HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L98-0002 - SOIL RECLAMATION FACILITY - DESIGN REVIEWL98 -0002
SOIL RECLAMATION FACILITY DESIGN REVIEW
4501 So. 134th Pl.
A F F I D A V I T
.. Ail ettll
0 Notice of Public Hearing
O Notice of Public Meeting
0 Board of Adjustment Agenda
Packet
fl Board of Appeals Agenda
Packet
Q Planning Commission Agenda
Packet
LI Short Subdivision Agenda
Packet
O F D I S T R I B U T I O N
hereby declare that:
LI Notice of Application for
Shoreline Management Permit
Shoreline Management Permit
O Determination of Non -
significance
0 Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance
O Determination of Significance
and Scoping Notice
O Notice of Action
Official Notice
Other (VI�CQ
Ve-L44.01/•----
O Other
was mailed to each of the following addresses on
(S-ee.
Name of Project (;
File Number Ob--
L 0 -0003
A /Lbli�Signature
lit %a-4-
Z
~w
J U:
U0:
U i •
w
J H;
w O
g 1.
•
= CJ`
z1
Z t-..
;O N'
w` •
z:
•
UEf2 •
Of-,
z
Pf4114A `c
CHECKLIST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW /SHORELINE PERMIT MAILNGS
Lqcic `
003
( ) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
( ) FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
( ) DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE
OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
DEPT OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV.
DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE
FEDERAL AGENCIES
( ) U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
( ) U.S. DEPT OF H.U.D.
WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES
( ) K.C. PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEV.
( ) BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD
( ) FIRE DISTRICT #11
( ) FIRE DISTRICT #2
( ) K.C. WATER POLLUTION CNTRL SEPA OFFCL
( ) S CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
( ) TUKWILA LIBRARIES
( ) RENTON LIBRARY
( ) KENT LIBRARY
( ) CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY
(
(
(
(
(
(
U S WEST
SEATTLE CITY LIGHT
WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS
HIGHLINE WATER DISTRICT
SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT
TCI CABLEVISION
OLYMPIC PIPELINE
KENT PLANNING DEPT
TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS:
( ) PUBLIC WORKS ( )
( ) POLICE ( )
PLANNING ( )
( PARKS & REC. ( )
( ) CITY CLERK
FIRE
FINANCE
BUILDING
MAYOR
PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL
P.S. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE
( ) DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE
( ) VALLEY DAILY NEWS
12/24/97 C:WP51DATA \CHKLIST
( ) DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV.
( ) DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELANDS DIV
pm(DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION*
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
* SEND CHKLIST W/ DETERMINATIONS
* SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION
RING COUNTY AGENCIES
K.C. DEPT OF PARKS
HEALTH DEPT
PORT OF SEATTLE
K.C.DEV & ENVIR SERVICES -SEPA INFO CNTR
K.C. TRANSIT DIVISION - SEPA OFFICIAL
.SCHOOLS /LIBRARIES
( ) HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT
( ) K C PUBLIC LIBRARY
( ) SEATTLE MUNI REF LIBRARY
( ) SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT
( ) RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT
UTILITIES
PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT
VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT
WATER DISTRICT #20
WATER DISTRICT #125
CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS
RAINIER VISTA
SKYWAY
CITY AGENCIES
( ) RENTON PLANNING DEPT
( ) CITY OF SEA -TAC
( ) CITY OF BURIEN
( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS
( ) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
( ) CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER
( ) SEATTLE OFFICE OF MGMNT & PLANNING*
* NOTICE OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ.
OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES
c 1 ,iNc\ Co ass �ss�
£
METRO ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DIV.
OFFICE /INDUSTRIAL 5,000 GSF OR MORE
RESIDENTIAL 50 UNITS OR MORE
RETAIL 30,000 GSF OR MORE
MEDIA
( ) HIGHLINE TIMES
SEATTLE TIMES
e hf
v
PARTIES OF RECORD
Keine Cardinal
President/CEO
Cardinal Aerospace
266 S.w. 43rd Street
Renton, WA 98055
fic Dale A. Shawley
13467 Macadam Road South
Tukwila, WA 98168
Mr. & Mrs. Robert Merkle
v 13515 Macadam Raod South
Tukwila, WA 98168
David F. Hussey
13457 Macadam Road South
Tukwila, WA 98168
• ,,,John Thompson
•4815 South 170th
Tukwila, WA 98168
fiP.PU,c_ A cv7
v, cvf,
• r
tcs 0003
im 0.- 0002-
PIZ-TD t'-C--ro-Dv()GS Coif), CLiiStpci
111 rna,\
City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
NOTICE OF DECISION
April 24, 1998
To: Tukwila Department of Public Works, Applicant
King County Assessor, Accounting Division
State Department of Ecology, SEPA Division
Parties of Record
At the March 26, 1998 public hearing, the Commission directed staff to prepare Findings and
Conclusions in connection with the applications for a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review.
At the public hearing on April 23, 1998, the Commission adopted these Findings and Conclusions,
which denied the applications. This letter serves as a notice of the decision and is issued
pursuant to TMC 18.104.170 on the following project and permit approvals.
File Number: L98 -0003 Conditional Use Permit
L98 -0002 Design Review
Associated Files: E98 -0001 SEPA
Applicant: City of Tukwila Public Works Department
Request: Approval of a Conditional Use Permit with Design Review to construct a
vactor waste facility.
Location: 4501 South 134th Place
SEPA Determination: Determination of Non - Significance
Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the
permits are available for inspection at:
Tukwila Department of Community Development;
6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100; Tukwila, WA 98188
Monday through Friday; 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
The planner managing the project is Deborah Ritter, who may be contacted at 431 -3670 for
further information.
Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax
purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 4313670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
Notice of Decision
April 24, 1998
Page 2
The time period for appeals is 14 days starting from the date of this Notice of Decision, April 24,
1998. The Planning Commission decision is appealable to the Tukwila City Council pursuant to
TMC 18.104.010(E). Appeal materials shall contain:
1. The name of the appealing party.
2. 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 receive notices on the appealing party's behalf.
3. A statement identifying the decision being appealed and the alleged errors in the 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.
The public notice sign must be removed from the site by the applicant after the appeal period has
expired, unless an appeal is filed with the City.
. . . . . . . . • • .. . . . . . . .
• I e wee ...ft.. AW.A.e, • /WS e` • dw
Ale, We Wee wooer MA• woe
VS.011.•
eat•••■•••1
V I A/1.3" LL LA 0
1 . ...':' ...
PI <.'''. '''''',''''
,.9.....
Ur
Y.PI' ."".. ' .../. ../..
' ' '• .a. ;.'
. %
. . ■
' 'I. ' • '''
...r,::.';'1'..'.%• %
r
"%%%.
•s•da..4' • .11ol •m• • !'t +CCU
I 3 1
z
0
00
U.
cc
cl)
0
z Z
0
• 3
\ J
1.1
\\2
SOIL RECLAMATION FACILITY
LANDSCAPE / LIGHTING PLAN
1,11
:17,1
;2 1
0 8'
11
2
a 3
1
.2
j •
31 1 3 a a A 2 2
g •
: 3 2 .
1 2.
1 1'
2 3 t ;
• ;11
3 1 2 3 :I 3
I
!
Iltzliz...41.tP1112=
-1
:1
•
Z
W
iaj. 2
(.) 0
u) ;
co W
LU I •
V) U.
g =1
cOD
a
1-•
z
1- a
z
0 Ca
°
W uj
a
9: 3.
Z
ILI (0
0
APPLICANT:
City of Tukwila John W Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF TUKWILA
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
April 23, 1998
Public Works Department, City of Tukwila
Randy Berg, Project Manager
L98 -0003 (Conditional Use)
L98- 0.002'(Design Review)
LOCATION: 4501 South 134th Place
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
Conditional Use Permit with Design Review to
construct a vactor waste facility, presented before
the Planning Commission on March 26, 1998.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONCLUSIONS
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this matter on March 26,
1998. The Planning Commission, pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Section
18.108.040, hereby makes the following findings and conclusions under the City's
Conditional Use permit criteria (TMC 18.64.050).
Conditional Use Permit Criteria:
1. The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the proposed
use or in the district in which the subject property is situated.
Testimony indicated that the proposed vactor waste facility will generate noise,
dust and odors which cannot be completely eliminated. The proposal does not
provide mechanisms to monitor noise, dust and odors which may negatively
impact nearby residential uses. Testing procedures for hazardous materials at
the facility have not been completely developed and appear to be inadequate
based on public testimony provided at the March 26, 1998 hearing.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431 -3665
Planning Commission
Report and Decision
April 23, 1998
Page 2
2. The proposed use shall meet or exceed the performance standards that are
required in the district it will occupy.
The Planning Commission recognizes that the design of the proposed facility will
meet, and in some cases, exceed the development standards for the
Commercial /Light Industrial Zone. However, significant uncertainty remains
regarding whether performance standards for odor, dust, noise and hazardous
materials can be met.
The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the
surrounding land uses in terms of traffic and pedestrian circulation,
building and site design.
Although the proposed facility would be located in a Commercial /Light Industrial
Zone, its siting and proximity to residential uses (within 300 feet) makes the
proposed development incompatible with residential uses. This incompatibility is
further magnified by the facility's likely generation of noise, potential generation
of dust and odor as well as the possible presence of hazardous materials.
4. The proposed use shall be in keeping with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan.
It has not been demonstrated that the proposed project will meet performance
standards for odor, dust, noise and hazardous materials. Due to these potential
negative impacts, the siting of the proposed project within 300 feet of residential
uses makes the proposed development incompatible with those uses. For these
reasons, the following Comprehensive Plan Goals are not met:
Goal 7.3 (Overall Land Use Pattern)
A land use pattern that encourages a strong sense of community by grouping
compatible and mutually supportive uses and separating incompatible uses.
Goal 7.8 (Neighborhood Vitality)
Continuing enhancement and revitalization of residential neighborhoods.
.....
Planning Commission
Report and Decision
April 23, 1998
Page 3
5. All measures have been taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts
which the proposed use may have on the area in which it is located.
Testing procedures for hazardous materials at the facility have not been
completely developed and appear to be inadequate based on public testimony
provided at the March 26, 1998 hearing. As stated above, the proposed facility
will generate noise, and potentially dust and odors which cannot be completely
contained on the site to protect nearby residential uses.
Conditional Use Permit Decision:
The request for a Conditional Use Permit is denied.
DESIGN REVIEW CONCLUSIONS
The Planning Commission, pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Section
18.108.040, hereby makes the following findings and conclusions under the City's
Design. Review criteria (TMC 18.60.050).
Design Review Criteria:
Conditional Use -Permit approval must occur prior to the review of any Design Review
criteria by the Planning Commission. Because the Conditional Use Permit is denied,
the Design Review criteria for the proposal will not be reviewed.
Design Review Decision:
The request for Design Review is denied.
�
.z
6D
_I
•
u
•
) w;
All I,•
w O. •
-j •
'CO a
1 w,
_:
•
Z 0` •
ww:.
Up •
•
• iO
..
z;
U co
o.
z
MEMORANDUM
TO: Deb Ritter
FROM: Randy Berg ,
DATE: March 16,1998
RE: Summary of Steep Slope Report for Soil Reclamation Site
Landau & Associates was hired by the City to do a field reconnaissance of the steep slope
portion of the proposed Soil Reclamation Facility site. He also reviewed available
geotechnical information including the two Shannon & Wilson reports prepared for the
subject site. The field reconnaissance was completed on March 5, 1998. Following is a
summary of the Landau report.
The steep slope portion of the site is along the southern property line of the subject site.
The slope height is 25 to 30 feet above the flat portion of the site. The slope includes a
rockery along the eastern half of the steep slope area. The inclination of the slope varies
between 2.511:1V to nearly vertical at the rockery. Vegetation on the face of the hillside
is mainly grasses and small diameter alders. The rockery is up to 18 feet in height, and is
within 8 to 12 degrees of vertical. This is on the very upper end of recommended face
slopes for rockery retainage (10 to 15 degrees). The center portion of the rockery failed
over 4 years ago. No other sign of rockery movement can be found. Soil types at the
rockery failure are hard silty clays. Visual observation of the failed rockery area does not
show any signs of soil slump. However, the small diameter alders growing on the slope
are butt bowed, which is an indication of surface soil creep.
A sagging fence along the top of the slope is the result of a near vertical cut just below
Macadam Road. The steep slope area itself shows signs of cut along the eastern side
where the rockery has been placed, and fill along the western side. Other than the
rockery failure and the bowed small alders on the face of the hill, no signs of instability
were noted. No slumping or tension cracks were observed. Surface water appears to be
collecting at the bottom of the slope, but no seepage was observed.
Geotech Evaluation:
It appears that the slope is stable and the past rockery failure is the result of improper
construction along with he possibility of hydrostatic pressure and deterioration due to
past runoff from Macadam Road. The Macadam Road runoff has since been diverted
from running down the slope. Failure of the remaining rockery sections can not be ruled
out. Such a failure would constitute a risk of injuries or property damage. A failure of
the rockery would likely be localized with debris moving a maximum 40 to 50 feet from
the existing rockery toe. Replacing the rockery with a structural retainage system would
solve the problem (but is outside of the projects budget options). Containment of the
debris from a potential rockery failure using jersey barriers or ecology blocks and setting
the proposed buildings 40 to 50 feet from the toe of the rockery is offered as an alternate
means of protection from onsite injuries or damage.
z
= 1=
re w.
6 =.
0 0'
0.
wz
LL
W 0'
u.
Q
= d:
w
z �.
1-0:
z �.
uj
moo.
C.) co
0
0 H,
W all
1-- 0>
.z
U N.
0
,.
Proposed Solution
To protect against on -site injury or property damage the proposed development will
maintain a 45 foot setback between all structures and the toe of the rockery. This will
minimize the possibility of debris from a rockery failure damaging any structures. In
addition ecology blocks will be placed between the toe of the rockery and the developed
portions of the site. This will contain debris from any slope movement, and keep the
debris from moving on to the developed portion of the site. Since no public access is to
be provided to the site, the applicant does not propose placing fencing below the slope to
limit access to the slope area.
cc Phil Fraser
Gary Schulz
;iAR -16 -98 MON 11:15 LANi. TACOMA
LANDAU
ASSOCIATES,
INC.
Environmental and Geotechnlcal Sorvicea
Mr. Randy Berg
City of Tukwila Public Works Department
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
FAX NO, 20._62531
RE: GEOTECHNICAL LETTER REPORT
SLOPE EVALUATION
PROPOSED VACTOR WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY SITE
4501 SOUTH 134TH PLACE
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
P. 02
March 16, 1998
• Dear Mr. Berg:
This letter report presents a summary of our field observations, and geotechnical conclusions and
recommendations regarding the slope at the proposed vactor waste site (the site) located along the northern
• side of Macadam Road in Tukwila, Washington. Figure 1, the Vicinity Map, shows the project location;
. general project features are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2.
The primary purpose of our services was to complete a visual reconnaissance of the lope on the south
portion of the site, and based on that reconnaissance, provide the City of Tukwila (City) with professional
opinions regarding overall stability of the slope and potential impacts to the site from the slope. Subsurface
explorations at the site were not completed for this study.
Landau Associates' investigation focused only on the slope along Macadam Road. The site was
:previously investigated for the City by Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (Shannon & Wilson, 1996 and 1997) as part
of a study for development of the property as a Vactor Waste Treatment Facility. Landau Associates was
provide with a copy of Shannon & Wilson's reports. The reports were reviewed as part of this study and
information from those reports was incorporated into this report, where appropriate.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Landau Associates was retained by the City of Tukwila to provide geotechnical services for the project.
Our services were provided in accordance with our February 25, 1998 proposal. Authorization was received
from the City on February 26, 1998. Our scope of service included the following tasks:
WAPATO CREEK PLACE •
(253) 926 -2493
Edmonds
4210- 20T11STREFTF •
Fax: ( ?53) 926-2531
SO , c •I:IC
SUITE F • TACOMA, WA 9R -1'... 1::423
• F -Mail: infueLnndauile..rum
- . •;�
z
rr .
w
-J C.)
UO.
1 (o p;
W ='
LL
wo}
LL =,
cn
I
to
z�.:.
1=0
n o.
O-
, 0
Ws
C)
rtE'
_ O.
wz
O H
z
MAR -16 -96 MON 11:15
LANL.. ,' TACOMA
FAX NO 20.._62531 P.03
• Compile and review readily available geologic and geotechnical information in the project vicinity.
• Complete a detailed geologic reconnaissance of the slope along the south side of the site to identify
significant features such as the underlying geology, soil typc(s) composing the slope, limits of
current slope instability (if any), and zones of groundwater seepage (if present).
•. Complete a geotechnical engineering evaluation of the slope.
• Prepare and submit this letter report summarizing our findings, conclusions, and recommendations
for the project.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
We understand that the City of Tukwila is proposing to develop the subject site for a Vactor Waste
Treatment Facility. The City is concerned about potential impacts to the proposed facility from possible failure
of a rockery and/or the slope in the south portion of the site. A steep slope, about 25 ft in height, is located
along the south side of the site. The west portion of the slope appears to be a.cut, and the east portion a 1111,
both likely a result of past grading activities. A rockery, up to about 18 ft in height, was constructed at some
time in the past along the face of the west portion :of the slope to provide erosion protection. We understand
that the center portion of this rockery failed more than 4 years ago. City personnel indicated that water often
weeps from the face of the intact portion of the rockery.
FIELD RECONNAISSANCE
On March 5, 1998, a geologist. from Landau Associates completed a reconnaissance of the slope below
Macadam Road along the south portion of the property. The purpose of this reconnaissance was to observe
soil type(s) exposed on the slope and on road cuts along the south side of Macadam Road, area of current
slope instability (if present), zones of groundwater seepage (if present), and the current condition of the intact
portion of the rockery along the south side of the site.
General Site Conditions
The site of the proposed Vactor Waste Treatment Facility is an irregular shaped, long and narrow strip
of undeveloped property oriented with the long axis of the property along the NNFJSSW direction. The
property is bounded by South 134th Place on the northeast, by Macadam Road to the south. by warehouses
to the northwest, and by a two -story office building and garage to the southeast. The property slopes steeply
downward from Macadam Road to a relatively level "terrace," which will house the Vactor Wa.cte Treatment
Facility, then continues to slope downward to South 134th Place. The slope along Macadam Road is oriented
outsi9R I;\ PROJECIW57\DOt.1QqUKWIU.Rt'r
LANDAU ASSOCIATES
z
t- W
6
,J U
UO
(1)W
J H
CO
0
2
-3
d.
w
H =
z�
1- 0
z
Ili al
UCI
0 N'
.0 I-'
WW
• U''
u—' O'
. z.
U N:
0 H;
MAR -16 -98 HON 1116
LANDr,.. TACOMA
FAX NO. 206.._d2531 P. 04
such that it faces generally towards the north. According to the site topographic map, prepared by Richard
Carothers Associates (November 8, 1997), the slope varies in vertical height from about 30 ft near the east
property corner to about 24 vertical ft near the west corner. The inclination of the slope varies from near -
vertical to about 21/2H:1V.(horizontal to vertical). A rockery facing, up to about 18 ft in vertical height, is
present across the eastern half of the slope.
Small diameter alders, many with butt - bowing, are scattered along the top of the ;lope above the
rockery. The western half of the slope is mainly vegetated with tall grass and scattered small alders.
Existing Rockery
The rockery along the slope below Macadam Road appears to have. been ccrostnicted of andesite rock,
and is of undetenninatc age. The center portion of the rockery reportedly failed over 4 years ago. The. failure
• zone is about30 ft across (Figure 2); and rocks from the failed portion are scattered along the base of the slope.
We understand from discussions with City personnel that•thc rockery failure occurred prior to the City
obtaining the site about 4 years ago.
Based on visual inspection, the individual rocks composing the intact portion of the rockery are
generally in good condition, though some of the'exposed rockery chinking consists of moderately to highly
weathered andesite rock, and is not free- draining. inclination measurements of the rockery face were taken
on the intact portion of the rockery wall utilizing a Brunton compass and an 8 -foot long 2" x 4" board to
provide average inclination of the rockery face. The intact portion of the rockery has an average: face
inclination of about 8 to 12 degrees from vertical. Typical rockery construction guidelines (Association of
Rockery Contractors 1992) recommends a face batter of between 6H:1 V (approximately 10 degrees from
vertical) to 4H:1V (approximately 15 degrees from vertical).
Rockery Slope Area
The slope along the west side of the Green River Valley in the vicinity of the project has been
mapped as Vashon drift of Pleistocene age. The mapped geology consists of a sequence of glacial till,
undifferentiated glacial deposits, younger gravel, and post Vashon -age recent alluvium deposited by the Gruen
River comprising the valley floor (Waldron, et al. 1962). Glacial till is generally mapped at higher elevations
than the site, while the slope above and below Macadam Road is mapped as undifferentiated glacial deposits
overlying younger gravel.
The exposed soil face in the failed portion of the rockery is generally about 6 to 7 feet in vertical height
and extends about 4 to 5 feet above the top of the adjacent rockery wall. The lower portion of the slope is
covered with debris from the rockery failure. The exposed soil consists of glacially consolidated, hard, light
03/10911 L•\PROJECTa57W01.r0\Ttllcwi A.RPT
3
*
LANDAU ASSOCIATES
MAR -16 -98 MON 11:17
LANI. 1u TACOMA
FAX NO. 20boA2531 P.05
brown, silty clay to clayey silt, with iron and manganese staining along moderately to closely spaced diagonal
fractures and bedding planes. Scattered high -angle slickensides (about 60 degrees from horizontal) were also
observed. The slickensides are stained with manganese. Soil exposed approxitnately 8 feet above the top of
the rockery consists of glacially - consolidated hard, light brown, clayey silt with trace medium to coarse sated
and fine gravel. The soil was observed to be massive (without bedding). The exposed soil on the slope is
interpreted to be part of the mapped undifferentiated glacial deposit. The younger gravel was not observed
on the slope below Macadam Road and likely underlies the site at depth.
Visual 'observation of the slope in the failed rockery area, or itnmediately adjacent areas, does not
indicate the presence of recent soil slump blocks or the presence of tension cracks along the slope above the
rockery. However, soil creep of the near- surface soil is apparent above the top of the rockery, as evident from
the butt - bowing of the trues growing on the slope. Most of the trees in the area are scattered across the slope
above the rockery, and are generally less than 6 to 8 inches in diameter, indicating shat continuing slope
clearing and/or surface soil creep is limiting tree growth on the slope.
A near - vertical cut. is present near the top of the slope along the north right -of -way line of Macadam
Road. Several of the chain link fence posts along the right -of -way line have become undermined as a result
of the cut, and portions of the fence are sagging.
Surface water appeared to be collecting at the base of the rockery in the shallow depression, which is
located immediately west of the failed portion of the rockery. At the tithe of our reconnaissance, no seepage
was observed to flow from the slope or the rockery face; however, the loose surface soil and undisturbed native
soil was observed to be wet.
Slope Area West of Rockery
West of the rockery is a grass - covered slope area with scattered small alder trees. The slope varies
from about 11 R 1V adjacent to the rockery to about 211 -I:1V near the northwest property line. The slope is
benched at about mid- height. Near - surface soil conditions were explored by several shallow (1 to 11/2 ft), hand -
dug test pits. Soil observed in the test pits generally consists of mottled gray, brown, and reddish brown, silty,
gravelly, fine to coarse sand with some trace fine organics and roots (loose to medium dense, saturated). The
surficial soil was observed to be characteristic of fill. No indications of slope instability were observed during
our reconnaissance.
