Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Permit L05-051 - BARGUAUSEN ENGINEERING / HALVORSEN IVANA - SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE
LOS -051 DAVIS PROPERTY & DEVELOPMENT 9229 E MARGINAL WAY S Cif, of Tukwi Department of Community Development NOTICE OF DECISION TO: Ivana Halvorsen, Applicant Jeff Davis, Davis Properties, Owner King County Assessor, Accounting Division Washington State Department of Ecology Agencies with Jurisdiction All Parties of Record Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Steve La Z S e Director May This letter serves as a notice of decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.104.170 on the following project and permit approval. L PROJECT INFORMATION Project File Number: L05 -051 Applicant: Ivana Halvorsen, Barghausen Engineering, for Jeff Davis, Davis Properties Type of Permit Applied for Shoreline Substantial Development Variance Project Description: Locate 27 parking stalls, of 189, within the shoreline environment: These parking stalls will serve portions of an 84;000 sq. it warehouse with associated office t be constructed on the eastern portion of the site. Location: 9229 East Marginal Way South, Tukwila, WA 98168 Associated Files: L05 -050, Shoreline Substantial Development permit; L05 -055, Administrative Design Review; L05 -057, Short Plat,; E05 -011, SEPA Comprehensive Plan Designation/Zoning Manufacturing Industrial Center/Heavy District: II. DECISION SEPA Determination: The City SEPA Responsible Official has previously: determined that this application does not require a SEPA threshold determination because it is categorically exempt. X: determined that the project, as proposed, does not require a threshold determination under SEPA because it qualifies as a planned action pursuant to WAC 197 -11 -172, that the probable significant adverse environmental impacts of the project were adequately analyzed in the EIS previously prepared for the planned action and will implement the conditions and mitigation measures imposed by the planned action approval. CL Page 1 of 2 05/31/2006 4:27:00 PM qi \Davi - Rhone Poulenc \Shoreline Variance \Notice of Dccision.doc 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 =3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Shoreline Variance Notice of Decision Davis Properties May 31, 2006 • • G determined that the project, as proposed, does not create a probable significant environmental impact and issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS), or ❑ determined that the project does not create a probable significant environmental impact if specific mitigation conditions are imposed on the project and issued a Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance (MDNS) requiring compliance with those mitigation conditions, or LJ determined that the project creates a probable significant environmental impact and required preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the project. Decision on Substantive Permit: The Hearing Examiner has determined, following an open record hearing, that the application for a Shoreline Substantial Development Variance does comply with applicable City and state code requirements and has approved that application based on the findings and conclusions contained in the staff report. No conditions were applied to the shoreline variance. Other land use applications related to this project may still be pending. The Decision on this Permit Application is a Type 3 decision pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code §18.104.010. One administrative appeal to the Shorelines Hearings Board of the Decision is permitted. Any person appealing to the Shorelines Hearings Board may raise certain SEPA issues as part of the appeal to the Shorelines Hearings Board. Appellants should consult the rules and procedures of the Shorelines Hearings Board for details. III. YOUR APPEAL RIGHTS IV. PROCEDURES AND TIME FOR APPEALING The requirements and procedures for appeals to the Shorelines Hearings Board are set forth in RCW 90.58 and WAC 461.08. V. INSPECTION OF INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the Shoreline Substantial Development Variance are available for inspection at the Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100, Tukwila, Washington 98188 from Monday through Friday between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The project planner is Carol Lumb, who may be contacted at 206 - 431 -3661 for further information. Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax purposes. Contact the King County Assessor's Office for further information regarding property tax valuation changes. City of Tukwila Department of Community Development CL Page 2 of 2 05/31/2006 4:27:00 PM q: \Davis -Rhone Poulenc \Shoreline Variance \Notice of Decision.doc 1ffia• TO RAM S m root .441 DAVIS PROPERTY AND INVESTMENT A PORTION OF TTE SOUTH U2 OF SECTION 33. TOWNSHIP 24 N RANGE 4 E WM KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON 31010 010100 NO1 MP WM (TT) VARIANCE EXHIBIT FOR WID1 OWP. Y0a1 ) URBAN SHOP J€ STANDARD L W6u 510.0 ml -a 1131 .Nam. -01.71 a. 1.16.10 .1 we twe nano AMA. 00131 1 (WrO � 1710) a 10001. 00•01 rot mum - . 1¢r a imam MOM WWI -03 810/1010 KO WA M 0011/1 KO OW 0fTr IMAM MAIM 2123132F AREA CONSTRUCTION ACTMTTES WILL 41300 EL R a 00 2100) 31 1000 P 00000 TORL 0. 00509 NOM IL MOM MAO 1000 CC WU OC 11300 O. 0110000 MOO 06K110 MOO N1 POPMM1 00 10010 as.0 o WOO m 31113 F1.IDHT TAUSEA.1� 05 ' 16'0 SITE DATA Km 1m slaso I. art KAM m. PA NOOK Wr man wrouwensaw Kum. owrovman mummy oarroceat Paw 110 • OZOC uA: 00103* 10110001/010330 AVAa05 wit L 111030001 CUSCO OM. C013/01003A t 600 14010 74 - In awa mIu WIPC 00 - 101. MPC M 11- 10 000!011010 NOtlC%A (;421 a- 00.w1 m 10-1130 10 O1 IMAM 1m WK MOOR 6 M. R1 L1ya11 000011011/ PC )RLWM �) • AOC= 8000 0611 M)s14 f 2003.01E13 WM 11500. Io 1012111100 I0 WI 1043 150, W 00m -100 PC 111001:( A03013. YC L 1101 A. 000-105 WAMIOA (� f 1 W1.— mL "'"' 04' ?'S9t 11421 i SURVE MEIL PLANNNER WOW. 06000 0000. 7210 0013 010 01.01 0032 Ilk a1 *57 PC MAW u loran 131 100 1711®1 W a 3 4� • • Shoreline Management Act Permit Data Sheet and Transmittal Letter From: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Suite 100 Seattle, WA 98188 By: Carol Lumb, Senior Planner, City of Tukwila Phone Number: (206) 431 -3661 To: Department of Ecology Date of Transmittal: May 31, 2006 Date of Receipt: Type of Permit: Substantial Development and Shoreline Variance Local Government Decision: Approval with conditions (Substantial Development permit); Approval (Shoreline Variance) Applicant Information: Applicant's Representative: Name: Jeff Davis, Davis Properties Name: Ivana Halvorsen, Barghausen Engineering Address: P.O. Box 1043, Address: 18215 72 " Ave. S. Kent, WA 98035 -1043 Kent, WA 98032 Phone: 253- 872 -9522 Phone: 425- 251 -6222 Is the applicant the property owner? Yes Location of the property: 9229 East Marginal Way South, Tukwila, WA Water Body Name: Duwamish Waterway Shoreline of Statewide Significance: Yes Environment Designation: Urban Description of Project: Construct 84,000 sq. ft. warehouse and associated office space and provide 189 parking stalls on eastern portion of the site; re -grade and pave western portion of site for use by adjacent property owner (Insurance Auto Auction). Install associated utilities for warehouse (sewer, water, electricity etc.) Variance request is to locate 27 parking stalls within the shoreline environment. Notice of Application Date: January 24, 2006 Final Decision Date: 5 -31 -06 CL Page 1 of 1 05/31/2006 12:39 PM q:\Davis Rhone- Poulenc \Shoreline \Shoreline Cover Ltr.doc Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I, C' .>( 4 - HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearin g Determination of Non - Significance Project Name: 2a/110/La-vc4.1-12.4.-■_. c r vz -.Q.�- I� Notice of Public Meeting Mailer's Signature: S;1),6,,dNt, Loc 4__ Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Person requesting mailing: CA )\,(y L_ ✓r-i Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit _ _ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 her r`` cq 6,6 Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this year 20 OL day ofi(- 4n the P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM Project Name: 2a/110/La-vc4.1-12.4.-■_. c r vz -.Q.�- I� Project Number: 1, 0 k LOC - O s Mailer's Signature: S;1),6,,dNt, Loc 4__ 4 Person requesting mailing: CA )\,(y L_ ✓r-i Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this year 20 OL day ofi(- 4n the P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM • FEDERAL AGENCIES a 1144 ( ) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS V t kU.S• ( NV RO ENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( ) FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ( ) DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE ()U.S. NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES ( ) OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY ( ) TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT () DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES ( ) OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR DEPT OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV. `('DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE t // �� KING COUNTY AGENCIES () BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD () FIRE DISTRICT #11 () FIRE DISTRICT #2 ( ) K.C. WASTEWATER TREATMENT DIVISION () K.C. DEPT OF PARKS & REC () KC. ASSESSORS OFFICE � ( ) TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT TUKWILA LIBRARY () RENTON UBRARY () KENT LIBRARY () CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY () OWEST () SEATTLE CITY LIGHT () PUGET SOUND ENERGY () HIGHLNE WATER DISTRICT () SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT ( ) AT &T CABLE SERVICES ( ) KENT PLANNING DEPT ( ) TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: = PUBLIC WORKS () FIRE v () POLICE () FINANCE () PLANNING () BUILDING () PARKS & REC. () MAYOR ( ) CITY CLERK ( ) PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL ( SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE UCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM V FISHERIES PROGRAM' <4N'Gat W WILDLIF1 PROGRAM ( ) SEATTLE TIMES ( ) SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL P:\ADM1NISTRATIV E\FORMS \CHKLIST.DOC DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. ( $ > EPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELAND DIV DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION' OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL SEND CHKLIST WI DETERMINATIONS SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION ( ) HEALTH DEPT () PORT OF SEATTLE () KC. DEV & ENVIR SERVICES -SEPA INFO CNTR ( ) KC. TRANSIT DIVISION — SEPA OFFICIAL () K.C. LAND & WATER RESOURCES SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES FOSTER LIBRARY ( ) K C PUBLIC UBRARY ( ) HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT UTILITIES CITY AGENCIES OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES () DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE () P.S. AIR POLLUTION CLEAN AGENCY SOUND TRANSIT DUWAMISH RIVER CLEAN —UP COALITION / SENO NOTICE OF ALL APPUCATIONS ON OUWAMISH RIVER MEDIA ( ) OLYMPIC PIPELINE ( ) VAL —VUE SEWER DISTRICT ( ) WATER DISTRICT #20 ( ) WATER DISTRICT #125 () CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS ( ) BRYN MAWR- LAKERIDGE SEWERNVATER DISTRICT () RENTON PLANNING DEPT () CITY OF SEA-TAC () CITY OF BURIEN ( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ( ) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER - DCLU () STRATEGIC PLANNING OFFICE' • NOTICE OF AU. SEATTLE RELATED PING PROJ. ( ) HIGHLINE TIMES ( ) CI.TUKWILA.WAUS.WVWV eA.LoC.3 1 (11 1(5h terP gr tat rAL (01s 0 °Atm 5 1,43 11 c,t o(- 'be us ta r ,- P: IADMMISTRATIVE \FORMS\CHKLIST.DOC PLO.IC NOTICE MAILINGS FOR PIpiITS SEPA MAILINGS Mail to: (comment period starts on date of mailing) Dept. of Ecology Environmental Review Section "Applicant • Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list) *Any parties of record ' send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination KC Transit Division — SEPA Official would like to receive information about all projects that might affect transit demand Send These Documents to DOE: SEPA Determination (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report, usu. with MDNS) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed or sent to newspaper) SHORELINE MAILINGS: Notice of Application for a Substantial Development Permit must be mailed to owners and to property owners within 500 feet of subject property, comments are due 30 days after the notice of application is mailed/posted. The notice of Application for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit must include a statement that any person desiring to submit written comments on the application or desiring to receive notification of the final decision on the application may do so within 30 days of the notice of application. If a hearing will be held on the application, the hearing notice must include the information that written may be submitted, or oral presentation made at the hearing. Shoreline Permit Notice of Decision: Mail to: (within 8 days of decision; 21-day appeal period begins date received by DOE) Department of Ecology Shorelands Section State Attomey General *Applicant *Indian Tribes *Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list). Any parties of record * send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination Send These Documents to DOE and Attornev General: Permit Data Sheet Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report or memo) Shoreline Permit Application Form (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) - Site plan, with mean high water mark & improvements — Cross - sections of site with structures & shoreline — Grading Plan — Vicinity map SEPA determination (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report or memo) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Any background studies related to impacts on shoreline Notice of Application Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed) Betty Renkor Ecology NW Regional Office 3190 160` Ave. SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Betty Renkor Ecology NW ional Office 3190 160` ve. SE Belle e, WA 98008 Christy Brown, Project Manager AWT 121 EPA Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Laura Murphy Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Cultural Resources Program 39015 172 " Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98090 -0763 Laura Murphy Muckleshoot I ian Tribe Cultural Res ces Program 39015 172" Avenue SE Auburn, A 98090 -0763 Laura Murphy Muckleshoot dian Tribe Cultural Res urces Program 39015 172 Avenue SE Auburn, A 98090 -0763 Christy Brown, Pr9Ject Manager AWT 121 EPA Region 1200 Sixth venue Seattle, W 98101 Betty Renkor Ecology NW ' - gional Office 3190 160` • ve. SE Belle • e, WA 98008 Betty Renkor Ecology N Regional Office 3190 .6O Ave. SE evue, WA 98008 Betty Re Ec y NW Regional Office 3190 160 Ave. SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Christy Brown, Proj - Manager AWT 121 EPA Re.' ' 0 1200 : ixth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Christy Brown, Project Manager AWT 121 EPA Region 1200 S1i Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Laura Murphy Muckleshoot I dian Tribe Cultural Res ces Program 39015 172" Avenue SE Auburn, A 98090 -0763 Laura Murphy Muckleshoo ndian Tribe Cultural sources Program 39015 1 "d Avenue SE Aub WA 98090 -0763 Laura Murp Mucklesho t Indian Tribe Cultural esources Program 39015 2 " Avenue SE Aub , WA 98090 -0763 Chris Brown, Proj t Manager AWT 121 EPA Region 1 1200 Sixth enue Seattle, WA 98101 Betty Re Ecolo 319 B or NW Regional Office 160 Ave. SE levue, WA 98008 • Christy Brown, Project Manager AWT 121 EPA ' •'sn 10 1 : s Sixth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Christy Brown AWT1 E K1Zegion 10 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Laura Murp Muckles of Indian Tribe Cultur esources Program 3901 172 Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98090 -0763 Laura Murp Mucklesh t Indian Tribe Cultura esources Program 3901 172 Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98090 -0763 Laura Murp Mucklesh . , t Indian Tribe Cultural ' esources Program 39015 2 Avenue SE Aub r, , WA 98090 -0763 Christy B AWT 1 EP • ' egion 10 120 4 Sixth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 roject Manager wn, Project Manager Betty Re r Ecolo W Regional Office 319 60` Ave. SE B levue, WA 98008 CoP� D - Stitevi l & *. Cat6 ttJlt , 44§0., Nont-t vas VOlitca;■-a- Ocbv too c - -t341 i J ■ s• - SJd's 7 1.0,6 021-0( V '`' ?o 13 tOu3 &)35 - ' 1°"-i-3 a c-s-veA ()c.w (S )gall; - 1 awe? Ave ,Sn I L t$a3d NOTIFICATION` ASSOCIATED FILES: REQUEST: • City of Tukwila FILE NUMBER: L05 -051 Prepared April 14, 2006 LOCATION: 9229 East Marginal Way South COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Manufacturing Industrial Center /Heavy ZONING DISTRICT: Manufacturing Industrial Center /Heavy SEPA DETERMINATION: Determination of Nonsignificance RECOMMENDATION: Approval STAFF CONTACT: Carol Lumb, Senior Planner CI, Palle I or q:`I)axis l'i - opci ties = Rhone P6iilenc'vI (15 -H51 Stall Rpt.,1oc • Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER SHORELINE VARIANCE Notice of Application mailed to applicant, agencies with jurisdiction January 24, 2006 Notice of Application posted on site January 25, 2006 SEPA Issued April 14, 2006 Public Hearing Notice mailed April 21, 2006 E05-011 (State Environmental Policy Act review) L05 -050 (Shoreline Substantial Development Permit) L05 -055 (Administrative Design Review) L05 -057 (Short Plat) APPLICANT: Ivana Halvorsen, Barghausen Engineering for Davis Properties ShorelineVariance to vary one King County shoreline regulation,: to permit 2S of 189 overall parking stalls waterward of the proposed building within the shoreline environment. ATTACHMENTS: A. Request to Withdraw Height Variance B.1 K.C.C. 25.32, Procedures B.2. WAC 173 -27 -170 11.1.21 '-(no 2 :24 PN Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 =3670 • Fax: 206- 431 -3665 L05 -051 Shoreline Variance Davis Properties April 14, 2006 Project Description: • • C. 2004 Aerial Photo of Site D. Plan Set Including Site Plan and Landscaping Plan E. Applicant's Response to Shoreline Variance Criteria F. January 4, 2006 Response to Technical Comments Letter G. SEPA Staff Report The project proposes to redevelop 19.5 acres on -shore adjacent to the Duwamish River to include: repaving the western portion of the site for lease to an adjacent property owner, Insurance Auto Auctions, construction of an 84,000 sq. ft. warehouse /office building with associated parking, installation of storm water and sanitary sewer and water service. Under a separate land use application, the site is proposed to be short platted into two lots. The site has been under industrial use since the 1930s. Most recently, Rhone- Poulenc operated a vanillin manufacturing facility on the site that was closed in 1991. Historic releases of hazardous substances occurred at the site. Released materials include caustic soda, toluene, mineral oil, PCBs and copper. Corrective action for the contamination is being addressed under a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Administrative Order on Consent issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 (Docket # 1091- 11- 20- 3- 8(h)). The western portion of the parcel is most affected by the historic chemical contamination, with some contamination on the eastern portion as well. The applicant originally requested a variance from two sections of the King County Shoreline Regulations: KCC 25.16.030 B, which requires structures within the shoreline to be 35 feet in height or less and KCC 25.16.030 E.1, which requires parking to be located underneath or upland of the building which it serves. At the time the variance application was submitted, design of the building had not been completed. Now that the building design is complete, the height does not exceed 35 feet as originally anticipated. The applicant has withdrawn the request for a height variance (see Attachment A). In addition, the original parking variance requested a variance for 37 parking stalls; a subsequent communication from the applicant requests 28 parking stalls be permitted in the shoreline environment (see Attachment F). DECISION CRITERIA — SHORELINE VARIANCE This project, while within the City of Tukwila, is subject to King County Shoreline regulations as it is within an area annexed after the City adopted its Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Until the City updates its SMP to include annexed areas, King County regulations apply. The King County Shoreline Regulations, found in KCC 25.32.040, adopt Washington State Administrative Code criteria for a shoreline variance, found in WAC 173 -14 -150. Please note WAC 173- 14 has been superseded by WAC 173 -27 — variance criteria are found in WAC 173 -27 -170. In the following discussion, the review criteria from WAC 173 -27 -170 are shown below in italics, followed by Staff's comments. For the applicant's response to the criteria see Attachment E. K.C.C. 25.32.040 Permits — variance A. The director is authorized to grant a variance from the performance standards of this master program only under the conditions enumerated WAC 173 -14 -150 (Review Criteria for Variances). WAC 173 -27 -170: CI. I'aec2of7 q:ADavis Properties -Rhone Poulenc \I.05- 051`StalTIlpt.doc 04/2 I /2006 2:24 PM L05 -051 Shoreline Variance Davis Properties April 14, 2006 • • 1. Variance permits should be granted in circumstances where denial of the permit would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances the applicant must demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances shall be shown and the public interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect. RCW 90.58.020 It is the policy of the state to provide for the management of the shorelines of the state by planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses. This policy is designed to insure the development of these shorelines in a manner which, while allowing for limited reduction of rights of the public in the navigable waters, will promote and enhance the public interest. This policy contemplates protecting against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life, while protecting generally public rights of navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto. The King County Shoreline Management Master Program, which covers Tukwila's shoreline downriver of the 42 Avenue Bridge, requires that parking be placed underneath or upland of the building it serves (K.C.C. 25.16.030 E.). The shoreline affects some of the parking for the proposed building due to the location of Port of Seattle Slip No. 6, which borders the parcel partially on the south side and the shape of the site, which on the eastern half is narrower than the western portion of the property. Because of the location of the slip, 28 parking stalls of a total 189 stalls for the warehouse /office building fall within the 200 foot shoreline environment. The proposed use is located in a heavy industrial area of the river and on a site that is being redeveloped. The north side of the building will be used by trucks making deliveries. The applicant's response states that the extraordinary circumstances for this site relate to having regulated shoreline on two sides of the property, similar to a corner lot, resulting in "an inordinate application of shoreline restrictions placed on development of the site." The applicant also states that allowing "...a limited amount of parking waterward of the proposed building does not result in a loss to the public interest because the parking area will not create any shipping or other impacts, it allows efficient use of the site for shared vehicle access and truck circulation and it is compatible with the proposed use and surrounding development in the area." Currently a portion of the parking is located adjacent to each of the office entrances of the building; moving the 28 stalls away from the western most office entrances would inconvenience the tenants of those spaces. 2. Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located landward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(b), and/or landward of any wetland as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(h), may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: (a)That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes, or significantly interferes with, reasonable use of the property; The location of Port of Seattle Slip No. 6, which abuts the eastern portion of the site where the building will be located partially on the south, causes some of the parking and a portion of the building to fall within the shoreline environment. Due to the shape of the parcel, and the location of the slip, strict application of the shoreline regulations would require the reduction in the size of the building to move it out of the shoreline environment or the location of the truck bays on the south side of the building and the office entrances on the north. The southern property line slightly angles on the eastern portion of the site. To place the truck load/unload bays on the south side of the building would probably require a reduction in the size of the building to provide the same circulation for truck traffic than can be provided on the north side of the building. CI. Pate 3 of 7 04/21/2006 2:24 I'M q : \l)a is Properties -Rhone Poulenc \I.05 -0 I \Staff Kpt.doc L05 -051 Shoreline Variance Davis Properties April 14, 2006 • • The applicant was asked to look at flipping the building orientation to locate the truck bays on the south side and all parking on the portions of the site outside the shoreline. The applicant's response is as follows: "The proposed building will have a gross floor area of approximately 84,000 square feet, including 12,600 to 33,600 square feet of office space (15 to 40 %) and 50,400 to 71 ,400 square feet of warehouse space (60 to 85 %). Parking has been provided to accommodate the maximum amount of parking demand as the warehouse building is a "speculative" building that may contain a myriad variation of uses. "We have evaluated whether the existing building could be flipped to provide loading on the south side (shoreline side) and parking on the north side. Because of the existing uses on surrounding properties, (heavy industrial uses and storage uses to the north and Boeing Flight Museum property to the south) the orientation of the building, as currently proposed, better suites (sic) the proposed use and is more compatible with surrounding properties. The minor amount of parking provided waterward of the proposed building within the shoreline jurisdiction is screened from the shoreline by additional landscaping. The entirety of the parking that falls within the shoreline jurisdiction is necessary parking adjacent to the proposed building. Removal of the proposed 28 stalls within the shoreline jurisdiction adjacent to the building would result in lengthy walking conditions for employees or customers to the future uses within the proposed building." The applicant also notes that for efficiency purposes, drive aisles for parking with truck lanes and fire access lanes around the building are typically combined for industrial sites. Based on the building size and proposed office and warehouse square footage, the MIC /H district would require 68 to 110 parking stalls. The applicant notes above that the maximum amount of parking is proposed because the final tenants of the warehouse /office spaces have not been determined. (b) That the hardship described in (a) of this subsection is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the master program, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions; The parcel in question is somewhat irregular in shape with the man -made slip on the south side, which in turn extends the jurisdiction of the shoreline environment to a portion of the southern boundaries of the site. No actions by the applicant are responsible for the shape of the parcel or the location of the slip. Not mentioned by the applicant, but an additional factor in the need for a variance, is the contamination of the western portion of the site by previous property owners. Clean up continues on the western portion of the site which constrains redevelopment with structures on that portion of the site. While there is some contamination of the eastern portion of the site, the western portion is the most affected by the Consent Order. (c) That the design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program and will not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment; The proposed warehouse /office building is consistent with the industrial character of the surrounding area. King County Airport is across East Marginal Way South on the east; to the north is an auto salvage yard and to the south across Slip No. 6 is Boeing property and a parcel owned by the Museum of Flight on which a number of airplanes are displayed. The entrances to the offices serving the warehouse space CI. Page 4 of 7 l)avis Properties -Rhone I'milencAI.1)5- 051\ Stall Rpt.doc 0401/2006 2:24 PM L05 -051 Shoreline Variance Davis Properties April 14, 2006 • • will be located on the southern side of the proposed building. Truck deliveries will occur on the north side of the building where the truck bays are located. The zoning is Manufacturing Industrial Center Heavy and the shoreline designation is Urban. Erosion and sediment control best management practices (BMPs) will be required to prevent sediment and pollutants from reaching the river. Landscaping will be provided to screen the parking for the building - for the area that falls within the shoreline the landscaping will range from 55 feet to 20 feet for an average depth of 35 feet; 8 feet of landscaping will be provided along the rest of the southern boundary outside the shoreline environment on the portion of the site being developed with the building. Under the shoreline permit, landscaping will be provided to screen the automobile parking for the Insurance Auto Auction use on the western portion of the site. (d) That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area; Parking for the Boeing facility located to the south has been sited within the 200 foot shoreline environment as illustrated on Attachment C, an aerial photo of the site, taken in 2005,. The use on the north side of the site is Insurance Auto Auction, an auto salvage yard) with parking located within the shoreline environment. This parking is not related to a building and therefore did not trigger review under King County's shoreline regulations. Given that the adjacent property on the south has parking within the shoreline environment, no special privilege would accrue to the applicant if the variance is granted. (e) That the variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief; and The building has been sited as far north as possible and still maintain its current size and configuration. The need to provide sufficient area for truck movement prevents the building from being moved any further north. The building is sited as far east as possible while still accommodating a double loaded parking area on the east side of the building. While there is parking on the south side of the building, there is no parking immediately next to Slip No. 6 — rather landscaping varying in width from 55 feet to 20 feet is placed on the south property line on the portion of the site which will be developed with the building. (f) That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. Work on this site within the 200 foot shoreline zone is subject to a City of Tukwila Shoreline Substantial Development permit, Administrative Design Review, and State Environmental Policy Act Planned Action review in addition to the Shoreline Variance request. Two of these applications (shoreline and shoreline variance) are subject to public notice procedures, which provide the general public, surrounding property owners and public agencies with the opportunity to review the proposed development and provide comments. Through the public notice process, a comment was received from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe related to the possible location and protection of archeological artifacts on the site. This issue has been addressed through SEPA and the shoreline permit. The public scrutiny, in addition to governmental review, should help protect against any detrimental effects to the shoreline. No objections to the proposed parking in the shoreline environment have been received. 3. Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located waterward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(b), or within any wetland as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(h), may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: C1. Page 5 ol 7 q : \I)avis Properties- I:hone Prnilenc4.05 -1151 .Staff Rpt.d( 04/21.200 2:24 I'Nt L05 -051 Shoreline Variance Davis Properties April 14, 2006 • • (a) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes all reasonable use of the property; (b) That the proposal is consistent with the criteria established under subsection (2)(b) through (1) of this section; and (c) That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected Criteria 3 does not apply as no work will occur waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark 4. In the granting of all variance permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example if variances were granted to other developments and /or uses in the area where similar circumstances exist the total of the variances shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not cause substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. As can be seen on Attachment C, the 2004 aerial photo, the Boeing property on the south side of Slip #6 has parking within 200 feet of the shoreline, waterward of the development which it serves. The property on the north side of the subject site is owned by Insurance Auto Auction. This site did not require a shoreline substantial development permit as no "development" as defined by the SMA was proposed. The King County requirement to place parking underneath or upland of the development which the parking area serves also did not apply as no development as defined by RCW Chapter 90.58 was proposed. The location of parking on the south side of the proposed building is consistent with other uses in the surrounding area. Landscaping will be provided to help screen the parking from the Duwamish Waterway and Port of Seattle Slip No. 6. 5. Variances from the use regulations of the master program are prohibited The warehouse /office building and the auto salvage yard parking uses are permitted in the Manufacturing Industrial Center /Heavy district. B. A variance from county zoning code requirements shall not be construed to mean a variance from shoreline master program use regulations and vice versa. C. Shoreline variances may not be used to permit a use that is specifically prohibited in an environment designation. As noted in Criteria 5 above, the proposed uses for both the eastern and western portions of the parcel are permitted in the Manufacturing Industrial Center /Heavy district D. The burden of proving that a proposed variance meets these conditions shall be on the applicant; absence of such proof shall be grounds for denial of the application. The applicant has provided a discussion. found in Attachment F, addressing the King County Code criteria for a shoreline variance. E. The fee which shall accompany an application for a shoreline variance shall be as adopted by ordinance. The applicant has submitted the appropriate fees for a shoreline variance application. CL Page 6 of 7 04/21 2006 2.24 I' \1 q.\ Davis hope' ics -Rhone I'oulen0.I,05- 051:51aff Rpt.duu L05 -051 Shoreline Variance Davis Properties April 14, 2006 CONCLUSIONS 1. The public interest, as set forth in KCC 25.27.170 A and RCW 90.58.020 will not be diminished by the location of 26 parking stalls for the proposed building within the shoreline on the eastern portion of the site. Landscaping will be used to screen the parking associated with the building. Screening the parking associated with the Insurance Auto Auction use of the western portion of the site will be addressed through the shoreline permit. 2. The shape of the parcel and the location of Port of Seattle Slip No. 6 constrain options for moving the proposed building completely out of the shoreline environment without reducing the size of the building. To provide adequate room for truck maneuvering on the north side of the building and provide parking for the proposed use, the building cannot be completely moved out of the shoreline environment. Only 26 of 189 parking stalls for the building will be located in the shoreline jurisdiction. The western portion of the site is proposed to be used for parking cars for an adjacent property which is used as an auto insurance salvage yard. The screening for this parking will be regulated through the shoreline substantial development permit. The hardship faced by this site is shared by the property on the south side of Port of Seattle Slip No. 6. There are several options in order to completely avoid the shoreline: reduce the building size which would in turn reduce the number of parking stalls required; reduce the number of parking stalls provided over and above those required for the site; or, flip the building to place the office use portion on the north side of the site. Although the number of parking stalls exceeds what is required under the Manufacturing Industrial Center district, the applicant is providing extra in anticipation of the various uses that could be located in the building. Placing the office use on the south side of the building locates the least intensive use (employee and customer car parking vs. truck deliveries) on the shoreline portion of the site. 3. All City, State and Federal requirements and permit conditions will be met by the proposed development. The applicant did not create the conditions that have lead to the request for the variance. The proposed development and uses are consistent with the heavy industrial character of the area. Granting the variance will have no substantial detrimental affect on the public interest. 4. The proposed development of the building does not take place waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark. 5. The property adjacent on the south across Port of Seattle Slip No. 6 appears to have parking already located within the shoreline environment, so there will be no further cumulative impact from the granting of the variance. The property on the north side, with cars located within the shoreline environment, was not subject to review under King County shoreline regulations. 6. The proposed development does not require relief from the use regulations of the shoreline master program. RECOMMENDATION • • Staff recommends that the request to locate 28 parking stalls within the shoreline environment be approved along with the proposed landscaping plan as illustrated on Attachment D. Cl. face 7 of 7 y:'1)a\ is Properlics -Khone Poulenc 1.05-051 Siaff Ilpl.doc 04'21:2006 2: PN1 From: " Ivana Halvorsen" <ihalvorsen@barghausen.com> To: "Carol Lumb" <clumb @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 4/11/06 5:19PM Subject: Davis Property Shoreline Height Variance (BCE # 10265) Hi Carol: We agree that the proposed building will not be higher than 35 feet, so we agree to withdraw that portion of the Shoreline Variance request. If you need a formal revision or withdrawal statement for that portion, please let me know. I would prefer to withdraw that element than have it denied. Please let me know what you think. Ivana Halvorsen Senior Planner Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 18215 72nd Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 (425) 251 -6222 (425) 251 -8782 FAX (425) 656 -7487 Direct • • CC: "Brendan Madden" <bmadden @barghausen.com >, "File" <File @barghausen.com> ATTACHMENT a PROCEDURES 25.32.010 - 25.32.020 Chapter 25.32 PROCEDURES Sections: 25.32.010 Substantial development - permit required - exemption. 25.32.020 Permits - prerequisite to other permits. 25.32.040 Permits - variance. 25.32.050 Permits - conditional use. 25.32.060 Permits - alteration of nonconforming use or development. 25.32.080 Permits - combined hearing authority. 25.32.090 Permits - approval or disapproval - notification - additional conditions - limitations. 25.32.100 Appeals. 25.32.110 Rules of director. 25.32.120 Enforcement. 25.32.130 Shoreline environment redesignation. 25.32.140 Redesignation applications. 25.32.150 Redesignations initiated by motion. 25.32.160 Frequency of consideration of shorelines redesignations. 25.32.170 Joining of application for or motion to consider shorelines redesignation and site - specific land use map amendment or zone reclassification. 25.32.180 Criteria for hearing examiner review. 25.32.010 Substantial development - permit required - exemption. A. No development shall be undertaken by any person on the shorelines of the state unless such development is consistent with the policy of Section 2 of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and, after adoption and approval, the guidelines and regulations of the Washington State Department of Ecology and the King County shoreline master program. B. No substantial development shall be undertaken by any person on the shorelines of the state without first obtaining a substantial development permit from the director; provided, that such a permit shall not be required for the development excepted from the definition of substantial development in RCW 90.58.030 and for developments exempted by RCW 90.58.140(9) and (10). C. Any person claiming exception from the permit requirements of this chapter as a result of the exemptions described in subsection B. of this section may make an application to the director for such an exemption in the manner prescribed by the director. Development within the shorelines of the state which does not require a permit shall conform to the master program. Conditions requiring such conformance may be imposed prior to granting exemption from the permit requirement. (Ord. 3688 § 801, 1978). 25.32.020 Permits - prerequisite to other permits. In the case of development subject to the permit requirements of this title, King County shall not issue any other permit for such development until such time as approval has been granted pursuant to this title. Any development subsequently authorized by King County shall be subject to the same terms and conditions which apply to the development authorized pursuant to this title. (Ord. 3688 § 802, 1978). 25-57 ATTACHMENT B1 • • 25.32.040 - 25.32.080 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT 25.32.040 Permits - variance. A. The director is authorized to grant a variance from the performance standards of this master program only under the conditions enumerated WAC 173 -14 -150 (Review Criteria for Variances). B. A variance from county zoning code requirements shall not be construed to mean a variance from shoreline master program use regulations and vice versa. C. Shoreline variances may not be used to permit a use that is specifically prohibited in an environment designation. D. The burden of proving that a proposed variance meets these conditions shall be on the applicant; absence of such proof shall be grounds for denial of the application. E. The fee which shall accompany an application for a shoreline variance shall be as adopted by ordinance. (Ord. 5734 § 15, 1981: Ord. 3688 § 804, 1974). 25.32.050 Permits - conditional use. A. The director is authorized to issue shoreline conditional use permits only under the following circumstances: 1. The development must be compatible with uses which are permitted within the master program environment in which the development is proposed. 2. The use will cause no unreasonable adverse effects on the shoreline or surrounding properties and uses. 3. The use will promote or not interfere with public use of surface waters. 4. The development of the site will not be contrary to the policies of the master program. B. The burden of proving that a proposed shoreline conditional use meets the criteria enumerated in subsection A. of this section shall be on the applicant. Absence of such proof shall be grounds for denial of the application; provided, however, that the director is authorized to determine and impose, on a case -by -case basis, those conditions and standards which may be required to enable any proposed shoreline conditional use to satisfy the criteria established in subsection A. of this section. (Ord. 3688 § 805, 1978). 25.32.060 Alteration or reconstruction of nonconforming use or development. A. Applications for substantial development or building permits to modify a nonconforming use or development may be approved only if: 1. The modifications will make the use or development Tess nonconforming; or 2. The modifications will not make the use or development more nonconforming. B. A use or development, not conforming to existing regulations, which is destroyed, deteriorated, or damaged more than fifty percent of its fair market value at present or at the time of its destruction by fire, explosion, or other casualty or act of God, may be reconstructed only insofar as it is consistent with existing regulations. C. The review of applications for the modification of a nonconforming use or development shall be subject to the guidelines enumerated in K.C.C. 21A.32 (General Provisions- Nonconformance, Temporary Uses, and Re -Use of Facilities). (Ord. 12196 § 59, 1996: Ord. 11792 § 36, 1995: Ord. 5734 § 16, 1981: Ord. 3688 § 806, 1978). 25.32.080 Permits - combined hearing authority. A. In those cases when proposed development under the jurisdiction of this title also requires a Type 3 or Type 4 decision and a public hearing before the hearing examiner is required, the department shall issue a recommendation on the proposal and the examiner shall conduct a public hearing to receive evidence relating to the issuance of a substantial development permit or exemption therefrom, a shoreline management conditional use permit and /or a shoreline management variance, if applicable. B. The adjustor or examiner shall conduct the hearing in accordance with the provisions of chapter 20.24 K.C.C. and shall exercise the powers therein. C. The decision of the examiner shall be the decision of the director and shall be the final decision of the county with regard to shoreline management. (Ord. 12196 § 60, 1996: Ord. 3688 § 808, 1978). 25-59 (King County 6 -2000) PROCEDURES 25.32.090 - 25.32.120 25.32.090 Permits - approval or disapproval - notification - additional conditions - limitations. A. In granting or extending a permit, the director may attach thereto such conditions, modifications and restrictions regarding the location, character and other features of the proposed development and related development and activity outside of the shoreline as he finds necessary to make the permit compatible with the criteria set forth in K.C.C. 25.04.030 and 25.32.010. Such conditions may include requirement to post a performance bond assuring compliance with permit requirements, terms and conditions. B. Issuance of a substantial development permit does not constitute approval pursuant to any other federal, state or county laws or regulations. (Ord. 12196 § 61, 1996: Ord. 3688 § 809, 1978). 25.32.100 Appeals. A. Appeals from the final decision of the county with regard to shoreline management shall be govemed solely by the provisions of RCW 90.58.180. B. The effective date of King County's decision shall be the date of filing with the Department of Ecology as defined in RCW 90.58.140. C. When a hearing and decision has occurred pursuant to Section 25.32.080 and the examiner's recommendation with regard to disposition of a proposed development pursuant to Titles 20 and 21A of this code requires King County council action, the final decision of the county pursuant to this title shall be effective on the date of filing as defined in RCW 90.58.140 for the purposes of appeal as provided in RCW 90.50.140. However, no development may occur until the King County council has taken final action on the examiner's recommendation required by Titles 20 and /or 21A of this code. (Ord. 12196 § 62, 1996: Ord. 3688 § 810, 1978). 25.32.110 Rules of director. The director is authorized to adopt such rules as are necessary and appropriate to implement this chapter. The director may prepare and require the use of such forms as are necessary to its administration. (Ord. 3688 § 811, 1978). 25.32.120 Enforcement. A. The director is authorized to enforce the provisions of this title, the ordinances and resolutions codified in it, and any rules and regulations promulgated thereunder pursuant to the enforcement and penalty provisions of Title 23. B. Any person found to have willfully engaged in activities on the shorelines of the state in violation of this title or the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 or in violation of the master program, rules or regulations adopted pursuant thereto is guilty of a gross misdemeanor, and shall be punished by a fine of not less than twenty -five dollars nor more than one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than ninety days, or by both fines and imprisonment; provided, that the fine for the third and all subsequent violations in any five -year period shall be not less than five hundred dollars nor more than ten thousand dollars. C. The King County prosecuting attomey shall bring such injunctive, declaratory, or other actions as are necessary to insure that no uses are made of the shorelines of the state in conflict with the provisions of this title or the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 or in conflict with the master program, rules or regulations adopted pursuant thereto, and to otherwise enforce the provisions of this chapter and the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. D. Any person subject to the regulatory provisions of this title who violates any provision of this title or the provisions of a permit issued pursuant thereto shall be liable for all damage to public or private property arising from such violation, including the cost of restoring the affected area, within a reasonable time, to its condition prior to such violation. The King County prosecuting attorney shall bring suit for damages under this subsection on behalf of the county. Private persons shall have the right to bring suit for damages under this subsection on their own behalf and on behalf of all persons similarly situated. The court on its discretion may award attorney's fees and costs of the suit to the prevailing party. (Ord. 3688 812, 1978). • • 25.32.130 - 25.32.150 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT 25.32.130 Shoreline environment redesignation. A. Shoreline environments designated by the master program may be redesignated by the county council upon finding that such a redesignation will be consistent with the standards in K.C.C. 25.32.180. A shorelines redesignation may be initiated by an applicant or by motion of the council. B. A redesignation initiated by an applicant shall be made on forms and processed in a manner prescribed in K.C.C. 25.32.140. A redesignation initiated by the council shall follow the process in K.C.C. 25.32.150. C. The fee which shall accompany an application for a shoreline redesignation shall be as adopted by ordinance. D. The departmental report and recommendation regarding an application or a site - specific redesignation initiated by council motion shall be forwarded to the hearing examiner for consideration together with all relevant testimony at a public hearing to be held consistent with the procedures for a zone reclassification as provided in K.C.C. chapter 20.24. (Ord. 13687 § 2, 1999: Ord. 12196 § 63, 1996: Ord. 5734 § 17, 1981: Ord. 3688 § 813, 1978). 25.32.140 Redesignation applications. A. A redesignation initiated by an applicant, as described in K.C.C. 25.32.130B, must follow the procedures in K.C.C. chapters 20.20 and 20.24 for shorelines redesignations and must include the following information in addition to the requirements in K.C.C. chapter 20.20: 1. Applicant information, including signature, telephone number and address; 2. The applicant's interest in the property, such as owner, buyer or consultant; 3. Property owner concurrence, including signature, telephone number and address; 4. A property description, including parcel number, property street address and nearest cross street; 5. A county assessor's map outlining the subject property; 6. Related or previous permit activity; 7. A description of the proposed shorelines redesignation; 8. A mitigation plan providing for significant enhancement of the first one hundred feet adjacent to the shoreline and improved habitat for species declared as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act, to the extent that the impacts of development can be determined at the time of the proposed shoreline redesignation. 9. A discussion of how the proposed shorelines redesignation meets the criteria in K.C.C. 25.32.180. B. The examiner shall make a recommendation to the council based on the criteria for review in K.C.C. 25.32.180. (Ord. 13687 § 3, 1999). 25.32.150 Redesignations initiated by motion. A. A motion initiating a shorelines redesignation, as described in K.C.C. 25.32.130B must be accompanied by the following information: 1. A description of the shoreline reach and a property description, including parcel numbers, property street addresses and nearest cross streets, for all properties that the shoreline runs through or is adjacent to; 2. A county assessor's map outlining the subject property or properties; and 3. A description of the proposed shorelines redesignation. B. If the motion proposes site - specific redesignation, as "site" is defined in K.C.C. Title 21A, the redesignation shall be referred to the hearing examiner for consideration following the procedures of K.C.C. 25.32.140 for consideration of redesignation application. Any other redesignation proposal initiated by motion shall be referred to the executive for consideration as to whether the redesignation is appropriate for review as part of the annual or four -year Comprehensive Plan update, or should proceed independent of the annual or four year update process, such as through a subarea planning process. C. A motion initiating a site - specific redesignation must identify the resources and the work program required to provide the same level of review accorded to an applicant - generated shorelines redesignation. Before adoption of the motion, the executive shall have the opportunity to provide an analysis of the motion's fiscal impact. If the executive determines that additional funds are necessary to complete the work program, the executive may transmit an ordinance requesting the appropriation of supplemental funds. The council may consider the supplemental appropriation ordinance concurrently with the proposed motion referring the shorelines redesignation proposal to the examiner. 25-62 • • (King County 12 -99) PROCEDURES 25.32.150 - 25.32.180 D. A site - specific redesignation initiated by motion shall follow the procedures in K.C.C. chapters 20.20 and 20.24 for shorelines redesignations with regard to the information to be provided and the notice and hearing processes, and shall meet the submittal requirements of K.C.C. 25.32.140. The examiner shall make a recommendation to the council based on the criteria for review in K.C.C. 25.32.180. (Ord. 13687 § 4, 1999) 25.32.160 Frequency of consideration of shorelines redesignations. A. A shorelines redesignation may not be initiated unless at least three years have elapsed since the council's prior consideration of the current designation for the property. The executive or the council may waive this time limit if the proponent establishes that there exists either an obvious technical error or a change in circumstances justifying the need for earlier consideration of the shorelines redesignation. (Ord. 13687 § 5, 1999). 25.32.170 Joining of application for or motion to consider shorelines redesignation and site - specific land use map amendment or zone reclassification. A site - specific shorelines redesignation may be accompanied by a related proposal for a site - specific land use map amendment or zone reclassification, or both, in which case county review of the two applications must be consolidated to the extent practical, consistent with this ordinance and K.C.C. chapter 20.20. The council's consideration of a subarea or comprehensive shorelines redesignation is a legislative decision that must be determined before and separate from the council's final consideration of a zone reclassification or site - specific shorelines redesignation, which is a quasi-judicial decision. (Ord. 13687 § 6, 1999). 25.32.180 Criteria for hearing examiner review. A shorelines redesignation referred to the hearing examiner for a public hearing shall be reviewed based upon the requirements of Comprehensive Plan policies NE -308 and 1 -202, state and county shorelines management goals and objectives and the following additional standards: A. The proposed change implements and supports the goals of the comprehensive plan, the goals, policies and objectives of the state Shorelines Management Act and the county's shorelines master program and the designation criteria of the shoreline environment designation requested; B. The impacts of development allowed by the proposed change will not permanently impair any habitat critical to endangered or threatened species. C. The impacts of development allowed by the proposed change are adequately addressed in a mitigation plan providing significant enhancement of the first one hundred feet adjacent to the stream and improved habitat for species declared as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act, to the extent those impacts may be determinable at the time of the shorelines redesignation. A full mitigation plan shall accompany each application, as provided in K.C.C. 25.32.140 and K.C.C. 25.32.150; and D. If greater intensity of development would be allowed as a result of the shorelines redesignation, the proposal shall utilize clustering or a multi -story design to pursue minimum densities while minimizing lot coverage adjacent to the shorelines setback area. (Ord. 13687 § 7, 1999). 25-63 (King County 12 -99) 173 -27 -170 • Title 173 WAC: Ecology, Department (b) That the proposed use will not interfere with the nor- mal public use of public shorelines; (c) That the proposed use of the site and design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehen- sive plan and shoreline master program; (d) That the proposed use will cause no significant adverse effects to the shoreline environment in which it is to be located; and (e) That the public interest suffers no substantial detri- mental effect. (2) In the granting of all conditional use permits, consid- eration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if condi- tional use permits were granted for other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist, the total of the condi- tional uses shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. (3) Other uses which are not classified or set forth in the applicable master program may be authorized as conditional uses provided the applicant can demonstrate consistency with the requirements of this section and the requirements for con- ditional uses contained in the master program. (4) Uses which are specifically prohibited by the master program may not be authorized pursuant to either subsection (1) or (2) of this section. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.140(3) and [90.58].200.96 -20 -075 (Order 95 -17), § 173 -27 -160, filed 9/30/96, effective 10/31/96.] WAC 173 -27 -170 Review criteria for 'variance per- mits. The purpose of a variance permit is strictly limited to granting relief from specific bulk, dimensional or perfor- mance standards set forth in the applicable master program where there are extraordinary circumstances relating to the physical character or configuration of property such that the strict implementation of the master program will impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the policies set forth in RCW 90.58.020. (1) Variance permits should be granted in circumstances where denial of the permit would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances the applicant must demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances shall be shown and the public interest shall suffer no substan- tial detrimental effect. (2) Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located landward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(b), and/or land- ward of any wetland as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(h), may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: (a) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master pro- gram precludes, or significantly interferes with, reasonable use of the property; (b) That the hardship described in (a) of this subsection is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the master program, and not, [Title 173 WAC —p. 224] for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's o actions; (c) That the design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline roa ter program and will not cause adverse impacts to the shore- line environment; (d) That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area; (e) That the variance requested is the minimum neces- sary to afford relief; and (f) That the public interest will suffer no substantial det- rimental effect. (3) Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located waterward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(b), or within any wetland as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(h), may be autho- rized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the fol- lowing: (a) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master pro- gram precludes all reasonable use of the property; (b) That the proposal is consistent with the criteria estab- lished under subsection (2)(b) through (f) of this section; and (c) That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected. (4) In the granting of all variance permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example if variances were granted to other developments and/or uses in the area where similar circumstances exist the total of the variances shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not cause substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. (5) Variances from the use regulations of the master pro- gram are prohibited. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.140(3) and [90.581.200.96- 20-075 (Order 95 -17), § 173 -27 -170, filed 9/30/96, effective 10/31/96.] WAC 173 -27 -180 Application requirements for sub- stantial development, conditional use, or variance permit. A complete application for a substantial development, condi- tional use, or variance permit shall contain, as a minimum, the following information: (1) The name, address and phone number of the appli- cant. The applicant should be the owner of the property or the primary proponent of the project and not the representative of the owner or primary proponent. (2) The name, address and phone number of the appli- cant's representative if other than the applicant. (3) The name, address and phone number of the property owner, if other than the applicant. (4) Location of the property. This shall, at a minimum include the property address and identification of the section, township and range to the nearest quarter, quarter section or latitude and longitude to the nearest minute. All applications for projects located in open water areas away from land shall provide a longitude and latitude location. (5) Identification of the name of the shoreline (water body) that the site of the proposal is associated with. This (2003 Ed.) ATTACHMENT B2 • • Imagery Copyright© 2000 ATTACHMENT C L05 -051 DAVIS PROPERTIES SHORELINE VARIANCE 4 Scale: 1" = 400 ' r N CityGIS5 Copyright ® 2004, All Rlitts Reserved The information contained herein isthe proprietary property d the contributors supplied ender license and may not be reproduced except as licensed by I igtal Map Products SHORELINE VARIANCE DAVIS PROPERTY AND INVESTMENT King County Parcel No. 542260 -0010 9929 East Marginal Way Prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. August 2005 Our Job No. 10265 RECEIVED AUG 10 2005 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Pursuant to City of Tukwila adopted King County Shoreline Management Master Program (KCSMMP), 25.32.040, the Director is authorized to grant a variance from the performance standards of this master program only under the conditions enumerated in WAC[173 -27 -170] (Review Criteria for Variances). These criteria are written below in italics along with responses to each item as it relates to the project: Project Description: The proposal to redevelop the subject property, which is located in the Manufacturing/Industrial Center — Heavy ( MIC/H) zoning district includes construction of an asphalt- surfaced storage yard, a warehouse storage building, parking, and travel lanes for on -site travel. Outdoor storage and warehouse storage are permitted uses in both the MIC/H zone and the urban environment (26.16.170) section of the KCSMMP. Variance Request: The proposed project requires two Shoreline Variances to allow (1) the proposed warehouse storage structure to exceed 35 feet in height above average grade pursuant to KCSMMP 25.16.B, and (2) parking waterward of the proposed building, rather than beneath or upland pursuant to KCSMMP26.16.030.E. This variance is necessary because the site is an irregular shape that makes the 200 -foot shoreline jurisdiction's effect on the development of the site particularly onerous. A small portion of the proposed warehouse building is located within the shoreline jurisdiction. A transition for the height of the future building from the zoning - allowed 125 feet to the shoreline - allowed 35 feet would be difficult, incongruous to the development, and would not protect views of any residential properties. At this time, the height of the future building is unknown; however, the developer desires the flexibility to have a uniform building height of up to 125 feet, including the area within 200 feet of the Duwamish Waterway and/or Port of Seattle Slip No. 6, which are both regulated shoreline areas. Within the 200 -foot shoreline jurisdiction, the project proposes 37 parking stalls waterward of the proposed building on the east half of the site; however, this parking may also be used for staff or patrons associated with the outdoor storage use on the west half of the site. The parking stalls have a variable width- landscaping strip (minimum 5 -foot wide) between the shoreline and the parking area, which will be landscaped in accordance with the shoreline and zoning requirements for type and quantity of vegetation. WAC 173 -27 -170 Review criteria for variance permits. The purpose of a variance permit is strictly limited to granting relief from specific bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program where there are extraordinary circumstances relating to the physical character or configuration of property such that the strict implementation of the master program will impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the policies set forth in RCW 90.58.020. (1) Variance permits should be granted in circumstances where denial of the permit would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances the applicant must demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances shall be shown and the public interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect. -1- 10265.003.doc ATTACHMENT E • •) Response: The extraordinary circumstances that exist for the subject property and proposed development are that the site is in the relatively unique situation of having regulated shoreline on two sides (similar to a corner lot) such that there is an inordinate application of shoreline restrictions placed on development of the site. As shorelines are typically along only one property frontage, it is the corner location of the site on both the Duwamish Waterway and Port of Seattle Slip No. 6 that creates the need for both of these variance requests. By granting the variance request to allow a building height up to 125 feet as allowed by zoning, there is no loss to the public interest because the building area that is within the shoreline jurisdiction will be consistent with the rest of the building that is outside of the shoreline area. The uniform roofline is more appropriate to the future warehouse use and does not impede views of any neighboring property. Also, granting the variance request to allow a limited amount of parking waterward of the proposed building does not result in a loss to the public interest because the parking area will not create any shipping or other impacts, it allows efficient use of the site for shared vehicle access and truck circulation, and it is compatible with the proposed use and surrounding development in the area. The elimination of this parking would make the proposed future building less viable as a multi -tenant facility as the building access areas would be restricted to locations where parking was allowed; this creates a burden on the development that would not exist if the site were not located on a corner of shoreline. (2) Variance permits for development and /or uses that will be located landward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(b), and /or landward of any wetland as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(h), may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: (a.) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes, or significantly interferes with, reasonable use of the property; Response: This criterion is met for the proposed building height increase as well as the proposed parking waterward of the building. Warehouse structures are typically tilt -up or metal construction where the resulting structure is a rectangular box that has a generally uniform roofline (although some roofline modulation is sometimes incorporated into the design). The construction of a warehouse building that has a small area that is only 35 feet tall, when the rest of the structure could be as high as 125 feet tall, would be inefficient in design, cost of construction, and future use by the tenant(s) of the building. Strict application would significantly interfere with the developer's use of the property consistent with the zoning and other developed sites in the area that are not constrained with two shoreline "frontages." It is typical for industrial or warehouse uses to combine drive aisles for parking with truck lanes and fire access lanes around a building. To efficiently utilize the site, strict application of the bulk, dimensional, and performance standards (disallowing parking waterward of the structure) would create net loss of parking that cannot be reallocated on site. (b.) That the hardship described in (a) of this subsection is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or -2- 10265.003.doc • } •) natural features and the application of the master program, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions; Response: The need for the variance is entirely caused by the configuration of the site having two shoreline "frontages." (c.) That the design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program and will not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment; Response: The proposed use is a listed permitted use in both the MIC/H zoning district and the KCSMMP urban environment. Further, the use is consistent with neighboring uses. (d.) That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area; Response: Allowing the variance in this case does not grant a special privilege, as the need for both variances is the result of the corner orientation of the site to the Duwamish Waterway and Port of Seattle Slip No. 6. Other properties that are not so constrained have the ability to develop similarly or more intensely than this project proposes. (e.) That the variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief, and Response: A small area of the proposed building is located within the shoreline. The building is located as far east as possible to accommodate a double loaded parking area near East Marginal Way and as far north as possible to accommodate a truck loading area consistent with industry standards on the north side of the building. Only 37 of approximately 200 parking stalls are proposed within the shoreline area. All of the parking is proposed on areas that would be paved in any case to allow vehicle circulation and access. Landscaping is provided between the shoreline and the parking areas. (f.) That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. Response: The public interest will not suffer any detriment as the proposed variance items are minor and effect a small portion of the overall site development. Views will not be altered or eliminated by the small area of structural height increased from 35 feet to 125 feet because in either case (with or without variance), the appearance of the rectangular building from all angles would seem to be as tall as the highest areas. The parking would have no detrimental effect because it is consistent with typical site design for industrial uses, will not impact shipping or any other public travel. Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located waterward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(b), or within any wetland as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(h), may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: (a.) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes all reasonable use of the property; -3- 10265.003.doc • 411) (b.) That the proposal is consistent with the criteria established under subsection (2)(b) through (0 of this section; and (c.) That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected. Response: This section does not apply as all proposed activities are upland of the OHWM. (4) In the granting of all variance permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example if variances were granted to other developments and/or uses in the area where similar circumstances exist the total of the variances shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not cause substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. Response: No cumulative impact to the public or neighboring properties or uses will result from allowing the building height increase or the parking water main of the future building. (5) Variances from the use regulations of the master program are prohibited. Response: The proposed use is consistent with allowed uses in the underlying City of Tukwila MIC/H zoning district and the KCSMMP urban environment. -4- 10265.003.doc 41'411 er4G 044. • GHA 40- 0 j„0 5- 05 1 Carol Lumb, Senior Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Responses to October 27, 2005 Comment Letter Davis Property and Investment 9229 East Marginal Way South, Tukwila, Washington Our Job No. 10265 Dear Carol: L05 - 050: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Response: Please see the enclosed Shoreline Permit narrative. CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 1 NalludC „ • -"/ A.LINr 19002 u N yi Q3AI LI L. 6o5 j_ oS- D5D LO S- 0 51 _,o S _ a 55- Lo 5 ,. o SI January 4, 2006 COURIER DELIVERY 0- see. 5 EPA- Ate- Los -O6D 4, atnuA We have revised the plans and technical documents for the above - referenced project in accordance with your comment letters dated September 14, 2005 and October 27, 2005. Enclosed are the following documents for your review and approval: 1. Six (6) copies of the revised plan set 2. Six (6) copies of the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by the Transpo Group, dated December 2005 3. Six (6) copies of the Western Parcel Redevelopment Work Plan prepared by Geomatrix Consultants, Inc., dated November 2005 4. Six (6) copies of the revised Shoreline Permit narrative 5. Six (6) copies of the BNSF deed and easement document recording no. 4781818 6. Six (6) copies of the Groundwater Pretreatment System Relocation Plan prepared by Geomatrix Consultants, Inc., dated January 2005 7. Six (6) copies of the Boundary and Topographic Survey Background: On page 1 of the October 27, 2005, letter, you noted that groundwater monitoring will begin soon to evaluate the effectiveness of the remediation that exists on the site. Please note that the remediation efforts and groundwater monitoring has been an ongoing process for approximately seven years. For clarification regarding the location of recovery wells as well as the effectiveness of the current system, please refer to the enclosed documents prepared by Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. The following outline provides each of your comments in italics exactly as written, along with a narrative response describing how each comment was addressed: 1. As noted at the Pre - Application meeting on December 2, 2004, this site is governed by the King County Shoreline Master Program, not Tukwila's. The materials submitted with L05- 050 address Tukwila's shoreline criteria rather than King County's. A copy of King County's criteria is attached — please submit a response to K. C. C 25.16.030 and K.C.C. 25.16.170. 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251 -6222 (425) 251 -8782 FAX BRANCH OFFICES • OLYMPIA, WA • TEMECULA, CA • WALNUT CREEK, CA www.barghausen.com ATTACHMENT F Carol Lumb, Senior Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development -2- January 4, 2006 2. Since the site is governed by King County's Shoreline Master Program, please revise all plans showing the shoreline environments to reflect the King County setbacks rather than the City of Tukwila shoreline environments (River, Low Impact and High Impact). Response: The plans have been revised to show King County shoreline setbacks only. L05 -051: Shoreline Variance 3. The Variance Request stales that "(T)o efficiently utilize the site, strict application of the bulk, dimensional, and performance standards (disallowing parking waterward of the structure) would create net loss of parking that cannot be reallocated on site." It appears there is room to flip the building orientation such that the parking is located on the north side of the proposed warehouse and the drive aisle is located on the south side. In addition, the site plan shows 201 parking stalls, when only 93 would be required for a 185,000 sq. foot warehouse. Since the site is over - parked, it would seem that the parking stalls in the shoreline can be eliminated. Response: The proposed building will have a gross floor area of approximately 84,000 square feet, including 12,6000 to 33,6000 square feet of office space (15 to 40%) and 50,4000 to 71,4000 square feet of warehouse space (60 to 85%). Parking has been provided to accommodate the maximum amount of expected parking demand as the warehouse building is a "speculative" building that may contain a myriad variation of uses. We have evaluated whether the existing building could be flipped to provide loading on the south side (shoreline side) and parking on the north side. Because, of the existing uses on surrounding properties, (heavy industrial uses and storage uses to the north and Boeing Flight Museum property to the south) the orientation of the building, as currently proposed, better suites the proposed use and is more compatible with surrounding properties. The minor amount of parkipg: provided waterward of the proposed building within the shoreline jurisdiction is screened from the shoreline by additional landscaping. The entirety of the parking that falls within the shoreline jurisdiction is necessary parking adjacent to the proposed building. Removal of the proposed 28 stalls within the shoreline jurisdiction adjacent to the building would result in lengthy walking conditions for employees or customers to the future uses within the proposed building. L05 -055 Administrative Design Review 4. In a letter dated September 14, 2005, we requested building elevations, color and materials board, lighting plan and illustrations of any signage planned for the site. These materials are needed before Notice of Application can be issued. Response: These items are provided in the enclosed plan set. L05 -057: Short Plat 5. The short plat proposes to segregate off the portion of the site that is subject to the RCRA Consent Decree. We are concerned that since only interim remediation actions have been Carol Lumb, Senior Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development -3- January 4, 2006 taken so far to clean up the contamination, a short plat would possibly create on non - buildable lot if the remediation efforts are not successful. In addition to the known contamination, we understand there is concern over what might be in the underground piping and tanks. No information was provided to the current owner about these issues when the property was sold. Please address this concern. Response: Container Properties agrees that contamination issues are relevant to the short plat proposal and to future development of the segregated portions of the site. However, the developer is addressing these issues actively and adequately with EPA, Region 10 under the existing Administrative Order on Consent (Order). Work is presently underway to fully address each of the City's concerns identified in this comment, as summarized below. Interim actions have been implemented for the western parcel; the most recent interim measure included construction of a totally enclosing barrier wall surrounding the most highly affected soil and groundwater at the site. This barrier wall provides containment to limit migration of contaminated groundwater from the site and has been proven successful in attaining containment objectives included in the approved work plan. Final remediation has not been implemented at the site; additional work, including preparation of the Corrective Measures Study and Corrective Measures Implementation Plan must be prepared and approved by EPA prior to proceeding with final remediation of the western parcel. Container Properties has been working closely with EPA in performing interim actions that have been conducted at the site. It is generally understood by Container Properties and EPA that, assuming no further remedial construction is necessary at the site, industrial buildings could presently be constructed over contaminated areas provided that proper precautions are taken during construction and in the design of the buildings.. Due to extent of contamination within the westem parcel it is unlikely that feasible remedial actions would successfully attain cleanup levels throughout the parcel. However, it should be noted that site contamination presents a low risk to human health. While toluene and elevated pH groundwater are present at the site, the primary site contaminant is copper, which primarily affects aquatic life in the nearby Duwamish Waterway. The containment approach to site remediation that is already in place is compatible with development of industrial buildings and facilities on the parcel. Institutional controls restricting the site to industrial use and requiring appropriate safeguards for site construction and for preventing potential migration of vapors to the buildings would be required for future site redevelopment. The concerns expressed by the City are shared by EPA and by Container Properties. Container Properties is working with EPA to allow remediation of the western parcel in a way that will allow it to be redeveloped for industrial use, including construction of new buildings. Under the terms of the Order, EPA must review and approve all plans for remediation of the site. EPA is currently reviewing the redevelopment plan for the site to ensure that the development is consistent with the remediation.objectives. Regarding the concern that potential wastes or other materials that may be present in underground structures or process piping, Container Properties is currently working closely with EPA to investigate and identify such materials. A formal work plan to sample and Carol Lumb, Senior Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development -4- January 4, 2006 characterize these materials in the areas of concern has been prepared and approved by EPA. Most of the characterization work has been completed; only characterization of above -grade process piping and vessels remains to be done. Of the work completed to date for this work plan, only one location (a sump) was found to contain materials remaining from site operations. After completing characterization of the materials found, they will be removed and disposed of properly. Process piping and vessel contents will be assessed in early January when properly trained contractors are available. If materials are found in piping or vessels, it will be characterized and removed. A formal report will be submitted to EPA to document this work so that demolition can proceed. After completion of this process, it is expected that EPA will approve the western parcel redevelopment plan that has been submitted for their approval. 6. It is our understanding that some minor areas of soil contamination exist on the eastern part of our site. Explain how and when these will be dealt with and identify the location of the contaminated areas. Response: A formal work plan has been prepared to address this contamination; EPA is presently reviewing the work plan. The work plan summarized available site characterization data for the eastern parcel and identifies areas where either additional data are needed to confirm contamination or proposes removal of contaminated soil. Confirmation sampling is included in the work plan to document attainment of Washington Department of Ecology cleanup levels for unrestricted land use. A copy of this work plan, which has not yet been approved by. EPA, is attached. Container Properties is prepared to implement this work plan upon approval by EPA. The actual implementation schedule will depend on receipt of approval from EPA and the availability of environmental contractors to perform the removal actions included in the work plan. It is expected that EPA will approve removal of the eastern parcel from the Order after completing this work. Corrections to Plans: 7. Revise the plans to show the three groundwater recovery wells in addition to the monitoring wells. Response: The groundwater recovery wells have been called out on the enclosed site plans. Please refer to the Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. reports for status of all of the wells on site. 8. The plans must indicate where the existing groundwater pretreatment facility is located, as well as the proposed new location. In addition, both existing and proposed piping details must be provided on the plans. Response: The pretreatment system has already been relocated. The relocation work has nearly been completed — a new building was constructed to house the system and it was connected to power on January 3, 2006. All pretreatment equipment has been moved. It will be operated and maintained as it was before. The old building is now vacant and is being readied for demolition. SEPA Checklist: Carol Lumb, Senior Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development -5- January 4, 2006 9. The plans must indicate the current location of the on -site King County lift station and indicate whether it will also be relocated. Response: The old pretreatment system required use of a lift station. The new system does not use the lift station — the lift station has been bypassed. The old lift station will be demolished along with the rest of the site buildings. 10. It is unclear from review of the documents provided how the groundwater recovery wells, the groundwater pretreatment system piping, monitoring wells, and the upper surface of the slurry walls will be protected during grading and construction. Please explain, and if appropriate, provide revised drawings. Response: Please see the enclosed Western Parcel of Redevelopment Work Plan for a detailed description of the groundwater recovery well and pretreatment system decommissioning as well as the proposal for future groundwater monitoring and groundwater extraction wells that will remain. Specifically, please see Section 4.3.3, page 18 of the Western Parcel of Redevelopment Work Plan. 11. Section B.1 .item f The response to the question of whether erosion could occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use, does not make any sense. The slurry wall does nothing to protect sediment from leaving the site, as it is below ground and water constructed to intercept groundwater, not surface water. Response: It is unlikely that erosion could occur during clearing, construction, or use, provided that the temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures depicted on the enclosed TESC plans, as well as Section 4.2 of the Western Parcel of Redevelopment Work Plan, are followed closely. Silt fencing has been placed around the perimeter of the site and catch basin filters will be placed on every catch basin during site development. 12. Section B.7. items 1 and 2. The City should be provided with a copy of the EPA - approved Operation, Monitoring, Inspection, and Maintenance Plan referenced in the SEPA Checklist. Response: Enclosed are copies of the Western Parcel Redevelopment Work Plan as well as copies of the operation, monitoring, inspection, and maintenance plan as referenced in the SEPA checklist. Please note that neither of these plans have received EPA approval; however, both are under review by EPA at this time. 13. A detailed health and safety plan will be necessary for any grading /filling work on the site, including emergency measures and daily decontamination procedures. Please provide the City with a copy of the plan for the SEPA file when it has been prepared. Response: The Health and Safety Plan is included in the enclosed Western Parcel Redevelopment Work Plan prepared by Geomatrix dated November 2005. Carol Lumb, Senior Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development -6- January 4, 2006 Landscaping Plan 14. Since a variance is being requested from the King County shoreline requirement to place parking either under buildings or landward of the shoreline, please provide a schematic that shows how the landscaping adjacent to the shoreline will look one year after planting and three years after planting. Response: We have removed some of the parking between the proposed building and the shoreline and replaced it with landscaping. We can provide conceptual landscaping elevations (if necessary) once the landscaping plans have been generally accepted by the City. 15. Please enlarge the portion of the proposed landscaping for the streetscape and the front of the building — it is difficult to identify all the plants that are proposed for these locations. Response: Enclosed is a 1 " =20' enlargement of the eastern side of the building as well as the landscaping fronting East Marginal Way South for your review. Please note that this is a blowup of just a portion of the preliminary Landscaping Planting Plan, which is provided entirely as Sheet L1 of 2 in the plan set. 16. Please confirm the location of the Corpus Kousa — are these trees proposed along the front of the building? Response: We have altered the symbol for the Cornus Kousa so that they are more visible along the east side of the building. 17. 1 only count 16 Thuja Plicata 'Excelsa.' Response: We have verified the correct count (20) of Thuja Plicata 'Excelsa' in the Landscape Planting Material Legend on Sheet L 1 of 2. 18. The common name of Pennisetum Alopecuroides 'Hameln' is listed as Oregon Grape, which is incorrect. Please correct the table. Response: The cornmon name for Pennisetum Alopecuroides 'Hameln' has been corrected. 19. Landscaping is required to screen the proposed storage yard from the shoreline. Response: Existing vegetation surrounding the property along the shoreline will screen the proposed storage yard. Disruption of this existing vegetation to replant with landscaping materials may be more deleterious than keeping the existing vegetation in place. Public Works Comments: 20. Please refer to the Pre - application Meeting comments from Public Works. A copy is included. A number of the items on the Public Works comment sheet were not included or Carol Lumb, Senior Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development -7- January 4, 2006 addressed in the submittal materials. Please provide the missing items that are highlighted on the enclosed Checklist. Response: Enclosed is a Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by the Transpo Group dated December 2005. Also enclosed is the Boundary and Topographic Survey, which identifies existing easements on the site. Finally, enclosed is documentation regarding ownership for Parcel 542260 -0015, which indicates access and utility rights to the subject property (please see enclosed Warranty Deed, recording no. 4781818) exist over the BNSF property. 21. Provide a Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by an engineer licensed in Washington State that includes analysis of turning movements at the existing signalized access and at the proposed additional access. The site plan can not be evaluated properly without knowing what traffic impacts need mitigation. Response: Please see the enclosed Traffic Impact Analysis. 22. Please provide civil sheet(s) that include: a. All existing easements that will remain after the demolition and all new easements, including access across BNSF property. Response: The civil sheets have been revised to identify easements that will remain as well as new easements after project development. Access rights across the BNSF property are established by the enclosed Warranty Deed recording no. 4784818 provision [1], which states: "the Grantor expressly reserves to itself, its successors or assigns, the right for its servants and agents, and any other person or persons acting for the benefit, or on behalf, of Grantor, its successors or assigns to cross the strip or parcel of land hereby conveyed at such place or places and at such time or times as the Grantor, it successors or assigns, may desire, and the Grantor further expressly reserves to itself, its successors or assigns, the right to cross said strip or parcel of land at any time with electric, water, gas, telephone, or other utility service lines, entrances or exits in a manner which will not obstruct the railroad uses of said strip or parcel of land; ". b. Plans that indicate what will remain after all of the demolition and removal of pipes, catch basins, etc. The plans provided include all of the existing sewer, water, and storm drainage elements, making it difficult to sort out what will remain. Please note that the demolition notes do not correlate to the utility locations on the drawings, so it is difficult to tell what will be removed as part of the demolition. (see Sheet E2 for example) Response: We have revised civil and demolition sheets to make it more clear what will remain and what will be removed during project development. l Carol Lumb, Senior Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development -8- January 4, 2006 c. Any measures needed to alleviate or improve turning movement conflicts at the accesses points. Response: As indicated in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by the Transpo Group dated December 2005, the intersection of South 92nd Place and East Marginal Way South has a split phased green signal such that turning movements for the subject property and the property to the north do not conflict with each other. Under existing conditions, the intersection of South 92nd Place and East Marginal Way South operates at LOS A. d. Rerouting of the 36" storm drain. (Refer to the Technical Information Report) Response: The rerouted storm drain is depicted on the site plans. 23. Provide approval from BNSF to cross property for access. Response: As indicated on the enclosed Easement Recording No. 4781818, additional approval from BNSF to cross property for access is not necessary as a reservation for access and utilities is part of the legal description for the BNSF property. We believe that the above responses, together with the enclosed revised plan and technical documents, address all of the comments in your letters dated September 14, 2005, and October 27, 2005. Please review and approve the enclosed at your earliest convenience. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact me at this office. Thank you. IH/ath/pj 10265c.009.doc enc: As Noted cc: Jeff Davis, Davis Property and Investment (w /enc) Larry McGaughey, Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. Daniel K. Balmelli, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Brendan T. Madden, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. • Respectfully, Ivana Halvorsen Senior Planner doc: DNS File Number: E05 -011 Appl ied: 08/08/2005 Issue Date: 04/18/2006 Status: ISSUED • • City of Tukwila Department of Community Development / 6300 Southcenter BI, Suite 100 / Tukwila, WA 98188 / (206)431 -3670 DETERMINATION OF NON - SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) Applicant: BARGHAUSEN ENGINEERING ATTN IVANA HALVORSEN Lead Agency: City of Tukwila Description of Proposal: Davis Property and Investment - Preparation of site and development of 84,000 square feet of warehouse and associated office development. Location of Proposal: Address: 9229 EAST MARGINAL WY 5 TUKW Parcel Number: 5422600010 Section/Township /Range: SW 1/4 AND SE 1/4 33 -24 -04 The City has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21c.030(2) (c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. This DNS is issued under WAC 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by IA 3 , 20D, The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Date City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 (206)431 -3670 Any appeal shall be linked to a specific governmental action. The State Environmental Policy Act is not intended to create a cause of action unrelated to a specific governmental action. Appeals of environmental determinations shall be commenced within the time period to appeal the governmental action that is subject to environmental review. (RCW 43.21C.075) ATTACHMENT G E05 -011 Printed: 04 -18 -2006 5 O5 tcV6.0511;Ip UR9AN 8HOf JNE BTANDARD66 144 10101•[1 -441 040( 034301 400 0151 p er * 1.* . 1441 404 173.401 1. 46001 07501 - 1/0 roe I M4YY, IOLtl 1 - ,1 .QT - 1 1331 40 404 �., (0 100 5540 s +• N1.r. ems, 0501. 4010 401 - OOP V 416711 0. NNW .001 O. 071014 01100 0 RUM 00 ~001 404 CC 41000440110 440 • 1.0. l4r 40 1 440. all 4140 LP DAVIS PROPERTY AND INVESTMENT A PORTION OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 24 N, RANGE 4 E. W. 051 KING COUNTY, WASHNOTON =MIA 1. W 10545 M0.: 401-0041 1 R •044. 1024 100 00421 rr 1 001. rC/1 044/1100 M4r4 4 .17(014 �•4 13000 106/44 1 1r14U1 1 00100 11110 0/1100000 1o1mi0w / 140401 501) 071 10410 1. 0 05141 01171007 40 rbp D•..M ER 056 0000105 40 ...augur co. NU 43 Ov, r 1141I4 07451 01714[+0, YO 414 f POP 0. 101 0-10 4 r 110, 0i4[700-3300 4.141, IOb0430 0445 40.0 4111..1 0510401 C001.11111 0441 K 14 50023 /fu* W8 61-614 47 001 81.49* 401 04 *4011/ 4404/ rW 4041 SHORE NE SITE PLAN FOR 4010 1444 0*M 41011 04.4 441 5 7710'70'1 5 0'00 304 1 5903 10'1 01.4 YLBEIEL 0 N -M 7705 174 AUG 0 8 2005 7 * 4414 01W 16900 nM 004 0440101. 0[33,0117.14.5 0OT 114 MOAN 001 -1033 11[ * 40. 1744444 -04 544 CId 074 NCO- 0100 .117410044 4 ** 0440 RON 144414 -aura OO 0404.7 0404 -[0,0 s .14 , 14.w44r1 0EIVED u , 404.041 uMrawt 'AUG 0 8 2005 COMMUNITY 040 4071. 411 1 EQA1 O 4 04 r 1401 w 7 r 44...4 M14Vr...rr 40 Mrr4 4440 44 0440.41 a. 70*l, .brr.Irr4r .0rra� ... r14rw4W. u. *4.1.,. 4 4ir 4 M .. ( 144- 4050 "` 1.4 ..717' - . (0 . ... r.4� 11+ + 1 0 1.r . .+ibl• 9 widwr r°u..y,. - * 0 irr ^. .w... 1.. - 10044. 104.44.4 Nr 4 %:. vwH. w r,.r(.0 05..(00* 44 rr*r u r, • 11'.144 r 4.04 44 • GO l.r.r ti tr■ 440 w....w 171 r Oa; 0104 0 1 Or.wnl 6rA fltl N' 14. r 0 4 411 4 4 W 054 IN 444 411 r r r 06.4 0 0 0 44 4 6 44 4 .,,,..4 07.74 110 br • 1144 4 5443 140 4. 00 r 710 V. r; woes 4 � fwr. 100 4404 4 14 0'00 Y 14•r 0 701* 02 ., • 1 Ora 4 .10 0 40 *v.5.wrrl.4r 0.17w 0,4 010,000 4 r 44 Parr r 0 * 440 w LW M. 101 4 1.. 40 w no .0 4. 1344 rn r 044 144 W 404 u .0 N' urn. 4.4.00 ;171 44 4 4 4 40144. wMYYw.M 10.00 4Yr 05/014 •1 W 471 4 r44 44 71.4; IT 0 0. 0 14 • 4.140404. 0 M.4y•q V„4 . O. I44 M..• b 0. 40071.1440 TMPO t d0M Iv 4 0 44 004 • LITT x133 IW N W 44 1 44 04 4 0 Ir 171 0' 40 1W11 44 0 m 0401 x49 •.4 u 07 4'714 r 01 r 1434 000[40.70 Or Ir 471 ••■•.6 r.b 1100.0 9044 0 44 144.0714 ry. 00 W0..1 r 0. 141rr 4 401 ra4rr rw r 10 - ~ .740 110.4 Or r 441 033;4 -4 r . 404 4 PC r 04 CA 7, 410 r 4 4 044001.0 .00541 0 4004 NCO 4 40 04401 41, 44.0 0 0 r 11.0 0331 WPC 100141 a 141 0* r 0000 1 1110[1 040601 717 1044 *.1403700724 Wirt OP 0330.040, Ira a 1 413 $7 TOM S0 1 • OP .11010 1 1111 1404 14 00W - COW 01001.4 Cr 4 f10 � 011t 10411 r . O0, tl 1P 4 CS 0 0+4 •_ 01 710 0 14 0tml O.W 0.540 .r tr. D. no arrow », me. WV. RECEIVED JUL 0 3 2006 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Northwest Regional Office • 3190 160th Avenue SE • Bellevue, Washington 98008 -5452 • (425) 649 -7000 June 30, 2006 Carol Lumb, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98199 Ivana Halvorsen Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 18215 72 Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Dear Ms. Lumb and Ms. Halvorsen: Re: City of Tukwila Shoreline Variance L05 -051 Barghausen Engineering for Davis Properties - Applicant Shoreline Variance Permit 2006 -NW 80038 Purpose of Letter: I certify that I mailed a copy of this document to the persons and addresses listed herein, postage prepaid, iR a rgGeptacle for United States mail in _ (? �, u e Was ton, o, This letter is to notify you that the Department of Ecology has received the City of Tukwila's shoreline variance decision on your application to: Build 27 parking stalls associated with a proposed building, as part of redevelopment of an industrial site, at 9229 East Marginal Way South, within shoreline jurisdiction of the Duwamish Waterway. The Department of Ecology must review any shoreline variance permit issued by a local government before the project is started. The Washington Administrative Code (WAC) requires the department do such a review in order to determine whether that local variance permit should be approved, denied, or approved with additional conditions (WAC 173 -27 -200). Our decision: We agree with the City of Tukwila that, if you comply with their conditions and with the additional condition listed below, your project will be consistent with their master program and the criteria in law for granting a variance permit (WAC 173 -27 -170): Ms. Lumb and Ms. Halvorsen • June 30, 2006 Page 2 The permit, as conditioned, is hereby approved. This approval means that you have met the requirements of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 (Ch. 90.58 of the Revised Code of Washington). Other federal, state, or local approvals may also be required. What should I do next? You must wait at least twenty -one (21) days from the date of this letter before you start the work authorized by this permit. This waiting period is to allow anyone disagreeing with any aspect of your permit to appeal to the Shorelines Hearings Board. If anyone does appeal your permit, you must wait until the appeal is over before you start work. The Shorelines Hearings Board will notify you by letter if they receive an appeal. To be sure the Shorelines Hearings Board has not received an appeal, we advise you to call them at (360) 459 -6327 before you begin work. If you have any questions about this letter, please contact Betty Renkor at (425) 649 -4309. Sincerely, The applicant hereby authorizes Ecology staff and their designees to have access to the subject property for the purposes of compliance inspection and monitoring. Such right of access shall begin from the date of the receipt of this letter, during construction, and extend for a period of five years following project completion. Ecology staff must provide reasonable verbal notice to the applicant or their designee prior to coming onto the site. Geoff Tallent, Section Supervisor Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program GT:BR:ca cc: Jeffrey Davis, Davis Properties Enclosure • • THIS SECTION FOR DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY USE ONLY IN REGARD TO A . CONDITIONAL USE OR VARIANCE PERMIT Variance: City of Tukwila # L05 -051 APPLICANT: Barghausen Engineering for Davis Properties DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PERMIT # 2006 -NW -80038 DATE RECEIVED BY THE DEPARTMENT: June 2, 2006 DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE: June 2, 2006 APPROVED as conditioned. THIS VARIANCE -IS APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 90.58RCW. DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE UNDERTAKEN PURSUANT TO THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS: The applicant hereby authorizes Ecology staff and their designees to have access to the subject property for the purposes of compliance inspection and monitoring. Such right of access shall begin from the date of the receipt of this letter, during construction, and extend for a period of five years following project completion. Ecology staff must provide reasonable verbal notice to the applicant or their designee prior to coming onto the site. DATE: June 30, 2006 (Signature of authorized department official) 1 APPLICATION: LOCATION: FILE NUMBER: ASSOCIATED FILES: APPLICANT: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DISTRICT: SEPA DETERMINATION: CITY OF TUKWILA HEARING EXAMINER FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND DECISION PROJECT INFORMATION SUMMARY PUBLIC HEARING: May 9, 2006. SHORELINE VARIANCE EXHIBITS: The following exhibits were entered into the record: 1. Department's staff report, dated April 14, 2006 Shoreline variance to permit 27 parking stalls (associated with a proposed building) to be located within the shoreline environment 9229 East Marginal Way South L05 -051 E05 -011 (State Environmental Policy Act Review) L05 -050 (Shoreline Substantial Development Permit) L05 -055 (Administrative Design Review) L -05 -0057 (Short Plat) Ivana Halvorsen, Barghausen Engineering, for Davis Properties Manufacturing Industrial Center/Heavy Manufacturing Industrial Center/Heavy Determination of Nonsignificance The following persons offered testimony at the hearing: Carol Lumb, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development Ivana Halvorsen, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., 18215 72 Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032 Brendan Madden, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., 18215 72 Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032 Jeffrey E. Davis, DPI, P.O. Box 1043, Kent, WA 98032 14 A' hearing Examiner Dec* `� t L05 -051 Shoreline Variance Page 2 of 6 Applicant's request to withdraw height variance 3. Chapter 25.32, KCC 4. WAC 173 -27 -170 5. 2005 aerial photo of site 6. Plan Set, including site plan and landscaping plan 7. Applicant's response to shoreline variance criteria 8. January 4, 2006, response to technical comments letter 9. SEPA staff report Introduction • The applicant, Davis Properties, has applied for shoreline variance approval to allow parking waterward of a proposed building, rather than beneath or upland of the building as required by Section 26.16.030.E of the King County shoreline regulations (which apply to this site). The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the variance. The public hearing on the application was held on May 9, 2006, in Conference Room 2, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard. Represented at the hearing were: the Department, by Carol Lumb, Senior Planner; and the applicant, by Ivana Halvorsen and Brendon Madden, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, and Jeffrey E. Davis, DPI. No member of the public appeared. After due consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, the following shall constitute the findings of fact, conclusions and decision of the Hearing Examiner on this application. Findings of Fact 1. The subject site is addressed as 9229 East Marginal Way South, and is accessed from East Marginal Way. The entire site is approximately 19.5 acres and is adjacent to the Duwamish River which is west of the site. In addition, the Port of Seattle's Slip No. 6 lies along the southern border of the western portion of the site. The site is irregularly - shaped, with the eastern half being much narrower than the western half of the property. The site is developed with abandoned structures and other impervious surface areas. 2. The property is zoned Manufacturing Industrial Center/Heavy (MIC/H). The site is designated as Urban Environment under King County's Shoreline Master Program. 3. North of the site is an auto salvage yard, which has surface parking within the shoreline environment. Exhibit 5. That parking was not subject to either shoreline substantial development or shoreline variance review, as it was determined not to constitute development under the state Shoreline Management Act. South of the site P earing Examiner Decision L05 -051 Shoreline Variance Page 3 of 6 across Slip No. 6 is the Boeing Development Center, and the Boeing Museum of Flight. To the east across East Marginal Way is the King County Airport. 4. The property has been contaminated because of previous chemical manufacturing activities at the site. Corrective actions for historic releases at the site are underway, subject to an EPA Order on Consent under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Remediation and testing activities at the site have been ongoing for several years. Most of the remediation efforts and testing are directed at the western portion of the site. It is possible that no cleanup, or removal of only small areas of contamination, will be required for the eastern part of the site. The proposed building and parking stalls would be located on the eastern portion of the site, as shown in the plans at Exhibit 6. Proposal 5. The proposal is for variance relief to allow 27 surface parking stalls to be located within the shoreline area, along with landscaping as proposed in Exhibit 6. (The application initially included a request for a variance to exceed the height limit, but the applicant withdrew that request prior to hearing.) 6. The applicant proposes to construct an 84,000 square foot warehouse /office building on the site (identified as "Building A" on Exhibit 6), with a loading area located to the north, and approximately 189 parking stalls along the other three sides of the building. The applicant intends that the building will be a multi -tenant facility, requiring separate tenant access points and parking along the southern side of the building, away from the warehouse and loading areas along the north side of the building. The 27 parking stalls that are the subject of this application are located near the south and east sides of the proposed building, within the 200 -foot shoreline area. 7. The site was annexed to the City after the adoption of the City's Shoreline Master Program, and is therefore subject to the King County Shoreline regulations. KCC 25.16.030.E requires that parking be located underneath or upland of the building served by the parking. 8. The King County shoreline regulations include the following requirements for shoreline variances at KCC 25.32.040: A. The director is authorized to grant a variance from the performance standards of this master program only under the conditions enumerated WAC 173 -14 -150 (Review Criteria for Variances). B. A variance from county zoning code requirements shall not be construed to mean a variance from shoreline master program use regulations and vice versa. Hearing Examiner Decin L05 -051 Shoreline Varian ce Page 4 of 6 Conclusions C. Shoreline variances may not be used to permit a use that is specifically prohibited in an environment designation. D. The burden of proving that a proposed variance meets these conditions shall be on the applicant; absence of such proof shall be grounds for denial of the application. E. The fee which shall accompany an application for a shoreline variance shall be as adopted by ordinance. 9. The Department has reviewed the warehouse /office project and the associated parking, and has issued a Determination of Nonsignificance pursuant to SEPA on that proposal. The overall project will also be reviewed by the Department as part of the application for a shoreline substantial development permit, administrative design review approval, and short plat approval. 10. The Department recommends that the application for the variance be approved, along with the landscaping that is shown on the plans. 1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction over this application pursuant to TMC 18.104.010.D. The application is subject to the shoreline variance requirement found in KCC 25.32.040, which states that a variance is authorized under the conditions enumerated in WAC 173 -14 -170. Each of the criteria of WAC 173 -14 -170 is considered below. 2. The denial of the permit would thwart the re -use and development of this property in a manner that would be consistent with the industrial uses surrounding the area. The relevant circumstances in this case include the location of the Port's Slip to the south, which "creates" a shoreline environment in addition to that associated with the main Duwamish Waterway to the west; the past contamination of the site, which affects the configuration of development at the site; and the surrounding uses, which favor a design that places the loading areas for this site to the north and the office areas to the south. The public interest would suffer no substantial detrimental effect from the placement of the parking stalls with landscaping in the shoreline area. 3. The strict application of the regulation requiring underground or landward parking would significantly interfere with a reasonable use of the property. The 27 stalls could not be placed outside of the shoreline area on the site without reducing the size of the building, and/or moving the truck loading areas to the south and the surface parking to the north. However, the information in the record indicates that this orientation would not be consistent with the proposed use of the building or compatible with the adjacent uses that face the site from the north and site. Elimination of the parking stalls would not Hearing Examiner Decision L05 -051 Shoreline Variance Page 5 of 6 bring the proposal below what is required by the Code for this use, but the applicant's information indicates that the 27 stalls are needed to meet the parking demand anticipated for the office uses at the site. 4. The property is irregular in shape and is constrained by the presence of the man- made slip on the south side, which extends the shoreline jurisdiction to the southern areas of the site. The contamination of the western portion of the site because of past practices also means that the use of the site is constrained for purposes of relocating parking or other uses to the western portion of the site. 5. The proposed design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses in the area. The parking area would be part of a proposed warehouse /office development that is consistent with other uses in the area; the entrances to the proposed office spaces would be on the south side, facing the Boeing properties and Flight Museum to the south, while the loading areas would face the auto salvage use to the north. The parking spaces would be landscaped, with an average depth of 35 feet of landscaping. 6. The variance would not grant a special privilege not already enjoyed by other properties in the area. Surface parking for the Boeing facility to the south is located within 200 feet of the shoreline environment, as is the surface parking to the north on the auto salvage yard property. 7. The information in the record shows that the variance for 27 stalls in the shoreline area is the minimum necessary to afford relief. As noted above, to reduce the number of stalls in the shoreline area would require re- orientation of the building and uses at the site, which is not feasible, and elimination of the stalls would fall short of the anticipated parking demand for the site and its uses. 8. The public interest would suffer no substantial detrimental effect. No detrimental effects have been shown to result from the location of the 27 parking stalls in the shoreline area. The warehouse /office project has also been subject to a number of reviews associated with the other approvals that are required for that larger project. Impacts that may result from the project as a whole, including the parking stalls, have been addressed through SEPA review and through the shoreline substantial development permit process, as well as other City, state and federal requirements. 9. No work would occur waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark. 10. The information in the record shows that cumulative impacts are not a factor in this request. The adjacent uses to the north and south already have parking areas which are within the shoreline environment. The 27 additional parking stalls proposed to be in the shoreline area on this site would be landscaped, and would be consistent with other uses in the surrounding area. Hearing Examiner Decn L05 -051 Shoreline Variance Page 6 of 6 11. The conditions of WAC 173 -14 -150 are therefore present, as required under KCC 25.32.040.A. The remaining provisions of KCC 25.32.040 are also met. No variance from the use regulations of the master program are being sought, and the uses are permitted in the Urban Environment. Based on the information in the record, the applicant has sustained its burden of showing that the proposed variance criteria have been met. The application should therefore be approved. The application for a shoreline variance to permit 27 parking stalls within the shoreline environment along with the landscaping shown in the drawings in Exhibit 6, is hereby approved. Entered this 22 " day of May, 2006. Decision Concerning Further Review Anne Watanabe Hearing Examiner TMC 18.108.030.0 states that "The decision of the Hearing Examiner shall be final and shall be appealable only to Superior Court pursuant to RCW 36.70C." BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF SEATTLE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL I, Alvia N. Williams, certify that on the 22 day of May, 2006 I deposited in the mail of the United States (with postage prepaid) and in the City's Mail/Messenger Service (used for City personnel only) a sealed envelope containing the attached FINDINGS AND DECISION addressed to each person listed on the back of this affidavit or on the attached mailing list, in the matter of DAVIS PROPERTY INVESTMENT Hearing Examiner file number: L05 - 051. I further certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct and that this certificate of service was executed this 22 day of May, 2006, at Seattle, Washington. Name: Alvia N. Williams Title: Paralegal r MAILING LIST FOR: 4051 CAROL LUMB, SENIOR PLANNER CITY OF TUKWILA 6300 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD SUITE #100 TUKWILA WA 98188 April 28, 2006 Mr. Jeff Davis Davis Properties P.O. Box 1043 Kent, WA 98035 -1043 RE: Property at 9229 East Marginal Way South Dear Mr. Davis: A public hearing has been scheduled for May 9, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. to consider the shoreline variance request. Once a decision is issued by the Hearing Examiner, if the request is approved, then the City can issue the shoreline substantial development permit. That permit is valid for two years from the effective date of the permit (the date a complete submittal is filed with the Department of Ecology). A one -time extension of up to one year can be granted based on reasonable factors. Once construction begins, you have five years to complete the development from the effective date of the shoreline permit. Again, a one -time extension of up to one year can be granted based on reasonable factors. Requests for permit extensions must be submitted prior to the expiration of the permit. Since you are still conducting clean up activities on the eastern portion of the site, I wanted to make sure you were aware of the time limits on the permit once it is accepted by Ecology. If you will be substantially delayed in constructing the building, you may want to request that the City delay action on the shoreline substantial development permit. Please let me know when you anticipate beginning construction of the building on the site. If you have any questions, please let me know. I can be reached at 206 - 431 -3661. Sincerely, Carol Lumb Senior Planner 1 City of Tukwila CL Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director cc: Nora Gierloff, Planning Manager Page 1 of 1 Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 04/27/2006 4:26 PM 6100 Snuthepnter Rnulevard. Suite #10l • Tukwila. Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Carol Lumb City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Notice of Public Hearing 9229 East Marginal Way South, Tukwila, Washington City of Tukwila File Nos. L05 -050, L05 -051, L05 -055, L05 -057, and E05 -11 Our Job No. 10265 Dear Carol: • • CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES April 25, 2006 The site referenced above was posted with the Notice of Public Hearing on April 24, 2006. The notice was placed on the existing public notice sign located along the site's frontage on East Marginal Way South. If you have any questions regarding the enclosed, please contact me immediately. Respectfully, BTM/dm 10265c.017.doc enc: City of Tukwila Notice of Public Hearing cc: Jeff Davis, Davis Property and Investments (w /enc) Daniel K. Balmelli, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. (w /enc) Ivana Halvorsen, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. (w /enc) Brendan T. Madden Assistant Planner 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251 -6222 (425) 251 -8782 FAX BRANCH OFFICES • OLYMPIA, WA • TEMECULA, CA • WALNUT CREEK, CA www.barghausen.com RECEIVED APR 2 7 2006 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT INFORMATION Davis Properties has filed applications for development of an 84,000 sq. foot warehouse with associated office space and 189 parking stalls to be located at 9229 East Marginal Way South, Tukwila. The site is subject to a shoreline substantial development permit and the applicant has requested a variance from the King County shoreline regulation that requires all site parking be located upland of buildings. Permits applied for include: L05 -050 (Shoreline Substantial Development Permit), L05 -0551 (Shoreline Variance) L05 -055 (Administrative Design Review) L05 -057 (Short Plat) and E05 -011 (SEPA Environmental Review) Other known required permits include: Building Permit, Public Works Permit FILES AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW The project files are available at the City of Tukwila. To view the files, you may request them at the counter at the Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard #100. Please call Carol Lumb, project planner at 206 -431 -3661 to ensure the availability of the files. Project Files include: L05 -050, L05 -051, L05-055, L05-057 and E05 -011 OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT You are invited to comment on the project at a public hearing before the Tukwila Hearing Examiner scheduled for Tuesday, May 9, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. in Conference Room 2, located at the Department of Community Development offices, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila, Washington. To confirm this date call Carol Lumb at the Department of Community Development at (206) 431 -3661. For further information on this proposal, contact Carol Lumb at (206) 431 -3661 or visit our offices at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Application Filed: Notice of Completeness Issued: Notice of Application Issued: Notice of Public Hearing Mailed August 10, 2005 September 2, 2005 January 24, 2006 April 21, 2006 CL Page 1 of 1 04/21f2006 303 PM q:Davis -Rhone Poulenc \ L05-051 PubHrg Notice.doc 1'-60 Si 0s1•oe' URBAN SHORELINE BrANDARDB. 