Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L05-055 - BARGHAUSEN ENGINEERING / HALVORSEN IVANA - 9229 EAST MARGINAL WAY SOUTH DESIGN REVIEWDAVIS PROPERTIES SHORT PLAT 9229 EAST MARGINAL WY S L05 -055 Citj' of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster,- Director NOTICE OF DECISION TO: Ivana Halvorsen, Barghausen Engineering, Applicant Jeff Davis, Davis Properties, Owner King County Assessor, Accounting Division Washington State Department of Ecology Agencies with Jurisdiction Laura Murphy, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe This letter serves as a notice of decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.104.170 on the following project and permit approval. I. PROJECT INFORMATION Project File Number: L05 -055 Applicant: Ivana Halvorsen, Barghausen Engineering Type of Permit Applied for: Administrative Design Review Project Description: Design review for 84,000 sq. ft. office /warehouse with 189 parking stalls Location: 9229 East Marginal Way south Associated Files: L05 -050 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit; L05 -051, Shoreline Variance; L05 -057, Short Plat; E05 -011, environmental review Comprehensive Plan Manufacturing Industrial Center/Heavy Designation/Zoning District: Manufacturing Industrial Center/Heavy II. DECISION CL Page 1 of 3 Q: \Davis -Rhone Poulenc \Design Review T05=055 Notice of llecision.doc July 5, 2006 07/03/2006 4:46:00 PM Steven M. Mullet, Mayor SEPA Determination: The City SEPA Responsible Official has previously 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. Decision on Substantive Permit: The Community Development Director has determined that the application for administrative design review does comply with applicable City and state code requirements and has 6300 Southc "-enter Boulevard Suite #100 • Tukwila Washington 98188 • Phone: 206= 431 =3670 • Fax: 206= 431 =3665 Notice of Decision L05 -055 July 5, 2006 • • approved that application, subject to the conditions which are set forth below and based on the findings and conclusions contained in the staff report. 1. The lighting plan must be revised to provide an average site illumination of at least 2 foot - candles to comply with the requirements of TMC 18.52.065 and TMC 18.60.050 B.4.f. All areas should meet the average to minimum uniformity ratio of approximately 3:1. 2. The landscaping plan must continue the landscaping along the south side of the building as illustrated on Attachment D. 3. Any mechanical equipment, whether on the roof or on the ground must comply with TMC 18.60.050 B.4.e. 4. The existing mature trees on the north and south edges of the site must be retained and incorporated into the perimeter landscaping. 5. The pedestrian connection between the southeast corner of the building and the parking lot must be extended through the perimeter landscaping to East Marginal Way South. 6. The southern entrance to the site is limited to right in, right out turning movements. III. YOUR APPEAL RIGHTS The Decision on this Permit Application is a Type 2 decision pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code §18.104.010. Other land use applications related to this project may still be pending. No administrative appeal of a Planned Action determination is permitted. One administrative appeal to the Planning Commission sitting as the Board of Architectural Review of the Decision on the Permit itself is permitted. A party who is not satisfied with the outcome of the administrative appeal process may file an appeal in King County Superior Court from the Planning Commission decision. In order to appeal the Community Development Director's decision on the Permit Application, a written notice of appeal must be filed with the Department of Community Development within 14 days of the issuance of this Decision, that is by 5:00 p.m. July 19, 2006 The requirements for such appeals are set forth in Tukwila Municipal Code 18.116. All appeal materials shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Appeal materials MUST include: 1. The name of the appealing party. IV. PROCEDURES AND TIME FOR APPEALING 2. The address and phone number of the appealing party; and if the appealing party is a corporation, association or other group, the address and phone number of a contact person authorized to receive notices on the appealing party's behalf. CL Page 2 of 3 Q: \Davis -Rhone Poulenc \Design Review \L05 -055 Notice of Decision.doc 07/03/2006 4:46:00 PM Notice of Decision L05 -055 July 5, 2006 • • 3. A statement identifying the decision being appealed and the alleged errors in the decision, including any specific challenge to an MDNS. 4. The Notice of Appeal shall identify (a) the specific errors of fact or errors in application of the law in the decision being appealed; (b) the harm suffered or anticipated by the appellant, and (c) the relief sought. The scope of an appeal shall be limited to matters or issues raised in the Notice of Appeal. 5. An appeal fee of $200. V. APPEAL HEARINGS PROCESS Any administrative appeal regarding the Permit shall be conducted as an open record hearing before the Planning Commission with testimony and documentary evidence presented at the open record hearing. The Planning Commission decision on the appeal is the City's final decision. Any party wishing to challenge the Planning Commission decision on this application must file an appeal pursuant to the procedures and time limitations set forth in RCW 36.70C. If no appeal of the Planning Commission decision is properly filed in Superior Court within such time limit, the Decision on this permit will be final. VI. INSPECTION OF INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permits 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. Department of Community Dev: o .ment City of Tukwila CL Page 3 of 3 Q: \Davis -Rhone Poulenc \Design Review \L05 -055 Notice of Decision.doc 07/03/2006 4:46:00 PM � � yp ' ep .� ° `RJ �°O .9 dd VV Y ° ° B A Dept Of Community Development :City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION Notice Publ ic Hearing.. Notice of Public,Meeting.; Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Planning Commission Agenda Pkt .Short 'Subdivision Agenda.. Shoreline Mgmt . permit, FAX .:To Seattle' Times Classifieds 'Mail Gail MullerClassifieds_ PO Box 70 ,- Seattle. WA 98111 Determination of Non - Significance Mitigated Determination of.Non- Si.gni.ficance Deterrni nation of ' Si gni:f.i cance & Scoping Notice Notice of Action Official.Notice. Notice. of Application;' Notice of:Appli Cat ion for Shoreline Mgmt Permit; Was,mai.led to each of the addresses. listed onthi year, 2001v Project'Name: Project Number: 6 i Mailer's Si gnature : Person requesting mailing: 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 OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR DEPT OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV. ) DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE « KING COUNTY AGENCIES () BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD () FIRE DISTRICT #11 () FIRE DISTRICT #2 () K.C. WASTEWATER TREATMENT DMSION () K.C. DEPT OF PARKS & REC () KC. ASSESSORS OFFICE ( ) TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT TUKWILA LIBRARY () RENTON UBRARY () KENT UBRARY () CITY OF SEATTLE UBRARY ( ) QWEST ( ) SEATTLE CITY LIGHT () PUGET SOUND ENERGY ( ) HIGHLINE WATER DISTRICT () SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT ( ) AT&T CABLE SERVICES () KENT PLANNING DEPT ( ) TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: Si %\ PUBLIC WORKS () FIRE ( POLICE () FINANCE () PLANNING () BUILDING () PARKS & REC. () MAYOR () CITY CLERK () PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL ( ) SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (KMUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE (.CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM VS FISHERIES PROGRAM ()KWILDLIFE PROGRAM ( ) SEATTLE TIMES ( ) SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL P:\ADMINISTRATIV E\FORMS \CHKLIST.DOC WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES ff CA' l B✓OWA — 144-t alr22t44OL. 1.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ' () U.S. DEPT OF H.U.D. () NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE () DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. Xr �"� {Zw:KO✓ DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELAND OM— , () DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DMSION' ( ) OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL • SEND CHKLIST W! DETERMINATIONS • SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION SCHOOLS /LIBRARIES UTILITIES CITY AGENCIES MEDIA ( ) HEALTH DEPT ( ) PORT OF SEATTLE () KC. DEV & ENVIR SERVICES-SEPA INFO CNTR ( ) KC. TRANSIT DIVISION - SEPA OFFICIAL ( ) KC. LAND & WATER RESOURCES lot FOSTER LIBRARY () K C PUBLIC LIBRARY ()HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT () SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT () RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) 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 O 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. OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES () DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE () P.S. AIR POLLUTION CLEAN AGENCY () SOUND TRANSIT () DUWAMISH RIVER CLEAN -UP COALITION 'SEND NOTICE OF ALL APPUCATIONS ON DUWAMISH RIVER ( ) HIGHLINE TIMES () CI.TUKWILA.WA.US.VWWV y r Mo1%Ct laGU1M� �"� SINA) Roc y Mouut, WC NOTICE MAILINGS FOR P4IITS 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 Applkatlon 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 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 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) P: IADMIN1STRATIVEIFORMS \CMCLIST.DOC NOTIFICATION: FILE NUMBER: ASSOCIATED FILES: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DISTRICT: SEPA DETERMINATION: STAFF CONTACT: 1 RECOMMENDATION: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director STAFF REPORT TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW CL q: \Davis Properties \AdmDR -staff rpt.doc Prepared April 21, 2006 Notice of Application mailed January 24, 2006 to applicant, agencies with jurisdiction, and properties within 500 feet of the site. Notice of Application posted on site January 25, 2006 L05 -055 E05 -01 1 (State Environmental Policy Act review) L05 -050 (Shoreline Substantial Development Permit) L05 -051 (Shoreline Variance) L05 -057 (Short Plat) Ivana Halvorsen, Barghausen Engineering for Davis Properties Administrative design review approval for an 84,000 square foot office /warehouse with 189 parking stalls. 9229 East Marginal Way South Manufacturing Industrial Center /Heavy Manufacturing Industrial Center /Heavy Determination of Nonsignificance Approval with conditions Carol Lumb, Senior Planner Page 1 of 9 06/21/2006 5:43 PM Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Davis Properties, L05 -055 Administrative Design Review Staff Report to DCD Director April 21, 2006 Vicinity /Site Information A. Project Description: The proposal is to construct an 84,000 square foot warehouse with associated office space and 189 parking stalls on the eastern portion of the site. Under a separate land use application, the site is proposed to be divided into two parcels. See Attachment B for an illustration of the site plan. B. Existing Development: The site is the former Rhone- Poulenc industrial site at which vanillin was produced. There are a number of vacant, dilapidated buildings on the site, which will be removed prior to redevelopment of the property. The site has been under industrial use since the 1930s. Historic releases of hazardous substances occurred, which 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)). C. Surrounding Land Use: The site is located in the City's heavy manufacturing district. An automobile salvage yard is located to the north; on the south is an extension of the Boeing Museum of Flight and Port of Seattle slip number 6; the Duwamish Waterway borders the site on the west and East Marginal Way South borders on the east. D. Terrain: • • ATTACHMENTS: A. Applicant's Response to Design Review Criteria B. Site Plan C. Landscaping Plan D. Building Elevations and Color Scheme E. Lighting Plan and Fixture F. TMC 18.52.065, Lighting FINDINGS The site is flat. The Duwamish Waterway borders the site on the west and a portion of the south side of the site. CL Page 2 of 9 06/21/2006 5:43 PM q: \Davis Properties \L05 -055 AdmDR -staff rpt.doc Davis Properties, L05 -055 Administrative Design Review Staff Report to DCD Director April 21, 2006 E. Vegetation: F. Public Facilities: • • The site is completely developed with buildings and paving. The buildings will be demolished to make way for the proposed redevelopment. There is overgrown formal landscaping around some of the existing buildings and blackberry bushes adjacent to the shoreline. Formal landscaping will be provided for the proposed new building. A large stand of trees runs along portions of the southern edge of the property adjacent to the Museum of Flight airplane display property and the northern edge of the site adjacent to Insurance Auto Auction. The site is served by Tukwila sewer and water services. East Marginal Way South provides vehicle access to the site. DECISION CRITERIA The project is subject to Administrative Design Review approval as required by TMC 18.26.070. In the following discussion, the design review criteria are shown below in bold, followed by staff's comments. For the applicant's response to the criteria, please see Attachment A. 1. Relationship of Structure to Site. A. The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with the streetscape. B. Parking and service areas should be located, designed and screened to moderate the visual impact of large paved areas; C. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to the site. Response: The site is flat; to the west, just outside the property boundary, the land slopes steeply down to the Duwamish Waterway. The parcel is located in the Manufacturing Industrial Center -Heavy district. The landscaping plan provides planting materials on the north, south and east sides of the portion of the parcel that will be developed with the warehouse /office building. Parking is located on the west, east and south sides of the building with truck loading bays on the north side of the building. The western portion of the site, which is proposed to be short platted will have cars parked on it according to the applicant. CL Page 3 of 9 06/22/2006 9:05 AM q:\Davis Properties \L05 -055 AdmDR -staff rpt.doc Davis Properties, L05 -055 Administrative Design Review Staff Report to DCD Director April 21, 2006 • • A row of screening landscaping will be planted on the western and southern edges of the parcel to help screen the parked cars from the Duwamish Waterway. The building elevations show the proposed height at its highest point of the warehouse /office to be 30 feet. The height and scale of the building is consistent with the industrial character and use of the site and surrounding area. Under a separate land use action for this site, the Tukwila Hearing Examiner approved a variance of King County Shoreline regulations to permit the location of 27 parking stalls on the southwest side of the building within the 200 foot shoreline environment. The Hearing Examiner decision was issued on May 23, 2006. 2. Relationship of structure and site to adjoining area. A. Harmony of texture, lines and masses is encouraged; B. Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties should be provided; C. Public buildings and structures should be consistent with established neighborhood character; D. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged. Response: The proposed warehouse with associated office is located in the MIC/H district. The design of the warehouse is typical of warehouse construction with loading bays for semi - trucks on the north side with the office entrances located on the south side. Some facade modulation has been incorporated into the south side of the building entrance side of the site, with the entrance area extended out approximately 5 feet from the building. The facades on the east side of the building, which faces East Marginal Way South, are stepped back 20 feet, somewhat like a layer cake. The eastern portion of the site will have landscaping on the north, south and eastern perimeters as well as around the new building. Adjacent parcels are not landscaped. Building colors are used to provide accents to the design. The parapet and building entrance are proposed to be a light forest green (Benjamin Moore Color #446), with a band of accent color below the parapet proposed to be a light olive color (Benjamin Moore Color #482). The predominant color of the building is proposed to be a light tan color (Benjamin Moore Color #1088). See Attachment D for the proposed colors. CL Page 4 of 9 06/22/2006 9:05 AM q:\Davis Properties \L05 -055 AdmDR- staffrpt.doc Davis Properties, L05 -055 Administrative Design Review Staff Report to DCD Director April 21, 2006 • • A pedestrian connection between the southeast corner of the building and the edge of the front parking has been provided. An additional link is needed to connect the site with the sidewalk on East Marginal Way S. The walkway will be striped through the parking lot. One entrance to the site currently exists in the northeast portion of the property. A second entrance is proposed on the southeast portion of the site. This entrance will be limited to right in and right out movements for safety purposes. 3. Landscaping and Site Treatment. A. Where existing topographic patterns contribute to the beauty and utility of a development, they should be recognized, preserved and enhanced; B. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces and other paved areas should promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance; C. Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important axis, and provide shade; D. In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor traffic, mitigating steps should be taken; E. Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is encouraged; F. Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be unsightly should be accomplished by use of walls, fencing, planting or combination; G. In areas where general planting will not prosper, other materials such as fences, walls and pavings of wood, brick, stone or gravel may be used; H. Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining landscape. Lighting standards and fixtures should be of a design and size compatible with the building and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded, and restrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided. Response: The landscaping plan, Attachment C, illustrates the proposed landscaping for the eastern portion of the site, where the proposed building will be located and the perimeter landscaping on the western edge to screen the cars to be parked on the western portion of the parcel. The landscaping plan does not show landscaping along the building on the south side where the building entrances are located, however the color elevations of the building show landscaping at building entrances. A mature stand of trees is located along a portion of the south side of the site and intermittently on the north side of the site. CL Page 5 of 9 06/22/2006 9:05 AM q:\Davis Properties\L05 -055 AdmDR- staffrpt.doc Davis Properties, L05 -055 Administrative Design Review Staff Report to DCD Director April 21, 2006 • • The only lighting that is proposed will be mounted on the exterior of the building (see Attachment E). TMC 18.52.065 requires additional lighting to ensure safety for parking and loading areas. Comments from the Tukwila Police Department Crime Prevention Unit for the pre- application meeting noted the need to protect against criminal activity through careful landscaping and lighting. An average illuminance of 2 foot - candles minimum should be maintained throughout the parking areas, both on the west and the eastern portion of the site. 4. Building Design. A. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should be based on quality of its design and relationship to its surroundings; B. Buildings should be to appropriate scale and in harmony with permanent neighboring developments; C. Building components such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets should have good proportion and relationship to one another. Building components and ancillary parts shall be consistent with anticipated life of the structure; D. Colors should be harmonious, with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent; E. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings should be screened from view; F. Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fixtures, standards, and all exposed accessories should be harmonious with building design; G. Monotony of design in single or multiple buildings projects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form and siting should be used to provide visual interest; Response: Attachment D illustrates the building elevations and proposed color scheme. The architectural style is typical of industrial warehouse designs and similar to other buildings found in the immediate area. The proposed height, at the highest point is 30 feet at the building entrances, with the remainder of the building 28 feet in height. The north side of the building is dedicated to truck deliveries and the south side of the building is divided up into six separate entrances to the building. The office entrances are located along a 560 foot long wall and are bumped out five feet to provide some building modulation. Pilasters are used on either side of the building entrances to help define each office entrance as well. Additional modulation is provided on the east side of the site with the building stepping back in a layer cake effect 20 feet in two locations. Three colors have been selected for the building — the body of the building is a CL Page 6 of 9 06/22/2006 9:05 AM q:\Davis Properties \L05-055 AdmDR -staff rpt.doc Davis Properties, L05 - 055 Administrative Design Review Staff Report to DCD Director April 21, 2006 • light tan color, with olive green and light forest green used to accent the structure and provide visual interest. The plans do not indicate whether there is mechanical equipment on the roof. The lighting plan shows only wall mounted lighting for the site. TMC 18.52.065 requires parking and loading areas to include lighting capable of providing adequate illumination for security and safety. Parking immediately adjacent to the building is illuminated, however, parking stalls on the perimeter of the site do not have light poles or other means of illumination, which could pose a safety problem. S. Miscellaneous structures and Street Furniture. A. Miscellaneous structures and street furniture should be designed to be part of the architectural concept of design and landscape; B. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furniture should meet the guidelines applicable to site, landscape and buildings. Response: No miscellaneous structures or lighting in conjunction with miscellaneous structures are proposed. 1. Relationship of Structure to Site: CONCLUSIONS The site is flat, with steep slopes on the west, outside the site which lead to the Duwamish Waterway. The height of the building is 30 feet at its highest point, which is consistent with the manufacturing character of the surrounding area and in scale with the overall site. The auto parking proposed for the western portion of the site will not be visible from the street and will be screened from the shoreline by landscaping and fencing. A pedestrian connection from the southeast corner of the building to the edge of the parking lot is provided. A connection from the site to East Marginal Way S. is needed. The Tukwila Hearing Examiner has approved the location of 27 parking stalls on the southwest side of the building in the shoreline environment. 2. Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area: The proposed warehouse /office is located in the Manufacturing Industrial Center /Heavy district. The building design is consistent with the surrounding CL Page 7 of 9 06/22/2006 9:05 AM q:\Davis Properties\L05 -055 AdmDR -staff rpt.doc Davis Properties, L05 - 055 Administrative Design Review Staff Report to DCD Director April 21, 2006 • • industrial uses. There is no landscaping on adjoining properties. The site will be landscaped on the north, south and east sides of the portion of the parcel to be developed with the warehouse. A pedestrian walkway is provided from the southeast corner of the building through the parking lot. An additional connection is needed through the perimeter landscaping to the sidewalk on East Marginal Way South to link the site to the street. The south entrance to the site will be limited to right in, right out turn movements for safety purposes. 3. Landscape and Site Treatment: Landscaping is provided for the portion of the site that will be developed with the warehouse /office and immediately adjacent to the western edge within the shoreline jurisdiction. The landscaping plan omitted plantings along the south side of the building — however landscaping will be required on this side as well. Mature trees border the site on the north and south sides; these trees will be integrated into the perimeter landscaping. Lighting is only provided on the walls of the building; TMC 18.52.065 requires additional lighting for safety purposes. 4. Building Design: The design of the building is typical of warehouse style with large truck delivery bays on the north side and the office entrances for each tenant space on the south side. The main body of the building will be tan with two shades of green to provide accents and visual interest. The six building entrances are extended out five feet and flanked by pilasters to define the separate space entrances. The eastern side of the building is stepped back 20 feet in two locations to add modulation to the street frontage. No mechanical equipment is shown on the plans. Any mechanical equipment that is installed will be required to meet TMC requirements. Additional site lighting of at least 2 foot - candles to ensure safety and security on the site will be required as well. RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the design of the warehouse with associated office, and the landscaping plan for the site with the following conditions: CL Page 8 of 9 06/22/2006 9:05 AM q:\Davis Properties \L05 -055 AdmDR -staff rpt.doc Davis Properties, L05 -055 Administrative Design Review Staff Report to DCD Director April 21, 2006 • • 1. The lighting plan must be revised to provide an average site illumination of at least 2 foot - candles to comply with the requirements of TMC 18.52.065 and TMC 18.60.050 B.4.f. All areas should meet the average to minimum uniformity ratio of approximately 3:1. 2. The landscaping plan must continue the landscaping along the south side of the building as illustrated on Attachment D. 3. Any mechanical equipment, whether on the roof or on the ground must comply with TMC 18.60.050 B.4.e. 4. The existing mature trees on the north and south edges of the site must be retained and incorporated into the perimeter landscaping. 5. The pedestrian connection between the southeast corner of the building and the parking lot must be extended through the perimeter landscaping to East Marginal Way South. 6. The southern entrance to the site is limited to right in, right out turning movements. CL Page 9 of 9 06/22/2006 9:05 AM q:\Davis Properties\L05 -055 AdmDR -staff rpt.doc 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, CL Carol Lumb Senior Planner cc: Nora Gierloff, Planning Manager h ?n0 .Southcenter Boulevard_ Suite • • City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Page 1 of 1 Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 04/27/2006 4:26 PM #10 • Tukwila. Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 From: Jill Mosqueda To: Carol Lumb Date: 4/28/06 12:36PM Subject: Re: Davis Properties • • To avoid additional turning conflicts on East Marginal Way South, the city will restrict the new south access to right -in /right -out turning movements. This decision followed consideration of existing traffic volumes on East Marginal Way S and the proximity of neighboring accesses. L. Jill Mosqueda P.E. »> Carol Lumb 04/27/06 09:03AM »> e -mail is just fine. »> Jill Mosqueda 04/27/06 09:02AM »> Carol, is e-mail good enough or do you want a comment letter? L. Jill Mosqueda P.E. »> Carol Lumb 04/27/06 09:01AM »> Hi: you told me that the south entrance is limited to right in and right out - can you please send me this info in an e-mail with the justification so I can incorporate it into the staff report? Thanks. carol 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 q:Davis -Rhone Poulenc \ L05-051 PubHrg Notice.doc 04/21/2006 3:03 PM From: "Torjan Ronhovde" < torjan @ronhovdearchitects.com> To: <jeffd @davispropertiesllc.com> Date: 4/19/06 3:34PM Subject: RE: Davis Property BCE #10265 I met with Carol Lumb and we have chosen a new field color. The new color is Benj. Moore #1088. It is a more neutral tan. Please note our new address and phone numbers Tor -Jan Ronhovde, Architect The Ronhovde Architects, LLC 14900 Interurban Avenue South, #138 Tukwila, WA 98168 206 - 859 -5500 206 - 859 -5501 (fax) torjan@ronhovdearchitects.com Original Message From: Jeffrey E Davis [mailto :jeffd @davispropertiesllc.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 7:22 AM To: Tor -Jan Ronhovde; Les Seifert Subject: FW: Davis Property BCE #10265 Have we contacted Carol per her, and my, request? Jeffrey E. Davis PH: 253 - 872 -9522 FAX: 253 - 872 -9065 www.davispropertiesllc.com Original Message From: Dan Balmelli [ mailto :dbalmelli @barghausen.com] Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 9:55 AM To: jeffd @davispropertiesllc.com Subject: FW: Davis Property BCE #10265 Jeff, here is the latest Original Message From: Brendan Madden Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 9:37 AM To: Dan Balmelli Subject: FW: Davis Property BCE #10265 FYI Original Message • • From: Carol Lumb [mailto:clumb @ci.tukwila.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 8:58 AM To: Brendan Madden Cc: Ivana Halvorsen Subject: Re: Davis Property BCE #10265 Thanks very much. Carol Thanks Brendan 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, well schedule & hold the shoreline variance hearing, as the decision on that permit may affect the shoreline permit (Le. 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. »> "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? CC: "Dan Balmelli" <dbalmelli @barghausen.com >, <clumb @ci.tukwila.wa.us >, <les @ronhovdearchitects.com >, "'Brendan Madden "' <bmadden @barghausen.com> From: <Brown.Christy @epamaiiepa.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 • • Carol Lumb <clumb @ci.tukwil a.wa.us> 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.tukwiia.wa.us> �GHA, 'VG ENG Ms. Carol Lumb City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Ms. Lumb: • • CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES April 7, 2006 HAND DELIVERY 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 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) 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 R ECEiveo , APR 0 71406 co DEvE, v mENT 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: 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: • • 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 etter 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 — I 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. 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. 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. Geomatrix Memorandum TO: Ivana Halvorsen, Barghausen DATE: FROM: Larry McGaughey PROJ. NO.: John Long CC: Gary Dupuy 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 206.342.1761 April 6, 2006 8769.005 PROJ. NAME: Former Rhone- Poulenc Site Tukwila, Washington www.geomatrix.com RECEIVED APR 07 2006 COMMUNI 1 Y DEVELOPMENT 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 corner of the West Parcel, nearest the planned location for installation of the Stormceptor®, 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 comer 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 ®.!` 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\086tFiII Depth Memo_FINAL.doc Reply To Attu Of: AWT - 121 Gary Dupuy Geomatrix, Inc. One Union Square 600 University Street, Suite 1020 Seattle, WA 98101 -4107 Dear Mr. Dupuy: • UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION•10 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 � f I r C r,r1r.eN :'�1_� r. VIA CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 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 APR 0 7 NOS' COMMUNITY O VSLOPMEN 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 Western 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 Plan, 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 Plan is evident and is appreciated. The high quality of the final document has allowed EPA to approve the revised work plan quickly. 0 Printed on Recycled PsPer 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, NOM D. Blount, Landye Bennett Blumstein LLP R. Brown, Cascadia Law Group C. Blumenfeld, Perkins Cole P. Linskey, Rhodia Inc. G. Goodridge, Esq., Bayer CropScrence Sincerely, 6/01 5 96)161&- - Christy Brown Project Manager Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics M e - / eUUb 1 1 : 1 t7H1'I Reply To Attu Of: AWT -121 • VIA CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Gary Dupuy Geomatrix, Inca One Union Square • 600 University Street, Suite 1020 Seattle, WA 98101 -4107 HY LPibtKJt I acUU • UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 10 1200 Meth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 FEB 0 6 2006 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 Inc. Marginal Way Facility WAD 00928 2302 Dear Mr. Dupuy:. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 ( "EPA') has completed its review of the Westem Parcel Redevelopment Work Plan ("Redevelopment Work Plan ") dated - November 14.. 2005. The Redevelopment Work Plan includes specifications for well . abandonment, earthwork, storm water management, well retrofitting, paving, and re- fencing to • be conducted in the western portkef of the Fadlity, 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 ail 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 processof 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 wlth•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. • 0,9/06/e6 /a6u 0 a4wanikto it v+r MAR 27 2005 11:1HHM HP LHStKJtI .euu • You may contact me at.(206) 5534508, or your legal counsel may contact Jennifer MacDonald at (206) 5531311, If you have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, cc: G. St. Arrant, Mucideshoot Tribe B. Maeng, Ecology NWRO G. Baker, NOAA D. Blount, Landye Bennett Blumsteln LLP R. Brown, Cascadla Law Group C. Blumenfeld, Perkins Cole P. Linskey, Rhoda Inc. G. Goodridge, Esq., Bayer CropScience • hristy Brown Project Manager Office of Air, Waste, and To dcs P. MAR 27 2006 11:18AM HP LASERJET 3200 GENERAL COMMENTS: Western Parcel Redevelopment Work Plan November• 14, 2005 Former Rhona Poulenc Facility Tukwila, Washington EPA Review Comments January, 2006 1. Jurisdiction and Approval Authority. The Westem 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 work plans and. which sections were provided for Information. Work that requires EPA's approval under the Order includes source removal, sampling procedures and Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) to be utilized in the event grading uncovers contaminated soils, and engineering plans and spedftcations 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 modifications to previously approved work plans includes changes to site security plans and modifications to the protective cap over the barrier wall. Other portions 'of the Redevelopment Work Plan, such as the storm water management plan and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checkiist;.may •require approval from other regulatory jurisdictions such as the State, King County and /or the City of Tukwila, or are provided only for Information, such as the lease. The Redevelopment Work Plan must be revised, at a minimum, to clearty Identiy 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, Stonnwater Pollutlon.Prevention Plan, Health and Safety Plan, or SEPA checklist. 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 20 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 this 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 11:19RM HP LASERJEi J2UU • 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 eastem boundary of the westem parcel. This page states that . access to the western 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 new • 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.aiong the western site boundary. If . accurate, several of the monitoring wells will be located between these fences, although no gates are indicated. The drawing also seems to indicate a double fence located at the top of the bank 'of Slip 8. Further confusion is Introduced on page 1, where the second to last full sentence Indicates that the development activities will indude • constructlon of a permanent fence °along 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 if there is to be public use of the western parcel during business hours. For example, how will the treatment building and well . heads be secured? Where will waming signs be installed and what will they state? How will piping and ancillary equipment be protected? • . Page 2 of the Redevelopment Work Plan indicates that °security will be provided by IAAI' after Installation of the new security fencing. Changes to the. security fencing 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 fadlitles 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 written note 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 Facility 1s 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 access to the interim measure facilitles 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 are parked on or In front of them and to address access for other work that may be required under the Order. P. !INK et CUUO 11; 1 u1'l19 hit' Lit I JC I JCUU 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 restrictions on the Tenant's activities within a specified distance of the building which houses the treatment plant? Is digging or other reconstructionprohibited? 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 sops) 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 indude 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 consiateniy 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 Construction Lion 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 6-8 of the Hydraulic Control Interim Measures Work Plan. Once again, 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 Spades Act. For example, discussions regarding the original placement of thebarrier wall induded conversations about retaining a fifty (50) foot setback for habitat restoration at the tirne the site was paved, while the Redevelopment Work Plan appears to indicate • that the pavement on the western parcel will 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 deanup 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 10 have significant potential for impacting aquatic biota, and that the potential for affecting endangered species will be assessed under the SEPA program p. b nr Lnocm.J . 1 aGUu • administrated by the City'of Tukwila. Unless the proposed work can be said to have no. effect on the threatened endangered species and critical habitat known tit, 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 stand -alone 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 ridgellnes ...'. 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 i . 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 clarify whether building slabs and foundations are to be left In place or demolished. 6. Page 16, 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 previously approved by EPA.. This section mustrbe, revised; to .. specify that the approved QAPP.from the Pre- Demolition Investigation Work' Plan (revised. December, 2005).011 be utilized In this case. This section must be revised to be consistent with the analyte. list specified in the;QAPP.. For example,:samples. must be... • analyzed for total metals by EPA 6000!7000. series, VOCs,.by Method 82608; SVOCs by Method8270C, 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 DMT8 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 nit 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 comer 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 Iobation is expected to be.In a relatively dean area, orin the vicinity of known'soilcontamination based on the reSultsof previous soil sampling conducted at the facility, 'including the RCRA - Fealty Investigation. • 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 specifiedih the applicable QAPP. For example, samples must be analyzed for total metals by EPA 6000/7000 series, VOCs by .Method 82808, SVOCs by Method 8270C, and PCBs by Method 8082. P• • 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 all 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 Plan incorporating all changes necessitated by this redevelopment • 13. Appendix 8, SEPA/Shoreline Application. EPA has.not reviewed this document In its entirety, ae • EPA 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 properly 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 will 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 cleanup; the Operations and Maintenance Plan is not scheduled to be submitted to EPA : prior to cornmencemerrt of the redevelopment, and its approval bears no relation to the redevelopment activities; and lastly, the project site was an active chemical manufactirring facility for 50 yearspriorto becorning an'unused storage yard. 14. Appendbc E, Insurance Auto. Auctions Lease, page 5. Number 8, 'Utilities," indicates that the "Landlord shall not be responsible for any utilities to the Premises." Revise the Redevelopment Work Plan to clarify how Respondents will ensure that continuous utility services such as electridty 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 alt 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. Appendbc 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 permit Landlord or the agendas, including EPA, to enter the Premises at all reasonable times for purposes of repair, environmental remediatlon, 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 Facility•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. From: "Les" <Ies @ronhovdearchitects.com> To: <clumb @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 3/14/06 5:37PM Subject: FW: Davis Properties Project: 9229 East Marginal Way South Carol Please find our new contact info below. We are now in your neck of the woods! Thank you, Les Seifert, Associate Ronhovde Architects LLC Southcenter Plaza 14900 Interurban Ave. S. Suite 138 Tukwila WA 98168 (206)859 -5500 (206)859 -5501 fax Ies @ronhovdearchitects.com Original Message From: Torjan Ronhovde [mailto :torjan @ronhovdearchitects.