Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Permit D09-167 - KING COUNTY - BOW LAKE - TRANSFER STATION BUILDING DEMOLITION
BOW LAK7A DM0ILJ[TIC0N 1.8800 °RH:AL:A RD S Parcel No.: 3523049037 Address: 18800 ORILLIA RD S TUKW Suite No: Tenant: Name: BOW LAKE - DEMOLITION Address: 18800 ORILLA RD S , TUKWILA WA Department of Community Development 6300 Scull Boulevard, Suite 4100 Tukw ila, Washington 98188 Phone: 206-431-3670 Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Web site: hip: / /inrw. cr.iithwiln wa.us Owner: Name: KING COUNTY Address: 500 K C ADMIN BLDG , SEATTLE WA 98104 Phone: {wily Contact Person: Name: TOM CREEGAN Address: 201 S JACKSON ST, STE 701 , SEATTLE WA 98104 Phone: 206 263 -6476 Contractor: Name: LYDIG CONSTRUCTION INC Address: PO BOX 11035 , SPOKANE 99211 Phone: 509 534 -0451 Contractor License No: LYDIGC *264JC Value of Construction: Type of Fire Protection: Type of Construction: doc. IBC -7/07 1, 078, 078.00 DEVELOPMENT PERMIT * *continued on next page ** Permit Number: D09 -167 Issue Date: 09/17/2010 Permit Expires On: 03/16/2011 Expiration Date: 09/11/2011 DESCRIPTION OF WORK: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING 33,382 SF TRANSFER STATION BLDG. PUBLIC WORKS ACTIVITIES INCLUDE EROSION CONTROL AND CAPPING OF UTILITY LINE(S): PRIVATE SEWER, STORM. PROJECT ON HIGHLINE WATER. Fees Collected: $13,520.69 International Building Code Edition: 2006 Occupancy per IBC: D09 - 167 Printed: 09 -17 -2010 Public Works Activities: Channelization / Striping: N Curb Cut / Access / Sidewalk / CSS: N Fire Loop Hydrant: Flood Control Zone: Hauling: Land Altering: Landscape Irrigation: Moving Oversize Load: Sanitary Side Sewer: Sewer Main Extension: Storm Drainage: Street Use: Water Main Extension: Water Meter: Permit Center Authorized Signature: Print Name: doc: IBC-7/07 City 2Tankwillla Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite /1100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 Inspection Request Line: 206 -431 -2.451 Web site: http: / /uwin.c•i.lukwila.wu.ox N N N Number: 0 Size (Inches): 0 Start Time: Volumes: Cut 0 c.y. Start Time: End Time: Private: Profit: N Private: Permit Number: D09 -167 Issue Date: 09/17/2010 Permit Expires On: 03/16/2011 End Time: Fill 0 c.y. Public: Non - Profit: N Public: Date: G--( I hereby certify that I have read and examined this permit and know the same to be true and correct. All provisions of law and ordinances governing this work will be complied with, whether specified herein or not. The granting of this permit does not presume to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of any other state or local laws regulating construction or the pe formance of ork. am authorized to sign and obtain this development permit. '/ I /� . �/ I Signature: 1/� _Date: (� f 1 Ai" This permit shall become null and void if the work is not commenced within 180 days from the date of issuance, or if the work is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days from the last inspection. D09 -167 Printed: 09 -17 -2010 Parcel No.: 3523049037 Address: Suite No: Tenant: doc Cond -10/06 0 City of Ti kwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite f%l00 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Phone: 206 -431 -3670 Fax: 206- 431 -3b65 Web site: Imp. / /tvww.ci. ila.it aa.tr.o 18800 ORILLIA RD S TUKW BOW LAKE - DEMOLITION 1: ** *BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS * ** 6: ** *FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS * ** 14: ** *PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS * ** PERMIT CONDITIONS Permit Number: Status: Applied Date: Issue Date: D09 -167 ISSUED 08/13/2009 09/17/2010 2: No changes shall be made to the approved plans unless approved by the design professional in responsible charge and the Building Official. 3: All permits, inspection records, and approved plans shall be at the job site and available to the inspectors prior to start of any construction. These documents shall be maintained and made available until final inspection approval is granted. 4: Remove all demolition rubble and loose miscellaneous material from lot or parcel of ground, properly cap the sanitary sewer connections, and properly fill or otherwise protect all basements, cellars, septic tanks, wells, and other excavations. Final inspection approval will be determined by the building inspector based on satisfactory completion of this requirement. 5: VALIDITY OF PERMIT: The issuance or granting of a permit shall not be construed to be a permit for, or an approval of, any violation of any of the provisions of the building code or of any other ordinances of the City of Tukwila. Permits presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of the code or other ordinances of the City of Tukwila shall not be valid. The issuance of a permit based on construction documents and other data shall not prevent the Building Official from requiring the correction of errors in the construction documents and other data. 7: The attached set of building plans have been reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau and are acceptable with the following concerns: 8: Accumulation of combustible waste material is prohibited during the demolition phase of this project. Remove and properly dispose of all waste material prior to the close of the working day and as often throughout the day as needed. 9: All interior demo debris must be removed prior to demo of the automatic sprinkler system. Contact the Tukwila Fire Prevention Bureau at 206/575 -4407 for an inspection of the building prior to shut down of the automatic sprinkler system. 10: Fire Department access and existing hydrants shall be constantly maintained during demolition and construction. 11: Maintain coverage and operability of portable fire extinguishers, sprinkler systems and fire alarm systems during demolition and construction. 12: Any overlooked hazardous condition and /or violation of the adopted Fire or Building Codes does not imply approval of such condition or violation. 13: These plans were reviewed by Inspector 511. If you have any questions, please call Tukwila Fire Prevention Bureau at (206)575 -4407. 15: Call Public Works at 206 433 -0179 MINIMUM 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE to schedule a public works pre- construction meeting with D09 -167 Printed: 09 -17 -2010 n City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southccnter 13oulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Phone: 206-431-3670 Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Web site: http://www.ci.ffikwila.waus PW Project Inspector. The applicant must notify the City Project Inspector at (206)433 -0179 upon commencement and completion of work at least 24 hours in advance. All inspection requests for utility work must also be made 24 hours in advance. 16: Contractor shall notify Public Works Project Inspector at (206)433 -0179 of commencement and completion of work at least 24 hours in advance. 17: Any material spilled onto any street shall be cleaned up immediately. 18: Temporary erosion control measures shall be implemented as the first order of business to prevent sedimentation off -site or into existing drainage facilities. 19: From October 1 through April 30, cover any slopes and stockpiles that are 3H: IV or steeper and have a vertical rise of 10 feet or more and will be unworked for greater than 12 hours. During this time period, cover or mulch other disturbed areas, if they will be unworked more than 2 days. Covered material must be stockpiled on site at the beginning of this period. Inspect and maintain this stabilization weekly and immediately before, during and following storms. 20: From May 1 through September 30, inspect and maintain temporary erosion prevention and sediment at least monthly. All disturbed areas of the site shall be permanently stabilized prior to final construction approval. 21: The site shall have permanent erosion control measures in place as soon as possible after final grading has been completed and prior to the Final Inspection. 22: Capping of water line(s) shall be coordinated with Highline Water District. 23: Prior to any demolition work the applicant or contractor shall submit to Public Works a copy of Demolition permit from Puger Sound Clean Air Agency. doe: Cond -10/06 * *continued on next page ** D09 -167 Printed: 09 -17 -2010 0 ( C) City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter I3oulevard, Suite 11100 Tukwila. Washington 98188 Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 Fax. 206 - 431 -3665 Web site: hIip. / /wrir vv. Li.tuklrila. . us I hereby certify that I have read these conditions and will comply with them as outlined. All provisions this work will be complied with, whether specified herein or not. The granting of this permit does not presume to give authority to violate or cancel the provision of any construction or the performance of work. Signature: Print Name: doc Cond -10/06 Date: q/ I 1 0 of law and ordinances governing other work or local laws regulating D09 - 167 Printed: 09 -17 -2010 SITE LOCATION Site Address: 18800 Orillia'Road South Tukwila WA 'Tenant Name: Name: Tom Creegan CITY OF TUKWILA Community Development Department Public Works Department Permit Center 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila WA 98188 http://www.citukwila.wa.us Company Name: KPG, Inc. Contact Person: Charlie Conway Contact Person: Karl Hufnagel « a Applications and plans must be complete in order to be accepted for plan review. Applications will not be accepted through the mail or by fax. * *Please Print ** Bow iLake Recycling and Transfer Station Property Owners Name: King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks - Solid Waste Division 98104 Mailing Address: 201 South Jackson St, Suite 701 Mailing Address: 201 South Jackson St. Suite 701 E -Mail Address: tom.creegan @kingcounty.gov Contact Person: E -Mail Address: — Contractor Registration Number: Mailing Address: 753 9th Avenue North E -Mail Address: charlie©kpg.com Company Name: R. W. Beck, Inc. Mailing Address: 1001 4th Avenue, Suite 2500 l -Mail Address :_ khufnagel @r=wbeck.com 11 Applications Pones- Appliu,tions On I inc 2009 1 - 2 )11)'1 - Pennit Appli..ation doe Revised: I -20110 bh Building Permit No. Mechanical Permit No. Plumbing /Gas Permit No. Public Works Permit No. Project No. (For office use only) 'VA - 1L0.- 1/ V ✓V King Co Assessor's Tax No.: 3523049037 / 3523049124 Suite Number: Floor: New Tenant: ❑ Yes ®..No Seattle City WA State CONTACT PERSON - who do we contact when your permit is ready to be issued GENERAL CONTRACTOR INFORMATION — (Contractor Information for Mechanical (pg 4) for Plumbing and Gas Piping (pg 5)) Company Name: Mailing Address: Seattle ENGINEER OF RECORD — All plans must be wet stamped by Engineer of Record Day Telephone: (206) 263 -6476 Seattle WA ('it.i State Fax Number`. (206) 263 =3001 City Day Telephone' Fax Number: Expiration Date: Seattle State City State Day Telephone: (206) 695 -4509 Fax Number: (206) 695 -4701 Zip 98104 Zip Zip ARCHITECT OF RECORD = All plans must be wet stamped by Architect of Record WA 98109 City State Zip Day Telephone: (206) 286 -1640 Fax Number: (206) 286 -1639 WA 98154 Zip Page 1 of 6 BUILDING FE IT INFORMATION - 20 4 3 -3670 Valuation of Project (contractor's bid price): $ 1,078 Existing Building Valuation: $ Scope of Work (please provide detailed information): Demolish existing transfer station at Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station Site. Will there be new rack storage? ❑ Yes Vb 2- c-If 0.. No If yes, a separate permit and plan submittal will be required. Provide All Building Areas in Square Footage Below PLANNING DIVISION: Single family building footprint (area of the foundation of all structures, plus any decks over 18 inches and overhangs greater than 18 inches) *For an Accessory dwelling, provide the following: Lot Area (sq ft): Floor area of principal dwelling: Floor area of accessory dwelling: *Provide documentation that shows that the principal owner lives in one of the dwellings as his or her primary residence. Number of Parking Stalls Provided: Standard: Compact: Handicap: Will there be a change in use? ❑ Yes ❑ No If "yes ", explain: FIRE PROTECTION /HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: ❑ Sprinklers ❑ Automatic Fire Alarm ❑ None ❑ Other (specify) Will there be storage or use of flammable, combustible or hazardous materials in the building? ❑ Yes ❑ No If `yes', attach list of materials and storage locations on a separate 8 -1/2" x 11 " paper including quantities and Material Safety Data Sheets. SEPTIC SYSTEM ❑ On -site Septic System — For on -site septic system, provide 2 copies of a current septic design approved by King County Health Department. H:\Applications\Forns- Applications On Line\2009 Applications \I-2009 - Permit Application.doc Revised: 1 -2009 bh Page 2 of 6 Existing Interior Remodel Addition to Existing Structure New Type Construction IBC of per Type of Occupancy per IBC 1st Floor 2nd Floor 3 Floor Floors thru Basement Accessory Structure* Attached Garage Detached Garage Attached Carport Detached Carpo Covered Deck Uncovered Deck BUILDING FE IT INFORMATION - 20 4 3 -3670 Valuation of Project (contractor's bid price): $ 1,078 Existing Building Valuation: $ Scope of Work (please provide detailed information): Demolish existing transfer station at Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station Site. Will there be new rack storage? ❑ Yes Vb 2- c-If 0.. No If yes, a separate permit and plan submittal will be required. Provide All Building Areas in Square Footage Below PLANNING DIVISION: Single family building footprint (area of the foundation of all structures, plus any decks over 18 inches and overhangs greater than 18 inches) *For an Accessory dwelling, provide the following: Lot Area (sq ft): Floor area of principal dwelling: Floor area of accessory dwelling: *Provide documentation that shows that the principal owner lives in one of the dwellings as his or her primary residence. Number of Parking Stalls Provided: Standard: Compact: Handicap: Will there be a change in use? ❑ Yes ❑ No If "yes ", explain: FIRE PROTECTION /HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: ❑ Sprinklers ❑ Automatic Fire Alarm ❑ None ❑ Other (specify) Will there be storage or use of flammable, combustible or hazardous materials in the building? ❑ Yes ❑ No If `yes', attach list of materials and storage locations on a separate 8 -1/2" x 11 " paper including quantities and Material Safety Data Sheets. SEPTIC SYSTEM ❑ On -site Septic System — For on -site septic system, provide 2 copies of a current septic design approved by King County Health Department. H:\Applications\Forns- Applications On Line\2009 Applications \I-2009 - Permit Application.doc Revised: 1 -2009 bh Page 2 of 6 PUBLIC WORKS PERMIT INFORMATION — 206 - 433 -017 Scope of Work (please provide detailed information): Water District ❑ ...Tukwila 0... Water District #I25 ❑ ...Water Availability Provided Sewer District ❑ ...Tukwila ❑ ...Sewer Use Certificate Submitted with Application (mark boxes which apply): ❑ ...Civil Plans (Maximum Paper Size — 22" x 34 ") ❑ ...Technical Information Report (Storm Drainage) ❑ ...Bond ❑ .. Insurance ❑ .. Easement(s) Proposed Activities (mark boxes that apply): ❑ ...Right -of -way Use - Nonprofit for less than 72 hours ❑ ...Ri -of -wa Use - No Disturbance ❑ ...Construction /Excavation /Fill - Right -of -way ❑ Non Right -of -way ❑ ❑ ...Total Cut _ ❑ ...'Total Fill cubic yards cubic yards ❑ ...Sanitary Side Sewer ❑ ...Cap or Remove Utilities ❑ ...Frontage Improvements ❑ ...Traffic Control ❑ - ..Bac kflow Prevention - Fire Protection Irrigation Domestic Water IL Applications Fortes- Applications On Line 2009 Applications I -21019 Permit Applicatinn.doc Revised: 1 -2009 hh Call before you Dig: 1 -800- 424 -5555 Please refer to Public Works Bulletin #1 for fees and estimate sheet. ❑...Valley View ❑ -- Renton 0... Sewer Availability Provided Septic System: ❑ On -site Septic System For on -site septic system, provide 2 copies of a current septic design approved by King County Health Department. ❑ .. Abandon Septic Tank ❑ .. Curb Cut ❑ .. Pavement Cut ❑ .. Looped Fire Line ❑ .. Highline ❑ .. Geotechnical Report ❑ .. Maintenance Agreement(s) ❑ .. Work in Flood Zone ❑ .. Storm Drainage ❑ .. Renton ❑ .. Seattle ❑ .. Right -of -way Use - Profit for less than 72 hours 1=1.. Right -of -way Use — Potential Disturbance ❑...Traffic Impact Analysis ...hold Harmless — (SAO) ❑...Hold Harmless- (ROW) ❑ .. Grease Interceptor ❑ .. Channelization ❑ .. Trench Excavation ❑ .. Utility Undergrounding ❑ ...Permanent Water Meter Size... WO # ❑...Temporary Water Meter Size.. WO # ❑...Water Only Meter Size WO # ❑ ...Deduct Water Meter Size ❑ ...Sewer Main Extension Public ❑ Private ❑ ❑ ...Water Main Extension Public ❑ Private ❑ FINANCE INFORMATION Fire line Size at Property Line Number of Public Fire Hydrant(s) ❑ Water ❑ Sewer ❑ ...Sewage Treatment Monthly Service Billing to: Name: Day Telephone: Mailing Address: City State Zip Water Meter Refund/Billing: Name: Day Telephone: Mailing Address: City Slate Zip Page 3 of 6 Unit Type: Qty Unit Type: Qty Unit Type: Qty Boiler /Compressor: Qty Furnace <100K BTU Air Handling Unit >10,000 CFM Fire Damper 0 -3 HP /100,000 BTU Furnace >100K BTU Evaporator Cooler Diffuser 3 -15 HP /500,000 BTU Floor Furnace Ventilation Fan Connected to Single Duct Thermostat 15 -30 HP /1,000,000 BTU Suspended/Wall/Floor Mounted Heater Ventilation System Wood/Gas Stove 30 -50 HP /1,750,000 BTU Appliance Vent Hood and Duct Emergency Generator 50+ HP /1,750,000 BTU Repair or Addition to Heat/Refrig /Cooling System Incinerator - Domestic Other Mechanical Equipment Air Handling Unit <10,000 CFM Incinerator — Comm/Ind MECHANICAL PERMIT INFORMATION - 206 -431 -3670 MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR INFORMATION Company Name: Mailing Address: City State Zip Contact Person: Day Telephone: E -Mail Address: Fax Number: Contractor Registration Number: Expiration Date: Valuation of Mechanical work (contractor's bid price): $ Scope of Work (please provide detailed information): Use: Residential: New .... ❑ Replacement .... ❑ Commercial: New .... ❑ Replacement .... ❑ Fuel Type: Electric ❑ Gas ....D Other: Indicate type of mechanical work being installed and the quantity below: H:'Applications \Forms - Applications On Line\2009 Applications \1 -2009 - Permit Application.doc Revised: 1 -2009 bh Page 4 of 6 Signature: 0 PERMIT APPLICATION NOTES — Applicable to all permits in this application Value of Construction — In all cases, a value of construction amount should be entered by the applicant. This figure will be reviewed and is subject to possible revision by the Permit Center to comply with current fee schedules. Expiration of Plan Review Applications for which no permit is issued within 180 days following the date of application shall expire by limitation, Building and Mechanical Permit The Building Official may grant one or more extensions of time for additional periods not exceeding 90 days each. The extension shall be requested in writing and justifiable cause demonstrated. Section 105.3.2 International Building Code (current edition). Plumbing Permit The Building Official may grant one extension of time for an additional period not exceeding 180 days. The extension shall be requested in writing and justifiable cause demonstrated. Section 103.4.3 Uniform Plumbing Code (current edition). I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE. READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF WASIIINGfON, AND I AM AUTHORIZED TO APPLY FOR THIS PERMIT. BUILDING OWNER OR A HORIZ,ED AGENT: Print Name: 1 C Mailing Address:Q ( .S I Date Application Accepted: ti 1 421 H: Appheahoas.Itinns Appli.aduns (ln LwL 20110 Apph...,li■os I- 2(1110 - 1'enuit .4ppli�atinn.dnc Rev+scd: I- 21100 bh Date: a - ' � Date Application Expires: `^ I I � I vv Day Telephone: G ?- 3 City Statc Zip Staff Initials: Page 6 of 6 Fixture Type: Qty Fixture Type: Qty F e Type: Qty Fixture Type: Qty Bathtub or combination bath/shower Bidet Cl. -s washer, domestic Dental unit, cuspidor Dishwasher, domestic, with independent drain Drinking fountain or water cooler (per head) ood- ..te grinder, commerc I Floor Drain Shower, single head trap Lavatory Wash foun 'n Receptor, indirect waste Sinks Urinals Water Closet Building sewer and each trailer park sewer Rain water system — per drain (inside building) Water heater and /or v t Industrial waste t . tment interceptor, includt : trap and vent, except for - tchen type grease intercepto Each grease trap (connected to not more than 4 fixtures - <750 gallon capacity) Grease interceptor for commercial kitchen ( >750 gallon capacity) Repair or alt- : tion of water pipi and/or water treatmen quipment Repair or alteration of drainage or vent piping Medical gas piping system serving 1 -5 inlets /outlets for a specific gas Each additional medical gas inlets/outlets greater than 5 Bac ow protective de ce other than . ospheric -type vacuum .reakers 2 inch (51 mm) diameter or smaller Backflow protective device other than atmospheric -type vacuum breakers over 2 inch (51 mm) diameter Each lawn sprinkler system on any one meter including backflow protection devices Atmospheric -type vacuum breakers not included in lawn sprinkler backflow protections (1 -5) Atmospheric -type vacuum breakers not included in lawn sprinkler backflow protections over 5 Gas piping outlets PLUMBING AND GAS PIPING PERMIT INFORMATION - 206 - 431-3670; PLUMBING AND GAS PIPING CONTRACTOR INFORMATION Company Name: Mailing Address: Building Use (per Int'l Building Code): Occupancy (per Int'l Building Code): Utility Purveyor: Water: Contact Person: Day Telephone: E -Mail Address: Fax Number: Contractor Registration Number: Expiration Date: Valuation of Project (contractor's bid pric : $ Scope of Work (please provide detailed info ation): Indicate type of plumbing fixtures and/or gas piping outlets being ' stalled . d the quantity below: H:\ApplicationsTotms- Applications On-Line \2009 Applications \1 -2009 Permit Application.doc Revised: 1 -2009 bh City State Zip Sewer Page 5 of 6 RECEIPT NO: R10 -01829 Initials: JEM User ID: 1165 Total Payment: 1,140.00 Payee: KING COUNTY SET ID: 0129 SET NAME: BOWLAKE SET TRANSACTIONS: Set Member Amount D09 -161 D09 -162_ D09 -164 D09 -165 D09 -166 D09 -167 EL09 -0497 EL09 -0498 EL09 -0499 EL09 -0500 M09 -103 M09 -104 M09 -105 PG09 -095 PG09 -096 PG09 -097 TOTAL: TRANSACTION LIST: Type Method ACCOUNT ITEM LIST: Description ELECTRICAL PERMIT - NONR MECHANICAL - NONRES PLAN CHECK - NONRES nr rnRn Twin 1.7,!7n n C Cie of Tukwila, S Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite ii100 Tukwila. Washington 98188 Phone: 206 -431 -3670 Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Web site: http.i4vww. ci. tukwila. wa. us 120.00 60.00 120.00 60.00 30.00 30.00 60.00 60.00 60.00 60.00 60.00 60.00 60.00 120.00 120.00 60.00 120.00 SET RECEOPT Description 000.322.101.00.0 000.322.102.00.0 000.345.830 nnn -) nn I n) nn n Payment Date: 09/14/2010 E \ 1T RECE1 ED Amount Payment Check 620755 1,140.00 TOTAL: 1,140.00 Account Code Current Pmts 240.00 180.00 420.00 nnn nn RECEIPT NO: R10 -01094 Initials: WER Payee: KING COUNTY SET TRANSACTIONS: Set Member Amount 009 -161 131,864.05 D09 -162 7,348.86 D09 -164 1,623.54 D09 -165 1,014.30 D09 -166 2,586.80 D09 -167 8,177.95 EL09 -0497 9,794.88 EL09 -0498 738.40 EL09 -0499 279.20 EL09 -0500 1,904.00 M09 -103 5,017.90 M09 -104 175.39 M09 -105 164.00 PG09 -095 953.00 PG09 -096 146.00 PG09 -097 107.00 TOTAL: 7,348.86 ACCOUNT ITEM LIST: Description BUILDING - NONRES ELECTRICAL PERMIT - NONR FIRE IMPACT FEES CI& of Tukwila. Department of Community Development 6300 Southccnter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 Fax: 206 -431 -3665 Web site: http: //www.ci.tukwila.wa.u.s SET RECEIPT Copy Reprinted on 06 -18 -2010 at 10:30:57 06/18/2010 SET ID: 0129 SET NAME: BOWLAKE 000.322.100 000.322.101.00.0 90830402.5000.53 • Payment Date: 06/18/2010 User ID: 1165 Total Payment: 171,895.27 TRANSACTION LIST: Type Method Description Amount Payment Check 564651 171,895.27 TOTAL: 171, 895.27 Account Code Current Pmts PAYMENT RECEIVE D 51,262.46 12,716.48 12,872.72 PLUMBING - NONRES PW LAND ALT PLAN REVIEW PW PERMIT /INSPECTION FEE STATE BUILDING SURCHARGE TREE MITIGATION Cg of Tukwila, 0 Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Phone: 206 -431 -3670 Fax: 206-431-3665 Web site: htp: //www. ci. tukwila. wa. us 000.322.103.00.0 000.345.830 000.342.400 640.237.114 000.345.811.00.0 1,206.00 336.00 48,641.00 27.00 12,920.00 TOTAL: 171, 895.27 Receipt No.: R09 -01270 Initials: User ID: Payee: JEM 1165 ACCOUNT ITEM LIST: Description KING COUNTY PLAN CHECK - NONRES • City of 'Icon Parcel No.: 3523049037 Address: 18800 ORILLIA RD S TUKW Suite No: Applicant: BOW LAKE - DEMOLITION 4&wlla Department of Conununity Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 Fax: 206- 431 -3665 Web site: ap.//www.c.i.tukwila.wa.us TRANSACTION LIST: Type Method Descriptio Amount Payment Check 362754 5,312.74 Authorization No. RECE ]IPT Account Code Current Pmts 000/345.830 5,312.74 Total: $5,312.74 Permit Number: D09 -167 Status: PENDING Applied Date: 08/13/2009 Issue Date: Payment Amount: $5,312.74 Payment Date: 08/13/2009 03:12 PM Balance: $8,177.95 PAYMENT RECEIVED doc: Receiot -06 Printed: 08 -13 -2009 Projesz Type of Inspection: Address: I Qo 0 s fl- Date Called: Special Instructions: Date \ C> I I i c tab,' p.m. Requester: Phone No: Z- -? S'''..--',:3 09 Dcsli �t 7 INSPECTION RECORD Retain a copy with permit INSPECTION NO. PERMIT NO. R SPECTION FEE RE4l IRED. Prior {o next inspection, fee must be at 6300 Southcenter B vd., Suite 100. Call to schedule reinspection. CITY OF TUKWILA BUILDING DIVISION 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100, Tukwila. WA 98188 (206) 431 -3670 Permit Inspection Request Line (206) 431 -2451 Approved per applicable codes. El Corrections required prior to approval. COMMENTS: ProP.);-ti Cle,M p lf� . � Date a / 1.1 xi Project: Ty a of Inspection: Address: Date Called: Special Instructions: Date Wanted:. - / "j/' - ! 7!" p.m. Requester: 4. ( 7C'r Phan o , 25, -- ,e d INSPECTION RECORD Retain a copy with permit IN CTION NO. PERMIT NO. CITY OF TUKWILA BUILDING DIVISION 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100, Tukwila. WA 98188 (206) 431 -3670 Permit Inspection Request Line (206) 431 -2451 Approved per applicable codes. Corrections required prior to approval. COMMENTS: T'/ J; 7-1/4 46/0 1V SPECTION FEE REQUIRE Prior to n inspection, fee must be aid at 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 all to schedule reinspection. Project: Typ Inspection: Address: /j) OR/aril i D Date Called: Special Instructions: Date Wanted:. 7 - -02 1m, p.m. Requester: i 47 4,-9 Phone No: ,l 9-- /4 7 INSPECTION RECORD Retain a copy with permit INSPECTION NO. PERMIT NO. CITY OF TUKWILA BUILDING DIVISION 6300 Southycenter Blvd., #100, Tukwila. WA 98188 (206) 431 -3670 Permit Inspection Request Line (206) 431 -2451 COMMENTS: Approved per applicable codes. O Corrections required prior to approval. INSPECTION FEE REQU ' ED. Prior t next inspection. fee must be id at 6300 Southcenter r d., Suite O. Call to schedule reinspection. 'Project: fntJ) ' ,,.A ii. d. De 3 Type of Inspection: P tt. F roc' F Address: Date Called: Special Instructions: Date Wanted: . Requester: Phone No: f INSPECTION RECORD Retain a copy with permit ION NO. PERMIT NO. CITY OF TUKWILA BUILDING DIVISION 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100, Tukwila. WA 98188 (206) 431 -3670 Permit Inspection Request Line (206) 431 -2451 Approved per applicable codes. a Corrections required prior to approval. COMMENTS: 17Q A5u.reS I:1SW(coj- R` % �• 4 /1 !J^ P l p; rt ► ,floc o f r ` +0 c'ifi I S-tar►eiGC roes _ fv►td*t rJ. Frria,C-eci 'Inspector: a Date: REINSPECTION "FEE REQUIRED. Prior to next inspection, fee must be paid at 6300 Southcenter Blvd.. Suite 100. Call to schedule reinspection. Project: ,i,4.i t ,t' Q€ ,F; ,, © Type of Inspection: Im Address: /pev c> 0,„Q, i,+,g. ,( f Suite #: Contact Person: Special Instructions: Phone No.: Needs Shift Inspection: Sprinklers: Fire Alarm: Hood & Duct: Monitor: Pre -Fire: Permits: Occupancy Type: INSPECTION NUMBER P <I Approved per applicable codes. Billing Address Word /Inspection Record Form.Doc INSPECTION RECORD Retain a copy with permit CITY OF TUKWILA FIRE DEPARTMENT 444 Andover Park East, Tukwila, Wa. 98188 206 -575 -4407 6/11/10 0o S - I t 7 PERMIT NUMBERS Corrections required prior to approval. COMMENTS: Co I 00, ee Inspector: r- Date: `3 f S"'7i z Hrs.: $100.00 REINSPECTION FEE REQUIRED. You will receive an invoice from the City of Tukwila Finance Department. Call to schedule a reinspection. Attn: Address: City: Company Name: State: Zip: T.F.D. Form F.P. 113 City of Tukwila Public Works Permit Package Public Works Permit — Building Demolition: Transfer Building Section 5 Permit 16 Building Demolition C REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE AP PROVED MA R 1 2 2010 City of Tukwila B UI LDING DIVISION Environmental Checklist 2006 Facility Master Plan Update Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station Addendum to Environmental Checklist 2006 Facility Master Plan Update Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station pa cm6FA AUG 1 3 No PERMIT CENTER Environmental Checklist State Environmental Policy Act 2006 Facility Master Plan Update Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station December 2006 King County 1 )cpartmcnt of Natural Resout ccs and Parks Solid Waslc Division Environmental Checklist State Environmental Policy Act 2006 Facility Master Plan Update Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station December 2006 King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division King Street Center 201 S. Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104 www.metrokc.gov/dnrp/swd This material will be provided in alternate formats upon request by contacting: King County Solid Waste Division 206 - 296 -4466 1 -800- 325 -6155, ext. 6 -4466 TTY Relay: 711 www.metrokc.gov /dnrp /swd Table of Contents Acronyms iii A. Background B. Environmental Elements 22 1. Earth 22 2. Air 28 3. Water 30 4. Plants 40 5. Animals 41 6. Energy and Natural Resources 42 7. Environmental Health 43 8. Land and Shoreline Use 50 9 Housing 52 10. Aesthetics 53 1 I. Light and Glare 60 12. Recreation 60 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation 61 14. Transportation 61 15. Public Services 79 16. Utilities 79 C. Signature 80 References 81 List of Appendices Appendix A Potential Environmental Permit Matrix Appendix B Alternative Layouts Appendix C Tonnage and Vehicle Forecast Methodology Appendix D Geotechnical Engineering Studies Slope Geotechnical Issues IIWA Geosciences Memo Historical Studies Appendix E Air Quality Assessment Appendix F Water Resources Conceptual Stonnwater Management Plan Leachate Memorandum Appendix G Wetland Correspondence Wetland Reconnaissance Stream Bank Flagging Appendix H Environmental Health Operations Plan: Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station Environmental Protection Plan Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Plan Public Ilealth Memorandum December 2006 Page i Appendix I - Noise Noise Assessment Letter Noise Assessment Addendum List of Figures Figure 1. Vicinity Map 6 Figure 2. Aerial Photo 7 Figure 3. Aerial Photograph of Bow Lake Transfer/Recycling Station 8 Figure 4. Existing Scale Facility 9 Figure 5. Existing Waste Pit 9 Figure 6. Preferred Site Plan 11 Figure 7. Transfer Building Main Floor Plan 14 Figure 8. Transfer Building South and West Elevations 15 Figure 9. Transfer Building North and East Elevations 16 Figure 10. Construction Site Plan Phase 1 18 Figure 11. Construction Site Plan Phase 2 19 Figure 12. Construction Site Plan Phase 3 20 Figure 13. Parcel Map 21 Figure 14. Existing Viewpoints 54 Figure 15. Photo Simulation (1 A) 55 Figure 16. Photo Simulations (2A, 4A) 56 Figure 17. Viewpoints Locations on Valley Floor 58 Figure 18. Existing Viewpoints from Valley Floor 59 Figure 19. Traffic Circulation Plan 66 December 2006 Page ii 1 1 Appendix J - Transportation Documentation Traffic Study Queuing Technical Memorandum Construction Traffic Technical Memorandum WSDOT Property Acquisition Meeting Impacts of I -5 /SR 509 Project Local Street Traffic Impact Evaluation Summary of Preliminary Transportation Assessment List of Tables Table 1. Slope Summary 23 Table 2. Hydrologic Results - Developed Conditions 37 Table 3. Existing Traffic Volumes: S 188 St/Orillia Rd S/Transfer Station 62 Table 4. Existing (2006) LOS Summary: Weekday Am, Pm, and Sat. Peak Hours 63 Table 5. Baseline (2011) LOS Summary: Weekday AM and PM Peak Hours 64 Table 6. Baseline (2011) LOS Summary: Saturday Peak Hour 64 Table 7. 2011 Trip Generation Estimate Summary 69 Table 8. 2011 Project Traffic Volume Impacts 70 Table 9. With- Project LOS Summary: Weekday AM and PM Peak Hours 71 Table 10. With - Project LOS Summary: Saturday Peak Hour 72 Table 11. 2030 Trip Generation Estimate Summary 72 Table 12. 2030 With - Project and Baseline LOS Summary Weekday PM Peak Hour 73 Table 13. 2011 Existing Intersection Queue Summary: Weekday AM and PM Peak Hours 74 Table 14. Intersection Queue Summary: 2030 Baseline and With - Project 74 Table 15. Construction Traffic -- Site Facilities Work 76 Table 16. Tonnage and Traffic Summary 2001 -2005 and 2030 Forecast 77 1 t ACRONYMS BMPs - Best Management Practices EPP Environmental Protection Plan FMP -- Facilities Master Plan HOV I Iigh Occupancy Vehicle IIPA - Hydraulic Project Approval KCSWD - King County Solid Waste Division KCSWDM King County Surface Water Design Manual LOS - Level of Service MSL - Mean Sea Level MSW -- Municipal Solid Waste NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System PHS Priority Habitats and Species PSCAA - Puget Sound Clean Air Agency SPCC Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure SEPA - Washington State Environmental Policy Act TESC -- Temporary erosion and sediment control TIR - Technical Information Report TMC - Tukwila Municipal Code TSP - Tukwila South Project TVS - Tukwila Valley South USFWS U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service WDFW - Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife WDNR - Washington State Department of Natural Resources WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation December 2006 Page iii A. Background 1. Name of the proposed project, if applicable: Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station: Facility Master Plan and Expansion Project 2. Name of applicant: Solid Waste Division, King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks (DNRP) 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Kevin Kiernan Engineering Services Section Solid Waste Division King County DNRP 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 701 Seattle, WA 98104 -3855 (206) 296 -4411 4. Date checklist prepared: December 2006 5. Agency requesting checklist: King County Solid Waste Division (KCSWD) is the SEPA lead agency for the project. 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): King County Council adoption of the Facility Master Plan (FMP) is anticipated to occur in the first quarter of 2007. Construction of the buildings and site features shown in the Facility Master Plan is expected to be implemented in phases. Phase 1 construction is anticipated to begin in April 2008 with completion in June 2010. The existing station will continue to be fully operational during Phase 1 construction. Phase 2 construction is anticipated to begin in June 2010 with completion in April 2011. During this phase, residential self -haul customers will be redirected to other county transfer stations at Algona or Renton. Phase 3 construction is anticipated to begin in April 2011 with completion in June 2011. Commercial and self -haul customers will have full access to the station during this phase, which is expected to last I to 2 months. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansions or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? ® Yes n No If yes, explain. The KCSWD is currently revising its Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan and its Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. These plans may call for changes in services at KCSWD's transfer stations, and if so, additional evaluation including SEPA review may be conducted as appropriate. December 2006 Page 1 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. o Final 2001 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, prepared by King County Solid Waste Division. 2001. o Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Transfer and Waste Export System Plan for King County, Washington, prepared by King County Solid Waste Division. 2006. o Draft Geotechnical Evaluation Report: WSDOT Property, Bow Lake Transfer Station/ Recycling Facility, King County, Washington, prepared by HWA Geosciences, Inc. for R.W. Beck. 2004. o Geotechnical Engineering Study: Bow Lake Transfer Station Improvements Facilities Master Plan, King County, Washington, prepared by Hong West & Associates, Inc. for R.W. Beck and Associates. 1993. o Impacts of I-5/SR 5119 Project on the Bow Lake T i•ans fer Station, prepared by The Transpo Group for King County Solid Waste Division. 2006. o King County's Bow Lake Transfer/Recycling Station Upgrade Noise Assessment Memorandum, prepared by Geomatrix for Adolfson Associates, Inc. May 5, 2006. o King County 's Bow Lake Trans /er /Recycling Station Upgrade -- Air Quality Assessment Memorandum, prepared by Geomatrix for Adolfson Associates, Inc. May 5, 2006. o Local Street Traffic Impact Evaluation jOr King County Transfer Stations, prepared by HDR Engineering for King County Solid Waste Division. 2005. o Summary of Preliniinaly Transportation Assessment Bow Lake Transfer Station, prepared by The Transpo Group for R.W. Beck. 2004. o Supplemental Subsurface Investigation: Bow Luke "Trans /er Station Improvements Facility Muster Plan, King County, Washington, prepared by Hong West & Associates for R.W. Beck and Associates. 1994. o Wetland Reconnaissance Jo.r Bow Lake Transfer Station and WSDOT Property, prepared by Adolfson Associates, Inc. for R.W. Beck. 2004. o Conceptual Storm water Management Plan, Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station Facility Master Plan, prepared by R.W. Beck. 2006. o Summary ofPreliminary Inbound Customer Queuing Evaluation, Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station Facility Muster Plan Update and Implementation Technical Memorandum, prepared by R.W. Beck. 2006. o Public Health Procedures and Requirements, Bow Luke Transfer /Recycling Station Facility Master Plan, prepared by King County SWD. 2006. o Construction Traffic Forecast, Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station Facility Master Plan, prepared by R.W. Beck. 2006. o Evaluation of Potential jOr Leuchate Generation at the Project Site During Construction and During Operation oldie Completed Facility, Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station Facility Master Plan, prepared by R.W. Beck. 2006. o Slope Geotechnical Issues, Bow Lake T ran.sfer/Recycling Station Facility Master Plan, prepared by HWA Geosciences, Inc. 2006. o Traffic Impact Analysis, Bow Lake Transfer/Recycling Station Facility Master Plan, prepared by Transpo Group. 2006. December 2006 Page 2 There are several investigations related to the expansion of the transfer station that will be conducted in the future: • Detailed Geotechnical Study conducted during the design phase. • Phase I and II environmental site assessment reports during the design phase and prior to WSDOT property purchase. • Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) during the design phase. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for government approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? ❑ Yes ® No If yes, explain. No applications or other approvals directly affecting the property are currently pending for government approval. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Federal Highway Administration • NEPA Categorical Exclusion for transfer of WSDOT property to King County Solid Waste Division Washington State Department of Ecology • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit • Notification of Onsite Hazardous Materials Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) • Developer Permit Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) • Notice of Construction King County Industrial Waste Program • Industrial Waste Discharge Permit King County Department of Transportation • Right of Way Use Permit Public Health - Seattle and King County • Solid Waste Transfer Station Operating Permit • Solid Waste Excavation Approval City of Tukwila • Unclassified Use Permit • Clearing and Grading Permit • Building Permit • Sensitive Areas Review • Right of Way Use Permit December 2006 Page 3 0 0 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Tree Clearing Permit o Demolition Permit City of SeaTac O Right of Way Use Permit o Building Permit A detailed inventory and summary of permits and approvals that would he required for the proposed project is attached as Appendix A. 11. Give brief complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) Background in 2001, King County issued the Final 2001 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (2001 Plan) (KCSWD, 2001). That document presented King County's strategy for managing the region's solid waste collection, disposal, and recycling services over the next 20 years. The 2001 Plan was the culmination of a system -wide planning effort developed with input from local governments, private industry and citizens. The 2001 Plan emphasized use of existing facilities and optimization of capital resources by concentrating investments at expandable stations. In its analysis of regional transfer facilities, expandable stations were described as those that can be enlarged and upgraded to serve both commercial and self - haulers and to provide primary and some secondary (i.e. appliances and yard waste) service for self - haulers. The 2001 Plan identified the Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station as one of several expandable stations identified within King County. Policies adopted in the 2001 Plan included those related to future transfer and export of wastes, which is expected to occur about 2016 when the capacity of the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill is anticipated to be reached. Details of this effort are described in the Solid 11'astc Trans /er and Waste Export System Plan (2006 Waste Export Plan) ( KCSWD, 2006a). As part of the development process for the 2006 Waste Export Plan, four intermediate milestone reports were issued. These were: Milestone Report #1 Transfer System Level of Service Standards and Criteria; Milestone Report 1/2 — Analysis of System Needs and Capacity; Milestone Report #3 — Options fOr Public & Private Ownership & Operation of "Trans /er Intermodal Facilities; Milestone Report #4 — Preliminary Transfer Waste Export Facility Recommendations and Estimated System Costs, Rate Impacts Financial Policy Assumptions. Report #4 includes consideration of a commercial -only option but rejects it. Alternatives for the Transfer Station System, including the preferred alternative, provide for a new expanded transfer facility at the existing Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station. December 2006 Page 4 The 2006 update to the 1998 Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station Facility Master Plan (1998 FMP) (KCSWD, 1998) has prepared a blueprint for expanding the existing Bow Lake Transfer/Recycling Station. Proposed improvements will result in improved operational efficiency, compliance with current building and environmental standards, enhanced customer service, upgraded customer and employee safety, and capability for eventual out -of -county waste export. See Figures 1 and 2 for the location of the Bow Lake Transfer/Recycling Station. The current Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station was constructed in 1977 on an 8 -acre, closed landfill site (Figure 3). Principal assets include: (a) a 33,100- square -foot, open - sided concrete and steel Transfer Building, (b) a 500- square -foot employee facility located under the Transfer Building roof, (c) a 180 - square -foot scale building with two, 50 -foot- long pit -type vehicle scales, (d) a transfer trailer yard, (e) a free recycling area, (f) a fee or paid recycling area, (g) underground water, sewer, and electrical utility distribution systems, (h) a surface water management system, and (i) a network of asphalt paved roads and 8 parking stalls (KCSWD, 1998) (Figures 4 and 5). The Bow Lake Transfer/Recycling Station currently operates 24 hours per day between 12:00 a.m. Monday through 7:00 a.m. Saturday, and from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. It is closed on Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Years Day. According to data collected, the facility is the busiest transfer station in King County and processes average and peak volumes of approximately 800 tons and 1,250 tons per day, respectively (KCSWD, 2006b). The existing station is experiencing several operational deficiencies that require upgrades including: • A recycling area that is inadequate in size, location, and accessibility; • A transfer trailer yard that has insufficient parking and inadequate trailer maneuvering room; • Scale facility and operations buildings that do not meet statutory requirements for accessibility or King County's standards for size, functionality, security, and employee welfare; • A receiving waste pit that requires upgrading; and • A need for an equipment maintenance shelter (KCSWD, 1998). December 2006 Page 5 LEGEND 1 CITY BOUNDARY I Vicinity Map NOT TO SCALE O KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES do PARKS SOLID WASTE DIVISION BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION FACILITIES MASTER PLAN FIGURE 1 JULY 2006 December 2006 Page 6 LEGEND PARCELS WATER COURSES Aerial Photo NOT TO SCALE �\ KING COUMY (`� /) DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES & PARKS SOLID WASTE DIVISION BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION FACILITIES MASTER PLAN FIGURE 2 JULY 2006 December 2006 Page 7 December 2006 Figure 3. Aerial Photograph of Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station Page 8 December 2006 Figure 4. Existing Scale Facility Figure 5. Existing Waste Pit tat Page 9 Alternative Discussion As discussed above, a number of alternatives were considered for KCSWD transfer stations (including Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station) as part of the planning for the 2006 Waste Export Plan (KCSWD, 2006a). Milestone Report 114 — Preliminary Transfer & Waste Export Facility Recommendations and Estimated System Costs, Rate Impacts & Financial Policy Assumptions (KCSWD, 2006a) included consideration of a commercial - only option but rejected it. KCSWD has considered over two dozen alternatives for the expansion of the Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station. The 1998 FMP focused on making maximum use of existing facilities (KCSWD, 1998). Several alternatives were developed which modified facilities