The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSEPA E03-028 - RONHOVDE TOR-JAN - 3 SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES ON MACADAM ROADKAHN 3 -LOT DEVELOPMENT MACADAM RD S E03 -028 M172a City of'tikwila • Department of Community Development / 6300 Southcenter BL, Suite 100 / Tukwila, WA 98188 / (206) 431 -3670 DETERMINATION OF NON - SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) File Number: E03 -028 Applied: 12/03/2003 Issue Date: 06/14/2004 Status: ISSUED Proponent: Lead Agency: City of Tukwila Description of Proposal: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR 3 HOUSES ON EXISTING LOTS ON MACADAM ROAD. RETAINING WALLS WILL BE CONSRUCTED THOUGHOUT THE SITE AND UP TO 2,300 CUBIC YARDS OF SOIL WILL BE REMOVED. DUE TO STEEP SLOPES AND SIGHT DISTANCE ISSUES ACCESS WILL BE FROM A NEW SHARED DRIVEWAY. Location of Proposal: Address: 13901 48 AV S TUKW Parcel Number: 3229200010 Section/Township /Range: SE 15 -23 -04 The City has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21c.030(2) (c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. This DNS is issued under WAC 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by 5 A&.. o��, o104,4 . The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. ,art_c„A Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 (206)431 -3670 SvA. J2 ,2c7(.741 Date Any appeal shall be linked to a specific governmental action. The State Environmental Policy Act is not intended to create a cause of action unrelated to a specific governmental action. Appeals of environmental determinations shall be commenced within the time period to appeal the governmental action that is subject to environmental review. (RCW 43.21C.075) doc: Miscperm E03 -028 Printed: 06 -10 -2004 City of TeIl1/wIL 1.1 Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Lancaster, SEPA Responsible Official FROM: Nora Gierloff, Planning Supervisort�'`" RE: SEPA — Khan 3 house development DATE: June 11, 2004 Project File No. E03 -028 Project Description: The project involves building 3 single family houses on 3 existing lots with steep slopes. Retaining walls up to 10 feet tall are planned and up to 2,300 cubic yards of soil will be removed. Agencies With Jurisdiction: Washington State Department of Ecology Comments to SEPA Checklist: No public comments were received. Summary of Primary Impacts: 1. Earth — Grading will be required as shown on the attached plan to construct a common driveway at the front of the lots and retain the hillside at the rear. Additional grading will occur during house construction. All land altering will need to be in accordance with the geotechnical reports. Additional geotechnical work will be required for the house foundations and retaining walls. 2. Air - There will be exhaust emissions from construction equipment during the project. Dust control measures in compliance with the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency will be used as needed. The project's air emissions when complete will be those typical of single family development. 3. Water — The culvert , along the west edge of Macadam Road will need to be replaced for construction of the new driveway. An erosion/sedimentation control plan will be reviewed by 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 0 Tukwila, Washington 98188 0 Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 0 Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 • • the City as part of the grading permit. Storm water will be collected, detained and treated in an on -site vault before being conveyed to the public storm system. 4. Plants — Currently the site contains trees, shrubs and blackberries. A tree survey will need to be conducted and replacement trees calculated to mitigate trees removed from regulated slopes. This requirement will be tied to each individual house building permit. 5. Animals — No threatened or endangered species have been observed on site. 6. Energy and Natural Resources - The project will require energy for construction equipment and for vehicles coming to the site. The houses will be required to meet the Washington State Energy Code. Once completed energy use will be typical of that for single family development. 7. Environmental Health - No environmental health hazards are anticipated. Construction equipment operation will need to comply with Tukwila's noise ordinance. 8. Land and Shoreline Use - The project will maintain the existing use of the site as residential lots. 9. Housing — An existing vacant house has been demolished and three new houses will be constructed. 10. Aesthetics - The project is not subject to BAR requirements. 11. Light and Glare - The completed project will not generate light or glare. 12. Recreation - The proposal will not affect recreational facilities. 13. Historical and Cultural Preservation - The site is not known to have any historical or cultural significance. 14. Transportation — The proposal will add the number of trips typical of single family development. No traffic mitigation is required. As currently designed the shared private driveway exceeds the 15% slope limitation imposed by the Tukwila Fire Department. The applicant will need to provide a calculation showing that the fire engine can use the driveway without bottoming out or redesign the driveway geometry. 15. Public Services - The project will result in an incremental increase in demand on public services. 16. Utilities - The project will result in an incremental increase in utility usage. Recommended Threshold Determination: Determination of non - significance. Dept . Of Community Development '`` City of Tukwila 2 - AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION `{`? I , HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing Determination of Non - Significance `.; :x Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non- ' Significance Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Determination of Significance & Scopi,ng r; Notice , Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Action __> Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline: :Mgmtt°, Permit =` __ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other 'Y" Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this l year 20 t Project Name: \ D 1,(� Project Number: D-3—b3? Mailer's Signature: DettliDvak, 4 Person requesting mailing: N-Lcik c1-7 P :GINAWYNETTA/FORMS/AFFI DAVIT-MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM day of l in the CHEST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW /SHORELINE PE• MAILINGS FEDERAL AGENCIES () U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ( ) FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION () DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE () U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( ) U.S. DEPT OF H.U.D. () NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES ( ) OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY ( ) TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT () DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES ( ) OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR ( ) DEPT OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV. () DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE () DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. () DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELAND DIV ((DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION* ( ) OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL • SEND CHKLIST W/ DETERMINATIONS • SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION KING COUNTY AGENCIES () BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD ( ) FIRE DISTRICT #11 () FIRE DISTRICT #2 () K.C. WASTEWATER TREATMENT DIVISION ( ) K.C. DEPT OF PARKS & REC () K.C. ASSESSORS OFFICE ( ) TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) TUKWILA LIBRARY () RENTON LIBRARY () KENT LIBRARY ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY ( ) QWEST () SEATTLE CITY LIGHT () PUGET SOUND ENERGY () HIGHLINE WATER DISTRICT (_) SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT ( ) AT &T CABLE SERVICES () KENT PLANNING DEPT ( ) TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: ( ) PUBLIC WORKS ( ) POLICE () PLANNING () PARKS & REC. ( ) CITY CLERK ( ) FIRE ( ) FINANCE ( ) BUILDING ()MAYOR SCHOOLS /LIBRARIES UTILITIES CITY AGENCIES ( ) HEALTH DEPT ( ) PORT OF SEATTLE () K.C. DEV & ENVIR SERVICES-SEPA INFO CNTR ( ) K.C. TRANSIT DIVISION - SEPA OFFICIAL ( ) K.C. LAND & WATER RESOURCES ( ) FOSTER LIBRARY ( ) K C PUBLIC LIBRARY ( ) HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) OLYMPIC PIPELINE dQ VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT ( ) WATER DISTRICT #20 (p9, WATER DISTRICT #125 ( ) CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS () BRYN MAWR- LAKERIDGE SEWERNVATER DISTRICT ( ) RENTON PLANNING DEPT ( ) CITY OF SEA -TAC ( ) CITY OF BURIEN ( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ( ) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER - DCLU () STRATEGIC PLANNING OFFICE* • NOTICE OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ. OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES () PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL ( ) SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ( ) MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE ( ) CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM () FISHERIES PROGRAM ( ) WILDLIFE PROGRAM MEDIA ( ) SEATTLE TIMES ( ) SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL P:\ADMINISTRATIV E \FORMS \CHKLIST.DOC ( ) DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE () P.S. AIR POLLUTION CLEAN AGENCY ( ) SOUND TRANSIT () DUWAMISH RIVER CLEAN -UP COALITION *SEND NOTICE OF ALL APPLICATIONS ON DUWAMISH RIVER ( ) HIGHLINE TIMES ( ) CI.TUKWILA.WA.US.WWW 12/1.vadt- Yom I ��« ►2�nnn1 -� `��e. LLa /vs ►-`1/\ 9 8 o3d FOLIC NOTICE MAILINGS FOR 1101ZMITS SEPA MAILINGS Mail to: (comment period starts on date of mailing) Dept. of Ecology Environmental Review Section *Applicant *Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached List) *Any parties of record * send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination KC Transit Division — SEPA Official would like to receive information about all projects that might affect transit demand Send These Documents to DOE: SEPA Determination (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report, usu. with MDNS) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed or sent to newspaper) SHORELINE MAILINGS: Notice of Application for a Substantial Development Permit must be mailed to owners and to property owners within 500 feet of subject property, comments are due 30 days after the notice of application is mailed/posted. The notice of Application for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit must include a statement that any person desiring to submit written comments on the application or desiring to receive notification of the final decision on the application may do so within 30 days of the notice of application. If a hearing will be held on the application, the hearing notice must include the information that written comments may be submitted, or oral presentation made at the hearing. Shoreline Permit Notice of Decision: Mail to: (within 8 days of decision; 21 -day appeal period begins date received by DOE) Department of Ecology Shorelands Section State Attorney General *Applicant *Indian Tribes *Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list). *Any parties of record * send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination Send These Documents to DOE and Attorney General: Permit Data Sheet Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report or memo) Shoreline Permit Application Form (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) - Site plan, with mean high water mark & improvements - Cross- sections of site with structures & shoreline - Grading Plan — Vicinity map SEPA determination (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report or memo) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Any background studies related to impacts on shoreline Notice of Application Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed) P:\ADMINISTRATIVE \FORMS \CHKLIST.DOC IL &HA u j `/= Q 0 7 a a may. Gtr' 'G ENG \Nf`v Nora Gierloff, Planning Supervisor City of Tukwila Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES May 11, 2004 COURIER DELIVERY RE: Resubmittal of Preliminary Engineering Design Plans and SEPA Documents 3 -Lot Housing Project 13821 Macadam Road South, Tukwila, Washington City of Tukwila File No. E03 -028 Our Job No. 11217 Dear Nora: RECEIVED 'MAY 17 2004 commUNSTY DEVELOPMENT �vr This resubmittal package is responding to your January 27, 2004 letter and the comments from the Public Works Department. In particular, I would like to respond to that letter concerning the need for a Fire Department turnaround. Some time ago I met with Steve Kohler, Tukwila Fire Marshal, to review the proposed access to these three future residences. Don Tomaso was not available at the time I met with Steve. Based on Steve's review, he determined that the current design as proposed is acceptable to the Fire Marshal's office without a turnaround. He explained that the requirement comes from the wording outlined in City of Tukwila Ordinance No. 1846. There are some exceptions according to this ordinance that give the Fire Marshal the ability to waive the requirement of a turnaround under certain circumstances. One exception is "When conditions prevent the installation of an approved fire apparatus access road, the Chief may permit the installation of a fire protection system or systems in lieu of a road." Another exception is "When there are not more than two Group R Division 3 or Group U occupancies, the requirements of this section may be modified, provided, in the opinion of the Chief firefighting or rescue operations would not be impaired." Steve stated that since the access road is very close to Macadam Road and that the edge of the farthermost house is 140 feet from the edge of Macadam Road, a turnaround meeting the Fire Department's typical requirements is unnecessary. Also, the northernmost house can be accessed from Macadam Road along the existing asphalt driveway. From this dimension, the distance from the nearest edge of the house to the edge of Macadam Road is approximately 60 feet. Based on these findings, the Fire Marshal felt it was unnecessary to provide a turnaround meeting their typical requirements; therefore, the slope restrictions and turnaround dimensioning are unnecessary for this proposal. The following are my responses to each of the items listed in the memorandum from Dave McPherson in the Public Works Department addressed to you concerning the SEPA Review of the project. The following are my responses to each of his comments: SEPA Comments: 1. This project is in accordance with the LSI Adapt, Inc., geotechnical report dated May 25, 2001. We have also obtained an additional supplemental geotechnical report to 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251 -6222 (425) 251 -8782 FAX BRANCH OFFICES • OLYMPIA, WA • TEMECULA, CA • WALNUT CREEK, CA www.barghausen.com • Nora Gierloff, Planning Supervisor City of Tukwila Planning Department -2- May 11, 2004 specifically review the proposed site and engineering design plan. These plans are in compliance with the recommendations outlined in the geotechnical report. 2. As mentioned in Item No. 1 above, we have obtained an additional geotechnical report prepared by Spears Engineering dated May 3, 2004, which specifically addresses the proposal on the subject site. 3. The revised SEPA Environmental Checklist and Endangered Species Act Screening Checklist have been addressed and are enclosed for your review and files. 4. The Water Availability Certificate is being provided to your office directly by the owner. 5. The Sanitary Sewer Availability Certificate will be provided to your office directly by the owner. 6. According to the geotechnical reports, there are no buffers required. Please refer to those geotechnical reports for further information. 7. We conducted a preliminary cursory earthwork quantity takeoff on this site, which accounts for approximately 2,300 cubic yards of cut and a minor amount of fill material. This analysis was not based on a computerized earthwork analysis program and was only done by a grid sketch method. We overlaid grid paper on the proposed design plan and handwrote in the approximate cuts and fills in certain areas of the site. This is not in a format that can be submitted to your office for review. This method will, however, give you an idea as to the earthwork that is expected on this project. This should be adequate for purposes of SEPA Review processing. Informational Comments from Public Works: 1. The proposed drainage system has been designed pursuant to the 1998 King County, Washington Surface Water Design Manual. 2. We understand that easements will eventually be required to allow legal access to each of these parcels. These will be processed at a later date. 3. We have labeled the approximate sight distance available in each direction from the proposed driveway location on the plan. 4. This comment is understood. 5. Prior to final issuance of the permit, we will have the retaining walls designed in accordance with the City of Tukwila's requirements. 6. The water quality vault will be designed and stamped by a structural engineer once we proceed with the final designs. Nora Gierloff, Planning Supervisor City of Tukwila Planning Department -3- May 11, 2004 7. We will incorporate the required subdrainage system that is typical behind rockeries and retaining walls on the final design plans. These designs will be connected to the storm drainage system. 8. The current plans are not proposing retaining walls within the public right -of -way. 9. We have evaluated the plan and determined that walls in this area are not necessary. 10. This will be done prior to construction on site. 11. Since the Fire Marshal does not require access all the way into the site, the 20 percent slope in the two small sections should be acceptable. 12. This will be done prior to issuance of any permits on site. I believe this covers the additional information the City of Tukwila is requesting prior to finalizing the SEPA and preliminary review process. Please let me know if you need anything further on this project, particularly as it relates to the Fire Department access issue. I would be more than happy to meet with you and/or the Fire Marshal again if necessary to help clarify this issue. Thank you. Respectfully, Hal P. Grubb, P.E. Director of Engineering Services HPG /dm/ath 11217c.002.doc enc: (4) Sets of Revised Preliminary Construction Plans (1) Set of Reduced Revised Preliminary Construction Plans (8 1/2 x 11) (2) Copies of the Updated Technical Information Report (4) Copies of the Supplemental Geotechnical Report (5) Copies of the Revised SEPA Environmental Checklist (5) Copies of the Endangered Species Act Screening Checklist cc: Saraj Khan, American Canadian Real Estate, Inc. (w /enc) Tor -Jan Ronhovde, Ronhovde Architects (w /enc) Kenneth Bartenhagen, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. (w /enc) April 5; 2004 • Cizy of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Tor -Jan Ronhovde 6625 S. 190th Street #B105 Kent, WA 98032 RE: E03 -028 13821 Macadam Road South Dear Mr. Ronhovde: It has been almost three months since the City completed preliminary review of your application for a SEPA Determination to construct three houses. You have not responded to our requests for additional information on 1/13/04 and 1/27/04. Please let me know when you intend to resubmit, or whether I should close the file. Sincerely, Nora Gierloff Planning Supervisor cc: David McPherson, Public Works Don Tomaso, Fire Department Q:\LETTERS\KhanFollowUp.DOC 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 June 14, 2004 • City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Tor -Jan Ronhovde 6625 S. 190th Street #B105 Kent, WA 98032 RE: E03 -028 13821 Macadam Road South Dear Mr. Ronhovde: Thank you for your resubmittal on May 17th. The materials have been reviewed by the City Departments and the SEPA determination will be issued today. It will be a straight DNS, though the following requirements must be met before or during the building permit process: 1) A demolition permit will be required to remove the existing foundation and stairs; 2) Water and sewer availability letters . are required for each lot; 3) Building permits must be submitted for each house and retaining wall; 4) Geotechnical recommendations are required for each house and retaining wall; 5) Provide tree replacement calculations and a landscape plan per TMC 18.54.130 for all clearing on slopes over 20 %; 6) Provide a calculation to show that a Tukwila fire engine can navigate the driveway without "bottoming out" or redesign the geometry of the drive; 7) Provide joint access, utility and maintenance easements for the lots to be reviewed and recorded prior to approval of the permits for the site work; and 8) Sign and record the sensitive areas covenant and hold harmless agreement prior to issuance of any building permit. Sincerely, //Zi Nora Gierloff Planning Supervisor cc: David McPherson, Public Works Don Tomaso, Fire Department Q: \LETTERS \KHAN6 -14. DOC 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director January 27, 2004 Tor -Jan Ronhovde 6625 S. 190th Street #B105 Kent, WA 98032 RE: E03 -028 Dear Mr. Ronhovde: I have received one additional comment on your application for a SEPA Determination to construct three houses and required infrastructure at 13821 Macadam Road South. In addition to the requirements from my January 13th letter the Fire Department will require a turnaround because the driveway distance to the furthest house exceeds 150 feet. Please see attached detail for the dimensions of the required turnaround. If you have any questions about this requirement please contact Tukwila's Fire Marshal Don Tomaso at (206) 575 -4404. Please revise your plan to meet the above requirement. Sincerely, Nora Gierloff Planning Supervisor cc: David McPherson, Public Works Don Tomaso, Fire Department Enclosure • Q:\LETTERS\IChan1-27.DOC 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 City of Tukaa Fire Prevention 444 Andover Park East • Tukwila, M98188 206-575-4407 • 11-14 Fire Department Access Alternatives Commercial and Residential Fire Department Access Road with Cul- de-sac turn around UFC Division II Sec. 10.201.10.206 City Ordinance 1632 Fire Department Access Road with Hammer Head turn around UFC Division 11 Sec. 10.201.10.206 City Ordinance 1632 20' • 20' Radius Typical City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director January 13, 2004 Tor -Jan Ronhovde 6625 S. 190th Street #B105 Kent, WA 98032 RE: E03 -028 Dear Mr. Ronhovde: The City has completed a preliminary review of your application for a SEPA Determination to construct three houses and required infrastructure at 13821 Macadam Road South. In addition to the requirement to update the geotechnical report to reflect the current proposal that I mentioned in the Notice of Complete Application, we have the following comments: 1) The northernmost lot (Lot 2) has an encroachment of the deck of the neighboring property. The Building Division will require a 6' no -build easement around that deck recorded against the property, unless the encroachment is resolved. 2) You have proposed rockeries from 8' to 10' high. The City does not allow rockeries over 4' high, over that height only retaining walls designed by a licensed professional engineer are permitted. Stepped rockeries up to 4' must not provide less than a 2:1 step. (8' horizontal between each 4' wall) and no surcharge to the rockery will be allowed. 3) See attached comments from the Public Works Department. The changes to the rockeries may affect your site plan and therefore the yardage of cut proposed. Please revise your plan to meet the above requirements. Sincerely, Nora Gierloff Planning Supervisor cc: David McPherson, Public Works Don Tomaso, Fire Department Enclosure Q:\LETTERS\KhanComments.DOC 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 1 MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING DEPT. — Nora Gierloff, Planning Supervisor FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. — David McPherson, Development Engineer DATE: January 9, 2004 SUBJECT: Khan — 2 Lot Short Plat 138xx — Macadam Road S. SEPA and Informational Comments SEPA — E03 -028 1. Project to comply with Geotechnical Engineering Report, by LSI ADAPT, Inc., dated May 25, 2001 and subsequent geotechnical reports. 2. Additional Geotechnical Engineering Report addendum(s) shall be required, along with Geotechnical peer review, to address current site plan and design. 3. The Environmental Checklist and the Endangered Species Act Screening Checklist should be revised per the redlined comments — enclosed. 4. Provide water certificate from K. C. Water District # 125. 5. Provide sanitary sewer certificate from Val -Vue Sewer District. 6. Show any required buffers on a site map per the Geotechnical Report. 7. Site plan shows 2,300 cy of cut and 125 cy of fill total for Lots 1, 2, & 149. Provide adequate cross - sections across site, including stations, to show how quantities were calculated. Informational Comments 1. Private Storm System shall be per King County Surface Water Design Manual. 2. Private ingress /egress & utility easements /agreement will be required. 3. Provide sight distance study prior to preliminary short plat approval. 4. Combined driveway shall be for Lots 1, 2, & 149, as shown on your site plan dated 10/24/03. 5. Rockeries higher than 4', shall be structural walls and designed and stamped by a Structural Engineer. Contact City Building Department for further requirements. ; • • 6. Storm drainage & water quality vault shall be designed and stamped by a Structural Engineer. Contact City Building Department for further requirements. 7. Rockeries and structural retaining walls shall have required drainage. 8. Must have permission from Public Works for construction of rockeries /structural retaining walls, within Public Right -of -Way. 9. May need wall along East side of private driveway. 