND SOD UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON THE PLANS OR DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. CONSTRUCT FLOODWALL SEE STRUCTURAL PLANS TYPICAL LEVEE SECTION 15' RIVER PROTECTION EASEMENT z W a 0 a NOT TO SCALE STA_ 12+00 FOOD. WAIL.: RESTORE SURFACE. SEE NOTE 1. FINISHED FACE OF WALL 1' CLEAR OF PROPERTY UNE MIN. SEE GRADING AND LANDSCAPE PLANS 2 LANDWARD FINISHED FACE OF WALL AND CONSTRUCTION CONTROL UNE. SEE WALL PROFILE PLANS 2' 14.17' PAVED WIDE TRAIL (TYP.) SHOULDER CONCRETE BARRIER, qq�SEE STRUCTURAL PLANS l 12' WIDE ASPHALT (TYP.) 2.17' 9" DEPTH 5/8" MINUS CRUSHED SURFACING, COMPACTED PER SPECIFICATIONS 3" DEPTH ASPHALT PVMT., HMA PG 64-22, CLASS 1/2" COMPACTED PER SPECIFICATIONS. 6" DEPTH 5/8" MINUS CRUSHED SURFACING, COMPACTED PER SPECIFICATIONS LEVEE EMBANKMENT F1LL PAYMENT LIMITS TYPICAL PAVED TRAIL SECTION ELEVATION CONTROL POINT (TOP OF CAP BEAM), SEE WALL PROFILE AND SHEET 51 EX. GROUND AT LANDWARD TOE OF WALL AS SHOWN ON PROFILE EX. GROUND NOT TO SCALE ; 50 BA FLOOD Y EL: 30.50 10 i • • oHw y 0-1W EL .14.40..:. : — o........... 100 90 BO 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -70 10 5 0 10 20 SCALE IN FEET -90 -100 -110 -120 -130 -140 -150 -160 30 : 10 -I0 -10 DESIGNED: CHECKED_ KENT PROJECT ND. 09-3011 N0. REVISION BY DRAWN: PROJECT ENGR: CONST. UGI,IT. RENEW SCALE HORI1� 10' Z: VERT: 7 =10' DATE APPROVED: CITY ENGINEER DATE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAIHNO AOAIST SCALES ACCORDINGLY 0- 1 - City of Kent �� Public Works Depai tinent SET Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 7 or 24 FILE NO. STA 12+50 401- 301 20 - OHW EL:_ 14.42.., WEST VALLEY. Hw .:.7.7 N• EXISTING BUILDINGI 40 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 STA: 13+00 401..... 30 i-• EXISTING GROU BASE F1000 : �I g EL 30.50 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -70 -BO -90 -100 -110 -120 -130 -140 -150 -160 ....FLOOD.. WALL. , . • WEST VALLEY. HWY. : -10 20 �....--"-._... OHW • 100 90 BO 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 DESIGNED: CHECKED: KENT PROJECT N0. 09-3011 DRAWN: PROJECT ENGR: CONST. VGI,IT, REVIEW SCALE: HDRIL' 1�`7°� VERT: 1.=10. NO. REVISION BY DATE AP ROVED_ CITY ENGINEER DATE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY 0_ 10: 5 0 -50 -60 -70 -80 -90 -100 -110 -120 -130 -140 -150 -160 10 20 SCALE 94 ETT City of Kent Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS 30 20 10 0 - -10 SHEET 8or 24 FILE NO 50 STA: 13+50 • 0+ • • BASE FL000 • EL 30.50 EXISTING GROUND- ADO() WAIL )r-WEsTvAaEY4;ar. 20 ----- OHW"" _ EL: .14:47 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -70 -80 -90 -100 -110 -120 -130 -140 -150 -160 STA: 14+00 ---OFF. --5.0E EL:: 34.68 tio60.yiAI:L . : .. WEST VALLEY HWY.: - - . EXIS11NG CROUND • 201— 014W 0 -- OHW...:. - - --- .. .... _ EL: 14.50. ; 6:-0' SLOPE OFF: EL - 2:1; SLOPE FINISH .GRADE - 36.29 8.03' • 100 90 80 70 60 • 40 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -70 10 50 10 20 SCALE IN FEET -80 - -100 -110 -120 -130 -140 -150 -160 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 5o 40 30 20 10 -10 DESIGNED: CHECKED: KENT PROJECT NO. 09-3011 DRAWN: PROJECT ENGR: CONST. REVIEW SCALE _ HORIZ'1 1D VERT: 1--10. NO REVISION BY DATE APPROVED: CITY ENGINEER DATE BAR I5 ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING AD.IJST SCALES ACCORDINGLY 0' City of Kent - Public Works Depaitutent KENT Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 9 of 24 FILE NO. 50: STA: 4+50 .FLOOD WALL. -EXIS1114G'GROUND 20 ^"H!;.. i ... EL•.. 14.52 • : : BASE: FLOOD . . EL:: 30.50 : ; _ . SLOFEE PROPOSED VARIABLE • WID H RIVER- . PROTECTION :EASEMENT : • tPROPOSED WEST.:VALLEY HY/Y... • r ---- o o : . • • 10` I..:..:.... • ...... _.. .. 0: .._ ...... • • 6:4 -SLOPE -- 100 90 80 70 60 50 OFF: 35.23 ; EL• 19.59..._:. STA: 15+00 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -70 -90 -100 -110 -120 -130 -140 40 . t ....:.... : .... ... OASE . FLOOD I EL 30.50 EXISTING .GROUND 20 • .OHW 10' OHW EL:: 14.55 j. y . . OFF:' 35.15 EL 19.70 &1-.SLOP.E. FLOOD•WALL OFF: 5. EL 34.76 • PROPOSED VARIABLE •WIDTH RIVER PROTECTION. EASEMENT: 21 SLOPE FINISH'GRAOE-....... • ,PROPOSED PROPOI:Y. UNE . WEST VALLEY:HW'(. • ' m 0 • • 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -70 -80 -90 -100 -110 -120 -130 -140 -150 -160 10 5 10 20 SCALE IN EEEF 50 40 30 20 10 ' -10 DESIGNED: CHECKED: DRAWN: PROJECT ENGR: KENT PROJECT NO. 09-3011 CONST. MG/JT. REVIEW SCALE HORIZ: 1=0` VERT -i=10' NO. REVISION BY DATE APPROVED: CITY ENGINEER DATE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY cr City of Kent Public Works Department \:...•,r.CENT Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 10oF 24 FILE NO. 50 30 20 10 STA: 15+50 _. FLOOD; WALL : ....; ...4RA : 4!AlNTEkhiJ "CE �tiCCESS - 00.- 5.30 El.-. ,'34 61 IPROPOSED•VARIABLE411or •RIVER :..PROTECTION EASEMENT..: .:._ BASE FLOOD : y : EL 30.50 • : EXISTING. GROUND;• 01 -IW .:-.:EL::.1'.57..' . . ./ _..:..--------'-`____ : ` . '. 6:1 SLOPE • • . 2 1: SLOPE : : --fRofiosED PR6PERTY, UN_,___ :ANISIf GRADE •; _ . . OFF'•:. • 37:57 • EL. 16.52 --- 30 — - 20 • • — 10 • - 0 100 90 80 70 50, 60 50 40 30 20 .. EXISTING -GROUND , BASE 61000 : EL: 30.5 o 301-- 20 0!..... 20 10 10 0 STA: 16+00 PAVEDTRAIL. FLOOD: WALL: :(ATACCESS' RAMP),-- . OFF; -23.85 : EL 34.56 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -70 -80 -90 -10D -110 -120 -13D -140 -150 -160 .PROPOSED 15' ; • WIDE RIVER PR0TEC710N • EASEMENT -10 50 w• O 21 SLOPE OHw OH.ti( EL .14.60 -/ - FINISH `GRADE'? ROPOSEO PROPW.f. 20 OFF: 5497 - EL 19.01 6:1 SLOPE 100 90 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 DESIGNED: CHECKED: KENT PROJECT NO. 09-3011 DRAWN: PROJECT ENGR: CONST. MGM T. REVIEW SCALE: HORIL- 1 VERT- 1 =10� NO. REVISION 8Y DA TE AP ROVED, CITY ENGINEER DATE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY 0 - -50 -60 -70 -80 -90 -100 -110 -120 -130 -140 -150 -160 10 5 D 10 20 SCALE IN FEET City of Kent Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESlMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 110E 24 FILE N0. so, 20 STA: 16+50 ..... . •.• .. ..... : : okw OH* : ! EL: :1.4.52 . OFR -1-7,00 EXISIING GROUND 34.71 sass FLOOD : EL 30.50 .:. FLOOD PAVED 1RAiL ... . • .. . • . :PROPOSED : . ...... ; : : • WIDE RIVER . ..... • •PROTEcticiii : - EASEMENT • . : . ..... . ..... .... • •• • • - SLOPE • FINISH GRADE' • OFF: 52.10 : a 17.1g • • PROPERTY LINE • • . . ARKING LOT!. ... ...... .. : .. . . 50 . I ... •• . ... • • I I z . a • : IL13 I • -1 0 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 3D 50 30 20 10 :- • DaSlING GROUND- \\ . • . • .. • • • • .. .. .. ... .. .. .. . : . . .. . . • • • : : : BASE FL000 : EL: 30.50 OFF: sasto EL 15.30 • • • OHW- EL :14.64.:. • • - 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -70 -BO -90 -100 -110 -120 -130 -140 -150 -160 STA: 17+00 . - ' ' . . . • : . . . . . . .'PROPOSED 15 : . FLOOD WALL ! WIDE RIVER . PROTECTION " • . ' EASEMENT- • : . . .• • PAVED TRAIL . . . OFF: 17.00 : Ea 34.75 • . sti sLopE-1! :21SL0E FINISH GRADE; • •, • PROPERTY UNE • . . PARKING LOT: : . I 10 • . . . . : 1 • • • - • . • . . . . . . . • - . . . . . . . _ _____ _ __ . : • . , 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -4.0 -50 • __ _ -60 -70 -80 -90 -100 -110 -120 -130 -140 -150 -180 10 5 0 10 SCALE IN FEET 40 30 20 10 DESIGNED: CHECKED: KENT PROJECT NO. 09-3011 o. RE \ASION BY DRAWN: PROJECT ENCR: CONST. MGMT. REVIEW SCALE: HoRlz: VERT- 1-=--10• DATE APPROVED_ CITY ENGINEER DATE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRANING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY 0" \".!.16 -City of Kent Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division W.P..1.1411.07.• LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESR1ONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 12or 24 FILE NO. STA: 17+50 PROPOSED .15! ... FLOOD; WALL:. :.. WADE RIVER PRO1EcmciN EASEMENT OFF: 17. EtaST1NG GROUND-: : EL 3.79 :.BASE: FLOOD .. ; - j. -: : : y; iEL' 30.50 .:.... :.. i..:..... ....OFF: -54:22 : . : . EL•: 16.18 -77 PRW Ell 14.67 10: : -7- • 7: -6! 1 --SLOPE 100 90 — 80 70 60 20 10 STA: 18+00 -PARKING• LOT —10 —20 —30 —40 —50 —60 —70 —80 —90 —100 —110 —120 —130 —140 —150 1 10 —160 10 50 10 20 SCALE IN FEET 50 20 10 10 DESIGNED. CHECKED KENT PROJECT NO. 09-3011 DRANK: PROJECT ENGR: CONST. MGM-. REVIEW SCALE: HORIZ 1 10 VERT: 1'10' NO. REVISION 6Y DA TE A PROVED. CITY ENGINEER DATE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAVANG ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY D' City of Kent Public Works Department �3ENT Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 13 of 24 FILE NO. STA: 8+50 30 20 10 • • .. OFF: 54.96 EL 15.90 : • E1 Oi-1W 1472 EXLSTING .GROUND. . . BASE: FLOOD EL: 30.50 OFF: 17.00 EL: 34.138 : FLOO' D WALL. :2:1 • ... :" ;;-RROP034) 15.; ' WIDE RIVER• PROTEMON : " " • ' ". " " - • ".• EASaPIT,- • • . . .. .. . .. . -• • • • .. : ..... : . . . .... . - i --t--- i-----..-7-1-:ff•-- ----.:-',-- -:—:-- --•.- -.- ---: - ----:-t T--- • : . 1. • 1' * .:r* * , .:____----:-. - ___ _.__ . ' • I ' . . .. i . :. . ,. ...: .. i .. : , . ... .. ,1';•••,• :_•.• : . . • ' : : 1 • . • s : • : : . : .. ; : . ' ! ;EXISTING BUILDING • : : ' • 1 : : ; : PARKING LOT . 1 ; " ; : : , • _ • " , • -• •• . • -------- • . . . . . • : 1 ' . ' • 1 ' ! - ; • ; • : • ; .. : .. : . : " ; : - - -. • : • - ; • • • 1 • ; . • : .. . ... - : • • ; ; , '''.‹peoFiosiD . • I : , , i : : . ! . . . .• : . . • . . • • PROPERTY LINE • ; . . . . : . . i -. . • • : , . . . . . . . . . . • . : . . : .. . • . . ." • • . 6:1 51.13PE• .. : .... -:• • : • : . • .. : .. • . ; . : • . .. . — I . .... ....... .. ..... . ..... .. . .. ... ... . . .. .. • .. ; . : t . • • • .• • ' •' 1 • • • • .• • •". ; : . ... • ; • . • • :: . 1 • __________• 100 90 50 40 30 20 10 0 ; .. • • , . : . • . .. .. • .... . . . . . . .• . . . . . .. • - • • • 1 • • • .. .. • .... • • ... ; .. .... • . • . • • . - . • . , • • . . . . • . .. : ... 1" " . ! .. " .. - ' : • ": .... :* • • • • • • • • .. ..... • 80 70 • :• 60 - • ; .... : .. . ! .. 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -70 -80 -90 -100 -110 -120 -130 -140 .... . :• - . ' . .014 : . OFF: 55 62 EL:. 15 62 01 -IW . EL ; 4 4- :•E1N GROUND : BAsE: FLOoo 1E1:: 30.50 • STA: 19+00 PROPOSED 15' 000 WALL VADE RIVER ' PROTECTION EASEMENT. PAVED TRAIL P-: 34.93 77. . . \,..._ - • . . . . . 2.: 1 'S . LOPE . .. . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . : • / 100 90 80 70 SCARE' r •: : • .• .• ; • P -R oPbsm •, • . . . PROPERTY LINE . • . • 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ; • • -20 -30 .. .. PARKING LOT ; - • • • : • . . . : • . . . . • , ..... .. . : -150 -160 . • • • • . , ... : . r - • • • • • . . • . • • • • • ..... • : . . . . . . • • . : . • • • , • • • • • • . . .. .. ... 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 40 : 10 . ; .. : .. ; .. : . . . • . . ; -40 -50 -60 -70 -80 -90 -100 10 5 0 10 20 SCALE IN FEET • . . .. . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . • . . . . . . • . . _ -110 -120 -130 -140 -150 -160 DESIGNED: CNECKED: KENT PROJECT NO. 09-3011 DRAWN: PROJECT ENGR: CONST. VGVT. REVIEW SCALE: mon,z,.. VERT: 110. NO. REVISION BY DATE APPROVED. CITY ENGINEER DATE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY 0- 1 - City of Kent Public Works Department \".....041T Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 14 oF 24 FILE NO. STA: 9+50 40 '-E70STING "GR00N0- : BRSE: FL00D - 201-- ... 10 - .....AY/.. V: 'EL: 30.50 ;i•: / . :. .:_ .OFF.:. 33.23 ' . i : EL 16.85 / 30 EL OHW 1477: i 50 30 2 10 ..— ----- 0 10 100 90 80 70 60 20 10 0 –10 –20 –30 STA: 20+00 EXISTING GROIJND BASE. FLOOD : EL:: 30.511 ! .. ..:. ...:.. f1000 WALL .. .. 7M0: ..... PAVED 1RAJL7 EL 35, 011 :PROPOSED .15' WIDE RIVER -PPMLt,IIDN EASE•MEN7. –40 –50 –60 –70 –80 –90 –100 –110 –120 –130 –140 –150 –160 1' 21 SLOPE 20 -• __.:.... • .DHW PROPOSED • • PROPERTY UNE 10 FINISH GRADE" 6:1.. SLOPE_. _...: _ .OFF-. 50.95 • U 18.05 : 100 70 60 DESIGNED; 20 10 • • –10 –20 –30 –40 –50 –60 –80 to 5 0 10 20 SCALE IN FEET CHECKED: KENT PRO.ECT NO. 09-3011 DRAWN: PROJECT ENGR: CORST 4G11T. REVIEW SCALE HORIZ: 1=10' VERT: NO. REVISION BY DATE APPROVED: CITY ENGINEER DATE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY 0' City of Kent • Public Works Department KIENT Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 15oF 24 FILE NO. STA: 20+50 • -.PROPOSED: .15' ' ..:.. f-000 WALL, . WIDE RIVER PROTECTION• OFF: 17:00 PAVED 1RAL EXISTING GROUND 0 . BASE. FLOOD • . y: EL:; 30.50 :;-"-: j. OHW. OHW EL•. i4.a1..• 1 50 40 • lw PARKING LDT• 2 1 SLOPE ----'--�-- FRISH GRAC -----' PROPOSED :. - • PROPERTY UNE • 6:1 SLOPE OFF: 50.D6 ---._ 18.53 — 1_": I . • • 100 90 80 70 60 50 50, 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -70 -BO -90 -100 -110 -120 -130 -140 -150 -160 STA: 21+00 FLOOD WALL. - •.PROPOSED .15' WIDE RIVER 'P.ROTECTION ' • EASEMENT.. PROPOSED • PROPERTY LINE PARKING .LOT • -10 -20 -30 -40 iD 50 40 30 20 10 0 J 1 10 SCALE 04 FEET DESIGNED: CHECKED: KENT PROJECT NO. 09-3011 N0. REVISION 81' DRA104: PROJECT MGR: CONST 1AG41T. RENEW SCALE: HORIz 1-10 VERT -1=10' DATE APPROVED: CITY ENGINEER DATE BAR 15 ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWNG ADJJST SCALES ACCORDINGLY 0 City of Kent Public Works Depaliulent KENT Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 16 DF 24 FILE NO. o C) STA: 21+50 EXISTING MOO BASE:.FL00D, EL: 30.50 OFF: 50.32 6:1 SLORE . .. :E1+ 18.49 -: 2t SLOPE .•.PROP.0SED 15' WIDE RIVER • ... PROTECTION ' : . EASEMENT. • •-PROPOSED.:... • PROPERTY IJNE PARKING: LOT 1 \_eqs-TING., BUILDING JAL 0 0 so X40 • — —'- 3D I 20 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -3D -40 STk22+00 -50 -50 -70 -80 -90 -100 -110 -120 -130 -140 -150 -160 40 30 20 _.. OFF: 18: 34:. . ... .- EL: 35.17 [XISTINGGRDUNb�I FLOOD WALL- . PAVED TRAIL-? •.PROPOSED .75: WIDE RIVER PROTECTION EASE IAENT. 1' • • • DRIVEWAY _ _ ._ .: • EXISTING.:BU LDING: . PROPOSED : PROPERTY UNE 100 90 BO 70 60 50 40 30 20 DESIGNED: CHECKED: KENT PROJECT NO. 09-3011 DRAWN: PROJECT ENGR: CONST. 11GMT. REVIEW SCALE HORIZ- 1�a1D` VERT: 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -70 -80 NO. REVISION BY DATE APPROVED: CITY ENGINEER DATE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRA+IC ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY 0 - 10 5 0 10 20 SCALE IN FEET City of Kent Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division -90 -100 LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS -110 -120 -130 -140 -150 -160 DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS 10 0 10 50 30 20 0 SHEET 17 of 24 FILE NO. 50. 301---.. 20 10 STk: 22+50 FLOW WALL ..• . .. EXiSTiNG".GROUND • • . .BFSE • FLOOD 47; EL-: 30.50 • • '2:1 SLOPE. ... 24 2S : PAVED TRAIL 35.13 . • .FINISH. GRA•DE. OFF: 60.17 : EL-. 17.66' 100 90 80 70 60 50 PROPOSED .15' HIDE RIVER • PROiEC`TLgY' EASEMENT — -1' —PR0P:0SED • PROPERTY LINE : • P,ARKING'LOT p • 3 0 0 50 30 20 10 0 —10 —20 —30 —40 —50 —6D —70 —80 —90 —100 —110 —120 —130 STA: 23+00 OFF:: 25.44 .....EL: 35.29 • • •PROPOSED 75'• NIDE RIVER : • PROTECTION • EASEMENT..: MATCH DUSTING ....._..PAVED -TRA96 CONSTRUCTION CONTROL UNE 100 90 80 70 10 N -PROPOSED• : PROPERTY UNE i —10 .-40 20 { —140 —150 —160 : EXISTING BUILDING 30 0..:.. . . • 10 5 0 10 20 SCALE IN Ftt1 —100 —110 —120 —130 —140 —150 0 WO. RENSiON DESCNED: DRAWN: BY DATE AP ROVED. CHECKED: PROJECT ENGR: KENT PRO.ECT N0. SCALE 09-3011 HORIL' 1=10' CONST, LIGATT. REVIEW VERT: 1.=10. crr- ENGINEER DATE BAR I5 ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRA'MNC ADJUST SCALES ACCORDMGLY 0 City of Kent o� Public Works Department ..is' SENT Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 18 of 24 FILE NO. REACH 1 TREE PLANTING SCHEDULE QUANTITY SYMBOL PLANT NAME 19 10 19 13 13 8 20 15 137 TOTAL TREE COUNT FOR REACH 1 0 0 (o� BIG LEAF MAPLE, ACER MACROPHYLLUM CASCARA, RAMNUS PURSHLANA DOUGLAS FIR, PSEUDOTSUGA MENSIEZII OREGON ASH. FRAXINUS LATIFOUA STTKA SPRUCE, PICEA SITCHENSIS WESTERN RED CEDAR, THUJA PUCATA 13111t1 CHERRY, PRUNUS EMARGINATA PACIFIC CRABAPPLE, MALUS FUSCA BLACK COTTONWOOD. POPULUS TRICHOCARPA SSP_ TRICHOCARPA PACIFIC OR SITKA WILLOW FASCINES (50/50 MIX) DEOGKED: PARKS GEFT: SIZE. NOTES 5 GALLON 2 GALLON 5 GALLON 2 GALLON 5 GALLON 5 GALLON 2 GALLON 2 GALLON 6' U6E CUTTING, 6' MAX. DIAMETER, ONE FOOT E^POSED; THREE PER SYMBOL 6' LIVE CUTTING, 6' MAX. DIAMETER. ONE FOOT EXPOSED; THREE PER SYMBOL KENT PROJECT NG. 09-3010 DRAWN: PROJECT E'CR: CONST. M_MT. REVIEW SCALE: HORIZ: VERT: N0. 505010N BY DATE APPROVED: 001 ENGINEER GATE BAR 15 ONE INCH 08 CRISNAL 0P.A41190 ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY O' KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL --%:;-1 D P S T R 1 C T City of Kent Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division REACH 1 DRAFT TREE PLANTING PLAN 15' TRAIL CLEAR ZONE HYDROSEEDED WITH SEYD MIX, TYP. BRISCOE & DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS 50 0 50 100 SCALE: = 50' SHEET 19 0,24 FILE NO 09-3010 01 REACH 1 SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER PLANTING SCHEDULES SYMBOL PLANT NAMES WSDOT N0 -CLOVER EROSION CONTROL SEED MIX, 3 LBS/1000 SF 457. CREEPING RED FESCUE. 45E PERENNIAL RYEGRASS, 10% HIGHLAND COLONIAL BLNTGRASS (DIRECT SEED SALES OR APPROVED EQUAL) UPPER SLOPE SHRUBS, 1 GALLON CONTAINER RED FLOWERING CURRANT, RIB6 SANGUINEUM RED STEM CEANOTHUS, CEANOTHUS SANGUINEUM OCEANSPRAY, HOLODISCUS DISCOLOR MOCK ORANGE, PHILADELPHUS LEWISII TALL OREGON GRAPE, MAHONIA AQUIFOLIUM SYMPHORICARPOS ALBUS, SNOWBERRY MIDDLE SLOPE SHRUBS, 1 GALLON CONTAINER PACIFIC NINEBARK, PHYSOCARPUS CAPITATUS BLACK TWINBERRY, LONICERA INVOLUCRATA VINE MAPLE, ACER CIRCINATUM SALMONBERRY, RUBUS SPECTABILIS THIMBLEBERRY, RUBUS PARVIFLORA N00TKA ROSE, ROSA NUTKANA LOWER SLOPE SHRUBS, 1 GALLON CONTAINER RED OSIER DOGWOOD, CORNUS SERICEA SWAMP ROSE, ROSA PISACARPA DESIGNED: PARKS DEPT: 40T PROJECT NO. 09-3010 ORATN: PROJECT 0 5R: SCALE: HORIZ: CONST. MGMT. REVIEW VERT: REVISION BY DATE A. C.OJED: 075 ENGINEER CATE k y\ o� 00+99L OQ+L9L f ig BAP. IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDING .1 0 1' KING COUNTY J FLOOD CR C T It_ Cityof Kent . . Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division REACH 1 DRAFT SHRUB PLANTING PLAN PROPOSED NEW TRAIL 15' TRAIL CLEAR ZONE HTDRDS®LD WITH SEED MIX, TYP. BRISCOE & DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS EasizEENI 50 0 50 100 SCALE: 1" = 50' SHEET 20 DF 24 FILE 90. 09-3010 01 BEACH 1 SHRU3 A \JD GOUI\ DCOVE� P AI\ TING SCHEDULES LOWER SLOPE MIDDLE SLOPE UPPER SLOPE DESIGNED: PARKS SEPT: LOWER SLOPE SHRUBS (OHWM TO EL. 19.5; 16,700 SF; APPROXIMATELY 1205 PLANTS TOTAL) SCIEN11FIC NAME CORNUS SERICEA PHYSOCARPUS CAPRATUS ROSA PISOCARPA COMMON NAME RED -OSIER DOGWOOD PACIFIC NINEBARK SWAMP ROSE 517E 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL ALL SHRUBS IN LOWER SLOPES TO BE SPACED 4' TRIANGULARLY ON -CENTER MIDDLE SLOPE SHRUBS ESTIMATED REACH 1 QUANTITY 566 (47%) 169 (147.) 470 (39%) (EL 19.5 TO EL. 22.5; 5,000 SF; APPROXIMATELY 360 PLANTS TOTAL) SCIENTIFIC NAME ACER CIRCINATUM LONICERA INVOLUCRATA PHYSOCARPUS CAPIrATUS ROSA NU KANA RUBUS PARVIFLORUS RUBUS SPECTABIUS COMMON NAME VINE MAPLE BLACK TWINBERRY PACIFIC NINEBARK NOOTKA ROSE THIMBLEBERRY SALMONBERRY SIZE 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 CAL 1 GAL 1 GAL • ALL SHRUBS 1N MIDDLE SLOPES TO BE SPACED 4' TRIANGULARLY ON -CENTER UPPER SLOPE SHRUBS (EL. 22.5 TO LOWER INSPECTION CORRIDOR BOUNDARY; 9,800 SF; APPROXIMATELY 705 PLANTS TOTAL) 911 COMM. NAM SI ESTIMATED REACH 1 QUANTITY 27 (7.57.) 63 (17.57.) 62 (17%) 66 (19%) 40 (117.) 101 (28%) TIM A _ . REAL. 1 CEANOTHUS SANGUINEUM HOLODISCUS DISCOLOR MAHONIA AOUIFODUM PHILADEIPHUS LEV/1511 RIBES SANGUINEUM SYMPHORICARPOS ALBUS RED -STEM CEANOTHUS OCEANSP RAY TALL OREGON GRAPE MOCK ORANGE RED FLOWERING CURRANT SNOWBERRY 1 GAL 1 GAL GAL GAL GAL GAL • ALL SHRUBS IN UPPER SLOPES TO BE SPACED 4' TRIANGULARLY ON -CENTER DRAWN: PROJECT E'GR: KENT PROJECT N0. SCALE: 09-3010 HOR12: CONST. 604.T. REVIEW FJLT: NO. REVISION BY GATE AP,ROJED. 00/ ENGINEER DATE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY 0 - 123 (17.5%) 71 (107.) 99 (14%) 102 (14.57.) 170 (240) 142 (20%) LOWER SLOPE TYPICAL LAYOUT n �\ \ IGHER ELEVATION n n Un� J MIDDLE SLOPE TYPICAL LAYOUT WILLOW FASCINES TVP, SEE TREE PLANTING PLAN HWM \OWER ELEVATION IGHER ELEVATION -411%.4W 44411) wikik101)40,441 i< UPPER SLOPE TYPICAL LAYOUT 0 r -t � ,r--7A'J� OWER ELEVATION IGHER ELEVATION it (77-57,,,(--c-7 A \ 3 p vrA<' 2 i �►. � 5 "gab .. �►.( 10 yi ! 1L,-. t-- v. gDi —\ ' ' 1= ;i/ \ =t,J= -r 3 9 KING COUNTY 1' FLOOD CONTROL I S T R 1 C T City of Kent Q� Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division IMMIF v G. 61e1- ; Ah IVIV `_;ate OWER ELEVATION REACH 1 DRAFT SHRUB PLANTING PLAN — / BRISCOE & DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS 0 0 10 20 SCALE 1" = 10' SHEET 21 OF 24 FILE NO. 09-3010 01 TREE PER PLAN & SPECIFICATIONS MULCH PER SPECIFICATIONS T SET RDDTBALL ON SUBGRADE CUT AND REMOVE TWINE AND BURLAP FROM TOP AND SIDES OF RODTBALL (REMOVE ALL WIRE BASKETS.) c=1 AMENDED SOIL PER SPECIFICATIONS MAINTAIN UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE BELOW ROOT BALL NOTE FOR TREE PLANTING TO BE ACCEPTABLE, ROOT FLARE SHALL BE 2" ABOVE SURROUNDING GRADE CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE ADD 2" FINE COMPOST. TILL FINE COMPOST INTO TOP 8' OF NATIVE SOIL FOR TOTAL OF 10" AMENDED SOIL 10" AFTER SETTLEiti NATIVE SOIL:: SOIL AMENDMENT DETAIL MULCH AS SPECIFIED (FEATHER MULCH AWAY FROM STEM BASE) NATIVE SHRUBS PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE DESIGNED: NOT TO SCALE PARKS DEPT: KENT PRCJECT N0. 09-3010 OHW (SEE RIGHT OF WAY PIAN) I EXISTING GROUND TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL BLANKET 2" COMPOST INCORPORATED INTO SUBSOIL TO 10" DEPTH K.1NG COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ._ DISTT R_ 1 C T TREE PER PLAN AND SPECIFICATIONS ROOT CROWN 2" ABOVE FINISH GRADE MULCH PER SPECIFICATIONS SET ROOTBALL ON UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE. CUT AND REMOVE TWINE AND BURLAP FROM TOP AND SIDES OF ROOIBN.J_ (REMOVE ALL WIRE BASKETS.) AMENDED SOIL PER SPECIFICATIONS DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE TREE/SHRUB PLANTING ZONE PAVED TRAIL FINISH \ GRADE tr/ \\ IF X X XX- X X X X xi \X X X X XXX y / \ \ / - — — / i - \ FINISH GRADE 3" ARBORIST -- MULCH `-EXISTING GROUND FLOOD WALL 2" COMPOST INCORPORATED INTO SUBSOIL TO 10" DEPTH TYPICAL LANDSCAPE SECTION NOT TO SCALE NOTE - 1. ALL SEEDED AND PLANTED AREAS TO RECEIVE SOIL AMENDMENT. 2. TYPE AND SPACING OF VEGETATION VARIES, SEE PLANT LEGEND. ORA 1.1 PROJECT E'GR CONST. MGMT. RENEW SCALE: HOP,I'.: VERT: NO. REVISION Y DATE ACPRO'JED: CITY ENGINEER D.ATC BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY 0" City of Kent Public Works Department `ems KENT Engineering Division REACH 1 DRAFT DETAILS BRISCOE & DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET ZZ GF z4 FILE NO. 09-3010 01 -- 200' SHORELINE BUFFER • 1 ,10 �•. MAPLE: ' 3-6" LONDON,., PLANE` 71iOE: HAMAMELIS: / >G'r l° sal 'TREE: 0"`° OHO 114+00 LONDON PLANE TREE: 1-20" z LEGEND: A TREE TO BE REMOVED OTREE TO REMAIN NO. REVISION BY DATE DESIGNED: DRAWN: RW APPROVED. CHECKED: PROJECT ENGR: KENT PROJECT NO. 09-3011 CONST. MGNT. REVIEW CITY ENGINEER SCALE: HORIZ• 1`=20' VERT. 1-=1 DATE 7-7-14 BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY 0- 1 - 'KING rtz C FLOOD / _gip I S T R. 1 C T City of Kent Public Works Department -.\....00"LirbENT Engineering Division SHEET TREE INVENTORY DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS 23 of 24 FILE NO. RIVERPOINTE CORPORATE CENTER 18200 CASCADE AVE. S. 17 "ir 4- tIN _ «- 200' g►'10REWNE 40 FEET ,✓ > LONDON PLANE TREE: i 1-20" • F.� PANO�a\` PLANE TREE: - 4-18" -` J PINE: 1-15" EX. BLDG. LONDON PLANE TREE: 1-16" LONDON PLANE TREE: 2-16" LONDON PLANE TREE: 1-20' LONDON •PI JANE TREE: 3-16" O.‘ G‘' N LP i* 901° PLANE LONDON LP A TREE: 1(N(A� 1-20" —LANDWARD FACE OF FINIS WALL St CONST. CONTROL IJN " . „ CORNING CLINICAL LVORATORIES, SAYBOLT INC., ENCORE SAI. . & INNOVATION CUISINE ENT: 18251 CASCADE AVE. S. PINE 1-18" PHOTINIA: 5-4" 20+00 EX. BLDG. r KING COUNT)/ T, Di5)TCRNT OT DESIGNED: CHECKED: KENT PROJECT NO. 09-3011 DRAWN: RW PROJECT ENGR: CONST. MGMT. REVIEW SCALE: HORIZ: VERT . NO. REVISION BY DATE APPROVED. CITY ENGINEER DATE 7-7-14 BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY City of Kent Public Works Department CLIENT Engineering Division TREE INVENTORY DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 24 of 24 ALE N0. / J (1� FLOOD SIDE , PROTECTED SIDE HANDRAIL 10 CONST. CONTROL LINE T/RAILING 5/8" X 4" WELDED -\ STUDS (TYP) TRAIL, FINISH GRADE- I ASPHALT SLOPE AWAY !I I FROM WALL 11.5 T/BARRIER I LIMITS OF PIGMENTED SEALER ( B \ CONCRETE I / CAP BEAM J WALL CONTROL POINT TOP OF CAP T/SHEET PILE SHEET PILE WALL EXISTING -, GRADE SHEET PILE i PAINT EXPOSED SHEET PILES i 5 9i' FINISH GRADE o w Z z 0 2: v <a PILE PAINTING 4" THICK CONCRETE MOW STRIP B/ SHEET PILE WALL SHEET PILE WALL O SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" FLOOD SIDE PROTECTED SIDE #5 @ 12" O.C. 13" '\ #5 CONT. `1 (TOTAL 2) --.--CONST. CONTROL LINE TOP OF CAP ,3" CLR. � ; T / SHEET PILE 3 ' CLR. #6 CONT.- (TOTAL ONT-(TOTAL 3) (3) #6 CONT. E.F. 5/8" X 4" WELDED STUD (TYP) ±6-1/2" NOTE: NO EXPANSION JOINT REQUIRED THIS SECTION. SEE NOTE ON S2 FOR EXPANSION JOINT REQUIREMENTS AT RAMP DETAIL - CONCRETE CAP BEAM AT RAMP ADJACENT TO LEVEE SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0" (NOTE 1 0) 1- J } 0 1-3 , IS4 3-#6 CONT. E.F. CONST. CONTROL LINE HANDRAIL T / BARRIER DETAIL WALL CONTROL POINT TOP OF CAP sb974WO -_Osv In NOM 7 T SHEET PILE 3" CLR. - CONCRETE BARRIER PAY LIMIT #5 @ 12" 0.C. 113" 2'-2" (4) 5/8"x 4"—/ WELDED STUDS @ EA GROUP 3" CLR. ±8" TYPICAL SECTION SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0" T/BARRIER 5" STUD SPACING ±6 1/2" DETAIL O #4 @ 12" O.C. E.F. 1'-6" LAP #5 @ 9" 0.C. N1 in 0' C CONCRETE CAP BEAM PAY LIMIT 6" X 6" / BASE PLATE �3/4" GROUT 3/4" CHAMFER #6 CONT @ TOP 1 10" D X 1" H REVEAL (TYP) 6, #4 @ 9" 0.C. of 2" CLR (TYP) #4 @ 12" 0.C. M 1'-3" DETAIL - BARRIER REVEAL & REINF.0 SCALE: NTS WALL CONTROL POINT TOP OF CAP 1/2" D X 1" H REVEAL DETAIL - BARRIER BOTTOM REVEAL O SCALE: NTS NOTES: 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN CENTERLINE OF SHEET PILE WITH FLOODWALL CENTERLINE AT BENDS THROUGH USE OF TRANSITION SHEET PILES OR THROUGH ALLOWABLE ROTATION OF SHEET PILE INTERLOCKS. SPECIAL SECTIONS SHALL FIT WITHIN THE SPECIFIED LENGTHS AND WORK POINT LOCATIONS. TRANSITION SHEET PILES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM THICKNESS OF 3/8". CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FINAL LAYOUT OF SHEET PILE TO FIT THE DESIGNATED ALIGNMENT. SHEET PILE SHOP DRAWINGS SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL AND SHALL INCLUDE THE LAYOUT AND ALL THE NECESSARY DETAILS INCLUDING SPECIAL SECTIONS. 2. SHEET PILE STEEL SHALL BE ASTM A572 GRADE 50. 3. ALL MISCELLANEOUS STEEL SHALL BE ASTM A36, WITH HOT DIPPED GALVANIZED FINISH CONFORMING TO ASTM A153. 4. CONCRETE 28 -DAY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH SHALL BE 4-000 PSI. 5. REINFORCING STEEL SHALL BE ASTM A706. 6. WELDED SHEAR STUDS SHALL BE ASTM A108. STUDS SHALL BE TESTED PER AWS D1.1 SECTION 7.6. 7. WATERSTOP SHALL BE RUBBER OR PVC. RUBBER WATERSTOP SHALL CONFORM TO CORPS OF ENGINEERS CRD -513; PVC WATERSTOP SHALL CONFORM TO CORPS OF ENGINEERS CRD -0572. 8. REFER TO THE CIVIL SHEETS FOR THE SHEET PILE WALL PLAN, PROFILE AND ADDITIONAL SITE INFORMATION. 9. CONTRACTOR TO BACKFILL WALL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE CAP BEAM AND WALL FACING. 10. SEE PILE CAP DETAIL FOR ANCHOR LOCATIONS, SECTIONS A AND C, DWG. S3. 11. PROVIDE 3/4" CHAMFER ON ALL EXPOSED CONCRETE EDGES. 12. SEE SPECIAL PROViSiON CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS. 13. LOADING (PER ASCE 7, SECTION 4.4.3) F = 6,000 LBS. FLOOD SIDE PANEL SIDE (4) 5/8" X 4"-\ WELDED STUDS \ (TYP EA. SIDE) 4" MIN CLR 0" WATER SIDE SHEET PILE, II t4'-7" 2-1/2" MIN CLR LAND SIDE SECTION THRU CAP BEAM O SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0" n #4 - 4" FROM TOP, THEN 8" O.C. 4" TYP PROTECTED SIDE FLOOD SIDE SHEET PILE WALL END REINFORCEMENT DETAIL NOTE: SCALE: 1/2" = i'-0" SHOWN AT SHEET PILE CAP LEVEL DE9CI:ED: AA I -NECKED, KDR KENT PROJECT NO. 60242339 DRAWN: PM PROJECT ENGR:JN CONST. VC/AT. REVIEW SCALE: HOPIS `BERT NO. REVISION BY DATE APF,OJEED: CITY ENGINEER DATE 12-17-2013 6:.R IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING AD.JST SCALES ACCORDINCLY O" City of Kent ,,� Public Works Department ''P KENT Engineering Division GEIConsultants 180 Grand Ave, Suite 1410 Oakland, CA 94612 510-350-2900 GE' Project 121141 1 BRISCOE — DESIMONE LEVEE FLOODWALL SECTIONS AND DETAILS SHEET Si OF 5 FILE NO S1,dwg JOINT SEALANT - EXPANSION EXPANSION JOINT T/BARRIER T/WATERSTOP ADDITIONAL #4 x2'-0" AT EACH EXPANSION JOINT rr ii 11-11 II IMI II II IMI II I I II 1 0' 11 I I I II I II I I f SECTION u LLL I I II II I I I I II I I II I-1 1 1 11 LLJJ -SHEET PILE WATERSTOP T/CONCRETE CAP BEAM PREMOLDED JOINT FILLER T/SHEET PILE B/WATERSTOP B/CONC CAP BEAM ( A� SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0" 3'-0" MIN NOTES: 1. SEE NOTES ON SHEET 51 AS APPLICABLE. 2. EXPANSION JOINTS SPACING REQUIREMENTS: A. 24 -FOOT MAXIMUM UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. B. DO NOT PROVIDE EXPANSION JOINTS WITHIN REACH 3 PARKING LOT RAMP LIMITS (APROX. STA. 17+83 TO 18+52). C. SEE SHEET S3 FOR EXPANSION JOINT REQUIREMENTS ADJACENT TO THE REACH 3 PARKING LOT RAMP. D. 12 -FOOT MAXIMUM BETWEEN FOR A 48 FT DISTANCE UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM OF THE REACH 3 PARKING LOT RAMP (ABOUT STA. 17+35 TO 17+83 AND STA. 18+52 TO 19+00). '— INSIDE CORNER WALL REINFORCEMENT NOT TO BE CONTINUOUS AROUND CORNER WALL BEND ABOVE SHEET PILE DETAIL (7 NOTE: SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-O" VERTICAL REINFORCEMENT NOT SHOWN I WATERSTOP —` �' PROTECTED A \ / SIDE / \- SIDE FLOOD PROTECTEDSIDE 1 WELDED SHEET PILE EXPANSION JOINT THROUGH FAR SHEAR STUD SHEET PILE FLANGE SHEET PILE TYPE A EXPANSION JOINT DETAIL SCALE: 1" = 1'-0" FLOOD WATERSTOP-‘ 1-1/2" MIN 1/2" PREMOLDED JOINT FILLER (TYP) 7 CHAMFER JOINT SEALANT REINFORCEMENT 4-1/4" MIN 2" TYP DETAIL SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0" - ) DESIGNED: AA FOR EXPANSION WALL JOINTS SHEET PILE " WELDED SHEAR STUD EXPANSION JOINT THROUGH SHEET PILE WEB WATERSTOP DETAIL SCALE: NTS \ - j CHECKED: KDR KENT PROJECT NO. 60242339 DRANY: ?M PROJECT EN GR: JN CONST. Mall. REVIEW SCALE: HOR12: VERT: - NQ REVISION 3Y DATE APPR7`JED: QTY ENGINEER DALE 12-17-2013 WATERSTOP LOCATION (NOTE 3) 3-1/2" NEAREST SHEET PILE FLANGE IN LINE WITH WATERSTOP BAR IS ONE INCH ON GRI;INAL DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY D' SIDE WATERSTOP © CENTER-.. OF BARRIER (TYP) WATERSTOP LOCATION (NOTE 3) USE TRANSITION SHEET PILE IF BEND ANGLE EXCEEDS MAXIMUM JOINT ALLOWABLE ROTATION WALL BEND BELOW T/SHEET PILE DETAIL �� NOTE: SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" \\\._-__} VERTICAL REINFORCEMENT NOT SHOWN WATERSTOP--\ - SHEET PILE --' 2" MAX -\ WELDED SHEAR STUD EXPANSION JOINT THROUGH NEAR SHEET PILE FLANGE NEAREST SHEET PILE FLANGE IN LINE WITH WATERSTOP WATERSTOP LOCATION SCHEMATIC O SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0" City of Kent Public Works Department KENT Engineering Division G 180 Grand Ave. Suite 1410 Oakland, CA 94612 510-350-2900 GEI Project 121141 WATERSTOP NOTES: PROTECTED SIDE FLOOD SIDE 1. WATERSTOPS SHALL BE INSTALLED AS DIRECTED BY THE MANUFACTURER. WATERSTOPS SHALL BE CAREFULLY AND CORRECTLY POSITIONED DURING INSTALLATION TO ELIMINATE FAULTY INSTALLATION THAT MAY RESULT IN JOINT LEAKAGE. ALL WATERSTOPS SHALL BE INSTALLED SO A5 TO FORM A CONTINUOUS WATERTIGHT DIAPHRAGM IN EACH JOINT. PROVISION SHALL BE MADE TO SUPPORT AND PROTECT THE WATERSTOPS DURING THE PROGRESS OF WORK. ANY WATERSTOP PUNCTURED OR DAMAGED SHALL BE REPLACED OR REPAIRED AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. THE CONCRETE SHALL BE THOROUGHLY CONSOLIDATED IN THE VICINITY OF THE WATERSTOP. SUITABLE GUARDS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO PROTECT EXPOSED PROJECTING EDGES AND ENDS OF PARTIALLY EMBEDDED WATERSTOPS FROM DAMAGE WHEN CONCRETE PLACEMENT HAS BEEN DISCONTINURD. WATERSTOPS SHALL NOT BE SPLICED. 2. STOP WATERSTOP 4" FROM T/BARRIER. PLUG TOP OF WATERSTOP WITH 2" MIN OF SOFT RUBBER. 3. MINIMUM RADIUS PER MANUFACTURER REQUIREMENTS OR PROVIDE 90° VERTICAL ELL TRANSITIONS USING HEAT FUSED FIELD WELDS PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. BRISCOE — DESIMONE LEVEE FLOODWALL SHEET PILE WALL DETAILS SHEET S2 OF 5 FILE NO. S2.dwg /Th HANDRAIL NOTES: 1. MATERIAL FOR PEDESTRIAN HANDRAIL SHALL BE POWDERCOATED, GALVANIZED STEEL (ASTM A53 GRADE B). 2. ALL POSTS SHALL BE PLUMB AFTER INSTALLATION. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOP PLANS FOR ENGINEER'S APPROVAL PRIOR TO FABRICATION. 4. GALVANIZED PEDESTRIAN RAIL SHALL BE FABRICATED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE DRAWINGS AND THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS. 5. SEE CIVIL & STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DRAWINGS FOR LOCATION OF RAILING AND RAILING END SECTION. 6. LOADING (PER ASCE7, SECTION 4.4.1) TOP RAIL: 200 LBS CONCENTRATED OR 50—LBS/FT WHICHEVER IS GREATER APPLIED ANY DIRECTION. LOWER RAIL: 50—LBS NOMINAL AT ANY POINT ALONG THE RAIL. 7. EXPANSION JOINT SHALL BE PROVIDED IN RAILS. A HANDRAIL EXPANSION JOINT SHALL BE PROVIDED AT THE LOCATION OF EACH EXPANSION JOINT IN THE CONCRETE BARRIER AND CAP BEAM AND SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN ONE—FOOT HORIZONTALLY FROM THE EXPANSION JOINT IN THE CONCRETE. 8. OPENING BETWEEN BOTTOM OF RAILING AND TOP OF BARRIER SHALL BE 8—INCHES OR LESS. 1"4 4" , f-6" 1" PL Y2"x 6"x 6" W/(4) ;18" HOLES }" DIA. RESIN BONDED ANCHOR BOLT W/6" MIN. EMBEDMENT IN CONCRETE WALL (TYP.) HANDRAIL PLATE (PLAN) SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1-0" 1-1/2" SCH 40 X 0'-6" LG STD PIPE RAILING SPLICE '4s" FILLET WELD (TYP.) —� 1" HANDRAIL SPLICE SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0" 2" SCH 40 STD. PIPE SECTION SCALE: 3" = 1'-0" --< (TYP.) 0 EACH POST FOR ALL RAIL SECTIONS RESIN BONDED ANCHOR ,^ BOLTS W. NUT & WASHER, / NO MORE THAN 2 THREADS IJ EXPOSED, TYP. Y4 TYP. NON—SHRINK GROUT PAD 34„ PLATE TO BE LEVEL, GROUT TO MAKE TRANSITION TO SLOPING CONCRETE BELOW, TYP. HANDRAIL PLATE (SECTION) SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0" DESIGNED: AA 1/2" EXPANSION JOINT ELEVATION '-2" DIA SCH 40 PIPE SECTION 1-1 /2" DIA SCH 40 PIPE INSIDE 2" DIA SCH 40 PIPE RAIL EXPANSION 6 JOINT DETAIL (NOTE 7) SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0" [NECKED" KDR KENT PROJECT NO. 60242339 DRAWN: PM PROJECT ENGR: JN CONST. MGMT. REVIEW SCALE: HOPIZ `. PT. — I NO. REVISION BY DATE APPROVED: CITY ENGINEER. GATE 12-17-2013 HANDRAIL SPLICE 8'-0" O.C. POST SPACING EXrANSION JOINT `� fTOP OF BARRIER /i/ RAIL POST `—REVEAL HANDRAIL PLATE 2" SCH 40 (STD. PIPE), TYP. — r 751 ) \1 RAIL POST 4' 0" MIN. E,'-0" MAX. 0.C. POST SPACING 6" BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORiGI,NAL DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDIRGN' 0' i \ CORNER MITERED HANDRAIL SPLICE City of Kent Public Works Department =- KENT Engineering Division HANDRAIL ELEVATION O 1' = 1'—o" RAIL POST 8' 3" 0.C. POS.T SPACING )EXPANSION JOINT `STOP OF RAILING fl �/ f i r, TOP OF BARRIER HANDRAIL PLATE 2" SCH 40 (STD. PIPE), TYP. HANDRAIL END SECTION DETAIL 55 1" = G`LJ j t.L Consultants 180 Grand Ave. Suite 1410 Oakland, CA 94612 510-350-2900 GEI Project 121141 RAIL POST 2 // BRISCOE — DESIMONE LEVEE FLOODWALL HAND RAIL ELEVATION, SECTIONS AND DETAILS SHEET 53 OF 5 FILE NO. S4.dwg FLOODSIDE LANDSIDE REMOVABLE BOLLARD (SEE DETAIL 2) FINISHED GRADE TRAILHEAD PARK \\ \\i /.//V\, >`„,/:-\\// y//\\/ a'. 1,3 y i%4\ HINGE ASSEMBLY (SEE DETAIL 1) PADLOCK TO BE PROVIDED BY OTHERS fes— FINISHED GRADE PARKING LOT D • TRAILHEAD WALL, SEE DWG. S12 BOLLARD CASING (SEE DETAIL 3) %\ o-• DETAIL - BOLLARD CASING ELEVATION SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" NOTES 1. DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE APPROXIMATE, FABRICATOR TO ADJUST AS NEEDED TO ENSURE PROPER FIT. 2. SILL PLATE BETWEEN BOLLARDS IS 4'-6-1/2" LONG. 3. HINGE TO BE FABRICATED FROM 3/8" STEEL PLATE TO GIVEN DIMENSIONS. DESIGNED: AA CHECKED: KDR KENT PROJECT NO. 60242339 \ 15/16" 2-1/8" 1-1/2" 4" 1-1/2" 1" DIA. HOLES THRU FLANGES REMOVE BURRS (4 PLC's) 436 STEEEL M 4X13 SHAPE, ROUND ALL CORNERS, INSTALL PLUMB PAINT: 1 COAT RUSTOLEUM PRIMER #7673 2 COATS RUSTOLEUM SEMIGLOSS WHITE #7797 FULL LENGTH 1/4" DIA. STAINLESS STEEL ROD WELDED TO POST 1/8"N (TYP) 3 SIDES> 1/8" 1/4" A36 STEEL PLATE CUT TO CONFORM TO M SHAPE - WELD AND GRIND SMOOTH 3/16"V 3" 0.D. GALVANIZED STD. STEEL PIPE, SCH 40 ASTM A53 DETAIL - BOLLARD (REMOVABLE) \2�. SCALE: 3" = 1'-0" R=1/8"-\ N R=3/16" 1-1/4" 1/8" DIA. PIN 5" 2-1/4" 1 11/32" 1/2" 3/8„ --7 1' 1/2" 1-5/32" 1-5/32" R=3/16' 7-1/4" R=1/32" (2) 1/4" DIA. X 3/4" LONG NF STAINLESS STEEL FLATHEAD SCREWS DETAIL - HINGE ASSEMBLY - REMOVABLE BOLLARD (NOTE 3) SCALE: 6" = 1'-0" \ - 1-5/32" N CASE TO BE MADE OF 1/2" STEEL PLATE, CUT AND WELD TO GIVEN DIMENSIONS 7/16" 3-1/16" 3/16" PLAN 5-5/16" 1-5/32" 1/4" DIA. NF SCREWS TO FASTEN HINGE ASSY. (SEE DETAIL 1) -1-31/32" 3-1/2" I.D. GALVANIZED STD. STEEL PIPE, SCH 40 ASTM A53 - 1/4" DIA. NF TAP THRU 1/8 —1/2" DIA. X 6" LONG BOLT, BEND AND WELD TO CASE ELEVATION -2'-10-15/16" DETAIL - BOLLARD CASING SCALE: 3" = 1'-0" \�/ DRAWN: PM PROJECT ENGR: JN CONST. M_I/T. REVIEW SCALE: HOPJ'' — VEPT: — NO. REVISION BY DATE APPROVED: CITY ENGINEER 551E 10-30-2013 BAR 15 ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY 0" i' City of Kent Public Works Department • KENT Engineering Division GETConsultants 180 Grand Ave. Suite 1410 Oakland, CA 94612 510-350-2900 GEI Project 121141 REMOVABLE BOLLARD DETAILS SHEET s CF FILE NC- S2.dwg cD PANSION JOINT 24'-O" TYPICAL (EXCEPT WHERE NOTED OTHERWISE) EXPANSION JOINT cc f w - cc m aw w SHEET PILE WALL DESIGNED: REVEAL CAP BEAM CONCRETE BARRIER (SMOOTH FINISH) (SMOOTH FINISH) SHEET PILES - PAINT ALL EXPOSED SURFACES AND AREA TO BOTTOM OF MOW STRIP. SEE KSP 6-07.3(98)-7 /! ( 4° THICK CONC. MOW STRIP / FINISHED GRADE d/l ?�y\\,j��\\ice S\\;�\r�•`, \\moi\�s:\/��%;�i��i\\ �\%\\J\ ` �\ \� \� `��?: /n /i: /i✓/ /.:<�i: %iii �.� PARES CERT: KENT RRO,;E T N0. 09-3010 BR -'W. : RW PROJECT DGR: CONST. IaGAAT. REVIEW KALE: H,112' reT: NONE NO REVISION 3Y DATE A?PROVED. CITY ENGINEER BATE 10-25-13 TYPICAL FLOODWALL ELEVATION SCALE: 1" =2' BAR 15 C++E INCH TY ORIGINAL CRAYTNG AT.5 ST SCALES ACCORDINGLY KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT City of Kent Public. Works Department KENT Engineering Division TYPICAL FLOODWALL ELEVATION (LANDWARD FACE) BRISCOE & DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET r C� S5 :iF ✓ FILE NO. TITLE 18 — ZONING 18.06.453 Integrated Site "Integrated site" means a commercial or industrial zoned property for which a Binding Site Improvement Plan is being or has been approved and recorded. The site typically contains within it multiple tracts of land under separate leasehold or ownership, but functions as a single center. Characteristics of an integrated site includes commonly shared access, parking, utilities, signage and landscaping; the site is not bisected by a public or private street; and zoning and sign regulations are applied to the entire site, as if there were no interior property lines. (Ord. 1834 §2 (part), 1998) 18.06.454 Internet Data/Telecommunication Center "Internet data/telecommunication center" means a secure, climate -controlled facility with emergency backup power that contains internet data transmission and switching equipment and/or telecommunication transmission and switching equipment. This equipment may include computer network routers, switches and servers for one or more companies. (Ord. 1974 §1, 2001) 18.06.460 Junk Yard "Junk yard" means a lot, land or structure, or part thereof, used for the collection, storage and sale of waste paper, rags, scrap metal or discarded material; or for the collecting, dismantling, storage, salvaging and sale of parts of machinery or vehicles not in running condition. (Ord. 1758 §1 (part), 1995) 18.06.465 Kennel "Kennel" means a place where four or more dogs or cats or any combination thereof are kept. (Ord. 1758 §1 (part), 1995) 18.06.470 Laboratory, Medical and Dental "Medical or dental laboratory" means premises devoted to sample testing or product development in any branch of medicine or dentistry, including the application of scientific principles in testing, analysis, or preparation of drugs, chemicals or other products or substances but specifically excluding the commercial manufacturing or storage and distribution operations in excess of 20,000 square feet of floor area. (Ord. 1758 §1 (part), 1995) 18.06.472 Large Woody Debris (LWD) "Large Woody Debris (LWD)" means whole trees with root wads and limbs attached, cut logs at least 4 inches in diameter along most of their length, root wads at least 6.5 feet long and 8 inches in diameter. Large woody debris is installed to address a deficiency of habitat and natural channel forming processes. (Ord. 2347 §17, 2011) 18.06.473 Land Surveyor "Land surveyor" means an individual registered in accordance with the provisions of RCW 18.43 and licensed to perform land surveys in the State of Washington. (Ord. 1834 §2 (part), 1998) 18.06.475 Land -Altering Activity "Land -altering activity" means any activity that results in change of the natural cover or topography, as defined in TMC Chapter 16.54, Land Altering. (Ord. 1758 §1 (part), 1995) 18.06.480 Land -Altering Permit "Land -altering permit" means a permit for land -altering activity issued by the City of Tukwila pursuant to TMC Chapter 16.54, Land Altering. (Ord. 1758 §1 (part), 1995) 18.06.485 Landscape Architect "Landscape architect" means a person licensed by the State of Washington to engage in the practice of landscape architecture as defined by RCW 18.96.030. (Ord. 1758 §1 (part), 1995) 18.06.490 Landscaping or Landscaped Areas "Landscaping or landscaped areas" 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 to which the land is put. (Ord. 1758 §1 (part), 1995) 18.06.492 Lease "Lease" means a contract or agreement whereby one party grants to another party general or limited rights, title or interest in real property. This definition is intended to apply to those agreements which are ordinarily considered "ground leases", and shall not apply to those which are ordinarily considered "space leases." (Ord. 1834 §2 (part), 1998) 18.06.493 Levee "Levee" means a broad embankment of earth built parallel with the river channel to contain flow within the channel and prevent flooding from a designated design storm. (Ord. 2347 §18, 2011) 18.06.494 Levee, Minimum Profile "Levee, minimum profile" means the minimum levee profile for any new or reconstructed levees is the King County "Briscoe Levee" profile -2.5:1 overall slope with 15 -foot mid -slope bench for maintenance access and native vegetation plantings. (Ord. 2347 §19, 2011) ATTACHMENT 3 Produced by the City of Tukwila, City Clerk's Office Page 18-19 f TITLE 18 – ZONING CHAPTER 18.44 SHORELINE OVERLAY DISTRICT Sections: 18.44.020 Shoreline Environment Designations 18.44.030 Principally Permitted Uses and Shoreline Use Matrix Shoreline Residential Environment — Uses Urban Conservancy Environment - Uses High Intensity Environment - Uses Aquatic Environment - Uses Development Standards Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Environmentally Sensitive Areas within the Shoreline Jurisdiction Public Access to the Shoreline Shoreline Design Guidelines Shoreline Restoration Administration Appeals Enforcement and Penalties Liability 18.44.040 18.44.050 18.44.060 18.44.065 18.44.070 18.44.080 18.44.090 18.44.100 18.44.110 18.44.120 18.44.130 18.44.140 18.44.150 18.44.160 Applicability of Amended Zoning Code. After the effective date of this ordinance, Chapter 18.44 of the Zoning Code, as hereby amended, shall apply to all properties subject to the shoreline overlay, provided that nothing contained herein shall be deemed to override any vested rights or require any alteration of a non -conforming use or non -conforming structure, except as specifically provided in Chapter 18.44 of the Zoning Code, as amended. (Ord. 2346 §17, 2011) 18.44.020 Shoreline Environment Designations All shoreline within the City is designated "urban" and further identified as follows: 1. Shoreline Residential Environment. All lands zoned for residential use as measured 200 feet landward from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). 2. Urban Conservancy Environment. All lands not zoned for residential use upstream from the Turning Basin as measured 200 feet landward from the OHWM. 3. High Intensity Environment. All lands downstream from the Turning Basin as measured 200 feet landward from the OHWM. 4. Aquatic Environment. All water bodies within the City limits and its potential annexation areas under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark. The Aquatic Environment includes the water surface together with the underlying lands and the water column. (Ord. 2346 §1, 2011) 18.44.030 Principally Permitted Uses and Shoreline Use Matrix A. TMC Section 18.44.030(A), including the Use Matrix (Figure 18-1), specifies the uses that are permitted outright, permitted as a Conditional Use or prohibited altogether for each Shoreline Environment. Also included are special conditions and general requirements controlling specific uses. These regulations are intended to implement the purpose of each Shoreline Environment designation. B. In the matrix, shoreline environments are listed at the top of each column and the specific uses are listed along the left-hand side of each horizontal row. The cell at the intersection of a column and a row indicates whether a use may be allowed in a specific shoreline environment and whether additional use criteria apply. The matrix shall be interpreted as follows: 1. If the letter "P" appears in the box at the intersection of the column and the row, the use may be allowed within the shoreline environment if the underlying zoning also allows the use. Shoreline (SDP, CUP and Variance) permits may be required. 2. If the letter "C" appears in the box at the intersection of the column and the row, the use may be allowed within the shoreline environment subject to the shoreline conditional use review and approval procedures specified in TMC Section 18.44.130 C. 3. If the letter "X" appears in the box at the intersection of the column and the row, the use is prohibited in that shoreline environment. C. In addition to the matrix the following general use requirements also apply to all development within the shoreline jurisdiction. Additional requirements controlling specific uses are set forth for each Shoreline Environment designation, to implement the purpose of the respective Shoreline Environment designations. 1. The first priority for City -owned property within the shoreline jurisdiction shall be reserved for water -dependent uses including but not limited to habitat restoration, followed by water -enjoyment uses, public access, passive recreation, passive open space uses, or public educational purposes. 2. No hazardous waste handling, processing or storage is allowed within the SMA shoreline jurisdiction, unless incidental to a use allowed in the designated shoreline environment and adequate controls are in place to prevent any releases to the shoreline/river. 3. Overwater structures, shall not cause a net loss of ecological function, interfere with navigation or flood management, or present potential hazards to downstream properties or facilities. They shall comply with the standards in the Overwater Structures Section of TMC Section 18.44.070(K). Produced by the City of Tukwila, City Clerk's Office Page 18-105 TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE 4. Parking as a primary use is not permitted, except for existing Park and Ride lots, where adequate stormwater collection and treatment is in place to protect water quality. Parking is permitted only as an accessory to a permitted or conditional use in the shoreline jurisdiction. 5. All development, activities or uses, unless it is an approved overwater, flood management structure or shoreline restoration project, shall be prohibited waterward of the OHWM. (Ord. 2346 §2, 2011) 18.44.040 Shoreline Residential Environment — Uses A. Shoreline Residential Buffer — Delineated Uses. The Shoreline Residential River Buffer shall consist of the area needed to achieve a 2.5:1 slope of the river bank, measured from the toe of the bank to the top of the bank, plus 20 linear feet measured from the top of the bank landward; provided, that in no case shall the Shoreline Residential Buffer be less than 50 feet landward of the OHWM. 1. Permitted Uses. No uses or structures are permitted in the Shoreline Residential Buffer except for the following: a. Shoreline restoration projects. b. Over -water structures subject to the standards in the Over -water Structures Section associated with water - dependent uses, public access, recreation, flood control or channel management. Private, single residence piers for the sole use of the property owner shall not be considered an outright use on the shoreline. A dock may be allowed when the applicant has demonstrated a need for moorage and that the following alternatives have been investigated and are not available or feasible: (1) commercial or marina moorage; (2) floating moorage buoys; (3) joint use moorage pier/dock. c. Public parks, recreation and open space. d. Public pedestrian bridges. e. Public and/or private promenades, footpaths or trails. f. Recreation structures such as benches, tables, viewpoints, and picnic shelters, provided no such structure shall exceed 15 feet in height or 25 square feet in area or block views to the shoreline from adjacent properties. g. Signs conforming to the development standards of this chapter. h. Construction, maintenance or re -development of levees for flood control purposes, provided that any new or redeveloped levee shall meet the applicable levee requirements of this chapter. i. Vehicle bridges, only if connecting public rights-of-way. j. Utility towers and utilities, except the provision, distribution, collection, transmission or disposal of refuse. k. Fire lanes when co -located with levee maintenance roads. I. New shoreline stabilization utilizing the development standards in TMC Section 18.44.070(F). m. Water dependent uses and their structures, as long as there is no net loss of shoreline ecological function. n. Fences, provided the maximum height of a fence along the shoreline is four feet and the fence does not extend waterward beyond the top of the bank. Chain-link fences must be vinyl coated. o. Existing essential streets, roads and rights-of- way may be maintained or improved. p. Outdoor storage, only in conjunction with a water -dependent use. q. Water -oriented essential public facilities, both above and below ground. r. Non -water -oriented essential public facilities, both above and below ground, provided it has been documented that no feasible location is available outside of the buffer. s. Landfill as part of an approved remediation plan for the purpose of capping contaminated sediments. t. Patios or decks not exceeding 18 inches in height, limited to a maximum 200 square feet and 50% of the width of the river frontage. Decks or patios must be located landward of the top of the bank and be constructed to be pervious and of environmentally -friendly materials. If a deck or patio will have an environmental impact in the shoreline buffer, then commensurate mitigation shall be required. u. Support facilities for above or below ground utilities or pollution control, such as outfall facilities or other facilities that must have a physical connection to the shoreline to provide their support function, provided they are located at or below grade and as far from the OHWM as technically feasible. 2. Conditional Uses. Only the following may be allowed as a Conditional Use in the Shoreline Residential River Buffer subject to the requirements, procedures and conditions established by TMC Chapter 18.64 and shall be reviewed through a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit: a. Dredging activities when in compliance with all federal and state regulations, when necessary for navigation or remediation of contaminated sediments. b. Dredging for navigational purposes is permitted where necessary for assuring safe and efficient accommodation of existing navigational uses and then only when significant ecological impacts are minimized and when mitigation is provided. Maintenance dredging of established navigation channels and basins is restricted to maintaining previously dredged and/or existing authorized location, depth and width. Dredging of bottom materials for the purpose of obtaining fill material is prohibited. c. New private vehicle bridges. Page 18-106 Produced by the City of Tukwila, City Clerk's Office TITLE 18 — ZONING d. Fill minimally necessary to support water - dependent uses, public access, or for the alteration or expansion of a transportation facility of statewide significance currently located on the shoreline when it is demonstrated that alternatives to fill are not feasible. e. Bridges, approved above ground utility structures, and water -dependent uses and their structures greater than 35 feet in height. B. Shoreline Residential Environment Outside of Buffer — Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted within the Shoreline Residential Environment outside of the Shoreline Residential River Buffer. Uses shall meet the purposes and criteria of the Shoreline Environment Designation section. 1. Permitted Uses. The Shoreline Residential Environment shall contain residential, recreational and limited commercial uses and accessory uses as allowed in the underlying zoning district. In addition, the Shoreline Residential Environment shall allow the following uses: a. All uses permitted in the Shoreline Residential River Buffer. b. For non-residential uses, parking/loading and storage facilities located to the most upland portion of the property and adequately screened and/or landscaped in accordance with the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping section. c. Railroad tracks. d. Public or private roads. 2. Conditional Uses. All uses listed as Conditional Uses in the underlying zone may be allowed subject to the requirements, procedures and conditions established by TMC Chapter 18.64. A Shoreline Conditional Use Permit is required. (Ord. 2346 §3, 2011) 18.44.050 Urban Conservancy Environment - Uses A. Urban Conservancy Environment Buffer — Delineated. The Urban Conservancy Environment Buffer shall consist of that area measured 100 feet landward of the OHWM for non -leveed portions of the river, and that area measured 125 feet landward from the OHWM for leveed portions of the river. B. Urban Conservancy Environment Buffer — Uses. 1. Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted in the Urban Conservancy River Buffer: a. Shoreline restoration projects. b. Over -water structures subject to the standards established in the Over -water Structures Section, TMC Section 18.44.070(K), that are associated with water -dependent uses, public access, recreation, flood control, channel management or ecological restoration. c. Public parks, recreation and open space. d. Public and/or private promenades, footpaths or trails. e. Public pedestrian bridges. f. Recreation structures such as benches, tables, viewpoints, and picnic shelters, provided no such structure shall exceed 15 feet in height and 25 square feet in area and views of the shoreline are not blocked from adjacent properties. g. Signs conforming to the development standards of this chapter. h. Construction, maintenance or re -development of levees for flood control purposes, provided that any new or re -developed levee shall meet the applicable levee requirements of this chapter. i. New vehicle bridges: permitted only if connecting public rights-of-way; existing public or private vehicle bridges may be maintained or replaced. j. Utility towers and utilities, except the provision, distribution, collection, transmission or disposal of refuse. k. Levee maintenance roads. I. Plaza connectors between buildings and levees, not exceeding the height of the levee, are permitted for the purpose of providing and enhancing pedestrian access along the river and for landscaping purposes. m. New shoreline stabilization utilizing the development standards in the Shoreline Stabilization Section, TMC Section 18.44.070(F). n. Existing essential streets, roads and rights-of- way may be maintained or improved. o. Water -dependent commercial and industrial development, if permitted by the underlying zoning district. p. Support facilities for above or below ground utilities or pollution control, such as outfall facilities or other facilities that must have a physical connection to the shoreline to provide their support function, provided they are located at or below grade and as far from the OHWM as technically feasible. q. Outdoor storage, only in conjunction with a water -dependent use. r. Water -oriented essential public facilities, both above and below ground. s. Non -water -oriented essential public facilities, both above and below ground, provided it has been documented that no feasible location is available outside of the buffer. t. Landfill as part of an approved remediation plan for the purpose of capping contaminated sediments. u. Regional detention facilities that meet the City's Infrastructure Design and Construction Standards along with their supporting elements such as ponds, piping, filter systems and outfalls vested as of the effective date of this program or if no feasible alternative location exists. Any regional detention facility located in the buffer shall be designed such that a fence is not required, planted with native vegetation, designed to blend with the surrounding environment, and provide design features that serve both public and private use, such as an access road that can also serve as a trail. The facility shall be designed to locate access roads and other impervious surfaces as far from the river as practical. Produced by the City of Tukwila, City Clerk's Office Page 18-107 TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE 2. Conditional Uses. Only the following may be allowed as a Conditional Use in the Shoreline Urban Conservancy Environment Buffer, subject to the requirements, procedures and conditions established by TMC Chapter 18.64 and shall be reviewed through a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit: a. Dredging activities where necessary for assuring safe and efficient accommodation of existing navigational uses and then only when significant ecological impacts are minimized and when mitigation is provided. b. Dredging for remediation of contaminated sediments when mitigation is provided. Dredging of bottom materials for the purpose of obtaining fill material is prohibited. Dredging activities must comply with all federal and state regulations. c. New private vehicle bridges. d. Fill minimally necessary to support water - dependent uses, public access, or for the alteration or expansion of a transportation facility of statewide significance currently located on the shoreline when it is demonstrated that alternatives to fill are not feasible. C. Urban Conservancy Environment Outside of Buffer — Uses. The following uses are permitted in the Urban Conservancy Environment, outside of the Urban Conservancy Environment Buffer. Uses shall meet the purposes and criteria of the Urban Conservancy Environment as established in the Shoreline Environment Designation section. 1. Permitted Uses. All uses permitted in the Urban Conservancy Environment Buffer and/or the Shoreline Use Matrix may be allowed. 2. Conditional Uses. All uses listed as Conditional Uses in the underlying zone may be allowed subject to the requirements, procedures and conditions established by TMC Chapter 18.64. A Shoreline Conditional Use Permit shall be required. D. Urban Conservancy Buffer Width Reduction. The Director may reduce the Urban Conservancy Environment Buffer as follows: 1. For property located within the 100 -foot buffer in non -levee portions of the river, the Urban Conservancy Environment Buffer may be reduced to that area occupied by the river bank plus 20 feet measured landward from the top of the bank; provided however, that the applicant must first re - slope the river bank to 2.5:1, provide a 20 -foot setback from the top of the new slope and vegetate both the river bank and the 20 -foot setback area in accordance with the standards in TMC Section 18.44.080, and provided that the Director determines that any buffer reduction will not result in direct, indirect or long- term adverse impacts to shoreline ecosystem functions. Further, a buffer enhancement plan, including removal of invasive plants and plantings using a variety of native vegetation that improves the functional attributes of the buffer and provides additional protection for the watercourse functions, must be approved by the Director and implemented by the applicant as a condition of the reduction. In no case shall the reduced buffer be less than 50 feet. 2. For property located within the 125 -foot buffer along leveed portions of the river, the Urban Conservancy Environment Buffer may be reduced to that area occupied by levee or river bank improvements meeting the minimum levee profile or other levee standards provided in this chapter, plus 10 feet measured landward from the landward toe of the levee or (if permitted by this chapter) floodwall. In the event that the owner provides the City with a 10 -foot levee maintenance easement, measured landward from the landward toe of the levee or levee wall and prohibiting the construction of any structures and allows the City to access the area to inspect the levee, then the buffer shall be reduced to the landward toe of the levee, or landward edge of the levee floodwall, as the case may be. 3. If fill is placed along the back slope of a new levee, the Urban Conservancy Environment Buffer may be reduced to the point where the ground plane intersects the back slope of the levee; provided, that the property owner must grant the City a levee maintenance easement measured 10 feet landward from the landward toe of the levee or levee wall, and which easement prohibits the construction of any structures and allows the City to access the area to inspect the levee and/or wall and make any necessary repairs. (Qrd. 2346 §4, 2011) 18.44.060 High Intensity Environment — Uses A. High Intensity Environment Buffer — Delineated. The High Intensity Environment Buffer shall consist of an area measured 100 feet landward from the OHWM. The remaining area of shoreline jurisdiction is non -buffer area. B. High Intensity Environment Buffer — Uses. 1. Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted in the High Intensity River Buffer: a. Shoreline restoration projects. b. Over -water structures subject to the standards established in the Over -water Structures Section that are associated with water -dependent uses, public access, recreation, flood control, channel management or ecological restoration. c. Public parks, recreation and open space. d. Public and/or private promenades, footpaths or trails. e. Public pedestrian bridges. f. Recreation structures such as benches, tables, viewpoints, and picnic shelters, provided no such structure shall exceed 15 feet in height and 25 square feet in area and no views of the shoreline are blocked from adjacent properties. g. Signs conforming to the development standards of this chapter. h. Construction, maintenance or re -development of levees for flood control purposes, provided that any new or re -developed levee shall meet the applicable levee requirements of this chapter. Page 18-108 Produced by the City of Tukwila, City Clerk's Office TITLE 18 — ZONING i. New vehicle bridges: permitted only if connecting public rights-of-way; existing public or private vehicle bridges may be maintained or replaced. j. Utility towers and utilities, except the provision, distribution, collection, transmission or disposal of refuse. k. Levee maintenance roads. I. Plaza connectors between buildings and levees, not exceeding the height of the levee, are permitted for the purpose of providing and enhancing pedestrian access along the river and for landscaping purposes. m. New shoreline stabilization utilizing the development standards in the Shoreline Stabilization Section, TMC Section 18.44.070(F). n. Existing essential streets, roads and rights-of- way may be maintained or improved. o. Water -dependent commercial and industrial development, if permitted by the underlying zoning district. p. Support facilities for above or below ground utilities or pollution control, such as outfall facilities or other facilities that must have a physical connection to the shoreline to provide their support function, provided they are located at or below grade and as far from the OHWM as technically feasible. q. Outdoor storage, only in conjunction with a water -dependent use. r. Water -oriented essential public facilities, both above and below ground. s. Non -water -oriented essential public facilities, both above and below ground, provided it has been documented that no feasible location is available outside of the buffer. t. Landfill as part of an approved remediation plan for the purpose of capping contaminated sediments. u. Regional detention facilities that meet the City's Infrastructure Design and Construction Standards along with their supporting elements such as ponds, piping, filter systems and outfalls vested as of the effective date of this program or if no feasible alternative location exists. Any regional detention facility located in the buffer shall be designed such that a fence is not required, planted with native vegetation, designed to blend with the surrounding environment, and provide design features that serve both public and private use, such as an access road that can also serve as a trail. The facility shall be designed to locate access roads and other impervious surfaces as far from the river as practical. 2. Conditional Uses. Only the following may be allowed as a Conditional Use in the Shoreline High Intensity Environment Buffer subject to the requirements, procedures and conditions established by TMC Chapter 18.64. A Shoreline Conditional Use Permit shall be required. a. Dredging activities where necessary for assuring safe and efficient accommodation of existing navigational uses and then only when significant ecological impacts are minimized and when mitigation is provided. b. Dredging for remediation of contaminated sediments when mitigation is provided. Dredging of bottom materials for the purpose of obtaining fill material is prohibited. Dredging activities must comply with all federal and state regulations. c. New private vehicle bridges. d. Fill minimally necessary to support water - dependent uses, public access, or for the alteration or expansion of a transportation facility of statewide significance currently located on the shoreline when it is demonstrated that alternatives to fill are not feasible. C. Shoreline Urban High Intensity Environment — Uses. The Shoreline High Intensity Environment shall consist of the remaining area within the 200 foot Shoreline Jurisdiction that is not within the Shoreline High Intensity Environment Buffer area. Uses shall meet the purposes and criteria of the Shoreline Environment Designations section. 1. Permitted Uses. All uses permitted in the High Intensity Environment Buffer and/or the Shoreline Use Matrix may be allowed. 2. Conditional Uses. All uses listed as Conditional Uses in the underlying zone may be allowed subject to the requirements, procedures and conditions established by TMC Chapter 18.64. A Shoreline Conditional Use Permit shall be required. D. Shoreline High Intensity Environment Buffer Reduction. The Director may reduce the High Intensity Environment Buffer where the applicant re -slopes the river bank to be no steeper than 3:1 above the OHWM, provides a 20 -foot setback from the top of the new slope, vegetates both the river bank and the 20 -foot setback area in accordance with the standards in the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section, and the Director determines there will be no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. In no case shall the reduced buffer be less than 50 feet. On properties where the bank slope currently is no steeper than 3:1 or where the property owner has already re -sloped the river bank, provided a 20 -foot setback and vegetated the bank and setback as provided in this chapter, the buffer width will be the distance measured from the OHWM to the top of the bank, plus 20 feet. (Ord. 2346 §5, 2011) 18.44.065 Aquatic Environment — Uses A. Aquatic Environment — Delineated. The Aquatic Environment consists of all water bodies within the City limits and its potential annexation areas under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark. The Aquatic Environment includes the water surface together with the underlying lands and the water column. B. Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted in the Aquatic Environment. Uses and activities within the Aquatic Environment must be compatible with the adjoining shoreline environment: 1. Shoreline restoration projects. Produced by the City of Tukwila, City Clerk's Office Page 18-109 TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE 2. Over -water structures subject to the standards established in the Over -water Structures Section that are associated with water -dependent uses, public access, recreation, flood control, channel management or ecological restoration. 3. Maintenance or redevelopment of levees for flood control purposes, provided that any redevelopment of a levee shall meet the applicable levee regulations of this chapter. 4. New shoreline stabilization utilizing the development standards in the Shoreline Stabilization Section. 5. Water -dependent commercial and industrial development, if permitted by the underlying zoning district. 6. Boats moored at a dock or marina. No boats may be moored on tidelands or in the river channel. 7. Fill for ecological restoration. C. Conditional Uses. Only the following may be allowed as a Conditional Use in the Shoreline Aquatic Environment Buffer subject to the requirements, procedures and conditions established by this program: 1. Dredging activities where necessary for assuring safe and efficient accommodation of existing navigational uses and then only when significant ecological impacts are minimized and when mitigation is provided. 2. Dredging for remediation of contaminated sediments when mitigation is provided. Dredging of bottom materials for the purpose of obtaining fill material is prohibited. Dredging activities must comply with all federal and state regulations. 3. Fill minimally necessary to support water - dependent uses, public access, or for the alteration or expansion of a transportation facility of statewide significance currently located on the shoreline when it is demonstrated that alternatives to fill are not feasible. (Ord. 2346 56, 2011) 18.44.070 Development Standards A. Applicability. The development standards of this chapter apply to work that meets the definition of substantial development except for vegetation removal per TMC Section 18.44.080, which applies to all shoreline development. The term "substantial development" applies to non -conforming, new or re- development. Non -conforming uses, structures, parking lots and landscape areas, will be governed by the standards in TMC Section 18.44.130(E), "Non -Conforming Development." B. Shoreline Residential Development Standards. A shoreline substantial development permit is not required for construction within the Shoreline Residential Environment by an owner, lessee or contract purchaser of a single family residence for his/her own use or for the use of a family member. Such construction and all normal appurtenant structures must otherwise conform to this chapter. Short subdivisions and subdivisions are not exempt from obtaining a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. 1. Shoreline Residential Environment Standards. The following standards apply to the Shoreline Residential Environment: a. The development standards of the applicable underlying zoning district (Title 18, Tukwila Municipal Code) shall apply. b. New development and uses must be sited so as to allow natural bank inclination of 2.5:1 slope with a 20 -foot setback from the top of the bank. The Director may require a riverbank analysis as part of any development proposal. c. Utilities such as pumps, pipes, etc., shall be suitably screened with native vegetation per the standards in the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section. d. New shoreline stabilization, repair of existing stabilization or modifications to the river bank must comply with the standards in the Shoreline Stabilization Section, TMC Section 18.44.070(F). e. Short plats of five to nine lots or formal subdivisions must be designed to provide public access to the river in accordance with the Public Access Section, TMC Section 18.44.100. Signage is required to identify the public access point(s). f. Parking facilities associated with single family residential development or public recreational facilities are subject to the specific performance standards set forth in the Off -Street Parking Section, TMC Section 18.44.070(1). g. Fences, freestanding walls or other structures normally accessory to residences must not block views of the river from adjacent residences or extend waterward beyond the top of the bank. Chain link fencing must be vinyl coated. h. Recreational structures permitted in the buffer must provide buffer mitigation. i. The outside edge of surface transportation facilities, such as railroad tracks, streets, or public transit shall be located no closer than 50 feet from the OHWM, except where the surface transportation facility is bridging the river. j. Except for bridges, approved above ground utility structures, and water -dependent uses and their structures, the maximum height for structures shall be 30 feet. For bridges, approved above ground utility structures, and water -dependent uses and their structures, the height limit shall be as demonstrated necessary to accomplish the structure's primary purpose. Bridges, approved above ground utility structures, and water -dependent uses and their structures greater than 35 feet in height require approval of a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. 2. Design Review. Design review is required for non-residential development in the Shoreline Residential Environment. C. High Intensity, Urban Conservancy and Aquatic Environment Development Standards. 1. Standards. The following standards apply in the High Intensity, Urban Conservancy and Aquatic Environments. Page 18-110 Produced by the City of Tukwila, City Clerk's Office TITLE 18 — ZONING a. The development standards for the applicable underlying zoning district (Title 18, Tukwila Municipal Code) shall apply. b. All new development performed by public agencies, or new multi -family, commercial, or industrial development shall provide public access in accordance with the standards in the Public Access Section. c. Development or re -development of properties in areas of the shoreline armored with revetments or other hard armoring other than levees, or with non -armored river banks, must comply with the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section, TMC Section 18.44.080. d. Any new shoreline stabilization or repairs to existing stabilization must comply with Shoreline Stabilization Section, TMC Section 18.44.070(F). e. Over -water structures shall be allowed only for water -dependent uses and the size limited to the minimum necessary to support the structure's intended use and shall result in no net loss to shoreline ecological function. Over -water structures must comply with the standards in the Over -water Structures Section, TMC Section 18.44.070(K). 2. Setbacks and Site Configuration. a. The yard setback adjacent to the river is the buffer width established for the applicable shoreline environment. b. A fishing pier, viewing platform or other outdoor feature that provides access to the shoreline is not required to meet a setback from the OHWM. 3. Height Restrictions. Except for bridges, approved above ground utility structures, and water -dependent uses and their structures, to preserve visual access to the shoreline and avoid massing of tall buildings within the shoreline jurisdiction, the maximum height for structures shall be as follows: a. 15 feet where located within the River Buffer; b. 45 feet between the outside landward edge of the River Buffer and 200 feet of the OHWM. c. Provided, no permit shall be issued for any new or expanded building or structure of more than 35 feet above average grade level on shorelines of the State that will obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining such shorelines. For any building that is proposed to be greater than 35 feet in height in the shoreline jurisdiction, the development proponent must demonstrate the proposed building will not block the views of a substantial number of residences. The Director may approve a 15% increase in height if the project proponent provides additional restoration and/or enhancement of the shoreline buffer, beyond what may otherwise be required in accordance with the standards of TMC Section 18.44.080, "Vegetation Protection and Landscaping." If the required buffer has already been restored, the project proponent may provide a 20% wider buffer, and/or enhanced in order to obtain the 15% increase in height in accordance with TMC Section 18.44.080, "Vegetation Protection and Landscaping." 4. Lighting. In addition to the lighting standards in TMC Chapter 18.60, "Board of Architectural Review," lighting for the site or development shall be designed and located so that: a. The minimum light levels in parking areas and paths between the building and street shall be one -foot candle. b. Lighting shall be designed to prevent light spillover and glare on adjacent properties and on the river channel, be directed downward so as to illuminate only the immediate area, and be shielded to eliminate direct off-site illumination. c. The general grounds need not be lighted. d. The lighting is incorporated into a unified landscape and/or site plan. D. Surface Water and Water Quality. The following standards apply to all shoreline development. 1. New surface water systems may not discharge directly into the river or streams tributary to the river without pre- treatment to reduce pollutants and meet State water quality standards. 2. Such pre-treatment may consist of biofiltration, oil/water separators, or other methods approved by the City of Tukwila Public Works Department. 3. Shoreline development, uses and activities shall not cause any increase in surface runoff, and shall have adequate provisions for storm water detention/infiltration. 4. Stormwater outfalls must be designed so as to cause no net loss of shoreline ecological functions or adverse impacts where functions are impaired. New stormwater outfalls or maintenance of existing outfalls must include shoreline restoration as part of the project. 5. Shoreline development and activities shall have adequate provisions for sanitary sewer. 6. Solid and liquid wastes and untreated effluents shall not be allowed to enter any bodies of water or to be discharged onto shorelands. 7. The use of low impact development techniques is required, unless such techniques conflict with other provisions of the SMP or are shown to not be feasible due to site conditions. E. Flood Hazard Reduction. The following standards apply to all shoreline development. 1. New structural flood hazard reduction structures shall be allowed only when it can be demonstrated by a Riverbank Analysis that: a. They are necessary to protect existing development; b. Non-structural measures are not feasible; and c. Impacts to ecological functions and priority species and habitats can be successfully mitigated so as to assure no net loss. Produced by the City of Tukwila, City Clerk's Office Page 18-111 TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE 2. Flood hazard structures must incorporate appropriate vegetation restoration and conservation actions consistent with the standards of the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section. 3. Levees, berms and similar flood control structures, whether new or redeveloped, shall be designed to meet the minimum levee profile, except as provided in Section 18.44.070.E.10 below. 4. Publicly -funded structural measures to reduce flood hazards shall improve public access or dedicate and provide public access unless public access improvements would cause unavoidable health or safety hazards to the public, inherent and unavoidable security problems, or significant ecological impacts that cannot be mitigated. 5. Rehabilitation or replacement of existing flood control structures, such as levees, with a primary purpose of containing the 1% annual chance flood event, shall be allowed where it can be demonstrated by an engineering analysis that the existing structure: a. Does not provide an appropriate level of protection for surrounding lands; or b. Does not meet the minimum levee profile or other appropriate engineering design standards for stability (e.g., over -steepened side slopes for existing soil and/or flow conditions); and c. Repair of the existing structure will not cause or increase significant adverse ecological impacts to the shoreline. 6. Rehabilitated or replaced flood hazard reduction structures shall not extend the toe of slope any further waterward of the OHWM than the existing structure. 7. New structural flood hazard reduction measures, such as levees, berms and similar flood control structures shall be placed landward of the floodway as determined by the best information available. 8. New, redeveloped or replaced structural flood hazard reduction measures shall be placed landward of associated wetlands, and designated fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. 9. No commercial, industrial, office or residential development shall be located within a floodplain without a Flood Control Zone Permit issued by the City. No development shall be located within a floodway except as otherwise permitted. 10. New, redeveloped or replaced flood hazard reduction structures may deviate from the minimum levee profile only as follows. A floodwall may be substituted for all or a portion of a levee back slope only where necessary to avoid encroachment or damage to a structure legally constructed prior to the date of adoption of this subsection, and which structure has not lost its nonconforming status. The floodwall shall be designed to be the minimum necessary to provide 10 feet of clearance between the levee and the building, or the minimum necessary to preserve access needed for building functionality while meeting all engineering safety standards. A floodwall may also be used where necessary to prevent the levee from encroaching upon a railroad easement recorded prior to the date of adoption of this subsection. If a floodwall is permitted under this subsection the levee slope must be 2.5H:1V unless it is not physically possible to achieve such a slope; in that instance, the levee slope must be as close to 2.5H:1V as physically possible. F. Shoreline Stabilization. The provisions of this section apply to those structures or actions intended to minimize or prevent erosion of adjacent uplands and/or failure of riverbanks resulting from waves, tidal fluctuations or river currents. Shoreline stabilization or armoring involves the placement of erosion resistant materials (e.g., large rocks and boulders, cement, pilings and/or large woody debris (LWD)) or the use of bioengineering techniques to reduce or eliminate erosion of shorelines and risk to human infrastructure. This form of shoreline stabilization is distinct from flood control structures and flood hazard reduction measures (such as levees). The terms "shoreline stabilization," "shoreline protection" and "shoreline armoring" are used interchangeably. 1. Shoreline protection shall not be considered an outright permitted use and shall be permitted only when it has been demonstrated through a riverbank analysis and report that shoreline protection is necessary for the protection of existing legally established structures and public improvements. 2. New development and re -development shall be designed and configured on the lot to avoid the need for new shoreline stabilization. Removal of failing shoreline stabilization shall be incorporated into re -development design proposals wherever feasible. 3. Replacement of lawfully established, existing bulkheads or revetments are subject to the following priority system: a. The first priority for replacement of bulkheads or revetments shall be landward of the existing bulkhead. b. The second priority for replacement of existing bulkheads or revetments shall be to replace in place (at the bulkhead's existing location). 4. When evaluating a proposal against the above priority system, at a minimum the following criteria shall be considered: a. Existing topography; b. Existing development; c. Location of abutting bulkheads; d. Impact to shoreline ecological functions; and, e. Impact to river hydraulics, potential changes in geomorphology, and to other areas of the shoreline. Page 18-112 Produced by the City of Tukwila, City Clerk's Office TITLE 18 — ZONING 5. Proponents of new or replacement hard shoreline stabilization (e.g. bulkheads or revetments) must demonstrate through a documented river bank analysis that bioengineered shoreline protection measures or bioengineering erosion control designs will not provide adequate upland protection of existing structures or would pose a threat or risk to adjacent property. The study must also demonstrate that the proposed hard shoreline stabilization will not adversely affect other infrastructure or adjacent shorelines. 6. Where allowed, shoreline armoring shall be designed, constructed and maintained in a manner that does not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions, including fish habitat, and shall conform to the requirements of the 2004 Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (or as amended) criteria and guidelines for integrated stream bank protection (Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, Washington), U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and other regulatory requirements. The hard shoreline stabilization must be designed and approved by an engineer licensed in the State of Washington and qualified to design shoreline stabilization structures. 7. Shoreline armoring shall be designed to the minimum size, height, bulk and extent necessary to remedy the identified hazard. 8. An applicant must demonstrate the following in order to qualify for the RCW 90.58.030(30(e)(iii)(ii) exemption from the requirement to obtain a shoreline substantial development permit for a proposed single family bulkhead and to insure that the bulkhead will be consistent with the SMP: a. Erosion from currents or waves is imminently threatening a legally established single family detached dwelling unit or one or more appurtenant structures; and b. The proposed bulkhead is more consistent with the City's Master Program in protecting the site and adjoining shorelines and that non-structural alternatives such as slope drainage systems, bioengineering or vegetative growth stabilization, are not feasible or will not adequately protect a legally established residence or appurtenant structure; and c. The proposed bulkhead is located landward of the OHWM or it connects to adjacent, legally established bulkheads; and d. The maximum height of the proposed bulkhead is no more than one foot above the elevation of extreme high water on tidal waters as determined by the National Ocean Survey published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 9. Bulkheads or revetments shall be constructed of suitable materials that will serve to accomplish the desired end with maximum preservation of natural characteristics. Materials with the potential for water quality degradation shall not be used. Design and construction methods shall consider aesthetics and habitat protection. Automobile bodies, tires or other junk or waste material that may release undesirable chemicals or other material shall not be used for shoreline protection. 10. The builder of any bulkhead or revetment shall be financially responsible for determining the nature and the extent of probable adverse effects on fish and wildlife or on the property of others caused by his/her construction and shall propose and implement solutions approved by the City to minimize such effects. 11. When shoreline stabilization is required at a public access site, provision for safe access to the water shall be incorporated in the design whenever possible. 12. Placement of bank protection material shall occur from the top of the bank and shall be supervised by the property owner or contractor to ensure material is not dumped directly onto the bank face. 13. Bank protection material shall be clean and shall be of a sufficient size to prevent its being washed away by high water flows. 14. When riprap is washed out and presents a hazard to the safety of recreational users of the river, it shall be removed by the owner of such material. 15. Bank protection associated with bridge construction and maintenance may be permitted subject to the provisions of the SMP and shall conform to provisions of the State Hydraulics Code (RCW 77.55) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineer regulations. G. Archaeological, Cultural and Historical Resources. In addition to the requirements of TMC 18.50.110, Archaeological/Paleontological Information Preservation Requirements, the following regulations apply. 1. All land use permits for projects within the shoreline jurisdiction shall be coordinated with affected tribes. 2. If the City determines that a site has significant archaeological, natural scientific or historical value, a substantial development that would pose a threat to the resources of the site shall not be approved. 3. Permits issued in areas documented to contain archaeological resources require a site inspection or evaluation by a professional archaeologist in coordination with affected Indian tribes. The City may require that development be postponed in such areas to allow investigation of public acquisition potential, retrieval and preservation of significant artifacts and/or development of a mitigation plan. Areas of known or suspected archaeological middens shall not be disturbed and shall be fenced and identified during construction projects on the site. 4. Developers and property owners shall immediately stop work and notify the City of Tukwila, the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and affected Indian tribes if archaeological resources are uncovered during excavation. Produced by the City of Tukwila, City Clerk's Office Page 18-113 TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE 5. In the event that unforeseen factors constituting an emergency, as defined in RCW 90.58.030, necessitate rapid action to retrieve or preserve artifacts or data identified above, the project may be exempted from any shoreline permit requirements. The City shall notify the Washington State Department of Ecology, the State Attorney General's Office and the State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Office of such an exemption in a timely manner. 6. Archaeological excavations may be permitted subject to the provision of this chapter. 7. On sites where historical or archaeological resources have been identified and will be preserved in situ, public access to such areas shall be designed and managed so as to give maximum protection to the resource and surrounding environment. 8. Interpretive signs of historical and archaeological features shall be provided subject to the requirements of the Public Access Section when such signage does not compromise the protection of these features from tampering, damage and/or destruction. H. Environmental Impact Mitigation. 1. All shoreline development and uses shall occur in a manner that results in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions through the careful location and design of all allowed development and uses. In cases where impacts to shoreline ecological functions from allowed development and uses are unavoidable, those impacts shall be mitigated according to the provisions of this section; in that event, the "no net loss" standard is met. 2. To the extent Washington's State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, is applicable, the analysis of environmental impacts from proposed shoreline uses or developments shall be conducted consistent with the rules implementing SEPA (TMC Chapter 21.04 and WAC 197- 11). 3. For all development, mitigation sequencing shall be applied in the following order of priority: a. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. b. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts. c. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. d. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations. e. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments. f. Monitoring the impact and the compensation projects and taking appropriate corrective measures. 4. In determining appropriate mitigation measures applicable to shoreline development, lower priority measures shall be applied only where higher priority measures are determined by the City to be infeasible or inapplicable. 5. When mitigation measures are appropriate pursuant to the priority of mitigation sequencing above, preferential consideration shall be given to measures that replace the impacted functions directly and in the immediate vicinity of the impact. However, if mitigation in the immediate vicinity is not scientifically feasible due to problems with hydrology, soils, waves or other factors, then off-site mitigation within the Shoreline Jurisdiction may be allowed if consistent with the Shoreline Restoration Plan. Mitigation for projects in the Transition Zone must take place in the Transition Zone. In the event a site is not available in the Transition Zone to carry out required mitigation, the project proponent may contribute funds equivalent to the value of the required mitigation to an existing or future restoration project identified in the CIP to be carried out by a public agency in the Transition Zone. I. Off Street Parking and Loading Requirements. In addition to the parking requirements in TMC 18.56, the following requirements apply to all development in the shoreline jurisdiction. 1. Any parking, loading, or storage facilities located between the river and any building must incorporate additional landscaping in accordance with the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section, or berming or other site planning or design techniques to reduce visual and/or environmental impacts from the parking areas utilizing the following screening techniques: a. A solid evergreen screen of trees and shrubs a minimum of six feet high; or b. Decorative fence a maximum of six feet high with landscaping. Chain link fence, where allowed, shall be vinyl coated and landscaped with native trailing vine or an approved non-native vine other than ivy, except where a security or safety hazard may exist; or c. Earth berms at a minimum of four feet high, planted with native plants in accordance with the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section. 2. Where a parking area is located in the shoreline jurisdiction and adjacent to a public access feature, the parking area shall be screened by a vegetative screen or a built structure that runs the entire length of the parking area adjacent to the amenity. The landscape screening shall comply with the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section. 3. Where public access to or along the shoreline exists or is proposed, parking areas shall provide pedestrian access from the parking area to the shoreline. Page 18-114 Produced by the City of Tukwila, City Clerk's Office TITLE 18 — ZONING 4. Parking facilities, loading areas and paved areas shall incorporate low impact development techniques wherever feasible, adequate storm water retention areas, oil/water separators and biofiltration swales, or other treatment techniques and shall comply with the standards and practices formally adopted by the City of Tukwila Public Works Department. J. Land Altering Activities. All land altering activities in the shoreline jurisdiction shall be in conjunction with an underlying land development permit, except for shoreline restoration projects. All activities shall meet the following standards: 1. Clearing, Grading and Landfill. a. Land altering shall be permitted only where it meets the following criteria: (1) The work is the minimum necessary to accomplish an allowed shoreline use; (2) Impacts to the natural environment are minimized and mitigated; (3) Water quality, river flows and/or fish habitat are not adversely affected; (4) Public access and river navigation are not diminished; (5) state requirements; (6) The project complies with the vegetation protection criteria of the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section; (7) The project will achieve no net loss of shoreline ecological functions or processes. In cases where impacts to shoreline ecological functions from an otherwise allowed land altering project are unavoidable, those impacts shall be mitigated according to the provisions of this section. In that event, the "no net loss" standard is met; and (8) Documentation is provided to demonstrate that the fill comes from a clean source. b. Clearing, grading and landfill activities, where allowed, shall include erosion control mechanisms, and any reasonable restriction on equipment, methods or timing necessary to minimize the introduction of suspended solids or leaching of contaminants into the river, or the disturbance of wildlife or fish habitats in accordance with the standards in TMC Chapter 16.54, "Grading." 2. Dredging. a. Dredging activities must comply with all federal and state regulations. Maintenance dredging of established navigation channels and basins must be restricted to maintaining previously dredged and/or existing authorized location, depth, and width. The project complies with all federal and b. Where allowed, dredging operations must be designed and scheduled so as to ensure no net loss to shoreline ecological functions or processes. In cases where impacts to shoreline ecological functions from allowed dredging are unavoidable, those impacts shall be mitigated according to the provisions of this section; in that event, the "no net loss" standard is met. K. Marinas, Boat Yards, Dry Docks, Boat Launches, Piers, Docks and Other Over -water Structures. 1. General Requirements. a. Prior to issuance of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for construction of piers, docks, wharves or other over -water structures, the applicant shall present approvals from State or Federal agencies, as applicable. b. Structures must be designed by a qualified engineer and must demonstrate the project will result in no net loss of shoreline ecological function and will be stable against the forces of flowing water, wave action and the wakes of passing vessels. c. In -water structures shall be designed and located to minimize shading of native aquatic vegetation and fish passage areas. Removal of shoreline, riparian and aquatic vegetation shall be limited to the minimum extent necessary to construct the project. All areas disturbed by construction shall be replanted with native vegetation as part of the project. d. New or replacement in -water structures shall be designed and located such that natural hydraulic and geologic processes, such as erosion, wave action or floods will not necessitate the following: (1) reinforcement of the shoreline or stream bank with new bulkheads or similar artificial structures to protect the in -water structure; or (2) dredging. e. No structures are allowed on top of over -water structures except for properties located north of the Turning Basin. f. Pilings or other associated structures in direct contact with water shall not be treated with preservatives unless the applicant can demonstrate that no feasible alternative to protect the materials exists and that non -wood alternatives are not economically feasible. In that case, only compounds approved for marine use may be used and must be applied by the manufacturer per current best management practices of the Western Wood Preservers Institute. The applicant must present verification that the best management practices were followed. The preservatives must also be approved by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Produced by the City of Tukwila, City Clerk's Office Page 18-115 TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE g. All over -water structures shall be constructed and maintained in a safe and sound condition. Abandoned or unsafe over -water structures shall be removed or repaired promptly by the owner. Accumulated debris shall be regularly removed and disposed of properly so as not to jeopardize the integrity of the structure. Replacement of in -water structures shall include proper removal of abandoned or other man-made structures and debris. h. Boat owners who store motorized boats on-site are encouraged to use best management practices to avoid fuel and other fluid spills. 2. Marinas, Boat Yards and Dry Docks. a. All uses under this category shall be designed to achieve no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. In cases where impacts to shoreline ecological functions from uses allowed under this category are unavoidable, those impacts shall be mitigated according to the provisions of this chapter; in that event, the "no net loss" standard is met. b. Commercial/industrial marinas and dry docks shall be located no further upriver than Turning Basin #3. c. Marinas shall be located, designed, constructed and operated to avoid or minimize adverse impacts on fish, wildlife, water quality, native shoreline vegetation, navigation, public access, existing in -water recreational activities and adjacent water uses. d. Marinas shall submit a fuel spill prevention and contingency plan to the City for approval. Haul -out and boat maintenance facilities must meet the City's stormwater management requirements and not allow the release of chemicals, petroleum or suspended solids to the river. e. Marinas, boat yards and dry docks must be located a minimum of 100 feet from fish and wildlife habitat areas (see "Sensitive Areas in the Shoreline" Map 5). f. New marinas, launch ramps and accessory uses must be located where water depths are adequate to avoid the need for dredging. 3. Boat Launches and Boat Lifts. a. Boat launch ramps and vehicle access to the ramps shall be designed to not cause erosion; the use of pervious paving materials, such as grasscrete, are encouraged. b. Boat launch ramps shall be designed to minimize areas of landfill or the need for shoreline protective structures. c. Access to the boat ramp and parking for the ramp shall be located a sufficient distance from any frontage road to provide safe maneuvering of boats and trailers. d. Launching rails shall be adequately anchored to the ground. e. Launch ramps and boat lifts shall extend waterward past the OHWM only as far as necessary to achieve their purpose. f. Boat lifts and canopies must meet the standards of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regional General Permit Number 1 for Watercraft Lifts in Fresh and Marine/Estuarine Waters within the State of Washington. 4. Over -water Structures. Where allowed, over - water structures such as piers, wharves and docks shall meet the following standards: a. The size of new over -water structures shall be limited to the minimum necessary to support the structure's intended use and to provide stability in the case of floating docks. Structures must be compatible with any existing channel control or flood management structures. b. Over -water structures shall not extend waterward of the OHWM any more than necessary to permit launching of watercraft, while also ensuring that watercraft do not rest on tidal substrate at any time. c. Adverse impacts of over -water structures on water quality, river flows, fish habitat, shoreline vegetation, and public access shall be minimized and mitigated. Mitigation measures may include joint use of existing structures, open decking or piers, replacement of non-native vegetation, installation of in -water habitat features or restoration of shallow water habitat. d. Any proposals for in -water or over -water structures shall provide a pre -construction habitat evaluation, including an evaluation of salmonid and bull trout habitat and shoreline ecological functions, and demonstrate how the project achieves no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. e. Over -water structures shall obtain all necessary state and federal permits prior to construction or repair. f. All over -water structures must be designed by a qualified engineer to ensure they are adequately anchored to the bank in a manner so as not to cause future downstream hazards or significant modifications to the river geomorphology and are able to withstand high flows. g. Over -water structures shall not obstruct normal public use of the river for navigation or recreational purposes. h. Shading impacts to fish shall be minimized by using grating on at least 30% of the surface area of the over - water structure on residential areas and at least 50% of the over -water structure on all other properties. The use of skirting is not permitted. i. If floats are used, the flotation shall be fully enclosed and contained in a shell (such as polystyrene) that prevents breakup or loss of the flotation material into the water, damage from ultraviolet radiation, and damage from rubbing against pilings or waterborne debris. j. Floats may not rest on the tidal substrate at any time and stoppers on the piling anchoring the floats must be installed to ensure at least 1 foot of clearance above the substrate. Anchor lines may not rest on the substrate at any time. Page 18-116 Produced by the City of Tukwila, City Clerk's Office 2 TITLE 18 — ZONING k. The number of pilings to support over -water structures, including floats, shall be limited to the minimum necessary. Pilings shall conform to the pilings standards contained in the US Army Corps of Engineers Regional General Permit No. 6. I. No over -water structure shall be located closer than five feet from the side property line extended, except that such structures may abut property lines for the common use of adjacent property owners when mutually agreed upon by the property owners in an easement recorded with King County. A copy of this agreement shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development and accompany an application for a development permit and/or Shoreline Permit. 5. Live-Aboards. New over -water residences are prohibited. Live-aboards may be allowed provided that: a. They are for single-family use only. b. They are located in a marina that provides shower and toilet facilities on land and there are no sewage discharges to the water. c. Live-aboards do not exceed 10 percent of the total slips in the marina. d. They are owner -occupied vessels. e. There are on -shore support services in proximity to the live-aboards. L. Signs in Shoreline Jurisdiction. 1. Signage within the shoreline buffer is limited to the following: a. Interpretative signs. b. Signs for water -related uses. c. Signs installed by a government agency for public safety along any public trail or at any public park. d. Signs installed within the rights of way of any public right-of-way or bridge within the shoreline buffer. All signs shall meet the requirements of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, current edition, published by the U.S. Department of Transportation. e. Signs installed on utilities and wireless communication facilities denoting danger or other safety information, including emergency contact information. 2. Billboards and other off -premise signs are strictly forbidden in the shoreline buffer. (Ord. 2346 §7, 2011) 18.44.080 Vegetation Protection and Landscaping A. Purpose, Objectives and Applicability. 1. The purpose of this section is to: a. Regulate the protection of existing trees and native vegetation in the shoreline jurisdiction; b. Establish requirements for removal of invasive plants at the time of development or re -development of sites; c. Establish requirements for landscaping for new development or re -development; d. Establish requirements for the long-term maintenance of native vegetation to prevent establishment of invasive species and promote shoreline ecosystem processes. 2. The City's goal is to: a. Preserve as many existing trees as possible and increase the number of native trees, shrubs and other vegetation in the shoreline because of their importance to shoreline ecosystem functions as listed below: (1) Overhead tree canopy to provide shade for water temperature control; (2) Habitat for birds, insects and small mammals; (3) Vegetation that overhangs the river to provide places for fish to shelter; (4) Source of insects for fish; (5) Filtering of pollutants and slowing of stormwater prior to its entering the river; and (6) A long-term source of woody debris for the river. b. In addition, trees and other native vegetation are important for aesthetics. It is the City's goal that unsightly invasive vegetation, such as blackberries, be removed from the shoreline and be replaced with native vegetation to promote greater enjoyment of and access to the river. c. The City will provide information and technical assistance to property owners for improving vegetation in the shoreline jurisdiction and will work collaboratively with local citizen groups to assist property owners in the removal of invasive vegetation and planting of native vegetation, particularly for residential areas. 3. With the exception of residential development/re- development of 4 or fewer residential units, all activities and developments within the shoreline environment must comply with the landscaping and maintenance requirements of this section, whether or not a shoreline substantial development permit is required. Single family residential projects are not exempt if implementing a shoreline stabilization project or overwater structure. 4. The tree protection and retention requirements and the vegetation management requirements apply to existing uses as well as new or re -development. Produced by the City of Tukwila, City Clerk's Office Page 18-117 TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE B. Tree Protection, Retention and Replacement. 1. As many significant trees and as much native vegetation as possible are to be retained on a site proposed for development or re -development, taking into account the condition and age of the trees. As part of design review, the Director of Community Development or the Board of Architectural Review may require alterations in the arrangement of buildings, parking or other elements of proposed development in order to retain significant non-invasive trees, particularly those that provide shading to the river. Trees located on properties not undergoing development or re- development may not be removed except those that interfere with access and passage on public trails or that present an imminent hazard to existing structures or the public. If the hazard is not readily apparent, the City may require an evaluation by an International Society of Arborists (ISA) -certified arborist. 2. To protect the ecological functions that trees and native vegetation provide to the shoreline, removal of any significant tree or native vegetation in the Shoreline Jurisdiction requires a Shoreline Tree Removal and Vegetation Clearing Permit and is generally only allowed on sites undergoing development or re -development. Only trees that interfere with access and passage on public trails or trees that present an imminent hazard to existing structures or the public may be removed from sites without an issued building permit or Federal approval. Factors that will be considered in approving tree removal include, but are not limited to: tree condition and health, age, risks to structures, and potential for root or canopy interference with utilities. 3. Prior to any tree removal or site clearing, a Type 2 Shoreline Tree Removal and Vegetation Clearing Permit application must be submitted to the Department of Community Development (DCD) containing the following information: a. A vegetation survey on a site plan that shows the diameter, species and location of all significant trees and all existing native vegetation. b. A site plan that shows trees and native vegetation to be retained and trees to be removed and provides a table showing the number of significant trees to be removed and the number of replacement trees required. c. Tree protection zones and other measures to protect any trees or native vegetation that are to be retained for sites undergoing development or re -development. d. Location of the OHWM, river buffer, Shoreline Jurisdiction boundary and any sensitive areas with their buffers. e. A landscape plan that shows diameter, species name, spacing and planting location for any required replacement trees and other proposed vegetation. f. An arborist evaluation justifying the removal of hazardous trees if required by DCD. g. An application fee per the current Land Use Permit Fee resolution. 4. Where permitted, significant trees that are removed from the shoreline shall be replaced pursuant to the tree replacement requirements shown below, up to a density of 100 trees per acre (including existing trees). The Director or Planning Commission may require additional trees or shrubs to be installed to mitigate any potential impact from the loss of this vegetation as a result of new development. Tree Replacement Requirements Diameter* of Tree Removed (*measured at height of 4.5 feet from the ground) Number of Replacement Trees Required 4 - 6 inches (single trunk); 2 inches (any trunk of a multi -trunk tree) 3 Over 6 - 8 inches 4 Over 8 - 20 inches 6 Over 20inches 8 5. The property owner is required to ensure the viability and long-term health of trees planted for replacement through proper care and maintenance for the life of the project. Replaced trees that do not survive must be replanted in the next appropriate season for planting. 6. If all required replacement trees cannot be reasonably accommodated on the site, off-site tree replacement within the shoreline jurisdiction may be allowed at a site approved by the City. Priority for off-site tree planting will be at locations within the Transition Zone. If no suitable off-site location is available, the applicant shall pay into a tree replacement fund. The fee shall be based on the value of the replacement trees and their delivery, labor for site preparation and plant installation, soil amendments, mulch, and staking supplies. 7. When a tree suitable for use as LWD is permitted to be removed from the shoreline buffer, the tree trunk and root ball (where possible) will be saved for use in a restoration project elsewhere in the shoreline jurisdiction. The applicant will be responsible for the cost of moving the removed tree(s) to a location designated by the City. If no restoration project or storage location is available at the time, the Director may waive this requirement. Trees removed in the shoreline jurisdiction outside the buffer shall be placed as LWD in the buffer (not on the bank), if feasible. Priority for LWD placement projects will be in the Transition Zone. 8. Dead or dying trees located within the buffer or undeveloped upland portion of the Shoreline Jurisdiction shall be left in place as wildlife snags, unless they present a hazard to structures, facilities or the public. 9. Topping of trees is prohibited unless absolutely necessary to protect overhead utility lines. Topping of trees will be regulated as removal and tree replacement will be required. Page 18-118 Produced by the City of Tukwila, City Clerk's Office TITLE 18 — ZONING 10. For new development or re -development where trees are proposed for retention, tree protection zones shall be indicated on site plans and shall be established in the field prior to commencement of any construction or site clearing activity. A minimum 4 feet high construction barrier shall be installed around significant trees and stands of native trees or vegetation to be retained. Minimum distances from the trunk for the construction barriers shall be based on the approximate age of the tree (height and canopy) as follows: a. Young trees (have reached less than 20% of life expectancy): 0.75 feet per inch of trunk diameter. b. Mature trees (have reached 20-80% of life expectancy): 1 foot per inch of trunk diameter. c. Over mature trees (have reached greater than 80% of life expectancy): 1.5 feet per inch of trunk diameter. C. Landscaping. This section presents landscaping standards for the Shoreline Jurisdiction and is divided into a general section and separate sections for the River Buffer and for the remaining part of the Shoreline Jurisdiction for each environment designation. 1. General Requirements. For any new development or redevelopment in the Shoreline Jurisdiction, except single family residential development of 4 or fewer lots, invasive vegetation must be removed and native vegetation planted and maintained in the River Buffer, including the river bank. a. The landscaping requirements of this subsection apply for any new development or redevelopment in the Shoreline Jurisdiction, except: single family residential development of 4 or fewer lots. The extent of landscaping required will depend on the size of the proposed project. New development or full redevelopment of a site will require landscaping of the entire site. For smaller projects, the Director will review the intent of this section and the scope of the project to determine a reasonable amount of landscaping to be carried out. Trees and other vegetation shading the river shall be retained or replanted when riprap is placed per the approved tree permit, if required. b. Invasive vegetation must be removed as part of site preparation and native vegetation planted, including the river bank. c. On properties located behind publicly maintained levees, an applicant is not required to remove invasive vegetation or plant native vegetation within the buffer. d. Removal of invasive species shall be done by hand or with hand-held power tools. Where not feasible and mechanized equipment is needed, the applicant must obtain a Shoreline Tree Removal and Vegetation Clearing Permit and show how the slope stability of the bank will be maintained and a plan must be submitted indicating how the work will be done and what erosion control and tree protection features will be utilized. Federal and State permits may be required for vegetation removal with mechanized equipment. e. Trees and other vegetation shading the river shall be retained or replanted when riprap is placed, as specified in the approved tree permit if a permit is required. f. Removal of invasive vegetation may be phased over several years prior to planting, if such phasing is provided for by a plan approved by the Director to allow for alternative approaches, such as sheet mulching and goat grazing. The method selected shall not destabilize the bank or cause erosion. g. A combination of native trees, shrubs and groundcovers (including grasses, sedges, rushes and vines) shall be planted. The plants listed in the Riparian Restoration and Management Table of the 2004 Washington Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, Washington, as amended) shall provide the basis for plant selection. Site conditions, such as topography, exposure, and hydrology shall be taken into account for plant selection. Other species may be approved if there is adequate justification. h. Non-native trees may be used as street trees in cases where conditions are not appropriate for native trees (for example where there are space or height limitations or conflicts with utilities). i. Plants shall meet the current American Standard for Nursery Stock (American Nursery and Landscape Association — ANLA). j. Plant sizes in the non -buffer areas of all Shoreline Environments shall meet the following minimum size standards: Deciduous trees 2 -inch caliper Conifers 6 — 8 foot height Shrubs 24 -inch height Groundcover/grasses 4 -inch or 1 gallon container k. Smaller plant sizes (generally one gallon, bareroot, plugs, or stakes, depending on plant species) are preferred for buffer plantings. Willow stakes must be at least 1/2 -inch in diameter. I. Site preparation and planting of vegetation shall be in accordance with best management practices for ensuring the vegetation's long-term health and survival. m. Plants may be selected and placed to allow for public and private view corridors and/or access to the waters edge. n. Native vegetation in the shoreline installed in accordance with the preceding standards shall be maintained by the property owner to promote healthy growth and prevent establishment of invasive species. Invasive plants (such as blackberry, ivy, knotweed, bindweed) shall be removed on a regular basis, according to the approved maintenance plan. Produced by the City of Tukwila, City Clerk's Office Page 18-119 TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE o. Areas disturbed by removal of invasive plants shall be replanted with native vegetation where necessary to maintain the density shown in TMC Section 18.44.080.6.4. and must be replanted in a timely manner, except where a long term removal and re -vegetation plan, as approved by the City, is being implemented. p. The following standards apply to utilities and loading docks located in the shoreline jurisdiction. (1) Utilities such as pumps, pipes, etc. shall be suitably screened with native vegetation; (2) Utility easements shall be landscaped with native groundcover, grasses or other low -growing plants as appropriate to the shoreline environment and site conditions; (3) Allowed loading docks and service areas located waterward of the development shall have landscaping that provides extensive visual separation from the river. 2. River Buffer Landscaping Requirements in all Shoreline Environments. The River Buffer in all shoreline environments shall function, in part, as a vegetation management area to filter sediment, capture contaminants in surface water run-off, reduce the velocity of water run-off, and provide fish and wildlife habitat. a. A planting plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect or an approved biologist shall be submitted to the City for approval that shows plant species, size, number and spacing. The requirement for a landscape architect or biologist may be waived by the Director for single family property owners (when planting is being required as mitigation for construction of overwater structures or shoreline stabilization), if the property owner accepts technical assistance from City staff. b. Plants shall be installed from the OHWM to the upland edge of the River Buffer unless site conditions would make planting unsafe. c. Plantings close to and on the bank shall include native willows, red osier dogwood and other native vegetation that will extend out over the water, to provide shade and habitat functions when mature. Species selected must be able to withstand seasonal water level fluctuations. d. Minimum plant spacing in the buffer shall follow the River Buffer Vegetation Planting Densities Table shown in TMC Section 18.44.080.0.2. Existing non-invasive plants may be included in the density calculations. e. Irrigation for buffer plantings is required for at least two dry seasons or until plants are established. An irrigation plan is to be included as part of the planting plan. f. In the event that a development project allows for setback and benching of the shoreline along an existing levee or revetment, the newly created mid -slope bench area shall be planted and maintained with a variety of native vegetation appropriate for site conditions. River Buffer Vegetation Planting Densities Table Plant Material Type Planting Density Stakes/cuttings along river bank (willows, red osier dogwood) 1 - 2 feet on center or per bioengineering method Shrubs 3 - 5 feet on center, depending on species Trees 15 — 20 feet on center, depending on species Groundcovers, grasses, sedges, rushes, other herbaceous plants 1-1.5 feet on center, depending on species Native seed mixes 5 - 25 lbs per acre, depending on species 3. Landscaping Requ-rements for the Urban Conservancy and High Intensity Environments — Outside of the River Buffer. For the portions of property within the Shoreline Jurisdiction landward of the River Buffer the landscape requirements in the General section of this chapter and the requirements for the underlying zoning as established in TMC Chapter 18.52 shall apply except as indicated below. a. Parking Lot Landscape Perimeters: One native tree for each 20 lineal feet of required perimeter landscaping, one shrub for each 4 lineal feet of required perimeter landscaping, and native groundcovers to cover 90% of the landscape area within 3 years, planted at a minimum spacing of 12 inches on -center. b. Interior Parking Lot Landscaping: Every 300 square feet of paved surface requires 10 square feet of interior landscaping within landscape islands separated by no more than 150 feet between islands. c. Landscaping shall be provided at yards not adjacent to the river, with the same width as required in the underlying zoning district. This standard may be reduced as follows: (1) Where development provides a public access corridor between off-site public area(s) and public shoreline areas, side yard landscaping may be reduced by 25 percent to no less than 3 feet; or (2) Where development provides additional public access area(s) (as allowed by the High Intensity and Urban Conservancy Environment Development Standards) equal in area to at least 2.5% of total building area, front yard landscaping may be reduced by 25 percent. D. Vegetation Management in the Shoreline Jurisdiction. The requirements of this section apply to all existing and new development within the shoreline jurisdiction. 1. Trees and shrubs may only be pruned for safety, to maintain views or access corridors and trails by pruning up or on the sides of trees, to maintain clearance for utility lines, and/or for improving shoreline ecological function. This type of pruning is exempt from any permit requirements. Topping of trees is prohibited except where absolutely necessary to avoid interference with existing utilities. Page 18-120 Produced by the City of Tukwila, City Clerk's Office f1 TITLE 18 — ZONING 2. Plant debris from removal of invasive plants or pruning shall be removed from the site and disposed of properly. 3. Use of pesticides. a. Pesticides (including herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides) shall not be used in the shoreline jurisdiction except where: (1) Alternatives such as manual removal, biological control, and cultural control are not feasible given the size of the infestation, site characteristics, or the characteristics of the invasive plant species; (2) The use of pesticides has been approved through a comprehensive vegetation or pest management and monitoring plan; (3) The pesticide is applied in accordance with state regulations; (4) The proposed herbicide is approved for aquatic use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and (5) The use of pesticides in the shoreline jurisdiction is approved in writing by the City and the applicant presents a copy of the Aquatic Pesticide Permit issued by the Department of Ecology or Washington Department of Agriculture. b. Self-contained rodent bait boxes designed to prevent access by other animals are allowed. c. Sports fields, parks, golf courses and other outdoor recreational uses that involve maintenance of extensive areas of turf shall provide and implement an integrated turf management program or integrated pest management plan designed to ensure that water quality in the river is not adversely impacted. (Ord. 2346 §8, 2011) 18.44.090 Environmentally Sensitive Areas within the Shoreline Jurisdiction A. Purpose. 1. The Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) requires protection of critical areas (sensitive areas), defined as wetlands, watercourses, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, critical aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife conservation areas, and abandoned mine areas. 2. The purpose of protecting environmentally sensitive areas within the shoreline jurisdiction is to: a. Minimize development impacts on the natural functions and values of these areas. b. Protect quantity and quality of water resources. c. Minimize turbidity and pollution of wetlands and fish -bearing waters and maintain wildlife habitat. d. Prevent erosion and the loss of slope and soil stability caused by the removal of trees, shrubs, and root systems of vegetative cover. e. Protect the public against avoidable losses, public emergency rescue and relief operations cost, and subsidy cost of public mitigation from landslide, subsidence, erosion and flooding. f. Protect the community's aesthetic resources and distinctive features of natural lands and wooded hillsides. g. Balance the private rights of individual property owners with the preservation of environmentally sensitive areas. h. Prevent the loss of wetland and watercourse function and acreage, and strive for a gain over present conditions. i. Give special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to protect or enhance anadromous fisheries. j. Incorporate the use of best available science in the regulation and protection of sensitive areas as required by the state Growth Management Act, according to WAC 365-195- 900 through 365-195-925 and WAC 365-190-080. 3. The goal of these sensitive area regulations is to achieve no net loss of wetland, watercourse, or fish and wildlife conservation areas or their functions. B. Applicability, Maps and Inventories. 1. Sensitive areas located in the shoreline jurisdiction are regulated by the Shoreline Management Program and this chapter. However, the level of protection for the sensitive areas located in the shoreline jurisdiction shall be at least equal to that provided in the Sensitive Areas section of the Zoning Code (TMC Chapter 18.45). 2. Sensitive areas currently identified in the shoreline jurisdiction are discussed in the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report, which forms part of the City's Shoreline Master Program. The locations are mapped on the "Sensitive Areas in the Shoreline Jurisdiction," Map 5. This map is based on assessment of current conditions and review of the best available information. However, additional sensitive areas may exist within the shoreline jurisdiction and the boundaries of the sensitive areas shown are not exact. It is the responsibility of the property owner to determine the presence of sensitive areas on the property and to verify the boundaries in the field. Sensitive area provisions for abandoned mine areas do not apply as none of these areas is located in the shoreline jurisdiction. 3. Sensitive areas comprised of frequently flooded areas and areas of seismic instability are regulated by the Flood Zone Management Code (TMC Chapter 16.52) and the Washington State Building Code, rather than by Section 18.44.090 of this chapter. C. Best Available Science. Policies, regulations and decisions concerning sensitive areas shall rely on Best Available Science to protect the sensitive areas' functions and values. Special consideration must be given to the conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fish and their habitats. Nonscientific information may supplement scientific information, but is not an adequate substitution for valid and available scientific information. Produced by the City of Tukwila, City Clerk's Office Page 18-121 TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE D. Sensitive Area Studies. An applicant for a development proposal that may include a sensitive area and/or its buffer shall submit those studies as required by the City and specified below to adequately identify and evaluate the sensitive area and its buffers. 1. General Requirements. a. A required sensitive areas study shall be prepared by a person with experience and training in the scientific discipline appropriate for the relevant sensitive area. A qualified professional must have obtained a B.S. or B.A. or equivalent degree in ecology or related science, engineering, environmental studies, fisheries, geotechnical or related field, and at least two years of related work experience. b. The sensitive areas study shall use scientifically valid methods and studies in the analysis of sensitive area data and shall use field reconnaissance and reference the source of science used. The sensitive area study shall evaluate the proposal and all probable impacts to sensitive areas. c. It is intended that sensitive areas studies and information be utilized by applicants in preparation of their proposals and therefore shall be undertaken early in the design stages of a project. 2. Wetland, Watercourse and Fish and Wildlife Conservation Area — Sensitive Area Studies. At a minimum, the sensitive area study shall contain the following information, as applicable: a. The name and contact information of the applicant, a description of the proposal, and identification of the permit requested; b. A copy of the site plan for the development proposal showing: sensitive areas and buffers and the development proposal with dimensions; clearing limits; proposed storm water management plan; and mitigation plan for impacts due to drainage alterations; c. The dates, names and qualifications of the persons preparing the study and documentation of any fieldwork performed on the site; d. Identification and characterization of all sensitive areas, water bodies, and buffers adjacent to the proposed project area or potentially impacted by the proposed project; e. A statement specifying the accuracy of the study and assumptions used in the study; f. Determination of the degree of impact and risk from the proposal both on the site and on adjacent properties; g. An assessment of the probable cumulative impacts to sensitive areas, their buffers and other properties resulting from the proposal; h. A description of reasonable efforts made to apply mitigation sequencing to avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts to sensitive areas; i. Plans for adequate mitigation to offset any impacts; j. Recommendations for maintenance, short-term and long-term monitoring, contingency plans and bonding measures; and k. Any technical information required by the director to assist in determining compliance. 3. Geotechnical Studies. a. A geotechnical study appropriate both to the site conditions and the proposed development shall be required for development in Class 2, Class 3, and Class 4 Areas. b. All studies shall include at a minimum a site evaluation, review of available information regarding the site and a surface reconnaissance of the site and adjacent areas. For Class 2 areas, subsurface exploration of site conditions is at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. In addition, for Class 3 and Class 4 Areas, the study shall include a feasibility analysis for the use of infiltration on-site and a subsurface exploration of soils and hydrology conditions. Detailed slope stability analysis shall be done if the geotechnical engineer recommends it in Class 3 areas, and must be done in Class 4 areas. c. Applicants shall retain a geotechnical engineer to prepare the reports and evaluations required in this subsection. The geotechnical report and completed site evaluation checklist shall be prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical practices, under the supervision of and signed and stamped by the geotechnical engineer. The report shall be prepared in consultation with the appropriate City department. Where appropriate, a geologist must be included as part of the geotechnical consulting team. The report shall make specific recommendations concerning development of the site. d. The opinions and recommendations contained in the report shall be supported by field observations and, where appropriate or applicable, by literature review conducted by the geotechnical engineer which shall include appropriate explorations, such as borings or test pits, and an analysis of soil characteristics conducted by or under the supervision of the engineer in accordance with standards of the American Society of Testing and Materials or other applicable standards. If the evaluation involves geologic evaluations or interpretations, the report shall be reviewed and approved by a geotechnical engineer. 