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 5:25 PM To: Ies @ronhovdearchitects.com Subject: FW: Davis Properties Project: 9229 East Marginal Way South Please note our new address and phone numbers Tor -Jan Ronhovde, Architect The Ronhovde Architects, LLC 14900 Interurban Avenue South, #138 Tukwila, WA 98168 206 - 859 -5500 206 - 859 -5501 (fax) torjan @ronhovdearchtects.com • • Original Message From: Carol Lumb [mailto:clumb @ci.tukwila.wa.us] Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 5:16 PM To: torjan @ronhovdearchitects.com Subject: Davis Properties Project: 9229 East Marginal Way South Hello: I am reviewing the Administrative Design Review application for the Davis Properties building to be constructed at 9229 East Marginal Way South. I would appreciate it if the architect who worked on the building elevations for this site could give me a call - 206 - 431 -3661. When I measure the height of the proposed warehouse /office building, I come up with different heights depending on which elevation I measure. • • FYI- I tried to call your new telephone number today (206- 859 -5501) but got a fax machine. Thanks. Carol Lumb Senior Planner City of Tukwila 206 - 431 -3661 clumb @ci.tukwila.wa.us 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 • Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 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 P 1 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 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 412 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, G4 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: \Dav is\Ha Ivorsen2.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. 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 gc rely, aura Murphy, Tribal Archaeologist i MUCKLESHOOT CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM 39015 172nd Avenue S.E. • Auburn, Washington 98092 -9763 Phone: (253) 939 -3311 • FAX: (253) 876 -3312 ff CO LOPI T CC: Stephenie Kramer, Assistant State Archaeologist, OAHP ATTACHMENT A Abe Graxtor, MONSANTO CHEMICAL COMPANY, a Delaware x ppi i an with its principal place of business at St. Louis, �r licensed to do bu$inesa in the State of Washington,. Yfth lit .t rincipal place of business therein at Seattle, King .•reunty,.Washington, for and in consideration of Four Thousand 'Fear Hundred and Ninety -Five Dollars ($4,495.00) in hand paid, CONVEYS.AND WARRANTS, subject to easements and restrictions Of remora, to OREGON - WASHINGTON RAILROAD & NAVIGATION COMPANY,/ corporation, GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY,/ corp ^ration, NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, acorporation, and CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE; ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY / a corporation, hereinafter called "Grantees," the following described real estate situated in the County of King, State of Washington: A parcel of land (containing 0.258 acre, more or less) situate in Tracts 1 and 2, The Meadows, according to the plat thereof, being a part of Francis McNatt Donation Land Claim No. 36 in Section 33, Township 24 North, Range 4 East of the Willamette Meridian, King County, Washington, Ceecribed as follows: Beginning at the point of intersection of the north line of said Tract 2 with the westerly -line of Primary State Highway No. 1 (East Marginal Way) which point 1s 648.77 feet distant southeasterly, measured along said westerly line, from the north line of said Francis McNatt Donation Land Claim; thence southeasterly along the westerly line of said highway a distance of 715.4 feet; Ah thence northwesterly along a straight lane which ,` Q forms an angle of 6 01' from northwest to west N° with the westerly line of said highway a distance t� of 122 feet, more or lees, to a point 17 feet 8 rq Jf dist southwesterly, measured at right angles, ti " mil aid westerly line of highway; thence northwesterly along a straight line #irRM2 ,Q parallel with said westerly line of highway a distance of 603 feet, more or less, to a point � in the north line of said Tract 2; thence east along said north line a distance or 1'40,5 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. • tself, it sueoeeaora . ,ol = q n: • Ol' oiA behalf, : of •.; stw OrlAir tiort. bel 1t:a?dii Af "' [OZ65 IVED 4 2006 UNITY PIIAENT TWO DDLI,,tiRS TWO DOLLARS ;z. -.y • ,E Re :3 a f' 1 rea�':. , ;a pve tra.' F. „sr pAye. 4 ' Ql .tc�`a$A1.i 1300W' 48$S4 r t te' 4`: V.�'�: eTaSr$ e9X'e:.: r:: - - • a . -' - ••WITDI caw Orantox' hap ca tlia wed. to be f °' - -..rro ;..a•_: ". y1�Sy .;:' C:' eI.. eVit: ' ," O' dept, .. r.Y on 11/1 OOG1Mnern,rr � OOCOMEn �nu�. f0bVEYANCk5 # °rr'� � 4: :W11Ii .� } e • I FIFTY retiTs 1 NSANTO' v!CAL . AW . - • lepup . e aident . On the 7th day of March, 1957, before ms_.ersonally appeared R. X. Mueller, to me known to be a Vice ?resident of MONSANTO CHEMICAL COMPANY, the oorporatidn' executed the within and foregoing InetruMettt and aahnoolle d ru- ment to be the free-stet vOluntary act and deed *41d compare- tion, for the Wee sad,. se$ therein mant and oni.:oath stated that he. wa,H . 4 pod to ' execute said in rument ' end that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I -have hereunto set my hand and xed my official seal the day and year first above written. Not a{y public In and for the State of Missouri residing at .St. Louie My Commission moire 4 <j. G ENG`N Carol Lumb City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Carol: • • GHA 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 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, Brendan T. Madden Assistant Planner 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. 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 Department oj'Commu nity Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E-mail: tukplan @ci.tukwila,waug AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION AND POSTING OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGN(S) 1 J eg C vRA' 1 C (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 l .s uAR4 2S ?oO1, the Public Notice Board(s) in accordance with Section 18.104.110 and the other applicable guidelines were posted on the property located at 9227 E M M,'NA c WA Y so i H so as to be clearly seen from each right -of -way .primary vehicular access to the property for application file number L05-050 -04' 1,— o 5, OSP, m ot' O 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 1 Applicatdr Project Manager's Signature On this day personally appeared before me TV � .. S - C k < 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:),� day of CA U ■X S , t ZY:) � cgZUeE/y°`( :' ) C A . * . , C' f • Q. U � NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington ' Y / • NOTA 1# residing at f) • PUBLI r 0 tPj� My commission expires on •.S ;9;.' — c \sz \Q \c 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 J 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: August 8, 2005 Notice of Completeness Issued: September 2, 2005 Notice of Application Issued: January 24, 2006 CL Page 1 of 1 01/22/2006 4:42 PM q:lDavis -Rhone Poulenc Site/Notice of Application.doc PORTION of the F. McNATT Donatton Land Claim No 38, In the South 1/2 of SECTION 33 Township 24 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian City of TUKWILA KING County State of WASHINGTON l N N J FOR DAVIS PROPERTY a INVESTMENT P.O. Box 1049 Kent, WA 98036 -1043 Clly of Tl*Mb Dopo n mul all Commonly Dom known 1700 ewmo.ly ewbalq Waft WA eeise Telephone DM 4314510 FAX ON!) i Dove SHORT PLAT NO. 11 CREEK nl D I CS I I I wi�_I \I \IL. L. vI �LLI. �1v L.vil v�7.: L.L. MARGINAL I V � • 8901 �., MARGINAL Ilrn i TAX nr NO. 542260-0060 Sart., 81-e2a'5 10' Rot DRAW& (AS[YE/rt / O 1.100• RFC. NO. 271816E f� ssl0B'( 54LBY I Woo // //// I. WIC t CONSTRUCTION / / \ ` \ fASD47rt EC. N0. . \ nom= / / / I 0 100 200 / N SCALE. 11 THE /cEI.1 /♦ CCMP I. I.Is/ IiVL V \J �vlvh nlvl i n 2 E. :v,1ARvi�+ni. WAY 5. i; 1 ' Cr In A I n 1..,/ 1 V. � w t .0 1l /iL rtin 0n6177 If RAID +m na• 10268 s 4 >01 RECORD OF SURVEY I SWUM= RECEIVED SEP 1 A 1885 DEVELOPME mate 09/09/2003 13: M • Ala 9g co I Z RI 01 O m 2 a TUKWILA, WASHINGTON East Marginal Way South fi ffilA • •■•••■■•• 1157.1137111 Ma etu=EL8 ainn PRELIMINARY EAST ELEVATION icJ I • NAP PRELIMINARY WEST ELEVATION couss g• be AI TAw* -1.40:4te Gen.* * 402. ce:G.1T Col-oft * 4 bet-1.74410e -*cage 4-46 suom• mon.. 6•4••••sr Gor Waseu• •s• 104•019 emote% CAW^. ort.oft ) ACCMISM•10.1.- 1 rams° ap•klIttorl loOwtraml.a. "Am., Amos og. fliA/11.• MEM frompur . 1•0••••••• - souse. 2" bDon" efroxne exo47Amo.oa-moefe 1111 Cdhaelowe porgy I VOM GAO: Rom* t••••• .*••••••r 4.••••••1 0 2- 11/MNRIMNIA1MfflinualMi n • • .4.4,inalig vitep Laves COWNIPSW \ 4.1.060 OP* 6404 PRELIMINARY SOUTH ELEVATION fed..1 • YI•o PRELIMINARY NORTH ELEVATION ft.01/0 *WS users TYPICAL ENTRANCE % IV • ••Cf ;Ott 1 15M2= 1 - TYPICAL TRUCK BAYS • r•c• S MS SOS • • VAX I 2 0025 S. Me S. SAS 5 .T, HASINSTOI• %032 tesoxc • ••,(025) ess.ez. roreshop.rePtectsco, ••■4 cast . • . mon I c • NM& 2 c w %O. PATO TAW 0 SW CA715 .1e2Ma 013.1/1011 MINIIMP• MST CORM} PRELIMINARY EXTERIOR ELEVATION 'Ca. 1...re A4.1 CALL BE OFE You PP 1500 -42•5258 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN 3 1 0 "rxA /ems PLANT MATBi&L LE091O Wenn woo a pp come cammedm g um. Worm at rola a A / : 9 tan 9 MR• ougarig Nam; 01•7001 “0111C 1. 4L Amr ant .L L NOM 11 • Orr 1n. 1a.• MN= Nana L =OIL n wl c a vtat nn aA MOIL r a ail amp M.0 ■-, A Ii Melt r- q r a0 talraat Mang Oa • O Oa 00• ma Mang { ■W 3 N 101 VW Wag 1M. 110/010 a 1 .1�a1 ma maw MO w°rufr°a■O Pan ROW • ° • • • m • 0 • fj IMO ▪ WWI N ® 00// WO a goM e w omam vair / am On• Ma Mg= 1/01:031011 1011101001 / 11000 LAM - • _ •9 •l ▪ ° COMM - -0 9411019 / I■ • come AeOY � COMO MOO UZI gr� r r M ■ tl Start 1415 - RECEIVED SEP 14 2005 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9.1 W a■ RUM IMAM. 10 .awl NMI � IOI MAW. Moll Dept . Of Community Development ment City of Tukwila ' AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION � s I . V `511%' - • - ek, HEREBY DECLARE .THAT: ppS�' 11 Notice of Public Hearing Determination of Non= Significa Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of N' . Significance Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt .. Determination of Si gni fi canc0 copi ng Notice , . - . ;: Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt • Notice of Action 5 CDs - -oc � ` : =:. — 04 Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice • Ci ,`" Subdivision Agenda n Notice of Application . Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shorel Mgmt Permit ,. y Y: __ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other C; r'dT.gF t . Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this day of Gzt2 =la the year 201)(e P:GINAWYNEtTA /FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM .. Project Name: 0 G _ • Project Number(Y. 2-O5—OSV (,'OS'�I I C-9S 5 CDs - -oc � ` : =:. — 04 Mailer's Signature: /0 4 t ': • Ci ,`" Person requesting mailing: n I ( Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this day of Gzt2 =la the year 201)(e P:GINAWYNEtTA /FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM () U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS () FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ( ) DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE ( ) OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY ( ) TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT () DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES O OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR ( )'DEPT OF COMM ,TRADE&ECONOMIC DEV. prii icTiFISk1ERIESa3A1gDL FE >� KING COUNTY AGENCIES () BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD () FIRE DISTRICT 011 () FIRE DISTRICT 02 ( ) KC. WASTEWATER TREATMENT DIVISION ( ) KC. DEPT OF PARKS &REC () KC. ASSESSOR'S OFFICE ( ) TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) TIJKMLA'UBRARY O RENTON UBRARY () KENT LIBRARY () CITY OF SEATTLE UBRARY () OWEST () SEATTLE CITY UGHT () PUGET SOUND ENERGY O HIGHUNE WATER DISTRICT () SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT ( ) AT&T CABLE SERVICES () KENT PLANNING DEPT ( ) TUKWILA CRY DEPARTMENTS: ( ) FIRE ( ) FINANCE () BUILDING ( ) MAYOR II --APUBUC WORKS () POLICE +� --(• PLANNING ( ) PARKS & REC. () CITY CLERK () PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL ( ) SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM .. ; S 0Q)EISHERIEVROGI N x'•=' • 1n" (-f'II.iI['/',_�/ p4 WIhLIFE PROGRAM • • rte: () SEATTLE TIMES ( ) SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL P:\ADMINISTRATI V E\FORMS \CHKLIST. DOC 4 4 FEDERAL AGENCIES vikagos•- > 'US;sE bNME N�A TEQ C ON•AGEJ CY ( U.S. DEPT OF H.U.D. ( ) NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES () DEPT OfSOCIA B s kip4 T AgF4V. EPTIbF ECOL•OGYSHORELAND:DIV 14 St)Ab1VIS10N' bQ OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL • SEND CHKLISTIN/ DETERMINATIONS • SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES UTILITIES CITY AGENCIES MEDIA ( ) HEALTH DEPT ( ) PORT OF SEATTLE 1 :KC. DEV & ENVIR SERVICES -SEPA INFO CNTR "•LICC. TRANSIT DIVISION - SEPA OFFICIAL ( ) KC. -LAND & WATER RESOURCES bd FOSTER LIBRARY K C PUBLIC LIBRARY ( ) HIGHLINE'SCHOOL DISTRICT ()'SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) OLYMPIC PIPELINE ( ) VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT ( ) WATER DISTRICT 120 ( ) WATER DISTRICT 0125 ( ) CITY OF RENTON PUBUC WORKS () BRYN MAWR- LAKERIDGE SEWERNVATER DISTRICT () RENTON PLANNING DEFT () CRY OF SEA -TAC () CITY OF BURIEN ( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ( ) TUKWILA CRY COUNCIL MEMBERS - CRY OF'SEATTLE • SEPA INFOCENTER - DCUJ TEGIC PUNNING OFFICE' ' NOTICE OF AU. SEATTLE RELATED PL.NG PROJ. OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES KDUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE ( ) P.S. AIR POLLUTION CLEAN AGENCY () SOUND TRANSIT DUWAMISH RIVER CLEAN -UP COALITION 'SEND NOTICE OF ALL APPLICATIONS ON OUWAMISH RIVER ( ) HIGHLINE TIMES ( ) CLTUKWIUA.WA.US.VWWV 7.1 wiol,,' L 1IJ _u 1-Proof Lecraig 2118 26th Ave SW lurien, WA 98146 Michigan Properties 301 2nd Ave S eattle, WA 98108 ,andra Mykris 45 NW 193rd St shoreline, WA 98177 .ee Rabie '615 W Marginal Way S eattle, WA 98108 vila & Blanca Santo ,144 5th Ave SW Seattle, WA 98106 yea -mar Community Health Ctr 040 S Henderson St Seattle, WA 98108 Iouth Park Marina Limited Partnership ■604 Dallas Ave S Seattle, WA 98108 'aul Wiley 417 S Trenton St ;cattle, WA 98108 Corporat Is I G N A T u R E Cs,n.e« • • Washington Mellon 1201 3rd Ave #5010 Seattle, WA 98101 Indian Tribe Muckleshoot 39015 172nd Ave SE Aubum, WA 98092 Ronald & Anna Rae Newton 7429 NE 121st St Kirkland, WA 98034 Lee Raie 9615 W ginal Way S Sea WA 98108 Sea King Industrial Park Llc 1620 S 92nd PI 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 Ronald & Anna 7429 NE 1 t Kirk . A 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 on 1.888.CE TODAY (238.6329; ,.. ,y 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 P1 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 I s 1 G N A T u R E • Machinists Aeronautical 9125 15th P1 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 1437 S 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 Northrn 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 (238.6329 • 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: CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 1N3Wd(' — -' k.LINr January 4, 2006 COURIER DELIVERY 19001 lb u Nvi 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.C.0 25.16.030 and K.C.C. 25.16.170. Response: Please see the enclosed Shoreline Permit narrative. 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 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 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. 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 1 • • 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 the 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 western 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 westem 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. • • 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 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 L 1 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 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 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 • i 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. 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. Respectfully, 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. Y �'GVIVLGL, Ivana Halvorsen Senior Planner October 27, 2005 Ms. Ivana Halvorsen Barghausen Engineering 18215 72 Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Dear Ms. Halvorsen: Background: Cizy 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 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. 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 CL Page 4 of 5 10/27/2005 12:10 PM g: \David -Rhone Poulenc\Technical Comments.doc Ms. Ivana Halvorson S 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 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 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, Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director • City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor L✓ Steve Lancaster, Director Department of Community Development cc: Christy Brown, Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Carol Lumb, Senior Planner, DCD CL Page l of l q: \David -Rhone Poulenc \Test Pit Shoreline Exemption.doc October 7, 2005 10/06/2005 12:58 PM 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 • • 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 September 14, 2005 Ms. Ivana Halvorsen Barghausen Engineering 18215 72 Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Dear Ms. Halvorsen: Sincerely, Chi- ce( �'-'� Carol Lumb Senior Planner CL q: \Davis Properties /Halvorsen 1.doc • City of Tukwila • Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director RE: L05 -055, Administrative Design Review for 9229 East Marginal Way South 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. cc: Nora Gierloff, Planning Manager Jill Mosqueda, Engineer, Public Works Department Page 1 of 1 09/14/2005 12:03 PM 6300 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 • Ciiy of Tuk NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION RE: Davis Property & Investment: 9229 East Marginal Way South Dear Ms. Halvorsen: •ECEIVED SEP 0 7 2005 DEv i n 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 -01 1) 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. CL Page 1 of 2 09/02/2005 5:31 PM q: /Davis -Rhone Poulenc /L05 -050 et at Complete App.doc 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 January 12, 2006 Ms. Ivana Halvorsen Barghausen Engineering 18215 72 Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Dear Ms. Halvorsen: • city of Tukwila NO • Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Steve a Department of Community Development 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. CL q: /Davis Properties/L05 -050 et al Complete App.doc Page I 01 01/12/2006 2:21 PM Director 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, 4204 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 MEMORANDUM September 8, 2005 • TO: Carol FROM: Sandra RE: Davis Property and Investment, Preliminary Review Comments Following are my preliminary comments on the SEPA Checklist and the site plans. 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 think the City should ask for a copy of EPA's approval of the actions to be taken on -site. I would like to speak with the EPA project manager to get an update on what is going on at the site and what future clean -up actions (if any) were contemplated. I also would like to understand who will have responsibility for ongoing operation, maintenance and monitoring of the groundwater treatment program. I have left a message with the project manager at EPA. Plans: 1. The plans should show the three groundwater recovery wells in addition to the monitoring wells. 2. The plans should indicate where the existing groundwater pretreatment facility is located and as well as the proposed new location. In addition, piping details should be provided on the plans — both existing and proposed. 3. The plans should indicate current location of the on -site King County lift station and indicate whether it will also be relocated. 4. 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. SEPA Checklist: 5. 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. 6. 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. The plan should include a very specific and detailed health and safety plan, including emergency measures and daily decontamination procedures. It is not enough to make the plan available to site contractors — they have to receive training in the health and safety procedures. In addition, site workers will need specialized OSHA training/certification in order to carry out the work. Dear Ms. Lumb: Ms. 