Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA E01-029 - BALMELLI DANIEL - STARFIRE SPORTSThis record contains information which is exempt from public disclosure pursuant to the Washington State Public Records Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW as identified on the Digital Records Exemption Log shown below. E01 -029 Balmelli Daniel — Starfire Sports Strander Boulevard and West Valley Highway RECORDS DIGITAL D- ) EXEMPTION LOG THE ABOVE MENTIONED PERMIT FILE INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING REDACTED INFORMATION F,age # Code Exemption � � �� Brief Explsnatoty Description, Statute /Rule The Privacy Act of 1974 evinces Congress' intent that social security numbers are a private concern. As such, individuals' social security Personal Information — numbers are redacted to protect those Social Security Numbers individuals' privacy pursuant to 5 U.S.C. sec. 5 U.S.C. sec. DR1 Generally — 5 U.S.C. sec. 552(a), and are also exempt from disclosure 552(a); RCW 552(a); RCW under section 42.56.070(1) of the Washington 42.56.070(1) 42.56.070(1) State Public Records Act, which exempts under the PRA records or information exempt or prohibited from disclosure under any other statute. Redactions contain Credit card numbers, debit card numbers, electronic check numbers, credit Personal Information — expiration dates, or bank or other financial RCW 67 DR2 Financial Information — account numbers, which are exempt from 42.56.230(5) RCW 42.56.230(4 5) disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56.230(5), except when disclosure is expressly required by or governed by other law. CONTAINS FILES THAT REQUIRE REDACTION TUKWILA SOCCER CENTER (aka Starfire) E01 -029 August 1, 2002 • City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Daniel K. Balmelli, P.E. Executive Vice President Barghausen Consulting Engineers 18215 72nd Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032 Stewart McLeod McLeod Properties 213 Lake Street South Kirkland, Washington 98033 Re: Tukwila Soccer Center Facility East end of Strander Blvd & east of W. Valley Hwy. Tax Parcel Number 252304 -9006 SEPA (E01 -029) Design Review (L01 -074) Gentlemen: Steve Lancaster, Director Willi Aigner Oregon Soccer Center, Inc. 17015 S.E. 82nd Drive Clackamas, Oregon 97015 On April 29th we granted Mr. Balmelli's written request for a 90 -day extension on the above - referenced SEPA and Design Review files. This is to notify you that the 90 -day extension period expired on July 31, 2002 and that these files are now closed. Should you have any questions, you may contact me at 206 -431- 3663. Sincerely, Ofer-- Deborah Ritter Senior Planner cc: Steve Lancaster, Director, Community Development Jim Morrow, Director, Public Works Cindy Knighton, Senior Transportation Engineer David McPherson, Associate Engineer Lt. Don Tomaso, Fire Prevention Officer 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Ma'9 09 02. 03:28P on'Dornay Marshall 42392 -7071 KENYON DORNAY MARSHALL, PLLC THE MUNICIPAL LAW FIRM 11 FRONT STREET SOUTH ISSAQUAH, WASHINGTON 98027-3820 (425) 392 -7090 (206) 628 -9059 FAX (425) 392 -7071 FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION FORM NUMBER OF PAGES: 3 (including cover sheet) SENT BY Robert NoelMargaret Starkey DATE SENT:. May 9,2002 TO: Jim Morrow FIRM: City of Tukwila FAX NUMBER: :206/431 -3665 PHONE NUMBER: REGARDING: McLeod Development Access Issue COMMENTS: Please call (425) 392 -7090 if this facsimile is defective, incomplete, or received in error. The information contained in this f acsimile is confidential and privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipicmt, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recip lent, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received the facsimile in error, please immediately notify us by calling (425) 392 - 7090, and return the original m essagc to us at the address above via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. p.1 • Ma:, 09 02 03:28p Kew n.Dornay Marshall 4210392 -7071 KENYON DORNAY MARSHALL, PLLC MICHAEL R. KENYON MARGITA A. DoRNAY. LISA M. MARSHALL ROBERT F.NOE. BRUCE L. DISEND, SANDRA S. MEADOWCROFr THE MUNICIPAL LAW FIRM p. 2 11 FRONT STREET SOUTH ISSAQUAH, WASHINGTON 98027 -3820 (425) 392-7090 (206) 628 -9059 FAX (425) 392 -7071 May 9, 2002 James Greenfield Davis Wright Tremaine,.LLP 1501 4th Avenue, Ste. 2600 Seattle, Washington 98101 -1664 Re: McLeod Development Access Issue Dear Jim: ELIZABETH A. ABBOTT STEVE C. KARIMI STEPHEN R. KING HEIDI L. BROSIUS DAVID B. ST.PIERRE DARIN H. SPANG As we .discussed, this letter follows our meeting of last week regarding access to your client's proposed development project across the Strander unopened right of way. I have had the opportunity to review the relevant documents in light of your comments: Based upon my review of the documents and based upon the history of proposed development at the property giving rise to those documents, I am prepared to set forth the City's position with respect to the access issue. First, as discussed at our meeting last week, I believe that the 1992 developer's agreement cannot be relied upon as a basis for asserting that your client is entitled to access at the unopened right of way. As you will recall, the City put forth several reasons why the 1992 agreement cannot be relied upon. We discussed laches, the intent behind the 1992 agreement, the scope of the original agreement in light of the MDNS, comprehensive plan amendments, and . rezone, and the limitation of any potential remedy contained within the text of the agreement. Second, I have now reviewed the documents purporting to provide access rights to your client over UPRR property. The documentation demonstrates that your client has a "license" for access across UPRR lines and that such license can be revoked with 30 days notice. The 1992 developer's .agreement provides that your client must obtain an easement across UPRR lines to gain access to Strander: See provision 1.7 of the agreement. The license does not satisfy the requirement that an easement be obtained. An easement, unlike a license, contemplates a perpetual ownership right in the subject property that runs with the land. Also, the license UPRR provided to your client is quite restrictive and does not provide the type of access contemplated under the 1992 agreement through an easement. The license does not provide for free and unfettered movement of traffic across UPRR lines. Instead, at Section 2, subparagraph (c), it provides that the crossing be "closed and locked at all times ". Further, because your client merely has a license and not an ownership interest in the UPRR property, your client's property does not abut the City's unopened right of way for purposes of any "right to access" analysis. \\PSI\SYS \APPS \CMTukwila\Lertef LTR00023 - McLeodaccILdocJRF-N /05 /09/02 SERVING WASHINGTON CITIES SINCE 1993 Mall 09 02 03:29p Ke on Dornay Marshall 42 392 -7071 James Greenfield May 9, 2002 Page 2. Third, the proposed extension of Strander envisions, under both the City's Capital Improvement Plan and Transportation Improvement Plan, that the extension will be accomplished with a grade separation. Even if your client is entitled to access at Strander, the City's position is that your client must provide for access incorporating grade separation consistent with the City's planning. Further, it appears that the parties contemplated that if the Strander access became `public" access, then such access would be accomplished with an underpass. Importantly, grade separation is really the only method of access that makes sense from a public safety standpoint. Grade separation eliminates any possibility of automobile and train collisions. The possibility for such collisions exists with an at grade crossing. Given the nature of the proposed use at the property, an at grade crossing is simply unacceptable to the City. The City believes that the WUTC would support the City's position on this issue. Lastly, we should talk about your client's proposed project in light of the Strander extension project. The Strander extension project will likely result in a significant taking of your client's property. Of particular concern is the difference in elevation that will likely exist between the Strander extension and your client's property based on preliminary planning and design. A significant portion of your client's property will be required to accomplish access to Strander because of the difference in elevations. Given this problem, and the extent of the taking that may be necessary to build the Strander extension, we may wish to discuss the possibility that the City simply acquire the property it will need for the Strander extension now. Let me know how you wish to proceed. As indicated, the City believes that it would be prudent to engage in additional discussion about the impact of the Strander extension project on your client's property before your client goes forward with the project. Very truly yours, KENYON DORNAY MARSHALL, PLLC cc: John McFarland, City Administrator Jim Morrow, Director of Public Works Steve Lancaster, Director of the Department of Community Development \ \FS1 \SYS\ APPS \C1V\Tukwila \Letter \LTR00023 - McLcodacclt.doc/RFN /05/09/02 p.3 J. V- .. L Y i V. i J. 1 alt► i L' V V ay V , v V V TV .L vuaan. au✓ •avis Wright Tremaine r. r P • LAW OFFICES 2600 Century Square • 1501 Fourth Avenue • Seattle. Washington 98101 -.1688 (206) 622 -3150 • Fax: (206) 628 -7699 FAX COVER SHEET PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING MATERIAL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. ®4 , 4 �. �✓ PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY AT HANK YOU! 622-3150 IF NOT RECEIVED PROPERLY.�Q ,A, �( ) THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE MAY BE PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED BELOW. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE, (COLLECT IF NECESSARY) AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. MAIL. THANK YOU! Date: May 1, 2002 Time Sent:6 /1/02 12:57 PM Total Pages To Be Sent: (including cover page) FROM: Jim Greenfield SEND TO: NAME John McFarland Steve Lancaster Jim Morrow Jack Pace Robert Noe Lew Delo Stuart McLeod TELEPHONE: (206) 628 -7679 FIRM /COMPANY /CONFIRMATION NO City of Tukwila / 433 -1832 City of Tukwila / 431 -3670 City of Tukwila / 433 -0179 City of Tukwila / 431 -3670 425- 392 -7090 503- 228 -3299 (425) 822 -4114 FAX: (206) 628 -7699 FAX NUMBER 433 -1833 431 -3665 r`"4. 431-3665 ' (° 1, 431- 3665ip5' 425 - 392 -7071 503 -228 -1890 (425) 827 -9990 COMMENTS /SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: Floor Sent From: Time Sent: AM PM Operator. RETURN TO SENDER: VIA INTRAOFFICE MAIL ❑ WILL PICK UP ❑ EXTENSION: 7548 F:IDOCS\STONM\FAX\mcleod tukwila.doc Seattle /05/01 /02 U.7 /VI/VAT. PEA/ 1J.1L ran 1 LUU ULU 1000 • Davis Wright Tremaine l/ 11 1 OLa 1 1 Li AWYERS VV. ANCHORAGE BELLkvl1E H<)NOLULU LOS ANGELES NEW YORK PORTLAND 514 FRANCISCO $F.ATTLE SHANGHAI WASHINGTON, D.C. JAMES A. GREENPIELD DIRECT (206) 62B -7679 jimgceenfie1d ®dsvt.com April 30, 2002 Steven M. Mullet Mayor of the City of Tukwilla 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwilla, WA 98188 2600 CENTURY SQUARE 1501 FOURTH AVENUE SEATTLE, WA 98101 -1688 TEL (206) 622 -3150 FAX (206) 628 -7699 www.dwt.com Re: McLeod Properties / Tukwila Soccer Center Facility Dear Mayor Mullet: Our firm represents Stuart McLeod and McLeod Properties (collectively "McLeod "). We are writing in response to the City's letter dated April 4, 2002 (Attachment A) and the subsequent follow -up meeting with the Department of Community Development regarding the proposed Tukwila Soccer Center Facility. The poccer center developer plans to purchase property owned by McLeod and located at the east end of Strander Boulevard for use as an indoor soccer facility. The developer has a development application pending with the City of Tukwila under file numbers: SEPA E01 -029 and Design Review L01 -074. In both its April 4 letter and during the meeting with Community Development, the City has taken the position that the subject property lacks legal access. This conclusion is wrong as a matter of law. McLeod has a right to access the subject property pursuant to a 1992 Developer's Agreement between McLeod and the City of Tukwila. In addition, McLeod has a right of access under common law governing a landowner's right of ingress and egress to his property. Background The subject of access to the McLeod property via an extension of Strander Boulevard has been in the works for over a decade. In 1990, the two strips of land between the end of Strander Boulevard and the McLeod property were owned by Puget Power and Union Pacific Railroad. At that time, Mr. McLeod began negotiations with both Puget Power and Union Pacific for a 11 SEADOCS01 \DOCSIDOCS12922011100091LTR.DOC Seattle / IIL.L 1V.1L !-AA 1 LVU ULO 1000 Steven M. Mullet April 30, 2002 Page 2 L111 .)LANCE. private right of access to his property across the two strips of land. The City of Tukwila was involved in and supportive of the McLeod development effort and the means of access. On April 20, 1992, the City and McLeod entered into a Developer's Agreement. The Agreement contained the following recital: "Whereas, future development of the Property will create a need for vehicular access from West Valley Highway and Strander Boulevard and additional public right -of- way." The Agreement provides that "The Owner shall provide a continuation of Strander Boulevard as a private road from the eastem terminus of Strander Boulevard to the western edge of the property .... The access/utilities easements or permits shall run for the life of any project resulting from this rezone for access and utilities crossings of railroad and powerline right -of- ways." (Para. 1.7). In exchange for McLeod's no- protest agreement with respect to the formation of future L.I.D.s, including an L.I.D. for the purpose of extending the Strander Boulevard right -of -way and other connections, the City agreed to "ensure that access to the [McLeod] some means from the West Valle Highway." � property is provided by Y (Paras. 1.8, 2.3) McLeod further agreed to dedicate the necessary 60 foot right -of way at a particular price, and waived certain other rights to compensation. In furtherance of the Development Agreement with the City, McLeod proceeded to negotiate access across the Puget Power and Union Pacific properties. The City was intricately involved in the negotiations. McLeod negotiated a private right -of -way with Puget Power for $9,900 in consideration. The City requested that the right -of -way be given directly to the City and McLeod agreed, secure in the knowledge that he had a Developer's Agreement with the City which provided for access to his property via Strander Boulevard. The City did not pay any of the $9,900 sum for the right of way. In 1996, a private crossing agreement was executed by McLeod and Union Pacific, for $118,203 in consideration. The City's Denial of Access Despite the 1992 Developer's Agreement and the fact that McLeod paid for the Puget Power right -of -way, the City now maintains that McLeod has no legal access to the subject property. The April 4, 2002, letter flatly states, "the City has no intention of opening the unimproved right - of -way that you propose to use." The City has done so, without explanation. In the meeting with Community Development following the April 4 denial letter, no reason for the City's position was given. However, documents from both the City of Tukwila and the City of Renton indicate that planning is currently underway to open this portion of Strander Boulevard as part of the Strander boulevard/27th Street Corridor Improvement Project. Thus, even without the Developer's Agreement between McLeod and the City, there would be no justification, on access grounds, for denying the soccer facility application. \ \SEADOCS O 1 \DOCS\DOCS\29220\1 \00091 LTRDOC Scattlo • Steven M. Mullet April 30, 2002 Page 3 The City also cannot ignore a property owner's common law right of ingress and egress to his property. An abutting landowner has a right to use a dedicated but unopened street where use made is private and does not interfere with the public. Enforcement of McLeod's Right of Access The City's arbitrary denial of access will not withstand legal scrutiny. McLeod has not asked the City to open this portion of the Strander right -of -way as a public street. McLeod expects only that the City not deny McLeod the right to use this property for a private road until the City opens it publicly. This is what the parties contemplated when they executed the 1992 . Developer's Agreement. If the City continues to deny access to the property and thereby interfere with McLeod's reasonable enjoyment of the property, including the pending sale to the soccer facility developer, McLeod will be forced to seek judicial relief. McLeod's claims against the City may include claims for breach of the 1992 Developer's Agreement, inverse condemnation, tortious interference with business expectancy, and unjust enrichment. McLeod and the developer of the soccer facility very much wish to resolve this matter without resort to litigation. However, the City's resent actions currently leave McLeod with no other option. If no progress has been made on these issues by May 8, McLeod will seek legal relief. We look forward to your prompt response. Very truly yours, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP es A. Greenfield ergitta K. Trelstad Cc: John McFarland Steve Lancaster Jim Morrow Jack Pace Robert Noe Lew Delo Stuart McLeod \\SEADOCSo1 \DOCS\DOCS\2922011\00091LTRDOC Seattle -- APR 04 X02 11:0 'AM TuKWILA DCD/PW April 4, 2002 • City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Daniel K. Selmelll, P.E. Executive Vice President Barghausen Consulting Engineers 18215 72nd Avenue South Kent. Washington 98032 VIA FAX 425- 251 -8782 Re: Tukwila Soccer Center Facility East end of Stranger Blvd & east of W. Valley Hwy. Tax Parcel Number 252304 -9006 SEPA (E01-029) and Design Review (L01 -074) Gentlemen: Stewart McLeod McLeod Properties 213 Lake Street South Kirkland, Washington 98033 VIA FAX 425-827-9990 P.2/4. Steven M Mullet, Mayor Steve Lancaster Director- Willi Aigner Oregon Soccer Center. Inc. 17015 S.E. 82nd Drive Clackamas, Oregon 97015 VIA FAX 503 - 655 -9635 We have received and reviewed your March 28th submittal as well as the March 25th letter from the Union Pacific Railroad C UPRR -), In their letter, the UPRR indicated that it has withdrawn its January 30th objections and that it will now allow patrons of the soccer facility to cross the UPRR tracks. It is our understanding that you propose to provide access to your development site by crossing the UPRR tracks from an unopened and unimproved City or Tukwila right -of -way, However, after carefully reviewing your proposal, your site still lacks legal access. The City has no intention of opening the unimproved right-of- way that you propose to use. We recommend that you meet with us as soon as possible to discuss what other alternatives may be available to you. If you wish to make arrangements for such a meeting, please contact me at 206-431-3686, As stated in our March 8th letter, if you do not contact U5 by April 30th the above referenced files will be closed. Sincerely, J- k Pace puty Director Department of Community Development cc: Jim Morrow, Director, Public Works Nora Gierloff, Planning Supervisor Deborah Ritter, Senior Planner Cindy Knighton, Senior Transportation Engineer David McPherson, Associate Engineer Lt. Don Tomaso. Fire Prevention Officer 6.300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite +1100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206.431.3670 • Fax: 206431.3665 City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Daniel K. Balmelli, P.E. Executive Vice President Barghausen Consulting Engineers 18215 72nd Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032 VIA FAX 425 - 251 -8782 Stewart McLeod McLeod Properties 213 Lake Street South Kirkland, Washington 98033 VIA FAX 425 - 827 -9990 Re: Tukwila Soccer Center Facility East end of Strander Blvd & east of W. Valley Hwy. Tax Parcel Number 252304 -9006 SEPA (E01 -029) and Design Review (L01 -074) Gentlemen: Steve Lancaster, Director Willi Aigner Oregon Soccer Center, Inc. 17015 S.E. 82nd Drive Clackamas, Oregon 97015 VIA FAX 503 - 655 -9636 Per our March 8th and April 4th letters, you were advised that we would close the above - referenced files if we had not heard from you by April 30th.. We have received your April 23rd letter, requesting a 90 -day extension to allow you adequate time to resolve the access issue. This letter is to acknowledge our approval of your request and to formally extend the deadline from April 30, 2002 to July 31, 2002. Sincerely, Jack Pace Deputy Director Department of Community Development cc: Jim Morrow, Director, Public Works Nora Gierloff, Planning Supervisor Deborah Ritter, Senior Planner Cindy Knighton, Senior Transportation Engineer David McPherson, Associate Engineer Lt. Don Tomaso, Fire Prevention Officer 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Jack Pace, Deputy Director Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES April 23, 2002 Facsimile: (206) 431 -3665 RE: Request for Extension for Tukwila Soccer Center Facility City of Tukwila SEPA No. E01 -029 and Design Review No. L01 -074 Our Job No. 10320 Dear Jack: Thank you for meeting with us recently to discuss the access issues related to the proposed Tukwila Soccer Center facility. Subsequent to our April 11, 2002, meeting, my client directed our office to determine the feasibility and estimated construction costs to provide access to the proposed project from Longacres Way located north of the project, as recommended by Mr. Jim Morrow. I am attempting to meet with the Public Works Department to determine the minimum required section and roadway improvements, which will be necessary to serve the project from the north end so that I can complete an estimate of the construction costs. Your April 4, 2002, letter indicates that we must contact you by April 30, 2002, to discuss alternatives to the Strander Boulevard extension, or the project files will be closed. The applicant has met with City Staff and is diligently pursuing a resolution to the access issue so that we can continue processing the application for this project. However, additional time beyond April 30, 2002, will be needed to resolve this issue. Therefore, we are requesting a 90 -day extension to allow us adequate time to resolve the access issue. Please respond to our request at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. Sincerely, Daniel K. Balmelli, P.E. Executive Vice President DKB/bq/bd 10320c.006.wpd cc: Willi Aigner, Oregon Soccer Center, Inc. Stuart McLeod, McLeod Properties Lew Delo, Delo & Bowers Jim Morrow, City of Tukwila Public Works Director Nora Gierloff, City of Tukwila Planning Supervisor Deborah Ritter, City of Tukwila Senior Planner Cindy Knighton, City of Tukwila Senior Transportation Engineer 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251 -6222 (425) 251 -8782 FAX www.barghausen.com April 4, 2002 • City of Tukwila • Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Daniel K. Balmelli, P.E. Executive Vice President Barghausen Consulting Engineers 18215 72nd Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032 VIA FAX 425 - 251 -8782 Stewart McLeod McLeod Properties 213 Lake Street South Kirkland, Washington 98033 VIA FAX 425 - 827 -9990 Re: Tukwila Soccer Center Facility East end of Strander Blvd & east of W. Valley Hwy. Tax Parcel Number 252304 -9006 SEPA (E01 -029) and Design Review (L01 -074) Gentlemen: Steve Lancaster, Director Willi Aigner Oregon Soccer Center, Inc. 17015 S.E. 82nd Drive Clackamas, Oregon 97015 VIA FAX 503 - 655 -9636 We have received and reviewed your March 28th submittal as well as the March 25th letter from the Union Pacific Railroad ( "UPRR "). In their letter, the UPRR indicated that it has withdrawn its January 30th objections and that it will now allow patrons of the soccer facility to cross the UPRR tracks. It is our understanding that you propose to provide access to your development site by crossing the UPRR tracks from an unopened and unimproved City of Tukwila right -of -way. However, after carefully reviewing your proposal, your site still lacks legal access. The City has no intention of opening the unimproved right -of- way that you propose to use. We recommend that you meet with us as soon as possible to discuss what other alternatives may be available to you. If you wish to make arrangements for such a meeting, please contact me at 206 -431 -3686. As stated in our March 8th letter, if you do not contact us by April 30th the above - referenced files will be closed. Sincerely, J k Pace D puty Director Department of Community Development cc: Jim Morrow, Director, Public Works Nora Gierloff, Planning Supervisor Deborah Ritter, Senior Planner Cindy Knighton, Senior Transportation Engineer David McPherson, Associate Engineer Lt. Don Tomaso, Fire Prevention Officer 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 03'/25/2002 15:56 FAI 425 251_1iii BARGHAUSEN Deborah Ritter Associate Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 • 21001 /002 CIVIL DiGINEai1ING, LAND PLANNING. SURVEYING. ENVIRONMENTAL. SERVICES March 18, 2002 Facsimile: (206) 431 -3665 RE: Tukwila Soccer Center Facility Ciry of Tukwila File Nos. SEPA (E01 -029) and Design Review (L01 -074) BCE Job No. 10320 Dear Deborah: In response to your March 8, 2002, letter, the property owner, developer, and our office have been working with the Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR) to address the issues outlined in John Trumbull's January30, 2002, comment letter regarding the proposed Soccer Center facility. Enclosed is a March 25, 2002 letter from John Trumbull of UPRR indicating that the issues have been addressed to the satisfaction of UPRR and UPRR will provide access to the facility at the Strander Boulevard railroad crossing. With submittal of this additional information, we are requesting that the City proceed to complete their review of the proposed project. Thank you. Sincerely. aniel K. Balmelli, PE. Executive Vice President DKB /rh/bd 10320c.005.wpd enc: As Noted cc: Willi Aigner, Tukwila Soccer Centers, Inc- (w /enc) Tim Morrow, City of Tukwila Public Works Director (w /enc) Greg Zimmerman. City of Renton Administrator (w /enc) Lew Delo, Delo & Bowers (w /enc) Stewart McLeod, McLeod Properties (w /enc) John Emanuels, Leibsohn & Company (w /enc) Frank Heffernan, MulvannyG2 Architecture(w /enc) Jeff Schram, TENW (w /enc) 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 - (425) 251 -6222 (425) 251 -8782 FAX 03/25/2002 15:57 F. 425 251 2 BARGHAliSEN 2ee2 18:11 583- 872 -1588 1, w, TRUMBULL minnow 'miaow a Pubic Proj.e. March 25, 2002 PRR. SUPT. P0RTLANO UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY P ioNEEWN0SERVIC8S OEPARTUERT ei 002 /002 PAGE. 02/82 S S & E L(cLaupP n we. Pa9aod. OP 977Ra QM) a724640 Pa= (60.91 &7-1230 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Soutbcenter Blvd. Suite 4100 Tulcwla, WA 98188 Attn: Deborah Ritter — Planner Subject: L01 -074 (Design Review) E01 -029 (SPA) Stuart 'McLeod has provided Us with information that indicates our company - made a prior contractual comment with McLeod D the evelopment tracks MP Transit) to allow members of the public to cross 179.09. We have come to the conclusion that, to the extent our Ianuaiy 30, • 2002 objections to indoor soccer facility project were based on members of the public using the crossing, we must withdraw those objections. The Tukwila Soccer Center developer has agreed to make modifications to the project that address our remaining concerns, including the placement of fencing, and a prohibition against pedestrian use of the crossing. In addition, the Tukwila Soccer Center developer has acknowledged that UP's agreement to assign the existing crossing agreement to the purchaser of the McLeod property does not constitute a waiver of UP's right to terminate the crossing agreement should UP determine the need to do so in the future. Specifically,the Tukwila Soccer Center developer understands that the railroad plans to exercise its rights to terminate the crossing agreement if and when the Strander Blvd. underpass project comes to fruition. Cc: Sturat McLeod Sly • John W. Trumbull Manager Industry and Public Projects 03/25/2002 15:56 FAX 425 251 8782 BARGHAUSEN 1i 1 Al .� m• Aft 04014 Deborah Ritter Associate Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Q001/002 CIVIL ENGINE°RING. LANG PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SEFIVICES March 18, 2002 Facsimile: (206) 431 -3665 RE: Tukwila Soccer Center Facility City of Tukwila File Nos. SEPA (E01 -029) and Design Review (L01 -074) B� Job No. 10320 Dear Deborah: In response to your March 8, 2002, letter, the property owner, developer, and our office have been working with the Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR) to address the issues outlined in John Trumbull's January30, 2002, comment letter regarding the proposed Soccer Center facility. Enclosed is a March 25, 2002 letter from John Trumbull of UPRR indicating that the issues have been addressed to the satisfaction of TJPRR and UPRR will provide access to the facility at the Strander Boulevard railroad crossing. With submittal of this additional information, we are requesting that the City proceed to complete their review of the proposed project. Thank you. Sincerely, aniel K. Balmelli, PE. Executive Vice President DKB /t/bd 10320c.005.wpd enc: As Noted cc: Willi Aigner, Tuku+ila Soccer Centers, Inc. (w /enc) Jim Morrow, City of Tukwila Public Works Director (w /enc) Greg Zimmerman, City of Renton Administrator (w /enc) Lew Delo, Delo & Bowers (w /enc) Stewart McLeod, McLeod Properties (w /enc) John Emanuels, Leibsohn & Company (w /enc) Frank Heffernan, MulvannyG2 Architecture(w /enc) Jeff Schram, TENW (w /enc) 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251 -6222 (425) 251 -8782 FAX March 8, 2002 • City of Tukwila • Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Daniel K: Balmelli, P.E. Executive Vice President Barghausen Consulting Engineers 18215 72nd Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032 VIA FAX 425 - 251 -8782 Stewart McLeod McLeod Properties 213 Lake Street South Kirkland, Washington 98033 VIA FAX 425 - 827 -9990 Re: Tukwila Soccer Center Facility East end of Strander Blvd & east of W. Valley Hwy. Tax Parcel Number 252304 -9006 SEPA (E01 -029) and Design Review (L01 -074) Gentlemen: Steve Lancaster, Director Willi Aigner Oregon Soccer Center, Inc. 17015 S.E. 82nd Drive Clackamas, Oregon 97015 VIA FAX 503 - 655 -9636 As we advised in our February 1, 2002 letter, we will not continue processing your application until you have supplied documentation clearly demonstrating that the proposed development will have legal access. If you do not supply this documentation on or before April 30, 2002 (120 days from the date of your application) the above - referenced files will be closed. If you have any questions, please contact me at 206 -431 -3663. Sincerely, Deborah Ritter Associate Planner cc: Jim Morrow, Director, Public Works Jack Pace, Planning Manager, DCD Cindy Knighton, Senior Transportation Engineer David McPherson, Associate Engineer Lt. Don Tomaso, Fire Prevention Officer 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 BNSF February 11, 2001 J. M. (Mtx*CowLEs Mgr. Public Projects WA, ID, MT. and British Columbia Dept. of Community Development C/o Deborah Ritter City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Ste. 100 Tukwila, WA. 98188 Dear Ms. Ritter: • BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe 2454 Occidental Avenue So., Ste. 1 -A Seattle, WA. 98134 E -Mail: Mike.Cowles @BNSF.com Phone: 206-625-6146 Fax: 206-625-6115 loe tvezA).00e I received the notice of application for the construction of a Soccer Center which is proposed to be constructed between the Union Pacific RR Right of Way and The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Ry. Right of Way. The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway objects to the application for the construction of the soccer facility. A soccer facility will attract many families with children. Constructing a soccer facility between two railroads is not safe. Children and their families would be at risk with two major railroads nearby. Not only the risk of being involved in a train/pedestrian or train/vehicle accident at the Strander Blvd. crossing, but the risk of derailment. BNSF, along with Amtrak and Sound Transit operate nearly 50 trains daily at train speeds up to 79 mph and the UPRR operate about 10 through trains daily. In addition, the City of Renton is proposing to grade separate Strander Boulevard at the railroad tracks. Separating Strander Boulevard may require the Union Pacific Railroad to realign their mainline and right -of -way taking up much of the property the soccer facility would require. Sincerely,, J. . (Mike) Cowles Mgr Public Projects JMC Cc: Bob Boileau Don Maze Lyn Hartley Diane Christianson File: Tukwila, WA. - Soccer Facility BNSFIh 1.sty 1 CONVASATION RECOR[S DATE: a_ - 02 DAY: AVN TUE WED THU I TIME: 10 SAT SUN TYPE: ❑ Visit ❑ Conference )A3Telephone— 0Incoming Na of getson(s) cunt ed or in contact with you: Welt Orgaration (office, dept., bureau, etc.) n 0 LAdt1CLeirs- pix MahaQA 0 Outgoing Location of Visit/Conference: FOR OFRCE USE ONLY Eot -ozq LO I - v `7 L wa&.Soecea, Cee., TeJgpho SUBJECT: Addendum Mo [ *-0 Pci iRn ad C,R9G6 ) ►'1I D SUMMARY: dAe-ct -3 -oo 13ciwetri uP(�i2 , McLeod hranssf' (30/1.1A,c(kapin ant ct c.oph. a Ow_ Sowncl, tc'cvns �' -ED `%Yte u9,a lithe!. I - - c, It ci,5k-, for c- 44vn r i °f h e I R.f1 v *hoer to t- t n.GZSC- (o - 13 - qCe Cit_Q SSA 2 The.. •r -o duel. Vie_ cle- n,-h o /1 S Or �pu,% (Lc am / („Q - @, i r4a,ln sc 4-e) `hut _ Lro ss, cuparnocf. k ccgid „Ir kb 34(1, 1,001 -4,) C ►,Lmd Trans 1+1-, was D � -1N_ i'C'ESs" 0. � 5�� II a4 -e-rC, -6 el.. prt io . \e-OOS\ Cr (9Cfbk coo e.� , 1 �w r &o wvcl _ Yc ,n -s,1 -- 4, S ct_ 3-0v4 L U ANala 56 wV1Ct I 1J o f 4L , i- 3 aO cuu f 4 al . Ada{enlu+vl Record,(\,, --o Uio I Ce +h:2 Ls$u.P 'Q%t5T- &L OA Ln .e/Corvd, n0 lLI.A, n Signature: a,9_3, Oki Title: 6s1)(-,+la,nrL1,12., Date: Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Phone: (206) 431 -3670 Fax: (206) 431 -3665 To: --3-ohn bra rnbk\\ Fax: 5os -� -Ja. -- ►cioD Phone:50 3 - — 1 O O9 Re: `Jc oc .T:m,. From: Date: Pages: .RA ) 2010- 431 -5663 oZ Actembid. ACdQY dvrn. I)o. 1 XUrgent 0 For Review Please Comment 0 Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle •Comments: Vn B me`\ i ak garaVa•b¢ ��- a- C,6pc/�. an ad4Pit1d4/m (.aid. )- 3- -oo) -i be er i a rY1 °l, • i I • e.. la -i3 \a it aaf_Pme1n, . ADDentivrri a-N-acheA UPS, MCLEOD GROUP INC • lire SOUNDTRANSIT Fax : 425 - 827 -9990 (lib 06 '02 08:53 P.02 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA v. d4.4-c4t "Dc 1 1 ail 8, burva {" 1PA4 " V�1i nand K lA 6'9 t212 Cent*-u (,t4 VLe a c, -F,Fe 'j)19f -, \ 6-1 le c, CA,031-i airti c,q4 (Ai Ur 4_16( "toe a-f pro v `K ctA-c, A-erAd -11/L4) LeA7te tr-vl 6141n 7d/LA,Iii- (-00, n.a�Q�d �o �ie 50-1,L.,01 Tramd-- G6y.fr m wf e-i n.a,v( ,g.Mi 6N tr (a ' ihCen.eQti 1/4. FEB 1 2 2002 PERMIT CENTER MCLEOD GROUP INC SOUNDTRANSIT 4 January 1999 Fax : 425 - 827 -9990 4lieb 06 '02 08:53 P.03 Terry Minarik Contracts and Real Estate Department 1416 Dodge Street, Room 1 100 Omaha, NE 68179 -1100 Dear Mr. Minarik, RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA FEB B 2 2,60Z PERMIT CENTER Please find Sound Transit's enclosed application for permission to cross Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR) property as described in the content of Private Road Crossing Agreement number 809558.PRX. Sound Transit proposes to jointly use, and share maintenance cost for, this existing crossing with McLeod Development Co. As we discussed in our telephone conversation on 1/4/99, Sound Transit is concerned with the language in Exhibit B, Section 1 (c), which requires that the crossing is to be used as "strictly a private one and is not intended for public use." As you know, Sound Transit (a public agency) intends to use the Road crossing to access property that it will develop and use as a commuter rail park and ride lot. This arguably would put the crossing to "public use." When we spoke, however, you indicated that in UPRR's view, "public use" would not describe Sound Transit's intended use Rather, UPRR defines "public usc" for purposes of this crossing agreement as ownership of the crossing (in street or road form) by a city or county. In Sound Transit's case, therefore, the crossing would not be for "public use." In light of the above statetnents and definitions, we would like to amend the language of Exhibit B, Section 1 (c) in the existing Crossing - Agreement to reflect the way in which Sound Transit would use the crossing. Wb think it is important that the language of the crossing agreement be revised to reflect our common understanding of the proposed use and the teen "public use." We suggest the paragraph be revised as follows: It is expressly stipulated that the road Crossing is not to be used as a county or city road or street, but shall be used as strictly a privae a ' t ' •�eF� for "� .. .� - .icrs-zrn the benefit of Licensee and Licensee's patrons, employees, and other invitees or licensees of Licensee. The Licensee, without expense to the Licensor, will take any and all Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority 1100 Second Ave., Suite 500 Seattle. WA 98101 -3423 Reception 206.684.6776 Facsimile 206.684.12)4 .seundtranticerg Chair - Pala ntiII,•t 'l;rrue,rd L ivrrn•i /urPdr /.v Vice Chairs live 1 trlinP :n.ucelirrrvrtl rr (:rr:ii, Nklre•l.. e.'.nrrtty li•rrrrrr /rrr.•er,li Ann Davit, Lnotewo tttierturitmoPt6e, S'nn /nnnt:.t, (:rrttp(v F,.rrrrrlic r./Avid i:nsiu«• •Snntner Cimn,•i/rnembe•r Mary !•itlrr.t! II'Sn/ (.iranri/nerrrt/rrr Jane• Ripe L7rtq (irmrty Caaer4v7 entiler i'sel Fiancee l:iYre It Mayor Richard nlclver Sea C iuutrilnrrvg6ee . R(,h 1tcKeuns /irrtq County (antreihttett /rr Silt All,t•ri' inn 11 iu,/rin firer Stale - J)q' irtment rf Transportation Serretnry /iir(lrtnJ ('ntrnet/ntrvnhrr• Paul Sncell Seattle Mel rt,rr• Run Sims /tang Cot tttt 1.x entnv Cynthia Sullivan King Comply Counrrlmrrrllre'r 1)nu1. Sulu-Hand /Tierce County /i.r.vvalve• .lint %%'Rite Brat Manor Executive Director Bob 1 \'hits MCLEOD GROUP INC Terry Minarik 4 January 1999 Page 2 Fax : 425- 827 -9990 Get, 06 '02 08:53 P.04 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA ma 1 2 NE PERMIT CENTER iteeessefy reasonable action(s) to e c serer ef-the n__ rev p ent its the use of the Road Crossing as a county or city street o of-Feb.14e road. We appreciate your consideration of the above revisions. Please contact me at (206) 689 -7438 to discuss this matter at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Sincerely, J1 lie Aune Project Assistant JCA:Terry Minarik.doc MCLEOD GROUP I NC Fax : 425 - 827 -9990 Feb 06 '02 08:53 P.05 ,., t11.PRXADD ,o Fo; rn Approved by Lav ?;. FEB 1 2 2002 PERMIT CENTER This Addendum b made and entered Into this � , by and among UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, day of addressed at 1800 Farman Street, Omaha. Nebraska 88102 (hereinafter N Licensor'), MCLEOD be DEVELOPMENT COMPANY to be addressed at 213 Lake Street South, Ki rat' n 8 33 (hereinafter "First Licensee ") and CENTRAL PUGET SOUND REGIONAL TRANSIT I AUTHORITY- SOUND 3 TRANSIT to be addressed at 1100 2nd Avenue. Suite 580, Seattle, WA. 98115 -3423 (hereinafter "Joint Licensee "). RECITALS: 830-84 KLl u u : AUDIT._ ' By Instrument dated June 130996, identified in Licensor's records ..as.. Agreement Audit tiger: 186904 (hereinafter 'License Agreement "), and any amendments thereto, Licensor granted to First Licensee maintain and use a private road crossing on Licensor's right -o¢ ay at 172 9. Seattle Subdivision, in Tukwila, King County, Washington (hereinafter "Road Crossing "). Joint Licensee desires use of the Road Crossing, and to become a joint licensee under the License Agreement. Licensor and First Licensee are.agreeabte to Joint Licensee becoming a joirt licensee under the License Agreement, subject to the covenarts and conditions set forth herein and in the License Agreement. AGREEMENT: HERETO AS FOLLOWS: NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED BY AND AMONG THE PARTIES 1. • Effective as o 49004, Joint Licensee is made a party Agreement tt'e same as if Joint Lic nsee ere named therein as the Licensee together with First AgreemenLicensee, and sharha Atlt`orthe fights`arid°bbligatioiis .of-the Licensee under the License t. 2. Joint Licensee and First Licensee hereby agree that each of them, jointly and severalty, shall be bound by all of the covenants,obligations and liabilities of the Licensee contained in the License Agreement. 3. All notices, demands, requests or other communications which may be or are required to be given, served or sent by any paly to the others pursuant to the License Agreement shall be In writing and deemed to have been properly glven or sent (a) if intended for Licensor. by by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, with y to Licensor at Union Pacific Railroad Company, Real Estate Department, 18 0 Famam Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68102; (b) if intended for First Licensee, by mailing by registeredor certified mail, 1 pi *ado wpt MCLEOD GROUP INC Fax : 425 - 827 -9990 ,„ ut,u:i,J3 1Lr. Lb: -l;, bAA 1od -Itk0 S'1' kcal lrt;t.u6C 961 Obi .PRXADD Form Approved by La • Feb 06 '02 08:53 P.06 RECEIVED OF TUKWILA FE0 1 2 2n2 830-84 PERMIT CENTER retum receipt requested, with postage prepaid, addressed to MCLEOD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY at 213 Lake Street South. Kirkland, WA. 98033, or (c) if intended fOrJoint Licensee. by mailing by registered or certified mail. return receipt requested, with to CENTRAL PUGET SOUND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY (SOUND TRANSIT) at11100 2nd Avenue. Suite 500, Seattle, WA. 98115 -3423. 4. Except as may be specifically provided In this Addendum, nothing herein shat be deemed to amend or mify the License Agreement Which shalt remain in full force and effect. 