4. Modifications or Waivers to Sensitive Area Study Requirements. a. The Director may limit the required geographic area of the sensitive area study as appropriate if: (1) The applicant, with assistance from the city, cannot obtain permission to access properties adjacent to the project area; or (2) The proposed activity will affect only a limited part of the site. Page 18-122 Produced by the City of Tukwila, City Clerk's Office TITLE 18 — ZONING b. The Director may allow modifications to the required contents of the study where, in the judgment of a qualified professional, more or less information is required to adequately address the potential sensitive area impacts and required mitigation. c. If there is written agreement between the Director and the applicant concerning the sensitive area classification and type, the Director may waive the requirement for sensitive area studies provided that no adverse impacts to sensitive areas or buffers will result. There must be substantial evidence that the sensitive areas delineation and classification are correct, that there will be no detrimental impact to the sensitive areas or buffers, and that the goals, purposes, objectives and requirements of the Shoreline Management Program will be followed. E. Procedures. When an applicant submits an application for any building permit, subdivision, short subdivision or any other land use review that approves a use, development or future construction, the location and dimensions of all sensitive areas and buffers on the site shall be indicated on the plans submitted. When a sensitive area is identified, the following procedures apply. 1. The applicant shall submit the relevant sensitive area study as required by this chapter. 2. The Department of Community Development will review the information submitted in the sensitive area studies to verify the information, confirm the nature and type of the sensitive area, and ensure the study is consistent with the Shoreline Master Program. At the discretion of the Director, sensitive area studies may undergo peer review, at the expense of the applicant. 3. Denial of use or development. A use or development will be denied if the Director determines that the applicant cannot ensure that potential dangers and costs to future inhabitants of the development, adjacent properties, and Tukwila are minimized and mitigated to an acceptable level. 4. Preconstruction meeting. The applicant, specialist(s) of record, contractor, and department representatives will be required to attend pre -construction meetings prior to any work on the site. 5. Construction monitoring. The specialist(s) of record shall be retained to monitor the site during construction. 6. On-site Identification. The Director may require the boundary between a sensitive area and its buffer or between the buffer and any development or use to be permanently identified with fencing, or with a wood or metal sign with treated wood, concrete or metal posts. Size will be determined at the time of permitting, and wording shall be as follows: 'Protection of this natural area is in your care. Do not alter or disturb. Please call the City of Tukwila (206-431-3670) for more information." F. Wetland Determinations and Classifications. 1. Wetlands and their boundaries are established by using the Washington State Wetland and Delineation Manual, as required by RCW 36.70A.175 (Ecology Publication #96-94) and consistent with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. 2. Wetland determinations shall be made by a qualified professional (certified Wetland Scientist or non - certified with at least two years of full-time work experience as a wetland professional). 3. Wetland areas within the City of Tukwila have certain characteristics, functions and values and have been influenced by urbanization and related disturbances. Wetland functions include, but are not limited to the following: improving water quality; maintaining hydrologic functions (reducing peak flows, decreasing erosion, groundwater); and providing habitat for plants, mammals, fish, birds, and amphibians. Wetland functions shall be evaluated using the Washington State Functional Assessment Method. 4. Wetlands shall be designated in accordance with the Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington (Washington State Department of Ecology, August 2004, Publication #04-06-025) as Category I, II, III or IV as listed below: a. Category I wetlands are those that: (1) represent a unique or rare wetland type; or (2) are more sensitive to disturbance than most wetlands; or (3) are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that are impossible to replace within a human lifetime; or (4) provide a high level of functions. The following types of wetlands listed by the Washington State Department of Ecology and potentially found in Tukwila's Shoreline Jurisdiction are Category I: (a) Estuarine wetlands (deepwater tidal habitats with a range of fresh -brackish -marine water chemistry and daily tidal cycles, salt and brackish marshes, intertidal mudflats, mangrove swamps, bays, sounds, and coastal rivers). (b) Wetlands that perform many functions well and score at least 70 points in the Western Washington Wetlands Rating System. (c) Waterfowl or shorebird areas designated by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife. b. Category II wetlands are difficult, though not impossible to replace and provide high levels of some functions. These wetlands occur more commonly than Category I wetlands, but still need a relatively high level of protection. Category II wetlands potentially in Tukwila's Shoreline Jurisdiction include: (1) Estuarine wetlands — Any estuarine wetland smaller than an acre, or those that are disturbed and larger than 1 acre are Category II wetlands. Produced by the City of Tukwila, City Clerk's Office Page 18-123 TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE (2) Wetlands that perform functions well — Wetlands scoring between 51 - 69 points (out of 100) on the questions related to the functions present are Category II wetlands. c. Category III wetlands have a moderate level of functions (scores between 30 - 50 points). Wetlands scoring between 30 - 50 points generally have been disturbed in some ways and are often less diverse or more isolated from other natural resources in the landscape than Category II wetlands. d. Category IV wetlands have the lowest levels of functions (scores less than 30 points) and are often heavily disturbed. While these are wetlands that should be able to be replaced or improved, they still need protection because they may provide some important functions. Any disturbance of these wetlands must be considered on a case-by-case basis. G. Watercourse Designation and Ratings. 1. Watercourse ratings are based on the existing habitat functions and are rated as follows: a. Type 1 (S) Watercourse: Watercourses inventoried as Shorelines of the State under RCW 90.58 (Green/Duwamish River). b. Type 2 (F) Watercourse: Those watercourses that have either perennial (year-round) or intermittent flows and support salmonid fish use. c. Type 3 (NP) Watercourse: Those watercourses that have perennial flows and are not used by salmonid fish. d. Type 4 (NS) Watercourse: Those watercourses that have intermittent flows and are not used by salmonid fish. 2. Watercourse sensitive area studies shall be performed by a qualified professional (hydrologist, geologist, engineer or other scientist with experience in preparing watercourse assessments). H. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. 1. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas within the shoreline jurisdiction include the habitats listed below: a. Areas with which endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have a primary association; b. Habitats and species of local importance, including but not limited to bald eagle habitat, heron rookeries, osprey nesting areas; c. Waters of the State (i.e., the Green/Duwamish River itself); d. State natural area preserves and natural resource conservation areas; and e. Areas critical for habitat connectivity. 2. The approximate location and extent of known fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas are identified in the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report and are shown on the Sensitive Areas in the Shoreline Jurisdiction map. Only the salmon habitat enhancement project sites completed or underway are shown as Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas on the Sensitive Areas in the Shoreline Jurisdiction Map. Streams are shown as watercourses. The river is not shown as a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area for the sake of simplicity. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas correlate closely with the areas identified as regulated watercourses and wetlands and their buffers, as well as off -channel habitat areas created to improve salmon habitat (shown on the Sensitive Areas Map) in the Shoreline jurisdiction. The Green/Duwamish River is recognized as the most significant fish and wildlife habitat corridor. In addition Gilliam Creek, Riverton Creek, Southgate Creek, Hamm Creek (in the North Potential Annexation Area (PAA), and Johnson Creek (South PAA) all provide salmonid habitat. I. Wetland Watercourse and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Buffers. 1. Purpose and Intent of Buffer Establishment. a. A buffer area shall be established adjacent to designated sensitive areas. The purpose of the buffer area shall be to protect the integrity, functions and values of the sensitive areas. Any land alteration must be located out of the buffer areas as required by this section. b. Buffers are intended in general to: (1) Minimize long-term impacts of development on properties containing sensitive areas. (2) Protect sensitive areas from adverse impacts during development. (3) Preserve the edges of wetlands and the banks of watercourses and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas for their critical habitat value. (4) Provide an area to stabilize banks, to absorb overflow during high water events and to allow for slight variation of aquatic system boundaries over time due to hydrologic or climatic effects. (5) Provide shading to watercourses and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas to maintain stable water temperatures and provide vegetative cover for additional wildlife habitat. (6) Provide input of organic debris and nutrient transport in watercourses. (7) Reduce erosion and increased surface water run-off. (8) Reduce loss of or damage to property. (9) Intercept fine sediments from surface water run-off and serve to minimize water quality impacts. (10) Protect the sensitive area from human and domestic animal disturbances. Page 18-124 Produced by the City of Tukwila, City Clerk's Office TITLE 18 — ZONING 2. Establishment of Buffer Widths. The following standard buffers shall be established: a. Wetland buffers (measured from the wetland edge): (1) Category 1 & 11 Wetland: 100 -foot buffer. (2) Category III Wetland: 80 -foot buffer. (3) Category IV Wetland: 50 -foot buffer. b. Watercourse buffers (measured from the OHWM): (1) Type 1 (S) Watercourse: The buffer width for the Green/Duwamish River is established in the Shoreline Environment Designations of this SMP for the three designated shoreline environments. (2) Type 2 (F) Watercourse: 100 -foot -wide buffer. (3) Type 3 (NP) Watercourse: 80 -foot -wide buffer. (4) Type 4 (NS) Watercourse: 50 -foot -wide buffer. c. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas: The buffer will be the same as the river buffer established for each Shoreline Environment measured from the OHWM, unless an alternate buffer is established and approved at the time a fish and wildlife habitat restoration project is undertaken. 3. Sensitive Area Buffer Setbacks. All commercial and industrial buildings shall be set back 15 feet and all other development shall be set back 10 feet from the sensitive area buffer's edge. The building setbacks shall be measured from the foundation to the buffer's edge. Building plans shall also identify a 20 -foot area beyond the buffer setback within which the impacts of development will be reviewed. The Director may waive setback requirements when a site plan demonstrates there will be no adverse impacts to the buffer from construction or occasional maintenance activities. 4. Reduction of Standard Buffer Width. Except for the Green/Duwamish River (Type 1 watercourse for which any variation in the buffer shall be regulated under the shoreline provisions of this program), the buffer width may be reduced on a case-by-case basis, provided the reduced buffer area does not contain slopes 15% or greater. In no case shall the approved buffer width result in greater than a 50% reduction in width. Buffer reduction with enhancement may be allowed as part of a Substantial Development Permit if: a. Additional protection to wetlands or watercourses will be provided through the implementation of a buffer enhancement plan; and b. The existing condition of the buffer is degraded; and c. Buffer enhancement includes, but is not limited to, the following: (1) Planting vegetation that would increase value for fish and wildlife habitat or improve water quality; (2) Enhancement of wildlife habitat by incorporating structures that are likely to be used by wildlife, including wood duck boxes, bat boxes, snags, root wads/stumps, birdhouses and heron nesting areas; or (3) Removing non-native plant species and noxious weeds from the buffer area and replanting the area. 5. Increase in Standard Buffer Width. Buffers for sensitive areas will be increased when they are determined to be particularly sensitive to disturbance or the proposed development will create unusually adverse impacts. Any increase in the width of the buffer shall be required only after completion of a sensitive areas study by a qualified biologist that documents the basis for such increased width. An increase in buffer width may be appropriate when: a. The development proposal has the demonstrated potential for significant adverse impacts upon the sensitive area that can be mitigated by an increased buffer width; or b. The area serves as habitat for endangered, threatened, sensitive or monitor species listed by the federal government or the State. 6. Maintenance of Vegetation in Buffers. Every reasonable effort shall be made to maintain any existing viable native plant life in the buffers. Vegetation may be removed from the buffer as part of an enhancement plan approved by the Director. Enhancements will ensure that slope stability and wetland or watercourse quality will be maintained or improved. Any disturbance of the buffers shall be replanted with a diverse plant community of native northwest species that are appropriate for the specific site as determined by the Director. If the vegetation must be removed, or the vegetation becomes damaged or dies because of the alterations of the landscape, then the applicant for a permit must replace existing vegetation with comparable specimens, approved by the Director, which will restore buffer functions within five years. J. Areas of Potential Geologic Instability. 1. Classification. Areas of potential geologic instability are classified as follows: a. Class 1 area, where landslide potential is low, and which slope is less than 15%; b. Class 2 areas, where landslide potential is moderate, which slope is between 15% and 40%, and which are underlain by relatively permeable soils; c. Class 3 areas, where landslide potential is high, which include areas sloping between 15% and 40%, and which are underlain by relatively impermeable soils or by bedrock, and which also include all areas sloping more steeply than 40%; d. Class 4 areas, where landslide potential is very high, which include sloping areas with mappable zones of groundwater seepage, and which also include existing mappable landslide deposits regardless of slope. Produced by the City of Tukwila, City Clerk's Office Page 18-125 TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE 2. Exemptions. The following areas are exempt from regulation as geologically hazardous areas: a. Temporary stockpiles of topsoil, gravel, beauty bark or other similar landscaping or construction materials; b. Slopes related to materials used as an engineered pre -load for a building pad; c. Any temporary slope that has been created through legal grading activities under an approved permit may be re -graded. d. Roadway embankments within right-of-way or road easements; and e. Slopes retained by approved engineered structures, except riverbank structures and armoring. 3. Geotechnical Study Required. a. Development or alterations to areas of potential geologic instability that form the river banks shall be governed by the policies and requirements of the Shoreline Stabilization section of this chapter. Development proposals on all other lands containing or threatened by an area of potential geologic instability Class 2 or higher shall be subject to a geotechnical study. The geotechnical report shall analyze and make recommendations on the need for and width of any setbacks or buffers necessary to insure slope stability. Development proposals shall then include the buffer distances as defined within the geotechnical report. The geotechnical study shall be performed by a qualified professional geotechnical engineer, licensed in the State of Washington. b. Prior to permitting alteration of an area of potential geologic instability, the applicant must demonstrate one of the following: (1) There is no evidence of past instability or earth movement in the vicinity of the proposed development, and where appropriate, quantitative analysis of slope stability indicates no significant risk to the proposed development or surrounding properties; or (2) The area of potential geologic instability can be modified or the project can be designed so that any potential impact to the project and surrounding properties is eliminated, slope stability is not decreased, and the increase in surface water discharge or sedimentation shall not decrease slope stability. 4. Buffers for Areas of Potential Geologic Instability. a. Buffers are intended to: (1) Minimize long-term impacts of development on properties containing sensitive areas; (2) Protect sensitive areas from adverse impacts during development; (3) Prevent loading of potentially unstable slope formations; (4) (5) Protect slope stability; Provide erosion control and attenuation of precipitation, surface water and storm water runoff; and (6) Reduce loss of or damage to property; (7) Prevent the need for future shoreline armoring. b. Buffers may be increased by the Director when an area is determined to be particularly sensitive to the disturbance created by a development. Such a decision will be based on a City review of the report as prepared by a qualified geotechnical engineer and by a site visit. 5. Additional Requirements. a. Where any portion of an area of potential geologic instability is cleared for development, a landscaping plan for the site shall include tree replanting in accordance with the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping section of this chapter. Vegetation shall be sufficient to provide erosion and stabilization protection. b. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to submit, consistent with the findings of the geotechnical report, structural plans which were prepared and stamped by a structural engineer. The plans and specifications shall be accompanied by a letter from the geotechnical engineer who prepared the geotechnical report stating that in his/her judgment, the plans and specifications conform to the recommendations in the geotechnical report; the risk of damage to the proposed development site from soil instability will be minimal subject to the conditions set forth in the report; and the proposed development will not increase the potential for soil movement. c. Further recommendations signed and sealed by the geotechnical engineer shall be provided should there be additions or exceptions to the original recommendations based on the plans, site conditions or other supporting data. If the geotechnical engineer who reviews the plans and specifications is not the same engineer who prepared the geotechnical report, the new engineer shall, in a letter to the City accompanying the plans and specifications, express his or her agreement or disagreement with the recommendations in the geotechnical report and state that the plans and specifications conform to his or her recommendations. d. The architect or structural engineer shall submit to the City, with the plans and specifications, a letter or notation on the design drawings at the time of permit application stating that he or she has reviewed the geotechnical report, understands its recommendations, has explained or has had explained to the owner the risks of loss due to slides on the site, and has incorporated into the design the recommendations of the report and established measures to reduce the potential risk of injury or damage that might be caused by any earth movement predicted in the report. Page 18-126 Produced by the City of Tukwila, City Clerk's Office TITLE 18 — ZONING e. The owner shall execute a Sensitive Areas Covenant and Hold Harmless Agreement running with the land, on a form provided by the City. The City will file the completed covenant with the King County Department of Records and Elections at the expense of the applicant or owner. A copy of the recorded covenant will be forwarded to the owner. f. Whenever the City determines that the public interest would not be served by the issuance of a permit in an area of potential geologic instability without assurance of a means of providing for restoration of areas disturbed by, and repair of property damage caused by, slides arising out of or occurring during construction, the Director may require assurance devices. g. Where recommended by the geotechnical report, the applicant shall retain a geotechnical engineer (preferably retain the geotechnical engineer who prepared the final geotechnical recommendations and reviewed the plans and specifications) to monitor the site during construction. If a different geotechnical engineer is retained, the new geotechnical engineer shall submit a letter to the City stating whether or not he/she agrees with the opinions and recommendations of the original study. Further recommendations, signed and sealed by the geotechnical engineer, and supporting data shall be provided should there be exceptions to the original recommendations. h. During construction the geotechnical engineer shall monitor compliance with the recommendations in the geotechnical report, particularly site excavation, shoring, soil support for foundations including piles, subdrainage installations, soil compaction and any other geotechnical aspects of the construction. Unless otherwise approved by the City, the specific recommendations contained in the soils report must be implemented. The geotechnical engineer shall provide to the City written, dated monitoring reports on the progress of the construction at such timely intervals as shall be specified. Omissions or deviations from the approved plans and specifications shall be immediately reported to the City. The final construction monitoring report shall contain a statement from the geotechnical engineer that, based upon his or her professional opinion, site observations and testing during the monitoring of the construction, the completed development substantially complies with the recommendations in the geotechnical report and with all geotechnical -related permit requirements. Occupancy of the project will not be approved until the report has been reviewed and accepted by the Director. i. Substantial weight shall be given to ensuring continued slope stability and the resulting public health, safety and welfare in determining whether a development should be allowed. j. The City may impose conditions that address site -work problems which could include, but are not limited to, limiting all excavation and drainage installation to the dry season, or sequencing activities such as installing erosion control and drainage systems well in advance of construction. A permit will be denied if it is determined by the Director that the development will increase the potential of soil movement that results in an unacceptable risk of damage to the proposed development, its site or adjacent properties. K. Sensitive Areas Permitted Uses and Alterations. 1. General Sensitive Areas Permitted Uses. All uses permitted in the Shoreline Jurisdiction buffers are allowed in sensitive areas within the jurisdiction except: a. Promenades b. Recreational structures c. Public pedestrian bridges d. Vehicle bridges e. New utilities f. Plaza connectors g. Water -dependent uses and their structures h. Essential streets, roads and rights-of-way i. Essential public facilities j. Outdoor storage 2. In addition, the following uses are allowed: a. Maintenance activities of existing landscaping and gardens in a sensitive area buffer including, but not limited to, mowing lawns, weeding, harvesting and replanting of garden crops and pruning and planting of vegetation. The removal of established native trees and shrubs is not permitted. Herbicide use in sensitive areas or their buffers is not allowed without written permission of the City. b. Vegetation maintenance as part of sensitive area enhancement, creation or restoration. Herbicide use in sensitive areas or their buffers is not allowed without written permission of the City. 3. Conditional Uses. Dredging, where necessary to remediate contaminated sediments, if adverse impacts are mitigated, may be permitted. 4. Wetland Alterations. Alterations to wetlands are discouraged, are limited to the minimum necessary for project feasibility, and must have an approved mitigation plan developed in accordance with the standards in this chapter. a. Mitigation for wetlands shall follow the mitigation sequencing steps in this chapter and may include the following types of actions: (1) Creation — the manipulation of the physical, chemical or biological characteristics of a site to develop a wetland on an upland or deepwater site, where a biological wetland did not previously exist; (2) Re-establishment — the manipulation of the physical, chemical or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of restoring wetland functions to a former wetland, resulting in a net increase in wetland acres and functions; Produced by the City of Tukwila, City Clerk's Office Page 18-127 TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE (3) Rehabilitation — the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics with the goal of repairing historic functions and processes of a degraded wetland, resulting in a gain in wetland function but not acreage; (4) Enhancement — the manipulation of the physical, chemical or biological characteristics to heighten, intensify, or improve specific functions (such as vegetation) or to change the growth stage or composition of the vegetation present, resulting in a change in wetland functions but not a gain in wetland acreage; or (5) A combination of the three types. b. Allowed alterations per wetland type and mitigation ratios are as follows: (1) Alterations are not permitted to Category I wetlands unless specifically exempted under the provisions of this Program. Mitigation will still be required at a rate of 4:1 for creation or re-establishment, 8:1 for rehabilitation, and 16:1 for enhancement. (2) Alterations are not permitted to Category II wetlands unless specifically exempted under the provisions of this Program. Mitigation will still be required at a rate of 3:1 for creation or re-establishment, 6:1 for rehabilitation, and 12:1 for enhancement. (3) Alterations to Category III wetlands are prohibited except where the location or configuration of the wetland provides practical difficulties that can be resolved by modifying up to .10 (one-tenth) of an acre of wetland. Mitigation for any alteration to a Category III wetland must be located contiguous to the altered wetland. Mitigation for any alteration to a Category III wetland must be provided at a ratio of 2:1 for creation or re-establishment, 4:1 for rehabilitation and 8:1 for enhancement alone. (4) Alterations to Category IV wetlands are allowed, where unavoidable and adequate mitigation is carried out in accordance with the standards of this section. Mitigation for alteration to a Category IV wetland will be 1.5:1 for creation or re-establishment and 3:1 for rehabilitation and 6:1 for enhancement. (5) Isolated wetlands formed on fill material in highly disturbed environmental conditions and assessed as having low overall wetland functions (scoring below 20 points) may be altered and/or relocated with the permission of the Director. These wetlands may include artificial hydrology or wetlands unintentionally created as the result of construction activities. The determination that a wetland is isolated is made by the US Army Corps of Engineers. 5. Watercourse Alterations. All impacts to a watercourse that degrade the functions and values of the watercourse shall be avoided. If alteration to the watercourse is unavoidable, all adverse impacts shall be mitigated in accordance with the approved mitigation plan as described in this chapter. Mitigation shall take place on-site or as close as possible to the impact location, and compensation shall be at a minimum 1:1 ratio. Any mitigation shall result in improved watercourse functions over existing conditions. a. Diverting or rerouting may only occur with the permission of the Director and an approved mitigation plan, as well as all necessary approvals by state agencies. Any watercourse that has critical wildlife habitat or is necessary for the life cycle or spawning of salmonids shall not be rerouted, unless it can be shown that the habitat will be improved for the benefit of the species. A watercourse may be rerouted or day - lighted as a mitigation measure to improve watercourse function. b. Piping of any watercourse should be avoided. Relocation of a watercourse is preferred to piping; if piping occurs in a watercourse sensitive area, it shall be limited and shall require approval of the Director. Piping of Type 1 watercourses shall not be permitted. Piping may be allowed in Type 2, 3 or 4 watercourses if it is necessary for access purposes. Piping may be allowed in Type 4 watercourses if the watercourse has a degraded buffer, is located in a highly - developed area and does not provide shade, temperature control, etc. for habitat. The applicant must comply with the conditions of this section, including: providing excess capacity to meet the needs of the system during a 100 -year flood event, and providing flow restrictors and complying with water quality and existing habitat enhancement procedures. c. No process that requires maintenance on a regular basis will be acceptable unless this maintenance process is part of the regular and normal facilities maintenance process or unless the applicant can show funding for this maintenance is ensured for as long as the use remains. d. Piping projects shall be performed pursuant to the following applicable standards: (1) The conveyance system shall be designed to comply with the standards in current use and recommended by the Department of Public Works. (2) Where allowed, piping shall be limited to the shortest length possible as determined by the Director to allow access onto a property. (3) Where water is piped for an access point, those driveways or entrances shall be consolidated to serve multiple properties where possible, and to minimize the length of piping. (4) When required by the Director, watercourses under drivable surfaces shall be contained in an arch culvert using oversize or super span culverts for rebuilding of a streambed. These shall be provided with check dams to reduce flows, and shall be replanted and enhanced according to a plan approved by the Director. (5) All watercourse crossings shall be designed to accommodate fish passage. Watercourse crossings shall not block fish passage where the streams are fish bearing. Page 18-128 Produced by the City of Tukwila, City Clerk's Office f TITLE 18 — ZONING (6) Stormwater run-off shall be detained and infiltrated to preserve the watercourse channel's dominant discharge. (7) All construction shall be designed to have the least adverse impact on the watercourse, buffer and surrounding environment. (8) Piping shall be constructed during periods of low flow, or as allowed by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife. (9) Water quality must be as good or better for any water exiting the pipe as for the water entering the pipe, and flow must be comparable. 6. Fish and Wildlife Conservation Area Alterations. Alterations to the Green/Duwamish River are regulated by the shoreline provisions of this SMP. Alterations to Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas that have been created as restoration or habitat enhancement sites and are shown on the Sensitive Areas in the Shoreline Jurisdiction Map are prohibited and may only be authorized through a shoreline variance procedure. L. Sensitive Areas Mitigation. Mitigation shall be required for any proposals for dredging, filling, piping, diverting, relocation or other alterations of sensitive areas as allowed in this chapter and in accordance with mitigation sequencing and the established mitigation ratios. The mitigation plan shall be developed as part of a sensitive area study by a qualified specialist. 1. Mitigation Sequencing. Applicants shall demonstrate that reasonable efforts have been examined with the intent to avoid and minimize impacts to sensitive areas and buffers. When an alteration to a sensitive area or its required buffer is proposed, such alteration shall be avoided, minimized or compensated for in the following order of preference: a. Avoidance of sensitive area and buffer impacts, whether by finding another site or changing the location of the proposed activity on-site; b. Minimizing sensitive area and buffer impacts by limiting the degree of impact on site; c. Mitigation actions that require compensation by replacing, enhancing, or substitution. 2. Criteria for Approval of Alterations and Mitigation. Alterations and mitigation plans are subject to Director approval, and may be approved only if the following findings are made: a. The alteration will not adversely affect water quality; b. The alteration will not adversely affect fish, wildlife, or their habitat; c. The alteration will not have an adverse effect on drainage and/or stormwater detention capabilities; d. The alteration will not lead to unstable earth conditions or create an erosion hazard or contribute to scouring actions; e. The alteration will not be materially detrimental to any other property; and f. The alteration will not have adverse effects on any other sensitive areas or the shoreline. g. The mitigation will result in improved functions such as water quality, erosion control, wildlife and fish habitat. 3. Mitigation Location. a. On-site mitigation shall be provided, except where it can be demonstrated that: (1) On-site mitigation is not scientifically feasible due to problems with hydrology, soils, or other factors; or (2) Mitigation is not practical due to potentially adverse impacts from surrounding land uses; or (3) Existing functional values created at the site of the proposed restoration are significantly greater than lost sensitive area functions; or (4) Established regional goals for flood storage, flood conveyance, habitat or other sensitive area functions have been established and strongly justify location of mitigation at another site. b. Off-site mitigation shall occur within the shoreline jurisdiction in a location where the sensitive area functions can be restored. Buffer impacts must be mitigated at or as close as possible to the location of the impact. c. Wetland creation, relocation of a watercourse, or creation of a new fish and wildlife habitat shall not result in the new sensitive area or buffer extending beyond the development site and onto adjacent property without the agreement of the affected property owners, unless otherwise exempted by this chapter. 4. Mitigation Plan Content and Standards. The scope and content of a mitigation plan shall be decided on a case-by-case basis. As the impacts to the sensitive area increase, the mitigation measures to offset these impacts will increase in number and complexity. The minimum components of a complete mitigation plan are listed below. For wetland mitigation plans, the format should follow that established in "Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Part 2—Developing Mitigation Plans" (Washington Department of Ecology, Corps of Engineers, EPA, March 2006, as amended). a. Baseline information of quantitative data collection or a review and synthesis of existing data for both the project impact zone and the proposed mitigation site. b. Environmental goals and objectives that describe the purposes of the mitigation measures. This should include a description of site -selection criteria, identification of target evaluation species, and resource functions. Produced by the City of Tukwila, City Clerk's Office Page 18-129 TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE c. Performance standards for the specific criteria for fulfilling environmental goals, and for beginning remedial action or contingency measures. They may include water quality standards, species richness and diversity targets, habitat diversity indices, or other ecological, geological or hydrological criteria. The following shall be considered the minimum performance standards for approved sensitive area alterations: (1) Sensitive area functions and improved habitat for fish and wildlife are improved over those of the original conditions. (2) Hydrologic conditions, hydroperiods and watercourse channels are improved over existing conditions and the specific performance standards specified in the approved mitigation plan are achieved. (3) Acreage requirements for enhancement or creation are met. (4) Vegetation native to the Pacific Northwest is installed and vegetation survival and coverage standards over time are met and maintained. (5) Buffer and bank conditions and functions exceed the original state. (6) Stream channel habitat and dimensions are maintained or improved such that the fisheries habitat functions of the compensatory stream reach meet or exceed that of the original stream. d. A detailed construction plan of the written specifications and descriptions of mitigation techniques. This plan should include the proposed construction sequence and construction management, and be accompanied by detailed site diagrams and blueprints that are an integral requirement of any development proposal. e. Monitoring and/or evaluation program that outlines the approach and frequency for assessing progress of the completed project. An outline shall be included that spells out how the monitoring data will be evaluated and reported. f. Maintenance plan that outlines the activities and frequency of maintenance to ensure compliance with performance standards. g. Contingency plan identifying potential courses of action and any corrective measures to be taken when monitoring or evaluation indicates project performance standards have not been met. h. Performance security or other assurance devices. 5. Mitigation Timing. a. Mitigation projects shall be completed prior to activities that will permanently disturb sensitive areas or their buffers and either prior to or immediately after activities that will temporarily disturb sensitive areas. b. Construction of mitigation projects shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing wildlife, flora and water quality, and shall be completed prior to use or occupancy of the activity or development. The Director may allow activities that permanently disturb wetlands or watercourses prior to implementation of the mitigation plan under the following circumstances: (1) To allow planting or re -vegetation to occur during optimal weather conditions; (2) To avoid disturbance during critical wildlife periods; or (3) To account for unique site constraints that dictate construction timing or phasing. c. Monitoring of buffer alterations shall be required for three to five years. All other alterations shall be monitored for minimum of five years. 6. Corrective Actions and Monitoring. The Director shall require subsequent corrective actions and long- term monitoring of the project if adverse impacts to regulated sensitive areas or their buffers are identified. 7. Recording. The property owner receiving approval of a use or development pursuant to the Shoreline Master Program shall record the City -approved site plan clearly delineating the sensitive area and its buffer with the King County Division of Records and Elections. The face of the site plan must include a statement that the provisions of this chapter, as of the effective date of the ordinance from which the Shoreline Management Program derives or is thereafter amended, control use and development of the subject property, and provide for any responsibility of the latent defects or deficiencies. 8. Assurance Device. a. The Director may require a letter of credit or other security device acceptable to the City, to guarantee performance and maintenance requirements. All assurances shall be on a form approved by the City Attorney. b. When alteration of a sensitive area is approved, the Director may require an assurance device, on a form approved by the City Attorney, to cover the monitoring costs and correction of possible deficiencies for the term of the approved monitoring and maintenance program. c. The assurance device shall be released by the Director upon receipt of written confirmation submitted to the Department from the applicant's qualified professional that the mitigation or restoration has met its performance standards and is successfully established. Should the mitigation or restoration meet performance standards and be successfully established in the third or fourth year of monitoring, the City may release the assurance device early. The assurance device may be held for a longer period, if at the end of the monitoring period, the performance standards have not been met or the mitigation has not been successfully established. d. Release of the security does not absolve the property owner of responsibility for maintenance or correcting latent defects or deficiencies or other duties under law. (Orel. 2346 §9, 2011) Page 18-130 Produced by the City of Tukwila, City Clerk's Office N TITLE 18 — ZONING 18.44100 Public Access to the Shoreline A. Applicability. 1. Public access shall be provided on all property that abuts the Green/Duwamish River shoreline in accordance with this section as further discussed below where any of the following conditions are present: a. Where a development or use will create increased demand for public access to the shoreline, the development or use shall provide public access to mitigate this impact. For the purposes of this section, an "increase in demand for public access" is determined by evaluating whether the development reflects an increase in the land use intensity (for example converting a warehouse to office or retail use), or a significant increase in the square footage of an existing building. A significant increase is defined as an increase of 3,000 square feet. b. Where a development or use will interfere with an existing public access way, the development or use shall provide public access to mitigate this impact. Impacts to public access may include blocking access or discouraging use of existing on-site or nearby accesses. c. Where a use or development will interfere with a public use of lands or waters subject to the public trust doctrine, the development shall provide public access to mitigate this impact. d. Where the development is proposed by a public entity or on public lands. e. Where identified on the Shoreline Public Access Map. f. Where a land division of five or greater lots, or a residential project of five or greater residential units, is proposed. 2. For the purposes of this section, an "increase in demand for public access" is determined by evaluating whether the development reflects an increase in the land use intensity, for example converting a warehouse to office or retail use, or a significant increase in the square footage of an existing building. A significant increase is defined as an increase of 3,000 square feet. The extent of public access required will be proportional to the amount of increase in the demand for public access. For smaller projects, the Director will review the intent of this section and the scope of the project to determine a reasonable amount of public access to be carried out. Depending on the amount of increase, the project may utilize the alternative provisions for meeting public access in TMC Section 18.44.100(F). The terms and conditions of TMC Sections 18.44.100(A) and (B) shall be deemed satisfied if the applicant and the City agree upon a master trail plan providing for public paths and trails within a parcel or group of parcels. 3. The provisions of this section do not apply to the following: a. Short plats of four or fewer lots; b. Where providing such access would cause unavoidable health or safety hazards; c. Where providing such access would create inherent and unavoidable security problems; or d. Where providing such access would cause significant ecological impacts that cannot be mitigated. An applicant claiming an exemption under items 3(b) - (d) above must comply with the procedures in TMC Section 18.44.100(F). B. General Standards. 1. To improve public access to the Green/Duwamish River, sites shall be designed to provide: a. Safe, visible and accessible pedestrian and non -motorized vehicle connections between proposed development and the river's edge, particularly when the site is adjacent to the Green River Trail or other approved trail system; and b. Public pathway entrances that are clearly visible from the street edge; and c. Clearly identified pathways that are separate from vehicular circulation areas. This may be accomplished through the use of special paving materials such as precast pavers, bomonite, changes in color or distinct and detailed scoring patterns and textures. d. Site elements that are organized to clearly distinguish between public and private access and circulation systems. 2. Required public access shall be fully developed and available for public use at the time of occupancy in accordance with development permit conditions except where the decision maker determines an appropriate mechanism for delayed public access implementation is necessary for practical reasons. Where appropriate, a bond or cash assignment may be approved, on review and approval by the Director of Community Development, to extend this requirement for 90 days from the date the Certificate of Occupancy is issued. 3. Public access easements and related permit conditions shall be recorded on the deed of title or the face of the plat, short plat or approved site plan as a condition tied to the use of the land. Recording with the County shall occur prior to the issuance of an Occupancy Permit or final plat approval. Upon re -development of such a site, the easement may be relocated to facilitate the continued public access to the shoreline. 4. Approved signs indicating the public's right of access and hours of access, if restricted, shall be constructed, installed and maintained by the applicant in conspicuous locations at public access sites. Signs should be designed to distinguish between public and private areas. Signs controlling or restricting public access may be approved as a condition of permit approval. 5. Required access must be maintained throughout the life of the project. Produced by the City of Tukwila, City Clerk's Office Page 18-131 TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE 6. Public access features shall be separated from residential uses through the use of setbacks, low walls, berms, landscaping, or other device of a scale and materials appropriate to the site. 7. Shared public access between developments is encouraged. Where access is to be shared between adjacent developments, the minimum width for the individual access easement may be reduced, provided the total width of easements contributed by each adjacent development equals a width that complies with Fire Department requirements and/or exceeds the minimum for an individual access. 8. Public access sites shall be connected directly to the nearest public area (e.g., street, public park, or adjoining public access easement). Where connections are not currently possible, the site shall be designed to accommodate logical future connections. C. Requirements for Shoreline Trails. Where public access is required under TMC Section 18.44.100(A)1 above, the requirement will be met by provision of a shoreline trail as follows: 1. Development on Properties Abutting Existing Green River Trail. An applicant seeking to develop property abutting the existing trail shall meet public access requirements by upgrading the trail along the property frontage to meet the standards of a 14 -foot -wide trail with 2 -foot shoulders on each side. 2. Development on Properties Where New Trails are Planned. An applicant seeking to develop property abutting the river in areas identified for new shoreline trail segments shall meet public access requirements by dedicating an 18 -foot - wide trail easement to the City for public access along the river. D. Publicly -Owned Shorelines. 1. Shoreline development by any public entities, including but not limited to the City of Tukwila, King County, port districts, state agencies, or public utility districts, shall include public access measures as part of each development project, unless such access is shown to be incompatible due to reasons of safety, security, impact to the shoreline environment or other provisions listed in this section. 2. The following requirements apply to street ends and City -owned property adjacent to the river. a. Public right-of-way and "road -ends," or portions thereof, shall not be vacated and shall be maintained for future public access. b. Unimproved right-of-ways and portions of right- of-ways, such as street ends and turn -outs, shall be dedicated to public access uses until such time as the portion becomes improved right-of-way. Uses shall be limited to passive outdoor recreation, car top boat launching, fishing, interpretive/educational uses, and/or parking, which accommodates these uses, and shall be designed so as to not interfere with the privacy of adjacent residential uses. c. City -owned facilities within the Shoreline Jurisdiction shall provide new trails and trail connections to the Green River Trail in accordance with approved plans and this SMP. d. All City -owned recreational facilities within the Shoreline Jurisdiction, unless qualifying for an exemption as specified in this chapter, shall make adequate provisions for: (1) Non -motorized and pedestrian access; (2) The prevention of trespass onto adjacent properties through landscaping, fencing or other appropriate measures; (3) Signage indicating the public right-of- way to shoreline areas; and (4) Mechanisms to prevent environmental degradation of the shoreline from public use. E. Public Access Incentives. 1. The minimum yard setback for buildings, uses, utilities or development from non-riverfront lot lines may be reduced as follows: a. Where a development provides a public access corridor between off-site areas, or public shoreline areas to public shoreline areas, one side yard may be reduced to a zero lot line placement; or b. Where a development provides additional public access area(s) equal in area to at least 2.5% of total building area, the front yard (the landward side of the development) may be reduced by 50%. 2. The maximum height for structures may be increased by 15% when: a. Development devotes at least 5% of its building or land area to public shoreline access; or b. Development devotes at least 10% of its land area to employee shoreline access. 3. The maximum height for structures under TMC Section 18.44.070.0.3. and this section may be increased by a maximum of 25% when: a. One of the criteria in TMC Section 18.44.100.E.2 is met; and b. The applicant restores or enhances the entire shoreline buffer, including, but not limited to, paved areas no longer in use on the property to offset the impact of the increase in height. Buffer restoration/enhancement projects undertaken to meet the requirements of TMC Section 18.44.100(F) do not qualify as restoration or enhancement for purposes of the height incentive provided in this subsection. c. No combination of incentives may be used to gain more than a 25% total height increase for a structure. Page 18-132 Produced by the City of Tukwila, City Clerk's Office TITLE 18 — ZONING 4. The maximum height for structures may be increased for properties that construct a 14 -foot -wide paved trail with a 2 -foot -wide shoulder on each side for public access along the river in areas identified for new shoreline trail segments, or where, in the case of properties containing or abutting existing public access trails, the existing trail either meets the standard of a 14 -foot -wide trail with 2 -foot -wide shoulders on either side or the property owner provides any necessary easements and improvements to upgrade the existing trail to that standard along the property frontage. During the project review, the increased height shall be affirmatively demonstrated to: a. Not block the views of a substantial number of residences; b. Not cause environmental impacts such as, but not limited to, shading of the river buffer or light impacts adversely affecting the river corridor; and c. Achieve no net loss of ecological function. In no case shall the building height be greater than 115 feet pursuant to this provision. F. Exemptions from Provision of On -Site Public Access. 1. Requirements for providing on-site general public access, as distinguished from employee access, will not apply if the applicant can demonstrate one or more of the following: a. Unavoidable health or safety hazards to the public exist related to the primary use that cannot be prevented by any practical means. b. Inherent security requirements of the use cannot be satisfied through the application of alternative design features or other solutions. c. The cost of providing the access, easement or other public amenity on or off the development site is unreasonably disproportionate to the total long-term cost of the proposed development. d. Unavoidable environmental harm or net loss of shoreline ecological functions that cannot be adequately mitigated will result from the public access. e. Access is not feasible due to the configuration of existing parcels and structures, such that access areas are blocked in a way that cannot be remedied reasonably by the proposed development. f. Significant undue and unavoidable conflict between the proposed access and adjacent uses would occur and cannot be mitigated. g. Space is needed for water -dependent uses or navigation. 2. In order to meet any of the above -referenced conditions, the applicant must first demonstrate, and the City determine in its findings through a Type II decision, that all reasonable alternatives have been exhausted including, but not limited to: a. Regulating access by such means as maintaining a gate and/or limiting hours of use; b. Designing separation of uses and activities through fencing, terracing, hedges or other design features; or c. Providing access on a site geographically separate from the proposal such as a street end cannot be accomplished. 3. If the above conditions are demonstrated, and the proposed development is not subject to the Parks Impact Fee, alternative provisions for meeting public access are required and include: a. Development of public access at an adjacent street end; or b. Protection through easement or setbacks of landmarks, unique natural features or other areas valuable for their interpretive potential; or c. Contribution of materials and/or labor toward projects identified in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the Shoreline Restoration Plan, or other City adopted plan; or d. In lieu of providing public access under this section, at the Director's discretion, the applicant may provide restoration/enhancement of the shoreline jurisdiction to a scale commensurate with the foregone public access. (Ord. 2346 §10, 2011) 18.44.110 Shoreline Design Guidelines The Green/Duwamish River is an amenity that should be valued and celebrated when designing projects that will be located along its length. If any portion of a project falls within the shoreline jurisdiction, then the entire project will be reviewed under these guidelines as well as the relevant sections of the Design Review Chapter of the Zoning Code (TMC Chapter 18.60). The standards of TMC Chapter 18.60 shall guide the type of review, whether administrative or by the Board of Architectural Review. A. The following standards apply to development, uses and activities in the Urban Conservancy and High Intensity Environments and non-residential development in the Shoreline Residential Environment. 1. Relationship of Structure to Site. Development within the shoreline jurisdiction shall demonstrate compliance with the following: a. Respect and reflect the shape of the shoreline; b. Orient building elements to site such that public river access, both visual and physical is enhanced; c. Orient buildings to allow for casual observation of pedestrian and trail activity from interior spaces; d. Site and orient buildings to provide maximum views from building interiors toward the river and the shoreline; e. Orient public use areas and private amenities to the river; f. Clearly allocate spaces, accommodating parking, vehicular circulation and buildings to preserve existing stands of vegetation or trees so that natural areas can be set aside, improved, or integrated into site organization and planning; Produced by the City of Tukwila, City Clerk's Office Page 18-133 TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE g. Clearly define and separate public from non- public spaces with the use of paving, signage, and landscaping. 2. Building Design. Development within the shoreline jurisdiction shall demonstrate compliance with the following: a. To prevent building mass and shape from overwhelming the desired human scale along the river, development shall avoid blank walls on the public and river sides of buildings. b. Buildings should be designed to follow the curve of the river and respond to changes in topography; buildings must not "turn their back" to the river. c. Design common areas in buildings to take advantage of shoreline views and access; incorporate outdoor seating areas that are compatible with shoreline access. d. Consider the height and scale of each building in relation to the site. e. Extend site features such as plazas that allow pedestrian access and enjoyment of the river to the landward side of the buffer's edge. f. Locate lunchrooms and other common areas to open out onto the water -ward side of the site to maximize enjoyment of the river. g. Design structures to take advantage of the river frontage location by incorporating features such as: (1) plazas and landscaped open space that connect with a shoreline trail system; (2) windows that offer views of the river; or (3) pedestrian entrances that face the river. h. View obscuring fencing is permitted only when necessary for documentable use requirements and must be designed with landscaping per the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section. Other fencing, when allowed, must be designed to complement the proposed and/or existing development materials and design, and i. Where there are public trails, locate any fencing between the site and the landward side of the shoreline trail. 3. Design of Public Access. Development within the shoreline jurisdiction shall demonstrate compliance with the following: a. Public access shall be barrier free, where feasible, and designed consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act. b. Public access landscape design shall use native vegetation, in accordance with the standards in the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section. Additional landscape features may be required where desirable to provide public/private space separation and screening of utility, service and parking areas. c. Furniture used in public access areas shall be appropriate for the proposed level of development, and the character of the surrounding area. For example, large urban projects should provide formal benches; for smaller projects in less-developed areas, simpler, less formal benches or suitable alternatives are appropriate. d. Materials used in public access furniture, structures or sites shall be: (1) Durable and capable of withstanding exposure to the elements; (2) Environmentally friendly and take advantage of technology in building materials, lighting, paved surfaces, porous pavement, etc, wherever practical; and (3) Consistent with the character of the shoreline and the anticipated use. e. Public -Private Separation. (1) Public access facilities shall look and feel welcoming to the public, and not appear as an intrusion into private property. (2) Natural elements such as logs, grass, shrubs, and elevation separations are encouraged as means to define the separation between public and private space. (Ord. 2346 §11, 2017) 18.44.120 Shoreline Restoration A. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Not Required. Shoreline restoration projects shall be allowed without a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit when these projects meet the criteria established by WAC 173-27- 040(o) and (p) and RCW 90.58.580. B. Changes in Shoreline Jurisdiction Due to Restoration. 1. Relief may be granted from Shoreline Master Program standards and use regulations in cases where shoreline restoration projects result in a change in the location of the OHWM and associated Shoreline Jurisdiction on the subject property and/or adjacent properties, and where application of this chapter's regulations would preclude or interfere with the uses permitted by the underlying zoning, thus presenting a hardship to the project proponent. a. Applications for relief, as specified below, must meet the following criteria: (1) The proposed relief is the minimum necessary to relieve the hardship; (2) After granting the proposed relief, there is net environmental benefit from the restoration project; and (3) Granting the proposed relief is consistent with the objectives of the shoreline restoration project and with the Shoreline Master Program. (4) Where a shoreline restoration project is created as mitigation to obtain a development permit, the project proponent required to perform the mitigation is not eligible for relief under the provisions of this section. Page 18-134 Produced by the City of Tukwila, City Clerk's Office TITLE 18 — ZONING b. The Department of Ecology must review and approve applications for relief. c. For the portion of property that moves from outside Shoreline Jurisdiction to inside Shoreline Jurisdiction as a result of the shoreline restoration project, the City may consider the following, consistent with the criteria in TMC Section 18.44.120.B.1.a. (1) permitting development for the full range of uses of the underlying zoning consistent with the Zoning Code, including uses that are not water oriented; (2) waiving the requirement to obtain a shoreline substantial development permit if it is otherwise exempt from the requirement for a substantial development permit; (3) (4) waiving the requirement for shoreline design review; and waiving the provisions for public access; (5) forth in this chapter. d. The intent of the exemptions identified above in subparagraphs B.1.c.(1) to B.1.c.(5) is to implement the restoration projects of the Shoreline Master Program Restoration Plan, which reflects the projects identified in the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 Plan pursuant to Policy 5.2 of the SMP. 2. Consistent with the provisions of subparagraphs B.1.a, 1.b and 1.c above, the Shoreline Residential Environment Buffer, High Intensity or Urban Conservancy Environment Buffer width may be reduced to no less than 25 feet measured from the new location of the OHWM for the portion of the property that moves from outside the Shoreline Jurisdiction to inside Shoreline Jurisdiction as a result of the shoreline restoration project, subject to the following standards: a. The 25 -foot buffer area must be vegetated according to the requirements of the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section or as otherwise approved by the City; and b. The proponents of the restoration project are responsible for the installation and maintenance of the vegetation. 3. The habitat restoration project proponents must record with King County a survey that identifies the location of the OHWM location prior to implementation of the shoreline restoration project, any structures that fall within the Shoreline Jurisdiction, and the new location of the OHWM once construction of the shoreline restoration project is completed. 4. Shoreline restoration projects must obtain all U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife approvals as well as written approval from the City. (Ord. 2346 §12, 2011) waiving the development standards set 18.44.130 Administration A. Applicability of Shoreline Master Program and Substantial Development Permit. 1. Development in the Shoreline Jurisdiction. Based on guidelines in the SMA for a Minimum Shoreline Jurisdiction, Tukwila's Shoreline Jurisdiction is defined as follows: The Tukwila Shoreline Jurisdiction includes the channel of the Green/Duwamish River, its banks, the upland area which extends from the OHWM landward for 200 feet on each side of the river, floodways and all associated wetlands within its floodplain. The floodway shall not include those lands that have historically been protected by flood control devices and therefore have not been subject to flooding with reasonable regularity. 2. Applicability. The Tukwila SMP applies to uses, change of uses, activities or development that occurs within the above -defined Shoreline Jurisdiction. All proposed uses and development occurring within the Shoreline Jurisdiction must conform to Chapter 90.58 RCW, the SMA, and this chapter whether or not a permit is required. B. Substantial Development Permit Requirements. 1. Permit Application Procedures. Applicants for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit shall comply with permit application procedures in TMC Chapter 18.104. 2. Exemptions. a. To qualify for an exemption, the proposed use, activity or development must meet the requirements for an exemption as described in WAC 173-27-040, except for properties that meet the requirements of the Shoreline Restoration Section, TMC Section 18.44.120. The purpose of a shoreline exemption is to provide a process for uses and activities which do not trigger the need for a Substantial Development Permit, but require compliance with all provisions of the City's SMP and overlay district. b. The Director may impose conditions to the approval of exempted developments and/or uses as necessary to assure compliance of the project with the SMA and the Tukwila SMP, per WAC 173-27-040(e). For example, in the case of development subject to a building permit but exempt from the shoreline permit process, the Building Official or other permit authorizing official, through consultation with the Director, may attach shoreline management terms and conditions to building permits and other permit approvals pursuant to RCW 90.58.140. 3. A substantial development permit shall be granted only when the development proposed is consistent with the Shoreline Master Program. Produced by the City of Tukwila, City Clerk's Office Page 18-135 TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE C. Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. 1. Purpose. As stated in WAC 173-27-160, the purpose of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is to allow greater flexibility in the application of use regulations of this chapter in a manner consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020. In authorizing a conditional use, special conditions may be attached to the permit by the City or the Department of Ecology to prevent undesirable effects of the proposed use and/or assure consistency of the project with the SMA and the City's SMP. Uses which are specifically prohibited by the Shoreline Master Program may not be authorized with approval of a CUP. 2. Application. Shoreline Conditional Use Permits are a Type 4 Permit processed under TMC Chapter 18.104. 