Macadam Road
As part of our reconnaissance, conditions along Macadam Road adjacent to the site were also
observed. A steeply sloped road cut is located along the south side of Macadam Road. The cut. rises
03'16/98 WROJECMS71001.101TUK W ILA.RPT
4
LANDAU ASSOCIATES
Z
=Z
w
• 2
JU
U O:
w Z'
• w
w O.
J
LL
SO- a.
�w
Z=
1.-
1— 1—
U• 0
:O co
17
IL/
• cy
O
Z
w
ft
O
Z
MAR -16 -98 MON 11:17
LAND'. `TACOMA
FAX NO, 206 2531
P.06
approximately 8 vertical feet above the road, is generally devoid of vegetation, and appears to be generally
stable with evidence of ongoing relatively minor surface erosion. The exposed soil was observed to Consist
of glacially consolidated, hard, light brown, clayey silt with fine to coarse sand and zones of fine to coarse
gravel. The soil is interpreted to be part of the undifferentiated glaical deposits.
Along the north side of Macadam Road, a raised asphalt curb has been constructed along the north
road shoulder to control surface water runoff from flowing over the slope below the roadway. It is unknown
as to when the curb was placed, but was probably constructed within the last few years, as evidenced from the
generally good condition of the asphalt curb. The slope below Macadam Road shows evidence of past surface
erosion below the asphalt curb. '
GEOTECIINICAL EVALUATION,
In general, rockeries are not considered to be an engineered structure, such as a concrete retaining wall,
and their performance is generally controlled by the quality of materials used and rockery contractors'
construction methods. Based on Landau Associates' field reconnaissance, it appears that .slope movement was
not the cause of the rockery failure. Several factors, or combination of factors, may have caused or contributed
to the rockery failure. The most likely factors contributing to the rockery failure include:
• Buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind the rockery due to deterioration and clogging of the
chinking material
• Surface water runoff from Macadam Road infiltrating into the space behind the rockery causing
the buildup of hydrostatic pressure acting on the wall
• Deterioration of individual rocks composing the failed segment of the rockery
• Improper foundation support of the failed segment of the rockery
• Improper construction techniques (i.e., oversteep face inclination, poor interlocking of individual
rocks, etc.).
The intact portion of the rockery currently has an average inclination of about 8 to 12 degrees from
vertical, which is near the upper recommended face inclination for rockeries. In addition, drainage behind the
rockery is likely poor, as evidenced from comments by City personnel that water often seeps from the rockery
face, and the generally poor quality of the chinking material that was exposed. Surface water runoff from the
slope above the rockery likely contributes to the source of water that reportedly seeps from the rockery. In
addition, the rocks composing the rockery are decaying (this is becoming a problem throughout the northwest),
which could jeopardize the future integrity of the intact portion of the rockery.
03116/9a I: APR ML•C1\4571001.10\TUKWAA.RI'r
= �[�;:
z
~w
cc 2
J U,
,
CI'
N w:
w =:
LL.
wO
u- Q'
21 d'
I- w.
_
z�
zO
w
Li]
o`
O -:
'0 1`
=• U
Cu
Z.
U =.
O~
z.
MAR -16 -98 MON 11 18 LANG. TACOMA
FAX N0. 20E 32531 P.07
Failure of the rockery (assuming no slope movements occur) would represent a safety risk to site
personnel and a damage potential to equipment and facilities, if placed near the slope. The risk to puhlic safety
and damage potential could be mitigated by providing an appropriate setback distance from the rockery, and
constructing a debris containment barrier along the base of the slope to limit the potentially affected area. The
debris containment barrier could consist of a Iine of "jersey barriers," ecology blocks or gabions placed along
the toe of the slope. Since these barriers are not very massive, energy from a rockery failure would be
dissipated by sliding resistance along 'the entire Length of the barrier. A steel cable should be used to attach
individual units together. Steel bars could he driven into the ground or "deadmen" could be placed between
the barrier and the slope, to increase sliding resistance, Based on the extent of the previous rockery failure,
a setback distance from the rockery of about 40 to 50 ft, combined with a debris containment barrier, should
provide reasonable public protection from a potential rockery failure. Access to the setback area should also
be limited by means of a chainlink fence. Alternatively, the rockery could be removed and replaced with a new
retaining system as discussed in the following paragraphs. Future consideration could also he given to placing
a soil or rock berm against the toe of the rockery. The berm should be sloped at 2H:1 V or flatter. The
configuration of the berm would need to be further evaluated based on slope stability issues.
Though the slope below Macadam Road appears to be generally stable at this time, the soil exposed
in the failed portion of the rockery was observed to be fractured with scattered slickensides, which, in our
opinion, indicates an elevated risk of future instability. In addition, creep is occurring in the surficial soil on
the slope. [It is beyond the scope of this report to define the current level of stability of the slope. along
Macadam Road. Subsurface explorations (borings) would be required to determine pertinent soil parameters,
along with stability analyses to provide a better definition of the instability risk of the sloped
Based on our understanding of the underlying geology, if the portion of the slope with the rockery
were to fail, the most likely mode of failure would be a block or rotation type landslide. Lateral displacement
of the failed soil mass would be less than that of a "debris flow" type failure. It k also likely that slope
movement would result in collapse of the rockery. In addition, such a landslide could involve portions of
Macadam Road. The debris containment barrier and the 40- to 50 -ft setback discussed above would likely
provide acceptable protection to site personnel and to the vactor waste facilities at the site. The risk to puhlic
safety within the Macadam right -of -way would depend on the extent of slope movement, weather conditions,
tirne of day, etc.
The risk of a future slope failure.could be mitigated by constructing an appropriate retaining system
to support the slope. This would eliminate the need for a setback and debris containment barrier along the toe.
Suitable retaining systems could include a solider pile and lagging wall, a tieback soldier pile and lagging wall,
a gravity wall system (concrete blocks, crib wall, etc.), and a conventional cantilevered concrete retaining wall.
03115/78 I:1PRt)JUc714 5 7100 1.101TUKW iL A.RPr
6
LANDAU ASSOCIATES
z
=W:
re
6
-J C.)
00
• N
CO w:
w=
J 1.-.
w
LLQ
=d
_.
zF.
t—
z
uj
U�
O -;
1-
ww
MU
O
j
u z:
U =;
Off`
z
MAR -16 -98 MON 11:19
LANDrij'TACOMA
FAX N0, 206,62631 P, 08
Another alternative would be to install permanent soil nails with a concrete facade. One to two borings at the
top of the slope would be necessary to determine pertinent soil properties for design of any retaining system.
Construction of a retaining system would reduce the risk of upslopc road failure.
USE OF THIS REPORT
This letter report was prepared for the exclusive use of the City of Tukwila for the specific application
to this project. The findings, conclusions, recommendations, and opinions presented herein are based on
conditions observed during our site reconnaissance and review of readily available geologic information in the
project vicinity. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, the conclusions and recommendations
presented in this letter report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering
principles and practices in this area at the time this letter report was prepared. We snake no ocher warranty
either express or implied.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project, and look forward to continued
involvement. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (253) 926-2493.
EXPIRES
EJH/WDE /djs
No. 457001.10
Attachments: Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Site Plan
u7 /tGi'a t.•\PRQIECr'4 7=1.1n \TUKWtL.A.Rp'T
.Z
_�
mow:
MAR -16 -98 MON 11:19
LANDri„ 'TACOMA
FAX NO. 206,J2531 P, 09
REFERENCES
Shannon & Wilson, Inc. 1996. Modified Level 1 Environmental Site Assessment, MCLees Sire, 4585 S. 134th
Street, Tukwila, Washington. Prepared for the City of Tukwila Public Works Department. June 1996.
Shannon & Wilson, Inc. 1997. Vactor Waste Facility Project, 4501 South 134th Street Tukwila, Washington.
Prepared for the City of Tukwila Public. Works Department. November 1997.
Waldron, H.}i., Liesch, B.A., Mullineaux,. D.R., and Crandell, U.R. 1962. Preliminary Geologic: Map of
Seattle and Vicinity, Washington. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Miscellaneous
Geological Investigations, Map 1 -354.
03/16198 I:IPROJEC11457\001. I O \TUKWI1A.1tYT
LANDAU ASSOCIATES
-
Z,.
6 •
JV
UO;
w =.
N LL;
Jr
W Q�.
D.
• Z f--
Z 1-' •
;0
Ww'
•Z
•
MAR -16 -98 MON 11:21
LANL... TACOMA
.`
FAX NO. 20L._62631
P. 11
0
•/0,2 eeo
1 1 /' /// 1. 1/1 1 / r, 1 ,
1 IIIal...(/ / /i /.//: f l i / I
L-Ny � i l i N r. id/ t 11,
t•
l� %,, \`, \‘ i t
/� 4 i� 1\ •1 i 1 ii
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1ti ., !I
�' I' 1. 1 1 1 1 t •1 11
�� / / 11/;!11 11
/„ / / / ! / ; / I I r 1
• / -I /� �!! /� / / /!; /1 //i !! 1/ 11
;'/ I1/ !1,I,
h ,411
0
•- �w . / / / I
aµ,.� , 1 ft4 r / ,
I off, I�;�) fit,
i l �I� /I,! 1 / I • • / / , i ,
Q�
,•„11,1714,/,,, 7 l l/ i t
.�� / // /„ ,..,,, 1 / l / I
//' ' // / /// // / l• /III ; I I I r
/ / / / / • / / / , I I I I
/ / / / '/ ; / / / . I 1 1 1 1 !
// ! / / // / / / �/ /r !/ I I I I t
• / 1 / ,// / / / / / / / / 1 I 1 •
// 1 / / / / ! /. / / / / / / 1 1
,• / / / / / / / • / / / / ,/ / ! /
/ 1 / / / / / / 1 / 1 • / /
! 1 / / / 1 1 1 / / / / / / /
1/ ! / 1 1 ' /. / / / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / / / / /
/ ! / / / / / / / / / /
/
/ 1/ / / /1 ! / 1 / 1 / / / / 1
/ • / / '/ / /1 / / / , / / / / ' /
/ / / / 1 • /. / / 1 / I / l /
/ v0 / / / / / / / / / t'
'°' / / ry / / // I / / 1 ' I ! t
/ / o /h / / / / / / 1 I
/ ! y f / , / i / ,
' 1' // ,/p/ // I i 1 1 I 1 1 ,
/ / / r.�' / / I- 1 1 t I 1 1
// / !1 / 1 I 4 1 1 1f 1 I 1
/ / / 1 1 1 ,
/ `° I 1
/ /' /! ` t0 1 ` 10 1 1
L1 / / / / 1 1 I , : I
. r / / I 1 tto I a t
e l i4:7`` / 1 '! t 1 1 f
\�` \ / 1 I I i a
\ t ! 1_ • 1 t n
d
`1
' It
O
m
0
!
0
•s
. avC
/1 • • i
dri ORM) \moa:• \art
0
N
0J-1
.4 .,4 )$U •.opayot•wl P ■I13 it. Lil
.....
w
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
HEARING DATE:
NOTIFICATION:
John W. Rants, Mayor
STAFF REPORT
TO THE PLANNING COMMISSIONBAR
Prepared March 16, 1998
FILE NUMBERS:
ASSOCIATED PERMITS:
SEPA DETERMINATION:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION:
ZONING DISTRICT:
STAFF:
March 26, 1998
Steve Lancaster, Director
Notice of Application mailed February 10, 1998
to surrounding property owners and parties of record.
Determination of Non - Significance posted and mailed
March 6, 1998 to parties of record and agencies
with jurisdiction. Notice of Hearing posted and mailed
March 9, 1998 to surrounding property owners
and parties of record. Notice of Hearing published in
Seattle Times on March 10, 1998.
L98 -0003 (Conditional Use Permit)
L98 -0002: (Design Review)
Development Permit
Determination of Non - Significance
Public Works Department, City of Tukwila
Randy Berg, Project Manager
A Conditional Use Permit is required to locate
and operate this facility in the C/LI Zone.
Design Review is required in the C/LI Zone
for developments within 300 feet of
residential districts or for developments larger
than 10,000 s.f.
4501 South 134th Place, Tukwila
Commercial /Light Industrial
Commercial/Light Industrial
Deborah Ritter
6300 Southcenter Boulevard. Suite #100 • Tukwila. Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
(.:, �:
mow.
U O'
W =.
J �
LL
W0
g Q:
co
�w
Z
I--O
Z I-
w
U�
.0 co
CI
w W`
H U.
w z:
=!
0. •
z
Staff Report to the
'Planning Commission /BAR
ATTACHMENTS: A. Vicinity Map
B. Landscape/Lighting Plan
C. Storm Drainage Plan
D. Sewer and Water Plan
E. Building Elevations and Materials Board
F. Site Cross - Sections and Location Map
G. SEPA Threshold Determination
H. Environmental Checklist
I. Applicant's Conditional Use Project Narrative
J. Applicant's Design Review Project Narrative
K. Notice of Application Comment Letters (4)
L. Memo /Summary , of Snohomish County Street Waste Study
L98 -0002 & L98 -0003
Soil Reclamation Facility
Page 2
Staff Report to the L98 -0002 & L98 -0003
Planning Commission /BAR
VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION
Project Description:
Soil Reclamation Facility
FINDINGS z
mow.
JU
oo CO o
(0 w.
The Applicant is requesting Conditional Use Permit approval with Design Review to -I I
construct a vactor waste facility. This facility will be used to accept and decant vactor N p'
wastes, combine them with vegetative materials (from the Tukwila Parks Department) via 2
a composting process. The resulting compost material will be used as top soil on other 5
u_Q
City owned properties. The facility will include two large open pole buildings (Buildings cn a
A and B). Building A will be approximately 13,860 s.f. in size and Building B will be 1- w
approximately 4,160 s.f. There are planned improvements for a 400 s.f. office and z is
restroom facility. The project will include on -site parking for five cars with screening, z O.
perimeter landscaping and fencing. The 2.3 acre site is owned by the City of Tukwila. UJ _'.
U o
The Soil Reclamation Facility is being proposed in order to meet the goal of maintaining 0 cn'
o~
and improving the quality of surface and ground water in the City of Tukwila. The w w
proposed facility will be used to handle vactor wastes (solids and liquids generated in 1- -'
storm drainage maintenance operations). These liquids and solids collect in catch basins, — Z
retention . and detention ponds, pipes and swales and often contain petroleum v (0
hydrocarbons, heavy metals or other contaminants. I
z
The vactor wastes are pumped out using vactor pump trucks and then tested for the
presence of hazardous materials. If hazardous waste is detected, they will be disposed of
at an approved hazardous waste dump. No hazardous materials will be deposited at the
Soil Reclamation Facility.
Existing Development:
The proposed site is zoned Commercial/Light Industrial. The land is vacant and
unimproved.
Surrounding Land Use:
The surrounding land uses are primarily industrial with a few single family uses on the
slope above the southern property line.
Page 3
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission /BAR Soil Reclamation Facility
L98 -0002 & L98 -0003
Terrain:
The proposed building site, in the central portion of the property, is relative flat. Along
the northeastern edge of the property, the elevation drops downward with average slopes
of approximately 20 %. Along the southern property line, the site slopes upward sharply,
with maximum slopes of approximately 80 %.
Vegetation:
Various deciduous and evergreen trees are scattered along the northern and southern
portions of the site as well as some small shrubs and grasses. The proposal will not
require removal of any existing trees on the property. Brush and grass will be removed to
accommodate the construction of buildings and site improvements. Property restoration
will include seeding and planting of complementary trees and shrubs.
Public Facilities:
The facility will be used by the City of Tukwila and others who maintain the storm
drainage system in the private sector. As a rule, the public is not invited into this facility.
The project is not large enough to offer any significant open space.
BACKGROUND
Four property owners submitted comment letters to the City as the result of the posting of
the Notice of Application on February 10, 1998 (Attachment K). In general, the letters
focused on issues concerning conflicting land uses, noise, dust, odor and hazardous
waste. Staff in Planning and Public Works contacted the property owners and discussed
these concerns either by phone or in person. Staff responses were reflected in the March
3, 1998 Determination of Non - Significance and are also reflected in applicable sections
of the Staff Report, below. These property owners have been invited to accompany Staff
on a site visit to a similar type of facility which is operated by the City of Kirkland.
On -site parking for five cars has been proposed. As the facility is not a pre- stated use
under the Off - Street Parking and Loading Regulations (TMC Chapter 18.56), the Director
has determined that five spaces will be adequate per TMC 18.56.100.
This Staff Report is divided into two sections. Part 1 addresses the Conditional Use Permit
decision criteria and conclusions while Part 2 addresses the decision criteria and conclusions for
the Design Review.
:
Staff Report to the L98 -0002 & L98 -0003
Planning Commission /BAR Soil Reclamation Facility
PART 1
DECISION CRITERIA - Conditional Use Permit
The nature of the proposed land use requires a Conditional Use Permit as it is not listed as a
permitted use under the Commercial/Light Industrial District (TMC 18.30). The proposed use is
comparable to the processing and/or assembling activities for wood or coal materials listed under
18.30.040(11) but not as intensive as the activities for rock crushing, asphalt batching or stone
cutting listed under 18.30.040(18). The proposed project must conform with criteria detailed in
TMC 18.64.050(1) through (5), concerning Conditional Use Permits:
(1)
The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
property or improvements in the vicinity of the proposed use or in the district in which the
subject property is situated.
z
cw
U
O
CO
J
CO
u_
w O;
g
u- _:
I O.
�_
z�.
O
w ~`
The purpose of the proposed facility is to enhance the quality of surface water in o:
the area. Planning and Public Works staff visited a similar facility, operated by O C
p E-
the City of Kirkland, in February, 1998. The scope of the Kirkland facility was w w'
more expansive, including the processing of hazardous materials. Staff did not v
detect any dust or odors arising from the types of materials to be processed in z
Tukwila nor did they notice excessive noise from on -site machinery.
U
0 H.
O
A 1995 study commissioned by Snohomish County (Attachment L) addressed the
issue of contaminates present in vactor wastes. The study concluded that
untreated vactor wastes are typically not dangerous and do not pose a health threat
to neighbors or on -site workers. However, it was suggested that application of
these treated materials be limited to recreational or commercial settings.
On March 3, 1998, Tukwila DCD issued a Determination of Non - Significance on
the proposed project. The facility must meet the performance standards set forth
for the Commercial/Light Industrial Zone (TMC 18.30.080), including air and
water quality, noise and hazardous waste standards. If for any reason it is
determined that the facility is not meeting these standards, enforcement
mechanisms will be implemented.
The proposed use is compatible with current zoning and the surrounding land
uses, which are primarily industrial in nature. The site is bordered by a few
residential uses to the south. However heavy vegetative screening and a
Page 5
:
z
Staff Report to the L98 -0002 & L98 -0003
Planning Commission /BAR Soil Reclamation Facility
substantial grade separation of approximately 30 feet provide both visual and
physical separation between these two types of land uses.
The construction of this facility will provide a number of benefits, including cost savings,
improved efficiency and increased recycling, as follows:
1. Wet dirt collected from catch basins is heavy and hauling costs are based on
weight. These materials will not require transportation to a landfill.
2. Materials collected from catch basins can be consolidated in one City location
where they can be sorted, dried and composted in the same area. This provides
improved efficiency for City staff
3. By collecting soils from catch basins, combining them with vegetative materials
from the Parks Department and composting them for re -use on other City
properties, the City increases its recycling efforts.
Additionally, there are required water quality standards, which are addressed in part by
the collection of catch basin materials. The need for a facility to handle vactor waste is
documented in the King County Surface Water Management Manual adopted by the City
of Tukwila as part of the "City of Tukwila Surface Water Management Comprehensive
Plan." In addition, the goals and requirements of such a facility are documented in the
"Regional Vactor Waste Disposal Model Plan" prepared by King County Surface Water
Management and the Washington State Department of Ecology.
(2) The proposed use shall meet or exceed the performance standards that are required in the
district it will occupy.
The proposed design meets or exceeds development standards for this zone.
Required sideyard setbacks of 5 feet have been doubled to 10 feet. The required
rear setback is 5 feet and the required front setback is 25 feet. However, due to
the steepness of the site along the northeastern and southern property lines, these
areas have been designated as environmentally sensitive. The maximum buffer
(35 feet) for a Type 2 watercourse has also been incorporated into the site design.
To avoid these areas, the proposed front setback is 350 feet from the road and 50
feet from the angle of the eastern property line. The corner of Building B is 80
feet from the rear property line.
Page 6
•..
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission /BAR
(3)
L98 -0002 & L98 -0003
Soil Reclamation Facility
The required front landscape setbacks of 12.5 feet have been met as well as the
required side setbacks of 5 feet. The proposed perimeter landscaping will increase
the visual buffer and further reduce the existing, restricted views into the site from
surrounding properties and roads. Although the maximum permitted height in
this zone is 45 feet, Building A will be will be 34.5 feet tall and Building B will
be 32 feet tall.
As mentioned in the Background section above, on -site parking for five cars has
been proposed.
The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding land uses in
terms of traffic and pedestrian circulation, building and site design.
The proposed pole buildings will have relatively flat roofs, consistent with
building design in the vicinity. In an effort to make the buildings blend into their
surroundings, muted earth tones have been chosen for the exterior building colors.
Materials stored beneath these roofs will be surrounded with eight foot high walls
of ecology blocks, creating a visual barrier. Vegetation in the sensitive areas will
be retained. Post - construction property restoration will include seeding and
planting of complementary trees and shrubs.
Due to the nature of this facility there will be only 2 or 3 part-time employees and
no public access. As a result, there will be no pedestrian circulation issues.
Associated trips are expected to be incidental. While the project could
theoretically generate a maximum of 20 trips per day, the likely daily average is 1
trip per day. Operating hours will be from 8:00 a.m. to 5: 00 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
(4) The proposed use shall be in keeping with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Land
Use Policy Plan.
1.4.1 Require that new development along hillsides and bluffs retain substantial amounts of
significant trees.
The proposal will not require removal of any existing trees on the
property.
Page 7
'.••.. •
z
ice.
~w
JU
UO
N 0
w=
al
g a.
=d.
H =:
Z
I- O'
Z t-
no
U
O —:
o1-
U
u. ~O,
z
U=
z
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission /BAR Soil Reclamation Facility
L98 -0002 & L98 -0003
4.1.1 Regulate land use and development to protect natural topography, geology, vegetation
and hydrology and prevent significant erosion, sedimentation or degradation of
hillsides, wetlands, watercourses and their associated buffers.
The attached cross - sections reflect the topography changes found on the
site (Attachment F). Sensitive areas containing steep slopes along the
northeastern and southern property lines have been designated as
environmentally sensitive and all vegetation within these areas will be
retained and/or enhanced. Per the Sensitive Areas requirements of TMC
Chapter 18.45, a geotechnical report will be prepared addressing past earth
movement at the base of the steep slopes along the southern property line.
The report's recommendations will be tied to the issuance of any
development permits on the site. Construction and land uses will remain
outside sensitive areas.
4.1.2 For new development, control peak runoff rates to predevelopment levels and minimize
the effects of the small, frequent storm events. Maintain water quality to
predevelopment levels and prohibit direct discharge to downstream drainage systems
unless allowed by specific regulations.