10. Apply for Demolition Permit to remove existing foundations, concrete steps, walks, etc. 11. Driveway slopes shall not exceed 15 %. Site plan dated 10/24/03 shows at least 20 %: 12. Owner to complete and record at King County, a Sensitive Area Covenant and Hold Harmless Agreement, as site is within a Sensitive Area (steep slopes). CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF APPLICATION PROJECT INFORMATION. Tor Jan Ronhovde has filed applications for grading, demolition and infrastructure improvements necessary to construct three new houses on existing lots. Permits applied for include: SEPA Checklist Environmental Determination Public Works Infrastructure Permits Other known required permits include: Building Permits Tree Permit Hauling Permit Studies required with the applications include: Geotechnical Report FILES AVAILABLE'FOR PUBLIC REVIEW The project files are available at the City of Tukwila. To view the files, you may request them at the counter at the Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard #100. Project Files include: E03 -028 SEPA Checklist OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT Your written comments on the project are requested. They must be delivered to DCD at the address above or postmarked no later than 5:00 P.M., January 2, 2004. APPEALS You may request a copy of any decision, information on hearings, and your appeal rights by calling DCD at (206) 431 -3670. For further information on this proposal, contact Nora Gierloff at (206) 431 -3670 or visit our offices at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Application Filed: 12 /3/03 Notice of Completeness Issued: 12 /15/03 Notice of Application Issued: 12 /16/03 Dept. Of Community Development; e _ { City of Tukwila �,° J s_s ,._ T = AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION , t�=s' , J � r I. 37 g4,exic HEREBY DECLARE THAT F li Notice of Public Hearing Determination of Non- Significance r: Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated, Determination of No >, Significance- ', x Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Determination of:rSi gnificance &r:Scoping ^` Notice } Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Acti`on;G Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda /Notice :of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice-: of Application; for Shoreline Mgmt Permit' FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds r& . �e l Mail. Classifieds Other kr 4,; -- PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 aoce._S15 -5Sc5- Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on th:' year 2003 Project Name: TesiL Project Number: E D$ 'oa ►�Di'1h v Mailer's Signature: .4Z) Person requesting mailing: (A P:GiNAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM • CHEST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW /SHORELINE PE. MAILINGS FEDERAL AGENCIES ( ) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ( ) FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ( ) DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE () U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY '( ) U.S. DEPT OF H.U.D. ( ) NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES ( ) OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY ( ) TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT () DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES ( ) OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR ( ) DEPT OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV. ( ) DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE ( ) DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. ( ) DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELAND DIV (14 DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION" ( ) OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL • SEND CHKLIST W/ DETERMINATIONS SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION KING COUNTY AGENCIES ( ) BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD () FIRE DISTRICT #11 () FIRE DISTRICT #2 ( ) K.C. WASTEWATER TREATMENT DIVISION () K.C. DEPT OF PARKS & REC () K.C. ASSESSOR'S OFFICE ( ) TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) TUKWILA LIBRARY () RENTON LIBRARY () KENT LIBRARY ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY ( ) QWEST () SEATTLE CITY LIGHT ()PUGET SOUND ENERGY () HIGHLINE WATER DISTRICT () SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT ( ) AT &T CABLE SERVICES () KENT PLANNING DEPT ( ) TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: () PUBLIC WORKS () POLICE ( ) PLANNING ( ) PARKS & REC. ( ) CITY CLERK SCHOOLS /LIBRARIES UTILITIES CITY AGENCIES () FIRE () FINANCE () BUILDING ( ) MAYOR () HEALTH DEPT () PORT OF SEATTLE () K.C. DEV & ENVIR SERVICES -SEPA INFO CNTR ( ) K.C. TRANSIT DIVISION - SEPA OFFICIAL () K.C. LAND & WATER RESOURCES () FOSTER LIBRARY ( ) K C PUBLIC LIBRARY ( ) HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) OLYMPIC PIPELINE (D() VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT ( ) WATER DISTRICT #20 QQ WATER DISTRICT #125 ( ) CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS ( ) BRYN MAWR- LAKERIDGE SEWERNVATER DISTRICT ( ) RENTON PLANNING DEPT () CITY OF SEA -TAC ( ) CITY OF BURIEN ( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ( ) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER - DCLU ( ) STRATEGIC PLANNING OFFICE' • NOTICE OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ. OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES ( ) PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL () SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE () MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE ( ) CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM ( ) FISHERIES PROGRAM () WILDLIFE PROGRAM MEDIA SEATTLE TIMES ()SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL P:\ADMINISTRATI V E\FORMS \CHKLIST.DOC ( ) DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE () P.S. AIR POLLUTION CLEAN AGENCY ( ) SOUND TRANSIT ( ) DUWAMISH RIVER CLEAN -UP COALITION *SEND NOTICE OF ALL APPLICATIONS ON DUWAMISH RIVER ( ) HIGHLINE TIMES ( ) CI.TUKWILA.WA.US.WWW �v - �o�-✓\.�lna/ e. )i-t;r 0- , AA 16039 PuiC NOTICE MAILINGS FOR PEIIITS SEPA MAILINGS Mail to: (comment period starts on date of mailing) Dept. of Ecology Environmental Review Section *Applicant *Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list) *Any parties of record * send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination KC Transit Division — SEPA Official would like to receive information about all projects that might affect transit demand Send These Documents to DOE: SEPA Determination (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report, usu. with MDNS) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed or sent to newspaper) SHORELINE MAILINGS: Notice of Application for a Substantial Development Permit must be mailed to owners and to property owners within 500 feet of subject property, comments are due 30 days after the notice of application is mailed/posted. The notice of Application for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit must include a statement that any person desiring to submit written comments on the application or desiring to receive notification of the final decision on the application may do so within 30 days of the notice of application. If a hearing will be held on the application, the hearing notice must include the information that written comments may be submitted, or oral presentation made at the hearing. Shoreline Permit Notice of Decision: Mail to: (within 8 days of decision; 21 -day appeal period begins date received by DOE) Department of Ecology Shorelands Section State Attorney General *Applicant *Indian Tribes *Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list). *Any parties of record * send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination Send These Documents to DOE and Attorney General: Permit Data Sheet Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report or memo) Shoreline Permit Application Form (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) - Site plan, with mean high water mark & improvements Cross- sections of site with structures & shoreline - Grading Plan - Vicinity map SEPA determination (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report or memo) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Any background studies related to impacts on shoreline Notice of Application Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed) P:\ ADMINISTRATIVE \FORMS \CHKLIST.DOC • City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION December 15, 2003 Tor -Jan Ronhovde. 6625 S. 190th Street #B105 Kent, WA 98032 RE: E03 -028 Dear Mr. Ronhovde: Your application for a SEPA Determination to construct three houses and required infrastructure at 13821 Macadam Road South has been found to be complete on December 15, 2003 for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. This determination of complete application does not preclude the ability of the City to require that you submit additional plans or information, if in our estimation such information is necessary to ensure the project meets the substantive requirements of the City or to complete the review process. For example the geotechnical report will have to be updated to reflect the current proposal. This notice of complete application applies, only to the permit identified above. It is your responsibility to apply for and obtain all necessary permits issued by other agencies. I will be contacting you soon to discuss this project. If you wish to speak to me sooner, feel free to call me at (206) 433 -7141. Sincerely, Nora Gierloff Planning Supervisor cc: David McPherson, Public Works Don Tomaso, Fire Department Q:U.ETTERS\KhanComplete.DOC 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 k-63 RECEIVED MAY 171004 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Technical Information Report Khan 3 -Lot Development Macadam Road South Tukwila, Washington 98168 Prepared for: American Canadian Real Estate, Inc. P.O. Box 3280 Kent, WA 98032 November 10, 2003 Our Job No. 11217 �HAV ‘Siftk CO r! ��Z CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES n "I 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH, KENT WA 98032 o (425) 251 -6222 o (425) 251 -8782 FAX s -I`�� y? www.barghausen.com G <r'~G EN Gt,,E, TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW Figure 1 — Technical Information Report (TIR) Worksheet Figure 2 — Site Location Figure 3 — Drainage Basins, Subbasins, and Site Characteristics Figure 4 — Soils Map 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 3.0 OFF -SITE ANALYSIS 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 4.1 Existing Site Hydrology 4.2 Developed Site Hydrology 4.3 Performance Standards 4.4 Flow Control System 4.5 Water Quality System 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES 7.0 OTHER PERMITS 8.0 EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL (ESC) ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES 10.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL 11217.001.doc [HPG /tep] 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW 0) 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW This project proposes the construction of three new homes along Macadam Road South, just south of the intersection of Macadam Road South and South 138th Street, Tukwila, Washington. The site is currently unoccupied, but does contain remnants of foundations, sidewalks and block walls from an old single - family residence. •.) •-) This parcel is located in a portion of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, in Tukwila, Washington. This parcel encompasses Tax Parcel Nos. 3229200015, 1523049149, and 3229200005. The site is 0.382 acres in size and it is currently unoccupied. The existing site has previously been graded and developed for a single house, and contains 0.016 acres of impervious surfaces that remain. The proposal is to remove the existing foundations and walks, and dispose them to an acceptable waste site. The site will then be graded to allow access to the three new homes from the southern end of the project. The proposed impervious surface coverage on the site will be approximately 0.158 acres, or 41.4 percent coverage. The site is a combination of relatively flat graded areas from the previous home with relatively steep slopes along the eastern edge of the property. Slopes range between 0 and 70 percent, draining to a storm drainage ditch along Macadam Road South. 11217.001.doc [HPG /tep] FIGURE 1 ) TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET King County Department of Development and Environmental Services TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND PROJECT ENGINEER Project Owner American Canadian Real Estate, Inc. Address PO Box 3280, Kent, WA 98032 Phone (253) 854 -7002 Project Engineer Hal P. Grubb, P.E. Company Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Address /Phone 18215 — 72nd Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 / (425) 251 -6222 Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION ❑ Subdivision HPA ❑ Short Subdivision ® Grading ❑ Commercial ❑ Other Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Project Name Khan 3 -Lot Development Location Township 23 North Range 4 East Section 22 Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS ❑ DFW HPA ❑ COE 404 ❑ DOE Dam Safety ❑ FEMA Floodplain ❑ COE Wetlands ❑ Shoreline Management ® Rockery ® Structural Vaults ❑ Other Part 5 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN Community Drainage Basin Green River Part 6 SITE CHARACTERISTICS ❑ River ❑ Stream ❑ Critical Stream Reach ❑ Depressions /Swales ❑ Lake ❑ Steep Slopes ❑ Floodplain ❑ Wetlands ❑ Seeps /Springs ❑ High Groundwater Table ❑ Groundwater Recharge ❑ Other -1- 11217.002.doc Part 7 SOILS Soil Type Slopes Erosion Potential Erosive Velocities Arents - Alderwood 6 -50% Additional Sheets Attached Moderate Part 8 DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS REFERENCE 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Additional Sheets Attached LIMITATION /SITE CONSTRAINT Part 9 ESC REQUIREMENTS ODE! MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION Sedimentation Facilities Stabilized Construction Entrance Perimeter Runoff Control Clearing and Grading Restrictions Cover Practices Construction Sequence Other MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS AFTER CONSTRUCTION ® Stabilize Exposed Surface ❑ Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities ® Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris ▪ Ensure Operation of Permanent Facilities ❑ Flag Limits of SAO and Open Space Preservation Areas ❑ Other Part 10 SURFACE WATER SYSTEM ❑ Grass Lined Channel ❑ Pipe System ❑ Open Channel ❑ Dry Pond ❑ Wet Pond ❑ Tank ❑ Vault ❑ Energy Dissipater ❑ Wetland ❑ Stream ❑ Infiltration ❑ Depression ❑ Flow Dispersal ❑ Waiver ❑ Regional Detention Method of Analysis KCRTS Program Compensation /Mitigation of Eliminated Site Storage Catch basin and pipe system draining to a detention/wet vault prior to discharging from Brief Description of System Operation site. Facility Related Site Limitations Reference Facility Limitation -2- 1 I217.002.doc frm,l Part 11 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS • Z Cast in Place Vault ® Retaining Wall ® Rockery > 4' High ❑ Structural on Steep Slope ❑ Other Part 12. EASEMENTS/TRACTS ❑ Drainage Easement ❑ Access Easement ❑ Native Growth Protection Easement ❑ Tract ❑ Other Part 13 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I, or a civil engineer under my supervision, have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the attachments. To the best of rpy knowlejjpe the ormation provided here is accurate. Signed/Dated -3- 11217.002.doc FIGURE 2 ASSESSOR'S MAP KING COUNTY DEPT. OF ASSESSMENTS 3003 93P 13 /01 7111 P33P030 33 153P571113 17 L0C1t150 10119 monit A5[ 15 10( GAMS= 00 5501 ut09Ne v9A55ta0'Jt9. NE 15- 23 Pe See It d.».• 957- 47-1611 151:1.1: vraa -vY, als -ee. 139711. n+ w ST. SITE aE © 5I .-•• I..._© •••• a 9 • 41 Iaz..a., ASSESSOR'S MAP NORTH 0 • • FIGURE 3 DRAINAGE BASIN EXHIBIT 1 CATCH BASIN /PIPE TABLE: CB /1, TYPE 1 SD PIPE /1 (P /1) STANDARD GRATE 32 IF RIM = 127.00 12' ADS IE= 124.00 0 1.5% CB /2, TYPE 2 SD PIPE /2 (P /2) SOLID LOCKING UD 42 IF RIM= 131.12 12' ADS IE= 123.52 0 2.64% CB /3. TYPE 2 SD PIPE/3 (P /3) SOUD LOCKING UD 37 IF IE= 133.63 12' ADS IE= 124.63 0 1.O% C8 /4. TYPE 1 SD PIPE /4 (P /4) STANDARD GRATE 10 IF RIM = 128.00 12' ADS IE= 125.00 0 10.2% SD PIPE /5 (P /5) 20 1F 12' ADS 0 2.55 LEGEND: PROPOSED TYPE II CATCH BASIN PROPOSED TYPE 1 CATCH BASIN PROPOSED STORM DRAIN CLEANOUT EXISTING TYPE II CATCH BASIN EXISTING TYPE I CATCH BASIN PROPOSED STORM DRAINAGE UNE EXISTING STORM DRAINAGE UNE EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE EXISTING SANITARY SEWER UNE EXISTING WATERMAIN EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING WATER VALVE PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATIONS (TOP OF ASPHALT) PROPOSED SURFACE SLOPE PROPOSED GRADE BREAK EXISTING SPOT ELEVATIONS EXISTING CONTOURS PROPOSED CONTOURS PROPOSED BARRIER CURB PROPOSED ASPHALT PAVEMENT • m 336.00 PROPOSED 6• WIDE NO -BUILD EASEMENT AROUND EXISTING DECK (TO BE RECORDED ON FINAL PLAT) GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN LOCATED IN A PORTION OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23N, RANGE 4E, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON AVALABLE ENTERING SIGHT DISTANCE = 250'±. 1 UDSptis•N QQ tit. SURFACE AREA CALCULATIONS TOTAL PARCEL AREA=0.382 ACRES EXISTING IMPERI/fOUS SURFACE AREA =0.016 ACRES ( =4.2% SITE COVERAGE) PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA =D 158 ACRES ( =41. % SITE COVERAGE) CUT AND FILL VOLUMES /APPROXIMATE QUARRY OF CUE = 2.300! YET) APPROXIMATE OUANRY OF FILL=1253 YE73 INSTALL 10• MAX HIGH WALL PER STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DESIGN , (BY OTHERS). '• ROCKERY WALL PER CRY OF TUKWILA STANDARDS MAY BE USED IF WALL 15 4• HIGH OR LESS • P15 DOWNSTREAM I.E. =123.0 REFER TO C -3 FOR UPSTREAM IE. UTILITY CONFLICT NOTE ,,/ CAUTION I THE CONTRACTOR SHAD. EJ1E�O[JSIBLE FOR VERIFDARG THE LOCATION DIMENSION, AND DEPT / OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES (5)1 8 SHOOWNNN ON THESE PLANS OR NOT BY POTHOUN 66 UTILITIES ANIU4dRVEYING THE ALL WHETHER NOT LCOESSF AT LLOLOCA NTAL E RB NS OF SAID CROSSINGS SICR SHOWN THESE PLANS ARE BASED UPON THE UNVERIFIEV 5UC INFORMATION AND ARE SUBJECT TO VARIATION. IF CONRJCTS SHOULD OCCUR, T116 CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSULT BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. TO RESOLVE ALL PROBLEMS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION. • Cgsy NEW 42'411' WATER QUALITY WET VAULT AND DETENTION VAULT, SEE DETAIL. SHEET C3. e•. 1 ter, , •J 6' PVC 0 1.0R FOR CONNECTION OF ROOF AND FOOTING DRAINS INSTALL 10• MAX HIC WALL PER STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DESIGN (137 OTHERS). ROCKERY WALL PER CITY OF TUKWILA STANDARDS MAY BE USED IF WALL IS 41 HIGH OR LESS AVAILABLE ENTERING 51GHT DISTANCE > 500• INSTALL 6' CEMENT CONCRETE BARRIER CURB PER WSDOT STANDARD PLAN F -1. EXISTING 066 HYDRANT - SAWCUT EX. ASPHALT TO PROVIDE SMOOTH TRANS. % W /NEW ASPHALT F.AFet. 5t.ot...x 3 me o r-s rrF ‘Ziis,•ot. VICINITY MAP SPECIAL NOTES SURVEY PREPARED BY CRONES AND ASSOCIATES, INC DATED 1 -8 -2001, JOB # KHANIBFLX. BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS HAS NOT VERIFIED ANY OF THE SURVEY INFO SHOWN. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE ACCURACY OF ALL EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS AND CONTACT SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER F ANY CONRJCT EXISTS. SURVEYOR'S NOTES (CRONES AND ASSOC.) 1. VERTICAL DATUM FOR THIS SURVEY IS BASED ON THE CRY OF TUKWILA MON N0. 1 IN MAP REGION •C•; LOCATED AT THE SE CORNER OF SEC. 15 -23 -4 ALSO BEING THE INTERSECTION OF 5 144TH ST AND 51ST AVE 5. USE WATER METER AS LOCAL BENCHMARK; ELEVATION 126.89 FEET. SITE ADDRESS MACADAM ROAD SOUTH TUKWILA,' WA 98188 PARCEL NOS. 3229200005 3229200010 1523049149 INDEX OF SHEETS: C1 OF 5 C2 OF 5 63 OF 5 64 OF 5 C50F5 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PUN DETAILS WATER AND SEWER CONNECTION PLAN CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1 CALL BEFORE YOU DIG: 1- 800 - 424 -5555 THESE PLANS ARE APPROVED FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY OF TUKWILA ENGINEERING DMSION APPROVED BY: DATE APPROVED: HPG I REVISED PER CITY tt 85 z_ CC 0 0 CC Z O Q LL 0 z_ 0 cc 0 KHAN 3 -LOT DEVELOPMENT U 1�'z•'' cn w J cc 0 z 0 z 0 w tl Q P.O. BOX 3280 N 0 CO 0 oZ O V 0 z L[) Q S z w W 2 0 U 0 Zw V) a w X G 9 LL) N z C•1 CV Q O N CO 0 K Cp N n ? p D CO w4 I I z - 3v1v) 1_>i N N W K n Ui � Y �� v N I EXPIRES 6 -10-05 I 1) Lt 0 FIGURE 4 SOILS MAP KING COUNTY A (DES MOINE SEATTLE P.O. E. MI. 17'30" 1 640000 FEET 122 °1! Foster ■ Golt Course RENTON 2.8 SOILS MAP NORTH 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY •) 2.0 11D CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY At this time, there are no conditions established on this project other than the typical development standards as required by the City of Tukwila. The SEPA review process may implement requirements above and beyond the typical guidelines for development and, therefore, will be implemented into this report at that time. 11217.001.doc [HPG /tep) 0.1 �,� 3.0 OFF -SITE ANALYSIS MN3.0 OFF -SITE ANALYSIS The site is currently unoccupied with the remnants of a single home remaining. The site currently drains to a roadside ditch along Macadam Road South at the eastern edge of the property. This ditch then conveys the storm water north approximately 420 feet through a series of 12 -inch CMP driveway culverts and open ditch sections along Macadam Road South. The flow then crosses under Macadam Road South via a 3- by 3 -foot concrete box culvert and discharges to a natural channel. This channel travels north and northeast under South 136th Street, 48th Avenue South, and SR -599 before discharging to the Green River. The downstream conditions were observed on October 20, 2003, during a significant rain event. There were no observed failures or flooding conditions on that day within one - quarter mile of the project discharge point. 1) 11217.001.doc [HPG /tep] UPSTREAM /DOWNSTREAM DRAINAGE REPORT Khan 3 -Lot Development Macadam Road South Tukwila, WA 98168 Prepared for: American Canadian Real Estate, Inc. P.O. Box 3280 Kent, WA 98032 November 12, 2003 Our Job No. 11217 GH'�L iv s 1. °y jL , Z CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Mkt u' 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251 -6222 (425) 251 -8782 FAX o s ? BRANCH OFFICES • OLYMPIA, WA • WALNUT CREEK, CA `,(). 1,4". www.barghausen.com ,,G 0') 11) TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION /GENERAL INFORMATION A. General Information B. Response to Core and Special Requirements 2.0 UPSTREAM/DOWNSTREAM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS A. Upstream Area B. Downstream Drainage Analysis LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT A Vicinity Map EXHIBIT B Drainage Area Map EXHIBIT C Off -Site Analysis Drainage System Table EXHIBIT D Basin Study EXHIBIT E Sensitive Areas Folios EXHIBIT F Wetland Inventory Map EXHIBIT G Upstream Area Maps 1 1217.003.doc [KIB /dm] 0-) 1.0 INTRODUCTION /GENERAL INFORMATION A. General Information • ) This project proposes the construction of three new homes along Macadam Road South, just south of the intersection of Macadam Road South and South 138th Street, Tukwila, Washington. The site is currently unoccupied, but does contain remnants of foundations, sidewalks, and block walls from an old single - family residence. This parcel is located in a portion of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, in Tukwila, Washington. This parcel encompasses Tax Parcel Nos. 3229200015, 1523049149, and 3229200005. The site is 0.382 acres in size and it is currently unoccupied. The existing site has previously been graded and developed for a single house, and contains 0.016 acres of impervious surfaces that remain. The proposal is to remove the existing foundations and walks, and dispose them to an acceptable waste site. The site will then be graded to allow access to the three new homes from the southern end of the project. The proposed impervious surface coverage on the site will be approximately 0.158 acres, or 41.4 percent coverage. The site is a combination of relatively flat graded areas from the previous home with relatively steep slopes along the eastern edge of the property. Slopes range between 0 and 70 percent, draining to a storm drainage ditch along Macadam Road South. 11217.003.doc [KIB /dm] •rr) B. Response to Core and Special Requirements Core Requirement No. 1 - Drainage at Natural Location: The drainage produced from the proposed development will be collected and discharged at its natural location to the roadside ditch along Macadam Road South. The proposed development will not alter the existing drainage course nor divert stormwater onto or away from the adjacent downstream properties. Core Requirement No. 2 - Off -Site Analysis: This report contains an Upstream Area Analysis and a Level 1 Downstream Drainage Analysis for the project site. The final site development plans will demonstrate that the development will have no adverse effects on the downstream drainage system. Core Requirement No. 3 - Runoff Control: This project is located within the Green River Basin. Storm drainage detention and water quality systems will be designed in accordance with the requirements of the 1998 King County, Washington Surface Water Design Manual and City of Tukwila standards. The preliminary design concept utilizes a combined wet/detention vault to provide storage, controlled release, and water quality treatment. Core Requirement No. 4 - Conveyance System: All storm drainage runoff produced from the proposed project will be collected by catch basins and underground pipes and conveyed to and underground vault for water quality treatment and detention prior to discharging from the site. A wet vault will provide water quality treatment. The proposed storm drainage conveyance system capacity will exceed the 25- year /24 -hour design storm in accordance with the 1998 King County, Washington Surface Water Design Manual and City of Tukwila standards, when designed to City of Tukwila minimum standards. Core Requirement No. 5 - Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control: A temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan is proposed for the project site in order to prevent, to the maximum extent possible, the transport of sediment from the project site to the downstream drainage facilities, water resources, and adjacent properties. Core Requirement No. 6 - Maintenance and Operations: A Maintenance and Operations Manual will be prepared as part of the final Technical Information Report and will provide instructions on how to maintain the water quality wet tank along with the schedule for maintenance of the storm drainage conveyance system and catch basins. 