within the existing footprint of the site. These alternatives involved establishing free and pay recycling areas and improving the efficiency of the Transfer Trailer Yard. These alternatives included a perimeter road, and the purchase of only a small portion of the WSDOT site was to be purchased. Scheme A in Appendix B is a representative example of the alternatives considered at that time. Following completion of the 1998 FMP, KCSWD added a number of elements to the requirements for the Row Lake site. These included replacement of the existing Transfer Building, adding a second compactor, and constructing a perimeter service road, among other features. The KCSWD considered additional site plans including Scheme H (see Appendix B). The end result of these evaluations is the 2006 Preferred Site Plan (Figure 6). Proposed Action The proposed project would result in a 6.5 -acre expansion to the north of the existing site on approximately 8.9 acres currently owned by WSDOT (Figure 2). KCSWD needs to acquire a portion of the WSDOT property to accommodate all of the functional requirements of the Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station. December 2006 Page 10 EXISTING -- - _ CELLULAR FACILITY TO REMAIN SOUTH SITE ENTRANCE - EXISTING TRANSFER STATION, BUILDING ����` SOUTH SCALE FACILITY EX/STING PROPERTY LINE - —a FUTURE TRAILER PARKING & MANUVERING 22 TRAILERS TRAILER PARKING & MANUVERING AREA 22 TRAILERS NORTH ACCESS ROAD, BUS ARKING a PAY ISO RECYCLING ABOVE y & YARD WASTE TIPPING +4 ADA PARKING ADA 1245 OARxI' MAINTENANCE BUILDING 7 PARKING • COMPACTOR & STALLS elsoce _ YARD WASTE - MANUVERING 7 PARKING STALLS d r a• • d - H UL TIPPING' 1a $ COMMERCIAL TIPPING WASH • NORTH' FACT TIRE WAS * EXISTING FREE REC MAIN SITE ENTRANCE /EXIT 0' 100 200 300' SCALE IN FEET ti 266 FILL i L n • FUTURE FACILITIES NEW STORM SEWER LINE 1245 * EXISTING FREE RECYCLING AREA TO REMAIN UNDERGROUND STORMWATER FACILITY VAULTS - - - - REFUELING STATION 15 NORTBOU, Le RETAINING WALL„ MINIMUM' 15' FROM PROPERTY LINE 1.5 S°1-1TH80UND Lw EXISTING P IPE RETAINING WALL ' - - -- - - _ 90' STREAM BANK OFFSET LINE STREAM BANK - STREAMI -80'STREAM BANK OFFSET LE ® KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES & PARKS SOLID WASTE DIVISION Preferred Site Plan BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION FACILITIES MASTER PLAN' FIGURE 6 JULY 2006' December 2006 Page 11 1 1 When complete, the expanded facility will cover approximately 11.5 acres (501,000 square feet). Approximately q acres (3 square feet) of the station property will be covered by buildings and associated impervious surfaces. Vegetated areas that would include planters, landscaped islands, and vegetated slopes are planned to cover the remaining 2.5 acres (109,000 square fleet)_ The new facility will accommodate both municipal solid waste (MSW) and yard waste drop -off. Transfer station operator (7'S0) activities will be accommodated in a series of rooms located in the southern portion of the new building in approximately the center of the site. Employee parking will he provided to the west (7 stalls) and east (7 stalls) of the Transfer Building and at the South Scale Facility (5 stalls). A transfer trailer maneuvering area will be located to the southeast of the Transfer Building (Figure 6). Access to the Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station is currently provided from South 188th Street and Orillia Road. The proposed project will continue to access the station from this location. With the expanded facility, there will be two scale facilities (Figure 6). Business and residential self -haul customers and oversized commercial vehicles will enter at the South Scale Facility, and commercial customers will enter at the North Scale Facility. Self -haul customer and oversize commercial traffic will pass through the South Scale Facility before proceeding to the self -haul and commercial customer entrances of the Transfer Building, or self -haul customers could proceed to the yard waste and paid recycling area located south of the Transfer Building. General commercial traffic, excluding oversized vehicles, is planned to pass through the unattended North Scale Facility and enter the Transfer Building from the north (Figure 6). A key element to the success of the proposed expansion of the existing station is the creation of a commercial customer access road parallel to thc freeway corridor. The new road would provide the opportunity for multiple site access points for the Transfer Building. The access road will be 30 feet wide, two 12- foot -wide paved lanes with shoulders (Figure 6). Retaining walls would be required in some areas along the west side of the new perimeter road due to the grade separation between the freeway corridor and the service road. Self-haul customers would exit thc facility from the west and north sides of the Transfer Building, returning to the South Scale Facility and main entrance /exit. Commercial customers would exit the 'Transfer Building at the northeast corner, drive back through the North Scale Facility and pass the South Scale Facility before exiting the site. Transfer trailer traffic would normally be one directional, by entering at the south and exiting to the north (Figure 6). The new 68,000 - square -foot Transfer Building would be located near the center of the north half of the site, with a main axis that is generally oriented north- south. The Transfer Building consists of a two - level, cast -in -place concrete substructure and floor system with a clear span metal building superstructure with concrete panels on the lower wall areas. A large canopy area would extend from the south wall to cover the yard waste drop -off hoppers and customer unloading stalls. The main (upper) floor of the Transfer Building would consist of a stepped concrete floor with a self -haul customer tipping floor located December 2006 Page 12 approximately 4 feet above the commercial tipping/receiving floor, which occupies the largest area of the building (Figure 7). The building includes separate unloading stalls for residential self -haul customers and commercial customers. The receiving floor would include a hardened corundum aggregate - cementitious topping to extend the life of the floor. Interior illumination would be enhanced through the use of large translucent panel areas on walls and the roof to provide significant natural light. The lower level of the Transfer Building will include two double- width, back -in tunnels, housing two stationary MSW preload compactors and two top -load chutes for yard waste. An enclosed service room in the lower level will house hydraulic power units (HPU) to provide power to the two compactors. Dust collection equipment and electrical and mechanical rooms will be located on the floor above the compactor bay. Figure 7 shows the detailed main floor plan. Building elevations are shown on Figures 8 and 9. Underground stormwater detention vaults will be located in the transfer trailer maneuvering yard (Figure 6). Several other amenities associated with the expanded station will be provided. These are listed below and shown in Figure 6. • A Refueling Station for KCSWD equipment to be located east of the Transfer Building; • TSO areas that include offices, a break room, locker rooms, restrooms, mechanical and storage rooms; • An approximately 136,000- square -foot paved maneuvering and storage yard for trailers located southeast of the Transfer Building; • An approximately 17,000- square -foot paved, paid recycling area, which includes a yard waste drop -off with 8 uncovered unloading stalls, located south of the Transfer Building; • The existing approximately 2,000- square -foot, paved free recycling area located south of the main site entrance /exit; and with a new informational kiosk; and • A 2,500 square -foot equipment maintenance building. The new station is expected to handle an average of approximately 1,400 tons of MSW in the year 2030 with peak daily volume of up to 2,500 tons. The station should serve approximately 1,050 vehicles on an average day by the year 2030, and up to 2,100 vehicles on a peak day. Customers would include approximately 26 percent commercial vehicles (trucks), 71 percent self -haul vehicles (pickups and cars) and 3 percent business self - haulers (smaller trucks). By 2030, there are expected to be an average of 46 transfer trailer vehicles per day, with peak days of approximately 82 vehicles. See Appendix C for KCSWD's methodology for forecasting tonnage and vehicles. December 2006 Page 13 1 YARD WASTE TIPPING ROOF ABOVE -! EMERGENCY GENERATOR YARD WASTE TIPPING MAINTENANCE BLDG SEE FIG 29 ■ 1" r KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES & PARKS SOLID WASTE DIVISION i - g SELF -HAUL o ENTRANCE L L o SOUTH o COMMERCIAL 1 ENTRANCE SITE STAIRS TO COMPACTOR LEVEL LOBBY OH ACCESS DOOR 0 r n ELECTRICAL - STORAGE COMPACTOR LEVEL AIR INTAKE I I II 1 v..,. L1 LJ •1 - EMPLOYEE WARMING AREA COMPACTOR CHUTE i SPRINKLER & PLUMBING 4 EQUIPMENT �; � " - COMPACTOR CHUTE O G COMPACTOR GATE FRAME HOUSING, TYP DUST COLLECTORS 0 ▪ SELF -HAUL TIPPING COMMERCIAL TIPPING FLOOR n SCALE: 1/32' =1'-0 RAINWATER TANK 2 36.00 18.00 40.00 - - RAINWATER in TANK 3 216.00 Transfer Building Main Floor Plan NO TIPPING WALL, CHAIN FALL PROTECTION n 30.00 _ SELF -HAUL EXIT 36.00 TYP 0 • TIRE WASH EQUIPMENT TIRE WASH 00 SELF -HAUL N. EXIT ' ■ s(?cb TERNATIVE • COMMERCIAL EXIT /, , i/ / TIRE WASH NORTH °• COMMERCIAL -- - - ENTRANCE )50 COMMERCIAL o EXIT •' • TIRE WASH EQUIPMENT JULY 2006 S N 1 BOW LAKE TRANSFER/RECYCLING STATION FACILITIES MASTER PLAN FIGURE 7 December 2006 Page 14 ® IM - 0 m 0 0 0 0 O 0 =I Mil ME E 307 EL 2w RAR.WA 'ER TMK7 SNYLIGM. SOUTH ELEVATION SKYLIGHT WEST ELEVATION NOT TO SCALE CAVTT SKYJG NP EXHAUST OUST COLLECTOR EXMJST LOWERS SICA.GHT E1»UUST LOVERS Transfer Building South and West Elevations RANAATER TANK 3 VE+9CLE MAINTENANCE BURONG ROOA ACCESS STAIR EL 265 El 245 HPU EX AOS LONERS El 295s EL MEr El 767 ® KING COUNT' DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES & PARKS SOLID WASTE DIVISION IC /ED Q ���IIrcK BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION FACILITIES MASTER PLAN FIGURE S JULY 2006 December 2006 Page 15 ■� -- NM a a e e e v o M o o MI Mil UN YEWUE EW YTEAA4CE BUKDM RAINWATER COUVERCTAL 'ANK'. EXIT ROOF ACCESS STAIRS SIAIRELEVATOR TOWER YARD AASTE BAVS SKYLGNT COVPAC OR BAYS CONWERCU. ENTRANCE IEi71[�71 VEHIC,E AWA TE'UAtCE WILDING NORTH ELEVATION SKYLKiTT EAST ELEVATION NOT TO SCALE SKYL III SE.F+WJL COUVERCIA. E70T RAINWATER EKR 'INN 2 EXHAUST LOI.YERS Transfer Building North and East Elevations DAYLIGHT INS RANE_S ® KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES & PARKS SOLID WASTE DIVISION /EC IP la BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION FACILITIES MASTER PLAN FIGURE 9 JULY 2006 December 2006 Page 16 i 0 0 i i i T LL Project Schedule Phase 1. Phase 1 construction will include the completion of the commercial customer access road, the Transfer Building, the North Scale Facility, and all adjacent roads and site work on the WSDOT parcel to the north of the existing site. A temporary scale house will he placed at the North Scale Facility. Phase l will also include construction of the new stormwater detention and treatment vault(s) and discharge system (Figure 10). During the 24- to 26 -month Phase 1 construction period, the existing station will continue to operate for both commercial and self -haul customers. Phase 2. Phase 2 construction will require commercial and business self -haul customer traffic to be redirected to the North Scale Facility and new transfer station building during the 10- to 12 -month construction period. Residential self -haul customers may not be able to use the facility during Phase 2 construction and may be redirected to other KCSWD stations at Algona and Renton. During Phase 2 construction, the existing Transfer Building and scale facility will be demolished to complete the transfer station. Some transfer trailers may he parked in the area of the existing trailer yard, and some trailers may have to be parked at other areas of the site or at a temporary yard that could be developed at the north end of the new perimeter service road (Figure 11). Sanitary sewer flow will be collected in a temporary holding tank and transferred to the wastewater treatment facilities at the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill for pretreatment. It will then be conveyed by pipeline to King County South Regional Treatment Plant at Renton. Phase 3. Phase 3 construction involves the completion of the work in the permanent Transfer "frailer Yard and along the return road from the Transfer Building to the South Scale Facility, including the creation of new parking stalls and possibly the removal of the north scale house (Figure 12). Commercial and self -haul customers will have full access to the station during this phase. Phase 3 is anticipated to last approximately I to 2 months. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site or sites. Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications to this checklist. The existing Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station is located in south Tukwila near the intersection of Orillia Road and South 188th Street (Figures 1 and 2). The project site is located in Section 35, Township 23 North, Range 4 East. The parcel number for the property is 3523049037 (see Figure 13). The legal description of the existing King County property is as follows: 352304 37 BEG W 1/4 COR TH S 87- 56-00 E 960 FT TH S 53 -24 -59 W 727.57 FT TH S 38 -42 -02 E 1144.63 FT TH S 04 -04- 00 W 490 FT TH N 87 -57 -00 W 1238.31 FT TH N 05 -44 -13 E 1815.1 1 FT TO BEG TGW THAT POR OF N 490 FT OF SE 1/4 OF SE 1/4 SEC 34 -23 -4 LY E OF OLD MILITARY RD & OF ORILLIA RD EXTN LESS ST HWY. December 2006 Page 17 NEW TRANSFER STATION ® KING COUNTY DEPARTUENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES & PARKS SOLID WASTE DIVISION Construction Site Plan Phase 1 Scale 1' =100' KPG BOW LAKE TRANSFER/RECYCLING STATION FACILITIES MASTER PLAN FIGURE 10 JULY 2006 December 2006 Page 18 December 2006 NEW SOUTH SCALE FACILITY MAINTENANCE COMMERCIAL TIPPING OM la III REMOVE EXISTING SCALE FACILITY II 2 � 6 i �' v� • • I • • • • • • • • • 0 50 too 150 SGAI F IN FFET KING COUNTY 0 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES & PARKS SOLID WASTE DIVISION '5 a! NORTH E- SS ~— AEC ROAD - - _ _! Scale r=100' Construction Site Plan Phase 2 11 KEG ,_s so{ is ND �w JULY 2006 ORTH SCALE FACILITY BOW LAKE TRANSFER/RECYCLING STATION FACILITIES MASTER PLAN FIGURE 11 Page 19 r v I � t t e 1 December 2006 o so loo $CALF+ IM FFFT I ft i 150 1 -5 NO fil)IB 0 SCALE BOOTH; SCALES TO REMAIN ® KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES & PARKS SOLID WASTE OMSION Construction Site Plan Phase 3 Scale I" -100' BOW LAKE TRANSFER/RECYCLINGSTATION FACILITIES MASTER PLAN FIGURE 12 JULY 2006 Page 20 ® KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES & PARKS SOLID WASTE DIVISION Parcel Map Vicinity of Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling NOT TO SCALE rs .O z BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION FACILITIES MASTER PLAN FIGURE 13 JULY 2006 December 2006 Page 21 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 B. Environmental Elements 1. Earth The WSDOT parcel is located directly north of the existing Bow Lake 'Transfer /Recycling Station. It is adjacent to, and directly east of i -5. The parcel number for the WSDOT property is 3523045555 (see Figure 13). KCSWD is currently negotiating with WSDOT for purchase of a portion of parcel 352304555. This negotiation will include the exact boundaries of the parcel. As part of their surplus property process, WSDOT will develop an exact legal description for the parcel to be purchased. King County Solid Waste Division has conducted a number of geotechnical investigations on the site of the Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station site and adjacent properties over the last fifteen years. Principal among these are the Geotechnical Engineering Study: Bow Lake Transfer r Station Improvements Facilities Master Ilan, King County, Washington (Hong West & Associates, Inc., 1 993) and the Draft Geotechnical Evaluation Report: WSDOT Property, Bow Lake Transfer Station /Recycling Facility, King County, Washington (HWA Geosciences, Inc., 2004). The information provided in Section 1. Earth is based on these documents as reviewed and updated in the recent Slope Geotechnical Issues: Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Facility, King County, Washington Technical Memorandum (HWA Geosciences, 2006b). See Appendix D for the complete document. a. General description of the site (check one) LI Flat (developed portion of site) Rolling Hilly Steep slopes (to the north, south and east) Mountainous Other: b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent of slope)? Along most of the southern boundary of the site (King County property), the slope is traversed by a 50 -toot wide bench, which then traverses north - northeast along the contour, sloping to an approximately 100 -foot wide cut bench at the northeast property corner. Slope inclinations above the bench vary from 10 to 48 percent over short distances, indicative of modified land. The slope below the bench is more consistent with gradients ranging from 40 to 45 percent. The WSDOT property (to be acquired) north of the existing Transfer /Recycling Station is dominated by a large fill stockpile with dimensions of about 300 feet by 220 feet at the top of the stockpile. The highest elevation is about 315 feet, dropping to about 276 feet on the 1 -5 side and 230 feet on the east side. The base of the stockpiled fill is about 250 feet and the thickness of the stockpile about 65 feet. As shown on Figure 3, there is a steep -sided ravine on the north side of the WSDOT property. The ravine bottom extends east -west at an elevation of approximately 170 feet due north of the high point of the stockpiled fill. December 2006 Page 22 Property Slope Description Inclination ( %) Slope Designation' WSDOT North face, stockpile fill 20 to 30 Class 2 WSDOT North face, native 55 to 80 Class 3, 4 WSDOT East face, stockpile fill 20 to 55 Class 2, 3 WSDOT East face, native 20 to 85 Class 3, 4 King County East face, fill 10 to 55 Class 2, 3 King County East face, native 20 to 45 Class 2, 3 King County South face, fill 10 to 48 Class 2, 3 King County South face, native 40 to 45 Class 3 To the northeast of the WSDOT property, the ravine bottom descends to the approximately 90 -foot elevation. The side slopes of the stockpile on the north side are inclined at about 20 percent in the upper half and about 30 percent in the bottom half. The fill is setback from the natural slope to the north and there is a gently- sloping bench at the toe of the fill. The outer edge of this bench is the crest of the naturally -steep ravine slope, which descends at gradients of approximately 55 to 60 percent in the upper portion, steepening to 75 to 80 percent for the remainder of the slope to the ravine bottom. The eastern slope of the WSDOT stockpile is inclined at gradients up to 55 percent. At the toe of the stockpile is the gently - sloping bench, which extends from the north side. The bench is approximately 100 feet in width and sloped at about 20 percent. The outer edge of the bench forms the crest of the steep natural slope, inclined at approximately 85 percent in the upper portion, sloping more gently into a bowl - shaped area. A second bowl extends downslope from the first bowl. The slopes on the north, south, and east sides of the project site are summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Slope Summary 1. Per City of Tukwila Environmentally Sensitive Areas Designation (TMC 18.45.120A). c. What general types of soil are found on the site (i.e., clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The upland area west of the station site is mantled primarily with Vashon till. This material consists of an unsorted mass of silt, gravel, and sand, typically with high density /strength and low permeability. The surficial geology of the side slope of the river valley, including the station site, consists of kame - terrace deposits. Kame - terrace deposits consist of stratified sand and gravel deposited by melt -water from retreating glaciers. Inclusions of till are common and deposits are frequently mined for sand and gravel (HWA Geosciences, Inc., 2004). Numerous soil investigations have encountered three general material types on the station site: fill soil, refuse material, and kame terrace deposits (Hong West & Associates, Inc., December 2006 Page 23 i 1 r r 1 1 1 r 1 0 C 0 L Q 0 b a ti rn 0 1993). Fill soil is present at and within a few feet of the surface across most of the developed portions of the site. This fill is thought to have been deposited as (a) fill cover over the old landfill and (b) new fill placed during the construction of the station. This material consists of loose to medium dense, brown, medium to fine sand, with gravel and silt. Some gravelly sand zones are also present. Refuse materials are present over most of the developed portions of the site. The refuse deposit thickens from west to east with a maximum depth of approximately 46 feet (Hong West & Associates, Inc., 1993) and consists of varying amounts of paper, glass, plastic, metal, asphalt fragments, construction debris, and organic debris. Glacial deposits are present across the site below the fill and refuse deposits. These glacial deposits, identified as kame terrace deposits, typically consist of medium dense to very dense, gray, medium to fine sand, with varying amounts of silt and gravel. Typically, the upper 5 to 10 feet of the glacial deposits are medium dense to dense, while deeper deposits are dense to very dense. No agricultural activities are known to have occurred on the site, nor is any prime farmland known to exist on the site. For additional detail, see Appendix D. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? i Yes I I No If yes, explain. King County Parcel Generally, the slopes on the east and south sides of the existing facility exhibit no evidence of deep - seated sliding, and none have been documented in the site investigations conducted over the last twenty years (H WA Geosciences, Inc., 2006). See Appendix D. The Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station site has experienced considerable settlement since the landfill was closed in the late 1950s. Settlement was estimated to be 3.6 feet in the 10 -year period between 1966 and 1976, and it was estimated that settlement might be occurring at a maximum rate of 0.24 foot per year (Hong West & Associates, Inc., 1993). This settlement was attributed to loose placement of refuse, decomposition of refuse materials, and increased loading on landfill refuse by traffic and structures. Cracks in roadway pavement about the site and settlement of floor slabs have been noted periodically and attributed to landfill settlement (Hong West & Associates, Inc., 1993). The slopes to the east and south of the existing facility are considered Class 2 and 3 under the City of Tukwila's Sensitive Areas designation (TMC 18.45.20A). These slopes are also mapped as an erosion hazard area. Recent site investigations have shown that along much of the southern property line, the slope is traversed by a 50 -foot wide bench, which turns northeast along the contour and slopes to an approximately 100 -foot bench at the northeast property boundary. Above the bench, the slope inclinations range from 10 to 48 percent over short distances, an indication of modified land (i.e. former landfill). Below the bench, slopes are more consistent with gradients ranging from 40 to 45 percent. Trees in this area are bent or pistol -butt shaped, indicative of soil creep. December 2006 Page 24 WSDOT Parcel Overall, no evidence of deep- seated sliding is evident on the north and east sides of the WSDOT parcel, only surficial soil creep and isolated shallow sliding. The shallow slope movement can be expected to occur periodically over time as the underlying very dense sand mechanically weathers. Most of this movement will occur in the steep lower portions of the ravine slope, in locations where ground water seepage is present. Natural processes of soil creep and skin sliding will continue to occur with or without the project. The slopes on the north and east sides of the WSDOT parcel are considered Class 2, 3 and 4 under the City of Tukwila's Sensitive Areas designation (TMC 18.45.20A). The ravine slope to the north has a convex profile with the steepest portions at the bottom of the ravine. The north and east slopes are also mapped as an erosion hazard area. Many of the trees on the ravine slope on the north side of the WSDOT parcel have straight trunks indicating that slope creep is minimal. There is, however, evidence of at least two shallow slides near the 15- to 20 -foot walls at the west end of the ravine near a culvert outlet. East of the toe of the WSDOT soil stockpile is a gently - sloped bench, approximately 100 feet in width and inclined at approximately 20 percent. This feature transitions to a steep natural slope, which forms the upper portion of a bowl- shaped area, with a second bowl further down slope. These bowls are typical expressions of former land sliding. e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Site construction will occur under two consecutive contracts: 1) A site preparation contract; and 2) A site facilities contract. Estimated volumes of excavation and fill are described below. See Appendix J for additional detail on truck trips and schedule. Site Preparation This is primarily an earthworks contract with some retaining wall and stormwater system construction. Soil Removal. There will be an estimated 148,000 cubic yards (cy) of material excavated and removed from the site. Material will be hauled to an approved disposal site. WSDOT Material. Based on recent geotechnical investigations (IHWA Geosciences, Inc., 2004), it appears that most, if not all of the material stored on the WSDOT property can be used for fill material. Preliminary estimates indicate that a total of approximately 40,000 cy of fill material will be needed from on -site stockpile (WSDOT property) and imported (off -site) material (see below). Imported Material. There will be approximately 20,000 cy of soil material imported for use as fill at the site. Contract specifications will state that this material must be clean and appropriate for use on the site. December 2006 Page 25 ,1 Construction g. Site Facilities Under this contract, the 'Transfer Building will be constructed, pavement and utilities will he installed, along with some additional earthwork and retaining wall construction. Grading. Grading necessary to achieve desired finish elevations on the site is expected to involve approximately 77,000 cy of material. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction or use? Yes n No 1 /so, generally describe. Recognizing the potential for erosion, KCSWD has made erosion control measures an integral part of the construction plan. Best Management Practices (BMPs), intended to control or eliminate erosion, will be implemented during construction. The extensive site work needed for construction of the expanded Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station and the steep slopes on and adjacent to the eastern portion of the site indicate that the potential for erosion during construction is high. Most of the site work will be conducted in Phase I, and is expected to take between 24 and 26 months. Work in this phase will involve excavation and disposal of remnant refuse materials from the old landfill, and grading and filling of the site with imported material and existing material from the WSDOT stockpile. Construction documents will include detailed specifications regarding the implementation of erosion - related BMPs. These are summarized in Section 1(h) below. N About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (i.e., asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 46% of the combined King County -WSDOT site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction. There is approximately 1 89,000 square feet (4.34 acres) of impervious surface area at the existing Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station. Impervious surfaces are composed of structures (Transfer Building, scale facility) and paved surfaces used for on -site circulation, the Transfer Trailer Yard, the recycling areas, and parking areas. The proposed project would result in approximately 382,500 square feet (8.78 acres) of impervious surface. The new Transfer Building accounts for approximately 66,000 square feet (1.52 acre) of this area (Figure 3). The new South Scale Facility and North Scale Facility account for additional impervious surfaces. The remainder consists primarily of paved surfaces for on -site circulation, the new Transfer Trailer Yard, the new paid recycling and yard waste area, the new Refueling Station, and parking areas. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion or other impacts to the earth, if any: In order to comply with City of Tukwila and Ecology requirements, KCSWD will implement a "Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) Plan. Ecology will require a Stormwater Pollution Prevention (SWPP) Plan as part of NPDES Permit conditions. Each of these plans has specific measures intended to reduce or eliminate potential stormwater impacts during construction. These measures may include: r` December 2006 Page 26 • An Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) will be developed that will describe procedures for managing and monitoring excavation activities, including procedures for identifying, testing, and handling of contaminated materials should they be encountered during site work; • As far as practical, earthwork will be conducted during dry months of the year; • Silt fencing, straw bales, check dams or similar sediment containment facilities will be installed prior to demolition and site work; • Matting or mulch will be used to control erosion of exposed soils; • The contractor(s) will be required to minimize the extent of soils exposed at any given time; • Crushed gravel or equivalent will be used to stabilize temporary access and staging/mobilization areas; • Material stockpiles will be covered when not in use; • Storm drains inlets and discharges will be kept clear of obstructions and/or sediment to ensure proper operation; • Construction vehicle tires will be cleaned prior to exiting the construction site; • During dry periods, disturbed areas will be sprayed with water to control dust; • Exposed areas will be revegetated (e.g. hydroseeded) as soon as practical following disturbance. Operation Based on the preliminary investigations conducted over the last several years, there do not appear to be any slope conditions on the proposed site that present slope stability or erosional problems that cannot be handled through the application of conventional geotechnical design practices and construction BMPs (HWA Geosciences, Inc., 2006b). Although final design will await more detailed geotechnical investigations, a number of proposed measures are expected to be incorporated into final design to address slope stability and erosional concerns. • A geotechnical report appropriate both to site conditions and proposed development will be prepared in accordance with TMC 18.45.040 Sensitive Areas Special Studies. • Geotechnical borings will be conducted as necessary to develop a geologic profile for slope and seismic stability calculations. • Geotechnical borings will be advanced through old refuse to determine the appropriate foundation type for the Transfer Building; • A buffer distance will be established between the crest of steep natural slopes and site development in accordance with TMC 18.45.120C. • The outer edge of the perimeter road will be supported on several feet of fill. Geotechnical borings will determine the appropriate means for construction (e.g. sidecast fill, mechanically- stabilized earth, soldier pile wall). • Removal of 40 to 60 feet of the existing fill stockpile on the WSDOT property will eliminate long -term issues of erosion and slope stability for that portion of the on -site slopes. • The removal of fill will reduce the net loading at the top of the slopes and generally improve the overall deep- seated stability of the natural slopes below. • Collection of stormwater runoff from the site will eliminate current uncontrolled site runoff. Runoff will either be directed downslope to the valley floor through a pipeline system or discharged through an engineered spreader system on the slope, as December 2006 Page 27 U 0 C d 0 0 0 C a 0 a 2. Air appropriate to geotechnical slope stability considerations. Either method will be designed in accordance with Ecology's 2005 Manual. a Pervious areas on the site will he planted with ground cover, shrubs, and trees to reduce erosion potential. 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? The proposed project would result in short -term emissions from construction /redevelopment of the existing site and long -term emissions during operation of the upgraded facility. Both types of emissions are addressed below. An air quality report describing impacts is included in Appendix E. Construction Emissions Construction of the proposed project would result in temporary, localized increases in pollutant emissions from construction activities and equipment. Construction of the project will require the use of heavy equipment, trucks, and smaller equipment such as generators and compressors. These engines will emit air pollutants that might slightly degrade local air quality. Dust from excavation and grading may contribute to ambient concentrations of suspended particulate matter in the project vicinity. During construction of the facility, existing buildings will be demolished. Demolition contractors will be required to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the PSCAA regulations concerning the safe removal and disposal of any asbestos- containing materials, if applicable. Some construction phases may cause odors, particularly during paving operations using tar and asphalt. The construction contractor(s) will he required to comply with the PSCAA regulations requiring the control of odorous emissions so as to prevent undue interference with nearby uses (Regulation i, Section 9.11). Such odors would be short- term and unlikely to affect the nearest residences. In addition, no slash or demolition burning will be permitted in association with this project. With good construction management practices, emissions related to construction will be short-term and relatively minor. As a result, no significant air quality impacts are expected from construction. Operational Emissions Off -Site Traffic Emissions. The proposed project is unlikely to significantly impact air quality due to increased vehicular emissions. There may be a slight increase in vehicle emissions due to an increase in traffic traveling to and from the expanded Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station. However, estimated traffic delays and volumes at the most affected signalized intersections in 2030 are about the same in the future both with and without the facility upgrade, which indicates that the proposed facility expansion is December 2006 Page 28 unlikely to affect the operation of the nearest intersections. In addition, with the use of compactors, which increase trailer payload from 17 tons currently to approximately 27 tons, the number of trailer loads leaving the site will be reduced, resulting in less vehicular emissions. On -Site Traffic, Dust, and Odor Emissions. Potential emissions from on -site operations are unlikely to impact air quality because the upgraded facility would be designed to minimize dust and odor emissions. For example, the Transfer Building would be enclosed and incorporate a dust suppression/misting system coupled with a mechanical exhaust ventilation system. The proposed site design would provide more efficient on -site traffic flows to reduce vehicle queuing. The types of waste accepted at a transfer facility are strictly controlled by KCSWD through King County Public Rule PUT 7- 1- 4(PR), Waste Acceptance Policy. This rule prohibits disposal of hazardous or dangerous waste, burning or smoldering material, infectious waste, excessively odorous or dusty material, and various other materials. Finally, odor impacts at off -site locations are unlikely because of the distance to nearby residences and because the potential to generate odors would be minimized by removing storage trailers on a daily basis. Therefore, no significant air quality impacts are expected due to the proposed facility expansion and upgrade (Geomatrix, Inc., 2006a). b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? n Yes ® No If so, generally describe. The predominant source of air pollution in the project area is traffic on I -5, the surrounding surface streets, and interstate ramps. With recent monitoring trends for carbon monoxide (CO) decreasing (the pollutant emitted from vehicles in the largest quantities), the air quality for CO and other pollutants is generally good, indicating air quality impacts from off -site sources are not likely (Geomatrix, Inc., 2006a). c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Construction Under the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency's (PSCAA) Regulation I, Section 9.15, contractor(s) will be required to take all reasonable precautions to avoid or minimize fugitive dust emissions during construction. These precautions and control measures may include: • Spraying exposed soil with water or other suppressant to reduce emissions of particulate matter; • Street cleaning and wheel washing of trucks to prevent dirt, mud and other debris deposits on paved roadways open to the public; and • Limiting the amount of time construction trucks are allowed to idle on -site. With such control measures in place, the potential for off -site air quality impacts is small. December 2006 Page 29 9 r1 0 a 0 7 9 0 9 0 C 0 9 9 0 c 9 3. Water Operations The following proposed design and operational features would mitigate air quality and odor impacts during operation of the facility: o The Transfer Building will be fully enclosed except for the entry/exit points, reducing off -site dust and odor impacts; o The "Transfer Building will incorporate a mechanical exhaust ventilation system for dust and odor control; a There will be a high- pressure, low - volume misting system for dust and odor control in the Transfer Building; • The hydraulic compactor system with the upgraded facility will eliminate the need to macerate the waste in the receiving pit, thereby reducing dust produced by the maceration process; o The new design will incorporate additional weigh scales and would segregate commercial, business, and self - haulers, thereby reducing vehicle queuing into the facility and reducing vehicular emissions resulting from idling vehicles; o Wheel- washers and truck washout facilities will be provided inside the Transfer Building for commercial haulers exiting the facility to reduce the potential to carry dust oft -site; o The haul -out of full storage containers will occur daily, minimizing the extent and length of on -site storage and potential odor impacts related to long -teen storage of waste; o Rear -load containers will be sealed prior to transport to off -site locations; The facility will be thoroughly cleaned on a regular basis, reducing the potential for odor emissions; and • Minimizing the potential for wastes affecting air quality, KCSWD will follow its established procedures to screen wastes, and implements requirements for waste clearance and acceptance in accordance with King County Public Rules PUT 7 -2- 1 (PR) and PUT 7 -1 -5 (PR). See Appendix H. Given the project's proposed design features, in conjunction with KCSWD's policies and rules, no operational air quality impacts are identified. Therefore, no additional measures are proposed (Gcomatrix, Inc., 2006a). 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)? M Yes 1 1 No Iry es, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. There are no surface water bodies on the existing Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station site. A wetland reconnaissance performed by Adolfson Associates, Inc.(2004) in February 2004 confirmed no wetlands are present on the existing Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station site or the adjacent WSDOT property. The reconnaissance report is provided in Appendix G. December 2006 Page 30 The following streams, though not on the site, are located in the vicinity of the project. First, a stream exists on the property to the north. It is a steep, highly erosive drainage feature and appears to originate in part from I -5 runoff. This stream is referred to as Stream E2 by the downstream property owner, La Pianta LLC (Figure 2). Stream E2 is considered a non -fish bearing stream because of the steep gradient and lack of suitable habitat (Cedarock Consultants, Inc., 2005). It discharges on the valley floor to Stream E, a drainage feature that discharges to the Green River near river mile (RM) 16.6 and South 180th Street. Of the four drainage basins in the surrounding area, Stream E2 is located within the north basin (sub -basin N) as identified in the Tukwila South Preliminary Master Drainage Plan (Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates, Inc. and Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc., 2005) and presented in the Tukwila South Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., 2005). The discharge of Stream E to the Green River is via a pump station and flow control structure referred to as the S 180 Pump Station. The pump station is located just east of the intersection of S 180 Street and Southcenter Parkway. The pump station pumps surface water from Stream E2 through approximately 1,600 -foot long culverts to the Green River. Stream E2 flows through a mixed deciduous and coniferous forest. It is classified as a Type 3 stream under the City of Tukwila's watercourse rating system (Whiting, personal communication, 2006) although city maps indicate the stream as Type 2 (City of Tukwila, 2004a). Type 3 streams are afforded an 80 -foot wide standard buffer. As part of this project, Adolfson staff flagged the south bank of Stream E2 on the top of the slope and documented the field efforts in a memorandum dated August 22, 2006. This memorandum is included in Appendix G. The buffer line is drawn from the stream bank as marked on the site plans (see Figure 6.). A second stream, Stream El, originates in a small wetland area located on a property east of the station site. Similar to Stream E2, Stream El is also located within the north basin drainage area (Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates, Inc. and Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc., 2005). Stream El is considered a non fish- bearing stream because of the very steep channel gradient and lack of habitat (Cedarock Consultants, Inc., 2005). Stream El drains east, discharging to Stream E near the driving range facility, where it is directed through existing drainage facilities to the Green River. Stream El flows through mixed deciduous and coniferous forest and is classified as a Type 2 stream under the City of Tukwila's watercourse rating system (City of Tukwila, 2004a). However, Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (2005) classifies Stream El as an Type 3 stream. Water quality within Stream E 1 is assumed to be similar to that of E2, although water quality testing was not performed (A.C. Kindig & Co., 2005). Raedeke & Associates, Inc. identified a small, off -site wetland down slope of the proposed station site. This small wetland is referred to as Wetland 4 in the Tukwila South Draft EIS, Volume 1 (April 2005). This wetland is 0.04 acre in size and is considered a palustrine emergent wetland. The wetland appears to be located approximately 100 feet northeast of the eastern property line. Stream El appears to originate December 2006 Page 31 0 7 0 D D C 0 0 C r-- from the small Wetland 4. According to the Tukwila South Draft EIS, Volume 1, Wetland 4 receives water primarily from seeps on the forested hillside and runoff from surrounding uplands. A third stream, Stream G, is located on the adjacent La Pianta property, just east of the existing scale facility. Stream G is a Type 3 stream and is not thought to be fish-hearing because of its long -term isolation from fish- bearing waters, the steep gradient and lack of suitable habitat ( Cedarock Consultants, Inc., 2005). Several wetlands are located along this drainage feature. Stream G is located entirely within the Central (sub -basin C) basin (Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates, Inc. and Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc., 2005). Stream G drains in a southwest direction, discharging to Stream E and ultimately thc Green River. Riparian vegetation consists of a native shrub layer with a dense, moderate -aged mixed deciduous, coniferous forest. Water quality is thought to he similar to that of streams El and E2, although not verified with quantitative measurements (A.C. Kindig & Co., 2005). Stream E, which is the receiving waterbody fbr streams El, E2, and G is considered a Type 2 stream, and is assumed to he fish bearing (Cedarock Consultants, Inc., 2005). However, due to the presence of thc pump station on Stream E, anadromous fish are not able to enter the stream from thc Green River. 2. Will the project require any work over, in or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? N Yes 1 1 No 1 / yes, please describe and attach available plans. Expansion of the Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station would require some construction within 200 feet of streams E2, and possibly El, if the tightline discharge option for the site stormwater is implemented (See Appendix F and Section 3.c.1 below). Figure 2 shows the location of the site with respect to off-site streams E. El. E2. and G. The E2 stream buffer is measured from top- of-bank. Adolfson Associates, Inc. has delineated the top -of -bank conservatively ( Adolfson Associates, Inc., 2006). As shown in Figure 6, the major features of the expanded station in closest proximity to off-site water bodies are the retaining walls and peripheral paved roadways on the north and northeast margins of the site. 3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. No wetland areas arc located on the expanded Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station site. Consequently, no fill or dredged material would be placed in or removed from wetland areas. Further, fill and dredge materials will not be placed in or impact off -site streams or their buffers except as noted above fbr Stream E2. If the tightline stonnwater discharge outfall option to Stream E is implemented (see Appendix F and Section 3.c.1 below), some energy dissipation rock or a concrete energy dissipation structure would be placed beside the stream. December 2006 Page 32 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? ❑ Yes ® No Give general description, purpose and approximate quantities if known. The proposal would not require any surface water withdrawals or diversions. 