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 September 1, 2005 HAND DELIVERY 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 On behalf of our clients Davis Property and Investment LLC, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., is formally submitting an Administrative Design Review application to be reviewed concurrently with applications submitted August 10, 2005, including a Substantial Development Permit application, Shoreline Variance, and SEPA Environmental Checklist. The following documents, as listed on Administrative Design Review checklist, are enclosed for your review: SEP 01 2005 CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL " ^ .� b N'TM DEVELOPMENT Administrative Design Review: 1. One (1) copy of the Application Checklist 2. One (1) copy of the completed Application form 3. One (1) copy of Project Narrative 4. One (1) copy of the Affidavit of Ownership and Hold Harmless Permission to Enter Property form 5. Five (5) copies of the Complete Plan Set including: a. Shoreline Site Plan Sheet (Sheet P1 of 2) b. Shoreline Cross Sections Plan (Sheet P2 of 2) c. Cover Sheet — Site Demolition Plan (Sheet El of 3) d. Site Demolition Plan (Sheet E2 of 3) e. Site Demolition Plan (Sheet E3 of 3) f. Cover Sheet — Grading and Drainage Plan (Sheet Cl of 4) g. Preliminary Grading and Storm Drainage Plan (Sheet C2 of 4) h. Preliminary Grading and Storm Drainage Plan (Sheet C3 of 4) i. Notes and Details (Sheet C4 of 4) j. Preliminary Landscape Planting Plan (Sheet L1 of 2) k. Preliminary Landscape Planting, Notes, Materials, & Details Plan (Sheet L2 of 2) 6. One (1) copy of the reduced Plan Set (8 1/2- by 11 -inch) 1 Ms. Carol Lumb City of Tukwila Department of Community Development -2- September 1, 2005 7. One check from Davis Property and Investment, LLC, in the amount of $400 for the application fee 8. One (1) copy of the Revised SEPA Environmental Checklist prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., revised August 31, 2005 9. One (1) copy of Vicinity Map 10. One (1) copy of the Administrative Design Review Narrative 11. One (1) copy of the Technical Information Report prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. dated August 31, 2005 Please review the enclosed information at your earliest convenience. Should you have questions or need additional information, please contact Ivana Halvorsen or me at this office. Thank you. Respectfully, - Brendan T. Madden Assistant Planner BTM/pj 10265c.004.doc 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. j • 1.06- off RECEIVED SEP 01 2005 ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW NARRATIVE D DAVIS PROPERTY AND INVESTMENT Prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. September 1, 2005 Our Job No. 10265 Criteria for Commercial and Light Industrial Developments (TMC 18.60.050(A)) 1. Relationship of Structure to S t ( 5 0 x 56,o r� oi3E Re onse: T e entation of proposed Building A is east -west on the site such that a narrow view of e 185,000 -s . are -foot warehouse building is seen from the street. Along the east end of proposed Bui ing A there is architectural modulation of the building as well as angled parking that will include landscaping materials as required. There is a large paved area proposed as an outdoor storage yard that is located west of the proposed building and far from the public view from East Marginal Way South. The proposed storage yard consists of the west half of the property, some of which is contained in the Urban Shoreline Jurisdiction of the Duwamish Waterway. The height of proposed Building A is proposed to be consistent with the Manufacturing/Industrial Center (MIC)/H zone, which allows building heights up to 125 feet. As the property is located in a developed industrial area, the height and scale of the proposed building, as well as overall site development, is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. 2. Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area. 150 67,10 Response: Proposed Building A is approximately 150- feet -wide and approximately 560- feet -long, oriented in an east -west direction in the east half of the Davis Property and Investment parcel. Building A can be seen from East Marginal Way South on its north, east, and south sides. The east side of the proposed building has structural modulation to vary the appearance of the building. A 10- foot -wide landscaping strip is provided between proposed parking and the right -of -way of East Marginal Way South. In addition, landscaping will be provided between the parking lot sidewalk and the building on the east side of Building A. Two driveways are proposed from East Marginal Way South that will have landscaped driveway throats that will transition into the parking areas. Building A, which is an 185,00- square -foot warehouse to be located in a highly developed industrial area, will be compatible and consistent with the established neighborhood character. A pedestrian access route has been proposed near the southeast corner of proposed Building A, through the parking lot, and connects to the right -of -way of East Marginal Way South. A striped crosswalk, as well as a sidewalk (or similar), connection will be provided through the landscaping area to the existing sidewalk or pedestrian area on East Marginal Way South. The site plan provides compatibility with on -site vehicular circulation and street circulation as there are no impediments for a vehicle exiting East Marginal Way South to completely enter the site before it would have a turning movement or obstacle, such as vehicle exiting a parking stall. 3. Landscape and Site Treatment. Z2 < Response: The site as it currently exists is flat and developed with industrial buildings, paved surfaces, railroad tracks, and artifacts from past industrial uses. Future topography will be generally flat with asphalt paved areas and proposed Building A, as well as landscaping materials, parking areas, loading areas, and perimeter fencing and gates as depicted on the enclosed site plan. Landscaping will enhance the architectural modulations on the east side of proposed Building A. The 1 10265.006. A TT A l+UMFNT A site plan, as designed, does not have areas where landscaping is likely to be impacted by vehicular travel. The proposed storage yard on the west half of the site will be screened from views from East Marginal Way South primarily by Building A and a fence to be located west of Building A. Exterior lighting will be provided within landscape areas and around the building in accordance with industry standards and City requirements. 4. Building Design. Response: At this time, the architectural style of the proposed warehouse has not been finalized; however, it is expected to be consistent with the surrounding industrial area. 5. Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture. Response: The project does not propose miscellaneous structures or street furniture as part of the industrial warehouse use. Parking lot and building lighting will be provided in accordance with industry standards and City of Tukwila requirements. 6. Demonstrate the manner in which the proposal is consistent with, carries out and helps implement applicable state laws and the regulations, policies, objectives and goals of the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, the City of Tukwila's Development Regulations and other official laws, policies and objectives of the City of Tukwila. Response: We have reviewed the Community Image and the Manufacturing/Industrial Center elements of the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. The project proposal is consistent with the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan in that it provides a redevelopment of a historically used industrial site while also continuing environmental remediation activities and monitoring in accordance with federal, state, and local requirements. The redevelopment of the subject property will contribute to employment and economic benefits to the City of Tukwila and the region and is not located near residential areas. The project :proposal is located on the Duwamish Waterway and subject to Shoreline Management Master Program requirements. Enclosed with this application is the project narrative for the Shoreline Application that outlines the project's consistency with the criteria of shoreline regulations. The project proposal does not include public access to the shoreline area as public activities on the site are not consistent with the proposed site development. Comprehensive Plan Policies Related to Design Review (We have taken excerpts from this element and responded to the applicable criteria. Inapplicable criteria have been omitted.) A. All Commercial Areas • • 1. The design includes consideration of features that reflect characteristics of Tukwila's history (1.2.4). Response: The design of the project is consistent with a warehouse and storage yard project in a manufacturing/industrial area of the City of Tukwila. 2. Fencing and landscape buffers are provided between commercial and residential uses (1.7.4). Response: The site plan is designed to provide easily accessible parking to customers and employees of the site. Pedestrian connections are provided to the building perimeter as well as to East Marginal Way South via a painted crosswalk area and a hardscape connection through future landscaping. Parking is provided on -site consistent with Tukwila Municipal Code. Loading 2 10265.006.doc [Iwtepl • • areas are provided on -site on the north side of the proposed building that meet industry standards as well as Tukwila Municipal Code. Landscaping will be provided around the perimeter of the east half of the site. The west half of the site, which is a proposed outdoor storage yard, will be fenced around the perimeter. There are no residential uses in the surrounding area. 3. The development provides adequate parking and lighting (1.7.3). Response: Vehicular parking is provided on -site adequate for the proposed use and consistent with Tukwila Municipal Code. Parking lot, site, and building lighting will be provided in accordance with industry standards, as well as City of Tukwila requirements. 4. Where open spaces and trails are included in the development, they are designed not to interfere with the reasonable use of adjacent private property (1.10.11), and they are designed and constructed in a manner that is safe for all users and adjacent property owners (1.11.7). Response: Open spaces and trails are not included in the development, and are not consistent with a industrial use such as that proposed. 5. In areas of concentrated commercial and retail activity, the development is connected by pedestrian facilities to the City's trail network, where feasible (1.11.4). Response: The applicant is not aware of a City trail network associated with the subject property. A trail network is not proposed and the site is not located in an area of concentrated commercial or retail activity. D. Transportation Corridors 1. The development provides through -block pedestrian connections (1.8.5). Response: The development does not provide through -block pedestrian connections as the site is not situated in an area where this would be an appropriate provision. 2. Building facades provide pedestrian weather protection, see - through glass and distinctive roof lines. On minor facades adjacent to secondary streets or pedestrian paths, the development incorporates interesting and pedestrian friendly features (1.8.7). Response: Although the site is located on a transportation corridor (East Marginal Way South), it is unlikely that the site will experience a high quantity of pedestrian activity with the exception of potential customers or employees using bus routes and then entering the site and accessing the building. Exterior pedestrian areas for congregation are not proposed. 3. Within commercial areas, the development provides pedestrian pathways between sidewalks and building entrances, and between adjacent properties and building, thereby ensuring that parking lots are not barriers to pedestrians (8.1.2). Response: The developement includes a pedestrian pathway between East Marginal Way South and the proposed Building A, which ensures that the parking lot will not create a barrier to pedestrians. 3 10265.006.doc [1H/tep] • • 4. Parking areas include landscaped interior areas as well as perimeter landscape strips (8.1.4). Response: The site plan includes perimeter landscaping as well as interior parking lot landscaping in the eastern half of the site associated with Building A. The west half of the site, which is a proposed outdoor storage yard, is not landscaped. 5. Mechanical equipment and trash /recycling areas are incorporated into the overall design and screened from view; roof designs conceal equipment; dumpsters are not located within front yards (8.1.5). Response: Mechanical equipment and trash/recycling areas will be screened from view and not located between proposed Building A and East Marginal Way South. 6. Roof lines are prominent and contribute to the distinct character of the area (8.1.12). Response: The roof line of proposed Building A will be consistent with the character of the surrounding industrial and manufacturing area. 7. Where appropriate, the development should provide or allow for future facilities /improvements that support transit use (1.8.8). Response: The project, as proposed, will have no impact on future facilities or improvements that support transit use within the adjacent right -of -way of East Marginal Way South. 8. Buildings, parking, and pedestrian facilities should be designed with compatible locations and configurations (e.g. locating parking in back or on the side of buildings, buildings pulled out to street) (1.8.2). Response: The building is situated to provide a double loaded parking area between East Marginal Way South and the east side of the building. Additional parking is provided on the south and west sides of Building A. This creates an efficient site layout that is acceptable to the warehousing and manufacturing industries and serves the needs of future potential tenants or users of the site. Pedestrian facilities are provided to connect East Marginal Way South to the sidewalk surrounding proposed Building A, and the overall site design is compatible with the surrounding area. 4 10265.006.doc [11-1/tep] • • tltL IVW SEP 01 2005 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT isouC Proposed Davis Property Investment SWC - South 92nd Street and East Marginal Way South Tukwila, Washington Prepared for: Davis Property and Investment P.O. Box 1043 Kent, WA 98035 -1043 August 31, 2005 Our Job No. 10265 EXPIRES lO / CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 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 • • TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW Figure 1— Vicinity Map 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 3.0 OFF -SITE ANALYSIS 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A. Existing Site Hydrology B. Developed Site Hydrology C. Performance Standards D. Flow Control System E. Water Quality System 10265.004.doc • • 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW • • The project site is approximately 15 + acres of existing development that will be demolished with this project, regraded, and repaved with over 15 acres of impervious surface. The project site is located within a portion of the south half of Section 33, Township 24 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, City of Tukwila, King County, Washington. More particularly, the site is located on the southwest corner of South 92nd Street and East Marginal Way South adjacent to the Duwamish River and just north of Slip No. 6, which is owned by the Port of Seattle. The proposal for this development is to construct one large building located in the eastern portion of the site and paving the vast majority of the remainder of the site with a smaller area set aside for landscaping. There is an existing 36- inch - diameter pipe coursing southwesterly through the central portion of the project site that will be rerouted around the building and utilized for the discharge point for the new catch basin, collection, and conveyance system, including a water quality feature to discharge off site into Slip No. 6. Flow control is not a requirement for this project site since there is direct discharge into Slip No. 6 in the Duwamish Waterway. The method of water quality for this project site is to provide a stormceptor for each of the two basins on site, ultimately draining into the 36- inch - diameter storm drain discharging into Slip No. 6. Please refer to Section 4.0 of this report for the sizing calculations to size the stormceptors. 10265.004.doc • • FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP © 2003 77004il5eet: AM® - inallilFd 4S tiai g t; - .0 -2 M at 0111111Prgrill TENZETEMENEf 6,7 W • 00021 H.LOI tel 1 1 EN ill MIEN MIM .......mrilliCm• ramai7;i1E-owa=m2mulmerzazzartz u TJEGIEKMEEIE-' ZIMiliP : ...H.SSIOP ...........--■ _ ow 1729 33S • • 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY • • 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 2.1 Analysis of the Eight Core Requirements Core Requirement No. 1: Discharge at the Natural Location. Response: Under existing conditions, the site has direct discharge into the Duwamish Waterway and the proposal for this development is to route all stormwater runoff into the 36- inch - diameter culvert coursing through the center portion of the site and discharge into Slip No. 6, which is part of the Duwamish Waterway; therefore discharge at the natural location is maintained. Core Requirement No. 2: Off - Site Analysis. Response: Please see Section 3.0 of this report for the off -site analysis prepared for this development, of which there is very little. The discharge for the site is direct discharge into the Duwamish Waterway and the upstream basin contributing site is very minimal since the surrounding areas around the project site are all developed and have their own catch basin collection system. The only contributing runoff is from the 36- inch - diameter culvert that drains a large portion of the area upstream from the project site and it is unknown at this time how large a basin actually contributes to that culvert. Core Requirement No. 3: Flow Control. Response: Core Requirement No. 3 does not apply to this project site since there is direct discharge into the Duwamish Waterway and the City of Tukwila has adopted the 1998 King County, Washington Surface Water Design Manual, which states sites that discharge directly into this location of the Duwamish Water do not have to provide Flow Control, only Water Quality. Core Requirement No. 4: Conveyance System. Response: With the Final Technical Information Report prepared for this project, the on -site conveyance system will be sized according to the 1998 King County, Washington Surface Water Design Manual, which allows the Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph (SBUH) method for sizing conveyance system elements for project sites over 10 acres in size. The SBUH methodology will be utilized for this analysis. Core Requirement No. 5: Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control. Response: When the erosion and sediment control plan is prepared for this development it will conform to all requirements of the 1998 King County, Washington Surface Water Design Manual Appendix D erosion and sedimentation control methods for sites of this nature. Core Requirement No. 6: Maintenance and Operations. Response: This project will concur with all maintenance and operations requirements of the City of Tukwila for projects of this nature. 10265.004.doc • • Core Requirement No. 7: Financial Guarantees and Liability. Response: This project will conform to all City of Tukwila financial guarantee and liability requirements as dictated by the City of Tukwila for projects of this nature. Core Requirement No. 8: Water Quality. Response: This project proposes to locate two stormceptors on the downstream end of the project site, ultimately discharging into a 36- inch - diameter pipe coursing southwesterly through the central portion of the project site, ultimately discharging to Slip No. 6 in the Duwamish Waterway immediately adjacent to the project site. The stormceptors have been sized in accordance with Washington State Department of Ecology requirements as allowed by the City of Tukwila on past projects that have been designed utilizing stormceptors. This requires 80 percent total suspended solids removal and 91 percent of the annual flow treated at a minimum. 