Storm water will be gathered into a catch basin, run through an oil /water
separator, bio- filtration swale and detention pond, then discharged into a
drainage swale on the northeastern property line. The City of Tukwila has
adopted the King County Stormwater Design Manual and will comply
with its standards.
7.2.1 Prevent community and environmental degradation by limiting noise levels.
The proposed facility will be operated between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday. Noise generated by trucks and loaders will be no
more (and on the average, less) than the noise generated on other
permitted uses in this zone. The facility will comply with the City of
Tukwila's Noise Ordinance during construction and operation.
Z2.2 Discourage noise levels which are incompatible with current or planned land uses and
discourage the introduction of new land uses into areas where existing noise levels are
incompatible with such land uses.
The proposed facility will be operated between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday with an estimated daily average of 1 trip per day.
The facility will comply with the City of Tukwila's Noise Ordinance
Page 8
Staff Report to the L98 -0002 & L98 -0003
Soil Reclamation Facility
Planning Commission /BAR
during construction and operation. Residential land uses on the slope
above the western property line are buffered from the proposed site by
Macadam Road, by a 30 foot grade separation and by existing vegetation
along the site perimeter.
12.1.30 Use the Department of Ecology sormwater management standards as a minimum for
all projects and where appropriate, consider utilization of other, more stringent
standards, such as portions of King County's Stormwater Design Manual.
The "Model Plan for Regional Vactor Waste Disposal" published jointly
by the Washington State Department of Ecology and King County Surface
Water Management (February, 1994) is part of the King County Surface
Water Management Manual which has been adopted by the City of
Tukwila. This manual outlines requirements for constructing and
maintaining storm drainage systems. It also outlines the need for facilities
which handle and dispose of vactor wastes, such as the proposed project.
All measures have been taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts which the proposed use
may have on the area in which it is located.
As indicated above, Planning and Public Works staff visited a similar facility,
operated by the City of Kirkland, in February, 1998. The scope of the Kirkland
facility is more expansive (including the processing of hazardous materials).
However, Staff did not detect any dust or odors arising from the types of materials
to be processed in Tukwila nor did they notice excessive noise from on -site
machinery.
On March 3, 1998, Tukwila DCD issued a Determination of Non - Significance on
the proposed project. The facility must meet the performance standards set forth
for the Commercial/Light Industrial Zone (TMC 18.30.080), including air and
water quality, noise and hazardous waste standards. If for any reason it is
determined that the facility is not meeting these standards, the proper enforcement
mechanisms will be implemented. Residential land uses on the slope above the
western property line are buffered from the proposed site by Macadam Road, by a
30 foot grade separation and by existing vegetation along the site perimeter.
«,,.,....-
Page 9
Staff Report to the L98 -0002 & L98 -0003
Planning Commission /BAR Soil Reclamation Facility
CONDITIONAL USE CONCLUSIONS
z
The Planning Commission, pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Section 18.108.040, : 1- z
hereby makes the following findings and conclusions under the City's Conditional use Permit ce 2 n
criteria (TMC 18.64.050).
J U
0
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CRITERIA: w w
J H
(1) The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare... w O
2
No hazardous materials will be disposed of on the site. The proposed facility will g a
improve water quality and recycle soils and vegetative materials back to City properties. CO a
Odors on the site will be minimal and incidental and not detectable beyond the site. I _
Noise impacts will be no greater (and on the average, less) than noise levels generated by z 1...
other permitted uses in this zone. Incidental impacts from dust will be monitored and w o
controlled. Visual impacts will be mitigated through vegetative screening. W �;
U �.
(2) The proposed criteria shall meet or exceed the performance standards... 0 H
w W'
The proposed design is incompliance with all of the development standards for this site }— 2'
and exceeds setback requirements. Specific design concerns will be addressed through "-- O
the design review process. v N
i _
OI-
(3)
The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding...
The proposed use will involve the kinds of activities associated with the
Commercial/Light Industrial zone in which the project is located and, as such, are
compatible with the surrounding land uses. The proposed buildings have relatively flat
roofs, consistent with building designs in this Commercial/Light Industrial zone.
The topography of the site creates a 30 foot grade separation from the residential
properties beyond Macadam Road. Odors on the site will be minimal and incidental and
not detectable beyond the site. Noise impacts will be no greater (and on the average, less)
than noise levels generated by other permitted uses in this zone. Incidental impacts from
dust will be monitored and controlled. Visual impacts will be mitigated through
vegetative screening. Additionally, the facility's restricted hours of operation, minimal
daily trips, limited pedestrian circulation and no public access will contribute to its
compatibility with the surrounding land uses.
Page 10
...”
,
z
Staff Report to the L98 -0002 & L98 -0003
Planning Commission /BAR Soil Reclamation Facility
(4) . The proposed use shall be in keeping with the goals and policies...
(5)
No existing trees will be removed. Construction and land uses will remain outside the
existing sensitive areas, which will be preserved. The storm water drainage system will
meet King County standards. The facility will be in compliance with the City's Noise
Ordinance both during construction and during operation. The facility will help the City
to meet the more stringent standards of King County's Stormwater Design Manual.
All measures have been taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts...
Based on Staff's investigation of the City of Kirkland's facility, no advise environmental
impacts were identified for the proposed facility at this time. On March 3, 1998 a
Determination of Non - Significance issued for the proposed project. The facility must
meet performance standards for this zone. Compliance will be ensured by enforcement
mechanisms.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Conditional Use Permit be approved.
DECISION CRITERIA - Design Review
PART 2
The proposed project must conform with criteria detailed in TMC 18.60.050 (1) through
(5), concerning Design Review:
(1)
Relationship of Structure to Site.
a. The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with streetscape and to
provide for adequate landscaping and pedestrian movement.
b. Parking and service areas should be located, designed and screened to moderate the
visual impact of large, paved areas.
c. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to the site.
The proposed site is long and narrow, containing sensitive slopes at the
northeastern and southern areas of the property. The function of the
Page 11
'
z
H z.
re al
6
UO.
wI
J H.
CO u_
w 0,
z• a'
w.
F'=
z�
I— 0�
w ~'
2o
‘0 -:
1
w uj.
- is
— 0
..z
w
0~
z
Staff Report to the L98 -0002 & L98 -0003
Planning Commission /BAR Soil Reclamation Facility
facility dictates the dimension and placement of the two pole buildings.
Building A is approximately 13,860 s.f. and is 34.5 feet high. Building B
is approximately 4,160 s.f. and is 32 feet high.
Due to the topography of the site, the proposed buildings will not relate to
the residential buildings to the south. Only the roofs of the proposed
buildings will be seen from these residences because of the 30 foot grade
separation and vegetative buffer along Macadam Road.
The project will be setback from South 134th Place nearly 350 feet and
will not be immediately visible from that street. Vegetative screening will
create a visual buffer. The design of the proposed buildings have
relatively flat roofs and muted building colors, consistent with other
commercial building designs in the vicinity.
(2) Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area.
a. Harmony on texture, lines and masses is encouraged.
b. Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties should be provided.
c. Public buildings and structures should be consistent with the established neighborhood
character.
d. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in
terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged.
e. Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with street circulation should be
encouraged.
The single family residences to the south, above Macadam Road, are
physically separated from the site by a 30 foot grade and visually
separated by existing vegetation. Visual screening will be continued on the
site near 134th Place to the North and Macadam Road to the south. There
will be a vegetative wall between the facility and the adjoining property to
the southeast. This will be accomplished using 8 to 10 foot tall columnar
evergreens (Incense Cedar). The property to the west is oriented away
from the proposed facility and contains no windows or walkways. This
property will also be screened using 8 to 10 foot tall evergreens.
Page 12
z
I-w'
6
0 0`
rnw
J
u_
w0
gQ
=0.
~ w _
z F..
z I-
ui
.0
O-.
0 H
= V,
1- r
O
..z
0 =.
O ~'
z
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission /BAR
(3)
L98 -0002 & L98 -0003
Soil Reclamation Facility
Site circulation patterns maximize vehicular efficiency by providing drive -
through dumping and collection of soil materials. The site uses the
existing driveway to gain access to 134th Place. Pedestrian circulation is
not a concern as there will only be 2 or 3 part-time employees and no
public access.
Lighting will be wall - mounted 250 watt metal halide fixtures with top
shields to provide downward directed lighting. A luminaire plan will be
required as a condition of the building permits to ensure that lighting does
not extend beyond property lines.
Landscaping and Site Treatment.
a. Where existing topography patterns contribute to beauty and utility of a development,
they should be recognized, preserved and enhanced.
b. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces and other paved areas should promote safety
and provide an inviting and stable appearance.
Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and
important axis, and provide shade.
d. In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor traffic,
mitigating steps should be taken.
e. Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is
encouraged.
Screening of service yards and other places which tend to be unsightly, should be
accompanied by use of walls, fencing, planting or combination.
In areas where general planting will not prosper, other materials such as fences, walls
and pavings of wood, brick, stone or gravel may be used.
h. Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining
landscape. Lighting standards and fixtures should be of a design and size compatible
with the building and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded and restrained in
design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided.
The existing steep slopes along the southern property line are designated
as sensitive areas and will be preserved. The public will not have access
to the facility so the site has been designed to prevent it from becoming an
"attractive nuisance." The design goal is to make the project blend in with
Page 13
!
z
z
re w
6
JU
0
JLLJ
=
CO W
wO
2
w d'
Iw
z
I- 0
Z I—
w uj
2p
O U'
o I-
oW
H 0:
u. O
•• Z
U2
O l—
z
Staff Report to the L98 -0002 & L98 -0003
Planning Commission /BAR Soil Reclamation Facility
its surroundings. The associated landscaping will be used to screen and
provide a visual buffer to the public rather than enhance the site's
architecture. Although the landscaping near the buildings will be visually
pleasing, evergreen trees are employed along the perimeter to provide
maximum screening. No lighting plan was provided by the Applicant.
(4) Building Design.
a. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should be based on quality
of its design and relationship to its surroundings.
b. Buildings should be to appropriate scale and in harmony with permanent neighboring
developments.
c. Building components such as windows, doors, eaves and parapets should have good
proportions and relationship to one another. Building components and ancillary parts
shall be consistent with anticipated life of the structure.
d. Color should be harmonious, with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent.
e. Mechanical equipment• or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings should
be screened from view.
Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fixtures, standards and
all exposed accessories should be harmonious with building design.
Monotony of design in single or multiple building projects should be avoided. Variety
of detail , form and siting should be used to provide visual interest.
As referenced above, the functional nature of the proposed facility dictates
the use of pole buildings. As a result, there are no building components
such as windows, doors, or parapets to incorporate into the design.
However, the colors used for the buildings will be in muted earth tones to
allow the site to blend in with its surroundings. The suggested color for
the roof is a dark brown, while the suggested colors for the trim and
beams /columns of the poles will be shades of gray. A small freestanding
sign identifying this as a City of Tukwila facility will be placed at the
entrance.
Page 14
z •
Q�w
J•
• .0O.
CL
W ='
Jam..
W}o
'CO D:.
F— W:
F-`
Z H:
• Ci:
W UJ`
• U,
�0
•LLiZ
U•F2
0
z
Staff Report to the L98 -0002 & L98 -0003
Soil Reclamation Facility
Planning Commission /BAR
(5) Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture.
a. Miscellaneous structures and street furniture should be designed to be part of the
architectural concept of design and landscape. Materials should be compatible with
buildings, scale should be appropriate, colors should be in harmony with buildings and
surroundings and proportions should be to scale.
Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furniture should meet
the guidelines applicable to site, landscape and buildings.
No street furniture is proposed for this project as the public will not have
access to the site. A small freestanding sign identifying this as a City of
Tukwila facility will be placed at the entrance.
DESIGN REVIEW CONCLUSIONS
The Planning Commission, pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Section 18.108.040,
hereby makes the following findings and conclusions under the City's Design Review criteria
(TMC 18.60.050).
DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA:
(1) Relationship of Structure to Site.
The proposed facility has been designed to meet the functional requirements for the
processing of vactor wastes while being responsive to the special characteristics of the
site.
(2) Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Areas.
The proposed design is in keeping with the industrial character of the neighborhood.
Visual buffering has been incorporated into the design to screen this facility from
adjacent uses. Site circulation patterns combine function and efficiency while using the
existing access point.
(3) Landscaping and Site Treatment.
The public will not have access to the site. The proposed facility has been designed to
prevent the creation of an "attractive nuisance ". The design goal is to make the project
blend in with its surroundings while screening it as much as possible. Lighting will be
wall - mounted 250 watt metal halide fixtures with top shields to provide downward
Page 15
Staff Report to the L98 -0002 & L98 -0003
Planning Commission /BAR Soil Reclamation Facility
directed lighting. A luminaire plan will be required as a condition of the building permits
to ensure that lighting does not extend beyond property lines.
(4) Building Design.
(5)
The functional nature of the proposed facility dictates the use of pole buildings. There
are no building components to incorporate into the building design. However, muted
earth colors will be used to allow the site to blend into its surroundings.
Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture.
Not applicable.
DESIGN REVIEW RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Soil Reclamation Facility site design and related
structures with the following condition:
1.. A luminaire plan will be required prior to issuance of any building permits to
ensure that lighting does not extend beyond property lines.
Page 16
_........,.
z
1. F--Z
no ILI'
QQ �.
JU
U 0:
1 N0
WI ,
U).w,..
w0.
g
•
N a
• w,
2t
z �..
o
z
�o
O 11`
w W•: •
•
I- V'
� O
..z.
w •
• UN
.0
Z:...'
S 113 St
S 115 St
?;S Wallace
(JECT
\ATION
S 126 St
S128vt
S 137 St
S 139 St 3
q
City of Tukwila
142��
City of Tukwila
Soil Reclariution Facility
January 23, 1`A€rA
vicinity
HM,Frasly A
El I Ng. ['NI R D'Vd4 • V: • • • • • • • • • • • • : • • • •
/ I • " • al I ADA
:11,•
V I M.M
ALJL13
•
\ 1
2
\ \
„.."‘ \
•sl Ia.:. • 13, 't • :::" +Cal
ij3 3 3
9 ;
I .
t „ 1
“iilt • 1
c, t a t
I iblai3
t ! : !
1
11
tit
•
to
\o• •
`,1
:
'i
Kt''M :n•1- —
V'I I M){ •.0 lL , ►
-/%
///
•KSc'r - 01,6i •.r ,i C :Iif.'5 -e:7 ,3 .*1%.,C0.1
s
SOIL RECLAMATION FACILITY
STORM DRAINAGE PLAN
al
of
•
Vii`"—
\ir/
\
\J.
Ib.
i I 1 W I
• 1 I i 1
1 f =?. I
,c, ' 1
1„,' i';'''1" 1
Z
W
U O
N 0:
� W
W I'
J
LL,
W O
• Q,
co
W
ZH
1— O:
Z IF—!
01—
W
H Wu:
W
I.1Z
IF
O~
Z
U LNLNHDVflW" :::= "*"---71;X;: •■••••: • .3•0/1•12. own
•••••••••• ••• •.•
I C I ViIIM.)-IfILL
- 0,t ,t rol;+,03.1
SOIL RECLAMATION FACILITY
SEWER AND WATER PLAN
g el
{JIJJI
1
at
t
' •
z
z
w
00.
o'
w
WIs
I—;
u_
uj 0,
u_ <
co
— 0
w
0
Z
ui
0
co
CI I-
F-r3
/ft !
1.7.
0
�a
.FROLIT /RAF ELEVAYOI.i.
.. .:
WHE -1
OC
F[rruRE OFFiGE BUIU7 4
Z
Q •
CCW,
J U'.
U O .:
U
cnW:
=.
W O•
g
C
W
Z
ZOO
ILI W.
o
0 H+
W'.
= U
p
Z'
U
z
4 ,LN3i�NHDV L.Ld
1
7
;.. �...
Z
Q'
ft, W' •
•
;J U; O
U ;
-co 0:
W 2:
F =
fin;••
• V 0:
;O Nk
•
= V'.
• _ p;
:1j Z. •
•
.0 1-;
•
..—. • • .• .. • • •. •. . .
108/04.,641,01.08....,017,.7 .•cr of • a•rt0,7.
••/1•00. trg •■••••■• ..••••aI31 • I* ••••••••■••• •■• oat
• ,• • • • • • • • • . • - _ • • • • • ■ • •• • • . 1 • • . • 1 • • • • • • • .• • • • -
1 V-1 I Ni.)I ill di 0 A.LIJ I 3
Id
• •
•
" '■
8"
4
Z
2
•••
• S.
\ 7.
•• c
• gb�1 ••e• n d 411.75.1".‘ 4. x•itc".13:11
..mmal■■••■
z
0
CC
0 0
LL.
CC
I— )-
Cn
Z Z
0
0
1'.
SOIL RECLAMATION FACILITY
STORM DRAINAGE PLAN
' • , .
• i•
CITY OF TLIKWILA
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE '(DNS)
UFSCRIPTION Or PROPOSAL:
FACILITY TO ACCEPT & DECANT VACTOR WASTES
AND COMPSTING MATERIALS - PROCESS AS TOPSOIL
PRCPONENT: CITY OF TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS
• ,, ...;;;;•.. n7;,:',:•:•:::,.-•-,:.:1;.1':''.!.13;•:::;;.•:•••.....
,•-•:...,. •
.„ .. t•J........,i0......?...:g...';;;:-iv.:."tt,•••
LOCATIO1CoF PROPOSAL:::tNCLODINTS-TREETAPDRE, IF ANY:
.• . • • ....
•,...... •
,., ,..,
• ...:..."••••: - ,. .tri ..t, tit•c :,y,.,.
ADDRESS : . .':, 4 50 f 5 .3. 2.$4. •P L2t II,. i,,.. (.,.
.-, ,„, ,...t) ''.::%.;-.
. , . ,.., 0 ,...1 0.,y,t. 0 1-- -.:/-,I. .,.,
PARCEL NO.,: -.:',2f.;1320-Di1.45.i A ,...-...,z,;;.,ig ?,1., ,
. ' . , .,..„ . . i..',:, ,.,...• -
• ,,,,:,, :,., , ti,w .v y.::.- • , ... ..,
• .
'F C / I. WI\ 1 / R G.:•:. • • . tt(-..: ,•:.,;.„. ,..„.
.. •• ,,
'N.:\
,',./...... ,.. .... ,..17N1".2.1.1,
.:., V • k:.::
.. ,... 4:1i.. ,:,•,:.•
. %.,.*.t.. ' ' .... .. ,......t 4,74:,
LEAD AGENCY: , tITY OF, q-UKWT I. AA q G, ).7.:171'..LEN NO':: .,E98-0001
. . 1 • . „5 N1, t1 .. t • Qtvt
,. i',. •tr, I . %., ,:-...,;••,
••. ..„. ... .. • ,1 ...,
..4. . qk . •
T h c CA ty. has determinedfh.a'D the O
•oposal dos:: nOt„Aave -a:!?Probable
....ti.,
: s i 17n if i'ca.6t?,adverse imp.actAon thesenviroriment. '.'.: An e.1).:V1On•M'ezn ta 1
stiYtc1ement (1EIT! i s no;t7x,eui red under Reig42(.',',.'21'16.. 03.0:(2) ( c)
.. s deci'S Ion gas madeaf tery/rVi:riteu,,iof a completed en.vironMeiltal
.• •
c.h1:1c.1:, 1 ist and ...other tr;formatilon on„ 11e with the 'read ,agency;'. This
—: 111.-YriTia t Von is avail '20)-1 0. to°118 ''.11.11).1.quest
6 ........' '.:. ,(• • .,
. . . t... .
•• 16 v.":. ''.: i : --'".;:. ,,.. ..
..,,./...),..A. ..k A 1.. * A. * 1.—.1; * *4 *..A. A A •A• * A * * * * *!:/.. * ..ic AV* .,..k * le;*„*.*** Ili* * * * * * A A * itt,t le. *t..s.t. * tAt..* * * tfi..k,..k * * 1: * * * * * '1.• 'At *
•1,0 • ,•, . ... •
4 .:„ ...' i., .1., •
.. '• !.. • ••
. ... i
. 'Th'',s det'erminat 1 on ts .f,',in&T ..a41d ',-111i'lf° h ',S, S .;. da-V ''ifif. ,
19c 0
. •
. .. .• ,•:-.., •,
1 ',./,4:....,..,...
't '; ''.. .•-• • „................ :'.:•,..
t e!i
( C:C7S&-- • e• '.'..1. s '• ,'•• , '
it ...'' t, k '...., .:"'"'..t
..;
....,
," • 2" ' 1 k
- ..-.. ...,.., l
Rsponsi
Lan'caster,-:;.eble Of
. ill'CLi a 11.••ii \
ill kW i l, ,.. 206 ) 431-3670 L.1.. i ,. ‘ ..,..• IA :t4,,,e., •
,t , •A‘,..t, • ; -,....v; 'i.1 "..j.:
.
f31.:0 SOUthcentex Eidu 1evard
• ,•$.11..wila.,,WA 9.8.1.68
• •
• ,
e " .
i es Of the":.p.r 0 res crr,. pfY.F. a 1 s
,Do par t •;111.111 1 ey D'eli:e
1,t
14,...4' •‘•
. .
41;NP.
LA 177
117f•
are ava„i',1bil e with the
;1
ATTACHMENT G
MEMORANDUM
TO: Phil Fraser
Deb Ritter
FROM: Randy Berg
DATE: March 10, 1998 z
RE: Summary of Findings in Snohomish County Street Waste Study 1- w'.
ug
In 1995 Snohomish County retained Landau Associates, Inc. to study the contaminates v 0 0
present in vactor wastes. The conclusions of the report are less than definite. The report . co o
looked specifically for heavy metals, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), and w is
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). u o,,
w
All three contaminates are found in street waste samples. Amounts found were compared g
to criteria identified by the Snohomish Health District and compared with regulations
governing solid wastes, toxic cleanup requirements and water quality. Risked based = °
estimates of exposure to contaminates at the concentrations detected were developed to z ='
evaluate possible reuse of street wastes. i- O:
zI-
al Ill
D C3
'O �;
• Vactor wastes are not typically dangerous. o I--.
• Ecology and Health District regulations support reuse of these materials. = cw.�.
I-
• Metal contaminates are not found in reportable or regulated amounts. . ~
uO
• Analysis results for TPH in all samples exceed Model Toxic Control Act (MTCA) . z
method A cleanup levels for TPH in soil. 0 _`
• Measurements of TPH in samples is skewed by presence of organics. WTPH -418.1 O ~
Testing Method using acid wash before analysis to minimize organics resulted in Z
lower TPH levels and should increase management and reuse options.
• PAH and carcinogenic PAH (CPAH) levels found may exceed MTCA criteria for
residential soil cleanup requirements, limiting reuse options to solid waste landfill, or
reuse in non- residential settings, particularly commercial, industrial and recreational
settings.
• Composting contributes to decreases in detected TPH concentrations. The longer the
composting the greater the expected reduction in TPH. It is anticipated that
composting will also reduce the CPAH levels, but this was not part of this study.
Conclusions:
My personal conclusions drawn from this report are that vactor wastes do contain
contaminates. That the level of contaminates present do not pose a health threat to
neighbors or on site workers. That contamination of TPH and CPAH may be found in
regulated amounts, but only in Model A cleanup and reporting amounts, not in the more
serious Model B cleanup and reporting amounts, and as such may not be appropriate for
_. "
use in residential settings, but may be used in other settings. That composting the street
waste material will result in lower levels of TPH and CPAH.