1 1217.003.doc [KIB /dm] Core Requirement No. 6 - Financial Guarantees and Liability: Financial guarantees and liability insurance requirements will be addressed at the time of plan review and construction. Core Requirement No. 8 - Water Quality: Core Requirement No. 8 has been reviewed, and it has been determined that basic water quality is all that is required for water quality for this site. Therefore, a wet tank will provide the basic level of water quality required to serve this area. Special Requirement No. 1 - Other Adopted Area Specific Requirements: The proposed project site is located within the Green River Basin. A water quality facility will be designed and constructed on site. The site does not lie within a critical drainage area, a Master Drainage Plan area, a Basin Plan, a Lake Management Plan, or a Shared Facility Drainage Plan area. Therefore, this requirement does not apply to this project. Special Requirement No. 2 - Floodplain/Floodway Delineation: No portion of the site lies within the 100 -year floodplain as depicted on the FEMA floodplain map (Exhibit E). The proposed project does contain a wetland, which will be protected. Special Requirement No. 3 - Flood Protection Facility: This site is not protected by a levee, a revetment, or berm. Therefore, it does not require proper analysis, design, and construction methods to prevent potentially catastrophic consequences should such facilities fail. Special Requirement No. 4 - Source Controls: There are no source controls needed in addition to the water quality vault proposed for this development. Special Requirement No. 5 - Oil Control: This proposed project does not meet the threshold of a high use site as delineated in the King County, Washington Surface Water Design Manual. Therefore, Special Requirement No. 5 does not apply to this project. 1 1 217.003.doc [KIB /dm] 2.0 0) UPSTREAM/DOWNSTREAM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS A. Upstream Area The upstream drainage basin consists of sheet flows from undeveloped forested land to the west of the project property. This basin is approximately 0.4 acre in size, and does not create any point source discharge to the project property. During the major storm event of October 20, 2003, there was no visible surface water entering the project site from the upstream basin. The proposed site grading will use a combination of drainage swales and rockery walls with footing drains to direct the offsite flows around or through the project site. Refer to Exhibit G for the upstream basin map. B. Downstream Drainage Analysis The site currently drains to a roadside ditch along Macadam Road South at the eastern edge of the property. This ditch then conveys the storm water north approximately 420 feet through a series of 12 -inch CMP driveway culverts and open ditch sections along Macadam Road South. The flow then crosses under Macadam Road South via a 3- by 3 -foot concrete box culvert and discharges to a natural channel. This channel travels north and northeast under South 136th Street, 48th Avenue South, and SR -599 before discharging to the Green River. The downstream conditions were observed on October 20, 2003, during a significant rain event. There were no observed failures or flooding conditions on that day within one quarter mile of the project discharge point. Refer to Exhibits B and C for additional detail on the downstream drainage path. 11217.003.doc [KIB /dm] .- EXHIBIT A Vicinity Map sf", � S 125r s :i 12t111�' itst.tlzcn. rn 1 MP 9r A k .� ' FSi 1.1 ©,,,,j Fj- IZ1TIi o.! , ill'? Ti-,i,,7"1;-2/..28.6°111 Sf , i0)01 011 ?' i;ILla `'r Ul.lp: R!1'EH �� : ! 11' 1 sr ,11 i 'r!S • S iS i:1211U SI 1.1'IAI Sr >T 1_ to' s =I S 130T1 133 S 135171 sT s 13 - • ST 8 • F(;1 T L 4140711 C1$ !>, ST L,i : I, S t x.142) D' ST j© ,Q 4 FOSTER NIO z IrS .. S 144TH'ie .FS t1.6,00 • J S'. %: 3 :' z I45TIl Til I I /1,1 Tfill ,.I. 1- f • U I5,■UV l L' 48TH ST . 4200 • •S ;I 9TU 5T , ° ST • - S'150111 Sly I515T5T22 1- - 3 1 15151 5T -T �I RN DS `'211p � ^� 1`^� " '.S 156T J ST•,• V. V I N N t; I. a -I , '1 • .,.rill R1ZEL1 n PO LIB S 114771 I FS 1 °i S .149TH s' • i �t \Np % 1 5 17ID�� S CII-1 w� - ' .mil S)_' li,-.5 ' S1 15k150t1��41�'I'. ^�' ,n I.I9f1 DL -.51' \.1 P1. �j 123 ` 51:1 sT s 15211D ST �sM l \ \--�� -I .__— 1 - S Is' wit \ s \ ;T.1.. 152YU PL 1� '' ry ii v `o Rl u S srt ,p1ti1-P 144TH yr ST 1\f ' v✓ 1 \�J -r I.a�1' :•.Ili 01 I' n; Lf_t • .r y1 E11t,lssr ' S LOltf \CRES�E ?4£0SU11 l TES • ;c 513 •A15001/00) ) ;ANTR,K C 9 I SCDES r o • ( 1, C PKWY EVN1S r1 I� L IQPNTnN SOURCE: THE THOMAS GUIDE (USED BY PERMISSION) VICINITY MAP NORTH EXHIBIT B Drainage Area Map CATCH BASIN /PIPE TABLE: C8 11. TYPE 1 SD PIPE11 (P/1) STANDARD GRATE 32 1F R1M =127.00 12' ADS 1E- 124.00 0 1.55 CB 12. TYPE 2 SD PIPE12 (Pi2) SOUD LOCKING LID 42 LF RIM - 131.12 12 ADS IE- 123.52 0 2.64% CB 11 TYPE 2 SD PIPE13 (P /3) SOUD LOCKING UD 37 LF 1E- 133.63 12' ADS IE- 124.63 0 1.05 CB 14. TYPE 1 SD PIPE /4 (P14) STANDARD GRATE 10 LF RIM - 128.00 12' ADS IE- 125.00 0 10.25 SD PIPE /5 (P15) 20 LF 12' ADS 0 2.55 LEGEND: PROPOSED TYPE 0 CATCH BASIN PROPOSED TYPE I CATCH BASIN PROPOSED STORM DRAIN CLEANOUT EXISTING TYPE 0 CATCH BASIN EXISTING TYPE 1 CATCH BASIN PROPOSED STORM DRAINAGE UNE EXISTING STORM DRAINAGE UNE EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE EXISTING SANITARY SEWER UNE EXISTING WATERIANN EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING WATER VALVE PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATIONS (TOP OF ASPHALT) PROPOSED SURFACE SLOPE PROPOSED GRADE BREAK EXISTING SPOT ELEVATIONS EXISTING CONTOURS PROPOSED CONTOURS PROPOSED BARRIER CURB PROPOSED ASPHALT PAVEMENT • MIEL-10 336.00 755 C B. 100 SURFACE AREA CALCULATIONS TOTAL PARCEL AREA-0.382 ACRES EXISTNC IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA-0.016 ACRES ( =425 SITE COVERAGE) PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA =0.158 ACRES ( =41. 5 SITE COVERAGE) CUT AND FILL VOLUMES APPROXIMATE OUANIY OF CUT -2,3004 Y1? APPROXIMATE QUARRY OF FILL -1254 Y0) LMUTY CONRJCT NOTES CAUTION THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE LOCATION, DIMENSION. AND DEPTH OF ALL OISTNC UTILRIES WHETHER SHOWN ON THESE PLANS OR NOT BY POTHOLING THE UTILITIES AND SURVEYING THE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL LOCATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THIS SHALL INCLUDE CAUJNG UTIUIY LOCATE 0. 1 -800- 424 -5555 AND THEN POTHOUNG ALL OF THE EXISTING UTILITIES AT LOCATIONS OF NEW UTILITY CROSSINGS TO PHYSICALLY VERIFY WHETHER OR NOT CONFLICTS EXIST. LOCATIONS OF SAID UTIUTIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED UPON THE UNVERIFIED PUBUC INFORMATION AND ARE SUBJECT TO VARURON. IF CONFLICTS SHOULD OCCUR. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSULT BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. TO RESOLVE ALL PROBLEMS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION. GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN LOCATED IN A PORTION OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23N, RANGE 4E, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON `�f 4 f9 6 Sy � B DOWNSTREAM LE -123.0 REFER TO C -3 FOR UPSTREAM LE i NEW 42'x11' WATER QUALITY WET VAULT AND DETENTION VAULT. SEE DETAIL. SHEET C3. 6' PVC 0 1.05 FOR CONNECTION OF ROOF AND FOOTING DRAINS. ...1%AiNhbE Artu4 ✓✓IAP A ctlit o :not. INSTALL 6' CEMENT CONCRETE BARRIER CURB PER WSDOT STANDARD PLAN F -1. SAWCUT 01. ASPHALT TO PROVIDE SMOOTH TRANS. W /NEW ASPHALT VICINITY MAP SPECIAL NOTES SURVEY PREPARED BY CRONES AND ASSOCIATES, INC DATED 1 -8 -2001, JOB • KHANIBFLX BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS HAS NOT VERIFIED ANY OF THE SURVEY INFO SHOWN. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE ACCURACY OF ALL EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS AND CONTACT SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER IF ANY CONFLICT EXISTS. SURVEYOR'S NOTES (CRONES AND ASSOC.) 1. FIELD MEASUREMENTS FOR THIS SURVEY PERFORMED WITH A 2' TOPCON GTS 3B INSTRUMENT, BY TRAVERSE METHODS, AND MEET OR EXCEED ACCURACY STANDARDS OF 1:10,000. 2 THIS SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A CURRENT TITLE REPORT AND THEREFORE DOES NOT PURPORT TO SHOW ALL EASEMENTS OR RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. R ANY. 3. THE BOUNDARY CORNERS AND LINES DEPICTED ON THIS MAP ARE PER RECORD TITLE INFORMATION AND REPRESENT DEED ONES ONLY. THEY DO NOT PURPORT TO SHOW OWNERSHIP LINES MAT MAY OTHERWISE BE DEIER%LNED BY A COURT OF LAW. 4. VERTICAL. DATUM FOR THIS SURVEY IS BASED ON THE CRY OF TUKWILA MON N0. 1 N MAP REGION 'C'; LOCATED AT THE SE CORNER OF SEC. 15 -23 -4 ALSO BEING THE INTERSECTION OF S 144TH 5T ARO 51ST AVE S. USE WATER METER AS LOCAL BENCHMARK; ELEVATION 126.89 FEET. SITE ADDRESS MACADAM ROAD SOUTH TUXWOA WA 98188 PARCEL NOS. 3224200005 3229200010 1523049149 INDEX OF SHEETS: C1 OF 5 GRADING AND DRNNACE PLAN C2 OF 5 TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN C3 OF 5 DETAILS C4 OF 5 WATER AND SEWER CONNECTION PLAN C5 OF 5 CONSTRUCTOR NOTES CALL BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800- 424 -5555 THESE PLANS ARE APPROVED FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE 'CITY OF TUKWILA ENGINEERING DMSION APPROVED di': DATE APPROVED: w 4 _z 4 cc cc z O 4 U- O z_ 0 4 cc 0 r KHAN 3 -LOT DEVELOPMENT 1 EXPIRES 6 -10-05 1 U 1- w J 4 w cr z 4 4 z 4 0 z 4 U cwc O G LL 4 P.O. BOX 3280 N. 0 co 0) z 0 0 z 4 z w N ILO O co c) N 0 O l,i 1 1217b,hal,11217 -GRD- Scale: 1.20 kbart 8 ry 4G •F l EXHIBIT B.2 Downstream Drainage Map S 140 St I 127 St MAPS PR St D N S 133 St S 135 St S 138 St r r r l S 142 St S 144 St r i w 4 J D n L a 142 P y 5 143 1137 Stl S 146 St N D S 148 St 0 200 400 800 0 1 2 SCALE: 1' _ 400' eNT Foster Golf Course U D m IE 0 0. 0 3 v:! rn D S 47 1 bOWNSTREM DRAINAGE MAP HER LEGEND Ditch/Stream Pipe Manhole o Catch Basin Culvert. Drainage Basin Boundary 15 -1 Stream Reach Designation For Watercourse Ratings FOSTORIA STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN Figure 2. Southgate Creek stream reaches identified for watercourse rating. e -) `5 130 iafr6 ti 6 A 30 rt 2J N, •1 r . R +7 ^ a a 9 4 ,D W a � §3 67 r� 4° e raw. • . d°•' 'et 6. r, /,‘ N 89 - 21-57 Si 0 ( p0 r w,. M+T. 1.3° A 4i )4sa .376 :68 •(. i ) Lot2 0P y�� 0 g' r c.9 QO )J �co o, - Q(�4) 8 -oa.e 0 Lot 1 (sp) RD. • T i'idr ▪ • �'* • { IMMO to 0 0 w o-5774n 0 raw 18 ass 6 .5 10A �Orea ►3 so .5a 22 Oescrith 0150 :3b AP /00 wit • ° as o• 25 322920 era° „DO. 0100 1270 4 ti 95 °0¢ 3 00'5 27 sew /7� O 0 M O 0 co 0 z X • 9 Z73 1 1•1/41 v- ar v (off �5$ • tw I4M tter EXHIBIT C Off -Site Analysis Drainage System Table • OFF-SITE ANALYSIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE Basin: Green River Basin Subbasin Name: Subbasin Number: ...Siirn'. bii14',4*iljiihiaie',:ec;thEig•iient,;,;:,; - , KV :.:'..:$ [_- ., . [ -: A[-[*, . - ' • [- , .::;'• Type, Name, Siie , ::, Drainage Component ' •—• ,1/4,[41Y4N-.['[. . •-• :., - , , : .,°**-Descriptioir. - -.: . , ,,, .. :?,;,:);Sidiie;:19, ,:t !-: ,- , . ., ,4iaiieePt • , 40. , .:- , from Ste --',.: f;Di46i-ge ... —`-.:Itiiitini -7:74 , .tv• -, ;,. Problems ,4*,.‘. '‘i'•.,..',,,,.: .. - ::',t;7:4*'4ifiiiii'lk":4 ,',.. , „ Problems - '' ;: ,*.':.i'''', '' `',° ' ' ::'.:'...:::t$'.:::: ols'e'ri4ilonsof.Frelififiii.46e eibi-',',-% , . — ' r%'-'"'Resource Reviewer, oeResident :', : : f .:::,..:].;.! :7-- .. ; ,-...: ''';" 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, ponding, overtopping, flooding, habitat or organism destruction, scouring, bank sloughing, sedimentation, incision, other erosion Tributary area, likelihood of problem, overflow pathways; potential impacts 1 Project discharge point to roadside ditch. 0 None noted None noted 2 Roadside ditch along Macadam Road South, 2-foot bottom width, 1:1 side slopes. Grass lined with multiple 12-inch CMP driveway culverts, also at 0.5% slope, 2 feet deep. 0.5 0 to 420 None noted None noted Ditch was full but not overtopping during October 20, 2003 major rain event. 3 Concrete box culvert crossing under Macadam Road South, 3 foot by 3 foot. Concrete box culvert with concrete and wood headwall on discharge end, storm drain manhole on upstream end. 2 420 to 480 None noted None noted 4 Natural stream channel, 2 foot bottom width, 2:1 side slopes. Trees, brush, approximately 2 feet deep. 0.5 to 25 480 to 1,320 None noted None noted 5 One-quarter mile downstream drainage analysis ends. Flow continues via open channels and closed pipes to the Green River. [ 11217.006.doc 0 ) • EXHIBIT D Basin Study RECONNAISSANCE REPORT NO. 26 DUWAMISH RIVER BASIN JUNE 1987 Natural Resources and Parks Division and Surface Water Management Division King County, Washington King County Executive Tim Hill King County Council Audrey Gruger, District 1 Cynthia Sullivan, District 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 John_Bethel, Soil Scientist, Earth_ Consultants, Inc. Parks, Planning and Resources Joe Nagel, Director Natural Resources and Parks Division Russ Cahill, Division Manager Bill Jolly, Acting Division Manager Derek Poor', 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 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 B 'a anderliuraPlannin Support Technician Carszlyn 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 & Team Leader TABLE OF CONTENTS I. SUMMARY 1 II. INTRODUCTION 1 III. FINDINGS IN DUWAMISH RIVER BASIN 2 A. Overview 2 B. Effects of Urbanization 4 C. Specific Problems 4 1. Erosion of channel banks and streambeds 4 2. Flooding in some locations 5 3. Further degradation of water quality 5 IV. RECOMMENDATIONS 6 A. Safeguard against continued erosion 6 B. Improve overall effectiveness of surface water management 6 C. Improve habitat conditions, particularly in tributaries 7 V. MAP APPENDICES: APPENDIX A: Estimated Costs APPENDIX_B- _ _CapitaLImprovemgntaroiect—Rankin 9 A-1 APPENDIX C: Detailed Findings and Recommendations (10 C-1 I. SUMMARY The Duwamish River Basin, in western King County, is intensely urbanized. Commercial and industrial land uses dominate the basin on either side of the Duwamish River and along its valley. Single- family residences are located along the valley walls and on the plateau above the valley; residential land uses are expected to reach saturation by the year 2000. In the process of urbanization, nearly all of the basin's tributaries have been piped and chan- neled. Outfall pipes within the tributary network are fitted with flap gates to minimize the effects of flooding when the Duwamish River rises during flood stages or as a result of tidal influences. Other alterations to the stream system in the lowland areas include the placement of numerous artificial channels and culverts underneath State Roads (SR) 99 and 599. These carry runoff from three major freeways, as well as from extensive parking lots, one airfield (Boeing), and industrial areas, to the stream system. All wetlands except one have been eli- minated in the basin. Not surprisingly, there are serious environmental problems throughout the basin. The most serious of these, water quality, is being studied by numerous public agencies. The recon- naissance, which focused on drainage and erosion problems and resulting contamination of the stream system, identified several problems. Furst, bank erosion and mass- wasting were observed in many locations, the most serious instances occurring along steep valley walls. Second, flooding occurs in some places, most notably in the Allentown area. And third, degradation of the tributaries from sidehill drainage is one of many factors accounting for the fact that fish habitat is nearly nonexistent. The field team investigating the basin recommends that 1) erosion be slowed by implementing planning, engineering, and regulatory measures; 2) the general effectiveness of surface water management be improved with a combination of enhanced maintenance on existing facilities and the construction of new facilities where needed; and 3) habitat conditions be improved where feasible, particularly those related to poor water quality from sidehill drainage. II. 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 con- ditions in each basin. Findings from these three basins led the King County Council to adopt Resolution 6018 in April 193 calling for. reconnaisssance -to be coatiplet F on the remaining 26= 6asins.=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 P:DU 1 Duwamish River Basin (continued) 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 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 THE DUWAMISH RIVER BASIN The field work in the basin was conducted in February 1987 by Ray Heller, resource planner; Lee Benda, geologist; and Arny Stonkus, engineer. Their findings and recommendations follow. A. Overview of the Basin The part of the Duwamish River Basin under King County jurisdiction is located in western King County along the Interstate 5 (I -5) corridor, just south of Seattle and north of Tukwila (the basin's northern and southern boundaries, respectively). The western boundary abuts the Miller and Salmon Creek Basins, while the eastern boundary abuts the Lake Washington Basin. The basin contains the King County Airport at Boeing Field and portions of SR 99, 509, and 599 as well as I -5. Historically, the Duwamish River flowed north from the confluence of the Green and Black Rivers. The Black River no longer exists, but the Green River north of its historic confluence is still referred to as the Duwamish and this report identifies the associated basin as the Duwamish River Basin. The Duwamish River flows north through the communities of Allentown and South Park and through the Duwamish industrial area in south Seattle. The river -- known as the Duwamish Waterway near its mouth -- splits around Harbor Island into the East and West Waterways before discharging into Elliott Bay, adjacent to downtown Seattle. The reconnaissance excluded subbasins wholly within the city of Seattle. ._The =D warnish River Basin is intensely urbanized, with commercial and industrial land uses predominating on either side of the river along the va ey bottom. The sib opes and plateaus above the valley are mainly used for single - family residences, with multi- family residential and commercial land uses also present in various locations. All of the unincorporated portion of this basin is within the Highline Community Planning Area, which lost population between 1970 and 1980. The population level has stabilized and moderate growth is expected in all types of land use by the year 2000. Most future growth in commercial and industrial land uses will be in the river valley bottom currently used for these purposes. Single- family and multi - family housing will reach saturation on the valley sideslopes and on the upland plateau. P:DU Duwamish River Basin (continued) Dominant geologic and geomorphic features. The geology of the Duwamish River Basin consists of sedimentary and volcanic bedrock, glacial deposits of various ages and types, and alluvium in the valley bottoms. The major bedrock outcrops appear in the southern portion of the basin near Tukwila and consist of sandstones and intrusive volcanic rocks. Glacial sediments include undifferentiated pre - Vashon sand and gravel, Vashon till, recessional outwash sand, and glacio - fluvial sand and gravel. Till is found along most of the highlands and generally caps the drumlinoid hills. Recessional out - wash sand is interspersed throughout the till and is commonly found along shallow stream valleys and other depressional areas. Landslide deposits exist within steep - walled tributary valleys. Recent alluvium, composed of gravel, sand, and silt, fills the Duwamish Valley and the bottom of the tributary valleys. The morphology of the basin is dominated by the valley of the Duwamish River. The valley is cut into sedimentary and volcanic bedrock. While the Duwamish River once meandered across its floodplain on the valley floor, it now flows through a diked chan- nel, as do its tributaries. During the last several glaciations, sediments were deposited on the bedrock in the form of glacio- fluvial sand and gravel, recessional outwash sand, and till. These glacial deposits were shaped into drumlinoid hills, with axes trending northwest - southeast. Drainage channels in the uplands are not well developed or integrated. Where drainage was routed over the valley walls, deep narrow valleys were formed through the glacial sediments. Landslides formed hummocky and chaotic terrain along the steep walls of tributary valleys and of the Duwamish Valley. Hydrologic and hydraulic features. Several highly urbanized subbasins, all distinct in character from one another, make up the Duwamish River Basin. Some natural drainages display undisturbed riparian environments, while severe erosion, scouring, and downcutting typify others. The majority of the basin's tributaries are either piped or ditched as they approach the lowland areas and their confluences with the Duwamish River. Outfall pipes within the tributary network are usually fitted with flap gates to minimize the backwater effects of flooding in the river. Alterations to the stream system in the lowland areas include many artificial open channels and major culverts that cross SR 99 and 599. Drainages in the upper subbasins flow through natural swales, steep natural channels, and ravines, as well as through numerous culverts. Many of the streams flow peren- nially from groundwater sources. Reconnaissance revealed that natural storage systems are nearly nonexistent in this basin: There are no lakes and only one small wetland. - _. - - - ----- Habiitat _. thaiacteristiis.she fate o stye *n _b bitat d- • - - - -- -- mined during the late 1800s thrs ugh_the 1950s. _Dstring._this _timeihe_D.uwamish floodplain was almost totally filled, and the river was dredged and diked. As already described, this process of urbanization completely eliminated the natural features of the river and its corridor. In addition, the discharge of oils and other toxicants from thousands of acres of industrial land and the dumping of domestic garbage (which is common although illegal) have produced serious water quality problems along the waterway. Water pollution has caused documented fish kills in recent years, resulting in fines against the responsible parties. In addition, Metro, King County, the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Duwamish River Basin (continued) (EPA) have initiated studies to better define problems and solutions in order to improve water quality along the river. No anadromous fish were found in any of the streams at the time of reconnaissance. Resident fish may exist but were not observed during the reconnaissance study. Streams on the valley slopes and upland plateau are also devoid of fish. The tribu- taries in these upland areas show evidence of damage from the high flows of urban runoff, contamination from garbage dumping, introduction of other toxicants, alterations, filling, and high sediment loads. Most streams have few pools or the large organic debris necessary for fish refuge. Two streams (Trib. 0002, 0003) do have some instream and riparian habitat structures (e.g., protective streamside vegetation, pools, and large organic debris) that might support trout. The possibility of enhancing these fish habitats should be explored and if feasible pursued. B. Effects of Urbanization in the Basin The same process of urbanization that has contaminated the waters of the Duwamish River Basin and destroyed most of the fish and fish habitat has also severely impacted the basin's drainage system. Erosion of channel beds and banks has produced heavy sediment loads, which have been carried down steep gradients and deposited on the valley floor. Deposition points have too often been within artificial conveyance systems, which have become clogged and constricted during times of heavy flows. This inability of the drainage system to handle higher flows is particularly noticeable in the lower stretches of Tributaries 0001A, 0001B, 0002, 0003, and 0003D. When high flows in the Duwamish river cause floodgates to close at tributary outfalls, flows that originate in the eastern subbasins back up in local conveyance systems in Allentown and cause flooding. Pipe outfalls exist at river miles 7.70 and 7.80. Highway contaminants produce many of the water quality problems in the basin. Most contaminants enter the stream and storm systems unabated by pollution - control devices such as oil /water separators. One drain pipe outfalls onto a steep slope at South 112th Street, just above SR 509. This pipe is discharging noticeable amounts of gasoline and oil from an unknown source, killing insects and plant life on the slope. C. Specific Problems Identified As noted earlier, there are a number of public agencies presently studying the severe water quality problems present in the Duwamish River Basin. The goal of these studies .is to recommend mitigation measures in the Duwamish Waterway. The reconnaissance work— pizseiri=her . on ramage pro ems m e rt utary su caw - ments, with- 5-eeondary emphasis given to water quality and—habitat problems. 1. Erosion of channel banks and streambeds was found in numerous locations throughout the basin. However, urbanization is so advanced in this basin that development - related erosion is actually at a minimum. In general, streams and bluffs in the lower Duwamish River Valley are stable and show only moderate increases in erosion. Serious erosion found during reconnaissance was restricted to the steep - walled tributary valleys and areas along valley walls of the Duwamish River. For example: 4 Duwamish River Basin (continued) a. Channel -bed erosion occurs on Tributary 0003G at river mile .95. The cause is uncontrolled urban runoff; the problem will continue if not addressed. b. Bank erosion and scouring occur on Tributary 0003E at river mile .00. Debris is building up at the headwall, causing flows to damage the bank. Increased storm flows from development are apparently the cause. c. Instream bank erosion is occurring on Tributary 0002 at river mile .55, with no apparent abatement. Bank erosion also is occurring along the channels of Tributaries 0002 and 0003, presumably from development- related increases in flows. d. Road embankment erosion is occurring on Tributary 0002E at the 47th Avenue and South 109th Street intersection. The resulting sediment is filling two 36 -inch culverts at the lower end. The flows will back up onto private property if the culverts are not cleaned. e. Hillside erosion is occurring at South 112th Street above SR 509, where a pipe discharges directly onto a steep slope. There is no energy dissipation for flows. f. Two landslides were observed on the valley wall beneath residences in the valley of Tributary 0002 at river mile .70. These may have occurred because of the stormwater that is routed directly onto steep slopes, a situation made worse by vegetation removal along the slope. Another landslide has occurred in bedrock at Tributary 0003, river mile .16, along the main valley of the Duwamish River. 2. Flooding occurs in some locations along the Duwamish River system. For example: a. Outfall from Allentown to the Duwamish (Trib. 0001, RM 7.70 and 7.80) will continue to back up when the floodgates are closed at times of high flows. b. Flooding of the storm system at the intersection of Eighth Avenue S and South 100th Street is being caused by sedimentation, which fills and constricts the pipes there. If allowed to continue, flooding could lead to accelerated road failure. 3. Water quality is being further degraded in several locations: The illegal but common .,Rraetice _ of �uati goiyistic. - gad2age_intzeam. _ �s very prevalent. Tr'buta_rie_s_.0001E and_QQQIF both hadJarge_amounts_oL garbage in them. b. There are possible leakages of septic tanks into Tributary 0001F at river mile .12. The stream had a septic odor on the date it was examined. c. Sediment from an upstream fill is producing water quality problems on Tributary 0002A, river mile .15. Sediment in turn is filling pools. Downstream from the Glendale golf course on Tributary 0001E, there are P:DU 5 Duwamish River Basin (continued) excessive amounts of sediment and algae in the water. Algae could be the result of fertilizers and sprays at the golf course. IV. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION Controlling erosion and increasing the overall effectiveness of surface water management are the main goals in the Duwamish River Basin. A. Use planning and regulatory measures as a long -term safeguard against continued ero- sion and other mass - wasting. 1. Enforce the County's Sensitive Areas Ordinance and slope regulations along steep slopes of tributaries and the Duwamish River Valley. 2. Prohibit the routing of stormwater onto steep slopes without energy dissipation and other appropriate measures to control runoff in a safe, nonerosive manner. 3. Designate certain portions of the tributary valleys as landslide hazard areas in the Sensitive Areas Map Folio. 4. Establish native growth protection easements in tributary valleys. This will make banks more stable and provide a source of large woody debris for energy dissi- pation in streams. Both are erosion - control measures. B. Improve the overall effectiveness of surface water management in the basin. 1. Increase maintenance of present conveyance facilities to assure they are functioning properly. a. Clean debris and silt from two 36 -inch culverts on Tributary 0002E at the 47th Avenue S and South 109th Street intersection in order to reduce moisture intrusion into the base course of the road. b. Repair the damaged manhole at the intersection of Eighth Avenue S and South 100th Street. Construct an inlet structure with sediment /silt control to alleviate overtopping of the channel and to prevent further destruction of the road. 2. Construct new facilities for conveyance and R/D as needed for flood control and overall drainage efficiency. • Install a pumping station in Allentown on Tributary 0001 at river miles 7.70 -7.80 to reduce flooding when the Duwamish River is running high at the outfall of these two points. Pump flows into the Duwamish River. b. Tightline flows using energy dissipators at South 112th Street above SR 509 to disperse water beyond the steep slopes, which are now being eroded. P:DU 6 • Duwamish River Basin (continued) c. As a measure of additional storage, encourage the city of Tukwila to construct an R/D facility on Tributary 0003G, near the intersection of 44th Street S and South 31st Place, to aid in controlling peak flows. Conveyance pipes in this vicinity are presently undersized. 3. King County should work with the cities of Seattle and Tukwila where drainage basins are shared. Some tributaries may call for basin plans. 4. Surface water management and discharges into the Green and Duwamish Rivers should be coordinated with the principles and requirements of the Green River Management Agreement. C. Improve habitat conditions, where feasible, particularly those related to the contamination of tributaries by sidehill drainage. 1. Improve enforcement of no-dumping ordinances by King County and the city of Seattle. 2. Establish stream corridor guidelines, including setbacks limiting clearing, and other regulatory measures as appropriate to protect the remaining habitat in the basin. P:DU 7 •©UWAMISH RIFER BASINA 0 Basin Boundary Subcatchment Boundary Collection Point Stream 000i Tributary Number 01301 Proposed Project 0 Y2 1Mile 0-...rK® n II S APPENDIX A ESTIMATED COSTS: PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS DUWAMISH RIVER BASIN 4 Indicates project Surface Water prior to reconn s identified by gement office nce. NOTE: All projects are 1p . ted on map included in this I re'ort. Project Collect. Number Point 1301* 7 1304 1306 P:DU.APA 21 27 Project Description Construct R /D- siltation pond adja- cent to 8th Ave. S. and between S 100th St. and S 96th St. (4 acre - ft. of capacity). Installation of pump station. Construct R/D facility at 133rd St. ;S and S Marginal Way E. A -1 Problem Addressed Reduce downstream flooding and siltation. Reduce flooding in Allentown from con- veyance system backups when high flows occur in the Duwamish River. Reduce downstream flooding in Tukwila. Estimated Costs and Comments $140,000 (dependent on acquir- ing right -of -way from Seattle City Light) $100,000 $222,000 (dependent on land acquisition costs) 4).) APPENDIX B CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT RANKING DUWAMISH RIVER BASIN Prior to the field reconnaissance of the Duwamish River Basin, five 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, three projects remain pro- posed for this area. Three projects were eliminated based on the consensus of the reconnaissance team. One of the projects has already been completed, one had no apparent problems, and the other project could not be located. One project (1306) was added. The previous SWM capital improvement project list for the Duwamish River Basin had an estimated cost of $1,280,000, while the revised cost estimate changes to $462,000 for the three projects. This 64% reduction is due mainly to the elimination of three previously identified projects. The following table summarizes the scores and costs of the proposed CIPs for the Duwamish River Basin. The 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 now be con- sidered for merging into the "live" CIP list. Any project scoring over 100 points should be con- sidered for incorporation into the six -year CIP list. RANK PROJECT NO. SCORE COST 1 1306 127 $222,000 2 1304 45 100,000 3 1301* 30 140,000 TOTAL $462,000 Indicates project was identified by the Surface Water Management Division prior to reconnaissance; I DUAPB APPENDIX C DETAILED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DUWAMISH RIVER BASIN All items listed here are locaed, on final display in the offices of Surface Watrr anagement, Building and Land Development, and Ba in Planning. Trib. & Collect. Existing Ite * River Mile Point Cate • ory Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems 0001 RM 7.70 & 7.80 7 Hyd ology 1301 Flat area with stream meander under Seattle City Light transmission towers. SWM- proposed CIP site. 7 'ology - 9 Hjdtology 21 H d;ology 1304 Altered manhole (hole knocked into side). Sedi- ment buildup in system. Road failing just down- stream. Hillside above State Road 509 and below S 112th St. suffers from erosion caused by outfall. No energy dissipation. Water backs up in con- veyance system into Allentown when the Duwamish rises and floodgates close. C -1 Anticipated Conditions and Problems None. Siltation of conveyance system will restrict flows in the future causing overtopping onto road and road failure. Increased scouring and incising of hillside; sediment /silt outwash onto SR 509 will worsen. No relief from Duwamish River high flows. Local flooding will continue from conveyance system backups. Recommendations Construct the proposed R/D and siltation - control facility if right -of -way can be obtained from City Light. Reconstruct the altered manhole to function as intended. Construct an inlet structure with sediment/ silt control to alleviate over- topping of the channel and to prevent further road destruction. Tightline pipe system beyond erosion - sensitive slopes. Construct an energy dissipator at outlet end of tightline. King County Roads should investigate this problem. Install a pumping station to reduce flooding of Allentown, near outfall points of RM 7.70 and 7.80. Trib. & Collect. I em River Mile Point Ca 0001B 0001E RM 1.00 0001F 0002 RM .50 0002 RM .60 -.75 :D .APC 4 Ha 8 t 22 H 10 H bi t 10 0 G I Existing Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems No visible problems in stream or stream corridor. Very little fish habitat due to excessive flows, erosion, sediment, and garbage. Algae is growing profusely in the stream, indicating possible nutrient loading from fertilizer at upstream golf course. Septic odor in stream and loads of garbage below 47th Ave. S. Ditched stream with check dams to reduce erosion and sedimentation. Streamside banks are bare. gy Prehistoric landslide terrain. C -2 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Future development could encroach into the stream corridor and increase flows to erosive levels in the stream. Problem will continue. Problem will continue. Problem will continue. Removal of vegetation or routing stormwater over steep slopes may cause land- slides. Recommendations Coordinate with city of Seattle to establish and protect a stream corridor at least 25 ft. back from the top of the stream -bank on each side of the stream. Existing and future flows should be kept at nonerosive levels. Basin plan should consider R/D facility in golf course above problem site to reduce existing and future flows. Future development runoff should be kept at nonerosive levels. - Require all future residences to connect to sanitary sewer, if available. - Improve enforcement of no- dumping laws. - Notify Seattle -King County Health Dept. of problem. Revegetate banks. Restrict future development runoff to levels that are nonerosive in the downstream system. Map inner valley as landslide hazard in Sensitive Areas Map Folio (SAMF). Ite r• Trib. & Collect. River Mile Point 10 f 0002 RM.70 111 0002 RM.70 12 0002A RM.10 13 0002A RM.75 -.90 14 j 0002A RM.75 -.90 15 002A RM.95 :D .APC 10 10 Existing o Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems tat gy 10 Habitat 10 Geology 10 gy 10 10 Ham Creek. Good trout habitat. Small pools and some large organic debris are present. Sediment is a problem. Two landslides beneath residences. Poor fish habitat. Lots of algae growing within the stream. Lots of garbage, sediment from upstream fill and possible nutrients exhibited by the algae presence. No benthic organisms present. Landslide terrain. Channel bank erosion of moderate intensity. Undersized pipe capacity due to a partial siltation of the conveyance system. C -3 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Future development could increase flows, erosion, and resulting sediment that will fill pools and clog gravel. Stormwater has been piped down one landslide. Continued surface erosion. Possibility of future landslides. Conditions will continue. Removal of vegetation or rout- ing stormwater over steep slopes may cause landslides. Continued erosion. Continuation of present prob- lems, which will become more severe as pipe capacity diminishes with added silta- tion. Recommendations Restrict present and future develop- ment runoff to levels that are nonerosive in the stream system. Map valley landslide hazard in SAMF. Discourage or prohibit vegetation removal and routing of stormflow onto steep slopes. Remove or stabilize fill at upstream end of ravine. Map inner valley landslide hazard in SAMF. None. Check grate capacities for street drainage . system. Remove flow obstructions in pipes. Item 16 17 18 19 20 21 :D Trib. & Collect. River Mile Point Cate 0002E 0003 RM.10 0003D RM1.10 0003E RM.02 0003G RM.02 0003G RM.195 0003E RM.00 .APC 22 15 H logy bi 'at 23 Habi at 27 Geol gy 27 Habi' t 27 H}fd logy/ Habi at Existing Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems Series of two 36 -in. cul- verts passing under road. Lower pipe almost silted in in at downstream end. Road erosion at turn radius of intersection. Septic odor from swales. Location is 47th Ave. S and S 109th St. Stream corridor and in- stream habitat seems ade- quate for trout. Anadromous usage blocked the river. Steep gradient, little fish habitat, corridor fairly stable. Bank erosion along both sides of channel. Upstream erosion has caused minor sedimentation just south of S 133 St. Some localized flooding also occurs. Severe downcutting and in- stream scouring of channel. C -4 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Water will overtop drainage Swale if sediment /silt build- up goes unchecked. Road will have water intrusion also. Road failure is probable. Future development could increase flows to erosive levels, causing sedimenta- at tion. Future development could increase flows and instream erosion. Continued erosion. Future development could in- crease sediment problems in this area. Accelerated erosion will increase. Siltation of conveyance systems will in- crease flooding. Recommendations Increase maintenance of culverts. Problem has been referred to King County Roads Division. Restrict future development runoff to levels that are nonerosive in the downstream system. Restrict future development runoff to levels that are nonerosive in the downstream system. Resident should be asked to revege- tate bank. Sediment and R/D ponds could be constructed both north and south of S 133 St. Install .energy dissipators in stream and vegetate banks where possible. Evaluate at time of basin planning as a habitat project. Trib. & Collect. Existing River Mile Point C$teo Prop. Pro'. Conditions and Problems 27 Hydf ology 1306 Incised stream segments. Downstream flooding in Tukwila. City of Tukwila. 26 I-Iyd ology 31 Cleo ogy Horse pasture with old farm buildings. City of Tukwila. Landslide in bedrock hollow directly above residence. ?:D .APC C -5 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Accelerated incision along with other adverse stream processes. Continued down- stream flooding in Tukwila. Undersized channels and pipes will back up flows. Continued surface erosion. Possible continued land - sliding (though minor). Recommendations Construct an R/D facility. City of Tukwila should consider an R/D facility for control of flows. - Investigate more thoroughly to determine if cause is stormwater from impervious surfaces above. - Add this section of hillslope to landslide hazard in the SAMF. Duwamish River Lower Green River Green River Basin Photo Date: '5 -80 WETLAND: Lower Green River 2 LOCATION: N 3 -22 -4; S 34 -23 -4 INVENTORY DATE: 8 -27 -81 ACREAGE: 100 North .A COMMUNITY PLAN AREA: BASIN OR DRAINAGE: Approx. Scale: 1 "= 1000' High1ine Green River CLASSIFICATION: Fish and Wildlife Service Common Name -L1:UB3 - _ • _ = _eeree��tmeti° Ope�t --- Uneetrsol i- delved- botttom-, -- Mud - -- — L2UB2 Lacustrine, Littoral, Unconsolidated bottom, San d Open Water NOTE: The wetland edge shown above Is approximate. In marshes, ponds or lakes, the transition_from standing_water to uplands_ Is _.. utif3tiy-tle HOWIWer, 111ird d es of toresteb or scrub /shrub wetlands are less distinct. There, the change from wetland to upland often occurs over a broad area called the "transition zone ". For a discussion, see Wetland Plants of King County and the Puget Sound Lowlands and "Guidelines for King County Wetlands." Lower Green River 2 �BSERVED SPECIES: (refer to list in-Appendix 1) j Trees: AR, FL, PT I Herbs: IP, NP, TL Shrubs: SX, SD Sedges /Rushes/Grass /Fern: JE Birds: Mammals: Fish: Other: RARE /ENDANGERED /THREATENED SPECIES: (refer to list in Appendix 2) Recorded/Observed: Potential: SIGNIFICANT HABITAT FEATURES: OUTLET: Type: Not Found Condition: Outflow enters: POTENTIAL STORAGE: Existing Active: 50 ac. ft. Potential Active: 150 ac. ft. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS: Heavy recreational use at park beach both swimming and fishing; noise impacts from jet planes. .J WETLAND EVALUATION SUMMARY: Data was collected in the five categories shown below. Within each category the data was evaluated to produce numerical values. Composite values for each .category were produced in order to compare each wetland to other wetlands in its sub -basin and in King County. The result of that comparison was a percentile rank. The percentile is expressed on a scale of one hundred and indicates the percent of wetlands that scored equal to or below that particular site. , For example, a percentile rank of 80 under sub -basin means that the wetland scored equal to or better than 80 percent of all sites within the sub -basin for that evaluation category. NOTE: The percentile ranks are valid only within the individual evaluation category and are intended solely for reference and comparison. Hydrology: Evaluation Category runoff storage potential, water quality, potential for minimizing damage in downstream areas Biology: quality of habitat, abundance and diversity of plant and animal species Visual: diversity and contrast of wetland and surrounding vegetation, surrounding Iandforms 0ultural:---- - - - - -ty SWs=of eess; tsraximi ttvsc-haelstinstitutron overel environmentaLquality_ Rank (by percentile) Sub -basin 69 76 100 County -wide 57 70 38 Economic: presence of agriculture /peat extraction, anadromous or game fish, game birds or mammals of commercial value WETLAND RATING: 46 70 60 44 lih wetland was assigned one of three possible wetland ratings. The wetland ratings were determined by examining the scores of selected ?ntory tasks, specific data or percentile ranks for individual evaluation .categories. The criteria used to assign the wetland ratings are scribed in the Introduction. For each rating a number of specific guidelines for new development in or adjacent to wetlands were prepared. —Me guidelines are intended to assist in carrying out King County's Sensitive Areas Ordinance and other wetland policies. They are included in a separate report titled "Guidelines for King County Wetlands ". Wetland Rating: 2 (I" Photo Date: 5-80 WETLAND: Lower Green River 3 LOCATION: INVENTORY DATE: ACREAGE: CLASSIFICATION: NOT- PEM5 PSS1 NE, SE 3-22-4; NW, SE 3-22-4 8-27-81 6.8 North A COMMUNITY PLAN AREA: BASIN OR DRAINAGE: Approx. Scale: 1" = 500' Green River Valley Green River Fish and Wildlife Service Common Name •Palustrine, Emergent, Narrow-leaved, Persistent (Cattail) Palustrine, Scrub-shrub, Broad-leaved Deciduous (Willow) Shallow Marsh Scrub-Shrub The n-marshesTporrds-oriakesTthe-transittffi- fro,i .tfldThg water r lo Uplpnd 15 usually clear. However, the edges of forested or scrub/shrub wetlands are less distinct. There, the change from wetland to upland often occurs over a broad area called the "transition zone". For a discussion, see Wetland Plants of King County and the Puget -------------------------- Lower Green River 3 OF) BSERVED SPECIES: (refer to list in Appendix 1) Trees: H b• er s: Shrubs: Sedges /Rushes /Grass /Fern: Birds: Mammals: Fish: Other: PH, RR, TL SX JA, AC, EX, PA GB, VR, K0, VS, TS, BS, MW, GF. RARE /ENDANGERED /THREATENED SPECIES: (refer to list in Appendix 2) Recorded /Observed: Potential: SIGNIFICANT HABITAT FEATURES: OUTLET: Type:. Condition: Outflow enters: Probable winter habitat for ducks and shore birds. Overland, undefined Stream POTENTIAL STORAGE: Existing Active: 0 ac. ft. Potential Active: 0 ac. ft. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS: Freeway noise from 1-5. • WETLAND EVALUATION SUMMARY: Data was collected in the five categories shown below. Within each category the data was evaluated to produce numerical values. Composite values for each category were produced in order to compare each wetland to other wetlands in its sub -basin and in King County. The result of that comparison was a percentile rank. The percentile is expressed on a scale of one hundred and indicates the percent of wetlands that scored equal to or below that particular site. For example, a percentile rank of 80 under sub -basin means that the wetland scored equal to or better than 80 percent of all sites within the sub -basin for that evaluation category. NOTE: The percentile ranks are valid only within the individual evaluation category and are intended solely for reference and comparison. Evaluation Category Hydrology: runoff storage potential, water quality, potential for minimizing damage in downstream areas Biology: quality of habitat, abundance and diversity of plant and animal species Visual: diversity and contrast of wetland and surrounding vegetation, surrounding landforms Cllr tli types of access, proximo —ta schtiolViTrrstitfitton3Tove"ral environmental - quality Economic: presence of agriculture /peat extraction, anadromous or game fish, game birds or mammals of commercial value WETLAND RATING: Rank (by percentile) Sub -basin County -wide 23 22 69 92 62 65 84 61 79 wetland was assigned one of three possible wetland ratings. The wetland ratings were determined by examining the scores of selected ntory tasks, specific data or percentile ranks for individual evaluation categories. The criteria used to assign the wetland ratings are Bribed in the Introduction. For each rating a number of specific guidelines for new development in or adjacent to wetlands were prepared. The guidelines are intended to assist in carrying out King County's Sensitive Areas Ordinance and other wetland policies. They are included in a separate report titled "Guidelines for King County Wetlands ". Wetland Rating: 2 Photo Date: 5 -80 WETLAND: Lower Green River 5 LOCATION: WE, SW, 3 -22 -4; SE, SW 3 -22 -4 INVENTORY DATE: 8 -27 -81 ACREAGE: 3.4 North A Approx. Scale: 1"= 500' COMMUNITY PLAN AREA: Green River Valley BASIN OR DRAINAGE: Green River CLASSIFICATION: Fish and Wildlife Service Common Name -- _ -- -4.5.4 — -- a -113-t —i ITC , ..er -iih itrut , - Serub- ff citie° = —_ -- - -- 8road- 1- eaved-- Be-ci- thaws (Hardhack) NOTE: The wetland edge shown above Is approximate. In marshes, ponds or Takes, the transition_ trom_standlDg_wattr to saplandi is . Qsual ev r, he edges of forested or scrub /shrub wetlands are less distinct. There, the change from wetland to upland often occurs over a broad area called the "transition zone". For a discussion, see Wetland Plants of King County and the Puget Sound Lowlands and "Guidelines for King County Wetlands." Lower Green River 5 BSERVED SPECIES: (refer to list in Appendix 1) i ii Trees: TS Herbs: CD Shrubs: GS, K0, LL, MD, SD, VP Sedges /Rushes /Grass /Fern: Birds: RN, SS Mammals: Fish: Other: RARE /ENDANGERED /THREATENED SPECIES: (refer to list in Appendix 2) Recorded /Observed: Potential: SIGNIFICANT HABITAT FEATURES: Several snags and perches overlooking river valley below. OUTLET: Type: Condition: Outflow enters: None POTENTIAL STORAGE: Existing Active: 0 ac. ft. Potential Active: 0 ac. ft. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS: 0) rrETLAND EVALUATION SUMMARY: Data was collected in the five categories shown below. Within each category the data was evaluated to produce numerical values. Composite values for each category were produced in order to compare each wetland to other wetlands in its sub -basin and in King County. The result of that comparison was a percentile rank. The percentile is expressed on a scale of one hundred and indicates the percent of wetlands that scored equal to or below that particular site. For example, a percentile rank of 80 under sub -basin means that the wetland scored equal to or better than 80 percent of all sites within the sub -basin for that evaluation category. NOTE: The percentile ranks are valid only within the individual evaluation category and are intended solely for reference and comparison. Evaluation Category Hydrology: runoff storage potential, water quality, potential for minimizing damage in downstream areas Biology: quality of habitat, abundance and diversity of plant and animal species Rank (by percentile) Sub -basin County -wide 15 18 53 43 Visual: diversity and contrast of wetland and surrounding vegetation, 38 24 surrounding landforms ---e turn{ types,of-aeeessf proximity -tozschoolstinstitutions overall--- -- - - _ 10�7� 1"00° envirnnmentaLauality Economic: presence of agriculture /peat extraction, anadromous or game fish, 100 79 game birds or mammals of commercial value WETLAND RATING: lirh wetland was assigned one of three possible wetland ratings. The wetland ratings were determined by examining the scores of selected ntory tasks, specific data or percentile ranks for individual evaluation categories. The criteria used to assign the wetland ratings are ,ribed in the Introduction. For each rating a number of specific guidelines for new development in or adjacent to wetlands were prepared. .-n'e guidelines are intended to assist in carrying out King County's Sensitive Areas Ordinance and other wetland policies. They are included in a separate report titled "Guidelines for King County Wetlands ". Wetland. Rating: 2 • ) EXHIBIT E Sensitive Areas Folios Map Uutput King County Home News _ _ `1823049299`_ Services iMap Print Page Comments Search rage 1 or 1 �a0009z - • 1523049016 • 322920D346! , 31i9a0otao _ • I t32292OOt { S - .322 180 ' • \ _3222 +i>$o Z29ZOoi7b� `PS ss , ss 1---3229200100: rBU� 15?_3049Dt8 \ • f CJ 20D9:Kin8 Cou niY�� '9 �~ti: \ ` \ "\ 523049072 •\ AAI _ 0 Selected Features r� County Boundary /,i Streets LiParcel Incorporated Area SAO Stream • Ci�s:1 • Ct..= 2 ?e.:c-ei;0 • Crces 2 &L tic rid Legend Cd CFra 3 1.1nd-s =£o cl ® Lakes and Large Rivers SAO Wetland V/. SAO Landslide SAO Coal Mine ® SAO Seismic SAO Erosion /A Topa Contours (5ft) ■ ••1 •.l, The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. King County I GIS Center 1 News 1 Services I Comments 1 Search By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. The details. SENSITIVE AREAS http: / /www5. metrokc. gov/ servlet /com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap ?ServiceName= overview &C1... 11/11/2003 • NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM FIRM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND INCORPORATED AREAS PANEL 957 OF 1125 (SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTED) CONTAINS: COMMUNITY KING COUNTY. UNINCORPORATED AREAS RENTON. CITY OF SEATTLE. CITY OF TUKWILA, CITY OF NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX 530071 0957 530088 0957 530089 0957 530091 0957 1' F F MAP NUMBER 53033C0957 F MAP REVISED: MAY 16,1995 Federal Emergency Management Agency LEGEND SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS INUNDATED BY 100 -YEAR FLOOD ZONE A No base flood elevations determined. ZONE AE Base flood elevations determined. ZONE AH Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually areas of pondingl; base flood elevations determined. ZONE AO Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually sheet flow on sloping terrain); average depths determined. For areas of alluvial fan flooding, velocities also determined. ZONE A99 To be protected from 100 -year flood by Federal flood protection system under construction; no base elevations determined. ZONE V Coastal flood with velocity hazard (wave action); no base flood elevations determined. ZONE VE Coastal flood with velocity hazard (wave action); base flood elevations determined. FLOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE OTHER FLOOD AREAS ZONE X Areas of 500 -year flood; areas of 100 -year flood with average depths of Tess than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees fmm 100 -year flood. OTHER AREAS ZONE X Areas determined to be outside 500 -year floodplain. ZONE O Areas in which flood hazards are undetermined. UNDEVELOPED COASTAL BARRIERS \ \J k: v Identified Identified Otherwise 1983 1990 Protected Areas Coastal barrier areas are normally located within or adjacent to Special Flood Hazard Areas. 513 O O (EL 987) RM7 X • M2 97 °07'30 ". 