4. M!1 0(4421 - x RR a O41wf VOL. 0(7541t - 20 RR LIE - b 0-11 Lamm L MOM) .. 4110104 01•11/ - .10.0 L44 MOM ..004 - 33 MI Lome Mr ° - srfn 400 mw w war r• 7.41 41 WEIN& NM/ Or ..4 01 4yt - 210.1137 Y mow COW= PICK D. WOKS MOWS R . Um MOM 704* 4 40040100 44110 • 6O10. WOO 104441 114 17011 007 VIOF MALL 472 (Mm 137 074.4 SHOREUNE SITE PLAN FOR DAVIS PROPERTY AND INVESTMENT A PORTION OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 24 N, RANGE 4 E WM. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON a ma m 10.53: SITE DATA Mia.42EB 041 If•*A7 4s 0040014 010 1043 403. 74 1131 -140 1 M 12.o= 440814 4C 111 $Ar 1 0 sort 4 -10 • 4 1010-.10 41-1001 011204.411r .3 f47) * 0441114 COO4VM 14•15*(, t4 11211 7 010 ALPO. 0040 Yam. 4 0002 (x11 03444232 r5* (11$) 01.74 10•414: 41.1 1..Rw/ 453 •37244/ 114..14101141 1110141310 31031047 VON 110 OMam mutt L LW ( 07* * P3210-0310 off m[ 4 402 1221 1427 0 3 0* 04 1000: 4 0 6 1 (4447 .1141..[ 10210/117+ 40437112 CO1 4 ItMpK 0.0 KM yy a� I. 1010010 OL'R00( µ MU 44 tWC1Y1112 O OW ENGINEER/ SURVEYOR/ PLANTER -s 27:3 ( ($'332x 14.10' 11'14'1:11 AUG 0 8 Z005 a Plum PT M na PM 110•31.1. RAH O S Opp 4 1V4 - DV O* 4L44 - LW CI 0 0747 PR7 - 211240 MO 111944 O0M4Lf 114 P.M me RPM WAVLE PIA - ICEr C]0 MOP 40 tow MOOR -017 WC �� 11. 1 � � Inallagorr t0010. ua n .R ECEIVED U 4(0711 Ib0 0 717 '.07 vw 'AUG 10 2005 COMMUNITY 1s I I DIUMMT wF 1.M 1 PO PPP,. a 0. ,by Iu ww M 1 02 MOM.N✓ M 74.7...11.1✓ 1353 f4. 44. boom 33,/04.014 • 1..44 +fo rr Po 4 .H .4 a wf t �_ .g M1,� on IP .110 M r�1 • 0 . 03 -1.7 swot./ Y Co. 010 ( 73ry q *2 Ir *0 a iw to* 40..7 A 0. 111 141..7$ M• 1••:444 ✓ 3044 0..44 140 .'1 w 4 14■11o10 r 1 Mf -✓In 41.e1• lay. r: 40* 300 . 02 0.404 ..17* 040 14111001114011 0241* ..'N ton molt 07 4' ' (7 W ...11 X72,. 4 7430.01 1.0 0.7 . 11 oP.. 0r. w w 1.4. Pal ...... ..111••.. 4.14.11..07 4 bk. 11.74. 111. 211,11 WIG .. N.. On... 4 w u � � M 2 .1 ►�of b. POW /7 7 L 44 . , 4+11. PP . o 4-W. 0 Y4f :M IS ✓ $�u1 .4011 Mw.M 74531 Or =412 ' w • . r (3 17 ...1 row. ✓ (033 1 14. 0. 121 M40 P R' 17 • r.. 1 1.1. 7 ✓ IR 1101 W007 174 1117042 33 110411 n 11' .4 1. 11.4111.40 48 110124. m m 23' t4. 1.... r 1t*11a 4.: 11.4c$12� 447 74x8 4. 1 µ 44.4 1 7 1q.1 ✓ r 1.4444,44. OP.. *.w .. v.. r: 7 x(14. .m .! 'w.7 7111 ... 4 110 000* Po. . 7. 4 ••••.• to. 1(144 +474 .14(14. Sew 1. 40 C4 ✓✓3.. 453.11 r I W1. • 1 .4 4 71.. 472310 OPP - 40 Cr 047404 111721. 01001740 44UL WIW Or 1045 1 P27•21 - R044 M010 11003010 r.0. 111 34144 17 042411224 0444010 *0000 R r RIO 001 114K1 000004 00 7227 !g R 10341 n Oaf 10(340315*1 >m 440.4..314137 Or 1727453m 1 4407 Wf Or Or WOO. 024 071MOWIpr 110 n 414 0 110 712 - 004411 • 1317 082 40044 0*.474 - 4011 P 40040 44.07 404. 1441x11 .110 07 1027) 49441074. GM 14.1 1107111 1411[4 - 40414 000 - 4040 M 44141 14 0200 0410442 Or 407 7000/ 0n 1441 n 11.0 8x1107 J' µ .0 Pa 71..1 Po.. 0.1. 222. 002 120100 /. /doom../ 11. .1.,.: t7 01,10. 11. 12.1 PUP 0 4 *0' 0.0 • . 1 . 4 .x-14 ✓ 1111 11-01,.4 0p 4.11 .41. W I1. 0. N 4 4 • 0'4.1111,7 ✓ •04.4 1r.M 14..1. 117.1 W..11 1..u0a P' W . rusbor LT 7..1 •41.1 1 44/404 4/ 1/44.14•1•10 0.10 411 1 1444 e POW 1 1 21 •P.O. 24 474(7411✓ a 4. 1 7111 44 -.,.Y w M(.IM 0.1014 0411 Ow. 0.11 1 (7 4 4 1$7471 M1. i1 Iv 2. A M CImm-dI G •b. 237.1 ~ M 714112 Or 17 00' 20 PO r 1L- *I TOG f M wf �34.. 1 :*53. 104* PPG $wi07 O' OC fax. ••✓ 07237..( 1 • 11.42 4131 70444101 M4y.0*. r CM 4 .4 74 4 1.417114...70.4 a Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION t.(4,--(94/(0./voCk.. Notice of Public Hearing Notice of Public Meeting Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt HEREBY DECLARE THAT: gnificanc Determination ;of Non -Si Mitigated Determination Significance f Non- , ...:..G Determination ofSi ficance Notice Sc ± Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Short Subdivision Agenda Shoreline Mgmt Permit FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Notice of Application for Permit Shoreline' Other Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this year 206X..¢ P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM Project Name: Project Number: 1 - - C 7 —I DS) Mailer's Signature: a a4, Person requesting mailing: OG /22 L_<_1 FEDERAL AGENCIES Chit 001 w ( ) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 4/ U.S. ENVIRO ENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY () FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ()U.S. ( ) DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES ( *)'DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. 43 DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELAND DIV 1 DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION' - .40/(Co„ 9/) bFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL SEND CHKLIS'T W! DETERMINATIONS SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION V o lsCOFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY ( ) TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT () DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES () OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV. () DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDUFE KING COUNTY AGENCIES () BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD () FIRE DISTRICT #11 () FIRE DISTRICT #2 () K.C. WASTEWATER TREATMENT DIVISION () KC. DEPT OF PARKS &REC () KC. ASSESSORS OFFICE I (4TUKIMLA SCHOOL DISTRICT • /,pTUKWILA UBRARY () RENTON UBRARY () KENT LIBRARY () CITY OF SEATTLE UBRARY () OWEST () SEATTLE CITY LIGHT () PUGET SOUND ENERGY () HIGHLINE WATER DISTRICT () SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT ( ) AT &T CABLE SERVICES ( ) KENT PLANNING DEPT ( ) TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: 1;t1 PUBLIC WORKS () POLICE ( ) PLANNING () PARKS & REC. () CITY CLERK ( ) FIRE ( ) FINANCE () BUILDING ()MAYOR () PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL ( ` SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE GP' , /) _ MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE Y IrrCULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM L J _� rp ' FISHERIES PROGRAM ',',WILDLIFE PROGRAM ( ) SEATTLE 'TIMES ( ) SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL ,rva tvit,s e bOunyawSG4 csns ■46 5 �� s • ILcr -�' (Al SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES UTILITIES CITY AGENCIES OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES, MEDIA "s W N A-Pi , P fo Pao P:\ ADMINISTRATIVE \FORMS \CHKLIST.DOC � 1 otp 611 1ko ( ),HEALTH DEPT 'PORT OF SEATTLE KC. DEV & ENV!R SERVICES -SEPA INFO CNTR , ® KC. TRANSIT DIVISION - SEPA OFFICIAL Fl ) KC. LAND & WATER RESOURCES F �OSTER LIBRARY ( ) K C PUBLIC UBRARY ( ) HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) HIGHLINE TIMES ( ) CI.TUICWILA.WA.US.WWW /4131 ?Jam j4441W P t€-4 sTtly1 J w Lk gdp, ,4oh'u ( ) OLYMPIC PIPELINE VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT () WATER DISTRICT #20 ( ) WATER DISTRICT #125 () CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS ( ) BRYN MAWR - LAKERIDGE SEWER/WATER DISTRICT () RENTON PLANNING DEPT () CITY OF SEA -TAC () CITY OF BURIEN ( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ( ) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER - DCLU () STRATEGIC PLANNING OFFICE' ' NOTICE OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ. ,,UWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE () P.S. AIR POLLUTION CLEAN AGENCY (...).SOUND TRANSIT / /t o t DUWAMISH RIVER CLEAN -UP COALITION 'SENO NOTICE OF ALL APPUCATIONS ON DUWAM1SH RIVER P:WDMMISTRAT VEIFORMS\CFQCLIST.DOC PLOIC NOTICE MAILINGS FOR PITS SEPA MAILINGS Mail to: (comment period starts on date of mailing) Dept. of Ecology Environmental Review Section *Applicant 'Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list) *Any parties of record send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination KC Transit Division —•SEPA Official would like to receive information about all projects that might affect transit demand • • Send These Documents to DOE: SEPA Determination (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report, usu. with MDNS) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan,. elevations, etc. from PMI's) Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed or sent to newspaper) SHORELINE MAILINGS: • Notice ofAppllcation for a Substantial Development Permit must be mailed to owners and to property owners within 500 feet of subject property, comments are due 30 days after the notice of application is mailed/posted. The notice of Application for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit must include a statement that any person desiring to submit written comments on the application or desiring to receive notification of the final decision on the application may do so within 30 days of the notice of application. If a hearing will be held on the application, the hearing notice must include the information that written comments may be submitted, or oral presentation made at the hearing. Shoreline Permit Notice of Decision: Mail to: (within 8 days of decision; 21-day appeal period begins date received by DOE) Department of Ecology Shorelands Section State Attorney General *Applicant *Indian Tribes *Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list). Any parties of record send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination Send These Documents to DOE and Attorney General: Permit Data Sheet • Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report or memo) Shoreline Permit Application Form (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations,' etc. from PMT's) — Site plan, with mean high water mark & improvements — Cross- sections of site with structures & shoreline — Grading Plan — Vicinity map SEPA determination (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report or memo) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Any background studies related to impacts on shoreline Notice of Application Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed) Anne Watanabe 4 Deputy Hearing Examiner 7-600 P.O. Box 94729 Seattle, WA 98124 -4729 (206) 684-0521 Carol Carol Anne Watanabe Deputy Hearing Examiner 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4000 P.O. Box 94729 Seattle, WA 98124 -4729 (206) 684-0521 • • From: "Anne Watanabe" <Anne.Watanabe @Seattle.Gov> To: <clumb @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 4/18/06 5:37PM Subject: Re: Public Hearing for a Shoreline Variance Carol - Tuesday May 9 is available, so I'll put it on my calendar - 9 a.m. would be great. Let me know about location. Thanks! »> "Carol Lumb" <clumb @ci.tukwila.wa.us> 4/18/2006 4:41:27 PM »> Hi Anne: if Tuesday, May 9 is still available I'd like to hold the shoreline variance hearing then. Do you want to start at 9:00 a.m. or 10:00 a.m. (or sometime in- between)? Either works in terms of the conference room availability that we'll use. Thanks for holding the date open. Let me know if it still works for you. »> "Anne Watanabe" <Anne.Watanabe @Seattle.Gov> 04/12/06 05:15PM »> Thanks Carol, I will hold the dates until I hear from you next week. Have a good weekend. »> "Carol Lumb" <clumb @ci.tukwila.wa.us> 4/12/2006 4:58:02 PM »> Thanks Anne - it will probably be next week before I will know if I am "cleared" for sending out hearing notices. I will let you know as soon as I can. »> "Anne Watanabe" <Anne.Watanabe @Seattle.Gov> 04/12/06 04:20PM »> Hi Carol, I can hear this - I can do it on May 5 or May 9 or 10 in the morning. Let me know if any of these dates /times will work. Thanks. .O�cI wionrl IJ Lul/cu am -Proof 10118 Llc 10020 Main St #A Bellevue, WA 98004 L antos & Blanca Avila 8144 5th Ave SW Seattle, WA 98106 Boeing Company The 100 N Riverside M C 5003 -402 Chicago, IL 60606 1 Alan & Susan Chamberlain 2147 5th Ave W Seattle, WA 98119 Ronald John & Carolyn An Cook / 17319 21st Ave SW Seattle, WA 98166 Delta Marine Industries Inc /608 S 96th St Seattle, WA 98108 /Driftwood Developments LIc / 16209 Crescent Dr SW Vashon, WA 98070 Ceferino & Lydia Fernandez 4 16428 53rd P1 S Seattle, WA 98188 King County v500 K C Admin Bldg Seattle, WA 98104 �/ 0 Corporate 15 1 G N A T u R E Express'" • • Machinists Aeronautical 9125 15th Pl S Seattle, WA 98108 Heidi Baumgardner 10009 17th P1 S Seattle, WA 98168 /Michael Bowman 13041 3rd Ave S Burien, WA 98168 Container Properties v / PO Box 1043 Kent, WA 98035 Roy Deaver 7062 High Meadow Dr Clinton, WA 98236 Hele a er Helen & Gerald Dexter 1437 onovan St 1437 S Donovan St Seattl A 98108 Seattle, WA 98108 Eustis Holdings Llc 1102 Broadway #403 Tacoma, WA 98402 Wesley & Marie Elena Goss 3436 Belvidere Ave SW Seattle, WA 98126 King County Museum Of Flight Auth 9404 E Marginal Way S Seattle, WA 98108 Leonard Alpers / 5934 E Valdai Cir Mesa, AZ 85215 1 William & Miriam Beck 1412 S Henderson St Seattle, WA 98108 Northrn Santa Fe Burlington PO Box 96189 Fort Worth, TX 76161 Ronald John C 17319 ve SW S . e, WA 98166 Marine Del 1608 ' . th St S - e, WA 98108 VAC LCI 1 gala LC Viliami Fainga 10124 Des Moines Memorial Dr Seattle, WA 98168 Harsch Investment Properties Llc 1121 SW Salmon St Portland, OR 97205 .orgensen Forge Corp Walter Kauai King Co Museum Of 8531 E Marginal Way S 10080 Des Moines Memorial Dr 9404 E Mar:' s . ' ay S Seattle, WA 98108 Seattle, WA 98168 Seatt - • ' 98108 Latitute Forty-seven Llc 28836 164th Ave SE Kent, WA 98042 1.888.CE TODAY (238.632! -aser Ivlar_mg Lapels lam -Proof /D Lecraig 12118 26th Ave SW Burien, WA 98146 ,Michigan Properties 5301 2nd Ave S Seattle, WA 98108 1 Sandra Mykris 4 845 NW 193rd St Shoreline, WA 98177 / Lee Rabie 9615 W Marginal Way S Seattle, WA 98108 Avila & Blanca Sant 8144 5th Av Seatt - • 98106 Sea -mar Community Health Ctr 1040 S Henderson St Seattle, WA 98108 /South Park Marina Limited Partnership 8604 Dallas Ave S Seattle, WA 98108 P aul Wiley 1417 S Trenton St Seattle, WA 98108 Ivana Halvorson Barghausen Engineering 18215 72nd Ave. So. Kent, WA 98032 Corporate 151 G N A T U R E Fx nracc '° • Washington Mellon 1 1201 3rd Ave #5010 Seattle, WA 98101 Indian Tribe Muckl 39015 172ns a SE Aubu • A 98092 o f Ronald & Anna Rae Newton 7429 NE 121st St Kirkland, WA 98034 Lee Raie 9615 arginal Way S Se e, WA 98108 4 Sea King Ind a1 Park Llc 1620 S PI Sea , WA 98108 oat Yaota 10002 Seattl A lt ito Seattle City Light PO Box 34023 Seattle, WA 98124 hiota Chao oines Memorial Dr 98168 ft thqu4L Wood Meadows Llc PO Box 2908 Kirkland, WA 98083 Jeff Davis Container Properties PO Box 1730 Sumner, WA 98390 • / /Merrill Creek Holdings Llc l / 600 University St #2820 /// Seattle, WA 98101 Museum Of Fli; - .undation 9404E -. mal Way S Se- e, WA 98108 Ronald & Anna Rae Newton 7429 NE 121st St Kirkland, WA 98034 Hossein Sabour - mohajer 5031 Ripley Ln N Renton, WA 98056 Sea -mar Comm Health Ctr 8720 14th Ave S Seattle, WA 98108 Tony Shih /3411 60th Ave SW Seattle, WA 98116 Vue Sewer Val PO Box 69550 Seattle, WA 98168 use template Ch6032 Anne Watanabe D Deputy Hearing Examiner PO Box 94729 Seattle, WA 98124 -4729 1.888.CE TODAY (238.632 Betty Renkor Ecology NW Regional Office 3190 160 Ave. SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Betty Renkor Ecology N ' egional Office 3190 1. s ' Ave. SE Belle e, WA 98008 i (thristy'Brown, Project Manager (AWT 121 EPA Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Christy Brown, Project Manager AWT 121 EPA Re :'.n 10 1200 th Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 :Laura Murphy Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Cultural Resources Program 39015 172 " Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98090 -0763 Laura Muc Cul 390 Au . La Mu Cul 3901 Aub urphy eshoot Indian Tribe al Resources Program 5 172 Avenue SE urn, WA 98090 -0763 ra Murphy kleshoot Indian Tribe ral Resources Program 172 " Avenue SE WA 98090 -0763 Christy : own, Project Manager AWT 121 EPA Regio 10 1200 Sixth • venue Seattle, W • 98101 Betty Renk r Ecology N Regional Office 3190 160 Ave. SE Bellevue, A 98008 Be ► y Renkor E 'logy NW Regional Office 3 90 160 Ave. SE llevue, WA 98008 Betty Renkor E ology NW Regional Office 31 0 160 Ave. SE Be evue, WA 98008 Chri Brown, Project Manager AWT 1 EPA Region 10 1200 Sixt Avenue Seattle, W • 98101 Christy Bro , Project Manager AWT 121 EPA Region 1 1200 Sixth A nue Seattle, WA 9 101 Laura Murphy Muckleshoot I dian Tribe Cultural Reso i ces Program 39015 172 " • venue SE Auburn, WA 8090 -0763 Laura Murp Muckleshoo Indian Tribe Cultural Re ources Program 39015 172 Avenue SE Auburn, A 98090 -0763 Laura M '•hy Muckles oot Indian Tribe Cultural ' esources Program 39015 1 2 " Avenue SE Aubu WA 98090 -0763 Christ Brown, Project Manager AWT 21 EPA ' gion 10 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle WA 98101 Betty Ecolog 3190 1 Belle enkor NW Regional Office 0th Ave. SE e, WA 98008 Bett ; Renkor Ec • ogy NW Regional Office 31 0 160 Ave. SE Be evue, WA 98008 Be Renkor Ecol gy NW Regional Office 3190 60 Ave. SE Belle e, WA 98008 _.,st Et Christ Brown, Project Manager AWT 1 EPA R =:ion 10 1200 Si th Avenue Seattle, A 98101 Christy B AWT 121 EPA Regi 1200 Sixth Seattle, W Laura Murp y Mucklesho • Indian Tribe Cultural Resources Program 39015 172 " Avenue SE Auburn, W • 98090 -0763 - Laura Murp Muckleshoot ndian Tribe Cultural Reso rces Program 39015 172 • venue SE Auburn, WA • 8090 -0763 Laura Murphy Muckleshoot I dian Tribe Cultural Reso h ces Program 39015 172 " Avenue SE Auburn, W • 98090 -0763 Christy Br. , Project Manager AWT 121 EPA Region 10 1200 Six; Avenue Seattle, ; A 98101 Betty Re Ecology 3190 16 Bellevu wn, Project Manager 10 venue 98101 or W Regional Office th Ave. SE WA 98008 • • City of Tukwila Department of Community Development / 6300 Southcenter BI, Suite 100 / Tukwila, WA 98188 / (206)431 -3670 File Number: E05 -011 Applied: 08/08/2005 Issue Date: 04/18/2006 Status: ISSUED DETERMINATION OF NON - SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) kpplicant: BARGHAUSEN ENGINEERING ATTN IVANA HALVORSEN Lead Agency: City of Tukwila Description of Proposal: Davis Property and Investment - Preparation of site and development of 84,000 square feet of warehouse and associated office development. Location of Proposal: Address: 9229 EAST MARGINAL WY S TUKW Parcel Number: 5422600010 Section/Township /Range: SW 1/4 AND SE 1/4 33 -24-04 The City has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21c.030(2) (c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. This DNS is issued under WAC 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by illAy 3, 200(0 The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter B Ivd Tukwila, WA 98188 (206)431 -3670 Ptefit II, zoo Date Any appeal shall be linked to a specific governmental action. The State Environmental Policy Act is not intended to create a cause of action unrelated to a specific governmental action. Appeals of environmental determinations shall be commenced within the time period to appeal the governmental action that is subject to environmental review. (RCW 43.21C.075) ATTACHMENT G doc: DNS E05 -011 Printed: 04-18-2006 Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION 1, t_ ,ciro L u b HEREBY DECLARE THAT Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Notice of Public Hearing Notice of Public Meeting Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Short Subdivision Agenda Shoreline Mgmt Permit FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 X Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated Determination of Non- Significance Determination of Significance &;Scopin Notice Notice of Action Official Notice Notice of Application Notice of Application for ShorelinenM Permit Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this year 20 0(0 P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM Project Name: 'b . ∎liS P(,_ f (tiw. j jle Project Number: e OS'O iI Mailer's Signature: yvvi,� Person requesting mailing: S/4/14a... Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION 1, t_ ,ciro L u b HEREBY DECLARE THAT Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Notice of Public Hearing Notice of Public Meeting Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Short Subdivision Agenda Shoreline Mgmt Permit FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 X Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated Determination of Non- Significance Determination of Significance &;Scopin Notice Notice of Action Official Notice Notice of Application Notice of Application for ShorelinenM Permit Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this year 20 0(0 P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM • FEDERAL AGENCIES ( ) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS () FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION `DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE () BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD () FIRE DISTRICT 111 () FIRE DISTRICT 12 ( ) KC. WASTEWATER TREATMENT DIVISION () KC. DEPT OF PARKS & REC () KC. ASSESSOR'S OFFICE )(TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT () TUKWILA LIBRARY • () REI TONUBRARY . ( ) KENT. LIBRARY ( ) CITY OF SEATTLEUBRARY () OWEST ( ) SEATTLE CITY UGHT () PUGET SOUND ENERGY ( ) HIGHUNE WATER DISTRICT ( ) SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT ( ) AT &T CABLE SERVICES v/ () KENT PLANNING DEPT ( ) TUINVILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: 5 : --440 UQUC}WOR S () FIRE ( ) POLICE () FINANCE ( ) PLANNING () BUILDING () PARKS & REC. () MAYOR ( ) CITY CLERK )(PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE A 1•t • , MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE ' NCULTURAL`RESOURCES PROGRAM ( ) FISHERIES PROGRAM ( ) WILDLIFE PROGRAM ( ) SEATTLE TIMES () SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL P: IN sT N RATE\FORMS \CHKLIST.DOC u is • . (M 6n�(I4tt/4 WASHINGTON STATE AGENC O.FFI.CEtOF ARCHAEaL.od SPORTAT1ON DEPARTMENT () DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES ( ) OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR () DEPT OFCOMM.:TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV. () DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE KING COUNTY AGENCIES () EPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. 500410 L G owg.RECOLt�1moskti EPT �OF�ECOLOG . " YOSERAOMSION' ( ) OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL ` SEND CHKLIST W/ DETERMINATIONS • SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES UTILITIES CITY AGENCIES OTHER LOCAL AG MEDIA ENCIES car V o" • Stt 61.4_ 0 .41 ; V ON,.,111(E(cTAI PROT ECTIQN.AGENCY ( ) U.S. DE PT OF H.U.D. )(NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE IES ( ) HEALTH DEPT RT OF SEATTLE 111 C. DEV & ENVIR SERVICES SEPA INFO CNTR FLC. TRANSIT DMSION -. SEPA OFFICIAL O KC. LAND & WATER RESOURCES ;WOOSTER LIBRARY O K C PUBLIC UBRARY ( ) HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT () SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) OLYMPIC PIPELINE ( ) VALNUE SEWER DISTRICT () WATER DISTRICT 920 ( ) WATER DISTRICT #125 () CITY OF RENTON PUBUC WORKS () BRYN MAWR- LAKERIDGE SEWERNVATER DISTRICT () RENTON PLANNING DEPT () CITY OF SEA-TAC () CITY OF BURIEN ( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ( ) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS () CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER - DCLU () STRATEGIC PLANNING OFFICE' ' NOTICE OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ. pLJiA(NNISIr$NDI!W.. TRIBE ( ) P.S. AIR POLLUTION CLEAN AGENCY ( ) SOUND TRANSIT i>koDUWAMISH RIVER CLEAN-UP 'COAU flON SEND NOTICE OF AU. APPUCATIONS ON DUWAMISH RIVER ( ) HIGHUNE TIMES ( ) CI.TUKWILA.WA.US.VWWV Ota) V..�'Sa ^1v"V Q 56 oP, b vy.v �QwnF�^ -r^ S ^WL . u { azTu A-L, 0 , n45 ( tir I olod,k9 CITY OF TUKWI 6200 SOUTHCENTER Bl. . TUKWILA, WA 98188-2599 (206) 433-1800 TO OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY P 0 BOX 48343 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-8343 CITY OFTUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188-2599 (206) 433-1800 To. WA DEPT OF ECOLOGY SEPA REVIEW SECTION P 0 BOX 47703 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-7703 • .7 CITY OFTUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188-2599 (206) 433-1800 TO: PORT OF SEATTLE P 0 BOX 1209 SEATTLE, WA 98111 ctTY OFTUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188-2599 (206) 4331800 TO: K C DEV. & ENVIRO. SERVICES SEPA INFO. CENTER 900 OAKSDALE AVE SW RENTON, WA 98055-1219 • n•A•iitz 7‘; • - S " CITYAlik 620050 VD. TUKWILA, WA 98188-2599 (208) 433-1800 To: GARY KRIEDT KC METRO TRANSIT ENVIROMENTAL PLANNING 201 S JACKSON ST, MS KSC-TR-043 I SEATTLE, WA 98104-3856 . - CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188-2599 (206)433-1800 TO: Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition 5410 First Ave. NE Seattle, WA 98105 CITY OFTUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188-2599 (206) 433-1800 To: DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE 4717 W MARGINAL WAY SW SEATTLE, WA 98106-1514 CITY OFTUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188-2599 (206)433-1800 To: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard • Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 -8548 FOSTER LIBRARY 4060 S 144 ST TUKWILA, WA 98168 TUKWILA LIBRARY 14475 59 AVE S TUKWILA, WA 98168 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard • Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188-8548 MQCRLEBHOOT INDIAN TRIBE 39015 172nd AVE SE AUBURN, WA 98092 TO: Ms. Ivan Halvorsen Barghausen Engineering 18215 72nd Ave. South Kent, WA 98032 CITY OFTUKWILA 8200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 88188.2599 (206) 433 -1800 TO: Sanca<I:an¢ Department of Ecology NW Regional Office 3190 160 Ave. SE Bellevue, WA 98008 1 CRY OFTUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188-2599 (206)433.1800 TO: (;hristy4Brawn, Project Manager AWT 121 EPA Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 t4 • rp 0 0' t i'; '.. '• - 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWIIA, WA 98188-2599 (206) 433-1800 CRY OFTUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 -2599 (206) 433 1800 To: , etaura tviurphy,. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Cultural Resources Program 39015 172 Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98090 -0763 • CRY OFTUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 88188 -2599 (206) 433-1800 TO National Marine Fisheries Service WA State Habitat Branch Attn: DeeAnn Kirkpatrick City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard • Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 -8548 P. S. REGIONAL COUNCIL 1011 WESTERN AVE #500 SEATTLE, WA 98104 CITY QF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 -2599 (206) 433 -1800 Jeff Davis Container Properties LLC P.O. Box 1730 Sumner, WA 98390 April 14, 2006 • Ciz of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MEMORANDUM • To: Steve Lancaster, Director Fm: Carol Lumb, Senio anner Re: Project File No. E05 -011 Davis — Former Rhone Poulanc Site Planned Action Project Description: The project proposes to redevelop 19.5 acres adjacent to the Duwamish River to include: repaving the western portion of the site for lease to an adjacent property owner, Insurance Auto Auctions, and construction of an 84,000 sq. ft. warehouse /office building with associated parking, installation of storm water and sanitary sewer and water service on the eastern portion of the site. The site is regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The site is proposed to be short platted into two parcels, with the building construction to occur on the eastern-most lot. Approval to demolish the existing structures on the site was the subject of a previous SEPA approval, E04 -021. In 2002, SEPA was issued (E02 -021) to permit the construction of a subsurface barrier wall to encircle contaminated groundwater to control migration of contaminants into the Duwamish Waterway and Slip 6. Proponent: Ivana Halvorson, Barghausen Engineering for property owner, Davis Properties Location: 9229 East Marginal Way South Date Checklist prepared: August, 2005, revised September 7, 2005 Lead Agency: City of Tukwila, Department of Community Development Steven M. Mullet, Mayor CI. Page I of 7 04/14/2006 4.30:00 I'M trAD i is PrnnertieeySFPA Staff Rnt tint. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Planned Action SEPA Review — E05 -011 Davis Development — Former Rhone/Poulenc Site April 14, 2006 Challenges to Document: None Other Agencies of Jurisdiction: Washington State Department of Ecology United States Environmental Protection Agency Recommendation: Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) Background: • • The site is within the project area for the Tukwila Manufacturing /Industrial Center Integrated GMA Implementation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. The Integrated Plan and Final EIS were completed in March, 1998. Both the Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment EIS and the Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Integrated GMA Implementation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement analyze the environmental impacts of a range of development and redevelopment alternatives on properties in the MIC corridor. The proposed project meets the criteria for Planned Action SEPA: • the proposed uses are permitted in the MIC/H district; • impacts from the project will be mitigated by the time the project is complete; • the project is consistent with the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, specifically Goal 11.1, supporting development of new industrial activities in the MIC and Policy 1.1.2, assisting landowners in remediating site problems caused by contaminated soil. • the project is not an essential public facility, related to light rail or commuter rail, the ] 6` Avenue South Bridge or include development waterward of the ordinary high water mark. The site has been under industrial use since the 1930s. In the 1930's a plant to produce glue for use in plywood manufacturing was constructed on this site. In 1946, the site was purchased by Monsanto Chemical Co., which continued the manufacture of glue as well as paints, resins, and storage of wood preservatives. Monsanto began vanillin production in 1952 which continued through the sale of the property to Rhone- Poulenc in 1986. The vanillin manufacturing facility closed in 1991. Historic releases of hazardous substances occurred at the site. Released materials include caustic soda, toluene, mineral oil, PCBs and copper. Corrective action for the historic releases is being addressed under a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Administrative Order on Consent issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 (Docket .# 1091- 11- 20- 3- 8(h)). cl. y:`.Davis Properties‘SEPA StalfRpi.dloc Page 2 Ol 7 04/14/2006 4:30:00 PM Planned Action SEPA Rev.- E05 -011 Davis Development - Former Rhone/Poulenc Site April 14, 2006 Summary of Primary Impacts: Earth • The site is generally flat and almost entirely covered by impervious surface except for some landscaping around existing buildings (to be demolished) and adjacent to the chain link fence that surrounds the property. A small amount of grading occurred when the groundwater pretreatment system associated with the hydraulic control interim measure was relocated earlier this year. Additional grading will occur when with the demolition of existing pavement and buildings for repaving and the new warehouse /office building. There will also be trenching for the installation of storm water lines on the western portion of the site and excavation for the installation of the stormceptor system. Some erosion could occur as a result of the construction activities when the existing paving and buildings are removed. There may also be some excavation of contaminated soils on the eastern portion of the site. The Draft East Parcel Cleanup Work Plan, prepared in November, 2005 by Geomatrix, identifies several areas that are slightly above clean -up standards. The applicant is working with EPA to identify the appropriate course of action for this portion of the site. A statistical sampling of the whole eastern parcel will be prepared and reviewed by EPA; it is possible that no clean up will be required of this portion or that small "hot spots" will be excavated (telephone conversation 4/14/06 with Gary Dupuy, East Parcel Cleanup Project Coordinator, Geomatrix). Temporary erosion and sedimentation control (TESC) measures will be implemented prior to construction, including catch basin protection, silt control fences and other best management practices. Air During demolition, vehicle and construction equipment emissions and dust will be released. Dust and vehicular emission from construction is expected. After construction, automobile and truck emissions typical of heavy industrial uses can be expected at the site. Water The Duwamish River borders the site on the west and south. The Checklist states that the site is a registered Superfund site, however this is not correct. The site has been contaminated by the previous chemical manufacturing activities and is subject to ongoing governmental oversight and environmental monitoring including ongoing monitoring and maintenance of the groundwater extraction and treatment system by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Remediation activities and substantial environmental testing has occurred since the former Rhone Poulenc operations ceased in 1991 Remediation activities are ongoing pursuant to the 2002 Interim Measures Construction Work Plan, prepared by Geomatrix Consultants Inc. dated June 3, 2003. A number of construction activities will take place within the 200 -foot shoreline of the Duwamish — removal of existing buildings and asphalt, grading, removal of existing railroad track, repaving the site and construction of a 84,000 sq. ft. warehouse/office building with associated parking. CL Page 3 of 7 04/18/2006 8:58:00 AM q:'Davis Properties\SEPA Staff Rpt.doc Planned Action SEPA Revie E05 -011 Davis Development — Former Rhone/Poulenc Site April 14, 2006 Treated storm water runoff will discharge directly to the Duwamish River; water quality treatment will be provided for the development using the requirements of the King County Surface Water Design Manual. Stormwater from the site will be collected and treated in two water quality stormceptors and then discharged via a 36 -inch King County stormwater pipe to the Duwamish Waterway. The building permit application will be required to include a design approval letter from the stormwater treatment manufacturer and a storm drainage maintenance schedule that clearly identifies who, what, when and how maintenance will be performed. This will be recorded on the title of the property. Subsurface low permeability barrier walls surrounding the western portion of the site were installed in accordance with the EPA approved Interim Control Measure The barrier walls were installed to contain the contaminated portion of the site to the maximum extent practicable. A system of groundwater extraction wells and a pre - treatment system were installed to pump groundwater from the inside of the contained area, thereby creating an inward groundwater gradient. The pre - treated groundwater is discharged to a publicly owned treatment works, owned and operated by King County and permitted under the Clean Water Act. The groundwater pre- treatment system is an integral part of the Hydraulic Control Interim Measure; this system has been relocated as part of the redevelopment of the site. Groundwater withdrawal will be equal to the amounts currently withdrawn. Numerous wells were installed at the site during site characterization and as part of the interim remedial measures that have been implemented. Some of the wells are being used for monitoring or remediation purposes, but a number are no longer used. Wells represent a potential flow path for surface spills to enter groundwater. Wells can become damaged from surface activities, particularly uses that involve heavy equipment such as when the western portion of the site is graded and the elevation increased and when the storm water system is installed. The applicant is planning to abandon all wells that are not required for long -term monitoring prior to site grading and filling. Geomatrix Consultants Inc. has prepared the Western Parcel Redevelopment Work Plan, dated November, 2005 to guide the well abandonment and protection of wells to be retained. The wells will be abandoned by a licensed driller in accordance with the Department of Ecology well abandonment procedures. Geomatrix Consultants has also prepared the Draft East Parcel Cleanup Work Plan, for the eastern portion of the site that will be developed with the proposed warehouse /office building. The casing of the retained wells will be extended up to the new grade of the site. The redeveloped site will cap the existing ground surface, which is expected to help reduce or eliminate storm water penetration and seepage into the contaminated soils. Project generated waste materials are unlikely to enter the groundwater as storm water from the repaved parking areas and buildings will be collected in a closed catch basin and pipe system that will be directed to an underground water quality vault prior to release into the Duwamish River. Plants As noted above, the site is almost 100% impervious surface with some landscaping features that remain around the existing abandoned buildings. These plantings will be removed when the CL Page 4 of 7 04/18/2006 8:58:00 AM q:\Davis Properties\SEPA Staff Rpt.doc Planned Action SEPA Rev. -- E05 -011 Davis Development — Former Rhone/Poulenc Site April 14, 2006 buildings are demolished. Landscaping will be planted as part of an approved design for the proposed warehouse /office building and parking areas and will also be provided on the west and south sides of the site as part of an approved Shoreline Substantial Development permit to provide screening. Animals The site is adjacent to the Duwamish Waterway, which is a migratory route for Chinook, Chum, Coho, Pink, Steelhead, and Cuthroat Salmon and Bull Trout. The site is also on the route of the Pacific Flyway, a migratory bird route. Energy/Natural Resources The site will use electricity for parking lot and building lighting and electricity or possibly natural gas for building heating and operations. No lighting is proposed for the western portion of the site where the auto storage is proposed. The proposed warehouse /office is required to meet the Washington State Energy Code. Environmental Health Land/Shoreline Uses • As the property contains contaminated soils, exposure to hazardous materials is a risk during construction. An Operation, Monitoring, Inspection and Maintenance Plan has been prepared which will be approved by EPA prior to redevelopment activities. The Plan specifies procedures for protection of contractor health and safety during site grading. The site redevelopment as proposed will effectively cap the surface to eliminate or reduce storm water seepage that would contribute to off-site impacts from contaminants. A number of the monitoring wells that are no longer being used will be capped, which will also reduce the possibility of additional environmental health hazards from the site. The site is located in an industrial area with the noises associated with industrial activity. The site was formerly used to manufacture vanillin. The existing structures will be demolished prior to the redevelopment of the property. The site is bordered on the north by an auto auction storage yard; to the south a Port of Seattle Slip and Boeing Development Center; on the east by the King County Airport and on the west by the Duwamish Waterway. The property is within the Manufacturing Industrial Center/Heavy zoning district. Portions of the site are within 200 feet of the Duwamish Waterway, a shoreline of the state. The site is governed by the King County Shoreline Master Program (SMP), as this area was annexed from unincorporated King County and is not covered by the City's Shoreline Master Program. The County SMP designates the site as Urban Environment. King County Code Title 25 contains the regulations for development in the industrial shoreline area. The applicant has applied for a shoreline substantial development permit and a shoreline variance for placing parking waterward of the proposed building and for an increase in building height in the shoreline environment. CL Page 5 of 7 04/18/2006 8:58:00 AM q:\Davis Properties\SEPA Staff Rpt.doc Planned Action SEPA Reviee E05 -011 Davis Development — Former Rhone/Poulenc Site April 14, 2006 The applicant is proposing to short plat the site into two parcels and lease the western parcel to the auto auction storage yard located on the north side of the site. The other parcel will be developed with an 84,000 sq. ft. warehouse /office building with associated parking. Housing Not applicable. Aesthetics The applicant has requested a shoreline variance to permit the warehouse /office building to be higher than 35 feet within the 200 foot shoreline environment. The building will not block residential views of the shoreline. Light/Glare Recreation Not applicable. Historic /Cultural Preservation No significant glare will be generated by the proposed development as lighting will be limited to fixtures mounted on the warehouse /office building. No lighting is proposed in the parking lot supporting the proposed building or the parking area on the western portion of the site to be leased by the adjacent property owner (an auto insurance auction facility). Providing adequate lighting for safety purposes will be addressed through the Administrative Design Review process. Building materials to be used are non- reflective. One comment was received from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Cultural Resources Program stating that this site is in an area the Tribe has flagged as high potential for archaeological discovery (see Attachment A). The applicant has provided a response prepared by Geomatrix discussing the depth of fill on the western portion of this site (see Attachment B). Generally the site was filled at the time the Duwamish Waterway was dredged and created. The report prepared by Geomatrix states that dredged sand and silt is present in the upper 5 to 15 feet of the subsurface. A limited amount of excavation will be conducted to install underground storm sewers and an underground stormwater treatment unit. Installation of the stormwater system will require trenching at depths of 4 to 6 feet, within the depth of fill noted by earlier studies of the site. The deepest trenching will be for the collector lines running north -south in the eastern portion of the western parcel, which will be excavated to a maximum depth of about 7 feet below existing grade. The depth of fill in that area is 5 to 7 feet. The deepest excavation will be for installation of the Stormceptor water quality unit and the discharge piping running to the existing 36 -inch storm sewer entering the eastern end of Slip 6. This proposed excavation depth will be approximately 11 feet below existing grade. The Stormceptor will be installed at the southeastern corner of the western parcel. The report anticipates that the soil above and adjacent to the existing 36 -inch sewer line consists of man - place fill. CL Page 6 of 7 04/18/2006 8:58:00 AM q:\Davis Properties\SEPA Staff Rpt.doc Planned Action SEPA Rev. E05 -011 Davis Development — Former Rhone/Poulenc Site April 14, 2006 • TMC 18.50.110, Archaeological/Paleontological Information Preservation Requirements applies to all zoning districts in the City. This portion of the code requires that a professional archaeologist be on site when excavations into historically native soil take place in an area of archaeological potential to ensure that all State statues regarding archaeological conservation/preservation are implemented. This will be a requirement of the shoreline substantial development permit for the site. The applicant is also required to provide a written commitment to stop work immediately upon discovery of archaeological remains and to consult with the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. This will also be a requirement of the shoreline permit and the building permits issued for both the western and eastern portion of the parcel. Transportation The site is accessed via East Marginal Way South. An easement was granted to the Oregon - Washington Railroad and Navigation Company, the Great Northern Railway Company, Northern Pacific Railway Company and Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company for railroad tracks on the eastern portion of the site adjoining East Marginal Way. One curb cut currently exists on the site; a second curb cut is proposed to provide additional access to the proposed development on the site. Port of Seattle Slip No. 6 borders the property on the south. Three METRO bus routes serve the site on East Marginal Way South. A Traffic Impact Analysis was submitted by the applicant and reviewed by the City's traffic engineer. The TIA estimates that no more than 81 PM peak hour trips would be generated by the proposed development. Traffic impact fees, based on the 2006 Traffic Impact Fee Schedule, will be levied as part of the building permit. Public Services The new development will be served by Tukwila police and fire service. Utilities Utilities currently available at the site include electric, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, storm water and sanitary sewer. Adequate utilities are available to serve the new warehouse /office building. Recommendation Determination of Nonsignificance CL Page 7 of 7 04/18/2006 8:58:00 AM q:\Davis Properties\SEPA Staff Rpt.doc February 3, 2006 Carol Lumb City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Suite #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: 9229 East Marginal Way South Dear: Mrs. Lumb, On behalf of the Cultural Resources Committee, I have reviewed the information sent on 01/27/06 regarding the building and parking stalls at 9229 East Marginal Way South, Tukwila, and have the following comments. The 9229 East Marginal Way South property is an area the Tribe has flagged as high potential for archaeological discovery. The project area location is one that the Tribe considers to have a high probability for archaeological resources, because there are previously identified archaeological sites and a traditional cultural place nearby. Although the proposed project area appears to be previously disturbed, I cannot tell from the information provided whether the proposed construction could intersect native soils on -site. If that is a possibility, then we request that an archaeological study be conducted of the project area to determine the best means of identifying and protecting archaeological resources that may be uncovered during construction .lithe applicant believes that construction would take place entirely within fill, we request supporting documentation, such as a comparison of construction plans and soil profile information. Information regarding previous surveys and recorded archaeological sites is available from the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, in Olympia. The Cultural Resources Program does not represent the Wildlife Program and the Fisheries Program which are separate departments under the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Please contact these departments separately for their input on this project. We appreciate the effort to coordinate with the Muckleshoot Tribe prior to site preparation. The destructive nature of construction excavation can often destroy a site and cause delays and unnecessary expense for the contractor. If you have any questions, please contact me at 253 - 876 -3272. Thank you for keeping the Tribe informed. Siq rely, MUCKLESHOOT CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM 39015 172nd Avenue S.E. • Auburn, Washington 98092 -9763 Phone: (253) 939 -3311 • FAX: (253) 876 -3312 aura Murphy, Tribal Archaeologist • v c441. 0641 COMMUN DEVELOIngtf pt� CC: Stephenie Kramer, Assistant State Archaeologist, OAHP ATTACHMENT A z� Geomatrix Memorandum TO: Ivana Halvorsen, Barghausen DATE: April 6, 2006 FROM: Larry McGaughey PROJ. NO.: 8769.005 John Long CC: Gary Dupuy PROJ. NAME: Former Rhone- Poulenc Site Tukwila, Washington SUBJECT: Depth of Fill at Former Rhone- Poulenc Site This memorandum discusses the depth of fill materials in the western portion of the former Rhone- Poulenc facility located at 9229 E. Marginal Way South, in Tukwila, Washington. The portion of the site proposed for installation of a new stormwater system is referenced in this memorandum as the West Parcel. Plans and applications have been filed with the City of Tukwila to support installation of a new stormwater system, grading to promote drainage, and paving to support use of the area for warehousing and storage of automobiles within the West Parcel. This assessment of fill depth is being made to evaluate the potential for exposing or excavating native materials during the work planned for the West Parcel. Of the planned activities, only installation of the new stormwater management system will require excavation. Background The former Rhone- Poulenc site is located adjacent to the Duwamish Waterway, just to the north of "Slip 6 ". Slip 6 is a former channel of the Duwamish River. The Duwamish River was dredged and straightened from 1913 through 1920; the portion of the river adjacent to the former Rhone- Poulenc site is now referred to as the Duwamish Waterway. Based on available documentation (CH2M HILL, 1995; Landau, 1991), much of the property, especially the western portion, consisted of tidal flats. It is likely that much of the West Parcel was submerged at high tide prior to filling of the area. Although no specific records are available, the majority of the property was probably filled at the time that the waterway was dredged; the typical practice was to slurry the hydraulically dredged material onto the land surface using a system of pipes. It is expected that the site was filled some time between 1913 and 1920, when the waterway was constructed. Since the dredge material was derived from river sediments, the fill materials (sands and silts) resemble the materials native to the site prior to dredging. Approximately two acres of tide flats remain along the western side of the property. J: \8769.000 RCI R -P \086 \Fill Depth Memo_FINAL.doc One Union Square. 600 University Street, Suite 1020 Seattle, Washington 98101 -4107 • • Tel 206.342.1760 Fax 206342.1761 www.geomatrix.com RECEIVED 'APR 0 7 2006 COMMUNI 1 Y DEVELOPMENT ATTACHMENT B FAE Geomatrix Memorandum April 6, 2006 Page 2 of 4 • • Depth of Man - Placed Fill Site investigation reports and lithologic logs for wells and soil borings that were completed onsite were reviewed to assess the present depth of fill at the former Rhone- Poulenc site. The RCRA Facility Investigation Report prepared by CH2M HILL reported that "... hydraulic fill consisting of dredged sand and silt is present in the upper 5 to 15 feet of the subsurface." The CH2M HILL report refers to the entire site and is not limited to the West Parcel. It is likely that the western portion of the site, near the waterfront, has a greater depth of fill than the eastern portion which borders East Marginal Way South. The boring logs prepared for the site characterize observations using standard soil classifications, but do not distinguish between fill and native materials. However, review of the boring logs shows a consistent layer of silt at a depth of 5 to 15 feet below the present surface grade over much of the site. This silt layer is distinguished from similar materials by its reported density and the presence of organic material such as plant roots. The depth of the fill materials reported by CH2M HILL and the description of the site as a "tide flat" prior to development suggest that the layer of silt present at the site may represent the historic surface of the original tide flat. The elevation of the silt layer in soil borings is approximately the same as the present elevation of the tide flats on the west side of the property. Other indicators, which can be used to distinguish between fill and native materials, are the presence of recent man -made objects or debris noted m the boring logs. If such material is noted in the log, the material would be considered to be fill material. The boring logs for the southeastem corner of the West Parcel, nearest the planned location for installation of the Stormceptort, indicate that the depth of fill ranges from about 6 to 12 feet below existing grade. The "ordinary high water mark" shown on the recent survey map of the site is shown at approximately 5 feet in elevation, which is approximately 12 feet below present grade. It is likely that the elevation of the former tide flats was probably no greater than 1 to 2 feet above the ordinary high water mark, or at an approximate elevation of 6 to 7 feet above mean sea level. The projected elevation of the former tide flat suggests that there is approximately 10 to 11 feet of fill in the southeast corner of the West Parcel. Available information from previous site investigation reports and from more recent boring logs indicate that the depth of man - placed fill within the West Parcel is generally 5 to 12 feet below the current site surface. In the southeast corner of the West Parcel, the expected depth of fill is 10 to 11 feet, but localized areas may be only about 6 feet in depth. In most locations, the presence of native soil can be identified by the presence of a silt layer. The native soils were exposed as recently as 85 to 90 years ago. J: \8769.000 RCI R -P \088 \Fill Depth Memo_FINAL.doc 4 Geomatrix Memorandum April 6, 2006 Page 3 of 4 • • Depth of Excavation During redevelopment of the West Parcel, limited excavation will be conducted to install underground storm sewers and an underground stormwater treatment unit. Final elevations will be attained by importing clean fill. Grading of soils presently onsite will be limited to elevated areas presently beneath building floors and other localized mounds. Grading has been designed to limit disturbance of surficial materials which may have been contaminated by historic industrial activities at the site. All grading will disturb only fill material. Therefore, only the limited excavation to install the stormwater management system has potential to disturb native soils. Installation of the stormwater system will require excavation of trenches for sewer and catch basin installation and a larger excavation to install a Stormceptor water quality unit. Trench excavations will be distributed over much of the West Parcel. Most of the trenching will be limited to depths from 4 to 6 feet below existing grade. The deepest trenching will be for the collector stormwater lines running north-south in the eastern portion of the West Parcel. The collector lines leading to the Stormceptor unit will be excavated to a maximum depth of about 7 feet below existing grade. As noted above, the approximate depth of fill is 5 to 7 feet in the area where the collector storm sewer will be located. The deepest excavation will be for installation of the Stormceptor water quality unit and for discharge piping running to the existing 36 -inch storm sewer entering the eastern end of Slip 6. The projected excavation depth is approximately 11 feet below existing grade. The location of the Stormceptor is near the southeast corner of the West Parcel, just north of the eastern end of Slip 6. It is expected that all soil above and adjacent to the existing 36 -inch sewer line consist entirely of man - placed fill. Conclusion Based on available site information and expected excavation depth, it is projected that trenching and excavation for placement of sewer lines and catch basins to the west and east of the collector north-south sewer will be placed entirely within man- placed fill. Installation of the north -south collector sewer may require excavation into native soils; it is estimated that the maximum depth of excavation into native soil would be approximately 1 foot. The deep excavation in the southeast corner of the West Parcel for installation of the Stormceptor water quality unit is expected to extend no more than 1 foot into the native soils underlying man - placed fill, but the excavation could extend up to 5 feet into native soil if a localized high point is encountered. Available information for the site indicates that filling of the property occurred over about a 7 year period and was likely completed by 1920. J: \8769.000 RCI R -P \086 \Fill Depth Memo_FINAL.doc M- Geomatrix Memorandum April 6, 2006 Page 4 of 4 • • References CH2M HILL, 1995, Final RCRA Facility Investigation Report, June 19. Landau Associates, Inc., 1991, Site Assessment, September 10. J: \8769.000 RCI R -P 1088 \Fill Depth Memo_FINAL.doc Reply To Attu Of: AWT -121 • s UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98'101 ! ' , r7• r. r �^ eN /W �r ,!� •- UO VIA CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Gary Dupuy Geomatrix, Inc. One Union Square 600 University Street, Suite 1020 Seattle, WA 98101 -4107 Re: Approval with Modification of Western Parcel Redevelopment Work Plan Administrative Order on Consent for Corrective Action ( "Order") Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( "RCRA ") Docket No, 1091- 11- 20- 3008(h) Rhone - Poulenc Inc. Marginal Way Facility WAD 00928 2302 RECEIVED COMMUN Dear Mr. Dupuy: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 ("EPA") has completed its review of the revised Western Parcel Redevelopment Work Plan for the former Rhone - Poulenc facility, dated March 13, 2006. This revision was prepared in response to EPA's comments dated February 9, 2006. Pursuant to Paragraph 7.1 of the Order, the revised Western Parcel Redevelopment Work Plan is hereby conditionally approved with modification. EPA's approval is conditioned on Respondents modifying the final revised Westem Parcel Redevelopment Work Plan as directed by EPA in this letter. Page 2 of the revised Westem Parcel Redevelopment Work Plan is hereby modified as follows: Delete the seventh sentence of Section 1.1, which states that Container Propertes has primary responsibility for implementing the provisions of the Order. All Respondents are equally responsible for implementation of work plans and overall compliance with the Order. Please submit a revised page 2 of the Westem Parcel Redevelopment Work Pian, including the revision specified above, within thirty (30) days of receipt of this approval with modification as set forth by Paragraph 7.2 of the Order. The effort and care that went into preparation of the final Western Parcel Redevelopment Work Pian is evident and is appreciated. The high quality of the final document has allowed EPA to approve the revised work plan quickly. Printed on Recycled Paper • . Respondents are cautioned that the work set forth in the Redevelopment Work Plan is scheduled to occur prior to the approval of a Corrective Measures Study and selection by EPA of a final corrective measure. The process of selecting a corrective measure is subject to public review and comment, Tribal consultations, and consultations with other federal agencies under the Endangered Species Act. This work could be in conflict with work that EPA determines is required to be conducted under the Order, and is, thus, being undertaken at the Respondents' risk. For example, aspects of this redevelopment work could be required to be redone or disturbed to the extent that they are determined by EPA to be inconsistent with work required under the Order. Nothing in the Redevelopment Work Plan, or EPA's communication relating to it, alters or affects Respondents' existing responsibilities and obligations under the Order. You may contact me at (206) 553 -8506, or your legal counsel may contact Jennifer MacDonald at (206) 553 -8311, if you have any questions regarding this letter. cc: G. St. Amant, Muckleshoot Tribe B. Maeng, Ecology NWRO G. Baker, NOAA D. Blount, Landye Bennett Blumstein LLP R. Brown, Cascadia Law Group C. Blumenfeld, Perkins Coie P. Linskey, Rhodia Inc. G. Goodridge, Esq., Bayer CropScience Sincerely, / .54/ 6 Christy Brown Project Manager Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics • • CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES April 7, 2006 HAND DELIVERY Ms. Carol Lumb City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Response to Comments — Davis Property and Investment 9229 East Marginal Way South, Tukwila, Washington City of Tukwila File Nos L05 -050, L05 -051, L05 -055, L05 -057, and E05 -11 Our Job No. 10265 Dear Ms. Lumb: We have revised the plans and other documents for the above - referenced project in accordance with your comment letter dated March 2, 2006. Enclosed are the following documents for your review and approval: 1. Six copies of the revised plan set, including: a. Shoreline Site Plan (Sheets P1 to P2 of 2) b. Landscape Plan (Sheets L1 to L3 of 3) c. Preliminary Grading and Storm Drainage Plan set (Sheets C1 to C4 of 4) 2. Three copies of the revised SEPA Environmental Checklist prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated April 7, 2005 3. Three copies of the Draft East Parcel Cleanup Work Plan prepared by Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. 