Based on these conclusions I recommend that all vactor soils be tested when collected
and be composted and retested for contaminates. Soils found to exceed Model A levels
of TPH and CPAH after composting be disposed of at solid waste disposal site (not a
hazardous materials site) although this material can be used in non - residential settings.
Soils tested and found to exceed Model B levels be disposed of at a hazardous materials
dump site, and should not be taken to the vactor waste site at all. Soils found to be
contaminated below the Model A levels should be mixed with composted organics and
used in non - residential settings.
Based on the findings of this report I see no risk of exposure to surrounding properties.
: : �
03/09/98 17:51 FAX 20`28 1880
Adjustability
R C A
�•- CITY OF TUKSYILA
2002
*^4ti• r.. �, :� ;�. - 'L`..S~ ... •,,r • '�- .•tip �'{�
•
��k': y'Y:4.:.:: espy. .r't�.-'G'^• _�. .� �..•iy ar.: r''' "Y9�:: :�: <.i .
f JftilZJyy`"ti t % =^ / rty� � {•J: >:4 %j.,"�-",4 Y i. �a��: %'..,.�.. �� ,rte'.
1:�: +f! ���=+ _ Gam.. ti'.y s ���- r'•'
�i" 1. �- .L \• '�.'�.. a.... <�• �:: < _ r_.
.; r:>yy``•r:>• ��7yY �_ ��:'!••�= s� , =•3 t'ii��?4�r�"�'�. >- �t�::� �v =� '5 •' e' '
L. �.���� \� \� ice" _:'•`:
- t._.11„,,,,e4-k„...-7..___.: c t'
Since the reflector syste1 k5 for the Wall Director ti crow light a'r:ay
from the vial!. only a srn-tl, amount of adjust-ability is needed fcr fine
tuning, The -adjustment f azure is integrated between the reflector
and ballast housings. a can be accomplished with the fix[': a Crl.
Two stainless steel scri- s are looser sed on either side of the ballast
housing. This allows to reflector housing to rotete up to i 0` while
visually cbservinc the ght ”ov,. lAfnen the screws are retichtened.
the reiiecror housirip locked and resealed to the ballast housino.
Degree marksrs cru h
st into r.he reflector housing as shown in the.
photograph abov
The ability to line tune the forward light throw is
!arty useful in fighting large overhangs in c -' -
canopies. Sometimes the additional fore. _
will be needed simply because th
curved or sloped. Norrnr;.fi ;• : e type (V
distribution will be used for this
application. and a few degrees of
fixture adjustment is all that
may be necessary.
z ' ova RAK -LP6
AVAIL* E 4- -
In down lighting applications. fixture
adjustment can bridge hr differences
between types 1I. III and IV light dist;ibudons.
For example.. suppose you are lighting a narrow
area between a building and property line using a
type 11 distribution. The type it di: rributior covers the
ground area. but more light is desired on the
perimeter vraJI. A few degrees of fixture
adjustment will accomplish the
desired increase in forward throw
with minimal increase in fixture
brightness.
Optional 5° Shield
Sometimes the advantages of fixture adjustment may
need balancing to retain total cutoff. An optional shield
Iis -available for this purpose. allowing 5' of fixture ad•
t justment while keeping the cutoff edge of the
naire horizontal. This shield can be used in any up or
dor.vn application.
U1■
IN
Csm
,'
03/09/98 17: 52 FAX 20-" :28 1880
Specifications:
Arm Mounts and Options
2B Twin Arm Mountforflush
mounted fixtures only_ Consists
of two prewired arm assemblies.
Arrn and riser are aluminum
extrusions welded and blended
together. Pole cleat automatic-
ally aligns and levels arm.
Bottom cap is cast aluminum
mounted with a single screw.
TGIC thermoset polyester
powder coat paint only.
1W Wall Mount for flush
mounted fixtures only. '- =vy
cast aluminum wall pi, . - with
arm cleat and splic „access
cover. Prewired a and riser
are aluminum ext sions welded
and blended tog ier. Bottom
cap is cast alumi um mounted
RCA
.- CITY OF TUKWILA
lj 003 _
3, ou`ntmg'c(eats;
with a single scre _
s'
TGIC thermoset jlyester
powder coat paintFly.
Retrofit Fixtures
In addition to the stan4rd 4” sq.
flush mount and 2W O. tenon
mount. fixtures can be mo ted
to a wide range of round or
square poles using a special
adapter casting. This casting
mates with all the various size
expansion mounts in the Kim
inventory. This provides another
means for retrofitting existing
poles, or utilizing poles by others.
To specify, consult Kim rep.
LS Optional Enclosure
One piece injection molded
clear polycarbonate.
Footcandle and C.U. values
must be multiplied by 0.92 for
light Toss over standard clear
acrylic.
•
CAUTION: Use LS only when
vandalism is anticipated to be
high. Useful fife is limited by dis-
coloration caused by UV from
sunlight, mercury vapor and
metal halide lamps.
A-25 Optional Photocell
Receptacle for all fixtures. Unit is
factory mounted at center of top
cover and accepts NEMA base
photocells (by others). For twin
arm mount- each fixture will be
supplied with its own photocell
receptacle. Photocells shall be
fumished by others.
'The following pole information
must be provided to insure
proper fixture mounting:
1. Round or Square
2. Pole top O.D.. I.D. and well
'hickness.
r -round or squa
3.An
condition.
4. Top 6" of pole free of internal
obstructions
Structural integrity of all non -Kim
poles must lie with others.
wars
,^,,.�.r.��,. it
• • 'apfe casting :with
expansiotti.mount�y`�°, =-
oletop must be cut scLtiar ° = "='
EFL 0 3 . .•
3'O.t3">;
• -- •,D'cw.
HS Optional Houseside Shield
for Type 111 distribution fixtures
only (SBC300 and SSC O1).
Consists of of :,../o shielding com-
ponents installed at the factory.
One component restricts direct
lamp light and the other reduces
reflected light. (For clear lamps
only, see page 24 for details).
�:. „
' 03/09/93 17:54 FAX 2028 1880
250 Watt
Metal Halide
BT28 Clear, 19,500 lumens
I.T.L Test No- 27384
Catalog No. SBC300 or SBC301
Type 111
Asymmetric
R C A .•� -y-+ CITY OF TUKWILA
Typical
Single
Initial
Footcandles
Listed
Heights
20'
Halt
Mount
Horizontal
Mounting
16'
at
14'
12'
Dashed Curve = C.U.
20'
16'
14'
12''
1
. i
0.3
a-
1
2'
0.4
Meets
Average
Ming11111
Arrangement
Mounting Height
4.9
2.5
7.7
3.9
10
5.0
14
6.8
MEM
2
allibi...
18' 1 20' 1 25'
15'
�'
20' 25' 1 30'
18'
Q
rara.amaz
30' 1 35'
.98
:.49
1.5
.77
2.0
1.0
2.7mi
1.4
40'
1.0
1 1
,
plimplepprAprdispi
[
_
1■'110
.5
.68
120..
1.5
4.9
2.5
.98
.49
.25
.10
.05
.02
7.7
3.9
1.5
.77
.39
.15
.08
.04
10
5.0
2.0
1.0
.5
2
_1
.05
14
6.8
27
1.4
.68
27
.14
.07
A
OPP
.15
2
.27
II
' ! %'
104
SS
81'
1
/
_1
.14
t�
J
\
,
a �'
`
,
.r: -ate.
. r• ■
84
I jl
72
66
2'
pm
2
'....T •--.-
3
`,%1
✓ �
5
Qd
Firill.111�v
81
77
��
1 63
67
63
58
'
49
Horizontal 3.0
6 3
--#:'- :.1-...14.•77./:-7:-..-4.:
58 155 ' Jam'
58
72
54
69 1 61 -_-;,...11
52 46 _�;;:
67
50
65
48
58
44
52 ,:- ,,.,,i
I 39 M
56
42
52
39
48
36
44
[ 33
I
1
2 3
'4
;
Longitudinal Distance in Mounting
Summary of Street Side: 46.35%
Downward House Side: 23.88%
Efficiencies (C.U.) Total: 70.24%
Heights
('.6' )
47 143
(.239)
(.702)
See page 24 for
effect of Houseside Shield.
16 00-1
Initial
Footndles
Listed
Heights
Horizontal
Mounting
at
Fixture_
. Meets
Aver-age
Typical Quadrant, Twin Mount
Fixtures aimed away from each other
as on page 3. example 6.
20'
16'
14'
12''
Z 1 2 3 4 5
_
for 1
a-
1
2'
Meets
Average
Ming11111
Arrangement
Mounting Height
4.9
2.5
7.7
3.9
10
5.0
14
6.8
MEM
12'
15' 1
18' 1 20' 1 25'
15'
18'
20' 25' 1 30'
18'
Q
rara.amaz
30' 1 35'
.98
:.49
1.5
.77
2.0
1.0
2.7mi
1.4
40'
1.0
1 1
,
plimplepprAprdispi
[
25
.39
.5
.68
120..
1.5
1
.10
.15
2
.27
_iID
' ! %'
104
96
SS
81'
.05
.08
_1
.14
t�
- �✓- .- . : ; : --
� �r_s
a �'
`
,
.r: -ate.
. r• ■
84
78
72
66
61
1
2
'....T •--.-
3
4
5
Longitudinal Distance in Mounting Heights
'-:?;,'•.,
•
RICHARD CAROTHERS ASSOCIATES, LTD.
& 4. Dar Pura STREET • , SF 1•rrt WA 92r
Vita" 206/324-5500 ■ F c 206/32S -188o
TRANSMITTAL
PROJECT NAN= • Tukwila Soil Reclamation Facility
Pao7ECr Nui • 94092
Arrrj: • TroyOestreich •
CoMPa: • ABACUS
FRoac • Carl Stixrced
D • March.9,1998
c ■ Fcan Wall
WE ARE FORWARDING TEE EOU.OWIN
DRAWING No.
Comm
TrrrzoRDESCSrr
SIZE
1 Survey 11/8/97 . 24x36
1 Landscape/Lighting Plan 11097 24x366
1 7 page building information package 11/21/97 8.5x11
1 3 page IGm fighting c atalog:cutsof possible 8.5x11
fixture choices (not yet reviewed by City)
Troy: Please provide a fee estimate for the following scope of work:
Design of:
• Service to the site including providing a panel with capacity for an irrigation controller and capacity for
future service to the restroom/oice building.
• Lighting.inside buildings A and B.
• Lighting of exterior areas (see attached plan for Conditional Use Permit Submittal.)
• Wiring and conduit
• Outlets in Building A and B
Cast breakdown needed:
• Pre Design phase-advice on fixture selection
• Construction Documents - Electrical plans and details, drafted stamped sheets for 90% review and
bidding
• Specifications (WSDOT format)
• Cost Estimates for pre design. 90% and bidding phase.
• Construction Phase- feview of contractor submittals, two site visits with inspection report, review of
two pay requests.
Please let us know of any additional electrical items we *night need.
Thanks, Carl StiXrood
TO: John McFarland
FROM: Steve Lancaster
DATE: March 9, 1998
o t •1\n'‘S ; s Si �� - r ye) r t,ti‘
1/.124s - ..ip', Dc)mP A .: PA -s
tO /QS kt.e C�
MEMO
4 I314-n,n...__& L- orKw.��r„�t -JGik
IS v.tC�„45�•.s e- Silt! J ;Ssf
4te l 5,,,e c
Wes.. c.wQ A %tee se
RE: Proposed Public Works Project
Soil Reclamation Facility
4501 South 134th Place
L98 -0003 (CUP)
L98 -0002 (Design Review)
E98 -0001 (SEPA)
11.x,) w4-1 kre4,tat,z -, r 4,... c,L .1 S
w:c(
,s(aLi(
As you may know, the Public Works Department is requesting Conditional Use Permit
approval with Design Review to construct a vactor waste facility. The proposed facility
will be used to accept and decant vactor wastes and combine them with vegetative
materials (from the Parks Department) via a composting process. These recycled soil
materials will be used on other City properties.
To date, we have received four comment letters (attached) from property owners along
Macadam Road, above the proposed site. In general, the letters focus on issues
•concerning conflicting land uses, noise, dust, odor and hazardous waste. Staff in
Planning and Public Works contacted the property owners and discussed these
concerns either by phone or in person. Staff responses were reflected in the March 3,
1998 Determination of Non - Significance.
The Planning Commission will consider the applications for this facility at a public
hearing on Thursday, March 26th. We believe that these property owners will attend
this hearing.
cc: Ross Earnst
Randy Berg
'•
z
H w
JU
U 0`
U o'
U w
• w:
w0
gQ
u) Da .
Iw
_-
zi-
t-- 0.
w~'
• w.
U 0'
0cn,
O H
f .
o'
Z
tli
co
O
z...
TO:
CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
REFER: PROPOSED SOIL RECLAMATION FACILITY
FROM: DALE A. SHAWLEY
13467 MACADAM RD. SO.
TUKWILA WASH. 98168
2-15 -99
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: _ J'_-
Being a member of. the community surrounding the proposed site for the
new Sail Reclamation Facility I must say this does not appear to be
something that wi 1.1 enhance my community. I can foresee an odor from this
facility, noise that would add to the already high noise level, and perhaps
many more items that would have a detrimental effect on the quality of life
and the property values in this community.
I have information about this facility from the City of Tukwila and on
the Surface it appears that the City of Tukwila is concerned with being a
good neighbor. It is stated in the documentation that there will be no
toxic sail allowed at this facility but how will the community be
guaranteed of this. It is stated in the documentation that there will be no
traffic at this facility except during normal City business hours. Is this
guaranteed? It is stated in the documentation that the odor level of
:decomposing organic materials will be monitored and if the odor is
migrating off-site the organic material will be reduced. Is there any
guarantee? It is stated in the documentation that the City is aggressively
searching for ether organizations to use this facility. If other
corgani aticons are found will the activity at this facility be increased to
meet this added use level? What if anything is guaranteed?
It is quite obvious that the members of the Department of Community
Development do not live in the community that would be effected by this
facility. It is also quite obvious that the City of Tukwila has had this in
mind for a period of time since they have already purchased the property.
With all of this in mind I am sure this is a project that will in fact be
cconstructed. I understand this project will bring the City of Tukwila into
compliances with adopted ordnances. As an affected community member, I also;
. understand that I must be very active to see that the construction and use
of this facility adheres to .all statements in the documents presented to
the City of Tukwila and the community where "I" live.
RESPECTFULLY YOUR
1LEY -
..,. +
. • ,
•
7 r"" 1 ::
•To: City of Tukwila ::r73 23 i99E
, Department of Community Development
Subj.: E98-0001 (SEPA)
L98-0002 (DESIGN Review)
L98-0003 (conditional use permit)
•
. .
22 Feb 1998
Currently I'm opposed to this project. In discussions with D. Ritter and my neighbor,
this project will create dust and odor problems. Both of which will lower my property
value. I have always thought that this land was zoned light industrial. As a Ceramic
Engineer, material processing has always been a heavy industry due to the nature of
material handling. As a Sales Engineer for a clay company, even the wet processing has
caused dust problems (even within an enclosed building). The decomposition process
has always caused odors. If in doubt visit the transfer station on 188th and Military Rd,
the odor is the decomposition process. Please find a different location. I suggest the land
near the Metro Processing Plant
• I formally request a copy of any Planning Commission Decision
Robert Y Shirley J. Merkle
13515 Macadam Rd. So
Tukwila, Wa 98168
206 243-5731
, •
„ • • •• - • .• • „
•
February 22, 1998
David F. Hussey III
13457 Macadam Rd. South
Tukwila, Wash. 98168
206-243-4305
The City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
.Tukwila, Wa. 98188
Dear Mr Randy Berg, and Ms Deborah Ritter:
I am strongly opposed to the city's plan to locate and operate a
soil reclamation facility on the property at 4501 South 134th Place. This
property is north across the street from my residence on Macadam Rd.
South, (south 135th street per.your notice of application) and will have a
negative impact on my property value, health, and quality of living.
While the property in question is located in an area zoned for •
commercial/industrial use, the noise, dust, and odors will most certainly
not respect the boundary, to my detriment. My neighborhood has
suffered and endured the presence of the existing industries to our
north with the increased noise, air, and light pollution they bring, along
with increased traffic. Our complaints to the city have gone unanswered.
Do not ask us to accept more inconvenience. Surely a more suitable
area for such a facility exists elsewhere.
Sincerely,
14,
David F. Hussey III
• - • -"'•••
'
r
•
•
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100
Tukwila, WA 98188
Attention: Deborah Ritter
February 24, 1998
Re: Soil Reclamation Facility
z
=z'
re 2
~w
p,
c.) UO
N 0'
al
Dear Deborah: N w O;
In the . past few years there has been a general positive improvement to the area where the §a
proposed soil reclamation facility is planned to be located. There has been new residential construction N
and the existing houses have also been making improvements. The existing residential area and w
commercial- industrial area seem to be co- existing. z
z 0`
w w:
O -.
O I—.
Ill W'
1- 0.
I
z'
u co .
i—H
z
Ina community there should be a transition between residential uses and heavy industrial uses (i.e.
low density residential, medium density residential, high density residential, office, commercial, light
industry, and heavy industry). In this area of the City there is no such transition. With this proposal the
City has proposed a heavy industrial use almost next to a low density residential zone.
The proposed soil reclamation project also does not conform to the existing City zoning, as
evidenced by the need for a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed facility also goes directly against the
1995 Comprehensive Plan which states, "The Council's new plan sets out several major goals; Number
one is to improve and sustain residential neighborhood quality and livability." The proposed reclamation
facility does not improve or sustain the residential neighborhood's quality or livability. In fact, it adds
extensive pollution, smell, and noise problems to,the neighborhood.
There is also the concem that now that the City has allowed this reclamation facility through the
Conditional Use Permit process, the door is open for similar facilities in the area, by private industry.
This facility is moving the community in the wrong direction and would cause deterioration to
our neighborhood, a neighborhood that is making positive improvements.
This type of facility would be better located in the area where the Metro sewer treatment plant
is located. There are other existing reclamation type facilities near the sewer treatment plant and along
Monster Road.
I would appreciate the City taking into consideration our concerns and consider locating the
reclamation facility in a more suitable location.
• L00001%1.405 Page 1 of 1
HGG Inc. February 24. 1998
,'
Very truly yours,
John Thompson •
Owner of 4503 South 136th
4.9026 S S
48' 5 So Li-7w /7O''=
March 6, 1998
Mr. Randy Berg
Project Manager
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
Re: Vactor Waste Buildings, Waiver Request
Dear Randy:
John W. Rants, Mayor
+; 199E
ATAft
F
Thomas P. Keefe, Fire Chief
It is my understanding, based upon your letter and our previous conversations, both
buildings at the vactor recycling facility will be non combustible, open air buildings. The
purpose of these structures is to store and recycle non combustible materials. Further, it is
the city's intention to provide a fire hydrant within 150 feet of these structures, and provide
a fire department approved turn around.
With these factors in mind, I approve your request for an exception to the requirements of
Tukwila City Ordinance #1742; the requirement for a sprinkler and fire alarm system is
waived.
In closing, I reserve the right to modify of withdraw the waiver approval if the design or
use of either structure changes.
If you have any additional comments or questions pertaining to this issue, please feel free to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Nick Olivas
Assistant Chief
cc: Phil Fraser
Deb Ritter
Headquarters Station: 444 Andover Park East • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: (206) 5754404 • Fax (206) 575-4439
.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Deb Ritter
FROM: Randy Berg
DATE: February 27, 1998
RE: Status of the Proposed Geotech Steep Slope Study at the Soil
Reclamation Site
Landau and Associates, Inc. of Tacoma has been hired to conduct the geotechnical work
relating to the steep slope area of the Soil Reclamation Site. The Scope of work for
Landau and Associates is as follows:
1. Compile and review available geologic information in the project vicinity.
2. Complete detailed geologic reconnaissance of the steep slope on the site to
identify significant features such as underlying geology, soil types composing the slope,
limits of current slope instability, and zones of ground water seepage.
3. Analyze information gathered in steps above and use the information as the
basis for analyzing the processes operation on the slope and to develop conceptual
geotechnical recommendations for improvements to the slope stability.
4. Summarize field study and analyses into a geotechnical report to include:
A. Drawing of the slope showing significant features;
B. A discussion of slope geology and geomorphology;
C. A discussion of slope processes to include types of slope failure and
potential impact to site of such failures;
D. Recommendations for additional studies if appropriate.
The exact timing of the additional geotech work has not been finalized since the
authorization to the consultant to proceed was not issued until yesterday. The best guess
is that the site work will be completed next week, and the report will be finished by about
March 15th.
City of Tukwila
Department of Public Works
February 25, 1997
Nick Olivas
Assistant Fire Chief
Tukwila Fire Department
444 Andover Park East
Tukwila, WA
John W..Rants, Mayor
Ross A. Larnst, P. E, Dif 4clor
RE: Request for Waiver of Fire Department Development Requirements
Chief Olivas:
z
�Z
'V w•
.J U
00
0
�W=
0)L
'w
ga-
= c�'.
•
H O:
z ►-:
The City of Tukwila is preparing to develop a facility to collect and recycle vactor soils. .2 o!
The first phase in construction of the proposed facility will include erection of two v •
:o co:
prefabricated metal pole buildings. One of these buildings will be over 10,000 square 0 �-
feet, and so by code requires a sprinkler system. The other building is 4,000 square feet = v,
and by code requiems a fire alarm system. Both of these buildings will be open air
structures supported by columns with no walls. •
U =.
O~
z
Your Land Use Permit Routing Form dated January 28, 1998 mentioned the following
four requirements related to this project
1. A hydrant is required within 150 feet of the structures.
2. An approved turn around is required.
3. Buildings over 10,000 square feet are required to be sprinkled.
.4. Buildings under 10,000 square feet are required to have a fire alarm system.
Our responses to each of these requirements are listed below.
1. The project will include installation a new hydrant on site. This hydrant will be within
150 of all structures and no more than 300 feet from any part of any structure.
2. The project includes a turn around which meets, or will be altered to meet, fire
department requirements.
3. Since all construction will be of non - combustible materials, we are requesting a
waiver of the sprinkling system requirement for the large building. The building
materials will be only steel and concrete. The materials stored and processed in this
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #x100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 u Phone: (206) 433 -0179 o Fax: (206) 431-3665
facility will be saturated soils pumped from catch basins, gathered from street sweepings
or from drainage swales. These soils will be drained and dried under the cover of the
large pole building. Since no combustible materials are to be used in construction or
stored within the proposed building, the requirement to install a fire suppression sprinkler
system creates an unnecessary burden on the project budget.
4. Similarly, the smaller building will be a prefabricated metal pole building which is
constructed entirely of non- combustible materials. The building will be used to store
composting materials and soils. Since the building is open air, constructed on non-
combustible materials and will be used to handle non - combustible materials we are
requesting a waiver to the fire alarm requirement for this building..
If I can provide any further information relating to this project please let me know. We
look forward to hearing from you regarding these matters. Thank you for your time in
considering these items.