32 °22'30" Flood Boundary Floodway Boundary Zone D Boundary Boundary Dividing Special Flood Hazard Zones. and Boundary Dividing Areas of Different Coastal Base Flood Elevations Within Special Flood Hazard Zones. Base Flood Elevation Line; Elevation in Feet. See Map Index for Elevation Datum. Cross Section Line Base Flood Elevation in Feet Where Uniform Within Zone. See Map Index for Elevation Datum. Elevation Reference Mark River Mile Horizontal Coordinates Based on North American Datum of 1927 (NAD 27) Projection. FEMA MAP NORTH z 0 CC r� 35114 Std? aCr D 0 w z t— JTH 139TH STREET x SOUTH SOUTH 140TH STREET ENUE SOUT 0 TH 142ND =ET ZONE X CITY OF TUKWILA 530091 NOTE: MAP AREA SHOWN ON THIS PANEL IS LOCATED WITHIN TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST. D 0 52ND AVENUE ZONE (EL 1. 139TH I STREE x F 0 w z 0 CC (*) SOUTH 14. D 0 cn FEMA MAP NORTH a. 2 V) —J 0 V) 1— cc 0 Z • .? EXHIBIT F Wetland Inventory Map Duwamish River Lower Green River Green River Basin EXHIBIT G Upstream Area Maps Map Output King County Home News Services Comments Search gage t or t iMap Print Page i 3i292001�0 is , tai 200130 �� : 2292it1024Q -. 1`50 :P',.-• 22'9260180 ,3229�100005f1 t g�Tg SITE 32z92( CA4� ` -,,, $i29200'0,0� f �� ~, �` 1523W1V gc�72 3 1 • /r10 `�` \\ ', ' %`80 i t o I. - �� x ' 200250 ;t � -'' 3'1dOTH . � • �t ST -:. i i ■ , . •3,229200220... X98 700 l ; : ,, �2291M t�23049194 2&;2:4 = ti' , ti +. C titi, - N 322ftOty °y,', \ 1, �:..; '�- `�� , �• � � C ►� � • �'�. o , t5 1a y � \A s a', \- ` ..: 10 \ ,. ,: -0g —� \ 1 7 – _ 17T0 J_ ^�� _ " � _4� / 3 '� ` _ '� !." � � tiy4\ l y� p t(2 \ , � • , 02 ti ; 15'23049401--4, - - .15-2 ii 491,, _ � ' . r • —20 — ` ;52304 r 'l 4 0- ; 152 9454 `r� 1 s 164 s' • 4 1 152304 \ , \ .t `5, t ti 1' A 1 ' {C) 2009 King Couniy !; ' �, u ' t o_081111111-----\ N .. 1 t Legend fr County' Boundary WLRD Drainage Complaints ,: Topo Contours (5ft) f,/ Streets Landslide Hazard Drainage Area Parcel ■ 'Cr,fsuge: Incorporated Area ® Jla.-:i;d The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. King County 1 GIS Center 1 News 1 Services 1 Comments 1 Search By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. The details. UPSTREAM DRAINAGE BASIN http: / /www5. metrokc. gov/ servlet /com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap ?ServiceName= overview &C1... 11/12/2003 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY iv FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 4.0 • FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 4.1 Existing Site Hydrology The site is currently mostly undeveloped, and the storm water runoff from the site drains into an existing roadside ditch storm drainage system as described earlier. The upstream drainage basin consists of sheet flows from undeveloped forested land to the west of the project property. The properties to the north and south both drain to the roadside ditch along Macadam Road South in a similar manner to the project property. Macadam Road South bounds the eastern edge of the property. There are no offsite streams or channeled flows entering the project property. 4.2 Developed Site Hydrology The proposal for this property is to construct a private access drive and three new single - family residences. This will include installing a new catch basin and conveyance system with Type 1 Catch Basins and 12- inch - diameter pipe. The conveyance pipes will be routed to a water quality facility as shown on the design plans. As determined by the City of Tukwila's design standards, detention is required for this project because the new construction will add more than 6,000 square feet of new impervious surfaces. Water quality treatment is also required. The proposal is to install a combination wet vault/detention vault that is sized to meet "basic water quality requirements" and detention as outlined in the 1998 King County, Washington Surface Water Design Manual. The vault, in turn, will discharge directly into the existing roadside ditch system. 4.3 Performance Standards As described above, water quality and detention, meeting the requirements of the 1998 King County, Washington Surface Water Design Manual is required for this project. A combination water quality and detention vault sized to meet the basic water quality requirements and Level 1 Flow Control is being proposed on this facility. 4.4 Flow Control System As mentioned above, flow control/detention will meet King County's Storm Drainage Manual requirements for Level 1 Flow Control. 4.5 Water Quality System The water quality system, as mentioned above, will be implemented for this site, including an underground wet vault sized for the basic water quality requirements. 11217.001.doc [HPG /tep] • Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File:dev.tsf Outflow Time Series File:rdout Inflow /Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: Peak Outflow Discharge: Peak Reservoir Stage: Peak Reservoir Elev: Peak Reservoir Storage: 0.122 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 0.097 CFS at 9:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 4.02 Ft 126.52 Ft Cu -Ft 0.042 Ac -Ft Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:rdout.tsf Project Location:Sea -Tac - -- Annual Peak Flow Rates-- - Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.047 0.010 0.022 0.008 0.013 0.023 0.024 0.097 Computed Peaks 2 2/09/01 15:00 7 12/28/01 17:00 5 2/28/03 7:00 8 8/24/04 0:00 6 1/05/05 15:00 4 1/18/06 22:00 3 11/24/06 7:00 1 1/09/08 9:00 Flow Frequency Analysis - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (ft) Period 0.097 4.02 0.047 4.01 0.024 3.99 0.023 3.77 0.022 3.61 0.013 2.52 0.010 1.52 0.008 1.01 0.080 4.02 OTert, 1 N — b . Z a G. . 1 100.00 0.990 2 25.00 0.960 3 10.00 0.900 4 5.00 0.800 5 3.00 0.667 6 2.00 0.500 7 1.30 0.231 8 1.10 0.091 50.00 0.980 Jtt.optr) J ,% prJ. 4 ous = 0. (S Z Ccc. G '+y /t*41UME = 0. 22' ac. Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:pre.tsf Project Location:Sea -Tac - -- Annual Peak Flow Rates - -- Flow Frequency Analysis Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 0.025 2 2/09/01 15:00 0.036 1 100.00 0.990 0.009 7 1/05/02 16:00 0.025 2 25.00 0.960 0.021 3 2/28/03 3:00 0.021 3 10.00 0.900 0.004 8 8/26/04 2:00 0.020 4 5.00 0.800 0.012 6 1/05/05 8:00 0.019 5 3.00 0.667 0.020 4 1/18/06 20:00 0.012 6 2.00 0.500 0.019 5 11/24/06 4:00 0.009 7 1.30 0.231 0.036 1 1/09/08 9:00 0.004 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 0.032 50.00 0.980 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:dev.tsf Project Location:Sea -Tac - -- Annual Peak Flow Rates-- - Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.059 5 2/09/01 2:00 0.044 7 1/05/02 16:00 0.071 2 2/27/03 7:00 0.044 8 8/26/04 2:00 0.053 6 10/28/04 16:00 0.061 4 1/18/06 16:00 0.063 3 10/26/06 0:00 0.122 1 1/09/08 6:00 Computed Peaks Flow Frequency Analysis - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 0.122 1 100.00 0.990 0.071 2 25.00 0.960 0.063 3 10.00 0.900 0.061 4 5.00 0.800 0.059 5 3.00 0.667 0.053 6 2.00 0.500 0.044 7 1.30 0.231 0.044 8 1.10 0.091 0.105 50.00 0.980 • ) Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Storage Target Calc Stage Elev (Cu -Ft) (Ac -Ft) 1 0.12 * * * * * ** 0.10 4.02 126.52 1830. 0.042 2 0.06 * * * * * ** 0.05 4.01 126.51 1823. 0.042 3 0.06 0.02 0.02 3.99 126.49 1816. 0.042 4 0.06 * * * * * ** 0.02 3.78 126.28 1718. 0.039 5 0.07 * * * * * ** 0.02 3.62 126.12 1648. 0.038 6 0.04 0.12 0.01 2.52 125.02 1145. 0.026 7 0.04 * * * * * ** 0.01 1.52 124.02 691. 0.016 8 0.04 * * * * * ** 0.01 1.01 123.51 461. 0.011 • Retention /Detention Facility Type of Facility: Detention Vault Facility Length: 21.33 ft Facility Width: Facility Area: Effective Storage Depth: Stage 0 Elevation: Storage Volume: Riser Head: Riser Diameter: Number of orifices: 21.33 ft 455. sq. ft ft 50 ft cu. ft !if,t. a /X 42 4.00 ft 12.00 inches 2 Orifice # Height Diameter (ft) (in) 1 0.00 0.54 2 3.00 0.55 Top Notch Weir: None Outflow Rating Curve: None Stage (ft) 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.15 0.25 0.35 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.75 0.85 0.95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1.45 1.55 1.65 1.75 1.85 1.95 2.05 2.15 2.25 2.35 2.45 2.55 2.65 Full Head Pipe Discharge Diameter (CFS) (in) 0.016 0.008 4.0 Elevation Storage Discharge Percolation (ft) (cu. ft) (ac -ft) (cfs) (cfs.) 122.50 122.51 122.52 122.53 122.54 122.55 122.65 122.75 122.85 122.95 123.05 123.15 123.25 123.35 123.45 123.55 123.65 123.75 123.85 123.95 124.05 124.15 124.25 124.35 124.45 124.55 124.65 124.75 124.85 124.95 125.05 125.15 0. 5. 9. 14. 18. 23. 68. 114. 159. 205. 250. 296. 341. 387. 432. 478. 523. 569. 614. 660. 705. 751. 796. 842. 887. 933. 978. 1024. 1069. 1115. 1160. 1206. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.006 0.006 0.007 0.006 0.008 0.007 0.009 0.007 0.010 0.008 0.011 0.008 0.012 0.009 0.013 0.009 0.014 0.009 0.015 0.010 0.016 0.010 0.017 0.010 0.018 0.011 0.019 0.011 0.020 0.011 0.021 0.011 0.022 0.012 0.023 0.012 0.025 0.012 0.026 0.013 0.027 0.013 0.028 0.013 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 •;) 2.75 125.25 1251. 0.029 0.013 0.00 2.85 125.35 1297. 0.030 0.013 0.00 2.95 125.45 1342. 0.031 0.014 0.00 3.00 125.50 1365. 0.031 0.014 0.00 3.01 125.51 1369. 0.031 0.014 0.00 3.02 125.52 1374. 0.032 0.015 0.00 3.03 125.53 1378. 0.032 0.015 0.00 3.04 125.54 1383. 0.032 0.016 0.00 3.05 125.55 1388. 0.032 0.016 0.00 3.15 125.65 1433. 0.033 0.017 0.00 3.25 125.75 1478. 0.034 0.018 0.00 3.35 125.85 1524. 0.035 0.019 0.00 3.45 125.95 1569. 0.036 0.020 0.00 3.55 126.05 1615. 0.037 0.021 0.00 3.65 126.15 ' 1660. 0.038 0.022 0.00 3.75 126.25 1706. 0.039 0.023 0.00 3.85 126.35 1751. 0.040 0.023 0.00 3.95 126.45 1797. 0.041 0.024 0.00 4.00 126.50 1820. 0.042 0.024 0.00 4.10 126.60 1865. 0.043 0.333 0.00 4.20 126.70 1911. 0.044 0.896 0.00 4.30 126.80 1956. 0.045 1.630 0.00 4.40 126.90 2002. 0.046 2.420 0.00 4.50 127.00 2047. 0.047 2.700 0.00 4.60 127.10 2093. 0.048 2.960 0.00 4.70 127.20 2138. 0.049 3.190 0.00 4.80 127.30 2184. 0.050 3.410 0.00 4.90 127.40 2229. 0.051 3.620 0.00 5.00 127.50 2275. 0.052 3.810 0.00 5.10 127.60 2320. 0.053 4.000 0.00 5.20 127.70 2366. 0.054 4.170 0.00 5.30 127.80 2411. 0.055 4.340 0.00 5.40 127.90 2457. 0.056 4.510 0.00 5.50 128.00 2502. 0.057 4.660 0.00 5.60 128.10 2548. 0.058 4.820 0.00 5:70 128.20 2593. 0.060 4.960 0.00 5.80 128.30 2639. 0.061 5.110 0.00 5.90 128.40 2684. 0.062 5.250 0.00 6.00 128.50 2729. 0.063 5.380 0.00 •,) •, 6.4.1 WETPONDS — BASIC AND LARGE - METHODS OF ANALYSIS 1 FIGURE 6.4.LA PRECIPITATION FOR MEAN ANNUAL STORM IN INCHES (FEET) ST 1.0/ ST 1.0 LA 0.8 LA. 0.9 .1 . �, CO� 1.2 0.54" (0.045') 0.47" (0.039') =Z Incorporated Area •.rte River/Lake — Major Road 0.47" (0.039') NOTE: Areas east of the eastemmost isopluvial should use 0.65 inches unless rainfall data is available for the location of interest 24 The mean annual storm is a conceptual storm found by dividing the annual precipitation by the total number of storm events per year 0.52" (0.043'b.56" (0.047') result, generates large amounts of runoff. For this application, till soil types include Buckley and bedrock soils, and alluvial and outwash soils that have a seasonally high water table or are underlain at a shallow depth (less than 5 feet) by glacial till. U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) hydrologic soil groups that are classified as till soils include a few B, most C, and all D soils. See Chapter 3 for classification of specific SCS soil types. 1998 Surface Water Design Manual 6 -69 9/1/98 Total Contributing Area Size the Basic Wet Vault 0.382 acres 0.158 acres impervious 0.224 acres till grass Vr = ([0.9] Ai + [0.25] Atg) (0.039) ([0.9][0.158] + [0.25] [0.224]) (0.039) (43,560) = Vb = 3 Vr = (3)(338.2) = 1,014.5 cf Volume required = 1.014.5 cf Volume provided = 11 ft. x 24 ft. x 4 ft. = 6cfa 338.2 cf ._) 11217.005.doc 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN *-) 1j 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The proposed private conveyance system on the site is sized in accordance with minimum requirements contained in the City of Tukwila's requirements and the 1998 King County, Washington Surface Water Design Manual. The pipe capacities will exceed the 25 -year recurrent storm event, up to and including the vault. Calculations for each of these segments will be included if required once the City has approved the design concept. A sample calculation showing the maximum capacity of a section of pipe as designed is included for reference. The calculations involved in sizing the water quality vault are incorporated into this Technical Information Report (TIR). 11217.001.doc [HPG /tep] Flowrate • Slope Mannings n Depth of Flbw Diameter -,cfs 12.3270 f t /ft m 0.0050 0.0150 10 8000 12.0000 'Select Select Select Velocity Area Perimeter Wetted Area Wetted Perimeter Hydraulic Radius Peicent Full <•.. 3.1255 . 0.7854 37.6991 0.7445 .' 29.9771: 3.5764 ' 90.0000 ,,z47jg jt /rrLUo., �F5 /�,,,,,F = p• tZ s •) 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES • _) • 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES A basin reconnaissance report prepared by the Natural Resources and Parks Division and Surface Water Management Division, King County, Washington is included in this report. 11217.001.doc [HPG /tep] • SPEARS ENGINEERING & TECHNICAL SERVICES GEOTECHNICAL REPORT KHAN 3 -LOT RESIDENTAIL MACADAM ROAD SOUTH TUKWILA, WA P.O. Box 1007 AUBURN, WASHINGTON 98071 -1007 PHONE: (253) 833 -7967 FAX: (253) 735 -2867 INSPECTION & TESTING SERVICES GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION/PROJECT MANAGEMENT SPECIALIZING IN ROADS & BRIDGES HTTP: //W W W.SPEARS- ENGINEERING. COM AMERICAN CANADIAN REAL ESTATE, INC. PO Box 3280 Kent, WA 98032 ). ! P.O. Box 1007 AUBURN, WASHINGTON 98071 -1007 Respectfully Submitted, SPEARS ENGINEERING & TECHNICAL SERVICES J. Frank Spears, P.E. Principle I EXPIRES 06/16/05 PHONE: (253) 833 -7967 Report # 04001 -067 FAx: (253) 735 -2867 Page 1 of 14 Table of Contents INSPECTION & TESTING SERVICES GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION/PROJECT MANAGEMENT SPECIALIZING IN ROADS & BRIDGES HTTP: // WVW.SPEARS- ENGINEERING.COM Table of Contents SPEARS ENGINEERING & TECHNICAL SERVICES 2 Subsurface Investigation 3 Introduction: 3 Authorization: 3 Purpose: 3 Scope: 3 General: 3 Geology Of Area: 3 Climate Of Area: 4 Field Exploration 4 General Notes: 4 Drilling & Sampling Procedures: 4 Laboratory Testing Program: 4 Project Description 4 Subsurface Conditions General Notes: Description Of Foundation Materials: Foundation Discussion & Recommendations General Notes: Considerations � Earthwork: Structural Fill: Excavations: Lateral Earth Pressures: Floor Slab -On- Grade: Groundwater Control: Geoseismic Setting: 8 Liquefaction Potential: 8 Summary 8 Geotechnical General Notes 9 Soil Property Symbols 9 Drilling And Sampling Symbols 9 Relative Density And Consistency Classification 9 Particle Size 9 Site Location 4 4 5 5 5 Foundation Design Recommendations: 5 Slope Stability Modeling & Analysis: 6 Slope Recommendations: 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 10 Site Plan with Boring Log Locations 11 Boring Log #1 12 Boring Log #2 12 Boring Log #3 13 Site Photos 14 • P.O. Box 1007 AUBURN, WASHINGTON 98071 -1007 PHONE: (253) 833-7967 Report # 04001-067 FAX: (253) 735 -2867 Page 2 of 14 INSPECTION & TESTING SERVICES GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSTRUCT1ON/PROJECT MANAGEMENT SPECIALIZING IN ROADS & BRIDGES HTTP: /NNNV.SPEARS-ENGINEERING. COM Subsurface Investigation SPEARS ENGINEERING & TECHNICAL SERVICES INTRODUCTION: This report presents the results of a soils exploration and foundation analysis for the proposed residential construction to the 3 -lot development on Macadam Road South just south of South 138th Street. This investigation was conducted for Mr. Saraj Khan. AUTHORIZATION: Authorization to perform this exploration and analysis was in the form of a verbal authorization to proceed from Mr. Saraj Khan. PURPOSE: The purpose of this foundation exploration and analysis was to determine the various soil profile components, the engineering characteristics of the foundation materials and to provide criteria for use by the design engineers and architects in preparing or verifying the suitability of the foundation design. SCOPE: The scope of the exploration and analysis included a review of geological maps of the area and a review of geologic and related literature; a reconnaissance of the immediate site; the subsurface exploration; field and laboratory testing, and an engineering analysis and evaluation of the foundation materials. We were not requested to provide an Environmental Site Assessment for this property. Any comments concerning onsite conditions • P.O. Box 1007 AUBURN, WASHINGTON 98071 -1007 PHONE: (253) 833 -7967 Report # 04001 -067 Fax: (253) 735 -2867 Page 3 of 14 INSPECTION & TESTING SERVICES GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION/PROJECT MANAGEMENT SPECIALIZING IN ROADS & BRIDGES HTTP: /NW WV.SPEARS- ENGINEERING. COM SPEARS ENGINEERING & TECHNICAL SERVICES CLIMATE OF AREA: The climate of the site and surrounding area as taken from the USDA Soil Conservation Service Survey consists of an annual precipitation of 40 to 60 inches per year, and a mean annual temperature of 50 °F with a frost free season of about 190 -200 days per year. Field Exploration GENERAL NOTES: The field exploration to determine the engineering characteristics of the foundation materials included a reconnaissance of the project site, excavating the test borings, performing field penetrometer and vane shear tests and recovering disturbed grab samples. A total of three test borings were placed on the site. The test borings were advanced to 10 feet below the existing ground surface. A site plan supplied by Barghausen Consulting Engineers was used to locate the proposed building orientations and position the excavations. The test borings were located by the field technician by means of normal taping and pacing procedures and are presumed to be accurate to within a few feet. After completion, the test borings were backfilled with excavated soils and the site cleaned and leveled as required. DRILLING & SAMPLING PROCEDURES: The soil borings were performed with a conventional hollow stem hand auger. Representative samples were obtained from the borings at various soil intervals. The samples obtained by this procedure were classified in the field by a soils technician, identified according to test boring number and depth, placed in plastic bags to protect against moisture loss and transported to the laboratory for additional testing. . LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM: presented on the logs. It is recommended that the logs not to be used for estimating quantities due to highly interpretive results. • P.O. Box 1007 AUBURN, WASHINGTON 98 071 -1 007 PHONE: (253) 833 -7967 Report # 04001 -067 FAX: (253) 735 -2867 Page 4 of 14 INSPECTION & TESTING SERVICES GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION/PROJECT MANAGEMENT SPECIALIZING IN ROADS & BRIDGES HTTP: /IWV W.SPEARS-ENGINEERING.COM SPEARS ENGINEERING & TECHNICAL SERVICES DESCRIPTION OF FOUNDATION MATERIALS: The soil profiles encountered were relatively consistent among the borings. The surface of the proposed construction site is covered with 6 to 12 inches of topsoil that should be removed prior to the start of any construction due to the high compressibility of these soils. Silty Gravelly Sandy Loam to silty sand layers were encountered beneath the existing topsoil that are typical of the Adlerwood series and the Alderwood Kitsap series and these extended to depths beyond the scope of this investigation. Lines of demarcation represent the approximate boundary between the soil types, but the transition may be gradual. It is to be noted that, whereas the test borings were placed and sampled by an experienced technician, it is sometimes difficult to record changes in stratification within narrow limits. In the absence of foreign substances, it is also difficult to distinguish between discolored soils and clean soil fills. It is recommended that the logs not to be used for estimating quantities due to highly interpretive results. Foundation Discussion & Recommendations GENERAL NOTES: Various foundation types have been considered for the support of the proposed building structure. Two requirements must be fulfilled in the design of foundations. First, the load must be less than the ultimate bearing capacity of the foundation soils to maintain stability; and secondly, the differential settlement must not exceed an amount that will produce adverse behavior of the superstructure. The allowable settlement is usually exceeded before bearing capacity considerations become important; thus, the allowable bearing pressure is normally controlled by settlement considerations. P.O. Box 1007 AUBURN, WASHINGTON 98071 -1007 PHONE: (253) 833 -7967 Report # 04001 -067 FAX: (253) 735 -2867 Page 5 of 14 P.O. Box 1007 PHoNE: (253) 833 -7967 Report # 04001 -067 AUBURN, WASHINGTON 98071 -1007 FAX: (253) 735 -2867 Page 6 of 14 � INSPECTION & TESTING SERVICES GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION/PROJECT MANAGEMENT SPECIALIZING IN ROADS & BRIDGES HTTP: //www. SPEARS- ENGINEERING.COM SPEARS ENGINEERING & TECHNICAL SERVICES STRUCTURAL FILL: Structural fill should consist of a 3 inch minus select, clean, granular soil with no more than 5% fines (4200). Suitable structural fill should consist of material that meets one of the following specifications, WSDOT Section 9 -03.10 Aggregate for Gravel Base, WSDOT Section 9 -03.14(1) Gravel Borrow, WSDOT Section 9 -03.14(2) Select Borrow, WSDOT Section 9 -03.9(3) Crushed Surfacing (Base Course Specs), WSDOT Section 9 -03.9(3) Crushed Surfacing (Top Course Specs), APWA Class A Pit Run, or APWA class B Pit Run. Material that does not meet one of the specifications should be submitted with sieve analysis results for approval prior to placement The fill should be placed in lifts not to exceed 12 inches in thickness. Each layer of structural fill should be compacted to a minimum density of 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM designation D -1557. For structural fill below footings, the area of the compacted backfill must extend outside the perimeter of the foundation for a distance at least equal to the thickness of the fill between the bottom of the foundation and the underlying soils. If it is elected to utilize a compacted backfill for the support of foundations, the subgrade preparation and the placing of the backfill should be monitored continuously by a qualified engineer or his representative so that the work is performed according to these recommendations. The use of on -site soils as structural fill is recommended. However, these materials may require high moisture contents for compaction and /or require a long time to dry out if natural moisture contents are too high. This can make moisture content, lift thickness, and compactive effort difficult to control especially during the wetter winter months. EXCAVATIONS: Shallow excavations required for construction of foundations that do not exceed four feet in depth may be constructed with side slopes approaching vertical. Below this depth it is recommended that slopes not exceed one vertical to one horizontal. For deep excavations, the soils present cannot be expected to remain in position. These materials can be expected to fail, and collapse into any excavation thereby undermining the upper soils materials. This is especially true when working at depths near the water table. Proper care must - taken to protect personnel and equipment Care must be taken so that all excavations made for the foundations are properly } backfilled with suitable material compacted according to the procedures outlined in this report. Before the backfill is placed, all water and loose debris should be removed from these excavations. This information is provided for planning purposes. It is our opinion that maintaining safe working conditions is the responsibility of the contractor. Jobsite conditions such as soil moisture content, weather condition, earth movements and equipment type and operation can all affect slope stability. All excavations should be sloped or braced as required by applicable local, state and federal requirements. LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES: Lateral earth pressures are dependent upon the backfill materials and their configuration and moisture content Three inch minus sand and gravel mixtures that are free draining are recommended for backfilling walls greater than four feet tall. There are below grade retaining walls or walls designed for retaining earthen fills on this project. The following values may be used for this site. Earth Pressure Coefficients Active, Ka: At Rest, K.: Passive, K,: 0.283 0.441 3.537 Earth Pressure Active: At Rest: Passive: Coefficient of Friction: 35 50 420 0.40 lbs. /ft3 lbs./ft3 lbs./ft3 FLOOR SLAB -ON- GRADE: Before the placing of concrete floors or pavements on the site, or before any floor supporting fill is placed, the organic, loose or obviously compressive materials must be removed. The subgrade should then be proof rolled to confirm that the subgrade contains no oft or deflecting areas. Areas of excessive yielding should be excavated and backfilled with structural fill. P.O. Box 1007 AUBURN, WASHINGTON 98071 -1007 PHONE: (253) 833 -7967 Report # 04001-067 FM: (253) 735 -2867 Page 7 of 14 INSPECTION & TESTING SERVICES GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION/PROJECT MANAGEMENT SPECIALIZING IN ROADS & BRIDGES HTTP: /NWwv.SPEARS-ENGINEERING. COM SPEARS ENGINEERING & TECHNICAL SERVICES Any additional fill used to increase the elevation of the floor slab should meet the requirement for structural fill. Structural fill should be placed in layers of not more than 12 inches in thickness, at moisture contents at or above optimum, and compacted to a minimum density of 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM designation D -1557. GROUNDWATER CONTROL: Groundwater was not encountered beneath the existing grade at the time the field exploration was conducted. Groundwater is not expected to cause any difficulties during construction of this project. It is recommended that runoff caused by wet weather be directed away from all open excavations. The on -site silty soils can be expected to become soft and pump if subjected to excessive traffic after becoming wet during periods of bad weather: This can be avoided by constructing temporary or permanent driveway sections should wet weather be forecast. GEOSEISMIC SETTING: This project site is located within a "Zone 3 Area" as per the 1997 edition of the Uniform Building Code. All building structures on this project should be designed as per the U.B.C. Requirement for such a seismic classification. Additionally the on -site soils should be classified as type SD per the 1997 U.B.C. Table 16 -J. These types of soils have a shear wave velocity in the range of 600 to 1,200 ft/sec and an undrained shear strength of 1,000 -2,000 psf with blow counts in the range of 15 -50 blows per foot. The following may be used for the seismic coefficients. Seismic Coefficient ca cv Z=0.3 0.36 0.54 IQUEFACTION POTENTIAL: In our review we found no evidence of liquefaction of the soils in the immediate area from any recent earthquakes. Also, the site is located within the category III region of the Des Moines quadrangle liquefaction susceptibility map (GM -41) which has a low susceptibility rating for liquefaction; therefore, we consider the site as having a low susceptibility to any seismic liquefaction. Summary When the plans and specifications are complete, or if significant changes are made in the character or location of the proposed strictures, a consultation should be arranged to review them regarding the prevailing soil conditions. Then, it may be necessary to submit supplementary recommendations. It is reconunended that the services of our firm be engaged to test and evaluate the soil conditions during the construction phase of the project. The design values and recommendations made herein are valid only insomuch as they are followed during the construction phase. Additionally, monitoring and testing during the construction phase needs be performed to verify the subgrade conditions and that suitable materials are used and that they are properly placed and compacted. While the recommendations made herein are considered sufficient in detail for the construction of the proposed project, there are many alternative methods of construction which are available. We can discuss various other options for construction at your request. P.O. Box 1007 AUBURN, WASHINGTON 98071 -1007 PHONE: (253) 833 -7967 Report # 04001 -067 FM: (253) 735 -2867 Page 8 of 14 SS: ST: AU: GB: DB: CB: WS: Split -Spoon - 1 3/8" I.D., 2" O.D., except where noted. Shelby Tube - 3" O.D., except where noted. Auger Sample. Grab Sample. Diamond Bit. Carbide Bit. Washed Sample. RELATIVE DENSITY AND CONSISTENCY CLASSIFICATION Terms (Non - Cohesive Soils) Very Loose Loose Slightly Compact Medium Dense Dense Very Dense Terms (Cohesive Soils) Very Soft Soft Firm (Medium) Stiff Very Stiff Hard PARTICLE SIZE Boulders Cobbles Gravel • 8 in. + 8 in. - 3 in. 3in. -5mm Coarse Sand Medium Sand Fine Sand Standard Penetration Resistance 0 -2 2 -4 4 -8 8 -16 16 - 26 Over 26 Standard Penetration Resistance 0 -2 2 -4 4 -8 8 -15 15 -30 Over 30 5 mm - 0.6 mm 0.6 mm - 0.2 mm 0.2 mm - 0.074 mm Q. - (tons/ft2) 0 - 0.25 0.25 - 0.50 0.50 - 1.00 1.00 - 2.00 2.00 - 4.00 4.00+ Silts 0.074 mm - 0.005 mm Clays 0.005 mm & Smaller P.O. Box 1007 AUBURN, WASHINGTON 98071 -1007 PHONE: (253)833 -7967 Report # 04001 -067 Fax: (253) 735 -2867 Page 9 of 14 INSPECTION & TESTING SERVICES GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION /PROJECT MANAGEMENT SPECIALIZING IN ROADS & BRIDGES HTTP: //1NW W.SPEARS- ENGINEERING. COM j th LS' C IS :l 8th=5t s :t eth=St -i ~Sz-, f ag ast,,:se \p\— --7.