5. Joint Licensee agrees to pay to Licensor an administrative handling charge of $1 000.00 upon execution of this Addendum. • S- This. A14°.ndum ..tray ba..executed in any number-of counterparts 'and by different parties hereto in separates counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered shall be deemed to be an original and all of which counterparts of this consent, when taken together, shall consistute but one and the same instrument IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Addendum to be duly executec on the day and year first above written. Witness: Witness: NIICN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY By („Ok„),..A.A„krld :Tiff , J.A. ANTHOA'y DIRECTOR - CONTRACTS MCLEOD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY • Title: CENTRAL PUGET SOUND REGIONAL T N IT AU • - SOUND TRANSIT 2 prxada.wpt February 1, 2002 • City of Tukwila • Steven M Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Daniel K. Balmelli, P.E. Executive Vice President Barghausen Consulting Engineers 18215 72nd Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032 VIA FAX 425 - 251 -8782 Stewart McLeod McLeod Properties 213 Lake Street South Kirkland, Washington 98033 VIA FAX 425 - 827 -9990 Re: Tukwila Soccer Center Facility East end of Strander Blvd & east of W. Valley Hwy. Tax Parcel Number 252304 -9006 SEPA (E01 -029) and Design Review (L01 -074) Gentlemen: Steve Lancaster, Director Willi Aigner Oregon Soccer Center, Inc. 17015 S.E. 82nd Drive Clackamas, Oregon 97015 VIA FAX 503 - 655 -9636 In response to our public notice on the above - referenced project, we have received two comment letters to date. These letters are from the Union Pacific Railroad Company ( "UPRC "), dated January 30th and from the City of Renton, dated January 25th (attached). In particular, the letter from the UPRC indicates that they will deny access to your proposed development. Significant access issues are also raised in Renton's letter. We will not continue processing your application until you have supplied documentation clearly demonstrating that the proposed development will have legal access. We also request that you supply all UPRC- approved amendments to the "Private Road Crossing Agreement" dated June 13, 1996 between UPRC and McLeod Development. At this time, we do not have any documentation verifying that the UPRC has approved the "Joint Use of Private Road Crossing Agreement" dated October 28, 1999 between McLeod Development and Sound Transit. We cannot complete our review of your applications until we have reviewed and approved the documentation requested above. The additional amount of review time needed will be the number of days between the date of this letter and your submission of the additional information. Once you have submitted the requested information, we will be able to proceed with the technical review of your applications. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 206 -431 -3663. Sincerely, --P.jibc/ccuk 01- Deborah Ritter Associate Planner cc: Jim Morrow, Director, Public Works Jack Place, Planning Manager, DCD Cindy Knighton, Senior Transportation Engineer David McPherson, Associate Engineer Lt. Don Tomaso, Fire Prevention Officer 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 d c: Jesse Tanner, Mayor CITX.EOF RENTON Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Planning Susan Carlson, Administrator January 30, 2002 Ms. Deborah Ritter, Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 630 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #1000 Tukwila, WA 98188 SUBJECT: PUBLIC SOCCER FACILITY FILE NUMBERL01 -074, E01 -029 RECEIVED FEB 0 6 2002 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed development. This site is included in the Transit Oriented Development multimodal station study currently under review for Tukwila Longacres, and is located adjacent to the proposed Strander Blvd. extension serving this area. I have several comments pertaining to the soccer facility given the proposed changes to Strander Blvd. and the eventual development of the station and associated development to the north. First, the access and right of way as shown do not reflect the preferred alternative for the Strander Blvd. extension. Specific requirements about right of way needs and future site access are addressed in a letter dated January 25th from Gregg Zimmerman, Planning Building Public Works Department Administration, and we support those comments. In addition, the parking as shown on the landscape plan will not be feasible or sufficient because site access will need to be re- aligned directly opposite the future access to the Sound Transit Longacres Commuter Rail Station. Additional parking will need to be shown at another location on the site. The proposed elevations and preliminary landscape plan indicate a single story industrial type structure housing a recreation club use. We question whether this intensity of use is appropriate at this location given the TOD study to the north. Transit Oriented Development connotes more pedestrian oriented projects with a mix of uses and high amenity site planning taking advantage of the location close to a rail station. These elevations show a metal shed or butler building with a small landscaped parking lot. More complex architectural treatment, and an interesting mix of uses, are warranted at this location. As this site is a gateway to both Renton and Tukwila more extensive boulevard landscaping'is also important. Thank you again for your consideration of these comments. We look forward to working with the City of Tukwila on improving the Strander Blvd. corridor and our continued discussions of the Transit Oriented Development concepts at this location. Sue Carlson Administrator Economic, Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning enclosures \\ CENTRAL\ SYS2 \DEPTS \FINANCE\ECON_DEV\New H Drive Folders\Interdepartmenta1Out of City - Project cvicw a uwwuaouauau SOC1.6.J pIowwU1 - 1055 South Grady �t.UUL Way - Renton, Washington 98055 This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer RENTON AHEAD OF THE CURVE 01/30/2002 16:08 503- '-1900 J. W. TRUMBUL.L Manager Industrial & Public Prole= January 30, 2002 UPRR. SUPT. Fr°TL„ND UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Via Fax 206431 -3665 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd Suite 4100 Tukwila. WA 98188 Attn: Deborah Ritter — Planner PAGE 01/01 5424 S. . McLaughlin Blvd. Penland. CR 97202 (503) 872 -1809 Fax: (503 ) 872.1900 Dear Ms. Ritter: Subject: ,L01 -074 (Desip Review) E01 -029 (SEPA) This is regard the proposal to construct an indoor soar fac i.y located between the BNSF and UPRR Railroad Tracks in Tukwila. I have reviewed this proposal and have the following remarks: 1. This new facility will need to bc acxsscd across an existing Private Road crossing that is covered by an agreement with Sturat McLeod. The Railroad will not agree to a new agreement covering this proposed facility. 2. This will no longer be a Private crossing, as the Public will be using the crossing and not accessing a private business. 3. The Railroad feels that Safety is the Number 1 priority and this facility will invite people to trespass across the tracks, children playing on the tracks, and parents trying to beat the (min to meet a game schedule. 4, The proposal for children to access a facility that is so very near the tracks will not be agreed to by the Railroad. Please take very dose consideration to this facility, as we all have a chance now to bc sure that this type facility is built in a safe location. Sinc=ely, Joins W. Trumbull anger Inndnsty and Public Projects. 41 Jesse Tanner, Mayor CIT'F RENTON Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator January 25, 2002 Ms. Deborah Ritter Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #1000 Tukwila, WA 98188 RE�E COhith „, 4'Eveiltggv SUBJECT: PUBLIC SOCCER FACILITY, FILE NUMBERS LO1 -074 AND E01 -029 ' Dear Ms. Ritter: Renton's Transportation Systems staff review of the subject proposed development has resulted ' in several review comments which follow. It is important to note that a portion of this project is • located within the proposed right -of -way of the Strander Blvd. Extension project, a joint transportation project between the cities of Tukwila and Renton. Renton will provide the project management for this capital project. 1) Ninety (90) feet of right -of -way must be provided for the proposed Strander Boulevard Extension. Sixty (60) feet of right -of -way is indicated on the preliminary development plan. 2) Provide a 100 -foot minimum width reservation along the east side of the development site for the potential relocation of Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks adjacent to the west side of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad right -of -way. 3) This development proposal needs to address how site access will be provided from the future depressed Strander Boulevard Extension roadway. Also, access to the site from the future Strander Boulevard Extension must be aligned directly opposite of the future access to the Sound Tansit Longacres Commuter Rail Station. Thank you for the opportunity of commenting on this project. 4 Wrffel* Gregg Zimmdrman, Administrator Planning/Building /Public Works Department cc: Jim Morrow, Tukwila Public Works Director Jay Covington Susan Carlson Sandra Meyer Neil Watts Jennifer Henning Document2\cor 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer jN AHEAD OF THE CURVE • City of Tukwila • Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF APPLICATION JANUARY 16, 2002 The following application has been submitted to the City of Tukwila Department of Community Development for review and decision. APPLICANT: LOCATION: Daniel K. Balmelli, Barghausen Consulting Engineers on behalf of Stewart McLeod (owner) and Willi Aigner (Oregon Soccer Center, Inc.). East of the eastern terminus of Strander Boulevard (east of West Valley Highway), between the Burlington Northern Railroad and the Union Pacific Railroad lines (Tax Parcel No. 252304 - 9006). FILE NUMBER: L01 -074 (Design Review) E01 -029 (SEPA) PROPOSAL: Construction of a 28,000 square foot indoor public soccer ,facility with 50 on -site parking spaces, to be constructed in two phases. The first phase will be 22,000 s.f. in size and the second (an expansion along the eastern side of the building) will be 6,000 s.f. in size. The facility will be located on the northern 1.9 acres of a 5.6 acre undeveloped site. OTHER REQUIRED Land Altering Permit, City of Tukwila PERMITS: Building Permit, City of Tukwila These files can be reviewed at.the Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100, Tukwila, WA. Please call (206) 431 -3670 to ensure that the file(s) will be available. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT You can submit comments on this application. You must submit your comments in writing to the Department of Community Development by 5:00 p.m. on January 30, 2002. If you have questions about this proposal contact Deborah Ritter, the Planner in charge of this file at (206) 431 -3663. Anyone who submits written comments will become parties of record and will be notified of any decision on this project 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 -431 -3665 \_NOR1 I ELEVATION \.�. / SC-4 E. VII- •1'0 �f WEST ELEVATION k.. / SCALE. VW. 1'P I 1 1 - MI , el l ' 1 .IIU lI I . i�IL li fl L LI 1, Iii I - - Ii !` f- I l i iJ — , �II SOUTH ELEVATION l.~.M SGVE WIT •.'0 TUKWILA • T CENTER INC. raeo 116.1, t. 1 1 6 . 1 , 1 4 . 1 $ 4 . pn NM OREGON SOCCER CENTER INC. IAM SE t].f Q'VS. MULVANNY502 OSLMAII. 1.• 1110•• ogm..sem a. sal Exteliol ElovaUuns A3.01 CALL BEFORE YOU DICI I-000-424-5555 0 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN _ . ! • ! • : • • .1 • • IF - • • •• I I •7•77-1----7-- i•• i ! • 41_ A - 1- • • - 1TWIDER eLVP. . I .1 •:1 , • 1., 0419.1!.. I f 1 '11 • LEOF_ND WPC Sal SPACIOO OLL.1111 ROLOOS - • 0 <...1 c 171i 1 rwn aolopo• a. ":"...?„=---'' ....="le oCs PM "7.17'..". ',, " ' pa”. --,14.1,-,., .11• T. „rue et■047/ =Mi...., OCUI0 PPM ..7..tro.r "" ""M sal tos• toot vs... •06 ,....."••■• 00.0' .,.....0.,.. 1. CA. y • • ... CA. • • • • • • . • . .. II • • g:..--r; ■•" -..Z .g...;..1:1' .• KR PO P.1 11,1•0111. • 1.0. ....... - • ' ' W PO 1 4. ,,. ' MIN ,,,,,,,, rg......,:sz, ."17`,,,,r111:41.1•4..., r.4..“Irgn•I'll MANZ Mr17.:-.2... SO/I • ON 04 cm,. ff., win STIR 1 - 1 /Roof ..• .- err 6.7.I. .,..,.. , 0., ...n. 0.• I MAI W.A. K. 1.1. 10 1r Me COMO .10 W vs. WIC. Y.. o..• eAll 7-,--.77-7- wiLDFLowEn uak Arm. Dun 07000 pm. wo telltARD ET-=73 Lee 010...G RAW WO W. •11010.01S ■71,111.1 WO/OM • co V11.9111 WO PO. Gar.. )11-411-313.1 0.1 103-•”-nfoll 0.11115 . SIA,I.l. CMS. 11,111 off.• 0 1./C.I arr.. Ma. 91P1/1.• 1. /AP - WA .0.51 CPU 1/11 YAP Or NUM_ WO NO In crl . 1.1 Lena a OA 3 ...CI. OW1 MOO. MD 4/117OKS Soo... Awn.. to............ Woo... no.. 11......• ,..14-... . ..1....1....... ....I....P. Sm. IL Wm,* pee ... 0.... 5.••••••....• 1.4 .O.00. 1....... ow... C.*. Peo....1.......• A... lat.. 1....• 1,101.. ....1.. •.-•■•■ ...I. ......le 0.0. CIO We mot.. My 00 1... 1....... no, •• 114. 4... MO Into.r 50. •epry h...........e. ..-N. t...• 0.01/..• 0...5* Sr. ......... 1...• NOTES /. 1.0540 CI RI 00.010 0110.0101 51104 0500 WOO WACO. P1.•01. LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS ir91;(11” MOO- IS. Oel 1 *IA I - 000 05171, Jatt 1 .. SIMI'S • 115 •••■,..- 1000 1.045.1t• 07,.. • RC 1: 1 1 :,-Ii !------r-AC•PosED --- .5- .5 - 11 '4) EMI-NW:ft ,-- 1 1 .11 - t ■ ' , .. If,. ilI. ••■-• v.m. ly 0".1.J....: t ii. 4 - A411t, 1 1 1at4l : v 1811 , t. • 1 -k! 1 • t . 1 • .1 •.1 11 41 J i :•4t4 ti I NI; i ,,• . :, ___ ;...... (r. c...,,t, ..--- -7'1 ■ --:r.VAIrw) ‘\ 1 j = 1 I I,' .. ' ., • 3 17'4 I . i Si rfl.irret14,.4. IC i 's illy ifinr .1. . IV'. Ilnii41:1:. ' li tscs. or lAn.e •,..1 .. Am ...... to......v Ps •• • • 0,10 \ \ 8 r la fa 'AS ..esp Y.' no r .”1, . . ■ at, .0 .. ....121., \ ::.';:j :.'="1..-Z.,'.:1' 71.17.„",",..,74 7.11.- :.c.■ , , • 6./.1,1 rti • 'MID Woe A.A.., . ' • .i ! 1.= • -....... - L... ,.. J., . : '''...7" '''''':"............ or -...„. • ..... I . ! \ W."4 11..14-,‘.1.,r1,1,1..w..-..m.: As. - ' ••••••• - - .` X.1".11,."4.""•.?-* `'" "`".11.4,an.ineWatiitlg, • - • I., .1 cm o.n.o... ...I on Crao.Crty •1 now moo. Ammo 1.1 lo• L5: r flat rikos eso+1 - - - .2 150f4 • 'A: • Deciduous Tree Detail (Et and 0. Less Th•n 3 Dia / .5797 000 Tree flantrig (6 to 1) Height) • r-30. \it)$1 •■•• 1.5004CM• 1114SW1C• ..L.9.scArt • City of Tukwila • Steven M. Mullet, Mayor January 11, 2002 Department of Community Development NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION Daniel K. Balmelli, P.E. Executive Vice President Barghausen Consulting Engineers 18215 72nd Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032 VIA FAX 425 - 251 -8782 Stewart McLeod McLeod Properties 213 Lake Street South Kirkland, Washington 98033 VIA FAX 425 - 827 -9990 Re: Tukwila Soccer Center Facility East end of Strander Blvd & east of W. Valley Hwy. Tax Parcel Number 252304 -9006 SEPA (E01 -029) Design Review (L01 -074) Gentlemen: Steve Lancaster, Director Willi Aigner Oregon Soccer Center, Inc. 17015 S.E. 82nd Drive Clackamas, Oregon 97015 VIA FAX 503 - 655 -9636 Your SEPA and Design Review applications have been found to be complete as of January 11, 2002 for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. Essentially, this means that you have supplied the required items listed on the application checklist for this type of permit. A laminated copy of the "Notice of Application" and site map have been prepared and are being held in our "Will Call" drawer. You must arrange to have the Notice picked up from our office and posted on the notice board at the site on or before Wednesday, January 16, 2002. This is the same day that we will be mailing public notice to property owners, tenants and businesses within 500 feet of the project. After you have posted the laminated Notice on the siqn, please return the signed and notarized "Affidavit of Installation and Posting" to me. We are about to commence our technical review process, which is the next phase in the processing of your Design Review application. Although your application has been found to be "complete ", the items you supplied may have to be revised or amended. The City may also require that you submit additional plans and information to ensure the project meets the substantive requirements of the City and to finalize the review process. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 206 -431 -3663. Sincerely, aeile Deborah Ritter Associate Planner cc: Lt. Don Tomaso, Fire Prevention Officer Public Works Department 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 41 RECEBVEif CITY OF TUKWILA DEC 3 1 2001 COMMUNITY SEPA DEVELoPMEruENVIRONMENTAL 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 REVIEW APPLICATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY SIERRA TYPE P-SEPA Planner: � File Number: �f� 1 _ ),C1 ),C1 VV LJeb -e i ) Application Complete (Date: I_ 11• a7,) Project File Number: f 6 / -03 Application Incomplete (Date: ) Other File Numbers: 1,01.-6-7 i NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Tukwila Soccer Center 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 The project is located at the east end of Strander Boulevard and east of West Valley Highway. Tax Parcel Number: 252304 -9006 Quarter: 25 Section: 23 Township: 04 Range: 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: Daniel K. Balmelli, Barghausen Consulting Engineers Address: 18215 -72nd Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Ph945.5) 251 -6222 /CFA (425) 251 -8782 Signature: ii&T,3,48._ D4602 4a5 - lescP - C:\ homepage\ tukwila \dcd \ apps \SEPAAPP.DOC, 08/31/00 Date: 12-^ STATE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: DEC 3 Tukwila Soccer Center 1 1��� PER�lTCen 2. Name of Applicant: Tukwila Soccer Centers Incorporated 3. Date checklist prepared: December 26, 2001 4. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila 5. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction of the project is scheduled to begin in May 2002 or immediately after obtaining building and construction permits and all necessary approvals. 6. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Yes, depending on market conditions, a future building expansion of approximately 6,000 square feet may be constructed. For purposes of this application, the building expansion has been included in the environmental studies and design review documents. 7. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Previous environmental information includes a Geotechnical Engineering and Phase I Enviromental Site Assessment for the property located just north of the site and a wetland study and wetland mitigation plan prepared and approved by the City of Tukwila for the project site. The wetland mitigation plan implemented approximately three years ago and two yearly monitoring reports have been prepared. The location of the existing wetlands and mitigated buffer area is shown on the site plan included within this application. It is also our understanding that a previous environmental review, design review, and development permits were issued for a previous development application on the project site. New environmental information prepared for the proposed project includes a Traffic Impact Analysis and a Level 1 Downstream Drainage Analysis. Agency Comments 10320.003 [DKB /bq] • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 8. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. The City of Renton is currently completing a feasibility study and conceptual design for a proposed future Strander Boulevard extension. The scope of the initial work is to determine the preferred option for extending Strander Boulevard to the east. We understand that the preferred option includes the relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad line to the east adjacent to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad line and extending Strander Boulevard beneath the two railroad lines. Based on discussions with City of Renton staff, there is currently no funding for the construction work and therefore the timing of construction of the project is not known. The proposed project has been designed to incorporate the potential future extension of Strander Boulevard to the best extent possible. 9. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. Environmental Determination - City of Tukwila Design Review Approval - City of Tukwila Clearing and Grading Permit - City of Tukwila Building Permit - City of Tukwila Site Development Permit - City of Tukwila Mechanical and Electrical permits - City of Tukwila Sign Permits - City of Tukwila 10. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal. and should not be summarized here. The proposed project consists of the development of a new 22,000- square -foot indoor soccer facility on approximately 1.9 acres of a 5.6 -acre site. The project also includes a potential future 6,000- square -foot building expansion. The building will be constructed of concrete floor slab on grade with a steel frame and metal siding and metal roofing panels. The construction type will be Type II -N (sprinklered). The occupancy type will be mixed with Assembly (A -3), office (B), Pro -Shop (M), and minor accessory uses. Access to the site will be from a new private road extension of Strander Boulevard across the existing Union Pacific Railroad lines under previous approvals and permits issued by the City of Tukwila and the Union Pacific Railroad Company. 10320.003 [DKB /bq] • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary Applicant Responses: Agency Comments The proposed indoor soccer facility will be open to the public and is not for use as a private club. The facility will include an approximately ± 1,160- square -foot pro shop for the retail sale of soccer equipment. The majority of the facility's business is generated by adult soccer leagues and therefore there is little need for spectator seating. Spectator seating will consist of approximately four tables with three stools per table located near the pro shop. Concessions will be provided by vending machines. Please refer to the site plan and preliminary engineering plans for specific details and additional information. 11. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The proposed project is located within a portion of Section 25, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian within the City of Tukwila, Washington. The project is also located at the eastern terminus of Strander Boulevard between Union Pacific Railroad and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad lines. The current project address is 7350 South 163rd Street, Tukwila, Washington. Please refer to the legal description and site plan with vicinity map for additional information on the project location. 12. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? The site is located in an environmentally sensitive area containing wetlands. 10320.003 [DKB /bq] • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary Applicant Responses: Agency Comments B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Approximately 10 percent. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. According to the previous Geotechnical Engineering Report and Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Study prepared by GeoEngineers, Inc. on February 2, 1994, for the property just north of the site, the general soils types consist of 20 to 30 feet of interbedded soft silt'and very loose to loose sand and silty sand with traces of organic matter overlying dense to very dense sand with an occasional tense of medium dense sand. This upper unit of interlayered silt, sandy silt, silty sand and sand with variable quantities of organic matter is typical of overbank flood deposits and floodplain organics underlaying or interbedded with marine organic silt and fluvial sand. According to the King County SCS Soils Conservation maps, the site soils consist of Newberg silt (Ng). d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. None to our knowledge. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Approximately 6,000 cubic yards of import fill material will be placed and compacted on the site to prepare the property for future development of the building and pavement areas. This material will initially be placed on the building pad for use as pre -load material to induce settlement of the existing soils. The excess material will then be utilized within the pavement areas for final grading. The import fill material will be a Class A or Class B fill material obtained from an approved fill source not yet known. Approximately 1,600 cubic yards of unsuitable stripping material will be exported from the site during the initial clearing and grading work. Approximately 4,000 cubic yards of on -site fill material will be regraded on site for the proposed development. 10320.003 [DKB/bq] • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary Applicant Responses: Agency Comments f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Depending on weather conditions during construction, some erosion could occur during the construction phase if adequate erosion control measures are not implemented. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 25 percent of the entire 5.6 -acre site or approximately 70 percent of the developable portion of the site will be covered with impervious surface area after project construction is completed. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: A Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan will be prepared and approved by the City of Tukwila prior to issuance of any development permits to reduce and control erosion and potential impacts to the existing wetlands and downstream drainage system. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During construction of the project, normal emissions and exhaust from utility and building construction equipment will occur on the site. Also, dust may be generated during the construction phase depending on weather conditions. After the project is completed, normal vehicle emissions will occur. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Normal emissions from the adjacent railroad tracks will occur within the vicinity of the project. However, these emissions are not anticipated to impact the proposal. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: During the construction phase, this site will be watered as required to keep dust to a minimum. Exhaust systems from construction equipment will be required to meet standard Washington State Emission Control standards. 10320.003 [DKB /bq] • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year -round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Approximately 3.7 acres of the 5.6 acre site is considered wetland or wetland buffer mitigation area. The wetlands are located on the southerly two - thirds of the project site. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described water? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes, the proposed project will occur within 200 feet of the existing wetlands located within the southerly portion of the project site. No work is proposed within the existing wetlands or mitigated buffer area. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. No fill or dredge material will be placed in or removed from the wetlands. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No, the project will not require any surface water withdrawals or diversions. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No, according to FEMA Map No. 978, the project is not located within a 100 -year floodplain. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the types of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. The project will not involve any discharge of waste material to surface waters. 10320.003 [DKB/bq] • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary Applicant Responses: Agency Comments b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. Other than for potential dewatering of deep utility trenches during construction, groundwater will not be withdrawn and water will not be discharged to groundwater under the proposed project. The estimated quantity of any dewatering work is not known at this time. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve: None will be discharged as part of the proposal. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. The source of runoff to the project site is from surface water runoff from rainfall. Under existing conditions, surface water runoff from the site currently sheetflows generally from the west to the east ultimately entering existing drainage ditches located along the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad tracks. From here, stormwater continues to the north within an existing drainage ditch along the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad. The permanent stormwater system for the project will consist of catch basins and underground storm pipe which will collect and convey surface water runoff from building roof drainage and pavement areas and convey the stormwater to a open water quality pond and detention pond located along the northerly portion of the site. The stormwater system will be designed in accordance with current City of Tukwila storm drainage standards which is currently the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual. After discharging from the stormwater detention and water quality treatment system, drainage flows will discharge to the existing drainage ditch located along the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad tracks near the northeast corner of the site. 10320.003 [DKB /bq] • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No, not to our knowledge. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: A Temporary Erosion Control Plan will be implemented during the construction phase in accordance with City of Tukwila design standards to reduce and control surface water impacts to the existing wetlands and downstream drainage system during the construction phase. A permanent open stormwater detention and water quality treatment system will be designed and constructed in accordance with City of Tukwila standards to control surface water runoff impacts from the developed site. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the si b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? As part of the proposed development, all of the existing vegetation on the developable portion of the site will be removed or altered. Prior to completing any clearing or removal of vegetation, appropriate construction fencing will be installed along the edge of the existing wetland buffer to prevent disturbance and delineate the limit of work boundaries. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered species are known to exist on or near the site. 10320.003 [DKB /bq] Deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other Evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other X Shrubs X Grass Pasture Crop or grain X Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other Water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other Other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? As part of the proposed development, all of the existing vegetation on the developable portion of the site will be removed or altered. Prior to completing any clearing or removal of vegetation, appropriate construction fencing will be installed along the edge of the existing wetland buffer to prevent disturbance and delineate the limit of work boundaries. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered species are known to exist on or near the site. 10320.003 [DKB /bq] • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary Applicant Responses: Agency Comments d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Enhanced on -site landscaping will be implemented as part of the proposed development to help preserve and enhance vegetation on the site and help meet the design review criteria. In addition, landscaping will be incorporated within the proposed open stormwater detention and water quality treatment area to provide a more natural environment. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds an animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: Mammals Fish Other Hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other birds Deer, bear, elk, beaver, other small mammals Bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None to our knowledge. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. The site is located within the Pacific Flyway for migratory birds. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Proposed on -site landscaping and the open stormwater detention and water quality treatment facility will help preserve and enhance wildlife. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electrical power and natural gas service will be used to provide the project's energy needs for power, lighting, heating and air conditioning. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No, not to our knowledge. 10320.003 [DKB /bq] Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary Applicant Responses: Agency Comments c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: The proposed project will comply with the Washington State Energy Code and Ventilation Code for lighting budgets, envelope insulation, HVAC equipment efficiency and indoor air quality. No other special energy conservation features are proposed at this time. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No, the project will not include the use of any environmental health hazards or toxic chemicals. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Other than normal police, fire, and medical services already available within the general area, no special services will be required for the project. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Other than specific rules and regulations of the soccer facility, which will be implemented during playing times, no specific measures are proposed to control environmental health hazards. b. Noise: 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Normal noise from the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific Railroad tracks located on the east and west sides of the property will exist but should not cause any significant impact to the proposed project. 10320.003 [DKB/bgl • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short -term or long -term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. On a short -term basis, noise from construction equipment will occur during normal working hours from approximately 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. On a long -term basis, normal noise from vehicular traffic will occur between approximately 4:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on weekdays and 7:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. on weekends. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Although minimal noise will be created by the proposed project from vehicles entering and existing the site, proposed landscaping will help to reduce and control noise created from the proposed project as well as existing noise from the adjacent railroad tracts. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The project site is currently undeveloped and consist mostly of various types of grass and brush with wetland type species located on the southerly two - thirds of the site. Adjacent property to the north is undeveloped commercial property zoned Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) owned by Sound Transit. Adjacent property to the south is undeveloped commercial property containing wetlands. Adjacent property to the east is the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right -of -way and further to the east is commercial property owned by Boeing. Adjacent property to the west is the Union Pacific Railroad right -of -way and further to the west is commercially zoned property with the north end developed as a Jack in the Box restaurant. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Not recently; however, the site may have been used prior to the 1970s for agricultural purposes. c. Describe any structures on the site. No structures currently exist on the site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. 10320.003 [DKB/bq] • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary Applicant Responses: Agency Comments e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The current zoning classification of the site is TUC. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation for the site? The current comprehensive plan designation of the site is TUC. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Portions of the site are located within environmentally sensitive area designations for wetlands. However, a previous wetland and buffer mitigation plan was approved by the City and constructed by the current property owner within the last several years. First and second year wetland buffer monitoring reports have also been completed and previously submitted to the City. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? A maximum of approximately two employees will work at the completed project during normal operating hours. A maximum of approximately 30 to 40 members of the general public will be present at any given time during the normal operating hours of the facility. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None will be displaced. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None are proposed. 10320.003 [DKB /bq] • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The proposed project will be designed and constructed in accordance with City of Tukwila zoning code and design standards for the Tukwila Urban Center zone classification. The building design incorporates several architectural features in an effort to address the building design review criteria of the City of Tukwila. These elements include varying building color combinations, variations in metal panel profiles, use of different building materials, and a major design feature covering at the building entry. Additional on -site landscaping above and beyond the required amount has also been provided to enhance the appearance of the building and site work improvements. The site plan layout and building orientation has also been designed to accommodate the potential future extension of Strander Boulevard across the northerly portion of the project site. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing. None. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None are proposed. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The tallest height of the proposed building is approximately 32 feet measured from the finished floor elevation to the highest point of the roof structure. The principal exterior building materials for the project will be metal roofing and siding panels, glass windows, and translucent wall panels. 10320.003 [DKB /bq] • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary Applicant Responses: Agency Comments b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Some views in the immediate vicinity would be altered by the proposed project. The degree to which the views could be altered would depend on the location of the view with respect to the proposed facility. The 32 -foot height design should reduce the impact of the alteration of views. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Special building design features and enhanced on -site landscaping will reduce and control aesthetic impacts from the project. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposals produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Minimal light and glare will be created by wall mounted lighting and from on -site parking area lot lights. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No, it is not anticipated that the proposed project will create any type of safety hazard or interfere with views. c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Off -site lights sources may include periodic lights from passing trains on the adjacent railroad tracks. However, this will not affect the proposed project. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Enhanced on -site landscaping combined with directional wall mounted lighting and shielded on -site lot lights will help reduce and control light and glare impacts from the project. 10320.003 [DKB/bq] • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 12. Recreation a. What designation and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The Interurban Trail runs along the existing Union Pacific Railroad tracks adjacent and on the west side of the proposed project. Also, the Family Fun Center facility is located approximately one -half mile north of the proposed project at the intersection of West Valley Highway and 1 -405. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: The proposed project provides recreational opportunities for the public through its design as an indoor soccer facility. The proposed facility provides opportunity for both young and older adults to exercise, enjoy the sport of soccer, and compete with similar age groups. The facility will provide a positive and needed addition to the community. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state or local preservation registers to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. Not to our knowledge. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. Not to our knowledge. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None are proposed. 10320.003 [DKB/bgl Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on -site plans, if any: The proposed project is located just east of the existing terminus Strander Boulevard. A 60 -foot road right -of -way reservation has been recorded over the northerly 60 feet of the proposed project for the future extension of Strander Boulevard across the north end of the project site. West Valley Highway is located approximately 400 feet west of the project which provides access to I -5 via I -405, approximately one -half mile north of the project site. Access to the site will be provided by an extension of Strander Boulevard across the existing Union Pacific Railroad lines via a private access road previously approved by the City of Tukwila and the Union Pacific Railroad Company. The private access road was designed to serve a future Sound Transit station located on property just north of the project site as well as the proposed project site. Please refer to the site plan and preliminary engineering plans included with this submittal indicating the locations of the existing streets and proposed site access. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Public transit serves businesses along West Valley Highway approximately 400 feet west of the project site. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The proposed project will provide approximately 49 new parking stalls. No parking stalls will be eliminated by the proposed project. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Yes, Strander Boulevard will need to be extended from its existing terminus approximately 200 feet to the east to the west property line of the project site and another ± 326 feet across the frontage of the project. This roadway extension is proposed as a 24 -foot wide private access road to serve the project site until such time in the future that Strander Boulevard is extended to East Valley Highway under a public improvement project. 10320.003 [DKB/bq] • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary Applicant Responses: Agency Comments e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No, the proposed project will not use water, rail, or air transportation. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. According to the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Traffic Engineers Northwest (TENW), approximately 500 average weekday daily trips will be generated by the completed project. The peak volume of traffic will occur between the hours of 4:15 p.m. and 5:15 p.m. during the weekday. Please refer to the Traffic Impact Analysis by TENW for additional traffic information. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: The Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TENW outlines proposed measures to reduce and control transportation impacts from the project. These measures include construction of the new private access road extending from Strander Boulevard to provide access to the site. 10320.003 [DKB/bq] i Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Yes, fire protection, police protection, and medical services will be needed for the completed project. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: Construction of a new private access road along with new fire mains and hydrants will help to reduce and control direct impacts on public services. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Currently, no utilities are available directly to the project site. These services will be extended from existing utility services located north of the project to serve the site. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Utilities proposed for the project include, power, gas, telephone, water and sewer services. These services will all be extended from existing utility services located north of the project through an agreement between the property owner and Sound Transit. The proposed extension of the services are shown on the preliminary engineering design plans. These services include the following: Electricity: Puget Sound Energy by extension from the north along the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad line Natural Gas: Puget Sound Energy by extension from the north along the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad line Telephone: Qwest Communications by extension from the north along the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad lines 10320.003 [DKB /bq] Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary Applicant Responses: Sanitary Sewer Service: City of Tukwila by extension from the north through the Sound Transit property Water Service: City of Tukwila by extension from the north through the Sound Transit property Garbage Disposal Service: City of Tukwila by access from Strander Boulevard C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the d agency is relying on th i' to j ke its ision. Signature: Date Submitted: 1 ?- -Z8 -41 (NON- PROJECT PROPOSALS (E.G., SUBURBAN PLANS AND ZONING CODE TEST CHANGES) MUST COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING CHANGES). Agency Comments 10320.003 [DKB/bq] • • 1 o 32-0 City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist City of Tukwila RECEIVED Endangered Species Act Screening Checklist DEC ?001 COMMA DEV ELOI$JT . Date: December 28, 2001 Applicant Name: Tukwila Soccer Centers Inc. c/o Barghausen Consulting Eng., In Street Address: 18715 - 72nd Ave. S City, State, Zip: Kent, WA 98032 Telephone: (425) 251 -6222 DIRECTIONS This Screening Checklist has been designed to evaluate the potential for your project to result in potential "take" of Chinook salmon, coho salmon, or cutthroat trout as defined by Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act. The checklist includes a series of "Yes" or "No" questions about your project, organized into four parts. Starting with Part A on Page 1, read each question carefully, circle "Yes" or "No," and proceed to the next question as directed by the checklist To answer these questions, you may need to refer to site plans, grading and drainage plans, critical areas studies, or other documents you have prepared for your project. The City will evaluate your responses to determine if "take" is indicated. May 24, 2001 1 City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist Part A: Please review and answer each question carefully. Consider all phases of your project including, but not limited to, construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and sche duled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 1 -0 Will the project require any form of grading? Grading is defined as any excavating, filling, clearing, or creation of impervious surface, or any combination thereof, which alters the existing ground surface of the earth (see Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Chapter 18.06, Zoning Code, Page 18 -11). Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2 -0 - Continue to Question 1 -1 (Page 3) 2 -0 Will the project require any form of clearing? Clearing means the removal or causing to be removed, through either direct or indirect actions, any vegetation from a site (see Chapter 18.06, Page 18 -8). Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -0 - Continue to Question 2 -1 (Page 4) 3 -0 Will the project require work, during any time of the project, below the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers or in wetlands? Ordinary high water mark is the mark that is found by examining the bed and banks of a stream and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual as to distinctly mark the soil from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation (see TMC Chapter 18.06, Page 18 -15). Please circle appropriate response. - Continue to Question 4-0 YES - Continue to Question 3-1 (Page 5) 4 -0 Will the project result in the processing or handling, storage, or treatment of hazardous substances? This does not include the proper use of fuel stored in a vehicle's fuel tank. Hazardous substances are any liquid, solid, gas, or sludge, including any material, substance, product, commodity, or waste, regardless of quantity, that exhibits the characteristics or criteria of hazardous waste as defined by Washington Administrative Code 173 -303 (see TMC Chapter 18.06, Tukwila Zoning Code, Page 18 -11). This includes fuel or other chemicals stored on -site during construction. Please circle appropriate response. Continue to Question 5-0 YES - Continue to Question 5-0 5 -0 Will the project result in the withdrawal, injection, or interception of groundwater? Examples of projects that may affect groundwater include, but are not limited to: construction of a new well, change in water withdrawals from an existing well, projects involving prolonged construction dewatering, projects installing French drains or interceptor trenches, and sewer lines. For the purpose of this analysis, projects that require a geotechnical report pursuant to the requirements of TMC 18.45.060 and 18.45.080E.4, or would require a geotechnical report if not exempt under TMC 18.45.080A, should answer Yes. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 6-0 Continue to Question 6-0 May 24, 2001 2 Part A (continued) City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist 6 -0 Will the project involve landscaping or re- occurring outdoor maintenance that includes the regular use of fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides? This does not include the one -time use of transplant fertilizers. Landscaping means natural vegetation such as trees, shrubs, groundcover, and other landscape materials arranged in a manner to produce an aesthetic effect appropriate for the use of the land (see TMC Chapter 18.06, Tukwila Zoning Code, Page 18 -13). For the purpose of this analysis, this includes the establishment of new lawn or grass. Please circle appropriate response. NO — Checklist Complete YES Checklist Complete Part B: Please answer each question below for projects that include grading. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answe r. 1 -1 Will the project involve the modification of a watercourse bank or bank of the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers between the ordinary high water mark and top of bank? This includes any projects that will require grading on any slope leading to a river or stream, but will not require work below the ordinary high water mark. Work below the ordinary high water mark is covered in Part C. Please circle appropriate response. NO Continue to Question 1 -2 YES - Continue to Question 1 -2 1 -2 Could the construction, operation, or maintenance of the project result in sediment transport off site or increased rates of erosion and/or sedimentation in watercourses, the Green/Duwamish rivers, or the Black River? Most projects that involve grading have the potential to result in increased erosion and/or sedimentation as a result of disturbances to the soil or earth. If your project involves grading and you have not prepared a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan specifically designed to retain 100 percent of the runoff (including during construction) from impervious surface or disturbed soils, answer Yes to this question. If your project is normally exempt under the Tukwila Municipal Code and would not require the preparation of a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan, BUT may still result in erosion or sediment transport off site or beyond the work area, answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 1 -3 - Continue to Question 1 -3 1 -3 Will the project result in the construction of new impervious surfaces? Impervious surfaces include those hard surfaces which prevent or restrict the entry of water into the soil in the manner that such water entered the soils under natural conditions prior to development; or a hard surface area that causes water to run off the surface in greater quantity or at an increased rate of flow from the flow presented under natural conditions prior to development (see TMC Chapter 18.06, Tukwila Zoning Code, Page 18 -12). Such areas include, but are not limited to, rooftops, asphalt or concrete paving, compacted surfaces, or other surfaces that similarly affect the natural infiltration or runoffpattems existing prior to development. Please circle appropriate re sponse. NO Continue to Question 2 -0 (Page 2) Continue to Question 1 -4 Part B (continued) May 24, 2001 3 • • City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist 1-4 Will your project generate stormwater from the creation of impervious surfaces that will not be infiltrated on site? For the purpose of this analysis, infiltration includes the use of a stormwater treatment and management system intended to contain all stormwater on site by allowing it to seep into pervious surface or through other means to be introduced into the ground. If your project involves the construction of impervious surface and does not include the design of a stormwater management system specifically designed to infiltrate stormwater, answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2 -0 (Page 2) Continue to Question 2 -0 (Page 2) Part C: Please review each question below for projects that include clearing. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 2 -1 Will the project involve clearing within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. - Continue to Question 3 -0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 2 -2 2 -2 Will the project involve clearing of any trees within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? A tree is defined by TMC 18.06.845 as any self - supporting woody plant, characterized by one main trunk, with a potential diameter - breast- height of 2 inches or more and potential minimum height of 10 feet. Please circle appropriate response. - Continue to Question 2 -4 YES - Continue to Question 2 -3 2 -3 Will the project involve clearing of any evergreen trees from within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis evergreen means any tree that does not regularly lose all its leaves or needles in the fall. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2 -4 YES - Continue to Question 2-4 2-4 Will the project involve clearing within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. 'NO - Continue to Question 3-0 (Page 1) YES - Continue to Question 2 -5 2 -5 Will the project involve clearing within 40 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. Continue to Question 3 -0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 3 -0 (Page 2) May 24, 2001 4 City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist Part D: Ple ase review each question below for projects that include work below the ordinary high water mark of watercourses or the Duwamish/Green or Black Rivers or in wetlands. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to, construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 3 -1 Will the project involve the direct alteration of the channel or bed of a watercourse, the Green/Duwamish rivers, or Black River? For the purpose of this analysis, channel means the area between the ordinary high water mark of both banks of a stream, and bed means the stream bottom substrates, typically within the normal wetted -width of a stream. This includes both temporary and permanent modifications. Please circle appropriate response. C)- Continue to Question 3-2 YES - Continue to Question 3-2 3 -2 Will the project involve any physical alteration to a watercourse or wetland connected to the Green/Duwamish River? For the purpose of this analysis, "connected to the river means" flowing into via a surface connection or culvert, or having other physical characteristics that allow for access by salmonids. This includes impacts to areas such as sloughs, side channels, remnant oxbows, ditches formed from channelized portions of natural watercourses or any area that may provide off channel rearing habitat for juvenile fish from the Duwamish River. This includes both temporary construction alterations and permanent modifications. Watercourses or wetlands draining to the Green/Duwamish River that have a hanging culvert, culvert with a flap gate, diversion, or any entirely man -made or artificial structure that precludes fish access should answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. Continue to Question 3 -3 YES - Continue to Question 3-3 3 -3 Will the project result in the construction of a new structure or hydraulic condition that could be a barrier to salmonid passage within the watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, a barrier means any artificial or human modified structure or hydraulic condition that inhibits the natural upstream or downstream movement of salmonids, including both juveniles and adults. Please circle appropriate response. Clq- Continue to Question 3 -4 YES - Continue to Question 3-4 3-4 Will the project involve a temporary or permanent change in the cross - sectional area of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, the cross - sectional area is defined as a profile taken from the ordinary high water mark on the right bank to the ordinary high water mark on the left bank. Please circle appropriate response. Continue to Question 3-5 YES - Continue to Question 3-5 3 -5 Will the project require the removal of debris from within the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, debris includes, but is not limited to fallen trees, logs, shrubs, rocks, piles, rip -rap, submerged metal, and broken concrete or other building materials. Projects that would require debris removal from a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers as part of a maintenance activity should answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. - Continue to Question 3-6 YES - Continue to Question 3-6 May 24, 2001 5 Part D (continued City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist 3 -6 Will the project result in impacts to watercourses or wetlands that have a surface connection to another watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers but do not contain habitat conditions that support salmonid use? Such areas may include, but not be limited to hillside seeps and wetlands isolated from the watercourse or river that have a surface water connection to the watercourse or river but are not assessable, nor would be assessable to salmonids under natural conditions. Wetlands with a "functions and values" rating for baseflow /groundwater support of 9 and above (or moderate) as described in Cooke (1996) should be included. Please circle appropriate response. NO Continue to Question 3-7 YES - Continue to Question 3-7 3 -7 Will the project include the construction of artificial waterways or wetlands connected to a watercourse containing salmonids? For the purpose of this analysis, the construction of artificial waterways or wetlands includes wetlands, channels, sloughs, or other habitat feature created to enhance wildlife use, particularly waterfowl use, or may be attractive to wildlife, particularly waterfowl. Please circle appropriate response. Continue to Question 3-8 YES - Continue to Question 3-8 3 -8 Will the project include bank stabilization? For the purpose of this analysis, bank stabilization includes, but is not limited to, rip -rap, rock, log, soil, or vegetated revetments, concrete structures, or similar structures. Please circle appropriate response. Continue to Question 4-0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 4-0 (Page 2) May 24, 2001 6 • CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431- 3670FAX(206) 431- 3665 E -mail: tuknlan(a,ci.tukwila.wa.us AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY rttCeivEri DECD 1 ` Jai Cpl r STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING The undersigned being duly sworn and upon oath states as follows: 1. I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. 2. All statements contained in the applications have been prepared by me or my agents and are taste 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 ss 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. EXECUTED at % ��5C, 9 P% 4s0 lll (Print Name) oulAil Ad s - �a ('�6 v r10TARy ��. ( 0,4MI1CI (4 0 UDt f.e_ a� ` G} /t PUBLIC y a1 ^ $ Z / (Phone Number) y (I llIN9•• 9.9 -0 ».•;AO�i -e 1k�C' °FWASAN" — (Signature) \\ On this day personally y a»?C33esfo a me 71 a t�.JWe \ G Lt Ck to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that JteMs is signed the same as his/1104 voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. (city), (state), on ess SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME ON THIS DAY OF - G(-try -v- , ty LI in and ei}t State o Washington NOTARY P residing at �€ .ev} 1p.) Es My Commission expires on 1 ' ‘51 • City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES December 31, 2001 HAND DELIVERY RE: SEPA and Design Review Submittal for Proposed Tukwila Soccer Center Facility City of Tukwila Pre - Application Meeting No. PRE01 -036 Our Job No. 10320 Our office attended a pre- application meeting with the City of Tukwila staff on November 29, 2001, for a proposed new project known as the Tukwila Soccer Center Facility. On behalf of Tukwila Soccer Centers, Inc., we are submitting the following plans and documentation for the SEPA Environmental Review process and the Design Review process: SEPA Environmental Review Documents: 1. One copy of the completed application checklist, indicating items submitted with the application. 2. Four copies each of supporting studies, including the following: a. Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC. b. Level 1 Drainage Analysis and Preliminary Storm Drainage Report, prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. c. First and second year wetland and buffer mitigation program monitoring reports for the existing on -site wetlands, prepared by Habitat Technologies, Inc. d. Agreement for Construction Maintenance and Use of a Private Road Crossing from the Union Pacific Railroad Company. e. Endangered Species Act Screening Checklist. 3. One complete application packet, including the following: a. Six copies of the completed application form. b. Six sets of full -size plans, including preliminary engineering plan, boundary and topographic survey, preliminary landscape planting plan, and architectural design plans, with site plan, building floor plan, and building elevations. c. One set each of all plans reduced to 8 1/2 by 11 inches and 11 by 17 inches. 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251 -6222 (425) 251 -8782 FAX www.barghausen.com • • City of Tukwila Department of Community Development -2- December 31, 2001 4. Six copies of the completed SEPA Environmental Checklist and a $325 processing fee. 5. One copy of the King County Assessor' s Map, showing the location of each property within 500 feet of the subject lot. 6. Two sets of mailing labels for all property owners and tenants within 500 feet of the property. 7. One copy of the Vicinity Map with site location. 8. One Surrounding Land Use Map for all existing land uses within a 1,000 -foot radius of the lot' s property lines. 9. One copy of the title report. 10. One copy of the Surrounding Land Use Map, showing lot lines for 300 feet from the site' s property lines, including right -of -ways. 11. One affidavit of Ownership and Hold Harmless Permission to Enter Property form. Design Review Documents: 1. One copy of the completed application checklist, indicating items submitted with the application. 2. One complete application packet, including the following: a. Six copies of the completed application form. b. Six sets of full -size plans, including preliminary engineering design plan, preliminary landscape plan, boundary and topographic survey, and architectural design plans, with site plan, building elevations, and building floor plan. 3. Design Review fee of $900. 4. One copy of the SEPA Environmental Checklist. 5. One copy of the written narrative discussing the project' s consistency with each of the design criteria. 6. One copy of the King County Assessor's Map, showing the location of each property within 500 feet of the subject lot. 7. Two sets of mailing labels for all property owners and tenants within 500 feet of the subject lot. 8. One copy of the Vicinity Map with site location. • • City of Tukwila Department of Community Development -3- December 31, 2001 9. One copy of the Surrounding Land Use Map for all existing land uses within a 1,000 -foot radius of the site's lot lines. 10. The plans and analysis prepared for the project have been stamped by the appropriate licensed professionals. 11. The Boundary and Topographic Survey prepared for the project is included in the plan set. 12. The location of existing sensitive areas are shown on the site plan and preliminary engineering design plans included within the submittal, including one copy each of the first and second year buffer and wetland monitoring reports 13. One copy of the FEMA Floodplain Map, indicating the project location. The site is not located within a 100 -year floodplain. 14. and 15. The building footprint, parking areas, drive lanes, landscape areas, fire access lanes, and other site information are shown on the site plan and preliminary engineering plans included within this submittal 16. Since the project is not located within an MDR or HDR zone, this item does not apply. 17. The preliminary engineering design plan indicates the location of the existing and proposed utility easements and improvements. 18. Since water and sewer will be provided by the City of Tukwila, this item is not applicable. 19. The preliminary engineering design plan indicates the schematic design and layout of the storm drainage system. 20. One copy of the Level 1 Downstream Drainage Analysis and Preliminary Drainage Report, including a discussion of consistency with the 1998 King County, Washington Surface Water Drainage Manual's Core and Special Requirements. 21. The preliminary engineering design plans indicate the location of existing and proposed fire hydrants. 22. The preliminary engineering design plan indicates the schematic design and layout of the proposed access road to serve the project site. 23. The preliminary landscape planting plan includes a wet ASLA stamp and original signature. 24. The preliminary site plan indicates the luminaire layout, including fixture cut sheets and site illumination level calculations. City of Tukwila Department of Community Development -4- December 31, 2001 25. The site plan indicates the proposed signage for the project. 26. This item is not applicable, since the project is not located adjacent to an existing stream. However, a copy of the FEMA 100 -year Floodplain Map is included within this submittal. 27. One copy of the dimensioned building elevations. 28. One copy of the colored building elevations. 29. One colors and materials board keyed to the colored elevations. 30. A colored rendering of the project may be submitted in the future as additional information. However, a colored rendering is not included with this submittal. Please proceed to process the enclosed plans and documentation at your earliest convenience and contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Daniel K. Balmelli, P.E. Executive Vice President DKB /ath 10320c.003 enc: As Noted cc: Willi Aigner, Tukwila Soccer Centers, Inc. (w /enc) Lew Delo, Delo & Bowers (w /enc) Frank Heffernan, MulvannyG2 Architecture (w /enc) ASSIGNMENT OF FUNDS • I ECEIVED COM DEC 3 12001 DEVE OPM TV ENT This assignment is for the purpose of fulfilling the performance security requirements of the City of Tukwila concerning the Wetland Monitoring and Plant Invasive and replacement contingency, which is 150% of the total costs. The undersigned does hereby assign, transfer, and set over unto the City of Tukwila all right, title, and interest in and to Twenty Five Thousand Dollars and no /cents ($25,000.00) of Certificate of Deposit account number / in the Wells Fargo Bank, 305 108th Ave. NE, Bellevue, WA 98004, with full power and authority to demand, collect and receive said deposit and to give receipt and acquittance therefore. It is understood and agreed that Wells Fargo holds the said account in its possession and agrees to hold $25,000.00 until the Assignment is terminated or reduced pursuant to the terms herein. Hatter annual inspections by the City of Tukwila or its designated agent and the Monitoring and Planting is in compliance with the requirements of the City, this assignment shall be reduced by an amount determined by the City of Tukwila annually until monitoring is completed on or before October 15, 2003. Following completion of the monitoring the City of Tukwila shall have no further rights or interest in said account. Signed and dated at Kirkland,, shington, this / ' day of ,,Gi , 1999. By war Residing at 213 Lake St. ., Kirkland, WA 98033 Phone: (425) 822 -4114 APPROVED AND ACCEPTED: Wells Fargo accepts the foregoing assignment and agrees to hold said account pursuant to the terms thereof until a written release of this assignment from the City of Tukwila is received or until the City of Tukwila exercises it's power and authority to demand or call the deposit. Account No.: / Bank: Wells Fargo Address: 305 108th Ave. NE, Bellevue, WA 98004 Signature: Title: Date: c=?, % 9g7 Phone # (yam-) y &a -- 3 J o State of Washington County of King City of Tukwila CITY OF TUK IL A Department of Convnuniry Development 6300 3ounccenter Bouievar6. Tukwila. W1 98188 Te.lecncre: (206) 431 -2670 = _(( :06) 431 -2665 r_k<`Ntla.'.vaa.US AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION AND POSTING OF PUBLIC INFORMATIO`i SIGN(S) I PA" I k (PRINT NAME) understand that Section 13.104.110 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. 1 cer:ir/ that on I — to - 0 Z the Pubiic Notice Boards) in accordance with Section l3. 04.110 and the ocher applicable Quideiines were posted on the property located at PQccQ - coo (0 so as co be clearly seen from each right -of -way primary vehicular access to the property for application tile number LO 1 - -07(i 1 herewith authorize the Ciry of Tukwila or its representative to remove and immediately' dispose of the sign at the propert y owner's expense, if not removed in a timely manner or within fourteen (14) days of a Notice letter. Applicant or Project Manager's Signature On this day personally appeared before me 7/ ; .i LL. '�- 13Pc M ELLA to me 'clown to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged thatt! she signed the same ae. /her voluntary ac: and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this (2 ss� N DYFp�'� 7 O NOTARY. �'. oi : mu) • PUBLIC �;: I l : \\WS AN 1'OF — S T1'. day of �r�C1�11i A , ZOO 2_ NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington residing at 3C-;-r , W A My commission expires on L/ 1 G' 1 • ECEIVED DEC rj 1 2001 JOINT USE OF PRIVATE ROAD CROSSING AGREEM S'OO LY°�IT� OF'MENT This Agreement is made as of \- .755 , 1999 by and between MCLEOD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a Washington corporation. (-McLeod.). and CENTRAL PUGET SOUND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY, a regional transportation authority of the state of Washington (hereinafter "Sound Transit") for the joint use and maintenance of that certain right of way situated in King County. Washington, granted by Union Pacific Railroad Company, and as further described on Exhibit A. attached hereto and incorporated by this reference (the "Right of Way.). Background A. McLeod entered into a Private Road Crossing Agreement on June 13. 1996 (the "Railroad Crossing Agreement ") with the Union Pacific Railroad Company (the "Railroad ") that allowed McLeod to build and use a private road crossing of the Railroad's right- of -wav at Strander Boulevard in Tukwila. Washington. B. The parties agreed in paragraph 9.3 of that certain Purchase and Sale Agreement between the parties dated November 3. 199E to cooperate in obtaining permission from the Railroad for Sound. Transit to use the privately improved road crossing of the Union Pacific Railroad Right -of -Way at Strander Boulevard for access to its commuter rail station and parking areas. The Purchase and Sale Agreement provides that if Sound Transit uses the crossing. it shall pa■ McLeod 50% of the license fee and maintenance cost due to the Railroad under the Railroad Crossing Agreement. C. The Railroad has agreed to grant Sound Transit permission to use the crossing as a joint licensee with. McLeod under the Railroad Crossing Agreement. provided that Sound Transit and McLeod agree to he jointly and severally liable under said agreement. as amended to include Sound Transit on even date herewith. D. McLeod and Sound Transit wish to jointly use the crossing e,�uall■ share the annual expenses crossing. cooperate. and p paid to the Union Pacific Company and other obligations under the Railroad Crossing Agreement. Agreement No%%, therefore, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. McLeod hereby consents to the addition of Sound Transit as a party to the Railroad Crossing Agreement. subject to the terms and conditions hereof. �• The annual cost of license and maintenance paid to the Railroad under the Railroad Crossing Agreement. including those cost set forth in Articles 1 and thereof shall he borne by the Parties in equal amounts of 50% per party. Because McLeod has heretofore paid such costs for the current year of the Railroad Crossing .Agreement. Sound Transit shall reimburse 'McLeod a pro -rata share of pre; MJt.od•ST-l'P( Tossing do: • • such cost from the date of this Agreement to the next anniversary date of the Railroad Crossing Agreement. On each anniversary date thereafter each party shall pay its share of such cost directly to the Railroad. 3. McLeod agrees to indemnify and defend Sound Transit against any claim or liability that may be asserted against it arising from or in connection with McLeod's activities Railroad Crossing pursuant to the Railroad Crossing Agreement and all related damages. costs and expenses except to the extent caused by or resulting from Sound Transit's sole negligence and. where such claim or liability results from the concurrent negligence of McLeod. its agents or employees and Sound Transit. its agents or employees. to the extent of McLeod's negligence. Sound Transit agrees to indemnify and defend McLeod. any person who from time to time holds a direct or indirect ownership interest in McLeod and any person who from time to time holds a mortgage lien on McLeod's property against any claim or liability that may be asserted against it arising from or in connection with Sound Transit's activities Railroad Crossing pursuant to the Railroad Crossing Agreement and all related damages. costs and e) penses except to the extent caused by or resulting from McLeod's sole negligence and. where such claim or liability results from the concurrent negligence of Sound Transit. its agents or employees and Sound Transit. its agents or employees. to the extent of Sound Transit's negligence. Sound Transit and McLeod acknowledge that these indemnity provisions have been mutually negotiated by the parties. Sound Transit and McLeod each specifically and expressly waives its immunity under industrial insurance Title 51. RC \\' as to amounts that the other may claim pursuant to this paragraph. 4. Each Party shall provide the other with a certificate of insurance. naming the other party as an additional insured on each insurance policy it is required to procure and name the Railroad as additional insured under Article 4 of the Railroad Crossing_ Agreement. Each such policy of one party shall contain terms benefiting the other party in the same manner as such policy benefits the Railroad. Each Part ■ agrees not to obstruct or interfere with the others access to the Right of Way. 6. This agreement shall be binding upon successors and assigns. Signed in duplicate original this �kl�' day of � . 1999. CENTRAL. PUGET SOUND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY .0 By: Its: Address: 1 Second Avenue. Suite 500 Seattle. \Vashing.ton 98101-3423 Jk..' I:le,J- S1- 1.'PCrossins J..•; • Approved as to Form: Name '\k \\ Legal Counsel MCLEOD DEVELOPMENT CO ANY B Stuart M. Mc eod. .Address: 213 Lake Street South Kirkland. Washington 98033 ^rcc i Pl ro: inr. J • • EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAS' F d,`r. " -rtc,i rr..inc d� 4 J1.. f "A-1" Page 2 of 2 A 40 foot acess and utility easement lying 20 feet each side of the following described line: Beginning at the southeast comer of Lot 2 of Short Plat 084 -85 filed with the City of Renton under Recording Number 8702039008. Thence N01 °21'49 "W along the east line of said short plat 219.98 feet to the centerline of Tract "X "; Thence easterly along a curve to the left whose radius is 1000 feet and bears Ni °39'24 "E through a central angle of 4 °28'02" and an arc length of 77.91 feet; Thence continuing easterly along a curve to the right whose radius equals 1000 feet and bears S02 °48'38 "E through a central angle of 1°15'51" and an arc length of 22.06 feet to the True Point of Beginning of this description; Thence continuing easterly along last mentioned curve through a central angle of 4°18'06" an arc length of 75.08 feet to a point on a line 180.00 feet south of the south line of the Henry A. Meader Donation Land Claim No. 46; Thence N87° 14'40 "W parallel to said south line 28.70 feet to the cast margin of the Union Pacific Railroad Co. LOT 1 PL.- 084 -85 SO. LN. H1RY . MEADER /boNAT10cLAIMINo.46 1 O CO SCALE 1" =100' 5-TRANDEB BLVD- LOT 2 SH. PL- 084 -85 UNION 0 O 5 .5/5o/yid R. D. UHRICH. ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT ROOM 1100. 1416 DODGE STREET OMAHA- NEBRASKA 68179 1100 (402) 271 -3753 FAX (402) 271 -5493 • • UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY CONTRACTS & REAL ESTATE DEPARTMENT UNION PACIFIC July 22, 1996 J. A. ANTHONY DIRECTOR- CONTRACTS 8 JOINT FACILITIES D. D. BROWN DIRECTOR -REAL ESTATE J. L. HAWKINS DIRECTOR- OPERATIONS SUPPORT D. H. LIGHTWINE DIRECTOR -REAL ESTATE W. R. ULRICH DIRECTOR - FACILITY MANAGEMENT Crossing: Private: WA- Tukwila McLeod Corporation- - - - Mr. Stuart McLeod McLeod Development Co. 213 Lake Street South Kirkland, Washington 98033 Re: Agreement for Construction, Maintenance and Use of a Private Road Crossing with Signals on Railroad's Property at Milepost 172.09, Seattle Subdivision, in Tukwila, Washington Dear Mr. McLeod: 18(;90.4. Enclosed is McLeod Development's fully executed original of the above - referenced agreement. If you have not already done so, you must contact our fiber optics group at 1- 800 - 336 -9193 for fiber optic information. Ray Oneida must be contacted at (206) 764 -1467 a minimum of 72 hours before entering Railroad property. Union Pacific Railroad is continually trying to do a better job for our customers. We would like to know what we did right, and if there were any areas where you felt that our performance could improve, we would like to hear that also. Enclosed is a survey for that purpose. olL If you have any qtions concerning the terms of this agreement, please contact me at (402) 271 -2343. As Jim Hill retired from the Railroad last year, questions concerning the installation of the crossing should now be directed to ,John Trumbull, Manager- Industry and Public Projects, telephone 65a3_870_ /Soq Sincerely yours, 51 -of 5, 17 z'2 x 190,6) frEe* -1- (-155e\61‘) MILLI SCHEER Contracts Representative • • PRX 880805 Form Approved, AVP -Law 809558.PRX 18664 PRIVATE ROAD CROSSING AGREEMENT i'" G THIS AGREEMENT is made this /3 "day of 9vive, 199'4, by and between UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY (hereinafter MCLEOD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY whose address is 213 Lake Street South, hd Kirkland, Washington 98033 (hereinafter "Licensee "). RECITALS: The Licensee desires the construction, maintenance and use of a private road crossing (hereinafter "Road Crossing"), consisting of paved roadway approaches, a 33- foot -wide concrete crossing surface and all appurtenances thereto, including but not limited to any flashing light signals and gates, stop signs or identification signs, drainage facilities, on, over, and across the Licensor's right -of -way and main track at M.P. 172.09, Seattle Subdivision, at or near Tukwila in King County, Washington, in the location shown on the attached print dated August 12, 1993, marked Exhibit A -1 and as shown on the attached signal design drawing dated October 10, 1990, marked Exhibit A -2. The Licensor is willing to grant the Licensee the right to cross its right -of -way and tracks at the location shown on Exhibit A -1 for the purpose of providing private access to certain real property described on Exhibit C, attached hereto, subject to the terms set forth below. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: Article 1. LICENSOR GRANTS RIGHT. A. The Licensor grants the Licensee the right to cross its right -of -way and tracks at the location shown on Exhibit A subject to the terms set forth herein and in the attached Exhibit B, together with the right of entry to control and remove from the Licensor's right -of -way, on each side of the Road Crossing, weeds and vegetation which may obstruct the view of motorists approaching the crossing area to any trains that may also be approaching the crossing area. In consideration of the license and permission granted herein, the Licensee agrees to observe and abide by the terms and conditions of this Agreement and to pay to the Licensor a license fee of $1,650.00 payable annually in advance and an administrative fee of $500.00 upon the execution of this Agreement. Articles of Agreement Page 1 of 4 B. Effective on or about the fifth anniversary of this Agreement and on or after the anniversary day of each subsequent five -year period, the Licensor may re- evaluate the base upon which the license fee is computed. Changes in the license fee may be made by automatic adjustment in billing only once during each successive five - year period and shall not be applied retroactively. Licensor agrees that any increase in the license fee shall not exceed twenty -five percent (25 %) at any one time. Article 2. CONSTRUCTION OF ROAD CROSSING. A. The Licensor will furnish the materials for and install the portion of the Road Crossing lying between the rails of the tracks and for one (1) foot on the outside of each rail and will furnish and install flashing lights and gates and identification signs on each side of the crossing and raise, or cause to be raised, any interfering wireline of Licensor at a cost to the Licensee of One Hundred Sixteen Thousand Fifty -three Dollars ($116,053.00) B. The Licensee, at its own expense, will construct and perform grading and surfacing work for the remaining portion of the Road Crossing and install any and all appurtenant gates, drainage facilities, traffic signs, or traffic devices shown on Exhibit A -2. The construction work shall be done to the satisfaction of the Licensor. C. The Licensee agrees to notify the Licensor's representative at least 48 hours in advance of commencing any work in which any person or equipment will be within 25 feet of any track. Article 3. MAINTENANCE OF WARNING DEVICES. The Licensor shall maintain, repair and replace the warning devices installed hereunder at a cost to the Licensee of $4,000.00, payable annually in advance beginning on the date the warning devices are placed in service. The Licensor reserves the right to adjust the maintenance fee to reflect actual costs incurred by the Licensor in maintaining the warning devices. Article 4. LIABILITY INSURANCE. A. The Licensee shall provide the Licensor with a certificate issued by the insurance carrier providing the insurance coverage required pursuant to Exhibit B -1 of this agreement in a policy which contains the following type endorsement: Articles of Agreement Page 2 of 4 • • "Union Pacific Railroad is named as additional insured with respect to all liabilities arising out of Insured's (as Licensee) construction, maintenance and use of the road crossing on Licensor's property." Licensee WARRANTS that this Agreement has been thoroughly reviewed by its insurance agent(s)/broker(s) and that said agent(s)/ broker(s) has been instructed to procure insurance coverage and an endorsement as required herein. B. All insurance correspondence shall be directed to: Union Pacific Railroad Company, 1416 Dodge Street, Room 1100, Omaha, Nebraska 68179, with reference to Folder No. 809558. Article 5. TERM. This Agreement shall be effective as of the date first herein written, and shall continue in full force and effect until terminated as provided in Exhibit B. Article 6. SPECIAL PROVISIONS. A. Flashing Lights and gates are required for this Road Crossing. If the Licensee desires to use the Road Crossing in advance of the installation of the flashing lights and gates, the Licensor's flagman shall be required to stop vehicular and pedestrian traffic. In addition, no work of any kind shall be performed, and no person, equipment, machinery, tools, materials or vehicles shall be located, operated, placed or stored within twenty -five (25) feet of any of Licensor's tracks at any time, for any reason, unless and until Licensor's flagman is provided to watch for trains. All expenses connected with the furnishing of said flagman shall be at the sole cost and expense of the Licensee, who shall promptly pay to the Licensor all charges connected therewith within thirty (30) days after presentation of a bill therefor. Arrangements for flagging are to be made at least seventy -two (72) hours in advance by contacting the Licensor's Manager -Track Maintenance at (206) 764 -1467. B. Any gates that are required to be installed hereunder shall be kept locked on nonoperational days. Gates shall be kept open on operational days, which include move -in days, move -out days, event days and delivery days. Licensor and Licensee shall be permitted to install locks on the gates and have mutual independent access through same. C. If at any time the Licensor is of the opinion that the Road Crossing is being used without due regard and precaution for safety, Licensee will at the Licensor's request immediately suspend use of the Road Crossing until it adopts adequate and Articles of Agreement Page 3 of 4 proper protective measures that are approved by the Licensor. D. In addition to the termination provisions set forth in Exhibit B, the Licensor agrees to provide a copy of any default notice to Licensee's lender if Licensor has received written notice of such lender's name and address. Licensor agrees to accept a cure of default from such lender. Such lender shall have sixty (60) days after receipt of notice of default to cure such default. Nothing herein shall require any lender to cure any default. E. In addition to the assignment provisions set forth in Exhibit B, and upon written consent of the Licensor, the Licensee may assign its rights hereunder to any lender in connection with any grant of a security interest in Licensee's property. Any mortgagee acquiring Licensee's estate pursuant to foreclosure may sell and assign such estate and Licensor's interest hereunder, PROVIDED that such assignee agrees to assume Licensee's obligations hereunder. F. In the event the Licensor elects to terminate this Agreement as provided for herein and require the removal of the Road Crossing covered by this Agreement, the Licensor is agreeable to the installation of a grade separation structure under the Licensor's right -of -way (hereinafter "Underpass "), at no cost to Licensor, subject to Licensor's review and approval of any plans submitted therefor. Installation of the Underpass would be covered under a separate agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the day and year first herein written. Witness: UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY By 6. Title: 3irector- Contracts and Joint facilities MCLEOD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Articles of Agreement Page 4 of 4 18 904 EXHIBIT "A -1" • EXHIBIT "A-1* UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. M.P. 172.09 • Seattle Subdivision Tukwila, Lang County, Washington To accompany agreement with McLeod Development Co. for Private Road Crossing Date: August 12, 1993 • • EXHIBIT "A -1" Page 2 of 2 A 40 foot acess and utility easement lying 20 feet each side of the following described line: Beginning at the southeast corner of Lot 2 of Short Plat 084 -85 filed with the City of Renton under Recording Number 8702039008. Thence N01 °21'49 "W along the east line of said short plat 219.98 feet to the centerline of Tract "X "; Thence easterly along a curve to the left whose radius is 1000 feet and bears Ni °39'24 "E through a central angle of 4 °28'02" and an arc length of 77.91 feet; g along a curve to the right whose radius equals 1000 feet d bear ars continuing easterly through a central angle of 1°15'51" and an arc length of 22.06 feet to theBTrue Point of Beginning of this description; Thence continuing easterly along last mentioned curve through a central angle of 4°18'06" an arc length of 75.08 feet to a point on a line 180.00 feet south of the south line of the Henry A. Meader Donation Land Claim No. 46; Thence N87 ° 14'40 "W parallel to said south line 28.70 feet to the east margin of the Union Pacific Railroad Co. LOT 1 5H. PL- 084 -85 s- rRANDER BLVD. LOT SH. PL- 084 -85 1 1 i S0. LN. HENRY . MEADER /bONA110JCLAIL41 N0.46 0 0 5 I < D: 11 SCALE 1" =100' 1774* 27 SEC.