Sincerely,
Berg
Phil Fraser
Deb Ritter
of 2:
6
tY
U) w'
w =;
Jam:.
w o:
i
Cl)
au j
z
ul
,ot'
wLu
z:
ui
0 =';
o
z
TO: Mayor Wally Rants
FROM: Ross Earnst, Public Works Director
DATE: February 23, 1998
SUBJECT: Updated Annual Estimated Volumes of Liquid and Solids Wastes for Processing at
Proposed Decant/Reclamation Facility (Tukwila only)
The following are the estimated annual quantities of liquid decant and solids which are generated by
Tukwila's maintenance activities:
1. Decant liquids: 200,000 gallons
2. Vactor waste solids: 1,000 cubic yards
3. Street sweepings: 1,050 cubic yards
4. Ditch cleanings: 510 cubic yards
5. Storm pipe cleaning: 40 cubic yards
6. Sanitary sewer pipe cleaning: 0 cubic yards (other disposal and treatment facilities will be used
for these meaterials)
7. Utility excavations: 90 cubic yards
8. Other street repairs and maintenance: 180 cubic yards
9. Retention/Detention Ponds Cleaning: 100 cubic yards
10. Vegetative materials, excluding grass
clippings (from Tukwila Parks Dept.): 75 cubic yards
Total annual solids: 3,045 cubic yards
xc. Steve Lancaster /Jack Pace/Deborah Ritter
Don Williams
Brian Shelton
Ted Freemire /John Howat
Randy Berg
Carl Stixrood, Richard Carothers & Associates
PF:prf:vactor23.doc
Z
Z
.J U;
0 0-
co 0';
'CO
•
to 0;
w,
Z1—.•
F— O:•
Z F". •
W W;
•
111
UN
• O
Z
1
February 22, 1998
David F. Hussey 111
13457 Macadam Rd. South
Tukwila, Wash. 98168
206 - 243 -4305
The City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Wa. 98188
Dear Mr Randy Berg, and Ms Deborah Ritter:
I am strongly opposed to the city's plan to locate and operate a
soil reclamation facility on the property at 4501 South 134th Place. This
property is north across the street from my residence on Macadam Rd.
South, (south 135th street per your notice of application) and will have a
negative impact on my property value, health, and quality of living.
While the property in . question is located in an area zoned for
commercial /industrial use, the noise, dust, and odors will most certainly
not respect the boundary, to my detriment. My neighborhood has
suffered and endured the presence of the existing industries to our
north with the increased noise, air, and light pollution they bring, along
with increased traffic. Our complaints to the city have gone unanswered.
Do not ask us to accept more inconvenience. Surely a more suitable
area for such a facility exists elsewhere.
Sincerely,
David F. Hussey III
To: City of Tukwila E8 2 3 1998
Department of Community Development
Subj.: E98-0001 (SEPA)
L98-0002 (DESIGN Review)
L98-0003 (conditional use permit)
COMMt
DEVELCH'viENT
22 Feb 1998
• Currently I'm opposed to this project. In discussions with D. Ritter and my neighbor,
this project will create dust and odor problems. Both of which will lower my property
value. I have always thought that this land was zoned light industrial. As a Ceramic
Engineer, material processing has always been a heavy industry due to the nature of
material handling. As a Sales Engineer for a clay company, even the wet processing has
caused dust problems (even within an enclosed building). The decomposition process
has always caused odors. If in doubt visit the transfer station on 188th and Military Rd,
the odor is the decomposition process. Please find a different location. I suggest the land
near the Metro Processing Plant
I formally request a copy of any Planning Commission Decision
Robert Shirley J. Merkle
13515 Macadam Rd. So
Tukwila, Wa 98168
206 243-5731
Date. :,_ t - Feb -98 17:19:10 •
FI om GARY- SCHULZ (GARY SCR. _Z)
To: DEBORAH
Copies -to: JACK
Subject: RE: Geotech - Soils Reclamation Facility
Message -id: 0E18EB3401000000
Application -name: MHS
>Date: 18- Feb -98 16:00:59
>From: DEBORAH (DEBORAH RITTER)
>To: GARY - SCHULZ
>Subject: Geotech - Soils Reclamation Facility
>Message -id: BB05EB3401000000
>Application -name: MHS
>Importance: HIGH
>Public Works will arrange for a geotechnical study instead of making
>Steve require one.
>Randy is working with a firm to get a scope of work, cost estimate and
>estimated time frame.
>He's assuming it will take about 2 weeks.
>Can you give me your technical review without waiting for this geotech
>report?
Deborah,
I cannot comment any further on this project. I think there will be some mitigation for the steep
slope issue but I will not have much input on this since it is more of a built environment and
stability question. You should talk with Steve and Jack about the SEPA determination.
Thanx, Gary
CI•C., (t
Vim•-],[ L'. • I \ C.., .ter , L. �.�L{.. t..•c•_.
(' C
LoccyrNAJ,..o
(svccoj-
Y
"
•z• •
.a
�z
_�
U:
• UO
W w,
• w =:
Wo..
g a
-a
• I-w
_
zF
1- O
D
• D ❑:
U y.
O
w w`
._
H pi
o
z. •
ui
• 0 •
•o:
• z
-Date:`'19- Feb -98 17:38:59
From: GARY- SCHULZ'(GARY SChJLZ)
To: DEBORAH,GARY - SCHULZ
Subject: RE: Geotech - Soils Reclamation Facility
Message -id: 336EEC3401000000
Application -name: MHS
>Date: 19- Feb -98 09:11:50
>From: DEBORAH (DEBORAH RITTER)
>To: GARY - SCHULZ
>Subject: RE: Geotech - Soils Reclamation Facility
>Message -id: 56F7EB3401000000
>Application -name: MHS
>Importance: HIGH
»Date: 18- Feb -98 17:19:10
»From: GARY - SCHULZ (GARY SCHULZ)
»To: DEBORAH
»Copies -to: JACK
»Subject: RE: Geotech - Soils Reclamation Facility
»Message -id: 0E18EB3401000000
»Application -name: MHS
»> Date: 18- Feb -98 16:00:59
» >From: DEBORAH (DEBORAH RITTER)
» >To: GARY- SCHULZ
»> Subject: Geotech - Soils Reclamation Facility
» >Message -id: BB05EB3401000000
»> Application -name: MHS
» >Importance: HIGH
»>
» >Public Works will arrange for a geotechnical study instead of making
»> Steve require one.
»>
» >Randy is working with a firm to get a scope of work, cost estimate and
» >estimated time frame.
»>
» >He's assuming it will take about 2 weeks.
>»
» >Can you give me your technical review without waiting for this geotech
»> report?
>»
»Deborah,
»I cannot comment any further on this project. I think there will be
»some mitigation for the steep slope issue but I will not have much input
»on this since it is more of a built environment and stability question.
»You should talk with Steve and Jack about the SEPA determination.
»Thanx, Gary
>.
>Gary:
>I've checked with Jack. I am to prepare the SEPA checklist for Steve's
>determination asap so it can be circulated for comments before the March
>hearing. I will make reference to a future geotechnical report, tied to
>a future building permit.
>In light of this, do you have any comments for substantive (technical)
>review? I'm preparing the first draft of the SEPA review and staff
>report today
Deborah,
z
H • Z:
re 2a1
6
JU'
U 0:
co
r W =.
LL
wo.
g • Q;
co a,
I- w:
z
0
z ►-;
LU
O co
oI-
111 uj
• U
LL o
al
U =.
o '
As yod understand, there is not m; for me to say regarding the steep issue. Nobody here
can say if a setback will be required. However, the watercourse needs t6 Le properly reclassified
based on the presence of anadromous fish. I will do that because I understand the classification
system and including the fishes factor may change the rating to a Type 2.
Thanx, Gary
1
TO CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF 2_15-98
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
REFER: PPOPOSED SOIL PECLAMATION FACILITY
��
FROM: DALE A SH�WLEY ����� �- `�[���;
^ �^- v��
13467 MACADAM RD. SO.
TUKWILA WASH. 98168
'■
\c�� TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Being a member of the community surrounding the proposed site for the
new Soil Reclamation Facility I must say this does not appear to be
something that will enhance my community. I can foresee an odor from this
facility, noise that would add to the already high noise level, and perhaps
many mo�e items that would have a detrimental effect on the quality of life
and the property values in this community.
I have information about this facility from the City of Tukwila and on
the surface it appears that the City of Tukwila is concerned with being a
good neighbor. It is stated in the documentation that there will be no
toxic soil allowed at this facility but how will the community be
guaranteed of this. It is stated in the documentation that there will be no
traffic at this facility except during normal City business hours. Is this
guaranteed? It is stated in the documentation that the odor level of
decomposing organic materials will be monitored and if the odor is
migrating ofVsite the organic material will be reduced. Is there any
guarantee? It is stated in the documentation that the City is aggressively
searching for other organizations to use this facility. If other
organizations are found will the activity at this facility be increased to
meet this added use level? What if anything is guaranteed?
• It is quite obvious that the members of the Department of Community
Development do not live in the community that would be effected by this
facility. It is also quite obvious that the City of Tukwila has had this in
mind foi. a period of time since they have already purchased the property.
' With all of this in mind I am sure this is a project that will in fact be
constructed. I understand this project will bring the City of .Tukwila into
compliances with adopted ordnances. As an affected community member, I also
understand that I must be very active to see that the construction and use
of this facility adheres to all statements in the documents presented to
the City of Tukwila and the community where xI" live.
RESPECTFULLY YbUR
DA A. HrjLE
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director
Deborah Ritter, Associate Planner
FROM: Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist
DATE: February 10, 1998
RE: Request for a Waiver of Sensitive Areas Ordinance - Sensitive Areas Studies:
Public Works Soil Reclamation Facility, SEPA E98 -0001 / Design Review L98 -0002.
This memo is written to respond to Randy Berg's waiver request in a letter dated 2/4/98. The reclamation
project does not propose any sensitive area impacts. There are a couple of details in the letter that I would like
to address. First, the Sensitive Areas Overlay shows the steep slope area below Macadam Road as a Class 3
rating. This area was not addressed in the geotechnical study conducted by Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (Vactor
Waste Facility Project, 4501 S. 134th Street, Tukwila, WA 11/26/97).
A large rock, rockery was installed years ago along this portion of the steep slope. I observed a failed portion
of the slope's rockery located about 40 feet away from the corner of Building B. This is the closest point of
the proposed building structure relative to the slope. Because the slope was altered and stabilized from
previous development, the geologic class may not be an issue. However, the City may need to repair the slope
area in the future to maintain this facility.
The watercourse bordering the site along S. 134th is likely to be rated a Type 2 because it has salmonid fish.
It has been converted to a straight ditch but would still have a standard buffer setback of 35 feet. The setback
has been provided on the site plan. Buffer enhancement is not required for this project's site plan, however,
the buffer area and drainage channel could be enhanced. In -stream structures and additional overhanging
vegetation could be considered for fish enhancements.
Because there are no impacts to sensitive areas on the site, I can recommend that an SAO waiver be granted
and not require sensitive areas studies. The altered steep slope area and associated instability is located
directly below City ROW of Macadam Road and may be considered a Public Works review issue. As a safety
precaution, the activity around the toe of the steep slope should be limited and restricted. I cannot make a
professional recommendation on the adequacy of the current setback from the slope and those site features
located within it.
Please let me know if there are questions concerning this memo.
cc: Randy Berg, Project Manager
Kelcie Peterson, Permit Coordinator
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
NOTICE OF APPLICATION .
DATED FEBRUARY 10, 1998
The following applications have been submitted to the City of Tukwila Department of Community
Development for review and decision.
APPLICANT: Public Works Department, City of Tukwila
LOCATION: 4501 South 134th Place, Tukwila, Washington
FILE NUMBERS: L98 -0001 (SEPA)
L98 -0002 (Design Review)
L98 -0003 (Conditional Use Permit)
PROPOSAL: To construct a Soil Reclamation Facility
OTHER REQUIRED Development Permit
PERMITS: Building Permit
Sign Permit
Utility Permit
These files can be reviewed at the Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter
Blvd., #100, Tukwila, WA. Please call (206) 431 -3670 to ensure that the file(s) will be available.
OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
You can submit comments on this application. You must submit your comments in writing to
the Department of Community Development by 5:00 p.m. on February 24, 1998. This matter
is also scheduled for a public hearing on March 26, 1998. If you are interested in attending the
hearing, please contact the Department at (206) 431 -3670 to ensure that the hearing is still
scheduled for this date. If you cannot submit comments in writing by the cutoff date indicated
above, you may still appear at the hearing and give your comments on the proposal before the
Planning Commission. If you have questions about this proposal contact Deborah Ritter, the
Planner in charge of this file. Anyone who submits written comments will become parties of record
and will be notified of any decision on this project.
APPEALS
You may request a copy of any decision by the Planning Commission on a project or obtain
information on your appeal rights by contacting the Department of Community Development at
431 -3670. A decision from the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council.
DATE OF APPLICATION:
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION:
NOTICE OF APPLICATION POSTED:
January 23, 1997
February 9, 1997
February 10, 1997
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
{
r
CHECK ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW /SHORELINE PER241 AILINGS
( ) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
( ) FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
( ) DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE
(
OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES
) OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
DEPT OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV.
DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE
FEDERAL AGENCIES
( ) U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
( ) U.S. DEPT OF H.U.D.
WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES
( ) K.C. PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEV.
( ) BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD
( ) FIRE DISTRICT #11
( ) FIRE DISTRICT #2
( ) K.C. WATER POLLUTION CNTRL SEPA OFFCL
( .) S CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
( ) TUKWILA LIBRARIES
( ) RENTON LIBRARY
( ) KENT LIBRARY
( ) CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY
) U S WEST
SEATTLE CITY LIGHT
) WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS
HIGHLINE.WATER DISTRICT
SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT
) TCI CABLEVISION
OLYMPIC PIPELINE
( ).KENT PLANNING DEPT
" TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS:
(() PUBLIC WORKS
V. ) POLICE .
(A) PLANNING
(X) PARKS & REC.
(/ ) CITY CLERK
)
( )
( )
FIRE
FINANCE
BUILDING
MAYOR
)PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL
P.S. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE
( ) DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE
( ) VALLEY DAILY NEWS
12/24/97 C :WPS1DATA \CHKLIST
( ) DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV.
( ) DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELANDS DIV
{ ) DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION*
( ) OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
* SEND CHKLIST W/ DETERMINATIONS
* SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION
KING COUNTY AGENCIES
( ) K.C. DEPT OF PARKS
( ) HEALTH DEPT
( ) PORT OF SEATTLE
( ) K.C.DEV & ENVIR SERVICES -SEPA INFO CNTR
( ) K.C. TRANSIT DIVISION - SEPA OFFICIAL
SCHOOLS /LIBRARIES
HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT
K C PUBLIC LIBRARY
SEATTLE MUNI REF LIBRARY
SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT
RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT
UTILITIES.
( ) PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT
(A) VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT
( ) WATER DISTRICT #20
(X) WATER DISTRICT #125
( ) CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS
( ) RAINIER VISTA
( ) SKYWAY
gITY AGENCIES
( ) RENTON PLANNING DEPT
( ) CITY OF SEA -TAC
( ) CITY OF BURIEN
( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS
( ) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
( ) CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER
( ) SEATTLE OFFICE OF MGMNT & PLANNING*
* NOTICE OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ.
OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES
( ) METRO ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DIV.
OFFICE /INDUSTRIAL 5,000 GSF OR MORE
RESIDENTIAL SO UNITS OR MORE
RETAIL 30,000 GSF OR MORE
ME12IA
( ) HIGHLINE TIMES
( ) SEATTLE TIMES
February 9, 1998
City of Tukwila John W Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION
Randy Berg, Project Manager
Public Works Department
Department of Community Development
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100
Tukwila, Washington 98188
RE: SEPA (E98 -0001)
Application for Design Review (L98 -0002)
Application for Conditional Use Permit (L98 -0003)
Dear Randy:
Your application, on behalf of the Public Works Department, for a Soil Reclamation Facility located at 45th
Avenue South and South 134th Place has been found to be complete on February 9, 1998 for the purposes
of meeting state mandated time requirements. As you know, the project has been assigned to Deborah
Ritter and is tentatively scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Commission on March 26, 1998.
The next step is for you to install the notice board on the site and 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 the our office.
This determination of complete application does not preclude the ability of the City to require that you
submit additional plans or information, if in our estimation such information is necessary to ensure the
project meets the substantive requirements of the City or to complete the review process. I' will be
contacting you soon to discuss this project. If you wish to speak to me sooner, feel free to call me at 431-
3663.
Sincerely,
Deborah Ritter
Assistant Planner
cc: Chief Olivas, Fire Department
Joanna Spencer, Public Works
Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 4313670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
z
Z'
re 2
6
00'
N o.
W w:
wx
CO u.
w0
u.
c_2a
�w
z
o.
z �-
U�
0 52
iuz.
(/),
z
Date: 5- Feb -98 17:50:28 '
From: GARY - SCHULZ (GARY SCHULZ)
To: GARY - SCHULZ
Copies -to: DEBORAH,JOANNA,RANDY
Subject: RE: Soil Reclamation Facility
Message -id: E4FBD93401000000
Application -name: MHS
>Date: 5- Feb -98 17:45:59
>From: GARY - SCHULZ (GARY SCHULZ)
>To: DEBORAH
>Copies -to: JOANNA,RANDY
>Subject: RE: Soil Reclamation Facility
>Message -id: D8FAD93401000000
>Application -name: MHS
>
»Date: 4- Feb -98 14:30:45
»From: DEBORAH (DEBORAH RITTER)
»To: JOANNA,GARY - SCHULZ
»Copies -to: DEBORAH
»Subject: Soil Reclamation Facility
»Message -id: 967BD83401000000
»Application -name: MHS
»Just a reminder -- I'll need your completeness comments this Friday
»(2/6/98), as early in the day as possible. Thanks.
>Deborah,
>The application appears to be complete from my perspective. However,
>the Sensitive Areas Waiver request- dated 2/4/98, needs to be discussed
>with the Director and I will follow that with substantive comments. i
>don of believe sensitve area studies are required for completeness.
>I'11 get back to you next week.
>Thank you, Gary
•
City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Public Works Ross A. Earnst, P. E., Director
February 4, 1998
Mr. Steve Lancaster
Planning Director
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: Waiver of Sensitive Areas Ordinance Requirements
Dear Mr. Lancaster:
As the applicant for development permits for the City of Tukwila's proposed Soil
Reclamation Facility, I am formally requesting a waiver from the requirements of the
Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The proposed development site includes two areas
designated as environmentally sensitive due to steep slopes, one along the uphill portion
of the .site (southern property line), and the other along the downhill portion of the site
' (northeastern property line). The site is also bordered by a Class 2 watercourse along
the northeastern property line.
Specifically I am requesting a waiver of the requirement for Sensitive Areas Special
Studies as required under section 18.45.020F, and as allowed under section 18.45.020F.2.
I am also requesting a waiver of requirements listed under 18.45.060 paragraphs 1, 2, 4,
and 5. This waiver is allowed under 18.45.060.
The requested waiver is allowed under the City of Tukwila Zoning Code based on the
following three criteria:
1. Agreement on the classification of the sensitive area. I would offer that the very
steep portion of the site, below Macadam Road, which shows signs of instability is a
Class 4 area of potential geologic instability, and that the area along the northeastern
property line is a Class 1 area of potential geologic instability. If the applicant and the
Planning Department can agree on this, the requirement for special studies can be waived.
2. The development does not detrimentally impact the sensitive areas. The design of
the proposed facility has avoided any disturbance of these areas. The steep slope areas
6300 Southcenter Boulevard. Suite #100 • Tukwila. Washington 98188 • Phone_ 12061433 -0179 • Fax 12061431 -3665
Mr. Steve Lancaster
February 4, 1998
page 2
are already heavily vegetated with trees and ground covers. All vegetation on the steep
slope portions of the site will be left undisturbed. The area along the southern property
line drops very steeply from Macadam Road. This area does show definite signs of areas
of unstable hillside. Past property owners have attempted to level the site by building a
large rockery to retain the hill. A portion of this rockery has slumped. It is well beyond
the scope of this project to stabilize this hillside. Instead the development has pulled
back from this area to allow the hillside to move without damage to the facility. Since
the development does not disturb any of these designated areas there will be no
detrimental impact to these areas from this project.
The development proposes a minimum setback of 35 feet from the Class 3 watercourse to
any construction disturbance with the exception of trenching for utilities. The setback
from the watercourse to the nearest on site paving is over 100 feet. The buffer area is
already heavily planted with trees, and according to the City of Tukwila Urban
Environmentalist, Gary Schulz, will require no further buffer enhancement. The
proposed development is meeting the setback requirements of a Class 2 watercourse
based on the fact that fish may be present now or in the future in this watercourse.
3. That the goals, purposes and objectives of the sensitive areas chapter be followed.
This project in general, and the proposed site plan specifically, do not run counter to any
of the nine standards listed as goals of this chapter. It is important to keep in mind that
this facility is proposed to improve the quality of surface water within the Tukwila
region. As such, it is very much in keeping with goals 1, 2, and 3 of the sensitive areas
chapter. By avoiding disturbance of the steep hillsides, it is also in keeping with goals 4
and 5. Goals 6, 7, 8 and 9 do not apply to this development.
Due to the fact that the project is underfunded, any requirements to do additional studies,
or to mitigate with site improvements will result in a reduction in the amount spent to
construct the facility. This will in turn reduce the functionality of the facility, and so will
in fact lessen the potential beneficial impacts on improved surface water quality.
I have met with Gary Schulz to discuss this project and he is in agreement that this
project should not require any special studies related to the presence of the sensitive
areas. He also mentioned that the Class 3 watercourse may qualify as a Class 2
watercourse. For that reason, the development has met the standards of a Class 2
watercourse.
z
�Z
6
J c-)
U • 0
w ='
•
J F_
wO
g
a:
• I- w,
z�
Z O:
.moo
o N`
w w.
H 0..
• U =.
F-=
z •
Mr. Steve Lancaster
February 4, 1998
page 3.
I have attached a reduced development site plan showing the areas under discussion.
This site plan shows the very large setbacks proposed to avoid the sensitive areas. I have
also attached photos of the steep slope areas showing the vegetative cover to remain. I
hope this letter and the attachments clearly show what is being proposed, and why a
waiver should be granted. If you have any questions or require further information,
please call (1644).
Sincerely,
Rand Berg
cc:, Deborah Ritter
Phil Fraser
Gary Schulz
PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONCURRENCE
BY:
DATE:
:^'_ ..,
Proposed Class 4 Steep Slope Area
Proposed Class 1 Steep Slope Area
;
1
•
• • • , • • • • • • • • -
• • •
ft,,A1.7r. 41•11,00,, ow. •■•••• teltri,•■•3•4,144.1.., PM!, of • ...KAI.
rad remote! o 1m1,0
Atoloo ../14.••/•• •••■• •••
1 VI Atm fiL , ti TO
n!ci
,.,
TT- ,..• ''./f\ikt
' ' • . .
'
.:.,..
...- :. - . 4 .--,
■e/ : > ..,
c.,
. 0
' ' \
, \
%,
o
•'es •>;.)
8"
,t a A11,121-,c,
X1113 1
z
0
LL
0 0
1--
0 (i)
z
0
t.V■1
3
\
0,n
a n
•
*0-7• :•::
7).,5‘ z ...;18.•1•* •
\f/
,
I
-
1
. I
• Iz
f.1.5
I0
/..
I HE I
! I I !