3. Application requirements. Applicants must meet all requirements for permit application and approvals indicated in TMC Chapter 18.104 and this chapter. 4. Approval Criteria. a. Uses classified as shoreline conditional uses may be authorized, provided that the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: (1) The proposed use will be consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and the policies of the Tukwila Shoreline Master Program; (2) The proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines; (3) The proposed use of the site and design of the project will be compatible with other permitted uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the Comprehensive Plan and this chapter; (4) The proposed use will cause no significant adverse effects to the shoreline environment in which it is to be located; and (5) The public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect. b. In the granting of all Conditional Use Permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if Conditional Use Permits were granted to other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist, the total of the conditional uses shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58 and all local ordinances and shall not produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. D. Shoreline Variance Permits. 1. Purpose. The purpose of a Shoreline Variance Permit is strictly limited to granting relief from specific bulk, dimensional, or performance standards set forth in this chapter where there are extraordinary or unique circumstances relating to the physical character or configuration of property such that the strict implementation of this chapter will impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the Shoreline Management Act policies as stated in RCW 90.58.020. Reasonable use requests that are located in the shoreline must be processed as a variance, until such time as the Shoreline Management Act is amended to establish a process for reasonable uses. 2. Application requirements. Applicants must meet all requirements for a Type 3 permit application and approvals indicated in TMC Chapter 18.104. 3. Shoreline Variance Permits should be granted in circumstances where denial of the permit would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances the applicant must demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances exist and the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 4. Approval Criteria. A Shoreline Variance Permit for a use, activity or development that will be located landward of the ordinary high water mark and/or landward of any wetland may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: a. The strict application of the bulk, dimensional, or performance standards set forth in this chapter preclude or significantly interfere with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by this chapter. b. The hardship described in TMC Section 18.44.130.D.4. is specifically related to the property and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of this chapter, and not from the owner's own actions or deed restrictions; and that the variance is necessary because of these conditions in order to provide the owner with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated. c. The design of the project will be compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the Comprehensive Plan and SMP and will not cause adverse impacts to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment. d. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other properties in the area. e. The variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief. f. The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 5. Shoreline Variance Permits Waterward of OHWM. a. Shoreline variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located either waterward of the ordinary high water mark or within any sensitive area may be authorized only if the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: (1) The strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in this Master Program preclude all reasonable permitted use of the property; (2) The proposal is consistent with the criteria established under TMC Section 18.44.130.D.4., "Approval Criteria;" and Page 18-136 Produced by the City of Tukwila, City Clerk's Office TITLE 18 — ZONING (3) The public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected by the granting of the variance. b. In the granting of all variance permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area such that the total of the variances would remain consistent with RCW 90.58.020 and not cause substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. c. Variances from the use regulations of this chapter are prohibited. E. Non -Conforming Development. 1. Non -Conforming Uses. Any non -conforming lawful use of land that would not be allowed under the terms of this chapter may be continued as an allowed, legal, non- conforming use, defined in TMC Chapter 18.06 or as hereafter amended, so long as that use remains lawful, subject to the following: a. No such non -conforming use shall be enlarged, intensified, increased or extended to occupy a greater use of the land, structure or combination of the two, than was occupied at the effective date of adoption of this chapter except as authorized in TMC Section 18.66.120. b. No non -conforming use shall be moved or extended in whole or in part to any other portion of the lot or parcel occupied by such use on the effective date of adoption of this chapter. c. If any such non -conforming use ceases for any reason for a period of more than 24 consecutive months, any subsequent use shall conform to the regulations specified by in this chapter for the shoreline environment in which such use is located. Upon request of the owner, prior to the end of the 24 consecutive months and upon reasonable cause shown, the City Council may grant an extension of time beyond the 24 consecutive months using the criteria set forth in TMC Section 18.44.130.E.4. d. If a change of use is proposed to a use determined to be non -conforming by application of provisions in this chapter, the proposed new use must be a permitted use in this chapter or a use approved under a Type 2 permit with public notice process. For purposes of implementing this section, a change of use constitutes a change from one permitted or conditional use category to another such use category as listed within the Shoreline Use Matrix. e. A structure that is being or has been used for a non -conforming use may be used for a different non -conforming use only upon the approval of a Type 2 permit subject to public notice. Before approving a change in non -conforming use, the following findings must be made: (1) No reasonable alternative conforming use is practical. (2) The proposed use will be at least as consistent with the policies and provisions of the SMP and as compatible with the uses in the area as the non -conforming use. (3) The use or activity is enlarged, intensified, increased or altered only to the minimum amount necessary to achieve the intended functional purpose. (4) The structure(s) associated with the non -conforming use shall not be expanded in a manner that increases the extent of the non -conformity. (5) The change in use will not create adverse impacts to shoreline ecological functions and/or processes. (6) The applicant restores and/or enhances the entire shoreline buffer, including but not limited to, paved areas no longer in use on the property, to offset the impact of the change of use per the vegetation management standards of this chapter. This may include the restoration of paved areas to vegetated area if no longer in use. (7) The use complies with the Type 2 permit process of TMC Chapter 18.104. (8) The preference is to reduce exterior uses in the buffer to the maximum extent possible. 2. Non -Conforming Structures. Where a lawful structure exists on the effective date of adoption of this chapter that could not be built under the terms of this chapter by reason of restrictions on height, buffers or other characteristics of the structure, it may be continued as an allowed, legal structure so long as the structure remains otherwise lawful subject to the following provisions: a. Such structures may be repaired, maintained, upgraded and altered provided that: (1) The structure may not be enlarged or altered in such a way that increases its degree of nonconformity or increases its impacts to the functions and values of the shoreline environment except as authorized in TMC Section 18.66.120; and (2) The cost of the alterations may not exceed an aggregate cost of 50% of the value of the building or structure in any 3 -year period based upon its most recent assessment, unless the amount over 50% is used to make the building or structure more conforming, or is used to restore to a safe condition any portion of a building or structure declared unsafe by a proper authority. b. Should such structure be destroyed by any accidental means, the structure may be reconstructed to its original dimensions and location on the lot provided application is made for permits within 12 months of the date the damage occurred and all reconstruction is completed within two years of permit issuance. In the event the property is redeveloped, such redevelopment must be in conformity with the provisions of this chapter. c. Should such structure be moved for any reason or any distance whatsoever, it shall thereafter conform to the regulations of this chapter after it is moved. Produced by the City of Tukwila, City Clerk's Office Page 18-137 TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE d. When a non -conforming structure, or structure and premises in combination, is vacated or abandoned for 24 consecutive months, the structure, or structure and premises in combination, shall thereafter be required to be in conformance with the regulations of this chapter. Upon request of the owner, prior to the end of the 24 consecutive months and upon reasonable cause shown, the City Council may grant an extension of time beyond the 24 consecutive months using the criteria in TMC Section 18.44.130.E.4. e. Residential structures located in any Shoreline Residential Environment and in existence at the time of adoption of this chapter shall not be deemed nonconforming in terms of height, residential use, or location provisions of this title. Such buildings may be rebuilt after a fire or other natural disaster to their original dimensions, location and height, but may not be changed except as provided in the non -conforming uses section of this chapter. f. Single-family structures in the Shoreline Residential Environment that have legally non -conforming setbacks from the OHWM per the SMP buffer shall be allowed to expand the ground floor only along the existing building line(s) as long as the existing distance from the nearest point of the structure to the OHWM is not reduced and the square footage of new intrusion into the buffer does not exceed 50% of the square footage of the current intrusion. As a condition of building permit approval, a landscape plan showing removal of invasive plant species within the entire shoreline buffer and replanting with appropriate native species must be submitted to the City. Plantings should be maintained through the establishment period. g. A non -conforming use, within a non- conforming structure, shall not be allowed to expand into any other portion of the structure. 3. For the purposes of this section, altered or partially reconstructed is defined as work that does not exceed 50% of the assessed valuation of the building over a three-year period. 4. Requests for Time Extension—Non- conforming Uses and Structures. a. A property owner may request, prior to the end of the 24 consecutive months, an extension of time beyond the 24 consecutive months. Such a request shall be considered as a Type 2 permit under TMC Chapter 18.104 and may be approved only when: (1) For a non -conforming use, a finding is made that no reasonable alternative conforming use is practical. (2) For a non -conforming structure, special economic circumstances prevent the lease or sale of said structure within 24 months. (3) The applicant restores and/or enhances the shoreline buffer on the property to offset the impact of the continuation of the non -conforming use. For non -conforming uses, the amount of buffer to be restored and/or enhanced will be determined based on the percentage of the existing building used by the non -conforming use for which a time extension is being requested. Depending on the size of the area to be restored and/or enhanced, the Director may require targeted plantings rather than a linear planting arrangement. The vegetation management standards of this program shall be used for guidance on any restoration/enhancement. For non- conforming structures, for each six-month extension of time requested, 15% of the available buffer must be restored/enhanced. b. Conditions may be attached to the permit that are deemed necessary to assure compliance with the above findings, the requirements of the Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act and to assure that the use will not become a nuisance or a hazard. 5. Building Safety. Nothing in this SMP shall be deemed to prevent the strengthening or restoring to a safe condition of any non -conforming building or part thereof declared to be unsafe by order of any City official charged with protecting the public safety. a. Alterations or expansion of a non -conforming structure that are required by law or a public agency in order to comply with public health or safety regulations are the only alterations or expansions allowed. b. Alterations or expansions permitted under this section shall be the minimum necessary to meet the public safety concerns. 6. Non -Conforming Parking Lots. a. Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to require a change in any aspect of a structure or facility covered thereunder including, without limitation, parking lot layout, loading space requirements and curb -cuts, for any structure or facility which existed on the date of adoption of this chapter. b. If a change of use takes place or an addition is proposed that requires an increase in the parking area by an increment less than 100%, the requirements of this chapter shall be complied with for the additional parking area. c. If a change of use takes place or an addition is proposed that requires an increase in the parking area by an increment greater than 100%, the requirements of this chapter shall be complied with for the entire parking area. 7. Non -Conforming Landscape Areas. a. Adoption of the vegetation protection and landscaping regulations contained in this chapter shall not be construed to require a change in the landscape improvements for any legal landscape area that existed on the date of adoption of this chapter, unless and until the property is redeveloped or alteration of the existing structure is made beyond the thresholds provided herein. Page 18-138 Produced by the City of Tukwila, City Clerk's Office TITLE 18 — ZONING b. At such time as the property is redeveloped or the existing structure is altered beyond the thresholds provided herein and the associated premises does not comply with the vegetation protection and landscaping requirements of this chapter, a landscape plan that conforms to the requirements of this chapter shall be submitted to the Director for approval. (Ord. 2346 §13, 2011) 18.44.140 Appeals Any appeal of a decision by the City on a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use or Shoreline Variance must be appealed to the Shoreline Hearing Board. (Ord. 2346 §14, 2011) 18.44.150 Enforcement and Penalties A. Violations. The following actions shall be considered violations of this chapter: 1. To use, construct or demolish any structure, or to conduct clearing, earth -moving, construction or other development not authorized under a Substantial Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit or Variance Permit, where such permit is required by this chapter. 2. Any work which is not conducted in accordance with the plans, conditions, or other requirements in a permit approved pursuant to this chapter, provided that the terms or conditions are stated in the permit or the approved plans. 3. To remove or deface any sign, notice, complaint or order required by or posted in accordance with this chapter. 4. To misrepresent any material fact in any application, plans or other information submitted to obtain any shoreline use or development authorization. 5. To fail to comply with the requirements of this chapter. B. Enforcement. It shall be the duty of the Director to enforce this chapter subject to the terms and conditions of TMC Chapter 8.45. C. Inspection Access. 1. For the purpose of inspection for compliance with the provisions of a permit or this chapter, authorized representatives of the Director may enter all sites for which a permit has been issued. 2. Upon completion of all requirements of a permit, the applicant shall request a final inspection by contacting the planner of record. The permit process is complete upon final approval by the planner. D. Penalties. 1. Any violation of any provision of the SMP, or failure to comply with any of the requirements of this chapter shall be subject to the penalties prescribed in Chapter 8.45 of the Tukwila Municipal Code ("Enforcement") and shall be imposed pursuant to the procedures and conditions set forth in that chapter. 2. Penalties assessed for violations of the SMP shall be determined by TMC Chapter 8.45.100, Penalties. 3. It shall not be a defense to the prosecution for failure to obtain a permit required by this chapter, that a contractor, subcontractor, person with responsibility on the site, or person authorizing or directing the work, erroneously believed a permit had been issued to the property owner or any other person. E. Remedial Measures Required. In addition to penalties provided in TMC Chapter 8.45, the Director may require any person conducting work in violation of this chapter to mitigate the impacts of unauthorized work by carrying out remedial measures. 1. Remedial measures must conform to the policies and guidelines of this chapter and the Shoreline Management Act. 2. The cost of any remedial measures necessary to correct violation(s) of this chapter shall be borne by the property owner and/or applicant. F. Injunctive Relief. 1. Whenever the City has reasonable cause to believe that any person is violating or threatening to violate this chapter or any rule or other provisions adopted or issued pursuant to this chapter, it may, either before or after the institution of any other action or proceeding authorized by this ordinance, institute a civil action in the name of the City for injunctive relief to restrain the violation or threatened violation. Such action shall be brought in King County Superior Court. 2. The institution of an action for injunctive relief under this section shall not relieve any party to such proceedings from any civil or criminal penalty prescribed for violations of the Master Program. G. Abatement. Any use, structure, development or work that occurs in violation of this chapter, or in violation of any lawful order or requirement of the Director pursuant to this section, shall be deemed to be a public nuisance and may be abated in the manner provided by the Tukwila Municipal Code 8.45.105. (Ord. 2346 §15, 2011) 18.44.160 Liability A. Liability for any adverse impacts or damages resulting from work performed in accordance with a permit issued on behalf of the City within the City limits shall be the sole responsibility of the owner of the site for which the permit was issued. B. No provision of or term used in this chapter is intended to impose any duty upon the City or any of its officers or employees that would subject them to damages in a civil action. (Ord. 2346 §16, 2011) Produced by the City of Tukwila, City Clerk's Office Page 18-139 1 Shoreline Master Program Variance Application Desimone Levee Improvements Applicant: City of Kent, 4/30/14 The City of Kent is currently working in conjunction with the City of Tukwila and the King County Flood Control District under separate Interlocal Agreements to protect citizens and businesses from flooding. The proposed project will reconstruct weakened sections of the levee system to meet federal levee safety standards which will provide increased flood protection to commercial and residential areas of Tukwila, Renton, and Kent. The Desimone Levee is located along the right bank of the Green River between S. 189th St. and S. 180th St. in Tukwila. Reach 1 of the Desimone Levee extends from approximately 700' west of West Valley Highway (WVH) to the shoulder of WVH. This project has been reviewed and authorized by the King County Flood Control District Board of Supervisors. A variance to the levee profile is being requested for the following reasons: The riverbank along Reach 1 currently is over -steepened. The trop of the levee is narrow and is showing signs of failure. Flows of just over 9,000 cubic feet per second (CFS) in March of this year caused bank sloughing and erosion. This flow is far below the 12,000 CFS 100 -year flood event storms that can be expected in this reach. Detailed analysis of the levees completed by expert consultants as part of a request to FEMA for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) indicated that this area does not meet federal standards for slope stability. Hydraulic models show that a failure of Reach 1 could potentially inundate the valley from approximately S. 228th St. to I-405. The movement of the bank and other factors noted indicates that a quick and effective solution is required. The Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan "Minimum Levee Profile" requires a 2.5:1 average slope (horizontal : vertical) from the river bottom to the top of the levee. This average slope is comprised of 2:1 slopes with a 15' wide mid -slope bench. As shown on the attached levee cross section comparisons, the minimum levee profile would extend into WVH and the driveways and fire lanes of the adjacent businesses. Strict compliance with the code would then require relocating WVH which would require purchasing and demolishing buildings and relocating businesses located along the easterly side of the road. Also, the minimum levee profile would impact the driveway and fire lane of the businesses to the south of the levee. This would require disruption and relocation of business parking and property landward of the levee. The added time and expense of acquiring these properties would delay completion of this project. The proposed levee profile minimizes property acquisition to the extent possible and avoids acquisition of buildings and disruption of business activity. Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT 4 The proposed design includes a 6:1 bench on the lower portion of the bank adjacent to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), a 2:1 upper slope topped by a 16' wide trail adjacent to a sheet -pile flood -wall (See Plans, sheets 6-7). This proposed new levee system will provide 3 feet of additional flood protection above the 500 -year flood event. This levee proposal has been thoroughly reviewed and accepted by knowledgeable structural engineers. According to the approved Tukwila SMP, "Where there is insufficient room for a levee backslope due to the presence of legal nonconforming structures existing at the time of the adoption of this SMP, a floodwall may be substituted" (pg. 13). The sloping bench will be engaged whenever the river reaches approximately 2,500 CFS. This occurs on average 39 days each year between January and June, the period when threatened Chinook salmon are typically out -migrating from the Green River. The 15' wide bench shown on the SMP minimum levee profile only engages when the river is at approximately 5,500 CFS. This flood level occurs on average only once or twice each year. Flood refuge habitat is recognized as one of the limiting factors for salmon recovery in the Green River. The proposed levee profile will increase this flood refuge habitat substantially over the profile prescribed in the Tukwila SMP. After recontouring, this proposed lower bench as well as the adjacent slopes will be replanted with hundreds of native shrubs and trees. This planting will markedly increase available shoreline habitat for fish and wildlife and improve natural shoreline functions. Shading will also increase on a waterway that experiences frequent exceedances of State temperature standards. The proposed trail width is 12' wide with a 2' wide paved shoulder along the floodwall and a 2' wide gravel shoulder along the riverward side of the trail, for a total width of 16'. The Tukwila SMP shows an 18' minimum width. This section of trail dead -ends at the parking lot next to WVH. The proposed trail width meets King County trail standards and is 2' wider than the trail it is connecting to. In addition, this width allows the lower bench to be 2' wider which increases the riparian zone and the flood refuge habitat that it provides. Implementation of the proposed design will allow the businesses to continue operation as well as improve their flood protection. Users of the Green River Trail will continue to be able to enjoy the river views. The proposed design will improve the shoreline environment over current conditions with more connectivity between the river and the shoreline and greatly improve the life of salmonids reliant upon the river. This project is for the common good of Tukwila, Kent and Renton. No people or businesses in the area will be displaced with the proposed design. This would not constitute "special privilege"; it is an opportunity to complete this project in a Page 2 of 3 timely and cost effective manner which is appropriate considering the weakened state of the levee which doesn't meet federal levee safety standards. By granting the variance for this design change there will be a small portion of the riverbank in Tukwila that does not have the desired SMP slope, but it will provide overall improvement with the least negative issues for all involved. Page 3 of 3 July 11, 2014 Desimone Levee Improvements Criteria for Shoreline Master Program Variance A. Criteria for a variance for a use, activity or development that will be located landward of the OHWM and landward of any wetland 1. The strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in TMC 18.44 preclude or significantly interfere with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The SMP requires a 2.5:1 overall slope on the riverward side of the levee. Along Reach 1, this is not possible due to the location of existing buildings and parking. Setting the levee back to the location required by the SMP would require purchasing additional parking and drive aisles which would diminish property values. This configuration diminishes the loss of parking, maintains the drive aisles and allows the businesses to stay. The SMP conditions require a fifteen foot (15') bench, but this bench only engages with the river at approximately 5,500 cubic feet per second (CFS) of river flow. This occurs on average once or twice a year. The proposed project includes a lower bench with a 6:1 slope which starts at the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), a 2:1 slope up to the levee crest, a 12' wide trail with 2' shoulders, and a sheet pile wall on the landward side. The lower sloping bench will be engaged whenever the river reaches approximately 2,500 CFS which occurs on average 39 days each year between January and June when Chinook salmon are typically out -migrating from the Green River. 2. The hardship is specifically related to the property and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size or natural features and the application of TMC 18.44 and not from the owner's own action or deed restrictions; and that the variance is necessary because of these conditions in order to provide the owner with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity within the shoreline and zone in which the property is situated. The City of Kent is currently working in conjunction with the City of Tukwila and the King County Flood Control District under Interlocal Agreements (ILAs) to protect citizens and businesses by reinforcing the levee system to meet federal levee safety standards and provide flood protection to Tukwila, Renton, and Kent. The Desimone Levee is located in Tukwila but is designed by and will be constructed by the City of Kent under the ILAs. Tukwila Municipal Code requires a 2.5:1 overall slope to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). This is not possible with the size and shape of the property and compliance would require purchasing additional parking and drive aisles which would diminish the values neighboring warehouses. In addition, strict compliance with the SMP would require that West Valley Highway be relocated, which is not technically or financially feasible. The added time and expense of acquiring properties and relocating WVH would endanger the potential of completing this project. 3. The design of the project will be compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the Comprehensive Plan and SMP and will not cause adverse impacts to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment. The augmentation of the desired design to the proposed design provides an excellent solution. It will allow the warehouses to continue operation as well as improve their circumstances in cases of high water. Users of the Green River Trail will continue to be able to enjoy the river views. The proposed design will improve the shoreline environment over current conditions with more connectivity between the river and the shoreline and greatly improve the life of salmonids reliant upon the river. The proposed project will creating a different levee profile than the SMP requirements with improvements over current conditions. These current conditions do include a fifteen foot (15') bench, but this bench only engages with the river at approximately 5,500 cubic feet per second (CFS) of river flow. This design will engage the river at approximately 2,500 CFS. This occurs on average 39 times between January and June, an extremely important time in the life cycle of out migrating salmonids. The new slope will be replanted with hundreds of native shrubs and trees. This planting will increase available shoreline habitat for fish and wildlife and improve natural shoreline functions. The shading afforded by the trees will help lower water temperatures in the river. The proposed overall trail width is 16' which includes a 12' wide asphalt trail, a 2' wide concrete shoulder on the landward side and a 2' wide gravel shoulder on the riverward side. The SMP requires an overall trail width of 18'. The main trail bridge crosses the Green River 500' west of this project and the trail continues north and south along the river. This section of the trail connects the main trail to the parking lot next to West Valley Highway and receives very little use. The proposed 2' narrower trail section allows the lower bench to be 2' wider and flattens the overall slope. Therefore, a variance is being requested for the narrower trail width. 4. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other shoreline properties in the area. This project is for the common good of both Tukwila and Kent. No other people or businesses in the area will be displaced with the proposed design. This would not constitute special privilege. Rather, it is an opportunity to complete this project satisfactorily within a reasonable time. By granting the variance for the design change there will be a small portion of the riverbank in Tukwila that does not have the desired slope and trail width, but it will provide overall improvement with the least negative issues for all involved. 5. The variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief. The riverbank along Reach 1 is currently over -steepened and is showing signs of failure. Without the variance, the project will not be able to proceed and the necessary work to protect the public will not be done. 6. The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. The public interest will be served with the completion of this project. The proposed levee section is an improvement of the SMP requirements because of the lower bench. The overall levee slope is slightly steeper, but allows the project to be completed. Without the variance, public interest could be detrimentally affected if the levee were to fail. Carol Lumb From: Langholz, Ken <KLangholz@kentwa.gov> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 11:53 AM To: Carol Lumb Cc: Knox, Matthew; Mactutis, Mike; Howlett, Mark Subject: Reach 1 Slopes Carol, The Reach 1 average slopes (includes 6:1 bench and 2:1 upper slope) between the OHWM and the edge of trail for the proposed project vary from 2.2:1 to 2.9:1. The average of all stations is 2.56:1. 4e°11„:„.„1-11:4----,!4>, KENT Wn.1.�..14.11• k angholz@KentWA.cov www.KentWA.gov Ken Langholz, Engineering Supervisor Design Engineering 1 Public Works Department 220 Fourth Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032 Phone 253-856-5516 PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS E-MAIL 1 f Carol Lumb From: Casteel, Kelly <KCasteel@kentwa.gov> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 9:22 AM To: Carol Lumb Cc: Langholz, Ken Subject: RE: Parking #s Attachments: PW2013-168_parking stalls.pdf; PW2013-168_appraisal map OLD.pdf Carol, Attached is a map depicting the existing 42 parking stalls which will be affected by the levee project. And, the attached appraisal map shows the replacement of 17 parking stalls which results in a net loss of 25 parking stalls. In regards to the cost; an offer has not been presented to the property owner. Hope this helps, please let me know if you have any additional questions. Thanks! Kelly Casteel, P.E., Design Engineering Supervisor Design Engineering 1 Public Works Department 220 Fourth Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032 Phone 253-856-5500 1 Direct 253-856-5561 KCasteel@KentWA.gov CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON KentWA.gov Facebook _ YouTube PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS E-MAIL From: Carol Lumb [mailto:Carol.Lumb@TukwilaWA.gov] Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 4:20 PM To: Langholz, Ken Subject: Parking #s Ken, I have looked through the variance materials and the shoreline materials and do not find information on the number of parking stalls that are being displaced by the levee reconstruction, how many are being added back after construction is complete and information on the cost to the property owner for this loss and what Kent is paying the property owner for this loss. This would be helpful information to have for the staff report. The variance narrative says Tukwila's levee profile would impact the driveway and fire lane but doesn't quantify the extent of the impact and does not callout the parking stalls that are going away once the repair is complete. I would appreciate it if you could send that information to me as soon as possible so I can include it in the staff report. Thanks very much. Carol Carol Lumb, Senior Planner 1 Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 206-431-3661 CaroiLuinhOTnkv la Rapov Tukwila, the City of opportunity, the cofmnunity of choice. 2 / 1 y`� )\I\II\\\ \ \\\\\\ \ \ \ I\ ` \/\`s \\ \� \\\\\\ SII �� l L \\\ . \\\\\\\\\\\1 \ / \--,---/".5)\14:1\,\O\\\\\\\ � ��\\\\\\... \\\\\\\\� \k\ \ \\ \, I / \\ \\ ' 1\\O\\\\ x � _ \ N \ \ \\ \ �\\\\\\ \� \ \\\\\\\ I N \'Vrn -\1% \\\111 1 ` \ \ \ \ 1\111 \\\\lljlllllllllllll\ \ I( � \ \\ \ '\! o )11\\\llil il111\ 1\\l l l � \ \ \ 0 1 lei \1\1\11 \\\\.\\\I I j \1 \ j flII \\ \\\ \ \\\\\\\1111\\1\ / �l\ll \ II \ll\IIIII I\1I 7' 8\bT\ jcE-6O\=p \mss eTea T ppnarC\nTeA,ev d\\ l i % I\\\111 I\Ijl\\\\\i\Iljl I / 1 / / \61A\\\\\\\\\11\11,\ 1\\ 1A\I\Il\\111111II\ '\1\ \\I \II \lllllll Il I I I I \ 111,11\1111110111111 1\1\1 I II 1111111 I 1\111111111 \ / /1)1111'llJ1 lllllll III I 1\ \II \I j / IIIhIh1hIIIIhJl I I I f� \\ 1\ \/Ij1ll 11101110 l � ) v 1 1 Hi ljlllJll�j (// 1 i(LI* i I1 i/,/illillJl I I 1 I 1 I 1 / \ \I%///j�llll!ijjjll / I I I d� Lel/jlIIIIIIIIIII % 1 1 \ 4; 11/1/11Illlll/Iillllllllll 1 1 �ll /ll Illl/l IIII l 1111 I I /llll��;'ll/I/Illllllllll I1 \ l\ /� Ullll/� jl jlI ��l��l 1111 I / r 2 \ ,—///,, �Illlljl�b ll �l// \ �\ I 111� �i �I//j�� /�lll%l% l 1 % —�1% 1111/l/lj�/// // /// // /%/1/1//////////1/41///41 / / ///// / //1/1 < <, u �NAi l//l/l/��lllll/ll \� ///�//�//////// /////// l�l///1/�/llllll/l��l 1, //\1 1—'1111 l1 I III/ �l i / /j / / /// x0 0 // //// / %ate-/ , EXISTING PROPERI?:"11, PROpDSED IV TRAIL r • 0 SO WIDE (1310 CO RIVER 'PROPOSED PARCEL d P4r6EATelliStl'171E0'5'T9 P&ER9350292:2°155Dit \RVETSIRIAIENSUS,C. PROPOSED SHEET PILE WALL u. 4 •„„ vizilittimuutaviut 4 tux "tyikt,t, 1,1.!,1`,c iss1,11 txzv $•'±, *,, f .; r•ezW.:10; 4'5L' I'iWkAli; 1331 • — • ix% 03.14,4 • - • . 0.1,,Alt•11•1:14 4: ,..:, 1 t4, ; ISS P., !st 1 Te 5 ' 0.1-' .1 fokismk• — - • A r try ; twat L .1 1 7.1.1.01 04711.• •Al ••diC• *a ••••• UAL rota 102001 81 D•M 4•••12.• 00 • OR 1401 01 0•0014. (WA*. 101111. 11C413 •1:070•11+ City of Kent Public Works Department \•••,CE W Engineering Division 18200 CASCADE AVE. S. 7888900170 PW2013-168 DESIMONE LEVEE 94E, na 00. 014 3:14.53 PM ON 3113 £ 30 £ 133x5 SJN3Y/3A021drf l 33A31 3 NONlIS30 00+ZZ NOIIVIS NOSI2JYdVl00 N01103S SSO10 33A31 uo!s!n!0;uuaau!u3 is/1 luawueda0 syioM IuaN Jo 420 704. x 0000005310 010 3110 kico 113.11.1, 3300 ♦e 'ON m-. 0000 .Ol-.1.11100 — 83.0 11.0n'101ga 0,313 13X0110 110000-003x30 nXa630 133J 01 30010 01 61[2 OS- 04- 0£- OZ- 01- 0 01 OZ 0£ 017 OS 09 OL 08 06 001 _ - -- — ------ — 3Nd� 3211'. /l.VM3A.1210: ,ONII S.IX3. 30V2JO HSINIU 03SOd02Jd • dVNS . )4311 2134 311_40.2Id.33431 YVf111IN111; 3d0`IS a Z 11V2J:L ,8.1 ................ � I: ONI011ne ::::iJ Q0OIJ m 1Nell 03AVd ;171 03S0d021d ,91 11VM 00014 03S0d021d• 3d0 -1S t •9 dO IS l Z " 691'1 :13: �✓�; �! MHO • HON38 ,Sl do1S'; 1-z Os -o£ ••:13: A . y \ 110033 ;3SV6 0Nf101p, ONII.SIX3 OO+ZZ :VIS 0l OZ r OC 04 OS \S11VM 3.40411530 II 'ON 311 £40 13300 S.N3rl3AO21dY11 33A31 3NOVI IS30 OS+Ul NOIlM.LS NOSIdVd1400 N01103S SSONO 33A31 uoisln14 5uuaauTSu3 luawuethe1U3) 43 i3 oggn3 iv)! �t"✓ �r Jo ,Uf 53 1 MNMNtli 3NO V A ssro /031.10 3100 AB N0i5N30 00 .0i-.1 zroel WN3tl '1pf11.3 Of OTOW _N0030 'ON ISTO. 401.3.0 2090613 OL— 09— 09— Ob— 0£— OZ— OL— 3NV1 3ald/J.VM3A1d0. ONILSIX3: 1 101 ONI)121Vd ONLLSIX3 ONI011f18 ONIISIX3 dINS V11MNF11 213d 11VM 00014 T 1 11V21 ,8l 1 r- : : 1331 NI 3 0JS OL OZ 0£ Of, O9 09 3d01S i :Z BINS H11MHf11 213d 3-1130& 33A31"Wf1W1-NIN1 •3d01S LZ� H0N38 ,9l : /- 11VM 0001J 03S0'd021d 11V211 03AVd 61 0350d02fd. ,9L OTOS ::13; 0001J :351713 ONf1080 ONI1SIX3 3d01S. L : OL Z'b l ` :13 MHO ,3d07S 1-:,9 3GV IO NSINIJ 03Sodo2ld 08 -0. • 0L OZ. - 0171... OS+g 1. NIS 099 -- 'ON 313 S!N3W3A0NdWl 33A31 3NOWIS30 00-1-11 NOILV.S NOSI8VdVI03 N01103S SS080 33A31 _ uo!s A14 Sullaau!Su3 .LM luatuueda0 svoA\ 3I qnd ]uay l0 ,4!3 0 y a»Nan3110 .UNanMwl 31Y0 AO NOISN3N 'ON 0.1913, )Z erta .01-.1 ,a1+.a .0i-.1 z'"011 -mn C ,o L 133n5 Mla3a ,mn „no mN, n>na. na.aa v 110/1 H t0C 60 a./1»w a1 1.331 NI 37/05 IN nI n tl OS- Ob- 0£- OZ- 01- 0 01 OZ 0£ 017 OS 09 OL 09 06 001 . 3801S 1:l - -. - -• i 1 ..!..... -�.� _.:. .__.. 301 / HON39 ,S l' - % .. _.. i ..._... �.: :,---/.. 01,.1.1. :13... MHO r.- ..... Z i 3d01S 1:Z dWS V1IMNf11 2438311d0ad 33A31"Wf1WINIW .� � 0Nf1 n 0N11S1X3. ._..-._. .. ._. .. — £ i �.\ � z-- , OS'02 :13 00013 3SV8 I I • -..._._._ _ .._.._.. -- .._._ _..._._._._..._ ..----...._.._..__ _. _._...-.. - . ..._. _._............. y '11VM p -I -4 I 0001_4 03SOdOad n r F -•m.. .. S3NVI1 13AV.211 2131821V8 A3S2J31` ONI181X9 :ON008H100S ONI±SIX3 • L 'OS { 00+Z L :vIs f1 Carol Lumb From: Karen Walter <KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 4:32 PM To: Carol Lumb Subject: Briscoe/Desimone Levee repairs, L14-0030 and L14-0031, Notice of Applications for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and Shoreline Variance Attachments: Briscoe-Desimone levee improvement comments ODNS.pdf Carol, Please accept my apologizes for the delay in getting comments to you in response to Tukwila's Notices of Applications for the Briscoe/Desimone levee project referenced above. I thought they had been sent to you sooner. I am sending you the comments that we sent to Kent for the entire project during their SEPA process which includes Reaches 1-4. As you know, only Reach 1 is the area that needs a shoreline permit from Tukwila. We have concerns for potential impacts to tribal fishing and fish habitat for the Reach 1 project. We have started the process of resolving tribal fishing access concerns directly with Kent Public Works staff but need to continue these discussions which may affect project designs, construction scheduling and construction site access, etc. I am also having my team finish reviewing the materials Tukwila provided for this project to verify there is no new information that may generate additional or modified comments. In the meantime, I would appreciate it if you could call me after you have had a chance to review our previous comments. Thank you! Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-876-3116 1 ATTACHMENT 6 INDIAN TRIBE Ms. Erin George Kent Planning Services 220 4th Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE Fisheries Division 39015 - 172nd Avenue SE • Auburn, Washington 98092-9763 Phone: (253) 939-3311 • Fax: (253) 931-0752 April 1, 2013 RE: Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project, Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non -Significance, Permit No. ENV -2013-3 (RPSW-2130616); Shoreline Substantial Development SMA -2013-2 (RPSP-2130617); Shoreline Conditional Use Permit SMC - 2013 -1 (RPP3-2130618) Dear Ms. George: The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program has reviewed the Notice of Application; environmental Checklist; available plans; and related documents for the Briscoe-Desimone levee improvement project that would install sheet -pile flood walls and conduct related work above the ordinary high-water mark (OHWM) at four locations in the Green River between river mile 14.5 and 17 over a total length of 4,000 feet. Kent Public Works and Engineering staff indicate that certain project designs have changed since these documents were issued. While these changes may add habitat features, the floodwall project will nevertheless cause direct, indirect, and cumulative adverse impacts to salmon. and their habitat, and could impair Muckleshoot tribal fishing access. The purpose of this letter is to provide comments on the environmental documentation for the project, as well as, to provide comments on the larger context for our concerns. The project site and the lower Green River are a critical migration corridor for adult and juvenile life stages of two ESA listed species: Puget Sound Chinook and steelhead, and for other salmon species that provide subsistence, ceremonial, and commercial fisheries for Muckleshoot tribal members. The Green River is adjacent to the Muckleshoot Indian Reservation, and is a mainstay of the Tribe's salmon and steelhead treaty -protected fisheries. Salmon migration conditions along the length of the lower Green River in Kent and Tukwila are severely degraded by floodplain land use and flood control facility construction and maintenance. Water quality in the lower river is impaired by high and sometimes lethal temperatures (Coffin et al., 2011), and a lack of rearing habitat limits recovery of salmon runs (Kerwin and Nelson, 2000; Anchor Environmental, LLC, 2004). The river suffers from a severe shade deficiency along the levees and revetments, which constrain the river channel so much that the river is deeply entrenched. The result is nursery and refuge habitat for juvenile salmon are nearly non-existent. Even MITFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project ODNS holding pools required by adult salmon and steelhead are scarce. April 1, 2013 Page 2 of 16 As Tribal Chair Virginia Cross indicated in a letter to Executive Constantine and Kent Mayor Cooke (2012) about the Briscoe-Desimone Levee project, the Muckleshoot Tribe supports setting back the Green River levees wherever feasible. In discussions with Kent staff beginning in 2010, we recommended an alternative approach for flood protection along the Briscoe-Desimone levee and in the lower Green River using levee setbacks. The National Marine Fisheries Services (2012) expressed support for the setback levee based on habitat benefits compared to the floodwall alternative stating that the floodwall would "maintain non-functional conditions." The Washington Department of Ecology (2013) also expressed support for the setback levee approach and expressed its concerns about the floodwall based on potential effects on groundwater flow to the river, floodplain connectivity, erosion, and habitat complexity and questioned its consistency with the City's approved 2009 Shoreline Master Program, as well as, the King County Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan. That plan recommends that the Briscoe Levee be setback in order to rebuild the existing, unstable levee and to increase flood conveyance capacity. Treaty Fishing Access Muckleshoot tribal members fish in this section of the river where project construction could interfere with this activity, including but not limited to vehicle parking and access, foot access, setting and retrieving nets. Project elements should be designed and maintained so as not to pose a future hindrance for tribal fishers accessing their fishing sites. To address these concerns for construction activities, we understand that the City is committed to adopting provisions for contract specifications, and addressing treaty fishing access during construction meetings. To facilitate this commitment, we request that the City coordinate the construction schedule and activities at least 30 days in advance by having the Project Manager contact me at 253-876-3116 (or alternatively, Glen St. Amant at 253-876-3130) to assist with this coordination. We request also that the City meet with us to discuss preserving access trails to fishing sites and other ways to avoid interfering with net fishing at those sites. Biological Assessment and Addendum In the Biological Assessment (BA) Addendum (2013) for the City's levee improvement projects, the fv: project consultants now acknowledge that "the waterward side of the levee will experience a temporal loss in riparian vegetation." However, the BA Addendum does not identify that the project area is listed as temperature impaired in the Clean Water Act 303(d) list for the State and that a temperature TMDL study has been completed by Ecology requiring that actions be taken in the lower and middle Green River to address a shade deficiency, nor analyze the project's near-term or cumulative impacts to water temperature. Further, the BA Addendum does not analyze the temporal (near-term) riparian impacts or identify mitigation measures for these impacts. Figure 1 illustrates that temporal loss of riparian vegetation at other recent projects on the lower Green River caused widespread cumulative impacts to riparian shade, and that such losses yield direct impacts that persist for years while riparian shade is eliminated or reduced. The BA Addendum also failed to identify that the project will permanently remove many trees on the landward side of the levee within the project area, including all trees on the existing slope and proposed 15 -foot -wide access easement landward of the present levee crest. These trees currently shade the river, �Mv� MITFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project ODNS April 1, 2013 Page 3 of 16 but neither short-term nor cumulative impacts of their removal have been considered, and nor has the permanent exclusion of trees from the landward levee slope and proposed access easement. Finally, neither the BA nor its Addendum consider the effects of future bank repairs on vegetation, shade, water temperature, or salmon habitat needs. King County (2013) has noted that the project floodwalls rely on the presence of river banks that will remain unstable, and thus require future bank maintenance and repair that is "not conducive to the establishment of functioning riparian habitat." Phased Environmental Review The City has avoided discussion of cumulative impacts by phasing environmental review without disclosure of its broader flood control plan for the Green River by considering each individual flood control project separately. While the Environmental Checklist acknowledges the Project is merely one component of a larger plan and specifies that the City is "in the process of having the entire right bank levee system within the city limits accredited by FEMA ", and that this Project "is one segment of the system improvements submitted for accreditation", there is no cumulative impact analysis. Phased review under SEPA is appropriate when going from plan -level to project -level, but in this case, the environmental impacts of the larger plan have not been identified, and potential alternatives and mitigation measures for the larger plan have not been considered. The City should analyze the cumulative environmental impacts of its overall effort to construct a series of levee projects and have the entire levee system within the city limits accredited by FEMA. Design Changes We understand that design changes have made subsequent to the project descriptions provided in the Notice of Application (and its referenced documents), Environmental Checklist, and design plans dated February 22, 2013. The list below summarizes our understanding of design changes explained during phone conversations and meetings since the Notice of Application was circulated for public comment: Habitat and Planting Bench Dimensions: • Benches will start at an elevation close to Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) (i.e., inundation will commence at flows about 500 cfs or less above OHWM) • Benches will commonly start closer than 10 feet horizontal distance from OHWM (unless large, overhanging willows are present) • Benches within Reaches 1, 2, and 3 will have a total length of about 4000 feet (no bench is planned for Reach 4) • Benches will range up to about 40 feet in width, and average 25 feet in width • Benches will drop toward the river at about 6:1 slope Vegetation Plans: • Excavations for benches will generally avoid disturbance of existing willows rooted near OWHM and overhang the river • All vegetation waterward of the flood walls will be exempt from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers MITFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project ODNS April 1, 2013 Page 4 of 16 vegetation standards for levees (because the floodwall is the levee) • The City plans to maintain a 15 -foot -wide path inboard of the Green River trail so that is largely free of vegetation other than grass. • The City plans to maintain view corridors through bank vegetation along about 20 percent of the project length • Apart from view corridors and the Green River trail margin, there will be no restrictions on tree height, or trunk diameter inboard of flood walls • Trees planted on benches will be spaced at about 15-20 feet on center and one row deep in most places, allow to grow 10 inches in diameter or possibly larger • Trees will be planted on slopes between excavated benches and the Green River trail for an average width of 25 feet of planting buffer. • The City plans to enroll Briscoe-Desimone levee in PL84-99 program Conclusions and Recommendations We are concerned that the floodwalIs do not provide sufficiently wide space for both a wide vegetated buffer and for habitat benches for juvenile fish. The potential benefits for either shade or rearing habitat appear to be uncertain, speculative, and/or illusory. It is not clear to us what vegetation maintenance standards will eventually be applied to the floodwall facilities in the O&M manual required by FEMA. It should be noted that 10 inch diameter trees approved by Kent's certifying engineers are roughly half as tall compared to a system potential tree height of 105 feet noted in the TMDL study, and that a buffer of 75- 150 feet will likely be needed to address temperature impairment. The remainder of the Briscoe- Desimone Levee, if not set back an adequate distance, and if enrolled in the PL 84-99 program, will likely remain shade deficient even with an approved vegetation variance from the Corps of Engineers based on the draft variance policy guidance. Moreover, given that the riverbank is expected to continue to erode towards the floodwall sections, it seems likely that the planted vegetation will be subject to bank erosion or disturbance from future repairs or armoring of the existing levee in front of the floodwall. The project's impacts to riparian shade and water temperature in contrast to a setback levee have not been adequately considered. The City has not conducted a comprehensive analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts arising from its larger plan for Green river levee improvements and FEMA accreditation so that appropriate mitigation can be provided. It seems to us that the floodwall plan will only make it more difficult (in the System Wide Improvement Framework or otherwise) to develop a river corridor plan that can achieve a sustainable migration and floodplain rearing habitat for salmon. This project just makes levee setbacks elsewhere in the lower Green River even more important. Before plans are finalized and permitted, we request an opportunity to meet with Kent staff to discuss project plans for levee vegetation, which could be improved by reducing the extent of view corridors, and planting trees locally within 15 feet of the Green River trail. It is also important to clarify whether vegetation management will differ in relation to the presence or absence of a floodwall along different MITFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project ODNS April 1, 2013 Page 5 of 16 portions of the Briscoe-Desimone levee. In addition, the section of the Briscoe-Desimone Levee Operation and Maintenance Manual that pertain to vegetation (GEI, 2012) should be examined to clarify the extent to which bank instability will limit tree height and diameter growth. We appreciate an opportunity to review this proposal and look forward to the City's responses. We would appreciate a written response to these comments before the City submits permit applications for a Hydraulic Project Approval. Please call me at 253-876-3116 if you have any questions or would like to meet to discuss these comments further. Sincerely, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Cc: Larry Fisher, WDFW, Region 4 References Anchor Environmental, L.L.C, 2004, Lower Green River Baseline Habitat Survey Report, Report prepared for WRIA 9 Technical Committee and King County Department of Natural Resources. Coffin, C., S. Lee, and C.L DeGasperi, 2011, Green River temperature total maximum daily load: water quality improvement report: Publication No. 11-10-046, June, 2011, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA, 163 p. (accessed 2012-02-15 at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/1110046.pdf). Kerwin, J., and Nelson, T.S., (eds.), 2000, Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment Report, Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watersheds (WRIA 9 and Vashon Island): Washington Conservation Commission and the King County Department of Natural Resources. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., 2011, Biological assessment, Green River levee improvements, river mile 14.25 to river mile 22.00, Kent, Washington: report 21-1-12339-002, by O'Neill, B., and Corbin, S., submitted to City of Kent Public Works Engineering, Kent, WA, October 3, 2011, 19 p., 3 figures, 2 appendixes, and attachment. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., 2013, Addendum to biological assessment, Green River levee improvements project, river mile 14.25 to river mile 22.00, Kent, Washington: 4 p. MITFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project ODNS Figure 1. Shade deficiencies at recent levee projects on lower Green River. April 1, 2013 Page 6 of 16 Horseshoe Bend Site #1 levee project, constructed 2009 on RB (at right in photo). View DS from near RM 26.0 on 2012-08- 27, about 1430. Water is not shaded by project vegetation three years after construction. Most water in view would be shaded if the project site hosted mature trees like those on far bank. MITFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project ODNS April 1, 2013 Page 7 of 16 Downstream end of Kent Shops / Narita levee project, constructed 2008 on RB (at left in photo). View US from near RM 20.4 on 2012-08- 27, about 1450. Here water is not shaded by project vegetation four years after construction. MITFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desitnone Levee Improvement Project ODNS April 1, 2013 Page 8 of 16 Figure 1 (continued). Shade deficiencies at recent levee projects on lower Green River. Wide view of Briscoe Levee 4 project, constructed 2007 on RB (above center in photo). View US from near RM 16.3 on 2012-08-27, about 1640. MITFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project ODNS April 1, 2013 Page 9 of 16 Close view of Briscoe Levee 4 project, constructed 2007 on RB (above center in photo). View US from near RM 16.3 on 2012-08-27, about 1640. Five years after construction, project vegetation shades only several square meters of water surface near project's downstream end. MITFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project ODNS April 1, 2013 Page 10 of 16 Figure 1 (continued). Shade deficiencies at recent levee projects on lower Green River. Upstream end of Tukwila Site #3 levee project, constructed 2008 on LB (at left in photo). View DS from near RM 14.6, on 2012-08- 27, about 1530. Shaded water on right side of channel (opposite Tukwila Site #3 project) illustrates a direct benefit of mature levee vegetation. That shade will be eliminated by the project. MITFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project ODNS April 1, 2013 Page 11 of 16 Downstream end of Tukwila Site #3 levee project, constructed 2008 on LB (at right in photo). View US from near RM 14.4, on 2012-08- 27, about 1550. Shadows from trees on opposite bank illustrate a fraction of the historical shade potential for this portion of project site. Here, however, water is not shaded by project vegetation four years after construction. MITFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project ODNS April 1, 2013 Page 12 of 16 Horseshoe Bend Site #1 levee project, constructed 2009 on RB (at right in photo). View DS from near RM 26.0 on 2012-08- 27, about 1430. Water is not shaded by project vegetation three years after construction. Most water in view would be shaded if the project site hosted mature trees like those on far bank. Downstream end of Kent Shops / Narita levee project, constructed 2008 on RB (at left in photo). View US from near RM 20.4 on 2012-08- 27, about 1450. Here water is not shaded by project vegetation four years after construction. MITFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project ODNS April 1, 2013 Page 13 of 16 Figure 1 (continued). Shade deficiencies at recent levee projects on lower Green River. Wide view of Briscoe Levee 4 project, constructed 2007 on RB (above center in photo). View US from near RM 16.3 on 2012-08-27, about 1640. MITFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project ODNS April 1, 2013 Page 14 of 16 Close view of Briscoe Levee 4 project, constructed 2007 on RB (above center in photo). View US from near RM 16.3 on 2012-08-27, about 1640. Five years after construction, project vegetation shades only several square meters of water surface near project's downstream end. MITFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project ODNS April 1, 2013 Page 15 of 16 Fi Tttre 1 (continued). Shade deficiencies at recent levee ro.ects on lower Green River. Upstream end of Tukwila Site #3 levee project, constructed 2008 on LB (at left in photo). View DS from near RM 14.6, on 2012-08- 27, about 1530. Shaded water on right side of channel (opposite Tukwila Site #3 project) illustrates a direct benefit of mature levee vegetation. That shade will be eliminated by the project. MITFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project ODNS April 1, 2013 Page 16 of 16 Downstream end of Tukwila Site #3 levee project, constructed 2008 on LB (at right in photo). View US from near RM 14.4, on 2012-08- 27, about 1550. Shadows from trees on opposite bank illustrate a fraction of the historical shade potential for this portion of project site. Here, however, water is not shaded by project vegetation four years after construction. Carol Lumb From: Langholz, Ken <KLangholz@kentwa.gov> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 11:12 AM To: Carol Lumb Cc: Knox, Matthew; Mactutis, Mike; Howlett, Mark Subject: Tukwila SMP Response to 4-1-2013 Karen Walter letter Carol, As you noted, Karen Walter from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division recently submitted her April 1, 2013 comment letter to you regarding the Briscoe-Desimone Levee project. We provide a response to her letter on April 5, 2013. I provided the response letter to you previously. Please consider this to be our official response. In addition, on July 1, 2014 we met with Karen Walter and Leo LaClair, MITFC Commissioner, on site to discuss fishing access along the river. And on Wed. this week Mr. LaClair met with Jason Bryant, our project inspector to flag the fishing site locations along the Briscoe-Desimone Levee. One site is located on Reach 1 next to West Valley Highway and the other is on Reach 3. We have assured Mr. LaClair that we will maintain access to both of these sites during construction and after project completion. Please call or email if you need additional information. Thanks, KENT Wr...�.