2.2 Analysis of the Five Special Requirements Special Requirement No. 1: Other Adopted Area- Specific Requirements. Response: This project is not known to be within an area with other adopted area - specific requirements; therefore, this project is not under the requirements of any other basin plan, critical drainage area plan, etc., to the best of our knowledge at this time. Special Requirement No. 2: Floodplain/Floodway Delineation. Response: This project site is adjacent to the Duwamish Waterway and the ordinary high water mark has been surveyed for this waterway. FEMA Maps will be consulted and the 100 -year floodplain boundaries for the site will be shown; however, it is unlikely that the project site is ever inundated by water during a 100 -year event. Special Requirement No. 3: Flood Protection Facilities. Response: This project is not adjacent to a Class 1 or 2 Stream that has a flood protection facility nor does it propose to construct a new or modify an existing flood protection facility; therefore, this requirement does not apply. Special Requirement No. 4: Source Controls. Response: This project will provide water quality source control applicable to the proposed project in accordance with the King County stormwater pollution control manual and King County Code 9.12 since this is a redevelopment project proposing improvements to an existing commercial/industrial or multi - family site. Special Requirement No. 5: Oil Control. Response: This site is not a proposed high use site; therefore, the requirements of the high -use Oil Control Menu will not be applicable to this project site. 10265.004.doc • • 3.0 OFF -SITE ANALYSIS 3.0 OFF -SITE ANALYSIS • • The off -site analysis for this project site was based on the survey created by this office and utilized in determining the discharge location for runoff from the project site, which is directly into the Duwamish Waterway. This project site proposes to alter the location of the pipes discharging into the waterway to discharge directly into a 36- inch - diameter storm drain coursing southwesterly through the central portion of the project site and immediately discharging into Slip No. 6 in the Duwamish Waterway. This is direct discharge from this project site and the site does not discharge to any other project site when leaving this site; therefore, the downstream drainage course is not an issue on this project site. The adjoining project sites all have their own catch basin, collection, and pipe conveyance facilities discharging into the Duwamish Waterway and do not drain onto the project site. The total upstream basin contributing to the 36- inch - diameter culvert contributing runoff through the project site underneath the site is not known at this time but it is thought that the culvert contains portions, if not all, of the Boeing Field runoff from upstream. 10265.004.doc • • ASSESSOR'S MAP KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT of ASSESSMENTS 1 01411 MI 41 Al 4 1144 40414 4 44 \ N.!" \ \ MUSD \ \ 44.44 co•no.ran FMB .• uarotsC ASSESSOR'S MAP •■■••••■•■■•■ - - - ot a-L4-vq. SC 3292 Seale 1:1200 - 001 04.444 2009 • NORM KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT of ASSESSMENTS 8LA L 2000-080 20011108900013 :■■=t= Tot= ar 41 sa.cour■ =arena aa. awe aaaur — ' aat = a■Canroaaaa ant ••••■■■•■ --•- walba aka. 44. maw 4.44a 444 ward.* ausaaaca 9. Ora ASSESSOR'S MAP 1 44■• aloaoIlga SW 33-24-04 FIE COPY KC 3211 Sea. 1:1200 W.. 1001 Neandar 22.2004 • _ NORTH FEMA MAP RING COUNTY UNINCORPORATED AREAS :>OOn ZONE AE ZONE X \\ CITY OF SEATTLE 530089 C \ \ \ \ !\1j ZONE X ffiZPNA /'094 O 33 *. ifirmiammin kiamism 141 41grau in Ian- mil 1.1 sirmi m, MI! id ro imalisank.. Amilmonft IR Etc" NO M ONO H OWN NOR N RANG A opl 35 26 CITY OF SPA-17 E 530089 ow 1 I 70.14 PANEL '�° Lake Washington Inc COMITY 0743C0pO MW ..EA, ZONE X 07 o SPERM FLOOD MALrMO AREAS O.IR.0AM° 50 100-VIA. 8000 ER. A a M oreerror. `or.. LONE rr � LpAN lore Ao M ..on.. , r re r." .r. r•re I. -w e.. .. -. de eC am. 4! - *... 1a S,,4 are... 4..rwd. LONE A•• Low Y a... •... A. ....W. r... muen. n Nr .w sealer 4a.r..:. LONE YE Cwa.1 Are Area %AR wear. b...re/ or*.. RAODWAY AREAS W LONE AE OTHER EL000 AREAS LONE t LEGEND ▪ M d.r.. ra.rrr Rre erre d,- port., urn Ara r. Ny.... 4 re Pre..:., A.4 ealere A w.m mrr.s ...r.. ::I re. • fro.aw Y.: .u. d or. rd .e •r•y .oH d Ira ran a4. • nO trey w. lerM OIMNI AREAS 50.45 L w .,..sere r 5. r..4 fro,.. IONS 0 v lur. O.DEVELOPEO COASTAL EAIIRIE0S 1; :.1 e..A• �� .w..w. •nun..e=.. free Afeaf NOTES ��IN err bender 4*. ere* I• 0 era. ••••∎a r Orel, 0 Noe Inn w Elarelev OY.. err Oinwrant Tema Ana Rood EHwbn wit* Sp.c:■ free Mee. W food Clorrao Lae El..ir. in ere See Nn .,r re Hoar Or. Der Seim Lae Rood free WINNA U.* err. • /ors Tee wr err re Owl. Darr 51r+$.. *44 . N. • AO Ore 54 m+. Co aw te. nerd m owe 91.(1T•71Y% 727730 r..m.. Or d nn MO m PP* Ere err . r. re ..•orre., Or Now Red *or blame s Awn*, e..4 n.o ma.e 4 met, inane nee Hy — osrm en.. w e Os* reams ma Sp* fro. Hurd r w > C. S.. •ed 4r l'r• ow w4 *nog Ono)/WO. w teased ti ems d +.. .0..: 4.N Wane see r a. • een.w d time *erred H. w brew We . Se a a. He4.00 r..badN ■•••• Moe Sr.44 Nee bard 000.,* nen. •ran lots • AE 4L.0. Aw V. w C.....von .m • Spare free Mr. rem err N Weer., 0, ANY m... annum. mee• re eennane nee nano.. . noes .are.s w wee .mien the area.. w.. nosed N .want *0* ..d. mfr. IN ...RIM M or 40.4 En...no Y ...Ism 4 . A. *Pm sr. . Y .mh*os wily. w 9*W i 4r Rroe a.m•• Led m.ml Sae r r roues come. Owner 44 Can. II* — S.ve. Hm 104 Carr.. Ntsb4• * madame nein N Gnu ar 4_•_ 4 d En " Went yoga lien beeSea — en deer r .l w M - M - pat* —.45 orri t .wits • —. mm new 0 •••. bm•• r - .W...ee d r r. ro a.m.:w r• r.4* ninny rem • maw's .-N-* w Lana 110 d w. An* ...me grey ne.. for .4....wn •..r. w Nee err runts err unworn Warty — .,e. UV. REPOSITORY ender N R•p.Wv lilting on LM Melee EFFECTIVE DATE OF COIIR0W4545 FU000 INSURANCE RATE NAP: SErf9ANT 11.80 EFFECTIVE OATEISI OF REM100554 TO 005 PANEL: Anne. A7u *020 • Nor ..e a..... APPROXIMATE SCALE N FEET 1000 0 1002 To aeon* • m.e *r+.. • 70005 Peed» ■••a.ts pew - nee no Mantenined lamer.. 4Nio b 0 4 c••LA 4 4 • FIRM FEOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND INCORPORATED AREAS MAP HUMBER 5383345 f MAP REVISED: MAY 16,1995 • • SENSITIVE AREAS FOLIOS ?g4taNIn62111112 � AggBil aw � �° 'R Cl�sl,ierawaau kr ,F +ma 6Yd dti�il � . �:J� -• r wno�waxsa.+wirsw�� rseO - -- • . i i�Mi Ytl ' $ 1 it':A 4 Sy� {{ ° �� IA�■ r1'wA �yi9� ®®11 �� �g 1ia:tFY iPOlaM ___ht .7L `710 d11 * ®8 ,� �■ •oM7M Virg � ��,. w �.�,y�:cr:xa „« � ,�.xevr �� ����i ''' ' .�+r.,�nai�•, ��i` R V 574(MmmA.+uum+0ava„e,c.•rwWW0irs °31n $ 6 -wmit , 1i c �'t»a�.`�ttaa+eK:cc6�L���if59�' ".�...:��k6iczauvs��AOay '.•.•ar. '..�,:'•� -- ,inn ' 7�B�G =�� ;., t�w:� 2olll�q Aer wu`fs `�bucrn�na �• � `a r��•,� � �y twr oi "JE m,tLta ebn41P, "d CL'� V -5 > A SS Clsla'�•t.JTwIt1�A[SAR:!1 d ` ft& �;� Ti? �2t6aG 9raouo W �: Jain gP h 3 �t� r+vnt r Z'�i , rm•nair�e9aGc9 ni4 �.. �' 8 1!fiira�eF _ g$ g H&qq� flr«n+sv, a �kwi ������ &gi a 7 a iil/a $ i i. ' mCLs + tL v 89� + s''�' ' iK'' 1• 1. 1 . - :•r- --a �srrrsx�oaawr��. �°�_ rr o.wc��.,oiR�1E11��!!IE' '11 : : "`'",. 1 Y�eees+mag�a¢ .�cvawraa�r 'z.ecw.51. �r°�J�■Il����k:•! ■.,.�.i a1S n �>afa�esas aeEaass ^ra:a.a�.,a� �cw�r ■ / wr.a e. .. . .Tana � e.aac:e.mram m .� :r� :� • l� \>�na9xYC raw .a m�.e:sax a ere. 11. � '' ���E C d�9i3i • .:r u' a is ■r .r.�R�� �'kvas —a t aea17E e. /. w�Mfi1 1 b �wsmsaa�uaayaa e��� �-� \��1� ii ee 1 �r' @aai ara :aaaaaaaaaaaarsa wnotin r o w ,�� �. V1e•-c om ` ° v --. S aww�a�aor +:�a:aa�cirana�ara R o-:.'� , + r+ �ew�aeaa:arwaar°wr � 1'19AC� v,fi.�;xs�cw• �..- .rsa;c.wnri�Faw �s St1CWMi EM +�. + AlaettalAM �� m y l r .w.J Q�" -�A ' v° ^ ry lt.wPr/�!�. fi' ` ► - - -- ,aay.�.e.,.oe...,...W..,.v -> 4 spesic 1 7 ,414 11,4jacral - ' , ( An " 0 Vag 1 i erilifr :. g o # P5==1:11MiAffir4M • -. Alreir 1z esso . - . ,, AmMillaMillikkkri- 4 gtelomn11011 1111641 Th. 120113111=1111111111N11611 emisassisimansairis 411 Ir imam 11111111112=111111640111 041 00friletime - - tri Aft, rrI1=...ii '- ,i'...7, ilni dritiffiiiiimnsiim • qra an EINIIIM ! i Rt Irli Illbow--. 1 -,..,.. 2 ... 1,14 • 9riErnii Anil* Fikirgre , ,• 1■1410•Nor oak! ;111Irb 1•0•1110. .013.31111111111111 jf.; lL4111111111111 PA•" .16113t.h. oomp. _ 2 er ti ,- ■vapgtgZEM „. i 4 m ci Sznil • .T.A8 ' — 'ret1241 ,oteati 0.Araginnol • w E2 r .4b6 + + m2ina aie.w.rErks r '�� gee dam, da�.asi r Psi! y i �aA.:�.;.:.asurtui .citaronua: r W�r!7i:llzet5 .i`i (~ ja npl .9r'eeim "1 A �4; �tlal' � ■ c _ m�lA7PC7.'ImiAlaoci.70tAM1�� 11111 ' i �eadt• � �11r r ". [f ..ywt� r ,h. S d>�i ^ � ,33;,-...-'';',.....-. . .a, ae rLli � .... teck e§ + e� u 'ft r nt�:S1i �� �' '�4''�IV � x �KL'IIFi�.1 �I� 4 wtr �r seint�ex�e�°��I� 5iit&1�6i7CatLeG �w m �Mrwte'Y ► + y 1p•�er�q �+4 �, � a 1F � �.. L� a.� -�` EMIEMuwm.mtGXISS a raR �ig� `� �Q �.r �... �.�°^' t � '� ` I I.Tc',i �t. h .f.. �+�'0... ..i �+ -, � � � . . ��r �' v'"" rem i! .' / gin P s. fi eN . ... '�w�. �1 Nt rgi I% �y. �.��ls". x : �,y ree r4.r rar+r� , 71' �3r rA�r. 1 a ' 2�rni' t 11G'{a�' � > 0i � ,LO N .1.4.', k � ' ::—.-/b . POP 01C-Mrart- a re/ r�u � aw...�.wae�s+e� .. �"�I1 l �' +.� ��r aKr -'r7 --CDc Ste' r .aeo�e r ram•. ►��_._._...B:v'�� „_«�"MN�.i�.'i fn ®rs�rs ■ ■.w�n.a.,....��,—'-- -- �= �I ��e!�kfi�e� � ^ Yr= aT'.6]i � - a � ,j� . g � � pvii a3ai.f��Yt1, !t. .mo lame. 'i6;.1 a+'9Mr N.lir17� �� �T 1 M r U ., o zza r r, 2 e +r si ti`— tw ■+a•l�'.�1951L1ry�Wy �^? ��a >,m_ , .aaer� y ��.±.rrmrx r i �A p p ,�' rarJ�i�t.w+t�v . a�'�►�ImAS�m mov a.'�.^. - �- � ww 'rYIII�iJZI ,. WY /!�4gIrYRIfA91p b .Vill�a yFiiu9lVY■ab■■»■ Jpliilo ADO■ br■ �7111YNt91QIK3kYM�!�,�711i'c��l ,. ”. �.'���/le6StdiGiYl�iriill6 l�P.sii�rr■r _ , �� . G.._�■P!7MNYklitlrlA�■and�_ _— .r�■■frrr_�_. _.___��'�w.. 2 ,��. ��'►-�.�,.,� ,sera; �� p: �J/�`'..�,pn"M' � 1 """ T�g [+ ;�,;:.4� ir ` .5:p i e rr OV� M WAIN INNN121121.10g. Mgr .u.rr :d �■�a. • • WETLAND INVENTORY REPORT Duwamish River Lower Green River Green River Basin Photo Date: 5 -80 WETLAND: Lower Green River 2 LOCATION: INVENTORY DATE: ACREAGE: L1UB3 L21182 N 3 -22 -4; S 34 -23 -4 8 =27 -81 100 Lacustrine, Littoral, Unconsolidated bottom, San d • North A COMMUNITY PLAN AREA: BASIN OR DRAINAGE: CLASSIFICATION: Fish and Wildlife Service Common Name Lacustrine, Linmetic, Open Water Unconsolidated bottom, Mud Open Water Approx. Scale: 1" = 100G Highline Green River NOTE: The wetland edge shown above Is approximate. In marshes, ponds or lakes, the transition from standing water to uplands is usually dear. However, the edges of forested or scrub /shrub wetlands are less distinct. There, the change from wetland to upland often occurs over a broad area called the "transition zone ". For a discussion, see Wetland Plants of King County and the Puget Sound Lowlands and "Guidelines for King County Wetlands_" Lower Green River 2 OBSERVED SPECIES: (refer to list in Appendix 1) Trees: Herbs: Shrubs: Sedges /Rushes/Grass/Fern: Birds: Mammals Fish: Other: • • AR, FL, PT IP, NP, TL SX, SD JE RARE /ENDANGERED/THREATENED SPECIES: (refer to list in Appendix 2) Recorded/Observed: Potential: SIGNIFICANT HABITAT FEATURES: OUTLET: WETLAND RATING: Type: Not Found Condition: Outflow enters: POTENTIAL STORAGE: Existing Active: 50 ac. ft. Potential Active: 150 a c . ft. GENERAL OBSERVATJONS: Heavy recreational use at park beach — both swimming and fishing; noise impacts from jet planes. WETLAND EVALUATION SUMMARY: . Data was collected in the five categories shown below. Within each category the data was evaluated to produce numerical values. Composite values for each category were produced in order to compare each wetland to other wetlands in its sub -basin and in King County. The result of that comparison was a percentile rank. The percentile is expressed on a scale of one hundred and indicates the percent of wetlands that scored equal to or below that particular site. For example, a percentile rank of 80 under sub -basin means that the wetland scored equal to or better than 80 percent of all sites within the sub -basin for that evaluation category. NOTE: The percentile ranks are valid only within the individual evaluation category and are intended solely for reference and comparison. Evaluation Category Hydrology: runoff storage potential, water quality, potential for minimizing damage in downstream areas Biology: quality of habitat, abundance and diversity of plant and animal species Visual: diversity and contrast of wetland and surrounding vegetation, surrounding landforms Cultural: types of access, proximity to schools/institutions, overall environmental quality Economic: presence of agriculture/peat extraction, anadromous or game fish, game birds or mammals of commercial value Sub -basin County -wide 69 57 76 70 100 38 46 Rank (by percentile) 70 60 44 Each wetland was assigned one of three possible wetland ratings. The wetland ratings were determined by examining the scores of selected - inventory tasks, specific data or percentile ranks for individual evaluation categories. The criteria used to assign the wetland ratings are described in the Introduction_ For each rating a number of specific guidelines for. new development in or adjacent to wetlands were prepared. The guidelines are intended to assist in carrying out King County's Sensitive Areas Ordinance and other wetland policies. They are included in a separate report titled "Mrdelines for King County Wetlands ". Wetland Rating: 2 Photo Date: 5-80 WETLAND: Lower Green River 3 LOCATION: 11E, SE 3-22-4; NW, SE 3-22-4 INVENTORY DATE: 8 ACREAGE: 6.8 CLASSIFICATION: Fish and Wildlife Service Common Name PEM5 PSS I • Palustrine, Emergent, Narrow-leaved, Persistent (Cattail) Palustrine, Scrub-shrub, Broad-leaved Deciduous (Willow) • North A COMMUNITY PLAN AREA: BASIN OR DRAINAGE: Shallow Marsh Scrub-Shrub Approx. Scale: 1" = 500' Green River Valley Green River NOTE: The wetland edge shown above is approximate. In marshes, ponds or lakes, the transltlon from standing water to uplands is usually clear. However, the edges of forested or scrub/shrub wetlands are less distinct. There, the change from wetland to upland often occurs over a broad area called the "transltlon zone". For a discussion, see Wetland Plants of King County and the Puget Lower Green River 3 OBSERVED SPECIES: (refer to list in Appendix 1) Trees: Herbs: PH, RR, TL Shrubs: SX Sedges/Rushes /Grass/Fern: JA, AC, EX, PA Birds: GB, VR, KD, VS, TS, 8S, MW, GF Mammals: Fish: Other: RARE /ENDANGERED/THREATENED SPECIES: (refer to list in Appendix 2) Recorded/Observed: Potential: SIGNIFICANT HABITAT FEATURES: OUTLET: POTENTIAL STORAGE: Existing Active: 0 ac. ft. Potential Active: 0 ac. ft. WETLAND RATING: • • Type: Condition: Outflow enters: Evaluation Category Probable winter habitat for ducks and shore birds. Overland, undefined Stream GENERAL OBSERVATIONS: Freeway noise from 1-5. WETLAND EVALUATION SUMMARY: Data was collected in the five categories shown below. Within each category the data was evaluated to produce numerical values. Composite values for each category were produced in order to compare each wetland to other wetlands in its sub -basin and in King County. The result of that comparison was a percentile rank. The percentile is expressed on a scale of one hundred and indicates the percent of wetlands that scored equal to or below that particular site. For example, a percentile rank of 80 under sub -basin means that the wetland scored equal to or better than 80 percent of all sites within the sub -basin for that evaluation category. NOTE: The percentile ranks are valid only within the individual evaluation category and are intended solely for reference and comparison. Hydrology: runoff storage potential, water quality, potential for minimizing damage in downstream areas Biology: quality of habitat, abundance and diversity of plant and animal species Visual: diversity and contrast of wetland and surrounding vegetation, surrounding landforms Cultural: types of access, proximity to schools/institutions, overall environmental quality Economic: presence of agriculture /peat extraction, anadromous or game fish, game birds or mammals of commercial value Rank (by percentile) Sub -basin County -wide 23 22 69 62 92 65 61 84 61 79 Each wetland was assigned one of three possible wetland ratings. The wetland ratings were determined by examining the scores of selected inventory -tasks, specific data or percentile ranks for individual evaluation categories. The criteria used to assign the wetland ratings are described in the Introduction. For each rating a number of specific guidelines for new development in or adjacent to wetlands were prepared. The guidelines are intended to assist in carrying out King County's Sensitive Areas Ordinance and other wetland policies. They are included in a separate report titled "Gat for King County Wetlands ". Wetland Rating: 2 Photo Date: 5-80 WETLAND: Lower Green River 5 LOCATION: NE, SW, 3 -22 -4; SE, SW 3 -22 -4 INVENTORY DATE: 8 - 27 - 81 ACREAGE: 3 - 4 CLASSIFICATION: Fish and Wildlife Service Common Name PSSI Palustrine, Scrub - Shrub, Broad - leaved Deciduous (Hardhack) North A COMMUNITY PLAN AREA: Green River Valley BASIN OR DRAINAGE: Green River Scrub -Shrub Approx. Scale: 1" = 500' NOTE- The wetland edge shown above is approximate. In marshes, ponds or lakes, the transition from standing water to uplands is usually clear. However, the edges of forested or scrub /shrub wetlands are less distinct. There, the change from wetland to upland often occurs over a broad area called the "transition zone ". For a discussion, see Wetland Plants of King County and the Puget Sound Lowlands and "Guidelines for King County Wetlands." Lower Green River 5 • OBSERVED SPECIES: (refer to list in Appendix 1) Trees: TS Herbs: CD Shrubs: GS, K0, LL, MD, SD, VP Sedges/Rushes/Grass /Fern: Birds: RH, SS Mammals: Fish: Other: OUTLET: POTENTIAL STORAGE: Existing Active: 0 ac. ft. Potential Active: 0 ac. ft. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS: Hydrology: runoff storage potential, water quality, potential for minimizing damage in downstream areas Biology: quality of habitat, abundance and diversity of plant and animal species Visual: diversity and contrast of wetland and surrounding vegetation, surrounding landforms Cultural: types of access, proximity to schools/institutions, overall environmental quality Economic: presence of agriculture/peat extraction, anadromous or game fish, game birds or mammals of commercial value WETLAND RATING: Type: None Condition: Outflow enters: Evaluation Category RARE /ENDANGERED /THREATENED SPECIES: (refer to list in Appendix 2) Recorded/Observed: Potential: SIGNIFICANT HABITAT FEATURES: Several snags and perches overlooking river valley below. WETLAND EVALUATION SUMMARY: Data was collected in the five categories shown below. Within each category the data was evaluated to produce numerical values. Composite values for each category were produced in order to compare each wetland to other wetlands in its sub -basin and in King County. The result of that comparison was a percentile rank. The percentile is expressed on a scale of one hundred and indicates the percent of wetlands that scored equal to or below that particular site. For example, a percentile rank of 80 under sub -basin means that the wetland scored equal to or better than 80 percent of all sites within the sub -basin for that evaluation category. NOTE: The percentile ranks are valid only within the individual evaluation category and are intended solely for reference and comparison. Rank (by percentile) Sub -basin County -wide 15 18 53 43 38 24 100 100 100 79 Each wetland was assigned one of three possible wetland ratings. The wetland ratings were determined by examining the scores of selected inventory tasks, specific data or percentile ranks for individual evaluation categories. The criteria used to assign the wetland ratings are described in the Introduction. For each rating a number of specific guidelines for new development in or adjacent to wetlands were prepared. The guidelines are intended to assist in carrying out King County's Sensitive Areas Ordinance and other wetland policies. They are included in a separate report titled "Gulltelines for King County Wetlands'. Wetland Rating: 2 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN B. Developed Site Hydrology 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A. Existing Site Hydrology • • Under existing conditions, the site is fully developed and is abandoned at this time. Portions of the site consist of gravel surface but the majority of the site consists of buildings and asphalt. The proposal for this development is to demolish all the buildings and remove all the existing development from the project site, regrade the site, repave, and construct a single building located in the eastern portion of the project site. The existing site tends to drain in a westerly direction into the Duwamish Waterway and there are existing catch basin, collection, and pipe conveyance facilities scattered throughout the entire project site that tend to route runoff into the Duwamish Waterway. This project is exempt from Flow Control since it directly discharges into the Duwamish Waterway as allowed by the City of Tukwila and the 1998 King County, Washington Surface Water Design Manual. Since no Flow Control is required, the only requirement would be for Water Quality. The proposal for this development is to route runoff from two different basins on site, one from the east, which is 9.07 acres of impervious surface, and one basin from the west of 6.05 acres of impervious surface, including a new building. All this runoff will be routed to two separate stormceptors, one for each basin, and is sized in the following pages of this report. After routing runoff to the stormceptors and being treated for Water Quality, the runoff will directly discharge into the Duwamish Waterway. C. Performance Standards Flow Control is not a requirement for this project site. The conveyance system capacity standards utilized for this project site will be designed to the Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph method for determining flow rates for the on -site conveyance system since the project site is over 10 acres in size. The area- specific Water Quality Treatment Menu for this project site allows the use of stormceptors as allowed by the City of Tukwila for redevelopment projects of this nature, which should greatly improve the water quality leaving the project site. D. Flow Control System Not applicable. E. Water Quality System Please see the illustrated sketch of the proposed water quality facilities and appurtenances. Also, the calculations are located on the following pages of this report for sizing the stormceptors. 