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? ❑ Yes ® No If so, note location on the site plan. The proposal does not lie within a 100-year floodplain. 6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? n Yes Fl No If no, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. The proposal does not involve any discharge of waste materials to surface waters. See Section 3(c) Water Runoff, below, and Section 16 Utilities regarding sanitary sewer issues. b. Ground 1. Will groundwater be withdrawn or will water be discharged to groundwater? 1 Yes ® No Give general description, purpose and approximate quantities if known. The proposed expansion does not involve withdrawal of groundwater nor does it include any discharge to groundwater. 2. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (i.e., 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 expected to be served by the system or systems. Sanitary Sewage No sanitary sewage will be discharged into the ground at the site. During construction, the contractors will be required to provide temporary sanitary toilets on site for use by workers and visitors. These facilities will be maintained by a designated subcontractor. The new facility will include restrooms for SWD workers. Wastewater from these facilities will be pretreated on -site, then hauled by truck to Cedar Hills and discharged into the wastewater pretreatment lagoons. The pretreated wastewater will then be conveyed via pipeline to the Renton Wastewater Treatment Plant. Leachate No leachate (water that has come into contact with or may potentially come into contact with refuse) will be discharged to the ground at the site. December 2006 Page 33 C 0 9 1' J 0 D 0 9 0 9 0 0 Portions of the existing Bow Lake 'Transfer / Recycling Station are located over an old municipal waste landfill that operated in the 1940s and 1950s (Seattle — King County Department of Public Health, 1985). When the landfill closed in 1961, the site was capped with soil and the existing transfer station constructed on top of the soil cap. The current Transfer Building is constructed on timber piles that penetrate through the refuse layer. During construction of the new Transfer / Recycling Station, the existing Transfer Building and other structures will he demolished, pavements removed and the site regraded. It is expected that some of the old refuse material that lies beneath proposed structures, an estimated 20,000 cy, will be removed as part of site work. While construction work is in progress, there is potential for precipitation to infiltrate through exposed soils to old refuse layers and to generate leachate, which could become nixed with groundwater. A number of measures will he incorporated into the construction contracts to minimize leachate generation and associated impacts. These are described below in Scction 3.d. Once construction is completed, large areas of the old landfill site will be covered with highly impervious surfaces including concrete and asphalt paved areas and concrete and steel structures. This new construction will provide an effective cap over a significant portion of the old refuse deposits. it is estimated that the expanded Bow Lake Transfer / Recycling Station will reduce groundwater flow from precipitation by approximately 8.4 million gallons per year (see Appendix F.). This will significantly reduce the potential for leachate generation at the site. This reduction is based on collected storm water flows from the site being conveyed downslope via pipeline and discharged either to Stream E on the valley floor or being discharged through an engineered dispersal system at locations on the site where flows would he directed away from old refuse deposits. When the expanded facility becomes operational, precipitation falling on the 1.5- acre roof of the new Transfer Building will he diverted to a detention system. This water will be used for washdown of Transfer Building floors and other surfaces that come in contact with refuse. This wash water, as well as any water draining from full refuse trailers and intermodal containers, will drain to the sanitary sewer system. In addition, all parking areas for all loaded waste trailers /containers and any outdoor areas where open top bins for recycled materials are placed will be designed to drain to the sanitary sewer system. This collected wash and drain water will be pretreated on -site and hauled to an approved treatment facility. See Appendix F. c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1. Describe the source of runoff (including stormwater) 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. in all areas on the site where water runoff may come in contact with solid waste refuse (e.g., Transfer Trailer Yard parking stalls, inside the Transfer Building, paid recycle area), it will be collected and conveyed to an on -site vault. This December 2006 Page 34 wastewater will be pretreated on -site and hauled by truck to Cedar Hills where it will be discharged to the wastewater pretreatment lagoons. The pretreated wastewater will then be conveyed by pipeline to the King County South Wastewater Treatment Plant at Renton. Stormwater from the Transfer Station site drains to what is referred to as the North Basin in the Tukwila South Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (TSP Final EIS) (City of Tukwila, 2005). Surface water and any re- emergent groundwater east of the Transfer Station site eventually discharge to an existing ditch at the base of the slope. This ditch, referred to as "E ", flows north adjacent to a golf driving range and through pasture land before connecting to a culvert system along South Center Parkway. The flow is conveyed north discharging to the Green River at the South 180` Street pump station. Although the TSP Final EIS assumes that Stream E is fish- bearing, the document further states that no fish have been observed during recent habitat surveys. The TSP Final EIS states that Stream E is an entirely man -made feature and notes that it is isolated from fish- bearing waters due to the downstream pump station. The document states that the stream is highly degraded as a result of periodic cleaning and states that a portion of the stream is used for watering livestock. Based on conversations with the City of Tukwila, there are no known drainage problems downstream of the Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station. As part of a larger plan to develop properties south and east of the Transfer Station, the TSP has proposed improvements to Southcenter Parkway. Although no plans are approved to date, it is possible that the development and Southcenter Parkway improvements may move forward in the next few years. The proposed improvements involve realignment of South Center Parkway to the west through the existing golf driving range. The new roadway would have a piped storm drainage system that would run parallel to the existing ditch and culvert system. A new detention pond would be constructed to provide Level 1 runoff control for the new system. The detention pond outlet would connect to the existing drainage system. Because the proposed detention pond has been designed to detain flows from the new roadway only, discharge from the new Bow Lake Transfer/Recycling Station could not be conveyed to the new roadway and detention pond. Flows from the new Bow Lake Transfer/Recycling Station would have to be discharged into the existing drainage system via Stream E. King County has initiated discussions with the City of Tukwila in order to coordinate with the South Center Parkway improvement project. Regulatory Requirements. The City of Tukwila has adopted the King County Surface Water Design Manual (King County, 1998) (KCSWDM) as amended by the Tukwila Public Works Development Guidelines and Design and Construction Standards (Tukwila Municipal Code [TMC] 14.30.070). The City of Tukwila is likely to adopt an updated manual with higher standards, the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual, prior to submittal of permit applications (likely in late 2007) for the expansion of the Bow Lake Transfer/Recycling Station. For this reason, design of stormwater facilities would follow the 2005 KCSWDM. December 2006 Page 35 Expansion of the station would create more than 2,000 square feet of new impervious surface and would therefore require a Full Drainage Review. Under Full Drainage Review, the project is required to meet all eight of the Corc Requirements described in the KCSWDM. Corc requirements include: 1. Discharging surface water at the natural location; 2. Providing an off -site analysis; 3. Providing flow control; 4. Providing a conveyance system; 5. Providing erosion and sediment control measures; 6. Maintaining and operating the surface water facilities; 7. Complying with financial guarantees; and 8. Providing watcr quality treatment. For additional information on how the stormwater facilities will meet these requirements, sec Appendix F. In addition to the Core Requirements, the project would have to meet Special Requirement 4, Source Controls. These water quality controls would be required to prevent runoff from coming into contact with solid waste - related pollutants, thereby reducing the potential for introduction of contaminants into public waterways. Compliance with Core and Special Requirements will be developed in a Technical Information Report (TIR), which will include drainage design as well as the proposed Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) Plan. Any water that contacts, or potentially contacts, refuse will be handled as potentially - contaminated water and conveyed to an on -site facility for pretreatment prior to hauling by truck to Cedar Hills. It will he discharged to the pretreatment lagoons at King County's Cedar Hills Regional Landfill and then conveyed by pipeline to the King County South Wastewater Treatment Plant at Renton. An NPDES Permit will be required for stormwater associated with construction activities such as clearing, excavation of refuse material from the old landfill, filling, and grading. This permit requires the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). King County will adhere to and comply with all applicable local and state regulations. Any construction activity that will use, divert, obstruct, or change the bed or flow of state watcrs must do so under terms of a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) permit issued by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). If site runoff is conveyed to Stream E, the outfall may include construction at Stream E, with the possible requirement of an Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA), issued by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Typically, HPA permits also require that the project comply with provisions of the Stormwater Management Manual, for Western Washington (Ecology, 2005). This document's standard flow control requirement is more stringent than that of the KCSWDM. For example, stormwater discharges must meet pre- development durations for discharge rates from 50% of the 2 -year peak flow up to the 50 -year peak flow. The pre- developed condition would likely be forested land cover unless an exception is granted. Because Stream E is tributary to a pump station and there is minimal potential for fish access, Ecology's level of flow control may not he necessary. Based on discussions with City of Tukwila December 2006 Page 36 Impervious Area (acres) 8.78 Till Grass Area (acres) 2.32 Diverted to Sanitary Sewer (acres) 0.45 Total (acres) 11.54 Peak Flow (cfs) 2 -year 4.38 10 -year 7.48 25 -year 9.72 100 -year 14.13 staff, recent development in the North Basin requiring an HPA has not been held to Ecology's flow control standard. If an HPA is required for the project, the applicability of Ecology's standards will be discussed with WDFW during the design phase. Hydraulic analysis and conceptual design described below assume adherence to King County requirements. Where appropriate, discussion of possible Ecology requirements is provided. Proposed Stormwater Facilities. The runoff from the expanded Bow Lake Transfer/Recycling Station was modeled using the King County Runoff Time Series model. The results, shown in Table 2, indicate post - construction impervious surfaces and peak flows for 2 -, 10 -, 25 -, and 100 -year events. Note that runoff from approximately 0.45 acres would be collected and diverted to the sanitary sewer. Table 2. Hydrologic Results — Developed Conditions Source: 2006 Facility Master Plan Update (KCSWD, 2006b). The on -site collection and conveyance systems for the expanded Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station are discussed in detail in Appendix F. Collection, Conveyance and Detention. Collection and conveyance systems will be designed to convey the 25 -year peak flow. Runoff from impervious surfaces including paved areas and building roofs, except the Transfer Building roof, will be collected and conveyed to 12- to 24 -inch drains. This runoff will be directed to an underground vault(s). An underground detention vault was selected rather than an infiltration facility or open pond because of unsuitable soils and lack of available space on the site. Preliminary modeling indicates that a vault approximately 18 feet by 50 feet by 11 feet in size will be sufficient to meet applicable requirements of the KCSWDM. As discussed in Appendix F, additional detention vault capacity could be utilized if necessary to meet more stringent regulatory requirements and space exists on site for this additional vault capacity. Detained stormwater flows will be directed to a water quality treatment system, which meets the applicable Basic Treatment requirement as described in the KCSWDM (See Appendix F.). A StormFilter system consisting of media -filled cartridges would likely be used. Depending on the type of pollutant to be treated, an array of media can be selected. In this application, the StormFilter cartridges would contain media designed to remove sediment. December 2006 Page 37 1 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 9 C L-4 0 C 9 Areas on the expanded station site with higher potential for contaminants will be provided with additional water quality treatment measures. As part of source control, drainage from the drip zones of Transfer Trailer Yard parking stalls and the open -top bin placement pads in the paid recycling area will be isolated with the capability of directing flows to either the storm drainage system or to thc sanitary sewer system. Although not required by the KCSWDM, thc Transfer Trailer Yard, the North and South Scale Facilities, and main queuing areas will be drained to oil /water separators for additional treatment prior to release to the site drainage system. Automatic wheel washes, truck washout facilities, and track -off grates will he provided at receiving floor exits to prevent commercial customer vehicles from tracking waste to outside paved areas. A rainwater harvesting system will be installed on the Transfer Building roof for use as washdown water for operations. This roof runoff will he collected and stored for reuse as wash water in a series of tanks. This water conservation feature is an important element in the project sustainable design (green building) portfolio. Any roof runoff from the Transfer Building that exceeds the storage capacity of these tanks will overflow to the stormwater detention and treatment system. To he conservative, the design of the stormwater system assumes that all roof runoff will be collected and treated. Discharge. Following treatment, stormwater will be discharged by one of two alternatives. The first involves a tight -lined pipe, designed to convey a 100 -year peak flow. Treated stormwater would then be discharged to Stream E near South Center Parkway. The pipeline from the expanded station down the slope to the valley floor would require an easement(s) from property owner(s) along the proposed pipeline corridor. In the second alternative„ treated flows would be discharged to the downstream drainage system via overland flow on the eastern slope. This option would consist of an engineered flow spreader and dispersion system(s) that would discharge flows along the property line near the toe of the slope or elsewhere along the slope. The system would be designed to minimize erosion and mimic the current dispersed stormwater discharge conditions at the site and careful consideration would be given to slope stability and avoiding generation of lcachate within refuse deposits in the old landfill. Decisions regarding the discharge method and specific design details will be made during development of the 11R and during design based on input from the City of Tukwila and other agencies having regulatory or oversight responsibilities, as well as the possibility of obtaining an easement from the adjacent property owner. The dispersion option will only be considered feasible if slope stability analysis by a licensed geotechnical engineer shows that discharge flows will not create erosion or slope stability problems downstream of the project site. As previously indicated, an HPA may be required for discharge to Stream E. I f a dispersion option were implemented on the project site, consideration would be given to planting high water consumption trees on the unforested slope below the dispersion system as an additional means of groundwater uptake and slope stabilization. December 2006 Page 38 2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? ❑ Yes ® No If so, generally describe. Given the controls and treatment described above, it is unlikely that waste materials could enter ground or surface waters. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground and runoff water impacts, if any: Construction • An Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) will be developed that will describe procedures for managing and monitoring excavation activities, including procedures for identifying, testing, and handling of contaminated materials should they be encountered during site work; • A TESC Plan and SWPP Plan will be developed prior to initiation of construction to reduce soil- related and stormwater- related impacts during site work; • The NPDES Permit issued for construction activities on the site will include BMPs designed to reduce potential impacts related to stormwater and sediments; • Exposed soils and stockpiles will be covered when not in use; • Silt fencing, straw bales, check dams will be installed to protect downstream drainages and water courses; • During construction, runoff will be directed to temporary sediment traps or portable treatment tanks for treatment prior to discharge to downstream systems; • Petroleum products, solvents, etc. will be stored in a dedicated location designed to contain potential spills; • A wheel- washing facility and track -off site entrances will be provided for construction traffic to prevent tracking waste to off -site roadways; As soon as practical following construction, exposed area will be hydroseeded and /or replanted; • Impacts will be minimized to the E2 stream buffer in accordance with applicable City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Ordinance requirements; • Any unavoidable impacts to stream buffers will be mitigated through the implementation of a Stream Buffer Enhancement Plan as approved by the City of Tukwila. The Stream Buffer Enhancement Plan will include removal of non - native invasive plants such as ivy and holly in remaining buffer areas, planting of native shrubs and trees to increase species diversity, and installation of wildlife habitat structures such as downed logs, brush piles, and snags. • To minimize sediment transport to the streams, construction within the stream buffers will be limited to the dry season as required by regulation. Operation • County staff will comply with all provisions of the Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station Operating Plan (KCSWD, 2006c), which describes operations and maintenance measures intended to prevent impacts on local drainages and streams; • A Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan will be implemented to control any accidental spills or fuel leaks. Provisions of the Plan are likely to include: December 2006 Page 39 C s 7 0 0 a r 0 0 0 0 0 a 9 4. Plants • The drip zone of all full container parking stalls will be drained to the sanitary sewer system with capability for diverting to the stormwater system when these stalls are used for empty trailers; o Drainage from open -top drop boxes pads at the paid self -haul recycling area will be drained to the sanitary sewer system; and o pervious areas on the site will he maintained with mulch and /or planted with native grasses, shrubs and trees intended to control erosion and to enhance infiltration of precipitation into soils. a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: 13 r - Storage of petroleum products, solvents, paints, and other potentially hazardous liquids in a secured location with secondary containment; - Maintenance of emergency response contact information on -site; - Maintenance of spill response materials and equipment in a readily accessible locatiori; - Training of all workers in spill control and emergency response procedures; - Designation of a specific individual as primary on -site contact for emergency response to spills; - Regular maintenance of heavy equipment and vehicles to prevent leakage of fuel or lubricants; - lrnmediate cleanup of spills, however small in accordance with established procedures; and - Adherence with established reporting procedures for all spills, regardless of size. Deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other: cottonwood Evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other Shrubs: blackberry, salmonberry, Indian plum, Scot's broom Grass Pasture Crop or grain Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other Watcr plants: water lily, celgrass, milfoil, other Other: English Ivy, Holly, sword fern b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? The proposed project would require the removal of approximately 189,000 square feet (4.34 acres) of existing vegetation. Most vegetation removal would occur north of the existing Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station, on the WSDOT property. A significant amount of grading would be required on the vacant portion of the WSDOT property, which is primarily covered with grass, Himalayan blackberry, and Scot's broom. Additional vegetation removal would be required along heavily vegetated and forested slopes within the WSDOT property. Tree removal in these areas is anticipated. Per Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Chapter 18.54.080, a tree clearing permit will be December 2006 Page 40 required for removal of all trees over four - inches in diameter at breast height, which would include the preparation of a landscape plan, professional review and recommendations, and measures for mitigation for impacts to sensitive areas such as the buffer for Stream E2 per the Sensitive Overlay District chapter of TMC Chapter 18. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. A review of 2006 Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR, 2006) National Heritage Program (NHP) data revealed no presence of rare or threatened plant species within the project area or nearby vicinity. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: 5. Animals The proposed project would result in a net loss of vegetation at the project site, specifically relating to existing invasive vegetation that would be removed from the WSDOT property. Retaining walls have been used wherever feasible to reduce the fill footprint of the project and minimize impacts to existing natural forested areas. The final landscape plan would include several vegetated areas throughout the site, including landscaped planters, medians, and existing native vegetated areas on the WSDOT property that would be preserved during the design phase of the project. a. Check or circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site: ® Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other ® Mammals: deer (scat), bear, elk, beaver, other ® Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. According to the 2006 Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) database, no threatened or endangered species are known to be on the project site. However, the WDFW database documents the presence of a bald eagle nest located approximately 0.5 mile west of the site, near the north end of Angle Lake. Bald eagles are currently designated as threatened on both state and federal species lists. The nest was documented in 1999 but was not active during WDFW surveys conducted in 2001 (City of Tukwila, 2005). Even if the bald eagle nest is still active, the project site is separated from the nest by I -5, which would negate any potential noise impacts during construction or operation of the Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station. According to the Tukwila South Draft EIS, Stream E is a presumed fish - bearing watercourse (Cedarock Consultants, Inc., 2005). However, no fish are documented or have been observed in Streams E, El or E2 (WDFW, 2006; Raedeke Associates, Inc., 2005). The Green River, located about a quarter mile directly east of the project site (Figure 2), provides habitat to numerous fish species including salmon (fall Chinook, coho, December 2006 Page 41 9 JJ 7 churn, sockeye), steclhcad, hull trout, Dolly Vardcn, and various other species (WDFW, 2006; City of Tukwila, 2005). The Puget Sound Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) Chinook salmon is currently federally listed as a threatened species and is a state candidate species (NOAA Fisheries 2006; WDFW 2006). The Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment (DPS) hull trout is currently listed as a threatened species by the United Statcs Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and has been observed in the lower Green River historically, hut now observations are rare and generally only include individual specimens. c. Is the site part of a migration route? 1 1 Yes 0 No If .co, explain. The project site is not part of a migration route. Washington State is located within the Pacific Flyway, a flight corridor for migrating waterfowl and other avian fauna. No part of this site is used as part of this flyway, however, due to lack of suitable habitat. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: A loss of a portion of native forest associated with the slopes on the WSDOT property would reduce the amount of potential habitat available in the near vicinity of the site for wildlife species. As previously discussed, the proposed project is not anticipated to directly affect any listed wildlife species. Measures that would be incorporated during construction to ensure minimal impact to the surrounding areas, including potential wildlife habitat, would include use of BMPs including sediment fencing, erosion protection measures, stormwater controls, and practices to minimize impacts to air quality. in addition mitigation for impacts may include the removal of non - native invasive species such as Himalayan blackberry, English ivy, and holly and replacement with native trees, shrubs, and groundcover. Providing habitat features such as downed logs, snags, and brush piles in impacted areas may enhance wildlife habitat. Appropriate mitigation will he provided for tree removal in sensitive areas such as thc Stream E2 buffer in accordance with TMC 18.54.080 (Appendix G) Measures to ensure minimal impacts to nearby sensitive areas, including thc Green River, would be incorporated into the final design of the new facility. Effective water quality controls, including stormwater treatment and detention, will ensure runoff impacts are minimized downslope from the facility. Stormwater facilities would be designed in accordance with the King County Surface Water Design Manual (King County, 2005). Depending on thc stormwater discharge alternative chosen, impacts could potentially occur to receiving waters. if work occurs within any stream, a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) will be required from WDFW and the work will comply with the conditions set forth in any approval. 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. The completed project will require energy in the form of electricity and diesel fuel. There will he no natural gas usage at the expanded Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station. Electricity demand is estimated at 114,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) per year. December 2006 Page 42 The project also incorporates installation of a photovoltaic solar array on the roof of the Transfer Building. This is expected to generate approximately 11,000 kWh per year, which will be sold to the electrical power grid. Similar to other KCSWD facilities, biodiesel fuel will be required to power on -site equipment (e.g., front end loader and yard tractor) (Long, personal communication, 2006). These vehicles would require an estimated 21,700 gallons per year. This figure does not include fuel requirements of the transfer trucks which haul compacted waste from the station since these are not included in the proposed project. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? ❑ Yes ® No If so, generally describe. The Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station expansion project will not affect any potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties. 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: A number of measures that reduce energy usage have been incorporated into the design of the expanded station. These measures include the following: • The Transfer Building will be oriented in a manner that captures prevailing winds for cross - ventilation, thereby reducing the need for mechanical ventilation. • Energy - efficient fans in the Transfer Building will be designed to operate in conjunction with natural ventilation. • Translucent panels will be installed in the roof and sides of the Transfer Building in order to reduce the need for artificial lighting. • The high bay lights in the tipping floor area will have daylight sensors to eliminate use of the lights during periods when natural light is sufficient. • Smaller buildings at the expanded station will include efficient lighting, energy - efficient HVAC systems, and operable windows designed to enhance energy efficiency. • The project design will incorporate sustainable design principles that would be measured through the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEEDTM) rating system. 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? ® Yes ❑ No If so, describe. Construction or operation of the proposed expanded Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station will not pose any significant risks to workers or the public. Because municipal solid waste is stored at the site for a single day or less, the potential for spontaneous combustion is low. The risk of explosion associated with dust is low because of the design of the Transfer Building and ventilation systems to be installed. Screening of incoming wastes reduces the potential for explosion of compressed vessels. Any December 2006 Page 43 C C compressed vessels passing through the Scale Facility undetected are likely to be empty or nearly so and less subject to explosion. Excavation of old refuse material from the old landfill has some potential for release of landfill gases (e.g. methane) and odors. Contractors will be required to prepare an Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) and a I Iealth and Safety Plan prior to initiation of excavation at the site. These plans specify procedures for managing and monitoring excavation, including methods for identifying, testing, and handling of constituents of concern should they be encountered during construction. Excavation and construction will also comply with the Seattle and King County Public Health regulations regarding construction in the vicinity of abandoned landfills (Section 10.36.300 Rules and Regulations.). Assuming that contractors adhere to these plans and applicable regulations and follow generally - accepted construction practices, no significant impacts associated with landfill gases are anticipated. Exposure of workers or the public to liquids or gases associated with solid waste is not expected to present significant health risk. The risk to health of individuals exposed to liquid wastes (ingestion or skin contact) has been shown to be very low (KPG, Inc., 2003). Because of the short period of time that solid waste is stored at the Transfer /Recycling Station, local generation of waste gases is negligible. 'I'hc ventilation systems to be installed in the Transfer Building and the gas detection alarm systems that will be employed further reduce the potential for gas - related impacts. The expanded Transfer /Recycling Station is not expected to present significant health risks to workers, the public, or the surrounding community by disease vectors such as birds, rodents, and other vermin. The new facility will incorporate design features that will discourage the presence of birds and rodents (See Section 7.c below). In addition, good housekeeping procedures and regular maintenance and inspections of the premises will further reduce health risks associated with these vectors. See Section 7.c. below and Appendix H. Appendix H also includes the Public Health Procedures and Requirements - Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station Facility Master Plan Update and Implementation: Technical Memorandum (KCSWD, 2006d), prepared in support of this Environmental Checklist. The Technical Memorandum summarizes procedures and requirements related to environmental health as they relate to the construction and operation of the new Transfer Station. 1. Describe special emergency services that might be required. No special emergency services are required at the existing Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station, nor would they be required for the proposed expansion of the facility. As described in Section 7.a.2 below, public health and safety are an integral part of the design of the new Transfer /Recycling Station and its long term operation. As shown below, accident prevention and provision of emergency services as they may he needed are an essential focus of station operations. In addition, KCSWD cooperates with other local emergency service providers to ensure that the facility is well- served in the event of an emergency. Overall, the potential need for emergency services is not expected to be significant nor any greater than currently exists. December 2006 Page 44 2. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any. KCSWD has a number of plans in place that are intended to reduce or control potential environmental health hazards at their transfer stations and other solid waste facilities throughout the county. The primary document in this regard is the Bow Lake Transfer & Recycling Station Operating Plan, King County Solid Waste Division (Operating Plan) (KCSWD, 2006c). See Appendix H. This plan and other procedures that are in place at the existing Transfer/Recycling Station relating to environmental health are described below. Construction Environmental Protection Plan. Prior to excavation of old refuse at the Bow Lake Transfer/Recycling Station site, SWD will prepare an Environmental Protection Plan (EPP). The EPP will describe procedures for managing and monitoring the excavation of refuse, including measures for identifying, testing, and handling of materials with potential contaminants of concern, should they be encountered during excavation. The EPP is an integral part of the planning and construction provisions for environmental preparedness for the Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station project. It documents the respective understanding between environmental health and safety regulatory agencies and SWD for protection measures to be implemented during construction. An example of an EPP is provided in Appendix H. Health and Safety Plan. Prior to construction, the contractor will be required to prepare a Health and Safety Plan that describes emergency procedures that will be implemented in the event of encountering landfill gases (e.g. methane) or other hazardous materials. This would include measures to be incorporated into the work plan to avoid on -site accidents, and as well, measures intended to provide rapid response in case of accidents that may occur on the site. Operations Operating Plan. The existing Operating Plan provides a guide to operating characteristics at the Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station. See Appendix H. It describes procedures for control of materials, safety and emergency plans, maintenance requirements, inspections, environmental controls, and regulatory compliance. With the expansion of the proposed station, an updated Operating Plan will be developed for approval by Seattle and King County Public Health. Inspections. The Operating Plan describes inspection requirements, stating: "Routine and periodic inspections are performed by regulatory agencies and the Solid Waste Division through self -audit to ensure operational and facility compliance with environmental, public health, and waste management regulations. Facility inspection reports are a component of the operating record. Records are kept for a minimum of five years. The Health Department may review records upon request to the Transfer Station Supervisor or Operations Manager." December 2006 Page 45 r" C Regulatory agency inspections arc conducted periodically by: • Seattle -King County Health Department o Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) • Fire Marshall o City of Tukwila o Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) o Washington State Department of Labor and Industries o Washington State Boiler Inspector Nuisance Animals and Insects. In order to control birds, rodents, and insects, the expanded `transfer /Recycling Station will incorporate a number of deterrent measures. o Receipt and handling of MSW will occur in the fully - enclosed Transfer Building; doors will be low in height to discourage birds from entering building; o Automatic wheel washes and vehicle wash off stations will be included for commercial vehicles to minimize the tracking of waste material outside the building; o Anti -bird perching devices (wires and spikes) will he installed on the roof of the Transfer Building and all perching surfaces; • The site will not include any open stonnwater ponds that could attract wildlife; o Plant materials selected as part of site landscaping will minimize habitat for rodents and similar vermin; and a Retaining wall systems on the site will be designed to avoid openings that might provide harborages for rodents and other vermin. Health and Safety. A number of measures are incorporated into the design and operation of the new Transfer /Recycling Station to ensure the health and safety of workers and customers. o Maneuvering and unloading areas for customer vehicles will be designed to maximize separation between vehicles and visibility in order to minimize vehicle - to- vehicle and vehicle- pedestrian accidents; o Monitoring and warning systems will be installed in occupied areas of the facility in order to detennine levels of methane, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen dioxide; o Curbs and railings will he provided in locations throughout the facility where accidents from falling are possible; o Non -slip surfaces will be installed in frequently wet areas where workers and customers frequently walk; o Cautionary and hazard warning signage will be provided throughout the facility; o Spill detection, protection and emergency eyewash and shower equipment will be located throughout the facility and appropriate signagc provided; o Lighting levels will exceed code requirements in order to better illuminate hazards and reduce worker fatigue; and o Staff will be provided with radios in order to facilitate communication in the event of an emergency. December 2006 Page 46 Odor and Dust. Incorporated into the design of the new facility will be a number of measures intended to control dust and odors. • Handling of MSW will occur within the fully- enclosed Transfer Building; • A dust extraction system will be provided for the two solid waste compactors; • The Transfer Building will include a dust and odor control system consisting of a high pressure, low volume misting system that will have the ability to introduce odor neutralizing agents that molecularly combine with odor molecules to maintain a non - odorous atmosphere in the Transfer Building; • The washout and automated tire wash systems and track off grates will be designed to minimize tracking of dust and debris outside the Transfer Building; • The drain system in the Transfer Building will be designed to collect contaminated water from the waste processing areas; it will be equipped with water seal type traps and debris /fines collection and removal sumps to control the buildup of odor - generating debris and to prevent the escape of sewer gas; deodorizers and disinfectants will be added as needed; • Floors and other surfaces in the Transfer Building will be designed to be easily washed down to eliminate areas of debris buildup and odor generation; Waste Screening. The types of waste accepted at a transfer facility will continue to be strictly controlled by KCSWD through King County Public Rule PUT 7- 1- 4(PR), Waste Acceptance Policy. This rule prohibits disposal of hazardous or dangerous waste, burning or smoldering material, infectious waste, excessively odorous or dusty material, and various other materials. The Bow Lake Transfer/Recycling Station does not accept toxic chemicals or other wastes that are considered hazardous to environmental health. In accordance with established operating procedures, KCSWD conducts a proactive program for screening toxic materials and other hazardous materials from the waste stream. Signage will be provided at the scale houses describing the types of waste that are not allowed at the station and indicating alternative locations where toxic and /or hazardous wastes may be taken for disposal. Scale house operators will continue to conduct visual screening of waste loads. If toxic or hazardous wastes are observed, customers are informed of locations where these materials can be taken. Station operators on the tipping floor conduct similar screening, with the intention of intercepting toxic or hazardous wastes prior to disposal by customers. In addition, full -time waste screeners visit the station periodically to observe the solid waste stream and determine whether any toxic or hazardous materials are present. Emergency Response. KCSWD has developed the Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Plan, King County Solid Waste Division Transfer Facilities (KCSWD, 2004). This plan describes the procedures and resources used by KCSWD to respond to hazardous materials emergencies at transfer facilities should they occur. Copies of this plan are maintained at each transfer facility and a copy is assigned to the individual acting on site as Emergency Coordinator. Use of the plan and its provisions is an integral part of employee training at transfer facilities. A copy of the plan is provided in Appendix H. December 2006 Page 47 C cil c KCSWD retains an emergency response contractor on a 24- hour -per -day, 7-day-per- week basis for all of its solid waste facilities . This contractor would respond to spills or accidental discharges of petroleum products and hazardous wastes at the existing Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station, if they were to occur. This emergency response capability will continue to remain in place with the expanded facility. In the event of a minor spill, absorbent pads and other absorbent materials would be stored in convenient locations for use by employees. Impervious areas where spills could occur would be graded in a manner that any flows would be directed to an oil /water separator. These measures are intended to control potential emergency spills and prevent any discharge to drainages or adjacent vegetated areas. In addition, employees will be trained in emergency response procedures, including emergency contacts, as part of implementation of the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan. Stone Drainage. The on -site stonmwater collection system will be designed to direct stormwater from impervious surfaces to detention vault(s) and subsequently to on -site stormwater treatment facilities. On -site treatment facilities would be designed for oil /water separation and /or sediment removal. In the unlikely event of an emergency spill, these facilities will facilitate control and removal of contaminants. Sec Section 3(c) Water Runoff for additional details on proposed stormwater collection and treatment systems. b. Noise 1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (i.e., traffic, equipment, operation, other)? The existing sound levels in the project vicinity are dominated by noise from traffic traveling on I -5. These sound levels are typically in the 60 to upper 70 dBA range at the residential locations nearest and most exposed to the station site. Noise from 1 -5 would not directly affect the project, except that it would obscure noise from the facility at the nearest residential locations, reducing the potential for noise impacts (Geomatrix, Inc., 2006b). A detailed noise assessment and a supplemental memorandum prepared for this project are included as Appendix 1. 