¢.sw klangholzOKentWA.gov www.KentWA.ciov Ken Langholz, Engineering Supervisor Design Engineering 1 Public Works Department 220 Fourth Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032 Phone 253-856-5516 PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS E-MAIL 1 ATTACHMENT 7 0 c 3 KIENT WASHINGTON April 5, 2013 Ms. Karen Walter Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39015 - 172"d Avenue SE. Auburn, Washington 98092-9763 Re: Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project Response to April 1, 2013 letter Dear Ms. Walter, 1 PUBLIC WORKS DESIGN ENGINEERING Mark Howlett, P.E. Design Engineering Manager 400 West Gowe Kent, WA 98032 Fax: 253-856-6500 PHONE: 253-856-5500 The City of Kent appreciates the input from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division regarding the Notice of Application, environmental checklist, available plans and related documents for the Briscoe-Desimone levee improvement project. We share the tribe's concern for the habitat conditions for fish and other species within and adjacent to the Green River and throughout the watershed. However, we feel that this project has been mischaracterized. The city's commitment to providing habitat enhancement and flood protection for local residents and businesses is evident in the many current projects along the Green River that the city is involved in (see "Green River Projects" booklet at http://www.ci.kent. wa.us/WorkArea/linkitaspx?LinkIdentifier=id&IternID=213678dibID=20916). Within the next five years, the city expects to complete over 3,500 LF of side -channel and floodplain wetland enhancement projects along the main stem of the Green as well as make improvements as needed to accredit approximately 11 miles of existing levee. All of these projects will include significant habitat enhancement features and will improve habitat conditions along the lower Green River. The Briscoe-Desimone levee project will improve riparian habitat conditions along 4,000 LF of the Green River by setting back the levee trail by approximately 20' and creating a sloped floodplain bench riverward of the trail. Thousands of, native plantings along the bench, that will be inundated for approximately 40 days during the primary juvenile salmonid outmigration period (January - June), will improve habitat significantly over the current, invasive - dominated, steep -walled levee condition. In addition, construction of the proposed floodwall along the landward side of the trail will provide the city with the opportunity to plant large overstory trees that are not subject to diameter or height restrictions along the banks of the river because the floodwall serves as the levee, and therefore the Corps vegetation policy waterward of the "levee" does not apply. These large trees will, in time, provide significant shade to this reach of the river where very little currently exists. Mature cottonwoods and poplars are currently found on the back -side of the existing levee, though the closest of these trees is 50' away from the river's edge and typically 90' away. Aerial photographs show that these existing trees, even at low sun angles, provide very little shading to the river. Native plantings proposed along the river's edge under the proposed project are expected to provide more shading than the current trees in less than 10 years. In the longer timeframe, the proposed plantings will provide significantly more shade than current Nliva c�.IZETTE Coo City of Kent Public Works Department Timothy 3. LaPorte, P.E., Public Works Director conditions. Cumulatively, this project along with recent, current and future projects will improve river shading. Many of the recent projects that you highlighted in your letter have only had 4-5 years to mature, an unrealistic timeframe to expect major shading improvements. Compared with the previous conditions at all of these project sites, the plantings that are currently maturing will improve shading considerably. The city shares the tribe's interest in setting the levees along the Green River back as far as possible to maximize floodplain functions and salmon habitat. In this reach, however, setting the levee back the 200' to 600' recommended by King County is cost prohibitive. The $416 - $920 million (King County estimate) that would be necessary to purchase and relocate businesses, as well as construct a larger set -back project, is not available within City or Flood District budgets in the foreseeable future. In the meantime, the existing levee does not meet federal levee safety standards and is covered in invasive reed -canary grass and blackberry. Construction of a sheet pile floodwall will not preclude the future design or implementation of a wider levee setback or more comprehensive river corridor approach to improve fish habitat conditions along this stretch of the river. City estimates have determined that the cost to remove this floodwall in the future is approximately $1 million, a fraction of the total levee setback cost. The City is committed to and involved in the comprehensive vision and long- term, system -wide plan for managing flood risk in the Green River valley. However, due to the current condition of the levees at issue, it is in the public's best interest to act now to provide meaningful, near-term flood protection for the valley. The city recognizes the Muckleshoot tribe's treaty -protected fishing rights. Tribal members' access to the river will not be denied or hindered and will be addressed in the project specifications. As we have done with prior levee projects, the city will coordinate with you and/or Glen St. Amant when construction schedules and activities are being finalized. Each of the levee repair projects being proposed by the City of Kent to address safety deficiencies in the levee and meet federal levee safety standards provides independent and meaningful improvement to the reach of the levee where it is located. Consequently, it is appropriate to analyze each project separately. While the separately named levees are tied into each other to form larger portions of the complete Lower Green River Levee system, each separate levee has separate deficiencies which can be repaired separately to improve flood protection to the area it protects. The improvements being proposed as part of the Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project will have a net -positive effect on fish migration, rearing and refuge habitat as well as riparian shade and water temperature. This levee project has incorporated specific design features to improve these conditions. Also, as mentioned earlier, the city is in the midst of implementing a number of large projects designed expressly for fish habitat enhancement that are expected to improve fish refuge and rearing conditions in the Green River valley dramatically. As you mentioned, the city has made some changes to the plan set that was distributed for SEPA permitting. One of the main changes has been to lower the waterward side of the planting bench down to just above the ordinary high water line, and to slope the planting bench at a 6:1 angle so that shallow areas will be available to fish at flow levels of approximately 2,500 to 3,500 CFS (Auburn gage). This change was made because of concerns from Patrick Reynolds of your staff about recent Corps of Engineers and King County constructed benches that did not provide benefit to fish except in extreme (>6,000 CFS) flood events. Some planting changes have also been made to improve view corridors for trail users. Thank you for your careful review of the Briscoe-Desimone Levee plans and supporting details. We would be happy to meet with you to discuss this project further. Please contact me at 253- 856-5516 or at klangholz@kentwa.gov. Sincerely, if J Ken Langholz I` Engineering Supervisor Cc: Tim LaPorte, P.E., Public Works Director Chad Bieren, P.E., City Engineer Mike Mactutis, P.E., Environmental Engineering Manager Mark Howlett, P.E., Design Engineering Manager Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager Erin George, Senior Planner KENT WASHINGTON CITY OF KENT MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Environmental Checklist No.: #ENV -2013-3 Project: Briscoe-Desimone #RPSW-2130616 Levee Improvements Description: The City of Kent Public Works Department proposes to install a structural steel sheet pile wall at the back of the existing levee slope to act as a secondary levee to reduce flood risk to the cities of Kent, Tukwila and Renton. The proposed flood wall will provide a minimum of 3 feet of freeboard above the predicted 500 -year flood event in order to meet FEMA accreditation requirements. The flood wall will be constructed in four segments ("reaches") along the east bank of the Green River, between South 200th Street and South 180th Street. The northernmost segment ("Reach 1") and a small piece of Reach 2 are located within the City of Tukwila (see Figure 1, next page). The City of Kent is acting as SEPA lead agency for the entire project, but separate shoreline permits will be submitted to Tukwila.. The sheet piles will be installed using vibratory equipment (but no impact hammers) and will be between 23 and 64 feet deep, depending on location. The above -ground portion of the wall will range from 8 feet to 13 feet tall, when viewed from surrounding businesses. To allow for re - vegetation and habitat restoration, benches will be constructed where feasible along the riverbank (see Figure 2, next page). These benches will entail excavation between the ordinary high water mark and the existing Green River trail to create a bench of up to 15 feet wide where native trees and shrubs will be planted. Approximately 40,000 cubic yards of material will be removed to create the planting benches. An estimated 277 trees and 29 stumps will be removed, in addition to invasive or non-native vegetation. A minimum of 280 trees and 3,000 shrubs will be planted as mitigation on the excavated benches. The existing asphalt trail will be removed and relocated further landward adjacent to the flood wall, with handrails placed on top of the wall. The flood wall will extend approximately 3 feet above the surface of the new trail, plus a 1.5 foot handrail. Approximately 6,000 cubic yards of fill material will be used to construct the new trail. All existing public access points will be maintained and where necessary, stairways will be constructed. The Green River Trail will be temporarily closed in sections during construction, with detours provided, and will return to normal operations after construction. The parking lot serving the Green River Trail located adjacent to the cul-de-sac bulb of South 190th Street will be raised to match the trail elevation. This will improve trail access by providing ADA accessibility as well as maintenance access. Existing use of other adjacent properties will remain unchanged. The Kent portion of the project (Briscoe) is located on the east bank of the Green River between South 200th Street and South 189th Street, identified as King County Parcel Numbers 0222049047, 0000200044, 0000200043, 7888800090, 7888800111, 7888800140, 7888800155, and 7888800210. The Tukwila portion of the project (Desimone) is located on the east bank of the Green River between South 189th Street and South 180th Street, identified as King County Parcel Numbers 7888900110, 7888900170 and 7888900150. The project area spans several zoning districts, including M1 (Industrial Park) and M2 (Limited Industrial) in the Kent portion. The Tukwila portion is zoned C/LI (Commercial Light Industrial). ATTACHMENT 8 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 Figure 1: Project Map Figure 2: Cross Section of Proposed Design FLOOD WALL 6; r�snti�c I tiTTr/1MM OWN (€L• fl) EXLS1INC J �� dZWNO 2 of 3 1 11 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 Applicant: Ken Langholz, City of Kent Public Works Lead Agency: CITY OF KENT The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. X There is no comment period for this DNS pursuant to WAC 197-11-355 Optional DNS process. There is no comment period for this DNS. This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date of this decision; this constitutes a 14 -day comment period. Comments must be submitted by . This DNS is subject to appeal pursuant to Kent City Code section 11.03.520. Responsible Official: Charlene Anderson, AICP Position/Title: Planning Manager / SEPA OFFICIAL Address: 220 S. Fourth Avenue, Kent, WA 98032 Telephone: (253);:56-5454 Dated: April 9, 2013 Signature: APPEAL PROCESS: AN APPEAL OF A DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) MUST BE MADE TO THE KENT HEARING EXAMINER WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS FOLLOWING THE DATE OF THIS DECISION PER KENT CITY CODE 11.03.520. CONDITIONS/MITIGATING MEASURES: 1. The applicant shall evaluate the impacts to shallow groundwater movement through the floodwall. If impacts to groundwater are identified, appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented to mitigate the impact. Such measures could include, but are not limited to staggering the lengths of the sheet piles to allow flow through or providing openings in the sheet piles to allow for groundwater movement through the wall. 2. The applicant shall finish the flood wall on both the landward and waterward sides with aesthetic elements such as colors, textures or patterns to enhance the appearance and promote compatibility with surrounding uses. The final finish material shall be submitted for review and approval by Planning Services. jm\S: \Permit\Plan\Env\2013\2130616-2013-3dnsopt.doc 3 of 3 • KENT W A S H I N G T O N ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING SERVICES Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REPORT Decision Document BRISCOE-DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 Responsible Official: Charlene Anderson, AICP Staff Contact: Erin George, AICP I. PROPOSAL The City of Kent Public Works Department proposes to install a structural steel sheet pile wall at the back of the existing levee slope to act as a secondary levee to reduce flood risk to the cities of Kent, Tukwila and Renton. The proposed flood wall will provide a minimum of 3 feet of freeboard above the predicted 500 -year flood event in order to meet FEMA accreditation requirements. The flood wall will be constructed in four segments ("reaches") along the east bank of the Green River, between South 200th Street and South 180th Street. The northernmost segment ("Reach 1") and a small piece of Reach 2 are located within the City of Tukwila (see Figure 1, next page). The City of Kent is acting as SEPA lead agency for the entire project, but separate shoreline permits will be submitted to Tukwila. The sheet piles will be installed using vibratory equipment (but no impact hammers) and will be between 23 and 64 feet deep, depending on location. The above -ground portion of the wall will range from 8 feet to 13 feet tall, when viewed from surrounding businesses. To allow for re -vegetation and habitat restoration, benches will be constructed where feasible along the riverbank (see Figure 2, next page). These benches will entail excavation between the ordinary high water mark and the existing Green River trail to create a bench of up to 15 feet wide where native trees and shrubs will be planted. Approximately 40,000 cubic yards of material will be removed to create the planting benches. An estimated 277 trees and 29 stumps will be removed, in addition to invasive or non-native vegetation. A minimum of 280 trees and 3,000 shrubs will be planted as mitigation on the excavated benches. Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 Figure 1: Project Map 1 4 80- Sl TUKWILA LEVEE r. - Q- �' ' m 444 _I REACH 31 REACH 4j KENT CITY OF KENT Figure 2: Cross Section of Proposed Design 17,1 AREA Flak: MAL Page 2 of 13 r Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 The existing asphalt trail will be removed and relocated further landward adjacent to the flood wall, with handrails placed on top of the wall. The flood wall will extend approximately 3 feet above the surface of the new trail, plus a 1.5 foot handrail. Approximately 6,000 cubic yards of fill material will be used to construct the new trail. All existing public access points will be maintained and where necessary, stairways will be constructed. The Green River Trail will be temporarily closed in sections during construction, with detours provided, and will return to normal operations after construction. The parking lot serving the Green River Trail located adjacent to the cul-de- sac bulb of South 190th Street will be raised to match the trail elevation. This will improve trail access by providing ADA accessibility as well as maintenance access. Existing use of other adjacent properties will remain unchanged. The Kent portion of the project (Briscoe) is located on the east bank of the Green River between South 200th Street and South 189th Street, identified as King County Parcel Numbers 0222049047, 0000200044, 0000200043, 7888800090, 7888800111, 7888800140, 7888800155, and 7888800210. The Tukwila portion of the project (Desimone) is located on the east bank of the Green River between South 189th Street and South 180th Street, identified as King County Parcel Numbers 7888900110, 7888900170 and 7888900150. The project area spans several zoning districts, including M1 (Industrial Park) and M2 (Limited Industrial) in the Kent portion. The Tukwila portion is zoned C/LI (Commercial Light Industrial). II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Any conditions applied to the following Determination of Nonsignificance are applied because identified impacts cannot adequately be addressed by existing City of Kent and City of Tukwila codes and ordinances. III. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS A. Earth The combined project area of approximately 8 acres is flat, with the exception of the existing levee berm which has slopes in the range of 50% to 80%. Soils in the area are categorized by the King County Soils Survey as Newberg silt loam, Puyallup fine sandy loam and Urban Land gravelly sandy loam. Approximately 6,000 cubic yards of fill material will be used to construct the new trail and approximately 40,000 cubic yards of material will be removed to create the planting benches. Fill material will include sand, gravel and asphalt pavement for the trail, as well as compost and amended topsoil for plantings on the excavated benches. All fill materials will be obtained from Page 3 of 13 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2L30618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 permitted excavation sites and cut material will be taken directly to an approved site. No stockpiling will occur on site. Exposed, cleared or excavated areas have the potential for erosion to occur. Appropriate best management practices (BMP's) will be implemented to control erosion potential throughout the course of the project. The applicant will prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) meeting all the requirements of the Department of Ecology National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater General Permit (CSWGP). The applicant will also obtain an NPDES permit coverage letter from DOE, and will maintain the construction site and conduct water quality sampling pursuant to the CSWGP requirements. The applicant will prepare a Detailed Grading Plan and a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan for the entire development. For the Kent portion of the project, these plans are required to meet the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards and the City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual. For the Tukwila portion, plans must comply with Tukwila Municipal Code 16.54 (Grading) and 14.30 (Surface Water Management), as well as the City of Tukwila Surface Water Design Manual and Public Works Infrastructure and Design and Construction Standards. B. Air During project construction there will be a slight increase in vehicle exhaust and emissions caused by construction equipment and construction vehicles entering and leaving the project area. All construction equipment will be equipped with standard mufflers and emission control equipment. Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be iimplemented during construction to suppress dust. These BMPs will include covering soil stockpiles, applying water to exposed soil during dry weather, and sweeping affected paved areas. The completed project will not cause an increase in vehicle trips or contribute to air quallity degradation. C. Water 1. Surface Water The project area is within 200 feet of the Green River, a Shoreline of Statewide Significance. Applications for Shoreline Substantial Development and Shoreline Conditional Use Permits for work within the City of Kent were submitted with the Environmental Checklist for the proposed project. No work will occur below the ordinary high water mark of the Green River; however a Hydraulic Project Page 4 of 13 r 1 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 Approval will be required from the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all necessary federal and state permits. No wetlands were identified within the project improvement limits, according to the Biological Assessment, Green River Levee Improvements, River Mile 14.25 to River Mile 22.0, prepared by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., dated October 3, 2011. The portion of the project area that is located on the waterward side of the existing levee berm is within the Green River floodway. Excavation of the proposed planting benches will increase flood storage by approximately 40,000 cubic yards. The applicant has submitted a completed Flood Zone Control Permit to the City of Kent and will be required to comply with the City's flood hazard regulations in Kent City Code Chapter 14.09. The applicant will also submit a Flood Zone Control Permit to the City of Tukwila to comply with Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 16.52. 2. Groundwater The project area is not located within a critical aquifer recharge area and no groundwater will be withdrawn as a result of this project. Joan Nolan from the Washington State Department of Ecology submitted a comment letter which indicated that this reach of the Green River is a groundwater gaining reach and raised concerns about how the sheet pile wall will affect groundwater flow. The City is evaluating the impacts to shallow groundwater movement through the floodwall reaches with consideration for the prevailing groundwater movements in this area as well as near the river, the length and orientation of the floodwall, and the geology of the site. If impacts to groundwater are identified, appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented to mitigate the impact. Such measures could include, but are not limited to staggering the lengths of the sheet piles to allow flow through or providing openings in the sheet piles to allow for groundwater movement through the wall. 3. Stormwater Runoff The main source of stormwater runoff will be the existing parking lot proposed to be raised, as well as the non -pollution generating trail. For the parking lot, the applicant will comply with the water quality control requirements of the 2002 City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual. Due to the new trail being slightly wider than before, there will be a slight increase in impervious surfaces. Page 5 of 13 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 According to the Biological Assessment, the slight increase in impervious surface will not adversely affect water quality after the project is completed largely because the trail is a non -pollution generating surface. According to the Addendum to Biological Assessment, Green River Levee Improvements Project, River Mile 14.25 to River Mile 22.0 prepared by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., dated February 20, 2013, a net change in flow in the Green River is not anticipated as a result of the project. The majority of water that falls onto the project area will infiltrate once the disturbed areas are re -planted and vegetation on the benches has become established. D. Plants A variety of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs and grasses are present in the project area; primarily located behind the existing levee berm. The waterward side of the berm is vegetated primarily with non-native species such as Himalayan blackberry and reed canary grass, with some willows and snowberry at or below the ordinary high water mark. Approximately 277 trees and 29 stumps will be removed as a result of the project (primarily on the landward side of the berm), in addition to invasive or non-native vegetation. A minimum of 280 trees and 3,000 shrubs will be planted as mitigation on the excavated benches. The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and Department of Ecology submitted comments regarding temperature conditions in the Green River and the related shading benefits provided by mature riparian vegetation on the riverbank. The Tribe feels the vegetated area along the river is not wide enough to adequately address temperature impairment. They are also concerned the new vegetation will be subject to the US Army Corps of Engineers vegetation policy which does not allow trees over 10 inch in diameter within 15 feet of accredited levees. Construction of the proposed floodwall will provide the city with the opportunity to plant large overstory trees that are not subject to diameter or height restrictions along the banks of the river because the floodwall serves as the levee, and therefore the Corps vegetation policy waterward of the "levee" does not apply. These large trees will, in time, provide significant shade to this reach of the river where very little currently exists. View corridors through the vegetation will be provided to ensure preservation of public views and safety for users of the Green River Trail. This will be accomplished by using several different planting zones: low, medium and high density. All planting zones will be densely covered with shrubs for habitat purposes, but the low and medium density zones will space the trees in a way to allow sightlines. Page 6 of 13 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 E. Animals Puget Sound Chinook Salmon, Coastal -Puget Sound Bull Trout, and Puget Sound Steelhead are all federally endangered or threatened species identified within the Green River, located within the project area. The Green River is also designated as critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook Salmon and Coastal -Puget Sound Bull Trout. Marbled Murrelet is a threatened species which has been documented in King County in limited instances. However, due to absence of suitable nesting habitat, no nesting is expected in the action area. Other birds including hawk, heron, eagle, kingfisher, flicker, robin, crow, towhee, blackbird, duck, junco, chickadee and dipper have been observed in the project area. Mammals and rodents including beaver, vole, rabbit, otter, coyote, raccoon, opossum and rats are known to utilize the project area as well. A biological assessment was prepared for the City in 2011 which analyzed all planned levee segments, including the Briscoe-Desimone segment. This document, entitled Biological Assessment for Green River Levee Improvements, River Mile 14.25 to River Mile 22.00, prepared by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., dated October 3, 2011 concludes that through avoidance of in -water work and with implementation of the TESC plan, SWPPP, and stormwater control and treatment measures, the project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect Bull trout, Puget Sound Chinook, Puget Sound steelhead, Marbled Murrelets and their designated critical habitat. An addendum was prepared for the Briscoe-Desimone levee segment, which analyzes design details that have changed since the 2011 report. This addendum is entitled Addendum to Biological Assessment, Green River Levee Improvements Project, River Mile 14.25 to River Mile 22.0 prepared by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., dated February 20, 2013. This addendum concludes that the effects determinations remain unchanged from the determinations listed in the 2011 report. The Briscoe-Desimone levee project will improve riparian habitat conditions along 4,400 lineal feet of the Green River. The proposed trees and shrubs to be planted on the waterward side of the existing levee berm will provide nesting and rearing habitat for birds and small mammals. The enhanced riparian area will benefit fish by increasing shade, woody debris, insect drop and leaf litter. Creation of a sloped floodplain bench that will be inundated for approximately 40 days during the primary juvenile salmonid outmigration period (January - June) will improve habitat significantly over the current, invasive dominated, steep -walled levee condition. Page 7 of 13 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 F. Environmental Health There is a slight risk of spills or fire due to the use of petroleum fuels for construction equipment. All fuel containers will be stored off-site in a staging area and will remain in secondary containment when not actively in use. Spill kits and a site specific spill response plan will be kept on-site at all times during construction. Some noise will be generated from trucks and heavy equipment during site construction and vibratory equipment will be used for sheet pile installation. Some vibration and noise may be noticeable to nearby properties during this period; however, construction activity will be temporary and will only take place Monday through Friday 7:OOam to 7:OOpm. Mufflers will be required on all vehicles and equipment with internal combustion engines. Impact hammers will not be allowed for sheet pile installation. G. Land and Shoreline Use The project area spans several zoning districts, including M1 (Industrial Park) and M2 (Limited Industrial) in the Kent portion. The Tukwila portion is zoned C/LI (Commercial Light Industrial). The corresponding Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designations are Open Space and Industrial in the Kent portion; and Commercial Light Industrial in the Tukwila portion. Properties within the project area are currently used as a levee and recreational trail. Properties surrounding the project area are developed with warehousing, manufacturing and other light industrial uses. Completion of the proposed project will not permanently alter any of the existing uses in the area, with the exception of the Riverpoint Corporate Center (APN 7888900170) near Reach 1, which may lose up to 40 parking stalls if the flood wall is shifted further south. The City is working with the King County Flood Control District to agree on the wall's location. In the event of this change, the City will work directly with the property owner to redesign the parking area. Using parallel parking spaces and other adjustments, up to 15 stalls may be gained back. The business will be compensated for any lost parking. The western portion of the Stress -Tek parking lot (APN 7888800140) and the south portion of the Rivers Edge Business Park (APN 7888800100) may be used as construction staging areas. The City will work directly with the Stress -Tek owner to minimize impacts to their business operation. Two of the three Rivers Edge Business Park buildings are vacant, with the property now owned by the King County Page 8 of 13 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 Flood Control District. A special use permit may be required from King County for staging use. The one remaining business, if still present will be consulted to minimize impacts to their business operation. The entire project area is located within 200 feet of the Green River, a Shoreline of Statewide Significance. Accordingly Reach 2, 3 and 4 of the proposed project are subject to the City of Kent Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Reach 1 and a small portion of Reach 2 are subject to the Tukwila SMP. The Kent portion of the project area is designated by the Kent SMP as High Intensity, with a parallel designation of Urban Conservancy -Open Space where the Green River Trail is located. The Tukwila portion is designated by the Tukwila SMP as Urban Conservancy. Applications for Shoreline Substantial Development and Shoreline Conditional Use Permits were submitted to the City of Kent with the Environmental Checklist. Separate shoreline permits will be submitted to the City of Tukwila at a later date. H. Aesthetics The above -ground portion of the sheet pile wall will range from 8 feet to 13 feet tall when viewed from the adjacent businesses and will diminish views of the river. On the trail side, the flood wall will extend approximately 3 feet above the surface of the new trail, plus a 1.5 foot handrail. Construction materials identified for the flood wall include steel and concrete, but the ultimate finish treatment has not yet been identified. Appearance of the proposed flood wall is important in this area as it is being constructed along a regional public trail system and through high quality, attractive industrial parks. As the new trail location will directly abut the flood wall, aesthetic treatment is necessary to maintain an attractive and enjoyable environment that encourages public use of the trail. The Industrial Park (M1) zoning district is intended to provide areas for those industrial activities that desire to conduct business in a prestigious environment. This intent is supported by aesthetic standards such as landscape screening requirements in the City's Zoning Code. In order to support the City's goals for the M1 district and to be compatible with surrounding business and recreational uses, it is important that the flood wall be finished with materials, colors or textures that create visual interest. I. Recreation The Green River Trail provides biking and walking opportunities along the river. Use of the trail will be restricted temporarily during construction, requiring users to detour around the construction area. Page 9 of 13 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 The existing trail on top of the levee berm will be removed and a new, wider (12 - 14 feet wide) paved trail will be installed further landward adjacent to the flood wall. All existing public access points will be maintained and where necessary, stairways will be constructed. The furthest distance between public access points will be a quarter mile. Hand rails will be placed on top of the flood wall to ensure safety of pedestrians using the trail. View corridors through the vegetation will be provided to ensure preservation of public views and safety for users of the Green River Trail. This will be accomplished by using several different planting zones: low, medium and high density. All planting zones will be densely covered with shrubs for habitat purposes, but the low and medium density zones will space the trees in a way to allow sightlines. John Neller, a cyclist who regularly uses the Green River Trail submitted a comment requesting that trail users be notified a minimum of 2 weeks prior to trail closure. Mr. Neller complained that prior levee projects did not notify trail users until the day of the closure, resulting in inconvenience and frustration especially for those using the trail to commute to or from work. The City does provide advance notification of trail closures on their website, but not on-site. The City's Shoreline Master Program includes policies and regulations regarding public access and recreation. The shoreline conditional use criteria contained in WAC 173-27-160 and referenced in the City's Shoreline Master Program require provisions for normal public use of public shorelines. Accordingly, a condition will be added to the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit regarding on-site advance notification to trail users. Briscoe Park is located in the river bend northwest of South 190th Street, which contains trails, a picnic shelter and a portable restroom. No levee work will be done within Briscoe Park itself. A separate parking lot located south of Briscoe Park adjacent to the cul-de-sac bulb of South 190th Street provides parking for Briscoe Park and the Green River Trail. This parking area will be used as a construction staging area, and consequently will be closed during construction. The Kent Parks Department indicates that Briscoe Park is primarily used by pedestrians and cyclists from the trail as opposed to recreationists arriving by car; so temporary closure of the lot will be a minor impact. The parking area typically contains 8 to 10 cars each day, primarily employees of the adjacent business to the south. Due to vacancy of other buildings in the River's Edge Business Park, adequate on-site parking is present to serve employees during closure of the City parking lot. To allow for trail and park access following construction of the flood wall, the parking lot will be raised to match the trail elevation. This will improve trail access by providing ADA accessibility as well as maintenance access. Page 10 of 13 f 1 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 J. Historic and Cultural Preservation A Cultural Resources report was prepared for this project, entitled Cultural Resources Assessment for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, City of Kent Green River Levees Improvement Project, prepared by Historical Research Associates, Inc., dated March 18, 2013. This report found no previously recorded archaeological sites, no historic - period buildings, structures or objects and no archaeological resources in the area of impact. The report notes that proximity to the Green River and historical homesteading and agriculture activities would typically mean a high probability of intact archaeological remains; but given the frequency of flooding events and ground disturbance from construction of business parks, utility lines and the Levee system the probability of intact archaeological remains is in fact low to moderate. Should archaeological materials (e.g. bones, shell, stone tools, beads, ceramics, old bottles, hearths, etc.) or human remains be observed during project activities, all work in the immediate viclinity should stop. The State Department of Archaeology and Historic (Preservation and the City should be contacted immediately in order to help assess the situation and determine how to preserve the resource(s). Compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to archaeological resources (RCW 27.53, 27.44 and WAC 25-48) is required. The City's Shoreline Master Program includes policies and regulations regarding archaeological and historic resources. Accordingly, a condition to this effect will be added to the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe members fish in this section of the river. The tribe has requested that the City coordinate with them at least 30 days in advance of construction to avoid interference with tribal fishing activities and access. The Public Works Department has agreed to do so. The City's Shoreline Master Program includes policies and regulations regarding public access and coordination with affected tribes, and the shoreline conditional use criteria require compatibility with other authorized uses. Accordingly, a condition will be added to the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit regarding coordination with the Muckleshoot tribe. K. Transportation South 200th Street is located at the south end of the project area at Reach 4, South 190th Street is located near Reaches 2 and 3 and West Valley Highway at the north end of the project at Reach 1. Access to properties in the project vicinity will be maintained during construction. Existing levee maintenance access points will be Page 11 of 13 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 maintained, with slight modifications as needed to allow maintenance vehicles to get over the new flood wall. Maintenance access to Reach 4 may be modified to provide a direct connection to South 200th Street. Maintenance access to Reach 1 from West Valley Highway may also need some modifications. A traffic control plan will be prepared to reduce traffic impacts during construction. The proposed project will not generate additional traffic trips. L. Public Services The proposal will not generate the need for increased public services. M. Utilities An existing 8 -inch storm pipe located in Reach 1 will be extended through the new flood wall and a flap gate installed. No other utility improvements are anticipated at this time, but utility relocations may become necessary as a result of construction. IV. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION A. Per WAC 197-11-660 and RCW 43.21C.060, the City of Kent may establish conditions to mitigate any identified impacts associated with this proposal. The following supporting documents serve as possible bases for any conditions and mitigating measures: 1. City of Kent Comprehensive Plan, as prepared and adopted pursuant to the State Growth Management Act. 2. The State Shoreline Management Act and the Kent Shoreline Master Program. 3. Kent City Code Section 7.07, Surface Water and Drainage Code. 4. City of Kent Transportation Plan, Green River Valley Transportation action plan and current Six -Year Transportation Improvement Plan. 5. Kent City Code Section 7.09, Wastewater Facilities Plan. 6. City of Kent Comprehensive Water Plan and Conservation Element. 7. Kent City Code Section 6.02, Required Public Improvements. 8. Kent City Code Section 6.07, Street Use Permit Requirements. 9. Kent City Code Section 14.09, Flood Hazard Protection. 10. Kent City Code Section 12.04, Subdivision Code. 11. Kent City Code Section 12.05, Mobile Home Parks and Section 12.06, Recreation Vehicle Parks. 12. Kent City Code Section 8.05, Noise Control. 13. City of Kent International Building and Fire Codes. Page 12 of 13 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 14. Kent City Code Section 15, Kent Zoning Code. 15. Kent City Code Section 7.13, Water Shortage and Emergency Regulations, and Water Conservation Ordinance 2227. 16. Kent City Code Section 6.03, Improvement Plan Approval and Inspection Fees. 17. Kent City Code Section 7.05, Storm and Surface Water Drainage Utility. 18. City of Kent Comprehensive Sewer Plan. 19. City of Kent Fire Master Plan. 20. City of Kent Section 11.06, Critical Areas. B. It is recommended that a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) be issued for this project with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall evaluate the impacts to shallow groundwater movement through the floodwall. If impacts to groundwater are identified, appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented to mitigate the impact. Such measures could include, but are not limited to staggering the lengths of the sheet piles to allow flow through or providing openings in the sheet piles to allow for groundwater movement through the wall. 2. The applicant shall finish the flood wall on both the landward and waterward sides with aesthetic elements such as colors, textures or patterns to enhance the appearance and promote compatibility with surrounding uses. The final finish material shall be submitted for review and approval by Planning Services. KENT PLANNING SERVICES April 9, 2013 EG:jm\S:\Permit\Plan\Env\2013\2130616decision.doc Page 13 of 13 To be completed by Applicant: SEPA CONTACTS AND PROFESSIONALS Please fill out applicable boxes for all different professionals: A. ,. I can Name: "f eN LANG/141 Company Name: erry OF SCENT ENatNWiEli✓u Contact Person: KsN 4,04N6N+�Li.. Address: Z2c' LJ+.,l ,4 vE 0 S. City: 14 fN'r State: t 4 Zip: 9 $032 Phone(s): ?93.-5'(, Fax:Us..354.4c,av Email: k1m,i 'NatltaQ ke, r,Wa.?AI Owner Name: Company Name: Contact Person: Address: City: State: Zip: Phone(s): Fax: Email: Name: iii'tact (person receiving all project communications '. if. different from applicant) Company Name: Contact Person: Address: City: State: Zip: Phone(s): Fax: Email: >Contractor < Company Name: Engineer Name: I D#: Exp. Date: Address: City: State: Zip: Phone(s): Fax: Email: WH1.1 Company Name: Engineer Name: ID#: Exp. Date: Address: City: State: Zip: Phone(s): Fax: Email: Engineer Company Name: C 177 OF ? I' T NFf f IN4 Engineer Name: Am RIy_ go w LE7-7- ID#: 32.15$ Exp. Date: 612.9 y Address: 22-0 44k A v f _ S City: Cpl%" State: y44 Zip: 913o32 Phone(s): 263_g%,,,%_6523Fax: Email: M1iIowiej. /Cr>r f %"4. 1ov Co'rsttant''` Company Name: Engineer Name: Contact Person: Address: City: State: Zip: Phone(s): Fax: Email: psd4008_14/03464_8_11 p. 2 of 20 � KENT WA5RI.NOTON CITY OF KENT PLANNING SERVICES (253) 856-5454 iPPLICATION FEE: 1 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON INDIVIDUAL PARCEL: $260 ALL OTHERS: $700 PUBLIC NOTICE BOARD &1!f FACH ROAM) ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST APPLICATION FORM TO BE COMPLETED BY STAFF: APPLICATION #: KIVA #: RECEIVED BY: DATE: PROCESSING FEE: A. STAFF REVIEW DETERMINED THAT PROJECT: Meets the categorically exempt criteria. Has no probable significant adverse environmental impact(s) and application should be processed without further consideration of environmental effects. Has probable, significant impact(s) that can be mitigated through conditions. EIS not necessary. Has probable, significant adverse environmental impact(s). An Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. An Environmental Impact Statement for this project has already been prepared. Signature of Responsible Official Date B. COMMENTS: C. TYPE OF PERMIT OR ACTION REQUESTED: D. ZONING DISTRICT: f � City of Kent Planning Sb. ices Environmental Checklist — Page 2 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT: A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 1. Name of Project: Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements 2. Name of Applicant: City of Kent Mailing Address: 220 4th Ave. S., Kent WA 98032 Contact Person: Ken Langholz Telephone: 253-856-5516 3. Applicant is (owner, agent, other): Owner 4. Name of Legal Owner: City of Kent Telephone: 253-856-5500 Mailing Address: 220 4th Ave. S., Kent WA 98032 5. Location. Give general location of proposed project (street address, nearest intersection of streets and section, township and rancge). The project site extends along the right bank, or easterly side, of the Green River, from South 200th Street to South 180th Street. The area is located within the NW and NE 1/4 of Section 2 Township 22N Range 4E, the SW, SE, and NE 1/4 of Section 35, Township 23N, Range 4E, and the NW 1/4 of Section 36, Township 23N, Range 4E. 6. Legal description and tax identification number a. Legal description (if lengthy, attach as separate sheet): See Attachment A b. Tax identification number: 2222049047, 0000200044, 0000200043, 7888800090, 7888800111, 7888800140, 7888800155, 7888800170, 7888800210 7. Existing conditions: Give a general description of the property and existing improvements, size, topography, vegetation, soil, drainage, natural features, etc. (if necessary, attach a separate sheet). The project area, Briscoe-Desimone levee, is located along the right bank (easterly side) of the Green River, between River Mile (RM) 14.3 and RM 17 (between S. 180th Street and S. 200th Street). Manufacturing and industrial builings line almost the entire length of the levee in the project area. The City of Kent owned Briscoe Park, parcel number 0000200044, is located midway along . the levee near RM 16. The site is relatively flat except for the riverbanks and levees. Land east of the levee drains to the northeast. Soils are classified under Section B.1.c of this document. City of Kent Planning Se, Environmental Checklist — Page 3 Existing activities on the site consist of flood protection (levees) and recreational uses. The Green River Trail is located on parcels owned by the City of Kent (parcel numbers 0222049047 and 0000200043), and within easements in the City of Tukwila. The Green River Trail on top of the levees is used for walking, jogging, cycling and other recreational activities such as bird watching. Side slopes on the river side of the levees have mixed vegetation of blackberries, grass and riparian vegetation along the bank of the Green River. Lawn, trees, shrubs, parking lots and commercial buildings are adjacent to the trail along the landward side. 8. Site Area: Approximately 8 acres Site Dimensions: Approximately 80' X 4450' 9. Project description: Give a brief, complete description of the intended use of the property or project including all proposed uses, days and hours of operation and the size of the project and site. (Attach site plans as described in the instructions): The Briscoe-Desimone Levee is located along the right bank (easterly side) of the Green River between S. 200th Street and S. 180th Street, (see Figure 1, Vicinity Map). The Briscoe levee is located along the right bank of the Green River between S. 200th Street and S. 189th Street within the City of Kent. The Desimone levee is located along the right bank of the Green River between S. 189th Street and S 180th Street in the City of Tukwila. Together these levee segments are approximately 2.7 miles in length and protect properties within the cities of Kent, Tukwila and Renton. Tilt -up style buildings (manufacturing and industrial) are located adjacent to the entire stretch of levee. Four sections (reaches) of the levee, approximately 4,450 linear feet, don't meet slope and stability requirements and need repair to meet FEMA accreditation requirements. Reach 1 is located between RM 14.47 and 14.63 and totals 1,050 If. Reach 2 is located between RM 15.45 and 15.57 and totals 850 If. Reach 3 is between RM 15.98 and 16.36, totaling 2,350 If, and Reach 4 is between RM 16.95 and 17.00 and totals 200 If. Reaches 1, 2 and 3 are on the outside of sharp bends in the river and Reach 4 is just north of the S. 200th Street Bridge. Structural steel sheet pile walls are proposed to be installed at the back of the existing levee slope to act as a secondary levee to reduce flood risk to the cities of Kent, Tukwila and Renton and protect the large number of warehouses, manufacturing facilities and some retail establishments behind these levees. These areas are shown on Figure 2, Reach Location Map. In addition, large stumps and roots will be removed in areas between the four reaches along the levee where they could compromise levee stability and/or are in the construction project area. The walls will provide a minimum of 3 feet of freeboard above the predicted 500 - year flood event, (see Typical Section within the 35% design plans). This equates to approximately 5.2 feet of freeboard above the predicted 100 -year flood event. This proposal allows for some re -vegetation and habitat restoration work along the river between the ordinary high water line and the trail in areas where the wall is constructed. Benches will be constructed where feasible along the riverbank. City of Kent Planning S6 ,,ces . Environmental Checklist — Page 4 The approximate 2 -foot wide strip between the proposed constructed trail and wall will be paved or filled with suitable material. In areas where the wall is proposed, the existing asphalt recreational trail will be relocated to be adjacent to the wall. The public access, located at the west end of S. 190t St. will be reconstructed to current standards, including an ADA accessible ramp. The Green River Trail will be temporarily closed in sections during construction of the project with detours provided, and will return to normal operations after construction. Proposed use of adjacent properties will remain unchanged. Construction of the project will be Monday through Friday from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. or as stated in Kent City Code 8.05. 10. Schedule: Describe the timing or schedule (include phasing and construction dates, if possible). Construction is anticipated to occur between July 2013 and 2015. 11. Future Plans: Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. The City of Kent is currently in the process of having the entire right bank levee system within the city limits accredited by FEMA. This project is one segment of the system improvements submitted for accreditation. 12. Permits/Approvals: List all permits or approvals for this project from local, state, federal, or other agencies for which you have applied or will apply as required for your proposal. DATE AGENCY PERMIT TYPE SUBMITTED* NUMBER STATUS** City of Kent SEPA WDFW JARPA City of Kent City of Kent DOE Shoreline Conditional Use Shoreline Substantial Development NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit City of Kent Planning Seg ...;es Environmental Checklist— Page 5 *Leave blank if not submitted **Approved, denied or pending 13. Environmental information: List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Biological Assessment and Wetland Delineation Report by Shannon and Wilson, October 3, 2011. Addendum to Biological Assessment by Shannon and Wilson, dated February 20, 2013. Cultural Resources Assessment -Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey Report by Historical Research Associates, (pending, expected date March 8, 2013). Conditional Letter of Map Revision Application (CLOMR) — GeoEngineers, October 2011. CLOMR — GE] Consultants, April 2012. 14. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? if yes, explain. None known City of Kent Planning Services �J Environmental Checklist -- Page 6 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS t Earth General description of the site (circle one): rolling, hilly, tee slope , mountainous, other The land is flat on top of the existing levee with steep slopes on the river side and landward side to the valley floor where the ground is flat. b. What is the steepest scope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The riverbank has slopes in the range of 50% to 80%. 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. The USDA classifies the underlying soils in the project area as Ng (Newberg silt loam), Py (Puyallup fine sandy loam) and Ur (Urban Land gravelly sandy loam). Structural fill underneath the existing Green River Trail to a depth of approximately 10 feet has been added at some time in the past. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Damaged (eroded) levee segments can fail due to saturated, fine- grained, unstable soils. The reach of the Green River near this levee has experienced surficial failure along the riverbank in several locations. These failures have been monitored or repaired as necessary by the King County Flood Control District. Geotechnical reports are available for review and are included in the CLOMR referenced in Item 13. The reports were completed for the FEMA accreditation report. e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Metal sheet pile walls will be installed along the landward toe of the existing levee to protect warehouses and the Kent valley from flooding. Fill material meeting the geotechnical consultant's recommendations will be obtained from permitted excavation sites. Fill material includes sand and gravel. Benches will be constructed where feasible along the right bank of the river. Compost and amended topsoil will be placed in areas that will be planted with native vegetation. The existing asphalt trail will be removed and a EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist — Page 7 new asphalt trail will be constructed adjacent to the wall. The amount of fill is approximately 6,000 cubic yards and additional asphalt tral will total approximately 22,000 square feet. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. g. There is a potential for erosion of the exposed, cleared or excavated areas to occur. However, appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be planned, implemented and maintained to control erosion potential throughout the entire course of the project. The City wall obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater General Permit for the project which will require a site specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to manage stormwater and erosion and sediment control plans throughout the duration of the project. Water quality sampling will also be required through the permit which will also ensure that environmental damage does not occur. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? The asphalt surface of the trail will cover approximately one-fifth of the levee's cross-section and will total approximately 66,000 square feet. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any. A Temporary ErosioniSedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared. BMPs such as silt fence, straw wattles, erosion control blankets, and soil cover will be implemented and maintained to minimize erosion and sediment transport during construction. Disturbed areas will be restored to their original function and the sides of the levee will be hydroseeded, seeded, and planted following construction. Native vegetation is also proposed on the waterward side of the levee. 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. Dust and exhaust emissions from construction equipment will be generated during construction. The completed project will not EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY r 1 City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist — Page 8 cause and increase in vehicle trips or contribute to air quality degradation. 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. All construction equipment will be equipped with standard mufflers and emission control equipment, BMPs will be implemented during construction to suppress any dust that occurs. BMPs include covering stock piles, applying water to exposed soils during dry weather, and sweeping affected paved areas. 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, salt water, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or'river it flows into. Yes, the project site is adjacent to the Green River, which flows northerly into Elliott Bay and the Puget Sound, via the Duwamish 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, the project worksite is within 200 feet of the ordinary high water line of the Green River for a total of approximately 4,450 linear feet. 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. There will not be any fill material placed in any surface water or any material dredged from a surface water as a part of this project. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist — Page 9 known. No 5) Does the proposal He within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No (ref. 1995 Flood Insurance Rate Map, Panel 967) 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 ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No ground water will be withdrawn as a part of this project. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, 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. Does not apply. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. The main source of runoff will be from the non -pollution generating trail. There will be a slight increase of impervious surfaces which will affect runoff after the project is completed. During the construction phase of the project a site specific SWPPP and TESC Plan will be prepared prior to any earthwork under the projects' NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit. The implementation of the sediment and flow control BMPs described in the TESC plan and SWPPP will minimize the potential for water quality EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY r� City of Kent Planning Services `. Environmental Checklist — Page 10 impacts within surface waters in the project area, including the Green River. The majority of water that falls onto the levee will infiltrate once the side slopes are replanted and vegetation is established. The projects' minimal increase in impervious surface will not adversely affect water quality after the project is completed. Runoff from the new trail will be allowed to infiltrate similarly to existing conditions and will not significantly increase flow levels. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. During construction, dust control and other.BMP's will .be. employed to prevent materials from entering the Green River. The asphalt trail will be removed and a new asphalt trail installed, however BMPs will be employed to ensure that all material is contained and prevented from coming into contact with surface waters. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: The SWPPP and TESCP will plan for specific BMPs that will be installed and maintained throughout the entire course of the project to ensure that all runoff from the construction project will take place in a controlled fashion and planned discharge areas. The discharges will also be monitored to ensure that surface water standards and/or permit water quality benchmarks are met to ensure that there is not degradation caused to adjacent or downstream waterbodies or groundwater. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X Deciduous tree: alder, maple aspen, black cottonwood, cherry, acifIc willow flowering dogwood X Evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, hemlock X_Shrubs: vine maple, salmonberry snowbe X Grass Pasture Crop or grain EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist — Page 11 Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other Water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other X Other types of vegetation: Himalayan blackberry, evergreen blackberry, scotch broom, reed canary grass, red -osier dogwood b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? 277 evergreen and deciduous trees will be removed for wall construction. 29 large stumps and invasive and or non-native vegetation such as grass and shrubs, blackberry bushes and reed canary grass will also be removed. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. There are not any endangered or threatened plant species known to exist on or near the project site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Native trees and plants will be planted along the waterward slope of the levee as noted in the planting mitigation plan. Riparian enhancement will total 4.76 acres. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds eroa on•bird other: kingfisher, flicker robin, crow, towhee, blackbird, duck, junco, chickadee, dipper Mammals: deer, bear, elk, eave , other: vole, rabbit, otter, coyote, raccoon, opossum, rat Fish: bass, salmo ' trou herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Coastal Puget Sound Bull trout, Puget Sound Chinook salmon, and Puget Sound steelhead are known to inhabit the Green River. All three are currently listed as threatened species in the Puget Sound and its tributaries. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist — Page 12 c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Yes. Anadromous and resident fish migrate through the Green River during certain times of the year. Waterfowl and other migratory birds use the entire Green River valley as part of the Pacific Flyway route. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: The majority of the areas impacted by the levee construction will be re -vegetated along the riverward slope with native species. This vegetation will provide nesting and rearing habitat for birds and small mammals. The enhanced riparian area will benefit fish by increasing shade, woody debris, insect drop and leaf litter. 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. Petroleum fuels will be used to operate the construction equipment during the project. After the project is completed, no further source of energy is needed. 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: There are none proposed for this project. 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. The potential for spills of toxic or hazardous materials, and related risks of fire or explosion, are very minimal and limited to petroleum fuels used in the equipment necessary for the construction of the improvements. All fuel containers will be stored off-site in a staging area and will remain in secondary containment when not actively in use. Spill kits will be kept on-site any time work is being conducted EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist — Page 13 and a site specific spill response plan must be on-site during construction. The contractor will be required to have a spill response plan. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. There are not any emergency services that are anticipated for the project. However, in the event of a spill, the Department of Ecology may be required. Kent staff will be available to assist with spill response. In addition, the Kent Fire Department is available. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: BMPs such as secondary containment, chemical handling and spill prevention education to the contractor, a spill response plan and spill kits on-site will help to prevent and/or reduce the instance of any environmental health hazards. City staff will also be closely monitoring construction operations and any chemical handling and storage practices. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment operation, other)? Existing traffic noise is generated by vehicles using S. 200th Street, West Valley Highway and other local surface streets. The noise from those sources will not affect this project. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a Tong -term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Noise will temporarily be created during construction and may be noticeable to nearby properties between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. No long-term generation of noise is expected as a result of this project. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Construction activity will be limited to Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Mufflers will be required on all vehicles and equipment with internal combustion engines. Vibratory equipment will be used for sheet pile installation. Impact hammers will not be allowed for installation of sheet EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist — Page 14 piles. Construction activity will only take place during periods allowed by Kent City Code. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is currently in use as a levee and recreational trail. Adjacent properties are developed for warehousing, manufacturing, and other light industrial uses. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No recent agricultural uses have taken place in this area. Parts of this land were farmed prior to the 1980s. c. Describe any structures on the site. The only structures located on the project site are three sets of stairs from the parking lots of parcel numbers 7888900170, 7888800140, 788880090 providing access to the levee/Green River Trail. A city owned parcel number 7888800111 provides an ADA ramp to the trail. Up to four of the access points will be replaced with stairs or ramps. The existing ADA ramp will be removed and replaced with a new ADA- pedestrian ramp. Tilt -up buildings are adjacent to nearly the entire length of the levee. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Yes, the access structures will be demolished and up to four new pedestrian stairs and a ramp will be installed as part of the project. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The riverbank and levee are not classified. Adjacent land is zoned M1 (Industrial Park), M2 (Limited Industrial), and MA (Industrial Agricultural). f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The riverbank and levee have no land use designation. Adjacent land is designated as I (Industrial) and OS (Parks and Open Space). If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? g. The Green River Trail throughout the project area is designated Urban Conservancy -Open Space. The land adjacent to the trail on the right in the project area from S. 200th Street to Briscoe Park is EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist — Page 15 designated High Intensity. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. The site project limits are within the buffer area of the Green River which is considered to be an environmentally sensitive area. 1. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? None j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None. The sheet pile wall avoids displacement impacts. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. The uses currently occurring on or near the parcels in the project area will not change under this project, so the proposed work is compatible with the existing land uses in the area. It will enhance terrestrial habitat conditions adjacent to the Green River, and will allow for continued use of the area for recreational purposes. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? indicate whether high, middle, or low income housing. None b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low income housing. None 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 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 71 City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist — Page 16 antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The sheet pile walls will extend a minimum of 2'8" to a maximum of 5' in height above the levee/trail, and a minimum of 8' to a maximum of 13' in height above the ground on the landward side. Pedestrian handrails at a height of 4.5 feet above the trail will be installed on top of the walls. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Some of the existing vegetation will be removed, creating a temporary altered view until the new native vegetation matures. In the areas where sheet pile walls are installed, views of the vegetated slope and trail will be obstructed from behind the sheet pile walls. Landscaping plans will group trees together and leave some openings to maintain view of the river for recreationists. Shrubs and trees will be tightly spaced on the final planting plan, but the drop in elevation off the waterward side of the levee will allow recreationists views over the top of most shrubs. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any. There are strict restrictions on the type and amount of vegetation that is allowed on accredited levees. Any vegetation placed on or near the levees will need to comply with these restrictions. The city will work within these restrictions to screen the secondary levee as necessary. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposals produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Does not apply. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control Tight and glare impacts, if any. None EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist — Page 17 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The non -motorized asphalt trail on top of the levee is part of the Green River Trail system, a popular recreational facility for walkers and cyclists. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. Use of the existing trail along the river will be restricted during construction, requiring trait users to temporarily detour around the construction area. A new, wider (12 —14 feet wide) paved surface will be installed on top of the levee to provide trail access along the river upon completion of the project. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any. A detour will be in place while the project is under construction. 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. See the Cultural Resources Report. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known 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 plans, if any. S. 200"' Street is located at the south end of the project area at Reach 4 and West Valley Highway at the north end of the project at EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services '- Environmental Checklist — Page 18 Reach t Access to the properties in the project vicinity will be maintained during construction. Access to Reach 4 may be modified to provide a direct connection to S. 200th Street. Access to Reach 1 is currently from West Valley Highway. Some modifications to this access may be necessary. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The project doesn't have any parking. Approximately 40 parking stalls may be eliminated at Reach 1 if the wall is moved further from the river. Approximately 3-5 parking stalls may be eliminated at Reach 3 from constructing the new ADA ramp located in the city owned parcel number 7888800111. 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 would occur. g, No new vehicle trips will be generated by this project. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. For the completed project, no measures to reduce or control transportation impacts are proposed. During construction, the contractor will be limited to using specific haul routes to minimize traffic impacts. A traffic control plan will be developed to review and reduce any impacts to traffic during construction. 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. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 14 0 City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist — Page 19 No b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. None on the project site. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utilities providing the service and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity, which might be needed. None C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. l understand that the lead agency is rvying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date: 1.p2%-® l3 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY \ City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist — Page 20 DO NOT USE THIS SHEET FOR PROJECT ACTIONS D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emission to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life? 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas 'designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5: How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist — Page 21 Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. PAADMIN12000Forms\SEPA.frm.doc (REVISED 6/00) EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 180TH ST SW 43rd ST • vi OD L 0 TUKWILA S.18888TTI- ... /� LPi J S 196th S 200TH ST t311 � iF 1 -11BRISCOE 1 DES1MONE LEVEE S 212TH ST 1 J 3 vt • CITY OF KENT /1S 208TH toi v ii %» — 1(7 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CITY OF KENT KENT WA{MIMOTGM sCALE NOT TO SCALE APPROVED DATE 10-10-12 FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP BRISCOE DESIMONE LEVEE G:\0e,61n\09-3011 DESIM0tE WALLSV,:g\SEP A\Flvre'tho. 10/10/2012 1:2623 Pal S 180TH ST REACH S 190th ST REACH 4 CITY OF KENT iCENT W,SMIMOTGM ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CITY OF KENT SCAtZ NOT TO SCALE APPROVED DATE 10—I0-12 FIGURE 2 LOCATION MAP BRISCOE DESIMONE LEVEE C:\Dt 19n\09-3011 DESIMOME WALL a.g\SEP A\fiqura2.ow9, 10/10/2012 46:00 PM r ', Carol Lumb From: Langholz, Ken <KLangholz@kentwa.gov> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 10:17 AM To: Carol Lumb Subject: RE: Looking for.... Carol, My responses are in the email below. Ken From: Carol Lumb[mailto:Carol.Lumb@TukwilaWA.govl Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 7:36 PM To: Langholz, Ken Subject: Looking for.... Hi Ken, A couple items: 1. In the narrative provided for the shoreline variance, page 1, the third paragraph references "the attached levee cross section comparisons.." - can you direct me to the pages you are referencing? I want to be able to clearly identify these for the Hearing Examiner. The levee cross section comparisons are 'in the drawings dated 4/29/14 that you attached. The Tukwila minimum levee profile is shown in dashed lines along with the proposed project profile. 