4. Three copies of the Depth of Fill at Former Rhone Poulenc Site Memorandum prepared by Geomatrix Consultants, Inc., dated April 6, 2006 5. Three copies of the Revised Operation, Monitoring, Inspection, and Maintenance Plan prepared by Geomatrix Consultants, Inc., dated February 2006 6. Three copies of the Approval with Modification of Western Parcel Redevelopment Work Plan prepared by Christy Brown, United States Environmental Protection Agency dated March 29, 2006 7. Three copies of the easement granted by Monsanto Chemical Company (King County Recording No. 4784818) 8. One copy of the letter from Ms. Carol Lumb, City of Tukwila, to Ms. Ivana Halvorsen, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated March 2, 2006 The following outline provides each of your comments in italics exactly as written, along with a narrative response describing how each comment was addressed: 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251 -6222 (425) 251 -8782 FAX BRANCH OFFICES • OLYMPIA, WA • TEMECULA, CA • WALNUT CREEK, CA www.barghausen.com RE CEIVED 'APR 0 7 2006 �evr • • Ms. Carol Lumb City of Tukwila Department of Community Development -2- April 7, 2006 1. During the 30 -day public comment period, which ended on February 23, 2006, one comment letter was received from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. A copy of the letter is enclosed and a response to the issue raised in the letter is needed prior to issuance of SEPA. Response: Please see the enclosed Depth of Fill at Former Rhone Poulenc Site Memorandum prepared by Geomatrix Consultants, Inc., dated April 6, 2006. 2. King County Code 25.16.030 E.2. requires at least five feet of landscaping to screen parking areas — please revise the landscape plan to show 5 feet of landscaping on the western edge of the site where cars will be parked as part of the lease of the property to Insurance Auto Auction. Response: The Shoreline Site Plan set, the Landscaping Plan set, and the Preliminary Grading and Storm Drainage Plan set have been revised to depict a 5- foot -wide landscape strip along the western and southern edges of the site adjacent to the Duwamish Waterway and Slip No. 6 (Port of Seattle), respectively, in accordance with KCC, Section 25.16.030 E.2, .3, .4. 3. Thank you for providing a copy of the easement granted by Monsanto Chemical Company to the four railroad companies. Unfortunately, the lower portion of the easement language on the first page is not legible (see enclosed copy). Please provide a copy that can be easily read. Response: An easily legible copy of the easement granted by Monsanto Chemical Company cannot be located; therefore, we have included our most legible copy and believe that the lower portion of the easement language on the first page reads as follows: "the Grantor expressly reserves to itself, its successors or assigns, the right for its servants and agents, and any other person or persons acting for the benefit, or on behalf, of Grantor, its successors or assigns to cross the strip or parcel of land hereby conveyed at such place or places and at such time or times as the Grantor, it successors or assigns, may desire, and the Grantor further expressly reserves to itself, its successors or assigns, the right to cross said strip or parcel of land at any time with electric, water, gas, telephone, or other utility service lines, entrances or exits in a manner which will not obstruct the railroad uses of said strip or parcel of land;" 4. The SEPA Checklist states that the building to be constructed will be 185,000 sq. ft. in size; Sheet PI of 2 shows a building that is 84,000 sq. ft. in size — which is correct? Response: The SEPA Checklist has been revised to state that the constructed building will be 84,000 square feet in size. 5. Please revise the Benjamin Moore color #1177 to use a less pink and more tan -toned color to ester complement the green tones that are being used for accent. See the enclosed photo simulation of color #1177 on the body of a building. Response: Ron Houde Architects, LLC will work directly with the City of Tukwila to resolve the color issue. The applicant agrees to use an alternative color. • • Ms. Carol Lumb City of Tukwila Department of Community Development -3- April 7, 2006 6. Sheet C -1 shows a water quality /wet pond – will this be used in addition to the stormceptor system that is shown on Sheet C -4? Response: No. The water quality /wet pond note on Sheet C -1 has been removed as the site will utilize the Stormceptor® for the on -site water quality system. 7. Your comment #6 states that a work plan for addressing the contamination on the eastern portion of the site was included –1 did not find that enclosure. Response: Six copies of the Draft East Parcel Cleanup Work Plan prepared by Geomatrix Consultants, Inc., dated November 2005 are enclosed. 8. Your comment #12 states that the Operation, Monitoring, Inspection and Maintenance Plan was included —1 did not find that enclosure. Response: Please see the enclosed Revised Operation, Monitoring, Inspection, and Maintenance Plan prepared by Geomatrix Consultants, Inc., dated February 2006. 9. Is there a contingency plan for relocating the wells after re- paving if using the metal detector does not work? Response: Several precautions have been taken to ensure that monitoring wells specified for continued monitoring will be returned to service after completing redevelopment of the western parcel. In addition to placing the metal plates over the wellheads, the location of each well has been surveyed by a licensed surveyor. If attempts to locate a buried well using a metal detector are unsuccessful, the known location will be surveyed. The metal detector and a GPS locator will be used initially to locate the wells after repaving has been completed. If neither the metal detector nor the survey can successfully locate a well, Container Properties will work with the EPA to resolve groundwater monitoring issues. Please note that the EPA has formally approved the redevelopment plan. An Approval with Modifications (enclosed) was issued by the EPA on March 29, 2006. The modification requested by EPA has been made. The following comments are provided as information items that will be addressed at the building permit stage: 1. During a site inspection on January 27, 2006, it was noted that the filter fence along the western boundary of the site does not extend to the berm, leaving a gap which could allow sediment to enter the river. Prior to any grading on the site, the filter fence must be corrected. Response: Comment noted. 2. For the building permit, please provide details on the wheel wash and its proposed location. Response: Comment noted. • • Ms. Carol Lumb City of Tukwila Department of Community Development -4- April 7, 2006 3. The approximate location of the personal decontamination station should be shown on the plans. Response: Comment noted. This will be completed with the Building Permit plans. 4. The Western Parcel Redevelopment Work Plan prepared by Geomatrix recommends using a Vortechs water quality system for stormwater treatment while Sheet C -4 shows a stormceptor as the water quality control feature. The building permit drawings should clarify which structure will be used. Response: A Stormceptor® will be installed and utilized as the water quality control feature. Building Permit drawings will reflect this information. S. The building permit shall include a design approval letter from the storm water treatment manufacturer and a storm drainage maintenance schedule that clearly stats who, what, when and how maintenance will be performed. This must be in a format acceptable to King County for recording. Response: Comment noted. 6. Traffic impact fees, based on the 2006 Traffic Impact Fee Schedule, will be levied as part of the building permit. Response: Comment noted. We believe that the above responses, together with the enclosed revised plans and other documents, address all of the comments in your letter dated March 2, 2006. Please review and approve the enclosed at your earliest convenience. If you have questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at this office. Thank you. Respectfully, Brendan T. Madden Assistant Planner BTM/dm/ath 10265c.014.doc enc: As Noted cc: Mr. Jeff Davis, Davis Property and Investments (w /enc) Mr. Larry McGaughey, Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. Mr. Daniel K. Balmelli, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Ms. Ivana Halvorsen, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. .\ • • CITY OF TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS www.ci.tukwila.wa.us Development Guidelines and Design and Construction Standards Permit #: L05 -057 Project Name: Davis Properties /Rhone - Poulenc Project Address: 9229 EMWS Review #: NA Date: 04.14.2006 Reviewer: L. Jill Mosqueda, P.E. The City Of Tukwila Public Works Department (PW) has the following comments regarding the above permit application. Please contact Jill Mosqueda P.E. at 206.431.2449, if you have any questions. A. Public Works recommends preliminary approval for this subdivision per TMC 17.12.020 C. The information provided by the Applicant shows that: 1. Appropriate provisions consistent with current Public Works standards can be made for water, sewer, storm drainage, erosion prevention and sanitary sewage disposal, 2. Appropriate provisions consistent with current Public Works Standards can be made for road, utilities and other improvements, 3. Appropriate provisions can be made for dedications, easements, and reservations, • 4. Appropriate provisions can be made for maintenance of commonly owned private facilities. B. Please include this condition in the Preliminary Approval Conditions. Provide an access easement across the front lot and benefiting the back lot. The easement shall be shown on the plat and shall be granted by a separate easement document to be recorded with the short plat. Please contact Jill Mosqueda at 206.431.2449, if you have any questions regarding this condition. Projects /L05 -057 SP 1 From: Carol Lumb To: Brendan Madden Date: 4/13/06 8:58AM Subject: Re: Davis Property BCE #10265 • • Hi Brendan: at this point I don't see any conditions for SEPA, but there are a couple conditions for the shoreline permit. As soon as I've refined them I'll send you the draft conditions. I am meeting tomorrow with Public Works staff and will let you know if there are any additional engineering comments. I had the permits a little out of sequence as far as their consideration and approval. Once SEPA is issued, we'll schedule & hold the shoreline variance hearing, as the decision on that permit may affect the shoreline permit (i.e. if the variance isn't granted or the hearing examiner adds some conditions that affect the shoreline permit). After the decision on the shoreline variance is issued by the Hearing Examiner we can issue the shoreline permit, then proceed to a decision on the administrative design review and finally the short plat. Could you please have the architecture firm contact me regarding the change in the main building color? I would like to resolve this issue so that I can finalize the staff report for this permit. Thanks very much. Carol »> "Brendan Madden" <bmadden @barghausen.com> 04/12/06 08:15AM »> Carol- Good morning. Could you send us a copy (email would be fine) of the draft SEPA conditions and final engineering comments? Thanks Brendan CC: Internet:ihalvorsen@barghausen.com Carol Lumb <clumb @ci.tukwil a.wa.us> • • From: <Brown.Christy@epamail.epa.gov> To: Carol Lumb <clumb @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 4/17/06 9:15AM Subject: Re: Eastern Portion of Rhone Poulenc Site Hello. Yes, they have asked us to separate out the East parcel from the rest of the site. The contamination patterns are very different between the two parcels, and they seem to have different redevelopment plans for the two parcels. That being said, both parcels will remain subject to the Order unless they can achieve a "corrective action complete without controls" on the East Parcel -- longhand for "cleaned up to residential standards ". They aren't there yet -- more field work is certainly in order, based on the data we have so far. We have been working with them to substantially revise the East Parcel Cleanup Work Plan (the one they just sent you) - so you need to know that that particular document (November 2005) will not be approved as written. I haven't seen a revised work plan yet. My understanding is that they aren't planning to start construction on the east parcel until they've gotten some sort of buy-off from EPA and have been able to determine whether they can achieve a walk -away cleanup on that parcel or will be left with some residual contaminants (at the "industrial" levels found in MTCA). Hope that helps. Feel free to call or email! - christy To Christy Brown /R10 /USEPA/US @EPA 04/11/2006 04:20 cc PM Sandra Whiting <swhiting @ci.tukwila.wa. us> Subject Eastern Portion of Rhone Poulenc Site Hi Christy: I just received a copy of the Draft East Parcel Cleanup Work Plan, prepared in November, 2005 by Geomatrix for the former Rhone Poulenc site. The document mentions requesting EPA to separate out the eastern portion of the site, which will be developed with the warehouse /office building and associated parking, from the western portion of the site in terms of coverage by the Order. • • I'm wondering if EPA agreed to this request? Has the site been cleaned up to EPA's satisfaction? I don't see how our applicant can do excavation and construct a building on a site that still has contamination issues. Would appreciate any thoughts /info you have on this. Thanks much. Carol CC: Sandra Whiting <swhiting @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 18215 72nd Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 • • From: Carol Lumb To: Ivana Halvorsen Date: 4/11/06 5:26PM Subject: Re: Davis Property Shoreline Height Variance (BCE # 10265) Hi lvana: not a problem - I will print out your e-mail that will suffice for withdrawing the variance request for height. Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. Carol »> "Ivana Halvorsen" <ialvorsen @barghausen.com> 04/11/06 05:18PM »> Hi Carol: We agree that the proposed building will not be higher than 35 feet, so we agree to withdraw that portion of the Shoreline Variance request. If you need a formal revision or withdrawal statement for that portion, please let me know. I would prefer to withdraw that element than have it denied. Please let me know what you think. Ivana Halvorsen Senior Planner (425) 251 -6222 (425) 251 -8782 FAX (425) 656 -7487 Direct MFIR 27 ZUUb 1 1 : 1UHIl HF' LHStKJt I JCUU pp 1 TaA NSMI TRANSMI FAX LIIMAD • �s cfscarre; s yam aft raiwa4 ame Alakt6 P t f'`'t irkt, a_ cal( - c/ok Gaeta-Ay .-f*ixr 5W eamai xi ih i3. IM r( .. J, S P. 1 Reply To Atm Of: AWT - 121 Gary Dupuy Geomatrix, Inca One Union Square 600 University Street, Suite 1020 Seattle, WA 98101 -4107 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 10 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 FEB 0 6 2006 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Re: Comments Regarding Westem Parcel Redevelopment Work Plan Administrative Order on Consent for Corrective Action ("Order") Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA ") Docket No. 1091- 11- 20- 3008(h) Rhone - Poulenc Inca Marginal Way Facility WAD 00928 2302 Dear Mr. Dupuy: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 ( "EPA') has completed Its review of the Western Parcel Redevelopment Work Plan ( "Redevelopment Work Plan ") dated November 14,. 2005. The Redevelopment Work Plan includes specifications well abandonment, earthwork, storm water management, well retrofitting, paving, and re- fencing to be conducted In the western portion the Facility, co- located with the existing approved subsurface Hydraulic Control Interim Measure. These activities are proposed in order to enable this portion of the Facility to be leased to a tenant for storing and auctioning vehicles. Comments regarding the Redevelopment Work Plan are enclosed. Pursuant to Section VILA of the Order, the Redevelopment Work Plan must be revised to fully address these comments. In accordance with Paragraph 7.3 of the Order, Respondents must submit a revised final Redevelopment Work Plan including all revisions specified above to EPA within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this letter. Respondents are cautioned that the work set forth In the Redevelopment Work Plan is scheduled to occur prior to the approval of a Corrective Measures Study and selection by EPA of a final corrective measure. The process of selecting a corrective measure Is subject to public review and comment, Tribal consultations, and consultations with other federal agendas under the Endangered. Species Act This work could be in conflict with work that EPA determines is required to be conducted under, the Order, and is, thus, being undertaken at the Respondents' risk. For example, aspects of this redevelopment work could be required to be redone or disturbed to the extent that they are determined by EPA to be inconsistent with work required under the Order. In addition, the tenant's operation of the site could be interrupted by future work that is required under the Order. Nothing in the .Redevelopment Work Plan, or EPA's communication relating to it, alters or affects Respondents' existing responsibilities and obligations under the Order. 6 /Oa. Oawwawaei ensa,v+r MHR 27 2006 11:1HHM HN LHStKJtl deuu • cc:. G. St. Amant, Muckleshoot Tribe B. Maeng, Ecology NWRO G. Baker, NOAA D. Blount, Landye Bennett Blumstein LLP R. Brown, Cascadla Law Group C. Blumenfeld, Perkins Cole P. Linskey, Rhodla Inc. G. Goodridge, Esq., Bayer CropScience You may contact me at (206) 553 -8508, or your legal counsel may contact Jennifer MacDonald at (206) 553 -8311, if you have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, sit hiisty Brown Project Manager Office of Air, Waste, and To P• MAR 27 2006 11:18RM HP LRSERJET 3200 GENERAL COMMENTS: Western Parcel Redevelopment Work Plan November-14, 2005 Former Rhone - Poulenc Facility Tukwila, Washington EPA Review Comments January, 2006 1 Jurisdiction and Approval Authority. The Western Parcel Redevelopment Work Plan ("Redevelopment Work Plan°) includes descriptions and specifications for work to be conducted under several regulatory jurisdictions. It is difficult to ascertain, as written, which sections require EPA's review and approval, which sections constitute modifications of previously approved worts plans, and which sections were provided for Infomna ion. Work that requires EPA's approval under the Order Includes source removal, sampling procedures and Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) to be In the event grading uncovers contaminated soils, and engineering plans and spedications for the paving if It is to be approved as a new interim measure (see General Comment No. 6). Work that requires EPA approval .of .modiflcatbns to previously approved work plans Includes changes to site security plans and modifications to the protective cap over the banter wall. Other portionsof the Redevelopment Work Plan, such as the storm water management plan and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist may approval from other regulatory jurisdictions such as the State, King County and/or the City of Tukwila, or are provided only tar information, such as the lease. The Redevelopment Work Plan must be revised at a minimum, to dearly Identify provisions and/or work which constitute a modification to previously approved work plans, or otherwise require EPA's approval under the Order. EPA's approval will be limited to those portions of the Redevelopment Work Plan, and will not include other provisions such as the lease, Stormwater Pollutbn.Prevention Plan, Health and Safety Plan, or SEPA check ist. Note that it would be helpful if the lead agency for each of the other sections of the Redevelopment Work Plan were also clearly identified. 2. Source Removal. Prior,to Redevelopment The Redevelopment Work Plan must be revised to describe the work that has been and/or will be done to remove and/or abandon the remaining sumps and vaults present at the facility. EPA has received the 'Affected Soil .Removal Plan," dated January 24, 2006, which addresses removal of surface soil in the northwestem comer of the Facility. Comments regarding the January 24 soil removal plan will be forwarded under separate cover. Respondents should note that there may be other areas of the Facility that contain sources of contamination that EPA will determine need to be addressed prior to achieving a corrective action complete determination. Respondents undertake tile redevelopment at their own risk knowing that a Corrective Measures Study has not been approved by EPA; EPA has not yet selected a remedy; the work done now may be disturbed in the future; and operations at the Facility may be interrupted by future work required under the Order. . p. 4 MAR 27 2006 11:18AM HP LASER-7E1 JdUU • 3. • • Site Security. (Pages.2, 10, and Appendix E.) . Page 10 of the Redevelopment Work Plan indicates that new security fencing will be installed along the eastern boundary of the western paricel. This page states that access to the westem parcel is to be through the Tenant's adjoining facility to the north. The treatment building, extraction wells, assodated piping, and at least some of the monitoring wells will be located inside this fenced area on the western parcel. Drawing 3 of Appendix C, however, appears to indicate that gates will be located in the • boundary fencing between the eastern and westem parcels. This drawing does not indicate that there will be access gates along the northern fence line. This drawing also appears to indicate.the presence of a double fence.along the westem site boundary. If . accurate, several of the monitoring weds will be located between these fences, although no gates are indicated. The drawing also seems to indicate a double fence located at the of the bank of Slip 6. Further confusion is Introduced on page 1, where the second to last full sentence indicates that the development activities wily include • construction 'of a permanent fence the western parcel boundaries," Implying that all of the fencing will be replaced. The Redevelopment Work Plan must be revised to indude. a figure dearly indicating where the security fence(s) and access points will be .located, and this figure must be consistent with the text The Tenant's adjacent premises •appear to be open to the public during the day. The Redevelopment Work Plan -does not state whether the western parcel will be open to the public as well. The Redevelopment Work Plan must be revised to specify how site security will be established and maintained 11 there is to be public use of the western . parcel during business hours. For example, how will the treatment building end well heads be secured? Where will warning signs be installed and what will they state? How will piping and andiiary equipment be protected? • • Page 2 of the Redevelopment Worts Plan indicates that `security will be provided by IAAI' after installation of the new security fencing. • Changes to the. security fendng require a modification of the approved Hydraulic Control Interim Measures Work Plan. In addition, this sentence must be revised to clarify that the terms of the lease do not obviate the Respondents' responsibilities and obligations under the Order and the . approved Hydraulic Control Interim Measures Work Plan to provide and maintain • adequate security for the Facility. • 4. Access. (Pages 3, 10, and 11.) . Several sections of the Redevelopment Work Plan indicate that the lease includes provisions to ensure that the interim measure fadlities and monitoring wells can be freely accessed for routine operation and for groundwater monitoring" after control of the parcel is assumed by the Tenant As discussed later in these- comments, however, the lease only provides access "after reasonable advance writes notice from Landlord" (page 6 of lease agreement). This provision does not provide EPA with access as required' by Paragraph 10.1 of the Order. Paragraph 10.1 of the Order requires that, if the Fadilty is locked.or otherwise closed to workers and visitors during regular business hours or at an otherwise reasonable time, the Respondents make the Facility accessible to EPA Within four (4) hours of oral notice of EPA's intent to enter the Facility. The • Redevelopment Work •Plan must be revised to comply with the Order. Additionally, while the lease does-require the Tenant to allow the landlord or EPA to enter the premises to.conduct work, the lease does not appear to include provisions to • maintain or obtain physical WOWS to the interim measure facilities and .monitoring wells • or access for later corrective measures implementation or other work that may be required under the Order. The Redevelopment Work Plan must be revised to specify how ready access to welts, treatment equipment, and/or the barrier wall cap will be assured if, for example, vehicles areparked on or In front of them and to address access • for other work that may be required under the Order. P. 1111K CI CUUO 1 1 : 1. nr LrL/GK4C 1 JGUU SPECIFIC COMMENTS: • 5. Protection and Maintenance of Interim Measures. The Redevelopment Work Plan must be revised to specify what measures will be taken to ensure that the existing interim measures facilities are adequately protected from the Tenant's activities on the site. For example, the Redevelopment Work Plan must dearly specify if all wells are to have flush - mounted surface completions rather than protective barriers. Are there restriction on the Tenant's activities within a specified distance of the building which houses the treatment plant? Is digging or other reconstruction prohibited? Is the Tenant required to immediately notify Respondents of any damage to or problems observed with the interim measure (e.g., leaks, cracking pavement etc.)? 8. • Capping. (Pages 10 and 23.) The Redevelopment Work Plan must be revised to clearly state whether the asphalt paving Is being proposed as a new interim measure (a cap to control run-on and run -off and prevent exposure to sons) in addition to the existing, approved hydraulic control interim measure. If the asphalt paving is being proposed as an additional interim measure, the Redevelopment Work Plan must include design spedfications, run-on and run -off control measures and supporting calculations, a construction quality assurance plan, etc. In accordance with applicable guidance forRCRA caps. The Redevelopment Work Plan must also be revised to consistently provide the thickness of paving to be used at the site; page 10 indicates that 4" of asphalt will be used, while page 23 indicates that 3' of asphalt will be used. The Redevelopment Work Plan must also be revised to dearly demark the areas of the facility where a cap has already been approved and installed as a protective cover for the barrier wall (see pages 5-15 and Appendix A, Drawing 8 of the December 2, 2002 Hydraulic Control Interim Measures Construcdon Work Plan). This protective cover over the barrier wall must be retained and maintained as required. Provide engineering drawings and technical specifications for extending the cap. to the new grade. Provide • procedures for installing and locating the settlement plates, and correlating the new surface elevation to the top of the barrier wall so that the wall may continue to be routinely monitored for subsidence as .required by page 8.8 of the Hydraulic Control Interim Measures Work Plan. Once again, Respondents are cautioned that the set forth in the Redevelopment Work Plan Is scheduled to occur r prior to the approval of a Corrective Measures Study and selection by EPA of a final corrective measure. The process of selecting a corrective measure Is.subject to public review and comment, Tribal consultations, and consultations with other federal agencies under the Endangered Species Act For example, discussions regarding the original placement of thebarrier wall lnduded conversations about retaining a fifty (50) foot setback for habitat restoration at the time the site was paved, while the Redevelopment Work Plan appears to indicate • that the pavement on the western parcel win extend within fifty (50) feet of Slip 6. (E.g., see page 7, Section 3.0, last bullet) Additionally, please be reminded that EPA has not established final soil cleanup levels for the Facility, and has not reviewed the available . site data to determine that no further source removal will be necessary. The work proposed in the Redevelopment Work Plan could be in conflict with final corrective measures that EPA determines is required to be conducted under the Order, and is, thus, being undertaken at the Respondents' risk. 1. Page 6, first paragraph. The second sentence indicates that the proposed construction is not expected to have significant potential for impacting aquatic biota, and that the potential for affecting endangered species will be assessed under the SEPA program p.b administrated bythe City of Tukwila. Unless the proposed work can be said to have no_ effect on the threatened and eridangered species and critical habitat known to be present immediately adjacent to the Facility, a Biological.Assessment must be prepared. 2.. Pages 7-9, Section 3.1, Well Abandonment Please delete. this section, as •proposals for . well abandonment were submitted as a'atand -atone document on December 29, 2005, and are being managed separately from this Redevelopment Work Plan. 3. Page 10, second full paragraph. The second sentence includes a typo, "... two east- . • west rending ridgelines ... 4. Page 14, Section 4.2.2, Well Abandonment, Table 1, and Figure 2. Please delete this' . section, Table, and Figure, as proposals for well abandonment were submitted as a . stand -alone document on December 29, 2005, and are being managed 'separately from this Redevelopment Work Plan. 5. Page 15, Section 4.3.1, Filling/Grading. This section indicates that the surface structures . and building slabs will be demolished as described In the Demolition Work Plan prior to grading. Page 2 of the .Demolition Work Plan, however, states that the foundations and . building slabs will be left In place. Revise this section to dartfy whether building slabs . and foundations are to be left In place or demolished. 6. Page 18, number 2. a. (1). This section indicates•that if discolored or oily material is found in exposed materials. during demolition, samples will be collected. In accordance with applicable site QAPPs previousi•approved by EPA ..This section must.be,revised,.to specify that the approved QAPP. from the Pre- Demolition Investigation WorkPIani ' :•• • (revised. December, 2005).will be utilized In this case. This section must be revised to be consistent with the analyte Iist in the QAPP.. For example, samples: must be. analyzed for total metals by EPA 6000/7000. series, VOCs by Method 8260B; SVOCs by _ Method 8270C, and PCBs by Method 8082. • . 7. Page 17, Section 4.3.3,.General Excavation. - Delete references to installation of new . surface completions for monitoring wells DMA and MW-49, as these completions were approved as Design Change Memorandum No. 3 on December 9, 2005. 8. Page .18,• third full paragraph. This paragraph indicates that as the Vortechs stormwater unit Is to be located outside the barrier wall, 'it is expected that contamination will not be encountered.' Drawing 3 of Appendix C indicates that this unit will be placed just east of the southeastern corner of the barrier wall. Localized areas of soil contamination are • known to exist in the eastern parcel. This section must be revised *to Indicate whether the proposed Iodation is expected to be.ln a relatively dean area, or-in the vicinity of known based on the results of previous soil sampling conducted at the facility, 'including. the RCRA Fadlity Investiggation. • 9. Page 18, number 1. (1). This section indicates that if discolored or oily material is found • in .exposed materials during demolition, samples will be collected in accordance with applicable site QAPPs previously approved by EPA. This section must be revised to specify that the approved QAPP from the Pre- Demolition Investigation Work Plan (revised December, 2005) will be utilized in this case. This section must be revised to be consistent with the analyte list specified in the applicable QAPP. For example, samples • must be analyzed fortotal . metals by EPA 6000/7000 series, VOCs by .Method 82608, SVOCs by Method 8270C, and PCBs by Method 8082. 10. Page 21, Section 4.5.2, Hydraulic Control Well Retrofitting. Delete this section in Its entirety, as the work proposed here was approved as Design Change Memorandum No. 3 on December 9, 2005. . 11. Page 22, Section 4.5.3, Monitoring Well Retrofitting. The last sentence of this paragraph states that the new top -of- casing elevation will be surveyed by a licensed surveyor. Provide a firm schedule by when the surveying will be completed and reported to EPA. 12. Page 25, Section 5.0, Schedule. .Provide the schedule for submission of a construction report, including of components specified on page 7 -2 of the approved Hydraulic Control Interim Measures Construction Work Plan.' Also provide the schedule for submission of a revised Operating and Maintenance Pion incorporating all changes necessitated by this redevelopment. 13. Appendix 8, SEPA/Shoreline Application. EPA has•not reviewed this document In its entirety, as Is not the lead agency for SEPA review. However, EPA wishes to note several inaccuracies in this document. Specifically, the .first page 2 states that the . . subject property is "a registered .Superfund site ". The second page 4 again.states the property is a Superfund site, and further indicates that an Operation, Monitoring, inspection and Maintenance Plan wWU be reviewed and approved by EPA prior to the . redevelopment activities. Page 6 indicates the project site Is an °unused storage yard closed In 1991." These statements are inaccurate: the site Is not being addressed using . Superfund or CERCLA authority, but rather.is subject to a RCRA compliance order for deanup; the Operations and Maintenance Plan Is not scheduled to be submitted to EPA prior to commencement of the redevelopment; and Its approval bears no relation to the redevelopment activities; and lastly, the project site was an active chemical manufactiuing facility for 50 years'prior.to becoming an storage yard. 14. Appendbc E, Insurance Auto Auctions Lease, page 5. Number 8, °Utilities; indicates that the "Landlord shall not be responsible for 'providing any utilities to the Premises." Revise the Redevelopment Work Plan to clarify how Respondents will ensure that continuous utility services such as electricity are to be provided for operation of the interim measure. 15. Appendix E, Insurance Auto Auctions Lease, page 6. Number 11, "Repairs and Maintenance," indicates that the "Tenant shall at its sole expense maintain the Premises ... and make all repairs .... "' The Redevelopment Work Plan must be revised to clarify how the Respondents will ensure that all approved caps will be maintained and repaired in a manner consistent with the approved work plans. The Redevelopment Work Plan must also be revised to specify how the Respondents will ensure that all security measures, including the fence, remain effective and in good condition. • 16. Appendix E,' Insurance Auto Auctions Lease, page 6. Number 12, °Access," requires that after reasonable advance written notice from Landlord, except in case of emergency, Tenant shall penult Landlord or the agendas, including EPA, 'to enter the Premises at all reasonable - times for purposes of repair, environmental remediation, inspection, ground water sampling, etc. This provision does not provide EPA with access as required by Paragraph 10.1 of.the Order. Paragraph 10.1 of the Order requires that, if the Fsality'is locked or otherwise closed to workers and visitors during regular business hours.or at an otherwise reasonable time, the Respondents make the Fadlity accessible to EPA within four (4) hours of oral notice of EPA's intent to enter the Facility. The Redevelopment Work Plan must be revised so that it is consistent with the Order. March 2, 2006 Ms. Ivana Halvorsen Barghausen Engineering 18215 72 Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Dear Ms. Halvorsen: CL q: \Davis \Halvorsen2.doc • Cizy of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director RE: Davis Property & Investment, 9229 East Marginal Way South: Land Use Files E05 -011, L05 -050, L05 -051, L05 -055 and L05 -057 Staff has had an opportunity to review the materials that were submitted on January 5, 2006 in response to the September 14, 2005 letter requesting additional materials and the October 27, 2005 technical comments letter and has the following comments and/or corrections that are needed to the plans. 1. During the 30 -day public comment period, which ended on February 23, 2006, one comment letter was received from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. A copy of the letter is enclosed and a response to the issue raised in the letter is needed prior to issuance of SEPA. 2. King County Code 25.16.030 E.2. requires at least five feet of landscaping to screen parking areas — please revise the landscape plan to show 5 feet of landscaping on the western edge of the site where cars will be parked as part of the lease of the property to Insurance Auto Auction. 3. Thank you for providing a copy of the easement granted by Monsanto Chemical Company to the four railroad companies. Unfortunately, the lower portion of the easement language on the first page is not legible (see enclosed copy). Please provide a copy that can be easily read. 4. The SEPA Checklist states that the building to be constructed will be 185,000 sq. ft. in size; Sheet P1 of 2 shows a building that is 84,000 sq. ft. in size — which is correct? 5. Please revise the Benjamin Moore color #1177 to use a less pink and more tan -toned color to better complement the green tones that are being used for accent. See the enclosed photo simulation of color #1177 on the body of a building. 6. Sheet C -1 shows a water quality /wet pond — will this be used in addition to the stormceptor system that is shown on Sheet C -4? 7. Your comment #6 states that a work plan for addressing the contamination on the eastern portion of the site was included — I did not find that enclosure. Page 1 of 2 03/02/2006 9:25 AM Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Ms. Ivana Halvorsen Barghausen Engineering March 2, 2006 8. Your comment #12 states that the Operation, Monitoring, Inspection and Maintenance Plan was included — I did not find that enclosure. 9. Is there a contingency plan for relocating the wells after re- paving if using the metal detector does not work? The following comments are provided as information items that will be addressed at the building permit stage: 1. During a site inspection on January 27, 2006, it was noted that the filter fence along the western boundary of the site does not extend to the berm, leaving a gap which could allow sediment to enter the river. Prior to any grading on the site, the filter fence must be corrected. 2. For the building permit, please provide details on the wheel wash and its proposed location. 3. The approximate location of the personal decontamination station should be shown on the plans. 4. The Western Parcel Redevelopment Work Plan prepared by Geomatrix recommends using a Vortechs water quality system for stormwater treatment while Sheet C -4 shows a stormceptor as the water quality control feature. The building permit drawings should clarify which structure will be used. 5. The building permit shall include a design approval letter from the storm water treatment manufacturer and a storm drainage maintenance schedule that clearly stats who, what, when and how maintenance will be performed. This must be in a format acceptable to King County for recording. 6. Traffic impact fees, based on the 2006 Traffic Impact Fee Schedule, will be levied as part of the building permit. Please let me know if you have any questions. I can be reached at 206 - 431 -3661. If we do not receive the requested materials within 90 days of the request, the Department may cancel the applications due to inactivity. Sincerely, Carol Lumb Senior Planner Enclosures • • cc: Nora Gierloff, Planning Manager Jill Mosqueda, P.E., Development Engineer CL Page 2 of 2 03/02/2006 9:25 AM q: \Davis \Halvorsen2.doc February 3, 2006 Dear: Mrs. Lumb, • MUCKLESHOOT CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM 39015 172nd Avenue S.E. • Auburn, Washington 98092 -9763 Phone: (253) 939 -3311 • FAX: (253) 876 -3312 Carol Lumb City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Suite #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: 9229 East Marginal Way South v $B c cr6rittb commuNny DEVE o?T Dt, -- • On behalf of the Cultural Resources Committee, I have reviewed the information sent on 01/27/06 regarding the building and parking stalls at 9229 East Marginal Way South, Tukwila, and have the following comments. The 9229 East Marginal Way South property is an area the Tribe has flagged as high potential for archaeological discovery. The project area location is one that the Tribe considers to have a high probability for archaeological resources, because there are previously identified archaeological sites and a traditional cultural place nearby. Although the proposed project area appears to be previously disturbed, I cannot tell from the information provided whether the proposed construction could intersect native soils on -site. If that is a possibility, then we request that an archaeological study be conducted of the project area to determine the best means of identifying and protecting archaeological resources that may be uncovered during construction. If the applicant believes that construction would take place entirely within fill, we request supporting documentation, such as a comparison of construction plans and soil profile information. Information regarding previous surveys and recorded archaeological sites is available from the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, in Olympia. The Cultural Resources Program does not represent the Wildlife Program and the Fisheries Program which are separate departments under the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Please contact these departments separately for their input on this project. We appreciate the effort to coordinate with the Muckleshoot Tribe prior to site preparation. The destructive nature of construction excavation can often destroy a site and cause delays and unnecessary expense for the contractor. If you have any questions, please contact me at 253- 876 -3272. Thank you for keeping the Tribe informed. aura Murphy, Tribal Archaeologist CC: Stephenie Kramer, Assistant State Archaeologist, OAHP Carol Lumb City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 • CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES January 26, 2006 RE: Affidavit of Installation and Posting of Public Information Sign Davis Property and Investment 9229 East Marginal Way South, Tukwila, Washington City of Tukwila File Nos L05 -050, L05 -051, L05 -055, L05 -057, and E05 -11 Our Job No. 10265 Dear Carol: The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Notice of Application has been posted on the public notice board, which was installed along the sites frontage on January 19, 2006. Enclosed for your records is the signed and notarized Affidavit of Installation and Posting of Public Information Sign. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at this office. Thank you. Respectfully, BTM/pj 10265c.011.doc enc: As Noted cc: Jeff Davis, Davis Property and Investments (w /enc) Daniel K. Balmelli, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Ivana Halvorsen, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Brendan T. Madden Assistant Planner 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251 -6222 (425) 251 -8782 FAX BRANCH OFFICES • OLYMPIA, WA • TEMECULA, CA • WALNUT CREEK, CA www.barghausen.com RECEIVED 'JAN 2 7 2006 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT State of Washington County of King Qty of Tukwila • CITY OF TUKWILA Departmentof Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E-mail: tukplan@ci.tukwila,wa.ul 0 AVIT OF INSTALLATION AND POSTING OF PUTBLIC INFORMATION SIGN(S) I _ eF'2 C V R/Q 1 (PRINT NAME) understand that Section 18.104.110 of the Tukwila Municipal Code requires me to post the property no later than fourteen (14) days following the issuance of the Notice of Completeness. I certify that on TALNAR1 15 a oo(, the Public Notice Board(s) in accordance with Section 18.104.110 and the other applicable guidelines were posted on the property located at P2;? $ : NM. WAY so.. H so as to be clearly seen from each right -of -way primary vehicular access to the property for application file number LDS oso - 0575 of', gar oh% I herewith authorize the City of Tukwila or its representative to remove and immediately dispose of the sign at the property owner's expense, if not removed in a timely manner or within fourteen (14) days of a Notice le Applican r Project Manager's Signature On this day personally appeared before me 7\ .� (v < < Q.. to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he/she signed the same as his/her voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this,V5 day of � �;a ss o, , r c�ZUBE. ,�pp��a y. \ cy4 ��5 •, Cu t NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington . � Z Q i O NO � A Y � ; ; residing at � January 12, 2006 Ms. Ivana Halvorsen Barghausen Engineering 18215 72 " Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Dear Ms. Halvorsen: • Ciz of Tukwila CL q: /Davis Properties/L05 -050 et al Complete App.doc o Department of Community Development Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director 1 ctiz / °° RE: Davis Properties, 9229 East Marginal Way South — L05 -050, L05 -051, L05 -055, L05- 057, and E05 -011 Thank you for submitting the materials on January 4, 2006 in response to my letters of September 14, 2005 and October 27, 2005. Your applications for Administrative Design Review (L05 -055) Shoreline (L05 -050), Shoreline Variance (L05 -051) and SEPA (E05 -011) located at 9229East Marginal Way South have been found to be complete on January 12, 2006 for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. The next step is for you to install the public notice board on the site within 14 days of the date of this letter. You received information on how to prepare and install the sign with your application packet. If you need another set of those instructions, you may obtain them at the Department of Community Development (DCD). Please call me 3 days prior to installing the notice board to so I can arrange for the mailing associated with the Notice of Application. I will post the site with the Notice of Application. For the Notice of Application mailing, I will need 6 additional copies of the revised plan sets, SEPA checklist and Planned Action Checklist. This determination of complete application does not preclude the City from requesting 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. Page 1 oF2 01/12/20062:21 PM 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Ms. Ivana Halvorsen Barghausen Engineering January 12, 2006 • • If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 431 -3661. Sincerely, t4q •��cvw±/' Carol Lumb Senior Planner cc: Nora Gierloff, Planning Supervisor, DCD Jill Mosqueda, Engineer, Public Works Department CL Page 2 of 2 01/12/2006 2:21 PM q: /Davis Properties/L05 -050 et al Complete App.doc October 27, 2005 Ms. Ivana Halvorsen Barghausen Engineering 18215 72 Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 III City of Tukwila • Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director RE: Technical Comments: Davis Property & Investment, 9229 East Marginal Way South: Land Use Files E05 -011, L05 -050, L05 -051, L05 -055 and L05 -057 Dear Ms. Halvorsen: City staff has had an opportunity to review the SEPA, administrative design review, shoreline, shoreline variance and short plat applications for the former Rhone- Poulenc site at 9229 East Marginal Way South. The following comments are provided for your review and must be addressed before further work will occur on the files. Background: The site is regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and subject to a RCRA corrective action under Administrative Order of Consent #1091-11-20- 3008(h). Under a previous SEPA action (E02 -021), a subsurface barrier wall encircling contaminated groundwater was constructed. The wall is approximately 2300 linear feet and 50 to 70 feet deep. The current remediation work (groundwater barrier, recovery wells, pretreatment system and discharge to sanitary sewer) is only an interim measure. Additional site clean -up will likely be needed in the future and may involve remediation along the river bank and along Slip 6, including possible sediment removal. There is some question about the effectiveness of the current system, particularly related to the location of the recovery wells. Groundwater monitoring will begin soon to evaluate the effectiveness of the system. Per EPA, the proposed Operation, Monitoring, Inspection and Maintenance Plan that is mentioned in the SEPA Checklist applies only to operation of the interim groundwater recovery and treatment system and not to any other activities at the site (such as grading). A separate health and safety plan will be needed for site grading /filling activities. CL q: \David -Rhone Poulenc \Technical Comments.doc Page 1 of 5 10/27/2005 12:10 PM Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Ms. Ivana Halvorson • Barghausen Engineering Davis Property, 9229 East Marginal Way South October 27, 2005 L05 -050: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit 1. As noted at the Pre - Application meeting on December 2, 2004, this site is governed by the King County Shoreline Master Program, not Tukwila's. The materials submitted with L05 -050 address Tukwila's shoreline criteria rather than King County's. A copy of King County's criteria is attached — please submit a response to K.C.C. 25.16.030 and K.C.C. 25.16.170. 2. Since the site is governed by King County's Shoreline Master Program, please revise all plans showing the shoreline environments to reflect the King County setbacks rather than the City of Tukwila shoreline environments (River, Low Impact and High Impact). L05 -051: Shoreline Variance 3. The Variance Request states that "(T)o efficiently utilize the site, strict application of the bulk, dimensional, and performance standards (disallowing parking waterward of the structure) would create net loss of parking that cannot be reallocated on site." It appears there is room to flip the building orientation such that the parking is located on the north side of the proposed warehouse and the drive aisle is located on the south side. In addition, the site plan shows 201 parking stalls, when only 93 would be required for a 185,000 sq. foot warehouse. Since the site is over - parked, it would seem that the parking stalls in the shoreline can be eliminated. L05 -055 Administrative Design Review 4. In a letter dated September 14, 2005, we requested building elevations, color and materials board, lighting plan and illustrations of any signage planned for the site. These materials are needed before Notice of Application can be issued. L05 -057: Short Plat 5. The short plat proposes to segregate off the portion of the site that is subject to the RCRA Consent Decree. We are concerned that since only interim remediation actions have been taken so far to clean up the contamination, a short plat would possibly create on non - buildable lot if the remediation efforts are not successful. In addition to the known contamination, we understand there is concern over what might be in the underground piping and tanks. No information was provided to the current owner about these issues when the property was sold. Please address this concern. 6. It is our understanding that some minor areas of soil contamination exist on the eastern part of the site. Explain how and when these will be dealt with and identify the location of the contaminated areas. CL Page 2 of 5 10/27/2005 12:10 PM q: \David -Rhone Poulenc \Technical Comments.doc Ms. Ivana Halvorson Barghausen Engineering Davis Property, 9229 East Marginal Way South October 27, 2005 Corrections to Plans: 7. Revise the plans to show the three groundwater recovery wells in addition to the monitoring wells. 8. The plans must indicate where the existing groundwater pretreatment facility is located, as well as the proposed new location. In addition, both existing and proposed piping details must be provided on the plans. 9. The plans must indicate the current location of the on -site King County lift station and indicate whether it will also be relocated. 10. It is unclear from review of the documents provided how the groundwater recovery wells, the groundwater pretreatment system piping, monitoring wells, and the upper surface of the slurry walls will be protected during grading and construction. Please explain, and if appropriate, provide revised drawings. SEPA Checklist: 11. Section B.1. item f. The response to the question of whether erosion could occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use, does not make any sense. The slurry wall does nothing to protect sediment from leaving the site, as it is below ground and was constructed to intercept groundwater, not surface water. 12. Section B.7. items 1 and 2. The City should be provided with a copy of the EPA - approved Operation, Monitoring, Inspection, and Maintenance Plan referenced in the SEPA Checklist. 13. A detailed health and safety plan will be necessary for any grading/filling work on the site, including emergency measures and daily decontamination procedures. Please provide the City with a copy of the plan for the SEPA file when it has been prepared. Landscaping Plan • • 14. Since a variance is being requested from the King County shoreline requirement to place parking either under buildings or landward of the shoreline, please provide a schematic that shows how the landscaping adjacent to the shoreline will look one year after planting and three years after planting. 15. Please enlarge the portion of the proposed landscaping for the streetscape and the front of the building — it is difficult to identify all the plants that are proposed for these locations. CL Page 3 of 5 10/27/2005 12:10 PM q: \David -Rhone Poulenc \Technical Comments.doc Ms. Ivana Halvorson Barghausen Engineering Davis Property, 9229 East Marginal Way South October 27, 2005 16. Please confirm the location of the Cornus Kousa — are these trees proposed along the front of the building? 17. I only count 16 Thuja Plicata `Excelsa.' 18. The common name of Pennisetum Alopecuroides `Hameln' is listed as Oregon Grape, which is incorrect. Please correct the table. 19. Landscaping is required to screen the proposed storage yard from the shoreline. Public Works Comments: 20. Please refer to the Pre - application Meeting comments from Public Works. A copy is included. A number of the items indicated on the Public Works comment sheet were not included or addressed in the submittal materials. Please provide the missing items that are highlighted on the enclosed Checklist. 21. Provide a Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by an engineer licensed in Washington State that includes analysis of turning movements at the existing signalized access and at the proposed additional access. The site plan can not be evaluated properly without knowing what traffic impacts need mitigation. 22. Please provide civil sheet(s) that include: a. All existing easements that will remain after the demolition and all new easements, including access across BNSF property. b. Plans that indicate what will remain after all of the demolition and removal of pipes, catch basins, etc. The plans provided include all of the existing sewer, water, and storm drainage elements, making it difficult to sort out what will remain. Please note that the demolition notes do not correlate to the utility locations on the drawings, so it is difficult to tell what will be removed as part of the demolition. (see sheet E2 for example) c. Any measures needed to alleviate or improve turning movement conflicts at the accesses points. d. Rerouting of the 36" storm drain. (Refer to the Technical Information Report) 23. Provide approval from BNSF to cross property for access. The 120 -day review clock was stopped on September 14, 2005 when we requested building elevations, color and materials board, lighting plan and illustrations of any signage planned for the site. These items are needed for the Notice of Application as they relate to the shoreline permit. They are also needed for review of the Administrative CE. Page 4 of 5 10/27/2005 12:10 PM q: \David -Rhone Poulenc\Technical Comments,doc Ms. Ivana Halvorson Barghausen Engineering Davis Property, 9229 East Marginal Way South October 27, 2005 Design Review application. The clock will remain stopped as of the date of this letter for the purposes of complying with GMA time requirements for processing land use permit applications. Upon receipt of your responses, the City has 14 days to determine that you have addressed the above items. The review clock will be restarted when we have determined that all the information requested has been received. When responding to this technical comments letter, please provide six copies of any revised plans, a set of plans reduced to 81/2" x 11" and four copies of any studies. Please be aware that if the materials requested above are not submitted within 90 days of the date of this letter, the Department may cancel the applications due to inactivity. The 90 -day clock began when we requested the materials for the Administrative Design Review and Shoreline applications. If you have any questions, please call me at 206 - 431 -3661. Sincerely, Carol Lumb Senior Planner fib • Enclosures: 12/2/04 Public Works Pre - Application Checklist King County Shoreline Criteria K.C.C. 25.16, Shoreline Urban Environment cc: Nora Gierloff, Planning Manager Sandra Whiting, Urban Environmentalist Jill Mosqueda, Development Engineer, Public Works Department Christy Brown, Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency CL Page 5 of 5 10/27/2005 12:11 PM q: \David -Rhone Poulenc \Technical Comments.doc Mr. Gary Dupuy, Principal Hydrologist Geomatrix One Union Square 600 University Street, Suite 1020 Seattle, WA 98101 -4107 5 • City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director RE: Shoreline Exemption for Soil Testing at 9229 East Marginal Way South Dear Mr. Dupuy: Thank you for your letter requesting a shoreline exemption to conduct investigative work on several areas of the former Rhone /Poulenc site located at the above address. This site is subject to a RCRA corrective action under Administrative Order of Consent # 1091- 11- 20- 3008(h). The work proposed will involve excavation of approximately 10 test pits, measuring approximately 15 feet deep by 12 feet long by 3 feet wide. The approximate volume of material removed would be 20 cubic yards, for a total of approximately 200 cubic yards. After the soils are tested, the excavated materials will be re- compacted to the current grade. This work is being conducted at the request of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The test pit excavations will take place within the boundaries of the existing subsurface barrier wall. Construction is being conducted under the existing NPDES General Construction Activities Stormwater Permit for the site. The activities identified above are exempt from a Shoreline Substantial Development permit under WAC 173 -27 -040 (3), Hazardous substance remedial actions. If you have any questions, please contact Carol Lumb at 206 - 431 -3661. Sincerely, Steve Lancaster, Director Department of Community Development CL Page l of I q: \David -Rhone Poulenc \Test Pit Shoreline Exemption.doc October 7, 2005 cc: Christy Brown, Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Carol Lumb, Senior Planner, DCD 10/06/2005 12:58 PM Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 • • CITY OF TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS www.ci.tukwila.wa.us Development Guidelines and Design and Construction Standards Permit #: PRE04 -040 E05 - 011, L05 - 050, L05 - 055, L05 - 057 Project Name: Davis Properties (Rhone- Poulenc Site) Review #: 1 Date: 09.26.2005 Reviewer: L. Jill Mosqueda, P.E. The City Of Tukwila Public Works Department (PW) has the following comments regarding your application for the above permits. 1. Please refer to the preapplication meeting comments from Public Works. A copy is included. 