2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short -term or long -term basis (i.e., traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Short -Term Construction During construction, noise would be generated by heavy equipment used for grading, excavating, paving, and erection of new facilities. Because project construction would occur only during daytime hours (i.e., between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.) and is temporary, noise from construction is not anticipated to result in significant noise impacts. Long -Term Operation "I'he upgraded station proposes to operate 24 hours per day, seven days per week. It currently operates 24 hours per day between 12:00 a.m. Monday through 7:00 a.m. Saturday and from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. December 2006 Page 48 Noise sources associated with the upgraded station would be similar to the sources at the existing facility. Primary noise sources would include heavy - duty equipment, trucks, and trailers. In the future, the majority of activities and equipment would occur inside of the facility, and the building structure would provide a substantial noise reduction for interior activities. Currently, there are no walls on the Transfer Building to act as noise barriers for much of the equipment and activities. The primary noise - producing equipment or activities are listed below: • A top -pick or reach stacker for containers that might be used in the future in the Trailer Yard; • Forklifts in outdoor recycling areas; • Two compactors, with hydraulic power units installed in the building; • Two rubber -tired front end loaders working in the building; • Two yard tractors (i.e., yard goats) moving trailers in and out of the loading bays on the lower level; and • Approximately 1,000 vehicles on an average day in 2030 and 2,100 vehicles on a peak day. Approximately 26 percent commercial vehicles (trucks), 71 percent self -haul vehicles (pickups and cars) and 3 percent business self - haulers (smaller trucks). By 2030, there are expected to be an average of 46 transfer trailer vehicles per day, with peak days of approximately 82 vehicles. Noise from the expanded facility is not anticipated to result in noise impacts to the nearest existing residences to the site on the hillside west of the facility across 1 -5. First, noise from the expanded facility was estimated to be 52 dBA or less during peak daytime operations and 50 dBA or less at night. These predicted levels would comply with the applicable daytime and nighttime noise limits of 60 and 50 dBA, respectively. Daytime hours for the purposes of the noise assessment are between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., and nighttime hours are between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Second and more importantly, noise from vehicles traveling on I -5 dominates the noise environment at the residences on the hillside, and traffic noise would be at least 10 dBA louder than noise from the facility, even during the quietest nighttime hours. Therefore, noise from the upgraded station would rarely, if ever, be audible at these hillside residences. Potential noise impacts on the undeveloped residential property north of the Bow Lake Transfer/Recycling Station and east of 1 -5 were also analyzed. As with the existing residences on the hillside west of I -5, noise from the expanded Transfer /Recycling Station is not anticipated to result in adverse noise impacts to potential future residences at this location. First, noise from the expanded facility was estimated to be 49 dBA during peak daytime operations and 48 dBA during nighttime operations. These predicted levels would comply with the applicable noise limits. The noise limits for this residential receiving property are the same as for the existing residences west of the site, 60 dBA during the day (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) and 50 dBA at night (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.). Second and more importantly, this residential property is approximately the same distance from I -5 as the hillside residences west of 1 -5 and would be subject to similar levels of freeway traffic noise. December 2006 Page 49 C r" Existing background sound levels (L9 during the day range from 68 to 71 dBA, at least 19 dBA higher than noise levels predicted from the expanded Transfer /Recycling Station during peak daytime operations. Similarly, existing background sound levels (L at night range from 61 to 72 dBA, at least 13 dBA higher than noisc levels predicted during nighttime operations. Therefore, during both daytime and nighttime operations, noise from the freeway would obscure noise from the Transfer /Recycling Station and it is unlikely that noise from the expanded facility would be audible, except during rare lulls in 1 -5 traffic. 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Construction activities would be restricted to daytime hours when traffic noise from i -5 is greatest. During operation, many of the potential noise emitters at this site would be located inside enclosures or buildings, which would greatly reduce the noise received at the nearest residences from this equipment. These buildings and enclosures may also serve as noise barriers for other equipment operating outside. With the project as proposed, no significant adverse noise impacts were identified. Therefore no operational noise mitigation is proposed (Gcomatrix, Inc., 2006b,c). 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The proposed project arca encompasses two separate parcels located in the City of Tukwila. An active solid waste transfer and recycling station owned and operated by KCSWD currently occupies the project area's southern parcel. The project area's northern parcel, currently owned by the WSDOT, is an undeveloped parcel consisting of existing fill, and a small storage lot that houses several jersey barriers located adjacent to I -5. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? 1 1 Yes [j No If so, describe. The site has not previously been used for agriculture. c. Describe any structures on the site. The existing facility includes a 33,100- square -foot open -sided concrete and steel Transfcr Building, a 500- square -foot employee facility located under the roof of the Transfer Building, a 180- square -foot scale building with two 50 -foot -long pit -type vehicle scales, and two 40 CY free recycling drop boxes. d. Will any structures be demolished? V Yes 1 1 No Ifso, what? The existing 33,100 - square -foot Transfer Building and employee facility will be demolished during Phase 2 of the project. Other on -site structures that will be demolished include the existing scale facility. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The current Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station parcel is zoned Tukwila Valley South (TVS) in the Tukwila Zoning Code (City of Tukwila, 1995b). The parcel to the December 2006 Page 50 f. What is the current Comprehensive Plan designation of the site? The City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan (City of Tukwila, 1995a) designation of the existing station site is TVS. The majority of the project site owned by WSDOT is undesignated. The portion of the WSDOT property located in the City of SeaTac is designated Residential Low Density. g. north of the site is currently right -of -way owned by WSDOT; the site does not have a specified zoning classification. Under the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC 18.08.020), lands not classified according to the official zoning map, are considered unclassified, and pending future classification, are subject to the restrictions and regulations of the Low Density Residential (LDR) District. A small portion of the WSDOT parcel (northwest corner) is located in the City of SeaTac and zoned UL -9,600 (Urban Low Density Residential 9,600). If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? ® Yes ❑ No If so, specify. According to the City of Tukwila Geologic Hazard Maps (City of Tukwila, 2004a), portions of the existing site, the WSDOT site to the north, and most of the adjacent slope to the east have been designated Slope Classifications 2, 3 and 4. Slope Classification 2 is defined as slopes where "Landslide potential is moderate; slope is between 15% and 40% and underlain by relatively permeable soils." Slope Classification 3 is defined as slopes where "Landslide potential is high; slope is between 15% and 40% and underlain by relatively permeable soils or by bedrock; also includes all areas sloping more than 40 %." Slope Classification 4 areas are those where landslide potential is very high, including sloping areas with mappable zones of groundwater seepage, and which also include existing mappable landslide deposits regardless of slope. Portions of the site are also mapped as erosion hazard areas. See Section B.1. Earth for additional information on slopes and soils. The Sensitive Areas Map (City of Tukwila, 2004a) shows a Type 2 stream (Stream E2) north of, and adjacent to the WSDOT property to be purchased as part of the Bow Lake Transfer/Recycling Station expansion. Another stream (Stream El) is shown east of the site, flowing downslope to the valley floor where it discharges to another stream (Stream E) near Southcenter Parkway South. The Sensitive Areas Map indicates "Verified Salmonid Use" for each of these streams. However, the recent Tukwila South Project Final EIS (Cedarock Consultants, Inc., 2005) indicates that Streams El and E2 are not considered fish- bearing because of steep gradients and lack of suitable habitats. Although this document indicates that Stream E is fish- bearing, fish use is limited by obstructions and lack of suitable habitat. See Section B.3. Water and B.S. Animals for additional discussion regarding streams and fish use. December 2006 Page 51 C The project does not provide any housing. No residential units currently exist on -site; therefore, no units would be eliminated by i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? J• Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: The proposed project would not result in the displacement of any residential uses. k. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: 9. Housing Construction. The average work force during site preparation work is expected to be approximately 30 workers with a peak work force of approximately 50 workers. Material deliveries, vendor trips, and visits by County staff, inspectors, labor union staff, engineers, and consultants are expected to vary between 25 and 30 each working day. During the site facilities contract, the average work force is expected to be approximately 50 workers with a peak number of approximately 150 workers. Miscellaneous visits are likely to range between 30 and 40 each working day. Operations. Staffing requirements of the new transfer facility are not expected to significantly change from current practices. KCSWD currently employs eight full -time attendants at the existing Bow Lake 'Transfer /Recycling Station. Following expansion of the facility, an estimated 13 attendants would be required to operate the station. It is assumed that janitorial services would he contracted out. No persons would reside on the site. As previously mentioned, the Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station is designated as TVS in the City of Tukwila's Zoning Code. Chapter 18.40 of the Tukwila Zoning Code allows transfer stations as Unclassified Uses (City of Tukwila, 2004b). The proposed expansion of the station to the north would transform this unimproved parcel to a solid waste facility. KCSWD is currently in discussions with WSDOT regarding the transfer of WSDOT property. a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle or low- income housing. h. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle or low- income housing. the proposed project. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: No housing impacts would result from the proposed project; therefore, mitigation measures are not proposed. December 2006 Page 52 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure or structures, not including antennas? What is the principal exterior building material or materials proposed? The new Transfer Building will be the largest structure on the site, with a maximum height of approximately 65 to 70 feet above grade. The Transfer Building will consist of a two - level, cast -in -place concrete substructure and a pre- engineered, clear span metal superstructure. Precast tilt -up concrete panels may be used on the lower exterior walls for a durable surface. The upper portions of the superstructure will be metal -clad with large translucent panel areas to provide natural lighting of the interior. The roof will consist of a highly reflective metal surface with daylighting panels at the peak to provide natural lighting for the waste handling areas below. A solar panel array may be constructed on the south side of the roof area. Green roofs may be installed above the Maintenance Building and the Overlook on the east and south sides of the Transfer Building, respectively. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? As part of the design effort for the expanded Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station, a photo simulation was conducted in order to determine potential visual impacts of the project on adjacent properties (KPG, Inc., 2006). Photographs of the existing facility were taken from selected viewpoints on the west and east sides of I -5 and from selected locations on the valley floor. Using physical dimensions and elevations of proposed structures, simulation techniques were used to superimpose the new Transfer Building on the existing photographs to show how the new facility would appear from these viewpoints. Views from the Vicinity of Transfer/Recycling Station In Photo 1 in Figure 14, taken from the residential area west of I -5, the WSDOT property and jersey barriers in the foreground can be seen to the east across the freeway. In the simulated Photo la, the new Transfer Building to be constructed is shown on the WSDOT property, including the new green roof with skylights and the earth -toned walls and translucent panels (Figure 15). Most of the other portions of the expanded Bow Lake Transfer/Recycling Station will be obscured by on -site landscaping and /or topography. Views of the Cascade Mountains to the east will not be obstructed and most of the Duwamish — Green River Valley will remain visible from this viewpoint. Photo 2 in Figure 14 was taken southwest of the existing Bow Lake Transfer/Recycling Station near a residential area on the west side of 1 -5. Views from this location would not be substantially affected by the new facility. As shown in simulated Photo 2a, only a small portion of the new Transfer Building is visible (Figure 16). Other views of the mountains and valley across the freeway to the northeast are unaffected. December 2006 Page 53 Existing Viewpoints 0 KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES & PARKS SOLID WASTE DIVISION IRK JFD. .3 r Li'IN' TE BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION FACILITIES MASTER PLAN FIGURE 14 JULY 2006 December 2006 Pagc 54 Simulation. Photo Simulation (1A) NOT TO SCALE ® KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL. RESOURCES & PARKS SOLID WASTE DIVISION reC.IPG BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION FACILITIES MASTER PLAN FIGURE 15 JULY 2006 December '2006 Page 55 C l r 0 0 Simulation. Simulation. Photo Simulations (2A, 4A) NOT TO SCALE ® KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES & PARKS SOLID WASTE DIVISION IJr\17- BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION FACILITIES MASTER PLAN FIGURE 16 JULY 2006 December 2006 Page 56 Photo 3 in Figure 14 shows the entrance to the existing Bow Lake Transfer/Recycling Station near the scale facility. The appearance of the entrance is not expected to change in any material way, other than relocation of the scale facility north of its present location. In Photo 4 in Figure 14, the view' is to the east across the northbound I -5 entrance ramp toward the existing facility. Photo 4a in Figure 16 simulation shows no visual change of consequence. Note the existing cell tower in Photo 4a is located just off - camera south of Photo 4. Views from the Floor of the Green/Duwamish River Valley Additional photo simulations were conducted from the Green/Duwamish River valley floor to the east in order to determine whether the expanded facility will be visible from various valley floor locations, and if so, whether views from these locations will be altered. Locations of viewpoints on the valley floor are shown in Figure 17. Views from selected locations on the valley floor are shown in Figure 18. Photo 2 shows a view to the southwest from the bridge at West Valley Highway and S. 180 Street. The photo is a composite of several photographs combined to depict a panorama view. The arrow ,shows the location of the expanded Transfer/Recycling Station, which is not visible from this viewpoint. Photo 4 is a view to the west from the intersection of Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park West. The Transfer/Recycling Station is barely visible near the crest of the slope that rises to the west above the valley floor. Photo 7 is taken from a viewpoint looking west from Briscoe Park on the Green/Duwamish River in Kent. The new facility is only slightly visible near the top of the forested slope on the far horizon. Photo 10 shows a panoramic view to the north from a vehicle turnoff on Southcenter Parkway. The new facility is barely visible above the trees in the far right portion of the composite photograph. The final Photo 12 presents a view to the southwest across the valley from near S. 26` Street in Renton. The expanded Transfer /Recycling Station is essentially invisible from this location. None of the photo simulations from locations on the valley floor show indications of adverse effects of the expanded facility on views. In most locations, the expanded facility will not be visible or barely so. In those locations where the expanded facility will be visible, it will not be of a scale or color that will affect views to any meaningful degree. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: A number of measures have been incorporated into the project design to reduce or control aesthetic impacts. p Structural materials and colors have been selected to be compatible with the forested setting of the facility. o Elevations and locations of structures have been designed to ensure that views of the Cascade Mountains and Mount Rainier to the east - southeast are not obstructed. o The new site will be landscaped in a manner that enhances the natural characteristics of the site. It is expected that trees of an appropriate height will be used to provide visual screening of the Transfer Building from the west. December 2006 Page 57 rfc :40 Viewpoint Locations on Valley Floor ® KINC COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES & PARKS SOLID WASTE DIVISION IEC ED. :Ur BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION FACILITIES MASTER PLAN FIGURE 17 JULY 2006 December 2006 Pagc 58 December 2006 View to the Southwest from the Bridge at West Valley Highway and S 180th Street View to the West from the Intersection of Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park West View to the West from Briscoe Park in Kent _-; •-•"„1. View to the North from Vehicle Turnoff on Southcenter Parkway • ..e.:.. .- 7, . " -- . '. 4 % . "' - 1 • ',.., -... _ 7,,...3..,_. , ...,--, ? ...:..;;,..---;''' „......„,, ,.. „6. ..., , 1 ' , .1 ."' • - 4...2 Vil .g :... - ----. --," ' ..- gar. ,...... ,'" , .--.--.". _ ,,,.. a ' ,,,, tn.:- - - -:“..... ...T= _.-.. ... . , - A_ , - -. .1'.. i • ',," - . ...._ . -....,,— *.. .V.Lr.. r . 37. 5 11 7 -4. . - _ . ..„ ....,......,... .„. „, ,. ..„ .0... ,.... -r ni . ,..,......,...itcr:::1:; „ ' ...."143.;... "" ,. • ..,,,:_. ...t....-.:., ,-„,k-e - -- - r... View to the Southwest from S 26th Street in Renton Existing Viewpoints from Valley Floor 0 KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES & PARKS SOLID WASTE DIVISION IPQ BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION FACILITIES MASTER PLAN FIGURE 16 JULY 2006 Page 59 a. What type of light and glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would -, it mainly occur? 12. Recreation As much as possible, existing trees will be maintained on the perimeter of the site and new trees and shrubs will be planted where perimeter areas are disturbed during construction. Closed, end - loaded containers will be used for solid waste, reducing the potential for spillage of waste and litter about the site. 11. Light and Glare The proposed project is expected to produce minimal lighting impacts, similar to existing conditions. Because the facility operates 24 hours per day, interior and exterior lighting is required for hours of darkness throughout the year. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? ❑ Yes N No if yes, explain: The expanded Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station is not expected to generate Light and glare that might cause a safety hazard or interfere with any views. c. What existing off -site sources of Tight or glare may affect your proposal? No off-site source of light or glare would affect the proposed project. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: All lighting at the expanded Bow Lake "Transfer /Recycling Station (intcrior and exterior) would be designed in accordance with local design standards. Exterior lighting would be installed to ensure minimal light spillover onto adjacent properties, especially to avoid impacts to I -5 traffic. Exterior colors, gloss levels, and surfaces will be selected to reduce or eliminate glare. a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? A driving range is located approximately 650 feet east of the site, downslope of the transfer facility (Figure 2). The only other recreational opportunity within the project vicinity is Valley Ridge Park, an active use park (baseball /softball fields, tennis courts, etc.), located approximately 1,100 feet west of the site in the City of SeaTac. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? n Yes nC No If so, describe. No existing recreational uses would be displaced by the project. December 2006 Page 60 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Although construction is not expected to result in a direct impact to recreational opportunities (e.g., temporary recreational facility closures, access restrictions, etc.), noise could be a concern for users of the nearby golf driving range. However, construction noise is not anticipated to result in an adverse effect to users of the golf driving range since the general area is susceptible to noise associated with industrial businesses east of the site and distant I -5 traffic. The contractor could implement additional BMPs during construction of the facility to attenuate noise impacts such as using temporary noise barriers if necessary. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, the national, state or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? ❑ Yes ® No If so, generally describe. No places or objects listed on, or proposed for, the national, state or local preservation registers are know to be on or near the site. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. No landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific or cultural importance are known to be on or next to the site (DAHP, 2005; and NPS 2006). c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Should historic or cultural resources be discovered during construction, construction activities would immediately cease and the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) would be contacted. 14. Transportation In order to determine the potential impacts of the expanded Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station on transportation systems in the vicinity, KCSWD conducted a traffic study. The Traffic Impact Analysis: Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station (The Transpo Group, 2006a) evaluates existing traffic conditions, year 2011 (when the project is planned for completion) and year 2030 traffic conditions with and without the project, and future conditions including the proposed Tukwila South Project. The study includes analysis of queuing at intersections near the entrance to the Transfer /Recycling Station. The complete traffic study is provided in Appendix J. a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Access to the Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station is provided by a number of surface transportation facilities. These include: December 2006 Page 61 Traffic Volumes Traffic Operations 1 -5. WSDOT classifies I -5 as an urban interstate highway. In the immediate vicinity of the Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station, it consists of four general - purpose lanes and a high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in both north and south directions. Lanes are typically 12 feet wide with 3- to 10 -foot shoulders. Northbound and southbound lanes are separated by medians and concrete median barriers. The posted speed limit is 60 miles per hour (mph). An off -ramp and on -ramp for northbound traffic on I -5 are located just west of the entrance to the station connecting to South 188th Street. Traffic exiting I -5 on the off -ramp can turn left onto westbound South 188th Street or turn right onto eastbound South 188th Street and Orillia Road. South 188th Street. Where the roadway passes under I -5, west of the entrance to the station, South 188th Street is a principal arterial. It is a four -lane roadway with a center left -turn lane. In the immediate vicinity of the station, South 188th Street provides access to northbound I -5. There is a signal at the intersection of South 188th Street and the off -ramp from and on -ramp to northbound I -5. Orillia Road South. Orillia Road South is a principal arterial located directly southwest of the entrance to the Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station. It connects South 1 88th Street and 1 -5 with the valley floor to the east via South 200th Street and South 212th Street. Orillia Road South is a four -lane roadway consisting of 11- and 12 -foot lanes with a posted speed limit of 40 mph. Existing traffic volumes at the Transfer /Recycling Station are shown in Table 3 for AM and PM peak hour weekday and Saturday peak hour conditions. Table 3. Existing Traffic Volumes: S 188 St /Orillia Rd S /Transfer Station 1 . Total trips in /out from transfer station during peak hour counted. J. TEV total entering volume of intersection. 3. The percentage of intersection volume accessing the transfer station. As indicated, the traffic volumes (combined self -haul and commercial customers) entering the Transfer /Recycling Station is lowest during the PM peak hour, a period when background traffic volumes are highest. The highest traffic volumes accessing the Transfer /Recycling Station occur on a Saturday peak hour because of the higher number of self -haul residential customers. A level -of- service (LOS) analysis was conducted to determine the performance of intersections in the vicinity of the Transfer /Recycling Station. Level -of- service values range from LOS A, indicative of good operation and low vehicle delays, and LOS F, indicative of congestion and comparatively longer vehicle delays. King County has a December 2006 Page 62 in Accessing ccess TEV` % Vol. Related to Station' Station' AM Peak Hour 73 2,833 2.6% PM Peak Hour 44 3,457 1.3% Sat. Peak Hour 181 1,222 14.8% Traffic Volumes Traffic Operations 1 -5. WSDOT classifies I -5 as an urban interstate highway. In the immediate vicinity of the Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station, it consists of four general - purpose lanes and a high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in both north and south directions. Lanes are typically 12 feet wide with 3- to 10 -foot shoulders. Northbound and southbound lanes are separated by medians and concrete median barriers. The posted speed limit is 60 miles per hour (mph). An off -ramp and on -ramp for northbound traffic on I -5 are located just west of the entrance to the station connecting to South 188th Street. Traffic exiting I -5 on the off -ramp can turn left onto westbound South 188th Street or turn right onto eastbound South 188th Street and Orillia Road. South 188th Street. Where the roadway passes under I -5, west of the entrance to the station, South 188th Street is a principal arterial. It is a four -lane roadway with a center left -turn lane. In the immediate vicinity of the station, South 188th Street provides access to northbound I -5. There is a signal at the intersection of South 188th Street and the off -ramp from and on -ramp to northbound I -5. Orillia Road South. Orillia Road South is a principal arterial located directly southwest of the entrance to the Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station. It connects South 1 88th Street and 1 -5 with the valley floor to the east via South 200th Street and South 212th Street. Orillia Road South is a four -lane roadway consisting of 11- and 12 -foot lanes with a posted speed limit of 40 mph. Existing traffic volumes at the Transfer /Recycling Station are shown in Table 3 for AM and PM peak hour weekday and Saturday peak hour conditions. Table 3. Existing Traffic Volumes: S 188 St /Orillia Rd S /Transfer Station 1 . Total trips in /out from transfer station during peak hour counted. J. TEV total entering volume of intersection. 3. The percentage of intersection volume accessing the transfer station. As indicated, the traffic volumes (combined self -haul and commercial customers) entering the Transfer /Recycling Station is lowest during the PM peak hour, a period when background traffic volumes are highest. The highest traffic volumes accessing the Transfer /Recycling Station occur on a Saturday peak hour because of the higher number of self -haul residential customers. A level -of- service (LOS) analysis was conducted to determine the performance of intersections in the vicinity of the Transfer /Recycling Station. Level -of- service values range from LOS A, indicative of good operation and low vehicle delays, and LOS F, indicative of congestion and comparatively longer vehicle delays. King County has a December 2006 Page 62 intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Sat. Peak Hour LOS' Delay V /C or WM LOS Delay V/C or WM LOS Delay V/C or WM S 188 St/Military Rd S D 51.8 0.92 D 38.4 0.76 C 28.3 0.59 S 188 St/I -5 SB Ramps B 16.8 0.64 D 40.3 0.88 B 10.9 0.39 S 188 St/I -5 NB Ramps C 23.3 0.79 C 30.8 0.86 B 15.7 0.51 Ori ilia Rd S/S 200 St C 32.2 0.77 C 26.1 0.77 B 16.8 0.36 Unsiinalized S 188`" St/Orillia Rd S A 4.0 NA A 4.2 NA A 1.4 NA Worst Movement F > 120 SB F >120 SB B 13.2 SB standard of LOS E for urban areas, while WSDOT and the City of SeaTac has a standard of LOS D. The results of the LOS analysis for intersections in the vicinity of the Transfer/Recycling Station are shown in Table 4. Table 4. Existing (2006) LOS Summary: Weekday Am, Pm, and Sat. Peak Hours 1. Level of service, based on 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology. 2. Average delay in seconds per vehicle. 3. Volume -to- capacity ratio reported for signalized intersections. 4. Worst movement reported for unsignalized intersections. 5. SB = Southbound approach. Table 4 indicates that all of the signalized intersections operate at LOS D or better during the weekday peak hour period. All intersections operate well during the Saturday peak hour. As shown, the unsignalized intersection of S. 188 Street/Orillia Road S. (site entrance) operates at LOS A as a whole. Only the southbound movement at the unsignalized intersection operates at LOS F during the weekday peak hours analyzed. The S. 188 Street/Orillia Road S. southbound exit does not affect operations along S. 188 Street - Orillia Road S. corridor, only the ability for vehicles to exit the Transfer/Recycling Station. Future Conditions Without Project An evaluation of future conditions without the expanded Transfer/Recycling Station was conducted as a means for developing baseline conditions for assessing the project impacts. Year 2011 traffic volumes were developed using a regional traffic forecasting model derived from the Puget Sound Regional Council model. Based on forecasted 2011 traffic volumes, future traffic operations were evaluated for weekday AM and PM peak hour periods and Saturday peak hour periods for year 2006 and year 2011. These results are shown in Tables 5 and 6. As shown in Table 5, under future baseline conditions, all signalized intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better. The unsignalized S. 188 Street/Orillia Road S. (site entrance) intersection continues to operate at LOS A as a whole, with the southbound movement expected to continue to operate at LOS F during the weekday peak hours. December 2006 Page 63 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Intersection AM E.xistin2 (2006) AM Baseline (20 1) LOS' Delay V /C' or WM LOS Delay V /C: or WM S 188 St /Military Rd S D 51.8 0.92 D 46.7 1.03 S 188 St /1 -5 S13 Ramps B 16.8 0.64 13 15.4 0.67 S 188 St /1 -5 NB Ramps C 23.3 0.79 C 24.0 0.78 Orillia Rd S/S 200 St (' 32 2 0.77 C 21 6 0.78 Unsiinati:ed S 188 St/Orillia Rd S A 4.0 NA A 5.7 NA Worst Atonement F >120 SB F >120 SB PM Existing (2006) PM Baseline (2011) Intersection LOS Delay V/C or WM LOS Delay V/C or WM S I88' St /Military Rd S D 38.4 0.76 C 33.5 0.82 S 188' St /I -5 SB Ramps D 40.3 0.88 D 35 2 0.94 S I88' St /I -5 NB Ramps C' 30.8 0.86 C 30.3 0.90 Orillia Rd S/S 200 St C 26.1 0.77 C 29.3 0.82 Unsit;nati:ed S I88 St/Orillia Rd S A 4.2 NA A 6.4 NA Worst Atonement F >120 SB F >120 SB Intersection Existing (Sat. 2006) Baseline (Sat. 201 1) LOS' Delay' V/C or WM' LOS Delay V/C or WM S 188' St /Military Rd S C 28.3 0.59 C 27.8 0.61 S 188'h St /I -5 SB Ramps B 10.9 0.39 A 9.3 0.41 S 188'h St /I -5 NB Ramps B 1 5.7 0.51 B 16.4 0.54 Orillia Rd S/S 200 'h St B 16.8 0.36 B 17.3 0.38 Unsignatized S 188'h St /Orillia Rd S A 1.4 NA A 1.4 NA Worst Movement 8 13.2 S8 8 13.6 8 11 e e B B v u v v B 0 11 Table 5. Baseline (2011) LOS Summary: Weekday AM and PM Peak Hours 1. Level of service, based on 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology. 2. Average delay in seconds per vehicle. 3. Volume -to- capacity ratio reported for signalized intersections. 4. Worst movement reported for unsignalized intersections. December 2006 Table 6 summarizes Saturday peak hour conditions for both year 2006 and year 2011. As indicated, all intersections operate well during the Saturday peak hour conditions. Table 6. Baseline (2011) LOS Summary: Saturday Peak Hour 1. level of service, based on 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology. 2. Average delay in seconds per vehicle. 3. Volume -to- capacity ratio reported for signalized intersections. 4. Worst movement reported for unsignalized intersections. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? 1 1 Yes f No If not, ghat is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station is not currently served by public transit. A Park and Ride Lot is located approximately 0.75 mile west of the Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station on South 188th Street near 42nd Avenue South. This Park Page 64 December 2006 1 and Ride Lot connects Sea -Tac Airport and other areas in south King County with 1 -5 and other locations along the I -5 corridor via a number of Metro and Sound Transit bus routes. King County Metro Transit (MT) and Sound Transit (ST) provide service to an 1 eastbound stop at the near side of S. 188 Street/Military Road. Transit service is provided by three routes: I • MT 180 provides service on 30- minute headways between Burien and Auburn; • MT 194 provides service on 45- minute headways between Seattle and Federal Way; I • ST 574 provides service on 30- minute headways between SeaTac and Lakewood. The project is not expected to have any noticeable effect on public transit. 1 c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 1 The existing station has several tipping/loading and parking areas including: • Two tipping stalls for commercial customers on weekdays; 1 • Nine tipping stalls for self -haul customers on weekdays (18 stalls on weekends); • A Transfer Trailer Yard north of Transfer Building with a capacity for 16 trailers; I • Parking spaces for eight vehicles southwest of the Transfer Building; • Unloading area for several vehicles at the free recycling area; and • Unloading area for several vehicles at the paid recycling area. I The completed project would expand capacities of tipping/loading and parking areas as follows (Figure 19): I • Parking spaces for five vehicles at the South Scale Facility; • A minimum of five tipping stalls for commercial customers; • A minimum of 16 tipping stalls for self -haul customers; I • An expanded recycling and new yard waste tipping area (eight stalls); • Parking stalls for 22 trailers (expandable to 44) at the Transfer Trailer Yard; • Parking spaces for 15 vehicles near the Transfer Building; and 1 • Parking for two school or tour buses south of the Transfer Building. The additional parking spaces will not create any additional traffic demand; the I additional parking spaces will better accommodate current and future demands than does the existing facility. I 1 1 1 Page 65 December 2006 MAIN SITE ENTRANCE/EXIT, ARROW LEGEND COMMERCIAL VEHICLES o1) SELF HAUL CUSTOMER VEHICLES SERVICE VEHICLES TRAILERS KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES & PARKS SOLID WASTE DIVISION ONRAiip EXISI7NG PROPEL uNt Traffic Circulation Plan 0 50 100 1501 SCALE IN FEET ti N 80UND I-5 soj souivo Lw FACILITIES MASTER'. PLAN FIGURE 19: JULY 2006 Page 66 On -Site Queuing It is important that inbound traffic to the Transfer / Recycling Station not hack up to a point where movement of traffic is impeded on the S. 188` Street / Orillia Road intersection. For this reason, design of the expanded Transfer / Recycling Station has incorporated a number of features to minimize any potential for adverse impacts to S. 188 Street, Orillia Road, and the on- and off -ramps to I -5. The proposed site plan has been designed to provide a high level of operational flexibility that will allow the facility to respond positively as the waste quantities and traffic volumes increase over the next 25 years. This flexibility includes the capability to add a fourth scale at the south scale facility as the need arises in the future. As part of site planning, a queuing analysis has been conducted to determine backup characteristics given forecasted self -haul traffic volumes. For more detailed discussion, see Appendix J and Section 4.3 of the 2006 Facility Master Plan Update. G Ycar 2020 peak weekday hour self-haul traffic: 136 vehicles o Year 2030 peak weekday hour self -haul traffic: 158 vehicles o Year 2020 peak weekend hour self -haul traffic: 163 vehicles o Year 2030 peak weekend hour self -haul traffic: 190 vehicles The new South Scale Facility will have three scales, two of which operate for inbound self -haul customers. During peak use periods (i.e. weekends), the North Scale Facility can also be used for inbound self -haul customers. The South and North Scale Facilities have approximately 440 feet and 1,250 feet of inbound pre -scale queuing length, respectively. There is any additional 240 feet of queuing length available between the entrance gate and the point where incoming trailer traffic and self -haul customer traffic di verge. Weekday Assessment The peak hour weekday self -haul traffic forecast is 136 vehicles per hour. With two inbound scales processing self -haul customers at an average rate of 40 seconds per vehicle and assuming at vehicle queue length of 22 feet, the South Scale Facility will be able to process approximately 180 vehicles per hour. At this rate, there should be no queue in the peak traffic hour. The capacity of the two scales provides in excess of a 30 percent margin of error in the traffic forecast and in the transaction time estimate. When the fourth scale is added, three inbound scales will be able to process 270 vehicles per hour. The peak hour weekday traffic forecast in 2030 is 158 vehicles, which means that there should be no queue in the peak traffic hour. The capacity of the two scales provides in excess of a 70 percent margin of error. Weekend Assessment The peak hour weekend self -haul traffic forecast is 163 vehicles per hour. With two inbound scales at the South Scale Facility and one at the North Scale Facility processing self -haul customers, the scale facilities will be able to process approximately 270 vehicles per hour. At this rate, there should be no queue in the peak December 2006 Page 67 traffic hour. The capacity of the two scales provides in excess of a 65 percent margin of error in the traffic forecast and in the transaction time estimate. When the fourth scale is added, four inbound scales will be able to process 360 vehicles per hour. The peak hour weekday traffic forecast in 2030 is 190 vehicles, which means that there should be no queue in the peak traffic hour. The capacity of the three scales provides over a 40 percent margin of error. Consequently, in all cases, there should be no significant backup of queued inbound self -haul traffic into the intersection at S. 188 and Orillia Road. At the same time, it is important to recognize that self -haul traffic will not arrive at the Transfer / Recycling Station at a uniform rate. Groups of vehicles can arrive over a fraction of an hour. In these instances, which can happen randomly and not just at peak hour, there will be short periods where traffic queues form and dissipate at the scale facilities. For this reason, it is desirable to maintain a significant margin of error in queuing estimates and more importantly to have generous traffic queuing provisions, which this station will have. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? Yes n No If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). The proposal will entail on -site road and traffic circulation improvements. As supported by the Traffic Impact Analysis for Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station, (see Appendix J), no off -site road improvements are required or proposed. On -Site Circulation Circulation on the new station site would be substantially changed as part of the expansion (Figures 3 and 6). The access to the station at the Orillia Road South/South 188th Street/I -5 intersection will remain the same. Customers would be directed to one of two scale facilities. Business /residential self -haul customers and oversize commercial vehicles would enter at the South Scale Facility and commercial customers would enter at the North Scale Facility. Self -haul customers would proceed from the South Scale Facility to the self -haul and commercial entrances of the Transfer Building or to the paid recycling and yard waste area on the south side of the Transfer Building. Self -haul customers would exit the west and north sides of the Transfer Building, returning to the South Scale Facility for reweighing and payment. Commercial customers will follow the North Access Road to the North Scale Facility and then to the commercial tipping section in the Transfer Building. Commercial customers will exit the northeast corner of the building and return to the North Scale Facility for reweighing. Commercial customers will then exit the station via the North Access Road. Oversize commercial vehicles will access the commercial tipping section of the Transfer Building via the South Scale Facility. These vehicles will exit and return to the South Scale Facility for reweighing and payment. Typically, transfer trailer traffic will access the trailer parking/staging area from the south and exit via the North Access Road; however, it will be possible for transfer trailers to enter via the North Access Road. Employees will be able to enter the Transfer Building from either direction. December 2006 Page 68 Land Use AM Peak Ilour PM Peak Hour Sat. Peak Hour Total In Out Total In Out 'Iota) In Out Existing Traffic Volumes' 73 44 29 44 19 25 181 93 88 Increased by 16.0 % 85 51 34 51 22 29 210 108 102 Total Net New Project Trips 12 7 5 7 3 4 29 15 14 0 9 0 r J C 0 0 December 2006 A number of features incorporated into the design of the new facility are intended to reduce the potential for vehicles to queue onto Orillia Road South and South 188th Street as they await weigh -in at the South Scale Facility. The new South Scale Facility will be located further north, providing 440 feet (approximately 20 vehicles) of pre - scale queuing length for incoming customers. Circulation within the site has been designed to be more efficient and to reduce time spent on -site by customers. The maximum time spent on -site, excluding waste tipping, is expected to be 16 minutes and 60 minutes for commercial and self -haul customers, respectively. Maximum wait times at scales and for unloading are expected to he 5 minutes and 10 minutes for commercial and self -haul customers, respectively. These reductions in time spent on -site will also decrease the potential for vehicle queues extending onto off-site surface streets during periods of high use. Off -Site Traffic Conditions 2011 Trip Generation As part of the Traffic Study, future traffic volumes generated by the Transfer /Recycling Station were projected based on KCSWD's solid waste forecasts. "These forecasts are based on historical data and expected economic development and population growth. Factors influencing forecasts include personal incomes, tip fees, employment, household size, and location of facility. Based on econometric modeling by KCSWD, it is estimated that the tonnage of solid waste will increase by a factor of about 16 percent over thc period 2006 through 201 1. The Traffic Study assumes that traffic volumes accessing the Transfer /Recycling Station will increase at a corresponding rate. Table 7 presents existing 2006 traffic volumes at thc Transfer /Recycling Station and projected increases in traffic volumes through 2011. Table 7. 2011Trip Generation Estimate Summary 1. Based on existing year 2006 peak hour turning movement counts. 2. Growth rate based on County econometric model forecasts. As indicated, by year 2011, there will belt, 7, and 29 net new trips during the AM peak hour, the PM peak hour, and the Saturday peak hour, respectively. As this data demonstrates, net new trips generated by the expanded Transfer /Recycling Station through year 2011 are relatively low. Weekend traffic is higher reflecting self -haul residential customer use. Estimates shown in Table 7 are likely slightly high, since no adjustments were made for more efficient loading of waste trailers. New compactor technology is expected to increase the tonnage of waste trailers from the current 17 tons to approximately 27 tons. This will serve to reduce the number of haul trips from the Transfer /Recycling Station by 50 to 67 percent. Page 69 Intersection Intersection Total Entering Volume AM Peak Hour 2011 Baseline Project Traffic 2011 With- Project % Impact S 188 St/Military Rd S 3,100 1 3,101 >0.1 S 188 St/1 -5 SB Ramps 3,055 3 3,058 0.1 S 188 St/1 -5 NB Ramps 3,675 6 3,681 0.2 S 188 St/Orillia Rd S 2,973 12 2,985 0.4 Orillia Rd S/S 200 St 3,200 6 3,206 0.2 PM Peak Hour 2011 Baseline Project Traffic 2011 With- Project % Impact S 188 St/Military Rd S 3,545 1 3,546 >0.1 S 188 St/I -5 SB Ramps 3,930 3 3,933 0.1 S 188 St/1 -5 NB Ramps 4,445 4 4,449 0.1 S 188 St/Orillia Rd S 3,634 7 3,641 0.2 Orillia Rd S/S 200 St 4,015 3 4,018 0.1 Sat. Peak Hour 2011 Baseline Project Traffic 2011 With - Project % Impact S 188 St/Military Rd S 2,540 5 2,545 0.2 S 188 St/1 -5 SB Ramps 2,225 13 2,238 0.6 S 188 St/1 -5 NB Ramps 1 ,960 20 1 ,980 1.0 S 188 St/Orillia Rd S 1,276 29 1,305 2.3 Ori llia Rd S/S 200 St 1,500 9 1,509 0.6 It should be noted that net new project trips are reflected as all growth between year 2006 and 2011. In fact, there are no plans to close the facility. Therefore, these volumes would occur with or without the planned expansion. 2011 Traffic Volumes Project - generated traffic volumes were combined with baseline - generated traffic to determine the percent impact of the expanded Transfer /Recycling Station on local intersections. The results are shown in Table 8. Table 8 demonstrates that during the AM and PM peak hours, the expected increases in project- related traffic are expected to have an effect on local intersections of less than 1.0 percent. On Saturday peak hours, the effects of the expanded Transfer/Recycling Station on the site entrance (S. 188 Street/Orillia Road S.) by about 2 percent. Typically, traffic volumes fluctuate plus or minus 5 percent from day - to -day, depending on factors such as day of the week, weather, and traffic conditions elsewhere in the area. Based on the results shown in Table 8, it is unlikely that the average motorist will notice any change in traffic volumes as a result of the expanded Transfer /Recycling Station. 