Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Permit L99-0049 - KEIROUZ JIHAD - SPECIAL PERMISSION
L99 -0049 JIHAD KIEROUZ, J.A.K. INC. 1303133rd Ave. S (REASONABLE USE) Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION 1, HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing Determination of Non - Significance Notice of Public Meeting Project Name :NANCA CA,('O WL, Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Mailer's Signature: 0,i L.l Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt CX06tZ L Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Y Notice of Action CNNA (1i J Planning Commission Agenda Pkt - Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit Other Other Was. mailed to each of'the addresses listed on this J day of Decc,in the year 24 lCieiCi P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT- MAIL01/ 1/0012:53 PM z '~ W 6 UO co WI N LL. WO g. LL d. I _: �O z � o. 0 0 W w. U. z ui — 0 z Project Name :NANCA CA,('O WL, Project Number: VV.k— 4C Mailer's Signature: 0,i L.l Person requesting mailing: CX06tZ L P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT- MAIL01/ 1/0012:53 PM z '~ W 6 UO co WI N LL. WO g. LL d. I _: �O z � o. 0 0 W w. U. z ui — 0 z • • • To: City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF DECISION December 13, 1999 • Jihad Keirouz, dba JAK, inc. (applicant) • Jihad Keirouz (owner) • King County Assessor, Accounting Division • Parties of record (See Attached) This letter serves as a Notice of Decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.104.170. At their December 9, 1999 public hearing, the Planning Commission denied the applicant's request for a Reasonable Use Exception to construct a Single Family Residence at 13041 —33rd Ave S., by the adoption of the findings and conclusions in the staff report. PROJECT BACKGROUND a. Project file number: L99-0049 b. The name of the property owner(s): Jihad Keirouz c. Project Description: Textual description as well as 8.5" x 11" site plans, building elevations and other appropriate characteristics. Reasonable Use Exception to construct a single family residence by filling a Type 3 wetland and altering a Type 3 watercourse, pursuant to TMC 18.45 d. Project location: 13041 — 33rd Ave S. e. The permits submitted concurrently with this application: D99-0168 — Development Permit for a Single Family Residence 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 • :re 2 . 0'; CY'; .U) 111 1-; 'U) g uco s Z /nab 4-1Di.• '• '.:: •: Z F-1 • :W uf:, , : ''2:•mi ' • ',C) (0C. 1111 uir, ,., . • _ '1'7 ,-_-! • ' ' ,• AL- 1&:. • '. '. zi ., .1.) • ,,:,, •:-P ±-• '0 !— ,: " • •:2 ••' - . . _..............•.. December 13, 1999 Notice of Decision L99 -0049 — Reasonable Use Exception, 13041 — 33rd Ave S. f. Environmental threshold determination (if any): Determination of Non - significance (E99- 0017), dated November 16, 1999 Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. h. Administrative appeals for the various permit Types are discussed below. g. The period for administrative appeals is 14 days, starting from the issuance of this Notice of Decision. The administrative body hearing the appeal is the City Council. All appeal materials shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Appeal materials shall contain: 1. The name of the appealing party, The address and phone number of the appealing party, and if the appealing party is a corporation, association or other group, the address and phone number of a contact person authorized to received notices on the appealing party's behalf, and 3. A statement identifying the decision being appealed and the alleged errors in that decision. The Notice of Appeal shall state specific errors of fact or errors in application of the law in the decision being appealed, the harm suffered or anticipated by the appellant, and the relief sought. The scope of an appeal shall be limited to matters or issues raised in the Notice of Appeal. A copy of TMC 18.108 outlining the Type 4 decision process and TMC 18.116 outlining Appeal processes are included with this Notice of Decision. Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permit(s) are available for inspection at the Tukwila Dept. of Community Development; 6300 Southcenter Blvd.; Suite 100; Tukwila, WA; from Monday through Friday, between 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM. The project planner is Michael Jenkins, who may be contacted at 206 - 431 -3685 for further information. December 13, 1999 Notice of Decision L99 -0049 - Reasonable Use Exception, 13041 — 33rd Ave S. Parties of Record Jihad Keirouz 13407 — 51st Ave W. Edmonds, WA 98062 Mark Stefnik 2322 S.W. 120th Burien, WA 98148 John Dickover 13202 - 32nd Ave S. Tukwila, WA 98168 • AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBZTION 0 Notice of Public tearing er'eby declare are th at : Dete= nation o f significance 0 Natice. of Public Meeting Q Mi tigated • Determination of Nansignificance. . • Q.Hoard of Adjustment Agenda Determination of Significance Packet and Scat: Notice • . 0Eaa_rd of Appeals. Agenda • Notice a =.Action Packet OLanning Commission Agenda Official Notice Packet Q Short Subdivision Agenda Packet Q Notice of Application far Shoreline Management emit QShoreline M..anagement Peracit Other • ACV-. L 0 Other, was mailed to• each of the fallawina addresses an. a - 16- (19 Name o f Pra j eat Q -QU"2-. Vaylick- File NumberT t . Ok l� Signature. • W: ft 62. -1 0 0 0 0 W J I: w. W0 2 J u_ =d I- w' o z a•-•: U0. O H: = w' U F"• w z. U co z re") City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PREPARED DECEMBER 3,1999 HEARING DATE: NOTIFICATION: FILE NUMBER: APPLICANT: OWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: ASSOCIATED PERMITS: SEPA DETERMINATION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONE DESIGNATION: STAFF: C: mydocuments...9949a December 9, 1999 On September 28, 1999 Notice of Application was posted and mailed to surrounding properties. Notice of Hearing was posted and mailed to surrounding properties and published in the Seattle Times on November 24, 1999. L99 -0049 Jihad Keirouz / J.A.K., Inc. Jihad Keirouz Request for a Reasonable Use Exception (TMC 18.45.115) to alter a Type 3 Watercourse and fill a related Type 3 Wetland for the construction of a new Single Family Residence 13041 — 33`d Ave S Land Altering Permit Development Permit Determination of Non - Significance issued November 16, 1999 Low Density Residential (LDR) Low Density Residential (LDR) Michael Jenkins 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 48188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 W. 6 -1 C.) U0 CO WI -I CO u:' uj o u- = a �w z� uf D o 0 • H' W W; F= 0 • o, u. z,. u) O~ December 3, 1999 Staff Report to the Planning Commission Re: Keirouz Reasonable Use Exception File: L99 -0049 ATTACHMENTS: A. Vicinity Map B. Site Plan C. July 17, 1998 Memorandum D. September 4, 1998 letter E. 9/23/98 Public Works comments for D98-0287, 13021 — 33rd Ave S. • F. Permit conditions for D98 -0287 G. 9/23/98 Public Works comments for D98 -0216, 13031- 33`d Ave S. H. 7/21/98 Public Works comments for D98 -0216 I. 9/11/98 Building Division comments for D98 -0216 J. Permit conditions for D98 -0216 K. November 22, 1999 letter from Robert Johns of Reed McClure December 3, 1999 Staff Report to the Planning Commission Re: Keirouz Reasonable Use Exception File: L99 -0049 FINDINGS Vicinity /Site Information cc Project Description 6 UO rn0: The applicant is requesting a Reasonable Use Exception under TMC 18.45.115 to v� w develop a Single Family Residence at 13041 — 33Id Ave S. The request includes piping of a Type 3 watercourse running along the south portion of the property, immediately u: w O: adjacent to the property line and the filling of a related Type 3 wetland covering much of the parcel. The applicant has requested a Reasonable Use Exception request, as strict g' application of setback and buffer requirements under TMC 18.45 and the underlying development standards in the Low Density Residential (LDR) zone (TMC 18.08) would = a leave a negligible developable area on the parcel. z I— O' 2p� o 1— ;w w ~ V, r O; wz I� r �! Existing Development The property is a pre - existing legal lot of record addressed as 13041 — 33`d Ave S. A map of the property and adjacent parcels is included as Attachment A. Surrounding Land Uses The surrounding properties are all zoned Low Density Residential (LDR) and are primarily occupied by single family residences. Terrain The parcel includes portions that have slopes of approximately 15 %. The proposal calls for significant earth removal to create a developable area on the parcel. DISCUSSION The applicant is seeking to develop the last of three parcels that he acquired in April, 1998. The lots acquired by the applicant abut each other and are pre - existing legal lots of record pursuant to TMC 18.70. The lots were annexed into Tukwila under Ordinance 1574 adopted in June, 1990. Each of the lots are approximately 5,886 square feet and are located in the Low Density Residential (LDR) zone. The minimum lot size in the LDR zone is 6,500 square feet. The Sensitive Area Overlay (TMC 18.45) provides criteria for evaluating Reasonable Use Exceptions to develop property where the effect of the regulation limits the owner from having a reasonable economic use of the property. However, if an applicant purchases a property and knows, or should know, that limitations on the parcel affect its development potential because of sensitive areas, they may be limited from being granted relief. z December 3, 1999 Staff Report to the Planning Commission Re: Keirouz Reasonable Use Exception File: L99 -0049 As referenced, the applicant purchased the subject parcel and the abutting parcels to the North after the adoption of the Sensitive Area Ordinance. Following this, the applicant applied for and received two separate development permits to construct single family homes on each of the abutting parcels. Attachment C is a Memorandum between staff of the Departments of Community Development and Public Works documenting wetland and watercourse issues on the three lots. This analysis provided the basis for subsequent conditions on development of the parcels. Attachment D is a September 4, 1998 letter to the applicant documenting the wetland and watercourse issues on the subject parcel, including encroachment and alteration of the sensitive areas as a result of development on the adjacent north parcel. Attachment E and F show the permit history related to the northernmost of the three lots (13021 — 33r1 Ave S.) developed by Mr. Keirouz. Attachments G -J are permit history for the lot closest to the subject parcel (13031 — 33rd Ave S.). The attached permit history indicates that significant problems with drainage existed on the parcels, including an active spring, which were disclosed to the applicant prior to filing for a development permit (D99 -0168) on the subject parcel. Attachments D through J are provided to show how drainage issues were documented on the parcel as a whole, as well as what occurred on individual parcels in response to permit activity. LEGAL ANALYSIS Attachment K is a letter from Robert Johns of the law firm of Reed McClure. Staff has sought his legal opinion concerning the applicability of the Sensitive Area Ordinance as it pertains to this Reasonable Use Exception request. Mr. Johns' letter provides important insight into the issue of Reasonable Use and its application in the instant case. Some of Mr. Johns' pertinent points include: • Even though most of the value of a parcel of property may be eliminated (due to a regulation) it does not mean that there is no economically viable use left (Page Two, Johns' letter) • An analysis of a "taking" of property rights must consider the circumstances in which the property was acquired and the natural restrictions on the use of the property (Page Two, ibid.) • An inquiry to determine the economic viability of a property does not focus on a portion of a regulated property, rather a regulations economic impact is to be determined by looking at uses of the entire property (Page Three, ibid) • The owner...does not need to be given a reasonable use exception to build on all of the lots so long as he is able to achieve an economically viable use of at least some portion of the total property (Page Three, ibid.) • A property owner cannot purchase a property that has little value "due to natural limitations and then expect the government to compensate for the fact that the property cannot be developed as fully as one might otherwise wish" (Page Three, ibid.). z <Z w JU 0 00: W= J CO Li_' to 0: =a w z1._ o. z Lu w n p 0 I-. • o w W. iu z 1=4.' z December 3, 1999 Staff Report to the Planning Commission Re: Keirouz Reasonable Use Exception File: L99 -0049 CONCLUSIONS • The applicant acquired legally non - conforming parcels as to the minimum lot size after the adoption of the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45) • ▪ The applicant developed two of the three parcels he purchased with the knowledge that there were limitations due to surface and ground water that effected all of the subject parcels • The applicant developed two of the three parcels with conditions that were designed to address surface and ground water issues • The applicant sought relief from the Sensitive Areas Ordinance despite prior knowledge of the cumulative effect of surface and ground water issues on the subject parcel • Regardless of the merits of any plan that the applicant may develop. to address surface and ground water issues for the subject parcel, the applicant is barred as a matter of law from being granted a reasonable use exception. This is well documented in Mr. Johns' letter included as Attachment K. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Reasonable Use Exception request be denied, based on the facts of the request and the pertinent case law discussed in this staff report. 6 ;, UO: ` C/) 111 J.= W.0 LL.. D. i v?. l- w:. z �. z 1 -; 2 Di ON U1 W H U z z •Y , A F F I D A•V I T atice of Public kearing Natice. of Public Meeting • • O F D I S T R I B U T I Q hereby declare that: • QBoard of Adjustnt.Agenda Packet OBoard. af Appeals. Agenda Packet QP lanning Cammis s io n Agenda. Packet Short Subdivision Agenda . Packet . • ❑ Natice of Application far Shoreline Management Permit EI Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to• each af. the fallowing addresses on 0 Determ_i nation of significance . Mitigated Detel=ination of Nonsigni ficance ODetermination of Significance and Scap i ng . Notice ['Notice of Actian D 0ffici a1 Notice Other /MC1/a Q Other . Name af Pra j ect -File Number zq • Signature f City of Tukwila ila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOVEMBER 24, 1999 CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF HEARING PROJECT INFORMATION Jihad Keirouz, dba JAK, Inc. has filed an application for a Reasonable Use Exception, Number L99 -0049, to fill a Type 3 wetland and pipe a Type 3 watercourse to develop a Single Family Residence at 13041— 33nd Ave S. You are invited to comment on the project at a public hearing scheduled for December 9, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. before the Planning Commission. The hearing will take place at City Hall in City Council Chambers, 6200 Southcenter Blvd. To confirm the time and date before the hearing, call the Department of Community Development at 431 -3670. For further information on this proposal, contact Michael Jenkins at 431 -3685 or visit our offices at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Permits applied for include: • Reasonable Use Exception Other known required permits include: • SEPA Checklist (E99 -0017) • Development Permit (D99 -0168) FILES AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW The project files are available at the City of Tukwila. To view the files, you may request them at the permit counter of the Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard #100. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fat (206) 431-3665 z w: u�: . �U. :UO N (o w • w =; u_ w0 u_<: • =d • _. z� ►=o Ilk •D o, '0 =4 w. O; BALCH DANIEL L & FERN B LEWIN STEPHANIE L 13201 32ND AVE S • 13211 32ND AVE S SEATTLE, WA 98168 TUKWILA, WA 98168 ROEUN CHANTHAN & SAMLEY 13233 32 "D AVE S '. . TUKWILA, WA 98.168 • • BLOOMFIELD MABEL K 13208 32 "D AVE S' SEATTLE, WA 98168 BULLOCK EUGENE D & VICKI 3206. S 133RD STREET TUKWILA,.WA ..98168 SISLEY A D • 3320 S 132ND STREET SEATTLE, WA 98168 TEP MARLENE P 13061 33RD•AVE S TUKWILA, WA 98168 MULLET MELVIA 33095132' . TUKWILA, WA 98168 MARTIN JAMES L 23811 415T KENT, WA 98031 ROERICK JOSEPH F 13059 33RD AVE S SEATTLE; wA 981.68 NESS EDDIE 34807176TH AVE SE AUBURN, WA 98002 CONNOR FORREST 3130 S 133RD ST SEATTLE, WA 8168 . MARTIN CHRISTINE L 13216 32ND AVE S SEATTLE, WA 98168 • NESS JAY CARLY 3210 S 133RD STREET TUKWILA, WA 98168 SLAUGHTER SONYA GRANT 13055 33RD AVE'S TUKWILA, WA . 98168 MCDOWELL MILDRED S & WIILSON 13221 34TH S . SEATTLE, WA 98168 LUNZ JOHN WESLEY & MARIA 13315 34TH AVE'S SEATTLE, WA :.98168 QUYNN SERENA S 3214 S 132 "D ST SEATTLE, WA 98168 HIGHLINE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL 16251 SYLVESTER RD SW SEATTLE, WA 98168 LEWIN NORMA L 12927 33RD PL S • SEATTLE, WA 98168 HUMKEY THOMAS F 13213 32ND AVE S SEATTLE, WA 98168 LABERGE NOLA VALERIE 13202 32ND AVE S SEATTLE, WA 98168 DRAGANOV DONCO D & SHANNON 13224 32ND AVE S SEATTLE JOHNSON RICHARD L . 3306 S 132 "0 SEATTLE, WA 98168 MULLET STEVEN M 3303 S 132ND SEATTLE, WA 98168 MULLET DAVID 13205 34TH AVE S TUKWILA,.WA 98168 WHITTMAN KENNETH 13301 34TH AVE S SEATTLE,-WA 98168 WHITMIRE NATHAN & SUSAN 3215 S 133R0 STREET TUKWILA, WA 98168 CHUNG CUONG REMINGTON 3531 128TH ST SEATTLE, WA 98168 DINH THANH.V & HOANG 2626 NOB HILL AVE N SEATTLE, WA 98109 THISTLE FLOYD E " 3226-S 130TH SEATTLE, WA 98168 'LEMAFA.SOPE JR & MOEGU 3202 S 130TH ST TUKWILA, WA 98168 . BRUCE JULIE M 13018 32ND AVE S " SEATTLE, WA 98168 DAO HUNG & PHAM SYLVIA 13032 32ND AVE'S. - - -- SEATTLE, WA 98165 QUIGLEY RON K 13025 33RD AVE S SEATTLE, WA 98168 DONYES DONALD & JANYCE 13015 33RD AVE S SEATTLE, WA 98168 MCLEAN ERNEST & FAY 13027 34TH AVE .S SEATTLE, WA 98168 CHITTENDEN NORMAN 13057 34TH AVE S SEATTLE, WA 98168 MOSSMAYER STEVEN & RETHA 13032 33RD AVE S TUKWILA, WA 98168 JOHNSON III RAY H 13048 34TH AVE S TUKWILA, WA 98168 MICHAELSON G J 3214 S 130TH SEATTLE, WA 98168 .OSTBY VIRGINIA J 3207S130THST SEATTLE, WA 98168 LIGHTELL JUANITA 3235 S 152ND #204 SEATTLE, WA 98168 BURNS CHARLOTTE 13200 32ND AVE S SEATTLE, WA 98168 KEIROUZ JIHAD 13520 LINDEN AVE N #338 SEATTLE, WA 98133 LEHMBECK WILLIAM 13011 33R3 AVE S' SEATTLE,: WA 981.68 SALLE LIMITEDLIABILITY CO 5611 S RYAN ST SEATTLE, WA 98178 FRISHHOLZ RICHARD R - CRASSWELLER JULIE R 13050 33RD AVE St • SEATTLE, WA 98168 SALLE BERNARDO & LUCY. 5611 S RYAN ST SEATTLE, WA 981.78 LEWIS CRAIG A. 3404S132 "DST • SEATTLE, WA 98168 LEM THE1 LEM & CHROENG -- NOEUM 3208 S 130TH ST SEATTLE, WA 98168 LOONEY WILLIAM A & TRUDY 4110 S 262ND PL KENT, WA 98032 LOONEY WILLIAM'A P 0 BOX 66098 SEATTLE, WA 98166 EMERY RICHARD C & 'KATHLEEN 13049 33RD AVE S SEATTLE, WA 98168 MASON PERRY M 13021 33RD AVE S SEATTLE, WA 98168 MUNTER RONALD 13019 34TH AVE S SEATTLE, WA 98168 SALLE LIMITED LIABILITY CO 5611 S RYAN ST SEATTLE, WA 98178 SALLE - JOSEPH 10225 56TH AVE S SEATTLE, WA 98178 • .. YOSHIKAWA TERRANCE • •• 241632ND AVE W • • ' SEATTLE, WA 98199 WESLEY LORI M 13044 34TH AVE S SEATTLE; WA 98168 • z ' mow. 00 N Q[ cn u1. w =: . • w O` lL Q Iw z I- w uj 2 o' !O -:. w w'; =- V' —Z • .0F'. z ANSEL LLOYD DUA NE 13024 34TH AVE S SEATTLE, WA 98168 SCOTT JACK .& M ADELE 1.3020 34TH S SEATTLE; WA 98168 EGGEBRAATEN RODD & ROSEANNA 13020 34TH AVE'S. TUKWILA, WA 98168 AIVzao -A `J !.cDIG riV 5 4025 5, I5 Twr-wtL\, w#\ ggies S 1 , PERROLLAZ DARIN C 3219 S 133RD ST SEATTLE, WA 98168 • 4 • A. F F I D A•V I T O F D I S T R I B U T I O Notice of Public tearing Notice. of Public Meeting hereby declare that: ODetermlnation of significance Qw; tigated • Determination of Nans i anificance Board of Adjustment. Agenda . U Determinatiorn af Significance Packet and Scapi ng ;Notice Diaard of Appeals Agenda DNatice at Action Packet ['Planning Commission Agenda Packet Q Short Subdivision Agenda . Packet Q Notice of Application far Shoreline Management Permit Shoreline Management Permit `eve was to each of the following addresses an fOfficial Notice 0 Other • MiG'//J 0/09 i2 /g /n ['Other Name af Project ��y Signature -File Number &q_ooe 9 II d / - 419 -oO76 014.4'. uine(CesS • CITY OF TUKWILA PUBLIC NOTICE Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Planning Commission will be holding a public hearing at 7:00 p.m. on December 9, 1999, located at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Blvd., to discuss the following: PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING CASE NUMBER: L99 -0049 APPLICANT: Jihad Keirouz, dba JAK, Inc. REQUEST: Reasonable Use Exception to pipe a Type 3 water course and fill a related Type 3 Wetland, to construct a Single Family residence. LOCATION: 13041 33'1 Ave S. CASE NUMBER: L99 -0076 APPLICANT: Voice Stream Wireless REQUEST: Conditional Use to install a Personal Communication System (PCS) Base Station, comprised of 9 antennae and operating equipment installed on the rooftop of an existing building. LOCATION: 130 Andover Park East Persons wishing to comment on the above cases may do so by written statement, or by appearing at the public hearing. Information on the above cases may be obtained at the Tukwila Planning Division at 431 -3670. The City encourages you to notify your neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the above items. Published: Distribution: November 26, 1999 Seattle Times Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants, and Adjacent Property Owners, File. REED MCCLURE A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CORPORATION TWO UNION SQUARE 601 UNION STREET, SUITE 4800 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101.3900 FAX: 206/223 -0152 206/292.4900 November 22, 1999 Mr. Steve Lancaster, Director Dept. of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 1999 ..1:::1;o1""i1‘liENT IN REPLY REFER TO OUR FILE NUMBER 18555.31663 WRITER'S DIRECT LINE (206) 386 -7016 rjohns @rmlaw.com RE: Summary of Legal Standards regarding Takings and the Reasonable Use Exception Dear Mr. Lancaster: This letter is in response to your request for legal analysis of the circumstances in which the reasonable use exception to general takings law should be used in Washington and in particular as it applies to the Keirouz application. In order to provide some context for this analysis, it is important to recognize that historically a "taking" was a physical appropriation of property to the government, but that in recent years, the Courts have ruled that the "over - regulation" of the land uses can also be a taking of private property. State law defines property broadly to include not merely ownership and possession, but the rights of use, enjoyment, and disposal'. Ackerman v. Port of Seattle, 55 Wn.2d 400, 409, 348 P.2d 664 (1960). The United States and Washington State constitutions prohibit uncompensated takings of property by the City. However, this does not mean that all actions of the City which lower the value of property or limit its use require constitutional compensation. Most regulation of property is a legitimate exercise of the police power and requires no compensation under the constitution, in spite of what may be a severe negative impact in some cases on the value of the property. I should note at the outset that this analysis applies to all forms of land use regulation and to all types of uses. The rules are the same for residential, commercial and industrial properties. The United States and Washington State Supreme Courts have defined a series of tests which a challenge to a land use regulation must meet in order for the court to determine whether a regulation creates a taking which entitles a property owner to monetary compensation or some 1 The term "disposal" refers to the right to lease, buy or sell property. ATTACHMENT K I! Mr. Steve Lancaster, Director November 22, 1999 Page 2 other relief. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 504 U.S. 1003, 112 S.Ct. 2886 (1992), Guimont v. Clarke, 121 Wn.2d 586, 854 P.2d 1 (1993), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 1216 (1994); Presbytery of Seattle v. King County, 114 Wn.2d 320, 787 P.2d 907, cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 284 (1990).2 One test for determining whether an unconstitutional taking has occurred requires a determination of whether a regulation denies the owner of all economically viable uses of the property? If the answer is "yes ", then there is a taking which may require that the agency pay compensation to a property owner.3 In the event that a potential taking occurs under the "total taking" test, the "reasonable use exception" exists as a mechanism for providing relief to the property owner and avoiding the necessity of paying compensation. There are several important aspects to the "total taking" issue which should be examined in any case where there is a request for a reasonable use exception. First, the fact that most of the value of a parcel of property has been eliminated does not mean there is no economically viable use. Second, the analysis must consider the circumstances in which the property was acquired and the natural restrictions on the use of the property. As a result, the analysis is very specific to the factual circumstances of each case. Several examples may be helpful. In Maple Leaf Investors, Inc. v. State Dep't of Ecology, 88 Wn.2d 726, 565 P.2d 1162 (1977), the court upheld a regulation which prevented construction of homes within a floodway because other structures, including some agricultural and commercial uses, could be developed on about thirty percent of the plaintiff's property. The court also noted: [I]t was not the State which placed appellant's property in the path of floods. Nature has placed it where it is, and if [the State] had done nothing with respect to flood -plain zoning, the property would still be subject to the physical realities." 88 Wn.2d at 734. On the other hand, in Valley View Indus. Park v. City of Redmond, 107 Wn.2d 621, 733 P.2d 182 (1987), the court determined that a downzone from industrial to agricultural deprived the landowner of all economically viable use of its property and resulted in a taking. The city argued that even though the parcel was purchased when it had industrial zoning and was subsequently_ downzoned to "agriculture ", it had not been deprived of all economically viable use because in theory it could be used for a blueberry farm, a raspberry farm, or a horse farm. In the absence of evidence that there was a viable market for such uses or that the owner /developer could put the property to such uses, the court rejected the city's contentions. By contrast to the Maple Leaf Investors case, there was no argument in Valley View that natural conditions made the property unsuitable for any use other than agricultural operations. Z Only some aspects of these tests apply to cases involve the-reasonable use exception and I will not go into those issues in this letter. 3 There are some exceptions to this rule, but they are not relevant to the reasonable use exception situation you have raised. Mr. Steve Lancaster, Director November 22, 1999 Page 3 One issue arises frequently concerning the economically viable use test and it is the principal issue affecting Mr. Keirouz's application: how to define the size of the parcel to be considered when measuring whether all productive use has been denied. In Presbytery of Seattle v. King County, 114 Wn.2d 320, 787 P.2d 907 (1989), the Supreme Court specifically held that a property could not be divided into pieces for purposes of- claiming a reasonable use exception on only a fraction of an owner's property. Thus, the inquiry does not focus upon a portion of a regulated property. Instead,.a regulation's economic impact is to be determined by looking at uses that can be made of the entire property. See also, Orion 11, 109 Wn.2d 621, 664, 747 P.2d 1062 (1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1022, 108 S.Ct. 1996. This is consistent with Maple Leaf Investors, in which the court held that the State could completely prohibit all use of about 70% of a site, so long as the uses- permitted on the remaining 30% made the total property economically viable. In the case you are presently examining, a property owner purchased three adjacent unbuilt lots in a situation where he knew or should have known that the lots were severely impacted by wetlands and wetland restrictions. The owner in such a case does not need to be given a reasonable use exception to build on all of the lots so long as he is able to achieve an economically viable use of at least some portion of the total property. The net result of these decisions can be summarized with a few basic principles: • A government agency cannot restrict property to the point that there are no viable economic uses. • When analyzing a total takings claim, the agency must consider all of the property held by an owner. As a practical example of the application of this rule, consider a situation in which a property contains five potential lots, but one is completely covered by regulated wetlands: The owner is not permitted to build and sell the first four lots and then 'claim a taking because the last lot is a wetland. In such a case, the owner was able to obtain a viable economic use of the property as a whole. • When analyzing whether an economically viable use exists, a site specific analysis must occur, and the . agency. .may consider natural limitations on the use of the property. A property owner cannot purchase property which has very little value due to natural limitations and then expect the government to compensate for the fact that the property cannot be developed as fully as one might otherwise wish. In other words, whether a use is economically viable depends on the individual circumstances. • In determining whether a potential use is economically viable, the circumstances under which the property was acquired may be important. If an owner purchased property for a very low price because pre - existing regulations or natural conditions made the property difficult to develop, the level of use which must be permitted to allow an economically viable use may be much lower than for a property which was purchased for a large sum because it was readily developable but which was subsequently subjected to new restrictions. The Valley View case illustrates this principle. In that case the owners bought industrial land at industrial prices and were then subjected to a downzone to very limited agricultural uses. There, the intensity of use needed to achieve economic viability was • Mr. Steve Lancaster, Director November 22, 1999 Page 4 substantially higher than it would be in a case where natural conditions made more intensive uses impractical. In summary, in the circumstances of the Keirouz application, I do not believe that it is Necessary to approve a reasonable use exception. I trust this letter has addressed the questions which you have in this case. As I mentioned, there are many other aspects to the complex law related to takings. If there are other questions or you would like to discuss any aspect of this analysis either in general or as applied to a specific case, please call me. Very truly yours, REED McCLURE Robert D. ohns RDJ:rdj 65932 vl z . z. new` MC: 5; OO 'co cr v) w w =; J 1- w 1= o. z� :m O uj w z cot FROM : Bob *@* Susan FAX NO. : 206 3244379 REED MCCLURE A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW A PROTESSIoNAL SERVICES CORPORATION TWO UNION SQUARE 601 UNION STREET, SUITE 4000 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 95101.3900 FAX: 206/223.0152 206/292 -4900 November 18, 1999 Mr. Steve Lancaster, Director Dept. of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Legal Standards regarding Takings and the Reasonable Use Exception } Dear Mr. Lancaster: Dec. 01 1999 04:19PM P2 IN REPLY REFER TO OUR FILE NUMBER 018555.031663 WRITER'S DIRECT LINE (206) 386 -7016 tjohnscin law.00m This letter is in response to your request for legal analysis of the circumstances in which the reasonable use exception to general takings law should be used in Washington. In order to provide some context for this analysis, it is important to recognize that historically a "taking" was a p1 yjical appropriation of property to the government, but that in recent years, the Courts have ruled that the "over- regulation" of the land uses can also be a taking of private property. State law defines property broadly to include not merely ownership and possession, but the rights of use, enjoyment, and disposal'. Ackerman v. Port of Seattle, 55 Wn.2d 400, 409, 348 P.2d 664 (1960). The United States and Washington State constitutions prohibit uncompensated takings of property by the City. However, this does not mean that all actions of the City which lower the value of property or limit its use require constitutional compensation. Most regulation of property is a legitimate exercise of the police power and requires no compensation under the constitution, in spite of what may be a severe negative impact in some cases on the value of the property. I should note at the outset that this analysis applies to all forms of land use regulation and to all types of uses. • The rules are the same for residential, commercial and industrial properties. The United States and Washington State Supreme Courts have defined a series of tests which a challenge to a land use regulation must meet in order for the court to determine whether a regulation creates a taking which entitles a property owner to monetary compensation or some other relief Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 504 U.S. 1003, 112 S.Ct. 2886 (1992), 1 The term " disposal" refers to the right to lease, buy or sell property. FROM : Bob ¥@* Susan Mr. Steve Lancaster, Director November 18, 1999 Page 2 FAX NO. : 206 3244379 Dec. 01 1999 04:20PM P3 Guimont v. Clarke, 121 Wn.2d 586, 854 P.2d 1 (1993), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 1216 (1994); Presbytery of Seattle v. King County, 114 Wn.2d 320, 787 P.2d 907, cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 284 (1990).2 One test for determining whether an unconstitutional taking has occurred requires a determination of whether a regulation denies the owner of all economically viable uses of the property? If the answer is "yes ", then there is a taking which may require that the agency pay compensation to a property owner.3 In the event that a potential taking occurs under the "total taking" test, the "reasonable use exception" exists as a mechanism for providing relief to the property owner and avoiding the necessity of paying compensation. There are several important aspects to the "total taking" issue which should be examined in any case where there is a request for a reasonable use exception. First, the fact that most of the value of a parcel of property has been eliminated does not mean there is no economically viable use. Second, the analysis must consider the circumstances in which the property was acquired and the natural restrictions on the use of the property. As a result, the analysis is very specific to the factual circumstances of each case. Several examples may be helpful. In Maple Leaf Investors, Inc. v. State Dep't of Ecology, 88 Wn,2d 726, 565 P.2d 1162 (1977), the court upheld a regulation which prevented construction of homes within a floodway because other structures, including some agricultural and commercial uses, could be developed on about thirty percent of the plaintiff's property. The court also noted: [I]t was not the State which placed appellant's property in the path of floods. Nature has placed it where it is, and if [the State] had done nothing with respect to flood -plain zoning, the property would still be subject to the physical realities." 88 Wn.2d at 734. On the other hand, in Valley View Indus Park v. City of Redmond, 107 Wn.2d 621, 733 P.2d 182 (1987), the court determined that a downzone from industrial to agricultural deprived the landowner of all economically viable use of its property and resulted in a taking. The city argued that even though the parcel was purchased when it had industrial zoning and was subsequently downzoned to "agriculture ", it had not been deprived of all economically viable use because in theory it could be used for a blueberry farm, a raspberry farm, or a horse farm. In the absence of evidence that there was a viable market for such uses or that the owner /developer could put the property to such uses, the court rejected the city's contentions. By contrast to the Maple Leaf Investors case, there was no argument in Valley View that natural conditions made the property unsuitable for any use other than agricultural operations. 2 Only some aspects of these tests apply to cases involve the reasonable use exception and I will not go into those issues in this letter. 3 Mere are some exceptions to this rule, but cep they are not relevant to the reasonable use exception situation you have raised. z • z 6 00 N 0, • w= N � w o; IL Q t- w z z� zI- U .O V. LL ..z w O~ z FROM : Bob ¥af Susan Mr. Steve Lancaster, Director November 18, 1999 Page 3 FAX NO. : 206 3244379 Dec. 01 1999 04:20PM P4 z One issue arises frequently concerning the economically viable use test: how to define the size ~ z of the parcel to be considered when measuring whether all productive use has been denied. In re al Presbytery of Seattle v. King County, 114 Wn.2d 320, 787 P.2d 907 (1989), the Supreme Court -J U specifically held that a property could not be divided into pieces for purposes cn o p� p rposes of claiming a o reasonable use exception on only a fraction of an owner's property. Thus, the inquiry does not N W focus upon a portion of a regulated property. Instead, a regulation's economic impact is to be J i_ determined by looking at uses that can be made of the entire property. See also, Orion II, 109 CO 0. Wn.2d 621, 664, 747 P.2d 1062 (1987), 0 cent. denied, 486 U.S, 1022, 108 S.Ct. 1996. This is � consistent with Maple Leaf Investors, in which the court held that the State could completely g -71 . prohibit all use of about 70% of a site, so long as the uses permitted on the remaining 30% u made the total property economically viable. In the case you are presently examining, a z a property owner purchased three adjacent unbuilt lots with a clear understanding that the lots z 1 were severely impacted by wetlands and wetland restrictions. The owner in such a case does 1-- o not need to be given a reasonable use exception to build on all of the lots so long as he is able w L to achieve an economically viable use of at least some portion of the total property. 