* 45 KM P•l •Hflt M P.S. 1ATESH IvCONVECT TO HEAVY DUTY CONTACTS. SHOW CONTACT NWSERS IF OIrTERENT THAN SWIM SNOW HEAVY DUTY CONTACTS A MAT RES. If DIFFERENT THAN SWAM • TWISTED WIRES ALL TRACK WIRES 2C. •0 IHSWTED 1 TWIST PER FT. BRONZE small TAPE POLTETHTLENE JACKET MISS OTHERWISE SPECIFIER TRAHSYITTEA AND RECEIVER LEADS TO BE SEPARATED BT AT LEAST 1? IN TRENCH. LENGTHS SHH .LO NOT EXCEED NAHAf ACTURCR'S RECOWFJOATIOH. TOP Or ratROA1I 1 TO et AT SAYE ctrvanca4 AS THE SLRFACE Oi THE TRAVELED *AT A 1H0 NONE THAN 4' A0OVE THE SURFACE OF TIE CROLPO. ALL 8LNCALOW MIMI1C TO 0E •16 UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIES. ALL LIGHTS TO SE tZ mums. = = = 4• X Se" STEEL PIPE LIGHT& A & e 1.2 WAIL A L a 54 7Q CATE A.2r CATE e. 20' GROUNDING LAYOUT TO ALBS& Nlo--- -0'- -0 S CONSTAUCTION NOTE' RPTIRE 1• PVT. CROSSING AT I*.17LI2 EXHIBIT "A -2" UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. M.P. 172.09 — SEATTLE SUBDIVN. TUKWILA, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON tRIVATE ROAD CROSSING FOR MCLEOD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY DATE: OCTOBER 10, 1990 TUCVILA. VA PVT. XHHO 84.1.500 DC! N.P.172.041 SEATTLE SUIOIVISION 0.0.T.• PAD! • UNION PACItIC RAILROAD SEATTLE. WASHINGTON TO RESERVATION. WASHINGTON C.T.0 CIRCUITS 07Ier GP nel7 tlo1 dtt saw-,47 oat/ 1 d 7 OWG 172.01 AHw•LYyl 0 -5074 C ICCPCTJ 7 -71.35 .1511143b6805 PRE 880806 PR-6E 880807 CRX 340408 FORM C EXHIBIT B -1 Large Commercial, Industrial, Contractors Private Grade Crossing and /or Encroachment Contractor's Road Crossing Insurance Requirements Licensee and /or its Contractor /Subcontractor shall, at its own and /or its Contractor's /Subcontractor's sole cost and expense, procure the following kinds of insurance and promptly pay when due all premiums for that insurance. If it so elects, Licensor shall have the right to obtain such insurance and Licensee shall promptly reimburse Licensor for that expense. The following insurance shall be kept in force during the life of this Agreement. General Public Liability insurance providing bodily injury, including death, personal injury and property damage coverage with a combined single limit of at least $2,000,000 each occurrence or claim and a general aggregate limit of at least $4,000,000. This insurance shall provide Broad Form Contractual Liability covering the indemnity provisions contained in this Agreement, Broad Form Property Damage, a waiver of governmental immunity (ISO Form GL 24 14 or equivalent), coverage for construction or demolition work on or near the railroad tracks, severability of interests and name Licensor as an additional insured with respect to all liabilities arising out of Licensee's obligation to Licensor in the Agreement. If coverage is purchased on a "claims made" basis it shall provide for at least a three (3) year extended reporting or discovery period, which shall be invoked should insurance covering the time period of this Agreement be cancelled. Automobile Public Liability insurance providing bodily injury and property damage with a combined single limit of at least $2,000,000 each occurrence or claim. This insurance shall provide contractual liability by endorsement ISO Form CA 00 25 or equivalent covering all motor vehicles including hired and non - owned, mobile equipment to the extent it may be excluded from general liability insurance, severability of interests and name Licensor as an additional insured with respect to all liabilities arising out of Licensee's obligation to Licensor in the Agreement. Worker's Compensation insurance covering the statutory liability as determined by the compensation laws of the state(s) affected by this Agreement and Employers' Liability. Also compliance with all laws of states which require participation in their state workers' compensation fund. The Licensee and /or its Contractor /Subcontractor hereby waives its right of subrogation, as respects the above insurance policy(ies), against Licensor for payments made to or on behalf of employees of Licensee or its agents and for loss of its owned or leased property or property under its care, custody and control while on or near Licensor's right -of -way or other real property. Licensee's and /or its Contractor's /Subcontractor's insurance shall be primary with respect to any insurance carrier by Licensor. Licensee and /or its Contractor /Subcontractor shall furnish to Licensor certificate(s) of insurance evidencing the required coverage and endorsement(s) and upon request a certified duplicate original of any of those policies. The insurance company(ies) issuing such policy(ies) shall notify Licensor in writing at least thirty (30) days prior to making any material alteration, including any change in the retroactive date in any "claims- made" Hpolicies or substantial reduction of aggregate limits (if such limits apply), or cancellation of any policy(ies). The insurance policy(ies) shall acceptable to Licensor or with a better. Such insurance company affected by this Agreement. Page 1 of 1 L: VCAMMAMSIIH3.bi0 be written by a reputable insurance company or companies current Best's Insurance Guide Rating of B and Class VII or shall be authorized to transact business in the state(s) hX- 88083-A Form Approved. AVP -law • • EXHIBIT 8 SECTION I. LIMITATION AND SUBORDINATION OF RIGHTS GRANTED. (a) The rights granted to the Licensee are subject and subordinate to the prior and continuing right and obligation of the Licensor to use and maintain its entire railroad right of way, and are also subject to the right and power of the licensor to construct, maintain, repair, renew, use, operate, change, modify or relocate railroad tracks, si nal communication, 9 optics or other wire lines, pipelines and other facilities upon, along or across any or all 9 which may be freely done at any time by the licensor without liability to the Licensee or to any other iparty for compensation wh damages. right compensation any on (b) The Licensee's rights are also subject to all outstanding superior rights (including those in favor of licensees, lessees of said right of way, and others) and the right of the Licensor to renew and extend the same, and are granted without covenant of title or quiet enjoyment. (c) It is expressly stipulated that the Road Crossing is to be a strictly private use. The Licensee, without expense to the Licensor, will take any and all necessary action toepreserve the private character and is not intended for public of the Road Crossing and prevent its use as a public road. SECTION 2. MAINTENANCE AND USE. (a) The Licensor, at the sole expense of the Licensee, shall maintain the portion of the Road Crossing lying between the rails of the tracks and for one (1) foot on the outside of each rail; provided be limited to that required for the safe and efficient operation of its tr cks,and�su he thertmaintenance�asethecLicensorhhas agreed to perform on specific request of the Licensee. The Licensee, at its own expense, shall maintain the remaining portion of the Road Crossing and shall keep the rail flangeways clear of obstructions. (b) The Licensee shall, at its sole expense. maintain, repair, renew and replace any gates, cattle guards, drainage facilities. traffic signs or derides. The Licensee shall, at its own identification and thereafter eafter mai the Lsuch a r or appurtenances appurtenances shown on Exhibit eq 're. by the Licensor, by law, or by any public authority having Y DPurtenances that may subsequently ge required Y 9 jurisdiction. The Licensee shall control vegetation along the right of way on each side of the crossing so that the Licensee's line of sight to approaching trains is not impaired or obstructed by vegetation. All work performed by the Licensee on the right of way shall be done to the satisfaction of the Licensor. crossing the try he Licensee require hli all vehicles approaching the crossing to stop a safe distance from the tracks before except during the time h actual P any gate affording access to the Road Crossing closed and locked at all times anything which will or may obstruct, endanger or interfere with, hinder aorC delay n the maintenanceeandaoperation�ofuthe Licensor's or permit railroad tracks or appurtenant facilities or the facilities or equipment of others lawfully using the Licensor's property. The Licensee shall adequately supervise and police use of said Road Crossing so that no person, vehicle or livestock stops or stands on the Licensor's tracks or attempts to cross the Licensor's railroad tracks when a railroad train, engine, equipment, or car is approaching or occupying the Road Crossing. SECTION 3. MOOIFICATION OR RELOCATION OF ROAD CROSSING. (a) Whenever the Licensor deems it necessary or desirable in the furtherance of its railroad operating requirements or for the improvement and use of Its property to modify or relocate the Road Crossing: (1) the Licensor shall, at the sole expense of the Licensee, modify or move the portion of the Road Crossing lying between the rails of the tracks and for one (1) foot on the outside of each rail; and (2) the Licensee shall, at the Licensee's sole expense, modify or move the remaining portion of the Road Crossing and the appurtenances thereto. (b) All the terms of this agreement shall govern the continued maintenance and use of the Road Crossing as modified or relocated pursuant to this section. SECTION 4. PROTECTION OF FIBER OPTIC CABLE SYSTEMS. (a) Fiber optic cable systems may be buried on the Licensor's property. Licensee shall telephone the Licensor at '1-800 - 336 -9193 (a 24 -hour number) to determine if fiber optic cable is buried anywhere on the Licensor's premises to be used by the Licensee. If it is, Licensee will telephone the telecommunications company(ies) involved, arrange for a cable locator, and make arrangements for relocation or other protection of the fiber optic cable prior to beginning any work on the Licensor's premises. (b) In addition to the liability terms elsewhere in this Agreement. the Licensee shall indemnify and hold the Licensor harmless against and from all cost, liability, and expense whatsoever (including, without limitation, attorneys' fees and court costs and expenses) arising out of or in any way contributed to by any act or omission of the Licensee, its contractor, EXHIBIT B Page 1 of 2 L : \FORMS\MANG \0455N.E70a • 'PP_x - 880805. A Form Approved, AVP —Law • age,. • and /or employees, that causes or telecommunications system by the Licensee, to or death of any person employed by or employees, on Licensor's property, and /or of service by a customer or user of, such SECTION 5. INDEMNITY. in any way or degree contributes to (1) any damage to or destruction of any and /or its contractor, agents and /or employees, on Licensors property, (2) any injury on behalf of any telecommunications company, and /or its contractor, agents and /or (3) any claim or cause of action for alleged loss of profits or revenue by, or loss telecommunication company(ies). The Licensee assumes the risk of and shall indemnify and hold harmless the Licensor and other railroad. co which use the property of the Licensor, their officers, agents and employees, against and from any and all loss, damages, demands, actions, causes of action costs, attorneys' fees, fines meanies demand) which may result from; , penalties and expenses of whatsoever nature (hereinafter Licensor and of the (1) injury to or death of persons whomsoever, (including officers, agents and Licensee, as well as other persons); (2) loss of or damage to property whatsoever (including damage to property of or in the custody of the Licensee and damage to the roadbed, tracks, equipment or other property of the Licensor and such other railroad companies, as well as other property); or (3) the Licensee's failure to comply with a federal, state or local law, regulation, or enactment; when such Loss is due to or arises in connection P w th or as a result custody : f: (a) the construction of the Road Crossing; f (b) any work done by. the Licensee on or in connection with the Road Crossing; Licensee, or by any other person; (c) . the use of said Road Crossing by the Licensee, or the officers, agents, employees, patrons or invitees of the.. (d) the use of said Road Crossing by the Licensee's successors or assigns or the officers, agents, employees, patrons or invitees of the licensee's successors or assigns until the Licensee either complies with the provisions of Section 8 or terminates the agreement as provided in Section 6; or ' (e) the breach of any the failure of the licensee to y covenant or obligation assumed by or imposed on the Licensee pursuant to this agreement, or aheeemenu;' Promptly and fully do any act or work for which the Licensee is responsible pursuant to this regardless of whether such Loss is caused solely or contributed to in part by the negligence agents or employees. of the Licensor, its officers, SECTION 6. TERMINATION OM BREACH OR ON NOTICE. (a) It is agreed that the breach of any covenant, stipulation or condition herein contained to be kept and performed by the Licensee shall, at the option of the Licensor, forthwith work a termination of this agreement and all rights of the Licensee hereunder: A waiver by the Licensor of a breach by the Licensee of any covenant or condition of this agreement shall not impair the right of the Licensor to avail itself of any subsequent breach thereof. (b) This agreement may be terminated by either party on thirty (30) days' written notice to the other party. SECTION 7. REMOVAL OF ROAD CROSSING. (a) Upon termination of this agreement howsoever, the Licensor shall, at the sole expense of the Licensee, remove said Road Crossing and restore the premises of the Licensor to a condition comparable to that existing immediate) construction of said Road Crossing. y prior to the (b) In the event of the removal of the Road Crossing as in this section provided, the Licensor shall not be liable to the Licensee for any damage sustained by the licensee for or on account of such removal, and such removal shall not prejudice or impair any right of action for damage, or otherwise, which the Licensor may have against the licensee. SECTION 8. ASSIGNMENT. The of the property served lby the crossing assignathis agreement, er person or without interest therein to an of to Sperry e ))censor's any purchaser, lessee or other holder consent to any assignment, the licensee will continue to be of the responsi ble ofor obligations nand liabiiities assumed herein. SECTION 9. SUCCESSORS ANO ASSIGNS. Subject to the provisions of Section 8 hereof, this agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns. EXHIBIT B Page 2 of 2 L:%AUKS WMC \O43SS.EX8 • .RECEiV'1 DEC 3 1201 i DEVELOPMENT 5149TH S i ° :#t' *' ',�.�•�� NTON: A� 1 51ST 5 22 d q. ; _ 24 1615T ST PL 23 a�- , x: - 1 RN Q .4. \ s 152ND ° = 420 J• , S 152ND PL 1,a ?< s cA...,`' \ 2 ST ' �- 518 a. yr f 5100 ,1 $ aa •1 LA : t.,1 S�.I„`' / - =-B7 6400 •� � 1- i, k S 15 ■ �� D % f; I AO, esti s 158TH ° 60TH § '2" I, SOUTNCENTER "` Ems ' BULK W I .... .. .. 1 Ct:ail/1EN I p BAKER d q pppc -. O ©: BLVD Si = 'p/ • "' MALL w I Ne g 4 ilk INIMAMIltraiMAIIIII g' f STRANDER BLVD 777, ST N cisa,H sT0Q9 a = 1' I D .�, sr � ' 1 NT I/ P TRECK /1., r' : 0 27 S 167TH ST H ° _ �� . : ° 168TH ST DR � ;� an 168tH • TH LN S 1 • :" E ! •• •iry'3!�'6G'' 3 170TH ® Z 1 ST L r a :&rIi • ' 172ND I 1 S 172ND PL f _ CORPORA 173RD ST a rn - I MINKLER DRS Milli' BLVD i .' .' z _ 175TH ST = ' PARKWAY ' arll 176TH , ST a' !I4, 181 ' RENTON' ST H f 8 MI L��il • > Multi tl3 ' a- o 4300 - 4 LAKE a �"� T E " , ue 'P .. 178TH ;IN DR ° ' :e itilin1178TH 5T s •,1 r, TRI °ND IR . 3: 11101112Mii I • •- < < .-OY'!i:'L.! 4 • sR i • •1 y 4v •4 TH Av s _ _ LL . j ,�.1, 6QEEM J I 1 LIB v ST $a 1 44rr' { S ST . . ♦ ♦ S ST 60� > _ �0a 1r\ .. F 4200 a ,7 AY 14 IE'" 4• --r !,^t. 77" •I <c3 • SOUTHCE SOURCE: THE THOMAS GUIDE (USED BY PERMISSION) VICINITY MAP NORTH z 0 x dVW WJ2d INDUSTRY N Q) ANDOVER PARK EAST cidoVd NOM CITY OF TU CITO ., ��NTO. IVED DEC 3 12001 DE/ TY �oPmENT N 0 X CALL BEFORE YOU DIG 400- 424 -5 a 1 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN is 0 • LEGEND 510 550= WC COMICS SWC04 0WN11Y RUMP= -IF r� r1 WA 4 0 \J © ^ 0 03 45200 MIaMU A91 030.3 501011ATA • N0/ M00RAY CEOs PNLIS NM/ MAIM MICE PIE / WE WALE MME uuE6000 013611 NIRRC A9 'FD1M0 0310500•/ � O01 B • B r CAL • a PO • - • M. B • • Bar WNW. z.• 1r N0R' ter - :.• arrt.0 • POT FROM/ % AS 5110 AS S M • • 1 ' 13. tr 5 ) 10 a 40 05 cwu x040 HAMM manta WAVILY WWOOWL•/ B CLOOM a6 wr 5051/ s4aEwn =OW CO 30 WS way 1WV3Wa11ca s4B 1ArY: luWi mamWL Wu3 Y01/1UY1EB EOE- CUT 1420400 P 51/10 • 04T ONE 40.8 51*504 015201' MOM mN WWII WEE 05. 54001 501140 55110 a 015 ONE 010100 384500 550=5 CMem Ka 5100 OM USE 5-1001 5Va°iO 5 1 3 11 0 0 41 50 0 ON 514001 14.11 -5101 3 - 5 101)05 TWO • ROD 005006 400 • .4 POWWOW 1518 r R4 300013 qtr 0110. ROY WOERS 00 lr NOW MO 1013.3. mLDFLOwEA Max: .,,x,.10 MY- e1 wSS x1.05. 00RMRY Pis NO 1DY- 400010 Nr MED YW wM MELON% 10810231 al8FLOM WC WREN= KID CO. 00804 COLOR.] TEL ]6,431 -7333 F2 003-407-70E OR 01514 0 41 00.433 3033 MEAT AT 185 /ACE 2105 30003D 5®3/18. 104404 PLS - e01. 40051 GOER FOR 040E Cr 01311050 0= 80 5111333113 ME 21 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 41 1 4 5 1 5 0 0= 5 05 501E0=13 CM0011 a al. I* MM W 10aa 1310ibE _ = CM11wwWlvn mad mum iW Wun pvrPorvm eWUn Dimm 1* 44111 1'0140004 tin INpYa LupYU awrew Loa•-ISw4 CaaNO 0.0. 1.0400 14 LWIa LRau !.6'00x. 554.0 PRIM 03•0.100 Em4Y• FM -lbal 04x036.! aec0am 010. CCe 05 ca0 M � W WW2 Ewa CIO lab ma O. n5PMI a4 Pam Mews 51012 101. 11000044 - 0404011 500 604.5. YM NOTE& 1. 1)04400W 10 E PPCOIXD 0005114 3151E0 5101 CESCN 510 00•40 110001. LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS 1160501134 1)1011050* 511001- 15' 1011E 1 WAR- NEE 01E0DR 05010 WCSCAPE: 13 00/ SOUL E 40 MIAS - )]3 50 105051- -101101. WOSCAE- (1055 2110 -555 a Pee) SOF5- NONE 1540 )351 1031 SF 10335 Y rrlfiTtl r �p� l ' Ij11;I_ . _ I • it - r�. {� .:; 1 rid. - ■ 06TLA Lae (IYP )J ) --- FDEF'OMM WRAC MOWER PRIME OWNED 11033 AMR PUNDO0 0.1E 0 YEW. IC00E DOORS 11450e4 Oil E EAZ111a WOW 0.11• PER NOIR' Ml 0/0 TOE 41110.E MACS • MD MOON C Y 1 110!8011➢ AT ALL 4e� C.E • MM. WOW 1110 0483 F11014 MART • BMN00 LL t ®O IWER ONLY - lZ' 1414.3.11411a...11=1,1,11.:,3121 yam, • COWNNERS. 037•03535 413 W M . ME ) x403 E Io 4RWn�nMW .gym PROTECTIVE 0311 MO 6 E PLANING T4 ire a 1164LUTn1 NSW nL4NNeu MOAN Rio TREE .0 • • 000 MOW MSC °1°03 'VOA 0 ••=.14i5O T1 054 W. Etnehateurafittlik NO0 00110TER ROM SPREAD ROTS MD 010WITON SET OHL OM 00511.0.171 OWE 01 COMPOCIED 101010 1.4101 OWL- PCEnM40 to mar= (a) lr Deciduous Tree Detail (B and B, Leas Than 3' Dia.) WT. 110¢ II hill FY a Ow;NNE AMmw :E'6W' 4I 1YTr1a. MMWS Mn OWL 14010 • NM EPM or Yu4 O5,450 MUCK PO O. MOf4 41Mi0'➢Y 8.3170 M MOWS WEE -- DO. GM. ▪ SM4LYWMPYMIL 111MOTU PR M WaW� POM 1L06.085201 • a0.a5 .0eliM Wf�BY1t1Wa R N BC 00/0¢, ID Evergreen Tree Planting (61 to 10' Height) RECEIVED DEC 3 1 2001 DEVELOPMENT 1 EOM ,•-1W COVER SHEET A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST CUMBER OF THE NORTHEAST OUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANGE 4 E. WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, an' OF TUKWILA, KING COU TY, WASFaIOTON WTI VAl EYIWAY NELSON PL P.8?. AND L ilk111 I COO, ACM ® 211111 6ER VANE DQ PROW. PWPO'3D TYPE 1 8101 1391 ■ PROPOS. F E MOW Al 20001 1 iKE0 CNG BASK 0 PREMED 11001 WC N =NEC TYPE 1 ERN BA9R ❑ ROMEO SPOT ERROR /IL PRO = SIMI CROWE IN _1=p CORM 101 urw06 p LEGENO 00104 SEMI MN. IN MI. ORO. —,W WM. 9NYTM0 00ER 111 R1oPfR0 =mum 103 REPO. 9NRMRl ¢RU MVROE • �+ + RRWD LGO WENDT pNP04D SNOW* SQ1W 0EAN10 • ORIC 110037 9291 WNW 0 ROWED .111111106. CORK RATAN 11929 UND = = PROPOSED COKER MONO WERRAO 011130 RE MORN 0 BIDEX OF 8HEET& 1 OF 4 COVER EIFEET 2 OF 4 PRELIMINARY ORAGOIG MANAGE MD IJTUIY FLAN 3 OF 4 TOPOGRAPHIC WOFXBfgT 4 OF 4 PRi3JANAFIT LAIDOCARIG PLAN SURVEY INFORMATION LEON- OIRIPPf01N ILL 1Wwma 0090534000 LOT 11 NC DM 1001 0 O DE 5020.60 OWRIN OF 1100210 0YR101 All 0100100 N 401011 D. 000000006 0000 • 26130, 001080 AS 100000 00 DE REST ID A UK Odeon WWII 010110611 00 ROT WM. NEE90E0 Al REM AWES TO TIE 0.110. NM. NO ST. 1311 MIN IBC INN O RORN AS LOCKED AND W16WC0R ON TIE EAST BY A LW DR. PMR16 NI NO MOM W NET *EVENLY REWORD AT RCM MGC TO 01.9)04 NWRERR R300SLXAIDs 0u Km 192 nun ON[RN A IRR OI01E0 NO 01611006. 0111E 9001 BY A 1.d INWELIMMN WWI 1C NET SOUTHER S 0 ROC .11101 10 TM SODS LN OF 30 W/DOOOR LOT 11. CM TIE NORM 'AWE MO WINIFL In M1 DRAM W NET 9010100" AT Rat NOR W 113 SO. MC O TN wan .001 COMM ONO b0. 1101001IALDAIW _IOM OP IJ1E0 8)001 110131 RAT PREPAID BY WIRE 1002040.020 30.. 9FPIOIOEE 1010 f0 00 0010 Y0000.001W_Mm OP KLEM 01 TIE MTS. LA1101 FOR 1105 SITE IS MVO 1929 REPORTED 0Y TIE FEDERAL OCR.. MANAGEMENT ACT WPM. M PENN MAN IS FENA 1OENN. /0. 0031. VN01 IS A CRISN 0 WINE IN AN ANAL NOM a DC 1CNTIEAS, 04101 * 0 TIE =CRETE 1,61RYM AVENUE CRIY1 OVER TIC 0211011 RIVER. TM ELEVATOR GE TIE NRONAII O LISTED AS E39 FELT ON TIC FLOOD MAN CE MU IMP. NW. 900 OF 3723, MP 1n 53390029.. LAST DEVISED MAY 16. 1991 Dec boo-1200 40)4141/7. Y FNr ESTIMATED EARTHWORK: am taco at FLU 4000 C.Y. rfORP 4000 C.Y. CALL BEFORE YOU DO 1-800- 424 -5555 2 1 s? }iIl1 1 or PRELIMINARY GRADING, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY PLAN CALL BEFORE YOU DK' 1-800- 424 -5555 1EikaTig i I I I- -- _ —' iicf C•AC 1.2115 J 0 a POJnA $0, • Pi mot W (.Wise r,r VI %WA Yr r UK DDE gown • 21182.1113221 THAL MUF11E01 WADED COS OLD CF]DE101C ESIWY TAKES AS LOCKED {r.1in 10 Wet 102117-CD-as PEP 2 COWED= DE.IM PASS 'B' AWNS MCa c ��1 15 mEMgMFPE k=2= ESDES E61W0 Ca S E Y..) 9D9e'M[ COPECIED SIAM. DDP1 ,m>y 321 10)9C SECTION A -A Per to soDE II' 10 WEDAM �1i AD 121 RECEIVED PFC 3 1 2001 COM DEVE OPMENT Z - O m m 0 0 0 0 x 0 A s 0 0 C z F 'NOI1VWa03NI 1N3 • 'AMH A311'A LS M ----- _ �� - - - —u ■ A`E`I \1\)•.. / ./ a •'i} -1 \ I i r •4 \1♦i I I III /z �\1 / / a 1 r 1 . `� - -- " / \ i 1 I iI /j11 / A, II .I/ / / ,♦ ill'• ` 4 / ♦ 1 •t/ I III I v . /� i / i <o rri // i 11 ' ♦ ♦ '_ � `' 0 / . r / c r 03 c.3 / -- 4 _n__ 1/ /` 1' 11 -DC 611 ANAL-. > m .4 - - - -- 4 y y \ > n A ___ 4 - - -__ /p V� • '.,k' —mot X _ Y �wq 11 / ` nd j yy RRR/ rrp / k4h 10320 3 . 4 18215 72ND AVENUE 500111 KENT. WA 98032 (425)251 -6222 (425)251 -8782 FAX CM. 0a161ENG. wm 71888 . A1R1070 u6VoraNNIN NERvIcES Onone _00— Malsrlel r.- M/A For TUKWILA SOCCER CENTER, INC. 17015 S.E. 82ND DRIVE CLACKAMAS, OR. 97015 .1 - A3AlIf1S OIHdd1:19OdO1 t)u« TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY TUKWILA SOCCER CENTER 0770 \ o0S, o3100014.9 00.090 17/0/101 13 79 9.». 1.110 .9.7.0 .M.. tsYOut1, 12/28/2001 11:00:31 AM, Meatne11 A 11: \Oregon Soccer Center 01- 5120107 SITE DATA 2,111M1•141 71.1,11.10V11.111111•1010ENTF•1 PC•1111•10 1,141 •11•CleS•110YEEIr • •101,0•0 YARD 21116145,11 • WAR MO WV COW. c WARW. NOE: AREA MARNE Mr, 14•101110 ••311•113 1011,6 674112410 51415 NMI...01 11 •asismivvns•n011 tres•y••■••.1 SITE LEGEND VICINITY MAP r TUKWILA 1 �Irlit CENTER, INC. 1350 South 1616 Sase1 Tu... Wash.°. 96160 LEGAL DESCRIPT. 11•111011110101.00•1111.1.7 1.0711 NOTM1.110117.10, TIC ST 11.11•••••••••11PALiCEMERIAE•31.0.7MAND 711•911THIMOM•0110141.0171.171111.01111E /1011111 AUK OREGON SOCCER CENTER INC. 17015 SE 8260 Drive Cfll,l •e, Oregon 97015 T: 503.6551529 1171,WE PE �,� 1 .e imwam1i 1 g '111111111111111111111: OWL111•1101111a 151•01.1.0.4•1 071f011i110111WIL 0! z O FREE STANDING SIGN ELEV. 1 SCALE: 129•.1.0. IFICWILAODIESGAll (-4111 IT II �JE!:a'f QUINN LEE TATE OF WASH:NGTON EXPOSED BUILDING 2 OFACE MOUNTED SIGN ELEV. SCALE: 1/2.• 061:95•1(10111101 1107E1114311111C120.113 GROUND MOUNTED HVAC EQUIPMENT SCREEN SCALE: 17e • 1•R t°•"m1e" J ■1•11f LANE SITE PLAN SCALE r -.>va !GNAW Ymenneefe Site Plan Site Details A1.01 6 5 4 3 L' IJ�o • • FLOOR PLAN 3fu r_ ar 110- • r' � 1 A B TI/KWf„' LA CENTER INC. 7350 37101116335 30.01 11 3. Wa0ryM 9616E OREGON SOCCER CENTER INC. 17015 .69.13n.e C1ac1anw6 O5.9o. 9701 7:30.653 7529 Mel AVE.. �m.nnm i l JE ;..i Quires LEE S ATE OF WASN:NGTON o ▪ 35 00.420. V.semana floor Plan A2.0 1 —___—_-• — — "oc•n— = a1��11 InnIt —ante. IIIII IIRlll viii =i inn . _ I�II_ir 1111111 �h10I IUI ,� 111 IIH�wIi� � _ - ---- - -_- ? � i� ;� _ i� lal�,i 6� ! 1�IIfV :.�1���(IIUAillll �li( = =° III IIIIIIHIIIIIVIIII�IIHi111D� INl hIIIIl ll r alI1IIJl ,lies: =- @ICI —1�r �IIr IU i • 1111111—• i'i4IN IIIIIIIIIIIINAIIIIfl9ICIII1$i �GiiIIIIIIIIIIIfflllH1 t'� IIIII .�'illillRII 1.!!!! In ghile� w. � 901 ` i tithe IiItlIIIIldiEnim. ONORTH ELEVATION 1 SCALE: 032, Ta . UUI VIItI111dIllillliltu s ` 11141111.=1111111{11111111 3111,1 111221111 11 II iI- IT IMI 11 111H9BINBN1` 01111E11 IIIIIM I11111111NW7111111II IINIIIIi I n O WEST ELEVATION 2 Sono ars••Ta nIIIlU11���IB�!INIIIII,','Nlli �lll��llllllllll �_ our IIIIII Isslllllll lul i I1IIIII'si!IIII _.. foinummuIIIIDIINII num IInIIIIIIIIIII�IIIN (aHII'"_'IIII .>1� lilf�INllllllllllNAllfllflUtdlll�n�llflllllll -''ti(liIIIII mil 1N IINIGpMII il,,.�,�� + 1111011111111101 1 Eli , AWN III IIRffl - 11 U: IIII�K� >•:_ `� IIIIIiI�Ilullu���IfII111n11N�lll�lllll (fIIIIII11lII�IIIIUnNl11.' "�" Illlllllni ° � 1111111f IINUIIi1�INIII�IIIHIIII�1111flIIIfBIIIBiIIN1��IIIIIII IIIIIIfI �► ii!I ERR Q SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE. 3t .1'C• EAST ELEVATION BCAL • 313T•1•0• n1111 ` 1 I ; 1 I �I I 1111111111•111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111=111 M 11M11 HIIIIIIIIiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IHIIIIINIIII!IW ,v TUKW1LA OREGON SOCCER CENTER INC. 170I56E01tlM v5 T: 501056.7® 11101SITNPL NI I SM.!! IIBIZAJII, V&A M. 10.41.1.10:0 1.5.40ZOP 11_j.z `JE�1 QUINN LEE TAT' OF WASHINGTON tta NNS Exterior Elevations A3.O1 The materials listed below must be submitted with your application unless specifically waived in writing by the Public Works Department and the Department of Community Development. Please contact the Department if you feel that certain items are not applicable to your project and should be waived, or should be submitted in a later timely manner for use at the Public Hearing (e.g., revised colored renderings). Application review will not begin until it is determined to be complete. ADDITIONAL MATERIALS MAY BE . REQUIRED, TO - ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH CITY : DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. Department 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. COMPLETE APPLICATION CHECKLIST TABLE lX lx cX rX do ` `"`ii ii`ei} ti . -t N2'IirUnTlStlak �_:t • i Ef^ r. a'.r',5 r, �' �L ��O'"" �,' y^' „ 05. ? „r Cairo i Pu ptiE. t ,, . . 441 �, ; `-mss, t�s^ =<,, z =` �,� , "' :?6 orriralfii .r' •TPdrve��'' .. ' , .,,+: rOffice tr:; '' ! VA'f '1'7;47', <4; ; - <.:$, ,,- �.st bw . r ,� ,'�;�.;•: f !'oin men 1; bti rito y, -- :� -f, `a = . w:, APPLICATION FORMS: 1. Application Checklist: one (1) copy, indicating items submitted with application. 2. Four (4) copies of supporting studies with original signatures and license stamp as needed. 3. Complete Application Packet: Six (6) copies of application form and full sized plans, one set of all plans reduced to 8.5" by 11" (High Quality Photo' Reduction) and other materials and information as specifically listed in Project Description and Analysis, Site Plans, Landscape Plan and Elevations. 4. SEPA Environmental Checklist (6 copies) annnd-fee ($325). (OrVE CH-CC4e :57 6nl 0 U /1 1 PUBLIC NOTICE MATERIALS: / 5. King County Assessor's map(s) which shows the location of each property within 500 feet of the subject lot. SUBMIT ONLY IF UNDERLYING PERMIT REQUIRES PUBLIC NOTICE. 6. Two (2) sets of mailing labels for all property owners and tenants (residents and businesses) within 500 feet of the subject property. See Public Notice Materials. Note: Each unit in multiple - family buildings -e.g. apartments, condos, trailer parks must be included). SUBMIT ONLY IF UNDERLYING PERMIT REQUIRES PUBLIC NOTICE. 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. PROPERTY INFORMATION 7. Vicinity Map with site location. 8. Surrounding Land Use Map for all existing land uses within a 1,000 foot radius from the lot's property lines. 9. Title Report -- Clearly establish status as legal lot(s) of record, ownership, all known easements and encumbrances. 10. Lot lines for 300 ft. from the site's property lines ' including right-of-ways/6,87v r /{-S sve VS � rf?p G :WPPHAMLANDUSE.APP \SEPAAPP.DOC, 06/16/00 Strander Boulevard /27th S>t Corridor Improvements • Plain/tram. — r Page 1 of 5 T ti 3.S „�1 j �r f1 IF1�� Ji 1(Ivir `, I I I:J' STRANDER BOULEVARD /27TH STREET CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS The City of Renton, in partnership with the City of Tukwila, is in the process of evaluating potential transportation improvements to upgrade and Zink the existing Strander Boulevard and SW 27th Street Corridors. This page has been created to provide project information as updated as well as to solicit feedback from the public. Visitors are encouraged to sign up for the project mailing list in order to receive project updates and to use the on -line comment form to provide input throughout the project. The primary goal of this project is to improve east -west mobility across the Green River Valley. For the purposes of evaluating project improvements, the corridor has been divided into three segments as shown in the project location map. This web site is organized into the sections shown below. Click on the links to jump to each section. • Project Goal • Project Phasing • Segment Overview • Project News • Partners, Consultant Team, and Participants • Contact Information • Comment Form Project GOAL: rojec ocation Click Graphic for full sized image The primary goal of this project is to improve east -west mobility across the Green River Valley. As a means of achieving this goal, General Purpose (GP), Heavy Vehicle/Truck Traffic, Railroad and High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) improvements will be considered for implementation along the following segments of the Strander Boulevard /SW 27th Street corridor: • Segment 1 (West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Ave. SW): Provide an extension of Strander Boulevard to the east of West Valley Highway (SR 181) to connect between West Valley Highway and Oakesdale Avenue SW. This segment will include roadway overpass or underpass structures to provide grade separated crossings of the Union Pacific (UPRR) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroads. Completion of this segment will involve construction of a new public roadway across the existing Boeing Longacres Office Park site, and will provide accesses to the Boeing Longacres Office Park site and the proposed Sound Transit Sounder Station and Park - and -Ride site. • Segment 2 (Oakesdale Ave. SW to E. Valley Rd.): Provide General Purpose (GP) Vehicle, High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV), and /or Truck traffic improvements on SW 27th Street between Oakesdale Avenue SW and East Valley Road. This includes potential widening of the existing roadway in this segment. • Segment 3 (E. Valley Rd. to SR 167): Provide a direct access between SW 27th Street and SR 167 for http:// www.ci.renton.wa.us /pw /transpor /strand /27thstrander.htm 01/17/2002 Strander Boulevard /27th Si fit Corridor Improvements • Page 2 of 5 General Purpose (GP) Vehicle, High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) and /or Truck traffic to and from SW 27th Street. These three segments of the corridor will be studied concurrently and as a whole during this first phase of the project. The evaluation will take into consideration that improvements to the segments may be implemented together or individually in subsequent phases of the project depending on the findings of the first phase as well as the availability of design and construction funds. Project Phasing: This project is anticipated to be completed in the following four phases: Phase 1: Project Definition The City of Renton has retained the services of BERGER /ABAM Engineers Inc. of Federal Way to facilitate the project definition process. Phase 1 is anticipated to include the following tasks: • Solicit and include the input of the public in the development and evaluation of alternatives. This will be in the form of a Project Steering Committee consisting of jurisdictional agencies, railroads, property owners and other stakeholders that will meet on a monthly basis. It will also include two open houses to solicit the input of the greater public. • Prepare a Project Steering Committee Charter that identifies an agreement of the Committee members regarding these project goals as well as identifying the goals, roles and responsibilities of individual stakeholders. • Gather preliminary geotechnical, environmental, topographical and right of way information to be used as a foundation for evaluation of alternatives. • Develop, screen and evaluate design concepts at the following three levels of screening: Level 1: Fatal flaw screening to assure concept is viable. Level 2: Second Screening to further look more closely at concepts that pass the fatal flaw screening, including both qualitative and quantitative evaluation. Level 3: Final screening, of combined segment concepts that pass the second screening, including preliminary traffic forecast and environmental information. Final screening will result in a preliminary recommendation for each segment. • Meet with WSDOT and FHWA to review potential added access improvements at SR167 and to facilitate the added access process. • Prepare an Added Access Team charter for the SR 167 added access that identifies an agreement of the Team members regarding the goals for the added access as well as the roles and responsibilities of individual team members. • Develop a Project Definition Report that summarizes the results of this first phase of the project, including a purpose and need statement for continuation of the environmental process as well as 15% level design and cost estimate information that can be used in pursuing funding and development of Design Reports for individual segments or combinations of segments depending on recommendations of the study. • Research and identify potential funding sources and specific programs to identify the most promising sources of monies to fund construction of improvements. Phase 2: Preliminary Engineering Phase 3: Final Design Phase 4: Construction Segment Overview Segment 1: West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue SW Goal: Provide an extension of Strander Boulevard to the east of West Valley Highway (SR 181) to connect between West Valley Highway and Oakesdale Avenue SW. This segment http:// www.ci.renton.wa.us /pw /transpor /strand /27thstrander.htm 01/17/2002 Strander Boulevard /27th Sti Corridor Improvements and Oakesdale Avenue SW. This segment will include roadway overpass or underpass structures to provide grade separated crossings of the Union Pacific (UPRR) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroads. Completion of this segment will " " "' segmen : involve construction of a new public roadway across the existing Boeing Longacres Office Park site, and will provide accesses to the Boeing Longacres Office Park site and the proposed Sound Transit Sounder Station and Park - and -Ride site. • Page 3 of 5 Click Graphic for full sized image Key Issues: • Crossing over or under railroad tracks • Access to Sound Transit commuter rail /proposed Amtrak station • Access to Boeing Longacres site • Minimizing impacts to wetlands Segment 2: Oakesdale Avenue SW to East Valley Road egmen Click Graphic for full sized image Goal: Providing General Purpose (GP) Vehicle, High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV), and /or Heavy Vehicle/Truck traffic (HV) improvements on SW 27th Street between Oakesdale Avenue SW and East Valley Road. This includes potential widening of the existing roadway in this segment. Key Issues: • Number of lanes • Two -way left-turn lane or median with turn pockets • Widening vs. potential wetland impacts • Springbrook creek crossing Segment 3: East Valley Road to SR167 Goal: Providing a direct access between SW 27th Street and SR 167 for General Purpose (GP) Vehicle, High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) and /or Heavy Vehicle/Truck traffic to and from SW 27th Street. Key Issues: • HOV or General Purpose • Over or under southbound lanes of SR167 • Connection with East Valley Road egmen Click Graphic for full sized image http:// www.ci.renton.wa.us /pw /transpor /strand /27thstrander.htm 01/17/2002 Strander Boulevard /27th Slit Corridor Improvements • • Interface with planned improvements on SR167 and 1-405 (Added Access) • Minimizing impacts to wetlands • Compatibility with future expansion Project News: Page 4 of 5 OPEN HOUSE: The City of Renton, in partnership with the City of Tukwila, invites the public to attend an open house on Thursday, August 23 between 4 PM and 8 PM at the Renton City Hall. The City is currently in the process of evaluating potential transportation improvements to upgrade and link the existing Strander Boulevard and SW 27th Street Corridors and to potentially provide a direct access between SW 27th Street and SR 167. Feedback generated by the public's participation at this open house is important and will be used to guide the City through this first phase of defining potential future projects. A second open house will be held later in the fall to give an update of the project progress and solicit follow -up input from the public. Ultimately this first phase of the project will result in a Project Definition Report that recommends to the City Councils what, if any, concepts should be carried through into design and construction. If funding permits, construction of improvements to Segments 1 and /or 2 of the project would potentially begin in 2006. Work on Segment 3 would not be likely until about 2010. Public en, HMaw August 23, 20Oi :.4 8, PM, Renton City Halt, `Tth` Floor Council Chambers 1055 S:: Gr'ady;Way PROJECT LOCATION Partners, Consultant Team, and Participants Partners /Participants • City of Renton (lead) • City of Tukwila • Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad • Boeing Realty Corp • King County DOT /METRO • Sound Transit • Transportation Improvement Board • Union Pacific Railroad • WSDOT - NW Region • WSDOT - Office of Urban Mobility http://www.ci.renton.wa.us/pw/transpor/strand/27thstrander.htm 01/17/2002 Strander Boulevard /27th Sit Corridor Improvements Consultant Team • BERGER /ABAM Engineers Inc. (lead) • CH2M Hill • Shannon & Wilson, Inc. • Page 5 of 5 For comments and /or questions, contact: City of Renton Transportation Systems Division, Attn: Nick Afzali, Planning and Programming Manager Tel: (425) 430 -7245 or E -mail: nafzali Aci.renton.wa.us or use our on- line comment/project mailing list sign -up form [Transportation Home] [Public Works Home] city oir home page http:// www.ci.renton.wa.us /pw /transpor /strand /27thstrander.htm 01/17/2002 • HABITAT TECHNOLOGIES RECEI1/ED DEC 3 12001 DEt E OPMEY NT McLEOD PROJECT SITE WETLAND AND BUFFER MITIGATION PROGAM First Growing Season Monitoring Report prepared for, McLEOD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY @ Mr. Stuart McLeod 213 Lake Street South Kirkland, Washington 98033 prepared by, HABITAT TECHNOLOGIES P.O. Box 1088 Puyallup, Washington 98371 253 -845 -5119 December 17, 1999 wetlands, streams, fisheries, wildlife -- mitigation and permitting solutions P.O. Box 1.088, Puyallup, Washington 98371 -1088 voice 253- 845 -5119 fax 253- 841 -1942 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED ACTION ALTERNATIVE 1 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WETLAND AND BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN 2 PROJECT MONITORING 3 THRESHOLD CRITERIA 3 VEGETATION MONITORING 4 HYDROLOGIC MONITORING 5 WILDLIFE MONITORING 5 FIRST YEAR MONITORING SCHEDULE 5 FIRST YEAR MONITORING RESULTS 5 VEGETATION MONITORING 5 HYDROLOGY MONITORING 6 WILDLIFE MONITORING 6 CONCLUSIONS 7 RECOMMENDATIONS 8 APPENDIX A 9 APPENDIX B 14 APPENDIX C 16 APPENDIX D 18 PHOTOS 21 INTRODUCTION The McLeod Project Site is approximately 24 acres in total size and is located directly west of the old Longacres Race Track Facility, City of Tukwila, King County, Washington. The site is bound on the west by the Union Pacific Railway mainline tracks and on the east by the Burlington Northern Railway mainline tracks. Originally developed and managed as livestock pasture, the majority of the project site was used as parking during the operations of the Longacres Race Track Facility. Onsite analysis and review by City of Tukwila environmental staff identified five individual wetland areas within the project site. One of these onsite wetlands located at the southern end of the project site was identified as a part of a much larger wetland extending offsite to the south. This wetland complex has been identified by the City as Tukwila Wetland #12, a City of Tukwila Type 1 Wetland. The remaining four wetlands were identified as small isolated depressions scattered through the site with a combined total size of 0.69 acres. These four wetlands were further identified to meet the criteria for designation as City of Tukwila Type 3 Wetlands. The Preferred Action Alternative as presented within the City of Tukwila's permitting process focused on the development of the central and northern portions of the project site. This alternative required the filling of the four small Type 3 Wetlands. As compensatory mitigation for the unavoidable filling of these isolated wetlands the Preferred Action Alternative included the creation of 1.03 acres of new wetland area onsite adjacent to the northern edge of Tukwila Wetland #12. This compensatory mitigation allowed for the wetland replacement ratio of 1.5 to 1.0 (created to impacted) as defined within the City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The Preferred Action Alternative also included the restoration and enhancement of the existing plant community within the onsite portions of Tukwila Wetland #12 and the creation of a 50 foot wide protective buffer. In addition, the Preferred Action Alternative included a five - year monitoring program of the created and enhanced areas to ensure that the established mitigation goals and threshold criteria are met. Between October 1998 and December 1998 the compensatory wetland area was created and the wetland and buffer areas planted. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED ACTION ALTERNATIVE The Preferred Action Alternative for this project site required the unavoidable filling of four (4) City of Tukwila Type 3 Wetlands identified within the northern portion of the project site. The total acreage of onsite wetlands filled was 0.69 acres. The compensatory mitigation plan for the filling of these Type 3 Wetlands targeted four specific elements. 1. The creation of a new wetland area 1.03 acres in size adjacent to the northeastern edge of an existing Type 1 Wetland at the southern edge of the 1 McLeod Mitigation - 98154 project site. This wetland creation was accomplished through the excavation of an existing non - wetland area; the direct attachment to an existing surface water source; and by the planting of this new wetland area with a diversity of native hydrophytic emergent, shrub, and tree species. 2. The enhancement of a portion of the existing onsite Type 1 Wetland through the planting of native hydrophytic trees and shrubs. The existing invasive plant species (i.e. blackberries and reed canarygrass) were remove prior to onsite planting or will over time be eliminated by shading. 3. An upland buffer of native vegetation was created along the northern edge of the newly created wetland area. The minimum width of this upland buffer was 50 feet. 4. Monitoring of the wetland and upland buffer areas for a period of five years to ensure that the project has successfully met the established goals and threshold criteria. This monitoring includes a contingency plan to remedy project elements that do not meet the project goals. Annual monitoring reports will also be prepared and submitted to the City of Tukwila. The creation of the mitigation wetland area and the enhancement of portions of the exiting wetland and the protective buffer will provide greater wetland functions and value than pre - project site conditions. The mitigation area will provide a wider diversity of plant communities, an increased surface water retention ability, greater water quality protections, and increase in wildlife habitats, and an increase in the natural biological functions of the area. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WETLAND AND BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN Between October 1998 and December 1999 the project team undertook wetland creation and onsite planting activities as outlined in the approved wetland mitigation plan. These activities successfully met the overall project goals identified for the initial construction phase. A new wetland area approximately 1.03 acres in size was excavated and planted in accordance with the approved compensatory mitigation plan. In addition, a portion of the existing Type 1 Wetland and the protective buffer area was also planted in accordance with the approved compensatory mitigation plan. As discussed onsite with the project team a few minor modification to the planting plan were required: • The plan identified the use of 2- gallon size red flowering currant (Ribes sanguineum). However, the 2- gallon size was unavailable and the team substituted 1- gallon size plants. 2 McLeod Mitigation - 98154 • • • The plan identified the use of 20 each 2- gallon size prickly currant (Ribes lacustre). However, these plants were unavailable and the team substituted 2- gallon size salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis). • The plan identified the use of 6 to 8 foot tall Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) trees. However, these plants were unavailable and the team substituted with 5 to 6 foot tall Douglas fir trees. • The plan identified the use of 8 -inch plugs for emergent species. However, these plugs were unavailable and the team substituted with bareroot stock. Minor construction related tasks that were not completed as a part of the initial mitigation site development included the placement of a protective fence along the outer (northern) edge of the established buffer area. Once constructed this fence will be posted with signs explaining the importance of this wetland area and the associated upland buffer. PROJECT MONITORING Following the successful completion of the wetland area construction, a five -year vegetation and hydrologic monitoring program will be undertaken. The purpose of this program is to ensure the success of the selected alternative as measured by an established set of threshold criteria. THRESHOLD CRITERIA The goals of the mitigation activities proposed in the Preferred Action Alternative are: (a) The establishment of a contiguous wetland plant community, (b) the restoration of an existing wetland area, and (c) the development of an appropriate wetland buffer. To determine whether these goals have been met, the following threshold criteria have been established for use during onsite, post- construction monitoring. The program shall be judged to have met the stated project goals when, at the conclusion of the monitoring program, the following are found to occur: 1. Establishment of a viable wetland plant community composed of emergent, ... shrub, and tree hydrophytic plant species. This wetland area shall be approximately 1.03 acres in size. 2. Establishment of a viable upland buffer composed of transition and upland plant communities. This buffer, composed of existing and replanted areas, shall have a minimum width of 50 feet. 3 McLeod Mitigation - 98154 3. Replacement of all planted trees and shrubs that do not survive within the first year following initial project construction. 4. That 80% of all trees and shrubs planted during the initial construction period are alive at the end of the five -year monitoring period. This percentage has been selected because the initial planting targets a 120% coverage. 5. That emergent vegetation growth indicates an incremental increase in vegetative cover over the monitoring period. 6. For the five -year monitoring period to be held to meet the project goals, two successive years of acceptable growth must be validated within the first five years following initial site planting. Acceptable growth is defined as normal leader growth for the plants selected as indication species for the project site. Normal growth considers the precipitation and temperature conditions during the growing season immediately preceding the monitoring visit by 60 to 90 days. Normal growth will be determined by observation from similar plants growing in areas immediately adjacent to the restoration site. VEGETATION MONITORING A five -year Vegetation Monitoring Program shall be undertaken to evaluate onsite plant communities and vegetative cover. Observations and evaluations will occur during the early spring, late spring, and late summer of the first year following initial construction completion. For the second through fifth years of the monitoring program observations and evaluations will be completed during the late spring. The emphasis of this monitoring program is the determination of when the project mitigation is "successful" as defined by the established threshold criteria. The following is a description of the methodology to be used for vegetation monitoring: Individual 0.01 acre sample plots shall be established, enumerated, and identified in the field with lath marker. A total of 12 sample plots shall be established (8 plots within the new wetland area, 2 within the enhanced existing wetland area, and 2 plots within the upland buffer area). Information collected from each sample plot shall include visual estimation of percent vegetative cover, absolute counts of species presence and mortality, measurement of new growth for selected indicator species, plant vigor and vitality, presence of invader plant species, percentage of exposed soil, and soil hydrology. 4 McLeod Mitigation - 98154 • • HYDROLOGIC MONITORING A Hydrologic Monitoring Program shall be undertaken to evaluate onsite seasonal hydrologic regimes, modifications, and variations. Onsite analysis will be completed quarterly during the first two years of the monitoring program and once a year for the remainder of the monitoring program. Sample periods during the first two years will coincide with normal seasonal low flow (late summer), water recharge (winter), surface runoff (late winter), and primary plant growth and utilization (spring). Sample periods for the remainder of the monitoring period will coincide with the primary plant growth and utilization period (spring). WILDLIFE MONITORING A Wildlife Monitoring Program will be undertaken to evaluate wildlife species abundance, diversity, and habitat utilization. Observation will coincide with onsite activities undertaken as part of the Vegetation and Hydrologic Monitoring Programs. Monitoring will document the extent of bird species abundance, nesting and feeding activities, and species diversity. In addition, observation of terrestrial and aquatic reptiles, amphibians, and mammals will also be documented. FIRST YEAR MONITORING SCHEDULE Vegetation and Wildlife Monitorin g Early spring (early March) Hydrology and Wildlife Monitorin g Late spring (mid May) Late summer (mid September) Winter Late -Dec Late winter Late -Feb. Spring Mid -April Late summer mid -Sept. FIRST YEAR MONITORING RESULTS VEGETATION MONITORING A total of 12 sample plots were established within the mitigation area. Eight (8) plots were within the new wetland area, two (2) plots were within the enhanced existing wetland area, and two (2) plots were within the created upland buffer area. Individual 25 foot sample plots were established, enumerated, and identified in the field with a lath marker. Field data for these sample plots is provided in Appendix A. In general the plant communities within the created wetland and enhanced wetland areas exhibited good growth and establishment. Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), red osier dogwood (Corpus stolonifera), willows (Salix spp.), twinberry (Lonicera involucrata), and Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana) did particularly well. Many of these plants 5 McLeod Mitigation - 98154 • • produced seeds. The emergent plant community within the created wetland area also exhibited good growth and many plants also produced seeded. Unfortunately, "off road" vehicles had trampled large sections of the created wetland during the early spring and a number of times through the summer. The majority of the bottom area of the created wetland exhibited many tire ruts which had destroyed many of the emergent planting areas. Coupled with the "off road" vehicles, many of the plants particularly around sample plots 3, 4, and 5, had been pulled out during the spring and thrown into the standing water portions of the wetland. Based on an overall plant count conducted during September 1999, approximately 90% of the emergent species and 25% to 30% of the shrubs and sapling species within the created wetland area were adversely impacted by these actions. The plants installed within the enhanced buffer area exhibited good growth and establishment. This area exhibited greater than 95% survival through the late summer of 1999. The plants installed within the created buffer area exhibited very poor survival. Almost every tree planted within this area died and more than 80% of the shrubs had died through the late summer of 1999. Two primary reasons were identified for this higher than normal mortality. First, the buffer area was impacted by "off road" vehicles. Many plants were simply run -over. Second, temporary irrigation was not implemented during the summer dry period. Appendix B provides a list of additional plantings that should be implemented to meet the plant community requirements. HYDROLOGY MONITORING A total of four (4) hydrology monitoring plots were established within the newly created wetland area. These hydrology monitoring plots coincided with vegetation sample plots 1, 2, 7, and 8. Field data for these hydrology monitoring plots is provided in Appendix C. During the early spring the entire created wetland was either saturated to the surface or ponded. Seasonal ponding remained evident within a least some portion of the created wetland until the middle of July 1999. However, even in July and August hydrology monitoring plots within the lower levels of the created wetland were saturated to the surface. WILDLIFE MONITORING A wide variety of wildlife was observed during each site visit. Species observed were both resident and migratory. In addition, many of the species were noted to be nesting within or immediately adjacent to the created wetland area. A list of observed species is provided in Appendix D. 6 McLeod Mitigation - 98154 • • The majority of the species observed were avian and small mammals. Amphibians were observed within the created wetland, however, the water within the created wetland was very turbid (believed caused by the occasional "off road" vehicles driving through the wetland) and successful amphibian spawning was not documented during 1999. Water turbidity appears the primary issue since the documented hydrology patterns within the created wetland would certainly allow successful amphibian spawning and incubation. CONCLUSIONS • As noted during the first growing season monitoring program the entire created wetland area exhibited seasonal ponding /saturation to the surface throughout a majority of the growing season. Early growing season ponding was very evident. • The majority of the plants installed in the created and enhanced wetland areas exhibited good growth and survival through the first growing season. Those areas that did not exhibit good plant growth and survival had been dramatically altered by "off road" vehicles or physical removal. Absent this vandalism overall plant survival within these wetland areas would have exceeded 95 %. • Initial plant survival in the buffer area was noted as good during the early spring, however, the lack of irrigation during the summer and vandalism resulted in almost 100% morality of installed plants within the buffer. • There does not appear to be a direct surface water connection between the created wetland and the wetland offsite to the south. However, this direct connection does not appear required since the site exhibited a very good overall hydrology. pattern. • The wetland and buffer areas do not appear to require onsite control of invasive vegetation at this time. Reed canarygrass is present in the enhanced wetland, however, this invasive species does not appear as a dominant plant within the created wetland area. • Several species of wildlife (both resident and seasonally migrants) are actively using the habitats provided by this mitigation area. 7 McLeod Mitigation - 98154 • • RECOMMENDATIONS The observations of the first year monitoring program suggest the following actions: • The vandalized areas of the created wetland need to be replanted in order to meet the established threshold criteria at the end of the five -year monitoring program. Those species listed in Appendix B should be installed during the spring of 2000. • The vandalized area of the buffer needs to be replanted in order to meet the established threshold criteria at the end of the five -year monitoring program. Those species listed in Appendix B should be installed during the spring of 2000. • Provisions need to be implemented to ensure supplemental irrigation of the buffer area during the summer and early fall. • Provisions need to be implemented to stop the use of the mitigation area by "off- road" vehicles and to curb vandalism. Such provisions would include an impassible barrier along the northern edge of the created buffer area and posting with signs. 8 McLeod Mitigation - 98154 • ID COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC N. TREES PSM THP TSH POT ALR ACM PRE : 'POP ;SAL ' . PYF FRL SAL • SAS SAM ,COS •ACC GAS ;BEN SYA RUS =L01 SAR WL RON _ROP FROG COC • :PHC • GAO . • :CAS SCM RUC GEM TYL Douglas fir Western red cedar Western hemlock . black cottonwood red alder bigleaf maple bitter cherry • quaking aspen . Pacific willow Western aabapploi on ash SHRUBS Pacific willow Sitl® willow HoCkers willow redosier dogwood vine maple salsa Oregon grape snowberry sale onberry blank twlnberry Pacific red elderberry flowering current prickly current Nootka rose peafruit rose wilt rose hezalnut Pacific ninebark Pseudotsuga manilas!! Thula plicaa Tsuga heterophylla Popuhrs trichocarpa Alnus rubra Aces' macrophyllum Prunus emargenaa Populus tremulosides Salir Ieslandra Pyius fusca ra Salle lasiandra Sally stichensis Salt: hookerana Comus stoloniters Acer circinatum Gauitheria shallop Berberis nervosa Symphorkarpus albus Rubus spectabllis Lonicera involucraa Sambucus racemosa Ribes sanguineum Ribes lacustre Rosa nutkana Rosa pisocarpa Rosa gymnocarpa Comut stolonlfera Physocarpus capitatna EMERGENT slo rgh sedge sawbeak sedge small fruited bullrush cur ed dock big leaf avers common cattail Carex obnupa Carex stipaa Scirpus microcarpus Rumes crispus Geum macrophyllum Typha Iatifolla 2 J N a p 2 n o • 3 -BEN 4 -GAS 3-SAR 5 -SYA 8-GAS 3-ACC 10 -BEN 3-BEN 4-ROP 6-GAS 8-ROP 2 -SAR 9 -SYA m 41 V V r" C"r01f11 77-17 pYJ41VYm0)Va�lYOlDyyN Ny ONV >Omr�Vm N >4 {lN�ayOA NNVttyw mOOyO ONN •a t'�SSA� S(p w fnya A f1D*:..tinll�nE nt,'O/AUf"n Dr)D001P O kyp{� ca as y�yns�aoo��c iri�2'cr$r =s Dn �O- D0,x,„xx C ,c222r ,9 orxz tgiauu) �-3 �woxo03NiSY N41Ni0�=NL o Do P,n off; �x�nxZ; °c,Rz; iicaY 4 GAS 3 -ACC 9 -SYA e-SYA 6 GAS B-R1S 6-BEN 3-ACC 5-GAS 9 -SYA 6 -GAS 6 -GAS 6 -ROP 4-SAR 7 -SYA 5-SYA 3-GAS 7 -BEN 7 -RON 3-COC 6 -COC 6-BEN 3-ACC 7 -PNC 9 -SYA 5-ROP 6-COS 5-SYA 4-RCP 4-SAR 3-L01 3-BEN It-SAN 9 -SYA 7 -GAS 6-R1L 6-SYA 7-R1S 5-RUS 5-GAS 3-ACC 2 -SAR 5-6AS 5-SAR 14-COC 6-RON 3-GAS 3101 5-BEN • re • E h NP A pj yr as • 2 ir o ego o$ 0 SCALE B1 FEET VEGETATION ® SAMPLE PLOT HYDROLOGY ® SAMPLE PLOT SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. PHOTO POINT P4 z W0 Z L) Z CD f:44 0-4a a W A wiz SHEET • • APPENDIX A Vegetation Monitoring Sample Plot Data 9 McLeod Mitigation -98154 Sample Plot #7 - emergent wetland area (15) Scirpus microcarpus Very good new growth Sample Plot #8 - emergent wetland area Entire plot inundated Sample Plot #9 - restored wetland are (1) Thuja plicata Some new buds (5) Rosa nutkana Good new growth Phalaris arundinacea (original community) Covers approximately 85% of plot Sample Plot #10 - restored wetland are (4) Populus trichocarpa Good new growth Phalaris arundinacea (original community) Covers approximately 85% of plot Mixed grasses and herbs cover 100% of sample plot Sample Plot #11 - created buffer area (1) Pseudotsuga menziesii Plant looks stressed - other Douglas fir dead (4) Sambucus racemosa Plants look stressed Mixed grasses and herbs cover 100% of sample plot Sample Plot #12 (2) Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 stressed - 1 dead • (5) Berberis nervosa 3 with good new growth, 2 stressed Mixed grasses and herbs cover 100% of sample plot 11 McLeod Mitigation - 98154 Sample Date - September 22, 1999 Sample Plot #1 - shrubs provide 5° (5) Rosa nutkana _ -a -... r...,. Good growth, seed development, leader growth to 6 inches (4) Corpus stolonifera Good growth, seed development, leader growth to 6 inches Equisetum arvense Plants died back Equisetum arvense Plants died back Sample Plot #2 - saplings provide 1 %aerial coverage shrubs provide <5° (3) Corpus stolonifera 1 /V Good growth, seed development, leader growth to 6 inches (2) Fraxinus latifolia Very good growth Equisetum arvense Plants died back Equisetum arvense Plants died back Sample Plot #3 - Entire plot had been trampled by "off road" vehicles in early spring (3) Salix hookeriana Equisetum arvense These plants were replanted during the spring and exhibit growth Plants died back Sample Plot #4 - Entire plot had been trampled by "off road" vehicles in early spring (2) Physocarpus capitatus Equisetum arvense These plants were replanted during the spring and exhibit growth Plants died back Sample Plot #5 - Saplings provide <5% aerial coverage shrubs rovide 5° (2) Lonicera involucrata P Good growth, leader growth to 4 inches /V (3) Fraxinus latifolia Very good new growth Plants died back Equisetum arvense Plants died back Sample Plot #6 - Area adjacent to sample plot trampled by "off road" vehicles, shrubs provide <10% aerial coverage (8) Salix hookeriana Very good growth, leader growth to 8 inches (3) Physocarpus capitatus Very good growth and seed development Equisetum arvense Plants died back 12 McLeod Mitigation - 98154 Sample Plot #7 - emergent wetland area (15) Scirpus microcarpus Plants produced seed in early spring and then died back. Plants also appeared to have been grazed by waterfowl. Sample Plot #8 - emergent wetland area (9) Typha latifolia Good plant growth, however, this area had been trampled a number of times through the spring and summer by "off road" vehicles. Sample Plot #9 - restored wetland area :1) Thuja plicata New growth, leader growth to 3 inches :5) Rosa nutkana New growth and seed development 'halaris arundinacea ;original community) Covers approximately 85% of plot Sample Plot #10 - restored wetland area '4) Populus trichocarpa 'halaris arundinacea original community) Good growth, leader growth to 5 inches Covers approximately 85% of plot Sample Plot #11 - created buffer area 1) Pseudotsuga menziesii All plants dead 4) Sambucus racemosa All plants dead Mixed grasses and herbs cover 00% of sample plot ;ample Plot #12 2) Pseudotsuga menziesii All plants dead 5) Berberis nervosa 2 still alive, 3 dead /fixed grasses and herbs cover 00% of sample plot 13 McLeod Mitigation - 98154 • • APPENDIX C Hydrology Monitoring Data 16 McLeod Mitigation - 98154 Hydrology Monitoring Plot #1 DATE February 23, 1999 March 29, 1999 May 15, 1999 COMMENTS September 22, 1999 Surface water ponded to top of wetland cut. Free - standing water in hole at surface Free - standing water at 6 inches, saturated to surface Free - standing water at 14 inches, saturated at 5 inches Saturated at 16 inches Hydrology Monitorin v DATE COMMENTS February 23, 1999 Surface water ponded to top of wetland cut. Free - standing water in hole at surface March 29, 1999 Free - standing water at 4 inches, saturated to surface May 15, 1999 Free - standing water at 16 inches, saturated at 9 inches September 22, 1999 Saturated at 18 inches INtzflmnri 7rci7B rnr...r.4I., .J,.:.....- •'-__..__t_ Hydrology Monitorin v DATE COMMENTS February 23, 1999 Surface water ponded to top of wetland cut. Sample plot inundated March 29, 1999 Surface water ponded to edge of plot. Free - standing water at surface. May 15, 1999 Free - standing water at 5 inches, saturated at surface September 22, 1999 Saturated at 12 inches INtzflmnri 7rci7B rnr...r.4I., .J,.:.....- •'-__..__t_ uring March 29th site visit Hydrology Monitorin unng March 29th site visit 17 McLeod Mitigation - 98154 DATE COMMENTS February 23, 1999 Surface water ponded to top of wetland cut. Sample plot inundated. March 29, 1999 Surface water ponded to edge of plot. Sample plot inundated. May 15, 1999 Sample plot inundated - depth 3 inches September 22, 1999 Saturated at surface. Surface water standing in tire ruts. 1A/GfI7rrri 7re.An r.- .......Lt.. .J- :..�._ Li-- - _' - unng March 29th site visit 17 McLeod Mitigation - 98154 • • APPENDIX D Wildlife Observations 18 McLeod Mitigation - 98154 Observed Wildlife - Year -1 Monitoring Period SPECIES NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMENTS BIRDS Great blue heron (SM) Ardea herodias Single individual observed feeding in tall grass along edge of created wetland area in Sept. Common mallard (G) Anus platyrhynchos Small groups in wetland area during late winter and early spring. No nesting noted, however, a female with young was observed in created wetland in May. Canada goose (G) Branta canadensis Small groups in mitigation area throughout year. Observed feeding on new growth in created wetland area. Green - winged teal (G) Anas discors Group of 8 noted.during February site visit in created wetland. Wood duck (G) Aix sponsa Group of 3 noted during February site visit in created wetland. Glaucous- winged gull Larus hyperboreus Red winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniseus Nesting within tall grass at edge of created wetland area and feeding within mitigation area. Marsh wren Cistothorus palustris Feeding and nesting within mitigation area. Common snipe Gallinago gallinago Observed onsite during spring Barn swallow Hirundo rustica Feeding in mitigation area. Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor Feeding in mitigation area. Violet -green swallow Tachycineta thallassina Feeding in mitigation area. Rough- winged swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis Feeding in mitigation area. American robin Turdus migratorius Feeding in mitigation area. Song sparrow Melospiza melodia Feeding in mitigation area. Dark -eyed junco Junco hyemalis Feeding in mitigation area. American goldfinch Carduelis tristis Feeding in mitigation area. House sparrow Passerdomesticus Feeding in mitigation area. Purple finch Carpodacus purpureus Feeding in mitigation area. Common yellowthroat Geothlypis frichas Feeding in mitigation area. Starling Sturnus vulgaris Feeding in mitigation area. American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Feeding in mitigation area. Rock dove Columbia livia Feeding in mitigation area. Northern flicker Colaptes auratus Feeding on tall trees along westem edge of mitigation area. Steller's jay Cyanocitta sfelleri Feeding in mitigation area. Killdeer _ Charadrius vociferus Feeding in mitigation area. American coot Fulica americana Feeding in mitigation area. 19 McLeod Mitigation - 98154 SE = STATE ENDANGERED ST = STATE THREATENED SS = STATE SENSITIVE SC = STATE CANDIDATE SM = STATE MONITORED G = game species, subject to hunting /fishing regulations 20 McLeod Mitigation - 98154 MAMMALS Vagrant shrew Sorex vagrans Deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus Norway rat Rattus norvegicus Eastern cottontail Sylvllagus floridanus • Myotis Myotis spp. Observed onsite early evening mid- summer Townsend's vole Microtus californicus Opossum Didelphis virginianus Coyote Canis latrans REPTILES Common garter snake Thamniphis sirtalis AMPHIBIANS Pacific treefrog Hyla regilla Observed in mitigation area but not spawning Northwestern salamander * CTATI IQ Ambystoma gracie Observed in mitigation area but not spawning SE = STATE ENDANGERED ST = STATE THREATENED SS = STATE SENSITIVE SC = STATE CANDIDATE SM = STATE MONITORED G = game species, subject to hunting /fishing regulations 20 McLeod Mitigation - 98154 PHOTOS • 21 McLeod Mitigation - 98154 During the early spring of 1999 vandals pulled many recently installed plants from the wetland and buffer areas. The majority of these plants were thrown into the ponded area of the created wetland. Off -road vehicles invaded the created wetland and buffer areas on a number of occasions. In many locations these vehicles simply drove over the recently installed plants. These vehicles also reformed the bottom of the created wetland and damaged the majority of the planted emergents. 1 • View looking southwesterly into the created wetland area from photo point #1 on February 23, 1999. The created wetland area exhibited ponding at a level initially defined within the mitigation plan. Ponded water conditions were present, while limited, until early June. HABITAT TECHNOLOGIES View looking southwesterly into the created wetland area from photo point #1 on June 25, 1999. The majority of the installed trees, shrubs, and emergent plants within this wetland area exhibited good growth and establishment. Invasive species such as reed canarygrass did not become a dominant plant within the ,created wetland area. • • HABITAT TECHNOLOGIES McLEOD PROJECT SITE RECEIVED DEC 3 12001 DT EVE OPMENT WETLAND AND BUFFER MITIGATION PROGAM Second Growing Season Monitoring Report prepared for McLEOD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY @ Mr. Stuart McLeod 213 Lake Street South Kirkland, Washington 98033 prepared by HABITAT TECHNOLOGIES P.O. Box 1088 Puyallup, Washington 98371 253 -845 -5119 December 21, 2000 wetlands, streams, fisheries, wildlife - mitigation and permitting solutions P.O. Box 1088, Puyallup, Washington 98371 voice 253 -845 -5119 fax 253 -841 -1942 • • INTRODUCTION The McLeod Project Site is approximately 24 acres in total size and is located directly west of the old Longacres Race Track Facility, City of Tukwila, King County, Washington. The site is bound on the west by the Union Pacific Railway mainline tracks and on the east by the Burlington Northern Railway mainline tracks. Originally developed and managed as livestock pasture, the majority of the project site was used as parking during the operations of the Longacres Race Track Facility. Onsite analysis and review by City of Tukwila environmental staff identified five individual wetland areas within the project site. One of these onsite wetlands located at the southern end of the project site was identified as a part of a much larger wetland. extending offsite to the south. This wetland complex has been identified by the City as Tukwila Wetland #12, a City of Tukwila Type 1 Wetland. The remaining four wetlands were identified as small isolated depressions scattered through the site with a combined total size of 0.69 acres. These four wetlands were further identified to meet the criteria for designation as City of Tukwila Type 3 Wetlands. The Preferred Action Altemative as presented within the City of Tukwila's permitting process focused on the development of the central and northern portions of the project site. This alternative required the filling of the four small Type 3 Wetlands. As compensatory mitigation for the unavoidable filling of these isolated wetlands the Preferred Action Altemative included the creation of 1.03 acres of new wetland area onsite adjacent to the northern edge of Tukwila Wetland #12. This compensatory mitigation allowed for the wetland replacement ratio of 1.5 to 1.0 (created to impacted) as defined within the City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The Preferred Action Altemative also included the restoration and enhancement of the existing plant community within the onsite portions of Tukwila Wetland #12 and the creation of a 50 foot wide protective buffer. In addition, the Preferred Action Altemative included a five - year monitoring program of the created and enhanced areas to ensure that the established mitigation goals and threshold criteria are met. Between October 1998 and December 1998 the compensatory wetland area was created and the wetland and buffer areas planted. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED ACTION ALTERNATIVE The Preferred Action Altemative for this project site required the unavoidable filling of four (4) City of Tukwila Type 3 Wetlands identified within the northern portion of the project site. The total acreage of onsite wetlands filled was 0.69 acres. The compensatory mitigation plan for the filling of these Type 3 Wetlands targeted four specific elements. 1. The creation of a new wetland area 1.03 acres in size adjacent to the northeastern edge of an existing Type 1 Wetland at the southern edge of the 1 Year 2 McLeod Mitigation - 98154 • • project site. This wetland creation was accomplished through the excavation of an existing non - wetland area; the direct attachment to an existing surface water source; and by the planting of this new wetland area with a diversity of native hydrophytic emergent, shrub, and tree species. 2. The enhancement of a portion of the existing onsite Type 1 Wetland through the planting of native hydrophytic trees and shrubs. The existing invasive plant species (i.e. blackberries and reed canarygrass) were remove prior to onsite planting or will over time be eliminated by shading. 3. An upland buffer of native vegetation was created along the northern edge of the newly created wetland area. The minimum width of this upland buffer was 50 feet. 4. Monitoring of the wetland and upland buffer areas for a period of five years (1999 through 2003) to ensure that the project has successfully met the established goals and threshold criteria. This monitoring includes a contingency plan to remedy project elements that do not meet the project goals. Annual monitoring reports will also be prepared and submitted to the City of Tukwila. The creation of the mitigation wetland area and the enhancement of portions of the exiting wetland and the protective buffer will provide greater wetland functions and value than pre - project site conditions. The mitigation area will provide a wider diversity of plant communities, an increased surface water retention ability, greater water quality protections, and increase in wildlife habitats, and an increase in the natural biological functions of the area. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WETLAND AND BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN Between October 1998 and December 1999 the project team undertook wetland creation and onsite planting activities as outlined in the approved wetland mitigation plan. These activities successfully met the overall project goals identified for the initial construction phase. A new wetland area approximately 1.03 acres in size was excavated and planted in general accordance with the approved compensatory mitigation plan. In addition, a portion of the existing Type 1 Wetland and the protective buffer area was also planted in accordance with the approved compensatory mitigation plan. Following the vegetation and program is to established set PROJECT MONITORING successful completion of the wetland area construction a five -year hydrologic monitoring program will be undertaken. The purpose of this ensure the success of the selected alternative as measured by an of threshold criteria. 2 Year 2 McLeod Mitigation - 98154 THRESHOLD CRITERIA The goals of the mitigation activities proposed in the Preferred Action A/temative are: (a) The establishment of a contiguous wetland plant community, (b) the restoration of an existing wetland area, and (c) the development of an appropriate wetland buffer. To determine whether these goals have been met, the following threshold criteria have been established for use during onsite, post- construction monitoring. The program shall be judged to have met the stated project goals when, at the conclusion of the monitoring program, the following are found to occur: 1. Establishment of a viable wetland plant community composed of emergent, shrub, and tree hydrophytic plant species. This wetland area shall be approximately 1.03 acres in size. 2. Establishment of a viable upland buffer composed of transition and upland plant communities. This buffer, composed of existing and replanted areas, shall have a minimum width of 50 feet. 3. Replacement of all planted trees and shrubs that do not survive within the first year following initial project construction. 4. That 80% of all trees and shrubs planted during the initial construction period are alive at the end of the five -year monitoring period. This percentage has been selected because the initial planting targets a 120% coverage. 5. That emergent vegetation growth indicates an incremental increase in vegetative cover over the monitoring period. 6. For the five -year monitoring period to be held to meet the project goals, two successive years of acceptable growth must be validated within the first five years following initial site planting. Acceptable growth is defined as normal leader growth for the plants selected as indication species for the project site. Normal growth considers the precipitation and temperature conditions during the growing season immediately preceding the monitoring visit by 60 to 90 days. Normal growth will be determined by observation from similar plants growing in areas immediately adjacent to the restoration site. 3 Year 2 McLeod Mitigation - 98154 • • VEGETATION MONITORING A five -year Vegetation Monitoring Program (1999 through 2003) has been established to evaluate onsite plant communities and vegetative cover. Observations and evaluations have occurred during the early spring, late spring, and late summer of the first two year following initial construction completion (1999 and 2000). For the second (2000) through fifth years (2003) of the monitoring program observations and evaluations will be completed during the late spring. The emphasis of this monitoring program is the determination of when the project mitigation is "successful" as defined by the established threshold criteria. The following is a description of the methodology to be used for vegetation monitoring: Individual 0.01 -acre sample plots shall be established, enumerated, and identified in the field with lath marker. A total of 12 sample plots shall be established (8 plots within the new wetland area, 2 within the enhanced existing wetland area, and 2 plots within the upland buffer area). Information collected from each sample plot shall include visual estimation of percent vegetative cover, absolute counts of species presence and mortality, measurement of new growth for selected indicator species, plant vigor and vitality, presence of invader plant species, percentage of exposed soil, and soil hydrology. HYDROLOGIC MONITORING A Hydrologic Monitoring Program will be undertaken to evaluate onsite seasonal hydrologic regimes, modifications, and variations. Onsite analysis is to be completed quarterly during the first two years of the monitoring program and once a year for the remainder of the monitoring program. Sample periods during the first two years will coincide with normal seasonal low flow (late summer), water recharge (winter), surface runoff (late winter), and primary plant growth and utilization (spring). Sample periods for the remainder of the monitoring period will coincide with the primary plant growth and utilization period (spring). WILDLIFE MONITORING A Wildlife Monitoring Program will be undertaken to evaluate wildlife species abundance, diversity, and habitat utilization. Observation will coincide with onsite activities undertaken as part of the Vegetation and Hydrologic Monitoring Programs. Monitoring will document the extent of bird species abundance, nesting and feeding activities, and species diversity. In addition, observation of terrestrial and aquatic reptiles, amphibians, and mammals will also be documented. 4 Year 2 McLeod Mitigation - 98154 FIRST AND SECOND YEAR MONITORING SCHEDULE Vegetation and Wildlife Monitorin g Early spring (early March) Late spring (mid May) Hydrolo gy and Wildlife Monitorin g Late summer (mid September) Winter Late -Dec Late winter Late -Feb. Spring Mid -April Late summer mid -Sept. SECOND YEAR MONITORING RESULTS VEGETATION MONITORING A total of 12 sample plots were established within the mitigation area. Eight (8) plots were within the new wetland area, two (2) plots were within the enhanced existing wetland area, and two (2) plots were within the created upland buffer area. Individual 25 -foot sample plots were established, enumerated, and identified in the field with a lath marker. Field data for these sample plots are provided in Appendix A. As noted during the second growing season monitoring program the plant communities within the created wetland and enhanced wetland areas exhibited good growth and establishment. Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), red osier dogwood (Comus stolonifera), willows (Salix spp.), twinberry (Lonicera involucrata), and Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana) did particularly well. Many of these plants produced seeds. The emergent plant community within the created wetland area also exhibited good growth and many plants also produced seeded. Unfortunately, as with the 1999 growing season "off road" vehicles once again had invaded the wetland mitigation area and had created a well defined track. The defined track generally followed the center of the created wetland and then circled back along the western edge of the created wetland. During the summer and late fall of 2000 these vehicles destroyed many of the emergent areas that exhibited very good growth during the spring of 2000. As noted during the 1999 growing season and again in the 2000 growing season the plants installed within the enhanced buffer area exhibited good growth and establishment. This area exhibited greater than 95% survival through the late summer of 2000. As noted during the 1999 growing season the plants installed within the created buffer area exhibited very poor survival. Almost every tree planted within this area died and more than 80% of the shrubs had died through the late summer of 1999. During December 2000 this area was replanted with a variety of native trees and shrubs (Appendix B). 