-__S ,\\ J S wvenat qPork '''—';\----\ ;� .c � (nS =137th St m 4 '' -139ih st =rn !S :133th:St Site Location SPEARS ENGINEERING & TECHNICAL SERVICES S133rd-St 5136th =5t -\' 1l 3- 1381h -8 -w i_ \ Soigne rtrt i ll� RI .TGeat �c� Vf '-= S'140th\1L;-I S= 1101hfS1� m� •\\T) 1i /ice h St V ( r tovra.nt6$ooa Mi «e en coR. ,nu.. tlswppn.a at aebb .:.N.e. • Paster OCI1 tsu. P.O. Box 1007 PHONE: (253) 833 -7967 AUBURN, WASHINGTON 98071 -1007 FAX: (253)735 -2867 Report # 04001 -067 Page 10 of 14 INSPECTION & TESTING SERVICES GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION /PROJECT MANAGEMENT SPECIALIZING IN ROADS & BRIDGES HTTP: //W W W.SPEARS- ENGINEERING. COM SPEARS ENGINEERING & TECHNICAL SERVICES Site Plan with Boring Log Locations Site plan supplied by Barghausen Consulting Engineers P.O. Box 1007 PHONE: (253) 833 -7967 AUBURN, WASHINGTON 98071 -1007 FAX: (253) 735 -2867 Report # 04001 -067 Page11 of 14 INSPECTION & TESTING SERVICES GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION/PROJECT MANAGEMENT SPECIALIZING IN ROADS & BRIDGES HTTP: //W W W.SPEARS- ENGINEERING.COM Boring Log #1 SPEARS ENGINEERING & TECHNICAL SERVICES th (Ft) 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 Date: 4/27/2004 Boring Log #: 1 Boring Type: Hollow Stem Hand Auger Field Description Topsoil SM, Silty Sand with Gravel ML, Sandy Silt ML, Sandy Silt with Gravel end of baring Change in Soils %M File #: 04001-067 (Bent: Saraj Khan Depth Drilled: 10 feet V % - %" %-#4 %-#40 %#200 Cortmads 16.1% 26.7% 1.00 90.1% 1.25 100.0% 82.2% 99.9% 4 65.3% 31.9% 95.5% 66.2% AU, moist, mottled AU, moist, dark brown to grey, firm 24.5% 1.50 95.8% 4 86.2% 59.8% 52.6% AU, wet, grey, stiff • Boring Log #2 aPth (F) 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Date: 4/27/2004 Boring Log #: 2 Boring Type: Hollow Stem Hard Auger Feld Description Topsoil MI, Sandy Silt MI, Sandy Silt 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 ML Sandy Silt with Gravel 10.0 end of boring Change in Soils %M Nile #: 04001 -067 . Qiemt: Saraj Khan Depth Drilled: 10 feet V % 3/40 %-#4 %-#40 %-#200 Commits 32.9% 0.75 4 30.0% 4 1.00 100.0% 100.0% 4 4 99.5% 99.4% 94.6% 59.6% 4 0 95.9% 66.8% AU, wet, mottled AU, wet, dark brown to grey, firm 27.4% 4 O 1.50 • 97.6% 78.5% 4 4 O 64.5% ` 56.1% `:AU, wet, grey, stiff o b P.O. Box 1007 AUBURN, WASHINGTON 98071 -1007 PHONE: (253) 833 -7967 FAx: (253) 735 -2867 Report # 04001 -067 Page 12 of 14 INSPECTION & TESTING SERVICES GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION /PROJECT MANAGEMENT SPECIALIZING IN ROADS & BRIDGES HTTP: //WW W.SPEARS- ENGINEERING.COM Boring Log #3 SPEARS ENGINEERING & TECHNICAL SERVICES Eh (Ft) Date: 4272004 Boring Log #: 1 Boring Type: Hollow Stem Hand Auger Change in Soils %M Field Description 1.0 : 2.0 : Topsoil SM, Silty Sand with Gravel 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 ML, Sandy Silt 8.0 ML, Sandy Silt with Gravel 9.0 10.0 1. end of boring File #: 04001 -067 Client: Saraj Khan Depth Drilled: 10 feet V %? /<" %44 %440 %4200 Comments 26.8% ; 1.25 • 19.1% ; 1.50 r 15.6% : 2.00 r 96.0% : 84.8% : 62.9% : 37.3% ;AU, moist, mottled 95.2% ; 88.4% ; 78.6% ; 62.6% ;AU, moist, reddish/dark brown/grey, : firm r r r r r r r r r : 98.2% : 84.3% : 63.3% : 55.7% :AU, moist, greyish brown, stiff r r r < i. i . • P.O. Box 1007 AUBURN, WASHINGTON 98071 -1007 PHONE: (253) 833 -7967 FAX: (253) 735 -2867 Report # 04001 -067 Page 13 of 14 INSPECTION & TESTING SERVICES GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION /PROJECT MANAGEMENT SPECIALIZING IN ROADS & BRIDGES HTTP : //WVWV.SPEARS- ENGINEERING.COM Site not ®s A: Looking northwest across Macadam Road South at the north V2 of the site. Note the lush vegetation and the lack of any indications of slope instability. C: Looking south from Macadam Road South at the north end of the project site. The driveway (adjacent property to the north) in the foreground is actually on the project site • SPEARS ENGINEERING & TECHNICAL SERVICES 13: Looking northwest across Macadam Road South at the south Y2 of the site. Here again the existing slope appears to be very stable. Tree growth indicative of the high moisture contents of the native soils. D: Looking north on site at the cut bench area where the previous residence was located. In the area of boring #2. P.O. Box 1007 AUBURN, WASHINGTON 98071 -1007 PHONE: (253) 833 -7967 Report # 04001 -067 FAX: (253) 735 -2867 Page 14 of 14 8.0 OTHER PERMITS 1) iv8.0 OTHER PERMITS The permits that will be required for this project are as follows: • Residential Building Permit • Water Service Connection Permit • Side Sewer Permit • Site Clearing and Grading Permit • City of Tukwila Street Use Permit • ) ■ 11217.001.doc [HPG/tep] 0) 9.0 EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL (ESC) ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 9.0 EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL (ESC) ANALYSIS AND DESIGN S Incorporated in the construction set of drawings is a sep arate plan showing the erosion control requirements for the contractor to implement during construction. This plan includes the limits of disturbance, as well as general notes about demolition of the existing improvement on site. The typical erosion control notes and construction details have been included on this plan. 11217.001.doc [HPG/tep] 1J 10.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT • 10.0 BOND QUANTITIES The bond quantities are included herewith on the following pages. 11217.001.doc [HPG /tep] 1) CITY OF TUKWILA Public Works Department 206- 433 -0179 DEVELOPMENT BULLETIN 1C ENGINEER ESTIMATE AND BOND QUANTITY SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES TOTALS 1. GENERAL ITEMS , 11i 667 -too. 2. EROSION PREVENTION /SEDIMENT CONTROL (TESC) .� it 7 - 3L 3. ROAD AND PARKING IMPROVEMENTS 9 7570 31 4. DRAINAGE SYSTEM 1 (Z/ '8445 "-?S- , 5. WATER SYSTEM 6. SEWER SYSTEM ' Ir "2/3 .'S GRAND TOTAL' # S2 , Rs 3 . ace, 150% Bond Quantity = (1.5)(GRAND TOTAL) li i I' 9.2A , 50 The quantities above were calculated by: Printed Name: / a� Signature: " ie.,- PE License Number: 2_3 975 Firm Name and Address: \USr,,) sicc /r-� �n..�r ) g215- -7-2, i4vc_ S. / )T r-)r4\ q71"0\ f , Date: Telephone Number: & ) 257_ L, Z Fax Number: r,(izsj z5't - g 732. E -mail k(fr,....it, dr-st.2 ', Approved Nov. 2002 1 DEVELOPMENT BULLETIN 1C ENGINEER ESTIMATE AND BOND QUANTITY _) GENERAL ITEMS . Unit Quantity Unit Price Subtotals Clear /Remove Brush by hand Acre $1,320.00 Clear /Grub/Tree Removal Acre 0 3s $6,820.00 2, — I , c, o Common Excavation CY 2, .3� $1.30 �, 4/0 Trench Excavation CY $3.30 Embankment - Backfill and compact with select material CY `"2. $4.00 Trench - Backfill and compact with select material CY $6.30 Borrow - Fill and compact CY $12.30 Gravel Base - Fill and compact CY $17.20 Topsoil - Imported CY $17.60 Grading - Fine with a grader SY c%0 $0.80 -cay Grading - Fine by hand SY $1.45 Fence - Cedar, 6' high LF $27.50 Fence - Vinyl coated chain Zink, 6' high LF $11.00 Fence Gate - Vinyl coated chain link, 20' wide EACH $990.00 Fence - Wildlife passable (NGPE & SAT) LF $5.50 • urvey - Monuments EACH $110.00 purvey - Lot lines DAY $693.00 Survey - Line and grade DAY 3 $561.00 I` (P(3 Trail - 4" crushed cinder SY $7.15 Trail - 4" crushed surfacing top course SY $6.60 Wall - Gabion, 3' thick, no earthwork SY $106.70 Wall - Retaining, with earthwork SY 2 ZS- $23.10 '-- (q7,5-0 General Subtotal /-& `Y2& co Sales Tax @ 8.8% / al 5 0 GENERAL ITEMS TOTAL ' /Li, ca07 (00 Approved Nov. 2002 2 11) ._/ DEVELOPMENT BULLETIN 1C ENGINEER ESTIMATE AND BOND QUANTITY TESC Unit Quantity Unit Price Subtotals JAC Grinding - 4' machine SY $7.70 Fence - Silt (installation and removal) LF L'b $1.40 3(.09 0 Fence - Temporary, drip line & NGPE /SAT) LF $1.10 Hydroseeding ACRE 0.01 $1,980.00 -_/ Z. I g Hydroseeding, fertilizing, mulching ACRE $2,750.00 Seeding - By hand SY $0.40 Mulch - Straw, 3" by hand SY `-1 $0.55 1-3S Mulch - Straw, 2" by machine ACRE $2,200.00 $0.00 Fabric - Geotextile SY $1.65 Catch Basin Protection - Insert EACH ( $33.00 —3-3 p Catch Basin Protection - Geotextile a& rock EACH $22.00 Outfall - Silt trap or pond overflow EACH $660.00 Interceptor dike /swale LF $1.00 Hay bale silt trap EACH $55.00 Brush Barrier LF $0.30 . Stabilized construction entrance - 15' by 50' EACH $1,155.00 (, o Stabilized construction entrance - 15' by 100' EACH $1,980.00 Pipe slope drains LF $2.20 Level spreader LF $1.65 Silt Trap EACH $550.00 Silt Pond EACH $1,650.00 TESC Subtotal -D, & oS , /7- Sales Tax @ 8.8% 2sz.iy TESC TOTAL ROAD & PARKING IMPROVEMENTS Unit Quantity Unit Price Subtotals JAC Grinding - 4' machine SY $7.70 Approved Nov. 2002 3 DEVELOPMENT BULLETIN 1C ENGINEER ESTIMATE AND BOND QUANTITY AC Removal /Disposal /Repair SY 1 $88.00 Curb - Extruded asphalt LF $2.20 Curb - Extruded concrete LF $2.20 Curb - Vertical &,4.R.A..4 F-,L, LF 134 $7.70 / U 3 / . SO Curb & Gutter - Demolish /Dispose LF $11.33 / Sidewalk - Concrete - Demolish /Dispose SY $24.75 Sawcut - Asphalt, 3" deep LF -? p $1.43 I 00./0 Sawcut - Concrete, per 1" depth over 3" LF $1.21 Sealant - Asphalt LF -j p $0.77 r 3 , lo Shoulder - CSTC TONS $16.50 Sidewalk - Concrete, 4" thick with 4" CSTC SY $22.00 Sidewalk - Concrete, 5" thick with 4" CSTC SY $26.40 Striping - 4" reflectorized LF $0.28 . Striping - per parking stall EA $3.00 Thickened asphalt edge LF $5.17 Pavement Markings - Channelization arrows EACH $82.50 Signs - Traffic channelization EACH $55.00 Overlay - Asphalt concrete - (2.05 tons /CY) TONS $44.00 Pavement - Asphalt concrete, <300 tons (2.05 tons /CY) TONS q0-- $41.80 20/..)C0 Li O Pavement - Asphalt concrete, >300 tons SY $35.20 / Asphalt treated base (ATB) - (2.05 tons /CY) TONS $38.50 CSTC - (1.85 tons /CY) TONS q D $16.50 ii y2T CSBC - (1.85 tons /CY) TONS ? do $16.50 c,r, z4.0 Gravel base (1.85 tons /CY) TONS $9.90 Geotextile fabric - Structural $1.65 Guard rail LF $22.00 $0.00. Pavement markings - Raised, Type 1 EACH $3.30 Arrows - Thermoplastic EACH $82.50 Lane marking - Thermoplastic LF $3.30 Sign - Stop 30 "x30 ", VIP grad EACH $82.50 Sign - Street name, 9" X length, 6" letters EACH $44.00 Signs - Miscellaneous traffic EACH $38.50 Median - Non - traversible, C curbing EACH $5.50 Barricade - Type III LF $33.00 Traffic signal - Fully actuated (includes design) EACH $220,000.00 Street light - City -owned EACH $5,500.00 Approved Nov. 2002 4 DEVELOPMENT BULLETIN 1C ENGINEER ESTIMATE AND BOND QUANTITY Road & Parking Subtotal Sales Tax @ 8.8% ROAD & PARKING TOTAL CSTC - Crushed surfacing top course CSBC - Crushed surfacing base course .• // q, ?57o, I Approved Nov. 2002 5 • DEVELOPMENT BULLETIN 1C ENGINEER ESTIMATE AND BOND QUANTITY DRAINAGE SYSTEM Inlet/Yard Drain Catch Basin -Type I Unit Quantity Unit Price Subtotals Each $385.00 v. �= Quau.uu (. 14> Catch Basin -Type 2, 48" Each 2 $1,430.00 2gtev Add for depth over 4' per foot Feet 2'.5 $352.00 '2, 412 Catch Basin - Type 2, 54" Each $1,595.00 Add for depth over 4' per foot Feet $407.00 Catch Basin - Type 2, 60" Each $1,760.00 Add for depth over 4' per foot Feet $341.00 Catch Basin - Type 2, 72" Each $2,420.00 Add for depth over 4' per foot Feet $572.00 Cleanout, PVC, 4" dia. Each 3 $94.60 �g3,87) Cleanout, PVC, 6" dia. Each $126.50 Cleanout, PVC, 8" dia. Each $156.20 Drain pipe, PVC, 4" LF -7 Q $4.95 S .f 4 5-- Drain pipe, PVC, 6" LF $7.15 - Drain pipe, PVC, 8" LF $8.80 Storm pipe, Concrete, 8" LF $16.50 Storm pipe, Concrete, 12" LF $19.80 Storm pipe, PVC, 8" LF $8.80 Storm pipe, PVC, 12" LF -/y I $16.50 2 , 32.4.0,5- Storm pipe, PVC, 15" LF $20.90 Storm pipe, PVC, 18" LF $25.30 Storm pipe, PVC, 24" LF . $33.00 Storm pipe, CMP, 8" LF $11.00 Storm pipe, CMP, 12" LF $16.50 Storm pipe, CMP, 15" LF $20.90 Storm pipe, CMP, 18" LF $24.20 Storm pipe, CMP, 24" LF $33.00 Storm pipe, CMP, 30" LF $42.90 Storm pipe, CMP, 36" LF $71.50 Storm pipe, CMP, 42" LF .$88.00 Storm pipe, CMP, 48" LF $93.50 Storm pipe, CMP, 60" LF $137.50 Storm pipe, RCP, 15" LF $25.30 Storm pipe, RCP, 18" LF $30.80 Storm pipe, RCP, 24" LF $44.00 Storm pipe, RCP, 30" LF $71.50 Storm pipe, RCP, 36" LF $93.50 Storm pipe, RCP, 42" LF $115.50 Storm pipe, RCP, 48" LF $126.50 Storm pipe, RCP, 60" LF $181.50 Pond Overflow Spillway SY $8.80 Restrictor - OWS, 12" Each $880.00 MD C Restrictor - OWS, 15" Each $990.00 , Restrictor - OWS, 18" Each $1,155.00 v. DEVELOPMENT BULLETIN 1C ENGINEER ESTIMATE AND BOND QUANTITY Restrictor - OWS, 24 " Each $1,430.00 Trash rack, 15" Each $203.50 Trash rack, 18" Each $231.00 Trash rack, 21" Each $264.00 Trash rack, 24" Each $330.00 Riprap, Light, Loose Tons $66.00 • Quarry SpaIls, 4" to 8" Tons $49.50 2417..5- Trench - Infiltration, per 100 feet Feet Perforated stub -out system Each Trench - Flow dispersal, per 100 feet Feet Sign - Stormwater Facility Each $330.00 Drainage System Subtotal 1 j, ?)Co. 30 State Sales Tax 8.8% j p .3 g , s DRAINAGE SYSTEM TOTAL I Z ! 13,-15- . Zr Approved Nov. 2002 7 Qi) DEVELOPMENT BULLETIN 1C ENGINEER ESTIMATE AND BOND QUANTITY WATER SYSTEM Unit Quantity Unit Price Subtotals Water Main - Ductile iron, CL 52, 6" LF Water Main - Ductile iron, CL 52, 8" LF Water Main - Ductile iron, CL 52, 10" LF Water Main - Ductile iron, CL 52, 12" LF Gate Valve, 6" EACH Gate Valve, 8" EACH Gate Valve, 10" EACH Gate Valve, 12" EACH Fire Hydrant Assembly, With guard posts EACH $1,200.00 Fire Hydrant Assembly, Without guard posts EACH $950.00 Air -Vac, 8" EACH Air -Vac, 10" EACH Air -Vac, 12" EACH PRVA, 8" EACH PRVA, 10" EACH PRVA, 12" EACH Backflow - Irrigation Backflow - Fire Line Backflow - Water supply d " in) `.ri. it, (x "Vi ' rv. LS 4 �i «r t -) 3 3 3'3 G� q �g Water System Subtotal °t,3ck Sales Tax @ 8.8% 1 14, L3 WATER SYSTEM TOTAL l 0 ' . 3 , (.3 8 DEVELOPMENT BULLETIN 1C ENGINEER ESTIMATE AND BOND QUANTITY 9 SEWER SYSTEM Unit Quantity Unit Price Subtotals SSS, PVC 4" LF $5.50 SSS, PVC 6; LF 2.0 2.-- $8.25 (' Co , `� 0 SSS, PVC 8" LF $11.00 Sewer pipe, PVC, 8" LF $27.50 Sewer pipe, PVC, 12" LF $33.00 Sewer pipe, PVC, It LF $0.00 Manhole, 48" EACH $1,430.00 Additional depth over 4' per foot FEET $352.00 Manhole, 54" EACH $1,595.00 Additional depth over 4' per foot FEET $407.00 Manhole, 60" EACH $1,760.00 Additional depth over 4' per foot FEET $451.00 Manhole, 72" EACH $2,530.00 Additional depth over 4' per foot FEET $572.00 Grease Interceptor Sewer System Subtotal (t (■ Ve Sa Sales Tax @ 8.6% t ti to, G5- SEWER SYSTEM TOTAL 1 , g l3 , t 9 11.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL •m 11.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL Enclosed are the typical operation and maintenance manual requirements needed for the proposed facilities on -site. This includes maintenance standards for the underground storm drainage conveyance system and the water quality /detention vault. 11217.001.doc [ H PG /tep] APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE STANDARDS FOR PRIVATELY MAINTAINED DRAINAGE FACILITIES NO. 4 - CONTROL STRUCTURE/FLOW RESTRICTOR Maintenance •� Component Defect Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance is Performed General Cleanout Gate 4110 Orifice Plate Overflow Pipe Manhole Catch Basin Trash and Debris (Includes Sediment) Structural. Damage Damaged or Missing Damaged or Missing Obstructions Obstructions • Distance between debris build -up and bottom of orifice plate is less than 1 -1/2 feet. Structure is not securely attached to manhole wall and outlet pipe structure should support at least 1,000 lbs of up or down pressure. Structure is not in upright position (allow up to 10% from plumb). Connections to outlet pipe are not watertight and show signs of rust. Any holes —other than designed holes —in the structure. Cleanout gate is not watertight or is missing. Gate cannot be moved up and down by one maintenance person. Chain leading to gate is missing or damaged. Gate is rusted over 50% of its surface area. Control device is not working properly due to missing, out of place, or bent orifice plate. Any trash, debris, sediment, or vegetation blocking the plate. Any trash or debris blocking (or having the potential of blocking) the overflow pipe. All trash and debris removed. Structure securely attached to wall and outlet pipe. Structure in correct position. Connections to outlet pipe are water tight; structure repaired or replaced and works as designed. Structure has no holes other than designed holes. Gate is watertight and works as designed. Gate moves up and down easily and is watertight. Chain is in place and works as designed. Gate is repaired or replaced to meet design standards.. Plate is in place and works as designed. Plate is free of all obstructions and works as designed. Pipe is free of all obstructions and works as designed. See "Closed Detention Systems" Standards No. 3 See "Closed Detention Systems' Standards No. 3 See "Catch Basins" Standards No. 5 See 'Catch Basins" Standards No. 5 9/1/98 1998 Surface Water Design Manual A-4 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE STANDARDS FOR PRIVATELY MAINTAINED DRAINAGE FACILITIES NO. 5 - CATCH BASINS Maintenance Component General Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance is performed Trash & Debris (Includes Sediment) Trash or debris of more than 1/2 cubic foot which is located immediately in front of the catch basin opening or is blocking capacity of the basin by more than 10% Trash or debris (in the basin) that exceeds 1/3 the depth from the bottom of basin to invert the lowest pipe into or out of the basin. Trash or debris in any inlet or outlet pipe blocking more than 1/3 of its height Dead animals or vegetation that could generate odors that could cause complaints or dangerous gases (e.g., methane). Deposits of garbage exceeding 1 cubic foot in volume Structure Damage to Comer of frame extends more than 3/4 inch past Frame and/or Top Slab curb face into the street (If applicable). Cracks in Basin Walls/ Bottom Sediment/ Misalignment Top slab has holes larger than 2 square inches or cracks wider than 1/4 inch (intent is to make sure all material is running into basin). Frame not sitting flush on top slab, i.e., separation of more than 3/4 inch of the frame from the top slab. Cracks wider than 1/2 inch and longer than 3 feet, any evidence of soil particles entering catch basin through cracks, or maintenance person judges that structure is unsound. Cracks wider than 1/2 inch and longer than 1 foot at the joint of any inlet/ outlet pipe or any evidence of soil particles entering catch basin through cracks. Basin has settled more than 1 inch or has rotated more than 2 inches out of alignment. No Trash or debris located immediately in front of catch basin opening. No trash or debris in the catch basin. Inlet and outlet pipes free of trash or debris. No dead animals or vegetation present within the catch basin. No condition present which would attract or support the breeding of insects or rodents. Frame is even with curb. Top slab is free of holes and cracks. Frame is sitting flush on top slab. Basin replaced or repaired to design standards. No cracks more than 1/4 inch wide at the joint of inlet/outlet pipe. Basin replaced or repaired to design standards. 1998 Surface Water Design Manual 9/1/98 A -5 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE STANDARDS FOR PRIVATELY MAINTAINED DRAINAGE FACILITIES NO. 5 - CATCH BASINS (CONTINUED) Maintenance Defect •') Component Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance is performed Fire Hazard Vegetation Presence of chemicals such as natural gas, oil and gasoline. Vegetation growing across and blocking more than 10% of the basin opening. Vegetation growing in inlet/outiet pipe joints that is more than six inches tall and less than six inches apart. Pollution Nonflammable chemicals of more than 1/2 cubic foot per three feet of basin length. Catch Basin Cover Cover Not in Place' Cover is missing or only partially in place. Any open catch basin requires maintenance. Locking Mechanism Mechanism cannot be opened by on maintenance Not Working person with proper tools. Botts into frame have Tess than 1/2 inch of thread. Cover Difficult to One maintenance person cannot remove lid after Remove applying 80 lbs. of lift; intent is keep cover from sealing off access to maintenance. Ladder Metal Grates (If Applicable) Ladder Rungs Unsafe Trash and Debris Damaged or Missing. Ladder is unsafe due to missing rungs, misalignment, rust, cracks, or sharp edges. Grate with opening wider than 7/8 inch. Trash and debris that is blocking more than 20% of grate surface. Grate missing or broken member(s) of the grate. NO. 6 DEBRIS BARRIERS (E.G., TRASH RACKS) No flammable chemicals present. No vegetation blocking opening to basin. No vegetation or root growth present. No pollution present other than surface film. Catch basin cover is dosed Mechanism opens with proper tools. Cover can be removed by one maintenance person. Ladder meets design standards and allows maintenance person safe access. Grate opening meets design standards. Grate free of trash and debris. Grate is in place and meets design standards. Maintenance Components General Metal Defect Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance is Performed. Trash and Debris Trash or debris that is plugging more than 20% of the openings in the barrier. Damaged/ Missing Bars are bent out of shape more than 3 inches. Bars. Bars are missing or entire barrier missing. Bars are loose and rust is causing 50% deterioration to any part of barrier. Barrier dear to receive capacity flow. Bars in place with no bends more than 3/4 inch. Bars in place according to design. Repair or replace barrier to design standards. 9/1/98 1998 Surface Water Design Manual A -6 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE STANDARDS FOR PRIVATELY MAINTAINED DRAINAGE FACILITIES NO. 7 - ENERGY DISSIPATERS j . Maintenance Components • External: Rock Pad Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance is Performed. Missing or Moved Rock Dispersion Trench Pipe Plugged with Sediment Internal: Manhole/ Chamber Not Discharging Water Properly Perforations Plugged. Water Flows Out Top of "Distributor" Catch Basin. Receiving Area Over- Saturated Wom or Damaged Post. Baffles, Side of Chamber Other Defects Only one layer of rock exists above native soil in area five square feet or larger, or any exposure of native soil. Accumulated sediment that exceeds 20% of the design depth. Visual evidence of water discharging at concentrated points along trench (normal condition is a °sheet flow" of water along trench). Intent is to prevent erosion damage. Over 1/2 of perforations in pipe are plugged with debris and sediment. Maintenance person observes water flowing out during any storm Tess than the design storm or its causing or appears likely to cause damage. Water in receiving area is causing or has potential of causing landslide problems. Structure dissipating flow deteriorates to 1/2 or original size or any concentrated wom spot exceeding one square foot which would make structure unsound. See "Catch Basins" Standard No. 5 Replace rocks to design standards. Pipe cleaned/ flushed so that it matches design. Trench must be redesigned or rebuilt to standards. Clean or replace perforated pipe. Facility must be rebuilt or redesigned to standards. No danger of landslides. Replace structure to design standards. See "Catch Basins" Standard No. 5 1998 Surface Water Design Manual A -7 9/1/98 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE STANDARDS FOR PRIVATELY MAINTAINED DRAINAGE FACILITIES NO. 10 - CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS (PIPES & DITCHES) Maintenance Component Pipes Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance is Performed Open Ditches Catch Basins ill. Debris Barriers t ) (e.g., Trash Rack) Sediment & Debris Vegetation Damaged Trash & Debris Sediment Vegetation Erosion Damage to Slopes Rock Lining Out of Place or Missing (If Applicable). Accumulated sediment that exceeds 20% of the diameter of the pipe. Vegetation that reduces free movement of water through pipes. Protective coating is damaged; rust is causing more than 50% deterioration to any part of pipe. Any dent that decreases the cross section area of pipe by more than 20 %. Trash and debris exceeds 1 cubic foot per 1,000 square feet of ditch and slopes. Accumulated sediment that exceeds 20 % of the design depth. Vegetation that reduces free movement of water through ditches. See "Ponds" Standard No. 1 Maintenance person can see native soil beneath the rock lining. See "Catch Basins: Standard No. 5 See "Debris Barriers" Standard No.6 NO. 11 - GROUNDS (LANDSCAPING) Maintenance Component General Pipe cleaned of all sediment and debris. All vegetation removed so water flows freely through pipes. Pipe repaired or replaced. Pipe repaired or replaced. Trash and debris cleared from ditches. Ditch cleaned/ flushed of all sediment and debris so that it matches design. Water flows freely through ditches. See "Ponds' Standard No. 1 Replace rocks to design standards. See "Catch Basins' Standard No. 5 See "Debris Barriers" Standard No. 6 Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance is Performed Trees and Shrubs Weeds (Nonpoisonous) Safety Hazard Trash or Litter Damaged • Weeds growing in more than 20% of the landscaped area (trees and shrubs only). Any presence of poison ivy or other poisonous vegetation. Paper, cans, bottles, totaling more than 1 cubic foot within a landscaped area (trees and shrubs only) of 1,000 square feet. Limbs or parts of trees or shrubs that are split or broken which affect more than 25% of the total foliage of the tree or shrub. Trees or shrubs that have been blown down or knocked over. Trees or shrubs which are not adequately supported or are leaning over, causing exposure of the roots. Weeds present in Tess than 5% of the landscaped area. No poisonous vegetation present in landscaped area. Area clear of litter. Trees and shrubs with less than 5% of total foliage with split or broken limbs. Tree or shrub in place free of injury. Tree or shrub in place and adequately supported; remove any dead or diseased trees. 