2 o C.) CI-).: 0 1-- 111 uj • A government agency cannot restrict property to the point that there are no viable economic � u_-- o LLiz. U N, V- 1 0 The net result of these decisions can be summarized with a few basic principles: uses. • When analyzing a total takings claim, the agency must consider all of the property held by an owner. As a practical example of the application of this rule, consider a situation in which a property contains five potential lots, but one is completely covered by regulated wetlands: The owner is not permitted to build and sell the first four lots and then claim a taking because the Iast lot is a wetland. In such a case, the owner was able to obtain a viable economic use of the property as a whole. • When analyzing whether an economically viable use exists, a site specific analysis must occur, and the agency may consider natural limitations on the use of the property. A property owner cannot purchase property which has very little value due to natural limitations and then expect the government to compensate for the fact that the property cannot be developed as fully as one might otherwise wish. In other words, whether a use is economically viable depends on the individual circumstances. • In determining whether a potential use is economically viable, the circumstances under which the property was acquired may be important. If an owner purchased property for a very low price because pre - existing regulations or natural conditions made the property difficult to develop, the level of use which must be permitted to allow an economically viable use may be much lower than for a property which was purchased for a large sum because it was readily developable but which was subsequently subjected to new restrictions. The Valley View case illustrates this principle. In that case the owners bought industrial land at industrial prices and were then subjected to a downzone to very limited agricultural uses. There, the intensity of use needed to achieve economic viability was z.. • 1 • FROM.: Bob Q*,Susan. Mr. Steve Lancaster, Director November 18, 1999 Page 4 FAX NO. : 206 3244379 Dec. 01 1999 04:21PM P5 substantially higher than it would be in a case where natural conditions made more intensive uses impractical. trust this letter has addressed the questions which you have in this case. As I mentioned, there are many other aspects to the complex law related to takings. If there are other questions or you would like to discuss any aspect of this analysis either in general or as applied to a specific case, please call me. Very truly yours, REED McCLURE • City o, f Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MEMORANDUM To: Steve Lancaster From: Michael Jenkins Date: November 16, 1999 Re: E99 -0017, SEPA review for a Reasonable Use Exception — 13031 — 33' Ave. S. Project Description: This SEPA review is for a Reasonable Use Exception for the construction of a new Single Family House at 13031 — 33' Ave S. The request for Reasonable Use Exception is based on the piping of a regulated watercourse and the filling of related wetlands. Agencies with jurisdiction: None Summary of Primary Impacts: • Earth The site is sloped through approximately 1/2 the site, up to a 20% grade. The soil includes gravelly sandy loam and topsoils. There is seepage along the west and south perimeters of the parcel. Grading and filling will occur to create a developable lot. The activities will include the piping of a Type 3 watercourse and filling of a related Type 3 wetland. Both the wetland and watercourse were rated for the purposes of this application and were not included in either the May 1990 Water Resource Study or the October 29, 1990 Watercourse Rating Study prepared for the City of Tukwila. The applicant has submitted a June 9, 1999 statement by a Wetland Biologist (copy attached) indicating that the entire property is a wetland. The project will likely result in approximately 2,250 square feet of impervious surfaces. The applicant has submitted Grading and Drainage Plans as well as an Erosion Control Plan. All earth movement must comply with City Ordinances as well as the King County Surface Water Design Manual requirements as they relate to earth movement. A Geotechnical Report has also been submitted with this application. • Air Negligible vehicle emissions will occur during construction. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 !i:nehy 4kd;�eJ/.Sr7: .?'4451 '1. z ■ _ I- w u6 J C)! UO Nom: vow w= •J w Oi _v m 1- O': • ,w w, • U �N, ! ;3H- •1-7 V z U co; • O- E99 -0017 SEPA Checklist — Keirouz Reasonable Use Exception 13031 — 33rd Ave S. November 16, 1999 • Water A Class 3 watercourse, per TMC 18.45, is located along the southern edge of the a , property. The watercourse is part of the Riverton Creek Drainage Basin. The J.- z applicant prepared a Drainage Assessment and Downstream Analysis. A Class 3 g wetland is located on the property, related to the watercourse. The applicant has 6 D -I U: proposed piping of the watercourse along the southern portion of the property and U 0 filling of the related wetland. u) w wz J 1-' The applicant has submitted a wetland mitigation plan for replanting of areas N u` disturbed by construction and relocation. Due to activities related to this application, w o the applicant must comply with the Small Site Targeted Drainage requirements of 15 the King County Surface Water Design Manual as well as City Ordinances. u. ¢; = a. • Plants I- Ili i' Z1.- 1- o. A mitigation plan was submitted in conjunction with this plan, due to the filling and �z 1•- relocation of the wetland and piping of the watercourse. The mitigation plan must be •g n; approved by the Director of Community Development as a Type 2 decision. n 0 oui �o • Animals 11.1 w; No threatened or endangered species known in area. _ o Z LLI • Energy /Natural Resources 'v = ~O~' No impacts. Z • Environmental Health No significant noise will be generated by project. Any noise generated during construction or operation of the facility must comply with Tukwila's Noise Ordinance (TMC 8.22). • Land /Shoreline Use Proposed development is located in the Low Density Residential (LDR) zone. The Single Family Residence is a permitted use generally, however the proposed piping of a watercourse and filling of a related wetland require approval of a Reasonable Use Exception, as indicated in TMC 18.45. The parcel is a pre- existing legal lot of record, as it is Tess than the 6,500 square foot minimum lot size in the LDR zone. The parcel was annexed under Ordinance 1574. TMC 18.70, Nonconforming Lots, Uses and Structures govern development of pre- existing legal lots of record. The properties surrounding the proposed development are also zoned LDR. No demolition of structures is proposed. E99 -0017 SEPA Checklist - Keirouz Reasonable Use Exception 13031 - 33rd Ave S. November 16, 1999 • Housing If approved, the Reasonable Use will result in an additional dwelling unit. • Aesthetics The tallest structure on the parcel will be approximately 25 feet tall. The proposed house will obstruct no view. Light and Glare The development will not produce significant light or glare. No off -site Tight or glare will be produced. • Recreation No impact. • Historic /Cultural Preservation No known places or landmarks. Transportation The project will not result in any measurable impacts to the transportation system. Public Services Proposed development will not impact or require specific public services. Utilities The facility will be served by electric and telephone services. Conclusion: Implementation of existing Tukwila ordinances and standards will result in avoidance or mitigation of significant adverse environmental impacts. Recommendations: DNS ary, Schulz - Keirouz Reasonable Use - C3rading_& Drainage Plan ^, Page 1 From: Gary Schulz To: Michael Jenkins Date: 11/9/99 5:31 PM Subject: Keirouz Reasonable Use - Grading & Drainage Plan I have finally reviewe the plans you gave me regarding meeting King County Stormwater Drainage Manual requirements and bringing plans up to date. Here are my comments. 1) Per the PW Director, the applicant/owner is responsable for restoring the wetland on his property that was cleared. Therefore, the restoration plan will need to have trees added to it. 2) The Grading and Drainage Plan (10/13/99) does not yet reflect the mitigation correctly as the created stream channel is labeled "quarry spall pad ". Label needs to be removed and revised. The mitigation plan seems to show a series of ponded areas and rock weirs. It also shows a rock wall that is not on the Grading and Drainage Plan. 3) The house design does not reflect an attempt to reduce the length of piping for the open drainage on the south side of the property. cannot comment much on the Drainage Assessment but there may be a mistake on the first page regarding the 10 -yr. pre - developed peak runoff rate and developed peak rate ie..024 cfs and .025 cfs. Thank you, Gary CC: Jill Mosqueda 13031 33rd Ave South REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION L99 -0049, E99 -0017 Drainage Assessment Downstream Analysis October 13, 1999 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA OCT 201999 PERMIT CENTER 13031 33rd Ave South REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION L99 -0049, E99 -0017 Drainage Assessment Downstream Analysis Prepared by Tye K. Simpson, PE For JAK Inc. ➢ Introduction This report is being submitted in response to the City of Tukwila Public Works Department review comments for the Reasonable Use Exception at 13031 — 33rd Ave South (L99 -0049, E99- 0017). The review comments as detailed in a letter date September 22, 1999 asked for additional information in regards to addressing Core Requirements 2, 3, 4 and 6 for Targeted Drainage Review Category 2. In particular the Public Works comments asked that the Small Site Review include an offsite flow analysis and supporting calculations, an offsite analysis including a Level One downstream analysis, indications of how water will be controlled during construction, and how the proposed system will be maintained after construction. The project is located in Tukwila on 0.17 acres. The project will construct a single family home on the property. The project address is 13031 33 Ave South. ➢ Onsite Flow Analysis and Supporting Calculations The property occupies 0.17 acres and is currently covered with primarily bushes and grass with some trees. A portion of the site has been classified as a wetland. Approximately 0.15 acres will be cleared for construction. The developed condition will have 0.06 acres of impervious area and 0.11 acres of pervious area. The driveway will be approximately 53' x 20' and will account for approximately 0.02 acres of the new impervious surface. This 0.02 acres will be the only pollution generating impervious surface on the property. Small Site infiltration flow control Best Management Practices (BMP's) as outlined in Section C.2 of the King County Surface Water Design Manual are not feasible (see the attached geotechnical report). Dispersion BMP's will be used in lieu of infiltration BMP's. The roof drainage will be dispersed to the rock -lined ditch near the southeast corner of the house to allow some dispersion of runoff. Also, the driveway will have a cross slope and 6" asphalt berm that will direct runoff to vegetated surfaces and allow for some additional dispersion of runoff. A comparison of pre - developed and post - developed runoff rates for the 2 and 10 -year storm events was made (see the attached calculations). The 2 and 10 -year events were chosen based on applying a Level 1 flow control. The pre - developed peak runoff rates for the 2 and 10 -year storm events were calculated to be 0.002 cfs, and 0.024 cfs, respectively. The developed peak runoff rates for the 2 and 10 -year storm events were calculated to be 0.02 cfs, and 0.025 cfs, respectively. Based on a conversation with Ryan Larsen of the City of Tukwila, the City has no storm drainage maps in this area. In lieu of storm drainage mapping in the area, a conservative basin area was taken from a 7.5' USGS map (see Figure 1). The drainage basin is probably much larger than that which has been assumed. Flow rates for the 2 and 10- year storm events for this total drainage basin, which this project lies in, were calculated at 7.25 cfs and 8.63 cfs for the 2 and 10 -year storm events, respectively. Based on the above calculations the development of this site will add approximately 0.018 cfs and 0.01 cfs to the total basin for the 2 and 10 year storm events. This is an increase in peak runoff for the entire basin of approximately 0.25% and 0.3% for the 2 and 10 year storm events. This increase in runoff will have no discernable impact on the conveyance system downstream of the site. Existing Site Drainage The site generally drains from the west to the northeast to a grassy rock lined ditch on the east edge of the property. Refer to the downstream analysis portion of this report for a description of the storm drainage system downstream of the site. The majority of flow in this ditch is composed of flows coming from offsite upstream areas. Three to four inches of water was visible was visible in this ditch during a period of no rainfall. This indicates that there is a significant amount of groundwater in the area (see attached geotechnical report). The site also has an open ditch on the south edge of the property that conveys surface and subsurface flows through the property from upstream sources. This open ditch conveys only a small portion of on -site flows. The majority of on -site runoff sheet flows across the property to the ditch running along the eastern edge of the property. Proposed Site Drainage See figure 2 for the proposed drainage features. Approximately 75 feet of the southern ditch will be replaced with 12" storm drainpipe to prevent the water flowing in the ditch to erode the foundation of the house. The 12" pipe was sized to provide greater conveyance capacity than the existing ditch conveyance capacity (see attached calculations). A catch basin will be placed upstream of the rockery wall to collect runoff in the ditch and will pipe the runoff in the 12" pipe to a point just downstream of the house where it will enter a constructed rock lined ditch. The runoff from this ditch will discharge the site at its existing point of discharge. The four -foot rockery wall will be constructed to the east and to the south of the site. The rockery will be constructed per the City of Tukwila's standard detail. This rockery will allow any drainage on the upstream side of the wall to enter a perforated pipe at the base of the wall. Runoff entering the perforated pipe will be piped around the southern rockery wall and will discharge to the constructed ditch at the southeast corner of the house. A two -layer subsurface drainage system will be installed to handle any groundwater that may reach the house under the rockery wall. A footing drain will run the perimeter of the house as the first layer of handling subsurface drainage. The secondary system will operate only in extreme conditions and may never convey ground water due to the rockery wall drainage and the footing drains. This secondary system consists of placing a crawl space below the finished floor of the house and placing 6" of pea gravel in the crawl space. Any groundwater entering the crawlspace will flow along the pea gravel to the east side of the house where it will tie into the perimeter footing drain system. A series of 4" pvc pipes will convey the water in the crawl space through the internal footings. A similar crawl space conveyance system is in place at the property to the Ili , ...,. , north. During heavy rainfall events no water was observed in the pea gravel below the finished floor of the house. The house constructed with this crawl space drainage system will preclude the possibility of flooding of the house. Groundwater and Erosion Control During Construction Erosion control BMP's will be constructed as part of this project to protect against erosion during construction. The erosion control BMP's are designed to meet the requirements of Section C.3 of the King County Surface Water Manual. The manual requires that the following BMP's be applied to the project; a rock construction entrance, mulching, minimized clearing, silt fencing and winter stabilization. All five of the above BMP's will be implemented for this project as shown on the Erosion Control Plan. The issue of groundwater during construction will be handled as it was on the property to north. When excavating below the groundwater table, a ditch directing the groundwater away from the excavation to a small sediment pond will be constructed. The ditch will have a straw bale barrier placed across the direction of flow to remove sediment. From this small sediment pond, groundwater will be conveyed via flex -pipe to a point just upstream of the silt fence where it will sheet flow through the silt fencing to the ditch on the east edge of the property. D Level One Downstream Analysis A site visit was taken on October 1, 1999 to conduct a Level 1 downstream analysis as outlined in Section 1.2.2.1 of the 1998 King County Surface Water manual. Drainage from the site discharges to a ditch running along the eastern edge of the property along 33rd Ave South. The ditch is lined with rocks and is lightly vegetated. The ditch is approximately 1 foot in depth and has a slope of a slope of approximately 10 %. The ditch exhibits no signs of erosion or overtopping. The ditch discharges to an 18" CMP culvert at the northeast corner of the property. From this point the storm drainage is conveyed approximately 400 feet east in a series of catch basins and 18" concrete pipe to the west edge of 34tn Avenue. The system crosses a series of private residences to reach 34th Avenue. At the west edge of 34th Avenue, the storm drain pipe daylights into a concrete basin. The concrete basin encloses the end of the pipe and is approximately 12 inches high. Runoff enters the concrete basin and is directed to a 12" ADS culvert entering on the south side of the basin. The 12" ADS runs approximately 100 feet to the south and discharges to a ditch along the west edge of 341n Avenue. The ditch is highly vegetated and exhibits no signs of overtopping or erosion. The ditch runs for approximately 125 feet to the south where it enters a 12" RCP culvert. The culvert enters a catch basin on the west edge of the road. From this catch basin discharges to a 24" concrete pipe that runs a large manhole in the intersection of 34th Avenue and S 130th Street. From this point runoff is conveyed by buried storm sewer pipe to a trunk line running along Highway 99. The storm drainage system downstream of the site was walked for approximately 900 • feet before the system entered the main trunk line along Highway 99. From this point it was all a closed drainage system and a visual downstream analysis without a map of the storm drainage system was not feasible. The storm drainage system that was inspected downstream of the site showed no signs of capacity or erosion problems. Groundwater and Erosion Control During Construction Erosion control BMP's will be constructed as part of this project to protect against erosion during construction. The erosion control BMP's are designed to meet the requirements of Section C.3 of the King County Surface Water Manual. The manual requires that the following BMP's be applied to the project; a rock construction entrance, mulching, minimized clearing, silt fencing and winter stabilization. All five of the above BMP's will be implemented for this project as shown on the Erosion Control Plan. The issue of groundwater during construction will be handled as it was on the property to north. When excavating below the groundwater table, a ditch directing the groundwater away from the excavation to a small sediment pond will be constructed. The ditch will have a straw bale barrier placed across the direction of flow to remove sediment. From this small sediment pond, groundwater will be conveyed via flex -pipe to a point just upstream of the silt fence where it will sheet flow through the silt fencing to the ditch on the east edge of the property. Maintenance of the Proposed Drainage System After Construction As part of the sales agreement for the house, a copy of the King County Surface Water Design Manual Maintenance Standards for Privately Maintained Drainage Facilities will be attached. The sales agreement will state that the standards for catch basins (No. 5), and ditches and pipes (No. 10) be followed. z ;Z: JU; U O; • te rnwi wr 7.1 • N 11-s • a: =• d U.1 • t- _ • •z HO. Z war ••0 ip H. =w f-U, LL L1J N U ' O Z'. FIGURES d Zoo d' 552 1 640000 FEET r' r- tAkf, WASHINGTON-KING CO. 7.5-MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC-BATHYMETRI 554 555 555 122 MINIM 33O AJ.S- 21:11:111.14* Ni . namignimi,-- NAolki A .E.\ 5 6Aok-Es Agyi 4e 1521111116, L' Irs- s diftlINEWILIIII tilt WW 101111111kINIMW 3114 )11 mummer Ne. !-NommusgArb jr4 I • i Ili 1.1 Southcenter Mall 11: Radio To 114 Art ••WT 27 7.07H , ST talio3/ / • ^ • 4 ° I; ----- - \;; r -12t cEarrilE.T4con,IA ) I. .:L1.--f"-Z* � FOUND 3/4" PEW ` W/ CAP R1S 78604 Al CAIC'D. POINT 114 1`12 0 54,�4Gri61 4 CENTER 2'(L) - 4" PVC PIPE IN CON1I FOOTINGS IN LOCATIONS 9i0WN TO PR o`PRONDE CRA11l. SPACE DRAINAGE TH / FOOTINGS (TYP) \oo FOUND 3/4" ?MAR W/ CAP 'RIS 78604" N74'06'29 -1 11.06' FROM CALC'D POINT 6 4' PERFORATED FI•TING DRAIN COUPLE Ai EXTEND EXIST. 18' VERT S87 "E 117.71' 30.00' -rearm AMIAININ lea■ ATCH EX1q AP9IAL' al of 0 RY WALL 10W a 111.8 BOW 107.8 (0) CONNECT WALL DRAIN TO 8• SD RIM= 111.0 IE 106.5 ATE, S ',y CHANNEL MITIGA111 PL 4!k FOR TEN . T _ BOW = 1 7.8 U11111Y POLE - CALC'D LOCATION 01 PROPERTY CORNER 6.8 11 6" PVC 0 16.7% 17.71' .8 �— CONNECT W GRAIN TO 8" SD >> P' J%o,NS 5 P e #,(. & 'i f3g' 5 F I ✓''N P R-J ∎ p.AS Sv,e.FAC z 27 '5F i rc 30.00' IE = 105.1 \ \--FOUND 3/4" REBAI \\ 100.65 \ NORTH 0.S, /6: SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 10' -0- :ee:L*;kw:ae' c 11 OftTE FL-0‘,1S Flow Frequency Analysis • Time Series File:tukwilapre.tsf e,)( I 51-I f- ()- Project Location:Sea-Tac --Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Frequency Analysis Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 0.024 3 2/09/01 3:00 0.028 1 100.00 0.990 0.003 5 1/05/02 16:00 0.025 2 25.00 0.960 0.025 2 2/27/03 8:00 0.024 3 10.00 0.900-\----. 0.001 8 3/24/04 19:00 0.011 4 5.00 0.800 0.002 6 1/27/05 9:00 0.003 5 3.00 0.667 0.001 7 2/15/06 1:00 0.002 6 2.00 0.500-\- 0.011 4 2/01/07 0:00 0.001 7 1.30 0.231 0.028 1 1/09/08 9:00 0.001 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 0.027 50.00 0.980 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:tukwilapost.tsf is‘ 4.)evel--0PE Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Frequency Analysis Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) • (CFS) Period 0.023 5 2/09/01 2:00 0.049 1 100.00 0.990 0.017 7 1/05/02 16:00 0.028 2 25.00 0.960 0.028 2 2/27/03 7:00 0.025 3 10.00 0.900 -.\--- 0.017 8 8/26/04 2:00 0.024 4 5.00 0.800 0.020 6 10/28/04 16:00 0.023 5 3.00 0.667 0.025 3 1/18/06 16:00 0.020 6 2.00 0.500-N----- 0.024 4 10/26/06 0:00 0.017 7 1.30 0.231 0.049 1 1/09/08 6:00 0.017 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 0.042 50.00 0.980 • ",--1:4,14 OFFS \T E rLoWS Time Series File:tukwilatotal.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tao - -- Annual Peak Flow Rates-- - FlowRate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 7.92 5.99 9.53 5.95 7.25 8.39 8.,63. 16.32 ,Computed Peaks 5 2/09/01 7 1/05/02 2 2/27/03 8 8/26/04 6 10/28/04 4 1/18/06 3 10/26/06 1 1/09/08 2:00 16:00 7:00 2:00 16:00 16:00 0:00 6:00 Flow Frequency Analysis - - Peaks (CFS) 16.32 9.53 8.63 8.39 7.92 7.25 5.99 5.95 14.06 - - Rank Return Prob Period 1 100.00 0.990 2 25.00 0.960 3 10.00 0.900-. 4 5.00 0.800 5 3.00 0.667 6 2.00 0.500- 7 1.30 0.231 8 1.10 0.091 50.00 0.980 Southern Ditch - Full Worksheet for Triangular Channel Project Description Project File Worksheet Flow Element Method Solve For s: \ryes \tukwila \ditchflo.fm2 Southern Ditch - Tukwila Triangular Channel Manning's Formula Discharge Input Data Mannings Coefficient Channel Slope Depth Left Side Slope Right Side Slope 0.045 0.025000 ft/ft 0.80 ft 3.000000 H : V 3.000000H:V Results Discharge Flow Area Wetted Perimeter Top Width Critical Depth Critical Slope Velocity Velocity Head Specific Energy Froude Number Flow is subcritical. 5.25 cis ".C- -- C0'1I6 r V CA-' I de.._ G. C FO 9- 11 RCP 1.92 ft2 5.06 ft 4.80 ft 0.72 ft 0.044540 ft/ft 2.74 ft/s 0.12 ft 0.92 ft 0.76 10113199 06:50:28 PM Haestad Methods. Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755 -1666 FlowMaster v5.15 Page 1 of 1 12" RCP Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Project File Worksheet Flow Element Method Solve For s: \ryes \tukwila \ditchflo.fm2 12" RCP Circular Channel Manning's Formula Discharge Input Data Mannings Coefficient Channel Slope Depth Diameter 0.013 0.040000 ft/ft 1.00 ft 12.00 in Results Discharge Flow Area Wetted Perimeter Top Width Critical Depth Percent Full Critical Slope Velocity Velocity Head Specific Energy Froude Number Maximum Discharge Full Flow Capacity Full Flow Slope Flow is subcritical. 7.13 cfs�- 0.79 ft2 3.14 ft 0.3e -7 ft 0.98 ft 100.00 0.035592 ft/ft 9.07 ft/s 1.28 ft 2.28 ft 0.31e-3 7.66 cfs 7.13 cfs 0.040000 ft/ft 10/13/99 06:50:00 PM FlowMaster v5.15 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 • :•••1•:.• Southern Ditch Worksheet for Triangular Channel (No e..m At_ Cot\ DI -1--% Project Description Project File Worksheet Flow Element Method Solve For s:\tyes\tukwila\ditchflo.fm2 Southem Ditch - Tukwila Triangular Channel Manning's Formula Discharge • Input Data Mannings Coefficient Channel Slope Depth • Left Side Slope Right Side Slope 0.045 0.030000 ft/ft 0.25 ft 3.000000 H : V 3.000000 H : V Results Discharge Flow Area Wetted Perimeter Top Width Critical Depth Critical Slope Velocity Velocity Head •Specific Energy Froude Number Flow is subcritical. 10/11/99 09:49:47 PM 0.26 cfs 0.19 ft2 1.58 ft 1.50 ft 0.22 ft 0.066530 ft/ft 1.38 ft/s 0.03 ft 0.28 ft 0.69 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 FlowMaster v5.15 Page 1 of 1 Eastern Ditch Worksheet for Trapezoidal Channel Project Description Project File Worksheet Flow Element Method Solve For s: \ryes \tukwila \ditchflo.fm2 Eastern Ditch Trapezoidal Channel Manning's Formula Discharge Input Data Mannings Coefficient Channel Slope Depth Left Side Slope Right Side Slope Bottom Width Results Discharge Flow Area Wetted Perimeter Top Width Critical Depth Critical Slope Velocity Velocity Head Specific Energy Froude Number Flow is subcritical. 10/13/99 08:53:34 PM 0.045 0.040000 ft/ft 0.50 ft 10.000000 H : V 3.000000 H : V 2.00 ft 7.86 cfs 2.63 ft2 8.61 ft 8.50 ft 0.49 ft 0.044701 ft/ft 2.99 ft/s 0.14 ft 0.64 ft 0.95 At-5s �:, no \tee c c 4 r' C.vet. c1.•-\servt.A.,vc, t2 " RC? U0AC-, y Haestad Methods. Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755 -1666 FlowMaster v5.15 Page 1 of 1 Mr. & Mrs. E. W. McLean 13027 34th Avenue South Seattle, WA. 98168 October 10, 1999 In reply to: File Number L99 -0049 Applicant Location Proposal r CEIVED OCT 12 1999 DEVUELOPMENT Jihad Keirouz Adjacent to 13031 33"1 Avenue South Reasonable Use Exception to allow the construction of a new Single Family Residence, requiring the filling of a wetland and alteration of a watercourse. Mr. Michael Jenkins 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Mr. Jenkins: I am writing this letter in response to above- mentioned application that was submitted to your office. We have lived in our home since February 1983. Part of the reason we decided to purchase this piece of property was due to its visual appeal. We have a creek that feeds a pound on our property. If this is the same watercourse as mentioned above altering it would have an enormous impact on our property value and also on the satisfaction we receive from the ambiance it creates. There is also aquatic life that depends on this water source for it life, what would happen to the crawdads and other living things. We want it to be known that we are opposed to the alteration of this watercourse, wetlands are needed and they do serve a purpose. This watercourse is not only enjoyed by our family but also by the pair of ducks that fly into our pound in the early spring and fall for a short rest stay. There has also been an occasional trout appear in our pound before moving on down stream, and many birds that drink and bath from this water source. We hope and pray that you take this into serious consideration before making your decision. It is easy to cove up and destroy but it can take hundreds of years to undo mistakes. Mr. & Mrs. E.W. McLean G17 G%-r- City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director October 7, 1999 Mr. Jihad Keirouz 13407 51st Avenue W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Re: Reasonable Use Exception #L99 -0049: Sensitive Area Code Standards. 13031 33rd Avenue S. Dear Mr. Keirouz: After our meeting on 9/29/99 I decided I would give you my comments in writing. I helped coordinate the letter Michael Jenkins provided to you dated 9/22/99. However, I need to repeat some points that are important to your Exception application. My recommendations will not guarantee approval of your Exception application. The final decision is determined by the City Planning Commission. First, as I stated in an earlier letter to you (5/25/99), the watercourse should be preserved as an open channel. If this is not possible then it needs to be technically evaluated by an engineer. The existing grade change along your south property boundary does not seem to limit the potential for an open drainage channel. It seems likely that a retaining wall will be necessary due to the change in elevation. Second, development of sensitive areas may be allowed which is consistent with the general purposes of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance and the public interest. Please note the criteria listed in TMC Section 18.45.115 C: 4. I have attached a copy of this portion of the code. Third, the mitigation plan (J.S. Jones & Associates 6/29/99) you have submitted is reasonable in its proposed enhancement of existing wetland and watercourse drainage. However, the site plan and mitigation do not equally replace open watercourse channel, wetland area, and the trees that were removed from the west portion of the Lot #12. These are comments that were not adequately explained to you at the meeting. If you or your wetland expert have questions, you may call me at 206 - 431 -3662. Sincergly, C C. Gary S' ulz (1 Cc: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director Michael Jenkins, Associate Planner Urban Environmentalist 6300 Southcenter Boulevarc4 Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 z a w • • . •J O. 'N uw w I: • J H. U-, uj J' • . z •1- .z �. 0 Oco ;0 H` w w. z; All = z • fl John P. and Nola V. Dickover October 6, 1999 Michael Jenkins, Community Planner City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Mr. Jenkins: RecEtveo OCT 0 8 1999 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT We are in receipt of your Notice of Application dated September 29, 1999 for the filling • of wet lands and altering the course of a stream by Mr. Jihad Keirouz under file nimber L99-0049. We are totally opposed to the project as the drawings do not accurately show the dimensions of the work to be done or what mitigation steps are planned to preserve the natural drainage presently in place that serves the houses West and South of the proposed construction site. We will be out of the city until October 18, 1999 so this letter is presented as advance notice of our opposition. We will contact you upon our return in a effort to review the actual plans in order to either amend the intent of this letter or more factually oppose the application at the public hearing. Sincerely, o n P. Dickover 13202 32nd Avenue South, Tukwila, Washington 98168-3066 Tel: 206-246-3365 13049 33rd S. Seattle, Wa. 98168 Re: File Number: Applicant Number: Location: Proposal: Dear Sirs: • • RECEIVED OCT 4 1999 CITY OF TUKWILA MAYOR'S OFFICE L99 -0049 Jihad Keirouz Adjacent to 13031 33rd Ave. S. Reasonable Use Exception to allow the construction of a new Single Family Residence, requiring the filling of a wetland and and alteration of a water course. I am writing you in response to the notice you mailed me regarding the above. 1 I am very concerned re the above as I have a serious sewer problem here as it is. When our toilet is flushed it does not always flush everything away.. Half the time it does and tfie other half it doesn't. When I am washing clothes we do not dare to flush the toilet or it will backup. This, in itself, is a very serious problem and very unsanitary. In the event the above takes place and the water way is changed, where and how will this take place. If this is going to impact on me, this could very likely made my situation impossible to live with. Sincerly Yours, Kay ry 13049 33rd S. Seattle, Wa. 98168 Telephone: (206) 246 -8326 ■ z W; 2 • J U 'U O ,(00L, ow: . . • W =• :W o •g, U a: • Z 171 W W` :2 Di • ;o I-} wW V' OF w IA's. .0 s O • z. ael en ins-- pu • is comment - JiE�2�eirouz Page 1 From: Michael Jenkins To: Jill Mosqueda Date: 10/4/99 12:07PM Subject: public comment - Jihad Keirouz I received a phone call today from a Mabel Bloomfield whose house is at 13208 - 32 Ave S. She lives to the south and west up the hill from Jihad. She is concerned that the waterfall that she has on her property wil be adversly effected by the piping of the watercourse. She did not go into any detail, but I am assuming she has fears that the system will not be able to handle the piping and will result in flooding on her property. What are the issues here? CC: Gary Schulz; Jack Pace; Michael Jenkins Total 10 Case # Address: Case # Address: Case # Address: Case # Address: Case # Address: Case # Address: Total 11 - . ,. 1 -. 199804824 Date: 6/ 3/98 13504 PHS 199804862 Date: 6/ 4/98 13504 PHS 199806116 Date: 7/16/98 13054 PHS 199808827 Date: 10/15/98 4030 140 199809203 Date: 10/28/98 4060 144 199902222 Date: 3/19/99 4030 140 6 RD Apt RD 290 Apt RD 290 Apt RD 290 Apt RD 290 Apt RD 290 Apt 32 290 ID: 106 ID: 116 ID: 105 ID: 106 ID: 116 ID: 116 Case # 199900128 Date: 1/ 4/99 RD 290 ID: 115 Address: 13212 40 Apt Total 1 Case # 199903370 Date: 4/27/99 RD 290 ID: 114 Address: 4006 139 Apt 1 Total Case # 199803932 Date: 5/ 6/98 RD Address: 14225 42 Apt Case # 199806726 Date: 8/ 5/98 RD Address: 14110 PHS Apt Total 2 290 ID: 128 290 ID: 127 z re W JU U O'. U 0; U w W wo u_ _'. �w z�; O z 1-: • ku U w' H V; O Z; Ili U N 0 z A F F I D A V I T f Notice of Public Hearing ONatice of Public ['Board of Packet OSoard of Packet ['Planning Packet Meeting Adjustment Agenda Appeals Agenda Commission Agenda 0 Short Subdivision Agenda Packet D I S T R I B U T I O N hereby declare that: Q Notice of Application for Shareline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit Determination of Non - significance Mitigated Deterrtt i nation of Nans ignif is anc e JDeterminatian of Significance and Scoa i ng Notice ONatice of Action J Official Notice Other /�j /5� Q Other was trailed to each of the fallowing addresses Name of Project File Number Z9 j /14J- O F 00 z8 an Sicratur 9ke /99 •:z ku • • W = • W w. WO J. u-Q ND: w • Z • . Z 1-' w Uy • 0I-', w w• • 'w ; • (0 • z City of Tukwila • John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF APPLICATION DATED SEPTEMBER 28, 1999 The following applications have been submitted for review and decision: FILE NUMBER: L99 -0049 APPLICANT: Jihad Keirouz LOCATION: Adjacent to 13031 — 33`d Ave S. PROPOSAL: Reasonable Use Exception to allow the construction of a new Single Family Residence, requiring the filling of a wetland and alteration of a watercourse OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: SEPA Determination (E99 -0017) Development Permit (D99 -0168) These files are available for review at the Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100, Tukwila, WA. Please call (206) 431 -3670 to ensure that the file(s) will be available. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT You can submit comments on this application. You must submit your comments in writing to the Department of Community Development by 5 :00 p.m. on October 12, 1999. If you cannot submit comments in writing by the cutoff date indicated above, you may still . appear at a hearing and give your comments on the proposal before the Planning Commission. If you have questions about this proposal contact Michael Jenkins, the Planner in charge of this file. The hearing date is tentatively scheduled for October 28, 1999, but may be rescheduled, pending public or staff review or comments. Anyone who submits written comments will become parties of record andwill be notified of any decision on this project. APPEALS You may request a copy of any decision or obtain information on your appeal rights by contacting the Department at 431 -3670. A decision from the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council. The Department will provide you with information on appeals if you are interested. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 - W********#*********.**A****************4***********************************W BATCH NUMBER: GM CUSTOMER NAME JAK 138680-0004-01 BALCH;OANIEL L+FERN B 13201 32ND AVE 5 SEATTLE WA 138680-0020-01 HUMKEY THOMAS F 13213 32ND AVE 5 SEATTLE. WA 138680-0031-08 CONNOR FORREST J 3130 S 133R0 .ST SEATTLE WA 138600-0050-04 BLOOMFIELD MABEL K 13208 32NO AVE S ,SEATTLE WA INC . .... ... : . 029999 90168 7N9999 98168 409999 98168 COMMENTS 130680-0014-09 LEWIN STEPHANIE L 13211 32N0 AVE S TUKWILA WA 739999 98168 138600-0026-05 ROEUN CHANTHAN+SAMLEY CHHIT959999 13233 32ND AVE S TUKWILA WA 98168 138680-0040-07 LABERGE NOLA VALERIE 13202 32N0 AVE S SEATTLE HA 138690-0054-00 0578 1 • MAPTIN CHRISTINE 1 13216 32ND AVE S • 98168 I, SEATTLE WA i: 138600-0055-09 URAGANOV DONCO 0 SHANNON 360818 13224 32N0 AVE S SEATTLE WA 98168 • 138680-0070-00 NESS JAY CARLY 3210 S 133 •14 ST TUKWILA WA 152304-9058-04 SiSLEY A 3320 S 132ND ST SEATTLE WA • 152304..908,6t00 MULLET STEVEN M 3303 S 132NO SEATTLE WA 669999 98168 98168 R0578.t: 98168 152304.'.9102-.00 MCDOWELL MILDRED S+WILSON P269999' /3221 34TH S SEATTLE WA : 152304-9135-01• 1 MULLET MELVIA M 3309 SO 132ND TUKWILA WA 152304-•9232-03 OHN WESLEY+MARIA 98168 272196 ' 96168 999 152304-9246-07 WITTMAN KENNETH +SUSAN 13301 34TH AVE S SEATTLE WA 1523049274-"02 4E0168 A 869999 98168 98168 I • ; 559999 98168 699999 98168 138680-0065-07 ' BULLOCK EUGENE D+VICKI A 4DCO29 3206 S 133R0 STREET TUKWILA WA 98168 192304-9056-06 • JOHNSON RICHARO L • 3306 5 132N0 SEATTLE WA 98168 152304-9068-02 SLAUGHTER SONYA GRANT. 58S022 13055 33R0 AVE S TUKWILA WA 98168 152304-9089-07 'TEP MARLENE P 13061 33R0 AVE S TUKWILA WA 152304-9120-08 MULLET UAVID 13205 34TH AVE S TUKWILA WA ' 779999 98168 280739 98168 ' 152304-9136-00 1 . WES1EY+MA DE L759999. 13315 - 98168 152304-9245-08 LUNZ JOHN WESLEY+MARIA DE 1759999 13315 34TH AVE S SEATTLE WA • • 1 • 152304-9273-03 MARTIN JAMES L 23811 41ST S KENT WA 152304-9280-04 QUYNN SERENA S 3214 S 132N0 ST SEA.TTLE WA atP• • 7 7 " Ift! 98168 . 0176 98031 259999 153O4-9274—o2 :I,)I 'I 2ND ST SEATTLE WA 152304- 9292 -00 WHITMIRE NATHAN R+SUSAN P 3215 S 133F?f) ST r.l TtUKWILA WA 98168 8,69999 98168 162304- 9001-01 HIGHLINE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL989999 16251 SYLVESTE'R RD SW SEATTLE WA. 98166 735960- 0025 -00 . CHUNG CUONG REMINGTON 3531 128TH ST SEATTLE WA 735960- 0320 -02 ' LEWIN NORMA L 12927 33RD PL S SEATTLE WA 735960-0395-02 THISTLE FLOYD E 3226 S 130TH. SEATTLE WA. 159999 98168 98168 98168 735960 - 0408 -07 LEM THEI LEM +CHROENG NOEUM 729999 3208 S 130TH ST SEATTLE WA 735960 - 0420 -01 OSTBY VIRGINIA J 3207 S 130TH ST SEATTLE WA 7359600.30 -09 BRUCE JULIE M 13018 32ND AV S SEATTLE WA j 735960- 0440-07 ! LOONEY WILLIAM A PO BOX'. 66098 .SEATTLE WA' 98168 E0580 98168 240195 98168 959999 98166 • 735960- 0455 -09 DAO HUNG +PRAM SYLVIA +NGUYEN3O9999 13632 32ND 'AVE S SEATTLE WA 98165 735960 - 0465 -07 EMERY RICHARD C +KATHLEEN M 729999 13049 33RD AVE S SEATTLE WA 98168 735960 - 0470 -00 QUIGLEY RON K 13025 33R6 AVE S SEATTLE WA .735960-047406 KEIROUZ JIHAD 13520 LINDEN AVE N 4338 SEATTLE WA 2.51401 98168 839999 98133 !I 152304 - 920-04 QUYNN' : :ENA S 3 ?14 S 132ND ST SEATTLE WA .I1 152304- 9296 -06 9.O RICK JOSEPH E 13059 3380 AVE 5 SEATTLE WA 162304 - 9001 -92 `COMMUNITY HOSPITAL029800 259999 98168 689999, 96168 16251 IrrriTt N A 735960—,0075 -09 NESS `EDDIE J 34807 .176TH AVE SE AUBURN WA 98166 031194 98002 735960 - 0385 -04 DINH THANH V +HOANG THO T 709999 2626 NOB HILL AVE N SEATTLE WA 98109 735960-0405-00 MICHAELSON G J 3214, 5 130TH SEATTLE WA 98168 735960 - 0410-03 LEMAFA SOPE JR +MOEGU NIUALA689999 3202 S 130TH ST . TUKWILA WA 98168 735960-0425 -06 LOONEY WILLIAM A +TRUDY SCHA519999 4110 S 262ND PL DENT WA 735960- 0435 -04 •LICHTELL JUANITA 32.35 S'152N0 4204 SEATTLE WA 735960- 0445 -02 LIAM PO B St TLE WA 735960- 0460-02 BURNS CHARLOTTE 13200 32ND AVE S SEATTLE WA 735960- 0467 -05 WILLIAM A 73 960-0473 -07 JIHAD 735.60= 0475 -05 AD 139 9338 "338 98032 8799.99' 98168 959999 98166 120145 98168 639999 98166 889999 98133 . 