2011 Traffic Operations Table 8. 2011 Project Traffic Volume Impacts An LOS analysis was conducted to determine future traffic operations with the expanded Transfer /Recycling Station. Table 9 summarizes traffic operations at local intersections with and without the project for both AM and PM peak hour conditions. December 2006 Page 70 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 9 0 9 C C C 0 7 9 December 2006 Table 9. With - Project LOS Summary: Weekday AM and PM Peak Hours 1. Level of service, based on 2000 1lighway C: pacity Manual methodology. 2. Average delay in seconds per vehicle. 3. Volume -to- capacity ratio reported for signalized intersections. 4. Worst movement reported for unsignaliicd intersections. Table 9 shows that all of the intersections are expected to remain at the same LOS levels as reported for baseline conditions during the weekday AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, the overall operation of S. 188 Street /Orillia Road S. (site entrance) is expected to degrade from LOS A to LOS C. This change in LOS does not affect commuter traffic on S. 188 Street. The change in LOS is a result of the increased southbound delay at the site entrance, which results in increased delays for vehicles existing the expanded Transfer /Recycling Station during PM peak hour conditions. A summary of the Saturday peak hour LOS is shown in Table 10. All intersections are likely to continue to operate well at Saturday peak hour when project - related traffic volumes are added to projected baseline conditions. Page 71 AM Baseline AM With - Project Intersection LOS' Delay V /C or WM LOS Delay V/C or WM S 188' St/Military Rd S D 46.7 1.03 D 46.6 1.03 S 188 St /I -5 SB Ramps B 15.4 0.67 B 15.4 0.67 S 188 Stii -5 NB Ramps C 24.0 0.78 C 24.0 0.79 Orillia Rd S!S 200 St C 21.6 0.78 C 21.7 0.79 Unsii'nali;ed S 188 St /Orillia Rd S A 5.7 NA A 8.1 NA W., ni Moremmnt F >120 SR F > /20 SR PM Baseline PM With - Project Intersection LOS Delay V/C or WM LOS Delay V/C or WM S 188 St /Military Rd S (' 33.5 0.82 (' 33.5 0.82 S 188 SUI-5 SB Ramps D 35.2 0.94 D 35.3 0.94 S 188' St /1 -5 NB Ramps C 30.3 0.90 C 30.4 0.90 Orillia Rd S/S 200 St C 29.3 0.82 C 29.3 0.82 UnsiL'naliZed S 188 St/'Orillia Rd S A 6.4 NA C 22.2 NA Worst Mur c,m'n ( F >120 SR F >120 SB 9 9 0 9 C C C 0 7 9 December 2006 Table 9. With - Project LOS Summary: Weekday AM and PM Peak Hours 1. Level of service, based on 2000 1lighway C: pacity Manual methodology. 2. Average delay in seconds per vehicle. 3. Volume -to- capacity ratio reported for signalized intersections. 4. Worst movement reported for unsignaliicd intersections. Table 9 shows that all of the intersections are expected to remain at the same LOS levels as reported for baseline conditions during the weekday AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, the overall operation of S. 188 Street /Orillia Road S. (site entrance) is expected to degrade from LOS A to LOS C. This change in LOS does not affect commuter traffic on S. 188 Street. The change in LOS is a result of the increased southbound delay at the site entrance, which results in increased delays for vehicles existing the expanded Transfer /Recycling Station during PM peak hour conditions. A summary of the Saturday peak hour LOS is shown in Table 10. All intersections are likely to continue to operate well at Saturday peak hour when project - related traffic volumes are added to projected baseline conditions. Page 71 Land Use Baseline (Sat.1 With - Project (Sall Intersection LOS' Delay V /C or WM LOS Delay V/C or WM S 188 St/Military Rd S C 27.8 0.61 C 27.8 0.61 S 188 St/1 -5 SB Ramps A 9.3 0.41 A 9.4 0.41 S 188 St/I -5 NB Ramps B 16.4 0.54 B 16.5 0.54 Orillia Rd S/S 200 St B 17.3 0.38 B 17.3 0.38 Unsit?nalized S 188`" St/Orillia Rd S A 1.4 NA A 1.6 NA Worst Movement B 13.6 B B 14.2 SB Land Use PM Peak Hour Total In Out Existing Traffic Volumes' 44 19 25 Increased by 2.0% Annually 71 31 40 Total Net New Project Trips 27 12 15 Table 10. With Project LOS Summary: Saturday Peak Hour . Level of service, based on 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodo ogy. 2. Average delay in seconds per vehicle. 3. Volume - to - capacity ratio reported for signalized intersections. 4. Worst movement reported for unsignalized intersections. For both weekday and Saturday conditions, it is noted that the impact of the project is characterized as all waste stream growth between year 2006 and year 2011. While impacts are negligible as presented, they overestimate actual impacts insofar as waste stream growth would occur with or without the project. Year 2030 Analysis In order to provide perspective on longer term impacts, a traffic analysis was also provided for the year 2030. Projected trip generation for the expanded Transfer /Recycling Station in year 2030 is shown in Table 11. The figures in the table are based on an increase in waste tonnage of 2 percent per year and a corresponding increase in the number of vehicles accessing the expanded Transfer /Recycling Station. Table 11. 2030 Trip Generation Estimate Summary 1. Based on existing year 2006 peak hour turning movement counts. 2. Growth rate based on County waste tonnage forecasts. As indicated, by year 2030, the project is projected to generate 27 new weekday PM peak hour trips. However, as described previously, these new trips would be generated with or without the expansion as projected growth in the waste stream occurs. An LOS analysis was conducted for year 2030 to quantify projected traffic operations for baseline and with - project conditions. Table 12 shows that during the PM peak hour period, the overall operation of S. 188 Street/Orillia Road S. (site entrance) is expected to degrade from LOS C to LOS D. This change in LOS does not affect commuter traffic on S. 188 Street. Rather, the change is LOS is because of increased southbound delay at the site entrance, which results in increased delays for vehicles existing the Transfer/Recycling Station during the PM peak hour. Project - related December 2006 Page 72 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 9 n D C IJ m C 0 7 J 9 0 traffic volumes have a negligible affect on all local intersections under 2030 conditions. 'fable 12. 2030 With- Project and Baseline LOS Summary Weekday PM Peak hour 1. Level of service, based on 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology. 2. Average delay in seconds per vehicle. 3. Volume -to- capacity ratio reported for signalized intersections. 4. Worst movement reported for unsignalized intersections. As noted for year 2011, the impacts shown in Table 11. are overstated in that the changes in traffic will occur with or without the expansion of the Transfer /Recycling Station. Off -Site Queuing Because of the close spacing of the intersections in the vicinity of the entrance to the Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station, queues can occur that may inhibit adjacent intersections from functioning properly. Intersection queuing was modeled to determine queuing characteristics at intersections eastbound and westbound along S. 188 Street for both weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions. See Appendix .1 for additional detail. The results are shown in Table 13. During the AM and PM peak hour in the westbound direction, the 1 -5 SB Ramps /S. 188 Street and S. 188 Street /Orillia Road S. intersections will experience blockages from adjacent intersections. During the PM peak hour in the eastbound direction, the S. 188 Street /Military Road S. intersection will experience blockages resulting from the 1 -5 SB Ramps /S. 188 Street intersection. During the AM and PM peak hour, the east -to -north left -turn into the Transfer /Recycling Station site (S. 188 Street / Orillia Road S.) does not queue into the adjacent intersection hased on model calculations. However, the left -turns would be blocked because of the queues on the westbound approach at the 1 -5 NB Ramps /S. 188 Street intersection. Eastbound left -turns into the station will depend on westbound traffic not blocking the site access during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. December 2006 Page 73 PM Baseline (2030) PM With - Project (2030) Intersection LOS' DeIay V /C or WM LOS Delay V/C or WM s 188 St/Military Rd S D 48.7 0.97 D 49.1 0.97 S 188 Stn -5 SB Ramps E 56.5 1.12 E 58.5 1.13 S 188 St /1 -5 NB Ramps E 67.0 1.14 E. 67.9 1.14 Orillia Rd S/S 200 St 1) 49.2 0.97 D 49.5 1) Unsienalzed S 188 St/Orillia Rd S C 16.2 NA D 25.4 NA 11'r rs! Moremcni P > /20 SB F >120 SB 0 9 n D C IJ m C 0 7 J 9 0 traffic volumes have a negligible affect on all local intersections under 2030 conditions. 'fable 12. 2030 With- Project and Baseline LOS Summary Weekday PM Peak hour 1. Level of service, based on 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology. 2. Average delay in seconds per vehicle. 3. Volume -to- capacity ratio reported for signalized intersections. 4. Worst movement reported for unsignalized intersections. As noted for year 2011, the impacts shown in Table 11. are overstated in that the changes in traffic will occur with or without the expansion of the Transfer /Recycling Station. Off -Site Queuing Because of the close spacing of the intersections in the vicinity of the entrance to the Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station, queues can occur that may inhibit adjacent intersections from functioning properly. Intersection queuing was modeled to determine queuing characteristics at intersections eastbound and westbound along S. 188 Street for both weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions. See Appendix .1 for additional detail. The results are shown in Table 13. During the AM and PM peak hour in the westbound direction, the 1 -5 SB Ramps /S. 188 Street and S. 188 Street /Orillia Road S. intersections will experience blockages from adjacent intersections. During the PM peak hour in the eastbound direction, the S. 188 Street /Military Road S. intersection will experience blockages resulting from the 1 -5 SB Ramps /S. 188 Street intersection. During the AM and PM peak hour, the east -to -north left -turn into the Transfer /Recycling Station site (S. 188 Street / Orillia Road S.) does not queue into the adjacent intersection hased on model calculations. However, the left -turns would be blocked because of the queues on the westbound approach at the 1 -5 NB Ramps /S. 188 Street intersection. Eastbound left -turns into the station will depend on westbound traffic not blocking the site access during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. December 2006 Page 73 AM Peak Hour Direction/intersection Capacity' (ft) 95 --' Percentile Queue (ft) Available Capacity? 2030 Baseline 2030 With - Proiect u Westbound Westbound S 188 St /Military Rd S 205 260 No S 188 St /1 -5 SB Ramps 490 200 Yes S 188 St /I -5 NB Ramps 65 365 No Eastbound 1,115 Eastbound S 188 St/Orillia Rd S 65 20 Yes S 188 St /I -5 NB Ramps 490 330 Yes S 188 St /I -5 SB Ramps 205 160 Yes PM Peak Hour Westbound S 188 St /Military Rd S 205 245 No S 188 St /1 -5 SB Ramps 490 230 Yes S 188 St /I -5 NB Ramps 65 600 No Eastbound S 188 St/Orillia Rd S 65 20 Yes S 188 St /I -5 NB Ramps 490 335 Yes S 188 St /1 -5 SB Ramps 205 255 No PM Peak Hour 95 Percentile Queue Direction /Intersection Capacity 2030 Baseline 2030 With - Proiect ft Westbound S 188 St /Military Rd S 205 315 315 S 188 St /1 -5 SB Ramps 490 520 525 S 188 St /I -5 NB Ramps 65 1,105 1,115 Eastbound S 188 St/Orillia Rd S 65 325 330 S 188 St /1 -5 NB Ramps 490 605 605 S 188 St /1 -5 SB Ramps 205 800 805 Table 13. 2011 Existing Intersection Queue Summary: Weekday AM and PM Peak Hours 1. Distance between intersections. 2. 95 percentile queue length in feet as reported by Synchro 6.0. The model also projected queuing conditions in year 2030. The results are shown in Table 14. Assuming no improvements, queuing capacities between all intersections will be exceeded. Most of the projected queuing is the result of background traffic volume growth unrelated to Bow Lake Transfer/Recycling Station traffic. The addition of Transfer /Recycling Station traffic to future traffic volumes is shown to have a negligible effect on queuing along the S. 188 Street corridor. See Appendix J. December 2006 Table 14. Intersection Queue Summary: 2030 Baseline and With- Project t. Distance between intersections. 2. 95 percentile queue length in feet as reported by Synchro 6.0. 3. Baseline conditions include the volumes from the proposed Tukwila South Project. Tukwila South Project An analysis of future traffic conditions that includes project- related traffic volumes and those generated by the Tukwila South Project was also conducted. The proposed Tukwila South Project consists of approximately 14 million square feet in a large -scale 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Page 74 I campus setting on approximately 498 contiguous acres. Proposed uses include office, commercial, research, retail, residential, hotel, and recreation. 'There are proposed access points at S. 180`" Street /Southcenter Parkway, S. 180 Street /Andover Park W., and S. 200 StreetlFrager Road S. Sixty percent of the "Tukwila South traffic is forecast to access the site through the S. 200 Street /Frager Road S. intersection. From this location, 20 percent of the Tukwila South traffic is forecast to travel on Orillia Road S. between S. 200 Street and S. 188 Street. The analysis shows that, in year 2011, with the inclusion of projected Tukwila South traffic volumes, the expanded Transfer /Recycling Station is expected to have an insignificant impact on calculated LOS's at local intersections. The roadways and intersections are expected to operate essentially the same with or without traffic volumes generated by the expanded Transfer /Recycling Station. The year 2030 analysis results in a similar conclusion, with minimal impacts from the expanded Transfer /Recycling Station. Sec Appendix J for additional detail. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail or air transportation? I 1 Yes N1 No If so, genera/ /y describe. Construction The project would not use or occur in the immediate vicinity of water, rail or air transportation. f. Ilow many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Construction of the expanded Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station is likely to be divided into two separate contracts: a site preparation contract, and a site facilities contract. The site preparation work is expected to occur from April through October, 2008 and the site facilities work is expected to run from April, 2009 through July, 2011. See Appendix J for additional detail. Site Preparation Soil Removal. Preliminary estimates indicate that approximately 148,000 cy of material will be excavated and removed from the site. Assuming 20 cy capacity per dump truck and pup trailer, this work is likely to require 7,400 truck round trips over an estimated five -month period. Assuming that work is limited to weekdays, this will mean approximately 68 truck trips per day for approximately 108 hauling days. Imported Material. Approximately 20,000 cy of soil will be hauled to the site over a one -month period. At 20 cy per haul truck and pup trailer, this will require approximately 1,000 truck round trips. Assuming that work occurs on weekdays, this will mean an average of 45 truck trips per day for approximately 22 hauling days. Concrete. An estimated 1,000 cy of concrete will be delivered to the site, primarily for construction of retaining walls. Assuming 10 cy per truck, this will require 100 truck round trips. Assuming placement of approximately 100 cy per day, this will mean 10 truck round trips per day for 10 days. These trips are expected to coincide with soil removal and soil import trips. December 2006 Page 75 Material Type Estimated Quantity Average Load Size Number of Trips Concrete 7,700 CY 10 CY 770 Road Aggregates 7,100 CY 20 CY 355 Structural Fill, Drain Rock 2,000 CY 20 CY 100 Hot Mix Asphalt 3,700 CY 20 CY 185 Roadway Appurtenances - -- - -- 20 Topsoil & Amendments 1,500 CY 20 CY 75 4" and larger Utility Pipe i 5,000 LF 2,000 LF 8 Manholes /CBs 80 EA 6 EA i 4 Metal Building - -- - -- 50 Electrical Equipment - -- - -- 50 Plumbing Pipe & Fixtures - -- - -- 20 Compactors - -- - -- 10 Industrial Wastewater Treatment System - -- 20 Miscellaneous - -- 1000 Total 2677 December 2006 Construction Workers. The average workforce during site preparation is anticipated to be approximately 30 workers with a peak of 50. These workers are expected to park on site with an average 1.5 round trips to the site each workday. Peak workforce days are expected to coincide with soil removal, soil import, and concrete delivery trips. Miscellaneous. There will likely be an estimated 25 to 30 miscellaneous trips to the site over the course of site preparation. These trips will include equipment and materials deliveries and visits by vendors, SWD staff, union representatives, inspectors, and engineers /consultants. Total. During the five months of the site preparation contract when soil is being excavated and hauled from the site, average daily construction traffic are expected to be approximately 223 trips. For the remaining two months, this number is expected to drop to approximately 155 trips. Site Facilities Demolition Material Removal. It is estimated that approximately 20,000 cy of rubble from demolition of existing structures (e.g. Transfer Building) and pavements will be removed from the site. Assuming capacity of 20 cy per truck, this work will result in approximately 1,000 truck trips over a two -month period, or about 25 truck trips per work day. Imported Materials. Estimated types of construction material to be delivered to the site, projected quantities, expected load sizes, and number of truck trips are shown in Table 15. Table 15. Construction Traffic — Site Facilities Work Page 76 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Description 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2030 Average Daily Tonnage 354 414 374 628 792 1,384 Peak I lourly Tonnage 264 168 144 248 174 346 Peak Daily Tonnage 603 854 599 1,109 1,235 2,468 90th Percentile Peak Daily Tonnage 417 465 425 890 977 1,696 Total Annual Tonnage 129,303 1 50,974 1 36,347 229,883 288,936 505,000 Average Daily Customer Traffic 332 411 398 47S 528 1,047 Peak I lourly Customer Traffic 104 121 108 120 108 295 Peak Daily Customer Traffic 797 822 794 781 767 2,104 90th Percentile Peak Daily Traffic 421 488 453 488 495 1,219 Total Annual Customer Traffic 121,014 150,115 145,273 173,861 193,251 382,000 9 0 C C 9 0 9 0 0 0 December 2006 These material delivery trips are expected to occur on weekdays over the full 27 -month site facilities construction period (585 days). Average daily trips would be about 5, with an estimated peak day of 30 trips. Construction Workers. The average workforce during site facilities work is expected to he approximately 50 workers with a peak workforce of 150. These workers are likely to park on site with an average 1.5 round trips to the site each workday. Miscellaneous. There will likely be an estimated 30 to 40 miscellaneous trips to the site over the course of site facilities work. These trips will include equipment and materials deliveries and visits by vendors, SWD staff, union representatives, inspectors, and engineers /consultants. Total. Excepting the two -month period when demolition rubble is being hauled from the site, average daily construction traffic is expected to be approximately 110 trips, with a peak of approximately 295 trips. Operations Table 16 shows Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station tonnage and traffic generation over the 2001 — 2005 period and the year 2030 forecast. Average and peak daily customer roundtrip traffic volumes in 2005, composed of both self-haul and commercial users, were 528 and 767 vehicles, respectively. These numbers are expected to increase to 1,047 and 2,104 vehicles, respectively, by the ycar 2030. 'Fable 16. Tonnage and Traffic Summary 2001 -2005 and 2030 Forecast Source: 2006 Facility Ahls /cr/'lan (:plate (KCSWD, 2006a)_ In 2005, average truck traffic used for hauling compacted MSW to Cedar Hills Regional Landfill was approximately 44 trips per day, based on an 18 -ton capacity for the average top -load container. By 2030, this number is expected to increase to approximately 51 trips per day, based on a 27 -ton capacity for the intennodal container expected to be in use after the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill closes. These figures should be doubled to include empty haul trucks returning to the site. The expansion of the station would include the capability to accept yard waste. By 2030, average and peak daily yard waste volumes are expected to be 15 and 25 tons, Pagc 77 g. respectively. Based on an average capacity of 18 tons of yard waste for a top -load container, these volumes would generate 0.8 and 1.4 haul truck trips per day. Because of high seasonality, these figures can be expected to be significantly higher in spring and summer, and correspondingly lower in fall and winter. Following expansion, an estimated 13 people would work at the station over a 24 -hour period. These employees can be expected to generate approximately 30 to 40 vehicle trips per day to and from the site. An additional 10 trips per day would be generated by miscellaneous maintenance and delivery vehicles. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: The Traffic Impact Analysis for Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station (The Transpo Group, 2006a), page 39, demonstrates that no mitigation is required to existing off -site roads. (Appendix J). On -Site A number of measures have been proposed to reduce or eliminate potential on -site transportation impacts, including: • Site circulation has been designed to separate self -haul and commercial customers, resulting in more efficient movement of vehicles about the site and shorter residence times for all users. • Site Iayout with generous on -site queuing lane length and the use of two scale facilities with multiple scales, some of which will be reversible, will allow the station to function without incoming traffic backing up beyond the project boundary. • Retaining walls would be installed on the west side of the North Access Road in order not to infringe upon WSDOT property in the vicinity of the northbound on- ramp to I -5. KCSWD has initiated discussions with WSDOT on this issue. • The North Access Road and associated retaining walls would be designed to avoid any conflict with the existing cell phone tower. Off -Site Based on the identified negligible off -site impacts, no off -site mitigation measures are proposed. The negligible impacts are a result of the low volume of new site - generated traffic volume when compared to the total entering volume of traffic (TEV) at the study intersections. During the weekday AM peak hour, site - generated future new traffic volume impacts the study intersections total traffic volume with a range of 0.1 to 0.4 percent. During the weekday PM peak hour, site - generated future new traffic volume impacts the study intersections total traffic volume with a range of 0.1 to 0.2 percent. As these results show, during peak commuter travel times the future new site - generated trips comprise a very small part of the traffic stream. The transfer station generates the highest traffic volumes on a Saturday, which coincides with the lowest volume of traffic volumes on the adjacent streets. During the Saturday peak hour site - generated future new traffic volume impacts the study intersections total traffic volume with a range of 0.2 to 2.3 percent. The 2.3 percent is at the site access. Traffic volumes typically fluctuate about plus or minus 5 percent from day -to -day depending on factors such as the day of the week, weather, and traffic conditions elsewhere in the roadway December 2006 Page 78 0 9 9 c 0 9 0 9 0 network. Based on these results, it is unlikely that the average motorist would notice the forecast impact of increased site - generated traffic volume. These conclusions are also verified through the LOS analysis. In addition, even the negligible increases due to the site are an overstatement of actual impacts, since there is no probable difference in site traffic demand anticipated between the proposal and "no action ". Under year 2011, four of the study intersections experienced no LOS change when comparing baseline to with - project conditions. LOS calculations show that the calculated delay is expected to change by less than 0.1 seconds at the four intersections. Only the intersection of S 188 Street /Orillia Road S (site access) experienced changes in LOS during the PM peak hour. During the weekday AM peak hour S 188 Street/Orillia Road S operates at LOS A under both baseline and with - project conditions. During the weekday PM peak hour S 188 Street / Orillia Road S changes from LOS A under baseline conditions to LOS C under with - project conditions. The southbound approach operates at LOS F under both weekday AM and PM conditions. As noted in the analysis, S 188 Street /Orillia Road S is an unsignalized approach to an arterial that operates at LOS F with average weekday peak hour delays in excess of 2 minutes, and will do so in the future with or without the growth increment added by the continued operation of the transfer facility. The proposed action itself will result in no impact to these conditions, especially for outbound traffic, since the waste stream expected at the site is forecast to grow at approximately 2 percent annually with or without the project, and there are no plans to close the transfer station. Even with no transfer station, and potential development to the north, delays would he very significant for any new development traffic. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (i.e., fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? 1 1 Yes ® No If so, generally describe. The project is not expected to result in the increased need for public services. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: 16. Utilities Impacts to public services are not anticipated; therefore, mitigation measures have not been developed. a. Check utilities currently available at the site: 11 ki Electricity Natural gas Water Refuse service "Telephone Sanitary sewer Septic system Other: December 2006 Page 79 C. Signature Signature: Name (print): Title: Date Submitted: b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. The expanded station would require new water, wastewater, stormwater, fire protection system, electrical, telephone, security and data systems that would all be connected as underground systems. Wastewater would be collected and trucked by tanker to a wastewater treatment plant. Stormwater would either be extended to the conveyance system located near Southcenter Parkway at the bottom of the slope to the east of the site (R.W. Beck, 2006a) or will be discharged on site as in the current system. Stormwater issues were previously discussed in Section 3 Water and Appendix F. Power The station service power transformer and a standby engine generator with integral fuel tank will be located between the two yard waste loading bays south of the Transfer Building. The new facility will require an upgraded generator that would be sized to handle the entire project site electrical needs with the exception of the two compactors. Energy production could also include the use of a photovoltaic generation system that would be considered part of the sustainable building features during design to help achieve KCSWD's goal of a LEEDTM Silver Rating. The photovoltaic arrays will likely be mounted on the south- facing canopy over the Transfer Building (KCSWD, 2006b). Water Service A looped water supply and fire main system will be provided around the site with fire hydrants situated at various locations. Hydrants will be sited during the design phase of the project. Design of the Transfer Building will incorporate a dry pipe fire sprinkler system that will reduce the overall fire flow requirements for the site (KCSWD, 2006b). The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decisiyon. v /A/ ` S67 J, C3 /�Anv.g6 . G-6 December 2006 Page 80 0 0 C C C 9 a 0 0 0 a References Adolfson Associates, inc. 2004. Wetland Reconnaissance fin Bow Lake Transfer Station and WSDOT Property. Prepared for King County Solid Waste Division and R.W. Beck. Seattle, Washington. 8 p. Adolfson Associates, inc. 2006. Letter report to Karl Ilufnagel, R.W. Beck, regarding stream bank flagging, Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station, King County Solid Waste Division. Seattle, Washington. 4p. Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 2005. Technical Report on Geology, Soils, and Ground Water: Tukwila South Environmental Lnpacl Statement, Tukwila, Washington. Prepared for La Pianta LLC and Blumen Consulting Group, Inc. In Tukwila South Project Draft EIS: Volume II Technical Appendices, City of Tukwila, April 2005. Cedarock Consultants, Inc. 2005. Fisheries Technical Report: Tukwila South Project, Tukwila, Washington. Prepared for la Pianta, LLC and Blumcn Consulting Group. In Tukwila South Project Final EIS: Volume III Technical Appendices, City of Tukwila, April 2005 City of Tukwila. 1995a. City of Tukwila C'ornprehensii'c Plan Map. Available online at http: // www .ci.tukwila.wa.us /dcd /compplan /COMP %20plan %20map.pdf. Accessed April 2005. City of Tukwila. 1995b. City of Tukwila Zoning Map. Available online at: http: // www .ci.tukwila.wa.us /dcd /zonemap1.jpg. December 4, 1995. Accessed May 2005. City of Tukwila. 2004a. Sensitive Areas Rlup. SW Quarter 35- 23 -04. December 13, 2004. City of Tukwila. 2004b. Tukwila Municipal Code. Current through Ordinance Number 2080, passed December 13, 2004. Available online at: http: / /www.ci.tukwila.wa.us /dcd /zonemapl .jpg. Accessed May 2005. City of Tukwila. 2005. Tukwila South Project Final EIS. April, 2005. Tukwila, Washington. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1995. Flood insurance Rate Map (FIRM), King County Washington and Incorporated Areas. Panel 967 of 1725. Map Number 53033C0967 F, Revised May 16, 1995. Geomatrix, Inc. 2006a. King Countv's Row Lake Transfer /Recycling Station Upgrade — Air Quality Assessment Memorandum. Prepared for King County Solid Waste Division and Adolfson Associates, Inc. May 5, 2006. 8p. Geomatrix, Inc. 2006b. King C.'ounty's Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station Upgrade Noise Assessment Memorandum. Prepared for King County Solid Waste Division and Adolfson Associates, Inc. May 5, 2006. 1 1 p. Geomatrix, Inc. 2006c. Response to La Pianta Appeal Comment Regarding Noise, Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station Upgrade. Memorandum prepared for King County Solid Waste Division and S. Bingham, ESA Adolfson. Lynnwood, Washington. 2p. i)ecemher 2006 Page X 1 HDR Engineering, Inc. 2005. Local Street Traffic Impact Evaluation for King County Transfer Stations. Prepared for King County Solid Waste Division. Bellevue, Washington. Hong West & Associates, Inc. 1993. Geotechnical Engineering Study: Bow Lake Transfer Station Improvements Facilities Master Plan, King County, Washington. Prepared for King County Solid Waste Division and R.W. Beck and Associates. Lynnwood, Washington. 20 p. Hong West & Associates, Inc. 1994. Supplemental Subsurface Investigation: Bow Lake Transfer Station Improvements Facility Master Plan, King County, Washington. Prepared for King County Solid Waste Division and R.W. Beck and Associates. Lynnwood, Washington. 4 p. Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates, Inc. and Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc. 2005. Tukwila South Project: Preliminary Draft Master Drainage Plan and Preliminary Infrastructure Site Work Summary. Prepared for LaPianta LLC. In Tukwila South Project Draft EIS: Volume II Technical Appendices, City of Tukwila, April 2005. HWA Geosciences, Inc. 2004. Draft Geotechnical Evaluation Report: WSDOT Property, Bow Lake Transfer Station /Recycling Facility, King County, Washington. Prepared for King County Solid Waste Division and R.W. Beck. Seattle, Washington. 16 p. HWA Geosciences, Inc. 2006a. Technical Memorandum: Field Visit — Observations and Conclusions, Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Facility, King County, Washington. Prepared for King County Solid Waste Division and R.W. Beck. Lynnwood, Washington. 4 p. HWA Geosciences, Inc. 2006b. Technical Memorandum: Slope Geotechnical Issues, Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Facility, King County, Washington. Prepared for King County Solid Waste Division and R.W. Beck. Lynnwood, Washington. 8 p. Kindig, A.C. & Co. 2005. Tukwila South Project: Water Quality Technical Report, Draft EIS. Prepared for Segale Properties. In Tukwila South Project Draft EIS: Volume II Technical Appendices, City of Tukwila, April 2005. King County. 1998 and 2005. King County Surface Water Design Manual. Seattle, Washington. King County GIS Center. 2006. King County Online iMap Database. Available online at: http: / /www.metrokc.gov /gis /mapportal /iMAP_main.htm #. Accessed May 2005. King County Solid Waste Division. 1989. Adopted 1989 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. Volume 1. July 1989. King County Solid Waste Division. 1998. Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station Facility Master Plan. Prepared by R.W. Beck, Inc. for King County Solid Waste Division. April 1998. King County Solid Waste Division. 2001. Final 2001 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Seattle, Washington. King County Solid Waste Division. 2004. Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Plan, King County Solid Waste Division, Transfer Facilities. Department of Parks and Natural Resources. Seattle, Washington. 13 p. December 2006 Page 82 0 0 C C J King County Solid Waste Division. 2006a. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Transfer and Waste Export System Plan fcrr King County, Washington. Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Seattle, Washington. King County Solid Waste Division. 2006b. Draft 2006 Facility ./Master Plan Update Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station. Prepared by R.W. Beck. July 2006. Seattle, Washington. King County Solid Waste Division. 2006c_ King County Solid Waste Division Bow Luke Transfer & Recycling Station Operating Plan. Seattle, Washington. 9 p. King County Solid Waste Division. 2006d. Public Ilealth Procedures and Requirements, Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station Facility Master Plan Update and implementation — Technical Memorandum. Prepared by Tom Crcegan, Engineer Iii for S. Bingham, ESA Adolfson. Seattle, Washington. KPG, Inc. 2003. Final Draft Environmental Checklist: First Northeast Transfer/Recycling Station Facility Master Plan Implementation. Prepared for King County Department of Natural Resources. Seattle, Washington. KPG, Inc. 2006. Photo Simulation of Expanded Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station. Prepared for R.W. Beck. Seattle, Washington. R.W. Beck. 2006a. Conceptual Stonnwater Management Ilan, Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station Facility Master Plan Update and implementation. Prepared for King County Solid Waste Division. Seattic, Washington. R.W. Beck. 2006b. Evaluation of Potential for Lcachatc Generation at the Project Site During Construction and During Operation of the Completed Facility, Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station Facility Master Plan Update and Implementation — Technical Memorandum. Prepared for King County Solid Waste Division and S. Bingham, ESA Adolfson. Seattle, Washington. R.W. Beck. 2006c. Summary of Preliminary inbound Customer Queuing Evaluation, Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station Facility Master Plan Update and Implementation — Technical Memorandum. Prepared for King County Solid Waste Division and S. Bingham, ESA Adolfson. Seattle, Washington. R.W. Beck. 2006d. Construction Traffic Forecast, Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station Facility Master Plan Update and Implementation — Technical Memorandum. Prepared for King County Solid Waste Division and K. Gahnbcrg, Transpo Group and S. Bingham, ESA Adolfson. Seattle, Washington. Raedcke Associates, Inc. 2005. Tukwila South Project Druft EIS Volume III Technical Appendices. Prepared for City of Tukwila. Seattle -- King County Department of Public Health. 1985. Abandoned Landfill Study in King County. Seattle, Washington. 150 p. December 2006 Page 83 The Transpo Group. 2004b. Summary of Preliminary Transportation Assessment — Bow Lake Transfer Station. Prepared for King County Solid Waste Division and R. W. Beck. Kirkland, Washington. 5 p. The Transpo Group. 2006a. Traffic Impact Analysis: Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station. Prepared for King County Solid Waste Division. Kirkland, Washington. 38 p. The Transpo Group. 2006b. Impacts ofl -5 /SR 509 Project on the Bow Lake Transfer Station. Memorandum. Prepared for King County Solid Waste Division. Kirkland, Washington. 3 p. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Parks Service (NPS). 2006. National Historic Landmarks Survey List of National Historic Landmarks by State. Available online at: http: / /www.cr.nps.gov /nhl /designations /Lists /LIST06.pdf. May 2006. Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). Historic Places in Washington Report. January 24, 2005. Available online at: http : / /www. oahp.wa.gov/ pages /Hi stori cSites/ documents /HistoricPlacesinW ashingtonReport.pdf. Accessed May 2006. Washington State Department of Ecology. 2005. Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Olympia, Washington. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2006. Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) Database. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 2006. Washington Natural Heritage Program GIS Data. Whiting, Sandra. Personal communication with Teresa Vanderberg (Adolfson Associates, Inc.) during site visit of July 6, 2006. City of Tukwila. December 2006 Page 84 0 0 t] 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 APPENDICES December 2006 Page R5 ADDENDUM TO 2006 Environmental Checklist State Environmental Policy Act 2006 Facility Master Plan Update Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station July 2008 King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division Addendum to Environmental Checklist State Environmental Policy Act 2006 Facility Master Plan Update Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station July 2008 King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division King Street Center 201 S. Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104 www.metrokc.gov/dnrp/swd This material will be provided in alternate formats upon request by contacting: King County Solid Waste Division 206 - 296 -4466 1- 800 - 325 -6155, ext. 6 -4466 TTY Relay: 711 www.metrokc.gov/dnrp/swd TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF APPENDICES July 2008 Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist Introduction 1 Reason for Addendum 1 Modifications to the Project 2 Site Plan 2 Project Schedule 2 Processing 7 Analyses 9 Construction Traffic 9 Stormwater Management During Construction 12 Geotechnical Studies 13 Stormwater Discharge 16 Climate Change 17 Noise from Yard Waste /Wood Waste Grinder 19 Conclusion 20 Construction Traffic Impacts Appendix A Construction Traffic Forecast Appendix B Stonnwatcr Truck Haul Analysis Appendix C GIIG Emission Worksheet Appendix D Noise Assessment - Yard Waste /Wood Waste Grinder Appendix E C Reason for Addendum 0 9 0 0 0 Introduction In 2005 and 2006, King County Solid Waste Division (KCSWD) initiated a series of engineering and environmental studies intended to determine the best means for expanding the Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station and to identify potential environmental impacts associated with expansion. In late summer 2006, KCSWD, acting as lead agency, prepared a State Environmental Policy Act Environmental Checklist (SEPA Checklist) for the project, Environmental Checklist, State Environmental Policy Act: 2006 Facility Master Plan Update, Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station (KCSWD, 2006). KCSWD issued a Mitigated Determination of Non- Significance (MDNS) on August 30, 2006. The lead agency determined that the proposed project did not have a significant adverse impact on thc environment and that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was not required under Chapter 20.44 County Environmental Procedures and RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). The SEPA Checklist was circulated to interested residents, adjacent landowners, municipalities, and government agencies and a public meeting was held on September 14, 2006. Responses to the SEPA Checklist were obtained from two municipalities and one private developer. Following review of comments received on the SEPA Checklist, KCSWD determined that it was desirable to provide additional information on environmental issues associated with the project and decided to temporarily withdraw the SEPA Checklist. Additional information was incorporated into a revised SEPA Checklist. Minor modifications to the Facility Master Plan (FMP) were also made in response to the new information. The revised SEPA Checklist was then recirculated and the MDNS reissued on December 21, 2006. There are several reasons that have led KCSWD to prepare this Addendum to the December 2006 SEPA Checklist. As design of the project has progressed, there have been a number of modifications to the project as previously described in the 2006 SEPA Checklist. In some areas (e.g. stormwater system), design has progressed to a point where more detail is now available. In other areas, new regulations (e.g. climate change) are now in place that require additional evaluation of the project. Specific issues that will be addressed in this Addendum are listed below: July 2008 Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist 1. Site Footprint. The site footprint has changed slightly from that shown in thc 2006 SEPA Checklist. 2. Construction Schedule. A more specific timetable for proposed construction activities has now been developed. 3. Processing. Since the SEPA Checklist was issued in 2006, KCSWD has added additional solid waste processing capability to the project. 1 Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist 4. Stormwater During Construction. In accordance with applicable requirements, more details about potential methods for handling stormwater during construction have now been developed. 5. Construction Traffic. Progress on the design of the facility has resulted in changes in estimates of the volumes of material and required truck trips required to haul material to and from the site. 6. Geotechnical Studies. There have been additional geotechnical studies since the SEPA Checklist was issued. 7. Stormwater System. KCSWD has determined that directing stormwater to Stream E at the base of the slope east of the site is the most desirable means of discharge. Design details have now been developed and are being reviewed by the City of Tukwila. 8. Climate Change. Since the SEPA Checklist was issued in December 2006, King County has developed SEPA requirements associated with effects of the proposed station on climate change. This Addendum to the 2006 SEPA Checklist has been prepared in accordance with King County Code (KCC), Chapter 20.44 that adopts SEPA Administrative Rules, Washington Administrative Code (WAC), Chapter 197 -11. Specifically, this Addendum follows WAC 197 -11 -625 Addenda Procedures and WAC 197 -11 -706 Addendum, which defines the purpose and nature of an Addendum. Modifications to the Project Site Plan The updated Site Plan is provided in Figure 1. Slight modifications have been made to the size and layout of the Transfer Building in the northern portion of the site. Minor changes to the recycling and yard waste areas on the south side of the Transfer Building have also been made. The offsite easement for the stormwater and sewer pipelines adjacent to the eastern boundary or the site is in the process of being negotiated and acquired. Project Schedule The Environmental Checklist described a project schedule consisting of three phases, beginning in April 2008. Construction was to be completed in June 2011. Since the Environmental Checklist was issued in December 2006, the overall construction process has been described and the project schedule refined. The facility will be constructed under two general construction contracts. Bulk excavation and grading of the site areas outside the existing station footprint and some site utility work will be conducted under 2 July 2008 Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist the Site Preparation contract. The Site Preparation contract will be a conventional design -bid -build contract. The Site Preparation contract is now July 2008 3 = = = 11=11 IN= M SMI Mi Figure 1. General Arrangement Site Plan Addendum to 2006 IMO SETA Checklist GENERAL NOTES r , . . - ,,, , .Z •,•• _ - - PLAN / ••••••• • ••A JUP 2 keril King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division W Bock rt Ii Fault Awn. 'AAA IWO $AWA*. WA 6415 WO. easy KAA PACCtS5WVTA.ASETY trn 1:E4E RAI. AR RANCEUEN SrTE C7 July 2008 5 0 Addendum to 2006 SETA Checklist expected to run from October 2008 through October 2009. The remainder of the facility construction, including demolition of the existing structures, will be conducted under the Site Facilities contract. The Site Facilities contract is now scheduled to commence November 2009 and continue through Summer 2012. in order to expedite construction, the Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station will be closed to self -haul traffic during contractor work hours on weekdays under both the Site Preparation and Site Facilities contracts. Self -haul traffic on weekdays will utilize other solid waste facilities in south King County ( e.g. Renton, Algona). The Bow Lake facility will continue to serve all commercial and account - holding customers. Processing g A limited amount of processing is currently conducted at the existing Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station. Processing takes place primarily at the Free Recycling area south of the Scale Facility and at the Paid Recycling area south of the existing Transfer Building. As described in the 2006 SEPA Checklist, the proposed project may expand processing at the site through the addition of a Yard Waste Tipping Area and compaction of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). Yard waste and other woody waste may be chipped and ground into a compostahle material. This material would then be placed in trailers for transport to a compost facility. Within the Transfer Building, two stationary, preload compactors will compress MSW prior to loading into containers to be hauled from the site. Compaction of MSW will maximize truck payloads and reduce the number of haul trips. Since the 2006 SEPA Checklist was issued, KCSWD has further expanded future processing capability at the site. Design of the new Transfer Building will allow space for separation of specific materials (i.e. cardboard, paper, wood, metal, plastic) from the general MSW stream. All recyclable materials except wood and metal will be baled on site. A summary of materials processing activities is provided in Table 1. Note that expanded processing activities are shown in bold. July 2008 7 • t lit y. Area. � a 1 r i. f � lilePlRjs yr , �' _::-..