5 Year 2 McLeod Mitigation - 98154 HYDROLOGY MONITORING A total of four (4) hydrology monitoring plots were established within the newly created wetland area. These hydrology monitoring plots coincided with vegetation sample plots 1, 2, 7, and 8. Field data for these hydrology monitoring plots are provided in Appendix C. The hydrology patterns observed during the 2000 monitoring program were similar to the patterns documented during the 1999 monitoring program. During the early spring the entire created wetland was either saturated to the surface or ponded. Seasonal ponding remained evident within a least some portion of the created wetland until the end of July 2000. However, even in July and August hydrology monitoring plots within the lower levels of the created wetland were saturated to the surface. WILDLIFE MONITORING A wide variety of wildlife was observed during each site visit. Species observed were both resident and migratory. In addition, many of the species were noted to be nesting within or immediately adjacent to the created wetland area. A list of observed species is provided in Appendix D. The majority of the species observed were avian and small mammals. Amphibians were observed within the created wetland, however, the water within the created wetland was very turbid (believed caused by the occasional "off road" vehicles driving through the wetland) and successful amphibian spawning was not documented during 2000. As with the observation during the 1999 monitoring program water turbidity appears the primary issue since the documented hydrology patterns within the created wetland would certainly allow successful amphibian spawning and incubation. CONCLUSIONS • As noted during the second growing season monitoring program the entire created wetland area exhibited seasonal ponding /saturation to the surface throughout a majority of the growing season. Early growing season ponding was very evident. • The majority of the plants installed in the created and enhanced wetland areas that were alive at the end of the first growing season monitoring program exhibited good growth and survival through the end of the second growing season. Those areas that did not exhibit good plant growth and survival had been dramatically altered by "off road" vehicles or physical removal. Absent this vandalism overall plant survival within these wetland areas continued to exceeded 95% through the end of the second growing season monitoring program. • Since vandalism and lack of irrigation had resulted in an almost 100% motility of plants installed within the created buffer along the northern edge of the project site 6 Year 2 McLeod Mitigation - 98154 the area was replanted during December 2000. It is the hope of the project team that fencing will resolve the vandalism. The project team has also contracted with a landscape crew for irrigation during the 2001 growing season. • As noted during 1999 and again during 2000 there does not appear to be a direct surface water connection between the created wetland and the wetland offsite to the south. However, this direct connection does not appear required since the site exhibited a very good overall hydrology pattern. • The wetland and buffer areas do not appear to require onsite control of invasive vegetation at this time. Reed canarygrass is present in the enhanced wetland, however, this invasive species does not appear as a dominant plant within the created wetland area. • Several species of wildlife (both resident and seasonally migrants) are actively using the habitats provided by this mitigation area. 7 Year 2 McLeod Mitigation - 98154 • APPENDIX A Vegetation Monitoring Sample Plot Data 8 Year 2 McLeod Mitigation - 98154 Sample Date — May 1, 2000 Sample Plot #1 - shrubs provide 150 (5) Rosa nutkana Good growth, flowering /seed development (4) Comus stolonifera Good growth, flowering /seed development Equisetum arvense 100% ground cover Alnus rubra Volunteer starts Sample Plot #2 - saplings provide 10% aerial coverage, shrubs provide 15% aerial coverage of sample plot (3) Comus stolonifera Good growth, flowering /seed development (2) Fraxinus /atifolia Very good growth Equisetum arvense 100% ground cover Agrostis tenuis Trace in ground cover Sample Plot #3 — Entire plot had been trampled by "off road" vehicles in 1999, shrubs provide 15% aerial coverage of plot. (3) Salix hookeriana Equisetum arvense Plants showing good growth and establishment 100% ground cover Sample Plot #4 - Entire plot had been trampled by "off road" vehicles in 1999, shrubs provide 20% aerial coverage of plot. (2) Physocarpus capitatus Equisetum arvense Plants showing good growth and establishment 100% ground cover Sample Plot #5 - Saplings provide 15% aerial coverage, shrubs provide 25% aerial coverage of plot. (5) Lonicera involucrata Good growth, flowering (3) Fraxinus /atifolia Very good new growth and establishment Equisetum arvense 100% ground cover Sample Plot #6 - Area adjacent to sample plot trampled by "off road" vehicles, shrubs provide 35% aerial coverage of plot (8) Salix hookeriana Very good new growth and establishment (4) Physocarpus capitatus Very good new growth and establishment Equisetum arvense 100% ground cover Sample Plot #7 - emergent wetland area - 80° (25) Scirpus microcarpus Very good early season growth. Waterfowl grazing evident. Alopecurus geniculatus 40% aerial coverage Juncus bufonius 20% aerial coverage 9 Year 2 McLeod Mitigation - 98154 Sample Plot #8 - emergent wetland area - 85% aerial coverage (12) Typha latifolia Juncus bufonius Carex obnupta Good plant growth in area past `off road" vehicles impact. 10% aerial coverage A few start that have been grazed by waterfowl Sample Plot #9 - restored wetland area - original 100% reed canarygrass, saplings and shrubs provide 25% aerial coverage of sample plot (1) Thuja plicata (7) Rosa nutkana Good plant growth and establishment Phalaris arundinacea Good plant growth and establishment Covers approximately 90% of plot Sample Plot #10 - restored wetland area original 100% reed canarygrass, saplings provide 25% aerial coverage of sample plot (4) Populus trichocarpa Phalaris arundinacea Good plant growth and establishment Covers approximately 100% of plot Sample Plot #11 - created buffer area — all installed plants dead from last year, emergent plant community composed of a mixture of grasses and herb rovide 100% aerial coverage. p Pseudotsuga menziesii Sambucus racemosa All plants dead All plants dead Sample Plot #12 - created buffer area — all installed plants dead from last year, emergent plant community composed of a mixture of grasses and herb provide 100% aerial coverage. Pseudotsuga menziesii (2) Berberis nervosa All plants dead Plants exhibit good growth and are flowering 10 Year 2 McLeod Mitigation - 98154 • • APPENDIX B Supplemental Plantings Completed December 2000 11 Year 2 McLeod Mitigation - 98154 Buffer Area PLANT ID NUMBER NEEDED COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME PROPOSED SIZE PSM 13 Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 5 - 6 feet ACM 4 Big leaf maple Acer macrophyllum 4 - 6 feet THP 2 Western red cedar Thuja plicata 5 - 6 feet PRE 3 Bitter cherry Prunus emarginata 4 - 6 feet ACC 15 Vine maple Acer circinatum 2 gal SAR 0 Pacific red elderberry Sambucus racemosa 2 gal ROP 30 Cluster rose Rosa pisocarpa 2 gal SYA 75 Snowberry Symphoricarpus albus 1 gal GAS 40 Salal Gaultheria shallon 1 gal BEN 40 Oregon grape Berberis nervosa 1 gal RIS 15 Red flowering current Ribes sanguineum 1 gal COC 20 R Hazelnut Corylus cornuta 2 gal eplace originally needed Pacific red elderberry with hazelnut. Replace originally needed Western hemlock with Douglas fir. Created Wetland Area PLANT ID NUMBER NEEDED COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME PROPOSED SIZE FRL 6 Oregon ash Fraxinus latifolia 4 - 6 ft ARL 10 Red alder Alnus rubra 4 - 6 ft THP 6 Western red cedar Thuja plicata 5 - 6 feet COS 200 Red -osier dogwood Corpus stolonifera 2 gal PHC 25 Pacific ninebark Physocarpus capitatus 2 gal LOI 25 Black twinberry Lonicera involucrata 2 gal SAS 224 Sitka willow Salix sitchensis 2 gal CAO 100 Slough sedge Carex obnupta 8" plug SCM 100 Small fruited bulrush Scirpus microcarpus 8" plug SCC to I 100 Wooly sedge Scirpus cyperinus 8" plug p ace ongmally needed sawbeak sedge with wooly sedge. Replace majority of damaged Pacific ninebark and twinberry with Sitka willow and red osier dogwood. 12 Year 2 McLeod Mitigation - 98154 • • APPENDIX C Hydrology Monitoring Data 13 Year 2 McLeod Mitigation - 98154 Hydrology Monitorin v DATE COMMENTS January 2, 2000 Surface water ponded to top of wetland cut. April 1, 2000 Free - standing water at 2 inches, saturated to surface May 1, 2000 Free - standing water at 11 inches, saturated at 3 inches September 15, 2000 Saturated at 15 inches Hydrology Monitorin P g DATE COMMENTS January 2, 2000 Surface water ponded to top of wetland cut. April 1, 2000 Free - standing water at 3 inches, saturated to surface May 1, 2000 Free - standing water at 11 inches, saturated at 6 inches September 15, 2000 Saturated at 21 inches Hydrology Monitorin Plot # g DATE COMMENTS January 2, 2000 Surface water ponded to top of wetland cut. April 1, 2000 Surface water ponded to edge of plot. May 1, 2000 Free - standing water at 1 inches, saturated at surface. September 15, 2000 Saturated at 12 inches. Hydrology Monitoring PI DATE COMMENTS January 2, 2000 Surface water ponded to top of wetland cut. Sample plot inundated approximately 4 feet. April 1, 2000 Surface water ponded to edge of plot. Sample plot inundated approximately 4 feet. May 1, 2000 Sample plot inundated — depth 5 inches. September 15, 2000 Saturated at surface. Hydrology Monitorin Plot # g DATE COMMENTS January 2, 2000 Surface water ponded to top of wetland cut. April 1, 2000 Surface water ponded to edge of plot. May 1, 2000 Free - standing water at 1 inches, saturated at surface. September 15, 2000 Saturated at 12 inches. Hydrology Monitoring PI DATE COMMENTS January 2, 2000 Surface water ponded to top of wetland cut. Sample plot inundated approximately 4 feet. April 1, 2000 Surface water ponded to edge of plot. Sample plot inundated approximately 4 feet. May 1, 2000 Sample plot inundated — depth 5 inches. September 15, 2000 Saturated at surface. Hydrology Monitoring PI DATE COMMENTS January 2, 2000 Surface water ponded to top of wetland cut. Sample plot inundated approximately 4 feet. April 1, 2000 Surface water ponded to edge of plot. Sample plot inundated approximately 4 feet. May 1, 2000 Sample plot inundated — depth 5 inches. September 15, 2000 Saturated at surface. 14 Year 2 McLeod Mitigation - 98154 • • APPENDIX D Wildlife Observations 15 Year 2 McLeod Mitigation - 98154 Observed Wildlife - Year -2 Monitoring Period January 2, 2000, April 1, 2000, May 1, 2000, and September 15, 2000 SPECIES NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMENTS BIRDS Great blue heron (SM) Ardea herodias Individual observed feeding along edge of created wetland area in April, May, and September. Common mallard (G) Anus platyrhynchos Small groups in wetland area during late winter and early spring. No nesting observed. Female with young was observed in created wetland in May. Canada goose (G) Branta canadensis Small groups in mitigation area throughout year. Observed feeding on new growth in created wetland area. Wood duck (G) Aix sponsa Pair noted during April site visit in created wetland. Glaucous- winged gull Larus hyperboreus Common to area Red winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniseus Nesting within tall grass at edge of created wetland area and feeding within mitigation area. Marsh wren Cistothorus palustris Feeding and nesting within mitigation area. Common snipe Gallinago gallinago Observed onsite during spring Barn swallow Hirundo rustica Feeding in mitigation area. Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor Feeding in mitigation area. Violet -green swallow Tachycineta thallassina Feeding in mitigation area. Rough- winged swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis Feeding in mitigation area. American robin Turdus migratorius Feeding in mitigation area. Song sparrow Melospiza melodia Feeding in mitigation area. Dark -eyed junco Junco hyemalis Feeding in mitigation area. American goldfinch Carduelis tristis Feeding in mitigation area. Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas Feeding in mitigation area. Starling Sturnus vulgaris Feeding in mitigation area. American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Feeding in mitigation area. Rock dove Columbia livia Feeding in mitigation area. Northern flicker Colaptes auratus Feeding on tall trees along western edge of mitigation area. Stelier's jay Cyanocitta stelleri Feeding in mitigation area. Killdeer Charadrius vociferus Feeding in mitigation area. American coot Fulica americana Feeding in mitigation area. 16 Year 2 McLeod Mitigation - 98154 SE = STATE ENDANGERED ST = STATE THREATENED SS = STATE SENSITIVE SC = STATE CANDIDATE SM = STATE MONITORED G = game species, subject to hunting /fishing regulations 17 Year 2 McLeod Mitigation - 98154 MAMMALS Vagrant shrew Sorex vagrans Deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus Myotis Myotis spp. Townsend's vole Microtus californicus Opossum Didelphis virginianus Coyote Canis latrans REPTILES Common garter snake Thamniphis sirtalis AMPHIBIANS Pacific treefrog Hyla regilla Observed in mitigation area but not spawning Northwestern salamander * Ambystoma gracie Observed in mitigation area but not spawning STATUS SE = STATE ENDANGERED ST = STATE THREATENED SS = STATE SENSITIVE SC = STATE CANDIDATE SM = STATE MONITORED G = game species, subject to hunting /fishing regulations 17 Year 2 McLeod Mitigation - 98154 PHOTOS 18 Year 2 McLeod Mitigation - 98154 1 • During the spring of 2000 onsite monitoring documented that greater than 95% of the plants that has survived the first growing season exhibited good growth and establishment. The majority of these plants were producing flowers and seeds. The observed hydrology patterns within the created wetland also met the established performance criteria. During the summer and fall of 2000 the mitigation area was once again damaged by vandalism. A racetrack was made through the center of the created wetland and circled back along the western edge of the created wetland. In December 2000 the project team replanted the areas impacted by this vandalism. The track was disced prior to planting to reduce soil compaction. S LEVEL 1 DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS Tukwila Soccer Center Tukwila, Washington Prepared for: Tukwila Soccer Center, Inc. 17015 S.E. 82nd Drive Clackamas, OR 97015 December 20, 2001 Our Job No.10320 IZ Z8 �4 Cxph3Es q- 23 —a3' CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH, KENT, WA 98032 • (425) 251 -6222 • (425) 251 -8782 FAX www.barghausen.com TABLE OF CONTENTS TASK 1 STUDY AREA DEFINITION AND MAPS EXHIBIT A Vicinity Map EXHIBIT B Downstream Drainage Map EXHIBIT C Upstream Basin Map TASK 2 RESOURCE REVIEW EXHIBIT D FEMA Map EXHIBIT E Sensitive Areas Folios EXHIBIT F SCS Soils Map EXHIBIT G Assessor's Map EXHIBIT H Wetland Inventory Map EXHIBIT I Basin Reconnaissance Summary Report TASK 3 HELD INSPECTION 3.1 Conveyance System Nuisance Problems (Type 1) 3.2 Severe Erosion Problems (Type 2) 3.3 Severe Flooding Problems (Type 3) EXHIBIT J Off -Site Analysis Drainage System Table TASK 4 DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTIONS EXHIBIT K Drainage Complaints 4.1 Upstream Analysis 4.2 Downstream Analysis TASK 5 MITIGATION OF EXISTING OR POTENTIAL PROBLEMS 10320.002 [JGH/bq /rh] TASK 1 STUDY AREA DEFINITION AND MAPS The proposed site is approximately 5.6 acres located within a portion of the Southeast quarter of Section 25, Township 22 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, King County Washington. More specifically, the site is located east of the intersection of Strander Boulevard and West Valley Highway. The enclosed Exhibit A Vicinity Map depicts the approximate location of the proposed site. Only 1.9 acres of the site is proposed to be developed while the remaining area is wetlands. The existing topography of the site slopes gradually to the northeast. The site has three berms located within it. The first one is just south of the north property line and spans almost the entire length of the property. The second one is situated in the central portion of the site and runs from the west property approximately to the center of the property. The third berm is to the south and runs along the entire length of the south property line and bisects the developable portion of the site from the wetlands. There is a swale running along the east property line as well as the west. The swale along the west property line flows southward. The swale which runs along the east property line has a high point located near the southeast property corner. The majority of the on- site drainage flows northeast into a swale which runs along the toe of slope of the railroad tracks. The proposed site is clear of trees and vegetated with tall grass and blackberries. Strander Boulevard will be extended to the proposed site and a 60 -foot right -of -way will be dedicated to the City for the road improvements. 10320.002 [JGH/bq /rh] TASK 2 RESOURCE REVIEW Floodplain and Floodway FEMA Maps: Please see the enclosed FEMA Map (Exhibit E) utilized for this analysis for Panel No. 978 of 1725, Map No. 53033C0978, revised May 16, 1995. As indicated by this map, the proposed project site does not lie within a floodplain or a floodway of a stream. Refer to Exhibit D FEMA Map. Sensitive Area Folios: After review of the King County sensitive areas folios it was found that our site does not lie within any sensitive areas. It should be noted that the project is located to the north of an existing wetland. Sensitive areas folio maps with the project site identified have been included as Exhibit E in the Appendix of this report. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Soils Survey for King County has been incorporated into this report and can be found in Exhibit F in the Appendix. In general, the project soils have been mapped as Newberg Silt Loam. Wetland inventory maps were reviewed for this project and no wetlands were identified. However, a wetland exists within the south portion of the site. Wetland inventory maps have been included as Exhibit H in the Appendix of this report. Basin Reconnaissance Summary Report: This site is located within the Black River subbasin within the Green River Basin. A Basin Reconnaissance Summary Report can be found in Exhibit I of this report 10320.002 [JGH/bq /rh] TASK 3 FIELD INSPECTION 3.1 Conveyance System Nuisance Problems (Type 1) Nuisance problems, in general, are defined as any existing or predicted flooding or erosion that does not constitute a severe flooding or erosion problem as defined below. Conveyance system nuisance problems are any nuisance flooding or erosion that results from the overflow of a constructed conveyance system for runoff events less than or equal to a 10 -year event. Examples include inundation of a shelter or lane of a roadway, overflows collecting in yards or pastures, shallow flows . across driveways, minor flooding in crawl spaces or in heated garages /outbuildings, and minor erosion. After a field reconnaissance conducted by this office, it appears that our site does incorporate conveyance system nuisance problems within the downstream drainage path. The existing 6- inch culvert within the projects downstream path would appear to fail during a 10 -year storm event. 3.2 Severe Erosion Problems (Type 2) Severe erosion problems are defined as downstream channels, ravines, or slopes with evidence or potential for erosion in size sufficient to propose a sedimentation hazard to downstream conveyance systems or proposed landslide hazards by undercutting adjacent slopes. Severe erosion problems do not include roadway shoulder riling or minor ditch erosion. This project does not anticipate and did not find any severe erosion problems as delineated in the above paragraph. 3.3 Severe Flooding Problems (Type 3) Severe flooding problems can be caused by conveyance system overflows or the elevated water surface of ponds, lakes, wetlands, or closed depressions. Severe flooding problems are defined as follows: The flooding of the finished area of habitable building or the electrical heating system of a habitable building fo runoff events less than or equal to the 100 -year event. Examples include flooding of finished floors of homes and commercial industrial buildings. Flooding of electrical heating systems and components in the crawl space of a garage or home, such problems are referred to in this manual as "severe building flooding problems." After a field reconnaissance it appears that our site does not contribute to any flooding problems. 10320.002 [JGH/bq /rh] TASK 4 DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTIONS The site is generally flat with the exception of 3 berms. Two are located within the southern portion of the property, the other located at the central eastern portion of the property. A 7- foot -high earth berm located along the south property line prevents any drainage to the south from flowing onto the site. The site slopes towards the northeast corner of the property and drains into a swale running north along the east property line. A swale running along the west property line conveys drainage to the south, but does not gather any drainage from the site. One problem was found in the course of the downstream drainage path. The existing 6 -inch culvert within the project' s downstream path would appear to fail due to sediment and debris buildup. 4.1 Upstream Analysis Based on a USGS quad map and our site visit, it appears that there is no upstream flow onto our site. The property to the north drains to the east and is conveyed through a ditch running to the north. Drainage on the property to the south flows into the ditch running along the east property line as well as the ditch running along the west property line. Both ditches run to the south. There is also a berm adjacent to the south property line running the entire distance which prevents any drainage from flowing onto our site. 4.2 Downstream Analysis Runoff leaves the site flowing north through a ditch vegetated with dense brush and tall grass and runs at approximately 0.5 percent in a northward direction along the toe of slope of the railroad tracks for approximately 850 feet. At this point there is a small train station and the ditch jetties out from the toe of slope approximately 15 to 20 feet. It flows at this location for approximately 50 to 100 feet before entering a 6 -inch PVC pipe. Drainage is conveyed through storm drain pipe for approximately 20 feet, then outfalls into an open ditch, which runs in a northeast direction until meeting with the toe of slope of the railroad tracks. At this point the ditch is vegetated with very dense brush and continues for another approximately 1,100 feet. Drainage then enters into a 24 -inch storm drain pipe and continues in an eastward direction under both sets of railroad tracks. Drainage is tightlined for approximately 700 feet before outfalling into a channel running parallel with Longacres Way. 10320.002 [JGH/bq /rh] TASK 5 MITIGATION OF EXISTING OR POTENTIAL PROBLEMS The downstream area for this project appears to have only one nuisance within the downstream path, which is the 6 -inch culvert. Based on our field inspection it appears that there are no erosion or flooding problems. If our storm system is designed in accordance with the City of Tukwila' s standards wd do not anticipate surface water runoff problems or exacerbation of existing problems. Mitigation should not be necessary as current City of Tukwila storm drainage standards require detention release rates at that of the pre - developed condition. 10320.002 [JGH/bq /rh] EXHIBIT A VICINITY MAP PL S 152ND ST SPRI SIT,C "� yy 2 SOURCE: THE THOMAS GUIDE (USED BY PERMISSION) VICINITY MAP NORTH EXHIBIT B DOWNSTREAM DRAINAGE MAP DOWNSTREAM DRAINAGE MAP 0' 300' 6 SiN.T__)-D)4- :7 -.6.N HAR/ V- : :: A_ a �l M.P. '1' Nt4i1. HARM a i i •�. L./ 1 1 • o . .1 Legend t • • i r;4i / ._�a►F� t ..::11STENSEN 5 �! i s T ✓ 1 I L • RD J. 1 Channel , Pipe Subbasin Subbasin Property D =Depth / / • Boundary Number Limits KCM Kramer, Chin & Mayo, Inc. daft c a� G La 2/88 MS ,ds chsdad er 5-C,.‘01 NOTED aovo..o a 5 GM/ Nelson Place/Longacres Way Preliminary Design City of Tukwila Recommended Plan Figure .i �2 EXHIBIT C UPSTREAM BASIN MAP To P -i Channel UPSTREAM DRAINAGE MAP 1l, AZ` 0' 300' 6 IONGACRES WAY 1 i 1 r i • • 1 c 0 • • • F1i Fi, . a jl • ^� • Legend ammilmonam o �;..•� Subbasin Boundary Channel, D =Depth Pipe \ KCM Kramer, Chin 8 Mayo, Inc. date 188 -3..i. _ te a aLa M5 ct+oena by 5'Gvt/ .. NOTED aoprtrso by 5 C- / . Nelson Place /Longacres Way Preliminary Design City of Tukwila Subbasin Number _— Property Limits Recommended Plan Figure EXHIBIT D FEMA MAP FEMA MAP NORTH EXHIBIT D FEMA MAP EXHIBIT E SENSITIVE AREAS FOLIOS iiMR..'.'; ?7 . elt R So !. Vn.ni R• gl1` .�t.A77LL `Ili' 19iaY 11111,0 0 nn Mawr L�? • 1 1/2 0 MILE SOURCE: 1990 KING COUNTY SENSITIVE AREAS FOLIO HAZARD AREAS NORTH 1 1/2 0 1 MILE LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS SOURCE: 1990 KING COUNTY SENSITIVE AREAS FOLIO NORTH +r' %+... anti Sown .w m . YOlNK gYlY1a Fit CiIItdW7f Coleman Poing lIN�Ilt\ .Ftii V' LE �1111�4r`,� It Div B-' ?L.vr 1 1/2 0 MILE 1 EROSION HAZARD AREAS SOURCE: 1990 KING COUNTY SENSITIVE AREAS FOLIO NORTH Nreac 1 1/2 0 1 MILE STREAMS AND FLOOD HAZARD AREAS SOURCE: 1990 KING COUNTY SENSITIVE AREAS FOLIO NORTH 1 1/2 0 MILE 1 COAL MINE HAZARD AREAS SOURCE: 1990 KING COUNTY SENSITIVE AREAS FOLIO NORTH EXHIBIT F SCS SOILS MAP 11.• o,, Longacre41�", ii "1 yea, 1:10 Ur �i,ti• i ' Track w, • IH SOILS MAP NORTH GUIDE TO MAPPING UNITS For a full description of a mapping unit, read both the description of the mapping unit and that of the soil series to which the mapping unit belongs. See table 6, page 70, for descriptions of woodland groups. Other information is given in tables as follows: Acreage and extent, table 1, page 9. Engineering uses of the soils, tables 2 and 3, pages 36 through 55. Town and country planning, table 4, page 57. Recreational uses, table 5, page 64. Estimated yields, table 7, page 79. Woodland Described Capability unit group Map on symbol Mapping unit page Symbol Page Symbol AgB Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes 10 IVe -2 76 3d2 AgC Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes 8 IVe -2 76 3d1 AgD Aldeiwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 10 VIe -2 78 3d1 AkF Aldeiwood and Kitsap soils, very steep 10 VIIe -1 78 2d1 AmB Arents, Alderwood material, 0 to 6 percent slopes 1 / -- 10 IVe -2 76 3d2 AmC Arents, Alderwood material, 6 to 15 percent slopes 1/ 10 IVe -2 76 3d2 An Arents, Everett material 1/ 11 IVs -1 77 3f3 BeC Beausite gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes 11 IVe -2 76 3d2 BeD Beausite gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 12 VIe -2 78 3d1 BeF Beausite gravelly sandy loam, 40 to 75 percent slopes 12 VIIe -1 78 3d1 Bh Bellingham silt loam 12 IIIw -2 76 3ir2 Br Briscot silt loam 13 IIw -2 75 3w1 Bu Buckley silt loam 13 IIIw -2 76 4w1 (b Coastal beaches 14 VIIIw -1 78 Ea . Earlmont silt loam 14 IIw -2 75 3w2 Ed Edgewick fine sandy loam 15 IIIw -1 75 201 EvB Everett gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes 15 IVs -1 77 3f3 EvC Everett gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes 16 VIs -1 78 3f3 EvD Everett gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 16 Vle -1 77 3f2 EwC 'Everett - Alderwood gravelly sandy loans, 6 to 15 percent slopes 16 VIs -1 78 3f3 InA Indianola loamy fine sand, 0 to 4 percent slopes 17 IVs -2 77 4s3 InC Indianola loamy fine sand, 4 to 15 percent slopes 16 IVs -2 77 4s3 InD Indianola loamy fine sand, 15 to 30 percent slopes 17 VIe -1 76 4s2 KpB Kitsap silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes 17 IIIe -1 75 2d2 KpC Kitsap silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes 18 IVe -1 76 2d2 KpD Kitsap silt loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 18 VIe -2 78 2d1 KsC Klaus gravelly loamy sand, 6 to 15 percent slopes 18 VIs -1 78 3f1 Ma Mixed alluvial land 18 VIw -2 78 2o1 NeC Neilton very gravelly loamy sand, 2 to 15 percent slopes 19 VIs -1 78 3f3 Ng Newberg silt loam 19 IIw -1 74 2o1 Nk Nooksack silt loam 20 IIw -1 74 201 No Norma sandy loam 20 IIIw -3 76 3w2 Or Orcas peat 21 VIIIw-1 78 Os Oridia silt loam 21 IIw -2 75 3w1 OvC Ovall gravelly loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes 22 IVe -2 76 3d1 OvD Ovall gravelly loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes 23 VIe -2 78 3d1 OvF Ovall gravelly loam, 40 to 75 percent slopes 23 VIIe -1 78 3d1 Pc Pilchuck loamy fine sand 23 VIw -1 78 2s1 Pk Pilchuck fine sandy loam 23 IVw -1 76 2s1 Pu Puget silty clay loam 24 IIIw -2 76 3w2 Py Puyallup fine sandy loam 24 IIw -1 74 2o1 RaC Ragnar fine sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes 25 IVe -3 77 4s1 RaD Ragnar fine sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes 26 VIe -2 78 4s1 RdC Ragnar- Indianola association, sloping: 1/ 26 Ragnar soil -- IVe -3 77 4s1 Indianola soil IVs -2 77 4s3 RdE Ragnar- Indianola association, moderately steep: 1/ 26 -- -_ Ragnar soil -- VIe -2 78 4s1 Indianola soil VIe -1 77 4s2 U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1973 0 - 469 -266 GUIDE TO MAPPING UNITS -- Continued Woodland Described Capability unit group Map on symbol Mapping unit page Symbol Page Symbol Re Renton silt loam 26 IIIw -1 75 3w1 Rh Riverwash 27 VIIIw -1 78 - -- Sa Salal silt loam 27 IIw -1 74 201 Sh Sammamish silt loam 27 IIw -2 75 3w1 Sk Seattle muck 28 IIw -3 75 - -- Sm Shalcar muck 29 IIw -3 75 - -- Sn Si silt loam 29 IIw -1 74 201 So Snohomish silt loam 30 IIw -2 75 3w2 Sr Snohomish silt loam, thick surface variant 31 IIw -2 75 3w2 Su Sultan silt loam 31 IIw -1 74 3w1 Tu Tukwila muck 32 IIw -3 75 - -- Ur Urban land 33 -- - -- Wo Woodinville silt loam 33 IIw -2 75 3w2 1/ The composition of these units is more variable than that of the others in the Area, but it has been controlled well enough to interpret for the expected use of the soils. EXHIBIT G ASSESSOR'S MAP dVW S, IOSS2SSV qa 44 A4 • • A • 4 as "ea 7.as ° $,;i. 0' • •G ' v: t �b� 0 �� 3 .• o_ coex o e.---,, _ v � 4� 1 saarr Foa pY/ '4b n a l .G'_/ • c� 44 ♦ 04°49 49, gi as g � ▪ t133K t W : e" c ao= M7 01/91/t.- v mi =say �) S � tcw, / 181 s T. • 0 Neii tQ e+�p� Rt m NO IS 0e039008 1 ,Y rs ry +rs - i t/ oo . .. vr,dr•/ a �. � vXL" rid .wo oleo' Two v gg TOSPtor -oose n g a 17..41.7 9804219002 ^^.o V WIG/ S tar -Z1 -4 w " Ine' is y r 2? rn Yatwiu CrNZen,Irb Sae .e.✓reA/ e1ID. 4aao (OEM,SZ P. d P. w• a. Ia'Aea 444 UNION PA '1. m a6 ~~ 6S A - V M % A;0• .' : '-4o • • • N. P. RR ./l.0T,SIL €Vale EXHIBIT H WETLAND INVENTORY MAP 5 1/2 0 MILE SOURCE: 1990 KING COUNTY SENSITIVE AREAS FOLIO WETLANDS NORTH EXHIBIT I BASIN RECONNAISSANCE SUMMARY REPORT RECONNAISSANCE REPORT NO. 14 BLACK RIVER BASIN JUNE 1987 Natural Resources and Parks Division and Surface Water Management Division King County, Washington P:BR.TOC /mlm King County Executive Tim Hill King County Council Audrey Gruver, District 1 Cynthia Sullivan, District 2 Bill Reams, District 3 Lois North, District 4 Ron Sims, District 5 Bruce Laing, District 6 Paul Barden, District 7 Bob Grieve, District 8 Gary Grant, District 9 • Department of Public Works Don LaBelle, Director Surface Water Management Division Joseph J. Simmler, Division Manager Jim Kramer, Assistant Division Manager Dave Clark, Manager, River & Water Resource Section Larry Gibbons, Manager, Project Management and Design Section Contributing Staff Doug Chin, Sr. Engineer Randall Parsons, Sr. Engineer Andy Levesque, Sr. Engineer Bruce Barker, Engineer Arny Stonkus, Engineer Ray Steiger, Engineer Pete Ringen, Engineer Consulting Staff Don Spencer, Associate Geologist, Earth Consultants, Inc. John Bethel, Soil Scientist, Earth Consultants, Inc. P:CR Parks, Planning and Resources Joe Nagel, Director Natural Resources and Parks Division Russ Cahill, Division Manager Bill Jolly, Acting Division Manager Derek Poon, Chief, Resources Planning Section Bill Eckel, Manager, Basin Planning Program Contributing Staff Ray Heller, Project Manager & Team Leader Matthew Clark, Project Manager Robert R. Fuerstenberg, Biologist & Team Leader Matthew J. Bruengo, Geologist Lee Benda, Geologist Derek Booth, Geologist Dyanne Sheldon, Wetlands Biologist Cindy Baker, Earth Scientist Di Johnson, Planning Support Technician Robert Radek, Planning Support Technician Randal Bays, Planning Support Technician Fred Bentler, Planning Support Technician Mark Hudson, Planning Support Technician Sharon Clausen, Planning Support Technician David Truax, Planning Support Technician Brian Vanderburg, Planning Support Technician Carolyn M. Byerly, Technical Writer Susanna Hornig, Technical Writer Virginia Newman, Graphic Artist Marcia McNulty, Typesetter Mildred Miller, Typesetter Jaki Reed, Typesetter Lela Lira, Office Technician Marty Cox, Office Technician TABLE OF CONTENTS I. SUMMARY 1 II. INTRODUCTION 1 III. FINDINGS IN BLACK RIVER BASIN 2 A. Overview 2 B. Effects of Urbanization 4 C. Specific Problems 5 IV. RECOMMENDATIONS 7 A. Expand existing and /or construct additional R/D facilities 7 B. Preserve wetlands on plateau to provide natural storage 7 C. Protect steep valley walls from erosion and landslides 7 D. Reduce sedimentation in streams along . valley floor E. Enforce prohibitions against dumping domestic trash F. Increase the overall effectiveness of surface water management V. MAP APPENDICES APPENDIX A:. Estimated Costs APPENDIX B: Capital Improvement Projects Rating List APPENDIX C: Detailed Findings and Recommendations P:BR.TOC /mIm 7 8 9 A -1 B -1 C -1 I. SUMMARY Black River Basin, located in south King County, is named for a river that ceased to exist in 1917, after major alterations to river systems were made to build the Lake Washington ship canal. The reconnaissance was conducted along the streams and tributaries still remaining in this basin. Development in the basin in and around the cities of Kent, Renton, and Tukwila has produced extensive areas of impervious surface, which are expected to double by the time the basin reaches its development capacity. Storm runoff from impervious surfaces is drained through pipes and discharges in some cases directly into the stream system. Field investigation of problems in the Black River Basin revealed that volumes and rates of stormwater flows have contributed to serious acceleration of erosion of streambanks and lower slopes and have produced downcutting and landslides in some places. Sedimentation resulting from these processes has, in turn, clogged existing conveyance systems, rendering many of them ineffective, and destroyed fish habitat for spawning, rearing, and migrating. In addition, the general inefficiency of the basin drainage system has increased the potential for flooding. Another problem cited was visibly poor water quality resulting from large amounts of domestic trash placed in streambeds and from commercial /industrial runoff, particularly near the Longacres Racetrack in Renton. Recommendations for action in the Black River Basin include: 1) expanding R/D facilities and preserving wetlands to assure adequate stormwater storage, 2) taking measures to protect steep valley walls from erosion and landslides 3) reducing sedimentation on the valley floor with sediment traps, 4) increasing enforcement of regulations against the dumping of trash into streams, and 5) increasing the overall effectiveness of surface water management in the basin through doing more maintenance of facilities, continuing intergovernmental agreements, lowering volumes and rates of release for stormwater, and other measures. H. INTRODUCTION: History and Goals of the Program In 1985 the King County Council approved funding for the Planning Division (now called the Natural Resources and Parks Division), in coordination with the Surface Water Management Division, to conduct a reconnaissance of 29 major drainage basins located in King County. The effort began with an initial investigation of three basins -- Evans, Soos, and Hylebos Creeks -- in order to determine existing and potential surface water problems and to recom- mend action to mitigate and prevent these problems. These initial investigations used available data and new field observations to examine geology, hydrology and habitat conditions in each basin. Findings from these three basins led the King County Council to adopt Resolution 6018 in April 1986, calling for reconnaissance to be completed on the remaining 26 basins. The Basin Reconnaissance Program, which was subsequently established, is now an important ele- ment of surface water management. The goals of the program are to provide useful data with regard to 1) critical problems needing immediate solutions, 2) basin characteristics for use in the preparation of detailed basin management plans, and 3) capital costs associated with the early resolution of drainage problems. The reconnaissance reports are intended to provide an evaluation of present drainage con- ditions in the County in order to transmit information to policymakers to aid them in deve- loping more detailed regulatory measures and specific capital improvement plans. They are not intended to ascribe in any conclusive manner the causes of drainage or erosion problems; instead, they are to be used as initial surveys from which choices for subsequent detailed engineering and other professional environmental analyses may be made. Due to the limited amount of time available for the field work in each basin, the reports must be viewed as P:BR /jr 1 Black River Basin (continued) descriptive environmental narratives rather than as final engineering conclusions. Recommendations contained in each report provide a description of potential mitigative measures for each particular basin; these measures might provide maximum environmental protection through capital project construction or development approval conditions. The appropriate extent of such measures will be decided on a case -by -case basis by County offi- cials responsible for reviewing applications for permit approvals and for choosing among com- peting projects for public construction. Nothing in the reports is intended to substitute for a more thorough environmental and engineering analysis possible on a site - specific basis for any proposal. III. FINDINGS IN BLACK RIVER BASIN The field reconnaissance in Black River Basin was conducted in February 1987 by Ray Heller, resource planner; Ray Steiger and Doug Chin, engineers; and Matthew J. Brunengo, geologist. Their findings and recommendations are presented here. A. Overview of Black River Basin Geographic and land use features. Black River Basin is generally bounded on the north by the cities of Renton and Tukwila and on the south by the city of Kent. The western and eastern boundaries are formed by the Green River and 116th Avenue SE, respectively, in this southern King County basin. The Black River, which gives its name to this basin, actually ceased to exist in 1917, when the Lake Washington ship canal was built and the level of Lake Washington was lowered, cutting off flow to the Black River. The 28-square-mile basin investigated by this field team includes what remains of the network of tributaries that formerly connected with the Black River. The Black River Basin is split nearly equally into an eastern upland plateau and a western floodplain in the Lower Green River Valley along State Road (SR) 167. The floodplain is almost wholly contained within the cities of Tukwila, Renton, and Kent, where extensive development in the last two decades has changed the landscape from a rural farming area to a commercial and industrial one. While open space and farming still exist here, the area will be infilled, primarily by a combination of commercial, industrial, and some multi- family complexes, by the year 2000. The King County Comprehensive Plan shows that the upland area will be developed at urban densities. This transition is already in progress, with commercial developments emerging along the Kent- Kangley Highway (SR 516), the Benson Highway (SR 515), and the Carr Road -176th Street SE- Petrovitsky Road corridor. Multi - family land use occurs in the uplands also and surrounds commercial developments. New single- family units are being built throughout most of the eastern upland portion of the basin. The amount of impervious surface is expected to nearly double between 1985 and the time the basin is fully developed. This will require strict controls on surface water discharge to assure prevention of further degradation of the stream system, which has already begun to exhibit adverse environmental impacts resulting from urbanization. Other factors of concern in this basin are those sensitive areas occupied by wetlands, streams, floodplains, coal -mine zones, and landslide zones. Mostly located in the eastern portion of the basin, these areas have already been damaged by the effects of develop- P:BR /jr Black River Basin (continued) ment. Details of the damage, along with suggestions for mitigation, are contained in later section of this report. Dominant geologic and geomorphic features. Black River Basin consists of the part of the Duwamish Valley east of the Green River and the western edge of the Covington drift plain, a plateau underlain by glacial deposits. Small creeks, which flow across its rolling surface, have eroded deep, narrow ravines up to 1.5 miles into the plateau. Downcutting is migrating headward in the upper reaches, and erosion of banks and lower slopes causes landsliding in the canyon walls, most of which are naturally unstable. Both of these processes are accelerated by increased flows 'attributable to urbanization. Sediment is deposited where the streams flow onto the valley floor. The surface of the Covington drift plain is dominantly basal till, mantled in places with recessional outwash or deposits of post- glacial lakes. Near the edge of the plateau are several lenses of sediment deposited adjacent to a glacier lobe in the Duwamish Valley. Older sediments are exposed in the ravines and bluffs. In the north, unconsolidated sediments lap up onto the southern limb of the Newcastle anticline; sedimentary and volcanic rocks crop out in the bluffs north of Panther Creek and form the Renton. Talbot, and Earlington Hills in the northern end of the valley toward Tukwila. Coal was mined from this area from 1853 until the 1940s. The Duwamish Valley is part of a trough carved into the drift plain during the last glaciation; it later became an arm of Puget Sound. A catastrophic mudflow originating on Mount Rainier approximately 5700 years ago dumped massive amounts of debris into the • trough. This and other events, plus. .the deposition of . alluvial sediment, expelled the salt water. ' Through the nineteenth century, the combined White and Green Rivers meandered through the valley. Near Renton, the Cedar River flowed into the Black which drained Lake