809999' 98133 z 00 co 0 wI J � CO U. WO J Yn a. H= Z I— O Z 1— • 0 O -; .0 I—. W W, —O uiz O z 7. 35960- 0474 -06 KEIROUZ JIHAD, 13520 LINDEN AVE 'N x,38 SEATTLE WA 735960- 0495 -01 MASON PERRY M 13021 33RD AVE S SEATTLE WA 735960- 0500 -04 LEHMBECK WILLIAM E 13011 33RD. AVE S . SEATTLE WA 735960- 0530 -08 HUNTER RONALD 8 13019 34TH AVE S SEATTLE WA . 869999,E 96133 009999, 98168 98168 F0276 98168 '735960 - 0540-06 SALLE LIMITED LIABILITY CO 859999 5'611 S RYAN ST SEATTLE WA 98178 735960- 0550 -03 SALLE LIMITED LIABILITY CO 859999 5611 S RYAN ST SEATTLE WA 735960- 0575-04 .FRISHHOLL RICHARD R CRASSWELLER JULIE R 13050 33R0 AVE S SEATTLE WA 735960 - 0595 -00. MOSSMAYER STEVEN W +RETHA 13032' 33RO AVE S TUKWILA WA 735960- 0610-01 SALLE,8ERNAROO +LUCY • 5611 S RYAN ST SEATTLE WA 735960- 0655-07 YOSHIKAWA TERRANCE 2416 32ND AVE W . SEATTLE WA 735960- 0680 -06 Y 2416 3 SE E WA 735960- 0690 -04 LEWIS CRAIG A 3404 S 132ND ST SEATTLE WA 735960-0118 -02 ANSEL LLOYD DUANE 13024 34TH AVE S SEATTLE WA 98178 2N1813 98168 A 959999 98168 •I, I r 7314;4475 -p5 K ��R�Eiy . A 135 ,_.ATTLE WA 809999 98133 ' 735960- 0497 -09 OONYES DONALD) D +JANYCE J 219999 13015 33R[) AVE S SEATTLE WA 98168 859999 98178 410733 98199 531867 .98199, 119999 98168 359999 98168 73 960-0515-07 ARDO +JOSEP. ►+ .1 6S029 N AN EATTLE WA 98178 735960 - 0535 -03 MCLEAN ERNEST W +FAY I 659999 13027 34TH AVE S SEATTLE WA 98168 735`' - 0545 -01 SALL 5611 S TLE WA 735960- 0560 -01 CHITTENDEN NORMAN T 13057 34TH AVE S SEATTLE WA 735960-0580 -07 SALLE JOSEPH N 10225 56TH AVE SO SEATTLE WA 735960-0600; -03 MILY LI TLE WA 735960- 0640 -05 SCOTT JACK 0 f M.AOELE 1302.0 34TH S SEATTLE 'WA 735960 - 0670 -08 735960 - 0681-05 JOHNSON III RAY H 13048 34TH AVE S TUKWILA WA 735960-0710-00 WESLEY LORI M 13044 34TH AVE_ S SEATTLE WA 859999 98178 0775 98168 R1276 98178 859999 98178 C0579 98168 410733 96199. 319999 98168 204904 98168 735960- 0720 -08 EGGEBRAATEN 8000 A +ROSEANNA959999 13020 34TH AVE S TUKWILA WA 98168 Z �Z UO' to ww J H C WO g Q. wa = w'. z1._. 0. Z 2 U 0 N: 0 I— ww H U, u'0, 111 Z = Off. z 794050- 0030 -01 PERROLLAZ DARYN C • 809999 3219 S 133RD ST • SEATTLE WA 98168 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director September 22, 1999 Jihad Keirouz JAK, Inc. 13407 — 51st Ave W. Edmonds, WA 98062 Re: Reasonable Use Exception, 13031 — 33`d Ave S. (L99 -0049, E99 -0017) Dear Jihad: Your application for a Reasonable Use Exception to construction a Single Family Residence, as referenced, was determined to be complete on September 10, 1999. While we were able to determine your: application complete, there are a number of outstanding substantive issues that have not been fully addressed. As indicated in the August 2, 1999 Notice of Incomplete Application, we requested that you provide a conceptual drainage plan designed to meet King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWM) requirements, specifically those related to Small Site Drainage Review and Targeted Drainage Review requirements, Category 1, from said manual. Accordingly, a Grading and Drainage Plan was submitted on September 1, 1999, along with other materials in response to the August 2, letter. On review of the Public Works Department, Core Requirements #2, 3, 4 and 6 from the Small Site Review were not adequately addressed in your recent submittal. This review must include: • An on site flow analysis and supporting calculations • An offsite analysis including a Level One downstream analysis • Indications on how water will be controlled during construction • How the proposed system will be maintained after construction.: To assist you, copies of the pertinent sections from the referenced manual are attached. The following is a review of additional information that must be submitted to continue our review: • You submitted a Mitigation Plan with your initial application that is not consistent with the materials from your September 1 submittal. Specifically, the Mitigation Plan appears to call for open stream and outfall area while the later materials call for the entire watercourse to be piped. The technical basis for the piping is also not well explained in either the Geotechnical Report or in the plans provided. This must be corrected. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 4313670 • Fax. (206) 431-3665 z• Z' 6 2 .J U U0 w =' J w g a. a' �w z� z o.. uj 0 co. o I- LL! w` II O: .Z. w U !Q 0 September 22, 1999 Jihad Keirouz Re: L99 -0049 / E99 -0017, 13033 — 33`C Ave S. • On review of the Geotechnical Report, there is a significant lack of detail regarding the potential construction in relation to the existing watercourse. For example, there does not appear to be any recommendations regarding mitigation of existing or potential surface /ground water during construction. The report must include, at a minimum, an explanation of how this situation will be addressed. • Staff visited the site in July, 1999 regarding an issue concerning the properties immediately to the west that abut your property. At that time, staff noted that the neighboring site was cleared. At that time, we noticed that the Red Alder and Cottonwood listed on the Mitigation Plan did not appear to be on your property, although the plan calls for their retention. This discrepancy should be further explained. If these features were not on your property, they should be removed from the plans. • In your September 1 submittal you provided a Grading and Drainage Plan, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and a Survey. Please provide an 8 %2 ", x 11" reduction for each of the plans you submitted on September 1. These reductions are used for archival purposes. Finally, staff has some concerns over the overall validity of your application. Your application for a Reasonable Use Exception is to seek relief from requirements of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45) in order to allow you to alter an existing watercourse and fill a related wetland covering a significant portion of the property. Since it appears that you obtained the property after the adoption of TMC 18.45 and had previous knowledge of the drainage problems related to the site as a whole,.including the two adjacent lots that you purchased and have developed, you may not be eligible for a Reasonable Use Exception. It is our intent to take this application to a hearing before the Planning Commission. Before this can be taken to a hearing, the issues detailed in this letter must be resolved and additional plans submitted in their entirety. In addition, we feel it is•necessary to discuss our potential recommendation to the Planning Commission. We would like to schedule a meeting with you to discuss this matter more fully. Please contact me at (206) 431 -3685 to set up a meeting. We would like to meet as soon as possible, preferably the week of September 27, 1999. Under TMC 18.104.130, the City of Tukwila has 120 days from "the time the applicant is notified the application is complete" to issue a permit. Under subsection 1, this time period may be put on hold when additional studies or information is required to conduct a substantive review. Accordingly, the 120 day review period is stopped until the additional information requested in this letter is received and reviewed for completeness. Sincerely, Michael Jenkins Associate Planner z re 6u: 6 �. - J C.) UO N 0'. W =,. J �. CO w. w0 g F3: w Q. - _. z 1._ . zo': m; 0: ocri o ww —• O uiZ. = Z City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Devel pment Steve Lancaster, Director A I • r.\( MEMORANDUM TO: Jim Morrow; Public Works Director FROM: Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist DATE: September 15, 1999 RE: Americon, Inc. (Looney Prop.) D99 -0224 & D99 -0225. I have the following comments regarding the above building permit applications. I have not reviewed any plans; however, my input is related to the • clearing violation and potential wetland area on the property. The applications are for two vacant lots at 13028 & 13030 32'' Avenue S. Recent clearing activity was observed on the subject lots in July, 1999. A previously identified wetland drainage area exists directly east of the southem lot (13030 32°a ) In accordance with Sensitive Area Ordinance (TMC 18.45) standards, a wetland study is required•to identify • and delineate any wetland area located on the subject lots. The potential for regulated wetland is most likely located at the southeast corner of the southern lot. Natural groundwater appears-to be crossing the site from the wetland system to the west of 32' Avenue S. The wetland study shall be conducted by a qualified professional and include• delineation on the site if wetland area is present. Due to the recent clearing, some restoration effort may be required: Please contact me if you want to discuss the project or existing conditions further. Cc: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director Duane Griffin, Building Official 1 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431 -3665 z a • = • re 1` •- U' '0 0. O, U) w w =. J N w 0. g J. z� o, z F- 2 Di U 0; .i0 CO� 10 w w` H0 rzt w cn: 0 :O is ael Jen Ins i ad eirouz Reason! se From: Gary Schulz To: Michael Jenkins Date: 9/13/99 10:36AM Subject: Jihad Keirouz Reasonable Use Michael, Page 1 in response to your 9/10/99 memo to me, please refer to Jones & Assoc. letter of June 9, 1999. Both wetland and watercourse are Type 3. garySCHULZ .. �..•r�1 =4r♦1 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION September 10, 1999 Jihad Keirouz JAK Incorporated 13407 — 51st Ave West Edmonds, WA 98062 RE: Application for a Reasonable Use Exception, 13031— 33rd Ave S. (L99 -0049, E99 -0017) Dear Jihad: Your application for a Reasonable Use Exception to construct a Single Family Residence at 13031 — 33rd Ave. S. has found to be complete on September 10, 1999 for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. The project has been assigned to me and is tentatively scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Commission on October 28, 1999. The next step is for you to install the notice board on the site within 14 days of the date of this letter. The sign should be posted in a location that is easily accessible to people using the site. You received information on how to install the sign with your application packet. If you need another set of those instructions, you may obtain them at the Department of Community Development (DCD). Also, you must obtain a laminated copy of the Notice of Application to post on the board. This notice is also available at DCD. After installing the sign with the laminated notice, you need to return the signed Affidavit of Posting to our office. This determination of complete application does not preclude the ability of the City to require that you submit additional plans or information, if in our estimation such information is necessary to ensure the project meets the substantive requirements of the City or to complete the review process. Based upon your submittals, a follow up letter detailing specific concerns about your proposal will be sent within the next week. I will be contacting you soon to discuss this project. If you wish to s peak to me sooner, feel free to call me at 206 -431 -3685. Sincerely, Michael Jenkins Associate Planner cc: Reviewing City Departments Lance Erickson, J.S. Jones 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development. Steve. Lancaster, Director MEMORANDUM TO: Gary Shultz FROM: Michael Jenkins DATE: September 10, 1999 RE: Reasonable Use Exception — Jihad Keirouz (L99-0049) We determined Jihad's application complete today. Now that the application is complete, Public Works has provided me with initial comments concerning the content of the Drainage Plan. Apparently, the plan does not meet the requirements of the King County Surface Water Design Manual and must be revised. In conjunction with this, we must also have a definitive statement of the type of Watercourse and Wetland that is on the subject property. The watercourse and wetland is not indicated on our sensitive area map, and presumably, in the supporting studies. • Accordingly, I.need to have the wetland and watercourse rated for this application. The case is tentatively scheduled for a hearing on October 28, 1999. Depending on when the materials are revised to meet Public Works concerns, this date may be changed to November or December. However, the rating of the property should occur as soon as possible. I will be out of the office on Sept 13 and 14. We should talk after that date 63 00 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 0 /10/99 16:41 FAX 206 223 01"' Reed McClure B � 21002 /013 REED MCCLURE A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CORPORATION 1WO UNION SQUARE 601 UNION STREET, SUITE 4000 SFATTLE, WASHINGTON 90101.3900 FAX: 206/223 -0152 206/292 -4900 September 9, 1999 Mr. Steve Lancaster, Director Dept. of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter.Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 IN REPLY REFER TO OUR FILE NUMBER WRITER'S DIRECT LINE (206) 386 -7016 rjohns@nnlaw.com RE: Summary of Legal Standards regarding Takings and the Reasonable Use Exception Dear Mr. Lancaster: This letter is in response to your request for legal analysis of the circumstances in which the reasonable use exception to general takings law should be used in Washington. In order to understand when the exception may be applied, it is critical to understand when a "taking of private property" can occur. As you undoubtedly appreciate, this area of the law is somewhat confusing and the "standards" adopted by both state and federal courts are not very precise. In order to provide some context for this analysis, it is important to ,recognize that historically a "taking" was a physical appropriation of property to the government, but that in recent years, the Courts have ruled that the "over - regulation" of the land uses can also be a taking of private property. State Iaw defines property broadly to include not merely, ownership and possession, but the rights of use, enjoyment, and disposal'. Ackerman v. Port of Seattle, 55 Wn.2d 400, 409, 348 P.2d 664 (1960). The United States and Washington State constitutions prohibit uncompensated takings of property by the City. However, this does not mean that all actions of the City which lower the value of property or limit its use require constitutional compensation. Most regulation of property is a legitimate exercise of the police power and requires no compensation under the constitution, in spite of what may be a severe negative impact in some cases on the value of the property. There are two different ways in which takings analysis can apply to land use regulations. The lust is when a general regulation, such as a zoning code or critical areas ordinance, is applied to property. The other, which is analyzed differently, applies only when site specific discretionary conditions are imposed on a development project as part of a permit process. 1 The term "disposal" :ref rs to the right to lease, buy or sell property. _ F- W D' 00 .m o • m w: `w -J LL ' di 0' .u_Q �a w,. z �.. Z 0, o • w Lit; . ,1— •_ z� U =. • z 09/10/99 16:42 FAX 206 223 0152 Mr. Steve Lancaster, Director September 9, 1999 Page 2 Reed McClure B Z003/013 I should note at the outset that this analysis applies to all forms of land use regulation and Lo all types of uses. The rules are the same for residential, commercial and industrial properties. Taking Analysis When A General Regulation Is Involved. . . The United States and Washington State Supreme Courts have defined a series• of tests which a challenge to a land use regulation must meet in order for the court to determine whether a regulation creates a taking which entitles a property owner to monetary compensation or some other relief. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 504 U.S. 1003, 112 S.Ct. 2886 (1992), Guimont v. Clarke, 121 Wn.2d 586, 854 P.2d 1 (1993), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 1216 (1994); Presbytery of Seattle v. King County, 114 Wn.2d 320, 787 P.2d 907, cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 284 (1990). Step One: Does the regulation permit a physical invasion of propert ? The Washington Supreme Court has divided the potential situations in which a taking may occur into three categories: (1) those traditional cases which involve a "physical invasion" of private property by the government, (2) "total takings" in which over - regulation of the property leaves the owner with no reasonable use of the property, and (3) "partial takings" in which the owner has some reasonable use of the property but the impact of the regulation on the property owner outweighs the public benefit created by the regulation -2 The clearest forms of taking is a "physical invasion ", which occurs when the government requires an owner to permit the public to use some portion of their property, prohibits an owner's access to their property,3 or otherwise denies an owner the exclusive possession of their property. Typical examples would be those cases in which a government agency constructs a public utility line or a road across private property without an easement or right -of -way. More recently, courts have ruled that taking by physical invasion may occur if a Iocal government constructs a storm water system which damages private property by increasing the flow of storinwater onto that property. Phillips v. Lozier Homes, 136 Wn.2d 946 (1998). If a taking by physical invasion occurs, compensation is required. 2 Many of the court decisions describe a taking in terms of interference with a "fundamental attribute of property ownership" The fundamental attributes of ownership include the right to possess, to exclude others, to dispose of property, prevent physical invasion, or make some economically viable use of the property. If a governmental action does not interfere with one or more fundamental attributes of ownership, it cannot be a taking under any circumstance. However, this partkular issue is not particularly helpful when examining land use regulations, since by their nature, most land use regulations somehow limit the ability to use property. 3 A taking by denial of access occurs most commonly when the government constructs a limited access highway and cuts off the only access to someone's property. z • tr w ug D' •UO: () ❑. w= J • N_ LL: wo ga- • u, a. 1 _ zF Z o: U N; O • Ill uj' _z • w -: O~ z 06 /10/99 16:42 FAX 206 223 0152 Reed McClure B Mr. Steve Lancaster, Director September 9, 1999 Page 3 Z004/013 Most land use regulations, on their face4, however, do not permit the actual physical invasion of z private property by the public, do not prohibit access to private property, and do not otherwise a impede the ability of a property owner to possess his property and exclude others. More I- w typically, land use regulations limit the ability of an owner to use their own property in some CL manner. The Courts have separated such regulations into two groups: those which result in a -► 0 total denial of all economically beneficial use of a property, which is described by the Courts as _ o a "total taking", and those which interfere with some uses of property but do not deny the w i owner all economically beneficial use. The latter group of regulations may or may not create a 'r taking, depending on further analysis, described below. w O Step Two: Does the regulation deprive the owner of all economically viable use of g the property? co D = d. The second step in the analysis is to determine whether a regulation denies the owner all ~ z Z economically viable uses of the property? If the answer is "yes ", then there is a taking i- p requiring compensation, subject to one exception discussed below as the third step of the W E-- analysis. In the event that a potential taking occurs under the "total taking" test, the 2 n: "reasonable use exception" exists as a mechanism for providing relief to the property owner o N and avoiding the necessity of paying compensation. Notably, the economically viable use test o ' does not require that property be rendered valueless. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, tu w 504 U.S. 1003, 112 S.Ct. 2886 at 2908, 2919 (1992). The focus is not on the absolute value of 1_ 0 the regulated parcel, but rather on whether any "beneficial or productive use" can be made of "" the parcel. Orion Corp. v. State, 109 Wn.2d 621, 747 P.2d 1062 (1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. S2 1022, 108 S.Ct. 1996 (1988)(Orion 12). It is also important to recognize that in Guimont, the 1.7. i° court ruled that whether a "total taking" has occurred depends on whether a property owner has z been deprived of a all economically viable use of their property and not on the legitimacy of the state's interest or whether the purpose of the regulation is an appropriate subject of government control. In other words, even if the regulation has a very strong and legitimate public purpose, a taking occurs if it deprives the owner of all economically viable uses of their property. There are several important aspects to the "total taking" issue which should be examined, First, the fact that most of the value of a parcel of property has been eliminated does not mean there is no economically viable use. Second, the analysis must consider the circumstances in which the property was acquired and the natural restrictions on the use of the property. As a result, the analysis is very specific to the factual circumstances of each case. Several examples may be helpful. In Maple Leaf Investors, Inc. v. State Dep't of Ecology, 88 Wn.2d 726, 565 P.2d 1162 (1977), the court upheld a regulation which prevented construction of homes within a floodway because other structures, including some agricultural and commercial uses, could be . ` As noted above, the situation in which a specific permit condition, as opposed to a general land use regulation, requires dedication of open space, construction of public roads or trails, and otherwise requires a developer to allow public use or access to some portion of his or her property is analyzed differently and is discussed at p. 7 of this letter. 09'/10/99 16:43 FAX 206 223 0152 Mr. Steve Lancaster, Director September 9, 1999 Page 4 Reed McClure B el 005 /013 developed on about thirty percent of the plaintiffs property. The court also noted "[I]t was not the State which placed appellant's property in the path of floods. Nature has placed it where it is, and if [the State] had done nothing with respect to flood -plain zoning, the property would still be subject to the physical realities." 88 Wn.2d at 734. On the other hand, in Valley View Indus. Park v. City of Redmond; 107 Wn.2d 621;733 P.2d 182 (1987), the court determined that a downzone from industrial to agricultural deprived the landowner of all economically viable use of its property and resulted in a taking. ; The city argued that even though the parcel was purchased when it had industrial zoning! and was subsequently downzoned to "agriculture ", it had not been deprived of all economically viable use because in theory it could be used for a blueberry farm, a raspberry farm, or a horse farm. In the absence of evidence that there was a viable market for such uses or that the owner /developer could put the property to such uses, the court rejected the city's contentions. By contrast to the Maple Leaf Investors case, there was no argument in Valley View that natural conditions made the property unsuitable for any use other than agricultural operations.) In Allingham v. City of Seattle, 109 Wn.2d 947, 749 P.2d 160 (1988), the court inv dated the city of Seattle's greenbelt ordinance, which essentially denied all use of 70 pert t of each parcel subject to certain steep slope regulations. The city argued that property subject to its greenbelt ordinance had not been deprived of all economically viable use because " theory a house with a 900 square foot footprint for impervious surfaces could be built on ea lot. The plaintiffs proved that in the neighborhoods affected by the ordinance there was o viable market for such houses. Based on that showing, the trial court found that the ordinance deprived the properties of all viable economic use. At first blush, the Allingham de jsion may appear to ignore the natural conditions of the property (steep slopes) and requires the City to compensate an owner for a limitation on use of property that results from a na±uralicondition rather than a regulation. However, the Court noted that it was possible to safely bi j.ld on the slopes with proper engineering. By failing to allow property owners an opportunity!to design and construct housing with such engineering, the City was depriving the owners of the only economically viable use allowed by the underlying zoning. One issue arises frequently concerning the economically viable use test: how to define the size of the parcel to be considered when measuring whether all productive use has been denied. In Allingham, the court used broad language which appears to permit a division of property into segments so that a taking would occur any time one segment of a property was left with no viable economic use. This part of the court's holding was later clarified in Presbytery, which held that property would not be divided into pieces for purposes of takings analysis: Thus, the inquiry does not focus upon a portion of a regulated property. Instead, a regulation's'economic impact is to be determined by looking at uses that can be made of the entire; property. Presbytery of Seattle v. King County, 114 Wn.2d 320, 787 P.2d 907; Orion II, 109 Wn.2d 621, i 664, 747 P.2d 1062 (1987), cert. denied 486 U.S. 1022, 108 S.Ct. 1996. This s;: onsistent with Maple Leaf Investors, in which the court held that the State could completely ohibit all use of about 70% of a site, so long as the uses permitted on the remaining 30% mad the total case, economically viable. In this type of ce, it is important to distinguis between regulations which protect environmentally sensitive areas (i.e., wetlands and streams), where w VefAllitv 09'/10/99 16:43 FAX 206 223 0152 Reed McClure B Mr. Steve Lancaster, Director September 9, 1999 Page 5 I1 006/013 there are important reasons to protect natural features from those situations in which development of hazard areas (steep slopes and landslide areas) with proper engineering ring and construction techniques can eliminate the hazard The net result of these decisions can be summarized with a few basic principles: • A governmentagency cannot restrict property to the point that there are no viable economic uses. • When analyzing a total takings claim, the agency must consider all of the prop held by an owner. As a practical example of the application of this rule, consider a si tion in which a property contains five potential lots, but one is completely covered by gulated wetlands::' The owner is not permitted to build and sell the first four lots and claim a taking because the last lot is a wetland. In such a case, the owner was able t obtain a viable economic use of the property as a whole. • When analyzing whether an economically viable use exists, a site specific anal occur, and the agency may consider natural limitations on the use of the prop property owner cannot purchase property which . has very ' little value . due limitations and then expect the government to compensate for the fact that th cannot be developed as fully as one might otherwise wish. In other words, whether a use is economically viable: depends on the individual circumstances..: • In determining whether a potential use is economically viable, the circumstances under which the property was acquired may be important. If an . owner . purchased property for, a very low price : °because :pre-existing regulations or natural conditions made the property difficult to develop, the level of use which must be : permitted to allow an economically viable use may be much lower than for a property which was purchased for a large sum because it was readily developable but which was subsequently subjected, to . new restrictions The Valley View case illustrates this principle. In that case the owners bought industrial land at industrial prices and were then subjected to a downzone to very limited agricultural uses There, the intensity of use needed to achieve economic viability was substantially higher than it would be in a case where natural conditions made more intensive uses impractical. sis must rty. A natural Property' o deprive a roe owner of all ecop omicall If a determination is made that a regulation does p property rty Y viable use of the property, monetary compensation is required unless either (1) the agency grants a reasonable use exception, or (2) the proposed use would have been barr?d by the common law of nuisance. The latter issue is addressed as the .third step of the analysis, described below. If a regulation does not deprive an owner of all economically viable uses, of a property, the regulation must still be evaluated to determine if it is a "partial taking ", which requires an. analysis of the public benefit of the regulation and the burden it creates on private property. This issue is examined as the fourth and fifth steps of the analysis, below. 0910/99 16:44 FAX 206 223 0152,„, Reed McClure B Mr_ Steve Lancaster, Director September 9, 1999 Page 6 J007/013 Step Three: Is the proposed use of property a common law nuisance? As noted above, there is one exception to the rule that the denial of all economically viable uses of property is a taking. Even if the owner demonstrates that a :regulation would deny all reasonable use of his or her property, the public body has the opportunity to rebut the taking claim by identifying common law principles of nuisance and property law that would prohibit the use the landowner intends. See Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council, 504 U.S. 1003, 112 S.Ct. 2886 (1992). Where the owner's title is itself limited by background principles of property law that otherwise prevent the owner from engaging in a particular use, such use can be prohibited by a government without providing compensation. In. other words, compensation is not due when a pre - existing limitation upon the landowner's title would prevent the owner from engaging in the proposed use. What is or is not considered a nuisance under the common law is a complicated issue, but the bottom line is that a'property owner is not entitled to use property in a manner that creates an unreasonable health or safety risk to other people or other property. The factors cited in Lucas for:deterrnining what constitutes a nuisance include, among other things. (1) the degree of harm' to other lands that would result from the proposed activity, (2) the social value of the activity and its suitability to locality, and . (3) the relative, ease by which harm could be avoided Activities that have been determined to be nuisances include such things as emitting large quantities of dust or other airbome pollutants, use of explosives in a manner which threatened damage to other property, emission of noxious fumes, disposal of chemicals into water bodies rendering them unsafe, uncontrolled airport noise, and flooding adjacent properties.s It is not possible to make a complete list of possible nuisances, but for our purposes it is sufficient to know that if a government regulation restricts an activity that would be considered a common law nuisance, no taking can occur.6 If you encounter a situation which you believe may involve this issue, I urge you to consult the City Attorney for a case specific evaluation of the situation. Step Four: Is the regulation a valid exercise of the police power? Assuming that the court determines that a regulation does not result in a "physical invasion" or denial of all economically viable use of the property, the courts apply another test: whether the S:Note that in each case; the adverse impacts of the activity occur outside the boundaries of the property. The mere occurrence of adverse impacts outside property boundaries does not mean a nuisance exists, but the . abseace.of such impacts means there is no nuisance. 6 The Court in Orion Corp. v. State, 109 Wn.2d 621, 747 P.2d 1062 (1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1022, 108 S.Ct. 1996 (1988), also held that activaies that would be barred by the public trust doctrine are not fundamental rights of ownership and cannot be takings. In Orion, an owner wanted to dredge and fill certain tidelands. The Court held that since filling of the tidelands was barred by the public mist doctrine, the owners of the underlying property did not have an ownership interest which was adversely affected by a regulation which also banned such filling. 09/10/99 16:45 FAX 206 223 0152 Reed McClure B Th Mr. Steve Lancaster, Director September 9, 1999 Page 7 2008/013 regulation is a valid exercise of the police power? The `police power" provision of the Constitution authorizes government agencies to adopt laws to protect legitimate state interests in "public health, safety and welfare." In general, if a law does not' protect such state interests it is not a valid exercise of the police power. If a regulation does not protect the ".health, safety or welfare" of the community, the regulation is deemed an improper exercise of the police power rather than a taking. If a regulation is not a legitimate exercise of the police power, the remedy available to the property owner is a judgment which declares the regulation invalid rather than an award of monetary damages for a takings. If a regulation passes the police power test because it advances a legitimate state interest, there is a final test applied by the courts, as follows: Step Five: Balance the public benefit and the private harm. Even if a regulation is a valid exercise of the police power and does not deprive an owner of all economic viability of his or her property, it is still possible for a taking to occur if the public interest in the regulation is outweighed by its adverse economic impact to the landowner. In analyzing a "partial taking" claim in this situation, a court would balance (1) the economic impact of the regulation on the property; (2) the extent of the regulation's interference with "investment-backed expectations "; and (3) the character of the government action. Presbytery, 114 Wn.2d 320, 335 -36, 787 P.2d 907. Under this so- called "balancing test," if the impact on the owner outweighs the public benefit, there is a taking. There is some question as to what the terms in the balancing test mean and how they are supposed to be weighed. The court in Orion II stated without qualification that whether a regulation's economic impact is excessive is determined by comparing private loss and public gain. The following provides some analysis of the terns and the actual weight they should be given. a. Measuring Economic Impact. Excessive economic impact can be determined by a quantitative standard of whether the claimant's property retained reasonable market value. Orion II, 109 Wn.2d at 665, 747 P.2d at The Courts have ruled that laws which protect the environment or the:fiscal integrity of the community are intended to protect the public health, safety and welfare. Regulations in the land use area which fail this test tend to be those where an agency attempts to force a private property owner to pay for or provide a public benefit normally paid for by taxes. As you know, the City of Seattle's attempts to force private property owners to pay for low income housing programs have been invalidated several times, largely on this basis. a An owner may be entitled to monetary damages for the temporary loss of use of property between the time the regulation is imposed on the owner and the time the court declares the regulation invalid. This subject is complex and beyond the scope of this letter. If you would nice us to analyze this aspect of the rules at a later date, I would be glad to do so. 09/10/99 16:45 FAX 206 223 0152 McClure B Mr. Steve Lancaster, Director September 9, 1999 Page 8 Q009/013 1085. The court in Orion Hprovided a helpful explanation of this factor, stating that even if no reasonable use in the traditional sense of an active use remains, there is no raking if the property has a reasonable market value for passive conservation use. Thus, even if the challenged regulation precluded a reasonable use by Orion, it would not be a taking if another private person or corporation would sufficiently value passive ownership of the tidelands to pay a price equivalent to their reasonable use value. b. Interference with Investment- Backed Expectations. The extent of interference with reasonable investment- backed expectations is the second consideration in determining the significance of the economic deprivation. This variable is concerned with the extent of value lost. Losses that are supported:by reasonable investments are deemed worthy of compensation, but an investor is not entitled to compensation for a foolish investment. In Orion II, the court offered . some guidance. The court held that Orion had no reasonable investment-backed expectation worthy of consideration because its investment was induced by an expectation that it could dredge and fill tidelands, which the public trust doctrine precluded. Since Orion's expectations were deemed either unreasonable or legally impossible to achieve, Orion was not entitled to compensation. Similarly, under this rule, when a landowner purchases property that, for example, contains a wetland, any investment- backed expectation to develop the part of the property with the wetland would be deemed unreasonable when the owner had constructive notice of the limitation on dredging and filling a wetland before the Landowner made the investment. As is evident, this aspect of takings analysis is also very specific to individual properties and property owners. We urge you, when confronted with a regulatory takings claim, to carefully evaluate all of the relevant facts and seek legal advice in any case where the situation is unclear. Takings Analysis When Permits or Exactions Are Involved. As mentioned at the outset of this letter, there is a separate set' of rules applicable to the imposition of discretionary permit conditions. Permits, in and of themselves, may create property rights but the statutory scheme for permit issuance may also impose "significant substantive restrictions" on the decision to grant a permit. To determine whether a permit condition is a legitimate exercise of regulatory power or constitutes an unconstitutional taking depends upon; resolution of two : questions. First, does an "essential nexus" exist between a legitimate state interest and the requirement?. And second, if so, is the exaction or condition "roughly proportional" `: to the projected impact of the proposed ` development? Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825, 107 S.Ct. 3141, 97 L.Ed.2d 677 (1987); Unlimited v. Kitsap County, 50 Wn.App. 723, 750 P.2d 651 (1988); Sparks v. Douglas County, 127 Wn.2d 901, 911, 904 P.2d 738 (1995). z Z ~ Z. o:„ �o 0 N o` Ul J 1- N wo g • -, co =w _. z� �o z I-. S2 o w• w az z U �' so o F z q.+s�sm�ceeenpa.