2. Please see the attached drawings, dated 4/29/14 — I'd like to talk to you about these three sheets. OK 3. Can you send me the color version of the aerials that identify the trees that are being removed? These are sheets 23 and 24 of the submitted plans. I don't have them in color either. I'll have Randy run them in color when he gets back in the office later this morning. That's it for now. Let me know a good time for us to talk on the phone on Wednesday. Thanks. Carol Carol Lumb, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southeenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 206-431-3661 Carol.Lumb§Tukwila Wa.gov Tukwila, the City of opportunity, the community of choice. 1 NOI JNIHSVM IN3N LOZ/5 L/ b :31va .13nbf1S 01313 V _ON `) HdV2JO0d01 1V1213V k1Nl03 ONI)1 1/402l3 031v3210 SVM 33d321f1S 0Nl02lO ONIISIX3 :310N 0Z+69L NOI1VIS dWS V1IM>ifll 3O AlIO 213d NOLLO3S 33A31 Wf1WINIW 0Z+69L NOIlV1S NOIL03S 33n31 3NOWIS3a-303S12:18 a3SOd0eld H1d30 ,09 31VINIX021ddV '11VM 00013 31Id 133HS 03S0d02:1d H3d32! SS02l3V S3121VA H1 IIM 3d01S L :Z ONl02iO ONIISIX3 H3V32! SSOb3d Sal IIA H101M H3N38 L :9 92' lc :NOIIVA313 / 00013 2iv31.-001 L:9*Z :3dO]S 3OV2I]AV NOIIVA313 00013 2IV3Jl—OO L 3A08V ,2 '114211 ,9l 03SOd02:1d 03A0cono1^138 38 01 33211 ONIISIX3 83Al2i N33210 Ft' -17l :13 MHO NOI1V1303A ONIISIX3 Sc'L2 :NOIlyn313 00013 2:1d3A-00L JJJ NOI1V13O3A 03S0d02ld OZ+69L 13 213ARl ,OZ = « L :TWOS SCALE: 1" = 20' RIVER CL PROPOSED 771+ 00 VEGETATION 100 -YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION: 31.43 EXISTING VEGETATION OHW EL: 14.4± GREEN RIVER AVERAGE SLOPE: 3.1:1 EXISTING TRAIL EXISTING TREE TO BE / REMOVED PROPOSED 16' TRAIL, 3' ABOVE 100 -YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION FINISH GRADE 45'± 6:1 BENCH WIDTH VARIES ACROSS REACH 2: 1 SLOPE TRAIL WIDTH VARIES ACROSS REACH PROPOSED BRISCOE-DESIMONE LEVEE SECTION STATION 771+00 100 -YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION: 31.43 EXISTING GROUND OHW EL: 14.4± GREEN RIVER 18' FINISH GRADE MINIMUM LEVEE SECTION PER CITY OF TUKWILA SMP STATION 771+00 6'4 Op /- EXISTING PARKING LOT PROPOSED SHEET PILE FLOOD WALL, APPROXIMATE 50' DEPTH NOTE: EXISTING GROUND SURFACE WAS CREATED FROM KING COUNTY AERIAL TOPOGRAPHY, NOT A FIELD SURVEY. EXISTING PARKING LOT //- DATE: 4/15/2013 KENT WASIIINGTON N010 N 114SVM I[3310. £ lOZ/5 l/i7 :3Iva OS+t9L NOIIVIS dWS `d1IM>ifll JO J1110 213d NO1103S 33A31 Wf1WINIW 3Od210 HSINIJ 213A 12l N33210 'A3A21f1S 01313 V ION `J.HdV2100d01 1v1213`d .11N1100 91\11>1 W0213 031V32i0 SVM 30V321f1S ONf10210 ONIISIX3 :]ION J \\ / / �/ %// 101 J \*i ONI>121Vd NI1SIX3 r " ) VMOV02l ONIISIX3 ,8l (S 3AV 4499) ) MH ).311` A M OS+t9L NOLV1S NO1103S 33AT1 3NOWIS34-300SI?:18 43S0dOZid H1d30 ,0i 31VWIX02iddV '11VM 00013 311d 133HS 03SOd02ld L :9' L :3d01S 30V213AV ONf1080 ONIISIX3 91.• LC :NOIIVA313 00013 ?:IV3.1-001. 213n121 N33210 S31212138)10V18� ONI1SIX3 10 (S 3AV 4199) )MH A311VA M NIVW321 01 33211 ONIISIX3 SM0111M ONIISIX3 9 L. LC :NOI1VA313 00013 21V3J.—OO ,OZ OS+179L 10 213AI21 „L :31\13S SCALE: 1" = 20' RIVER CL 100 -YEAR FLOOD 767+00 r ELEVATION: 31.24 FINISH GRADE EXISTING VEGETATION �\ OHW EL: 14.4± GREEN RIVER PROPOSED VEGETATION EXISTING TRAIL - PROPOSED 16' TRAIL, PROPOSED 3' ABOVE 100 -YEAR / ACCESS RAMP FLOOD ELEVATION 1 AVERAGE SLOPE: 2:1 100 -YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION: 31.24 EXISTING GROUND OHW EL: 14.4± GREEN RIVER 2:1 SLOPE WIDTH VARIES ACROSS REACH 14'± 6:1 BENCH WIDTH VARIES ACROSS REACH TRAIL EXISTING PARKING LOT -\ PROPOSED CONCRETE WALL PROPOSED SHEET PILE FLOOD WALL, APPROXIMATE 50' DEPTH PROPOSED BRISCOE-DESIMONE LEVEE SECTION STATION 767+00 S\ -O FINISH GRADE 18' MINIMUM LEVEE SECTION PER CITY OF TUKWILA SMP STATION 767+00 S40,04 NOTE: EXISTING GROUND SURFACE WAS CREATED FROM KING COUNTY AERIAL TOPOGRAPHY, NOT A FIELD SURVEY. DATE: 4/15/2013 KENT WA5 HI N G1'0N Carol Lumb From: Robin Tischmak Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 3:56 PM To: Carol Lumb Cc: Minnie Dhaliwal Subject: RE: City of Kent levee repair Yeah, that would probably be helpful. They should tell us the area(s) that they need or want for parking. I'm not expecting to open every street in that area. Robin From: Carol Lumb Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 2:14 PM To: Robin Tischmak Cc: Minnie Dhaliwal Subject: RE: City of Kent levee repair Thanks Robin — I will pass this information on to Kent staff — do you need a formal request from them for the temporary on -street parking? Carol From: Robin Tischmak Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 2:08 PM To: Carol Lumb Cc: Minnie Dhaliwal Subject: RE: City of Kent levee repair Carol - I don't think we need to discuss this. We can approve the temporary on -street parking request, but we just need to remind all parties that we will not be making it permanent. After the temporary use(s) are complete, we will reinstitute the NO on -street parking regulations. Let me know if you need anything else. Thanks. Robin From: Carol Lumb Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 10:15 AM To: Robin Tischmak Cc: Minnie Dhaliwal Subject: City of Kent levee repair Importance: High Hi Robin, The City of Kent called yesterday to ask that Tukwila allow on -street parking while they are repairing the Briscoe/Desimone levee — they will be permanently displacing about 40 parking stalls in one development and temporarily displacing another 10 or so at another site while construction is going on. They are not asking for permanent on -street parking, but with the loss of the 40 parking stalls at the one s,�e, I don't know if that will set the stage for a request for on -street parking permanently. I explained that the streets were posted no parking because of the trucks that use these streets and the need to keep them clear to allow enough room for turning movements. I also explained that we have had a request from the church across the river to allow on -street parking and that if we allow it now for a temporary use, it will probably set the stage in the church's mind that if it is OK for this construction project it would be OK for them to have as well. Do we need to meet to discuss this? Kent is hoping for an answer in the next day or two as they are meeting with one of the property owners on Monday and the issue of displaced parking will be one of the issues discussed. Thanks. carol Carol Lumb, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 206-431-3661 C-aroLL umb§Tuk ovila 11 a go v Tukwila, the Citic of opportunity, the community of choice. 2 CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT INFORMATION The City of Kent has filed a shoreline substantial development permit application to install a structural steel sheet pile wall at the back of existing levee on the Green River to reduce flood risk to the cities of Renton, Kent and Tukwila and a shoreline variance to construct a different levee profile from that required by Tukwila's Shoreline Master Program. The waterward side of the levee will be reconfigured and planted with native plants. The structural steel sheet pile wall will be installed on levee behind 18200 Cascade Ave. S. and is referred to as "Reach 1" of the Briscoe/Desimone levee repair. A second repair is taking place at "Reach 2", a very small portion of which (200 feet) falls within the City of Tukwila. Tukwila's portion of Reach 2 is found behind the building located at 6545 South Glacier Street. Permits applied for include: L14-0030, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and L14-0031, Shoreline Variance. Other known required permits include: Public Works permit for hauling FILES AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW The project files are available at the City of Tukwila. To view the files, you may request them at the counter at the Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard #100, Tukwila, WA 98188. Project Files include: L14-0030 and L14-0031 OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT You are invited to comment on the project at a public hearing on the shoreline variance request before the Tukwila Hearing Examiner, scheduled for 9:30 a.m., July 22, 2014 in Conference Room #2, at the Tukwila DCD offices, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100. To confirm this date call Carol Lumb, at the Department of Community Development at (206) 431-3661. For further information on this proposal, contact Carol Lumb at (206) 431-3661 or visit our offices at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Application Filed: April 30, 2014 Notice of Completeness Issued: May 13, 2014 Notice of Application Issued: May 22, 2014 H: \ \ L14 -0030-L14-0031 Brisco/Desimone Levee Repair\ L14-0031 \ Hearing Notice `jos T Lo 'lig! ILI Carol Lumb From: Ryan Larson Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 1:20 PM To: Carol Lumb Subject: FW: Briscoe-Desimone Reach 1 Schedule Attachments: Reach 1 PL 84-99 Repair Plan.pdf; Reach 1 PL 84-99 Repair Profile.pdf Carol, The most recent news on the Desimone levee is that the Corps has determined that the levee is in need of immediate repair and they are proceeding with a repair project that will be completed next year. It is similar to Kent's proposal but would also include in water and bank work. See email below for added details. - Ryan From: Howlett, Mark [mailto:MHowlett@kentwa.gov] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 4:13 PM To: Bob Giberson; Langholz, Ken Cc: Ryan Larson; Mactutis, Mike Subject: RE: Briscoe-Desimone Reach 1 Schedule Here are the attachments. From: Howlett, Mark Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 1:50 PM To: 'Bob Giberson'; Langholz, Ken Cc: Ryan Larson; Mactutis, Mike Subject: RE: Briscoe-Desimone Reach 1 Schedule Hi Bob, District Recommended Revisions The change that the District recommended involves moving the wall landward approximately 10 feet along the Riverpoint 2 LLC property to the back edge of the parking stalls. This would eliminate an additional 15 parking stalls for a total of 40 parking stalls and would maintain the drive aisle. PL 84-99 Assistance for Reach 1 Mike Mactutis, Mark Madfai and I met yesterday with Charles Ifft, Rex Broderick, Michael Peele and Doug Weber of the Corps and Andy Levesque and Lorin Reinelt from King County. This meeting was held to discuss several issues, most of which were unrelated to the PL 84-99. As far as the PL -84-99 part of the meeting, here are the highlights. (See attached plan and profile) - The Corps is drafting a Project Implementation Report(PIR) and is trying to have it completed by the end of this month. This may be delayed if they include a Sponsor Preferred Alternative. - After completion of the PIR they will send it for approval and then funds will be allocated for Engineering and Design. - The Corps' current estimate of the project is $2.2 million including a concrete retaining wall at the back of the levee. (see profile) 1 - The Corps' repair project is approximately 780 feet in length. - The District is considering a "Sponsor Preferred Alternative" that would expand the scope of the Corps' repair project to include all of the levee bank along the proposed sheet pile wall length (1,100 ft ±). This additional scope would cost about $1,000,000 (very rough cost). - The District is required to contribute 20 -percent of the base project cost (the 780' length) and would be required to pay 100 -percent of the additional scope. The 20 -percent contribution could be in the form of constructing part of the project, but engineering and real estate are not part of this 20 - percent. - It is anticipated that construction would occur in Summer of 2015. - There is no option for the Corps to pay the City or District to do the repair work for them. We recommend that a representative of Tukwila attend any future meetings we have on this topic. If you have any additional questions or comments, please call or e-mail. Mark Howlett, P.E., Design Engineering Manager Design Engineering 1 Public Works Department 220 Fourth Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032 Phone 253-856-5523 1 Cell 253-740-5262 mhowlett@KentWA.gov CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON KentWA.gov Facebook YouTube From: Bob Giberson [mailto: Bob.Giberson@TukwilaWA.gov] Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 5:13 PM To: Langholz, Ken Cc: Ryan Larson; Howlett, Mark Subject: RE: Briscoe-Desimone Reach 1 Schedule aK)ri Vdith our ', h,, rr'i' ie permit, Bob Giberson, P.E. Public Works Director, City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 (206) 433-0179 (main) (206) 431-2457 (desk) The City of opportunity, the community of choice From: Langholz, Ken [mailto: KLangholz@kentwa.gov] Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 3:49 PM To: Bob Giberson 2 f Cc: Ryan Larson; Howlett, Mark Subject: Briscoe-Desimone Reach 1 Schedule Bob, Attached is our current schedule and the progress report that we submitted to the Flood Control District for last month. As you know, we have a meeting with the Corps of Engineers and the County on Tuesday to discuss the proposed PL84-99 project along Reach 1. Their work may affect our schedule. Ken Langholz, Engineering Supervisor Design Engineering 1 Public Works Department 220 Fourth Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032 Phone 253-856-5516 KENT klanciholz©KentWA.gov W*StriMO±OM www.KentWA.gov f e PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS E-MAIL From: Bob Giberson fmailto:Bob.Giberson(aTukwilaWA.govl Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 3:26 PM To: Langholz, Ken Cc: Ryan Larson Subject: RE: Briscoe-Desimone Reach 1 30% Review Ken: Can you give us a quick update on schedule? In passing last Friday you mentioned King County may be pushing your schedule out? Bob Giberson, P.E. Public Works Director, City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 (206) 433-0179 (main) (206) 431-2457 (desk) The City of opportunity, the community of choice From: Langholz, Ken [mailto:KLangholz@kentwa.gov] Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 2:33 PM To: Ryan Larson; Bob Giberson Subject: Briscoe-Desimone Reach 1 30% Review Ryan & Bob, Attached for your review and comments are the 30% plans for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee Reach 1. These are basically the same plans that were submitted to your Planning Dept. for the shoreline permit. Please provide any comments by June 16, 2014. Thanks, 3 KENT Wltaa,“.41.4 E LJ klangholzKentWA.gov www.KentWA.aov Ken Langholz, Engineering Supervisor Design Engineering 1 Public Works Department 220 Fourth Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032 Phone 253-856-5516 PLEASE Corisi-DuR THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS ETMETT 4 cr• I cOic 01.0....1.0.0004.3V0P0-0.0.00.1.03.000RIONolloonoliclOntoccooCoucp aoc Nom. MOM .0311011 MU OW 31.3 MVO POLSICIO0 ....coo...roNcroneta ofto WHOM 31tl Oral ICC. .1.310.1 =.1 oonon 1./110110•00 ASMOCOM NOIONIHSVIO 'MUM .00000 311.03S 610.00613 Scoi00 MOWS, NVId 3IJS 3Nowts3a 32,01 VONONOMJ0. 0 CO 1. • 0000000n,on..ow.0,r10 UN]wer.O'ro I.awon.c.V.a..,n s3o 1,4Oe/e1A A3uob Wel Nfv 31w I. ll < y �K - ma S.d. 1.1044.11.430 +a.. y..N 3.11 wLLANo.n rYNt WIMes .31.1s4, VVriw.Sgl NOu03S N0110310tld 400031 OOOT-30d 01tl3d3i13NOWIS30 .33.1113/111103110 rO� E ul rsNiwnN riceSin �uao`v13. moles N NOIONixnn. 3uav3s a]Oudw 311,36 5.3,110.10 6da0]ufav'S'fl n 3.w a>wuTia a Carol Lumb From: Karen Walter <KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 11:28 AM To: Carol Lumb Subject: RE: HEARING EXAMINER DECISION - Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements SMC -2013-1 RPP3-2130618 Attachments: Green_R_shade_analysis-4class-excerpt nr 180th-Tukwilapg Carol, As we discussed, I am sending you the potential shade map that Martin Fox from my team generated for the Reach 1 Briscoe-Desimone project. From this figure, you can see that shade is critical on the south side of the Green River. It is my understanding that the existing large sycamore trees in this area will be removed as part of construction activities. If there is any way that the project can avoid removing these trees, that would be good. If the City has further details about the extent of tree removal in this project area and the proposed mitigation for tree removal, we would appreciate the opportunity to review this information to determine if our previous concerns with tree removal are sufficiently addressed. If you have questions about this shade map, please let me know. Thank you! Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-876-3116 From: Carol Lumb fmailto:Carol.Lumb@TukwilaWA.govl Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 10:48 AM To: Karen Walter Subject: RE: HEARING EXAMINER DECISION - Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements SMC -2013-1 RPP3-2130618 Thanks Karen for the HE report and the City's response. Carol From: Karen Walter[mailto:KWalter©muckleshoot.nsn.usl Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 10:31 AM To: Carol Lumb Subject: FW: HEARING EXAMINER DECISION - Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements SMC -2013-1 RPP3-2130618 Importance: High Carol, Here is the Kent Hearing Examiner's report from Briscoe. Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-876-3116 1 From: Mottram, Pamela Jmailto:PMottram@kentwa.govl Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 12:20 PM Subject: HEARING EXAMINER DECISION - Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements SMC -2013-1 RPP3-2130618 Importance: High As Parties of Record, Please find ATTACHED the Hearing Examiner Decision issued May 8, 2013. Should you have questions concerning this Decision, please contact Erin George at egeorge@kentwa.gov. Sincerely, Pamela Mottram, Administrative Secretary ECD Administration I Economic & Community Development 400 West Gowe, Kent, WA 98032 Main 253-856-5454 I Direct 253-856-5459 pmottramOKentWA.Qov www.KentWA.aov n 7.:x47 4 2 11 _ 0 to o - 0 channel_centerline 0 — c D. r. 1. a. 4 c 4 1. tt IMO Cr Carol Lumb From: Karen Walter <KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 4:32 PM To: Carol Lumb Subject: Briscoe/Desimone Levee repairs, L14-0030 and L14-0031, Notice of Applications for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and Shoreline Variance Attachments: Briscoe-Desimone levee improvement comments ODNS.pdf Carol, Please accept my apologizes for the delay in getting comments to you in response to Tukwila's Notices of Applications for the Briscoe/Desimone levee project referenced above. I thought they had been sent to you sooner. I am sending you the comments that we sent to Kent for the entire project during their SEPA process which includes Reaches 1-4. As you know, only Reach 1 is the area that needs a shoreline permit from Tukwila. We have concerns for potential impacts to tribal fishing and fish habitat for the Reach 1 project. We have started the process of resolving tribal fishing access concerns directly with Kent Public Works staff but need to continue these discussions which may affect project designs, construction scheduling and construction site access, etc. I am also having my team finish reviewing the materials Tukwila provided for this project to verify there is no new information that may generate additional or modified comments. In the meantime, I would appreciate it if you could call me after you have had a chance to review our previous comments. Thank you! Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-876-3116 1 Ms. Erin George Kent Planning Services 220 4th Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE Fisheries Division 39015 -172"d Avenue SE • Auburn, Washington 98092-9763 Phone: (253) 939-3311 • Fax: (253) 931-0752 April 1, 2013 RE: Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project, Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non -Significance, Permit No. ENV -2013-3 (RPSW-2130616); Shoreline Substantial Development SMA -2013-2 (RPSP-2130617); Shoreline Conditional Use Permit SMC - 2013 -1 (RPP3-2130618) Dear Ms. George: The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program has reviewed the Notice of Application; environmental Checklist; available plans; and related documents for the Briscoe-Desimone levee improvement project that would install sheet -pile flood walls and conduct related work above the ordinary high-water mark (OHWM) at four locations in the Green River between river mile 14.5 and 17 over a total length of 4,000 feet. Kent Public Works and Engineering staff indicate that certain project designs have changed since these documents were issued. While these changes may add habitat features, the floodwall project will nevertheless cause direct, indirect, and cumulative adverse impacts to salmon and their habitat, and could impair Muckleshoot tribal fishing access. The purpose of this letter is to provide comments on the environmental documentation for the project, as well as, to provide comments on the larger context for our concerns. The project site and the lower Green River are a critical migration corridor for adult and juvenile life stages of two ESA listed species: Puget Sound Chinook and steelhead, and for other salmon species that provide subsistence, ceremonial, and commercial fisheries for Muckleshoot tribal members. The Green River is adjacent to the Muckleshoot Indian Reservation, and is a mainstay of the Tribe's salmon and steelhead treaty -protected fisheries. Salmon migration conditions along the length of the lower Green River in Kent and Tukwila are severely degraded by floodplain land use and flood control facility construction and maintenance. Water quality in the lower river is impaired by high and sometimes lethal temperatures (Coffin et al., 2011), and a lack of rearing habitat limits recovery of salmon runs (Kerwin and Nelson, 2000; Anchor Environmental, LLC, 2004). The river suffers from a severe shade deficiency along the levees and revetments, which constrain the river channel so much that the river is deeply entrenched. The result is nursery and refuge habitat for juvenile salmon are nearly non-existent. Even MITFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project ODNS holding pools required by adult salmon and steelhead arc scarce. April 1, 2013 Page 2 of 16 As Tribal Chair Virginia Cross indicated in a letter to Executive Constantine and Kent Mayor Cooke (2012) about the Briscoe-Desimone Levee project, the Muckleshoot Tribe supports setting back the Green River levees wherever feasible. In discussions with Kent staff beginning in 2010, we recommended an alternative approach for flood protection along the Briscoe-Desimone levee and in the lower Green River using levee setbacks. The National Marine Fisheries Services (2012) expressed support for the setback levee based on habitat benefits compared to the floodwall alternative stating that the floodwall would "maintain non-functional conditions." The Washington Department of Ecology (2013) also expressed support for the setback levee approach and expressed its concerns about the floodwall based on potential effects on groundwater flow to the river, floodplain connectivity, erosion, and habitat complexity and questioned its consistency with the City's approved 2009 Shoreline Master Program, as well as, the King County Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan. That plan recommends that the Briscoe Levee be setback in order to rebuild the existing, unstable levee and to increase flood conveyance capacity. Treaty Fishing Access Muckleshoot tribal members fish in this section of the river where project construction could interfere with this activity, including but not limited to vehicle parking and access, foot access, setting and retrieving nets. Project elements should be designed and maintained so as not to pose a future hindrance for tribal fishers accessing their fishing sites. To address these concerns for construction activities, we understand that the City is committed to adopting provisions for contract specifications, and addressing treaty fishing access during construction meetings. To facilitate this commitment, we request that the City coordinate the construction schedule and activities at least 30 days in advance by having the Project Manager contact me at 253-876-3116 (or alternatively, Glen St. Amant at 253-876-3130) to assist with this coordination. We request also that the City meet with us to discuss preserving access trails to fishing sites and other ways to avoid interfering with net fishing at those sites. Biological Assessment and Addendum In the Biological Assessment (BA) Addendum (2013) for the City's levee improvement projects, the project consultants now acknowledge that "the waterward side of the levee will experience a temporal loss in riparian vegetation." However, the BA Addendum does not identify that the project area is listed as temperature impaired in the Clean Water Act 303(d) list for the State and that a temperature TMDL study has been completed by Ecology requiring that actions be taken in the lower and middle Green River to address a shade deficiency, nor analyze the project's near-term or cumulative impacts to water temperature. Further, the BA Addendum does not analyze the temporal (near-term) riparian impacts or identify mitigation measures for these impacts. Figure 1 illustrates that temporal loss of riparian vegetation at other recent projects on the lower Green River caused widespread cumulative impacts to riparian shade, and that such losses yield direct impacts that persist for years while riparian shade is eliminated or reduced. The BA Addendum also failed to identify that the project will permanently remove many trees on the landward side of the levee within the project area, including all trees on the existing slope and proposed l5 -foot -wide access easement landward of the present levee crest. These trees currently shade the river, MITFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project ODNS April 1, 2013 Page 3 of 16 but neither short-term nor cumulative impacts of their removal have been considered, and nor has the permanent exclusion of trees from the landward levee slope and proposed access easement. Finally, neither the BA nor its Addendum consider the effects of future bank repairs on vegetation, shade, water temperature, or salmon habitat needs. King County (2013) has noted that the project floodwalls rely on the presence of river banks that will remain unstable, and thus require future bank maintenance and repair that is "not conducive to the establishment of functioning riparian habitat." Phased Environmental Review The City has avoided discussion of cumulative impacts by phasing environmental review without disclosure of its broader flood control plan for the Green River by considering each individual flood control project separately. While the Environmental Checklist acknowledges the Project is merely one component of a larger plan and specifies that the City is "in the process of having the entire right bank levee system within the city limits accredited by FEMA ", and that this Project "is one segment of the system improvements submitted for accreditation", there is no cumulative impact analysis. Phased review under SEPA is appropriate when going from plan -level to project -level, but in this case, the environmental impacts of the larger plan have not been identified, and potential alternatives and mitigation measures for the larger plan have not been considered. The City should analyze the cumulative environmental impacts of its overall effort to construct a series of levee projects and have the entire levee system within the city limits accredited by FEMA. Design Changes We understand that design changes have made subsequent to the project descriptions provided in the Notice of Application (and its referenced documents), Environmental Checklist, and design plans dated February 22, 2013. The list below summarizes our understanding of design changes explained during phone conversations and meetings since the Notice of Application was circulated for public comment: Habitat and Planting Bench Dimensions: • Benches will start at an elevation close to Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) (i.e., inundation will commence at flows about 500 cfs or less above OHWM) • Benches will commonly start closer than 10 feet horizontal distance from OHWM (unless large, overhanging willows are present) • Benches within Reaches 1, 2, and 3 will have a total length of about 4000 feet (no bench is planned for Reach 4) • Benches will range up to about 40 feet in width, and average 25 feet in width • Benches will drop toward the river at about 6:1 slope Vegetation Plans: • Excavations for benches will generally avoid disturbance of existing willows rooted near OWHM and overhang the river • All vegetation waterward of the flood walls will be exempt from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers MITFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desimonc Levee Improvement Project ODNS April 1, 2013 Page 4 of 16 vegetation standards for levees (because the floodwall is the levee) • The City plans to maintain a 15 -foot -wide path inboard of the Green River trail so that is largely free of vegetation other than grass. • The City plans to maintain view corridors through bank vegetation along about 20 percent of the project length • Apart from view corridors and the Green River trail margin, there will be no restrictions on tree height, or trunk diameter inboard of flood walls • Trees planted on benches will be spaced at about 15-20 feet on center and one row deep in most places, allow to grow 10 inches in diameter or possibly larger • Trees will he planted on slopes between excavated benches and the Green River trail for an average width of 25 feet of planting buffer. • The City plans to enroll Briscoe-Desimone levee in PL84-99 program Conclusions and Recommendations We are concerned that the floodwalls do not provide sufficiently wide space for both a wide vegetated buffer and for habitat benches for juvenile fish. The potential benefits for either shade or rearing habitat appear to be uncertain, speculative, and/or illusory. It is not clear to us what vegetation maintenance standards will eventually be applied to the floodwall facilities in the O&M manual required by FEMA. It should be noted that 10 inch diameter trees approved by Kent's certifying engineers are roughly half as tall compared to a system potential tree height of 105 feet noted in the TMDL study, and that a buffer of 75- 150 feet will likely be needed to address temperature impairment. The remainder of the Briscoe- Desimone Levee, if not set back an adequate distance, and if enrolled in the PL 84-99 program, will likely remain shade deficient even with an approved vegetation variance from the Corps of Engineers based on the draft variance policy guidance. Moreover, given that the riverbank is expected to continue to erode towards the floodwall sections, it seems likely that the planted vegetation will be subject to bank erosion or disturbance from future repairs or armoring of the existing levee in front of the floodwall. The project's impacts to riparian shade and water temperature in contrast to a setback levee have not been adequately considered. The City has not conducted a comprehensive analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts arising from its larger plan for Green river levee improvements and FEMA accreditation so that appropriate mitigation can be provided. It seems to us that the floodwall plan will only snake it more difficult (in the System Wide Improvement Framework or otherwise) to develop a river corridor plan that can achieve a sustainable migration and floodplain rearing habitat for salmon. This project just makes levee setbacks elsewhere in the lower Green River even more important. Before plans are finalized and permitted, we request an opportunity to meet with Kent staff to discuss project plans for levee vegetation, which could be improved by reducing the extent of view corridors, and planting trees locally within 15 feet of the Green River trail. It is also important to clarify whether vegetation management will differ in relation to the presence or absence of a floodwall along different MITFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project ODNS April 1, 2013 Page 5 of 16 portions of the Briscoe-Desimone levee. In addition, the section of the Briscoe-Desimone Levee Operation and Maintenance Manual that pertain to vegetation (GEI, 2012) should be examined to clarify the extent to which bank instability will limit tree height and diameter growth. We appreciate an opportunity to review this proposal and look forward to the City's responses. We would appreciate a written response to these comments before the City submits peiuiit applications for a Hydraulic Project Approval. Please call me at 253-876-3116 if you have any questions or would like to meet to discuss these comments further. Sincerely, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Cc: Larry Fisher, WDFW, Region 4 References Anchor Environmental, L.L.C, 2004, Lower Green River Baseline Habitat Survey Report, Report prepared for WRIA 9 Technical Committee and King County Department of Natural Resources. Coffin, C., S. Lee, and C.L DeGasperi, 2011, Green River temperature total maximum daily load: water quality improvement report: Publication No. 11-10-046, June, 2011, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA, 163 p. (accessed 2012-02-15 at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/1110046.pdf). Kerwin, J., and Nelson, T.S., (eds.), 2000, Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment Report, Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watersheds (WRIA 9 and Vashon Island): Washington Conservation Commission and the King County Depai tuient of Natural Resources. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., 2011, Biological assessment, Green River levee improvements, river mile 14.25 to river mile 22.00, Kent, Washington: report 21-1-12339-002, by O'Neill, B., and Corbin, S., submitted to City of Kent Public Works Engineering, Kent, WA, October 3, 2011, 19 p., 3 figures, 2 appendixes, and attachment. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., 2013, Addendum to biological assessment, Green River levee improvements project, river mile 14.25 to river mile 22.00, Kent, Washington: 4 p. MITFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project ODNS Figure 1. Shade deficiencies at recent levee projects on lower Green River. April 1, 2013 Page 6 of 16 Horseshoe Bend Site #1 levee project, constructed 2009 on RB (at right in photo). View DS from near RM 26.0 on 2012-08- 27, about 1430. Water is not shaded by project vegetation three years after construction. Most water in view would be shaded if the project site hosted mature trees like those on far bank. MITFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project ODNS April 1, 2013 Page 7 of 16 Downstream end of Kent Shops / Narita levee project, constructed 2008 on RB (at left in photo). View US from near RM 20.4 on 2012-08- 27, about 1450. Here water is not shaded by project vegetation four years after construction. MITFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project ODNS April 1, 2013 Page 8 of 16 Figure 1 (continued). Shade deficiencies at recent levee projects on lower Green River. Wide view of Briscoe Levee 4 project, constructed 2007 on RB (above center in photo). View US from near RM 16.3 on 2012-08-27, about 1640. MITFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project ODNS April 1, 2013 Page 9 of 16 Close view of Briscoe Levee 4 project, constructed 2007 on RB (above center in photo). View US from near RM 16.3 on 2012-08-27, about 1640.Five years after construction, project vegetation shades only several square meters of water surface near project's downstream end. MITFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project ODNS April 1, 2013 Page 10 of 16 •j Gree ontinuccl ), ltadµc cle tuacni tc5 at recant levee �ro'cets on lower Cn River. Upstream end of Tukwila Site #3 vee project, constructed 2008 n LB (at left in photo). View DS from near RM 14.6, on 2012-08- 27, about 1530. Shaded water on right side of channel (opposite Tukwila Site #3 project) illustrates a direct benefit of mature levee vegetation. That shade will be eliminated by the project. MITFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project ODNS April 1, 2013 Page 11 of 16 Downstream end of Tukwila Site #3 levee project, constructed 2008 on LB (at right in photo). View US from near RM 14.4, on 2012-08- 27, about 1550. Shadows from trees on opposite bank illustrate a fraction of the histoncal shade potential for this portion of project site. Here, however, water is not shaded by project vegetation four years after construction. M1TFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project ODNS April 1, 2013 Page 12 of 16 Horseshoe Bend Site #1 levee project, constructed 2009 on RB (at right in photo). View DS from near RM 26.0 on 2012-08- 27, about 1430. Water is not shaded by project vegetation three years after construction. Most water in view would be shaded if the project site hosted mature trees like those on far bank. Downstream end of Kent Shops / Narita levee project, constructed 2008 on RB (at left in photo). View US from near RM 20.4 on 2012-08- 27, about 1450. Here water is not shaded by project vegetation four years after construction. MITFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project ODNS April 1, 2013 Page 13 of 16 Figure 1 (continued). Shade deficiencies at recent levee projects on lower Green River. Wide view of Briscoe Levee 4 project, constructed 2007 on R13 (above center in photo). View US from near RM 16.3 on 2012-08-27, about 1640. MITFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project ODNS April 1, 2013 Page 14 of 16 Close view of Briscoe Levee 4 project, constructed 2007 on RB (above center in photo). View US from near RM 16.3 on 2012-08-27, about 1640. Five years after construction, project vegetation shades only several square meters of water surface near project's downstream end. • MITFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project ODNS April 1, 2013 Page 15 of 16 Fitzure 1 i ottttttutd) Shade deficiencies at recent levee lvo ects on lower Gres°tt River. Upstream end of Tukwila Site #3 levee project, constructed 2008 on LR (at left in photo). View DS from near RM 14.6, on 2012-08- 27, about 1530. Shaded water on right side of channel (opposite Tukwila Site #3 project) illustrates a direct benefit of mature levee vegetation. That shadewill be eliminated by the project. MITFD Habitat Program Comments to Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project ODNS April 1, 2013 Page 16 of 16 Downstream end of Tukwila Site #3 levee project, constructed 2008 on LB (at right in photo). View US from near RM 14.4, on 2012-08- 27, about 1550. Shadows from trees on opposite bank illustrate a fraction of the historical shade potential for this portion of project site. Here, however, water is not shaded by project vegetation four years after construction. Carol Lumb From: Karen Walter <KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 4:32 PM To: Carol Lumb Subject: Briscoe/Desimone Levee repairs, L14-0030 and L14-0031, Notice of Applications for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and Shoreline Variance Attachments: Briscoe-Desimone levee improvement comments ODNS.pdf Carol, Please accept my apologizes for the delay in getting comments to you in response to Tukwila's Notices of Applications for the Briscoe/Desimone levee project referenced above. I thought they had been sent to you sooner. I am sending you the comments that we sent to Kent for the entire project during their SEPA process which includes Reaches 1-4. As you know, only Reach 1 is the area that needs a shoreline permit from Tukwila. We have concerns for potential impacts to tribal fishing and fish habitat for the Reach 1 project. We have started the process of resolving tribal fishing access concerns directly with Kent Public Works staff but need to continue these discussions which may affect project designs, construction scheduling and construction site access, etc. I am also having my team finish reviewing the materials Tukwila provided for this project to verify there is no new information that may generate additional or modified comments. In the meantime, I would appreciate it if you could call me after you have had a chance to review our previous comments. Thank you! Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-876-3116 1 Carol Lumb SSC t, IL( o D so -Fol From: Carol Lumb Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 4:37 PM To: Langholz, Ken (KLangholz@kentwa.gov) Cc: kpeterson@kentwa.gov; mknox@kentwa.gov Subject: Shoreline Variance Attachments: shoreline_variance_criteria.pdf; Kent_shoreline_variance_questions.pdf Hi Ken, I am following up on my voice mail to you this afternoon. I am attaching questions about from Sandra Whiting, our Urban Environmentalist, on the planting plan and also the criteria for a shoreline variance that need to be answered — hopefully I did not miss this in all the materials but I only find a narrative supporting the variance request. I will need responses from the City of Kent to the variance criteria to plug into the staff report and then responses to Sandra's questions as well. We did not get any outside parties commenting on the shoreline permit or the shoreline variance. As I mentioned, I am out of the office most of Monday, arriving around 3:00. I am in on Tuesday and Wednesday then out the rest of the week. If you have any questions, let me know. Thanks. Carol Carol Lurnb, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 206-431-3661 Garai- umb@Tukwila J'Va,gov Tukwila, the City of opportunity, the community of choice. 1 'Project Reviews Enter Project Number L14-0030 ,11 1 1 of 1 > >1 100% Project Number: 114-0030 Applied: 5/1/2014 Closed: Status: UNDER REVIEW Parent Project: PL14-0021 Details: Approved: Expired: Find 1 Next Project Reviews City of Tukwila Description: Page 1 of 2 L View Report j 0 Site Address: 18200 CASCADE AVE S City, State Zip Code: TUKWILA, Applicant: KEN LANGHOLZ Owner: RIVERPOINT TWO LLC Contractor: <NONE> LIST OF REVIEWS SENT DATE RETURNED DATE DUE DATE TYPE CONTACT STATUS REMARKS Review Group: ALL 5/29/2014 6/12/2014 6/12/2014 FIRE DonTomaso APPROVED Notes: the fire department. Fire has no concerns at this time. Project will not impact private fire main based on the drawings on file at Review Group: AUTO 5/1/2014 5/14/2014 5/8/2014 COMPLETENESS Carol Lumb COMPLETE Notes: 5/1/2014 5/1/2014 5/4/2014 ASSIGNED Minnie Dhaliwal ASSIGNED Notes: Review Group: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 5/22/2014 6/4/2014 6/5/2014 PUBLIC WORKS Dave McPherson APPROVED Notes: Public Works has no comments. 5/22/2014 6/30/2014 PLANNING Carol Lumb UNDER REVIEW Notes: Circulated to Sandra for environmental review. 6/4/2014 6/4/2014 6/4/2014 PLANNING Sandra Whiting CORRECTIONS REQ Notes: of points, which causes confusion about what is really being Comments Briscoe-Desimone 1. The plans and the Levee Improvements, L14-0030 Biological Assessment Addendum are not consistent on a couple http://trakapp/trakit9/DocumentV fewer. aspx?&amp;report=/Documents/PROJECTS/Proj ... 06/27/2014 Project Reviews Page 2 of 2 proposed (but doesn't necessarily change the conclusion of the B.A.). a.The B.A. Addendum states that existing native plants will be preserved at 10 feet above the OHWM, but the plans show that the preservation width will only be 5 feet. The County should explain why 10 feet of native plantings cannot be preserved. b.The plans and the document entitled "Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Briscoe-Desimone Levee Project", which contains a project description, states that there will be a bench of up to 31 feet. Do we assume this "bench" means the 6:1 slope portion of the levee above the OHWM? The B.A. Addendum, meanwhile mentions a 12 foot wide bench. I assume the plans are showing the actual intention? 2.The plans do not indicate anything about maintenance or monitoring of the levee plantings. The B.A. Addendum states that plants will be maintained for 2 years. Even though the Shoreline code doesn't specify a maintenance period, I think we should try to get at least 3 years, until weeds are under control and all plants can survive without irrigation (especially the plants on the upper part of the levee. 3.The planting plans meet the Shoreline code in terms of density and appropriate species for the site. 4.PIan Sheet 2 of 24. The Shoreline jurisdiction boundary is labeled as a "Shoreline Buffer", instead of a shoreline "environment". I find it to be confusing, as the actual buffer is also called a buffer "125 ft Urban Conservancy Buffer". 5.Plan Sheet 19 of 24. The plan shows Black Cottonwood stakes with a maximum diameter of 6 inches, which makes no sense. Is this just a typo or are fascines being proposed for the Cottonwoods, as they are for the willows? 6.Sheet 22 of 24. Provide a detail for the fascines. Printed: Friday, 27 June, 2014 1 of 1 http://trakapp/trakit9/DocumentV iewer.aspx?&amp;report=/Documents/PROJECTS/Proj ... 06/27/2014 'Project Reviews r1 Page 2 of 2 proposed (but doesn't necessarily change the conclusion of the B.A.). a.The B.A. Addendum states that existing native plants will be preserved at 10 feet above the OHWM, but the plans show that the preservation width will only be 5 feet. The County should explain why 10 feet of native plantings cannot be preserved. b.The plans and the document entitled "Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Briscoe-Desimone Levee Project", which contains a project description, states that there will be a bench of up to 31 feet. Do we assume this "bench" means the 6:1 slope portion of the levee above the OHWM? The B.A. Addendum, meanwhile mentions a 12 foot wide bench. I assume the plans are showing the actual intention? 2.The plans do not indicate anything about maintenance or monitoring of the levee plantings. The B.A. Addendum states that plants will be maintained for 2 years. Even though the Shoreline code doesn't specify a maintenance period, I think we should try to get at least 3 years, until weeds are under control and all plants can survive without irrigation (especially the plants on the upper part of the levee. 3.The planting plans meet the Shoreline code in terms of density and appropriate species for the site. 4.PIan Sheet 2 of 24. The Shoreline jurisdiction boundary is labeled as a "Shoreline Buffer", instead of a shoreline "environment". I find it to be confusing, as the actual buffer is also called a buffer "125 ft Urban Conservancy Buffer". 5.PIan Sheet 19 of 24. The plan shows Black Cottonwood stakes with a maximum diameter of 6 inches, which makes no sense. Is this just a typo or are fascines being proposed for the Cottonwoods, as they are for the willows? 6.Sheet 22 of 24. Provide a detail for the fascines. Printed: Monday, 23 June, 2014 1 of 1 'SYSTEMS http://trakapp/trakit9/DocumentV iewer.aspx?&amp;report=/Documents/PROJECTS/Proj ... 06/23/2014 Project Reviews Enter Project Number L14-0030 1 of 1 ) > 100% Project Number: 1.14-0030 Applied: 5/1/2014 Closed: Status: UNDER REVIEW Parent Project: PL14-0021 Details: Approved: Expired: Project Reviews City of Tukwila Description: Page 1 of 2' View Report Site Address: 18200 CASCADE AVE S City, State Zip Code: TUKWILA, Applicant: KEN LANGHOLZ Owner: RIVERPOINT TWO LLC Contractor: <NONE> LIST OF REVIEWS SENT DATE RETURNED DATE DUE DATE TYPE CONTACT STATUS REMARKS Review Group: ALL 5/29/2014 6/12/2014 6/12/2014 FIRE Don Tomaso APPROVED Notes: Fire has no concerns at this time. Project will not impact private fire main based on the drawings on file at the fire department. Review Group: AUTO 5/1/2014 5/1/2014 5/4/2014 ASSIGNED Minnie Dhaliwal ASSIGNED Notes: 5/1/2014 5/14/2014 5/8/2014 COMPLETENESS Carol Lumb COMPLETE Notes: Review Group: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 5/22/2014 6/4/2014 6/5/2014 PUBLIC WORKS Dave McPherson APPROVED Notes: Public Works has no comments. 5/22/2014 6/30/2014 PLANNING Carol Lumb UNDER REVIEW Notes: Circulated to Sandra for ervironmental review. 6/4/2014 6/4/2014 6/4/2014 PLANNING Sandra Whiting CORRECTIONS REQ Notes: Comments Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements, L14-0030 1. The plans and the Biological Assessment Addendum are not consistent on a couple of points, which causes confusion about what is really being http://trakapp/trakit9/DocumentV fewer. aspx?&amp;report=/Documents/PROJECTS/Prof ... 06/23/2014 May 22, 2014 7 1 City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION Mr. Ken Langholz, P.E. City of Kent Public Works Dept. 220 4t Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 RE: L14-0030, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and L14-0031, Shoreline Variance Dear Ken: Your applications for a Shoreline Substantial Development permit and a Shoreline Variance were determined to be complete on May 14, 2014 for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. A public hearing on the Shoreline Variance has been set for 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, July 22, 2014 in conference room number 2, located at the DCD offices, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100, Tukwila, WA. 98188. 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 permits identified above. It is your responsibility to apply for and obtain all necessary permits issued by other agencies. If you have any questions please call me at 206-431-3661 or email me at Carol.Lumb@tukwilawa.gov. Sincerely, Carol Lumb Senior Planner CL Page 1 of 1 H:\\L14-0030 & L14-0031 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repair\Complete 05/22/2014 5:03:51 PM CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF APPLICATION PROJECT INFORMATION The City of Kent has filed a shoreline substantial development permit application to install a structural steel sheet pile wall at the back of existing levee on the Green River to reduce flood risk to the cities of Renton, Kent and Tukwila and a shoreline variance to construct a different levee profile from that required by Tukwila's Shoreline Master Program. The waterward side of the levee will be reconfigured and planted with native plants. The structural steel sheet pile wall will be installed on levee behind 18200 Cascade Ave. S. and is referred to as "Reach 1" of the Briscoe/Desimone levee repair. A second repair is taking place at "Reach 2", a very small portion of which (200 feet) falls within the City of Tukwila. Tukwila's portion of Reach 2 is found behind the building located at 6545 South Glacier Street. Permits applied for include: L14-0030: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit L14-0031: Shoreline Variance Other known required permits include: Public Works permit for hauling Studies required with the applications include: The City of Kent has provided the following studies: Biological Assessment, dated 10/3/11, prepared by Shannon and Wilson Engineers; FEMA Accreditation Report Volumes 1-3, prepared by GEI Consultants, dated April, 2012; and Cultural Resources Assessment, prepared by Historical Research Associates, Inc., dated March 18, 2013; and the Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLMR) Application to FEMA dated 10/24/11 along with a number of supporting materials. A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) for the entire levee repair project, which involves four separate sites located primarily in the City of Kent, was issued by the City of Kent on April 9, 2013. FILES AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW The project files are available at the City of Tukwila. To view the files, you may request them at the counter at the Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard #100. Please call the number listed below to make arrangements to view the files. Project Files include: L14-0030: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and L14-0031: Shoreline Variance OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT Your written comments on the project are requested. They must be delivered to DCD at the address below or postmarked no later than 5:00 P.M., June 23, 2014. Opportunity for additional oral and/or written public comments will be provided at a public hearing before the Tukwila Hearing Examiner scheduled for Tuesday, July 22, 2014 at 9:30 a.m.in Conference Room #2, at the DCD offices: 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100, Tukwila, WA 98188. To confirm the hearing date call the Department of Community Development at (206) 431-3661. APPEALS You may request a copy of any decision, information on hearings, and your appeal rights by calling DCD at (206) 431-3670. Both the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and Shoreline Variance are appealable to the Washington State Shoreline Hearings Board. For further information on this proposal, contact Carol Lumb at (206) 431-3661 or visit our offices at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100, Tukwila, WA 98188, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Application Filed: Notice of Completeness Issued: Notice of Application Issued: CL April 30, 2014 May 13, 2014 May 22, 2014 05/20/2014 5:55 PM 0 Shoreline Master Program Variance Application Desimone Levee Improvements Applicant: City of Kent, 4/30/14 The City of Kent is currently working in conjunction with the City of Tukwila and the King County Flood Control District under separate Interlocal Agreements to protect citizens and businesses from flooding. The proposed project will reconstruct weakened sections of the levee system to meet federal levee safety standards which will provide increased flood protection to commercial and residential areas of Tukwila, Renton, and Kent. The Desimone Levee is located along the right bank of the Green River between S. 189th St. and S. 180th St. in Tukwila. Reach 1 of the Desimone Levee extends from approximately 700' west of West Valley Highway (WVH) to the shoulder of WVH. This project has been reviewed and authorized by the King County Flood Control District Board of Supervisors. A variance to the levee profile is being requested for the following reasons: The riverbank along Reach 1 currently is over -steepened. The top of the levee is narrow and is showing signs of failure. Flows of just over 9,000 cubic feet per second (CFS) in March of this year caused bank sloughing and erosion. This flow is far below the 12,000 CFS 100 -year flood event storms that can be expected in this reach. Detailed analysis of the levees completed by expert consultants as part of a request to FEMA for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) indicated that this area does not meet federal standards for slope stability. Hydraulic models show that a failure of Reach 1 could potentially inundate the valley from approximately S. 228th St. to I-405. The movement of the bank and other factors noted indicates that a quick and effective solution is required. The Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan "Minimum Levee Profile" requires a 2.5:1 average slope (horizontal : vertical) from the river bottom to the top of the levee. This average slope is comprised of 2:1 slopes with a 15' wide mid -slope bench. As shown on the attached levee cross section comparisons, the minimum levee profile would extend into WVH and the driveways and fire lanes of the adjacent businesses. Strict compliance with the code would then require relocating WVH which would require purchasing and demolishing buildings and relocating businesses located along the easterly side of the road. Also, the minimum levee profile would impact the driveway and fire lane of the businesses to the south of the levee. This would require disruption and relocation of business parking and property landward of the levee. The added time and expense of acquiring these properties would delay completion of this project. The proposed levee profile minimizes property acquisition to the extent possible and avoids acquisition of buildings and disruption of business activity. Page 1 of 3 The proposed design includes a 6:1 bench on the lower portion of the bank adjacent to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), a 2:1 upper slope topped by a 16' wide trail adjacent to a sheet -pile flood -wall (See Plans, sheets 6-7). This proposed new levee system will provide 3 feet of additional flood protection above the 500 -year flood event. This levee proposal has been thoroughly reviewed and accepted by knowledgeable structural engineers. According to the approved Tukwila SMP, "Where there is insufficient room for a levee backslope due to the presence of legal nonconforming structures existing at the time of the adoption of this SMP, a floodwall may be substituted" (pg. 13). The sloping bench will be engaged whenever the river reaches approximately 2,500 CFS. This occurs on average 39 days each year between January and June, the period when threatened Chinook salmon are typically out -migrating from the Green River. The 15' wide bench shown on the SMP minimum levee profile only engages when the river is at approximately 5,500 CFS. This flood level occurs on average only once or twice each year. Flood refuge habitat is recognized as one of the limiting factors for salmon recovery in the Green River. The proposed levee profile will increase this flood refuge habitat substantially over the profile prescribed in the Tukwila SMP. After recontouring, this proposed lower bench as well as the adjacent slopes will be replanted with hundreds of native shrubs and trees. This planting will markedly increase available shoreline habitat for fish and wildlife and improve natural shoreline functions. Shading will also increase on a waterway that experiences frequent exceedances of State temperature standards. The proposed trail width is 12' wide with a 2' wide paved shoulder along the floodwall and a 2' wide gravel shoulder along the riverward side of the trail, for a total width of 16'. The Tukwila SMP shows an 18' minimum width. This section of trail dead -ends at the parking lot next to WVH. The proposed trail width meets King County trail standards and is 2' wider than the trail it is connecting to. In addition, this width allows the lower bench to be 2' wider which increases the riparian zone and the flood refuge habitat that it provides. Implementation of the proposed design will allow the businesses to continue operation as well as improve their flood protection. Users of the Green River Trail will continue to be able to enjoy the river views. The proposed design will improve the shoreline environment over current conditions with more connectivity between the river and the shoreline and greatly improve the life of salmonids reliant upon the river. This project is for the common good of Tukwila, Kent and Renton. No people or businesses in the area will be displaced with the proposed design. This would not constitute "special privilege"; it is an opportunity to complete this project in a Page 2 of 3 timely and cost effective manner which is appropriate considering the weakened state of the levee which doesn't meet federal levee safety standards. By granting the variance for this design change there will be a small portion of the riverbank in Tukwila that does not have the desired SMP slope, but it will provide overall improvement with the least negative issues for all involved. Page 3 of 3 / • at* °f Ju11wiea Department Of Community Development AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I, Teri Svedahl , HEREBY DECLARE THAT: x Notice of Application Mailing requested by: Carol Lumb Notice of Decision x Notice of Public Hearing Notice of Public Meeting Determination of Non- Significance Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit Shoreline Mgmt Permit Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Official Notice Notice of Action Other: Was mailed to each of the addresses listed/attached on this _21 day of May 2013 Project Name: Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repair Project Number: PL14-0021 Associated File Number (s): L14-0030 Mailing requested by: Carol Lumb Mailer's signature: 4 /M/yr/., P i',_______ /_--� \_ W:\USERS\TERI\TEMPLATES-FORMS\AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION.DOC • S 180th Street Tukwila I Project Description: Shoreline permit & variance to install sheet pile wall at back of existing levee to reduce flood risk at Reach 1. Vary the levee profile required by the Shoreline Master Program at Reach 1 & 2, & remove 35 stumps from the levee system adjacent to Reach 2. Reach 2 is located on the Green River adjacent to 6545 S Glacier Street, Tukwila City of Tukwila Notice of Application & Public Hearing Project name/location: Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repair— Green River Reaches 1 & 2 File#s: L14-0030 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and L14-0031 Shoreline Variance Planner: Carol Lumb 206-431-3661 Carol.Lumb @TukwilaWA.gov You are receiving this notice because you are a property owner or tenant within 500ft of this project. Your written comments on the project are requested and can be delivered to DCD, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Ste 100, Tukwila, WA 98188. Comments must be received by 5:OOpm on June 23, 2014. A Public Hearing on the shoreline variance is scheduled for July 22, 2014 @ 9:30 am at the above address. You may request a copy of any decision, infor- mation on the hearing and your appeal rights by calling the number above. s C)Tosrca/v-eC \i �1 . C 1� AGENCY LABELS 0 I\i-D is -fvvt, H . S Corps of Engineers ( Federal HWY Admin ( ) Federal Transit Admin, Region 10 ( ) Dept of Fish & Wildlife Section 1 FEDERAL AGENCIES ( ) US Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) ( ) US Dept of HUD ( ) National Marine Fisheries Service Section 2 WAS (Office of Archaeology ( ) Transportation Department (WSDOT NW) Dept of Natural Resources– t.30 C. 1> ( ) Office of the Governor ( ) WA State Community Development ( ) WA Fisheries & Wildlife, MillCreek Office WA Fisheries & Wildlife, Larry Fisher, 1775 12th Ave NW Ste 201, Issaquah WA 98027 NGTON STATE AGENCIES ( Dept of Social & Health Services Dept of Ecology NW Regional Office, Shoreland Div. SHORELINE NOD REQUIRES RETURN RECEIPT ( ) Dept of Ecology, SEPA **Send Electronically office of Attorney General ( ) Office of Hearing Examiner Section 3 ( ) KC Boundary Review Board ( ) Fire District # 11 ( ) Fire District # 2 ( ) KC Wastewater Treatment Div ( ) KC Dept of Parks & Recreation ( ) KC Assessor's Office KING COUNTY AGENCIES ( ) Health Department ( ) Port of Seattle ( ) KC Dev & Enviro Services-SEPA Info Center ( ) KC Metro Transit Div-SEPA Official, Environmental Planning KC Dept of Natural Resources KC Dept of Natural Resources, Andy Levesque ( ) KC Public Library System jFoster Library ( ) Renton Library ( ) Kent Library ( ) Seattle Library Section 4 HOOLS/LIBRARIES f. Westfield Mall Library ( ) Tukwila School District ) Highline School District ( ) Seattle School District ( ) Renton School District ( ) QWEST Communications ( ) Seattle City Light ( ) Puget Sound Energy ( ) Highline Water District ( ) Seattle Planning &Dev/Water Dept ( ) Comcast Section 5 UTILITIES ( ) BP Olympic Pipeline ( ) Val-Vue Sewer District ( ) Water District # 20 ( ) Water District # 125 City of Renton Public Works ( ) Bryn Mawr-Lakeridge Sewer/Water Dist ( ) Seattle Public Utilities ( ) Allied Waste Services Z,( ( ) Tukwila City Departments b4Public Works ( ) Fire Police ( ) Finance ( ) Planning ( ) Building ( ) Parks & Rec ( ) Mayor ( ) City Clerk Sect' CITY AGENCIES .Kent Planning Dept 144 Renton Planning Dept ( ) City of SeaTac ( ) City of Burien ( ) City of Seattle ( ) Strategic Planning *Notice of all Seattle Related Projects ( ) Puget Sound Regional Council ) SW KC Chamber of Commerce N) M ckleshoot Indian Tribe * Cultural Resources V Fisheries Program__, NGw4_ r°'f Wildlife Program Duwamish Indian Tribe Section 7 OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES ( ) Puget Sound Clean Air Agency ( ) Sound Transit/SEPA �, Duwamish River Clean Up Coalition * ( ) Washington Environmental Council -.People for Puget Sound * ( ) Futurewise * send notice of all applications on Green/Duwamish River ( ) Seattle Times ( ) South County Journal Section 8 MEDIA ( ) Highline Times ( ) City of Tukwila Website P:Admin\Admin Forms\Agency Checklist AtttetAm, td cr1T.'`'' ,A la" _ ._nnu�.( Y i t n k4w. v' 15 .44CPAAA4*0 Public Notice Mailings For Permits SEPA MAILINGS Mail to: (comment period starts on date of mailing) Dept. of Ecology Environmental Review Section *Applicant *Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list) *Any parties of record * send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination KC Transit Division — SEPA Official would like to receive information about all projects that might affect transit demand Tribes — For any application on the Green/Duwamish River, send the checklist and a full set of plans with the Notice Of Application Send These Documents to DOE: SEPA Determination (from PermitsPlus) Findings (staff report, usu. with MDNS) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed or sent to newspaper) SHORELINE MAILINGS: Notice of Application for a Substantial Development Permit must be mailed to owners and to property owners within 500 feet of subject property, comments are due 30 days after the notice of application is mailed/posted. The Notice of Application for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit must include a statement that any person desiring to submit written comments on the application or desiring to receive notification of the final decision on the application may do so within 30 days of the Notice of Application. If a hearing will be held on the application, the hearing notice must include the information that written comments may be submitted, or oral presentation made at the hearing. Notice is sent to Ecology's NW Regional Office Shorelands & Environmental Assistance Program. Shoreline Permit Notice of Decision: Mail to: (within 8 days of decision; 21 -day appeal period begins date of filing with DOE) — Notice to DOE must be by return receipt requested Mail (this requirement included in SSB 5192, effective 7-22-11). Department of Ecology Shorelands Section, NW Regional Office State Attorney General *Applicant *Indian Tribes *Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list). *Any parties of record * send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination Send These Documents to DOE and Attorney General: Permit Data Sheet Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (printed out from PermitsPlus) Findings (staff report or memo) Shoreline Permit Application Form (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) - Site plan, with mean high water mark & improvements — Cross-sections of site with structures & shoreline Grading Plan — Vicinity map SEPA determination (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report or memo) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Any background studies related to impacts on shoreline Notice of Application Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed) P:Admin\Admin Forms\Agency Checklist Cascade Bicycle Club P.O. Box 15165 Seattle Wa 98115 Bicycle Alliance of Washington P.O. Box 2904 Seattle Wa 98111 ff c.