10265.004.doc • • WATER QUALITY SIZING FOR WEST BASIN • -wo 9, ©7 6c. $ / e.• 46 rifie Stormceptor CD Sizing Program Version 4.0.0 - 5 G Country United States Date Project Number Project Name Project Location Company Designer Notes Rainfall Station Rainfall File Latitude = Longitude = Elevation = Rainfall Period of Record Site Parameters Total Drainage Area Total Imperviousness ( %) Overland Flow Width Overland Slope ( %) Impervious Depression Storage Pervious Depression Storage Impervious Mannings n Pervious Mannings n Infiltration Parameters Horton Infiltration Used Initial (Max) Infiltration Rate Final (Min) Infiltration Rate Infiltration Decay Rate (1 /sec) Infiltration Regeneration Rate (1 /sec) Daily evaporation 0.100 in /day SEATTLE TACOMA INTL AP WA7473.NDC N 47 deg 27 min W 122 deg 18 min 400. ft 1965 to 1999 9.07 ac 100.00 1257. ft 2.0 0.020 in 0.200 in 0.015 0.250 2.44 in /h 0.40 in /h 0.00055 0.010 Sediment build -up reduces the storage volume for settling calculations A maintenance cycle of 12 months was chosen (The Stormceptor will be cleaned out every 12 months) TSS Loading Calculations Buildup / Washoff Loading Chosen 5TG 7Z-60 • • Buildup Washoff allocates more washoff in the rising limb of the hydrograph Target Event Mean Concentration (mg /1) 125. Buildup Exponent 0.400 Washoff Exponent 0.200 Availability Factors for Particles >= 400. um Availability = A + Bi ^C A = 0.057 B = 0.040 i = rainfall intensity C = 1.100 Stormwater Particle Size Distribution Table Diameter Percent Specific Gravity Settling Velocity (um) ( %) ft /s 20.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 150.0 20.0 400.0 20.0 2000.0 20.0 1.30 1.80 2.20 2.65 2.65 0.0013 0.0051 0.0354 0.2123 0.9417 Flocculated settling assumed for particles <= 20 um Rainfall records 1965 to 1999 Total rainfall period 35 years Total rainfall = 1296.9 in Average annual rainfall = 37.1 in Rainfall event analysis 2.0 hour inter event time used to determine # of events < in Events Vol in % 0.25 7020 82.9 455. 35.1 0.50 907 10.7 323. 24.9 0.75 280 3.3 170. 13.1 1.00 107 1.3 93. 7.2 1.25 55 0.6 62. 4.8 1.50 37 0.4 51. 3.9 1.75 25 0.3 41. 3.2 2.00 12 0.1 22. 1.7 2.25 5 0.1 11. 0.8 2.50 6 0.1 15. 1.1 2.75 6 0.1 16. 1.2 3.00 5 0.1 15. 1.1 3.25 1 0.0 3. 0.3 3.50 1 0.0 3. 0.3 3.75 1 0.0 4. 0.3 4.00 1 0.0 4. 0.3 4.25 0 0.0 0. 0.0 4.50 1 0.0 4. 0.3 4.75 1 0.0 5. 0.4 • • 5.00 0 0.0 0. 0.0 5.25 0 0.0 0. 0.0 5.50 0 0.0 0. 0.0 5.75 0 0.0 0. 0.0 6.00 0 0.0 0. 0.0 6.25 0 0.0 0. 0.0 6.50 0 0.0 0. 0.0 6.75 0 0.0 0. 0.0 7.00 0 0.0 0. 0.0 7.25 0 0.0 0. 0.0 7.50 0 0.0 0. 0.0 7.75 0 0.0 0. 0.0 8.00 0 0.0 0. 0.0 8.25 0 0.0 0. 0.0 > 8.25 0 0.0 0. 0.0 Total rain Number of rain events 1297. in 8471 Rainfall intensity analysis Average intensity = 0.16 in /h < in /h Number % Vol in % 0.25 26614 82.4 678. 52.3 0.50 4270 13.2 374. 28.8 0.75 1018 3.2 152. 11.7 1.00 272 0.8 58. 4.5 1.25 59 0.2 16. 1.3 1.50 29 0.1 10. 0.8 1.75 13 0.0 5. 0.4 2.00 5 0.0 2. 0.2 2.25 2 0.0 1. 0.1 2.50 0 0.0 0. 0.0 2.75 1 0.0 1. 0.0 3.00 0 0.0 0. 0.0 3.25 0 0.0 0. 0.0 3.50 0 0.0 0. 0.0 3.75 0 0.0 0. 0.0 4.00 0 0.0 0. 0.0 4.25 0 0.0 0. 0.0 4.50 0 0.0 0. 0.0 4.75 0 0.0 0. 0.0 5.00 0 0.0 0. 0.0 5.25 0 0.0 0. 0.0 5.50 0 0.0 0. 0.0 5.75 0 0.0 0. 0.0 6.00 0 0.0 0. 0.0 6.25 0 0.0 0. 0.0 6.50 0 0.0 0. 0.0 6.75 0 0.0 0. 0.0 7.00 0 0.0 0. 0.0 7.25 0 0.0 0. 0.0 7.50 0 0.0 0. 0.0 7.75 0 0.0 0. 0.0 8.00 0 0.0 0. 0.0 8.25 0 0.0 0. 0.0 > 8.25 0 Total rainfall = Total evaporation = Total infiltration = % Rainfall as runoff = Average Event Mean Concentration for TSS (mg /1) TSS Removal Simulation Results Table Stormceptor Treated Q Model cfs STC 450 0.283 STC 900 0.636 STC 1200 0.636 STC 1800 0.636 STC 2400 1.059 STC 3600 1.059 STC 4800 1.766 STC 6000 1.766 STC 7200 2.472 STC 11000 3.531 STC 13000 3.531 STC 16000 4.944 Hydrology Table - Volume of Runoff Treated vs By -Pass Flow Rate Treated Q cfs 0.035 0.141 0.318 0.565 0.883 1.271 1.730 2.260 2.860 3.531 4.273 5.085 5.968 6.922 7.946 9.041 10.206 11.442 12.749 14.126 15.574 17.092 Treated Vol ft3 3846946. 11062992. 17570054. 22757840. 26695514. 29585570. 31616332. 33064322. 34065864. 34745324. 35216812. 35529544. 35734504. 35869056. 35958140. 36016580. 36056236. 36083252. 36101264. 36112292. 36119560. 36123732. 0.0 1296.9 in 213.7 in 0.0 in 84.6 % 0. 0.0 Over Vol Tot Vol ft3 ft3 121.5 % Runoff Tank TSS Overall TSS Treated Removal ( %) Removal ( %) 46. 60. 48. 66. 69. 63. 66. 75. 68. 66. 75. 68. 78. 77. 73. 78. 78. 74. 88. 80. 78. 88. 81. 79. C *rr, 7 too 93. 83. 82. /1 96. 86. 86. 96. 86. 86. 98. 88. 88. % Treated 32297380. 36127684. 10.6 25078510. 36127684. 30.6 18544364. 36127684. 48.6 13369559. 36127684. 63.0 9424354. 36127684. 73.9 6547698. 36127684. 81.9 4513518. 36127684. 87.5 3063297. 36127684. 91.5 2062684. 36127684. 94.3 1383179. 36127684. 96.2 910360. 36127684. 97.5 598129. 36127684. 98.3 393000. 36127684. 98.9 258778. 36127684. 99.3 169622. 36127684. 99.5 111101. 36127684. 99.7 71452. 36127684. 99.8 44431. 36127684. 99.9 26388. 36127684. 99.9 15392. 36127684. 100.0 8119. 36127684. 100.0 3952. 36127684. 100.0 • • 18.681 36125808. 1876. 36127684. 100.0 20.341 36126904. 775. 36127684. 100.0 22.072 36127540. 142. 36127684. 100.0 23.873 36127684. 0. 36127684. 100.0 25.744 36127684. 0. 36127684. 100.0 27.687 36127684. 0. 36127684. 100.0 29.700 36127684. 0. 36127684. 100.0 31.783 36127684. 0. 36127684. 100.0 End of Simulation • • WATER QUALITY SIZING FOR EAST BASIN Stormceptor CD Sizing Program Version 4.0.0 Country United States Date 9/30/05 Project Number Project Name Project Location Company Designer Notes Rainfall Station Rainfall File Latitude = Longitude = Elevation = Rainfall Period of Record Site Parameters Total Drainage Area Total Imperviousness ( %) Overland Flow Width Overland Slope ( %) Impervious Depression Storage Pervious Depression Storage Impervious Mannings n Pervious Mannings n Infiltration Parameters Horton Infiltration Used Initial (Max) Infiltration Rate Final (Min) Infiltration Rate Infiltration Decay Rate (1 /sec) Infiltration Regeneration Rate (1 /sec) Daily evaporation TSS Loading Calculations 0.100 in /day Buildup / Washoff Loading Chosen U DAVIS PROPERTY SEATTLE BARGHAUSEN JAKE SEATTLE TACOMA INTL AP WA7473.NDC N 47 deg 27 min W 122 deg 18 min 400. ft 1965 to 1999 6.05 ac 100.00 1027. ft 2.0 0.020 in 0.200 in 0.015 0.250 2.44 in /h 0.40 in /h 0.00055 0.010 Sediment build -up reduces the storage volume for settling calculations A maintenance cycle of 12 months was chosen (The Stormceptor will be cleaned out every 12 months) •10 Z'' 7,o5 f eJ 1 'fie 5 6151' f) 1 Buildup Washoff allocates more washoff in the rising limb of the hydrograph Target Event Mean Concentration (mg /1) Buildup Exponent Washoff Exponent Availability Factors for Particles >= Availability = A + BVC A = B = i= C = Stormwater Particle Size Distribution Table Diameter Percent Specific Gravity Settling Velocity (urn) (%) 20.0 60.0 150.0 400.0 2000.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Rainfall records Total rainfall period Total rainfall = Average annual rainfall = Rainfall event analysis • • 1.30 1.80 2.20 2.65 2.65 < in Events $ Vol in 0.25 7020 82.9 455. 35.1 0.50 907 10.7 323. 24.9 0.75 280 3.3 170. 13.1 1.00 107 1.3 93. 7.2 1.25 55 0.6 62. 4.8 1.50 37 0.4 51. 3.9 1.75 25 0.3 41. 3.2 2.00 12 0.1 22. 1.7 2.25 5 0.1 11. 0.8 2.50 6 0.1 15. 1.1 2.75 6 0.1 16. 1.2 3.00 5 0.1 15. 1.1 3.25 1 0.0 3. 0.3 3.50 1 0.0 3. 0.3 3.75 1 0.0 4. 0.3 4.00 1 0.0 4. 0.3 4.25 0 0.0 0. 0.0 4.50 1 0.0 4. 0.3 4.75 1 0.0 5. 0.4 125. 0.400 0.200 400. um 0.057 0.040 rainfall intensity 1.100 ft /s 0.0013 0.0051 0.0354 0.2123 0.9417 Flocculated settling assumed for particles <= 20 um 1965 to 1999 35 years 1296.9 in 37.1 in 2.0 hour inter event time used to determine # of events 5.00 0 0.0 0. 0.0 5.25 0 0.0 0. 0.0 5.50 0 0.0 0. 0.0 5.75 0 0.0 0. 0.0 6.00 0 0.0 0. 0.0 6.25 0 0.0 0. 0.0 6.50 0 0.0 0. 0.0 6.75 0 0.0 0. 0.0 7.00 0 0.0 0. 0.0 7.25 0 0.0 0. 0.0 7.50 0 0.0 0. 0.0 7.75 0 0.0 0. 0.0 8.00 0 0.0 0. 0.0 8.25 0 0.0 0. 0.0 > 8.25 0 0.0 0. 0.0 Total rain 1297. in Number of rain events 8471 Rainfall intensity analysis Average intensity = 0.16 in /h < in /h Number Vol in 0.25 26614 82.4 678. 52.3 0.50 4270 13.2 374. 28.8 0.75 1018 3.2 152. 11.7 1.00 272 0.8 58. 4.5 1.25 59 0.2 16. 1.3 1.50 29 0.1 10. 0.8 1.75 13 0.0 5. 0.4 2.00 5 0.0 2. 0.2 2.25 2 0.0 1. 0.1 2.50 0 0.0 0. 0.0 2.75 1 0.0 1. 0.0 3.00 0 0.0 0. 0.0 3.25 0 0.0 0. 0.0 3.50 0 0.0 0. 0.0 3.75 0 0.0 0. 0.0 4.00 0 0.0 0. 0.0 4.25 0 0.0 0. 0.0 4.50 0 0.0 0. 0.0 4.75 0 0.0 0. 0.0 5.00 0 0.0 0. 0.0 5.25 0 0.0 0. 0.0 5.50 0 0.0 0. 0.0 5.75 0 0.0 0. 0.0 6.00 0 0.0 0. 0.0 6.25 0 0.0 0. 0.0 6.50 0 0.0 0. 0.0 6.75 0 0.0 0. 0.0 7.00 0 0.0 0. 0.0 7.25 0 0.0 0. 0.0 7.50 0 0.0 0. 0.0 7.75 0 0.0 0. 0.0 8.00 0 0.0 0. 0.0 8.25 0 0.0 0. 0.0 Treated Q cfs 0.035 0.141 0.318 0.565 0.883 1.271 1.730 2.260 2.860 3.531 4.273 5.085 5.968 6.922 7.946 9.041 10.206 11.442 12.749 14.126 15.574 17.092 > 8.25 0 0.0 Total rainfall = Total evaporation = Total infiltration = % Rainfall as runoff = Average Event Mean Concentration for TSS (mg /1) TSS Removal Simulation Results Table Stormceptor Treated Q Model cfs STC 450 0.283 STC 900 0.636 STC 1200 0.636 STC 1800 0.636 STC 2400 1.059 STC 3600 1.059 STC 4800 1.766 STC 6000 1.766 STC 7200 2.472 STC 11000 3.531 STC 13000 3.531 STC 16000 4.944 Treated Vol ft3 3485250. 9039361. 13651928. 17100482. 19567194. 21230756. 22335992. 23053650. 23514958. 23802378. 23973158. 24075914. 24138034. 24175678. 24199150. 24213012. 24220802. 24225232. 24227102. 24227974. 24228348. 24228348. 1296.9 in 211.8 in 0.0 in 85.1 % 0. 0.0 122.0 % Runoff Tank TSS Overall TSS Treated Removal ( %) Removal ( %) 53. 73. 73. 73. 84. 84. 92. 92. 96. 98. 98. 99. 72. 77. 78. 78. 80. 81. 8 ?. 84. 86. 89. 89. 91. Over Vol Tot Vol ft3 ft3 20757068. 24228348. 15192909. 24228348. 10571871. 24228348. 7125550. 24228348. 4655345. 24228348. 2997661. 24228348. 1890875. 24228348. 1173650. 24228348. 712867. 24228348. 425932. 24228348. 254886. 24228348. 152345. 24228348. 90197. 24228348. 52680. 24228348. 29183. 24228348. 15331. 24228348. 7543. 24228348. 3118. 24228348. 1244. 24228348. 374. 24228348. 0. 24228348. 0. 24228348. 61. 73. 73. 73. 78. 78. 82. 83. 85. 89. 89. 91. Hydrology Table - Volume of Runoff Treated vs By -Pass Flow Rate % Treated 14.4 37.3 56.3 70.6 80.8 87.6 92.2 95.2 97.1 98.2 98.9 99.4 99.6 99.8 99.9 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 18.681 24228348. 0. 24228348. 100.0 20.341 24228348. 0. 24228348. 100.0 22.072 24228348. 0. 24228348. 100.0 23.873 24228348. 0. 24228348. 100.0 25.744 24228348. 0. 24228348. 100.0 27.687 24228348. 0. 24228348. 100.0 29.700 24228348. 0. 24228348. 100.0 31.783 24228348. 0. 24228348. 100.0 End of Simulation • * Pi 01 Is3i11$ ;le " Iii!V 1111 I q P 1! 41 111:11 hig 11 01 4111; A gags 1 00 4 05114 14 1 1 ;111! I 8 q�°l pu i ; 0000e roe! 1 8811 1 11118 i ll21 11 1g 1 11.1 H f `3 I i II o :� = 1 1 11 imp gg r 0 • ° 2R222g . aaaaaa ilg g A � F�oc� rgg0gP,': F g eW �� ? igo fl , g a44g44 a: 4;g �� I S M 01 19 474.4` gA g 1141 S'� °Et5 SSS Y 114 0,131 OOP! I 1 �R 3R # i 3 /1 R A 11g; BP 9 aa 3 � � s &�8 F r i $ 1 !I fifIgi gf -Wily wR 1- R g " -11 V1 101 141 I!' g iUlle ! /1 qW 1fli l i Npri l .10 t•k P \100Ph \10) 5 \eny.nee..rp'� 1 0265-.:01 a.V Lole /T 08/31/2105 1013 Stale 1430 b.Nk,ton Orel . 010265- PT.Aon- b,712266 5.:10765 -0. 0 _= 5 TRW No. I Dot. 16Y ICka. I Mw. 8.01.len 8 Job Number 10265 Sm.t C1...._6 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425)251 -6222 (425)251 -8782 FAX CML ENGINEERING. LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES D..kn.a ..61.. I3roon _AGM Cbeekba _DEL Approved _-D$ Date 12/2.10 Scaly. No.t.ontal v..tlaa N/A 1 For DAVIS PROPERTY AND INVESTMENT PO BOX 1043 KENT, WASHINGTON 98035 -1043 COVER SHEET DAVIS PROPERTY AND INVESTMENT • C) 0 rn m C) D 0 z C) Z 0 0 0 rn RECEIVED SEP 0 1 40(15 COMMUNIY DEVELOPMENT El 10265 614A0 18215 72(41) AVENUE WIN KENT, WA 98032 (425)251-8222 (425)251-87E12 GAM milio rIll11141q Igq111! [11115ir ils,gr.up nifiluit 1 r 11, qr ..! IA i 1Y iX1 . .”! Th;47 !2:11 91 an 11 1M; VII 2 /ell r iq 11 iliqi 1 iliirif if r4144 IMIA 11/41111i d'ail9il 111/11 filin. hl. rilir Woo i i- 4 ig i ;0 21 4413 I ; Ig hiii iffr -1 121 i 11 11 i f IgalAall p f Ing :Iii. I l'fifieff 1 t ANDS a;,." TO: gti 1 meg o& bis 1.. illio 4. i f;,2 , k 1 gi1301 IN lop infirll il is ..i, paw .F14,04 iiiiiq• 0 D n4 I I! .410 ii•ililq, FAIT t wo. • l For DAVIS PROPERTY AND INVESTMENT PO BOX 1043 VOMIT WA80ITOW2T OP 4 bts A t 8 0 0 g 1: z 1 . 4 g g ,t23 SHOREUNE SfTE PLAN FOR A 20 15 10 5 0 A WALE: n 1,45 0.450 DAVIS PROPERTY AND INVESTMENT A PORTION OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 24 N, RANGE 4 E, W.M. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON 25. 20' 15. 10, TOO VAR OWED AVM 55010.010f nri. ca. 5 •:, B : i WALE M. 1 - ...' ! ■ . . . . . . +1. -.50 0+50 an 1+00 1+50 9i a111lilii PIP li1!i�a � f i ! P d i g ' I b 1i A ® 1 419a Mgg1 d aa V a R L• 1 1 ! pp ; a l p i 11 7 p ■ i I a : I; 411 I;s a 1 ;0 ; ! lLi i 14 1 Iai / lg •lel PI ; ! I9i $ ! N I i' ill! ;51! i 1 is • PI i i • ili i�1 ll all : a i 1 a f l i , i ifsf Mil ! /f a a fi R s ■!! P 119Pe °0000®0ag 4° 1 hr 11. F I•1 C II !III 111 "III 1 10&111 f� 1111 � • f 11111 f; A . ;1i 'i 7 11 ;.f i ; ! $� 49; R , ii l l ;xe ?a a i is ft a a1ga, 1 r €fi •. . ii a1 C aiii S ' iin i i�F y f 111 19 1 4 Pt;i ; 5 ifs J!! a ] Y' �t�i 1�5 i ;l g �ff f fff !4 ; ;F " f 1 1i F stl pei 911P 2 a8a: .z 11 :. 4 1 .1 / 1 n r dfaf t I !lief � 1! ii 8-B8a- !TS( r � n � i y gt 1 57; S SE !i �f % %5 g ; 6 F ff ii n .! p i is'R 81 i 18215 72ND AVENUE SOMH NEM, WA 98032 (425)151 -8222 (425)252-8782 FAX KAPP DAMS PROPERTY AND INVESTMENT PO BOX 1043 1 1 1 1 COVER SHEET DAVIS PROPERTY AND INVESTMENT 1 v f17ohelarsz3,12.00R®aao�S� 1 4 1 el 1! A 1 11 j I 4 , 17 WI ;ill 8 ki 00000eeeeeee e aA 44 i a a i i a a i i a A f A a A i A a : 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH NENI, WA 98032 (425)251 -6222 (425)251. 8782 EAM \\\ M...m S� ,N 0 ARBr © ��P� '4I rI! O • 9 z ;Eai MATCH UNE SEE 9-E ET E3 For DAVIS PROPERTY AND INVESTMENT PO BOX 1043 If FM' WARMIM['T(W 0 • aa F ©, 15a 4 SITE DEMOUTION PLAN 8 --vakZilzszr- 0/0176 12/22 CO WA MJ !T i17.7. '0 li II i il e W.A. , \,,,, , / / „,, F ' /.., /,';',/ / 0 , . ... 5 , : s..` ;i1;(4,9 ,,..- - 24 , TON 1 i 0 .... , r• 41 % , •-• oy„ til • Ii A tro / AN/ Mir LT • .2' S r/.- ... • . Pro rou p.m o' I .. . — ---- /VOL 06 SITE DEMOLITION PLAN ••••" „.. arm.01■ r .0. . • 111 0i 4.0 Nuor12-r, .0.0•11. • rola lou.T Waal NNj &a az OW S Porn 1013 -0. Pon 101 CB aNCO. Bs POIBB lappp oomac 0 DP. BM Or com wool Na o NO row (MPS mop Ina curso Ba01 04 p, ON 11/1. A MO (6 ME wow (r,o wola mow IB mu KO a Soh 0 Nona .11, onolzo N vaar owe T.P.0.11. INC Me or maw LEGEND„ au= Pa PPM '0 "1;.1 ONIIBI .03 161/011 INS! IDIPCOP PO= PM tar. OSA 0366. LLCM 661 Ben Oil = 511010166 511210 OMNI — AA 61161•6100.) 106106000 00/11101 =WA/ /0111 sarseort 502.02' el - • -.6T 8 CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL CATCH BASIN PROTECTION AS REQUIRED ON EXISTING CATCH BASINS TO REMAIN. DEMOLITION NOTES o ‘1. 071: le TO ROOM pro SIN— 015400 TO ABO BIM 100 to nom 0 moo woo um TO S NAOMI/ 0 COMM WU 206 no RI. 0 caw: Wawa Bad to a COW 0 Dorm SAW/ CO M RUM 0 Darya Pm. uta TO ft ammo. 0 Larva POPO um In MAN LoSPO 1710401P OPII TO BO 0.0040e0 0 Boma mowed occ to mom 0060 00 10 100120 o Dorm wttoomq au TO COON NO a PROMC761. EBBW O.D. Pal 05Th ION-ON ROM CROP tar. lb, ON AZ Na C0~011 OCcao7■114= I c 11 . SAM • . 2/-1117 111. 22,2v0. ) .................. .. —r4 ----------- „ --- • P.12 t7 •• 01.11/2 / ur 0. • 10 .1111 .„ 0150.550 0 ner.eronv laBor Ru.1•11 .1/12.21 120,11/1 SON iSIVE 14.95• 11110 116410 Masa IV or Am OP Rona 61131 /.1 WAIT PCT Of/ OMB F . V.05 own. • room., Up a Da. Kn. PSI MP Da= =MOB SRAM COM. 70 NON-NIT PIT 0.�T 60110 06167 16.is EXOTIC 06 SET. NT IAN CONOKIDII 70 COOR0.71. ppm Woo 0606 111 62.06 Mon 3.4/1 • ■0 /02 .116 5.1.11 • 1 • 0 1'.80' CALL BEFORE YOU DO 1-800.424 -5555 sm.mtiQm �pGl66µpmp 07ftti CM WIXOM. MI OEM CALTON W OW. OI ���ay�YfEg2�y�M[pY1pyID616i MrstV1 gft � 2 //mU a Iy. TM 110M w SlinCT0M TATS 4.71 ' t MAT m A f�6 700 0? C 4 Y AND NMAbC ALL 101 1 0 000000tH IMO WIIECIID m ONNlIT107. M ACR.IM1, P11771070 to VAC 602 -120. AMC.. .151 6E CONFUTED m A 17105700 Ua 50■1113. 03 a 16 r0. rte.11 TO 3700( .3.1.1.71 OE A MY 11 MO M.m 7 e51a1P0 00/10000 P Kul. OR 6, P m COMM. TOO OFFICE m 1720.0E Al 004) 1102- M. Q40*10 51014 00001100 P 0.1001 MOM. NMC 2410 5 21 Oirc0 nil 0 CM 01.3111M *0*701 100. - 204 0 00INO W. 40 Am I¢6ISIERM ° 1 Mt CO. .0 m M oM¢nw 0 M COX.M.lt rM ., 10 PIM 30}071006. M A773PROL 131110 n2. 2.AKE00 P Slm .0M07.0TP 5001 ALSO EE M 1020020241 P 117 MM.. C1of4 02 of 4 03 of 4 C4 of 4 S 000000 'mow N 71•.0112 110.10 COVER SHEET - GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN NOTES AND DETAILS 239.x pal ;eC 000 TOO o 1001 TO =1 mm) 7 ca. : `N91 P) O CM mai(,0.4 worm no .004 - 7 . WOK ICU *0071 Est O 372 w.Ee 6` .ORE A Mr N.Am1 pp 6001 10..02 [6 013011 0 a e WIMP m 0771011 rout L.a 5.70.O.M. 1070M0 KW. LEGEND„ ue ems 2 N,m, J_+ 7I 11000 l"' 1 *0107.0103 .16) 1Mm lm■or w .0 M Iwo I0z ET a _ coomuo [ 1 02071 Mess cM . 50110 301O0 001 I MlM 02...21002 10 - - lutno[ 1.m61IO.o _ - 1.01 MT.Eu - 00 20 10 ' am . 0010 117 M. - r)-- .x 1. 01171 ESTIMATED CUf AND FILL CT- t070 CY ALL • 20,540 CY 01140 oo �sOFq Po rr . 024.1 102 We 2 7 24 0 . 2.w m 0.0 .00 S CM Co. g P.n. t 10011, .12 q a 0200020. r a 117 Mm.. a Waft . Lmbr Ile 1..0 24 ' 7..6..04. • 0.24 00.n..m a a , 340 dq 1 ry.l3 ...! r . inel * 1y [s m p.:. w•wnb.q prgmq .I `y p Cam 3.eWq Mauro 00614 +M.4 a 6. Lamm,. I a a EaM.b 000471 r ,L w a Oman. • 3 ro .. (Co... I .m. 0. ems! mow. mow. mow. ya4 . 71...17.. 02.7110.02 1 2710 r: �00c.1 ...1.ym.2.0M,n......a6a .a 1.r..10117 I 24' .0 ..M. 0 247001 I. aem m. 001.2 C.O1 W. 0. Lao 00 W w' Ca. • Timm r ..1.77 Ma amp m. a Ea. 02.0.0 .022 I..vr 700% .r. 000.0 a m. M 240271 M Oenolbn 0.• a frt. .02.6 .0 11..1 M. a P A.rl1 .P vm Ten r P.m ]], fi.w h ..a. East .MON ..00.71 . Kies Comm. .as.y0. anMn1 more. M • m.. el 1624.71 I..1 to m. Eon .n. a Conn.. .0.17 Ol .k! .. 1: D MR Mtn ,r 0r 7• Ent n'Y .m Ealsey M ..we. Y +. 71 la . 1 6 0 NO 0.47 40 • a.m.. el M 101 1661.10 1100 E 00 0041 1 21 2J 0 AY 7 E • 74 Y .662 , ..0 TENS Lea • M 02.10.. 011 m marMr .1 ImE40 .W.y Mtn.al. OnrMr.eq W L0 w. u...vq Tro a et 1 ..wu .a l .m m • ram m .m r.. 10 1r 1. Y 00 ... • a e re a 200.01 MO21.0a Popo [tin ur. .a LMa U .r N' East • e.a. r 1. 1374.17 Imam 2471 1700 a. 10 .24 cm w+ Mn V. .0 Ire. w «, . 0 • 4. .17.02 117 .. .1 . .5 2.0. .M. M 0. oft. L mop 24 MsV.+ m t mob, ,, a fat . . KYp 240444 Nam Me .0:.17.. as TornM a. m TOM 02441 a .fta M aft to r: 710124 3017 6P ST 50 M NOCE 3.0171 Or 0 51• ..n a n ...17 r . a MOO I N MI S.mVlY w'M mom 2 117.00 M• 110(1 3020 20' 0 a.1ee. a 1 rx 7.7 02 11 0 aMeem . 2467 I.t a w 0 w .q a 02.00* Mar. 00.1 Na. 2 m. 01.02 l.• r m¢M3 Nen 010 mp . te a. Lar 1 M. 47704 2. 100 .• w 0 of .. 1. i . . ..0n 9 a t 0m.ny 144 Am. 2401402 00,01. - 2417 P mows 0.10020 MOEm 0000! 1011* P ,S2. 0030 -02 - 0*0 31 7 3 0 711 610.01.. 1mu 1117 DART m 6.2.2240020 Co3SS12.0 dwaAS E A Y miss OM 1240E 00.007141 a OW SCE P 17. m M7P (0ES1110IID). (10 0070602.(2 NI 100 60 93' w 671 a M EAST SOL P EMI 000.002.1 )Alr30 70.7 100 rt NNM P INS SI2 - 071.043 • M.17 702 1011200. 0111* - sMn o mANr.E 10O oorr• AYEMWI PN. P toy) wow., STATE 7wm WOIM..5 Ma. - MOM 200 - amm 114 00X1171,0 MST CCMOW. P EMI waft.. 11. MEN AS Mr. 20700 ..t 4 es3 2402 0 reps 222. 1.00 700/0 .bei 100 nmr.. Nom.: 117.0 Mm Ibl 0020710.. T. 2004 02 /me CALL BEFORE YOU DKY PRELIMINARY GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN 60101COIDI SIC not ITT aaa SOW rat 58x0 srcn CF. NV m TO Imam 19 .00' or :o MS.700 121r 1 2.00' mt S 05R10'Se•E 10.95' co F0101 �. LEGEND, • WOWS 0.1 J. , MC me )00 1 Y O POW NMI RI , 1p'01 r ZO 1101 W Ialm • maw mom O ma .a mm Q noa smut (580 J SIMR, San Wwat (580 :..WI a1a 02•0: 066 aG aaP • 55510 S3 sax um (M • ne row en ® .ua grew 6 WPC 58 ® anal 585 =TM OF ANUS Pen T.P.O S. tat Rala aw1OO INT a.•ao a+ W OWS 1558 OMB IN .066 w 1e IEWCOF w MOM Rue ammo ▪ coma mom awn __ :WO&MSaw SIMI MOM as -u - OS ut — :10 MOWN MOUSY°5 •• m.w aeacor ,d,- 5819 OM. — o• ar MCI 8, - -o -- raP Ow wa a— mo flit MCC — /;•— nm ma r = 1 S5851'Or! 3'2.52' a5 r — M65va'arw .ee.9r 1L, ^g • 4N' t 1 1 1 1 13 4 : 8 Ui8$ 1 I II 11Y311 no 4T IV 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425)251 -6222 (425)251 -8762 TAN MATCH LINE SEE SHEET C2 For DAVIS PROPERTY AND INVESTMENT PO BOX 1043 KENT WASHINGTON Tmr PRELIMINARY GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN Hydro Conduit Division STC 4000 Precast Concrete Stotmaptor • (4800 U.S. Gallon Capacity) .. P.m GO. .rute0443 Outlet Connection Detail sac Secum rim Ctmmber Enlarged Intel Tee Drop Pipe I.lama. Rae* Commm hnmomaded e lb 14ee.41011d Pipe Newt duel tepmmmd mark Ode OapPge IeEtte Val Pee 37k Dopxqr mm apcm is Maas q mews.ed0. renown:: U.S Pee= 14915141, 1.Cm arHy 'R17 Serer br handtry 71 ih' m1earn m the Drc 7r axe.oel P■ 0 KIe L441 On* (knneclion Dem6 Zr bRi er Hydro Conduit Division STC 7200 Precast Concrete Stonnceptor • (7200 U.S. Gallon Capacity) rem Enlarged Tlw Member Enlarged Inlet Tee Drop Pipe I. Ile or d. akar Caomsmbracornmeed a Th. !plead O I3 Pee. !. Renew ileoekp omik Ode RcpPipeand the VmPipe. a. The S4mxooe 67035 n peace by me gram d the babmry U. N.: 44915111, 15/9/771 33/21740. 