�eo-vmt�r�m i 0t)/1O/99 16:46 FAX 206 223 0152 Reed McClure B Mr. Steve Lancaster, Director September 9, 1999 Page 9 Z1010/013 1. Nexus Between A Legitimate State Interest And The Permit Condition or Exaction. The first rule, referred to as the "nexus" rule, simply provides that a permit. condition or exaction can only be imposed if it is necessary to mitigate an adverse impact of a project. Conversely, a proposed condition is not permissible and constitutes an unconstitutional taking if it does not mitigate harm caused by the development. Nollan v California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987). In the Nollan case, a property owner wanted to build a new residence on the waterfront. The Coastal Zone Commission granted the permit, subject to a condition that the owner dedicates a public easement across the length of the beach in front of his new house. On appeal, the Supreme Court struck down the permit condition, ruling that there was no "nexus" between the proposed construction of a house and the public's desire or need for a public easement along the beach. The Court's ruling, put simply, was that the construction of a house on private property did not increase the public's need for beachfront access. Similarly, in unlimited v. Kitsap County, the county conditioned a;development permit on the landowner's dedicating strips of its property for commercial access and a road extension to another property. The court held that the exaction serves no public interest, let alone a reasonable one. The court reasoned that the public had no interest in the commercial development of the other property, and it was unreasonable for the county to exact a commercial access easement to that property as a condition of the landowner's planned unit development. 2. Rough Proportionality Between The Impact And The Extent of The Mitigation Required. Under the second part of the test, there must be "rough proportionality" between the impact of the new development and the extent of the mitigation requirement. In other words, there must be an individualized determination that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development. This rule was announced in Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S 374, 114 S.Ct. 2309, 129 L.Ed.2d 304 (1994).9 In Dolan, the property owner wanted to expand a hardware store that happened to be Located adjacent to a river. As a 9 In Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd, U.S. _ (1999) the United States Supreme Court recently held tbat the rough proportionality rule did not apply to the denial of a land use permit. Language in the decision suggests the United States Supreme Court may ultimately rule that the rough proportionality rule does not apply, for federal constitutional purposes, to permit conditions which do not require a property owner to dedicate property to the government. This case, however, has little relevance in Washington because the Washington Supreme Court has already make it clear that the rule still applies to all forms of permit conditions and exactions under the Washington State Constitution. There is a critical difference between the two constitutions because the United States Constitution prohibits "taking" private property without compensation and the State Constitution prohibits "taking or damaging" private property without compensation. The exact significance of this distinction has not yet been established by the courts. 09%10/99 16:46 FAX 206 223 0152 Mr. Steve Lancaster, Director September 9, 1999 Page 10 Reed McClure B 11011 /013 condition of the permit, the City required the owner to build and dedicate a public bicycle trail along the riverfront portion of the property. The City defended the proposed condition under the nexus rule by arguing there would undoubtedly be some people who would ride their bicycles or walk on the trail to the hardware store. The Supreme Court agreed that there was a nexus, but struck the condition down anyway, ruling that the required mitigation was disproportionate to the potential impact because the vast majority of trail users would not be riding to or from the store, but simply passing by. Washington courts have applied Dolan reasoning to a number of cases. See, e.g., Trimen Dev. Co. v. King County, 124 Wn.2d 261, 877 P.2d 187 (1994)(upholding a park development fee only after finding that "the fees imposed in lieu of dedication were reasonably necessary as a direct result of Trimen's proposed development"); Luxembourg Group, Inc. v. Snohomish County, 76 Wn.App. 502, 887 P.2d 446 (1995)(striking down a requirement that a developer provide a 60 -foot right of way to a landlocked parcel, where the parcel had been landlocked before the subdivision application, and its access was not changed by the application): Sparks, 127 Wn.2d 901, 904 P.2d 738. In Spark, the Washington Supreme Court applied this "rough proportionality" rule enunciated in Dolan to find that requiring the landowner to dedicate property for rights -of -way as a precondition of a building permit approval did not constitute a taking. In that case, there was evidence that the development would increase traffic on roads not adequate for safe access under the county standards and would create a specific need for dedication of rights -of -way. In the event that a court finds that a permit condition violates the nexus or rough proportionality rules, the usual remedy is invalidation of the permit condition and, in some circumstances, an award of monetary damages for a temporary taking of the property. Finally, in you should also be aware that a regulation that limits or delays development may constitute a temporary taking. The general rule is that if a government regulation denies all economically viable use, then the owner will be entitled to compensation for the time the regulation was in effect. However, not all government delays of development will cause a compensable temporary taking. In First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304 (1987), the United States Supreme Court recognized that normal delays in obtaining building permits, changes in zoning ordinances, variances, and the like" are not temporary takings. The delay also must be unreasonable, excessive, or extraordinary. Norco Construction, Inc_ v. King County, 801 F.3d 1143, 1145 (9`h Cir. 1986)_ I am aware that all of these rules are complex and difficult to apply in practical circumstances. It is also clear that the manner in which courts analyze these cases is not terribly helpful to agencies trying to review permit applications. As a result, I would suggest you use the following series of questions as a practical guide to dealing with . these issues. (The ultimate outcome of this analysis will lead you to the same answers that the courts have developed, but should be simpler to deal with on a case by case bases.) 09/10/99 16:47 FAX 206 223 0152 Mr. Steve Lancaster, Director September 9, 1999 Page 11 Reed McClure B 11012 /013 Analysis of takings claims regardii g a I land use re ation (such as a general requirement of the zoning code or critical areas ordinance): ° 1. Does the regulation result in a physical invasion of private property. If the answer is "yes ", a taking has occurred and compensation is required. If the answer is "no ", proceed to the second question. 2. Does the regulation deprive the owner of all economically viable uses of the property? If the answer is "yes ", proceed to the third question. If the answer is "no ", proceed to the fourth question. 3. Would the proposed use of the property be barred as a common law nuisance or by some other general legal restriction such as the public trust doctrine? If the answer is "yes ", no taking has occurred and the regulation is valid. If the answer is "no ", a taking will occur and the City's options are limited to either paying compensation for the taking or granting a reasonable use exception to allow an economically viable use. 4. Does the economic impact of the regulation on the property and the extent of the regulation's interference with investment - backed expectations outweigh the public benefit created by the regulation? If the answer is "yes ", a potential taking has occurred and the City's options are to pay compensation for a taking or grant a reasonable use exception which would reduce the impact of the regulation on the landowner to a point which causes the impact on the owner to be Less than the public benefit. If the answer is "no", the regulation is valid, no taking has occurred and the City is free to enforce the regulation. Analysis of oroposedpermit conditions and exactions: • 1. Is there a nexus between an adverse impact of a development project and the condition proposed to mitigate that impact? If the answer is "yes ", proceed to the second question. If the answer is "no ", the condition may not be imposed. 2. Is there "rough proportionality" between the adverse impact of the proposed development on the public health, safety or welfare and the burden of the proposed condition on the applicant or property owner? If the answer is "yes ", the condition is valid and may be imposed. If the answer is "no ", the condition is invalid and must be modified or eliminated. 1° For purposes of this series of questions, I am assuming the regulation in question is a valid exercise of the police power because it is legitimately intended to protect the public health, safety or welfare. 09/10/99 16:47 FAX 206 223 0152 } Mr. Steve Lancaster, Director September 9, 1999 Page 12 Reed McClure B 11013/013 I trust this has been helpful. If there are other questions or you would like to discuss any aspect of this analysis either in general or as applied to a specific case, please call me. Very truly yours, 16YB01! 1 .dac r, .Hug 31 99 11:52a JIM FINLEY GEOTEC H CONSULTANTS, INC. 13256 NE 20th Street. Silk 16 13ellevue, WA 9)1(1115 (425) 747 -56111 FAX (421) 747 -;1561 J.A.K. Inc. 13520 Linden Avenue North Seattle, Washington 98133 Attention: Jihad Keirouz Subject: Geotechnical Considerations Proposed Residence 130XX – 33rd Avenue South Tukwila, Washington Dear Mr. Keirouz: 1 4251 '/4"/ -ebb' is . 1 August 31, 1999 nECEIVF.0 CITY OF TUKWILA pplaFRMIT tp5KITB JN 8128 -1 In September of 1998, the undersigned Associate of Geotech Consultants, Inc. visited lots in Tukwila that had just been excavated for proposed residences. We understand that you propose to construct another residence adjacent to the southem side of those residential lots. The purpose of this letter is to discuss the likely near - surface soil and groundwater conditions, as well as foundation parameters, on the proposed residence lot based on the conditions seen in the earlier, adjacent excavations. Baed on the Grading and Drainage Plan for the project dated May 1, 1999, we understand that the proposed residence will be located near the middle of the property with a driveway along the northeastern side of the property. Cuts of up to approximately 4 feet are proposed on the western side of the residence and garage. An approximate 4 -foot rockery is proposed west and south of the residence; a cut will be made to install this rockery. A catch basin and tightline pipe will be constructed to control surface water that enters the southwestern side of the property. The pipe will ultimately discharge the surface water to an existing ditch on the eastern side of the property. The project subsurface drainage system will include typical footing drains. • The subject property is located on the upstope, westem side of 33rd Avenue South. It dopes gently upward above the street with a topographic relief of about 15 feet. The properly is undeveloped and heavily overgrown with vegetation. Some surface water is currently channeled diagonally to the northeastern side of the property to the existing ditch. Excavations in the range of 3 to 5 feet were made for the two residences to the north. We observed that the upper, approximate 3 feet of soil was loose. It was underlain by competent, firm silty sand, silt, and sand. Groundwater was observed perched on these competent soils. Conclusions and Recommendations The competent soils that we observed in the adjacent excavation are very suitable to support the building loads. Therefore we believe that competent soil should be revealed on the subject site at relatively shallow depths. We recommend that continuous and individual spread footings have minimum widths of 16 and 24 inches, respectively. They should be bottomed at least 18 inches below the lowest It .31 99 11:52a J.A.K. Inc. August 31, 1999 J T. FINLEY (4251747 -9561 JN 8128 -1 Page 2 adjacent finish ground surface. The local building codes should be reviewed to determine if different footing widths or embedment depths are required. An allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) is appropriate for footings supported on the competent, native soil. Because the native soil is somewhat sensitive to moisture, we recommend that any loose surfscial soil in the footing areas we removed prior to pouring the foundation. Another option would be to cover footing areas with a mat of imported, granular fill at the time the initial excavation is done. A one -third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used when considering short -term wine or seismic loads. Lateral Toads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundation and the bearing soil, or by passive earth pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the foundation. For the tatter condition, the foundation must be either poured directly against relatively level, undisturbed soil or be surrounded by level structural fill. We recommend using the following design values for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading: Design. V.swlue Coefficient of Friction Passive Earth Pressure 0.40 300 pcf Where: (i) pct is pounds par cubic, foot, and pi) 'passive Gantt pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density. If the ground in front of a foundation is loose or sloping, the passive earth pressure given above will not be appropriate. We recommend a safety factor of at least 1.5 for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading, when using the above design values. We observed groundwater perched at or near the level of the competent native soil on the adjacent sites. We believe that a similar groundwater conditions will be found on the subject property. The amount of groundwater seen on the adjacent sites, as well as the density of the competent soil, indicate that the soil has a very low permeability (not suitable for percolation). We expect that groundwater will be encountered in the excavation of the proposed residence. It is our professional opinion that the amount of groundwater flow will be readily handled by the project's subsurface drainage system. We agree with the system that is shown on the Grading and Drainage Plan, but recommend that another footing drain be added behind the western and southern garage walls. The drainage system shown on the plan, and recommended around the garage, is very similar to the system we recommended earlier for the adjacent residences. All footing drains should consist of a perforated pipe that is surrounded with washed rock and filter fabric. p.2 z Z: re W: J U' UO: rno rn W. W= CD uJ 0, u_ <C. Cn a. HW. zE H O; Z N; W 11.1' O W 2. O - z rug ,31 99 11: 52a J.A.K. Inc. August 31, 1999 J ,\M FINLEY X4251747 -8561 P.3 JN 8128 -1 Page 3 We trust that this report meets your immediate needs for the ro posed development. Please contact us if we can be of further service. p Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. D. Robert Ward, P.E. Associate August 2, 1999 City. of Tukwila John W Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster Director Jihad Keirouz JAK, Inc. 13407 — 515` Ave West Edmonds, WA 98062 NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION Re: Application for Reasonable Use Permit, 13031— 33`d Ave S. (L99 -0049, E99 -0017) Dear Mr. Keirouz: Your application for a Reasonable Use Exception from the Sensitive Areas Ordinance for the construction of a single - family residence has been found incomplete. In order for this application to be determined as complete, you must submit the following information to the Department of Community Development, based on the comments detailed below: 6 U0: CO CO 0 = u_. w0 5 u_4: H w Z E- 0, Z f-; 2 a. CI; • A site plan, as described on the application checklist, including all proposed setbacks • -` • Hi • A plan documenting both existing and proposed conditions of the property, including the proposed w w` mitigation plan . v` • A Geotechnical Report with Hydrological Assessment, including impacts to surrounding areas O' • A conceptual drainage plan designed to meet current Small Site Drainage Review and Targeted Drainage .w z. Review category 1 from the King County Surface Water Design Manual U =:. A temporary erosion prevention plan 0 f- • A temporary sediment control plan In addition, the following features should be included in the materials you submit so that technical review of your proposal can be adequately done: • The existing and proposed contours should be shown on the site plan at two (2) foot intervals for a minimum of 100 feet off site, in support of TMC 16.54.110. A copy of the code is included Upon receipt, the City will re -review the materials you submit for completeness and will mail you written notification of completeness or incompleteness within 14 days. This application will expire if we do not receive the additional information within ninety (90) days of the date of this letter unless an extension is granted pursuant to Section 18.105.070(E). If you have any questions, my telephone number is 431 -3685. Sincerely, Michael Jenkins Associate Planner 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 CITY OFUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION (P -SP) APPLICATION FORTAFF :(JSE.ONL Y Planner: File Number: Receipt: Number:: '..:Project, File # plication; omplete Application Incomplete' (Date::': Other File I. PROJECT BACKGROUND A. NAME OF PROJECT /DEVELOPMENT: JAK. IN, SINC1.L..Ir"FAMI►- Y1RostOeNte �.,,'J.� AVE Tusie.wILL.A► I g,rI�C�IJII�IS PINCst&gs C Ptammiz i Tv Fa�JrCPTOIJ~ B. LOCATION OF PROJECT /DEVELOPMENT: STREET ADDRESS: 150 1 53¢11. Avg S . ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lzer ,,t -oui . 5 Nom_ _ e.�,�p �,,f Q� ,.,,�, -T� �L��v�rr,_. jG„ pC. 67, REt,o1P-a as K4e4tT cm•, 41Y Wi6 . '� Quarter: N14 Section: 15 Township: 1.3 ry Range: 1 E: (This information may be found on your tax statement) !� Puiwir C. CONTACT: (Primary contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent) NAME: . �. ► . INC-- ADDRESS: ( 041. 5111' A AI uE. L 4 r ' g i 'M1n.S k-L& O & 2_ PHONE: (Zoe) • :'e SIGNATURE: � � DATE: 7/ t RUCKLST.DOC 7/3/96 RECEIVE J(1L 0 6 1999 DEVELOPMENT 11. A. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY: NT Le-r- B. SENSITIVE AREAS REQUIREMENT FROM WHICH RELIEF IS SOUGHT: :�v ANr� STQEAM � ¢ K%15r1.JyrA'rurn -i C. ON A SEPARATE SHEET, DESCRIBE THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU BELIEVE THAT YOUR REQUEST FOR AN REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION WILL SATISFY EACH OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA AS SPECIFIED IN TMC 18.45.115(4). 1. No reasonable use with Tess impact on the sensitive area and its buffer is possible. 2. There is no feasible on -site alternative to the proposed activities, including reduction in size or density, phasing of project implementation, change in timing activities, revision of road and lot layout, and/or related site planning activities that would allow a reasonable economic use with fewer adverse impacts to the sensitive area and its buffer. 3. As a result of the proposed development there will be no increased or unreasonable threat of damage to off-site public or private property and no threat to the public health, safety or welfare on or off the development proposal site. 4. Alterations permitted shall be the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable use of the property. 5. The proposed development is compatible in design, scale and use with other development with similar site constraints in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. 6. Disturbance of sensitive areas has been minimized by locating the necessary alterations in the buffers to the greatest extent possible. 7. The inability to derive reasonable use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant in segregating or dividing the property and creating the undevelopable condition after the effective date of the ordinance from which this chapter derives. 8. Any approved alteration of a sensitive area under this section shall be subject to conditions as established by this chapter and will require mitigation under an approved mitigation plan. If a development is approved as a reasonable use, the Board of Architectural Review's process, review and standards shall be applied. RUCKLST.DOC 7/3/96 .,.._. ��a� ......u....:.y.- 1�:G.�.�.i.14: :.�v.ii�l4'��i.�a✓L J. {.��.�i..:i.1'u::�' FOSI•Pqrnimreurvorm."....row Memo; J.A.K, INc. Single - family Permit Appl. No. D98 -0215 REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION C. ON A SEPARATE SHEET, DESCRIBE THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU BELIEVE THAT YOUR REQUEST FOR A REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION WILL SATISFY EACH OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA AS SPECIFIED IN TMC 18.45.115(4). 1. No reasonable use with less impact on the sensitive area and its buffer is possible. The property is zoned LDR (residential) in a residential neighborhood. One single - family residence is the minimum use of this lot. 2. There is no feasible on -site alternative to the proposed activities, including reduction in size or density, phasing of project implementation, change in timing activities, revision or road and lot layout, and /or related site planning activities that would allow a reasonable economic use with fewer adverse impacts to the sensitive area and its buffer. The entire site is wetland, so impacts to sensitive areas are unavoidable. The applicant proposes the minimum street setback with the residence located outside of the existing stream channel. Clearing, grading, foundation and utility construction work should occur in the months of August, September, and October, if construction occurs this year. 3. As a result of the proposed development there will be no increased or unreasonable threat of damage to off -site public or private property and no threat to the public health, safety or welfare on or off the development proposal site. The construction of a single - family residence on this site will not pose a threat to public health or safety. 4. Alterations permitted shall be the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable use of the property. The square footage of the proposed house is 1,300 square feet, which is of similar size to other residences in the neighborhood. The minimum setback to the street is proposed. The house will be located outside of the existing intermittent stream (i.e. excavated ditch). 5. The proposed development is compatible in design, scale and use with other development with similar site constraints in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. The proposed single - family residence is of similar design, size and use to adjacent properties and the neighborhood. Z s e- moZ , 62 U O; w =: J 1—, w O' -J ?' Nv �w z� o z F-- w gyp, ON 01- w -O wz u) O Jones and Associates, Inc. 6. Disturbance of sensitive areas has been minimized by locating the necessary alterations in the buffers to the greatest extent possible. The entire site is wetland, so impacts to sensitive areas are unavoidable. The applicant proposes the minimum street setback with the residence located outside of the existing stream channel. 7. The inability to derive reasonable use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant in segregating or dividing the property and creating the undevelopable condition after the effective date of the ordinance from which this chapter derives. The property was a legal lot prior to the effective date of the Tukwila Sensitive Area Ordinance. 8. Any approved alteration of a sensitive area under this section shall be subject to conditions as established by this chapter and will require mitigation under an approved mitigation plan. If a development is approved as a reasonable use, the Board of Architectural Review's process, review and standards shall be applied. Mitigation in the form of creating wetland for impacts to wetland is not possible on this site, because the entire property is wetland. The application proposed enhancement of the stream channel and remaining wetland areas as mitigation for impacts. 2 •z LUt QQom;. • JU UO (/)o ,W OF IL 41C; • f- w: •!z 1• D . • •Z I—: Lu • .D of jp Nt W Wi H. V Zi Z iJ D. PROPERTY OWNER DECLARATION The undersigned makes the following statements based upon personal knowledge: am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. All statements contained in the application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. I understand that conditions of approval, which the City and applicant have jointly agreed may not be completed prior to final approval of the construction (e.g., final building permit approval) will be incorporated into an agreement to be executed and recorded against the property prior to issuance of any construction permits. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington and the United States of America that the foregoing statement is true and correct. EXECUTED at 1 Ci LA (city), --1 (state), on , 1992_„'. J 14-446, (Print Name) 13Lc a 7 (Address) (Phone Numb9r) (Signature) 5.8 sz Use additional sheets as needed for all property owner signatures. z • cg 6D. J U; UO: w U) 11J =.. J . w o. - I- o, zt—; • w w` LL. .- O: • • Z' 0 • z CITY OF - "JKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION APPLICATION CHECKLIST The materials listed below must be submitted with your application unless specifically waived in writing by the Department. Please contact the Department if you feel certain items are not applicable to your project and should be waived. Application review will not begin until it is determined to be complete. The initial application materials allow starting project review and vesting the applicant's rights. However, they in no way limit the City's ability to require additional information as needed to establish consistency with development standards. Department staff are available to answer questions about application materials at (206) 431 -3670. RETURN THIS CHECKLIST WITH YOUR'APPLICATIOI APPLICATION FORMS: a Application Checklist JUL 0 6 1999 COMMUNITY Application Form (12 copie). VELOPMtNT Reasonable Use Application Fee - $200 . 0 Complete Environmental Checklist and fee ($325) ❑ Design Review Application and fee ($900) ❑ Application(s) and fee(s) for all other applicable land use permits Specify: PLANS: (12 copies) Site plan at 1"= 30' or 1" = 20', with north arrow, graphic scale, and date; and the license stamp of the architect. The following information must be contained on the plan (details may be included on additional drawing sheets): O Property lines and dimensions, lot size(s), and names of adjacent roads O Location and setbacks of existing and proposed structure(s) with gross floor area O Location of driveways, parking, loading, and service areas, with parking calculations O Location and design of dumpster /recycling area screening and other exterior improvements O Location and type of exterior lighting O Location and classification of any watercourses or wetlands, and 200' limit of Shoreline Overlay District O Existing and proposed grades at 2' contours, with the slope of areas in excess of 20% clearly identified O Location of closest existing fire hydrant; location and size of utility lines; location and size of utilities or street/sidewalk easements or dedications O Description of water and sewer availability from provider of utility (note which utility district or City) O Other relevant structures or features, such as rockeries and fences. RUCKLST.DOC 7/3/96 • I 0 Location of outdoor s +- •age areas and method of screening --,. CT Landscape /planting plan at the same scale as site plan, with non. i arrow, graphic scale, and date; and the license stamp of the landscape architect. The following information must be contained on the plan: O Property lines and names of adjacent roads O Location of the following: proposed structure(s), vehicle and pedestrian circulation areas, dumpster /recycling area, site furniture, any proposed public outdoor art O Existing trees over 4" in diameter by size and species, and any trees to be saved O Proposed landscaping, including size, species, location and spacing. z Ti Mitigation Plan which identifies the impacts on the sensitive area and proposed mitigation re appropriate to, and in scale with, the impacts on the sensitive area. ThAvi ,? /)72,..„0 /z el e7-x, o No Cr One (1) "PMT" (photomaterial transfer, or photostat) each of the plan set, reduced to 8.5 x 11 inches. J co w w/ 4,19/7 4 util - L__ . U) LL 0 Site percolation data approved by the Seattle -King County Department of Environmental Health if w 0 the site is proposed for development using a septic system, or a Certificate of Sewer Availability g from the sewer utility purveyor (if other than the City). CO D 0 Proof that the Tots are recognized as separate lots pursuant to the provisions of TMC Title 17 and x w RCW Ch. 58.17. z H a' Any Sensitive Area studies required by TMC 18.45, including, but not limited to, the surveyed location z 0 0. and professional evaluation of any wetlands, streams, and their buffers. 2 D Lu a list of existing environmental documents known to the applicant or the City that evaluate any aspect 0 of the proposed project. D i-- a A list of any permits or decisions applicable to the development proposal that have been obtained _ 0 prior to filing this application, or that are pending before the City or any other governmental entity. 0 CT A storm water design which meets the requirements set forth in the Surface Water Design Manual :ii N' o adopted pursuant to TMC 16.54.060(0). O z C1 OTHER MATERIALS: (71 ZC - G� -k2't a -e J1 J2 Other documentation and graphics in support of the proposal may be included as appropriate, such as color renderings, perspective drawings, photographs or models. If other materials are to be considered, twelve (12) copies of each must be submitted (except models). Color drawings or photos may be submitted as 8.5 x 11 -inch color photocopies. PUBLIC NOTICE: King County Assessor's map(s) which shows the location of each property within 500 feet of the subject property. Two (2) sets of mailing labels for all property owners and tenants (residents or businesses) within 500 feet of the subject property. (Note: Each unit in multiple - family buildings - -e.g. apartments, condos, trailer parks - -must be included.) See Attachment A. ❑ , A 4' x 4' public notice board will be required on -site within 14 days of the Department determining that -/• a complete application has been received. See Attachment B. eGL u 4 p y, l4- 1--7L k.-1,J2.1,7_ n/h u..-2 /z pa- -. RUCKLST.DOC 7/3/96 ! «••'^'- �•'^"'•••— ••••.• -, - _..e.,......... .... ,....w•.wen.ns... --sreu . rertwMaNa ilI1Ma'N'AYy • a1 Control No. VII OD 11 Epic File No. Fee $325 Receipt No. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: JAK Single- family Residence, 33`d Ave S. Tukwilla, Lot 12, Block 5, "Robbins Springbrook Addition to Riverton ", Vol 16 of Plats, Page 67, Records of King County 2, Name of applicant: Jihad Kierouz, J.A.K. Inc. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Phone: (206) 300 -6874 Address: 13407 51st Avenue West Edmonds, Washington 98062; 4. Date checklist prepared: June 29, 1999 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The applicant wants to construct as soon as possible, while the intermittent stream is dry. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. A wetland investigation was performed by J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc., dated June 9, 1999. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. Yes, Single - Family Permit No. D98 -0215 EC 1V7 l JUL 0 6 1999 CO MMUNI Y DEVELOPMENT 2 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. Single- Family Residence Permit and Reasonable Use Exception 1. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized here. The applicant proposes to construct a 1,300 square foot house on a 5,733 square foot lot. The proposal includes enhancement of the stream channel and remaining wetlands. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The site is located immediately south of 13031 33`d Avenue South in Tukwila, Washington. The site is Lot 12 of Robbins Block 5, "Robbins Springbrook Addition to Riverton ", According to the Plat Thereof Recorded in Volume 16 of Plats, Page 67, Records of King County, Washington. The site is further described as located in the N W 1 /4 of the N W I /4 of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, of the Willamette Meridian. 2. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Map as environmentally sensitive? No 3 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Evaluation for Agency Use Only B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly steep slopes, mountainous, other East - facing hillside b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Approximately 20% c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The soil on site is Norma gravelly sandy loam described in the Soil Survey of King County Area Washington (Snyder, 1973). d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. A seepage spring originates southwest of the site. There are no indications of unstable soils e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The fill is for the construction of a single- family residence. Fill is not proposed. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Erosion as a result of clearing and construction is a potential problem. A seasonal stream flows along the south property line. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 2,250 square feet h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Filter fencing will prevent the movement of suspended solids off -site. 4 • • z . Z -J U: (-) 0' to WI J H W O' =0 W z I- O' zH uj U �`. ;O co; W W` Ill �. O ~. z Evaluation for Agency Use Only 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e. dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. There will be the normal dust, equipment and automobile odors associated with the construction of a single- family residence. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: None proposed 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year -round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flow into. Yes, an unnamed seasonal stream flows along the south property line. 2) Will the project require any work over, in or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes, an existing pipeline will be replaced and the stream will and remaining stream buffer will be reconstructed and enhanced with native vegetation. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. 11.1 cu. vds of stream substrate and rock. Y.a Evaluation for Agency Use Only 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of housed to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if know). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. The source of runoff will be roof drains and the driveway. Runoff will flow into the road ditch that the stream flows into. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Yes, pollutants from the street and driveway may enter surface waters. 6 Z • w' CC 2 J U. UO LU U)W! J1-- W O: g, =0: 1 W. Z H'. I- O Z 1—: 2 Cy O W R--6: 111Z' CO .0 I"". Z. Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Vegetative enhancement of the stream buffer, substrate and rock in channel to prevent erosion. 4. Plants a./Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other 4/evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other hrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other _ other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Reed canarygrass, Himalayan blackberry, red alder, western red cedar, and willow. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to presence or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: See Mitigation Plan, J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc., June 30 1999 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are know to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagl on they: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None 7 raiLilig •Z • W', QQ2, .JU' U O' 0 • .U) W W=,.. NW. to 0. LL.Q• Di = W. • :Z 1— •Z 1- .Dpl. W H • W Z. U -` Z. O H: EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Yes, Pacific Flyway d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Vegetative enhancement of wetland, stream, and buffers. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity for heating b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impact, if any: No 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No 1) Describe especial emergency services that might be required. Fire and emergency medical 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None 8 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Aircraft 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated, with the project on a short-term or a long -term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Construction noise between the hours of 7 am and 5 pm on weekdays 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is currently a vacant lot. Adjacent properties are single- family residences. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No c. Describe any structures on the site. None d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? LDR f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? LDR • ,. i••_..r.e.....,.. vAt:POet'�..i "3�u6:'Y�"..— 'ky.t� ... Z. • = Z. D ..UO W 10 W' J WO: u- Q`, a :f- O.. •Z I— U� VI O F, U' O • U N. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY g. 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? Is so, specify. Yes, the entire site is wetland with a stream present. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Between one and five j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not applicable 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: None 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. One b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Twenty -five feet b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None 10 Z • • F W, •0O` � O • co uJ J='• F- �o u.: W O` u.¢ =0 F— _' F•': O. Z LU • Ocn; iCI ww IL F', V N', TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? None c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on the site plans, if any. The site is located between Military Road and Hwy. 99, accessed from S.132" St. and 33`d Ave. S. 11 TO 13E COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The nearest bus stop is at Highline Riverton Community Hospital c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The project will have two parking spaces outside the garage and will not displace any parking spaces. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No f. 1 -low many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? if known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. 2 -6 g. Proposed treasures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: No 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. No 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. b. Describe the 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. Seattle City Light, U. S. West, Seattle Public Utilities C. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to snake its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: . Kam, ,.t:,:a. >• a� x ;// /99 12 Z :/-- Z'. re 2 -JU U O' CO c CO C3 W; W =. J --; W ■ t1J O! g • a = tL Z� H O. ZH U � W W' o. 2 1- - 0' tl. Z N! H .O z f 1- J S JONES AND RSSUI: TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 1 2W6 f2b E e. Evaluation for Agency Use Only 13. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental information provided and the submitted plans, documents, supportive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal? The objective of theproposal is to obtain a single - family residence permit and comply with the sensitive area regulations to the greatest extent possible. 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? There are no alternatives, because the applicant has re. uested the reasonable use of the ro.ert with the minimum im • act ossible to wetland. Corn ensation for impacts is limited to vegetative enhancement of existing wetlands and restoration of the stream channel. Since the entire site is wetland there is no area that wetlands can be created in. Existing wetlands are dominated 12y invasive non- native plants in the understory and would benefit from enhancement. The stream channel is an eroded ditch. Restoration of the stream willprovide an esthetically pleasing and stable channel. 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: Denning the applicant a single- family residence based on the presence of wetlands would constitute a taking of property and may legally require com•cnsation. The minimum reasonable use of the site is for one sin:le- family residence, with minimum setbacks to the street and side of lot and minimum yard area adjacent to the proposed house. Although mitigation in the form of creating wetland for wetland impacts is not possible the site will benefit from ve • e at ve enhancement of remainin: wetlands and stream restoration. These measures are the only possible mitigation. The preferred course of action is minimal impact by selecting the least impact location for the residence, and stream restoration and vegetative enhancement of remaining wetlands. z te U Q '. w 111, w= W o: ga LL Ca =w I- 0: Z F- Dp ,o =W F- U •LL ~O: • z; H' J S JONES AND ASSOC 1 206 7253606 fF 4. Does the ro osal conflict with ()tides of the a T There is n�o conflict Use Polic Plan? If so what • olicies of the with the Tukwila Corn rehcnsive Land Use Polio Plan. The :ro.osal°is.consistent with zonin and in character with the nei hborhood. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are:, None P. 03 Evaluation for Agency Use Only 14 • City of l ukwlla John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director PLANNING DIVISION COMMENTS DATE: 'June 15, 1999 APPLICANT: Jihad Keirouz RE: D99 -0168, New Single Family Home ADDRESS: 13041 33rd Avenue South Please review the following comments listed below and submit your revisions accordingly. If you have any questions on the requested revisions, Carol Lumb is the planner assigned to the file and can be reached at (206) 431 -3661. 1. • A letter dated June 9, 1999 from Charles Repath, J.S. Jones and Associates, was submitted evaluating the wetland located on the site. This letter states that the property is entirely wetland except for a 2 -5 foot fringe along the south property line. As a result, before the building permit can be processed, you must submit a Reasonable Use Exception application and a SEPA application. These applications are attached. The Planning Commission reviews and makes a decision on Reasonable Use applications at a public hearing. Attachment: Reasonable Use Exception Application SEPA Application c: \carol \general \d99 - 0168 -2.doc 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Faz (206) 431 -3665 z. rYw & UO: W =' 17: CD 2 • ND =cy. • w. • D p ;O N' • =ui • Z O. •z. .TONES AND ASSOC 1 206 7253606 S. Jonce and 4 s8ociia.tes, Inc. June 9, 1999 Mr. Jihad Kierouz J.A.K. Inc. 13407 5la Avenue West Edmonds, Washington 98062 RE: Lot 12.. Robbins Block 6, Located Immediately South of 13031 33`d Avenue South, Tukwila, Washington Dear Mr. Kierouz: The property is entirely wetland, except for a 2 to S -foot fringe along the south property line where old fill -was placed for the residence to the south. The northesstem third of the sitc has been recently graded. The undisturbed portion of the site is dominated by a bydrophytic plant community. Dominant species include western: red cedar (Thuja plicata), giant horsetail (F_quisetum telbnateia), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), reed canary-grass (Ranunculus repens) (see attached data sheets). Soils are black gravelly sandy loam iron 0 to 20 inches. Soils were inundated or saturated to the surface. In the graded portion of the site, vegetation had been cleared. Soils are gleyed at ten inches. Wetland hydrology was not present a the time of the June 8, 1999 site visit, but was present on a previous site visit. According to the City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Overlay from the Tukwila Municipal Code, the wetland is an isolated Type 3 wetland. "Type 3 wetlands (are) those wetlands which are equal to or less than one acre in size and that have two or fewer wetland classes' (Tukwila Municipal Code, 1997). A Type 3 watercourse crosses the property from west to east. Tukwila requires a 25 -foot buffer for Type 3 wetlands and a 1S -foot buffer for Type 3 watercourses. An additional 1U -foot building setback is required for residential developments (Tukwila Municipal code, 1997). The only way to it appears you can achieve the intended use for this property is to apply for a reasonable use exception. Section 18.45.115 of the Tukwila Municipal Code, explaining exceptions to Tukwila wetland regulations, is attached. J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. does not guarantee that any intended use may be achieved. Wetlands are subject to seasonal and annual variation. Use is dependent upon approval of all regulating jurisdictions. Very Truly Charles Repath Wetland Biologist 3 .405 52nd Place, K.E. TACOMA,WASHINGTON 98422 253- 942 -7131 / FAX 253 -942 -7132 P.02 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development May 25, 1999 Mr. Jihad Keirouz 13407 51st Avenue W. Edmonds, WA 98026 John W Rants, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director Re: Single- Family Residential Permit #D99 -0168: Sensitive Area Requirements. Dear Mx. Keirouz: This letter is in response to your questions about processing a permit to construct a new single- family house in sensitive areas. The site address is 13041 33`d Avenue S. According to the City's Sensitive Areas Overlay, there are no water features mapped on the site. However, a watercourse originating from groundwater, is located on the south boundary of the subject, Lot #12. In addition, potential wetland area is also present adjacent to the watercourse on the site: You have developed the two lots immediately north of the subject property ( #D98 -0215 & #D98 -0175. These two existing legal lots of record were not affected by the watercourse. However, Lot #12 is subject to the City's Sensitive Areas Ord. (TMC Chapter 18.45). My memorandum dated 7/17/98 to Gary Barnett, Public Works Engineer was sent to you (copy attached). Briefly, I requested a wetland study at that time to inform you of an issue with developing Lot #12. A recent site visit observed disturbance and potential wetland impacts on the Lot. Prior to processing a building perrnit you must submit the following: 1) On -site wetland study, prepared by a qualified wetland expert, to describe existing conditions and extent of wetland area, if present. Include the watercourse in the study and provide wetland and watercourse ratings per the Sensitive Areas Ord. 2) The extent of wetland/watercourse areas will need to be mapped/surveyed and include standard buffer setbacks. 3) Based on my observations, Lot #12 may be completely affected by the sensitive areas. The Sensitive Areas Ord. includes an Exception process for this type of situation (TMC 18.45.115). An application for a Reasonable Use Exception permit is appropriate if sensitive area regulation would deny all reasonable use of a property. s•._1-a(dl• • ; . ,/ .-d • .1 e t VII z =z • • w oo w w: w= (DL: co DI wo. =a • w 1-- z Z ° np o N; •ion. w 5, • ui z'. O 1—' z Mr. Jihad Keirouz May 25, 1999 Page 2 In summary, it appears tlie Exception process may be necessary for building on the subject lot. The Ordinance standard for wetland mitigation is a ratio of 1.5 to 1.0 area replacement. An alternative may be to .mitigate (replace) wetland area off the site in order to use most of the property for ahouse. The watercourse should be preserved as an open channel since it is located along the south property boundary. have also attached a copy of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. If you or your wetland expert have questions, you may call me at 206-431-3662. Sincerely, • C. Gary chulz Urban Environmentalist Cc: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director Carol Lumb, Associate Planner • " . ....1.4.00,0,11,•••0111.1.14.11*.nolVANsontrtiltyry•INI City of Tuki vila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director PLANNING DIVISION COMMENTS DATE: May 19, 1999 APPLICANT: Jihad Keirouz RE: D99 -0168, New Single Family Home ADDRESS: 13041 33rd Avenue South Please review the following comments listed below and submit your revisions accordingly. If you have any questions on the requested revisions, Carol Lumb is the planner assigned to the file and can be reached at (206) 431 -3661. 1. A wetland study is required for this site, as noted in the attached copy of a memo that was provided in 1998 to the . applicant, when a building permit was applied for on lot 12. The wetland study must be submitted and reviewed along with the building permit application. Attachment: 7/17/98 Memorandum c: \carol \general \d99- 0168.doc 6muk.tkw-, e► Ns, aAos,&,,,,L %,),ork.0-4),-) 1 (;<i-(7\ 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 4313670 • Fax (206) 431 -3665 z 2, U. U O .to 0. cn W'. :W 'W0: g J' =0 pw _: • Z Z D D o: W H V, = O, U !? ~O �" z City of Tukwila Department of Public Works DATE: PROJECT NAME: PLAN CHECK NO.: PLAN REVIEWER: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT COMMENTS September 23, 1998 Keirouz Residence D98-0287 John W. Rants, Mayor Ross A. Eams4 P. E., Director Contact Tammy Frederick, Permit Technician at (206) 433-0179, if you have any questions regarding the following comments. Due to the amount of surface water associated with your property the Public Works Dept. will require that your storm drainage plan be disigned by a licensed engineer. Please submitt 4 copies of your new site plan with the engineer deisgned storm drainage plan to us as soon as possible so we can review and approve your engineered plan. cc: Gary Barnett, Public Works ATTACHMENT E 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: (206) 433-0179 • Fax (206) 431-3665 TUKWILA BUILDING DIVISION PLAN REVTEW COMMENTS DATE: September 11, 1998 PROJECT NAME: Keirouz residence PLAN CHECK NO: D98 -0216 PLAN REVIEWER: Contact Bob Benedicto at (206) 431 -3670 if you have questions regarding the following comments. 1. The foundation design that was submitted with this application vvas based upon an assumed allowable soil bearing pressure of 2000 p.s.f. The building code permits the design of foundations for stud bearing walls to be in accordance with U.B.C. Table 18-1 -C provided that the design loads for continuous footings have a load of less than 2000 pounds per lineal foot and isolated footings have design loads of less than 50,000 pounds and the foundations is on nonexpansive soil. Re: U.B.C. 1805. The current site conditions indicate that the soil on this lot may be of organic clays and perhaps an expansive soils condition. In addition, there is an active spring to the West side of the lot that is pumping water over the proposed building footprint. Based upon this new information regarding the site conditions, we are not permitted by code to approve the prescriptive foundation design, as submitted, without additional information. Provide a geotechnical report prepared by a professional engineer. The report should. include recommendations for foundation type and design criteria, including bearing capacity, provisions to mitigate the effects of expansive soils (if found) and provisions to drain the spring water from around and under the proposed building. A revised foundation plan. and detail's may be required based upon the findings of the geotechnical report. End. Initial plan review comments. ATTACHMENT 1 J� haci SFP.. City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W Rants, Mayor ■ September 4, 1998 Mr. Jihad Keriouz 13520 Linden Avenue N. Seattle, WA 98133 Re: Single - Family Demolition Permit #M198 -0113 & Building Permit #D98 -0215. Dear Mr. Keirouz: Based on a site visit I conducted on approximately 8/12/98, your house demolition/construction activities have encroached and disturbed a sensitive area located on Lot #12 of the Robbins Springbrook Addition in Tukwila. The site is located along the west of 33rd Avenue S. just south of S. 130th Street. Portions of the lot were cleared by machinery and a small drainage pipe was plugged. I discussed the situation with your biologist by telephone and met with you on the site last week. There is wetland area on the lot associated with a small drainage that enters the property from the southwest. The local area has groundwater seepage and city mapped wetlands are present to the west along 32nd Avenue S. Per the City's 8/11/98 Correction Letter #1 and activities that occurred on -site, you will need to submit the following: 1) Wetland study that identifies the extent of wetland and watercourse area affecting the site. A plan to restore the disturbed drainage and maintain it as an open system. This plan may include incorporating an enhanced drainage channel that become part of the final building permit for the single - family residence. ATTACHMENT D Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • City Hall Fax (206) 433-1833 ranai;ci'>' aura: s 'W+ %sev;d�w;;s�ty:f2;i:,:���;a z �W; • `o o , • N0 wCU oC J. u- ft.; a e. = w: • ww M 0; o-. OH ui U 0, tV z Mr. Jihad Keriouz September 4, 1998 Page 2 Please submit the required study and plan by October 1, 1998 to continue the building permit review. An Hydraulic Approval Permit (HPA) may be required by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife prior to altering the watercourse on the site. If you have questions about this letter contact me at 206 - 431 -3662. Sincerely, / C. Gary Schuh Urban Environmentalist Steve Lancaster, DCD Director Joanna Spencer, PW Associate Engineer Kelcie Peterson, DCD PermitsCoordinator z uQl= • sO O • Np U) w a. LL.Qt Nom:. =d:. z • Z H, HON w 'Li Z 0. z SECTION 1.1 DRAINAGE REVIEW . '' . �� . C.. .... r : 1.1.2 DRAINAGE . /IEW TYPES AND REQUIREMENTS 1.1.2.1 SMALL SITE DRAINAGE REVIEW Small Site Drainage Review is a simplified alternative to Full Drainage Review for small residential ,. building and subdivision projects adding less than 10,000 square feet of new impervious surface and restricting site clearing to less than 2 acres or less than 35% of the site, whichever is greater. The core and special requirements applied under Full Drainage Review are replaced with simplified small site • _ z requirements which can be applied by ainon-enginee4 These requirements include flow control Best = • Management Practices (BMPs) such as setting aside open space to limit future site clearing, and using simple measures such as splash blocks and gravel trenches to disperse or infiltrate runoff from impervious areas. Also included are simple BMPs for erosion and sediment. control (ESC).ormal water quality v UO treatment is not necessary. This alternative to Full Drainage Review acknowledges that drainage impacts cn for many small development proposals can be effectively mitigated without construction of costly flow w =. control and water quality facilities. - 1•-: CO U. The Small Site Drainage Review process minimizes the time and-effort required to design, submit, review, w O. and approve drainage facilities for these proposals. In most cases, the requirements can be met with submittals prepared by contractors, architects, or homeowners without the involvement of a licensed civil gQ engineer.. co Threshold z Small Site Drainage Review is allowed for_any project that is subject to drainage review as determined in Z O Dp O 0H 2 U1' . Z. W F- _! 0 Z oroxomxix -I R E a M s Section 1.1.1 (p. 1 -6) and that meets all of the following criteria: • The project is a single family residential project,' AND • The project adds 2,000 to 10,000 square feets of new impervious surface, AND • The project clears less than 2 "acres or less than 35% of the site, whichever is greater. Note: Some projects qualifying for Small Site Drainage Review may also require Targeted Drainage Review if they meet any of the threshold criteria in Section 1.1.2.2 (p. 1 -10). Any potential small site proposal may elect to go through Full Drainage Review described in Section 1.1.2.3 (p. 1 -13). Scope of Requirements IF Small Site Drainage Review is allowed, THEN the applicant may apply the simplified small site su. ,.' ; and draina• e des' _. - • - - I detailed in Small Site Drainage Requirements. adopted as kAppendix.0 .co this manual (detached) and available as a separate booklet from DNR or DDES. These requirements ments include simplified BMPs for flow control and erosion and sediment control. Note: An open space tract or covenant may be required to preserve uncleared areas. Exemption, from Core and" Special Requirements The simplified drainage requirements applied under Small Site Drainage Review are considered sufficient to meet the overall intent of the core and special requirements in Sections 1.2 and 1.3, except under certain conditions when a proposed project has characteristics that trigger Targeted Drainage Review (see the threshold for Targeted Drainage Review in Section 1.1.2.2, p. 1 -10) and may require the involvement of a licensed civil engineer. Therefore, any proposed project that qualifies for Small Site Drainage Review as determined above and complies with the small site drainage requirements detailed in Appendix C is considered exempt from all core and special requirements in Sections 1.2 and 1.3 except those which would apply to the-project if it is subject to TargetedDrainage Review as specified in Section 1.1.2.2 (p. 1 -10). 7 Single family residential project is defined on page 1-4. 8 The threshold bf 10,000 square feet of new impervious surface shall be applied by threshold discharge area and shall include all impervious surface that will ultimately result from the proposed project (e.g., impervious.surface that will result from • future homes within a plat or short plat). • 1998 Surface Water Design Manual 1 -9.. 9/1/98 SECTION 1.1 DRAINAGE REVIEW 1.1.2.2 TARGETED DRAINAGE REVIEW Targeted Drainage Review (TDR) is an abbreviated evaluation by DDES permit review staff of a proposed project's compliance with selected core and special requirements. Projects subject to this type of drainage review are typically small-site proposals or other small projects that have site- specific or project - specific drainage concerns that must be addressed by a licensed civil engineer or DDES engineering review staff: Under Targeted Drainage Review, engineering costs associated with drainage design and review are kept to a minimum because the review includes only thosexequirements that would apply to the particular project: R E M T s r3 Threshold Targeted Drainage Review is required for those projects subject to drainage review as determined in Section 1.1.1 (p. 1 -6), AND which are not subject to Full or Large Site Drainage Review as determined in Sections 1.1.2.3 (p. 1 -13) and 1.1.2.4 (p. 1 -13), AND which have the characteristics of one or more of the following project categories: • TDR Project. Category #1: Projects that contain or are adjacent to a floodplain, stream, lake, wetland, closed depression;`or other sensitive area as defined by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (codified in KCC 21A.24) excluding seismic, coal mining, and volcanic hazard areas; OR projects located within a Landslide Hazard Drainage Area° or a Critical Drainage Area10; OR projects located within a rural zoned area" subject to areal clearing limits•under KCC 16.82.150(c) and which clear more than 7,000 square feet or 35% of the site, whichever is greater. • TDR Project Category #2: Projects that propose to construct or modify' z a drainage pipe /ditch that is 12 inches or more in size /depth or receives surface and storm water runoff from a drainage pipe /ditch that is 12 inches or more in size /depth. • TDR Project Category #3: Redevelopment. projects that propose$100,000 or more of improvements to an existing high -use site:13 • Scope of Requirements IF Targeted Drainage Review is required, THEN the applicant must demonstrate that the proposed project complies with the selected core and special requirements corresponding to the project category or categories that best match the proposed project. The project categories and applicable requirements for each are described below and summarized in Table 1.1.2.A (p. 1 -8). Note: If the proposed project has the characteristics of more than one project category, the requirements of each applicable category shall apply. Compliance with these requirements requires submittal of engineering plans and/or calculations stamped by a licensed civil engineer registered in the state of Washington,_ unless deemed unnecessary by DDES. The engineer need only demonstrate compliance with those core-and special requirements that have been predetermined to be applicable based on specific project characteristics as detailed below and summarized in Table 1.1.2.A (p. 1 -8). The procedures and requirements for submittal of engineering plans and calculations can be found in Section 2.3. 9 Landslide hiazard Drainage Areas are delineated on a map adopted with this manual (see map pocket inside of back cover). 10 See Reference Section 3 for a list of Critical Drainage Areas. 11 See Reference Section 1 for a list of rural zoned areas where this threshold applies. 12 Construct and modify is defined on page 1 -3. 13 See the full definition of high -use site on page 1 -12. 9/1/98 1 -10 1998 Surface Water Design Manual 1.1.2 DRAINAGE k. VIEW TYPES AND REQUIREMENTS TDR Project Category #1 • This category includes projects that are too small to trigger application of most core requirements, but may be subject to site - specific floodplain or sensitive area requirements, or other area- specific drainage requirements adopted by the County. Such projects primarily include single family residential projects in Small Site Drainage Review. ." IF the proposed project meets the characteristics of TDR Project Category #1, THEN the applicant must demonstrate that the project complies with the following five requirements: • Core Requirement #5: Erosion and Sediment Control, Section 1.2.5 (p. 1-43) • Special Requirement #1: Other Adopted Area- Specific Requirements, Section 1.3.1 (p. 1 -59) • Special Requirement #2: Floodplain/Floodway Analysis, Section 1.3.2 (p. 1 -60) • Special Requirement #3: Flood Protection Facilities, Section 1.3.3 -(p. 1 -61) • • Special Requirement #4: Source Control; Section 1.3.4 (p. 1 -61). In addition, DDES may require the applicant to demonstrate compliance with any one or more of the remaining seven core requirements in Section 1.2 based on project or site - specific conditions. For example, if the proposed-project contains or is adjacent to a SAO - defined landslide or steep slope hazard area; DDES may require compliance with "Core Requirement #1: Discharge at the Natural Location" (Section 1.2.1, p. 1 -17). This may.in turn require compliance with "Core Requirement #2: Offsite Analysis" (Section 1.2.2, p. 1 -19) if a tightline is required by Core Requirement #1. If a tightline is found to be unfeasible, DDES may instead require a flow control facility per "Core Requirement #3: Flow Control" (Section 1.2.3; p. 1 =25). If a tightline is feasible, "Core Requirement #4: Conveyance System" (Section 1.2.4, p. 1-38) would be required to ensure proper size and design. Any required flow control facility or tightline system may also trigger compliance with "Core Requirement #6: Maintenance and Operations" (Section 1.2.6, p. 1-46), "Core Requirement #7: Financial Guarantees and Liability" (Section 1.2.7, p. 1-47), and possibly "Core Requirement #8, Water Quality" (Section 1.2.8, p. 1-49) if runoff from pollution- generating, impervious surfaces is collected. The applicant may also have to address compliance with any applicable sensitive areas requirements in KCC 21A.24 as determined by DDES. • R E c M T s TDR Project Category #2 This category is intended to apply selected core and special requirements to those projects that propose to construct or modify a drainage system of specified size, but are not adding sufficient impervious surface to trigger Full Drainage Review or Large Site Drainage Review. IF the proposed project meets the characteristics of TDR Project Category #2, THEN the applicant must demonstrate that the proposed project complies with the following requirements: • Core Requirement #1: Discharge at the Natural Location, Section 1.2.1 (p. 1 -17) • Core Requirement #2`. Offsite Analysis, Section 1.2.2 (p. 1 -19) • Core-Requirement #4: Conveyance System, Section 1.2.4 (p. 1 -38) • Core Requirement #5: Erosion and Sediment Control, Section 1.2.5 (p. 1-43) • Core Requirement #6: Maintenance and Operations, Section 1.2.6.(p. 1-46) • Core .Requirement #7: Financial Guarantees and Liability, Section 1.2.7 (p. 1 -47) . • Special Requirement #4: Source Control, Section 1.3.4 (p. 1 -61). R e M -r s 1998 Surface Water Design Manual • 9/1/98 1 -11 y:;at :a:;c ;as'v.. • 1.2.2 CORE R. JIREMENT 42: OFFSITE ANALYSIS_ 1.2.2 CORE REQUIREMENT #2: OFFSITE ANALYSIS R E Q M T All proposed projects must submit an offsite analysis report that assesses potential offsite drainage impacts associated with development of the project site and proposes appropriate mitigations of those impacts. The initial permit submittal shall include, at minimum, a Level 1 downstream analysis as describe d in Section 1.2.2.1 below. Intent: To identify and evaluate offsite drainage problems that may be created or aggravated by the proposed project, and to determine appropriate measures for preventing aggravation of those problems in accordance with the requirements of this manual. The primary component of an offsite analysis report is the downstream analysis, which examines the drainage system within one - quarter mile downstream of the project site or farther as described in Section 1.2.2.1 below. It is intended to identify existing or potential/predictable downstream problems so that appropriate mitigation, as specified in Section 1.2.2.2 (p. 1 -22), can be provided to prevent aggravation of . these problems. A secondary component of the offsite analysis report is an evaluation of the upstream drainage system. to verify and document that impacts will not occur as a result of the proposed project. The evaluation must extend upstream to a point where any backwater effects created by the project cease. 0 EXEMPTION FROM CORE REQUIREMENT #2 • A proposed project is exempt from Core Requirement #2 if any one of the following is true: 1. DDES determines there is sufficient information for them to conclude that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the downstream and/or upstream drainage system, OR 2. The project adds less than 5,000 square feet of new impervious surface, AND does not construct or modify a drainage pipe /ditch that is 12 inches or more in size/depth or that receives runoff from a drainage pipe /ditch that is 12 inches or more in size/depth, AND does not contain or lie adjacent to a SAO - defined landslide, steep slope, or erosion hazard area, OR 3. The project does not change the rate, volume, duration, or location of discharges to and from the project site (e.g., where existing impervious surface is replaced with other.impervious surface having similar runoff - generating characteristics, or where pipe /ditch modifications do not change existing discharge characteristics). 1.2.2.1 DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS The downstream analysis "must consider the existing conveyance system(s) for a minimum flowpath distance downstream of one - quarter mile and beyond that as needed to reach a point where the project site area constitutes less than 15% of the tributary area. This minimum distance may be increased as follows: • Task 2 of a Level. .1. downstream analysis (described. in detail in- Section 2.3.1.1) is a review of all available information on the downstream area and is intended to identify existing drainage problems. In all cases, this information review shall extend one mile downstream of the project site. The existence of flooding, erosion, or nuisance problems may extend the one - quarter -mile minimum distance for other tasks to allow evaluation of impacts from the proposed development to the . identified problems. • If a project's impacts to flooding, erosion, or nuisance problems are mitigated by improvements to the downstream conveyance system, the downstream analysis will extend a minimum of one - quarter mile beyond the improvement. This is necessary because many such improvements result in a reduction of stormwater storage or an increase in peak flows from the problem site. • At their discretion, DDES may extend the downstream analysis beyond the minimum distance specified above on the reasonable expectation of impacts. 1998 Surface Water Design Manual 1 -19 9/1/98 • z _I w ice 00 C. W J Nu_ w0 2 J u. _a. �w zI �O ZH 2 U� C3 H W us • — • f-; ui Z U O~ Z . SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENT The Level 1 downstream analysis is aqualitative survey of each downstream system and is_the_firststep . in identifying flooding, erosion, or nuisance problems as defined.below under "Downstream Problems Requiring Special Attention." Each. Level 1 analysis is composed of four tasks at a minimum: • Task 1: Define and map the study area • Task 2: Review all available information on the study area • Task 3: Field inspect the study area • Task 4: Describe the drainage system, and its existing and predicted problems. Upon review of the Level 1 analysis, DDES may require a Level 2 or 3 downstream analysis, depending on the presence of existing or predicted flooding, erosion, or nuisance problems identified in the Level 1 analysis. Levels 2 and 3 downstream analysis quantify downstream problems by providing information on the • severity and frequency of an existing problem or the likelihood of creating a new problem. A Level 2 analysis is a rough quantitative analysis (non -survey field data, uniform flow analysis). Level 3 is a more precise analysis (survey field data, backwater analysis). of significant problems. If conditions warrant, additional, more detailed analysis may be required beyond Level 3. • A detailed description of offsite analysis scope and submittal requirements is provided in Section 2.3.1.1: • - Hydrologic analysis methods and requirements for Levels 2 and 3 downstream analysis are contained in Chapter 3; hydraulic analysis methods are contained in Chapter 4.. . ❑. DOWNSTREAM PROBLEMS REQUIRING SPECIAL ATTENTION While the basic flow control standards in Core Requirement #3. serve to minimize the creation and aggravation of many types of downstream drainage problems, there are some types that are more sensitive to aggravation than others depending on the nature or severity of the problem and which basic flow control standard is being applied. In particular, there are three types of downstream problems where the County has determined that the nature and/or severity of the problem warrants additional attention through the • downstream analysis and possibly additional mitigation to ensure no aggravation: 1. Conveyance system nuisance problems 2. Severe erosion problems 3. Severe flooding problems. Conveyance system nuisance problems are minor but chronic flooding or erosiori problems that result from the overflow of a constructed conveyance system that is substandard or has become too small due to upstream development. Such problems.warrant additional attention because of their chronic nature and because they result from the failure of a conveyance system to provide a minimum acceptable level of protection (see definition below). Severe flooding and erosion problems as defined below also warrant -additional attention because they either pose a significant threat to health and safety or can cause significant damage to public or private property. Conveyance System Nuisance Problems (Type 1) Nuisance problems in general are defined as any existing or predicted flooding or erosion which does not constitute a severe flooding or erosion problem as defined below. Conveyance system nuisance problems are defined as any nuisance flooding or erosion that results from the overflow of a constructed conveyance system for runoff events less than or equal to a 10 -year event. Examples include inundation of a shoulder or lane of a roadway, overflows collecting in yards or pastures, shallow flows across driveways, minor flooding of crawl spaces or unheated garages /outbuildings, and minor erosion. If a conveyance system nuisance problem is identified or predicted downstream, the need for additional mitigation must be evaluated as specified in Section 1.2.2.2 under "Problem- Specific Mitigation 9/1/98 1998 Surface Water Design Manual 1 -20 1.2.2 CORE R. _,TIREMENT #2: OFFSITE ANALYSIS Requirements "(p. 1 -23). This may entail additional onsite flow control or other measures as needed to prevent creation or significant aggravation of the problem. For any other nuisance problem which may be identified downstream, this manual does not require mitigation beyond the basic flow control standard applied in Core Requirement #3. This is because to prevent aggravation of such problems (e.g., those caused by the elevated water surfaces of ponds, lakes, wetlands, and closed depressions or those involving downstream erosion) can require two to three times as much onsite detention volume, which is considered unwarranted for addressing nuisance problems. However, if under some unusual circumstance, the aggravation of such a nuisance problem is determined H ,H Z by DDES to be a significant adverse impact, additional mitigation may be required. -- Severe Erosion Problems (Type 2) o Severe erosion problems are defined as downstream channels, ravines, or slopes with evidence of or w w; potential for erosion/incision sufficient to pose a sedimentation hazard to downstream conveyance systems —i or pose a landslide hazard by undercutting adjacent slopes. Severe erosion problems do not include N u_ roadway shoulder filling or minor ditch erosion. • If a severe erosion problem is identified or predicted downstream, additional mitigation must be g considered as specified in. Section 1.2.2.2 under "Problem- Specific Mitigation Requirements" (p. 1 -23). CO P This ay entail -additional onsite flow control or other measures as needed to prevent creation or = w m aggravation of the problem. .. ~ _ Z l-- Severe Flooding Problems (Type 3) w o Lu Severe flooding problems can be caused by conveyance system overflows or the elevated water surfaces of ponds, lakes, wetlands, or closed depressions. Severe flooding problems are defined as follows: U to O • Flooding of the finished area23 of a habitable building,24 or the electrical/heating system of a habitable 0 building for runoff events less than or equal to a 100 -year event. Examples include flooding of = 0 finished floors of homes and commercial or industrial buildings; or flooding of electrical/heating ~O system components in the crawl space or garage of a home. Such problems are referred to in this z; manual as "severe building flooding problems." U v) • Flooding over all lanes of a roadway25 or severely impacting a sole access driveway26 for runoff 0 I - events less than or equal to the 100 -year event. Such problems -are referred to in this manual as "severe roadway flooding problems." If a severe flooding problem is identified or predicted downstream, the need for additional mitigation must be evaluated as specified in Section 1.2.2.2 under "Problem- Specific Mitigation Requirements" (p. 1 -23). t , This may entail consideration of additional onsite flow control or other measures as needed to prevent creation or significant aggravation of the problem. 23 Finished area, for the purposes of this definition, means any enclosed area of a building that is designed to be served by the building's permanent heating or cooling system. 24 Habitable building means any residential, commercial, or industrial building that is equipped with a permanent heating or cooling system and an electrical system. 25 Roadway, for the purposes of this definition, means the traveled portion of any public or private road or street classified as such in the King County Road Standards. • 26 Sole access driveway means there is no other unobstructed, flood -free route for emergency access to a habitable building. Severely impacting means the flooding overtops a cutverted "section of the driveway, posing a. threat of washout or unsafe access conditions due to indiscemible driveway edges, or the flooding is deeper than 6 inches on the driveway, posing a severe impediment to emergency access. 1998 Surface Water Design Manual. 1 -21 • *9/1/98 SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS 1.2.2.2 IMPACT MITIGATION A proposed project must not significantly aggravate existing downstream problems or create new problems as a result of developing the site. This manual does not require development proposals to fix.. or otherwise reduce the severity of existing downstream drainage problems, although doing so may be an acceptable mitigation. ❑ PRINCIPLES OF IMPACT MITIGATION Aggravation of an existing downstream problem means increasing the frequency of occurrence and/or severity of the problem. Increasing peak flows at the site of aproblem caused by conveyance system overflows can increase the frequency of the problem's occurrence. Increasing durations of .flows at or above the overflow return frequency can increase the severity of the problem by. increasing the depth and duration of flooding... Controlling peaks and durations through onsite detention can prevent aggravation of such problems by releasing the increased volumes due to development only at return frequencies below the conveyance overflow return frequency, with the net result of causing the conveyance system to flow full for a longer period of time. When a problem-is caused by high water - surface elevations of a volume-sensitive water body, such as a . lake, wetland, or closed depression, aggravation means the same as for problems caused by conveyance overflows. Increasing the volume of flows to a volume- sensitive water body can increase the frequency of the problem's occurrence. Increasing the duration of flows for a range of return frequencies both above ' and below the problem return frequency can increase the severity of the problem; mitigating these impacts requires . control of flow durations for a range of return frequencies both above and below the problem return frequency. The neteffect of this duration control is to release the increased volumes due to development only at water surface elevations below that causing the problem, which in turn can cause an increase in these lower,.but more frequently occurring, water surface elevations. This underscores an unavoidable impact of development upstream of volume- sensitive water bodies: the increased volumes generated by the development will cause some range of increase in water surfaceelevations, no matter what detention standard is applied. Creating a new problem means increasing peak flows and/or volumes such that after development, the frequency of conveyance overflows or water surface elevations exceeds the thresholds for the various problem types discussed in Section 1.2.2.1. For example, application of the Level 1 flow control standard requires matching predeveloped and developed 2- and 10 -year peak flows. The 100 -year peak flow is only partially attenuated, and the flow increase may be enough to cause a "severe flooding problem" as described on page 1 -21. The potential for causing a new problem is often identified during the Level 1 downstream analysis, where the observation of a reduction in downstream pipe sizes; for example, may be enough to predict creation of a new problem. A Level 2 or 3 analysis will typically be required to verify the capacity, of the system and determine whether 100 -year flows can be safely conveyed. _ ❑ SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS TO EXISTING PROBLEMS The determination of whether additional onsite mitigation or other measures are needed to address an existing downstream problem depends on the significance of the proposed project's predicted impact on that problem. For some identified problems, DDES will make the determination as to whether the project's impact is significant enough to require additional mitigation. For the downstream problems defined on pages -1 -20 and 1 -21, this threshold of significant impact or aggravation is defined below. For conveyance system nuisance problems, the problem is considered significantly aggravated if there is any increase in the project's contribution to the frequency of occurrence and/or severity of the problem. for runoff events less than or equal to the 10 -year event. Note: Increases in the project's contribution to this type of problem are considered to be prevented if sufficient onsite flow control and/or offsite improvements are provided as specified in Table 1.2.3.A (p: 1 -26). 