-\C(L_ 17(--`JS*5 ulr J fi/c2S GiWW`2 5454NR-sc 04.,(4.0.4)fied°k) "Neller, John R" <john.r.nelleraboeinQ.com> John Neller Boeing Employees Bicycle Club FirstName LastName Address CityState Zip Petersen & Roser Davis # 2 BRIDLEWOOD CIR KIRKLAND WA 98033 COMMUNITY MEMBER 18035 SPERRY DR TUKWILA 98188 COMMUNITY MEMBER 18200 CASCADE AVE S TUKWILA 98188 COMMUNITY MEMBER 18200 OLYMPIC AVE S TUKWILA 98188 COMMUNITY MEMBER 18201 OLYMPIC AVE S TUKWILA 98188 * BCE OWNERS LLC 18215 72ND AVE S KENT WA 98032 COMMUNITY MEMBER 18235 OLYMPIC AVE S TUKWILA 98188 COMMUNITY MEMBER 18249 OLYMPIC AVE S TUKWILA 98188 COMMUNITY MEMBER 18251 CASCADE AVE S TUKWILA 98188 COMMUNITY MEMBER 18260 OLYMPIC AVE S TUKWILA 98188 COMMUNITY MEMBER 18289 OLYMPIC AVE S TUKWILA 98188 COMMUNITY MEMBER 18290 OLYMPIC AVE S TUKWILA 98188 COMMUNITY MEMBER 18300 CASCADE AVE S TUKWILA 98188 COMMUNITY MEMBER 18325 OLYMPIC AVE S TUKWILA 98188 COMMUNITY MEMBER 18340 OLYMPIC AVE S TUKWILA 98188 COMMUNITY MEMBER 18350 OLYMPIC AVE S TUKWILA 98188 COMMUNITY MEMBER 18351 CASCADE AVE S TUKWILA 98188 COMMUNITY MEMBER 18360 OLYMPIC AVE S TUKWILA 98188 COMMUNITY MEMBER 18370 OLYMPIC AVE S TUKWILA 98188 COMMUNITY MEMBER 18375 CASCADE AVE 5 TUKWILA 98188 COMMUNITY MEMBER 18380 OLYMPIC AVE S TUKWILA 98188 COMMUNITY MEMBER 18393 CASCADE AVE S TUKWILA 98188 COMMUNITY MEMBER 18401 CASCADE AVE S TUKWILA 98188 COMMUNITY MEMBER 18404 CASCADE AVE S TUKWILA 98188 COMMUNITY MEMBER 18409 CASCADE AVE S TUKWILA 98188 COMMUNITY MEMBER 18417 CASCADE AVE S TUKWILA 98188 * SNIDER & ASSOCIATES LLC 18420 68TH AVE S KENT WA. 98032 COMMUNITY MEMBER 18437 CASCADE AVE S TUKWILA 98188 COMMUNITY MEMBER 18441 CASCADE AVE S TUKWILA 98188 COMMUNITY MEMBER 18449 CASCADE AVE S TUKWILA 98188 Paul Rehn 20240 106TH AVE SE KENT WA 98031 * BRE SELECT HOTEL PROPERTIES 345 PARK AVE NEW YORK NY 10154 Steel & Aluminum C Reliance 350 S GRAND AVE # 5100 LOS ANGELES CA 90071 Tax Coordinator Prologis 4545 AIRPORT WAY DENVER CO 80239 COMMUNITY MEMBER 6700 RIVERSIDE DR TUKWILA 98188 COMMUNITY MEMBER 6801 S 180TH ST TUKWILA 98188 COMMUNITY MEMBER 6815 S 180TH ST TUKWILA 98188 COMMUNITY MEMBER 6847 5 180TH ST TUKWILA 98188 * ARCHDIOCESE OF SEATTLE 710 9TH AVE SEATTLE WA 98104 * CASCADE TUKWILA LLC 7900 SE 28TH ST # 200 MERCER ISLAND WA 98040 * RIVERPOINT TWO LLC PO BOX 20399 SEATTLE WA 98102 * WELLS FARGO BANK PO BOX 2609 CARLSBAD CA 92018 * EPROPERTY TAX INC DEPT 207 PO BOX 4900 SCOTTSDALE AZ 85261 * THOMKAT INVESTMENTS L L C PO BOX 58410 SEATTLE WA 98138 yy \ name WANKE CASCADE DISTRIBUTION TIERRA SOL CERAMIC TILE INC HARMON INC NISSIN TNTL TRANSPORT USA BARTHCO DIVISION OF OHL ZONAR SYSTEMS INC THRIFT BOOKS LLC NORTHWEST COMPUTER SUPPORT EVERGREEN ENTERTAINMENT CORP GREAT AMERICAN GAMING CORP HUNTER DOUGLAS FABRICATION GENOA HEALTHCARE LLC WASHINGTON MULTI -FAMILY HSG MADRONA SPECIALTY FOODS LLC DOMESTIC ABUSE WOMENS NETWORK MADRONA SPECIALTY FOODS LLC address 18260 OLYMPIC AVE S 18436 CASCADE AVE S #100 18436 CASCADE AVE S #160 18436 CASCADE AVE S #120 18200 CASCADE AVE S #202 18200 CASCADE AVE S #200 18200 CASCADE AVE S #204 18300 CASCADE AVE S #141 14040 INTERURBAN AVE S 18300 CASCADE AVE S #140 18300 CASCADE AVE S #150 18300 CASCADE AVE S #251 18300 CASCADE AVE S #130-131 18475 OLYMPIC AVE S 18300 CASCADE AVE S #265 18300 CASCADE AVE S #260 \ / city st zip TUKWILA WA 98188 TUKWILA WA 98188 TUKWILA WA 98188 TUKWILA WA 98188 TUKWILA WA 98188 TUKWILA WA 98188 TUKWILA WA 98188 TUKWILA WA 98188 TUKWILA WA 98168 TUKWILA WA 98188 TUKWILA WA 98188 TUKWILA WA 98188 TUKWILA WA 98188 TUKWILA WA 98188 TUKWILA WA 98188 TUKWILA WA 98188 f . name ACCESS ROAD PARTNERS CASCADE ENGINE CENTER LLC BEL LAGO CONDOMINIUMS LLC ZONES INC CASCADE PAC FLOORING DISTR TWELEVE THIRTY-ONE INC CMX CORPORATION address 18435 OLYMPIC AVE S 18435 OLYMPIC AVE S 18435 OLYMPIC AVE S #B 6540 S GLACIER ST #160 6540 S GLACIER ST #140 6540 S GLACIER ST #120 6601 S GLACIER ST � 1 L_J city st ZIP TUKWILA WA 98188 TUKWILA WA 98188 TUKWILA WA 98188 TUKWILA WA 98188 TUKWILA WA 98188 TUKWILA WA 98188 TUKWILA WA 98188 FirstName Patricia & William * COMMUNITY COMMUNITY COMMUNITY COMMUNITY COMMUNITY COMMUNITY COMMUNITY COMMUNITY COMMUNITY COMMUNITY * COMMUNITY COMMUNITY COMMUNITY COMMUNITY COMMUNITY COMMUNITY * * * COMMUNITY COMMUNITY COMMUNITY * * COMMUNITY COMMUNITY COMMUNITY COMMUNITY COMMUNITY * * * * � 1 LastName RALCORP FROZEN BAKERY PROD Grubman PTP PROPERTIES LLC MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER ACCESS ROAD PARTNERS L L C MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER KENT CITY OF MAYA-TUKWILA L L C 433 EASTLAKE LLC MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER 190 BUILDING L L C TBI BUILDING L L C MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER EPROPERTY TAX INC DEPT 207 PCS PROPERTIES LLC LBA RIV-COMPANY VI LLC SEGALE PROPERTIES LLC � 1 \—i Address 1 CONAGRA DR # MS-PTG 1160 CALLE VISTA DR 16509 SE 66TH ST 18290 ANDOVER PARK W 18292 ANDOVER PARK W 18298 ANDOVER PARK W 18323 ANDOVER PARK W 18338 ANDOVER PARK W 18340 ANDOVER PARK W 18349 ANDOVER PARK W 18401 CASCADE AVE S 18409 CASCADE AVE S 18417 CASCADE AVE S 18435 OLYMPIC AVE S 18436 CASCADE AVE S 18437 CASCADE AVE S 18441 CASCADE AVE S 18449 CASCADE AVE S 18475 OLYMPIC AVE S 18500 SOUTHCENTER PKWY 220 4TH AVE S 25059 SE MIRRORMONT DR 500 W LAKE SAMMAMISH PKWY 5811 SEGALE PARK DR 5835 SEGALE PARK DR 6155 SEGALE PARK DR 6230 S 190TH ST 6412 S 190TH ST 6540 S GLACIER ST 6545 S GLACIER ST 6601 S GLACIER ST 6700 S GLACIER ST 6701 S GLACIER ST PO BOX 4900 PO BOX 700 PO BOX 847 PO BOX 88028 CityState OMAHA NE BEVERLY HILLS CA BELLEVUE WA TUKWILA WA TUKWILA WA TUKWILA WA TUKWILA WA TUKWILA WA TUKWILA WA TUKWILA WA TUKWILA WA TUKWILA WA TUKWILA WA TUKWILA WA TUKWILA WA TUKWILA WA TUKWILA WA TUKWILA WA TUKWILA WA TUKWILA WA KENT WA ISSAQUAH WA BELLEVUE WA TUKWILA WA TUKWILA WA TUKWILA WA KENT WA KENT WA TUKWILA WA TUKWILA WA TUKWILA WA TUKWILA WA TUKWILA WA SCOTTSDALE AZ MERCER ISLAND WA CARLSBAD CA TUKWILA WA Zip 68102 90210 98006 98188 98188 98188 98188 98188 98188 98188 98188 98188 98188 98188 98188 98188 98188 98188 98188 98188 98032 98027 98008 98188 98188 98188 98032 98032 98188 98188 98188 98188 98188 85261 98040 92018 98138 3 Teri Svedahl From: Teri Svedahl Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 10:51 AM To: 'john.r.neller@boeing.com' Cc: Carol Lumb Subject: Briscoe-Desimone NOA & NOPH Attachments: L14-0030.pdf Attached is the Notice of Application and Notice of Public hearing for the Briscoe — Desimone Levee Repair along the Green River at Reaches 1 & 2 Feel free to Contact Senior Planner, Carol Lumb with any questions/concerns. Carol.Lumb@TukwilaWA.com Ter&SvedCahli Administrative Support Technician City of Tukwila - Building & Planning Department 6300 Southcenter Boulevard - Ste 100 Tukwila WA 98188 Teri.Svedahl@TukwilaWA.gov SEATTLE SEAHAWKS, SUPER BOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS The City of opportunity, the community of choice. 1 May 21, 2013 f City of Tukwila f 1 Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director RE: L14-0030, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and L14-0031, Shoreline Variance for Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repairs Dear Interested Party: The City of Tukwila has received a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and Shoreline Variance request from the City of Kent for repairs to the Briscoe/Desimone levee system, portions of which lie in Tukwila. Due to the number of documents that are included with the two applications, I have placed them on a CD for your review. The CD is organized into two folders as follows: Folder #1: Application materials for the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and Shoreline Variance. The numbered items refer to the items listed on the first page under Application Materials of the City's Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SSDP) (attached). #1 Tukwila SSDP Checklist #2 Application #3 Fee Sheet #4 Project Value Sheet #5 Info on Check Submitted #6 Response to Section B of SSDP application: B1 Vicinity Map B2 Project Description B3 Refers reader to #B5 for the Biological Assessment B4 Draft FEMA Accreditation Report for the Green River Right Bank Levee Briscoe- Desimone Levee System, Volumes 1-3 prepared by GEI Consultants, dated April, 2012 B5 JARPA, Biological Assessment Addendum, 2/20/13 Biological Assessment, 8/2008 SEPA Checklist JARPA Documents #7 Project Plans #8 Comment on reducing plans to 81/2 x 11" #9 Notes electronic copy of materials provided with application Shoreline Variance Narrative CL: H:\\L14-0030 & L14-0031\NOA Cover Sheet Page 1 of 2 05/21/2014 10:36 AM 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax 206-431-3665 Briscoe/Desimone Levee Repair L14-0030 & L14-0031 Notice of Application Folder #2: Conditional Letter of Map Revision application dated 10/24/11 along with the following supporting materials: Stability & Certification Report Hydraulic Analysis Risk Based Analysis Scour Analysis O & M Manual Plans Biological Assessment Flood Response Manual FIRM Maps MT2 Form 2 MT2 Form 3 MT2 Form 1 Workmaps 1-5 A hard copy of the SEPA determination and staff report, issued by the City of Kent, is enclosed. Please let me know if you have any questions. I can be reached at 206-431-3661 or carol.lumb@tukwilawa.gov. Sincerely, Carol Lumb Senior Planner Enclosures CL: Page 2 of 2 05/21/2014 10:36 AM H:\\L14-0030 & L14-0031\NOA Cover Sheet Check items submitted with application Information Required. May be waived in unusual cases, upon approval of both Public Works and Planning. APPLICATION MATERIALS: x 1. Application Checklist (1 copy) indicating items submitted with application. x 2. Completed Application Form (page 7) and notarized Hold Harmless Agreement (page 9) (5 copies). (Hold Harmless Agreement Waived 4/4/14 meeting with Tukwila) x 3. Application Fee: See Land Use Fee Schedule for Standard App fee. *Add'I fees may incur x 4. Project Value Documentation. x 5. Public Notice Materials and fee. See item A (page 4) for details. x 6. Project Description/Analysis (5 copies) and other environmental reports (2copies). See item B (page 4) for details. x 7. Drawings (5 copies) Additional copies may be required upon determination that the application is complete: a). Site Plan See item C (page 4) for details. x b). Site Cross Sections along the shoreline . See item D (page 5) for details. x c). Landscape Plans. See item E (page 5) for details. x d). Civil Plans. See item F (page 5) for details. x e). Other plans to help explain the project such as elevations, lighting plan, signage etc. See item G (page 6) for details. x 8. One set of all plans reduced to 8 1/2" by 11" or 11" by 17". x 9. An electronic copy of all project application materials. x 10. Other land use applications, as applicable: SEPA Environmental Checklist, Design Review Application (see TMC 18.44.110 for review criteria), Special Permission, Director, for buffer reduction requests. f1, \ftworisg5244(ElleNIT WASHINGTON CITY OF KENT MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Environmental Checklist No.: #ENV -2013-3 Project: Briscoe-Desimone #RPSW-2130616 Levee Improvements Description: The City of Kent Public Works Department proposes to install a structural steel sheet pile wall at the back of the existing levee slope to act as a secondary levee to reduce flood risk to the cities of Kent, Tukwila and Renton. The proposed flood wall will provide a minimum of 3 feet of freeboard above the predicted 500 -year flood event in order to meet FEMA accreditation requirements. The flood wall will be constructed in four segments ("reaches") along the east bank of the Green River, between South 200th Street and South 180th Street. The northernmost segment ("Reach 1") and a small piece of Reach 2 are located within the City of Tukwila (see Figure 1, next page). The City of Kent is acting as SEPA lead agency for the entire project, but separate shoreline permits will be submitted to Tukwila. The sheet piles will be installed using vibratory equipment (but no impact hammers) and will be between 23 and 64 feet deep, depending on location. The above -ground portion of the wall will range from 8 feet to 13 feet tall, when viewed from surrounding businesses. To allow for re - vegetation and habitat restoration, benches will be constructed where feasible along the riverbank (see Figure 2, next page). These benches will entail excavation between the ordinary high water mark and the existing Green River trail to create a bench of up to 15 feet wide where native trees and shrubs will be planted. Approximately 40,000 cubic yards of material will be removed to create the planting benches. An estimated 277 trees and 29 stumps will be removed, in addition to invasive or non-native vegetation. A minimum of 280 trees and 3,000 shrubs will be planted as mitigation on the excavated benches. The existing asphalt trail will be removed and relocated further landward adjacent to the flood wall, with handrails placed on top of the wall. The flood wall will extend approximately 3 feet above the surface of the new trail, plus a 1.5 foot handrail. Approximately 6,000 cubic yards of fill material will be used to construct the new trail. All existing public access points will be maintained and where necessary, stairways will be constructed. The Green River Trail will be temporarily closed in sections during construction, with detours provided, and will return to normal operations after construction. The parking lot serving the Green River Trail located adjacent to the cul-de-sac bulb of South 190th Street will be raised to match the trail elevation. This will improve trail access by providing ADA accessibility as well as maintenance access. Existing use of other adjacent properties will remain unchanged. The Kent portion of the project (Briscoe) is located on the east bank of the Green River between South 200th Street and South 189th Street, identified as King County Parcel Numbers 0222049047, 0000200044, 0000200043, 7888800090, 7888800111, 7888800140, 7888800155, and 7888800210. The Tukwila portion of the project (Desimone) is located on the east bank of the Green River between South 189th Street and South 180th Street, identified as King County Parcel Numbers 7888900110, 7888900170 and 7888900150. The project area spans several zoning districts, including M1 (Industrial Park) and M2 (Limited Industrial) in the Kent portion. The Tukwila portion is zoned C/LI (Commercial Light Industrial). Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 Figure 1: Project Map S 180TH ST LEVEE REACH 1 REACH 4 CITY OF KENT Figure 2: Cross Section of Proposed Design FL OD /ma 6c 1 EJUSf1NC p2tklND •,r {fl Exp l C- ' TT.411tlN :1L 2 of 3 f 1 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 Applicant: Ken Langholz, City of Kent Public Works Lead Agency: CITY OF KENT The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. X There is no comment period for this DNS pursuant to WAC 197-11-355 Optional DNS process. There is no comment period for this DNS. This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date of this decision; this constitutes a 14 -day comment period. Comments must be submitted by . This DNS is subject to appeal pursuant to Kent City Code section 11.03.520. Responsible Official: Charlene Anderson, AICP Position/Title: Planning Manager / SEPA OFFICIAL Address: 220 S. Fourth Avenue, Kent, WA 98032 Telephone: (253):56-5454 Dated: April 9, 2013 Signature: APPEAL PROCESS: AN APPEAL OFA DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) MUST BE MADE TO THE KENT HEARING EXAMINER WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS FOLLOWING THE DATE OF THIS DECISION PER KENT CITY CODE 11.03.520. CONDITIONS/MITIGATING MEASURES: 1. The applicant shall evaluate the impacts to shallow groundwater movement through the floodwall. If impacts to groundwater are identified, appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented to mitigate the impact. Such measures could include, but are not limited to staggering the lengths of the sheet piles to allow flow through or providing openings in the sheet piles to allow for groundwater movement through the wall. 2. The applicant shall finish the flood wall on both the landward and waterward sides with aesthetic elements such as colors, textures or patterns to enhance the appearance and promote compatibility with surrounding uses. The final finish material shall be submitted for review and approval by Planning Services. jm\S: \Permit\Plan\Env\2013\2130616-2013-3dnsopt. doc 3 of 3 • K5ENT W A H I N O T O N f \ ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING SERVICES Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REPORT Decision Document BRISCOE-DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 Responsible Official: Charlene Anderson, AICP Staff Contact: Erin George, AICP I. PROPOSAL The City of Kent Public Works Department proposes to install a structural steel sheet pile wall at the back of the existing levee slope to act as a secondary levee to reduce flood risk to the cities of Kent, Tukwila and Renton. The proposed flood wall will provide a minimum of 3 feet of freeboard above the predicted 500 -year flood event in order to meet FEMA accreditation requirements. The flood wall will be constructed in four segments ("reaches") along the east bank of the Green River, between South 200th Street and South 180th Street. The northernmost segment ("Reach 1") and a small piece of Reach 2 are located within the City of Tukwila (see Figure 1, next page). The City of Kent is acting as SEPA lead agency for the entire project, but separate shoreline permits will be submitted to Tukwila. The sheet piles will be installed using vibratory equipment (but no impact hammers) and will be between 23 and 64 feet deep, depending on location. The above -ground portion of the wall will range from 8 feet to 13 feet tall, when viewed from surrounding businesses. To allow for re -vegetation and habitat restoration, benches will be constructed where feasible along the riverbank (see Figure 2, next page). These benches will entail excavation between the ordinary high water mark and the existing Green River trail to create a bench of up to 15 feet wide where native trees and shrubs will be planted. Approximately 40,000 cubic yards of material will be removed to create the planting benches. An estimated 277 trees and 29 stumps will be removed, in addition to invasive or non-native vegetation. A minimum of 280 trees and 3,000 shrubs will be planted as mitigation on the excavated benches. Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 Figure 1: Project Map SW 43rd + ST r1 BREACH 2 16 IT ST REACH 3 REACH 4 CITY OF KENT Figure 2: Cross Section of Proposed Design YAR ES VA IES - -2--/!i - 111 AEA *ALL r EX.P.YA i :hl MFA EX,L11N11 :44:1I/III -f EkWE-I',+ sEr•:14 17H Page 2 of 13 f 1 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 The existing asphalt trail will be removed and relocated further landward adjacent to the flood wall, with handrails placed on top of the wall. The flood wall will extend approximately 3 feet above the surface of the new trail, plus a 1.5 foot handrail. Approximately 6,000 cubic yards of fill material will be used to construct the new trail. All existing public access points will be maintained and where necessary, stairways will be constructed. The Green River Trail will be temporarily closed in sections during construction, with detours provided, and will return to normal operations after construction. The parking lot serving the Green River Trail located adjacent to the cul-de- sac bulb of South 190th Street will be raised to match the trail elevation. This will improve trail access by providing ADA accessibility as well as maintenance access. Existing use of other adjacent properties will remain unchanged. The Kent portion of the project (Briscoe) is located on the east bank of the Green River between South 200th Street and South 189th Street, identified as King County Parcel Numbers 0222049047, 0000200044, 0000200043, 7888800090, 7888800111, 7888800140, 7888800155, and 7888800210. The Tukwila portion of the project (Desimone) is located on the east bank of the Green River between South 189th Street and South 180th Street, identified as King County Parcel Numbers 7888900110, 7888900170 and 7888900150. The project area spans several zoning districts, including M1 (Industrial Park) and M2 (Limited Industrial) in the Kent portion. The Tukwila portion is zoned C/LI (Commercial Light Industrial). II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Any conditions applied to the following Determination of Nonsignificance are applied because identified impacts cannot adequately be addressed by existing City of Kent and City of Tukwila codes and ordinances. III. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS A. Earth The combined project area of approximately 8 acres is flat, with the exception of the existing levee berm which has slopes in the range of 50% to 80%. Soils in the area are categorized by the King County Soils Survey as Newberg silt loam, Puyallup fine sandy loam and Urban Land gravelly sandy loam. Approximately 6,000 cubic yards of fill material will be used to construct the new trail and approximately 40,000 cubic yards of material will be removed to create the planting benches. Fill material will include sand, gravel and asphalt pavement for the trail, as well as compost and amended topsoil for plantings on the excavated benches. All fill materials will be obtained from Page 3 of 13 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 permitted excavation sites and cut material will be taken directly to an approved site. No stockpiling will occur on site. Exposed, cleared or excavated areas have the potential for erosion to occur. Appropriate best management practices (BMP's) will be implemented to control erosion potential throughout the course of the project. The applicant will prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) meeting all the requirements of the Department of Ecology National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Construction Stormwater General Permit (CSWGP1. The applicant will also obtain an NPDES permit coverage letter from DOE, and will maintain the construction site and conduct water quality sampling pursuant to the CSWGP requirements. The applicant will prepare a Detailed Grading Plan and a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan for the entire development. For the Kent portion of the project, these plans are required to meet the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards and the City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual. For the Tukwila portion, plans must comply with Tukwila Municipal Code 16.54 (Grading) and 14.30 (Surface Water Management), as well as the City of Tukwila Surface Water Design Manual and Public Works Infrastructure and Design and Construction Standards. B. Air During project construction there will be a slight increase in vehicle exhaust and emissions caused by construction equipment and construction vehicles entering and leaving the project area. All construction equipment will be equipped with standard mufflers and emission control equipment. Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented during construction to suppress dust. These BMPs will include covering soil stockpiles, applying water to exposed soil during dry weather, and sweeping affected paved areas. The completed project will not cause an increase in vehicle trips or contribute to air quality degradation. C. Water 1. Surface Water The project area is within 200 feet of the Green River, a Shoreline of Statewide Significance. Applications for Shoreline Substantial Development and Shoreline Conditional Use Permits for work within the City of Kent were submitted with the Environmental Checklist for the proposed project. No work will occur below the ordinary high water mark of the Green River; however a Hydraulic Project Page 4 of 13 1 . Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 Approval will be required from the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all necessary federal and state permits. No wetlands were identified within the project improvement limits, according to the Biological Assessment, Green River Levee Improvements, River Mile 14.25 to River Mile 22.0, prepared by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., dated October 3, 2011. The portion of the project area that is located on the waterward side of the existing levee berm is within the Green River floodway. Excavation of the proposed planting benches will increase flood storage by approximately 40,000 cubic yards. The applicant has submitted a completed Flood Zone Control Permit to the City of Kent and will be required to comply with the City's flood hazard regulations in Kent City Code Chapter 14.09. The applicant will also submit a Flood Zone Control Permit to the City of Tukwila to comply with Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 16.52. 2. Groundwater The project area is not located within a critical aquifer recharge area and no groundwater will be withdrawn as a result of this project. Joan Nolan from the Washington State Department of Ecology submitted a comment letter which indicated that this reach of the Green River is a groundwater gaining reach and raised concerns about how the sheet pile wall will affect groundwater flow. The City is evaluating the impacts to shallow groundwater movement through the floodwall reaches with consideration for the prevailing groundwater movements in this area as well as near the river, the length and orientation of the floodwall, and the geology of the site. If impacts to groundwater are identified, appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented to mitigate the impact. Such measures could include, but are not limited to staggering the lengths of the sheet piles to allow flow through or providing openings in the sheet piles to allow for groundwater movement through the wall. 3. Stormwater Runoff The main source of stormwater runoff will be the existing parking lot proposed to be raised, as well as the non -pollution generating trail. For the parking lot, the applicant will comply with the water quality control requirements of the 2002 City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual. Due to the new trail being slightly wider than before, there will be a slight increase in impervious surfaces. Page 5 of 13 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 According to the Biological Assessment, the slight increase in impervious surface will not adversely affect water quality after the project is completed largely because the trail is a non -pollution generating surface. According to the Addendum to Biological Assessment, Green River Levee Improvements Project, River Mile 14.25 to River Mile 22.0 prepared by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., dated February 20, 2013, a net change in flow in the Green River is not anticipated as a result of the project. The majority of water that falls onto the project area will infiltrate once the disturbed areas are re -planted and vegetation on the benches has become established. D. Plants A variety of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs and grasses are present in the project area; primarily located behind the existing levee berm. The waterward side of the berm is vegetated primarily with non-native species such as Himalayan blackberry and reed canary grass, with some willows and snowberry at or below the ordinary high water mark. Approximately 277 trees and 29 stumps will be removed as a result of the project (primarily on the landward side of the berm), in addition to invasive or non-native vegetation. A minimum of 280 trees and 3,000 shrubs will be planted as mitigation on the excavated benches. The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and Department of Ecology submitted comments regarding temperature conditions in the Green River and the related shading benefits provided by mature riparian vegetation on the riverbank. The Tribe feels the vegetated area along the river is not wide enough to adequately address temperature impairment. They are also concerned the new vegetation will be subject to the US Army Corps of Engineers vegetation policy which does not allow trees over 10 inch in diameter within 15 feet of accredited levees. Construction of the proposed floodwall will provide the city with the opportunity to plant large overstory trees that are not subject to diameter or height restrictions along the banks of the river because the floodwall serves as the levee, and therefore the Corps vegetation policy waterward of the "levee" does not apply. These large trees will, in time, provide significant shade to this reach of the river where very little currently exists. View corridors through the vegetation will be provided to ensure preservation of public views and safety for users of the Green River Trail. This will be accomplished by using several different planting zones: low, medium and high density. All planting zones will be densely covered with shrubs for habitat purposes, but the low and medium density zones will space the trees in a way to allow sightlines. Page 6 of 13 7 1 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 E. Animals Puget Sound Chinook Salmon, Coastal -Puget Sound Bull Trout, and Puget Sound Steelhead are all federally endangered or threatened species identified within the Green River, located within the project area. The Green River is also designated as critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook Salmon and Coastal -Puget Sound Bull Trout. Marbled Murrelet is a threatened species which has been documented in King County in limited instances. However, due to absence of suitable nesting habitat, no nesting is expected in the action area. Other birds including hawk, heron, eagle, kingfisher, flicker, robin, crow, towhee, blackbird, duck, junco, chickadee and dipper have been observed in the project area. Mammals and rodents including beaver, vole, rabbit, otter, coyote, raccoon, opossum and rats are known to utilize the project area as well. A biological assessment was prepared for the City in 2011 which analyzed all planned levee segments, including the Briscoe-Desimone segment. This document, entitled Biological Assessment for Green River Levee Improvements, River Mile 14.25 to River Mile 22.00, prepared by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., dated October 3, 2011 concludes that through avoidance of in -water work and with implementation of the TESC plan, SWPPP, and stormwater control and treatment measures, the project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect Bull trout, Puget Sound Chinook, Puget Sound steelhead, Marbled Murrelets and their designated critical habitat. An addendum was prepared for the Briscoe-Desimone levee segment, which analyzes design details that have changed since the 2011 report. This addendum is entitled Addendum to Biological Assessment, Green River Levee Improvements Project, River Mile 14.25 to River Mile 22.0 prepared by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., dated February 20, 2013. This addendum concludes that the effects determinations remain unchanged from the determinations listed in the 2011 report. The Briscoe-Desimone levee project will improve riparian habitat conditions along 4,400 lineal feet of the Green River. The proposed trees and shrubs to be planted on the waterward side of the existing levee berm will provide nesting and rearing habitat for birds and small mammals. The enhanced riparian area will benefit fish by increasing shade, woody debris, insect drop and leaf litter. Creation of a sloped floodplain bench that will be inundated for approximately 40 days during the primary juvenile salmonid outmigration period (January - June) will improve habitat significantly over the current, invasive dominated, steep -walled levee condition. Page 7 of 13 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 F. Environmental Health There is a slight risk of spills or fire due to the use of petroleum fuels for construction equipment. All fuel containers will be stored off-site in a staging area and will remain in secondary containment when not actively in use. Spill kits and a site specific spill response plan will be kept on-site at all times during construction. Some noise will be generated from trucks and heavy equipment during site construction and vibratory equipment will be used for sheet pile installation. Some vibration and noise may be noticeable to nearby properties during this period; however, construction activity will be temporary and will only take place Monday through Friday 7:OOam to 7:OOpm. Mufflers will be required on all vehicles and equipment with internal combustion engines. Impact hammers will not be allowed for sheet pile installation. G. Land and Shoreline Use The project area spans several zoning districts, including M1 (Industrial Park) and M2 (Limited Industrial) in the Kent portion. The Tukwila portion is zoned C/LI (Commercial Light Industrial). The corresponding Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designations are Open Space and Industrial in the Kent portion; and Commercial Light Industrial in the Tukwila portion. Properties within the project area are currently used as a levee and recreational trail. Properties surrounding the project area are developed with warehousing, manufacturing and other Tight industrial uses. Completion of the proposed project will not permanently alter any of the existing uses in the area, with the exception of the Riverpoint Corporate Center (APN 7888900170) near Reach 1, which may lose up to 40 parking stalls if the flood wall is shifted further south. The City is working with the King County Flood Control District to agree on the wall's location. In the event of this change, the City will work directly with the property owner to redesign the parking area. Using parallel parking spaces and other adjustments, up to 15 stalls may be gained back. The business will be compensated for any lost parking. The western portion of the Stress -Tek parking lot (APN 7888800140) and the south portion of the Rivers Edge Business Park (APN 7888800100) may be used as construction staging areas. The City will work directly with the Stress -Tek owner to minimize impacts to their business operation. Two of the three Rivers Edge Business Park buildings are vacant, with the property now owned by the King County Page 8 of 13 / 1 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 Flood Control District. A special use permit may be required from King County for staging use. The one remaining business, if still present will be consulted to minimize impacts to their business operation. The entire project area is located within 200 feet of the Green River, a Shoreline of Statewide Significance. Accordingly Reach 2, 3 and 4 of the proposed project are subject to the City of Kent Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Reach 1 and a small portion of Reach 2 are subject to the Tukwila SMP. The Kent portion of the project area is designated by the Kent SMP as High Intensity, with a parallel designation of Urban Conservancy -Open Space where the Green River Trail is located. The Tukwila portion is designated by the Tukwila SMP as Urban Conservancy. Applications for Shoreline Substantial Development and Shoreline Conditional Use Permits were submitted to the City of Kent with the Environmental Checklist. Separate shoreline permits will be submitted to the City of Tukwila at a later date. H. Aesthetics The above -ground portion of the sheet pile wall will range from 8 feet to 13 feet tall when viewed from the adjacent businesses and will diminish views of the river. On the trail side, the flood wall will extend approximately 3 feet above the surface of the new trail, plus a 1.5 foot handrail. Construction materials identified for the flood wall include steel and concrete, but the ultimate finish treatment has not yet been identified. Appearance of the proposed flood wall is important in this area as it is being constructed along a regional public trail system and through high quality, attractive industrial parks. As the new trail location will directly abut the flood wall, aesthetic treatment is necessary to maintain an attractive and enjoyable environment that encourages public use of the trail. The Industrial Park (M1) zoning district is intended to provide areas for those industrial activities that desire to conduct business in a prestigious environment. This intent is supported by aesthetic standards such as landscape screening requirements in the City's Zoning Code. In order to support the City's goals for the M1 district and to be compatible with surrounding business and recreational uses, it is important that the flood wall be finished with materials, colors or textures that create visual interest. I. Recreation The Green River Trail provides biking and walking opportunities along the river. Use of the trail will be restricted temporarily during construction, requiring users to detour around the construction area. Page 9 of 13 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 The existing trail on top of the levee berm will be removed and a new, wider (12 - 14 feet wide) paved trail will be installed further landward adjacent to the flood wall. All existing public access points will be maintained and where necessary, stairways will be constructed. The furthest distance between public access points will be a quarter mile. Hand rails will be placed on top of the flood wall to ensure safety of pedestrians using the trail. View corridors through the vegetation will be provided to ensure preservation of public views and safety for users of the Green River Trail. This will be accomplished by using several different planting zones: low, medium and high density. All planting zones will be densely covered with shrubs for habitat purposes, but the low and medium density zones will space the trees in a way to allow sightlines. John Neller, a cyclist who regularly uses the Green River Trail submitted a comment requesting that trail users be notified a minimum of 2 weeks prior to trail closure. Mr. Neller complained that prior levee projects did not notify trail users until the day of the closure, resulting in inconvenience and frustration especially for those using the trail to commute to or from work. The City does provide advance notification of trail closures on their website, but not on-site. The City's Shoreline Master Program includes policies and regulations regarding public access and recreation. The shoreline conditional use criteria contained in WAC 173-27-160 and referenced in the City's Shoreline Master Program require provisions for normal public use of public shorelines. Accordingly, a condition will be added to the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit regarding on-site advance notification to trail users. Briscoe Park is located in the river bend northwest of South 190th Street, which contains trails, a picnic shelter and a portable restroom. No levee work will be done within Briscoe Park itself. A separate parking lot located south of Briscoe Park adjacent to the cul-de-sac bulb of South 190th Street provides parking for Briscoe Park and the Green River Trail. This parking area will be used as a construction staging area, and consequently will be closed during construction. The Kent Parks Department indicates that Briscoe Park is primarily used by pedestrians and cyclists from the trail as opposed to recreationists arriving by car; so temporary closure of the lot will be a minor impact. The parking area typically contains 8 to 10 cars each day, primarily employees of the adjacent business to the south. Due to vacancy of other buildings in the River's Edge Business Park, adequate on-site parking is present to serve employees during closure of the City parking lot. To allow for trail and park access following construction of the flood wall, the parking lot will be raised to match the trail elevation. This will improve trail access by providing ADA accessibility as well as maintenance access. Page 10 of 13 /_\ Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 J. Historic and Cultural Preservation f A Cultural Resources report was prepared for this project, entitled Cultural Resources Assessment for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, City of Kent Green River Levees Improvement Project, prepared by Historical Research Associates, Inc., dated March 18, 2013. This report found no previously recorded archaeological sites, no historic - period buildings, structures or objects and no archaeological resources in the area of impact. The report notes that proximity to the Green River and historical homesteading and agriculture activities would typically mean a high probability of intact archaeological remains; but given the frequency of flooding events and ground disturbance from construction of business parks, utility lines and the levee system the probability of intact archaeological remains is in fact low to moderate. Should archaeological materials (e.g. bones, shell, stone tools, beads, ceramics, old bottles, hearths, etc.) or human remains be observed during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity should stop. The State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the City should be contacted immediately in order to help assess the situation and determine how to preserve the resource(s). Compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to archaeological resources (RCW 27.53, 27.44 and WAC 25-48) is required. The City's Shoreline Master Program includes policies and regulations regarding archaeological and historic resources. Accordingly, a condition to this effect will be added to the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe members fish in this section of the river. The tribe has requested that the City coordinate with them at least 30 days in advance of construction to avoid interference with tribal fishing activities and access. The Public Works Department has agreed to do so. The City's Shoreline Master Program includes policies and regulations regarding public access and coordination with affected tribes, and the shoreline conditional use criteria require compatibility with other authorized uses. Accordingly, a condition will be added to the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit regarding coordination with the Muckleshoot tribe. K. Transportation South 200th Street is located at the south end of the project area at Reach 4, South 190th Street is located near Reaches 2 and 3 and West Valley Highway at the north end of the project at Reach 1. Access to properties in the project vicinity will be maintained during construction. Existing levee maintenance access points will be Page 11 of 13 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 maintained, with slight modifications as needed to allow maintenance vehicles to get over the new flood wall. Maintenance access to Reach 4 may be modified to provide a direct connection to South 200th Street. Maintenance access to Reach 1 from West Valley Highway may also need some modifications. A traffic control plan will be prepared to reduce traffic impacts during construction. The proposed project will not generate additional traffic trips. L. Public Services The proposal will not generate the need for increased public services. M. Utilities An existing 8 -inch storm pipe located in Reach 1 will be extended through the new flood wall and a flap gate installed. No other utility improvements are anticipated at this time, but utility relocations may become necessary as a result of construction. IV. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION A. Per WAC 197-11-660 and RCW 43.21C.060, the City of Kent may establish conditions to mitigate any identified impacts associated with this proposal. The following supporting documents serve as possible bases for any conditions and mitigating measures: 1. City of Kent Comprehensive Plan, as prepared and adopted pursuant to the State Growth Management Act. 2. The State Shoreline Management Act and the Kent Shoreline Master Program. 3. Kent City Code Section 7.07, Surface Water and Drainage Code. 4. City of Kent Transportation Plan, Green River Valley Transportation action plan and current Six -Year Transportation Improvement Plan. 5. Kent City Code Section 7.09, Wastewater Facilities Plan. 6. City of Kent Comprehensive Water Plan and Conservation Element. 7. Kent City Code Section 6.02, Required Public Improvements. 8. Kent City Code Section 6.07, Street Use Permit Requirements. 9. Kent City Code Section 14.09, Flood Hazard Protection. 10. Kent City Code Section 12.04, Subdivision Code. 11. Kent City Code Section 12.05, Mobile Home Parks and Section 12.06, Recreation Vehicle Parks. 12. Kent City Code Section 8.05, Noise Control. 13. City of Kent International Building and Fire Codes. Page 12 of 13 / Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 14. Kent City Code Section 15, Kent Zoning Code. 15. Kent City Code Section 7.13, Water Shortage and Emergency Regulations, and Water Conservation Ordinance 2227. 16. Kent City Code Section 6.03, Improvement Plan Approval and Inspection Fees. 17. Kent City Code Section 7.05, Storm and Surface Water Drainage Utility. 18. City of Kent Comprehensive Sewer Plan. 19. City of Kent Fire Master Plan. 20. City of Kent Section 11.06, Critical Areas. B. It is recommended that a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) be issued for this project with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall evaluate the impacts to shallow groundwater movement through the floodwall. If impacts to groundwater are identified, appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented to mitigate the impact. Such measures could include, but are not limited to staggering the lengths of the sheet piles to allow flow through or providing openings in the sheet piles to allow for groundwater movement through the wall. 2. The applicant shall finish the flood wall on both the landward and waterward sides with aesthetic elements such as colors, textures or patterns to enhance the appearance and promote compatibility with surrounding uses. The final finish material shall be submitted for review and approval by Planning Services. KENT PLANNING SERVICES April 9, 2013 EG:jm\S:\Permit\Plan\Env\2013\2130616decision.doc Page 13 of 13 f-" July 11, 2014 Desimone Levee Improvements Criteria for Shoreline Master Program Variance A. Criteria for a variance for a use, activity or development that will be located landward of the OHWM and landward of any wetland 1. The strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in TMC 18.44 preclude or significantly interfere with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The SMP requires a 2.5:1 overall slope on the riverward side of the levee. Along Reach 1, this is not possible due to the location of existing buildings and parking. Setting the levee back to the location required by the SMP would require purchasing additional parking and drive aisles which would diminish property values. This configuration diminishes the loss of parking, maintains the drive aisles and allows the businesses to stay. The SMP conditions require a fifteen foot (15') bench, but this bench only engages with the river at approximately 5,500 cubic feet per second (CFS) of river flow. This occurs on average once or twice a year. The proposed project includes a lower bench with a 6:1 slope which starts at the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), a 2:1 slope up to the levee crest, a 12' wide trail with 2' shoulders, and a sheet pile wall on the landward side. The lower sloping bench will be engaged whenever the river reaches approximately 2,500 CFS which occurs on average 39 days each year between January and June when Chinook salmon are typically out -migrating from the Green River. 2. The hardship is specifically related to the property and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size or natural features and the application of TMC 18.44 and not from the owner's own action or deed restrictions; and that the variance is necessary because of these conditions in order to provide the owner with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity within the shoreline and zone in which the property is situated. The City of Kent is currently working in conjunction with the City of Tukwila and the King County Flood Control District under Interlocal Agreements (ILAs) to protect citizens and businesses by reinforcing the levee system to meet federal levee safety standards and provide flood protection to Tukwila, Renton, and Kent. The Desimone Levee is located in Tukwila but is designed by and will be constructed by the City of Kent under the ILAs. Tukwila Municipal Code requires a 2.5:1 overall slope to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). This is not possible with the size and shape of the property and compliance would require purchasing additional parking and drive aisles which would diminish the values neighboring warehouses. In addition, strict compliance with the SMP would require that West Valley Highway be relocated, which is not technically or financially feasible. The added time and expense of acquiring properties and relocating WVH would endanger the potential of completing this project. 3. The design of the project will be compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the Comprehensive Plan and SMP and will not cause adverse impacts to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment. The augmentation of the desired design to the proposed design provides an excellent solution. It will allow the warehouses to continue operation as well as improve their circumstances in cases of high water. Users of the Green River Trail will continue to be able to enjoy the river views. The proposed design will improve the shoreline environment over current conditions with more connectivity between the river and the shoreline and greatly improve the life of salmonids reliant upon the river. The proposed project will creating a different levee profile than the SMP requirements with improvements over current conditions. These current conditions do include a fifteen foot (15') bench, but this bench only engages with the river at approximately 5,500 cubic feet per second (CFS) of river flow. This design will engage the river at approximately 2,500 CFS. This occurs on average 39 times between January and June, an extremely important time in the life cycle of out migrating salmonids. The new slope will be replanted with hundreds of native shrubs and trees. This planting will increase available shoreline habitat for fish and wildlife and improve natural shoreline functions. The shading afforded by the trees will help lower water temperatures in the river. The proposed overall trail width is 16' which includes a 12' wide asphalt trail, a 2' wide concrete shoulder on the landward side and a 2' wide gravel shoulder on the riverward side. The SMP requires an overall trail width of 18'. The main trail bridge crosses the Green River 500' west of this project and the trail continues north and south along the river. This section of the trail connects the main trail to the parking lot next to West Valley Highway and receives very little use. The proposed 2' narrower trail section allows the lower bench to be 2' wider and flattens the overall slope. Therefore, a variance is being requested for the narrower trail width. 4. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other shoreline properties in the area. This project is for the common good of both Tukwila and Kent. No other people or businesses in the area will be displaced with the proposed design. This would not constitute special privilege. Rather, it is an opportunity to complete this project satisfactorily within a reasonable time. By granting the variance for the design change there will be a small portion of the riverbank in Tukwila that does not have the desired slope and trail width, but it will provide overall improvement with the least negative issues for all involved. 5. The variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief. The riverbank along Reach 1 is currently over -steepened and is showing signs of failure. Without the variance, the project will not be able to proceed and the necessary work to protect the public will not be done. 6. The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. The public interest will be served with the completion of this project. The proposed levee section is an improvement of the SMP requirements because of the lower bench. The overall levee slope is slightly steeper, but allows the project to be completed. Without the variance, public interest could be detrimentally affected if the levee were to fail. s� Vis tom. t L v -k -11. 10l1 y Criteria for Shoreline Master Program Variance A. Criteria for a variance for a use, activity or development that will be located landward of the OHWM and landward of any wetland 1. The strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in TMC 18.44 preclude or significantly interfere with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Tukwila Municipal Code requires a 2.5:1 overall slope to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). This is not possible with the size and shape of the property and compliance would require purchasing and demolishing neighboring warehouses. Our proposed solution is creating a different levee profile than suggested with improvements over current conditions. These current conditions do include a fifteen foot (15') bench, but this bench only engages with the river at approximately 5,500 cubic feet per second (CFS) of river flow. This occurs once or twice a year. The proposed design will be 6:1 on the lower portion of the bank to the OHWM and 2:1 on the upper slope. It will give the overall slope the desired average of 2.5:1. 2. The hardship is specifically related to the property and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size or natural features and the application of TMC 18.44 and not from the owner's own action or deed restrictions; and that the variance is necessary because of these conditions in order to provide the owner with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity within the shoreline and zone in which the property is situated. The City of Kent is currently working in conjunction with The City of Tukwila under an Interlocal Agreement to protect citizens and businesses by updating the levee system to meet federal levee safety standards and provide flood protection to Tukwila, Renton, and Kent. Desimone Levee is located in Tukwila but is designed by and will be built by Kent. Due to the size and shape of the site, The City of Kent is seeking a variance of the levee profile. Tukwila Municipal Code requires a 2.5:1 overall slope to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). This is not possible with the size and shape of the property and compliance would require purchasing and demolishing neighboring warehouses. The added time and expense of acquiring these properties would endanger the potential of completing this project. 3. The design of the project will be compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the Comprehensive Plan and SMP and will not cause adverse impacts to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment. The augmentation of the desired design to the proposed design provides an excellent solution. It will allow the warehouses to continue operation as well as improve their circumstances in cases of high water. Users of the Green River Trail will continue to be able to enjoy the river views. The proposed design will improve the shoreline environment over current conditions with more connectivity between the river and the shoreline and greatly improve the life of salmonids reliant upon the river. Our proposed solution is creating a different levee profile than suggested with improvements over current conditions. These current conditions do include a fifteen foot (15') bench, but this bench only engages with the river at approximately 5,500 cubic feet per second (CFS) of river flow. This design will engage the river at approximately 2,500 CFS. This occurs on average 39 times between January and June, an extremely important time in the life cycle of out migrating salmonids. 4. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other shoreline properties in the area. This project is for the common good of both Tukwila and Kent. No other people or businesses in the area will be displaced with the proposed design. This would not constitute "special privilege"; it is an opportunity to complete this project satisfactorily. By granting the variance for this design change there will be a small portion of the riverbank in Tukwila that does not have the desired slope, but it will provide overall improvement with the least negative issues for all involved. 5. The variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief. 6. The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 0 on c 3 KENT W A 5 H I f1 G T O N April 5, 2013 Ms. Karen Walter Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39015 - 172nd Avenue SE. Auburn, Washington 98092-9763 Re: Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project Response to April 1, 2013 letter Dear Ms. Walter, l 1 PUBLIC WORKS DESIGN ENGINEERING Mark Howlett, P.E. Design Engineering Manager 400 West Gowe Kent, WA 98032 Fax: 253-856-6500 PHONE: 253-856-5500 The City of Kent appreciates the input from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division regarding the Notice of Application, environmental checklist, available plans and related documents for the Briscoe-Desimone levee improvement project. We share the tribe's concern for the habitat conditions for fish and other species within and adjacent to the Green River and throughout the watershed. However, we feel that this project has been mischaracterized. The city's commitment to providing habitat enhancement and flood protection for local residents and businesses is evident in the many current projects along the Green River that the city is involved in (see "Green River Projects" booklet at http://www.ci.kent.wa.us/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=21367&IibID=20916). Within the next five years, the city expects to complete over 3,500 LF of side -channel and floodplain wetland enhancement projects along the main stem of the Green as well as make improvements as needed to accredit approximately 11 miles of existing levee. All of these projects will include significant habitat enhancement features and will improve habitat conditions along the lower Green River. The Briscoe-Desimone levee project will improve riparian habitat conditions along 4,000 LF of the Green River by setting back the levee trail by approximately 20' and creating a sloped floodplain bench riverward of the trail. Thousands of native plantings along the bench, that will be inundated for approximately 40 days during the primary juvenile salmonid outmigration period (January - June), will improve habitat significantly over the current, invasive - dominated, steep -walled levee condition. In addition, construction of the proposed floodwall along the landward side of the trail will provide the city with the opportunity to plant large overstory trees that are not subject to diameter or height restrictions along the banks of the river because the floodwall serves as the levee, and therefore the Corps vegetation policy waterward of the "levee" does not apply. These large trees will, in time, provide significant shade to this reach of the river where very little currently exists. Mature cottonwoods and poplars are currently found on the back -side of the existing levee, though the closest of these trees is 50' away from the river's edge and typically 90' away. Aerial photographs show that these existing trees, even at low sun angles, provide very little shading to the river. Native plantings proposed along the river's edge under the proposed project are expected to provide more shading than the current trees in less than 10 years. In the longer timeframe, the proposed plantings will provide significantly more shade than current MAYOR SUZETTE COOKE City of Kent Public Works Department Timothy J. LaPorte, P.E., Public Works Director conditions. Cumulatively, this project along with recent, current and future projects will improve river shading. Many of the recent projects that you highlighted in your letter have only had 4-5 years to mature, an unrealistic timeframe to expect major shading improvements. Compared with the previous conditions at all of these project sites, the plantings that are currently maturing will improve shading considerably. The city shares the tribe's interest in setting the levees along the Green River back as far as possible to maximize floodplain functions and salmon habitat. In this reach, however, setting the levee back the 200' to 600' recommended by King County is cost prohibitive. The $416 - $920 million (King County estimate) that would be necessary to purchase and relocate businesses, as well as construct a larger set -back project, is not available within City or Flood District budgets in the foreseeable future. In the meantime, the existing levee does not meet federal levee safety standards and is covered in invasive reed -canary grass and blackberry. Construction of a sheet pile floodwall will not preclude the future design or implementation of a wider levee setback or more comprehensive river corridor approach to improve fish habitat conditions along this stretch of the river. City estimates have determined that the cost to remove this floodwall in the future is approximately $1 million, a fraction of the total levee setback cost. The City is committed to and involved in the comprehensive vision and long- term, system -wide plan for managing flood risk in the Green River valley. However, due to the current condition of the levees at issue, it is in the public's best interest to act now to provide meaningful, near-term flood protection for the valley. The city recognizes the Muckleshoot tribe's treaty -protected fishing rights. Tribal members' access to the river will not be denied or hindered and will be addressed in the project specifications. As we have done with prior levee projects, the city will coordinate with you and/or Glen St. Amant when construction schedules and activities are being finalized. Each of the levee repair projects being proposed by the City of Kent to address safety deficiencies in the levee and meet federal levee safety standards provides independent and meaningful improvement to the reach of the levee where it is located. Consequently, it is appropriate to analyze each project separately. While the separately named levees are tied into each other to form larger portions of the complete Lower Green River Levee system, each separate levee has separate deficiencies which can be repaired separately to improve flood protection to the area it protects. The improvements being proposed as part of the Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvement Project will have a net-pos!tive effect on fish migration, rearing and refuge habitat as well as riparian shade and water temperature. This levee project has incorporated specific design features to improve these conditions. Also, as mentioned earlier, the city is in the midst of implementing a number of large projects designed expressly for fish habitat enhancement that are expected to improve fish refuge and rearing conditions in the Green River valley dramatically. As you mentioned, the city has made some changes to the plan set that was distributed for SEPA permitting. One of the main changes has been to lower the waterward side of the planting bench down to just above the ordinary high water line, and to slope the planting bench at a 6:1 angle so that shallow areas will be available to fish at flow levels of approximately 2,500 to 3,500 CFS (Auburn gage). This change was made because of concerns from Patrick Reynolds of your staff about recent Corps of Engineers and King County constructed benches that did not provide benefit to fish except in extreme (>6,000 CFS) flood events. Some planting changes have also been made to improve view corridors for trail users. M Thank you for your careful review of the Briscoe-Desimone Levee plans and supporting details. We would be happy to meet with you to discuss this project further. Please contact me at 253- 856-5516 or at klangholz@kentwa.gov. Sincerely, Ken Langhofz Engineering Supdrv)sor Cc: Tim LaPorte, P.E., Public Works Director Chad Bieren, P.E., City Engineer Mike Mactutis, P.E., Environmental Engineering Manager Mark Howlett, P.E., Design Engineering Manager Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager Erin George, Senior Planner KENT W A S H I N G T O N CITY OF KENT MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Environmental Checklist No.: #ENV -2013-3 Project: Briscoe-Desimone #RPSW-2130616 Levee Improvements Description: The City of Kent Public Works Department proposes to install a structural steel sheet pile wall at the back of the existing levee slope to act as a secondary levee to reduce flood risk to the cities of Kent, Tukwila and Renton. The proposed flood wall will provide a minimum of 3 feet of freeboard above the predicted 500 -year flood event in order to meet FEMA accreditation requirements. The flood wall will be constructed in four segments ("reaches") along the east bank of the Green River, between South 200th Street and South 180th Street. The northernmost segment ("Reach 1") and a small piece of Reach 2 are located within the City of Tukwila (see Figure 1, next page). The City of Kent is acting as SEPA lead agency for the entire project, but separate shoreline permits will be submitted to Tukwila. The sheet piles will be installed using vibratory equipment (but no impact hammers) and will be between 23 and 64 feet deep, depending on location. The above -ground portion of the wall will range from 8 feet to 13 feet tall, when viewed from surrounding businesses. To allow for re - vegetation and habitat restoration, benches will be constructed where feasible along the riverbank (see Figure 2, next page). These benches will entail excavation between the ordinary high water mark and the existing Green River trail to create a bench of up to 15 feet wide where native trees and shrubs will be planted. Approximately 40,000 cubic yards of material will be removed to create the planting benches. An estimated 277 trees and 29 stumps will be removed, in addition to invasive or non-native vegetation. A minimum of 280 trees and 3,000 shrubs will be planted as mitigation on the excavated benches. The existing asphalt trail will be removed and relocated further landward adjacent to the flood wall, with handrails placed on top of the wall. The flood wall will extend approximately 3 feet above the surface of the new trail, plus a 1.5 foot handrail. Approximately 6,000 cubic yards of fill material will be used to construct the new trail. All existing public access points will be maintained and where necessary, stairways will be constructed. The Green River Trail will be temporarily closed in sections during construction, with detours provided, and will return to normal operations after construction. The parking lot serving the Green River Trail located adjacent to the cul-de-sac bulb of South 190th Street will be raised to match the trail elevation. This will improve trail access by providing ADA accessibility as well as maintenance access. Existing use of other adjacent properties will remain unchanged. The Kent portion of the project (Briscoe) is located on the east bank of the Green River between South 200th Street and South 189th Street, identified as King County Parcel Numbers 0222049047, 0000200044, 0000200043, 7888800090, 7888800111, 7888800140, 7888800155, and 7888800210. The Tukwila portion of the project (Desimone) is located on the east bank of the Green River between South 189th Street and South 180th Street, identified as King County Parcel Numbers 7888900110, 7888900170 and 7888900150. The project area spans several zoning districts, including M1 (Industrial Park) and M2 (Limited Industrial) in the Kent portion. The Tukwila portion is zoned C/LI (Commercial Light Industrial). Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 Figure 1: Project Map Figure 2: Cross Section of Proposed Design eu' 7777 7 772 FILL AEU Ra)! WAIL E]G511NG GNWNU EN1571o:C tiEGET.ATgN corm (EL: 1?) 