2. Provide a Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by an engineer licensed in Washington State. The analysis must include analysis of turning movements at the existing signalized access and at the proposed additional access. The site plan can not be evaluated properly without knowing what traffic impacts need mitigation. 3. Please provide civil sheet(s) that include: a) All existing easements that will remain after the demolition and all new easements, including access across BNSF property. b) What will remain after all of the demolition and removal of pipes, catch basins, etc. The plans provided include all of the existing sewer, water, and storm drainage elements, making it difficult to sort out what will remain. Please note that the demolition notes do not correlate to the utility locations on the drawings, so it is difficult to tell what will be removed as part of the demolition. ( see sheet E2 for example) c) Any measures needed to alleviate or improve turning movement conflicts at accesses. d) Rerouting of the 36" storm drain. (Refer to the Technical Information Report) 4. Provide approval from BNSF to cross property for access. Projects /PRE04 -040 Rhone - Poulenc land use Com 1 1 MEMORANDUM September 22, 2005 • 1 TO: Carol FROM: Sandra RE: Revised Review Comments Davis Property and Investment SEPA Checklist/Shoreline Variance This memo is a revision to my original comments on the SEPA Checklist, Shoreline Variance and the site plans and includes a summary of information I obtained from EPA regarding the site remediation. I reviewed the "Interim Measures Construction Work Plan (URS 2002) in our files to get a better understanding of the contamination issues, the location of the groundwater recovery wells, and the pre - treatment system (none of which is shown on the plans). I also spoke with the EPA project manager, Christy Brown to get an update on what is going on at the site and what future clean-up actions (if any) were contemplated and to understand who will have responsibility for ongoing operation, maintenance and monitoring of the groundwater treatment program. Per my conversation with Christy Brown on September 19, the current remediation work (groundwater barrier, recovery wells, pretreatment system and discharge to sanitary sewer) is only an interim remediation. Additional site clean-up will likely be needed in the future and may involve remediation along the river bank and along Slip 6, including possible sediment removal. The interim remediation system was only installed and put into operation last year, despite EPA's order (to the responsible party - Rhone Poulenc) in March of 2000 to install and operate the system. Christy indicated that there is still some question about the effectiveness of the current system, particularly related to the location of the recovery wells. Apparently EPA will be starting some groundwater monitoring soon to evaluate the effectiveness of the system. Per EPA, the proposed Operation, Monitoring, Inspection and Maintenance Plan that is mentioned in the SEPA Checklist only applies to operation of the interim groundwater recovery and treatment system and not to any other activities at the site (such as grading). A separate health and safety plan will be needed for site grading/filling activities. Christy said that at least Level D Personal Protective Equipment will be required for site workers. Level D generally means the use of steel toed boots, hard hats, gloves, and protective eyewear. Regarding the proposal to subdivide the property, EPA said that there are minimal contamination issues for the eastern half of the property. Some soil contamination (oil and grease and some metals that exceed MTCA industrial and residential levels) is present and will need to be removed, as EPA is refusing to allow deed restrictions as a way to avoid dealing with the contamination. There has been no groundwater contamination detected on that part of the property. The main issues of concern are on the western part of the property. In addition to the known contamination, there is concern over what might be in the underground piping and tanks. No information was provided to the current owner about these issues when the property was • • From: Sandra Whiting To: Carol Lumb Date: 9/14/05 2:17PM Subject: Davis Property & Investment (Rhone - Poulenc) Site The address for the EPA project manager for the site remediation is: Christy Brown AWT 121 EPA Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 September 14, 2005 Ms. Ivana Halvorsen Barghausen Engineering 18215 72 Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 • City of Tukwila • Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director RE: L05 -055, Administrative Design Review for 9229 East Marginal Way South Dear Ms. Halvorsen: Sincerely, ‘ 4 1 s , ( 6 V Carol Lumb Senior Planner cc: Nora Gierloff, Planning Manager Jill Mosqueda, Engineer, Public Works Department CI. q:\Davis Properties/Halvorsen l.doc Page 1 of 1 09/14/2005 12:03 PM Steven M. Mullet, Mayor I have been reviewing the materials submitted for the Administrative Design Review of the proposed building at 9229 East Marginal Way South. I noticed that the application materials did not include the items listed under "Other" on the Administrative Design Review Complete Application Checklist, (copy attached): building elevations, color and materials board, lighting plan and illustrations of any signage planned for the site. While this project will not be subject to a public hearing before Tukwila's Board of Architectural Review, the Administrative Design Review process still reviews the same design - related materials. Before Notice of Application can be issued or any additional review of the project can occur, the items missing and identified on the attached Checklist must be submitted. Pursuant to TMC 18.104.130 if the materials requested above are not submitted within 90 days of the date of this letter, the Department may cancel the application due to inactivity. If you have any questions, please call me at 206 -431 -3661. I will be out of the office September 15 -19, returning on Tuesday, September 20, 2005. 6700 Southcenter Boulevard_ Suite #100 • Tukwila_ Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 September 2, 2005 Ms. Ivana Halvorsen Barghausen Engineering 18215 72 Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Dear Ms. Halvorsen: • City of Tukwila • NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION RE: Davis Property & Investment: 9229 East Marginal Way South CL Page 1 of 2 09/02/2005 5:31 PM q: /Davis -Rhone Poulenc /L05 -050 et al Complete App.doc Steven M Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Your applications for Administrative Design Review (L05 -055) Shoreline (L05 -050), Shoreline Variance (L05 -051) and SEPA (E05 -011) located at 9229East Marginal Way South have been found to be complete on September 2, 2005 for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. The next step is for you to install the public notice board on the site within 14 days of the date of this letter. You received information on how to prepare and install the sign with your application packet. If you need another set of those instructions, you may obtain them at the Department of Community Development (DCD). Also, you must obtain a laminated copy of the Notice of Application to post on the board. Please call me 3 days prior to installing the notice board to arrange the pick up of the laminated Notice of Application. After installing the sign with the laminated notice, you must return the signed Affidavit of Posting to our office. I will be out of the office September 14 -21, 2005. If possible, I would like to get the public comment period going prior to my departure, since the shoreline permit has a 30 day comment period. For the Notice of Application mailing, I will need 6 additional copies of the SEPA checklist and Planned Action Checklist. In addition, Mr. Jeff Davis has informed me this week that he plans to import 15,000 to 48,000 CY of concrete onto the site where it would be broken down and ground into material to be used in the redevelopment project. This information will be added to the information in the SEPA checklist you provided. This determination of complete application does not preclude the City from requesting 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. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 "• Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Ms. 'Ivana Halvorsen Barghausen Engineering September 2, 2004 • • If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 431 -3661. Sincerely, Carol Lumb Senior Planner cc: Jill Mosqueda, Development Engineer Don Tomaso, Fire Marshall CL Page 2 of 2 09/02/2005 5:31 PM q: /Davis -Rhone Poulenc /L05 -050 et al Complete App.doc i. • • SHORELINE VARIANCE DAVIS PROPERTY AND INVESTMENT King County Parcel No. 542260 -0010 9929 East Marginal Way Prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. August 2005 Our Job No. 10265 RECEIVED AUG 10 2005 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Pursuant to City of Tukwila adopted King County Shoreline Management Master Program (KCSMMP), 25.32.040, the Director is authorized to grant a variance from the performance standards of this master program only under the conditions enumerated in WAC[173 -27 -170] (Review Criteria for Variances). These criteria are written below in italics along with responses to each item as it relates to the project: Project Description: The proposal to redevelop the subject property, which is located in the Manufacturing/Industrial Center — Heavy (MIC/H) zoning district includes construction of an asphalt - surfaced storage yard, a warehouse storage building, parking, and travel lanes for on -site travel. Outdoor storage and warehouse storage are permitted uses in both the MIC/H zone and the urban environment (26.16.170) section of the KCSMMP. Variance Request: The proposed project requires two Shoreline Variances to allow (1) the proposed warehouse storage structure to exceed 35 feet in height above average grade pursuant to KCSMMP 25.16.B, and (2) parking waterward of the proposed building, rather than beneath or upland pursuant to KCSMMP26.16.030.E. This variance is necessary because the site is an irregular shape that makes the 200 -foot shoreline jurisdiction's effect on the development of the site particularly onerous. A small portion of the proposed warehouse building is located within the shoreline jurisdiction. A transition for the height of the future building from the zoning - allowed 125 feet to the shoreline - allowed 35 feet would be difficult, incongruous to the development, and would not protect views of any residential properties. At this time, the height of the future building is unknown; however, the developer desires the flexibility to have a uniform building height of up to 125 feet, including the area within 200 feet of the Duwamish Waterway and/or Port of Seattle Slip No. 6, which are both regulated shoreline areas. Within the 200 -foot shoreline jurisdiction, the project proposes 37 parking stalls waterward of the proposed building on the east half of the site; however, this parking may also be used for staff or patrons associated with the outdoor storage use on the west half of the site. The parking stalls have a variable width - landscaping strip (minimum 5 -foot wide) between the shoreline and the parking area, which will be landscaped in accordance with the shoreline and zoning requirements for type and quantity of vegetation. WAC 173 -27 -170 Review criteria for variance permits. The purpose of a variance permit is strictly limited to granting relief from specific bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program where there are extraordinary circumstances relating to the physical character or configuration of property such that the strict implementation of the master program will impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the policies set forth in RCW 90.58.020. (1) Variance permits should be granted in circumstances where denial of the permit would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances the applicant must demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances shall be shown and the public interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect. - 10265.003.doc • • Response: The extraordinary circumstances that exist for the subject property and proposed development are that the site is in the relatively unique situation of having regulated shoreline on two sides (similar to a comer lot) such that there is an inordinate application of shoreline restrictions placed on development of the site. As shorelines are typically along only one property frontage, it is the corner location of the site on both the Duwamish Waterway and Port of Seattle Slip No. 6 that creates the need for both of these variance requests. By granting the variance request to allow a building height up to 125 feet as allowed by zoning, there is no loss to the public interest because the building area that is within the shoreline jurisdiction will be consistent with the rest of the building that is outside of the shoreline area. The uniform roofline is more appropriate to the future warehouse use and does not impede views of any neighboring property. Also, granting the variance request to allow a limited amount of parking waterward of the proposed building does not result in a loss to the public interest because the parking area will not create any shipping or other impacts, it allows efficient use of the site for shared vehicle access and truck circulation, and it is compatible with the proposed use and surrounding development in the area. The elimination of this parking would make the proposed future building less viable as a multi -tenant facility as the building access areas would be restricted to locations where parking was allowed; this creates a burden on the development that would not exist if the site were not located on a corner of shoreline. (2) Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located landward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(b), and/or landward of any wetland as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(h), may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: (a.) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes, or significantly interferes with, reasonable use of the property; Response: This criterion is met for the proposed building height increase as well as the proposed parking waterward of the building. Warehouse structures are typically tilt -up or metal construction where the resulting structure is a rectangular box that has a generally uniform roofline (although some roofline modulation is sometimes incorporated into the design). The construction of a warehouse building that has a small area that is only 35 feet tall, when the rest of the structure could be as high as 125 feet tall, would be inefficient in design, cost of construction, and future use by the tenant(s) of the building. Strict application would significantly interfere with the developer's use of the property consistent with the zoning and other developed sites in the area that are not constrained with two shoreline "frontages." It is typical for industrial or warehouse uses to combine drive aisles for parking with truck lanes and fire access lanes around a building. To efficiently utilize the site, strict application of the bulk, dimensional, and performance standards (disallowing parking waterward of the structure) would create net loss of parking that cannot be reallocated on site. (b.) That the hardship described in (a) of this subsection is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or -2- 10265.003.doc 1 t (3) • • natural features and the application of the master program, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions; Response: The need for the variance is entirely caused by the configuration of the site having two shoreline "frontages." (c.) That the design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program and will not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment; Response: The proposed use is a listed permitted use in both the MIGH zoning district and the KCSMMP urban environment. Further, the use is consistent with neighboring uses. (d.) That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area; Response: Allowing the variance in this case does not grant a special privilege, as the need for both variances is the result of the comer orientation of the site to the Duwamish Waterway and Port of Seattle Slip No. 6. Other properties that are not so constrained have the ability to develop similarly or more intensely than this project proposes. (e.) That the variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief, and Response: A small area of the proposed building is located within the shoreline. The building is located as far east as possible to accommodate a double loaded parking area near East Marginal Way and as far north as possible to accommodate a truck loading area consistent with industry standards on the north side of the building. Only 37 of approximately 200 parking stalls are proposed within the shoreline area. All of the parking is proposed on areas that would be paved in any case to allow vehicle circulation and access. Landscaping is provided between the shoreline and the parking areas. (f.) That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. Response: The public interest will not suffer any detriment as the proposed variance items are minor and effect a small portion of the overall site development. Views will not be altered or eliminated by the small area of structural height increased from 35 feet to 125 feet because in either case (with or without variance), the appearance of the rectangular building from all angles would seem to be as tall as the highest areas. The parking would have no detrimental effect because it is consistent with typical site design for industrial uses, will not impact shipping or any other public travel. Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located waterward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(b), or within any wetland as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(h), may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: (a.) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes all reasonable use of the property; -3- 10265.003.doc • (b.) That the proposal is consistent with the criteria established under subsection (2)(b) through (0 of this section; and (c.) That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected. Response: This section does not apply as all proposed activities are upland of the OHWM. (4) In the granting of all variance permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example if variances were granted to other developments and/or uses in the area where similar circumstances exist the total of the variances shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not cause substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. Response: No cumulative impact to the public or neighboring properties or uses will result from allowing the building height increase or the parking water main of the future building. (5) Variances from the use regulations of the master program are prohibited. Response: The proposed use is consistent with allowed uses in the underlying City of Tukwila MIC/H zoning district and the KCSMMP urban environment. -4- 10265.003.doc Z , y .41 ENG'N Mrs. Carol Lumb City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Davis Property and Investment 9229 East Marginal Way South, Tukwila City of Tukwila File Nos. L05 -050, E05 -011 King County Tax Parcel No. 542260 -0010 Our Job No. 10265 Dear Mrs. Lumb: • CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING. SURVEYING. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES August 10, 2005 HAND DELIVERY RECE 'EP AUG 10 ?nn5 COMMUNtl DEVELOPMENT On behalf of our clients Davis Property and Investment, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., is formally submitting a Shoreline Variance Application for the parcel referenced above. The proposed project requires a variance from the King County Shoreline Management Master Plan (KCSMMP) to exceed the 35 -foot height maximum and develop parking waterward of the proposed building. The following documents, as listed on the application checklists, are enclosed for your review: Shoreline Variance: 1. One (1) copy of the Application Checklist 2. One (1) copy of the completed Application form 3. One (1) copy of the Affidavit of Ownership and Hold Harmless Permission to Enter Property form 4. Four (4) copies of the Complete Plan Set as listed above 5. One (1) copy of the reduced Plan Set (8 1/2- by 11 -inch) 6. One (1) set of King County Assessor's Maps 7. Two (2) sets of mailing labels for all property owners with in 500 feet of the site 8. One (1) copy of Vicinity Map 9. One (1) copy of the Shoreline Variance Discussion 10. One (1) check from Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. dated August 9, 2005 for the required fees Please review the enclosed information at your earliest convenience. Should you have questions or need additional information, please contact me at this office. Thank you. Respectfully, Brendan T. Madden Assistant Planner BTM/pj [10265c.002.dooc] enc: As Noted cc: Mr. Jeff Davis, Davis Property and Investment (w /enc) Mr. Daniel K. Balmelli, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Ms. Ivana Halvorsen, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251 -6222 (425) 251 -8782 FAX BRANCH OFFICES • OLYMPIA, WA • TEMECULA, CA • WALNUT CREEK, CA www.barghausen.com STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING The undersigned being duly sworn and upon oath states as follows: 1. I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. 2. All statements contained in the applications have been prepared by me or my agents and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent 4. Owner grants the City, its employees, a ents, engineers, contractors or other representatives the right to enter upon Owner's real property located at g a al EAST MAR bin) At, WA'I 50 I, for the purpose of application review, for the limited time necessary to complete that purpose. 5. Owner agrees to hold the City harmless for any loss or damage to persons or property occurring on the private property during the City's entry upon the property unless the Toss or damage is the result of the sole negligence of the City. 6. The City shall, at its discretion , cancel the application without refund of fees, if the applicant does not respond to specific requests for items on the "Complete Application Checklist" within ninety (90) days. 7. Non - responsiveness to a City information request for ninety (90) or more days, shall be cause to cancel the application(s) without refund of fees. 1 . I EXECUTED at k E N T (city), W A (state), on A1 (ttJ ST V , 20 05 On this day personally appeared before me J 1 r S to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he/she signed the same as his/her voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ON THIS S DAY OF LAS( 20 Ot • Sr CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E-mail: tukplan@ci.tukwila.wa.us AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY ss " fir /eta /G.i4 l.,/r9 3,0s"ao3'.3 Z 872 - 9SLZ (Ph NOTARY PUBLIC • and for the State Washington residing at - TIT My Commission expires on ' ` (- 0 g SOURCE: THE THOMAS GUIDE, USED WITH PERMISSION P: \10000s \10265\exhibit \v- map.doc Vicinity Map Davis Property and Investment ftr OrAMU Nt s� S Q2 509 S • • ©2004 Thomas Bros. Ma • s • • g . "r7' �zt"snl E • ��PyjlgY Imagery Copyright© 2006 4 Scale: 1" = 400' N CityGIS5 Copyright ® 2004, All Rights Reserved The information contained herein i s the proprietary property cf the contributors supplied under license and may not be reproduced except as licensed by Digtal Map Products ung 411 'a' 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425)251 -6222 (425)251 -8782 FAX CND ENGINEERING, LAND PUNNING, SURVEYING, EIMRGNNENUL SERVICES ,krtruda rte N/A Fort DAVIS PROPERTY AND INVESTMENT PO BOX 1043 KENT, WASHINGTON 98035 -1043 VARIANCE EXHIBIT FOR DAVIS PROPERTY AND INVESTMENT Numbw )265 2 00000a \10265pa..m9 \10265- gp1.d.9 Data/ling. 04/06/2006 •16: Scdc 1.60 0telaoc6, %rate: ?10265 TI,dan o.Z10265 - S. 1 LOS -05( ,lab Number 10265 F 0 oa i nt vi T . , 1 1 1 1 1 111111 1111! g 14qR g g g 1f, 4 1 &� 144g4 at 4 1' 1 11114° d i!!!!!! $ � 0 !Oil 1 4110 g '� Y IEg ��; 4 0 11 14. 111 *P ; Y i f si p s ti II gg 11 Rilful Al ! .1 1 & t $0 1" 1111" legi llli; 1161111 ifp 1410: ° 1 I Wild INL 11 Meiji 1 ;'151 a EI alA / F1 : 11 1 d ! 1 1,0 4 1 a � 4.1 -11 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425)251 -6222 (425)251 -8782 FAX CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTLL SERVICES Ddonal J!L omen _JAI Chockod Appr000d Dot. SLL405 Narhmld P te: P1,„ 4 N. EN120 ° 2 fie: P: \10000e\ 10265 \PNnn^W \10265- spl.drq Dote/Time: 06/06 /2005 12,34 Scolo, 1-60 ajonea Xrela, 210265- 11.don- b,Z10265 -S. Venice N/A 1 LL 8. g Fort DAVIS PROPERTY AND INVESTMENT PO BOX 1043 KENT, WASHINGTON 98035 -1043 Tito sR IR SHORELINE SITE PLAN FOR R ECEW to AU6 10 Ira pEyE 't DAVIS PROPERTY AND INVESTMENJ Job Number 10265 8 S 8 18.5 <_ 0 e U N 18.0 17.2 17.3 15.8 7.9 8 B tl 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425)251 -6222 (425)251 -8782 FAX CML ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 12.8 co 17.9 19,2 18.7 18.3 0 O..IPnd -L Omen _JAL Checked _ELL Approved _81_ Dote 8L14/U6 : 9 Norleand , earthed r-6• O For DAVIS PROPERTY AND INVESTMENT PO BOX 1043 KENT, WASHINGTON 98035 -1043 File: P: \100003\10265\pl.rning \1 0265- pg.d.g Dole/Time: 08/08/2005 14:47 Stole.. 1 =20 ojone. %rd.: 210265 -pp, z 8 co 0 O TRW SHORELINE CROSS SECTIONS PLAN/ECENEI FOR AU6 10 200 C CEVEI e DPMENI DAVIS PROPERTY AND INVESTMENT Jab limber 10265 E1,, 3 F M P P P P r y r i P ikl, eI 0111 1 i t a 8 12 r71 , tolli11111,17: 0;i1:41! � � ������ �IE�A�� I€��� A ° g � ���a�A g • IM iC ga a g , gy 1 g " w' 0 1 444 % 2 .8 al gy� g g a r{ i . a �a e ttt � � $ xg iii it 4 /11:P! 1 1 Q fiAAAAA q s nai d p g a l A of 1 ir IIg� I a glot 0;11 ' aa ' a 1 1 : r :811 fi V41 ) `a •1 °ga /1 g � 5} PRiPri l 43 I Pdg41 PP Pi $1 1 A Ohl alti Z4 . '"I0 ENOo 11013911 o p 0 PRIT% F0,11,1R nopi giuni,1! P16:39g !TIN ii er ' ii:10 , NO 12- po 1 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425)251 -6222 (425)251 -8782 FAX ! o' CML ENGINEERING. LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES aaa L'w1 41 � gg 17a1pbod 1 Down _SCA lTnAwd -JEL APPond _Da_ Dab 12/21104 ile: P: \ 100003\ 10265 \ensonewI g \10265.01.dw9 Dote/Time: 12/Z8/2004 15:17 Scale: 1.80 Ibbglubton Xrelr 210265- PT,don -b, For DAVIS PROPERTY AND INVESTMENT PO BOX 1043 KENT, WASHINGTON 98035 -1043 No. T D eb F s 8 c a 3 R U R C R C r C 2 r 2 COVER SHEET RECEI DAVIS PROPERTY AND INVESTMENT Iaus 11 DEVF10i 3 IA Job Number 10265 Show( o ®a®® py4 g2®OoO❑®®o og WW1 1011:1 I � r m G) cceeeo©000ee 9 111 1H11 gWildgg 8 \\\ 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425)251 -6222 (425)251 -8782 FAX CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PUNNING, SURVEYING. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ~ D•.gnw Drawn alt CA.ar.e Approved _JAIL ode 1ZLZIGIT Soda Hortrobbal WrtIcal WA \( \ 4 ,0 _ r Ok. r • \` , K $ ; -- Fn • «,. 6 i 12 • 9 • m � / 1 ` * i x P �C- f. O % 3 'y, 1 i 4 MATCH LAVE SEE SHEET E3 Fon DAVIS PROPERTY AND INVESTMENT PO BOX 1043 KENT, WASHINGTON 98035-1043 40. I Dote I Di ICIDS. IApP.. I File: P: \100008 \1 265\enyoeem.9 10265- El.d.g Dal°/r e. 06/02/2008 10:48 Soole: 1 -40 bbolloslon %refs: Z10265- 1.Z10265 -T1, __j• ` � of Y Tills QfP in w Revision SITE DEMOLITION PLAN VJ H rn rn 0 J r 1 0 Z r Z RECEIVED 'AUG 10 2005' COMMUNRT DEVELOPMENT 013 EBC)FAZ2 ®o00O®®011p 1 g R �� X11 1 1, 1 r m G) z v 1 1 1 { 8 T q 1§11111:11M1 11 a qiii ® ®© ®eeeeee G o 1111 111111111 a g i m e g i ; 9 2 Job Number 10265 E3 3 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425)251 -6222 (425)251 -8782 FAX CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Mow _ECM Dal. 12/25 /04 t N.RmrRef t•� Wrtical N/A - O 4 / [ PIRE 0 MATCH UNE SEE SHEET E2 N mmm inn 0505.5 ° ti IAA III TTfif .5 05.5 1 rf ' -4 !f! s' - .� l b 10 $ 418 -9 /8, O ie 9. , / fllf31e+6¢14 -. 1 e L 8• «5 At /l 4% KKP I/ 'fg 4.13 Im fir r nn �`d {g 3 �: U T+ T 4 rfi For DAVIS PROPERTY AND INVESTMENT PO BOX 1043 KENT, WASHINGTON 98035 -1043 N.. 1 0.9. I BY Iacd. IMOP FiS. P, \100004 \10265 \erpineatng \10265 E2.d.g 0ote/Timr 08/02/2005 10,49 Scale. 1.40 bwolbolon %refer ZIO265- T,don- b210265 -11. 65011 � gg \, \ o° :\ ;1g! • , e 0 7 DA; ;9 Rbribkm U) H rn 0 rn 0 r_ 0 z 1 D Z P SrrE DEMOUI1ON PLAN RECEIVED 'AU6 101005 C% 11:1TY DEVELOPMENT m 1 / _, ral i s g d I.% i � 9 � a � � i a P ffq11!,1; !!1! 1140 " lit!! 141 t 'l t g � Alb Number 10265 M 1 p- - = 1:1 1 1 1 1 ;rig Ite � litn Ij ; � 41i UNg 111 I fill Ilk* F ltam 1 114 q 4 1 4 0 01 O i1 401 00 1 00E+391DEIZM000090cIlp X PIM /OM m 1 II d� Z to I I G ii (I w H1 x II !limp ' in! I 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425)251 -6222 (425)251 -8782 FAX CM ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES aasaa 0cn co co 0, I VI Dnlynd Drawn _DCA awaked _DEL Approml Dab 12/21LIL soda lawizantal 1•.., Vertical N/A 0 For DAVIS PROPERTY AND INVESTMENT PO BOX 1043 KENT, WASHINGTON 98035 -1043 No. D I EV IC IAPP.. I 04. P: \10000. \10265 \engineemp \10265- G01.dwq Dale/Time. 05/31/2005 1148 Scole: 1 - 80 became:n Xref : 010285 PT,dan b2IO265 5.010285 - 8. 0 1 1 4 15 14 O rr rr rr z Z O ao D z rn r z 1Ttlg COVER SHEET RECEI DAVIS PROPERTY AND INVESTMENT rqtic q 0EVELOP I VIM OWN 1111 111!,01 I i II r i° 1°11 1 1 7. P11110111 I 1 le m G) m z Job Number 10265 C2_ 3 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425)251 -6222 (425)251 -8782 FAX CML ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES D•I0r1M Drown _ern °wand Approved __DIL Dab 12/21/04 Sealm Horizontal bertloal N/A Fop DAVIS PROPERTY AND INVESTMENT PO BOX 1043 KENT, WASHINGTON 98035 -1043 -. I Fie: P. \100001 \10265 \ engineering \10265- G1.E.q Dote/Time. 08 /01/2005 15 :47 Scab: 1 -40 D.olbetoo %rale: Z,0265- 1,210265- 8210265 - 5.010265 -T I, THIEF PRELIMINARY GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN 0f g _ n r 3 c 4 L C C1 C a C a 2 c R r L V ®a®®PEIgQRi 0000 rilmo mil 11 ool m m o f !�IIII: 1 1 1 l + v 1 4 P II Ir f Jab *ram 10265 Sheet C3., 3 74 nn AE §A rfi rd S$� ;as 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425)251 -6222 (425)251 -8782 FAX CML ENGINEERING. RAND MANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES a0111111erdusrmiiimaiimmi a $ Deeyned At Dawn _NCR annnd Dab 12/21/04 Scala: NwhonW 1 -40' VwOaul N/A MATCH LONE SEE SHEET C2 WE y_ nf ® n MMpa Mn ,. .;.; go AA. rfi rfi al; 6�2 a "a MnM ?rfih For: DAVIS PROPERTY AND INVESTMENT PO BOX 1043 KENT, WASHINGTON 98035 -1043 .1.1.1.1 —.1 Tie: P: \10000.\ 10265 \engineering \10265- G2.dwg Dote/lime: 08/01/2005 15:47 Scala: 1.40 bwailoston %Gels: 210265- t.Z10265- 8.210265- S.Z -T Titles a n n n i2 M 21 ;2 M 8 qr oti RAP a ft , fq ;r a - a pv ru Yu CA �t; p e so N F 4? PRELIMINARY GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN rn r z D 0 z D z 0 O 0 Do z D O rn r D z rL rq eL a N a al a at k h g g g g h g 1' n g g g n u 1 • 8 A Jab NamDw 10265 O a o ® e e • ® ® M o At St M q , 0t m" mg m mF mF m mF mF 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425)251 -6222 (425)251 -8782 FAX CML ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES D G,a.a _AWL Approwd _DR_ Dote 12/21/04 1larnwdd Mertioal N/A Fits: P. \10000s\ 10265 \ engineering \ 10265- L1.tlwq Dote/rem 06/05/2005 06:27 Scale: 1.40 asefdel %refs: Z10265-T210265-1.8.Z10265 -S210265-11, rnM Rams " I -� -. - - -- For: DAVIS PROPERTY AND INVESTMENT PO BOX 1043 KENT, WASHINGTON 98035 -1043 No. Gab I N F a CO /ZS r /I z D D Z 0 C) rn D V r D Z Titles PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN F tecoN AUG 10 0r.1 GUARANTEE: GUARANTEE ALL PLAIT MATERIAL FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM DATE OF FINAL ACCEPTANCE BY OWNER OR THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. 30-DAY MAINTENANCE: CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE OWNER WITH A SCOPE OF WORK AT TIME OF INITIAL PROJECT BID TO PROVIDE LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE FOR 30 DAYS FOLLOWING COMPLETION ACCEPTANCE BY OWNER. WORK TO INCLUDE MAINTENANCE AS DESCRIBED BELOW, IN PLANTING AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE MATERIALS: PLANT MATERIALS: PLANT MATERIALS TO BE GRADE NO. 1, SIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH (MN) AMERICAN STANDARDS FOR NURSERY STOCK (ANSI 260.1 - 1996). PRUNE PLANTS RECEIVED FROM THE NURSERY ONLY UPON AUTHORIZATION BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 'B & B' INDICATES BALLED AND BURLAPPED; 'ANT.' INDICATES CONTAINER: 'BR' INDICATES BARE ROOT; 'CAL' INDICATES CAUPER AT 6' ABOVE SOIL UNE; 'GAL' INDICATES GALLON. A) SPECIFIED PLANT CANOPY SIZE OR CAUPER 5 THE MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONTAINER SIZE ESTABLISHES MINIMUM PLANT CONDITION TO BE PROVIDED. B) OUALTIY: PLANT MATERIAL TO COMPLY WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS FOR DISEASE INSPECTION, PLATS TO BE FULLY LIVE. VIGOROUS, WELL FORMED, WITH WELL DEVELOPED FIBROUS ROOT SYSTEMS ROOT BALLS OF PLANTS TO BE SOLID AND FIRMLY HELD TOGETHER. SECURELY CONTAINED AND PROTECTED FROM INJURY AND DESICCATION. PLANTS DETERMINED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO HAVE BEEN DAMAGED: HAVE DEFORMITIES OF 'STEM. BRANCHES. OR ROOTS; TACK SYMMETRY, HAVE MULTIPLE LEADERS OR Y CROTCHES LESS THAN 30 DEGREES IN TREES, OR DO NOT MEET SIZE OR ANSI STANDARDS WILL BE REJECIFD. PLANT MATERIAL TO BE FROM A SINGLE NURSERY SOURCE FOR EACH SPECIFIED SPECIES HYBRID. NURSERY SOURCES TO BE THOSE LOCATED IN THE SAME REGION AS THE ECT SITE C) SUBSTTUTION: NO SUBSRTIITION OF PLANT MATERIAL, SPECIES OR VARIETY. WILL BE PERMITTED UNLESS WRITTEN EVIDENCE IS SUBMITTED TO THE OWNER FROM THREE QUALIFIED PLAIT BROKERAGE OFFICES. SUBSTITUITONS WHICH ARE PERMITTED TO BE IN WRITING FROM THE OWNER AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. THE SPECIFIED SIZE. SPECIES AND NEAREST VARIETY. AS APPROVED. TO BE FURNISHED. SUBSTITUTIONS MAY REQUIRE SUBMITTAL OF REVISED LANDSCAPE PLAN TO CITY FOR APPROVAL CONTRACTOR 5 RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL APPROVALS. PROVIDE OWNER AND LANDSCAPE ARCHhtLI 5 WITH COPIES OF ALL APPROVALS. SOIL PREPARATION: TOPSOIL AMENDMENT, AND BACKFILL, ARE GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON THE PLANS. SOIL AMENDMENTS AND FERTILIZER NOTED BELOW ARE TO BE USED FOR BID PRICE BASIS ONLY. SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS MID FERTILIZERS WILL BE MADE AFTER SOIL SAMPLES ARE LABORATORY TESTED BY THE CONTRACTOR. PROVIDE CHANGE ORDER FOR ADDTONAL OR REDUCTION OF MATERIALS REQUIRED OR NOT REQUIRED BY THE SOILS REPORT. SOIL FERTLTY AND AGRICULTURAL SUITABILITY ANALYSIS: AFTER ROUGH GRADING AND PRIOR TO SOIL PREPARATION, CONTRACTOR TO OBTAIN TWO REPRESENTATIVE SOIL SAMPLES, FROM LOCATIONS AS DIRECTED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, TO SOIL AND PLANT LABORATORY, BELLEVUE. WASHINGTON PHONE 425 - 746 -1665 OR EQUIVALENT TESTING LABORATORY, FOR TEST /A05 -2. SUBMIT RESULTS TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR REVIEW. IF ON -SITE TOPSOIL HAS BEEN STOCKPILED AND WILL BE USED. A TEST 5 TO BE COMPLETED FOR R, ALSO. TESTS TO INCLUDE FERIRITY AND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS WITH WRITTEN RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SOIL AMENDMENT, FERTILZER, CONDITIONERS, APPLICATION RATES, AND POST - CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE PROGRAM. TESTS TO BE CONTRACTED WITH AND PAID FOR BY THE CONTRACTOR A) IMPORT TOPSOIL TOPSOIL TO CONSIST OF WINTER MIX AS PRODUCED AND REMIXED BY PACIFIC TOPSOIL, INC. WINTER MW TO CONSIST OF 1/3 BY VOLUME SANDY LOVED. 1/3 BY VOLUME COMPOSTED GARDEN MULCH. AND 1/3 BY VOLUME COARSE WASHED SAND OR EOUIVALENT. B) NATIVE SURFACE SOIL INCLUDING STOCKPILED TOPSOIL SURFACE SOIL ON -SITE MAY MEET TEXTURAL CLASSIFICATION AS NOTED ABOVE. PROVIDE AMENDMENTS AS NOTED BELOW, AND EVENLY BLEND AMENDMENTS TO SPECIFIED DEPTH. C) CONTRACTOR 5 RESPONSIBLE FOR SUPPLYING ALL TOPSOIL AND FOR DETERMINING THE VOLUME OF TOPSOIL REQUIRED PER THE INFORMATION ON PLANS AND NOTED HERE -IN. 0) IMPORT TOPSOIL/NATIVE SURFACE SOIL/SfOCKPLED TOPSOIL AMENDMENTS: MODIFY SOIL AFTER INSTALLATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING AMOUNT PER 1.000 SQUARE FEET: 1. 6 -CUBIC YARDS ORGANIC COMPOST. COMPOST TO BE FREE OR NON -FARM ANIMAL SOURCES, NOR TO BE FROM SOURCES CONTAINING REDWOOD OF CEDAR PRODUCTS. 2. 30- POUNDS NTTROFORM (38 -0-0) 3. 5- POUNDS AMMONIUM SULFATE 4. 40- POUNDS CALCIUM CARBONATE UMESTONE 5. 40- POUNDS DOLOMITE UMESTONE 6. 5 -OUNES BORON (AS BORAX) ALL AMENDMENTS TO BE THOROUGHLY MIXED PRIOR TO INCORPORATION INTO SOIL BARK MULCH (TOPDRESSING): ONE- HALF -INCH (1/27 SIZE, TO ONE -INCH (11, LE., 'MEDIUM; HEMLOCK /FIR BARK. FINE MULCH, I.E. STEERCO TEXTURE AND CEDAR ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE STAKES: 2 -INCH DIAMETER BY 8 -FOOT MINIMUM L)DGEPOLE PINE STAKES. GUY MATERIAL• 1 -INCH WIDE POLYETHYLENE CHAIN LOCK TYPE TIES; OR, 3/8' DIAMETER RUBBER. NO WIRE LAWN: COMMERCIAL SEED AS NOTED ON PLAN. HERBICIDE HERBICIDE IS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR THE FIST YEAR AFTER INSTALLATION. ANTI -DESICCANT: WILT- PROOF, 48 HOURS PRIOR TO SHIPMENT TO SITE FROM JUNE 1 THROUGH SEPTEMBER. THOROUGHLY ROOT WATER PLANTS PRIOR TO DELIVERY. PLANT MATERIAL DELIVERED TO SITE TO BE KEPT CONTINUALLY MOST THROUGH INSTALLATION. EXECUTION: FINISH GRADES: FINE GRADE MD REMOVE ROCKS AND FOREIGN OBJECTS OVER 2 INCHES DIAMETER FROM TOP SURFACE OF PREPARED LANDSCAPE AREAS. FINISH ELEVATORS TO BE DEFINED AS 3 INCHES BELOW CURBS. WALKS AND /OR OTHER ADJACENT HARDSCAPE FOR ALL PLANTING BED AREAS AND 1 -INCH BELOW CURBS. WALKS AND /OR OTHER ADJACENT HARDSCAPE FOR ALL LAWN AREAS. FINISH GRADE REFER TO GRADES PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF MULCH OR LAWN. ALL FINISH GRADES TO BE SMOOTH EVEN GRADES, UGHTLY COMPACTED, AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN AND DETAILED. PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES. SITE CML DRAWINGS IDENTIFY FINAL ELEVATIONS. TREES: ARRANGE TREES ON SITE IN PROPOSED LOCATIONS PER DRAWINGS. EXCAVATE PR, PLANT AND STAKE OR GUY. AS CALLED OUT AND DETAILED. ALL TREES AND SUPPORTS TO STAND VERTICAL BACKFILL SHALL BE PIT SPOILS. SETTLE BACKFILL USING WATER ONLY. NO MECHANICAL COMPACTION. SHRUBS INSTALL SHRUBS AS SPECIFIED FOR TREES. GROUNDCOVERS: EXCAVATE P115 TO A MINIMUM OF 3 INCHES BELOW. AND TWICE THE ROOT BALL DIAMETER WATER THOROUGHLY AND TAKE CARE TO ENSURE THAT ROOT CROWN 5 AT PROPER GRADE, AS DETAILED. MULCH: MULCH ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS NOT COVERED BY LAWN AND /OR SEED. APPLY SUFFICIENT QUANTITY TO PROVIDE A 3-INCH COMPACTED DEPTH. UTILITY CLEARANCES: FELD ADJUST PLANT LOCATIONS FOR B-FOOT SEPARATION OF TREES/SHRUBS AND 2 -FOOT SEPARATION FOR GROUNDCOVER FROM FIRE HYDRANTS AND UTILITY VAULTS. PLANTING AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE CONTRACTOR TO MAINTAIN PLANTINGS THROUGH COMPLETED INSTALLATION, MD UNTIL ACCEPTANCE OF LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION. PLANTING MAINTENANCE TO INCLUDE WATERING, WEEDING, CULTIVATING, TIGHTENING A110 REPAIRING OF TREE GUYS, RESETTING PLANTS TO PROPER GRADES OR POSITION, RE- ESTABLISHING SETTLED GRADES; AND MOWING LAWNS WEEKLY AFTER LAWN ESTABLISHMENT. HERBICIDE 5 NOT RECOMMENDED FOR ONE YEAR FOLLOWING LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION. INCLUDED IS REPLACEMENT OF DEAD PLANTS AND PLANTS SHOWING LOSS OF 40 PERCENT OR MORE OF CANOPY. NOT TO SCALE NOTE . REMOVE CONTAINER & WORK ROOTS FREE OF SOIL BACKFILL TO BE SETTLED USING WATER ONLY SEE PUNT 15T FOR PLANT SPACING HOLD PLANTS FROM EDGE OF PLANTER AS NOTED ON PLANT UST GROUNDCOVER PLANTING DETAIL BED UNE EDGE CURB/WALK NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE ( N.ANI®B�'ORE .4.04 ) ( PUNTED BERME 1LLCN 0 PLANT MATERIAL SPACING DETAIL ( 2) H6fiHT OF TIME W H FLEOOBLE RUBBER TE INTO 1 2 EIGHT PATTERN. STAKES AND TREE PLUMB 3' DEEP SAUCER FOR WATER 3' DEEP MULCH LAYER (COMPACTED DEPTH) REMOVE ALL TIM, WRAP & CONTAINERS. FREE PERIMETER ROOTS FROM NURSERY BALL EXCAVATE TREE P11' AT A MI. OF 4 TIMES DIA OF ROOTBKL AT 8ALI. CENTER, TAPERING PR GRADE TO FINISH GRADE PR SPOTS, NURSERY BALL WASTE BACKFILL SET BALI. ON UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE, OR COMPACTED SOIL NOTE LIGHT FERTILIZER OVER RANTING BED ALL ONLY; NO FERTILIZER IN PLANTING PR. WORK PERIMETER ROOTS FREE OF NURSERY BALL SPACING AS CALLED OUT ON PUN /PLAIT UST HOLD PUNTS FROM EDGE OF PUNTER AS NOTED ON PLANT UST NOTE 1105 SPACING APPLIES TO GROUNDCOVER MD FORMAL SHRUB ROW PLACEMENT. ij EVERGREEN TREE PLANTING /STAKING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE • SUBSOIL N SRION N SITION FROM TJPSOLL TO SU8GRADE REMOVE MSS GRAVEL AND PAVING NOT TO SCALE MULCH AT CURB DETAIL NOTE OVER EXCAVATE PARING LO' PLANTERS TO LOOSEN COMPACTED SUBBASE OVER TJRRAL 50 . DEPTH • FEET BERM HEIGHT fJ' TYP. IN FLUSH MIN. OR AS 0. LINE 3' ED 50 /11/4 12' MAX. LIP GRADING IN PARKING LOT PLANTERS DETAIL (TOPSOIL PREP.) DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING/STAKING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE TOPSOIL SETTLED (COMPACTED CONDMON) CURB 1 -1/2' DRAIN AT LOW POINTS & 10' MAX. SPACING PAVING SECTION (DEPTH VARIES) CERTIFICATE NO. 700 (VALID OILY 111711 80UTAE) NI LANDSCAPE PLANTING NOTES AND MATERIALS SCOPE OF WOW FURNISH ALL MATERIALS. LABOR. EQUIPMENT AND RELATED ITEMS NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH TOPSOIL, TREATMENT AND PREPARATION OF SOIL FINISH GRADING, PLACEMENT OF SPECIFIED PLANT MATERIALS, FERIUZERS, STAKING. MULCH. CLEAN -UP. DEBRIS REMOVAL AND 30 -DAY MAINTENANCE QUALIFICATIONS: LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR TO BE SKILLED AND KNOWLEDGEABLE IN THE FIELD OF WORK AND HAVE A MINIMUM FOR FIVE (5) YEAR'S EXPERIENCE INSTALLING SIMILAR WORK. CONTRACTOR TO BE UCENSED TO PERFORM THE WORK SPECIFIED WITHIN THE PRESIDING JURISDICTION. JOB CONDITIONS: R IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBWTY TO RENEW THE SITE AND REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE OWNER OR THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVES. ALL PLANT MATERIAL AND FINISH GRADES ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE OWNER OR THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. PROTECTION: SAVE AND PROTECT ALL EXISTING PLANTINGS SHOWN TO REMAIN. DO NOT PLANT UNTIL OTHER CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS WHICH CONFLICT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED. IF AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS TO BE INSTALLED DO NOT PLANT UNTIL THE SYSTEM HAS BEEN INSTALLED. ILSItU, AND APPROVED BY THE OWNER. HANDLE PLANTS WITH CARE - DD NOT DAMAGE OR BREAK ROOT SYSTEM, BARK. OR BRANCHES. REPAIR AND /OR REPLACE TENS DAMAGED AS A RESULT OF WORK, OR WORK NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS DIRECTED BY OWNER AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER REPAIR OF 5105111411 PLANTINGS: DURING THE COURSE OF WORK. REPAIR ALL EXISTING PLANTING AREAS BY PRUNING DEAD GROWTH. RE- ESTABLISHING FINISH GRADE AND RE- MULCHING TO SPECIFIED DEPTH. REPAIR OF EXISTING IRRIGATION SYSTEM: DURING THE COURSE OF WORK. REPAIR ANY DAMAGE TO THE EXISTING IRRIGATOR SYSTEM TO MATCH OR BETTER THEN CONDITIONS PRIOR TO THE DAMAGE 5) PLANTING BACKFILL FOR ALL TREES. SHRUBS, AND GROUNDCOJERS: 1. 0.6 -CUBIC YARDS PER VOLUME TOPSOIL OR NATIVE/STOCKPILED TOPSOIL 2. 0.4 -CUBIC YARDS ORGANIC COMPOST. 3. 3- POUNDS NTTROFORM (38 -0 -0) 4. 1 -POUND AMMONIUM SULFATE 5. 2- POUNDS CALCIUM CARBONATE UMESTONE 6. 2- POUNDS DOLOMITE UMESTONE F) IMPORT TOPSOIL NATTVE/SfOCKPILZD TOPSOIL PREPARATION AND INSTALLATION: VERIFY SUBGRADES TO -7 INCHES BELOW FINISH ELEVATION IN ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS, EXCEPT AREAS NOTED ON PLANS. THIS 5 TO ACCOMMODATE FOR TOPSOIL NATIVE /U Oc LE PSOIL AMENDMENTS, A140 ERADICATE' ANY SURFACE VEGETATION ROOTED IN THE SUB -GRADE PRIOR TO SUB -GRADE PREPARATION THOROUGHLY SCARIFY AND RIP ALL LANDSCAPE SUB - GRADES WHICH HAVE BECOME COMPACTED TO A DEPTH OF 12 INCHES WITH MULTIPLE PASSES, 90 DEGREES TO EACH OTHER. SCARIFY AREAS INACCESSIBLE TO MECHANIZED EOUIPMENT OR AROUND E0511110 PLANTINGS AND /OR EXISTING IRRIGATION SYSTEM NOTED TO REMAIN WITH HAND TOOLS. REMOVE SOIL LUMPS. ROCK VEGETATION AND /OR DEBRIS LARGER THAN 2 INCHES FROM ALL 5U8 -GRADE PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF SPECIFIED TOPSOIL REMOVE ANY ASPHALT EXTENDING BEYOND 6 INCHES FROM CURBS INTO ADJACENT LANDSCAPE AREAS. PARKING LOT PLANTER ISLANDS TO BE OVER EXCAVATED BY BACKHOE REMOVE PAVING WASTE, GRAVEL BASE MATERIAL AND UNDERLYING SUBSOIL TO 18 INCHES BELOW TOP OF PAVING. SCARIFY AND OVER EXCAVATE PLANT PR BOTTOM 12 INCHES TO MINIMIZE STRUCTURAL COMPACTION. G) IMPORT TOPSOIL NATIVE/STOCKPILED TOPSOIL PLACEMENT: PLACE 2 INCHES OF TOPSOIL NATIVE/STOCKPILED TOPSOIL AND AMENDMENTS OVER THE PREPARED SUB -GRADE AND THOROUGHLY ROTOTTLL WITH MULTIPLE PASSES INTO THE TOP 6 INCHES OF SUB -GRADE FOR A TOTAL DEPTH OF 8 INCHES. PLACE AN ADDITIONAL 2 INCHES LIFT OR IMPORT TOPSOIL NATIVE/STOCKPILED OVER THE AMENDED SOIL AS A SURFACES COURSE PLACE ADDITIONAL TOPSOIL AS REOUIRED TO MEET FINISH ELEVATIONS OR IN AREAS INDICATED TO BE MOUNTED. 2' MULCH LAYER (COMPACTED DEPTH) FEATHER SOIL UNDER ER MU 1' MULCH AT CROWN 1/2' ABOVE GRADE 1' ABOVE GRADE 2' MULCH LAYER (COMPACTED DEPTH) CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF APPLICATION PROJECT INFORMATION Ivana Halvorsen, Barghausen Engineering for Davis Properties, has filed applications for the construction of an 185,000 sq. ft. building and approximately 200 parking stalls to be located at 9229 East Marginal Way South, Tukwila. Permits applied for include: L05-050, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit; L05-051, Shoreline Variance; L05-055, Administrative Design Review. Other known required permits include: E05-011, Planned Action SEPA, L05 -057, Short Plat, building permit. Studies required with the applications include: Preliminary Technical Information Report, Traffic Impact Analysis. A Planned Action environmental checklist has been submitted with the studies identified above. FILES AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW The project files are available at the City of Tukwila. To view the files, you may request them at the counter at the Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard #100. Project Files include: L05-050, L05-051, L05-055, L05-057, E05-011. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT Your written comments on the project are requested. They must be delivered to DCD at the address above or postmarked no later than 5:00 P.M., Thursday, February 23, 2006. APPEALS You may request a copy of any decision, information on hearings, and your appeal rights by calling DCD at (206) 431 -3670. The decisions on land use files L05-050, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and L05-051, Shoreline Variance may be appealed to the Washington State Shoreline Hearings Board; the decision on land use file L05-055, Administrative Design Review, may be appealed to the Tukwila Board of Architectural Review. The decision on L05-057, short plat is an administrative decision that may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner. For further information on this proposal, contact Carol Lumb, at (206) 431 -3661 or visit our offices at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Application Filed: Notice of Completeness Issued: Notice of Application Issued: August 8, 2005 September 2, 2005 January 24, 2006 CL Page 1 of I 01!22!2006 4:42 PM q: Davis -Rhone Poulenc SiteMoticc of Application.doc Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION tit&t47 1 Ca C , - HEREBY DECLARE .THAT. Notice of Public Hearing Determination of Non= Signific ce Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of No Significance Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Determination of Significance 'Scoping Notice .. Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Action t Y`. Jx Planning Commission Agenda Pkt * Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shot line Mgmt Permit _ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this year 20049 P: GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM day ofJan- fi the Project Name: a 0 ifN.2.A.t.e404,‘ -0(( Project NumberV, L- O5 —o50 LOS' g1 t LOS' ©SS / 2--DE - o 7 � Mailer's Signature: L 4 Person requesting mailing: () U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (} FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION () DEPT OF FISH & WILDUFE () OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY ( ) TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT () DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES ( ) OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR () DEPT OF COMMM RADDE& NOMIC DEV. pG F?tOFEISHERIESaliMLD ° FE « KING COUNTY AGENCIES () BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD () FIRE DISTRICT #11 () FIRE DISTRICT #2 () K.C. WASTEWATER TREATMENT DMSION () KC. DEPT OF PARKS &REC () KC. ASSESSORS OFFICE ( ) TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) TUKWILA UBRARY () RENTON UBRARIf () KENT LIBRARY () CITY OF SEATTLE UBRARY () OWEST ( ) SEATTLE CITY LIGHT () PUGET SOUND ENERGY ()HIGHUNE WATER DISTRICT () SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT ( ) AT&T CABLE SERVICES ( ) KENT PLANNING DEPT 61 11 (�ICWIIA CITY DEPARTMENTS: PUBUC WORKS () FIRE () POLICE ( )' FINANCE +� �) PLANNING () BUILDING () PARKS & REC. () MAYOR () CITY CLERK ( ) PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL ( ) SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE WLMUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM H.,,ERIESPR GRAM" WILDU E P OGRAM po' () SEATTLE TIMES ( ) SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL P:\ ADMAN ISTRATWVE\FORMS \CHKLIST.DOC FEDERAL AGENCIES WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES () DEPT OFSO,CIAL HEALTH SERV. starkRigit . *tog mo ECOEdGYAVIAT S1OtV Qti OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL SEND CHKUSTS I DETERMINATIONS • SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES UTILITIES CITY AGENCIES • ENTAL TEC AGFt CY ( ) U.S. DEPT OF H.U.D. () NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE ( ) HEALTH DEPT ( ) PORT OF SEATTLE 'yr) A.C. DEV & ENVIR SERVICES -SEPA INFO CNTR 4.S.C. TRANSIT DMSION - SEPA OFFICIAL ( ) KC. LAND & WATER RESOURCES 4 FOSTER LIBRARY K C PUBLIC LIBRARY ( ) HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ") SEATTLE SCHOOL' DISTRICT ( ) RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) OLYMPIC PIPEUNE ( ) VAL VUE SEWER DISTRICT ( ) WATER DISTRICT #20 ( ) WATER DISTRICT #125 () CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS () BRYN MAWR - LAKERIDGE SEWERWATER DISTRICT () RENTON PLANNING DEPT () CITY OF SEA -TAC () CITY OF BURIEN ( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ( ) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS 04i4 TRAY OF'SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER - DCLU TEGIC PLANNING OFFICE' • NOTICE OF AU. SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ. OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES XDUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE ( ) P.S. AIR POLLUTION CLEAN AGENCY () SOUND TRANSIT DUWAMISH RIVER CLEAN -UP COALITION - *SEND NOTICE OF ALL APPUCATIONS ON OUWAMISH RIVER MEDIA () HIGHUNE TIMES ( ) CI.TUKWILA.WA.US.VWWV 1-PrSof Lecraig 2118 26th Ave SW Iurien, WA 98146 Michigan Properties 301 2nd Ave S Seattle, WA 98108 Sandra Mykris 145 NW 193rd St Shoreline, WA 98177 Lee Rabie )615 W Marginal Way S Seattle, WA 98108 Avila & Blanca Santo 8144 5th Ave SW Seattle, WA 98106 Sea -mar Community Health Ctr 1040 S Henderson St Seattle, WA 98108 South Park Marina Limited Partnership 8604 Dallas Ave S Seattle, WA 98108 Paul Wiley 1417 S Trenton St Seattle, WA 98108 Corporate S I G N A T U R E Express"' • Washington Mellon 1201 3rd Ave #5010 Seattle, WA 98101 Indian Tribe Muckleshoot 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 Ronald & Anna Rae Newton Ronald & Anna 7429 NE 121st St 7429 NE 1 Kirkland, WA 98034 Kirk • A 98034 Lee Raie 9615 W ginal Way S Sea WA 98108 Sea King Industrial Park Llc 1620 S 92nd P1 Seattle, WA 98108 Seattle City Light PO Box 34023 Seattle, WA 98124 Yaota Teung & Chiota Chao 10002 Des Moines Memorial Dr Seattle, WA 98168 Wood Meadows Llc PO Box 2908 Kirkland, WA 98083 Ms. Ivana Halvorson Barghausen Engineering 18215 72nd Ave. S. Kent, WA 98032 Merrill Creek Holdings Llc 600 University St #2820 Seattle, WA 98101 Museum Of Flight Foundation 9404 E Marginal Way S Seattle, WA 98108 Hossein Sabour - mohajer 5031 Ripley Ln N Renton, WA 98056 Sea -mar Comm Health Ctr 8720 14th Ave S Seattle, WA 98108 Tony Shih 3411 60th Ave SW Seattle, WA 98116 Vue Sewer Val PO Box 69550 Seattle, WA 98168 on 1.888.CE TODAY (238.63; www.CorporateExpress.com and www.eway.o ) 1rIC1111 1W I_uvc IJ n -Proof 10118 Llc 10020 Main St #A Bellevue, WA 98004 Santos & Blanca Avila 8144 5th Ave SW Seattle, WA 98106 Boeing Company The 100 N Riverside M C 5003 -402 Chicago, IL 60606 Alan & Susan Chamberlain 2147 5th Ave W Seattle, WA 98119 Ronald John & Carolyn An Cook 17319 21st Ave SW Seattle, WA 98166 Delta Marine Industries Inc 1608 S 96th St Seattle, WA 98108 Driftwood Developments Llc 16209 Crescent Dr SW Vashon, WA 98070 Ceferino & Lydia Fernandez 16428 53rd PI S Seattle, WA 98188 Jorgensen Forge Corp 8531 E Marginal Way S Seattle, WA 98108 King County 500 K C Admin Bldg Seattle, WA 98104 Corporate 15 I G N AT U R E w...�eTM • Machinists Aeronautical 9125 15th PI S Seattle, WA 98108 Heidi Baumgardner 10009 17th PI S Seattle, WA 98168 Michael Bowman 13041 3rd Ave S Burien, WA 98168 Container Properties PO Box 1043 Kent, WA 98035 Roy Deaver 7062 High Meadow Dr Clinton, WA 98236 Helen Dexter 14375 P: ovan St Sea ' , WA 98108 Eustis Holdings Llc 1102 Broadway #403 Tacoma, WA 98402 Wesley & Marie Elena Goss 3436 Belvidere Ave SW Seattle, WA 98126 Walter Kauai 10080 Des Moines Memorial Dr Seattle, WA 98168 King County Mu Of Flight Auth 9404 E M al Way S Seatt A 98108 Leonard Alpers 5934 E Valdai Cir Mesa, AZ 85215 William & Miriam Beck 1412 S Henderson St Seattle, WA 98108 Northm Santa Fe Burlington PO Box 96189 Fort Worth, TX 76161 Ronald John Coo 1731921s eSW Sea -, ' A 98166 Marine Del 1608 S St S e, WA 98108 Helen & Gerald Dexter 1437 S Donovan St Seattle, WA 98108 Viliami Fainga 10124 Des Moines Memorial Dr Seattle, WA 98168 Harsch Investment Properties Llc 1121 SW Salmon St Portland, OR 97205 King Co Museum Of Flight 9404 E Marginal Way S Seattle, WA 98108 Latitute Forty-seven Llc 28836 164th Ave SE Kent, WA 98042 1.888.CE TODAY (238.632 bUff $A I 1 0 It _ I:tbo FILE CASSETTE TAPE IN FILE CITY OF TUKWILA ,HEARING EXAMINER FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND DECISION SHORELINE VARIANCE PROJECT INFORMATION SUMMARY APPLICATION: Shoreline variance to permit 27 parking stalls (associated with a proposed building) to be located within the shoreline environment LOCATION: 9229 East Marginal Way South FILE NUMBER: L05 -051 ASSOCIATED FILES: E05 -011 (State Environmental Policy Act Review) L05 -050 (Shoreline Substantial Development Permit) L05 -055 (Administrative Design Review) L -05 -0057 (Short Plat) APPLICANT: Ivana Halvorsen, Barghausen Engineering, for Davis Properties COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Manufacturing Industrial Center/Heavy ZONING DISTRICT: Manufacturing Industrial Center/Heavy SEPA DETERMINATION: Determination of Nonsignificance PUBLIC HEARING: May 9, 2006. The following persons offered testimony at the hearing: Carol Lumb, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development Ivana Halvorsen, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., 18215 72nd Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032 Brendan Madden, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., 18215 72 "d Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032 Jeffrey E. Davis, DPI, P.O. Box 1043, Kent, WA 98032 EXHIBITS: The following exhibits were entered into the record: 1. Department's staff report, dated April 14, 2006 Hearing Examiner Decision L05 -051 Shoreline Variance Page 2 of 6 2. Applicant's request to withdraw height variance 3. Chapter 25.32, KCC 4. WAC 173 -27 -170 5. 2005 aerial photo of site 6. Plan Set, including site plan and landscaping plan 7. Applicant's response to shoreline variance criteria 8. January 4, 2006, response to technical comments letter 9. SEPA staff report Introduction The applicant, Davis Properties, has applied for shoreline variance approval to allow parking waterward of a proposed building, rather than beneath or upland of the building as required by Section 26.16.030.E of the King County shoreline regulations (which apply to this site). The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the variance. The public hearing on the application was held on May 9, 2006, in Conference Room 2, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard. Represented at the hearing were: the Department, by Carol Lumb, Senior Planner; and the applicant, by Ivana Halvorsen and Brendon Madden, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, and Jeffrey E. Davis, DPI. No member of the public appeared. After due consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, the following shall constitute the findings of fact, conclusions and decision of the Hearing Examiner on this application. Findings of Fact 1. The subject site is addressed as 9229 East Marginal Way South, and is accessed from East Marginal Way. The entire site is approximately 19.5 acres and is adjacent to the Duwamish River which is west of the site. In addition, the Port of Seattle's Slip No. 6 lies along the southern border of the western portion of the site. The site is irregularly - shaped, with the eastern half being much narrower than the western half of the property. The site is developed with abandoned structures and other impervious surface areas. 2. The property is zoned Manufacturing Industrial Center/Heavy (MIC/H). The site is designated as Urban Environment under King County's Shoreline Master Program. 3. North of the site is an auto salvage yard, which has surface parking within the shoreline environment. Exhibit 5. That parking was not subject to either shoreline substantial development or shoreline variance review, as it was determined not to constitute development under the state Shoreline Management Act: South of the site Hearing Examiner Decision LO5 -051 Shoreline Variance Page 3 of 6 across Slip No. 6 is the Boeing Development Center, and the Boeing Museum of Flight. To the east across East Marginal Way is the King County Airport. 4. The property has been contaminated because of previous chemical manufacturing activities at the site. Corrective actions for historic releases at the site are underway, subject to an EPA Order on Consent under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Remediation and testing activities at the site have been ongoing for several years. Most of the remediation efforts and testing are directed at the western portion of the site. It is possible that no cleanup, or removal of only small areas of contamination, will be required for the eastern part of the site. The proposed building and parking stalls would be located on the eastern portion of the site, as shown in the plans at Exhibit 6. Proposal 5. The proposal is for variance relief to allow 27 surface parking stalls to be located within the shoreline area, along with landscaping as ' proposed in Exhibit 6. (The application initially included a request for a variance to exceed the height limit, but the applicant withdrew that request prior to hearing.) 6. The applicant proposes to construct an 84,000 square foot warehouse /office building on the site (identified as "Building A" on Exhibit 6), with a loading area located to the north, and approximately 189 parking stalls along the other three sides of the building. The applicant intends that the building will be a multi -tenant facility, requiring separate tenant access points and parking along the southern side of the building, away from the warehouse and loading areas along the north side of the building. The 27 parking stalls that are the subject of this application are located near the south and east sides of the proposed building, within the 200 -foot shoreline area. 7. The site was annexed to the City after the adoption of the City's Shoreline Master Program, and is therefore subject to the King County Shoreline regulations. KCC 25.16.030.E requires that parking be located underneath or upland of the building served by the parking. 8. The King County shoreline regulations include the following requirements for shoreline variances at KCC 25.32.040: A. The director is authorized to grant a variance from the performance standards of this master program only under the conditions enumerated WAC 173 -14 -150 (Review Criteria for Variances). B. A variance from county zoning code requirements shall not be construed to mean a variance from shoreline master program use regulations and vice versa. Hearing Examiner Decision L05 -051 Shoreline Variance Page 4 of 6 C. Shoreline variances may not be used to permit a use that is specifically prohibited in an environment designation. D. The burden of proving that a proposed variance meets these conditions shall be on the applicant, absence of such proof shall be grounds for denial of the application. E. The fee which shall accompany an application for a shoreline variance shall be as adopted by ordinance. 