9/1/98* 1 -22 1998 Surface Water Design Manual z W 00 co W = J U_ WO co u- ?. w z �. 1— 0 zF— uj O • N! O E— W w. p. Ili co — _ 0 z 1.2.2 CORE RE,��TIREMENT #2: OFFSITE ANALYSIS • • • For severe erosion problems, the problem is considered significantly aggravated if there is any increase in • project's contribution to the flow duration27 of peak flows ranging from 50% of the 2 -year peak flow up to the full50 -year peak flow at the eroded area.. Note: Increases in' the project's contribution to this type of problem are considered to be prevented if Leve1 2 flow control or offsite improvements are provided as specified in Table 1.2.3.A (p. 1 -26). : • . For severe building flooding problems, the problem is considered significantly aggravated if there is any z increase in the project's contribution28 to the frequency, depth, and/or duration of the problem for runoff Z events less than or equal to the 100 -year event. W 2. For severe roadway flooding problems, the problem is considered significantly aggravated if any of the 6 6 v following thresholds are exceeded and there is any increase in the project's contribution28 to the frequency, (..) 0 depth, and/or duration of the problem for runoff events less than or equal to the 100 -year event: co W • The existing flooding29 over all lanes of a roadway or overtopping the culverted section of a "sole 1— access driveway" is predicted to increase in depth more than a quarter -inch or 10% (whichever is w O greater) for the 100 -year runoff event. • 2 • The "existing flooding" over all lanes of a r oadway or "severely impacting a sole access driveway" g Q is more than 6 inches deep or faster than 5 feet per second for runoff events less than or equal to the co 100 -year event. = W • The "existing flooding" over all lanes of a sole access roadway30 is more than 3 inches deep or faster ? F" than 5 feet per second for runoff events less than or equal to the 100 -year event, or is at any depth for Z Og *runoff events less than or equal to the 10 -year event. 2 ❑ PROBLEM - SPECIFIC MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS o co 1. IF a proposed project or threshold discharge area within a project drains to one or more of the three W W` types of downstream drainage problems defined in Section 1.2.2.1 (pages 1 -20 and 1 -21) as identified - 0 through a downstream analysis, THEN the applicant must do one of the following: LI Z a) Submit a Level 2 or Level 3 downstream analysis per Section 2.3.1 demonstrating that the V . proposed project will not create or significantly aggravate the identified downstream problem(s), 0 OR •. z. b) Show that the natural discharge area or threshold discharge area draining to the identified problem(s) qualifies for an exemption from Core Requirement #3: Flow Control, OR c) Document that the basic area - specific flow control standard required in Core Requirement #3 is adequate to prevent creation or significant aggravation of the identified downstream problem(s) as - - indicated in Table 1.2.3.A (p. 1 -26) with the phrase, "No additional flow control needed," OR . d) Provide additional onsite flow control necessary to prevent creation or significant aggravation of the downstream problem(s) as specified in Table 1.2.3.A (p. 1 -26) and further detailed in _ Section 3.3.5, OR 27 Flow duration means the aggregate time that peak flows are at or above a particular flow rate of interest (e.g., the amount of time over the last 40 years thatpeak flows were at or above the 2 -year flow rate). 28 Increases in the project's contribution are considered to be prevented if sufficient onsite flow control and/or offsite improvements are provided as specified for 'severe flooding problems' in Table 1.2.3.A (p. 1-26). For 'severe flooding problems' located within the mapped 100 -year floodplain of a "major.receiving water' (see Table 1.2.3.8; p. 1 -29) or the mapped 100 -year floodplain of a major stream for which there is an adopted basin plan, increases in the projects contribution are considered negligible (zero)-regardless of the flow control standard being applied, unless DDES determines there is .a potential for increased flooding separate from that associated with the existing 100 -year floodplain. . . 29 Existing flooding, for the purposes of this definition, means flooding over all lanes of the roadway or driveway has occurred in the past and can be verified by-County records, County personnel, photographs, or other physical evidence. 30 Sole. access roadway means there is no other flood -free route for emergency access to one or more dwelling units. 1998 Surface. Water Design Manual 1 -23 *9/1/98 SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS e) .Provide offsite improvements necessary to prevent creation or significant aggravation of the identified downstream problem(s) as detailed in Chapter 3 unless identified as not - necessary in .Table 1.2.3.A (p. 1 -26), OR 0 Provide a combination of additional onsite flow control and offsite improvements sufficient to prevent creation or significant aggravation of the downstream problem(s) as 'demonstrated by a Level 2 or Level 3 downstream analysis. Z 2. IF it is identified that the manner of discharge from a proposed project may create a significant adverseimpact as described in Core Requirement' #1, THEN DDES may require the applicant to 2 implement additional measures or demonstrate the impact will not occur. Intent: To ensure provisions are made (if necessary) to prevent creation or significant aggravation of the three types of downstream problems requiring special attention by this manual, and to ensure 'compliance with the discharge requirements of Core Requirement #1. In addressing downstream problems per Problem - Specific Mitigation Requirement 1 above, the easiest of the provisions to implement will often be that of additional onsite flow control. This involves designing the requiredonsite flow control facility to meet anadditional set of performance criteria targeted to prevent significant aggravation of specific downstream problems. To save time and analysis, a set of predetermined flow control performance criteria corresponding to each of the three types of downstream problems is provided in Table 1.2.3.A (p. 1 -26) and described in more detail in Chapter 3. Note that in some cases the basic area- specific flow control standard applicable to the proposed project per Section 1.2.3.1 (p. 1 -31) is already sufficient to prevent significant aggravation of many of the defined downstream problem types. Such situations are noted in Table 1.2.3.A (p. 1 -26) as not needing additional onsite flow control or offsite improvements. Foi• example, if the Level 2 flow control standard is required by Section 1.2.3.1 (p. 1 -32), and a'conveyance system nuisance problem" is identified through offsite analysis per Core Requirement #2, no additional onsite flow control is needed, and no offsite improvements are necessary. 9/1/98* 1 -24 1998 Surface Water Design Manual UO w w =. J g J: w cod = w. 1— _, ZF..: I- O. Z UO N; way —O l.l cti 0 ~` Z 1.2.3 CO1 .EQUIREMENT #3: FLOW CONTROL 1.2.3 CORE REQUIREMENT #3: FLOW CONTROL R Q M T All proposed projects, including redevelopment projects, must provide onsite flow control facilities to mitigate the impacts of increased storm and surface water runoff generated by the addition of new impervious surface and any related land cover conversion. These facilities shall, at a minimum, meet the performance criteria for one of the area- specific flow control standards described in Section 1.2.3.1 (p. 1 -31) and be implemented according to the applicable flow control implementation requirements in Section 1.2.3.2 (p. 1 -35). Intent: To ensure the minimum level of control needed to protect downstream properties and resources from increases in peak, duration, and volume of runoff generated by new development. The level. of control varies depending on location and downstream conditions identified under Core Requirement #2. Guide to Applying ;.Core :Requirement #3; CoreiRequirement: #3:requires that-onsite_ detention_ and/ orintilt ration�facilities :be:constructed to control-:.: runott discharges.fromthe,project site.: Thesefacihtiess .mustmeet:amtnimum :flow °control :performance-:, standard:as set forth irrSection L ? 3, L, ," Area =S"pecift EFow: Control :.Standards' (page:1. -31), andmav\ need to. be,- even..largec to:,ensure .thatdownstreanrproblems are not created or-signiticantly aggravated ash ;` settortlr in�Sectton: L 22:2;." Problem Spec cMittgation. Requirements ". (p_.1:- 23):.. Table..1 �_3:A 12 .� (p G).pro.videsaqutcl.:�tudetiot seIecan the flow, rcontrol 'performance.crttena:necessary to meet: bothsot:aiiese regwrements: ' Area - specific flow control standards :targetthe level. of flow control- performance..to the protection-: ; needs-of Specific. regions: or- areas. of:they county: These: areas: arecalledflow-control.areas, and: t here: are: . -. three: such: areasdepicted on the: Flow ControllApplications. Map .adopted with this manual. (see. map; : pocket:onan`side:ofbackcover) :: Each. flow control; areazhas.a. bas ic: flow control: standard: that. is:specifiC7.- to thacarea:: The performance.criterixof thatbasic standard need to-be increased.to address-a specific downstream drainage problem as: explained: n :Step:4below.. 1 FIow control: implementation :requirements :are the minimum requirements for analyzing, designing;. and: maintaining -tlow control: facilities: For efficient applications of Core :Requirement #3, the following steps are recommended: L. Use the:Flow Control' Applications Map to determine the flow control area in which your•project is located:, It this determination: can. not bemade.from the. map,. a more: detailed. delineation. of flow control: areas is.available:on King County's Geographic Information System (GIS). the list of exemptions beginning on:page:.l: -27 "to determine if and/or which -portions of your projectrnusrprovide,flow control' facili .ties.per.Core:Requirement -3... :If flaw :control: facilitiesiare: required;. determine_(for.the_flow control.: area: identified, above):. which.. :area- specific::tlow control' standard applies. to your project :by consulting the detailed. threshold ':information. in Section. E2.3 :.1:.The:applicable:flow: control standard will determine the minimum. flow control performance required -for your proposed project: .4. If :do.wnstream problems were identified through:ofisite:analysis -per Core Requirement #2 and are proposed. to be addressed.through_onsiteflow control:. use Table .1.2.3.A (p. 1 -26) to determine if and what additionaLflow controlperformance is necessary to mitigate.impacts (i.e.; to prevent . creation :.or aggravation, of the identified problems).. ... U:seSection 1.2.3.2'. (p. 1-35)-to-determine the minimum requirements for implementing flow controls.. 1998 Surface Water Design Manual 1 -25 9/1/98 SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMEN 1.J w . TAB SUMMARY `OFFLOW CONTROLPERF .ORi1TANCE;CRIthR1.*A:CCEPTABLE FOR IMPACT_M11IGA.TIONt1j Downstream Problems Identified through Offsite Analysis per Core Requirement #2 AREA - SPECIFIC STANDARD Level 1 Flow Control Level 2 Flow Control Level 3 Flow Control. No problem identified. Apply basic standard performance criteria. Match 2 -yr & 10 -yr peaks Match durations for 50% of 2 -yr through 50 -yr peaks Match durations for 50% of 2 -yr though 50 -yr peaks AND match 100 -year peaks Type 1 Conveyance System Nuisance Problem Additional Flow Control Hold 10 -yr peak to overflow T,. peak(2)(3) No additional flow control or other mitigation is needed No additional flow control or other mitigation is needed Type 2 Severe Erosion Problem Additional Flow Control Apply Level 2 flow control(3)(4) No additional flow control is needed, but other mitigation may be required(4) No additional flow control is needed, but other mitigation may be requireo(4) Type 3 - Severe Flooding Problem Additional Flow Control Apply Level 3 flow control. If flooding is from conveyance system overflow, Level 3 may be modified to match durations above the overflow Tr peak rather than 50% of the 2 -yr peak. If flooding is from a dosed depression, make design adjustments as needed to meet the "special provision for closed depressions "(3)(5) Additional Flow Control Apply Level 3 flow control.. If flooding is from a closed depression, make design adjustments as needed to meet the "special provision for closed depressions "(3)(5) Additional Flow Control If flooding is from a closed depression, make design adjustments as needed to meet the "special provision for closed depressions" (3)(5) Notes: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) More than one set of problem- specific performance criteria may apply if two or more downstream problems are identified through offsite analysis per Core Requirement #2. If this happens, the performance goals of each applicable problem- specific criteria must be met. This can require extensive, time - consuming analysis to implement multiple sets of outflow performance criteria if additional onsite flow control is the only viable option for mitigating impacts to these - problems. In these cases, it may be easier and more prudent to implement the Level 3 flow control standard in place of the otherwise required area - specific standard. Use of the Level 3 flow control standard satisfies the specified performance criteria for all the area - specific and problem- specific requirements except if adjustments are required per the special provision for closed depressions described below in Note 5. Overflow Tr is the return period of conveyance system overflow. To determine Tr requires a minimum Level 2 downstream analysis as detailed in Section 2.3.1.1. To avoid this analysis, a T. of 2 years may be assumed. Offsite improvements may be implemented in lieu.of or in combination with additional flow control as allowed in Section 1.2.2.2 (p. 1 -22) and detailed in Section 3.3.5. A tightline system may be required regardless of the flow control standard being applied if needed to meet the discharge requirements of Core Requirement #1 (p. 1 -17) or the outfall requirements of Core Requirement #4 (p. 1 -41), or is deemed necessary by DDES where the risk of severe damage is high. Special Provision for Closed Depressions with a Severe Flooding Problem: IF the proposed project discharges by overland flow or conveyance system to a closed depression experiencing a "severe flooding problem" AND the amount of impervious surface area proposed by the project is greater than or equal to 10% of the 100 -year water surface area of the closed depression, THEN use the point of compliance analysis technique" described in Section 3.3.6 to verify that water surface levels are not increasing for the return frequencies at which flooding occurs, up to and including the 100 -year frequency. If necessary, iteratively adjust onsite flow control performance to prevent increases. Note: The "point of compliance analysis" relies on certain field measurements taken directly at the closed depression (e.g., soils tests, topography, etc.). If permission to enter private property for such measurements is denied, DDES may waive this provision and apply the Level 3.• flow control standard with a mandatory 20% safety factor on the storage volume. 9/1/98 1 -26 1998 Surface Water Design Manual ti 1.2.3 CORI....EQUIREMENT #3: FLOW CONTROL ❑ EXEMPTIONS FROM CORE REQUIREMENT #3 There are eight possible exemptions from the requirement to provide a formal flow control facility per Core Requirement #3. The intent of these exemptions is to provide for situations where a facility may not be practical or needed, where other alternatives to a facility can be just as effective, or where it makes sense to provide incentives for retaining native vegetation or for maximizing use of existing developed areas. 1. ;Impervious Surface Exemption A proposed project or any threshold discharge area within a project is exempt if less than 5,000 square feet of new impervious surface will be added and the project or threshold discharge area is not within a Landslide Hazard Drainage Area.31 If the project or threshold discharge area is located within a Landslide Hazard Drainage Area, this exemption only applies to new impervious surface less than 2,000 square feet. 2. Impervious Surface Exemption Using Flow Control BMPs Any threshold discharge area within a proposed project is exempt if less than 10,000 square feet of new impervious surface will be added, AND all of the following criteria are met: a) The area cleared to accommodate the proposed project must be less than 35% or less than 2 acres of the threshold discharge area (whichever is greater), AND b) If the project is a single family residential project, flow control BMPs must be applied within the threshold discharge area as specified in Small Site Drainage Requirements (detached Appendix C), AND • c) For projects other than single family residential projects, the new impervious surface within .. the threshold discharge area must be comprised of either non - pollution - generating roofs that comply with the roof downspout controls in Section 5.1, OR roads, trails, or driveways that comply with the rural roadway dispersion requirements in Section 5.2.1, AND d) The manner in which runoff is discharged from the project site must not create a significant adverse impact per-Core Requirement #1. 3. Peak Flow Exemption Using Flow Control BMPs Any threshold discharge area within a proposed project is exempt if the project improvements within the threshold discharge area generate less than a 0.1 cfs increase in the existing site conditions32100- year peak flow rate, AND all of the following criteria are met: a) If the project is a redevelopment project, flow control BMPs must be applied as specified in Section 5.2, and the project improvements must not significantly impact a "severe erosion problem" or "severe flooding problem" (see page-1-21), and must not be located within a Landslide Hazard Drainage Area, AND b) If the project is a single family residential project, the runoff from impervious surfaces must be infiltrated or dispersed using flow control BMPs specified in Appendix C, and any areas of native 31 Landslide Hazard Drainage Areas are delineated on a map adopted with this manual (see map pocket on inside of back cover). Existing site conditions depend on what, if any, land conversion activity has occurred on the site since May 1979 when King County first required flow control on developments adding more than 5,000 square feet of new impervious surface, IF a drainage plan has been approved by the County since May 1979 for any land conversion activity which includes the addition of more than 5,000 square feet of new impervious surface, THEN existing site conditions are those created by the site improvements and drainage facilities constructed per the approved engineering plans. OTHERWISE, existing site conditions are those that existed prior to May 1979 as determined from aerial photographs and, if necessary, on knowledge of individuals familiar with the area. The intent is-to mitigate unaddressed impacts created by site alterations or improvements, such'as clearing, which have occurred since May 1979. 32 1998 Surface Water Design Manual 1 -27 9/1/98 ,.: trJ9fs8n ckr.mroaars ' SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMEN vegetation assumed not to be cleared for the purposes of computing the increase in 100 -year peak flow must be preserved within a tract or by covenant as described in Appendix C, AND c) For projects other than redevelopment projects and single family residential projects, the new impervious surface within the threshold discharge area must be comprised of either non - pollution- generating roofs that comply with the roof downspout controls in Section 5.1, OR roads, trails, or driveways that comply with the rural roadway dispersion requirements in Section 5.2.1, AND d) The manner in which runoff is discharged from the project site must not create.a significant adverse impact per Core Requirement #1. 4. Peak Flow Exemption for Urban Redevelopment Projects Any natural discharge area of a redevelopment project located within the Urban Growth Area is exempt if the project improvements within the natural discharge area generate less than a 0.1 cfs increase in the existing site conditions 100 -year peak flow, AND all of the following criteria are met: a) The application of this exemption to natural discharge areas within a proposed project must not result in more than a 0.4 cfs increase in the existing site conditions 100 -year peak flow rate for any threshold discharge area of the project, AND b) Flow control BMPs must be applied to the runoff from new impervious surfaces as specified in Section 5.2.1, AND c) The.project improvements within the natural discharge area must not be located within a Landslide Hazard Drainage Area and must not significantly impact a . "severe erosion problem" or "severe flooding problem" (see page 1 -21), AND d) The manner in which runoff is discharged from the project site must not create a significant adverse impact per Core Requirement #1. 5. Forested Open Space Exemption for Rural Residential Projects Any natural discharge area within a proposed rural residential project (zoned RA -2.5, RA -5, RA -10, or RA -20) is exempt if all of the following criteria are met: a) At least 65% of the unsubmerged portion33 of the natural discharge area will be set aside as forested open space as specified in Section 5.2.1, AND b) The runoff from new impervious surfaces within the natural discharge area will be dispersed over native vegetation using the flow control BMPs detailed in Section 5.2.1, AND c) The manner in which runoff is discharged from the project site will not create a significant adverse impact per Core Requirement #1. 6. Direct Discharge Exemption Any natural discharge area within a proposed project is exempt if it.drains to one of the "major receiving waters" listed in Table 1.2.3.B, AND meets all of the following criteria for direct discharge34 to that receiving water: a) The flowpath from the project site discharge point to the edge of the 100 -year floodplain of the major receiving water shall be no longer than a quarter mile, except for discharges to Lake Sammamish, Lake Washington, and Puget Sound, AND b) The conveyance system between the project site and the ordinary high water line of the major receiving water shall be comprised of manmade conveyance elements (pipes, ditches, outfall 33 Unsubmerged portion means any portion outside the ordinary high water line of streams, lakes, and wetlands. 34 Direct discharge means undetained discharge from a proposed project to a "major receiving water." 9/1/98 1998 Surface Water Design Manual 1 -28 z Z: u- w ug2.. �. 00 No` w =` u- J I WO Q: cn d: =w F-= zF- f - O. Z uj co U 0- 0 I- w (lL ~' O. w z, O z 1.2.3 CORL ,E.QUIREMENT #3: FLOW CONTROL protection, etc.) and shall be.within.public right -of -way or apublic_or private drainage easement, AND c) The conveyance system shall have adequate capacity per Core Requirement #4, Conveyance System, for the entire contributing drainage area, assuming build -out conditions to current zoning for the "equivalent area" portion (defined in Figure 1.2.3.A, below) and existing conditions for the remaining area, AND d) The conveyance system will be adequately stabilized to prevent erosion, assuming the same basin conditions as assumed in Criteria (c) above, AND e) The direct discharge proposal will not divert flows from or increase flows to an existing wetland or stream sufficient to cause a significant adverse impact. tE Z 3 B'" 11�A;xORItECELVINMW'ATERS , n.,:- .w�:!...:.•� x- ;•- 4i;�'f::- _!.•r_•.�......._i S s:.::i•7•,.. �.... •r•...�rT.ri•l �..x �;cr.::n;; • Cedar River • GreeNDuwamish River below River Mile 6 (S. Boeing Access Road) and above SR 18 • Snoqualmie River (includes the North, South, and Middle Forks) • Sammamish River • White /Stuck River • Skykomish River • Tolt River • Lake Meridian • Lake Sawyer • Lake Sammamish • Lake Washington • Puget Sound Note: "Major Receiving Waters" do not include side channels, spring- or groundwater -fed streams, or wetland habitats that provide salmonid spawning or rearing habitat that may be connected or adjacent to major rivers; FIGURE 1.2.3.A EQUIVALENT AREA DEFINITION AND ILLUSTRATION Equivalent area: The area tributary to a direct discharge conveyance system that is contained within an arc formed by the shortest, straight line distance from the conveyance system discharge point to the furthermost point of the proposed project. Existing Conveyance System Basin Boundary \ e- ----- - __--._ Discharge Point Major Receiving Water Basin Boundary 1998 Surface Water Design Manual 1 -29 *9/1/98 SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS 7. Peak Flow Exemption for Urban Residential Infill Projects - Any single family residential project located within the Urban Growth Area is exempt if the total project improvements (within a single threshold discharge area) will generate less than a 0.4 cfs increase in the existing site conditions 100 -year peak flow, AND all of the following criteria are met: a) The surrounding area within 1/4 mile of the project site must be over 75 %. built -out35 to the zoned density as of the year 1998, AND b) The project must be within a Level 1 Flow Control Area as indicated on the Flow Control Applications Map adopted with this manual or otherwise subject to Level 1 flow control (see page 1 -31), AND c) The proposed project must not drain to a "severe flooding problem" or "severe erosion problem" as defined on page 1 -21, AND d) The runoff from new impervious surfaces must be infiltrated or dispersed using flow control BMPs specified in Appendix C, and any areas of native vegetation assumed not to be cleared for the purposes of computing the increase in 100 -year peak flow must be preserved within a tract or by covenant as described in Appendix C, AND e) The manner in which runoff is discharged from the project site must not create a significant adverse impact per Core Requirement #1. 8. Discretionary Exemption for Infill Projects Using the procedures detailed in Sections 1.4.3 and 1.4.4 of the adjustment process, the DDES Land Use Services Division Manager /designee or Building Services Division Manager /designee may grant an exemption from the flow control requirements in Core Requirement #3 provided all of the . following criteria are met: a) The catchment (defined as the tributary area to a point where the project site comprises 15% of the tributary area, or 1/4 mile downstream, whichever is greatest) is over 90% built -out to the zoned density, AND b) Eighty percent of the existing development within the catchment was constructed prior to 1979 (as determined from aerial photos) or is otherwise without formal flow control, AND c) There are no Class 1 or 2 streams with salmonids within 1/2 mile downstream of the project site (except streams designated as major receiving waters), AND d) There are no Class 1 wetlands within 1/2 mile downstream of the project site, AND e) There are no "severe building flooding problems" (see page 1 -21) within 1 mile downstream of the project site, AND f) Undetained flows from the proposedproject will generate less than a 10% increase in the 10 -year peak flows to a downstream "conveyance system nuisance problem" (see page 1 -20). 35 Percent build -out is calculated by dividing the number of existing residential dwelling units (including existing multifamily units) by the total potential number of residential dwelling units as determined from current base zoning. The total potential number of residential dwelling units is defined as the sum of (1) existing residential dwelling units, (2) existing vacant non - subdividable single family residential lots, (3) potential single family residential lots (net buildable area of subdividable parcels multiplied by the base zoning, and subtracting out any lots with existing residential dwelling units), and (4) potential multifamily dwelling units on vacant or subdividable multifamily -zoned parcels. Permanent open space areas (e.g., sensitive areas and buffers, recreational tracts) and those properties that are zoned commercial or industrial, or are publicly -owned (e.g., parks, schools, arterial roadways, stormwater tracts) shall be excluded from these calculations. . 9/1/98* 1998 Surface Water Design Manual 1 -30 -.l 1.2.3 COK .,EQUIREMENT #3: FLOW CONTROL. 1.2.3.1 AREA- SPECIFIC FLOW CONTROL STANDARDS R E Q M Projects subject to Core Requirement #3 must, at a minimum, comply with one of the three area - specific flow control standards: Level 1, Level 2, or Level 3, whichever applies per the threshold information detailed in this section. ❑ LEVEL 1 FLOW CONTROL Si R H 0 0 R E Q M T Z • =Z. Level 1 flow control is a peak - matching performance standard primarily applied in areas where cC 2 maintaining peak flows is sufficient to protect the natural and constructed conveyance systems that are not _1 v . sensitive to development- induced increases in runoff volumes and flow durations. King County designates U Q these areas as Level 1 Flow Control Areas. Most Level 1 Flow Control Areas are delineated on the Flow W u) w Control Applications Map adopted with this manual (see map pocket on inside of back cover). Any urban- zoned areas of unincorporated King County not shown on this map shall also be considered Level 1 Flow Control Areas. w w j: The Level 1 flow control standard shall be applied to the design of required flow control facilities for _ any proposed project which meets one of the following criteria: C~ _: Z� • The project is located within a Level 1 Flow Control Area as defined above, OR Z 0 • The project is located within a Level 2 Flow Control Area as defined on page 1 -32, but does not meet 11.1 �. the threshold for application of the Level 2 flow control standard (see p. 1 -33). o' O �. O I— w w, Level 1 Flow Control: Match the developed peak discharge rates to the existing site conditions36 peak U discharge rates for 2- and 10 -year return periods. u- p Reduced Level 1 Flow Control: A modified version of this standard, controlling only the 10 -year w u).. frequency peak flow rate, is allowed if the applicant demonstrates both of the following: F-- _. O ~° • The proposed project site discharges to a conveyance system not subject to erosion that extends from Z the project discharge point to one of the major receiving waters listed in Table 1.2.3.B (p. 1 -29), AND • There is no evidence of capacity problems along this conveyance system as determined by offsite analysis per Core Requirement #2, or such problems will be resolved prior to project construction. Threshold. Performance Criteria Intent Level 1 flow control is intended to protect flow - carrying capacity and limit increased erosion within the downstream conveyance system for runoff events less than or equal to the 10 -year event. Matching the 2- • and 10 -year peak flows is intended to prevent increases in return- frequency peak flows less than-or equal to the 10 -year peak flow down to the 2 -year peak flow. This level of control is also intended to prevent creation of new "conveyance system nuisance problems" as defined in Section 1.2.2 (p. Effectiveness in Addressing Downstream Problems While the Level 1 flow control standard provides reasonable protection from many development- induced conveyance problems (up to the 10 -year event), it does not prevent increases in runoff volumes or flow durations that tend to aggravate the three types of downstream problems described in Section 1.2.2.1. Consequently, if one or more of these problems are identified through offsite analysis per Core • Requirement #2, additional onsite.flow control and/or offsite improvements will likely be required (see "Problem- Specific Mitigation Requirements" in Section 1.2.2.2, p. 1 -23). 36 Existing site conditions is defined in footnote 32 on page 1 -27. 1998 Surface Water Design Manual *9/1/98 1 -31 SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS Cl LEVEL 2 FLOWCONTROL . Level 2 flow control is a duration - matching performance standard which is effective in preventing increases in existing erosion rates. The standard is applied in areas where the County has determined that a greater level of control is needed and will be effective in preventing severe erosion and sedimentation damage caused by development- induced increases inflow durations.37 Such areas include those draining through SAO - defined erosion hazard areas or to salmonid - bearing streams considered sensitive to increased flow durations based on County studies or resource assessments. These areas are designated by King County as Level 2 Flow Control Areas, and they collectively include the following five types of special defined drainage areas and/or basin plan subbasins: 1. Basin Plan Stream Protection Areas: These are subbasins in adopted basin plans where the County has determined through hydrologic modeling that increases in flow durations from future development will cause erosion and sedimentation damage to salmonid- bearing streams. They are identified as requiring increased onsite detention to prevent acceleration of in- stream channel erosion as well as sediment - generating erosion in the stream's tributary areas. 2: Rural Stream Protection Areas: These are areas not covered by basin plans that drain to relatively undisturbed high -value resource streams on the rural side of GMA urban growth boundaries. There are nine such areas originating from a group of 17 basins identified by King County as having the highest value habitat and aquatic resources from among the county's 72 basins. The 17 basins were identified through a county-wide assessment of habitat/resource values conducted in 1994 as part of the Waterways 2000 Program. Although extensive modeling has not been done to confirm the sensitivity of these streams to increased flow durations, there is a high probability they are sensitive based on County modeling of similar streams in adopted basin plans. Given this high probability and the high value of the resource, application of Level 2 flow control in these areas is warranted. The rural portions of the following nine stream basins are designated as Rural Stream Protection Areas: • Tokel Creek • Tolt River • Harris Creek • Raging River • Griffin Creek • Middle Green River • Patterson Creek • White River • Snoqualmie River In addition to the above nine basins, any rural zoned areas of the County not shown on the Flow Control Applications Map are also considered Rural Stream Protection Areas. 3. Sensitive Slope Protection Areas: These are areas outside of stream protection areas that drain to those SAO - defined "erosion hazard areas" that are on slopes steeper than 15% (a delineation of all known SAO erosion hazard areas can be found in King County's Sensitive Areas Map Folio) and where the potential for future severe erosion is high based on the amount of upstream area yet to be developed. These areas require Level 2 flow control to prevent creation or aggravation of severe erosion problems. 4. Landslide Hazard Drainage Areas: These are areas both inside and outside of adopted basin plans which are mapped on the Landslide Hazard Drainage Areas Map adopted with this manual (see map pocket on inside of back cover) and which drain to SAO - defined "landslide hazard areas" that are on slopes steeper than 15% (a delineation of known SAO landslide hazard areas can be found in King County's Sensitive Areas Map Folio). Because these hazard areas pose a significant threat to health and safety, Level 2 flow control is the basic area- specific standard unless a tightline is provided per Core Requirement #1. If a tightline is provided, then the basic standard defaults to that required for whatever other drainage or flow control area the proposed project may occupy. For example, if the 37 Flow duration means the aggregate time that peak flows are at or above a particular flow rate of interest (e.g., the amount of time over the last 40 years that peak flows were at or above the 2 -year flow rate). 