+6-.....,2 , A I'r ces �. +' } .' } F � • ,Process -. o .'.., s Y •. •.e :: • •L• ,.. li. .. : nl• type of S . ' fit!' ` PIOC __ c` olid rr •, ` ; lf ,as d • e a rn .., essm v .... W2C 173 ' 350 -01 v" SAC •173- 304 -10.Q • Fee Recycling Area Metal Appliances Fluorescent tubes Household batteries E -Waste Collect and consolidate by material type Operation to prepare a material for reuse, recycling or disposal Yard Waste Tipping Area Woody waste Yard waste Collection and consolidation of woody waste and non- ground yard waste in trailers for transport to a composting facility One part of an operation to convert a material into a useful product Building Tipping Floor and Lower Level Cardboard Paper Wood Metal Film plastic Separation from the general Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) waste stream and consolidate by material type Bale all recyclable materials except wood and metal including material collected at the free recycle area Operations to prepare a material for reuse or recycling MSW Compact MSW in two stationary, preload compactors prior to loading into containers to maximize payloads and minimize hauling traffic and costs Operation to prepare solid waste for disposal Possible Future Facility Enhancements Wood waste chipping. Vactor decant facility Chipping and grinding of woody waste into a compostable material Dewater grit removed from storm sewers and roads and streets One part of an operation to convert a material into a useful product. Operation to prepare solid waste for disposal Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist Table 1. Material Processing Bow Lake Recycling & Transfer Station The addition of processing capability within the proposed Transfer Building required several design modifications to the interior of the structure but did not alter the overall building footprint or height. Separation and baling of selected materials from the MSW stream will reduce the volume of waste to be hauled from the site. The types of trucks used to haul separated and baled waste may be different than those used for hauling compacted waste in containers, however, the number of truck trips required is not expected to change. WSDOT Right -of -Way 8 July 2008 1 s 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 C 7 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 J 9 King County has been working cooperatively with WSDOT to address right -of -way issues since an early point in the planning process. As design has progressed, more detailed information has become available regarding potential impacts on the WSDOT right -of -way, adjacent to the project site's western boundary. Construction of the retaining wall near the project site's western boundary will require clearing and grading activity within the WSDOT right -of -way. in addition, a portion of the Highline Water District water main that serves the Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station lies within the right -of -way. The project will include upgrading this pipeline. Both of these activities are temporary in nature. The duration of construction is estimated to range from six to nine months. Neither activity will involve disruption of the on -ramp to 1 -5. No significant impacts are anticipated. WSDOT has prepared a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the right -of -way work as part of compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 23 CFR 771.1 17. Analyses Construction Traffic Addendum to 2006 SFPA Checklist Construction traffic was first described in Section 14. f. of the 2006 SEPA Checklist for the Site Preparation and Site Facilities contracts. As design has progressed further, estimates of excavation and fill requirements have been refined and volumes of material to be exported modified. The schedules for the Site Preparation and Site Facilities contracts have also been developed in more detail. For these reasons, KCSWD has developed more detailed information concerning construction traffic and potential impacts on adjacent roadways. Additional analyses of potential construction traffic have been conducted and are summarized in this section of the Addendum. These analyses include a trip generation analysis and comparison of construction traffic with expected self -haul operations. For more detail, refer to "Bow Lake Transfer Station — Construction Impacts" in Appendix A. As described previously in the Addendum, construction activity will occur under two contracts. Under the Site Preparation contract, it is expected that site work will he conducted between October 2008 and October 2009. It is likely that most site work and heaviest traffic will occur during dry periods within this time frame. During the Site Preparation contract, construction traffic will include trucks associated with soil delivery, material export, piling and concrete, as well as worker vehicles and miscellaneous vehicle trips (e.g. deliveries, vendor visits, inspectors, etc.). In order to expedite construction, the station will be closed to self-haul traffic during contractor work hours on weekdays under both Site Preparation and Site Facilities contracts. The Site Facilities phase will occur after completion of the Site Preparation contract. it is tentatively scheduled to occur between November 2009 and summer 2012. Construction traffic during this contract is expected to include trucks associated with material removal, material and equipment import, worker vehicles, and miscellaneous trips. July 2008 9 Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist Daily trip generation estimates for both contracts of construction are based on information provided in "Memorandum: Bow Lake Transfer/Recycling Station Facility Master Plan Update and Implementation — Construction Traffic Forecast" prepared in spring 2008. (See Appendix B.) Estimates for typical and peak conditions during the more active dry seasons are shown in Table 2. Weekday PM peak hour traffic generation for trucks and miscellaneous vehicle trips are estimated using specific amount of work hours per day. Estimates for 8 -hour and 10 -hour workdays are provided to demonstrate the effect of workday length on PM peak hour trip generation. Finally, weekday PM peak hour trips generated by workers are based on the expected number of workers and trip generation rates from Trip Generation, 7 Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 2004). Specifically, a trip rate of 0.42 weekday PM peak hour trips per worker is used based on the General Light Industrial land use category. Table 2. Estimates of Construction Period Trip Generation Land Use Site Preparation' Soil Removal Trucks' 80 8 10 200 20 25 Imported Material Trucks' 20 2 3 20 2 3 Concrete Trucks' 20 2 3 20 2 3 Workers' 90 13 13 150 21 21 Other' 50 5 6 60 6 8 Total Tota I Average "Dry" Season Conditions Peak "Dry" Season Conditions Weekday Daily Trips Weekday PM Peak Hour Trips 10 -Hour 8 -Hour Workday Workday Weekday Daily Trips Weekday PM Peak Hour Trips 10 -Hour 8 -Hour Workday Workday 260 30 35 450 51 60 Site Facilities' Material Removal Trucks' 56 6 7 56 6 7 Imported Material Trucks' 14 1 2 60 6 8 Workers' 150 21 21 450 63 63 Other' 60 6 8 80 8 10 280 34 38 646 83 88 Existing Operations Transfer Trailer Trucks 116 12 15 116 12 15 Commercial Haul Trucks 468 8 8 468 8 8 Self -Haul Vehicles" 456 34 34 456 34 34 Total 1040 54 57 1040 54 57 1. Daily trip generation based on estimates provided in Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station Facility Master Plan Update and Implementation — Construction Traffic Forecast (R.W. Beck, 2008). 2. Weekday PM peak hour estimates for soil removal trucks, imported material trucks, material removal trucks, and other vehicles based on daily estimates and the number of hours in a typical workday. 3. Weekday PM peak hours estimates for workers during Site Preparation and Site Facilties contracts based on the estimated number of workers and the trip rate per employee taken from Trip Generation, 7 Edition, 2003 (ITE, 2003). 4. Estimates of daily and weekday PM peak hour traffic associated with the Self -Haul Operations are based on the existing data and transaction forecasts provided by King County. 10 July 2008 C C 1 ilB oll c Addendum to 2006 SETA Checklist Self -haul traffic at the recycling and transfer station consists of passenger vehicles and small trucks. It does not include trucks used to haul solid waste from the processing/transfer facility. In Table 2, estimates of traffic associated with each self -haul operation have been calculated based on historical data and projections over the four -year construction period. Daily trip generation for the transfer trailer trucks was obtained from existing data provided by KCSWD. Weekday PM peak hour trip generation was calculated based on 8 -hour and 10 -hour workdays. For commercial and self -haul operations, future estimates of transactions over the period 2008 through 2012 have been provided based on existing data and historical growth. To determine the number of daily trips associated with these operations during the construction period, the August 2010 estimate of transactions provided by KCSWD were used. This estimate of approximately 18,000 monthly transactions is expected to represent an average number of transactions during the "dry" portion of the construction period. Of the total number of transactions, approximately 68 percent are associated with self -haul operations while the remaining 32 percent are tied to the commercial haul operations. Applying this breakdown, approximately 12,300 self -haul transactions and 5,700 commercial haul transactions are expected. The resulting daily and weekday PM peak hour trip generation expected during the two construction phases and the self -haul operations are summarized in Table 2. As shown in the table, during the dry season, the Site Preparation phase is expected to generate approximately 260 daily trips with approximately 30 to 35 of these trips occurring during the weekday PM peak hour. During the Site Facilities phase (dry season), construction is expected to generate a slightly higher number of trips, approximately 280 trips on a daily basis. Of these, approximately 34 to 38 trips are likely to occur during the weekday PM peak hour. During peak conditions, likely to be infrequent, construction activity may generate up to approximately 650 daily trips and 90 weekday PM peak hour trips. Hypothetically, in the absence of construction activities, self -haul operations are projected to generate approximately 1,040 daily trips on an average weekday over the next four years. During weekday PM peak hour, approximately 54 to 57 trips would likely occur. A comparison of construction - related trips with self -haul trips in the absence of construction indicates that trip generation associated with construction activity will be substantially less than would normally occur at the site during self -haul operations. Although weekday PM peak hour traffic during peak conditions of the Site Facilities phase of construction is expected to exceed typical self -haul trip generation by approximately 30 trips, this condition is expected to occur infrequently. Overall, with the facility closed to self -haul traffic during contractor work hours, off -site impacts to the adjacent roadway network during construction are generally expected to be within the boundaries of traffic impacts during normal operations of the processing /transfer facility. July 2008 11 Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist Several mitigation measures are intended to reduce or eliminate potential impacts associated with haul truck traffic to and from the site. • Construction documents will require all truck traffic to enter the site with a right - turn only movement. Similarly, truck traffic leaving the site will be required to exit with a right -turn only movement. This will reduce potential impacts at the Orillia Road S.W./ S.W. 188 Street intersection near the entrance to the site. • Signage will be provided as needed to alert drivers to construction activity and to facilitate vehicle movement through construction areas and vehicle access locations. • Flaggers will be utilized as needed, particularly during peak hour periods, to expedite vehicle movements through potentially congested areas. Stormwater Management During Construction The 2006 SEPA Checklist (Section 3) described surface waters in the vicinity of the project, potential impacts on water quality associated with construction and operation of the new facility, and mitigation measures that would be used to reduce or eliminate potential impacts. The SEPA Checklist also described applicable state and local regulations that will apply to stormwater management during construction. Since the SEPA Checklist was issued, additional design work has been conducted on the proposed stormwater discharge system as well as stormwater management during construction. Similar to the operational stormwater system, design work for stormwater management during construction has been developed in accordance with provisions of the King County Surface Water Design Manual (King County, 1998), as amended by the Tukwila Public Works Development Guidelines and Design and Construction Standards (Tukwila Municipal Code [TMC] 14.30.070). In order to meet City of Tukwila and Ecology regulations, KCSWD will prepare and implement a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) Plan. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be developed as part of NPDES Permit conditions. An Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) will be developed that will describe procedures for managing and monitoring excavation activities, including procedures for identifying, testing, and handling of contaminated materials should they be encountered during site work. Each of these plans has specific measures, including Best Management Practices (BMPs), intended to reduce or eliminate potential stormwater impacts during construction. Although design is not yet complete, the elements are now available and can be used to assist regulators in refining the design to minimize potential impacts and ensure that stormwater quality meets applicable standards. Stormwater generated on the site during construction will be intercepted and conveyed to a temporary detention pond located east of the facility. Flow from the pond will be directed to a chitosan - enhanced sand filtration 12 July 2008 0 0 9 0 0 a 0 Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist (CESF) treatment system with chemical treatment for suspended solids. Following treatment, stormwater will be pumped to a newly- constructed pipeline to an outfall that discharges to Stream E. All construction - related stormwater will be directed to the detention pond until the permanent stormwater vaults arc installed. These vaults will then provide stormwater treatment for suspended solids and will also discharge through the new stormwater pipeline to Stream E. Both the pond and vaults will remain available for construction stormwater treatment until the project can transition to sole use of the vaults. Note that any stormwater that comes into contact with burn fill or refuse material will be considered contaminated stormwater (CSW) and will be collected and hauled offsite independent of the pond or vault systems. in the event that there is a temporary delay in construction of the stormwater discharge line to Stream E (the County is in the process of obtaining an casement), on -site stormwater would be collected, treated as necessary in ponds and /or vaults to meet applicable water quality requirements and then discharged through spreaders along the upper slopes on the east side of the site. Discharged stonnwatcr would then percolate into the soil on the vegetated hillside before infiltrating into the groundwater system. (This system is very similar to that which exists at the present time.) The temporary detention and treatment pond system would meter out flows to the spreader system. During major storm events, runoff quantities may occasionally exceed the capacities of the pond and spreader system. When this occurs, the contractor would be required to pump excess flows into portable tanks and haul the water of site for approved disposal. in order to estimate potential truck trips resulting from major storm events, a 10 -year, 72- hour storm event was assumed. Based on projected stormwater volumes, detention pond storage volumes, and projected spreader rates, excess volumes of treated stormwater to be hauled were calculated. Assuming a tank truck with 8,000 gallons capacity, peak and average truck trips are calculated to be 3.6 and 1.6 trips per hour, with a total of 114 trips over the course of 72 hours. See Appendix C for more detail. During peak storm conditions, truck haul trips would be a small percentage of daily construction traffic and are not considered a significant traffic impact. Most storm events would be considerably less than a 10 -year event and the required truck trips correspondingly less. Sec Construction Traffic Section above. Geotecl Studies Following issuance of the 2006 SEPA Checklist, additional geotechnical investigations have been conducted in support of overall project design. These provide useful information on potential geotechnical impacts of the project, recommended design elements, and mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate potential impacts. July 2008 13 Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist The Geotechnical Report: Slope Pipelines, Bow Lake Processing /Transfer Facility, King County Solid Waste Division, Tukwila, Washington (HWA Geosciences, Inc., 2008) examined geotechnical issues associated with the proposed construction of stormwater and sanitary sewer pipelines from the project site east to the valley floor. Work included a combined geotechnical and environmental subsurface exploratory program; analytical laboratory testing; and geotechnical laboratory testing and engineering analyses. The study found "...no signs of either incipient or on -going slides..." along the proposed pipeline alignment although steep gradient cuts are present on the lower slopes. The study determined that "...the proposed pipelines can be installed as planned when the engineering recommendations as presented herein are adhered to. "(HWA Geosciences, Inc., 2008). These recommendations addressed various methods of pile support in refuse and non - refuse areas, use of spread footings, use of shallow auger piles and /or pin - piles, regarding of slopes in selected areas, and buttress fill at the toe of steep slopes. The study also analyzed soil samples along the alignment for contamination associated with refuse material. Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and total metals analyses were performed to assess offsite disposal options for excess or unsuitable soils. TCLP analysis involves evaluation of a leached extract to determine the tested material's Hazardous Waste ( "Dangerous Waste" in the State of Washington) classification for regulatory compliance and disposal purposes. Total metals analyses measure all of the selected metals in a sample. The results of these analyses indicated elevated petroleum hydrocarbon and metals concentrations near the top of the slope within the proposed pipeline alignment. The study recommended a number of measures that should be implemented during construction. These include: • Construction bid documents should include all analytical results and requirements for handling of contaminated soil and refuse, treatment/disposal requirements and health and safety requirements. • During excavation and soils handling, soils should be field screened for staining and/or odors. Prior to export, stockpiled soils should be sampled for potential contamination as required by the disposal facility. • All geotechnical studies and environmental analyses of soils should be made available to the receiving facility for review. • The contractor should be required to notify the Owner's Project Representative of suspected contaminated materials. • Contract specifications should contain provisions for testing, segregating and stockpiling materials, decontamination, and standby time for delays due to testing. • The contractor should be required to submit waste characterization, waste management, spill prevention/control, and health and safety plans. The geotechnical reports and accompanying analytical data will be made available to the Contractor. Required measures for identifying and handling contaminated materials will be incorporated into the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) and Contract Documents. 14 July 2008 C C 7 7 Addendum to 2006 SITA Checklist The Final Geotcchnical Report: L ?ow Lake Processing /Transfer Facility, King County Solid Waste Division, Tukwila, Washington (I IWA Geoscicnces, Inc., 2008) is a design level geotechnical engineering study that provides recommendations for site work and construction of the new facility. The investigation examined the existing transfer station site and the WSDOT site to the north, which King County is in the process of acquiring. The work included a combined geotechnical and environmental subsurface exploratory program; analytical laboratory testing; and geotechnical laboratory testing and engineering analyses. Based on subsurface explorations, detailed cross - sections were developed throughout the site. The information generated in this study substantially increased the level of information available beyond that described in previous studies and summarized in the 2006 Environmental Checklist. More detailed information was provided on engineering properties of soils, seismicity, refuse extent and characteristics and probable settlement. This information led to development of design recommendations for specific elements of the project including the Transfer Building, the Scale Facilities, various retaining walls, the stormwatcr detention vaults and wastewater holding tank, and the maintenance building. A number of geotechnical measures have been incorporated into the design in order to minimize or eliminate potential geotechnical impacts related to seismicity, slope stability, and settlement. These include: o Design of structures according to International Building Code (IBC) seismic criteria. o Use of prcloading methods to compress soils subject to settlement_ o Use of structural fill and compaction. o Use of cast -in -place concrete, soldier pile, or mechanically - stabilized earth (MSE) designs for retaining walls. o Use of pile foundations. o Over - excavation of refuse and unsuitable soils. o Provision of landfill gas - venting systems for all buildings and vaults. In spring 2008, the Final Slope Stability Report Bow Lake Recycling and Transkcr Station, King County Solid Waste Division, Tukwila, Washington (HWA Geosciences, Inc., 2008) was prepared. The document provides an evaluation of the stability of eastern and southern slopes, slope stability along the northern perimeter road, Wall E design and construction considerations, and fill handling and disposal. The scope of work included a geotechnical subsurface exploration program, slope stability analyses, engineering analyses for wall design, and design and construction recommendations. These recommendations indicate that significant slope stability impacts can be avoided using generally - accepted engineering methods. July 2008 15 Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist Stormwater Discharge The SEPA Checklist issued in December 2006 described proposed collection and treatment of stormwater generated on the project site. The SEPA Checklist also described how the stormwater system would meet all applicable requirements, specifically, the King County Surface Water Design Manual (King County, 1998) as amended by the Tukwila Public Works Development Guidelines and Design and Construction Standards (Tukwila Municipal Code [TMC] 14.30.070). The December 2006 SEPA Checklist described two possible methods for disposing of stormwater following collection and treatment, one, a pipeline down the slope east of the site with a discharge to Stream E, and two, an engineered spreader for distributing stormwater on -site near the top of the slope. More detailed analyses of these options were conducted in spring 2007. A Sensitive Area Study of Wetland and Watercourses was conducted in accordance with TMC Chapter 18.45 Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Wetlands and portions of Stream E likely to be affected by the project were surveyed and an inventory of trees on the project site was conducted in accordance with TMC Chapter 18.54 Tree Regulations. These analyses further confirmed that the preferred method for disposing of stormwater was the pipeline to Stream E, as originally described in the 2006 SEPA Checklist. Stream E is a fish - bearing watercourse that discharges to the Green River via a pump station and flow control structure referred to as the S. 180` Pump Station. Note that collection and treatment of stormwater on the project site remains the same as described in the SEPA Checklist. From the proposed stormwater treatment vaults, flows will be directed down steep slopes east of the site via pipeline (See Figure 1.). This pipe will terminate in an energy dissipating catch basin and rock -lined channel that will discharge directly into Stream E, a City of Tukwila Type 2 watercourse (See Figures 2 and 3.). More detailed information is available in Preliminary Surface Water Technical Information Report, Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station Project, King County (R.W. Beck, May, 2008). A sanitary sewer line will also be constructed within the pipeline corridor. Use of this pipeline will await connection with a new sewer line to be constructed on the valley floor at an undetermined future date. For the foreseeable future, sanitary flows generated at the facility will be conveyed to an on -site holding tank. Periodically, these sanitary flows will be pumped from the holding tank, trucked to the KCSWD's Cedar Hills Regional Landfill for pre- treatment in that facility's leachate ponds, and then discharged to the Metro sewer. The proposed action will have minor impacts on two wetlands along the pipeline alignment and on Stream E. Temporary wetland and stream impacts are calculated to be 948 and 280 square feet, respectively. Temporary wetland and stream buffer impacts are expected to be approximately 12,200 square feet. Permanent wetland impacts are expected to be 110 square feet. Mitigation for these impacts on wetlands and the stream 16 July 2008 0 9 9 9 9 0 C will be provided on -site in accordance with the requirements of Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Chapter 18.45 — Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Design of mitigation site(s) for the project is now underway and will be submitted to the City of Tukwila for approval. In addition, the project will have to meet state and federal requirements regarding impacts to wetlands and streams. A Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) was submitted on January 11, 2008 for review by state and federal agencies. Subsequently, an Ilydraulic Project Approval (HPA) was issued on January 28, 2008 by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WSDFW). It included standard conditions for construction of the discharge structure to Stream E. The JARPA was also reviewed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps). The Army Corps issued a Nationwide 12 Permit on March 24, 2008. The Army Corps also concurred with the assessment of "no effect" to listed species under the Endangered Species Act. The 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Zone Management (CZM) consistency approvals were obtained on April 3, 2008 from the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) in conjunction with the Nationwide 12 permit. Climate Change Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist The proposed Bow Lake Recycling & Transfer Facility will generate short-term emissions from construction/redevelopment of the existing facility and long -term emissions during operation of the upgraded facility. Both short-teen and long -term emissions were addressed in the 2006 SEPA Checklist, including an air quality evaluation provided in Appendix E of that document. Subsequent to issuance of the SEPA Checklist in December 2006, King County issued an Executive Order on September 1, 2007, which required King County departments to evaluate the impacts on climate of actions being evaluated under authority of SEPA. These impacts included those relating to greenhouse gas emissions. Although the SEPA Checklist for the Bow Lake Processing /Transfer Facility was issued prior to this Executive Order, KCSWD determined that it was desirable to include a climate change analysis in this SEPA Addendum. Analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for the proposed facility has utilized the SEPA GIIG Emissions Worksheet (Version 1.7 12/26/2007) developed by King County Department of Development and Environmental Services (DDES). This worksheet identifies multiple sources of GHG emissions associated with development including: o The extraction, processing, transportation, construction and disposal of materials and landscape disturbance (Embodied Emissions); o Energy demands created by the development after it is completed (Energy Emissions); and o Transportation demands created by the development after it is completed (Transportation Demands). July 2008 17 Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist The worksheet is intended to provide estimates of GHG emissions that will be generated over the life span of a project. This includes emissions associated with obtaining construction materials, fuel used during construction, energy consumed during operation, and transportation by building occupants. See Appendix C. For the proposed Bow Lake Processing/Transfer Facility, a lifespan of 50 years is assumed. The standard of measure used in the worksheet is carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2 since CO2 is typically the most common component of GHG emissions. Using the SEPA GHG Emissions Worksheet, the total CO2 generated by construction and operation of the proposed facility over a 50 -year lifespan is estimated to be 91,581 metric tons CO2, (MTCO2 This total includes 26,918 MTCO2 on building size (i.e. square footage), 16,500 MTCO2 based on amount of pavement (i.e. square footage), and 48,163 MTCO2 based on operation of heavy equipment within the facility. Embodied emissions included the cumulative footprints of all site structures, a total of approximately 83,400 square feet. Although use of some recycled materials (e.g. concrete, asphalt) are likely to be used for construction of the new facility, these were not included in the analysis of embodied emissions. Energy emissions were based on an energy consumption model for the proposed Transfer Building. This included a base 1,389,000,000 btu/year regulated load (e.g. lighting, heat, ventilation) and a 1,413,000,000 btu/year process load (e.g. compactor, grinder). The regulated load was applied to the remaining site buildings as a square footage ratio that resulted in 54,000,000 btu/year of energy consumption for the remainder of the site. The site will also produce approximately 38,000,000 btu/year of renewable energy from a photovoltaic solar array on the roof of the Transfer Building. The cumulative energy consumption will be 2,818,000,000 btu/year. This estimate includes heat energy recovery from the compactor equipment. Transportation emissions included a total of 25 on -site operational personnel over all shifts at the 24 -hour facility. Haulers were not included because of the variability of the operations and the different sites involved. Equipment emissions were not accounted for in the original worksheet and have been added to account for the biodiesel- powered heavy equipment to be used for on -site operations. It was assumed that there will be one full and one half time front end loader (4.5 gallons per hour); one full and one half time piece of small equipment (1.5 gallons per hour); and one full time yard tractor operating on -site at the 24 -hour facility. The resulting estimate of fuel usage was 100,000 gallons per year. The facility equipment currently operates on a fuel mixture of 20 percent biofuel and 80 percent diesel fuel. It is also important to note that the analysis applies solely to the proposed facility; no adjustment is made for replacing GHG emissions from the existing facility. To obtain incremental GHG emissions for the project, GHG emissions for the existing facility 18 July 2008 Noise, from Yard Waste/Wood Waste Grinder Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist would have to be subtracted from the GHG emissions for the proposed facility. Although this was not done in this evaluation, it is likely that the increment of additional GHG emissions at this location would be substantially lower than the GI 1G figure developed for the proposed new facility. As discussed above, KCSWD has expanded processing capabilities at the proposed facility since the SEPA Checklist was issued in December 2006. This has included possible use of a portable grinder for yard waste and wood waste. The grinder reduces the volume of yard and wood waste, thereby reducing the number of haul truck trips from the facility. Further, grinding is one of the first steps in reprocessing of yard and wood waste into useable materials. The grinder would be located near the southwest corner of the new Transfer Building. It would be partially - enclosed within a u- shaped wall approximately 8 feet in height. Although a specific grinder has yet to be selected, KCSWD determined that it would he desirable to assess potential noise impacts from grinder operations. A noise consultant was retained by KCSWD to evaluate potential noise impact on users of the facility and the nearest residential properties. See Appendix D. This evaluation utilized representative equipment (i.e. Morbark Woodhog 2600), which the manufacturer indicated produced a noise level of 82 dBA at a distance of 100 feet at full power. Sound levels generated by grinder operations were modeled at the nearest residential properties to the transfer facility. As with previous analyses conducted for the SEPA Checklist, the Cadna /A model was used to predict potential sound levels. Projected sound levels for grinder operations were added to sound levels of other on -site equipment considered previously in the SEPA Checklist. The evaluation included both daytime and nighttime operations. Daytime noise levels at the nearest residential properties were modeled for a yard waste /wood waste grinder at the proposed facility. Noise levels ranging from 49 to 53 dBA were predicted for the residences located to the west across Interstate 5 (I -5) and at the La Pianta property line to the north. Existing background sound levels (L9os) during the day range from 68 to 71 dBA and are at least 15 dBA higher than the predicted facility sound levels at these nearest residential locations. As a result, even with the inclusion of a waste grinder at the new facility, noise from I -5 would obscure noise from daytime facility operations. Therefore, it is unlikely that noise from the facility would be audible except during rare lulls in 1 -5 traffic, and no adverse noise impacts are expected. For nighttime operations, inclusion of the yard waste /wood waste grinder would result in noise levels ranging from 48 to 53 dBA at the nearest residential properties. Sound levels greater than 50 dBA would not comply with the nighttime noise limit. For this reason, KCSWD does not intend to operate the waste grinder at night_ July 2008 19 Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist Conclusion A number of modifications to the Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station project have been made since the 2006 Checklist was issued by KCSWD. The results of evaluation of potential impacts resulting from these modifications do not change the analysis of significant impacts in the 2006 SEPA Checklist and no new probable significant environmental impacts would result. Signature The above statements are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make their decision. Signature: Name (print): Title: Date Submitted: 20 July 2008 7 C 0 7 C 0 9 9 9 REFERENCES Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist Geomatrix. 2008. Memorandum: Noise Assessment of the Proposed Yard Waste /Wood Waste Grinder. From K. Wallace to S. Bingham, ESA Adolfson. 2 p. HWA Geosciences, Inc. 2008. Final Slope Stability Report, Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station, King County Solid Waste Division, Tukwila, Washington. HWA Project No. 2003- 008 -21. Prepared for R.W. Beck. Lynnwood, Washington. HWA Geosciences, Inc. 2008. Final Geotechnical Report, Slope Pipelines: Bow Lake Processing /Transfer Facility, King County Solid Waste Division, Tukwila, Washington. Prepared for R.W. Beck. Lynnwood, Washington. 19 p. HWA Geosciences, Inc. 2008. Technical Memorandum: Response to City Review of Geotechnical Reports, Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station, Tukwila, Washington. B. Thurber and S. Hong to I. Sutton, R.W. Beck. Lynnwood, Washington. 2p. HWA Geosciences, Inc. 2007. Final Geotechnical Report: Bow Lake Processing /Transfer Facility, King County Solid Waste Division, Tukwila, Washington. Prepared for R.W. Beck. Lynnwood, Washington. 49 p. King County Department of Development and Environmental Services. 2007. SEPA GIIG Emissions Worksheet. Version 1.7. Seattle, Washington. 10 p. R.W. Beck. 2008. Technical Memorandum: Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station Facility Master Plan Update and Implementation - Construction Traffic Forecast. From K. Hufnagel to S. Bingham (ESA Adolfson) and K. Gahnberg (The Transpo Group). October 16, 2006. Revised March 27, 2008. 4p. The Transpo Group. 2008. Memorandum: Bow Lake Transfer Station - Construction Impacts. From K. Gahnberg and B. Przybyl (The Transpo Group) to K. Hufnagel (R.W. Beck). Kirkland, Washington. April 22, 2008. 4p. July 2008 21 APPENDIX A Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist Construction Traffic Impacts July 2008 Appendix A C C r uil J 7 MEMORANDUM Date: May 2, 2008 TG: 021 50.00 To: Karl R. Hufnagel, P.E. - RW Beck From: Kurt Gahnberg - The Transpo Group Bart Przybyl, P.E., PTOE - The Transpo Group Subject: Bow Lake Transfer Station - Construction Impacts This memorandum may serve as an addendum to Ole Bow hake R'gc:lin,/ l ran fer S tation 'I za /Jie IVail -lnalysir (1A) prepared by Transpo in December 2006. Its purpose is to address the potential impacts of changed construction activity levels. A trip generation analysis was undertaken to estimate the number of trips that will be generated during the construction phase of the Bow Lake Recycling /Transfer Station expansion project. The estimates of construction traffic are then compared to the trips that are typically generated by the self -haul operations at the site to determine if construction traffic will now exceed typical self -haul traffic generation which will be curtailed during construction and therefore result in additional impacts to the surrounding roadway network. The following summarizes our analysis. Trip Generation Estimates Construction Traffic The Trranspo Group Construction activity at the site will be performed in two phases. The Site Preparation will be done first and is scheduled to occur between August 2008 and October 2009. During this phase, construction traffic will include trucks associated with soil export, material import, concrete, as well as worker and miscellaneous (deliveries, vendor visits, etc.) trips. The Site Facilities construction phase will be done after the Site Preparation is complete and is scheduled to occur from November 2009 to Summer of 2012. Construction traffic for the Site Facilities phase will include trucks associated with material export, material and equipment import, as well as worker and miscellaneous trips. Daily trip generation associated with the two phases of construction is based on information provided in Bow Lake 1 r an.l jrr/ Reycling Slalion 1 dellity Alasler Plan Update and Implementation — Conslraclion Traffic: Folvcast prepared by Karl 1 lufnagcl, P.L., in March 2008. l?stimates for typical and peak conditions during the more active "dry-" season are shown. Weekday PM peak hour traffic generation for the various trucks and miscellaneous trips were estimated assuming a specific amount of work hours per day. Rstimates for 8 -hour and 10 -hour workdays arc provided to demonstrate the effect of the workday length on PM peak hour trip generation. Finally, weekday PM peak hour trips generated by the workers is based on the expected number of workers and trip generation rates from Trip Generation, 7th l .dition, 2004, published by the Institute of Transportation 1?ngineers (1'17?). Specifically, a trip rate of 0.42 weekday The Transpo Group Inc. 11730 11801 Avenue N.E., Suite 600 Kirkland, WA 98034 /120 425 821.3665 Fax. 425.825.8434 PM peak hour trips per worker was used and is based on the General Light Industrial land use. Self -Haul Traffic Self -haul traffic at the site is comprised of transfer trailer trucks, commercial haul trucks, and passenger /small trucks associated with self -haul operations. Estimates of the traffic associated with each self -haul operation were calculated based on historical data and projections into the four -year construction period. Daily trip generation for the transfer trailer trucks was obtained from existing data provided by the County. Weekday PM peak hour trip generation was calculated assuming a specific amount of work hours per day. Estimates for 8 -hour and 10 -hour workdays are provided. For commercial haul and self -haul operations, future estimates of transactions from 2008 and 2012 were provided based on existing data and historical growth. To determine the number of daily trips associated with these operations during the construction period, the August 2010 estimate of transactions provided by the County were used. This estimate of approximately 18,000 monthly transactions is expected to represent an average number of transactions during the "dry" season of the construction period. Of the total number of transactions, approximately 68 percent are associated with self -haul operations while the remaining 32 percent are tied to the commercial haul operations. Applying this breakdown, approximately 12,300 self -haul transactions and 5,700 commercial haul transactions are expected. The total transaction count for each type of operation was then divided between weekday and weekend using historical data. Specifically, for commercial haul operations, approximately 91 percent of transactions occur during weekdays with the remaining 9 percent occurring on weekends. For self -haul operations, approximately 41 percent of transactions occur during the weekdays with the remaining 59 percent occurring during on weekends. Finally, the total number of weekday transactions was divided by 22 weekdays during August 2010 to achieve an estimate of the number of daily transactions. Weekday PM peak hour trips associated with commercial haul and self -haul operations were obtained by utilizing historical hourly transaction data to determine the percentage of daily trips that occur during the weekday PM peak hour. The results indicate that approximately 1.5 percent of daily commercial haul trips and approximately 7.4 percent of daily self -haul trips occur during the weekday PM peak hour. The resulting daily and weekday PM peak hour trip generation expected during the two construction phases and the self -haul operations are summarized in Table 1. The Transpo Group Page 2 Table 1. Estimates of Construction Period Trip Generation' Land Use Average "Dry" Peak "Dry" Season Conditions Season Conditions Weekday PM Weekday PM Weekday Peak Hour Trips Weekday Peak Hour Trips Daily l0 -Hour 8-Hour Daily Trips Workday Workday Trips 10-Hour 8-Hour Workday Workday Site Preparation' Soil Removal Trucks' 80 8 10 200 20 25 Imported Material Trucks' 20 2 3 20 2 3 Concrete Trucks 20 2 3 20 2 3 Workers' 90 13 13 150 21 21 Other' 50 5 6 60 6 8 Total 260 30 35 450 51 60 Site Facilities' Material Removal Trucks' 56 6 7 56 6 7 Imported Material Trucks' 14 1 2 60 6 8 Workers' 150 21 21 450 63 63 Other' 60 6 8 80 8 10 Total 280 34 38 646 83 88 Self-Haul Operations Transfer Trailer Trucks° 116 12 15 116 12 15 Commercial Haul Trucks° 468 8 8 468 8 8 Self -Haul Vehicles° 456 34 34 456 34 34 Total 1,040 54 57 1,040 54 57 1 . Daily trip generation based on estimates provided in Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station facility Master Plan Update and Implementation - Construction Traffic Forecast by Karl Hufnagel. P E. dated March 27, 2008. 2 Weekday PM peak hour estimates for soil removal trucks, imported material trucks, material removal trucks, and other vehicles based on daily estimates and the number of hours in a typical workday. 