1998 Surface Water Design Manual 9/1/98 A -9 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE STANDARDS FOR PRIVATELY MAINTAINED DRAINAGE FACILITIES NO. 12 - ACCESS ROADS/ EASEMENTS Maintenance Defect Component General Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance is Performed Road Surface )Shoulders and Ditches • ) Trash and Debris Blocked Roadway Settlement, Potholes, Mush Spots, Ruts Vegetation in Road Surface Modular Grid Pavement Erosion Damage Weeds and Brush Trash and debris exceeds 1 cubic foot per 1,000 square feet i.e., trash and debris would fill up one standards size garbage can. Debris which could damage vehicle tires (glass or metal). Any obstruction which reduces clearance above road surface to Tess than .14 feet. Any obstruction restricting the access to a 10 to 12 foot width for a distance of more than 12 feet or any point restricting access to Tess than a 10 foot width. When any surface defect exceeds 6 inches in depth and 6 square feet in area. In general, any surface defect which hinders or prevents maintenance access. Weeds growing in the road surface that are more than 6 inches tall and less than 6 inches tall and less than 6 inches apart within a 400 - square foot area. Build -up of sediment mildly contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons. Erosion within 1 foot of the roadway more than 8 inches wide and 6 inches deep. Weeds and brush exceed 18 inches in height or hinder maintenance access. Roadway free of debris which could damage tires. Roadway free of debris which could damage tires. Roadway overhead clear to 14 feet high. • Obstruction removed to allow at least a 12 foot access. Road surface uniformly smooth with no evidence of settlement, potholes, mush spots, or ruts. Road surface free of weeds taller than 2 inches. Removal of sediment and disposal in keeping with Health Department recommendations for mildly contaminated soils or catch basin sediments. Shoulder free of erosion and matching the surrounding road. Weeds and brush cut to 2 inches in height or Geared in such a way as to allow maintenance access. 9/1/98 A -10 1998 Surface Water Design Manual APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE STANDARDS FOR PRIVATELY MAINTAINED DRAINAGE FACILITIES NO. 13 - WATER QUALITY FACIUT1ES (CONTINUED) D.) Wetvaults Maintenance Defect • Component Condition. When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance is Performed Wetvault • ) Trash/ Debris Accumulation Sediment Accumulation in Vault Damaged Pipes Access Cover Damaged/ Not Working Vault Structure. Damaged Baffles Access Ladder Damage Trash and debris accumulated in vault, pipe or inlet/ outlet, (includes floatables and non- floatables). Sediment accumulation in vault bottom that exceeds the depth of the sediment zone plus 6- inches. Inlet/ outlet piping damaged or broken and in need of repair. Cover cannot be opened or removed, especially by one person. Vault Cracks wider than 1/2 -inch and any evidence of soil particles entering the structure through the cracks, or maintenance/ inspection personnel determines that the vault is not structurally sound. Baffles corroding, cracking, warping and/ or showing signs of failure as determined by maintenance/ inspection staff. Ladder is corroded or deteriorated, not functioning property, missing rungs, has cracks and/ or misaligned. Trash and debris removed from vault. Removal of sediment from vault. Pipe repaired and/ or replaced. Pipe repaired or replaced to proper working specifications. No cracks wider than 1 /4-inch at the joint of the inlet/ outlet pipe. Vault is determined to be structurally sound. Repair or replace baffles to specifications. Ladder replaced or repaired to specifications, and is safe to use as determined by inspection personnel. 1998 Surface Water Design Manual 9/1/98 A -13 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE STANDARDS FOR PRIVATELY MAINTAINED DRAINAGE FACILITIES NO. 14 - 01L CONTROL FACILITIES (CONTINUED) A.) OiI Water Separators (Continued) ftMaintenance Defect Condition When Maintenance is Needed omponent Results Expected When Maintenance is Performed Damaged Coalescing Plate media broken, deformed, cracked and/ or Plates showing signs of failure. Damaged Pipes . Inlet or outlet piping damaged or broken and in need of repair. Baffles Vault Structure Damage- Includes Cracks in Walls, Bottom, Damage to Frame and/ or Top Slab Access Ladder Damaged B.) Catch Basin Inserts Thvintenance Defect )mponent Catch Basin Baffles corroding, cracking, warping and/ or showing signs of failure as determined by maintenance/ inspection person. Cracks wider than 1/2 -inch and any evidence of soil particles entering the structure through the cracks, or maintenance inspection personnel determines that the vault is not structurally sound. Ladder is corroded or deteriorated, not functioning properly, missing rungs, cracks, and misaligned. Cracks wider than 1/2 -inch at the joint of any inlet/ outlet pipe or any evidence of soil particles entering the vault through the walls. Replace that portion of media pack or entire plate pack depending on severity of failure. Pipe repaired and or replaced. Repair or replace baffles to specifications. Vault replaced or repaired to design specifications. Ladder replaced or repaired and meets specifications, and is safe to use as determined by inspection personnel. No cracks more than 1/4 -inch wide at the joint of the inlet/ outlet pipe. Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance is Performed Sediment Accumulation Trash and Debris Accumulation Inspection Media Insert-Water Saturated Media Insert-Oil Saturated General When sediment forms a cap over the insert media of the insert and/ or unit. Trash and debris accumulates on insert unit creating a blockage/ restriction. Inspection of media insert is required. Catch basin insert is saturated with water, which no longer has the capacity to absorb. Media oil saturated due to petroleum spill that drains into catch basin. Regular interval replacement due to typical average life of media insert product. No sediment cap on the insert media and it's unit. Trash and debris removed from insert unit. Runoff freely flows into catch basin. Effluent water from media insert is free of oils and has no visible sheen. Remove and replace media insert Remove and replace media insert. Remove and replace media at regular intervals, depending on insert product. 1998 Surface Water Design Manual 9/1/98 A -21 2 • d Date: City. of Tukwila Endangered Species Act Screening Checklist z "S Applicant Name: SA rLA 14 t tb 1k) Street Address: 2O O 7 Vii - %T _ . city, state, zip: keys' ,w A 9 Telephone: Directions This Screening Checklist has been designed to evaluate the potential for your project to result in potential "lake of chinook salincty coho salmon,*or cutthroat out as defined by Section 9: of. the Endangered Species .Act .Tbe 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 guest* carefully. circle "Yes" or `No, and proceed to the . nett 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 Qty will evaluate:your responses 'codetermine if "take" is 'indicated. 6d3- 028 Md /aJ(I tfIMWIi Wbot :8I Part A.: Please review and answer each question carefully. Consider all phase 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. 1-0 Will the project require. any form of grading? Grading is defined as any excavating, filling; cleating, or . c canon of impervious surface, or any combination thereof, whicb alters the existing ground etuface. 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 ' 3 - C----ontinue to Question 1 -1 (Page 3) 24 • Will the project require any. form of caring? 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 - Continuo to Question 3-0 .; team Question 2-1 (Page 4) 3-0 Will the project require work; during anytime of the project, below the ordinart high water mark of:ai, ; • • • watercourse or the Greenr'',3tiwiimishir Black'Rivers or is wetlands? . Ordinary high water medal the, . mark that is found by exarninittg the bed and banks of a stream and ascertaining where the presence and: . action of waters are so command usual as to distinctly mark the soil0nm-that`of the abutting upland, in respect.to vegetation (see.:TMC Chapter.18.06, Page 18 -15): Please circle appropriate response. • • NO . a • • sinus 10 Question 4-0.-- -. - : 'bitiv0WI14 Cutvticr /uCTAt t./RE',mei( : YES Continuetto Question 3- 1(Page 5) Fi.o•dS 'To 6.. $o oft �rr�N vtNGtacE at. 4-o Will the projecrresult in,the processing or. handling, storage, or treatment. of.hazardous substapt es ?::This does not include the proper use.of:fuel stored:a a:vehicle's fuel tank.. Hazardous.substances.areany_,.. . liquid, solid, ..ges, or sludge, ittcltiding any reterial, substance, product, commodity, or waste, regardless of..: quantity, that exhibits the characteristics or criteria of hazardous waste as defined by Waahingoon • 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. .. ,; • g, • • '., tie 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 anew well, change in water withdrawals from an existing.well, projects involving prolonged construction dewatenng, projects installing • French drains or interceptor trenches, and sewer lines. For the purpose of this.analysis, projects than .require a geotechnical report pursuant to the requirements of TMC 1 8.45.060 and 18.45.080E.4, or would require a geotecbnical_ report if not exempt under' .TMC 18.45.080A, should answer Yes. Please circle appropriate response. , • . NO = Continue to Question 6•0 t`Xlr§ ntieue to Question 6-0 F'd Md /aDa eiIM)ni WJbj :01 Part A (continued) 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 ecklist.Complete Port 1: 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 Yu answer. 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 nay slope leading to a river or stmem, but will not .require Work below the ordinary high watermark: Work below the ordinary high water mark: is covered in Part C. Please circle appropriate response. °tine to Question. 1-2 Can vtt a% /Ats i We `i /N tfj4u . PO Dural Continue to Qustion 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 disaubances 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 neurally 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 ontinue to Question 1 -3 S LO QE — Sot 1 C� P'd 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 Md /QJQ tflIM>If1 Wdb I : 0T BIL.EdaMmagimmill the natural infiltration or runoff patterns existing prior to development. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Questiaa 2-0 (Page 2) . YES Continue to Question 1-4 1-4 Will your project generate stonawater from the creation of impervious surfaces that will not be infiltrated rill sits? For the purpose of this analysis, infiltration includes the use of a stormwarer Mmaeta and management system intended to contain all stonnwater 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 stonnwater, answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. fuRrtlifa NO - Continue to Question 10 (Page 2) /NAK NOD 71e tine to Question 2-o (Page 2) Et °W wtot•-.y tl f4, (TZ of h$PAikvsevs? 1tiCorbit /Goofs 4 i)giveU/ ) Part C: Please review each question below for projects that include blearing. Review each question carefully, conslderlltg aU pbases of your project including, but not limited to construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and schedule d maintenance. Continue to the next question es 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 or the Greea/Duwarnish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. ntinue to Question 3-0 (Page 2) tinue to Question 2.2 DITGN /Tit. t6. To e. SourHipi E 2 -2 Will the project involve clearing of any trees within 200 feet of the ordioaty high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwasnish 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 oft inches or more and potential minimum height of 10 feet. Please circle ap • ; priate response. ntinue to Question 2 -3 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 °f ills analysis evergreen means any tree that does not regularly lose all its leaves or needles in the fall. PI :. e circle appropriate response. Continue to Question 2-4 Continue to Question 2.4 2.4 Will the project involve clearing within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a arse or the Oreen/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. time to Question 3-0 (Page 1) 'd MdiaJa d�iMitnl WUSI:0T f8. a 3311 _ ,, YES - Continue to Question 24 2 -S . Will the project involve clearing within 40 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or wamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. digiContinue to Question 3-Q (Page 2), YES Continue to Question 3-0 (page 2) Part D: Please 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 G een/Duwamish rivers, or Black Rivet? For the purpose of this analysis, channel means the area between the ordinary high water tnark of both banks of a stream, and bed means the. Stream bottom substrates, typically within the normal weaed- width' of a smears. This includes both temporary and permanent modifications. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-2 Continue to Question 3-2 Ditrdelosiki t.is`fpti. 3 -2 Will the project involve any physical alteration to a watercourse or wetland connected <to the. GreehOuwamish River? For the purpose of this analysis, "connected to the river arenas" flowing into via a surface connection or culvert, or having other physical characteristics that. allow for access by satmonids. This includes impacts to areas such as sloughs, aidenhannels, 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 Duwamieh River. This : includes both temporary construction alterations and permanent atodific attars. Watercourses or wetlands draining to the GreewDuwapnish 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. NO - Continue to Question 3-3 Continue to Question 3.3 INErliuilirt 141 50H.L- 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 Oreen/Duwa nish 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 salrnonids, including both juveniles and adults. Please circle appropriate response. Continue to Question 3-4 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 Rivera? For the purpose of this analysis, the 9'd Md /aDa trammn1. Wt:ST :01 • E.B. 27 em z•d Md'QDQ tramm ll Wd9t :OT ter, Zi 2p _ _ id . 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. NO - Continue to Question 3-5 . r;YEContinue w Questions 3-5 K1WCU104 ill 414V a 3 -S • Will the project require the removal of debris from within the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwaniish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, debris includes, but is not limited to fallen trees, logs, shrubs, rocks, piles, cip.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 pan of a maintenance activity should answer Yea to this question. Please circle appropriate response. . NO Continue to Question .3.6. YES - Continue to Question 3-6 3-6 Will the project result in nnpacts to watercou rses or wetlands that have a surface connection to another watercourse or the Oreen/DOwamish tr Black Rivers but do not contain habitat conditions that support sahnonid 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. Wetlandsawith a "functions and values" rating forbaseflow /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 1.? . 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. NO 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 moments, concrete suuctures, or similar structures. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 4-0 (Page 2) (.i ) Continue to Question 4-0 (Page 2) t W fro S`TA1L z•d Md'QDQ tramm ll Wd9t :OT ter, Zi 2p _ _ id Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A) BACKGROUND: 1) Name of proposed project, if applicable: Khan / AIA International 3 Lot Development 2) Name of Applicant: Tor -Jan Ronhovde, Agent for Owner Thr Ronhovde Architects, LLC 6625 S. 190th Street, #B -105 Kent, WA 98032 3) Date Checklist Prepared: November 2003, Revised May 2004 4) Agency Requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila 5) Proposed Timing or Schedule: Construction to begin upon obtaining building permits. Completion with in 12 months. 6) Do you have any plans for future additions, expansions, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No 7) List any environmental information that has been prepared, or will be prepared directly related to this proposal. Geotechnical Reports prepared by LSI Adapt and additional report prepared by Spears Engineering and Technical Services. Civil engineering reports prepared by Barghausen Engineering. 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. No 9) List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Building permit, grade and fill, utility extensions, site alteration, retaining walls 10) Give a brief 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. Construct 3 single family residences on 3 separate lots. 11) Location of 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 the proposal occurs 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. 138XX Macadam Road, Tukwila Approx 100 ft East of the intersection of S. 138`h St and Macadam Road S. on the south side of Macadam. Tax Parcel Numbers: Lot 1: 3229920 -0010 Lot 2: 3229920 -0005 Lot 149: 125304 -9149 12) Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive land Use Policy Plan map as environmentally sensitive? No B) ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS: 1) Earth: A) General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, , mountainous, other: steep slopes B) slope)? Up to 40 %. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent C) What are the types of soils 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. Sandy silts, and clayey silt overlain by 12" topsoil. See soils report. D) Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No E) Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Approx 2,300 Cu Yd cut, 125 Cu. Yd. fill anticipated. Cuts required for foundations and driveways. F) Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. No. An engineered soils erosion and sedimentation plan will be submitted with the construction plans. G) About what portion of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approx. 42 %. H) Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth. See item "F" above. 2) Air: A) What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (ie: dust, automobile, odors, industrial, wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe. Dust and equipment exhaust during construction and auto exhaust after completion. Quantities are unknown. B) Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odors that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No. C) Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: None. May water site if dust is excessive during construction. 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. Ditch along Macadam contributes to East Fork of Southgate Creek. 2) Will the project require any work over, in or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters. If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Not applicable. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface waters or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected.. Indicate the source of fill material. Not applicable. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. The upgrade of the ditch/culvert along Macadam will result in turbidity. This will be addressed by the TESCP provided by the civil engineers.. No 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Not applicable. No. B) Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 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 any toxic chemicals; agricultural, etc.). Describe the general size of the system, such as the number of such systems, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) is (are) expected to serve. Not applicable. C) Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Storm water runoff from impervious surfaces (roofs. Footings and paving areas) will be collected and conveyed to an on site storm collection, treatment and detention system and conveyed to the storm system in the street. No. 2) Could waste materials enter the ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. D) Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: The civil engineers will provide engineered TESCP and storm water plans in accordance with City of Tukwila Standards. 4) Plants: A) Check or Deciduous t Evergreen t circle types of vegetation found on the site: tree alder, maple, aspen, other. tree fir, cedar, pine, other. Shrubs Gras : Pasture: Crop or grain: Wet soils plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, 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? Site clearing will remove the surface grasses and shrubs. Trees will be removed and replaced per the tree replacement plan under separate permit submittal if required. C) List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site: None. D) Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on site, if any. Any new landscaping will make extensive use of native plant materials. 5) Animals: A) Circle any birds and animals, which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: Mammals: deer, elk, beaver, other: Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: B) List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. C) Is the site part of a migration route? Not known. D) Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None. 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. Natural gas or electric for heating and cooling, electric lighting. B) Would the project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. C) What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: The completed projects will exceed the requirements of the current Washington State Energy Code. 7) Environmental Health: A) Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None known. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None. B) Noise: 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Traffic from adjacent roads. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short -term or a long -term basis (for example: traffic construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site? Short-term construction noise during normal working hours, long -term vehicle noise generated by the users of the project consistent with single family usage. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impact, if any: None, the adjacent roadways generate more noise than is anticipated to be generated by the completed project. The owner will be required to comply with any City noise ordinances as applicable during construction. 8) Land and Shoreline Use: A) What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is currently vacant. Adjoining properties are either vacant or residential. B) Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe: No. C) Describe any structures on the site: None except some previous foundations. D) Will any structures be demolished? The foundations noted in 8C will be removed.. E) What is the current zoning of the site? LDR F) What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site. Residential. G) If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable. H) Has any part of the site been classifies as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify: No. I) Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? 3 single family residences. 6 — 12 residents. J) Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. K) Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not applicable. L) Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The project will comply with all current zoning requirements, no variances or special conditions approvals are anticipated. 9) Housing: A) Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? 3 Single family residences. B) Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. Not applicable. C) Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not applicable. 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 buildings are not anticipated to exceed 30 feet (two stories) over basement. The exterior building material is anticipated to be painted siding. B) What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. C) Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None. 11) Light and Glare: A) What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? The users will require exterior building lighting for safety and convenience. Nightime hours. B) Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere views? No. C) What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. D) Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None. 12) Recreation: A) What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None. B) Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. C) Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation, opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None. 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation: A) Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or near the site? If so, generally describe: No. B) Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None. C) Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Not applicable. 