9/1/98* 1 -32 1998 Surface Water Design Manual 1.2.3 CORI. .1QUIREMENT #3: FLOW CONTROL 4 M project is located within a Basin Plan .Stream Protection Area or a Rural Stream Protection. Area, as defined above, then Level 2 flow control would still be the basic standard. In cases where a tightline is not provided to convey project flows through the landslide hazard area, Level 2 flow control must be implemented in a manner which infiltrates as much•runoff as is feasible to prevent significant disturbance of the landslide hazard area by overland flows (see "Facility Requirement in Landslide Hazard Drainage Areas," Section 1.2.3.2, p. 1 -37). • 5. Forest Production Zone: These areas are typically steeper in slope and often drain to the County's most•pristine streams. Level 2 flow control is therefore required to prevent creation or aggravation of severe erosion problems. Most Level 2 Flow Control Areas are delineated on the Flow Control Applications Map adopted with this Manual (see map pocket on inside of back cover). Any forest production zone or rural -zoned areas of unincorporated King County not shown on this map shall also be considered Level 2 Flow Control Areas. Note: A more detailed delineation of Level 2 Flow Control Areas, including the five component areas described above, is available on King County's Geographic Information System (GIS). Threshold. The Level 2 flow control standard shall be applied to the design of required flow control facilities for any proposed project which is located within a Level 2 Flow Control Area as defined above, AND which is confirmed to meet one of the following criteria for application of the Level 2 flow control standard: • The project is located within a Basin Plan Stream Protection Area as defined above and confirmed by detaileddelineation information in the applicable basin plan, OR • The project is located within a Rural Stream Protection Area as defined above and, in fact, drains to a natural stream within that area, OR • The project is located within a Sensitive Slope Protection Area as defined above and, in fact, ultimately drains over the erodible soils of a SAO - defined "erosion hazard area" with slopes steeper than 15 %, OR • The project is located within a Landslide Hazard Drainage Area as defined above and, in fact, ultimately drains over the erodable soils of a SAO - defined "landslide hazard area" with slopes steeper than 15 %, OR • The project is located within a designated Forest Production Zone. Note: If the proposed project does not meet the above threshold criteria, then the Level 1 flow control standard shall apply as detailed on page 1 -31. Performance-Criteria Level 2 Flow Control: Match developed discharge durations to predeveloped durations for the range of predeveloped discharge rates from 50% of the 2 -year peak flow up to the full 50-year peak flow, assuming existing site conditions (see Footnote 32, p. 1 -27) as the predeveloped condition. Note: The peak - matching criteria of Level 1 flow control must also be met. Intent ._ Level 2 flow control is intended to prevent initiation or aggravation of erosion or stream channel instability by maintaining existing erosion rates. This is accomplished by maintaining at predevelopment levels the aggregate time that developed flows exceed an erosion - causing threshold (i.e., 50% of the 2 -year peak • flow). Maintaining existing erosion rates within streams and their tributary areas is important for preventing increases in channel erosion and sediment loading detrimental to fish habitat and production. Maintaining existing erosion rates on sensitive slopes is important for preventing initiation and/or aggravation of severe erosion problems. 1998 Surface Water Design Manual *9/1/98 1 -33 ......,_.,..... SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS Effectiveness in Addressing Downstream Problems While the Level 2 flow control standard provides an excellent level of protection for preventing most _ development- induced problems, it does not necessarily preventincreases in 100 -year peak flows which can aggravate "severe flooding problems" as defined in Core Requirement #2 (see page 1 -21), nor does it necessarily prevent aggravation of all "severe erosion problems." Consequently, if one or more of these problems are identified through offsite analysis per Core Requirement #2, additional onsite flow control and/or offsite improvements will likely be required (see "Problem- Specific Mitigation Requirements" in Section 1.2.2.2, p. 1 -23). ❑ LEVEL 3 FLOW CONTROL Level 3 flow control is a duration - matching and peak - matching performance standard which is effective in preventing significant increases in water surface levels of lakes, wetlands, and closed depressions. The standard is primarily applied in areas that drain to certain lakes, wetlands, or closed depressions where the County has determined that a higher average level of flow control is needed to prevent aggravation of existing documented flooding problems; the County has designated such areas as Level 3 Flow Control Areas. Note that these areas are not specifically delineated on the Flow Control Applications Map (located inside the back cover of this manual), but they are listed on the map by name of lake, wetland code number (from the King County Wetlands Inventory), or approximate address. T H R E s R E M T Threshold The Level 3 flow control standard shall be applied to the design of required flow control facilities for any proposed project which is located within the contributing drainage area of one of the County- inventoried wetlands or lakes listed on the Flow Control Applications (FCA) Map. Note: If the proposed project does not meet the above threshold criteria, then apply the area - specific standard for the flow control area in which the project is located as indicated on the FCA map. Performance Criteria Level 3 Flow Control: Apply the Level 2 flow control standard AND match the developed 100 -year peak discharge rate to the 100 -year peak discharge rate for existing site conditions. Note: The peak- matching _ criteria of Level 1 flow control must also be met. Intent Level 3 flow control is intended to prevent significant increases in existing water surface levels for 2 -year through 100 -year return frequencies. Such increases are expected to occur as the volume of runoff discharging to the water body is increased by upstream development. Because inflow rates to these water bodies are typically much higher than the outflow rates, increased runoff volumes from upstream development are, in effect, stacked on top of existing volumes in the water body, resulting in higher water surface levels. The duration- matching and 100 -year peak - matching criteria of the Level 3 flow control standard counteract this stacking effect by slowing the arrival of additional runoff volumes. Effectiveness in Addressing Downstream Problems If the Level 3 flow control standard is implemented onsite, no additional measures are required to prevent aggravation of the three types of downstream problems defined in Core Requirement #2. The one exception is when the wetland or lake is a closed depression with a "severe flooding problem," and the proposed project is adding impervious surface area amounting to more than 10% of the 100 -year water surface area of the closed depression. In this case, additional onsite flow control or offsite improvements may be necessary as determined by a "point of compliance analysis" (see "Special Provision for Closed Depressions" in Table 1.2.3.A (p. 1 -26), and see Section 3.3.6, "Point of Compliance Analysis "). •r . 9/1/98* 1 -34 1998 Surface Water Design Manual • Z < W re 2 6 00 Nw W =: 0 u_':. • to IL Q. Dd �w Z H. F- 0 Z 1-'. n 0 0 N 0 al W, LL. O; Z. U �. O Z 1.2.3 COL_ ..EQUIREMENT#3: FLOW CONTROL 1.2.3.2 FLOW CONTROL IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS Onsite vs. Offsite Implementation All required flow control must be implemented onsite except where the below requirements can be met for direct discharge to a regional or shared facility constructed to provide flow control for the proposed Z project. Regional facilities are typically constructed as part of a basin plan or master drainage plan: , = H Shared facilities may be constructed under a County-developed shared facility drainage plan or under an W agreement between two or more private developers. R 1. The regional or shared facility must be of adequate size and design to meet the current flow control U 0 requirements for the proposed project's increased surface and storm water runoff. Note: the current flow w W control requirements are those specified by Core Requirement #3 of this manual unless superceded by tu H other adopted area - specific flow control requirements per Special Requirement #1 (see Section 1.3.1). N u_ In some cases where the current flow control requirements differ from those used to originally design the w 0 regional or shared facility, additional analysis and possible retrofitting of the facility may be required to QQ ensure adequate size and design. In other cases where the current flow control requirements are not LL significantly different or are less stringent; adequate size and design may already be documented by an u� a adopted King County basin plan or master drainage plan, an approved shared facility drainage plan, or a H tit detailed drainage analysis approved by the County for a separate permitted development. z H. 2. The regional or shared facility must be . fully operational at the time of construction of the proposed. Z O project. In the case of a shared facility, the proposed project must comply with the terms and conditions 2 D. of all contracts, agreements, and permits associated with the shared facility. U P 3. The conveyance system between the project site and the regional facility must meet the same criteria Co �` specified for direct discharge to.a major receiving water except for Criterion (a) (see "Direct Discharge W W' Exemption" on page 1 -28). In the case of a shared facility,• the criteria are the same, except the 2 conveyance system need only have adequate capacity and erosion protection for buildout of the u- p participating portion of the contributing drainage area: ii Z OH z Methods of Analysis and Design Flow control facilities must be analyzed and designed using a continuous flow simulation method such as HSPF (Hydrologic Simulation Program FORTRAN) or the simplified HSPF -based runoff files method. Specifications for use of the runoff files method and associated computer program, KCRTS, are found in Chapter 3. Detailed design specifications for flow control facilities are found in Chapter 5. Land Cover Assumptions Land cover assumptions for designing flow control facilities are detailed in Chapter 3. For residential development (plats, short plats, and large single family projects), flow control facilities must be sized for • the ultimate potential development of the site; this assumes that all forest and shrub cover (outside of proposed impervious surface areas) will be converted to grass unless protected by an open space tract or covenant. For rural residential developments, all forest/shrub cover outside of proposed impervious surface areas will be assumed to be converted to 50% pasture and 50% grass, unless likewise protected. Roof Downspout Controls• in Subdivisions All proposed single family residential subdivision projects must, on a lot - specific basis, provide for or implement one of three types of roof downspout controls in the order of preference specified in Section 5.1. These include downspout infiltration, dispersion, or a perforated stub -out connection. 38 The participating portion includes those properties that have agreements for use of the shared facility. 1998 Surface Water Design Manual 1 -35 *9/1/98 SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS ' Sizing Credits for Roof Downspout Controls When sizing flow control facilities serving single family residential subdivisions, the following credits may be applied: • Where roof runoff is infiltrated according to the requirements of Section 5.1.1, the roof area may be discounted from the net impervious area used for sizing flow control facilities. • Where roof runoff is dispersed according to the requirements of Section 5.1.2 on lots 22,000 square feet or larger, and the vegetated flowpath of the roof runoff is 50 feet or longer, the roof area may be modeled as grass surface rather than impervious surface when sizing flow control facilities. Note: These credits do not apply when determining eligibility for exemptions from Core Requirement #3. Onsite Runoff Bypass Proposed project runoff may bypass proposed onsite flow control facilities provided that all of the following are true: 1. Runoff from both the bypass area and the flow control facility converges within a quarter -mile downstream of the project site discharge point, AND 2. • The flow control facility is designed to compensate for the uncontrolled bypass area such that the net effect at the point of convergence downstream is the same with or without bypass, AND 3. The 100 -year peak discharge from the bypass area will not exceed 0.4 cfs, AND 4. Runoff from the bypass area will not create a significant adverse impact to downstream drainage systems or properties, AND 5. Water quality requirements applicable to the bypass area are met. Offsite Bypass Requirement IF the existing 100 -year peak flow rate from any upstream offsite area is greater than 50% of the 100 -year developed peak flow rate (undetained) for the project site, THEN the runoff from the offsite area must bypass onsite flow control facilities. The bypass of offsite runoff must be designed so as to achieve all of the following: 1. Any existing contribution of flows to an onsite wetland must be maintained, AND 2. Offsite flows that are naturally attenuated by the project site under predeveloped conditions must remain attenuated, either by natural means or by providing additional onsite detention so that peak flows do not increase, AND 3. Offsite flows that are dispersed or unconcentrated on the project site under predeveloped conditions must be discharged in a safe manner as described in Core Requirement #1 under "Discharge Requirements" (p. 1 -17). Manifold Detention Facilities A manifold detention facility is a single detention facility designed to take the place of two or more otherwise required detention facilities. It combines the runoff from two or more onsite drainage areas having separate natural discharge points, and redistributes the runoff back to the natural discharge points following detention. Because manifold detention facilities divert flows from one natural discharge point to another and then back, they are not allowed except by an approved adjustment (see Section 1.4, "Adjustment Process "). 1998 Surface Water Design Manual 1 -36 • z re w UO ND. w =; J � wO co =. Z f- F- O Z o Ca CI H: = - U' u -O' El U to z 1.2.3 CORL. ..QUIREMENT #3: FLOW CONTROL Facility Requirement in Landslide Hazard Drainage Areas Proposed projects subject to Discharge Requirement 2 in Core Requirement #1 (see p. 1 -18) must provide 'a tightline system unless the 100 -year runoff from the project site can be feasibly infiltrated or one of the other exceptions listed on page 1 -18 apply. For infiltration to be used as an alternative to the tightline requirement, it must be feasible per the facility design requirements and limitations specified in Section 5.4. When evaluating the feasibility of infiltration, multiple facility locations scattered throughout the project site shall be considered and used where feasible and practical to avoid concentrating infiltrated water in one location. If multiple facilities are not feasible or practical, then a single infiltration facility meeting the minimum setback requirements in Section 5.4 may be used. Where infiltration is not feasible, a proposed project may still qualify for one of the other exceptions to the tightline requirement specified in Core Requirement #1 (p. 1 -18). If such a project is subject to Core Requirement #3, then the required flow control facility must be a detention pond sized to meet Level 2 flow control performance with a safety factor of 20% applied to the storage volume. The detention pond • must be sited and designed so as to maximize the opportunity for infiltration in the pond. To accomplish this, all of the following design requirements must be met: 1._ The detention pond must be preceded by either a water quality treatment facility per Core Requirement #8 or a presettling basin per Section 5.4; AND 2. All detention pond side slopes must be 3H:1 V or flatter and must be earthen, AND 3. Detention pond liners which impede infiltration shall not be used, AND 4. The pond bottom shall be at or above the seasonal high groundwater table, AND 5. The detention pond outflow must meet the discharge dispersal requirements specified in Discharge Requirement 1 of Core Requirement #1 (p. 1 -17). 1998 Surface Water Design Manual 1 -37 9/1/98 Z Z Ce 65.;. J U: U O' N U, wW Jam:. 'w0. wa = 0; w:. Z 1-O: Z w w; U U 0u); w W; V Oi Z ;U ' : — Z SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMEN 1.2.4 CORE REQUIREMENT #4: CONVEYANCE SYSTEM R a M T All engineered conveyance system elements for proposed projects must be analyzed, designed, and constructed to provide a minimum level of protection against overtopping, flooding, erosion, and structural failure as specified in the following groups of requirements: • "Conveyance Requirements for New Systems," Section 1.2.4.1 (below) • "Conveyance Requirements for Existing Systems," Section 1.2.4.2 (p. 1 -39) }' w • "Conveyance System Implementation Requirements," Section 1.2.4.3 (p. 1-40) 6 JU: Intent: To ensure proper design and construction of.engineered conveyance system elements. 0p' Conveyance systems are natural and engineered drainage facilities that collect, contain, and provide for the w' 111 z flow of surface and storm water. This core requirement applies to the engineered elements of conveyance systems — primarily pipes, culverts, and ditches /channels. N w til 0 All new conveyance system elements,39 both onsite and offsite, shall be analyzed, designed, and = Ci constructed according to the following requirements. 1- _. zt.- Pipe Systems z �; 1. New pipe systems shall be designed with sufficient capacity to convey and contain (at minimum) the ? Q 25 -year peak flow, assuming developed conditions for onsite tributary areas and existing conditions for any offsite tributary areas. .0 D-, U.1 w U' w Z'. w U 52 O I- z 1.2.4.1 CONVEYANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW SYSTEMS Pipe system structures may overtop for runoff events that exceed the 25 -year design capacity, provided the overflow from a 100 -year runoff event does not create or aggravate a "severe flooding problem" or "severe erosion problem" as defined in Core Requirement #2, Section 1.2.2 (p. 1 -31). Any overflow occurring onsite for runoff events up to and including the 100 -year event must discharge at the natural location for the project site. In residential subdivisions, such overflow must be contained within an onsite drainage easement, tract, covenant, or public right -of -way. 3. The upstream end of a pipe system that receives runoff from an open drainage feature (pond, ditch, etc.) shall be analyzed and sized as a culvert as described below. Culverts 1. New culverts shall be designed with sufficient capacity to meet the headwater requirements in Section 4.3.1 and convey (at minimum) the 25 -year peak flow, assuming developed conditions for onsite tributary areas and existing conditions for any offsite tributary areas. 2. New culverts must also convey as much of the 100 -year peak flow as is necessary to preclude creating or aggravating a "severe flooding problem" or "severe erosion problem" as defined in Core Requirement #2 , Section 1.2.2 (p. 1 -31). Any overflow occurring onsite for runoff events up to and including the 100 -year event must discharge at the natural location for the project site. In residential subdivisions, such overflow must be contained within an onsite drainage easement, tract, covenant, or public right -of -way. 3. New culverts proposed in Class 1 streams or Class 2 streams with salmonids shall be designed to provide for fish passage as detailed in Section 4.3.2. Note: The SAO or the state Department of Fish and Wildlife may require a bridge to facilitate fish passage. 39 New conveyance system elements are.those that are proposed to be constructed where there are no existing constructed conveyance elements. 9/1/98 1 -38 1998 Surface Water Design Manual .,....,,... .e...VC!trwsx«w,w.n e o r,+rrwa»r%+7M'HhItR,!7 1 #!� . 1.2.4 CORE REQL .EMENT #4: CONVEYANCE SYSTEM Ditches /Channels 1. New ditches /channels shall be designed with sufficient capacity to convey and contain, at minimum, the 25 -year peak flow, assuming developed conditions for onsite tributary areas and existing conditions for any offsite tributary areas. 2. New ditches /channels must also convey as much of the 100 -year peak flow as is necessary to preclude creating or aggravating a "severe flooding problem" or "severe erosion problem" as defined in Core Requirement 2, Section 1.2.2 (p. 1 -31). Any overflow occurring onsite for runoff events up to and including the 100 -year event must discharge at the natural location for the project site. In residential subdivisions, such overflow must be contained within an onsite drainage easement, tract, covenant, or public right -of -way. Tightline Systems Traversing Steep Slopes New tightline conveyance systems traversing slopes that are steeper than 15% and greater than 20 feet in height, or are a "sensitive area steep slope," shall be designed with sufficient capacity to convey and contain (at minimum) the 100 -year peak flow, assuming full build -out conditions 4° for all tributary areas, both onsite and offsite. Tightline systems shall be designed as detailed in Section 4.2.2. Bridges New bridges shall be designed to pass the 100 -year peak flow with clearance as specified in Section 4.3.3. 1.2.4.2 CONVEYANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING SYSTEMS The following conveyance requirements for existing systems are less rigorous than those for new systems to allow some salvaging of existing systems that are in useable condition. Existing systems•may be utilized if they are capable of providing a minimum level of protection as-is or with minor modifications. Existing Onsite Conveyance Systems No Change in Flow Characteristics: Existing onsite conveyance systems that will not experience a change in flow characteristics (e.g., peak flows or-volume of flows) as a result of the proposed project need not be analyzed for conveyance capacity. Change in Flow Characteristics: Existing onsite conveyance systems that will experience a change in flow characteristics as a result of the proposed project must comply with the following conveyance requirements: 1. The existing system must be analyzed and shown to have sufficient capacity to convey and contain (at minimum) the 10 -year peak flow assuming developed conditions for onsite tributary areas and existing conditions. for any offsite tributary areas. 2. The applicant must demonstrate that the 100 -year peak flow to the existing system will not create or aggravate a "severe flooding problem" or "severe erosion problem" as defined in Core Requirement #2, Section 1.2.2 (p. 1 -31). 3. Minor modifications may be made to the conveyance system to achieve the required capacity stated above. Examples of minor modifications include raising a catch -basin rim, replacing or relaying a section of pipe to match the capacity of other pipes in the system, improving a pipe inlet, or enlarging a short, constricted reach of ditch or channel. 4. Modifications to an existing conveyance system or element which acts to attenuate peak flows due to the presence of upstream detention storage shall be made in a manner that does not significantly 40 Full build -out conditions means the tributary area is developed to its full zoning potential except where there are existing sensitive areas, open space tracts, and/or native growth protection easements /covenants. 1998 Surface Water Design Manual 1 -39 *9/1/98 fi SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENT: increase peak flows downstream. For example, if water is detained in a pond upstream of a restrictive road culvert, then installing an overflow system.for.the culvert should prevent overtopping of the road without significantly reducing existing detention storage. Existing Offsite Conveyance Systems 1. Existing offsite conveyance systems need not be analyzed for conveyance capacity except as required by Core Requirement #2, or if offsite improvements or direct discharge are proposed per Core Requirement #3. 2. Improvements made to existing offsite conveyance systems to address the problem - specific mitigation requirements in Section 1.2.2.2 (p. 1 -23) need only change existing conveyance capacity sufficient to prevent aggravation of the drainage problem(s) being addressed. 3. Existing offsite conveyance systems proposed to be used for direct discharge to a major receiving water per Core Requirement #3 (p. 1 -28) shall meet the same conveyance requirements specified in Section 1.2.4.1 (p. 1 -38) for new systems. 1.2.4.3 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS Methods of Analysis and Design Properly -sized conveyance elements provide sufficient hydraulic capacity to convey peak flows of the return frequencies indicated in Sections 1.2.4.1 and 1.2.4.2. Conveyance capacity shall be demonstrated using the methods of analysis detailed in Chapter 4. Design flows for sizing conveyance systems shall be determined using the appropriate runoff computation method specified in Section 3.2. Spill Control Provisions Projects proposing to construct or replace onsite conveyance system elements that receive runoff from non - roof -top pollution- generating impervious surface41 must provide a spill control device as detailed in Section 4.2.1 prior to discharge from the project site or into a natural onsite drainage feature.42 More specifically, this requirement applies whenever a proposed project does either of the following: • Constructs a new onsite conveyance system that receives runoff from non - roof -top pollution - generating impervious surface, OR • Removes and replaces an existing onsite conveyance system element that receives runoff from 5,000 square feet or more of non - roof -top pollution - generating impervious surface onsite. • The intent of this device is to temporarily detain oil or other floatable pollutants before they enter the downstream drainage system in the event of an accidental spill or illegal dumping. It may consist of a tee section in a manhole or catch basin, or another alternative as specified in Section 4.2.1. Note: Spill control devices were referred to as "oiUwater separation devices" in previous editions of this manual. Composition - Where feasible, conveyance systems shall be constructed of vegetation -lined channels, as opposed to pipe systems. Vegetative channels shall generally be considered feasible if all of the following conditions are present: 1. • The channel gradient generally does not exceed five percent, AND 41 Pollution- generating impervious surface means an impervious surface considered to be a significant source of pollutants in stormwater runoff. Such surfaces include those which are subject to vehicular use or storage of erodible or leachable materials, wastes, or chemicals, and which receive direct rainfall or the run -on or blow -in of rainfall (for more details, see . • page 1 -50). Metal roofs are also considered to be pollution - generating impervious surface unless they are treated to prevent leaching. 42 Natural onsite drainage feature means a natural Swale, channel, stream, closed depression, wetland, or lake. 9/1/98* 1998 Surface Water Design Manual 1-40 1.2.4 CORE REQU vIENT #4: CONVEYANCE SYSTEM 2. No modifications to currently adopted standard roadway cross sections in the King County Road Standards are necessitated by the channel, AND 3. The channel will be accessible for maintenance (see Section 1.2.6), AND 4. The channel will not be subject to erosion. Exceptions: The following are exceptions to the requirement for vegetative channels: Z • Conveyance systems proposed under roadways, driveways, or parking areas Q • Conveyance systems proposed between houses in urban-zoned plats and short plats • Conveyance systems conveying roof runoff only. 6 O Outfalls . . CO w. An outfall is defined as a point where collected and concentrated surface and storm water runoff is -,1 discharged from a pipe system or culvert. 0 �. O. Energy Dissipation: At a minimum, rock erosion protection is required at outfalls from all drainage systems and elements except where DDES determines that erosion protection is being provided by other Q means or is not needed. Details on outfall structures are included in Section 4.2.2. d New Point Discharges Over Steep Slopes: Proposed outfalls that will discharge runoff in a location where the natural (existing) discharge is unconcentrated over a slope steeper than 15% and greater than 20 ? '— feet in height, or over a SAO - defined steep slope hazard area, must meet the following criteria: Z 0: WW 1. IF the 100 -year peak discharge is less than or equal to 0.2 cfs43 under existing conditions and will remain less than or equal to 0.2 cfs under developed conditions, THEN outfall runoff may be N: discharged onto a rock pad shaped in a manner so as to disperse flow. The outfall and rock pad must be located upstream from any landslide or steep slope buffer and no less than 50 feet from the top of a w w; SAO- defined steep slope unless otherwise approved by DDES based on an evaluation/report by a = H geotechnical engineer. LL O; Z 2. IF the 100 -year peak discharge is greater than 0.2 cfs but less than or equal' to 0.5 cfs under existing U tn. conditions and will remain less than or equal to 0.5 cfs under developed conditions, THEN runoff must be conveyed to a dispersal trench or other dispersal system. The dispersal trench or system must be O located upstream from any landslide or steep slope buffer and no less than 50 feet from the top of a . SAO - defined steep slope unless otherwise approved by DDES based on an evaluation/report by a geotechnical engineer. 3. IF the 100 -year peak discharge is greater than 0.5 cfs for either existing or developed conditions, THEN a tightline conveyance system must be constructed to convey the runoff to the bottom of the slope unless other measures are approved by DDES based on an evaluation/report by a geotechnical -. engineer. Tightline systems must be designed such that existing baseflow conditions are not significantly changed and adequate energy dissipation is provided at the bottom of the slope. Outfalls to the Green River New stormwater outfalls or modifications to existing stormwater outfalls discharging to the Green River between River Mile 6 (South Boeing Access Road) and SR 18 are allowed only through the adjustment process. These outfalls must comply with requirements of the Green River Pump Operations Procedure Plan, which establishes storage volumes and release rate criteria for developments proposing to construct or modify outfalls. Copies of the plan are available from DNR. O i`` 43 Peak discharges shall he as computed using KCRTS as detailed in Chapter 3. 1998 Surface Water Design Manual 1 -41 9/1/98 • SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENT. Interflow and Interception Interflow is near - surface groundwater that moves laterally through the soil horizon following the hydraulic gradient of underlying relatively impermeable soils. When interflow is expressed on the surface, it is Czia termed a spring or seepage. Any significant springs or seepage areas that impact a roadway or structure •:,•• a proposed by the project must be intercepted and directed into a conveyance system. Where roadways may impede the passage of interflow to downstream wetlands or streams, provision for passage of unconcentrated flows must be made. Pump Systems Pump systems may be used to convey water from one location or elevation to another within the project site provided they meet the design criteria specified for such systems in Section 4.2.3 and will be privately owned and maintained. Pump systems that discharge flows from the project site that would not have discharged by gravity flow under existing site conditions will require an approved adjustment to Core Requirement #1 (see.Section 1.4, "Adjustment Process "). These pump systems will be considered only when they are the sole • alternative to solving a flooding or erosion problem as defined in Section 1.2.2. Typical conditions of approval for these systems are available in Reference Section 8 -1 under "Adjustment Application Form and Process Guidelines." 1 -42 1998 Surface Water Design Manual SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMEN'. 1.2.6 CORE REQUIREMENT #6: MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS R a M T Maintenance and operation of all drainage facilities is the responsibility of the applicant or property owner, except those facilities for which King County is granted an easement, tract, or right -of -way and officially assumes maintenance and operation as described below. Drainage facilities must be maintained and operated in compliance with King County maintenance standards. Intent: To ensure that the maintenance responsibility for drainage facilities is clearly assigned and that 1 W these facilities will be properly maintained, and operated in perpetuity. g Drainage Facilities to be Maintained by King County o o N0 King County will assume maintenance and operation4s of the flow control and water quality facilities and w =' the conveyance system within improved public road right -of -way for any residential subdivision with two iLL or more lots, and any similar development where at least two - thirds of the developed contributing area is to O. from single family or duplex residential structures on individual lots, except where such facilities are 2 approved by King County to be maintained by the homeowners association. Note: King County may �. assume maintenance of such facilities-serving any mix of developments as part of a shared facilities plan. King County will assume maintenance and operation of these facilities two years after final w construction approval by DDES and an inspection by the County to ensure the facilities have been Z �. properly maintained and are operating as designed. Z p Flow control and water quality facilities to be maintained and operated by King County must be located w in a tract or right -of -way dedicated to King County. Access roads serving these facilities must also be U located in the tract or right -of -way and must be connected to an improved public road right -of- -way. p N Underground flow control or water quality facilities (tanks or vaults) may be allowed in private rights -of- way or roads if the easement includes provisions for facility access and maintenance. = v H ~ Conveyance systems to be maintained and operated by King County must be located in a drainage II p easement, tract, or right -of -way granted to King County. Note: King County does not normally assume LLi Z maintenance responsibility for conveyance systems which are outside of improved public road right -of- = way. 0 Drainage Facilities to be Maintained by Private Parties All privately - maintained drainage facilities must be maintained as specified in Appendix A, "Maintenance Requirements for Privately Maintained Drainage Facilities," and as further prescribed in Chapter 6 for water quality facilities. A copy of the Operation and Maintenance Manual submitted as part of the permit application (see Section 2.3.1) shall be retained on site and shall be transferred with the property to the new owner. A log of maintenance activity indicating when cleaning occurred and where waste was disposed of shall also be kept by the owner and be available for inspection by the County. King County may inspect all privately - maintained drainage facilities for compliance with these requirements. If property owner(s) fail to maintain their facilities to the acceptable standards, the County may issue a written notice specifying the required actions. If these actions are not performed in a timely manner, the County may enter the property to perform the actions needed and bill the property owner(s) for the cost of the actions. In the event a hazard to public safety exists, written notice may not be required. If the proposed project is a commercial, industrial, or multifamily development or redevelopment, or a single family residential building permit, a "Declaration of Covenant" (see Reference Section 8 -F) must be recorded at the King County Office of Records and Elections prior to engineering plan approval. If the proposed project is a residential subdivision development, all privately maintained conveyance systems or other drainage facilities which convey flows through private property must be located in a 45 King County does not assume maintenance of lot drainage systems or drainage stub -outs serving single family residential lot • downspout, footing, or yard drains, nor does King County assume maintenance of those water quality facilities installed and integrated into site landscaping. 9/1/98 1 -46 1998 Surface Water Design Manual z �r 1 1.2.7 FINE .IAL GUARANTEES AND LIABILITY drainage easement dedicated to convey surface and storm water. Individual owners of the properties containing such easements must maintain the drainage facilities through their property. The legal instrument creating drainage easements on private property must contain language that requires a private property owner to obtain written approval from King County prior to removing vegetation (except by routine mowing) from any drainage easement containing open, vegetated drainage facilities (such as swales, channels, ditches, ponds, etc.). See "Drainage Easements" in Reference Section 8 -H. 1.2.7 CORE REQUIREMENT #7: FINANCIAL GUARANTEES AND LIABILITY R E M T All drainage facilities constructed or modified.for projects (except downspout infiltration and dispersion systems) must comply with the financial guarantee requirements in King County Ordinance 12020 and the liability requirements of King County Code 9.04.100. There are two types of financial guarantees for projects constructing or modifying drainage facilities: the drainage facilities restoration and site stabilization guarantee, and the drainage defect and maintenance guarantee. Intent: To ensure financial guarantees are posted to sufficiently cover the cost of correcting, if necessary, incomplete orsubstandard drainage facility construction work, and to warrant for two years the satisfactory performance and maintenance of those newly - constructed drainage facilities: to be assumed by King County for maintenance and operation. Core Requirement #7 is also intended to ensure that a liability policy is provided which protects the proponent and the County from any damages relating to the construction or maintenance of required drainage facilities by private parties. Drainage Facilities Restoration and Site Stabilization Financial Guarantee Prior to commencing construction, the applicant required to construct drainage facilities pursuant to the drainage requirements in this manual and KCC 9.04.050 must post a drainage facilities restoration and site stabilization financial guarantee. This guarantee must be an amount sufficient to cover the cost of corrective work on or off the site performed specifically for the given project. ,Note: DDES may waive the requirement of this guarantee on projects proposing only minor modifications or improvements to the drainage system (e.g., catch basin inserts, spill control devices, pipe replacements, etc.). In addition, this guarantee may be combined with other required guarantees as allowed in Ordinance 12020. Before King County will release the project's drainage facilities restoration and site stabilization financial guarantee, the applicant must do the following: 1. Construct the drainage facilities 2. Receive final construction approval from DDES 3. Pay all required fees. Drainage Defect and.Maintenance Financial Guarantee For any constructed or modified drainage facilities to be maintained and operated by King County, the applicant must do the following: 1. Post a drainage defect and maintenance financial guarantee for a period of two years (see Reference Section 8 -E, "Maintenance and Defect Agreement "). 2. Maintain the drainage facilities (per the maintenance standards in Appendix A) during the two -year period following posting of the drainage defect and maintenance financial guarantee. Before King County will release the drainage defect and maintenance financial guarantee and assume maintenance and operation of drainage facilities, the applicant must do the following: 1. For plats, record the final plat. 1998 Surface Water Design Manual 1 -47 9/1/98 • Address: 13021 33 AV S Suite: Tenant: Status: ISSUED Type: DEVPERM. Applied: 08/24/1998 Parcel #: 735960-0495 Issued: 10/14/1998 *************************************************A**k*************k******** Permit Conditions: 1. .No changes will be made to .the plans unless approved by the Architect or. Engineer and th 2. plumbing permits shall •County Department '• inspected by th (296-4722) 3. Electrical State• Div ,work wi 1 4. .A11 mec .the Ci 5. Al 1 'p avai str CITY OF TUKWILA Permi t No: 098-0287 eall th. cy, c udin, al 1 gas■ a :Butlding • the..Seatt le-King will be g I . • : ,.. . • Ms ed gt h r he s ngton nd Induz. tri 6s d b ,i; tttieit"agetleyv aq48-6.63C01. uVI,er. separate_ pe nt:r . • 'a .. rds, g approved via ipr.