9. The Department has reviewed the warehouse /office project and the associated parking, and has issued a Determination of Nonsignificance pursuant to SEPA on that proposal. The overall project will also be reviewed by the Department as part of the application for a shoreline substantial development permit, administrative design review approval, and short plat approval. 10. The Department recommends that the application for the variance be approved, along with the landscaping that is shown on the plans. Conclusions 1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction over this application pursuant to TMC 18.104.010.D. The application is subject to the shoreline variance requirement found in KCC 25.32.040, which states that a variance is authorized under the conditions enumerated in WAC 173 -14 -170. Each of the criteria of WAC 173 -14 -170 is considered below. 2. The denial of the permit would thwart the re -use and development of this property in a manner that would be consistent with the industrial uses surrounding the area. The relevant circumstances in this case include the location of the Port's Slip to the south, which "creates" a shoreline environment in addition to that associated with the main Duwamish Waterway to the west; the past contamination of the site, which affects the configuration of development at the site; and the surrounding uses, which favor a design that places the loading areas for this site to the north and the office areas to the south. The public interest would suffer no substantial detrimental effect from the placement of the parking stalls with landscaping in the shoreline area. 3. The strict application of the regulation requiring underground or landward parking would significantly interfere with a reasonable use of the property. The 27 stalls could not be placed outside of the shoreline area on the site without reducing the size of the building, and/or moving the truck loading areas to the south and the surface parking to the north. However, the information in the record indicates that this orientation would not be consistent with the proposed use of the building or compatible with the adjacent uses that face the site from the north and site. Elimination of the parking stalls would not Hearing Examiner Decision L05 -051 Shoreline Variance Page 5 of 6 bring the proposal below what is required by the Code for this use, but the applicant's information indicates that the 27 stalls are needed to meet the parking demand anticipated for the office uses at the site. 4. The property is irregular in shape and is constrained by the presence of the man- made slip on the south side, which extends the shoreline jurisdiction to the southern areas of the site. The contamination of the western portion of the site because of past practices also means that the use of the site is constrained for purposes of relocating parking or other uses to the western portion of the site. 5. The proposed design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses in the area. The parking area would be part of a proposed warehouse /office development that is consistent with other uses in the area; the entrances to the proposed office spaces would be on the south side, facing the Boeing properties and Flight Museum to the south, while the loading areas would face the auto salvage use to the north. The parking spaces would be landscaped, with an average depth of 35 feet of landscaping. 6. The variance would not grant a special privilege not already enjoyed by other properties in the area. Surface parking for the Boeing facility to the south is located within 200 feet of the shoreline environment, as is the surface parking to the north on the auto salvage yard property. 7. The information in the record shows that the variance for 27 stalls in the shoreline area is the minimum necessary to afford relief. As noted above, to reduce the number of stalls in the shoreline area would require re- orientation of the building and uses at the site, which is not feasible, and elimination of the stalls would fall short of the anticipated parking demand for the site and its uses. 8. The public interest would suffer no substantial detrimental effect. No detrimental effects have been shown to result from the location of the 27 parking stalls in the shoreline area. The warehouse /office project has also been subject to a number 'of reviews associated with the other approvals that are required for that larger project. Impacts that may result from the project as a whole, including the parking stalls, have been addressed through SEPA review and through the shoreline substantial development permit process, as well as other City, state and federal requirements. 9. No work would occur waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark. 10. The information in the record shows that cumulative impacts are not a factor in this request. The adjacent uses to the north and south already have parking areas which are within the shoreline environment. The 27 additional parking stalls proposed to be in the shoreline area on this site would be landscaped, and would be consistent with other uses in the surrounding area. Hearing Examiner Decision L05 -051 Shoreline Variance Page 6 of 6 - 11. The conditions of WAC 173 -14 -150 are therefore present, as required under KCC 25.32.040.A. The remaining provisions of KCC 25.32.040 are also met. No variance from the use regulations of the master program are being sought, and the uses are permitted in the Urban Environment. Based 'on the information in the record, the applicant has sustained its burden of showing that the proposed variance criteria have been met. The application should therefore be approved. Decision The application for a shoreline variance to permit 27 parking stalls within the shoreline environment along with the landscaping shown in the drawings in Exhibit 6, is hereby approved. Entered this 22 "d day of May, 2006. Anne Watanabe Hearing Examiner Concerning Further Review TMC 18.108.030.0 states that "The decision of the Hearing Examiner shall be final and shall be appealable only to Superior Court pursuant to RCW 36.70C." BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF SEATTLE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL I, Alvia N. Williams certify that on the 22nd day of MaV, 2006 I deposited in the mail of the United States (with postage prepaid) and in the City's Mail/Messenger Service (used for City personnel only) a sealed envelope containing the attached FINDINGS AND DECISION addressed to each person listed on the back of this affidavit or on the attached ed mailing list, in the matter of DAVIS PROPERTY INVESTMENT Hearing Examiner file number: L05 -051. I further certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct and that this certificate of service was executed this 22nd day of May, 2006, at Seattle, Washington. Name: Al via N. Williams Title: Paralegal MAILING LIST FOR: L05 -051 CAROL LUMB, SENIOR PLANNER CITY OF TUKWILA 6300 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD SUITE #100 TUKWILA WA 98188 r PROJECT INFORMATION Davis Properties has filed applications for development of an 84,000 sq. foot. warehouse with associated office space and 189 parking stalls to be located at 9229 East Marginal Way South, Tukwila. The site is subject to a shoreline substantial development permit and the applicant has requested a variance from the King County shoreline regulation that requires all site parking be located upland of buildings. Permits applied for include: L05 -050 (Shoreline Substantial Development Permit), L05 -0551 (Shoreline Variance) L05 -055 (Administrative Design Review) L05 -057 (Short Plat) and E05 -011 (SEPA Environmental Review) Other known required permits include: Building Permit, Public Works Permit FILE$ I AVAILABLEVOR PUBLIC REVIEW The project files are available at the City of Tukwila. To view the files, you may request them at the counter at the Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard #100. Please call Carol Lumb, project planner at 206 -431 -3661 to ensure the availability of the files. Project Files include: L05 -050, L05 -051, L05-055, L05 -057 and E05 -011 OPPORTUNITY FOR`PUBLIC COMMENT You are invited to comment on the project at a public hearing before the Tukwila Hearing Examiner scheduled for Tuesday, May 9, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. in Conference Room 2, located at the Department of Community Development offices, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila, Washington. To confirm this date call Carol Lumb at the Department of Community Development at (206) 431 -3661. For further information on this proposal, contact Carol Lumb at (206) 431 -3661 or visit our offices at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 P.M. Application Filed: August 10, 2005 Notice of Completeness Issued: September 2, 2005 Notice of Application Issued: January 24, 2006 Notice of Public Hearing Mailed April 21, 2006 CL Page 1 of 1 04212006 3.03 PM g0avis -Rhone Poulenc \L05 -051 PubHrg Notice.doc SHORELINE SITE PLAN FOR DAVIS PROPERTY AND INVESTMENT A PORTION OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 24 N, RAKE 4 E, W.M. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON J 203:'x•( 4030,19 URBAN SHORELINE STANDARDS• M IIR 41 1[.Kt aWOMCL 7330 .. MM. 161.00 - 1716 L WOW. ICIIK .1001y 333000_1 .6 Rn M.. MO. 466W RV ots Nowt .44 V Mt W.. OOP. 0166$1. MOM= IMnMN - 2141131 V WNW COIKWX OW. IX 0311.0 .WWI V.401014' 6 M. a 140007200 MOO • 4104 O.W. AWW1. Wei. wa6307R mU1,._4D Nlq aWYm NOLB 11/06.4/17 11606 740'7117 1671 / k Np3'M! qs.0 O:x I;w S eR40.3!'1_- SITE DATA WPM 110 1 m ni 4D200241 MB 4 ZOO. ..417t6140 Iow nu *0* W 0601#7.3 63111x«06K 4204 WCM 0. OWNS 420 0040.30414 1(.0220+16 / NNa 02010000 m( 1. MOW= WE 01x0 Mat Y6 .Md04R VW /WWII AW 06111.17 s0 .041, .Y 100 30030 -4eu AMMO 14161203* 30440R13. 8133 xx s IMIM 21. Mr 11-102 .On. ,M WWI 15x8 140100 IW. 1.E1 sN.O»4 MM1Ce 400.13. 71.1,4.4e as SURVEYOR/ PLANPER 43344(024 40lau1.a 43* W. •N 474 410(( 00201 0007, M x033 WI 084-x00 OMl 0731 31.112 10V440: s4N 113.3333/ ..t 50x200/ 44433 6867.m. AUG 0 8 2005 SYMIATIFX hV s 2011(30¢ me .30« V (s11RU6 angs xenon P. II V 3 Ora oaf - VII 033101/106.M Or 0910 03340106 .1.61 -SpI Bat CI Cf 3 CEng 31a7 060773 MO VOW OWN. CI O11 0.0020 ..0 403 - ! VOI O V 3 OW. 36210104 x.00 -an SW (I a. 2 M6B...n UMRM[ nN;lb1,� E C E IV' E u a 0 .•6{42014 30110x34( amts '`� 'AUG 10 2005 ,MMof .M,...7a1MY4xu yM M1 1,..14 aMPw .34x4N MGM . 11; Mx164.aM VIM . 4074. 0.1a Mo...NM Or..r •MNM 11.200 W,t «nw:yM .d...eM . 6 M..n.Ilr 3...40 84 M.. 1..WM..6020•••.2016 Mpmt N.4 aM�ww�a W. w.W+, f.. MM.N.01.1.1 f 4.6NM4O . M!M 4.. •NN■R MN I (.. of 7k04 byry Mpn a 44 t a .y bwtMM {43200 0441 424 i (3..442534..74 M•I 3*' u. N M. wwnM LM 5.555 O.y ..202001 a M. M..M.n. Y.eY.N 1• 9: • Rao. o, 0. YM.M x°.14 $ tool O.*. 57 74A ..N 4.020 1505 MMO W It 20' S.1. 14.0t of 1460.04 IM .4.1 M. 4...4on OMn 1444 .20 3.20 3/ M' Sr (w • SINN a MLT Mt Np W 14.4 •:5x4 / tad 4$ .7 ].M Men M a 414.1..tl.s4Wows M Ovid. C$00 M fn. W«N.M 1MYVm MN NM 037.1* 4*27 MAN. 1111( Few 0. ROMw* 034 - Lw� 110Ct eat sow. M M 023.40M.I:M33.a UM 37 x' 00(4. Mow a NW 4•0 7476. 441 MY. VIM MM 4 M ..a.M 0054 of 201 ..Yea 160 1201 M M 4.04,......5 14. Ume RiM10 .. W v.. 33..4 N W Mo.MI 57 S0N • ..e. WO Man 420 IV II' 466. 0411417 �M MM ..146.mo.1.4 16.1 ..FM NIi M Mon N. 4Y.M.I of 114 I. O.1....M M.4n 4U4:. of YYMIawl Mary . CM OM0.....e it r..,.Myf bry..(.w 48.4168. Y.wM M.F.1 .of. 646.4114 1Mel.. 146 'PQM a 1170.'K1.1 104*31..O. s( 17' W. • .6. of MM. MOW 4M4 r N' Sr 0..1 ••M. ot1x54 Mt 44(1T ft. 60 IY M' 971. M4M a 141113 3..4 5040 02434 V a 54' 5.16.. 46.4• 4 44400...3 Boa ..a3 10 N' 1.8.4 • N.4. 00 102.472 7370 140(( S., 41. 20' •0' OM. 43 72 of 44020040.(.24«3 M. a IM 664.4 N.0s' a Os4nn.:...IM ..n .IM 41...4 01,2 0. MlNnnyw 8120 s': AnT.(s .120 W rot* mist MaenilN 401. NW, VOW M Vol . 20 0114 Oz .. N. 16. KI4q( mw • NMI Or 014810 WK. 400x42 IOWA 201x. a 4rn Kw -R - 019bt MOM" WWOW1[ MOM MN RPM 21100043. *.324,0.9 mows n . 2' moss NB Vona *0x30304 Or 064 Bata Isom It WOW (0010410). s0 101010*(I)4 10 Or so. MN WWI M Wf s(( VLO.MMOMta, (1..000607 {00 n IIC.I« CO' .1 2440 - 61400. 40.10 1401 IIONx«!N MBM - *414 or rtmama MOa7 (.Mb. YWY 0413 V 1x40p 2046014 11542 .0S 64.44 026 - W. M 602060010 0707 COMIC W7 0«x4.0 204 MO At X50 IIA 117. 1 N 4 W(M )L a Oww.. 14t, 122. MW W. .. ik,147 DM 3/ AM MNN 4 04344 47*4•• ,1 ,1 rte.._ • City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER SHORELINE VARIANCE Prepared April 14, 2006 NOTIFICATION: Notice of Application mailed to applicant, agencies with jurisdiction January 24, 2006 Notice of Application posted on site January 25, 2006 SEPA Issued April 14, 2006 Public Hearing Notice mailed April 21, 2006 FILE NUMBER: L05 -051 ASSOCIATED FILES: E05 -011 (State Environmental Policy Act review) L05 -050 (Shoreline Substantial Development Pen-nit) L05 -055 (Administrative Design Review) L05 -057 (Short Plat) APPLICANT: Ivana Halvorsen, Barghausen Engineering for Davis Properties REQUEST: Shore] ineVariance to vary one King County shoreline regulation: to permit 28 of 189 overall parking stalls waterward. of the proposed building within the shoreline environment. LOCATION: 9229 East Marginal Way South COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Manufacturing Industrial Center /Heavy ZONING DISTRICT: Manufacturing Industrial Center /Heavy SEPA DETERMINATION: Determination of Nonsignificance RECOMMENDATION: Approval STAFF CONTACT: Carol Lumb, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: A. Request to Withdraw Height Variance B.I K.C.C. 25.32, Procedures B.2. WAC 173 -27 -170 Cl- Page I of 7 04/21 /2006 2:24 PM q;ADavis Properties -Rhone Pou1encl,05 -05 I \Staff RptAoc Hann C— fh,ontor RnTalovarrl Giito dil/Jn • Tukwila Wachinotnn QR1RR • Phnna• 21)6- 431 -UM • Fay- MA- d31 -4hhS L05 -051 Shoreline Variance Davis Properties April 14, 2006 C. 2004 Aerial Photo of Site D. Plan Set Including Site Plan and Landscaping Plan E. Applicant's Response to Shoreline Variance Criteria F. January 4, 2006 Response to Technical Comments Letter G. SEPA Staff Report Project Description: The project proposes to redevelop 19.5 acres on -shore adjacent to the Duwamish River to include: repaving the western portion of the site for lease to an adjacent property owner, Insurance Auto Auctions, construction of an 84,000 sq. ft. warehouse /office building with associated parking, installation of storm water and sanitary sewer and water service. Under a separate land use application, the site is proposed to be short platted into two lots. The site has been under industrial use since the 1930s. Most recently, Rhone- Poulenc operated a vanillin manufacturing facility on the site that was closed in 1991. Historic releases of hazardous substances occurred at the site. Released materials include caustic soda, toluene, mineral oil, PCBs and copper. Corrective action for the contamination is being addressed under a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Administrative Order on Consent issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 (Docket # 1091- 11- 20- 3- 8(h)). The western portion of the parcel is most affected by the historic chemical contamination, with some contamination on the eastern portion as well. The applicant originally requested a variance from two sections of the King County Shoreline Regulations: KCC 25.16.030 B, which requires structures within the shoreline to be 35 feet in height or less and KCC 25.16.030 E.1, which requires parking to be located underneath or upland of the building which it serves. At the time the variance application was submitted, design of the building had not been completed. Now that the building design is complete, the height does not exceed 35 feet as originally anticipated. The applicant has withdrawn the request for a height variance (see Attachment A). In addition, the original parking variance requested a variance for 37 parking stalls; a subsequent communication from the applicant requests 28 parking stalls be permitted in the shoreline environment (see Attachment F). DECISION CRITERIA — SHORELINE VARIANCE This project, while within the City of Tukwila, is subject to King County Shoreline regulations as it is within an area annexed after the City adopted its Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Until the City updates its SMP to include annexed areas, King County regulations apply. The King County Shoreline Regulations, found in KCC 25.32.040, adopt Washington State Administrative Code criteria for a shoreline variance, found in WAC 173 -14 -150. Please note WAC 173- 14 has been superseded by WAC 173 -27 – variance criteria are found in WAC 173 -27 -170. In the following discussion, the review criteria from WAC 173 -27 -170 are shown below in italics, followed by Staff's comments. For the applicant's response to the criteria see Attachment E. K.C.C. 25.32.040 Permits – variance A. The director is authorized to grant a variance from the performance standards of this master program only under the conditions enumerated WAC 173 -14 -150 (Review Criteria for Variances). WAC 173 -27 -170: CL Nee 2 of 7 04/21,12006 2:24 PM q:'Davis Properties -Rhone Poulend:L05 -05 I \Staff Rpt.doc L05 -051 Shoreline Variance Davis Properties April 14, 2006 1. Variance permits should be granted in circumstances where denial of the permit would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances the applicant must demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances shall be shown and the public interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect. RCW 90.58.020 It is the policy of the state to provide for the management of the shorelines of the state by planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses. This policy is designed to insure the development of these shorelines in a manner which, while allowing for limited reduction of rights of the public in the navigable waters, will promote and enhance the public interest. This policy contemplates protecting against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life, while protecting generally public rights of navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto. The King County Shoreline Management Master Program, which covers Tukwila's shoreline downriver of the 42nd Avenue Bridge, requires that parking be placed underneath or upland of the building it serves (K.C.C. 25.16.030 E.). The shoreline affects some of the parking for the proposed building due to the location of Port of Seattle Slip No. 6, which borders the parcel partially on the south side and the shape of the site, which on the eastern half is narrower than the western portion of the property. Because of the location of the slip, 28 parking stalls of a total 189 stalls for the warehouse /office building fall within the 200 foot shoreline environment. The proposed use is located in a heavy industrial area of the river and on a site that is being redeveloped. The north side of the building will be used by trucks making deliveries. The applicant's response states that the extraordinary circumstances for this site relate to having regulated shoreline on two sides of the property, similar to a corner lot, resulting in "an inordinate application of shoreline restrictions placed on development of the site." The applicant also states that allowing "...a limited amount of parking waterward of the proposed building does not result in a loss to the public interest because the parking area will not create any shipping or other impacts, it allows efficient use of the site for shared vehicle access and truck circulation and it is compatible with the proposed use and surrounding development in the area." Currently a portion of the parking is located adjacent to each of the office entrances of the building; moving the 28 stalls away from the western most office entrances would inconvenience the tenants of those spaces. 2. Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located landward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(b), and/or landward of any wetland as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(h), may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: (a) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes, or significantly interferes with, reasonable use of the property; The location of Port of Seattle Slip No. 6, which abuts the eastern portion of the site where the building will be located partially on the south, causes some of the parking and a portion of the building to fall within the shoreline environment. Due to the shape of the parcel, and the location of the slip, strict application of the shoreline regulations would require the reduction in the size of the building to move it out of the shoreline environment or the location of the truck bays on the south side of the building and the office entrances on the north. The southern property line slightly angles on the eastern portion of the site. To place the truck load/unload bays on the south side of the building would probably require a reduction in the size of the building to provide the same circulation for truck traffic than can be provided on the north side of the building. CL Paae 3 of 7 04/21/2006 2:24 PM q ^.Davis Properties -Rhone Poulencl,O. -M I\,StaI Rpt.doc L05 -051 Shoreline Variance Davis Properties April 14, 2006 The applicant was asked to look at flipping the building orientation to locate the truck bays on the south side and all parking on the portions of the site outside the shoreline. The applicant's response is as follows: "The proposed building will have a gross floor area of approximately 84,000 square feet, including 12,600 to 33,600 square feet of office space (15 to 40 %) and 50,400 to 71,400 square feet of warehouse space (60 to 85 %). Parking has been provided to accommodate the maximum amount of parking demand as the warehouse building is a "speculative" building that may contain a myriad variation of uses. "We have evaluated whether the existing building could be flipped to provide loading on the south side (shoreline side) and parking on the north side. Because of the existing uses on surrounding properties, (heavy industrial uses and storage uses to the north and Boeing Flight Museum property to the south) the orientation of the building, as currently proposed, better suites (sic) the proposed use and is more compatible with surrounding properties. The minor amount of parking provided waterward of the proposed building within the shoreline jurisdiction is screened from the shoreline by additional landscaping. The entirety of the parking that falls within the shoreline jurisdiction is necessary parking adjacent to the proposed building. Removal of the proposed 28 stalls within the shoreline jurisdiction adjacent to the building would result in lengthy walking conditions for employees or customers to the future uses within the proposed building." The applicant also notes that for efficiency purposes, drive aisles for parking with truck lanes and fire access lanes around the building are typically combined for industrial sites. Based on the building size and proposed office and warehouse square footage, the MIC /H district would require 68 to 110 parking stalls. The applicant notes above that the maximum amount of parking is proposed because the final tenants of the warehouse /office spaces have not been determined. (b) That the hardship described in (a) of this subsection is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the master program, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions; The parcel in question is somewhat irregular in shape with the man -made slip on the south side, which in turn extends the jurisdiction of the shoreline environment to a portion of the southern boundaries of the site. No actions by the applicant are responsible for the shape of the parcel or the location of the slip. Not mentioned by the applicant, but an additional factor in the need for a variance, is the contamination of the western portion of the site by previous property owners. Clean up continues on the western portion of the site which constrains redevelopment with structures on that portion of the site. While there is some contamination of the eastern portion of the site, the western portion is the most affected by the Consent Order. (c) That the design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program and will not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment; The proposed warehouse /office building is consistent with the industrial character of the surrounding area. King County Airport is across East Marginal Way South on the east; to the north is an auto salvage yard and to the south across Slip No. 6 is Boeing property and a parcel owned by the Museum of Flight on which a number of airplanes are displayed. The entrances to the offices serving the warehouse space CL Page 4 of 7 04/21 /2006 2:24 I'M q:ADavis P1_0pe1_6es -Rh0ne POLliencA1,05- 0�1 \Stafl'Rpt.doc L05 -051 Shoreline Variance Davis Properties April 14, 2006 will be located on the southern side of the proposed building. Truck deliveries will occur on the north side of the building where the truck bays are located. The zoning is Manufacturing Industrial Center Heavy and the shoreline designation is Urban. Erosion and sediment control best management practices (BMPs) will be required to prevent sediment and pollutants from reaching the river. Landscaping will be provided to screen the parking for the building - for the area that falls within the shoreline the landscaping will range from 55 feet to 20 feet for an average depth of 35 feet; 8 feet of landscaping will be provided along the rest of the southern boundary outside the shoreline environment on the portion of the site being developed with the building. Under the shoreline permit, landscaping will be provided to screen the automobile parking for the Insurance Auto Auction use on the western portion of the site. (d) That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area; Parking for the Boeing facility located to the south has been sited within the 200 foot shoreline environment as illustrated on Attachment C, an aerial photo of the site, taken in 2005,. The use on the north side of the site is Insurance Auto Auction, an auto salvage yard) with parking located within the shoreline environment. This parking is not related to a building and therefore did not trigger review under King County's shoreline regulations. Given that the adjacent property on the south has parking within the shoreline environment, no special privilege would accrue to the applicant if the variance is granted. (e) That the variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief; and The building has been sited as far north as possible and still maintain its current size and configuration. The need to provide sufficient area for truck movement prevents the building from being moved any further north. The building is sited as far east as possible while still accommodating a double loaded parking area on the east side of the building. While there is parking on the south side of the building, there is no parking immediately next to Slip No. 6 — rather landscaping varying in width from 55 feet to 20 feet is placed on the south property line on the portion of the site which will be developed with the building. (f) That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. Work on this site within the 200 foot shoreline zone is subject to a City of Tukwila Shoreline Substantial Development permit, Administrative Design Review, and State Environmental Policy Act Planned Action review in addition to the Shoreline Variance request. Two of these applications (shoreline and shoreline variance) are subject to public notice procedures, which provide the general public, surrounding property owners and public agencies with the opportunity to review the proposed development and provide comments. Through the public notice process, a comment was received from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe related to the possible location and protection of archeological artifacts on the site. This issue has been addressed through SEPA and the shoreline permit. The public scrutiny, in addition to governmental review, should help protect against any detrimental effects to the shoreline. No objections to the proposed parking in the shoreline environment have been received. 3. Variance permits for development and /or uses that will be located waterward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(b), or within any wetland as defined in RCW 90.58. /030 (2)(h), may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: Cl- Page 5 47 04/21!2006 2:24 PM q 1.Day is Properties -Rhone Poulenc'],05 -05 kStaff Rpt.doc L05 -051 Shoreline Variance Davis Properties April 14, 2006 (a) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes all reasonable use of the property; (b) That the proposal is consistent with the criteria established under subsection (2)(b) through (f) of this section; and (c) That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected. Criteria 3 does not apply as no work will occur waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark 4. In the granting of all variance permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example if variances were granted to other developments and/or uses in the area where similar circumstances exist the total of the variances shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not cause substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. As can be seen on Attachment C, the 2004 aerial photo, the Boeing property on the south side of Slip #6 has parking within 200 feet of the shoreline, waterward of the development which it serves. The property on the north side of the subject site is owned by Insurance Auto Auction. This site did not require a shoreline substantial development permit as no "development" as defined by the SMA was proposed. The King County requirement to place parking underneath or upland of the development which the parking area serves also did not apply as no development as defined by RCW Chapter 90.58 was proposed. The location of parking on the south side of the proposed building is consistent with other uses in the surrounding area. Landscaping will be provided to help screen the parking from the Duwamish Waterway and Port of Seattle Slip No. 6. 5. Variances from the use regulations of the master program are prohibited. The warehouse /office building and the auto salvage yard parking uses are permitted in the Manufacturing Industrial Center /Heavy district. B. A variance from county zoning code requirements shall not be construed to mean a variance from shoreline master program use regulations and vice versa. C. Shoreline variances may not be used to permit a use that is specifically prohibited in an environment designation. As noted in Criteria 5 above, the proposed uses for both the eastern and western portions of the parcel are permitted in the Manufacturing Industrial Center /Heavy district D. The burden of proving that a proposed variance meets these conditions shall be on the applicant; absence of such proof shall be grounds for denial of the application. The applicant has provided a discussion, found in Attachment F, addressing the King County Code criteria for a shoreline variance. E. The fee which shall accompany an application for a shoreline variance shall be as adopted by ordinance. The applicant has submitted the appropriate fees for a shoreline variance application. Cl- Page 6 ot'7 04121,2006 224 PM cr'�Davis Proper ties -Rhone PoulencA1,0�- 051'Staft'Rl?tdoc. I' L05 -051 Shoreline Variance Davis Properties April 14, 2006 CONCLUSIONS 1. The public interest, as set forth in KCC 25.27.170 A and RCW 90.58.020 will not be diminished by the location of 26 parking stalls for the proposed building within the shoreline on the eastern portion of the site. Landscaping will be used to screen the parking associated with the building. Screening the parking associated with the Insurance Auto Auction use of the western portion of the site will be addressed through the shoreline permit. 2. The shape of the parcel and the location of Port of Seattle Slip No. 6 constrain options for moving the proposed building completely out of the shoreline environment without reducing the size of the building. To provide adequate room for truck maneuvering on the north side of the building and provide parking for the proposed use, the building cannot be completely moved out of the shoreline environment. Only 26 of 189 parking stalls for the building will be located in the shoreline jurisdiction. The western portion of the site is proposed to be used for parking cars for an adjacent property which is used as an auto insurance salvage yard. The screening for this parking will be regulated through the shoreline substantial development permit. The hardship faced by this site is shared by the property on the south side of Port of Seattle Slip No. 6. There are several options in order to completely avoid the shoreline: reduce the building size which would in turn reduce the number of parking stalls required; reduce the number of parking stalls provided over and above those required for the site; or, flip the building to place the office use portion on the north side of the site. Although the number of parking stalls exceeds what is required under the Manufacturing Industrial Center district, the applicant is providing extra in anticipation of the various uses that could be located in the building. Placing the office use on the south side of the building locates the least intensive use (employee and customer car parking vs. truck deliveries) on the shoreline portion of the site. 3. All City, State and Federal requirements and permit conditions will be met by the proposed development. The applicant did not create the conditions that have lead to the request for the variance. The proposed development and uses are consistent with the heavy industrial character of the area. Granting the variance will have no substantial detrimental affect on the public interest. 4. The proposed development of the building does not take place waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark. 5. The property adjacent on the south across Port of Seattle Slip No. 6 appears to have parking already located within the shoreline environment, so there will be no further cumulative impact from the granting of the variance. The property on the north side, with cars located within the shoreline environment, was not subject to review under King County shoreline regulations. 6. The proposed development does not require relief from the use regulations of the shoreline master program. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the request to locate 28 parking stalls within the shoreline environment be approved along with the proposed landscaping plan as illustrated on Attachment D. CL. Pa_e 7 of 7 0421/2006 224 I'M q:Alkavis Properties -Rhone Poulencl.0 -05I Staff Rpt.doc From: " Ivana Halvorsen" <ialvorsen @barghausen.com> To: "Carol Lumb" <clumb @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 4/11/06 5:19PM Subject: Davis Property Shoreline Height Variance (BCE # 10265) Hi Carol: We agree that the proposed building will not be higher than 35 feet, so we agree to withdraw that portion of the Shoreline Variance request. If you need a formal revision or withdrawal statement for that portion, please let me know. I would prefer to withdraw that element than have it denied. Please let me know what you think. Ivana Halvorsen Senior Planner Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 18215 72nd Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 (425) 251 -6222 (425) 251 -8782 FAX (425) 656 -7487 Direct CC: "Brendan Madden" <bmadden @barghausen.com >, "File" <File @barghausen.com> ATTACHMENT Q PROCEDURES 25.32.010 - 25.32.020 ` Chapter 25.32 PROCEDURES Sections: 25.32.010 Substantial development- permit required -exemption. 25.32.020 Permits - prerequisite to other permits. 25.32.040 , Permits -' variance., 25.32.050 Permits - conditional use. 25.32.060 Permits - alteration of nonconforming use or development. 25.32.080 Permits - combined hearing authority. 25.32.090 Permits - approval or disapproval - notification - additional conditions - limitations. 25.32.100 Appeals. 25.32.110 Rules of director. 25.32.120 Enforcement. 25.32.130 Shoreline environment redesignation. 25.32.140 Redesignation applications. 25.32.150 Redesignations initiated by motion. 25.32.160 Frequency of consideration of shorelines redesignations. 25.32.170 Joining of application for or motion to consider shorelines redesignation and site - specific land use map amendment or zone reclassification. 25.32.180 Criteria for hearing examiner review. 25.32.010 Substantial development - permit required - exemption. A. No development shall be undertaken by any person. on the shorelines of the state unless such development is consistent with the policy of Section 2 of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and, after adoption and approval, t' the guidelines and regulations of the Washington State Department of Ecology `•' 9 9 9 p and the King County shoreline master program. B. No substantial development shall be undertaken by any person on the shorelines of the state without first obtaining a substantial development permit from the director; provided, that such a permit shall not be required for the development excepted from the definition of substantial development in RCW 90.58.030 and for developments exempted by RCW 90.58. 140(9) and (10). C. Any person claiming exception from the permit requirements of this chapter as a result of the exemptions described in subsection B. of this section may make an application to the director for such an exemption in the manner prescribed by the director. Development within the shorelines of the state which does not require a permit shall conform to the master program. Conditions requiring such conformance may be imposed prior to granting exemption from the permit requirement. (Ord. 3688 § 801, 1978). 25.32.020 Permits - prerequisite to other permits. In the case of development subject to the permit requirements of this title, King County shall not issue any other permit for such development until such time as approval has been granted pursuant to this title. Any development subsequently authorized by King County shall be subject to the same terms and conditions which apply to the development authorized pursuant to this title. (Ord. 3688 § 802, 1978). 25-57 ATTACHMENT Bl 25.32.040 - 25.32.080 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT 25.32.040 Permits - variance. A. The director is authorized to grant a variance from the performance standards of this master program only under the conditions enumerated WAC 173 -14 -150 (Review Criteria for Variances). B. A variance from county zoning code requirements shall not be construed to mean a variance from shoreline master program use regulations and vice versa. C. Shoreline variances may not be used to permit a use that is specifically prohibited in an environment designation. D. The burden of proving that a proposed variance meets these conditions shall be on the applicant; absence of such proof shall be grounds for denial of the application. E. The fee which shall accompany an application for a shoreline variance shall be as adopted by ordinance. (Ord. 5734 § 15, 1981: Ord. 3688 § 804, 1974). 25.32.050 Permits - conditional use. A. The director is authorized to issue shoreline conditional use permits only under the following circumstances: 1. The development must be compatible with uses which are permitted within the master program environment in which the development is proposed. 2. The use will cause no unreasonable adverse effects on the shoreline or surrounding properties and uses. 3. The use will promote or not interfere with public use of surface waters. 4. The development of the site will not be contrary to the policies of the master program. B. The burden of proving that a proposed shoreline conditional use meets the criteria enumerated in subsection A. of this section shall be on the applicant. Absence of such proof shall be grounds for denial of the application; provided, however, that the director is authorized to determine and impose, on a case -by -case basis, those conditions and standards which may be required to enable any proposed shoreline conditional use to satisfy the criteria established in subsection A. of this section. (Ord. 3688 § 805, 1978). 25.32.060 Alteration or reconstruction of nonconforming use or development. A. Applications for substantial development or building permits to modify a nonconforming use or development may be approved only if: 1. The modifications will make the use or development less nonconforming; or 2. The modifications will not make the use or development more nonconforming. B. A use or development, not conforming to existing regulations, which is destroyed, deteriorated, or damaged more than fifty percent of its fair market value at present or at the time of its destruction by fire, explosion, or other casualty or act of God, may be reconstructed only insofar as it is consistent with existing regulations. C. The review of applications for the modification of a nonconforming use or development shall be subject to the guidelines enumerated in K.C.C. 21A.32 (General Provisions - Nonconformance, Temporary Uses, and Re -Use of Facilities). (Ord. 12196 § 59, 1996: Ord. 11792 § 36, 1995: Ord. 5734 § 16, 1981: Ord. 3688 § 806, 1978). 25.32.080 Permits - combined hearing authority. A. In those cases when proposed development under the jurisdicNon of this title also requires a Type 3 or Type 4 decision and a public hearing before the hearing examiner is required, the department shall issue a recommendation on the proposal and the examiner shall conduct a public hearing to receive evidence relating to the issuance of a substantial development permit or exemption therefrom, a shoreline management conditional use permit and /or a shoreline management variance, if applicable. B. The adjustor or examiner shall conduct the hearing in accordance with the provisions of chapter 20.24 K.C.C. and shall exercise the powers therein. C. The decision of the examiner shall be the decision of the director and shall be the final decision of the county with regard to shoreline management. (Ord. 12196 § 60, 1996: Ord. 3688 § 808, 1978). 25-59 (King County 6 -2000) PROCEDURES 25.32.090 - 25.32.120 25.32.090 Permits - approval or disapproval - notification - additional conditions - limitations. A. In granting or extending a permit, the director may attach thereto such conditions, modifications and restrictions regarding the location, character and other features of the proposed development and related development and activity outside of the shoreline as he finds necessary to make the permit compatible with the criteria set forth in K.C.C. 25.04.030 and 25.32.010. Such conditions may include requirement to post a performance bond assuring compliance with permit requirements, terms and conditions. B. Issuance of a substantial development permit does not constitute approval pursuant to any other federal, state or county laws or regulations. (Ord. 12196§ 61, 1996: Ord. 3688 § 809, 1978). 25.32.100 Appeals. A, Appeals from the final decision of the county with regard to shoreline management shall be governed solely by the provisions of RCW 90.58.180. B. The effective date of King County's decision shall be the date of filing with the Department of Ecology as defined in RCW 90.58.140. C. When a hearing and decision has occurred pursuant to Section 25.32.080 and the examiner's recommendation with regard to disposition of a proposed development pursuant to Titles 20 and 21A of this code requires King County council action, the final decision of the county pursuant to this title shall be effective on the date of filing as defined in RCW 90.58.140 for the purposes of appeal as provided in RCW 90.50.140. However, no development may occur until the King County council has taken final action on the examiner's recommendation required by Titles 20 and /or 21A of this code. (Ord. 12196 § 62,1996: Ord. 3688 § 810, 1978). 25.32.110 Rules of director. The director is authorized to adopt such rules as are necessary and appropriate to implement this chapter. The director may prepare and require the use of such forms as are necessary to its administration. (Ord. 3688 § 811, 1978). 25.32.120 Enforcement. A. The director is authorized to enforce the provisions of this title, the ordinances and resolutions codified in it, and any rules and regulations promulgated thereunder pursuant to the enforcement and penalty provisions of Title 23. B. Any person found to have willfully engaged in activities on the shorelines of the state in violation of this title or the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 or in violation of the master program, rules or regulations adopted pursuant thereto is guilty of a gross misdemeanor, and shall be punished by a fine of not less than twenty -five dollars nor more than one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than ninety days, or by both fines and imprisonment; provided, that the fine for the third and all subsequent violations in any five -year period shall be not less than five hundred dollars nor more than ten thousand dollars. C. The King County prosecuting attorney shall bring such injunctive, declaratory, or other actions as are necessary to insure that no uses are made of the shorelines of the state in conflict with the provisions of this title or the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 or in conflict with the master program, rules or regulations adopted pursuant thereto, and to otherwise enforce the provisions of this chapter and the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. D. Any person subject to the regulatory provisions of this title who violates any provision of this title or the provisions of a permit issued pursuant thereto shall be liable for all damage to public or private property arising from such violation, including the cost of restoring the affected area, within a reasonable time, to its condition prior to such violation. The King County prosecuting attorney shall bring suit for damages under this subsection on behalf of the county. Private persons shall have the right to bring suit for damages under this subsection on their own behalf and on behalf of all persons similarly situated. The court on its discretion may award attorney's fees and costs of the suit to the prevailing party. (Ord. 3688 812, 1978). 25.32.130 - 25.32.150 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT 25.32.130 Shoreline environment redesignation. A. Shoreline environments designated by the master program may be redesignated by the county council upon finding that such a redesignation will be consistent with the standards in K.C.C. 25.32.180. A shorelines redesignation may be initiated by an applicant or by motion of the council. B. A redesignation initiated by an applicant shall be made on forms and processed in a manner prescribed in K.C.C. 25.32.140. A redesignation initiated by the council shall follow the process in K.C.C. 25.32.150. C. The fee which shall accompany an application for a shoreline redesignation shall be as adopted by ordinance. D. The departmental report and recommendation regarding an application or a site - specific redesignation initiated by council motion shall be forwarded to the hearing examiner for consideration together with all relevant testimony at a public hearing to be held consistent with the procedures for a zone reclassification as provided in K.C.C. chapter 20.24. (Ord. 13687 § 2, 1999: Ord. 12196 § 63, 1996: Ord. 5734 § 17, 1981: Ord. 3688 § 813, 1978). 25.32.140 Redesignation applications. A. A redesignation initiated by an applicant, as described in K.C.C. 25.32.130B, must follow the procedures in K.C.C. chapters 20.20 and 20.24 for shorelines redesignations and must include the following information in addition to the requirements in K.C.C. chapter 20.20: 1. Applicant information, including signature, telephone number and address; 2. The applicant's interest in the property, such as owner, buyer or consultant; 3. Property owner concurrence, including signature, telephone number and address; 4. A property description, including parcel number, property street address and nearest cross street; 5. A county assessor's map outlining the subject property; 6. Related or previous permit activity; 7. A description of the proposed. shorelines redesignation; 8. A mitigation plan providing for significant enhancement of the first one hundred feet adjacent to the shoreline and improved habitat for species declared as endangered or threatened under the CIA) Endangered Species Act, to the extent that the impacts of development can be determined at the time of the proposed shoreline redesignation. 9. A discussion of how the proposed shorelines redesignation meets the criteria in K.C.C. 25.32.180. B. The examiner shall make a recommendation to the council based on the criteria for review in K.C.C. 25.32.180. (Ord. 13687 § 3, 1999). 25.32.150 Redesignations initiated by motion. A. A motion initiating a shorelines redesignation, as described in K.C.C. 25.32.1308 must be accompanied by the following information: 1. A description of the shoreline reach and a property description, including parcel numbers, property street addresses and nearest cross streets, for all properties that the shoreline runs through or is adjacent to; 2. A county assessor's map outlining the subject property or properties; and 3. A description of the proposed shorelines redesignation. B. If the motion proposes site = specific redesignation, as "site" is defined in K.C.C. Title 21A, the redesignation shall be referred to the hearing examiner for consideration following the procedures of K.C.C. 25.32.140 for consideration of redesignation application. Any other redesignation proposal initiated by motion shall be referred to the executive for consideration as to whether the redesignation is appropriate for review as part of the annual or four -year Comprehensive Plan update, or should proceed independent of the annual or four year update process, such as through a subarea planning process. C. A motion initiating a site- specific redesignation must identify the resources and the work program required to provide the same level of review accorded to an applicant- generated shorelines redesignation. Before adoption of the motion, the executive shall have the opportunity to provide an analysis of the motion's fiscal impact. If the executive determines that additional funds are necessary to complete the work program, the executive may transmit an ordinance requesting the appropriation of supplemental funds. The council may consider the supplemental appropriation ordinance concurrently with the proposed motion referring the shorelines redesignation proposal to the examiner. 25-62 (King County 12 -99) PROCEDURES 25.32.150 - 25.32.180 D. A site- specific redesignation initiated by motion shall follow the procedures in K.C.C. chapters 20.20 and 20.24 for shorelines redesignations with regard to the information to be provided and the notice and hearing processes, and shall meet the submittal requirements of K.C.C. 25.32.140. The examiner shall make a recommendation to the council based on the criteria for review in K.C.C. 25.32.180. (Ord. 13687 § 4, 1999) 25.32.160 Frequency of consideration of shorelines redesignations. A. A shorelines redesignation may not be initiated unless at least three years have elapsed since the council's prior consideration of the current designation for the property. The executive or the council may waive this time limit if the proponent establishes that there exists either an obvious technical error or a change in circumstances justifying the need for earlier consideration of the shorelines redesignation. (Ord. 13687 § 5, 1999). 25.32.170 Joining of application for or motion to consider shorelines redesignation and site - specific land use map amendment or zone reclassification. A site- specific shorelines redesignation may be accompanied by a related proposal for a site- specific land use map amendment or zone reclassification, or both, in which case county review of the two applications must be consolidated to the extent practical, consistent with this ordinance and K.C.C. chapter 20.20. The council's consideration of a subarea or comprehensive shorelines redesignation is a legislative decision that must be determined before and separate from the council's final consideration of a zone reclassification or site - specific shorelines redesignation, which is a quasi-judicial decision. (Ord. 13687 § 6, 1999). 25.32.180 Criteria for hearing examiner review. A shorelines redesignation referred to the hearing examiner for a public hearing shall be reviewed based upon the requirements of Comprehensive Plan policies NE -308 and 1 -202, state and county shorelines management goals and objectives and the following additional standards: A. The proposed change implements and supports the goals of the comprehensive plan, the goals, policies and objectives of the state Shorelines Management Act and the county's shorelines master Coi, program and the designation criteria of the shoreline environment designation requested; B. The impacts of development allowed by the proposed change will not permanently impair any habitat critical to endangered or threatened species. C. The impacts of development allowed by the proposed change are adequately addressed in a mitigation plan providing significant enhancement of the first one hundred feet adjacent to the stream and improved habitat for species declared as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act, to the extent those impacts may be determinable at the time of the shorelines redesignation. A full mitigation plan shall accompany each application, as provided in K.C.C. 25.32.140 and K.C.C. 25.32.150; and D. If greater intensity of development would be allowed as a result of the shorelines redesignation, the proposal shall utilize clustering or a multi -story design to pursue minimum densities while minimizing lot coverage adjacent to the shorelines setback area. (Ord. 13687 § 7, 1999). (King County 12 -99) 25-63 173 -27 -170 Title 173 WAC: Ecology, Departme if (b) That the proposed use will not interfere with the nor- mal public use of public shorelines; (c) That the proposed use of the site and design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehen- sive plan and shoreline master program; (d) That the proposed use will cause no significant adverse effects to the shoreline environment in which it is to be located; and (e) That the public interest suffers no substantial detri- mental effect. (2) In the granting of all conditional use permits, consid- eration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if condi- tional use permits were granted for other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist, the total of the condi- tional uses shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. (3) Other uses which are not classified or set forth in the applicable master program may be authorized as conditional uses provided the applicant can demonstrate consistency with the requirements of this section and the requirements for con- ditional uses contained in the master program. (4) Uses which are specifically prohibited by the master program may not be authorized pursuant to either subsection (1) or (2) of this section. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.140(3) and [90.58].200.96 -20 -075 (Order 95 -17), § 173 -27 -160, filed 9/30/96, effective 10/31/96.1 WAC 173 -27 -170 Review` criteria for variance per- mits. The purpose of a variance permit is strictly limited to granting relief from specific bulk, dimensional or perfor- mance standards set forth in the applicable master program where there are extraordinary circumstances relating to the physical character or configuration of property such that the strict implementation of the master program will impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart'the policies set forth in RCW 90.58.020. (1) Variance permits should be granted in circumstances where denial of the permit would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances the applicant must demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances shall be shown and the public interest shall suffer no substan- tial detrimental effect. (2) Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located landward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(b), and/or land- ward of any wetland as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(h), may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: (a) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master pro- gram precludes, or significantly interferes with, reasonable use of the property; (b) That the hardship described in (a) of this subsection is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the master program, and not, [Title 173 WAC p. 2241 for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions; (c) That the design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline mas- ter program and will not cause adverse impacts to the shore. line environment; (d) That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area; (e) That the variance requested is the minimum neces- sary to afford relief; and (f) That the public interest will suffer no substantial det- rimental effect. (3) Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located waterward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), as defined in RCW 90.5 8.030 (2)(b), or within any wetland as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(h), may be autho- rized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the fol- lowing: (a) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master pro- gram precludes all reasonable use of the property; (b) That the proposal is consistent with the criteria estab- lished under subsection (2)(b) through (f) of this section; and (c) That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected. (4) In the granting of all variance permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example if variances were granted to other developments and/or uses in the area where similar circumstances exist the total.of the variances shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not cause substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. (5) Variances from the use regulations of the master pro- gram are prohibited. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.140(3) and [9058].200.96 -20 -075 (Order 95 -17), § 173 -27 -170, filed 9/30/96, effective 10/31/96.] WAC 173 -27 -180 Application requirements for sub- stantial development, conditional use, or variance permit. A complete application for a substantial development, condi- tional use, or variance permit shall contain, as a minimum, the following information: (1) The name, address and phone number of the appli- cant. The applicant should be the owner of the property or the primary proponent of the project and not the representative of the owner or primary proponent. (2) The name, address and phone number of the appli- cant's representative if other than the applicant. (3) The name, address and phone number of the property owner, if other than the applicant. (4) Location of the property. This shall, at a minimum, include the property address and identification of the section, township and range to the nearest quarter, quarter section or latitude and longitude to the nearest minute. All applications for projects located in open water areas away from land shall provide a longitude and latitude location. (5) Identification of the name of the shoreline (water body) that the site of the proposal is associated with. This ATTACHMENT B2 (2003 Ed.) F.Mr.001 I FITURIU0 L05-051 DAVIS PROPERTIES SHORELINE VARIANCE fScale: V =,400' N CityGIS5 Copyrigtt 0 2004, Al I R ghts Reserved The information contained herein is the proprietary property d the ccrdributors supplied under license and may rot be reproduced except as licensed by Digital Map Products I RECEIVED SHORELINE VARIANCE DAVIS PROPERTY AND INVESTMENT AUG 10 2005 King County Parcel No. 542260 -0010 COMMUNITY 9929 East Marginal Way DEVELOPMENT Prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. August 2005 Our Job No. 10265 Pursuant to City of Tukwila adopted King County Shoreline Management Master Program (KCSMMP), 25.32.040, the Director is authorized to grant a variance from the performance standards of this master program only under the conditions enumerated in WAC[173 -27 -170] (Review Criteria for Variances). These criteria are written below in italics along with responses to each item as it relates to the project: Project Description: The proposal to redevelop the subject property, which is located in the Manufacturing/Industrial Center - Heavy (MIC/H) zoning district includes construction of an asphalt- surfaced storage yard, a warehouse storage building, parking, and travel lanes for on -site travel. Outdoor storage and warehouse storage are permitted uses in both the MIC/H zone and the urban environment (26.16.170) section of the KCSMMP. Variance Request: The proposed project requires two Shoreline Variances to allow (1) the proposed warehouse storage structure to exceed 35 feet in height above average grade pursuant to KCSMMP . 