SOIL RECLAMATION FACILITY
STORM DRAINAGE PLAN
-; 71
I ilsj;
L3
— , • "' '
•
z
re 6LI
6D
0 0,
co 0:
cow
w
w u_,
w
g
co
I a
Z
0 •
Z
0 I—,
11/
I 0
.1—
1:e;
Ili co
17: I
0 1-
z
City of Tukwila John W Rants, Mayor
Department of Public Works Ross A. Eamst, P. E, Director
February 3, 1998
Mr. Steve Lancaster
Planning Director
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: Environmental Permit Requirements on the Soils Reclamation Project
Dear Mr. Lancaster:
The Conditional Use Permit Application, Board of Architectural Approval Application
and SEPA Checklist for the proposed City of Tukwila Soils Reclamation Facility have
been completed and turned in to the City for processing. Three areas of environmental
concern remain unresolved. These areas of concern are as follows:
1. Areas along the northern and southern property lines of the site shown on the
sensitive areas overlay due to steep slopes.
2. The presence of a Type 2 watercourse on the northern property line of the site.
3. The presence of contaminated soil below the surface of the site.
The project has tried to avoid disturbance of all three areas of concern.
The steep slope portions of the subject site are located along the northern and southern
property lines. The site slopes from the southwest towards the northeast. The steepest
portion of the site is along the southern property line where the site borders Macadam
Road. Macadam Road runs past the site at about an elevation of 75 feet. The site falls
steeply to approximately an elevation of 43 feet. At the steepest, the site falls about 30
feet vertically in about 30 feet horizontally. There is evidence of unstable hillside in this
area, and the area should be considered a Class 4 slope.
t711n Cr11'tl te'nfor R/llrlovarrl C „It' *1110 • TrrPwlla. Waehlnornn OR1RR • Phone: 12061433-0179 • Fax /2061431.3665
� :`
`.
z
z;
cw
Qom:
J U
U0
t. y 0
w;
WI
—I�
LL
wo
22 d
w;
z�
I— 0.
Z �.
U�
O -;
H
W W''
— o,
ui z,
U N!.
z
Mr. Steve Lancaster
Feb. 3, 1998
page 2
This very steep portion of the site is the area of greatest concern. The development
avoids disturbing this area. The project can not structurally address the unstable hillside.
As a result, the project recognizes a risk of movement and has. pulled the structures away
from this area to avoid future damage if the hillside does move. The minimum setback to
site improvements (paving) is 50 feet along this property line, and the minimum setback
to a structure in this area is over 90 feet. The area of the hillside is heavily treed, and this
landscaping is to remain undisturbed.
Moving away from the steep slope area along Macadam Road at the southern end of the
site, most of the remaining site is fairly flat, falling gently toward the northeast.
However, the site gets steeper at the northern property line where the slope drops to 134th
Place. This area has a maximum slope of about 20% and shows no signs of instability.
This area is probably a Class 1, or possibly a Class 2 slope. This is also the area of the
Class 2 watercourse which runs in a drainage swale within the 134th Place right of way.
This watercourse may qualify as a Class 3 watercourse.
To address the environmentally sensitive nature of this area the proposed development
has again practiced avoidance. The development maintains a minimum construction
setback of 35 feet along 134th Place. This is wide enough to encompass all of the steep
slope area in this portion of the site. This also guarantees a 35 foot minimum setback
from the watercourse which runs in a drainage swale along the 134th Place right of way.
The project will require some trenching in this area for required utility connections. In
addition, the proposal includes discharge of storm water into the Class 2 watercourse.
The last area of concern is the presence of contaminated fill dirt below the surface of the
site. This "dirty" dirt was first identified in the level one hazardous materials site survey
conducted at the time the City purchased the property. This material, referred to in the
study as "kiln dust," was apparently placed on the neighboring property to the northwest
as fill. Some of this contaminated fill spilled over onto a portion of the subject site. The
contaminated fill is found at about 4 feet below existing grade.
The fill material is shown to have elevated pH levels and amounts of cadmium, arsenic
and lead in reportable quantities. Ground water samples taken on site and in the vicinity
showed a slightly raised pH. The samples also found that the other contaminates were
stable, and not migrating. Therefore the proposed development has avoided disturbing
this area, and has designed the storm water system, including the bio -swale and detention
pond, to avoid infiltration of ground water into this area. The bio -swale and detention
pond will have sealed bottoms.
Mr. Steve Lancaster
Feb. 3, 1998
page 3
Because of the steps taken to avoid disturbing the designated environmentally sensitive
areas, it is hoped that the project will be granted a waiver from the Sensitive Areas
Ordinance requirements. I have talked to Gary Schulz about dnhancing the vegetation
along the class 2 watercourse, and he has indicated that no additional vegetation is
required. The watercourse buffer on the subject site has adequate vegetation already.
Please consider these environmental concerns and how they are being addressed in the
proposed development. I consider the steps taken in the development to be sufficient to
address these concerns. If the City will require additional mitigation of these items,
please let me know so I can include the mitigations in the upcoming public hearing.
Thank you for your time in considering these matters. Please let me know if you require
any additional information.
Sincerely,
Randy Berg
Project Manager
cc: Phil Fraser
Deborah Ritter
.....
Z
Z •
6
-.I C.)
'00
w =;
J1_,.
co
w 0;
J'
u_ Q
d'.
1-w.
z1.-;
1- 0'
zF
U �(
co
w w'
1--V`
Hi
0:
U -.
}
0
z.
Attachment 2: Vactor Facilities O•erations Manual Table of Contents
Testing procedures including current Federal, State, and Local testing
requirements and solid /liquid minimum standards along with a list of test labs
that are available to conduct tests.
Biologic Treatment Procedures for Waste Materials.
Procedures for Vactor Materials handling, materials testing, and recordkeeping
in an easy to administer format.
■ Other material as requested by the City.
- 10 -
1
,.,
z
j
�J Vi.
O Os
00
CO W;
W =;
I-
11.;
w 0`,.
g J.
,CO D'
_
Z �.
I— O
z�;
LIJ
ww.
H V;
-- O
Cu ui
O.
z
SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION
Assist the City with engineering, inspections, survey, change orders and final approval
of the Vactor Facility.
2. OPERATIONS MANUAL AND TRAINING SESSIONS
Provide a Vactor Facilities Opetotrsnsupervisors, M and other City sPersonnel for
One
truck and waste facilities opera
camera ready original and sixty copies of the manual will be provided. (See
Attachment 2 for report contents.)
A. BACKGROUND
i
C...trol No.
Epic File No. a0 • ectn I
Fee: Receipt No.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
▪ Name of proposed project, if applicable:
City of Tukwila Soil Reclamation Facility
2. Name of applicant:
City of Tukwila
• Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100
Tukwila, WA 98188
(206) 433 -0179; Randy Berg
• Date checklist prepared:
December 4, 1997
5. Agency requesting checklist
City of Tukwila
CITY OF ETUKWILA
JAN 2 3'1998
PERMIT CENTER
Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
Construction of Phase 1 is planned to begin in the Spring of 1998. Later Phases to begin
as funds become available.
. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or
connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
No.
• List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be
prepared, directly related to this proposal.
Level one hazardous material site assessment.
Geotechnical and soils investigation and report.
Page 1
:
ATTACHMENT H
mow,
.
JU
o0.
w 2;
J •
w O.
gag'
n
= cy.
-4 w.
o
zlh
LIJ
n co
0 F-
w w;
z
I- U
uiz
UN
O
z
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECI.LIST
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other
proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
No.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal.
Conditional Use Permit, Board of Architectural Review Approval, Building and
Construction Permits, Metro Sewer Discharge Permit.
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the
size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask
you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those
answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and
alternates of your proposal and should not be summarized here.
The proposal is to construct a new vactor waste facility. The new facility will include two
large open pole buildings (Bldg. A 13,500 sq. ft, and Bldg. B. 4,000 sq. ft.) for dumjping,
storing, and decanting of street sweepings, ditch and catch basin tailings and organic
wastes from parks department maintenance operations (leaves and clippings). Planned
improvements also include a 400 sq. ft. office and restroom facility. Site improvements
will include parking for 6 cars, and screening and perimeter landscaping and fencing.
The proposed site is about 2.3 acres.
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 project is located in the City of Tukwila, at 4501 134th Place, all lying within the NE
1/4 of Section 15, Township 23 Range 4, W.M., King County, Washington.
13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use
Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive?
The site includes an area of steep slopes designated as environmentally sensitive. No
development is planned on the steep portion of the site. Additionally, a water course
designated as 15 -1 has been identified and inventoried along the north property line. At
the time of the inventory this stream was classified as a Type 3 stream. Although the
water course runs in a drainage swale, it may have fish present and may therefore be a
Type 2 stream.
., ,
Page 2
•
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECK —ST
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes,
mountainous, other
The site is very steep along the southern property line, is mostly flat falling
gradually to the north in the central portion of the site and getting steeper again at x z
the northern edge of the property. 2
V:
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? c)
The maximum slope is approximately about 80 %. w
w o
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (f or example, clay, sand, gravel,
peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and g.
note any prime farmland. u. <'
The site soils are a mixture of native materials and imported fill: • The native soil is a w
dense gravelly borrow material with sandy silts and silty clay. Imported soils vary, z
being mostly pit run material,. but include contaminated kiln dust under a portion of z o
the site. Site soil conditions are so varied that one must read the geotechnical w;
information to get a clear picture of the subsurface conditions.
0 ST
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? = v.
If so, describe.
Yes, the steep slope portion of the site shows signs of movement in the past.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading z
proposed. Indicate source of fill.
The project is designed as balanced cut and fill.
Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction,or use? If so, generally
describe.
Yes, due to the fact that the site slopes to the north erosion is possible where bare
dirt is exposed to runoff.
About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after
project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
About 35% of the site will be covered with impervious surface.
Page 3
ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC:IST
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if
any:
• Temporary erosion control will be employed during construction as required.
Following construction, the site will be either impervious or vegetated. Runoff from
all impervious surfaces will be channeled into a storm water system.
2. Air z
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, z
automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the
project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if v p;
known.
t N
• ='.
J 1—.
iu O
b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If g -�
w a;
so, generally describe. a
▪ w.
2
z�.
o
z�
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: t uj
U °
o ff'.
o !-
w W
w z
U N'
O F"
There will be dust and exhaust emissions during construction. When under
operation some odor from composting materials is possible.
No.
Water trucks will be used as standard dust suppression during construction. The
City will monitor the occurances of composting odor and will control the amount of
composting materials delivered to the site' to minimize offsite odors.
3. Water
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site
(including year -round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds,
wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what
stream or river it flows into.
The site is bordered on the north by a water course located in a drainage swale
which has been classified as Type 3, but may actually qualify as a Type 2 stream.
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, some work will occur in the immediate vicinity of the drainage swale. Treated
runoff may be directed into the water course, underground utilities may pass below
the stream.
Page 4
z
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECR_AST
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed
from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be
affected. Indicate the source of fill material.
None.
Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known.
No.
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 materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic
tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial,
containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the general
size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be
served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are
expected to serve.
None.
c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection
and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water
flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe
Storm water will be gathered into catch basins, run through an oil water
separator and bio- filtration swale and detention pond, then discharged into
the drainage swale which has been designated at water course 15 -1.
Page 5
z •
w.
6�
J U;
O 0
W (0=
J
w o.
= co.
w
z �.
o.
zI-
• uj
n o`
0 •
o1
w w.
• z.
Liu •
H =
O
z..
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECk T
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally
describe.
No.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts,
if any:
A storm water drainage system that meets King County Design Standards is
proposed.
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
X
deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
X
evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
X
shrubs
X .
grass
_pasture
crop or grain
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other
water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other
other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
Brush and grass will be removed to accommodate contruction of buildings and site
improvements.
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
None known.
"Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or
enhance vegetation on the site, if any:
The proposal will not require removal of any on -site trees. Property restoration will
include seeding and planting of trees and shrubs.
Page 6
.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
5. Animals
a. Circle any birds or animals which have been observed on or near the site or are
• known to be on or near the site:
Birds:.
hawk, songbirds, migratory water fowl, other:
Mammals:
raccoons, squirrels, small rodents, other:
Fish:
bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other:
Other:
z
ice,
ct w
u��.
UO
N 0
w=
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. u.. :
iu
No.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: a
None proposed. Z �.
H O.
Z
Energy and Natural Resources 2 uj.
0—'
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to 0 1—
meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for .x v'.
.
heating, manufacturing, etc. u6 o
Electricity. v co:
O
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
None known.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties?
If so, generally describe.
No.
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this
proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any:
None beyond what is required by the Washington State Energy Code.
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.
Yes, the level one hazardous material site assessment discovered kiln ash fill
material contaminated with heavy metals. This material is stable and contaminated
z
ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC. �IST
substances are not migrating. The proposed development avoids disturbance of this
soil
Operation of the facility will require some handling of hazardous wastes. When
liquids and solids are pumped from strom drainage systems, some hazardous
materials may be present. These hazardous materials will be tested for, and when
found, will be disposed of at an approved hazardous material waste dump. Proper
handling of these materials will require staff training and testing procedures. At no
time are hazardous materials to be dumped at the proposed facility. It is important
to point out that the vactor operation is not producing hazardous materials, but is
rather specifically intended to remove pollutants from the local water system.
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
None.
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
Avoid disturbance of contaminated fill, leave it sealed below the surface.
Institute training and testing procedures to insure the proper handling of
hazardous materials encountered in the handling of vacotr wastes.
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for
example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
Not applicable.
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or .associated with the
project on a short -term or long -term basis (for example: traffic, construction,
operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site.
Noise generated by the construction equipment will occur on a short term
basis. Similar noises of heavy machinery are likely during operation of the__._
facility.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
Restrict hours of construction and operation of the facility to comply with the
City's noise ordinance.
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
The site is currently vacant. Surrounding uses are mostly industrial, with single
family uses to the west.
Page 8
z
mow`
00
U U-
w=
N U_
wo
g
u_
v.
F. w
z
o'
z
2 M.
U�
o 1-.
w
1--
LL o
Z
w
U=
0 f'
z .
ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC_ _IST
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.
What is the current zoning classification of the site?
Commercial /Light Industrial.
e.
What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
Commercial/ Light Industrial.
z
� w
re 2
6
U O`
w=
J
N LL
wo
u_<
a
If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? z:
z1--
Not applicable. z
111 uj
U D
ON
0 I-.
Yes, a large area of the southern portion of the property is sensitive due to steep = v
slopes. A smaller area along the northern propety line is also designated as sensitive ;u. o;
due to steep slopes. The northern property line also adjoins a water course
designated as Type 3, but which may qualify as a Type 2 stream. 0
0
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If
so, specify.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
Two or three employees will work part time at the facility when completed.
Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
None.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
j•
N/A
I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected
land uses and plans, if any:
None.
• Housing
Page 9
z
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECI.LIST
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low- income housing?
None.
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether
high, middle, or low - income housing.
None.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
None
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not .including antennas;
what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
Maximum proposed building height is 32 feet. Primary exterior building material is
24 gauge standing seam metal roof with factory finished color applied.
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.
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?
No.
c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
None.
Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
None.
'"'..
:,
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
12. Recreation
a. What designed and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate
vicinity?
N/A
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.
None known.
Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific,
or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.
None known.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
None.
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access
to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
The facility will be accessed off South 134th Place using an existing driveway
easement adjoining the site along the eastern property line.
• Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate
distance to the nearest transit stop?
No.
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the
project eliminate?
The project will include 6 parking spaces.
z
Z.
J 0
o o.
CO
W I
H.,
N LL
w O.
w Q.
�_.
Z 1.
1- O,
Z �-
11J uj‘
Dc
U
io
w • w:
L-'8.
wz
O N
O
z
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECI.LIST
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.
How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If
known, indicate when peak volumes would occur.
The project may generate up to 20 trips per day but averages will be much lower
since no trips per day will be generated on most days.
Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
None.
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire
protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe.
No increase is expected.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.
None.
16. Utilities
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse
service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the
service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate
vicinity which might be needed.
Electricity from Seattle City Light.
Water and sewer from the City of Tukwila.
Telephone from US West.
Page 12
'
z
z
re 11.
6
J U'
00•
co CI
w =;
J I-
CJ)
�.
wo
g ¢.
�w
z�
o:
z
w uj
moo'
UU
o f-
lu
z,
US
01
z
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
C. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the
lead agency is relying on them to make its decision.
Signature:
Date Submitted:
D. 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 foregoing 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 objectives of the proposal?
The vactor waste will be gathered from catch basins, street sweepings, and drainage
swales in the City of Tukwila and treated on the site, or taken to a hazardous material
dump site. This will result in increased water quality in the City of Tukwila surface water
and storm water systems.
What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives?
The treatment of vactor wastes are required by code, the City of Tukwila is not in
compliance with this requirement. Alternatives are to remain out of compliance or share
a facility with other cities or with King County. No other juristictions have been found to
be interested in sharing a facility.
Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action:
Remaining out of compliance is not an acceptable option. A shared facility has been
investigated and no acceptable shared facility alternative has been found.
4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use
Policy Plan?
No.
5. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are:
None.
Page 13
•
Tukwila Soils Reclamation Facility
Conditional Use
Project Narrative
Introduction
The proposed Tukwila Soils Reclamation Facility is intended to handle vactor wastes.
Vactor wastes are solids and liquids generated by storm drainage maintenance operations.
Liquids and sediments collect in catch basins, retention/detention ponds, pipes and
swales. These liquids and solids are removed by the vactor pump trucks, and may
contain petroleum hydrocarbons and heavy metals and other contaminates. These
contaminates have the potential to pollute surface and ground waters if left in the storm
drainage system or if disposed of improperly. This facility is proposed to meet the goal
of maintaining or improving the quality of surface and ground water within the City of
Tukwila.
The need for a facility to handle vactor waste is well documented in the King County
Surface Water Management Manual adopted by the City of Tukwila as part of the "City
of Tukwila Surface Water Management Comprehensive Plan." In addition the goals and
requirements of such a facility are documented in the "Regional Vactor Waste Disposal
Model Plan" prepared by King County Surface Water Management and the Washington
State Department of Ecology.
In addition to construction of a facility to accept vactor wastes, a system of training and
testing will be required to insure the proper handling of the wastes. Vactor operators will
be required to attend training sessions to insure the proper handling, testing and disposing
of the materials generated in the storm drainage system. A system of sampling and
testing the wastes for the presence of hazardous materials will be required as part of the
day to day operation of the facility. Vactor waste found to have hazardous materials will
be required to be dumped at an approved hazardous waste disposal facility.
Operation
The new facility will accept vactor soils and liquids from storm drainage systems. These
soils will be pumped into a vactor waste truck in a saturated state. The saturated soils
will be taken to the Soil Reclamation Facility site to be decanted. This decanting will
entail dumping the saturated soils on the floor of one of the open air buildings to drain off
excess water and to allow the soils to dry. Runoff from this procedure will be routed to
the Metro sewer. Metro has been a leading advocate of a regional vactor waste disposal
system.
The site will also accept leaves and clippings from the Tukwila Parks Department to be
used as composting material. The amount of composting material accepted will be
monitored to minimize migration of odors off site.
ATTACHMENT I
•z
w
6
J0'
00
CO C3
v� w
w z;
u.
w0
.w
3
1
F- w _
z�
I- 0.
Z i—
Ill La:
cn
0
w w:
1
0
w z,
01.
z
When the saturated soils have been properly dried, the soils will be mixed with
composted material to create a rich top soil mixture. This newly produced top soil will be
used on City of Tukwila projects, or may be made available to the public.
Nearly all storm water runoff in the City of Tukwila eventually goes to the Duwamish
River. Removing the soils from the storm drainage system will insure that these soils and
associated pollutants do not migrate to the river. This will reduce the amount of siltation
in the river system, and improve the quality of the water.
Operation of the proposed facility will not require full time staff presence. The facility
will be staffed on an as- needed basis using existing City staff. Workers will dump vactor
waste soils, monitor the decanting process, pickup and mix the soils. Workers will dump
organic materials on site for composting and turn the composting materials periodically.
When composted the organics, will be mixed with the decanted soils and taken off site.
Design
Due to limited funding, the project is proposed in Phases. The full scope of Phase 1 can
not be finalized until a detailed design and cost estimate is completed. Phase 1 will
necessarily include all of the sanitary sewer drainage system and the open air buildings to
provide covering for the areas drained to the sanitary sewers. Phase 1 will also include
required paving, perimeter fencing, and site landscaping, and storm drain improvements.
Phase 1 will not include the office building or site restrooms.
The open air buildings are proposed to be prefabricated and pre- engineered structures
manufactured by Butler Buildings. The larger of the two open air buildings is to be
13,500 square feet, 150 feet long by 90 feet in width, and 30 feet in height. This building
will be used to decant and store vactor waste soils. The smaller of these structures is to
be 4,000 square feet, 40 feet by 100 feet, and about 28 feet in height. This building will
be used to compost organic materials and mix with the soils generated in the large
building. The proposed office building and restrooms are meant to serve staff needs on
site.
Conditional Use Criteria
1. The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to the property or improvements in the vicinity.
The purpose of the proposed facility is to enhance the quality of surface water in the area,
and as such is certainly not detrimental to the public welfare. Construction of the facility
will prove to be beneficial to the local environment, and so will benefit public welfare.
The proposed use will not be injurious to surrounding properties. The site is zoned for
industrial use. Most of the surrounding land uses are industrial in nature. The site is
bordered by residential uses to the south, but this area is well screened with vegetation
and by grade separation. Macadam Road, which borders the site on the south, is about 30
feet above the portion of the subject site proposed for development. Due to the heavy
vegetation of trees on the southern portion of the site, the subject site can not be seen
from Macadam Road, or from the residential areas across Macadam Road.
2. The proposed use shall meet or exceed the same standards for parking, landscaping,
yards and other development regulations that are required in the district it will occupy.
The proposed design is in compliance with all of the development standards required for
the site. Due to the steepness of the site along the northern and southern property lines,
these areas have been designated as environmentally sensitive. The proposed
development avoids disturbing these areas. This creates both front and rear yard setbacks
which greatly exceed the development standards. Proposed side yards are 10 feet, twice
what the code requires. Existing views into the site are very restricted. Proposed
perimeter landscaping will further screen the site from view from surrounding properties
and roads. Visual impacts on surrounding uses will be minimal.
3. The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding land
uses.
The proposed use will require the transportation, processing and storage of soils. These
are the kinds of activities associated with the Commercial/Light Industrial zone in which
the project is located, and as such these activities are compatible with surrounding land
uses. The proposed use is very similar to many of the outright allowed uses within the
1997 City of Tukwila Zoning Code. Uses such as greenhouses or manufacturing are
similar to the proposed use and are allowed without Conditional Use Permits. Impacts on
surrounding residential uses are minimal due to the setbacks, and perimeter screening of
the proposed facility.
4. The proposed use shall be in keeping with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed facility is required to meet King County Storm Water Standards. It is also
in keeping with the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan: Goal 1.4 Vegetated Hillsides which
refers to retaining trees on steep hillsides, Goal 4.1 Retention and Improvement of
Hillsides, wetlands and watercourses for wildlife habitat, recreational uses, water quality
enhancement, and flood control functions, Goal 4.5 A system of water resources that
functions as a healthy integrated whole, and provides a long term public benefit from
enhanced environmental quality, Goal 5.10 Improved water quality and quantity control
programs affecting the Green/Duwamish River that improve the River's water quality,
provide habitat for fish and wildlife, protect public health and safety, and enhance public
enjoyment of the river, Goal 12.1 Utility services and facilities that meet the community's
current and future needs in a safe, reliable, efficient economic and environmentally
responsible manner, Policies 12.1.26 through 12.1.30 which all refer to implementing
Surface Water Management utility goals.