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. Macadam Road is adjacent to the project. A shared driveway will provide access to the sites from the street. B) Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No. Approx '/ mile to nearest transit stop. C) How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How any would the project eliminate? Each residence will have 2 inside stalls and space for 2 cars in driveway. D) Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private): No public road improvements are anticipated. E) Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe: No. F) How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when the peak volumes would occur. Not applicable for single family residential. G) Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: 10 refuse service' None. 15) Public Services: A) Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe: No. B) Proposed measures to reduce or control impact on public services, if any: None anticipated. 16) Utilities: A) Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, telephone , sanitary sewed septic system, other: water 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: Natural Gas: PSE Sanitary Sewer: Val View Sewer District Water: King County Water District # 125 Electricity: PSE Telephone: Qwest Refuse: Unknown C. Signature: The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agen Owne gnature: Date Submitted: em to make its decision. CC ljeZ /r) Ankat/Gle, 14' lyin 6i4a �ua 10, aotK NON - PROJECT PROPOSALS (E.G. SUBURBAN PLANS AND ZONING CODE TEXT CHANGES) MUST COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PAGES). 11 STATE OF WASHINGTON • • CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E- mail.: tukplanna,ci.tukwila.wa.us AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY ss COUNTY OF KING The undersigned being duly sworn and upon oath states as follows: I . I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. 2. All statements contained in the applications have been prepared by me or my agents and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. 4. Owner grants the City, its employees, agents, engineers, contractors or other representatives the right to enter upon Owner's real property, located at 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 (city), (state), on (Print Name) (Address) (Phone Number) (Signature) On this day personally appeared before me to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he/she signed the same as his/her voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME ON THIS DAY OF NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington residing at My Commission expires on 742 e _ koroz- )-dc-ell-ella -"tatuilA4 • CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplan @ci.tukwila.wa.us • SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL RIREMIVED DEC 0 3 2003! COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: ft:M 3- G cJ O i6 LoPh7EF J i' 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. pl 14-c-4)- o 01 or) A-lD , s ' 322 Z000c75 32 2 9 2 000 / 0 /6230 4- ? i Quarter: �/ Section: • Township: 2., Range: T (This infor>riation 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: 702 ^JA/) f2oN MoL)O L A26 N Address: b zsr s. /fv Sr, # 3/0S" c-x.17- 1 q$632 Phone: - (o.9 -0526 FAX: LS 6.6.1 Date: 2 3-0-3 FOR STAFF USE ONLY SIERRA TYPE P-SEPA Planner: File Number: E.0 3 — COS Application Complete (Date: ) Project File Number: Po 1 - O; Application Incomplete (Date: ) Other File Numbers: 0.2_ ( E 0:2 _01 NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: ft:M 3- G cJ O i6 LoPh7EF J i' 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. pl 14-c-4)- o 01 or) A-lD , s ' 322 Z000c75 32 2 9 2 000 / 0 /6230 4- ? i Quarter: �/ Section: • Township: 2., Range: T (This infor>riation 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: 702 ^JA/) f2oN MoL)O L A26 N Address: b zsr s. /fv Sr, # 3/0S" c-x.17- 1 q$632 Phone: - (o.9 -0526 FAX: LS 6.6.1 Date: 2 3-0-3 COMPLETE APPLICATION CHECKLIST 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 each Department if you feel that certain items are not applicable to your project and should be waived, or should be submitted at a later date for use at the public hearing (e.g. colored renderings). Application review will not begin until it is determined to be complete. ADDITIONAL MATERIALS MAY BE REQUIRED. The initial application materials allow starting project review and vesting the applicant's rights. However, they in no way limit the City's ability to require additional information as needed to establish consistency with development standards. City staff are available to answer questions about application materials at 206 - 431 -3670 (Department of Community Development) and 206 - 433 -0179 (Department of Public Works). Check items submitted with application Information Required May be waived in unusual cases, upon approval of both Public Works and Planning APPLICATION MATERIALS: ..."------1. Application Checklist (1 copy) indicating items submitted with application. 2. Completed ESA Screening Checklist, State Environmental Checklist and drawings (5 copies). ✓- 3. One set of any plans submitted reduced to 8 1/2" by 11 ". One complete set of PMTs of the final drawing set will be required prior to final approval. 4. Application Fee $500. 5. Underlying permit application that triggers SEPA Review. PUBLIC NOTICE MATERIALS: d /Q'"-- 'w,�'`'00 6. Mailing labels for all property owners and tenants (residents or businesses) within 500 feet of the subject property. Number of sets depends on the notice requirements of the underlying permit, check with Planning Star Note: Each unit in multiple- family buildings - -e.g. apartments, condos, trailer parks - -must be included (see Public Notice Materials section). 7. King County Assessor's map(s) that shows the location of each property within 500 ft. of the subject lot (if mailing labels are required). 8. A 4' x 4' public notice board will be required on site within 14 days of the Department determining that the application is complete (see Public Notice Materials section). PROJECT DDESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS: 9. Vicinity Map with site location. Ott; , 10. Provide four (4) copies of any sensitive area studies as needed per Tukwila's Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45). v ' / 11. Any drawings needed to describe the proposal other than those submitted with the underlying �/ permit. Maximum size 24" x 36 ". RECEIVED DEC 0 3 2003 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CATCH BASH /PIPE TABLE 0 VOW I 20 MU? O/1) SU0N0 OWE N.10 E02000 R 01 FL 910 9YPE/11311 WE 258.11112 It � E412332 • 2.142 CO /2. FINE 2 5O P003 (PP) SOLD 11200 W 32 LE (.10.0 1r as ( -124.0 • IAN m aW4mM •m OS SD PPE/5 (P/5) 0 1 4 0' IDS 01 94. bnn 1 SENO. OGLE O 9011.00 E0900 LEGEND: PROPOSED IY11 N 4101 ROM �) •1POSE0 14E 1 4011 ban • PORTS° S1Od OHCI C000E • *431110 TYPE 1 4101 (USN *4 6 1111 0 991 019100 060230 50.1 914740E 004 111t_T�_.>• E45T10 STORM 01404E UE 46170 542730T SEWER 056110E U1Y70 SN0A03 40ER UE 105//020 U6TP0 •t9R 011E 103060 SPOT 0006 OOP ISF14101) 0035430 v1E12 S1MF PROPOSED OROS I10411 0600 901 0.9.000 COSTING C0001.10 MONO= C09000 PROPOSED OMEN 078 03960 450041 0NINENT SURFACE AREA CALCULATIONS 111 0.411. 1040x2 3305 405470 149015 410404E 10440.011 4046 (.4.21 OIE 51E7000 ROMEO 1100100 41033E 10•.0150 0003 (-41.1 0E *9000471 CUT AND FILL VOLUMES 04100•E OMEN 04 00.2.3000 ld 146104E 011603 Cr 4*1.1254 1d GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN LOCATED IN A PORTION OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23N, RANGE 4E. WILLAMETTE MERD1AN, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 1/111379 LEIOT$ CAU(IC1N 111 0 NOKT01 4011 OE 0040121E 1!30 eR• PONS O0 581 h4 014004 0E911 IIM6 10.099(00 T E 9000,,01. 07.1. MOON PRIOR TO COM20001 ON. ALL OrE19E15C SM O�MIOEES 033 410?.C6 OF 912 9) 012*REMITSTOO 4493011 _ TO 0911201. II CO POT ENSNOW MC. w�t NE 904.150 PEdI 10 1100514 711 VICINITY MAP SPECIAL NOTES SUFNEY PREPARED BY CROKE-8 AND ASSOCIATES, NC DATED 1- 8-2001, JOB 1 KHAN .R. BAROHAUEEN CONSU.TNO ENONEERS HA8 NOT VERIFY ANY OF THE SURVEY INFO SHOWN. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY 11E ACCURACY OF ALL EXI8TNQ NPROVEIENTB AND CONTACT SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER F ANY CONFLICT EXISTS. SURVEYORS NOTES (CRONES AND ASSOC.) 1. 19314 10.9.0130 04 TOR 1116 4101 MOOR= Win 4 r 190091 015 1610904. BY ,3X440 211 0995 Il0 00 ON 0000 .00.100 4400005 04 110.004 2. DO SAES WA9 000UC10 23102T Tie OT E)I! OF 401 011 1111E NPOrt Nm 10040E 406 NOT 01.061 ID 909 NE *49101113 OR 115110100 d bDOW • 103. S 1K •101.1 00026 MO U6 OEACT6 ON DNS 340 ARE RD REM TITLE 1000101 AW REFRESEVE OLEO 116 CISI. 110 CO NOT Rana TO 21014(0. 1116041 1100'10130 OLa9ED 19 • COURT 2 IN. 4. VENOM 0031 Ta 110 4101 6 0.56 W DE 011 40 114(54 YON NO 1 Si 114? IE002 T: 1201)4 41 THE SI 6401 OF SEC 1923-4 130 KM 30 0106011 0451441 ST N0 MST 11 S USE WIN 5800■ 16 1.0011 PERTOWOO 93111DCN 12150 FEET. SITE ADDRESS 4 DRw4 124 Dae a PARR 32020005 4°200010 su47o INDEX OF SHEET C1 04 1 OGONC MID COMM PUN C2 04 5 TOPCOAT *095011 00 SEOeEM1104 001100 P4N CI 04 5 021233 4041 WORK NO 0110010i IRO 0 • 5 000070100 110 CALL BEFORE YOU DKT 1- 800 - 424 -5555 THESE PANS ARE APPROVED FOR CONFORMANCE WIN THE CRY OF 111EA9A QCINEERENC 00(34442 oRPROKTI TAT1 4PPRO/ED: 1 a 12 11 Is mr g jz r RE' ivy MAY 1 7 2004 DEVELOPMENT AS POE N010 COMITY ROAD ST»RNRe CMt •YS S)*a DE PALED 10 M EDGE OF R/+= 10 10110104 OF M 06100 O M MONOTO AwIO IT IS RECOIL.. MU M EMU. BE CRORMD SO TINT RUNOr DOM OFT M PM C-r PURR 1P.u.S IEOMME TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN LOCATED IN A PORTION OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23N, RANGE 4E, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON FCa M' M APPROACH ) • REDOFR &SS. uaRltam 0.5.7,NE 0,Zu PSI W' AWED. 0 M CONVOICTION MNICACN P wiim0°iPP is LOCATION. 020004 /EGRESS0281P� TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE NOT TO scAL.E EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES 1. M W AND SEDUM HOORO. (ESC) MASUWS OR M APPROVED PWS AM IOWA RIAMFAQDS. T. ANN O1 AAC�IMI.yp� CHO. M 44YN0 ONUS AID NV. 1 BEFORE RN GROUND 1 YAMM�T THAI M COSTAPI6A ED EROSION . NSW. AM PROM.. NO MANUA All MC MEOW. FGMORD TOM ESC POOR 4. MC N SLIME. 011 RMIER Lp7POS SWS ROWS d PUCE UNTIL PW1 0711 WMNRE• Na KR YID SOOIHATION o ESORI19fD. 5. RNWGN SEPEMHR SIT NOME MSPORARr AND PERWME7 COVER HAW. M PROTECT 06RR.0 THEM MO RILL RERNM OFaORIM TOR SEVEN OAK OR 1015. a. rice CORER 1 MHO. AP0L D4 PROMO TFBPOOm' INC PEm0NEM COVER MEATMES TO PMiO DISTURBED AREAS TINT Oils WINK 01000ED FOR NO OAYS DR MORE N AMMGN 0 OMttMSOMRESMFMD VEEP Olra n1 SLOPES IT waORNED Fox MME 1Nw 12 HMI - SIOC(PLE ) SITE 0010 44MR WOOLS TO OMR PO COMO. RCM 7. OCIRSER 4 SID ALL MEL OHM MOOD. HMO M NR SFASO 545) 4TH W MdEDO4 SEEDED M APPROmED ESC WHOM QC., =DM 40441.0 NUR !03000 ETC.). S C O M MOT a4W 000 AN 10 20 6NT ROM OR WAINCE 00003 (E0. SHE ASO MORN Of RODO. PRIM. 111111110703 440NMOi RETEYICN FAAU... Ml11ES RC, R' �� OO .1IA0 VC P1 Of Mat CC CONSTRUCTION TIC RFSPM9793 Of M APNY.WR/CS SUP2HTW INTL All COMAUC100 O ANA. 10. TIC BMMN@S Of M CHARM LOOS 9001 OM DO NUN MALL E CORO FLAWED W A CODeOS.. LIMON 0 HMV DA( CCNSSRI CHN. M W16iRYCIDN RT1C0. RID OS IKVI OAQ BCMFDP TO HOMO IWMM ROLE SE PWIRIO M *7111 LOOS 9011 R MANMYO BY M APRON/CSC SPERMOR FOR M CMWON Of 11. M ESC THU MS 6IO01 MI MS S FLAN MST RE CONSTRICTED PRIOR TO OR N CMAAC0MORNILLOEAOD NO MOM WAS TO ENSURE 161M TRMfMCS Of SIMKO TO SWAB RCM. DON. MM NIT T ADHCc 11 M ESC POLITO 5)107)0 OM 110 AIM ME M 137004 WWRNENIS FOR A.MOMILD SITE COMCAS HMO M OOEOOCRN PERUO M�� ROM WOW WI' CED AS MIDED FOR SIOMR MO MOVED wtt* Of 0700 04O SITE FO AmWw SUMP 11 SNIT ESC fEOAR� R�E ND TE E 64.11004. RAMA RECORDS wSL 1015 iCPF G JI WS4M M M FR fN41RF5 rrer 'LOT R.KCN OOCCTT��iO �..i) IfO O' YOFIILY W145 OWNO 1115 OO fFA50N (WY f0. NO T0E 9WL MORE 000 CM (1 POOR OF MENEM C NIDND 9 AU314 10 0 OR M A 10 MsaM u,01 10 AND OMM"ANO LAYS MN/ SE GERM fMON W NO11G M OE.UOr, OM NIOR RILL NOT RUM SED EN,LOEN 11601 NM M 001'IOIWAN SSIEH 11 1..i. CO6TNICION MARCO AID. N,CS SRLL RE MSOl1ED AT M MNMM O CONSTRUCTION •b WORM® TOR M u00 OF M PRCLECT. MID MOS ARE MN OE M DURO. Cf M 00A'MO15DW MAT ALL 16. PERMNOD Rpm comp. RCImY USED M A MMORMY WRUNG ROM SIULL M MOORED MM M MECEAMi EROSION COMA ROSH. AND SMII PROW .MOAN STERME OPACITY. E M FAOMY 6 TO ROHM RrWTHY AS M ARi1RALCY STOCK T0221008001 DOUR 1761 RE MOD W 113 M ovum m0 SOUS ARE D IFAII DEL MET .NOT M 7091.00020010002072F017. Cr 17. MERE SHAM MOOR FORM OWN! 0409W CONTROL 6 REHIRE . R 9011 SE N%ID D A HMO DCIDR4 Of S TO S ROES 16 PORN W M ®MSID M M MT WAS) (OAT. 1). NL 067415150 AREAS SAL C RCRENED TO COMM 416'11 RCS CM OF SHOED N MIMI. FM M MOIR RAG 05NRMD MEAS SAL RE MHO OR01 ONE Milt Of M HID9WO OF MRS SEASON A 040)0) WP O TMHE MOS TO BE SEEDED AND TN. ARIAS 10 RESWI LIICOLERED MALL W MOOTED TOM ODES 1®FCIOL M COO DORM= CM R09C HUM OF CO AWC IUFM N CRM TO PROMO RRFACE 11.6016. M10EM PROMOTES M ORAPRGE FACRTES. H, czQ ��G `•. MME TWO CEDE 6 ONLY SOONTC I1N e15WI 6 ALLOOLD MU 63 A Y0 0.f C.F. W STOOGE M MEANS TO DOWER ME SHIO SEOMM. M HORROR MIT CATCH BASIN INLET FILTER _ 0.07 TO SCll d r O J c) Z WI' VAL1 R 100 rM.c WORK 00• .CIE PAP. USE STAPLES IOC zcs 9 Aw � a rn1AD RED 600 OR MLIA r • MO POST NM VOL RDL POSTS FILM r/OlL -STAMM 401 MAIM -11061 14011 EOM Elf ie0 OR TREES NMI RTOI RNMC MICE NOG SOUNDLY M 156 PRM SR 1.K PER CD.T. MM OR-M 116 RMS. G OT C01616.107 ACM PRCn177.07 .___'. 71 71 T U r sRri EP05Rr511 VE WHa U FILTER FABRIC FENCE (C.O.T. DETAL DS -24) RASED *1 MOMS NO) TW A10 0 0 BOTH MICE ACS OM ON M SWAM •07 To 7rALL FILTER FABRIC FENCE DETAIL A M BIER RENO HMI DE PUROU9D N A COMMON NHL CM TOM MOM O M MO. TO NCO LSE Omm NMN ANTS PRE .CE4Mr. RTER OOM SWII W SPICED TOWNER OW D A SUPPORT NAT. MNMA 6-.60 OCR P. Atm HM4 ENDS SECURELY MM. TOM PEST. E M RrOI FROG EMS OWL W DISTA ES W MELON M COMMA (MERE W.LSIBp M FWS POSTS SPACED 16.00 OF MU APAT 310 OIMRI SWAM, Mf0 ECROM (1SE6LYV .TIT ROILS/ C IiENG11 STIV„, OE ...Atm ROARt a woo R4 NO tE ROM OID. W90PE NO MOOSE ID r NON MREP MSC TD E BOOM D. OEN STANDARD MOWN FILTER FA0RC 6 USED. A RAE MESA SUPPORT 0700 96/L W FASTENED SF UN44Y TO 00 M TIC M SCE MLR POSTS O TWO. A 160W OMiBNORS MO MALI WE D M0W MW Oa. WOO A1O.E M ORM. MAO SOfAR E STROOM M IER RAMC SAL IN STONED CAR OR M 10 M 1OR. AM 12 FOES OF M TIC C'ML 4EDBE MIMEO 150 M IRR11. M HNC WILL GM MOIO MME MW EA 906 FOVE M AR RIG PHSC ORLL MM W STAPLED TO 00)00 TRIES. �[C COMICS a 75101 DOW CASE M 15012 a O ANTED CRAM 00011000 M POg3MTM XL HMO PROVISOS O HMOIO NUT[ E MALM 1 M 181)01 MALL W OCRELHD MN 26-001 10050 0MRED 490 ON10, N. C 70005 NNA 00 7[40312 MORN 1NE7 11RC SOLO 8100 11Wi0 PURPf6E 011 RIOT W10E UMLOPE ARG NO EEO ALRRNENRY SGa®. t BIER r*PAC (EQS R.LNL W NME RED RDRDNm8 NAG TAW bP'i01 ND AT MAiT Ol0 ORRC PNO.OIOD 5700371. HOMO OHMS 911 M: INCE 0*0HY. CALL BEFORE YOU DI 1- 800-424 -5555 a Y) N U REcEiVED MAY 1 7 2004 DtVELpp T 0001 OP 11XPPA B;OAN OFIANAOE WELL NOTES . 4L 000 Mu 11.1001,59W1x N. 0∎111 'c wow TIE SWARD COMMENT OF 1ro"rIJa0"GOa?A0n"1i110 YBES/P1 AAOawn4 49304104. STATE COMMENT 1449NA410 STATE CH. M, 114 EO1131 man. 00 Ilf µ1F9 ETON W THE . CITY OF ON. OIO600W SANO401 L APPRO. ON W new PLATS MAST BE N 90 I ENEMA CP6TRUCIION 1) N µPROGRESS. 1 41 9910 w DIE SCE 7[SP0OBILIN OF TE 046)1)01 ro GOWN STREET USE M0 A NT- P OPTED RAW) POOR ro ANT rna1N4:non .OTT N On 4. (� -400) LLat BEta m q 0 OTT OF 61)41* 16 WARTY. CONS171.112N 'MTV ULOIOIa 0 MONO VM1 Sm MR. TYRE ILIA EST... BY 11E10 0. OA.FY N COPPED ERN A6AJ.E MO Scup MUCK SHE =MERV0 AP PIOxw AND TE PLY A NOT 4ECE4NN1 MAPUTO MER. T IS TEE SOLE RESPONS LIY W TE CCNTROION ro 101OONILY 013 TOP (7 011 0 /LL L 0) IOGTLIO 03173 100 SHALL COSTAR RAM ER w er�i1E RIPLOA IT' O 10 Or IT RAN. BE E" CONTRACTOR SHA L OSTAR 1"E ULU. LACE. . LOCATION SEANCE WNETELY M10 I A CONORUCTON. THE MU d6R M Na I IDIUINE OWL E GAT.YR 10-13. OR (011 173330T/APP MONO Aµ e-1 OR AS40rtm PAO MO TV 00979004) N .SSSC01104 540 TAD CRS) V-41 600-1(1 LP NP N -NPI I. 9811 COVENS M 0971004 µF45001 /0144 510021 L (PHA SI404O PTA B-1E). • ALL rwr I ma MINS SWO HAVE 1.10EEJ5 OR SOOT SIPS PER 45005/ SIMWNO RIM 0-12. 10. ALL CAT. RGNW MANES AND GPAIFS SOLI BE PORE 504 PER 11307 /µ4.S II. ALL GT01 BASIN GRADES SHALL BE CORES. 0.10 MP MA P#,OIIXI/Nn LEVEL 11 11 00/4010 SMUTS 1 CO 0010 SHALL BE OF M MID SOLO LOCKING 1PF. 11 AL �DNONY OMONE RS 9. MOP OF THE I05ANGµ A UGE CREATOR AS 2 2/3-1... T /P> -.1 I.1 wrzRTUT ONCCTPO BOOS O BELL) N IM C8 rC-1 salss E NONR N5aP0D BELL ANO )ROT MN USED, N/RH. mean C. P.V.C. 0450310 TO ASTAL D-]OH - SoR 0. PPE On BE 000 W 1K 110.E P100421 1) PPE JONIS Mal BE W THE SNP MOONS AND E) MOP A Peal x1 .5 SCW 341.1 9041 ON 115 RNL OUT E O PPE CO. NOOK 10 F@. F. POCK SPNN. SIB; (0I ATWI -OEA10 MI) 111 10 GIG[ v/14 -.1 3/-1. BPS AT 7-1/2 NOES MC. G .14 -Nunn PDLYETxntiE mmcDED PIE ANN µ INTEGRALLY FORTED SOUP MOOT ro M REANO)TS W A.R.T.0. Il LP.vV.C. µO SECTION 11-30.7(114 IFOR CORO FML moat AND OTPACIO 19 V PER., .0■14 DPI DFNSIr RA ASIM. 0 -1317 -70. I1. ALL PPE S.11 BE PM 011 MK E IrSODD FOU101104 ALCM. 10 NASANCION II E TREND BO ro"w 1)1 O OF M 101100161 W1C D LEYOFO RW,OLIM11 Am 0VMC101 OF ROMEO x010 MOW TO PONM GRIDS O INN ENTRE LNG. OF THE PIPE PO x 9PPNTED N A WPM. OEM OM10AO BAIL IF TIE NAT. MORAL N BE BOTTOM OF M 1.401 NEM M FL0l4351117n FN IRMO OggLL FOR PPE BEDOEq' THE ROT LEFT 0 ME BOOM MAT x 011110 M M00 THE WORK IN T1 011011 M IPdN n IOOSOIFD, ROOUBED, COMPACTED m FUN A GPM PIMP. BAS 10. 41 BPmOO ROOF PUN COnmaJl MD 0000 MANS 914/1 BE DRECT. 70 DE OP OMB ORM. CNKOIO BRId TIAVNGT AN INDPG INO PP: SYSTEM. MOW NVa Am 100110 PPM SHOO BE BEN.WE BTUS AND SMLL x CPOTRUCT04 W B-«N (CO B-eOI PAW. 9001) PA,.t. ( ROD. xNSLSgwED FN NOW OP. PEW.= FOR ROW 04AOSJ SOWETO [1L.= MD MOST S.O. x P.M. O TNT TC OSTFN GN& EO1Y 0441.050. T FN 1 SYST SAM HERON E BO1M11D Plc. DE OMi 0µm roiER PPM TIE CONTRACTOR S. ® mOF PE LOCA. OF All Pits l 0 O 500000 Sect SNP 10 INN On. ITOXIT . MO INNER ION ...CI W IK110101 11, ML ROE MO F040t1 OWNS SHOO x 00104 N TP ROD µDAOM10 AS N'ECFS1/4 10 MAD NIA. 6 THE 0n1NC TREES worm N THE GRADING PAM 10 BE SAVED. 0Rµ1 PEST 910P0 x WPM OP. SIP OW PEW TREES 10 BE SAM OM. POSSIBLE 110 PE SP. 6WN Z 5111 M 100 30010100 .110. A.M. 0000 TN MY TIP �O. PP. 1)1 REPAVE MIEN OPINE 104 M PROPER AGE.. 19. STRUCTURES SHILL Tq x PON004 BIT) 10 FLT W M SPRING PE W NII 5100 CRN PPE. EO CORY 11101 W DERNIR19 ( 5YSOL E 1EOOED. SAIL x N A ROW) NP TIE AP.YA STMO90 SE. 01 -101 1911 31. POOR TO OCWOO Tim w1P 00 009 i119 MO PM SIRE. STORY 0050. OR BY 9G J033 MIEN.) 101 RP IRE OM 110 EROS. PRIMO. OWL BE W 5010 PARRY O14 RAID TO A WREN OFPP W DIE (1) 100. ON MUTE 10 BE AS FWLC4@ ROod- 0PS- m OW T ,t1 PPOIDON NIO - 0 MPS - w MDR - N M®N Ll 10IOOWALL OPP SE. PPE SELLx AT NE ION W PE NT W NOM 24. NON PAN MJNMN PPE N PPE 301 O lam 410E IT MU. BE N CONT. NMI CONCRETE OR CONOEIF P1) AU. ALMON SWAM N 40)07 NN PE CNOPIE OR COVORETE PPE SWLL BE PANTED PIN TO OPTS W)M. INC NENNN PPE 10 BE PANTED 9441 BE GLEANED ROI SOLVENT TO IEYNE OITAWNWIS. MTV OE a0 TIP PPE 011 OE PM= NM TOO G00 W NON CAPOPI. TO FEN. SEmFOD10. 11 -P-W (PION POLL DO OSOWIE MOD LO¢LE) DETAILS LOCATED IN A PORTION OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23N, RANGE 4E, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, TUKWLA, WASHINGTON WET VAULT DETAL - SECTION A -A O' SO M 1-1x550 WET VAULT DETAL - PLAN WET VAULT CROSS SECTION B-B P.M 0iA TOO m 15 *31083100.110512 ALVN In .nn .SPINET COMM (TREAINDE 1 0 010)1) AO CONSPIOTN JCpiS.� )CAST VMATSNSWO IMP APPROVED RUBBER PS151 .OSTEN 5. VAULTS • 10' POE OUST UX FEODl11lE LOS. 4. PREFABRICATED vAJIT XRO1.5 Wi RECURE PROC.. 4cCr'GRCPJS TO SWPORT 5'.10' OPENING OAFR NMI VAULT. FLOW REST1 CTOR RISER GLAS55 3 4EC P040011 CRUSNCD- (u wsc 310) [ "a Are? ittr;mIR,1ttNhll lr ?Pula • 141M W0 Ata 160P1EO P7OC10?0000J9M Pu PRIVATE ASPHALT PAVING SECTION a S 1 tot 10 S.4E DIMMED P 0011D, •3T) • FLOW RESTRICTOR ELBOW DETAIL V): U b RECEIVED MAY 1 7 7004 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WATER /SEWER CONNECTION PLAN �T I-' T Fr, 77777, LI. 11 lid zt Xl / �� III f.4-7,, -r- le I tI l i,; n Ii ti I E. I4. 1., 1,, 1 0644.ATW DE MULLED 60 TE .0 AA( AP (LOCATION 1w DEPT" ,G -� I EMWOUWrz.D .,?t' k I Pu,Mm M «1,.E yl ( i i MUST 1310 NICOMfwWC151 L, I 10).14x3.) 1 f I 1 1` 1 I 1 1 .1, 544441 .440 l ; I�/ 10.11055 n li it1 I 1 SNP o"xr°.,,`.m '_ ! O �T 1 .4500) .TU4 1 RNs) I 1 , I Ii I 1 1 1 ;iI, 1III l 1 • E S I li 1 I l RING Fan" OISTRET NO 125 50.1X.10. 1. 1,1002.4E LOCATIONS OF FOR UfN'6 HENf OM 0111,•X55 14441 Nffi.AOE RECORDS A0 AE 5011 151 0)0 5 1 THE CONTRACTOR 906 ISE R[52P63E 4GE10V0) OF LOCATOR 910..wo 151 030.471 Or 4050E MOM. MITE NOT 50,1. SO AS TO AW0 6ALYF M 0111000¢ M CON.. 51 514E 010ACT TE M 0TES UNDERCR0lA IODAIW COM (1-500-424-535.4) PRIOR 11101 OR HIS REPRES.TAINE wu se TENOCrtO S A VIVO CONFUCT DOTS 2 OMP.TOP 10261 WIRY OSTUCT 0X014004 A MPNNTI OF 6114066 N 100001 E ALL AE0£515 FOR 51)1420 TESTING OR NSPECT01 1 COMPACTOR 6 REM.. 151 C01E401 AT M ERE OF ST.. fGY0ACt51 54)411117X67 9CP OW'14S TOR 26914.1 OHM MOORED 117 TE 4. CCM 940001¢1 1,0 10R VMGON MAW 111* 0043 0444. 5 000141.'1,0 Sn4116TN11*1IPP14M N Axons,. 'RIO WM1.11075 RECOMENW S 0147 O61R0 0. 1x5 51EOFWIOIE. K0 (00 OF AMA / 007 OF SWIL /0000.26 5140141 CO... 51.11 MA. ALL .1.11 7.. MLR 0101 PPE WAIL E PKII1 101 01,55 52. PU5).46 1070 OR 6004.1001 ANT 676. WE 01151 A21.11). MEOW 03460 .11 01.1 TAR WANSI1 RS0LAi0N M BE IN ACCORDANCE .IN MWFA61.16. 6C011O100MS ALL 5T)X4S SHALL BE CAST 001 AND SNL1 01210 TO 111 020 PO.. OF 410 SISIOAR 1,x1.10. A21.11, 45.x. 015.1 A0 AE1.51 PM A 0165/11 PROM. BONG OF 150 PS 1,010'10 BE CE.7 INm. X ILL GTE 4/1X6 TO BE Lan. Ni 1.1100)13 10 E M01ER. (ILL 11151405 2 011 OF SEAT. TO BE VI. I. 017-23 MO ON[ TAPS 1O BE .LAM BY CWO.TUL 144411 06411 No. 125 SUPfA.ncmENT, .GIN R MD (CO OF 1111 Oft Of SWAC /1610 01p1T) 700400 MUST BE ROBED 45 ROES N . 107 C41 IRON IFLNM4i .HT STEM COIL.. ROAN.. ,,. 101450 SLEEVES SR. E 2:11154 CAST E26 AN [POET COMM 5104, 01 RON L 55T 226 51,1565 STEEL RANGE 1E 1,45126.'.40{ 1E 101 5901141 ALL 06100 PPE OPE NO 14x6 100 01124 . 400CCTIO6. OR-N; 011 NS TAM ,1 2-I/5 1001 WOW/ CO. Oho ALL 001 MAX PIPES 11 MOO. TO 46 FOR STATE. MITT NO COT X5767071 P� 14. 6.1 144104 060104 TOE 004.055 MTN 84055 06.11. 1x3 947ERNIDOOTT. 15. All FIiIRE MOMS .20 006 TOE 4211X4 PRIOR TO E4Xn¢ E 17. NO 04P09 ARE TO BE WOE •110,1 *01102119900741011P0 NAM 461151 NO. 173 50 5010021 OR 0)1*7 [X013) 00 110 (CM OF 11RENA / STATIC / ONO 00426 PUBIS .0015 ENO.. 16 1604 TO RATER 151261,7 No. 125 C0)4CKN5 Am MOMS, OHO TO 110 (070 OF TO. /Cm OF SWAG/ 00 MON265!50AI04010010X510 NA. 012060 NOTES 1,0 DETAILS. 15. PROM 1/4240) 00404 026 MOW ON.0440 6 FOR EG1 04040 ME 0105 m MVO. MOM. OF. 7.01 SHWA BE 05 UT. II. STOCK P16 STALL E MEMO CORM ML (100 OF gEOPRAl101 ff. CO... MD PO611E0 COMA TEST PTO.. . M0 0426 a TEST 044000 6611070 To TE 1,6.401,1 POKER 267101401 LAW PR. AssP.M NUS SHILL BE PSI WNW EI6m MOWED MOOR POI ASO o- x. ALL OP. AREAS TO BE 50 W+OIW Odd I00EBD 1141,101 2.2. 4+LKS. 010 X004265 01:5 572645 TO NE IETR 510. ID E X0111055 0 PIN OT Al PRESSURE 260 MATT TEE 0 MEP.. 24. 154T0 004701 514{1 6 N AC 05)0 51711 (01M O 1l*55A / C0 6 AMC / 1110 COATI 0033004011 L A:PRTEWX05 TO E IE155 10 26104 10 1101 OF 04 WEIIL55M P.1S UHTSS 0.404.6E 012104 m MC71192 25. CONCRETE THRUST *104X074 5121 B! PNC1M AT ALL 040; 1005 VALVES 51 011E MERE MOO. 10135 REWIRE R61MA0. 601,1010 SILL E N 1.1 .AT:R 060701 0. 125 SWOT= T. 110 TESSM4 NO 034611074 Of 110 MOW 505101 5431 E 01X450 m .KW 00101 M. Ia VA Y..1.4 mTP. ▪ WARD 1,0TS I.ALL105 A0W1WA15 SMALL BE21,1,1,00010E.IN M LATEST 0011011 TIE VOL WE SOMA. 514.104 0X1, AND .SOW/PTH ST 0410 SP EREA1ION1 CARTS MOCK T. PION TO .251 CONSIAUCTION . IMO. Ti CO 15*C11R SHALL SMOLT. NO 0100 A RE- 1,0015{1 tOn CONFERENCE ON 11.6 YM WE SEM 041 0T 01 451 0 011 0 1 14S100005 1ACO6 E TES MRm.PLMS 4141 E ON 14440 SITE 40R465 0061M0pO165 260 126. A. 0'.1 12611,4 611 100.04.4X15 SI. E [440000 N ACCORDANCE 414* 11[0 APPRO. 112)4 016 00X005 104 TESL KASS Si 044E ARROW/AM TIE 0661 ORS@ 260 AP REM0TE MAK 4L663. 1 R LNL E THE SOLE 11.0.8017 OF M CONTRACTOR TO OMAN 5600.4 USE RC 010 ODER ROME PWMS PRIOR 10 ANT C415T0CIION .MITT. PEON 05.60 ▪ 1101,01 Y P.A. ECM S 00 LD10 4 DERET 11 0 ESTAEOSNE0 ..1 051144E ONLY NO TE NOT E AEa IT 6 THE SOIREMMILITY m SOrmv O T . A C.. ALL MITT CAT". HAER RICO.NOOAN OTq ONES 0T 906. HEREON 101 WT E AMC= M M 2.006110114076 PWL {0126 TO CONTRACTOR C Tp . OR EN OR Ho 5.2.1 9NI�i iDEE CONTACTED IF A°Unm`a*1) OfMOCT x415 ▪ AML 153 STILL E MC SW -15 PPE 214 DD64¢ 0100 04 RECEIVED MAY 1 7 7nn4 COMMUNil DEVELOPMENT GRADING NOTES /CROSS SECTION CROSS SECTION A -A (SEE SHEET C1) 170 160 150 140 130 120 0'.10' 111044. 1'. S' KRMx CM OF 050111.0 MAMBO 004FIAL NOTES 1. AT LEAS7 OK BOX 400E 400000 C015TRUCTTON. 077T AMC 0033 U4470 *5506147 410 000.6E * 40150.01 44140. 2. �112U95 496110 AT (05) 410101]0 AT 9LO1 M 1045 BEMIRE 5107410 90 406C 1 14003 A PU911C Ocala UIOIi 9RFCDIN AT vur x4 FDISOL 4400.4 Cc .. ME NR 4I LIOR .501F9 SOLE RESFOR' 55.4 50 7440 444 WM. AND OW M MY. RESULE10 ARM CO404001 4 OPERATORS • 5. ME 0041WL704 5110 110Y0 M 009411(5) 40 0404040014 M 794000 4040. ANT" CU50R1 C O M Of CRY Of TOOTER 1 0 0 1 40 11 0 00 4 4 9 * 016150104 ..04105 PUN. AT M J0 0TE 6 ALL AoRN 11700.1➢ 0.40E 50)40 FRE- I*A014 FROM D( O4'40l M 105.160 40 M CITY OF NA44A 7. Au. Arnoos AND 0113105 400 WET O4 OF NOM v01.S150NE AO 00041.11700001400 57.011023. WS 070]140 MM19 BY M PU9LC 0056 11.705 6 00410017OR WALL 444171 A 7*40R 50 0 5000 47005.5 05-0104 0. COMACTOR 5441 P.O. REC00 0147440 MDR TO 500401 410E A155004. 10. 4440) 7105 9471 PROIOE 0102)5' C0400L Nq BARE] 14011744074 404 104 PAU 40865 AMOY. BEFORE 95011ERMOM 11 0LL0R f040 FCR 0460 14 01403 STALL 01 DONS 0470 M 0EC1. 0 MOOED WO SUMO. Y.f9 * 711.5 001E BE 474 1956 00 904* 004 091 BE 4D 0/91. FOR 7*OE BB101 A ROOD CCMML EONF. M POW. 5191 IRO. 00071607 Cauwa6 TO MRS 1921. I M C0MA004 51471 50)05. 47 SIC£ IE MCI 006 061® 47 RAO70 Z 0.E 10 CONSTRUCTION. 10. SPEOiG, FOR Roo. BR OX BE A1O SLOE GERARD.. OF PONS OMMOOI NO M65G4 PUBLIC R00a .4000104. 071 AiE 010102 100 E0M1 102]101 414 M WEST DOOR 0 M 0 114'470 D109167C O4■131A0S .. LOCATORS OF 61710 l701ES 4040 MAN 442 BEd 011400E 0Y {400 WRYLY 47 OM. FRN AUYUOLE ROOMS NM 900.10 111300)0 4 M4LOEPEO R ONLY MO MT 0604040411110 4 CONFUTE 6 M 505.E 40044064044 0 THE COMPACTOR TO 0.0100AnY WAY M .00AL Of ALL U1Em 0007400 9048. AND O FURTHER )444 570 010 Mao ART 01101 01013 NOT S (04 090404 00011 WI M0 1 4 17 M M0 7A11OR 496 PLAN. M 0M1P. .. M 1/01/1040 004 IC )0 LOCATOR 410CE -BOO 0171755) POOR TO C0450u10Y M 0100 OR N6 KRAAL 9051 1 4[07ELY CONTIL4D / A 4157 IMLICT COM 11 All 00/011 11150 POMR OW 471459404070E 090 0610.101 70 -W COMPACTED PROCTOR) IB. MSS 0.5110 0010404 111 5476)06 d00 4 POND M0AS 47 M PL. ARE TOP OF PAM¢ 17. 0441 4 BNt1111ED W OGO10005 01X OTY OF WOW. 5500 /0ww 517474 5.47 5 -11. 024 .01075CVL1 0504110. CM MID M 00040 047440 947E OF NEAT-ILK CUT 474 SAN *5 A 04147LO t 1i A IOVOORY COLD 40 410) 470 4 •0010 54990)4 4101 540611 40 47147.101 A PE04M5714 401 WOW. NCI (4) 50Fi. 44040104 54 =AM 1110.'625 0 M BE ME a a °- 9 p el o