25.16.13, and (2) parking waterward of the proposed building, rather than beneath or upland pursuant to KCSMMP26.16.030.E. This variance is necessary because the site is an irregular shape that makes the 200 -foot shoreline jurisdiction's effect on the development of the site particularly onerous. A small portion of the proposed warehouse building is located within the shoreline jurisdiction. A transition for the height of the future building from the zoning- allowed 125 feet to the shoreline- allowed 35 feet would be difficult, incongruous to the development, and would not protect views of any residential properties. At this time, the height of the future building is unknown; however, the developer desires the flexibility to have a uniform building height of up to 125 feet, including the area within 200 feet of the Duwamish Waterway and/or Port of Seattle Slip No. 6, which are both regulated shoreline areas. Within the 200 -foot shoreline jurisdiction, the project pro 37 parking stalls waterward of the proposed building on the east half of the site; however, this parking may also be used for staff or patrons associated with the outdoor storage use on the west half of the site. The parking stalls have a variable width- landscaping strip (minimum 5 -foot wide) between the shoreline and the parking area, which will be landscaped in accordance with the shoreline and zoning requirements for type and quantity of vegetation. WAC 173 -27 -170 Review criteria for variance permits. The purpose of a variance permit is strictly limited to granting relief from specific bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program where there are extraordinary circumstances relating to the physical character or configuration of property such that the strict implementation of the master program will impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the policies set forth in RCW 90.58.020. (1) Variance permits should be granted in circumstances where denial of the permit would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances the applicant must demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances shall be shown and the public interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 4- 10265.003.doc ATTACHMENT E Response: The extraordinary circumstances that exist for the subject property and proposed development are that the site is in the relatively unique situation of having regulated shoreline on two sides (similar to a corner lot) such that there is an inordinate application of shoreline restrictions placed on development of the site. As shorelines are typically along only one property frontage, it is the corner location of the site on both the Duwamish Waterway and Port of Seattle Slip No. 6 that creates the need for both of these variance requests. By granting the variance request to allow a building hei hg_t up to 125 feet as allowed by zoning, there is no loss to the public interest because the building area that is within the shoreline jurisdiction will be consistent with the rest of the building that is outside of the shoreline area. The uniform roofline is more appropriate to the future warehouse use and does not impede views of any neighboring property. Also, granting the variance request to allow a limited amount of parking waterward of the proposed building does not result in a loss to the public interest because the parking area will not create ,any shipping or other impacts, it allows efficient use of the site for shared vehicle access and truck circulation, and it is compatible with the proposed use and surrounding development in the area. The elimination of this parking would make the proposed future building less viable as a multi tenant facility as the building access areas would be restricted to locations where parking was allowed; this creates a burden on the development that would not exist if the site were not located on a corner of shoreline. (2) Variance permits for development and /or uses that will be located landward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(b), andlor landward of any wetland as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(h), may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: (a) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes, or significantly interferes with, reasonable use of the property; Response: This criterion is met for the proposed building height increase as well as the proposed parking waterward of the building. Warehouse structures are typically tilt -up or metal construction where the resulting structure is a rectangular box that has a generally uniform roofline (although some roofline modulation is sometimes incorporated into the design). The construction of a warehouse building that has a small area that is only 35 feet tall, when the rest of the structure could be as high as 125 feet tall, would be inefficient in design, cost of construction, and future use by the tenant(s) of the building. Strict application would significantly interfere with the developer's use of the property consistent with the zoning and other developed sites in the area that are not constrained with two shoreline "frontages." It is typical for industrial or warehouse uses to combine drive aisles for parking with truck lanes and fire access lanes around a building. To efficiently utilize the site, strict application of the bulk, dimensional, and performance standards (disallowing parking waterward of the structure) would create net loss of parking that cannot be reallocated on site. (b.) That the hardship described in (a) of this subsection is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or -2- 10265.003.doc natural features and the application of the master program, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions; Response: The need for the variance is entirely caused by the configuration of the site having two shoreline "frontages." (c.) That the design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program and will not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment; Response: The proposed use is a listed permitted use in both the MIGH zoning district and the KCSMMP urban environment. Further, the use is consistent with neighboring uses. (d.) That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area; Response: Allowing the variance in this case does not grant a special privilege, as the need for both variances is the result of the comer orientation of the site to the Duwamish Waterway and Port of Seattle Slip No. 6. Other properties that are not so constrained have the ability to develop similarly or more intensely than this project proposes. (e.) That the variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief, and Response: A small area of the proposed building is located within the shoreline. The building is located as far east as possible to accommodate a double loaded parking area near East Marginal Way and as far north as possible to accommodate a truck loading area consistent with industry standards on the north side of the building. Only 37 of approximately 200 parking stalls are proposed within the shoreline area. All of the parking is proposed on areas that would be paved in any case to allow vehicle circulation and access. Landscaping is provided between the shoreline and the parking areas. (f.) That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. Response: The public interest will not suffer any detriment as the proposed variance items are minor and effect a small portion of the overall site development. Views will not be altered or eliminated by the small area of structural height increased from 35 feet to 125 feet because in either case (with or without variance), the appearance of the rectangular building from all angles would seem to be as tall as the highest areas. The parking would have no detrimental effect because it is consistent with typical site design for industrial uses, will not impact shipping or any other public travel. (3) Variance permits for development andlor uses that will be located waterward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(b), or within any wetland as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(h), may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: (a.) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes all reasonable use of the property; -3- 10265.003.doc (b.) That the proposal is consistent with the criteria established under subsection (2)(b) through (t) of this section; and (c.) That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected. Response: This section does not apply as all proposed activities are upland of the OHWM. (4) In the granting of all variance permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example if variances were granted to other developments and/or uses in the area where similar circumstances exist the total of the variances shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not cause substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. Response:. No cumulative impact to the public or neighboring properties or uses will result from allowing the building height increase or the parking water main of the future building. (5) Variances from the use regulations of the master program are prohibited. Response: The proposed use is consistent with allowed uses in the underlying City of Tukwila MIGH zoning district and the KCSMMP urban environment. -4- 10265.003.doc Q�GHA VSO m Z 0 �? sG <r�h6 ENG����• LOS-061 CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES January 4, 2006 COURIER DELIVERY Carol Lumb, Senior Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Responses to October 27, 2005 Comment Letter Davis Property and Investment 9229 East Marginal Way South, Tukwila, Washington Our Job No. 10265 Dear Carol: 1N3ftdC"" nn ALINr 190OZ V u NV Q3/►l:. 1605 -ol% LOS- 05U L� S- 051 LO S- 0 55 L.0S' 0 SI ot sc e.., 'SF-PA- Alf. LAS-M -0 46"WAwOVueT We have revised the plans and technical documents for the above- referenced project in accordance with your comment ' letters ` dated 'September 14, 2005 and October 27, 2005. Enclosed are the following documents for your review and approval 1. Six (6) copies of the revised plan set 2. Six (6) copies of the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by the Transpo Group, dated- December 2005 3. Six (6) °copies of the Western Parcel Redevelopment 'Work Plan prepared by Geomatrix Consultants; Inc., dated November 2005 4. Six (6) copies of the revised Shoreline Permit narrative 5. Six (6) copies of the BNSF deed and easement document recording no. 4781818 6. Six (6) copies of the Groundwater Pretreatment System Relocation Plan prepared by Geomatrix Consultants, Inc., dated January 2005' 7. Six (6) copies.of the Boundary and Topographic Survey Background: On page 1 of the October 27, 2005, letter, you noted that groundwater monitoring will begin soon to evaluate the effectiveness of the remediation, that exists on the site. Please note:that the remediation efforts and. groundwater monitoring has been an ongoing process for approximately seven years. For clarification regarding the location of recovery wells as well as the effectiveness of the current system, please refer to the enclosed documents prepared by Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. The following outline provides each of your comments in italics exactly as written, along with a narrative response describing how each comment was addressed: L05 -050- Shoreline Substantial Development Permit 1. As noted at the Pre - Application meeting on December 2, 2004, this site is governed by the King County Shoreline Master Program, not Tukwila's. The materials submitted with L05- 050 address Tukwila's shoreline criteria rather than King County's. A copy of King County's criteria is attached - please submit a response to K. CC 25.16030 and K.C.C. 25.16170. Response: Please see the enclosed Shoreline Permit narrative. ATTACHMENT F 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251 -6222 (425) 251 -8782 FAX BRANCH OFFICES ♦ OLYMPIA, WA ♦ TEMECULA, CA ♦ WALNUT CREEK, CA www.barghausen.com Carol Lumb, Senior Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development -2- January 4 2006 2. Since the site is governed by King County's Shoreline Master Program, please .revise all plans showing.. the shoreline environments to reflect the King County setbacks rather than. the City of Tukwila shoreline environments (River, Low Impact and High Impact). Response: The plans have been revised to show King County shoreline setbacks only. L05 -051: Shoreline Variance 3. The Variance °Request states that "(T)o efficiently utilize the site, strict application of the bulk dimensional; and performance standards (disallowing parking waterward of the structure) would ereate net loss of parking that cannot be reallocated on site." It appears there is room to flip the building orientation such that the parking, is, located on the north side of the proposed warehouse and the drive aisle is located on the south side. In addition, the site plan shows 201 parking stalls, when only 93 would be required fora 185,000 sq., foot warehouse.,. Since the site is over - parked, it would seem that the parking stalls in the shoreline can be eliminated. Response: The proposed building will have a gross floor area of approximately 84,000 square feet, including 12,6000 to 33,6000 square feet of office space (15 to 40%) and 50,4000 to 71,4000 square feet of warehouse- space (60 to 85 %) Parking has been provided to accommodate the maximum amount of expected parking demand as the warehouse building is a "speculative" building that may contain a myriad variation of uses. We have evaluated whether the existing, building could be flipped to provide loading on the south side (shoreline side) and para ing on ,the north side Because of the existing uses. on surrounding properties, (heavy industrial uses and storage uses to the north and Boeing Flight Museum property to the south) the orientation of the building, as currently proposed, better suites the proposed use and is more compatible with 'surrounding `properties.' The minor amount of parking" provided waterward of the proposed building within the shoreline j by additional landscaping. The entirety of the jurisdiction is screened from the shoreli parking' that falls within the shoreline jurisdiction is necessary parking adjacent to the,' proposed,, building. Removal of the` proposed 2g stalls within the shoreline jurisdiction adjacent to the building would result' in lengthy walking `conditions for employees or customers to the future uses within the proposed building: L05 -055 Administrative DesignReview 4. In a letter dated September 14, 2005, we requested building elevations, color and materials board, lighting plan and illustrations of any signage planned for the site. 'These materials are needed before Notice of Application can be issued. Response: These items are provided in the enclosed plan set. L05 -057: Short Plat 5. The short plat proposes to segregate off the portion of the site that is subject to the RCRA Consent Decree. We are concerned that since only interim remediation actions have been Carol Lumb, Senior Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development -3- January 4, 2006 taken so far to clean up the contamination, a short plat would possibly create on non - buildable lot if the remediation efforts are not successful In addition to the known contamination, we understand there is concern over what might be in the underground piping and tanks. No information was provided to the current owner about these issues when the property was sold. Please address this concern. Response: Container Properties agrees that contamination issues are relevant to the short plat proposal and to future development of the segregated portions of the site. However, the developer is addressing these issues actively and adequately with EPA, Region 10 under the existing Administrative Order on Consent (Order). Work lis presently underway to fully address each'of the City's concerns identified in this comment, as summarized below. Interim actions have been implemented for the western parcel; the most recent interim measure included construction `of a totally enclosing barrier wall surrounding the most highly affected soil and groundwater at the site. - This barrier wall provides containment to limit migration of contaminated groundwater from the site and has been proven successful in attaining containment objectives included in the approved work plan. Final remediation has not been implemented at the site; additional work, including ;preparation of the Corrective Measures Study and Corrective -Measures Implementation T Plan must bel prepared and approved by EPA prior to proceeding with final remediation of the-western- parcel. Container Properties has been working closely with EPA in performing -the interim actions that have been conducted at the site.. 'If is generally understood,by Container Properties and EPA =' that, assuming. no further :remedial construction is :necessary.. at the : site, :industrial buildings could >presently be `constructed ° over . contaminated , areas provided that; proper precautions are taken during: construction and in the design of the buildings Due to extent of contamination within the western parcel lit is unlikely that feasible remedial actions would successfully attain cleanup levels throughout: the parcels However, it should be noted that site contamination presents a low risk to human health. While toluene and elevated pH groundwater are present at the site, the primary site contaminant is copper,-,which primarily affects aquatic life in the nearby Duwamish Waterway. The containment approach to site remediation that is already in place is compatible' with development of 'industrial buildings and facilities on the parcel. Institutional controls restricting the site to industrial use and requiring appropriate safeguards for site construction and for preventing potential migration of vapors to the buildings would be required for future site redevelopment. The concerns expressed by the City are shared by EPA and by Container Properties. Container Properties is working with EPA to allow remediation of the' western parcel in a way that will allow it to be redeveloped for industrial use, including construction of new buildings. Under the terms of the Order, EPA must review and'approve all plans for remediation of the site. EPA is currently reviewing the redevelopment plan for the site to ensure that the development is consistent`with the remediation objectives: Regarding the concern that potential wastes or other materials that may be present in underground structures or process piping, Container Properties is currently' working closely with EPA to investigate and identify such materials. A formal work' plan to sample and Carol Lumb, Senior Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development -4- January 4, 2006 characterize these materials in the areas of concern has been prepared and approved by EPA. Most of the characterization - work has been completed; only characterization of above -grade process piping and vessels remains to be done. Of the work .completed to date for this work plan, only one location (a sump) was found to contain materials remaining <from. site operations. After completing characterization of the materials found, they will be removed and - disposed of properly. Process piping and vessel contents, will be assessed in :early January :when properly: trained contractors are available If materials are found in piping or vessels, it will be characterized and removed: A formal report will be submitted to EPA to document this work so that demolition can proceed.: After completion, of this process, it is expected that EPA. will approve the western parcel redevelopment plan that : has been submitted for their approval. 6 It is our understanding that some minor areas of soil contamination exist on the eastern part of our site. ,:Explain how and when these will be dealt, with and identify the, location .of the contaminated areas. Response: A formal:. work plan. has been prepared to address, this contamination; EPA. is presently;reviewing the work plan. The work'plan.summarized available site characterization data for the, eastern. parcel and identifies areas where . either: additional data are; needed to confirm contamination or proposes removal of contaminated soil. Confirmation sampling is included in the work: plan °to document attainment of Washington. Department ,of Ecology cleanup levels for unrestricted land use. _ A copy of this work, plan, which has not yet been approved by EPA, is attached.-, Container. Properties`is prepared to implement .this: work plan upon;, approval'. by EPA. ,The :actual. implementation schedule will ;depend on receipt. of approval from EPA and the availability:. of environmental ;contractors toperform the removal actionsi included in -the work plan. It is expected that EPA- will- approve removal of the eastern parcel from the Order after: completing this work. Corrections to Plans: - 7. Revise the plans to show the three groundwater; recovery , wells in addition to the monitoring wells. , Response: The groundwater recovery wells have been called out on the enclosed site plans. Please refer to the Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. reports for status of all of the wells on site. 8. The plans must indicate where the existing groundwater pretreatment facility is located, as well as the proposed new location. In addition, both existing and proposed piping details must be provided.on the plans. Response: The pretreatment system.has already been relocated. The relocation work has nearly been completed — a new building was constructed to house the system and it was connected to power on January 3, 2006. All pretreatment equipment has been moved.. It will be operated and maintained as it was before. The old building is now vacant and is being readied for demolition. Carol Lumb, Senior Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development -5- January 4, 2006 9. The plans must indicate the current location of the on -site King County lift station and indicate whether it will also be relocated. Response: The old pretreatment system required use of a lift station. The new system does not use the lift station — the lift station has been bypassed. The old lift station will be demolished along with the rest of the site buildings. 10. It is unclear from review of the documents provided how the groundwater recovery wells, the groundwater pretreatment system piping, monitoring wells, and the upper surface of the slurry walls will be protected during grading and construction. Please explain, and if appropriate, provide revised drawings. Response: Please see the enclosed Western Parcel of Redevelopment Work Plan for a detailed description of the groundwater recovery well and pretreatment : system decommissioning as well as the proposal for future groundwater monitoring and groundwater extraction wells that will remain. Specifically, please see Section 4.3.3, page 18 of the Western Parcel of Redevelopment Work Plan. SEPA Checklist: 11. Section B.1 .item f. The response to the question of whether erosion could occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use, does not make any sense. The slurry wall. does nothing to protect sediment from leaving the site, as it is below ground and water constructed to intercept groundwater, not surface water. Response: It is unlikely that erosion could occur during clearing, construction, or use, provided that the temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures depicted on the enclosed TESC plans, as well as Section 4.2 of the Western Parcel of Redevelopment Work Plan, are followed closely. Silt fencing has been placed around the perimeter of the site and catch basin filters will be placed on every catch basin during site development. 12. Section B.7. items 1 and 2. The City should be provided with a copy of the EPA - approved Operation, Monitoring, Inspection, and Maintenance Plan referenced in the SEPA Checklist. Response: Enclosed are copies of the Western Parcel Redevelopment Work Plan as well as copies of the operation, monitoring, inspection, and maintenance plan as referenced in the SEPA checklist. Please note that neither of these plans have received EPA approval; however, both are under review by EPA `at this time. 13. A detailed health and safety plan will be necessary for any grading /filling work on the site, including emergency measures and daily decontamination procedures. Please provide the City with a copy of the plan for the SEPA file when it has been prepared. Response: The Health and Safety Plan is included in the enclosed Western Parcel Redevelopment Work Plan prepared by Geomatrix dated November 2005. Carol Lumb, Senior Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development -6- January 4, 2006 LandscyRing Plan 14. Since a variance is being requested from the King County shoreline requirement to, place parking either under buildings or landward of the shoreline, please provide a schematic that shows how the landscaping adjacent to the shoreline will look one year after planting and three years after planting. Response We have removed some of the parking between the proposed building and the shoreline and replaced it with landscaping: We can provide conceptual landscaping elevations (if necessary) once the landscaping plans have been generally accepted by the City. 15. Please enlarge the portion of the proposed landscaping for the streetscape and the front of the building - it is difficult to identify all the plants that are proposed for these locations. Response: Enclosed is a 1 " =20' enlargement of the eastern side of the building as well as the landscaping fronting East Marginal Way South for your review. Please note that this is a blowup of just a portion of the preliminary Landscaping Planting Plan, which is provided entirely as Sheet L1 of 2 in the plan set. 16. Please confirm the location of the Cornus Kousa — are these trees proposed along the front of the building? Response: We have altered the symbol for the Comus Kousa so that they are more visible along the east side of the building. I T. I only count 16 ThujaPlicata 'Excelsa.' Response: We. have verified the correct count (20) of. Thuja Plicata 'Excelsa' in the Landscape Planting Material Legend on Sheet L1 of 2. 18. The common name of.Pennisetum Alopecuroides 'Hameln' is listed as Oregon Grape, which is incorrect. Please correct the table. Response: The common name for Pennisetum Alopecuroides 'Hameln' has been corrected. 19. Landscaping is required to screen the proposed storage yard from the shoreline. Response: Existing vegetation surrounding the property along the shoreline will screen the .proposed storage yard. Disruption of this existing vegetation to replant with landscaping materials may be more.deleterious than keeping the,existing vegetation in place. Public Works Comments :. 20. Please refer to the Pre - application Meeting comments from Public Works. A copy is included. A number of the items on the Public Works comment sheet were not included or M Carol Lumb, Senior Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development -7- January 4, 2006 addressed in the submittal materials. Please provide the missing items that are highlighted on the enclosed Checklist. Response: Enclosed is a Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by the Transpo Group dated December 2005. Also enclosed is the Boundary and Topographic Survey, which identifies existing easements on the site. Finally, enclosed is documentation regarding ownership for Parcel 542260 -0015, which indicates access and utility rights to the subject property (please see enclosed Warranty Deed, recording no. 4781818) exist over the BNSF property. 21. Provide a Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by an engineer licensed in Washington State that includes analysis of turning movements at the existing signalized access and at the proposed additional access. The site plan can not be evaluated properly without knowing what traffic impacts need mitigation. Response: Please see the enclosed Traffic Impact Analysis. 22. Please provide civil sheet(s) that include: a. All existing easements that° will. °remain after the demolition and all new easements, including access across BNSF property. Response: The civil sheets have been revised to identify easements that will remain as well as new easements after project development. Access rights across the BNSF property are established by the enclosed Warranty Deed recording no. 47848.18 provision [I], which states: "the Grantor expressly reserves to itself, its successors or assigns, the right for its servants and agents, and any other person or persons acting for the benefit, or on behalf, of Grantor, its successors or assigns to cross the strip or parcel of land hereby conveyed at such place or places and at such time or times as the Grantor, it successors or assigns, may desire, and the Grantor further expressly reserves to itself, its successors or assigns, the right to cross said strip or parcel of land at any time with electric, water, gas, telephone, or other utility service lines, entrances or exits in a manner which will not obstruct the railroad uses of said strip or parcel of land; ". b. Plans that indicate what will remain after all of the demolition and removal of pipes, catch basins, etc. The plans provided include all of the existing sewer, water, and storm drainage elements, making it difficult to sort out what will remain. Please note that the demolition notes do not correlate to the utility locations on the drawings, so it is difficult to tell what will be removed as part of the demolition. (see Sheet E2 for example) Response: We have revised civil and demolition sheets to make it more clear what will remain and what will be removed during project development. Carol Lumb, Senior Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development -8- January 4, 2006 c. Any measures needed to alleviate or improve turning movement conflicts at the accesses points. Response: As indicated in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by the Transpo Group dated December 2005, the intersection of South 92nd Place and East Marginal Way South has a split phased green signal such that - turning movements for the subject property and the property to the north do not conflict with each other. Under existing conditions, the intersection of South 92nd Place and East Marginal Way South operates at LOS A:' d. Rerouting of the 36" storm drain. (Refer to the Technical Information Report) Response: The rerouted storm drain is depicted on the site plans. 23. Provide approval from BNSF to cross property for access. Response: As indicated on the enclosed Easement Recording ,No. 4781818, additional approval from BNSF to cross property for access is not necessary as a reservation for access and utilities is part of the legal description for the BNSF property. We believe that the above responses, together with the enclosed revised. ,plan and. technical documents, address all of the comments in your .letters dated 'September 14, ;2005; and ;October 22,, 2005. Please review and approve the enclosed at your earliest convenience. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact me at this office. Thank you. Respectfully, Ivana Halvorsen Senior Planner IH/ath/pj 10265c.009.doc enc: As Noted cc: Jeff Davis, Davis Property and Investment (w /enc) Larry McGaughey, Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. Daniel K. Balmelli, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Brendan T Madden, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. City ot Tukwila Department of Community Development / 6300 Southcenter BI, Suite 100 / Tukwila, WA 98188 / (206)431 -3670 DETERMINATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) File Number: E05 -011 Applied: 08/08/2005 Issue Date: 04/18/2006 Status: ISSUED Applicant: BARGHAUSEN ENGINEERING ATTN IVANA HALVORSEN Lead Agency: City of Tukwila Description of Proposal: Davis Property and Investment - Preparation of site and development of 84,000 square feet of warehouse and associated office development. Location of Proposal: Address: Parcel Number: Section/Township/Range: 9229 EAST MARGINAL WY S TUKW 5422600010 SW 1/4 AND SE 1/433 -24 -04 The City has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21c.030(2) (c). This decision was made.after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. This DNS is issued under WAC 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by NG? 3, The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 (206)431 -3670 Date Any appeal shall be linked to a specific governmental action. The State Environmental Policy Act is not intended to create a cause of action unrelated to a specific governmental action. Appeals of environmental determinations shall be commenced within the time period to appeal the governmental action that is subject to environmental review. (RCW 43.21 C.075) ATTACHMENT G doc: DNS E05 -011 Printed: 04 -18 -2006 SHORELINE SITE PLAN FOR DAVIS PROPERTY AND INVESTMENT A PORTION OF THE SOUTH 112 OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHiP 24 N, RANGE 4 E, W.M. MG COUNTY, WASHINGTON ,t l IRO" 117MC3 - M M OOWI VOW( 1111.0- »101 NODo0 MO. el WPM Of 140 IMO Soso. Kt..) .. Wofb.. ninuprl/ - otOftp �/f ww.iY w MO yyYr -y mu -iMn µl $1111.1 la IS 111 woo wan woo or 0140.4 WMwv MALL 10011 a0WIW1 - 117310 M Mn 0 w "0 N0Ms ooa pwa au Moot a 100010110.10 010 • OOP MVO NR4 .n !Yea ler wtlf MALL Nn r..M• 731 VOW VW 1. owu .w MOWS 404 WI Ian R1) DATA 1. 600 nR4 01 30.0-0310 1. VS AMOS. 010 On WOW. ww 1 -..1/N 1w`lw/CIISISO WDI{1ML 4O7MV4lax Moir.) a 0011000( nook 04/4 I. COMO 1730 07130.111014 RY»urol / wwD MUM la . r.awfa O.: 00000 roux - wglolR P.O. O VMS Ow•1M4M 730 .1311011 OW. N 3IDIf -10*4 41{TrLF TEC• ow 00.71{10 oo0iM1'1; YC Imn f V. , le WW»il 7101 t -i0 IN•Ma Owt4 11.1 IO-0w Kt: 100-10 baa9[ ENSAMIE VAIV@V PLMRER 10110.0 4041100 0415.. Ir. 113717{1 Y MOM (041 001 -7311 f.k 1.14 33l -4171 COMM D4 Mo./ * 4 . 0 / 0 , 5 04 431004101 •s rinte.rw ! ±1 w'vrvr nn' -N ?Th4'i1'y AUG 0 8 2009 SHEET l= or swim al rum M fY04400 MN1 =Toes RAY Or 0.Y puff . >n< OMOI.O. 101 CM 003 0OWIROOr1.W -.Of SVC ': tlOf .100013110 P.M -WI N4 CIO 10011101 -NOM MO IWO WNW Ns ti If MONO 0a071.1 OWN* I 4 -woo xt CIan MOM Ma IMO MI.W1 -4011 !1 a r14N..u' wo1T1R u v ..atONM pawl R E IVE D 'AUG 8 8 2005 CnMMe iA11 ry 17 .rllail LESIALIZIKBEGO iMVnw N00.'1.r 1 rIY. 0.54. � 0444 fn. 11 N 4w wM x« ft, 0 w.1 r.4NIb w Cu. .40+ 11001.wN10ant.*.4w0D.01. i07.07*0444*..l w l04*,�7l, 74.411 44.04 roww Cool �l N. NM ../ 044. 0100 �.+ N b+1 HO 31001 wf4r 11, 400 N 411 (*4 4 444 NM.. 1140 Cow, b IM ...ew1M ..M 10,.0,.1. VP* L*400 W 4440 Ow* 0 00 ..00 w 41 444 N M N 145.441 w. 1.1 w Vol wM w.NNW * I*.1 tw r, 4. •.N,.a. .w k coma p M .wow 0410 N owl So M 0.r .0. 41.. 1Ow Dnn 4.+Y sr ,r I.fe1. N 140.41 4w 10.0 W '.0 wan N 411 Yry..l V' ff. 17 N•. ten irwl.3 N p. Ow totem IrD.M»4Kw of No. WWI . M+/so. 7173.In, n. w M. Nam .u. Sow* H / m. 4,00 1 b.l 04.54 rw.. N AN, plw. 14.5011400 Yews Owl 1 wls of 374 11 M to .w w M w Lwow. 0* !34170 11 * Pouf RM�1N.1Oa N W Soo ,f; 110(3 V6.4 Ir/.ww.of NW{lO f11D 111OOC Iran V Or 31 toot • *Wow M 11.011.4 NOI. 4w • rww 1jNIdOMbYw b111OM •50' N IM Wrap ow 140 M Ms W?4.. N 54 Lw IN. O 1fuwMO w r. 73.0044* NM 1444 Oa 4.0,0. 0w. W, 1ww _row IrwSo' KO • 4ws N 100.01 1.w 5...f IY• twos. 4Yw l4. w wln it of If • 4 w w liar/ M w,1 Ow Moor MVO. 4 1..0 V.e fop /aow 44u 111 0w 0004 M Woo dokw M • YK..N .40 W. ww.4M.rP� N O..Yw*00%. Mr. 144 �r.My 4100 w M do 1.0.04, wM .Nw %.■ or •f mO !M YEN 4e 4 MM .0 w Y4 *R'1 hw1 01 OMNMO wY. 0U Ow. tV 31 Y40. 114. 0 ta0. 1wC . Nfil; W. M N' W I.M. 414 H 4717141 110/7 M0M IT b 003. Vow. N 111404.! N0a'110 ST Of »' Mw ft 41• w 114.044 70Ct 0. 70 0''.»' M.. 1w.M w 1.0.17) hoe 01001I.MOI'1T 31101. 4arw N VOA 100 b M COWS Ws N M. 0r4r ow 01410.!31 MIp.* MN M. I N ...wow of ow U.... 7..1 M.w 7411 M rwwl mom. 5. MM IWM7. 4501 w nor. 04 MM w Soo.... wM4r11•f Soo. 111011. lAM 4 1 N 10.!73 D.o. N 4•f, 7N. of 1p10µ MIW - 4.73 Y 4701. *SOWS 07.04 MFY WM 0 If» ww -» - MONK r10RCf 0.731410 7111 INS 1001 w 873x104 404x100 000301.. r WM IYw WNW WOW ON 00 0! s WWI S. M10R NmrM »1 VC 1! 104_*{ M iM Of SW SAL 100 M DV 0.l WOW. an (.1304..0613173 n MVO Of M 1. - QOM p -.0 I1.M 1031107304{ biW - .a 13 1005 • 11 SW 00111 IOC YOO IMO 4O005 Y 00 sOMNSO S f1D031 • .1. ,7441 4173 OVINII al0001! 00,4 wow M4 0 RS 7373.1* . Wows 1%. 333, 4w 1M1rr .foss 4.14 31131 *0311 00.1 rr 114'0 a, »w MAY 10,11310014e 7R.Ir..nw F4 Q u! d City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster Director u_ __ u_ I ' April 14, 2006 To: Steve Lancaster, Director Fm: Carol Lumb, Senio anner Re: Project File No E05 -011 Davis – Former Rhone Poulanc Site Planned Action Project Description: The project proposes to redevelop 19.5 acres adjacent to the Duwamish River to include: repaving the western portion of the site for lease to an adjacent property owner, Insurance Auto Auctions, and construction of an 84,000 sq. ft. warehouse /office building with as-( - ;rated parking, installation of storm water and sanitary sewer and water service on the eastern .1 the site. The site is regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The site is proposed to be short platted into two parcels, with the building construction to occur on the eastern-most lot. Approval to demolish the existing structures on the site was the subject of a previous SEPA approval, E04 -021. In 2002, SEPA was issued (E02 -021) to permit the construction of a subsurface barrier wall to encircle contaminated groundwater to control migration of contaminants into the Duwamish Waterway and Slip 6. Proponent: Ivana Halvorson, Barghausen Engineering for property owner, Davis Properties Location: 9229 East Marginal Way South Date Checklist prepared: August, 2005, revised September 7, 2005 Lead Agency: City of Tukwila, Department of Community Development CL Page. I of 7 04/14 /2006 4 :30:00 PM _ n- Da is Pronertie-,\SFPA Staff Rnt "' 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax. 206 - 431 -3665 Planned Action SEPA Review – E05 -011 Davis Development – Former Rhone /Poulenc Site April 14, 2006 Challenges to Document: None Other Agencies of Jurisdiction: Washington State Department of Ecology United States Environmental Protection Agency Recommendation: Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) Background: The site is within the project area for the Tukwila Manufacturing /Industrial Center Integrated GMA Implementation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. The Integrated Plan and Final EIS were completed in March, 1998. Both the Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment EIS and the Tukwila Manufacturing /Industrial Center Integrated GMA Implementation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement analyze the environmental impacts of a range of development and redevelopment alternatives on properties in the MIC corridor. The proposed project meets the criteria for Planned Action SEPA: • the proposed uses are permitted in the MIC /H district;. • impacts from the project will be mitigated by the time the project is complete; • the project is consistent with the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, specifically Goal 11. 1, supporting development of new industrial activities in the MIC and Policy 1.1.2, assisting landowners in remediating site problems caused by contaminated soil. • the project is not an essential public facility, related to light rail or commuter rail, the 16th Avenue South Bridge or include development waterward of the ordinary high water mark. The site has been under industrial use since the 1930s. In the 1930's a plant to produce glue for use in plywood manufacturing was constructed on this site. In 1946, the site was purchased by Monsanto Chemical Co., which continued the manufacture of glue as well as paints, resins, and storage of wood preservatives. Monsanto began vanillin production in 1952 which continued through the sale of the property to Rhone- Poulenc in 1986. The vanillin manufacturing facility closed in 1991. Historic releases of hazardous substances occurred at the site. Released materials include caustic soda, toluene, mineral oil, PCBs and copper. Corrective action for the historic releases is being addressed under a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Administrative Order on Consent issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 (Docket .# 1091- 11- 20- 3- 8(h)). CL Page 2 of 04/14;20064:30:00 PM q:`,Davis Properties`.SEPA Staff Rpt.doc Planned Action SEPA R� N — E05 -011 Davis Development — Former Rhone/Poulenc Site April 14, 2006 Summary of Primary Impacts: I�F�1 The site is generally flat and almost entirely covered by impervious surface except for some landscaping around existing buildings (to be demolished) and adjacent to the chain link fence that surrounds the property. A small amount of grading occurred when the groundwater pretreatment system associated with the hydraulic control interim measure was relocated earlier this year. Additional grading will occur when with the demolition of existing pavement and buildings for repaving and the new warehouse /office building. There will also be trenching for the installation of storm water lines on the western portion of the site and excavation for the installation of the stormceptor system. Some erosion could occur as a result of the construction activities when the existing paving and buildings are removed. There may also be some excavation of contaminated soils on the eastern portion of the site. The Draft East Parcel Cleanup Work Plan, prepared in November, 2005 by Geomatrix, identifies several areas that are slightly above clean-up standards. The applicant is working with EPA to identify the appropriate course of action for this portion of the site. A statistical sampling of the whole eastern parcel will be prepared and reviewed by EPA; it is possible that no clean up will be required of this portion or that small "hot spots" will be excavated (telephone conversation 4/14/06 with Gary Dupuy, East Parcel Cleanup Project Coordinator, Geomatrix). Temporary erosion and sedimentation control (TESC) measures will be implemented prior to construction, including catch basin protection, silt control fences and other best management practices. Air During demolition, vehicle and construction equipment emissions and dust will be released. Dust and vehicular emission from construction is expected. After construction, automobile and truck emissions typical of heavy industrial uses can be expected at the site. Water The Duwamish River borders the site on the west and south. The Checklist states that the site is a registered Superfund site, however this is not correct. The site has been contaminated by the previous chemical manufacturing activities and is subject to ongoing governmental oversight and environmental monitoring including ongoing monitoring and maintenance of the groundwater extraction and treatment system by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Remediation activities and substantial environmental testing has occurred since the former Rhone Poulenc operations ceased in 1991. Remediation activities are ongoing pursuant to the 2002 Interim Measures Construction Work Plan, prepared by Geomatrix Consultants Inc. dated June 3, 2003. A number of construction activities will take place within the 200 -foot shoreline of the Duwamish — removal of existing buildings and asphalt, grading, removal of existing railroad track, repaving the site and construction of a 84,000 sq. ft. warehouse /office building with associated parking. CL Page 3 of 7 04/18/2006 8:58:00 AM q:\Davis Properties \SEPA Staff Rpt.doc Planned Action SEPA Review — ,5 -011 Davis Development — Former Rhone/Poulenc Site April 14, 2006 Treated storm water runoff will discharge directly to the Duwamish River; water quality treatment will be provided for the development using the requirements of the King County Surface Water Design Manual. Stormwater from the site will be collected and treated in two water quality stormceptors and then discharged via a 36 -inch King County stormwater pipe to the Duwamish Waterway. The building permit application will be required to include a design approval letter from the stormwater treatment manufacturer and a storm drainage maintenance schedule that clearly identifies who, what, when and how maintenance will be performed. This will be recorded on the title of the property. Subsurface low permeability barrier walls surrounding the western portion of the site were installed in accordance with the EPA approved Interim Control Measure The barrier walls were installed to contain the contaminated portion of the site to the maximum extent practicable. A system of groundwater extraction wells and a pre - treatment system were installed to pump groundwater from the inside of the contained area, thereby creating an inward groundwater gradient. The pre - treated groundwater is discharged to a publicly owned treatment works, owned and operated by King County and permitted under the Clean Water Act. The groundwater pre- treatment system is an integral part of the Hydraulic Control Interim Measure; this system has been relocated as part of the redevelopment of the site. Groundwater withdrawal will be equal to the amounts currently withdrawn. Numerous wells were installed at the site during site characterization and as part of the interim remedial measures that have been implemented. Some of the wells are being used for monitoring or remediation purposes, but a number are no longer used. Wells represent a potential flow path for surface spills to enter groundwater. Wells can become damaged from surface activities, particularly uses that involve heavy equipment such as when the western portion of the site is graded and the elevation increased and when the storm water system is installed. The applicant is planning to abandon all wells that are not required for long -term monitoring prior to site grading and filling. Geomatrix Consultants Inc. has prepared the Western Parcel Redevelopment Work Plan, dated November, 2005 to guide the well abandonment and protection of wells to be retained. The wells will be abandoned by a licensed driller in accordance with the Department of Ecology well abandonment procedures. Geomatrix Consultants has also prepared the Draft East Parcel Cleanup Work Plan, for the eastern portion of the site that will be developed with the proposed warehouse/office building. The casing of the retained wells will be extended up to the new grade of the site. The redeveloped site will cap the existing ground surface, which is expected to help reduce or eliminate storm water penetration and seepage into the contaminated soils. Project generated waste materials are unlikely to enter the groundwater as storm water from the repaved parking areas and buildings will be collected in a closed catch basin and pipe system that will be directed to an underground water quality vault prior to release into the Duwamish River. Plants As noted above, the site is almost 100% impervious surface with some landscaping features that remain around the existing abandoned buildings. These plantings will be removed when the CL Page 4 of 7 04/18/2006 8:58:00 AM q:\Davis Properties \SEPA Staff Rpt.doc Planned Action SEPA RP v — E05 -011 Davis Development— Fo __-r Rhone /Poulenc Site April 14, 2006 buildings are demolished. Landscaping will be planted as part of an approved design for the proposed warehouse/office building and parking areas and will also be provided on the west and south sides of the site as part of an approved Shoreline Substantial Development permit to provide screening. Animals The site is adjacent to the Duwamish Waterway, which is a migratory route for Chinook, Chum, Coho, Pink, Steelhead, and Cuthroat Salmon and Bull Trout. The site is also on the route of the Pacific Flyway, a migratory bird route. Energy/Natural Resources The site will use electricity for parking lot and building lighting and electricity or possibly natural gas for building heating and operations. No lighting is proposed for the western portion of the site where the auto storage is proposed. The proposed warehouse /office is required to meet the Washington State Energy Code. Environmental Health As the property contains contaminated soils, exposure to hazardous materials is a risk during construction. An Operation, Monitoring, Inspection and Maintenance Plan has been prepared which will be approved by EPA prior to redevelopment activities. The Plan specifies procedures for protection of contractor health and safety during site grading. The site redevelopment as proposed will effectively cap the surface to eliminate or reduce storm water seepage that would contribute to off -site impacts from contaminants. A number of the monitoring wells that are no longer being used will be capped, which will also reduce the possibility of additional environmental health hazards from the site. The site is located in an industrial area with the noises associated with industrial activity. Land/Shoreline Uses The site was formerly used to manufacture vanillin. The existing structures will be demolished prior to the redevelopment of the property. The site is bordered on the north by an auto auction storage yard; to the south a Port of Seattle Slip and Boeing Development Center; on the east by the King County Airport and on the west by the Duwamish Waterway. The property is within the Manufacturing Industrial Center/Heavy zoning district. Portions of the site are within 200 feet of the Duwamish Waterway, a shoreline of the state. The site is governed by the King County Shoreline Master Program (SMP), as this area was annexed from unincorporated King County and is not covered by the City's Shoreline Master Program. The County SMP designates the site as Urban Environment. King County Code Title 25 contains the regulations for development in the industrial shoreline area. The applicant has applied for a shoreline substantial development permit and a shoreline variance for placing parking waterward of the proposed building and for an increase in building height in the shoreline environment. CL Page 5 of 7 04118/2006 8:58:00 AM gADavis Properties\SEPA Staff Rpt.doc Planned Action SEPA Review — Lv5 -011 Davis Development — Former Rhone/Poulenc Site April 14, 2006 The applicant is proposing to short plat the site into two parcels and lease the western parcel to the auto auction storage yard located on the north side of the site. The other parcel will be developed with an 84,000 sq. ft. warehouse /office building with associated parking. Housing Not applicable. Aesthetics The applicant has requested a shoreline variance to permit the warehouse /office building to be higher than 35 feet within the 200 foot shoreline environment. The building will not block residential views of the shoreline. Light/Glare No significant glare will be generated by the proposed development as lighting will be limited to fixtures mounted on the warehouse /office building. No lighting is proposed in the parking lot supporting the proposed building or the parking area on the western portion of the site to be leased by the adjacent property owner (an auto insurance auction facility). Providing adequate lighting for safety purposes will be addressed through the Administrative Design Review process. Building materials to be used are non - reflective. Recreation Not applicable. Historic /Cultural Preservation One comment was received from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Cultural Resources Program stating that this site is in an area the Tribe has flagged as high potential for archaeological discovery (see Attachment A). The applicant has provided a response prepared by Geomatrix discussing the depth of fill on the western portion of this site (see Attachment B). Generally the site was filled at the time the Duwamish Waterway was dredged and created. The report prepared by Geomatrix states that dredged sand and silt is present in the upper 5 to 15 feet of the subsurface. A limited amount of excavation will be conducted to install underground storm sewers and an underground stormwater treatment unit. Installation of the stormwater system will require trenching at depths of 4 to 6 feet, within the depth of fill noted by earlier studies of the site. The deepest trenching will be for the collector lines running north -south in the eastern portion of the western parcel, which will be excavated to a maximum depth of about 7 feet below existing grade. The depth of fill in that area is 5 to 7 feet. The deepest excavation will be for installation of the Stormceptor water quality unit and the discharge piping running to the existing 36 -inch storm sewer entering the eastern end of Slip 6. This proposed excavation depth will be approximately I 1 feet below existing grade. The Stormceptor will be installed at the southeastern corner of the western parcel. The report anticipates that the soil above and adjacent to the existing 36 -inch sewer line consists of man - place fill. CL Page 6 of 7 04/18/2006 8:58:00 AM q:\Davis Properties\SEPA Staff Rpt.doc Planned Action SEPA Review — E05 -011 Davis Development — Former Rhone/Poulenc Site April 14, 2006 TMC 18.50.110, Archaeological/Paleontological Information Preservation Requirements applies to all zoning districts in the City. This portion of the code requires that a professional archaeologist be on site when excavations into historically native soil take place in an area of archaeological potential to ensure that all State statues regarding archaeological conservation/preservation are implemented. This will be a requirement of the shoreline substantial development permit for the site. The applicant is also required to provide a written commitment to stop work immediately upon discovery of archaeological remains and to consult with the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. This will also be a requirement of the shoreline permit and the building permits issued for both the western and eastern portion of the parcel. Transportation The site is accessed via East Marginal Way South. An easement was granted to the Oregon - Washington Railroad and Navigation Company, the Great Northern Railway Company, Northern Pacific Railway Company and Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company for railroad tracks on the eastern portion of the site adjoining East Marginal Way. One curb cut currently exists on the site; a second curb cut is proposed to provide additional access to the proposed development on the site. Port of Seattle Slip No. 6 borders the property on the south. Three METRO bus routes serve the site on East Marginal Way South. A Traffic Impact Analysis was submitted by the applicant and reviewed by the City's traffic engineer. The TIA estimates that no more than 81 PM peak hour trips would be generated by the proposed development. Traffic impact fees, based on the 2006 Traffic Impact Fee Schedule, will be levied as part of the building permit. Public Services The new development will be served by Tukwila police and fire service. Utilities Utilities currently available at the site include electric, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, storm water and sanitary sewer. Adequate utilities are available to serve the new warehouse /office building. Recommendation Determination of Nonsignificance CL Page 7 of 7 04/18/2006 8:58:00 AM q:\Davis Properties\SEPA Staff Rpt.doc MUCKLESHOOT CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM 39015 172nd Avenue S.E. • Auburri, Washington 98092 -9763 Phone: (253) 939 -3311 • FAX: (253) 876 -3312 February 3, 2006 Carol Lumb ` City of Tukwila6��Q8� 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Suite #100 ' ' COMMUNITYT Tukwila, WA 98188 oEV!Et QP� RE: 9229 East Marginal Way South Dear: Mrs. Lumb, On behalf of the Cultural Resources Committee, I have reviewed the information sent on 01/27/06 regarding the building and parking stalls at 9229 East Marginal Way South, Tukwila, and have the following comments. The 9229 East Marginal Way South property is an area the Tribe has flagged as high potential for archaeological discovery. The project area location is one that the Tribe considers to have a high probability for archaeological resources, because there are previously identified archaeological sites and a traditional cultural place nearby. Although the proposed project area appears to be previously disturbed, I cannot tell from the information provided whether the proposed construction could intersect native soils on -site. If that is a possibility,, then we request that an archaeological study be conducted of the project area to determine the best means of identifying and protecting archaeological resources that may be uncovered during construction. ,If the applicant believes that construction would take place entirely within fill, we request supporting documentation, such as a comparison of construction plans and soil profile information. Information regarding previous surveys and recorded archaeological sites is available from the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, in Olympia. The Cultural Resources Program does not represent the Wildlife Program and the Fisheries Program which are separate departments under the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Please contact these departments separately for their input on this project. We appreciate the effort to coordinate with the Muckleshoot Tribe prior to site preparation. The destructive nature of construction excavation can often destroy a site and cause delays and unnecessary expense for the contractor. If you have any questions, please contact me at 253- 876 -3272. Thank you for keeping the Tribe informed. Si rely, aura Murphy, Tribal Archaeologist CC: Stephenie Kramer, Assistant State Archaeologist, OAHP ATTACHMENT A !J Geomatrix Memorandum TO: Ivana Halvorsen, Barghausen DATE: April 6, 2006 FROM: Larry McGaughey PROJ. NO.: 8769.005 John Long CC: Gary Dupuy PROJ. NAME: Former Rhone- Poulenc Site Tukwila, Washington SUBJECT: Depth of Fill at Former Rhone- Poulenc Site This memorandum discusses the depth of fill materials in the western portion of the former Rhone- Poulenc facility located at 9229 E. Marginal Way South, in Tukwila, Washington. The portion of the site proposed for installation of a new stormwater system is referenced in this memorandum as the West Parcel. Plans and applications have been filed with the City of Tukwila to support installation of a new stormwater system, grading to promote drainage, and paving to support use of the area for warehousing and storage of automobiles within the West Parcel. This assessment of fill depth is being made to evaluate the potential for exposing or excavating native materials during the work planned for the West Parcel. Of the planned activities, only installation of the new stormwater management system will require excavation. Background The former Rhone- Poulenc site is located adjacent to the Duwamish Waterway, just to the north of "Slip 6 ". Slip 6 is a former channel of the Duwamish River. The Duwamish River was dredged and straightened from 1913 through 1920; the portion of the river adjacent to the former Rhone- Poulenc site is now referred to as the Duwamish Waterway. Based on available documentation (CH2M. HILL, 1995; Landau, 1991), much of the property, especially the western portion, consisted of tidal flats. It is likely that much of the West Parcel was submerged at high tide prior to filling of the area. Although no specific records are available, the majority of the property was probably filled at the time that the waterway was dredged; the typical practice was to slurry the hydraulically dredged material onto the land surface using a system of pipes. It is expected that the site was filled some time between 1913 and 1920, when the waterway was constructed. Since the dredge material was derived from river sediments, the fill materials (sands and silts) resemble the materials native to the site prior to dredging. Approximately two acres of tide flats remain along the western side of the property. RECEIVED JA8769.000 RCI R -P \086 \Fill Depth Memo_FINAL.doc ►APR 0 7 2006 One Union Square. 