-.t the start ofaany . o . be ma inta ined4on nrir----ava*:.1-, is granted. .ca 1 ceations - Sha 1 1 :beo i g .i nser ta . inspeclia • e d s.i gnat4or, • ... • . •, • :• i e all hav'e:a Fla hall :.bea0:1 r rig ::,thereol'It'':. i th ,a.p-prO •,Co di •:::. ' . 19970:Ed .'.iAVY1.- t• 6- ;'"..... • T .....tcr:/vii 4-..r.,,i.!.:=' YASEOT 9,:r:CO •:''Ap be of u i i insp4etion- e a the:Job s ion.. hese :do • inel • ins miss d,ra vai le. to t se-s oling getzniSCa • ab 1 6. Eng • an • pu ; Wa • Edi • atid ;CONDI ! •EtY!:-TUKWI ..J:•;,1„10.•.•;There.`:sha ;f !nal .--;:insPe. Inspector 11. .Validl.tv ... of'Pe rents ti on n a :004re!Ofitf the a,d4clinAf o %Me 0111f*WgPig!ecod cfWfT,TOkyl) a 8 di 1 iiiVCetteATACtEPTA AN TIONDRAI UI .. • • .- • • .t. plans, -specif icat • ' ' 's•tis-U•ed .- to be 'a. 'periMit , • . • • , .• . •,...---....:, .1)s... ...p.....,,, ,Of any -cif Ahe7-Prov, i sions.'.'-o . . . : other 'ordinance :••of. ,:the''.jurisdicti'on. ..,- No permit ;•presuMing to .•::'-;:•.•• .:give..-•authoritif':to .:violate .Or•'..canscel the • provisions -of •this • '':..:.• ::: : .':.. ? , .- ... • . • • code shall 7, be :svil is! ... • • ::.'-'!..:•'.... '..•'''... -:-: • ..• • ...:- • • - :. •-•' • '.:.-......:. . - : .;..',',':••::::•;„,'•L • • . . .. 1/. '''' ' ;'-''''.... .•.'''-'4.i**4****** PUBLIC '',"WORKS********** • .. • -- - •• :-:. • -.,-•:. :-•..4.:•::- :••• ....• - •- ..• . • . ... • . .• .• • •'..'.., ; - T amP. o• • r a ry • • .e.'r. . O. si On control measures shal l be i ap temented a:-'a the f i rst order of business to prevent Sedimentation off site or into '' . •• • • • ..• . :•::.iI' ..' .• - --.- existing sstorm drainage faci 1 i t i es . .. :',:.--:.•...,-':••• • . - • 1 . •:The''''site s'shall ' haYe 'perimanent :•erosion 'Control . measures i n,•," • • iplace isjsoon:as'.liossible after'-linalgrading has • • 1completed,and?pr'ior.,.tothe'-final inspection.,,n .:., ..: ..., 14.. Driveway width sfShal ls'sbe.."`•'.'a :.101."Minimum and 20 t-.::: maximuM:.'.,.S lope , •; . - ., • : shall.. -be •s.a ': maxi muniof 151 T urni na radii i shall be a minimum . . . ,.... of five feet. •••••.• 'f.. :,•••• .;.,.,... • . ::.:,:.- . , •-• - .: ..: • - ' • . .. : •. .•• . . :;.•::‘'.• 1011.........._-.....ficas=......,■-..•,....4.-:-..,.. 4^ 0,11,4".....-.., rti• 1,.....-...... 4:,,..,,4 ,..,101,_,,..„.,e, ,,,,,,,,,,,,...-,....:' ;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;”.%,.-1 ,,,,r,,r,oNtivi,. •-,'"',AA,,,..—"*.44';«,.w.4-'''''-',.irt;- The s c pe-rm conipUtation ding pproval •of t' be con- • any violation • ng code or Of .any .• • 175: •jHau.l iciiAver •50: c3 ,.t4- 1.1 requ'ir.e: app.l.ication;:f ;a ;#iau1 in ••'SPermi t rpr iir,' to 'and �ssoc.i ated. `activity ;, . ''' -•';'•'..':•.••••!.. 16; 'No °sewer:�.:'design=was;:provided 'as .'.part of: th.e "applicatio' ' . ; • isubmittal'..%:The side ..sewer design and' subsequent . cons'truction• isha1.1..be completed In accordance •with,'City sewer -standards. 17... Downspouts, 'driveway, patio • and drainage . from •other.:..: `impervious areas''shall be • collected in an •on -site Strom drain s_ystem. Drains shall be 4 min. diameter, PVC schedule 40 or corregated poly ethalyne pipe with a smooth interior. wall.: • NO ADS' flex. pipe... Drain shall be laid with a minimum'. 1X' slope .'for gravity 'discharge to location approved by.' Public•Works Dept. .Downspouts shal1.not connect. to -footing drains.; 'tFooting drain and downspouts may share •a 'single discharge .pipe downstream . (min of.. 5') of •the lowest fbot'i ng 'Ara in:' : •: • =::. . 18. tThe:;C:i.ty.7of:.'Tukw1 l.a'h= -,• 41 .� `Thii rdinance irequiri.ng "'the' pow .�,� ornmunication• t • b1e service iil Ines' b'e'-iunder.� t��',& fro �e�poir .of .conn on • the ;pol.e .to' :the. I � • '206=433='0 .1 eas.t:24 I ; t i 11'4 t v en ▪ :THE = AP y - - ,SYSTE .1' . ;FIEL 40r*' LA f� • • Si 1 . • ■ :: 111/1 ► ' •ulul hY DATE: July 21, 1998 PROJECT NAME: Keirouz Residence PLAN CHECK NO.: D98 -0216 PLAN REVIEWER: Contact Tammy Frederick, Permit Technician at (206) 433 -0179, if you have any questions regarding the following comments. After reviewing the plans you submitted the Public Works Department finds that the site plan is incomplete, we will need four (4) copies of the site plan showing the following information: 1. The Storm.Drainage System you show on your plan does not exist.. Either show your storm water connecting to existing catch basin or submit a plan showing how you will be creating a new storm drainage system and where it will tie into existing system. Include the type of material to be used. 2. There appears to be a storm drainage pipe running through the property which connects to the catch basin at the southeast corner of your property. Show where this existing pipe is located including where the other end is. 3. The topography on the site plan seems to be off. Is the topography shown how the lot will be after grading? If so, estimate the amount of cut and fill to be done for a land altering permit. 4. Show the location of the nearest fire hydrant. 5. Show the location of the closest power pole and how the lines will be connected to the house. The City of Tukwila has an undergrounding ordinance requiring the power, telecommunications, and cable service lines be underground from the point of connection on the pole to the house. cc: Gary Barnett, Public Works 1 n ATTACHMENT H z a Z LYE, •J U= ;U O ,N .0 • WI.. -J • /A a • I-uJ • 2• • ZF-' 0 W W`. 2 Di !CI H- w w` • f=. U 1/.0; •U _. • z MEMORANDUM TO: Gary Barnett, Development Engineer Tammy Frederick, Permit Technician FROM: Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist DATE: July 17, 1998 RE: Keirouz Single-Family, Permit #D98 - 0215 & -0175 Preliminary observations of wetland drainage. At your request, I visited the site of 2 existing lots on 33rd Avenue S. earlier this week. Your observations of active drainage on the southern lot are warranted. I observed groundwater drainage in the ditch along the front of the property which may be considered a regulated watercourse. The greater area of concern is the extent of wetland on the property. Wetland associated vegetation is present throughout with an apparent seep area on the south property boundary. As required by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, a wetland study will be required prior to any land altering activity on the southern parcel, Lot #12. It is likely that this lot will not be developed without some wetland mitigation planning. Please refer the applicant to me if there questions at 206-431-3662. Thank you for your attention to the situation. cc: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director ATTACHMENT C I CITY OF TUKWILA Address: 13031 33 AV S Suite: Tenant: Type: DEVPERM Parcel #: 735960 -0474 • •l Permit No: 098 -0216 Status: ISSUED Applied: 06/19/1998 Issued: 10/14/1998 • k• k*****• k• k******* k• k*****• k*****•k***.4***• k*•.4*k: 4*• k** k•****•*: k•* *•kk•k•k•k•k** *** *;t•k *•4*•i•kk Permit Conditions: 1. No changes will be made to the plans unless, approved by the A*ch i tect or Engineer and the -ukwt3 a Building Division. 2. Plumbing permits s hall, ,.be <odytaa;rie3'a.tlirVugh,�the Seattle-King County Department �of CP,ukiYi'c"Hei1 th:""PgZusii.tlfr , ,wi 11 be .inspected by that, yencv, ;including, all gasp fling (296 -4722) . ... ' .. '�3ra , a .j T " '- :; 3. Electrical ,�.�eyn�i'tsh_shal�l be b tained :,throudh .the 'Washington State Divi.s bn o La�bo.r' =and Industries an'd a%11 .electr:ical work wi 1 i- ;bye' ir�,� ceed bvl, that' agency ;.(243-6630) '1 <• 4. All mechanlcal wo,rl shall be\,uod :er separate perliait issued by the C i�,ty�i,o f 41 k w i 1 a.50* a '',,1 '• o a �r uti,% 'ti :?'�, 5. All perm's , inspe,etion're.dords, arid approved'. plan.s*shal'libe aval Ta }bile. a: the 4j:ob si•terior tol'the start of .'4any den- % *X ,a.i c, cents `a�,e,,,.to be ma i nta i ned'��and avail ` stru�ct.lon. These .do able:: `ntv • na 1 ins emotion a ° rove!, is Granted. 4 ‘ �'�, !g p p 6. Eng'�n`'eer. d 4. .truss dr.ali ivs_..and ca 1 cul'a t i ons shall be on.�*si.,te r' , and avail 1 e.a to the"'bl741 d i ng i nspecter -^tor i nspect�i on• �,, ;� ;'' pur! oses. Datumer{ts�shal�l ibear�;tt a se,aL -and signature 'ofAa Wa's ;in ton St'a�e --P ofe•ssioal E'n !need,. Wit i 't. I J. ,, r 7. Any4exposed Insu�a.t`ions backing niatt�er4eT,,shal1 have 3a Flame i', Sp(egad R i ng; of� 2$�5..,,,,x�+ 'i es - andr materi a 1 ;shall bear i `d'enti.- •,; f i ` t i o'r'i°p howls ng ttii:e,�f i re pegdrmance- ,rating ng thereof . • 8. Al "'con t act',on & "be .done in',,confurmanc�e?with approved pl , arl '' "quirements of the Un',1 orii Bu•i- 1-dthg Code' (1'99.7 ; Edi . Ion) s "emApded, Uniform Mechafaiq,a-1 —Cade G1991o�Ed•i`ticn,. and ‘Wish tlin State Energy Code / 0.9'97 i Ed.,i t on) . , 4.574 ,r '` :. z., ;Ian' 9. Noti it City of Tukwila Building Druisi n r.1br to -�' ...� p 1 ac ill n_y concrLe . ACCEPTANCE OF THE t FOUNQA PION EXCAVA.T: -i ION CdTION9,LND 1bJAINAGE SY; TZEM BY"56EOTE 1P CONSUtTANTra: INC. IskOpuIREpwRidiziqo FOOTING INSPECTI.ON APEj OVAL sty- TUKWILA BTU ;LDI 10. All wood €o' 11. There shall'•be final inspect been d the k ifl �" rte-- ,` ''. ... IVISIO�Vt .,�,� y s,, �• amain in placed co'rt'o�ete shall be 'treated' %woo.d. o occupanc�r: of the��b ldina(s) unnjl 'the as een comp , e a u�w, l'a;.Bui1ding Inspector. 12. Temporary ergs i on "`c on' ep _n sures sj1- be�,'i;rnp 1 emen ted as the first order of buy me:g.s' to; -p.r venJsserdT1uentation off - site or into existing storm' ra•i=rtage-"facilities. 13. Driveways shall comply with City residential standards. Driveway width shall be •a 10' minimum and 20' maximum. Slope shall be a maximum of 15%. Turning radii shall be a minimum of five feet. 14. Driveways shall be paved for a minimum distance of 20' from the edge of existing road pavement. 15. For residential driveways, a minimum 12" concrete or ADS N -12 pipe shall be installed under the driveway at. the MENT existing drainage ditch location. 16. It is strongly recommended that storm drainage desi�s� ' certified by a licensed engineer; otherwise, the ,owner assumes liability for the design and any subsequent related damages. z _I ce g: UO w =' CO Cl- J � uw 0 u-Q CO = a. I— MI Z= zo ww CI H; ww u. 0. wz rn U =. 01- z ' compaction, and fi11.requirement shall 'conform _„trictly with. recommendations giv '.in the soils report by Gi, :ech Consul .tants.. Inc. A LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE WILL BE REQUIRED OF THE GEOTECH ENGINEER PRIOR TO COVER OF REQUIRED. DRAINAGE SYSTEM. CALL FOR GEOTECH INSPECTION PRIOR TO CALLING FOR FOUNDATION . INSPECTION. . 18. Validity of Permit. The issuance of a 'permit or approval of plans, specifications, and computations shall not be con- strued to be a permit for, or an approval of, any violation of any of the provisions of the .buildina code or of any other ordinance of the ,jurisdiction. No permit presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code shall be valid. 19. The site shall have permanent erosion control measures in p #ace as soon as possible aft e.c fii.ga 1 graying has been completed and prior t Cl� 20. Hauling over 50 cy� require app Permit prior tozdiq7fiisoci#Ael actitkvi ty. `�` `':0! .21. No sewer des i galas pr.p ld d s p�i,,_t, �. of t1r appLTAl .4 ion submittal. )10:710, s i t ew'e ' Vet Van �d subsi, ent construct i on shall be cagp'1etell cl:ordance, wit Cit'v: s�ewet7' st;.n'�iards:. 22. Downspout'a,1i dri;Wew pat4o and iirai'n-ag9,trom other; ';1.;-,, im ervi�d s� ajar siteNstrom p ,, `'��ha 1 1:�'be cocil e�ted i n an� un -� � '� drain s�,y,stem. Drai9s sha,11` be ,4';min. diame ter :f ;eVC , �, s,_ sched4�.,1�0 4.0 or core'egated\ poly etl"r yne pipe w:i,th ,a=�;smooth interior .Wa.11. •NO ADS fiex,Jpipe.,'"Drain shall be '�la �d� with a m • mum i slope foo:gravflty,�.d'�.scharge to' locat,iany �, v appOiedisITYNPutilic WorAs Dep*:-' —Dow,r spouts shal 1 n.ot :.c;otn,ec•., �:,5 to /tonti'j g .drains. F"oi�t- i•ny'%drain, and downspouts may s,� ;rLe � �a; a si ale "'d�i'sci�arge p:ipe--,downstream4CMl�l --OE1 5') of the• �1 est 1i f o o n§ d r a i nl -•r , ,f ' : ', �,,A`se • ; .- 7 ;.� .k �;. 23. Thy I i tv o j. T�'u i.]_a h'as ar undergi�ondi�ng oir;d i nance r• equDrai naP;P,1 the, ower, teal eion�mun i cat i orYS . arid �cab1 a �sery i ce 1 i ryes be ; E�� unb. rou id roml(th�...=poi n t o connect••fion on the pole t`a'! be .i , f 24. Th . p p i�.c a "•�n t�' m u s ri.ot4r£yr the C'i ty/ 1u t' '11 �i A spec t or t .� .1 2061 3� OtO upon., ,commencement a d compket-i-on- of w,t rk't ;tr lea 24 h in s ,,in advance: All t 1pS,p requests fo 'ut i } _v v%oik,, must .also be made 24 Ion s `i;n ad, ante . • 4� 25. THE A,:eLIOANT SHALL BUILD THE FrOOTING Ndi STR'pM,;ORAINAGE SYSTE'IT ER THE RECOMMENDATION OF GE TEC1 CONSUJ. TANTS, INC" jar FIELD •R 'ORT DATED 'r.15-98 WHIVII' IS ACfiEi*TO TH Ei silt„ AN '� ADE BxAkir OF �TjiIS. PERMIT. s �1�; 1,,�'� ~-t,,or a Hauling vWw�wyrwRq...V XwM..wn..w'..••sr�n. - -- ._...�.�.....� ±l, 0 0 ?cr-erIZY UAW.. F07- PETAL, Lot 12 )17.71' 10v )sID,I4 57bJ7- 1(047'54? HEW I.a1-tSr?t1C 14' " GAz s 35' -0' M ChAegclaS 14C- UAL+Ems4 r moo' r I 11'jg ,; 4 )(6 Al 1 Ai 41 l) �\ S w ��.ct o 0 ' $.s.a�, �, P't' Si z TD 2'"� LEVEL LA Le, " r LOG: `5,R0/1$1I'15 5 'i�Ge RcoK AV/711oN 'b A " (VoL. I ro, 174. Co+Jtrf 1Ae�L S�jloo- 0473 -07 JIB ci-• (Z06) 3cc.(, 74 l.tq�ooyat 117.71' ITS PL�N1 ;4- d "-P." .p1' -- �z S ti L7AT • IZl 4iM• .uDF 581.7 4" n ',Y.G. z %, n1 . •e-eRS 4.1 Sven alacu� raTrz.Lwe — � c�.T3 0-- RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILq -1159 \( co P7A" 'ER ATTACHMENT B 5D1 - -- LEXPIRE8 In -1 149 G1aPLUGI GLEka AN 0 Rtsroat. :Xisr CIw . &i( T O ss tN,C 010 AEr -tio. Out R J G W► QLo" w.rti) 7 1H ~ :t bffINi. GANG. c.IJwEZT ALL GCrr1UO.4 � �`✓' IWS•rpo.t.sD (" nr .V G, ?IPes jta GEA�iL g'PAe- • AEEA • ��'toctT- ,�•�15��� �QFy�1{iT- .WILcLmidE_ . HD✓G1:""".A,•PCJ J TF}F. GONNEeTIDN of 4-DeFta t' codJNDATIOMv2A114 To BE oNEVoar Nit-i :136J•d �, G14R IE •4•TaAPS Or--t746,t-x oveottr bErcgU gNp of ?Iar)S•E cor-i reckSloN ei--41ATie. HA N `L.- 69G.Er oP- Af1PH1AL -r L�14NIT�RY MOVED PER PUBLIC WO ECENEo 3 3RD AVM• 5• LETTER DATED o -G -�� 2 I oRTU1998 1.1998 P1.-A1-1 1Y38021(o PERTCENTER X- ,%L.L: Ju JOI z ire W` UO N o. W = J 1. CO LL' W 0: 2 g-J N d W Z 1=. O:, z U ,O •: O H. W W. U' O; ll! Z 0 z MITIGATI ❑N PLAN mr meet ME jw.Ylw.•a••• VICINITY MAP Scale: 1" - 10' 11.1.1..11 T41.7Ul • o Th1.eaa ih SI.I1. D. .P PLANT SCHFATIT,F rr..du. 0 T.•.wn Imie..d.mt p11•410 Nam r.... WV Poo /.1...1ri.. 11.111.■•... n:H..1w.d. Mi1Ci lUoin. M11 Art.1.�.. Pdr myna) IF 1.11r Os.. ...1 IF TAM 1LkA 10S..) WA Mallow., Clop.61 Rs *Immure 11.14 K1....�sb TOTAL ARCA: 1LI spa. uda).+ord.r.r.r Y ■..■ ..311..111.1...... or WW1/4.M A.th 41..81•1AY. {Y.. n33.1Prw.11lrillAS.y Or = P..d...f11w. rom1sci. h+b IPI P) I • MITIGATION PLAN U Z r-. J. S. Jones and Associates. Inc 3 a b .10 r 1 t 1 • 1 a Appl. No. 098 -0215 SHEET W -1 Z W: re 6 _1 C.) 00 N0. w =, J � LL W O}. u. co B = W Z Z O. III 11.1 U O N O 0 H. WW U� — rO WZ o 13 1 i L IININIIN III I • 1 M D 41P 011411 gm riAll iii :11 f 111 J vim 111111 NI moo P2 PP (Sub r r 1 j S135 1 va W M r` M LDR- Low Density Residential Subject Area Keirouz Property 13041 33rd Ave. S. Reasonable Use Exception Attachment A 7 z z. 6 11 U. U O:. CO CY W 1: Jam: g Q: N W: .. z' O' .W w W W' P — Oi w in. z.... File: L 99 -0049 Drawing #1 -3 . %rLUNV " N: CAP 3•'•1 "RL5 .8c9•, CALC'U. POiNI CRAWL SPACE DRAINAGE SECTION 114.117.1.I!)-ti, f ^' cp. ; ■ NTS ,gyp SSG )01,1"..71 HOUSE EXISTING (1:T CENTER 2(1) - 4• PVC PIPE IN CONTINUOUS FOOTINGS IN LOCATIONS SHORN TO PROVIDE %�FODOTIDE CRAW. SPACE DRAINAGE T UGH S87(552'2 "E 117.71' FOOTING 1% WIRINUMt 9L0PE TYP. C1 NN ,4a FOr,NO 3/4" W/ A: R.5 N74'O6'39 "C FROM CALC'I) 4 Y OA 2eca' .nod' PO:N7 AkT ROCKERY WALL 1: BOW 107.8 RIMm 111.0 IE .• 106.5 CREATED Sit SEE MITIGATII COUPLE ANI1 EXTEND EAST. 18• LVERT MATCH E10 APSHAL Et) - 1 Cs.) FFOORR TC4 CITILS I \ ROOF DO1)N DISPERSION ( n.rnY \O\ \\ \� ` MIN) 3/4" 17F.HAft,, \ \� 0. LOCACOrfON OF PHOPERiY RNu? 1 6.8 1F - 6• PVC 0 16,7% TO" •:1 ,8 BOW • 1'7,8 URI ilY POLE 17.71' • NECT WALL. DRAIN TO SD`s, • IE • 105,1 NORTH I GM 65 9) STORM DRAINAGE NOTES A, CORRUGATED ALUMINUM PIPE AND COUPUNG BANDS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF AASHTO M 196 AND M 197. B. THE BACKFlLL SHALL BE PLACED EQUALLY ON BOTH SIDES OF THE PIPE OR PIPE ARCH IN LAYERS WITH A LOOSE AVERAGE DEPTH OF 6 INCHES, MAXIMUM DEPTH 8 INCHES, THOROUGHLY TAMPING EACH LAYER. THESE COMPACTED LAYERS MUST EXTEND FOR ONE DIAMETER ON EACH SIDE OF THE PIPE OR TO THE SIDE OF THE TRENCH. C. GALVANIZED STEEL CRP SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ' AASHTO DESIGNATION M -36, TYPE 1 AND TYPE 2. PIPE SHALL HAVE ASPHALT TREATMENT 1 OR BETTER. D. CATCH BASIN FRAMES AND GRATES SHALL BE OLYMPIC FOUNDRY MODEL 5435, 5435A OR 50503A LOCKING TYPE OR EQUAL MODEL 5435A IS REFERRED TO AS A 'THROUGH CURB INLET' ON THE PLAN. MODEL 50503A IS REFERRED TO 'AS A 'ROLLED GRATE INLET' IN THE PUN, E. ALL NONPERFORAIED METAL PIPE SHALL HAW NEOPRENE GASKETS AT THE JOINTS 0 -RING GASKETS MAY BE USED FOR TYPE F COUPUNG BAND, F, DOUBLE - WALLED (SMOOTH INTERIOR) CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE PIPE SHALT. MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF AASHTO M 252 IN 8 -INCH SIZE AND AASHTO M 294S IN SIZES 12 -INCH THROUGH 36 -INCH. 1» feeYn,. .bsob.+% fey., or padkq late In tw ono. I —Wl—p� Mom •\ • °W4• b 6e4 2'p Sanded e�r.ln•qe .Rh NM-Ob Ome,*0 Fgg abo lea sip P bon NW* i Md. kker & adJeceni m�• ar, iit . , rna earn•12{ R—' // as ' . 1' Min. ----- ptt 'ldp. Mai FIp. tyWd.d bnb OelvenYso. Arena Yon 1l tad M pMMtptewW Fit pi*V" lion-SMnIt Geld Sted /1,4421111 110 SEE MOyE • , Undiftuted J. Grout soave y FOR • • 571= Vi ROCKERY • . ; ; i . a 11' 12• 1 it 0 %.. • Stahl. eft few n native metrlol 1. diameter moiled prank nee r war ova Mpg : /• min. 2• panel under pip., 12• .Ida. •: ?It Cie' =lie na tJo" lompa o "11" " 3°34: fie , IabrleYOiI r c) .p '"' Flew eba wlwan nxi. b ..vr. VIEW FACaq ROCKERY µn mew Pier NO I. Rock WWI be sound end have minimum .67027:015ss await/ of NO pounds per cotes foot 2. R» ldno dimension of as rock. Well te Mooed prpwaeWO. - the vol. Each nook Mould Sew so bre recta n the der O.ld.. J. Reokrl.. an oeYan- control *totem. t Man rY. NWve ,nai.nr moat b. WahN old now- Wgrgn9 n eul Gook. 4. Yn .olknq auflaces wore and ad �t ttoero to MY dwr JO• n nnino ALS UBC 7711. by o r 7 soiWr,W to 5. Rose rack Y 2 -men mnkpnL (2 nano nook - 200 -700 b 18• -281 O.-Shop to for oil nowt be city append prior b food tAL 4 .e a City of Tukwila ROCKERY & SIDEWALK TTTTH SAFETY RAIL w •••• DATE: 11/15/96 RS -5 , •• .. • ° EXIST J.EG�D do ABBREVIATIONS PROPOSED AS ALT PAVEMENT P ORATED PVC PIPE ST M DRAIN S ITARY C TOURS — —G G CU C IERT ANOUT CH BASIN fig • REOTKD oITYOPTUKWILA OCT 2 0 1999 PERMIT CENTER DATE BY CHD, APPR._ REVISION DRAWN BY DATE TKS 10/13/99 DESIGNED BY TKS 10/13/99 SCALE: HORIZ. 1' =10' VERT, JOB NO.: , 98430 J.A.K., INC (206) 300 -6874 PARCEL # 735960-047.3-07 11 dYirrMrr Y1 sl 01.O0 tri gi.00rI GRADIG AND DRAINAGE PLAN SHEET C1 '0 'inch' rile Fl Ei El. I; JI 0 I. t aS- F� :L t t o. �_ I ndun�nnlnn�nnluu�nnluli�llu! RII�mUuu�uillun�uulnu�Ilnbnl�nnlnN�uDlilu�unhiu�nlllnu�Iluhullnngn�l ': Q .10,41 •.•.. :(.:FAH •••., AP "IeLS 24165.1" .0 ;TILE :i�11T 1 .1GS`�o• ;;, \'1'.°0' ''4 EXISTING . y• HOUSE 5842'26 "E 117.71' %r rit:NJ J: e" CLEARING UMITS m • c•'' 'k: : i1?4 06'2y`E FROV CA: CO FLIER FABRIC / ,FENCE .,fmu:. Loh- pc :R! ' - i.'A :r.:YI. I.UCATCN Cr i pri'i•n C9R.YCP • ALL E SED SOILS NOT,BEING WORKED \. SHALL e LEHED \ \ •- \ \ \\ \ \ ` ....,1 OE AREA: 5.8821. SO. F\., (0.14 ACRE) N8- '52.'3.3"W 117.71' U11LRY POLE j NORTH 01 01 FILTER FABRIC FENCE (0 m N '\ ) /" / 20" 6:\. CEDAR' \ \. CLEARINZULRRAIAIA E,D.0 r \ STRUCTURE D.s. �oz w . OOT \ " .4DRUC'PURE: Y({ +I RT. TAB1)X 1: t iEda)7 /La: \ 12f/TYPE: , :wtr�T1U11DElTy, . 1,., i:' Oi('!C. CULVER'', •, .4T4AAH'U 'PCii604C.\ 18" 6:u.2+ CULViR! \ y6 31 6" PVi' 1 CUIMi.'1T UY.dB (1" Pv ••• RT CULVE CATCH $14SR1 (ROHM) ICAi3 •;. 99.1 TAW; S" PVC•mt 7)11.34I I2' C6.'P/tl5i1 99.30 I8` CLIP /50U1N 51.41 18 "•CU1iC /EAST \C01.11 110(1U5( 0T STRUCIHRe OS. ,j(i. ANHAR:• ;EIVEk 5";(/),- (AS.' . 100.0 (:•'1 SITE PLAN CORRATAIEU METAL PIPE PIILYVIN,L CALORIE: PIP-'' SCALE 1' + 10' -0' O 0 STALL 1131- LVERT PRITR TO CL MRING ti ROCK FQNSTR1/40 ENTR 25'9 12' (D) D1 M VO 01 CE SECTION A -A NOM IRON COIFLESON OF THE PROJECT OR MIDI PREMED BY RE OMIFR. DE FLIER NM FENCE SNAIL BE MOO N I15 ENTIRETY AND DEPOSED OF BY 11E CONTRACTOR EROSION CONTROL NOTES ALTER FABRIC FENCE DETAIL NTS A. ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH 4' TO 6' ROCK. PLACE FILTER FABRIC BELOW ROCK PAD. B. MARK CLEARING LIMITS WI1H BRIGHTLY COLORED ORACNE TAPE TAPE SHALL BE SUPPORTED BY STAKES AND SHALL BE 3 TO 6 FEET HIGH. EQUIPMENT OPERATORS SHALL BE INFORMED OF AREAS THAT ARE TO BE LEFT UNDISTURBED. C. MULCH SHALL BE APPLIED ON DISTURBED AREAS LEFT UNWORKED FOR MORE THAN 7 DAYS (2 DAYS IN THE MET SEASON). D. DIVERSION DITCHES & SEDIMENT POND TO 8E LOCATED PRIOR TO EXCAVATION. C. NET SEASON DATES ARE FROM OCTOBER I TO APRIL 30. LEGEND & ABBREVIATIONS ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE CLEARING AND GRADING UMITS FILTER FABRIC FENCE 0 O NBOSIV!D Om OPTUKWILA OCT 2' 0 1999 PERMIT CENTER DATE BY CHD. APPR, REVISION DRAWN BY DATE SCALE: TKS 10/13/99 DESIGNED BY HORIZ, TKS 10/13/99 VERT. JOB NO.: 98430 J.A.K,. INC (206) 300 -6874 PARCEL # 735960 - 0473 -07 (-11. p0(447. egg* Bot1 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN SHEET C2 4YMV•YVerr F E —L 1 01 yl udUHInHI111111n11u1 IHHIH111iH11111 6111! HH6iululilKiilHi111111luN6nihmh101 .11lHHlHidnnplidnHlm111111,411 L'.1 Q.3 4•..•.1 1. ' !- A�.,i �(: 7'ti �,' .. .l !'I :. :�•, I,•. :''•�h, i,i ill t'. IV. .. • 1!"'h: OF :C E ''f. /0i✓ 15 :TO 117P•r.`7; "1' a IVf`//1 / )1' 1tAArG141 41 'AST. 1•' 11•11.(.•: '':(:I•I\,1i• {i'11bILIr';i.�l'i.1V 16.00' 114412 FOUND v4• REBAR W/ CAP RI.S 28604' AT CALC'D. POINT $$F G G ° 101 13 S8755T 2'26 "E 117.71' TOPOGRAPHICAL SITE SURVEY 1 FOR ,JIHAD KIEROUZ ' 'LOCATED IN THE N.W. 1/4, OF THE N. W. 1/4, OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE ,,4 EAST, W.11E," KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON I• 1 W 0 D.S. 16 / D.S. 14 CAL•. LOCATION OF PROPERTY CORNER NeT82.:A "W 117.71' LEGEND: 'FT UTILITY POLE WATER METER (SEE INVERT I ERT TABLE) DJ A00 DRAINAGE STRUCTURE INVERT TABLE: STRUCTURE 1 SIZE./TYPE D.S. 11: 12' CONC. CULVERT O.S. 12: t6' CUP. CULVERT D.S. 13: 8' PVC*. CULVERT D.S. 14: 8' PVC.. CULVERT D,S, 15: CATCH BASIN (ROUND) D,S, 16: FOUND J'4" RERAR W/ GIP RLS 28604" N74.06'29'E 006' FROM CALC'D. POINT D.S. 15 20,00' 0.0. 12 D.S. 13 / 1‘‘. I � \\ • FOUND J/4' RE ..1 W CAP; ,TLS NTT" A CALC'D. POINT IL, P.. INVERT ELEVATION 100.65 95.34 97.48 100.23 99.41 (RIM) 95.93 6' PVC/WEST 95,66 12' CUP/WEST. 95,61 16' CLIP /SOUTH 91.41 16' CONC./EAST 91.11 BOTTOM OF STRICTURE SANRARY SEWER STUB -OUT 100.63 (RIM) . CORRICATED METAL PIPE, .. POLYVINYL CHLORIDE PIPE N S GRAPHIC SCALE I;10 0 BASIS OF BEARINGS: BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON THE CENTERLINE OF 33RD AVENUE SOUTH, BEING SOUTH 0709'16' WEST. AS SHOWN ON THAT RECORD OF SURVEY FILED IN BOOK 125 OF SURVEYS, AT PAGE 289,,UNDER RECORD NUMBER 9811179012, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. 1 " =10' 10 VERTICAL DATUM: ASSUMED, BENCHMARK: 4 SET PK NAIL AT EDGE OF PAVEMENT NEAR N.E. CORNER OF PROPERTY. ASSUMED ELEVATION • 100,00 U.S. FEET CONTOUR INTERVAL: 2 U.S. FEET LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 12, BLOCK 5, 'ROBBINS SPRINGBROOK ADDITION TO RIVERTOM, ACCORDING A ECORDS OF KINGCCOUNTTY,, WASHINGTONOLUME 16 OF PLATS, NOTES: 1. MONUMENTS LAST VI5ITE0 2- 18 -99. • 1.6 PRWECI NAME: KdAGU2 TOPOORAPNY/ /CRATED: Mon LS 22 15:00:47 1999//PNEV. PI.01: No Aug 04 MOWS 19WPL0IIE0: ru.., F.n. 0, 1999, 11:4501 -TYCUSIOM \Proi.cb \1999 \990i6Lpr0 E CITY R OF CEIVED TUKWILA CEP - 1 1999 . PERMIT CENTER tia tb uuU 1-I V{ W rv• P"'1 V) IY LJ z z SURVEYORS DATE: Tue.. Feb. 23, 1999 SHEET: 1 of 1 111 0 go o, • SI1111IIifili111111111111111111III11111111 !1!!!!!I IIIIII11111111111111111111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIII III IIIII11111111111111111nuljplllnI • .• !•. • 1 jo we, 7. 0 0 — 111 2.47,1414 sroar — ___ •-ce-gEZ't OALL, E 61•16. 171ZAAtt oTa- 'DEM L. Lof 1 • Now Ej ift (4) )17. 711 4 14417 046? NEW aNs-rrticroni 1 ottts.)^ 20'-o" i4YArr cb.k:-o6 641044 Mgral 13.601 1 o"5.6,154-, 1 1-0 2t41, L.E•Ve•. 0./ • a op . Ls z 1 ) '61 TI:r.sewir..: .61.04,,E. P.v.G. 37.5% viz1v-Tre.—sWeisr, -Pc4.415tLANe5 — 0/4814 d ..2e 4G• ■■ ••ZI, iw 17, 71 JIkAL7 ) 30c:36.S74 f3Le;_ g ter , r.413f5114 evMri.!Gbg.colt acv IZIN/Eer014 " 'RA. 47 (-car( eee-S) 17,6:cc-sc. 4; 1 7 54)41c) - oil 73 -07 (.41140011, FLAN' )01-orr- , , ; ,.„ . , 1 .1. ' 1 t';'• 6 I rIrrirVirtrt, ..41 • " ) .■+,,„ , 1: 1- 1 11 '1' .1":‘:‘1 rl; I I 1 C I 777'71;;17....77Ci "117: ,S • L L '1"7"-",7 0 •' ' . . 1 J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1111 1111 1111 111111111,111111111,1111111111111111111,111111111,11111,1111,111111111, • • cayRoECFETIVuEKOwiLA SEP - I 1C,10 PERMIT CENTER 1 ATTACHMENT B 0 0 )171 71' 10% -r-coezet 1.141,1„, &es ctirs. veAbabe row P51114 L. Lof [2. Jidav KeVAlz- g06) 3Ct:›6,674 inv Vrear 4417 .a.P" t4sw col4s-rwicrml (Ph.) DLOGX .143611•1`7 1—c>" c6--;37iS". '-- AZAG 35=o" 3/41` IPTVE ao I -3' NI% , "5.6 a!!). L . tX ill f > — '1°0 2 "I'D LEV I... 3 41YAs-r d'AcirolAs sooTA &KV ESA9t4 &, At. -Qb •G" Qt 401G -10=4.2P o,.dp dp )17.71' 4421 C " 'r" .0* 204 it4 519E 5E-ir_. 410 p,v,c. 1 1 444 ) 2.70 Nt abt.,9?5. -074Wit.—aWNIND ca. co • AvpriToN RW€52#44 " (/Lo 1 6° # M. (p7, Kir4exi CaArTY ec-ek) 136gc-E4. - 0/473 -07 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA SEP - 1 1999 PERMIT CENTER WrIsooti? wwwwwwmiatwomememOINI• ,':-: 1 :-.--,-;';,. 4.. - t1 'r-Fr:FT:FTTErTiT1171: ''-c.fl5;',P. ,7"....---7:-.. 0::-1;i6.7) ,. r ....' 1/16 ' . i . 6 , .,.-•••-•..:,...:.....) • ,...;,- 7,:::. 4ii+'10r■r''iri7ii7;*; : iii: ,, , • , . -..ii,‘:::..„..,.1.. .:: .,...-: 1h= )d-o" 'J.:1.0011.k Ili! ilk lip 100.1111111 II I:I 11.1 II In 11111(1111j ij 4.1110,01: /4f 1 L • ftLIL11 ?g OP 1 , 0 Z •4 OIS Z� ti phi:; P Zo W J 2 2S �o u 0 d Z 4 i4_ Z. w t z cvf 4 toe 3 2 ' a r41 3 C15422 rag WO — O C 3 V to R. o rc a a ° Q a. E a � Z `n' d a a., % Z 9,1* 2a4'1. iiJLiliiii III!.PII 1 IlllliinI lliilnn i, iii! iinlllllllLII�III1 11III�IIIIIIIII�IILLIIIII�IIIIIIIIIJIIIIIUII�lliii InninliIiullii.ii�niilnn�: ell • .,�.•��,,. 1.3.1.117 NO2'09'14 "E 49.97' CRAWL SPACE DRAINAGE SECTION NTS • tte•;.l 0 °C1. G,�° °�rS� EXISTING V -"?o. 'oPt° 0 / - /F:VNU !/4' FEEVP " 114 J -IZ A CALC'O. PLANT' 7•y04 l ,i C1 CENTER 2'(L) - 4' PVC, PIPE IN CONIWIIOUS F001WCS IN LOCATIONS SHOWN TO (PROVIDE CRAWL SPACE DRAINAGE GH j' FOOIWQS (TIP) 1 S87j52'2 "E . 4• PERFORATED F DRAIN 115 MINIM TYP) UM SLOPE ... .... .... ....:. .:: Vii: ?......, .. ,:f ::..- ...... _s:i: Y..:�?:nit��'`: w'•1,.. MONO ! /4• 26 811 / � N740fi39Y5 A86Q4" Fi7OM CALCb PUNT i rALCD. LOCATION Or PROPL".8 Y CORNER 1.861 8" PVC 1 ,8 17.71' TYPE 1 CB BOW • 107.8 RIM= 107.*1rY POLE IE • 104.5 i NORTH - . - ---... �- DRAN TO d' 9)\ DR.41NAGo'yti 1 . •: 4 R'P TABLES ''\ SfRUC7IIRE A.S. ,('4. /D'Pr. . \• ,k Y( JRL.Vx]IT,+R7i • . , .. J1: YL'. CULVERT \ Af LVV 0'D. POINt80.1� Ds. i3:�� \ Id" CMP• CULVERT 1 98.14 \ /� 8" PVC" CULVERT 7.48 \ 8" PVC•• CULVERT 10-1! • CATCH ASIN (HOL',VD) 99.1 (RIM) v\ - 95.9 6" PVC/gT5r / 95.86 12" CUP /WEST 1581 Id" coop/soma 6 91 I I8' caNC. /EAST tO `C 1.11 BOrrf7M OF STRLCIIIRt D.S. 16: SANITARY SEWER STUii -OUT 100.87 (HIM) ;+0/ SITE PLAN CORRICATED METAL PPE POLYVINYL CHI ORIOE PIPE . SINE: r COME AN . EXTEND E. 18' LVERT MA 0H EASt APSHAL w Mathis M W,rt.M mad." or Wing 111. F d.0 Inc Mlrr 4, Mm. wyi MtaN Old PIN Unrw,e.a l rn.r E taet .watt Mr- M r-egm .rM1. •V.• -4 V nanny. 11.N. ..A 1.. F nm. mMrIM 1' a7.nrM .art. gnat 17.1. Y arm .1... 12" MM lo. r 4 pat rtie >q as .t../A INTO It7A/All 003• Mar Not. orilnuao f •.' 0 ■) .MYt r4..I.r.. SEE NNE FOR ROLY DETAINS • R'EFg nW= KO MIN 1100RR1• wi ghat, dI E 1. Rink Ilea r rend .M Mw minimum ..Irltr M 180 .•-1.o pot noble Nat. 7. 11,. b *want M a roil. WWI to 1F..4 onondlair to Sr ma ben non Moil Mar on too n to F F. Oar p.la.. S R.a.11r w =.r=,- oontn1 Mehra. n Y gr NMM . ntrol , .Ia. mr1 4. - .lent r IwY=Ys n.a b• F night r,1E w r$..d M .1.E r4gm,E 1. IACm. L N.. ,.t Y 3M., ..nFan. (f wan ,... 700-700 • it -7tH .. "op *Wag for • roil mat M Mt, .owed War to IMM.O.. ROCKERY k SIDEWALK City of Tukwila WITH SAFETY RAID Ma la DATE: 11/15/96 RS -5 STORM DRAINAGE NOTES A. CORRUGATED ALUMINUM PIPE AND COUPLING BANDS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF AASHTO M 196 AND M 197. 0. THE BACKFILL SHALL BE PLACED ECUALLY CN 80111 SCES OF THE PIE OR PIPE ARCH IN LAYERS VAIN A LOOSE AVERAGE DEPTH OF 6 INCHES MAAMUM DEPTH 8 INCHES, THOROUGHLY TAMPING EACH LA1ER. THESE COMPACTED LAYERS MUST EXTEND FOR CAC DIAMETER ON EACH SHOE OF THE PIPE OR TO THE 9DE OF THE TRENCH. C. GALVANIZED STEEL CMP SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF AASHTO DESIGNATION 14-36, TYPE 1 AND TYPE 2. PIPE SHALL HAVE ASPHALT IMMINENT 1 OR BETTER. 0. CATCH BASIN FRAMES AND CRATES SHALL BE OLYMPIC FOUNDRY ROOM 5435, 5435A CR 50503A LOCKING TINE OR EQUAL. MODEL 5435A IS REFERRED TO AS A 'THROUGH CURB INLET' oN THE PLAN. MODEM. 50503A IS REFERRED TO AS A 'ROLLED CRATE INLET IN THE PLAN. E. ALL NO4PERFORATED META. PIPE SHALL HAVE NEOPRENE GASKETS AT TIE JOINTS O-RING GASKETS MAY BE USED FOR TYPE F COUPUNG•BAID. F. DOUBLE -WADED (SMOOTH INTERIOR) CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE PIPE SHALL MEET DE REQUIREMENTS OF AASHTO 11 252 W 8 -INCA SIZE AND AASHTO M 294S IN SZES 12-INCH THROUGH 36 -INCH. EAST LEGEND dt ABBREVIATIONS PROPOSED ASPHALT PAVEMENT PERFORATED PVC PIPE STORM DRAIN SANITARY "o CONTOURS -c- GAS - - • - CULVERT CLEANOUT CATCH BASIN Iqgl 4041 e '• • fECEO Ct1V OF'NIVEKWILA SEP - 1 1999 PERMIT CENTER NO. DATE BY CHD. APPR. REVISION DRAWN BY DATE SCALE: OE D'B_. Y ... /99 HORIZ VERT. JOB NO.: 98430. r' JIHAD KEEIROUZ (206) 300 -6874 PARCEL # 735360- 0473 -07 GRADING AND - DRAINAGE PLAN SHEET !I 1+ av"Frr.1•f• L I, D I llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll1IIII! IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlll11111 91! ���i A1111111111112 10.00' t. k. ( I ROCKERY WALL _ Ft ..„ or � _I 1 BUILDINC'FF�t L. 1 \ 0. 106.6 �- PROP / HOD; 1 I 1 BUILDING FF \ EL I OS.6, \ - 1 • ( ° • ° ' if ' 44 • i- 11 • 4 ,.' . D.5..t. '' • . • ' 4 \ .--r:; t:r • ,•. li `4 '• �y \ ••)4 , . ° •\" ° • • e 0 Bow tOl.8 t \ e 1 H 1© (TYP.) I ''‘.„, 4' PVC N12 `, ,,'.'h) \ /' IE 96 / II IE - 10 .0 , j i- J/ / ' • 'DOWNSPOUT I1�' / X TOB'SD CONNECT WALL \ 1 DRAIN TO B' SD' TYPE 1 CB / /� \0 AREA: 5.88} CONNECT 4' R SkaBFIR) I S0. FT.\ �` t: CONNECT TO FOO OlAIN(3 EA) \ +\ \ 1 %a 1 N 71GH1UNE TO B• 97 N • N 1 1 /� / " ,^ DA CEDAR • d /3M1 I IE =10.0 E - 106.0 J N ' r ' r 601 LF--8• PVC 5D • 4.O1 _ Nia1 i�r��a� �` CONNECT L 1MHTLIE N. Inn rALCD. LOCATION Or PROPL".8 Y CORNER 1.861 8" PVC 1 ,8 17.71' TYPE 1 CB BOW • 107.8 RIM= 107.*1rY POLE IE • 104.5 i NORTH - . - ---... �- DRAN TO d' 9)\ DR.41NAGo'yti 1 . •: 4 R'P TABLES ''\ SfRUC7IIRE A.S. ,('4. /D'Pr. . \• ,k Y( JRL.Vx]IT,+R7i • . , .. J1: YL'. CULVERT \ Af LVV 0'D. POINt80.1� Ds. i3:�� \ Id" CMP• CULVERT 1 98.14 \ /� 8" PVC" CULVERT 7.48 \ 8" PVC•• CULVERT 10-1! • CATCH ASIN (HOL',VD) 99.1 (RIM) v\ - 95.9 6" PVC/gT5r / 95.86 12" CUP /WEST 1581 Id" coop/soma 6 91 I I8' caNC. /EAST tO `C 1.11 BOrrf7M OF STRLCIIIRt D.S. 16: SANITARY SEWER STUii -OUT 100.87 (HIM) ;+0/ SITE PLAN CORRICATED METAL PPE POLYVINYL CHI ORIOE PIPE . SINE: r COME AN . EXTEND E. 18' LVERT MA 0H EASt APSHAL w Mathis M W,rt.M mad." or Wing 111. F d.0 Inc Mlrr 4, Mm. wyi MtaN Old PIN Unrw,e.a l rn.r E taet .watt Mr- M r-egm .rM1. •V.• -4 V nanny. 11.N. ..A 1.. F nm. mMrIM 1' a7.nrM .art. gnat 17.1. Y arm .1... 12" MM lo. r 4 pat rtie >q as .t../A INTO It7A/All 003• Mar Not. orilnuao f •.' 0 ■) .MYt r4..I.r.. SEE NNE FOR ROLY DETAINS • R'EFg nW= KO MIN 1100RR1• wi ghat, dI E 1. Rink Ilea r rend .M Mw minimum ..Irltr M 180 .•-1.o pot noble Nat. 7. 11,. b *want M a roil. WWI to 1F..4 onondlair to Sr ma ben non Moil Mar on too n to F F. Oar p.la.. S R.a.11r w =.r=,- oontn1 Mehra. n Y gr NMM . ntrol , .Ia. mr1 4. - .lent r IwY=Ys n.a b• F night r,1E w r$..d M .1.E r4gm,E 1. IACm. L N.. ,.t Y 3M., ..nFan. (f wan ,... 700-700 • it -7tH .. "op *Wag for • roil mat M Mt, .owed War to IMM.O.. ROCKERY k SIDEWALK City of Tukwila WITH SAFETY RAID Ma la DATE: 11/15/96 RS -5 STORM DRAINAGE NOTES A. CORRUGATED ALUMINUM PIPE AND COUPLING BANDS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF AASHTO M 196 AND M 197. 0. THE BACKFILL SHALL BE PLACED ECUALLY CN 80111 SCES OF THE PIE OR PIPE ARCH IN LAYERS VAIN A LOOSE AVERAGE DEPTH OF 6 INCHES MAAMUM DEPTH 8 INCHES, THOROUGHLY TAMPING EACH LA1ER. THESE COMPACTED LAYERS MUST EXTEND FOR CAC DIAMETER ON EACH SHOE OF THE PIPE OR TO THE 9DE OF THE TRENCH. C. GALVANIZED STEEL CMP SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF AASHTO DESIGNATION 14-36, TYPE 1 AND TYPE 2. PIPE SHALL HAVE ASPHALT IMMINENT 1 OR BETTER. 0. CATCH BASIN FRAMES AND CRATES SHALL BE OLYMPIC FOUNDRY ROOM 5435, 5435A CR 50503A LOCKING TINE OR EQUAL. MODEL 5435A IS REFERRED TO AS A 'THROUGH CURB INLET' oN THE PLAN. MODEM. 50503A IS REFERRED TO AS A 'ROLLED CRATE INLET IN THE PLAN. E. ALL NO4PERFORATED META. PIPE SHALL HAVE NEOPRENE GASKETS AT TIE JOINTS O-RING GASKETS MAY BE USED FOR TYPE F COUPUNG•BAID. F. DOUBLE -WADED (SMOOTH INTERIOR) CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE PIPE SHALL MEET DE REQUIREMENTS OF AASHTO 11 252 W 8 -INCA SIZE AND AASHTO M 294S IN SZES 12-INCH THROUGH 36 -INCH. EAST LEGEND dt ABBREVIATIONS PROPOSED ASPHALT PAVEMENT PERFORATED PVC PIPE STORM DRAIN SANITARY "o CONTOURS -c- GAS - - • - CULVERT CLEANOUT CATCH BASIN Iqgl 4041 e '• • fECEO Ct1V OF'NIVEKWILA SEP - 1 1999 PERMIT CENTER NO. DATE BY CHD. APPR. REVISION DRAWN BY DATE SCALE: OE D'B_. Y ... /99 HORIZ VERT. JOB NO.: 98430. r' JIHAD KEEIROUZ (206) 300 -6874 PARCEL # 735360- 0473 -07 GRADING AND - DRAINAGE PLAN SHEET !I 1+ av"Frr.1•f• L I, D I llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll1IIII! IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlll11111 91! • FOUND 3/4 REBAR • / uv.; CAP RL3 2.9604 AT CAW O. POINT • • H472•1S • • SEI72'26•E 117.71• 061...3.0 EXISTING HOUSE "' , mum kr_ ammo mos ,/ FILTER roam a • I FROM CALCO 611 OAR 28604" POINT . ■•;••■•■r: :,..■,...,..- --, 1 ‘‘. / as /I . ^-,...„.. 1 \ \\......,,,...„, .„...... NN N, N. N.\ ( ( / \ \ . ■ ...'".. • \ \ . \ \ \ \ , AU. ▪ EY2kED SOILS NOT\BEING WORKED --.... • \ \. ....„ SHALL t.ILELID \ \ ,_. .--- \\ • , ---- .. \ \ \ L , \ \ \ \ \ \ \ .. • FLIER FA8C FENCE' \ O \ \ .-- (0.14 ACRE) ',LOT AREA: 5.882± SO. Fr. i ) .N. , \ / Alt __-- — --, ss / / --.) . — - / _./ \ 7" • I _ /*-- — —__. -- \ .„ ),... 2. ,_ . ,- 20. IA. CEDAR ... --.. -..........: ....--, ..-- ',........ „ .‘. i / -.. 0 ' N 0 o o -,o ,.. !., .. 30.00 ..— , .., o . . 0 o o O O o O O .. 1 . EI-1'54,3V If 7.71' -.\\ N., ...., . 0 \ I, 1 , - pi:Ani.ofrp EON. rel. 0.ciglRo F o.s. ilifiRAINAAVtRUC7'URE: AvsvcRT, •PABLIN. STRUCTURE g.,. oc:,3t.zr/reRE , hvaRlUNDES311*501-0, / . ...- .7 ....."... ../.. a. PVC.* CuLyERT \s,„ ,.,,,,,,,,,,A,::::0. LA,,241..6 04 \ '.: \ ,,90.34 \ I / ----••• -. . 11: as. ir CONC. CULVERT '.--) le Clek.scul.vERT r PVC• caveRr \ 0 ,,,,, , CATC11 R/ASIN MOWN ...'. gAL. g (img) g..5.•.kg. 6" PVC/015T % 0'' • .. ,,...7 V:1. 95 .••• .5 .81/ 19 GNP/SOLI/71 95.6M 12" cmivwcsr O.- ' it 91j1) 19• CONC./EAST % ' ,.,81 11 norrou OF STRUCTUR :,... • 'SANITARY SEWER STua-01171100.63 (W) 6 SCALE: 1. • 10'0. SITE PLAN 0.5. 1/6: Cp00101CAN;15.00MILEZZr0pEipt. • - t ';.■ NOM i 1 i 1 STALL IB*4-LVERT TO NG 1TE R 251 WILILY POLE EN (0) cE 5'•:•'. ':•'*''.,"'..',<••••.''•"''• ''':<.•;',./:•:',' ' ',,-,<", .<•.'',,/, BURY FILTER FABRIC N TRENCH num INTH GRAM. BACK- FOR CRAWS 5ECNON A-A ITL GI CONFILIKII OF THE ROW OR WEN OFECMD BY DE OMER, ME FLIER MAC MCI OVAL BE ROOM N ITS NINETY NO DISPOSED OF BY THE CONTRACTOR FILTER FABRIC FENCE DETAIL NM EROSION CONTROL NOTES ROCK CONSIRUCTION ENTRANCE SHALL BE 'CONSTRUCTS) UN 4 TO e R00(. PLACE FILTER FABRIC BELOW ROCK PAD, 0. MARK CLEARING LINTS ACTH BRIGHTLY COLORED ORAGNE TAPE. TAPE SHALL BE SUPPORTED BY STAKES AND SHALL BE 3 TO 6 FEET -- • - - HIGH.- EQUIPMENT OPERATORS SHALL BE WORMED CP AREAS THAT ARE TO BE LEFT UNOISTURBED. C. MULCH SHALL I3E APPUED ON DISIUREED AREAS LEFT UNWORKED FOR MORE THAN 7 DAYS (2 DAYS IN INC VET SEASON). LEGEND as ABBREVIATION ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE CLEARING AND GRADING UNITS FILTER FABRIC FENCE L91.40041 -0- 0- A herabiliK.•■■•••• q47.114.7.4Zi "A,1114.4.4. .1S:TIT,11'••••• • 17! NO. DATE BY CHD. APPR. REVISION DRAWN By DATE . IRS 8/30/99 - INE=ZETIFJ: SCALE: . VERT. JOB NO.: 98430 JIHAD- kEIROUZ (206) 300-6874 PARCEL # 735960-0473-07 ERp. AND. CONTROL PLAN SHEET C2 TT 4 it 1,OC/ATED JN TILT N=: Tr. /4.. r)1'' 9'1-1H' AT.bf. i!d. 76.00' FOUND J/4' REBAR W CAP RLS 26604' AT CALC'D. POINT 104 q0 5 4 4013.0$ 10, 114-12 1 13 1 S87f52'2rE 117.71' TOPOGRAPHICAL SITE SURVEY FOR JIHAD KIEROUZ ' 'LOCATED IN THE KI W. 1/4; OF THE N. W. 1/4, ` ' �" - I OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON N \ /D.s.#5/ / \ \ \ i \ 12 \\\ \OT AREA: 5,8821 SE). FT (0.14 ACRE) \\\ \ , / > 2L1. CEDAR / WATER- YJ -0- / / Y/ FOUND CAP 'RLS24• N74'06'29'E 0.06' FROM CALC'0. POINT D.s.15) D.S. 30.00' r;r D.S. 13 / :\ 30.00' CALC'D. LOCATION OF PROPERTY CORNER LEGEND: UTILITY POLE 0 WATER METER ® &T AT (ROUND) (SEE INVERT TABLE) N3'W 117.71' \\ I \ 1 \"- FOUND 3(4' RED. W/ CAP .RLS 266 AT CALC'D, POINT ,087 DRAINAGE STRUCTURE INVERT TABLE: STRUCTURE 1 SFLE /TYPE INVERT ELEVATION D.S. /1: 12• CONC. CULVERT 100.65 D.S. 12: 16' CMP. CULVERT 96,34 D.S. 13: 6 PVC- CULVERT 97.46 D.S. 14: W PVC.. CULVERT 100,23 D.S. 15: CATCH BASIN (ROUND) 99.41 (RIM) 95.93 6' PVO/WEsr 95.66 12' CMP/WEST 95.61 la' CRP/SOUTH 91.41 16' CONC./EAST 91.71 BOTTOM OF STRUCTURE DS. 16: SANITARY SEWER STUB -OUT 100.63 (RIM) . CORRIGNTEO META. PIPE. .. POLYVINYL CHLORIDE PIPE Y • si1'' Gi—Ci t7 ,.I UI C ! .' 1' „S. 9> L—L I ' 0; 1001 1111 11IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII0100IINIillmilllllinlllluilllllll lllllllllll 11;;lllllll1001llll1001001 11001001001001 N S GRAPHIC SCALE 101 0 10 BASIS OF B :ARINGS: BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON THE CENTERLINE OF 3360 AVENUE SOUTH, BEING SOUTH 02'09'16' WEST, AS SHOWN ON THAT RECORD OF SURVEY FILED IN BOOK 125 OF SURVEYS, AT PAGE 269, UNDER RECORD NUMBER 9611179012, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. VERTICAL DATUM: ASSUMED. BENCHMARK: + SET PK NAIL AT WOE OF PAVEMENT NEAR N.E. CORNER OF PROPERTY. ASSUMED ELEVATION - 100.00 U.S. FEET CONTOUR INTERVAL: 2 U.S. FEET LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 12. BLOCK 5, ;ROBBINS SPRINGBROOK ADDITION TO RIVERTON', ACCORDING TO THE PUT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 16 OF PUTS, PAGE 67, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. NOTES: 1. MONUMENTS LAST VISITED 2- 76 -99. C.aq• DDu9 k ,1 4,1 ,W , 4 rea g o r02 0 Nicc3IN \Gp i Di. k R 0. Qua E. E4 TE a y 0 PLANNERS SURVEYORS DATE:Tue., Feb. 23, 1999 SHEET: 1 of 1 PROIECI—FNME: KIEROUZ TOPOGRAPHY //C (07 Mon 7-4b 22 19.00:4] 7999 /PREY. PLOT: T,. Aug 04 09:01:35 19Q4/P1.041E0: 171.., F.b. 2.7. 7699, 14.46:21 C: \TUCUS 04\ProHeO \I999 \990307.Pro