3. Weekday PM peak hour estimates for workers during Site Preparation and Site Facilities based on the estimated number of workers and the trip rate per employee taken from Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITF) for the General Light Industrial land use 4. Estimates of daily and weekday PM peak hour traffic associated with the Self -Haul Operations are based on existing data and transaction forecasts provided by the client. As shown, the Site Preparation phase of construction during the dry season is expected to generate approximately 260 daily trips with approximately 30 to 35 of those occurring during the weekday PJ' I peak hour. The Site Facilities phase is expected to generate a higher number of trips with a total of approximately 28(1 trips expected on a daily basis. Of those, approximately 34 to 38 are expected to occur during the weekday PM peak hour. During peak conditions, which are expected to occur infrequently', construction activity may generate up to approximately 650 daily trips and 90 weekday PM peak hour trips. Assuming that construction did not occur at the site and self -haul operations continued through the construction period, it is estimated that approximately 1,041) daily trips would be expected on an average weekday. During the weekday P1'sI peak hour, approximately 54 to 57 trips would typically be expected. Comparing these estimates to the estimates of traffic during construction, it is expected that trip The Transpo Group Page 3 generation associated with the construction activity will generally be significantly less than would normally occur at the site during self -haul operations. Although weekday PM peak hour traffic during peak conditions of the Site Facilities phase of construction is expected to exceed typical self -haul trip generation by approximately 30 trips, this is expected to occur infrequently. As a result, off -site impacts to the nearby roadway network during construction are generally expected to be within the boundaries of traffic impacts during normal operations and no additional analysis or mitigation will be required. The Transpo Group Page 4 APPENDIX B Addendum to 2006 SFPA Checklist Construction Traffic Forecast July 2008 Appendix B J 0 0 0 9 0 C October 16, 2006 Revised March 27, 2008 Technical Memorandum From: To: Subject: Background Soil Removal: Karl Hufnagel, P.E. Site Preparation Contract Steve Bingham, ESA Adolfson Kurt Gahnberg, The Transpo Group Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station Facility Master Plan Update and Implementation Construction Traffic Forecast The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an estimate of the construction traffic traveling to and from the project site during the approximately tbur years that construction will be in progress at the site. As currently envisioned, the site construction will take place under two consecutive contracts: a Site Preparation contract scheduled to run from August 1, 2008 through October 31, 2009, and a Site Facilities contract scheduled to run from November 1, 2009 through Summer /Fall 2012. Note that periods of heavy traffic will likely be within the Dry Season (April 30 — October 1) of each year. This is primarily an earthworks contract with some retaining wall and stormwater system construction. At the completion of this construction the site will be "winterized to protect it from stormwater erosion during the winter months of 2009/2010. Based on preliminary estimates there is expected to he approximately 167,000 cubic yards of material excavated and removed from site. At 20 cubic yards per dump truck and pup trailer, this material will require around 8,350 round trip truck trips to /from thc site over an estimated thirteen month period. Assuming that the work is carried out only on weekdays, this would be 280 hauling days or an average of 30 truck trips per day. The Dry Season will be more conducive to earthworks and will result in more truck trips, while the Wet Season will limit truck trips. It's expected that there will be 130 days of Dry Season hauling and 150 days on Wet Season hauling. Assuming twice the production in the Dry Season as thc Wet Season, results in an average 20 truck trips per day in the Wet Season and 40 truck trips per day in the Dry Season. The peak truck trips per day are expected to occur in the Dry Season at approximately 100 truck trips per day. Construction Traffic Forecast Technical Memorandum October 16, 2006 (Revised March 27, 2008) Page 2 Imported Materials: It is estimated that there will be around 20,000 of earthwork material brought in to the site over a period of five months. At 20 cubic yards per dump truck and pup trailer, this material will require about 1,000 round trip truck trips. Assuming the work is carried out on weekdays, this would be around 108 hauling days or an average of 10 truck trips per day. These trips are expected to coincide with the soil removal trips. Concrete: It is estimated that there will be around 1,000 cubic yards of concrete brought to the site during the site preparation work, primarily for retaining walls. At 10 cubic yards per truck, this would require 100 truck trips. It is expected that concrete will be delivered and placed at an average rate of around 100 cubic yards per day, which equates to 10 truck trips per day. These trips are expected to coincide with the soil removal and soil import trips. Workers: The average workforce during the site preparation work is expected to be around 30 with a peak work force of 50. These workers are expected to park on site and to make an average of 1.5 round trips to the site each day. The peak workforce days are expected to coincide with the soil removal, import material and the concrete delivery trips. Other: It is expected that there will be other miscellaneous materials deliveries, vendor visits, labor union visits, contractor home office visits and County and consultant daily visits or between 25 and 30 per day throughout the life of the construction. Total: Wet Season average daily traffic is expected to be around 110 trips. Dry Season average daily traffic is expected to be approximately 130 trips. Peak daily traffic in the Dry Season is expected to be 225 trips. Site Facilities Contract This is primarily a building, pavement and utilities contract with some additional earthwork, and site retaining wall construction. Material Removal: An estimated 20,000 cubic yards of rubble from the demolition of the existing transfer building and pavements and 27,000 cubic yards of refuse will be removed during Phase 2 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 C C Construction Traffic Forecast Technical Memorandum October 16, 2006 (Revised March 27, 2008) Page 3 of this contract. At an average load of 20 cubic yards, this equates to 2,400 truck trips over a four month period, or around 28 trips per day. Imported Materials: The estimated material types, quantities, load size and number trips are provided in the following table: Concrete Road Aggregates Structural Fill, Drain Rock Hot Mix Asphalt Roadway Appurtenances Topsoil & Amendments 4" and larger Utility Pipe Manholes /CBs Metal Building Electrical Equipment Plumbing Pipe & Fixtures Compactors Industrial Wastewater Treatment System Miscellaneous Total Workers: 7,700 CY 13,000 CY 38,000 CY 4,000 CY 20 200 14 50 50 20 10 20 1000 4,912 "These material delivery trips are expected to occur on weekday over the full 32 month construction period (695 weekdays). The average daily trips would therefore he around 7. It is estimated that a peak day for this category could be 30 trips. The average workforce during the site facilities work is expected to be around 50 with a peak work force of 150. These workers are expected to park on site and to make an average of 1.5 round trips to the site each day. Construction Traffic Forecast Technical Memorandum October 16, 2006 (Revised March 27, 2008) Page 4 Other: It is expected that there will be other miscellaneous materials deliveries, vendor visits, labor union visits, contractor home office visits and County and consultant daily visits or between 30 and 40 per day throughout the life of the construction. Total: Disregarding the months when soil is being removed from site, the average daily traffic is expected to be around 112 trips. The peak daily traffic is expected to be around 300 trips. APPENDIX c Addendum to 2006 SI'.PA Checklist Stormwater Truck Haul Analysis July 2008 Appendix C Duration (hr) Tributary Areas (ac) Volume Factors (ac -ft) Volume (ac -ft) Total Volume (cf) Treatment or Haul Design Rate (gph) Treatment or Haul Volume (cf) Storage Volume (cf) Storage Volume (gal) Required Haul Rate (gph) Load equivalent ( #) Duration (hrs) Loads per time step ( #) Impervious Soil Impervious I Soil Impervious Soil 1 6.6 5.7 0.04 ' 0.02 0.3 0.1 16466 0 0 16466 123,163 0 0 0 0 2 6.6 5.7 0.06 f 0.03 0.4 0.2 24699 50000 6684 18014 134,745 28500 3.5625 1 3.5625 3 6.6 5.7 0.08 0.04 0.5 0.2 32931 50000 13369 19562 146,327 28500 3.5625 1 3.5625 4 6.6 5.7 0.09 1 0.04 ' 0.6 0.2 35806 50000 20053 15753 117,831 28500 3.5625 1 3.5625 5 6.6 5.7 0.10 ' 0.05 0.7 0.3 41164 50000 26738 14426 107,908 28500 3.5625 1 3.5625 6 6.6 5.7 0.11 ' 0.06 0.09 0.7 0.3 46522 50000 33422 13100 97,985 28500 3.5625 3 10.6875 9 6.6 5.7 0.16 1.1 0.5 68346 50000 53476 e 14870 111,225 28500 3.5625 3 10.6875 12 6.6 5.7 } 0.181 0.10 0.14 0.18 0.25 0.28 1.2 0.6 76578 40000 58824 17755 132,807 18500 2.3125 6 13.875 18 6.6 5.7 ( 0.23 1.5 0.8 100885 40000 90909 . 9976 74,620 18500 2.3125 6 13.875 24 6.6 5 7 0.27 0.36 0.41 1.8 1.0 122316 165572 35000 Y 25000 20000 107620 14696 109,927 13500 1.6875 24 40.5 48 6.6 5 7 2.4 1.4 157086 8486 63,475 3500 0.4375 24 10.5 72 6.6 5.7 2.7 1.6 187395 189840 -2444 (18,285) -1500 0 24 0 0 0 Ei 9 0 0 0 0 C 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 Storage Volume Required' 19562 146,327 cf gal Add 20% to Required Storage CONSTRUCTION RUNOFF: ON -SITE DISPERSION & TRUCKING ANALYSIS (7/15/08) 234751 cf NOTES: 1 Assumes 4 on -site dispersion trenches able to discharge at a total flow rate of 0.8 cfs (= 21,500 gph) 2 Assumes 2 Baker Tanks on -site with a total storage volume of 5,610 cf (= 42,000 gallons) 3 Total live storage is TESC Storage Pond + 2 Baker Tanks = 23,500 cf 4 Therefore, need a peak truck haul rate for the 10 -year, 72 -hour event of 28,500 gph 5 If assume a tank truck with 8,000 gallons capacity then 3.6 truck loads per hour (about 1 truck every 15 to 20 minutes leaving and entering the site) 6 The basin is the same as assumed for the CESF system plus 1 additional acre of impervious to be conservative (total = 12.3 ac) 7 Assumes a 1 -hr ramp up time where no flows are released or hauled (see first time step) Total truck loads - - -> 114 APPENDIX D GHG Emission Worksheet Addendum to 2006 SFI'A Checklist July 2008 Appendix I) G eomatrix Memorandum TO: Steve Bingham, ESA Adolfson DATE: FROM: Kristen Wallace PROJ. NO.: CC: Karl Hufnagel, R.W. Beck PROJ. NAME: SUBJECT: February 26, 2008 12209.000.0 Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station Upgrade Noise Assessment of the Proposed Yard Waste /Wood Waste Grinder As part of the proposed upgrade of the Bowlake Transfer /Recycling Station, King County is proposing to install a yard waste /wood waste grinder at the new transfer building. Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. (Geomatrix) was asked to assess whether the addition of the grinder would result in any additional noise impacts when compared to the SEPA documentation. The results of our analysis follow. The yard waste /wood waste grinder would be located near the southwest corner of the new transfer building, partially surrounded by a u- shaped wall approximately 8 feet in height. The specific grinder proposed for the site had not been identified at the time of this analysis, so Geomatrix used the sound level of a Morbark Woodhog 2600 as a representative piece of equipment, which the manufacturer identified as 82 dBA at a distance of 100 feet with the unit running at full power. To estimate the additional noise expected from the grinder, Geomatrix modeled the sound levels of the grinder at the nearest residential properties to the transfer facility. As with the assessment conducted for the SEPA checklist, Geomatrix used the Cadna/A noise model to predict future sound levels from the grinder. The projected sound levels of the proposed grinder were added to the sound levels of the other on -site equipment considered previously for the SEPA evaluation. Daytime Operation Inclusion of a yard waste /wood waste grinder in addition to the equipment specified in the SEPA checklist results in predicted daytime sound levels ranging from 49 to 53 dBA at the nearest residences on the hill to the west and at the Pianta property line north of the site. The existing background sound levels (L9os) during the day range from 68 to 71 dBA and are at least 15 dBA higher than the predicted facility sound levels at these nearest residential locations. Consequently, even with inclusion of a grinder at the transfer facility, noise from the freeway would obscure noise from the facility operations. Therefore, it is unlikely that noise from the facility would he audible except during rare lulls in 1-5 traffic, and no adverse noise impacts are anticipated. 3500 188th Street SW, Suite 600 Lynnwood, Washington 98037 -4763 Tel 425.921.4000 Fax 425.921.4040 www.geomatrix.com Geomatrix Bow Lake Transfer/Recycling Station Upgrade February 26, 2008 Page -2- Nighttime Operation For nighttime operations, inclusion of the yard waste /wood waste grinder in the modeling results in predicted overall sound levels ranging from 48 to 53 dBA at the nearest residential properties. Sound levels greater than 50 dBA would not comply with the nighttime noise limit. Therefore, we recommend that the grinder only be operated during daytime hours (i.e., between 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.). Conclusion During daytime operations, predicted noise levels from the upgraded Bowlake Transfer/Recycling Station with inclusion of the yard waste /wood waste grinder would easily comply with the daytime noise limit at the nearest residential properties, are at least 15 dBA lower than the existing background sound levels (primarily from the adjacent freeway), and are not be expected to result in any adverse noise impacts. During nighttime operations, predicted sound levels with the grinder are greater than 50 dBA at residential locations on the hillside west of the facility and would not comply with the nighttime noise limits. Therefore, operation of the grinder should be restricted to daytime hours only. 3500188th Street SW, Suite 600 Lynnwood, Washington 98037 -4763 Tel 425.921.4000 Fax 425.921.4040 www.geomatrix.com APPENDIX E Noise Assessment Yard Waste /Wood Waste Grinder Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist July 2008 Appendix E .. J King County Department of Development and Environmental Services SEPA GHG Emissions Worksheet Version 1.7 12/26/07 Introduction The Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires environmental review of development proposals that may have a significant adverse impact on the environment. If a proposed development is subject to SEPA, the project proponent is required to complete the SEPA Checklist. The Checklist includes questions relating to the development's air emissions. The emissions that have traditionally been considered cover smoke, dust, and industrial and automobile emissions. With our understanding of the climate change impacts of GHG emissions, King County requires the applicant to also estimate these emissions. Emissions created by Development GHG emissions associated with development come from multiple sources: O The extraction, processing, transportation, construction and disposal of materials and landscape disturbance (Embodied Emissions) o Energy demands created by the development after it is completed (Energy Emissions) o Transportation demands created by the development after it is completed (Transportation Emissions) GHG Emissions Worksheet King County has developed a GHG Emissions Worksheet that can assist applicants in answering the SEPA Checklist question relating to GHG emissions. The SEPA GHG Emissions worksheet estimates all GHG emissions that will be created over the life span of a project. This includes emissions associated with obtaining construction materials, fuel used during construction, energy consumed during a buildings operation, and transportation by building occupants. Using the Worksheet 1. Descriptions of the different residential and commercial building types can be found on the second tabbed worksheet ( "Definition of Building Types "). If a development proposal consists of multiple projects, e.g. both single family and multi - family residential structures or a commercial development that consists of more than on type of commercial activity, the appropriate information should be estimated for each type of building or activity. 2. For paving, estimate the total amount of paving (in thousands of square feet) of the project. 3. The Worksheet will calculate the amount of GHG emissions associated with the project and display the amount in the "Total Emissions" column on the worksheet. The applicant should use this information when completing the SEPA checklist. 4. The last three worksheets in the Excel file provide the background information that is used to calculate the total GHG emissions. 5. The methodology of creating the estimates is transparent; if there is reason to believe that a better estimate can be obtained by changing specific values, this can and should be done. Changes to the values should be documented with an explanation of why and the sources relied upon. 6. Print out the `Total Emissions" worksheet and attach it to the SEPA checklist. If the applicant has made changes to the calculations or the values, the documentation supporting those changes should also be attached to the SEPA checklist. J C C r_ C C 0 0 Section I: Buildings Type (Residential) or Principal Activity (Commercial) Square Feet (in thousands of # Units square feet) Health Care Inpatient ......... Single - Family Home Multi - Family Unit in Large Building Multi- Family Unit in Small Building Mobile Home 0 0 0 0 Education .... 0.0 Food Sales 0.0 Food Service 0.0 Health Care Outpatient . • 0.0 Lodging . 00 Retail (Other Than Mall) 0.0 Office ....... . 0.0 Public Assembly 0.0 Public Order and Safety 0.0 Religious Worship 0.0 Service 0.0 Warehouse and Storage ................... ..... ... ........... 0.0 Other 83.4 Vacant .... 0.0_ Emissions Per Unit or Per Thousand Square Feet (MTCO2e) Embodied 98 33 54 41 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 Energy 672 357 681 475 646 1,541 1,994 1,938 737 39 777 577 723 733 899 339 599 352 210 162 Transportation 792 766 766 709 361 282 561 582 571 117 247 588 150 374 129 266 181 74 47 Lifespan Emissions (MTCO2eL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26918 0 Section II: Pavement Section III: Facility Equipment quipmen mmissions • e sr xt !2171.1177-' 1c *� 48163 Version 1.7 12/26/07 Project Emissions: 91581) Type (Residential) or Principal Activity (Commercial) Description Single - Family Home Unless otherwise specified, this includes both attached and detached buildings Multi - Family Unit in Large Building Apartments in buildings with more than 5 units Multi -Family Unit in Small Building Apartments in building with 2 -4 units Mobile Home Education Buildings used for academic or technical classroom instruction, such as elementary, middle, or high schools, and classroom buildings on college or university campuses. Buildings on education campuses for which the main use is not classroom are included in the category relating to their use. For example, administration buildings are part of "Office," dormitories are °Lodging," and libraries are "Public Assembly." Food Sales Buildings used for retail or wholesale of food. Food Service Buildings used for preparation and sale of food and beverages for consumption. Health Care Inpatient Buildings used as diagnostic and treatment facilities for inpatient care. Health Care Outpatient Buildings used as diagnostic and treatment facilities for outpatient care. Doctor's or dentists office are included here if they use any type of diagnostic medical equipment (if they do not, they are categorized as an office building). Lodging Buildings used to offer multiple accommodations for short-term or Tong -term residents, including skilled nursing and other residential care buildings. Retail (Other Than Mall) Buildings used for the sale and display of goods other than food. Office .. Buildings used for general office space, professional office, or administrative offices. Doctor's or dentist's office are included here if they do not use any type of diagnostic medical equipment (if they do, they are categorized as an outpatient health care building). Public Assembly Buildings in which people gather for social or recreational activities, whether in private or non - private meeting halls. Public Order and Safety Buildings used for the preservation of law and order or public safety. Religious Worship Buildings in which people gather for religious activities, (such as chapels, churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples). Service Buildings in which some type of service is provided, other than food service or retail sales of goods Warehouse and Storage Buildings used to store goods, manufactured products, merchandise, raw materials, or personal belongings (such as self- storage). Other Buildings that are industrial or agricultural with some retail space; buildings having several different commercial activities that, together, comprise 50 percent or more of the floorspace, but whose largest single activity is agricultural, industriaV manufacturing, or residential; and all other miscellaneous buildings that do not fit into any other category. Vacant Buildings in which more floorspace was vacant than was used for any single commercial activity at the time of interview. Therefore, a vacant building may have some occupied floorspace. Definition of Building Tvoes Sources: Residential 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey Square footage measurements and comparisons http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/sqft-measure.html Commercial Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey ( CBECS), Description of CBECS Building Types http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/pba99/bIdgtypes.html 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Type (Residential) or Pr.ncipel Activity (Commercial) 8 thousand sq feet/ unit or building Life span related embodied GHG missions (MTCO2e/ unit) Lite span 'elated embodied GHG missions (MTCO2e/ thousand square feet) - See calculations in tabs below Single - Family Home ... ............. 2 53 98 39 Multi- Family Unit in Large Building .....,.,.. 0.85 33 39 Multi- Family Unit in Small Building ......... 1.39 54 39 Mobile Home . 1 06 41 39 Education 25 6 991 39 Food Saes ....... .... ... 5.6 217 39 Food Service . 5.6 217 39 Health Care inpatient ... .. 241.4 9.346 39 Health Care Outpatient ................... .. 104 403 39 Lodging ........ .. .. ............ ... ......... .. 35.8 1,386 39 Retail (Other Than Mall) . 9.7 376 39 Of fice ...... ............. ................... 14.8 573 39 Public Assembly ......... .................. 14.2 550 39 Public Order and Safety ........... 15.5 600 39 Religious Worship ...... .................... 10.1 391 39 Service ... 6 5 252 39 Warehouse and Storage 16 9 654 39 Other ................ 83.4 3.229 39 Vacant ....... ...... 14.1 546 39 t 1 loam! All data in black text iI Average Mater a.s in a 2,272 - square loot single family home Average window size i Residential floorspace per unit Floorspace per building Average GWP (lbs CO2e /sq It) Vancouver, Low Rise Building L i Section 1: Butldinas 1 1 Embodied Emissions Worksheet Sectlon 11: Pavement 1 1 1 1 King County, °NAP. Contact: Matt Kuharic, matt.kuharic®kingcounty goy 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (National Average. 2001) Square footage measurements and comparisons http: //www eia.doe.gov/emeWrecs/sgit- measure html EIA, 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (National Average, 2003) Table C3 Consumption and Gross Energy Intensity for Sum of Major Fuels for Non -Mall Buildings, 2003 http: / /www eia doe. gov /emeu/cbecs/cbecs2003/detailed_ tables _2003 /2003set9 /2003exce503.xls Athena EcoCalcdlator Athena Assembly Evaluation Tool v2.3- Vancouver Low Rise Building Assembly Average GWP (kg) per square meter http: /lwvm. at henasmi. ca/tools/ecoCalculaloryndex. html Lbs per kg 2 Square feet per square meter 10.76 L_ I Buildings Energy Data Book: 7.3 Typical/Average Household Materials Used in the Construction of a 2.272- Square -Foot Single -Family Home, 2000 http. //buildingsdatabook eren. doe. gov /7itl = view book_table&TablelD= 2036 &t =xls See also: NAHB, 2004 Housing Facts, Figures and Trends, Feb 2004, p. 7. Energy Information AdminislratiorVHousrng Characteristics 1993 Appendix B, Quality of the Data. Pg 5 ftp //ftp.eie.doe.gov/pub/consumptlorVresidentiaVn(93hcl.pdf I 1 L- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L 1 Columns and Beams Intermediate Floors Exterior Walls Windows Interior Walls Roofs Average GWP (Ibs CO2e/sq ft)' Vancouver, Low Rise Building 5 3 7 8 '9.1 51.2 5 7 21.3 Average Materials in a 2,272- square loot single family home 0.0 2269.0 3206.0 285.0 6050.0 3103.0 Total Embodied Emissions (MTCO2e) Total Embodied Emissions (MTCO2e/ thousand sq feet) MTCO2e 0.0 8.0 27.8 6.6 15.6 300 88.0 38.7 t 1 loam! All data in black text iI Average Mater a.s in a 2,272 - square loot single family home Average window size i Residential floorspace per unit Floorspace per building Average GWP (lbs CO2e /sq It) Vancouver, Low Rise Building L i Section 1: Butldinas 1 1 Embodied Emissions Worksheet Sectlon 11: Pavement 1 1 1 1 King County, °NAP. Contact: Matt Kuharic, matt.kuharic®kingcounty goy 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (National Average. 2001) Square footage measurements and comparisons http: //www eia.doe.gov/emeWrecs/sgit- measure html EIA, 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (National Average, 2003) Table C3 Consumption and Gross Energy Intensity for Sum of Major Fuels for Non -Mall Buildings, 2003 http: / /www eia doe. gov /emeu/cbecs/cbecs2003/detailed_ tables _2003 /2003set9 /2003exce503.xls Athena EcoCalcdlator Athena Assembly Evaluation Tool v2.3- Vancouver Low Rise Building Assembly Average GWP (kg) per square meter http: /lwvm. at henasmi. ca/tools/ecoCalculaloryndex. html Lbs per kg 2 Square feet per square meter 10.76 L_ I Buildings Energy Data Book: 7.3 Typical/Average Household Materials Used in the Construction of a 2.272- Square -Foot Single -Family Home, 2000 http. //buildingsdatabook eren. doe. gov /7itl = view book_table&TablelD= 2036 &t =xls See also: NAHB, 2004 Housing Facts, Figures and Trends, Feb 2004, p. 7. Energy Information AdminislratiorVHousrng Characteristics 1993 Appendix B, Quality of the Data. Pg 5 ftp //ftp.eie.doe.gov/pub/consumptlorVresidentiaVn(93hcl.pdf I 1 L- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L 1 Pavement Emissions Factors MTCO2e/thousand square feet of asphalt or concrete pavement 50 (see below) Embodied GHQ Emissions Worksheet Background Information Buildings Embodied GHG emissions are emissions that are created through the extraction, processing transportation, construction and disposal of building materials as well as emissions created through landscape disturbance (by both soil disturbance and changes in above ground biomass). Estimating embodied GHG emissions Is new field of analysis; the estimates are rapidly improving and becoming more inclusive of all elements of construction and development. The estimate included in this worksheet is calculated using average values for the main construction materials that are used to create a typical family home. In 2004, the National Association of Horne Builders calculated the average materials that are used in a typical 2,272 square foot single - family household. The quantity of materials used is then multiplied by the average GHG emissions associated with the life -cycle GHG emissions for each material. This estimate Is a rough and conservative estimate; the actual embodied emissions for a project are likely to be higher. For example, at this stage, due to a lack of comprehensive data, the estimate does not include Important factors such as landscape disturbance or the emissions associated with the interior components of a building (such as fumiture). King County realizes that the calculations for embodied emissions in this worksheet are rough. For example, the emissions associated with building 1,000 square feet o1 a residential building will not be the same as 1,000 square feet of a commercial building. However. discussions with the construction community indicate that while there are significant differences between the different types of structures, this method of estimation is reasonable; it will be improved as more data become available. Additionally, if more specific information about the project Is known, King County recommends two online embodied emissions calculators that can be used to obtain a more tailored estimate for embodied emissions: www.buildcarbonneutral.orq and www.athenasml.ca/toots/ecoCalculatod. Pavement Four recent life cycle assessments of the environmental impacts of roads form the basis for the per unit embodied emissions of pavement. Each study is constructed In slightly different ways; however, the aggregate results of the reports represent a reasonable estimate of the GHG emissions that are created from the manufacture of paving materials, construction related emissions, and maintenance of the pavement over its expected life cycle. For specifics, see the worksheet. Special Section: Estimating the Embodied Emissions for Pavement Four recent life cycle assessments of the environmental impacts of roads form the basis for the per unit embodied emissions of pavement. Each study is constructed in slightly different ways; however, the aggregate results of the reports represent a reasonable estimate of the GHG emissions that are created from the manufacture of paving materials, construction related emissions, and maintenance of the pavement over its expected life cycle. The results of the studies are presented in different units and measures; considerable effort was undertaken to be able to compare the results of the studies in a reasonable way. For more details about the below methodology, contact matt.kuharic @kingcounty.gov. The four studies, Mall (2001), Park (2003), Stripple (2001) and Treater (2001) produced total GHG emissions of 4 -34 MTCO2e per thousand square feet of finished paving (for similar asphalt and concrete based pavements). This estimate does not including downstream maintenance and repair of the highway. The average (tor all concrete and asphalt pavements In the studies, assuming each study gets one data point) is -17 MTCO2e/thousand square feet. Three of the studies attempted to thoroughly account for the emissions associated with long term maintenance (40 years) of the roads. Stripple (2001), Park el al. (2003) and Treotar (2001) report 17, 81, and 68 MTCO2e/thousand square feet, respectively, after accounting for maintenance of the roads. Based on the above discussion, King County makes the conservative estimate that 50 MTCO2e/thousand square feet of pavement (over the development's life cycle) will be used as the embodied emission factor for pavement until better estimates can be obtained. This is roughly equivalent to 3,500 MTCO2e per lane mile of road (assuming the lane is 13 feet wide). It Is Important to note that these studies estimate the embodied emissions for roads. Paving that does not need to stand up to the rigors of heavy use (such as parking lots or driveways) would likely use less materials and hence have lower embodied emissions. Sources: Mail, J. A Life Cycle Perspective on Concrete and Asphalt Roadways: Embodied Primary Energy and Global Warming Potential. 2008. Available: jtttp: //www.cement,ca/ cement. nsfeee9ec7bbd630126852566o40052107b /6ec79dc8ae03a782852572b90061 b9 14/S FILE /ATTKOW E3/ athena %20reoort%20Feb. %202%202007.odf Park, K, Hwang, Y., Seo, S., M.ASCE, and Seo, H. , "Ouantitative Assessment of Environmental Impacts on Life Cycle of Highways; Journal of Construction Engineering and Management , Vol 129, January/February 2003. pp 25-31, (001:10. 1081 /(ASCE)0733- 9364(2003)129:1(25)). Stripple, H. Life Cycle Assessment of Road. A Pilot Study for Inventory Analysis. Second Revised Edition. IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute Ltd. 2001. Available: htto:// wow ,ivl.se /ra000rter /odfB1210E.odf Treloar, G., Love, P.E.D., and Crawford, RH. Hybrid Life -Cycle Inventory for Road Construction and Use. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. P. 43.49. January/February 2004. Type (Residential) or Principal Activity (Commercial) Energy consumption per building per year (million Btu) Carbon Coefficient for Buildings MTCO2e per building per year Floorspace per Building (thousand square feet) MTCE per thousand square feet per year MTCO2e per thousand square feet per year Average Building Life Span Lifespan Energy Related MTCO2e emissions per unit Lifespan Energy Related MTCO2e emissions per thousand square feet Single - Family Home 107.3 0 108 11.61 2.53 4.6 16.8 57.9 672 266 Multi- Family Unit in Large Building 41.0 0 108 4.44 0.85 5.2 19.2 80 5 357 422 Multi-Family Unit in Small Building 78.1 0 108 8.45 1.39 6.1 22.2 80 5 681 489 Mobile Home 75.9 0 108 8.21 1.06 7.7 28.4 57 9 475 448 Education . 2,125.0 0 124 264 2 25.6 10.3 37.8 62.5 16,526 646 Food Sales 1,110.0 0 124 138 0 5 6 24.6 90.4 62 5 8,632 1,541 Food Service 1,436.0 0 124 178 5 5 6 31.9 116.9 62 5 11,168 1,994 Health Care Inpatient ....... ............. . 60,152.0 0 124 7,479 1 241 4 31.0 113.6 62 5 467,794 1,938 Health Care Outpatient .... 985.0 0 124 122 5 10 4 11.8 43.2 62 5 7,660 737 Lodging ... 3,578.0 0.124 4-44 9 35 8 12.4 45.6 62 5 27,826 777 Retail (Other Than Mall) 720.0 0 124 89 5 9 7 9.2 33.8 62 5 5,599 577 Office 1,376.0 0124 1711 14.8 11.6 42.4 625 10,701 723 Public Assembly 1,338.0 0.124 166 4 142 11.7 43.0 62.5 10,405 733 Public Order and Safety ... 1,791.0 0.124 222 7 15 5 14.4 52.7 62 5 13,928 899 Religious Worship 440.0 0.124 547 101 5.4 19.9 62.5 3,422 339 Service 501.0 0.124 62 3 6 5 9.6 35.1 62 5 3,896 599 Warehouse and Storage .. 764.0 0.124 95 0 16 9 5.6 20.6 62 5 5,942 352 Other 2,816.0 0.124 350 4 83.4 4.2 15.4 50 0 17,519 210 Vacant 294 0 0.124 36 6 14.1 2.6 9.5 62.5 2,286 162 Sources All data in black text f Energy Emissions Worksheet Energy consumption for residential buildings Carbon Coefficient for Buildings Residential floorspace per unit I I I I I I ) I I I 1 r I King County, DNRP. Contact: Matt Kuharic, matt.kuharic @kingcounty.gov 1 I 2007 Buildings Energy Data Book: 6.1 Quad Definitions and Comparisons (National Average, 2001) Table 6.1.4: Average Annual Carbon Dioxide Emissions for Various Functions http://buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/ Data also at: http: / /www.eia. doe. gov /emeu/ recs/ recs2001_ ce /ce1- 4c_housingunits2001.html f I Energy consumption for commercial buildings EIA, 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (National Average, 2003) and Table C3. Consumption and Gross Energy Intensity for Sum of Major Fuels for Non -Mall Buildings, 2003 Floorspace per building http: / /www.eia. doe. gov /emeu/cbecs /cbecs2003/ detailed_ tables _2003 /2003set9 /2003excel /c3.xls I I 1 I Note: Data in plum color is found in both of the above sources (buildings energy data book and commercial buildings energy consumption survey). Buildings Energy Data Book (National average, 2005) Table 3.1.7. 2005 Carbon Dioxide Emission Coefficients for Buildings (MMTCE per Quadrillion Btu) http: //bu ildingsdatabook.eere. energy. gov /? id= view_boo k_ta ble &Table) D =2057 Note: Carbon coefficient in the Energy Data book is in MTCE per Quadrillion Btu. To convert to MTCO2e per million Btu, this factor was divided by 1000 and multiplied by 44/12. 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (National Average, 2001) Square footage measurements and comparisons http://www.eia.doe,gov/emeu/recs/sqft-measure.html I 1 average lief span of buildings, estimated by replacement time method (national average, 2001) Note: Single fami y homes calculation is used for mobi a homes as a best estimate life span. Note: At this time KC staff could find no reliable data for the average life span of commercial buildings. Therefore, the average life span of residential buildings is being used until a better approximation can be ascertained. Sources: New Housing Construction, 2001 Quarterly Starts and Completions by Purpose and Design - US and Regions (Excel) http: //www. census. gov/ const/quarteriy _starts_completlons_cust.xls See also: http: / /www. census. gov/ const/www /newresconstlndex.html Existing Housing Stock, 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) 2001 Tables HC1:Housing Unit Characteristics, Million U.S. Households 2001 Table HC1 -4a. Housing Unit Characteristics by Type of Housing Unit, Million U.S. Households, 2001 Million U.S. Households, 2001 http: //www.ela. doe. gov /emeu/recs/recs2001/hc_pdf/ housunits /hc1- 4a_housingunits2001.pdf Single Family Homes Multi - Family Units in Large and Small Buildings All Residential Buildings New Housing Construction, 2001 1,273,000 329,000 1,602,000 100,200,000 Existing Housing Stock, 2001 73,700,000 26,500,000 Replacement time: 57,9 80.5 62.5 average lief span of buildings, estimated by replacement time method (national average, 2001) Note: Single fami y homes calculation is used for mobi a homes as a best estimate life span. Note: At this time KC staff could find no reliable data for the average life span of commercial buildings. Therefore, the average life span of residential buildings is being used until a better approximation can be ascertained. Sources: New Housing Construction, 2001 Quarterly Starts and Completions by Purpose and Design - US and Regions (Excel) http: //www. census. gov/ const/quarteriy _starts_completlons_cust.xls See also: http: / /www. census. gov/ const/www /newresconstlndex.html Existing Housing Stock, 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) 2001 Tables HC1:Housing Unit Characteristics, Million U.S. Households 2001 Table HC1 -4a. Housing Unit Characteristics by Type of Housing Unit, Million U.S. Households, 2001 Million U.S. Households, 2001 http: //www.ela. doe. gov /emeu/recs/recs2001/hc_pdf/ housunits /hc1- 4a_housingunits2001.pdf Type (Residential) or Principal Activity (Commercial) 4 people/ unit or building 4 thousand sq feet/ unit or building # people or employees/ thousand square feet vehicle related GHG emissions (metric tonnes CO2e per person per year) MTCO2e/ year/ unit MTCO2e/ year/ thousand square feet Average Building Life Span Life span transportation related GHG emissions (MTCO2e/ per unit) Life span transportation related GHG emissions (MTCO2e/ thousand sq feet) Biodiesel Used to Operate Equiment at Facility gal /year Life span equipment operation related GHG emissions (MTCO2e) Single - Family Home 2.8 2.53 1.1 4.9 13.7 5.4 57.9 792 313 Multi - Family Unit in Large Building 1.9 0.85 1.39 2.3 4.9 9.5 11.2 80.5 766 904 Multi - Family Unit in Small Building 1.9 1.4 4.9 9.5 6.8 80.5 766 550 Mobile Home 2.5 1.06 2.3 4,9 12 2 11.5 57.9 709 668 Education 30.0 25.6 1.2 4.9 147 8 5 8 62.5 9247 361 Food Sales 5.1 5.6 0.9 4.9 25 2 4 5 62.5 1579 282 Food Service 10.2 5.6 1.8 4.9 50 2 9 0 62.5 3141 561 Health Care Inpatient ..... ..................... 455 5 241.4 1.9 4.9 2246 4 9 3 62.5 140506 582 Health Care Outpatient 19 3 10.4 1.9 4.9 95 0 9 1 62.5 5941 571 Lodging 13.6 35.8 0.4 4.9 671 19 62.5 4194 117 Retail (Other Than Mall) 7 8 9.7 0.8 4.9 38 3 3 9 62.5 2394 247 Office 28 2 14.8 1.9 4.9 139.0 9 4 62.5 8696 588 Public Assembly 6 9 14.2 0.5 4.9 34.2 2 4 62.5 2137 150 Public Order and Safety 18 8 15.5 1.2 4.9 92.7 6 0 62.5 5796 374 Religious Worship 4.2 10.1 0.4 4.9 20.8 2 1 62.5 1298 129 Service .... 5 6 6.5 0.9 4.9 27.6 4 3 62.5 1729 266 Warehouse and Storage .. 9 9 16.9 0.6 4.9 49.0 2.9 62.5 3067 181 Other 25 0 83.4 0.3 4.9 123.4 1.5 50.0 6170 74 100,000 48163 Vacant 21 14.1 0.2 4.9 10.5 0.7 62.5 657 47 7 Sources All data in black text # people/ unit I I I I Transportation Emissions Worksheet Residential floorspace per unit # employees/thousand square feet vehicle related GHG emissions I I I I I I I J t I I I King County, DNRP. Contact: Matt Kuharic, matt.kuharic@kingcounty.gov Estimating Household Size for Use in Population Estimates (WA state, 2000 average) Washington State Office of Financial Management Kimpel, T. and Lowe, T. Research Brief No. 47. August 2007 httpl/www.ofm.wa.gov/researchbriefs/brief047.pdf Note: This analysis combines Multi Unit Structures in both large and small units into one category the average is used in this case although there is likely a difference 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (National Average, 2001) Square footage measurements and comparisons http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/sqft-measure.html Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey commercial energy uses and costs (National Median, 2003) Table B2 Totals and Medians of Floorspace, Number of Workers, and Hours of Operation for Non -Mall Buildings, 2003 http: / /www.eia. doe.gov/ emeu/ cbecs/ cbecs2003 /detailed_tables_2003 /2003set 1 /2003excel/b2.xls 7 ®® 0 0 0 0 a Note: Data for # employees/thousand square feet is presented by CBECS as square feet/employee. In this analysis employees /thousand square feet is calculated by taking the inverse of the CBECS number and multiplying by 1000. Estimate calculated as follows (Washington state, 2006)_ 56,531,930,000 2006 Annual WA State Vehicle Miles Traveled Data was daily VMT. Annual VMT was 365'daily VMT. http://www.wsdotwa.gov/mapsdata/ido/annualmileage.htm 6,395,798 2008 WA state population httpJ/quickfacts.census.goviqfd/states/53000.html 8839 vehicle miles per person per year 0.0506 gallon gasoline/mile This is the weighted national average fuel efficiency for all cars and 2 axle, 4 wheel light trucks in 2005. This includes pickup trucks, vans and SUVs. The 0.051 gallons/mile used here is the inverse of the more commonly known term "miles/per gallon° (which is 19.75 for these cars and light trucks). Transportation Energy Data Book. 26th Edition. 2006. Chapter 4: Light Vehicles and Characteristics. Calculations based on weighted average MPG efficiency of cars and light trucks. http: / /cta.oml.gov/ data /tedb26/Edition26_Chapter04.pdf Note: This report states that In 2005, 92.3% of all highway VMT were driven by the above described vehicles. http: /lcta.oml. gov / data/ tedb26 /Spreadsheets/Table3_04.xls 24.3 lbs CO2e /gallon gasoline The CO2 emissions estimates for gasoline and diesel include the extraction, transport, and refinement of petroleum as well as their combustion. Life -Cycle CO2 Emissions for Various New Vehicles. RENew Northfield. Available: http: // renewnorthfield. org/ wpcontent/uploads /2006/04/CO2%20emissions.pdf Note: This is a conservative estimate of emissions by fuel consumption because diesel fuel, 2205 lbs/metric tonne with a emissions factor of 26.55 lbs CO2e/gallon was not estimated. 4.93 vehicle related GHG emissions (metric tonnes CO2e per person per year) 0.20 Asssume a 20% reduction in CO2e for using biofuel average lief span of buildings, estimated by replacement time method See Energy Emissions Worksheet for Calculations Commercial floorspace per unit EIA, 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (National Average, 2003) Table C3. Consumption and Gross Energy Intensity for Sum of Major Fuels for Non -Mall Buildings, 2003 http: / /www. ela.doe. gov /emeu/cbecs/cbecs2003/ detailed_ tables _2003 /2003set9 /2003exceVc3.xls Transportation Worksheet Background Information This section helps estimate the emissions associated with transportation of building occupants. At this time, it is based on average vehicle miles traveled by the average Washington State citizen. = MI M MI MN MI MI i MN MI M MI I M IIIIII I MI MI CK Humphreys KPFF Consulting Engineers 101 Stewart St, Ste 400 Seattle, WA 98101 City of Tukwila Mr. Humphreys, Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director RE: Request for Extensions Permit Numbers D09 -164, D09 -166, & EL09 -0499 Bow Lake —18800 Orillia Rd This letter is in response to your written request for an extension to Permit Numbers D09 -164, D09 -166, and EL09 -0499. The Building Official has reviewed your letter and considered your request to extend the above referenced permits. The City of Tukwila Building Division will be extending the permits an additional 180 days as listed below: D09 -164 through March 4, 2013 (Extension #1) D09 -166 through March 4, 2013 (Extension #1) EL09 -0499 through March 27, 2013 (Extension #4) Please note that the other permits listed in your request are not eligible for extension at this time. When the expiration date is approaching for any permit, a notice /letter is mailed notifying the contact person, in this case Tom Creegan, of the upcoming expiration date. At this time a request for extension can be submitted and considered by the Building Official. If you should have any questions, please contact our office at (206) 431 -3670. File: Permit No. EL09 -0498, EL09 -0499, & EL09 -0500 W.\Perntit Center\Extension Letters 'Pennits\2009\EL09 -0499 Permit Extension #3.doc Jim Haggerton, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Bill Rambo From: Sent: To: Subject: Mr. Rambo, I am writing to request that the following permits be extended as needed to ensure that none of them expire. 1. D09 -162 — 10 -24 -12 2. D09 -164 — 09 -05 -12 o 1041 2 3. D09 -166 — 09 -05 -12 4. D09 -167 — 09 -17 -12 5. EL09 -0497 — 12 -25 -12 6. EL09 -0498 — 01 -09 -13 7. EL09 -0499 — 09 -28 -12 V,J Z1b 8. EL09 -0500 — 09 -28 -12 9. L08 -036 — Land Use Permit I understand that you may not choose to extend them all at this time, and I will leave that to your discretion, with the understanding that none of them should expire. Please reply with confirmation. Thank you, CK Humphreys CK Humphreys I Associate KPFF Consulting Engineers Special Projects Division (SPD) 101 Stewart St, Ste 400 Seattle, Washington 98101 M: (206) 226 -8740 chumphrevs0.kpffspd.com Dear Mr. Humpyreys, CK Humphreys <chumphreys @kpffspd.com> Thursday, August 16, 2012 1:29 PM Bill Rambo Re: Bow Lake Permit Extensions ctii : 2, 3, 4'7 4 1 O t h ev e. Q jo RECEIVED CITY OF Tu4wltft AUG 16 2012 'HERMIT CENTEP x15/12 pscleanair.org City Tukwila Contact Person Kieron Walford Mailing Address 201 S. Jackson Street, Suite 701 Seattle, WA 98104 Approved Transaction Puget Sound Clean Air Agency lotification Case #: 201201661 This page must be printed. A printout of the notification, all amendments to the notification, and the asbestos survey shall be available for inspection at all times at the asbestos project or demolition site (Reg III, 4.03(a)(6)). Fee Amount Paid $65.00 Credit Card Transaction # VUHF9B36DA27 Transaction Date 06/15/12 Owner's Name King County Solid Waste Division Phone (206) 296 -4466 Project Street Address 18800 Orillia Road South Zip 98188 Phone (425) 885 -3314 This project includes a demolition. Demolition Start Date 07/23/12 Completion Date 08/17/12 Demolition will be completed by a demolition contractor Demo Contractor Wm. Dickson Company Contractor Job # Contact David Dickson Phone (253) 472 -4489 Mailing Address 3315 South Pine Street Tacoma, WA 98409 (1) I certify that the information I have provided is to the best of my knowledge true and accurate. (2) I understand that I must file an Amendment to this Notification if: o The type of project has changed. The project types are asbestos and demolition. o The quantity of friable asbestos to be removed meets a larger project category. o The project's start or completion date has changed. (3) I understand one Notification must be filed for each structure. The only exception is for a single - family residence that includes multiple ancillary structures, such as a detached garage or other outbuildings having the same street address. If there is no street address, I have used a building number. (4) I understand the fees for this Notification are nonrefundable. Create Another Notification View History Log Out If you have questions, contact us at asbestos @pscleanair.org or 206.689.4058. , ttps: / /secure.pscleanair.org /Asbestos /Approved.aspx 11 February 27, 2012 Mr. Humphreys, City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development CK Humphreys KPFF Consulting Engineers Special Projects Division (SPD) 101 Stewart Street, Ste 400 Seattle, WA 98101 RE: Request for Extensions: D09 -162, D09 -164, D09 -166, D09 -167 Bow Lake Transfer Station — 18800 Oriilia Rd S Jack Pace, Director This letter is in response to your written request for permit extensions. The Building Official has reviewed your letter and considered your request to extend the Bow Lake "Transfer Station Project Permits. This letter addresses the following Permit Numbers: D09 -162, D09 -164, D09 -166, and D09 -167 as they are the current permits due for expiration/extension. The City of Tukwila Building Division will be extending each of the above permits an additional 180 days from the date of their expiration. As a result permit numbers D09 -164, D09 -166, and D09 -167 are extended through September 5, 2012 and permit number D09 -162 is extended through September 17, 2012. Let it be noted that permit extensions are the responsibility of the permit holder. If inspections are not conducted and the expiration date is nearing, you will again receive reminder letters in the mail for each of the permits. If these notifications are not responded or an inspection is not conducted, the permits will expire and new application/permits will be required to continue the work. If you should have any questions, please contact our office at (206) 431 -3670. Sincerely, Jen fifer Marshall `Per it 'Tujnician cc: Tom Creegan File: D09 -162, D09 -164, D09 -166, 1)09 -167 W_\Pennit Center \Extension I.ettcis \Pennits \2009 \Row L.akc Permit Extension 2012-02-27 .doe 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206- 431 =3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Re: Bow Lake Tukwila Permits CK Humphreys [chumphreys @kpffspd.com] Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 10:18 AM To: Bill Rambo Cc: Tom Creegan [tom.creegan @kingcounty.gov]; Ken Cobley [kcobley @kpffspd.com] Mr. Rambo, I am writing to request that the following permits be extended as needed to ensure that none of them expire. 