45713113, 15619161, 36956765, 1601103 4. Clem. HrdroCm6d repro. w f a Ilea tech.el nod mien ilea -7- CALL BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-5555 II FT , I • I 0 I 0 0 et „ ,,,..-•:,-- ---- LANDSCAPE PLANT MATERIAL LEGEND ., ,,...., . A A .-_, - ", Ir- SIZE --. - ..A \ .'s j SIAM 11 / COMMON NAME 4 0 -- 33100110! OGION SPACING QUANTITY , , I TREES ACM TATA/Wm 7 26•14, / ANsill AuPLE ....---- .... Co. COSSI40 AS SM. • • • 2 ' . '' Ss• arum" COM. AS Wen 00.0.3 00.0.3 MON tar / tAex,s:IF a.:1„18 - :•; , ,e,..4,7e.1•' - KSI3 ASE•7 i II PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN CALLENTANA • AMA, / CARTA. ORNANENLY. 00011 Imus 1TPNINA / 03010.3 0130 Mum PisGTA / EXCESSA SEEM RED cll. ..11 • C CO • Ig • 3 CAE • • • • • AS Dom AS Swans 03 3410NN 37 17 ROMANS MRIGAMON KITES I. Ass. 0.0033 /MS •• sump Er • KELM MSC NATC46,1C 0330033 PS.. I. MICGNION MTN AU KIT Ors Or SAN. 1600133. CCM. CAPTOR 1652.040. NU '7, CRICNN IVITSTREET tASE. •NANC7¢10 AT r CNE ONCANNO SEASCN, NIARSCIET. STAsa • GUT ONE GROrre0 SEWER ALMON MCP, ins.11-161.0, ST. • OUT OK PENANG 33005 00003 CRowN, LIN-0.11 LEADER 5100 0. MIT OIL CMOs= SEASON, ro.116 GROAN CDR 5703? TREE MANNED 7 St. • co, OM CNONING SE•SON: KOSS, 0000 030050050 "Ma • OUT ONE 47100ON0 SEASON, /RANSOM areel, 00-007 1041101 SIVBC6 BOTANICAL / CONNON NAME 0 0 0 MIMS ..•Ponvi ULT-Ce-114-NLE GOMA 570100050 0/ RM11173 Pt MOANED. ANNINEE, / TELICArr. OCG6000 LOONS. ALARA Yearrete CO3000.30 *300 EGONTRLS / Norma ACNIMAni / 001003303 AsoPECurOMES Wadi% / MOON CCM 1104000E300.3 5170 / 00000533 110130 10100.E7303 3305300625 / SPINA LAsmin. 003300011361 'PAM / NO Cam. AMA SIZE COMMON 000.10 Gk. 13 - wawa tr 2, =moo CONTNNER MU. .a. - Is CCNTAINER cam. Sr Ir - com. 4 KT 4 POT 04 ▪ 0.C. 0.0 SI 0C , 0.c OS • MC 0.0 O 0.0 0.0 a.c pavan REIEWS se AS REM! *3000 TROS NKr CANES WM. sea • as6- • A S, TOlD I, RCN •CmccIR. sem NM ECM is FROM •ORCERS. 3/7.7361 B oom orORL PUMA91 ALL MATERIALS, LABOR EOUNMENT AND RELATED GEMS NECESSARY TO MCOMPOOC TOPSOIL TREATMEM AND PREPARATION OF SOB, P9♦m1 GRADAFO. PLACEMENT Or SPECIFIED MAP E. FERTILIZERS. STMDN, MULCH. CLEW -UP. DEEM REMOVAL AND 30-0.0 NTENANC OMAMIUTONS: LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR TO BE SKILLED AND KNOWLEDGEABLE W THE 01EID Or WOO AND HAW A MINNUM FOR PINE ((S)) TEARS EXPERIENCE INSTALLING SRAM RORK. ODNTRIC1OR TO DE LICENSED TO PERFORM 11E RORK SPECIFIED WTNN THE PRESDNG 100130 CT1011 Joe COMMONS R IS TIE CONTPACTOR RESPONSIBBRV TO RM. TM SITE AND REPORT HEY DISCREPANCIES TO 1100 DWM OR TOE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVES. ALL RANT ANTRAL AND AMISS GRADES ME SUBJECT TO APRIWN m TO ORNER 0R IRE OMQA'S RCPRESOrtATNC SA MD PROTECT ALL UOSTINO RANI0N9 SHOWN TO REAA01. 00 NOT PLANT UN A. OTHER GWSRWCTION 0PEM1003 *ARCM COERCE HAW SAN WMRLpED. E AN ARG10N 5031EL IS TO BE INSTALLED CO NOT PUNT WML TM SYSTEM NM BEEN "AVAILED, TESTED, AND APPROVED OF iM DINNER. HANDLE PLANTS RE A GRE - 00 NOT OANADE DR BRAN ROOT SYSTEM, BARK, OR BRANCHES. REINA AND/OR REPLACE ITEMS DAMAGED 03 A RESULT OF WORK OR WORK NOT IN COMPLIANCE NTH PLANS AND SPECFKOITONS, AS ENTERED m OWNED AT NO ADO0MON& COST TO THE OWNER. REPAIR OF E015TIN0 PLANTINGS: WRNS TIC COORS! Or WORK KCP/JR ALL EX151IN0 PLANTING AREAS m PRORING DEAD CROWN, RE- EETABURNN POTS! GRADE AND RE -SU AING TO 3PEOFICO OEM. REPAIR OF CKISTNG 1RRI ATDN 031000 PORNO THE COURSE OF WORK, REPAIR ANT DAAADE TO THE OOTRG IRRCATI N TATTOO TO MATCH OR BETTER THEN CONDITIONS POOR TO THE WAAGE. GMRAPETEE: GNILANTEE AL PLANT OR THE N T N ! NE FOR A PERKO 1W O TEM ETON DATE or FINAL N ACCEPTANCE ST OWNER OR OWNER'S REPRESENTAMC 30-MV MANTENMKE CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE OWNER WTIN A SCOPE OF WORK AT TIME OF 0011AL PROJECT MD TO PRONE LAENSCAPE AND IRRIGATION 0NNIFNWCE FOR 30 OATS TDLL0W00 COMPLETION ACCEPTANCE By 001000 WORK TO INCLUDE MANTENNACE AS DESCRIBED *ETD *, IN PLANTING AND IRRIGATION MHME/ANtt TOTALS( WTERALS: MATERIALS TO a! GRAM NO. I. SIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH (AM) AMMAN A DARES FOR NURSERY STOCK (INNS Z5OI 1991). PRUNE RANTS RECEIVED FROM 111E •• RUM' ONLY UPON AUTHORIZATION m THE IJANDOCAPE ARCHITECT. 'a B B' INDICATES BALLED AND BURAPPEDI'TORt.' a01UTES CORIANE& 'BM INDICATES WE ROOT: YAL' IMDUTES CALIPER AT 1' ABOVE SOIL ENE: 'GK' NDIUIES GALON A) SPECIFIED PLANT CUIGPW SIZE OR CALIPER IS THE M 10110 ACCEPTABLE CONTAINER SIZE ESTABLISHES ROM RANT CONOICN TD BE PROVIDED. CMEITo RANT 1MTETBK TO COMPLY WITH STAR AND FEDERAL LAWS FOR OSCLSE INSPECTION, PLANT TO BE FULLY LOT. VIGOROUS. OIL FORMED. RIM REEL DEVELOPED FIBROUS ROOT m41005. ROOT BALLS OF PLANTS TO BE SOLID AND FIRSTLY HOT TOGETHER SECURELY CONTAINED AND PROTECTED FROM INJURY AND DESICCATION. PLANS DVIDTONED BY LANDSCAPE MCHTTECT TO HAVE BEEN MANAGED; NAVE OFOBUa15 Or STD& BRANCHES. OR ROOTS; LACK STMMRRT. MAK MULTIPLE 1FADERS OR Y CROTCHES LESS MAN 30 DECREES N 1REE3, OR DO NOT MEET SIZE OR ANSI STANDARDS WILL BE REJECTED. PLANT MURAL TO BE PASO A SINGLE NURSERY SOURCE MR EACH SPECIFIED SPEEDS HYBRID. NURSERY SOURCES TO BC THOSE LOCATED N THE SAME REGION AS THE AMER sITE. C) WUBST ITION: NO SUBSTITUTION OF PLAN MATERIAL SPECIES OR VARIETY, OLE BE PERMITTED UNLESS WRITTEN 0010f3KF IS SUMMED TO THE OWNER FROM 11EEI MALMEO PLANT 00OKEP000 OFFICES. SUBSSNRON3 WHICH MI PERMITTED TO BE N WRITING FROM THE OWNER AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. THE SPECIFIED SIZE SPECIES AND NEARER VARIETY. AS APPROVED. TO BE FURNISHED. SODSTIMIONS MAT REQUIRE =luau. M REVISED LANDSCAPE PLAT TO OTT FOR APPROVAL CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTABEGT ALL APPROVALS PRAMS OWNER MAO LANDSCAPE ARC OTCM MANN CORES OF ALL APPROVALS. SOIL PREPARATION, TOPSOIL AMENDMENT. AND 8 ARE GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL LANDSCAPE MEAS. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON ME PLANS. SOIL AMENDMENTS AND PERDRC■ NOTED BELOW ME TO BE USED FOR 80 PRO! 85515 ONLY. SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS AND PERTLRER3 WILL RE MDC AFTER SOB SAMPLES MC LABORATORY TESTED BY THE CONTRACTOR. PROVIDE CHANGE ORDER FOR KORONNA/ OR REDUCTION OF MATERIALS REWIRED OR NOT REQUIRED BY INC SONS REPORT. SOIL FERTUTT AND ACRICULTLRAL MOUNDS' ANALYSIS: AFTER MUCH CARDING AND PRIOR 10 508 PREPARATION, CONTRACTOR TO OMAN TWO REPRESENTATIVE SOIL SAMPLES, FROM LOCATSNS AS DIRECTED BY TM UNDSCW0 ARCHITECT, TO 30L AND PLANT LABOHATDRT. anima. WASMNCTOH PHONE 425- 740 -18B3 OR E OUVALBR T ST040 10000IORT, FOR TER E SWUM REMELTS to LANDSCAPE MORTICE i O COMPLETED FOR ALSO. T ITS 0150300 F RIOT? AN D S USED. A A B0 11 ANKTSIS WITH WRITTEN RECOMMENDATIONS RN 508 AMOODAEM, P000000IL =caymER5. APPUCATON RAM AND POST - CONTTRUCTION MANRNMNR PROGM0. TEED TO BE NNMCTED WITH AND PAID FOR OF TI! COMPACTOR. A) IMPORT TOPSOIL TOPSOIL 10 CONSIST OF 010100 0G M PRODUCED AND REMIXED BY PACIFIC IOPSOI, INC. WINTER MIX TO CONSIST OF 1/3 m VOLUME SANDY LOM, I/O m 411111 VOUNE COMPOSTED GARDEN MULCH, AND 1/3 m VOLUME COARSE WASHED SAND OR =NALCO. NATIVE SURFACE SOB 09N INCD STOCKPILED TOPSOIL SURFACE SOIL ON-ERE MAY EA MEET TURAE CUASS!NATCN AS NOTED ABOVE PROVIDE MENDMEN13 AS NOTED BELOW. AND DJEPRT REDO ANENOMEMS TO SPECIFIED DEVIL C) CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SUPPLYING ,AIL TOPSOIL AND POW OElERMINNG THE WANE OF TOPSOIL REOV0ED PER THE INFORMNIDN ON PUNS AND NOTED 0) IMPORT TOPSOT/NOT100 SURFACE SO4/TIDC0PEID TOPSOIL AMEN0MEM3: MOGFY SEAL AFTER INSTALLATON IN ACCORDANCE WITH DE EMLOrANO AMOUNT PER 1.000 00JME FEED I. a YARDS OROMC COMPOST. COMPOST TO BE FREE OR RN -EMM ANIMAL SOURCES. RR TO BE FROM SOURCES CONTMIING RECR000 DE COM PRODUCTS 3. 30-POUNDS NRROFORM (36 -0-0) 3. 5 -POUNDS ,W MONUM SULFATE 1. PWNOS CALCNM CAP00 TE 11005105E 5. 40- POUNDS DOLOMITE LIMESTONE 8. 5 - DUNES BORON AS B0003) AR !0 TNOMENTS 10 80 TOONOIONLY MOOT POOR TO INCORPORATION 1N10 SD.. C) PLANTING b00 FOR ALL 1REES, SHRUBS, AND CRONNOCOVERS: 1. Oa -CUBIC WPM PER MUNE TOPSOIL OR W,TTU0/SIOCKPeED TOPSIDE 2. 114-00100 YARDS ORGANIC COMPOST. 3. }POUNDS NIT500000 (38 -0-0) 4. I -POUND AMMOMRJM SULFATE 5. 2- POUNDS CALCUM CARBONATE LNESTONE 6. 2- POUNDS DOLOMITE L01E0TONE F) IMPORT TOPSOIL HATM/STOCNPTED TOPSOIL PREPARATION AND INSTALLATION: VERIFY STAMMERS TO -I INCHES BELOW FINISH ELEVATION N ALL LANDSCAPE MEAS. man AREAS NOTED ON PLANS. DM IS TO KSOMMDOATE FOR TOPSOIL MAIM LA 11DPSOE. MEMOIRS, AND MULCN E 000001E Am SURFACE 000010tgN ROOTED N TM SUB -GRADE PRIOR TO SUB -CIAO[ PREPARATION THOROUGHLY SCARIY AND RP ALL LANDSCAPE SUS-GRADES 01001 HAW =MR COMPACTED TO A OVEN OF 12 NCNB WR11 MULTIPLE PASSES, 90 DEGREE3 TO EACH 0111ER. SCARIFY AREAS UNCCESSRE TO MEGA= EQUIPMENT OR ARCANE/ MOM RA MNGS AND /OR EMETIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM N01E0 10 REMAIN WITH POND TOMS. REMOVE SOIL LUMPS, ROCK VECETATKN MO/OR DEBRIS LARDER THAN 2 INCHES FROM ML SUB-0R1DE PMOIR TO PLACEMENT DE SP TOPSOIL REMOVE ANT ASPHALT E%TENO010 BEYOND 0 INCHES FROM CURIO 0TO ADJACENT LANDSCAPE MEAD. PARKING LOT PLANTER ISLANDS TO El OVER EXCAVATED m DACWRIE. REMOVE PAWED WASTE. CRAWL BASE MATERIAL AND UN0ERLINO SUBSOIL TO 18 INCHES BELOW TOP OF AMMO. SCARIFY AND OVER EXCAVA10 PLANT PIT BO1T00 12 IRONIES TO MINIMIZE STRUCTURAL COMPACTION. 0) IMPORT TOPSOIL NATNE/STOCNPLED TOPSOIL PUCEMEM: PUCE a INCHES Or TOP500. MiNE/ST Ton* TO AND AMENOmENTS OVER 114E PREPARED sue - GRADE AND THOROJOHLY MTH MULTTRE PASSES INTO THE TOP NLOIES OF SUB -GRADE FOR A TOTAL DEPTH OF a INCHES. PLACE AN ADDITIONAL INCHES LIFT OR IMPORT TOPSOIL NATNE/STOCKPILED OVER THE AMENDED 300 M A SURFACES COURSE. PL/CE AD0010NK TOP504 A5 REARED TO 0001 FAISH ELEVATIONS OR N MFRS INDICATED TO BE MOUNTED BARS MULCH (TOPDRESSNGr ONE - HALF -NCH (I/2 SIZE TO ONE -RCN (17, LE., 'DIUM, OEOILDCIL/M BARK PPE NM.. LE. STN ER IIXIURE AND CEDAR ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE STAKES: 0 -01011 CINEMA BY 0 -FOOT ANNUM LOCOEPOLE PINE RAKE. GUY TATMAL 1 -1NO1 NOE POLYCTNLENE CHAJH LOCK TYPE TM OR. S /B' DIAMETER RUBBER. NO WIRE. LAWN: COMMERCNL SEED M NOTED ON PUN. 00000= H!RBCO! TS NOT 000009 NOEO FOR IRE FIRST TEAR MTER INSTALLATION. AN1I- OUSC010T: NMI PROOF.' 4a HOURS PRIOR TO SHPME01 To sift PROM ARE 1 TNR00014 SEPTEMBER. TWROUOILI ROOT WATER RANTS PROP TO DELIVERY. POUR MATERIAL OEUERED TO SRC TO BE KEPT CONimALLl1 00151 PORDRN NS1AEU1100. CRCUigN: FINISH WADES: FINE GRADE AND REMOVE ROCKS AND FORUON OBJECTS OVER 2 ITCHES DIAMETER PROM Top SORECE OF PREPMEO UNOSGME AREAS. EMU OVATIONS TO BE DEFINED M 3 INCHES BELOW VERBS. MAUS AND/OR OTHER AOJADENT HARMONIC FOR ALL PLANTING BED AR0M AND - 0100 BELOW CURBS, WALKS AND/OR OTHER ADJACENT 0ARDSCME FOR AU LAWN AREAS. FINISH GRADE REFER TO GRADES PRIOR TO NSTALLATON OF MULCH OR LAWN. ALL INCA GRADES TO BE SM00N EVEN GRACES. U01111.1 CO0PM:IEO. AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN AND DETAILED. PROVIDE PO5RRE DRAWEE AWAY PROM NADIRS AND STRUCTURES. SITE CARL DMWNGS IDORIFY 0NK 00ATCN5. ARRANGE TREES OR SITE N PROPOSED LOCATIONS PER DRAMNG5. EKCMAR PR, RANT AND STAKE OR CU%, AS CALLED OUT AND DETASED. TREES AM SUPPORTS TO RAN WROCAL 0311051. SHALL 8E PIT SPOILS. SETTLE BALKA U SNG WATER ORLY. NO MECHANICAL COMPACTION. SHRMBS INSTALL SHRUBS AS SPECIFIED FOR TREES. ERGV 0 To A MANUM OF 3 INCHES BELOW. MID TWICE THE ROOT BALL DIAMETER. WATER THOROUGHLY AND TAKE CARE TO ENSURE THAT ROOT CROWN K AT PROP!0 OWL M DETAILED. OULDH: MULCH ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS NOT COVERED By URN MO/0R SEED. APPLY SUFFICIENT QUANTITY TO PROVIDE A 5-NCH COMIPARN DEPTH. 1JiNTY CLEARANCES: REED ADAJR PUNT LDUTONS FOR 0 SEPMAION OF TREES//S/1RUBS NO 2 - FOR SEPARATION FOR GROUNDCOVER PROM ORE 01GRANi5 AND UNITY VAULTS. PARING AND 010100ON NAOf1ENANCE: CONTACTOR TO MuNTAIN PLANA05 THROUGH COMPLETED NRH.UTIN. NO UNTIL ACCEPTANCE OF IANOSCAPE NRALUTION. PUNTING MAINTENANCE TO INCLUDE WATERING. WEEDING, CULTIVATING, TGHITRING AND REPAIRING OF TREE GUIS. RESETTING PLANTS TO PROPER GRADES OR POSITION RE- ESMBUSMNG SETTLED ORA0E5: AND 000000 UYNS ROILY MIER LAWN ESTABLISHMENT. HERBICIDE 10 NOT RECOMMENCED FOR WE YEAS FOLLOWING LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION. 1NGD0ED IS REAKdENT Of DEC PLANS AND PLANTS SHORING LOSS Of AO PERCENT OR MORE Of CAIOPT. GROUNDCOVER PLANING DETAIL NOT TO SC4L MOTT i 501NNG • WORN 00015 DICNK1 TO OE SETTLES VINO 0010 MAE SEE RANT LIS1 FOR RAM SPACING PLANT MATERIAL SPACING DETAIL NOT To SOLE NOT 10 SCAT a• Munn LAHR KAP.= WOO TEATTICA Exam 7 sot 01 ..O1 1• 1/2' 0 AT CROWN 1/1' MDE MARE v MOM ORADE— RIII,IIim I/OiE1am, BED NON: ryM pALI NO KATAl2P 5 /WPM PP:t �fR Mr r L NOR, AGSM. ROOTS MCI Of NORCO COAL. (Il/I11m ia" 11,101 K MOOR 1 0* ROe4u IV. Fins --7 - -S 1\ 1OG I1 PATTER. STHtO TO NO TREE MS ' �, � f 3' DEEP 14100 FOR RATER 011100 LATER (LD0PADIED DOWN) -- \, \ a w , RE MOVE ALL IRS, MRM R CONTANDI3. rRlL — . ` j _ .fl+' P 061E10 ROOTS MOM . BALL — ALL OAKS 1000 M AT A IAN. Of • 10ES 00 Or O 1 1 05 0E At 6NL CENTER, TARR PPPP'', PRIME 10 X 51. GRIME MG PT SPOILS, nu1TSEM 641 MAST[ *CAM so SAL ON UNOSTUREED 0100R0E 0 • M11PAOTE0 SOL NOTE TARS SPACING AP RUES TO CRWN0000ER AND FORMAL DRUB ROW PLACEMENT. EVERGREEN TREE PLANTING /STAKING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE MULCH AT CURB DETAIL LORE ROOiBALi AA WYai Mt if l 50 / CTEO i ANA0. TOP OF CU05 TO TOP OF MULCH h CURB PROM DAMAGED TEAM MICR RMINB PACE N VDT. MOON: OWN! RACERS TALL BE REACTED NOR; KEEP R00WL MST NO PROTECTED AT ATL TAM NOLO CROWN OF RODWL AT OR JEST AMR FRAMED CANOE PROTECT TRUNK AND U1M3 FROM KARAT SICATRL NDN1 NON MAID( POLY - NO REMOVE ALL WRAP, PER • CONTNN05, REOAROUSS M 05TORK 12 100000! STMII, RUM MIN CL/S10 CJNS-LOCR IJI , EI? TED N 10100 MIT: ROOK AR0 GRADING IN PARKING LOT PLANTERS DETAIL (TOPSOIL PREP.) NOT TO SCALE PROTECINS WRAPRNO 011550 SHAMEM TO SIR • NRAWTKS RFMWE AT COUPLDION OF PLANTING LAWS PA T ER PRONDE .T.TI VI CRASS' TREE RIUp Y 3' DE0 — 0 TO 0� (COWALTED) N HELL. 1100 BA0 r1100 TASK RASH GAR PROMS PywISO BED A0 MCI. AT MN., LOOSEN AO LA M— sOl R t o W DON W MOHR, AO • HARES BALL OA SR AN d UNOETOReLD soy M ONNAA TO MOUND WAVER e4t AENCTMTOS TO 3um550 101 00 — • DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING /STAKING DETAIL NO' '0 SCALE 2 R1 1. Relationship of Structure to Site 3. Landscape and Site Treatment. • LOS - cif RECEIVED SEP 01 2005 ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW NARRATIVE D DAVIS PROPERTY AND INVESTMENT Prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. September 1, 2005 Our Job No. 10265 Criteria for Commercial and Light Industrial Developments (TMC 18.60.050(A)) Response: The orientation of proposed Building A is east -west on the site such that a narrow view of the 185,000- square -foot warehouse building is seen from the street. Along the east end of proposed Building A there is architectural modulation of the building as well as angled parking that will include landscaping materials as required. There is a large paved area proposed as an outdoor storage yard that is located west of the proposed building and far from the public view from East Marginal Way South. The proposed storage yard consists of the west half of the property, some of which is contained in the Urban Shoreline Jurisdiction of the Duwamish Waterway. The height of proposed Building A is proposed to be consistent with the Manufacturing/Industrial Center (MIC)/H zone, which allows building heights up to 125 feet. As the property is located in a developed industrial area, the height and scale of the proposed building, as well as overall site development, is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. 2. Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area. Response: Proposed Building A is approximately 150- feet -wide and approximately 560- feet -long, oriented in an east -west direction in the east half of the Davis Property and Investment parcel. Building A can be seen from East Marginal Way South on its north, east, and south sides. The east side of the proposed building has structural modulation to vary the appearance of the building. A 10- foot -wide landscaping strip is provided between proposed parking and the right -of -way of East Marginal Way South. In addition, landscaping will be provided between the parking lot sidewalk and the building on the east side of Building A. Two driveways are proposed from East Marginal Way South that will have landscaped driveway throats that will transition into the parking areas. Building A, which is an 185,00- square -foot warehouse to be located in a highly developed industrial area, will be compatible and consistent with the established neighborhood character. A pedestrian access route has been proposed near the southeast corner of proposed Building A, through the parking lot, and connects to the right -of -way of East Marginal Way South. A striped crosswalk, as well as a sidewalk (or similar), connection will be provided through the landscaping area to the existing sidewalk or pedestrian area on East Marginal Way South. The site plan provides compatibility with on -site vehicular circulation and street circulation as there are no impediments for a vehicle exiting East Marginal Way South to completely enter the site before it would have a turning movement or obstacle, such as vehicle exiting a parking stall. Response: The site as it currently exists is flat and developed with industrial buildings, paved surfaces, railroad tracks, and artifacts from past industrial uses. Future topography will be generally flat with asphalt paved areas and proposed Building A, as well as landscaping materials, parking areas, loading areas, and perimeter fencing and gates as depicted on the enclosed site plan. Landscaping will enhance the architectural modulations on the east side of proposed Building A. The 1 10265.006.doc [1H/tep] • • site plan, as designed, does not have areas where landscaping is likely to be impacted by vehicular travel. The proposed storage yard on the west half of the site will be screened from views from East Marginal Way South primarily by Building A and a fence to be located west of Building A. Exterior lighting will be provided within landscape areas and around the building in accordance with industry standards and City requirements. 4. Building Design. Response: At this time, the architectural style of the proposed warehouse has not been finalized; however, it is expected to be consistent with the surrounding industrial area. 5. Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture. Response: The project does not propose miscellaneous structures or street furniture as part of the industrial warehouse use. Parking lot and building lighting will be provided in accordance with industry standards and City of Tukwila requirements. 6. Demonstrate the manner in which the proposal is consistent with, carries out and helps implement applicable state laws and the regulations, policies, objectives and goals of the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, the City of Tukwila's Development Regulations and other official laws, policies and objectives of the City of Tukwila. Response: We have reviewed the Community Image and the Manufacturing/Industrial Center elements of the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. The project proposal is consistent with the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan in that it provides a redevelopment of a historically used industrial site while also continuing environmental remediation activities and monitoring in accordance with federal, state, and local requirements. The redevelopment of the subject property will contribute to employment and economic benefits to the City of Tukwila and the region and is not located near residential areas. The project proposal is located on the Duwamish Waterway and subject to Shoreline Management Master Program requirements. Enclosed with this application is the project narrative for the Shoreline Application that outlines the project's consistency with the criteria of shoreline regulations. The project proposal does not include public access to the shoreline area as public activities on the site are not consistent with the proposed site development. Comprehensive Plan Policies Related to Design Review (We have taken excerpts from this element and responded to the applicable criteria. Inapplicable criteria have been omitted.) A. All Commercial Areas 1. The design includes consideration of features that reflect characteristics of Tukwila's history (1.2.4). Response: The design of the project is consistent with a warehouse and storage yard project in a manufacturing/industrial area of the City of Tukwila. 