Washington and flowed into the Duwamish. Beginning in 1906 a series of changes was made to these river systems. The Cedar River was diverted into Lake Washington, and the White River was diverted south to the Puyallup. The Black River itself ceased to exist. Geomorphic processes in the Black River Basin are most active on the western edge of the plateau. Lakes and wetlands formed here in the poorly drained swales. Where conditions of drainage and percolation are appropriate, small streams flow between the drumlins; eroding deep ravines into the unconsolidated sediments in the process. Over time, the ravines have been widened by mass - wasting of their walls (a process aided by groundwater) and erosion by tributary creeks; their upper ends have migrated their upstream into the plateau. Sediment carried by these streams was deposited in the Duwamish trough; after the trough became an alluvial valley, small fans formed on its edge. Hydrologic and hydraulic features. There are three distinct geographic features asso- ciated with the hydraulics of Black River Basin: the plateau east of the Lower Green River Valley, the steep (5 -35 °) erosive hillsides, and the flat floodplain of the valley floor. Mill, Garrison, Springbrook, and Panther Creeks, as well as three small, unnamed tri- butaries (0023, 0006B, and 0006C), all originate from locations on top of the plateau. Panther Creek originates from Panther Lake and the surrounding wetlands. The P:BR /jr 3 Black River Basin (continued) remaining tributaries originate primarily from surface water stored in natural depressions and wetland areas along the top of the hill. The surface water is collected and routed generally north and west via natural swales, open roadside ditches, culverts, and pipelines within street rights -of -way and, finally, down the steep hillsides to the valley floor. Mill Creek, located at the southernmost end of the Black River Basin, flows north between the Green River and SR 167 and then crosses under the highway at various locations. Mill, Springbrook, and Garrison Creeks continue north along the west side of SR 167 and eventually combine as Springbrook Creek before being pumped into the Green River through King County's Black River pump station. Tributaries 00068 and 0006C flow north independently down the hillside adjacent to Interstate 405 and into Renton, where they enter the city's storm drain system. Habitat characteristics. The use of natural streams for urban stormwater conduits has had a detrimental effect on most stream systems in the Black River Basin. Increased stormwater release rates that are higher than streams can convey without problems have resulted in extensive erosion, sedimentation, and landslides. Water quality problems caused by domestic garbage placed in streams and point discharges of pollutants are additional factors. What is striking about this basin is that these habitat problems exist everywhere. While some problems are worse than others, their impact on the fish habitat of each stream examined was profound. No fish were observed in any streams during the investigation. For this reason it is surprising that the fish counter at the Black River pump plant located on Monster Road (through which all water in the basin is discharged into the Green River recorded 84 fish entering the "stream system in 1986. While this figure is higher than that for fish counts in the previous five years, it is significantly lower than historical levels or the potential levels that might be achieved if streams were in better condition for spawning. The current habitat conditions offer little hope for the future of these salmon runs. To reach spawning areas fish must first pass through an open flood - control drainage ditch for a minimum of five miles. This ditch has no vegetation or pool protection for fish to take refuge against predators or water - temperature increases. In addition, water quality is visibly poor. The eggs of fish that do reach spawning territory are likely to be smothered with sediment or washed out during heavy rainstorms. If these problems associated with development worsen, stream systems will probably be left biologically sterile. Reversing this pattern of degradation is dependent on revising the policies and priorities in the planning and zoning activities, the develop- ment review processes on the Surface Water Management programs of King County, Renton, Tukwila, and Kent. B. Effects of Urbanization in the Basin The existing upper reaches of the Black River Basin were once heavily vegetated, and natural depressions retained much of the surface water. Water was released slowly then, and the stream systems could convey flows easily. Development has brought about the removal of this vegetative cover and filling of the natural depressions. Many streams are now being piped. Impervious surfaces are increasing and will eventually account for 50 percent of the basin's surface area. In general, surface water is entering natural systems at a faster and higher rate than before development accelerated two decades ago. P:BR /jr 4 Black River Basin (continued) Earlier discussions pointed out the serious effects this is producing in the form of ero- sion and sediment transport to lower stream reaches. Additionally, sedimentation decreases the efficiency of the entire basin drainage system by filling culverts and chan- nels. This in turn increases the potential for flooding. The city of Kent removes an estimated 1,100 cubic yards of sediment annually from its sediment facility at Mill Creek Park. The Washington State Department of • Transportation also employs a regular cleaning schedule to remove gravel and sediment from its culvert under South 212th Street on Tributary 0023. Sediment from Springbrook Creek has been transported downstream from the erosive hillside to a pri- vate trout farm west of Talbot Road and rendered it inoperative. Similar examples occur throughout the basin along the bottom of the steep hillside and east of State Road 167. Erosion is further accelerated by drainage outlets from developments and public areas. Discharge from a pipe into Garrison Creek adjacent to Benson Road freefalls for approximately 10 feet before scouring the ravine it enters. Similar erosion occurs on Tributary 0006B where water is discharged from the Fred Nelson Junior High School across Benson Road to the top of a severely eroded ravine. An onsite detention facility downstream at the Victoria Hills housing development accumulates large amounts of sediment. Its capacity is decreasing, and the function of the facility is threatened. The development trends in this basin mean that land for regional R/D facilities will •become more difficult to obtain at the same time that erosion' and .potential for flooding are increasing. Additional problems may arise if, existing onsite R/D. systems -malfunction from improper design or construction or from lack of maintenance. An onsite facility for a privately developed trailer park, located west of the Benson Road adjacent to Garrison Creek, exemplifies the potential hazard. Unstable fill was placed on the steep ravine and an R/D pond built on its edge. The fill becomes saturated when the pond is in use, and tension cracks in the fill along the slope indicate potential failure. Such an event would add large amounts of sediment to the drainage system. Development may create similar problems elsewhere if the proper design, construction, inspection, and maintenance of R/D facilities is neglected. C. Specific Problems Identified Black River Basin exhibits serious problems throughout its system, with exceptions only in the south fork of Springbrook Creek and on Panther Creek in subcatchment 10. The most significant problems noted by the field team during its investigation are listed below. 1. Stream channel erosion accelerated by the muting of runoff from developed areas into streams. Major problems exist in the ravines, where streams are cutting into till at the upper ends of canyons and associated landsliding and surface erosion occur (see section 3 below). Although these processes have been taking place naturally for a long time, increased runoff from developing areas on the plateau is causing acceleration of the erosion. a. The worst cases of erosion observed include those on Mill Creek (0005). P:BR /jr 5 Black River Basin (continued) Garrison Creek (0022) and its tributaries (0023, 0024, and 0025), the north fork of Springbrook Creek (0021), and Panther Creek (0006). b. Prominent examples of gullying at drainage - structure outfalls are in Mill Creek (0005), Springbrook Creek (0021), Panther Creek (0006), and below Benson Road on both Garrison Creek (0022) and Talbot Creek (0006B). c. Examples of accelerated downcutting resulting from increased runoff from developing areas are located in Talbot Creek and two small streams (0064A and 0006C) in Renton. 2. Landsliding associated with stream erosion in ravines, as a result of steep slopes and saturated soils. Instability generally takes the form of rotational failures or debris slides triggered by stream undercutting. In many cases, natural instability is exacerbated by filling and /or by construction on canyon walls; for example, a new fill above Garrison Creek at Benson Road is failing, and old fills are being under- cut. All of the ravines should be considered landslide- hazard areas. The same is true of the bluffs at the western edge of the plateau, even though there have not been many problems yet. These are moderate to steep, landslide - susceptible slo- pes, especially in the northern (Renton) and southern (Kent) ends of the basin -- the area under the most development pressure. 3. Damage to (or destruction of) habitat due to: a High flows and high velocities, which remove macrophytes and benthic orga- nisms, plants, insects, and possibly fish. Visible evidence of high velocities was noted on all the streams in this basin except the south fork of Springbrook Creek. b. Sedimentation from excessive erosion, which is filling pools, choking spawning gravels, and in some cases filling stream beds to the point of making channels impassible to fish. All of the four big stream systems in Black River Basin • exhibit this problem. The Kent parks department annually removes 1,100 cubic yards of material from Mill Creek. A large sediment flow has filled the Springbrook Creek stream channel to a depth of approximately 5 feet, and Panther Creek just north of Valley General Hospital has a large alluvial fan. c. Visibly poor water quality: 1) Large amounts of domestic trash have been deposited in these stream canyons. Mill Creek has become a dump for appliances at river mile 9.60, and Garrison Creek appears to be more of a landfill than a creek at 1.30. Such practices have a detrimental effect on water quality as well as the visual quality of the environment. 2) Commercial and industrial enterprises are producing runoff that causes many streams to be oily, turbid, and sudsy. Springbrook Creek (Trib. 0005 at RM 1.30), flowing under the bridge of Southwest 16th Street just east of Longacres in Renton, is one of the worst examples noted. The Western Processing facility just upstream has been identified as a source of toxic wastes entering both surface and groundwater systems. P:BR /jr 6 Black River Basin (continued) IV. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION Habitat, erosion, landsliding, and flooding problems in the Black River Basin can be addressed by the measures identified below. Most of the solutions listed here will mitigate specific problems observed during field investigation or will prevent similar problems in the future. However, additional recommendations have been included to suggest administrative or regulatory measures that would increase the overall effectiveness of surface water management in this basin. A. Expand existing and /or construct additional regional R/D facilities on the plateau in order to control storm flows that originate there. Site facilities upstream of the four large creek ravines that are experiencing the worst damage. Facilities should be regional in scope and should follow the general specifi- cations outlined in Appendix .A of this report. These will impede the direct conveyance of runoff into the steep, naturally erosive ravines, thereby reducing erosion rates that result in sediment transport and slope instability and that damage habitat. B. Preserve wetlands on the plateau to provide natural storage. In addition, reconsider Panther Lake for use as a regional R/D site. Although the lake has been classified as a #1 -C wetland, the amount of storage it offers is substantial with a moderate addi- tional (.25 -to .50 -foot) fluctuation in depth. C. Protect steep valley walls from erosion and landslides caused from direct discharges of stormwater: 1. Tightline discharges or provide other appropriate nonerosive conveyance over steep hillsides; provide energy dissipation at the outfalls. This has already been done at several points on Mill Creek (Tributary 0005) with good results. 2. Consider rerouting flow in rases where tightlining or other methods are not feasible. For example, runoff from the area southeast of Springbrook Creek might be piped down Southeast 200th Street rather than routed into the north fork (0021) as it is now. 3. Lower the potential for landslides by restricting development in and along the tops of ravines. In particular, strongly discourage filling along the edges; the fill at Benson Road above Garrison Creek (0022) will probably have to be removed. D. Reduce sedimentation in streams along the valley floor in cases where sedimentation is not adequately prevented by R/D and other upstream measures. In extreme cases ( probably including Panther Creek [00061), construct sediment traps (with convenient access for removal of accumulated material) at points where streams flow onto the valley floor. E. Increase enforcement of regulations against the dumping of domestic trash into ravines and stream channels. The Seattle -King County Health Department and the King County office of Building and Land Development should be asked to investigate this ongoing problem and to take appropriate action when violators are identified. P:BR /jr 7 Black River Basin (continued) F. Increase the overall effectiveness of surface water management in the Black River Basin: 1. Continue cooperative intergovernmental arrangements between the cities of Tukwila, Kent, and Renton; the Washington State Department of Transportation; and the King County Surface Water Management Division to identify and propose solutions to habitat and hydraulic problems in the basin. These efforts should include de- veloping cost - sharing agreements where capital improvements are required. 2. Evaluate and reduce, if appropriate, the volumes and rates of release for stormwater originating from developments. Present release rates and volumes are causing erosion, sedimentation and habitat problems. 3. Increase the maintenance and inspection of existing King County and city drainage systems to ensure that they are functioning properly. 4. Encourage public participation in maintaining water quality and in stormwater management in the basin, including citizen action projects to clean trash from streams and education about citizens role in maintaining clean water and stream systems. 5. Perform more detailed and comprehensive hydrologic/hydraulic analysis of all drainage systems within the basin to determine how the existing facilities will function under existing and future flows. 6. Prepare a comprehensive basin plan with participation by all agencies concerned with surface water management in the basin. The plan should assess the econo- mic, hydrologic, and habitat impact of individual projects on a basin -wide scale. P:BR /jr 8 BLACK RIVER BASIN Basin Boundary Subcatchment Boundary OCollection Point Stream 0006 Tributary Number *0301 Proposed Project Des Moines' } APPENDIX A ESTIMATED COST: PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS BLACK RIVER BASIN Indicates project was identified by Surface Water Management office prior to reconnaissance. NOTE: All projects are located on map included in this report. Project Collect. Number Point Project Description 0301* 10 Increase R/D capacity of Panther Lake by constructing earthen berms and outlet control structure. Trib. 0006, RM 3.40. 0302* 22 Provide regional R/D facility by constructing earthen dam across drainage swale. Provide control structure and overflow spillway on Trib. 0021 at RM .40 (Springbrook Creek). 0303* 29 Construct instream R/D facility at point where Benson Rd. crosses Garrison Creek. Reinforce Benson Rd. Construct outlet - control structure around existing cross culvert R.M. 1.40. P.BR.APA /mlm A -1 Problem Addressed Reduce erosion and flooding downstream in Panther Creek. Prevent erosion to sensitive slopes downstream of proposed site by reducing peak flows. Reduce erosion and flooding of of Garrison Creek by reducing peak flows. Estimated Costs and Comments $345,000 (Panther Lake is #1 Wetland and will require agreement to use as R/D site. Further biological study also needed at time of basin planning.) $208,000 (Project costs should be shared with City of Renton.) $125,000 (Project should be constructed in conjunction with proposed Projects 0304 and 0305.) Project Collect. Number Point Project Description 0304° 28 Construct instream R/D facility in Ciarrison Creek. Construct dam across existing ravine with outlet control structure and overflow spillway. Provide for fish passage. (Trib. 0022, RM 1.0.) 0305* 30 Construct R/D facility. Install proportional discharge outlet and overflow spillway. Excavate to existing streambed level and provide earthen berms around site. (Trib. 0024 at RM .30.) 0307* 19 Construct regional R/D facility in • Mill Creek Wetland 8 (rated #2). Construct berms around north and west sides to increase existing capacity, and provide an outlet control struc- ture. Enhance downstream conveyance capacity and stabilize channel with dense native vegetation. Provide habi- tat enhancement to maintain existing wetland values. 0309 27 Construct an instream R/D facility . in sewer line right -of -way adjacent to SE 208th St. (Trib. 0023 at RM 1.00.) P.BR.APA /mIm A -2 Problem Addressed Reduce erosion and flooding of Garrison Creek by reducing peak flows. Reduce erosion and flooding downstream in Garrison Creek by reducing peak flows. Reduce erosion in Mill Creek and prevent downstream flooding. Will reduce flows that cause severe erosion to unstable downstream ravine. Estimated Costs and Comments $151,000 (Wash. State Dept. of Transportation has cost - sharing agreement with King County and the city of Kent. Coordinate with Projects 0303 and 0305.) $116,000 (Construct in conjunction with Projects 0303 and 0304.) $309,000 $26,000 (Dependent on the availability of right -of -way for R /D. Addi- tional cost will result if sewer -line relocation is required.) APPENDIX B CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT RANKING BLACK RIVER BASIN Prior to the Black River Basin field reconnaissance, seven projects had been identified and rated using the CIP selection criteria developed by the Surface Water Management (SWM) and Natural Resources and Parks Divisions. Following the reconnaissance, seven projects remain proposed for this area. They include one new, previously unidentified and unrated project. This displaces one previously selected project, which was eliminated based on the consensus of the reconnaissance team because no problem was apparent in the field. The previous SWM capital improvement project list for the Black River Basin had an estimated cost of $1,250,000, while the revised List increases to an estimated cost of $1,280,000. This 2.4 percent increase in estimated capital costs is due mainly to upward revised cost figures for securing or acquiring easements over wetlands and costs associated with a new project to solve a previously uni- dentified problem. The following table summarizes the scores and costs for the CIPs proposed for the Black River Basin. These projects were rated according to previously established SWM Program Citizen Advisory Committee criteria. The projects ranked below are those for which the first rating question, ELEMENT 1: "GO /NO GO," could be answered affirmatively. These projects can be considered now for merging into the live" CIP list. RANK PROJECT NO. SCORE COST 1 0302* ° 125 $ 208,000 2 0303* . 110 125,000 3 0309 100 26,000 4 0301* 95 345,000 5 0305 • 90 116,000 6 0307* 60 309,000 7 0304* 55 151,000 TOTAL $1,280,000 * Indicates project was identified by the Surface Water Management Division prior to reconnaissance. P:BR.APB. B -1 APPENDIX C DETAILED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS BLACK RIVER BASIN All items listed here are located on final display maps in the offices of Surface Water Management, Building and Land Development, and Basin. Planning. Trib. & Collect. Existing Item* River Mile Point Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems 1 0005 3 Iiabitat RM .30 2 0005 12, 6 Habitat RM 1.30- 4.65 3 0005 18 Habitat RM 8.30- 8.70 P:BR.APC /mlm Fish ladder through pump plant. Automatic counter records all returning anadromous species (apx. 84 in 1986). Drainage district has removed all stream cover along drainage channel. Water quality looks very poor. Some oil and suds on surface, also very turbid water. Large amounts of sediment moving down the stream system has filled in all the pools. Kent removes 1,100 cubic yards of sedi- ment from Mill Creek at Canyon Park annually. C -1 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Based on the condition of the basin habitat and future development, these numbers will probably decrease. Condition will continue. More erosion, sedimentation, and loss of fish habitat. Recommendations Develop and implement a comprehensive Black River basin plan in agreement with all local jurisdictions. Habitat improvement would be one goal of this plan. - Contact drainage district about the feasibility of select plant- ings along the ditch levees. - Develop a plan to address point and nonpoint water quality problems originating from the thousands of acres of commercial and industrial land in the basin. - Increase size and number of R/D facilities upstream to reduce flow volume and rates to non - erosive levels. Trib. & Collect. Existing liem River Mile Point Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems 4 0005 18 Geology RM 8.50- 9.70 5 0005 18 Habitat RM 9.10- 920 6 0005 18 Habitat RM 9.40 7 0005 18 Habitat RM 9.60 Erosion in narrow, steep - sided ravine -- intermit- tent hank erosion, slump- ing; gullies below cul- verts; downcutting near upper end. Deposition at mouth of ravine. Left bank has lots of gar- bage deposited from access road above. Right bank is a major dumping ground of used appliances. 12" culvert discharges onto top of left bank and has caused landslide into the stream. Good spawning gravels. Protection from high storm flows and velocities. needed. Most large organic debris flushed out of the ravine. I':I3R.APC /mIm C -2 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Increased flows from tribu- taries on plateau will cause continued or accelerated erosion. Flow directed over the edge of the ravine causes gullying of walls. Erosion of banks and lower slopes causes accelerated Iandsliding in lower slopes (e.g., around old dam at RM 9.40). Potential water quality problem; since inside Mill Creek Canyon park, it could be a public hazard. If not tightlined in a safe, nonerosive manner to the bottom of the ravine, more erosion will occur with resulting sedimentation downstream. Without increased rate and velocity and volume controls, new development will further threaten this spawning area. Recommendations - Increase control of stormflow in streams originating on the plateau (especially Trib. 0005). - Direct local drainage (below RM 9.80) around the ravine, or tight - line to bottom of ravine. - Remove or repair old dam. - Restict any further development on the edge of the ravine. - Remove garbage (preferably by the parties who placed it there). - Increase enforcement of regulations prohibiting the random dumping of garbage in non - approved disposal sites. Kent Surface Water Utility should put this tightlining project on their list of future CIP projects. - SWM /Basin Planning should deter- mine the allowable rates and velo- cities to maintain a stable, nonerosive channel. New devel- opment must then be conditioned to meet these requirements. - Add structures or large organic debris to create pools. Trib. & Collect. Existing • - Item River Mile Point Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems 8 0005 19 I-Iabitat RM 10.05 9 0005 19 Habitat RM 10.10- 10.30 10 0005A 19 Hydrology 0307 RM 0.2 11 0006 7 Habitat RM .50- 1.40 Fish blockage due to con- crete and asphalt debris piled in stream. Native vegetation , . . removed down to stream edge and replaced by pasture. Tributary contributes to Mill Creek, which experien- ces erosion and sediment transport. Wetland 0308 now provides some R/D and has much more potential capacity. Stream flows throuth wet- land. No visible channel. Fish transit through this cattail wetland looks difficult. P:I3R.APC /mlm C -3 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Condition will continue. Livestock will erode stream - bank and defecate in stream channel. This will result in erosion, sedimentation, and water quality problems. This area will continue to develop and will contribute greater runoff to the downstream conveyance system. The wetland area may be damaged by development around the perimeter and this may decrease the ability of the surface water to infiltrate. Runoff will continue to increase and erosion and sedimentation will likewise continue. Condition will continue. Recommendations Encourage State Fisheries person- nel to organize a citizen- action project to construct a stepped pool or other solution to allow fish passage. - Fence to provide a stream corri- dor. - Plant native plants or allow natural revegetation along streambanks. - Obtain required easements and construct a regional R/D facility in wetland area. - Construct berms along the western and northern sides of the existing wetland. - Increase the storage capacity of the wetland by excavation. If anadromous fish were rein- troduced to Panther Creek, wetland passage would need to be assured. A biological assessment by fisheries and wetland biolo- gists would be needed to formulate a viable solution. Trib. Collect. Existing Item River Mile Point Catcgory Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems 12 0006 8, 10 Geology RM 1.40- 2.60 13 0006 7 Habitat RM 1.50 14 0006 8 Habitat RM 1.70 15 0006 8 Habitat RM 1.75 16 0006 10 Habitat RM 1.30- 2.55 17 0006 8 lIabitat RM 1.95 Channel downcutting at upper end; bank erosion and mass- wasting. Deposition above 130th and at wet- land below Talbot Rd. Alluvial fan from upstream erosion; landslides filling wetland and blocking stream for fish use. 3' drop out of culvert under Talbot Rd with no pool. Potential fish barriers. Two debris jams pose potential fish barriers. Extensive bank erosion, channel downcutting and sedimentation has elimi- nated most pools, fish, and benthic organisms. Both large organic debris and bedload material are active. 12' waterfall and concrete channel creating fish barrier. P:BR.APC /mlm C -4 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Problem will get much worse as development proceeds along the ravine and in the upper basin. Ravine is sensitive to high flows in channel, and slopes are susceptible to gullying. Sediment is filling a major wetland. . Killing of trees from sedi- ment inundation. Little or no fish passage. Condition will remain. Condition will remain. Worsening of current condi- tions. No future fish access to upstream areas. Recommendations - Provide additional R/D facilities in upper basin. - Restrict development along ravine edges. - Route runoff around ravine or tightline it to bottom in a safe, nonerosive manner (gully at RM 2.50). Provide a sediment pond and increased maintenance or reduce flows upstream to nonerosive levels. Improve system only if a fisheries biologist deems the Panther Creek system viable for fish. Remove debris or improve passage through the debris jams. Same as Trib. 0006, RM 2.55 -3.00. (See Item 19 below.) If the upstream habitat justifies improvement, then a fish ladder should be constructed over the falls. Trib. & Collect. Existing Item River Mile Point Category Prop. Pro]. Conditions and Problems 18 0006 8 Geology RM 2.15 19 0006 10 I-Iabitat RM 2.55- 3.00 20 0006 10 Hydrology 0301 RM 3.40 Large landslide (transla- tional and rotational failure), with raw slope remaining; gullying of slope. Apparently caused by combination of under- cutting by stream and routing of road drainage over slope from above: ' Stream in good condition. Setbacks and protective vegetation needed at points along the stream. Some good pools and spawning gravel in a few places. ' Panther Lake is a #1 -C wetland that provides a large amount of natural storage; the downstream system is in fair condition with some erosion. The contributing drainage area is not currently densely devel- oped. P:BR.APC /mlm C -5 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Slide will continue to contribute to sedimentation downstream. Possible erosion and loss of habitat if future develop- ment increases volume and rate of flow. Future development in this area will triple the amount of impervious area. The available area for regional R/D facilities may soon be exausted and the system will continue unchecked downstream. Erosive soils throughout the area are further threatened as higher amounts of runoff will increase the rate at which the existing stream erodes. Recommendations Direct surface runoff away from top of slope to gravel pit (to west). - Maintain stream flows at non - erosive levels - Maintain a natural stream corri- dor from Panther Lake down into and along Panther Creek. The sensitive nature of the wetland would require precise boundary surveys and control over the amount of water artificially retained by the proposed control. Use Panther Lake as an R/D facili- ty by constructing earthen berms on the north and west sides of the wetland area; construct a control outlet, enhance and increase the capacity of the downstream channel (stabilize with vegetation), and obtain easements. Trite. & Collect. Existing Item River Mile Point Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems 21 0006A RM .10 7 Habitat 22 0006A 7 Geology RM .10 -.20 23 000613 4 Geology RM 1.55- 1.70, 1.00 24 0006B 4 Habitat Incised stream eroded to bedrock above Talbot Rd. Little or no habitat value. Two slides are depositing sediment in large wetland on east side of Valley Free- way (inside city of Renton). Erosion in short channel reach below development: downcutting at upper end, failure of lower slopes throughout. Extreme gullying below cul- vert outfall (below Benson Rd.) causing rapid sedi- mentation, especially in R/D pond (RM 1.55); probably contributing to deposition at RM 1.00. Drainage from Fred Nelson Jr. High School is causing extensive erosion problems between Benson Rd. and SR 515. Large sediment build up in S 22nd Ct. R/D pond at S Puget Dr. No fish habitat in this system. P:BR.APC /mIm C -6 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Reduction of wetland area and values. Loss of flood storage. Stormflow is discharged rap- idly into channel from cul- vert below street. Down - cutting is prevented at lower end (by bedrock and culvert at Talbot Rd.) but will continue to undercut slopes at upper end. Runoff from Benson Rd. and area to the east is dis- charged onto erodible sand and gravel, which is depos- ited downstream. Most of the coarse material is caught by the R/D pond -- will require more frequent maintenance. More property loss from unrestricted flows from Jr. High. High maintenance costs to dredge R/D ponds of silt. Recommendations Consider tightlining stream from Whitworth Ave. S to Talbot Rd. R/D and /or energy dissipation at upper end of channel needed. Reroute some or all of the runoff or tightline through the erodible reach. (Problem arca is slated for development.) - Provide R/D at Jr. High School. - Other possibility is to pipe the stream. Trib. & Collect. Existing Item River Mile Point Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems 25 0006C 5 Habitat 26 0009 9 Geology RM .00- .15 27 0009 9 Ilabitat RM .15 -.20 2.8 0020 RM .20 29 0020 RM .50- .70 12 Habitat 21 Geology Rolling Hills Creek exhib- its oil sheen on water in upper portion of the creek. Little or no fish habitat (or potential) exists. Bank and lower -slope erosion in small tributary channel, especially behind construc- tion equipment lot. Lots of litter; stream has extensive downcutting, bank erosion, and bedload movement. Sediment has destroyed fish habitat. City of Kent removes sediment each year. Bank erosion,.landsliding. in canyon due to outfalls at end of SE 196th Si. and from R/D on 200th plus natural sensitivity (landslides). Heavy damage in Jan. 86 storm. Sedi- mentation above old road, and in trout farm below Talbot Rd., as well as ero- sion in the ravine. , I':BR.APC /mlm C -7 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Little change due to riprap along stream to protect sewer line that parallels stream. Flows in tributary will in- crease; erosion will continue causing sedimentation down- stream and perhaps threaten stability of building. Worsening of water quality, sedimentation, and erosion. Possible flooding and sedi- mentation along S .192nd St. Problems will continue. Recommendations None. - R/D in upper basin. - Remove fill along stream. - Reduce the volume and rate of water to non - erosive levels by new R /D. - Consider restricting future develop- ment (down- zone). - Community action projects could remove litter. Remove sedimentation source (see also Trib. 0023, RM.95). - Control storm flows. Increase R/D above RM .40 in 0021; reroute or control flows from vicinity of SE 200th (tightline west on 200th). - Provide energy dissipation at R/D outfall (RM .40). - Restrict development on north side of 0021 (runoff to be tightlined or routed around ravine). Trib & Collect Existing Item River Mile Point Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems 30 0020 21 Ilabitat RM .60 Excess sediment from upstream has destroyed a private trout farm. Thousands of fish were killed during Jan. '86 storm. 31 0021 22, Geology Bank erosion, landsliding RM .00 in ravine due to outfalls 0.50 at end of SE 196th St. and from R/D pond at SE 200th plus natural • sensitivity (landslides). Heavy damage in Jan. '86 storm. Sedimentation above old road and in trout farm below Talbot Rd. (0020), as well as erosion in the canyon. 32 0021 22 Hydrology 0302 The upper reaches of RM .40 Springbrook Creek lie within the city of Renton City Watershed. The creek originates in highly ero- sive and steeply sloping soils. Alterations of the natural drainage patterns by development, roadway construction, and poor practice in handling runoff have increased ero- sion and sediment transport to the lower gradient downstream reaches. P:BR.APC /mlm C -8 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Further sedimentation from upstream sediment sources. Problems will continue. Development will continue and impervious area will continue to grow. Increased runoff will further erode the unstable soils carrying sediment and debris downstream, where they will reduce the efficiency of or even destroy culverts, pipe- lines, and streambeds. Hooding could result from the inefficient facilities coupled with the greater runoff. Recommendations Several options: construct sediment pond above Talbot Road. Reduce flow rates and volumes in Trib. 0021. Increase R/D upstream of Talbot Rd. Down -zone land to reduce surface water impacts of future development. Control storm flows: R/D above RM .40 in 0021; reroute or control flows from vicinity of SE 200th (tightline flows west on 200th). Provide energy dissipation at R/D outfall (RM .40). Restrict development on north side of 0021 (runoff to be tightlined or routed around canyon). - Construct a regional R/D faci- lity in the natural drainage Swale at the upper reaches of this system. - Construct a dam across the swale with an outlet control structure and an overflow spillway. - Tightline existing drainage into arca to further reduce erosion and raise existing roadway to prevent flooding. Trib. & Collect. Existing Item River Mile Point Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems 33 0022 26, 28 Geology RM 20- 1.40 34 0022 26 I-Iabitat RM .30- 35 0022 29,23 Habitat RM .30- 26 2.30 36 0022 23 Habitat RM .80 Bank cutting and slope failure in canyon of Garrison Creek. Some ero- sion caused by outfall over edges or flow out of tight - lined culverts impinging on opposite banks. Deposition in vicinity of SE 218 St. Large sedimentation zone has filled channel and pools. Surface water runoff is causing severe erosion and sedimentation. Instream habitat for fish and benthic organisms is very poor. Most pools are gone, in- stream large organic debris and bedload are both moving. Stream has a whitewashed, sterile look due to the water volume and veloci- ties. These have created a very unstable system that has destroyed the fish habitat and removed most fish, benthos, and macrophytes. P:BR.APC /mlm C -9. Anticipated Conditions and Problems Natural instability of canyon walls is aggravated by increased flows from upper part of catchment. Flooding of adjacent proper- ties due to rising streambed caused by sediment deposition. More development will exa- cerbate the problem. Worsening of existing problems. Recommendations - Increase R/D capacity, especially upstream of Benson Road. - Tightiine flows to bottom of canyon; provide energy dissipa- tion. - Restrict further development on edges of canyon. Reduce flow rates and volumes to non - erosive levels. Then consider habitat improvements such as large organic debris for pools and instream protection. Reduce flow rates to nonerosive levels by providing more R /D. Stricter development controls by down - zoning development areas. Reduce stream flow rates and volumes to non - erosive levels. Then consider habitat improve- ments such as large organic debris for pools and instream protec- tion. Trip. & Collect. Existing Item River Mile Point Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems 37 0022 RM 1.10 23 38 0022 23 RM 1.30 39 0022 24 RM 1.40 40 0022 (See items #42 -43 below) P:BR.APC /mlm Geology Habitat Geology 2G Hydrology Erosion below culvert out - fall; downcutting of side - gully into loose sandy materials. These are causing some slope failure in backyards. Large quantities of domestic trash instream. Mass failure of new fill on edge of canyon; erosion of culvert outfall; under- cutting of slopes. Trash disposed of by nursery is entering stream. Fill was emplaced poorly is settling toward creek; side is failing. Runoff from streets and development east of Benson Rd. is eroding slopes at outfall. Garrison Creek experiences erosion and downcutting because of the step gra- dient and erosive soils in this reach. Development in the upstream areas has further accelerated this problem by concentrating runoff into the stream. C -10 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Gullying and failure of sideslopes will continue unless outfall is controlled. Water quality and visual problems. Problems will continue. Additional development upstream and along Garrison Creek will continue to exacerbate the erosion problem and degrade the existing conveyance system. Sediment load and erosion will reduce the efficiency of (and potentially destroy) existing facilities. Recommendations Tightline to bottom of canyon, with energy dissipator. Remove trash. - Fill should be rebuilt or removed. - R/D pond on edge should be moved north. - Culvert outfall should be rerouted into a new RID facility southeast of Benson Rd. (or tightlined to bottom of hill). - Removal of trash from stream should be required. There are three recommended pro- jects along Garrison Creek that would impede peak runoff flows and would thus reduce ero- sion and flooding potential. The system would need to be hydraulically modelled to deter- mine the individual /joint impact of the recommended projects. Potential cost sharing should be reviewed with the Washington State Dept. of Transportation and the city of Kent. Trih. & Collect. Existing Item River Mile Point Category Prop. Prof. Conditions and Problems 41 0022 RM 1.40 42 0022 RM 1.00 29 Hydrology 0303 See Item 40. 28 Hydrology 0304 See Item 40. 43 0024 30 Hydrology 0305 See Item 40. 44 0023 27 Geology RM .50- .90 7* Downcutting, undercutting of lower slopes -- extreme in upper reach (RM 0.70- 0.90); box -gully up to'. 22' deep. Deposition in field at mouth. P:BR.APC /mIm C -11 Anticipated Conditions and Problems See Item 40. See Item 40. See Item 40. Erosion in this ravine has been aggravated by increased flows from upper basin and runoff from resi- dential area to the south. Worst erosion occurs at knickpoint of headward migration (currently RM .80 -.90) and will move up- stream with time. Recommendations Construct instream R/D facility at intersection of Benson Rd. and Garrison Creek. Roadway would be reinforced to act as impoundment. Construct outlet control structure and tie to existing cross culvert. Check realignment schedule with WSDOT. Provide fish passage. Construct instream R/D facility in Garrison Creek. Construct a dam across the ravine with an outlet control structure and an overflow spillway. Provide access road from SE 220th without increasing landslide potential. Project will provide fish passage. Construct R/D facility. Would require excavation of soil, remo- val of existing vegetation, and construction of berms. Facility would require proportional discharge outlet and overflow spillway. Control flows into canyon with R/D upstream of RM 1.00. If possible, route runoff (from development to south RM .70 -.90) around the canyon to S 212th St. Restrict further development along ravine edges; in areas north of ravine any future out - falls should be tighlined into canyon or (preferably) routed around. Trib. & Collect. Existing Item River Mile Point Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems 45 0023 27 Habitat RM .60- .80 46 0023 27 Habitat RM .95 47 0023 27 Hydrology 0309 RM 1.0 Whitewashed, sterile channel. Channel material is very unstable. Little fish habitat remaining. Steep, incised valley. Construction -yard drainage from existing pipe on top of slope causing eroded left bank. Large amounts of sediment are transported from the highly erosive soils and steep gradient to the lower- gradient downstream reaches. This problem is aggravated by peak storm runoff and poor develop- ment practices (e.g., development on steep slopes). The resulting erosion and sediment transport have led to decreased conveyance - system capacity and need for increased maintenance. P:13R.APC /mlm C -12 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Worsening of existing problem. Further erosion and possible toxic runoff from private construction business. Erosion and sediment transport will continue to degrade the system and require continued maintenance of the downstream system. Recommendations Reduce stream flow rates and volumes to nonerosive levels, then consider habitat improve- ments such as large organic debris for pools and instream protec- tion. Notify Dept. of Ecology and King County Health Dept. Reduce the rate of erosion and sediment transport by constructing an instream R/D facility to reduce peak discharges, using the existing sewer -line right -of -way. Increase storage capacity by expanding size of the existing berm. Construct an outlet - control facility. As part of project, downstream channel will need proper erosion - control facili- ties. Trib. & Collect. Existing Item River Mile Point Catcgory Prop. Pro'. Conditions and Problems • 44 0024 30, 31 Geology RM .20 49 0024 30 Ilabitat RM .10- .30 50 0024 30 Ilabitat RM .70 Channel downcutting, bank erosion, landslides in ravines. Natural instabi- lity aggravated by increased streamflows. Loss of pools and instream habitat from high -flow ero- sion. Large quantity of garbage deposited in the stream. P:BR.APC /mIm C -13 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Increase in impervious area on plateau will continue to aggravate erosion in the ravines and cause deposition in Garrison Creek. Any remaining fish, benthos, or macrophytes will be lost due to the high, erosive stream flows. More garbage and increased water quality problems. Recommendations - Increase R /D, especially in upstream area of Trib. 0024 (where most future development will occur). - The downstream analysis required by BALD for new developments should fully address the impacts of new developments on the conditions foun at this site during reconnaissance. New development that will aggravated conditions should be required to include mitigation proposals prior to approval. Reduce flow rates and volumes to nonerosive levels with development controls and /or with additional R/D at existing sites. - Encourage citizen project to clean up the stream. -Large commercial area and parking lot runoff need oil and metals separation before discharge into the stream. Trih. & Item River Mile Collect. Existing Point Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems 51 0025 30, 31 Geology RM .00- .70 52 NA 7 Hydrology 53 NA 7 Hydrology P:BR.APC /mIm Channel downcutting, bank erosion, landslides in canyons. Natural instabi- lity aggravated by increased stream flows. 