1. D09 -161 06 -02 -12 2. D09 -162 03 -21 -12 3. D09 -164 03 -09 -12 4. D09 -165 07 -06 -12 5. D09 -166 03 -09 -12 6. D09 -167 03 -09 -12 7. D11 -011 07 -23 -12 8. D11 -012 07 -23 -12 9. D11 -013 07 -23 -12 10. EL09 -0497 06 -02 -12 11. EL09 -0498 04 -02 -12 12. EL09 -0499 04 -02 -12 13. EL09 -0500 04 -02 -12 14. M09 -103 05 -13 -12 15. PG09 -095 04 -28 -12 16. PG09 -097 07 -06 -12 CK Humphreys I Associate KPFF Consulting Engineers Special Projects Division (SPD) 101 Stewart St, Ste 400 Seattle, Washington 98101 M: (206) 226 -8740 chumphreys @kpffspd.com Dear Mr. Humphreys, d 14 021 01/0C/12- I understand that you may not choose to extend them all at this time, and I will leave that to your discretion with the understanding that none of them should expire. Please re with confirmation. .121/1 G K -� - �v ( `�2:c tiilLGc �� Thank you, C K Humphreys .�� ���c -� otiolTr, Km% /900`e'-(J4 ' ' FEB. 2.3 20121 PERMIT CENTER 0744 From: "Bill Rambo" <Bill.Rambo @TukwilaWA.gov> To: "CK Humphreys" < chumphreys @kpffspd.com> Cc: "Brenda Holt" <Brenda.Holt @TukwilaWA.gov >, "Bob Benedicto" <Bob. Benedicto@TukwilaWA.gov> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 9:57:27 AM Subject: RE: Bow Lake Tukwila Permits https: / /webmail.tukwilawa. gov /owa/ ?ae= Item &t =I PM.Note &id= RgAAAACLODHcxUig... 02/24/2012 TOM CREEGAN 201 S JACKSON ST, STE 701 SEATTLE WA 98104 RE: Permit No. D09 -167 BOW LAKE - DEMOLITION 18800 ORILLIA RD S TUKW Dear Permit Holder: In reviewing our current records, the above noted permit has not received a final inspection by the City of Tukwila Building Division. Per the International Building Code, International Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code and /or the National Electric Code, every permit issued by the Building Division under the provisions of these codes shall expire by limitation and become null and void if the building or work authorized by such permit has not begun within 180 days from the issuance date of such permit, or if the building or work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned at any time after the work has begun for a period of 180 days. Your permit will expire on 03/09/2012. Based on the above, you are hereby advised to: The Building Code does allow the Building Official to approve one extension of up to 180 days. If it is determined that your extension request is granted, you will be notified by mail. In the event you do not call for an inspection and /or receive an extension prior to 03/09/2012, your permit will become null and void and any further work on the project will require a new permit and associated fees. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, -or- ifer Marshall it Technician File: Permit File No. D09 -167 City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director 1) Call the City of Tukwila Inspection Request Line at 206- 431 -2451 to schedule for the next or final inspection. Each inspection creates a new 180 day period, provided the inspection shows progress. 2) Submit a written request for permit extension to the Permit Center at least seven (7) days before it is due to expire. Address your extension request to the Building Official and state your reason(s) for the need to extend your permit. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206- 431 =3670 • Fax: 206- 431 -3665 Jennifer Marshall From: Sent: To: Subject: Bob Benedicto Tuesday, September 27, 2011 10:08 AM Jennifer Marshall Bow Lake Transfer Station permits Due to a change in circumstances, Please un- expire the following permits and extend for 180 days. D09 -164 Scale house D09 -166 Art Work support D09 -167 Demo of existing transfer station The following permits remain expired And will need new applications: PG09 -096 Scale house M09 -104 Scale house M09 -105 Recycling shed. September 19. 2011 Tom Creegan King County 201 S Jackson Street, Ste 701 Seattle, WA 98104 D09 -164 — Scale House D09 -166 — Artwork D09 -167 — Demolition City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director RE: Bow Lake Transfer Station — 18800 Orillia Rd S Dear Mr. Creegan, I regret to inform you that due to the lack of response regarding the permit expiration notice letters mailed on August 1, 2011 the following permits have expired: M09 -104 — Scale House M09 -105 — Recycling Building PG09 -096 — Scale House Jim Haggerton, Mayor As stated on the notice letter if a permit expires and the applicant wishes to proceed with the work a new permit application, plans, specifications, and associated fees must be submitted. Per City of Tukwila Ordinance 2295 if the permit is reapplied for within a year of the expiration date (which was September 12, 2011 for each of these) the fee shall be one -half the amount required for a new permit, excluding the plan review fee. Renewals after one year of expiration will require full plan review as well as full permit fees. If the work previously permitted under these permits is still going to be pursued, you must submit an application form as well as two sets of clean (meaning no stamps or redlines) plans for each permit. After a cursory review by the Building Department to verify no changes have been made to the plans which would require a full plan review, you will be notified that the permits are ready to go as well as the balance that will need to be paid prior to issuance. If you have any questions, you can contact me at the Permit Center at (206) 431 -3670. Sincerely, JuvvvjAW f� c W:\Permit Center\Extension Letters\Bow Lake Expired Permits.doc 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206- 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 08 -01 -2011 TOM CREEGAN 201 S JACKSON ST, STE 701 SEATTLE WA 98104 RE: Permit No. D09 -167 18800 ORILLIA RD S TUKW Dear Permit Holder: In reviewing our current records, the above noted permit has not received a final inspection by the City of Tukwila Building Division. Per the International Building Code, International Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code and /or the National Electric Code, every permit issued by the Building Division under the provisions of these codes shall expire by limitation and become null and void if the building or work authorized by such permit has not begun within 180 days from the issuance date of such permit, or if the building or work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned at any time after the work has begun for a period of 180 days. Your permit will expire on 09/12/2011. Based on the above, you are hereby advised to: 1) Call the City of Tukwila Inspection Request Line at 206 - 431 -2451 to schedule for the next or final inspection. Each inspection creates a new 180 day period, , provided the inspection shows progress. -or- 2) Submit a written request for permit extension to the Permit Center at least seven (7) days before it is due to expire. Address your extension request to the Building Official and state your reason(s) for the need to extend your permit. The Building Code does allow the Building Official to approve one extension of up to 180 days. if it is determined that your extension request is granted, you will be notified by mail. In the event you do not call for an inspection and /or receive an extension prior to 09/12/2011, your permit will become null and void and any further work on the project will require a new permit and associated fees. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Bill Rambo Permit Technician • City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director File: Permit File No. D09 -167 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 a Tukwila, Washington 98188 0 Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 o Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 March 11, 2011 Tom Creegan King County Solid Waste Division 201 S Jackson Street, Ste 701 Seattle, WA 98104 -3855 RE: Request for Extensions Bow Lake Transfer Station — 18800 Orillia Rd S Dear Mr. Creegan, This letter is in response to your written request for an extension to the following nine Permit Numbers: D09 -162, D09-164, D09 -166, D09 -167, M09 -103, M09 -104, M09 -105, PG09 -095, and PG09 -096. The Building Official has reviewed your letter and considered your request to extend the above referenced permits. The City of Tukwila Building Division will be extending your permits an additional 180 days from the date of expiration, through September 12, 2011. It is understood that this project will be continuing through 2013, but due to the International Building Code the maximum extension that can be granted is 180 days. Each inspection conducted will automatically extend the permit. If inspections are not conducted and the expiration date is nearing, you will receive again reminder letters in the mail. If you should have any questions, please contact our office at (206) 431 -3670. Sincerely, (JeIi rshall it' ec ician 0 City of Tukwila W:',Permit Center \Extension Letters\Permits\2009U3ow Lake Permit Extension.doc Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director File: D09 -162, 1)09 -164, D09 -166, D09 -167, M09 -103, M09 -105, PG09 -095 and PG09 -096 Jim Haggerton, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 e Tukwila, Washington 98188 o Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 0 Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 King County Solid Waste Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks King Street Center 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 701 Seattle, WA 98104 -3855 206 - 296 - 6542 Fax 206- 296 -0197 TTY Relay: 711 March 3, 2011 Bill Rambo City of Tukwila Dept. of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Rambo: The purpose of this letter is to request extensions for permits for the Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station project. The King County Solid Waste Division recently received written notices that the following permits will expire on March 16, 2011: Permit No. D09 -162 Permit No. D09 -166 Permit No. PG09 -095 Permit No. M09 -103 Permit No. M09 -105 Permit No. D09 -164 Permit No. D09 -167 Permit No. PG09 -096 Permit No. M09 -104 Construction of the project is ongoing and will continue until the end of 2013: none of th- C' permits are either abandoned or complete. These permits and others (D09 -161 P 09 -163 D09- 165, PG09 -097, EL09 -0497, EL09 -0498, EL09 -0499, and EL09 -0500) for the Site Facilities construction phase of the project will continue to be needed until that time. King County requests that all of these permits be extended appropriately to reflect the extended construction schedule. /b 6-Lt 6/ if 4; .e. tt?-d d .i( ZiA/J2twas(4, ----- a z e pz GG7 6ke-4-;k1 6321j % d �Ct-e/ �'� 7 �G J J //ffr)// otioA k 0 VA 0 1 WI Bill Rambo March 3, 2011 Page 2 Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please contact me at 206 - 263 -6476 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Tom Creegan Project Manager TC:jb Rambo — CoTukwila — Site Facilities Permit Extension Req cc: Victor O. Okereke, Engineering Services Manager, Solid Waste Division (SWD) Neil Fujii, Managing Engineer, Engineering Services Section, SWD 02 -01 -2011 TOM CREEGAN 201 S JACKSON ST, STE 701 SEATTLE WA 98104 RE: Permit No. D09 -167 18800 ORILLIA RD S TUKW Dear Permit Holder: 0 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director In reviewing our current records, the above noted permit has not received a final inspection by the City of Tukwila Building Division. Per the International Building Code, International Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code and /or the National Electric Code, every permit issued by the Building Division under the provisions of these codes shall expire by limitation and become null and void if the building or work authorized by such permit has not begun within 180 days from the issuance date of such permit, or if the building or work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned at any time after the work has begun for a period of 180 days. Your permit will expire on 03/16/2011. Based on the above, you are hereby advised to: 1) Call the City of Tukwila Inspection Request Line at 206 - 431 -2451 to schedule for the next or final inspection. Each inspection creates a new 180 day period, , provided the inspection shows progress. -or- 2) Submit a written request for permit extension to the Permit Center at least seven (7) days before it is due to expire. Address your extension request to the Building Official and state your reason(s) for the need to extend your permit. The Building Code does allow the Building Official to approve one extension of up to 180 days. If it is determined that your extension request is granted, you will be notified by mail. In the event you do not call for an inspection and /or receive an extension prior to 03/16/2011, your permit will become null and void and any further work on the project will require a new permit and associated fees. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Bill Rambo Permit Technician File: Permit File No. D09 -167 Jim Haggerton, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 June 14, 2010 Jennifer Marshall City of Tukwila Dept. of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Subject: Full -Size Drawings Submittal for City of Tukwila Permits Dear Ms. Marshall: 001640 I 11-00839-20001/5500 Marshall Transmittal 6- 14- 2010.docx FOURTH AVENUE,' SUITE is a 98,1 1004 "(P),'2O6.695 4700 An SAIC Company Attached is a matrix listing the full size drawing submittals for the City of Tukwila Permits. R ceIVi crry OF TUKWILA JUN 14 2010 PERMIT CENTER (F)4•206.695.4701, 3 Date Permit No. Descri 1 tion \t opics 2 6/14/2010 D09 -161 1 full -size, wet - signed original, 1 copy of original 2 6/14/2010 D09 -162 I full -size, wet - signed original, 1 copy of original i 2 6/14/2010 D09 -164 1 full -size, wet - signed original, 1 copy of original J 2 6/14/2010 D09 -165 1 full -size, wet - signed original, 1 copy of original J 2 6/14/2010 D09 -166 1 full -size, wet - signed original, 1 copy of original 2 6/14/2010 D09 -167 I full -size, wet- signed original, 1 copy of original 2 6/14/2010 EL09 -0497 I full -size, wet- signed original, 1 copy of original ✓ 2 6/14/2010 EL09 -0498 1 full -size, wet - signed original, 1 copy of original / ./ 2 6/14 /2010 EL09 -0499 1 full -size, wet - signed original, 1 copy of original J 2 6/14/2010 EL09 -0500 1 full -size, wet - signed original, 1 copy of original J 2 6/14/2010 PG09 -095 1 full -size, wet - signed original, 1 copy of original 1 2 6/14/2010 PG09 -096 1 full -size, wet - signed original, 1 copy of original ✓ 2 6/14/2010 PG09 -097 1 full -size, wet- signed original, 1 copy of original J 2 6/14/2010 M09 -103 1 full -size, wet - signed original, 1 copy of original ✓ 2 6/14/2010 M09 -104 1 full -size, wet - signed original, I copy of original / ✓ 2 6/14/2010 M09 -105 1 full -size, wet - signed original, 1 copy of original June 14, 2010 Jennifer Marshall City of Tukwila Dept. of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Subject: Full -Size Drawings Submittal for City of Tukwila Permits Dear Ms. Marshall: 001640 I 11-00839-20001/5500 Marshall Transmittal 6- 14- 2010.docx FOURTH AVENUE,' SUITE is a 98,1 1004 "(P),'2O6.695 4700 An SAIC Company Attached is a matrix listing the full size drawing submittals for the City of Tukwila Permits. R ceIVi crry OF TUKWILA JUN 14 2010 PERMIT CENTER (F)4•206.695.4701, 3 Ms. Jennifer Marshall June 14, 2010 Page 2 Sincerely, R. W. BECK, I Margaret Ales Permit Coordinator MA/jId cc line 1. Creegan, King County K. Ilufnagel. R. W. Reck I. Sutton, R. W. Beck • It has been a pleasure working with you. If you have any questions please feel free to call me at (206) 695 -4626 or email me at malesArwbeck.com 001640 I 11-00i00-20001/500 Marshall "Transmittal 6-14-2010 docx To: Tom Creegan From: Ian Sutton and Margaret Ales Subject: Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station Project Development Permit Application Number D09- 167(Demolition) Response to City of Tukwila Letter of Incomplete #1 Date: March 1, 2010 This memorandum is supplemental to the Revision Submittal for the Development Permit Application D09 -167 (Demolition) Letter of Incomplete Application #1 to Response to Correction Letter #1 for the City of Tukwila (City). Comments are listed below, followed by a summarized response. Building Department (BD) • An SAIC Company CIA LA M4 k UZ1010 ►' ERA4IT%y e2 BD - Comment: In reference to your response to item number 15 of the last Building Division Review Memo dated 9 - 28 - 09, it is necessary to submit the full size set of the plans at this point in the review process. You must submit four (4) full size sets for building permits and two (2) full size sets for mechanical, plumbing /gas piping, and electrical permits. From this point on, any changes needed to correct or alter the plans will be accomplished by resubmitting only the pages /sheets that are altered. You will not need to resubmit the entire set. If you were to submit one full size set after all reviews are complete, we would have to send that set to each of the four departments and each department would have to compare that set with an approved set and it will be a very time consuming process that would substantially delay completion of this permit process. This was discussed and agreed to at our last meeting. Response: In accordance with correspondence between Dave Larson (City of Tukwila) and Tom Creegan (King County DNRP — Solid Waste Division) on February 19, 2010, half size drawings will be acceptable for this submittal and full size drawings will be required as part of permit approval. Public Works Department PW — 1 Comment: Please circle and provide a callout in big bold letters showing which building will be demolished under this permit. It is confusing, because Attachment A — Revised Drawings Dot 1001 FOURTH AVEN E SUITf 2500 • 6954701 ` 001640 11- 00839 -20000 I Responsc_D09- 167.doc MEMORANDUM March 1, 2010 Page 2 received on January 28, 2010, includes plan sheet G018 which has the Recycling Building clouded. Response: Demolition of the existing facility under this permit is represented on plan sheets C011 and C012. A demolition footprint boundary is shown, which includes the existing Transfer Building and associated existing improvements. Plan sheet C015 also includes some minor demolition of temporary construction pavement towards the end of the project. Plan sheet G018, was included in the application due to the application's association with the larger development project. G018 represents the final site plan. The Recycling Building callout on G018 was clouded because the callout was added since the first permit application submittal to the City. PW — 2 Comment: Does it mean that you intend both the Transfer Building and Recycling Building will be demolished under same permit? Response: No. The Recycling Building is part of the new construction. Only the existing Transfer Building and associated existing improvements will be demolished under this permit. 001640 I 11-00839-20000 Response__ D09-167 doe a , 1 , February 3, 2010 Tom Creegan King County Solid Waste 201 South Jackson St Suite 701 Seattle, WA 98104 RE: Letter of Incomplete Application # 1 to Response to Correction Letter #1 Permit Application Number D09 -167 Bow Lake — 18800 Orillia Rd S Dear Mr. Creegan, This letter is to inform you that your responses to Correction Letter 111 received at the City of Tukwila Permit Center on January 28, 2010 is determined to be incomplete. Before your application can continue the plan review process the attached items from the following departments need to be addressed: Building Department: Dave Larson at 206 431 -3678 if you have any questions concerning the attached comments. Public Works Department: Joanna Spencer at 206 431 -2440 if you have any questions concerning the attached comments. Please address the comment above in an itemized format with applicable revised plans, specifications, and /or other documentation. The City requires that four (4) sets of revised plans, specifications and /or other documentation be resubmitted with the appropriate revision block. In order to better expedite your resubmittal a `Revision Submittal Sheet' must accompany every resubmittal. I have enclosed one for your convenience. Revisions must be made in person and will not be accepted through the mail or by a messenger service. If you have any questions, please contact me at the Permit Center at (206) 431 -3670. Sincerely, Enclosures File: D09 -167 Jen fifer Marshall Per it Technician a Clay of Tu f "" f ila Department of Community Development W \Permit Center \incomplete Letters\2009 \D09 -167 Inc I tr #1 to Corr Ltr # 1.DOC Jim Haggerton, Mayor Jack Pace, Director 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 0 Tukwila, Washington 98188 0 Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 0 Fax: 206- 431 -3665 Determination of Completeness Memo Date: February 2, 2010 Project Name: Bow Lake Permit #: D09 -167 Plan Review: Dave Larson, Senior Plans Examiner This was discussed and agreed to at our last meeting. Tukwila Building Division Dave Larson, Senior Plan Examiner The Building Division has deemed the subject permit application incomplete. To assist the applicant in expediting the Department plan review process, please forward the following comments. (GENERAL NOTE) PLAN SUBMITTALS: (Min. size 1 1x17 to maximum size of 24x36; all sheets shall be the same size). (If applicable) Structural Drawings and structural calculations sheets shall be original signed wet stamped, not copied.) 1. In reference to your response to item number 15 of the last Building Division Review Memo dated 9- 28-09, it is necessary to submit the full size sets of the plans at this point in the review process. You must submit four (4) full size sets for building permits and two (2) full size sets for mechanical, plumbing /gas piping, and electrical permits. From this point on, any changes needed to correct or alter the plans will be accomplished by resubmitting only the pages /sheets that are altered. You will not need to resubmit the entire set. If you were to submit one full size set after all reviews are complete, we would have to send that set to each of the four departments and each department would have to compare that set with an approved set and it will be a very time consuming process that would substantially delay completion of this permit process. Should there be questions concerning the above requirements, contact the Building Division at 206 - 431 -3670. No further comments at this time. DATE: February 3, 2010 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT COMMENTS www.ci.tukwila.wa.us Development Guidelines and Design and Construction Standards PROJECT: Bow Lake — Demolition 1 8800 Orillia Rd S PERMIT NO: D09 -167 (Demolition) REVIEW NO: 2 PLAN REVIEWER: Contact Joanna Spencer (206) 431 -2440 if you have any questions regarding the following comments. 1) Please circle and provide a callout in big bold letters showing which building will be demolished under this permit. It is confusing, because Attachment A — Revised Drawings received on January 28, 2010, includes plan sheet G018 which has the Recycling Building clouded. 2) Does it mean that you intend both the Transfer Building and Recycling Building will be demolished under the same permit? August 5, 2010 Tom Creegan King County Solid Waste Division 201 S Jackson St, Ste 701 Seattle, WA 98104 -3855 RE: Request for Application Extensions #2 Bow Lake Transfer Station — 18800 Orillia Rd S Dear Mr. Creegan, This letter is in response to your written request for an extension to the following Permit Application Numbers: D09 -161 D09 -166 EL09 -0499 M09 -105 D09 -162 D09 -167 EL09 -0500 PG09 -095 D09 -164 EL09 -0497 M09 -103 PG09 -096 D09 -165 EL09 -0498 M09 -104 PG09 -097 The Building Official has reviewed your letter and considered your request. It has been determined that the City of "Tukwila will extend the permit applications expiration date an additional 90 days, through November 08, 2010. Please note that D09 -163 has not been extended due to the fact that this permit application was cancelled on May 05, 2010 per your request. If you should have any questions, please contact our office at (206) 431 -3670. Sincerely, UVq LI c ifer Marshall er it Technician 0 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director ,LuzL W \Pennit Center \Extension Letters \Applications \2009 \How Lake Application Extension u2.doc Jim Haggerton, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 6 Tukwila, Washington 98188 e Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 m Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 King County Solid Waste Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks King Street Center 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 701 Seattle, WA 98104 -3855 206 - 296 -6542 Fax 206 -296 -0197 TTY Relay: 711 July 27, 2010 Bill Rambo Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Rambo: Permit Application No. •Perrrrit Application No. Permit Application No. Permit Application No. Permit Application No. Permit Application No. Permit Application No. Permit Application No. Permit Application No. Sincerely, I c Tom Creegan Project Manager D09 -165 D09 -167 EL09 -0498 EL09 -0500 PG09 -096 M09 -103 M09 -105 D09 -161 D09 -163 fill LIL't TC:er Rambo — Permit Application Renewals — Final 072710 Permit Application No. D09 -162 Permit Application No. D09 -164 Permit Application No. D09-166 Permit Application No. EL09 -0497 Permit Application No. EL09 -0499 Permit Application No. PG09 -095 Permit Application No. PG09 -097 Permit Application No. M09 -104 p 011, if afidav6( aloadiuv qddi, (27GC) /0 The purpose of this letter is to request extensions for permit applications for the Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station — Site Facilities project. The King County Solid Waste Division is nearing completion of the process of procuring a contractor for this work. The permit applications are as follows: Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions, please contact me at 206 - 263 -6476. Q-kfe 041 RECEIVED C)64/4 I t I A� Jul_ 28 2010 4 -ERMIT CENTEF cc: Victor O. Okereke, Engineering Services Manager, Solid Waste Division (SWD) Neil Fujii, Managing Engineer, SWD 07 -01 -2010 TOM CREEGAN 201 S JACKSON ST, STE 701 SEATTLE WA 98104 RE: Permit Application No. D09 -167 18800 ORILLIA RD S TUKW Dear Permit Applicant: In reviewing our current application files, it appears that your permit applied for on 08/13/2009, has not been issued by the City of Tukwila Permit Center. Per the International Building Code, International Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code and /or National Electrical Code every permit application not issued within 180 days from the date of application shall expire and become null and void. Your permit application will expire on 08/09/2010. If you still plan to pursue your project, a written request for extension of your application must be submitted to the Permit Center at least seven (7) days before it is due to expire. Address your extension request to the Building Official and state your reason(s) for the need to extend your permit application. If it is determined that an extension is granted, your application will be extended for an addtional 90 days from the expiration date and you will be notified by mail. In the event that we do not receive your written request for extension or request was denied, your permit application will expire, become null and void and your project will require a new permit application, plans and specifications, and associated fees. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Bill Rambo Permit Technician File: Permit File No. D09 -167 0 1 ,1 Jim Haggerton, Mayor epartment of Community Development Jack Pace, Director 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 o Tukwila, Washington 98188 ® Phone: 206- 431 -3670 0 Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 PW — 1 Public Works Department • • To: Tom Creegan From: Ian Sutton and Margaret Ales Subject: Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station Project Development Permit Application Number D09 -167 (Demolition) Response to City of Tukwila Correction Letter #1 Date: January 28, 2010 An SAIC Company This memorandum is supplemental to the Revision Submittal for the Development Permit Application D09 -167 (Demolition) Correction Letter #1 for the City of Tukwila (City). Comments are listed below, followed by a summarized response. In instances where a response required a design change, the revised design documentation has been included as an attachment for City review. Design revisions made to address City comments have been clouded and noted as Revision B. In addition, any design changes initiated by the design team unrelated to City comments, and subsequent to the original application submittal, that relate to code compliance or life - safety have also been clouded and noted as Revision C. Comment: Since each permit stands on its own, please submit proof of Puget Sound Clean Air Pollution Control (PSAPCA) demo permit application. Response: In consultation with the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA), the PSCAAC application should not be applied for at this time. The application requires identification of the Contractor which is currently unknown. The application will be submitted once the contract has been awarded. A copy can be provided to the City of Tukwila at that time. PW — 2 Comment: Show all utilities servicing this building, label them and show location where they are going to be capped. Response: Sheets C011 and C012 have had caps added at approximate utility abandonment locations for utilities servicing the existing Transfer Building. Key Note 1 has also been expanded to emphasize locating and capping all utilities servicing the existing Transfer Building. See Attachment A, Revised Drawings. List of Attachments Attachment A - Revised Drawings 001640 I1 -00839 -20000 I Response_D09- 167 .doc • • ATTACHMENT A Revised Drawings Included under separate cover. An SAIC Company Permit Application Number D09 -167 List of Revised Drawings 1. G011 - .COVER SHEET, VICINITY AND LOCATION MAPS 2. G012 - 3. G013 - 4. 6014 - 5. G015 - 6. G016 - 7. G017 - 8. G018 - 20. 0011 - 21. 0012 - 22. 0013 - 23. ('015 - DRAWING INDEX DRAWING INDEX _ LEGEND ABBREVIATIONS GENERAL NOTES AND PROJECT AREA BOUNDARY EXISTING CONDITIONS AND SURVEY CONTROL GENERAL ARRANGEMENT SITE PLAN SITE DEMOLITION PLAN AND NOTES SITE DEMOLITION PLAN AND NOTES EXISTING SCALE FACILITY DEMOLITION PLAN AND NOTES MILESTONE 3A/B /C /D DEMOLITION PLAN AND NOTES I New Sheet Page 1 of 1 REV B REV C New Sheet for revised /final Final Submittal Revised Dwgs Submittal m c C O 7 O m E m 1 1 1 1 City ®f g 1 Jim Haggerton, Mayor January 29, 2010 Tom Creegan King County Solid Waste Division 201 S Jackson St, Ste 701 Seattle, WA 98104 -3855 RE: Request for Application Extensions Bow Lake Transfer Station — 18800 Orillia Rd S Dear Mr. Crecgan, This letter is in response to your written request for an extension to Permit Application Numbers D09 -161 through D09 -167, EL09 -0497 through EL09 -0500, M09 -103 through M09 -105, and PG09 -095 through PG09 -097. The Building Official has reviewed your letter and considered your request. It has been determined that the City of Tukwila will extend the permit applications expiration date an additional 180 days, through August 9, 2010. If you should have any questions, please contact our office at (206) 431 -3670. Sincerely, en Ter Marshall it Technician Department of Community 'tevelopment Jack Pace, Director File: App No. D09 -161, 162 ,163, 164, 165, 166, 167 App No. EL09 -0497, 0498, 0499, 0500 App No. M09 -103, 104, 105 App No. PG09 -095, 096, 097 W:\Permit Center\Extension Letters \Applications\2009\Bow Lake Application Extension.doc 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 9 Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 r January 28, 2010 Dear Mr. Rambo: Sincerely, OM Cv Torn Creegan Project Manager King County Solid Waste Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks King Street Center 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 701 Seattle, WA 98104 -3855 206- 296 -6542 Fax 206 - 296.0197 TTY Relay: 711 Mr. Bill Rambo City of Tukwila Dept. of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Permit Application No. D09 -161 Permit Application No. D09 -163 Permit Application No. D09 -165 Permit Application No. D09 -167 Permit Application No. EL09 -0498 Permit Application No. EL09 -0500 Permit Application No. PG09 -096 Permit Application No. M09 -103 Permit Application No. M09 -105 This letter is to request extensions for permit applications for the Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station — Site Facilities project. King County Solid Waste Division is in the process of procuring a contractor for this work. The permit applications are as follows: Permit Application No. D09 -162 Permit Application No. D09 -164 Permit Application No. D09 -166 Permit Application No. EL09 -0497 Permit Application No. EL09 -0499 Permit Application No. PG09 -095 Permit Application No. PG09 -097 Permit Application No. M09 -104 v 46/ /) dlz� RECEIVED JAN 28 2090 PERMIT GENIE' all 6 r- G' 3 /t Ob -- 1;0 r` 01 -04 -2010 TOM CREEGAN 201 S JACKSON ST, STE 701 SEATTLE WA 98104 RE: Permit Application No. D09 -167 18800 ORILLIA RD S TUKW Dear Permit Applicant: In reviewing our current application files, it appears that your permit applied for on 08/13/2009, has not been issued by the City of Tukwila Permit Center. Per the International Building Code, International Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code and /or National Electrical Code every permit application not issued within 180 days from the date of application shall expire and become null and void. Your permit application will expire on 02/09/2010. If you still plan to pursue your project, a written request for extension of your application must be submitted to the Permit Center at least seven (7) days before it is due to expire. Address your extension request to the Building Official and state your reason(s) for the need to extend your permit application. If it is determined that an extension is granted, your application will be extended for an addtional 90 days from the expiration date and you will be notified by mail. In the event that we do not receive your written request for extension or request was denied, your permit application will expire, become null and void and your project will require a new permit application, plans and specifications, and associated fees. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, q — Cti Vj- Bill Rambo Permit Technician File: Permit File No. D09 -167 City of f 7'LZkN/11 Department of Community Development Jim Haggerton, Mayor Jack Pace, Director 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 o Tukwila, Washington 98188 o Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 6 Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 October 5, 2009 Tom Creegan 201 S Jackson St Ste 701 Seattle, WA 98104 RE: CORRECTION LETTER #1 Development Permit Application Number D09 -167 Bow Lake — Demolition — 18800 Orillia Rd S Dear Mr. Creegan, This letter is to inform you of corrections that must be addressed before your development permit(s) can be approved. All correction requests from each department must be addressed at the same time and reflected on your drawings. I have enclosed comments from the Public Works Department. At this time the Building, Fire, and Planning Departments have no comments. Public Works Department: Joanna Spencer at 206 431 -2440 if you have questions regarding the attached memo. Please address the attached comments in an itemized format with applicable revised plans, specifications, and /or other documentation. The City requires that four (4) complete sets of revised plans, specifications and /or other documentation be resubmitted with the appropriate revision block. In order to better expedite your resubmittal, a `Revision Submittal Sheet' must accompany every resubmittal. I have enclosed one for your convenience. Corrections /revisions must be made in person and will not be accepted through the mail or by a messenger service. If you have any questions, please contact me at (206) 431 -3670. Sincerely, Bill Rambo Permit Technician end File No. D09 -167 W \Pemtit Center \Correction Letters\2009\D09 -167 Correction Letter HI.DOC wer Department of Community Development Jim Haggerton, Mayor Jack Pace, Director DATE: September 3, 2009 PROJECT: Bow Lake - Demolition 18800 Orillia Rd South PERMIT NO: D09 -167 REVIEW NO: PLAN REVIEWER: Contact Joanna Spencer (206) 431 -2440 if you have any questions regarding the following comments. 1) Since each permit stands on its own, please submit proof of Puget Sound Clean Air Pollution Control (PSAPCA) demo permit application. 2) Show all utilities servicing this building, label them and show location where they are going to be capped. P: Joanna/Comments 1 D09 -167 0 0 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT COMMENTS www.ci.tukwila.wa.us Development Guidelines and Design and Construction Standards ACTIVITY NUMBER: D09 -167 DATE: 06/14/10 PROJECT NAME: BOW LAKE - DEMOLITION SITE ADDRESS: 18800 ORILLIA RD S FINAL CHECK - FULL -SIZED PLANS DEPART ENTS: ding s isiion Pu't)Tic Wor DETERMINATION OF COMPLETENESS: (Tues., Thum.) DUE DATE: Complete Comments: Permit Center Use Only INCOMPLETE LETTER MAILED: Departments determined incomplete: TUES /THURS ROUTING: Building Please Route REVIE APPROVALS OR CORRECTIONS: Approved Notation: REVIEWER'S INITIALS: Permit Center Use Only CORRECTION LETTER MAILED: Departments issued corrections: Docunuents/routi nR slip.rior 2 -78 -07 • PERMIT CC ROCOPY. PLAN REVIEW /ROUTING SLIP Bldg ❑ Fire Prevention Structural Incomplete Structural Review Required Approved with Conditions Nf 'S INITIALS: DATE: 1/ MP (MIA A n 0 Planning Division DATE: Permit Coordinator N/ Not = ) 'cable ER OF COMPLETENESS MAILED: Ping ❑ PW ❑ Staff Initials: No further Review Required Not Approved (attach comments) Bldg ❑ Fire ❑ Ping ❑ PW ❑ Staff Initials: DUE DATE: ASAP d ACTIVITY NUMBER: D09 -167 PROJECT NAME: BOW LAKE - DEMOLITION SITE ADDRESS: 18800 ORILLIA RD S Original Plan Submittal DATE: 03/02/10 X Response to Incomplete Letter # 1 X Response to Correction Letter # 1 Revision # after Permit Issued DEPARTMENTS: Building Dwision 6 (. OZ Pub Works Complete Comments: Documents/routing sl ip.doc 2 -28-02 S PER 7e COPYI PLAN REVIEW /ROUTING SLIP 1 DETERMINATION OF COMPLETENESS: (Tues., Thurs.) Permit Center Use Only INCOMPLETE LETTER MAILED: Departments determined incomplete: Bldg ❑ I ire ❑ Ping ❑ PW ❑ Staff Initials: LETTER OF COMPLETENESS MAILED: TUES /THURS ROUTING: Building Please Route Structural Review Required REVIEWER'S INIT \ \ IALS: APPROVALS OR CORRECTIONS: Fire Prevention Structural Incomplete Planning Division Permit Coordinator DUE DALE: 03/04/10 Not Applicable No further Review Required DATE: DATE: DUE DATE: 04/01/10 Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved (attach comments) Notation: RFVIEWFR'S INITIALS: n n n Permit Center Use Only CORRECTION LETTER MAILED: Department, i„ued .urrec tions: Bldg ❑ Fire ❑ Ping ❑ PW ❑ Staff Initials: ACTIVITY NUMBER: D09 -167 DATE: 01 -28 -10 PROJECT NAME: BOW LAKE - DEMOLITION SITE ADDRESS: 18800 ORILLIA RD S Original Plan Submittal X Response to Correction Letter # 1 Response to Incomplete Letter # Revision # after Permit Issued TMEN S: g Ivi Public V1'Works DETERMINATION OF COMPLETENESS: (1 ues., I hurs.) Complete Comments: Permit Center Use Only INCOMPLETE LETTER MAILED: Departments determined incomplete: Bldg Fire ❑ Ping ❑ PW Staff Initials: TUES /THURS ROUTING: Building Please Route REVIEWER'S INITIALS: APPROVALS OR CORRECTIONS: Approved Notation: REVIEWER'S INITIALS: Permit Center Use Only CORRECTION LETTER MAILED: Departments issued uirre(tiun : Document,/outing clip.doc 2 -25 -02 • riItGom d k•UkRabuOPYSI PLAN REVIEW /ROUTING SLIP Fire Prevention Structural Incomplete Structural Review Required Approved with Conditions tx1 LETTER OF COMPLETENESS MAILED: Planning Division Permit Coordinator DUE DATE: 02-02-10 Not Applicable No further Review Required DATE: Not Approved (attach comments) DATE: Bldg ❑ Fire ❑ Ping ❑ PW ❑ Staff Initials: DUE DATE: 03-02-10 ACTIVITY NUMBER: D09 -167 DATE: 08 -13 -09 PROJECT NAME: BOW LAKE - DEMOLITION SITE ADDRESS: 18800 ORI LLIA RD S X Original Plan Submittal Response to Correction Letter # Response to Incomplete Letter # _ Revision # After Permit Issued DEPARTMENTS: Buil ng Division Comments: Notation: Public Works TUES /THURS R TING: Please Route Structural Review Required REVIEWER'S INITIALS: I )oc umols/roui uig slip doc 2 2 &02 APPROVALS OR CORRECTIONS: REVIEWER'S INITIALS: • COORD coPY• PLAN REVIEW /ROUTING SLIP g revention Structural Planning Division Permit Coordinator DETERMINATI N OF COMPLETENESS: (1 ues., Thurs.) DUL DA1 E: 08-18-09 Complete Incomplete Not Applicable Permit Center Use Only INCOMPLETE LETTER MAILED: Departments determined incomplete: Bldg ❑ Fire ❑ Ping ❑ PW ❑ Staff Initials: LETTER Or .. OMPLETENESS MAILED: No further Review Required DATE: Approved I Approved with Conditions Not Approved (attach comments) DATE: DUE DATE: 09-15 -09 Permit Center Use Only CORRECTION LETTER MAILED: Departments issued corrections: 10 -0G' Bldg ❑ Fire ❑ Ping ❑ PW Staff Initials: • • City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Web site: http: / /www.ci.tukwila.wa.us Revision submittals must be submitted in person at the Permit Center. Revisions will not he accepted through the mail, fax, etc. Date: 3/1/2010 ® Response to Incomplete Letter # 1 ® Response to Correction Letter # 1 ❑ Revision # after Permit is Issued ❑ Revision requested by a City Building Inspector or Plans Examiner Project Name: Bow Lake — Demolition Project Address: 1 8800 Orillia Rd S Contact Person: Tom Creegan Phone Number: (206) 263 - 6476 Summary of Revision: See attached letter. UeiTtYt o ,\( - v -to ' v-f&E) vc,.0 Sheet Number(s): See attached letter. "Cloud" or highlight all areas of revision including date of revision Received at the City of Tukwila Permit Center by: ,Q7hl� j k Entered in Permits Plus on \applications \forms- applications on line\revision submittal Created: 8 -13 -2004 Revised: Plan Check/Permit Number: D09 -167 CITY !tip 022010 PERMIT CENT i REVISION SUBMITTAL i Revision submittals must be submitted in person at the Permit Center. Revisions will not be accepted through the mail, fax, etc. Date: 1/28/2010 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Web site: http: / /www.ci.tukwila.wa.us ❑ Response to Incomplete Letter # ® Response to Correction Letter # 1 ❑ R evision # after Permit is Issued RECEIVED ❑ R evision requested by a City Building Inspector or Plans Examiner CITY OF TUKwiU L IM 282010 Project Name: BOW LAKE — DEMOLITION Project Address: 18800 Orillia Rd S Contact Person: Tom Creegan Phone Number: ( 206) 263 - 6476 Summary of Revision: See attached letter and referenced documents. Sheet Number(s): See attached letter and referenced documents. "Cloud" or highlight all areas of revision including date of revision Received at the City of Tukwila Permit Center by: Entered in Permits Plus on C) \applications \forms- applications on line\revision submittal Created: 8 -13 -2004 Revised: Plan Check/Permit Number: D09 -167 Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director PEI MITT CENTER License Name Type Specialty 1 Specialty 2 Unused Effective Date 4/13/2010 Expiration Date 4/13/2012 Status Active LYDIGML901JL LYDIG + MCKINSTRY LLC Construction ' General Contractor LYDIGGP903CS LYDIG GRANT PLATEAU A JT VENT Construction Contractor Construction Contractor ,General Unused 2/10/2010 2/10/2012 Active LYDIGJV912QL LYDIG MCKINSTRY,A JOINT VNTURE General Unused 11/13/2009 11/13/2011 Active LCIBUBT934RP LCI BUILDERS TWO LLC Construction Contractor General Unused 12/17/2007 12/17/2011 Active LYDIGJV937RP LYDIG /GRANT, A JOINT VENTURE Construction Contractor General Unused 12/17/2007 12/17/2011 Active LCIBUB0936QE LCI BUILDERS ONE LLC Co;�str.iction Con tract or Construction Contractor General Unused 11/5/2007 11/5/2011 Active OPUSNCL980P9 OPUS NW CONTRACTORS LLC General Unused 10/29/2002 10/29/2010 Active OPUSLJV911JB OPUS /LYDIG A JOINT VENTURE Construction Contractor General Unused 4/2/2009 4/2/2011 Out Of Business HUNTLIJ927KA HUNT /LYDIG II, A JOINT VENTURE Construction Contractor General Unused 5/1/2008 5/1/2010 Out Of Business HUNTLJV940JC HUNT /LYDIG A JOINT VENTURE Construction Contractor General Unused 4/3/2006 4/3/2010 Out Of Business Effective Date Expiration Date 01/01/1980 12/17/2007 01/01/1980 12/17/2007 Contractors or Tradespeople Printer I ricnc'.ly Page 0 Page 1 of 2 General /Specialty Contractor A business registered as a construction contractor with LErI to perform construction work within the scope of its specialty. A General or Specialty construction Contractor must maintain a surety bond or assignment of account and carry general liability insurance. Business and Licensing Information Name LYDIG CONSTRUCTION INC UBI No. 328046357 Phone 5095340451 Status Active Address 11001 E Montgomery Dr License No. LYDIGC *264JC Suite /Apt. License Type Construction Contractor City Spokane Effective Date 4/3/1974 State WA Expiration Date 9/11/2011 Zip 99206 Suspend Date County Spokane Specialty 1 General Business Type Corporation Specialty 2 Unused Parent Company Other Associated Licenses Business Owner Information BRAY, MARK D SWARTZ, LARRY J Name https://fortress.wa.gov/lni/libip/Print.aspx 1 Role 09/17/2010