2. Fencing and landscape buffers are provided between commercial and residential uses (1.7.4). Response: The site plan is designed to provide easily accessible parking to customers and employees of the site. Pedestrian connections are provided to the building perimeter as well as to East Marginal Way South via a painted crosswalk area and a hardscape connection through future landscaping. Parking is provided on -site consistent with Tukwila Municipal Code. Loading 2 10265.006.doc [IH/tep] • • areas are provided on -site on the north side of the proposed building that meet industry standards as well as Tukwila Municipal Code. Landscaping will be provided around the perimeter of the east half of the site. The west half of the site, which is a proposed outdoor storage yard, will be fenced around the perimeter. There are no residential uses in the surrounding area. 3. The development provides adequate parking and lighting (1.7.3). Response: Vehicular parking is provided on -site adequate for the proposed use and consistent with Tukwila Municipal Code. Parking lot, site, and building lighting will be provided in accordance with industry standards, as well as City of Tukwila requirements. 4. Where open spaces and trails are included in the development, they are designed not to interfere with the reasonable use of adjacent private property (1.10.11), and they are designed and constructed in a manner that is safe for all users and adjacent property owners (1.11.7). Response: Open spaces and trails are not included in the development, and are not consistent with a industrial use such as that proposed. 5. In areas of concentrated commercial and retail activity, the development is connected by pedestrian facilities to the City's trail network, where feasible (1.11.4). Response: The applicant is not aware of a City trail network associated with the subject property. A trail network is not proposed and the site is not located in an area of concentrated commercial or retail activity. D. Transportation Corridors 1. The development provides through -block pedestrian connections (1.8.5). Response: The development does not provide through -block pedestrian connections as the site is not situated in an area where this would be an appropriate provision. 2. Building facades provide pedestrian weather protection, see - through glass and distinctive roof lines. On minor facades adjacent to secondary streets or pedestrian paths, the development incorporates interesting and pedestrian friendly features (1.8.7). Response: Although the site is located on a transportation corridor (East Marginal Way South), it is unlikely that the site will experience a high quantity of pedestrian activity with the exception of potential customers or employees using bus routes and then entering the site and accessing the building. Exterior pedestrian areas for congregation are not proposed. 3. Within commercial areas, the development provides pedestrian pathways between sidewalks and building entrances, and between adjacent properties and building, thereby ensuring that parking lots are not barriers to pedestrians (8.1.2). Response: The developement includes a pedestrian pathway between East Marginal Way South and the proposed Building A, which ensures that the parking lot will not create a barrier to pedestrians. 3 10265.006.doc [IH/tep] • • 4. Parking areas include landscaped interior areas as well as perimeter landscape strips (8.1.4). Response: The site plan includes perimeter landscaping as well as interior parking lot landscaping in the eastern half of the site associated with Building A. The west half of the site, which is a proposed outdoor storage yard, is not landscaped. 5. Mechanical equipment and trash /recycling areas are incorporated into the overall design and screened from view; roof designs conceal equipment; dumpsters are not located within front yards (8.1.5). Response: Mechanical equipment and trash/recycling areas will be screened from view and not located between proposed Building A and East Marginal Way South. 6. Roof lines are prominent and contribute to the distinct character of the area (8.1.12). Response: The roof line of proposed Building A will be consistent with the character of the surrounding industrial and manufacturing area. 7. Where appropriate, the development should provide or allow for future facilities /improvements that support transit use (1.8.8). Response: The project, as proposed, will have no impact on future facilities or improvements that support transit use within the adjacent right -of -way of East Marginal Way South. 8. Buildings, parking, and pedestrian facilities should be designed with compatible locations and configurations (e.g. locating parking in back or on the side of buildings, buildings pulled out to street) (1.8.2). Response: The building is situated to provide a double loaded parking area between East Marginal Way South and the east side of the building. Additional parking is provided on the south and west sides of Building A. This creates an efficient site layout that is acceptable to the warehousing and manufacturing industries and serves the needs of future potential tenants or users of the site. Pedestrian facilities are provided to connect East Marginal Way South to the sidewalk surrounding proposed Building A, and the overall site design is compatible with the surrounding area. 4 10265.006.doc [IH/tep] Vicinity Map Davis Property and Investment SOURCE: THE THOMAS GUIDE, USED WITH PERMISSION P: \10000s \10265\exhibit \v- map.doc • • SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ON THIS • • 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.tulcwilawa.us AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY STATE OF WASHINGTON ss 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, agents, engineers, contractors or other representatives the right to enter upon Owner's real property located at 4 a al EAST MAi Gm/ AL. WA4 SD U f 14 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 loss 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. . I n EXECUTED at k E N T (city), ` W Q (state), on i't 11 l9 J ST 3 20 ff~t Th /a°Y3 /4i4 /�/�'/ 7/0S"a �'s• 872 -9s (Ph ' N r) / / On this day personally appeared before me �J t ' 5 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. 5 DAY OF My Commission expires on q "' ( - d o Nutausl NOTARY PUBLIC iii and for the State of Washington residing at 01∎IT 20 d Yy • °0 a5- A➢ o o -ca �yRcrr - '; j . fpa,. • QS' c 0. • c Loa ° 0 �0 .r _�� _ ice ; • • )r ! • 2 • • ••1•4:41' .-"••••- , • • - • • • .7 frZ, • 8 6 ••""rt04.... • • • - .„ F'o,gaVg 48. o °° o 0 60 o 17 0 o ° or ° z •Z ° t 4° Aszp,o. „•1 - ' • ' , •)t. 00 , L9 •.:er • •;.-".4... • : .. - ..,;:, ; .!6:;„,.....7 - ,- - •'...,:a- , ... - -7 - • zAL.:.4..,!j . .::, .. I ” • , --r-•••" — •••••"'-;`-2— 4 . ' I o. I • s•,.. , "re - 00 Bo 0 °o 0 c 0 8o,= 0 gig 0. ro 0 m o y • • • • • . 'v • • : � �� \ \\ \\ \\ caa a _ A l• • • • • v l -0 1 464 o Oo°M' �)14l-t_`\ �-,yysa -••• • -k- mBenjamin More•Paints persor111 color viewer Commercial 3 I February, 28 2006 Benjamin Moore® recommends the following interior finishes: Regal® Matte Finish 221 A premium quality 100% acrylic flat enamel featuring excellent stain resistance. It contains microscopic ceramic beads and proprietary stain release technology that together create a protective surface that resists the absorption of stains. Ideal for high traffic areas such as hallways, family rooms and kids' rooms. Regal® Wall Satin® 215 A premium quality acrylic blended latex coating with a spatter- resistant formulation. Regal® Wall Satin® produces a high hiding flat finish that is washable and scrubbable. Ideal for walls and ceilings. Regal® AquaVelvet® Eggshell 319 A premium quality proprietary latex coating that combines the decorative beauty of an eggshell finish and the washability of a semi - gloss. Ideal for walls, ceilings and trim. Regal® AquaPearl® Pearl Finish 310 Regal® AquaPearl® is a premium quality proprietary latex enamel with unique properties. Its high- hiding pearl lustre finish provides an elegant look to walls, ceilings, trim, doors and cabinets. Regal® AquaGlo® Semi -Gloss 333 A premium quality, easy to use, spatter resistant latex semi -gloss enamel. It provides a beautiful and durable semi -gloss finish that is washable and scrubbable. Ideal for walls, trim and accent areas. Do you want to paint your own photos? With personal color viewer 2.0 you can! Visit http: / /www.eisoftwareinc.com /products /benmoore.asp for more Body Classic Colors 1177 Rose Accent Trim Classic Colors 947 Navajo White Please note that the printed color representations are not precise representations of actual paint colors due to variance in printer color calibrations. Benjamin Moore® recommends that you bring your color choices to your local Benjamin Moore@ retailer for an exact color match. powered by ei software Page 1 of 1 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. 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, MUCKLESHOOT CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM 39015 172nd Avenue S.E. • Auburn, Washington 98092 -9763 Phone: (253) 939 -3311 • FAX: (253) 876 -3312 (-zr aura Murphy, Tribal Archaeologist IP • CC: Stephenie Kramer, Assistant State Archaeologist, OAHP tE6846406 oEVELOP T pt. -- COOZI Lighting Keyword Search - or - Advanced Search r, macronnecsag 'PLL ca AYER 8 'I This content requires a Macromedia Flash upgrade. Click here to get the most recent version. [Go] [Go] Home > Lumark > Wall Mount > WL Wal -Pak 0 Spec Sheets • WL Wal -Pak B Downloads & Multimedia • Buyer's Guide O Instruction Sheets home I about Cooper Lighting I Cooper Industries I contact us Custo Purohoso Products Design/Cools Solutions Souroo Company site map: Abou search: The Lumark Wal -Pak provides a c efficient exterior light source for application requireing maximum and minimum maintenance. • Installation Instructions for WalPak ▪ Troubleshooting Guides • Basic Troubleshooting Methods for HID fixtures • 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 1 APPLICATION NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Davis Property and Investment LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LIST ALL 10 DIGIT PARCEL NUMBERS. 9229 East Marginal Way South, Tukwila, WA 98188 King County Parcel No. 542260 - 0010 Quarter: S 1/2 Section: 33 Township: 24 N Range: 4 E (This information may be found on your tax statement.) DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: Ivana Halvorsen, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Tnr. Address: 18215 72nd Avenue South. Kent. WA 98032 Phone: (425) 251 — 6222 Signa� re - 1 _ L4 / FAX: (425) 251 — 8782 Date: 8•2 3.d S • ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN R emt" ru VIEW SE P - 1 2005 PER MIT CE FOR STAFF USE ONLY Sierra Type P-BAR Planner: File Number: LDS O Sc Application Complete (Date: ) Project File Number: Application Incomplete (Date: ) Other File Numbers: • 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 1 APPLICATION NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Davis Property and Investment LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LIST ALL 10 DIGIT PARCEL NUMBERS. 9229 East Marginal Way South, Tukwila, WA 98188 King County Parcel No. 542260 - 0010 Quarter: S 1/2 Section: 33 Township: 24 N Range: 4 E (This information may be found on your tax statement.) DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: Ivana Halvorsen, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Tnr. Address: 18215 72nd Avenue South. Kent. WA 98032 Phone: (425) 251 — 6222 Signa� re - 1 _ L4 / FAX: (425) 251 — 8782 Date: 8•2 3.d S • ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN R emt" ru VIEW SE P - 1 2005 PER MIT CE Check items . submitted application r r ' :• • ,- 1'...: -: u ... • ..; .. - '''''''..., - . . • Informat •Regwred:.. i .un usal cas es,.up ori .'appr ov al: o f . `b g th Puhl ..' . : Works •and Planning . • .. -7. %. • • � s 1 � r r • - APPLICATION MATERIALS: 1. Application Chec 'st (1 copy) indicating items submitted with application. 2. Completed App ation Form and drawings (5 copies). -N,. }o <. 3. One set of all plans reduced to 8 1/2" by 11 ". One complete set of PMTs of the final drawing set will be required prior to final approval. v-7- 4. Application Fee $400. G-, 0 1- f-,,,,,,,....,AAm<_q lypec 5. SEPA Environmental Checklist if required (see SEPA Application Packet) PUBLIC NOTICE MATERIALS: t(e9 �` 6. If the project requires SEPA review a 4' x 4' public notice board will be required on site within 14 days of the Department determining that a complete application has been received (see SEPA Application). PROPERTY INFORMATION: A t:rort - ' 7. Vicinity Map with site location. o 8. Document sewer and water availability if provided byother than the City of Ti11 t (for new construction only). jb( eall t7 A (/t°ilr y PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS: fr o V i d e . 114 lA.' 9. A written discussion of project consistency with decision criteria. (See Application) D K 0 10. Technical Information Report (TIR) including feasibility analysis per King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). For additional guidance contact Public Works. I 11. Provide sensitive area studies as needed per Tukwila's Sensitive Areas Ordinance GMC 18.45). p. c V 54 ' bF )K%tlLk COMPLETE APPLICATION CHECKLIST The materials listed below must be submitted with your application unless specifically waived in writing l3' the Public Works Department and the Department of Community Development. Please contact each Department if you feel that certain items are not applicable to your project and should be waived, or should be submitted at a later date for use at the public hearing (e.g. colored renderings). Application review will not begin until it is determined to be complete. ADDITIONAL MATERIALS MAY BE REQUIRED. The initial application materials allow starting project review and vesting the applicant's rights. However, they in no way limit the City's ability to require additional information as needed to establish consistency with development standards. City staff are available to answer questions about application materials at 206 -431 -3670 (Department of Community Development) and 206 - 433 -0179 (Department of Public Works). Check items • • Information •Required. be zua:vin ed unusual cases, upon approval of.both P • SITE PLAN. V 1 12 (a) The site plan must include a graphic scale, north arrow and project name. (b) Existing and proposed building footprints. X ) ( (c) Dash in required setback distances from all parcel lot lines. fgokyr Sere? 01) 0 7 ( (d) Fire access lanes and turn - arounds per Fire Department standards. q • Check items submitted with application • Information Required .. may: be�uiatedi uapcases upon appropal.of both Public_ - a .�.,. �' ,. Works •and•Plann z . :: , ,', : i . .:.,. : , «: t;.V1.0_ } : _ • i °• . 613'x +b' . . : ,. �' •. •.. . . • r, .. . ;,... i. ......;••••.,. ` ; . f , ' r _ s ,� :ie 7 1 A calculations to NGVD 1929, if in a flood zone or flood -prone area. (c) Existing (dashed) and proposed (solid) topography at 2' intervals. -:.:::;fir (d) Total expected cut and fill. (e) Existing and proposed utility easements and improvements, on site and in street (water, sewer, power, natural gas, telephone, cable). Schematic designs to be provided regardless of purveyor (e.g. site line size, location, and size of public main). No capacity calcs, invert depth, valve locations or the like are needed. x.- N k . (f) Storm drainage design at least 90% complete, which meets the TIR and KCSWDM. Include all storm drainage maintenance access and safety features. Call aut total existing and proposed impervious surface in square feet. a. otosoe (g) Locate the nearest existing hydrant and all proposed hydrants. (h) Show the 100 yr. flood plain boundary and elevation as shown on FEMA maps. 1 (i) Plan, profile and cross - section for any right -of -way improvements. ?c, (j) Show planned access to buildings, driveways, fire access lanes and turn- arounds. OTHER: X 16. Dimensioned and scalable building elevations with keyed colors and materials. Show mechanical equipment and/or any proposed screening. Maximum size 24" x 36 ". '""X. 17. Color and materials board accurately representing the proposed project. 18. A rendering is optional. If submitted it must accurately show the project and be from a realistic perspective (5 to 6 feet above the sidewalk). NA 19. Luminaire plan including location and type of street and site lighting if any changes to the existing fixtures are proposed. Include proposed fixture cut sheets, site light levels (foot - candles), and measures to shield adjacent properties from glare. 20. All existing and proposed signage with sign designs and locations. I 44 na s4tvw A wu1 12- will iii iv iiii p - l ix:; soia ! g 5 €€ 1 1 1 1 cigg/M45191 114, 1 p du 1 ejAllip e ; girl l gp R L g 011... IN'ali 11$ I -' 1181 1 1 0 : ! P51 :414 Agigiql 95ii lik N1Z1 lql!.*;R 4 4 1 4 r 14":1 agatikel 1 aq g "N ;x A mR ' hig 1 10$ IX r N m pi ' q> g I ,1 r �A'O ENOS 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT. WA 88032 (425)251 -8222 (425)251 -8782 FAX CAL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Gam JAM AS Llwharae --Ise V N/A DAVIS PROPERTY AND INVESTMENT PO BOX 1043 KENT, WASHINGTON 98035 -1043 Revision SHORELINE SITE PLAN FOR DAVIS PROPERTY AND INVESTMENT r Nan� O ) 26 5 e Q. j ' a AAA pli P 9 SCIperatla.s■PLS! Forns%Logos\PLS Iogoatir Lunbmlre Schedule Pro teat AU Projects 6363 7th Ave S SU1te 100 Seattle, WA 98108 (206) 323 -2200 (P) (206) 726 -8315 (F) www.pacificlightingsystens.con Symbol sty Label Arra.gemen< Llanens Lts Description L1 1 I vol I SINGLE [36000 I 0.720 I LIpfARK MNVI -4011 Numeric Summary Project. All Projects Label CalcType Units Avg Naz Min Avp /Nln Nax /Min >m J tIG 1 ,7 w LL } m Y Cen Q W Ground C Plnnnr Illuminance tc 0.91 7.1 0.0 0.00 0.00 FIXTURES MOUNTED AT 18' AFF I W , 1 . ii. , lal - ao a., .a., al 5.1 a1 al al ti ti ere a2 to to to s2 to - - - - - 0.1 al at to to 0.2 5.2 52 52 02 53 a3 713 53 711 to to \ „ 0 0.1 732 al a2 0.2 / a2 52 t,.3 53 13 53 53 11.3 13 73.3 0.3 0.3 53 02 52 to L3 71.4 714 0.4 11.4 713 71.3 11.3 ■ 0.4 55 5.6 5.6 0.6 Ls a6 a6 13.6 116 0.6 5.6 bb 116 11.5 115 11.4 0.3 a2 at to al �1 // a7 0.9 0.9 1A a9 a6 Its a6 19 It to 12 II to 12 12 12 1.1 to 13 12 to 1.1 IA 19 to a3 La to al -'-'1,6 r L3 L6 / lb L6 \ \0.9 5S 0. 7 1.5 19 9 X 2.0 Le 9 2.0 lo /Le 4 2.0 L9 4 2.1 Y t 7 L6 a3 3 t, S.9 / L7 .l t3 714 1A \ a3 a 7 719 9 3.5 ` • 9 L3 ' t3 8 9 3.6 i2 6.0 3.7 t t ` i 4 1.1 a2 �.\ 52 a2 a)�� a4 0.4 a2/ ! 1.a 117 13 ). � �� t o a, /! '` b,, as a % 53 a 3 ,' to , A AA A A AA as a A LA c a c .A a a s \ 7 a � b.,3 , s ) f� �� � /- - -\ ,,/ 0.,`. � mil 0. ' ere Is IA ., 5A a3 / 1 \ ,a.--- 11 14 ere a3 le -- a B L5 l Vs 14 a 3 e Wj le 1 N. 3.2 2 1 . • r 41 . 6 6 a � 4 l - . 9 I � 5 4 E 7 .e , ( i'91 LS 1 , .1 6___‘6•• ( As / i 7 \ ! 4.0 6.1 Mr )5 5 -- 1a� j a2 to b� X11 , •.1 al a2 0.3 9 i 1 1 0.6 a5 1 0.5 a�'.��y6_�1� a6 a5 a"��� I .2 a6 a3 .1 a9`��1&� 111222 bb a7 Lbw ere 0.3 a2 a2 al al al \ / ` -___..----- 1 to 03 5.s 713 715 71871771.511571614717 17 a5 a5 bb 12 17 to 15 a6 to a7 as a5 5.6 5A 13.7 as as 5.6 a9 0.7 at, a6 18 ere as he al 5.1 Li to to ao 5A . at a1 V� LNG CALCULATIONS at i I 1'62 J a1 I ` : 5� -3 -� 3 0. a: I 3 a3 a 4 a3 a3 a3 a3 53 a2 a1 al 5A 5A ao ao aA i Matt Gui(foy(e p '� 1 �(0( �j1 0.0 , a9 s • ! to . ! - -= 0,,.. 12 -13 -05 sera. NOT TO SCALE FILE NAME HERE PLS REVISIONS REV DATE DESCRIPTION Cdc:laaa:e ere provided ,s t __t,y -rc g l_ed w Bare and me prodded f• cL -olio pw.pcco ally. W A L L PACK Input dato for the corresponds to the Information to (assumptions be for calculations prodded us may mode 'atomicities. that in not provided). It is the responsibility of those using this service to verify that our input data SCALE: NTS Is consistent with expected Odd conditions. Results of the lighting caladatlae occuratdy reflect the Input dots, however actual lighting levels will wry depending on field conditions. soda as room dnorocterfatics, temperature. wltage and lamp / ballast cutout and other factors. Calculations are also subject to the limitations of the eoftw re. Due to the above considerations. Pacific Lighting Systems can not guarantee thot actual light levels measured in the Odd WI match or initial calculations. Not please verify all catotog numbers before use In your specification. EEEI EEEI I I I I EEO EEEI EEO EEO ••■••=1•• uuuIuI n a n DTI EEO EED J EEEI ELI EEO EED I I EEO EEO EEEI EEEI EED EEO EEO EEEI EED .•■•••••• IIIM117111 ••••nNIW EEO I I EED EEO Eft! EEEI I I LED I I PRELIMINARY EAST ELEVATION SCALE : 30 Cm% a EED EEO I I I I EED EED PRELIMINARY WEST ELEVATION SCALE I = C.OL JA E - coLotz itri- 1 cot...op. Jo,- 1 COLcL e, e K.37. 1K) - Moofze * 452. • A c.c-C-NaT CoLoR. *2 t--IJAJ - F.4.00ge * 4-4G EEO EEO • • NOM • • • Ilsig1112 ell EED I I EEO • F1204-1e0 Atio-iworn • W/ MIZ- • »I lucr .13Morr. 6.0,..e4sere Ek. lotoyecc.t..2e." ?AI Ntila2 CCAIGR.e:rla ASZ.: ll IVA+ Ev..7rtzs1 petory?..r, "Aceel-n ec4-ca. d ." - EEEI I I EEO EEO • n n EEO I I I I EED EEO EEO uIzuIuI an. ■Ins. EEO I I PRELIMINARY SCALE = rasrmrso merm- Re OP CaJ.4761) 2• toe.ces-n coLca. I I IMO PRELIMINARY NORTH ELEVATION SCALE = 30-0' *P watts- 112c112 f 111 :Ea: SOUTH ELEVATION Eare&-razz 0 ,11,foo.v,70.. = ilzap tAGr44TS CF' •=7s■-./ TYPICAL ENTRANCE SCALE = T - . ,., ...- 776,.7.A ,..t ..z..... ......a.r...- - - ____-.,..-,,,,..,.. „..„,.. W*PC-Wie.4 ....41111•Mot , ' - i.7 ,,,.... .-4,----' ,,, . 4,4 . ..1-:+ v ...._.A. ;:--.---i-.: ... . .._ . _ _ • • THE RONHOVDE ARCHITECTS LL C 6625 5. 190th St. Suite 5-105 KENT, WASHINGTON =6052 (425) 656-0500 • FAX (425) 656-0501 renhoveecirchitectszom • 4344 \ RECSTERED ARCHITECT RONNOVITE 2 Davis Property & Investment E OF L 050 6 5 4 5 2 NO. DATE Lo S DS Los S O1 DESCRIPTION REVISIONS SHEET CONTENTS. PRELIMINARY EXTERIOR ELEVATION RECEIVED fJAN NOV TYPICAL TRUCK BAYS SCALE = 1-0' IXITS 940H.1 - I SRAM 2 DOCK PER Lt411) APPROS. Fsi JCS NO, 2004.4% DRA4.64 BY 1.115 sHEE AA .4