.
The "Model Plan for Regional Vactor Waste Disposal" published jointly by Washington
State Department of Ecology and King County Surface Water Management (Feb. 1994)
is part of the King County Surface Water Management Manual which has been adopted
by the City of Tukwila, outlining requirements for constructing and maintaining storm
drainage systems. This document outlines the need for facilities such as this for handling
and disposing of vactor wastes.
5. All measures shall be taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts which the
proposed use may have on the area in which it is located.
One potential source of adverse environmental impact associated with this project is the
handling of potential hazardous materials. The City of Tukwila will be instituting a
program of training City staff to detect the presence of hazardous materials. A procedure
for testing liquids and soils for the presence of hazardous materials will be instituted, and
hazardous materials will be disposed of off site in an approved hazardous waste dump. It
is important to remember that this facility is not generating hazardous materials, but is
treating and disposing of potential hazardous materials already present and uncontrolled
in the environment.
Noise, smell or visual impacts on surrounding properties are likely adverse impacts
associated with this project. Noise generated by use of trucks and/or backhoes on site
will not create enough decibels off site to be considered an adverse impact. Smells often
associated with composting of organic materials will be carefully monitored during
operation of the facility. If off site odors are a problem, the City will decrease the amount
of composting until no problem exists. Visual impacts on surrounding properties will be
minimized by careful screening using existing and proposed perimeter landscaping.
Another potential source of adverse impact is the existing contaminated soil identified on
a portion of the subject site. Geotechnical investigation has shown that this soil is stable,
is not migrating and, if left undisturbed, should pose no danger. The development has
been carefully designed to avoid disturbance of this soil.
Soil Reclamation Facility
Board of Architectural Review
Project Narrative
I. Project Background
The proposed City of Tukwila Soil Reclamation Facility will be used to handle vactor
wastes. Vactor wastes are solids and liquids generated in storm drainage maintenance
operations. Liquids and sediments collect in catch basins, retention and detention ponds,
pipes and swales. These materials are pumped out using vactor pump trucks. The liquids
and solids removed by these trucks often contain petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals
or other contaminants. Vactor wastes are to be tested for the presence of hazardous
materials. Waste found to have hazardous materials would be disposed of at an approved
hazardous waste dump. Only materials found to be free of hazardous wastes would be
treated on site at the proposed Soil Reclamation Facility.
Name of Project: City of Tukwila Soil Reclamation Facility
Address of Project: 4501 South 134th Place, Tukwila WA
Contact: Randy Berg
6300 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
Phone: (206) 433 -0179 ext. 1644
II. Design Review Guidelines
A. Relationship of Structure to Site
The Soil Reclamation Facility is primarily an engineered solution to the vactor waste
problem. As such, the facility has to meet certain functional needs. While meeting the
functional requirements, the facility maintains a desirable transition for the streetscape by
maintaining very large front and rear yard setbacks, and using existing and proposed
perimeter landscaping to visually screen the facility from the surrounding streets. The
facility is located as near to the center of the site as possible to provide adequate front,
rear and side yards to moderate the visual impact on all surrounding properties. Because
the subject site is long and narrow, sideyards are restricted to 10 feet. Required side
yards are 5 feet for the zone. The two proposed buildings are 13,500 square feet, and
4,000 square feet. Proposed building heights are 30 and 28 feet respectively. No massing
alternatives have been investigated in the design process because the functionality of the
proposed facility dictates the dimensions of the buildings. However, the massing is not
out of scale with surrounding uses.
B. Relationship of Structures & Site to Adjoining Areas
Impact on surrounding properties is primarily a concern on the west property line. The
'neighboring property owner on this side of the proposed facility sold the property to the
City with the understanding of what is to be built on the property. To screen the facility
from this property a solid.wall of columnar evergreens (incense cedar) is proposed.
ATTACHMENT J
•z
i--
Z.
CC 2
6
JU
UO
W W`
J �.
w O'
•co
is
I-w
zI-
H O.
z E-:
U �
O g
=w
oi.
- O.
w z
rz
•O
z
Existing trees to remain already screen the site from 134th Street to the north and
Macadam Road to the south. The property to the east is warehouse use with their backs
turned toward the'subject site. No windows or walkways exist on the back of these
warehouses. This property will also be screened using red cedar and other evergreen
trees to provide year -round screening.
The existing neighborhood is industrial in character, and so this use is in keeping with the
neighborhood character. The site is laid out to maximize vehicular efficiency with drive
through dumping. Little or no pedestrian access from off site is anticipated. The site
uses an existing driveway to access the site off 134th. This will minimize impacts on
existing vehicular circulation on the street.
C. Landscape and Site Treatment
Existing topography help screen the site from surrounding streets. As much as possible
the existing topography has been left undisturbed. The steep areas along the north and
south property line have been designated as environmentally sensitive, and as such have
been left undisturbed. The site plan has been designed to be functional, not necessarily
inviting. It is likely that making the site too inviting would create an attractive nuisance.
The design goal has instead been to make the facility as invisible as possible from the
surrounding properties. Similarly, landscaping has been designed more to screen the
proposed facility than to enhance the architecture. Coniferous trees have been proposed
to serve as landscape screens in all seasons.
Proposed on -site lighting has been designed and placed to provide light in work areas
while minimizing offset light and glare. Areas to be lit are mainly under the building
canopies, or between the buildings.
D. Building Design
The proposed facility is not an architectural solution, but is rather an engineering
solution. As such there are no building components such as windows, doors, parapet to
incorporate into the design. Building design for this project is entirely functional. All of
the design decisions have been based on cost and function.
E. Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture
No street furniture is proposed for this project.
III. Design Review Policies
A through I. Not applicable
J. Public Facilities/Utilities /Street
The proposed facility is best described as a utility since it is a working part of the storm
drainage system. The public is as a rule not invited into this facility. The facility will be
used by the City of Tukwila and others who maintain the storm drainage system in the
private sector. The project has investigated sharing this facility with other jurisdictions,
but at this time has no other users are participating in the project. The City will continue
to look for other jurisdictions to share the facility.
The site is not large enough to offer any significant open space. The facility is not on a
street served by public transit, and the steep nature of the site at the street interface is not
conducive to use as a bus stop. No public art is anticipated at this site since the public
will have little interaction with the facility.
6
.J U'
U 0;
{:tnCI
co
• W =:
W 0
LL Q;
woo:
rY' '
Z F—�r:
: Cs
W
.� U
0.
iu
z
0.
Z.'
TO: CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
REFER: PROPOSED SOIL REC:LAMAT I ON FACILITY
FROM: DALE A. SHAWLEY
13467 MACADAM RD. SO.
TUKW I LA WASH. 98168
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
2-15-98
Being a member of the community surrounding the proposed site for the
new Soil Reclamation Facility I must say this does not appear to be
something that will enhance my community. I can foresee an odor from this
facility, noise that would add to the already high noise level, and perhaps
many more items that would have a detrimental effect on the quality of life
and the property values in this community.
I have information about this facility from the City of Tukwila and on
the surface it appears that the City of Tukwila is concerned with being a
good neighbor. It is stated in the documentation that there will be no
toxic sail allowed at this facility but how will the community be
guaranteed of this. It is stated in the documentation that there will be no
'traffic at this facility except during normal City business hours. Is this
guaranteed'"' It is stated in the documentation that the odor level of
decomposing organic materials will be monitored and if the odor is
migrating off-site the organic material will be reduced. Is there any
guarantee? It is stated in the documentation that the City is aggressively
searching for ether organizations to use this facility. If ether
organizations are found will the activity at this facility be increased to
meet this added use level? What if anything is guaranteed?
It is quite obvious that the members of the Department of Community
Development do not live in the community that would be effected by this
facility. It is also quite obvious that the City of Tukwila has had this in
mind for a period of time since they have already purchased the property.
With all of this in mind I am sure this is a project that will in fact be
constructed. I understand this project will bring the City of Tukwila into
compliances with adopted u_urdnances. As an affected community member, I also
understand that I must be very active to see that the construction and use
of this facility adheres to o all statements in the documents presented to
the City of Tukwila and the community where "I" live.
RESPECTFULLY YOUR
DALE A. H
ATTACHMENT K
To: City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
Subj.: E98-0001 (SEPA)
L98-0002 (DESIGN Review)
L98-0003 (conditional use permit)
r""' •-•"•• 1 " 7'7" 7' -'
• , ;••••••• • --••
22 Feb 1998
Currently I'm opposed to this project. In discussions with D. Ritter and my neighbor,
this project will create dust and odor problems. Both of which will lower my property
value. I have always thought that this land was zoned light industrial. As a Ceramic
Engineer, material processing has always been a heavy industry due to the nature of
material handling. As a Sales Engineer for a clay company, even the wet processing has
caused dust problems (even within an enclosed building). The decomposition process
has always caused odors. If in doubt visit the transfer station on 188th and Military Rd,
the odor is the decomposition process. Please find a different location. I suggest the land
near the Metro Processing Plant
I formally request a copy of any Planning Commission Decision
Robert Shirley J. Merkle
13515 Macadam Rd. So
Tukwila, Wa 98168
206 243-5731
' ' '
,z
z
w
2
n
...I ,
0 0
February 22, 1998
David F. Hussey III
13457 Macadam Rd. South
Tukwila, Wash. 98168
206 - 2434305
The City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Wa. 98188
Dear Mr Randy Berg, and Ms Deborah Ritter:
I am strongly opposed to the city's plan to locate and operate a
soil reclamation facility on the property at 4501 South 134th Place. This
property is north across the street from my residence on Macadam Rd.
South, (south 135th street per your notice of application) and will have a
negative impact on my property value, health, and quality of living.
While the property in question is located in an area zoned for
commercial /industrial use, the noise, dust, and odors will most certainly
not respect the boundary, to my detriment. My neighborhood has
suffered and endured the presence of the existing industries to our
north with the increased noise, air, and light pollution they bring, along
with increased traffic. Our complaints to the city have gone unanswered.
Do not ask us to accept more inconvenience. Surely a more suitable
area for such a facility exists elsewhere.
Sincerely,
David F. Hussey III
February 24, 1998
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100
Tukwila, WA 98188
Attention: Deborah Ritter
Re: Soil Reclamation Facility
Dear Deborah:
In the past few years there has been a general positive improvement to the area where the
proposed soil reclamation facility is planned to be located. There has been new residential construction
and the existing houses have also been making improvements. The existing residential area and
commercial- industrial area seem to be co- existing.
In a community there should be a transition between residential uses and heavy industrial uses (i.e.
low density residential, medium density residential, high density residential, office, commercial, light
industry, and heavy industry). In this area of the City there is no such transition. With this proposal the
City has proposed a heavy industrial use almost next to a low density residential zone.
The proposed soil reclamation project also does not conform to the existing City zoning, as
evidenced by the need for a Conditional Use Permit. The•proposed facility also goes directly against the
1995 Comprehensive Plan which states, "The Council's new plan sets out several major goals; Number
one is to improve and sustain residential neighborhood quality and livability." The proposed reclamation
facility does not improve or sustain the residential neighborhood's quality or livability. In fact, it adds
extensive pollution, smell, and noise problems to the neighborhood.
There is also the concern that now that the City has allowed this reclamation facility through the
Conditional Use Permit process, the door is open for similar facilities in the area, by private industry.
This facility is moving the community in the wrong direction and would cause deterioration to
our neighborhood, a neighborhood that is making positive improvements.
This type of facility would be better located in the area where the Metro sewer treatment plant
is located. There are other existing reclamation type facilities near the sewer treatment plant and along
Monster Road.
I would appreciate the City taking into consideration our concerns and consider locating the
reclamation facility in a more suitable location.
L00001 %1.405 Page 1 of 1
HGG Inc. February 24, 1998
Very truly yours,
John Thompson
Owner of 4503 South 136th
4,pO26 S 5
48 / 5 So 'i / ?o'=
7n/ 7 /_ -437-7 /r;r�.
C= IJ(; - I ;-•:
MEMORANDUM
TO: Phil Fraser
Deb Ritter
FROM: Randy Berg
DATE: March 10, 1998
RE: Summary of Findings in Snohomish County Street Waste Study
In 1995 Snohomish County retained Landau Associates, Inc. to study the contaminates
present in vactor wastes. The conclusions of the report are less than definite. The report
looked specifically for heavy metals, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), and
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH).
All three contaminates are found in street waste samples. Amounts found were compared
to criteria identified by the Snohomish Health District and compared with regulations
governing solid wastes, toxic cleanup requirements and water quality. Risked based
estimates of exposure to contaminates at the concentrations detected were developed to
evaluate possible reuse of street wastes.
Conclusions:
• Vactor wastes are not typically dangerous.
• Ecology and Health District regulations support reuse of these materials.
• Metal contaminates are not found in reportable or regulated amounts.
• Analysis results for TPH in all samples exceed Model Toxic Control Act (MICA)
method A cleanup levels for TPH in soil.
• - Measurements of TPH in samples is skewed by presence of organics. WTPIT -418.1
Testing Method using acid wash before analysis to minimize organics resulted in
lower TPH levels and should increase management and reuse options.
• PAH and carcinogenic PAH (CPAH) levels found may exceed MTCA criteria for
residential soil cleanup requirements, limiting reuse options to solid waste landfill, or
reuse in non - residential settings, particularly commercial, industrial and recreational
settings.
• Composting contributes to decreases in detected TPH concentrations. The longer the
composting the greater the expected reduction in TPH. It is anticipated that
composting will also reduce the CPAH levels, but this was not part of this study.
My personal conclusions drawn from this report are that vactor wastes do contain
contaminates. That the level of contaminates present do not pose a health threat to
neighbors or'on site workers. That contamination of TPH and CPAH may be found in
regulated amounts, but only in Model A cleanup and reporting amounts, not in the more
serious Model B cleanup and reporting amounts, and as such may not be appropriate for
ATTACHMENT L
use in residential settings, but may be used in other settings. That composting the street
waste material will result in lower levels of TPH and CPAH.
Based on these conclusions I recommend that all vactor soils be tested when collected
and be composted and retested for contaminates. Soils found to exceed Model A levels
of TPH and CPAH after composting be disposed of at solid waste disposal site (not a
hazardous materials site) although this material can be used in non - residential settings.
Soils tested and found to exceed Model B levels be disposed of at a hazardous materials
dump site, and should notbe taken to the vactor waste site at all. Soils found to be
contaminated below the Model A levels should be mixed with composted organics and
used in non - residential settings.
Based on the findings of this report I see no risk of exposure to surrounding properties.
{
Q
•
• .s•
;
mow`
6
•
• J.0
:up.:
• co w;
.w s;•
N �
;w O.
ga`
• mod,
• 1.w.
z
.z
Lu
Cl
off';
W:
.
U
Z'
• O F-
z
CItECKLIS.. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW /SHORELINE PERMIT I•. .,INGS
• ( ) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
( ) FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
( } DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE
(
(
(
(
OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
DEPT OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV.
DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE
FEDERAL AGENCIES
( ) U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
( ) U.S. DEPT OF H.U.D.
WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIEg
( ) K.C. PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEV.
( ) BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD
( ) FIRE DISTRICT 1111
( ) FIRE DISTRICT 112
( ) K.C. WATER POLLUTION CNTRL SEPA OFFCL
S CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
TUKWILA LIBRARIES
RENTON LIBRARY
KENT LIBRARY
CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY
U S WEST
SEATTLE CITY LIGHT
WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS
HIGHLINE WATER DISTRICT
SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT
TCI CABLEVISION
OLYMPIC PIPELINE
) KENT PLANNING DEPT
) TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS:
(„X.) PUBLIC WORKS
( ) POLICE ( )
04 PLANNING ( )
( ) PARKS & REC. ( )
( ) CITY CLERK
FIRE
FINANCE
BUILDING
MAYOR
PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL
P.S. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
) DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE
( ) DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE
( ) VALLEY DAILY NEWS
12/24/97 C:WP51DATA \CHKLIST
( ) DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV.
( ) DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELANDS DIV
DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION*
( ) OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
* SEND CHKLIST W/ DETERMINATIONS
* SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION
KING COUNTY AGENCIES
I- Ct( -UDU.3
Eclrc. oaU j
N 0\-1 C -C. dc. ;.den r, n t'
K.C. DEPT OF PARKS
HEALTH DEPT
PORT OF SEATTLE
K.C.DEV & ENVIR SERVICES -SEPA INFO CNTR
K.C. TRANSIT DIVISION - SEPA OFFICIAL
SCHOOLS /LIBRARIES
( ) HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT
( ) K C PUBLIC LIBRARY
( ) SEATTLE MUNI REF LIBRARY
( ) SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT
( ) RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT
UTILITIES
) PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT '
VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT
WATER DISTRICT #20
WATER DISTRICT 11125
CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS
RAINIER VISTA
) SKYWAY
CITY AGENCIES
( ) RENTON PLANNING DEPT
( ) CITY OF SEA -TAC
( ) CITY OF BURIEN
( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMI4ISSION MEMBERS
( ) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
( ) CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER
( ) SEATTLE OFFICE OF MGMNT & PLANNING*
* NOTICE OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ.
OTHER LOCAL AGENC M
( ) METRO ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DIV.
OFFICE /INDUSTRIAL 5,000 GSF OR MORE
RESIDENTIAL 50 UNITS OR MORE
RETAIL 30,000 GSF OR MORE
( ) HIGHLINE, TIMES
SEATTLE TIMES
PARTIES OF RECORD
KeIIie Cardinal
President/CEO
Cardinal Aerospace
266 S.w. 43rd Street
Renton, WA 98055
Dale A. Shawley
13467 Macadam Road South
Tukwila, WA 98168
Mr. & Mrs. Robert Merkle
13515 Macadam Raod South
Tukwila, WA 98168
David F. Hussey
13457 Macadam Road South
Tukwila, WA 98168
John Thompson
4815 South 170th
Tukwila, WA 98168
\Acll9or�5
•.
S 113 St
S 115 St
Jo, ,
?S Wal lace
a>
S 122 St
P OJECT
LO ATION
Cty of Tukwila
c,
City of Tukwila
Soil Reclanation Facility
January 23, 1998
Vicinity
Map
z
z
Lu2
6 D
-J
00
uj
Ili I
• --1
u_
w0
g
u.
cn
Z
I-0
Z
ILI
0 —
I--
LIJZ
111 w
IL 6
C.) 0 —
I= I
0 I-
,•• • 3.,1. • ;
CIAO Inn ...Id, S.W....nue • 1*.• • sty a mu
ViE LAM fit_LL 4O XTII3
go
-
a.i
gaq
. . .
z
0
CC r_
0 0
CZ
1— t-
0 U)
Z Z
0
SOIL RECLAMATION FACILITY
LANDSCAPE / LIGHTING PLAN
El
%
11
2 22 2 2 2
3 ig
;
99
2,2 2 2 3
4
1
1 ..:
ti 111).H =
u
. ..
- ; •••••) • -,',:••••
• -----
•
A
2
/REAR El- EVATIokt
0
C J Hllltllllll
o+
t n 9
SIDE FRou r
Eu- ftj�{E OF�IGE BUIILPH111
J
m
, ,:
•
1
(0141].■ am, wo. 14.cc.r. wr:Rm. .i.
ff ..
"M:. Ira 1w.x.,n .\iM•» ..vn
i`-
�3
V 1Ani_){ _ JL L[ O
adrt ,ar at .0 g11ox -e:a Ra anam,CCU
XLL y 3 i
z
cc 0_
00
U
0 CO
zo
U
,�,^,\ \\ \`
`\.i
■
>-
1-
J
U
u.
z
0
i
J
U
W
CC
-J
0
STORM DRAINAGE PLAN
2
UA
a
.. ,. ,
ty•
Ir.1 t••••■• nnoi•n,
• CI,•1/12.• •3.41
/1,/, nnoonott nft
.t,t,/ .Cr y: , (1
File:
mm Drawing#
•.. _�
6 Di
JU;
UO'
W W
w0
g
LL Q!
F 0
:Z .1
W wi.
.0 �.
JO---=`;
= WI
li•Z.
U•
0
A F F I D A V I T O F D I S T R I B U T I O N
hereby declare that:
4 otice of Public Hearing ❑Determination of Non-
significance
0 Notice of Public Meeting 0 Mitigated Determination of
• Nonsignificance
D Board of Adjustment Agenda [Determination of Significance
Packet and Scoping Notice
0 Board of Appeals Agenda- O Notice of Action
Packet
0 Planning Commission Agenda fl Official Notice
Packet
O Short Subdivision Agenda O Other
Packet
O Notice of Application for O Other
Shoreline Management Permit
QShoreline Management Permit
was maid to each of the following addresses on -il
0"2 3)1 CCI A
Name of Project 30'1 1 C t,-6 4/ 1-aati i Signature
File Number 1,-c n-C a)
,.�..., �..•...
w
CC2
- J
00
CO 0
W=
J
N LL:.
0
=d
F- w
Z
Z 0,
w uj .
n o,
U N?
01 -1
ww
~O.
Z.
U N:.
0
z_
•
City of Tukwila
John W Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development
City of Tukwila
PUBLIC NOTICE
Steve Lancaster, Director
Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Hearing Examiner will be holding a
public hearing at 7:00 p.m. on March 26, 1998 located at 6200 Southcenter Blvd, to
discuss the following:
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
CASE NUMBER: L98 -0008
APPLICANT: Western Wireless
REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit approval to install a Personal
Communication Western (PCS) Base Station, composed of 9
antennae with operating equipment on a previously approved
monopole.
LOCATION: 12400 - 51st Place South
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW /PLANNING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST(1):
LOCATION:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST(2):
LOCATION:
L98 -0003
City of Tukwila Public Works Department
Conditional Use Permit to construct a soil reclamation facility.
4501 S. 134th Place
L98 -0002
City of Tukwila Public Works Department
Design Review to construct a soil reclamation facility.
4501 S. 134th Place
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: March 13, 1998
Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants, Adjacent
Property Owners, File.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
n
RESIDENT RESIDENT
4625 134TH 13423 48TH AVE., S.
TUKWILA, WA 98168 TUKWILA, WA 98168
RESIDENT
13433 48TH AVE., S.
TUKWILA, WA 98168
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
13534 MACADAM RD. SOUTH 13561 MACADAM RD. SOUTH 13521 MACADAM RD. SOUTH
TUKWILA, WA 98168 TUKWILA, WA 98168 TUKWILA, WA 98168
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
13467 MACADAM RD. SOUTH 13465 MACADAM RD. SOUTH 13443 MACADAM RD. SOUTH
TUKWILA, WA 98168 TUKWILA, WA 98168 TUKWILA-, WA 98168
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
13419 MACADAM RD. SOUTH 4433 S. 135TH STREET 4511 S. 136TH STREET
TUKWILA, WA 98168 TUKWILA, WA 98168 TUKWILA, WA 98168
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
4503 S. 1361II STREET 4417 S. 136TH STREET 4512 S. 136TH STREET
TUKWILA, WA 98168 TUKWILA, WA 98168 TUKWILA, WA 98168
RESIDENT RESIDENT
4508 S. 136TH STREET 4420 S. 136TH STREET
TUKWILA, WA 98168 TUKWILA, WA 98168
• 1
�
'Total Door Supply, Inc.