0306 None observed. 0308 Project completed. C -14 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Increase in impervious area on plateau will continue to aggravate erosion in the ravines and cause deposition in Garrison Creek. None. None. Recommendations - Provide energy dissipation below culvert outfall at RM .70. Restrict development along canyon edges. -The downstream analysis required by BALD for new developments should fully address the impacts these developments will have on the conditions found at this site during reconnaissance. Developments that will aggravate conditions should be required to include mitigation proposals prior to approval. Drop project from priority listing; small tributary area at top of knoll; city of Renton in agreement with this recommendation. EXHIBIT J OFF -SITE ANALYSIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE Basin: Green River OFF-SITE ANALYSIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE Surface Water Design Manual, Core Requirement #2 Subbasin Name: Black River Subbasin Number: • --,. .47-4 SYmtio1:11 ' - --• '' •,c,, ...*, . :pi , ::• : ::. , , •,,,:::',7,...,:r);11:N..::,7-,!;•im%.-.‘22 • • :-.::!Alf-:•••::... ,:.:,tt ,-,. A". -..- .:.ya4PR:157,- Driihage:,06mporterlt;.;:" 'II' ' • ..Z..; 'PA ; ' Type NarriC aii&Stze •:=•- ,: ' ••••.„,.. • • ,, -. tr, ,:f , :*4 c.,',',..,■. . , : '''.' ..,, -,-. z....,..t.%3; -1., „,r..*-r• INA. 4, . rgr?"7-•ageTGO:4,..o'ir`ligi't.*'r"-l'i • ..- escrIpi16-11.5#' — • ,-. .;:.e. .,.. 1-2,4s, 71:41;tv , • ..i ,;,;. ' It. : ,'. r.-- .7',,,:t '1'!:ip-e', 7:-.' 'ilii,:-.'.:"*. ' 'f4-441. ". .!,:".,-:"` ip.,--5 -,Disiakc;.V:%. -,-ftO'm.• ;Sittt•;, - Discharge ; , ,.*•,',4 , — : ::;?!.71 ,. , .,..,7:.ff,a '..P,.?t,...)Sting;"..' -:',7,7 rtilleM's:::,... ' ' • ,r -:,-. • '—.2." ;,..-:,,-r;,...,-::. ':..,,.:-.7 -.,,:o..potgrttla1..,,,_ •;•;.:213;r4b,le M§:...: , ,,=:.„. '''''V '1".• ' :..: , ,.. . , 4 -'i 7:'•• ' Observations s3of,.F,e1c1.;: f. . ...,,.; In'41.ectiii!.•f:'.. ,1,,,•!:' ,., .. '., ', R , ,§„ o ir_d, e Reviewer o r, . • ,' , ' .a.::'' ,-,;; :1-,_,...-:,-; '-5;"*.t1—' 2' Resioent-1,.,: , t.. :•••,_ : See Map Type: sheet flow, swale, stream, channel, pipe, pond; size, diameter, surface area Drainage basin, vegetation, cover, depth, type of sensitive area, volume % Ft Constrictions, under capacity, overtopping, flooding, habitat destruction, scouring, bank sedimentation, incision ponding, or organism sloughing, other erosion Tributary area, likelihood of problem, overflow pathways, potential impacts 1 Swale Dense brush and tall grass 0.5% 1,450± 2 6-inch PVC pipe Under access road 1% 1,470± Sediment and debris 3 Swale Dense brush and tall grass 0.5% 4 24-inch SD pipe Under railroad 1% 2,750± 10320.004 [ELR/ath/rh] LOOKING SOUTH ALONG EAST PROPERTY LINE. SWALE RUNNING ALONG EAST PROPERTY LINE, AT TOE OF SLOPE TO RAILROAD. LOOKING NORTH. SWALE LEAVING SITE AND RUNNING NORTH ALONG TOE OF SLOPE OF WEST BANK OF RAILROAD. LOOKING AT SITE FROM SOUTHWEST PROPERTY CORNER. SWALE RUNNING SOUTH ALONG WEST PROPERTY UNE. LOOKING NORTH. SWALE RUNNING NORTH ALONG TOE OF SLOPE OF WEST BANK OF RAILROAD. LOOKING SOUTH. SWALE RUNNING NORTH ALONG TOE OF SLOPE OF RAILROAD. LOOKING NORTH. SWALE RUNNING NORTH ALONG WEST SIDE OF TRAIN STATION. DRAINAGE ENTERS INTO 6" PVC STORM DRAIN. LOOKING SOUTH. SWALE RUNNING NORTH ALONG TOE OF SLOPE OF RAILROAD. SWALE JETTIES OUT 15 -20 FEET FROM TRAIN STATION. DRAINGE ENTERS 6" PVC STORM DRAIN AND IS TIGHTUNED UNDERNEATH ACCESS ROAD TO NORTH. DRAINAGE OUTFALLING FROM 6" PVC STORM DRAIN ON NORTH SIDE OF ACCESS ROAD. DRAINGE FLOWS BACK TO SWALE RUNNING NORTH ALONG TOE OF SLOPE OF RAILROAD, EXHIBIT K DRAINAGE COMPLAINTS RECEIVED DEC 312001 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY STORM DRAINAGE REPORT Tukwila Soccer Center Tukwila, Washington Prepared for: Tukwilla Soccer Center, Inc. 17015 S.E. 82nd Drive Clackamas, Oregon 97015 December 26, 2001 Our Job No. 10320 J?-28 -o1 EXPIRES Of,Z3 -Oj1 Civil Engineering, Land Planning, Surveying, Environmental Services 18215 72nd Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032 . (425) 251 -6222 • (425) 251 -8782 fax www.barghausen.com TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW 2.0 ANALYSIS OF THE EIGHT CORE REQUIREMENTS 3.0 ANALYSIS OF THE FIVE SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS 4.0 FLOW CONTROL DESIGN 5.0 WATER QUALITY DESIGN 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW The proposed site is approximately 5.6 acres located within a portion of the Southeast quarter of Section 25, Township 22 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, King County Washington. More specifically, the site is located east of the intersection of Strander Boulevard and West Valley Highway. Only 1.9 acres of the site is proposed to be developed while the remaining area is wetlands. The existing topography of the site slopes gradually to the northeast. The site has three berms located within it. The first one is just south of the north property line and spans almost the entire length of the property. The second one is situated in the central portion of the site and runs from the west property approximately to the center of the property. The third berm is to the south and runs along the entire length of the south property line and bisects the developable portion of the site from the wetlands. There is a swale running along the east property line as well as the west. The swale along the west property line flows southward. The swale which runs along the east property line has a high point located near the southeast property corner. The majority of the on -site drainage flows northeast into a swale which runs along the toe of slope of the railroad tracks. The proposed site is clear of trees and vegetated with tall grass and blackberries. Strander Boulevard will be extended to the proposed site and a 60 -foot right -of -way will be dedicated to the City for the road improvements. 10320.005 [Jwjss] 2.0 ANALYSIS OF THE EIGHT CORE REQUIREMENTS 2.0 ANALYSIS OF THE EIGHT CORE REQUIREMENTS Core Requirement No. 1: Discharge into the Natural Location Requirements: All surface and stormwater runoff from a project must be discharged at the natural location so as not to be diverted onto or away from downstream properties. The manner in which runoff is discharged from the project site must not create a significant adverse impact to downhill properties or drainage systems. Response: The site slopes to the northeast into an existing drainage ditch. The surrounding developments do not discharge onto the project site. The developed project site will also discharge to the drainage ditch. Core Requirement No. 2: Off -Site Analysis Requirements: All proposed projects must submit an off-site analysis report to assess its potential off-site drainage impacts associated with the development of the project site and proposes appropriate mitigations of those impacts. Response: A downstream analysis as required by the King County 1998 Surface Water Design Manual is included in the Level 1 Downstream Analysis. Please refer to that report for this requirement being fulfilled. Core Requirement No. 3: Flow Control Requirement: All proposed projects, including redevelopment projects, must provide on -site flow control facilities to mitigate the impacts of increased storm and surface water runoff generated by the addition of new impervious surface and any related land cover conversion. Response: According to the 1998 King Surface Water Design Manual, we are providing flow control based on the Level 1 requirement. This is in accordance with the City of Tukwila requirements and is fairly conservative in nature as we determined there is approximately 8,000 cubic feet per acre of storage required. Core Requirement No. 4: Conveyance System Requirement: All engineered conveyance system elements for proposed projects must be analyzed, designed, and constructed to provide a minimum level of protection against overtopping, flooding, erosion, and structural failure. Response: Since our system will be a new pipe system, it will be designed to sufficient capacity to convey and contain the 25 -year peak flow assuming developed conditions for on -site tributary areas and existing conditions for any off -site tributary areas. Core Requirement No. 5: Erosion and Sediment Control Requirement: All proposed projects that will clear, grade, or otherwise disturb the site must provide erosion and sediment controls to prevent to the maximum extent possible, the transport of sediment from the project site to downstream drainage facilities, water resources, and adjacent properties. Response: During construction, this project proposes erosion and sedimentation control measures in accordance with the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual including delineations clearing limits, provide perimeter protection in the form of silt fences, a sediment retention pond located on site, traffic area stabilization, including a rock construction entrance, temporary erosion control routing in the form of temporary V- ditches and rock check dams and dust control instituted during the summer months. Core Requirement No. 6: Maintenance and Operation Requirement: Maintenance and operation of all drainage facilities is the responsibility of the applicant or property owner except those facilities for which City of Tukwila is granted an easement, tract, or right -of -way and officially assumes maintenance and operations. Response: Drainage facilities for this project are to be maintained by the owner of the development. Therefore, an Operations and Maintenance Manual will be submitted as part of the permit application, which shall be retained on site and be transferred with the property to the new owner. Core Requirement No. 7: Financial Guaranties and Liability Requirement: All drainage facilities constructed or modified for projects must comply with the financial guarantee requirements in King County Ordinance 12020 and the liability requirements with King County Code 9.04.100. Response: Since this project is in the City of Tukwila, all financial guarantee and liability requirements for the City of Tukwila will be adhered to. Core Requirement No. 8: Water. Quality Requirement: All proposed projects, including redevelopment projects, must provide water quality facilities to treat the runoff from new and/or replaced pollution generating impervious surfaces and pollution generating pervious surfaces. Response: The City of Tukwila has already indicated that Basic Water Quality will be the level of protection required for this project site. Therefore, this project proposes a water quality pond, which provides treatment to meet the Basic Water Quality menu. 10320.005 [JH/jss] 3.0 ANALYSIS OF THE FIVE SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS 3.0 ANALYSIS OF THE FIVE SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Special Requirement No. 1: Other Adopted Area - Specific Requirements Response: The proposed project site is not in a designated critical drainage area nor in an area included in an adopted master drainage plan, basin plan, lake management plan, or shared facility drainage plan. Therefore, this project is not required to comply with any special requirements for those plans. Special Requirement No. 2: Floodplain/Floodway Delineation Response: Since this project is not located within the 100 -year floodplain boundaries, then the floodplain will not need to be delineated on the plans. Special Requirement No. 3: Flood Protection Facilities Response: Since this project is not adjacent to a Class 1 or 2 stream that has an existing flood protection facility such as a levee, revetment, or berm, the flood protection facilities will not need to be analyzed and/or preserved to conform with the FEMA regulations. Special Requirement No. 4: Source Controls Response: Since this project is a commercial site development, then the project must provide water quality source controls applicable to the proposed project in accordance with the King County Stormwater Pollution Control Manual and King County Code 9.12. Special Requirement No. 5: Oil Control Response: The project site does not meet the requirements of a high use site. Therefore, this project is not required to treat runoff using oil control treatment options from the high use menu. 10320.005 [JH/jss] 4.0 FLOW CONTROL DESIGN 4.0 FLOW CONTROL DESIGN The requirements of the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual were the method of flow control determined to be applicable for this project site, more particularly, Level 1 Flow Control as dictated by the City of Tukwila. This Level 1 Flow Control matches the pre - developed runoff rates during a 2 -year and 10 -year storm to the post - developed runoff rates for the respective storms. This is more conservative than the SBUH methodology as the determined volume from this site is almost 8,000 cubic feet per acre. This is fairly conservative. The areas contributing from the site includes 2.34 acres total, 1.87 acres of which are considered impervious and 0.47 acres of till grass landscaping. Pre - developed conditions were assumed to be till pasture for 2.34 acres. Please see the calculations in the following pages for the KCRTS computations to size the Level 1 Flow Control facility. 10320.005 [JH/jss] KCRTS Command CREATE a new Time Series Production of Runoff Time Series Project Location : Sea -Tac Computing Series : 10320pre.tsf Regional Scale Factor : 1.00 Data Type : Reduced Creating Hourly Time Series File Loading Time Series File :C: \KC_SWDM \KC_DATA \STTP60R.rnf Till Pasture 2.34 acres Total Area : 2.34 acres Peak Discharge: 0.283 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Storing Time Series File:10320pre.tsf Time Series Computed KCRTS Command CREATE a new Time Series Production of Runoff Time Series Project Location : Sea -Tac Computing Series : 10320post.tsf Regional Scale Factor : 1.00 Data Type : Reduced Creating Hourly Time Series File Loading Time Series File :C: \KC_SWDM \KC_DATA \STTG60R.rnf Till Grass 0.47 acres Loading Time Series File :C: \KC_SWDM \KC_DATA \STE160R.rnf Impervious 1.87 acres Total Area : 2.34 acres Peak Discharge: 0.983 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Storing Time Series File:10320post.tsf Time Series Computed KCRTS Command Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module Analysis Tools Command Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies Loading Time Series File:10320pre.tsf Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:10320pre.tsf Project Location:Sea -Tac Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:10320pre.pks Analysis Tools Command Retention /Detention Facility Type of Facility: Detention Pond Side_Slape: 3.00 H:1V Pond Bottom Length: 122.33 ft Pond Bottom Width: 20.39 ft Pond Bottom Area: 2494. sq. ft Top Area at 1 ft. FBy 7921. sq. ft 0.182 acres Effective Storage Depth: 4.20 ft Stage 0 Elevation: 20.80 ft Storage Volume: 18917. cu. ft 0.434 ac -ft Riser Head: 4.20 ft Riser Diameter: 12.00 inches Number of orifices: 2 Full Head Pipe Orifice # Height Diameter Discharge Diameter (ft) (in) (CFS) (in) 1 0.00 1.32 0.097 2 3.15 1.38 0.053 4.0 Top Notch Weir: None Outflow Rating Curve: None Stage Elevation Storage Discharge Percolation Surf Area (ft) (ft) (cu. ft) (ac -ft) (cfs) (cfs) (sq. ft) 0.00 20.80 0. 0.000 0.000 0.00 2494. 0.01 20.81 25. 0.001 0.006 0.00 2503. 0.03 20.83 75. 0.002 0.008 0.00 2520. 0.04 20.84 101. 0.002 0.010 0.00 2529. 0.06 20.86 151. 0.003 0.011 0.00 2546. 0.07 20.87 177. 0.004 0.012 0.00 2554. 0.08 20.88 202. 0.005 0.014 0.00 2563. 0.10 20.90 254. 0.006 0.015 0.00 2580. 0.11 20.91 280. 0.006 0.016 0.00 2589. 0.21 21.01 543. 0.012 0.022 0.00 2676. 0.31 21.11 815. 0.019 0.026 0.00 2763. 0.41 21.21 1095. 0.025 0.030 0.00 2851. 0.51 21.31 1385. 0.032 0.034 0.00 2940. 0.61 21.41 1684. 0.039 0.037 0.00 3030. 0.71 21.51 1991. 0.046 0.040 0.00 3120. 0.81 21.61 2308. 0.053 0.043 0.00 3211. 0.91 21.71 2633. 0.060 0.045 0.00 3303. 1.01 21.81 2968. 0.068 0.048 0.00 3396. 1.11 21.91 3313. 0.076 0.050 0.00 3489. 1.21 22.01 3666. 0.084 0.052 0.00 3583. 1.31 22.11 4029. 0.092 0.054 0.00 3678. 1.41 22.21 4402. 0.101 0.056 0.00 3773. 1.51 22.31 4784. 0.110 0.058 0.00 3869. 1.61 22.41 5176. 0.119 0.060 0.00 3966. 1.71 22.51 5577. 0.128 0.062 0.00 4064. 1.81 22.61 5988. 0.137 0.064 0.00 4162. 1.91 22.71 6410. 0.147 0.065 0.00 4261. 2.01 22.81 6841. 0.157 0.067 0.00 4361. 2.11 22.91 7282. 0.167 0.069 0.00 4461. 2.21 23.01 7733. 0.178 0.070 0.00 4562. 2.31 23.11 8194. 0.188 0.072 0.00 4664. 2.41 23.21 8666. 0.199 0.073 0.00 4767. 2.51 23.31 9148. 0.210 0.075 0.00 4870. 2.61 23.41 9640. 0.221 0.076 0.00 4974. 2.71 23.51 10143. 0.233 0.078 0.00 5079. 2.81 23.61 10656. 0.245 0.079 0.00 5185. 2.91 23.71 11180. 0.257 0.081 0.00 5291. 3.01 23.81 11714. 0.269 0.082 0.00 5398. 3.11 23.91 12259. 0.281 0.083 0.00 5506. 3.15 23.95 12480. 0.287 0.084 0.00 5549. 3.16 23.96 12536. 0.288 0.085 0.00 5560. 3.18 23.98 12647. 0.290 0.086 0.00 5581. 3.19 23.99 12703. 0.292 0.088 0.00 5592. 3.21 24.01 12815. 0.294 0.091 0.00 5614. 3.22 24.02 12871. 0.295 0.095 0.00 5625. 3.24 24.04 12984. 0.298 0.099 0.00 5647. 3.25 24.05 13041. 0.299 0.102 0.00 5657. 3.27 24.07 13154. 0.302 0.103 0.00 5679. 3.28 24.08 13211. 0.303 0.104 0.00 5690. 3.38 24.18 13785. 0.316 0.112 0.00 5800. 3.48 24.28 14371. 0.330 0.118 0.00 5910. 3.58 24.38 14967. 0.344 0.124 0.00 6021. 3.68 24.48 15575. 0.358 0.129 0.00 6133. 3.78 24.58 16194. 0.372 0.133 0.00 6245. 3.88 24.68 16824. 0.386 0.137 0.00 6359. 3.98 24.78 17466. 0.401 0.142 0.00 6473. 4.08 24.88 18119. 0.416 0.146 0.00 6587. 4.18 24.98 18783. 0.431 0.149 0.00 6703. 4.20 25.00 18917. 0.434 0.150 0.00 6726. 4.30 25.10 19596. 0.450 0.462 0.00 6842. 4.40 25.20 20286. 0.466 1.030 0.00 6959. 4.50 25.30 20988. 0.482 1.760 0.00 7077. 4.60 25.40 21701. 0.498 2.560 0.00 7195. 4.70 25.50 22427. 0.515 2.840 0.00 7314. 4.80 25.60 23164. 0.532 3.100 0.00 7434. 4.90 25.70 23913. 0.549 3.340 0.00 7555. 5.00 25.80 24675. 0.566 3.560 0.00 7676. 5.10 25.90 25449. 0.584 3.770 0.00 7798. 5.20 26.00 26235. 0.602 3.960 0.00 7921. 5.30 26.10 27033. 0.621 4.150 0.00 8044. 5.40 26.20 27843. 0.639 4.330 0.00 8168. 5.50 26.30 28666. 0.658 4.500 0.00 8293. 5.60 26.40 29502. 0.677 4.670 0.00 8419. 5.70 26.50 30350. 0.697 4.830 0.00 8545. 5.80 26.60 31211. 0.717 4.980 0.00 8672. 5.90 26.70 32085. 0.737 5.130 0.00 8800. 6.00 26.80 32971. 0.757 5.280 0.00 8928. 6.10 26.90 33870. 0.778 5.420 0.00 9057. 6.20 27.00 34782. 0.798 5.560 0.00 9187. Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Storage Target Calc Stage Elev (Cu -Ft) (Ac -Ft) 1 0.98 * * * * * ** 0.67 4.34 25.14 19850. 0.456 2 0.50 * * * * * ** 0.31 4.25 25.05 19265. 0.442 3 0.50 0.15 0.15 4.20 25.00 18923. 0.434 4 0.53 * * * * * ** 0.14 3.95 24:75 17302. 0.397 5 0.59 * * * * * ** 0.13 3.76 24.56 16044. 0.368 6 0.32 0.08 0.08 3.05 23.85 11939. 0.274 7 0.42 * * * * * ** 0.07 2.18 22.98 7605. 0.175 8 0.47 * * * * * ** 0.06 1.91 22.71 6404. 0.147 Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File:10320post.tsf Outflow Time Series File:rdout Inflow /Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: 0.983 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Outflow Discharge: 0.671 CFS at 10:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Reservoir Stage: 4.34 Ft Peak Reservoir Elev: 25.14 Ft Peak Reservoir Storage: 19850. Cu -Ft 0.456 Ac -Ft Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:rdout.tsf Project Location:Sea -Tac - -- Annual Peak Flow Rates - -- Flow Frequency Analysis Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) (ft) Period 0.310 2 2/09/01 16:00 0.671 4.34 1 100.00 0.990 0.070 7 12/28/01 17:00 0.310 4.25 2 25.00 0.960 0.132 5 2/28/03 7:00 0.152 4.20 3 10.00 0.900 0.065 8 8/24/04 1:00 0.141 3.95 4 5.00 0.800 0.082 6 1/05/05 15:00 0.132 3.76 5 3.00 0.667 0.141 4 1/18/06 22:00 0.082 3.05 6 2.00 0.500 0.152 3 11/24/06 7:00 0.070 2.17 7 1.30 0.231 0.671 1 1/09/08 10:00 0.065 1.91 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 0.551 4.32 50.00 0.980 5.0 WATER QUALITY DESIGN 5.0 WATER QUALITY DESIGN As previously mentioned, the City of Tukwila requires Basic Water Quality as the means of providing water quality treatment of runoff for this site. The methodology selected was by instituting a wet vault underneath the live storage proposed for detention. Please see the calculations for the Basic Water Quality design on the following pages to size a wet vault that is more than adequate in size to meet the required volume for this project site. 10320.005 [JH/jss] WET POND SIZING WORKSHEET Summary of the 1998 Surface Water Design Manual Requirements Project Name: Tukwila Soccer Center Step 1) Determine volume factor f Basic size f= Large size f= Project Number: 10320 3 4.5 Step 2) Determine rainfall R for mean annual storm. Determine rainfall R for mean annual storm Rainfall 0.039 (feet) Step 3) Calculate runoff from mean annual storm. Vr = (0.9A, +0.25Ag +0.10A„ +0.01 Ate) X R Ai = tributary area of impervious surface 53,000 (sf) Ate = tributary area of till grass 20,500 (sf) A. = tributary area of till forest 0 (sf) A09 = tributary area of outwash grass 0 (sf) R = rainfall from mean annual storm 0.039 (feet) V, = volume of runoff from mean annual storm 2,060 (cf) Step 4) Calculate wetpool volume. Vb =fV, f = Volume factor Vb = Volume runoff, mean annual storm V, = Volume of Wetpool 3 2,060 6,180 (cf) (cf) AF.573 Figure 1 Project Vicinity Figure 2 Site Plan Figure 3 Existing 2001 Traffic Volumes Figure 4 Project Trip Distribution & Assignment Figure 5 2002 With— Project Traffic Volumes 3 4 6 8 10 Table 1 Tukwila Soccer Center Existing PM Peak Hour LOS Summary 5 Table 2 Tukwila Soccer Center Trip Generation Summary 7 Table 3 Tukwila Soccer Center Study Intersection LOS Summaryl 9 Transportation Engineering NorthWest December 28, 2001 Tukwila Soccer Center Traffic Impact Study FINDINGS 8t CONCLUSIONS Project Proposal. The proposed Tukwila Soccer Center is an indoor recreational soccer facility located east the location where Strander Boulevard ends, between the Burlington Northern —Santa Fe and Union Pacific Railroad lines. The development is located on approximately 1.9 acres of a 5.6 acre undeveloped site. The proposed facility would be accommodated in a 22,000 square foot (sf) metal -frame building with 49 parking stalls. There is also a potential for a 6,000 sf expansion. Trip Generation. The proposed soccer facility is anticipated to generate about 500 average weekday daily . vehicle trips, of which 39 trips (13 entering, 26 exiting) would occur during the weekday PM peak hour. Site Access. The project would construct a two -lane private access road, extending from the east end of Strander Boulevard, across the UPRR tracks and along the property site frontage. Vehicular access into and out of the site is proposed at two driveways on the new private access road. All turning movements at the driveways are expected to operate at LOS A during the weekday PM peak hour. Short Term Impacts. No significant impacts were identified at the study intersection of W Valley Highway /Strander Boulevard. Long Term Impacts. The location of the proposed building has been chosen so that if the UPRR tracks remain in their current location, or if they are moved to the west side of the existing BNSF tracks as part of the planned Strander Extension project, the building would not interfere with the track relocation. The current location of the building expansion is shown on the east side. If the UPRR tracks were to be moved to the east side of the building next to the BNSF tracks, then it is assumed that the soccer center building expansion would occur on the west side of the building. Parking. The City of Tukwila does not currently have a land use category for an indoor recreational soccer facility, and thus, does not have an identified minimum parking requirement. The development proposes 49 parking stalls. The developer of this proposed facility already owns and operates two other identical facilities in Spokane and Clackamas, Oregon. Both of those facilities have 39 parking stalls, which have been established to be adequate to provide for the peak parking demands of those facilities. Since this proposed soccer center facility would have similar operational characteristics, 39 stalls would be adequate. The additional 10 stalls are proposed to accommodate the anticipated future expansion of the building. Conclusion. Based on the information included in this report, the proposed Tukwila Soccer Center facility would have no significant adverse impacts on adjacent streets or the W Valley Highway /Strander Boulevard intersection.. To mitigate short-term impacts of the traffic into and out of the site, the project would construct a two -lane private access road, extending from the east end of Strander Boulevard, across the UPRR tracks and along the property site frontage. To mitigate long -term impacts, the building has been located such that the UP Railroad line could either remain in its current location, or be moved adjacent to the west side of the existing BNSF Railroad tracks without impacting the proposed building. Transportation Engineering NorthWest 1 December 28, 2001 Tukwila Soccer Center Traffic Impact Study • Estimated trip generation and documented distribution of project traffic; • Evaluated intersection operations (LOS) at the W Valley Highway /Strander Boulevard intersection during the weekday PM peak hour; • Conducted LOS and queue analyses at the site access driveways; • Identified measures to mitigate impacts to the adjacent street system; • Identified long -term planned improvements along the Strander alignment. Primary Data and Information Sources • Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition, 1997 • Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board (TRB), Year 2000 Edition. • City of Tukwila Traffic Volumes; source: City of Tukwila, Robin Tishmak • Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Design Manual, August 1997. Transportation Engineering NorthWest 2 December 28, 2001 FI44Rh 5 f K \ d , R y\Y f x \\ \ X• 3i SW7 (.11 ` j Q. a ), N 0 S i ! N Strander Blvd ro L cv Q Project Site Minkler Blvd • aJ Q v 0 J SW 34th St Triland Dr SW 41st St S 180th St SW 43rd St SE 180th St •• I J S 188th St f Not to Scale Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Figure 1 Project Site Vicinity Tukwila Soccer Center Transportation Impact Study — — — — — — I� Q PROPOSEDSITEACCES8 1 1 v SISIRMINWNOGEOEIMIONANDWATER �1 w .N............i- wioio —nKI.• aoccsnuUNC MOW eoe —iaa aueoeeF aw+:Eue smog FIRWEEMMION WOOF �4 f 1 Not to Scale Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Figure 2 Project Site Plan Tukwila Soccer Center Transportation Impact Study Existing PM peak hour level of service (LOS) was evaluated at the W Valley Highway /Strander Boulevard study area intersection using methodologies published in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2000). The detailed LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix B. The existing PM peak hour LOS at the study intersection is summarized in Table 1. Table 1 Tukwila Soccer Center Existing PM Peak Hour LOS Summary Intersection LOS Delay V/C W Valley Hwy / Strander Blvd E 69.8 1.06 As shown in Table 1, the W Valley Highway /Strander Boulevard intersection is currently operating at LOS E in the PM peak hour. Transportation Engineering Northwest 5 December 28, 2001 SW 16th St Strander Blvd W Valley Hwy /Strander Blvd 9 982 20 R— 61 — 17 16 p35li 10—> 517 --k 1 t 371 1,042 r' 4 Minkler Blvd Project!' Site SW 27th St SW 34th St Triland Dr -6 S 180th St SW 43rd St SE 180th St) SW 141 st St Not to Scale ag Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Figure 3 Existing 2001 Traffic Volumes Tukwila Soccer Center Transportation Impact Study Tukwila Soccer Center Traffic Impact Study DETERMINATION OF IMPACT This section of the report summarizes the traffic and parking impacts of the proposed 22,000 sf indoor soccer center, and describes the assumptions and methodology used to evaluate the impacts. Analysis of weekday PM peak hour conditions reflects the time period during a typical week when the cumulative effect of project and non - project traffic volumes would be greatest. Project Trip Generation The trip generation estimate for the proposed indoor recreational soccer facility is based on trip generation equations from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (6th Edition, 1997). Land Use category 495 (Recreational Community Center) was used to estimate weekday daily and PM peak hour traffic generation. Although the proposed indoor soccer facility is not identical to a recreational community center, that land use in ITE was the closest comparison. Table 2 summarizes the project trip generation. ITE Land Use Category Building Size Table 2 Tukwila Soccer Center Trip Generation Summary Average Daily Weekday PM Peak Hour Trips Rate2 Trips Rate2 Total In Out Recreational Community Center 22,000 gsf 22.88 500 1.75 39 13 26 1. GFA is Gross Floor Area (square feet) 2. Calculations based on rates from LU 495 in the ITE Trip Generation, 6'h Edition, 1997. As shown in Table 2, the proposed Tukwila Soccer Center is estimated to generate a total of about 500 average daily trips, of which 39 trips would occur during the weekday PM peak hour (13 entering, 26 exiting). Project Trip Distribution and Assignment The distribution of project - generated traffic was estimated based on existing travel patterns in the area and the locations of primary transportation facilities. Figure 4 illustrates the PM peak hour trip distribution and assignment of project - generated traffic during the PM peak hour. rTransportation Engineering Northwest 7 December 28, 2001 CIO EMS SW 16th St Ir j er�d 1 on�a,5 - Way T i T L 0 0 8 E— 5 3 —0- 0 0 2 0� Minkler Blvd i Project Site SW 27th St T T SW 34th St j [IJ I T T 4- w SW 41st St A O SW 43rd St I (SE 180th St I mamma Not to Scale Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Figure 4 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment Tukwila Soccer Center Transportation Impact Study 9 December 28, 2001 Waif I i L 4 Oaksdale Ave SW SW 16th St Strander Blvd W Valley Hwy /Strander Blvd r3il 79 63 992 28 22 �r k r- 20 413—> 1 375 1,052 6 522 —y, Minkler Blvd Project Site SW 27th St > T T Triland Dr: S 180th St Ni or vj "Fri SW 141 St St YI co I O SW 43rd St SE 180th St 311213211=1W2,492124. VIWZREEZ111 Not to Scale SW 34th St Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Figure 5 With Project 2002 Traffic Volumes Tukwila Soccer Center Transportation Impact Study Tukwila Soccer Center Traffic Impact Study Site Access Analysis The project would construct a two -lane private access road, extending from the east end of Strander Boulevard, across the Union Pacific Railroad tracks and along the property site frontage. Vehicular access into and out of the site is proposed at two driveways on the new private access road. Both driveways are expected to operate at LOS A during the weekday PM peak hour. The new private access road would cross the existing UPRR tracks. The current property owner has an approved private railroad crossing at this location. As part of the development of the soccer facility, that crossing would be upgraded per City of Tukwila and UPRR crossing design standards for a private access road and railroad crossing. Long Term Impacts Strander Extension Project. The City of Renton, in partnership with the City of Tukwila, is in the process of evaluating potential transportation improvements to upgrade and link the existing Strander Boulevard corridor east of West Valley Highway. The primary goal of this project is to improve east -west mobility across the Green River Valley. The first segment of the project, east of West Valley Highway, would include roadway overpass or underpass structures to provide grade separated crossings of the Union Pacific (UPRR) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroads. Completion of this segment would involve providing access to the proposed Sound Transit Sounder Station and Park - and -Ride site, which is located to the north of the proposed Tukwila Soccer Center site. The Strander Extension project is in the early stages of Project Definition and Conceptual Engineering. No funding has been identified for either design or construction. Impact to the Proposed Soccer Center. The location of the proposed soccer center building has been chosen so that if the UPRR tracks remain in their current location, or if they are moved to the west side of the existing BNSF tracks as part of the Strander project, the building would not interfere with the track relocation. The current location of the building expansion is shown on the east side. If the UPRR tracks are moved to the east side of the building next to the BNSF tracks, then it is assumed that the soccer center building expansion would occur on the west side of the building. Transportation Engineering NorthWest 11 December 28, 2001 Tukwila Soccer Center Traffic Impact Study Transportation Engineering NorthH/est 12 December 28, 2001 Appendix A Existing Traffic Count West Valley Highway / Strander Blvd Intersection TUKWILA, WASHINGTON WEST VALLEY HWY STRANDER BLVD LOC# 01PTEN01351M WEST VALLEY HWY — From North stenne» maaT,nwT WI I iPP3iii P4aICtbwromO 00V1Ntu05AS era - Pwt1W1 lotcneoi,m 04:15 PM Val 369 982 20 1381 6 17 Pow* 26.4 72.2 1.5 05:00 Vyrmo 75 250 11 iS 3 43.8 tagn Yn. 04:15 PM 04:15 PV Yo4a°• 99 287 5 391 0 7 Perk F4do/ TRAFFICOUNT, INC. 4820 YEN! HWY 8 -195 LACEY, WASHINGTON 98503 360-491-8116 - `TRANDER BLVD WEST VA .EV H WY Fromaouth STRANDER BLVD Fmrn w est i.rtTi Jwi naa+T ,� - 01 iota' IA I .N19.7°141 File Name : TEN35201P Site Code : 00000001 Start Date :12/18/2001 Page No : 2 0.870 16 39 41.0 3 14 8 16 0.850 4 0.3 3 1042 73.5 283 06:00 711 3 283 WEST VALLEY HWY 1:ir Tr 1.". North 21181014:15:00 Pkf 2/10/01 155. 010 Pu 41 I r' 8i9ft. Out LiFu1� o101 371 1417 26.2 96 382 96 382 0.927 517 55.3 139 0430PM 144 10 1.1 2 408 835 43.6 108 246 0 107 251 0.931 ;12,E, L 3752 0.959 978 TUKWILA, WASHINGTON WEST VALLEY HWY STRANDER BLVD LOC# 01P TEN01351M - - - VALLEY R From No1Th Sta tme MOs Tom let bust raP- • Fa Tour LO LO 1.0 I 1.0 1 04 :00P61 77 230 1 32 308 04:15 PM 99 287 5 24 391 0430 PM 92 216 2 30 312 04_45 PM 93 227 2 _ 17 322 T41at 361 962 10 103. 1333 05: PM 75 05 :15 IS PM 98 0530 PM 70 _ 05 :45 PM 82 Total 325 Grand iota App&% Toni% 686 26.2 9.7 250 11 15 214 4 22 246 4 27 207 3 _ 21 937 22 85 1899 72.8 26.8 TRAFFICOUNT, INC. 4820 YELM HWY B -195 LACEY, WASHINGTON 98503 360 -491 -8116 STRANDER BLVD From East Ri66t I Tuv 1.0 1.0 3 4 0 7 I 1 2 1 tat 1.0 5 8 5 0 Tmrh LO 0 1 0 6 13 18 2 336 3 8 3 336 0 3 7 320 3 6 6 292 1 2 5 1284 7 19 20 32 188 2617 t3 1.2 15.7 0.5 36.9 0.2 32 38.6 0.5 38 46.8 0.5 Ciro Printed. PRIMARY WES1VALLEY HWY From South STRANDER BLVD From West foal Right I llwo Teti Ilat 7obd 1�4�Taro Ij7' Lo 1.0 294 135 5 364 114 4 335 144 0 11 336 121 4 309 8 234 37 2 • 986 341 46 1329 614 13 409 30 936 File Name : TEN35201P Site Code : 00000001 Start Date : 12/18/2001 Page No : 1 O I4 O 10 O 14 O 8 O 461 2 83I 3 283 96 6 4 231 88 14 0 205 54 6 1 134 93 11 8 853 32. 37 10 1579 670 88 0.4 73.0 26.8 1.2 0.1 26.0 9.5 WESTWLEY HWY STRANDED From North From East Statr40a r Right 1 Lek I Ao.TO-rR1E71-Tlo p 4R APp.a1 PaeklrmrrFmm01 :00PMto 05:45PM. Peak 1 f1 Intarmlia0 0415PM V41mos 359 982 Pasant 26.4 722 os:00V06on0 7s 250 Pall Factor 14 High a0 04:15 PM Munk 99 287 Pao Facto' 6 391 25 20 1381 Ls 11 936 6 15.4 3 17 16 43.6 41.0 8 3 38 04:15 PM 0 ) e 0.650 05:00 PM 7 19 15.2 41.3 43.5 0590 PM 20 46 3 8 g`'‘r-t,10\ 3 14 0121 382 321 259 228 1190 . mdn Mt. TOtN I TOW 10111 54 801 9 5 46 905 46 905 950 _ 36 895 \ 931/ 181 3635 3819 138 2 106 5 246 j 26 978 118 4 130 4 252 40 919 139 0 106 8 245 41 838 92 3 94 9 188 1 41 _ 716 487 8 436 26 931 1 148 3451 2519 1001 53.6 35.5 14.1 21 849 1.1 45.3 0.3 11.9 959 6T9 757 3599 68 1807 I 329 7088 7415 26.3 I 4.4 95.6 WEST VALLEY HWY STRANDER BLVD Right Ff0m SOuth From Wo -6th_ I Tent l- 18AT -A-0. Tot RigMT TMU_ `m 1 RPP Toni I 1411=11 4 0.3 3 0600 AV M 104:30P 3 283 • 382 144 0 107 251 0.927 0.931 1042 73.5 283 371 262 06 1417 I 517 65.3 382 138 10 408 1.1 43.6 2 108 935 3752 246 I 978 0.959 04:16 PM 4 0.3 05:00 PM 3 1047 371 1417 735 26.2 282 213c 98 382 0.927 04:30 P61 521 53.0 05:15 PM 118 to 452 983 1.0 46.0 4 130 252 I 0.975 Appendix B Intersection LOS Results 2: Strander Blvd & W Valley Hwy Tukwila Soccer Center HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing PM Peak Hour Movement Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped /bikes Flpb, ped /bikes Frt Fit Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Volume (vph) Peak -hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Heavy Vehicles ( %) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 40.9 Effective Green, g (s) 40.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 511 v/s Ratio Prot c0.24 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.83 Uniform Delay, d1 46.4 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 11.1 Delay (s) 57.5 Level of Service E Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary EBL 1_ EBT EBR WBL 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1752 0.95 1752 408 0.96 425 425 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1845 1.00 1845 10 0.96 10 10 3% 3% Prot 7 4 52.9 52.9 0.38 4.0 3.0 696 0.01 0.01 27.3 1.00 0.0 27.3 C 81.1 F r 1900 4.0 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.85 1.00 1347 1.00 1347 517 0.96 539 539 50 3% Perm 4 52.9 52.9 0.38 4.0 3.0 508 c0.40 1.06 43.6 1.00 57.1 100.7 F 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1719 0.95 1719 16 0.96 17 17 5% Prot 3 1.6 1.6 0.01 4.0 3.0 20 0.01 0.85 69.2 1.00 129.8 199.0 F 4-- WBT WBR NBL 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 0.95 1422 1752 1.00 0.95 1422 1752 17 61 371 0.96 0.96 0.96 18 64 386 82 0 386 50 5% 5% 3% Prot 8 5 13.6 13.6 0.10 4.0 3.0 138 0.06 0.59 60.7 1.00 6.7 67.4 E 90.0 F T p \ 4, NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR ft vi ++ r 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 3500 1703 3406 1524 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 3500 1703 3406 1524 1042 4 20 982 359 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 1085 4 21 1023 374 1089 0 21 1023 374 50 50 3% 3% 6% 6% 6% Prot Prot 2 1 6 6 28.0 66.2 28.0 66.2 0.20 0.47 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 350 1653 c0.22 0.31 1.10 56.1 1.00 78.7 134.8 F 0.66 28.3 1.00 1.0 29.3 C 56.9 E 3.5 41.7 3.5 41.7 0.02 0.30 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 43 1013 0.01 c0.30 0.49 67.5 1.00 8.5 75.9 E 1.01 49.2 1.00 30.7 80.0 E 74.0 E 41.7 41.7 0.30 4.0 3.0 453 0.25 0.83 45.9 1.00 11.7 57.5 E HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization c Critical Lane Group 69.8 1.06 140.2 89.9% HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service E 16.0 D Tukwila Soccer Center 4:30 pm 12/20/2001 Existing PM Peak Hour TENW LLC TRANSPKIRK -ST51 Synchro 5 Report 12/21/2001 2: Strander Blvd & W Valley Hwy Tukwila Soccer Center HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2002 With- Project PM Peak Hour c 4- 4 \ t t\ 4/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT _WBR NBL ' NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 +4 r 1 1 11 TT 11 ++ r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 1845 1347 1719 1422 1752 3498 1703 3406 1524 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1752 1845 1347 1719 1422 1752 3498 1703 3406 1524 Volume (vph) 412 13 522 20 22 79 375 1052 6 28 992 363 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 429 14 544 21 23 82 391 1096 6 29 1033 378 Lane Group Flow (vph) 429 14 544 21 105 0 391 1102 0 29 1033 378 Confl. Peds. ( #/hr) 50 50 50 50 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 5% 5% 5% 3% 3% 3% 6% 6% 6% Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 36.3 52.0 52.0 2.3 18.0 28.0 66.2 3.5 41.7 41.7 Effective Green, g (s) 36.3 52.0 52.0 2.3 18.0 28.0 66.2 3.5 41.7 41.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.37 0.37 0.02 0.13 0.20 0.47 0.02 0.30 0.30 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 454 685 500 28 183 350 1654 43 1015 454 v/s Ratio Prot c0.24 0.01 0.01 0.07 c0.22 0.32 0.02 c0.30 0.25 v/s Ratio Perm c0.40 v/c Ratio 0.94 0.02 1.09 0.75 0.57 1.12 0.67 0.67 1.02 0.83 Uniform Delay, dl 50.9 27.9 44.0 68.6 57.4 56.0 28.4 67.7 49.1 45.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 28.6 0.0 66.2 71.8 4.3 83.6 1.0 34.5 32.8 12.3 Delay (s) 79.4 27.9 110.2 140.4 61.7 139.6 29.4 102.2 81.9 58.2 Level of Service E C F F E F C F F E Approach Delay (s) 95.7 74.8 58.3 76.1 Approach LOS F E E E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 74.3 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.08 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.6% ICU Level of Service E c Critical Lane Group Tukwila Soccer Center 4:30 pm 12/20/2001 2002 With- Project PM Peak Hour TENW LLC TRANSPKIRK -ST51 Synchro 5 Report 12/21/2001