2 of 3 / 1 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 Applicant: Ken Langholz, City of Kent Public Works Lead Agency: CITY OF KENT The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. X There is no comment period for this DNS pursuant to WAC 197-11-355 Optional DNS process. There is no comment period for this DNS. This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date of this decision; this constitutes a 14 -day comment period. Comments must be submitted by . This DNS is subject to appeal pursuant to Kent City Code section 11.03.520. Responsible Official: Charlene Anderson, AICP Position/Title: Planning Manager / SEPA OFFICIAL Address: 220 S. Fourth Avenue, Kent, WA 98032 Telephone: (253 Dated: April 9, 2013 Signature: 56-5454 APPEAL PROCESS: AN APPEAL OF A DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) MUST BE MADE TO THE KENT HEARING EXAMINER WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS FOLLOWING THE DATE OF THIS DECISION PER KENT CITY CODE 11.03.520. CONDITIONS/MITIGATING MEASURES: 1. The applicant shall evaluate the impacts to shallow groundwater movement through the floodwall. If impacts to groundwater are identified, appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented to mitigate the impact. Such measures could include, but are not limited to staggering the lengths of the sheet piles to allow flow through or providing openings in the sheet piles to allow for groundwater movement through the wall. 2. The applicant shall finish the flood wall on both the landward and waterward sides with aesthetic elements such as colors, textures or patterns to enhance the appearance and promote compatibility with surrounding uses. The final finish material shall be submitted for review and approval by Planning Services. jm\S: \Permit\Plan\Env\2013\2130616-2013-3d nsopt.doc 3 of 3 • KENT W A 5 H 1 N O T O N f \ ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING SERVICES Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REPORT Decision Document BRISCOE-DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 Responsible Official: Charlene Anderson, AICP Staff Contact: Erin George, AICP I. PROPOSAL The City of Kent Public Works Department proposes to install a structural steel sheet pile wall at the back of the existing levee sllope to act as a secondary levee to reduce flood risk to the cities of Kent, Tukwila and Renton. The proposed flood wall will provide a minimum of 3 feet of freeboard above the predicted 500 -year flood event in order to meet FEMA accreditation requirements. The flood wall will be constructed in four segments ("reaches") along the east bank of the Green River, between South 200th Street and South 180th Street. The northernmost segment ("Reach 1") and a small piece of Reach 2 are located within the City of Tukwila (see Figure 1, next page). The City of Kent is acting as SEPA lead agency for the entire project, but separate shoreline permits will be submitted to Tukwila. The sheet piles will be installed using vibratory equipment (but no impact hammers) and will be between 23 and 64 feet deep, depending on location. The above -ground portion of the wall will range from 8 feet to 13 feet tall, when viewed from surrounding businesses. To allow for re -vegetation and habitat restoration, benches will be constructed where feasible along the riverbank (see Figure 2, next page). These benches will entail excavation between the ordinary high water mark and the existing Green River trail to create a bench of up to 15 feet wide where native trees and shrubs will be planted. Approximately 40,000 cubic yards of material will be removed to create the planting benches. An estimated 277 trees and 29 stumps will be removed, in addition to invasive or non-native vegetation. A minimum of 280 trees and 3,000 shrubs will be planted as mitigation on the excavated benches. Decision Document Bhscoe'DesimoneLevee Improvements ENV'2013-3/RPSVV'2130616 SMC-2013'1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-3013-2/RPSP'2120617 Figure 1: Project Map Figure 2: Cross Section of Proposed Design VAR '/'///-/ -7 -7 \-m �u ~~/',/// ` ~` - Page 2 of 13 l 1 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 The existing asphalt trail will be removed and relocated further landward adjacent to the flood wall, with handrails placed on top of the wall. The flood wall will extend approximately 3 feet above the surface of the new trail, plus a 1.5 foot handrail. Approximately 6,000 cubic yards of fill material will be used to construct the new trail. All existing public access points will be maintained and where necessary, stairways will be constructed. The Green River Trail will be temporarily closed in sections during construction, with detours provided, and will return to normal operations after construction. The parking lot serving the Green River Trail located adjacent to the cul-de- sac bulb of South 190th Street will be raised to match the trail elevation. This will improve trail access by providing ADA accessibility as well as maintenance access. Existing use of other adjacent properties will remain unchanged. The Kent portion of the project (Briscoe) is located on the east bank of the Green River between South 200th Street and South 189th Street, identified as King County Parcel Numbers 0222049047, 0000200044, 0000200043, 7888800090, 7888800111, 7888800140, 7888800155, and 7888800210. The Tukwila portion of the project (Desimone) is located on the east bank of the Green River between South 189th Street and South 180th Street, identified as King County Parcel Numbers 7888900110, 7888900170 and 7888900150. The project area spans several zoning districts, including M1 (Industrial Park) and M2 (Limited Industrial) in the Kent portion. The Tukwila portion is zoned C/LI (Commercial Light Industrial). II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Any conditions applied to the following Determination of Nonsignificance are applied because identified impacts cannot adequately be addressed by existing City of Kent and City of Tukwila codes and ordinances. III. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS A. Earth The combined project area of approximately 8 acres is flat, with the exception of the existing levee berm which has slopes in the range of 50% to 80%. Soils in the area are categorized by the King County Soils Survey as Newberg silt loam, Puyallup fine sandy loam and Urban Land gravelly sandy loam. Approximately 6,000 cubic yards of fill material will be used to construct the new trail and approximately 40,000 cubic yards of material will be removed to create the planting benches. Fill material will include sand, gravel and asphalt pavement for the trail, as well as compost and amended topsoil for plantings on the excavated benches. All fill materials will be obtained from Page 3 of 13 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 permitted excavation sites and cut material will be taken directly to an approved site. No stockpiling will occur on site. Exposed, cleared or excavated areas have the potential for erosion to occur. Appropriate best management practices (BMP's) will be implemented to control erosion potential throughout the course of the project. The applicant will prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) meeting all the requirements of the Department of Ecology National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater General Permit (CSWGP). The applicant will also obtain an NPDES permit coverage letter from DOE, and will maintain the construction site and conduct water quality sampling pursuant to the CSWGP requirements. The applicant will prepare a Detailed Grading Plan and a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan for the entire development. For the Kent portion of the project, these plans are required to meet the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards and the City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual. For the Tukwila portion, plans must comply with Tukwila Municipal Code 16.54 (Grading) and 14.30 (Surface Water Management), as well as the City of Tukwila Surface Water Design Manual and Public Works Infrastructure and Design and Construction Standards. B. Air During project construction there will be a slight increase in vehicle exhaust and emissions caused by construction equipment and construction vehicles entering and leaving the project area. All construction equipment will be equipped with standard mufflers and emission control equipment. Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented during construction to suppress dust. These BMPs will include covering soil stockpiles, applying water to exposed soil during dry weather, and sweeping affected paved areas. The completed project will not cause an increase in vehicle trips or contribute to air quality degradation. C. Water 1. Surface Water The project area is within 200 feet of the Green River, a Shoreline of Statewide Significance. Applications for Shoreline Substantial Development and Shoreline Conditional Use Permits for work within the City of Kent were submitted with the Environmental Checklist for the proposed project. No work will occur below the ordinary high water mark of the Green River; however a Hydraulic Project Page 4 of 13 1 f� Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 Approval will be required from the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all necessary federal and state permits. No wetlands were identified within the project improvement limits, according to the Biological Assessment, Green River Levee Improvements, River Mile 14.25 to River Mile 22.0, prepared by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., dated October 3, 2011. The portion of the project area that is located on the waterward side of the existing levee berm is within the Green River floodway. Excavation of the proposed planting benches will increase flood storage by approximately 40,000 cubic yards. The applicant has submitted a completed Flood Zone Control Permit to the City of Kent and will be required to comply with the City's flood hazard regulations in Kent City Code Chapter 14.09. The applicant will also submit a Flood Zone Control Permit to the City of Tukwila to comply with Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 16.52. 2. Groundwater The project area is not located within a critical aquifer recharge area and no groundwater will be withdrawn as a result of this project. Joan Nolan from the Washington State Department of Ecology submitted a comment letter which indicated that this reach of the Green River is a groundwater gaining reach and raised concerns about how the sheet pile wall will affect groundwater flow. The City is evaluating the impacts to shallow groundwater movement through the floodwall reaches with consideration for the prevailing groundwater movements in this area as well as near the river, the length and orientation of the floodwall, and the geology of the site. If impacts to groundwater are identified, appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented to mitigate the impact. Such measures could include, but are not limited to staggering the lengths of the sheet piles to allow flow through or providing openings in the sheet piles to allow for groundwater movement through the wall. 3. Stormwater Runoff The main source of stormwater runoff will be the existing parking lot proposed to be raised, as well as the non -pollution generating trail. For the parking lot, the applicant will comply with the water quality control requirements of the 2002 City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual. Due to the new trail being slightly wider than before, there will be a slight increase in impervious surfaces. Page 5 of 13 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 According to the Biological Assessment, the slight increase in impervious surface will not adversely affect water quality after the project is completed largely because the trail is a non -pollution generating surface. According to the Addendum to Biological Assessment, Green River Levee Improvements Project, River Mile 14.25 to River Mile 22.0 prepared by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., dated February 20, 2013, a net change in flow in the Green River is not anticipated as a result of the project. The majority of water that falls onto the project area will infiltrate once the disturbed areas are re -planted and vegetation on the benches has become established. D. Plants A variety of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs and grasses are present in the project area; primarily located behind the existing levee berm. The waterward side of the berm is vegetated primarily with non-native species such as Himalayan blackberry and reed canary grass, with some willows and snowberry at or below the ordinary high water mark. Approximately 277 trees and 29 stumps will be removed as a result of the project (primarily on the landward side of the berm), in addition to invasive or non-native vegetation. A minimum of 280 trees and 3,000 shrubs will be planted as mitigation on the excavated benches. The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and Department of Ecology submitted comments regarding temperature conditions in the Green River and the related shading benefits provided by mature riparian vegetation on the riverbank. The Tribe feels the vegetated area along the river is not wide enough to adequately address temperature impairment. They are also concerned the new vegetation will be subject to the US Army Corps of Engineers vegetation policy which does not allow trees over 10 inch in diameter within 15 feet of accredited levees. Construction of the proposed floodwall will provide the city with the opportunity to plant large overstory trees that are not subject to diameter or height restrictions along the banks of the river because the floodwall serves as the levee, and therefore the Corps vegetation policy waterward of the "levee" does not apply. These large trees will, in time, provide significant shade to this reach of the river where very little currently exists. View corridors through the vegetation will be provided to ensure preservation of public views and safety for users of the Green River Trail. This will be accomplished by using several different planting zones: low, medium and high density. All planting zones will be densely covered with shrubs for habitat purposes, but the low and medium density zones will space the trees in a way to allow sightlines. Page 6 of 13 11 l Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 E. Animals Puget Sound Chinook Salmon, Coastal -Puget Sound Bull Trout, and Puget Sound Steelhead are all federally endangered or threatened species identified within the Green River, located within the project area. The Green River is also designated as critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook Salmon and Coastal -Puget Sound Bull Trout. Marbled Murrelet is a threatened species which has been documented in King County in limited instances. However, due to absence of suitable nesting habitat, no nesting is expected in the action area. Other birds including hawk, heron, eagle, kingfisher, flicker, robin, crow, towhee, blackbird, duck, junco, chickadee and dipper have been observed in the project area. Mammals and rodents including beaver, vole, rabbit, otter, coyote, raccoon, opossum and rats are known to utilize the project area as well. A biological assessment was prepared for the City in 2011 which analyzed all planned levee segments, including the Briscoe-Desimone segment. This document, entitled Biological Assessment for Green River Levee Improvements, River Mile 14.25 to River Mile 22.00, prepared by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., dated October 3, 2011 concludes that through avoidance of in -water work and with implementation of the TESC plan, SWPPP, and stormwater control and treatment measures, the project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect Bull trout, Puget Sound Chinook, Puget Sound steelhead, Marbled Murrelets and their designated critical habitat. An addendum was prepared for the Briscoe-Desimone levee segment, which analyzes design details that have changed since the 2011 report. This addendum is entitled Addendum to Biological Assessment, Green River Levee Improvements Project, River Mile 14.25 to River Mile 22.0 prepared by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., dated February 20, 2013. This addendum concludes that the effects determinations remain unchanged from the determinations listed in the 2011 report. The Briscoe-Desimone levee project will improve riparian habitat conditions along 4,400 lineal feet of the Green River. The proposed trees and shrubs to be planted on the waterward side of the existing levee berm will provide nesting and rearing habitat for birds and small mammals. The enhanced riparian area will benefit fish by increasing shade, woody debris, insect drop and leaf litter. Creation of a sloped floodplain bench that will be inundated for approximately 40 days during the primary juvenile salmonid outmigration period (January - June) will improve habitat significantly over the current, invasive dominated, steep -walled levee condition. Page 7 of 13 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 F. Environmental Health There is a slight risk of spills or fire due to the use of petroleum fuels for construction equipment. All fuel containers will be stored off-site in a staging area and will remain in secondary containment when not actively in use. Spill kits and a site specific spill response plan will be kept on-site at all times during construction. Some noise will be generated from trucks and heavy equipment during site construction and vibratory equipment will be used for sheet pile installation. Some vibration and noise may be noticeable to nearby properties during this period; however, construction activity will be temporary and will only take place Monday through Friday 7:OOam to 7:OOpm. Mufflers will be required on all vehicles and equipment with internal combustion engines. Impact hammers will not be allowed for sheet pile installation. G. Land and Shoreline Use The project area spans several zoning districts, including M1 (Industrial Park) and M2 (Limited Industrial) in the Kent portion. The Tukwila portion is zoned C/LI (Commercial Light Industrial). The corresponding Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designations are Open Space and Industrial in the Kent portion; and Commercial Light Industrial in the Tukwila portion. Properties within the project area are currently used as a levee and recreational trail. Properties surrounding the project area are developed with warehousing, manufacturing and other light industrial uses. Completion of the proposed project will not permanently alter any of the existing uses in the area, with the exception of the Riverpoint Corporate Center (APN 7888900170) near Reach 1, which may lose up to 40 parking stalls if the flood wall is shifted further south. The City is working with the King County Flood Control District to agree on the wall's location. In the event of this change, the City will work directly with the property owner to redesign the parking area. Using parallel parking spaces and other adjustments, up to 15 stalls may be gained back. The business will be compensated for any lost parking. The western portion of the Stress -Tek parking lot (APN 7888800140) and the south portion of the Rivers Edge Business Park (APN 7888800100) may be used as construction staging areas. The City will work directly with the Stress -Tek owner to minimize impacts to their business operation. Two of the three Rivers Edge Business Park buildings are vacant, with the property now owned by the King County Page 8 of 13 f "` Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 Flood Control District. A special use permit may be required from King County for staging use. The one remaining business, if still present will be consulted to minimize impacts to their business operation. The entire project area is located within 200 feet of the Green River, a Shoreline of Statewide Significance. Accordingly Reach 2, 3 and 4 of the proposed project are subject to the City of Kent Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Reach 1 and a small portion of Reach 2 are subject to the Tukwila SMP. The Kent portion of the project area is designated by the Kent SMP as High Intensity, with a parallel designation of Urban Conservancy -Open Space where the Green River Trail is located. The Tukwila portion is designated by the Tukwila SMP as Urban Conservancy. Applications for Shoreline Substantial Development and Shoreline Conditional Use Permits were submitted to the City of Kent with the Environmental Checklist. Separate shoreline permits will be submitted to the City of Tukwila at a later date. H. Aesthetics The above -ground portion of the sheet pile wall will range from 8 feet to 13 feet tall when viewed from the adjacent businesses and will diminish views of the river. On the trail side, the flood wall will extend approximately 3 feet above the surface of the new trail, plus a 1.5 foot handrail. Construction materials identified for the flood wall include steel and concrete, but the ultimate finish treatment has not yet been identified. Appearance of the proposed flood wall is important in this area as it is being constructed along a regional public trail system and through high quality, attractive industrial parks. As the new trail location will directly abut the flood wall, aesthetic treatment is necessary to maintain an attractive and enjoyable environment that encourages public use of the trail. The Industrial Park (M1) zoning district is intended to provide areas for those industrial activities that desire to conduct business in a prestigious environment. This intent is supported by aesthetic standards such as landscape screening requirements in the City's Zoning Code. In order to support the City's goals for the M1 district and to be compatible with surrounding business and recreational uses, it is important that the flood wall be finished with materials, colors or textures that create visual interest. I. Recreation The Green River Trail provides biking and walking opportunities along the river. Use of the trail will be restricted temporarily during construction, requiring users to detour around the construction area. Page 9 of 13 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 The existing trail on top of the levee berm will be removed and a new, wider (12 - 14 feet wide) paved trail will be installed further landward adjacent to the flood wall. All existing public access points will be maintained and where necessary, stairways will be constructed. The furthest distance between public access points will be a quarter mile. Hand rails will be placed on top of the flood wall to ensure safety of pedestrians using the trail. View corridors through the vegetation will be provided to ensure preservation of public views and safety for users of the Green River Trail. This will be accomplished by using several different planting zones: low, medium and high density. All planting zones will be densely covered with shrubs for habitat purposes, but the low and medium density zones will space the trees in a way to allow sightlines. John Neller, a cyclist who regularly uses the Green River Trail submitted a comment requesting that trail users be notified a minimum of 2 weeks prior to trail closure. Mr. Neller complained that prior levee projects did not notify trail users until the day of the closure, resulting in inconvenience and frustration especially for those using the trail to commute to or from work. The City does provide advance notification of trail closures on their website, but not on-site. The City's Shoreline Master Program includes policies and regulations regarding public access and recreation. The shoreline conditional use criteria contained in WAC 173-27-160 and referenced in the City's Shoreline Master Program require provisions for normal public use of public shorelines. Accordingly, a condition will be added to the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit regarding on-site advance notification to trail users. Briscoe Park is located in the river bend northwest of South 190th Street, which contains trails, a picnic shelter and a portable restroom. No levee work will be done within Briscoe Park itself. A separate parking lot located south of Briscoe Park adjacent to the cul-de-sac bulb of South 190th Street provides parking for Briscoe Park and the Green River Trail. This parking area will be used as a construction staging area, and consequently will be closed during construction. The Kent Parks Department indicates that Briscoe Park is primarily used by pedestrians and cyclists from the trail as opposed to recreationists arriving by car; so temporary closure of the lot will be a minor impact. The parking area typically contains 8 to 10 cars each day, primarily employees of the adjacent business to the south. Due to vacancy of other buildings in the River's Edge Business Park, adequate on-site parking is present to serve employees during closure of the City parking lot. To allow for trail and park access following construction of the flood wall, the parking lot will be raised to match the trail elevation. This will improve trail access by providing ADA accessibility as well as maintenance access. Page 10 of 13 Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 J. Historic and Cultural Preservation A Cultural Resources report was prepared for this project, entitled Cultural Resources Assessment for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee, City of Kent Green River Levees Improvement Project, prepared by Historical Research Associates, Inc., dated March 18, 2013. This report found no previously recorded archaeological sites, no historic - period buildings, structures or objects and no archaeological resources in the area of impact. The report notes that proximity to the Green River and historical homesteading and agriculture activities would typically mean a high probability of intact archaeological remains; but given the frequency of flooding events and ground disturbance from construction of business parks, utility lines and the levee system the probability of intact archaeological remains is in fact low to moderate. Should archaeological materials (e.g. bones, shell, stone tools, beads, ceramics, old bottles, hearths, etc.) or human remains be observed during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity should stop. The State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the City should be contacted immediately in order to help assess the situation and determine how to preserve the resource(s). Compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to archaeological resources (RCW 27.53, 27.44 and WAC 25-48) is required. The City's Shoreline Master Program includes policies and regulations regarding archaeological and historic resources. Accordingly, a condition to this effect will be added to the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe members fish in this section of the river. The tribe has requested that the City coordinate with them at least 30 days in advance of construction to avoid interference with tribal fishing activities and access. The Public Works Department has agreed to do so. The City's Shoreline Master Program includes policies and regulations regarding public access and coordination with affected tribes, and the shoreline conditional use criteria require compatibility with other authorized uses. Accordingly, a condition will be added to the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit regarding coordination with the Muckleshoot tribe. K. Transportation South 200th Street is located at the south end of the project area at Reach 4, South 190th Street is located near Reaches 2 and 3 and West Valley Highway at the north end of the project at Reach 1. Access to properties in the project vicinity will be maintained during construction. Existing levee maintenance access points will be Page 11 of 13 3736 S 141st St - Google Map - Page 1 of 1 23736S141stSt ;+<' https://www.google.com/maps/place/3736+S+141 st+St/@47.4774245,-122.2833548,261... 07/09/2014 \ Decision Document Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements ENV-2013-3/RPSW-2130616 SMC-2013-1/RPP3-2130618 SMA-2013-2/RPSP-2130617 14. Kent City Code Section 15, Kent Zoning Code. 15. Kent City Code Section 7.13, Water Shortage and Emergency Regulations, and Water Conservation Ordinance 2227. 16. Kent City Code Section 6.03, Improvement Plan Approval and Inspection Fees. 17. Kent City Code Section 7.05, Storm and Surface Water Drainage Utility. 18. City of Kent Comprehensive Sewer Plan. 19. City of Kent Fire Master Plan. 20. City of Kent Section 11.06, Critical Areas. B. It is recommended that a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) be issued for this project with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall evaluate the impacts to shallow groundwater movement through the floodwall. If impacts to groundwater are identified, appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented to mitigate the impact. Such measures could include, but are not limited to staggering the lengths of the sheet piles to allow flow through or providing openings in the sheet piles to allow for groundwater movement through the wall. 2. The applicant shall finish the flood wall on both the landward and waterward sides with aesthetic elements such as colors, textures or patterns to enhance the appearance and promote compatibility with surrounding uses. The final finish material shall be submitted for review and approval by Planning Services. KENT PLANNING SERVICES April 9, 2013 EG:jm\S:\Permit\Plan\Env\2013\2130616decision.doc Page 13 of 13 `� KENT W ASHLNGTON CITY OF KENT PLANNING SERVICES (253) 856-5454 r � APPLICATION FEE: 1 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON INDIVIDUAL PARCEL: $250 ALL OTHERS: $700 PUBLIC NOTICE BOARD SISQ FACH ROARt) ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST APPLICATION FORM TO BE COMPLETED BY STAFF: APPLICATION #: KIVA #: RECEIVED BY: DATE: PROCESSING FEE: A. STAFF REVIEW DETERMINED THAT PROJECT: Meets the categorically exempt criteria. Has no probable significant adverse environmental impact(s) and application should be processed without further consideration of environmental effects. Has probable, significant impact(s) that can be mitigated through conditions. EIS not necessary. Has probable, significant adverse environmental impact(s). An Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. An Environmental Impact Statement for this project has already been prepared. Signature of Responsible Official Date B. COMMENTS: C. TYPE OF PERMIT OR ACTION REQUESTED: D. ZONING DISTRICT: City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist — Page 2 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT: A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 1. Name of Project: Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements 2. Name of Applicant: City of Kent Mailing Address: 220 4th Ave. S., Kent WA 98032 Contact Person: Ken Lang holz Telephone: 253-856-5516 3. Applicant is (owner, agent, other): Owner 4. Name of Legal Owner: City of Kent Telephone: 253-856-5500 Mailing Address: 220 4th Ave. S., Kent WA 98032 5. Location. Give general location of proposed project (street address, nearest intersection of streets and section, township and range). The project site extends along the right bank, or easterly side, of the Green River, from South 200th Street to South 180th Street. The area is located within the NW and NE 1/4 of Section 2 Township 22N Range 4E, the SW, SE, and NE 1/4 of Section 35, Township 23N, Range 4E, and the NW 1/4 of Section 36, Township 23N, Range 4E. 6. Legal description and tax identification number a. Legal description (if lengthy, attach as separate sheet): See Attachment A b. Tax identification number: 2222049047, 0000200044, 0000200043, 7888800090, 7888800111, 7888800140, 7888800155, 7888800170, 7888800210 7. Existing conditions: Give a general description of the property and existing improvements, size, topography, vegetation, soil, drainage, natural features, etc. (if necessary, attach a separate sheet). The project area, Briscoe-Desimone levee, is located along the right bank (easterly side) of the Green River, between River Mile (RM) 14.3 and RM 17 (between S. 180th Street and S. 200th Street). Manufacturing and industrial builings line almost the entire length of the levee in the project area. The City of Kent owned Briscoe Park, parcel number 0000200044, is located midway along the levee near RM 16. The site is relatively flat except for the riverbanks and levees. Land east of the levee drains to the northeast. Soils are classified under Section B.1.c of this document. 1 City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist -- Page 3 Existing activities on the site consist of flood protection (levees) and recreational uses. The Green River Trail is located on parcels owned by the City of Kent (parcel numbers 0222049047 and 0000200043), and within easements in the City of Tukwila. The Green River Trail on top of the levees is used for walking, jogging, cycling and other recreational activities such as bird watching. Side slopes on the river side of the levees have mixed vegetation of blackberries, grass and riparian vegetation along the bank of the Green River. Lawn, trees, shrubs, parking Tots and commercial buildings are adjacent to the trail along the landward side. 8. Site Area: Approximately 8 acres Site Dimensions: Approximately 80' X 4450' 9. Project description: Give a brief, complete description of the intended use of the property or project including all proposed uses, days and hours of operation and the size of the project and site. (Attach site plans as described in the instructions): The Briscoe-Desimone Levee is located along the right bank (easterly side) of the Green River between S. 20e Street and S. 180th Street, (see Figure 1, Vicinity Map). The Briscoe levee is located along the right bank of the Green River between S. 200th Street and S. 189th Street within the City of Kent. The Desimone levee is located along the right bank of the Green River between S. 189th Street and S 180th Street in the City of Tukwila. Together these levee segments are approximately 2.7 miles in length and protect properties within the cities of Kent, Tukwila and Renton. Tilt -up style buildings (manufacturing and industrial) are located adjacent to the entire stretch of levee. Four sections (reaches) of the levee, approximately 4,450 linear feet, don't meet slope and stability requirements and need repair to meet FEMA accreditation requirements. Reach 1 is located between RM 14.47 and 14.63 and totals 1,050 If. Reach 2 is located between RM 15.45 and 15.57 and totals 850 If. Reach 3 is between RM 15.98 and 16.36, totaling 2,350 If, and Reach 4 is between RM 16.95 and 17.00 and totals 200 if. Reaches 1, 2 and 3 are on the outside of sharp bends in the river and Reach 4 is just north of the S. 200th Street Bridge. Structural steel sheet pile walls are proposed to be installed at the back of the existing levee slope to act as a secondary levee to reduce flood risk to the cities of Kent, Tukwila and Renton and protect the large number of warehouses, manufacturing facilities and some retail establishments behind these levees. These areas are shown on Figure 2, Reach Location Map. In addition, large stumps and roots will be removed in areas between the four reaches along the levee where they could compromise levee stability and/or are in the construction project area. The walls will provide a minimum of 3 feet of freeboard above the predicted 500 - year flood event, (see Typical Section within the 35% design plans). This equates to approximately 5.2 feet of freeboard above the predicted 100 -year flood event. This proposal allows for some re -vegetation and habitat restoration work along the river between the ordinary high water line and the trail in areas where the wall is constructed. Benches will be constructed where feasible along the riverbank. City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist — Page 4 The approximate 2 -foot wide strip between the proposed constructed trail and wall will be paved or filled with suitable material. In areas where the wall is proposed, the existing asphalt recreational trail will be relocated to be adjacent to the wall. The public access, located at the west end of S. 190th St. will be reconstructed to current standards, including an ADA accessible ramp. The Green River Trail will be temporarily closed in sections during construction of the project with detours provided, and will return to normal operations after construction. Proposed use of adjacent properties will remain unchanged. Construction of the project will be Monday through Friday from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. or as stated in Kent City Code 8.05. 10. Schedule: Describe the timing or schedule (include phasing and construction dates, if possible). Construction is anticipated to occur between July 2013 and 2015. 11. Future Plans: Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. The City of Kent is currently in the process of having the entire right bank levee system within the city limits accredited by FEMA. This project is one segment of the system improvements submitted for accreditation. 12. Permits/Approvals: List all permits or approvals for this project from local, state, federal, or other agencies for which you have applied or will apply as required for your proposal. DATE AGENCY PERMIT TYPE SUBMITTED* NUMBER STATUS** City of Kent SEPA WDFW JARPA City of Kent City of Kent DOE Shoreline Conditional Use Shoreline Substantial Development NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit t City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist— Page 5 *Leave blank if not submitted **Approved, denied or pending 13. Environmental Information: List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Biological Assessment and Wetland Delineation Report by Shannon and Wilson, October 3, 2011. Addendum to Biological Assessment by Shannon and Wilson, dated February 20, 2013. Cultural Resources Assessment - Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey Report by Historical Research Associates, (pending, expected date March 8, 2013). Conditional Letter of Map Revision Application (CLOMR) — GeoEngineers, October 2011. CLOMR — GEI Consultants, April 2012. 14. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None known City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist — Page 6 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): slope mountainous, other The land is flat on top of the existing levee with steep slopes on the river side and landward side to the valley floor where the ground is flat. rolling, hilly, stee b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The riverbank has slopes in the range of 50% to 80%. 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. The USDA classifies the underlying soils in the project area as Ng (Newberg silt loam), Py (Puyallup fine sandy loam) and Ur (Urban Land gravelly sandy loam). Structural fill underneath the existing Green River Trail to a depth of approximately 10 feet has been added at some time in the past. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Damaged (eroded) levee segments can fail due to saturated, fine- grained, unstable soils. The reach of the Green River near this levee has experienced surficial failure along the riverbank in several locations. These failures have been monitored or repaired as necessary by the King County Flood Control District. Geotechnical reports are available for review and are included in the CLOMR referenced in Item 13. The reports were completed for the FEMA accreditation report. e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill_ Metal sheet pile walls will be installed along the landward toe of the existing levee to protect warehouses and the Kent valley from flooding. Fill material meeting the geotechnical consultant's recommendations will be obtained from permitted excavation sites. Fill material includes sand and gravel. Benches will be constructed where feasible along the right bank of the river. Compost and amended topsoil will be placed in areas that will be planted with native vegetation. The existing asphalt trail will be removed and a EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist -- Page 7 new asphalt trail will be constructed adjacent to the wall. The amount of fill is approximately 6,000 cubic yards and additional asphalt tral will total approximately 22,000 square feet. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? if so, generally describe. g. There is a potential for erosion of the exposed, cleared or excavated areas to occur. However, appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be planned, implemented and maintained to control erosion potential throughout the entire course of the project. The City will obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater General Permit for the project which will require a site specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to manage stormwater and erosion and sediment control plans throughout the duration of the project. Water quality sampling will also be required through the permit which will also ensure that environmental damage does not occur. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? The asphalt surface of the trail will cover approximately one-fifth of the levee's cross-section and will total approximately 66,000 square feet. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any. A Temporary Erosion/Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared. BMPs such as silt fence, straw wattles, erosion control blankets, and soil cover will be implemented and maintained to minimize erosion and sediment transport during construction. Disturbed areas will be restored to their original function and the sides of the levee will be hydroseeded, seeded, and planted following construction. Native vegetation is also proposed on the waterward side of the levee. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (Le., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Dust and exhaust emissions from construction equipment will be generated during construction. The completed project will not EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist — Page 8 cause and increase in vehicle trips or contribute to air quality degradation. 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. All construction equipment will be equipped with standard mufflers and emission control equipment. BMPs will be implemented during construction to suppress any dust that occurs. BMPs include covering stock piles, applying water to exposed soils during dry weather, and sweeping affected paved areas. 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, salt water, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or -river it flows into. Yes, the project site is adjacent to the Green River, which flows northerly into Elliott Bay and the Puget Sound, via the Duwamish 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, the project worksite is within 200 feet of the ordinary high water line of the Green River for a total of approximately 4,450 linear feet. 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. There will not be any fill material placed in any surface water or any material dredged from a surface water as a part of this project. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist -- Page 9 known. No 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No (ref. 1995 Flood Insurance Rate Map, Panel 967) 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 ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No ground water will be withdrawn as a part of this project. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, 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. Does not apply. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. The main source of runoff wilt be from the non -pollution generating trail. There will be a slight increase of impervious surfaces which will affect runoff after the project is completed. During the construction phase of the project a site specific SWPPP and TESC Plan will be prepared prior to any earthwork under the projects' NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit. The implementation of the sediment and flow control BMPs described in the TESC plan and SWPPP will minimize the potential for water quality EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist — Page 10 impacts within surface waters in the project area, including the Green River. The majority of water that falls onto the levee will infiltrate once the side slopes are replanted and vegetation is established. The projects' minimal increase in impervious surface will not adversely affect water quality after the project is completed. Runoff from the new trail will be allowed to infiltrate similarly to existing conditions and will not significantly increase flow levels. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. During construction, dust control and other .BMP's will be. employed to prevent materials from entering the Green River. The asphalt trail will be removed and a new asphalt trail installed, however BMPs will be employed to ensure that all material is contained and prevented from coming into contact with surface waters. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: The SWPPP and TESCP will plan for specific BMPs that will be installed and maintained throughout the entire course of the project to ensure that all runoff from the construction project will take place in a controlled fashion and planned discharge areas. The discharges will also be monitored to ensure that surface water standards and/or permit water quality benchmarks are met to ensure that there is not degradation caused to adjacent or downstream waterbodies or groundwater. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X Deciduous tree: alder, maple aspen, black cottonwood, cherry, pacific willo�flowering dogwood X Evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, hemlock X_Shrubs: vine maple, salmonber snowbeii X Grass Pasture Crop or grain EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist — Page 11 Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other Water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other X Other types of vegetation: Himalayan blackberry, evergreen blackberry, scotch broom, reed canary grass, red -osier dogwood b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? 277 evergreen and deciduous trees will be removed for wall construction. 29 Targe stumps and invasive and or non-native vegetation such as grass and shrubs, blackberry bushes and reed canary grass will also be removed. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. There are not any endangered or threatened plant species known to exist on or near the project site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Native trees and plants will be planted along the waterward slope of the levee as noted in the planting mitigation plan. Riparian enhancement will total 4.76 acres. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birdsother: kingfisher, flicker robin, crow, towhee, blackbird, duck, junco, chickadee, dipper Mammals: deer, bear, elk,(keave), other: vole, rabbit, otter, coyote, raccoon, opossum, rat Fish: bass, salmo trou herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Coastal Puget Sound Bull trout, Puget Sound Chinook salmon, and Puget Sound steelhead are known to inhabit the Green River. All three are currently listed as threatened species in the Puget Sound and its tributaries. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist — Page 12 c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Yes. Anadromous and resident fish migrate through the Green River during certain times of the year. Waterfowl and other migratory birds use the entire Green River valley as part of the Pacific Flyway route. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: The majority of the areas impacted by the levee construction will be re -vegetated along the riverward slope with native species. This vegetation will provide nesting and rearing habitat for birds and small mammals. The enhanced riparian area will benefit fish by increasing shade, woody debris, insect drop and leaf litter. 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. Petroleum fuels will be used to operate the construction equipment during the project. After the project is completed, no further source of energy is needed. 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: There are none proposed for this project. 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. The potential for spills of toxic or hazardous materials, and related risks of fire or explosion, are very minimal and limited to petroleum fuels used in the equipment necessary for the construction of the improvements. All fuel containers will be stored off-site in a staging area and will remain in secondary containment when not actively in use. Spill kits will be kept on-site any time work is being conducted EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist — Page 13 and a site specific spill response plan must be on-site during construction. The contractor will be required to have a spill response plan. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. There are not any emergency services that are anticipated for the project. However, in the event of a spill, the Department of Ecology may be required. Kent staff will be available to assist with spill response. In addition, the Kent Fire Department is available. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: BMPs such as secondary containment, chemical handling and spill prevention education to the contractor, a spill response plan and spill kits on-site will help to prevent and/or reduce the instance of any environmental health hazards. City staff will also be closely monitoring construction operations and any chemical handling and storage practices. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment operation, other)? Existing traffic noise is generated by vehicles using S. 200th Street, West Valley Highway and other local surface streets. The noise from those sources will not affect this project. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a Tong -term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Noise will temporarily be created during construction and may be noticeable to nearby properties between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. No long-term generation of noise is expected as a result of this project. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Construction activity will be limited to Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Mufflers will be required on all vehicles and equipment with internal combustion engines. Vibratory equipment will be used for sheet pile installation. Impact hammers will not be allowed for installation of sheet EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist — Page 14 piles. Construction activity will only take place during periods allowed by Kent City Code. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is currently in use as a levee and recreational trail. Adjacent properties are developed for warehousing, manufacturing, and other light industrial uses. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No recent agricultural uses have taken place in this area. Parts of this land were farmed prior to the 1980s. c. Describe any structures on the site. The only structures located on the project site are three sets of stairs from the parking lots of parcel numbers 7888900170, 7888800140, 788880090 providing access to the levee/Green River Trail. A city owned parcel number 7888800111 provides an ADA ramp to the trail. Up to four of the access points will be replaced with stairs or ramps. The existing ADA ramp will be removed and replaced with a new ADA pedestrian ramp. Tilt -up buildings are adjacent to nearly the entire length of the levee. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Yes, the access structures will be demolished and up to four new pedestrian stairs and a ramp will be installed as part of the project. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The riverbank and levee are not classified, Adjacent land is zoned M1 (Industrial Park), M2 (Limited Industrial), and MA (Industrial Agricultural). f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The riverbank and levee have no land use designation. Adjacent land is designated as I (Industrial) and OS (Parks and Open Space). If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? g. The Green River Trail throughout the project area is designated Urban Conservancy -Open Space. The land adjacent to the trail on the right in the project area from S. 200th Street to Briscoe Park is EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist — Page 15 designated High Intensity. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. The site project limits are within the buffer area of the Green River which is considered to be an environmentally sensitive area. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? None j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None. The sheet pile wall avoids displacement impacts. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. The uses currently occurring on or near the parcels in the project area will not change under this project, so the proposed work is compatible with the existing land uses in the area. It will enhance terrestrial habitat conditions adjacent to the Green River, and will allow for continued use of the area for recreational purposes. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low income housing. None b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? indicate whether high, middle, or low income housing. None 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 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist — Page 16 antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The sheet pile walls will extend a minimum of 2'8" to a maximum of 5' in height above the levee/trail, and a minimum of 8' to a maximum of 13' in height above the ground on the landward side. Pedestrian handrails at a height of 4.5 feet above the trail will be installed on top of the walls. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Some of the existing vegetation will be removed, creating a temporary altered view until the new native vegetation matures. In the areas where sheet pile walls are installed, views of the vegetated slope and trail will be obstructed from behind the sheet pile walls. Landscaping plans will group trees together and leave some openings to maintain view of the river for recreationists. Shrubs and trees will be tightly spaced on the final planting plan, but the drop in elevation off the waterward side of the levee will allow recreationists views over the top of most shrubs. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any. There are strict restrictions on the type and amount of vegetation that is allowed on accredited levees. Any vegetation placed on or near the levees will need to comply with these restrictions. The city will work within these restrictions to screen the secondary levee as necessary. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposals produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None b. Could Tight or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Does not apply. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control Tight and glare impacts, if any. None EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist — Page 17 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The non -motorized asphalt trail on top of the levee is part of the Green River Trail system, a popular recreational facility for walkers and cyclists. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. Use of the existing trail along the river will be restricted during construction, requiring trail users to temporarily detour around the construction area. A new, wider (12 —14 feet wide) paved surface will be installed on top of the levee to provide trail access along the river upon completion of the project. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any. A detour will be in place while the project is under construction. 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. See the Cultural Resources Report. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known 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 plans, if any. S. 200`x' Street is located at the south end of the project area at Reach 4 and West Valley Highway at the north end of the project at EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist — Page 18 Reach 1. Access to the properties in the project vicinity will be maintained during construction. Access to Reach 4 may be modified to provide a direct connection to S. 200th Street. Access to Reach 1 is currently from West Valley Highway. Some modifications to this access may be necessary. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The project doesn't have any parking. Approximately 40 parking stalls may be eliminated at Reach 1 if the wall is moved further from the river. Approximately 3-5 parking stalls may be eliminated at Reach 3 from constructing the new ADA ramp located in the city owned parcel number 7888800111. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? if so, generally describe. No f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. No new vehicle trips will be generated by this project. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. g. For the completed project, no measures to reduce or control transportation impacts are proposed. During construction, the contractor will be limited to using specific haul routes to minimize traffic impacts. A traffic control plan will be developed to review and reduce any impacts to traffic during construction. 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. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY / City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist — Page 19 No Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. None on the project site. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utilities providing the service and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity, which might be needed. None C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. understand that the lead agency is rvying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date: Sp272- 3 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist — Page 20 DO NOT USE THIS SHEET FOR PROJECT ACTIONS D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster- rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emission to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life? 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5: How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist — Page 21 Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. P:IADMIN12000Forms\SEPA.frm.doc (REVISED 6/00) EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Shoreline Master Program Variance Application Desimone Levee Improvements Applicant: City of Kent, 4/30/14 The City of Kent is currently working in conjunction with the City of Tukwila and the King County Flood Control District under separate Interlocal Agreements to protect citizens and businesses from flooding. The proposed project will reconstruct weakened sections of the levee system to meet federal levee safety standards which will provide increased flood protection to commercial and residential areas of Tukwila, Renton, and Kent. The Desimone Levee is located along the right bank of the Green River between S. 189th St. and S. 180th St. in Tukwila. Reach 1 of the Desimone Levee extends from approximately 700' west of West Valley Highway (WVH) to the shoulder of WVH. This project has been reviewed and authorized by the King County Flood Control District Board of Supervisors. A variance to the levee profile is being requested for the following reasons: The riverbank along Reach 1 currently is over -steepened. The top of the levee is narrow and is showing signs of failure. Flows of just over 9,000 cubic feet per second (CFS) in March of this year caused bank sloughing and erosion. This flow is far below the 12,000 CFS 100 -year flood event storms that can be expected in this reach. Detailed analysis of the levees completed by expert consultants as part of a request to FEMA for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) indicated that this area does not meet federal standards for slope stability. Hydraulic models show that a failure of Reach 1 could potentially inundate the valley from approximately S. 228th St. to I-405. The movement of the bank and other factors noted indicates that a quick and effective solution is required. The Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan "Minimum Levee Profile" requires a 2.5:1 average slope (horizontal : vertical) from the river bottom to the top of the levee. This average slope is comprised of 2:1 slopes with a 15' wide mid -slope bench. As shown on the attached levee cross section comparisons, the minimum levee profile would extend into WVH and the driveways and fire lanes of the adjacent businesses. Strict compliance with the code would then require relocating WVH which would require purchasing and demolishing buildings and relocating businesses located along the easterly side of the road. Also, the minimum levee profile would impact the driveway and fire lane of the businesses to the south of the levee. This would require disruption and relocation of business parking and property landward of the levee. The added time and expense of acquiring these properties would delay completion of this project. The proposed levee profile minimizes property acquisition to the extent possible and avoids acquisition of buildings and disruption of business activity. Page 1 of 3 The proposed design includes a 6:1 bench on the lower portion of the bank adjacent to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), a 2:1 upper slope topped by a 16' wide trail adjacent to a sheet -pile flood -wall (See Plans, sheets 6-7). This proposed new levee system will provide 3 feet of additional flood protection above the 500 -year flood event. This levee proposal has been thoroughly reviewed and accepted by knowledgeable structural engineers. According to the approved Tukwila SMP, "Where there is insufficient room for a levee backslope due to the presence of legal nonconforming structures existing at the time of the adoption of this SMP, a floodwall may be substituted" (pg. 13). The sloping bench will be engaged whenever the river reaches approximately 2,500 CFS. This occurs on average 39 days each year between January and June, the period when threatened Chinook salmon are typically out -migrating from the Green River. The 15' wide bench shown on the SMP minimum levee profile only engages when the river is at approximately 5,500 CFS. This flood level occurs on average only once or twice each year. Flood refuge habitat is recognized as one of the limiting factors for salmon recovery in the Green River. The proposed levee profile will increase this flood refuge habitat substantially over the profile prescribed in the Tukwila SMP. After recontouring, this proposed lower bench as well as the adjacent slopes will be replanted with hundreds of native shrubs and trees. This planting will markedly increase available shoreline habitat for fish and wildlife and improve natural shoreline functions. Shading will also increase on a waterway that experiences frequent exceedances of State temperature standards. The proposed trail width is 12' wide with a 2' wide paved shoulder along the floodwall and a 2' wide gravel shoulder along the riverward side of the trail, for a total width of 16'. The Tukwila SMP shows an 18' minimum width. This section of trail dead -ends at the parking lot next to WVH. The proposed trail width meets King County trail standards and is 2' wider than the trail it is connecting to. In addition, this width allows the lower bench to be 2' wider which increases the riparian zone and the flood refuge habitat that it provides. Implementation of the proposed design will allow the businesses to continue operation as well as improve their flood protection. Users of the Green River Trail will continue to be able to enjoy the river views. The proposed design will improve the shoreline environment over current conditions with more connectivity between the river and the shoreline and greatly improve the life of salmonids reliant upon the river. This project is for the common good of Tukwila, Kent and Renton. No people or businesses in the area will be displaced with the proposed design. This would not constitute "special privilege"; it is an opportunity to complete this project in a Page 2 of 3 timely and cost effective manner which is appropriate considering the weakened state of the levee which doesn't meet federal levee safety standards. By granting the variance for this design change there will be a small portion of the riverbank in Tukwila that does not have the desired SMP slope, but it will provide overall improvement with the least negative issues for all involved. Page 3 of 3 CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 FAX (206) 431-3665 E-mail: planning@TukwilaWA.gov �e�vf,Ce cC4z�� �¢ o� L1Z-j-el'J� ZONING CODE" OR SHORELINE VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY Permits Plus Type: P -VAR Planner: File Number: LA (.., 666 Application Complete Date: Project File Number: 7Ll I/_. pQ ) Application Incomplete Date: Other File Numbers: NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Briscoe-Desimone Levee Project LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. Green River between S. 189th Street and S. 180th Street within Tukwila, River Mile 14.47 to 14.64. The portion of the Briscoe Levee (Reach 2) within Tukwila is located along the right The Desimone Levee (Reach 1) project location is located along thg right bank of the bank of the Green River at the city limits of Tukwila, north of S. 190 Street, near River Mile 15.44. LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS (this information may be found on your tax statement). 7888900170, 7888900150, 7888900110, 7888900120, 7888900130, 7888900140, 7888900152, 7888900164, 7888900162 DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR: The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the owner/applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: Ken Langholz, City of Kent Public Works Department Address: 220 4th Ave. S., Kent WA 98032 Phone: 253-856-5516 E-mail: KLan Signature: FAX: 253-856-6500 Date: ___ f/f7fi • BRISCOE-DESIMONE LEVEE RIGHT BANK OF THE GREEN RIVER S. 180th ST. TO S. 200th ST. LEGEND PROPOSE/ SETBACK WALL -- CRY LEETS • RM -17 RJVER MILE NOT TO SCALE a\o.MA0s-.mi CI SWIM WVV.em thin g. I1na012 e.10:77 SO \I STA: 12+00 r . • 301•••••••• 20 .• EXISTING JERSEY BARRIER ..PROPOSED.....FLOOD_ .._WALL 'EXISTING SOUTHBOUND- TRAVEL LANES BASE FLOOD, EL: 30.50 i MINIMUM. LEVEE PROFILE PER TUKWILA SMP 2:1 SLOPE ' OHW EL: .14.40. 101...... l \ __ 100 i 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 wtJu SCALE IN FEET 20 10 0 —10 —20 —30 —40 —50 RCx1PROJECT 00—]011 u DRAM N0. 0Ev.510N BY 00TE far, IMONEER Nevi .10' rt•r 1. I0. DA BAR IS ME ORIONAL •ccMWGMNG City of Kent Public Works Department INT Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTION COMPARISON STATION 12+00 DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SNEE1 10, 3 OLE No -50 40 STA: 18+50 20 2 1 SLOPE, EXISTING GROUND BASE: FLOOD SEL:. 30.50 PROPOSED . FINISH GRADE 6:1 SLOPE-- OHW EL: 14.72 10 i • 2:1 SLOPE• 15' BENCH 16' PROPOSED 1.4' PAVED TRAIL r. PROPOSED FLOOD WALL 1 18' TRAIL -....... -5; i...._..._...__.__._ .._._. _ _ .._._ _.._ .__ AAAA _ AAAA ...... !*.--,.. . i -( `2:1 SLOPE MINIMUM LEVEE PROFILE PER TUKWILA SMP [FLOOD WALL PER TUJ<WILA SMP. 1 ---1 1 EXISTING DRIVEWAY/FIRE LANE xis -TING BUILDING • EXISTING PARKING LOT 80- ♦ J 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 W U LSI SCALE W FEET —10 —20 —30 —40 —50 —60 —70 OZSGREEt RN! RRnfo 09-3011 PROJECT ENOL CONST. WOW. RENEW i 1'10' N0. REVISION BY OA1E OTT ENDRE. DATE •c[onowxw, W City of Kent �1 Public Works Department INT Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTION COMPARISON STATION 18+50 DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHEET 2 or 3 ME No 50 40 30 20 10 _.. _.... __....... _...__._ .__...---..___....�� STA: 22+00 EXISTING GROUND BASE FLOOD V :EL: 30.5Q 2:1.;SLQPE 15' BENCH , _-:- • r OI -IW EL:. 14.89.. 6:1 SLOPE 0 2:1 SLOPE PROPOSED FLOOD WALL 2:1 SLOPE MINIMUM :LEVEE PROFILE ' PER TUKWILA SMP PROPOSED FINISH GRADE PROPOSED 14' PAVED TRAIL fl: 18 TRAIL _ FLOOD WALL PER TUKWILA SMP .. EXISTING BUILDING :EXISTING DRIVEWAY/ FIRE. LANE 1 .. 1 1 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 —10 —20 —30 —40 —50 U U v� SCAB W FEET 059.5. .ar o9-3011Nn DRAVA PROFCI C.5T. 1.10.1r. RSNI* ar 1,00' N0. RENSION ay DATE •PPAONk on' 01.501 McocwNnvrN� City of Kent /�. Public Works Department •••.. INT Engineering Division LEVEE CROSS SECTION COMPARISON STATION 22+00 DESIMONE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS SHCE1 3 or 3 OLE NO Ign\09-3D11 DES