4435 S 134TH PL
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1512
U.S. Bearings
4445 S 134TH PL #D
TUKWILA WA 98168 -6204
Crystal Clean Maintenance
4451 S 134TH PL
TUKWILA WA 98168 -6204
Sears Cleaning Service
4455 S 134TH PL
TUKWILA WA 98168 -6204
Elect. Insulation Suppliers
4471 5 134TH PL
TUKWILA WA 98168 -3293
Asian Accent, Inc.
4477 S 134TH PL
TUKWILA WA 98168 -6204
General Builders Supply
4439 S 134TH PL
TUKWILA WA 98168 -6204
Omni Paging, Inc.
4449 S 134TH PL
TUKWILA WA 98168 -6204
Classic Beauty Supply
4453 S 134TH PL
TUKWILA WA 98168 -6204
Modular Office Installation
4459 S 134TH PL
TUKWILA WA 98168 -6204
Time Distribution, Inc.
4475 S 134TH PL
TUKWILA WA 98168 -6204
United Support Assoc., Inc.
4479 S 134TH PL
TUKWILA WA 98168 -6204
Alaska Air Forwarding
4443 S 134TH PL #E
TUKWILA WA 98168 -6204
Omni Electronics, Inc.
4449 S 134TH PL
TUKWILA WA 98168 -6204
Marshall Tool & Supply
4453 S 134TH PL
TUKWILA WA 98168 -6204
Enterprise Installation,
4459 S 134TH PL
TUKWILA WA 98168 -6204
Cable Plus, Inc.
4477 S 134TH PL
TUKWILA WA 98168 -6204
Mobile Moving, Inc.
4485 S 134TH PL #B
TUKWILA WA 98168 -6204
Garden At Home, L.L.C. Cetco Mark VII Air
4487 S 134TH PL 4489 S 134TH PL 4491 S 134TH PL
TUKWILA WA 98168 -6204 TUKWILA WA 98168 -6204 TUKWILA WA 98168 -6204
' Boyd Coffee Company
4495 S 134TH PL
TUKWILA WA 98168 -6204
Wagtail, Inc.
' 4497 S 134TH PL
TUKWILA WA 98188 -6204
(D- 60(s -Foie_
Pacific NW Ironwkrs Appr
4550 S 134TH PL #101
TUKWILA WA 98168 -3279
3D Microcomputer
4550 S 134TH PL
TUKWILA WA 98168 -3279
Industrial Commercial Elect.
4601 S 134Th PL
TUKWILA WA 98168 -3240
T: R. Equipment Services
4712 S 134TH PL
TUKWILA WA 98168 -3239
McLees Distributing
4585 S 134TH PL
TUKWILA WA 98168 -3294
Brennan Heating Company
4601 S 134TH PL
TUKWILA WA 98168 -3240
A & E Machines
4712.5 134TH ST
TUKWILA WA 98168 -3239
Holaday Parks, Inc.
4600 S 134TH PL
TUKWILA WA 98168 -3241
SI Technologies
4611 S 134TH PL
TUKWILA WA 98168 -3265
.,Z
Q •
rW'
•
Wes.
'J U;
UO
uj
•W =,
4 •
•
LLQ
•
• F W
Z �?
ZCC
• D Q.
I(LI)LL
Z
26 13 2000 03 & 04
CALIFORNIA AVENUE CO
PO BOX.68726
TUKWILA WA 98168
26 13 2000 25
ORN ELEANOR D
13415 48TH AVE S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -3233
26 13 2000 28
MANBA ION
13407 48TH AVE S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -3233
26 13 2000 32
DOMAN JACKIE
12028 25TH AVE NE
SEATTLE WA 98125
26 13 2000 55
MCLEES GERALD & DONNA
225 S MILITARY PD
WINLOCK WA 98596
26 13 2000 86
FOSTORIA PARK ASSOCIATES
C/0 RASKIN & ASSOC
620 KIRKLAND WY #101
KIRKLAND WA 98033
26 13 2001 69
NAKAMURA MUTSUMI
4508 S 136TH ST
TUKWILA WA 98168 -3271
26 13 2001 72
FARRINGTON ROBERT
17650 1ST AVE S #163
NORMANDY PARK WA 98148
26 13 2001 76
SHAWLEY DALE A
13467 MACADAM RD S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -6202
26 13 2001 79
LIUSSEY DAVID F III +SUSAN A
1 3457 MACADAM RD S
TUKWILA WA 98168-6211
26 13 2000 05
PACIFIC NW IRON WORKERS
6701 SE FOSTER RD
PORTLAND OR 97206
26 13 2000 26
BARENE R 0
4030 S 152ND ST
TUKWILA WA 98168
26 13 2000 30
INGERSOLL JEFF A
13455 48TH AVE S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -3233
26 13 2000 42, 46 -51
HALVORSON ELLING
12515 WILLOWS RD NE #200
KIRKLAND WA 98034 -8795
26 13 2000 84
FOSTORIA INC
620 KIRKLAND WY #102
KIRKLAND WA 98033
26 13 2000 87
STARK BEN G +DARRYL J
PO BOX 98638
SEATTLE WA 98198
26 13 2001 70
EATMON DELBERT W
13443 MACADAM RD S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -3209
26 13 2001 74
MERKLE ROBERT A
13515 MACADAM RD S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -6206
26 13 2001 77
STENSENG JAMES K
6020 KANSAS AVE #12
KANSAS CITY KS 66111
26 13 2001 81
RICHARDSON CANDICE
4526 S 136TH ST
TUKWILA WA 98168 -3271
26 13 2000 06
SHEEHAN ROBERT J
4522 S 133RD ST
TUKWILA WA 98136
26 13 2000 27
LYON SANDRA D
13435 48TH AVE S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -3233
26 13 2000 31
PETERS MATT OR JILL
13552 MACADAM RD S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -6205
26 13 2000 43
BRENNAN HEATING CO
4601 S 134TH PL
TUKWILA WA 98168 -3240
26 13 2000 85
WILCYNSKI W JOSEPH
C/O INTEGRATED RE SVCES
999 THIRD AVE #2626
SEATTLE WA 98104
26 13 2001 50
BORDEN EDITH
919N77THST
SEATTLE WA 98103
26 13 2001 71
HUNTER GORDON R
13445 MACADAM RD S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -6211
26 13 2001 75
MERKLE ALLAN E
4426 S 136TH ST
TUKWILA WA 98168 -3272
26 13 2001 78
HALL WILLIAM C
17522 13TH SW
NORMANDY PARK WA 98166
26 13 2001 82
PRITCHETT W E
12 PEARL PLACE
SEQUIM WA 98382
z
I— W:
JU
UO
co 0
' rnw.
• wx
N �
wO
�QQ J
= a.
w.
zF
I- O
Z
uj
2 p;
O—
:o 1=
ww
LI O.
wz
O ~.
Z
26 13 2001 83
ROZUM KENNETH D
4420 S 136TH ST
TUKWILA WA 98168 -3272
73 47 6000 75 & 80
CAMPBELL LESLIE
1023 CALIFORNIA LN SW
SEATTLE WA 98116
.KELLIE.CARDINAL
PRESIDENT /CEO
CARDINAL AEROSPACE
266 SW 43RD ST
RENTON WA 98055
73 47 6000 60
THOMPSON JOHN & CAROL
4815 S 170TH ST
SEA1'1LE WA 98188
73 49 2003 45
US WEST VECTOR GROUP INC
ATTN PROPERTY MGMT
PO BOX 91211 M/S 581
BELLEVUE WA 98009 -9211
73 47 6000 65
FULTZ FRED W
4423 S 136TH ST
TUKWILA WA 98168 -3273
26 16 6000 30
HOLADAY -PARKS INC
PO BOX 69208
TUKWILA WA 98188
CITY . _�� TUKWILA
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Telephone: (206) 431 -3670
DESIGN
REVIEW
APPLICATION CHECKLIST
The materials listed below must be submitted with your application unless specifically waived in writing
by the Department of Community Development. 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 431 -3
APP CATION FORMS:
Aaplication Checklist (1 copy), indicating items submitted with application
Design Review Application (4 copies)
❑ D sign Review Fee ($900)
SEPA Environmental Checklist (6 copies)
❑ SEPA Environmental Checklist Fee ($325)
❑ Shoreline Permit Application (6 copies) & Fee (if within Shoreline Overlay District)
PLANS [Six (6) copies of the following]:
Vicinity map showing location of the site.
❑ Surrounding area map showing existing land uses within a 1000 -foot radius from the site's
property lines.
❑ 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):
a P perty lines and dimensions, lot size(s), and names of adjacent roads
ocation and gross floor area of existing and proposed structure(s) with setbacks
Location of driveways, parking, loading, and outdoor service areas, with parking calculations
end location and type of dumpster /recycling area screening
0" Location and type of site lighting, including parking and pedestrian areas
hyA0 Location and type of site fumiture, such as benches, bike racks; location and type of
any proposed public outdoor art
H /fO Location of any trails, parks, plazas or other outdoor open space provided for
employees or the public; existing and proposed open space easements and
1 dications (if any)
C3 Location and classification of any watercourses or wetlands, and 200' limit of
Crtoreline Overlay District
isting and proposed grades at 2' contours, extending at least 5 feet beyond the site's
boundaries, with a notation of the slope of areas in excess of 20%
670.
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUKWILA
JAN 2 31998
PERMIT CENTER
DESREV.DOC 1/30/97
Location of closest .isting fire hydrant; location and size itility lines; location and
�s z-e -of utilities or street/sidewalk easements or dedications
O' Description of water and sewer availability from provider of utility (note which utility
dam' trict or City)
0' Other relevant structures or features, such as rockeries, fences.
❑ Landscape/planting plan at the same scale as site plan, with north arrow, graphic scale, and
date; and the license stamp of the landscape architect. The following information must be
contal ed on the plan:
G" Property lines and names of adjacent roads
Oation of the following: proposed structure(s), vehicle and pedestrian circulation
air as, dumpster /recycling area, site furniture, any proposed public outdoor art
Y Existing trees over 4" in diameter by size and species, and any trees to be saved
Proposed landscaping, including size, species, location and spacing.
uilding elevations of all building facades at a scale of 1/8" = 1' or 1/4" = 1', with graphic scale
and date. Each sheet shall have the license stamp of the architect. Include on the elevations:
O Dimensions of all building facades and major architectural elements, with notations of
materials to be used
O Location and type of exterior building lighting
O Location of mechanical units and proposed screening where necessary.
Signage per Sign Code.
One (1) high quality 8 1/2" x 11" reduction of each of above plans. If the project undergoes
0ignificant changes, and additional set of reductions may be required.
❑ olors and materials sample board showing colors and materials to be used on all building
,...,exteriors.
L� APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA:
Written response to the Zoning Code Design Review Guidelines and Comprehensive Plan Design
Review Policies (see attached Design Review Application).
❑ OTHER MATERIALS:
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, eight (8) 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:
0-"Ring County Assessor's maps) which shows the location of each property within 500 feet of the
jubject property.
0 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,
codos, 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.
DESREV.DOC 12/12/96
CITY OTTUKWILA
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Telephone: (206) 431 -3670
DESIGN
REVIEW
(P -DR)
APPLICATION
•
FORSTAFF:USE ONLY,
ann
ecelpt Number:
'Application Complete
SEPA File #:
Ets
pli'cation Incomplete at
oreline Fit
1. PROJECT BACKGROUND
A. NAME OF PROJECT /DEVELOPMENT: Gl-!`r D� Ktcl 111tE-
poi Z 1,A∎ -t-'f ki F Ac l L 1-1-Y
B. LOCATION OF PROJECT /DEVELOPMENT: (give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision; or tax
lot number, access street, and nearest intersection; if proposal applies to several properties, list the streets bounding the area.)
4a1 Gjo. 134- -rt-4 PL-,
13 err 2G 1 3 2D -
Quarter: Section: I rJ Township: 23 Range: 4 (This information may be found on your tax statement)
C. CONTACT: (Primary contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent)
NAME: R-LI P Y 13aZ
ADDRESS: (c; 56,c, L\%P.
PHONE: 0 ,_!.0 - 4 2 t
SIGNATURE:
. .
DATE:
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUKWILA
JAN 2 3 1998
PERMIT CENTER
Soil Reclamation Facility
Board of Architectural Review
Project Narrative
I. Project Background
The proposed City of Tukwila Soil Reclamation Facility will be used to handle vactor
z'
wastes. Vactor wastes are solids and liquids generated in storm drainage maintenance w
operations. Liquids and sediments collect in catch basins, retention and detention ponds, 6
pipes and swales. These materials are pumped out using vactor pump trucks. The liquids v 0
and solids removed by these trucks often contain petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals W°
or other contaminants. Vactor wastes are to be tested for the presence of hazardous j
materials. Waste found to have hazardous materials would be disposed of at an approved w w.
hazardous waste dump. Only materials found to be free of hazardous wastes would be w O
treated on site at the proposed Soil Reclamation Facility. g J
D.
Name of Project: City of Tukwila Soil Reclamation Facility = w
Address of Project: 4501 South 134th Place, Tukwila WA Z
f-'
Contact: Randy Berg z O
6300 Southcenter Blvd. w w:
Tukwila, WA 98188
n 0_
Phone: (206) 433 -0179 ext. 1644 0 w:
0 H.
w uU
— O:
0
z
II. Design Review Guidelines
A. Relationship of Structure to Site
The Soil Reclamation Facility is primarily an engineered solution to the vactor waste
problem. As such, the facility has to meet certain functional needs. While meeting the
functional requirements, the facility maintains a desirable transition for the streetscape by
maintaining very large front and rear yard setbacks, and using existing and proposed
perimeter landscaping to visually screen the facility from the surrounding streets. The
facility is located as near to the center of the site as possible to provide adequate front,
rear and side yards to moderate the visual impact on all surrounding properties. Because
the subject site is long and narrow, sideyards are restricted to 10 feet. Required side
yards are 5 feet for the zone. The two proposed buildings are 13,500 square feet, and
4,000 square feet. Proposed building heights are 30 and 28 feet respectively. No massing
alternatives have been investigated in the design process because the functionality of the
proposed facility dictates the dimensions of the buildings. However, the massing is not
out of scale with surrounding uses.
B. Relationship of Structures & Site to Adjoining Areas
Impact on surrounding properties is primarily a concern on the west property line. The
neighboring property owner on this side of the proposed facility sold the property to the
City with the understanding of what is to be built on the property. To screen the facility
from this property a solid.wall of columnar evergreens (incense cedar) is proposed.
...
, . ° .
Existing trees to remain already screen the site from 134th Street to the north and
Macadam Road to the south. The property to the east is warehouse use with their backs
turned toward the subject site. No windows or walkways exist on the back of these
warehouses. This property will also be screened using red cedar and other evergreen
trees to provide year -round screening.
The existing neighborhood is industrial in character, and so this use is in keeping with the w
P g
neighborhood character. The site is laid out to maximize vehicular efficiency with drive 6 D
through dumping. Little or no pedestrian access from off site is anticipated. The site v 0
uses an existing driveway to access the site off 134th. This will minimize impacts on ' cn w.
existing vehicular circulation on the street. -' 1
�a.
w0
C. Landscape and Site Treatment 2 �.
Existing topography help screen the site from surrounding streets. As much as possible
Q
the existing topography has been left undisturbed. The steep areas along the north and cn d
south property line have been designated as environmentally sensitive, and as such have _
been left undisturbed. The site plan has been designed to be functional, not necessarily ? t—:
inviting. It is likely that making the site too inviting would create an attractive nuisance. z g
The design goal has instead been to make the facility as invisible as possible from the 2
surrounding properties. Similarly, landscaping has been designed more to screen the o o
proposed facility than to enhance the architecture. Coniferous trees have been proposed 0
to serve as landscape screens in all seasons. w w`
H 0
Proposed on -site lighting has been designed and placed to provide light in work areas LL
while minimizing offset light and glare. Areas to be lit are mainly under the building v �.
canopies, or between the buildings. o
D. Building Design
The proposed facility is not an architectural solution, but is rather an engineering
solution. As such there are no building components such as windows, doors, parapet to
incorporate into the design. Building design for this project is entirely functional. All of
the design decisions have been based on cost and function.
E. Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture
No street furniture is proposed for this project.
III. Design Review Policies
A through I. Not applicable
J. Public Facilities/Utilities /Street
The proposed facility is best described as a utility since it is a working part of the storm
drainage system. The public is as a rule not invited into this facility. The facility will be
used by the City of Tukwila and others who maintain the storm drainage system in the
private sector. The project has investigated sharing this facility with other jurisdictions,
:
but at this time has no other users are participating in the project. The City will continue
to look for other jurisdictions to share the facility.
The site is not large enough to offer any significant open space. The facility is not on a
street served by public transit, and the steep nature of the site at the street interface is not
conducive to use as a bus stop. No public art is anticipated at this site since the public
will have little interaction with the facility.
....,..... ..,. ...
z;.
• • w`
JO
•.0 0; •
2 . 'N
w
W LL
•
WI}0oI�-
'we/
= 0,
F:- 0
ZI•
W w •
N
'0 H•
W
W
HH
tli {,
'O
26 13 2000 03 & 04
CALIFORNIA AVENUE CO
PO BOX 68726
TUKWILA WA 98168
26 13 2000 25
ORN ELEANOR D
13415 48TH AVE S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -3233
26 13 2000 28
MANEA ION
13407 48TH AVE S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -3233
26 13 2000 32
DOMAN JACKIE
12028 25TH AVE NE
SEATTLE WA 98125
26 13 2000 55
MCLEES GERALD & DONNA
225 S MILITARY RD
WINLOCK WA 98596.
26 13 2000 86
FOSTORIA PARK ASSOCIATES
C/O RASKIN & ASSOC
620 KIRKLAND WY #101
KIRKLAND WA 98033
26 13 2001 69
NAKAMURA MUTSUMI
4508 S 136TH ST
TUKWILA WA 98168 -3271
26 13 2001 72
FARRINGTON ROBERT
17650 1ST AVE S #163
NORMANDY PARK WA 98148
26 13 2001 76
SHAWLEY DALE A
13467 MACADAM RD S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -6202
26 13 2001 79
HUSSEY DAVID F III+SUSAN A
13457 MACADAM RD S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -6211
., ..�'.: €;
26 13 2000 05
PACIFIC NW IRON WORKERS
6701 SE FOSTER RD
PORTLAND OR 97206
26 13 2000 26
BARENE R 0
4030 S 152ND ST
TUKWILA WA 98168
26 13 2000 30
INGERSOLL JEFF A
13455 48TH AVE S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -3233
26 13 2000 42, 46 -51
HALVORSON ELLING
12515 WILLOWS RD NE #200
KIRKLAND WA 98034 -8795
26 13 2000 84
FOSTORIA INC
620 KIRKLAND WY #102
KIRKLAND WA 98033
26 13 2000 87
STARK BEN G+DARRYL J
PO BOX 98638
SEATTLE WA 98198
26 13 2001 70
EATMON DELBERT W
13443 MACADAM RD S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -3209
26 13 2001 74
MERKLE ROBERT A
13515 MACADAM RD S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -6206
26 13 2001 77
STENSENG JAMES K
6020 KANSAS AVE #12
KANSAS CITY KS 66111
26 13 2001 81
RICHARDSON CANDICE
4526 S 136TH ST
TUKWILA WA 98168 -3271
26 13 2000 06
SHEEHAN ROBERT J
4522 S 133RD ST
TUKWILA WA 98136
26 13 2000 27
LYON SANDRA D
13435 48TH AVE S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -3233
26 13 2000 31
PETERS MATT OR JILL
13552 MACADAM RD S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -6205
26 13 2000 43
BRENNAN HEATING CO
4601 S 134TH PL
TUKWILA WA 98168 -3240
26 13 2000 85
WILCYNSKI W JOSEPH
C/O INTEGRATED RE SVCES
999 THIRD AVE #2626
SEATTLE WA 98104
26 13 2001 50
BORDEN EDITH
919 N 77TH ST
SEATTLE WA 98103
26 13 2001 71
HUNTER GORDON R
13445 MACADAM RD S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -6211
26 13 2001 75
MERKLE ALLAN E
4426 S 136TH ST
TUKWILA WA 98168 -3272
26 13 2001 78
HALL WILLIAM C
17522 13TH SW
NORMANDY PARK WA 98166
26 13 2001 82
PRITCHETT W E
12 PEARL PLACE
SEQUIM WA 98382
x:.
26 13 2001 83
ROZUM KENNETH D
4420 S 136TH ST
TUKWILA WA 98168 -3272
73 47 6000 75 &80
CAMPBELL LESLIE
1023 CALIFORNIA LN SW
SEATTLE WA 98116
KELLIE CARDINAL
PRESIDENT /CEO
CARDINAL AEROSPACE
266 SW 43RD ST
RENTON WA 98055.
•
73 47 6000 60
THOMPSON JOHN & CAROL
4815 S 170TH ST
SEATTLE WA 98188
73 49 2003 45
US WEST VECTOR GROUP INC
ATTN PROPERTY MGMT
PO BOX 91211 M/S 581
BELLEVUE WA 98009 -9211
73 47 6000 65
FULTZ FRED W
4423 S 136TH ST
TUKWILA WA 98168 -3273
26 16 6000 30
HOLADAY -PARKS INC
PO BOX 69208
TUKWILA WA 98188
File:
35mm Drawing#
Date
Revisions
Fee ee
Ordinance #
0
0
N
K rN-6
COUN
SEATTLE
ATTACHMENT A-2.
City of Tukwila
• Zoning Map
Figure 18 -9
This is a graphic representation of land
use designations adopted by City
CouncN 12/4/95. Larger maps
that show property lines,
designations, and other
zoning kdomulon are
availabh at Tukwila •
Department of
Community
Development
312'
126 10
180'
i
t
Nt
210'
30'96'
0 0
160'
InI
0
129' SEATAC
LI
O
235'
0
400'
Zoning Designations
LDR -Low Density Residential
MDR - Medium Density Residential
HDR -High Density Residential
0- Office
MUO -Mixed Use Office
RCC- Residential Commercial Center
NCC- Neighborhood Commercial Center
RC- Regional Commercial
RCM-Regional Commercial Mixed Use
TUC - Tukwila Urban Center •
C /LI- Commerclal Light Industrial
TVS- Tukwila Valley South
U -LIgM Industdai
Hi-Heavy Industrial
MIC/L - Manufacturing Industrial Center/Ught Industrial
MIC/H- Manufacturing industrial Center/Heavy'Industrial
Overlays and Sub Areas
Public Recreation Overlay
Shoreline Overlay
(Approx. 200' each side of river)
- Tukwila City Limits
Commercial Redevelopment
Areas (Dimensions are
Approximate)
W
CC
81114.1R0 ST
/Il
111111 1(' 111'1F'1!111111111111('f'111,1 I'111r14L�Iril�l-�-� -�'1aI,'j11'I'1 l
5 6..
•
4l hl CL LL �� a'r6 .a �w-, "9K S ..�_6 E : Z L ti o'0
: IIIIi111ii11 1u111ulu1ilu11111u11 iiliIIiliiillluIIIIIIIIIiiliii1111iiIINilligUil11likllii [kiiiiilllbiAiiliilllldflilliiii111i1l1lilliiiil'