600 University Street, Suite 1020 Tel 206.342.1760 V MM PAII i Y D EEVELOPM WWW.geomatrix.com ENT Seattle, Washington 98101 -4107 Fax 206.342.1761 ATTACHMENT B Geomatrix Memorandum April 6, 2006 Page 2 of 4 Depth of Man - Placed Fill Site investigation reports and lithologic logs for wells and soil borings that were completed onsite were reviewed to assess the present depth of fill at the former Rhone- Poulenc site. The RCRA Facility Investigation Report prepared by CH2M HILL reported that "... hydraulic fill consisting of dredged sand and silt is present in the upper 5 to 15 feet of the subsurface." The CH2M HILL report refers to the entire site and is not limited to the West Parcel. It is likely that the western portion of the site, near the waterfront, has a greater depth of fill than the eastern portion which borders East Marginal Way South. The boring logs prepared for the site characterize observations using standard soil classifications, but do not distinguish between fill and native materials. However, review of the boring logs shows a consistent layer of silt at a depth of 5 to 15 feet below the present surface grade over much of the site. This silt layer is distinguished from similar materials by its reported density and the presence of organic material such as plant roots. The depth of the fill materials reported by CH2M HILL and the description of the site as a "tide flat" prior to development suggest that the layer of silt present at the site.may represent the historic surface of the original tide flat. The elevation of the silt layer in soil borings is approximately the same as the present elevation of the tide flats on the west side of the property. Other indicators, which can be used to distinguish between fill and native materials, are the presence of recent man -made objects or debris noted in the boring logs. If such material is noted in the log, the material would be considered to be fill material. The boring logs for the southeastern comer of the West Parcel, nearest the planned location for installation of the StormceptorO, indicate that the depth of fill ranges from about 6 to 12 feet below existing grade. The "ordinary high water mark" shown on the recent survey map of the site is shown at approximately 5 feet in elevation, which is approximately 12 feet below present grade. It is likely that the elevation of the former tide flats was probably no greater than 1 to 2 feet above the ordinary high water mark, or at an approximate elevation of 6 to 7 feet above mean sea level. The projected elevation of the former tide flat suggests that there is approximately 10 to 11 feet of fill in the southeast corner of the West Parcel. Available information from previous site investigation reports and from more recent boring logs indicate that the depth of man - placed fill within the West Parcel is generally 5 to 12 feet below the current site surface. In the southeast corner of the West Parcel, the expected depth of fill is 10 to 11 feet, but localized areas may be only about 6 feet in depth. In most locations, the presence of native soil can be identified by the presence of a silt layer. The native soils were exposed as recently as 85 to 90 years ago. J:\8769.000 RCI R -P \086 \Fill Depth Memo_FINAL.doc ce From: "Carol Lumb" <clumb @ci.tukwila.wa.us> To: <Anne. Watanabe @Seattle. Gov> Date: 4/18/2006 6:04:33 PM Subject: Re: Public Hearing for a Shoreline Variance Thanks Anne - location will be Conference Room #2 at the 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Building. DCD is located in Suite 100 -just ask for me. I will have materials for your review next week -Nora is out of town until Friday so I'm scheduled to go over the draft staff report with her then. Hearing notices will be mailed out on Friday, including one to you - could you please give me a mailing address so I can send that out? thanks much - looking forward to meeting you. Carol >>> "Anne Watanabe" <Anne.Watanabe @Seattle.Gov> 04/18/06 05:05PM >>> Carol - Tuesday May 9 is available, so I'll put it on my calendar - 9 a.m. would be great. Let me know about location. Thanks! Anne Watanabe Deputy Hearing Examiner 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4000 P.O. Box 94729 Seattle, WA 98124 -4729 (206) 684 -0521 >>> "Carol Lumb" <clumb @ci.tukwila.wa.us> 4/18/2006 4:41:27 PM >>> Hi Anne: if Tuesday, May 9 is still available 1'd like to hold the shoreline variance hearing then. Do you want to start at 9:00 a.m. or 10:00 a.m. (or sometime in- between)? Either works in terms of the conference room availability that we'll use. Thanks for holding the date open. Let me know if it still works for you. Carol >>> "Anne Watanabe" <An ne.Watanabe@Seattle. Gov> 04/12/06 05:15PM >>> Thanks Carol, I will hold the dates until I hear from you next week. Have a good weekend. >>> "Carol Lumb" <clumb @ci.tukwila.wa.us> 4/12/2006 4:58:02 PM >>> Thanks Anne - it will probably be next week before I will know if I am "cleared" for sending out hearing notices. I will let you know as soon as I can. Carol >>> "Anne Watanabe" <An ne.Watanabe@Seattle. Gov> 04/12/06 04:20PM >>> Hi Carol, I can hear this - I can do it on May 5 or May 9 or 10 in the morning. Let me know if any of these dates /times will work. a Shoreline Variance Thanks. Anne Watanabe Deputy Hearing Examiner 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4000 P.O. Box 94729 Seattle, WA 98124 -4729 (206) 684 -0521 >>> "Carol Lumb" <clumb @ci.tukwila.wa.us> 4/12/2006 1:51:05 PM >>> Hi Anne and Sue: I am a planner with the City of Tukwila - I have a request for a shoreline variance for which I need to schedule a public hearing. We hope to issue SEPA next week, so I wanted to check your calendars on your availability for a hearing down here either 5/5 or any time the following week. Thanks very much. Carol Lumb Senior Planner Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 206 -431 -3661 e Name Davis Property and Investment — CITY OF TUKWILA Property Address 9229 East Marginal Way South Hearing Examiner Assigned: Anne Watanabe H.E. File 4: L05-051 Date Received: Dept. Contacts Notified? ❑ No ❑Yes By: Date Notified: Appeal Information (Please go to the appeal type and fill in all fields) ❑ CITATION ENFORCEMENT: SIDOT ❑ DPD/DCLU ❑ Citation # Contestedn Nfitigationn Paid E]$— TYPE OF VIOLATION Disposition if no response/hearing: Default Date: Default Payment: [-] MASTER USE PERMIT [MUP] ❑ Other Type of Appeal Party Contacts: &0%CAA-e Name: Ivana Halvorsen, Barghausen Engine ring for Davis Properties Address: 18215 - 72nd Avenue South Phone: 425 ) 251 - 6222, Kent , WA 98032 Fax: Department I Name: Carol Lumb, Senior Planner - Address: 6300Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Phone: (206) 431 -3670 Tukwila WA 98188 Fax: (206) 431 -3665 Select Party TName: Address: hone: Fax: Select Party Name: Address: hone: Fax: Select Party Name: Address: hone: Fax: Select Party Name: Addr( Phone: MANIA HALVORSEN Fax: SENIOR PLANNER Filinj ¢�HA 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH WA 98032 Pre Hearing Conf: KENT, Conti AM (425) 251-6222 Hearing: (425) 656-7487 DID Conti no z (425) 251-8782 FAX Continuance 3: Zs E-MAIL ihalvorsen@barghausen.com Decis www.barghausen.com Record Closed: CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING Dat SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES MILESTONES Initial BRENDAN T. MADDEN �1111 AN &14A ASSISTANT PLANNER W 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 656-7443 DID 7,13,3377,95212 F�ZS.-3877 9065 oi- (425) 251-8782 FAX A 315 1 W 980 04.� E-MAIL bmadden@barghausen.com www.barghausen.com ENG1 CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES NOTES AND DETAILS Ri er N M, Hydro Conduit Division J STC 4800 Precast Concrete Stonaceptor ° a (4800 U.S. Gallon Capacity) ; :.... Bane and Cever kk. r pipe MO View' a e � Wft ' staaaeeptar® Nde#d gg. pa b oem Rpe j.�� vadeNe $ 21 ,r We LU Orifice u- Plate Outlet Connection Detail INel ape o�Fiippe Z 120'a Section Thru Chamber Enlarged inlet Tee Drop Pipe D- 1. TlaumofaFtesibleComec6mismcommwdedat The loletaWOudetlhpe. .. �. Ilk Covashmldbepositmed over The Outlet Drop Pipe and The VedPipe. IL 3. The St°mttptor System is paotededby out or mm of the Mmio8 U.S. Patents: 04985148,. #5498331,#5125760, #5753115, 05849181, 96068765, #6371690. 4. CmtautaHydmCmdiitmpmmtacve for BAherdela not listed on dds shmt 0 R I er Hydro Conduit. Division ,y STC 7200 Precast Concrete Stormceptor w (7200 U.S. Gallon Capacity) Y. SWMXePtDr i O a a GmdeaAasTO I"� O u� e Pipe Me � a Plan View 8 Vaies SNmcepmr° - See NoW #1 Inlet Weir Outlet 6'Vem Pipe Naiads N '8 Z, pmt. 6i ^ PerASTM G443 "Tm 2 Outlet Connection Detail m x a 9� E 8 144'0 sb T Section Thru Chamber Enlarged Inlet Tee Drop Pipe d►b Nss S :a cD NOW 1. To use of a Fhauble C omcctim is temmmmded az The lnte<atd Oudet Pipe. - 2.IU CoverAmMbe pmiumedoverThe OotletDmpPipeaadne VotPipe. 3. TheStotmeeptorSystemispmt ectalbymem mom ofdiefo8mvmgU .S.PatW�, RECEIVED #Si98331,# 5725760, #5753115, #58491.81, #6068765, #6371690. 4. Caaw& HydmCoadmtrepmsmtative for fud6cdetails not listedmthissheet. RinYc035 .. TAPR 2.0 2U06 n T�. ,,ag I t:OMMUNITY $ .z m �a — DEVELOPNEDT 4 i 0 a- e >- cp 2� Y cc 0 c r_ g N - .. W W co W Z w 0 Z. z�z Z O S ' QX.c U) m LLI 0 rn a �. m W _CD ' O c i t W 4 J =� v� W z� 'Q ONM Z m ' I I I �2 dW 2 w V _ 5J RECEIVED APR 2 0 2006' o � E N a AEL F ?al T r o ao so w CALL BEFORE YOU D10 1 -800- 424 -Qccc �i.. cNnIxuNn r'EN PRELIMINARY GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE LA 1 r Am N -I'm 4 S•14$2 m 6 N f ¢ z. q �� 0'" y ¢ IE 12' ADS 5 -14.91 O 1 � b en a 1L . n- a m O N Z . zmmmI 3 N N W �Z> z O, D Dry�� O ¢ p 0°¢° a7 2 W 0 o0-. oa�e� w �p Fd RECEIVED o e APR 2 0 2000' E N = a O � C r 0 0 r Am N -I'm S•14$2 m 6 N f co -IF 12T All N•H98 W �� 0'" y IE 12' ADS 5 -14.91 O 1 � b en a z� O �N fn 2 co O N Z . zmmmI 3 N N �Z> D Dry�� a7 2 g oa�e� w �p Fd RECEIVED o e APR 2 0 2000' E N = coumudm oev9roar.+Frrt. O � C r T -80' Dom_ REST ,-T CALL BEFORE YOU DIG= 1- 800 - 424 -5555 COVER SHEET ° GR . ADING AND.STO.RM, ©r'f DRAINAGE PLAN T (wil + SECUON CORNIER 05 NOTED) CIR O POWER METER YARD M FOUND RESwCw Ps NDIEL) l 6 �0 INDEX' C C1 of 4 C2of4 C3 of 4 C4 of 4 Ul CONFLICT NOTE+ CAUTiOM THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFIING THE LOCATION 01AIENSON• AND OEPfH OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHETHER SHOWN ON THESE PLVIS OR NOT �' POMO. THE UTUIIFS AND SUPVEY'INO THE HORIZONTAL AND VERIICPL LOCATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCIi. THIS SHAD. INCLUDE CAI1WG II 11.11 LOCATE a 1-800- 424 -5555 AND THEN POTHOUNG ALL OF THE EXISTNG UTIUTES AT LOCATIONS OF NEW UTILITY CROSSINGS TO PHYSICALLY VERIFY WHETTER OR NOT CONFLI CTS IXISf. LOCATIONS OF SAID IT ES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED UPON THE UNVETUFlID PUBLIC INFORMATION AND ARE SUBJECT TO VARIATION. IF CONFLICTS SHOULD OCCUR, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSULT BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 70 RESOLVE ALL PROBLEMS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION. - RESOURCES, OR BY CONTACTN6 THEIR OFFICE BY TELEPHONE AT 206 - 902 -1190. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PUBLIC LAND SURVEY. OFFICE .1111 WASHINGTON STREET S.E P.O. BOX 47060 - OtYMPU, WASHINGTON 98504 -7060 UPON COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTON, ALL MONUMENT DISPLACED. REMOVED, OR DESTROYED SHALL BE REPLACED BY A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR. AT THE COST AND AT THE DIRECTION OF THE CONTRACTOR, PURSUANT TO THESE REGULATIONS. THE APPROPRIATE FORMS FOR REPLACEMENT OF SAID MONUMENTATION SHAD. ALSO BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR )F SHEETS ,COVER SHEET - GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN NOTES AND DETAILS; LE GEItlD / That portion of Texts 1 and 2 of The Meadows, according to the parUUan mop of pmt of the mN(fS NORD) ©r'f VAULT 120091; .and of the abandoned bed "ol Da-. River, ail . located -in Section 33, Tawnshtp 24' T (wil + SECUON CORNIER 05 NOTED) CIR O POWER METER YARD M FOUND RESwCw Ps NDIEL) O ❑ MUNG © JUNCTION BBm (AS NOTED) SURVEY CONTROL STATION 63 , MIPMEE MIJMQE 0 f.Dal GAS (CB) _ ASPHALT ® STORM WlaiaE (SNH) _ CUNCRUE O SW ARf me WRBROLE (siall 1053.10 foot: THENCE South 23' OY 00' East a d.-t.- of 46.03 teal: THENCE East a dtatonca 0 (2 SALEM SEWER CLENOJr (SSM) GAS OUT GRAVEL ' -� GAS VALVE w -w - WATER LINE Wy_ Eaat a divan. of 1374.17 feet along the Westerly .margin at East Marginal Way South from the the line between the donation of Fmnds McNutt and Harry Van AssaIt with SWIfARY SEWER LINE W WATER VALVE (MY) ____ __ STORM O"N"a LINE J.Z FIRE MEANT (FH). - us -vs- GAS LANE 6) WATER WNINNE -IT -)- TELEPHONE UNDERMLE ES WATER GETS - PLuo)- POWER UNDERGROUND 1L SQL Pull PUWER ovuw'M, ® N018)OR WELL -XN-- CRAM LOB( FELICE uoas parcel recorded under Roc0ng Number 4784818..Stualo In the City of TuinTa. County of King, stab 07ECfAN1 aF VEliK1E 7F.1Ve1 -N 0 EARIBED fE TOM _ VERTCAL DATUM - BASIS OF ELEVATIONS NATIONAL GEODETIC VQUCAL DATUM OF 1929 NGVD -29 T.P.O.B. TRUE Pair OF BEGINNING yJ �� U o VICINITY MAP a \\ a 00, ESTIMATED CUT AND FILL CUT a 030 CY . FILL -,26,540 CY t w no to 0 CO : a fa& i 8 8 U � � n. Ura3 a Q. N- LEGAL DESCRIPTION: - v I That portion of Texts 1 and 2 of The Meadows, according to the parUUan mop of pmt of the " W , 120091; .and of the abandoned bed "ol Da-. River, ail . located -in Section 33, Tawnshtp 24' . ' North, Rengo 4 East tYliomatte Maridtan, th qag Count ,Washington, and all ying. Wastarly a the Wasleriy marytn of Eoat Mari; not Way. South and also Weatedy of .the ppaarcel'of land udfoining East Marginal conveyed to Groat. Northam R.11 -y Company by deed recorded under 9 o a a d c z ,Way which nos Race 'ag - Number 4784818; lying Eleatedy of the Eastady. -Ml oT.the right' of way of z -.7 ""1 Wal.nay Mail Na 1 (Duwemi.h "Waterway);" lying SoutheHy of the h.relndter O Une k� I: �. BEGINNING on the .Woodenly '=,gin of East Marginal Way South, which pont'beare North 87 15' Z C> 0 4J W) Cl) intemecQan of the One' between the D-U.n Ciai s of Fnmal. McNutt and'Henry n'th the bast Fine' of S,cU.n 33, Tarnnhf�� 24 North, Rang. 4 East Willamette Meridian, in King County, Washington; thence Went .= of 1574.72 feet to the East Gne of Cammardal W O SR O II 00 1053.10 foot: THENCE South 23' OY 00' East a d.-t.- of 46.03 teal: THENCE East a dtatonca MIL I1 `w' W a �. w c Un. IL BEGINNING on the Weatery margin of East Mortginal Way South at a point which beam North 89' S IS' 54' Weat a distance of 2470.01 feet along the Donation Cidm Line and South -2.T 40'. 59' 'C^^ VJ, Q' Eaat a divan. of 1374.17 feet along the Westerly .margin at East Marginal Way South from the the line between the donation of Fmnds McNutt and Harry Van AssaIt with Z m rn f5 Intersection of claim the East Une of Section 33, Tonmhip'24 North, Range 4 East; WiilomaNe Meridian, in King County, 0 the Westerly of East: Marginal Way South ^ 3 rr1 u'a r, i Wo. Ij n, soiof point being at the intersection marlin 'th the North One of Van Da Vnntar Stock F.- tract and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of said N ui in Vne B': THENCE North 6a 27' 50' Want o dstance of 1454 fact: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: - v I That portion of Texts 1 and 2 of The Meadows, according to the parUUan mop of pmt of the " Fmrd. MWatt D-11. Lend Clcim No. 38 filed In Me' County Superior Court Ccuee'N.a'" , 120091; .and of the abandoned bed "ol Da-. River, ail . located -in Section 33, Tawnshtp 24' . ' North, Rengo 4 East tYliomatte Maridtan, th qag Count ,Washington, and all ying. Wastarly a the Wasleriy marytn of Eoat Mari; not Way. South and also Weatedy of .the ppaarcel'of land udfoining East Marginal conveyed to Groat. Northam R.11 -y Company by deed recorded under 9 o a a d c z ,Way which nos Race 'ag - Number 4784818; lying Eleatedy of the Eastady. -Ml oT.the right' of way of -.7 ""1 Wal.nay Mail Na 1 (Duwemi.h "Waterway);" lying SoutheHy of the h.relndter CC Vne'A'; and lying Northerly of the hereinafter dumbed Vn B': Une k� I: �. BEGINNING on the .Woodenly '=,gin of East Marginal Way South, which pont'beare North 87 15' 54' West o dfslenco of 2470.01 toot along the Donal Claim Une and South 23 40' 59' East d)atonu of 648.77 feet along the Wea".mafgtr of Emrt Margin. Way South tram the Van Aeseit - o intemecQan of the One' between the D-U.n Ciai s of Fnmal. McNutt and'Henry n'th the bast Fine' of S,cU.n 33, Tarnnhf�� 24 North, Rang. 4 East Willamette Meridian, in King County, Washington; thence Went .= of 1574.72 feet to the East Gne of Cammardal r5 running Wat.may 01, at No. 1; THENCE South 15 00' 00' East clang •said Easterly Gne a disfanm of SR 237.76 foot to the TRDE POINT OF BEGINNING of said Vns A': 'THENCE East a distance of rj 1053.10 foot: THENCE South 23' OY 00' East a d.-t.- of 46.03 teal: THENCE East a dtatonca y yr of 561.38 feat to the Weenry mm9in of East Marginal Way. South and the terminus of sold 'U- ; A' ; W a �. w c Un. IL BEGINNING on the Weatery margin of East Mortginal Way South at a point which beam North 89' w L� ¢ o N io rc IS' 54' Weat a distance of 2470.01 feet along the Donation Cidm Line and South -2.T 40'. 59' Eaat a divan. of 1374.17 feet along the Westerly .margin at East Marginal Way South from the the line between the donation of Fmnds McNutt and Harry Van AssaIt with Z m rn f5 Intersection of claim the East Une of Section 33, Tonmhip'24 North, Range 4 East; WiilomaNe Meridian, in King County, 0 the Westerly of East: Marginal Way South ^ 3 rr1 u'a r, i Wo. Ij n, soiof point being at the intersection marlin 'th the North One of Van Da Vnntar Stock F.- tract and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of said N ui in Vne B': THENCE North 6a 27' 50' Want o dstance of 1454 fact: THENCE North 86' 54' S9' Wast a distance of 486.97 feet THENCE North 84' 17' 04' Wool a d(slanca of 117.00 feet. THENCE. South BY 57' S6' Wast a d)atanae - f'119.00 feet THENCE South 70' 40' 29' Went o dLetanee of 110.173 feet THENCE South 61' 33' 40' Walt a distance of 840.02 fact to the Ewterly Une of the right of "Line ay of Commerdal Waterway Di.W t N. fond the I.-jnw of cold 81 : TOGETHER WITH the right to the commyed to Great Norlham'RoGway Company as raaarved In deed ,. ? uoas parcel recorded under Roc0ng Number 4784818..Stualo In the City of TuinTa. County of King, stab at Washington. _ VERTCAL DATUM - BASIS OF ELEVATIONS NATIONAL GEODETIC VQUCAL DATUM OF 1929 NGVD -29 ORIGINAL PROJECT BENCHMARK FROM 1988 SURVEY Bf BARGHAUSEN - CONSULTING ENGINEERS IS A yJ �� U o V BRASS DISK SURFACE MONUMENT ON E49 SIDE OF 102nd SL BRIDGE (DESTROYED). SITE a c BENCHMARK IS THE *TOP OF A'PK' NAIL SET ON THE EAST SIDE OF. EAST MARGINAL WAY (APPROXIMATELY 400 Fr NORM OF THIS SITE - ELEVATION.- 15.17 FEET HORIZONTAL DATUM - BASLS OF BEARINGS NAD -27 (NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1927). WASHINGTON STATE PLANE ui e COORDINATE SYSTEM - NORTH ZONE - BEING THE MONUMENIED OFFSET CENTERLINE OF EAST WAY'TAKEN AS North 7232'07' West AS PER Book 72, of.S -M. Page 22Z KINDRECEIV (o MARGINAL COUNTY RECORDS. Project Nome: %W.i. Shari Plot December 27, 2004 DJS /da 2 0 2 1 10265LOOi.doe Project Nam. (APR u_ O LANDSCAPE PLANTING NOTES AND MATERIALS - SCOPE OF WORK FURNISH ALL MATERIALS, LABOR, EQUIPMENT AND RELATED ITEMS NECESSARY TO ACCOMPUSH TOPSOIL TREATMENT AND PREPARATION OF SOIL, FINISH. GRADING, PLACEMENT OF SPECIFIED " PLANT MATERIAI.S, FERTILIZERS, STAKING, MULCH, CLEAN -UP, DEBRIS REMOVAL AND'30 -DAY MAINTENANCE. QUALIFICATIONS: LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR TO BE SKILLED AND KNOWLEDGEABLE IN THE FIELD OF WORK AND. HAVE A MINIMUM FOR FIVE (5) YEAR'S EXPERIENCE INSTALLING SIMILAR WORK. CONTRACTOR TO BE LICENSED TO PERFORM THE WORK SPECIFIED WITHIN THE PRESIDING I JURISDICTION. JOB CONDITIONS: IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO REVIEW THE SITE AND REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE OWNER OR THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVES. ALL PLANT MATERIAL AND FINISH, GRADES ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE OWNER OR THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE - PROTECTION: SAVE AND PROTECT ALL EXISTING PLANTINGS SHOWN TO REMAIN. DO NOT PLANT UNTIL OTHER CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS WHICH CONFLICT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED. IF AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS TO BE INSTALLED DO NOT PLANT UNTIL THE SYSTEM HAS BEEN INSTALLED, TESTED, AND APPROVED BY THE OWNER. HANDLE PLANTS WITH CARE - DO NOT DAMAGE OR BREAK ROOT SYSTEM, BARK, OR BRANCHES. REPAIR AND /OR REPLACE ITEMS DAMAGED AS A.RESULT OF WORK, OR WORK NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS DIRECTED BY. OWNER AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER. REPAIR OF EXISTING PLANTINGS:- ' DURING THE COURSE OF WORK, REPAIR ALL EXISTING PLANTING AREAS BY PRUNING DEAD GROWTH,. RE- ESTABUSHING FINISH GRADE AND -RE-MULCHING TO SPECIFIED DEPTH. REPAIR. OF EXISTING IRRIGATION SYSTEM: DURING THE COURSE OF WORK, REPAIR ANY DAMAGE TO THE EXISTING IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO MATCH OR BETTER THEN CONDITIONS PRIOR TO THE DAMAGE. ' GUARANTEE: GUARANTEE ALL PLANT MATERIAL FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM DATE OF FINAL ACCEPTANCE BY OWNER OR THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE 30 -DAY MAINTENANCE: CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE OWNER WITH A SCOPE OF WORK AT TIME OF INITIAL PROJECT BID TO PROVIDE LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE FOR 30 DAYS FOLLOWING COMPLETION` ACCEPTANCE BY OWNER. WORK. TO INCLUDE MAINTENANCE- AS. DESCRIBED BELOW, IN PLANTING AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE. MATERIALS: PLANT MATERIALS: PLANT. MATERIALS TO BE GRADE NO. 1, SIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH (AAN) AMERICAN' STANDARDS FOR .NURSERY STOCK (ANSI Z60.1- 1996). PRUNE PLANTS RECEIVED FROM THE NURSERY ONLY UPON AUTHORIZATION BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 'B do B' INDICATES BALLED AND BURLAPPED; 'CONT.' INDICATES CONTAINER;. 'BR' .INDICATES BARE ROOT; INDICATES CAUPER AT 6'. ABOVE SOIL UNE:. 'GAL" INDICATES GALLON. A)' SPECIFIED PLANT CANOPY SIZE OR CAUPER IS THE MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONTAINER SIZE ESTABUSHES MINIMUM PLANT CONDITION TO. BE PROVIDED. e) QUALITY :. I PLANT MATERIAL TO COMPLY WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS FOR DISEASE INSPECTION, PLANTS TO BE FULLY LIVE, VIGOROUS, WELL FORMED, WITH WELL DEVELOPED FIBROUS ROOT SYSTEMS. ROOT BAUS OF PLANTS TO BE SOUD AND FIRMLY HELD TOGETHER, SECURELY CONTAINED AND PROTECTED FROM INJURY AND DESICCATION.. PLANTS DETERMINED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO HAVE BEEN DAMAGED HAVE*DEFORMMES OF STEM, BRANCHES, OR .ROOTS; LACK SYMMETRY,. HAVE MULTIPLE LEADERS OR Y' CROTCHES LESS THAN.30- DEGREES ENTREES, OR 00 NOT MEET SIZE OR ANSI STANDARDS WILL BE REJECTED. .PLANT MATERIAL TO. BE FROM A SINGLE NURSERY SOURCE FOR EACH' SPECIFIED SPECIES /HYBRID. NURSERY SOURCES TO BE THOSE LOCATED IN THE SAME REGION AS THE PROJECT, SITE C) SUBSTITUTION: NO SUBSTITUTION .OF PLANT MATERIAL, SPECIES OR VARIETY; WILL BE. PERMI TED UNLESS WRITTEN EVIDENCE IS SUBMITTED TO THE OWNER FROM THREE QUAURED PLANT BROKERAGE OFFICES. SUBSTITUTIONS WHICH ARE PERMITTED TO BE IN WRITING FROM THE OWNER AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. THE SPECIFIED SIZE, SPECIES AND 'NEAREST VARIETY, AS APPROVED,'TO BE FURNISHED. SUBSTITUTIONS MAY REQUIRE SUBMITTAL OF REVISED LANDSCAPE PLAN'TO CITY FOR APPROVAL CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR. OBTAINING ALL APPROVALS., PROVIDE OWNER AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS" WITH COPIES OF ALL APPROVALS. SOIL PREPARATION: TOPSOIL AMENDMENT, AND BACKFILL ARE GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON THE PLANS. SOIL AMENDMENTS AND,FERTIUZER NOTED- . BELOW ARE TO BE USED FOR BID PRICE BASIS ONLY. SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS .AND FERTIUZERS WILL BE MADE AFTER SOIL SAMPLES ARE LABORATORY TESTED BY THE CONTRACTOR. PROVIDE CHANGE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL OR REDUCTION OF MATERIALS REQUIRED'OR NOT REQUIRED BY THE. SOILS REPORT. SOIL FERTILITY AND AGRICULTURAL SUITABILITY ANALYSIS: AFTER ROUGH GRADING AND PRIOR TO SOIL PREPARATION, CONTRACTOR TO OBTAIN IWO REPRESENTATIVE SOIL SAMPLES. FROM LOCATIONS AS DIRECTED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, TO SOIL AND PLANT LABORATORY, BELLEVUE. WASHINGTON PHONE: 425 -746 -1665 OR, EQUIVALENT TESTING LABORATORY, FOR TEST SUBMIT RESULTS TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR .REVIEW. IF ON -SITE TOPSOIL HAS BEEN STOCKPILED AND WILL BE USED, A TEST IS TO BE COMPLETED FOR IT, ALSO. TESTS TO INCLUDE FERTILITY AND SUITABIUIY ANALYSIS WITH WRITTEN RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SOIL AMENDMENT, FERTIUZER, CONDITIONERS, APPUCATION RATES, AND POST - CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE PROGRAM. TESTS. TO BE CONTRACTED WITH AND PAID FOR BY THE CONTRACTOR. A) IMPORT TOPSOIL TOPSOIL TO CONSIST OF WINTER MIX AS PRODUCED AND .REMIXED BY PACIFIC . TOPSOIL INC. WINTER MIX TO CONSIST OF 113 BY VOLUME SANDY LOAM, 1/3 BY VOLUME COMPOSTED GARDEN MULCH. AND 1/3 BY VOLUME COARSE WASHED SAND OR EQUIVALENT. B) NATIVE SURFACE SOIL INCLUDING STOCKPILED TOPSOIL SURFACE SOIL ON -SITE MAY MEET TEXTURAL CLASSIFICATION AS NOTED ABOVE PROVIDE AMENDMENTS AS NOTED. BELOW, AND EVENLY BLEND AMENDMENTS TO SPECIFIED DEPTH. C) CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SUPPLYING ALL TOPSOIL AND FOR DETERMINING THE VOLUME OF TOPSOIL REQUIRED PER THE INFORMATION ON PLANS AND NOTED HERE -IN. D) IMPORT TOPSOIL /NATIVE SURFACE SOIL./STOCKPILED TOPSOIL AMENDMENTS: MODIFY SOIL AFTER INSTALLATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING AMOUNT PER 1,000 .SQUARE FEET: 1. 6 -CUBIC YARDS ORGANIC COMPOST. COMPOST TO BE FREE OR NON -FARM ANIMAL SOURCES, NOR TO BE FROM SOURCES CONTAINING REDWOOD OF CEDAR PRODUCTS. 2. 30- POUNDS NITROFORM (38 -0 -0) 3. 5- POUNDS AMMONIUM SULFATE 4. 40- POUNDS CALCIUM CARBONATE UMESTONE S. 40- POUNDS DOLOMITE UMESTONE 6. 5 -DUNES BORON (AS BORAX) ALL AMENDMENTS TO BE THOROUGHLY MIXED PRIOR TO INCORPORATION INTO SOIL E) PLANTING BACKFILL. FOR ALL TREES, SHRUBS, AND. GROUNDCOVERS: - - •. - e 1. 0.6 -CUBIC YARDS PER VOLUME TOPSOIL OR NATIVE/STOCKPILED TOPSOIL - .. .. .. 2. 0.4 -CUBIC YARDS ORGANIC COMPOST. ". REMOVE CONTAINER k WORK ROOTS - 3. 3- POUNDS NITROFORM (38 -0 -0) 2' MULCH LAYER PAVING WASTE, GRAVEL BASE MATERIAL AND UNDERLYING SUBSOIL TO 18 INCHES 4. 1 -POUND AMMONIUM SULFATE (COMPACTED DEPTH). BELOW TOP OF PAVING. SCARIFY AND OVER EXCAVATE PLANT PIT BOTTOM .12 5. 2- POUNDS CALCIUM CARBONATE UMESTONE 6. 2- POUNDS DOLOMITE UMESTONE FEATHER EXCESS SOIL UNDER MULCH .. ' . F) IMPORT TOPSOIL NATIVE /STOCKPILED TOPSOIL PREPARATION AND INSTALLATION: I CAL CONUl81ud LAROS! . RANI®eu�RB WAW) (PLAlITTDEEFCFEIALCH) 2' MULCH LAYER' VERIFY SUBGRADES TO -7 INCHES BELOW FINISH ELEVATION IN ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS, 1' MULCH AT CROWN (COMPACTED DEPTH) . . EXCEPT AREAS NOTED'ON PLANS. THIS IS TO ACCOMMODATE FOR :TOPSOIL NATIVE ' 1/2' ABOVE GRADE ELEVATIONS OR IN AREAS INDICATED TO BE MOUNTED. /STOCKPILE TOPSOIL AMENDMENTS, AND 1' ABOVE GRADE - " MULCH LAYER. ERADICATE ANY SURFACE VEGETATION ROOTED IN THE SUB -GRADE PRIOR-TO SUB -GRADE .. 1' MAX. TOP OF CURB PREPARATION THOROUGHLY SCARIFY AND. "RIP.AU: LANDSCAPE SUB - GRADES WHICH" p w TO TOP OF MULCH HAVE BECOME COMPACTED TO A DEPTH OF 12 INCHES WITH MULTIPLE PASSES. 90 N "ONPLAN /PLANT UST DEGREES TO EACH OTHER." SCARIFY AREAS INACCESSIBLE - TO.MECHANIZED - EQUIPMENT OR AROUND EXISTING PLANTINGS AND /OR EXISTING IRRIGATION SYSTEM NOTED P. �^ CURB TO REMAIN WITH HAND TOOLS. REMOVE SOIL LUMPS, ROCK, VEGETATION AND /OR DEBRIS. - m — NG LARGER THAN 2 INCHES FROM ALL SUB -GRADE PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF SPECIFIED _ _EYED' (DEPTH VARIES) o� TOPSOIL" REMOVE ANY ASPHALT EXTENDING BEYOND 6 INCHES FROM CURBS INTO - •. - e ADJACENT LANDSCAPE AREAS. . .NOTE.. .'.. - ice^ -`••`3 .. .. .FINE MULCH, I.E., 51 CO* TEXTURE AND CEDAR ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. PARKING LOT PLANTER ISLANDS TO BE OVER EXCAVATED BY BACKHOE. REMOVE - REMOVE CONTAINER k WORK ROOTS - STAKES: .S PAVING WASTE, GRAVEL BASE MATERIAL AND UNDERLYING SUBSOIL TO 18 INCHES FREE OF SOIL FREE OF SOIL 3 BELOW TOP OF PAVING. SCARIFY AND OVER EXCAVATE PLANT PIT BOTTOM .12 . TO SETTLED USING WATER ONLY INCHES TO MINIMIZE STRUCTURAL COMPACTION. .. ' . G) ".IMPORT TOPSOIL NATIVE /STOCKPILED TOPSOIL PLACEMENT: I CAL CONUl81ud LAROS! . RANI®eu�RB WAW) (PLAlITTDEEFCFEIALCH) PLACE 2 INCHES OF TOPSOIL NATIVE /STOCKPILED TOPSOIL AND AMENDMENTS OVER THE PREPARED SUB -GRADE AND THOROUGHLY ROTOTILL WITH MULTIPLE PASSES INTO THE TOP '6 INCHES OF SUB -GRADE FOR A.TOTAL DEPTH OF 8 INCHES. PLACE AN ADDITIONAL 2 � - - MULCH AT CURB DE 1 AIL GROUNDCOVER PLANTING DETAIL L� DETAIL .INCHES LIFT OR'IMP09T TOPSOIL NATIVE /STOCKPILED OVER THE AMENDED SOIL AS A ",NOT NOT TO SCALE SURFACES COURSE PLACE ADDITIONAL TOPSOIL AS REQUIRED TO MEET FINISH TO. SCALE- ELEVATIONS OR IN AREAS INDICATED TO BE MOUNTED. HERBICIDE IS. NOT RECOMMENDED FOR THE FIRST YEAR AFTER INSTALLATION. BARK "MULCH (TOPDRESSING): OVER EXCAVATE PARKING LOT PLANTERS ONE -HALF -INCH (1/27 SIZE, TO-ONE-INCH (1', I.E.. "MEDIUM; HEMLOCK /FIR BARK. TO LOOSEN COMPACTED SUBBASE (COMPACTED CONDITION). .FINE MULCH, I.E., 51 CO* TEXTURE AND CEDAR ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. OF 3. FEET STAKES: COARSE TRANSITION FROM TOPSOIL.. 2 -INCH DAMETER BYB -FOOT MINIMUM LODGEPOLE PINE STAKES. CURB. BERM HEIGHT 6" TYP. GUY MATERIAL• - 1 -1/2' DRAIN AT LOW POINTS& 10' MAX. SPACING 1 -INCH WIDE POLYETHYLENE CHAIN LOCK TYPE TIES; OR, 3/8" DIAMETER RUBBER. NO WIRE. . 'HOLD PLANTS FROM EDGE OF PLANTER p HERBICIDE AS NOTED ON PLANT UST SOIL UNE 3' IN - HERBICIDE IS. NOT RECOMMENDED FOR THE FIRST YEAR AFTER INSTALLATION. SPACING AS CALLED OUT ANTI- DESICCANT : p w N "ONPLAN /PLANT UST 'WILT - PROOF; 48 HOURS PRIOR TO SHIPMENT TO SITE FROM JUNE 1 THROUGH SEPTEMBER. IN TURF' THOROUGHLY ROOT WATER PLANTS PRIOR TO DELIVERY. PLANT MATERIAL DELIVERED TO SITE (DEPTH VARIES) SUBGRADE —�_ __ , TO BE KEPT CONTINUAU.Y'MOIST THROUGH INSTAUATION: _ - .:. " EXECUTION: - BED UNE EDGE -• / HOLD PLANTS FROM . EDGE OF PLANTER - CU AS NOTED ON PLANT UST FINISH GRADES: - . 12' MAX. UP GRADING IN PARKING LOT PLANTERS DETAIL. (TOPSOIL PREP.) FINE GRADE AND REMOVE ROCKS AND FOREIGN OBJECTS OVER 2 INCHES DIAMETER FROM-TOP SURFACE.OF PREPARED LANDSCAPE. AREAS. FINISH ELEVATIONS TO BE DEFINED. AS 3INCHES- NOTE BELOW CURBS, WALKS AND /OR OTHER ADJACENT' HARDSCAPE FOR ALL PLANTING BED AREAS AND THIS SPACING APPUES TO 1 -INCH BELOW CURBS, WALKS.AND /OR .OTHER ADJACENT HARDSCAPE FOR ALL LAWN AREAS.. 'GROUNDCOVER AND FORMAL.', FINISH GRADE REFER TO GRADES PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF MULCH OR LAWN. SHRUB ROW PLACEMENT. ALL FINISH GRADES TO BE SMOOTH EVEN GRADES, UGHTLY COMPACTED, AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN AND DETALM PROVIDE 'FINAL POSITIVE 0 °s.Al".°GE'AwAY FROM BUILDINGS. AND STRUCruRES., SITE OnnL PLANT MATERIAL SPACING DETAIL DRAWINGS IDENTIFY TREES: NOT TO SCALE . .ARRANGE TREES ON SITE IN PROPOSED LOCATIONS PER DRAWINGS. EXCAVATE PIT, PLANT AND STAKE OR GUY; AS CALLED OUT AND DETAILED. ALL TREES AND SUPPORTS TO STAND VERTICAL BACKFILL SHALL BE PIT SPOILS. SETTLE BACKFILL USING WATER ONLY. NO MECHANICAL - COMPACTION: .. SHRUBS: .. - .. INSTALL SHRUBS AS SPECIFIED FOR TREES. _ GROUNDCOVERS:.. EXCAVATE PITS M A MINIMUM, OF 3 INCHES BELOW, AND TWICE THE ROOT BALL - ,DIAMETER. WATER THOROUGHLY AND TAKE CARE TO ENSURE THAT ROOT CROWN IS AT _ PROPER GRADE, AS DETAILED. MULCH:' MULCH ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS. APPLY SUFFICIENT QUANTITY TO PROVIDE A 3 -INCH COMPACTED. DEPTH. UTILITY. CLEARANCES: FIELD ADJUST PLANT LOCATIONS FOR 8 -FOOT SEPARATION OF TREES /SHRUBS AND 2 -FOOT (2) LODGEPOLE STAKES: DE AT APPROX.' 1/3 TO 1/2 ' SEPARATION FOR GROUNDCOVER FROM FIRE HYDRANTS AND UTILITY VAULTS. HFEJIGHT OF TREE WITH FLEXIBLE RUBBER TIE IN FIGURE EICHTPATTERN. STAKES AND TREE .PLUMB >' PLANTING AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE: 3" DEEP SAUCER FOR WATER CONTRACTOR TO MAINTAIN PLANTINGS THROUGH COMPLETED INSTALLATION. AND UNTIL ACCEPTANCE OF LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION. PLANTING MAINTENANCE TO INCLUDE WATERING, WEEDING, CULTIVATING, TIGHTENING AND REPAIRING OF TREE GUYS. RESETTING PLANTS TO PROPER GRADES 3' DEEP MULCH LAYER (COMPACTED DEPTH)Ary� REMOVE ALL DES. WRAP & CONTAINERS. FREE qFt' i OR POSITION, AND RE- ESTABUSHING SETTLED GRADES. HERBICIDE IS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PERIMETER ROOTS FROM NURSERY HALL A ONE YEAR FOLLOWING LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION. INCLUDED IS REPLACEMENT OF DEAD PLANTS AND U VATS TREE PR AT A MIN. OF 4 TIMES PLANTS SHOWING LOSS OF 40 PERCENT OR MORE OF CANOPY. OIA. OF ROOTBALL AT BALL CENTER, TAPERING PIT GRADE TO FINISH GRADE • PIT SPOILS, NURSERY BALL WASTE BACKFILL " SET B41 ON UNDISTURBED. SUBGRADE, OR COMPACTED SOIL, NOTE: LC BIT AFTER BACKFl ONY NO FERTILRER IIN PIANTINGP. i WORK PERIMETER ROOTS FREE OF NURSERY BALL EVERGREEN TREE PLANTING /STAKING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE NOTE . OVER EXCAVATE PARKING LOT PLANTERS TOPSOIL SETTLED TO LOOSEN COMPACTED SUBBASE (COMPACTED CONDITION). OVER ALL AGRICULTURAL SOIL. DEPTH OF 3. FEET COARSE TRANSITION FROM TOPSOIL.. TO SUBSOIL CURB. BERM HEIGHT 6" TYP. 1 -1/2' DRAIN AT LOW POINTS& 10' MAX. SPACING MIN. OR AS NOTED - SOIL UNE 3' IN - MULCH. FLUSH N PAVING SECTION IN TURF' (DEPTH VARIES) SUBGRADE —�_ __ , _ - .:. .REMOVE EXCESS GRAVi1 AND PAVING .. �T . 12' MAX. UP GRADING IN PARKING LOT PLANTERS DETAIL. (TOPSOIL PREP.) NOT TO SCALE z ar IL J Q co cf) U a 0 J Q Q Z dFFd''IL Fr IL7IL r� ui " co uj Z C5 q O I- Z z C:) 'm a o w 0 �_- rn. L O ;z 2 i 0 Q F� PRUNE DAMAGED TWIGS AFTER PLANTING PLACE IN :NEAT. POSITION: DOUBLE LEADERS WILL BE REJECTED •• - z i ,NOTE: .. •""c KEEP FOOTBALL MOIST AND PROTECTED AT ALL TIMES x HOLD CROWN OF ROOTBALL AT OR JUST ABOVE FINISH GRADE PROTECT TRUNK AND LIMBS FROM .INJURY BACKFlLL TO BE SETTLED USING WATER ONLY - NO MECHANICAL COMPACTION REMOVE ALL WRAP, .DES do CONTAINERS, REGARDLESS OF MATERIAL (2) LODGEPOLE STAKES, PLUMB WITH ELASTIC CHAIN -LACK {s TYPE OR RUBBER GUYS TIED IN FIGURE EIGHT; REMOVE AFTER ONE GROWING SEASON z� y PROTECTIVE WRAPPING DURING SHIPMENT TO SITE E INSTALLATION ON N REMOVE AT COMPLETION OF PLANTING. z LAWN PLANTING' PROVIDE 3'0 'NO GRASS' TREE RING A, 3' DEEP ° MULCH LAYER ?COMPACTED) IN WELL HOLD BACK FROM TRUNK e' TO 10' > rNi N N Z oo aON W FINISH GRADE "- PREPARE PLANTING So PER SPECS; AT MIN., LOOSEN AND MIX— _ N ¢ I Z SOIL TO 18' OR DEPTH OF ROOTBALL AND 4'RME5 BALL DIA �.3 N N Z5z REMOVE RE FOOTBALL AND ORK NURSERY SOIL - RECEIV DN Z N N AWAY FROM PERIMETER ROOTS SET BALL ON UNDISTURBED BASE OR COMPACTED" MOUND UNDER BALL 'APR 20 006 cOmmuw PENETRATION TO SUBBASE ( +) 24". DEVELOPM T `� C •O,Ai s ,`iyV day DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING /STAKING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE _ CID � la C7 B N T di J =_ cau. BEFORE YOU DIGI PRELIMINARY LA +-q . CA LANTI N (N LA 1- 800 - 424 -5555 WEST S 1 ARC L � rL 1.-40 o zo ao RD EXISTING SILT FENCE $ 1 V ~ LOCATED ON , w : .N W O EXISTING CHAIN LINK 1 x x —RC 588'5108 "E 1058.t0' FENQETOREMAIN: O a 0 rcoN: _ - CH.AI N I N K FENCE L0 NC -P O .E T LINE i CONDUIT Q �� O to RDINARY\ 6 J co ' _ ( a :5 __ i 0- `, ' NEW 5OMH. �`N �( Q RIF1 _ n/ I Me E 1 �.. ' O I ` ib SE 13 RC .-18.5 W 1 r� H PAVEMENT ' N IG Cl NEW ASP 0 U, E :z, 1/r I I Js ZZZZo zo ORDINARY HIGH 18 WATER MARK ((YP.). I . : W WIDE LANDSCAPE Puxmi .I co to CONTINUOUS �,.- 1B•..,_- ---•'L LPL. N m� p �- _ R - .25' STORAGE r ? • I T.i r E= �' - 01 SETBACK NO 50' BUILDING \ y ., .'. / •� SETBACK'(TYP.) 6" EXTRUDED r : _ D' N ! R _ COTdIk¢ETE Co B 5 �, �: I o _ RCS / _0.7 O LE a p RCS .o .� i' '/ •� ,. .p .fl ,. . NEW 8" HIGH CHAIN LINK FENCE ALONG. '. ., , �s m WEST <RC.. D(ISTING FENCE TO REMAIN \ v NEW ASPHALT PAVEMENT RC' EXISTING S `RRY \ \ WALL TO RE 71N, U 1$ 1 Z (`•��� `��_.�,,,� ('j �! • ORDINARY HIGH w o� \ ❑ `� \ c% / ' / / ,�� • WATER MARK > ° RO md RC RC z w ORDINARY HIGH): WATER MARK \ \ RD RC �1 V 0 GONSJ \` �4 RCE�VEQ STATE OF . �� �^-• PAVE UP TO 5' LANDWARD O 1pp6 WASHINGTON OF IXISTING FENCE ,pQR 2 REGIS � T9_1 HECT ARTHUR CERiIFlCA 0 ' (VN.10 ONLY NI1N SGNANRE) I IRI 1. 2. z I m YEILOWRWG DOGWOOD .CONTAINER Z W ~O RESSOCYPARIS LLYLANDiI 'EMERALD ISLE' / 6 HT. AS SHOWN 63 & GUY ONE GROWING SEASON; NURSERY EUONYMUS ALATUS 'COMPALTA' / W Wa�.Ua 6' O.C. 215 �o <9 'U a- 0 8 k 8 IBIS o -r6 COMPACT WINGED EUONYMUS g� z W W US CALLERYANA 'CAPITAL' / 2' CAL AS SHOWN 22 STAKE k GUY ONE GROWING SEASON; NURSERY Sa MAHOMAAOUIFDUUM / 18' - 21' CONFINER 6' D.C. w W APILM. ORNAMENTAL PEAR a� ° GROWN FOR STREET TREE USE. BRANCHED AT S' DREGOH GRAPE � W PENNISERIM ALOPECUROIDES 'H MELN' / 1. GALLON O 129 IS TYPHIHA / zd Z o STAKE 'a GUY ONE GROWING SEASON; NURSERY 0 0 �. � m <t M � co TACHORN. SUMAC C' Q IL PRUNUS WIROGERASUS '0170, WYKFN' /. 18' - 21' IV O.C. \. � ® OTTO WYKEN LAUREL CONTAINER O� I IRI 1. 2. � t z a V1 N W a� Z F � W L< N Z THREE CANES MINIMUM < z N //� A• ?Ni. JyV 'Py�d RECEIVED YQ - =' APR 2, 0 2U06' r 6 � � cocmnuNTY (.• 5�.. OEVFJ- OPNfNT y� F 00 STATE OF WASHING HOLD 18' FROM BORDERS, SHRUBS, LAN OSC�GPIS HITECT M AND TREES / E N HOLD 18' FROM' BORDERS-SHRUBS; -ARTHUR AND TREES rsuim: uo°omn r- J YEILOWRWG DOGWOOD .CONTAINER RESSOCYPARIS LLYLANDiI 'EMERALD ISLE' / 6 HT. AS SHOWN 63 & GUY ONE GROWING SEASON; NURSERY EUONYMUS ALATUS 'COMPALTA' / 21' - 24' 6' O.C. 215 MERALD ISLE LEYLANDI CYPRESS 8 k 8 GROWN. GR ® COMPACT WINGED EUONYMUS CONTAINER US CALLERYANA 'CAPITAL' / 2' CAL AS SHOWN 22 STAKE k GUY ONE GROWING SEASON; NURSERY MAHOMAAOUIFDUUM / 18' - 21' CONFINER 6' D.C. 62 APILM. ORNAMENTAL PEAR B k 8 GROWN FOR STREET TREE USE. BRANCHED AT S' DREGOH GRAPE PENNISERIM ALOPECUROIDES 'H MELN' / 1. GALLON 3' O.C. 129 IS TYPHIHA / 2' CAL AS SHOWN 13 STAKE 'a GUY ONE GROWING SEASON; NURSERY 0 HAMELN FOUNTAIN GRASS TACHORN. SUMAC B k 8 GROWN. MULTI-TRUNK - PRUNUS WIROGERASUS '0170, WYKFN' /. 18' - 21' IV O.C. 26 ® OTTO WYKEN LAUREL CONTAINER UA / 'ERN 6' HT. AS SHOWN 38 STAKE a GUY ONE GROWING SE/SON; NURSERY LSA WA XCE15A WESTERN RED CEDAR RE' B.h B GROWN, UN -CUR LEADER ® PRUNUS WIROCEAASUS 'SCHIPRAFt1515 / 21' - 24' e' O.0 221 SCHIPKA LAUREL SCHI CONTAINER Q. RHODODENDRON.'PJM''/ 21' - 241 B O.C. 86 NO COMMON NAME CONTAINER ROSA NUTONA 18' - 21' S' O.C. 78. NOOIKA ROSE CONTAINER IGATION NOTES: _ SY / 18' 5' O.C. 58 ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS WILL BE SERVED BY A BELDW GRADE. AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM. 0 COMMON SNDWBETURY COMMON SHO BERRY N INE CONTAINER IRRIGATION SYSTEM WILL MEET CITY OF TUKWILA MUNICIPAL DOTE. CANTER 18.51040. VIBURNUM DAVIDII 18' - 21' S' D.C. 41 ITEM .H. o DAVID'S VIBURNUM CONTAINER GROUND COVER: - TEXAN CHILOENSIS / 4' POT -18' D.C. AS REO'D ORNAMENTALS STRAWBERRY. RC RUBUS CALYCIN 4' POT 18' D.C. AS REO'D eOIRDES r//,I/i i i � t z a V1 N W a� Z F � W L< N Z THREE CANES MINIMUM < z N //� A• ?Ni. JyV 'Py�d RECEIVED YQ - =' APR 2, 0 2U06' r 6 � � cocmnuNTY (.• 5�.. OEVFJ- OPNfNT y� F 00 STATE OF WASHING HOLD 18' FROM BORDERS, SHRUBS, LAN OSC�GPIS HITECT M AND TREES / E N HOLD 18' FROM' BORDERS-SHRUBS; -ARTHUR AND TREES rsuim: uo°omn r- J i.......... .. ...... i'.........1 ... ..,..........,'. ........,... ... .. .1....... ::UMIT PF:SMP...... :: :: :::�, ;.....200"UR ........... .....:.:...................... -. ! . ... • . 200''UfiBAN SHOPEUNE'ENVIORNMENf' ..... .,.. ' .. ' . ' ...... , ..... • • ........ UMIT OF SMP JURISDICRON ...... JUA601C110N - ....:........ ....... .......... r • • • ...... , ... ... • I. I. ........:.. . I•. E. C'BI1IL�MC TO BE HFNOVEED II ..........' :.........p........, ;. ..........:..... ....... ;.........; ........, i Funm�.BUnnwc:wA1L .IL..... ;. ;................. u Mwm xElatr NOEIEti I I. 0 v .........:....... ..........:....... . .......... Z4 : _ ..........::. ...:.:.:1.:_:.:..:. .....E ...,.....:::::.:. :..:.:..:.:..:. .. ..... ..... ._ � V',........, qp1g� RW :.........; ...:. ... ..... ...:...i.... .:. .... ....: ........ ... .....t..... ....; ........ ........... .. ... ........ i,. .. ... :' -.. ....1 ..:: ......... .. .. ...,....... ... fl 1 ...'.:.:. ......, ,.........f.. :............ ... ....:.........p.. .... ... :i.. ...... ... PROPOSED .PARKING ,.. .. .. lANO5CAPING: :: i..:... .:..... SIR .;. . ...... ...... . .i— i:::::: .WI .....................:.. :.:..:. ..........................:.. . . :.:..:.:.:.:.. :.:::::...:......E . . O :........._........- ...:........................:.............. ::......_:....._.........._.... ..:........:......... ......... :...._.. P ....................... ........................... _ . ; .... ........ .. --- —_ — i oo P ' 100' YFFR'FU) W N ,.... i50UN0ARY EtEV: 8.5� :::: !,.......... aim aosFn:r ' :40 AIJC: RY m 5 ............ o. 0 LL ... :.... .....�.: :. . :.... i.........1...........1 ...... ....._ 1 ................:.............. .....c.... .:...�::: :.. ....... ........: ... ....... ...........,... ....... .. .i.........i......_- .1....... - ......-.........:.__......._.:......_......._. a........_._ ..........:..:......_.........._.:............_.........:............................_._................:............._.... ............:........._.. -. r......... ::: :. .... ...1� ........................._..... . ....... . .106-YEAR °FiAOD•P ,....:.. , 1 .. ..........:................ .....:....:....:..........:...: .. ...:.. ........:.. �... — UdUNOAAY•ELEV. B. -- :_......';::::.. .. .IDUWAMISH WATEE 5::::::::: .:..._ ............:::_ .:..:.:..._.....__........ _ :.:.:. . i ........................ .........i ........ ..........:.. .... ..... ;. ..........::................. .... ..I. ....., ... ....,......... ........., 1 +50 2+00 A ^� SCALE H: 1 " =20' m _ V: 1"=5' 0}00 0+50 1+00 1 +50 2 +00 2 +50 ,rr _1v54 APR 2, 01606' .ellc l&l �e 200' URBAN SHORE UNE ENJIORNMENT UMIT OF SMP JURISDICRON 25': -.. ...... . ... ..... • .. J. ....:........ ....... .......... r • • • ...... , ... ... • I. I. ........:.. . I•. E. C'BI1IL�MC TO BE HFNOVEED II ..........' :.........p........, CO i z :. ...... •11..REMAN .I 0 v . i .......... ............. .. ........ 2 0 Z4 ......... U) :..:.:..:.::.:.:..: .... .. ..._ .. .. ......: .. ..... ..... ._ � V',........, qp1g� RW 2 Z :.:::::: ::.. :.........:.. ......... �:::: i...... ...I.........i..... 15:........ _ ....................:._...... ............................... .. ...,....... ... fl 1 ...'.:.:. .;. .. PROPOSm 5: ..:E::::::::: :. .. .. .... -- .............. i..: :.: IA.NDSCAPMC......_....:..:.:. E .::..:.:..:. ......... ...;.......... .::::::.: i.:.. :.:_:.:..:.:..:.:_i.:.:.:..:..: :_..::' - t� SIR i:::::: .WI .::........:.............. ..........................:.. . . :.:..:.:.:.:.. :.:::::...:......E . . O O ........................... _ . ; .... ........ .. --- —_ — i oo P ' 100' YFFR'FU) W N ,.... i50UN0ARY EtEV: 8.5� :::: !,.......... ,........ .... ................... ... m 5 ............ 0 0 LL v SCALE H: 7 " =20' _ V: 7 " =5 -0+50 0 +00 0 +50 1 +00 1 +50 2+00 ,rr _1v54 APR 2, 01606' .ellc l&l E � - o 8 e 2 dd s e AA � 3 z� z �3NN a W. N W N N E Dryy, b g z ti �p J tl) N E N , n L �e J. a CO i z 0 v ca Z4 U) � V',........, qp1g� RW 2 Z U It r 1Cla . o Z t� W cri Q .� O O w 0.� 0) yy G 0 w (L !� m 5 0 0 LL E � - o 8 e 2 dd s e AA � 3 z� z �3NN a W. N W N N E Dryy, b g z ti �p J tl) N E N , n L SHORELINE SITE PLAN �® FOR Z — a A PORTION OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 24 N, RANGE 4 E, W.M. �$� a Cl 06 36 so tzo KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON s 91�r ST £� a_ �. . 5 93rd ST lu- EO S 951h ST �y Z Off/ \`O 59605 w� Efg3: .. �1 Eo EX, FENCE S 6 � �%r r 8Y 'F = 6i . i 5_ <v- u>'1 C •I� 0'.t 8 ? .i . ' .E 5>z 1 �a0y S51r.?,8+.'.�,__ �rk ,x, 7.0Y4- ' . ._ 5 ;.- , .-.. f , . e r . .f u r .'•1 ..t.J.x.� '"'tv .- . • -• e � . - • t . 1 - , ,„.,..;kS a� �1 , >'3. � . �t r' r t ' a 1 ? 'v . �.n ' -� � _4:1 - - . �-n,,., ,P" •.7A 1lt1 ". •` > ": .;=;a c_i.1 'D 1 ? �..rrte. L,_ '�, ..! . -> t YN t , .' 1 1z 7 . J0 ri. +Gc . REMAIN EMAIN J C . � t - nw` � . &_. ._ '-. t•. ,- n- " ,1-.2:'.?'4.,.' x>- , e '-:-: .- -s:riy`' -L. ''r 1 # -.d; ' 1�-"' r r �^r� .� �:, ..�� .::.. '� k t ^ x dr : �lrY'� �s � r" s :. _ri .. __a_ _ - 's} .i.• '> .. •.. ter ( - ry,/.. .,, - :46'•.• , \ '" . t - -,t , ,, •n.: . VIC_ I N I- T _ Y MAP a .rR iNFTO m ; ` r -------- S 22'10'28 "E LIGHTED _. r P hi i INTERSE CTION PROPOSED S '3 .w mmmtl y \ > z a �t RLAND , ' '; v » B 5 i.•, ` ^t•3: 4 } .a�:, ...5 -, y.�a._ _ \ :.v, ,+' '� ->�' � r v .> t�-.;sy,. �.anxi...s_ .� �..,.. 'S w !- >�._;.; �, t .rv�. -. . , �� r .,L,- .t .:lfi FJ"\t¢i r -e ,�'U•`,�` ti' ;t.:r�"i� >.\75T ,gam � r,:.f�'! xa:• ,c-\ i 't `n .k._._ ,..:t ,.r._ +....,w -�s-. ..4. .t � ..: ,. T�,e"'�Si` .. ;v ..ni.`'3.,, .... -.. r. .. .e -.Y4>I { ..4,;1,,,__..x - „r ....,. .,�':�'- .'r'�5 +g^... i+: n.. ;:- 1'°-- `>_a�,.•�".' �. - `- rya "•�•.',`.",. .�x--au"*� >, _ r '+G.._ ti , Yv_ - J t. .. a.«,:L t ,..r - i-' is -t? '-, .IrttT".�, -. x >.•F+',�'�.>,.,, _ r:,.e',z -.,[ r "' r-Y``� 1 W , . ,;.�r`�...>,'ni ` . t • t . \ r• w '' «* «- ' e ,. "_ r� n1,Cw- .c:'t> t+• ., o., „•�u{s .: •�r' , u.. -c 3 iwi, v�r _..`,s- F•�,�'i.'a' B -, "-d . a _:l u,...., >; i 1 �-�. s..., i.. tt �- q"1_, �*sax',Y,+ .,a n. -1, :!F .. s•:>,iv :L,;�. ''�' srt_.• -i Y'4.:�4'UV. •.ts^ 3.,. ..,sue; •- �-4_ _ v • :,_ „ .1 . >r.�, c _ <e tfr�.<z. s=ue ..,. ,..�...� . - „ ",•L .. _ ;, , . �, 5 „la';, , . -,�... r . �±:�_' x ..':R.'{`... �;- .!- lH9x.sr' _ S�Fx �'- -_ tc'-S'��+'(s�°i� �'� c- +-._ • ,,,w, s.: � -,� . ~J, . � �-, ,!r-. .'vTr . '�` � �ai.__yy F ... --,"'" z -, . t .;>�� u• �m ;�a'� , �:w >.r. .._ . -+,r =*L , k.- E' -'_4- _ �•:>'' .. s -7, "vn-- � -:, s , v:.:.e . - � •-C ia7+ ,- c .,.. sI, >:• �, (' „ „• , .. r,Flt�. � � r < �:. -�•, • a`a. „ ,- : ...:ra. ' : � >,. , � s x , , '-s. ,- r=:�rL�,'�.. ,, ,:s! � ..tom' •'�;c �7:,. _ � 3 - .a.,».. � -i... 1,` `, -',. �.`ii� •_?r �!'R -i .^c'� _ �,,>>?I.t •y.PN'' �: �y m•S,� �w. p x, t�',a .d,. 1* � .. --•,s � ... a,.-,. �.�,....,m- _iu6'.` ��r,. c. _ ...>�'--c .,dl- . 1..r. - �P.- ._,�'�'� -? , ., h%...... � � ; c3^.'- F , -r, t , _..:i:.�3. •`• S:�•'a:w: -,•r ,,.#�' '•3 t,7':i'" -' _c� k.1O'j` }3,c•�•..- _,,._ � � 1 ��"'� _ ;<,`t -•.� .._.. -�- . _1tEx �!'� .r�- .,¢E;o ,�t"�?•�<z� - "i,_ � „s' >t?? ,r_: t:e,_ - - : 1 F•'.: -. � -�. >!W 8'• a- .itY'"- �'rray . _. z"~s. .s. ....rc"�^""",.. _.� _ .= rr�=.� ...J. �,1 ” _ _ _ � _ ...�f�3 ",.na'it''�.. �•- ;^�'.�'! ��a,i. �.�+cr,,.x.• • .t . iYrt'�� -s'� it � »hp:_: 't S, .u-L.� -,�'i.- Tt7._.L!'D?T..'� � '. • ^_�� - _ - '- +'� —A' - z. .",:�^,. - t' `'s:;.z^” ,. -:+•S �":y �+-�,' , T'€-_ �--- �fi7"1`snw i..._..xxut•? „�z, W .3-.+, � r =.- �.. .-,_. ..w ... y:; k ':_. `-. , _.� •=.> '�1.h. '= ';=ice _ 7"."w..<. r'",Y, _ _. rF°. F7^ _ �! _ •i .- r•,”- ••s ,..: r. -a .r , .n- e-^�• -rs=7s`" c^ � .i1'- .�'S>',. �.,, . x n'� ..t.�w.. ,i__ _ v. ,,.. �;.._ E _ _ ,., --^i�- _ „5;t- r,..,, ,� ;, a'�; ,; r' _- S . -r � 9,- .- .Irr.' ,... � .'+`1. ac r=- ct fi.. .,,,- =`. <.. _- 5:...,_I ._� "., ., .. •;_ r , . ,�w,. ._,.. ,. _ nS2t" -, zl� ,. >R,-, s . - �?"��.. _ ' i)<.u'.. t �:,sE _L�,.ex". --t. rs. .,r. -- ry ��'•� :u � .'� W ._., :' _",a., si rte;'. ,r: �+�,"+ .,.: s.... _ .�f.��- .bet�.a'.9 ., �� �.)�. .-- dx.1aZ-::.Y.4• ,a,�.. _r?I`� at��e7r= Tai?., ..,� >,�.'.��._ ..:,- 1=:er•> =_; ',_...r,., ..t,s_ � t 1 , _: ��' t =r . •r ,. „ • :t � :, . �. .u: „- sz'r`;' U.I •a-I .f -.,, MiTi!.c> rig ..,.,�.,^7 _, , T.. G ... . , ^:F Pv_.. ..+,14.T, _.. _ .Th ._ _ ., .'•:..•x -.� tr :.. n2 .,. - o - _Y. --.r y-:; • ;�.� _ _•1., .;P. =.r,= :FG�..'£. 3C'n!,•u '1 �. _. »r- -'r'*,r.. i t.r,7. .f.,�.�... �.. :.:v d. "s's. rm .v - ran':' ,-c; l •,,F -r +\ iA1 t.:t>7c',n a•'•I,. , t - •,�r -` ax . f:S.stt aE> ,>F "'i3P. - 'c r- �••: �r- - .� -`,_ "' .9r t!»� .>e : � sir -` S•.:.�,:. -,. �.•_ �n • x �v � �' l �:� a� \ -. ,66; s` u•- r' "'r ` �, ! =:U �i � � . � `� ta'". _. , t i -'.,; _ r, _� r?M; _ `,7. -.,.. Rte. � `nrj; -�. w L,z?•_ .,y' .. •fz•,. ,. B :_.. f_ .r. .. # ='�'"" m.' - h.�•. - `�" ,_.�..r r3r�.? .-» � a�Nl: :-_j,� +�'` �?� - +.,:.:� , �r - 4`' ..,�- �3y.,,..,..ti" .7.,, x . -,..� 1' .3x'.'` 1 ,io L1F• a ., . .. .a r�'�,4�n 7. ;, - ,<..,....1 , K �,.._ -..�•. 3. Al Y >r-• �i(. �^d.�_.1.FO!�4 - j'1`'' - P , L�'c', � . c. . ( ;:.+,h..-3 I �¢ r �i 7;.. r ra. _ �, , t,P'F+ S: 'Z"" .0 ri>' c+x. • y...1!_� -�, t g N --T• �� i:.'�T�'"= ...J �r-,>n t%,a ;• � .'� \\ \ ':� I, 'r ,rT- •'.. �xf.;" ". m L'.` Nt . a T ..� ! . ~`g i_ r 4} '-} a T 'Tax ,J" a •I. . A�:c � ;; _, �j v� : ..a r .�.. 1,- � wt' '{'iCd7L ",; - >+1L:tm. �.,r� 1: a"r_ spy � ��y� 'St ..:raft' ° rrF'nr.� t;;c_7"'" P2 "i` �. irk .,�, - '+'-�: - 't� {.... ., ." +.,.- j•YY.." ^.fit s ,1 =ttd ",- s{�- r�„'T +3+..,. _Sw '1�'` ""}•,I.OA1�lLYG "lY1lGt�. -r:a -, _. S:'y1 1 � <- „�•E ^ ^. .'�•(F ¢ >i'r� ,"y �. .,(., •P' >I. ,. �+8 ��-: '- � /rF f:'S'"'f!_.. •vhylAj. , ,:d. "�..,, VA _f/� )i' , >+!. N.-.'�S. b4. •�'- I L :-_• ('�,c� .f!'. .At >" c � ..w�: T,.G: ,> Id•h!. 4. "B =. %°M., -SQ> G !u .i ., �F• ».vt`r;.v_,�ii + 'f•_, � .- ;�. `b'!N ,r:.x ,`?,�> . ,•a'x.. _ k�. ,'�.; _ y.. ,_ � ^,Qy,7' •�� a;,_C'�” ,°'zY T,:._. k _ t � . 'y.. ._k t' w ` ._r... 1_ �,3,^ .$�,: . i<? ..3 .Ji' •, z .r,« .,a. , • ,- . -c v� - = . .c` !.,.�,r�� w 'fir'"' p � .ktr5 _ __� _ S • _5I"� F,sV , -f . :IM'i,�.4�::1'ko1,�'�x -`€v.. ,:. 1._.7 ... 1x. .s•.?Ri�.'.,:r.`�l . ,.a,,•.. -' -, tr. ur . 9d s6w•,+e� r�,H -,r ",_ -. � r Jk ?h e {" r'y'a! -•�L ' r' .1"F x;f° =� •5 nirry; 1 >.r;i�Y„ � .lt,�: •s^`fZ'� y"".�.',4+wir..>•c^iz,.. 7 (-•- - t! :�k'3 - t - I \O , �,, _ c>.,- c;E •tF: � a:xj `fS"�c:•+tt") '_ c,�.t B: �;� ._xP �:fi�" . 1•'�tk+i -yF, � �x I�:a ._`SST -- = 1 'r";s- r-, s ,.r kG- •fi _ r�?.i` � .. _..�: - j .,,,.� Tz,•� <:k' ,�' �' �-- ,:I•;dr ^. ,at ,. �,r;,_ „i,,:c r ,.r.L,-^ -•i S"i' , . ri �,x, *,y Z � 1� -r fit ,7r 7 1 b' .. A.uh,-•. �:. :., . r .+ ..^Arl ... }`'� . ,_„ r:.F�•i+,f' ){- -y'�.t 4-. .� AJSt , „ij .I _�'_,,e;T;- N\ i ^\ .— f H py --7F� -�'��" _ ._ ; ��'°'�t � .. r, .� � B . �•:>_��I�,i �.�. �,.. � �+., �•�; . ° -� -,fix :-,;,,� L �- �, I _ `\ �,, � � OEM a>�. ��k'�r ;�..,.>� -,,.x� ,� .T • .� ��r. �, D�^? .� rt-� -�,, :,_,__ ,u. - � �->r =• _ \ � p i s� D aiaae �j Y .:� r .. - a• L, s \� x b.a. ,, t \ O Z .VEGETATION >:; a, , r �..., •n t >'� -x -n7„ trt,••••Tt'0 ' r/ /'�.' _ t r O ..� s._, . ,.:OR3S�lLOANGE - 70 REMAIN 1 .. T, -;. , -, r - 4a .x.. �`,:, Te n.,'h rc•-•t: h .U..; _' . e- -r " 10:�1r •. 1 xv�7 E xi 7 T?39A e�F u 1a s�s r 6� b � Pf�PDSED ,�• ie_ err / � do r �\ ,J:.drE• • rS AiY2K_1. wH:.a �r" Y_ 9d{:\ �.L ,f y4, yjj?? t„; -r � `.j�.. i,il•'r"'"'>> "�;.. �F?�> ut- °. MR., Lin n..,,•�{y'� �+ - ,+„<,�.,•R ?^✓'r�•.�^1„r'� •c:�••,,, ,,�' � '•.,.�. $fceL,�.' 'Q, � to y5�r. - tir » -A"-�, �a 1 =,H : n,,. �-- s,;r�y, tea• . r„ T '�^'+�' w •br^rrS.._ a, 3•-,F? ; :TI 7 � n .,_Bdl' LNG '� _•��`. \0 \O .I 1 3EZASl� '4ipi ..�`�, 3 •�u;� t' �• ,(._ 'w, wc�w.., ,-,� -! , a �.;a 1 '".t., tt - >sa. %� aY , 1 \.;.:.} s+'"'. _ ovmu..a an% Lr s,��i -- 84, o sF 6 �..m O "eEaFj t cjl _ ter._ Y r q �4 ?M:- r 3-z uY �a r' I `` r . a t O - --n �T.,L n '�1-g _ - s; �." .. /t / >:•c • •: \ � � � 1 1�rc ii 1 d - 1 n'�R_ :- .�!;F:�: •. s. ?L� '.• >;,•,��" __ , wr a �, :, v.�v••z;:tt_,; . r,,:fFc=_`> g a'�':, � -•>iL -`� -t,r _ _ �.��c O M I . I n.. -. ?i _ - r _ s_ t k s .n,. . • %x r c Ar'T•,r:a - ri 1!^_ W a Lei xi.rr3y,Y� • - �\ �.J{�n..._�t•i9sr.r ' 1. i'*•+• ...?� > -,:ro _� ''.`r.�•�a�„csr -r _..� •r ._ S "t+.. rr6 .,-.tK »a'tl.�sr.' ,.my- �a-'�' ",ter`. - -•�' �" O � .Q- ,va,•Y,'�: _ � v! . C� � _. _-.� , • . , ..r•. _ �.x'x',- -r-'` 7 : . , r}., "� �..�4r_:s'%;"ir'; �wS �, r - ri ( _ -. - �- mr!, 5, .,. x 1s.,cs+'1; ,1n ,.,ti. ..�..., � u ,>y.,+k. L .y _ ., ,24;fi�� *• - =' - ` -u.t .:I.fS =.. .� .."�_. i � . i t "�i, *il.,. a -'� ,Z , .�. ��.�7jW :,r4;J.� ,,Sz tc' -�h�^i :1� r�r m-�i�. B"s'F�"'r'`r''r ��xt °q• � � - r' -� �� a r \ . \ O W I r.- u�EJ `e'�:;PRO, a R <,�)a''' -.•' -� uT`-- Nra' -�: a's+,� :.r.r c. -<: ._, �:1- a�•z�6-a- �".r'�ec�,., t• Y�-r t Ct � � 1 1 - •- ,.�>w;,. . , _ .. .._ �:,=. :- ��``.,,- �,- ,zs:l�:.� -. • - ivf�>, ^ _ �i-1, ,�, t¢'.. -ax. f r.. , e .�.-. 3i \{ �••'' \ �G • -�- "$' k�'�4Bi° ab - =p1.. *...._,�?' �� �ti�, �H -0 �"' "`�,` `� ...0��.x..� r .fi_ �. , rfr� c ,, , ')-.v :�,;sn * - ;\ - `1� � \ ''�' n^� :'�`^`rrr'S.>✓ "ifl5»' aa�.' ,h'.c ,e:3. -^ + �3 ^",.'�i:,a - _ �,er- "M \ � c .?•S ,m .s. Y��. z.e:n .a.. -> - k'Sn "z r -n -\ . =vrx. .,, a , _, = n '' Ta.t c , K: "i .. _ ,7:•+- ..... }-.. a - ,'�•r ,'� .' "cl i` - , Jf . ' r : I. s. _ . of r L :� ��, ,: -'z.it �.ts• -.gL s .\ .�_ .:.w. St ' ^�''.1 �i. r, 't.,• - x5fa�zr . U '>ti ,vim ,x„?., •.ri "� d Fr n� i r S J: ;:3 .,,€ ;' `f -,>f _'rte- „a:.,, ..+•+- .i 4 .� ” » - a :r . 'j m I . G , • a r a�)% z: `' fi A ,':� :.2 . -•a ` _ 7 � .,.x - _ .,i' f -: .,_,eCa�? -„ . •� ..,�i...; TW' . - • i .� > � p,. ,. a t'r-.. �- -1• • �' . �sG?,^ :: ,1• tt'. �; .y;. . S ^� "3 �, r \1 � o .. : a-- .� ... E c r. �t -_� r -� ., , t�- -rt? '3 �� J• «.. ' ..„;�_,�,<'_.v. vd; ,:: � s -. : t ,5•* ..,.: , . L 3`V � � f;,_rt ..-.1- �z:.�.,rv." �?�r,7 � ,...,���m4_�� : 5 '[a .•. Q ,� � Si'' � �� . ki vt . he, ,•- �, ,c4 �;. G. ��✓ ru • - - Hpa• --- ; �,_.r ,.rte �t,� '�', oa, rat.:'.:F�`' a- ,r~- '�6'`.•.'' t� T.1i,. - r a'F7Y r ���'�' - - ;. `Lx�•- 9 �l.i. _ .�-• ..;3 ra. �.= � -,. ... ,,,. ,rr+: T!X�9r- !`7:..,.,. 57�• ,.�`r,. •.h c .. . \' . <H _ .,5-�i, .-.. r ,_ •.,� ., _ nr •e, r �"' ,u. _ I. ,. ; ,... -.n Tv:: ,-.:'S .,,..w _ �,'.;aE+ x ,�4- i t�� ��_ _ a� �- -•; � s' i�,7��- ;. ,� - a�.,t_ ,..,�r.� .��.r,:�- � - T;'.» � ._. .,,�.- w�'�� -I - \ .... _ _�-,. 3 x ..�i -... . - -.. •G.._-.^xn ""! S'.' i. _ •.'C"•!"r.• _ Ji 5t4- >c ,-C:- " ., � • � � : _ . C� �,.,-,--�• ,_ �• .. . "._ : : �'-"i - ,, -� ^ -, r . � •�)3. � -� r� PROposm 'h �. 2 J° ` #�' '�. ,�, :��:� "� � rx•u ti - .. i , . �. .. .. � ,! i,- _. , e i. .. -. , >��. -_ , f.}�G _ •,�•, r=7� :r .;�. � TE - -^ I- ". A .S-* t . `�' ��'r �r • „,�•r*- cia�'�' _.,.> .. .:_ ,•t .c � =, �y v ..» ,.,_" ,... - -+J. _ ``':u'"' .. ->^ -•. ,. I.: T. . t3 : - ,%�r -a t,w •' di: ..q , a:_ �!,' .r, -.f�a• _ n ? ytr�,; �•r. .ry.., u . ;,,Y . ,.,_wc +, n-,•. 's,,.l }+4 ?� 'I - � ti i.. �'r k i a. l: •, J �. �_�1*azrw�+: -,': s, ;i�_ ff - mi ,. `. `ct 'x'•',`xZL, - _: .F1' „".,�i �fi'Ye� ,"�� =tv "i�.t ,hi ^D� '�it�..,.:t.;r- ,n }�- :r`'�ar *. ,a�' „ -,- _ q ,; a; a. ._,, ;Aa7a•10 °i7:_ �, ri ,IV .F �. ,. z�-t:l_...- _ ' 1 1 ' =.ter• r.r.>•.•,,. td s• . ` x -rte"•` .,:, �-�. if>L+ �+,s, w>..g,.Y'.«`7 -r• '+� •:t tt3.r - �i_-. -> ` -'�',' _ . 4 iu _ , # ,e - z x ,1 m a . \ `,. \ >i. . ;, o N 56' BUILDIt] �. FRt ,ate+ rs. B�< •,. SEfEUGi\. - x\ ,:�'•. ) '' ' ` P ► . t .\ \ •`Si '1 ' .\ . !: G 'J ' fms{,,=.�:'a ';- � Z�� � P. n i't5 t» !a � =Y�° �' (v 1'iN,� a cr •• > " > 1, ,.. �_5 r- .�,• Y• 4 �1 - r��-' . t �- ” Y,Nt •< TC TZ r- t '.� 'J .4� F•«i La„' "* '' ? L` y FT ` �t,1. , '' u. �.d�1.' Li � t;„=i ' c ° 1 ' 1 ��r :Lr1�i<• ''-. . , f'rzC!y ' ar .�,. r..r?. �4 -._ a .:� .H z��r #t'.,r 1= . . �, Zx ` +G_ : F ^= +� .� .=!! n a ...� l rTK x,� . >txiO , k (' 0� . r --rfr•Y ,� . �. •,'. -itia! ` s:/ : 4 ' ' -� i - 4P r . . �,jy - sF ,,,� , T/t �S ,a.G A"• �,t f. � i •, - ;. > :h , . . �z-/`~# lr � , ' 4 /. 7„ r _ '.,{':_ tJ%9rr..x•-=h U�'r •„' ' "„ x i.,'O � � i 6 M, ae^ rN% r. : C .` . J / F`5 .: - :_ ' \ r > N s 06'48"W -5 8 :t 77.00` .85'46 8'18495•'19.00' zs srDRACE -s 7r9i w SETBACK . OPOE UNDERROUN NARY HIGH STORM WATER QUALITY j FLIGHT MUSEUM 0.17' ORDIR 1 ` `\ BOEING VAULT WATER MARK frvo ) � rc E ONmHA HIGH GTGEUGwATER MARK (7YP)A\ f SETBACK .. 0 \ ' .\ , a u LEGAL DESCRIPTION J wag! Ij 1Y`Li t''., Ii.. fit' THAT PORTION ON LAND t AND 2 8 THE MN KING NS, ACCORDING TO R COURT TAU MAP OF PART OF THE FRANCIS � 1 \, 4 ,SFr ray ; - ��. ' (� MCNATi DONATION LAND CLAIM N0. 38 FILED IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NUMBER RANGE , AND OF THE ABANDONED BED OF THE DUWAWSH RIVER, ALL LOCATEit IN SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 4 FfSf, \\ \ Y n � - r`kX' AD 7RACK6 CJ. WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON,' AND ALL LYING WESTERLY OF THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF EASE E. REMOVED ,t O MARGINAi. WAY SOUTH AND ALSO WE3IERLY OF THE PARCEL OF. LAND ADJOINING EASE MARGINAL WAY WHICH WAS \`\\`� D, \ yls` Y. )<i,,,� .�,,.it'�„ ,. } y'•S ;iIF'• 7'!�� �t EASTERLY TO GREAT TERLHERN RAILWAY COMPANY BY DEED RECORDED UNDER WATERWAY LNG NUMBER 4784818, LYING ,s •L _ QO FASTEALY Of THE EPSTERLY MARGIN OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OF COMMERCIAL WATERWAY DISTRICT N0. 1 (DUWAMISH c° \ \ ' mg // 6 WATERWAY); LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED 1JNE AND LYING NORTHERLY OF THE HEREINAFT R _ p SITE DATA DESGwBm 'L NE B. F ts b n �,� `I r •): ''�' l %// PROPOSED 5' J\ LINE A. O � g LANDSCAPING r9 t. TAX PARCEL N0: 542260 -0010 2 SITE ADDRESS: 9229 EAST MARGINAL -WAY . BEGINNING ON THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF FAST MARGINAL WAY SOUTH. WHICH POINT BEARS NORTH89' 15' S4' wEST A STftiP 3. ZONING: -MIC H ( MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIAL CENTER /HEAVY INDUSTRIAL) DISTANCE OF 2470.01 FEET ALONG THE DONATION CLAIM LINE AND SOUTH 23' 40' 59` EAST A.DISTANCE OF 648.77 FEET N 4. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: MIC /H ALONG THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF EAST MARGINAL WAY SOUTH FROM THE INiERSECMON OF THE LINE BETWEEN THE LJ a EXISTING 5. EXISTING USE - ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDWTION /UNUSED DEVELOPED SITE DONATION CLAIMS OF FRANCIS MCNATT AND HENRY VAN ASSERT WITH THE FAST LINE OF SECTION 33. TOWNSHIP 24 \t ' VEGE7A110N 6. PROPOSED USE OUTDOOR STORAGE AND OFFICE/WAREHOUSE .NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN -KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; RUNNING THENCE WEST -A DISTANCE OF w N s z �. PTO, - REMAIN 7. REQUIRED PARKING: 74 - 126 STALLS .1574.72 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF COMMERCIAL WATERWAY DISTRICT N0. 1; THENCE SDt1TH 15 0D' 00' FAST ALONG > M NN N O OFFICE (3/1G00):,38 - 101, BASED ON 15-40X CFA OF OFFICE USE SAID EASTERLY UNE A DISTANCE OF 237.76. FEET To THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF SAID 'UNE K: THENCE FIST A `t m N m z WAREHOUSE (1/2000): 25 - 36, WED ON 6D -85n GFA OF WAREHOUSE USE DISTANCE OF 1053.10 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 23' 02' 00' EAST A DISTANCE OF 46.03 FEET; THENCE EAST A DISTANCE OF CA ra oO R °o URBAN SHORELINE STANDARDS* .7. TOTAL PARKING: ,89 STALLS (PROVIDESE FOR MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT FOR SPECULATIVE BLDG.) 561.38 FEET TO THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF FAST MARGINAL WAY SOUTH AND THE TERMINUS OF SAID PINE A': c•, ¢ --7 Z_ 8, EXISTING IMPERWWS AREA: 316,457 SF ^ ' N N r'' z 1. BUILDING SETBACK - 50 FEET 9. PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA 647,514 SF °o 2. OUTSIDE STORAGE SETBACK -'20 FEET - BEGINNING ON THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF EAST MARGINAL WAY SOUTH AT A POINT WHICH BEARS NORTH B9' 15' 54' WEST ,�. S. PARKING - BENEATH OR LANDWARD OF A DISTANCE OF 247001 FEET ALONG THE DONATION CLAIM LINE AND SOUTH 2.T 40' 59' EAST A DISTANCE OF 1374.17 - ^. NR " THE USE R SERVES (VARIANCE REQUIRED) - FEET ALONG THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF EAST MARGINAL WAY SOUTH FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE LINE BETWEEN! THE Y .�v vin 4. VEGETATION BUFFER -NONE DONATION CLAIMS OF FRANCIS MCNATT AND HENRY VAN ASSELT WITH THE EAST LINE OF SECTION 33. TOWNSHIP 24 5. LANDSCAPING SCREEN /BUFFER FOR PARKING - 5 FEET DEVELOPER NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN. IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SAID POINT BEING AT THE INTERSECTION OF 6: MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT - 35 FETT'(VAJUANCE REQUIRED) DAVIS PROPERTY AND INVESTMENT THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF EAST MARGINAL WAY SOUTH WITH THE NORTH LINE OF VAN DE WREN STOCK FARM TRACT AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF SAID 'UNE B'; RECE(, S P.O. BOX 1043 -ALL: SETBACKS TO BE MEASURED FROM KENT, WA 98035 -7043 THENCE NORTH 89' 2r 50 WEST A DISTANCE OF 1494 FEEL �t�C ddb i l THE-ORDINARY NIGH WATER MARK OF THE KENT, NORTH B6' S4' 59' WEST A DISTANCE OF 40697 FEET: IAPR, 20 DBW Z a 1 DUWAMISH WATERWAY THENCE NORTH B4 ir' 04' WEST A DISTANCE OF 117.0O FEET: 11 u N ARCHITECT. THENCE SOUTH BY 57' S6' WEST A DISTANCE OF 719.00 FEET c0enMUNI i m ry DEVELOPM . -.. THE RONHOVDE ARCHITECTS, LLC THENCE SOUTH 70 40' 29' WEST A DISTANCE OF 110.773 FEET; 6625 S. 790TH AR SUITE , LLC SHEEN INDEX THENCE SOUTH 61' 33' "40' WEST A DISTANCE OF 840.02 FEET, TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OF c SHORELINE AREA CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES KENT, WA 98032 PARCEL ON WATERWAY REAM CT N0. i AND THE TERMINUS OF SAID 'UNE B`; TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT TO CROSS THE o (425) 656 -0500 FAY - (425) 656 -0501 P7 OF 2 SHORELINE SITE PLAN PARCEL CONVEYED TO GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY AS STATE RESERVED IN DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER INSTALL PROPOSED' ASPHALT - 210,937 SF - CONTACT: TOR -JAN RDNHOVDE P2 OF 2 SHORELINE CROSS SECTIONS PLAN 4784818. SITUATE IN THE Citt OF TUKWXk COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. P CO REMOVE EX. ASPHALT L7 OF 3 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PUNTING PLAN - EAST PARCEL REMOVE EEL CONCRETE / L2 OF 3 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PUNTING PLAN - WEST PARCEL VERTICAL DATUM - BASIS OF ETEVATIONS.NARONAL GEODETIC VERICAL DATUM OF 1429 NGVD -29 - ORIGINAL PROJECT REMOVE EX. (BUILDINGS ENGINEER/ SURVEYOR PLANNER L3 OF 3 PRELIMINARY [AND DETAILS PUN BENCHMARK FROM 1988 SURVEY BY BARCHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS I5 A r BRASS DISK SURFACE MONUMENF ON .REMOVE FX. RAILROAD TRACKS 84RGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Cl OF 3 COVER SHEET - GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PUN EAST SIDE OF 102ND ST. BRIDGE (DESTROYED). SITE BENCHMARK I5 THE TOP OF A -Pic NAIL SET ON THE EAST SIDE . o ui NI a REMOVE IX. WATER TANK 18215 /72ND CONSU _LNG E C2 OF 3 GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN - WEST SIDE DF FA47 MARGINAL WAY (MPROXIMATEtY 40O FT NORTH OF THIS SITE - EI£VA710N a 15.77. FEET HORQONTAL DATU M REMOVE Ella UNDERGROUND PIPING k -CATCH BASINS C3 OF 3 GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE - FAST SIDE -BASIS OF BEARINGS NAD -27 (NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1927) WASHINGTON STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM - REMOVE NEW PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING KENT; WA 98032: NORTH ZONE - BEING THE MONUMENTED OFFSET CENTERUNE OF EAST MARGINAL WAY TAKEN AS NORTH 223VD7' %EST. 7 INSTALL NEW PARKING LOT SMALLS '(425) 251 -6222 AS PER BOOK 72, OF SURVEYS, PAGE 272, KING COUNTY RECORDS, PROJECT NAME TUKWILA SHORT PUT DECEMBER 'a4, FAX: (425) 251 -8782 27. 2004 DJS /CLC 10265LO0IMOC PROJECT HAMS' CONTACTS: DAN BALMELD/ BILL WORXIMAN/ NANA HALVORSEN 4